International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies

Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506

Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Literature Review: Service Quality in

Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia
Anantha Raj A. Arokiasamy
Quest International University Perak (QIUP)
No. 227, Plaza Teh Teng Seng (Level 2),
Jalan Raja Permaisuri Bainun,
30250 Ipoh, Perak,
Malaysia.

ABSTRACT

The main purpose for this review of literature is to configure the

importance of maintaining Service quality in Higher Education industry.
The paper would explore the development of the concept of Service
Quality. It would also explain the development of Service Quality
Measurement Models with respect to the literature as well as their
application in various industries and especially the higher education
industry. Thus the review paper provides a clear insight on the
development of Service Quality Measurement Models. Although a lot of
research has been done on the Service Quality; yet the struggle to rightly
unfold the concept is still under progress. From 1988 to 2008, eight
Service Quality Measurement Models have been developed. In 1988, the
first service quality measurement model was developed by Parasuraman,
et al. It was introduced by the name of Service Quality (SERVQUAL).
This model was empirically tested on the validity of Service Quality
Measurement Variable with respect to the multi-industries. Eventually
Parasuraman, et al. (1988, p.23) developed five dimensions which were
showing significance to the measurement of service quality, namely ‘(a)
Tangibles (physical facilities and equipment), (b) Reliability (performing
the promised service), (c) Responsiveness (willingness to help customers),
(d) Assurance (courtesy of employees to convey trust) and (d) Empathy
(individualized attention provided to customers)’.

Keywords: Service quality, higher education, development, measurement

and customers.

1.DEFINITION & DIMENSIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY

In this paper, service quality can be defined as the difference between customers’ expectations for
service performance prior to the service encounter and their perceptions of the service received.
Service quality theory (Oliver, 1980) predicts that clients will judge that quality is low if
performance does not meet their expectations and quality increases as performance exceeds

  51
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

expectations. Hence, customers’ expectations serve as the foundation on which service quality
will be evaluated by customers. In addition, as service quality increases, satisfaction with the
service and intentions to reuse the service increases.

Institutions of higher education are increasingly realizing that they are part of the service industry
and are putting greater emphasis on student satisfaction as they face many competitive pressures.
In today’s competitive environment, the education has not only become a major industry and
need of the day but it is also an investment by the parents for their children. In public as well as
private sector the quality of education is an important factor that is considered for attracting and
retaining the students who wants to get higher education. Currently every university all over the
world tries to become a world class university. In fact quality in higher education is relative
concept given the number of various stakeholders involved (Tam, 2001) which ranges from the
single student as a primary customer (Hill, 1995) to the whole of the society (students, parents,
staff, employees, business and legislators) (Rowley, 1997).

Service industries are playing an increasingly important role in the economy of many nations. In
today’s world of global competition, rendering quality service is a key for success and many
experts concur that the most powerful competitive trend currently shaping marketing and business
strategy is service quality. Service quality has since emerged as a pervasive strategic force and a
key strategic issue on management’s agenda. It is no surprise that practitioners and academics
alike are keen on accurately measuring service quality in order to better understand its essential
antecedents and consequences and ultimately establish methods for improving quality to achieve
competitive advantage and build customer loyalty.

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) described service quality as the ability of an
organization to meet or exceed customer expectations. The authors defined service quality as the
gap between consumer expectations and perceptions. These original dimensions from the
framework are illustrated in Table 1 and served as the initial structure of a service quality
measurement instrument (SERVQUAL), which was later created by these academics. They listed
ten determinants of service quality that can be generalized to any type of service. The ten
dimensions are as below:

Table 1 – Service Quality Dimensions by Parasuraman et. al

1. Tangibles Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and
communications materials
2. Reliability Ability to perform the promised service dependably and
accurately
3. Responsiveness Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service
4. Competence Possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the
service
5. Courtesy Politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of contact
personnel
6. Credibility Trustworthiness, believability, honesty of the service provider
7. Security Freedom from danger, risk and doubt
8. Access Approachability and ease of contact
9. Communication Keeping customers informed in language they can understand
and listening to them
10. Understanding the Making the effort to know customers and their needs
Customer

  52
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

In 1988 Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry developed a generic instrument called SERVQUAL to
measure service quality based on input from focus groups. Although SERVQUAL was developed
within the marketing sector, it also is used in a variety of organizational settings, including
libraries and information centers (Kettinger & Lee, 1994; Nitecki, 1996). Since 1988
Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry have made numerous changes to SERVQUAL, some in
response to problems identified by other researchers. These ten dimensions were regrouped in the
well known five dimensions in the SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry 1990)
which include “tangible”, “reliability”, “responsiveness”, “assurance” and “empathy”.

Table 2 – SERQUAL Model by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1990)

1. Tangibles Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and
communications materials
2. Reliability Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately
3. Responsiveness Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service
4. Assurance Knowledge and courtesy of staff and their ability to convey trust and
confidence
5. Empathy Caring and individualized attention to the customer

According to Sasser, Olsen and Wyckoff (1978), service quality is a measure of how well the
services (as received) match expectations (as preconceived). The notion of service quality
involves more than the outcome quality; the methods and manner by which the service is
delivered are of great importance. The quest for service quality has been an essential strategic
component for firms attempting to succeed or survive in today’s competitive environment.
Everyone recognizes good service when they see or experience it. What stands out in the
customer’s mind is excellent service that exceeds their expectations. The real quality revolution
has come to services. Sasser, Olsen & Wyckoff (1978) listed seven service attributes which they
believe adequately embrace the concept of service quality. These are listed below in Table 3.

Table 3 – Service Quality Dimensions by Sasser et. al

1. Security Confidence as well as physical safety
2. Consistency Receiving the same treatment for each transaction
3. Attitude Politeness
4. Completeness The availability of ancillary services
5. Condition Of facilities
6. Availability Spatial and temporal customer access to services
7. Training Of service providers

A firm in order to compete successfully must have an understanding of consumer perception of

the quality and the way service quality is influenced. Managing perceived service quality means
that the firm has to match the expected service and perceived service to each other so that
consumer satisfaction is achieved. The author identified three components of service quality,
namely: technical quality; functional quality; and image (see Figure 1 below):

(1) Technical quality is the quality of what consumer actually receives as a result
of his/her interaction with the service firm and is important to him/her and to his/her
evaluation of the quality of service.

(2) Functional quality is how he/she gets the technical outcome. This is important to him and
to his/her views of service he/she has received.

  53
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

(3) Image is very important to service firms and this can be expected to build up mainly by
technical and functional quality of service including the other factors (tradition, ideology,
word of mouth, pricing and public relations).

Figure 1 - The Perceived Service Quality Model

According to Gronroos (1990), “A service is an activity or series of activities of more or less

intangible nature that normally, but not necessarily, take place in interactions between the
customer and service employees and/or systems of the service provider, which are provided as
solutions to customer problems (p. 27) In other words, service quality is an outgrowth of the
marketing concept; focus on the customer. What is important is what is perceived as quality by
the customer and not what designers or operations people feel is good or bad quality. According
to the Perceived Service Quality model (see Figure 1), the quality of a service, as perceived by
the customer, is the result of a comparison between the expectations of the customer and his or
her real-life experiences. If the “experienced quality” exceeds “expected quality,” the “total
perceived quality” is positive. If expectations are not met by performance or the actual
experience, the perceived quality is low. There are multiple customers in an internship program:
students, internship suppliers, and sponsoring entities, for example. Final success is dependent on
initial expectations compared to actual performance.

Swartz and Brown (1989) drew some distinctions between different views on service quality,
drawing from the work of Grönroos (1983) and Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982) concerning the
dimensions of service quality. “What” the service delivers is evaluated after performance (Swartz
and Brown, 1989, p.190). This dimension is called outcome quality by Parasuraman et al. (1985),
technical quality by Grönroos (1983), and physical quality by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982).
“How” the service is delivered is evaluated during delivery (Swartz and Brown, 1989, p. 190).
This dimension is called process quality by Parasuraman et al. (1985), functional quality by
Grönroos (1983), and interactive quality by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982).

In 1993, Teas developed two models for measuring service quality. Teas was not convinced with
the entire concept of measuring the customer perceived quality with the gap of perception and

  54
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

expectation as in SERVQUAL. The major emphasis of the researcher was on the conceptual
understanding of Expectation, since the expectation associated to the services could exceed the
actual level of performance of the company. Therefore the researcher developed Evaluated
Performance model (EP) in order to measures the gap between perceived performance and ideal
amount of a performance to gain consumer satisfaction. Further catering to the expectation, the
researcher concentrated on the prospect created after the experience of the consumer. Teas (1993)
perceived Excellence norm as a result of positive experience of the customer, this led to the
creation of Normed Quality model. NQ measures the Quality gap between excellence norm and
ideal amount of expectations of the consumer. Both the measurement models are applicable to
various industries. However the EP and NQ measurement model were not applied by other
researchers in the literature.

2. DISCUSSION OF THE SERVQUAL MODEL

Service quality is defined as the result of the comparison that customers make between
expectations about a service and perception of the way the service was delivered (Lehtinen and
Lehtinen, 1982; Gronroos, 1984; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). SERVQUAL represents
service quality as the discrepancy between a customer's expectations for a service offering and
the customer's perceptions of the service received, requiring respondents to answer questions
about both their expectations and their perceptions Parasuraman et al., (1988). The use of
perceived as opposed to actual service received makes the SERVQUAL measure an attitude
measure that is related to, but not the same as, satisfaction (Parasuraman et. al., 1988). The
difference between expectations and perceptions is called the gap which is the determinant of
customers’ perception of service quality as shown on figure 2 below.

Figure 2 – Measuring Service Quality using SERVQUAL Model (Kumar et. al.,
2009)

  55
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

The expectations of customers are subject to external factors which are under the control of the
service provider as shown on the diagram. The Gap 5 on the diagram represents the difference
between customers’ expectations and customers’ perceptions which is referred to as the perceived
service quality (Kumar et al., 2009, p.214). This study focuses on this gap, the difference between
grocery store customers’ expectations and perceptions of service.

Brady and Cronin (2001) identified that the foundation of service quality theory has some
connection with the product quality and customer satisfaction literature based on the
disconfirmation paradigm identified in physical goods literature (Cardozo, 1965, Churchill and
Suprenant, 1982; cited by Brady and Cronin, 2001). The discrepancy between customers’
expectations or desires and their perceptions of the actual service performance was elaborated in
the Disconfirmation of Expectations Paradigm (Patterson, 1993) which related satisfaction to
customer’s pre-purchase expectations and perceptions of service performance and identified any
differences as Disconfirmation. The comparisons which form the basis of the model are as
follows:

Comparison Process Results

1. Perceived Performance > Expectation High Satisfaction (Delight)
2. Perceived Performance = Expectation Merely Satisfied
3. Perceived Performance < Expectation Dissatisfaction

The concept of measuring the difference between expectations and perceptions in the form of the
SERVQUAL gap score proved very useful for assessing levels of service quality. Parasuraman et
al., argue that, with minor modification, SERVQUAL can be adapted to any service organization.
They further argue that information on service quality gaps can help managers diagnose where
performance improvement can best be targeted. The largest negative gaps, combined with
assessment of where expectations are highest, facilitate prioritization of performance
improvement. Equally, if gap scores in some aspects of service do turn out to be positive,
implying expectations are actually not just being met but exceeded, then this allows managers to
review whether they may be "over-supplying" this particular feature of the service and whether
there is potential for re-deployment of resources into features which are underperforming.

According to Gronroos (1984), the service quality experienced by a customer has two
dimensions; namely technical quality and functional quality. Functional quality describes how the
service is delivered and technical quality describes what the customers received during a service
delivery. Gronroos also emphasized the importance of corporate image in the experience of
service quality, similar to the idea proposed by Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982). Customers bring
their earlier experiences and overall perceptions of a service firm to each encounter because
customers often have continuous contacts with the same service firm (Gronroos, 2001).
Therefore, the image concept was introduced as yet another important component in the
perceived service quality model, so that the dynamic aspect of the service perception process was
considered as well. A favorable and well-known image is an asset for any firm because image has
an impact on customer perceptions of the communication and operations of the firm in many
respects. If a service provider has a positive image in the minds of customers, minor mistakes will
be forgiven. If mistakes often occur, however, the image will be damaged. If a provider’s image
is negative, the impact of any mistake will often be magnified in the consumer’s mind. In a word,
image can be viewed as a filter in terms of a consumer’s perception of quality.

  56
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

The SERVQUAL instrument has been widely used in measuring service quality in many research
studies (Babakus and Mangold, 1992; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; as cited by
Parasuraman et. al, 1993). According to Brown, Churchill and Peter (1993) the SERVQUAL is
the most popular measure of service quality, which involves the calculation of the difference
between expectations and perceptions on a number of specified determinants. Parasuraman et. al
(1994), acknowledged that the SERVQUAL model has been used productively and widely for
measuring service quality in many published studies examining service quality in a variety of
contexts, including Banking, Pest Control, Dry Cleaning and Fast Food (Cronin and Taylor,
1992).

3. CRITICISM OF SERVQUAL

Clearly, the SERVQUAL instrument has been extensively adopted by several academic
researchers and practitioners worldwide to measure service quality. The previously mentioned
academic research studies are examples of this. However, regardless of its extensive use,
numerous theoretical, operational, conceptual, and empirical criticisms of the measurement
instrument have been identified and mentioned (Buttle, 1996; Van Dyke et al., 1997, 1999;
Ladhari, 2008).

Several researchers (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Brown et. al, 1993) have pinpointed the calculation
of difference score (expectation of service quality minus perception of service quality) in the
SERVQUAL measure can result in psychometric problems and customers overstating their
expectations because of prior bad experience with the organizations (Clow and Vorhies, 1993).
As a result, a few scholars, (Shewchuck et. al., 1991; Taylor and Cronin, 1994) have suggested
the use of either the expected or perception scale, but not the difference between them. As with
any research tool, there are concerns expressed by other researchers. Lam (1997), Williams
(1998) and O’Neil and Palmer have reviewed the criticism of the original instrument. Critics
include the failure to draw on various disciplines of psychology social science and economics.
Other issues relate to measuring time, stability over time, the measuring scale, the service quality
dimensions and the use of difference scores, that is (Douglas and Connor, 2003);

Perception – Expectation = Quality

Van Dyke et al. (1997, 1999) recognized a number of conceptual and empirical criticisms of
SERVQUAL. Conceptually, they criticized using two different instruments for measuring two
different concepts (perceptions and expectations) to measure a third concept (perceived service
quality). Instead, they argued that direct measurement of perceived service quality is more
reliable. Moreover, they argued on the uncertainty of the expectations construct as different
definitions and views of the concept resulted from uncertainly defined concept. Empirically, they
argued that SERVQUAL has a number of empirical problems including low reliability and
unstable dimensionality.
Ladhari (2008) summarized a list of theoretical and empirical criticisms of the model. First, he
argued that the use of gap scores is not the right method because of the lack of the support in
literature to consumers evaluating service quality in terms of perception-minus-expectation. He
stated that it has been recommended that service quality is more precisely and correctly evaluated
by measuring only perceptions of quality. On the other hand, he mentioned that the concept
expectation is not well defined and can be interpreted from different perspectives; as a result, the
operationalization of SERVQUAL may have different interpretations as well. In addition, he
pointed out that previous research suggested using perception-only scores rather than gap scores

  57
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

for the overall assessment of service quality. Last but not least, he emphasized that previous
research studies criticize SERVQUAL for its focus on the process of service delivery instead of
the result and the outcome of service encounters.

The original SERVQUAL used an importance score (the customer’s service priorities), an
expectations score (the customer’s expected service level), a perception score (the customer’s
agreement that something was provided), and the gap score (the difference between the
customer’s expectation score for service and the perception score). There were several problems
with this approach (Kaldenberg et. al., 1997). The questionnaire was the excessively lengthy and
redundant, the gap scores were unreliable and neither expectation nor importance scores
contributed significantly to explaining variance in service quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1992;
1994). In the light of these, Parasuman,Zeithaml, and Berry (1994) proposed several alternatives
to the original SERVQUAL design.

Smith and Ennew (2001) outlined interesting aspect about Gronroos model. They highlighted that
there was difficult hidden aspect in the choice of satisfaction perception of customer between
which is more, the affective indignation and the technical functionality. For example, the
particular facility consumed by the students could be judged according to how reliable they are
(technical functionality) or according to their ages, appearances, courtesy and empathy
(affective). The perfect reliable facility, which is not up to date, but are capable of carrying out
the task, may still be negatively rated if the users expect the university to provide up to date
facility.

These inherent choices are difficult and tedious to measure. Smith and Ennew (2001) also showed
that there were specific supportive items known as the peripheral aspect and the university
facilities (existing packages), which students consume such as canteens and residential
accommodation that will directly and indirectly have a significant impact on the evaluation of the
university. Hence, studies on these related aspects are crucial for the reflection of the university.
Furthermore, a study made by Saadiatul, Samsinar and Wong (2000) on satisfaction toward
higher education in Malaysia using the SERVQUAL showed that the perceived five dimensions
was below the expectation. It showed that universities must maintain its service quality in order to
maintain university’s good image towards the future students.

4. SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY

Quality, as we know so far, was originally developed in the manufacturing industry. In the area of
higher education, the adoption of quality control has been superficial and diluted by the exercise
of academic freedom (Lagrosen, et. al, 2004). Further, the prevailing culture of universities is
often based on individual autonomy, which is zealously guarded (Colling and Harvey, 1995).
Thus, it is usually difficult to apply the features of quality to higher education considering the fact
that quality requires teamwork (Boaden and Dale, 1992). However, the quality of higher
education is very important for its stakeholders. Notably, providers (funding bodies and the
community at large), students, staff and employers of graduates are important (Srikanthan and
Dalrymple, 2003). Table 4 summarizes the way product dimensions of quality in higher education
can be interpreted.

  58
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Table 4 – Product Dimensions of Quality in Higher Education

Dimensions Definition in Higher Education

Performance Primary knowledge/ skills required for graduates
Features Secondary/ supplementary knowledge and skills
Reliability The extent to which knowledge/ skills learned is correct, accurate
and up to date
Conformance The degree to which an institutional programme/courses meets
established standards, plans and promises
Durability Depth of learning
Serviceability How well an institution handles customers’ complaints
Source: Owlia and Aspinwall (1996)

Service quality issues, over the years, has become an important consumer trend (Parasuraman et
al., 1985) and has gained ground in service marketing literature in general and the extant
literature on Higher education in particular (Tan and Kek, 2004; Telford and Masson, 2005;
Smith et al., 2007). The constructs of quality as conceptualized in the extant literature was based
on perceived ‘perceived quality’ (Fitri et al., 2008). According to Zeithaml et al. (1987) and
Zammuto et al. (1996), perceived quality is defined as the consumer’s judgment about an entity’s
overall experience or superiority. Similarly, Parasuraman et al. (1994: 43) also concluded that
“consumer perceptions of service quality result from comparing expectations prior to receiving
the service, and their actual experience of the service”. Perceived quality is also seen as a form of
attitude, related to, but not the same as satisfaction, and resulting from a comparison of
expectations with perceptions of performance (Rowley, 1996). Cronin and Taylor (1992) argued
that it was unnecessary to evaluate customer expectation in service quality, but measuring
perceptions was sufficient.

Higher education exhibits all the characteristics of a service provider. It is intangible and
heterogeneous, meets the criterion of inseparability by being produced and consumed at the same
time, satisfies the perishability criterion and assumes the students’ participation in the delivery
process (Cuthbert, 1996). Seymour (1993) stated that higher education institutions serve students
and can be considered as service organizations similar in characteristic to other service industries.
The concepts of service quality are therefore directly applicable to higher education. As such,
higher education institutions are increasingly attracting more attention to service quality
initiatives mainly due to the social requirement for quality evaluation in education and the
competitiveness in the higher education market place.

The earlier researchers on service quality in higher education emphasized academic more than
administration, concentrating on effective course delivery mechanisms and the quality of courses
and teaching (Athiyaman, 1997; Bourner, 1998; Cheng and Tam, 1997; McElwee and Redman,
1993; Palihawadana, 1996; Soutar and McNeil, 1996; Varey, 1993; Yorke, 1992). The
measurement of service quality of courses and programmes often rely on research instruments
(e.g: student feedback questionnaires) devised by representatives of the higher education
institutions. Kamal and Ramzi (2002), however, attempted to measure student perception of
registration and academic advising across different faculties and other administrative services to
assure positive quality service that complements the academic.

These days Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are operated on the basis of commercialization.
Education is long lasting but the nature is such as it cannot be stored or produced on a large scale,

  59
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

it is intangible, thus the moment it is delivered, it is consumed, however utilization is up to the

customer (Hill, 1995; Herstein and Gamliel, 2006; Ruiqi and Adrian, 2009; Houston, 2008). This
approach of HEI is due to the lack of available funds as well as economic conditions. Thus HEI’s
have to be concerned about the perception of students about their institution as well as the level of
knowledge gained from the amount of income invested by the customers i.e. students (Abdullah,
2006b; Russell, 2005; Sakthivel and Raju, 2006). Defining student is more complex in service
industry as compared with other industries. Since the customers could be external stakeholder
(perspective student) or internal stakeholder (faculty and staff) (Venkatraman, 2007; Eagle and
Brennan, 2007; Russell, 2005; Hill, 1995; Sakthivel and Raju, 2006).

It is the liability of the HEI to be more translucent to their customers when providing information
regarding their quality measurement methods. The stake holders previously were more concerned
about the nature of programs being offered by the institution and other factors such as fees and
location (Sakthivel and Raju, 2006; Houston, 2008). Now the level of compromise has decreased.
In such condition the institutions will continuously be inspected by the customers until and unless
proper evidence is not provided (Koslowski, 2006; Russell, 2005; Hill, 1995). Maintaining the
quality through strategic alliance with recognized institutions worldwide is also the techniques
these days. Quality management has been a very important factor for the leaders in higher
education. The application of business related quality activities have been a success story for
many leading institutions. In this era of extensive competition, quality education is a major
concern (Koslowski, 2006; Russell, 2005; Sakthivel and Raju, 2006).

The management of service quality in higher education institutions (HEI) is becoming

challenging these days, since fulfilling the customer requirement and maintaining a prominent
position in the industry is not easy. Students are becoming aware of the significance of money
and they want full return with respect to the outcome. Service quality according to the literature
has been considered to be the ultimate competitive edge, thus the performance of the institution
are attached to the service provided to the students (Smith, et al., 2007; Hill, 1995). Therefore
effectual systems have been operated in the institution in order to cope with the performance
related issues of the students (Mizikaci, 2006; Snipes, et al., 2006). That is the reason that quality
service has connections with the administration as well as teaching and research conducted in the
institution. Hence defining Quality service in the context of education is all about the institutions
values and norms. When evaluating the system in the institution it should be in terms of the
vision, adopted strategies and finally the outcome. This approach helps in synchronization among
the departments, consciousness about the related problems, increasing the expectation relating to
the performance of the institution (Mizikaci, 2006; Hill, 1995; Snipes, et al., 2006). Thus a proper
quality system is essential for the management of an institution, since other quality evaluations
are not in detail and leave many issues uncovered (Mizikaci, 2006).

Owlia and Aspinwall (1996) based on a review of service quality dimensions; present a
comprehensive list with their interpretations for higher education in Table 5 below.

  60
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Table 5 – Service Quality Dimensions in Higher Education

Dimensions Definition in Higher Education

Reliability The degree to which education is correct, accurate and up to date.
How well an institution keeps its promises? The degree of
consistency in educational process
Responsiveness Willingness and readiness of staff to help students
Understanding Understanding students and their needs
customers
Access The extent to which staff are available for guidance and advice
Competence The theoretical and practical knowledge of staff as well as other
presentation skills
Communication How well lecturers and students communicate in the classroom?
Credibility The degree of trustworthiness of the institution
Security Confidentiality of information
Tangible State, sufficiency and availability of equipment and facilities
Performance Primary knowledge/skills required for students
Completeness Supplementary knowledge/skills learned is applicable to other
fields
Flexibility The degree to which knowledge/skills learned is applicable to
other fields
Redress How well an institution handles customers’ complaints and solves
problems?

Delivering quality service has become an important goal for most Higher Education
Institutions (Alves 2006). Universities and faculties strive to provide high quality services
because they need to compete for their students (Faganel and Macur 2005) and have
become increasingly interested in establishing quality management systems in response
to the demands imposed by a complex, uncertain environment (Athiyaman and
O’Donnell 1994; Jenkins 1994; Sallis and Hingley 1991). Sigala and Baum (2003)
mentioned that it becomes even more difficult to attract students, since new generation
students have more influence and greater awareness as consumers, becoming more
interactive and selective as regards their future and Ford et al. (1999) suggested that
institutions need to better understand the nature and quality of the service offered,
because of the high competitive intensity surrounding business-related courses. Oldfield
and Baron (2000: 86) claimed that “institutions should address the issue of quality, not
only through the traditional routes of accreditation and course review, students’ feedback
questionnaires on the quality of course delivery and teaching, but also through evaluating
what students themselves consider to be elements in service quality”. Ford et al. (1999)
found out the attributes that contribute towards an excellent university. The most
important are: reputation, career opportunities, program issues, physical aspects, and
location and may become the basis where universities have to focus their efforts. Vidal et
al. (2003) found out that “guidance services”, in “professional”, “academic” and
“personal” matters play an integral part of the education process, while Adee (1997)
suggested that several ‘university characteristics’ can help to explain the perceived
quality among students, like competent teaching, the availability of staff for students’

  61
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

consultation, library services, computer facilities, recreational activities, class sizes, level
and difficulty of the subject content, and students’ workload.

The research on quality in higher education concludes that not a single workable
definition of quality is possible. Quality is “....a relative concept, meaningful only from
the perspective of those judging it at the time” (Higher Education Council 1992: 3). Tam
(2001) also mentioned that, quality in higher education is a “relative concept”, with
respect to the stakeholders in higher education and the circumstances in which it is
involved. In other words, quality means different things to different people as well as the
same person may adopt different conceptualizations at different moments (Zafiropoulos
et al. 2005). However, Sahney et al. (2004) highlighted that definitions of “quality in
education” follow the general definitions of quality. The term “quality in education” has
been defined as “conformance of education output to planned goals, specifications and
requirements” (Crosby 1979); “defect avoidance in the education process” (Crosby 1979)
“excellence in education” (Peters and Waterman 1982) and “meeting or exceeding
customer’s expectations of education” (Parasuraman et al. 1985) and finally “fitness of
educational outcome and experience for use” (Juran and Gryna 1988).

5.CONCLUSION
The quality of higher education services, especially in developing countries like Malaysia
must be viewed as a strategic issue for social and technological development and
economic growth. It is clear that service quality has significant positive relationship with
student satisfaction. Thus, it confirms what other literature try to suggest here, which is
by improving service quality, it may potentially improve the students’ satisfaction as well
and that is the priority of the higher education institutions. Also, using a literature review
from education and marketing, this study emphasized the role of satisfaction and
customer orientation as envisioned in these institutions. It is recommended in this study
that the changing nature of the higher education marketplace encourage college
administrators to apply the customer-oriented principles that are used in profit making
institutions. We also hope that we have raised enough attention to increase the research
efforts in this area. Our overall hypothesis is that satisfied students are necessary to
accomplish the goals of higher education institutions.

REFERENCES

Adee, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of
university education, European Journal of Marketing 37(7): 528–535.
Alves, A. C. R. R. and Viera, A. (2006). The SERVQUAL as a marketing instrument to
measure services quality in higher education institutions, in Second International
Conference: Product management – Challenges of the future, Poznań, Poland,
May 18–20.
Athiyainan, A. and O’Donnell, B. (1994). Exploring graduates’ perceptions of the quality
of higher education, Journal of Institutional Research in Australasia 3(1): 1–7.
Athiyaman, A. (1997) “Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the
case of university education”, European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), pp. 528-40

  62
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Babakus, E. and Mangold, W.G. (1992), “Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital
services: an empirical investigation”, Health Service Research, Volume 26,
Number 2, February, pp. 767-786.
Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL Scale.
Journal of Business Research, 24(3), 253-268.
Boaden,R.J. and Dale,B.G (1992) “Teamwork in services: quality circles by another
name?”, International Journal of Industry Management, Vol. 4 No1, pp5-24.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. (1993). A dynamic process model of
service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 30, 7-27.
Bourner, T (1998) “More knowledge, new knowledge: the impact on education and
training”, Education and Training, 40(1), pp. 11-14.
Brady, M. K. & Cronin, 1. J. J. (2001). Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived
Brady, M. K., Jr., Cronin, J., Jr., & Brand, R. R. (2002). Performance-only measurement
of service quality: A replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55,
27-31.
Brown, S.W. and Swartz, T.A. (1989), “A gap analysis of professional service quality”,
Journal of Marketing, Volume 53, April, pp. 92-98.
Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Peter, J. P. (1992). Improving the measurement of
service quality (Working Paper No. 92-4). Madison, WI: A.C. Nielsen Center for
Marketing Research.
Buttle, F. (1996), “SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda”, European Journal of
Marketing, Volume 30, Number 1, pp. 8-32.
Cardozo, R. N. (1965). An Experimental study of customer effort, expectation and
satisfaction.
Cheng, Y.C., Tam, W.M (1997) “Multi-models of quality in education”, Quality
Assurance in Education, 5 (1), pp. 22-32.
Churchill, O. A., Jr., & Surprenant, C. (1982). An investigation into the detetminants of

Colling, C. and Harvey, L. (1995) “Quality Control. Assurance and assessment - the link
to continuous improvement”. Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 No 4, pp
30-40.
Cronin J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Cronin J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension,. Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 55-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252296
Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is Free. McGraw Hill, New York, NY. customer
satisfaction. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),491-504. Decisions,
Journal of Marketing Research 17 (4), 460.
Faganel, A. and Macur, M. (2005). Competing through quality in higher education: the
case of faculty of management Koper, Intellectual capital and knowledge
management, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of the Faculty of
Management, Koper.

  63
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Ford, J. B.; Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1999). Importance-performance analysis as a

strategic tool for service marketers: the case of service quality perceptions of
business students in New Zealand and the USA, The Journal of Services
Marketing 13(2): 171–182.
Gronroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing, John Wiley & sons Ltd.
Hill F.M. (1995) “Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as
primary consumer”, Quality assurance in Education, 3(3), pp. 10-21.
Hill, F. M. 1995. Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as
primary consumer, Quality Assurance in Education 3(3): 10–21.
Hill, F.M. (1995). “Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student
As primary consumer”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 , No. 3.

Hill, Y., Lomas, L. and MacGregor, J. (2003). “Students’ perceptions of quality in higher
education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 11, No. 1. Journal of Marketing
Research, 2(3),244-249.
Juran, J. M. and Gryna, F. M. (1988). Juran’s Quality Control Handbook. Jr (Eds.)
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kamal Abouchedid and Ramzi Nasser (2002) “Assuring quality service in higher
education: registration and advising attitudes in a private university in Lebanon”,
Quality Assurance in Education, 10(4), pp. 198-206.
Kettinger W. J., & Lee, C. C. (1994). Perceived service quality and user satisfaction with
the information services function. Decision Sciences, 25(6), 737-766.
Ladhari, R. (2008), “Alternative measure of service quality: a review”, Journal of
Managing Service Quality, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 65-86.
Lagrosen, S., R. Seyyed-Hashemi and M. Leitner, (2004). Examination of the dimensions
of quality in higher education. Qual. Assurance Educ., 12: 61-69.
Lehtinen, Uolevi and Jarmo R. Lehtinen (1982), "Service Quality: A Study of Quality
Dimensions," unpublished working paper, Helsinki: Service Management
Institute, Finland OY.
Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1993). Estimating Zones of Tolerance in Perceived
Service Quality and Perceived Service Value, International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 4(2), 6-28. Marketing Theory, 6, 1, 2006, pp. 11-39
McElwee, G. and Redman, T. (1993) “Upward appraisal in practice: an illustrative
example using the QUALED scale”, Education and Training, 35(2) December,
pp. 27-31. Ministry of University Affairs (MUA) of Thailand Annual report
(2002).
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W.A. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase
Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38(1), 131-142.
Mizikaci, F., (2006). TITLE, Quality Assurance in Education, 14(1), 37-53.
Nitecki, D. (1996). Changing the concept and measure of service quality in academic
libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2(3), 181-190.
Nitecki, D. A., & Hernon, P. (2000). Measuring service quality at Yale University’s
libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 26(4), 259-273.

  64
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Oldfield, B.M. and Baron, S., (2000), "Student perceptions of service quality in a UK
university business and management faculty", Quality Assurance in Education,
Vol 8 No. 2, pp. 85-95.
Oliver R. L, (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction
Owlia, M.S. and Aspinwall E.M., (1996) “ A Framework For The Dimensions For
Quality In Higher Education”, Journal Of Quality Assurance In Education, Vol 4,
No 2, pp 12-220.
Palihawadana, D. (1996) “Modeling student evaluation in marketing education”,
Proceedings of the 1996 Annual Marketing Education Group Conference.

Parasuraman, A, Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring
service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic
criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item
scale for measuring consumer perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49,
No. 4 Performance Management 53(2): 143–166.
Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence, Harper and Row, New
York, NY.
Rowley, J. (2003). “Retention: rhetoric or realistic agendas for the future of higher
education”, The International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 17, No.
6.
Saaditul I, Shamsinar MS, Wong CM (2000). Customer satisfaction towards service
quality of higher education in Malaysia. Seminar FEP 2000 Pulau- Pinang, 20-23
October. http://www.econ.upm.edu.my/report/mgm11b.html.
Sahney, S.; Banwet, D. K. and Karunes, S. (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to
total quality education A student perspective, International Journal of
Productivity and
Performance Management 53(2): 143–166.
Sakthivel, P. B. and Raju, R. (2006), “An instrument for measuring engineering
education quality from students perspective”, The Quality Management Journal,
Vol. 13 Nº. 3, pp. 23-34.
Sasser, W. Earl, Jr., R. Paul Olsen, and D. Daryl Wyckoff (1978), Management of
Service Operations: Text and Cases, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Soutar, G, McNeil, M. (1996) “Measuring service quality in a tertiary institution”,
Journal of Education Administration, 34(1), pp. 72-82.
Sigala, M. and Baum, T. (2003). Trends and issues in tourism and hospitality higher
education: visioning the future”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, The Surrey
Quarterly Review 4(4): 367–376.
Sallis, E. and Hingley, P (1991). College Quality Assurance Systems, Bristol: The Staff
College.

  65
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process
International Journal of Contemporary Business Studies
Vol: 3, No: 4. May, 2012 ISSN 2156-7506
Available online at http://www.akpinsight.webs.com

Srikanthan, G. and Dalrymple (2003). “Developing alternative perspectives for quality in

higher education”. The International Journal of Education Management, Vol.17
No.3 pp. 126-36.
Stanton William J., Etzel Michael J., Walker Bruce J. (1994), Fundamental of Marketing,
th
10 Edition, Mc Graw-Hill Inc., New York.
Swartz, T. A. and S. W. Brown (1989): “Consumer and Provider Expectations and
Experience in Evaluating professional Service Quality”, Journal of Health Care
Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 4.
Tam, M. (2002). “Measuring the effect of higher education on university students”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 10 , No. 4.
Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation and consumer's perception of
quality. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 18-34.
Telford R, Masson R (2005). The congruence of quality values in higher education. Qual.
Assur. Educ., 13(2): 107-119.
Van Dyke, T.P., Kappelman, L.A. and Prybutok, V.R. (1997), “Measuring information
systems service quality: concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire”,
MIS Quarterly, Volume 21, Number 2, June, pp. 195-208.
Van Dyke, T.P., Prybutok, V.R. and Kappelman, L.A. (1999), “Cautions on the use of
SERVQUAL measure to assess the quality of information systems services”,
Decision Sciences, Volume 30, Number 3, Summer, p. 15.
Varey, R. (1993) “The course for higher education”, Managing Service Quality, pp. 45-
90.
Venkatesh, A. and Meamber, L.A. (2006) Arts and aesthetics: Marketing and cultural
production. ‘Marketing Theory.’ Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.11-39.
Vidal, J.; Diez, G. and Vieira, M. J. (2003). Guidance services in Spanish universities,
Tertiary Education and Management, 9(4): 267–280.
Waugh R.F. (2002) “Academic staff perceptions of administrative quality at
universities”, Journal of Educational Administration, 40(2), pp. 172-188.
Yorke, M. (1992) “Quality in higher education: a conceptualisation and some
observations on the implementation of a sectoral quality system”, Journal for
Higher Education, 16(2).
Zafi ropoulos, C.; Fragidis, G.; Kehris, E.; Dimitriadis, S. and Paschaloudis, D. (2005).
Service quality assessment in higher education, the case of Technological
Educational Institute (T.E.I.) of Serres, Greece, in 9th International Conference
on Marketing and Development: Marketing Contributions to Prosperity and
Peace, Thessaloniki, Greece, June 8–11.
Zammuto, R., Keaveney, S., O’Connor, E. (1996) “Rethinking student services: assessing
and improving service quality”, Journal of Marketing in Higher Education, 7(1),
pp. 45-70.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A, & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering quality service:
Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: Macmillan.

  66
Copyright © 2012. Academy of Knowledge Process