Introduction to TechSoup’s Digital Marketing Services and Use Cases
Analysis of Accommodation Facility Service Quality Aspects and Students’ Satisfactory Level
1. Analysis of Accommodation
Facility Service Quality Aspects
and Students’ Satisfactory Level
Navodi Gimhani Peiris 120457
Tharindu Chathuranga Dodanwala 120339
Roman Man Shrestha 120294
Nischaya Sedai 120459
Samrakshya Karki 120322
3. Background
• Facilities defines organizations quality towards both employees
and customers
FACILITIES
Physical Facilities Services
3
4. Problem Statement
• Presence of the support services are essential towards the realization
of core activities
• Universities in the Asian region tend to care less about the
accommodation facility services
1. Identify the factors affecting accommodation service quality in AIT
2. Analyze a relationship between student satisfaction and
accommodation service quality factors
Objective of the Study
4
5. Scope and Limitations
1. The interviews and data collection are done in Asian
Institute of Technology, Thailand.
2. Only students from AIT have been considered for the
study.
3. The study is limited only for accommodation facilities.
5
7. Introduction
• Facility management services in universities are crucial to upkeep the
quality of the university.
• In 1999, Reeves stated that facility management industry as one of the
fastest growing sectors in the final decade of the last millennium.
Facility Management
• It is the organization's facility management and maintenance process.
• Facilities include office complexes, physical resources of the company or
the site and other mechanical and electrical services that may result in
health or safety hazards to employees.
• The facility management team must ensure functionality of all facilities of
the organization and observe occupational health and safety regulations.
7
8. Facilities in Universities
• A university, like any other organization, is trying to improve
efficiency against increase in operating costs and user search
expectations (Varcoe, 1995)
• Private university have a greater range of different types of buildings
with more varied operational needs like most other organizations.
• The facility management services in universities are divided into four
categories.
1. Education facility management services.
2. Administration facility management services.
3. Accommodation facility management services.
4. Communal facility management services.
8
9. Accommodation Facility Management
Services
• Accommodation management is typically associated with the
hotel and related sectors.
• Where some form of semi-private space is effectively rented
from a vendor, by a guest/customer for a defined period.
9
10. Customer Satisfaction Measure
• Customer satisfaction is a measure of company performances
according to customer needs (Hill, et al., 2003).
• Two basics concepts;
1. The expectations, which represent what customers expect from the service.
2. The perceptions, which represents what customers receive.
• Expectations are evaluated by the customers through the indication
of a level of importance.
• Perceptions are evaluated by a judgement of satisfaction.
• Customer satisfaction can be evaluated by collecting only customer
perceptions, or through the comparison between expectations and
perceptions (Parasuraman, et al., 1985).
10
13. Literature Review:
FM services
FM in universities
Accommodation facility management services
Customer satisfaction measures
Development of semi-
structured interview
questions
Conducting interviews Open coding
Axial coding
GroundedTheory
13
14. Construct validity Regression analysis
Pilot test Instrument reliability testing
Expert Selection Content Validity Questionnaire development
Descriptive Statistics
Questionnaire reliability
testing
Conclusion Recommendations for further studies
QuantitativeAnalysis
14
16. Grounded Theory
• The theory that was derived from data, systematically gathered
and analyzed through the research process
• The advantages of the procedure development
1. The procedure indicated the procedures and general rules to be followed as
well as research instrument that were used
2. Preparation of the procedures encouraged the researcher to anticipate several
problems and prepare the mitigation ways
3. The procedure increases the research reliability by controlling the researcher to
keep on track
16
18. Open Coding
• Breaking down the key points of text from the interviews into
unit of meaning and these units were named
• The process of constant comparative method was used when
every new data was collected
• Codes were grouped and labelled according to its properties
and dimensions
• Each label provides the meaning of all these codes in the
abstract view
18
19. Axial Coding
• The process of linking categories to subcategories at the level
of properties and dimensions
• Subcategories provide method, concept, which emerge in open
coding are grouped and linked to one another in terms of
properties and dimensions
19
21. Content Validity
• Degree to which a test or tool can measure what the research
wants to correctly measure in an intended content area
𝐶𝑉𝑅𝑖 =
𝑛 𝑒 − (
𝑁
2
)
(
𝑁
2
)
• CVR ranges from -1 to +1
• Closer to 1 means, the item is necessary
Where:
𝐶𝑉𝑅𝑖 - Content Validity Ratio (CVR) value for the ith measurement item
𝑛 𝑒 - No of experts indicating measurement item “Significant”
N - Total no of experts in the panel
21
22. Questionnaire Design and Data
Collection
• Questionnaire is the medium of communication between the
researcher and the respondents
• Close ended questions were applied
• A 5-point Likert scale was used
1- - Very Bad 2- - Bad
3- - Neutral 4- - Good
5- - Very Good
22
23. Reliability Testing
• Estimates the consistency of the measurement or the degree to
which an instrument measure the same way in each time
• Cronbach’s alpha approach is applied because it determines
how all items on a test related to all other test items and the
total test
∝=
𝑁
𝑁 − 1
(1 −
Σ 𝑆𝑖
2
𝑆 𝑇
2 )
• Acceptable criterion: alpha should be at least 0.7
Where:
N - No of items or questions in scale
Σ 𝑆𝑖
2
- Summation of variance for each team
𝑆 𝑇
2
- Variance of question
23
24. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
• Fundamental assumption: “some underlaying factors, which are
smaller number than the number of observed variables, are
responsible for the covariation among the observed variables”
𝐾𝑀𝑂 =
𝑖≠𝑗
0
Σ𝑟𝑖𝑗
2
𝑖≠𝑗
0
Σ𝑟𝑖𝑗
2
+ 𝑖≠𝑗
0
Σ𝑎𝑖𝑗
2
• KMO value should be higher than 0.5
Where:
ΣΣ - Sum overall items in the matrix when item i not equal to item j
rij - Pearson correlation between i and j
aij - Partial correlation coefficient between items i and j
24
25. Multiple Linear Regression
• Used to investigate relationship between the quality aspects of
accommodation with students’ satisfaction on accommodation
𝑌 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝑋1 + 𝛽2 𝑋2 + ⋯ + 𝛽 𝑘 𝑋 𝑘
Where:
Y - Dependent variable
𝛽 𝑘 - Coefficient
𝑋 𝑘 - Independent variable
25
26. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
4.1 Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
4.2 Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis
26
28. Open Coding
• Open coding is the analytic process through which concepts are
identified and their properties and dimensions are discovered in
data
• It is started with breaking down the key points of text from the
interviews into unit of meaning and these units were named
• No. of Experts: 10
• Experts criteria: Living in AIT dorms for more than 1 year
28
29. Open Coding (Continued)
Respondent ID Key statement Code
R1/1 Cleaning staff provide satisfactory cleaning services
Attitude and professionalism of cleaning
staff
R1/2 Maintenance staff work fast
Attitude and professionalism of
maintenance staff
R1/3 I don’t like the bathroom quality Bathroom fittings
R1/4 They should extend the time on their cashier till 4:30 Payment process for the dorm room
R1/5 I’m fine by my room Overall, I am satisfied with my room
R2/1
It’s hard to explain something to the cleaning staff and get the
cleaning done
Communication skills of the cleaning staff
R2/2 Cleaning staff doesn’t clean properly
Attitude and professionalism of cleaning
staff
R2/3
The big lady in the administrative staff is rude and is not acting the
way of a professional
Attitude and professionalism of
administrative staff
R2/4 I Find administrative staffs very polite I get along with administrative staff
R2/5 We cannot complain our needs on weekends Weekend holiday policies
R2/6
Lights in the corridors are not enough and some lights are not
working.
Lights in dorm corridors
R2/7 Once a week cleaning is not enough Cleaning process in the dorm unit 29
30. Respondent ID Key statement Code
R2/8 Sometimes, I don’t feel secure in my room sometimes Dorm security
R3/1 Cleaning staff is fast and good
Attitude and professionalism of cleaning
staff
R3/2
Maintenance staff is knowledgeable at what they do (AIT send them
according to the need)
Attitude and professionalism of
maintenance staff
R3/3
Maintenance staff has reasonable English knowledge compared to
cleaning staff
Communication skills of the maintenance
staff
R3/4 Administrative staff is cooperative
Attitude and professionalism of
administrative staff
R3/5 The room size is enough for one person Room size
R3/6 Have decent number of windows Room ventilation
R3/7 Strict towards pet adoption Pet rules
R3/8 I like my room Overall, I am satisfied with my room
R3/9 I prefer the view from balcony Dorm surrounding landscape
R3/10 Deep cleaning should be done more frequently Cleaning process in the dorm unit
R4/1 Cleaning staff is good
Attitude and professionalism of cleaning
staff
Open Coding (Continued)
30
31. Respondent ID Key statement Code
R4/2 Maintenance staff is good
Attitude and professionalism of
maintenance staff
R4/3 Administrative staff is good
Attitude and professionalism of
administrative staff
R4/4 Dorm exterior look old Dorm exterior condition
R4/5 The room is good and filled with decent amount of stuff. Room furniture
R4/6 The room size is spacious. Room Size
R5/1 They are polite and trustworthy.
Attitude and professionalism of cleaning
staff
R5/2 I think its small and suffocating. Room size
R5/3 The bathroom fittings are old and rusty. Bathroom Fitting
R5/4 They are very strict and give unnecessary trouble to student. Unnecessary rules and regulation.
R5/5 it is very slow and time consuming in terms of maintenance. Maintenance process of the dorm unit.
R5/6 I like my room. Overall Satisfaction of the room.
R6/1 Accommodation staffs are polite.
Attitude and professionalism of
administrative staffs.
Open Coding (Continued)
31
32. Respondent ID Key statement Code
R6/2 I think there are less furniture then the student needs. Room Furniture.
R6/3 There must be online payment system Payment process for the dorm.
R6/4 I am satisfied Over all I am satisfied with my room.
R6/5 I like chilling in my room. Like to stay in the room.
R7/1 It’s difficult to communicate with the cleaning staffs
Communication skills of the cleaning
staffs.
R7/2
There is always delay in maintenance due to difficulty in
communication.
Communication skills of maintenances
staffs.
R7/3 I feel the lighting is not sufficient. Lights in dorm corridors.
R7/4 There is not enough air flow in my room. Room Ventilation
R7/5
I think the rules and regulation are for the students and they are
working well.
I am satisfied with the service.
R7/6 I think the payment process is time consuming. Payment process for the dorm room
R8/1 I think the administrative staffs are cordial and friendly.
Attitude and professionalism of
administrative staffs.
R8/2 I like to spend quality time in the dorm. Overall, I am satisfied with my room.
Open Coding (Continued)
32
33. Respondent ID Key statement Code
R8/3 I think the CC cameras are not working in my Dorm. I don’t feel secured in my room.
R8/4 I think deep cleaning should be done more often. Cleaning process in the dorm
R8/5 It is very difficult and time consuming to change my room. Room Changing process.
R8/6 Dorm surrounding is not cleaned most of the time. Cleaning process around the dorms
R9/1 It is difficult to talk to the cleaning staffs. Communication skill of cleaning staffs.
R9/2 There is a threat of snakes and bats in the balcony. Dorm Surrounding landscape.
R9/3 I am comfortable and like to spend rest of my time in my room.
I would like to spend rest of my time I AIT
in my current Room.
R9/4 There is no provision for living together with boyfriend. No Provision of living together in dorm.
R10/1 I like the friendly nature of administrative staffs. Communication of Administrative staffs
R10/2 I like the way the cleaning staff clean my room. Cleaning Process around the dorm.
R10/3 I am satisfied to say most part of my day in my room Overall, I am satisfied with my room.
R10/4 I don’t like the size of my room. Room size
R10/5 There should be online payment process. Payment process for the dorm.
Open Coding (Continued)
33
34. Axial Coding
Quality of the staff
Attitude and Professionalism of Cleaning staffs. R1/1, R2/2, R3/1, R4/1, R5/1
Attitude and professionalism of maintenances staff R1/2, R3/2, R4/2
Attitude and Professionalism of administrative
staffs
R2/3, R3/4, R4/3, R6/1, R8/1
Communication skills of cleaning staff R2/1, R7/1, R9/1
Communication skills of maintenance staff R3/3, R7/2
Communication skill of administrative R10/1
34
35. Dorm quality
Room size R3/5, R4/6, R5/2, R10/4
Dorm exterior condition R4/4
Room Furniture R1/3, R4/5, R6/2
Dorm Security R2/8
Bathroom fitting R5/3
Room Ventilation R3/6, R7/4
No provision of living together in the dorm R9/4
Lights in dorm Corridors R2/6, R7/3
Dorm surrounding landscape R3/9, R9/2
Axial Coding (Continued)
35
36. Quality of the working procedures
Room changing process R8/5
Pet rules R3/7
Payment Process for the dorm room R1/4, R6/3, R7/6, R10/5
Cleaning Process in the dorm Unit R2/7, R3/10, R8/4, R10/2
Unnecessary rules and regulation. R5/4
Maintenance process of the dorm unit R5/5
Weekend holiday Policy R2/5
Cleaning process around the dorms R8/6
Axial Coding (Continued)
36
37. Satisfaction
I would like to spend rest of my time in AIT in my
current room
R9/3
I don’t feel secured in my room R8/3
I am satisfied with the services, I get for the
amount I pay
R7/5
I get along with the staff R2/4
Like to stay in the room. R6/5
Overall, I am satisfied with my room R1/5, R3/8, R5/6, R6/4, R8/2, R10/3
Axial Coding (Continued)
37
39. Introduction
• This section describes the quantitate research approach that
aimed to improve the rightness of the results of the qualitative
study.
• This section begins with explaining the results of experts’
content validation
• After that, reliability of the instrument was analyzed.
• Finally, the data analysis through statistics methods were
explained.
39
40. Experts’ Content Validity Using Lawshe’s
Approach
• Sample size: 15 experts
• Critical CVR value: 0.49
Removed Factors
Item CVR value
Dorm exterior condition 0.333
Dorm Security 0.467
No provision of living together in the
dorm
-0.333
Pet rules -0.2
Unnecessary rules and regulation 0.2
Weekend holiday Policy -0.6
I don’t feel secured in my room 0.067
Like to stay in the room 0.2
40
41. Instruments’ Reliability Test
• Cronbach’s Alpha test
• Sample size: 15
• Criteria: Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.7
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha based on
standardized items
No of items
0.946 0.949 21
41
43. Questionnaires’ Internal Reliability
• Cronbach’s Alpha test
• Sample size: 124
• Criteria: Cronbach’s Alpha > 0.7
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha based on
standardized items
No of items
0.923 0.925 21
43
44. Grouping of Accommodation Facility
Services Quality Aspects
• Analysis method: Exploratory Factor Analysis
• Check 1: Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test
• Conclusion 1: Factor analysis is an appropriate technique
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy
0.829 > 0.5
Bartlett's Test of
Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 1128.671
df 136
Sig. 0.000 > 0.05
44
45. Grouping of Accommodation Facility
Services Quality Aspects (Continued)
• Check 2: Dimension creation test and parallel analysis
• Conclusion 2: Two components
Total Variance Explained
Component
Initial Eigenvalues
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
%
1 6.876 40.446 40.446 6.876 40.446 40.446
2 1.788 10.515 50.961 1.788 10.515 50.961
3 1.424 8.377 59.338 1.424 8.377 59.338
4 1.053 6.192 65.530 1.053 6.192 65.530
5 1.006 5.916 71.446 1.006 5.916 71.446
6 0.780 4.586 76.033
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Component
Mean
Eigenvalue
Percentile
Eigenvalue
1 1.691945 1.821001
2 1.537590 1.640883
3 1.426296 1.507169
4 1.334347 1.396708
5 1.251514 1.316399
45
46. Grouping of Accommodation Facility
Services Quality Aspects (Continued)
• Check 3: Communality
data test
• Criteria: Extraction >
0.4
Code Item Name Initial Extraction
A1 Attitude and professionalism of cleaning staff 1.000 0.771
A2 Attitude and professionalism of maintenance staff 1.000 0.808
A3 Attitude and professionalism of administrative staff 1.000 0.743
A4 Communication skills of the cleaning staff 1.000 0.856
A5 Communication skills of the maintenance staff 1.000 0.852
A6 Communication skills of the administrative staff 1.000 0.637
A7 Room size 1.000 0.770
A8 Room furniture 1.000 0.652
A9 Bathroom fittings 1.000 0.656
A10 Room ventilation 1.000 0.635
A11 Lights in dorm corridors 1.000 0.597
A12 Dorm surrounding landscape 1.000 0.576
A13 Room changing process 1.000 0.765
A14 Payment process for the dorm room 1.000 0.823
A15 Cleaning process in the dorm unit 1.000 0.556
A16 Maintenance process of the dorm unit 1.000 0.787
A17 Cleaning process around the dorms 1.000 0.66346
49. Relationship Between Accommodation
Facility Service Quality Aspects and Students’
Satisfaction
• Hypothesis 1
H0: There is no relationship between dorm quality and dorm related
procedures (F1), and students’ accommodation satisfaction (Y)
H1: There is a relationship between dorm quality and dorm related
procedures (F1), and students’ accommodation satisfaction (Y)
• Hypothesis 2
H0: There is no relationship between quality of the staff (F2), and
students’ accommodation satisfaction (Y)
H1: There is a relationship between quality of the staff (F2), and students’
accommodation satisfaction (Y) 49
50. Relationship Between Accommodation
Facility Service Quality Aspects And Students’
Satisfaction (Continued)
• Analysis method: Multiple
Linear Regression
• Check 1: Multi-collinearity
test
• Criteria: Correlation < 0.7
Correlations
Y F1 F2
Pearson
Correlation
Y 1.000 0.680 0.594
F1 0.680 1.000 0.613
F2 0.594 0.613 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Y 0.000 0.000
F1 0.000 0.000
F2 0.000 0.000
N
Y 124 124 124
F1 124 124 124
F2 124 124 124
50
51. Relationship Between Accommodation
Facility Service Quality Aspects And Students’
Satisfaction (Continued)
• R square: 0.512
• 51.2% of the variation in the score given for satisfaction is
explained from the model
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .716a 0.512 0.504 0.58663
a. Predictors: (Constant), F2, F1
51
52. Relationship Between Accommodation
Facility Service Quality Aspects And Students’
Satisfaction (Continued)
• ANOVA test of the model
• Regression = (Estimated
satisfaction - Actual
satisfaction)^2
• Model is strong enough to apply
for the population
Model
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F Sig.
1
Regression 43.684 2 21.842 63.469 .000b
Residual 41.640 121 0.344
Total 85.324 123
a. Dependent Variable: Y
b. Predictors: (Constant), F2, F1
52
53. Relationship Between Accommodation
Facility Service Quality Aspects And Students’
Satisfaction (Continued)
• Y = -0.089 + 0.626F1 +
0.347F2
• Student accommodation
satisfaction = -0.089 +
0.626*Dorm quality and dorm
related procedures +
0.347*Quality of the staff
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1
(Constant) -0.089 0.310 -0.289 0.773
F1 0.626 0.100 0.506 6.942 0.000
F2 0.347 0.098 0.283 3.523 0.001
a. Dependent Variable: Y
53
55. Summary
• Objective 1: Identify the factors affecting accommodation
service quality in AIT
• Quality of students’ accommodation facility services = 6.876*Dorm
quality and dorm related procedures + 1.788*Quality of the staff
• Objective 2: Analyze a relationship between student
satisfaction and accommodation service quality factors.
• Student accommodation satisfaction = -0.089 + 0.626*Dorm quality and
dorm related procedures + 0.347*Quality of the staff
55
56. Conclusions
• 79.36% of quality comes from dorm quality and dorm related
procedures (F1)
• 20.64% of the total quality is affected by quality of the staff (F2)
• If AIT wants to construct new accommodation facility services and
wants to improve the quality, they should focus on room size, room
furniture, and dorm surrounding landscape which has the highest
impact on the quality of the accommodation facility services
• In order to improve the quality of existing services, they should
improve cleaning process in the dorm units, maintenance process of
the dorm unit and cleaning process around the dorm
56
57. Conclusions (Continued)
• Dorm quality and dorm related procedures (F1) has 64.34% of
weight on satisfaction
• Quality of the staff (F2) accounts for 35.66% of the satisfaction
• If, AIT wants to improve the satisfactory levels from available dorm
facilities, they should improve the cleaning process in the dorm unit,
maintenance process of the dorm unit and cleaning process around
the dorm.
• It is important to improve the attitude and professionalism of the staff
by conducting training programs to develop the character
• When hiring staff give more priority to English communication skill
57
58. Recommendations
• It is recommended to do a comparison between
accommodation facilities in AIT and of a university in a
developed country
• It is recommended to do a study on all the facilities in AIT and
how each of them affects the students’ satisfaction level
• Finally, it is recommended to do a confirmatory factor analysis
on this research with a different sample
58
