Measuring Service Quality of the Consultancy Company

Available online at http://journals.usamvcluj.ro/index.php/promediu ProEnvironment ProEnvironment 9 (2016) 177-182 Original Article Measuring Service Quality of the Consultancy Company MUREŞAN Iulia Cristina 1, Adriana PASCALAU 1, Andra PORUŢIU 1, Rezhen HARUN 2, Felix Horaţiu ARION 1, Gabriela CHICIUDEAN 1* 1 University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Horticulture, Department of Economic Sciences, St. Calea Mănăștur, no. 3-5, Postal Code 400372, Cluj-Napoca, Romania 2 University of Sulaimani, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Agribusiness and Rural Development. Bakrajo, 5100, Sulaimani, Iraq Received 20 July 2016; received and revised form 25 August 2016; accepted 1 September 2016 Available online 28 September 2016 Abstract Service quality being directly linked to customer satisfaction, measuring it becomes mandatory for a obtaining proper information with regards of customer s expectations. Therefore, the article s aim is to estimate the quality of a service company from the consultancy area. A research was conducted among the clients of a consultancy company, using the adapted SERVQUAL method. Results indicate that the dimension with highest expectations is professionalism while the highest perception score registered the courtesy dimension which refers to employers behavior. Keywords: SERVQUAL, service quality, consultancy services. 1. Introduction The intangibility, heterogeneity, and inseparability characteristics of services give them a few search qualities. Service sellers often have limited influence over the delivery of the service and so they have limited control over service quality. Service's unique characteristics give them high levels of properties, which, makes them more difficult to evaluate than tangible goods [1, 14]. Services quality is directly linked to customer s satisfaction and building long-term relationships. Therefore, many scholars measured quality services in different fields of activity: banking system [7, 11]; education services [4], air travel [3]; web sites [8]; high-contact service shops [20]; hospitality [5, 9, 10, 12, 16]. * Corresponding author. Tel: +40-264-596384 Fax: ++40-264-593792 e-mail: gabriela_chirila@yahoo.com General findings indicate that quality services are a major determinant of customer satisfaction [6]. Literature considers that quality became more and more a strategic tool for enterprises in order to gain operational efficiency and business performance [17, 18, 19]. Measuring quality services is very important for the firm s management for obtaining pertinent information regarding customer expectations and perceived performance, in order to adopt proper strategies. Therefore, SERVQUAL model, built by Parasuraman et al. (1988) was tested among different types of services [15]. 2. Material and Method The article aim is to estimate the quality of a service company, present expectations and perceptions of clients and their satisfaction, using SERVQUAL model. 177

In order to achieve this goal, it was used as a case study was carried out in a Romanian private company, specialized in consultancy and management projects in various areas, especially for supporting the access to European non-refundable funds. A survey was conducted among the consultancy company s clients. There were distributed 135 questionnaire, from which 50 were validated in the end. The instrument used was the questionnaire based on the SERVQUAL model, and adapted to the purpose of the study. The questionnaire had 25 statements, divided into 5 dimensions: tangibles, communication, professionalism, competence and courtesy. Each of the statement was evaluated from two different points: (1) first were evaluated the expectations for the consultancy companies in general; (2) second were evaluated the perceptions of the perceived services of the analyzed company. To determinate the quality of the consultancy service each statement was evaluated using a 5 Liker point scale (where 1 means totally disagree, and 5 means totally agree). SERVQUAL measures the difference between a customer's expectations for a service that he intends to use and his or her perceptions of the service received (P-E) [15]. This difference is called a gap (Fig. 1) and it is referred to as perceived service quality, and is the determinant of customers perception of service quality [2, 13]. There are some external factors that may, influence the expectations of customers, which the service provider cannot control. This study focuses on this gap and tries to identify the difference between expectations and perceptions of the clients of consultancy firms. SERVQUAL represents service quality as the difference between a customer's expectations for a service offered and the customer's perceptions of the service received, this difference is assessed by asking respondents to answer questions about both their expectations and their perceptions, so the SERVQUAL measure an attitude that is related to satisfaction [15]. The first part of the questionnaire aims to measure the respondents expectations of service quality of consultancy firms in general- and it requires from respondents to show the extent to which they believe consultancy firms should possess the features stated. The second part aims to measure respondents perceptions. Respondents were requested to show the extent to which the statements reflect their experience with the consultancy company. 3. Results and Discussions The companies that responded to the questionnaire were characterized by number of employees, area of activity and the quality of beneficiary/non-beneficiary of European funds. Regarding the size, most of the companies are small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), 48% of them have less than 10 employees and 44% of them have less than 49 employees, and only 4% of them have over 250 employees. A high percentage of respondents (88%) are European funds beneficiaries, while 12% are potential beneficiaries, meaning that a project was submitted and they expect to sign the financing contract. The main area of activity of 34% of the clients is agriculture, followed by production (28%) and services (22%) (Fig. 2). 28% 4% 4% 34% 6% 2% 22% Agriculture Constructions Commerce Services Production Health Other Figure 2. Clients area of activity 178

The consumers perceived level of service exceeded expectation as shown by the perception scores in most of the cases. This resulted in a positive gap score (Perception Expectation), only 7 statements recorded negative scores. The items with the highest expectation scores were: providing the right solutions when a problem occurs (4.86), clear communication of the status project (4.84), protecting the client interests (4.82), keeping in touch with financing institutes (4.8) and correct execution of service from the first time (4.78). Lower scores recorded the statements regarding: office location (2.74), staff appearance (2.68) and office equipment (2.54). The items rated highest for actual service perceived were: staff courtesy (4.86), precise communication of deadlines (4.82), checking the documents submitted (4.82), providing individual attention (4.8), keeping in touch with financing institutions and protecting the clients interests (4.78). There is no so much difference between the scores of perceptions but are generally higher than expectations. The gap score analysis revealed which of the dimensions satisfied the consumers expectations. The gap scores were calculated based on the difference between the consumers perceptions and expectations of services offered by consultancy firms in general and analyzed consultancy company services in particular. In general, customers perceptions of service quality offered by the analyzed consultancy firm meet their expectations (almost all the gaps scores the dimensions are positive). The gap scores are the difference between the perception and expectation scores with a range of values from -5 to +5 and these gap scores measure service quality and hence customer satisfaction. The closer the perceptions are to expectations, the higher is the perceived level of quality. The largest gaps scores were: correct execution of service from the first time (-0.3), clear communication of the project status (-0.14), providing the right solutions when a problem occurs in project implementation (-0.12), protecting the interest (-0.04) and keeping the promises (-0.02). Table 1. Scores of expectations, perceptions and gaps Dimension Statements Expectations Perceptions GAP (P- E) Tangibles Modern equipment -facilities of office 2.54 4.52 1.98 Office location 2.74 4.42 1.68 Visibility on the Internet 3.14 4.32 1.18 The quality of materials 3.54 4.56 1.02 Convenient working hours 3.86 4.68 0.82 Presentable staff appearance 2.68 4.74 2.06 Communication Clear communication of project related information 4.76 4.72-0.04 Keeping in touch with financing institutions 4.8 4.78-0.02 Communicating the status of the project 4.84 4.7-0.14 To ensure that client receive messages 4.24 4.74 0.5 To present clearly the deadlines of project realization 4.72 4.74 0.02 Professionalism Correct execution of service for the first time 4.78 4.48-0.3 Keeping the promises 4.74 4.72 -.0.02 Providing the right solutions when a problem appear in 4.86 4.74-0.12 project implementation Having highly qualified personnel 4.72 4.72 0 Solving the problems quickly 4.68 4.72 0.04 Protecting your interests 4.82 4.78-0.04 Competence Participation in the official visits in the field from 3.64 4.18 0.54 financing institutions Offering help in keeping documents 4.04 4.5 0.46 Keeping in touch with every one involved in project 4.32 4.44 0.12 Precise communication of deadlines 4.78 4.82 0.04 Checking the documents submitted 4.76 4.82 0.06 Quick response of employees 4.62 4.74 0.12 Courtesy Staff behavior inspire trust 4.36 4.78 0.42 Staff courtesy 4.14 4.86 0.72 Providing individual attention 4.02 4.8 0.78 179

Respondents were asked to evaluate the importance of those five dimensions by giving a mark between 1 and 5 were 1 means The less important and 5 means The most important based upon their perception of importance. The respondents were asked to assign the higher mark to the most important dimension and a smaller mark to the least important dimensions (Table 2).Based on these scores weighted gap score were calculated for each dimension. The Tangibles dimension groups the first 6 questions which assess the tangible appearance aspects (equipment, materials, physical facility and employees). The unweight average gap score for the tangibles dimension of customer satisfaction is 1.46, while the weighted gap score is 3.15. The results indicate that the tangibles dimension meets the customers expectations, and even exceeded them. The Communication dimension of the SERVQUAL instrument indicates that the perceptions of analyzed consultancy company s clients exceed their expectations in the case of the 2 statements out of 5 statements. The average unweight gap score for the communication dimension of customer satisfaction is 0.06 (Table 3), while the weight score was 0.20. Even if by general the communication dimension meets the expectations of the costumers, the consultancy company should improve the aspects related to the updating of project status. Another negative score was recorded for the communication with the financial institutions. In this case it needs to underline the fact that the difficulties in the communication process, can be because of the bureaucracy. Table 2. Dimensions importance Rank Dimension Average 1 Competence 3.96 2 Professionalism 3.7 3 Communication 3.14 4 Tangibles 2.16 5 Courtesy 2.04 The Professionalism dimension of the SERVQUAL instrument involves aspects like: correct execution of service, keeping promises, providing right solutions. Analyzing each of the six statements of the professionalism dimension it can be observed that in most of the cases the provided service does not meet the customers expectations. The correct execution of the service recorded the lower score -0.3 meaning that the clients are not satisfied at all. The unweight average gap score for the professionalism dimension of customer satisfaction is -0.07. When applying the responsiveness weight score of 3.7 to the gap, the gap score increases to -0.2. The results indicated that the customers expected more professionalism from the employees of the consultancy company. In order to be more professional in their job and service delivery, measures such as: training and communication courses. The Competence dimension includes statements like offering help in keeping and checking documents and precise communication and quick responses. For all the statements included in this dimension the scores were positive. This indicated that the service delivered by the analyzed consultancy company met the customers expectations. The unweight average gap score for the competence dimension of customer satisfaction is 0.22. When applying the reliability weight score of 3.96 to the gap score, the gap score increases to 0.88. The Courtesy dimension recorded a positive score. This indicated that the customers are satisfied by the employee s behavior and the attention provided. The unweight gap score is positive, and when applying the courtesy weight score of 2.04, the gap score increase to 1.31. Table 3. Dimensions average Dimension Average P Average E P-E Importance Tangibles 4.54 3.08 1.46 2.16 Communication 4.74 4.67 0.07 3.14 Professionalism 4.69 4.77-0.08 3.7 Competence 4.58 4.36 0.22 3.96 Courtesy 4.81 4.17 0.64 2.04 Total (mean) 4.67 4.21 0.45 3.00 All the dimensions have the average SERVQUAL perception values close to 5, meaning the firm services have a good quality, but taking into account the average of expectation, one 180

dimension recorded a negative score, meaning that the clients are not satisfied on how company executes the service from the first time services are not correct, they are also unsatisfied about how the firm keep the promises made, neither about on how the firm protects their interest, or how provide solution in solving a problem during project implementation. The average of the gap score is positive 0.45, meaning that overall the clients expectation were exceeded, and the level of service quality is satisfactory (Table 3). 4. Conclusions Quality is the key for success in any business. In the services area, as is also the case of the consultancy company, an important role for assuring the quality is played the employees, those that are delivering the services. In this study the dimension that has the highest expectations and registered the lower score (-0.08) is professionalism which is related to the promises, right solutions, services and knowledge of the employees. The highest perception score registered the courtesy dimension which refers to employers behavior and empathy. From the overall scores it was observed that in seven cases the delivered service did not meet the expectations of the clients. By general the service met the expectations of the clients. Also, there is a fall down from the expectations to the perceptions in several service features from the dimension professionalism, correct execution of the service, keeping promises, providing the right solutions and protecting the interest of clients. This means that the customers do not believe that the services of the company are professional enough. The fact the personal of the analyzed consultancy company is competent, reinforce the idea that training and communication courses should be provided. At the same time the company management should establish more clear delivery services standards. When it comes about to ranking the dimensions by their importance for the clients, they indicated that the most important dimension is competence, followed by professionalism and communications, so this justifies the lower score regarding professionalism dimension, this being one of the most important dimension for the clients. Following the results obtained it is recommended that aspects which registered negative score to be treated with more attention compared to others that have recorded a positive one, but neither these should not be neglected. First it is recommended that aspects of dimension professionalism should be improved, being the only dimension that recorded a negative score, also the communication dimension should be more carefully treated. The negative aspects from the professionalism dimension like correct execution of service from the first time and providing the right solutions when a problem appear in project implementation could be improved by giving more attention to details, double checking the document and avoiding to submit the documentation at the last minute. Keeping the promises and protecting the clients interest could be improved through a clear ranking of priorities, and never make promises that the firm could not keep, for this the firm should have a long-term vision that takes into account also the facts that are not dependent by the firm: like changes of legislation, procedures etc. When keeping in touch with the financing institutes and others involved in the project the firm should have more care about keeping the interest of the clients, to assure them that their interest are priority. References [1] Bitner M., 1990, Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses, Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82. [2] Chingang N. D., L. P.Berinyuy, 2010, Using the SERVQUAL Model to assess Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction, Sweden. [3] Clemes M.D., C. Gan, T.H. Kao, M. Choong, 2008, An empirical analysis of customer satisfaction in international air travel, Innovative Marketing, 4(2), 49-62. [4] Dado J., B. Bystrica, J. Taborecka, P. Matej, D. Riznic, T. Rajic, 2011, An Empirical Investigation into the Construct of Higher Education Service Quality,International Review of Management and Marketing, 1(3), 30-42. [5] El-garaihy W.H., 2013, Developing and Validating a Hospitality Service Quality Scalein Saudi Arabia (HOSP- SQ): A Structural Equation Model, International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(1), 224-238. [6] Gounaris S., 2005, Measuring service quality in b2b services: an evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale vis-a`-vis the INDSERV scale, Journal of Services Marketing, 19(6), 421 435. [7] Ishaq M. I., 2011, An Empirical Investigation of Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Responses in Pakistani Banking Sector, Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 6(3), 457-470. 181

[8] Iwaarden J., T. van der Wiele, L. Ball, R. Millen, 2003, Applying SERVQUAL to Web sites: an exploratory study, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(8), 919-935. [9] Lee Y.L., N. Hing, 1995, Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument, Int. J. Hospitality Management, 14(3/4), 293-310. [10] Liao H., A.Chuang, 2004, A Multilevel Investigation of Factors Influencing Employee Service Performance and Customer Outcomes, Academy of Management Journal 47(1), 41 58. [11] Malik S.A., A. Mushtaq, K.Naseem, S. A. Malik, 2012, Examining the Relationship among Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Responses - Comparison Between Public and Private Sector Banks of Pakistan, International Journal for Quality research, 6(4), 365-380. [12] Markovic S., S. Raspor, 2010, Measuring Perceived Service Quality Using servqual: A Case Study of the Croatian Hotel Industry, Management 5 (3), 195 209. [13] Panteloukas G., A. M. E. Asopo, R. Buwag, 2012, A review of Perceived Service Quality: An empirical investigation of grocery stores customers in Växjö, Sweden, Bachelor Thesis 15hp (2FE07E; 2FE10E) [14] Parasuraman A., V. A. Zeithaml, L. L. Berry, 1985, A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research, The Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41-50. [15] Parasuraman A., V. A. Zeithaml, L. L. Berry, 1988, SERVQUAL:a multi-item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. [16] Saleh F., C. Ryan, 1991, Analysing Service Qnality in the Hospitality Industry Using the SERVQUAL Model, The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-343. [17] Saleh F., C. Ryan, 1991, Analysing Service Qnality in the Hospitality Industry Using the SERVQUAL Model, The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-343. [18] Sanjay K Jain S.K., G. Gupta, 2004, Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF Scales, Vikalpa, 29(2), 25-37. [19] Walfried M. Lassar W.M., C.Manolis, R.D. Winsor, 2000, Service quality perspectives and satisfaction in private banking, Journal of Services Marketing, 14(3), 244-271. [20] Yee R. W.Y., A.C.L. Yeung, T.C. E. Cheng, 2010, An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality and firm performance in the service industry, Int. J. Production Economics,124, 109 120. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 182