Search results

Suggests that, despite hundreds of publications on consumer satisfaction and service quality, little work has been done to clarify the conceptual basis of these constructs; theorists in the area of service quality argue that the popular press does not differentiate between these two constructs. Clarifies the relationship between consumer satisfaction and perceived service quality using a scenario specific to higher education. Also suggests a model of perceived service quality that could be used in higher education institutions. Discusses conceptual and managerial implications of the findings.

It is recognised in marketing that the study of buyer behaviour includes analysis of instrumental acts: that is, acts necessary in obtaining the goal object and the acts involved in consuming it. A technology that eases the difficulty level of instrumental acts such as visiting a purchase outlet to purchase a product is the Internet. Technically, the Internet minimises customer’s transaction costs such as time spent travelling to a store to purchase a product. Yet, in spite of its benefits, only one‐in‐four Internet users shop online. An empirical analysis of surveyed beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding Internet purchase of air tickets revealed that security concerns about the Internet make consumers avoid online purchase of air tickets. It is suggested that Internet marketers focus on modifying the attitudinal structure of consumers.

In a pursuit of excellence, it is increasingly important to identify customer values and demands. Service quality has been identified as one such demand. The purpose of this paper is to develop the model for service quality in higher education.

The proposed model is based on a current conceptualization of service quality, which suggests that service quality is a multidimensional and hierarchical construct.

In the proposed model, service quality consists of two primary dimensions which are defined by several corresponding sub‐dimensions: program quality: curriculum, industry interaction, input quality, academic facilities; and quality of life: non‐academic processes, support facilities, campus and interaction quality.

The paper has value for the institutes seeking to improve the quality of services they provide.