International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management Emerald Article: Assessing service quality in schools of business Susan E. Pariseau, J.R. McDaniel

Article information: To cite this document: Susan E. Pariseau, J.R. McDaniel, (1997),"Assessing service quality in schools of business", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 3 pp. 204 - 218 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719710165455 Downloaded on: 15-01-2013 References: This document contains references to 33 other documents Citations: This document has been cited by 19 other documents To copy this document: [email protected] This document has been downloaded 1924 times since 2005. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: * Susan E. Pariseau, J.R. McDaniel, (1997),"Assessing service quality in schools of business", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 3 pp. 204 - 218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719710165455 Susan E. Pariseau, J.R. McDaniel, (1997),"Assessing service quality in schools of business", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 3 pp. 204 - 218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719710165455 Susan E. Pariseau, J.R. McDaniel, (1997),"Assessing service quality in schools of business", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 3 pp. 204 - 218 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719710165455

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS HO CHI MINH For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

IJQRM 14,3

Assessing service quality in schools of business Susan E. Pariseau

204 Received August 1995 Revised January 1996

Department of Management, Merrimack College, North Andover, Massachusetts, USA, and

J.R. McDaniel Vermont Only of Mile Square Farm, Inc., Vermont, USA Introduction Importance of service quality Service quality, emphasizing consumer satisfaction, is a newly-emerging field of concern. In order to attract customers, serve their needs and retain them, service providers and researchers are actively involved in understanding consumers’ expectations and perceptions of service quality. Service quality is a feature of the literature in marketing and operations management, but is just starting to gain attention in higher education. Earlier research has demonstrated that consumers are reluctant to complain about poor professional service (Gronhaug and Arndt, 1980; Quelch and Ash, 1981), but these same consumers are becoming increasingly more value conscious. The educational literature suggests that there is mounting pressure from the customers of higher education, which include students, parents, alumni, employers and legislators, to close the widening gap between their expectations of institutional performance and the actual performance (Brigham, 1994). Therefore, it is imperative that business schools actively monitor the quality of their services and commit to continuous improvements in an effort to respond to the needs of the institutional constituencies. With the focus on total quality management (TQM) and continuous improvement (CI) as ways to improve quality while reducing costs, we take a preliminary look at two institutions which are just beginning to implement TQM and CI principles. We report here on a study of the determinants of service quality in business schools conducted on a sample of faculty and students at two universities in the north-east region of the USA.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, 1997, pp. 204-218, © MCB University Press, 0265-671X

Literature review Quality is one of the competitive priorities which has migrated from the literature of manufacturing strategy to the service arena. As early as 1984, Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) suggested that cost, time, flexibility and quality are competitive priorities for manufacturers in the USA and international economies. These issues gravitated quickly to the service arena where the need to define and assess quality became a dominant issue (Collier, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Interest in service quality has increased substantially

in recent years, with a growing number of books and papers applying TQM concepts in the service sector (Dotchin and Oakland, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; Gupta and Chen, 1995; Kettinger and Lee, 1995; McDaniel and Louargand, 1994). The arrival of TQM in higher education began tenuously in the 1980s with increasing interest in the early 1990s. This growing interest in TQM is motivated by institutions’ need to cope with an increasingly desperate set of fiscal circumstances, and tremendous pressure from their customers to update and improve the quality of their services (Brigham, 1994; Ewell, 1993; Zemsky et al., 1993). While there appears to be strong support for TQM in the academy, many, especially faculty, are deeply sceptical of it and are reluctant to change (Entin, 1993; Ewell, 1993; Horine et al., 1993; Marchese, 1993). This scepticism and inertia by core academic units within colleges and universities is fuelled by recent reports that TQM has failed to produce its promised results in industry (Brigham, 1993). While the track record of TQM in higher education is uncertain, the current thinking is clear: learn from the mistakes and accomplishments of previous practitioners in industry while moving forward with TQM efforts (Brigham, 1993, 1994; Entin, 1993; Ewell, 1993; Horine et al., 1993; Zemsky et al., 1993). The definition of quality has evolved from “quality is excellence”, to “quality is value”, to “quality is conformance to specifications”, to “quality is meeting and/or exceeding customers’ expectations” (Reeves and Bednar, 1994). The first two definitions offer little help in the assessment of quality and the third is more appropriately used in assessing product quality. The latter definition has been deemed appropriate for use in the service arena and Parasuraman et al., (1988), hereafter referred to as PZB, developed and validated an instrument for measuring service quality using this definition. In general, quality is an objective measurement in manufacturing and a subjective one in the service sector. Service businesses are heterogeneous, quality is intangible, and production and consumption of the product (service) are inseparable. PZB therefore proposed that the consumer’s opinion of quality is formed by an internal comparison of performance with expectations. Quality service is defined as that in which the consumer’s perception of service performance meets or exceeds their expectation of what the service firm should do. The key to service quality then is to meet or exceed consumer expectations. One problem with this model is that there may often be discrepancies between the consumer’s expectations and the provider’s model of what constitutes quality service. The provider may be working hard to deliver some aspect of service to which the consumer is indifferent. Conversely, consumers may be basing their opinion of quality on some factor which the provider assumes is unimportant. PZB developed the SERVQUAL model and validated it in tests of four different service settings (banking, credit-card processing, or repair and maintenance and long-distance telephone service). Their results show that both the determinants of service quality and the rank order of their importance are invariant across service industries. The consumer of any service wants to have the provider meet their expectations in the areas of reliability, responsiveness,

Service quality in schools of business 205

IJQRM 14,3

206

Table I. Dimensions of service quality

Figure 1. Service quality as conceptualized by PZB (1988)

assurance, empathy and tangibles. These five dimensions, as defined in Table I, represent the determinants of the perception of service quality on the part of the consumer. Figure 1 displays the questions which comprise each of these five dimensions (see the Appendix for the wording of the questions). SERVQUAL scales have been used in a variety of published studies and there is a growing literature, particularly in the marketing field, critiquing its use. The conceptualization and operationalization of service quality is under heated debate. The original model of service quality (SERVQUAL) was advanced by Parasuraman et al. (1985), which suggests that the difference between consumers’ expectations and the actual performance of a specific organization drives the perception of service quality. However, others have voiced concerns that there is little theoretical or empirical evidence to support their gap theory as the basis for measuring service quality (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Babakus and Mangold, 1992; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993). A performance-based alternative to the SERVQUAL measure, SERVPERF, was advanced by Cronin and Taylor (1992). Reeves and Bednar (1994) offer strengths and weaknesses of SERVQUAL and related instruments. The debate about how best to conceptualize and operationalize the service quality construct has continued (Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Parasuraman et al., 1994a, 1994b; Teas, 1994). However, while versions of SERVQUAL continue to be critiqued and

Factor

Description

Assurance

Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately Condition of facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel

Responsiveness Empathy Reliability Tangibles

improved, SERVQUAL stands as the pre-eminent instrument for assessment and measurement of perceived service quality (Kettinger and Lee, 1995). PZB suggest that “SERVQUAL is most valuable when it is used periodically to track service quality trends” (Parasuraman et al., 1991) Service providers often argue that their business is somehow different from other service businesses and so the determinants of quality are different. In five separate service industries, Zeithaml et al. (1990) report that service quality expectations are not met in the areas of reliability, assurance, empathy or responsiveness, and that expectations are met in the area of tangibles – the least important determinant of service quality. We answer the following research questions: • To what extent are business schools meeting the expectations of their students and faculty? • Do discrepancies exist between faculty and student expectations and perceptions of quality service? • What are the most important determinants of overall service quality in business schools? • Is the order of importance the same as for other services? Study design We solicited anonymous responses to a questionnaire given to undergraduate students (consumers) and faculty (providers) in two small, private business schools in the north-east region of the USA. The schools were selected on two criteria. First, we wanted the schools to be as closely matched as possible. They are both small, private, residential campuses, primarily considered to be teaching institutions. Second, we needed access to both students and faculty. Questionnaires were administered during the first two weeks of the autumn semester, 1994 both to students and faculty. Only undergraduate juniors and seniors were targeted for this study. It was assumed that upper division students would have greater familiarity with the business school faculty and services than lower division students. Surveys were hand-delivered to selected required and elective upper division courses. Students were given verbal and written instructions, and completed the questionnaires during the first few minutes of class, resulting in a 100 per cent response rate of those queried. Questionnaires were delivered to 100 per cent of the full-time faculty via interoffice mail and were returned in the same manner. A total of 71 faculty were surveyed, 25 at School 1 and 46 at School 2. The survey instrument, (see Appendix), was designed around the validated SERVQUAL instrument which measures perceived service quality by calculating the direction and discrepancy between consumers’ perceptions and expectations across 22 items using a seven-point Likert scale. In addition, we asked student respondents to evaluate the overall quality of services provided by the business faculty and business school. We also posed several questions

Service quality in schools of business 207

IJQRM 14,3

about retention and student loyalty. The faculty respondents received the SERVQUAL instrument in the same form as the students’ instrument. In addition, the faculty were asked to rate the quality of service they and their school delivered. Finally, both samples provided demographic data about themselves and were given the opportunity to provide open-ended comments.

208

Results Sample characteristics We received 498 usable student responses (250 at School 1 and 248 at School 2) and 43 faculty responses (16 at School 1 and 27 at School 2). The average faculty response rate for both schools was 61 per cent. The average student was a fulltime student, approximately 22 years of age, unmarried, and had a GPA (grade point average) of about 3.0. Approximately equal numbers of male and female students responded, with 58 per cent of the students from both schools receiving financial aid. These and other characteristics are shown in Table II. While there are a few differences in demographic data between the two schools, the samples are very closely matched. Owing to the striking similarities between the results, and because we were looking for general trends across schools of business, we have reported combined results in this paper. The schools have received reports of their individual results as a starting point to benchmark their performance in their CI efforts. Determinants of service quality The 22 expectation scores were calculated and mean scores were found for each of the five factors from the SERVQUAL literature. Table III shows that student and faculty rankings are fairly consistent – both groups think all dimensions of service quality are important and both groups rank assurance as the most important factor. Students want assurance, responsiveness, empathy, reliability and tangibles in that order, while faculty believe that assurance, tangibles, reliability, empathy and responsiveness is the correct rank order. The service quality literature traditionally finds that reliability is first, tangibles are last and the other three are in the middle. Our rankings are not consistent with the consumer rankings in PZB’s previous studies. In addition, we find discrepancies between faculty and student expectations of service quality. Note that the mean scores in rankings show that faculty place strong emphasis on tangibles, while students rank it last. The ANOVA results demonstrate that student and faculty expectations of tangibles are significantly different. Considering that part of the tangibles dimension is the physical working environment for faculty, it is understandable that their expectations might be higher than those of the students. Additionally, this gap may represent a recognition by the faculty of resource constraints outside their control. Owing to monetary restrictions, faculty are unable to upgrade facilities and equipment whenever they feel it is necessary. However, the faculty are more aware of the shortcomings of the present system and so their expectations are higher than those of the students.

Characteristic

Students

Sample size 498 Age 22 Sex Male 54 Female 46 Unmarried 93 Class level Freshman 1 Sophomore 10 Junior 37 Senior 52 GPA 2.96 Receive financial aid 58 Hours employed 0 or occasional 32 1-10 14 11-20 26 21-30 18 31-40 5 > 40 5 Previous school High school 72 Two of four year college 34 Residence On-campus 44 Off-campus 23 Relatives 28 Continue to attend 92 Will recommend 88 Note: with the exception of sample size, age and GPA, all figures are expressed as a percentage

Factor Assurance Responsiveness Empathy Reliability Tangibles Note: * p < 0.05

Student mean 5.9343 5.8808 5.8080 5.7992 5.6200

Service quality in schools of business 209

Table II. Sample characteristics: students

Faculty mean 6.1125 5.6341 5.8238 5.8512 5.9881*

Table III. ANOVAs: expectations

IJQRM 14,3

210

Mean scores were found for the perceived quality of each factor by finding the difference score (perception minus expectation) for each of the 22 items and then calculating the mean score for each of the five factors. Regression analyses were run using the question “I found the overall quality of the services provided by my business professors to be…” as the dependent variable and the five SERVQUAL factors as the independent variables. The results of the regression are shown in Table IV. The coefficients for assurance and reliability were highly significant, and the coefficient for empathy was significant. The regression analysis using the faculty difference scores told a different story. The coefficient for empathy was highly significant and tangibles was significant. Independent variable Constant Assurance Responsiveness Empathy Reliability Tangibles

Table IV. Tests of significance

Cases Overall F R squared Notes: *** p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; * p < 0.10

Students

Faculty

5.79*** 0.18*** 0.08 0.09* 0.13** 0.02

5.81*** 0.16 0.20 0.47** –0.22 0.28*

469 24.75*** 21.1%

39 6.78*** 50.7%

Faculty and business school performance There are two important axes of comparison in the SERVQUAL model. The first is the difference equations calculating the distance between consumers’ expectations and perceptions, which constitutes their opinion of the quality of service received. The second is the comparison between the providers’ and consumers’ difference equations. If students and faculty agree that service quality exceeds, meets or falls below expectations, then there is common ground for continuation or improvement of the level of service quality. But if providers are unaware of a failure to meet expectations, the prognosis for improvement is poor. We tested to see how well the faculty and business schools were meeting expectations and whether or not they were aware of the students’ perception. Figure 2 shows that business faculty at both schools are not meeting students’ expectations. The figure shows that perceptions fall well below expectations for students on all of the dimensions of service quality. While these results are disquieting, the faculty results are worse. They believe that they are failing to meet expectations to a much greater degree since their difference scores are more negative than those of the students. Ironically, their largest negative is in the area of tangibles, the second most important factor to

Service quality in schools of business 211

Figure 2. Service quality performance

faculty, but ranked last in importance by students. As explained earlier, this is one factor which is not controllable by the faculty but which involves their work environment. Are these differences between the two groups significant? Yes. In Table V, we show the ANOVA results for tests of significance between students and faculty. The difference scores for the factors of responsiveness, reliability and tangibles are significantly different between the two groups. The good news is that there is no significant difference between student and faculty perceptions of quality for the dimensions of assurance and empathy. Even though the differences are not significant, both groups perceive that the faculty and business schools are failing to meet expectations. Variable Assurance Responsiveness Empathy Reliability Tangibles Overall quality Note: * p < 0.01

F scores 2.41 7.33* 1.70 10.09* 52.92* 14.81*

Conclusions Quality of service to students Our results show that in two universities surveyed in the north-east region of the USA, the faculty and business schools are not currently delivering quality service in the view of their students. ANOVA tests confirm significant differences in perceptions of service quality. In addition, although both faculty and student expectations are highest in the area of assurance, they differ in the rank ordering of the remaining factors. The second most important factor for

Table V. ANOVAs: difference scores

IJQRM 14,3

212

students is responsiveness, which is ranked last by faculty. In like manner, the faculty rank tangibles second while students rank it last. All of these results suggest that these business schools should undertake significant efforts in faculty education in the area of service quality and customer satisfaction. On a positive note, we are encouraged by the steps taken by both schools to begin implementing TQM. These results have been used as a starting point to benchmark performance. At one school, the students’ mean difference scores for the five factors for determining service quality were examined. Individual questions for the one factor with the overall lowest quality score were listed and the difference score for each question was reported. In addition, all other questions were examined and those questions with the lowest scores in each of the other four factors were listed, along with their mean difference scores. A presentation was given to the faculty to increase awareness of the items which students feel are important components of quality in a business school environment and to report items where students find quality is deficient. A discussion of ideas for ways to improve quality followed the presentation. The survey will be periodically readministered in the future in order to track performance and to determine whether changes made have been successful in improving service quality. Are business schools really different? Our findings show that faculty fail to meet service quality expectations, and they fail to do so to the same degree as do other service industries, with the exception of tangibles. However, the determinants of service quality in our samples are different from those in other industries sampled by PZB, where reliability is always deemed most important. We find that the most important determinants of overall quality for students are assurance, reliability and empathy. One of the criticisms aimed at SERVQUAL as an instrument for general use, is that PZB did not include some services which are high in customer contact or intervention. Perhaps one reason for the differences between our study and others may be attributed to the degree of contact that the customer has with the service organization (Dotchin and Oakland, 1994a; Lovelock, 1992) Business schools require more active involvement and cooperation of their customers (students) in the creation of the service product (education) than many other services. An examination of the components of the dimension called assurance reveals that this factor is concerned with knowledge, courtesy and an ability to inspire trust and confidence. It seems reasonable that this factor would be deemed most important in an educational environment. Implications for business schools As competition for students has escalated among colleges and universities, student retention has received increased attention. Since service quality and student satisfaction are important factors in retention, it is important that faculty and business schools measure service quality and use the tools of

continuous improvement. In describing the TQM implementation at Oregon State University, Coate (1990) wrote that “quality is what our customers tell us it is, not what we say it is. Progress can only be determined and improved by measurement”. For two institutions, the SERVQUAL instrument is an initial attempt to measure service quality.

Service quality in schools of business

Future studies This study is limited to results from two small private schools in the north-east region of the USA where teaching is given primary importance. In order to provide benchmarking data more effectively, it would be helpful to collect data from both large and small public institutions, from larger private institutions and from institutions with a research focus. This would provide business schools with the ability to benchmark themselves against their own past performance, against other similar schools and against the best school in each category.

213

References Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68. Babakus, E. and Mangold, W.G. (1992), “Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital service: an empirical investigation”, Health Service Research, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 767-80. Brigham, S. (1993), “TQM: lessons we can learn from industry”, Change, May/June, pp. 42-8. Brigham, S. (1994), 25 Snapshots of a Movement: Profiles of Campuses Implementing CQI, American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC. Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL dimension”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55. Coate, L.E. (1990), “Implementing total quality management in a university setting”, Oregon State University working paper. Collier, D.A. (1990), “Measuring and managing service quality”, in Bowen, D.E., Chase, R.B. and Cummings, T.G. (Eds), Service Management Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68. Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performancebased and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 125-31. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S. (1994a), “Total quality management in services, part I: understanding and classifying services”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 9-26. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S (1994b), “Total quality management in services, part II: service quality”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 27-42. Dotchin, J.A. and Oakland, J.S (1994c), “Total quality management in services, part III: distinguishing perceptions of service quality”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 6-28. Entin, D.H. (1993), “TQM on campus: Boston, less than meets the eye”, Change, May/June pp. 28-31. Ewell, P.T. (1993), “Total quality and academic practice: the idea we’ve been waiting for?”, Change, May/June, pp. 49-55.

IJQRM 14,3

214

Gronhaug, K. and Arndt, J. (1980), “Consumer dissatisfaction and complaint behavior feedback: a comparison of public and private delivery systems”, in Olson, J.C. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 324-8. Gupta, A. and Chen, I. (1995), “Service quality: implications for management development”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, pp. 28-35. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1984), Restoring Our Competitive Edge, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Horine, J.E., Hailey, W.A and Rubach, L. (1993), “Shaping America’s future: total quality management in higher education”, Quality Progress, October, pp. 41-60. Kettinger, W.J. and Lee, C.C. (1995), “Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with the information services function”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 25 No. 5/6, pp. 737-66. Lovelock, C.H. (1992), Managing Services, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. McDaniel, J.R. and Louargand, M.A. (1994), “Real estate brokerage service quality: an examination”, The Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 339-51. Marchese, T. (1993), “TQM: a time for ideas”, Change, May/June, pp. 10-27. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring, pp. 12-40. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1994a), “Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 111-24. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1994b), “Alternative scales for measuring service quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-30. Quelch, J.A. and Ash, S.B. (1981), “Consumer satisfaction with professional services”, in Donnelly, J.H. and George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 82-5. Reeves, C.A. and Bednar, D. (1994), “Defining quality: alternatives and implications”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 419-45. Teas, R.K. (1993), “Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, October, pp. 18-34. Teas, R.K. (1994), “Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: an assessment of a reassessment”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 132-9. Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Zemsky, R., Massy, W.F. and Oedel, P. (1993), “On reversing the ratchet”, Change, May/June, pp. 56-72. Appendix: service quality in schools of business This survey is designed to gather information about both student expectations and student perceptions of service in a business school environment. The results will provide valuable insights about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the School of Business. Please answer all of the questions. If you wish to comment on any questions or qualify your answers, please feel free to use the space in the margins or on the back of the booklet. Your comments will be read and taken into account. Thank you for your help.

The ideal business school environment Please think about your concept of the ideal business professor and ideal business school and the quality of services they provide. Services include, but are not limited to, teaching, advising, holding office hours, grading, writing letters of recommendation and starting class on time. Read each of the statements below. Circle 7 if you strongly agree with the statement. Circle 1 if you strongly disagree. If your feelings are not strong, please circle a number between 1 and 7. There are no right or wrong answers. Strongly Strongly disagree Neutral agree (Circle one number) Q-1 Excellent business professors are consistently courteous with students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-2 Excellent business professors are never too busy to respond to students’ requests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-3 Excellent business professors provide their services at the time they promise to do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-4 Excellent business professors tell students exactly when services will be performed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-5 Excellent business professors give students personal attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-6 Excellent business professors instil confidence in students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-7 The physical facilities at excellent business schools are visually appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-8 Excellent business professors give students individual attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-9 Professors at excellent business schools are professional and neat appearing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-10 When a student has a problem, excellent business professors show a sincere interest in solving it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-11 Excellent business professors perform services right the first time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-12 Excellent business schools have modern equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-13 Materials associated with the services of business professors (such as handouts and syllabi) are visually appealing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-14 When excellent business professors promise to do something by a certain time, they will do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-15 Excellent business professors keep error-free records. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-16 Excellent business professors give prompt service to students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-17 Excellent business professors are always willing to help students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-18 Students of excellent business schools feel safe while services are being provided. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-19 Excellent business professors have the knowledge to answer students’ questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-20 Excellent business schools have class times and office hours convenient to all their students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Service quality in schools of business 215

IJQRM 14,3

216

Q-21 Excellent business professors have students’ best interests at heart. Q-22 Excellent business professors understand the specific needs of their students.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

School of business The following statements should be answered with respect to your feelings about the business faculty and the School of Business at University of XYZ. Please circle the number corresponding to your level of agreement with each of the statements below. Strongly Strongly Strongly disagree Neutral agree (Circle one number) Q-23 My business professors are consistently courteous with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-24 My business professors are never to busy to respond to my requests. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-25 My business professors provide their services at the time they promise to do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-26 My business professors tell me exactly when services will be performed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-27 My business professors give me personal attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-28 My business professors instil confidence in me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-29 My business school’s physical facilities are visually appealing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-30 My business professors give me individual attention 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-31 My business professors are professional and neat-appearing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-32 When I have a problem, my business professors show a sincere interest in solving it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-33 By business professors perform services right the first time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-34 My business school has modern equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-35 Materials associated with the services of my business professors (such as handouts and syllabi) are visually appealing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-36 When my business professors promise to do something by a certain time, they do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-37 My business professors keep error-free records. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-38 my business professors give me prompt service. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-39 My business professors are always willing to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-40 I feel safe while services are being provided at my business school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-41 My business professors have the knowledge to answer my questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-42 My business school has class times and office hours convenient to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-43 My business professors have my best interests at heart 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-44 My business professors understand my specific needs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Summary information Q-45 I find the overall quality of the services provided by my business professors to be Poor Neutral Excellent (Circle one number) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Q-46 Will you continue to attend the School of Business in the future? (Circle number) 1 → Yes → If yes, please go to Q-48 2 No ↓ Q-47 Why are you planning to leave the School of Business? (Circle all that apply) 1 2 3 4

Poor academic performance Financial reasons Health or other personal reasons Other… (please specify) ________________________________________

Q-48 Will you recommend the School of Business to your friends or family? (Circle number) 1 Yes 2 No (please use the space below to comment)

Personal information Q-49 Age _________________ Q-50 Sex (Circle number) 1 Male 2 Female Q-51 Marital status (Circle number) 1 Unmarried (including single, divorced, and widowed) 2 Married 3 Separated 4 Prefer not to respond Q-52 Overall GPA ________________________ Q-53 Indicate your class level at University of XYZ (Circle number) 1 Freshman 2 Sophomore 3 Junior 4 Senior Q-54 Indicate the number of hours per week you are currently employed (Circle number) 1 0 or only occasional jobs 2 1 to 10 3 11 to 20 4 21 to 30 5 31 to 40 6 Over 40

Service quality in schools of business 217

IJQRM 14,3

218

Q-55 What is your current enrollment status at University of XYZ? (Circle number) 1 Full-time student 2 Part-time student Q-56 What type of school did you attend just prior to entering the School of Business? (Circle number) 1 High school 2 Vocational/technical school 3 Two-year college 4 Four-year college or university 5 Other… (please specify) ____________________ Q-57 Indicate your current college residence (Circle number) 1 College residence hall 2 Fraternity of sorority house 3 Off-campus room, apartment or house 4 Home of parents or relatives 5 Other… (please specify) ____________________ Q-58 Do you receive any type of federal, state, or college-sponsored student financial aid? (scholarships, grants, work-study, etc.) (circle number) 1 Yes 2 No Q-59 Indicate your college major (Circle number) 1 Accounting 2 Economics/finance 3 Marketing 4 Management 5 Entrepreneurial studies 6 Other… (please specify) ____________________ Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the quality of service provided by the business faculty or School of Business at University of XYZ? If so, please use this space for that purpose

Thank you for your help.

MCB University Press

Awards for Excellence Outstanding Papers The publisher and Editor of International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management are delighted to announce that Sally Taylor-Adams and Barry Kirwan Birmingham University, UK are joint recipients of the Journal’s Outstanding Paper Award for Excellence Their paper “Human reliability data requirements” appeared in IJQRM Volume 12 Number 1, 1995

L I T E R AT I ◆

The publisher and Editor of International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management are delighted to announce that K.P. Soman and K.B. Misra Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India are joint recipients of the Journal’s Outstanding Paper Award for Excellence Their paper “A simple method of determining moments of a top event” appeared in IJQRM Volume 13 Number 5, 1996

C

L

U

B

◆

R E

The awards ceremony was held on 11 March 1997 in York.

L