Measuring Customer Service Quality in Sports and Leisure Centres. Howat, G., Absher, J., Crilley, G., & Milne, I. Published in Managing Leisure

Transcription

1 Measuring Customer Service Quality in Sports and Leisure Centres Howat, G., Absher, J., Crilley, G., & Milne, I. Published in Managing Leisure Howat, G., Absher, J., Crilley, G., and Milne, I., 1995, Measuring Customer Service Quality in Sports and Leisure Centres, Managing Leisure, 1(2),

2 Howat, G., Absher, J., Crilley, G., and Milne, I., 1995, Measuring Customer Service Quality in Sports and Leisure Centres, Managing Leisure, 1(2), Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management (CERM), University of South Australia, Smith Road, Salisbury East 5109, Australia. Abstract Based on the notion that quality management embraces efficiency and effectiveness, CERM (Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management) has developed prototypes for performance indicators of efficiency and effectiveness that can be applied to sports and leisure centre management. Effectiveness indicators based on the principles of customer service quality (CSQ) measure customers' expectations compared to their perceptions of the centre's actual performance. CERM has focused on leisure industry sectors, particularly public sports and leisure centres. This paper reports on the dimensions of customer service quality and the application of the CERM CSQ questionnaire to leisure centre management. Data are presented from 15 leisure centres throughout Australia that trailed the CERM CSQ questionnaire during Conclusions are drawn from this data that indicate a four dimension model may be appropriate for Australian sports and leisure centres. This model differs from Parasuraman et al (1985, 1991), who proposed five CSQ dimensions based on their applied research of service industry sectors such as financial institutions in North America. Introduction to the CERM Performance Indicators Project The drive for increased accountability by government instrumentalities has seen a growing demand for evaluation and performance indicators to measure outputs and outcomes. Since 1990, the CERM performance indicators group has been engaged in a collaborative applied research venture with leisure industry partners throughout Australia and New Zealand, and more recently in the United Kingdom. Initial encouragement for the project was in response to financial accountability pressures within the leisure industry (efficiency). Subsequent interest has been extended to goal attainment issues, particularly customer service quality (effectiveness). Since the initial pilot study in 1991, data analysis and refinement of the questionnaires has led to a set of performance indicators for sports and leisure centres in two main areas: The development of efficiency performance indicators (Crilley et al, 1993, Milne et al, 1994); and The development of effectiveness indicators based on customer service quality for sports and leisure centres (Howat et al, 1993a, 1993b). Development work is continuing in these two areas on the basis that efficiency and effectiveness must both be considered by managers and that the success of sports and leisure centres will result from attention to both efficiency (resource utilisation) and effectiveness (customer satisfaction). Other aspects of effectiveness are 2

3 being examined by the CERM Performance indicators group, including 'degree of fit' between customer profiles of centres and the local community socio-demographic profiles. Quality Management and Customer Service Quality (CSQ) One approach to quality management is Total Quality Management (TQM), which spread from the USA to Australia in the 1980s. The USA interest in TQM initially stemmed from the 1950s work of Deming (1990) and Juran (Cook, 1992:66) who introduced to post-war Japan the concepts that constitute TQM. During the early 1980s the USA turned to the 'Art of Japanese Management' (Pascale and Athos, 1981) and TQM in response to the success of Japanese industry and the massive export of Japanese goods to the USA. The Economist (1992:63) asserts that, TQM should ultimately focus on results, particularly those that relate to customers' expectations. The importance of customers' expectations as an integral component within TQM is captured in the comprehensive definition offered by Dawson and Palmer (1995:18) who explain that, "...TQM is broadly defined as a philosophy of change which centres on the management of continual improvement through involving employees (and external customers and suppliers) in the group problem-solving of processes, rather than end-product quality issues, in order to meet changing customer expectations". Meeting customer expectations is ultimately the bottom line for adoption of a TQM approach by many service organisations. The extent of discrepancy between customers expectations (desires) and their perceptions of performance is accepted as an important measure of customer service quality (Parasuraman et al, 1991). Carlzon (1987) popularised customer service quality in his book, "Moments of Truth" where he describes the turnaround in the fortunes of Scandinavian Airlines in the early 1980s, which was to a significant extent based on implementation of a customer service quality orientation throughout the organisation. Norman (1984:8) notes that the concept of the 'moment of truth' is taken from bullfighting when the bullfighter and the bull come face-to-face. During this 'moment of truth', the bullfighter only has skills, knowledge, and experience to call on. The first impressions conveyed by the bullfighter to the bull will significantly influence the rest of the interactions between them. In a similar vein, the service provider's knowledge and skill in dealing with customers will significantly influence how customers perceive the quality of the service they receive at that specific 'moment of truth'. Service organisations, including leisure centres, will experience numerous moments of truth every day, and collectively it is these often individually fleeting 'moments of truth' that will significantly influence customer service quality. Urquhart (1991:12) reminds us that, "Little things really do mean a lot! And they have a lasting impression". Atkins (1993) implores staff to consider the cumulative effect of good first impressions, which must be backed by quality in the rest of the organisation's activities. 3

4 Customer expectations There are several major factors that influence customer expectations including: word of mouth communications from other customers, personal needs of customers, past experiences, and external communications from service providers, including the price-quality relationship. Customers will often base their own expectations for a service on the word of mouth feedback from friends or acquaintances that have previously experienced a similar service. The range of benefits sought from any one service will often be influenced by the needs and wants of individual customers. For instance, one customer might attend a leisure centre because of the opportunity to socialise with friends while other customers will be primarily motivated by the desire to improve their physical fitness. The quality of service expected by customers will generally be influenced by their previous experiences for a similar or complementary service. External communications include the accuracy of promotion about a service and the extent to which the benefits promised in the promotional materials will actually be delivered. Promotional materials for leisure centres should contain factual, objective information. Ultimately, the aim of promotional materials should be to ensure that customers will make informed choices as to whether or not to visit a particular leisure centre, and in turn their expectations about the centre and its programs should closely match the quality of the service that they will receive. The price-quality relationship will be used by the prospective customer as an indication of the expected quality for a service. The more customers pay for a service the better the service they will expect. Customers' service expectations tend to range from a minimal level that is just adequate, to a desired level that they hope to experience (Parasuraman et al, 1991). While customers may desire a certain quality of service they tend to tolerate a lower level within a range that is described as the zone of tolerance, as shown in Figure Insert Figure 1 about here A number of factors influence the size of a customers' zone of tolerance for specific services. These factors include: the customers' own previous experiences with that kind of service, which may affect their desired service level; word of mouth communications about the service from other customers; and the alternative services available that may provide the same benefits sought by the customer - fewer options may widen the zone of tolerance because the customer is willing to accept what is available. In the final analysis, the extent to which customers' expectations are met will determine the customers' perception of service quality. Dimensions of customer service quality Howat et al (1993a, 1993b) offer a summary of the Berry and Parasuraman (1991) dimensions of service quality and apply them to leisure centre management. Key factors from the Berry and Parasuraman (1991) research that drive customer service quality can be grouped into five dimensions: reliability, empathy, responsiveness, assurance, and tangibles. The most important dimension of service quality in this model is reliability, which is delivering the promised service in a dependable and accurate manner. Reliability assumes that there are no 'unpleasant surprises', and that the service is performed right the first time. An important aspect 4

5 of reliability is that customers expect the service basics to be delivered at a level commensurate with the price they pay. Reliability tends to be judged after the service has been delivered, and is thus described as a service outcome. An example of reliability is the extent to which customers can attribute their own improved physical appearance to a particular muscle-toning program offered by a leisure centre. While reliability, or whether the promised service is delivered, is the most important dimension of customer service quality, customers will also make judgements during the actual delivery of the service. These process dimensions of service quality relate to how the service is delivered and include responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles. Responsiveness includes the willingness of service providers to assist customers and to promptly respond to their problems. In leisure centres, responsiveness, for example, includes the prompt attention that instructors and other staff offer lap swimmers (customers), such as apologising for crowded swimming lanes or ensuring that lap swimmers are directed to the appropriate lanes commensurate with their ability. Assurance is a function of competence, credibility, and courtesy. The skill and knowledge that leisure centre staff display will help reassure customers that their safety and welfare are in competent hands, such as in a learn to swim class or in a beginners' weight training class. Empathy is the understanding and consideration shown towards the customer, for example, the caring, and individualised attention a program leader provides to participants in a school vacation program. Tangibles include the quality of equipment, the appearance of staff, the scheduling of programs to suit participants and class sizes, the decor and maintenance of physical facilities and the quality of promotions materials. Visible symbols include the logos, letterheads, and other printed materials that are central to the organisation's external communications. Because services are often predominantly of an intangible nature, it is important to provide customers with tangible reference points or physical clues to help them judge the quality of the service. Such physical clues are especially important to customers before they make a purchase decision. In summary, the ability to measure customer service quality is critical to leisure centre managers. Satisfied customers will often be reflected in return visits and repeat business, and conversely, dissatisfied customers are likely to engage in negative word of mouth publicity. Consequently, leisure centre managers should be able to measure customer service quality by comparing customer expectations with customer perceptions of the leisure centre's performance across a range of service dimensions. The CERM CSQ Questionnaire and its development process The CERM CSQ questionnaire allows managers to measure the customers' expectations in terms of the desired level of service compared with their perceptions of the centre's performance. MacKay and Crompton (1988, 1990) applied the five-dimension model (SERVQUAL) of Parasuraman et al (1985, 1991) to the recreation field. They developed a list of 25 service attributes, five for each dimension. Wright et al (1992) adapted the SERVQUAL model to recreation centres in the USA and generated 30 attributes that were included in their questionnaire. The CERM CSQ questionnaire discussed in this paper includes 15 core attributes (refer to Table 1). The CERM CSQ process (refer to Figure 2) to generate attributes for the CSQ questionnaire is driven by customer input, particularly from customer focus group meetings. This process is consistent with that utilised 5

6 by Wright et al (1992) who also generated service attributes from focus groups of leisure centre customers and managers Insert Figure 2 about here During 1993, CERM personnel conducted a total of four focus group sessions with leisure centre customers and two with leisure centre managers. The customer focus groups were stratified to represent the range of customers for different programs and facilities within wet and dry leisure centres. The focus group process utilised by CERM has evolved from the traditional 'freewheeling' discussion among focus group participants where the facilitator(s) recorded important attributes on butcher's paper, to a more refined process utilising the 'story-board' approach. The latter approach allows group members to list attributes privately that they personally find important to them as customers of a service. These attributes are then pinned onto a pin-board for group discussion. Similar statements are combined in categories that emerge from this discussion. A list of 60 attributes was generated from the 1993 CERM focus group meetings. In turn a panel of experienced managers and researchers refined and reduced the list of 60 attributes to fifteen core attributes. CERM also utilises a ranking and rating process. Focus group participants are sent a copy of the refined attributes and are asked to rate them in terms of how important each attribute is to them as a user of the particular service. The rating scale used is a 5 point balanced scale where 1 is 'very unimportant', 2 is 'unimportant', 3 is 'neither 'important nor unimportant', 4 is 'important', and 5 is 'very important'. Additionally, the same attributes are presented to the focus group participants on perforated cards so that they can rank each variable in order of importance to them personally using the card-sort method. Consequently, attributes of lesser importance can be separated out. The importance ranking and rating process has provided a method to ensure that those attributes finally included in the CERM CSQ questionnaires are those of most importance to the customers. The next two steps in the CERM CSQ process were designed to pilot test the questionnaire and refine it through feedback in iterative stages. The end result is a CSQ questionnaire that consists of fifteen core attributes (refer to Table 1) to measure service quality in sports and leisure centres (Further refinement of the CERM CSQ questionnaire during 1994 and 1995 saw four of the original attributes divided into two new attributes each for a total of nineteen core attributes. Customers focus groups for a specific centre may also generate one or two additional attributes that are specific to that centre). Many of the attributes which emerged from the CERM process in Australia are similar to those generated by MacKay and Crompton (1990) and Wright et al (1992) in the United States, and by Howat (1995) in New Zealand Insert Table 1 about here

7 The CERM CSQ questionnaire, which is examined in this paper, is designed to measure customer service quality at a macro level. Consequently, the fifteen attributes are reasonably broad eg "Facilities always clean and well maintained and "Parking area very safe and secure (cars, bikes etc)". In contrast, the Wright et al (1992) questionnaire with its 30 attributes includes several individual attributes that refer to "clean and well maintained facilities". Likewise many of the more generic attributes in the CERM CSQ questionnaire are represented by several more specific attributes in the Wright et al (1992) questionnaire. The generic nature of the CERM attributes is intended to reduce the potential of respondent fatigue in completing the questionnaire. In turn, analyses of the CERM attributes allows managers to focus on individual attributes by developing "tracking" questionnaires to determine what aspects of an attribute are a problem or a strength, and for which specific target groups. This process is further explained later in this paper (refer to "Application of the CERM CSQ Questionnaire to Leisure Centre Management"). Dimensions of customer service quality in the CERM CSQ Questionnaire As reviewed above, previous research into the key factors that drive customer service quality were initially grouped into five dimensions: reliability, empathy, responsiveness, assurance, and tangibles. The Berry and Parasuraman (1991) five dimensions of service quality are the points of reference from which CERM's performance indicators effectiveness (CSQ) questionnaire was developed. Not all of the five dimensions were evenly represented in the CERM CSQ questionnaire (refer to Table 2). Six of the CERM CSQ attributes can be described as tangibles and two dimensions, empathy and responsiveness, share the one attribute ("Staff friendly and responsive") Insert Table 2 about here During the second half of 1994, 15 public sports and leisure centres throughout Australia administered the CERM CSQ questionnaire as part of an ongoing performance evaluation and monitoring system. This group of centres represented a mix of different size centres and included wet and dry facilities. For reasons of confidentiality the individual centres are not named here and their data is treated as one block of respondents. After deleting cases with incomplete or poor data, there are 2,575 respondents in the database. The 15 centres contributed approximately equally to the total. Statistical analysis was executed using SPSS for the Mac, version 4. The CERM CSQ questionnaire for public sports and leisure centres obtained customers' normative expectations for 15 core attributes that were identified as important for this sector of the leisure industry. As expected, most respondents tend to have high expectations for quality for most of the attributes, and as noted above, attributes of low importance were culled in the process of questionnaire development. The scale used is an unbalanced one with more positives, and ranges from 1 ('disagree') to 6 ('very strongly agree'). This is consistent with MacKay and Crompton (1990) and further explained in Absher (1993a). 7

8 Individual attribute means range from the 4.58 for 'child minding' to 5.56 for 'facility cleanliness'. While not reported individually in Table 2, the standard deviations are in the statistically acceptable range of.80 to 1.29, with only one item showing a compressed variance due to skew. A principal components factor analysis using SPSS defaults and a 5% variance cut-off for inclusion was run. Four factors were extracted and rotated to the solution in Table 2. These have very good mathematical properties (loadings, etc.) and easily understood meanings as dimensions of service quality (refer to Absher et al, 1995 for more details of the factor analysis). The dominant factor (Dimension I in Table 2) is described as core services and contains attributes that would have been in three of the SERVQUAL dimensions. The average mean of the factored attributes for Dimension 1 is 5.15 or third highest of the four dimensions. However, customers of leisure centres have very high expectations for several individual attributes within this dimension. Customers especially expect wellmaintained and high quality equipment, a well-organised and well-run centre, and value for money. The next largest factor (Dimension II) clearly relates to staff and is called staff quality. Its average desired level is 5.26, or second highest. It contains attributes from four SERVQUAL dimensions. Responsive and knowledgeable staff and quality officials are clearly valued by customers. These expectations for staff quality are also consistent with CSQ data from a group of nine leisure centres in New Zealand surveyed during late 1994 and again during April The third factor (Dimension III) is a "general facility factor", and is comprised of two attributes, parking and cleanliness of the centre. While not the largest in terms of variance it is the most highly rated with a mean of Both of these attributes would be tangibles in the SERVQUAL scheme. Almost without exception, a clean and well-maintained centre is the attribute that customers of leisure centres expect to be of the highest quality. This view is supported by CSQ data from 31 leisure centres in Australia and New Zealand surveyed during 1994, and further supported from surveys of 25 such centres during early Customers' expectations were also highest for attributes relating to facility cleanliness in a study of eight recreation centres in the USA (Wright et al, 1992). The final factor (Dimension IV) is described as secondary services". The attributes in this dimension would be included in the reliability dimension in the SERVQUAL scheme. Their average mean is 4.66 or strongly rated. This is one area where market segments would likely explain away some if not much of the variation. For example child minding is most likely to appeal to parents with that need. Application of the CERM CSQ Questionnaire to Leisure Centre Management At a macro level of analysis, centre managers can compare the difference between the mean scores for expectations and performance for each of the 15 attributes. This is illustrated in Table 3 where the mean scores for the 15 customer service quality attributes for the Salisbury East Centre (a fictitious centre) are summarised Insert Table 3 about here

9 The main value of these results to managers is to identify any significant difference between customers' expectations and their perception of the centre's performance. Significant differences are those above or below an acceptable level, at this stage nominated by the CERM team in collaboration with industry leaders as -.8. For example, if the expectation mean for an attribute is 5 ('strongly agree') it is important for the centre not to score less than 4.2 on the performance rating for that attribute (between 'agree' and 'strongly agree'). It is even more significant if this attribute is a priority in the centre's current management plan. If an attribute rates very high (above 5.0), or very low (below 3.5), for centre performance, it is important to consider it carefully. The high score on performance may indicate a centre's competitive edge. A low score may identify a potential problem area requiring correction, or it may be due to a unique circumstance of the centre, which is understood and accepted by the centre's management. If a problem area is identified, further analyses of the data can be undertaken that focuses on specific target groups. Problem resolution can then be directed at these specific target groups. For example, if "Parking area very safe and secure (cars, bikes etc)" appears to be a problem, then cross-tabulation analyses may show that female customers who use the centre in the evening are the most dissatisfied with this attribute. A focus group meeting of representatives from this target group can be organised to ascertain what elements affect "Parking area very safe and secure (cars, bikes etc)", eg "parking area well-lit at night", "parking area convenient to centre entrance", "no dense undergrowth and plantings adjacent to the parking area". Four or five such specific attributes generated from the focus group meeting can be used in a short "tracking" questionnaire, which can be administered to a sample of female customers who use the centre in the evening. Once the specific element of "Parking area very safe and secure (cars, bikes etc)" has been identified and action taken to improve the problem, managers can use the "tracking" questionnaire at regular intervals (eg three months) to monitor whether the problem has been resolved to the satisfaction of the customer. This questionnaire also helps identify other specific problems encountered by customers. Customers are asked whether they have experienced a problem with any aspect of the centre. If they encountered a problem they are requested to note what it was, whether they reported it to staff, and if the problem was resolved to their satisfaction. The problem identification questions help to define potential areas for customer dissatisfaction. They provide specific information to support the more general data presented in the differences between the means for expectations and performance for the 15 customer service quality attributes discussed in Table 3. For example in the Salisbury East Centre example only ten per cent of the sample reported that they had experienced a problem at the centre. In terms of problem resolution, 15 of the 20 customers who had reported a problem had it resolved to their complete satisfaction. Data from 46 centres surveyed by CERM during 1994 in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom indicates that up to 40 per cent of customers reported that they had a problem with their centre, although the majority who reported a problem noted that it was resolved to their satisfaction. Another extremely important item is a market action item, which asks customers whether or not they would recommend the centre to other people. At one centre in Australia where 40 per cent of the customers surveyed reported that they had a problem with the centre, 98 per cent of the sample were prepared to recommend the centre to other prospective customers. Such customer advocacy offers reassurance to managers and supports their willingness to invite customers to identify and report problems so that they can be resolved. 9

10 This strong customer advocacy response was also probably influenced by the centre's success in resolving problems reported by customers to staff. In this particular example, 60 of the 80 customers who had reported a problem had it resolved to their complete satisfaction. A separate section of the questionnaire includes items on socio-demographics and usage patterns of the respondents. This data allows cross tabulation analyses so that specific target groups can be examined in respect to customer satisfaction, problem resolution and customer advocacy. Protocol for Administering the CERM CSQ Questionnaire Absher et al (1994) offer details of the protocol for administering the CERM CSQ questionnaire. These are provided to centre managers to help them administer the questionnaire in their centre. The following summary of the protocol emphasises the importance of following a rigorous process in administering the CSQ questionnaire. The CSQ questionnaire has been structured so that further analysis can reveal progressively more detail about a centre's customer base and their specific needs, thereby aiding a variety of management tasks. It also can serve as an integral part of a customer service quality assurance program by being repeated annually with more frequent, small-scale tracking questionnaires designed to focus on specific issues. The CSQ questionnaire has been designed for easy completion. The questionnaire has deliberately been kept short, and takes only about eight minutes to complete. The accuracy and usefulness of results from the CSQ questionnaires will depend upon a number of factors, which include: 1. The way in which the questionnaire is written and reproduced. 2. The representativeness of the sample of customers included. 3. Quality in administration of the instrument. 4. Appropriate data handling and analysis. The number of customers included in the survey, as well as the method by which they are selected, is crucial to the success of the survey. The size of the sample, ie. how many customers are needed to provide a satisfactory level of results depends on a number of factors. In general, the larger the sample the more accurate the results will be. Many factors must be considered in sampling, including: 1. How much variability there is in the total customer group? 2. Whether there are identifiable segments or subgroups of customers for which separate analysis is desired, eg. by age, time of day, recreational activity. 3. The level of precision desired in the results. More precision will require larger or more sophisticated sample designs. In general, a fixed percentage of customers is not the most appropriate method. Consideration of the factors above should provide an approximate sample size and sampling technique. The sample must be obtained so that all possible respondents have an equal chance of being included, and the sampling should be carried out over at least one "typical" week by staff thoroughly briefed in the administration of questionnaires. Staff administering the questionnaire should be trained and adequate resources given to this phase. Customers should have a suitable/comfortable area in which to complete the questionnaire. Survey staff should be available to distribute and collect questionnaires and to answer questions from customers. Customer 10

11 participation must always be voluntary. The staff must have a good understanding of the questionnaire, the aims of the survey and the chosen sampling methodology. The usefulness of the results will depend on the quality of collection (sampling and administration in particular) and also on the quality of analysis performed. The questionnaire has been designed to allow for different levels of analysis. In the first instance the CERM group suggest a customer profile based on basic frequencies of all items in the CSQ questionnaire and a comparison of customers' expectations and perceptions of service performance. Further analysis might involve cross-tabulations to ascertain the different levels of customer service quality for individual attributes according to specific target groups. Conclusion The CERM CSQ dimensions for leisure centres are both practical and statistically reliable. The attributes included and the protocols used were developed with intensive industry involvement and specifically apply to public leisure centres in the Australian context. The fact that the CSQ dimensions in this paper are different from those developed by Parasuraman et al is not surprising. Leisure industry services include a range of very different attributes compared to financial services on which the Parasuraman et al SERVQUAL dimensions have been based. To date the response from field tests has been very encouraging. It is suggested that this factor structure needs to be replicated in other contexts or with other market segments to gauge its stability and usefulness. The centres represented in this paper represented a mix of different size centres and include wet and dry facilities. Future research could examine dimensions of customer service quality for groups of similar types of centres and comparisons could be made between such groups. The CERM Performance indicators group is also adapting the CSQ process to other leisure industry sectors such as golf courses, fitness clubs, sports fields, parks and sports associations. Similar analyses to ascertain dimensions of customer service quality could also be developed for these sectors. As well, the CSQ information should be complemented by information that relates to efficiency benchmarks, trend data (eg to record changing customers expectations and perceptions of performance) and to policy appropriateness (eg socio-demographic profile of centre users). References Absher, J. (1993a) "Importance-Performance Analysis: Two Methodological Issues and Suggested Post Hoc Solutions", in Proceedings for ANZALS Biennial Conference, Griffith University. Absher, J., and Howat, G., Crilley, G., and Milne, I. (1995) "Beyond Efficiency: Reconceptualising the Theoretical Domains in Customer Service Quality for Leisure Service Providers," in Proceedings, for ANZALS Biennial Conference, Lincoln University, New Zealand. Absher, J., Milne, I., Crilley, G., and, Howat, G. (1994) Protocols for Customer Service Quality Questionnaire, unpublished manuscript, CERM, University of South Australia. Atkins, K. (1993) University of South Australia News, March. Berry, L., and Parasuraman, A. (1991) Marketing Services: Competing Through Quality, New York: The Free Press. Carlzon, J. (1987) Moments of Truth, Harper and Row. 11

12 Crilley, G., Howat, G., and Milne, I. (1993) "Efficiency Performance Measures for Sports and Leisure Centres", CERM Bulletin, v1, n1, June, University of SA, Adelaide. Crilley, G., Absher, J., Howat, G., and Milne, I. (1994) "Benchmarking for Better Management, in Proceedings of Australasian Evaluation Society Conference, Canberra. DASET (1992) Government Expenditure on Sport and Recreation, Technical Paper No. 4. Canberra, AGPS. Deming, W. (1990) Out of Crisis, Cambridge, MA: MIT, Centre for Advanced Engineering Study. Horovitz, J. (1990) How to win Customers: Using Customer Service for a Competitive Edge, London: Pitman Publishing. Howat, G. (1991) "Australian Local Government Park and Recreation Departments: An Examination of Organisational Goals 1985 and 1990", Australian Parks and Recreation, 29 (1). Howat, G., Crilley, G., Milne, I., and Absher, J. (1993a) "The Basis for Measuring Quality Customer Service in Sports and Leisure Centres", Australian Journal of Leisure and Recreation, 3 (3). Howat, G., Crilley, G., Milne, I., and Absher, J. (1993b) "Quality Customer Service for Sports and Leisure Centres", CERM Performance Indicators Bulletin 1(2), Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management, University of South Australia. Howat, G. (1995) Customer Service Quality Attributes for New Zealand Leisure Centres, Unpublished Technical Paper, Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management, University of South Australia. MacKay, K., and Crompton, J. (1988) "A Conceptual Model of Consumer Evaluation of Recreation Quality", Leisure Studies, MacKay, K., and Crompton, J. (1990) "Measuring the Quality of Recreation Services", Journal of Park and Recreation. Administration. 8(3): Milne, I., Howat, G., Crilley, G. (1993) Dimensions of Customer Satisfaction for Sports and Leisure Centres, unpublished paper, CERM, University of SA. Milne, I., Absher, J., Crilley, G., and Howat, G. (1994) "The Performance Indicators Project", CERM Performance Indicators Bulletin, 2 (1), Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management, University of South Australia. Norman, R. (1984) Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in Service Organisations, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester. Parasuraman, L., Berry, L., and Zeithaml, V. (1985) "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research", Journal of Marketing, 49 (4): Parasuraman, L., Berry, L., and Zeithaml, V. (1991) "Understanding Customer Expectations of Service", Sloan Management Review, Spring, Vol 32, No 3:1-11. Pascale, R., and Athos A. (1981) The Art of Japanese Management, Warner Books, New York. The Economist, (1992) "The Cracks in Quality", April 18: Urquhart, B., (1991) Serves You Right, Marketing Focus, Western Australia. Wright, B., Duray, N., and Goodale, T., (1992), Assessing Perceptions of Recreation Centre Service Quality: An Application of Recent Advancements in Service Quality Research, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 10(3),

13 Figure 1: Service Level Expectations Adequate Desired Low Source: Parasuraman et al,1991:4. Zone of tolerance EXPECTATIONS High Figure 2: CERM's CSQ Developmental Stages Adapt TQM literature to leisure settings Develop attributes via focus groups with managers and customers Importance ratings and rankings of attributes Finalise CSQ attributes, and develop questionnaire and protocol Implement CSQ, and apply to management decsion-making

14 Table 1: CERM CSQ Attributes (summarised format only) 1. Parking area very safe and secure (cars, bikes etc). 2. Facilities always clean and well maintained. 3. Up-to-date information available on activities, results, events etc. 4. Programs always start and finish on time. 5. Offer a broad range of activities. 6. Centre well organised and well run. 7. Centre physically comfortable and pleasant. 8. Programs and facilities provide value for money. 9. Equipment of a high quality and well maintained. 10. A good canteen or kiosk. 11. Adequate child minding. 12. Staff friendly and responsive. 13. Staff presentable and easily identified. 14. Staff experienced and knowledgeable. 15. Officials (umpires, judges etc.) qualified, experienced and consistent.

15 Table 2: CERM CSQ Factors and Attributes by Means and Loadings, and SERVQUAL Dimensions from Parasuraman, et al (1985). CSQ Dimensions Attribute Means for CSQ Parasuraman et al and Attributes Loadings Dimensions and Attributes SERVQUAL Dimensions Dimension I: Core Services 5.15 Program Information Reliability Start/finish on time Reliability Activity range Tangibles Organisation Assurance Facility comfort Tangibles Value for money Reliability Quality equipment Tangibles Dimension II: Staff Quality 5.26 Staff responsiveness Empathy and Responsiveness Staff presentation Tangibles Staff knowledge Assurance Officials Assurance Dimension III: General Facility 5.40 Safe Parking Tangibles Facility cleanliness Tangibles Dimension IV: Secondary Services 4.66 Food and drink Reliability Child minding Reliability

16 Table 3: Mean Scores for Salisbury East Centre Customers: Expectations versus Performance ATTRIBUTE EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE 1. Safe Parking Facility cleanliness Program information Start/finish on time Activity range Organisation Facility comfort Value for money Quality equipment Food and drink Child minding Staff responsiveness Staff presentation Staff knowledge Officials The scale used for this part of the questionnaire ranges from 1 ('disagree') to 6 ('very strongly agree').