Service Quality in the Context of a Sports Centre - Research Paper Example

SERVICE QUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF A SPORTS CENTRE By (Insert A Research Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of (insert master’s name) of the (Insert University name) July 2014. ABSTRACT The fitness industry is distinct from other service industries. The distinction is facilitated by the facts that services offered in the industry are intangible, imperishable, inseparable from human involvement and heterogeneous. The industry compared to other service organizations is driven by human motivation to be involved in the specific sports activities or to use the platform for socialization. However, motivation, involvement and performance are founded on customer’s previous experience in a specific sports facility. The customer’s evaluation and perception of the sports facility reflects the after-use benefits attached to the experience. The perception thus determines if the customer will desire to go back to the facility for the same services or will opt for another service provider. Thus service quality which is based on customer evaluation influences the success of a sports facility in retaining and attracting more customers. Using SERQUAL model, this research sought to investigate if there existed any significance difference between service quality dimensions in respect to University Sports Center as well as the attached differences between customer’s expectations and perception after visiting the University Sports Center. Using One-way ANOVA, the research found out that there existed a significant difference between the students rating between service quality dimensions. Concerning customer expectations and perception, many students said that the tangible aspect of service quality was delivered while assurance was the least among the dimensions. Table of Contents ABSTRACT 2 List of Tables 4 List of Figures 5 CHAPTER 1 6 1.1Introduction 6 1.2Statement of the Problem 7 1.3Purpose of the research 7 1.4Research Objective 8 1.5Research questions 8 1.6Significance of the research 8 CHAPTER 2: Literature review 9 CHAPTER 3: Research methodology 11 3.1Research Design 11 3.2Sampling Method 11 3.3Research Instruments 12 3.4Proposed analysis method 12 CHAPTER 4: Data Analysis 14 4.1Descriptive statistics 14 4.2Correlations between service quality dimensions 16 4.3Service quality dimensions weights comparison 17 CHAPTER 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 21 REFERENCES 22 APPENDICES 24 Appendix 1 24 Appendix 2 27 List of Tables Table 1: Sample characteristics: Gender, Use of the center, year of study, center membership, and subject area. 14 Table 2: Descriptive statistics of service quality dimensions 16 Table 3: Service quality dimensions Pearson correlation matrix 16 Table 4: Service quality dimensions weights comparison 19 List of Figures Figure 1: Checking for outliers and normality of the data. 18 CHAPTER 1 1.1 Introduction With the growth in service economy, service quality has remained the glue between service delivery and customer satisfaction (Daniel, Berinyuy, & Isberg, 2010, p.1). It is the extent to which service delivery meet customer expectation and perceptions. This has led to a number of researches focusing on service quality as the mainstream determinant of a successful service economy. However, service quality in sports researches are still in development stages. This is because, for a long time, sport had not been commercialized. When it did, public sector sports provision took preeminence in service quality judgment. The involvement of private sports bodies facilitating sports events around the globe have led to higher view of commercialization thus gaining economic values especially to hosting countries. This is in both the major events and annual event that attract global interest in both business and media coverage. For example, in 2008/9, English premier league collected 2 billion Pounds in addition to the annual 200 million Pounds revenue from top premiership teams (Thornton, 2013, p.115). Sports therefore have become a business attracting economic impact globally. The most used model to measure service quality is SERVQUAL. The model describes service quality as a five-dimension concept. The dimensions are reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy and responsiveness. Service quality model has faced a number of criticisms especially because SERVQUAL is applied at the service delivery point. The model is then considered less effective in measuring customer expectation and satisfaction. It is argued that, at the service delivery point, the customer has already had the service while the service agent had no idea of what the customers expected. This makes the model a one sided model though it is meant to measure prior to and after service delivery effects (Howat, Crilley, & McGrath, 2008, p. 142). Thus, the measure of the gap between initial expectation and current perception is unclear. Consequently, the model should measure a product of service performance called service perception. This research measures performance dimensions of SERVQUAL in terms of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Tangibility covered physical facilities, personnel, and equipment available. Reliability was described in terms of accurate and dependable delivery of promises. Responsiveness was measured in terms of the staff willingness to provide prompt services. Assurance was measured in terms of the ability of the staff to encourage trust and confidence in the customers and finally, empathy was measured as an effect of empathy and individualized attention to the customer. The importance attached to each dimension weighs the customer perception. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Service quality in sports facilities have remained a researchable topic in the globe today. However, the distinctive nature of the business poses a challenge on the dimensions given to service quality. This research sought to identify the significance differences between the dimensions as well as find the gap between customer expectation and perception in the university sports center. 1.3 Purpose of the research The purpose of this research was to find out the customer expectation, experience and perception on service quality at the University Sports Center. 1.4 Research Objective The objectives of this research were to: Identify the significance differences between service quality dimensions in respect to sports facility. Find the difference between expectations and perception in the university sport center. 1.5 Research questions The study was guided by the following questions 1. What are the customer’s expectations on Campus University Sports Center on service quality? 2. What are the customer’s perceptions on service quality in Campus University Sports Center? 3. What the difference between expectations and perceptions are on Campus University Sports Center customers. 1.6 Significance of the research The research finding on the effect of service quality to customer perception is hoped to provide relevant information to University Sports Center management. Taking interest on each dimension of the sports center will give comprehensive information to the stakeholders on the exact area that need urgent attention hence advise them on the most effective strategies to undertake in enhancing customer satisfaction. The information collected will contribute to the limited information available on sports as a commercial venture. Finally, the research will create a basis for further research in regard to service quality in sports perspective. CHAPTER 2: Literature review With increase in competition, businesses have opted for different ways in which they can remain profitable. Quality service delivery has been identified as one way of successful business as well as survival in the competitive market (Oliveira, 2003, p.6). Thus service quality delivery is more of a prerequisite than a desire to the business owners. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988, p.13), service quality is an abstract construct of heterogeneity, inseparability and intangibility of production and consumption. That is, it cannot be measured objectively like quality of goods. The only possible way of doing that is taking customer perceptions of quality of services delivered to them at a service point. Customer perception is the general judgment about an object’s overall superiority. It is an attitude resulting from a comparison between expectation and perception obtained from a performance (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988, p.15). The smaller the gap between customer expectation and perception, the more satisfied the customer with the services rendered. Fitness organisations have taken interest in customer’s needs and perceptions on service quality with the rise in competition in the sports industry. Fitness clubs look for ways of remaining relevant as well as attracting more customers by identifying the key dimensions in customer’s perception on quality services (Yoshida, 2010, p.338). According to Tsitskari et al. (2009, p.3), SERVQUAL model in recreation services motivated the creation of instruments evaluating customer desire and perception. The approaches given to customer orientation and satisfaction have been elevated above profit making. The service attributes allocated by each fan when evaluating service quality and satisfaction level remains the focus of each stakeholder in sport related services. The finding on issues through research thus guides the service providers to the relevance of service quality considerations as well as meeting the demands of the industry (Perez, Minguet, & Freire, 2010, p. 298). Besides taking care of the players, the spectator’s expectations have to be met if successful referrals have to follow a positive evaluation of an event (Howat, Crilley, & McGrath, 2008, p. 141). Managers may invest in information collection on quality of service against the initial expectations. Public facilities are among the poorly managed sports facilities (Howat, Crilley, & McGrath, 2008, p. 144). However, competition on customers has been on the rise in recent years. The number of private owned commercial fitness sports centers has come up in response to the growing demand of reliable and well maintained fitness centers. Every fitness center comes with service quality and overall customer satisfaction and winning loyalty in mind (Howat, Crilley, & McGrath, 2008, p. 139). CHAPTER 3: Research methodology 3.1 Research Design This study adopted SERVQUAL model. It is the most used instrument in measuring service quality. The model measures the difference between customer expectation and customer experience. The closer the expectations are to the experience the higher the customer satisfaction which implies a higher service quality (Kabir & Carlsson, 2010, p. 5). The model thus quantifies the gap between expectation and quality. The SERVQUAL model leads to a standardized questionnaire design where perceptions are measured in a scale. 3.2 Sampling Method Research has shown that at least 10% of a large population or 20 % of a small population are good representations of the population (Gay, 1992). The sampling method for this research was a probability sample of students from Campus University in the North of England. All students’ emails were the sampling frame from which the sample was extracted. A sample of 200 students was arrived at by use of simple random sample. A potential 9% sampling error was allowed. At the beginning of the sampling, it was anticipated that there could be chances of non-response. A sample of 300 students was extracted and emailed directly through a survey hosted by surveymonkey.com. Several reminders followed up and in 2 weeks, 67% response rate, that is 202 responses were considered usable. The response sample was considered as a reliable representation of the population after an analysis on non-respondent indicated that there were no statistical significance differences between early and late response. 3.3 Research Instruments To address the research objectives and the research question, data was collected using the standardized questionnaire (find it in Appendix 1). The questionnaire had three set of questions with the first question containing 21 separate questions on the five dimensions of service quality. Sub questions 1-6 investigated the tangible aspects of the service, questions 7, 10, 11, 12, investigated reliability, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15 focused on responsiveness, 20 and 21 measured empathy and 16-19 measured assurance. Each question was measured on a 5 point scale that allowed the respondents to rate service performance. The second set of questions targeted the weights attached to each of the five dimensions of service quality. The third set of questions measured the respondent’s characteristics. This last set of questions gave certainty of the sample demography. The questionnaire was pre-tested using potential sports center users for face validity. There being no issues raised at the pre-test stage, the questionnaire was deemed reliable and hence proceeded to be used in the research. The study variables are given in Appendix 2. 3.4 Proposed analysis method This research analyzed the collected data by first running some descriptive statistics on set three of the questionnaire (find the questionnaire in Appendix 1). One way ANOVA was conducted on the data with an aim of checking if there exists any statistical significance difference between the mean of service quality dimension. Description of One-way ANOVA One-way ANOVA is used to check if there exists any significant difference between means of more than one unrelated groups. To get a valid result, the following assumptions have to be met. 1. The dependent variables should be continuous 2. Independent variables should have two or more categorical variables 3. The observations should be absolutely independent 4. The data should have no significant outliers. 5. The dependent variables should be normally distributed for each category of the independent variable. 6. There has to be homogeneity of variance. CHAPTER 4: Data Analysis To be able to understand the results presented in this research, sample characteristics yielded a better understanding. Later one, One-way ANOVA test was run on the continuous variables using SPSS version 20. 4.1 Descriptive statistics Sample Characteristics The research sample was made up of 62.4 % men and 37.6 female with the highest use of the center being twice a week. The second year students registered the highest utilization of the center followed by first years. Of all the 202 students interviewed, 98 had membership rights to access the center while 92 paid every time they needed to use the premises. When asked of their course, 69 of the respondent were doing other courses, 68 were in sports, 41 in media and 24 were in media studies. Table 1: Sample characteristics: Gender, Use of the center, year of study, center membership, and subject area. Variable N % Gender Male Female 126 76 62.4 37.6 Use of the center Never Once a week or less Twice a week 3 times a week 4 times a week or more 5 46 39 47 34 25 11 22.8 19.3 23.3 16.8 12.4 5.4 Year of study 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Masters other 68 84 44 4 1 1 33.7 41.6 21.8 2.0 0.5 0.5 Center Membership Member Pay each time Missing 98 92 12 48.5 45.5 5.9 Subject area Sports Business Media Other 68 41 24 69 33.7 20.3 11.9 34.2 Service quality and service value dimensions Table 2 below indicates higher mean scores on each of the quality service dimensions. The score range from 3.39 to 3.62. Reliability and tangibility had the highest mean scores on 3.62 and 3.58 respectively. Assurance (3.56), empathy (3.47), and responsiveness (3.39) followed in that order. This results show that students visiting the University Sports Center attached higher value to reliability of the sports services than to responsiveness of the staff. The students had higher valuations that explain higher customer expectations. Table 2: Descriptive statistics of service quality dimensions Descriptive Statistics N Number of items Mean Std. Deviation tangibles 202 6 3.5784 .58571 Reliable 202 4 3.6151 .65889 Responsiveness 202 5 3.3941 .66584 Assurance 202 4 3.5569 .65257 Empathy 202 2 3.4728 .84081 Valid N (list wise) 202 4.2 Correlations between service quality dimensions Service quality dimensions have significant correlations, however, not very strong correlations. Assurance seems to have above average correlations with tangibility, reliability, responsiveness and empathy. This is unlike responsiveness that is only averagely correlated with assurance only. Despite the fact that the dimensions are not highly correlated, they are all significant in measuring service quality. Table 3: Service quality dimensions Pearson correlation matrix tangibles Reliable Responsiveness Assurance Empathy tangibles Pearson Correlation 1 .490 .490 .572 .417 Reliable Pearson Correlation .490 1 .469 .475 .394 Responsiveness Pearson Correlation .490 .469 1 .609 .539 Assurance Pearson Correlation .572 .475 .609 1 .636 Empathy Pearson Correlation .417 .394 .539 .636 1 4.3 Service quality dimensions weights comparison To investigate mean score differences among the five service quality dimensions, One-way ANOVA test is run on each of the questions in questions set 2. A verification of the assumptions given above was satisfied as follows: The dependent variables for this analysis are the variables related to question set 2 in appendix 1. Each of the questions was to be rated in a scale of 1-100%. The totals of all the ratings were to sum up to 100. Independent variables for the analysis were the five dimensions of service quality. From the test of correlations, the dimensions have proved to be independent, i.e. measuring independent constructs. To check for outliers and normality, the following Box plots were obtained. Figure 1: Checking for outliers and normality of the data. The box plots display the data as normally distributed and with few outliers. The data is appropriate for One-way analysis of variance. Difference in means on the allocation of weights to survive quality dimensions Significance difference was found to exist in all service quality dimensions. The levels of significance varied in the order of tangibility followed by empathy, followed by responsiveness, then by reliability and lastly assurance. Table 4: Service quality dimensions weights comparison Descriptive N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error The appearance of the sports center, physical facilities such as staff, gym equipment, the sports hall, and changing rooms. 202 25.34 11.399 .802 The ability of the sports center and its staff to implement the service promised reliably and accurately. 202 18.25 7.425 .522 The sports center’s willingness to help users and provide a prompt and friendly service. 202 18.29 8.075 .568 The knowledge and manners of the sports center’s staff, and their ability to supply and maintain confidence and trust within its customer. 202 17.26 7.133 .502 The attention to detail given when dealing with a customer on a one to one basis, though being caring and sympathetic to any problems that may have arisen. 202 20.95 10.101 .711 CHAPTER 5: Conclusion and Recommendations This research was able to come up with the following conclusions. Service quality has some value when expressed in form of the five dimensions (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, empathy and assurance). The perception arrived at by the sports center users is entirely dependent on the service quality offered in the sports center. From the findings above, it is evident that different people rate the service quality in the University Sports Center differently. The dimensions used to describe service quality are unique with tangibility taking the lead. Students want to interact more with high quality facilities than they are interested in assurance. This perception is spread across all gender with second year class taking the lead. This research recommends that the University sports Center consider improving the tangible part of the sports center. In terms of correlations, there existed weak relationship between the construct measured by the five dimensions. However, assurance had a significant relationship with virtually all the dimensions except reliability. This could be due to the structural nature of the two dimensions that reduce their dependability to below average. Many students will rate reliability separate from every other dimension. The values attached to each of the dimensions thus affects perception as well as satisfaction. Service quality values were therefore found to be strong predictors to customer perception of the sports center. The recommendation is the University Sports Center management should be keen to protect the customer’s perception by ensuring that customer satisfaction takes preeminence over the profits expected from the sports center. REFERENCES Daniel, C. N., Berinyuy, L. P. & Isberg, S. (2010). Using the SEVQUAL Model to assess Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction. UMEA UNIVERSITY. Accessed on 10 July 2014 from: http://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:327600/FULLTEXT01.pdf Gay, L.R. (1992). Education Research: Competence for Analysis and Application, 4the Edition. New York: Macmillan Publishers. Howat, G., Crilley, G., & McGrath, R. (2008). A focused Service Quality, Benefits, Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty Model for public Aquatic Centers. Managing Leisure, 13, 139-161. Kabir, H., & Carlsson, T. (2010). Service Quality- Expectations, Perceptions and Satisfaction about service Quality at Destination Gotland- a Case Study. Gotland University. Accessed on 10 July 2014 from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:351192/FULLTEXT01.pdf Oliveira, S. N. C. (2003). Service Quality and Service Value in Sport Services. Accessed on 11 July 2014 from http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/10545/5/6082_TM_01_P.pdf Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. Thornton, G. (2013). Report 5: Post-Game Evaluation. 2012 Games Meta-Evaluation: Report 5 (Post-Game Evaluation) Sport Evidence Base. Accessed on 10 July 2014 from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224144/Report_5_Sport_Evidence_Base_FINAL.pdf Tsitskari, E., Tzetzis, G., Aggeloussis, N., Vernadakis, N., & Costa, G. (2010). Measuring Spectator’s Expectations of Service Quality Provided in Basketball Stadiums in Greece. International Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 1-18. Yoshida, M. (2010). Customer Satisfaction with Game and Service Experiences: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Sports Management, 24, 338-361. APPENDICES Appendix 1 Question 1 We would like to know your views about the universities sports center’s service quality and performance relative to your expectations. For each of the questions below please circle just one number between 1 and 5. 1 being the very dissatisfactory and 5 very satisfactory   Low High How would you rate the quality of the center when it comes to; 1 modern sports/gym equipment 1 2 3 4 5 2 modern changing facilities 1 2 3 4 5 3 visually appealing facilities 1 2 3 4 5 4 smart, professionally appearing staff 1 2 3 4 5 5 informative , relevant and appealing documentation   such as gym and class timetables and opening times 1 2 3 4 5 6 convenient hours of operations 1 2 3 4 5 7 providing a reliable service that is promised 1 2 3 4 5 8 dealing with customer complaints 1 2 3 4 5 9 prompt actions based on customer feedback 1 2 3 4 5 10 service carried out as promised first time 1 2 3 4 5 11 service performed at promised time 1 2 3 4 5 12 informing customers of new and changing schedules/timetables 1 2 3 4 5 13 prompt service to facility users 1 2 3 4 5 14 willingness to help facility users 1 2 3 4 5 15 readiness to respond to users requests 1 2 3 4 5 16 well-mannered and informative staff 1 2 3 4 5 17 highly motivating staff for example encouraging gym staff 1 2 3 4 5 18 secure transactions e.g. Membership payments and booking facilities 1 2 3 4 5 19 knowledgeable and reliable staff 1 2 3 4 5 20 Attending to the needs of every customer e.g. on a personal one to one basis 1 2 3 4 5 21 staff with good customer service   1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Description: Below are five areas relating to the University Sports Centre and the services that it offers. We would like to know the how important each feature is to you when you evaluate the Sports Centre and the service that it provides. Please allocate 100 points amongst the five areas below; the areas that you feel to be more important should be given more point. Please ensure that once the points have been delegated they add up to a total of 100. 1. The appearance of the Sports Centre, physical facilities such as staff, gym equipment, the sports hall, and changing rooms. 2. The ability of the Sports Centre and its staff to implement the service promised reliably and accurately. 3. The Sports Centre’s willingness to help users and provide a prompt and friendly service. 4. The knowledge and manners of the Sports Centre’s staff, and their ability to supply and maintain confidence and trust within its customers. 5. The attention to detail given when dealing with a customer on a one to one basis, through being caring and sympathetic to any problems that may have arisen. Question 3 The following questions are to determine and identify some background information, in regards to our subject. (Circle where appropriate) 1. Are you MALE or FEMALE? 2. How often do you use the Sports Centre? Never Once a week or less Twice a week Three times a week Four times or more a week. 3. What year at University are you currently in? 1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / masters / other___________________________________________ 4. Are you a Member? Or do you pay each time? _______________________________________________________________________ 5. Are you studying a course at The University of Lincoln? Yes / No If Yes please specify_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Appendix 2 SERVQUAL.SAV Variable List Variable Name Label Comments T1Equipment modern sports/gym equipment These variables are scaled 1 to 5 and reflect sub-questions 1 to 21 in the first section of the questionnaire T2Modchange modern changing facilities T3Visual visually appealing facilities T4smartstaff smart , professionally appearing staff T5information informative, relevant and appealing documentation such as gym and class timetables and opening times T6hours convenient hours of operation D1service providing a reliable service that is promised R1complaints dealing with customer complaints R2feedback prompt actions based on customer feedback D2firsttime service carried out as promised first time D3promisetime service performed at promised time D4informing informing customer of new and changing schedule / timetables R3prompt prompt service to facility users R4willingness willingness to help facility users R5userrequests readiness to respond to user request C1manners Well-mannered and informative staff C2motivating highly motivated staff for example encouraging gym staff C3transactions secure transactions e.g. membership payments and booking facilities C4knowledgeable knowledgeable and reliable staff E1one2one attending to the needs of every customer e.g. on a personal one to one basis custservice staff with good customer service Q1 the appearance of the sports center, physical facilities such as staff, gym equipment, the sports hall, and changing rooms. These variables are scored 0-100 and reflect the sub questions in the second section of the Questionnaire Q2 the ability of the sports centre and its staff to implement the service promised reliably and accurately. Q3 The sports center’s willingness to help users and provide a prompt and friendly service. Q4 the knowledge and manners of the sports center’s staff, and their ability to supply and maintain confidence and trust within its customer. Q5 The attention to detail given when dealing with a customer on a one to one basis , though being caring and sympathetic to any problems that may have arisen. gender are you male or female These are effectively the ‘independent’ variables which measure respondent characteristics Usage how often do you use the center year What year at university are you currently in? 1st /2nd/ 3rd/ 4th/ masters/ other member are you a member or do you pay each time Course subject area t1 Equipment Rating Weighted These variables are the weighted versions of questions 1-21in the original questionnaire. They have been reordered and labeled to reflect the five dimensions of service quality: t1-t6 are tangibles d1 to d4 are reliability r1 to r5 are responsiveness c1 to c4 are confidence/assurance E1-E2 are empathy. They are effectively at the ‘scale’ level of measurement are suitable for procedures such as factor analysis. t2 Changing Facilities Weighted t3 Appearance Weighted t4 Smart staff weighted t5 information weighted t6 Convenience weighted d1 Reliable Service weighted d2 Service carried out 1st time weighted d3 Service provided as promised weighted d4 Informing Customers of changes weighted r1 prompt actions on customer feedback weighted r2 prompt service to users weighted r3 willingness to help users weighted r4 readiness to respond to user requests weighted r5 dealing with customer complaints weighted c1 well-mannered and informative staff weighted c2 highly motivated staff weighted c3 secure transactions weighted c4 knowledgeable and reliable staff weighted E1 Attending to needs of every customer weighted E2 Staff with good customer care weighted Read More