The study rests on the idea that the National Treasury (NT) impacts direct service delivery at the country level through its budget preparation and budget implementation monitoring processes. Both processes are meant to ensure that departments are appropriately resourced, and should, therefore, be able to achieve objectives contained in their performance plans. The study focuses on the service quality provided by the NT in performing these functions.
To provide insights on the level of service quality provided by NT to national government departments and the role of expectations in its measurement.
The study was conducted in Pretoria, and respondents were employees in the Administration Division of national government departments.
The study followed a quantitative approach and used primary data which was collected between October and December 2019. The mean (µ), standard deviation (SD), gap analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Scheffe’s test as a post-test were the key statistical techniques used.
Service quality was found to be appropriate based on both the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models. More positive results are however observed when service expectations are excluded as guided by the latter. Service expectations were found to be an unstable factor in the measurement of service quality.
An online service quality review system to be established by NT in support of the New Public Management movement. The NT to ensure that external marketing media, which impact service expectations, are realistic.
Mukhtar, Anwar and Llyas (
This in turn caused quality in the services industry to gain attention. It is therefore necessary to understand value creation for service brands, which is more complex when compared to tangible brands. Skaalsvik (
The National Treasury (NT) of South Africa is the central treasury in South Africa. It is a service providing organisation to all organs of state in terms of legislated functions as enlisted in the Public Finance Management Act (South African Government
The Constitution identified the need for a central treasury to control and promote transparency of government expenditure (South African Government
In order to appreciate the significance of the chosen treasury functions in this study, one needs to understand how these feed into the annual audit opinions expressed by the Auditor-General of South Africa. Auditor-General of South Africa (
Suggested link between National Treasury functions used and service delivery programmes.
The national government departments are considered as the customers of NT in performing two of its functions used in the study. The choice of this sphere of government is motivated by the fact that it not only sets and delivers national country policy, but a lot of its work also impacts the international community (Education and Training Unit
To measure the level of service quality provided by the NT during its
To determine whether statistically significant differences exist between customer expectations and their job grades. This is in an attempt to assess the stability of expectations across the chosen demographic, and is assumed to be a proxy for the reasonableness thereof for inclusion in service quality measurement. If statistically significant differences are found, this would suggest that service expectations are not entirely stable.
The apparent need for concerted focus on service quality in the public sector context is not a novel idea, although it came much later than the private sector (Lamidi, Agboola & Taleat
This was brought on by the realisation that aside from improving state performance, public service quality is one of the key determinants of a country’s competitive edge along with state leadership in the face of globalisation (Adejuwon
Before defining service quality, it may be useful to first consider service and quality as separate concepts. A service is commonly defined as a benefits package with a description of what is done and how it is done to create value for and to satisfy the customer (Ingaldi
Before detailing service quality models, it would be useful to note that the lack of understanding of the factors leading to service quality contributes to the difficulty in defining the concept as suggested by Agarwal and Kumar (
The Nordic model, developed by Grönroos (
Criticism against this model is that it does not provide an exact technical measure for the two variables, and that it is not adequately tested (Hamid & Yip
SERVQUAL, with its stance that service quality can be gauged by assessing the difference between service expectations and perceptions of that received, is underpinned by the model of service quality gaps by Parasuraman et al. (
Model of service quality gaps.
It is useful for management teams to note that although service quality studies mainly focused on the five gaps, the assumption that management is always able to influence employees may not always be the case. Gaps 6 and 7, which is an extension of the traditional gap model, focuses more on how employees feature in service quality through their understanding of customer expectations and the perceptions of management (Lee et al.
The SERVQUAL approach, developed during the 1980s by Parasuraman et al. (
The dimensions of service quality that underpin SERVQUAL are: tangibles which include actual physical resources such as provider officers and the appearance of employees. Reliability refers to a provider’s capability to provide specific services in an accurate and dependable manner. Responsiveness refers to the willingness to assist customers in an efficient and timeous fashion. Assurance encompasses organisational characteristics that give customers confidence that a provider may be trusted to provide the brand promise.
This includes the competence of employees. The last dimension is empathy, which refers to the extent to which a provider is ready to afford customers’ personal attention (Mjaku
The SERVPERF approach by Cronin and Taylor (
Research on measuring service quality such as those of Kwateng et al. (
This study is quantitative in nature. It is also descriptive and cross-sectional as it aims to provide an accurate description of service quality through its measurement, using both the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, and determine whether there exist statistically significant differences in service expectations based on the customer’s job grade at a given point in time. If such differences are found the suggestion would be that, service expectations, at least based on the chosen demographic in this study, are not particularly stable thus supporting the premise of SERVPERF. Gap analysis was performed by calculating the difference between the service expectation and service performance scores as guided by SERVQUAL. A score of between 0 and 0.99 is considered to imply that service expectations have been met since service performance scores are fairly in line with expectations. A score of at least more than 1, would imply that performance scores are exceeded by at least a unit of expectation scores, indicates that expectations are exceeded. The opposite would then apply to negative scores. The frequency distribution for service performance scores was graphically represented by means of a frequency polygon to gauge service quality on the auspices of SERVPERF. If positively skewed the polygon will peak on the left-hand side of the centre value, which would be four in the case of the 7-point Likert scale used in this study, indicating more negative scores. The opposite applies to a negatively skewed polygon implying more positive scores (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill
The study relies on the central limit theorem and thus a check for the normality of frequency distributions was not conducted. The theorem holds that the greater the participation of sample units in a given survey, with a minimum of 30, the closer its distribution to normal is likely to be. This occurs even if it was drawn from a population whose distribution is not normal. This study uses data collected from 522 participants and thus meets the required minimum. The central limit theorem is widely valued as it validates the use of parametric tests, which require normal data distribution, which is generally more sensitive and thus comparably more accurate than non-parametric tests, more broadly (Saunders et al.
A pilot study was conducted using 40 sample units from four national departments. A response rate of 75% was achieved as 30 of these employees participated. An online census survey approach was followed for the main study after good reliability results were achieved. Pertaining to the former, Cronbach Alpha’s of 0.951 and 0.944 were obtained for service expectations and performance, respectively. In the case of the main study, values of 0.978 and 0.942 were obtained. These are all above the minimum recommended indication of 0.7 for reliability (Saunders et al.
The sample units in this study are defined as employees within the Administration Divisions of all national government departments. This is because the function of this Division, which is standard across all government departments and usually consists of five sub-divisions, is to ensure that annual performance plans are adequately funded and implemented, and that all applicable financial legislation is adhered to in doing so (Department of National Treasury
Most of the respondents were employees on SL13 at 25% (
The SERVQUAL questionnaire, both Part A and Part B, developed by Parasuraman et al. (
Measuring instrument used in the study. Service expectations (Part A).
Reference code | Item |
---|---|
ET1 | They should have up-to-date equipment. |
ET2 | Their physical facilities should be visually appealing. |
ET3 | Their employees should appear neat. |
ET4 | The appearance of the physical facilities of treasuries should be in keeping with the type of services provided. |
ERY5 | When treasuries promises to do something by a certain time, they should do so. |
ERY6 | When line function departments have problems, treasuries should be sympathetic. |
ERY7 | Treasuries should be dependable. |
ERY8 | Treasuries should provide their services at the time they promise to do so. |
ERY9 | Treasuries should keep accurate records. |
rER10 | Treasuries should not be expected to tell line function departments exactly when services will be performed. |
rER11 | It is not realistic for employees of line function departments to expect prompt service from employees of treasuries. |
rER12 | Employees of treasuries do not always have to be willing to help employees of line function departments |
rER13 | It is okay if employees of treasuries are too busy to respond to the requests of line function departments promptly. |
EA14 | Employees of line function departments should be able to trust employees of treasuries. |
EA15 | Employees of line function departments should be able to feel safe in their transactions with of those of the treasuries. |
EA16 | Treasury employees should be polite. |
EA17 | Treasury employees should get adequate support from the relevant treasury to do their jobs well. |
rEE18 | Treasuries should not be expected to give employees of line function departments individual attention. |
rEE19 | Employees of treasuries cannot be expected to give employees of line function departments personal attention. |
rEE20 | It is unrealistic to expect employees to know what the needs of line function departments are. |
rEE21 | It is unrealistic to expect treasuries to have their line function departments’ best interests at heart. |
rEE22 | Treasury should not be expected to have operating hours convenient to all employees of line function departments. |
ERY, expected reliability; rEE, expected empathy; rPE, performance empathy; EA, expected assurance; PA, performance assurance; rPR, performance responsiveness; PRY, performance reliability; PT, performance tangibles; rER, expected responsiveness; ET, expected tangibles.
Measuring instrument used in the study. Service expectations (Part B).
Reference code | Item |
---|---|
PT1 | National Treasury has up-to-date equipment. |
PT2 | National Treasury’s physical facilities are visually appealing. |
PT3 | National Treasury’s employees appear neat. |
PT4 | The appearance of the physical facilities of National Treasury is in keeping with the type of services provided. |
PRY5 | When National Treasury promises to do something by a certain time, they do so. |
PRY6 | When you have problems, National Treasury is sympathetic. |
PRY7 | National Treasury is dependable. |
PR Y8 | National Treasury provides its services at the time it promises to do so. |
PRY9 | National Treasury keeps accurate records. |
rPR10 | National Treasury does not tell you exactly when services will be performed. |
rPR11 | You do not receive prompt service from National Treasury’s employees. |
rPR12 | Employees of National Treasury are not always willing to help customers. |
rPR13 | Employees of National Treasury are too busy to respond to customer requests promptly. |
PA14 | You can trust employees of National Treasury. |
PA15 | You feel safe in your transactions with National Treasury’s employees. |
PA16 | Employees of the National Treasury are polite. |
PA17 | National Treasury employees get adequate support from the National Treasury to do their jobs well. |
rPE18 | National Treasury does not give you individual attention. |
rPE19 | Employees of National Treasury do not give you personal attention. |
rPE20 | Employees of National Treasury do not know what your needs are. |
rPE21 | National Treasury does not have your best interests at heart. |
rPE22 | National Treasury does not have operating hours convenient to all their customers. |
ERY, expected reliability; rEE, expected empathy; rPE, performance empathy; EA, expected assurance; PA, performance assurance; rPR, performance responsiveness; PRY, performance reliability; PT, performance tangibles; rER, expected responsiveness; ET, expected tangibles.
The responses obtained, as they appear in
Ethical clearance has been granted by a University in Gauteng. The Director-General of the NT also granted permission for the study to be conducted and information to be published.
The study lumped two NT functions to measure service quality, implying that the result would provide a netted out indication of service quality. It would therefore not be possible to respond to a question on what the level of service quality would be for one of the functions without the other. Negatively worded questions have been shown to deliver less positive responses when compared to positively worded questions in some cases (Kamoen et al.
Firstly, in order to increase the managerial implications value of this research for the NT’s management team, it may be useful to replicate the study with the functions separated. This will provide more confidence that what seems to be good performance is not perhaps a combination of very outstanding performance in one function and poor performance in the other. Secondly, in order to ensure that the strength of the views of respondents is not perhaps biased, all items should be positively worded in conducting the recommended replication.
The frequency distributions by item, including the mean and standard deviation (SD), are shown for service quality expectations (
Results on service quality expectations.
Items (reference code) | Variable | 1: Strongly disagree | 2: Disagree | 3: Somewhat disagree | 4: Neither agree nor disagree | 5: Somewhat agree | 6: Agree | 7: Strongly agree | Total | SD | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ET1 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 144 | 325 | 51 | 522 | 5.814 | 0.596 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 27.60 | 62.30 | 9.80 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ET2 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 142 | 327 | 52 | 522 | 5.824 | 0.591 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 27.20 | 62.60 | 10.00 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ET3 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 146 | 320 | 55 | 522 | 5.822 | 0.601 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 28.00 | 61.30 | 10.50 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ET4 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 148 | 317 | 54 | 522 | 5.808 | 0.612 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 28.40 | 60.70 | 10.30 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ERY5 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 136 | 325 | 57 | 522 | 5.833 | 0.611 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 26.10 | 62.30 | 10.90 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ER6 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 148 | 309 | 60 | 522 | 5.812 | 0.634 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 28.40 | 59.20 | 11.50 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ERY7 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 147 | 315 | 56 | 522 | 5.81 | 0.62 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.80 | 28.20 | 60.30 | 10.70 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ERY8 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 136 | 329 | 51 | 522 | 5.814 | 0.609 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.10 | 26.10 | 63.00 | 9.80 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ERY9 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 138 | 323 | 55 | 522 | 5.812 | 0.64 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.60 | 0.60 | 26.40 | 61.90 | 10.50 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rER10 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 129 | 346 | 44 | 522 | 5.814 | 0.627 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 24.70 | 66.30 | 8.40 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rER11 | Count ( |
1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 125 | 344 | 50 | 522 | 5.839 | 0.611 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 23.90 | 65.90 | 9.60 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rER12 | Count ( |
1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 108 | 357 | 54 | 522 | 5.879 | 0.6 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 20.70 | 68.40 | 10.30 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rER13 | Count ( |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 112 | 353 | 55 | 522 | 5.877 | 0.601 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 21.50 | 67.60 | 10.50 | 100.00 | - | - | |
EA14 | Count ( |
0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 134 | 334 | 53 | 522 | 5.837 | 0.603 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 25.70 | 64.00 | 10.20 | 100.00 | - | - | |
EA15 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 129 | 336 | 55 | 522 | 5.851 | 0.588 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.40 | 24.70 | 64.40 | 10.50 | 100.00 | - | - | |
EA16 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 114 | 342 | 66 | 522 | 5.908 | 0.581 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 21.80 | 65.50 | 12.60 | 100.00 | - | - | |
EA17 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 99 | 362 | 58 | 522 | 5.908 | 0.571 |
Row |
0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 0.40 | 19.00 | 69.30 | 11.10 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rEE18 | Count ( |
2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 104 | 365 | 49 | 522 | 5.86 | 0.657 |
Row |
0.40 | 0.40 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 19.90 | 69.90 | 9.40 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rEE19 | Count ( |
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 125 | 345 | 51 | 522 | 5.849 | 0.602 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 23.90 | 66.10 | 9.80 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rEE20 | Count ( |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 137 | 331 | 52 | 522 | 5.824 | 0.622 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 26.20 | 63.40 | 10.00 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rEE21 | Count ( |
1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 102 | 368 | 50 | 522 | 5.887 | 0.578 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 19.50 | 70.50 | 9.60 | 100.00 | - | - | |
rEE22 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 0 | 18 | 102 | 357 | 43 | 522 | 5.801 | 0.675 |
Row |
0.20 | 0.20 | 0.00 | 3.40 | 19.50 | 68.40 | 8.20 | 100.00 | - | - | |
ERY, expected reliability; rEE, expected empathy; EA, expected assurance; rER, expected responsiveness; ET, expected tangibles; SD, standard deviation
Service quality performance.
Items (reference codes) | 1. (Strongly disagree) | 2. (Disagree) | 3. (Somewhat disagree) | 4. (Neither agree nor disagree) | 5. (Somewhat agree) | 6. (Agree) | 7. (Strongly agree) | Total | SD | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PT1 | Count ( |
0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 49 | 393 | 79 | 522 | 6.050 | 0.523 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9.4 | 75.3 | 15.1 | 100 | - | - | |
PT2 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 390 | 89 | 522 | 6.088 | 0.523 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 74.7 | 17.0 | 100 | - | - | |
PT3 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 43 | 376 | 102 | 522 | 6.109 | 0.539 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 8.2 | 72.0 | 19.5 | 100 | - | - | |
PT4 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 380 | 102 | 522 | 6.119 | 0.508 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.7 | 72.8 | 19.5 | 100 | - | - | |
PRY5 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 360 | 118 | 522 | 6.142 | 0.539 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 8.4 | 69.0 | 22.6 | 100 | - | - | |
PRY6 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 50 | 360 | 111 | 522 | 6.113 | 0.551 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 9.6 | 69.0 | 21.3 | 100 | - | - | |
PRY7 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 48 | 358 | 115 | 522 | 6.125 | 0.552 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 9.2 | 68.6 | 22.0 | 100 | - | - | |
PRY8 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 43 | 379 | 99 | 522 | 6.103 | 0.519 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 8.2 | 72.6 | 19.0 | 100 | - | - | |
PRY9 | Count ( |
0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 368 | 97 | 522 | 6.059 | 0.615 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.3 | 70.5 | 18.6 | 100 | - | - | |
rPR10 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 55 | 386 | 77 | 522 | 6.015 | 0.597 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 10.5 | 73.9 | 14.8 | 100 | - | - | |
rPR11 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 54 | 383 | 83 | 522 | 6.038 | 0.583 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 10.3 | 73.4 | 15.9 | 100 | - | - | |
rPR12 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 44 | 369 | 106 | 522 | 6.098 | 0.604 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 8.4 | 70.7 | 20.3 | 100 | - | - | |
rPR13 | Count ( |
3 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 42 | 390 | 81 | 522 | 6.015 | 0.687 |
Row |
0.6 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 8.0 | 74.7 | 15.5 | 100 | - | - | |
PA14 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 43 | 378 | 98 | 522 | 6.092 | 0.543 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 8.2 | 72.4 | 18.8 | 100 | - | - | |
PA15 | Count ( |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 45 | 367 | 109 | 522 | 6.119 | 0.538 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 8.6 | 70.3 | 20.9 | 100 | - | - | |
PA16 | Count ( |
0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 351 | 134 | 522 | 6.180 | 0.570 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 67.2 | 25.7 | 100 | - | - | |
PA17 | Count ( |
0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 40 | 378 | 101 | 522 | 6.098 | 0.575 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 7.7 | 72.4 | 19.3 | 100 | - | - | |
rPE18 | Count ( |
1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 46 | 391 | 79 | 522 | 6.017 | 0.654 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 8.8 | 74.9 | 15.1 | 100 | - | - | |
rPE19 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 44 | 374 | 101 | 522 | 6.086 | 0.606 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 8.4 | 71.6 | 19.3 | 100 | - | - | |
rPE20 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 43 | 384 | 92 | 522 | 6.071 | 0.592 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 8.2 | 73.6 | 17.6 | 100 | - | - | |
rPE21 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 36 | 382 | 100 | 522 | 6.096 | 0.596 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 6.9 | 73.2 | 19.2 | 100 | - | - | |
rPE22 | Count ( |
1 | 1 | 2 | 20 | 39 | 368 | 91 | 522 | 5.994 | 0.719 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 3.8 | 7.5 | 70.5 | 17.4 | 100 | - | - | |
M, Mean; rPE, performance empathy; PA, performance assurance; PT, performance tangibles; rPR, performance responsiveness; PRY, performance reliability; SD, standard deviation.
Gap analysis was performed: negative scores imply inadequate service quality, a positive score below 0.99 indicates adequate service quality and scores above 1.00 indicate that expectations have been exceeded (
Gap analysis.
Expectation scores (–) Performance scores | Frequency | Percent | Cumulative percent |
---|---|---|---|
−2.00 – −1.75 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
−1.76 – −1.50 | 2 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
−1.51 – −1.25 | 5 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
−1.26 – −1.00 | 4 | 0.8 | 2.1 |
9 | 1.7 | 3.8 | |
14 | 2.7 | 6.5 | |
7 | 1.3 | 7.9 | |
−026 – |
37 | 7.1 | 14.9 |
0.00–0.25 | 250 | 47.9 | 47.9 |
0.26–0.50 | 72 | 13.8 | 61.7 |
0.51–0.75 | 36 | 6.9 | 68.6 |
0.76–0.99 | 44 | 8.4 | 77.0 |
1.00–1.25 | 22 | 4.2 | 4.2 |
1.26–1.50 | 5 | 1.0 | 5.2 |
1.51–1.75 | 9 | 1.7 | 6.9 |
1.76–2.00 | 6 | 1.1 | 8.0 |
The frequency distribution is graphically represented in the form of a frequency polygon in order to present the skewness of the distribution (
SERVPERF distribution illustrated by means of frequency polygon.
A
Scheffe’s post-test results.
Comparison groups | Salary level | Mean | |
---|---|---|---|
1–2 | SL1–SL8 | 5.389 | < 0.000 |
SL9–SL10 | 5.763 | ||
1–3 | SL1–SL8 | 5.389 | < 0.000 |
SL11–SL12 | 5.907 | ||
1–4 | SL1–SL8 | 5.389 | < 0.000 |
SL13 | 5.967 | ||
1–5 | SL1–SL8 | 5.389 | < 0.000 |
SL14–SL16 | 6.601 |
SL, salary level.
The following three aspects were considered in formulating this section. Firstly, the suggested link between the chosen functions of the NT used in this study, service quality and service delivery outcomes of line function departments as articulated in
A formalised online system to assess NT’s service quality wherein its customers are able to anonymously provide feedback on the service provided by a particular employee at every point of contact is suggested. This will make it possible for relevant line managers to provide what would probably be the most realistic feedback to employees regarding their performance since it would come directly from the customers they serve. This recommendation is in line with the statement of Park (
Given the instability of service quality expectations (Cronin & Taylor
Both the Nordic and SERVQUAL models noted that expectations are largely influenced by marketing elements including marketing communication (Hoang et al.
[
To really appreciate this recommendation, the benefit of suitably low or realistic expectations were illustrated in the study of Abou-Khalil and Aoun (
We would like to extend our appreciation to all those who participated and contributed to this study.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
R.L.T. conducted the research and wrote the article. V.N. and T.H.H.H. supervised the research and co-wrote the article
The research received no specific grant funding.
Data can be shared anytime for the purpose of this publication’s processes, and is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author, R.L.T.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.