2007:046

MASTER' S THESI S
Measuring Service Quality in the Airline
Using SERVQUAL Model
(Case of IAA)
Mohammad Mehdi Bozorgi
Lule University of Technology
Master Thesis, Continuation Courses
Marketing and e-commerce
Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Division of Industrial marketing and e-commerce
2007:046 - ISSN: 1653-0187 - ISRN: LTU-PB-EX--07/046--SE
Measuring service quality of the airline using
SERVQUAL model
(Case of IAA)
Supervisors:
Dr.S.Kamal Chaharsooghi
Dr.A.Carauna
Prepared by:
M.Mehdi Bozorgi
Tarbiat Modares University Faculty oI Engineering
Department Industrial Engineering Lulea University oI Technology
Department oI Business Administration and Social Sciences
Division oI Industrial Marketing and E-Commerce
MSc PROGRAM IN MARKETING AND ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Joint
2006
1
Abstract
Todav competition is not onlv rife, but growing more intense constantlv. However
companies need to start paving keen attention to their competitors, thev must understand
their customers. Airlines are suffering from such competition. Thev have to believe
customers as core concept of their business, customer satisfaction is what guarantees the
future of airlines and it is achievable bv an adoption between their services and
passengers needs. In another word, service qualitv is tvpicallv defined in terms of
consumer satisfaction. The purpose of this studv is to provide a better understanding of
how satisfaction level among passengers within Iran Aseman Airline is and how its
managers can improve their service qualitv. To reach to this purpose we have studied
different models and uses of service qualitv measurement and whereas Grnroos model
was founded a comprehensive model, we developed and adopted it to encompass various
aspects of airlines services. A questionnaire was designed based on literature in order to
examine all seven factors of service qualitv in Grnroos model for airline industrv. The
reliabilitv and validitv was tested in a pilot scale. We inclusivelv inferred that passengers
of IAA are not satisfied with the perceived services and it warns manager to focus on
passengers expectations. Tangibles, assurance, responsiveness, reliabilitv, empathv,
image and technical qualitv are seven features of the model and in all of them,
passengers feel dissatisfied. Managers should treat emplovees, improve visuallv facilities
and coordinate all people, departments and organi:ations involved with IAA services.
Finallv, IAA must measure passengers satisfaction and service qualitv seasonallv
to keep the services corresponded with customers opinions.
2
AcknowIedgement
This thesis is dedicated to my compassionate father and my
kind mother whom devoted their whoIe Iife for me.
3
TabIe of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Background......................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Problem DeIinition.............................................................................................. 9
1.3 Purpose and Research Questions ...................................................................... 12
1.4 Disposition........................................................................................................ 12
2 Literature Review...................................................................................................... 13
2.1 CRM Literature Review.................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 CRM Theoretical perspectives.................................................................. 15
2.1.2 CRM initiatives......................................................................................... 16
2.1.3 Intrinsic CRM Success.............................................................................. 18
2.1.4 Extrinsic CRM success ............................................................................. 20
2.1.5 Introduction oI e-CRM ............................................................................. 21
2.1.5.1 The Emergence oI e-CRM.................................................................... 22
2.2 Customer SatisIaction....................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 The Components oI SatisIaction............................................................... 23
2.2.2 Customer SatisIaction Literature .............................................................. 25
2.2.3 SatisIaction as a process............................................................................ 28
2.2.4 SatisIaction as an outcome........................................................................ 29
2.2.5 Cumulative or Transactional SatisIaction................................................. 31
2.2.6 Customer SatisIaction Measurement ........................................................ 31
2.3 Service Quality.................................................................................................. 34
2.3.1 Service Quality as the Antecedents oI Customer SatisIaction.................. 34
2.3.2 The background literature on service quality............................................ 36
2.3.3 Today`s view on Service Quality.............................................................. 37
2.3.4 Conceptual service quality models ........................................................... 39
2.3.5 Dimensions oI service quality................................................................... 40
2.3.6 Service Quality Measurement................................................................... 43
2.4 SERVQUAL..................................................................................................... 45
2.4.1 The advent oI SERVQUAL...................................................................... 45
2.4.2 SERVQUAL model .................................................................................. 46
2.5 Theoretical background oI Grnroos`s service quality model.......................... 50
3 Research Methodology ............................................................................................. 56
3.1 Purpose oI research........................................................................................... 57
3.2 Research Approach........................................................................................... 58
3.3 Research Strategy.............................................................................................. 58
3.4 Data Collection Method.................................................................................... 59
3.4.1 Questionnaires and Interviews.................................................................. 59
3.5 Sampling Selection ........................................................................................... 61
3.5.1 Sample Size............................................................................................... 62
3.6 Validity ............................................................................................................. 64
3.6.1 SelI-Evident Measures.............................................................................. 64
3.6.2 Face Validity............................................................................................. 65
3.6.3 Content Validity........................................................................................ 65
3.6.4 Pragmatic Measures .................................................................................. 66
4
3.6.5 Concurrent Validity .................................................................................. 66
3.6.6 Predictive Validity .................................................................................... 66
3.6.7 Construct Validity..................................................................................... 67
3.7 Reliability.......................................................................................................... 68
3.7.1 Tests oI Stability ....................................................................................... 68
3.7.2 Tests oI Equivalence................................................................................. 69
3.7.3 Test oI Internal Consistency ..................................................................... 69
4 Data Analysis............................................................................................................ 71
4.1 Service Quality Measurement........................................................................... 71
4.2 Analysis oI Service Quality and passengers` satisIaction................................. 73
5 Findings & Conclusions............................................................................................ 80
5.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................... 80
5.2 Describing the Iindings ..................................................................................... 81
5.2.1 How can the customer satisIaction within IAA be described? ................. 81
5.2.2 How satisIied are IAA passengers with its services?................................ 83
5.2.2 How can IAA managers improve satisIaction levels? .............................. 83
5.3 Contributions..................................................................................................... 84
5.4 Implications and Recommandations................................................................. 88
5.4.1 Implication Ior Management.................................................................... 85
5.4.2 Implication Ior Theory............................................................................. 88
5.4.3 Implication Ior Future research................................................................ 88
ReIerences......................................................................................................................... 90
Annex 1: Airline Services Questionnaire ......................................................................... 97
Annex 2: Data Analysis in Details.................................................................................. 101
5
List of TabIes
Table 4.1: Service Dimensions and Measurement............................................................ 73
Table 4.2: One-Sample Test ............................................................................................. 76
Table 4.3: Priorities oI 7 Iigures by passengers................................................................ 78
Table 4.4: Most used airline.............................................................................................. 79
6
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Hypothetical CRM success Iactor model. ...................................................... 21
Figure 2.2: SERVQUAL................................................................................................... 49
Figure 2.3: Grnroos`s service quality model................................................................... 55
7
Chapter 1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
As corporations increasingly are attracted to international markets to overcome
stagnant domestic market growth and stimulate revenues in various industries,
enlightened appreciation oI the needs and wants oI consumers oI other countries are
increasingly important Ior those companies espousing the marketing concept.
SuccessIul service quality strategies are generally characterized by customer
segmentation, customized service, guarantees, continuous customer Ieedback, and
comprehensive measurement oI company perIormance. The experience in many
industries and companies demonstrates that this process, although generally
acknowledged, is not universally implemented. Market segmentations by customer
8
expectations, to create separate levels oI service that exceed those levels oI expectations,
have also been Iound essential to attract customers and create customer loyalty (Porter,
1980, 1985).
Customer satisIaction is the Ieeling or attitude oI a customer towards a product or
service aIter it has been used. Customer satisIaction is a major outcome oI marketing
activity whereby it serves as a link between the various stages oI consumer buying
behavior. For instance, iI customers are satisIied with a particular service oIIering aIter
its use, then they are likely to engage in repeat purchase and try line extensions (East,
1997). Customer satisIaction is widely recognized as a key inIluence in the Iormation oI
customers` Iuture purchase intentions (Taylor and Baker, 1994). SatisIaction and service
quality are oIten treated together as Iunctions oI a customer`s perceptions and
expectations. Customer satisIaction is determined by deIining customer perceptions oI
quality, expectations, and preIerences (Barsky, 1995).
Further empirical scrutiny (Parasuraman et al., 1988) resulted in a 22-item scale,
called `SERVQUAL` which measures service quality based on dimensions, viz.
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The entire approach was
Iormulated on the tenet that customers entertain expectations oI perIormances on the
service dimensions, observe perIormance and later Iorm perIormance perceptions. The
authors described service quality as the degree oI discrepancy between customers`
normative expectations Ior the service and their perceptions oI the service perIormance.
Rust and Oliver (1994) noted that the SERVQUAL instrument captured the crux oI what
service quality might mean, i.e. a comparison to excellence in service by the customer.
In their empirical work, Cronin and Taylor (1992) controverted the Iramework oI
Parasuraman et al. (1988) with respect to conceptualization and measurement oI service
quality, and propounded a perIormance-based measure oI service quality called
`SERVPERF` by illustrating that service quality is a Iorm oI consumer attitude. They
argued that the perIormance-based measure was an enhanced means oI measuring the
service quality construct.
9
With the suggestion that the 'perceived service quality model replace the
product Ieatures oI a physical product in the consumption oI services, Grnroos (1982)
identiIied two service quality dimensions, the technical aspect ('what service is
provided) and the Iunctional aspect ('how the service is provided). The customers
perceive what s/he receives as the outcome oI the process in which the resources are
used, i.e. the technical or outcome quality oI the process. But s/he also and oIten more
importantly, perceives how the process itselI Iunctions, i.e. the Iunctional or process
quality dimension. Knowing accurately what customers preIer, successIul service
companies are able to give customers exactly what they want by customizing the product
or service, to surprise and ``delight'' them (Porter, 1980; Albrecht, 1992).
1.2 ProbIem Definition
From 1987 to 1998 in US, passengers' Complaint categories included Ilight
problems, oversales, reservations/ticketing/boarding, Iares, reIunds, baggage, customer
service, smoking, advertising, credit, tours, and other. Several Iactors led to a surge oI
complaints against airlines in 1987: in August 1987, complaints were up by almost 500
over January 1987.
First, in early 1987, airlines` perIormance was given widespread publicity, which
in turn led to increased consumer awareness concerning airline quality and the means to
Iile complaints.
Second, in May 1987, the Secretary oI Transportation, Elizabeth Dole, sent a
letter to all major airlines concerning consumer dissatisIaction with the airline industry.
She asked airlines to consider several steps, including re-education and training oI
employees, assessment oI resources allocated to various sources oI dissatisIaction, such
as processing reIunds and baggage claims, and review oI complaint trends and processing
times to resolve complaints.
To measure quality in airline industry, some important points should be
concerned:
1. In services, every interaction between a consumer and a service provider is a 'moment
oI truth. Consumers compare ex ante expectations about the service to be provided with
ex post perceptions concerning the service delivered. Consumer dis/satisIaction is a
10
Iunction oI the diIIerence between expected and perceived service. The more perceived
service exceeds expected service, the higher consumer satisIaction will be. Conversely,
the more perceived service Ialls short oI expected service, the higher consumer
dissatisIaction will be. Service quality is typically de-Iined in terms oI consumer
dis/satisIaction. Hence, service quality is inherently subjective in nature. Consumer
dis/satisIaction, in turn, drives repeat purchases (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons 2001;
Metters, King-Metters, and Pullman 2003; Heskett, Sasser, and Schlesinger 1997;
Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry 1990).
2. 'Consumer complaints is the broadest measure oI quality available.
3. The impact oI Iactors such as weather and holidays on quality can exhibit seasonal
trends and potentially introduce noise. As an academic study, there are some limitations
that impose a short period oI time Ior data gathering but in a large scale such as strategic
business studies, annually data is the best solution to control Ior any seasonal trends.
Hayes and Pisano (1996) and Clark (1996) raised some Iundamental and thought-
provoking questions regarding perIormance improvement paths. They provide an early
identiIication oI the concept oI perIormance improvement paths and identiIy these as an
important area requiring empirical research in operations management. The key question:
Should improvement be attempted on one dimension at a time (e.g., quality OR cost OR
speed), or should a company attempt to improve on multiple dimensions simultaneously?
Which dimension should Iirms improve Iirst? Second?
All airlines that ended up in 1998 quality-cost positions superior to their initial
1988 quality-cost positions in US improved more on quality Iirst. The airline paths
conIirm one aspect oI the sand cone model (Ferdows and De Meyer 1990): lasting quality
improvements clearly precede lasting cost improvements. The sand cone sequence is
quality at the base, Iollowed by dependability, speed, and Iinally cost eIIiciency. There
are no airline measures available to eIIectively measure dependability and speed. Future
empirical research on perIormance improvement paths in other industries should include
dependability and speed as well.
Can multiple dimensions be improved simultaneously)? Or should improvement
Iirst occur along an existing operating Irontier, Iollowed by an eIIort to move the Iirm to
a better operating Irontier (? What determines the paths available to choose Irom? It is
11
Iound that these questions are all related to how close an airline is to its asset Irontier.
Airlines close to their asset Irontiers Iaced initial trade-oIIs, improving quality at the
expense oI cost, aIter which they were able to reach superior quality-cost positions. On
the other hand, airlines Iarther removed Irom their asset Irontiers were able to improve
quality and cost simultaneously. For example, Alaska initially operated with a lot oI
slack, Iar removed Irom its asset Irontier. But operating decisions, such as cutting
turnaround times and adding seats to aircraIt by adjusting closets and galleys (without
reducing legroom), allowed Alaska to reduce cost without impairing quality. In Iact,
Iaster turnaround times led to more Irequent Ilights, giving consumers more choice. Thus,
Iindings empirically corroborate Schmenner and Swink`s (1998) conceptual notion that
operations closer to their asset Irontiers will have to make tradeoIIs. Major airline
industry competitors, seeking to gain or expand market share globally or regionally,
provide an opportunity to explore the service expectations and perceptions oI customers
oI diIIerent nationalities.( Lapre and Scudder,2004)
General belieI is that the Aviation industry services quality in Iran is Iar behind
the international standards. Service delivery in Iran Aviation industry has been mainly
product-oriented which has set the minds oI management to be Iar apart Irom being
customer-oriented. ThereIore, ignoring customer as a core concept oI developing
strategies Ior the managements has not Iocused on evaluation oI customer satisIaction
and deIining service attributes accordingly.
In this airline dissatisIactions vary Irom starting departure like ticketing, transIer
and also during Ilight like poor catering, the temper oI air crew and also at the end oI
journey and services that airline gives to its customer.
This study will help Aviation industry managements to better diagnoses the needs
and expectations oI customers. It will also play a role in identiIying their present situation
and Iuture strategies Ior giving better services to passengers and also the airlines
strategies to enter new markets, both international and domestic markets.
12
1.3 Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose oI this study is to provide a better understanding oI how satisIaction
level among passengers within Iran Aseman Airline is and how its managers can improve
their service quality.
To be able to achieve the stated purpose above, Iollowing research questions will
be Iurther investigated:
RQ1: How can the customer satisIaction within IAA be described?
RQ2: How satisIied are IAA passengers with its services?
RQ3: How can IAA managers improve and promote satisIaction level among the
passengers?
1.4 Disposition
In this section we will outline how the thesis is structured:
Chapter 2: This chapter will present theories related to our research questions and their
backgrounds.
Chapter 3: This chapter will explain and justiIy our choices oI methodology that will be
used in order to conduct our thesis.
Chapter 4: This chapter encompasses the empirical Iindings and combines them and the
theories in order to conduct an analysis.
Chapter 5: This chapter will present the conclusions, implications and recommendations
based on our Iindings.
13
Chapter 2
2 Literature Review
2.1 CRM Literature Review
Customer relationship management (CRM) has generally been assumed to create
a competitive edge Ior an organization, as well as to have a positive impact on
organizational perIormance. However, there is still much debate over exactly what
constitutes CRM. In Iact, many scholars have claimed that the precise meaning oI CRM
is not always clear in the literature (Nevin, 1995; Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2001).
Furthermore, Nevin (1995) notes that the term has become a buzzword, with the concept
being used to reIlect a number oI diIIering themes or perspectives. For example, at a
tactical level, CRM may mean database marketing (Peppers and Rogers, 1995) or
14
electronic marketing (Blattberg and Deighton, 1991). At a strategic level, CRM may
mean customer retention or customer partnering (Peppers and Rogers, 1993; Vavra,
1992)
The terms CRM and relationship marketing are used almost interchangeably
(Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2000). Recently, by broadening the scope oI relationship
marketing and viewing it in a comprehensive management and social context,
Gummesson (2002) deIines it as 'marketing based on relationships, networks and
interaction, recognizing that marketing is embedded in the total management oI the
networks oI the selling organization, the market and society. It is directed to long term
win- win relationships with individual customers, and value is jointly created between the
parties involved. On the other hand, Kotler and Armstrong (2004) deIine CRM as 'the
overall process oI building and maintaining proIitable customer relationships by
delivering superior customer value and satisIaction.
With an ever-increasing competition Ior marketing dominance, many Iirms have
utilized the customer relationship management (CRM) system Ior improved business
intelligence, better decision making, enhanced customer relations, and good quality oI
services and product oIIerings. The underpinning oI the customer-oriented managing
concept is that identiIication and satisIaction oI customer needs lead to improved
customer retention, which is based on corporate proIitability (Day, 1994; Sivadas et al.,
2000). They recognize the CRM system could carry into the Ioreseeable Iuture oI hyper-
competition, and try to implement oII-the-shelI CRM solutions Ior CRM planning as is
done Ior enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems, e-commerce systems, and advanced
database systems (Holland & Light, 1999; Shao & Lin, 2002). When a CRM project is
started, many organizations may expect a substantial payback, increased revenue,
reduced cost, loyal customers, real-time customer inIormation, and satisIied CRM system
users. The expenditures on CRM system equipment, a commitment oI dedicated
resources and services, have skyrocketed initially and thereaIter. However, aIter
implementing a CRM system, many organizations are leIt wondering enough return on
investment. More in depth, many are asking the question, 'Does CRM system lead to
higher customer satisIaction and superior economic returns? II so, which Iactors critically
15
improve customer relationship and proIitability? Although the widespread acceptance oI
this relationship is evident in the growing popular literature on market-oriented and
InIormation System (IS) success models, it is not yet clearly understood why and how
CRM becomes successIul while others Iail. This CRM issue should thereIore be
examined in light oI both marketing and IS literatures. Customers have also increasingly
become the end-user oI inIormation technology applications with the emergence oI
electronic commerce (KhaliIa and Liu, 2002). Disappointedly, despite its increasingly
acknowledged importance, little research has Iocused on the proper implementation oI
the CRM concept. Scattered research eIIorts have been observed in the realm oI
maintaining a deep customer Iocus (Vandermerwe, 2004), reengineering the
organizational structure (Ryals and Knox, 2001), and managing knowledge by leveraging
the use oI inIormation technology (SteIanou et al., 2003). There is no theoretical,
integrative Iramework to delineate how the CRM concept can be properly translated into
a comprehensive set oI concrete organizational activities conducive to CRM success.
Furthermore, very little has been done in terms oI creating a valid measurement scale and
testing the concept empirically.
2.1.1 CRM TheoreticaI perspectives
At a theoretical level, CRM may mean an emerging research paradigm in
marketing (Parvatiyar and Sheth, 2001). Thus, a clariIication and conceptualization oI
this construct is needed to ensure that our knowledge oI CRM grows in a 'cumulative
way. Moreover, while we observe that there has been an increase in the attention paid to
CRM by practitioners and academics, to date no systematic attempt has been made to
develop a valid measure oI it, or to assess its inIluence on business perIormance
DeLone and McLean (1992) Iormulated an IS success model using inIormation
and system quality to determine the eIIectiveness oI an IS. Their comprehensive review
oI IS success measures makes two important contributions to understanding oI IS
success. First, it postulates a scheme Ior classiIying a multitude oI IS success measure
into six aspects: system quality, inIormation quality, system use, individual impact,
16
organizational impact, and user satisIaction. Second, it suggests a model oI temporal and
causal` interdependencies between these categories. Based on their model, several IS
success measures are proposed: system eIIectiveness, business proIitability, improved
decision quality and perIormance, perceived beneIit oI systems, level oI system usage,
and user satisIaction (Pitt et al., 1995; Yoon, et al.,1995).
Among the numerous dimensions that measure IS success Iactors and IS success
itselI, we Iormulate the CRM success model into the causal phases, which comprise
CRM initiatives, intrinsic success and extrinsic success oI CRM. These Iactors are the
basis Ior our research model and hypotheses.
Given these problems, CRM, as an emerging paradigm in marketing, will remain
underdeveloped until its key dimensions have been identiIied and operationalized. In Iact,
Gummesson (2002) comments that CRM, as an emerging discipline, is in need oI Iurther
theoretical development. The identiIication oI the key dimensions oI CRM is thereIore
very important. It is no longer suIIicient to advise practitioners or researchers that the key
to successIul marketing is through CRM without providing inIormation on what
dimensions actually constitute relationships upon which CRM can be considered to exist.
It is the goal oI this paper to address the conceptual and measurement issues related to the
study oI CRM and its impact on business perIormance.
2.1.2 CRM initiatives
An enterprise-wide understanding oI what Iactors lead to CRM success and where
they start Irom is the vital starting block Ior eIIective CRM implementation and
deployments. Researchers studying IS success have Iocused the main determinant
success Iactors oI CRM on process Iit, inIormation quality and system support.
Process Iit. To leverage the marketing and sales eIIort, the CRM system must be
designed around an elaborate understanding oI a CRM process. This will impede the
CRM system initiatives and can be a key success Iactor. It is related to the description oI
17
structural contingency theory on technological Iit, which identiIy the Ieasible set oI
process and technology (Drasin and Van de Ven, 1985). A review oI the literature reveals
that IS researchers oIIer a great diversity oI views on the appropriate Iorm Ior stating
process theories (Markus and Robey, 1988; Orlikowski, 1993). The process Iit, in this
study, is viewed as having Iour important CRM processes: Iitness level oI customer
interaction process, sales channel process, personalization process, and aIter-sales service
process.
Customer inIormation quality. A Iunction oI the output value produced by the
CRM system as perceived by the system users. Making eIIective use oI customer
inIormation resources is the critical issues Iacing IS executives. This reIlects the high
value oI customer data resources and the importance oI managing them eIIectively.
Knowing customers is critical to overall CRM success; however, just gathering customer
data is not enough. With customer inIormation analytics, these organizations can begin to
realize the value Irom their CRM implementation. Customer inIormation analytics is
more than just inIormation about the Iacts. It builds insight into customer and market
behaviors, enabling businesses to take the correct action necessary in ever-changing
market environments.
Many diIIerent inIormation characteristics, generated by an inIormation system,
are considered as important determinants oI inIormation quality perception including:
integrity, useIulness, currency, output timeliness, reliability, completeness, conciseness,
Iormat, and relevance (Bailey and Pearson, 1983); understandability (Srinivasan, 1985) ;
report useIulness (Mahmood and Medewitz, 1985). DeLone and McLean (1992) point to
the link by suggesting high quality oI customer inIormation will result in IS success and
also suggest that to a large extent this relationship is intuitive. Here, customer
inIormation quality is measured as Iollows:
Integrity oI customer inIormation, useIulness oI customer inIormation, support oI
scoring and segmentation inIormation, and Iorecasting the customer`s purchasing power.
18
System support. A measure oI the CRM processing system itselI (Negash and
Ryan , 2003). II the system has been implemented and adopted successIully, a Iirm is
able to reap its beneIits. The potential beneIits to a Iirm are related to the impact
dimension oI system success. The determining criteria in assessment oI system support
are the perIormance characteristics oI the systems under study. These concern resource
utilization (Kriebel and Raviv, 1980); reliability, response time, and ease oI terminal use
(Swanson, 1974); and data accuracy, reliability, completeness, system Ilexibility, and
ease oI use (Hamilton and Chervany, 1981); consistency oI the user interIace, quality oI
documentation, and sometimes, quality and maintainability oI the program code (Seddon,
1997). The penetration oI the system into the market, and the reaction oI competitors are
the Iactors discussed in the literature to impact on a Iirm`s ability to reap these beneIits
Cavaye and Cragg, 1995). II competitors react by implementing a similar system, the
competitive edge gained by the Iirst organization may only be temporary. OIten the use
oI IT becomes a strategic necessity within the industry. This paper considers Iavorable
system invest, implementation level, integration oI CRM system with legacy MIS
systems, and open networking system Ior sales Iorce, which will reinIorce the
relationship between system users and customers.
2.1.3 Intrinsic CRM Success
EIIiciency. IS implementation success is Irequently deIined in terms oI the
achievement oI some predetermined goals, which normally include multiple eIIiciency
parameters such as time, cost, and Iunction (Hong and Kim, 2002; Markus and Tanis,
2000). EIIiciency is an important and useIul measure oI perIormance, which is closely
related to, but diIIerent Irom, productivity. Unlike productivity, technical eIIiciency has
been studied less Irequently by IS researchers (Shao and Lin, 2002). When the purpose oI
IT investments is to improve operational eIIiciency, many traditional appraisal techniques
may be considered appropriate. Such investments are largely geared to the generation oI
tangible (Iinancial) beneIits, and are based on direct (Iinancial) project costs. Such
operational IT deployments have traditionally exploited the eIIiciency beneIits oI
19
investing in IT. However, many managers are now appreciating the wider strategic
implications oI developing a robust and responsive IT inIrastructure; yet this in turn
presents businesses with the dilemma oI how to assess, quantiIy and accommodate the
implications oI inIrastructural investments (Irani, 2002). EIIiciency, in this study, is
diIIerent Irom the traditional IS success measure in that it is comprehensive internal
achievement oI a Iirm`s CRM process. We measured internal eIIiciency as one oI the
intrinsic measures oI CRM implementation success in terms oI perceived improvements
such as easiness oI CRM, cost reduction, time saving, and alleviation oI CRM load. We
use eIIiciency to indicate internal success oI a CRM system, determined by the process
Iit, customer inIormation quality, and system support. Higher levels oI internal eIIiciency
are assumed to correspond to higher levels oI CRM system.
Customer satisfaction. CRM is a customer-driven concept; that is, it allows
customers to be in control oI the system. Customer satisIaction is the collective outcome
oI the customer`s perception, evaluation, and psychological reaction to the consumption
experience with product or service (Fornell, 1992; Yi, 1990). As customer satisIaction is
commonly acknowledged as one oI the most useIul measurements oI system success
(Chen, et al., 2000), we identiIy the underlying Iactors oI customer satisIaction and
develop an instrument to measure these Iactors. In the marketing studies Iocused on
customer satisIaction with physical products and services delivered through channel
(KhaliIa and Liu, 2002). It is not clear whether the Iindings oI these studies apply to
CRM. This study demonstrates that customer satisIaction with customer relationship
depends heavily on the roles and perIormance oI organizational CRM activities. A
customers` relationship with a company is strengthened when that customer makes a
Iavorable assessment about the company`s service quality and weakened when a
customer makes negative assessments about the company`s service quality (Zeithaml, et
al., 1996). Both the service management and the marketing literatures suggest that there
is a strong theoretical underpinning Ior an empirical exploration oI the linkages among
customer satisIaction, customer loyalty, and proIitability (Hallowell, 1996). We measure
customer satisIaction as an intrinsic CRM success by perceived level oI the shiIt aIter
20
CRM system implementation: Iriendly interaction with customer, brand value, customer
complains, and overall customer satisIaction.
2.1.4 Extrinsic CRM success
ProIitability. The ultimate measure oI CRM success is whether, iI net beneIit
could be measured with precision, CRM success would equal net beneIits logically. The
issue oI measuring IT returns has become even more pressing because the expenditures
on IT equipment and service activities have risen. Several reasons are identiIied why
management needs to scrutinize IT spending (Remenyi and Twite, 1991). Firstly, the
amounts oI Iinancial resources invested in IT are substantial and they are thus very likely
to supplant other capital spending. Secondly, IT investments are seldom tied to the
revenue-generating or proIit-making aspects oI the business and as a result, management
may not readily agree to IT`s value, contribution, or perIormance. Thirdly, IT
investments have Irequently been perceived as high risk, compared with other traditional
capital budgets. However, CRM success has implicit and emotive areas oI achievement
which are not measurable by net beneIits which is an idealized comprehensive measure
oI the monetary sum oI all past and expected Iuture beneIits, less all past and expected
Iuture costs, attributed to the use oI an inIormation technology application. We use
proIitability as an alternative to net beneIit. The operationalized scales oI proIitability are
increase oI new customers, reselling or upselling, decrease oI customers` churn, and
increase oI overall proIitability.
21
Figure 2.1: Hypothetical CRM success factor model.
Source: (Cronin, 1992)
2.1.5 Introduction of e-CRM
The emergence oI e-commerce has changed many aspects oI existing businesses
and generated new companies with new business models, business opportunities, and
processes. Existing companies are being challenged to rethink the most basic business
relationshipthe one between an organization and its customers. Despite media hype
about the Internet changing the rules oI engagement with customers, it hasn't changed the
underlying Iact that addressing customers' needs leads to sustainable proIit.
SpeciIically, e-commerce practice has not replaced the need Ior human contact at
key points in sales, marketing, and customer support.
What has changed is the new competitive advantage needed Ior managing
customer relationships online via the Internet. Companies need the ability to track and
manage Internet-based e-commerce events that may demand immediate, personalized
response irrespective oI conventional operating schedules. In particular, most companies
are conIronted with an increasingly sophisticated customer base that demands a higher
level oI immediate service across multiple access channels. To satisIy customer needs,
companies have to maintain consistency across all interaction channels (such as the
22
Internet, email, telephone. Web, Iax, and so on) and across all areas oI a company a
customer interacts with (including sales, service, marketing, and other Iields).
To overcome this challenge, many organizations are considering adopting the
concept oI electronic Customer Relationship Management (e-CRM). This concept and
practice provides the ability to capture, integrate, and distribute data gained at the
organization's Web site throughout the enterprise. In spite oI the growing popularity, very
little is known about this concept as a strategy as well as an enterprise wide application.
2.1.5.1 The Emergence of e-CRM
In order to Iully understand how a uniIied view oI the customer can be achieved
through the strategic use oI e-CRM, we must make a distinction between the terms CRM
and e-CRM. We consider CRM an approach or business strategy providing seamless
integration oI every area oI business that touches the customernamely marketing, sales,
customer service and Iield support through integration oI people, process, and
technology. On the other hand, taking advantage oI the revolutionary impact oI the
Internet, e-CRM expands the traditional CRM techniques by integrating technologies oI
new electronic channels, such as Web, wireless, and voice technologies, and combines
them with e-business applications into the overall enterprise CRM strategy. In other
words, what the traditional CRM delivers can be considered only a Fraction oI an e-CRM
solution.
Organizations have reengineered many aspects oI their businesses, automated
their back-oIIice procedures, streamlined their organizations, revised their product or
service oIIerings, and invested in marketing activities. At the same time, they also Iace an
increasingly complex marketplace with a high degree oI competition and new entrants
challenging Ior market share. With new channels (the use oI Internet) and online and
oIIline markets becoming increasingly available, technological advances have also
opened up a new world oI e-business opportunities. As a result oI these changes
occurring, customers are better conceptual inIormed, more demanding, and likely to be
less loyal as their expectations are increasing Iaster than businesses (traditional as well
Internet-based) can deliver.
23
Customers oI e-businesses are making the most impact as they are given more
product or service options while the cost oI switching has been reduced drastically with
competitors only a mouse-click away (Business week, 1998). It was estimated by
Forrester Research that B2C e-commerce in the U.S. will grow Irom $38.8 billion in
2000 to 184.5billion in 2004 (Liu Row, 2000). With the availability oI the Internet,
unprecedented opportunities are now available Ior building sales and increasing revenue
streams by expanding geographic scope, reducing operating costs, improving
procurement, productivity, and supply chain eIIiciency.
The Iinal driver is the application oI real-time and interactive customer interaction
channels such as the Web, email, ATMs, call centers, and wireless devices to the
customers' nonelectronic activity in today's Iast-changing business environment, in
particular, wireless technology has emerged as a new channel Ior accessing the Internet
and will have a large eIIect on customer interaction.
2.2 Customer Satisfaction
2.2.1 The Components of Satisfaction
Unlike material products or pure services, most hospitality experiences are an
amalgam oI products and services. ThereIore it is possible to say that satisIaction with a
hospitality experience such as a hotel stay or a restaurant meal is a sum total oI
satisIactions with the individual elements or attributes oI all the products and services
that make up the experience.
There is no uniIormity oI opinion among marketing experts as to the classiIication
oI the elements in service encounters. Reuland et al. (1985 ) suggest that hospitality
services consist oI a harmonious mixture oI three elements: the material product in a
narrow sense which in the case oI a restaurant is the Iood and beverages; the behavior and
attitude oI the employees who are responsible Ior hosting the guest, serving the meal and
beverages and who come in direct contact with the guests, and the environment, such as
the building, the layout, the Iurnishing, the lighting in the restaurant, etc.
24
Czepiel et al. (1985) on the other hand, suggest that satisIaction with a service is a
Iunction oI satisIaction with two independent elements. The Iunctional element, i.e. the
Iood and beverage in a restaurant, and the perIormance-delivery element, i.e. the service.
To prove the independence oI the two elements Irom each other, the authors claim that
restaurant clients are quite capable oI having responses to each element that diIIer one
Irom the other: 'The service was great, the Iood poor
Davis and Stone (1985:29) divide the service encounter into two elements: direct
and indirect services. For example, direct services may be the actual check-in/check-out
process in hotels, while the indirect services include the provision oI parking Iacilities,
concierge, public telephones Ior guests` use, etc. Lovelock (1985) divides the service
attributes into two groups: core and secondary.
Airline service provides a good example, with customers Iirst making inquiries
and reservations, and then checking in their baggage, getting seat assignments, being
checked at the gate, receiving on-board service in Ilight, and retrieving their baggage at
the destination airport. Each oI these activities is an operations task that is secondary to
the core product oI physically transporting passengers and their bags between two
airports. But these secondary tasks have a greater potential to generate customer
dissatisIaction iI perIormed poorly.
In a restaurant situation Lovelock`s core will be composed oI the Iood and
beverage, while his secondary will be composed oI everything else, including service,
environment, etc.
Lewis (1987), too, classiIies the service encounter attributes in two groups:
essential and subsidiary. The essential attributes are identical to Czepiel`s Iunctional,
Davis and Stone`s direct, Reuland and colleagues` product, and Lovelock`s core, i.e. the
Iood and beverage in the meal experience. On the other hand Lewis`s subsidiary
attributes are more comprehensive than either Davis and Stone`s indirect, Czepiel`s
perIormance- delivery, or Lovelock`s secondary, and include such Iactors as:
accessibility, convenience oI location, availability and timing and Ilexibility, as well as
25
interactions with those providing the service and with other customers. It is equivalent to
a combination oI the behavior and environment elements in the Reuland et al. model.
Yet other researchers support the idea that the service encounter attributes are
situation-speciIic and as such cannot be classiIied into universal elements. For example,
Fiebelkorn (1985) doing a study at Citibank Iound that overall satisIaction with Citibank
as one oI the customer`s banks (or his bank only) is based on satisIaction with the last
encounter with the bank in Iive main areas: teller encounter, platIorm encounter, ATM
(automatic teller machines) encounter, phone encounter, problem encounter. He then
concludes that 'the common thread running through all Iive service-encounter types is
that customers want: prompt service by people who know what to do and how to do it,
and who care about them as valued customers ( Fiebelkorn, 1985:185).
2.2.2 Customer Satisfaction Literature
The concept oI customer satisIaction has drawn the interest oI academics and
practitioners Ior more than three decades in the light oI the Iact that customers are the
primary source oI most Iirms` revenue without the emergence oI a consensual deIinition
oI the concept. Churchill and Surprenant (1982) deIine customer satisIaction as an
outcome oI purchase and use resulting Irom the buyers` comparison oI the rewards and
costs oI the purchase in relation to the anticipated consequences. It has also been viewed
as an emotional state that occurs in response to the evaluation oI a service (Westbrook,
1981). The Iormer conceptualization recognizes that satisIaction is determined by a
cognitive process oI comparing what customers receive (rewards) against what they give
up to acquire the service (costs) whereas the latter views satisIaction as an emotional
Ieeling resulting Irom an evaluative process. Consistent with this view, customer
satisIaction is deIined as an emotional response, which results Irom a cognitive process oI
evaluating the service received against the costs oI obtaining the service (WoodruII et al.
1991; Rust and Oliver 1994). Oliver (1997) addresses the deIinitional issue by stating,
'everyone knows what |satisIaction| is until asked to give a deIinition. Then it seems,
nobody knows. Customer satisIaction is generally described as the Iull meeting oI one`s
expectations (Oliver, 1980). Customer satisIaction is the Ieeling or attitude oI a customer
towards a product or service aIter it has been used. Customer satisIaction is a major
26
outcome oI marketing activity whereby it serves as a link between the various stages oI
consumer buying behavior. For instance, iI customers are satisIied with a particular
service oIIering aIter its use, then they are likely to engage in repeat purchase and try line
extensions (East, 1997). Customer satisIaction is widely recognizedas a key inIluence in
the Iormation oI customers` Iuture purchase intentions (Taylor and Baker, 1994).
SatisIied customers are also likely to tell others about their Iavorable experiences and
thus engage in positive word oI mouth advertising (Richens, 1983; File and Prince,
1992). This positive word oI mouth advertising is particularly useIul in collectivist
Middle Eastern cultures like that oI Abu Dhabi where social liIe is structured in a way to
improve social relationships with others in the society (see HoIstede, 1980; Hall and Hall,
1987). DissatisIied customers, on the other hand, are likely to switch brands and engage
in negative word oI mouth advertising. Furthermore, behaviors such as repeat purchase
and word-oI-mouth directly aIIect the viability and proIitability oI a Iirm (Dabholkar et
al., 1996). A recent study conducted by Levesque and McDougall (1996) conIirmed and
reinIorced the idea that unsatisIactory customer service leads to a drop in customer
satisIaction and willingness to recommend the service to a Iriend. This would in turn lead
to an increase in the rate oI switching by customers
As literature does not provide a unique conceptualization oI customer satisIaction,
this section departs with an explanation oI how customer satisIaction is to be understood
in the context oI this study. 'SatisIaction is the consumer`s IulIillment response. It is a
judgment that a product or service Ieature, or the product oI service itselI, provided (or is
providing) a pleasurable level oI consumption-related IulIillment, including levels oI
under- or over-IulIillment. (Oliver, 1997:21).
A declining customer retention rate usually indicates a declining customer
satisIaction rate. It behooves the company to Ierret out the causes behind the increasing
dissatisIaction, Ior iI it worsens Iurther, proIits will begin to Iall.
Most companies track customer satisIaction using a Iive-point scale: very
dissatisIied, somewhat dissatisIied, indiIIerent, satisIied and very satisIied. The level oI
satisIaction is measured not only on an overall basis but also Ior each component oI the
company's oIIerings. There may be a great diIIerence between those who report being
27
very dissatisIied and those who are only somewhat dissatisIied. The company may Iind
that it loses 80 percent oI the very dissatisIied customers and only 40 percent oI the
somewhat dissatisIied customers. In both cases, oI course, the company must learn the
causes oI the dissatisIaction.
Similarly, there can be a great diIIerence between the customers who are satisIied
and those very satisIied. Companies can lose anywhere between 10 and 30 percent oI
their satisIied customers. When asked, such customers might say they were satisIied but
Iound another supplier who could satisIy them more. Smart companies thereIore aim not
only to satisIy their customers but also to delight them. That calls Ior exceeding customer
expectations, not just meeting them. (Kotler and Johnson, 1999) SatisIaction is not a
universal phenomenon and not everyone gets the same satisIaction out oI the same
hospitality experience. The reason is that customers have diIIerent needs, objectives and
past experiences that inIluence their expectations. To a student on a limited budget, a
lunch composed oI Iast Iood items at the crowded and noisy school caIeteria may be a
highly satisIying experience, while the same experience may be perceived as totally
dissatisIying to an aIIluent executive discussing a business transaction. The same
customer may also have diIIerent needs and expectations on diIIerent meal occasions, or
at diIIerent times oI the day (Davis and Stone, 1985: 31). The student in our previous
example will not be highly satisIied when his college Iriends take him out Ior a
'birthday meal celebration at the school caIeteria. ThereIore it is important to gain a
clear idea oI the customer needs and objectives that correspond to diIIerent kinds oI
satisIactions. This necessitates the segmentation oI the market, because no service or
product can oIIer everyone the same degree oI satisIaction (WTO, 1985).
Customer satisIaction can also be deIined as satisIaction based on an outcome or a
process. Vavra`s (1997: 4) outcome deIinition oI customer satisIaction characterizes
satisIaction as the end-state resulting Irom the experience oI consumption. This end state
may be a cognitive state oI reward, an emotional response to an experience or a
comparison oI rewards and costs to the anticipated consequences. Vavra also puts Iorth a
deIinition oI customer satisIaction based as a process, emphasizing the perceptual,
28
evaluative and psychological processes contributing to customer satisIaction (1997: 4). In
this deIinition, assessment oI satisIaction is made during the service delivery process.
2.2.3 Satisfaction as a process
Currently, the most widely adopted description oI CS is that oI a process; an
evaluation between what was received and what was expected (Oliver, 1977, 1981; Olson
and Dover, 1979; Tse and Wilton, 1988). By looking at satisIaction as a process, these
deIinitions concentrate on the antecedents to satisIaction rather than satisIaction itselI.
Consequently, much research eIIort has been directed at understanding the
cognitive processes involved in satisIaction evaluations. This strand oI theory appears to
have origins in discrepancy theory (Porter, 1961) and a number oI authors have, over the
years, used some Iorm oI comparison to model satisIaction. Early contributions include
Contrast Theory (Cardozo, 1965; Howard and Sheth, 1969), which supposed that
consumers would exaggerate any contrasts between expectations and product evaluations.
This was developed into assimilation-contrast theory (Anderson, 1973). Many studies
support the occurrence oI assimilation (Olshavsky and Miller, 1972; Olson and Dover,
1979). Nevertheless, iI the discrepancy is too large to be assimilated then the contrast
eIIect occurs.
The most 'well-known descendent oI the discrepancy theories is the expectation
disconIirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1977, 1981). According to this paradigm consumers'
satisIaction judgments are the result oI consumers' perceptions oI the diIIerence between
their perceptions oI perIormance and their predictions (or expectations) oI perIormance.
Positive disconIirmation leads to increased satisIaction, with negative disconIirmation
having the opposite eIIect. Many studies support the disconIirmation paradigm but others
do not; Ior example, Churchill and Surprenant (1982) Iound that neither disconIirmation
nor expectations had any eIIect on CS with durable products.
In their review, Poisz and Van Grumbkow (1988) view satisIaction as a
discrepancy between the observed and the desired. This is consistent with value-percept
disparity theory (Westbrook and Reilly, 1983) which was developed in response to the
29
problem that consumers could be satisIied by aspects Ior which expectations never
existed (Yi, 1990). The value-percept theory views satisIaction as an emotional response
triggered by a cognitive-evaluative process (which is the comparison oI the 'object to
one's values rather than an expectation). Consumers want consonance (or no disparity)
between their values (needs, wants and desires) and the object oI their evaluations.
Recent developments oI this study include the concept oI desire congruency (Spreng et
al., 1996).
Equity theory has also been applied to CS (Fisk and Young, 1985; Swan and
Oliver, 1985). According to this theory, individuals compare their input/output ratios with
those oI others (Yi, 1990). In a transaction relationship, thereIore, a consumer could
compare their net gain to the marketer's or any other reIerence group (Merton and
LazarsIeld, 1950). II this was perceived to be ``Iair'' then the consumer would be
satisIied. Thus, in these cases, satisIaction is an outcome oI inter-personal rather than
intrapersonal comparisons.
In this study, we preIer to use disconIirmation paradigm which is the most well-
known descendent oI the discrepancy theories.According to this paradigm consumers`
satisIaction judgments are the result oI consumers` perceptions oI the diIIerence between
their perceptions oI perIormance and their expectations.Positive disconIirmation leads to
incresed satisIaction, with negaive disconIirmation having the opposite eIIect.This theory
has also been used to develop the questionnaire.
2.2.4 Satisfaction as an outcome
More recently, renewed attention has been Iocused on the nature (not cause) oI
satisIaction:
. Emotion + prompted by Oliver 's (1981)
view that satisIaction is the surprise element oI product acquisition and/or consumption
experiences, other researchers have seen satisIaction as an aIIective response to a speciIic
consumption experience (Westbrook and Reilly, 1983). This viewpoint acknowledges the
30
input oI comparative cognitive processes but goes Iurther by stating that these may be
just one oI the determinants oI the aIIective 'state satisIaction.
. FulIillment + motivation theories state that either people are driven by the desire
to satisIy their needs (Maslow, 1943) or their behavior is directed at the achievement oI
relevant goals (Vroom, 1964). Either way, satisIaction can be viewed as the end-point in
the motivational process. Thus ``consumer satisIaction can be seen as the consumer's
IulIillment response'' (Rust and Oliver, 1994: 4). State + Oliver's (1989) Iramework oI
Iour satisIaction states relates satisIaction to reinIorcement and arousal. Low arousal
IulIillment is described as ``satisIaction-ascontentment'', a result oI the product/ service
perIorming adequately ``in an ongoing passive sense'' (Rust and Oliver, 1994), such as a
regular bus journey. High arousal satisIaction is termed ``satisIaction as surprise'' which
could be either positive (delight) or negative (shock). In relation to reinIorcement,
``satisIaction-as-pleasure'' results Irom positive reinIorcement, where the product/service
is adding to an aroused resting state, and ``satisIaction-as-relieI'' results Irom negative
reinIorcement to such a state as, Ior example, analgesics do.
Currently, there are two principal interpretations oI satisIaction within the
literature (satisIaction as a process and satisIaction as an outcome). However, these are
complementary interpretations as, oIten, one depends on the other. To Iurther compound
matters, some authors have linked satisIaction with the experience oI making the
purchase decision itselI; a deIinition that Ialls outside the above categories (Westbrook
and Newman, 1978; Kourilsky and Murray, 1981).
In order to Iurther our understanding oI satisIaction, it is helpIul to keep these two
broad interpretations; conceptualizing the notion as both the satisIaction process and the
satisIaction response. Nevertheless, such 'academic deIinitions may be at variance with
'reality, or at least what the consumer Ieels to be the case. Perhaps consumers do not
think about the process aspects + just the outcome. Perhaps the nature oI the purchase
impacts on the nature oI the satisIaction yielded; aIter all it is worth remembering that all
the process theories oI satisIaction contained within this review do have empirical
support. Given the need Ior a clearer conceptualization oI satisIaction (Yi, 1990).
31
2.2.5 CumuIative or TransactionaI Satisfaction
An important debate in the customer satisIaction literature has been whether
customer satisIaction is to be understood at the transactional or a cumulative level
(Boulding et al., 1993). The cumulative satisIaction approach assumes that satisIaction is
determined by satisIying or dissatisIying encounters with a product or service over time
while the transactional approach emphasizes encounter satisIaction, that is, satisIaction
with a product or service in a single transaction.
According to Sharma et al. (1999) there is a tendency towards measuring
customer satisIaction at the general level when adopting the cumulative view oI
satisIaction. The literature has taken two approaches to operationalizing satisIaction. The
Iirst sees consumer satisIaction as the bipolar opposite oI dissatisIaction (Mittal et al.,
1999). This view is based on the assumption that customer satisIaction takes a value in a
single dimension between 'high and 'low satisIaction. The other operationalization
sees consumer satisIaction and dissatisIaction as two diIIerent dimensions, measured by
using unipolar satisIaction and unipolar dissatisIaction measures (Westbrook and Oliver,
1991).
In the context oI this study, customer satisIaction is understood as an overall (not
attribute speciIic) construct conceptualized on the cumulative (not transactional) level
and measured as a bipolar (not two-dimensional) construct. This implies that customer
satisIaction in this context is operationalized as a post-purchase judgment that can range
Irom 'dissatisIied to 'satisIied.
2.2.6 Customer Satisfaction Measurement
SatisIaction is deIined as a customer`s perception oI a single service experience,
whereas quality is the accumulation oI the satisIaction Ior many customers over many
service experiences. Such post-evaluative experiences perhaps lead over time to a more
general attitude. Moreover, service is equal to the perception oI a 'single service as
received and measured against the expected service received. The diIIerence in the
degree, direction, and discrepancy between the 'perceptions and 'expectations oI a
customer result in a level oI satisIaction or dissatisIaction ( Hill, 1992:44).
32
The connection oI quality` to service` is now anchored, unreservedly - by
association - to heterogeneity and diversity. No longer does service quality imply
achievement oI the highest possible standards oI execution within the service sector;
service quality is now viewed as an essentially Iunctional property - an indispensable, but
variable, processoriented component oI any product consumption system` (Mittal,
Kumar and Tsiros 1999). The idea that goods and services are entirely separate and
mutually exclusive elements oI the consumption experience is now, rightly, disappearing
(Rust, Keiningham and Zahorik 1996) and today all consumers expect and demand
service quality`. But, within the voice-simulated world oI the never-sleep helpline, the
emptiness oI its commitment-to-service rhetoric now shadows the inexorability oI its
growth, and 'In the worst cases politeness is becoming a substitute Ior service (Seddons
2000). This perspective essentially Iorms what is commonly reIerred to as a gap or
discrepancy model that is still taking shape in current marketing research. The gap model
contains a minimum oI two or sometimes three key concepts.
SatisIaction and service quality are oIten treated together as Iunctions oI a
customer`s perceptions and expectations. The simplest model is the two-concept equation
deIined as Q PE. There are exceptions within this model. A zone oI indiIIerence exists
among some customers who have not Iormed an expectation or do not care about a
service. But Ior the most part, when perceptions (P) are equal to expectations (E), service
quality (Q) is satisIactory. II expectations are higher than actual perceptions, a customer`s
rating becomes negative (Cottle, 1990, pp. 22-23). To improve customer satisIaction you
either raise customer perceptions, lower their expectations, or both. Since an expectation
is nothing more than an anticipation oI receiving something Iavorable or acceptable, it is
essential Ior any service company to develop realistic expectations among their
customers. But 'expectations and perceptions are Iactors that are hard to control
(Davidow and Uttal, 1989, p. 19). They are diIIicult to control because perceptions and
attitudes are subjective responses. They are heavily inIluenced by the ongoing personal
situations that individuals are exposed to, and by competing opportunities that are as
much ignored or overlooked given the dynamics oI human interaction.
33
Customer satisIaction measurement (CSM) serves two roles, providing
inIormation and enabling communication with customers. Perhaps the primary reason Ior
taking the time to measure customer satisIaction is to collect inIormation, either
regarding what customers say that needs to be done diIIerently or to assess how well an
organization is currently meeting its customer needs (Vavra, 1997, p. 28). A secondary,
but no less important Iunction oI CSM in hospitality enterprises, is that by surveying
customers, an organization is demonstrating its interest in communicating with its
customers Iinding out their needs, pleasures, displeasures and overall well-being.
Though it is impossible to measure the satisIaction oI every single customer, those whose
opinions are solicited and others, who observe this process, are given a sense oI
importance and recognition.
Numerous studies and publications have almost unanimously concluded that
measuring customer satisIaction can lead to several beneIits Ior the organization applying
it:
CSM results can be used to discover important strengths and weaknesses
in product/service oIIerings and more eIIectively Iocus improvement eIIorts towards
these issues (Lin & Jones, 1997; Emerson & Grimm, 1999; Sharma et al. 1999; Yang,
2003a; Lam et al., 2004).
Depending on the industry context, CSM results may be used to estimate
the degree oI customer loyalty which is vital Ior long-term revenues (Gronholdt et. al,
2000; Lam et al., 2004).
CSM enables the supplying organization to compare the perIormance oI
its diIIerent business units in diIIerent time periods and locations (Jones & Sasser, 1995).
CSM is useIul Ior assessing the eIIectiveness oI eIIorts to redesign
elements oI the service delivery system (Chase & Bowen, 1991; Juran & Gryna, 1988).
Customer satisIaction can be used as a basis Ior customer segmentation
(Athanassopoulos, 2000).
According to McColl-Kennedy and Schneider (2000), measuring
customer satisIaction is not a neutral act, but an intervention. The opinions oI the
customer whose satisIaction is measured can be aIIected by the measurement process.
34
CSM can be used by the supplier as a symbolic activity Ior demonstrating
customer-oriented behavior (Kujala & Ahola, 2004).
2.3 Service QuaIity
2.3.1 Service QuaIity as the Antecedents of Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisIaction is determined by deIining customer perceptions oI quality,
expectations, and preIerences (Barsky, 1995, Ch. 2). Said another way, 'satisIaction, or
lack oI it, is the diIIerence between how a customer expects to be treated and how he or
she perceives being treated (Davidow and Uttal., 1989, p. 19). To attain true customer
satisIaction companies need to achieve quality not only by eliminating the causes Ior
direct complains but they need to provide their products with excellent, attractive quality
provide the delight to the customer. So research on customer satisIaction is oIten
closely associated with the measurement oI service quality (Anderson and Sullivan, 1993;
Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Bitner and Hubbert, 1994; Taylor and Baker, 1994; Rust and
Oliver, 1994; Levesque and McDougall, 1996).
Quality is the most important purchase decision Iactor inIluencing the customer`s
buying decisions. Furthermore, it has strategic beneIits oI contributing to market-share
and return on investment (Anderson and Zeithaml, 1984; Philips, Chang and Buzzell,
1983) as well as in lowering manuIacturing costs and improving productivity (Garvin,
1983).
Service quality has been reported as having apparent relationship to costs
(Crosby, 1979), proIitability (Buzzell and Gale, 1987;Rust and Zahorik, 1993; Zahorik
and Rust, 1992), customer satisIaction (Boltan and Drew, 1991; Boulding et al, 1993),
customer retention (Reichheld and Sasser , 1990), behavioral intention, and positive word-
oI- mouth.
Parasuraman et al. described service quality as: the ability oI the organization to
meet or exceed customer expectations. Customer expectations may be deIined as the
'desires and wants oI consumers i.e. what they Ieel a service provider should oIIer
rather than would oIIer (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988).
35
DeIinitions oI service quality, thereIore, Iocus on meeting the customers` needs
and requirements, and how well the service delivered matches the customers`
expectations oI it. In recent years, greater emphasis has been placed on the need to
understand the role oI expectations (Pitt, Jeantrout, 1994), given the Iact that consumers`
expectations oI quality are increasing (Dotchin and Oakland, 1994), and people are
becoming more discerning and critical oI the quality oI service that they experience.
Swartz and Brown (1989) drew some distinctions between diIIerent views on service
quality, drawing Irom the work oI Grnroos (1983) and Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982)
concerning the dimensions oI service quality. 'What the service delivers is evaluated
aIter perIormance (Swartz and Brown, 1989, p.190). This dimension is called outcome
quality by Parasuraman et al. (1985), technical quality by Grnroos (1983), and physical
quality by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982). 'How the service is delivered is evaluated
during delivery (Swartz and Brown, 1989, p. 190). This dimension is called process
quality by Parasuraman et al. (1985), Iunctional quality by Grnroos (1983), and
interactive quality by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982).
In their empirical Iindings, Cronin and Taylor speciIically explored the
relationship between service quality, satisIaction, and purchase intention. Furthermore,
they compared SERVQUAL's eIIicacy with attitude-based methods (as applied in
consumer satisIaction/dissatisIaction research) oI measuring service quality. An attitude-
based conceptualization would argue Ior either an importance-weighted evaluation oI
speciIic service attributes or even just an evaluation oI perIormance on speciIic service
attributes.
The service quality models they examined were (1) a perIormance measure, (2) a
perIormance measure weighted by importance, and (3) SERVQUAL weighted by
importance. Their analysis suggests that service quality is an antecedent oI customer
satisIaction and that satisIaction has a stronger inIluence than does service quality on
purchase intentions. (McAlexander, Kaldenberg, Dennis, Koenig, Harold, 1994)
36
2.3.2 The background Iiterature on service quaIity
The credit Ior heralding the service quality research goes to Parasuraman,
Zeithaml and Berry (see Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Zeithaml et al., 1985, 1990).
The authors, based on qualitative research, Iormulated a measure oI service quality
derived Irom data on a number oI services, instead oI counting on earlier dimensions oI
goods quality in the manuIacturing sector. The initial results, based on some Iocus group
endings, yielded 10 dimensions oI service quality that included tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, competence, courtesy, credibility, security, access, communication and
understanding the customer.
Further empirical scrutiny (Parasuraman et al., 1988) resulted in a 22-item scale,
called `SERVQUAL` which measures service quality based on dimensions, viz.
tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The entire approach was
Iormulated on the tenet that customers entertain expectations oI perIormances on the
service dimensions, observe perIormance and later Iorm perIormance perceptions. The
authors described service quality as the degree oI discrepancy between customers`
normative expectations Ior the service and their perceptions oI the service perIormance.
Rust and Oliver (1994) noted that the SERVQUAL instrument captured the crux oI what
service quality might mean, i.e. a comparison to excellence in service by the customer.
In their empirical work, Cronin and Taylor (1992) controverted the Iramework oI
Parasuraman et al. (1988) with respect to conceptualization and measurement oI service
quality, and propounded a perIormance-based measure oI service quality called
`SERVPERF` by illustrating that service quality is a Iorm oI consumer attitude. They
argued that the perIormance-based measure was an enhanced means oI measuring the
service quality construct.
In another empirical work, Teas (1993) investigated conceptual and operational
issues associated with a `perceptions-minus-expectations (P+ E)` service quality model.
The author developed alternative models oI perceived service quality based on evaluated
perIormance (EP) and normated quality (NQ). It was concluded that the EP model could
overcome some oI the problems associated with the P+ E gap conceptualization oI
service quality. Parasuraman et al. (1994a) responded to the concerns oI Cronin and
Taylor (1992) and Teas (1993) by demonstrating that the validity and alleged severity oI
37
many oI those concerns were questionable. Parasuraman et al. (1994a) elaborated that
though their approach Ior conceptualizing service quality could and should be revised,
relinquishing it altogether in preIerence oI the alternate approaches proclaimed by Cronin
and Taylor and Teas did not seem warranted. This triggered an interesting controversy in
service quality research.
In another empirical work, Parasuraman et al. (1994b) revamped SERVQUAL`s
structure to embody not only the discordance between perceived service and desired
service (labeled as measure oI service superiority, or MSS), but also the discrepancy
between perceived service and adequate service (labelled as measure oI service adequacy,
or MSA).
Several other works have also criticized the operationalization, conceptualization,
measurement and applications oI SERVQUAL across dip rent industrial settings. (G. S.
Sureshchandar, Chandrasekharan Rajendran & T. J. Kamalanabhan, 2001)
2.3.3 Today's view on Service QuaIity
The construct oI service quality as conceptualized in the service marketing
literature centers on perceived quality, deIined as a consumer`s judgment about an
entity`s overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1987).
As virtually all organizations compete to some degree on a basis oI service
(Zeithaml et al., 1990), service quality then becomes signiIicantly important to achieve a
genuine and sustainable competitive advantage. Service-based companies are compelled
by their nature to provide excellent service in order to prosper in increasingly competitive
domestic and global marketplaces, i.e. there is no ``tangible'' product to equate otherwise
to quality. Customer-driven strategies require satisIying customer preIerences;
Customer perceptions and expectations oI service quality are increasingly used to
Iorecast company proIitability and prospects Ior improved market share. Although many
other ``quality-Iocused'' initiatives have oIten Iailed to enhance company perIormance,
customer-perceived service improvements have been shown empirically to improve
proIitability (Buzzell and Gale, 1987). The shiIt Irom an industrial to a customer-value
38
paradigm (Albrecht, 1992) places service at the center oI company eIIorts to improve
proIitability.
Many companies intending to employ a customer service-based strategy Iind the
process oI identiIying and measuring customer preIerences very diIIicult, oIten owing to
mistaken business perceptions oI customer wants (Drucker, 1964; Miller, 1992; Andrews
et al., 1987; Fornell, 1992). Nonetheless, providing superior service quality requires
creating a distinct relationship between what the customer wants and that which the
company provides, or a relationship between customer requirements and essential
business elements (Evelyn and DeCarlo, 1992; Schneider and Bowen, 1995). Service
quality literature recognizes expectations as an instrumental inIluence in consumer
evaluations oI service quality (GroEnroos, 1982; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Brown and
Swartz, 1989). Expectations are understood as the desires or wants oI customers, i.e. what
the service provider should oIIer (Parasuraman et al., 1988), and studying companies
understood to be leaders in various industries (and not limited to direct competitors), i.e.
``benchmarking'' or ``studying the winners'', has become a vital source in identiIying gaps
that exist between customer expectations and company perIormance (Park and Smith,
1990; Drege, 1991; Whiteley, 1991; Albrecht, 1992 ) as perceived by its customers
(Miller, 1992). Meeting rising customer expectations has proved to be one oI the most
diIIicult challenges to service businesses (Sonnenberg, 1991; Drege, 1991). Quality is
Iound to be measured most accurately through the eyes oI the customer (Miller, 1992),
and it is not Iound to improve unless it is regularly measured (Reichheld and Sasser,
1990). Customers are thereIore never mistaken when they say that (service) quality is
bad, because iI they perceive it so, it necessarily is so (Schneider and Bowen, 1995).
Companies that actively search Ior and incorporate the best service methods and
processes to improve the perIormance, regardless oI sources, and ultimately the
perceptions oI their customers, are Iound to excel in relation to their competitors (Sellers,
1991). In practice, companies that exceed customer expectations without impairing proIit
margins have Irequently been Iound to develop a solid Ioundation oI customer loyalty,
based on segmented service (Drucker, 1964; Porter, 1980, 1985; Farber and WycoII,
1991).
39
Determining optimum levels oI customer service is understood to depend on
accurately assessing customer expectations, so that companies are able to meet highly-
valued customer expectations and avoid employing those services that customers do not
value; regular customer Ieedback has been determined essential to such successIul
customer satisIaction strategies (Evelyn and DeCarlo, 1992; Miller, 1992; Peters and
Waterman, 1982; Peters and Austin, 1985; Sonnenberg, 1991). SuccessIul customer
service Iocused companies measure their service to ascertain how well they are satisIying
their customers (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Evelyn and DeCarlo,1992; Albrecht, 1992),
and superior companies have been shown to be consistently excellent listeners to their
customers ( Albrecht, 1992).
2.3.4 ConceptuaI service quaIity modeIs
In an eIIort to understand the main concepts incorporated under the umbrella oI
service quality better, many conceptual quality models have been postulated.
Obviously, service quality research has given the customer perspective a
predominant role and these quality models have centered on measuring the gap between
customer expectations and experiences as a determinant oI satisIaction. However, despite
the wealth oI inIormation which can be gleaned Irom these various service quality
models (Ior a review oI the main models see Dotchin and Oakland (Dotchin, J.A. and
Oakland, J.S., 1994)), we still lack substantial knowledge as to how consumer
evaluations oI a particular service are really Iormed. Much oI this recent research has
been carried out within the Iramework oI the Service Quality Gap Model oI Parasuraman
et al. (Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L, 1985). This conceptual
Iramework has made a substantial contribution to our understanding oI the concept oI
service quality and the Iactors that inIluence it, by identiIying Iour 'gaps which can
occur in organizations. According to Parasuraman et al. (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, Berry,
1985), a gap represents a signiIicant hurdle in achieving a satisIactory level oI service
quality. This model is more oI a diagnostic tool, which iI used properly should enable
management at all levels to identiIy service quality short-Ialls systematically. Since this
model is externally Iocused it has the potential to assist management in identiIying
pertinent service quality Iactors Irom the perspective oI the customer. These 'gaps can
cause quality problems and it is these quality problems which give rise to a IiIth gap the
40
diIIerence between the customer`s expectations oI the service and his/her perceptions oI
the service that is actually received. The authors have deIined this diIIerence as Service
Quality. In this respect, perceived service quality is the disconIirmation or disparity i.e.
the mismatch, between the consumer`s expectations and perceived service perIormance.
Without doubt, conceptual service quality models are useIul in so much as they
provide an overview oI the Iactors which have the potential to inIluence the quality oI an
organization and its service oIIerings. They Iacilitate our understanding and can help
organizations to clariIy how quality shortIalls develop. However, they are almost
invariably simpliIied versions oI reality.
They can be misleading in that they tend to suggest that there are simple
relationships between complex phenomenons, and that systems operate by rules oI cause
and eIIect. However, human behavior signiIicantly aIIects the quality oI an organization
and its oIIerings, and this is more evident in service organizations.
2.3.5 Dimensions of service quaIity
It would be impossible to ensure service quality without Iirst determining the
salient aspects that are incorporated under this term. Again, this poses some diIIiculty and
many possible attributes have been put Iorward in an attempt to capture the true meaning
oI service quality. Sasser et al. (Sasser, Olsen, and WyckoII, 1978) list seven service
attributes which they believe adequately embrace the concept oI service quality.
These include:
Security conIidence as well as physical saIety;
Consistency receiving the same each time;
Attitude politeness and social manners;
Completeness ancillary services available;
Condition oI Iacilities;
Availability access, location and Irequency; and
Training.
On the other hand, Grnroos (Grnroos, 1988, 1991), believes that service quality
is made up oI three dimensions, that is the 'technical quality oI the outcome, the
'Iunctional quality oI the encounter, and the 'company corporate image.
41
Lehtinen and Lehtinen (Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1991) also believe that service quality
comprises three dimensions.
These they deIine as the Physical Quality i.e. products and/or services, Corporate
Quality, i.e. the company image, and Interactive Quality, where the dimensions oI quality
originate in the interaction between the consumer and the service organization. They also
argue that in examining the determinants oI quality it is necessary to diIIerentiate
between quality associated with the process oI service delivery and quality associated
with the outcome oI service, judged by the consumer aIter the service is perIormed.
Johnston et al. (Johnston, Silvestro, Fitzgerald, and Voss, 1990) identiIied 15 dimensions
oI service quality which they categorized as Hygiene Factors, i.e. those Iactors which are
expected by the customer and iI they are not delivered will cause dissatisIaction;
Enhancing Factors which will lead to customer satisIaction, but iI they are not delivered
will not necessarily lead to dissatisIaction; and Dual-Threshold Factors, where Iailure to
deliver will cause dissatisIaction, but when delivered above a certain threshold, will
enhance customer`s perceptions oI service and lead to satisIaction. This idea is similar to
research put Iorward by Cadotte and Turgeon (Cadotte, Turgeon, 1988), who investigated
the key Iactors in guest satisIaction in the hotel industry, Iocusing on complaints and
compliments, together with Ieatures which they label 'dissatisIiers which earn
complaints iI present, but no compliments iI absent, and 'satisIiers which earn
compliments iI present, but no complaints iI absent. ThereIore, they believe that it is vital
Ior organizations to identiIy elements oI service which are potential satisIiers and/or
dissatisIiers. Parasuraman et al. (Parasuraman, 1985), oIIer the most widely reported set
oI service quality dimensions. They suggest that the criteria used by consumers that are
important in moulding their expectations and perceptions oI delivered service Iit into ten
dimensions:
(1) Tangibles; (2) Reliability;
(3) Responsiveness; (4) Communication;
(5) Credibility; (6) Security;
(7) Competence; (8) Courtesy;
(9) understanding/knowing the customer; (10) Access.
42
These were subsequently condensed into Iive dimensions oI service perIormance known
as SERVQUAL:
(1) Tangibles;
(2) Reliability;
(3) Responsiveness;
(4) Assurance; and
(5) Empathy.
to which Grnroos added a sixth dimension recovery (Grnroos, 1988).
Swartz and Brown (1989) attempted to synthesize the dimensions oI service
quality by illustrating the works oI the service quality dimensions studied by Grnroos
(1982), Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982) and Parasuraman et al. (1985). Their main
contribution was identiIying dimensions oI service quality based on the literature review
and categorizing them into 'what (i.e. service evaluated aIter perIormance) and 'how
(i.e. service evaluated during perIormance) categories. The work by Swartz and Brown,
however, does not reIlect Grnroos' (1990) later conceptualization oI service quality
perception that emphasizes the role oI image as a Iilter in the perception oI service
quality in addition to the technical and Iunctional quality dimensions.
A more recent conceptualization oI the service quality dimensions was proposed
by Rust and Oliver (1994). They proposed a three-component model in which the overall
perception oI service quality is based on a customer's evaluation oI three dimensions oI
the service encounter:
1. the customer-employee interaction (i.e. Iunctional or process quality),
2. the service environment, and
3. the outcome (i.e. technical quality).
While research supports the contention that the service environment aIIects
service quality perceptions (Bitner, 1992; Spangenberg et al., 1996), it is conceptually
diIIicult to distinguish the notion oI service environment Irom the concept oI Iunctional
quality that has been suggested in the literature. For example, Brady and Cronin (2001)
43
proposed three Iactors comprising the service environment, ambient conditions, Iacility
design, and social Iactors. The deIinition oIIered by Brady and Cronin (2001) suggests,
however, that the service environments are elements oI the service delivery process. In
short, in the interest oI parsimony it seems best to include elements oI the service
environment as components oI the Iunctional dimension.
With the plethora oI diIIerent deIinitions oI service quality perhaps Babakus and
Boller (Babakus, Boller, 1992) are correct in saying that service quality may be, 'an
umbrella construct with distinct dimensions although, there is as yet no real consensus
as to what these dimensions might be.
2.3.6 Service QuaIity Measurement
Service quality has been a Irequently studied topic in the service marketing
literature. EIIorts to understand and identiIy service quality have been undertaken in the
last three decades. A topic oI particular interest in service quality research is the issue oI
measurement. The actual quality oI service is diIIicult to deIine and measure (Gavin
1983; Parasuraman et al. 1988; Brown and Swartz 1989). However, researchers have
reached a consensus that service quality should be deIined and measured Irom the
customer`s perspective. The most widely accepted deIinition oI perceived service quality
is that it represents the discrepancy between customers` expectations and their
perceptions oI the service perIormance (Lewis and Booms 1983; Grnroos 1984;
Parasuraman et al. 1988).
There has been a debate regarding the inclusion oI expectations in the
measurement oI service quality (Teas 1993, 1994; Cronin and Taylor 1994; Parasuraman
et al. 1994). While Cronin and Taylor (1994) claimed that the perceived perIormance
measure possesses a high predictive ability, Parasuraman et al. (1994) assert that the
expectation measures can assist management in identiIying those areas which require
immediate attention.
However, Parasuraman et al. (1994) concur that iI the primary purpose oI
measuring perceived service quality is to explain the variance on some dependent
construct, then a perIormance-based measure is appropriate.(Tam, 2004)
Parasuraman et al, (1994) deIined service quality in a three-column Iormat: minimum
service level (would expectations), desired service level (should expectations), and
44
perceived perIormance. (Sachdev, Verma, 2004) There is a growing acceptance among
researchers that service quality can be tied to perceptions oI service perIormance
(Grnroos 1993; Dabholkar 1993).
The "expectation/perIormance" conceptualization oI service quality led
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry to develop the SERVQUAL approach Ior measuring
service quality in 1988. This method assesses both the consumer's service expectations
and perceptions oI the provider's perIormance. Positioned as a generic method applicable
to a wide range oI service industries, SERVQUAL has been widely applied and
Irequently reported in the marketing literature. (McAlexander, Kaldenberg, Dennis,
Koenig, Harold, 1994)
The service quality deIined in the SERVQUAL model determines the gap
between customers` expectations and perceptions. Namely, SQ P E, where SQ is
denoted as service quality, and P and E are denoted as customers` perceptions and
expectations, respectively. Respondents, thereIore, would have to complete all attributes
based on service expectations, Iollowed by a second set oI the same attributes, based on
their perceptions oI actual service received. As a result, completing the survey could
seem rather onerous. Thus, it has been suggested (i.e. Cunningham, et al., 2002) that
measuring service quality based only on the perceptions oI service perIormance would
suIIice, as in the so called the SERVPERF model: namely, SQ P.
However, the study oI Robledo (2001 ) indicated that the SERVPERF was not an
eIIicient measurement scale, in terms oI validity and reliability. In his study, an
alternative scale was proposed, called the SERVPEX, to measure service quality. The
concept oI SERVPEX incorporates expectations and perceptions into a single scale, Irom
'Much worse than expected to 'Much better than expected. AIter applying empirical
studies and comparing it to other measurement scales, i.e. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF,
Robledo (2001) successIully proved that the SERVPEX was superior, to both the
SERVQUAL and the SERVPERF, in terms oI validity and reliability.
45
2.4 SERVQUAL
2.4.1 The advent of SERVQUAL
In 1985, Parasuraman et al. developed the SERVQUAL instrument (reIined in
1988, 1991 and again in 1994), Ior the measurement oI service quality. It has become one
oI the most renowned in the service quality domain.
The Iive SERVQUAL dimension are a concise representation oI the core criteria
that customers employ in evaluating service quality. As such it is reasonable to speculate
that consumers would consider all Iive criteria to be quite important (Parasuraman, 1988)
It was developed to measure perceived service quality as the key output variable and in
its Iinalized Iorm it has 22 pairs oI Likert-type scales. The Iirst 22 items are designed to
measure customer expectations oI service Ior a particular service industry
('expectations), while the remaining 22 are intended to measure the perceived level oI
service provided by a particular service organization ('perceptions). Service quality is
then measured by calculating the diIIerence in scores between the corresponding items
(i.e. 'perceptions minus 'expectations). However, it is limited to current and past
customers, because respondents need to have some knowledge and experience oI the
organization in order to be able to complete the scale.
The SERVQUAL instrument was designed to measure service quality across a
range oI businesses. Parasuraman et al. (1985; 1988) measured the quality oI services
provided by the Iollowing:
retailbanks,
a long-distance telephone company,
a securities broker,
an appliance repair and maintenance Iirm, and
credit card companies.
The SERVQUAL scale was produced Iollowing procedures recommended Ior
developing valid and reliable measures oI marketing constructs ( Brown et al., 1993).
Parasuraman et al. concluded Irom their 1985 study that consumers evaluated service
quality by comparing expectations to perIormance on ten basic dimensions. The scale
46
(Parasuraman et al., 1988) was developed by, Iirst, writing a set oI about 100questions
that asked consumers to rate a service in terms both oI expectations and oI perIormance
on speciIic attributes that were thought to reIlect each oI the ten dimensions. Next, the
data were analyzed by grouping together sets oI questions that all appeared to measure
the same basic dimension, such as reliability.
Parasuraman et al. (1988) also tested their SERVQUAL scale Ior reliability and
validity. The major test oI reliability was coeIIicient alpha, a measure oI the extent oI
internal consistency between, or correlation among, the set oI questions making up each
oI the Iive dimensions, such as the Iive reliability questions. The minimum reliability that
is acceptable is diIIicult to speciIy. II reliability is low, such as below 0.60, one is Iaced
with the choice oI investing time and money in additional research in an attempt to
develop a revised measure with greater reliability, or using the measure, recognizing that
Iluctuations in measured quality may be due only to measurement rather than a change in
quality. High reliabilities, such as 0.90 or above, are desirable.
In principal, the validity oI a bathroom scale is easy to test as one could simply
place a standard weight on the scale and see iI the scale gave the correct value. The
validity oI a measure oI service quality is diIIicult to test as a proven criterion is not
available. The general approach to testing the validity oI marketing scales is to measure
the agreement between the measure oI interest, SERVQUAL, and a second measure oI
quality, convergent validity and/or a measure oI a variable that should be related to
quality, concurrent validity. Parasuraman et al. (1988) provided evidence oI convergent
validity as they measured agreement between the SERVQUAL score and a question that
asked customers to rate the overall quality oI the Iirm being judged and also concurrent
validity, whether the respondent would recommend the Iirm to a Iriend.
2.4.2 SERVQUAL modeI
The service quality literature initially Iocused on measurement issues. Following
the introduction oI SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1985), attention centered on the
determinants oI perceived service quality with particular emphasis on the service delivery
process. SERVQUAL, with its Iive dimensions (i.e. tangible, assurance, reliability,
47
responsiveness, and empathy) has come to symbolize the American perspective on
service quality (Brady and Cronin, 2001). The European perspective, best represented in
Grnroos` service quality model (Grnroos, 1982, 1990) included not only the process or
'Iunctional aspect oI service but also the technical or outcome-related aspect as well as
the corporate image oI the Iirm. Recent work suggests that the Iive SERVQUAL
dimensions are captured by a second-order latent variable corresponding to 'Iunctional
quality in the European model (Kang and James, 2004).
SERVQUAL is designed to measure service quality as perceived by the customer.
Consumers in the Iocus groups discussed service quality in terms oI the extent to which
service perIormance on the dimensions matched the level oI perIormance that consumers
thought a service should provide. A high quality service would perIorm at a level that
matched the level that the consumer Ielt should be provided. The level oI perIormance
that a high quality service should provide was termed consumer expectations. II
perIormance was below expectations, consumers judged quality to be low. To illustrate,
iI a Iirm`s responsiveness was below consumer expectations oI the responsiveness that a
high quality Iirm should have, the Iirm would be evaluated as low in quality on
responsiveness. Parasuraman et al.`s (1985; 1988) basic model was that consumer
perceptions oI quality emerge Irom the gap between perIormance and expectations, as
perIormance exceeds expectations, quality increases; and as perIormance decreases
relative to expectations, quality decreases (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988). Thus,
perIormance-to-expectations 'gaps on attributes that consumers use to evaluate the
quality oI a service Iorm the theoretical Ioundation oI SERVQUAL.
Accepting the general validity oI the SERVQUAL model (Zeithaml et al., 1990),
which assesses gaps between customer expectations oI service quality and their
perceptions oI its actual delivery by the provider, this study explores the adaptability oI
the SERVQUAL model to international markets, Irom earlier domestic applications Ior
aggregate assessments oI customer service quality (Boulding et al., 1993; Carman, 1990;
McDougall and Snetsinger, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1994; Brown and Swartz, 1989;
Webster, 1989, 1991; Lambert and Harrington, 1989). The SERVQUAL model
concentrates on Iive ``gaps'' impairing the delivery oI excellent service quality; this study
48
Iocuses on Gap 5: the diIIerence between airline passenger expectations and perceptions
oI service.
BeIore concerted eIIorts can be successIully undertaken to redress service
management problems that impede the delivery oI truly excellent service quality, it is
essential to know to what degree customer perceptions oI existing service Iail to meet
expectations; this study Iocuses on that primary issue. ThereaIter it becomes important to
know whether diIIerences exist in management perceptions oI customer expectations
(Gap 1), a discrepancy in management perceptions and the service speciIications that are
enacted (Gap 2), etc. Thus we study Gap 5 which Iocuses on the diIIerences between
consumer expectations and perceptions. This is also the only gap that can be examined
solely on the data Irom the consumer; study oI other gaps, while important, would require
data collection Irom companies themselves.
49
Figure 2.2: SERVQUAL
Source: (Grnroos, 2000)
50
2.5 TheoreticaI background of Grnroos's service quaIity modeI
The construct oI service quality as conceptualized in the service marketing
literature centers on perceived quality, deIined as a consumer`s judgment about an
entity`s overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml, 1987). While the SERVQUAL
instrument has been widely used, it has been subject to criticism (Asubonteng et al.,
1996; Buttle, 1996). Criticisms include the use oI diIIerence scores, dimensionality,
applicability and the lack oI validity oI the model, especially with respect to the
dependence or independence oI the Iive main variables (Babakus and Boller, 1992;
Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). The criticism oI note to this study is the point
that SERVQUAL Iocuses on the service delivery process and does not address the
serviceencounter outcomes (Grnroos, 1990; Mangold and Babakus, 1991). It is
interesting to note that the developers oI SERVQUAL initially suggested that service
quality consists oI Iunctional (process) and technical (outcome) dimensions (Parasuraman
et al., 1985). However, the SERVQUAL instrument does not include any measure oI the
technical quality dimension.
The American perspective oI service quality is based primarily on Parasuraman et
al.'s (1985, 1988) proposition that service quality may be evaluated based on the
Iunctional quality dimension, characterized by Iive components. As noted earlier, this
perspective does not account Ior additional dimensions oI service quality. A more
complete representation oI service quality, based on the European perspective (Grnroos,
1982, 1990; Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1982), should include three dimensions, technical,
Iunctional, and image. The current study seeks to extend our understanding oI service
quality by assessing a three-dimensional model that includes technical quality, Iunctional
quality, and image, based on Grnroos' (1982, 1990) model.
With the suggestion that the 'perceived service quality model replace the
product Ieatures oI a physical product in the consumption oI services, Grnroos (1982)
identiIied two service quality dimensions, the technical aspect ('what service is
provided) and the Iunctional aspect ('how the service is provided). The customers
perceive what s/he receives as the outcome oI the process in which the resources are
51
used, i.e. the technical or outcome quality oI the process. But s/he also and oIten more
importantly, perceives how the process itselI Iunctions, i.e. the Iunctional or process
quality dimension. For some services the 'what (or technical quality) might be diIIicult
to evaluate.
Starting with the proposition that service quality is multidimensional, it is possible
to develop a Iramework to illustrate the structure oI service quality. Developing such a
Iramework involves identiIying the dimensions oI service quality (technical and
Iunctional), and the components thought to make up each dimension. Marketing scholars
have yet to identiIy attributes (or components) that deIine the technical quality
dimension, although it is widely accepted that technical quality signiIicantly aIIects
customers' perceptions oI service quality (Grnroos, 1982, 1990; Rust and Oliver, 1994).
Attempts to measure technical quality have generally involved the use oI
qualitative methods (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Powpaka, 1996; Richard and Allaway,
1993). Brady and Cronin (2001) administered open-ended surveys that asked respondents
to complete a questionnaire about the speciIic attributes they perceived regarding service
experiences. Powpaka (1996) and Richard and Allaway (1993) employed in-depth
interviews to discover relevant determinants oI technical quality. The various studies
have each used diIIerent items to measure technical quality. The Iindings to date suggest
that there is no underlying latent variable associated with a technical quality dimension.
The lack oI attention to technical quality requires that researchers develop their own
measures to assess the dimension.
Grnroos also emphasized the importance oI corporate image in the experience oI
service quality, similar to the idea proposed by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982). Customers
bring their earlier experiences and overall perceptions oI a service Iirm to each encounter
because customers oIten have continuous contacts with the same service Iirm (Grnroos,
2001). ThereIore, the image concept was introduced as yet another important component
in the perceived service quality model, so that the dynamic aspect oI the service
perception process was considered as well. A Iavorable and well-known image is an asset
Ior any Iirm because image has an impact on customer perceptions oI the communication
52
and operations oI the Iirm in many respects. II a service provider has a positive image in
the minds oI customers, minor mistakes will be Iorgiven. II mistakes oIten occur,
however, the image will be damaged. II a provider's image is negative, the impact oI any
mistake will oIten be magniIied in the consumer's mind. In a word, image can be viewed
as a Iilter in terms oI a consumer's perception oI quality. The technical quality
dimensions and image are, in general, more diIIicult to deIine and measure (Kang, James,
2004).
Being explicitly inIluenced by the European perspective, Parasuraman et al.
(1985) suggested that quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome oI service;
they also involve evaluations oI the service delivery process. While the dimensions are
intercorrelated, the primary basis Ior the dichotomy rests with when the evaluation
occurs. For process quality, the evaluation occurs while the service is being perIormed.
For outcome quality, evaluation happens aIter service perIormance and Iocuses on
'what service is delivered. However, their measurement oI service quality (i.e.
SERVQUAL) does not explicitly reIlect both dimensions, but a Iunctional dimension
only. The Iocus on a Iunctional dimension is one criticism oI SERVQUAL.
Swartz and Brown (1989) attempted to synthesize the dimensions oI service
quality by illustrating the works oI the service quality dimensions studied by Grnroos
(1982), Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982) and Parasuraman et al. (1985). Their main
contribution was identiIying dimensions oI service quality based on the literature review
and categorizing them into 'what (i.e. service evaluated aIter perIormance) and 'how
(i.e. service evaluated during perIormance) categories. The work by Swartz and Brown,
however, does not reIlect Grnroos` (1990) later conceptualization oI service quality
perception that emphasizes the role oI image as a Iilter in the perception oI service
quality in addition to the technical and Iunctional quality dimensions.
A more recent conceptualization oI the service quality dimensions was proposed
by Rust and Oliver (1994). They proposed a three-component model in which the overall
perception oI service quality is based on a customer`s evaluation oI three dimensions oI
the service encounter:
53
(1) the customer-employee interaction (i.e. Iunctional or process quality),
(2) the service environment, and
(3) the outcome (i.e. technical quality).
While research supports the contention that the service environment aIIects
service quality perceptions (Bitner, 1992; Spangenberg et al., 1996), it is conceptually
diIIicult to distinguish the notion oI service environment Irom the concept oI Iunctional
quality that has been suggested in the literature. For example, Brady and Cronin (2001)
proposed three Iactors comprising the service environment, ambient conditions, Iacility
design, and social Iactors. The deIinition oIIered by Brady and Cronin (2001) suggests,
however, that the service environments are elements oI the service delivery process. In
short, in the interest oI parsimony it seems best to include elements oI the service
environment as components oI the Iunctional dimension. Research model (Grnroos`s
service quality model) The American perspective oI service quality is based primarily on
Parasuraman et al.`s (1985, 1988) proposition that service quality may be evaluated based
on the Iunctional quality dimension, characterized by Iive components. As noted earlier,
this perspective does not account Ior additional dimensions oI service quality.Amore
complete representation oI service quality, based on the European perspective (Grnroos,
1982, 1990; Lehtinen and Lehtinen, 1982), should include three dimensions, technical,
Iunctional, and image. The current study seeks to extend our understanding oI service
quality by assessing a three-dimensional model that includes technical quality, Iunctional
quality, and image, based on Grnroos` (1982, 1990) model. Starting with the proposition
that service quality is multidimensional, it is possible to develop a Iramework to illustrate
the structure oI service quality. Developing such a Iramework involves identiIying the
dimensions oI service quality (technical and Iunctional), and the components thought to
make up each dimension. Marketing scholars have yet to identiIy attributes (or
components) that deIine the technical quality dimension, although it is widely accepted
that technical quality signiIicantly aIIects customers` perceptions oI service quality
(Grnroos, 1982, 1990; Rust and Oliver, 1994).
54
Attempts to measure technical quality have generally involved the use oI
qualitative methods (Brady and Cronin, 2001; Powpaka, 1996; Richard and Allaway,
1993). Brady and Cronin (2001) administered open-ended surveys that asked respondents
to complete a questionnaire about the speciIic attributes they perceived regarding service
experiences. Powpaka (1996) and Richard and Allaway (1993) employed in-depth
interviews to discover relevant determinants oI technical quality. The various studies
have each used diIIerent items to measure technical quality. The Iindings to date suggest
that there is no underlying latent variable associated with a technical quality dimension.
The lack oI attention to technical quality requires that researchers develop their own
measures to assess the dimension.
Several authors have utilized the SERVQUAL instrument to measure the
Iunctional quality dimension (Powpaka, 1996; Richard and Allaway, 1993). Brady and
Cronin (2001, p. 36) suggested that the SERVQUAL model uses the terms that describe
one or more determinants oI a 'quality service encounter. That is, they suggested that
the instrument may be used to assess the service delivery process which happens during
the encounter between a service provider and customers, in order to shed some light on
our understanding oI Iunctional quality. Based on the preceding discussion, a hierarchical
structure oI service quality and the relationships among the dimensions are proposed
(Figure 2.1).
The model proposes that service quality consists oI technical and Iunctional
dimensions, and that a service organization`s image Iunctions as a Iilter in the perception
oI service quality. The model also proposes that there are direct relationships between
service quality perception and the technical and Iunctional quality dimensions, in addition
to the indirect eIIects oI technical and Iunctional quality on service quality perception.
Finally, the model suggests that service quality leads to customer satisIaction.
There is theoretical support Ior a multidimensional, multi-level model oI service quality
(Carman, 1990; Dabholkar et al., 1996; McDougall and Levesque, 1994), but little eIIort
has been taken to conceptualize and empirically test such a structure. Research on service
quality and its relationship to customer satisIaction has been broadly conducted in the
55
literature (Oliver, 1993; Taylor and Baker, 1994), but the role oI image in the perception
oI service quality has received no attention Irom academicians. European scholars have
suggested the importance oI image, but their suggestions have been restricted to the
conceptual level. Accordingly, the current study was undertaken in an eIIort to better
understand the nature oI the dimension(s) oI service quality based on the European
perspective and to provide some insights regarding the perception oI service quality.
Figure 2.3: Grnroos`s service quality model
Source: (Grnroos, 2000)
56
Chapter 3
3 Research MethodoIogy
Four types oI studies can be called research namely, reporting, description,
explanation and prediction can be called research.
Cooper and Emory (1995) deIine research as a systematic inquiry aimed at
providing inIormation to solve problems. Academic research needs to go beyond mere
description, rhetoric and sales stories. Questions need to be posed and investigated;
themes need to be analyzed.
57
3.1 Purpose of research
Yin (1994) categorizes case studies as exploratory, explanatory and descriptive.
Exploratory research involves gathering inIormation and developing ideas about a
relatively under-researched problem or context. The value oI exploratory research could
be that it clears the ground Ior other kinds oI research, or that it throws up interesting
diIIerences and comparisons between more well-studied topics, and those that are less
well-studied. The prime purpose is to develop understanding in an area that is little
understood. Since exploratory research` implies there is less oI a basis Irom which to
conduct research, and that a given area is not well understood, it is more appropriate to
carry out this kind oI research using qualitative methods. Though one might develop
hypotheses, this kind oI research would not involve testing particular hypotheses. In the
scope oI a dissertation, it could be quite diIIicult to pursue a research question that is
exploratory, since there is less scope to build on the work oI others. You would also need
to know a body oI literature quite well beIore you could demonstrate that what you were
doing was in some way original or new, and that you could justiIy spending time as an
explorer`. It might also be harder to justiIy recommendations.
Unsurprisingly, descriptive research involves describing a problem, context or a
situation. This is a Ieature oI exploratory research as well oI course; however
descriptive-type questions are generally more structured, and more reliant on prior ideas
and methods. You would more usually be describing what was happening in terms oI
pre-existing analytical categories, or relying on other ideas in some way. The basis Ior
investigation might be a body oI ideas in a given Iield (local government), or related area
(public sector management), and it could be the case that you develop hypotheses and
explanations Ior what is going on. This type oI study could be suited to either qualitative
or quantitative methods: Ior example a case study is a descriptive piece oI research; but
statistics and numerical data can also be used to describe. A Iailing oI some descriptive
research can be that it leaves the reader thinking so what`. To avoid this, you would
need to show how your in depth description oI what was happening somewhere had
wider implications.
58
Explanatory research can be thought as being concerned with causes. The Iocus
here is on seeking and providing or evaluating an explanation between two or more
phenomena, low pay causes people to leave`, or poor management practices cause
people to leave` Ior example. Explanatory research typically seeks to identiIy and
explain a causal relationship that is substantively important or meaningIul. In this kind oI
research, people typically develop hypotheses to be tested (in light oI the extant
literature) and then see whether the data they have collected can be called on to support
or reIute those hypotheses. This type oI approach is more likely to employ quantitative
methods, typically a survey, but one could also seek explanatory type research using case
study, or observational data. (Morrel, 2006)
The purpose oI this thesis is descriptive because we depict customer satisIaction
among the Iran Aseman Airline passengers. Also the questions are generally structured to
describe Iactors which result in less satisIied passengers.
3.2 Research Approach
It is easy to memorize a list oI Iactors to use in distinguishing between
quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. Quantitative research is objective;
qualitative research is subjective. Quantitative research seeks explanatory laws;
qualitative research aims at in-depth description. Quantitative research measures what it
assumes to be a static reality in hopes oI developing universal laws. Qualitative research
is an exploration oI what is assumed to be a dynamic reality. It does not claim that what
is discovered in the process is universal and, thus, replicable. (Mc.Kereghan, 1998)
This thesis is somewhat qualitative research because satisIaction should be
described and it can not be measured by numbers; it is quantitative research in the sense
that we compare Iactors oI service quality together and Iind top priorities.
3.3 Research Strategy
Yin (1989) suggests that 'empirical research advances only when it is
accompanied by logical thinking, and not when it is treated as a mechanistic endeavour.
He indicates that case studies are preIerred when 'how or 'why questions are being
59
posed, when the investigator has little control over events and when the Iocus is on
contemporary phenomena. (Morrel, 2006)
The purpose oI this thesis was to Iind inIormation to answer 'how questions. The
study did not require control over behavioral events. The study Iocused on collecting,
analyzing and comparing data to get the opportunity to Iind critical elements inIluencing
passenger satisIaction and to make comparisons between them.
3.4 Data CoIIection Method
Case studies can incorporate several diIIerent methods, including participant
observation, structured or unstructured interviews and examination oI documentary
material.
BeIore considering systematic methods Ior collecting data, you should remember
that inIormal methods Ior obtaining inIormation Irom customers clearly produce
inIormation that is valuable. Everyone needs to recognize and use these everyday
opportunities Ior customer Ieedback. Use this inIormation to complement the more
systematic Iorms oI gathering Ieedback discussed here.
Many Iormal methods can be used to collect customer Ieedback data. Methods
Irequently used to gather customer Ieedback include Iocus groups, a mail-back postcard
that is included among materials sent to customers, a mail survey, electronic kiosk, a
telephone survey, a publication evaluation Iorm included at the back oI every copy, and a
printed or in-person survey (which might include computer-assisted personal interviews
or an intercept survey where you ask every customer attending a Iunction or visiting a
Iacility to participate). (Institute Ior Citizen-Centred Service, 2001)
3.4.1 Questionnaires and Interviews
The major diIIerence between questionnaires and interviews is the presence oI an
interviewer. In questionnaires, responses are limited to answers to predetermine
questions. In interviews, since the interviewer is present with the subject, there is an
opportunity to collect nonverbal data as well and to clariIy the meaning oI questions iI
the subjects do not understand.
60
The written questionnaire has some advantages. For one thing, it is likely to be
less expensive, particularly in terms oI the time spent collecting the data. Questionnaires
can be given to large numbers oI people simultaneously; they can also be sent by mail.
ThereIore, it is possible to cover wide geographic areas and to question large number oI
people relatively inexpensively.
Another advantage oI questionnaires is that subjects are more likely to Ieel that
they can remain anonymous and thus may be more likely to express controversial
opinions. This is more diIIicult in an interview, where the opinion must be given directly
to the interviewer. Also, the written question is standard Irom one subject to the next and
is not susceptible to changes in emphasis as can be case in oral questioning. There is
always the possibility, however, that the written question will be interpreted diIIerently
by diIIerent readers, which is one reason Ior careIully pre-testing questionnaires.
The Iormat oI interviews and questionnaires, as that oI observational methods,
can range Irom very structured to very unstructured, depending on how much is known
about the range oI possible responses.
Advantages oI the Interview
Advantages oI the
Questionnaire
The subfect needs be able to read
or write
This approach is less expensive
in terms of time and monev
The interviewer can observe the
responses of the subfect
Subfects feel a greater sense of
anonvmitv
Questions mav be clarified if thev
are misunderstood
The format is standard for all
subfects and is not dependent on
mood of interviewer
An-depth data mav be obtained
on anv subfect and are not
dependent on predetermined
questions
Large samples, covering large
geographic areas, compensate
for the expected loss of subfects
There is a higher response and
retention rate
A greater amount of data over a
broad range of topics mav be
collected
Table 3.1: Interview & Questionnaire advantages
Source: (Intro to Research Methods, http://cbdd.wsu.edu , 2006)
61
In deciding the questions to ask customers, it is a good idea to keep two principles
in mind:
1) Make sure the questions and answers address your objectives, and
2) Set limits on the length oI the survey instrument.
Survey questions are generally oI two types: open-ended and closed-ended. In
open-ended questions, customers create their own answers.
Closed-ended questions limit the responses customers can provide. They may
include yes/no answers, categories oI responses, rank-ordered responses, or scales.
With closed-ended questions, it is relatively easy to record and analyze responses,
and you will not receive irrelevant or unintelligible responses. However, you risk missing
the boat. (Intro to Research Methods, 2006)
The research has utilized all oI these approaches. Interviews were used to Iind
critical Iactors oI the passenger satisIaction and necessary to add in questionnaire,
generally lasted a-halI hours and were unstructured. Observation has been used to
examine teams and personnel and Iacilities involved in quality improvement in action.
This provides insights to get some other Iactors aIIecting the satisIaction. At the end, a
questionnaire was designed and developed to get passengers idea about service quality in
IAA.
3.5 SampIing SeIection
II the number oI customers oI interest is relatively small - not more than 50 - each
could be contacted to obtain Ieedback. This is the census approach. In many cases,
services or products are provided to a large group oI customers - too large Ior a census
approach. In such cases, a sampling approach is needed, and two options are possible:
a judgment sample, in which you consciously select the customers you
will contact Irom the entire group oI customers served, and
a probabilistic sample, in which customers you will contact are picked
randomly Irom the entire group oI customers served during the period interest (i.e. the
past year).
In most cases, it is better to rely on a probabilistic sample than a judgment
sample. Judgment samples may be biased because oI the way customers are selected Ior
the study. II a sample is biased, it is impossible to draw inIerences about the entire group
62
oI customers served. As long as the response rate is high enough, probabilistic samples
are not biased, so inIerences can be made about the entire group oI customers represented
by the ones selected. (Institute Ior Citizen-Centred Service, 2001)
We preIerred to use a probabilistic sample. The passengers were picked randomly
Irom local and international Ilights during one week. IAA transIers about 25,000
passengers in a week.
3.5.1 SampIe Size
The best advice Ior the novice researcher is to use as large a sample as possible.
Large samples maximize the possibility that the means, percentages, and other statistics
are true estimates oI the population. They give the eIIects oI randomness a chance to
work. The chance oI error goes down in direct proportion to the increased size oI the
sample. However, practical consideration is important too-Ior example, how many
people are.
With random samples, it is possible to set the size oI the sample according to how
accurately you want to estimate the actual population parameters, or how much sampling
error you are willing to accept. The basic Iormula Ior computing the sampling error Ior a
sample estimate oI a population parameter is as Iollows:
Sampling error
sample) oI (Size
units) sampling the among (values t measuremen the oI y variabilit
II you attempt to predict the necessary sample size Ior your study using the
Iormula, you will see that the larger the percentage oI possible error you are willing to
accept, the smaller your sample can be. ThereIore, the more accuracy you are trying to
achieve, the larger the sample should be.
However, this Iormula is applicable only to probability samples. When you do
use it, you must know the variance oI the measurement you plan to use with your
63
population. This means that the measurement must be at least at an interval scale, so that
the variance can be calculated.
The measurement must also have been used beIore with the same or a similar
population so that the variance is known. You will Iind that iI the variance is small, the
sample size needs to be as large as when the variance is large.
When none oI the measurements vary too Iar Irom the mean Ior the population, it
takes too Iar Irom the mean Ior the population; it takes only a small sample to obtain
measurements that accurately reIlect the population. But iI there is a lot oI variation in
measurements, a larger group will be needed to incorporate the entire range oI scores in
the sample. (Intro to Research Methods, 2006)
We did a pilot test and the standard variations in Iactors oI service quality
measurement in Grnroos model were as below:
Items Means Standard Variation in Tangibles: 0.708
Items Means Standard Variation in Reliability: 0.301
Items Means Standard Variation in Responsiveness: 0.521
Items Means Standard Variation in Assurance: 0.263
Items Means Standard Variation in Empathy: 0.755
Items Means Standard Variation in Technical Iactors: 0.605
Items Means Standard Variation in Image: 0.603
We decided to have 5 sampling error which is appropriate enough Ior an
academic study. To choose a precise sample size, the biggest standard variation oI Iactors
was selected that belonged to items means standard variation Ior empathy. Following the
Iormula:
0.05
sample) oI (Size
0.755
Size oI sample
64
At the result, 230passengers oI Iran Aseman Airl ine were picked randomly
during a week to answer the questionnaire.
3.6 VaIidity
Validity reIers to the accuracy oI a measure and a measurement is valid when it
measures what it is suppose to measure and perIorms the Iunctions that it purports to
perIorm. There are three major methods oI estimating the validity oI a data collection
instrument. The greater the degree oI validity oI the data collection device, the more
conIident you will be that the results you achieve reIlect true diIIerences in the scores oI
your subjects and not some random or constant error, the degree oI validity will reIlect
the degree to which we are controlling accounting Ior constant error.
The degrees to which valid measurements can be achieved are directly related to
the level oI the study design. Exploratory descriptive designs, by nature, have a low level
oI validation and must rely heavily on estimates oI reliability. Level II descriptive survey
designs can achieve a greater degree oI validity but must still rely heavily on reliability
estimates. Level III demands the highest degree oI validity testing and uses reliability
testing only to account Ior gaps in the attainment oI validity.
Just as control over the independent variable must increase with the level oI
design, so must control Ior error in data collection. Methods oI establishing validity oI
the measurement technique Iall into one oI three categories: selI-evident measures,
pragmatic measures, and construct validity. (Validity oI Measurement , 2006 )
3.6.1 SeIf-Evident Measures
These methods oI establishing validity deal with basic levels oI knowledge about
the variable and look as an instrument`s apparent value as a measurement technique
rather than at its actual value. In other words, selI-evident measures reIer to the Iact that
the instrument appears to measure what it is supposed to measure.
65
3.6.2 Face VaIidity
At the most basic level, when little or nothing is known about the variable being
measured, the level oI validity obtainable is called Iace validity. 'On the Iace oI it...
merely establishes that the tool seems an appropriate way to Iind out what you want to
know. Looking at the questions you have developed to ask your subjects, you can say, 'I
think I will Iind out what I want to know by asking these questions. It looks all right to
me.
This is the extent oI Iace validity. It is the lowest level oI validation and is used
only when you are beginning to study a particular variable and have nor prior research
literature to reIer to. II there is literature on the variable, either theory or research, then
Iace validity is not suIIicient. II you have chosen to study a variable that has not been
studied beIore, you will usually start with Iace validity, since it is the beginning step oI
the validation process.
3.6.2 Content VaIidity
Content validity is also a selI-evident measure but involves comparing the content
oI the measurement technique to the known literature on the topic and validating the Iact
that the tool does represent the literature accurately. You want to obtain an adequate
sampling oI the content area being studied.
Content validity is Irequently estimated Irom the review oI the literature on the
topic or through consultation with experts in the Iield who have become experts by
having done unpublished research in the area. AIter you have critically reviewed the
literature, you construct your questions or instruments to cover the known content
represented in the literature.
Content validity is a selI-evident measure because it relies on the assurance that
you can demonstrate an adequate coverage oI the known Iield. An expert should be able
to judge whether or not the tool adequately samples the known content. Researchers,
thereIore, Irequently call upon experts in the Iield to veriIy content validity Ior newly
developed tools.
66
In exploratory descriptive studies using participant observation, you may be in
situations where you do not know either the setting or the population. You assume that
the persons you select to represent the population are knowledgeable about the content
you are trying to elicit. In this case, you assume that the members oI a group or
population have Iace validity as experts in their culture or social roles, and you try to
Iurther validate each person`s report by talking with as many experts as possible. The
more people you questions, the more content you will gain and the more depth oI data
you will have at your disposal. 'On the Iace oI it your inIormants appear to have Iace
validity; you establish content validity oI the data by cross-checking the answers with
several inIormants until you are satisIied that the content is accurate.
3.6.4 Pragmatic Measures
Pragmatic measures oI validity essentially test the practical value oI a particular
research instrument or tool and Iocus on the questions, 'Does it work? 'Does it do what
it is supposed to do? Pragmatic validation procedures attempt to answer these
questions. The two types oI pragmatic measures are called concurrent validity and
predictive validity.
3.6.5 Concurrent VaIidity
Instruments that attempt to test a research subject on some current characteristic
have concurrent validity iI the results are compared and have a high correlation with an
established (tested) measurement. Suppose you had developed a checklist to measure
pilots` job satisIaction. To validate this test, you would need to compare it with the
results oI an established job satisIaction instrument shown to be valid Ior pilots. A high
correlation between the results oI the two tests would indicate concurrent validity Ior
your checklist.
3.6.6 Predictive VaIidity
Instruments that accurately predict some Iuture occurrence have predictive
validity. Measures designed to predict success in transportation programs Iall into this
category, as do aptitude tests. They are designed to measure some current characteristic
67
that is expected to predict something that will occur sometime in the Iuture. Predictive
validity is established by measuring the trait now and waiting to see iI the event occurs as
predicted. Once predictive validity has been established, the instrument can be used with
conIidence to discriminate between people on the basis oI expected outcome.
3.6.7 Construct VaIidity
Construct validity provides the highest level oI validation the most complex. It
deals with the validation oI the construct (theory, proposition, hypothesis or principle)
that underlies the research. Here you are testing the theory that underlies the hypothesis
or research question. The term is derived Irom the Iact that the characteristic under study
is not a directly observable phenomenon but, rather, an abstraction or construct developed
Irom observed behavior.
To test the construct validity oI a measuring instrument, you need to compare it
with a number oI other instruments that test Ior a similar construct. Instruments that test
Ior part oI the overall construct should correlate highly with your new instrument. Those
that measure diIIerent, but related, theories should diIIerentiate between yours and the
others.
This study is not aiming to make any generalizations, thus this test will be taken
into consideration. In this research, we have used interviews and questionnaires as
sources oI evidence. However the interviews have used to complement the questionnaire
and are not included in the analysis. The questionnaire was made through studies and
reviewing diIIerent similar researches and interviews with my supervisors, teachers, some
airline passengers, and some employees oI travel agencies and managers oI IAA. A pilot
test was conducted to get the passengers` Ieedback to modiIy and improve questionnaire
Ior getting desired results. The respondents were asked to answer the questions during the
Ilights or aIter that to be able to evaluate service quality and explain their perceptions in
compared with their expectations.
68
3.7 ReIiabiIity
Reliability reIers to the consistency, stability, and repeatability oI a data collection
instrument. A reliable instrument does not respond to chance Iactors or environmental
conditions; it will have consistent results iI repeated overtime or iI used by two diIIerent
investigators. Reliability demonstrates that the operations oI a study- such as the data
collection procedures- can be repeated, with the same results. (Yin, 1984)
The reliability oI an instrument says nothing about its validity. It can be
measuring the wrong concept in a consistent, stable Iashion. There are three methods oI
testing the reliability oI research instruments:
tests Ior the stability oI the instruments (how stable it is over time)
tests Ior equivalence (consistency oI the results by diIIerent investigators
or similar tests at the same time)
internal consistency (the measurement oI the concept is consistent in all
parts oI the test).
Each test oI reliability looks at a diIIerent aspect oI the instrument. When
developing, adapting, or utilizing someone else`s research instrument, you need to use
one or more oI these tests to establish the level oI reliability oI the instrument Ior your
own use.
3.7.1 Tests of StabiIity
A stable research instrument is one that can be repeated on the same individual
more than once and achieve the same results. Testing Ior stability, however, can be done
only when you assume that the aspect being measured has remained constant. Repeated
observations and test/retest procedures are used to test the stability oI an instrument.
Even iI there are transient inIluences present in the situation, it should measure the same
way (within a reasonable range) each time the test is given.
69
3.7.2 Tests of EquivaIence
Tests oI equivalence attempt to determine iI the same results and can be obtained
using diIIerent observers at the same time or iI similar tests given at the same time yield
the same results.
In observational methods, when the characteristic being observed is expected to
change over time, a test oI stability cannot be used. The only way to determine iI
consistent (reliable) results can be obtained is to have two observers using the same
instrument at the same time. Their results are compared, and the same results should be
expected.
When using a questionnaire, alternate Iorms oI the questions can be used to
determine equivalence. Two questionnaires are developed to measure the same content,
the questions are interspersed, and the double questionnaire is administered to the same
subjects simultaneously. Then, the questionnaires are separated Ior analysis, and the
results are correlated the same way as a test/retest would be.
3.7.3 Test of InternaI Consistency
Internal consistency reIers to the extent to which all parts oI the measurement
technique are measuring the same concept. For example, when developing a
questionnaire to measure depression oI air traIIic controllers, each question should
provide a measure oI depression consistent with the overall results oI the test.
To test the internal consistency oI a questionnaire, the split-halI method is oIten
used. In this method, a questionnaire is divided in halI by some random method, and the
two halves are correlated. II they consistently measure the same concept, a high
correlation will be obtained.
To determine the reliability oI the laboratory doing the tests, two parts oI the same
specimen can be sent separately to the same laboratory Ior analysis. The results can then
be compared Ior consistency. (Reliability oI Measurement , 2006)
70
Cronbach`s was used as an examination indicator to determine the reliability oI
the measurement scale oI service quality aIter pilot test. The value oI Cronbach`s u is
generally required to be over 0.7 and the calculated results were over 0.7 in 7 Iactors oI
service quality in Grnroos model. The Iigures representing as the output oI pilot test, it
was observed that the reliability oI all service dimensions, in terms oI Cronbach`s u, was
greater than 0.7. This meant that the Grnroos measurement scale, applied in this paper,
was reliable.
71
Chapter 4
4 Data AnaIysis
4.1 Service QuaIity Measurement
A widely used method oI measuring service quality is the gap analysis model,
originally developed by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman in 1988, shown in Figure 2.2
(Grnroos, 2000). The model concentrates on Iive gaps` which can impair the extent oI
service quality delivered. This study Iocused on Gap 5: the diIIerence between airline
passengers` experiences and expectations oI service. The result can be either positive (the
72
experience was better than the passenger though it would be) or negative (the experience
was worse than expected). Although the other Iour gaps are also important Iactors in
service quality, Gap 5 is the only one that can be determined solely Irom data collected
Irom airline passengers; in order to determine the other gaps, we would require data Irom
the airline, itselI. In order to measure Gap 5, which determines the diIIerence between
customer expectations and perceptions, the SERVQUAL instrument, developed by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry in 1985 and improved by 'Grnroos (Grnroos, 2000)
was adopted. It contained seven determinants; they are Tangibles`, Reliability`,
Responsiveness`, Assurance`, Empathy`, Technical` and Image`. Details Irom these
service attributes are presented in Table 4.1.
TAN1 Appearance, attitudes and uniIorms oI employees.
TAN2 In-Ilight modern and clean Iacilities.
TAN3 Variety and quality oI in-Ilight meals.
TAN4 Variety and choices oI in-Ilight entertainment Iacilities.
TAN5 Providing visually appealing equipment
REL1 EIIiciency oI the check-in process
REL2 TransIer service and eIIiciency at departure airport
REL3 On-time perIormance oI scheduled Ilights.
REL4 Remedial procedures Ior delayed or missing baggage
REL5 Providing ground / in-Ilight services consistently
REL6 PerIorming the services right the Iirst time
RES1 Capable to response to emergency situations.
RES2 Prompt attention to passengers` speciIic needs.
RES3 Understanding the speciIic needs oI passengers.
RES4 Keeping customers inIormed about when services will be perIormed
RES5
Prompt respond oI employees oI the airline to your request or
complaint
RES6 Capacity to respond to cancelled or delayed Ilights.
ASS1 Sincerity and patience in resolving passengers` problems.
ASS2 Probability oI Ilight breakdowns.
ASS3 SaIety perIormance oI airline.
ASS4 Knowledgeable and skillIul provision oI services.
ASS5 Sincere and responsive attitude to passenger complaints.
ASS 6 Employees instill conIidence to passengers
73
ASS7 employees are consistently courteous
ASS8 Knowledgeable employees to answer customer question
EMP1 Numerous, easy-to-use ticketing channels.
EMP2 Convenient Ilight scheduling.
EMP3 Spontaneous care and concern Ior passengers` needs.
EMP4 Frequent cabin service rounds by Ilight attendants.
EMP5
Having a sound loyalty programme to recognize you as a Irequent
customer
EMP6 Having a sound mileage programme
EMP7
Having other travel related partners e.g. car rentals, hotels, travel
insurance
TEC1 It is successIul to complete a travel
TEC2 Pilot has technological knowledge and skills
TEC3 It is a reliable company
IMA1 It is a successIul company
IMA2 It has a superior technology in its Ilight services
IMA3 It has a good reputation
IMA4 It is sincere to the passengers
IMA5 Choose one picture which is close to Aseman Airline image
Table 4.1: Service Dimensions and Measurement
4.2 AnaIysis of Service QuaIity and passengers' satisfaction
Based on the measurement scale Ior service quality proposed in the previous
section, we Iurther analyzed the diIIerences in perceived quality between IAA
passengers. Here, respondents were asked to separately evaluate each service attribute,
according to the gap between their perceptions and expectations, using a Iive-point
Lickert scale: Much Better than Expected`, Better than Expected`, Equal to Expected`,
Worse than Expected`, and Much Worse than Expected`. Five diIIerent scores were
assigned: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, to represent this Iive-point scale.
We used one-sample T Test Ior our data analysis. The One-Sample T Test
procedure tests whether the mean oI a single variable diIIers Irom a speciIied constant.
This test assumes that the data are normally distributed; however, this test is Iairly robust
to departures Irom normality. The sample size in my study was more than 30 and based
74
on Central Limit Theorem` we were allowed to presume the data were normally
distributed approximately. A 95 conIidence interval Ior the diIIerence between the
mean and the hypothesized test value was supposed. SatisIied passengers must have
received perceptions equal to or more than expectations. So the hypothesized test value in
our study is 3 and it can split passengers into satisIied and unsatisIied passengers and we
can speciIy the null and alternative hypotheses as below.
Null hypothesis H
0
: _ 3
Alternative hypothesis H
a
: 3
As noted earlier, we speciIy the level oI sampling error (0.05).
The scores Ior each attribute were then tabulated; the results can be Iound in
Annex 2 (Data Analysis in Deyails). As shown in Table 4.2, in most oI items, there are
negative mean diIIerences and we can not say that our test value is located in 95
conIidence interval oI the diIIerence.
In another word, in most items, the null hypothesis can be rejected because the
calculated value is larger than the critical value.
One-SampIe Test
Test VaIue = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference
95% Confidence
nterval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
TAN1
Appearance, attitudes and
uniforms of employees.
9.138 229 0.000 0.383 0.300 0.465
TAN2
n-flight modern and clean
facilities.
-14.756 229 0.000 (0.878) (0.996) (0.761)
TAN3
Variety and quality of in-
flight meals.
-5.634 229 0.000 (0.365) (0.493) (0.237)
TAN4
Variety and choices of in-
flight entertainment
facilities.
-21.268 228 0.000 (1.135) (1.241) (1.030)
TAN5
Providing visually
appealing equipment
-18.311 229 0.000 (1.030) (1.141) (0.920)
75
REL1
Efficiency of the check-in
process
-10.785 228 0.000 (0.616) (0.728) (0.503)
REL2
Transfer service and
efficiency at departure
airport
-13.655 228 0.000 (0.782) (0.894) (0.669)
REL3
On-time performance of
scheduled flights.
-1.661 229 0.098 (0.091) (0.200) 0.017
REL4
Remedial procedures for
delayed or missing
baggage
-12.360 229 0.000 (0.643) (0.746) (0.541)
REL5
Providing ground / in-flight
services consistently
-14.327 228 0.000 (0.725) (0.825) (0.625)
REL6
Performing the services
right the first time
-14.030 229 0.000 (0.796) (0.907) (0.684)
RES1
Capable to response to
emergency situations.
-8.941 229 0.000 (0.470) (0.573) (0.366)
RES2
Prompt attention to
passengers' specific
needs.
-14.743 229 0.000 (0.796) (0.902) (0.689)
RES3
Understanding the specific
needs of passengers.
-14.983 228 0.000 (0.803) (0.909) (0.698)
RES4
Keeping customers
informed about when
services will be performed
-8.584 226 0.000 (0.529) (0.650) (0.407)
RES5
Prompt respond of
employees of the airline to
your request or complaint
-18.866 229 0.000 (1.048) (1.157) (0.938)
RES6
Capacity to respond to
cancelled or delayed
flights.
-20.421 229 0.000 (1.152) (1.263) (1.041)
ASS1
Sincerity and patience in
resolving passengers'
problems.
-9.048 229 0.000 (0.604) (0.736) (0.473)
ASS2
Probability of flight
breakdowns.
-10.789 228 0.000 (0.585) (0.692) (0.478)
ASS3
Safety performance of
airline.
-7.148 228 0.000 (0.459) (0.585) (0.332)
ASS4
Knowledgeable and skillful
provision of services.
-6.225 229 0.000 (0.357) (0.469) (0.244)
ASS5
Sincere and responsive
attitude to passenger
complaints.
-2.262 229 0.025 (0.117) (0.220) (0.015)
ASS6
Employees instill
confidence to passengers
-0.983 229 0.327 (0.057) (0.170) 0.057
ASS7
employees are consistently
courteous
0.696 229 0.487 0.039 (0.072) 0.150
ASS8
Knowledgeable employees
to answer customer
question
-2.719 229 0.007 (0.187) (0.322) (0.051)
76
EMP1
Numerous, easy-to-use
ticketing channels.
-5.006 229 0.000 (0.304) (0.424) (0.185)
EMP2
Convenient flight
scheduling.
-2.352 229 0.020 (0.126) (0.232) (0.020)
EMP3
Spontaneous care and
concern for passengers'
needs.
-8.223 229 0.000 (0.483) (0.598) (0.367)
EMP4
Frequent cabin service
rounds by flight attendants.
-6.872 229 0.000 (0.391) (0.504) (0.279)
EMP5
Having a sound loyalty
program to recognize you
as a frequent customer
-35.106 229 0.000 (1.478) (1.561) (1.395)
EMP6
Having a sound mileage
program
-35.980 229 0.000 (1.483) (1.564) (1.401)
EMP7
Having other travel related
partners e.g. car rentals,
hotels, travel insurance
-44.904 229 0.000 (1.617) (1.688) (1.546)
TEC1
t is successful to complete
a travel
-5.653 229 0.000 (0.309) (0.416) (0.201)
TEC2
Pilot has technological
knowledge and skills
9.490 229 0.000 0.474 0.376 0.572
TEC3 t is a reliable company -6.650 229 0.000 (0.513) (0.665) (0.361)
IMA1 t is a successful company -0.653 229 0.514 (0.043) (0.175) 0.088
IMA2
t has a superior
technology in its flight
services
-8.087 229 0.000 (0.591) (0.735) (0.447)
IMA3 t has a good reputation -15.418 229 0.000 (0.983) (1.108) (0.857)
IMA4
t is sincere to the
passengers
-3.954 229 0.000 (0.248) (0.371) (0.124)
IMA5
Choose one picture which
is close to Aseman Airline
image
-39.853 229 0.000 (1.509) (1.583) (1.434)
Table 4.2: One-Sample Test
According to the Iigures listed in Table 4.2 , and Irom the views oI travelers, it
can be seen that the perceptions oI service quality attributes, Ior IAA, were worse than
expected in most cases and the service scores had negative values. The top Iive attribute
qualities Ior Iran Aseman Airline were in the sequence oI TEC2, TAN1, ASS7, IMA1
and ASS6.
As Ior travelers` perceptions oI the service quality oI IAA, the worst Iive quality
oI service attribute were EMP7, IMA5, EMP6, EMP5 and RES6.
77
Having other travel related partners e.g. car rentals, hotels, travel insurance` was
much worse than expected and it also has the least standard deviation and shows most
passengers agree that it is the Iirst worst attribute.
Pilot has technological knowledge and skills` was much better than expected and
it was the Iirst best attribute.
But in a Iew items, the null hypothesis can not be rejected and it shows that with
95 percent conIidence, passengers are satisIied in some parts oI IAA perIormance. They
are TAN1, REL3, ASS6, ASS7, TEC2 and IMA1.
However, in most items, the null hypothesis is rejected and this means that the
general perception oI travelers is that the perIormance service quality oI Iran Aseman
Airline is worse than expected.
In comparison oI 7 groups item means (i.e. Tangibles, Reliability,
Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, Technical and Image), the Iirst attribute was
Technical` and Assurance` was the second. The others in priorities were Tangible`,
Reliability`, Image`, Responsiveness` and Empathy`. So we can conclude that Irom
the point oI view oI passengers, Empathy` items were the worst expected and
Responsiveness` items in Iollowing.
Also interviewees were asked to prioritize the 7 attributes in order oI importance
to them. The result is shown in Table 4.3 and in descending order, Technical quality,
Tangibles, Reliability, Assurance, Responsiveness, Image and Empathy had higher
importance and priorities.
Furthermore, the lower and upper bound with 95 conIidence interval Ior means
oI 7 attributes were calculated and shown below.
78
Descriptive
Statistic Std. Error
Tangibles. Physical
facilities, equipment,
appearance of
personnel.
Mean 2.44 0.06
Lower Bound 2.32 95% Confidence
nterval for Mean Upper Bound 2.56
Reliability. Ability to
perform service
dependably and
accurately.
Mean 2.90 0.09
Lower Bound 2.72 95% Confidence
nterval for Mean Upper Bound 3.07
Responsiveness.
Willingness to help
customers and provide
prompt service.
Mean 4.85 0.07
Lower Bound 4.71 95% Confidence
nterval for Mean Upper Bound 4.99
Assurance. Knowledge
and courtesy, ability to
inspire trust and
confidence.
Mean 4.79 0.10
Lower Bound 4.60 95% Confidence
nterval for Mean Upper Bound 4.97
Empathy. Caring,
individualized attention.
Mean 5.99 0.08
Lower Bound 5.84 95% Confidence
nterval for Mean Upper Bound 6.14
mage. The public
perception about image
of Aseman Airline
Mean 5.40 0.09
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Lower Bound 5.22
Upper Bound 5.59
Technical quality.
Success to complete a
trip
Mean 1.70 0.05
Lower Bound 1.60
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound 1.80
Table 4.3: Priorities of 7 figures by passengers
Hence, we can note that with 95 percent conIidence, the technical quality and
tangibles are in higher priority and image and empathy are in lower priority Ior Iran
Aseman Airline passengers.
79
Travelers were asked to declare their most used airline and their Iirst answer was
Iran Air Airline and aIter that Aseman Airline.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
aseman
66 28.7 28.7 28.7
emirate
27 11.7 11.7 40.4
homa
12 5.2 5.2 45.7
iran air
94 40.9 40.9 86.5
kish air
16 7.0 7.0 93.5
mahan
15 6.5 6.5 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
Table 4.4: Most used airline
The passengers had 12.87 trips number on average last twelve months. More details and
calculations can be Iound in Annex 2.
80
Chapter 5
5 Findings & ConcIusions
5.1 ConcIusions
As noted earlier, airlines need to explore the service expectations and perceptions
oI customers to stay alive in industry`s increasing competition. Knowing accurately what
customers preIer, successIul service companies are able to give customers exactly what
they want by customizing the product or service, to surprise and 'delight them (Porter,
1980; Albrecht, 1992) and to make a core competency to overcome their competitors.
In our case study, we tried to explore and evaluate customer satisIaction level in
Iran Aseman Airline passengers. As mentioned in previous chapters, the customer
81
satisIaction is acquired through service quality and we used Grnroos model to measure
service quality. AIter designing the questionnaire, data gathering and analysis, describing
the conclusions is the last and most signiIicant step oI a research. In this chapter, we will
present our Iindings and conclusions which we have drawn based on the analyzed data.
5.2 Describing the findings
In the questionnaire, diIIerences in travelers` perception and expectation have
been examined in connection with Aseman airline services, including seven Dimensions
oI services deIined by Grnroos with 95 percent conIidence. According to the services
that oIIering by IAA we measured customer satisIaction among the passengers oI this
airline, the 7 Dimensions oI Gronroos Model have been prioritized according the
expectations oI passengers. All 40 attributes have been tested Ior Iinding out iI the
passengers are satisIied or not. With these Iindings Research Questions have been
addressed and answered.
5.2.1 How can the customer satisfaction within IAA be described?
SatisIaction oI customers measured and we observed that passengers were not
satisIied within 7 Dimensions oI Gronroos` service quality Model. But in 3 attributes out
oI 40 attributes we saw satisIaction oI passengers. Technical quality (Pilot is
knowledgeable enough) in passengers` view was the Iirst choice as the most important
aspect and gained the highest mean in IAA perIormance. It shows that IAA is oIten
instrumental in bringing about a desired outcome. Pilot`s technical knowledge and skills
is a strong point Ior IAA.
The second in the most important Iactors was tangibles (physical Iacilities,
equipment, and appearance oI personnel). However tangibles` items mean was in third
position, it appears that IAA has a lot oI weak points in tangibles that cause dissatisIied
passengers. Managers should pay more attention to tangibles items and prepare a short
term plan to create critical changes. Probably, passengers suIIer Irom low variation and
82
choices oI in-Ilight entertainment Iacilities while it seems they are satisIied in
appearance, attitudes and uniIorms oI employees.
The third Ieature in order to most important Ieatures was reliability (ability to
perIorm service dependably and accurately). Basis on passengers` attitude, reliability was
placed in Iourth position in IAA perIormance. 'PerIorming the services right the Iirst
time, 'providing ground / in-Ilight services consistently and 'transIer service and
eIIiciency at departure airport were the least three means Iactors. IAA should consider
about these three Iactors and try to improve and develop services dependably and
accurately.
The Iourth in order to most important Ieatures was assurance (knowledge and
courtesy, ability to inspire trust and conIidence) and in travelers` view, it was in the
second place. But still, we can inIer that passengers perceive less than what expect in
assurance items. For instance, passengers made more complaints about sincerity and
patience in resolving passengers` problems. They pay Ior the service that they perceive
but they Ieel unsatisIied because IAA lacks in sincerity. However, airlines should put it in
their policies and promote it steadily to keep their customers Ior a long time.
The IiIth Ieature in order to most important Ieatures was responsiveness
(willingness to help customers and provide prompt service). Also in passengers` view in
IAA, it placed in the sixth position. It shows that IAA has not tried hard to improve their
responsiveness as it still seems that they require paying attention more to customers`
needs. 'Capacity to respond to cancelled or delayed Ilights and 'prompt respond oI
employees oI the airline to your request or complaint made the most complaints oI
travelers about IAA responsiveness.
The sixth Ieature was image (the public perception about image oI Aseman
Airline). Although we think it has an inherent impact on customers` buying behavior and
decision, passengers believe that the image has no critical eIIect on their perceived
services evaluation. Travelers did not make a good judgment about reputation oI the IAA
and image placed in IiIth position in evaluating IAA perIormance.
83
The last Ieature in order to most important Ieatures was empathy (caring,
individualized attention). Passengers contend that empathy has the least mean in IAA
perIormance. So IAA managers should change their mind about delivering services to
their customers. Warmth and supportiveness in behaving with passengers can create
impressive results. Managers oI IAA may want to oIIer some services to their passengers
in hiring cars and reserving hotels.
5.2.2 How satisfied are IAA passengers with its services?
Nevertheless, the all seven Dimension in perceived services were lower than what
passengers` expectations and unIortunately we have to admit that with 95 percent
conIidence, IAA passengers are dissatisIied with the services which they perceive.
It should be added we have satisIaction in three attributes out oI Iorty attributes
that have been considered in the questionnaire. The Iirst, 'appearance and uniIorms oI
employees which is one attribute in Tangible dimension. The second attribute that
passengers had satisIaction is in Assurance dimension which is 'courtesy oI employees.
The third attribute is knowledgeaibilty oI pilots that is in Technical dimension. But in the
other attributes dissatisIaction existed among the passengers. More ever, Technical,
Tangibles and Reliability were the most important items Ior them but Empathy and
Image were the less important items Ior the passengers.
5.2.3 How can IAA managers improve satisfaction IeveI?
As we mentioned earlier in Conclusion, dissatisIaction is obvious in the all 7
Dimensions. But dissatisIactions in the Dimensions are in diIIerent intensity. Passengers
have prioritized their needs (Dimensions). According the prioritized Dimensions, IAA
managers can devote themselves to provide some solutions to satisIy their customers by
improving their service quality (attributes) as antecedent oI CS.
The First two Dimension that are important Ior passengers are Technical and
Tangibles, so managers should be more concerned about these two Dimensions and try to
solve the obstacles. We had one attribute in Technical Dimension that satisIied the
passengers (Pilots are knowledgeable).It shows that passenger are conIident to the pilots
84
oI this airline. We have another attribute in Technical dimension (successIully to
complete the trip).It implies that although the passengers prioritize Technical dimension
and they are satisIied with pilots oI airline but they are dissatisIied about completing the
Ilights and they are concerned about something that make obstacles which do not allow
the passengers have a good sensation about the Ilight.
In Tangibles, the company has a satisIied attribute. Appearance and attitudes oI
employees and also uniIorms oI stewards and employees get satisIaction. It makes the job
easier Ior managers to empower this dimension. Because in Tangibles the passengers can
see the changes sooner and it does not need lots oI budget. The management can provide
some visual appealing equipment or some in-Ilight entertainments.
The passengers do not care much about Image and Empathy. Three attributes
EMP7, EMP6 and EMP7 are the worst in satisIaction. Empathy is at the end oI priority
more ever satisIaction is in lowest rate. Somebody may believe that Empathy should have
a high priority in passengers` satisIaction in airline industry but it shows that passengers
are not concern about it. It might they are not Iamiliar with the services oI airlines that
provide these services Ior their passengers regularly and normally or lacking oI these
services have been Irustrated the passengers. It needs the insight oI managers to do some
more studies to Iind out subtlety about this speciIic Dimension oI this model.
5.3 Contributions
The major contributions oI this study were:
The examination oI consumer expectations and perceptions oI service quality in
an Airline setting.
The application oI the service quality model, viz. the Grnroos model, in an
Airline setting.
The attributes that customers have satisIaction in it have been determined and also
the attributes that have less satisIaction Ior the IAA customers have been showed.
The seven Dimension oI Gronroos model have been prioritized in this case study.
40 attributes have been derived and Iound by interview and questionaire.
85
The model was adopted Ior airline industry. In addition to 22 Iactors oI
SERVQUAL model, some other Iactors oI image and technical quality supplemented and
all Iactors changed to cover aspects oI the services in airlines. Iran Aseman Airline was
chosen as our case study. Customer expectations and perceptions oI service quality in
IAA were examined by Grnroos model. The result can be used by IAA managers and
other airlines managers to create plans Ior expanding and other airlines managers to
create plans Ior expanding and increasing their market share.
Managers oI IAA have identiIied passengers` attitudes and opinions about their
provided services and in result they can create modiIications and strengthen their weak
points to increase satisIaction level among their consumers. Also other airlines` managers
can use these results to measure and compare with their passengers` satisIaction.
5.4 ImpIications and Recommendations
In this section we will present the implication and recommendations based on the
conclusions and statistics. We will address practitioners and management as well as
provide ideas Ior theory and Iuture research.
5.4.1 ImpIication for Management
Primarily, we can inclusively inIer that passengers oI IAA are not satisIied with
the perceived services and it warns manager to Iocus on passengers` expectations. They
should gain more inIormation about travelers` attitude and prepare plans to improve the
weak points. We suggest managers to try in technical quality at Iirst. Completing a trip
accurately is what the passengers expect in the Iirst. It is highly desirable that IAA
reduced delay, technical Iaults and security.
IAA needs some investments on tangibles aIIairs. Managers should not withheld
visually appealing equipments in planes because passengers usually have to spend long
times in plane while Ilying. In some cases, Iacilities are available but need repairs and
maintenance. We should mention that old and worn out equipments constitute a boring
environment. In addition to this point, providing variety and choices oI in-Ilight
entertainment Iacilities are unavoidable. Creating enjoyable times Ior passengers is vital
86
because in IAA Ilies, more passengers have to spend their time sleeping iI they Ily alone.
There are many diIIerent tools and programs to entertain passengers such as showing
Iilms, broadcasting music, giving puzzles and various magazines.
IAA should pay attention more about reliability. Reliability consists oI 'eIIiciency
oI the check-in process, 'transIer service and eIIiciency at departure airport, 'on-time
perIormance oI scheduled Ilights, 'remedial procedures Ior delayed or missing baggage,
'providing ground / in-Ilight services consistently and 'perIorming the services right the
Iirst time. These six Iactors play an important role in satisIying passengers Ior IAA
because managers do not need to spend more money and it can be achieved in a short
term plan. Managers should only increase their controlling, commanding, monitoring and
coordinating. In another word, eIIiciency is what IAA requires and it can be achieved by
doing things in the right way.
For assurance, IAA should train its employees and evaluate their perIormance
constantly. 'Sincerity and patience in resolving passengers` problems, 'knowledgeable
and skillIul provision oI services, 'sincere and responsive attitude to passenger
complaints, 'employees instill conIidence to passengers and 'knowledgeable
employees to answer customer question can be obtained by learning and practicing.
Employees should participate in scheduled training courses and we should note that
behavior oI employees is oIten instrumental in bringing about a desired outcome.
Learning involves both the development and modiIication oI thoughts and behaviors and
it is a never-ending process Ior all employees. So by providing inIormative Ieedback on
employees` perIormance, using diIIerential rewards and punishments and consistently
training, IAA can improve it employees` perIormance and its passengers` satisIaction.
Actually in addition to eIIiciency, assurance needs eIIectiveness. EIIectiveness is doing
right things and it can be acquired by a medium term plan.
As noted beIore, responsiveness is willingness to help customers and provide
prompt service. 'Capacity to respond to cancelled or delayed Ilights, 'understanding the
speciIic needs oI passengers, 'prompt respond oI employees oI the airline to request or
complaint are some examples oI responsiveness in airline industry. In marketing
87
literature, there are some organizations which all employees have to perIorm marketing
and the customer is the core oI organization. They try to identiIy customers` needs and
work to satisIy them. IAA should strive to be the same. It means that managers need to
redeIine goals and policies, modiIy the organizational structure, reengineer job and
design necessary speciIications, likewise training, and monitoring, rewarding and
punishing employees. Responsiveness can be gained in short, medium and long terms
plans and managers should give priority to required actions Ior achieving eIIective and
immediate outcomes.
Image oI IAA is the public perception about image oI Aseman Airline.
Conducting a good image can be assumed as an inIluential Iactor in buying decisions and
as a Iilter, it intensiIies strengths and helps to make weak points invisible. IAA needs
more advertisements and show up in society and to concentrate on its core competencies
Ior building a very powerIul image. Furthermore, it can present changes in service quality
and Iocus on passengers` needs and attitudes to express that IAA concerns about
passengers` opinions Iundamentally.
To improve empathy in IAA, managers should study their target market precisely
and recognize customers` attributes and their demands. What they really want and how
they can be satisIied. Numerous and easy-to-use ticketing channel and convenient Ilight
scheduling are the Iirst things that passengers expect Irom an airline, however expanding
sales channels requires investments. On-line ticketing can be an appropriate solution.
'Spontaneous care and concern Ior passengers` needs and 'Irequent cabin service
rounds by Ilight attendants are resulted by training employees and monitoring their
perIormance. Having a sound loyalty and mileage program to recognize Irequent
customers can bring a competitive advantage Ior IAA because in Iranian airlines, there
are no such programs. Frequent customers will turn into loyal customers that they can
help IAA to survive in competitive environments. Organizations look Ior loyal customers
while IAA probably possesses a group oI them and it is not aware oI them. Additionally,
IAA needs some strategic alliances and joint ventures to have other travel related partners
e.g. car rentals, hotels, travel insurance. There is not need to pay Ior them but they help
organizations to expand and raise their market share. IAA can determine some discounts
88
and allowances Ior loyal customers or passengers who use their partners` services. These
programs have mutual beneIits and increase the satisIaction among passengers.
Nevertheless, some strategic alliances look not so economically but they bring long term
beneIits. It is more important to do what is strategically right than what is immediately
proIitable (Philip Kotler, Marketing Management, 2003)
5.4.2 ImpIications for Theory
The purpose oI this study is to provide a better understanding oI how satisIaction
level among passengers within Iran Aseman Airline is and how its managers can improve
their service quality.
The purpose oI the thesis is descriptive because we depict customer satisIaction
among the Iran Aseman Airline passengers. Also the questions are generally structured to
describe Iactors which result in less satisIied passengers.
This thesis is somewhat qualitative research because satisIaction should be
described and it can not be measured by numbers; it is quantitative research in the sense
that we compare Iactors oI service quality together and Iind top priorities.
The research has utilized all oI approaches. Interviews were used to Iind critical
Iactors oI the passenger satisIaction and necessary to add in questionnaire, generally
lasted a-halI hours and were unstructured. Observation has been used to examine teams
and personnel and Iacilities involved in quality improvement in action. This provides
insights to get some other Iactors aIIecting the satisIaction. At the end, a questionnaire
was designed and developed to get passengers idea about service quality in IAA.
5.4.3 ImpIications for future research
This study took a look at airline services generally. It would Iurther be interesting
to conduct more Iocused research in diIIerent parts oI airline services, such as ticketing or
catering. Several limitations oI the study should be noted. First, this study has been
89
limited to one airline (IAA). Further research should examine similar research objectives
Ior diIIerent airlines. But careIul exercise has to eIIect in sampling and sample size
within any case that is going to be studied.
Second, the satisIaction oI customers has been measured Ior IAA and it is valid
and reliable only Ior this airline, it is suggested to study another case (airline) which is
similar to IAA to some extent and compares the results.
Third, the present research examined seven Dimensions oI Gronroos model and
measuring satisIactions. Their willingness to recommend this airline to the others, and
spread oI mouth and also the results are been opened many avenues Ior additional
research.
Our study adopted Grnroos model to measure service quality Ior airline industry.
It would be Iurther interesting to conduct research regarding Grnroos model in diIIerent
industries.
This study was evaluated service quality in Iran Aseman Airline. It would Iurther
be interesting to conduct research about how passengers perceive services in other
airlines.Also it would be Iurther interesting to conduct research about how passengers
compare airlines in each seven Iactors oI Grnroos model in service quality.
Managers oI IAA have identiIied passengers` attitudes and opinions about their
provided services and in result they can create modiIications and strengthen their weak
points to increase satisIaction level among their consumers. Also other airlines` managers
can use these results to measure and compare with their passengers` satisIaction.
90
References
Albrecht, K. (1992), The Only Thing That Matters, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Albrecht, K. and Zemke, R. (1985), Service America!, Warner Books, New York, NY.
Higher scores JOURNAL OF SERVICES MARKETING, VOL. 14 NO. 3 2000
209.
Andrews, J.F., Drew, J.H., English, M.J. and Rys, M. (1987), ``Service quality surveys in
a telecommunications environment: an integrating Iorce'', in Czepiel, J.A.,
Congram, C.A. and Shanahan, J. (Eds), The Services Challenge: Integrating Ior
Competitive Advantage, American Marketing Association Proceedings Series,
Chicago, IL, pp. 27-31.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), 'An empirical assessment oI the SERVQUAL
scale, Journal oI Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253- 68
Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1987), ``Managing across borders: new strategic
requirements'', Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 7-17.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), ``Evaluating service encounters: the eIIects oI physical surrounding
and employee responses'', Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, April, pp. 69-82.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.M. and Tetreault, M. (1990), ``The service encounter: diagnosing
Iavorable and unIavorable incidents'', Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 71-
84.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), 'Servicescapes: the impact oI physical surroundings on customers
and employees, Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 57-71.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), ``A dynamic process
model oI service quality: Irom expectations to behavioral intentions'', Journal oI
Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp. 7-27.
91
Bowen, B.D. and Headley, D.E. (1995), The Airline Quality Report 1995 (NIAR Report
95-11), National Institute Ior Aviation Research, Wichita State University,
Wichita, KA.
Brown, S. and Swartz, T.A. (1989), ``A gap analysis oI proIessional service quality'',
Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 92-8.
Butterworth, K. (1990), ``To compete globally, American Iirms must know their
customers'', in American ManuIacturing in a Global Market, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston, MA.
Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987), The PIMS Principles, Free Press, New York, NY.
Carlzon, J. (1989), Moments oI Truth, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Carman, J.M. (1990), ``Consumer perceptions oI service quality: an assessment oI the
SERVQUAL dimensions'', Journal oI Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Cooper, D. R. & Emory, C. W. (1995). Research methods. Homewood, IL: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc.
Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), 'Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension, Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 55-68.
Cunningham, L. F. and Young, C.E. and Lee, M. (2002) 'Cross-cultural perspectives oI
service quality and risk in air transportation, Journal oI Air Transportation, Vol.
7, pp. 3-26.
Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S. (1994), 'Total quality management in services. Part 1:
understanding and classiIying services, International Journal oI Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 9-26
Drege, S. (1991), ``Customer retention strategies'', Business Mexico, December, pp. 52-3.
92
Drucker, P.F. (1964), ``The customer is the business'', in Managing Ior Results, Harper
and Row, New York, NY.
Evelyn, J.J. and DeCarlo, N.J. (1992), ``Customer Iocus helps utility see the light'', The
Journal oI Business Strategy, January/February, pp. 8-12.
Farber, B. and WycoII, J. (1991), ``Customer service: evolution and revolution'', Sales
and Marketing Management, May, pp. 44-9.
Fornell, C. (1992), ``A national customer satisIaction barometer: the Swedish
experience'', Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
GroEnroos, C. (1984), ``A service quality model and the marketing implications'',
European Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Grnroos, C. (1988), 'Service quality: the six criteria oI good perceived service quality,
Review oI Business, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 10-13. 29
Grnroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington,
MA.
Grnroos, C. (1991), 'Strategic Management and Marketing In the Service Sector,
Studentlitteratur-Chartwell-Bratt, Sweden
Grnroos, C. (2001), 'The perceived service quality concept a mistake?, Managing
Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 150-2.
Hout, T., Porter, M.E. and Rudden, E. (1982), ``How global companies win out'', Harvard
Business Review, No. 5, September-October, pp. 98-108.
Institute Ior Citizen-Centred Service, How to Conduct Customer Surveys, December
2001
Intro to Research Methods (http://cbdd.wsu.edu)
93
Jackie L. M. Tam, (2004), 'Customer SatisIaction, Service Quality and Perceived Value:
An Integrative Model, Journal oI Marketing Management, Vol. 20, pp. 897-917
Johnston, R., Silvestro, R., Fitzgerald, L. and Voss, C. (1990), 'Developing the
determinants oI service quality, in Langeard, E. and Eiglier, P. (Eds), Marketing,
Operations and Human Resources Insights into Services, First International
Research Seminar on Services Management, Institut d`Administration des
Entreprises, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 373-400.
Journal oI Marketing, January, pp. 111-24
Kang, G.D. and James, J. (2004), 'Service quality dimensions: an examination oI
Grnroos`s service quality model, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.
266- 77.
Kotler Philip, S. C. Johnson & Son Distinguished, (1999), 'Boards should tune in to
corporate marketing programs, Directorship Databank Registered Trademark
Kotler Philip, (2003), 'Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, 11
th
edition
Lambert, D.M. and Harrington, T.C. (1989), ``Establishing customer service strategies
within the marketing mix: more empirical evidence'', Journal oI Business
Logistics, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 44-60.
Lapre, Michael A. & Scudder, Gary D. PerIormance Improvement Paths in the U.S.
Airline Industry: Linking Trade-oIIs to Asset Frontiers. PRODUCTION AND
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, Vol. 13, No. 2, summer 2004, pp. 123134
lehtinen, J.R. and lehtinen, U. (1982), 'Service quality: a study oI quality dimensions,
unpublished Working Paper, Service Management Institute, Helsinki. Grnroos,
C. (1982), Strategic Management and Marketing in Service Sector, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
94
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1991), 'Two approaches to service quality dimensions,
The Service Industries Journal, Vol 11, pp. 287-303.
McAlexander, James H., Kaldenberg, Dennis O., Koenig, Harold F. (1994), 'Service
quality measurement, Journal oI Health Care Marketing, Vol. 14, Issue 3
McClenahen, J.S. (1991), ``Welcome to the unIriendly skies: why business people hate to
Ily'', Industry Week, 3 June, pp. 14-16.
McDougall, G.H.G. and Snetsinger, D. (1990), ``The intangibility oI services:
measurement and competitive perspectives'', Journal oI Services Marketing, Vol.
4 No. 4, pp. 27-40.
McKereghan, Donna L. (1998). Quantitative versus Qualitative Research an Attempt to
ClariIy the Problem
Miller, T.O. (1992), ``A customer's deIinition oI quality'', The Journal oI Business
Strategy, January-February, pp. 4-7.
Morrell, Kevin, (2006) Senior Research Fellow, Warwick Business School, University oI
Warwick (http://www.kevinmorrell.org.uk/)
Ohmae, K. (1989), ``The global logic oI strategic alliances'', Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 143- 54.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), 'Consumer perceptions oI interpersonal equity and
satisIaction in transaction: a Iields survey approach, Journal oI Marketing, Vol.
53, pp. 21-35.
Oneal, M.D. (1991), ``Straighten up and Ily right'', Business Week/Quality, pp. 116- 17.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), ``Reassessment oI expectations
as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications Ior Iurther
research'',
95
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), ``SERVQUAL: a multiple-item
scale Ior measuring consumer perceptions oI service quality'', Journal oI
Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A. (1985), ``A conceptual model oI service quality and its implications Ior
Iuture research'', Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), 'A conceptual model oI service
quality and its implications Ior Iuture research, Journal oI Marketing, Vol. 49,
pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), 'Moving Iorward in service
quality research: measuring diIIerent levels oI customer expectations, comparing
alternative scales, and examining the perIormance-behavioral intentions Link,
Marketing Science Institute working paper, Report No. 94-114September 1994 .
Pitt, L.F. and Jeantrout, B. (1994), 'Management oI customer expectations in service
Iirms: a study and a checklist, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.
170- 89.
Powpaka, S. (1996), 'The role oI outcome quality as a determinant oI overall service
quality in diIIerent categories oI services industries: an empirical investigation,
Journal oI Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 5-25.
Richard, M.D. and Allaway, A.W. (1993), 'Service quality attributes and choice
behavior, Journal oI Services Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Robledo, M. A. (2001), 'Measuring and managing service quality: integrating customer
expectations, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11, No.1, pp. 22-31
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), 'Service quality: insights and managerial implications
Irom the Irontier, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New
Directions in Theory and Pr Oliver, R.L. (1993), 'A conceptual model oI service
quality and service satisIaction: compatible goals, diIIerent concepts, in Swartz,
96
T.A., Bowen, D.E. and Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Service Marketing and
Management: Research and Practice, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 65-85.
Sasser, W.E., Olsen, R.P. and WyckoII, D.D. (1978), 'Management oI Service
Operations. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA
Sheetal B. Sachdev Harsh V. Verma, (2004), 'Relative importance oI service quality
dimensions: a multisectoral study, Journal oI Services Research, Volume 4,
Number 1, pp. 93-116
Sureshchandar G. S., Chandrasekharan Rajendran & T. J. Kamalanabhan. (2001),
'Customer perceptions oI service quality: A critique, Total quality management,
VOL. 12, NO. 1, pp. 111- 124
Swartz, T.A. and Brown, S.W. (1989), 'Consumer and provider expectations and
experiences evaluating proIessional service quality, Journal oI the Academy oI
Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 189-95.
Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods (Rev. ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (1993). Applications oI case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publishing.
97
98
Annex 1: AirIine Services Questionnaire
This survey deals with your opinions oI Iran Aseman Airline. There are no right or wrong answers. We want to know
how you personally Ieel.
1. How many airplane trips have you taken in the last twelve months?
2. What airline company, iI any, did you use most oIten?
3. In the last twelve months, approximately how many times did you use the airline you mentioned above?
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the Iollowing statements regarding the Aseman Airline
you use most Irequently by circling the appropriate number. For instance, iI you strongly agreed with
Much
worse
than
expected
Worse
than
expected
Equal to
expected
Better
than
expected
Much
better
than
expected
1
Appearance, attitudes and uniIorms oI employees.
1 2 3 4 5
2
In-Ilight modern and clean Iacilities.
1 2 3 4 5
3
Variety and quality oI in-Ilight meals.
1 2 3 4 5
4
Variety and choices oI in-Ilight entertainment
Iacilities.
1 2 3 4 5
5
Providing visually appealing equipment
1 2 3 4 5
6
EIIiciency oI the check-in process
1 2 3 4 5
7
TransIer service and eIIiciency at departure airport
1 2 3 4 5
8
On-time perIormance oI scheduled Ilights.
1 2 3 4 5
9
Remedial procedures Ior delayed or missing baggage
1 2 3 4 5
10
Providing ground / in-Ilight services consistently
1 2 3 4 5
11
PerIorming the services right the Iirst time
1 2 3 4 5
12
Capable to response to emergency situations.
1 2 3 4 5
13
Prompt attention to passengers` speciIic needs.
1 2 3 4 5
14
Understanding the speciIic needs oI passengers.
1 2 3 4 5
15
Keeping customers inIormed about when services will
be perIormed
1 2 3 4 5
16
Prompt respond oI employees oI the airline to your
request or complaint
1 2 3 4 5
17
Capacity to respond to cancelled or delayed Ilights.
1 2 3 4 5
18
Sincerity and patience in resolving passengers`
problems.
1 2 3 4 5
19
Probability oI Ilight breakdowns.
1 2 3 4 5
20
SaIety perIormance oI airline.
1 2 3 4 5
21
Knowledgeable and skillIul provision oI services.
1 2 3 4 5
22
Sincere and responsive attitude to passenger
complaints.
1 2 3 4 5
99
23
Employees instill conIidence to passengers
1 2 3 4 5
24
employees are consistently courteous
1 2 3 4 5
25
Knowledgeable employees to answer customer
question
1 2 3 4 5
26
Numerous, easy-to-use ticketing channels.
1 2 3 4 5
27
Convenient Ilight scheduling.
1 2 3 4 5
28
Spontaneous care and concern Ior passengers` needs.
1 2 3 4 5
29
Frequent cabin service rounds by Ilight attendants.
1 2 3 4 5
30
Having a sound loyalty program to recognize you as a
Irequent customer
1 2 3 4 5
31
Having a sound mileage program
1 2 3 4 5
32
Having other travel related partners e.g. car rentals,
hotels, travel insurance
1 2 3 4 5

Very
disagree
Very
agree
33
It is successIul to complete a travel
1 2 3 4 5
34
Pilot has technological knowledge and skills
1 2 3 4 5
35
It is a reliable company
1 2 3 4 5
36
It is a successIul company
1 2 3 4 5
37
It has a superior technology in its Ilight services
1 2 3 4 5
38
It has a good reputation
1 2 3 4 5
39
It is sincere to the passengers
1 2 3 4 5
40
Choose one picture which is close to Aseman Airline
image
Please prioritize the Iollowing 7 attributes in order oI
importance to you
(1The most important; 7The least important)
...
Tangibles. Physical Iacilities, equipment, appearance
oI personnel.
...
Reliability. Ability to perIorm service dependably and
accurately.
...
Responsiveness. Willingness to help customers and
provide prompt service.
1) Samand 2) Xantia 3) Toyota 4) Mercedes Benz
100
...
Assurance. Knowledge and courtesy, ability to inspire
trust and conIidence.
... Empathy. Caring, individualized attention.
...
Image. The public perception about image oI Aseman
Airline
... Technical quality. Success to complete a trip
101
Annex 2: Data AnaIysis in DetaiIs
Descriptives
Notes
Output Created
05-NOV-2006 19:13:45
Comments
Data
Aseman Customer Satisfaction.sav
Filter
<none>
Weight
<none>
Split File
<none>
nput
N of Rows in
Working Data File
310
Definition of
Missing
User defined missing values are
treated as missing.
Missing Value
Handling
Cases Used
All non-missing data are used.
Syntax
DESCRPTVES VARABLES=a c
tan1 tan2 tan3 tan4 tan5 rel1 rel2 rel3
rel4 rel5 rel6 res1 res2 res3 res4 res5
res6 ass1 ass2 ass3 ass4 ass5 ass6
ass7 ass8 emp1 emp2 emp3 emp4
emp5 emp6 emp7 tec1 tec2 tec3
ima1 ima2 ima3 ima4 ima5 sq1 sq2
sq3 sq4 sq5 sq6 sq7
/STATSTCS=MEAN STDDEV .
Resources Elapsed Time
0:00:00.67
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
trips No
230 12.87 10.932
No of used above airline
230 12.25 14.632
Appearance, attitudes and
uniforms of employees.
230 3.38 .635
n-flight modern and clean
facilities.
230 2.12 .903
Variety and quality of in-
flight meals.
230 2.63 .983
Variety and choices of in-
flight entertainment
facilities.
229 1.86 .808
102
Providing visually appealing
equipment
230 1.97 .853
Efficiency of the check-in
process
229 2.38 .864
Transfer service and
efficiency at departure
airport
229 2.22 .866
On-time performance of
scheduled flights.
230 2.91 .833
Remedial procedures for
delayed or missing
baggage
230 2.36 .790
Providing ground / in-flight
services consistently
229 2.28 .766
Performing the services
right the first time
230 2.20 .860
Capable to response to
emergency situations.
230 2.53 .797
Prompt attention to
passengers' specific needs.
230 2.20 .818
Understanding the specific
needs of passengers.
229 2.20 .812
Keeping customers
informed about when
services will be performed
227 2.47 .928
Prompt respond of
employees of the airline to
your request or complaint
230 1.95 .842
Capacity to respond to
cancelled or delayed flights.
230 1.85 .856
Sincerity and patience in
resolving passengers'
problems.
230 2.40 1.013
Probability of flight
breakdowns.
229 2.41 .821
Safety performance of
airline.
229 2.54 .971
Knowledgeable and skillful
provision of services.
230 2.64 .869
Sincere and responsive
attitude to passenger
complaints.
230 2.88 .787
Employees instill
confidence to passengers
230 2.94 .872
103
employees are consistently
courteous
230 3.04 .853
Knowledgeable employees
to answer customer
question
230 2.81 1.043
Numerous, easy-to-use
ticketing channels.
230 2.70 .922
Convenient flight
scheduling.
230 2.87 .813
Spontaneous care and
concern for passengers'
needs.
230 2.52 .890
Frequent cabin service
rounds by flight attendants.
230 2.61 .864
Having a sound loyalty
programme to recognize
you as a frequent customer
230 1.52 .639
Having a sound mileage
programme
230 1.52 .625
Having other travel related
partners e.g. car rentals,
hotels, travel insurance
230 1.38 .546
t is successful to complete
a travel
230 2.69 .828
Pilot has technological
knowledge and skills
230 3.47 .757
t is a reliable company
230 2.49 1.170
t is a successful company
230 2.96 1.010
t has a superior technology
in its flight services
230 2.41 1.109
t has a good reputation
230 2.02 .967
t is cinsere to the
passengers
230 2.75 .950
Choose one picture which
is close to Aseman Airline
image
230 1.49 .574
Tangibles. Physical
facilities, equipment,
appearance of personnel.
230 2.44 .903
Reliability. Ability to perform
service dependably and
accurately.
230 2.90 1.347
Responsiveness.
Willingness to help
customers and provide
prompt service.
230 4.85 1.088
104
Assurance. Knowledge and
courtesy, ability to inspire
trust and confidence.
230 4.79 1.443
Empathy. Caring,
individualized attention.
230 5.99 1.165
mage. The public
perception about image of
Aseman Airline
230 5.40 1.438
Technical quality. Success
to complete a trip
230 1.70 .771
Valid N (listwise)
221
T-Test
One-SampIe Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Appearance, attitudes and
uniforms of employees.
230 3.38 .635 .042
n-flight modern and clean
facilities.
230 2.12 .903 .060
Variety and quality of in-
flight meals.
230 2.63 .983 .065
Variety and choices of in-
flight entertainment
facilities.
229 1.86 .808 .053
Providing visually appealing
equipment
230 1.97 .853 .056
Efficiency of the check-in
process
229 2.38 .864 .057
Transfer service and
efficiency at departure
airport
229 2.22 .866 .057
On-time performance of
scheduled flights.
230 2.91 .833 .055
Remedial procedures for
delayed or missing
baggage
230 2.36 .790 .052
Providing ground / in-flight
services consistently
229 2.28 .766 .051
Performing the services
right the first time
230 2.20 .860 .057
Capable to response to
emergency situations.
230 2.53 .797 .053
105
Prompt attention to
passengers' specific needs.
230 2.20 .818 .054
Understanding the specific
needs of passengers.
229 2.20 .812 .054
Keeping customers
informed about when
services will be performed
227 2.47 .928 .062
Prompt respond of
employees of the airline to
your request or complaint
230 1.95 .842 .056
Capacity to respond to
cancelled or delayed flights.
230 1.85 .856 .056
Sincerity and patience in
resolving passengers'
problems.
230 2.40 1.013 .067
Probability of flight
breakdowns.
229 2.41 .821 .054
Safety performance of
airline.
229 2.54 .971 .064
Knowledgeable and skillful
provision of services.
230 2.64 .869 .057
Sincere and responsive
attitude to passenger
complaints.
230 2.88 .787 .052
Employees instill
confidence to passengers
230 2.94 .872 .058
employees are consistently
courteous
230 3.04 .853 .056
Knowledgeable employees
to answer customer
question
230 2.81 1.043 .069
Numerous, easy-to-use
ticketing channels.
230 2.70 .922 .061
Convenient flight
scheduling.
230 2.87 .813 .054
Spontaneous care and
concern for passengers'
needs.
230 2.52 .890 .059
Frequent cabin service
rounds by flight attendants.
230 2.61 .864 .057
Having a sound loyalty
programme to recognize
you as a frequent customer
230 1.52 .639 .042
106
Having a sound mileage
programme
230 1.52 .625 .041
Having other travel related
partners e.g. car rentals,
hotels, travel insurance
230 1.38 .546 .036
t is successful to complete
a travel
230 2.69 .828 .055
Pilot has technological
knowledge and skills
230 3.47 .757 .050
t is a reliable company
230 2.49 1.170 .077
t is a successful company
230 2.96 1.010 .067
t has a superior technology
in its flight services
230 2.41 1.109 .073
t has a good reputation
230 2.02 .967 .064
t is cinsere to the
passengers
230 2.75 .950 .063
Choose one picture which
is close to Aseman Airline
image
230 1.49 .574 .038
Tangibles. Physical
facilities, equipment,
appearance of personnel.
230 2.44 .903 .060
Reliability. Ability to perform
service dependably and
accurately.
230 2.90 1.347 .089
Responsiveness.
Willingness to help
customers and provide
prompt service.
230 4.85 1.088 .072
Assurance. Knowledge and
courtesy, ability to inspire
trust and confidence.
230 4.79 1.443 .095
Empathy. Caring,
individualized attention.
230 5.99 1.165 .077
mage. The public
perception about image of
Aseman Airline
230 5.40 1.438 .095
Technical quality. Success
to complete a trip
230 1.70 .771 .051
One-SampIe Test
Test Value = 3
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence nterval
of the Difference
107
Lower Upper
Appearance, attitudes and
uniforms of employees.
9.138 229 .000 .38 .30 .47
n-flight modern and clean
facilities.
-14.756 229 .000 -.88 -1.00 -.76
Variety and quality of in-
flight meals.
-5.634 229 .000 -.37 -.49 -.24
Variety and choices of in-
flight entertainment
facilities.
-21.268 228 .000 -1.14 -1.24 -1.03
Providing visually appealing
equipment
-18.311 229 .000 -1.03 -1.14 -.92
Efficiency of the check-in
process
-10.785 228 .000 -.62 -.73 -.50
Transfer service and
efficiency at departure
airport
-13.655 228 .000 -.78 -.89 -.67
On-time performance of
scheduled flights.
-1.661 229 .098 -.09 -.20 .02
Remedial procedures for
delayed or missing
baggage
-12.360 229 .000 -.64 -.75 -.54
Providing ground / in-flight
services consistently
-14.327 228 .000 -.72 -.82 -.63
Performing the services
right the first time
-14.030 229 .000 -.80 -.91 -.68
Capable to response to
emergency situations.
-8.941 229 .000 -.47 -.57 -.37
Prompt attention to
passengers' specific needs.
-14.743 229 .000 -.80 -.90 -.69
Understanding the specific
needs of passengers.
-14.983 228 .000 -.80 -.91 -.70
Keeping customers
informed about when
services will be performed
-8.584 226 .000 -.53 -.65 -.41
Prompt respond of
employees of the airline to
your request or complaint
-18.866 229 .000 -1.05 -1.16 -.94
Capacity to respond to
cancelled or delayed flights.
-20.421 229 .000 -1.15 -1.26 -1.04
Sincerity and patience in
resolving passengers'
problems.
-9.048 229 .000 -.60 -.74 -.47
Probability of flight
breakdowns.
-10.789 228 .000 -.59 -.69 -.48
108
Safety performance of
airline.
-7.148 228 .000 -.46 -.58 -.33
Knowledgeable and skillful
provision of services.
-6.225 229 .000 -.36 -.47 -.24
Sincere and responsive
attitude to passenger
complaints.
-2.262 229 .025 -.12 -.22 -.02
Employees instill
confidence to passengers
-.983 229 .327 -.06 -.17 .06
employees are consistently
courteous
.696 229 .487 .04 -.07 .15
Knowledgeable employees
to answer customer
question
-2.719 229 .007 -.19 -.32 -.05
Numerous, easy-to-use
ticketing channels.
-5.006 229 .000 -.30 -.42 -.18
Convenient flight
scheduling.
-2.352 229 .020 -.13 -.23 -.02
Spontaneous care and
concern for passengers'
needs.
-8.223 229 .000 -.48 -.60 -.37
Frequent cabin service
rounds by flight attendants.
-6.872 229 .000 -.39 -.50 -.28
Having a sound loyalty
programme to recognize
you as a frequent customer
-35.106 229 .000 -1.48 -1.56 -1.40
Having a sound mileage
programme
-35.980 229 .000 -1.48 -1.56 -1.40
Having other travel related
partners e.g. car rentals,
hotels, travel insurance
-44.904 229 .000 -1.62 -1.69 -1.55
t is successful to complete
a travel
-5.653 229 .000 -.31 -.42 -.20
Pilot has technological
knowledge and skills
9.490 229 .000 .47 .38 .57
t is a reliable company
-6.650 229 .000 -.51 -.67 -.36
t is a successful company
-.653 229 .514 -.04 -.17 .09
t has a superior technology
in its flight services
-8.087 229 .000 -.59 -.74 -.45
t has a good reputation
-15.418 229 .000 -.98 -1.11 -.86
t is cinsere to the
passengers
-3.954 229 .000 -.25 -.37 -.12
Choose one picture which
is close to Aseman Airline
image
-39.853 229 .000 -1.51 -1.58 -1.43
109
Tangibles. Physical
facilities, equipment,
appearance of personnel.
-9.422 229 .000 -.56 -.68 -.44
Reliability. Ability to perform
service dependably and
accurately.
-1.175 229 .241 -.10 -.28 .07
Responsiveness.
Willingness to help
customers and provide
prompt service.
25.823 229 .000 1.85 1.71 1.99
Assurance. Knowledge and
courtesy, ability to inspire
trust and confidence.
18.786 229 .000 1.79 1.60 1.97
Empathy. Caring,
individualized attention.
38.874 229 .000 2.99 2.84 3.14
mage. The public
perception about image of
Aseman Airline
25.361 229 .000 2.40 2.22 2.59
Technical quality. Success
to complete a trip
-25.555 229 .000 -1.30 -1.40 -1.20
TangibIes
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.3948 1.8646 3.3843 1.5197 1.8150
.3916
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.7130 .4043 .9625 .5582 2.3806
.0431
ReIiabiIity
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.3899 2.2115 2.9119 .7004 1.3167
.0704
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.6903 .5758 .7541 .1782 1.3095
.0055
Responsiveness
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.1999 1.8407 2.5354 .6947 1.3774
.0757
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
110
Variance
.7091 .6321 .8551 .2230 1.3528
.0064
Assurance
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.7105 2.3991 3.0351 .6360 1.2651
.0593
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.8241 .6159 1.0876 .4718 1.7660
.0292
Empathy
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.1596 1.3826 2.8739 1.4913 2.0786
.4251
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.5923 .2984 .8502 .5518 2.8493
.0493
TechnicaI quaIity
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.8841 2.4870 3.4739 .9870 1.3969
.2714
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.8761 .5736 1.3688 .7953 2.3866
.1852
Image
Item Means Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
2.3252 1.4913 2.9565 1.4652 1.9825
.3445
Item Variances Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min
Variance
.8833 .3296 1.2296 .9000 3.7304
.1120
Frequencies
Statistics
111
Tangibles.
Physical
facilities,
equipment,
appearance of
personnel.
Reliability. Ability
to perform
service
dependably and
accurately.
Responsive
ness.
Willingness
to help
customers
and provide
prompt
service.
Assurance.
Knowledge
and courtesy,
ability to
inspire trust
and
confidence.
Empathy.
Caring,
individualized
attention.
mage. The
public
perception
about image
of Aseman
Airline
Technical
quality.
Success to
complete a
trip
N Valid
230 230 230 230 230 230 230
Missing
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean
2.44 2.90 4.85 4.79 5.99 5.40 1.70
Std. Deviation
.903 1.347 1.088 1.443 1.165 1.438 .771
Frequency TabIe
TangibIes. PhysicaI faciIities, equipment, appearance of personneI.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
40 17.4 17.4 17.4
2
74 32.2 32.2 49.6
3
91 39.6 39.6 89.1
4
25 10.9 10.9 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
ReIiabiIity. AbiIity to perform service dependabIy and accurateIy.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
34 14.8 14.8 14.8
2
64 27.8 27.8 42.6
3
64 27.8 27.8 70.4
4
38 16.5 16.5 87.0
5
25 10.9 10.9 97.8
7
5 2.2 2.2 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
Responsiveness. WiIIingness to heIp customers and provide prompt service.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
3
20 8.7 8.7 8.7
4
73 31.7 31.7 40.4
5
80 34.8 34.8 75.2
6
35 15.2 15.2 90.4
Valid
7
22 9.6 9.6 100.0
112
Total
230 100.0 100.0
Assurance. KnowIedge and courtesy, abiIity to inspire trust and confidence.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
10 4.3 4.3 4.3
3
27 11.7 11.7 16.1
4
64 27.8 27.8 43.9
5
43 18.7 18.7 62.6
6
63 27.4 27.4 90.0
7
23 10.0 10.0 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
Empathy. Caring, individuaIized attention.
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
3
13 5.7 5.7 5.7
4
12 5.2 5.2 10.9
5
43 18.7 18.7 29.6
6
59 25.7 25.7 55.2
7
103 44.8 44.8 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
Image. The pubIic perception about image of Aseman AirIine
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2
10 4.3 4.3 4.3
3
10 4.3 4.3 8.7
4
46 20.0 20.0 28.7
5
48 20.9 20.9 49.6
6
43 18.7 18.7 68.3
7
73 31.7 31.7 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
TechnicaI quaIity. Success to compIete a trip
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
113 49.1 49.1 49.1
2
73 31.7 31.7 80.9
3
44 19.1 19.1 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
113
ExpIore
Descriptives
Statistic Std. Error
Mean
2.44 .060
Lower Bound
2.32
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
2.56
5% Trimmed Mean
2.43
Median
3.00
Variance
.815
Std. Deviation
.903
Minimum
1
Maximum
4
Range
3
nterquartile Range
1.00
Skewness
-.086 .160
Tangibles. Physical
facilities, equipment,
appearance of
personnel.
Kurtosis
-.801 .320
Mean
2.90 .089
Lower Bound
2.72
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
3.07
5% Trimmed Mean
2.84
Median
3.00
Variance
1.814
Std. Deviation
1.347
Minimum
1
Maximum
7
Range
6
nterquartile Range
2.00
Skewness
.635 .160
Reliability. Ability to
perform service
dependably and
accurately.
Kurtosis
.291 .320
Mean
4.85 .072
Lower Bound
4.71
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
4.99
5% Trimmed Mean
4.84
Median
5.00
Variance
1.183
Std. Deviation
1.088
Minimum
3
Maximum
7
Range
4
nterquartile Range
1.25
Skewness
.339 .160
Responsiveness.
Willingness to help
customers and provide
prompt service.
Kurtosis
-.469 .320
114
Mean
4.79 .095
Lower Bound
4.60
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
4.97
5% Trimmed Mean
4.86
Median
5.00
Variance
2.081
Std. Deviation
1.443
Minimum
1
Maximum
7
Range
6
nterquartile Range
2.00
Skewness
-.537 .160
Assurance. Knowledge
and courtesy, ability to
inspire trust and
confidence.
Kurtosis
.112 .320
Mean
5.99 .077
Lower Bound
5.84
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
6.14
5% Trimmed Mean
6.10
Median
6.00
Variance
1.358
Std. Deviation
1.165
Minimum
3
Maximum
7
Range
4
nterquartile Range
2.00
Skewness
-1.043 .160
Empathy. Caring,
individualized attention.
Kurtosis
.294 .320
Mean
5.40 .095
Lower Bound
5.22
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
5.59
5% Trimmed Mean
5.50
Median
6.00
Variance
2.067
Std. Deviation
1.438
Minimum
2
Maximum
7
Range
5
nterquartile Range
3.00
Skewness
-.531 .160
mage. The public
perception about image
of Aseman Airline
Kurtosis
-.589 .320
Mean
1.70 .051
Lower Bound
1.60
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
1.80
Technical quality.
Success to complete a
trip
5% Trimmed Mean
1.67
115
Median
2.00
Variance
.595
Std. Deviation
.771
Minimum
1
Maximum
3
Range
2
nterquartile Range
1.00
Skewness
.574 .160
Kurtosis
-1.099 .320
Frequencies
Statistics
trips No
most used
airline
No of used
above airline
Valid
230 230 230
N
Missing
0 0 0
Mean
12.87 12.25
Std. Deviation
10.932 14.632
Frequency TabIe
most used airIine
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
aseman
66 28.7 28.7 28.7
emirate
27 11.7 11.7 40.4
homa
12 5.2 5.2 45.7
iran air
94 40.9 40.9 86.5
kish air
16 7.0 7.0 93.5
mahan
15 6.5 6.5 100.0
Valid
Total
230 100.0 100.0
ExpIore
Most used airIine
Case Processing Summary
most used airline
Cases
116
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
aseman
66 100.0% 0 .0% 66 100.0%
emirate
27 100.0% 0 .0% 27 100.0%
homa
12 100.0% 0 .0% 12 100.0%
iran air
94 100.0% 0 .0% 94 100.0%
kish air
16 100.0% 0 .0% 16 100.0%
trips No
mahan
15 100.0% 0 .0% 15 100.0%
aseman
66 100.0% 0 .0% 66 100.0%
emirate
27 100.0% 0 .0% 27 100.0%
homa
12 100.0% 0 .0% 12 100.0%
iran air
94 100.0% 0 .0% 94 100.0%
kish air
16 100.0% 0 .0% 16 100.0%
No of used above
airline
mahan
15 100.0% 0 .0% 15 100.0%
Descriptives
most used airline Statistic Std. Error
Mean
13.62 1.416
Lower Bound
10.79
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
16.45
5% Trimmed Mean
12.46
Median
11.50
Variance
132.393
Std. Deviation
11.506
Minimum
3
Maximum
80
Range
77
nterquartile Range
11.25
Skewness
3.159 .295
aseman
Kurtosis
16.103 .582
Mean
13.67 3.580
Lower Bound
6.31
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
21.03
5% Trimmed Mean
10.47
Median
8.00
Variance
346.000
Std. Deviation
18.601
Minimum
3
Maximum
100
Range
97
nterquartile Range
10.00
Skewness
4.127 .448
trips No
emirate
Kurtosis
19.183 .872
117
Mean
14.25 2.240
Lower Bound
9.32
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
19.18
5% Trimmed Mean
13.94
Median
14.00
Variance
60.205
Std. Deviation
7.759
Minimum
4
Maximum
30
Range
26
nterquartile Range
8.75
Skewness
.690 .637
homa
Kurtosis
.272 1.232
Mean
12.15 .889
Lower Bound
10.38
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
13.91
5% Trimmed Mean
11.63
Median
9.00
Variance
74.300
Std. Deviation
8.620
Minimum
3
Maximum
30
Range
27
nterquartile Range
15.00
Skewness
.923 .249
iran air
Kurtosis
-.471 .493
Mean
14.75 2.484
Lower Bound
9.46
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
20.04
5% Trimmed Mean
14.56
Median
15.00
Variance
98.733
Std. Deviation
9.936
Minimum
3
Maximum
30
Range
27
nterquartile Range
15.00
Skewness
.331 .564
kish air
Kurtosis
-1.266 1.091
Mean
9.60 1.323
Lower Bound
6.76
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
12.44
mahan
5% Trimmed Mean
9.33
118
Median
9.00
Variance
26.257
Std. Deviation
5.124
Minimum
4
Maximum
20
Range
16
nterquartile Range
9.00
Skewness
.543 .580
Kurtosis
-.949 1.121
Mean
13.88 2.069
Lower Bound
9.75
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
18.01
5% Trimmed Mean
11.48
Median
9.00
Variance
282.570
Std. Deviation
16.810
Minimum
1
Maximum
70
Range
69
nterquartile Range
11.00
Skewness
2.598 .295
aseman
Kurtosis
6.281 .582
Mean
12.37 3.335
Lower Bound
5.51
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
19.23
5% Trimmed Mean
9.80
Median
9.00
Variance
300.319
Std. Deviation
17.330
Minimum
1
Maximum
70
Range
69
nterquartile Range
12.00
Skewness
2.974 .448
emirate
Kurtosis
8.530 .872
Mean
14.75 5.383
Lower Bound
2.90
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
26.60
5% Trimmed Mean
12.44
Median
10.00
Variance
347.659
Std. Deviation
18.646
Minimum
1
No of used above
airline
homa
Maximum
70
119
Range
69
nterquartile Range
10.00
Skewness
2.729 .637
Kurtosis
8.250 1.232
Mean
11.70 1.266
Lower Bound
9.19
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
14.22
5% Trimmed Mean
9.96
Median
9.00
Variance
150.598
Std. Deviation
12.272
Minimum
1
Maximum
70
Range
69
nterquartile Range
10.00
Skewness
3.527 .249
iran air
Kurtosis
14.621 .493
Mean
6.69 1.007
Lower Bound
4.54
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
8.83
5% Trimmed Mean
6.54
Median
5.00
Variance
16.229
Std. Deviation
4.029
Minimum
1
Maximum
15
Range
14
nterquartile Range
4.75
Skewness
1.002 .564
kish air
Kurtosis
.549 1.091
Mean
12.20 4.367
Lower Bound
2.83
95% Confidence
nterval for Mean
Upper Bound
21.57
5% Trimmed Mean
9.61
Median
8.00
Variance
286.029
Std. Deviation
16.912
Minimum
1
Maximum
70
Range
69
nterquartile Range
12.00
Skewness
3.200 .580
mahan
Kurtosis
11.296 1.121