1. Evaluating the quality of service at the SETAs to improve the synergies between
SETA, Business and Training Providers: Case Study, Chemical Industries
Education and Training Authority (CHIETA)
Ivy Motsatsi Msomi
Graduate School of Business Leadership, MBL, Program in Maters of Business
Leadership, University of South Africa (UNISA), Midrand, South Africa
imsomi03@gmail.com

2. Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate service quality at Chemical industries education
and training authority (CHIETA) using SERVQUAL, outcome and interactive quality
from hierarchal service quality model (HSQM), image and overall service. A
quantitative method using a questionnaire was employed. There were 42 completed
responses that were evaluated from the potentially 105 organisations from the CHIETA
database.
This study showed the following key outcomes, which were in line with the formulated
hypothesis formulated for the study, namely:
 Firstly, this study has shown that the above-mentioned can effectively measure
the service quality and can afford the management of the organization to
complement the staff or the highlighted areas of improvement.
 Secondly, the finding showed that outcome quality and service process quality
positively influence the overall service quality at the CHEITA. Findings show
the areas of improvement like the error in the record and friendliness in the areas
of compliment
 Thirdly, the image of CHIETA in the industry is at an acceptable level but it can
be improvement, there are pockets of excellence from certain sectors, but there
are also areas of concern in other spheres
 Lastly, the overall service at the CHIETA is split between three pockets, only
33% is certain, the other third is indifferent and the last 33% does not agree that
the overall service is simpler, effective and efficient.
Based on the outcomes which can be regarded as the baseline assessment, the
managerial implications and recommendations include establishing the minimum
acceptable levels of service quality at CHIETA, put action plans with target dates for
deficiencies to ensure effective corrective actions and benchmarking for continuous
improvement within world class similar industries with mature service quality agenda.
This study is classified as being successful because of effective use of the service quality
approaches.
Keywords: Service quality, CHIETA, skills development

3. 1. Introduction
The shortage of skilled labour in South Africa is one of the most challenging socio-
economic issues which require urgent attention. The skills development challenges that
South Africa is faced with are very complex and span across numerous industries and
skills levels (Deloitte, 2013). The South African Government continues to be committed
to economic development and productivity improvement in the country, however, the
key enabler for success in this quest is skills availability, and this remains difficult in
light of the already mentioned country’s skills shortage. In fact the above-mentioned
skills challenges, seriously threatens the economic growth prospects, employment
creation and effective global participation of the country (Rogerson, C.M., & Rogerson,
J.M. 2002). To this end, industry specific Sector Education and Training Authorities
(SETAs) were set up by the Government of South Africa as mechanism to attain long
term human capital development in support of long term economic growth.
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses
Many researchers have given differing opinions on the issue of service quality
dimension. Having taken into account of all their views, there seems to be some kind of
unanimity that, ultimately, service quality is multi-dimension. On this topic, there seems
to have existed two broad schools of thought on service quality, namely, the European
and the US views of service quality. Brady et al (2001) made a huge attempt to reconcile
these two views. In terms of the European school of thought, consumers judge the
quality of services on two comprehensive aspects (Pollack, 2009). :
 Service outcome quality also known as the technical quality
 Service process quality also known as the functional quality
Pollack, (2000) explained technical quality as follows: how well the core service meets
the customer’s expectations and functional quality: as the impact of the interaction
process or how the service production and delivery process itself is perceived (Grönroos,
1984). Although the core service is the primary motivating factor for contracting with
the service providers, (e.g. training providers, because they want to get accreditation to
make sure the training they provide is of the highest standard). Research suggests that
both facets influence the perceived service quality and loyalty behaviours (Richard, M.D
& Allaway, A.W, 1993).

4. In the case of the CHIETA, this process may result in providers registering with other
SETAs and only receive a memorandum of agreement with the CHIETA if the service is
perceived as bad.
On the one end, the US school of thinking, as articulated by Pollack (2009) highlights
that, service quality is underpinned by dimensions, namely: reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, empathy, and tangibles – refer to by Parasuraman et al. (1988).
Parasuraman et al. (1988) explained this dimensions as follows:
 Reliability is referred to as the ability to carry out the guaranteed service reliably and
accurately,
 Responsiveness is referred to as the preparedness to help customers and deliver
speedy service,
 Assurance is referred to as the employees’ understanding and courteousness, their
ability to encourage trust and confidence.
 Empathy is referred to as, providing considerate, bespoke attention to customers and,
 Tangibles are referred to as the exterior of physical facilities, equipment, personnel,
and written materials.
The most popular measures of the construct to date that measures service quality is the
SERVQUAL instrument. This is despite the criticism surrounding this instrument Buttle
(1996). Most researchers have claimed that SERVQUAL measures only the service
process dimensions (i.e. interaction quality). However, the perceived quality of the
service result is not considered. Analysis the author’s argument, it means the overall
model is questioned on its adequacy, hence the author further suggested that the
dimension importance depends on the service quality (Pollack, 2009).
Authors such as Babakus, E. & Boller, G.W. (1992) indicated that service quality is
intricate and multi-dimensional for certain services. In support of Babakus, E. & Boller,
G.W. (1992), Llosa et al (1998) made similar observations and indicated that the kind of
the service quality dimensions differs by service, and therefore, the question of whether
one can go beyond the two factor model suggested by the European school of thoughts
was raised. In support of the broader two-factor European model, Mels et al (1997) also
confirmed that service quality is a function of two factors, namely, technical and
functional dimensions.

5. The critique on the European model is that, it does not include the quality of the physical
service surroundings that matches to the tangibles dimension of SERVQUAL. Authors
such as Shostack (1977) indicated that service perceptions “appears to be shaped to a
large extent by the things that the consumer can comprehend with his five senses-
tangible things”. But service cannot be tangible, so reliance must be placed on
peripheral clues as much as possible, management of the physical environment should
be one of a service marketer’s highest priorities. This statement of emphasising the
physical environment was also reiterated by Bitner (1990).
Service quality dimensions, defined by several authors provided a measure of service
quality performance.
Based on the above-mentioned, the following hypothesis was formulated:
(a) Reliability, (b) responsiveness (c) assurance and (d) empathy are regarded as
important dimensions by the customers of the CHIETA on measuring the service quality.
It is hypothesised that four dimensions are important for measuring the service quality.
The fifth dimension, the tangibles, was not evaluated as it was deemed not very relevant
to the case study being evaluated, the above was confirmed through an advice during the
measuring instrument of reliability and validity exercise and these elements are included
in the delimitation of the study.
H1
The service outcome quality and service process quality both positively influence the
overall service quality at the CHIETA
Several authors believe that consumers judge the quality of services on two broad
aspects (Pollack, 2009); namely:
 service outcome quality
 service process quality
Service outcome quality also known as technical quality, refers to how well the core
service meets customers’ expectations and service process quality also known as
functional quality, refers to the impact of the interaction process or how the service

6. production and delivery process itself is perceived (Grönroos, 1984). While, the core
service is the primary motivating factor for contracting with the service provider,
research suggests that both facets influence consumers’ service quality evaluations and
loyalty behaviors (Richard, M.D & Allaway, A.W, 1993).
H2
The image and reputation of CHIETA is good in the industry.
In addition to the technical and function quality Kang et al (2004) have found that it is
important also to measure the image of the organisation during the study of the service
quality. Although, at a different level Grönsburg (1990) also brought forward the
importance of the image in the service quality. In this regard, the following hypothesis
was formulated:
H3
The overall perceived service quality as measured by the setting and encounter at the
CHIETA is good, which is effective and efficient.
Considering the overall view of hypothesis 1, 2 and 3, hypothesis 4 can be formulated as
follows:
3. Methodology
This study employed the quantitative method using a survey design. The survey method
entailed the use of questionnaires to ascertain the outcome of the study. This was done in
line with Dooley (1984)’s view that this survey design is the most used design in social
sciences.
This research is trying to ascertain the link between the variables and population. This is
done by looking at the amounts, of one or more variables of concern. A cross-sectional
survey was used to determine the perceived service quality satisfaction levels during the
interaction with CHIETA. According to Shaughnessy. J.J, & Zechmeister. E.B., (1997)
this design is the most ideal for descriptive and predictive functions, which was the
approach of this study. A detailed questionnaire was developed aimed at determining the
effects of service quality at the SETAs, using the CHIETA as a case study , twenty five
questions were used to 7 determine predictor or impact variables.

7. These questions were based on the foundations of study and literature review. It was
expected that service excellence of organisation would be associated with perceived
service quality. Reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy SERVQUAL was
tested. The tangibility was excluded based on the setting of the CHIETA and the advice
of the questionnaire testing individual.
For any study to be credible, the validity and reliability need to be assessed and
confirmed to ensure its quality. Lee W.T (1999), based on this study, four tests was
suggested to establish the quality of study suggests four tests that need to be conducted
to establish the quality of the study.
The validity of this study was evaluated as it deals with the extent to which the research
conclusions correctly represent what is really happening in the situation (Welman, et al.
2009). The extent to which a particular measure is free from both systematic and
random error indicated the validity of the measure. Construct validity is intended to
establish the correct functioning procedures for the Convergence of data collected which
will also be determined in the process to further strengthen the validity of the (Welman
et al., 2009). If a relationship between the independent and the dependent variables
exists, the question becomes whether the relationship is interpreted as being of a causal
nature or not. The term internal validity describes the degree to which changes in the
dependent variable are indeed due to the independent variable rather than inconclusive
results (Welman et al., 2009).
To ensure the content validity of the instrument, the draft questionnaire was submitted to
a selected individuals and experts to determine significance of each item. Pre-testing of
the questionnaire was done, individuals from different regions wherein administered
questionnaires were distributed to participants to comment on the clarity of the
questions. Evaluation of results was conducted.
In addition to validity, the reliability was also conducted; reliability intended to
demonstrate that the procedures of a study such as data collection process can be
repeated with the same results. This measure ensures free from accidental error
(Diamantopoulos et al, 2000) the findings of the research and relates to the
trustworthiness of the conclusions (Welman et al., 2007). The extent to which a measure
is free from random error indicated the reliability of the measure. The requirement of
generalisation relates to the reliability of the scores obtained (Welman et al., 2009).

8. 4. Results
The 4 of the 5 service quality dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
empathy and tangibles), except of the tangibles were evaluated at the CHIETA and their
summary statistics is given in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Summary statistics of service quality dimensions at CHIETA
Variable Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
n 42 42 42 42
Mean 3,05 3,02 3,31 3,12
Standard Deviation 1,06 1,14 0,92 1,15
Minimum 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
Q1 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00
Median 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00
Q3 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00
Maximum 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00
Skewness 0,16 0,06 -0,09 -0,14
Kurtosis -0,62 -0,92 -0,06 -0,63
Mode 3,00 2,00 3,00 3,00

9. Reliability
The respondents were requested to rate the reliability of the CHIETA and the results are
given in Figure 4.1 .
Figure 4.1: Findings on the reliability of CHIETA
The summary statistics as given in table 1, this distribution is clear from the mean of
3.05 and a mode of 3.0. The skewness is 0.16 with a kurtosis of -0, 62. The positive
skewness indicate that the larger frequencies are toward the low end of the variables
while the higher frequencies toward the high end. This is commonly known as the
“tale” to the right.
It was clear from these results that about 33% of the respondents believed that the
service at the CHIETA is not reliable, a further 33% is undecided as they could neither
disagree nor agree with the statement. There was only 9.5% who strongly agree with the
reliability service and further 23.8% agree with the service. This means there is a split of
33% across all three sectors, where one believed the service is unreliable, the middle one
is undecided and the last believed the service is reliable.
4.8
28.6
33.3
23.8
9.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Strongly
disagree
disagree neither
disagree or
agree
Agree Strongly agree

10. Responsiveness
The summary statistics show similarity to those of the reliability, although the mode
dropped from 3 to 2, and kurtosis is more negative at -0.92 (table 1). Figure 4.2 give the
pictorial findings of the perceived service quality at the CHIETA.
Figure4.2: Finding on responsiveness of CHIETA
Almost 40% of the respondents are of the view that the CHIETA is not responsive, with
further 24% undecided about this service quality at the CHIETA. About 38% of the
respondents are satisfied with the CHIETA’s responsiveness.
Assurance
Of all the four dimensions evaluated the assurance has the highest mean at 3.31
compared to the other three and the lowest standard deviation at 0.92 (table 1). Its
skewness and kurtosis are close to 0, at -0.09 and -0.06, respectively. This flat kurtosis
value indicates platykurtic distribution which is flatter than a normal distribution with a
wide peak, the probability of extreme values is less than that of the normal distributions
and the values are wider spread around the mean.
7.1
31.0
23.8
28.6
9.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
disagree or
agree
Agree Strongly agree

11. Figure 4.3: Findings on assurance at CHIETA
The graph in figure 4.3 shows a more bias toward right, in line with the mean scored.
This means more respondents are more satisfied with the assurance at the CHIETA with
only less than 20% with outright not satisfied. At the same time there is more than 40%
respondents who are agree or strongly agree that the assurance at the CHIETA is good.
Empathy
The data in table 4.1 shows that the factor for empathy is negatively skewed, with value
of -0.14. Although, marginally small, this generally implies that the larger frequencies
are toward the high end of the variables while the smaller frequencies toward the lower
end. This is commonly known as the “tale” to the left. Kurtosis value of -0.63, which is
similar to the value of -0.62 from the reliability dimension was found.
2.4
14.3
42.9
31.0
9.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Neither
disagree or
agree
Agree Strongly
agree

12. Figure 4.4: Findings on empathy at CHIETA
Figure 4.4 shows a fairly normal distribution with high similarity with the three sectors
found in the reliability dimension. The marginal difference is that there is 38% on the
high side as opposed to 29% on the low side.
Table 4.2: Summary statistics of interactive quality at CHIETA
It can be seen in Table 4.2 that the means scores are generally high with the highest
score at 4.17 out of a possible score of 5, and the lowest score being 3.50. The highest
score at 4.17 is that the employees at the CHIETA are friendly and lowest even though it
is still higher than the service dimension at 3.5 is that the CHIETA employees respond
quickly to our organisational needs. The data in this table shows that virtually all the
factors are negatively skewed. This generally implies that the larger frequencies are
toward the high end of the variables while the smaller frequencies toward the lower end.
This is commonly known as the “tale” to the left.
9.5
19.0
33.3
26.2
11.9
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neither
disagree or
agree
Agree Strongly
agree
Variable
Overall, the
quality of
interactions
with CHIETA is
excellent:
The quality of my
organisation's
interactions with
the employees at
CHIETA is
excellent:
Employees of
CHIETA are
friendly:
CHIETA
employees’
attitudes
demonstrate
their
willingness
to help:
CHIETA
employees’
attitudes show that
they understand
our organisational
needs:
CHIETA
takes actions
to address
our
organisation
al needs:
CHIETA
employees
respond
quickly to
our
organisation
al needs:
The behavior
of the
employees
indicates
that they
understand
our
CHIETA
employees
know their
jobs:
CHIETA
employees
are able to
answer
questions
quickly:
CHIETA
employees
understand
that our
organisation
relies on their
knowledge to
n 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Mean 4,17 4,07 4,31 4,07 3,69 3,62 3,50 3,67 3,93 3,88 3,79
Standard
Deviation 1,27 1,28 0,87 1,26 1,41 1,51 1,37 1,28 1,11 1,23 1,30
Minimum 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00
Q1 3,25 3,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00
Median 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00
Q3 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00
Maximum 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00
Skewness -1,16 -1,10 -0,90 -1,30 -0,58 -0,64 -0,27 -0,28 -0,52 -0,66 -0,49
Kurtosis -0,24 -0,10 -0,40 1,20 -0,83 -0,88 -1,29 -1,39 -1,15 -0,91 -1,29
Mode 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00

13. Quality Outcome.
Table 4.3: Summary statistics of outcome quality at CHIETA
Summing up, it is clear in this study that the SERVQUAL gives a view of service
quality at the CHIETA, at the same time the interactive quality and outcome quality give
more detail of the areas of complement and areas of improvements required. For
example the errors in the records, is a big area of improvement and the service with a
“smile” that is being friendly is an area of big complement which will make people to
want come back again. Although, not very obvious some of the mentioned shortcoming
of SERVQUAL mentioned by Buttler (1996) and discussed in chapter 3 are partly
showing in these findings.
Variable
Our
organisation
always has
an excellent
experience:
The waiting
time for
service or
enquiry is
predictable
and
reasonable:
CHIETA's
records are
error free
and up to
date:
CHIETA
understands
the impact
that time
delays has on
our
organisation:
CHIETA
provides
superior
service:
CHIETA's core
service meets
the
customer's
expectations:
The delivery
process of
the service
by CHIETA is
excellent:
n 42 42 42 42 42 42 42
Mean 3,45 3,31 2,81 3,26 3,21 3,52 3,31
Standard
Deviation 1,29 1,46 1,27 1,36 1,30 1,44 1,44
Minimum 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00
Q1 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00
Median 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 4,00 3,00
Q3 5,00 5,00 3,00 5,00 4,75 5,00 5,00
Maximum 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00
Skewness 0,00 -0,22 0,45 0,11 0,14 -0,39 -0,16
Kurtosis -1,50 -1,04 -0,69 -1,36 -1,15 -1,00 -1,08
Mode 5,00 5,00 2,00 5,00 3,00 5,00 5,00

14. REFERENCING
1. Babakus, E. & Boller, G.W. 1992, “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL
scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.
2. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical
surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.
3. Brady, M. & Robertson, C. (2001), “Searching for consensus on the antecedent
role of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
4. Buttle & Francis (1996). Review, Critique, Research Agenda [Electronic Version].
European Journal of Marketing; 1996; Vol. 30; No.l; pg. 8 – 32
5. Deloitte. 2013. Skills development – developing people for the future of business.
6. Department of Higher Education & Training, Republic of South African, 2011,
Framework for National Skills Development Strategy 2011/12 – 2015/16, pg11-
12, Pretoria
7. Department of Labour, Republic of South African, 2005, National Skills
Development Strategy 1 April 2005 – 31 march 2010, pg4-16, Pretoria
8. Diamantopoulos A, & Siguaw J., Introducing LISREL (SAGE, London, 2000)
9. Dooley, D. 1984 Social Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Grönroos, C., 1984, “A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications”,
European Journal of Marketing, volume 18, NC 4, pg38-40, Swedish School of
Economics, Finland
11. Kang, Gi-Du; & James, Jeffrey, 2004. Service Quality Dimensions: An
Examinationof Gronroos's Service Quality Models. Managing Service Quality;
pg. 266.
12. Kang; Gi-Du; James, Jeffrey; & Alexandris, Kostas (2004). Measurement of
Internal Service Quality: Application of the SERVQUAL Battery to Internal
Service Quality Managing Service Quality; 2002; Vol. 12, 5; pg. 278 - 291.

15. 13. Lee, M.C. & Hwan, I.S. (2005). “Relationships among Service Quality, Customer
Satisfaction and Profitability in the Taiwanese Banking Industry”. International
Journal of Management; pg. 635.
14. Llosa, S., Chandon, J. & Orsingher, C., 1998, “An empirical study of ServQual
Dimensionality”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 16-44.
15. M.K. Brady & C.J. Robertson., 2001, Searching for a consensus on the
antecedent role of service quality and customer satisfaction: An Explanatory
Cross-national Study, journal of business Research volume 51 (1) pg53-60
16. Mels, G., Boshoff, C., & Nel, D., 1997. “The dimensions of service quality”: The
original European perspective revisited. Service Industries Journal, 17, 173-189.
17. Parasuraman, A., 2010, “Service Production, Quality and Innovation”, Emerald,
International Journal of Quality and Service Science Volume 2 No.3, pg277-284,
from www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm
18. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L., 1988, ‘’SERVEQUAL: a
multiple item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality
“Journal of retailing, Vol. 64. No 1, pg.12-37
19. Parasuraman, A., Valerie A., Zeithaml A.V. & Berry, L.L., 1985, “A conceptual
model of service quality and its implications for future research”, Journal for
Marketing vol.49, pg45-46
20. Pollack, B. L., 2009. “Linking the hierarchical service quality model to customer
satisfaction and loyalty”. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(1), 42-50.
21. Port, J., “Understanding Variation” Analysing Cause to Implement Corrective
Action pg64, viewed: 1 August 2013 from www.qualityprogress.com
22. Rogerson, C.M., & Rogerson, J.M. 2002. Dealing in scarce skills: Employer
responses to the brain drain. In D.A. McDonald and J Crush (Ed.), Losing our
minds: skills migration and the South African brain drain. African century
publications no 5. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa and Southern African
Migration Project.
23. Richard, M.D & Allaway, A.W, 1993, “Service Quality Attributes and Choices
Behavior” Journal of Services Marketing Vol 7. No1pg59-68.

16. 24. Shostack, L.G. 1977, “Breaking free form product marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41, April, pp. 73-80
25. Welman, K & Mitchell (2007) Research Methodology 3rd Ed., Oxford University
Press, Cape Town
About the Author
Ivy Motsatsi Msomi is an MBL student at the University of South Africa (UNISA),
Midrand, South Africa. Her research interests include investigation of the service
quality at Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) using
SERVQUAL, outcome and interactive quality from hierarchal service quality model
(HSQM), image and overall services. She received an Honours Degree in Educational
Leadership and Management from the University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park,
South Africa. She is experienced in the service quality arena, as she worked as the
Safety Health and Environmental Rep at Sasol Synfuels, and Quality Management
Systems Specialist/Manager at the Chemical Industries and Education Authority.