assessing international

7/30/2019 Assessing International

1/23

Assessing international touristsperceptions of service quality at

Air MauritiusGirish Prayag

Department of Management, Faculty of Law and Management,University of Mauritius, Reduit, Mauritius

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this paper is to assess the service quality of a small airline, Air Mauritius,using the SERVQUAL model and to determine the relative importance attributed to service qualitydimensions by international tourists.

Design/methodology/approach A sample of 140 international airline passengers travelling

essentially for a leisure trip was administered the SERVQUAL instrument to determine theirexpectations and perceptions of service. A combination of in-flight and mail surveys was used for datacollection leading to an overall response rate of 20.2 per cent.

Findings The paper finds that service quality structural dimensions are context- andculture-specific. Four factors are perceived as influencing perceptions of service, service efficiencyand affect being the most important, service personalisation, reliability and tangibles the leastimportant. Empathy as a service dimension is valued more than assurance. Customer satisfaction andwillingness to recommend the airline is primarily dependent on service efficiency and affect.

Research limitations/implications The sample size is relatively small and biased towardsSouth African passengers, but the study is exploratory in nature. The starting-point for serviceimprovements at Air Mauritius is better management of service reliability. The company is able tocreate high perceptions of service using tangible cues.

Practical implications The generation of a vision of excellence supported by contact employees

empowerment should improve perceptions of service. There is potentially a link between expectationsof service levels at destination and tourists expectations from the flag carrier.

Originality/value Often smaller airline companies have to resort to strategic alliances and servicedifferentiation to survive in this globally integrated industry. The paper fulfils the gap in the existingliterature on service quality management in small airlines.

Keywords Customer services quality, Perception, Airlines, SERVQUAL, Customer satisfaction,Mauritius

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionMauritius has emerged as one of the best performing tourist destination in Africa overthe last ten years. The country has registered a growth of 82 per cent in tourist arrivalsover the period 1993 to 2002. Gross receipts from tourism amounted to approximatelyUS$655 million and 681, 648 tourists arrivals were recorded during the year 2002(Ministry of Tourism and Leisure, Mauritius, 2002). The profile of international visitorshas also changed with the targeting of new markets such as India, China, Russia andEastern European Countries. Traditionally, Mauritius has relied on France, ReunionIsland and UK as principal tourist generating markets. The success of the tourismindustry can be attributed to the strong and ongoing partnership of the local airline,Air Mauritius (MK), with its partners Air France, British Airways and more recently

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

IJQRM24,5

492

International Journal of Quality &Reliability ManagementVol. 24 No. 5, 2007pp. 492-514q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0265-671XDOI 10.1108/02656710710748367
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm


2/23

Emirates (MK (Air Mauritius), 2004). Being a small island economy, the governmenthas strongly supported the growth of Air Mauritius to enable the tourism industry toflourish. The flag carrier has reinforced the upmarket image of the destination over theyears.

MK has its early beginning in the 1930s and, like any other national carrier, thegrowth of the airline was dependent on government support and funding. Today,the airline flies 25 destinations around the world with a work force of around 2,600staff worldwide serving the various on and off-line offices. The number ofpassengers flying Air Mauritius worldwide was approximately 850, 000 for thefinancial year 2002/2003 and an increase of 1.7 per cent was noted for the financialyear 2003/2004 (MK (Air Mauritius), 2004). The limited open sky policy and nocharter flights of the government has enabled Air Mauritius to survive and growsuccessfully over the years. More recently, the pressure from the private sector toincrease tourist arrivals in order to sustain growth of the tourism industry, has ledthe government to consider gradually implementing an open sky policy. In thisrespect, the local airline has to improve its service levels to remain competitivevis-a-vis the looming competition.

The company is in the process of reviewing its service strategy to increase customersatisfaction. The airline has a strong commitment to service excellence as it acts as anambassador for the country and reveals the image of its people for tourism purposes.However, intensifying competition between large and small airlines on the global sceneimplies not just the opportunity for airline companies to grow and succeed but also tofail and go out of business. The principal trends driving this sector are privatisation,globalisation, liberalisation and cooperation (Wirtz and Johnston, 2003; Chan, 2000a;Driver, 1999; Chidambaram, 1999) that have in essence redefined the role of smallerairlines. Thus the potential threat for smaller airline companies to be taken over bymega-carriers is omnipresent. The pace and extent to which small airlines have to be

innovative in their service approach are unquestionable. As such, the long-termsurvival of companies in this globally integrated industry is dependent on the qualityof service they provide.

While mega carriers are using strategic alliances as an effective way to competeinternationally and provide higher levels of service to customers, smaller airlinescannot always resort to such measures for lack of funding. The consensus in theindustry seems to be that both competition and collaboration will soon be inevitable inall parts of the world to enhance service (Chan, 2000a; Hanlon, 2003). Smaller airlineshave to resort to strategic alliances with mega carriers to survive. Their role has beenthe provision of efficient feeder or secondary services for powerful consortia oralliances that in a way may dictate their future. Air Mauritius has been no different asit entered into a code share agreement with Air France in 1998 and Austrian Airlines in

2004. The company has also increased its number of flights to destinations such asAustralia, South Africa, UK, India and Madagascar (MK (Air Mauritius), 2004) in orderto sustain growth despite difficult economic conditions in this global industry.

Success for such smaller airlines has been through service differentiation and airlinepositioning. Service quality has become a centrepiece of their corporate and marketingstrategy. Already many mega carriers have pushed the boundaries of service quality toits limit through service personalisation, quality meals, greater variety of in-flightentertainment, modern aircraft, and frequent flyer programmes amongst others (Zaid,

Perceptions ofservice quality

493


3/23

1994; Sultan and Simpson, 2000; Wirtz and Johnston, 2003). Singapore Airlines, forexample, has created a strong image and reputation for its in-flight service excellencethrough substantial investment in staff training and development (Wirtz and Johnston,2003). Yet, other carriers such as Southwest Airlines and Easy Jet offer limited in-flight

service but have been equally successful in the market place. In light of such differentservice management strategies employed in the airline industry, small andmedium-sized carriers have two options for their survival and future growth, eitherto pursue a strategy of service excellence or lower cost better known as a no-frillsstrategy (Johnson and Scholes, 1999). Air Mauritius has decided to restructure around aservice excellence strategy.

The airline has consistently received numerous awards over the years for its serviceexcellence, for example, it was awarded African Airline of the Year in 2002 at theAfrican Aviation Award, Gold Award for Excellence and Business Prestige at theQuality Summit in New York in July 2003, National Excellence Award for tourism inMarch 2004 and the Travel Oscar 2003 by Verkehrsburo, the largest Austrian travelagency chain. The latter rates carriers according to customer satisfaction,

in-flight-service, on-time performance, value for money, complaint management andagency support. Thus, such awards provide an indication that the airline offerscomparatively good service on its European routes and its commitment to enhancingservice quality is evident. However, perceptions of high service levels vary fromcustomer to customer and from country to country (Sultan and Simpson, 2000). Theinfluence of culture on expectations and perceptions of service quality cannot beunderestimated. A few authors (Calvert, 2000; Herbig and Genestre, 1996; Ling et al.,2005; Winsted, 1997; Sultan and Simpson, 2000) have found that national cultureexercises a major influence on service quality, satisfaction levels and repurchaseintentions.

The purpose of this exploratory study is to determine whether customersexpectations are being met or exceeded. It provides an insight of international touristsperceptions of the service level provided by Air Mauritius. It serves as a diagnostic toolfor the airline company. The SERVQUAL model developed by Parasuraman et al.(1985) is used to measure service quality and assess the level of importance thatpassengers attach to the various SERVQUAL dimensions. Therefore, the objectives ofthis study are threefold:

(1) To measure customers expectations and perceptions of service quality basedon the SERVQUAL model.

(2) To determine customers assessment of the relative importance of the fiveservice quality dimensions of SERVQUAL.

(3) To determine any specific dimensions of service quality which has the greatestinfluence on tourists overall satisfaction levels and willingness to recommendthe airline to others.

In addressing these objectives, a concise synthesis of the extant literature on thesubject is discussed below.

Service qualityAs a concept, service quality has received much attention in the literature because of itssustainability as a source of competitive advantage. Service quality has been defined in

IJQRM24,5

494


4/23

different ways by researchers. Kasper et al. (1999) define service quality as the extentto which the service, the service process and the service organisation can satisfy theexpectations of the user. Parasuraman et al. (1988) define service quality as a functionof the difference between service expected and customers perceptions of the actual

service delivered. Gronroos (1978) suggests that service quality is made of twocomponents technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality refers towhat the service provider delivers during the service provision while functional qualityis how the service employee provides the service. In the services marketing literature,the quality construct can be summarised as providing customer value (Feigenbaum,1951), conformance to requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for use (Juran et al., 1974)and meeting customers expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Service quality istherefore an enduring construct that encompasses quality performance in all activitiesundertaken by management and employees. Customers are the sole judges of servicequality. If they perceive it to be bad service, then it is. They assess service quality bycomparing what they want or expect with what they perceive they are getting.

Few airlines have been able over the years to establish a reputation of high servicequality. This is because of rapid changes in the industry both in terms of changingneeds of customers and definitions of what constitutes the industry itself (Rhoadeset al., 1998). Singapore Airlines (SIA), British Airways (BA) and American Airlines(AA) are among the few airlines that have successfully positioned themselves globallyas offering excellent service quality (Chan, 2000b). Delivering consistent servicequality is difficult for both large and small airline companies. Mega carriers and smallairlines are working together rather than competing with one another to maintain andenhance quality standards. Forms of cooperation include sub contracting, codesharing, franchising and the formation of global marketing networks. Such alliancesallow firms to focus on their respective core competencies, while drawing the benefitsof scale economies (Dana and Vignali, 1999). Firms enter alliances for competitive

reasons, for example Air Mauritius and Air Seychelles have a code share agreement onthe UK route. Such an agreement between the two partnering airlines helps to increaseflight availability and to increase yield from passengers. However, such an alliance isdependent on both airlines offering similar service levels and having similar marketpositioning for its success. Image of the two cooperating airlines has to be consistent toavoid negative perceptions of service levels. As rightly pointed by Wirtz and Johnston(2003), customers adjust their expectations according to brand image of the airlinecompany.

Service quality contributes significantly towards service differentiation, positioningand branding. SIA and BA have long been widely acknowledged within the airlineindustry as the industrys strategic benchmark airlines, as well as the industry leadersand innovators of service branding as a source of strategic competitive advantage

(Chan, 2000a). Companies that search for the most effective ways to incorporate thebest service methods and processes tend to be winners in the long term in terms offavourable customer perceptions. Such companies excel in relation to their competitorsand are able to build a solid foundation for customer loyalty based on segmentedservice. Service, both poor and outstanding, has a strong emotional impact on thecustomer, creating intense feelings about the organisation, its staff and its service, andinfluencing the loyalty to it (Wirtz and Johnston, 2003). Several authors have shownempirically that there is a positive link between customer service improvements and


495


5/23

customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and profitability (Buzzell and Gale, 1987;Boulding et al., 1993; Rust and Oliver, 1994). At Air Mauritius, top managementrecognises that it has to review its service branding strategy and in-flight service tobetter meet customer needs.

Services are more subject to social, cultural and national boundaries influence,which predetermine customers evaluation of service quality (Philip and Hazlett, 1997).Few studies have focused on the relationship between a passengers culturalbackground and perceptions of service quality (Ling et al., 2005). Sultan and Simpson(2000) indicated that customer expectations and perceptions varied by nationality in aninternational environment. Service quality ratings of European passengers weresignificantly lower than those of US passengers. Cunningham et al. (2002), Furrer et al.(2000), Herbig and Genestre (1996) found that there were some significant relationshipsbetween culture and perception of service quality. Cross cultural comparison betweenUS and Mexican consumers revealed that Mexicans had poorer perceptions of servicequality compared to their US counterparts on the evaluation of products and servicesin general. Service quality has been shown to lead to different behavioural intentionswith respect to customers from different cultures (Liu et al., 2001). Therefore, thecultural background of passengers cannot be ignored in assessing service quality as itcontributes to building long-term brand recognition (Ling et al., 2005).

Methods of measuring service qualityWhile there may be general agreement that the evaluation of services is moresubjective than that of tangible products, there has been less agreement about how tooperationalise service quality as a construct (Gabbott and Hogg, 1997; Cronin andTaylor, 1992, 1994; Dabholkar et al., 2000). Firms throughout the world use acombination of methods to assess trends about changing customer needs andperceptions of service quality. Zaid (1995) suggests that regular service ratings by

passengers through in-flight surveys can be used to monitor service quality in theairline industry. Otherwise survey audits, market studies, complaint and complimentmonitoring are other available methods to measure service levels. Airlines tend to use acombination of methods simultaneously to get a rounded picture of their servicemanagement strategies.

The Gaps model proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985) has been the mostcomprehensive and widely used model to understand service quality. Itsoperationalisation through SERVQUAL using a battery of 22 statements have beenproven to be reliable and valid across many service industries. The SERVQUAL scalehas been applied to airlines (Nel et al., 1997; Sultan and Simpson, 2000), hotels (Ingramand Daskalakis, 1999; Juwaheer, 2004), travel agencies (Luk, 1997; Johns et al., 2004),financial services (Kagis and Passa, 1997; Lassar et al., 2000; Newman, 2001), health

care (Desombre and Eccles, 1998; Kilbourne et al., 2004) and the public sector (Donnellyet al., 1995; Wisniewski, 2001; Brysland and Curry, 2001). At the heart of theSERVQUAL model is an understanding of the nature and determinants of customerexpectations and perceptions of service quality. Consumers expectations andperceptions are measured to identify any shortfall in service levels, better known as thedisconfirmation paradigm in the services marketing literature. A customer willperceive quality in a positive way only when the service provider meets or exceedshis/her expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988; Bitner, 1990; Robledo, 2001). In the

IJQRM24,5

496


6/23

airline industry, customers expectations are shaped at the moment-of-truth byreservations department of the airline, telephone sales, ticketing, cabin crew, cabinservices, baggage handling, flight delays and others (Albrecht, 1992).

SERVQUAL uses a concise 22-item scale to measure expectations and perceptions.

The model suggests the existence of five dimensions namely: tangibles, reliability,responsiveness, assurance and empathy that can discriminate well across customerswith differing quality perceptions. The last two dimensions contain items representingseven of the original dimensions namely: communication, credibility, security,competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing customers, and access (Parasuramanet al., 1985). Various researchers such as Carman (1990), Cronin and Taylor (1992),Babakus and Boller (1992), Boulding et al. (1993), Teas (1993, 1994), Buttle (1996),Asubonteng et al. (1996), Llosa et al. (1998), Sureshchandar et al. (2001) and Coulthard(2004) have criticised the model. Carman (1990, p. 44) suggests that it is better tocollect data in terms of the perception/expectation difference directly rather than toasks about each separately. It is also important to take into account the level ofexperience of the customer with the service. Cronin and Taylor (1992) through theSERVPERF model argue that service quality should be measured as an attitude andsupport the use of perception statements only in the measurement of service quality.Numerous studies have been undertaken to assess the superiority of the two scales butconsensus continues to elude as to which one is better (Jain and Gupta, 2004). One ofthe main criticisms of SERVPERF has been the way it measures customer satisfaction.Parasuraman et al. (1988) argues that quality is an enduring global attitude towards aservice while SERVPERF measures satisfaction related to a specific transaction.

The various criticisms of SERVQUAL centre on its theoretical paradigm and theoperationalisation of the survey instrument. Buttle (1996), for example, argue that thereis little evidence that customers assess service quality in terms of the gap betweenperceptions and expectations of a service and the model focuses on the service delivery

process as opposed to the service outcome. On the operational side, criticisms are, forexample, the administration of the instrument twice, which can lead to respondentboredom and confusion. Also, Babakus and Mangold (1992) suggest the use of a fivepoint likert scale as opposed to the seven-point Likert scale proposed by Parasuramanet al. (1985). In response to the growing literature on the weaknesses of SERVQUAL,Parasuraman et al. (1991, 1994a, b) amended the original SERVQUAL model to include,for example, levels of importance for each dimension by allocating a number of pointsto each dimension, and embodiment of not only the discordance between perceivedservice and desired service (labelled as measurer of service superiority) and thediscrepancy between perceived service and adequate service (labelled as measure ofservice adequacy).

Furthermore, criticisms were also levelled at the applicability of the SERVQUAL

scale to service industries in developing countries (Jain and Gupta, 2004) andcross-cultural influences on expectations and perceptions scores (Llosa et al., 1998;Zhao et al., 2002; Nel et al., 1997). It has been demonstrated empirically that based oncultural norms, UK and US customers have the same reaction to good service but theytend to respond differently to poor service encounters (Voss et al., 2004). Theapplicability of SERVQUAL as an instrument for measuring service quality acrosscultures can therefore be questioned. Mattila (1999) found that customers from Westerncultural backgrounds are more likely to rely on tangible cues from the physical


497


7/23

environment to evaluate service quality compared to customers from Asia. Furrer et al.(2000) conclude that customers from different cultures assigned different importanceweights to the five SERVQUAL dimensions, which in turn is reflected in theirperceptions of service quality. Yet surveys conducted in New Zealand and China

revealed that customers in these apparently diverse countries display manysimilarities in their expectations of service quality (Calvert, 2000).

Taking all these concerns into account, Philip and Hazlett (1997) proposed the P-C-Pmodel that takes the form of a hierarchical structure based on three main classes ofattributes namely: pivotal, core and peripheral. The pivotal attributes are consideredcollectively to be the single most determining influence on why consumers approach aparticular organisation in the first instance and exert the greatest influence onsatisfaction levels. Core attributes are an amalgamation of people, processes and theorganisational structure through which the consumers must interact and/or negotiateto achieve/receive the pivotal attributes. Finally, peripheral attributes are thoseattributes that can be classified as service extras to delight the customer. This modelprovides only a skeletal framework and still needs to be tested empirically for itsreliability and validity as a superior measure of service quality across industries andcultures. Thus considering the various models proposed in the service qualityliterature, SERVQUAL remains the most widely accepted and used method ofmeasuring service quality despite its weaknesses (Coulthard, 2004; Zhao et al., 2002;Wisniewski, 2001; Cook and Thompson, 2000; Lam and Woo, 1997; Jain and Gupta,2004).

Research methodologySurvey instrumentThis study applies the disconfirmation theory methodology of the SERVQUAL model.The survey instrument was designed and customised for Air Mauritius using the

battery of expectations and perceptions statements proposed by Parasuraman et al.(1985, 1988). The survey instrument consisted of three sections. The first sectioncomprised of airline service quality expectations and perceptions statementsmeasuring the five dimensions of service quality. Only 22 items of the expectationand perception paradigm were included in the survey instrument as they have provento be reasonably good predictors of service quality in its entirety (Sureshchandar et al.,2001). The SERVQUAL model measures five dimensions: tangibility, reliability,responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Research has shown that consumers evaluateproviders of service along dimensions, which are groupings of criteria (Robledo, 2001).The second section of the questionnaire dealt with specific service attributes thatcustomers associated with Air Mauritius. Included were also questions pertaining tooverall level of customer satisfaction and willingness to recommend the airline to

others. The final section dealt with flying habits and preferences as well asdemographic data. The SERVQUAL statements were all worded positively assuggested by Babakus and Boller (1992) since item wording significantly influencesthe result of factor analysis on the data set. A five-point Likert scale was used to reducethe frustration level of respondents and increase response rate and quality assuggested by the following researchers (Babakus and Mangold, 1992; Krosnick andFabrigar, 1997; Preston and Colman, 2000; Johns et al., 2004). The scales werehypothesised to have the five dimensional structure used in the SERVQUAL model

IJQRM24,5

498


8/23

(Robledo, 2001). A pilot study was carried out to validate the survey instrument, whichinvolved mailing 50 customers that had travelled Air Mauritius over the last 12 months,only ten questionnaires were returned. Mail survey is problematic in South Africa asobserved by Nel et al. (1997) in their assessment of service quality in the airline

industry, which led to a response rate of only 33.75 per cent.

Sample design and method of data collectionIdeally to obtain an exact measure of the service quality offered by Air Mauritius, onewould have to administer the survey instrument on every flight to every destinationthat the national airline flies to. Such a large-scale distribution of questionnaires wasunrealistic given budget constraints for this study. Consequently, it was decided toadminister questionnaires only to passengers travelling on the route South Africa toMauritius, given the exploratory nature of this research. Air Mauritius flies to threecities in South Africa namely Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. The targetpopulation for this study was defined as all passengers having flown Air Mauritius in

the last 12 months. A combination of self-administered in-flight survey and mailsurvey was used to collect the data.Inability to have access to a database of customers from Air Mauritius led to a

non-probability sampling procedure being adopted. A convenience sample was drawnfor the in-flight survey. The survey instrument was administered on two flights fromCape Town to Mauritius. All seats on both flights were sold leading to 362questionnaires (181 seats on each flight) being distributed by cabin crew. Only 95questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 26.2 per cent. The mail survey wasadministered to customers that flew Air Mauritius from Durban and Johannesburg inthe last 12 months. A list of 450 sampling elements was obtained from travel agentsand tour operators that dealt with Air Mauritius customers in South Africa. Allcustomers were sent a questionnaire but only 69 (response rate of 15.3 per cent) of them

returned the questionnaire to their corresponding travel agent or tour operator.Therefore the study had an overall response rate of 20.2 per cent, which is similar toprevious studies on service quality measurement in the airline industry, whichachieved response rates of between 20 per cent and 40 per cent using similar datacollection methods (Sultan and Simpson, 2000; Frost and Kumar, 2001; Robledo, 2001;Nel et al., 1997). All together data collection spanned over six weeks and of allquestionnaires received, 24 were unusable due to errors and incomplete responses. Atotal of 140 questionnaires were used for data analysis.

Both the self-completion survey and mail survey led to a low response rate. It is welldocumented that self-completion airline surveys do not generate high response rates(Sultan and Simpson, 2000; Nel et al., 1997). This is because the researcher has nocontrol on the administration of the survey instrument in-flight. For this study, cabin

crew was asked to distribute the questionnaire to all passengers, except to those ofMauritian nationality, and to collect them at the end of the flight. There is always aprobability of self-selection bias, that is, only those passengers that felt the service waseither excellent or poor to fill in and return the questionnaire to cabin crew. As noted byGoh and Uncles (2003), both self-completion surveys and mail surveys suffer fromlimitations such as prior conditioning, question order bias and problems in recallingprevious behaviour. The mail survey as a method of data collection has well knownlimitations such as absence of mailing lists, poor mail services, and high levels of


499


9/23

illiteracy (Aaker et al., 1998). The mailing list for this study was limited in terms ofnumber of respondents, accuracy of recorded addresses, and time frame to return thequestionnaire to travel agents and tour operators was short. South Africa is alsonotorious for its poor mail services (Nel et al., 1997). To increase response rate, a

personalised cover letter was sent along with the survey instrument to respondents forthe mail survey.

Data analysisThe discussion of the research findings begins with a brief demographic profile ofrespondents in terms of age, monthly household income level and nationality. Onaverage respondents were 37 years old, with a monthly household income in excess ofUS$1,267. Most of the respondents (73 per cent) were of South African nationality whileBritish respondents accounted for 15 per cent of the sample and the remainder wererespondents from Greece, Germany, Spain, India and Portugal. Regarding the purposeof visit to Mauritius, about 82 per cent were essentially on an all leisure trip. It was alsonoted that 46.4 per cent of tourists had flown Air Mauritius for the first time and 55 percent had bought an all-inclusive package covering airfares and accommodation. Of allrespondents, 62.8 per cent flew economy class, 22.2 per cent business class and 15 percent first class.

Owing to the multidimensionality of the service quality construct, it was deemednecessary to assess the reliability of the SERVQUAL instrument administered to AirMauritius customers. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach alpha), which is based on theinternal consistency of the items pertaining to the different service dimensions, werecomputed separately for the five dimensions on the raw SERVQUAL scores. As shownin Table I, all the dimensions were reasonably reliable, with greater than 0.7 alphavalues. The reliability coefficients are more or less similar to previous studies in theairline industry (Nel et al., 1997; Frost and Kumar, 2001).

In addressing the first objective of the study, which is to assess customersexpectations and perceptions of service, the former was on average highest forAssurance, with a mean value of 4.629 followed by Reliability with a mean value of4.587 as shown in Table II. The average score for the service dimension Assuranceimply that customers expect employees of airlines in general to be trustworthy andpolite, they should get the necessary support to perform their job well and thatcustomers should feel safe when transacting with the company. On averageexpectations of customers were lowest for tangible features (the appearance of physicalfacilities, equipment, personnel and communication materials).

International tourists had the highest perceptions of service quality for thedimension Tangibles and lowest for Reliability as shown in Table II. The results

Dimensions Item coefficient (alphas) Reliability item alpha Standardised

Tangibles 4 0.7323 0.7471Reliability 5 0.8841 0.8833Responsiveness 4 0.8436 0.8453Assurance 4 0.7169 0.7286Empathy 5 0.7131 0.7723Total scale reliability 22 0.9258 0.9327

Table I.Service quality scores:Cronbachs alpha

IJQRM24,5

500


10/23

suggest the existence of service gaps at Air Mauritius. While expectations of AirMauritius customers are lowest for Tangibles in comparison to other servicedimensions, customers tend to agree (mean 4:125) that the company has up to dateequipment, visually appealing physical facilities, well-dressed employees and visually

appealing communication materials. It is also worth noting that customers expect thecompany to be reliable (mean 4:587) but the same dimension has obtained the lowestperception scores. This is a real cause of concern and provides a clear starting point forservice improvements at Air Mauritius. The results of the SERVQUAL gap scoresconfirm the existence of Gap 5 as suggested by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988).

The overall perceived service quality of Air Mauritius will be higher, the morepositive is the perception minus expectation score. The more negative the SERVQUALscore, the more serious is the service quality shortfall in the eyes of the customer. Themean SERVQUAL score on each service quality dimension was computed. The resultsare shown in Table II. Air Mauritius does not exceed customer expectations on any ofthe five service dimensions. The most problematic service dimension is reliability with

an overall mean score of2

0.729 and the least is tangibles (mean 2

0:

315). Anegative score for reliability shows that customers on average perceive that AirMauritius does not: keep its promises, show sincere interest in solving customerproblems, perform the service right the first time, provide the service at the time itpromises to do so and insist on error free records. Earlier SERVQUAL research (Nelet al., 1997; Asubonteng et al., 1996; Frost and Kumar, 2001; Zhao et al., 2002; Ingramand Daskalakis, 1999) indicates that businesses find it easier to meet customerexpectations in the dimension found least important by customers generally(tangibles), while finding it most difficult to meet expectations in the dimension mostvalued by customers (reliability). These assessments would suggest that airlines intenton improving customer service quality should spend more management attention andresources on improving the reliability dimension and less on tangibles (Sultan and

Simpson, 2000).The overall SERVQUAL mean score for Air Mauritius is 20.531 and it shows the

extent of the discrepancy between customer expectations and perceived service (Gap5). The P-E framework suggests that the highest service quality score for an attributeoccurs when the expectation score is 1 (strongly disagree) and the perception score is5 (strongly agree), giving a service quality score of4. Also when service qualityperceptions are less than expectations, customers are dissatisfied, this suggests that onaverage customers are dissatisfied by the service quality of the airline. The company

Dimension Expectations P erceptions

Unweightedgap scores

(P-E) Weightings

Weighted

average

Tangibles 4.440 4.125 20.315 14.7 20.046Reliability 4.587 3.858 20.729 28.1 20.205Responsiveness 4.543 4.072 20.471 18.9 20.089Assurance 4.629 4.098 20.531 17.5 20.093Empathy 4.470 3.859 20.611 20.8 20.127Overall averageSERVQUAL score 20.531 20.560

Table II.SERVQUAL scores for

Air Mauritius


501


11/23

must strive harder to align customers expectations with perceptions on all servicedimensions. However, assessing the importance of the service dimensions to customersis crucial, as any investment improving service quality will payoff in the long termonly if customers perceive such investment to be of value to them. Consequently, the

relative importance of each dimension were computed using Parasuraman et al. (1991)suggestion of allocating 100 points among the five service dimensions. Customersallocated the highest weighting to Reliability and the lowest to Assurance as shown inTable II. The overall service gap using the weighted SERVQUAL model is 20.56 andreveals a larger discrepancy between tourists expectations and perceptions. Thesefindings confirm previous studies (Llosa et al., 1998; Sureshchandar et al., 2001;Coulthard, 2004) that show weighted dimensions contribute marginally in enhancingunderstanding of service quality. The negative SERVQUAL scores both weighted andunweighted indicates that there is room for improvement in the service quality at AirMauritius.

The second objective of the study was further investigated using the suggestions ofSultan and Simpson (2000) where passengers were asked to rank the importance of theservice dimensions (rank 1 indicating the most important attribute and rank 5 the leastimportant one). The results showed that 42.7 per cent of passengers indicatedreliability to be the most important service quality feature, 30.7 per cent rankedempathy as the second most important, 29.9 per cent indicated responsiveness as thethird most important, 30 per cent Assurance as the fourth most important and 30.7 percent indicated tangibles as the least important. it is evident that the order of importance(reliability, empathy, responsiveness, assurance and tangibility) is not the same asnoted by Parasuraman et al. (1988). Sultan and Simpson (2000) found reliability to bethe most important dimension for US and European passengers, followed byresponsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles.

International tourists flying Air Mauritius value reliability and empathy more than

any other service dimensions. This can be attributed to different expectations on behalfof passengers when travelling specifically for holiday purposes. The higherimportance attached to empathy is perhaps the result of tourists also taking intoconsideration expected service levels at their holiday destination in their evaluation ofa flag carrier. This link is emphasised by Juwaheer (2004), in her study of internationaltourists perceptions of service quality provided by hotels in Mauritius. Personalisationof service (empathy) emerged as a significant influencing factor on touristsperceptions of service quality. It is interesting to note that tourists perceive assuranceto be of lesser importance than empathy. This is most probably due to repeatcustomers (53.6 per cent) feeling that employee trust and confidence is a given in atransactional relationship between a company and its customers, otherwise therelationship does not exist in the first place. Hence, empathy as a construct can only be

displayed after an employee has inspired trust in the customer at the moment of truth.In the short term, Air Mauritius can still be profitable but if service reliability is notimproved, it will become increasingly more difficult for the company to retain existingcustomers and attract new ones. Investments in service quality improvement may notshow immediate financial returns, but in the long term it is the only true source ofcompetitive advantage that will ensure continuous cash flows (Buzzell and Gale, 1987).

To further verify the dimensionality of the 22 items, the raw SERVQUAL scoreswere factor analysed. A principal component procedure with Varimax normalised

IJQRM24,5

502


12/23

rotation was used to ensure reliability of results. The aim of a principal componentprocedure is to explain the greatest amount of variance in the data set, thus providingdata reduction (Aaker et al., 1998). There are various rotational strategies such asVarimax, Biquartimax, Quartimax, and Equamax (Jennrich and Sampson, 1966) that

enable a researcher to obtain a clear pattern of loadings, that is, factors that aresomehow clearly marked by high loadings for some variables and low loadings forothers. The option Varimax rotation of the normalised factor loadings was chosen inorder to maximise the variances of the dquared normalised factor loadings acrossvariables for each factor. It is the method that is most commonly used (Clarkson and

Jennrich, 1988).Kaisers criterion ensured that only factors with eigenvalues greater or equal to one

were reported and chosen for interpretation. In essence such a criterion proposed byKaiser (1960) suggests that unless a factor extracts at least as much as the equivalentof one original variable, it should be dropped from factor analysis. The analysis wasconstrained a priori to five factors as the SERVQUAL model was hypothesised to havea five dimensional structure (Frost and Kumar, 2001). Various researchers have useddifferent criteria to interpret factor loadings, Nunnally (1967) suggests loadings of 0.7or greater to be reliable while Frost and Kumar (2001) as well as Juwaheer (2004) used0.4 as cut off points. Consequently, variables with factor loadings greater or equal to0.45 were deemed to load heavily on a particular factor. The resulting procedure led toa four-factor structure that explained 63.1 per cent of the variation in the SERVQUALmodel. The corresponding factor loading matrix, including commonalities is shown inTable III. Commonalities show how much of the variance in the variable has beenaccounted for by the four factors (Kinnear and Gray, 1994).

Factor one is made up of seven statements that explain most of the variation (43.6per cent). It contains statements pertaining to service dimensions such asresponsiveness, assurance and empathy. The result suggests that tourists perceive

enhancing factors of service delivery such as, helpfulness of employees, feelings oftrust and safety dealing with employees, promptness of service, and having the bestinterest of passengers at heart, to be all related and part of the same construct. Thisfactor can be named service efficiency and affect. This finding is in line with theresearch carried out by Khan and Su (2003), which showed that indeed a hierarchy ofservice dimensions exist and that tourists tend to expect more of those services that arecourteous and informative, and convey a feeling of trust and confidence. Fivestatements loaded heavily on factor two, explaining 8.4 per cent of total variance. Thisfactor can be named service personalisation, which is already a significant servicedimension in the hospitality industry (Kandampully et al., 2001; Stevens et al., 1995;Mittal and Lassar, 1996). Research has shown that international tourists visitingMauritius attach a lot of importance to warmth and reliability of service in hotels

(Juwaheer, 2004). Also, the destination has over the years built a strong reputation forservice excellence, which creates high expectations among passengers as AirMauritius is part of the destination experience. Wirtz and Johnston (2003) confirm thatcompetitive advantage for airlines lies in service delivery, where softer skills such aswarmth, care and anticipation of needs rather than the technicalities of flightschedules, seat comfort, and punctuality are more important to passengers. The lattermost airlines can master. Factor three pertains to the service dimension of reliabilityand explains 6.1 per cent of variance and factor four measured tangibility with 5 per


503


13/23

cent of variance explained. Thus, exploratory factor analysis revealed that service

efficiency and affect was the most important dimension for international touristsfollowed by service personalisation, reliability and tangibility. Hence, as noted byauthors of several studies (Nel et al., 1997; Babakus and Boller, 1992; Carman, 1990), theSERVQUAL instrument in this study does not consistently measure the same factorsas suggested by Parasuraman et al. (1988) and that indeed dimension structure may becontext specific.

The third objective of the study was to determine the extent to which the identifiedservice dimensions influenced overall satisfaction and willingness to recommend theairline to others. The four service quality factors were entered into regression analysisfor that purpose. Table IV reports the results of the stepwise regression model, usingtourists overall judgement of service quality as the dependent variable and the fourfactors presented above as independent variables. It should be noted that the

dependent variable was measured on a five-point Likert scale from not at all satisfiedto very satisfied. As it can be seen, there are two factors (service efficiency and affectand tangibility), which explain 21.1 per cent of variance in passengers rating ofsatisfaction levels. Correlation analysis between the dependent variable of the modeland service dimensions revealed that correlation exists between the independentvariables. This phenomenon can be explained by the multidimensionality of servicequality constructs in the data set. Using linear combinations such as these reduces, butcannot eliminate, a potential multi-collinearity problem.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Q1 0.5739Q2 0.6751

Q3 0.5152Q4 0.7421Q5 0.5958 0.4889Q6 0.7440Q7 0.7723Q8 0.7541Q9 0.7040Q10 0.6939Q11 0.4954Q12 0.6744Q13 0.6397Q14 0.7181Q15 0.7808

Q16 0.5123Q17 0.7407Q18 0.6676Q19 0.6144Q20 0.4800 0.5723Q21 0.4822 0.4552Q22 0.6303Explained variance 4.2323 2.6220 4.0554 2.9577Proportion of total variance 0.1924 0.1192 0.1843 0.1344

Note: Factor loadings below 0.45 are not shown in the table

Table III.Factor loadings withVarimax rotation ofSERVQUAL scores

IJQRM24,5

504


14/23

As can be seen from Table IV, Service efficiency and affect appear to be a coredimension (b 0:415) in tourists evaluation of satisfaction with the airline service.The Fstatistic for the regression model was 9.041 with a p value less than 0.000. Theresult differs from the study of Cunningham et al. (2002), who found that reliability and

empathy were significant predictors of customer satisfaction among US customers.The cultural and social background of respondents for this study might account for thedifference. The model also indicates that 78.9 per cent of the variance cannot beexplained and therefore further research is needed to identify other factors thatinfluence service quality at Air Mauritius. Earlier studies have shown that servicequality perceptions can also be influenced by factors such as value (Rust and Oliver,1994; Zeithaml, 1988), attributions and equity (Bolton and Drew, 1991), informationavailability, perceived risk of flying (Cunningham et al., 2002) and atmosphere (Peyrotet al., 1993). These factors could perhaps explain at least part of the unexplainedvariance.

Similarly, a regression model was developed to determine which service quality

factors influence tourists likeliness to recommend the airline to others. As shown inTable V, three factors namely Service efficiency and affect, Tangibility andReliability explained 21.7 per cent of variance. The F statistic for the regression

b t p-level

Dependent variablesOverall customer satisfaction

Independent variablesFactor 1 (service efficiency and affect) 0.415 5.424 0.000Factor 4 (tangibility) 0.155 2.023 0.044Multiple R 0.459

R2 0.211Adjusted R2 0.188Standard error 0.755

F statistic 9.041p-level 0.000

Table IV.Stepwise regressionanalysis results for

customer satisfactionlevels

b t p-level

Dependent variablesOverall willingness to recommend airline to others

Independent variables

Factor 1 (service efficiency and affect) 0.334 4.404 0.000021Factor 4 (tangibility) 0.279 3.679 0.000033Factor 3 (reliability) 0.168 2.219 0.028112Multiple R 0.467

R2 0.217Adjusted R2 0.205Standard error 0.702

F statistic 12.618p-level 0.000

Table V.Stepwise regressionanalysis results for

willingness torecommend airline to

others


505


15/23

model was 12.618 with a p value less than 0.000. The model also indicates that 78.3 percent of variance can be explained by other factors and further research is needed toidentify additional factors influencing tourists willingness to recommend the airline.

The regression results for the dependent variables satisfaction levels and

willingness to recommend the airline reflect Bitners (1992) proposition that theservice-scape (tangibility) is used by consumers as surrogate indicators of servicequality and hence influence satisfaction levels. It is surprising to note that reliability ofservice does not contribute to evaluation of satisfaction levels and marginallycontributes to willingness to recommend, while other studies (Cunningham et al., 2002;

Johns et al., 2004; Juwaheer, 2004) have found this service dimension to be a significantpredictor. Cross-cultural differences have been found to be a plausible explanation forthe above (Nel et al., 1997; Winsted, 1997; Ling et al., 2005).

Discussion and conclusionsThe overall results suggest that the underlying factors defining service quality seem to

be inconsistent across service providers or contexts. The results of the empirical studyshow that tangibility and reliability are clearly perceived by international touristswhile original service dimensions, responsiveness, assurance and empathy areuni-dimensional to some extent. Further research is required to explicitly conclude ifempathy plays a bigger role than responsiveness and assurance in tourists perceptionsof service quality. In fact, Carman (1990) highlighted the multi-faceted nature of someservices that resulted in a number of inter-relationships between dimensions. It wouldappear that the number of service dimensions is very much influenced by the contextunder evaluation and methods of evaluation (Coulthard, 2004). The SERVQUAL modelshowed good internal reliability with high Cronbach alpha scores on all dimensions inline with other studies. Like some researchers who have suggested that overallreliability can be improved by changing negatively worded items into positive ones

(Babakus and Boller, 1992; Babakus and Mangold, 1992; Carman, 1990), this studyconfirms the latter. The discriminant validity of SERVQUAL was poor for this studyas well, in line with other studies that found great overlap among service dimensions(Peter et al., 1993). The number of distinct dimensions based solely on factor analysisresults is not the same as with other studies in the airline industry (Frost and Kumar,2001; Sultan and Simpson, 2000). The variation may be due to differences in datacollection, analysis procedures and nationality of respondents.

The majority of interviewees being of South African nationality could account forthe difference in the hierarchy of dimensions found in this study. In fact, Nel et al.(1997) made various recommendations on the applicability of SERVQUAL amongSouth Africans, one of which was that respondents for surveys tend to be Caucasianswith a very good command of the English language. The respondents for this study

are no different as Mauritius as a tourist destination attracts largely a Caucasiancrowd. In the same line of thought, Sultan and Simpson (2000) demonstratedempirically that there are significant differences in service quality expectations andperceptions based on nationality as well as overall perceptions of service quality. TheSERVQUAL model differs in its features, that is, the various dimensions andimportance of the dimensions in an international context. Thus, cultural and socialbackground of respondents may have led to different service quality expectations andperceptions. Clearly what matters to South Africans when evaluating a service

IJQRM24,5

506


16/23

encounter differs from other countries. Personalisation of service is much moreimportant to them. As pointed out by Khan and Su (2003), culture prescribes how theservice is delivered, perceived and consumed.

For Air Mauritius, a strategy of service differentiation should start on improving

reliability of service and not only focus on reducing costs. This type of strategy iscommon in the airline industry, but few can master the complexities. The company isable to create high perceptions using tangible cues but under performs on processdimensions, which seem to be of more importance to customers. Customers expectpersonalised service, employees sincerity and personal warmth in service delivery, tomake the service experience memorable. The regression analyses have shown theextent to which service efficiency and affect contributes to overall satisfaction andwillingness to recommend the airline to others. Excellent customer service is the resultof all the components being in place, from the right strategic focus and service culture,to a clear understanding of the service, to good training and people, to good systemsand processes. A service culture should be developed in the organisation that promotesvalues and beliefs such as excellence and zero tolerance for mediocrity. Berry et al.(1994) have outlined the following ten critical lessons for improving service quality thatshould become embedded in the organisational culture: listening, reliability, basicservice, service design, recovery, surprising customers, fair play, teamwork, employeeresearch and servant leadership. Marketing activity of Air Mauritius should centre onthe development of branding strategies to integrate their service, establish identitiesand images both for their employees and customers.

The Gaps model, in particular Gaps 1 to 4, should be investigated to identifypotential factors contributing to shortfalls in service delivery at the moment of truth.Management actions could include empowerment and training of employees whichmight increase feelings of ownership of the service encounter, resulting in morepersonalised and accountable service for customers (Bowen and Lawler, 1992).

Employees are the most important element in the service delivery process thusensuring customer satisfaction (Frost and Kumar, 2001). Successful management ofservice encounters can only happen if management has an excellent understanding ofcustomer expectations and adequate internal communication of these expectationswithin the organisation. Benchmarking has become vital as a source of identifyinggaps that exist between customer expectations and company performance as perceivedby customers. The extent to which internal marketing is successful within theorganisation should be investigated. Employee role conflict and ambiguity can act as abarrier to effective service delivery (Hartline and Ferrell, 1996). Self-efficacy, jobsatisfaction and adaptability influence employees ability to serve customers in amanner that enhances the service experience. Service quality issues should not be seenas a means of solving actual and potential service delivery problems. It must be viewed

as a strategic orientation of a company with the belief that service quality provides realbusiness advantages over the long term.

A strategy of superior customer service can be generated through a vision ofexcellence throughout the organisation. A service organisation that does not have ashared vision and culture of service excellence will have a tough task acquiring it, as itcannot be bought. It must be built (Chan, 2000a). Service quality helps in supporting anorganisations competitive position in much the same way as cost synergies,organisational expertise and brand equity do. The consequences of such a strategy is


507


17/23

the ability to command premium prices, with high margins, in a global industry wheresmall airlines are dependent on repeat business for survival, and with word-of-mouthpraise by customers as an important channel of marketing. Customers want to berespected and rewarded for their business and not just with frequent-flyer miles, which

have become a commodity, a price of entry into the market (Albrecht, 1992). The thrustfor Air Mauritius should be on providing an experience as opposed to a function. Sucha strategy is that anyone can fly airplanes but few organisations can excel in servingpeople. And because it is a competence that is hard to build, it is also hard forcompetitors to copy or match (Chan, 2000a). Successful service companies have shownto be consistently excellent listeners to their customers and service quality strategiesare often characterised by customer segmentation, customised service, guarantees,continuous customer feedback, and comprehensive measurement of companyperformance (Sultan and Simpson, 2000).

In addition, perceptions of high service are the result of very carefully plannedservice processes. Management and employees should be encouraged to own up theirmistakes and much effort should be spent in sharing experiences of service failures touse them as learning opportunities. At Southwest Airlines for example, improvementplans are generated based on past problems to enable the organisation to learn frommistakes and move on (Laszlo, 1999). Such a climate encourages innovation in servicedelivery. Operational systems, procedures, processes should be all oriented towardsserving the needs of customers. Once the right culture is in place, internalcommunication processes should be geared towards motivating employees to deliverhigh service while external communications should be managed to set the right level ofexpectations among consumers. Air Mauritius should also consider the trend ofoutsourcing of non-core services (catering, administration, ground handling,maintenance etc.) and the rationalisation of distribution channels (Driver, 1999) tofocus resources on service delivery.

Survey limitations and directions for future researchThis research was exploratory in nature and its limitations should be noted. Thesample size should be considered adequate only for exploratory analysis and a largersample is needed to validate the study. Also, the in-flight self completion survey andmail survey led to a very low response rate due to a number of factors that werediscussed earlier on. The non-response problem for both the in-flight survey and themail survey could potentially have led to a bias in the sample.

Passengers other than international tourists should be surveyed to provide a moreholistic picture of service quality at Air Mauritius. A more in-depth study is required toassess customer expectations and perceptions of service quality from passengers ofdifferent nationalities. Sultan and Simpson (2000) showed that significant differences

in service quality perceptions exist among European and US airline passengers.Cross-cultural comparisons of a similar nature based on the SERVQUAL model willprovide for rewarding research in Southern Africa. This study focused on literatepassengers with at least a command of the English language, it may be important todevelop ways of measuring service quality in different languages in an internationalcontext.

The link between international tourists perceptions of service quality for airlinesand both expectations and perceptions of service at the tourist destination should be

IJQRM24,5

508


18/23

researched. Repetitive studies within the same industry should be conducted toexamine the stability of findings among international tourists visiting Mauritius. Otherfactors influencing customer satisfaction and willingness to recommend the airlineshould be identified to improve the predictive validity of the regression models used.

Moreover, comparative research on service quality perceptions is needed within otherairlines from the Indian Ocean such as Air Seychelles, Air Austral and AirMadagascar. Air Mauritius should also undertake benchmarking studies with airlinessuch as South African Airways, Air France, Emirates and British Airways in order toimprove its service levels. Quality does not improve unless it is measured(Sureshchandar et al., 2001) and hence longitudinal studies would enhance theusefulness of the data collected during this research.

References

Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V. and Day, G.S. (1998), Marketing Research, John Wiley & Sons, New York,NY.

Albrecht, K. (1992), The Only Thing that Matters, HarperCollins, New York, NY.Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K.J. and Swan, J.E. (1996), SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of

service quality, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 62-81.

Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale,Journalof Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253-68.

Babakus, E. and Mangold, G. (1992), Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital services:an empirical investigation, Health Services Research, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 767-86.

Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1994), Improving service quality in America:lesson learned, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 32-44.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings andemployee responses, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

Bitner, M.J. (1992), Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers andemployees, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 57-71.

Bolton, R.N. and Drew, J.H. (1991), A multi-stage model of customers assessment of servicequality and value, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375-84.

Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1993), A dynamic process model ofservice quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, February, pp. 7-27.

Bowen, D.E. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how andwhen, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.

Brysland, A. and Curry, A. (2001), Service improvements in public services using SERVQUAL,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 389-401.

Buttle, F. (1996), SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda, European Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 30, January, pp. 8-32.

Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987), The PIMS Principles, Free Press, New York, NY.

Calvert, P. (2000), International variations in measuring customer expectations, paperpresented at the ARL Measuring Service Quality Symposium, Washington, DC,20-21 October.

Carman, J.M. (1990), Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUALdimensions, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 27-45.


509


19/23

Chan, D. (2000a), The development of the airline industry from 1978 to 1998 a strategic globaloverview, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 489-514.

Chan, D. (2000b), Beyond Singapore girl grand and product/service differentiation strategiesin the new millennium, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 6,

pp. 515-42.Chidambaram, V. (Deputy Chief Executive of Air Mauritius) (1999), Managing an airline in the

next millennium, African Airlines Conference, 22 October, pp. 1-22.

Clarkson, D.B. and Jennrich, R.I. (1988), Quartic rotation criteria and algorithms,Psychometrika, Vol. 53, pp. 251-9.

Cook, C. and Thompson, B. (2000), Reliability and validity of SERVQUAL scores used toevaluate perceptions of library service quality, The Journal of Academic Librarianship,Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 248-58.

Coulthard, L.J.M. (2004), Measuring service quality a review and critique of research usingSERVQUAL, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 479-97.

Cronin, J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-67.Cronin, J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance

based and perceptions minus expectations measurement of service quality, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 125-31.

Crosby, P.B. (1979), Quality Is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, New American Library,New York, NY.

Cunningham, L.F., Young, C.E. and Lee, M. (2002), Cross-cultural perspectives of service qualityand risk in air transportation, Journal of Air Transportation, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-26.

Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, D.C. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000), A comprehensive framework forservice quality: an investigation of critical, conceptual and measurement issues through alongitudinal study, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 139-73.

Dana, L.P. and Vignali, D. (1999), British Airways plc, International Marketing Review, Vol. 16Nos 4/5, pp. 278-91.

Desombre, T. and Eccles, G. (1998), Improving service quality in Trust hospitals: lessons fromthe hotel sector, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 11 No. 1,pp. 21-7.

Donnelly, M., Wisniewski, M., Dalrymple, J.F. and Curry, A.C. (1995), Measuring service qualityin local government: the SERVQUAL approach, International Journal of Public Sector

Management, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 15-20.

Driver, J.C. (1999), Developments in airline marketing practice, Journal of Marketing Practice:Applied Marketing Science, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 134-50.

Feigenbaum, A.V. (1951), Quality Control: Principles, Practice and Administration, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Frost, F.A. and Kumar, M. (2001), Service quality between internal customers and internalsuppliers in an international airline, International Journal of Quality & Reliability

Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 371-86.

Furrer, O., Liu, B.S. and Sudharshan, D. (2000), The relationships between culture and servicequality perceptions: basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation,

Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 355-71.

Gabbott, M. and Hogg, G. (1997), Contemporary Services Marketing Management, The DrydenPress, London.

IJQRM24,5

510


20/23

Goh, K. and Uncles, M. (2003), The benefits of airline global alliances: an empirical assessmentof the perceptions of business travellers, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and

Practice, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 479-97.

Gronroos, C. (1978), A service oriented approach to marketing of services, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 588-601.

Hanlon, P. (2003), Global Airlines, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Hartline, D.M. and Ferrell, O.C. (1996), The management of customer contact service employees:an empirical investigation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, October, pp. 52-70.

Herbig, P. and Genestre, A. (1996), An examination of the cross cultural differences in servicequality: the example of Mexico and the USA, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 45-53.

Ingram, H. and Daskalakis, G. (1999), Measuring quality gaps in hotels: the case of Crete,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-30.

Jain, S.K. and Gupta, G. (2004), Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF scales,Vikalpa, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 25-37.

Jennrich, R.I. and Sampson, P.F. (1966), Rotation for simple loadings, Psychometrika, Vol. 31,pp. 313-23.

Johns, N., Avci, T. and Karatepe, O.M. (2004), Measuring service quality of travel agents:evidence from Northern Cyprus, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 82-100.

Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1999), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice-Hall Europe, London.

Juran, J.M., Gryna, F. and Bingham, R.S. (1974), Quality Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, NY.

Juwaheer, T.D. (2004), Exploring international tourists; perceptions of hotel operations by usinga modified SERVQUAL approach a case study of Mauritius, Managing Service Quality,Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 350-64.

Kagis, P. and Passa, V. (1997), Awareness of service charges and its influence on customerexpectations and perceptions of quality in banking, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11No. 2, pp. 105-16.

Kaiser, H.F. (1960), The application of electronic computers to factor analysis, Educational andPsychological Measurement, Vol. 20, pp. 141-51.

Kandampully, J., Mok, C. and Sparks, B.A. (2001), Service Quality Management in Hospitality,Tourism and Leisure, Haworth Hospitality Press, London and New York, NY.

Kasper, H., Van Helsdingen, P. and De Vries, V. (1999), Services Marketing Management, JohnWiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Khan, M.M. and Su, K.D. (2003), Service quality expectations of travellers visiting Cheju Islandin Korea, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 114-25.

Kilbourne, W., Duffy, J.A., Duffy, M. and Giarchi, G.G. (2004), The applicability of SERVQUALin crossnational measurements of health-care quality, Journal of Services Marketing,Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 524-33.

Kinnear, P.R. and Gray, C.D. (1994), SPSS for Windows Made Simple, Erlbaum (UK), Taylor andFrancis, London.

Krosnick, J.A. and Fabrigar, L.R. (1997), Designing rating scales for effective management insurveys, in Lyberg, L., Biemer, P., Collins, M. and deLeeum, E. (Eds), Survey Managementand Process Quality, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 141-64.


511


21/23

Lam, T. and Woo, K.S. (1997), Measuring service quality: a test retest reliability investigation ofSERVQUAL, Journal of Market Research Society, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 381-96.

Lassar, W.M., Manolis, C. and Winsor, R. (2000), Service quality perspectives and satisfaction inprivate banking, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 244-71.

Laszlo, G.P. (1999), Southwest Airlines living total quality in a service organisation,Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 90-5.

Ling, F.I., Lin, K. and Lu, J.L. (2005), Difference in service quality of cross-strait airlines and itseffect on passengers preferences, Journal of Eastern Asia Society for TransportationStudies, Vol. 6, pp. 798-813.

Liu, B.S.C., Furrer, O. and Sudharshan, D. (2001), The effect of culture on behavioural intentionsthrough service quality perceptions, paper presented at Rethinking Services, 30th EMACConference, Bergen, 8-11 May.

Llosa, S., Chandon, J.L. and Orsingher, C. (1998), An empirical study of SERVQUALsdimensionality, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 16-44.

Luk, S.T.K. (1997), An examination of the role of marketing culture in service quality,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-21.

Mattila, A.S. (1999), The role of culture in the service evaluation processes, Journal of ServiceResearch, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 250-61.

Ministry of Tourism and Leisure, Mauritius (2002), Handbook of Statistical Data on Tourism,Republic of Mauritius,Vol. 22, Ministry of Tourism and Leisure, Port Louis, Mauritius,pp. 1-39.

Mittal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1996), The role of personalisation in service encounters, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 95-109.

MK (Air Mauritius) (2004), Annual Report, 2003/2004, MK (Air Mauritius), Port Louis,Mauritius.

Nel, D., Pitt, L.F. and Berthon, P.R. (1997), The SERVQUAL instrument: reliability and validityin South Africa, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 113-23.

Newman, K. (2001), Interrogating SERVQUAL: a critical assessment of service qualitymeasurement in a high street retail bank, The International Journal of Bank Marketing,Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 126-39.

Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1985), A conceptual model of service qualityand its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Autumn, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale formeasuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 4 No. 1,pp. 12-37.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1991), Refinement and reassessment of theSERVQUAL scale, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994a), Alternative scales for measuringservice quality: a comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria,

Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 201-29.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994b), Reassessment of expectations as acomparison in measuring service quality: implications for further research, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 111-24.

IJQRM24,5

512


22/23

Peter, J.P., Gilbert, A.C. and Brown, T.J. (1993), Caution in the use of difference scores inconsumer research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, March, pp. 655-62.

Peyrot, M., Cooper, P.D. and Schnapf, D. (1993), Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality ofoutpatient health services, Journal of Health Care Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 24-32.

Philip, G. and Hazlett, S.A. (1997), The measurement of service quality: a new P-C-P attributesmodel, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,pp. 260-86.

Preston, C.C. and Colman, A.M. (2000), Optimal number of response categories in rating scales:reliability, validity, discriminating power and respondent preferences, Acta Psychologica,Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 47-55.

Rhoades, D.L., Waguespack, B. and Treudt, E. (1998), Service quality in the US airline industry:progress and problems, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 306-11.

Robledo, M.A. (2001), Measuring and managing service quality: integrating customerexpectations, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 22-31.

Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), Service Quality New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage

Publications, New York, NY.Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. (1995), DINESERV: a tool for measuring service quality

in restaurants, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, April, pp. 56-60.

Sultan, F. and Simpson, M.C. (2000), International service variants: airline passengerexpectations and perceptions of service quality, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14No. 3, pp. 188-216.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001), Customer perceptions ofservice quality: a critique, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-24.

Teas, R.K. (1993), Expectations, performance evaluation and consumers perception of quality,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, October, pp. 18-34.

Teas, R.K. (1994), Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality:

an assessment of a reassessment, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 132-9.Voss, C.A., Roth, A.V., Rosenzweig, E.D., Blackmon, K. and Chase, R.B. (2004), A tale of two

countries conservatism, service quality, and feedback on customer satisfaction, Journalof Service Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 212-30.

Winsted, K.F. (1997), Service encounter expectations: a cross cultural analysis, Journal ofTransnational Management Development, Vol. 2 Nos. 4, Spring, pp. 5-32.

Wirtz, J. and Johnston, R. (2003), Singapore Airlines: what it takes to sustain service excellence a senior management perspective, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10-19.

Wisniewski, M. (2001), Assessing customer satisfaction with local authority services usingSERVQUAL, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 7 and 8, pp. 995-1002.

Zaid, A.M. (1994), Malaysia airlines corporate vision and service quality strategy, Managing

Service Quality, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 11-15.Zaid, A.M. (1995), Measuring and monitoring service quality at Malaysia Airlines, Managing

Service Quality, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 25-7.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: a means-end model andsynthesis of evidence, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 2-22.

Zhao, X., Bai, C. and Hui, Y.V. (2002), An empirical assessment and application of SERVQUALin a Mainland Chinese department store, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,pp. 241-54.


513


23/23

Further reading

Carr, C. (1990), Front-line Customer Service: 15 Keys to Customer Satisfaction, John Wiley, NewYork, NY.

Genestre, A. and Herbig, P. (1996), Service expectations and perceptions revisited: adding

product quality to SERVQUAL, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 4 No. 4,pp. 72-82.

Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. and Jones, M. (1994), Service quality concepts and models,International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 43-66.

About the authorGirish Prayag is a Lecturer in Marketing and Tourism in the Department of Management at theUniversity of Mauritius. His areas of interest include, consumer behaviour in tourism, airlineservice quality, destination marketing and branding, and SMEs. Girish Prayag can be contactedat: [email protected]

IJQRM24,5

514

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

assessing international

Documents