Albu a. ivan p. crebus bucuresti 2012

369 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
369
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Albu a. ivan p. crebus bucuresti 2012

  1. 1. INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES FORASSESSING THE CUSTOMERSATISFACTION, ADAPTED FROMBUSINESS AREA TO UNIVERSITYMANAGEMENT Ass. Prof. PhD Angela ALBU PhD student Paul IVAN “Stefan cel Mare” University, Suceava ROMANIA
  2. 2. • The high education system has a crucial importance for the professional training of the all types of specialists in every country.• It gives the opportunity to put into practice the concept of Long Life Learning.• The high education is a particular class of service with very specific features.• For assessing the quality of the high education services it is necessary the feed-back with the opinion of the clients (students).
  3. 3. The SERVQUAL model
  4. 4. • For assessing the difference between expectations and perceptions the model uses a double questionnaire with different statements about quality• The final result – the quality of the service – is given by the average score of every quality dimension.
  5. 5. The adaptation of the SERVQUALmodel for high education services First stage of the Second stage of the research research•The questionnaire in •Modified questionnairethe form proposed by •15 statementsParasuraman •3 dimensions of the•19 statements quality (tangibility,•5 dimensions of the reliability and empathy)quality (tangibility,reliability, solicitude,safety, empathy).
  6. 6. • The changes we proposed at the SERVQUAL questionnaire are based on: • The questionnaire is dynamic and can be adapted at any type of service • Some affirmations are redundant
  7. 7. The assessment of the quality of educationservices provided by the FEPA• The research was developed at the Faculty of Economic and Public Administration (FEPA)• 1114 students, bachelor level of study, from all study programs and all years of study• 431 students from the first year of study• The poll had an error of ± 2.996% and 95.45% probability
  8. 8. The new form at the questionnaire EXPECTATIONS AFFIRMATIONS PERCEPTIONS1. 1 2 3 4 5 The FEPA* has modern facilities and equipment 1 2 3 4 52. 1 2 3 4 5 The equipment of the faculty are maintained in good conditions 1 2 3 4 5 The professors and employees from FEPA present themselves (clothes, cleanliness, etc.) in an appropriate3. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 manner for their position The materials associated with education service provided by FEPA (as printed matters, journals) have good4. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 visual appearance and are updated5. 1 2 3 4 5 FEPA provides students the conditions for carrying out various extracurricular activities 1 2 3 4 56. 1 2 3 4 5 The activities conducted at FEPA respect the deadlines 1 2 3 4 57. 1 2 3 4 5 Performance of staff working in the FEPA reflects a high level of knowledge and skills 1 2 3 4 5 The faculty provides the education services in a right manner, according with academic standards, from the8. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 beginning and will persist in doing it without error Specific documentation of the educational process (catalogs, statements, books) are prepared properly and the9. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 records are clear, correct10. 1 2 3 4 5 Evaluation system applied by the professors of FEPA is fair and impartial 1 2 3 4 511. 1 2 3 4 5 The professors and employees of the FEPA always show good will in helping. 1 2 3 4 512. 1 2 3 4 5 The behavior of employees and professors inspire confidence 1 2 3 4 513. 1 2 3 4 5 FEPA has a schedule convenient for all the students 1 2 3 4 514. 1 2 3 4 5 The professors and employees are providing individual attention to each student 1 2 3 4 515. 1 2 3 4 5 FEPA understands the specific needs of its student 1 2 3 4 5
  9. 9. The results of the research with SERVQUAL model – Second phase – General results Expectations PerceptionsAffirmation 1 2 3 4 5 Weighted average 1 2 3 4 5 Weighted average Differences 1 0 104 223 431 356 3.9325 0 15 149 609 342 4.1457 2 0 149 163 386 416 3.9591 0 0 163 579 371 4.1857 3 0 74 74 460 505 4.2524 0 30 74 535 475 4.3057 4 15 74 134 327 564 4.2124 15 45 297 446 312 3.8925 5 15 30 282 342 446 4.0524 45 163 327 371 208 3.4792 Arithmetic average 4.0818 Arithmetic average 4.0018 -0.0800 6 0 45 149 401 520 4.2524 15 15 282 386 416 4.0524 7 0 15 149 327 624 4.3990 0 30 163 446 475 4.2257 8 15 45 134 431 490 4.1991 15 89 208 490 312 3.8925 9 0 30 74 252 757 4.5590 30 45 134 401 505 4.1724 10 0 15 149 312 639 4.4123 15 104 371 386 238 3.6525 Arithmetic average 4.3644 Arithmetic average 3.9991 -0.3653 11 15 30 134 327 609 4.3324 0 89 208 371 446 4.0524 12 0 74 104 327 609 4.3190 0 45 163 520 386 4.1191 13 0 30 149 327 609 4.3590 45 59 282 475 252 3.7458 14 0 30 208 327 549 4.2524 89 119 312 431 163 3.4126 15 0 74 89 475 475 4.2124 59 89 386 431 149 3.4659 Arithmetic average 4.2950 Arithmetic average 3.7592 -0.5359
  10. 10. Tangibility (questions 1 – 5); the calculated difference betweenexpectation and perceptions has the overall value of -0.0800.•A result close to zero indicates a fairly stable balance betweenexpectations and perceptions, which means that studentsexpectations were confirmed with some very small exceptions.•Also, it can be seen that at three of the five statements theaverage of the perceptions was higher than the average of theexpectations.•This result again suggests that potential candidates do not knowthe facilities and equipment available at the faculty and werepleasantly surprised in contact with them.•Negative results were obtained especially at the affirmationsabout the quality of FEPA written materials and conductingvarious extracurricular activities.
  11. 11. Safety (the affirmation from 6 to 10);•the overall result was negative - 0.3653•all intermediate averages were negative.•this results has to be serious analyzed because the safetydimension involves very important aspects of therelationship student (client) - faculty (service provider) suchas meeting deadlines and commitments, the level of staffknowledge and skills, accuracy of implementation ofdidactic process and, last but not least, evaluation andassessment system of the professional results of thestudents.
  12. 12. Empathy with the last 5 statements•also a negative general difference -0.5359•this means that the faculty didn’t understand yet thespecific needs of all its students, there are still situationwhen the students are considered a mass and are nottreated as individual entity•this information are very important both for the staff of thefaculty and for the professors and other employees,because in the future it is necessary to find a better mannerto collaborate and work with the students, to find the way togive everyone the due attention.
  13. 13. The research has a final part regarding only thestudents form the first year of study
  14. 14. • This result is probably due to the fact that students have not yet used / received all facilities of the faculty (that are in the first year undergraduate).• But negative results can be viewed from the perspective of diversification needs, increasing labor market requirements that require the curriculum to be more adapted to real economic environment.
  15. 15. CONCLUSIONS• The results of this study are important because the difference between expectations and perceptions is a real feedback for the service providing process;• Also, the results offer the image of the faculty in the minds of our students or of potential candidates.• The research can be extended at university level and used as a tool to improve the quality of the education services.
  16. 16. • The research is important because is for the first time when the SERVQUAL model is applied for the assessment of the quality of the high education services in a Romania university.• The questionnaire presented in this research is also unique, being an original adaptation of the method for local education system.

×