International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Public Sector Reforms and Service Quality

Issues From the Perspective of the Small
Island Developing States in the Pacific: A Case
of Fiji

Neale J. Slack & Gurmeet Singh

To cite this article: Neale J. Slack & Gurmeet Singh (2015) Public Sector Reforms and
Service Quality Issues From the Perspective of the Small Island Developing States in the
Pacific: A Case of Fiji, International Journal of Public Administration, 38:10, 712-723, DOI:
10.1080/01900692.2014.956895

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.956895

Published online: 16 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
Download by: [University of Otago] Date: 28 September 2015, At: 01:05
International Journal of Public Administration, 38: 712–723,
2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online
DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2014.956895

Public Sector Reforms and Service Quality Issues From the

Perspective of the Small Island Developing States in the Pacific:
A Case of Fiji
Neale J. Slack and Gurmeet Singh
School of Management and Public Administration, The University of the South Pacific, Suva,
Fiji

The purpose of this article is to compare service quality of the Fiji Islands Maritime Safety
Administration (FIMSA) and the Maritime Safety Authority of Fiji (MSAF). Using a
structured questionnaire, data were collected from 200 Fiji maritime industry stakeholders.
Research findings identified FIMSA and MSAF service delivery misalignment with
customer expec- tations; customer’ expectations exceeded perceived customer service
experiences of FIMSA and MSAF; and, perceived customer service experiences of MSAF
were noticeably better than those of FIMSA.

Keywords: public sector reforms, public services, customer expectations, service quality,
state owned enterprises
 I Private Mail Bag, Laucala service they are entitled to
N Campus, The University of the receive. The public sector
South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. E-mail:
T singh_g@usp.ac.fj must identify and
R implement strategies and
O tactics to improve the
D efficiency and
U effectiveness of its
C service delivery, provide
T value for money services,
I and reduce the cost of
O service delivery.
N Successful customer-
centric models, derived
Whilst every organization from the private sector,
faces a common are being adopted by the
challenge, namely public sector, to address
meeting the increased this situation, and to aid in
expectations of their improving service deliv-
cus- tomers, their mode of ery to customers, and
operation in addressing meeting their diverse
these chal- lenges and requirements (Oosterom,
the results vary
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

2007).
dramatically. The public Customers have
ser- vice is no exception. expectations of, and
The public service is deserve good cus- tomer
challenged by service experiences. For
unprecedented change in the public sector, this is
economic, technological a major challenge
and social conditions, and considering that
new demands for expectations of public
delivery of timely, qual- services are also
ity services. The public influenced by public
service continues to opinions of govern- ments
grapple with being and politicians, and
overhauled, in order to personal values or beliefs
meet such current and of the role of public
future challenges. services. Delivery of
However, some may public services is influ-
see this as a wakeup call enced by financial and
for the public service, resource constraints, and
traditionally known for mandates to improve
its passive, policy and customer service delivery
process centric, risk against ever-increasing
adverse approach, and customer needs and
“political and managerial expectations. The public
systems based on a sector, and in this case
compliance culture that specifically the Maritime
emphasizes controlling Safety Authority of Fiji
inputs and following (MSAF), is increasingly
rules” (OECD, under pressure to
2008, p. 170). The public demonstrate that its
sector reform is being strategies and services are
driven by customer customer-centric, and that
expectations, fostered by con- tinuous performance
private sector enhanced improvement and service
customer service delivery. delivery are being
In short, the public pays delivered, so as to satisfy
their taxes and the actual needs of the
understandably has an public.
expectation of a level of Considering that the
current public service
Correspondence should be reform strate- gies in Fiji
addressed to Gurmeet Singh, are focused on services
School of Management and being increasingly
Public Administration, Faculty
of Business and Economics,
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES
201
 202
responsive
SLACKto AND
the SINGH
needs importance; and to aid customer perceived an evaluation process in
and aspirations of their MSAF with management through the service which customers compare
customers, to develop a of ser- vice quality encounter.” Zeithaml et their perceptions of
strategy that is (Buttle, 1996, p.8). The al. (2006) stated that service delivery with the
applicable to MSAF modified version of the customer expectations are expected outcome. Oliver
(and Fiji’s maritime SERVQUAL instrument “beliefs about a service (1980) defined customer
industry) requires a comprised four sections – delivery that serve as a satisfaction as the
better understanding of section A (demographic standard against which discrep- ancy (“gap”)
customer expectations characteristics); section B perfor- mance is done.” between expectations and
(what makes customers (customer expec- tations); Lovelock and Wirtz perceptions.
satis- fied), how sections C and D (2007, p. 420) defined Service quality
expectations are formed (customer perceptions of customer perceptions of continues to have an
[previous experience, FIMSA and MSAF, quality of service as the immense impact on
word of mouth respectively); and adopted result of customer satisfaction and
communication, explicit a 5-point Likert scale. loyalty, and business
service communi- cation, This article is profitability and
implicit service organized as follows: performance (Chang &
communication, and “Literature Review” Chen, 1998; Cronin &
personal needs (Accounts followed by the Taylor,
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

Commission for Scotland, background; research 1992; Guru, 2003;

1999, p. 9)], gaps in problem, justifica- tion, Hallowell, 1996; Leonard
service levels, and how and hypotheses of the & Sasser, 1982; Newman,
these can be measured and study; research 2001; Silvestro & Cross,
achieved (Mori Social methodology; results and 2000 and Sureshchander,
Research Institute, 2002). discussion; and finally Rajendran &
Whilst these state- ments conclusions and research Anatharaman, 2002),
may appear obvious, it is implications. hence, measurement of
evident from the reforms customer expectation and
undertaken by the entities perception of service is
leading up to the LITERA becoming increasingly
establishment of MSAF, TURE important (Accounts
that the research REVIE Commission for Scotland,
necessary to provide such W 1
under- standing was not 9
carried out. Hence, this Whilst researchers have 9
research of MSAF is developed different 9
unique in that it definitions and )
acknowledges that the perspectives of service .
starting point in quality (Chang, 2008; However, as a result of
developing quality in Kumra, 2008; Ramsaran- service quality’s unique
services is analysis and Fowdar, 2007 and char- acteristics
measurement (Edvardsen, Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000), (intangibility,
Tomasson & Ovretveit, ser- vice quality is a heterogeneity,
1994). concept that has aroused inseparability, and
This research used a considerable interest and perishability), it has been
modified version of the debate in the research proven to be difficult to
SERVQUAL instrument, literature because of the measure (Bateson, 1995).
an instrument that has difficulties in both Service quality is linked
good reliability and valid- defining and measuring it, to the concepts of
ity (Kulasin & Fortuny- with no over- all perceptions and
Santos, 2005, p. 139), to consensus emerging on expectations (Lewis &
measure “the extent of either (Wisniewski, 2001). Mitchell, 1990 and
discrepancy between In this research, we have Parasuraman, Zeithaml &
customers’ expecta- tions adopted the following Berry, 1985, 1988).
or desires and their definitions: accord- ing to Customers’ perceptions of
perceptions” (Zeithaml Parasuraman, Zeithaml service quality result
et al., and Berry (1990), from a comparison of
1990, p. 19), of FIMSA service quality is their before-service
and MSAF; to rank the “extrinsically perceived expectations and their
five cus- tomer service attribution based on the actual-service experience.
quality (expectations) customer’s experience Service will be considered
dimensions by customer about the service that the to be excellent when
customers’ perceptions quality by calculating the PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES
exceed expectations; it difference between 203
will be rated as adequate, expectations and
if the service equals perceptions, and
expectations; and the ser- evaluating both in relation
vice will be classed as to the 22 items that
poor, if it does not meet represent 5 service
customers’ expectations quality dimen- sions
(Vázquez, Bosque, Diaz known as “tangibles”,
& Ruiz, 2001). “reliability”,
Historically, many “responsiveness”,
customer service surveys “assurance”, and
have focused on “empathy” (Krishna Naik,
measuring customer Gantasala, & Prabhakar,
perception of the service 2010, p. 232).
received, without Buttle (1996) stated
allowing for customer that the SERVQUAL
expectations of service methodol- ogy has been
deliv- ery. Without a widely adopted to
balanced view of measure and manage
customer expectations and service quality in diverse
perceptions, feedback service industries, such
from customer surveys as food and agribusiness
can be highly misleading (Wilson et al., 2011),
from a strategic and tertiary education
operational perspective (Shekarchizadeh, Rasli &
(Accounts Commission Hon-Tat, 2011), and e-
for Scotland, 1999). learning
While there have
been efforts to study
service qual- ity, there
has been no general
agreement on the
measure- ment of the
concept. The majority of
the work to date has
attempted to use the
SERVQUAL
(Parasuraman et al.,
1985; 1988) methodology
in an effort to measure
service quality (Brooks,
Lings, & Botschen, 1999;
Chaston, 1994;
Edvardsson, Larsson &
Setterlind, 1997; Lings &
Brooks,
1998;
Sahney,
Banwet
&
Karune
s,
2004).
Parasuraman et al.
(1985) developed
SERVQUAL, a tech-
nology for measuring and
managing service quality
(Buttle,
1996). The SERVQUAL
“Gap Analysis Model”
scale deter- mines service
204 SLACK AND SINGH
 (Udo, Bagchi & Kirs, n (Ports
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE Terminal
QUALITY Ltd.
ISSUES and
2011). A limited number d 205 Maritime Ports Authority
of studies have been Reform Leading to the of Fiji) resulted in the
undertaken using the F Maritime Safety establishment of the Fiji
SERVQUAL methodology i Authority of Fiji Ports Corporation Limited
to measure the quality of j ( (FPCL) and transfer of
public services and public i M all regulatory functions
service customer S to FIMSA. FIMSA
In developing countries, A
satisfaction; however, the addressed only a small
public sector reforms are F
results have been encour- portion of Fiji
common (Andrews, )
aging (Donnelly, Kerr, government’s
2013), there is a heavy
Rimmer & Shiu, 2006; In 1998, the Marine international and national
reliance on state owned
Orgeron & Goodman, Department was obligations and in
enterprises (SOE’s), and
2011; Sargeant & Kaehler, declared a 2006, FIMSA was
SOE’s place a heavy
1998; Wisniewski & “Reorganization Entity” declared a
financial bur- den on
Donnelly, 1996 and under the Public “Reorganization Entity”,
governments in
Wisniewski, 2001a). In Enterprise Act to enable the new entity
developing countries
terms of public service 1996, resulting in the to adopt a more
(Karan, 2010). In the
safety organizations, the formation of the Shipping customer focused and
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

1970s and 1980s, donors

assessment of the quality Corporation Fiji Limited business oriented structure
questioned the develop-
of public services and (SCFL). SCFL was later and philosophy
ing country SOE model,
public service customer wound up in 1999. The (Secretariat of the Pacific
and offered funding
satisfac- tion, utilizing the Marine Fleet was Community, 2008). On
contingent on reduction in
SERVQUAL renamed Government 9th November 2011, with
the public sector. Since
methodology, is limited to Shipping Services (GSS), a retrospective
the 1990s, there has been
the research undertaken and the Marine commencement date of
a turnaround, and public
by Donnelly et al. (2006) Department became the 1st January
sector development has
of one organization – Fiji Islands Maritime 2011, heralded in the
been pro- moted and
Strathclyde Police Safety Administration commencement of the
emerged (Schacter, 2000).
Department in Scotland. (FIMSA). In spite of MSAF and the cessation
South Pacific govern-
these name changes, of FIMSA. MSAF is not
ments are also undergoing
limited structural and merely a structural
structural reform, and
B organizational reform of reorganization of the old
managing demand on
A GSS and FIMSA resulted, government department
their limited resources
C and no noticeable (FIMSA). MSAF is a
(Reddy, 1997) however,
K improvement in service newly established SOE,
this has been a slow
G delivery. In 2005, the with a much wider set of
process (The Asian
R reorganization of Fiji responsibilities, and a
Development out- look,
O Ports customer-centric mandate.
2004). Fiji, like other
U Pacific postcolonial
N societies, relied heavily
D on its public sector for RESEARCH
socioeconomic devel- PROBLEM,
Public Sector opment and nation
Reform in JUSTIFICATION,
building (Sharma & AND
Developing
Lawrence, 2009). The HYPOTHESES
Countries, The
Department of Public OF THE STUDY
S
Enterprises was
o
established in Fiji under The main research
u
the Public Enterprise Act problem is that since 1998
t
h (1996). This act provided several efforts toward the
the basis for a public service reform of
dramatically different the precursor SOE’s
P
governance structure of leading up to MSAF have
a
SOE’s, whereby the failed to adequately
c
i government remained the achieve con- tinuous
f owner, and a government performance improvement
i appointed board was and service delivery, so
c tasked to provide strategic as to satisfy the actual
direction and commercial needs of the public.
performance (Sharma & Research neces- sary to
a
Lawrence, 2009). provide an understanding
of206
customer
SLACK expectations,
AND SINGH Hypothesis 3: There is no
gaps in and measurement significant correlation
of service levels, and the between the customer
achieve- ment of adequate perceptions of MSAF
service levels, was not dimensions.
previously carried out. This Hypothesis 4: There is no
sets the stimulus for this significant correlation
research to examine cus- between the customer
tomers’ expectations of the expectations and
kind of company with customer perceptions of
which they would be FIMSA.
pleased to do business
with; these customers’
expe- riences in dealing
with the FIMSA, and the
MSAF; and, to compare
customers’ expectations
with FIMSA and MSAF
customer service
experiences. This research
acknowledges that the
starting point in developing
quality in services is
analysis and measurement
(Edvardsen et al., 1994).
Six specific hypotheses
were identified in this
research. The null
hypothesis is simply a
default position that there
is no relationship or no
difference existing
between the variables.

H0: ρ
=0
(No
linear
relation
ship
exits)
H1: ρ
=0
(linea
r
relati
onshi
p
exists
)

Hypothesis 1: There is no
significant correlation
between the customer
service quality
(expectations)
dimensions.
Hypothesis 2: There is no
significant correlation
between the customer
perceptions of FIMSA
dimensions.
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES
207
 208
Hypothesis
SLACK5: AND
There
SINGHis locations was because version of the of the SERVQUAL
no significant maritime stakeholders SERVQUAL sur- vey instrument was in four
correlation between the were widely dispersed instrument developed by parts. Section A
customer expectations across Fiji, these were Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & comprised demographic
and customer known locations of Berry, to measure service characteristics. Section B
perceptions of MSAF. customers, and to avoid quality – “the extent of was com- posed of
Hypothesis 6: There is sample bias. dis- crepancy between questions for determining
no significant Group meetings of customers’ expectations or the extent of customer
correlation between the customers were desires and their expectations. Sections C
customer perceptions of prearranged for each perceptions” (Zeithaml et and D were composed of
FIMSA, and customer location, wherein al., 1990, p. 19), of ques- tions for
perceptions of MSAF. stakeholders were asked FIMSA and MSAF. The determining the extent of
to individually complete SERVQUAL instrument customer perceptions of
the questionnaire, in utilizes 2 sets of FIMSA and MSAF,
English, the national lan- 22 statements to measure respectively. The
R
guage of Fiji. One-on- performance (expected modified version of the
one meetings were and per- ceived services) SERVQUAL instrument
ESEARCH
organized for Fiji across 5 dimensions adopted a 5-point Likert
maritime stakeholders (tangibles, reliability, scale. Considering the
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

METHODO
unable to attend group responsiveness, assurance, number of responses
meet- ings. The self- and empathy), using a 7- required per question-
LOGY
completion questionnaire point Likert scale (Gabbie naire (63), and the time
approach was also used & O’neill, 1996). The taken to complete this
Sample modified version
and this proved to be questionnaire and the
The data reported in quicker and cheaper to other questionnaire(s) in
this study were admin- ister, as many one sitting, it was
collected through a respondents were able to concluded to be easier for
structured survey complete the the respondent to
questionnaire. The survey questionnaire complete a 5-point Likert
instrument was simultaneously (Bryman scale instrument.
personally administered & Bell, 2007). The Justification for using
to 200 Fiji maritime research assistant was the SERVQUAL
indus- try stakeholders present to administer the instrument was based on
who were randomly question- naire, which confirmation that it can be
selected from the MSAF took approximately 20 repeatedly and regularly
stakeholder database. minutes to complete, and administered (Brysland &
MSAF confirmed that allowed for greater Curry, 2001), after
there was approximately response rate – 200 extensive mod- ification
758 Fiji maritime industry questionnaires, and all and field-testing that it is
stakeholders parts of the questionnaire, a statistically valid tool
(“customers”) catalogued were completed, by the (Stylianou, 2006), its
in their database. The respondents. reliability and validity
question- naire was (Dale, 2003), and
pretested on a sample size researchers support its use
of 10 respondents, based S (Akan, 1995; Avkiran,
in Suva Fiji, after which u 1994; Babakus &
minor changes were r Mangold, 1992; Carman,
made. v 1990; Finn & Lamb,
Data were collected e 1991; Johns & Tyas,
from 8 locations y 1996; Johnson & Sirikit,
across Fiji (Suva, 2002 and Saleh
Labasa, Savusavu, I & Ryan, 1991). Khan
Taveuni, Levuka, n (2003) stated that the
Rakiraki, Nadi/Denarau, s SERVQUAL instrument
and Kadavu) during the t was a reliable predictor of
months of December r the overall service quality.
2012, January 2013, and u
February 2013, by a m
University of the South e SURVEY
Pacific appointed research n RESULT
t S AND
assistant. The main reason
for sampling these We utilized a modified DISCUSS
 ION considered to be reliable, PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES
with alpha values of 209
The paper-based survey 0.931, 0.974, and 0.908,
responses were respectively. Cronbach’s
statistically ana- lyzed. alpha values by dimension
Demographic ranged between 0.954 and
characteristics of the 0.883 and were
respondents in this study considered to be reliable.
included 165 males and Cronbach’s alpha values if
only 35 females. the item was deleted
Indigenous Fijians were from the dimension
145, Fijians of Indian ranged between
origin were 29, and 26
others. The sample mostly
consisted of ages from
31–40 years (66), 21–30
years (47), and 41–50
years (45); certifi- cate
(106) qualified
respondents; and, in terms
of maritime
qualifications, no
qualification (50)
followed by boat master
license (46). In the
industry type of business,
a greater pro- portion of
respondents was from
tourism (73), fishing (46),
and cargo (45). For length
of vessel registration,
most were from one to
five years (82), never
registered (43), and six to
ten years (23). The gross
income of respondents
mostly was in the range of
less than 10,000 Fijian
dollars (77), followed by
11,000 to 20,000 (56), and
21,000 to 30,000 (31).
Table 1 above presents
the results of the
Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for internal
efficiency (“Cronbach’s
alpha val- ues”) for this
modified SERVQUAL
instrument. Cronbach’s
alpha values (reliability
coefficient scores) were
used to test the
reliability of sections B,
C, and D of the modi-
fied SERVQUAL
instrument. Cronbach’s
alpha value for sections
B, C, and D combined
was 0.978, and was
considered to be reliable.
Individually, sections B,
C, and D were also
210 SLACK AND SINGH

TABLE 1
Cronbach’s Alpha Values for this Modified SERVQUAL Instrument

Service Quality Dimensions FIMSA – Service Quality MSAF – Service Quality

(Section B) (Section C) (Section 4)

Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Cronbach’s

Alpha for Alpha if item Alpha for Alpha if item Alpha for Alpha Values if
Dimension Items dimensions deleted dimensions deleted dimensions item deleted

Tangibles (4) 1 0.912 0.882 0.916 0.885 0.883 0.821

2 0.881 0.871 0.806
3 0.890 0.905 0.901
4 0.892 0.901 0.864
Reliability (5) 5 0.934 0.925 0.948 0.934 0.941 0.927
6 0.918 0.934 0.927
7 0.913 0.936 0.918
8 0.917 0.927 0.918
9 0.924 0.946 0.946
Responsiveness (4) 10 0.918 0.910 0.950 0.944 0.930 0.922
11 0.883 0.926 0.902
12 0.879 0.924 0.896
13 0.900 0.943 0.913
Assurance (4) 14 0.923 0.911 0.946 0.930 0.947 0.929
15 0.908 0.925 0.925
16 0.884 0.925 0.933
17 0.894 0.940 0.934
Empathy (5) 18 0.917 0.891 0.954 0.951 0.951 0.940
19 0.890 0.942 0.943
20 0.906 0.938 0.938
21 0.909 0.944 0.938
22 0.897 0.943 0.938
 0.951 and 0.806 and were considered to be reliable. Based
on the Cronbach’s alpha values calculated for this modi-
fied SERVQUAL instrument, the instrument was
considered to be reliable, with a high degree of internal
consistency, thereby adding validity and accuracy to the
interpretation of this research’s data.
Customer expectations, and customer perceptions of two
organizations (FIMSA and MSAF), were measured using
the modified version of the SERVQUAL instrument. We
calcu- lated the mean scores for customer expectations
(including the importance/weighting of each of the five
dimensions), and for customer perceptions of FIMSA and
MSAF. Gap scores were determined between customer
expectations and customer perceptions of FIMSA and
MSAF. The higher mean scores indicated a higher level of
customer expectation
TABLE 2
Dimension’s Importance to Customers
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015
Service Quality (Expectation)
Dimensions Mean Scores
Tangibles 4.101
Reliability 4.166
Responsiveness 4.248
Assurance 4.233
Empathy 4.217
Average 4.193
or perception
PUBLIC or gap. AND
SECTOR REFORMS We SERVICE
then used the Pearson
QUALITY 211
ISSUESproduct-
moment correlation coefficient to determine the strength of
any association between the five dimensions, and customer
expectations and perceptions (of FIMSA and MSAF).
Dimensions’ Importance to Fiji Maritime Stakeholders
Table 2 (below) presents the results of the customer service
quality (expectation), and customer importance (weighting)
for the modified SERVQUAL instrument dimensions and
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1991) customer impor-
tance (weighting).
The results reveal that the order of customer importance
(weighting) of dimensions by the customer respondents did
Customer Importance Parasuraman et al. (1991) Customer
(Weighting) Importance (Weighting)
5 5
4 1
1 2
2 3
3 4
 not fully comply with the research findings of Parasuraman
et al. (1991). Responsiveness had the highest expectation
mean score (4.248) and ranked first (1) in customer impor-
tance, followed by the assurance mean score (4.233) and
ranked second (2). On the contrary, the customers consid-
ered reliability less significant (4.166) and ranked fourth
(4). Tangibles scored the lowest (4.101), and in line with
the findings of Parasuraman et al. (1991). The findings
of Parasuraman et al. (1991) are not necessarily a norm,
as customer expectations may vary, dependent on many
factors such a demographics, type of service, type of indus-
try, and the like (Stylianou, 2006). The service quality
(expectation) mean scores were tightly clustered around the
average of those scores (4.193), and ranged above 4.000
(4.248 to 4.101), indicating that customers had medium-
high expectations.
From Table 3 (below), we see that FIMSA’s and MSAF’s
prioritization of importance, by dimension, was misaligned
with the customer service quality (expectations) and asso-
ciated customer importance, by dimension. It would appear
that both FIMSA and MSAF were either unaware of, or
ambivalent toward, the customer’s expectations.
Table 4 shows that the MSAF compared to FIMSA aver-
age customer perception gap score difference was 0.282
(22%), and customer’s mean perceptions scores for MSAF
were on average 10% higher when compared to FIMSA.
It would appear that there was a marked improvement in
cus- tomer’s perception of MSAF, compared to FIMSA,
however,

TABLE 3
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

Customer Service Quality (Expectations) and Customer Perceptions of FIMSA and MSAF, by
Dimension

Parasuraman et
Service Quality FIMSA MSAF al. (1991)
(Expectation) Customer Perception FIMSA Perception MSAF Importance
Dimension Scores Importance Scores Importance Scores Importance (Weighting)

Tangibles 4.101 5 2.980 2 3.246 1 5

Reliability 4.166 4 2.733 5 3.162 5 1
Responsiveness 4.248 1 2.943 4 3.183 3 2
Assurance 4.233 2 2.999 1 3.229 2 3
Empathy 4.217 3 2.949 3 3.169 4 4

TABLE 4
MSAF versus FIMSA Average Customer Perception Gap Scores

MSAF/FIMSA
FIMSA MSAF MSAF/FIMSA MSAF/FIMSA Perception
Dimension Expectation Perceptio FIMSA Perceptio MSAF Gap Gap Scores Gap Scores % Scores %
(No. of Items) Statements Scores Scores Gap Score Scores Scores Difference Difference Difference

Tangibles (4) 1 4.145 2.935 −1.210 3.225 −0.920 0.290 24 10

2 4.010 3.015 −0.995 3.235 −0.775 0.220 22 7
3 4.145 3.135 −1.010 3.445 −0.700 0.310 31 10
4 4.105 2.835 −1.270 3.080 −1.025 0.245 19 9
Reliability (5) 5 4.110 2.660 −1.450 3.135 −0.975 0.475 33 18
6 4.200 2.860 −1.340 3.300 −0.900 0.440 33 15
7 4.235 2.720 −1.515 3.140 −1.095 0.420 28 15
8 4.110 2.685 −1.425 3.135 −0.975 0.450 32 17
9 4.175 2.740 −1.435 3.100 −1.075 0.360 25 13
Responsiveness (4) 10 4.265 2.850 −1.415 3.080 −1.185 0.230 16 8
11 4.210 2.950 −1.260 3.145 −1.065 0.195 15 7
12 4.310 3.025 −1.285 3.295 −1.015 0.270 21 9
13 4.205 2.945 −1.260 3.210 −0.995 0.265 21 9
Assurance (4) 14 4.230 2.990 −1.240 3.230 −1.000 0.240 19 8
15 4.295 2.985 −1.310 3.240 −1.055 0.255 19 9
16 4.225 3.000 −1.225 3.205 −1.020 0.205 17 7
17 4.180 3.020 −1.160 3.240 −0.940 0.220 19 7
Empathy (5) 18 4.245 3.000 −1.245 3.185 −1.060 0.185 15 6
19 4.180 2.940 −1.240 3.110 −1.070 0.170 14 6
20 4.105 2.915 −1.190 3.160 −0.945 0.245 21 8
21 4.255 2.925 −1.330 3.230 −1.025 0.305 23 10
22 4.300 2.965 −1.335 3.160 −1.140 0.195 15 7
Average 4.193 2.913 −1.279 3.195 −0.998 0.282 22 10
206 SLACK AND SINGH
 MSAF’s customer service levels were still below customer
expectations.
Descriptive Statistics for Five Dimensions –
FIMSA
and MSAF
Tables 5 (below) presents the descriptive statistics, includ-
ing measures of central tendency (mean, median, and
mode), measures of variability (standard deviation, standard
error of skewness, and kurtosis), and measures of the shape
of the distribution (skewness and kurtosis) for the five
dimensions of customer perception relating to FIMSA and
MSAF.
The results reveal that the customers’ perceptions
(according to the five dimensions) of service quality offered
by both FIMSA and MSAF did not meet their customers’
expectations, as all mean gap scores for the dimensions
were negative. Dimension median variance for MSAF was
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015
PUBLIC
FIMSASECTOR REFORMS
dimensions AND
was SERVICE QUALITY
negatively ISSUES
skewed and indicated a
207left skewed, asymmetrical distribution; while for MSAF the
skewness distribution for empathy was negatively skewed
and indicated a left skewed, asymmetrical distribution, and
for the other four dimensions, skewness distribution was
positively skewed and indicated a right skewed asymmetri-
cal distribution. The kurtosis values for all dimensions for
FIMSA indicated that the distribution was more peaked
than normal, and considered to be very good for most
psychome- tric uses. The kurtosis values for all dimensions
for MSAF indicate that the distribution was flatter than
normal.
Table 6 (below) shows that the overall service quality
(expectations) of respondents, with a mean score (4.193)
and median (4.364), was medium-high.
The overall FIMSA and MSAF (perceptions) negative
average gap scores indicated medium-low (–1.279) and
medium (–0.998) perceptions, respectively. The median
results reaffirm the medium-low (–1.091) and medium (–

more consistent and smaller than for FIMSA, while the
modal scores for all dimensions (FIMSA and MSAF) were
zero. The standard deviation scores for FIMSA indicated
that the spread of gaps away from the mean was more con-
sistent and larger than for MSAF and suggested a wider
range of opinions with regard FIMSA on service qual-
ity among the respondents surveyed. The skewness for all
0.955) perceptions of FIMSA and MSAF. The modal
scores for respondent’s expectations and perceptions
(FIMSA and MSAF) were zero. The standard deviation
(.861) for the respondents’ expectation indicated that the
spread of average scores away from the mean was smaller
than for both FIMSA (1.328) and MSAF (1.263), and

TABLE 5
Descriptive Statistics for FIMSA and MSAF

Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

(Average Gap (Average Gap (Average Gap (Average Gap (Average Gap
Scores) Scores) Scores) Scores) Scores)

FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF

Mean Gap Scores −1.121 −.855 −1.433 −1.004 −1.305 −1.065 −1.234 −1.004 −1.268 −1.048
Median −1.000 −0.750 −1.400 −1.000 −1.125 −1.000 −1.000 −1.000 −1.200 −1.000
Mode 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Standard Deviation 1.403 1.303 1.421 1.446 1.491 1.433 1.458 1.402 1.415 1.313
Skewness −0.218 0.008 −0.042 0.204 −0.096 0.229 −0.155 0.087 −0.222 −0.056
Standard Error of Skewness 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172 0.172
Kurtosis −0.493 0.073 −0.690 0.242 −0.812 0.284 −0.727 0.017 −0.669 0.062
Standard Error of Kurtosis 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342 0.342

TABLE 6
Overall Perceived Service Quality

Overall Service Quality (Expectations) Overall FIMSA Overall MSAF

Average Scores (Perceptions) Average (Perceptions) Average
Gap Scores Gap Scores
Mean Gap Scores 4.193 −1.279 −0.998
Median 4.364 −1.091 −0.955
Mode 0.000 0.000 0.000
Standard Deviation 0.861 1.328 1.263
Skewness −1.363 −0.318 0.042
Standard Error of Skewness 0.172 0.172 0.172
Kurtosis 1.368 −0.884 0.284
Standard Error of Kurtosis 0.342 0.342 0.342
Minimum 1.000 1.000 1.000
Maximum 5.000 5.000 5.000
 suggested a narrower range of opinions of expectations
of service quality among the respondents surveyed. The
respondents’ expectation distribution negatively skewed and
indicated a left skewed distribution, was highly skewed (–
1.363), and far from symmetrical. The skewness for FIMSA
was less negatively skewed when compared to respondents’
expectations, and indicated a left skewed, asymmetrical dis-
tribution; while for MSAF the skewness distribution was
positively skewed and indicated a right skewed asymmetri-
cal distribution. The respondent’s expectation kurtosis value
(1.368) indicated that the distribution was flatter than nor-
mal. The FIMSA result (–0.884) indicated a result more
peaked than a Gaussian distribution, and the MSAF results
(0.284) indicated a result more peaked than a Gaussian
distribution however less peaked than the FIMSA result.
Correlation Between Customer Service Quality
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015
or large positive correlations at the 0.01 level, and were
statistically significant. The p-values for the correlations
(0.000) were ≤0.05, which suggests the null hypothesis
(H0) is rejected, and the correlation was statistically signif-
icant at the 0.05 level. Based on the findings of H1, it can
be said that there was a statistically significant positive cor-
relation between the customer service quality (expectation)
dimensions.
The results relating to this hypothesis are further justi-
fied by Gržinic´ (2007, p. 92) that “there is a high
degree of intercorrelation between RATER dimensions.
RATER is
a mnemonic acronym where R = reliability, A =
assurance, T = tangibles, E = empathy and R =
responsiveness.”
According to Aspfors (2010), the concept of perceived
quality can be explained by taking into consideration
the quality dimensions. On each occasion, an interaction
between a customer and a seller occurs, and the outcome

(Expectations) and Perceptions of FIMSA and
MSAF
In order to determine whether correlations existed between
the five dimensions (customer service quality [expectations]
dimensions, customer perceptions of FIMSA, and customer
perceptions of MSAF); between customer service quality
(expectations), customer perceptions of FIMSA, and cus-
tomer perceptions of MSAF; to determine the strength of
the correlations; and, to test this research’s hypotheses; and
there was no attempt to manipulate the variables (random
vari- ables); the Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient was utilized in this research, as it is a commonly
used method for determining a correlation coefficient
between variables that are linearly related.
Analyzing data from Table 7 (above) indicates that the
correlations between the customer service quality (expecta-
tion) dimensions were larger than 0.50, represented strong
of the interaction will affect the customer’s perceptions
(Aspfors, 2010).
Analyzing data from Table 8 (above) indicate that the
correlations between the customer perceptions of FIMSA
dimensions were larger than 0.50, represented a strong
or large positive correlation at the 0.01 level, and were
statistically significant. The p-values for the correlations
(0.000) were ≤0.05, which suggests that the null hypoth-
esis (H0) is rejected, and the correlation was statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Based on the findings of H2,
it can be said that there was a statistically significant posi-
tive correlation between the customer perceptions of
FIMSA dimensions.
Analyzing data from Table 8 indicates that the cor-
relations between the customer perceptions of MSAF
dimensions were larger than 0.50, represented a strong
or large positive correlation at the 0.01 level, and were
statistically significant. The p-values for the correlations

TABLE 7
Correlation Between Customer Service Quality (Expectations) Dimensions

Dimensions Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

Tangibles Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
∗∗
Reliability Pearson Correlation 0.799 1
∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 200
∗∗ ∗∗
Responsiveness Pearson Correlation 0.745 0.879 1
∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
N 200 200
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Assurance Pearson Correlation 0.768 0.859 0.880 1
∗ ∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 200 200 200
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Empathy Pearson Correlation 0.716 0.749 0.737 0.843 1
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 200 200 200 200

Notes: ∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
208 SLACK AND SINGH

TABLE 8
Correlation Between Customer Perceptions of FIMSA and MSAF Dimensions

Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

Dimensions FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF FIMSA MSAF

Tangibles Pearson Correlation 1 1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
∗∗ ∗∗
Reliability Pearson Correlation 0.779 0.759 1 1
∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000
N 200 200
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Responsiveness Pearson Correlation 0.802 0.726 0.882 0.887 1 1
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 200 200 200 200
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Assurance Pearson Correlation 0.797 0.770 0.844 0.832 0.911 0.877 1 1
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 200 200 200 200 200 200
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Empathy Pearson Correlation 0.783 0.733 0.833 0.775 0.917 0.829 0.916 0.906 1 1
∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
N 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200

Notes: ∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 9
Correlation Between Customer Service Quality (Expectations), Customer Perceptions of FIMSA, and Customer Perceptions of MSAF

FIMSA (Perceptions) MSAF (Perceptions) Service Quality (Expectations)

FIMSA (Perceptions) Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
∗∗
MSAF (Perceptions) Pearson Correlation 0.751 1
∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 200
∗∗ ∗∗
Service Quality (Expectations) Pearson Correlation 0.164 0.126 1
∗
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.020 0.075
N 200 200

Notes: ∗∗ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

∗
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
 (0.000) were ≤0.05,
which suggests that the
null hypoth-
esis (H0) is rejected, and
the correlation was
statistically
significant at the 0.05
level. Based on the
findings of H3, it can be
said that there was a
statistically significant
posi- tive correlation
between the customer
perceptions of MSAF
dimensions.
Analyzing data from
Table 9 indicates that the
corre- lation between the
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015
customer expectations and
customer perceptions of
FIMSA was a weak or
small positive correla-
tion (0.164) at the 0.01
level, and was statistically
significant.
The p-value for the
correlation (0.020) was
≤0.05, which
suggests that the null
hypothesis (H0) is
rejected, and the
correlation was
statistically significant at
the 0.05 level. Based on
the findings of H4, it can
be said that there was a
statistically significant
positive correlation
between the customer
expectations and customer
perceptions of FIMSA.
The results relating to
this hypothesis are further
justified by the findings
of Zeithaml et al., (2009)
that perceptions
are always considered in PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES
relation to expectations; 209
and, the service quality
gaps analysis model
(Curry, 1999; Luk &
Layton, 2002;
Parasuraman et al.,
1985) that identified
seven gaps relating to
perceptions of service
quality, and specifically
gap 5 (between customer
expectations and their
perceptions of the service
delivered) (Shahin, 2006).
Similarly, data indicate
that the correlation
between the customer
expectations and customer
perceptions of MSAF was
a weak or small positive
significant correlation
(0.164) at the 0.01 level,
but was not statistically
significant as the
p-value (.075) was
≥0.05, which suggests
that we failed
to reject the null
hypothesis (H0) and the
correlation was
not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. Based
on the findings of H5, it
can be said that there was
not a statistically
significant correlation
between the customer
expectations and customer
perceptions of MSAF.
The results relating
to this hypothesis are
further justified by the
findings of Lovelock and
Wright (2002,
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES 209
 210 265–266)
pp. SLACK that “many
AND SINGH impact on customers’ of FIMSA and MSAF service levels; however,
researchers believe that perceptions of service customer service MSAF’s customer
customers’ perceptions quality. experiences. We found service level was still
about quality are based on that the order of customer well below customer
long-term, cognitive importance of dimen- expectations. In line with
evaluations of an CO sions by the customer previous research
organisation’s service NC respondents did not fully findings, a positive
delivery.” It can be LU comply with the research correlation existed
deduced that MSAF had SI findings of Parasuraman between the customer
only been in existence for ON et al. (1991); that expectations and customer
approxi- mately 15 AN FIMSA’s and MSAF’s perceptions of FIMSA,
months when this research D prioritization of which was significant.
was undertaken, was RE importance, by dimension, However, the positive cor-
undergoing wide-range SE was misaligned with the relation between the
reform, and this would AR customer service quality customer expectations and
have con- siderably CH (expectations) and customer perceptions of
affected customer IM associated customer MSAF was not significant.
perceptions and PLI importance, and it It is recommended that
expectations. It is CA appeared that both further research be
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

recommended that further TI FIMSA and MSAF were undertaken to investigate

research be undertaken to
investigate this result.
The results also
indicate that the
correlation between cus-
tomer perceptions of
FIMSA and customer
perceptions of MSAF was
a strong or large positive
significant correlation
(0.751) at the 0.01 level.
The p-value for the
correlation
(0.000) was ≤0.05, which
suggests that the null
hypothesis
(H0) is rejected, and the
correlation was
statistically signif-
icant at the 0.05 level.
Based on the findings of
H6, it can be said that
there was a statistically
significant positive cor-
relation between the
customer perceptions of
FIMSA, and customer
perceptions of MSAF.
The results relating to
this hypothesis are further
justified by the findings
of Edvardsson (2005) that
customer experi- ences
from service encounters
create customer’s
responses in customer’s
memories, stay with
customers for a long
time, and have a strong
ON
S ambivalent toward, the
Considering Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient for
internal con- sistency
values, calculated for the
modified SERVQUAL
instrument utilized in this
research, to be all
>0.800, the instrument
was considered to be
reliable, with a high
degree of internal
consistency, thereby
adding validity and accu-
racy to the interpretation
of this research’s data.
The research problem
centered on the fact that
since 1998 several efforts
toward the public service
reform of the precursor
SOE’s leading up to
MSAF had failed to
adequately achieve con-
tinuous performance
improvement and service
delivery, so as to satisfy
the actual needs of the
public. In this research,
we set out to investigate
FIMSA and MSAF
customers’ expectations;
these customers’
experiences in dealing
with FIMSA, and MSAF;
and, to compare
customers’ expecta- tions
either unaware of, or this result. As expected, a
positive correlation
customer’s expectations. existed between the cus-
It can also be said that tomer perceptions of
there was a marked FIMSA and customer
improvement in cus- perceptions of MSAF,
tomer’s perception of considering MSAF was a
MSAF compared to reformation of FIMSA.
FIMSA customer This article forms an
integral part of a larger
research – change
management challenges in
the reform of the MSAF.
A major outcome of this
research is its contribution
towards a policy article
that can be a vital
resource for government
policy planners, and
MSAF board and
management, for the
ongoing reform of MSAF
and the maritime industry
of Fiji. Considering the
ongoing reform of MSAF,
and that it is preferred to
utilize the SERVQUAL
instrument on a recur-
rent basis, future research
should be undertaken to
periodi- cally analyze and
measure MSAF customer
service quality trends.
Future research should
also examine the
demographic
characteristics of MSAF
customers, when
evaluating ser- vice
quality in the customer 32. Retrieved from http:// PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES 211
population; and, in order www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp
_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdf
to enhance the s/centers-
understanding of the programs/centers/cid/publicati
concepts of service qual- ons/faculty/wp/267_Andrews_
ity and customer Explaining
%20positive%20deviance.pdf
satisfaction and how they
Aspfors, E. (2010). Customer
are measured, because perception of service, store
they are very important image and prod- uct
for service providers such assortment – from an
as MSAF, in terms of interior store perspective,
Degree Program of
overall performance of the
International Business,
organization, profitability, Vaasa University of
and growth. Applied Sciences, pp. 1–71.
In conclusion, this Retrieved from
study makes its http://www.theseus.fi/bitstrea
m/handle/10024/
theoretical contribu- tion 16719/Aspfors_Emma.pdf?
primarily to the literature sequence
on the assessment of the
quality of public services
and public service
customer satis- faction,
utilizing the SERVQUAL
methodology, and to the
scarce theoretical strands
relating to public service
safety organizations.

R
E
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
S

Accounts Commission for

Scotland. (1999). Can’t get no
satisfaction: Using a gap
approach to measure service
quality, December, developed
from Parasuraman et al.,
1990, pp. 1–29. Retrieved
from http://www. audit-
scotland.gov.uk/docs/local/20
00/nr_000627_GAP_service_
quality. pdf
Akan, P. (1995). Dimensions
of service quality: a study in
Istanbul,
Managing Service Quality,
5(6), 39–43.
Andrews, M. (2013, October).
Explaining positive deviance
in public sector reforms in
development, Working Paper
No. 267, Center of
International Development at
Harvard University, pp. 1–
210 SLACK AND SINGH
 Avkiran, N. K. (1994). Marketing, 6(July), 55–68. PUBLICThe
SECTOR Service
REFORMS Industries
AND SERVICESouth
QUALITYPacific,
ISSUES 1–174. 211
Developing an instrument to Curry, A. (1999). Innovation in Journal, 16(3), Retrieved from
measure customer ser- vice public service management. 321–346. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/
quality in branch banking, Managing Johnson, W. C., & Sirikit, A. groups/
International Journal of Bank Service Quality, 9(3), 180– (2002). Service quality in the public/d
Marketing, 190. Thai telecom- munication ocumen
12(6), 10–18. Dale, B. G. (2003). Managing industry: A tool for ts/apcit
Babakus, E. & Mangold, W.G. quality (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: achieving a sustainable y/unpan
Blackwell publishing Ltd. competitive advantage. 046792.
(1992). Adapting the
Donnelly, M., Kerr, N. J., Management Decision, 40(7), pdf
SERVQUAL scale to hospital
Rimmer, R., & Shiu, E. M. 693–701. Khan, M. (2003). ECOSERV:
services: An empirical
(2006). Assessing the quality Karan, M. F. (2010). Public Ecotourists’ quality expectations.
investigation, Health Service
sector reforms in Fiji: A case Annals of
Research, of police services using
study of T
26(6), 767–86. SERVQUAL, Policing and
Telecom Fiji Limited (Master o
Bateson. (1995). SERVQUAL: International Journal of
of commerce thesis). u
review, critique, research agenda. Police Strategies & r
European Management, 29(1), 92–105. University of the
i
Journal of Marketing, 30(1), Edvardsen, B., Tomasson, B. & s
8–32. Ovretveit, J. (1994). Quality m
Brooks, R. F., Lings, I. N., of service: Making it really
&Botschen, M.A. (1999). work. New York, NY:
R
Internal marketing and customer McGraw-Hill.
e
driven wave fronts. Service Edvardsson, B. (2005). Guru’s
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

s
Industries Journal, 19(4), 49–67. view. Service quality: beyond e
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. cognitive assessment, a
(2007). Business research Managing Service Quality, r
methods (2nd. ed.). 15(2), 127–131. c
Oxford, UK: Oxford Edvardsson, B., Larsson, G., h
University Press. & Setterlind, S. (1997). ,
Brysland, A., & Curry, A. Internal service quality and
(2001). Service improvements the psychological work 3
in public services using environment: An empirical 0
SERVQUAL. Managing anal- ysis of conceptual (
Service Quality, 11(6), 389– interrelatedness, Service 1
401. Industries Journal, 17(2), )
Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: 252–63. ,
Review, critique, research Finn, D., & Lamb, C. (1991).
agenda. European An evaluation of the 1
Journal of Marketing, 30(1), SERVQUAL scale in a 0
8–32. retailing setting, Advances in 9
Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer Consumer Research, 18, 483– –
perceptions of service quality. 490. 1
Journal of Gabbie, O., & O’Neill, M.A. 2
Retailing, 66, 33–55. (1996). SERVQUAL and the 4
Chang, J. C. (2008). Northern Ireland hotel sector: .
Taiwanese tourists A comparative analysis – Part Krishna Naik, C. N., Gantasala,
perceptions of service qual- 1, Managing Service Quality, S. B., & Prabhakar, G.V.
ity on outbound guided 6(6), 25–32. (2010). Service quality
package tours: A qualitative Gržinic´, J. (2007). Concepts of (Servqual) and its effect on
examination of the service quality measurement customer satisfaction in
SERVQUAL dimensions. in hotel indus- try, Economic retailing. European Journal of
Journal of Vacation Thought and Practice, 16(1), Social Sciences, 16(2), 231–
Marketing, 15(2), 81–98, Retrieved May 18, 243.
164–178. 2014, from Kulasin, D., & Fortuny-Santos,
Chang, T. Z. & Chen, S. J. http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/24337 J. (2005, November 09-12).
(1998). Market orientation, Guru, C. (2003). Tailoring e- Review of the Servqual
service quality and business service quality through CRM. concept, In 4th
profitability: A conceptual Managing Research/expert conference
model and empirical Service Quality, 13(6), 20– with interna- tional
evidence. Journal of Services 531. participation, Quality 2005
Marketing, 12(4), 246–64. Hallowell, R. (1996). The Fojnica, B&H, 133–139,
Chaston, I. (1994). Internal relationships of customer Retrieved from
customer management and satisfaction, customer loyalty http://www.quality.unze.ba/zb
service gaps within the UK and profitability: An ornici/QUALITY
manufacturing sector. empirical study. International %202005/021-Q05-
International Journal of Journal of Service Industry 0
Operations and Production, Management, 7(4), 27–42. 0
14(9), 45–56. Johns, N., & Tyas, P. (1996). 5
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. Use of service quality gap .
(1992). Measuring service p
theory to differen- tiate
quality: A reexam- ination and d
between food service outlets.
f
extension. Journal of
Kumra,
212 R.SLACK (2008)
ANDService
SINGH Saddle River, NJ: Pearson 12–43.
Quality in Rural Tourism: A Education Inc. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.
Perspective Approach, Luk, Sh.T.K., & Layton, R. A., & Berry, L. L. (1990).
Conference on Tourism in (2002). Perception gaps in Delivering quality service:
India-Challenges Ahead, customer expec- tations: Balancing customer
India, pp.424–431. Managers versus service perception and expectations.
Leonard, F. S., & Sasser, W.E. providers and customers. The New York: The Free Press.
(1982). The incline of quality. Service Industries Journal, Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.
Harvard 22(2), 109–128. A., & Berry, L. L. (1991).
B MORI Social Research Institute. Perceived ser- vice quality as
u (2002). Public service reform: a customer-based performance
s Measuring and understanding measure: An empirical
i customer satisfaction, UK: A examination of organisational
n MORI review of the Office barriers using an extended
e of Public Services Reform, service quality model. Human
s
Prime Minister’s Office. Resource management, 30(3),
s
Retrieved from 334–335.
http://www.ipsos- Ramsaran-Fowdar, R. R. (2007).
R mori.com/DownloadPublicatio Developing a service quality
e n/1202_sri_local_ gov_public- questionnaire for the hotel
v service_reform_measuring_an industry in Mauritius. Journal
i d_understanding_customer_ of Vacation Marketing, 13(1),
e
satisfaction_042002.PDF 1
w
Newman, K. (2001). 7
,
Interrogating SERVQUAL: A –
critical assessment of service 1
6 quality measurement in a high 9
0 street retail bank. .
( International Journal of Bank
5
Marketing, 19(3), 126–139.
)
OECD. (2008). Ireland:
,
Towards an integrated public
service, OECD Public
1 Management Reviews (p.170),
6 Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
3 Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive
–
model of antecedents and
1
consequences of
7
1 satisfaction decisions. Journal
. of Marketing Research, 27, 460–
Lewis, B.R. & Mitchell, V.W. 469. Oosterom. W. (2007).
(1990). Dimensions of service The road ahead for public
quality: A service delivery:
study in Delivering on the customer
Istanbul. promise, Public Sector
Managing Research Centre,
Service PriceWaterhouseCoopers,
Quality, 5(6), pp.1–68. Retrieved from
39–43. http://www.iccs-isac.
Lings, I. N., & Brooks, R. F. org/en/pubs/the_road_ahead_f
(1998). Implementing and or_public_service_delivery.pd
measuring the effec- tiveness f
of internal marketing. Orgeron, C.P. & Goodman, D.
Journal of Marketing (2011). Evaluating citizen
Management, 14, adoption and satis- faction of
3 e- government. International
2 Journal of Electronic
5 Government Research, 7(3),
– 57–78.
3 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.
5 A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A
1
conceptual model of service
.
quality and its implications for
Lovelock, C., & Wirtz, J.
future research. Journal of
(2007). Service marketing –
Marketing, 49(3), 41–50.
People, technology, strategy
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.
(p. 420). Pearson Prentice
A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).
Hall.
SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
Lovelock, C., & Wright, R.
scale for measuring consumer
(2002). Principles of service
perceptions of service quality.
marketing and management
Journal of Retailing, 64(1),
(2nd ed., pp.265–266). Upper
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORMS AND SERVICE QUALITY ISSUES 211
 Reddy, N. (1997, November 6- Press. for degree
PUBLIC SECTOR of MA in AND SERVICEcustomer
REFORMS QUALITYfocusISSUESacross 212
the
8). The implications of public Sharma, U., & Lawrence, S. Marketing (pp. 30, 65), firm. New York: McGraw-
sector reforms on human (2009). Global remedies for Nottingham, UK: University Hill.
resource management in the local needs: Corporate of Nottingham. Retrieved Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., &
South Pacific: the case of governance and public sector from Gremler D. D. (2009).
Fiji, In Paper presented in reforms in Fiji. Pacific http://edissertations.nottingha Services market- ing:
conference on Human Accounting Review, 21(3), m.ac.uk/ integrating customer focus
resources and Future 260–285. 578/1/06MAlixks11.pdf. across the firm, International
Generations in Islands and Shekarchizadeh, A., Rasli, A., Sureshchander, G. S., Rajendran, edition. (5th ed.). Singapore,
small states, Valetta, Malta: & Hon-Tat, H. (2011). C., & Anatharaman, R. N. Asia: McGraw-Hill
University of Malta. SERVQUAL in Malaysian (2002). The relationship Education.
Sahney, S., Banwet, D. K., & universities: Perspectives of between service quality and Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman,
Karunes, S. (2004). A international students. customer satisfaction: A factor A., & Berry, L. L. (1990).
SERVQUAL and QFD Business Process specific approach. Journal of Delivering qual- ity service;
approach to total quality Management, 17(1), 67–81. Services Marketing, 16(4), balancing customer
education: A student Silvestro, R., & Cross, S. 363–379. perceptions and expectations.
perspective. International (2000). Applying service The Asian Development outlook New York, NY: The Free
Journal of Productivity and profit chain in a retail (2004). Economic trends in Press.
Performance Management, environment. International prospects in developing Asia.
53(2), 143–166. Journal of Service Industry Retrieved from
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Management, www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/library
Analysing service quality in 1 /Online/ Vanuatu/Asian.htm
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 01:05 28 September 2015

the hospitality industry using 1 Udo, G. J., Bagchi, K. K., &

the SERVQUAL model. The ( Kirs, P.J. (2011). Using
Service Industries Journal, 3 SERVQUAL to assess the
1 ) quality of E-learning.
1 , Computers and Human
( Behaviour, 27(3),
3 2 1272–1283.
) 4 Vazquez, R., Bosque, I. A.,
, 4 Diaz, A. M., & Ruiz, A. V.
– (2001). Service quality in
3 6 supermarket retailing:
2 8 identifying critical service
4 . experiences. Journal of
– Stylianou, K. (2006). Assessing Retailing and Consumer
3 service quality in Cyprus Services, 8, 1–14.
4 mobile telecom- munication Wilson, N. Hall, T., & Fields,
3 industry: A case study of D. (2011). Measuring retail
. CYTA and Areeba. In service qual- ity in farm
Sargeant, A., & Kaehler, J. Dissertation cooperative. International
(1998). Factors of patient
Food and Agricultural
satisfaction with med- ical
Business Management
services: The case of G.P.
Review, 14(1), 1–22.
practices in the U.K. Health
Wisniewski, M. (2001). Using
Marketing Quarterly, 16(1),
SERVQUAL to assess customer
55–77.
satisfaction with public sector
Schacter, M. (2000, December).
services. Managing Service
Public sector reform in
Quality, 11(6), 380–388.
developing coun- tries: Issues,
Wisniewski, M. (2001a).
lessons & future directions.
Assessing customer satisfaction
Ottawa, Canada: Prepared for
with local author-
policy branch Canadian
ity services using
international development
SERVQUAL. Total Quality
agency. Management, 12(7) 995–
Secretariat of the Pacific 1002.
Community (2008). Fiji Islands
Wisniewski, M., & Donnelly, M.
Maritime Safety
(1996). Measuring service
Administration [FIMSA]
reorganisation. Retrieved quality in the public sector:
from http://www.
spc.int/maritime/index.php? the potential for SERVQUAL.
option=com_content&task=v Total Quality Management
iew&id=92& Itemid=1
and Business Excellence, 4,
Shahin, A. (2006). SERVQUAL
357–366.
and model of service quality
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner M. J.
gaps: A frame- work for
2000. Services marketing:
determining and prioritizing
integrating customer focus
critical factors in delivering
across the firm, New York,
quality services, In Partha
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sarathy, V. (Ed.), Service
Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M., &
quality – An introduction
Gremler, D. (2006). Service
(pp.117–131), Andhra
marketing: integrat- ing
Pradesh: ICFAI University