Searching for excellence in business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of...

[ 72 ]

International Journal of Educational Management11,2 [1997] 72–79

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0951-354X]

Searching for excellence in business education: anexploratory study of customer impressions ofservice quality

Gaston LeBlancUniversity of Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, CanadaNha NguyenUniversity of Moncton, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada

Examines the concept ofservice quality in businesseducation with data collectedfrom 388 students. Identifiesseven factors which influencestudent evaluations of servicequality. In descending orderof importance these factorsare: reputation, administra-tive personnel, faculty, cur-riculum, responsiveness,physical evidence and accessto facilities. Describes theimplications for controllingquality and for achievingexcellence in businesseducation.

Introduction

The identification of the dimensions whichsignal quality and the achievement of excel-lence in business education have emergedthis decade as key issues facing the academy.Indeed, like many other organizations, busi-ness schools must be concerned now withmarket share, productivity, return on invest-ment and the quality of services offered totheir customers. Service quality can lead toexcellence in business education and canhave lasting effects on the institution and thestudents it serves. This can influence studentrecommendations of their programme toothers, as well as their future monetary con-tributions in support of their university(Allen and Davis, 1991).

Despite the importance given to servicequality, Stern and Tseng (1993) report that fewbusiness schools have adopted a total qualitymanagement (TQM) philosophy. As such, thishas resulted in much criticism directed atbusiness schools where curriculum andcourse contents, teaching methods and peda-gogy, and the relevance of academic researchhave been questioned (Cannon and Sheth,1994). Interestingly, given the stature of busi-ness schools and the tendency to place profes-sional service providers on a pedestal basedon their reputation and perceived quality(Swartz and Brown, 1989), it is surprising todiscover that little research has beenreported on the quality of services in busi-ness education.

From the perspective of TQM, educationalofferings should be improved continually inorder to reflect the latest methods and trends(Cannon and Sheth, 1994) and better to satisfythe needs of customers. To that end, Brownand Koenig (1993) recommend that customerevaluations of the quality of their educationshould be an integral part of TQMprogrammes in business education. Indeed, abetter understanding of how customers formimpressions of quality can provide valuableinformation to management for designingservice delivery systems that enhance cus-tomer satisfaction (Seymour, 1992) and foradapting the university environment to thestudents’ needs (Hampton, 1993). In thedesign of quality improvement programmes

it is thus the customers’ definitions of qualitywhich count, since management may makethe wrong assumptions as to how customersactually assess service quality. Assumptionssuch as these could lead to the establishmentof improper priorities with regard to qualitycontrol standards in business education(Nightingale, 1983). Taking customer satisfac-tion into consideration, a knowledge andbetter understanding of the process and thevarious characteristics, qualities and attrib-utes which underlie students’ perceptions ofquality are warranted.

The main purpose of this study is to gainmore insights into the dimensions used bybusiness students evaluating service qualityand to identify which components of the ser-vice delivery process are most important intheir judgement.

Review of the literature

Service quality is an elusive construct,mainly because of the unique features thatdifferentiate services from goods. Intangibil-ity, inseparability of production andconsumption, heterogeneity and perishabil-ity are the four well-documented features ofservices acknowledged in the service market-ing literature (Berry, 1980; Bitner, 1992; Love-lock, 1983; Zeithaml et al., 1985). Because ofthese unique features, and the difficulties ofdefining and delimiting quality as it appliesto intangibles, the measurement of servicequality in specific service industries stillremains a challenge (Babakus and Boller,1992).

A review of the services marketing litera-ture reveals that Parasuraman et al. (1988,1991, 1993) have undertaken significant workto measure service quality across a broadspectrum of services. The authors developedand refined SERVQUAL, a 22-item instrumentwhich captures customers’ expectations ofservice and their perceptions of the servicereceived. Accordingly, Parasuraman et al.define expectations of service as what a cus-tomer believes excellent service companies ina particular service industry should offer andperceptions of service as the evaluation of theservice offered by a particular firm in that

[ 73 ]

Gaston LeBlanc and Nha NguyenSearching for excellence inbusiness education: anexploratory study of customerimpressions of service quality

International Journal ofEducational Management11/2 [1997] 72–79

industry. Factor analysis of customers’ differ-ence scores, i.e. the difference between expec-tations and performance ratings on the items,is then used to identify the dimensions thatsignal quality to consumers. From this work,Parasuraman et al. conceptualize servicequality to be a five-dimensional constructconsisting of tangibles, reliability, responsive-ness, assurance and empathy. These five fac-tors are described as follows: 1 Tangibles consist mostly of items that are

associated with the physical environmentwhere the service is produced and con-sumed.

2 Reliability concerns items which relate tothe service providers’ ability to performdependably and accurately.

3 Responsiveness comprises items which areassociated with the service employees’willingness to help customers and provideprompt service.

4 Assurance is made up of items whichdescribe the knowledge and courtesy ofemployees and their ability to inspire trustand confidence.

5 Empathy, for its part, is loaded with itemswhich correspond to the caring, individu-alized attention which service companiesgive to their customers.

From this work, Parasuraman et al. (1991)found reliability to be the most importantfactor affecting judgements of quality in fiveof the consumer groups they surveyed.

Although SERVQUAL has gained notoriety,its validity as a five-dimensional constructand its general applicability across serviceindustries have nonetheless been questioned(Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Teas, 1994). Forexample, the use of difference scores has beendescribed as suspect (Carman, 1990) becauseof the potential threat of low reliability of thedifference score variable. Difference scoresare said to present poor reliability becausepositive correlation between the componentscores diminishes the reliability of differencescores (Brown et al., 1993). Similarly, sinceexpectations vary over time (Carman, 1990),both the expectations and performance mea-sures should not be captured during the sameadministration of the instrument as withSERVQUAL. In addition, performance-basedmeasures of service quality were found to bebetter for measuring the service quality con-struct (Cronin and Taylor, 1992).

The design of quality measures for specificservice providers should lead to a betterunderstanding of the construct and to theadaptation of quality improvementprogrammes which correspond to servicecompany needs. From the design perspective,dependable measures of service quality for

specific service industries are a viableresearch strategy to pursue (Brown andKoenig, 1993; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Finn and Lamb, 1991; Zeithaml,1988). To that end, Parasuraman et al. (1993, p. 145) state that “SERVQUAL items are thebasic skeleton underlying service quality thatcan be supplemented with context specificitems when necessary”.

From a review of the services marketingliterature, alternative conceptualizations ofthe service quality construct are identified.Grönroos (1984), along with Lethinen andLethinen (1982) identifies corporate image asan important quality indicator for customers.Image is described as the overall impressionmade on the minds of customers (Dichter,1985). It is related to tradition, ideology, busi-ness name, reputation and variety of ser-vices, and to the impression of quality com-municated by each person interacting withcustomers (Solomon, 1985). Given that ser-vices are intangible, investigating how repu-tation relates to quality appears warranted.Reputation is described by Herbig et al. (1994)as the consistency of an organization’sactions over time. As such, reputation stemsfrom the guarantee of reliable service; it iscomparable to the zero defects philosophy.The reputation of a service firm is builtthrough the credible actions of management,i.e. the believability that management willcarry out stated intentions such as whenunconditional service guarantees are offeredto customers (Hart, 1988). Management playsa pivotal role in building reputation througha set of noticeable indicators such as leader-ship style, personality, and the fostering of anorganizational climate directed at meetingthe needs of the customers it serves. There-fore, reputation is closely tied to image inthat it affects customer expectations withregard to the quality of the service offering(Yoon et al., 1993).

The performance of contact personnel andthe personnel-customer interactions whichtake place during service delivery are deemedto be important indicators of quality (Hes-kett, 1987; Surprenant and Solomon, 1987).Bitner et al. (1990) report that the humaninteraction component has an importanteffect on the customer’s evaluative processwith regard to the service offering. Similarly,relationship quality is crucial when the ser-vice is complex and customized (Crosby et al.,1990), as in the dynamics of business educa-tion. In this light, Cannon and Sheth (1994)stress the importance of building and main-taining relationship quality with the variousstakeholder groups which interact with theorganization.

[ 74 ]



The nature and the quality of the relation-ships developed during the service encounterare also influenced by the physical environ-ment. In the analysis of “servicescapes”,Bitner (1990, 1992) proposes that cues fromthe physical surroundings are indicative ofthe service firm’s capabilities and the qualityof its services. In studies of faculty officedesigns, for example, students’ beliefs aboutthe person occupying the office and theirpersonality traits were found to be influencedby such cues as diplomas on the wall, tidinessof office and desk placement (Ward et al.,1989). Physical evidence has, therefore, astrong influence on employee motivationsand the quality of the service encounter.

The review of the literature provided thebasis for an exploratory study of service qual-ity in a business education setting. Its objec-tives were to identify the underlying dimen-sions used by students in their evaluation ofthe quality of education they received and todetermine the importance of these in theirevaluative process.

Methodology

The literature review, along with three focusgroup interviews which were held with atotal of 32 students, provided the basis fordeveloping the questionnaire used in thisstudy. Students are the logical group to usefor generating items and ideas on how busi-ness schools can improve the quality of theirservices. To this end, the general guidelinesrecommended for these interviews were fol-lowed (Fern, 1982) and participants of bothsexes were selected, representing each year ofthe business programme offered by the busi-ness school. During these group interviews,participants were asked to describe theirexpectations with regard to the businessschool, questioned on various aspects sur-rounding the services and facilities offered,and queried on what they considered excel-lent service encounters to be in the context oftheir business school.

The questionnaire contained 38 variablesrelated to different aspects of the businessschool’s service offering, such as projectedimage, physical facilities and instruments,operating procedures, service delivery, alongwith faculty and administrative personnel.Care was taken to include items that corre-sponded to the five SERVQUAL dimensionsidentified by Parasuraman et al. (1991). Theitems were measured on a 7-point, Likert-typescale that varied from 1 = much worse thanexpected to 7 = much better than expected,and mid-points on the scale were not labelled.Although this scale is reported by Oliver

(1981) to be more meaningful to respondentsin terms of making comparisons betweenperceptions and expectations, Prakash andLounsbury (1983) warn that it could be biasedin that respondents might rationalize theirpre-purchase expectations at the post-pur-chase stage.

The respondents were asked to what degreethe quality of the service offered by the busi-ness school corresponded to their expecta-tions on the 38 variables related to service.This approach agrees with Carman’s (1990)proposition that both expectations and per-ceptions of service be captured in one admin-istration in terms of the perception/expecta-tion difference.

The sample of respondents was taken froma small business school. This business schooloffers both undergraduate and graduate pro-grammes and has an enrolment of approxi-mately 700 students. To select the sample,classes across the business school were strati-fied on the basis of department and classlevel, and a convenience sample of studentswas selected to survey. Questionnaires wereadministered in class during the mid-term ofthe fall semester after students had receivedthe grading of their first series of exams. Thesampling yielded 388 usable questionnaires,which represent 55 per cent of the businessschool’s student population.

A principal component factor analysis withvarimax rotation was conducted on the 38variables related to service quality. Thisanalysis yielded a seven factor solutionwhich explained 56 per cent of variance.Thedecision to include a variable in a factor wasbased on factor loadings greater than 0.50 andall factors whose eigenvalue was greater thanone were retained in the factor solution(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1989). To assess relia-bility of measures, Cronbach’s alpha wascalculated for the variables retained for eachfactor and coefficients greater than or equalto 0.70 were considered acceptable and a goodindication of construct reliability (Nunnally,1978). The seven orthogonal factors were thenused in a stepwise regression analysis. Thedependent variable, measured on a 7-point,Likert-type scale, was the students’ overallevaluation of the quality of services offeredby the business school, and the independentvariables were the standardized factor scorescreated for each individual, corresponding tothe seven factors.

Results

Of the 388 students who responded to thequestionnaire 52 per cent were male, and 51per cent were enrolled in the second and third

[ 75 ]



year of the business programme. A total of 30per cent of respondents were in the generalbusiness programme, while 20 per cent weremarketing majors and another 16 per centaccounting majors. As for the degree of satis-faction with the services offered by the busi-ness school, 71 per cent said they were satis-fied with their past experiences and 60 percent indicated that they definitely wouldrecommend the business school to others.

Table I shows the results of the factor analy-sis in terms of factor name, the variablesloading on each factor and the varianceexplained by each factor. The results of Cron-bach’s reliability coefficient are also shown.The seven factors identified in Table I can bedescribed as follows. Factor 1 (F1), contactpersonnel/faculty, consists of items which arerelated to the performance of professors andtheir ability to inspire trust and confidence.Factor 2 (F2), reputation, relates to the busi-ness school’s capacity to position itself in theminds of its customers and is closely associ-ated with the image projected by the organi-zation. For its part, factor 3 (F3), physicalevidence, is loaded with variables whichdescribe the tangible cues associated with thebusiness school’s service delivery system andits facilities. Factor 4 (F4), contact person-nel/administration, is concerned withdimensions which are linked tomanagement’s ability to provide personalattention to students in a professional andcaring manner. Factor 5 (F5), curriculum,involves dimensions related to management’sand faculty’s capacity to plan and deliverservices which meet student needs. Factor 6(F6), responsiveness, is concerned with man-agement’s ability to provide service in aprompt and timely manner. Factor 7 (F7),access to facilities, describes the ease withwhich students can approach the servicefacilities without having to wait for service.

The results presented in Table I are relatedto the determinants of service quality andsupport the existing knowledge. Indeed, con-tact personnel (F1 and F4) is proposed as animportant quality indicator by Surprenantand Solomon (1985), and Crosby et al. (1990).Reputation (F2), for its part, is related closelyto the institution’s corporate image, andimage is described as an important determi-nant of perceived service quality by Grönroos(1984) and Lethinen and Lethinen (1982).Similarly, the tangible cues provided by thefacilities where services are produced anddelivered (F3) are said to be indicative of thequality of service (Bitner, 1990, 1992; Parasur-aman et al., 1991). Responsiveness (F6) is alsoidentified by Parasuraman et al. as a qualityindicator. Results also identify curriculumdevelopment (F5) and access to facilities (F7)

as potential determinants of service qualityin a business school setting.

Table II presents the results of regressionanalysis and shows, in order of importance,the factors which explain the businessschool’s service quality, based on standard-ized beta coefficients. Results indicate thatservice quality is derived mainly from repu-tation (F2), a factor which is tied closely tomanagement’s capacity to foster an organiza-tional climate directed at serving the needs ofits customers and to the image of the businessschool. Faculty and administrative personnel(F4 and F1), through their ability to inspiretrust and confidence and provide personalattention to students in a professional andcaring manner, also influence quality. Otherfactors such as curriculum (F5), responsive-ness (F6), physical evidence (F3) and access tofacilities (F7) are also significant qualityfactors.

Discussion and conclusion

The concern for excellence in business educa-tion and the lack of empirical research on thecues that signal quality to students were thebases for this exploratory study on servicequality. Although the SERVQUAL scale devel-oped by Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991) hasbeen the focus of considerable attention inrecent service quality research, the literaturereview revealed alternative conceptualiza-tions of the service quality construct andacknowledged the need to identify the deter-minants of service quality in specific serviceorganizations in order to develop qualityimprovement programmes better adapted tothe expectations of their customers. To thatend, the present study captured student eval-uations of the quality of the educational expe-rience with a 38-item questionnaire designedto fit the specific nature of the business schoolunder investigation. The study contributed toa better understanding of the service qualityconstruct in business education. Perceptionsof quality were measured on a 7-point scalethat varied from “Much worse than expected”to “Much better than expected”. Since expec-tations vary over time, this agrees with Car-man’s (1990) proposition that both expecta-tions and performance measures should becollected directly in terms of the perception-expectation difference during the sameadministration of the questionnaire. As such,the study identified seven factors which havean impact on quality evaluations and whichhave implications for controlling and achiev-ing excellence in business education.

The results of this study suggest a signifi-cant relationship between perceived quality

[ 76 ]



and reputation; i.e. the business school’scapacity to position itself in the minds ofstudents as being innovative, up to date,involved with the business community andhaving the students’ needs at heart. Sincereputation is built through the credibleactions of each member of the organization(Herbig et al., 1994), management working inclose harmony with personnel and facultyshould set quality standards for all compo-nents of the service delivery system to ensurethat student expectations are met. Given theimportance of expectations in the establish-ment of quality standards, internal market-ing research should be undertaken to ensurethat management and faculty expectations of

Table ISeven service quality factors identified by principal components factor analysis

Percentage Cronbach’sFactor of variance reliability

Factor name Variables loading explained coefficient

F1 Contact personnel:faculty Appearance of professors 0.71 29.4 0.85

Professors are friendly and courteous 0.69Professors research productivity 0.59Communication skills: courses are well taught 0.58Academic credentials of professors 0.58Professors are innovative and agents of change 0.57

F2 Reputation Business school is innovative 0.75 6.7 0.80Organizational culture, beliefs and values 0.72Business school’s involvement in community 0.68Degree to which curriculum is up to date 0.64Administration has students’ best interest at heart 0.60

F3 Physical evidence Layout of classrooms 0.74 5.4 0.80Lighting in classrooms 0.69Appearance of building and grounds 0.66Overall cleanliness 0.64Degree to which classrooms and study rooms are

comfortable 0.61Décor and atmosphere 0.59

F4 Contact personnel:administration Availability of personnel 0.75 4.2 0.85

Friendly and courteous personnel 0.75Capacity to solve problems when they arise 0.68Personnel has a good knowledge of rules and

procedures 0.66Appearance of personnel 0.61

F5 Curriculum Orientation of programmes and course content 0.68 3.7 0.76Number of courses offered 0.63Degree to which objectives of programmes are

explained to students 0.62

F6 Responsiveness Students are informed promptly of changes 0.77 3.4 0.71Registration is timely and error-free 0.57Records are kept accurately 0.53

F7 Access to facilities Available of parking 0.70 3.1 0.55Access to computer facilities 0.66Access to study rooms 0.55

Table IIRegression results based on factor scores

Variables Betas Significance

Reputation 0.37 p < 0.001Contact personnel: administration (F4) 0.31 p < 0.001Contact personnel: faculty (F1) 0.30 p < 0.001Curriculum (F5) 0.29 p < 0.001Responsiveness (F6) 0.22 p < 0.001Physical evidence (F3) 0.15 p < 0.001Access to facilities (F6) 0.07 p < 0.05

Notes:Dependent variable: respondent’s overall evaluation of business school’s qualityIndependent variables: seven orthogonal factors representing the components of per-ceived qualityR2 = 53 per cent F = 43.82 p ≤ 0.001

[ 77 ]



service are closely tied to student expecta-tions (Cannon and Sheth, 1994). Expectationsshould be examined and analysed so as to setstandards from the customers’ perspective(Swartz and Brown, 1989). Similarly, theprocess by which students acquire their edu-cation should be improved continuously(Seymour, 1992). For example, the fostering ofliaisons with the business community andthe offering of co-operative businessprogrammes that emphasize hands-on experi-ence should help build a strong reputation forthe organization. Making a favourableimpression on students and on various stake-holder groups such as prospective employers,government and research agencies, alumni,individuals and organizations which donatefunds to the university should be a key objec-tive of management (Allen and Davis, 1991;Cannon and Sheth, 1994). Once a strong repu-tation has been built, management shouldensure that every step is taken to promoteand maintain its standing (Bitner et al., 1990).

Results of the study also reveal that facultyand administrative personnel have a directbearing on perceptions of quality. For admin-istrative personnel, management should startby setting quality standards for process-related variables such as registration,records, and rules and procedures which areeasier to control than the academic deliveryof service (Coate, 1990). As for faculty, sinceacademics are perceived as being individual-istic and loyal to their academic units (Win-ters, 1991), management should convincefaculty that concern for quality is part oftheir job (Shetty, 1988) and all contact person-nel should be involved when setting goals andquality standards for the institution. Facultyshould continuously follow training sessionsand seminars on effective teaching methodsand should be encouraged to exhibit exem-plary attitudes and behaviour with studentsso that student experiences with service areto their satisfaction. Similarly, since studentcourse evaluations must be an integral partof quality improvement programmes (Bright-man et al., 1993), evaluations need to addressnot only the performance of faculty, but alsothe various aspects surrounding the educa-tional experience, such as objectives of thebusiness programme, physical and computerfacilities, and the multitude of support andadvisory services offered by the university.Moreover, management working closely withfaculty should prepare brochures which out-line the quality standards each member of theorganization must adhere to in the delivery ofservice and promote these standards to vari-ous stakeholder groups.

Results also reveal curriculum, physicalevidence, responsiveness and access to

facilities as additional factors which explainservice quality. These factors are relateddirectly to the process of service delivery, arehigh in experience qualities (Nelson, 1974) andreinforce the belief that quality control mea-sures must be applied along the service deliv-ery system. The orientation of programmesand course contents have a direct bearing onthe business school’s capacity to meet theneeds of prospective employers and must bemanaged carefully to build reputation. Simi-larly, the institution must be responsive andendeavour to provide prompt reliable service,since waiting for service can have negativeeffects on service evaluations (Taylor, 1994)and quality, especially in situations where theservice provider is perceived as having controlover the wait, as in the case of business educa-tion. Assuring that facilities are accessible tostudents and providing students with new andinnovative services such as automated tele-phone registration are examples of how busi-ness schools can improve quality on process-related variables. As for the elements associ-ated with physical evidence, managementmust realize that atmospherics have a directbearing on customer expectations (Baker,1987) and give attention to detail. At this stage,faculty and students should have a say sincethey are, for the most part, experiencing theservice in the classroom. Hence, attentionmust be given to details to ensure that thephysical environment is comfortable, ade-quate for the delivery of service and that itsends out appropriate cues to students. Indeed,the physical environment can become a surro-gate indicator of the institution’s capacity tooffer service in an organized and professionalmanner (Bitner, 1992).

As for the limitations of this study, theresults represent students’ perceptions ofservice quality in a small business school,and perceptions of service could easily varyaccording to the size, history and stature ofthe business school in question.Consequently, since it is the measures ofservice quality for specific service providersthat count, due care must exercised so as notto generalize results to all institutions(Brown and Koenig, 1993; Carman, 1990;Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Finn and Lamb, 1991;Zeithaml, 1988). Similarly, the research mea-sured only perceptions of service, and studiesshould attempt to identify how students formexpectations of business schools, how expec-tations vary over time and how informationsources influence customer expectations ofservice (Murray, 1991). Results might vary ifanalysed for different segments of the studentpopulation, such as class level; elected major;males and females; and part-time and full-time students. Accordingly, analysing quality

[ 78 ]



perceptions for different segments shouldhelp management in the formulation ofstrategies which promise to meet the specificexpectations of these various groups. The lowreliability of the access to facilities factor isanother limitation. A more reliable measuremight accentuate the relationship betweenthis factor and the overall judgement of ser-vice quality. The convenience sample ofrespondents must also be acknowledged. Atthis stage, some might argue that studentsare not the logical group to survey withregard to what excellent business schoolsshould be offering, since they are in theprocess of acquiring their education and, forthe most part, may have little knowledge ofwhat should be expected of universities alongkey quality dimensions. Consequently, infuture studies, the overall performance ofbusiness schools should be analysed from theperspective of the various stakeholder groupswhich interact with the institution. Indeed, abetter understanding of how various stake-holder groups, such as the business commu-nity, alumni, government agencies, alongwith the community, form qualityjudgements is warranted from the TQM per-spective. Additional research is needed on theinterrelationship that exists between qualityand reputation. Although these twoconstructs are related, research shouldaddress the dynamics of the relationship. Forexample, are factors such as contact person-nel, curriculum, responsiveness and physicalevidence determinants of service quality orof reputation? Similarly, a better comprehen-sion of how reputation impacts studentswhen choosing a business school, and theimportance given to this criterion by prospec-tive employers, should concern management.

The achievement of excellence in businesseducation and the need to control the qualityof services offered to students formed thebasis of this study on the cues which signalquality. The research shows that reputation,management, faculty and process-relatedvariables are important to students in theirjudgement of quality. The results are encour-aging and will lead us to pursue our quest forexcellence in education.

ReferencesAllen, J. and Davis, D. (1991), “Searching for excel-

lence in marketing education: the relation-ship between service quality and three out-come variables”, Journal of Marketing Educa-tion, Spring, pp. 47-55.

Babakus, E. and Boller, G. (1992), “An empiricalassessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journalof Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.

Baker, J. (1987), “The role of environment in mar-keting services: the consumer perspective”, in

Czepiel, J.A., Congram, C.A. and Shanahan, J.(Eds), The Services Challenge: Integrating forCompetitive Advantage, American MarketingAssociation, Chicago, IL, pp. 79-84.

Berry, L. (1980), “Services marketing is different”,Business, May/June, pp. 24-8.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encoun-ters: the effects of physical surroundings andemployee responses”, Journal of Marketing,April, pp. 69-82.

Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact ofphysical surroundings on customers andemployees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56,April, pp. 57-71.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990),“The service encounter: diagnosingfavourable and unfavourable incidents”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, January, pp. 71-84.

Brightman, H.J., Elliot, M. and Bhada, Y. (1993),“Increasing the effectiveness of student evalu-ation of instructor data through a factor scorecomparative report”, Decision Sciences, Vol.24, pp. 192-9.

Brown, D.J. and Koenig, H.F. (1993), “Applyingtotal quality management to business educa-tion”, Journal of Education for Business,July/August, pp. 325-9.

Brown, T., Churchill, G. and Peter, P. (1993),“Improving the measurement of service qual-ity”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, Spring, pp. 127-39.

Cannon, J.P and Sheth, J.N. (1994), “Developing acurriculum to enhance teaching of relation-ship marketing”, Journal of Marketing Educa-tion, Summer, pp. 3-14.

Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions ofservice quality: an assessment of theSERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 66, Spring, pp. 33-55.

Coate, L.E. (1990), “TQM at Oregon State Univer-sity”, Journal for Quality and Participation,Vol. 13, pp. 90-101.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuringservice quality: a reexamination and exten-sion”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.

Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERFversus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectationsmeasurement of service quality”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 125-31.

Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. and Cowles, D. (1990),“Relationship quality in services selling: aninterpersonal influence perspective”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 54, July, pp. 68-81.

Dichter, E. (1985), “What’s in an image?”, TheJournal of Consumer Marketing, Winter, pp. 75-81.

Fern, E.F. (1982), “The use of focus groups for ideageneration: the effects of group size, acquain-tanceship, and moderator on response quan-tity and quality”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 17, February, pp. 1-13.

[ 79 ]



Finn, D.W. and Lamb, C.W. (1991), “An evaluationof the SERVQUAL scale in retail setting”, inHolman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds),Advances in Consumer Research, Associationfor Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, p. 18.

Grônroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model andits marketing implications”, European Jour-nal of Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 36-44.

Hampton, G. (1993), “Gap analysis of college stu-dent satisfaction as a measure of professionalservice quality”, Journal of ProfessionalServices Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 115-27.

Hart, C. (1988), “The power of unconditional ser-vice guarantees”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 66, July/August, pp. 54-62.

Herbig, P., Milewicz, J. and Golden, J. (1994), “Amodel of reputation building and destruc-tion”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 31,pp. 23-31.

Heskett, J.L. (1987), “Lessons in the service sector”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87,March/April, pp. 188-26.

Lethinen, U. and Lethinen, J. (1982), “Servicequality: a study of quality dimensions”,unpublished working paper, Service Manage-ment Institute, Finland OY, Helsinki.

Lovelock, C. (1983), “Classifying services to gainstrategic marketing insights”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 47, Summer, pp. 9-20.

Murray, K.B. (1991), “A test of services marketingtheory: consumer information acquisitionactivities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55,January, pp. 10-25.

Nelson, P. (1974), “Advertising and information”,Journal of Political Economy, April, pp. 67-86.

Nightingale, M. (1983), Defining Quality for aQuality Assurance Programme…A Study ofPerceptions, PQCS Management Consultants,London.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2ndedition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Oliver, R. (1981), “Measurement and evaluation ofsatisfaction processes in retail settings”,Journal of Retailing, Fall, pp. 25-46.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V.(1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of servicequality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, Spring,pp. 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V.(1991), “Refinement and reassessment of theSERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, Winter, pp. 420-50.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V.(1993), “More on improving service qualitymeasurement”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69,Spring, pp. 140-7.

Prakash, V. and Lounsbury, J. (1983), “A reliabilityproblem in the measurement of disconfirma-

tion of expectations”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 10, pp. 244-9.

Seymour, D.T. (1992), On Q: Causing Quality inHigher Education, Macmillan Press, NewYork, NY.

Shetty, Y.K. (1988), “Product quality and competi-tive strategy”, Business Horizons, Spring, pp. 34-8.

Solomon, M. (1985), “Packaging the serviceprovider”, Services Industries Journal, Vol. 5,July, pp. 64-71.

Stern, B.L. and Tseng, D.P. (1993), “US businessschools’ reaction to the total quality manage-ment movement”, Journal of Education forBusiness, Vol. 69, September/October, pp. 44-8.

Surprenant, C. and Solomon, M. (1987),“Predictability and personalization in theservice encounter”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 51, April, pp. 73-80.

Swartz, T.A. and Brown, S.W. (1989), “Consumerand provider expectations and experiences inevaluating professional service quality”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Vol. 17, Spring, pp. 189-95.

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1989), UsingMultivariate Statistics, 2nd edition, NewHarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.

Taylor, S. (1994), “Waiting for service: the relation-ship between delays and evaluations of ser-vice”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 56-69.

Teas, K.R. (1994), “Expectations as a comparisonstandard in measuring service quality: anassessment of a reassessment”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 132-9.

Ward, J., Bitner, M.J. and Gossett, D. (1989),“SEEM: measuring the meaning of serviceenvironments”, in Bitner, M.J. and Crosby, L.(Eds), Designing a Winning Service Strategy,American Marketing Association, Chicago,IL, pp. 34-9.

Winters, R.S., (1991), “Overcoming barriers tototal quality management in colleges anduniversities”, in Sherr, L.A. and Teeter, D.J.(Eds), Total Quality in Higher Education,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 53-62.

Yoon, E., Guffey, H.J. and Kijewsky, V. (1993), “Theeffects of information and company reputa-tion on intentions to buy a business service”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 27, pp. 215-7.

Zeithaml, V. (1988), “Consumer perceptions ofprice, quality and value: a means-ends modeland synthesis of evidence”, Journal of Mar-keting, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.(1985), “Problems and strategies in servicesmarketing”, Journal of Marketing, Spring, pp. 38-46.

Searching for excellence in business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of...

Documents

Transcript of Searching for excellence in business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions of...