Werner Bellingan

IMPROVING THE SERVICE QUALITY OF A CIVIL
CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM THROUGH

BENCHMARKING
BY
WERNER BELLINGAN
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

MASTERS DEGREE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Business School
Promoter: Prof. J J Pieterse
SEPTEMBER 2007
15 September 2007
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
RE: CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE
The name of the organisation under review is kept confidential because the
work presents potentially sensitive information. It is referred to as Company X.
Yours faithfully,
WERNER BELLINGAN
I, Werner Bellingan, hereby declare that:
• The work in this paper is my own original work;

• All resources used or referred to have been documented and recognised;
and
• This dissertation has not been previously submitted in full or partial
fulfilment of the requirements for an equivalent or higher qualification at
any other recognised educational institution.
____________________ __________________
Werner Bellingan Date
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The successful completion of this study would not have been possible without
the support and assistance of the following parties, which I would like to thank in
particular:
• My Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for giving me my abilities and the
opportunities to fulfil my destiny in life.
• My wife Zelda and son Danté, for their invaluable support, patience and
love.
• My parents, Otto and Susan, for their encouragement and love.
• My promoter, Prof Koot Pieterse, for his guidance and assistance.
• Dr Annelie Pretorius for checking the technical correctness of this paper.
• Jacques Pietersen from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University for
doing the statistical analysis.
• Debbie Box for proofreading this dissertation.
• Andrew Theron, my employer at the time of the research, for giving me
his full support.
• All the respondents who completed the questionnaire.
• Christine Gross who tirelessly sent out hundreds of correspondence to
potential respondents.
• Kevin Jackson who assisted with the computer aided design (CAD)
draughting of graphs.
SUMMARY
The civil engineering industry in South Africa has seen a steady decline in the
number of professionals during the last few decades, however it is expected
that the government and private sectors are to spend over R200 billion on
infrastructure in the next few years. This increases the demand on civil
consulting engineering firms to achieve greater productivity, with reduced time
and human resources, which has had a profound effect on the quality of service
delivered to clients. These firms need to gain a competitive advantage by
consistently providing Service Excellence, which is superior to their competitors.
One way of achieving this is by benchmarking firms against their competitors.
In this research paper the Service Quality and Service Recovery procedures of
Company X in Port Elizabeth were benchmarked against its competitors using a
customised form of the recognised SERVQUAL research instrument - the
SERVPERF questionnaire. The results proved to be invaluable because the
survey revealed insightful information which can be used to their strategic
benefit. Civil consulting engineering firms need to be aware that Service
Excellence is an imperative in the service industry, but do not necessarily have
to be perfect. Firms simply need to outperform their competitors to be rated as
market leaders.
Strategies to improve the Service Quality and Service Recovery of the firm
under review are suggested and this work concludes with suggestions for future
research projects, which may be beneficial to the researcher, the civil
engineering industry and the economy of South Africa.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER 1 : THE BACKGROUND AND METHODS OF STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIVES 2
1.2.1 MAIN PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES 2
1.2.2 SUB-PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES 3
1.3 OVERVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 3
1.4 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS 4
1.4.1 SERVICE QUALITY 4
1.4.2 CLIENT SATISFACTION VERSUS SERVICE QUALITY 5
1.4.3 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT 6
1.5 SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH 8
1.6 ASSUMPTIONS 8
1.7 LIMITATIONS 9
1.8 SUMMARY 9
CHAPTER 2 : SERVICE QUALITY AND SERVICE RECOVERY IN

THE CIVIL CONSULTING ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
2.1 INTRODUCTION 11
2.2 SERVICE QUALITY 11
2.2.1 A SERVICE QUALITY MODEL 13
2.2.2 SERVICE LEADERSHIP 15
2.3 CLIENT SATISFACTION 16
2.3.1 SERVICE SATISFACTION FRAMEWORK 16
2.3.2 MEASURING CLIENT SATISFACTION 17
2.4 MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY 19
2.5 PRIOR RESEARCH 22
2.6 THE IMPORTANCE–PERFORMANCE MATRIX 23
2.6.1 THE “APPROPRIATE” ZONE 24
2.6.2 THE “IMPROVE” ZONE 24
2.6.3 THE “URGENT ACTION” ZONE 24
2.6.4 THE “EXCESS?” ZONE 24
MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
2.6.5 QUALIFICATIONS TO THE USE OF THE IMPORTANCE–

PERFORMANCE MATRIX 25
2.7 SERVICE RECOVERY 25
2.7.1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF SERVICE FAILURE
AND RECOVERY STRATEGIES 29
2.8 DISSATISFACTION AND COMPLAINING BEHAVIOUR 30
2.9 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN THE CIVIL
CONSULTING ENGINEERING INDUSTRY 32
2.10 SUMMARY 34
CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 INTRODUCTION 35
3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 35
3.2.1 TRIANGULATION 36
3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 36
3.3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 36
3.3.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 37
3.4 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 39
3.5 CHOICE OF SAMPLE 40
3.6 SUMMARY 40
CHAPTER 4 : ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESEARCH
4.1 INTRODUCTION 41
4.2 DATA COLLECTION 41
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS 42
4.3.1 RESPONSE RATE 43
4.3.2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY ANALYSIS 45
4.4 SERVICE QUALITY DIMENSIONS 47
4.4.1 RELIABILITY 47
i. Question 1 – “When they promise to do something
by a certain time, they do so.” 48

iii
ii. Question 3 – “When I have a problem, the firm shows

a sincere interest in solving it.” 50
iii. Question 5 – “The firm performs the service right the
first time.” 51
iv. Question 7 – “The firm provides its services at the
time they promise to do so.” 53
v. Question 9 – “The firm insists on error free records.” 54
vi. Overall Service Quality Dimension – Reliability 55
4.4.2 RESPONSIVENESS 57
i. Question 2 – “Employees at the firm tell me exactly
when services will be performed.” 57
ii. Question 4 – “Employees at the firm give me prompt
service.” 58
iii. Question 6 – “Employees at the firm are never too
busy to respond to my requests.” 59
iv. Question 8 – “Employees at the firm are always
willing to help me.” 61
v. Overall Service Quality Dimension – Responsiveness 62
4.5 SERVICE RECOVERY 63
4.6 COMPARISON OF GAP SCORES FOR EACH QUESTION
AND DIMENSION 65
4.7 COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS 66
4.7.1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS TO
SERVICE QUALITY 66
4.7.2 GENERAL COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS 67
4.8 TRIANGULATION 68
4.8.1 DATA TRIANGULATION 68
4.8.2 METHODOLOGICAL TRIANGULATION 69
4.8.3 TRIANGULATION RESULTS SUMMARY 69
4.9 IMPORTANCE–PERFORMANCE MATRIX 69
4.10 EVALUATING THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND
HYPOTHESES 71
4.11 SUMMARY 72

iv
CHAPTER 5 : RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION 73
5.2 THE SERVQUAL/SERVPERF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT 73
5.2.1 COMPARING EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS
OF CLIENTS OVER TIME 73
5.2.2 COMPARING SERVPERF SCORES OF COMPANY X
AGAINST COMPETITORS OVER TIME 74
5.2.3 CATEGORISE CLIENTS INTO SEGMENTS OF
DIFFERENT QUALITY PERCEPTIONS 75
5.2.4 ASSESSING SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS OF
INTERNAL CLIENTS 75
5.2.5 ASCERTAIN THE SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS
OF CONTRACTORS 76
5.2.6 ASCERTAIN THE SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS
OF OTHER PROFESSIONALS 76
5.2.7 ASSESSING THE SERVICE QUALITY OF CONTRACT
WORKERS 76
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 77
5.3.1 IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY 77
i. Closing the Service Quality Model Gaps 79
5.3.2 IMPROVING SERVICE RECOVERY 81
5.3.3 IMPROVING TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT 83
5.3.4 IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY CLIENTS FOR
COMPANY X 84
5.4 SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 85
5.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH PROJECTS 86
5.6 CONCLUSION 88
REFERENCE LIST 90

v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Figure 1.1 A Contemporary Framework for TQM 7
Figure 2.1 The Quality/Profit Relationship 12
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Model of Service Quality 13
Figure 2.3 A Service Satisfaction Framework 17
Figure 2.4 The Importance–Performance Matrix 23
Figure 2.5 Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions 25
Figure 2.6 A Conceptual Model of Service Failure and Recovery
Strategies 29
Figure 2.7 Actions Taken for Different Levels of Dissatisfaction 31
Figure 4.1 Response Rate of Questionnaire 43
Figure 4.2 Gaps per question for Service Quality dimension Reliability
– Question 1, Company X versus Competitors and Industry 49
Figure 4.7 Gaps for Service Quality dimension Reliability
– Company X versus Competitors and Industry 56
Figure 4.8 Gaps per question for Service Quality dimension
Responsiveness – Question 2, Company X versus
Competitors and Industry 57

vi
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Responsiveness – Company X versus Competitors
and Industry 62
Figure 4.13 Gaps per question for Service Recovery – Question 10,
Company X versus Competitors and Industry 64
Figure 4.14 Gaps per question for Company X and Industry 65
Figure 4.15 Overall comparison of Service Quality dimensions and
Service Recovery 66
Figure 4.16 Importance–Performance Matrix, Reliability versus Gap
Scores 70
Figure 4.17 Importance–Performance Matrix, Responsiveness versus
Gap Scores 71
Figure 5.1 Illustrative Tracking of Client Perceptions along a Service
Quality Dimension 74
Figure 5.2 Illustrative Tracking of SERVPERF Gap Scores along a
Service Quality Dimension 75
Figure 5.3 Process Model for Continuous Measurement and
Improvement of Service Quality 79
Figure 5.4 Overview of Project Management Knowledge Areas 85
Figure 5.5 Suggested tasks and timeframes for the implementation
plan 86
Figure 5.6 Illustrative Perceptual Mapping of Attributes 88

vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Table 2.1 Percentage of clients and level of dissatisfaction reported 31
Table 4.1 Cronbach’s Alphas for Competitors 1 to 6 46
Table 4.2 Cronbach’s Alphas for Competitors 7 to 10 and Company X 47
Table 4.3 Benchmarking firms according to Question 1 49
Table 4.8 Benchmarking firms according to Reliability 56
Table 4.13 Benchmarking firms according to Responsiveness 63
Table 4.14 Benchmarking firms according to Service Recovery 64
Table 5.1 Summary of Gap problems and methods of closing the
Gaps 80

viii
LIST OF ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE DESCRIPTION PAGE
Annexure A Research Questionnaire 93

1
CHAPTER 1
THE BACKGROUND AND METHODS OF STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The civil engineering industry in South Africa has seen a steady decline in the
number of professionals during the last few decades. This can be attributed to
factors such as a reduction in the industry demand, a reduction in the number of
graduates, an increase in the number of emigrations and poor financial and
other rewards. The result is that personnel have left the industry at a higher
rate than those professionals entering it through tertiary institutions and
immigration (Lawless, 2006).
It is anticipated that over R200 billion is to be spent on infrastructure in South

Africa from 2006 through 2013. Hence, the civil engineering industry is entering
a long-term growth phase, which is set to continue beyond 2010. However, the
projected growth will not be achieved unless appropriate interventions are
made. The current drivers are the Gautrain project, the Soccer World Cup of
2010, the Coega Industrial Development Zone (IDZ), the Eskom and Transnet
expansions, the huge challenges of New Partnership for Africa’s Development
(NEPAD) and more private sector developments (Lawless, 2006).
South Africa will need, according to Lawless (2006), between 3 000 and 6 000
additional civil engineers, technologist and technicians, depending on whether
projects are run concurrently. According to Van Zyl (2006), the Eastern Cape
construction industry is in a growth phase and is expected to gain further
momentum. The total number of commercial building plans approved in the first
four months of 2006 grew by more than 300 per cent over the previous year and
this figure is the highest of all the provinces in South Africa (Van Zyl, 2006).
This increased demand for Civil Consulting Engineering Firms (CCEF) to be
more productive, with reduced time and human resources, has a profound
effect on the quality of service delivered to clients.

2
‘Order-qualifiers’ are the minimum characteristics that a firm must have to be

considered as a potential source of purchase and ‘Order-winners’ are those
characteristics of a firm that distinguish it from its competitors and are the
reasons why it is selected by the client (Davis & Heineke, 2005: 40). The order-
winners remain Service Quality, that is Reliability, Assurance, Responsiveness,
Tangibles and Empathy (Davis & Heineke, 2005: 278). It is imperative for a
CCEF to ensure that it satisfy the ‘order-qualifiers’, such as its Black Economic
Empowerment (BEE) ownership and shareholding, but more important to gain a
competitive advantage by consistently providing Service Excellence, service
which is superior to that of its competitors. One way of achieving this is by
benchmarking against its competitors. Benchmarking is a comparison of the
performance of a company in certain areas with that of other firms in its industry
(Davis & Heineke, 2005: 229).
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIVES
1.2.1 MAIN PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES
The main objective of this research project is to determine the perceptions of

the clients of a CCEF about its Service Quality in relation to its competitors.
The CCEF to be benchmarked is called Company X situated in Port Elizabeth,
Eastern Cape, South Africa.
The two Service Quality dimensions, according to Gardiner (2004: 56), that
require the most action in the civil consulting engineering industry in Port
Elizabeth (PE) are Reliability and Responsiveness. The perceptions of the
clients of these two dimensions are benchmarked against the competitors of
Company X in PE. This provides a relative ranking of Company X in relation to
the Service Quality of its competitors. The results of this survey may prove to
be invaluable to Company X.
Civil consulting engineering firms are unaware of the perceptions of their clients
with regard to their Service Quality. Most do not have the measures in place to
gain valuable feedback from their clients to provide better Service Quality. An

3
unrealistic belief by a CCEF about the perceptions of its clients about its Service
Quality is undesirable.
The main problem statement of this research is: “How can Company X improve
its Service Quality to gain a competitive advantage?”
The following questions will be addressed as appendages to the main problem

statement:
• How does Company X perform in terms of the two most important
Service Quality dimensions Reliability and Responsiveness?
• How does the performance of Company X relate to its competitors?
• What can Company X do to minimise possible performance shortfalls to
become the market leader?
1.2.2 SUB-PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES
The secondary objective of this dissertation is to ascertain the perceptions

about Service Recovery of Company X in relation to its competitors. In addition,
this dissertation will build on the findings of a previous dissertation titled
Evaluating the Service Delivery of a Consulting Engineering Firm, by Robin
Gardiner (2004), which concerns Service Quality in the civil engineering
industry in PE.
The sub-problem statement comprises the following questions:

• Is the Service Recovery of Company X lacking?
• How does Company X fare in relation to its competitors?
• What can Company X do to minimise errors and engage in effective
Service Recovery to gain a competitive advantage?
1.3 OVERVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The first step in the research was to conduct a comprehensive literature search
on Service Quality and Service Recovery. Online databases such as SABINET,
EBSCOHOST, Emerald and Google were used to obtain relevant information.
Various books, journals and other relevant media such as newspapers were

4
researched. Cognisance was taken of relevant information, including important

recommendations and conclusions, contained in the research projects of Keet
(2000), Calitz (2001) and Vassen (2002). The research of Gardiner (2004) is
particularly relevant and this research project builds on some of its findings.
Gardiner (2004: 60) suggests that strategies for improving Reliability and
Responsiveness be developed and this is addressed in this research project.
The majority of clients of CCEF focus on the quality of service rather than the
quality of work. It is difficult for clients to appraise technical excellence,
therefore the personal relationship between the client and the firm is important
(Maister, 2003: 71). Maister (2003: 76) observed that few professional services
firms give attention to improving Service Quality.
Some CCEF attempt to overcome the price sensitivity of clients by

concentrating on their quality of work, but this proves to be costly and
improvement is difficult to demonstrate. Ironically, the improvement of the
quality of service is often at no tangible cost and is more visible to clients
(Maister, 2003: 76).
1.4 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
1.4.1 SERVICE QUALITY
Maister (2003: 71) encapsulates the essence of Service Quality as:
SATISFACTION equals PERCEPTION minus EXPECTATION.
An example of Service Quality is as follows. A client perceives Service Quality

to be at a certain level, but had expected more, then the client will be
dissatisfied. CCEF need to attentively listen to the needs of its clients, before
making claims about technical craftsmanship. This is being truly client-centred.
CCEF need to make its clients feel cared for and in good hands, and not
assume that the client will place trust, confidence and respect in the firm. CCEF
need to discuss all the potential roadblocks, detours and contingencies that may
arise and clearly explain how it will be handled. CCEF often make excessive

5
promises in a vigorous attempt to win new clients, which creates expectations

that cannot be fulfilled. Therefore, Service Excellence is delivered when
perceptions exceed expectations, or when the gaps between client expectations
and perceptions are minimised.
Service Quality is different from product quality because goods are consumed
and services are experienced (Maister, 2003: 71). The following are the main
differences between goods and services (Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry,
1990: 15-16):
• Services are predominantly intangible. Services, unlike goods,
usually cannot be measured, tested and verified in advance of sale to
ensure quality. The selling of a service is purely a performance,
therefore the criteria clients use to evaluate it are complex and hard to
capture accurately;
• Services are heterogeneous. The performance of services varies from
one service provider to another, from client to client and over time. The
interactions between the staff of CCEF and the clients cannot be
standardised to ensure uniformity in the way that the quality of goods
produced are;
• Production and consumption of many services are inseparable.
Service Quality often occurs during service delivery, rather than being
delivered to the client as manufactured goods. Service providers do not
have the advantage of factories serving as buffers between production
and consumption. Service clients are said to be in the service factory.
These characteristics clearly explain the differences between goods and

services. However, it is the perception of the client about the Service Quality
that causes either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
1.4.2 CLIENT SATISFACTION VERSUS SERVICE QUALITY
Leading service firms have identified total client satisfaction both as a goal and
as an imperative. Client satisfaction need not be viewed the same as Service
Quality. Service Quality does not necessarily lead to client satisfaction and
client satisfaction is not necessarily an antecedent of Service Quality (Gardiner,

6
2004: 9). Client satisfaction is a short-term transaction-specific measure,

whereas Service Quality is a long-term overall evaluation of service. Hence, the
perception of Service Quality by a client is formed over time through a number
of dealings during which either satisfaction or dissatisfaction was achieved
(Hoffman & Bateson, 2002: 324).
Two approaches assist with the achievement of total client satisfaction, namely
Service Recovery and Service Guarantees.
• Service Recovery. This approach, according to Davis and Heineke

(2005: 282), is encapsulated by the phrase “To err is human, to recover,
divine”. Mistakes are made and what is important is how the mistakes
are rectified. Service Recovery is an integral and crucial part of Service
Quality to assure client satisfaction;
• Service Guarantees. This approach comprises powerful methods for
obtaining valuable feedback from clients on how services are performed.
An unconditional service guarantee provides the platform for clients to
voice their complaints, rather than simply taking their business
elsewhere. The characteristics of an effective services guarantee are
that it is (Hoffman & Bateson, 2002: 325):
o Unconditional;
o Easy to understand;
o Meaningful;
o Easy to invoke;
o Quick and easy to collect on.
1.4.3 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The reputation of a CCEF is built by its quality, reliability, delivery and price.
Quality is the most important of these. Quality is meeting the requirements of
the client and is not restricted to the functional characteristics of the services
(Oakland, 2003: 16).
Total Quality Management (TQM) can be seen as an organisation wide

approach that focuses on producing high Service Quality and needs to be the

7
responsibility of each individual staff member. TQM is an integral part of a firm

and is not a separate programme. It encompasses all the functional areas
within the firm (Davis & Heineke, 2005: 283).
Planning, People and Processes are the keys to ensuring Service Quality,
which improves overall Performance. The four Ps of Planning, People,
Processes and Performance form a structure of management necessities,
which form the TQM model as illustrated in Figure 1.1 (Oakland, 2003: 26).
Planning
Culture Communication
Performance
People Commitment Processes
Figure 1.1 - A contemporary framework for TQM

Source: Oakland (2003: 27)
Performance is achieved by using a business excellence approach and through

planning the involvement of people in the improvement of processes. The four
Ps are described as follows (Oakland, 2003: 26-27):
• Planning. Designing quality, the development of strategies and policies,

and by setting up appropriate partnerships and resources;

8
• Performance. Carrying out audits, reviews and benchmarking and

establishing a balanced scorecard for the firm;
• Processes. Continuous improvement, quality management systems and
management;
• People. Managing the human resources of the firm, communications
and teamwork.
1.5 SCOPE AND DELIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH
This research was primarily focused on the perceptions of clients of CCEF in

PE with respect to the quality of service. The research is targeted at a relatively
small segment of clients in the service industry, but the scope and delimitation
of the research were nonetheless sizable enough to be indicative of the industry
concerned. Clients deal with numerous individuals from many firms and the
information that was obtained from these clients was relevant to the purpose of
this research.
1.6 ASSUMPTIONS
The following have been assumed in conducting the research:

• All the respondents were objective, unbiased and that any personal
issues that might exist between the clients and the staff of the CCEF
under review did not influence the ratings;
• All the respondents rated the questions with the same standard of
assessment;
• The ratings that were obtained are indicative of the industry as a whole in
South Africa. Hence, the expectations and perceptions of clients in PE
are not different to those in the rest of South Africa;
• The Service Quality dimensions Reliability and Responsiveness, as
developed in the original SERVQUAL research instrument, are
applicable to the civil consulting engineering industry;
• The expectations of the statement pertaining to Service Recovery in the
questionnaire would be at or near perfection (as noted by Gardiner
(2004: 58)). Hence, similarly to the standard Service Quality dimensions,

9
the Gap Scores of Service Recovery could be obtained and used to

benchmark this factor against competitors;
• The perceptions of clients are based on the individual experiences
obtained from the various local CCEF and that the research results
provide an implicit comparison of results.
1.7 LIMITATIONS
The research is focused on government institutions in PE, which include the

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (NMBM), Cacadu District Municipality,
Department of Public Works, and the South African National Roads Agency.
Only the dominant CCEF in PE have been included in the research instrument
(questionnaire) and provision was made for clients to specify and rate other
firms which it had dealings with. Company X was benchmarked against its ten
main competitors in PE and against the civil consulting engineering industry.
The latter comprised the average rating of all the firms in PE.
The questionnaire included nine questions covering the two Service Quality
dimensions, Reliability and Responsiveness and one question was pertaining to
Service Recovery. Its results are limited to the Gap Scores of the
aforementioned and no conclusions or inferences could be made on any other
issue relating to Service Quality or Service Recovery. The research was limited
to current and previous clients, as suggested by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and
Berry (1988: 31), because meaningful responses to the perception statements
of the SERVQUAL questionnaire require respondents to have some knowledge
of or experience of Company X.
1.8 SUMMARY
The problem statements and objectives of this research were identified in this
introductory chapter. The overview of the related literature and the definition of
key concepts and the scope and delimitation of the research have set the
parameters of this dissertation, which is structured as follows:

10
Chapter 2: Service Quality and Service Recovery in the Civil Consulting

Engineering Industry;
Chapter 3: Research Design;
Chapter 4: Analysis and Interpretation of the Research;
Chapter 5: Recommendations and Conclusion.

11
CHAPTER 2
SERVICE QUALITY AND SERVICE RECOVERY IN THE CIVIL CONSULTING

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this chapter is to analyse and present the findings of a literature
review that determines the factors influencing the Service Quality and Service
Recovery of CCEF. It includes prior research and the application of Service
Quality and Service Recovery in practice.
2.2 SERVICE QUALITY
An organisation needs a strategy to be successful. Strategy is defined as “…

an integrated and coordinated set of commitments and actions designed to
exploit core competencies and gain a competitive advantage” (Hitt, Ireland &
Hoskisson, 2005: 7). The key to develop an effective strategy is to understand
how to add value for clients. Value is added through the competitive priorities
that are selected to support a strategy. The competitive priorities are (Davis &
Heineke, 2005: 29):
• Cost. Organisations need to provide low-cost products and services;
• Quality. Organisations need to provide high-quality products and
services;
• Delivery. Organisations need to provide products and services quickly;
• Flexibility. Organisations need to provide a wide variety of products and
services;
• Service. Organisations need to focus on how products and services are
delivered and supported.
Service Quality, according to Zeithaml et al (1990: 18), is defined as “… the

extent of discrepancy between customers’ expectations or desires and their
perceptions”. The importance of Service Quality is generally understood. Most
CCEF acknowledge the critical distinction between technical quality and Service

12
Quality and the importance of Service Quality in ensuring client satisfaction.

However, superior service in this area is rare (Maister, 2003: 79). The CCEF
needs to be equally focussed on managing the experience of the client and on
executing technical tasks. Clients will generally choose a CCEF which they can
trust, have confidence in and which will give them reassurance, rather than for
their “cold” technical expertise (Maister, 2003: 71).
Parasuraman et al (1988: 12-40) conducted a thorough research on the quality

of service and categorised Service Quality into five major dimensions, namely
Reliability, Tangibles, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy. These
dimensions emphasise the perception by the client of the service rather than the
view of the service provider of how the service need to be delivered (Davis &
Heineke, 2005: 278).
Excellent service is beneficial in the short and long term because it creates true
clients. These are clients who are pleased that they have chosen a firm after
the service experience and clients who will come back for repeat business. The
positive relationship between perceived quality and profitability has been
documented in a database from the Profit Impact of Market Strategy (PIMS)
programme, which illustrates this relationship. Figure 2.1 (from the PIMS
database) illustrated the relationship between relative perceived quality and
Return On Investment (ROI) (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 10).
The Quality/Profit Relationship
35%
30%
25%
Percentage ROI
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Relative Quality
Figure 2.1 - The Quality/Profit Relationship

Source: Zeithaml et al (1990: 10)

13
It is evident that an increase in the relative quality results in an increase in the

ROI.
2.2.1 A SERVICE QUALITY MODEL
The Service Quality Model (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 46) focuses on deficiencies
within firms that contribute to poor Service Quality perceptions by clients.
Organisations do not always meet the expectations of their clients and the
differences between the expected and perceived service are called “Gaps”. It is
noted that should firms fail to meet the expectations of clients, it does not
necessarily result in dissatisfied clients. Figure 2.2 depicts a Conceptual Model
of Service Quality as developed by Zeithaml et al (1990: 46).
Expected Service Personal Needs Past Experience
Expected Service
Client
Gap 5
Perceived Service
Gap 1
Gap 4 External
Service Delivery
Communications
Gap 3
Provider
Service Quality Specifications
Gap 2
Management Perceptions of
Client Expectations
Figure 2.2 – Conceptual Model of Service Quality


14
The Gaps as illustrated in Figure 2.2 are narrowed through closing the provider
gaps (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 49):
• Gap 1 – The discrepancy between the expectations of the clients and the
perceptions of management of those expectations. This translates into
not knowing what the client wants;
• Gap 2 – The discrepancy between perceptions by management of client
expectations and Service Quality specifications. This translates into not
selecting the right service designs and standards;
• Gap 3 – The discrepancy between actual Service Quality specifications
and the actual service delivery. This translates into not delivering to
service standards;
• Gap 4 – The discrepancy between service delivery and what is
communicated to clients. This translates into not matching performance
to promises;
• Gap 5 – The assessment of the client about Service Quality.
The factors that contribute to Gap 1 through Gap 4 are as follows (Zeithaml et
al, 1990: 35):
• Gap 1
o Insufficient market research;
o Inadequate use of market research findings;
o Lack of interaction between management and the clients;
o Insufficient upward communication from contact personnel to
management;
o Too many staff levels between contact personnel and management.
• Gap 2
o Inadequate management commitment to Service Quality;
o Perception of infeasibility;
o Inadequate standardisation of tasks;
o Absence of goal setting.
• Gap 3
o Employee role ambiguity;
o Role conflict;
o Poor employee-job fit;
o Poor technology-job fit;

15
o Inappropriate supervisory control systems;

o Lack of perceived control;
o Lack of teamwork.
• Gap 4
o Inadequate horizontal communications;
o Differences in policies and procedures across branches or
departments;
o Propensity to over-promise.
This Conceptual Model of Service Quality helps organisations to focus on

strategies to ensure Service Excellence.
It is important to note that the term “expectations” differs between Service

Quality and client satisfaction literature. Expectations, in the ‘satisfaction’
literature, are viewed as predictions made by clients about what is likely to
occur during a transaction or exchange. Oliver (1981: 33, as cited by
Parasuraman et al, 1988: 17), states that “It is generally agreed that
expectations are consumer-defined probabilities of occurrence of positive and
negative events if the consumer engages in some behaviour”. Expectations, in
Service Quality literature, are viewed as the desires or wants of clients, as what
clients feel a service provider need to offer, opposed to what firms will offer
(Parasuraman et al, 1988: 17). It is therefore evident that the above Conceptual
Model is not applicable to client satisfaction, but only to Service Quality.
2.2.2 SERVICE LEADERSHIP
The main reason that Service Quality is not at the desired level is due to a lack
of sufficient Service Leadership. Zeithaml et al (1990: 5) states that “Too many
workers are over-managed and under-led”. Service Leadership means profit,
and is an integral part of any business. The following are important
characteristics of Service Leadership (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 5-8):
• Service Vision. Service leaders view Service Quality as the basis for
competing. Service Excellence is a central part of the vision. Service
leaders realise that Service Excellence requires constant attention;

16
• High Standards. Service leaders strive to achieve the right service the
first time;
• Hands-on Leadership style. Service leaders lead from the field, as
opposed to from their desks;
• Integrity. Personal integrity is vital to successful Service Leadership.
There is a strong connection between Service Excellence and employee
pride. This pride is partly shaped by their perceptions of management
fairness.
2.3 CLIENT SATISFACTION
The difference between Service Quality and client satisfaction have been
introduced and briefly discussed. Client satisfaction is a subjective concept,
because expectations differ from client to client. Any firm that wants to assess
its performance needs to distinguish between measuring the following (Van
Looy, Gemmel & Van Dierdonck, 2003: 125):
• Perceived Service Quality;
• Client satisfaction;
• Technical Quality.
This distinction is important in the civil consulting engineering industry, because

of its inherent simultaneity and intangibility.
2.3.1 SERVICE SATISFACTION FRAMEWORK
Satisfaction and dissatisfaction, according to Van Looy et al (2003: 125-126),

are at either end of a continuum, while the actual position is defined by a
comparison between expectations and outcome. A service satisfaction
framework is presented in Figure 2.3 and it contains the following concepts
(Van Looy et al, 2003: 125-126):
• Satisfied client. This occurs when the outcome of the perceived
Service Quality meets expectations;
• Delighted client. This occurs when the perceived Service Quality
exceeds the expectations;

17
• Dissatisfied client. This occurs when the perceived Service Quality is

below expectations.
Delighted Client
Satisfied
Recovered
Satisfied Client
Existing
Client
Complaining
Dissatisfied Not Recovered Dissatisfied Client

Not Complaining
Figure 2.3 - A service satisfaction framework

Source: Van Looy et al (2003: 126)
It can be deduced from this framework that only a certain percentage of clients
who are dissatisfied make their complaints heard. Client satisfaction
management and complaint management are crucial parts of a strategy to
increase client loyalty, and ultimately increase profits. This is achieved when
firms minimise client defections, have effective Service Recovery strategies and
maximise repeat business. Service satisfaction is achieved through client
satisfaction measurement and complaint management (Van Looy et al, 2003:
125-126).
2.3.2 MEASURING CLIENT SATISFACTION
If something can be measured, it can be managed. The prime reason for

measuring client satisfaction is the ability it creates to balance the scorecard of
the organisation. Performance measurement systems appear to be biased in
favour of financial measures and typically require the following (Van Looy et al,
2003: 127):
• The measuring of client satisfaction for organisational units opposed to
the organisation as a whole;
• The satisfaction data is made available to everyone to create peer
pressure and healthy internal competition;

18
• The appraisals of managers are linked to the client satisfaction data.

A reference point is required for these measures to be meaningful and this is
why benchmarking is needed. The most common benchmarks include (Van
Looy et al, 2003: 128):
• Development over time;
• Different organisational units;
• Competition.
Benchmarking that is done over time, serves as a good indicator about whether
the client focus efforts of the organisation are successful. Van Looy et al (2003:
128) state that outperforming competitors may yield more than merely achieving
the highest possible performance. Hence, it is not uncommon to benchmark
client satisfaction scores against those of the competitors. This is done in terms
of the actual performance and the rate of improvement.
Client loyalty is affected by client satisfaction, therefore a measurement

instrument need to typically cover the following aspects (Van Looy et al, 2003:
130-131):
• Overall satisfaction. A distinction needs to be made between
measuring transaction satisfaction and relationship satisfaction.
Transaction satisfaction refers to the satisfaction pertaining to the most
recent interaction with focus on the core part of the service. Relationship
satisfaction refers to a feeling of satisfaction with the firm as a whole;
• Client loyalty. The relationship between satisfaction and loyalty in the
firm can be assessed by establishing a client loyalty measure. The
clients of CCEF pay for the same service from different firms, therefore
loyalty needs to be defined either according to the intent or behaviour of
the client:
o Intent: Clients will remain loyal to the firm if it is considered to be the
preferred firm;
o Behaviour: This is a more meaningful measure as it is based on
actual buying behaviour.
• Referrals. It is difficult in practice to measure actual referrals and it is
common for firms to measure the intent to refer instead.

19
One way to measure specific aspects of a service is to divide it into its quality
dimensions. These dimensions are related to the needs of the clients. A
perfect measurement model, according to Van Looy et al (2003: 132), needs to
have the following characteristics:
• The various dimensions are valid across a wide range of services (that
is, universal);
• The dimensions are independent. The dimensions measure the various
aspects of service quality perceptions;
• The dimensions comprise a comprehensive set;
• The dimensions are homogenous;
• The dimensions are unambiguous;
• The number of dimensions is limited.
A perfect model does not currently exist, but one model which is widely
accepted and possesses most of the abovementioned characteristics is the
SERVQUAL research instrument.
2.4 MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY
The SERVQUAL model was developed as a Service Quality measurement

instrument by Zeithaml et al (1990). Originally, ten determinants or components
of Service Quality were identified. Zeithaml et al (1990: 21-22) described these
ten determinants of Service Quality as:
• Reliability: The ability of the service provider to perform the promised
service dependably and accurately, for example:
o Accurate billing;
o Performing the service at the designated time.
• Responsiveness: The willingness of the personnel of the service
providers to assist clients with their specific problems, for example:
o Mailing a transaction slip immediately;
o Calling the client back immediately;
o Giving prompt service such as setting up appointments quickly.
• Access: The accessibility of the service and delivered with minimum
waiting, which implies:
o The service is easily accessible by telephone;

20
o The waiting time to receive the service is not excessive;

o There are convenient hours of operation.
• Security: The service needs to be free from danger and risk, and may
involve:
o Physical safety;
o Financial security and confidentiality.
• Credibility: The service provider must be honest and trustworthy.
Contributing to credibility are:
o The company name and reputation;
o The personal characteristics of the contact personnel;
o The degree of hard-sell involved in interactions with the client.
• Understanding and knowing the client: The amount of effort the firm
expends to know and understand the needs of their clients. It involves:
o Learning the specific requirements of the client;
o Providing individual attention.
• Competence: The personnel need to possess the necessary skills and
knowledge to perform the service, which involves:
o Knowledge and skill of the contact personnel;
o Knowledge and skill of the operational support personnel;
o Research capability of the firm.
• Courtesy: The personnel of the service provider must be polite and
courteous to clients, which includes:
o Consideration for the property of the client;
o Clean and neat appearance of contact personnel.
• Tangibles: This includes the physical evidence of the service and
covers:
o The physical facilities and the appearance of personnel;
o The tools and equipment used to provide the service;
o The physical representation of the service.
• Communications: The firm need to communicate effectively what
services are provided, which involves:
o Explaining the service itself and its cost;
o Explaining the trade-offs between service and cost;
o Assuring the client that problems will be resolved.

21
Zeithaml et al (1990: 18) discovered that a high degree of correlation existed

between communication, competence, courtesy, credibility and security and
combined them into one new dimension, namely Assurance. A similar situation
for access and understanding was discovered, which were merged into
Empathy. These ten general criteria were narrowed down to a total of five
Service Quality dimensions. These are briefly examined as follows (Zeithaml et
al, 1990: 25):
• Tangibles – The appearance of physical facilities, the personnel, the
tools or equipment used to provide the service and communication
material;
• Reliability – Consistency of performance and dependability, that is to
perform services correctly the first time and to honour its promises;
• Responsiveness – The willingness to assist the client and to provide
prompt service;
• Assurance – Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to
inspire confidence and trust;
• Empathy – Individualised, caring attention to clients.
These five Service Quality dimensions comprise the SERVQUAL research

instrument (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 25).
One criticism about the SERVQUAL dimensions is related to more fundamental

methodological and conceptual issues, for example, the presence of conceptual
inconsistency in the dimensions. Tangibles and Responsiveness are
completely different concepts. Tangibles are deemed to be part of service, but
are not a quality dimension. The quality of the Tangibles (availability, operating
characteristics, and the like) influences the perceived quality as much as the
quality of the personnel (appearance, competence, et cetera). Tangibles, like
personnel, are not a quality dimension, but are rather a crucial quality-
determining element which influences dimensions such as Reliability, Credibility
and others. Another conceptual problem is the homogeneity of the generic
dimensions (Van Looy et al, 2003: 134). The SERVQUAL tool has received
some criticism, but the tool has been used to measure the Service Quality in a
variety of industries with great success.

22
The SERVQUAL research instrument is a relationship survey, which was

developed to capture client perceptions of Service Quality represented as
performance expectations minus perceptions. These relationship surveys
comprise 22 multidimensional questions about all facets of the relationship of
the client with the service (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2000: 118). A modified use of the
questionnaire is to limit the average perception score. This is called the
SERVPERF survey (performance perceptions only) and is used when
expectations are likely to be all the same, typically high. It was observed that all
the expectations for each of the statements in a SERVQUAL questionnaire in a
survey conducted in the civil engineering industry in PE were all rated at or near
perfection (Gardiner, 2004: 58). This indicated that the SERVPERF method
would be a better instrument of measure for this research (Gardiner, 2004: 59).
2.5 PRIOR RESEARCH
This research uses some of the findings by Robin Gardiner (2004) in his
dissertation “Evaluating the Service Delivery of a Consulting Engineering Firm”.
His research was aimed at mainly the same clients in the Eastern Cape as
those of Company X and used the SERVQUAL questionnaire. Gardiner
discovered that Gaps existed between client expectations and perceptions.
Some of the findings and recommendations by Gardiner (2004: 59-60) have
been incorporated in this research and include:
• The use of the SERVPERF instrument opposed to the SERVQUAL
research instrument;
• The adoption of a variety of measures with the aim to improve response
rate:
o Distribution of the questionnaire by a senior member of the firm
such as the Managing Director;
o Prior notification by the firm that the questionnaire is to be sent to
clients;
o Implementing a follow-up procedure to remind the respondents.
• The relative importance of the Service Quality dimensions to clients of
CCEF in PE, which are:
o Reliability – 37 per cent;
o Assurance – 21 per cent;

23
o Responsiveness – 19 per cent;

o Empathy – 12 per cent;
o Tangibles – 11 per cent.
• Strategies for improving Reliability and Responsiveness which are the
two Service Quality dimensions with the largest Gap Scores;
• The suggested changes to the X-axis and Y-axis scales of the
Importance–Performance Matrix.
2.6 THE IMPORTANCE–PERFORMANCE MATRIX
The Importance–Performance Matrix is a method which can be used to reflect

perceived relationships between importance, performance and priority for
improvement. The Matrix contains zones which are depicted in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4 - The Importance–Performance Matrix

Source: Slack (1994: 67, as adapted by Gardiner, 2004: 56)
The “lower bound of acceptability” is shown as line AB. It is below this line that
managers would typically have a dire need for improvement, whereas above
this line there is no pressing urgency for improvement. Not all factors falling
below this line AB have the same degree of improvement priority. A boundary
represented by line CD represents the distinction between “Urgent Action” and

24
“Improve”. Similarly, factors falling above the line AB have been classified as
either “Appropriate” or “Excess?”. The four zones imply different approaches as
described below (Slack, 1994: 67-69).
2.6.1 THE “APPROPRIATE” ZONE
The lower limit of the “Appropriate” zone is the “lower bound of acceptability”,
which is the level of performance that the firm would not want fall below. The
objective of any improvement programme is to move performance up to or
above this boundary. Factors falling in the Appropriate zone can be considered
satisfactorily in the short and medium term. Long-term objectives will be to
continuously improve and to strive towards the upper boundary of this zone.
2.6.2 THE “IMPROVE” ZONE
Factors lying below the lower edge of the Appropriate zone need to be
improved. The “Improve” zone is depicted as the area below the AB line, and
above the CD line in Figure 2.4. Factors lying in the bottom left-hand corner of
the Matrix are likely to be classified as non-urgent, lower-priority cases where
performance is poor, but is less important.
2.6.3 THE “URGENT ACTION” ZONE
Any factor that lies within the “Urgent Action” zone, depicted as the area below
line CD in Figure 2.4, is classified as crucial. The short-term objectives are to
raise the performance to the Improve zone. The medium-term goal is to
improve performance to above the lower boundary of the Appropriate zone.
2.6.4 THE “EXCESS?” ZONE
The “Excess?” zone is depicted as the area above the EF line in Figure 2.4. Its
punctuation mark, the “?”, is of particular importance. Any factors that lie in this
zone imply that their achievement performance is better than would seem to be
warranted. This can mean that too many resources are being utilised to

25
achieve such a level. This needs to be assessed to ascertain whether some of

these resources could be diverted to a more needy factor.
2.6.5 QUALIFICATIONS TO THE USE OF THE IMPORTANCE–

PERFORMANCE MATRIX
The adjusted use of the Matrix needs clarification. The version of the
Importance–Performance Matrix by Slack (1994: 67) was based on a Likert-type
scale of one to nine. Gardiner (2004: 57) suggested that a changed Matrix be
used, with the difference being that the Y-axis is on a scale from -4.5 to 0, at
intervals of 0.5.
The relative importance, according to Gardiner (2004: 43), of each of the five
SERVQUAL dimensions in the civil engineering industry in PE is illustrated in
Figure 2.5.
Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions
Tangibles, 11% Empathy, 12%
Assurance, 21%
Reliability, 37%
Responsiveness,
19%
Figure 2.5 - Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions

Source: Gardiner (2004: 43)
2.7 SERVICE RECOVERY
Service Recovery is a well-accepted term describing the actions service firms

take to compensate the negative reactions by a client to poor service.
Manufacturing firms can have a goal of zero defects, but service firms need to
have Service Recovery strategies in place. These strategies can include, for

26
example unconditional service guarantees and empowered employees, to

correct any service failures and to strive towards “zero defections” of clients.
Effective Service Recovery can lead to more satisfied or even delighted clients,
than had these clients not receive the poor service (Bowen & Johnston, 1999:
118). Hence, a service paradox exists; a client will rate the performance of a
firm higher if a failure occurs and the service is recovered, than if the service
had been delivered correctly the first time (Hoffman & Bateson, 2002: 335).
Service Recovery is said to be the reaction of an organisation to the complaint
by a client that results in client satisfaction and goodwill. Client complaints need
to be viewed as opportunities to improve Service Quality and to ensure that the
client is satisfied before the encounter ends. Clients voice complaints for a
number of reasons and these include (Hoffman & Bateson, 2002: 347):
• To have the problem solved;
• To gain emotional release from frustration;
• To regain some measure of control by influencing the evaluation of the
source of the complaint;
• To solicit sympathy or test the consensus of the complaint; and/or
• To create an impression.
Stiefbold (2003: 44) discovered that between 85 and 95 per cent of disgruntled
clients will never complain to the firm about poor service, but will simply take
their business elsewhere. More than 90 per cent of these dissatisfied clients
will never use the same organisation again. This strengthens the reason for
organisations to have Service Recovery processes in place. An effective
Service Recovery process needs to be able to convert at least 80 per cent of
dissatisfied clients into satisfied ones.
Stiefbold (2003: 44) summarises the following about why Service Recovery
needs to be done:
• The client may not use the firm again, but should the recovery attempt
be perceived by the client as satisfactory, that individual is not likely to
embark on a market damaging campaign against the firm;
• More than 70 per cent of dissatisfied clients will re-engage in business
activities with the firm should the problem resolved be perceived as
satisfactory. Some 90 per cent of clients will return if the Service

27
Recovery was perceived as fair and prompt. Firms need to try to get
more of their disaffected and dissatisfied clients to complain, since this
would create a unique economic opportunity;
• Clients who have experienced effective Service Recovery will engage in
more business with the firm and will promote the firm to a greater degree
than loyal clients;
• Effective Service Recovery can differentiate a firm from its competitors.
It is perceived as part of the overall Service Quality.
Research has indicated that there are four types of activities necessary for
Service Recovery (Bowen & Johnston, 1999: 120):
• Response. The acknowledgement that a problem occurred, together
with an apology, empathy, quick response and management
involvement;
• Information. The explanation of the failure, listening to suggested
solutions, agreeing on a solution, giving assurance that it would not
happen again and a written apology;
• Action. The correction of the failure, taking the necessary action to
avoid failures in the future, follow-up action to ascertain the after-effects;
• Compensation. Token compensation, equivalent compensation or
refund.
There are, according to Stiefbold (2003: 44-46), firms with excellent Service
Recovery efforts who make a number of mistakes. These include the following:
• Most managers do not believe that Service Recovery is worth the time
and effort. It is believed that Service Quality is taken for granted by all
clients and that it is costly to excel continuously. These managers think
that poor Service Quality has nearly become the norm and that the
clients, themselves, are very cynical;
• Many managers disregard evidence that Service Recovery has a
substantial financial pay-off. Most firms have turned their focus towards
cost reduction and pay lip-service to client retention strategies aimed at
the most profitable clients. The need to respect all clients appears
forgotten;

28
• Firms fail to take advantage of free client data on critical incidents. There
is little coordination of information from the various client segments that
will allow the firm to plan and respond effectively to Service Recovery
opportunities;
• Firms fail to invest sufficiently in actions which prevent poor service.
Preventative measures may not eliminate the need for excellent Service
Recovery systems, but greatly reduce the load. Inadequate preventative
actions are typically found in the following three areas:
o The measurement of dissatisfaction both qualitatively and
empirically. This leads to an ignorance of the activities in the
various client segments;
o The implementation of regular tracking polls on significant service
indicators and the analysis of the resulting data by applicable
market segments;
o The design and implementation of user-friendly client complaint
systems to collect feedback.
• The most important aspect of Service Recovery is attitude. The Service
Recovery effort will not succeed without the proverbial “smile-in-the-
voice”;
• Firms make it difficult for clients to complain or give feedback. Most firms
do not have a mechanism whereby clients can get problems solved;
• Firms do not train and empower employees to convert disgruntled clients
into satisfied clients. Employees often quote the organisational policies,
rather than asking the clients for solutions to amicably resolve the
problem;
• Some firms collect data on client problems, but fail to communicate this
information as a preventative measure for future problems.
Firms that implement effective Service Recovery strategies incur a variety of the
benefits; financial consequences of market damage are avoided, the revenue
potential from the clients that have been successfully recovered is increased,
and it assists with the loyalty of the client base. The quality of customer support
processes throughout a firm can reduce the need and cost of Service Recovery.
Stiefbold (2003: 46) aptly summarises it by stating that “Service Recovery is
smart and profitable business”.

29
2.7.1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF SERVICE FAILURE AND RECOVERY

STRATEGIES
Zhu, Sivakumar and Parasuraman (2004: 497-498) have developed a

conceptual model of service failure and recovery strategies. Figure 2.6 depicts
this conceptual framework incorporating the perspectives from both the client
and the firm.
Client's Prior Perceived

Value
Client's Sensitivity to
Outcome & Process
Nature of Service Failures
Failure
• Type of Failure
Perceived Value
(Outcome vs. Process)
Loss from Failure
• Magnitude of Failure
Client's
Relative Importance of Cumulative
Outcome & Process Value of
Recovery Strategy Dimensions Service after
• Magnitude of Recovery
Outcome and Process Perceived Value
Recovery • Gain from
Expenditure on Recovery
Outcome and Process
Recovery Client Sensitivity to
Outcome & Process
Recoveries
Firm's Cost Functions for

Outcome & Process
Recoveries
Firm's Value
Recovery
Target
Figure 2.6 - A conceptual model of service failure and recovery strategies

Source: Zhu, Sivakumar and Parasuraman (2004: 497)
The service failure, as perceived by the client, is divided into two components,
namely Failure Type (outcome versus process) and Failure Magnitude. The

30
client experiences a value loss when a failure occurs. This loss is moderated
by the sensitivity of the client to each type of failure and the perceived
importance of the outcome and process dimensions. The client experiences a
value gain, depending on the effectiveness of the Service Recovery efforts.
This perceived value gain is moderated by the sensitivity of the client to each
type of recovery and the perceived importance of the two dimensions. The
perceived value by the client of the service is collectively determined by the
previous perceived value, perceived value loss from failure, and perceived
value gain from the Service Recovery by the individual.
The Service Recovery efforts, from the perspective of the service firm, have a
two-fold objective. First, the firm needs to aim to re-establish the cumulative
perceived value by the client to the desired target level that is necessary to
retain the client. This level is indicated as the “Value Recovery Target” in
Figure 2.6. Second, the firm needs to try to minimise the overall recovery cost
required to realise the Value Recovery Target.
Zhu et al (2004: 497-498) suggest that the type and magnitude of Service
Recovery need not depend on the severity of the failure and the principle of
matching mental accounting alone. Their model conceptualises a value-driven
approach. The firm determines the optimum recovery strategy by firstly
deciding on the target for its recovery efforts. This target is based on the
existing and potential profitability of the client and other criteria that influence
the importance of the client to the firm.
2.8 DISSATISFACTION AND COMPLAINING BEHAVIOUR
Client dissatisfaction has a significant negative impact on loyalty towards a firm

and on the intentions for repeat business. Therefore, managers need to
understand the relationship between dissatisfaction and client complaint
behaviour. The research by Johnston (1998: 69-76) reveals the percentage of
clients and their level of dissatisfaction reported, as indicated in Table 2.1.

31
Table 2.1 - Percentage of clients and level of dissatisfaction reported
Percentage of
Level of dissatisfaction
Respondents
Slightly dissatisfied 8%
Annoyed 14%
Very annoyed 30%
Extremely annoyed 22%
Absolutely furious 26%
Total 100%
Source: Johnston (1998: 74)
Johnston (1998: 74) states that “[Figure 2.7] confirms … that the number and
types of responses made by a dissatisfied client will be proportional to the
intensity of the dissatisfaction with the execution of complaining which appears
not to be significantly proportional to the intensity of dissatisfaction”. He notes
that the chances of not re-using the services of a firm or actively dissuading
other people rises sharply with the intensity of dissatisfaction experienced.
Actions Taken for Different Levels of Dissatisfaction
100%
90%
80%
70%
Told friends
60% Complained
Percent
Made a f uss
50%
Did not use again
40% Dissuaded others
Campaigned against
30%
20%
10%
0%
Slightly Annoyed Very Annoyed Extremely Absolutely
Dissatisfied Annoyed Furious
Figure 2.7 - Actions taken for different levels of dissatisfaction

Source: Johnston (1998: 74)

32
It is surprising to note that a large number of only Slightly Dissatisfied clients
were willing to take action. These clients were prepared to re-use the service,
although their dissatisfaction was not voiced at the time. Approximately half of
these clients told their friends (66 per cent) and made a formal complaint (50
per cent). It was observed that each dissatisfied client will communicate their
experience to an average of 11 others. Johnston (1998: 74) further reveals that
the majority of dissatisfied clients do complain; from 50 per cent of the Slightly
Dissatisfied clients rising to 90 per cent of the Absolutely Furious clients.
There were 85 per cent of the Absolutely Furious clients who told other people
about the incident and 90 per cent made a formal complaint, whilst 55 per cent
voiced their dissatisfaction during the service. These took action against the
firm with 70 per cent actively dissuading other people from using the services.
Only 10 per cent were prepared to take further actions and actively campaign
against the firm. This includes acts such as legal action or petitioning. The fact
that the vast majority of clients made themselves available for Service Recovery
by either making a fuss or formally complaining, or both, is noteworthy. Fifty per
cent of the Slightly Dissatisfied clients made themselves available for Service
Recovery by voicing their dissatisfaction. This increased to 100 per cent of the
clients who were Absolutely Furious. Therefore, the majority of clients complain
and so make themselves available for Service Recovery (Johnston, 1998: 75-
76).
The research by Johnston (1998) was not specifically aimed at the CCEF under
review in this dissertation, however, the importance of Service Quality is
stressed and the fact that firms must engage in effective Service Recovery is
affirmed.
2.9 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN THE CIVIL CONSULTING

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
The current trend in most services firms is to have a Quality Management

System (QMS) which is ISO 9001:2000 compliant and accredited. This applies
to CCEF. The first version of the International Standards Organisation (ISO)
9000 series of standards was adopted in 1987 and originally provided a basic

33
model for quality assurance. Subsequently, the ISO 9000 series was
instrumental in establishing a solid basis for further quality improvement and the
implementation of more sophisticated QMS. Currently, ISO accreditation and
compliance with an ISO 9001:2000 quality system holds many advantages for
both firms and clients and include:
• The reduction of risk;
• It encourages the technical staff of the firm to be quality conscious and
be responsible for their own quality.
The ISO 9001:2000 manual, as cited by Bureau Veritas Quality International

(BVQI, 2000: 2.5 – 2.10), defines the following key concepts:
• Quality is the “degree to which a set of inherent characteristics fulfils
requirements”;
• Quality Assurance is the “part of quality management focused on
providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled”;
• Quality Control is the “part of quality management focused on fulfilling
quality requirements”;
• Quality Management as “coordinated activities to direct and control an
organisation with regard to quality”.
The ISO 9001:2000 requires that “… top management shall ensure that quality
objectives, including those needed to meet requirements for product are
established at relevant functions and levels within the organisation. The quality
objectives shall be measurable and consistent with the quality policy” (BVQI,
2000: 3.15).
Quality Management, according to Bureau Veritas Quality International (BVQI,

2000: 2.11), is based on eight principles:
• Client focus – Firms depend on their clients and need to identify their
current and future needs to be able to meet or exceed them;
• Leadership – Leadership is needed to provide direction and unity of
purpose and to create an environment in which the organisational
stakeholders become fully involved in achieving its goals and objectives;

34
• Involvement of staff – The involvement of personnel, and especially

their co-operation, allows for their abilities to be fully used for the benefit
of the firm and themselves;
• Process approach – All activities and resources need to be managed as
processes for the results to be achieved;
• System approach to management – Interrelated processes need to be
identified, understood and managed effectively for achieving objectives
contributing to the effectiveness and efficiency of the firm;
• Continual improvement (Kaizen) – This needs to be a permanent
organisational objective;
• Factual approach to decision-making – Decisions are most effective
when based on factual data and information;
• Mutually beneficial supplier relationship – A good relationship
between the firm and its suppliers will enhance the ability of both firms to
create value.
The modern concept of quality focuses on how firms meet or exceed all the
requirements and expectations of their clients. This broadened understanding
of quality led to the concept of TQM, which is based on the following three
elements (BVQI, 2000: 2.12):
• No one in the firm is excluded. Everyone in the firm is responsible for
implementing quality which has an impact on the client perception of
quality;
• Internal and external client must be satisfied. Firms are viewed as a
series of client supplier relationships;
• Appreciation of the firm by society. This plays a crucial role in securing
the success of the business.
2.10 SUMMARY
This chapter presented the findings of a literature study which determined the
factors influencing the Service Quality and Service Recovery of CCEF and the
suggested research instrument to be used to benchmark the firm under review
against its competitors. The next chapter describes the design of the research.

35
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this chapter is to outline the research method followed, the
research questions and hypotheses, and the selection and appropriateness of
the research instrument used, the questionnaire.
3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The main research paradigm used in this study can be labelled as positivistic.
Other recognised terms for this research paradigm are quantitative, objective,
scientific or experimental (Collis & Hussey, 2003: 47). The positivistic paradigm
deals with the facts or causes of social phenomena, with little regard to the
subjective aspects of human activity (Collis & Hussey, 2003: 52).
The phenomenological paradigm has the following attributes (Collis & Hussey,
2003: 55):
• It uses large samples;
• It is concerned with hypotheses testing;
• The data is specific and precise;
• The location is artificial;
• The reliability is high;
• The validity is low;
• It generalises from the sample to the population.
The methodology of this research is concerned with the following main issues
(Collis & Hussey, 2003: 55):
• Why certain data was collected;
• What data was collected;
• From where was the data collected;
• When was the data collected;

36
• How was the data collected;

• How the data will be analysed.
3.2.1 TRIANGULATION
The potential bias and sterility of a single-method approach can be overcome

by using different research approaches, methods and techniques in the same
study. This is known as triangulation and this approach could lead to greater
validity and reliability than a single methodological approach (Collis & Hussey,
2003: 78). Validity is the extent to which the research represents what is
happening in a situation and whether the collected data represents a true
picture of the subject matter. Reliability deals with the findings of the research
and whether the same results would be obtained if the same research is
repeated by someone else (Collis & Hussey, 2003: 186).
The following types of triangulation are used in this research:

• Data triangulation. Data was collected at different times and from
different sources in the study of a phenomenon. In this research, data
triangulation is with the research findings of Gardiner (2004);
• Methodological triangulation. Both qualitative and quantitative
methods of data collection have been used in this research. Section A of
the questionnaire is qualitative and Section B is quantitative.
Jick (1979, as quoted by Collis & Hussey, 2003: 78), states that triangulation
has important strengths. It encourages productive research, enhances
qualitative methods and allows the complementary use of quantitative methods.
3.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
3.3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
There are questions which arise when taking cognisance of the purpose of the
research and its objectives.

37
The questions arising around Service Quality issues are as follows:

• How does the Service Quality of Company X rate against that of its
competitors in PE?
• Can Company X improve its quality of service?
• What is the overall perception of Service Quality of CCEF in PE?
• How concerned is Company X with Service Quality?
• How important is Service Quality to clients?
The questions arising around Service Recovery issues are as follows:

• How does the Service Recovery of Company X rate against that of its
competitors in PE?
• How could Company X improve its effectiveness of Service Recovery?
• What is the overall perception of Service Recovery of CCEF in PE?
• How concerned is Company X with Service Recovery?
• How important is Service Recovery to clients?
These research questions lead to the formulation of the research hypotheses.
3.3.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The normal research process under a positivistic paradigm, as suggested by

Collis and Hussey (2003: 56), was followed. The literature is studied, the
appropriate theories are established and hypotheses are constructed.
Three theories comprising the main theory are proposed, namely:

• Theory 1. Civil consulting engineering firms in PE do not assess, even
subjectively, their Service Quality in relation to other firms and therefore
have a misconception about their competitive position in the
marketplace;
• Theory 2. Firms predominantly use the ISO 9001:2000 system to
measure quality. This system is subject to internal and external auditing,
but it does not address the theory as stated in Theory 1;

38
• Theory 3. Firms cannot profess to excel in quality management and

offer superior Service Quality if their Service Quality is not benchmarked
against other firms.
A secondary theory is established that CCEF in PE do not have formal Service

Recovery procedures in place, because Service Recovery is not explicitly
defined by firms as an important deliverable and a factor contributing to the
overall Service Quality experiences of the client.
Two sets of ideas or propositions or hypotheses have been constructed, based

on these two theories, which are tested in this research and are labelled as
directional or relational hypotheses. The independent variables are defined as
Reliability, Responsiveness and Service Recovery, whilst the dependent
variable is the perceived Service Quality by the client.
The first set of hypotheses based on the first theory is to test the effect of
the two Service Quality dimensions, Reliability and Responsiveness, on
perceived Service Quality:
H1.1: There is a positive relationship between the independent variable,

‘Reliability’, and the dependent variable, ‘Perceived Service
Quality’.

‘Responsiveness’, and the dependent variable, ‘Perceived Service
Quality’.
The second hypothesis based on the second theory is to test the effect of
Service Recovery on perceived Service Quality:

‘Service Recovery’, and the dependent variable, ‘Perceived
Service Quality’.

39
3.4 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The SERVQUAL research instrument comprises a concise multiple-item scale

with high reliability and validity. It is used to ascertain the service expectations
and perceptions of clients and as a result can improve organisational Service
Quality. SERVQUAL is designed to apply to a wide spectrum of services
(Parasuraman et al, 1988: 30-31). SERVQUAL adds the most value when it is
used periodically to track Service Quality trends, and when it is used with other
forms of Service Quality measurement. For example, firms will ascertain a
great deal about their Service Quality by simultaneously administering the
following:
• Periodically sending out SERVQUAL questionnaires to clients;
• Conducting employee surveys;
• Systematically soliciting and analysing client suggestions and
complaints.
Another application of the SERVQUAL research instrument is to assess the

level of organisational quality pertaining to each of the five Service Quality
dimensions of Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Tangibles
and to obtain an average score of all five dimensions. SERVQUAL can be used
to rank the relative importance of the five Service Quality dimensions in
influencing overall Service Quality perceptions of clients (Parasuraman et al,
1988: 30-31).
The standard SERVQUAL questionnaire was obtained from Zeithaml et al

(1990: 181) and the original questions for Reliability (five questions) and
Responsiveness (four questions) were adapted to suit the particular service
setting (Hoxley, 2000: 605). An additional question regarding Service Recovery
is included. These ten questions are rated using a seven-point Likert-type
interval scale and the clients of a number of CCEF in PE were asked to
participate. The use of the adapted SERVPERF research instrument implies
the Gap Scores will be either negative or zero, because the service quality is
always less than or equal to the expected ‘perfect’ Service Quality, but will
never exceed it.

40
The research questionnaire comprises two sections. Section A consists of the
name and position/job title of the client, and a subsection allocated for general
suggestions and comments. Section B comprises the ten questions as
presented in the adapted SERVPERF research instrument. The questionnaire
is included as Appendix A.
3.5 CHOICE OF SAMPLE
The majority of clients of CCEF in PE are government institutions such as

municipalities. The choice of sample was obvious because approximately 70
per cent of clients in PE are from the NMBM, Cacadu District Municipality, the
Department of Public Works and the South African National Roads Agency.
The remaining 30 per cent are from various other companies. Only those
clients with direct dealings with Company X were identified as possible
respondents.
3.6 SUMMARY
This chapter discussed the research methodology, the research questions and
hypotheses. The approach of triangulation was introduced and the SERVPERF
research instrument was expounded. The results of the research are presented
in the Chapter 4.

41
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESEARCH
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter introduced the SERVPERF research instrument and the
design of the research. This chapter presents the method of data collection, the
response rate and the analysis and interpretation of the data collected.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION
The SERVPERF questionnaire was circulated to all the existing clients of

Company X, which includes the following:
• The NMBM which comprises approximately 70 potential respondents;
• Cacadu District Municipality which comprises approximately 10 potential
respondents;
• Department of Public Works which comprises approximately 10 potential
respondents;
• South African National Roads Agency which comprises approximately 10
potential respondents;
• Private (non-governmental) and various other clients who comprise
approximately 40 potential respondents.
The proposed clients were forewarned through letters, on an official letterhead

of Company X, addressed to each individual and sent on behalf of the most
senior person in the region, the Regional Principal. Their purpose was to stress
the seriousness of the survey and to create anticipation. These letters were
posted, faxed and e-mailed to all the potential respondents during October
2006.
The actual questionnaires were sent out one week later, accompanied by
official, personalised letters. These letters contained pertinent information
including the expected due dates for the return of the completed questionnaires.

42
The clients received the questionnaire via three different methods which
signalled the urgency of the matter and the insistency by Company X.
Approximately two weeks was allowed for the clients to respond, during which
time a reminder e-mail was sent. One week after the return date, the clients
who returned the questionnaires were thanked via e-mail. Another two weeks
response time was allowed, after which the available data was analysed.
4.3 DATA ANALYSIS
The data analysis was conducted in three phases. First, the response rate and
overall validity of the results were analysed. According to Collis and Hussey
(2003: 58-59), “Validity is the extent to which the research findings accurately
represent what is really happening in the situation”. Errors, such as the
research procedures, inaccurate measurement, and the like can undermine
validity.
Second, an assessment of the reliability or internal consistency of the research

was done using Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis (Cronbach, 1951).
Reliability deals with the findings of the research and constitutes one aspect of
the credibility of the findings. Hence, a research finding is reliable if it can be
repeated (Collis & Hussey, 2003: 58).
Third, the average Gap Score for each dimension was calculated by totalling
the average Gap Scores per respondent divided by the total number of
respondents. The Gap Scores for the two individual Service Quality
dimensions, Reliability and Responsiveness, are plotted onto graphs and used
to benchmark Company X against its competitors.
The data is plotted on an Importance–Performance Matrix and checked for

consistency against the results obtained by Gardiner (2004: 55). This is to
establish how the results of the SERVQUAL method previously used relate to
the results of the SERVPERF method used in this research. It assumes that
the importance of the two Service Quality dimensions to clients is unchanged,
as observed by Gardiner (2004).

43
4.3.1 RESPONSE RATE
A total of 137 questionnaires were distributed and a total of 26 were returned.

This represents a response rate of approximately 19 per cent. Twenty six
questionnaires were returned, of which 18 were comprehensively completed
and were usable for statistical analysis. Figure 4.1 depicts the response rate.
Response Rate
Returned - Non-
comprehensively
Completed, 8
Returned -
Comprehensively
Completed, 18
Not Returned, 111
Figure 4.1 - Response rate of questionnaire
The following are potential reasons why the response rate was lower than
expected:
• A few clients indicated their unwillingness to complete the questionnaire.
The following are typical reasons:
o “I am unfortunately not in a position to complete the questionnaire
because it may compromise the position of trust and independency
that we maintain with all consultants.”
o “As a client we cannot divulge our opinion of other consultants to
yourself. I believe it is not ethical…”
o “I have completed the questionnaire, only as far as [Company X] are
concerned. I don’t believe it to be ethical to provide individual
companies comments on the quality of service received from their

44
competitors. Please note that any comments you may receive from
other officials from whom you requested the same information, is
not to be construed as the opinion of the Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipality.”
• The inherent lack of anonymity. It was beneficial to personalise and

direct correspondence to individuals to ensure a better response rate, but
it had the unfortunate drawback that it lacked anonymity when a
respondent returned the questionnaire. It was easy for the researcher to
identify the source of the responses because e-mail addresses are
clearly identifiable, facsimiles numbers are displayed on the top margins
of faxes received and posted mail was stamped by the various divisions
of the municipalities.
Clients often voice their criticisms of ‘other consultants’, but given the
opportunity to formally respond, most opted not to. This was
understandable given the professional environment within which the
services are rendered, and the relationships formed between individuals.
The lack of anonymity is believed to be the biggest contributing factor
towards the low response rate.
• Some of the respondents may have found the number of ratings to be

too many. Ten questions needed to be rated for each of the consultants
and in some cases this amounted to 170 ratings.
• The duration of the response period may have been too short. Every
effort was made to stress the urgency of returning the questionnaires; by
means of numerous correspondences and with a relatively short
timeframe. Some municipalities have lengthy administrative processes
where all correspondence has to pass in and out of the records divisions.
This may have had a time-delaying effect in that some respondents may
have received the questionnaires only a few days prior to its return date.
The respondents may have chosen not to complete the questionnaires
given the relatively short response period remaining.

45
• The lack of mental energy to complete the questionnaire. The

questionnaires were distributed during the latter part of October, with the
return deadline being early November 2006. Most clients are busy
during this time of the year as projects draw to a close and contractors
aim to finish before the annual shutdown.
4.3.2 CRONBACH’S ALPHA RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Cronbach’s Alpha is used to measure the reliability of a psychometric

instrument and indicates the extent to which a set of items can be used to
measure a single latent variable. Cronbach’s Alpha can be written as a function
of the number of test items and the inter-correlation among these items. The
standardised formula is expressed as follows (Cronbach’s Alpha, 2007):
N ⋅r
α=
1 + ( N − 1) ⋅ r
Where α = Cronbach’s Alpha
N = The number of items;
r= The average of all (Pearson) correlation coefficients between the
items.
Cronbach’s Alpha increases as the correlation between the items increases.

For this reason, this coefficient is also called the internal consistency reliability
of the test. The value of Alpha (α) can range from negative infinity and to a
positive one, although only positive values make sense. The closer Alpha is to
one, the higher the internal consistency reliability (Sekaran, 2003: 307). A
reliability coefficient of 0.70 or higher is considered acceptable in most cases. It
is evident from the formula that as the number of items increase, so does
Cronbach’s Alpha. Alpha is low when the average inter-item correlation is low.
Hence, as the inter-item correlations are high, then evidence exists that the
items are measuring the same underlying construct and therefore have a high
reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha, 2007).

46
Cronbach’s Alphas are calculated for every competitor and Company X for
every question in this research. The results are summarised in Tables 4.1 and
4.2 respectively.
Cronbach’s Alphas are consistently above 0.90, which indicates that the data is
of high reliability.
Table 4.1 – Cronbach’s Alphas for Competitors 1 to 6
Competitor:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Variable Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha

Question 1 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.97 0.95
Question 2 0.93 0.95 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.95
Question 3 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96 * 0.96
Question 4 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95
Question 5 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96
Question 6 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.94 0.96 0.96
Question 7 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.96
Question 8 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95
Question 9 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.97 0.95
Question 10 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.96 0.95
Mean = 53.7 48.8 49.4 54.0 49.4 41.3
Standard Deviation = 8.2 11.1 8.6 11.2 8.1 11.0

N= 6 8 5 5 5 4
Average inter-item
correlation = 0.69 0.77 0.88 0.83 0.83 0.85
Cronbach's Alpha = 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.97 0.96
* Question 3 has been omitted since all five respondents gave the same rating. Hence, no
variance could be calculated and could not be used in the analysis.

47
Table 4.2 – Cronbach’s Alphas for Competitors 7 to 10 and Company X
Competitor:
7 8 9 10 Company X
Variable Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha Alpha

Question 1 0.99 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.91
Question 2 0.99 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.91
Question 3 0.99 0.95 0.94 0.97 0.93
Question 4 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.91
Question 5 0.99 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.91
Question 6 0.99 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.91
Question 7 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.91
Question 8 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.92
Question 9 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.92
Question 10 0.99 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.91
Mean = 50.0 54.0 52.2 53.4 52.7
Standard Deviation = 15.5 8.5 8.2 9.5 8.6

N= 4 6 10 5 21
Average inter-item
correlation = 1.00 0.76 0.65 0.84 0.57
Cronbach's Alpha = 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.92
4.4 SERVICE QUALITY DIMENSIONS
The results of the research and the Gap Scores for each of the nine questions
comprising the Service Quality dimensions, Reliability and Responsiveness, are
depicted in Figures 4.2 to 4.12 and Tables 4.3 to 4.13. The Gap Scores
indicate the average of the numeric differences between the assumed
expectations of the clients, as a perfect score of seven out of seven for all firms,
and the actual perceptions as rated by the respondents. Company X is
therefore benchmarked against its competitors and the local Industry Average
for each of the questions and for the overall Service Quality dimensions
Reliability (five questions) and Responsiveness (four questions).
4.4.1 RELIABILITY
The following five questions comprise the Service Quality dimension, Reliability,
which were adapted in the SERVPERF research instrument:

48
Question 1 (Q1) – “When they promise to do something by a certain time, they
do so”.
Question 3 (Q3) – “When I have a problem, the firm shows a sincere interest in
solving it”.
Question 5 (Q5) – “The firm performs the service right the first time”.
Question 7 (Q7) – “The firm provides its services at the time they promise to do
so”.
Question 9 (Q9) – “The firm insists on error free records”.
The findings and responses to the Service Quality dimensions are discussed.
i. Question 1 – “When they promise to do something by a certain

time, they do so.”
Figure 4.2 illustrates the first set of results of the questionnaire. The
competitors are listed on the X-axis and the Gap Scores on the Y-axis.
Company X is perceived on rating it on keeping its promises, to be amongst the

top three firms in PE and is 10 per cent above the local Industry Average. The
Gap Score of Company X in this case is -1.5. This is calculated by subtracting
their average rating of 5.5 from the expected “perfect” score of seven. If
Company X is measured in isolation it falls, in theory, approximately 21 per cent
short of the perception that the firm will always fulfil its promises. This
represents a perfect seven out of seven score, or a Gap Score of zero.
However, since Company X is being benchmarked against its competitors in

PE, Company X only has to improve their performance so that the perceptions
of clients of the firm increase to a level which signifies a Gap Score smaller than
the firm which fared the best – in this case Competitor 8. Hence, to outperform
all the other firms, a performance increase (or the improvement of perception)
of more than 4 per cent in relation to the other firms will suffice.

49
Gaps per Question for Service Quality Dimension: Reliability

Question 1
Company X versus Competitors and Industry
0.0
-0.5
Gap Score -1.0
-1.5 -1.4 -1.4 -1.3

-1.5
-1.7 -1.7
-2.0 -1.8
-2.0
-2.2 -2.2
-2.5
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5 -3.3
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
ry
om
st
C
du
C
In
Figure 4.2 - Gaps per question for Service Quality dimension Reliability –
Question 1, Company X versus Competitors and Industry
Table 4.3 summarises the Gap Scores and the Gaps from the highest ranked
firm for Question 1 and the benchmarked Gap Scores and the Gap Scores as
rated against the “expected perfection”.
Table 4.3 - Benchmarking firms according to Question 1
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
For Question 1 bench- against
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 8 -1.3 0 100% 81%
2 Competitor 4 & 5 -1.4 -0.1 98% 80%
3 Company X -1.5 -0.2 96% 79%
4 Competitor 1 & 9 -1.7 -0.4 93% 76%
5 Competitor 10 -1.8 -0.5 91% 74%
6 Competitor 7 -2.0 -0.7 88% 71%
7 Industry Average & Competitor 3 -2.2 -0.9 84% 69%
8 Competitor 2 -2.5 -1.2 79% 64%
9 Competitor 6 -3.3 -2.0 65% 53%
The results of this question can be summarised that it is perceived by clients

that when Company X promise to do something by a certain time, this occurs 79

50
per cent of the time. This is 4 per cent less than the company in PE that keeps
their promises best of all. Clients in PE can expect the average CCEF to keep
its promises 69 per cent of the time.
ii. Question 3 – “When I have a problem, the firm shows a sincere

interest in solving it.”
Figure 4.3 depicts the Gap Scores of the second of five questions that comprise
the Service Quality dimension Reliability.

Question 3
0.0
-0.5
Gap Score
-1.0
-1.0 -1.0
-1.5 -1.3
-1.4
-1.5
-1.7
-1.8 -1.8 -1.8
-2.0 -1.9
-2.0
-2.3
-2.5
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
try
om
us
C
d
In
Table 4.4 summarises the results of Figure 4.3. It is interesting to note that the
Gap Score of Competitors 4 and 5 is -1.0, which is the smallest Gap Score for
all five questions comprising the Service Quality dimension Reliability.

51
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 4 & 5 -1.0 0 100% 86%
2 Competitor 8 -1.3 -0.3 95% 81%
3 Company X -1.4 -0.4 93% 80%
4 Competitor 1 -1.5 -0.5 92% 79%
5 Competitor 9 -1.7 -0.7 88% 76%
6 Industry Average & Competitor 3 & 10 -1.8 -0.8 87% 74%
7 Competitor 2 -1.9 -0.9 85% 73%
8 Competitor 7 -2.0 -1.0 83% 71%
9 Competitor 6 -2.3 -1.3 78% 67%
It is perceived by clients that Company X show a sincere interest in solving their

problems an average 80 per cent of the time. This is 6 per cent less than the
top competitor. Clients in PE can expect the average CCEF to show a sincere
interest in solving their problems 74 per cent of the time.
iii. Question 5 – “The firm performs the service right the first time.”
Figure 4.4 illustrates the Gap Scores of the third of five questions that comprise
the Service Quality dimension Reliability. It is evident from the results that
Company X has not fared as well in this question as with Questions 1 and 3.
The perceptions by clients of Company X are that the firm is on par with the
“average firm” and that Company X performed the service right the first time 69
per cent of the time. Company X is lagging behind the leading firm by 8 per
cent (overall) and 11 per cent (benchmarked).
The results show that there are seven firms ranked higher that Company X and
the firm does not perform the service right the first time 31 per cent of the time.

52

Question 5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.5
-1.6
-2.0 -1.8
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
-2.1
-2.3 -2.2 -2.2
-2.5
-2.6
-2.8
-3.0
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
try
om
us
C
d
In
The summary of the Gap Scores and the ranking of the firms are presented in
Table 4.5.
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 10 -1.6 0 100% 77%
2 Competitor 4 -1.8 -0.2 96% 74%
3 Competitor 1, 2, 5 & 8 -2.0 -0.4 93% 71%
4 Competitor 9 -2.1 -0.5 91% 70%
5 Company X & Industry Average -2.2 -0.6 89% 69%
6 Competitor 7 -2.3 -0.7 87% 67%
7 Competitor 3 -2.6 -1.0 81% 63%
8 Competitor 6 -2.8 -1.2 78% 60%

53
iv. Question 7 – “The firm provides its services at the time they
promise to do so.”
Figure 4.5 illustrates the results of Question 7. The apparent similarity between
Question 1 and Question 7 is noted, and it is expected that the results of the
ratings would be similar. However, Company X rated third in Question 1 (4 per
cent behind the top competitor), whilst in Question 7 it was rated equal best,
together with Competitors 4, 5 and 10. Clients perceive Company X to provide
its service at the time it is promised at 74 per cent of the time. Company X was
ranked first, but its Gap Score is the largest of all the firms which fared best in
each question about the Service Quality dimension Reliability.

Question 7
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.5
-1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8

-2.0
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0
-2.1 -2.2 -2.2
-2.5 -2.3
-3.0
-3.0
-3.5
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
try
om
us
C
d
In
The results of Question 7 are presented in Table 4.6.

54
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Company X, Competitor 4, 5 & 10 -1.8 0 100% 74%
2 Competitor 1, 7 & 8 -2.0 -0.2 96% 71%
3 Competitor 2 -2.1 -0.3 94% 70%
4 Competitor 3 & 9 -2.2 -0.4 92% 69%
5 Industry Average -2.3 -0.5 90% 67%
6 Competitor 6 -3.0 -1.2 77% 57%
v. Question 9 – “The firm insists on error free records.”
Figure 4.6 illustrates the results of the Question 9 of the adapted SERVPERF
questionnaire. This question was the only question of the Service Quality
dimension, Reliability, in which Company X was rated below the Industry
Average. It is clear that the firm needs to place more insistence on error free
records and the importance of this to clients need to be communicated to all
staff.

Question 9
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.5
-1.5
-1.6
-2.0
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0
-2.1 -2.2
-2.5 -2.4 -2.3
-2.8
-3.0
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
try
om
us
C
d
In

55
The results of this question are presented in Table 4.7. The average firm in PE
insists on error free records 69 per cent of the time and Company X at 67 per
cent of the time. This signifies Gaps between Company X and the “best firm”
and between the expected perfection of 13 per cent and 33 per cent
respectively.
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 1 -1.5 0 100% 79%
2 Competitor 5 -1.6 -0.1 98% 77%
3 Competitor 2, 4, 7, 8 & 10 -2.0 -0.5 91% 71%
5 Company X -2.3 -0.8 85% 67%
6 Competitor 3 -2.4 -0.9 84% 66%
7 Competitor 6 -2.8 -1.3 76% 60%
vi. Overall Service Quality Dimension - Reliability
The averages of the Gap Scores for Questions 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 comprise the
Gap Scores for the Service Quality dimension Reliability. Company X is rated
third, behind a total of four competitors.
Figure 4.7 and Table 4.8 summarises the overall results of the Service Quality
dimension Reliability.

56
Gaps per Service Quality Dimension: Reliability

0.0
-0.5
Gap Score -1.0
-1.5
-1.6 -1.6
-1.7 -1.7 -1.8
-2.0 -1.8
-2.0
-2.1 -2.1 -2.1
-2.2
-2.5
-2.8
-3.0
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
try
om
s
C
du
C
In
Figure 4.7 - Gaps for Service Quality dimension Reliability – Company X versus
Competitors and Industry
The overall Reliability of the firm is 4 per cent higher than the Industry Average
in PE. The Gap Score of Company X is -1.8, which indicates that the firm is 26
per cent short of being “totally reliable”. Clients in PE can expect the average
CCEF to be 70 per cent reliable.
Table 4.8 - Benchmarking firms according to Reliability
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Overall - Reliability bench- against
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 4 & 5 -1.6 0 100% 77%
2 Competitor 1 & 8 -1.7 -0.1 98% 76%
3 Company X & Competitor 10 -1.8 -0.2 96% 74%
4 Competitor 9 -2.0 -0.4 93% 71%
5 Industry Average , Competitor 2 & 7 -2.1 -0.5 91% 70%
6 Competitor 3 -2.2 -0.6 89% 69%
7 Competitor 6 -2.8 -1.2 78% 60%

57
4.4.2 RESPONSIVENESS
The following four questions comprise the Service Quality dimension,

Responsiveness, which has been included in the SERVPERF research
instrument:
Question 2 (Q2) – “Employees at the firm tell me exactly when services will be
performed”.
Question 4 (Q4) – “Employees at the firm give me prompt service”.
Question 6 (Q6) – “Employees at the firm are never too busy to respond to my
requests”.
Question 8 (Q8) – “Employees at the firm are always willing to help me”.
The Gap Scores for these questions are illustrated in Figures 4.8 to 4.12
respectively.
i. Question 2 – “Employees at the firm tell me exactly when services

will be performed.”
Figure 4.8 graphically illustrates the results of the first question of the Service
Quality dimension, Responsiveness.
Gaps per Question for Service Quality Dimension: Responsiveness Question 2

0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Gap Score
-1.4 -1.4
-1.7 -1.7 -1.7
-2.0 -1.8
-1.9
-2.0
-2.2
-2.5 -2.4
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-3.5
-4.0
e
X
1
10
ag
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
ny
er
or
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
ry
om
st
C
du
C
In
Figure 4.8 - Gaps per question for Service Quality dimension Responsiveness –

58
Clients have rated Company X with a Gap Score of -1.9, which signifies a
shortcoming of 27 per cent. Employees tell clients on average 69 per cent of
the time exactly when the services will be performed. It is evident from the data
that Company X is rated fourth on this question as presented in Table 4.9.
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 4 & 5 -1.4 0 100% 80%
2 Competitor 1, 8 & 9 -1.7 -0.3 95% 76%
3 Competitor 10 -1.8 -0.4 93% 74%
4 Company X -1.9 -0.5 91% 73%
5 Competitor 7 -2.0 -0.6 89% 71%
7 Competitor 3 -2.4 -1.0 82% 66%
8 Competitor 2 -2.5 -1.1 80% 64%
9 Competitor 6 -3.5 -2.1 63% 50%
ii. Question 4 – “Employees at the firm give me prompt service.”
The results of the second question pertaining to the Service Quality dimension
Responsiveness are presented in Figure 4.9.
The Gap Score of Company X is -1.7, which denotes a percentage Gap Score
of 24 per cent from 100 per cent which means always giving prompt service to
clients. Company X is ranked fifth by the respondents and lags by 5 per cent
behind its top competitor. Table 4.10 provides a comprehensive summary of
these results.

59
Gaps per Question for Service Quality Dimension: Responsiveness

Question 4
0.0
-0.5
Gap Score -1.0
-1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.4

-1.5
-1.6
-1.8 -1.7
-2.0 -1.8
-2.0 -1.9
-2.5 -2.4
-3.0
-3.0
-3.5
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
10
ag
ny
o
er
or
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
ry
om
st
C
du
C
In
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 8 -1.3 0 100% 81%
2 Competitor 4 & 10 -1.4 -0.1 98% 80%
3 Competitor 1 -1.5 -0.2 96% 79%
4 Competitor 9 -1.6 -0.3 95% 77%
5 Company X -1.7 -0.4 93% 76%
6 Competitor 5 & 7 -1.8 -0.5 91% 74%
8 Competitor 3 -2.0 -0.7 88% 71%
9 Competitor 2 -2.4 -1.1 81% 66%
10 Competitor 6 -3.0 -1.7 70% 57%
iii. Question 6 – “Employees at the firm are never too busy to respond
to my requests.”
Respondents had to rate whether employees at the firm are never too busy to
respond to the requests of clients. Figure 4.10 illustrates the results of this
question. The perception exists that Company X respond 77 per cent of the

60
time. The firm that fared the best responds at 80 per cent of the time. The Gap
Score of Company X of -1.6 represents a percentage Gap of 23 per cent.

Question 6
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.5 -1.4 -1.4

-1.5
-1.7 -1.6 -1.6
-2.0
-2.0 -2.0 -2.0
-2.1
-2.5 -2.4
-2.5
-3.0
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
10
ag
ny
o
er
or
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
ry
om
st
C
du
C
In
Table 4.11 summarises and ranks the scores for Question 6. Company X is
ranked third and the Industry Average is 71 per cent (Gap Score -2.0).
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 5 & 10 -1.4 0 100% 80%
2 Competitor 8 -1.5 -0.1 98% 79%
3 Company X & Competitor 9 -1.6 -0.2 96% 77%
4 Competitor 1 -1.7 -0.3 95% 76%
5 Industry Average & Competitor 3 & 7 -2.0 -0.6 89% 71%
6 Competitor 2 -2.1 -0.7 88% 70%
7 Competitor 4 -2.4 -1.0 82% 66%
8 Competitor 6 -2.5 -1.1 80% 64%

61
iv. Question 8 – “Employees at the firm are always willing to help me.”
Company X scored the best on the question about whether the employees at
the firm are always willing to help the clients. Figure 4.11 graphically illustrates
that the Gap Scores of most of the competitors are smaller than for the other
questions. This indicates that the perception exists that employees in general
are willing to help clients. The Industry Average, a Gap Score of -1.5, is higher
than those of the other questions which confirms this. The Gap Score is of
Company X is -1.2 which represents a percentage Gap of only 17 per cent.

Question 8
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.2 -1.2 -1.2 -1.2

-1.5 -1.3 -1.4 -1.4 -1.4
-1.5
-2.0
-2.0 -2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.0
-3.5
e
X
1
10
ag
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
ny
er
or
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
ry
om
st
C
du
C
In
The data which was analysed for Question 8 is benchmarked and summarised
in Table 4.12.

62
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Company X & Competitor 4, 5 & 8 -1.2 0 100% 83%
2 Competitor 1 -1.3 -0.1 98% 81%
3 Competitor 3, 9 & 10 -1.4 -0.2 97% 80%
5 Competitor 2 & 7 -2.0 -0.8 86% 71%
6 Competitor 6 -3.0 -1.8 69% 57%
v. Overall Service Quality Dimension - Responsiveness
The averages of the Gap Scores for Questions 2, 4, 6 and 8 result in the Gap
Scores for the Service Quality dimension Responsiveness. These are depicted
in Figure 4.12. Company X rated third behind a total of four competitors with a
Gap Score of -1.6.
Gaps per Service Quality Dimension: Responsiveness

0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.5 -1.5 -1.4

-1.5 -1.6 -1.5
-1.6 -1.6
-2.0 -2.0 -1.9 -1.9
-2.3
-2.5
-3.0
-3.0
-3.5
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
ag
r1
ny
o
er
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
try
om
us
C
d
In

63
The overall Responsiveness of Company X is perceived to be 77 per cent,
which is a shortfall of 23 per cent from the expected perfection. The overall
Responsiveness of Company X is 3 per cent less than that of Competitor 8,
which is perceived to offer the best overall Responsiveness of those surveyed.
This is presented in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13 - Benchmarking firms according to Responsiveness
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Overall Responsiveness bench- against
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 8 -1.4 0 100% 80%
2 Competitor 1, 5 & 10 -1.5 -0.1 98% 79%
3 Company X & Competitor 4 & 9 -1.6 -0.2 96% 77%
5 Competitor 3 -2.0 -0.6 89% 71%
6 Competitor 2 -2.3 -0.9 84% 67%
7 Competitor 6 -3.0 -1.6 71% 57%
4.5 SERVICE RECOVERY
The tenth and final quantitative question of the questionnaire does not form part
of the recognised SERVPERF research instrument. Hence, it is not part of a
Service Quality dimension. However, the question was formulated in the same
manner as the other nine questions to address the secondary research
hypothesis and the sub-problem statement and objectives.
Question 10 (Q10) – “When someone at the firm makes a mistake, they take
corrective action.”
The results of this question are illustrated in Figure 4.13. The majority of firms
scored between -1.5 and -2.0, with the average score -1.8. The rating of
Company X is -1.7, which denotes that corrective action is perceived to be
taken 76 per cent of the time.

64
Gaps per Question for Service Recovery

Question 10
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Gap Score
-1.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.6 -1.6 -1.7 -1.6
-1.8 -1.7 -1.7
-1.8
-2.0
-2.0
-2.5
-2.8
-3.0
e
X
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
r6
r7
r8
r9
10
ag
ny
o
er
or
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
tit
pa
Av
tit
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
pe
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
om
ry
om
st
C
du
C
In
Figure 4.13 - Gaps per question for Service Recovery – Question 10, Company X
versus Competitors and Industry
The Service Recovery of Company X is perceived to be 76 per cent, which is a

shortfall of 24 per cent from the expected perfection. It is ten per cent less than
that of the top competitor. Table 4.14 summarises the results of Question 10.
Table 4.14 - Benchmarking firms according to Service Recovery
Gap Score
Gap
Gap Score rated
Gap from
Service Recovery bench- against
Score Highest
marked expected
Rank
perfection
1 Competitor 5 -1.0 0 100% 86%
2 Competitor 1 -1.5 -0.5 92% 79%
3 Competitor 3, 4 & 10 -1.6 -0.6 90% 77%
4 Company X & Competitor 8 & 9 -1.7 -0.7 88% 76%
6 Competitor 7 -2.0 -1.0 83% 71%
7 Competitor 6 -2.8 -1.8 70% 60%

65
4.6 COMPARISON OF GAP SCORES FOR EACH QUESTION AND
DIMENSION
Each Service Quality dimension is made up of a number of questions and it is

interesting to note how Company X fared in relation to the Industry for each of
these questions. It is evident from the data in Figure 4.14 that the smallest Gap
Scores for both Company X and the Industry were for Question 8 – “Employees
at the firm are always willing to help me”.
Gaps per Question

Company X versus Industry
0.0
-0.5
Gap Scores
-1.0
Company X
-1.2 Industry
-1.5 -1.4
-1.5
-1.5
-1.6
-1.7 -1.7
-1.8 -1.8 -1.8
-2.0 -1.9 -1.9
-2.0
-2.2 -2.2 -2.2-2.2 -2.2
-2.3 -2.3
-2.5
10
1
9
n
n
io
io
io
io
io
io
io
io
io
io
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
ue
Q
Figure 4.14 – Gaps per question for Company X and Industry
Company X was rated with bigger Gap Scores than the Industry on Questions 5
and 9. The firm was rated lower than the Industry Average on the other eight
questions. The biggest Gap Score was found in the perceptions of clients of
Question 9 – “The firm insists on error free records”.
Figure 4.15 illustrates the overall results of the benchmarking of the Service
Quality dimensions, Reliability and Responsiveness, and the Service Recovery
and the Overall Service Quality between Company X and the Industry.

66
Overall Comparison of Service Quality Dimensions and Service Recovery

Company X versus Industry
0.0
-0.5
Gap Scores
-1.0
Company X
Industry
-1.5
-1.6
-1.7 -1.7
-1.8
-1.8
-2.0 -1.9 -1.9
-2.1
-2.5
Reliability Responsiveness Service Recovery Overall Service
Quality
Figure 4.15 – Overall comparison of Service Quality dimensions and Service

Recovery
4.7 COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS
Section A of the questionnaire contained the following two questions posed at

the respondents:
1. “What improvements would you like to see in the service quality of
consulting engineers?”
2. “General comments (ANY feedback will be appreciated)”.
The following section contains extracts from the questionnaires received.

These were presented as open-ended questions to elicit further information
from the respondents.
4.7.1 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS BY RESPONDENTS TO SERVICE

QUALITY
The following are a sample of answers to the first question – “What

improvements would you like to see in the service quality of consulting
engineers?”:

67
• “Consistent, reliable, dependable and accurate professional service

throughout the project cycle required. From formulation of brief through
design process, tender evaluation, construction administration to final
account. More accurate estimates of project costs and fees.
Collaboration between consulting firms to ensure that client gets the best
possible advice and end product. Better control of project costs. Meet
deadlines set by client. Innovative and cost effective solutions.”
• “Innovative designs and methods to deal with the realities of this country.
Expensive ways of dealing with an engineering problem is not always the
best for our long term goals of job creation and poverty alleviation. A lot
of pressure is placed on the industry to speed up service delivery - we
need to find ways of creating employment and dong it to the satisfaction
of our Clients. In general the quality of service delivered is still of an
acceptable standard, but delays during the planning phase due to a lack
of co-ordination between the various Consultant disciplines could
improve.”
• “General improved quality control on all aspects of work. Too many
blatant errors and omissions are identified by my staff - my section's
capacity is already severely limited.”
• “Too much work is done by inexperienced staff with insufficient guidance
and supervision from their seniors.”
The responses indicate that clients need firms to improve their Service Quality
and technical skills and to be innovative.
4.7.2 GENERAL COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS
The following are a sample of responses to the second question – “General

comments (ANY feedback will be appreciated)”:
• “Quality of service provided by consulting engineers has steadily
deteriorated over the years in both the quality of designs and
management of projects. It appears that this is due to firms being able to
sustain adequate experienced professional staff. Existing staff are
running between projects trying to satisfy several clients and deadlines.”

68
• “There is a general perception in Government that Consultants are

always interested in increasing the value of projects in order to increase
fees. We would like to see from the side of Government that private
firms join hands with us to empower the young professionals in the public
sector. In other words not to take advantage of a young inexperienced
Government employee but to help us to grow dependable and solid
officials for the future. (The importance of career minded Public Sector).
The checks and balances and importance of mutual respect should be
paramount for future growth and service delivery to the peoples of this
country.”
• “It is a known fact that most consultants are also struggling with capacity
and that they are relying on young inexperienced technicians and
engineers to perform most tasks - the end result is poor service and
mistakes that cost the NMBM money and it put an unnecessary strain on
my limited resources i.e., manpower and funding.”
• “We all know that the Civil Engineering game is under extreme pressure
to perform with a lack of suitably qualified staff coming through the ranks.
It is therefore very important that engineers should strive for a "right first
time" scenario. Mistakes are bound to creep in.”
The responses confirm the lack of staff in the civil consulting engineering
industry and the effect it has on Service Quality.
4.8 TRIANGULATION
Two types of triangulation are used in this research, namely data triangulation
and methodological triangulation to verify its validity and reliability.
4.8.1 DATA TRIANGULATION
Data is triangulated, in this research, with that obtained from the research done
by Gardiner (2004). Gardiner (2004: 52) indicates that each of the five
questions of the SERVQUAL dimension Reliability received a negative Gap
Score, the perceptions never exceeded the expectations, and three of these
comprise the biggest negative Gaps identified.

69
The average Gap Score of the research by Gardiner (2004: 50-51) for the
Service Quality dimension Responsiveness was negative, reflecting the
perceptions by clients that firms need to be more responsive. The findings of
this research indicate that a relatively large Gap exists between the
expectations and perceptions of the clients and that the Industry Average Gap
Score is -1.9.
4.8.2 METHODOLOGICAL TRIANGULATION
Both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection are used in this
research. Section A of the questionnaire is qualitative and Section B is
quantitative. The Gap Scores of the clients, quantitative data, confirms their
comments, qualitative feedback, on the Service Quality of CCEF.
4.8.3 TRIANGULATION RESULTS SUMMARY
The results of the data triangulation, methodological triangulation together with

Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis, indicate that the research findings are of
high validity and reliability.
4.9 IMPORTANCE–PERFORMANCE MATRIX
The Importance–Performance Matrix is a method which is used in this research

to reflect perceived relationships between importance, performance and priority
for improvement. The Gap Scores for the two Service Quality dimensions
under consideration, namely Reliability and Responsiveness, are plotted on
Figures 4.16 and 4.17 respectively.
Figure 4.16 illustrates the Gap Scores for the Service Quality dimension
Reliability. Gardiner (2004: 43) states that its importance to clients is at 37 per
cent.

70
Importance-Performance Matrix
Reliability versus Gap Scores
⊗ Competitor 4 & 5
Competitor 1 & 8 ⊗
⊗ Company X
⊗ Industry,
Competitor 3 ⊗ Competitor 2 & 7
⊗ Competitor 6
Competitor 9 ⊗
Figure 4.16 - Importance–Performance Matrix, Reliability versus Gap Scores
Competitors 6 and 9 are the only firms that need to take “urgent action”. The
Reliability of Company X and the Service Quality of the other competitors all
need to “improve” because Reliability is an order-winner (Davis & Heineke,
2005: 278). The performances of these firms are perceived to be the same as
those for everyone else.
Figure 4.17 illustrates the Gap Scores for the Service Quality dimension
Responsiveness. Gardiner (2004: 43) observed that its importance to clients is
at 19 per cent.

71
Importance–Performance Matrix
Responsiveness versus Gap Scores
Competitor 8 ⊗
Company X & Competitor 4 & 9 ⊗
⊗ Industry Average & Competitor 7
Competitor 3 ⊗
⊗ Competitor 2
Competitor 6 ⊗
Figure 4.17 - Importance–Performance Matrix, Responsiveness versus Gap

Scores
Two firms need to improve their service for the Service Quality dimension
Responsiveness. Company X and the other firms are in the “appropriate” zone.
However, every effort needs to be made to outperform competitors in this
regard should a firm wish to distinguish itself as the market leader.
4.10 EVALUATING THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES
The main objective of this research is to benchmark the perceptions of the

clients of Company X about its Service Quality in relation to its competitors.
The data revealed that Company X has shortfalls in terms of their Service
Quality, but rates amongst the top firms in PE.

72
The secondary objective of this research was to benchmark the perceptions of
clients to the Service Recovery efforts of Company X. The data revealed that
the Service Recovery efforts of CCEF in PE are not at the desired levels as yet.
Company X was rated near average in comparison to firms in PE and strategies
to improve Service Recovery need to be implemented as a matter of urgency.
It was found that only a few of the larger and/or more established CCEF assess
or benchmark their Service Quality in relation to other firms. Some of these
firms have their Service Quality benchmarked by independent firms on an
annual basis. The firms participating in such surveys are benchmarked
anonymously and the ratings of each particular firm are revealed to that firm
only. These benchmarking surveys include the percentages spent on
marketing, administration, technical staff salaries and the like.
Research indicated that none of the CCEF in PE has formally identified Service
Recovery as a factor that contributes to the overall experience of the quality of
the service by the client. None appear to have any procedures established.
The three hypotheses of this research have been confirmed by the results of the
data. There are positive relationships between the three independent variables
Reliability, Responsiveness and Service Recovery and the dependent variable
perceived Service Quality.
4.11 SUMMARY
This chapter benchmarked the Service Quality and Service Recovery of

Company X against its competitors. The data collected is analysed
comprehensively and the objectives and problem statements of this research
are addressed. The next chapter concludes the research with suggestions and
strategies to improve the Service Quality and Service Recovery of Company X
to gain a competitive advantage.

73
CHAPTER 5
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The findings of the research may prove to be invaluable to CCEF, and in

particular Company X. This chapter presents recommendations and strategies
for Company X to close the Gaps between the expectations and perceptions of
their clients to become the market leaders.
The standard SERVPERF research instrument proved to be a useful tool to

assist with the objectives of this research. The use of this research instrument
to the advantage of other firms is suggested.
5.2 THE SERVQUAL/SERVPERF RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The SERVQUAL/SERVPERF research instrument can be used in a number of

other ways to improve the Service Quality of CCEF through benchmarking and
these are discussed.
5.2.1 COMPARING EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS OF CLIENTS

OVER TIME
The research instrument as a questionnaire provides valuable feedback,

however Company X can benefit from its repeated use. It is suggested that
similar research is conducted annually or bi-annually to measure and compare
the Service Quality of Company X against its competitors. These comparisons
of expectations and perceptions over time will reveal how the Gap between the
two changes and any changes as a result of changing expectations, changing
perceptions, or both (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 177). Figure 5.1 illustrates the
tracking of client perceptions along a Service Quality dimension over time.

74
Illustrative Tracking of Client Perceptions along a Service Quality Dimension
-0.5
Gap Score
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time Period
Figure 5.1 - Illustrative Tracking of Client Perceptions along a Service Quality

Dimension
5.2.2 COMPARING THE SERVPERF SCORES OF COMPANY X AGAINST

COMPETITORS OVER TIME
The relative strengths and weaknesses of Company X can be measured over

time in relation to its main competitors. This graphical method will reveal trends
and provide Company X with valuable data to remedy any problems (Zeithaml
et al, 1990: 178). Figure 5.2 provides typical results when SERVPERF Gap
Scores are tracked along a Service Quality dimension.
Linear trend lines can be used for each firm, which will reveal whether Gaps are
changing, converging or remaining constant over time.

75
Illustrative Tracking of SERVPERF scores along a Service Quality Dimension
0
Company X
-0.5 Competitor A
Competitor B
Gap Score
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time Period
Figure 5.2 - Illustrative Tracking of SERVPERF Gap Scores along a Service

Quality Dimension
5.2.3 CATEGORISE CLIENTS INTO SEGMENTS OF DIFFERENT QUALITY

PERCEPTIONS
Clients can be categorised into various Perceived Quality segments on the

basis of their individual SERVQUAL/SERVPERF scores. These segments can
be analysed based on job title, seniority, the reasons why the perceptions exist,
length of association with Company X, willingness to recommend the firm and
the like. These will provide Company X with a better understanding of how to
improve its Service Quality, or how to improve the perception of the
substandard service (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 178).
5.2.4 ASSESSING SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNAL

CLIENTS
The SERVQUAL/SERVPERF research instrument can be used by divisions and

departments within Company X to assess the perceptions of Service Quality
provided to fellow employees in other divisions and departments (Zeithaml et al,
1990: 180).

76
5.2.5 ASCERTAIN THE SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS OF
CONTRACTORS
A typical civil engineering project has a team of stakeholders which comprise

the client, the CCEF and the contractor. Company X can ascertain the Service
Quality perceptions of the various contractors that the consulting engineers
have dealings with. CCEF would naturally service a client better than a
contractor. Hence, it is fair to state that the Gap Scores of the Service Quality
perceptions of contractors will, in general, be greater than those of clients. This
“exaggeration” of Gap Scores can by very insightful, as it will more readily
reveal the areas where the firm could improve its Service Quality to clients and
contractor alike.
5.2.6 ASCERTAIN THE SERVICE QUALITY PERCEPTIONS OF OTHER

PROFESSIONALS
Many projects comprise various disciplines, and include professionals such as

architects, quantity surveyors, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers,
structural engineers, and the like. As everyone works together towards a
common goal, team members will inevitably need to give good service to each
other. Valuable information could be obtained from a peer review by using the
SERVQUAL/SERVPERF research instrument
5.2.7 ASSESSING THE SERVICE QUALITY OF CONTRACT WORKERS
Many firms use retired engineers or otherwise freelance contract workers as

their representatives on construction sites. These engineers often
simultaneously contract to multiple firms and their Service Quality perceptions
can be ascertained using the SERVQUAL/SERVPERF research instrument.
These contract workers get exposure to a variety of quality assurance systems,
the Service Quality received, and the like. Hence, their feedback can provide
valuable, objective information and highlight Gaps in the Service Quality that
may exist.

77
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategies and practical examples on how to improve Service Quality, Service

Recovery and TQM of Company X are recommended in the following sections.
5.3.1 IMPROVING SERVICE QUALITY
Executives who are committed to Service Quality need to institute a continuous

process for the following (Zeithaml et al, 1990: 35):
• Monitoring perceptions by clients of Service Quality;
• Identifying the course of Service Quality shortfalls;
• Taking the necessary action to improve the Service Quality.
The following procedure needs to be followed when firms want to make

decisions about their clients (Maister, 2003: 75):
• Call the client;
• Give the alternatives in the form of pros and cons;
• Make a recommendation;
• Request the opinion of and instruction from the client.
These steps will ensure that clients are satisfied and that direct responsibility is
taken for specific expenditures and time-consuming activities.
The following are practical examples of things that can be done to create the
experience of client satisfaction (Maister, 2003: 76-80):
• Client meetings to be followed up with brief notes/minutes summarising
the discussion, points agreed to and an action-responsibility plan;
• Explain in advance the format of complex invoices so that the client is
aware of what to expect;
• Follow up referrals with letters of thanks even if the referral has not
resulted in business;
• Find out what the real deadlines of the clients are and ensure that these
are met.

78
In addition, according to Maister (2003: 78-80), Company X needs to:
• Demonstrate its trustworthiness and integrity by advising clients on how
to avoid fees by doing some things themselves;
• Demonstrate its trustworthiness and integrity by admitting areas of
weakness and recommend other professionals;
• Demonstrate its trustworthiness and integrity by refusing work when it is
too busy;
• Make it their business to understand what is special and unique about
the client;
• Listen carefully to what the clients have to say, rather than substitute
their own judgement for that of the clients;
• Give good explanations of what it is doing and why;
• Keep clients sufficiently informed on progress;
• Document their work activities well;
• Make their staff accessible and available when needed;
• Notify their clients of any changes in scope, and seek the approval of the
client;
• Make the clients feel important;
• Show an interest in their clients beyond the specifics of their tasks;
• Make an attempt to be helpful beyond the specifics of the project.
The achievement of excellence in Service Quality is not an “educational” issue.

A full programme to differentiate the firm through Service Quality requires action
in the following order (Maister, 2003: 83):
• Measurement;
• Management;
• Tips and tools;
• Training;
• Rewards.

79
Figure 5.3 presents a process model for the continuous measurement and
improvement of Service Quality developed by Zeithaml et al (1990: 47).
Do the firm's clients perceive its Yes

Continue to monitor clients'
offerings as meeting or
expectations and perceptions
exceeding their expectations?
No
Does the firm have an accurate

Take corrective action
understanding of clients' No
expectations?
Yes
Are there specific standards in

place to meet clients' No
expectations?
Yes
Does the firm's offerings meet or Take corrective action

No
exceed the standards?
Yes
Is the information communicated

to clients about the firm's No
offerings accurate?
Yes
Figure 5.3 - Process Model for Continuous Measurement and Improvement of

Service Quality
i. Closing the Service Quality Model Gaps
The Conceptual Model of Service Quality has five Gaps. The factors
contributing to the first four Gaps and the suggested methods of closing these
Gaps are summarised in Table 5.1, as Gap 5 is the assessment of the client
about Service Quality.

80
Table 5.1 - Summary of Gap problems and methods of closing the Gaps
Problem Closing the gap

Gap 1 Insufficient marketing research. Researching clients' expectations:
- Using complaints strategically;
- Researching what clients want in
similar industries;
- Researching intermediate clients;
- Conducting key-client studies;
- Creating client panels;
- Tracking satisfaction with individual
transactions.
Inadequate use of marketing research Use marketing research findings effectively.

findings.
Lack of interaction between management Increasing interaction between management
and clients. and clients.
Insufficient upward communication from Improving upward communication from
contact personnel to management. contact personnel to management.
Too many levels between contact personnel Reduce the number of levels between
and management. contact personnel and management.
Gap 2 Inadequate management commitment to Committing to quality.

Service Quality.
Commitment to middle management.
Perception of infeasibility. Creating possibilities.

Inadequate standardisation of tasks. Standardising tasks.
Absence of goal setting. Setting Service Quality goals.
Gap 3 Employee role ambiguity. Providing role clarity.

Role conflict. Eliminating role conflict.
Poor employee-job fit.
Poor technology-job fit. Improving employee-technology-job fit.
Inappropriate supervisory control systems. Measuring and rewarding service
performance.
Lack of perceived control. Empowering service employees.
Lack of teamwork. Building teamwork.
Managing external customers.
Gap 4 Inadequate horizontal communications. Opening channels of communication

between advertising and operations.
Opening channels of communication
between sales and operations.
Opening channels of communication
between human resources, marketing, and
operations.
Differences in policies and procedures Providing consistent service across branches
across branches or departments. or outlets.
Propensity to over-promise. Developing appropriate and effective
communications about Service Quality.
Source: Zeithaml et al (1990: 35-133)

81
5.3.2 IMPROVING SERVICE RECOVERY
The following actions need to occur to minimise or eradicate the effect of

mistakes and serve as a plan to improve Service Recovery (Van Bennekom,
2006):
• Not charging for incorrect service or products. The only ‘product’ the
consulting engineer can sell, is intellectual property such as construction
drawings. The correctness of the only tangible product needs to be
ensured at all cost;
• Client complaint solicitation systems. The existence of systems to
solicit failure situations is critical;
• Act on the solicited information. It is imperative that solicited
feedback from a client complaint is not ignored. A sure way to turn a
client into a lost client is to request feedback, promise a response, and
ignore it;
• Act promptly. It is meaningless to fix a problem long after it had
happened. The faster a firm responds to poor service, the more likely
that the Service Recovery effort will result in a positive outcome. An
organisation will typically retain up to 95 per cent of its unhappy clients,
should it act promptly. In contrast, if the service is recovered at all, only
64 per cent of its dissatisfied clients are retained;
• Compensate appropriately. If the firm is to attempt Service Recovery
by offering some form of compensation (for example free advice,
designs, and the like), it needs to be something that is truly useful to the
client. The firm that devises compensation schemes based on
minimising the direct cost of the compensation is bound to offer little
value to the client;
• True programmes that build client loyalty. Reward programmes that
provide rebates for frequent use do not secure client loyalty. Client
loyalty is secured by delivering true value in quality products and
services, cultivating client relationships that demonstrate concern and
empathy, rather than providing rewards of value.

82
Firms need to establish Service Recovery as a priority and develop recovery
skills, using the following strategies (Hoffman & Bateson, 2002: 335-339):
• Measure the cost. The costs of obtaining new clients are up to five
times more expensive than those of keeping existing clients. Existing
clients are more receptive to marketing efforts and are a valuable source
of profit for the firm. Existing clients asks fewer questions and are
familiar with the procedures and employees of the firm, and are willing to
pay for service;
• Actively encourage complaints. Clients complain to their friends and
families, rather than to the firm concerned. The average firm does not
hear from 96 per cent of its unhappy clients. An unhappy client voices
displeasure with a firm to an average of 11 other people. The firm needs
to adopt strategies to encourage complaints before a client leaves the
offices. These strategies include client surveys, focus groups, and active
monitoring of the service delivery process to ensure client satisfaction
throughout the process;
• Anticipate needs for Service Recovery. Firms that are most effective
in Service Recovery anticipate in advance the areas where it is most
likely to fail. Special attention needs to be given to areas where staff
turnover is high. Many of these high-turnover jobs are low-paying client
contact positions, and these staff members often lack the necessary
Service Recovery skills;
• Train employees. Employee training in Service Recovery should ideally
take place on two levels. First, the employee needs to be made aware of
the concerns of the clients and develop an appreciation of client needs.
Second, expectations of management towards Service Recovery efforts
need to be defined. Management needs to release employees to take
risks, an action which often leads to the empowerment of front-line staff;
• Empower the front line. Employees need to be empowered to make
their own decisions about poor Service Quality to the client. Managers
are often busy with other duties, which inherently delays the Service
Recovery time and escalates the frustration for both client and employee;
• Close the loop. The client needs to receive feedback on how the
complaint made a difference;

83
• Acknowledge the problem. Clients need to know that their complaints

are being heard;
• Make the client feel special. Inform the client that their opinions are
valued and that their business is important to the firm;
• Apologise when appropriate. A sincere apology is an effective form of
Service Recovery;
• Explain what happened. Events that led to the failure need to be
conveyed to the client. This extra information will make the client feel
valued and important;
• Offer to compensate. Clients often insist on compensation, but firms
need to be aware of the hidden costs associated with service failure,
such as time and frustration.
5.3.3 IMPROVING TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The following are fundamental requirements of TQM and possible actions

CCEF can take (BVQI, 2000: 2.12-2.14):
• CCEF need to know their clients, both internal and external. Target
markets are segmented and their needs identified. Possible actions
include client surveys, functional analysis, quality cost analysis and
quality function deployment;
• Firms need to know their competitors. Possible actions include client
surveys, competitor analysis and benchmarking;
• Firms need to be aware of the cost of non-conformance. Possible
actions are quality cost analysis and functional analysis;
• Firms need to measure their performance against key client-driven
parameters. Possible actions include client surveys, competitor analysis
and benchmarking;
• Firms need to ensure that each employee fully understands and is
committed to the organisational quality objectives. Possible actions
include functional analysis, education and training and communication;
• The management of the firm needs to be committed to the continuous
improvement of quality. Possible action include quality cost analysis,
functional analysis, education and training and communication;

84
• Firms need to define the purpose of each department and activity in

terms of satisfying internal and external client requirements. A possible
action is to perform a functional analysis;
• Firms need to empower their employees to fulfil their commitment to
quality by influencing the programme of continuous improvement.
Possible action include education and training, communication,
corrective action task forces/groups, error cause removal schemes,
quality circles, statistical process control, recognition of performance,
suggestion programmes and self-inspection programmes;
• Inspection and correction techniques of quality control need to be
replaced with preventative actions. Possible actions include functional
analysis, quality cost analysis, QMS, error cause removal schemes,
quality circles and suggestion programmes;
• Non-conforming output is unacceptable. Possible actions include quality
cost analysis, education and training, functional analysis and
communication;
• Firms need to plan effectively before any actions are undertaken. A
possible action is the forming a quality improvement team.
5.3.4 IMPROVEMENTS SUGGESTED BY CLIENTS FOR COMPANY X
The clients of CCEF in PE suggested the following improvements:

• Develop “turnkey” engineers. Focus is needed on training engineers
in project management and continuously improving the technical abilities
of staff. A need exists for engineers to be generalists and to be able to
take a project from inception to completion;
• Innovation. Civil consulting engineering firms need to challenge the
status quo and suggest innovative solutions to the problems facing South
Africa;
• Quality Control. Firms need to improve the quality control during the
design stages and during the construction monitoring phases of projects;
• Reduce staff turnover. The shortage of professional engineers coupled
with the increase in demand has resulted in high staff turnover. This
resulted in poor service and the loss of continuity in projects and

85
relationships with clients. Firms need to implement strategies to reduce
staff turnover.
5.4 SUGGESTED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Project Management Institute (PMI, 2004: 5) defines a project as “… a

temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result”.
This implies that the best method for implementing the recommended
improvements will be as a project which will be implemented through the
application and integration of five project management processes, namely
initiation, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing (PMI,
2004: 8). There are ten project management knowledge areas, illustrated in
Figure 5.4, that need to be identified and managed to ensure the timeous
improvement of the Service Quality of the firm.
Project
Management
Integration Scope Time Cost Quality

Management Management Management Management Management
Human Resource Communication Risk Procurement Health & Safety

Management Management Management Management Management
Figure 5.4 – Overview of Project Management Knowledge Areas

Source: PMI (2004: 11)
The sooner the firm can recover poor service and improve Service Quality, the
sooner it will gain a competitive advantage. Therefore, the most important
factor to manage as part of the implementation plan is time. The suggested
tasks and timeframes, which form part of the implementation plan of Company
X for 2008, are presented in Figure 5.5. It is suggested that Company X
compile a longer term (two to three year) strategic plan in a similar manner
which can be used as a management tool.

86
Figure 5.5 – Suggested tasks and timeframes for the implementation plan
The main factors affecting Service Quality need to form part of the
implementation plan and include the following (as discussed in previous
chapters):
• Service Leadership;
• TQM;
• The Service Satisfaction Framework;
• The Conceptual Model of service failure and recovery strategies;
• The Process Model for continuous measurement and improvement of
Service Quality.
5.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH PROJECTS
It is suggested that this research is repeated annually in conjunction with either

the South African Association of Consulting Engineers (SAACE) or the South
African Institution of Civil Engineering (SAICE). This will eliminate the
scepticisms of some of the respondents to divulge information about other
consulting firms. The results of such survey data need to be made known and
each firm needs to be rated against its competitors anonymously. A report

87
needs to be compiled for each firm about how it ranked against its peers and
the ranking of the other firms by company name need not to be divulged.
It is suggested for future research projects that the anonymity of the

questionnaires are guaranteed. The details of the poorer performing companies
will be kept anonymous, because it may have a detrimental effect on their
current and future dealings. It may be discouraging to those firms as opposed
to serving as an encouragement to better the Service Quality should the results
of these poorer performing firms be revealed.
Feedback of the outcome of the survey is to be given to each respondent to

encourage respondent participation in the short and long-term. Each
respondent will receive a comprehensive summary of the results of the survey.
Possible strategies on how to improve Service Quality, effective Service

Recovery procedures, and other information on what clients typically expect
from consultants need to be included as part of the feedback. The improvement
of the Service Quality of even a few firms will contribute to the Gross Domestic
Product of South Africa and contribute to building a better country.
The research can be conducted nationally. Its results can be used to

benchmark Company X against its competitors in each region and to
benchmark each office of Company X against each other.
The technique of Perceptual Mapping can be used to benchmark Company X

against its competitors with regard to the following:
• Services offered, for example whether the firm is perceived to be
geotechnical experts, and the like;
• Its image in relation to competitors;
• The company characteristics;
• Its general performance;
• Other relevant attributes.

88
Perceptions can be mapped over time and any changes to the Gap Scores can
be tracked and depicted on the same graph. Figure 5.6 illustrates how this is
achieved.
Perceptual Mapping
-3.5 -3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0

0
Competitor 8
-0.5
Attribute A: Gap Scores
Company X
-1
Competitor 1
Competitor 4 Competitor 3
-1.5
Competitor 2
Competitor 7
Competitor 6 -2
Competitor 9
-2.5
Competitor 5 -3
-3.5
Attribute B: Gap Scores
Figure 5.6 – Illustrative Perceptual Mapping of Attributes
Figure 5.6 illustrates how one attribute is mapped in relation to another and the
arrows indicate the changes to the Gap Scores over time. The directions of the
arrows indicate whether the Gap Scores increase or decrease over time.
5.6 CONCLUSION
This research has confirmed that the steady decline in the number of
professionals during the last few decades and the increase in the demand for
firms to produce more, in a shorter space of time, and with fewer human
resources have had a negative effect on Service Quality. Firms need to
currently focus on gaining a competitive advantage by consistently providing
Service Excellence. One way of achieving this is through continuous
improvement through benchmarking.

89
This research has benchmarked the Service Quality and Service Recovery of
Company X against its competitors. The data collected was analysed
comprehensively and the objectives and problem statements of this research
have been addressed. The results of this research proved to be most valuable
to Company X. The implementation of the suggested strategies and
improvement plans will improve its Service Quality and Service Recovery and
help it gain a competitive advantage.

90
REFERENCE LIST
Bureau Veritas Quality International (BVQI). 2000. QMS Internal Auditor

Training Course Delegate Manual. Johannesburg.
Bowen, D.E. & Johnston, R. 1999. Internal service recovery: Developing a new
construct. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 10(2),
118-131.
Calitz, A.P. 2001. An evaluation to assist a metropolitan broker division to

improve the level of service quality towards contracted brokers.
Unpublished MBA dissertation. Port Elizabeth Technikon.
Collis, J. & Hussey, R. 2003. Business research: A practical guide for

undergraduate and postgraduate students (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Cronbach’s Alpha [Online]. 2007. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org

(accessed: 29 January 2007).
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16, 197-334.
Davis, M.M. & Heineke, J. 2005. Operations management (5th ed.). New
York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Gardiner, R. 2004. Evaluating the service delivery of a consulting engineering

firm. Unpublished MBA dissertation. Port Elizabeth Technikon.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. 2005. Strategic management:
Competitiveness and globalization (Concepts and cases) (6th ed.).
Versailles: Thomson.
Hoffman, D.K. & Bateson, J.E.G. 2002. Essentials of service marketing.

Orlando: Harcourt Brace College.

91
Hoxley, M. 2000. Are competitive fee tendering and construction professional

services quality mutually exclusive? Construction Management &
Economics, 18(5), 599-606.
Johnston, R. 1998. The effect of intensity of dissatisfaction on complaining

behaviour. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behaviour, 11(1), 69-76.
Keet, M. 2000. An investigation into the provision of service excellence in a

selected bank in the Port Elizabeth metropole. Unpublished MBA
dissertation. Port Elizabeth Technikon.
Lawless, A. 2006. Numbers and needs [Online]. Available from:

http://www.civils.org.za/n_and_n.html (accessed: 28 June 2006).
Maister, D.H. 2003. Managing the professional service firm. London: Bath
Press.
Oakland, J.S. 2003. Total quality management (3rd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L. 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-
item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.
Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Project Management Institute (PMI). 2004. A guide to the Project Management

Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (3rd ed.). Newtown Square: PMI.
Sekaran, U. 2003. Research methods for business: A skill building approach

(4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Slack, N. 1994. The Importance–Performance Matrix as a determinant of

improvement priority. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 14(5), 59-75.

92
Stiefbold, R. 27 October 2003. Dissatisfied customers require recovery plans.

Marketing News, pp. 44 – 46.
Van Bennekom, F. 2006. Lessons learned from service recovery [Online].

Available from: www.greatbrook.com (accessed: 01 September 2006).
Van Looy, B., Gemmel, P. & Van Dierdonck, R. 2003. Services management:
An integrated approach (2nd ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.
Van Zyl, R. 2006. Boom in building as plans passed are 300% higher [Online].
Available from: http://www.coega.co.za/ (accessed: 28 June 2006).
Vassen, A. 2002. Determining and improving the levels of service quality at

international healthcare distributors (IHD). Unpublished MBA
dissertation. Port Elizabeth Technikon.
Zeithaml, V.A. & Bitner, M.J. 2000. Services marketing: Integrating customer
focus across the firm (2nd ed.). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L. 1990. Delivering quality service:
Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: The Free
Press.
Zhu, Z., Sivakumar, K. & Parasuraman, A. 2004. A mathematical model of

service failure and recovery strategies. Decision Sciences, 35(3), 493-
525.

93
Annexure A

94
Section A: Respondent Information & Comments
The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information that would

assist in the statistical processing and interpretation of the survey
results. Please be so kind and answer all the questions - it should take
only 10 minutes.
Name & Surname: …………………………………...………………

……………………………………………….…………….. 2. General comments (ANY feedback will be appreciated):
Position/ Job Title (Optional): ………………………………………..

………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………….
Contact Number (Optional): …………………………………………

……………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………….
1. What improvements would you like to see in the service quality of ………………………………………………………………………….
consulting engineers?
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
Please return the completed questionnaire by Fri 10 Nov 06.
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………….

95
Section B: Service Quality
This section deals with your experience with the various consultants
you have been dealing with. Please provide a rating for each of the
consultants according to the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Competitor 10
Competitor 11
Competitor 12
Competitor 13
Competitor 14
Competitor 15
Competitor 16
Competitor 17
Competitor 18
Competitor 1
Competitor 2
Competitor 3
Competitor 4
Competitor 5
Competitor 6
Competitor 7
Competitor 8
Competitor 9
Company X
(Strongly Disagree) (Strongly Agree)
Q1. When they promise to do something by a certain time, they do

so.
Q2. Employees at the firm tell me exactly when services will be
performed.
Q3. When I have a problem, the firm shows a sincere interest in
solving it.
Q4. Employees at the firm give me prompt service.
Q5. The firm performs the service right the first time.
Q6. Employees at the firm are never too busy to respond to my

requests.
Q7. The firm provides its services at the time they promise to do
so.
Q8. Employees at the firm are always willing to help me.
Q9. The firm insists on error free records.
Q10. When someone at the firm makes a mistake, they take

corrective action.

Werner Bellingan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Werner Bellingan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Werner Bellingan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPROVING THE SERVICE QUALITY OF A CIVIL

CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM THROUGH

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

Promoter: Prof. J J Pieterse

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

RE: CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE

• The work in this paper is my own original work;

CHAPTER 2 : SERVICE QUALITY AND SERVICE RECOVERY IN

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

2.6.5 QUALIFICATIONS TO THE USE OF THE IMPORTANCE–

CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH DESIGN

CHAPTER 4 : ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE RESEARCH

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

ii. Question 3 – “When I have a problem, the firm shows

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

CHAPTER 5 : RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

FIGURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)

Figure 4.11 Gaps per question for Service Quality dimension

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

TABLE DESCRIPTION PAGE

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

ANNEXURE DESCRIPTION PAGE

Annexure A Research Questionnaire 93

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

THE BACKGROUND AND METHODS OF STUDY

It is anticipated that over R200 billion is to be spent on infrastructure in South

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

‘Order-qualifiers’ are the minimum characteristics that a firm must have to be

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS AND OBJECTIVES

1.2.1 MAIN PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this research project is to determine the perceptions of

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

The following questions will be addressed as appendages to the main problem

1.2.2 SUB-PROBLEM STATEMENT AND OBJECTIVES

The secondary objective of this dissertation is to ascertain the perceptions

The sub-problem statement comprises the following questions:

1.3 OVERVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

researched. Cognisance was taken of relevant information, including important

Some CCEF attempt to overcome the price sensitivity of clients by

1.4 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS

1.4.1 SERVICE QUALITY

Maister (2003: 71) encapsulates the essence of Service Quality as:

SATISFACTION equals PERCEPTION minus EXPECTATION.

An example of Service Quality is as follows. A client perceives Service Quality

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

promises in a vigorous attempt to win new clients, which creates expectations

These characteristics clearly explain the differences between goods and

1.4.2 CLIENT SATISFACTION VERSUS SERVICE QUALITY

MBA Dissertation - Werner Bellingan September 2007

2004: 9). Client satisfaction is a short-term transaction-specific measure,

• Service Recovery. This approach, according to Davis and Heineke

1.4.3 TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Total Quality Management (TQM) can be seen as an organisation wide