service expectations and perceptions of exhibitors at · pdf fileservice expectations and...

Graduate School Master of Science in Tourism and Hospitality Management

Master Degree Project No. 2011:94

Supervisor: Tommy Andersson

Service Expectations and Perceptions of Exhibitors at TUR 2011 An Application of SERVQUAL Model on Service Quality Evaluation

Junling Qian and Ling Wang

Acknowledgements

We would like to show our gratitude to our Professor and Thesis Supervisor, Tommy

Andersson, who provided excellent guidance, ideas, and feedbacks through the construction

process of the thesis.

It is an honor for us to conduct the research in the Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre,

and we would like to thank the management team of TUR, especially Per Magnusson, the

Exhibition Manager of TUR. He supported the research in a number of ways.

Moreover we want to thank John Armbrecht and Erik Lundberg who made valuable

suggestions on literature and helped us to develop the ideas of the thesis topic.

Lastly, we offer our regards and blessings to all of those who supported us in any aspect

during the project.

Junling Qian and Ling Wang

1

SERVICE EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS

Abstract

In stressing the imperative role of service quality in obtaining competitive advantage for

events industry, this paper, using the SERVQUAL model, measures the service quality of the

annual tourism event, TUR, at the Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre in the city of

Gothenburg by ascertaining the gap between exhibitors‟ expectations and perceptions. It

identifies the difference in the importance of the RATER dimensions in exhibitors‟

expectation and perception. Moreover, the study demonstrates the influence of cultural

background and perceived changes on exhibitors‟ perception. A pre-event and a post-event

online survey as well as an onsite interview were conducted to collect data.

2


Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 1

ChapterⅠ Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 6

1.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................................... 6

ChapterⅡ Literature review ............................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Service and Service Quality ................................................................................................ 7

2.2 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality ........................................................................ 8

2.3 Service Quality Frameworks ............................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Grönroos (1984): Technical and functional quality model. ...................................... 9

2.3.2 Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985): Gaps model of service quality. .............. 9

2.3.3 Bateson (1995): The Servuction System. ................................................................ 12

2.3.4 Haywood-Farmer (1988): Attribute service quality model. .................................... 13

2.3.5 Spreng and Mackoy (1996): Model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. 14

2.3.6 Philip and Hazlett (1997): PCP attribute model. ..................................................... 16

2.3.7 Dabholkar, Shepherd & Thorpe (2000): Antecedents and mediator model. ........... 17

2.4 Summary of Models .......................................................................................................... 18

2.5 SERVQUAL Model as the Basis of the Proposed Model ................................................ 19

Chapter Ⅲ Model and Hypotheses ................................................................................................ 21

3.1 Research Model................................................................................................................. 21

3.2 Hypotheses Formation ...................................................................................................... 21

Chapter Ⅳ Methodology ............................................................................................................... 24

4.1 Sampling for Quantitative Study ....................................................................................... 24

4.2 Quantitative Study – Survey Instruments ......................................................................... 24

4.3 Qualitative Study............................................................................................................... 25

4.3.1 Interview. ................................................................................................................ 25

4.3.2 Observation. ............................................................................................................ 26

4.4 Statistical Techniques Applied .......................................................................................... 27

4.4.1 Summated scale. ...................................................................................................... 27

4.4.2 Reliability coefficients. ........................................................................................... 27

4.4.3 Data recoding. ......................................................................................................... 27

4.4.4 Compare means – One-way ANOVA. .................................................................... 28

4.4.5 Multiple regression. ................................................................................................ 29

Chapter Ⅴ Results, Analysis and Discussion ................................................................................ 30

5.1 Sample Description ........................................................................................................... 30

5.2 Reliability of the Measurement Scale ............................................................................... 30

5.3 Sample Distribution .......................................................................................................... 31

5.4 RATER‟s Influences on Overall Expectations ................................................................. 31

5.5 Gap between Expectation and Perception ......................................................................... 35

5.6 RATER‟s Influences on Overall Perception ..................................................................... 37

5.7 Satisfaction 2011 vs. Satisfaction 2010 ............................................................................ 41

5.8 Repeat Exhibitors vs. First-time Exhibitors ...................................................................... 41

5.9 Domestic Exhibitors vs. Foreign Exhibitors ..................................................................... 42

5.10 Perceived Changes Influence the Overall Perception ..................................................... 43

Chapter Ⅵ Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 45

6.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 45

6.2 Recommendations for Management ................................................................................. 47

6.3 Recommendations on Future Research ............................................................................. 49

Chapter Ⅶ References ................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter Ⅷ Appendices .................................................................................................................. 57

3


ChapterⅠ Introduction

TUR, started from 1984, is an annual business fair for the travel, tourism and meeting

industries. It provides an international meeting place for exhibitors, from all over the world,

to meet trade visitors and the general public, which ensures the fair will attract keen interest

among the Nordic countries. TUR has been recognized as the leading fair of the industry and

is held at Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre (the Centre) in Göteborg, a venue with

ample experience of holding large and small conferences and congresses. TUR runs for four

days at the end of March, consisting of activities and services such as Meetings@TUR for

professional buyers and sellers of international conferences and business meetings, BookTUR

to offer an opportunity for the exhibitors to create attractive offers only purchasable at the fair,

seminars with different topics regarding the future trend of the industry, etc. In 2011 there

were 894 exhibitors from 79 countries and regions represented at the TUR (TUR, 2011).

Still the challenges that TUR faces should be seen against all the success. TUR has been held

for 27 years and it is stimulating for the organization to be continuously attractive while

competing with similar fairs like HORECA Malmo, MATKA Nordic Travel Fair in Helsinki

and so on. In addition, when discussing with the management of TUR, we found that the

organization only has post-event evaluation on the perception aspect, just as Getz anticipates

event managers always rely on visitor surveys to measure customer satisfaction levels and to

identify any problem areas, and the input of staff and volunteers can also be important (Getz,

Neill, & Carlsen, 2001). But there is no previous study about expectations of exhibitors and

thus no comparison between expectations and perceptions has been conducted. Short of

identifying the gap between exhibitors‟ expectation and perception would be challenging for

the organization to control the service quality and achieve higher level of exhibitors‟ service

satisfaction.

However, service quality is a critical concept increasingly gaining its importance in today‟s

business environment. The global development of economies leads to expanding of the

markets for services and increasing competition within these markets. As a result, the

importance of service quality now deserves more attention for organizations wishing to gain

competitive advantages. It has been raised to strategy level with guidelines that provide

orientations for everyone in the organization (Clement & Selvam, 2006). But unlike product

quality, service quality is complicated to define because of the highly transitory and

4


intangible nature of most services. As Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) pointed out,

service quality is “the degree and direction of discrepancy between customers‟ service

perception and expectations”, there are two pivotal concepts always linked with the

evaluation of service quality: customer‟s expectations and perceptions. The discrepancy

between these two concepts is recognized as the fifth gap in service quality management.

Expectations are dynamic. Customer expectations may differ among people from different

countries and cultural background where service treatment standards may differ a lot. Service

expectations also derive from many other sources, such as personal needs, perceived service

alternatives, customer self-perceived service role, service promises, word of mouth

communication, past experience, and situational factors beyond the control of the service

provider (Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, 2009).

Perceptions are always considered relative to expectations and vary as significantly as

expectations. Evaluation of service is based on customers‟ perception of Reliability,

Assurance, Responsiveness, Empathy, and Tangibles. Customers will have perceptions of

single, transaction-specific encounters as well as overall perceptions of a company based on

their cumulative experiences over a period of time which might include multiple service

encounters of the organization, or of the region, or even over the whole industry (Zeithaml et

al., 2009). Many factors, like management systems, staff and volunteer actions, and facilities

etc. may directly affect the customers‟ perception of quality and therefore their level of event

satisfaction. Thus to create a lasting impression in the customer‟s mind, organizations need to

add value in the views of the customers that good service quality and satisfaction is achieved,

by concentrating on the development and provision of these more relational elements of the

service encounter (Neill, Getz, & Carlsen, 1999).

Service quality in event management is our primary interest in constructing this paper. Events,

as a unique section in tourism industry, can be described as non-standardized services in

which the knowledge, behavior, and commitment of the service providers is crucial (Bejou,

Edvardsson, & Rakowski, 1996). There are studies that assess service quality of events by

identify predefined targets of service quality in the actually delivery (Chelladurai & Chang,

2000). But Zeithaml et al. (2009) argue that the discussion of service quality and customer

satisfaction should be based on what customers actually perceive rather than on a set of

standard criteria.

5


Service quality in tourism industry is an undeniable key factor for long-term business success.

For annual events in particular, deliver service of desirable quality is a vital basis to attract

new participants and encourage repeat visits. Studies have been conducted to demonstrate the

positive relationship between customer satisfaction and a desire to return in the field of

tourism (Kozak, 2001; Yoon & Uysal, 2005). The first satisfactory impression gained from

the initial experience has direct impact on the customer‟s decision to become a repeat visitor

(Moutinho, 2001). And increasing satisfaction will result in increased repeat visits in the

absence of counter moves by competitors (Kozak, 2001).

1.1 Research Questions

Better management of customers‟ realistic expectation can help to narrow the gap between

expectations and perceptions of service quality, and thus customers‟ average satisfaction is

likely to rise to a level that motivate their repeat visits to the next TUR fair. Therefore, we are

interested in the following questions,

1. What is important in exhibitors‟ expectation?

2. Are exhibitors‟ actual perceptions in line with the expectations?

3. What can the management team of TUR do in the future to design their service and

minimize the gap between expectation and perception?

TUR is a fair in change (Magnusson, 2011). It constantly self-improves by adapting valuable

suggestions from fair participants. There are some new features implemented in TUR 2011,

which include invitations sent to more than 3000 VIPs, establishment of Travel Trade

Council, and changed opening hours on Friday. When an event organizer introduces a new or

improved service, the marketing and sales departments must make the service appealing to

build up new customer relationships and meanwhile consolidate existing customer

relationships. However, the organization cannot afford to raise the expectations above the

level at which it can consistently perform (Zeithaml et al., 2009). If the external

communication does not deliver the actual image of the offering, unrealistic expectations are

likely to be set up, which subjects the organization to a huge risk that customers are

disappointed, satisfaction level is low, and bad impression among those customers is created.

Further consequences such as word-of-mouth effect and reduction in repeat visits can be

estimated. Therefore another question is proposed as,

6


4. Are exhibitors‟ perceptions of changes related to overall perception on service quality

of TUR 2011?

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of our study covers the following points,

Discuss the theories behind customers‟ expectations and perceptions of service quality.

Analyze the level of importance of the service dimensions to exhibitors‟ expectations

on TUR 2011.

Compare the average gap score between expectations and perceptions.

Evaluate the overall satisfaction of TUR 2011.

Provide recommendations for the management team of TUR and for future research

connected to the topic.

1.3 Limitations

This paper is based on data collected before, during, and after the fair mainly through

Webropol. There are difficulties to obtain the same number of respondents for expectation

and perception. Neither are we able to have the same respondents for the two sets of data.

Conclusions are based on the findings from TUR 2011. Therefore they cannot be generalized

to all business fairs in travel, tourism and meeting industries. However TUR is an interesting

case which can provide an insight for future studies.

7


ChapterⅡ Literature review

2.1 Service and Service Quality

Service quality has been studied by many researchers within the field of business

management for years as the market becomes increasingly competitive and management has

expanded its focus from internal performance to external interests including customer

satisfaction and customers‟ perceptions of service quality (Grönroos, 1992). Researchers

proposed different views on the definitions and characteristics of service and service quality,

however, no consensus has been reached on how service quality is best conceptualized.

Therefore it is necessary to start the review from the discussion of the definition of service for

our study purpose.

Grönroos (1990, p. 27) described service as “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 ”. Zeithaml and Bitner (1996, p. 5) mentioned in their book

that service are “deeds, processes, and performances”. Yong (2000), based on the definitions

offered by different researchers, drew a conclusion on the definition of service: a service,

combined with goods products, is experienced and evaluated by customers who have

particular goals and motivations for consumers for consuming the service. These three are

examples of the diversified definitions of service. There are still many others not listed here.

Similar to service‟s definition, opinions on the definition of service quality and how it should

be measured are lack of consensus, exactly as Reeves and Bednar (1994, p. 436) concluded in

their work that “there is no universal, parsimonious, or all-encompassing definition or model

of quality”. However, as observed by Chang, Chen and Hsu (2002), the traditional notion of

service quality by Parasuraman et al. (1985) is most commonly accepted. Shostack (1977)

claimed that “intangibility is not a modifier; it is a state”. She means that intangibility is part

of the nature of a service. The service is rendered by service provider and experienced by the

customer and it cannot be kept in stock, cannot be touched, tasted or tried on for size. Her

notion emphasized the role of the experience, which is reflected in the traditional notion:

service quality is viewed as the customer‟s perception of service excellence combined with

certain comparison standards such as his past experiences. Therefore, according to this notion,

8


service quality can be understood as a conception inevitably influenced by customers‟

subjective perceptions.

2.2 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality

Although the traditional notion is widely accepted, it is not bullet-proof. It has been facing

many challenges. Oliver (1997) pointed out the traditional definition failed to distinguish

service quality from customer satisfaction. According to Oliver, perception of quality may

come from external mediation rather than experience of service, consumers must experience

satisfaction in person. Moreover, satisfaction level is evaluated not only based perceptions of

excellence, but also involving many factors such as personal needs, product category norms,

and expectations of service quality. This challenge was supported by Bitner and Hubbert

(1994) who claimed quality are mainly cognitive, satisfaction is an affective experience.

Therefore, it is important to differentiate customer satisfaction and service quality.

Facing many challenges, Zeithaml et al. (2009) updated their work and defined customer

satisfaction as the customer‟s fulfillment response. It could be understood as a judgment

whether that product or service has met the customer‟s needs and expectations. They further

differentiate the underlying causes and outcomes of the two concepts:

Service quality is a focused evaluation that reflects the customers’ perception of

reliability, assurance, responsiveness, empathy, and tangibles. Satisfaction, on the

other hand, is more inclusive: it is influenced by perceptions of service quality,

product quality, and price, as well as situational factors (the uncontrollable

circumstances, such as weather condition) and personal factors (customers’

emotional state and their expectations)… Satisfaction is the customer’s fulfillment

response… It is the consequence of the comparison between the needs, expectations

and the perceptions. (p. 103 – 104)

The two concepts are fundamentally different as well as closely connected. Perceived service

quality is a component of customer satisfaction, together with others such as product quality,

price, customer emotion, perceptions of equity and attributions for service success or failure.

9


2.3 Service Quality Frameworks

Several studies present the idea to measure and enhance service quality by identifying its

dimensions. This chapter attempts to study different service quality models followed by a

brief summary and discussion of the models.

2.3.1 Grönroos (1984): Technical and functional quality model.

According to Grönroos there are two dimensions of service: technical and functional.

Technical service quality refers to the quality of the outcome of a service. Functional service

quality concerns with quality of the process of the customer-employee interaction. Customers

assess the service quality by comparing the perceived performance with their expectation in

terms of reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. McDougall and

Levesque (1994) added a third dimension to Grönroos‟s model: physical environment,

developing their three-factor model of service quality.

Figure 1. Technical and Functional Quality Model

2.3.2 Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985): Gaps model of service quality.

The gaps model of service quality proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985) provides a

structured, integrated way of viewing services. The model consists of the following gaps:

Customer expectation vs. management perception (Gap 1), management perception of

Expected

service

Techinical

Quality

Functional

Quality

Perceived

Service

Perceived Service quality

Image

Traditional Marketing activities (advertising, field selling, PR,

Pricing) and external influence

by traditions, ideology and

word of mouth

Source: Grönroos (1984)

What? How?

10


customers‟ expectations vs. service quality specifications (Gap 2), service quality

specifications vs. service delivery (Gap 3), service delivery vs. external communications

(Gap 4), and finally the gap between customers‟ expectations and service perceived (Gap 5).

Figure 2. Gaps Model of Service Quality

The customer gap (Gap 5) represents the potential discrepancy between the expected and

perceived service from the customers‟ view. Because some sources of the customers‟

expectations are marketer-controlled factors (such as pricing, advertising, sales promises) and

some factors the marketer has limited ability to affect (for instance, word-of-mouth

communications, personal needs and past experience), it is possible to assess the discrepancy

between customers‟ perceptions and expectations in the service delivery process (Zeithaml,

Bitner, & Gremler, 2006, p. 34). To measure the service quality gap the SERVQUAL method

is dedicated, which provides a foundation for research that concerns to the creation of quality

among service industries. According to SERVQUAL method, there are five dimensions

(tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) of service quality that are

applicable to service industry (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The customer gap is the fifth one in

11


the service quality gaps model and also the basis for the gaps model. It is affected by four

provider (internal) quality gaps which interact with one another in many ways (Zeithaml et al.,

2006, p. 34).

Provider gap 1 states the difference between customers‟ expectations of service and the

expectations perceived by manager. The gap occurs because managements‟ inaccurate

understanding of what customers exactly expect. There are some conceptual factors may

contribute to this gap: lack of marketing research orientation, inadequate upward

communication, too many levels of management which separates contact personnel from top

managers (Parasuraman et al., 1985, p. 52), in sufficient relationship focus, or inadequate

service recovery (Zeithaml et al., 2006) etc. Zeithaml also poited out the strategy for closing

this gap which includes multiple marketing reserch method, building strong relationships

with customers and implying recovery strategies for service failure (Zeithaml et al., 2006).

The second provider gap takes place when translating customers‟ expectations into service

quality specifications. Gap 2 mainly reflected by poor service design, lack of customer-driven

standards, and inappropriate pysical evidence and servicescape etc. (Zeithaml et al., 2006, p.

38) Authors across the literature suggest some implements, such as service blueprinting and

quality function deployment, to design services without oversimplification and

incompleteness in order to avoid this gap (Zeithaml et al., 2006). Besides, they indicate that

the importance of managers‟ commitment to improve service quality should not be ignored

while setting the sevice standards to meet customers‟ perceptions (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, &

Berry, 1990).

The discrepancy between service specifications and actural service performance by company

employees is the provider gap 3. This gap happens commonly in service business when

empolyees are unable or unwilling to perform the service at the desired level (Zeithaml et al.,

1990, p. 89). There are four main factors that may lead to gap 3: deficiencies in human

resource policies, customers who do not fulfill roles, problems with service intermediaries

and failure to match supply and demand (Zeithaml et al., 2006). Solutions to reduce this gap

are provided, such as provide role clarity to employees and minimize role conflict, improve

employee-technology-job fit, measure and reward service performance, empower service

employees and encourage teamwork, manage extermal customers (Zeithaml et al., 1990).

12


Provider gap 4 illustrates the difference between what the company promises about a service

and what it actually delivers (Zeithaml et al., 1990, p. 115). It happens because a service

company might overpromise or misrepresent customers through its media advertising and

other external communications, and thus may potentially raise customers‟ expectations about

service delivery. Broken promises can be made due to many factors: overpromising in

advertising or personal selling, inadequate horizontal communication, ineffective

management of customer expectations and lack of integrated service marketing

communications (Zeithaml et al., 2006, p. 42). To escape gap 4, the service company should

manage all communications to customers so that keep the promises be accurate and realistic.

2.3.3 Bateson (1995): The Servuction System.

According to “the Servuction System” by Bateson (1995), service is based on the delivery of

a bundle of service benefits which may come from a variety of sources. Two aspects are

identified: invisible aspect and visible aspect. Visible aspect is represented by the inanimate

environment in which the service encounter takes place and the contact personnel who

actually deliver the service. Invisible aspect, on the contrary, refers to employees‟ back-stage

performance and supporting systems. The invisible aspect of the business is inextricably

linked to the visible aspect. Delivery of service quality can only be ensured when the

invisible aspect and the visible aspect are well integrated. The combination of the two aspects

influences customers‟ experience and their perception of service quality which

consequentially affect their spending patterns and future decisions. In this model, the

interrelationship between customers is another influential factor on the focal customer‟s

experience. But we consider this factor as one outside of the scope of our study.

13


Figure 3. The Servuction System

2.3.4 Haywood-Farmer (1988): Attribute service quality model.

Haywood-Farmer proposes that a service organization has “high quality” if it meets customer

preferences and expectations consistently. He differentiates service organizations according

to their relative degree of service customization, labor intensity, contact and interaction

between the customer and the service organization. His model categorizes service quality

components into three groups: physical facilities and processes, behavioral aspects, and

professional judgment. Each of these components contains multiple factors shown in the

following figure. Services of law interaction and labor intensity and high customization, such

as legal consulting, are closer to the component of professional judgment. He highlights that

too much emphasis on any one of the components while let others be excluded may lead to

negative impact on customer‟s perceptions. For example, if a service organization

emphasizes heavily on procedure, customers are likely to perceive that the organization is

rigid and inflexible.

14


Figure 4. Attribute Service Quality Model

2.3.5 Spreng and Mackoy (1996): Model of perceived service quality and satisfaction.

This model is based on the model proposed by Oliver (1993) who claims the distinction

between service quality and satisfaction. According to Oliver, service quality is formed by a

comparison between ideals (desires) and perceptions of performance regarding quality

dimensions, while satisfaction is a function of the disconfirmation of predictive expectations

regarding both quality dimensions and non-quality dimension. Oliver‟s model does not

explain the relationship between desire congruency/disconfirmation and overall satisfaction,

neither does it specifies the effect of expectation on perceived performance. Spreng and

15


Mackoy‟s study confirms the distinction between the two concepts and further improves the

model by demonstrating that satisfaction is directly influenced by desire

congruency/disconfirmation, which means when the desire is met by perceived performance

the overall satisfaction level will be higher than under the situation where the desire is not

met. They also claim the influence of expectation on perceived performance. Moreover,

Spreng and Mackoy‟s model points out the dual effects of expectation on satisfaction. The

explanation is:

The practice to lower expectations and over-deliver service to create higher satisfaction is

based on the negative impact of expectations on satisfaction through disconfirmation (i.e.,

lower expectations cause higher positive disconfirmation, which causes higher satisfaction).

However, expectation could also produce positive impact on perceived performance and

desire congruency and by this path it could have positive impact on satisfaction. If

expectations are lowered, the firm is also risky to lower the perceptions of performance,

which will consequently lower the satisfaction. Therefore managers should make a balance

between the positive and negative impacts of expectations.

Figure 5. Model of Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction

In agreement with their contributions, we doubt the necessity to single out the concept of

desire in the model, and find ourselves more agree with the classification of expectations by

16


Wilson et al. (2008), where expectations are identified as five levels that a customer may

have towards a firm or a particular service: ideal expectations/desires, normative expectations,

experience-based norms, acceptable expectations, and minimum tolerable expectations.

Therefore desire is actually one type of expectation.

2.3.6 Philip and Hazlett (1997): PCP attribute model.

Figure 6. PCP Attribute Model

Philip and Hazlett proposed a hierarchical structure formed model, which based on three

main classes of attributes: Pivotal, Core and Peripheral. The whole model is built on the

premises of using a combined scale instead of separate scales to measure the gap between

expectations and perceptions and attaching different weights to individual dimensions to

indicate the importance. According to the model, every service consist three albeit

overlapping areas which includes all the dimensions and attributes that used to define service

quality. The three areas also division into three hierarchical levels: pivotal (representing the

outputs of a service organization), core and peripheral (conjointly representing the inputs and

processes of a service organization).

Pivotal attributes, located at the apex of the oval-shaped model, exert the highest influence on

customers‟ consuming in the first instance and customers‟ satisfaction level. That is to say,

whether a service is satisfactorily delivered mainly depends on whether the customer receives

17


the output for which he/she originally approached the organization. Core attributes, together

with the third level of the model: peripheral attributes, assume lower degree of influence on

customers‟ satisfaction level in the first instance but the influence may grow rapidly during

repeat service consuming. In short, the customer‟s satisfaction level may be determined more

by the output (pivotal attribute) of the service, and (relatively) less by the personnel and the

organizational structures (core and peripheral attributes) involved.

Thus, the challenge that any service confronted with, is to delight the customer in all three

areas (pivotal, core and peripheral attributes) so that they could become 100 per cent satisfied

of the service. However, the P-C-P model does not and cannot provide working attributes for

each of the three categories of attributes. Instead it depends on individual service sectors to

select the attributes that fit best into each of the three categories. Just as the authors point out:

there is no magic recipe, formula or blueprint which can be applied to the service sector as a

whole.

2.3.7 Dabholkar, Shepherd & Thorpe (2000): Antecedents and mediator model.

Figure 7. Antecedents and Mediator Model

According to Dabholkar et al. (2000), factors related to service quality should be viewed as

antecedents to overall evaluations of service quality rather than its components. That is to say,

customers form a separate overall evaluation of the service quality at the same time of

evaluating different factors related to the service, rather than form a straightforward sum of

the components. This research also find out that customer satisfaction strongly mediates the

18


effect of service quality on behavioral intentions, while service quality is more closely related

to specific factor evaluations about the service. At the same time, it illustrates the importance

of measuring customer satisfaction separately from service quality when determine customers‟

evaluations of service.

2.4 Summary of Models

Having all these service quality models in mind, it is clear that no consensus has been

reached on the conceptual model of service quality and the method of measuring service

quality.

Putting difference aside, it can be observed that the descriptions of service quality dimensions

in those models are to some extent overlapping each other. Grönroos (1984) offers two

dimensions of service quality: technical dimension and functional dimension, one from the

perspective of service result and the other from that of service process, which is further

developed by McDougall and Levesque (1994) with the dimension of physical environment.

Parasuraman et al. (1985) include five dimensions into their SERVQUAL model: tangibles,

reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Bateson (1995) discusses the visible and

invisible sides of service which imply the dimensions of physical environment, service

process and service outcome. Haywood-Farmer (1988) categorizes service quality

components into three groups: physical facilities and processes, behavioral aspects, and

professional judgment. Philip and Hazlett (1997) also include service environment, service

process and service outcome in their Pivotal-Core-Peripheral model. Dabholkar et al. (2000)

included physical aspects, reliability, and personal interactions.

Another similarity among these models is that they all support the view that service quality

should be evaluated by comparing service quality expectations with actual perceptions of

customers who have experienced the service offerings.

19


2.5 SERVQUAL Model as the Basis of the Proposed Model

Among the discussed models, most of them do not offer an explanation on how to measure

service quality nor do they provide ideas and procedures for identifying service quality

problems and directions for future improvements. However the gap model offered by

Parasuraman et al. (1985) is an exception. This model is an analytical tool which allows

researchers to identify possible service quality gaps in a systematical way and assess service

quality by analyzing the variables affecting the expectations and perceptions. The model has

been tested by Parasuraman et al. (1985) in several cases, including credit card companies,

securities broker, retail banks, etc.

But it does not mean that the theory of Parasuraman et al. (1985) is bullet-proof.

SERVQUAL model has faced challenges from many researchers. Babakus and Boller (1992)

fail to replicate the five-dimensional factor structure of SERVQUAL and produce only two

dimensions by their study. According to Brown, Churchill, & Peter (1993), the use of

difference between scores in the model may cause problems such as reliability, discriminate

validity, spurious correlations, and variance restriction. Buttle (1996) criticizes on

SERVQUAL that the five dimensions are not universals and the model fails to draw on

established economic, statistical and psychological theory. Oliver (1997) points out that the

model has difficulty to distinguish service quality from customer satisfaction. Carmen (1990)

claims that the model‟s five dimension are inadequate to meet the needs of service quality

measurement and it may be problematic to measure expectation with SERVQUAL. This

opinion is agreed by Yong (2000) who highlights that customers‟ needs are not always easy

to identify, and incorrectly identified needs may result in measuring conformance to a

specification that is improper. Yong (2000) mentions that due to the fact that expectations

may fluctuate greatly over time, the validity of the outcome from SERVQUAL measurement

needs to be questioned.

However, SERVQUAL model also has much support from numerous researchers. Avkiran

(1994) demonstrates the model in banking service. Babakus and Mangold (1992) and Saleh

and Ryan (1991) test the model in hospitality industry. Finn and Lamb (1991) evaluate the

model in retailing service. Johns and Tyas (1996) use the gap model to differentiate the

service quality in food outlets. Johnson and Sirikit (2002) find the model helps the

telecommunication industry to achieve sustainable competitive advantage by measuring the

service quality and suggestions can be drawn based on the assessment. These studies

20


demonstrate that SERVQUAL model is able to provide a comprehensive conceptualization of

service quality and it functions as a sufficient instrument for the assessment of service quality.

21


Chapter Ⅲ Model and Hypotheses

3.1 Research Model

The design of the model is based on the combination of the research problems and research

purpose proposed in Chapter Ⅰ, and the Gap Model proposed by (Parasuraman et al., 1985)

with the emphasis on the Gap 5 between expectations and perceptions. The aim of the model

is to present the relationships identified by previous researches and visualize the relationships

to be examined in this research. Moreover, it highlights the areas that are not explained by

previous researches. For example, the indirect influences of past experience and cultural

background on expectations have been long established, but no research specifies their direct

relationships with perceptions. In the following section the formulation of the hypothese is

described in the order marked in the model.

Figure 8. Research Model

3.2 Hypotheses Formation

To answer the first research question, “What is important in exhibitors‟ expectation?” The

first hypothesis is formulated as below. The intention is to analyze RATER1 and their

relationships with exhibitors‟ overall expectation of TUR 2011.

1 RATER is the abbreviation of reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness.

22


H1: Expected RATER positively influence exhibitors‟ expectations of TUR 2011.

To answer the second question, “Are exhibitors‟ actual perceptions in line with the

expectations?”, findings need to be based on the analysis of the gap score between

expectation and perception. To gain a deeper insight of issue, it is necessary to identify the

quality levels of reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy and responsiveness and their

relation with customers‟ perceptions. Taking these into account, the second and third

hypotheses are to be:

H2: There is no gap between exhibitors‟ expectation and perception on TUR 2011.

H3: Perceived RATER influence exhibitors‟ perceptions of TUR 2011.

Customer expectation can be influenced by multiple factors, such as word of mouth

communications, personal needs, and past experience (Parasuraman et al., 1985). In the

research, we found that many of the exhibitors have participated in TUR before and many of

them even participate since the very first TUR. These exhibitors have seen the growth of

TUR in the past years. Therefore, we would like to know to which extent the past experiences

influence the gap between expectation and perception. Consequently hypotheses are derived

to assess the situation in TUR 2011:

H4: Exhibitors‟ satisfaction level on TUR 2011 has no difference with the satisfaction

level on TUR 2010.

H5 a: Expectations of TUR differ between repeat participants and first-time participants.

H5 b: Perceptions of TUR differ between repeat participants and first-time participants.

Cultural background may also significantly impact the formation of expectation. Customer

expectations may differ among people from different countries and cultural background

where service treatment standards may differ a lot. Expectations are dynamic, so evaluations

may also shift over time – from person to person and from culture to culture (Zeithaml et al.,

2009). Therefore the next hypotheses are:

H6 a: Expectations of TUR differ between domestic exhibitors and foreign exhibitors.

H6 b: Perceptions of TUR differ between domestic exhibitors and foreign exhibitors.

23


In addition, the new features implemented in TUR 2011 are meant to provide better service to

the exhibitors. To discover the effect of the changes on the exhibitor‟s perceptions and

answer research question 4, “Are exhibitors‟ perceptions of changes related to overall

perception on service quality of TUR 2011”, so the last hypothesis is formulated as:

H7: Exhibitors‟ satisfaction of the perceived changes influences their overall perception

of the service quality of TUR 2011.

24


Chapter Ⅳ Methodology

To assess the service quality of the Centre at TUR 2011, both quantitative and qualitative

studies were carried out. Four specific instruments in temporal sequence: a pre-event online

survey of exhibitors‟ expectations on TUR 2011 (Appendix 1 & 2); observation logbooks;

several onsite interviews (Appendix 5); and a post-event online survey of exhibitors‟

perceptions on the fair (Appendix 3 & 4). Relevant statistical techniques are utilized in

analysis.

4.1 Sampling for Quantitative Study

Sample frame of potential respondents and their email addresses was compiled according to

the following criteria:

They had to be the exhibitors who will present on TUR 2011.

They had to be selected randomly.

A list of 500 email addresses was provided to the researchers by the TUR management team,

thus representing 55.9% of the total number of exhibitors that participated in TUR 2011.

4.2 Quantitative Study – Survey Instruments

In this paper, customers‟ expectation and perception of the service they receive is established

by using a multiple-item scale, SERVQUAL, for assessing the service quality of TUR 2011.

The original SERVQUAL finalized by Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml (1988) contains two

sets of Likert-type scales, each set having twenty-two questions. One of the two sets is

intended to measure customer‟s expectations and the other is to measure customer‟s

perceptions. The questions are designed in correspondence to the RATER dimensions

embodying all the ten factors mentioned by Parasuraman et al. (1985). The structure is

summarized by Van Iwaarden et al. (2003) and Shahin (2006) as follows,

1) Tangibles: physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel.

2) Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.

3) Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.

4) Assurance: competence, courtesy (knowledge and courtesy of employees and their

ability to inspire trust and confidence), credibility and security.

25


5) Empathy: accessibility, communication, understanding the customer, caring and

individualized attention that the firm provides to its customers.

The design of the online survey is based on this structure and each question is presented with

a seven-point measurement scale describing the level of agreement from customer‟s

perspectives. To adapt to the situation of TUR, the twenty-two items of the SERVQUAL

scale are condensed into twenty. TUR has no convention on insisting on error-free records. It

is less appropriate to include it into the survey. Furthermore, it is of no practical meaning to

ask their expectations and perceptions on the personal attention given by TUR‟s employees.

The objective of the research contains the mission of providing suggestions for future

improvement of TUR. Even if “personal attention” is identified of huge importance, it is not

realistic to provide personal attention to every single participant, considering the huge

number of exhibitors. The exhibitors in TUR are all registered as a single organization or as a

company under a big association. Therefore it is more appropriate to use the item of

“individual attention”. As a result, the researchers decide to exclude “error-free record” under

reliability and “personal attention” under empathy from the survey. In addition, a number of

questions were asked to demographic profile of respondents, overall impression of service

quality on TUR 2011, suggested improvement of the office equipment and further commands

of the fair etc. The goal is to compare the scores of different service dimensions and

determine the average gap score between customers‟ perceptions and expectations for each

dimension.

The expectation survey was sent out on 10th

of March, 2011, two weeks before the opening of

TUR and the perception survey was sent out on 4th

of April, 2011, one week after the ending

of TUR.

4.3 Qualitative Study

4.3.1 Interview.

In-depth interview is a qualitative research technique that involves conducting intensive

individual interviews with a small number of respondents to explore their perspectives on the

research topic (Boyce & Neale, 2006). This instrument is ideal for investigating personal and

confidential information which is unsuitable to discussion in a group. It is valuable for doing

research on people with busy lifestyles who would be unlikely to attend a focus group.

26


Taking account of the fact that exhibitors at TUR are exposed to a large amount of visitors

during the four days, it is more practical to conduct individual interviews instead of arranging

a focus group. Moreover, the interviews conducted were semi-structured and probing

techniques were employed to evoke additional information from the respondents (Blumberg

et al., 2008).

Interviewees were selected at random, and the balance between Swedish exhibitors and

exhibitors from the other countries was kept to be more representative. Interview technique

was improved after the second interview. The second interview actually started very casually.

It was outside of the interview list and the researchers did not even mean to interview that

exhibitor at the very beginning, but then got inspired by the casual chat and mixed interview

questions in the chat. It was then found much easier to get the needed information by this

kind of casual interview than doing it in a standard interview way. Therefore strategy

changed: chat and memorize the key information instead of taking notes and recording the

voice; discuss, summarize and write down the information immediately after each interview

when the memory is fresh. The interviews turned out to be a pleasant rewarding experience

for both interviewers and interviewees. Six interviews were conducted from 25th

Mar. to 27th

Mar. This approach ended with five concrete interviews, and one refusal because of the sixth

interviewee‟s inability to provide objective opinions due to the cooperation relationship

between their company and the Centre.

4.3.2 Observation.

Observation is one of the research methods in which researcher getting to know the people

they‟re studying by entering their world and participating either with or without subjects‟

awareness (Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2004). Through observation, the researchers are

able to gain first-hand knowledge of the activities, processes, operations of the service system

and service environment. It can produce a depth of detailed information about all aspects of

customers‟ behavior which facilitates the researchers‟ evaluation of the service quality by

adding a facet in the analysis. Based on the above reasoning, researchers were walking

around the venue every other hour and complete the observation forms during the four-day

fair.

27


4.4 Statistical Techniques Applied

To answer the research questions and test the seven hypotheses, various statistical techniques

are utilized in the analysis process, including summated scales, reliability coefficients, data

recoding, mean comparison, multiple regression, and one-way ANOVA. SPSS 19 and Excel

are employed to process the collected data.

4.4.1 Summated scale.

The use of a single variable to represent a concept only extracts a particular aspect of that

concept and the measure of that concept may be inaccurate. In order to increase validity and

reliability and reduce measurement errors, multiple variables are joined in a composite

measure to represent the concept (Hair et al., 2008). There are five dimensions of service

quality. Therefore in linear regression analysis five summated scales are computed with the

names of the five dimensions: Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and

Empathy. Each summated scale is represented by four questions which are called indicator

variables. This is done through SPSS‟s „Compute Variable‟ feature. The summated scale

value is the mean of the indicator variables. For example, the summated scale of Tangible is

the mean of the questions regarding to Equipment, Accessibility, Employee appearance, and

Instruction signs in the working questionnaire. Overall expectation is also created with

summated scale by calculating the mean of all the twenty items.

4.4.2 Reliability coefficients.

Cronbach‟s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, which ranges in value from 0 to 1 and

may be used to describe the reliability of factors extracted from multi-point formatted

questionnaires or scales (i.e., rating scale: 1 = poor, 5 = excellent) (Blumberg, Cooper, &

Schindler, 2008). In order to describe a measure or scale as having good inter-item reliability

or internal consistency, the value of Cronbach‟s alpha should be at least .70. The purpose of

calculating the Cronbach alpha is to assess the internal consistency of measurement of the

concept.

4.4.3 Data recoding.

Data recoding was used when comes to mean comparison between two variables that are

measured with two different Likert scales, one with 7 points and the other with 5 points. For

28


example, on a Likert scale of the variable “overall impression of TUR 2011”, 1=very bad,

2=bad, 3=somewhat bad, 4=neutral, 5=somewhat good, 6= good, and 7= very good. We want

to recode that into 5 values, the same as in variable “overall impression of TUR 2010”:

1=very bad, 2=bad, 3=neutral, 4=good and 5=very good. So we went to SPSS‟s “recode into

different variables” feature and changed some of the categories into a single category. We

recoded the original variable into a new variable, since we want to retain the original variable

status for checking that the recoding has been done correctly. The instructions for each

recoded variable were written in the code book.

4.4.4 Compare means – One-way ANOVA.

The Means procedure of SPSS calculates subgroup means and related univariate statistics for

dependent variables within categories of one or more independent variables (SPSS 19). By

comparing means, we could get summary statistics for dependent variables within the levels

of one or more independent variables. For example, survey results, collected from two

different groups of respondents, could be measured and performed in a one-way analysis of

variance to see whether the means differ.

Mean is calculated according to the formula: =

Since we have both pre-event and post-event online surveys, which are considered to base on

two different samples due to the anonymous and voluntary nature of the survey processes,

comparison in SPSS and Excel was conducted to identify the difference between expectations

and perceptions.

One-way ANOVA is one-way analysis of variance, a technique only for numerical data,

which is used to compare means of two or more groups drawn from the same population

(Howell, 2002). A probability value (Sig) associated with the difference between the groups

is provided to determine whether the difference is significant or not. If Sig is lower than .05,

the null hypothesis should be rejected. It means no difference is observed. On the contrary, if

it is higher than .05, it fails to reject the null hypothesis and the correspondent alternative

hypothesis should be rejected. Hypothesis 5 and 6 in this research paper are alternative

hypothesis, which means if Sig value is higher than .05, they are to be rejected.

29


In addition, a statistic named F ratio is produced. In an ANOVA, the F-ratio, similar to Sig

value, is the statistic used to test the hypothesis, whether the means are significantly different

from one another or not and if the difference is due to chance (Stockburger, 1998).

4.4.5 Multiple regression.

Multiple regression analyzes the relationships between one metric dependent variable and

several metric independent variables. The objective of this technique is to predict the changes

in the dependent variable in response to the changes in the independent variables (Hair et al.,

2008). It enables the researchers to determine how much the variation in the dependent

variable can be explained by the independent variables and indicates which determinants are

most important and which are insignificant (Niekerk & Hendrik, 1996). It also makes it

possible to determine each determinant‟s contribution to the linear correlation after its links

with other variables have been discounted (Oppenheim, 1992, p. 26). To determine the

relative importance of different independent variable, R square is utilized as a reference index.

R2 is the square of correlation coefficients which ranges from 0 to 1. If R

square is equal to 0,

it means there is no linear relationship. The closer R square is to 1, the stronger the

relationship is.

The purpose of applying multiple regression is to test Hypothesis 1 and 3, so that to identify

the relative importance of the independent variables (the five dimensions of service quality)

and determine their individual contribution to the relationship with the overall service quality.

Furthermore, Hypothesis 7 is tested with regression in the assessment of the relationship

between perceived changes and overall perception of the service quality.

30


Chapter Ⅴ Results, Analysis and Discussion

In this chapter, the results based on the online survey will be presented and analyzed

according to the order of the hypotheses proposed. Key statistical signals from the survey are

presented and supported by observation and interview findings. The aim is to conduct

statistical analysis on the collected data, test the hypotheses, and find the evidence for

rejection or confirmation of the tested hypotheses.

5.1 Sample Description

The total number of data list contains email addresses of 500 respondents, while 3 of them

were not reachable because of technical problems such as email system error. After sending

out reminders, 93 respondents conducted the pre-event survey of exhibitors‟ expectations on

TUR 2011 and 96 respondents conducted the post-event survey of exhibitors‟ perceptions on

TUR 2011. The response rates are 18.71% and 19.32% respectively. On the basis of

Frequencies Analysis, the geographical overview about the respondents is concluded as

shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Geographical Information of the Respondents

Expectations Perceptions

Frequency Valid

Percent Frequency

Valid

Percent

Sweden 58 62.4 52 54.2

Non-Sweden 35 37.6 44 45.8

Total 93 100.0 96 100.0

Repeat Participants 76 81.7 72 75

First-time Participants 17 18.3 24 25

Total 93 100.0 96 100.0

5.2 Reliability of the Measurement Scale

When using Likert-type scales it is imperative to calculate and report Cronbach‟s alpha

coefficient for internal consistency reliability for any scales or subscales one may be using

31


(Gliem & Gliem, 2003). The Cronbach‟s alphas of all items lie well above the threshold

of .70. The Cronbach‟s alpha for total scale reliability of expectation is .882 and of perception

is .963 (refer to Appendix 6), which exhibits the internal consistency of the survey instrument

and the SERVQUAL scale demonstrates a high degree of reliability for the measurement of

service quality in TUR 2011.

5.3 Sample Distribution

Before regression and one-way ANOVA analysis is conducted, it is important that normal

distribution of the data is ensured. Sample distribution is tested by Descriptive Statistics in

SPSS for all the items under expectation survey and perception survey. It shows that almost

all of the data is normally distributed with few exceptions under expectation survey.

According to Central Limit Theorem, if a random sample is selected from a population, then,

when the sample size is sufficiently large (n>=30) the sampling distribution of the mean

tends to approximate the normal distribution (Arjomand, 2002). The sample size of the case

in analysis is considered large enough to cancel out the detrimental effects of nonnormality

(Hair et al., 2008).

5.4 RATER’s Influences on Overall Expectations

To identify the five dimensions influence on the overall expectations, a new variable labeled

as “overall expectation” is computed by calculating the mean of all the twenty items.

Moreover, in order to view the variables in a structural way, the analysis is conducted at two

levels. First, summated scales are used to group the variables according to the five

dimensions, so that they can be viewed for what they represent collectively in describing a

particular dimension. Later, the variables‟ relationships with the overall expectation are

examined at the most detailed level (individual variables themselves) to view their individual

influences.

Pearson correlation shows the degree to which the five dimensions are correlated individually

with the overall expectation. The results imply that Assurance and Empathy correlate

stronger with Overall expectation than other dimensions do, and the Pearson correlations

are .858 and .848 respectively.

32


R square is the square of Pearson correlation coefficients. It shows the proportion of values in

the dependent variables explained by the independent variables. Table 2 is done by adding

several regression blocks. The researchers first add only the dimension/block of Tangible to

see how it is associated with the overall expectation. The correspondent R square shows how

well it predicts the outcome of overall expectation. The R square of Tangible is .489. It

means that Tangible can predict 48.9% of the variance in the overall expectation. Then the

variable of Reliability is added and the R square mounts up to .798 with improvement of .309.

The Rest three variables are added in the same way. It is observed that the R square keeps

going up and the improvements are statistically significant. Due to the fact that overall

expectation is computed by calculating the mean of all the twenty items, the R square sums

up to 1.000 and the significance values are not available when all the five blocks are added.

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression for Overall Expectation – Five Dimensions

Overall expectation

Standardized Beta Coefficients for Model 1 to 5

Pearson

Correlation 1 2 3 4 5

Tangible .699*

.699* .445* .454* .376* .328a

Reliability .796*

.611* .310* .193* .171a

Responsiveness .766*

.423* .269* .210a

Assuance .858*

.395* .262a

Empathy .848*

.295a

R square

.489* .798* .888* .961* 1.000a

R square change

.309* .091* .073* .039a

Note. Dependent variable is the overall expectation of TUR 2011(Overall expectation). Independent

variables include Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy.

a Significance value not available.

*p<.01.

Beta coefficients in the table refer to the expected change in the dependent variable. They

indicate which independent variables have greater impact on the overall expectation. It shows

that all the five dimensions positively influence the overall expectation. When all the five

33


dimensions are added to regression analysis, Tangible can be observed to have the most

influence on overall expectation, followed by Empathy and Assurance. And Reliability is of

the least importance among the five.

The importance of Tangible can be proved by the comments obtained from the survey. 12.1%

of the valid open-question responses reflected that it is absolute necessary to have free Wifi

which is regarded as a common service provided during business fairs. Some exhibitors

expected to have more tangible facilities. One example could be toilets. One interviewee said,

“You know women always need to wait longer time when they go to toilet.” (Interview, March

25, 2011) Another example is concerned with the lift, “Last year the cargo lift was out of

function and it took around two hours per time to transport the stuff for exhibition, so we

expect it to work better than last year.” (Interview, March 26, 2011)

In Table 3, all the 20 items were used as independent variables. It is clear that “Knowledge to

answer”, “Individual attention”, and “Best interest” correlate most highly with Overall

expectation than other items, the Pearson correlation values are .779, .750, .724 respectively.

“Knowledge to answer” belongs to Assurance dimension and “Individual attention” and

“Best interest” belong to Empathy dimension.

Similar to Table 2, the change in R square can be observed in Table 3. The biggest jump

happens when adding the variable under reliability. The R square is improved by .301. The

improvement after adding the variables under responsiveness is .085, after adding variables

under assurance is .059, and after adding empathy is .031. But it does not mean that reliability

is found to be the more influential than responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The results

indicate that the variables under reliability improve the SERVQUAL scale‟s ability in

explaining the overall expectation by 30.1%. The latter three could not improve more than

that because the highest value of R square is 1. Since the R square after adding reliability has

reached .824, there is not much space left for the latter three dimensions to improve the

ability in explaining the overall expectation.

In Table 3 detailed beta coefficients are provided. It can be found that, among the variables

under Tangible, “employee appearance” and “accessibility of the premises” are the top two

variables that influence exhibitors‟ overall expectation. “Care feeling” under assurance ranks

at the third place, followed by the variables under Empathy, such as “individual attention”,

“opening hours”, “specific needs”, and “best interest”.

34


Table 3.

Hierarchical Regression for Overall Expectation – the Indicator Variables

Overall expectation

Pearson

Cor.


1 2 3 4 5

Tangibles Equipment .599** .428** .204** .194** .170** .124**

Premises .480** .206* .269** .220** .197** .151**

Employee appearance .345** .257** .178** .224** .129** .158**

Instruction signs .418** .188* -.016 .017 .054* .067**

Reliability Promised service .539**

.087 .095* .072* .051**

Employees interest in solve .569**

.169** .072 .007 .057**

Right the first time .623**

.258** .141** .089** .064**

Promised time .745**

.288** .137* .086* .049**

Responsiveness Communicate service time .546**

.100* .075* .075**

Service delivered on command .533**

.077 .086** .080**

Willingness to help .559**

-.005 .081 .055**

Ready to respond .684**

.334** .100* .067**

Assurance Behavior increase trust .685**

.058** .069**

Feel safe .641**

.128** .072**

Care feeling .599**

.195** .125**

Knowledge to answer .779**

.133** .071**

Empathy Individual attention .750**

.095**

Opening hours .640**

.090**

Best interest .724**

.085**

Specific needs .690**

.086**

R Square

.523** .824** .910** .969** 1.00**

Change in R Square

.301** .085** .059** .031**

Note. Dependent variable is the overall expectation of TUR 2011(Overall expectation). Independent

variables include all the 20 items.

*p<.05; **p<.01

35


5.5 Gap between Expectation and Perception

As described in Chapter Ⅳ section 4.2, the SERVQUAL scale is modified into twenty items,

shown in Table 4. While discussing the gap between expectations and perceptions, it is

crucial to bear in mind one of the limitations of the research: although the sample frames (the

email list) are the same for both surveys, the actual respondents may vary, due to the

anonymous and voluntary nature of the surveys. Consequently the two surveys are considered

to base on two different samples. The optimal method is to compare the scores of

expectations and perceptions drawn from one sample. Since it is not possible to do the

analysis based on one sample in SPSS, the researchers compare the scores in Excel data

analysis, and identify the difference recognized the gap between expectations and perceptions.

Table 4.

Means of Individual Items of Expectations and Perceptions

Dimensions Items

Perceptions Expectations

Mean Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Tangible

Equipment 4.65 1.563 5.76 1.477

Premises 5.23 1.606 5.08 1.807

Employee appearance 5.13 1.446 3.94 1.881

Instruction signs 5.25 1.429 6.53 .802

Reliability

Promised service 5.38 1.371 6.78 .605

Employees interest in solve 5.44 1.541 6.72 .682

Right the first time 5.07 1.669 6.34 .759

Promised time 5.40 1.497 6.71 .582

Responsiveness

Communicate service time 5.15 1.673 6.31 .897

Service delivered on command 5.34 1.450 6.15 .955

Willingness to help 5.74 1.423 6.61 .660

Ready to respond 5.57 1.351 6.46 .802

Assurance

Behavior increase trust 5.57 1.351 6.46 .828

Feel safe 5.74 1.275 6.42 .864

Care feeling 4.94 1.568 5.15 1.496

Knowledge to answer 5.45 1.329 6.32 .849

36


Dimensions Items

Perceptions Expectations

Mean Std.

Deviation Mean

Std.

Deviation

Empathy

Individual attention 5.04 1.759 5.73 1.134

Opening hours 5.68 1.261 5.83 1.080

Best interest 5.01 1.440 6.09 1.018

Specific needs 5.02 1.465 6.04 1.021

Average 5.29 1.47 6.07 1.01

Generally speaking, the standard deviation values of expectations are smaller than those of

perceptions. It indicates that the degree of similarity among exhibitors‟ expectations is higher

than the degree of similarity among exhibitors‟ perceptions, so exhibitors tend to have more

similar expectations than perceptions. In other words, exhibitors‟ expectations are quite

similar to each other, while their perceptions of service quality are quite different from each

other. The biggest difference in the standard deviations lies on the item „Promised time‟,

which refer to the questions “How important is it that the Centre provides services at

promised time?” in the expectation survey and “Does the Centre provide service at promised

time?” in the perception survey.

According to one-way ANOVA analysis, the difference between expectations and

perceptions is significant with p = 0.000. It demonstrates that the gap exists between

expectations and perceptions.

Table 5 summarizes the gap identified by dimensions. It can be observed in Table 5 that the

means of perceptions of the items under Reliability, Responsiveness, and Empathy are lower

than those of expectations under the same dimension. Table 5 shows that Sig values of these

dimensions are lower than .05. The result confirms that the gap between expectations and

perceptions. This implies that the exhibitors perceived lower level of service quality than

what they had expected in these three dimensions. What is worthy to mention is that although

the dimension of Tangibles is considered very important in expectation, according to Table 5,

no gap exists in Tangibles between expectation and perception. In the process of observation

and interview, the researchers found that most of the Tangibles in the fair venue satisfied the

exhibitors. For example, the service centre had five windows for prompt stand service, one

VIP Lounge for exhibitors only to relax; floor plan printouts were available at halls, corridors

37


and at the entrance and exit of escalators; the instruction signs for blocks, toilets, restaurants,

press centre, service centre, entrance and exits were easy to find and understand (Interview

and observation, March 26 – 27, 2011).

Table 5.

Gap between Expectations and Perceptions by Dimensions

Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

Mean

Expectation 5.328 6.638 6.383 6.088 5.923

Perception 5.065 5.323 5.450 5.425 5.188

Difference between

expectations and

perceptions (Sig.)

.660 .000 .001 .114 .007

However the existing gaps in the above mentioned dimensions suggest that the Centre is in a

risk of having a large number of dissatisfied customers. Managers should make a balance

between the positive and negative impacts of expectations, as it is described in the theory

provided by Spreng and Mackoy (1996). However the management team of TUR is not fully

aware of exhibitors‟ expectations, neither do they identify the gap between expectations and

perceptions (Interview, April 26, 2011). In the case at hand, the management team of TUR

should be more carefully concerned with the reliability, responsiveness and empathy of their

service in the future.

5.6 RATER’s Influences on Overall Perception

The aim of this part is to identify RATER‟s influences on exhibitors‟ overall perception. The

results are to be compared with their impacts on the overall expectation so that the changes of

the influences can be observed if there is any. To increase the comparability, the analysis of

this part is designed in the same format as the analysis of Hypothesis 1. First, examine the

variables from a generalized level by computing new variables for the five dimensions.

Second, go deeper into the details where the individual influence of the variables can be

discovered.

38


Table 6, similar to Table 2, is created by hierarchically adding the models for each dimension

into the regression analysis. The addition of the second block results in a substantial increase

in R square and the increase is highly significant. The growing R square shows that the

measurement scale becomes more capable of predict the outcome of overall perception when

adding the more blocks, and the five dimensions together are able to explain 78.5% of the

overall perception.

Table 6.

Hierarchical Regression for Overall Perception – Five Dimensions

Overall perception


Pearson Cor. 1 2 3 4 5

Tangible .589** .589** .280** .233** .148* .096

Reliability .697**

.535** .345** -.095 -.067

Responsiveness .686**

.265* -.148 -.263*

Assurance .840**

.958** .652**

Empathy .839**

.486**

R square

.347** .538** .560* .724** .785**

R square change

.191** .022* .164** .060**

Note. Dependent variable is the answer to “How is your overall impression of the service quality of

TUR 2011” (Overall perception). Independent variables include Tangibles, Reliability,

Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy.

*p<.05; **p<.01

The value of beta coefficients ranges from 0 to 1. It can be either positive or negative, and a

higher absolute value indicates a stronger association. From model 4 to model 5, the Beta

Coefficient of Assurance turns down from .958 to .652 but still much higher than other

dimensions. This confirms the importance of Assurance in exhibitors‟ perceptions evaluation.

Therefore Assurance is identified to have the most impact on overall perception. Empathy

and Responsiveness are at second and third place respectively. This result differs from what

have been found in the overall expectation where Tangible, Empathy, and Assurance are the

top three.

39


Some concrete examples are obtained in terms of Responsiveness. One respondent

complained, “It was a bit sad that we did not get the reservation that we made over the phone.

It did not feel as if the seller could give me so much information, and missed an important

reservation…” Another said, “After contacting the service centre on Wednesday afternoon,

during four days fair time, it was not possible for the fair service to install a badly need stand

number…. Amazing! Many of our clients cannot find us.” According to the management team,

one-time service errors are communicated to the responsible department immediately when

they are reported, but no further follow-up works are conducted. However “if it is repeatable

things that does not function, we have to have a meeting with responsible people and try to

find what is failure, what is going wrong.” (Interview, April 26, 2011)

Table 7 is a detailed version of hierarchical regression for overall perception where the beta

coefficients of every single indicator variables are available. In the column of Pearson

Correlation, we can see that “Best interest” and “Specific needs” have very high loadings

of .797 and .805 individually, which indicates they are highly correlated with the outcome.

The R square keeps increasing when more items were added and has a high loading of .840

when all the items were included in model 5. But its value and the change in R square are not

significant when adding the block of Responsiveness. The reason is that the degree of

freedom is not present here. The sample size of the research is relatively small, consisting of

less than 100 respondents. But there are twenty variables used to predict overall perception.

According to Selig and Waters (1994), degrees of freedom are lost for each parameter in a

model that is estimated in the process of estimating another parameter. The more parameters

are used to estimate in the model, the more degrees of freedom are lost. This effect can be

remedied by a larger sample size. But considering the sample size of the research, there is not

much room left for natural variance when degrees of freedom are used up.

What is worth to mention is when the model consists of the first four blocks, Assurance is

dominant in affecting the level of overall perception, and “knowledge to answer” is the key

determinant under Assurance. However, when the fifth block, Empathy, is added, the beta

coefficients change again. There it shows “willingness to help” is a bit more important than

“knowledge to answer”, and “Employee communicates service time” is ranked after

“knowledge to answer”. It is very interesting to see how the influence level of the variables

changes when a block is added.

40


Table 7.

Hierarchical Regression for Overall Perception – the Indicator Variables

Overall perception


Pearson Cor. 1 2 3 4 5

Tangibles Equipment .528** .319** .224* .219* .023 -.059

Premises .474** .095 -.016 .027 -.037 -.014

Employee appearance .498** .094 .003 -.091 .021 .049

Instruction signs .473** .214 .148 .119 .044 .028

Reliability Promised service .652**

.077 .022 -.006 .127

Employees interest in solve .693**

.434** .313* .026 -.050

Right the first time .536**

-.063 -.069 -.121 -.014

Promised time .640**

.133 .000 .057 -.072

Responsiveness Communicate service time .435**

-.050 -.244** -.305**

Service delivered on command .589**

.145 .076 .084

Willingness to help .665**

.174 -.353* -.354*

Ready to respond .686**

.158 -.056 .031

Assurance Behavior increase trust .768**

.323* .273*

Feel safe .735**

.373** .276*

Care feeling .684**

.201* .127

Knowledge to answer .779**

.587** .329*

Empathy Individual attention .676**

.135

Opening hours .620**

.013

Best interest .797**

.092

Specific needs .805**

.266

R square

.361** .585** .621 .793** .840**

change in R square

.223** .037 .172** .046**


TUR 2011” (Overall perception). Independent variables include all the 20 items.

*p<.05; **p<.01

41


5.7 Satisfaction 2011 vs. Satisfaction 2010

The data of the customer satisfaction of TUR 2010 is obtained from TUR report (Detector

Marketing Research & Consulting, 2010). The result of the comparison between 2010 and

2011 can be found in Table 8. It shows the satisfaction level of TUR in 2011 is quite similar

to the previous year‟s satisfaction level but still the exhibitors in 2011 (Mean=4.02) seems a

little bit less satisfied than those in 2010 (Mean=4.10). However the one-way ANOVA

analysis finds out that the Sig value is .429, far larger than .05, which indicates that the

difference of the means is insignificant. In other words, there is actually no real difference

between the satisfaction in the year of 2010 and 2011.

Furthermore, one-way ANOVA provides F and Fcrit. When Fcrit is greater than F ratio, the

means are not significantly different and no difference is said to be discovered (Stockburger,

1998). The superficial difference between the two means is very likely resulted from chance.

Table 8.

Summary of One-way ANOVA between Satisfaction 2010 and Satisfaction 2011

Satisfaction 2010 Satisfaction 2011 F Sig. F crit

Mean Number Mean Number

4.10 194 4.02 96 .628 .429 3.874

5.8 Repeat Exhibitors vs. First-time Exhibitors

Table 9.

Summary of One-way ANOVA between Repeat Exhibitors and First-time exhibitors

Participated before or not Difference Sig.

Yes (mean) Number No (Mean) Number

Expectation 6.12 76 5.87 17 .243 .130

Perception 5.23 72 5.48 24 -.251 .350

In Table 9 the column of Difference shows that expectation of repeat exhibitors is higher than

that of first-time exhibitors, and perception of repeat exhibitors is lower than that of the other

group. However the Sig value for both expectation and perception go far beyond .05. Sig

values reveal that the differences between repeat exhibitors and first-time exhibitors are

42


actually insignificant, and imply those differences are due to chance. To increase the

probability of success in finding the differences, a larger sample size is desired (Hair et al.,

2008).

5.9 Domestic Exhibitors vs. Foreign Exhibitors

Table 10.

Summary of One-way ANOVA between Domestic Exhibitors and Foreign Exhibitors

Country

Sweden(mean) Number

Non-Sweden

(Mean) Number Difference Sig

Expectation 6.02 57 6.16 36 -.145 .255

Perception 5.06 52 5.56 44 -.509 .027

Table 11.

Detail of the Significant Difference between Domestic Exhibitors and Foreign Exhibitors

Mean Difference between groups

Sweden Non-Sweden F Sig.

Equipment 4.04 5.36 20.695 .000

Premises 4.87 5.66 6.138 .015

Employee appearance 4.73 5.59 9.164 .003

Right the first time 4.75 5.45 4.401 .039

Care feeling 4.60 5.34 5.638 .020

Best interest 4.67 5.41 6.593 .012

Specific needs 4.75 5.34 3.999 .048

In Table 10, the figures in the column of Difference show that Swedish exhibitors have lower

expectations and perceptions when compared with exhibitors from abroad. The Sig value

confirms the difference for perceptions with a P value of .027 and rejects the difference for

expectations (p=.225). Therefore although Swedish exhibitors‟ expectations are quite

identical with those of foreign exhibitors, their perceptions of the service quality of TUR

2011 tend to be lower than those of the other group. The reason behind this is difficult to

identify due to the limitation of the survey, but from Table 11, we can find that domestic

43


exhibitors and foreign exhibitors differ in “Equipment”, “Premises”, “Employee appearance”,

“Right the first time”, “Care feeling”, “Best interest “ and “Specific needs” on perception.

Probably the domestic exhibitors are more critical than foreign exhibitors.

5.10 Perceived Changes Influence the Overall Perception

In the survey process, people who did not participate in TUR before or did not notice any

changes/improvements in TUR 2011 will skip the question of weighing the value of the

changes/improvements. Therefore, to avoid artificial increase in the relationship with the

dependent variable (Hair et al., 2008), data was cleaned before analysis. 26 out of 72 repeat

exhibitors noticed the changes/improvements in TUR 2011. A brief description of the cleaned

data can be found in Table 12.

Table 12.

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Overall impression of TUR 2011 5.77 1.070 26

Changes/improvements add values 4.88 1.925 26

Table 13.

Impact of Perceived Changes on Overall Perception

Model R

square

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 4.488 .524 8.570 .000

Changes/improvements add values .223 .262 .100 .472 2.623 .015


TUR 2011” (Overall perception). Independent variable is the answer to “Do you agree that the

changes/improvements add values to the service quality of TUR 2011” (Changes/improvements add

values).

As shown in Table 13, R square is .223, indicating that 22.3% of the variance in “overall

impression of TUR 2011” can be predicted by the independent variable

“Changes/improvements add values”. In addition, β=.472 suggests that a unit change in

44


independent variable associated with .472 change of the dependent variable. t= 2.623 and

p<.05 further indicate that the independent variable is having an impact on the dependent

variable. In other words, exhibitors‟ overall perception of the service quality of TUR 2011 is

effected by their satisfaction on the changes of TUR. The perceived changes are summarized

from the open questions of the survey from both positive and negative perspectives, shown in

Table 14.

Table 14.

Summary of the Perceived Changes

Positive changes Available capacity for more exhibitors

Better flow and easier registration

Smoothly with exhibitors to order or book on oneself

More varied entertainment activities

Speed dating with tour operator

Print personal badge online

Regular personal contact

Better quality of Connect @ TUR

Focus on professionals

Consistent service quality with previous TURs

Friendly reception in the service centre

Better timetable for the second day of TUR (Friday, March 25)

The possibility of reservations

Negative changes Fewer visitors

Fewer exhibitors

Too much empty space

45


Chapter Ⅵ Conclusions and Recommendations

This research is based on the case study of the annual tourism fair, TUR, at the Swedish

Exhibition and Congress Centre in Gothenburg. It has mainly focused on the expectations and

perceptions from exhibitors‟ perspective, and specifically on identifying the gap between

these two concepts. The SERVQUAL scale is employed as the measurement tool. The results

of this study lead to some interesting findings that amplify our knowledge of service

evaluations.

6.1 Conclusions

Service quality has been regarded as the key for long-term business success, especially in

service industry. It is crucial to the satisfaction of customers. To the case in discussion, the

researchers, by testing Hypothesis 4, find out the degree of satisfaction with TUR 2011 is

rather consistent with that of TUR 2010. However the consistency does not purport that the

exhibitors of this year are happy with what they obtained. The inadequacy of knowledge in

exhibitors‟ expectations has rendered the management team of TUR into a difficulty to

provide services that are able to meet those unclear expectations. Facing the increasing

competitions in the event and business fair industry, it becomes imperative to find out

customers‟ expectations and the gap between expectations and perceptions.

Figure 9. Research Model

46


Research question 1: What is important in exhibitors‟ expectations?

The findings suggest that the five dimensions-RATER of SERVQUAL tend to have varied

influences on exhibitors‟ expectations and perceptions. Results of H1 suggest that exhibitors

incline to expect mostly on Tangible, especially about employees‟ appearance and

accessibility of the premises. Empathy and Assurance are the second and third influential

facts of their overall expectation. However, the importance of Tangible decreases in the

relationship with overall perception and Assurance turns out to have the strongest influence

on exhibitors‟ perceptions. And Responsiveness, which is much less influential in the overall

expectation, rises to the third place in the association with overall perception. This is closely

connected to the second research question about the gap between expectations and

perceptions.

Research question 2: Are exhibitors‟ actual perceptions in line with the expectations?

Hypothesis 2, 5, and 6 are tested in order to answer this question. The results of Hypothesis 2

show that exhibitors of TUR 2011 had rather similar expectations, while their perceptions

were quite different. The gap between expectations and perceptions are identified. Exhibitors

perceived lower level of service quality than what they had expected before the fair started.

The discrepancies particularly lie in the dimensions of Reliability, Responsiveness, and

Empathy.

Hypothesis 5 and 6 empathize on two specific determinants of expectation: past experience

and cultural background. The selection of these two attributes for analysis is based on the

nature and feature of TUR which is aimed at providing opportunities for international

companies from tourism industry to develop their business and have been operated for more

than twenty years. It attracts around one thousand exhibitors each year from every corner of

the world and many of the exhibitors repeat their participation in TUR several times. The

analysis of Hypothesis 5 reveals that there is no significant difference between repeat

exhibitors and first-time exhibitors in terms of expectations and perceptions on TUR 2011. It

can be concluded that past experience, though has been identified as one important

determinant of expectation, does not influence the expectations in the case at hand. Neither is

it able to affect perceptions. Hypothesis 6 testing, however, discovers a valuable relationship

between cultural background and perceptions. The result shows that Swedish exhibitors

47


generally have lower perceptions than foreign exhibitors, although their expectations do not

differ. In other words, Swedish exhibitors are more critical than exhibitors from abroad.

Research question 4: Are exhibitors‟ perceptions of changes related to overall perception on

service quality of TUR 2011?

Research question 4 targets on the changes of TUR 2011 compared with previous TURs. H7

is designed to find out the answer. The study indicates that though only minority of the

exhibitors notice the changes/improvements of TUR 2011, most of them consider the

changes/improvements add value to the service quality of TUR 2011. The analysis

demonstrates the significant influence of the perceived changes on the overall perception of

the service quality. Moreover, communication problem was reported by one of the

interviewees when questions about the changes were asked. According to the interviewee, she

received too many emails from the Centre and had no time to read through every single email.

As a result, she was very likely to miss information regarded to the changes. This interviewee

expected to get the useful information from TUR that is differentiable from other emails from

the Centre.

6.2 Recommendations for Management

Compared to TUR 2010, TUR 2011 attracted about 300 less exhibitors. Furthermore,

according to the survey statistics 75 percent of the respondents are willing to recommend

other companies in the industry to exhibit in TUR in 2012, but only 62.5 percent show their

interest in participating in TUR next year. These figures indicate many of the exhibitors will

not repeat their participation in 2012 and TUR has to develop much more new customers than

before in order to ensure its sustainability. However it is much more expensive to attract a

new customer than to keep a current customer. According to Goodman (1999), TARP2 found

that the real ratio of cost to win a new customer vs. retaining a current customer varies from 2

to 1 to 20 to 1.

Customers are the assets of the company. Customer relationship needs to be nurtured and

retained. TUR‟s management team has utilized Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

system to control and improve the relationship with the exhibitors. What needs to improve in

the future is to provide service delivery that meets customers‟ expectations, which from the 2 TARP Worldwide is the world‟s premier customer experience agency with the aim of improving the customer

experience.

48


researchers‟ point of view should emphasize on the identified gaps on empathy,

responsiveness, and reliability. These three dimensions are closely connected with each other,

and they can be reflected simultaneously, especially in a situation where a service error

occurs.

Reliability, to a large extent, is built up through performing service right at the first time and

ensured by stable functionality of the service system. Therefore it is critical to make realistic

promises in the first place and keep those promises during service delivery by empower

employee and enable service systems to deliver on promises made (Bitner, 1995), for

example the company ensures that services are delivered at a designated time. The fulfillment

of reliability could help the company to build the reputation by offering certainty to

customers which further strengthen customer relationship.

It is necessary to bear in mind that even in a zero defections organization that aims for 100

percent service quality, failures occur. A problem does not define the company but the way it

is handled does. TARP discovered that customers who complain and are satisfied are up to 8%

more loyal than if they had no problem at all, and resolution on first contact achieved 10%

higher satisfaction and loyalty than resolution via multiple contacts (Goodman, 1999). These

findings provide a strong support for positive view over complaints when service errors

happen.

Therefore it is of great importance that the management team builds up an error reporting

system and/or customer complaining path that is easy to find and use for the customers. A

small team should be assigned to be responsible for taking care of the system and examining

whether it is user-friendly or not. New service channels like streamlined automatic telephone

system, live chat, and instant messaging can be utilized to address service error more

promptly so that responsiveness of customer service could be improved.

When a complaint is reported, it should be handled quickly with empathy. For example, when

a commitment was not met, the best first actions of an employee are to listen to the customer,

try to put him or herself into the complaining customer‟s shoes, understand his or her

frustrations. Timing is critical in service recovery (Wilson et al., 2008). The longer it is

dragged, the less satisfied the customer will be, particularly in a short-term event like TUR.

49


To exceed customers‟ expectations, it is of the most importance to put their interest first and

resolve the problem to their benefits. A problem may cost the customer time, money, efforts,

and inconvenience. It is admirable to compensate for the customer‟s relevant loss involved,

and follow up the status of service recovery. This could make a big difference in the

customer‟s perception and lead to a loyal customer. Loyal customers are precious to the

company. They are more willing to recommend the service and the company to others and are

more forgiving in case of an occasional service failure (Mattila, 2001).

Moreover, Zeithaml et al. (1990) pointed out that lack of marketing research orientation,

inadequate upward communication and too many levels of management are the three main

factors contributed to the gap between expectation and perception. It is essential to conduct

continuous marketing research to obtain customer feedbacks and understand the changes in

customers‟ needs and expectations. Based on the adequate using of marketing research,

management should also increase interaction with exhibitors to clarify the understanding of

exhibitors‟ expectations. In addition, management should examine and improve the internal

upward communication. Contact personnel are in regular contact with exhibitors and

understand their expectations and perceptions better than managers. If the contact personnel

could communicate with manager about the exhibitors‟ needs in time, manager‟s

understanding of exhibitors could be improved.

6.3 Recommendations on Future Research

The applicability of the SERVQUAL scale has been tested in the context of business fair as

the good reliability has been achieved in Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance,

and Empathy (refer to Appendix 6). And the results of statistical analysis based on these

dimensions do provide a picture of the service quality of the fair and address the weaknesses

that require necessary improvements. However, the comprehensiveness of the scale is

questioned as it fails to measure the economic aspects of the service. In the process of data

collection, the researchers received some feedback from multiple respondents who claimed

that price charged was unreasonable. The currently study does not cover the price of the

service offerings. Neither does it discuss customer value and its relationship with the

perceived service quality and overall satisfaction on TUR. Therefore it could be interesting to

investigate in the following questions in the future research of the service quality in TUR,

50


1. Do exhibitors perceive that TUR provides good value for money? In other words,

does perceived price influence perceived customer value?

2. Do perceived price and/or perceived customer value influence customer overall

perception of the service quality?

3. Do perceived price and/or perceived customer value influence their intention to

participate in TUR next year?

4. Do perceived price and/or perceived customer value influence their willingness to

recommend other companies to exhibit in TUR?

51


Chapter Ⅶ References

Books and Articles

Avkiran, N. K. (1994). Developing an instrument to measure customer service quality in

branch banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing , 12 (6), 10-18.

Babakus, E., & Boller, G. W. (1992). An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale.

Journal of Business Research , 24 (3), 253-268.

Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital

services:An empirical investigation. Health Service Research , 26 (6), 767-786.

Bateson, J. E. (1995, ). Managing Services Marketing: Text and Readings. Texas: Dryden

Press.

Bejou, D., Edvardsson, B., & Rakowski, J. (1996). A critical incident approach to examing

the effects of service failures on customer relationships: The case of Swedish and US

airlines. Journal of Traval Research , 35 (1), 35-40.

Bitner, M. J. (1995). Building service relationships: It's all about promises. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science , 23 (4), 246-251.

Bitner, M. J., & Hubbert, A. R. (1994). Encounter satisfaction versus overall satisfaction

versus quality: the customer's voice. In R. T. Rust, & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), Service

Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 72-94). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Blumberg, B., Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business Research Methods (2nd

ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Improving the measurement of service

quality. Journal of Retailing , 69 (1), 127-139.

Buttle, F. (1996). SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. European Journal of

Marketing , 30 (1), 8-31.

52


Carmen, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the

SERVQUAL dimensions. Journal of Retailing , 66 (1), 33-55.

Chang, C. M., Chen, C. T., & Hsu, C. H. (2002). A review of service quality in corporate and

recreational sport/fitness programs. The Sport Journal , 5 (3).

Chelladurai, P., & Chang, K. (2000). Targets and standards of quality in sport services. Sport

Management Review , 3, 1–22.

Clement, J., & Selvam, M. (2006). Service quality gaps: A retro analysis. Academic Open

Internet Journal , 18.

Dabholkar, P. A., Shepherd, C. D., & Thorpe, D. I. (2000). A comprehensive framework for

service quality: An investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues

through a longitudinal study. Journal of Retailing , 76 (2), 139-173.

Detector Marketing Research & Consulting. (2010). Utställarrapport TUR 2010. Gothenburg.

Finn, D., & Lamb, C. (1991). An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in a retailing setting.

Advances in Consumer Research , 18, 483-490.

Getz, D., Neill, M. O., & Carlsen, J. (2001). Service quality evaluation at events through

service mapping. Journal of Travel Research , 380-390.

Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting Cronbach's

Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert-Type Scales. Social Science Research, Ohio

State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Goodman, J. (1999). TARP basic facts on customer complaint behavior and the impact of

service on the bottom line. Competitive Advantage , 9 (1), 1-5.

Grönroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. European

Journal of Marketing , 18 (4), 36-44.

Grönroos, C. (1990). Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moment of Truth in

Service Competition. Lexington: MASS: Lexington Books.

53


Grönroos, C. (1992). Service management: A management focus for service competition. In

C. H. Lovelock, Managing Services: Marketing, Operations, and Human Resources

(2nd ed., pp. 9-16). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. (2008). Multivariate Data Analysis-

Global Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988). A conceptual model of service quality. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management , 8 (6), 19-29.

Howell, D. (2002). Statistical Methods for Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing

Co Inc.

Johns, N., & Tyas, P. (1996). Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between food

service outlets. The Service Industries Journal , 16 (3), 321-346.

Johnson, W. C., & Sirikit, A. (2002). Service quality in the Thai telecommunication industry:

A tool for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage. Management Decision , 40

(7), 693-701.

Kozak, M. (2001). Repeater‟s behavior at two distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism

Research , 28, 784–807.

Lewis-Beck, M. S., Bryman, A., & Liao, T. F. (2004). The Sage Encyclopedia of Social

Science Research Methods. (M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao, Eds.)

London: Sage.

Mattila, A. S. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly , 42 (6), 73-79.

McDougall, G., & Levesque, T. (1994). A revised view of service quality dimensions: An

empirical investigation. Journal of Professional Services Marketing , 11 (1), 189-209.

Moutinho, L. (2001). Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing , 21

(10), 5–44.

54


Neill, M. O., Getz, D., & Carlsen, J. (1999). Evaluation of service quality at events: The 1998

Coca-Cola Masters surfring event at Margaret River,Western Australia. Managing

Service Quality , 9 (3), 158-166.

Niekerk, V., & Hendrik, J. (1996). Application of the SERVQUAL instrument in a social

work organisation. Cape Technikon Theses & Dissertations , Paper 121 .

Oliver, R. L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction:

Compatible goals, different concepts. In T. A. Swartz, D. E. Bowen, & S. W. Brown

(Eds.), Advances in Services Marketing and Management Research and Practice (Vol.

2, pp. 65-85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.

Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Oppenheim, A. (1992). Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement.

London: Printer Publishers.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale

for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing , 64 (1),

12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service

quality and its implications for further research. Journal of Marketing , fall, 41-50.

Philip, G., & Hazlett, S. A. (1997). The measurement of service quality: a new P-C-P

attributes model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management , 14 (3),

260-286.

Reeves, C. A., & Bednar, D. A. (1994). Defining quality: Alternatives and implications.

Academy of Management Review , 19, 419-445.

Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the

SERVQUAL model. Service Industries Journal , 1 (July), 324-343.

Selig, E. T., & Waters, J. M. (1994). Track Geotechnology and Substructure Management.

London: Thomas Telford.

55


Shahin, A. (2006). SERVQUAL and model of service quality gaps: A framework for

determining and prioritizing critical factors in delivering quality services. In V. Partha

Sarathy (Ed.), Service Quality: An Introduction (pp. 117-131). Andhra Pradesh:

ICFAI University Press.

Shostack, G. L. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing , 41

(April), 73-80.

Spreng, R., & Mackoy, R. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service

quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing , 722, 201-214.

Van Iwaarden, J., Van der Wiele, T., Ball, L., & Millen, R. (2003). Applying SERVQUAL to

web sites: an exploratory study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management , 20 (8), 919-935.

Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2008). Services Marketing:

Integrating Customer Focus Across the Firm. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education.

Yong, J. K. (2000). A multidimensional and hierarchical model of service quality in the

paricipant sport industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State

University.

Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and satisfaction

on destination loyalty: A structural model. Tourism Management , 26, 45–56.

Zeithaml, V. A., & Binter, M. J. (1996). Service Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services Marketing : Integrating

Customer Focus Across the Firm. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2009). Services Marketing : Integrating

Customer Focus Across the Firm. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering Service Quality:

Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York: The Free Press.

56


Electronic Sources

Arjomand, L. (2002, March 4). Sampling Distribution of the Mean. Retrieved May 21, 2011,

from Clayton State University, School of Business:

http://business.clayton.edu/arjomand/business/l7.html

Boyce, C., & Neale, P. (2006, May). Conducting in-depth interviews:A guide for designing

and conducting in-depth interviews for evaluation input. Retrieved May 21, 2011,

from Pathfind International:

http://www.pathfind.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Pubs_MandE_Guides

Magnusson, P. (2011, 03). TUR - A Fair in Change. Retrieved 03 21, 2011, from TUR 2011:

http://www.tur.se/en/exhibitors/tur-a-fair-in-change/

Stockburger, D. W. (1998, Febrary 19). ANOVA. Retrieved May 14, 2011, from Introductory

Statistics: Concepts, Models, and Applications:

http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/introbook/sbk27m.htm

TUR. (2011). Statistics TUR 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011, from TUR 2011:

http://www.tur.se/en/exhibitors/statistics-tur-2011-/

57


Chapter Ⅷ Appendices

Appendix 1

Questionnaire English – Expectations on TUR 2011

Welcome to our questionnaire concerning your and your organization's expectation of TUR

2011 in the Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre in the city of Gothenburg. Our survey

aims at understanding factors that most likely influence your future experience and

satisfaction level of the service provided by the centre, and for this we need your help.

Please read the instructions thoroughly for every single question. There are no proper or

improper answers – all we are interested in is a mark that truly reflects your expectations

regarding to the service quality of the Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre. If you

happen to have some questions about the questionnaire, please do not hesitate to contact us.

All the data you fill in will be treated with great care and complete anonymity.

Thank you very much for your help and good luck with the coming exhibition!

Junling Qian [email protected]

Ling Wang [email protected]

1 Which country do you come from?

2 Have you participated in TUR before? How many times?

Yes Times:

No

3

How important is it that the Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre (the Centre)

has modern office equipment such as wireless internet, computer with webcam?

Not at all Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4

How important is it that the Centre's premises are easily accessible (for example

waiting rooms, offices etc.)?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

mailto:[email protected]

58


5 How important is it that the employees of the Centre wear business

suit?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 How important is it that instruction signs are easy to find and understand?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 How important is it that the Centre delivers promised services?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8

How important is it that the employees at the Centre show genuine interest in

solving your problems?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 How important is it that the Centre performs the service right the first time?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 How important is it that the Centre provides services at promised time?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11

How important is it that employees of the Centre tell you exactly when services will

be delivered?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12

How important is it that employees of the Centre deliver service to you immediately

when you demand it?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

59


13 How important is it that employees of the Centre always be willing to help you?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14

How important is it that employees of the Centre always be ready to respond to your

requests?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15

How important is it that employees of the Centre behave in a way that can increase

your trust in the Centre?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 How important is it that you feel safe when you cooperate with the Centre?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 How important is it that employees of the Centre always care about your feelings?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18

How important is it that employees of the Centre have the knowledge to answer

your questions?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19

How important is it that the Centre gives you or your organization individual

attention?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 How important is it that the Centre has convenient opening hours for you?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60


21 How important is it that the Centre takes your and your organization's best interests

at heart?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22

How important is it that the employees of the Centre understand your or your

organization's specific needs?


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

61


Appendix 2

Questionnaire Swedish – Förväntningar på TUR 2011

Välkommen till vår enkät om din och din organisations förväntningar på TUR 2011 i

Svenska Mässan i Göteborg. Vår undersökning syftar till att förstå faktorer som sannolikt

påverkar din framtid erfarenhet och tillfredsställelse nivå på den tjänst som tillhandahålls

av Svenska Mässan, och vi behöver din hjälp.

Läs instruktionerna noggrant för varje fråga. Det finns inga fel svar - vi är intresserade av

betyg som verkligen speglar dina förväntningar om tjänsten kvaliteten på Svenska Mässan.

Har du frågor om enkäten tvekar inte att kontakta oss. Allt du svar kommer att behandlas

med stor omsorg och fullständig anonymitet.

Tack så mycket för er hjälp och lycka till med kommande utställningen!



1 Vilket land kommer du ifrån?

2 Har du deltagit i TUR tidigare? Om ja, hur många gånger har du deltagit i den?

Ja, gånger Nej

3 Hur viktigt för dig att Svenska Mässan har moderna utrustningar (t.ex Trådlöst

internet, Dator med Webcam)?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Hur viktigt för dig att har lätt åtkomst till Mässans lokaler (t.ex väntrum, kontor) ?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal bär kavaj eller kostym?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

62


6 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässan är välskyltad?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässan levererar utlovad tjänster?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal visar stort intresse att lösa dina problem?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Hur viktigt är det att Svenska Mässan utför tjänster rätt den första gången?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10

Hur viktigt för dig att Mässan levererar tjänster i utlovad

tid?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal informerar dig exakt tid när tjänst ska

levereras?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal levererar tjänst till dig omedelbart när du

behöver det?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13

Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal alltid är

hjälpsamma?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

63


14 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal alltid är redo att svara på dina frågor?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal beter sig på ett sätt som kan öka ditt

förtroende på Mässan?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 Hur viktigt är det att du känner dig trygg när du samarbetar med Svenska Mässan?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17

Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal alltid bryr sig om dina

känslor?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal har kunskap att svara på dina frågor?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässan visar individuell uppmärksamhet till dig eller din

organisation?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20

Hur viktigt för dig att Svenska Mässan har generösa öppettider för

dig?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

64


21 Hur viktigt för dig att Svenska Mässan har din och din organisations bästa för

ögonen?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Hur viktigt för dig att Mässans personal förstår dina eller din organisations

särskilda behov?

Inte alls Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

65


Appendix 3

Questionaire English – Perceptions on TUR 2011

Welcome to our questionnaire concerning your and your organization's perceptions

of TUR 2011 in the Swedish Exhibition and Congress Centre in the city of

Gothenburg. Our survey aims at finding out the influential facts and evaluating your

satisfaction level of the service provided by the centre, and for this we need your help

again.

Please read the instructions thoroughly for every single question. There are no proper

or improper answers -- all we are interested in is a number that truly reflects your

feelings regarding to the service quality of the Swedish Exhibition and Congress

Centre. If you happen to have some questions about the questionnaire, please do not

hesitate to contact us. All the data you fill in will be treated with great care and

complete anonymity.

Thank you very much for your help!



1 Which country do you come

from?

2 Have you participated in TUR before?

Yes

No

If 'No' is chosen, the survey will jump to question 6 when you click 'Next'.

3 Do you agree that TUR 2011 offers better service than previous TURs?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Do you notice any changes/improvements of TUR 2011 compare to the previous

TURs?

Yes for example

No


66


If 'No' is chosen, the survey will jump to question 6 when you click 'Next'.

5 Do you agree that the changes/improvements add values to the service quality of

TUR 2011?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 How satisfied are you with the office equipment offered by the Swedish

Exhibition and Congress Centre (the Centre)?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 What kind of office equipment do you think that the Centre needs to add in

future exhibitions?

8 Are the Centre's premises easily accessible (for example, waiting rooms, offices

etc.)?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Are employees of the Centre dressed in a way that adds bonus to their service

quality?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Are the Centre's instruction signs easy to find and understand?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Does the Centre deliver promised services?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

67


12 Do the Centre's employees show a genuine interest in solving your problems?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 Does the Centre deliver service right the first time?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14 Does the Centre provide service at promised time?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 Do employees of the Centre tell you exactly when services will be delivered?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 Do employees of the Centre give you service immediately when you demand it?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Are employees of the Centre always willing to help you?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Are employees of Centre always ready to respond to your requests?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 Do the employees of the Centre behave in a way that increases your trust in the

Centre?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

68


20 Do you feel safe when you cooperate with the Centre?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 Do the employees of the Centre always care about your feelings?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Do employees of the Centre have the knowledge to answer your questions?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 Does the Centre give you or your organization individual attention?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 Does the Centre have convenient opening hours for you?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 Does the Centre take you and your organization‟s best interests at heart?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 Do employees of the Centre understand your or your organization's specific

needs?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 How is your overall impression of the service quality of TUR 2011?

Very bad

Very good

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 Will you repeat your participation in TUR next year?

Not at all

Definitely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

69


29 Will you recommend other companies in the industry to exhibit at this fair?

Yes Probably No Don't know

30

If you have any further comments concerning your attendance at the Swedish

Exhibition and Congress Centre this year, please write down your comments in

the following space.

70


Appendix 4

Questionaire Swedish – Uppfattningar på TUR 2011

Välkommen till vår enkät om din och din organisations uppfattningar om TUR 2011 i

Svenska Mässan i Göteborg. Vår undersökning syftar till att ta reda på påverkande

faktorer och utvärdera din tillfredsställelse nivån på de tjänster som tillhandahålls av

Svenska Mässan, och vi behöver din hjälp igen.

Läs instruktionerna noggrant för varje fråga. Det finns inga fel svar - vi är

intresserade av betyg som verkligen speglar dina förväntningar om tjänsten kvaliteten

på Svenska Mässan. Har du frågor om enkäten tvekar inte att kontakta oss. Allt du

svar kommer att behandlas med stor omsorg och fullständig anonymitet.

Tack för din hjälp!



1 Vilket land kommer du ifrån?

2 Har du deltagit i TUR tidigare?

Ja

Nej

Om "Nej" väljs, kommer undersökningen att hoppa till fråga 6 när du klickar

på "Nästa".

3 Anser du att TUR 2011 erbjuder bättre service än tidigare TUR mässor?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4 Märker du någon förändring eller förbättring jämfört med föregående TUR?

Ja till exempel:

Nej

Om "Nej" väljs, kommer undersökningen att hoppa till fråga 6 när du klickar på "Nästa".


71


5 Anser du att de förändringar eller förbättringar tillföra värde till tjänsten

kvalitet?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6 Hur nöjd är du med kontorutrustningar som erbjuds av Svenska Mässan?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7 Vilken typ av utrustning tror du att Mässan måste förbättra eller lägga till i

framtida mässor?

8 Har du lätt åtkomst till Mässans lokaler (t.ex väntrum, kontor)?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 Är Mässans personal klädda på ett sätt som ger bonus till sina servicekvalitet?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10 Är Svenska Mässan välskyltad?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11 Har Mässan levererat utlovad tjänster?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12 Har Mässans personal visat stort intresse att lösa dina problem?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13 Har Svenska Mässan utfört tjänsten rätt den första gången?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

72


14 Har Mässan levererat tjänster i utlovad tid?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15 Har Mässans personal informerat dig exakt tid när tjänster ska levereras?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16 Har Mässans personal levererat tjänst till dig omedelbart när du behöver det?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17 Är Mässans personal alltid hjälpsamma?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 Är Mässans personal alltid redo att svara på dina frågor?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19 Beter Mässans personal sig på ett sätt som ökar ditt förtroende på Mässan?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20 Känner du dig trygg när du samarbetar med Svenska Mässan?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 Har Mässans personal alltid brytt sig om dina känslor?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Har Mässans personal kunskap att besvara dina frågor?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

73


23 Har Mässan visat individuell uppmärksamhet till dig eller din organisation?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 Har Svenska Mässan generösa öppettider för dig?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 Har Mässan haft din och din organisations bästa för ögonen?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 Förstår Mässans personal dina eller din organisations särskilda behov?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 Hur är ditt helhetsintryck av servicekvalitet på TUR 2011?

Mycket dåligt

Mycket Bra

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 Vill du upprepa ditt deltagande i TUR nästa år?

Inte alls

Absolut

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 Kommer du att rekommendera andra företag i branschen att ställa ut på denna

mässa?

Ja Kanske Nej Vet ej

30 Om du har några ytterligare kommentarer på din närvaro på Svenska Mässan i år,

skriv gärna ner dina kommentarer på följande plats.

74


Appendix 5

Interview Questions

1. Is this your first time at TUR?

2. What is your general impression of TUR this year?

3. How do you think of the environment here?

4. Do you notice any changes/ improvements compare to previous TUR? What do you think

about this changes/ improvements?

5. How is your experience with the registration, reception, and setting up stands etc? What is

your impression about communication between you and the staff at Svenska Mässan

during the starting-up phase?

6. Have you ever met some problem? How did the staff (they) approach your problem? What

do you think about the staff‟s response concerning your problem?

7. Is there anything you think should be improved? Can you give some examples?

75


Appendix 6

Reliability Report

Items

Cronbach‟s Alpha if Item Deleted

Expectation Perception

Equipment .877 .963

Premises .888 .963

Employeeappearance .897 .962

Instructionsigns .880 .963

Promisedservice .878 .960

Employeesinterestinsolve .877 .960

Rightthefirsttime .875 .961

Promisedtime .874 .960

Ecommunicateservicetime .877 .962

Servicedeliveredoncommond .877 .961

Willingnesstohelp .877 .960

Rreadytorespond .873 .960

Behaveincreasetrust .873 .960

Feelsafe .874 .960

Carefeeling .877 .961

Knowledgetoanswer .870 .959

Individualattention .869 .962

Openinghours .873 .961

Bestinterest .871 .960

Specificneeds .872 .960

Total scale reliability

Cronbach's Alpha .882 .963

Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized

Items .914 .964

service expectations and perceptions of exhibitors at · pdf fileservice expectations and...

Documents