ANALYSIS OF DOMINANT SERVICE QUALITY FACTORS

(CASE STUDY OF STARBUCKS COFFEE CITYWALK)

BY

Riris Eridani Panjaitan

01420090000137

A thesis presented to the

Faculty of Economics President University

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Bachelor Degree in Economics Major in Management

October 2013

THESIS ADVISOR RECOMMENDATION LETTER

This thesis entitled ―ANALYSIS OF DOMINANT SERVICE QUALITY

FACTORS CASE STUDY OF STARBUCKS COFFEE CITYWALK LIPPO

CIKARANG‖ prepared and submitted by Riris Eridani Panjaitan in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor Degree in the Faculty of Economics

Major in Management, has been reviewed and found to have satisfied the

requirement for a thesis fit to be examined. We therefore recommend this for Oral

Defense.

Cikarang, Indonesia, August , 2013

Acknowledged by,

Vinsensius Jajat K.,SE,MM,MBA

Head of Management Study Program

Approved by,

Ir. Erny Estiurlina Hutabarat,MBA

Thesis Advisor

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

I declare that this thesis, entitled “:ANALYSIS OF DOMINANT

SERVICE QUALITY FACTORS CASE STUDY OF

STARBUCKS COFFEE CITYWALK LIPPO CIKARANG” is,

to the best of my knowledge and belief, an original piece of work that

has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, to another

university to obtain a degree.

Cikarang, Indonesia October, 2013

Riris Eridani Panjaitan

PANEL OF EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET…………... i

THESIS ADVISOR RECOMMENDATION LETTER iiii

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY iiii

ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER I 1

1.1. Background of the Study 1

1.2. Company Profile 3

1.2.1. President University at Glance 3

1.2.2. History 3

1.2.3. Vision and Mission 4

1.2.4. Location 4

1.2.5. Facilities 5

1.2.6. President University Student Lounge Website 5

1.3. Problems Identified 5

1.4. Statement of the Problem 7

1.5. Research Objectives 8

1.6. Significance of the Study 8

1.7. Theoretical Framework 9

1.8. Scope and Limitation of the Study 10

1.8.1. Scope of the Study 10

1.8.2. Limitation 10

CHAPTER II 11

2.1. Internet Communication 11

2.2. Brand 13

2.2.1. Definition 13

2.2.2. Elements of Brand 15

2.2.3. Brand Image 19

2.2.4. Elements of Brand Image 20

2.2.5. Stages in Brand Image 22

2.2.6. Brand Image Measurement 23

2.2.7. Previous Research 24

CHAPTER III 25

3.1. Research Method 25

3.2. Research Time and Place 25

3.3. Research Framework 25

3.4. Research Instruments 26

3.4.1. Source of Data 26

3.4.2. Questionnaire 27

3.5. Statistical Package 29

3.6. Sampling Design 29

3.6.1. Population and Sample 29

3.6.2. Research Variable 30

3.7. Validity and Reliability Test 32

3.7.1. Validity Test 32

3.7.2. Reliability Test 34

3.8. Multiple Regression Analysis 35

3.9. Hypothesis 36

3.10. Limitation 37

CHAPTER IV 38

4.1. Descriptive Analysis 38

4.1.1. Respondent Characteristic 38

4.1.2. Descriptive Statistic 40

4.1.2.1. Respondents Responses to Favorability of Brand

Association 40

4.1.2.2. Respondents Responses to Strength of Brand

Association 41

4.1.2.3. Respondents Responses to Uniqueness of Brand

Association 42

4.1.2.4. Respondents Responses to Brand Image of President

University Student Lounge Website 42

4.2. Classic Assumption 43

4.2.1. Normality Test 43

4.2.2. Multicollinearity Test 44

4.2.3. Heterocedasticity Test 45

4.3. Multiple Regression Analysis 46

4.4. F- 5%) 47

4.5. T- 48

4.6. Determinant Coefficient (r2) 50

4.7. Interpretation Result 51

CHAPTER V 55

5.1. Conclusion 55

5.2. Recommendation 56

5.3. Future Research 57

LIST OF REFERENCE 59

APPENDICES 62

7

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of study

The size of service sector is increasing around the world, in both developed and

emerging countries (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2005). One of the most rapid growing

service industries is hospitality industry. Hospitality industry has experience

tremendous growth over past several decades (Hoffman and bateson,1997).

Hospitality is one of the fastest-growing sectors throughout the world. It must be

emphasized that hospitality is essentially a service business enterprise. Hospitality,

as a generic service term, can be seen as being comprised of three main functional

areas – accommodation, food and beverage and entertainment (Kandampully,

2002). One of the most raising food and beverage industries is coffee shop

industries.

Coffee shop is a business in a commercially-managed food offering to the guest

drink or snack with service in a informal atmosphere without being followed by a

standard of service rules. Coffee shop is also retail industry that has been

widespread this time where the coffee shop is not only limited to offering only

products, but service is one more point which will be owned by every coffee shop

when the coffee shop provides a good service to every customer that exist

(Yazid,1999). Service quality has become a great differentiator among service

providers. Indeed, it is the most powerful competitive weapon that many leading

service organization possess.

Starbucks Coffee is one of big and famous coffee shop in Indonesia which is have a

good service from their barista, and Starbucks Coffee provide a 24 hours non stop

service for their store in rest area. This kind of service give so much help for the

people when they want or need the place for a meeting point. But to survive in this

business, they got to satisfy the customer with their service.

Starbucks Coffee must analyze to understand the customer‘s expectation and

perception about their service whether the customer‘s expectation similar to

customer‘s perception. If Starbucks Coffee can‘t satisfy their customers, customers

will leave and move to another competitors.

The following table shows the level of consumer requests that can be seen from a

degcrease in sales experienced at Starbucks Citywalk Lippo Cikarang.

Figure 1.1 : Starbucks Sales Volume.

YEAR SALES VOLUME

8

2011 Rp.7.969.276.888

2012 Rp.7.388.897.320

2013 Rp.7.160.010.298

Figure 1.1 Starbucks Sales Volume.

Source : Starbucks Citywalk Lippo Cikarang (until June 2013 Data )

1.2 Company Profile

PT Sari Coffee Indonesia is one of the biggest Food & Beverage Company in

Indonesia under Mitra Adiperkasa group that well known as Starbucks Coffee.

9

Mitra Adiperkasa,Tbk (MAP) is managed by a strong management team of retail

marketing professionals with extensive experience and knowledge in their various

backgrounds. Leading on retail network and brand portfolio in Indonesia with over

40 concepts covering all aspects - from sports to fashion and lifestyle and

department stores to trendy cafes.

When 2002 came, Starbucks expanded its business to Indonesia. By having PT.

Sari Coffee Indonesia as the license holder of Starbucks Coffee International,

Starbucks opened its first store located in Plaza Indonesia, on May 17, 2002. From

year to year, Starbucks Indonesia has developed rapidly. Until 2013, it has about

120 stores in some cities in Indonesia, including Cikarang, where 101st Starbucks

Indonesia‘s store established.

Starbucks Citywalk Lippo Cikarang officially opened its store on May 31, 2011.

Dwi Susanto was chosen as its store manager and subordinating two supervisors

and six baristas.

1.2.1 History

In 1971, Starbucks opens its first location in Seattle‘s Pike Place Market located in

Washington, USA. When there was three partners, Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegel, and

Gordon Bowker shared their affection upon best coffee and tea. At the time, each

person invested certain amount to build a store there.

Then, Howard Schultz has joined Starbucks as director of retail operations and

marketing since 1982. Before joining Starbucks, Schultz was a vice president and

general manager of an appliance store for kitchen and household needs in 1981. He

realized that Starbucks often ordered drip coffeemaker from his company. It made

him curious to learn more about coffee. When he came to Starbucks store for the

first time, he felt something different from the coffee aroma; he smelled the

strength of it. He then was offered Sumatran coffee that made him extremely

surprised of its delicacy. He kept asking the staff until he met Jerry Baldwin and

Gordon Bowker to talk about Starbucks. Schultz obtained clear explanation that

Starbucks not only offers best coffee, but also provides knowledge about coffee to

its customers, to value the quality of best coffee.

After knowing the little truth about Starbucks, he went back to New York. He kept

thinking how he can join Starbucks. A year ahead, which is in 1982, he finally

joined the company.

In 1983, Schultz travelled to Italy, where he was impressed with the popularity of

espresso bars in Milan. He thought Seattle, Washington has potential to develop

such a similar coffee bar culture. His visit to Italy has made him to quit from

Starbucks and built his own espresso bar, namely Il Giornale. The first store of Il

Giornale was opened in 1986.

Jerry Baldwin and Gordon Bowker decided to sell the whole Starbucks operational

in Seattle; the reasons were because Baldwin to manage another company and

Bowker to be focus in his another business. Schultz thought he had to buy

10

Starbucks and made an acquisition between Starbucks and Il Giornale. Then, in

1987, Starbucks opened its first store outside Seattle, in Chicago, Illinois, USA,

and Vancouver, BC, Canada. The total store in that year was still 17. As far as

2001, Starbucks already has 4,700 stores approximately.

Starbucks completed initial public offering, with Common Stock being traded on

NASDAQ National Market under the trading symbol ―SBUX‖ in 1992.

1.2.2 Vision and Mission

Vision

“Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while

maintaining our uncompromising principles as we grow.”

Mission

“To inspire and nurture the human spirit—one person, one cup, and one

neighborhood at a time.”

1.3 Problem Identification

Both public and private organization now view customer as their central

concern,regardless of their understanding of quality method and quality

management (Edvarddsson et al, 1994). Thus,without customer,the service firm has

no reason to exist (Hoffman and Bateson,1997) . Based on interview, it is known

that Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang have not performed what it should

have been performed. That‘s why right now the customers not as many as several

years ago. The following table shows the sales volume at Starbucks Coffee

Citywalk Lippo Cikarang.

In this thesis, the researcher investigates the analysis of service quality based on

five dimension of service quality in Starbucks Coffee Citywalk,Cikarang. This is to

find out the gap between customer expectation and customer perception at

Starbucks Coffee Citywalk, Cikarang in order to maintain the quality of service.

1.4 Problem Statement

This research is to find out some of this concern below:

a. Among those five service quality dimensions, which is the most and

least important dimension perceived by customers?

b. For each indicator how‘s the gap of the service quality score between

the customer perceived importance level and performance level?

1.5 Research Objective

a. This study is going to find out the relationship between customer‘s

perceived level of importance and level of performance.

b. This study is conducted through the five dimension of service quality.

The research objective of this research is to know the gaps of service

quality expected and service quality perceived in Starbucks Coffee

Citywalk, Cikarang.

11

c. This research is aimed at improving the level of service quality in order

to have future business for customer and long lasting relationship with

related coffee shop.

d. The research methodology that the researcher used is quantitative

analysis. By using five dimension of service quality, it is possible for

the researcher to identify the level of service quality in Starbucks

Coffee‘s affecting it‘s customers

1.6 Significance of the study

1.6.1 For Academic Community

The researcher wishes it could be a contribution of throught specialized in the field

of service quality and hope this thesis will be useful for thr future generation which

need some information about service quality.

1.6.2 For Starbucks Coffee Citywalk, Cikarang

As a consideration for Starbucks Coffee to improve it‘s performance in serving the

beverage to the customer. Hope the information can be useful for evaluating and

increase it is accomplishment.

1.6.3 For Researcher

Hope after making this thesis, the researcher will have a better understanding of

service quality in hospitality industry and also can implement this knowladge into

the real world.

1.7 Theoretical Framework

Figure 1.2 Theoretical Framework Study

Gap Perceived

Service

Expected Service

5 Dimension of Service

( Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness,

Assurance, Empathy)

Perceived Service

Quality

Customer

Satisfication

12

Source: Parasuraman A , et al. 1998

The theoretical framework (Figure 1.2) above is a modification from Model of

Service Quality (Parasuraman, 1988). The ten generic dimensions of service

quality are purified into five dimensions. By evaluating the gap between

customers‘ perceived service and customers‘ expected service through the five

dimensions of service quality, the researcher could have an understanding of the

perceived service quality. The perceived service quality will determine the

customers opinion of service quality.

1.8 Scope & Limitation of the Study

The scope of this study is about to analyze the current service quality of service in

Starbucks Coffee Citywalk, Cikarang, through five dimension of service quality,

which are tangibles, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, and assurance. The

analysis of service about customer perceived service quality is based on the

difference between customer‘s expectations and perception. The theory was chosen

because this is one of the most wall-known quantitative research methods for

measuring consumer‘s opinion of service quality.

The population uses is Starbucks Coffee customers which came at Starbucks

Coffee Citywalk Cikarang at sampling time. By using non probability sampling

(convenience), the total number of sample taken used is 50 customers.

The study is mainly about customer perceived service quality, not about any order

topics such as product quality, the promotion strategy and so forth.

1.9 Assumption

This research is conducted at Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Cikarang with their

customers as population, which assumes that Starbucks Coffee does apply good

quality of service to their customers but for the average daily sales always down.

1.10 Definition of Terms

1. Service is any act or performance that one party can offer to order that

is essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of

anything.

2. Quality is the characteristics of a product of service that bear on it‘s

ability to satisfy stated or implied needs.

3. Service Quality is a concept that has aroused considerable interest and

debate in the research literature because of the difficulities in both

defining it and measuring it with no overall consensus emerging on

either.

4. Customers are individuals or households that purchase goods and

service within the economy.

5. Performance is the accomplishment of a given task measured against

preset known standards of accuracy, completeness, cost, and speed. In a

contract, performance is deemed to be the fulfillment of an obligation,

13

in a manner that releases the performer from all liabilities under the

contract.

6. Expectation is what is considered the most likely to happen.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Service

2.1.1 Definition of Service

In marketing, product means not only goods, but also services. According to Philip

Kotler (2004), service is defined as:

―Service is any act or performance that one party can offer to other that is

essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of anything. Its

production may or may not be able to be tied to physical product,‖

14

Velarie A.Zeithaml and Mary J. Bitner (2000) also defined service as:

―Service includes all economic activities whose output is not a physical

product or construction is generally consumed at the time it is produced,

and provides added value forms (such as convenience, enjoyment,

timeliness, comfort, or health) that are essentially intangible.‖

Lovelock (2007) Identified service as:

―Services are economic activities offered by one party to another, most

commonly employing time-based performances to bring about desired

result in recipients themselves or in objects or other assets for which

purchasers have responsibility‖

2.1.2 Types of Service

Based on Earl Naumann (1995), there are two major types of service:

a) Pure services: if there is no tangible product (goods), but all service is

being performed, it is called pure services. Examples are haircut,

massage, and so on.

b) Support service: with tangible products, it is often easy to identil the

additional service provided and those some additional service is called

support service.

There are three of types of support service:

a) Presale services are support services, which precede a purchase

transaction. A firm could offer technical sales seminars in

ordereducate customers about new product development

b) Transactional services are support service, which directly related

totransaction. They may include information about inventory

surplusshortage, changes in lot sizes, and so forth. Often the

transaction service are based on the needs of the customer

c) Post sale services are support services, which follow the trans and

extend throughout the product‘s life. A common post sales imply

follow-up to determine customer satisfaction.

2.1.3 Characteristic of Service

15

Based on Earl Naumann (1995), there are four uniqe characteristic to service.

These four primary unique characteristic identified for service are intangibility,

inseparability,heterogeneity and perish ability.

A. Service Intangibility

Intangibility is the critical difference between services and physical goods. This

intangibility is the factor from which all the other differences between goods and

service emerge.

The characteristics most often mentioned as unique to services is intangibility. A

physical product can be touched, examined, and evaluated on its tangible

characteristics; while, a service product is naturally more subjective. A service

product is more difficult to define and is subject to use different evaluative criteria

from the criteria used for tangible products.

Tangibility exists along a continuum; an all products exhibit some tangible and

intangible qualities. For example, in the case of a taxi service, the intangible

service (the journey to a desired destination) obviously involves a necessary

physical object (the cab it sell). But the service remains the primary product

offering.

B. Service Inseparability

The inseparability of production and consumption refers to the fact that most

services are characterized by simultaneous production and consumption. (Kurtz

and Clow, 1998).

Goods and services are quite different in this respect. Typically goods are first

produced, then sold and then sold, and then consumed. In contrast, a typical service

is first sold, and then produced and consumed simultaneously.

Many services, both support services, are consumed by customers as soon as they

are produced. In essence, the do—it-right-the-first-time philosophy is mandatory

because they may be no second chance to correct mistakes. The immediacy of

consumption also implies that the sellers and buyers are in close contact,

interacting with and observing one another. This suggests that service providers

must be well prepared and trained before delivering the service. Because of

potentially negative customer impact, there is little or no room for ‗on-the job‖

training. This means that all service providers become an integral part of the firm‘s

overall marketing effort.

C. Service Heterogeneity

Since services are inherently labor-intensive and therefore subject to human

variability, they tend vary from situation to situation and from the day to day. The

outcomes of people-based service operations tend to be more heterogeneous than

the outcomes of technology-based operations.

Because many services inherently require customer involvement, the customer is

also often a source of variability. thus service delivery can vary from customer to

customer, as well. Indeed with advancements in computer technology, many

customers expect that services should be customized to fit their particular needs. It

16

poses a major problem for management since there is potential for signiflcant

variability in the performance of services.

In services business, it is about dealing with something that is primarily delivered

by people to people. People‘s performance day in and day out fluctuates up and

down. Therefore, the level of consistency is not a certain thing.

D. Service Parish ability

It means that service cannot be stored for later sale or use. Parish ability is a

distinctive characteristic of most services, and is closely related to intangibility.

Parish ability means that services cannot be stored, and are therefore produced only

when needed by the customer. Service production is thus dictated by demand at

any given time.

Within the hospitality industry, good examples of perishable items are a room in a

hotel or a seat in restaurant. if it is not used at the time, the opportunity for sale is

lost. Similarly, if an aircraft takes off without its seat being filled, the revenue from

the empty seats constitutes a non —recoverable loss (Kandampully, 2000).

Once a service has been created and delivered, it has no further value, Although

support services are not perishable as pure services are not perishable as pure

services, some perish ability also inherently exists. When services such as these are

not used, they perish. For those support services that can be delayed by a few hours

or days, permissibility becomes less of a concern.

2.1.4 Overview of the Most Dynamic Service Industries

A. Health Care

Health care services are services such as hospitals, physicians, group practices, and

provide physical care to consumers. Business services, along with health care

services and professional, account for two thirds of all service finns. The health

care service sector is undergoing significant changes in terms of daily operation

and the competitive structure of the sector (Hoflhiant & Bateson, 1997).

Example: Physicians, dentists, nursing, hospitals, medical laboratories.

B. Hospitality Industry

Hospitality industry is the world‘s largest industry and largest generator of jobs,

with an estimated 338 million people to be employed in 2005, up from 212 milion

in 1995. The hospitality industry comprises a variety of segments including food

service, lodging, travel and tourism, and meeting and convention planning.

C. Food Service industry

Food service segment is the largest and most diverse segment of the hospitality

industry. One out every three meals is now eaten outside the home, and food

service operations provide nearly half of all meals eaten in the United States today.

17

D. Lodging Industry

The primary service offering of hotels and lodging facilities is ovenfight

accommodations for guests. Similar to the food industry, consumers have a wide

array of lodging choices that serve a variety of market segments, such as luxury

hotels, bed and breakfast inns, and economy motels.

E. Travel and Tourism Industry

Like many of the other hospitality industries, the specific components of travel and

tourism are difficult to define, and they are often divided into areas of travel and

recreation.

The travel segment of the industry involves the physical movement of people from

one place to another and includes services associated with automobiles, airlines,

bus lines, travel agencies, and tour companies.

In comparison, the recreation segment provides recreation and relaxation to the

public and includes attritions, clubs, and public parks. More specifically, attractions

include theme parks, sporting events, scenic attractions, and special activities such

as the Olympics.

2.2 Quality

Quality is a subjective term for which each person has his or her own definition.

In technical usage, quality can have two meanings.

1. The characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to

satisfy stated or implied needs.

2. ―The presence of value defined by customers‖

3. ―Meeting or exceeding competitors ‗quality‖

4. Marriot (American Hotel Chain) :

―Quality is Conformance to Requirements. Requirements are determined

and modified through continuous communication between customers,

frontline associates and management.‖

Most definitions and policies are linked to costumer‘s perceptions are quality and

to customer relations. Edvardsons (1988) argued that:

―Quality is a matter of finding out what creates value for the customer and

achieving it.‖

Quality is the totally of features and characteristic of a product or service that bear

on its ability to satisfy given needs. It can be summarized as putting right product

or service in hands of customer at the right time and at the right price (Mills, 1989)

Based on Kotler (1999), quality is divided into two definitions:

a) Performance quality refers to the level at which the product primary

characteristics operate.

18

b) Conformance quality is the degree to which all the produced units are

identical and meet the promised target specification.

2.3 Service Quality

2.3.1 Definition of Service Quality

Service quality is a concept that has aroused considerable interest and debate in the

research literature because of the difficulties in both defining it and measuring it

with no overall consensus emerging on either (Naumann,1995). Service quality is

very usefull for the service company in order to attract more new customers and

keep old customers.

The construct of service quality as conceptualized in the service marketing

literature centers on perceived quality,defined as a consumer‘s judgment about an

entity‘s overall excellence or superiority (Zeithaml,1987).

Two definitions about Service Quality are as below:

―Service quality is the difference between customer expectation of service

and perceived service.‖ (James L.Heskett, W, Earl Sasser, JR. And

Christoper W.L.Hart, 1990)

―The perceived quality of service is the result of an evaluation process in

which customers compare their perceptions of service delivery and its

outcome to what they expect.‖ (Groonross,2000)

Edvardsson (1988) stated that the service must correspond to the customers

expectations and satisfy their needs and demands.

Service quality is determined by two main factors,which are expected service and

perceived service

Service Quality = Actual service – Expected Service

The expected services are formed by customers past experience, word of mouth,

and personal needs and external communication. Customers compare the perceived

service with the expected service. If the expectations are greater than performance,

then perceived quality is less than satisfactory and hence customer dissatisfaction

occurs. If expectations are smaller than performance, they tend to use the provider

again (Berry,1999)

2.3.2 Service Quality Measurement

Service quality has been a frequently studied topic in the service marketing

literature. The actual quality of service is difficult to define and measure literature.

The actual quality of service is difficult to define and measure (Brwon and

Swartz,1989). However researcher have reached a consensus that service quality

should be defined and measured from the customer‘s perspective. The most widely

accepted definition of perceived service quality is that it represents the discrepancy

between customers expectations and their perceptions of the service performance.

19

SERVQUAL approach has been developed by Parasuraman,Zeithml, and Berry for

measuring service quality in 1988. This method assesses both the consumer‘s

service expectations and perceptions of the provider‘s performance. Positioned as a

generic method applicable to the wige range of service industries,SERVQUAL has

been widely applied and frequently reported in the marketing literature.

(McAlexander,1994).

There are some criticisms of the general applicability of the SEVQUAL model.

Some customers have difficulty in differentiating among many of the scale items,

and it is sometimes impractical to ask customers about their expectations before

consummation and then again immediately after consumption. Despite these

misgivings, this instrument is concise multiple-item scaloe with good reliability,

and it has been widely accepted as a valid instrument in the measurement of service

quality (Kandampully,2002).

As noted above, there is some doubt as to whether the SERVQUAL instrument is

reliable in all circumstances. Some researchers have indicated that a more direct

approach to the measurement of service quality might be appropriate. Therefore,

SERVPERF has been proposed as a measurement of service quality based only on

performance (not an expectations and performance).

SERVPERF is thus similar to SERVQUAL in some respects, but differs in others.

It is similar in that it requires customers to rate the performance of service

providers, but it differs in not seeking to establish any difference between

expectations and perceptions of performance are assessed. Customers are ask to the

rate perceived performance (but not their prior expectation) on a five- point Likert

scale ranging from a score of ―1‖ (strong disagree that service is satisfactory ) to

―5‖ (strongly agree that service is satisfactory).

The service quality in the SERVQUAL model determines the gap between

customer‘s expectations. Respondents, therefore, it would have to complete all

attributes based on service expectations, followed by a second set of the same

attributes, based on their perceptions of actual service received.

2.3.3 Dimensions of Service Quality

SERVEQUAL is designed to measure service quality as perceived by the customer

(Bozorgi, 2006). A high quality service would perform at a level that matched the

level that the consumer felt should be provided.

The service quality defined in the SERVQIJAL model determines the gap between

customers‘ expectations and perceptions.

The most extensive research into service quality is strongly user oriented. From

focus group research, Lovelock & Wirtz identified ten criteria used by consumers

in evaluating service quality (Table 2.1). In subsequent research, they found a high

degree of correlation between several of these variables and so consolidated them

into five broad dimensions which will be explained late.

Table 2.1

20

Generic Dimensions Customers Use to Evaluate Service Quality

Dimension of Service

Quality Items

Tangibles

Are facilities attractively to you?

Are employees neatly dressed?

Are there any hardware and ancient objects worth

visiting?

Is the environment clean?

Are the routes clearly instructed?

Are products and facilities neatly arranged?

Reliability

Foods are clean

Your questions are answered in the real time.

Services meet our needs

Product quality is assured

The company is soundly operated with good image

Responsiveness

Sales persons serve you actively

Employees tell you the new company information.

Sales persons respond to you even though they are

busy

Sales persons respond to you even though condition

21

Assurance

Prices of product are reasonably set

Sales persons are kind

Sales persons have professional knowledge on the

products

Empathy

The transaction procedures make customers feel

convenient

Sales person care about needs of customers

Customers maximum interest are taken care of

Source: Lovelock & Wirtz, 2007 Five

Researcher has found that consumers mainly consider five dimensions in their

assessments of service quality, based on Zeithml, 2000, the five specific service

quality dimensions are:

1. Reliability

Reliability represents the service provider‘s ability to perform service dependably

and accurately; this includes such qualities as dependability, consistency, accuracy,

‗right first time‘, and so on.

Among the five dimensions, reliability has been consistently shown to be the most

important determinant of persecutions of service quality among customers. In its

broadest sense, reliability reflects the consistency and dependability of a firm‘s

performance that the company delivers its promises — promises about the service

provision problem resolutions, and pricing. Customer wants to do business with

companies that keep their promises about the service outcomes and core service

attributes.

Service providers need to be aware of customer expectations of reliability. Firms

that do not provide the core service that customers think they are buying fail their

customers in most direct way.

2. Responsibility

Responsibility represents the willingness to help customers and provide prompt

service in a timely manner, this include helpfulness, friendliness, warmth,

willingness, openness, and so on.

This dimension reflects a service firm‘s commitment to provide its service in

timely manner. Responsiveness is communicated thorough customers by the length

of time they have to wait for assistance, answers to questions, or attention to

22

problems. As such, the responsiveness dimension of SERVQUAL concerns the

willingness and / or readiness of employees to provide a service. Responsiveness

also captures the notion of flexibility and ability toad pt the service to customer

needs.

3. Assurance

Assurance reflects the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to

inspire trust and confidence in the customer, this includes competence, experience,

qualification, skills, courtesy, credibility, trustworthiness, honesty, and security of

all types (physical, financial, confidentiality, and so on).

Assurance dimension addresses the competence of the firm, the courtesy it extends

its customers, and the security of its operation. Competence affects to the form‘s

knowledge and skill in performing its service. Courtesy refers to how the firm‘s

personnel interact with the customer and the customer‘s possessions. As such,

courtesy reflects politeness, friendliness, and consideration for the customer‘s

property.

Security is also an important component of the assurance dimension. Security

reflects a customer‘s feelings that he / she is free from danger risk or doubt. This

dimension is likely to be particularly important for services that the customers

perceives as involving high risk and / or about which they feel uncertain about their

ability to evaluate outcomes — for example, banking, insurance, brokerage,

medical, and legal service.

4. Empathy

Empathy involves the caring personal attention which the firm offers its customer;

this includes ease of approach and contact, jargon-free, understandable

communication, an understanding of the customer‘s need and so on. Empathy is the

ability to experience another‘s feeling as one‘s own. Empathetic firms have not lost

touch with what it is like to be a customer‘s of their firm. It is defined as the

provision of caring, individualized attention to customers and customer

understanding as well. The essence of empathy is conveyed through personalized

or customized, that customers are unique and special.

Customers want to feel to be understood by and important to firms that provide

service them. Personnel at small service firms often know customers by name and

built relationships that reflect their personal knowledge of customer requirements

and preferences.

5. Tangibles

Tangibles consist of the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel,

and communication material used.

It is defined as the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and

written communication materials. The tangibles dimension of SERVQUAL

compares consumer expectations and the firm‘s performance regarding the firm‘s

ability to manage its tangibles. A firm‘s tangibles consist of a wide variety of

objects such as desks, lighting, wall colors, menus and the appearance of the firm‘s

personnel.

23

All of these provide physical representations or images of the service that

customers, particularly new customers, will use to evaluate quality. Service

industries that emphasize tangibles in their strategies include hospitality services,

such as restaurants and hotels, retail stores, and entertainment companies.

Consequently, the tangibles component in SERVQUAL is two-dimensional- one

focusing on equipment and facilities, the other focusing on personnel and

communication materials.

2.4 Gap Analysis Theory

According Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), the quality perceived in a

service a function of the gap between consumer‘s expectations of a service and

their perception of the actual service delivered. In other words, customers assess

service and their perception of the actual service delivered. In other words,

customers assess service quality by comparing the service they receive (what I get)

with the service they desire (what I want).

It can be used by a services organization to improve its service quality, by

analyzing the resulting of the gap analysis research, and to use its resources to

improve the most critical service attributes.

Figure 2.1 Gap Analysis Theory

Source : Self Construct

The gap is actually made up of several other gaps — all of which are potential

breaks in the relationship. In developing this idea of our intermediate gaps (and a

resulting overall fifth gap, being the total of the other gaps), the researcher looked

24

beyond a single transaction and develop a model of service quality representing

customer judgment across.

2.4.1 Gap 1

It is the different between consumer expectation and management perceptions of

consumer expectations. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaini and Berry (1985),

management might not always understand what features bring high quality to

consumers, what attributes a service must have in order to meet consumer needs,

and what levels of performance of these particular features are necessary to deliver

high — quality service.

Furthermore, the gap between what consumer expect and what managers think they

expect might be considerably larger in service industries than is the case in goods

manufacturing.

2.4.2 Gap 2

It is the difference between management perceptions of consumer expectations and

the means by which these expectations might be met.

Even if the knowledge of customer expectations does exist, that means to deliver

services that match or exceed customer expectation might not exist. However,

many managers go further than this and believe management perception of

consumer expectations and the actual specifications established for a service.

Therefore, a variety of factors — resource constraints, market conditions and / or

management indifference — can result in a discrepancy between management

perception of consumer expectations and the actual specifications stabilized for a

service.

2.4.3 Gap 3

It is the difference between the specifications for the service and the actual delivery

of the service. It can be referred to as the service. It can be referred to as the

‗service—performance gap‘ and it occurs when employees are unable or unwilling

to perform the service at the desired level

2.4.4 Gap4

It is the difference between service delivery and external communications. Media

advertising and other communication by a firm can affect consumer expectations.

Such media might contain exaggerated promises or might not contain certain vital

information about aspects of the service delivery. This can create discrepancies

between external communications and actual service delivery.

2.4.5 Gap5

It is the overall difference between expected service and the perceived service. It is

made up of the sum total of the priding four gaps, and is thus determined by the

nature of the gaps associate with the overall design, marketing, and the delivery of

services.

25

The SERVQUAL model (Figure 2.2) concentrates on five ―gaps‖ impairing the

delivery of excellent service quality; this study focuses on Gap 5: the difference

between airline passenger expectations and perceptions of service.

Figure 2.2 SERVQUAL Model

Source Valarie A. Zethami, Parasuraman, 1998

2.5 Importance Performance Analysis

Importance Performance Analysis is a series of service attributes associated with

specific services to be evaluated based on the level of importance according to the

consumer of each attribute and how the service is perceived its performance

relative to each attribute. Analysis was used to compare between consumer ratings

of the importance of quality of service (Importance) with the level of service

quality performance (Performance).

26

Figure 2.3 Importance Performance Analysis

Source : Martilla and James (1977)

Average of results overall assessment of consumer then be described in Importance

Performance Matrix or often called the Cartesian diagram. Average of level of

performance is used as a delimiter of high performance and low performance.

Average of interests rate is used as a delimiter high level of importance with a low

interests of rate.

Importance Performance Matrix is divided into four quadrants based on

importance-performance measurement result as shown in the figure 2.3 above. The

following an explanation for each quadrant is:

1. Quadrant one, "Concentrate Here" (high importance and low satisfaction) .

The factors included in this quadrant is factors that are considered important

by customers. But the reality of these factors does not meet customer

expectations (level of satisfaction obtained is low). The variables included

in this quadrant should be improved.

2. Quadrant two, "Keep up the Good Work" (high importance and high

satisfaction). This quadrant includes the factors who are considered

important by customers, and considered to be accordance with that is felt so

that relatively higher level of satisfaction.

3. Quadrant three, "Low Priority" (low importance and low satisfaction). The

factors included in this quadrant is considered less importance. Increased

the variables included in this quadrant can reconsidered because of its

influence on the benefits perceived by customers very smaller.

4. Quadrants four, "Possible Overkill" (low importance and high satisfaction).

The factors this quadrant is considered less important by customers. The

variables included in this quadrant can be reduced so that the company can

save costs.

Importance Performance Analysis developed by Martilla and James (1977) as a

tool for analyzing customer satisfaction based on the attributes of service quality.

QUADRANT I

Concentrate Here

High Importance

Low Satisfaction

QUADRANT II

Keep up the good work

High Importance

High Satisfaction

QUADRANT III

Low priority

Low Importance

Low Satisfaction

QUADRANT IV

Posible overkill

Low Importance

High Satisfaction

27

2.6 Previous Research

Previous research which is used as a reference for this research is a previous study

which done by :

1. Joko Samboro entitled Analysis of Customer Satisfaction Internet Services

―Analisis Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan Jasa Internet‖. This research analysis to

find out the degree of customers satisfaction and to give informations to the

management to direct customers need in order to achieve customers satisfaction.

To collect the data,the purposive sampling is applied in this research 90

questionaires are distributed to go respondents and then they are analyzed by using

the window of satisfaction on the cartecius diagram.

The result of the research indicates that most of the customers are not satisfied, the

degree of their satisfactions is less than 100%. Further, some service items

available in the firm are stiil low. The researcher hopes the result of this research is

able to give the information to the firm‘s leader in finding out the effective strategy

in geeting more customers.

2. Mas‘ud entitled Analysis of Customer Satisfaction toward Of Service Pharmacy

Kimia Farma Jakarta Using SERVQUAL Model (Case Study at Three Pharmacy)

“Analisis Tingkat Kepuasan Pelanggan Terhadap Pelayanan Apotek Kimia Farma

Jakarta Menggunakan Model SERVQUAL (Studi Kasus Pada Tiga Apotek)‖. This

research is detect satisfaction level of service quality of Kimia Farma community

pharmacy Jakarta in particular Kimia Farma community pharmacy-48 Matraman,

Kimia Farma community pharmacy-47 Duren Sawit. Beside this research also

objective for knowed vision,mission of Kimia Farma community pharmacy was

reached.

This research using survey method with questionnaire Single Cross Sectional Study

approaches. Research using Servqual model was discovered by Parasuraman,

Zeithaml and Berry use five dimensions of service quality. Satisfaction level

measured with Gap analysis that was difference expectation before customer

receiving the service and perception after that; and Cartesian Diagram analysis tat

was mapping atribut service quality on Cartesian Diagram. Analysis difference on

customer satisfaction within community pharmacy used analysis varian (Anova).

The result of the research is dimension that highest satisfaction level was emphaty

(gap -0.37 or satisfactions levels 91.88 %) attribute that highest satisfaction level

was well designed interior/exterior building (gap -0.14 or satisfaction levels 96.4

%). Mapping attribute on Cartesian Diagram majority on quadrat B, means service

quality Kimia Farma community pharmacy was sufficient. Based on hypothesis

test, was not difference significant satisfactions level Kimia Farma community

pharmacy was research (alpha > 0.05). Conclusions: generally satisfactions level

Kimia Farma community pharmacy that researched nearly satisfy, with satisfaction

levels within community pharmacy was not significant difference.

28

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher would highlight the methodology of this research.

This chapter also includes the highlight of path thought during this research

prepared in order to collect data as a tool to support the research. Research

methodology is taught as a supporting subject in several ways in many academic

disciplines at various levels by people committed to a variety research of

paradigms (Kumar, 2005). The methodology used is quantitative approach and the

object of this study is Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang.

3.1 Research Method

In this chapter, the researcher explains about the methodology of the research. The

research use quantitative research in conducting the research. The research uses

quantitative research rather than qualitative research because it is very controlled

and suitable to test the corelations between two variables.

―Quantitative research attempts precise measurement of something. Such

methodologies answer question related to how much, how often, howmany, when

and who. The purpose of quantitaitive research is ofter used for theory testing,

requiring that the researcher maintain a distance from the researcher so as not to

bias result‖ (Cooper & Schindler,2006)‖

The researcher used quantitative design with survey method. In term of data

collection, this research utilized primary data. As primary data the researcher used

survey (questionnaires)

3.2 Research Time and Place

This research was conducted in Starbucks Coffee, Cikarang where located in

Citywalk Lippo Cikarang, on June and July 2013

3.3 Research Framework In this section, researcher will explain about the steps to do in the research.

NO

Statement of Problem

Literature Review

Pre-Test Questionnaire

Valid /

Invalid ?

Can‘t be use

29

YES

Figure 3.1 Research Framework Source: Constructed by researcher

Based on Figure 3.1 it is started from statement of problem. Then, the theory

related to the topic is cited to strengthen and support the statement of problem.

After the theory is found, the pre-test questionnaire is constructed using the theory

as the basic and the sample collection will be used for validity and reliability test.

In order to do the validity and reliability test for once time, the researcher uses

Statistical Products and Solution Service (SPSS) version 16. At the end, only the

valid and reliable statements will be used for the real questionnaire.

3.4 Research Instrument

In this research study, the author is using questionnaire as it‘s research instrument.

Questionnaire is used for the data collection. Questionnaire translate research

objectives into specific questions, standardize question and response categories,

foster respondent cooperation, serve as permanent records, can speed the process of

data analysis, and can serve the basic for reliability and validation measures

(Burns, et al., 2003). Questionnaire is gathered via measurement. Measurement is

defined as determining the amount or intensity of some characteristic of interest to

the researcher (Burns, et al., 2003)

According to Burns and Bush (2003) there are six functions of questionnaire which

are:

1. Translate the research objectives into questions that are asked of the

respondents

2. Standardizes those questions and the response categories so every

participant responds to identical stimuli

3. By its wording, questions flow, and appearance, it fosters cooperation

an keeps respondents motivated throughout the interview

4. Serves as permanent records of the research

30

5. Depending on the type of questionnaire used, a questionnaire can speed

up the process of data analysis

6. Contains the information on which reliability assessments may be made

and they are used follow-up validation of respondents‘ participation in

the survey

Based on Wikipedia, Questionnaires have adventages over some other type of

surveys in that they are cheep, do not require as much effort from the questionnaire

as verbal or telephone surveys, and often have standardized answer that make it

simple to compile data.

The questionnaire is designed based on the five dimensions of service quality,

whice are reliability, responsiveness, tangible, assurance, and empathy. The

answers are all close ended questions for respondents to choose. The grading and

computation method will adopt Likert scale and weighted mean. The

questionnaires are distributed to the customers of Starbucks Coffee,Cikarang; the

survey was conducted for one week .

The questionnaires consist of 25 questions for importance part and 25 same

questions for performance part which are categorized into 5 SERVQUAL

dimensions.

3.5 Sampling Design

Population is ―the collection of elements or subjects that posseses the information

the researcher seeks and about which the researcher will make inferences.‖ And

measuring pupulation is very important before collecting data. (Malhotra and

Peterson,2002).

In this research study, the population is the customer of Starbucks Coffee Citywalk,

Cikarang; the number of population is unknown. The author used a convenience

sampling technique. Convenience sampling technique is a non probability sampling

where element selection is based on case of accessibility (Copper and

Schindler,2006). The reason why the researcher chose this technique is to obtain

time and cost saving.

Another important thing in sampling is the sample size, because it will effect to the

degree of accuracy. Sample size means ―the number of elements to be included in a

study‖ (Malhotra and Peterson,2002). The proportion is 20 respondents or more.

3.6 Validity and Reliability Test

3.6.1 Validity Test

According to Cooper and Schindler (2006) validity is the extent to which a test

measures what we actually wish to measure. To test the validity, the Pearson

Product Moment Correlation is used to determine the validity. Furthermore,

Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS 16.0 will be used in dealing with the statistical

tools. In this research, the researcher had prepared 25 statements for pre-test. The

pre-test questionnaires had spread to 15 respondents.

31

Where:

n = Number of paired observation

∑x = the x variable summed

∑y = the y variable summed

x2

= the x variable squares and squares summed

(∑x)2 = the x variable squares and the sum squares

y2 = the y variable squares and squares summed

(∑y)2

= the y variable squares and the sum squares

∑xy = the sum of the product of x and y

Sugiyono (2008) explains a valid instrument means the measurement tool used to

obtain the data is valid. Valid means the instrument can be used to measure what

supposed to be measured. Validity test can be chosen according the purpose. In this

particular research, the test will be result in which item or statement is valid or

invalid. The invalid statements will be taken out from the questionnaire.

Validity testing must be checked before data processing. This testing will evaluate

the validity checking comes from comparing r computation and r table. R

computation comes from SPSS calculation and r table comes from the r value

product moment. Validity result of 25 statements in this research can be seen as

follow:

Table 3.1 Validity Test

Q Number R.Comp

LOI

R.Comp

LOP

r-table Remarks

1 0,524 0,547 0,444 VALID

2 0.569 0,673 0,444 VALID

3 0,529 0,556 0,444 VALID

4 0,607 0,623 0,444 VALID

5 0,610 0,648 0,444 VALID

6 0,750 0,796 0,444 VALID

7 0,177 0,685 0,444 VALID

8 -0,112 -0,40 0,444 INVALID

9 0,173 0,155 0,444 INVALID

10 0,252 -0,25 0,444 INVALID

2222

yynxxn

yxxyn

rxy =

32

11 0,570 0,567 0,444 VALID

12 0,752 0,737 0,444 VALID

13 0,414 0,502 0,444 VALID

14 0,755 0,792 0,444 VALID

15 0,453 0,452 0,444 VALID

16 0,684 0,656 0,444 VALID

17 0,592 0,737 0,444 VALID

18 0,456 0,500 0,444 VALID

19 0,757 0,735 0,444 VALID

20 0,216 0,229 0,444 INVALID

21 0,621 0,594 0,444 VALID

22 0,545 0,538 0,444 VALID

23 0,288 0,257 0,444 INVALID

24 0,757 0,735 0,444 VALID

25 0,432 0,457 0,444 VALID

Source: SPSS 16.0 and Primary Data, Constructed by researcher

The questionnaire statement is valid if the r computation is bigger than r table.

Based on the calculation, the result from pre-test questionnaire with 25 statements

and 20 respondents, the mean correlation coefficient between variables or r = 0.444.

It means that if r result is greater than r table, the variable is valid. Thus, if r result is

smaller than r table, the variable is invalid. From the validity table above, 20

statements are valid. Because all of the statements are valid, so it will be used for

the fixed questionnaire.

3.6.2 Reliability Test Reliability test measure whether the questionnaire is accurate precise, and

consistent. In this researcher used the Cronbach‘s Alpha formula to determine the

reliability. Furthermore, Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS 16.0 will be used in

dealing with statistical tools. Below is the Cronbach Alpha formula:

Where:

α = instrument reliability‘s coefficient

r = the average inter-item correlation among the items (mean correlation

coefficient between variables)

N = number of items

33

Reliabilities less than 0.60 are considered to be poor, those in the 0.70 range are

acceptable, and those over 0.80 are good (Sekaran, 2009).

Based on Table 3.2, the result of reliability test for the questionnaire used in this

research:

Table 3.2 Reliability Test

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.735 25

Source: SPSS 16.0 and Primary Data

The Cronbach‘s Alpha is .735. It is higher than 0.70. This means the questionnaire

is considered reliable and acceptable to be used in this research.

3.7 Data Analysis Technique

There are two statistical tools employed in this study, which are Likert Scale and

Weighted-mean.

3.7.1 Likert Scale

It is a type of psychometric response scale often used in qustionnaires, and in the

most widely used scale in survey research. The scale is developed by Rensis Likert,

who published a report describing it‘s use.

It consists of ordinal format statements that express aither a favorable attitude

toward the object of interest. Each response is given a numerical score to reflect its

degree of attitudinal favorableness, and the scores may be summed to measure the

participant‘s overall attitude. The numbers indicate the value to be assigned to each

possible answer, with 1 the least favorable impression of performance and level of

importance, and 5 the most favorable.

For a level of importance and level of performance, with a five point scale

Table 3.3 Relatively Grading Statement for each dimension

34

RelativeGradingStatement Score Relative

GradingStatement Score

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

VeryPoor

+5

+4

+3

+2

+1

Extremely Important

Definitely Important

Generally Important

Somewhat Important

Slightly Important

+5

+4

+3

+2

+1

(source: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rating scale)

3.7.2 Weighted Mean

The second statistical tool used here is the weight mean, which is named also as

weighted average. The analysis will use the formula of Weighted Mean Formula

(Figure 3.2) as follows (Douglas A. Lind, et al. 2003):

Figure 3.2 Weighted Mean Formula

Source: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WeightedMean.html

Where:

X = Weighted Mean of the factors rated

w = Corresponding Weight

X =A set number of designated

3.8 Limitations

Since the researcher experienced twice process of revision regarding the thesis

topic and variables, it seemed that the period available was so short. The researcher

also found difficulties to obtain the theory or lack of substantive sources material or

references related to the topic from the campus library. However, this was

compensated by the usage of internet and the data used by previous researchers.

35

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

4.1 Data Presentation and Analysis

In this chapter, the researcher presents full analysis of the data gathered, from

respondents‘ profile to the interpretation of results. In other words, findings of the

research based on the statement of problem which has been stated before in this

paper.

The answer from the questionnaires are collected, grouped and calculated. And it

will be presented in the tables below with explanations. These words have

meaning:

Indicator: the key factors which are mentioned in the questionnaire, in order to gain

more and relative information from respondents.

F : Frequency

% : Percentage

LoI : Level of Importance

LoP : Level of Performance

36

4.1.1 Personal Identification Presentation

In this questionnaire the total respondents as we mentioned is 50. And the

researcher chooses 20 respondents are male, and 30 for female. For other personal

identifications, 20 respondents are under 20 years old, 20 respondents are between

21-30 years old and 10 respondents are between 31-40 years old. 5 respondents are

entrepreneurs, 25 respondents are government employees and the other 20

respondents are students.

Table 4.1 Personal Identification

GENDER NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Female 30 60%

Male 20 40%

OCUPATIONS NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Enterpreneur 5 10%

Government Employee 25 50%

Students 20 40%

GENDER NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Under 20 age old 20 40%

21-30 age old 20 40%

31-40 age old 10 20%

4.1.2. Data of five dimensions of Service Quality

37

A.Tangible

Table 4.2 Tangible Presentation

NO Indicators 1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

1 Modern-looking

facilities and

interior in

Starbucks

Loi 6 12% 10 20% 10 20% 16 32% 8 16%

Lop 7 14% 12 24% 9 18% 14 28% 8 16%

2 Clean, big and

hygiene in cafe area

and condiment bar

Starbucks Coffee

Loi 2 4% 6 12% 17 34% 23 46% 2 4%

Lop 1 2% 4 8% 18 36% 25 50% 2 4%

3 Easy-accesed and

large parking lot in

Starbucks

Loi 2 4% 7 14% 10 20% 24 48% 7 14%

Lop 2 4 % 7 14% 10 20% 24 48% 7 14 %

4 Starbucks menu is

easy understandable

Loi 2 4% 7 14% 8 16% 31 62% 2 4%

Lop 2 4% 7 14% 8 16% 31 62% 2 4%

5 Starbucks

employees wear

neat, nice and good-

looking uniform

Loi 3 6% 9 18% 11 22% 21 42% 6 12%

Lop 3 6% 9 18% 11 22% 21 42% 6 12%

For the LoP of ―Modern-looking facilities and interior in Starbucks Coffee‖, 14%

respondents say very poor, 24% say poor, 18% say fair, 28% say good and 16%

say excellent. For the LoI, 12% say slightly important, 20% say somewhat

important, 20% say generally important, 32% say definitely important and 16% say

extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Clean, big and hygiene toilet in Starbucks Coffee‖, 0%

respondents say very poor, 2% says poor, 64% say fair,32% say good and 2% say

excellent. For the LoI, 0% say slightly important, 2% say somewhat important,

62% say generally important, 34% say definitely important and 2% say extremely

important.

For the LoP of ―Easy-accessed and large parking lot in Starbucks Coffee‖, 12%

respondents say very poor, 12% say poor, 18% say fair, 40% say good and 18%

say excellent. For the LoI, 12% say slightly important, 10% say somewhat

important, 20% say generally important, 4% say definitely important and 18% say

extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Starbucks Coffee menu is easy understandable‖, 0% respondents

say very poor, 2% say poor, 38% say fair, 58% say good and 2% say excellent. For

the LoI, 0% say slightly important, 2% say somewhat important, 38% say generally

important, 58% say definitely important and 2% say extremely important.

38

For the LoP of ―Starbucks Coffee employees wear neat, nice and good-looking

uniform‖, 0% respondents say very poor, 2% say poor, 36% say fair, 58% say good

and 4% say excellent, For the LoI, 0% say slightly important, 2 % say somewhat

important, 34% say generally important,58% say definitely Important and 6% say

extremely important

B.Empathy

Based on Table 4.3 below we can see presentation from empathy indicator :

Table 4.3 Empathy Presentation

NO Indicators 1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

6 Convenient opening

working hours

Loi 4 8% 9 18% 9 18% 23 46% 5 10%

Lop 4 8% 9 18% 9 18% 23 46% 5 10%

7 Easy to deliver your

suggestions and

complaints

Loi 7 14% 18 36% 13 26% 9 18% 3 6%

Lop 4 8% 11 22% 16 32% 15 30% 4 8%

For the LoP of ―Convenient opening working hours‖, 0% respondents say very

poor, 4% say poor, 40% say fair, 56% say good and 0% say excellent. For the Lol,

0% say slightly important, 4% say somewhat important, 38% say generally

important, 58% say definitely important and 0% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Easy to deliver your suggestions and complaints to Starbucks

Coffee‖, 0% respondents say very poor, 0% say poor,56% say fair, 34% say good

and 10% say excellent. For the Lol, 0% say slightly important, 0% say somewhat

important, 56% say generally important,34% say definitely important and 10% say

extremely important.

C. Reliability

Table 4.4 Reliability Presentation

NO Indicators 1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

8 Provide service as

well as the price

paid

Loi 8 16% 9 18% 10 20% 16 32% 7 14%

Lop 6 12% 9 18% 12 24% 16 32% 7 14%

9 The food and

beverages quality

and presentation

are consistent

Loi 0 0% 1 2% 23 46% 25 50% 1 2%

Lop 0 0% 1 2% 23 46% 25 50% 1 2%

10 The expenses Loi 1 2% 6 12% 16 32% 23 46% 4 8%

39

details are

informed well in

the bill

Lop 1 2% 6 12% 17 34% 22 44% 4 8%

11 Do something as

promised in the

advertising

Loi

0 0% 1 2% 31 62% 17 34% 1 2%

Lop 0 0% 1 2% 32 64% 16 32% 1 2%

12 Perform the

service right on

time

Loi 6 12% 5 10% 10 20% 20 40% 9 18%

Lop 6 12% 6 12% 9 18% 20 40% 9 18%

For the LoP of ―Provide service as well as the price paid‖, 12% respondents say

very poor, 18% say poor, 24% say fair, 32% say good and 14% say excellent. For

the Lol, 16% say slightly important, 18% say somewhat important, 20% say

generally important, 32% say definitely important and 14% say extremely

important.

For the LoP of ―The food quality and presentation are consistent‖, 0% respondents

say very poor, 2% say poor,46% say fair, 50% say good and 2% say excellent. For

the Lol, 0% say slightly important, 2% say somewhat important, 46% say generally

important, 50% say definitely important and 2% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―The expenses details are informed well in the bill‖, 2%

respondents say very poor, 12% say poor, 34% say fair, 44% say good and 8% say

excellent. For the LoT, 2% say slightly important, 12% say somewhat important,

32% say generally important, 46% say definitely important and 8% say extremely

important.

For the LoP of ―Do something as promised in the advertising ―, 0% respondents

say very poor, 2% say poor, 64% say fair, 32% say good and 2% say excellent. For

the Lol, 0% say slightly important, 2% say somewhat important, 62% say generally

important, 34% say definitely important and 2% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Perform the service right on time‖, 12% respondents say very

poor, 12% say poor, 18% say fair, 40% say good and 18% say excellent. For the

Lol, 12% say slightly important, 10% say somewhat important, 20% say generally

important, 4% say defmitely important and 18% say extremely important.

D. Responsivenes

Table 4.5 Responsiveness Presentation

NO Indicators 1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

13 Always greets and

serves customer(s)

right at the first

time they enter the

coffe shop

Loi 0 0% 1 2% 19 38% 29 58% 1 2%

Lop 0 0% 1 2% 19 38% 29 58% 1 2%

40

14 Never too busy to

respond to

customer‘s

requests

Loi 0 0% 1 2% 17 34% 29 58% 3 6%

Lop 0 0% 1 2% 18 36% 29 58% 2 4%

15 Starbucks Coffee

always ready to

help you

Loi 0 0% 2 4% 19 38% 29 58% 0 0%

Lop 1 2% 2 4% 20 40% 28 56% 0 0%

16 Always informs

the length of

service that will be

performed

Loi

0 0% 0 0% 28 56% 17 34% 5 10%

Lop 1 2% 0 0% 28 56% 17 34% 5 10%

For the LoP of ―Always greets and serves customer(s) right at the first time they

enter the restaurant‖, 0% respondents say very poor, 2% say poor, 38% say fair,

58% say good and 2% say excellent. For the Lol, 0% say slightly important, 2 %

say somewhat important, 38% say generally important, 58% say definitely

important and 2% say extremely important

For the LoP of ―Never too busy to respond to customer‘s requests‖, 0%

respondents say very poor, 2% say poor, 36% say fair, 58% say good and 4% say

excellent. For the LoI, 0% say slightly important, 2% say somewhat important,

34% say generally important,58% say definitely important and 6% say extremely

important.

For the LoP of ―Starbucks Coffee always ready to help you‖, 0% respondents say

very poor, 4% say poor, 40% say fair, 56% say good and 0% say excellent. For the

Lol, 0% say slightly important, 4% say somewhat important, 38% say generally

important, 58% say definitely important and 0% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Always informs the length of service that will be performed‖, 0%

respondents say very poor, 0% say poor, 56% say fair, 34% say good and 10% say

excellent. For the Lol, 0% say slightly important, 0% say somewhat important,

56% say generally important, 34% say definitely important and 10% say extremely

important.

E. Assurance

Table 4.6 Assurance presentation

NO Indicators 1 2 3 4 5

F % F % F % F % F %

17 Sufficient security

to ensure guests

safety

Loi 0 0% 0 0% 21 42% 28 56% 1 2%

Lop 0 0% 2 4% 17 34% 26 52% 5 10%

18 Competent and

have a good

attitude employees

Loi 0 0% 2 4% 17 34% 26 52% 5 10%

Lop 0 0% 1 2% 23 46% 25 50% 1 2%

41

19 Act politely to the

guests

Loi 0 0% 0 0% 28 56% 20 40% 2 4%

Lop 0 0% 0 0% 28 56% 20 40% 2 4%

20 Good reputation

compared to other

coffee shop

Loi

2 4% 7 14% 14 28% 15 30% 12 24%

Lop 2 4% 7 14% 14 28% 15 30% 12 24%

For the LoP of ―Sufficient security to ensure guests safety‖, 0% respondents say

very poor, 4% say poor, 34% say fair,52% say good and 10% say excellent. For the

Lol, 0% say slightly important, 0% say somewhat important, 42% say generally

important, 56% say definitely important and 2% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Competent employees‖, 0 % respondents say very poor, 2% say

poor, 46% say fair, 50% say good and 2% say excellent. For the Lol, 0% say

slightly important, 4% say somewhat important, 34% say generally important, 52%

say definitely important and 10% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Knowledge to answer customer questions‖, 0% respondents say

very poor, 0% say poor, 56% say fair, 40% say good and 4% say excellent. For the

Lol, 0% say slightly important, 0% say somewhat important, 56% say generally

important, 40% say definitely important and 4% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Act politely to the guests‖, 0% respondents say very poor, 0% say

poor, 56% say fair, 40% say good and 4% say excellent. For the LoT, 0% say

slightly important, 0% say somewhat important, 56% say generally important, 40%

say definitely important and 4% say extremely important.

For the LoP of ―Good reputation compared to other coffee shop‖, 4% respondents

say very poor, 14% say poor, 28% say fair, 30% say good and 24% say excellent.

For the Lol, 4% say slightly important, 14% say somewhat important, 28% say

generally important, 30% say definitely important and 24% say extremely

important.

4.2 Data Analysis

After the answers were collected from respondents, they are used to analyze and to

answer the statement of the four problems mentioned in the chapter 1. The analyses

are as follows:

Statement of Problem 1

Among those five service quality dimensions, which is the most and least important

dimension perceived by customers?

Table 4.7 Weighted Sample mean for each of the five service dimensions

Tangible Empathy Reliability Responsiveness Assurance

42

From the Table 4.7 above, the weighted mean of Responsiveness 3.59 is higher

than Assurance 3.58, Tangible 3.38, Reliability 3.37, and Empathy 2.99. It means

responsiveness is the most important dimension of the five service quality

dimensions.

It show that customers care most to employees‘ willingness to help customers in

providing them with a good, quality and fast service, readiness to respond to

customers request, going out of the way to make them happy.

And Empathy is the least important dimension among those five. It shows that

customers don‘t care so much about the company cares and gives individualized

attention to them as much as factors in another four dimension.

Statement of Problem 2

For each indicator how the gap of service quality score between the customer

perceived importance level and performance level?

Table 4.8 GAP Analysis

No Indicators Mean of loi Mean of lop Gap

1 Modern-looking facilities and interior

in Starbucks Coffee

3.20 2.00 (1.20)

2 Clean, big and hygiene in cafe area and

condiment bar Starbucks Coffee

3.34 3.46 0.12

3 Easy-accessed and large parking lot in

Starbucks Coffee

3.54 3.54 0

4 Starbucks Coffee menu is

understandable

3.48 3.48 0

5 Starbucks Coffee partners wear neat,

nice and good-looking uniform

3.36 3.36 0

6 Convenient opening working hours 3.32 3.32 0

7 Easy to deliver your suggestions and

complaints to Starbucks Coffee

2.66 3.08 0.42

8 Provide service as well as the price

paid

3.10 3.80 0.7

9 The food and beverages quality and

presentation are consistent

3.52 3.52 0

10 The expenses details are informed well

in the bill

3.46 3.44 (0.02)

Total

Weighted

sample

mean

3,38 2,99 3,37 3,59 3,58

43

11 Do something as promised in the

advertising

3.36 3.34 (0.02)

12 Perform the service right on time 3.42 3.40 (0.02)

13 Always greets and serves customer(s)

right at the first time they enter the

coffe shop

3.36 3.60 0

14 Never too busy to respond to

customer‘s requests

3.68 3.64 (0.04)

15 Starbucks Coffee always ready to help

you

3.54 3.52 (0.02)

16 Always informs the length of service

that will be performed

3.54 3.52 (0.02)

17 Sufficient security to ensure guests

safety

3.6 3.68 0.08

18 Competent and have a good attitude

employees

3.68 3.52 (0.16)

19 Act politely to the guests 3.48 3.48

0

20 Good reputation compared to other

coffee shop

3.56 3.56 0

Total 68.20 68.26 0.06

Sample mean 3.41 3.41 0

From the table 4.8 above, the weighted mean of importance and performance for

each indicator are shown below. The gaps are listed at the right side. The numbers

in red color mean that, for the relative indicator, the real performance of Starbucks

Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang in delivering customer service falls below

customers‘ expectation.

44

The numbers in blue color mean that, for the relative indicator, the real

performance of Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang in delivering customer

service reaches or surplus customers‘ expectation.

The numbers in green color mean that, for the relative indicator, the real

performance of Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang in delivering customer

service same customers expectation.

And the bold red number -1.20 means the modern looking facilities and interior in

Starbucks Coffee has the biggest gap to reach customers‘ expectation, and the bold

blue number 0.42 is the biggest gap that Starbucks Coffee surplus customers‘

expectation. It reflects that Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikrang did easy to

deliver suggestions and complaints.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions

5.1.1. Statement of the problem 1

Among those five service quality dimensions, which is the most and least important

dimension perceived by customers ?

From the computation, the Assurance is the most important dimension among the

five service quality for Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang. It reflects that

customers care most to employees‘ plenty of knowledge to help customers solve

problems, safety for the customers and consistently courtesy to customers. And the

Empathy are the least important dimensions among the five. It shows that

customers don‘t care so much about the convenient opening working hours and

how easy to deliver and suggestions and complaints as much as factors in another

four dimension.

5.1.2. Statement of the problem 2

In terms of each factor, how is the gap of score between the customer perceived

level of importance and level of peformance?

Through computation, the researcher concludes that ―modern looking facilities and

interior in Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang‖ has the highest minus gap,

meaning to say that it falls below customer expectation, and it has the lowest score

in the customer satisfaction among all the service factors. ―Easy to deliver your

suggestions and complaints to Starbucks Coffee‖ has the highest plus gap, meaning

to say that it exceeds customer expectation, and it satisfies the customers the most

among all the service indicators.

45

Eight service elements which are poorly performed, and need to be focused and

improved by Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang. These indicators are

customer perceived important service elements while not yet being performed at

the desired levels. Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang needs to concentrate

on improving these service indicators‘ quality. The elements are as follows;

1. Modern-looking facilities and interior

2. The expenses details are informed well in the bill

3. Do something as promised in the advertising

4. Perform the service right on time

5. Never too busy to respond to customer‘s requests

6. Starbucks Coffee always ready to help you

7. Always informs the length of service that will be performed

8. Competent and have a good attitude employees

Eight service elements which with high importance, has been moderately

performed and customer already feel enough. These elements should be maintained

by Starbucks Citywalk Lippo Cikarang, They are as follows:

1. Easy-accessed and large parking lot in Starbucks Coffee

2. Starbucks Coffee menu is understandable

3. Starbucks Coffee partners wear neat, nice and good-looking

uniform

4. Convenient opening working hours

5. The food and beverages quality and presentation are consistent

6. Always greets and serves customer(s) right at the first time they

enter the coffee shop

7. Act politely to the guests

8. Good reputation compared to other coffee shop

Three service elements with low importance and are being delivered in a relatively

low level. Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang does not need to spend a lot

on it, because customers don‘t really care so much about them. Such elements are

as follows:

1. Clean, big and hygiene in cafe area and condiment bar

2. Provide service as well as the price paid

3. Sufficient security to ensure guests safety

Easy to deliver your suggestions and complaints are not important but are being

performed well. Maybe Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang should spend

less on those service elements, and use the savings to improve performance on

important service elements in where they need most.

46

5.2. Recommendation

This research is a study about the service quality of Starbucks Citywalk Lippo

Cikarang through quantitative research, a further study of the service quality

through qualitative research is needed. Relative topics or areas which need further

study and explanation are a lot, such as the relationship between the brand equity

and service quality of Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo Cikarang, the relationship

between service quality and customer loyalty of Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo

Cikarang, the relationship between service quality and employees training program,

the relationship between queuing time and customers‘ satisfaction, and etc,

Through the result of the study above, the following indicators should be improved

in order to improve the service quality of Starbucks Coffee Citywalk Lippo

Cikarang. The employee must be competent. In making product, the employee has

to inform the length of service that will be performed. Act politely and well-

mannered all the time to the guests, regardless the condition of the store. Starbucks

Coffee has to provide sufficient security to the customers to make they fell safe.

Starbucks Coffee have to implement routine survey concerning quality of service to

maintain the level of performance in order to satisfy their customers. Trough

routine survey, it is expected to reduce gap between level of expectation and level

of performance of employees in Starbucks Coffee Lippo Cikarang.

5.3. Future Research Future research should seek to examine the use of SERVQUAL to close other

service quality gaps for different types of organizations. Also, an important issue

for future research is about the relationship between internal service quality and

external customer satisfaction as well as other constructs, such as employee service

orientation, and external service quality.

Knowing how customers perceive the service quality and being able to measure

service quality can benefit industry professionals in quantitative and qualitative

ways. In this thesis,researcher only use quantitative, so the result not enough for us

if we want to know much about the what customers need and what customers

want.The measurement of service quality can provide specific data that can be used

in quality management; hence, service organizations would be able to monitor and

maintain quality service. Assessing service quality and better understanding how

various dimensions affect overall service quality would enable organizations to

efficiently design the service delivery process. By identifying strengths and to

provide better service and ultimately better service to external customers.

Generally speaking, the study of service quality is both important and challenging.

Future efforts should continue to advance the understanding of the concept and the

means to measure and improve service quality.

47

REFERENCES

BOOKS

Cooper, Donald. & Scindler, Pamela S. (2006). Marketing Research. New York:

McGraw Hill.

Christopher Lovelock, Jochen Wirtz, Hean Tat Keh, Xiongwen Lu. (2005). Service

Marketing in Asia. 2nd

edition. Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia

Pte Ltd.

Hoffman, K. D. & Bateson J. E G. (1997). Essential of Service Marketing. Florida:

The Dryden Press.

Kandampully, Jay. (2002). Services Management: The New Paradigm in

Hospitality. New South Wales: Pearson Education Australia.

Kotler, Philip (1999) Marketing Management, Analysis, Planning, Implementation,

and Controlling. 8th

Edition. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, Philip & Armstrong, Gary. (2004). Principles of Marketing 1Oth

Edition.

Pearson Prentice Hall. USA.

Kurtz, D.L. & Clow, K.E. (1998). Service Marketing. New York; John Wiley and

Sons.

Lovelock, C., Wirtz, J, Tat Keh, H., Xiongwen,L(2005). Services Marketing in

Asia. 2nd

Edition.Singapore:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Malhotra, N. & Peterson,M.(2000). Basic Marketing Research(2nd

Ed):A Decision

Making Approach.New Jersey:Pearson Prentice Hall.

Naumann,Earl .(1995). Creating Customer Value:The Path to Sustainable

Competitive Advantage.Singapore:Thomas Executive Press.

Parasuraman,A., Zeithami and Berry. (2000). Delivering Quality

Service:Balancing Customer percepetion and Excpectation. New York:

The FreePress.

Sugiyono (2004). Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung: CV Alfabeta

Sugiyono. (2008). Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta

Valarie A. Zeithmal And Jo Bitner, Mary, (2000). Services

Marketing:lntegratingCustomer Focus Across The Firm. 2nd

International

Edition. The United States of America: McGraw Hill.

JOURNAL

Brown, S. and Swartz, T.A. (1989). ―A Gap analysis of Profesional Service

Quality―, Journal of Marketing, Vol.53, April, pp. 92-8

Parasuraman,A. Valarie A. Zeithmal, and Leonardo L Berry. (1988). SERVQUAL:

A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service

Quality: Journal of Retailing.

INTERNET

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research (Retrieved June 23th 2013)

48

http://journal.ui.ac.id/index.php/mik/rt/printerFriendly/1214 (Retrieved July 15th

2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouestionnaire (Retrieved July 1 2013)

http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/Rating_scale (Retrieved July 4th 2013)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale (Retrieved July 4th 2013)

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/WeightedMean.html (Retrieved June 1st 2013)

http://www.12manage.com/methods_zeithaml_servqua1.html (Retrieved june 6th

2013)

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Questionnaire

SERVICE QUALITY QUESTIONNAIRE

I am Riris Eridani, student from President University who are doing my thesis as

my final project. in order to accomplish my Bachelor Degree, I am conducting a

research about Service Quality in Starbucks Coffee. Because of that, I need your

help to fill in the questionnaire below. Thank you very much for your contribution.

Bellow are questions related to five dimension of service quality in Starbucks

Citywalk Lipoo Cikarang. Please fulfill the answer by cross symbol (X) or circle

symbol (O) on the answer provided.

Note: Level of importance Level of performance

5= Extremely Important 5= Excellent

4= Definitely Important 4= Good

3= Generally Important 3= Fair

2= Somewhat Important 2= Poor

1= Slightly important 1= Very Poor

Personal Identification:

Gender : Male Female

Age : < 20 31 – 40

49

21 – 30 > 40

Occupation : Student Government Employee

Others Entrepreneur

NO STATEMENT LEVEL OF

IMPORTANCE

LEVEL OF

PERFORMANCE

TANGIBLE

1. Modern-looking facilities and

interior in Starbucks Coffee

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

2. Clean, big and hygiene in cafe area

and condiment bar Starbucks Coffee

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

3. Easy-accessed and large parking lot

in Starbucks Coffee

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

4. Starbucks Coffee menu is

understandable

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

5. Starbucks Coffee partners wear neat,

nice and good-looking uniform

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

EMPATHY

6. Convenient opening working hours 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

7. Easy to deliver your suggestions and

complaints to Starbucks Coffee

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

RELIABILITY

8. Provide service as well as the price

paid

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

9. The food and beverages quality and

presentation are consistent

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

10. The expenses details are informed

well in the bill

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

11. Do something as promised in the

advertising

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

12. Perform the service right on time 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

RESPONSIVENESS

13.

Always greets and serves

customer(s) right at the first time

they enter the coffe shop

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

14. Never too busy to respond to

customer‘s requests

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

15. Starbucks Coffee always ready to

help you

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

16. Always informs the length of service

that will be performed

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

ASSURANCE

17. Sufficient security to ensure guests

safety 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

50

Appendix 2 – Validity and Reliability Test Result

LOP RESULT Correlations

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10

Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20

Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Y1

Q1 Pearson Correlation 1 .126 .186 .579** .150 .371 .178 -

.205 .179 -.283 .942** .377 -.093 .395 .014 .411 .377

.146 .397 .102 .432 .343 .126 .397 .142 .547*

Sig. (2-tailed) .596 .433 .007 .529 .108 .452 .387

.451 .226 .000 .101 .695 .085 .955 .072 .101 .539

.083 .669 .057 .139 .597 .083 .550 .012

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q2 Pearson Correlation .126 1 .279 .143 .432 .535* .514*

.134 .084 -.099 .027 .655** .843** .610** .245 .570** .655**

.316 .515* -.052 .474* .412 .050 .515* .573** .673**

18. Competent and have a good attitude

employees 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

19. Act politely to the guests 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

20. Good reputation compared to other

coffee shop 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

51

Sig. (2-tailed) .596 .234 .547 .057 .015 .020 .573

.725 .679 .911 .002 .000 .004 .297 .009 .002 .175

.020 .826 .035 .071 .833 .020 .008 .001

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q3 Pearson Correlation .186 .279 1 .246 .802** .407 .473* -

.008 -.062 .210 .361 .049 .072 .337 .379 .070 .049

.116 .295 .161 -.017 -.116 .012 .295 .415 .556*

Sig. (2-tailed) .433 .234 .296 .000 .075 .035 .973

.795 .374 .118 .836 .762 .146 .099 .770 .836 .625

.207 .498 .945 .627 .959 .207 .069 .011

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q4 Pearson Correlation .579** .143 .246 1 .408 .589** .243 -

.190 .115 -.218 .649** .460* .053 .320 .571** .466* .460*

.166 .270 -.149 .448* .352 .048 .270 .219 .623**

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .547 .296 .074 .006 .302 .422

.630 .356 .002 .041 .824 .169 .009 .038 .041 .485

.250 .532 .048 .128 .842 .250 .355 .003

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q5 Pearson Correlation .150 .432 .802** .408 1 .616** .687** -

.088 .073 .047 .254 .168 .320 .326 .425 .135 .168

.175 .285 .031 .064 .028 -.168 .285 .616** .648**

Sig. (2-tailed) .529 .057 .000 .074 .004 .001 .713

.759 .844 .280 .480 .169 .161 .062 .569 .480 .460

.223 .896 .787 .907 .480 .223 .004 .002

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q6 Pearson Correlation .371 .535* .407 .589** .616** 1 .681** -

.174 -.036 .035 .393 .421 .387 .466* .525* .335 .421

.223 .464* .309 .327 .367 -.065 .464* .564** .796**

Sig. (2-tailed) .108 .015 .075 .006 .004 .001 .464

.879 .884 .086 .065 .092 .038 .017 .149 .065 .345

.039 .185 .160 .111 .785 .039 .010 .000

52

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q7 Pearson Correlation .178 .514* .473* .243 .687** .681** 1 -

.142 .158 .186 .151 .285 .358 .431 .173 .322 .285

.298 .404 .186 .287 .167 -.071 .404 .470* .658**

Sig. (2-tailed) .452 .020 .035 .302 .001 .001 .550

.505 .432 .524 .223 .122 .058 .465 .166 .223 .202

.077 .433 .219 .483 .765 .077 .037 .002

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q8 Pearson Correlation -.205 .134 -.008 -.190 -.088 -.174 -.142 1

.219 .112 -.178 .052 .162 -.180 -.094 .168 .052 -

.218 -.312 -.077 .070 -.165 -.052 -.312 -.076 -.040

Sig. (2-tailed) .387 .573 .973 .422 .713 .464 .550

.353 .639 .454 .827 .496 .448 .693 .478 .827 .357

.180 .745 .769 .486 .827 .180 .751 .868

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q9 Pearson Correlation .179 .084 -.062 .115 .073 -.036 .158

.219 1 -.307 .223 .034 -.031 .088 -.088 .035 .034

.019 .102 -.178 .046 .047 -.096 .102 -.020 .155

Sig. (2-tailed) .451 .725 .795 .630 .759 .879 .505 .353

.189 .345 .886 .896 .713 .713 .883 .886 .935 .668

.453 .847 .843 .686 .668 .932 .514

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q10 Pearson Correlation -.283 -.099 .210 -.218 .047 .035 .186

.112 -.307 1 -.223 -.142 -.159 .029 .110 .041 -.142

.099 -.087 .133 -.093 -.414 -.077 -.087 -.265 -.025

Sig. (2-tailed) .226 .679 .374 .356 .844 .884 .432 .639

.189 .345 .549 .504 .902 .644 .863 .549 .677

.715 .576 .696 .070 .748 .715 .260 .917

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q11 Pearson Correlation .942** .027 .361 .649** .254 .393 .151 -

.178 .223 -.223 1 .282 -.198 .359 .188 .302 .282

.093 .353 .139 .299 .225 .074 .353 .151 .567**

53

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .911 .118 .002 .280 .086 .524 .454

.345 .345 .229 .402 .120 .428 .196 .229 .697

.126 .559 .200 .339 .756 .126 .525 .009

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q12 Pearson Correlation .377 .655** .049 .460* .168 .421 .285

.052 .034 -.142 .282 1 .710** .744** .212 .821** 1.000**

.549* .640** .087 .744** .764** .453* .640** .137 .737**

Sig. (2-tailed) .101 .002 .836 .041 .480 .065 .223 .827

.886 .549 .229 .000 .000 .369 .000 .000 .012

.002 .714 .000 .000 .045 .002 .564 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q13 Pearson Correlation -.093 .843** .072 .053 .320 .387 .358

.162 -.031 -.159 -.198 .710** 1 .452* .145 .423 .710**

.351 .360 .000 .327 .524* .131 .360 .470* .502*

Sig. (2-tailed) .695 .000 .762 .824 .169 .092 .122 .496

.896 .504 .402 .000 .045 .541 .063 .000 .129

.118 1.000 .160 .018 .583 .118 .037 .024

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q14 Pearson Correlation .395 .610** .337 .320 .326 .466* .431 -

.180 .088 .029 .359 .744** .452* 1 .121 .637** .744**

.777** .946** .293 .545* .501* .496* .946** .162 .792**

Sig. (2-tailed) .085 .004 .146 .169 .161 .038 .058 .448

.713 .902 .120 .000 .045 .612 .003 .000 .000

.000 .209 .013 .025 .026 .000 .495 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q15 Pearson Correlation .014 .245 .379 .571** .425 .525* .173 -

.094 -.088 .110 .188 .212 .145 .121 1 .246 .212

.023 .068 -.170 .212 .108 -.049 .068 .361 .452*

Sig. (2-tailed) .955 .297 .099 .009 .062 .017 .465 .693

.713 .644 .428 .369 .541 .612 .296 .369 .924

.776 .474 .370 .650 .838 .776 .117 .046

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

54

Q16 Pearson Correlation .411 .570** .070 .466* .135 .335 .322

.168 .035 .041 .302 .821** .423 .637** .246 1 .821**

.396 .502* -.066 .934** .517* .316 .502* -.038 .656**

Sig. (2-tailed) .072 .009 .770 .038 .569 .149 .166 .478

.883 .863 .196 .000 .063 .003 .296 .000 .084

.024 .783 .000 .020 .175 .024 .874 .002

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q17 Pearson Correlation .377 .655** .049 .460* .168 .421 .285

.052 .034 -.142 .282 1.000** .710** .744** .212 .821** 1

.549* .640** .087 .744** .764** .453* .640** .137 .737**

Sig. (2-tailed) .101 .002 .836 .041 .480 .065 .223 .827

.886 .549 .229 .000 .000 .000 .369 .000 .012

.002 .714 .000 .000 .045 .002 .564 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q18 Pearson Correlation .146 .316 .116 .166 .175 .223 .298 -

.218 .019 .099 .093 .549* .351 .777** .023 .396 .549* 1

.702** .061 .267 .287 .735** .702** .091 .500*

Sig. (2-tailed) .539 .175 .625 .485 .460 .345 .202 .357

.935 .677 .697 .012 .129 .000 .924 .084 .012

.001 .799 .255 .221 .000 .001 .703 .025

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q19 Pearson Correlation .397 .515* .295 .270 .285 .464* .404 -

.312 .102 -.087 .353 .640** .360 .946** .068 .502* .640**

.702** 1 .429 .520* .615** .501* 1.000** .148

.735**

Sig. (2-tailed) .083 .020 .207 .250 .223 .039 .077 .180

.668 .715 .126 .002 .118 .000 .776 .024 .002 .001

.059 .019 .004 .024 .000 .533 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q20 Pearson Correlation .102 -.052 .161 -.149 .031 .309 .186 -

.077 -.178 .133 .139 .087 .000 .293 -.170 -.066 .087

.061 .429 1 .039 .306 .087 .429 -.192 .229

55

Sig. (2-tailed) .669 .826 .498 .532 .896 .185 .433 .745

.453 .576 .559 .714 1.000 .209 .474 .783 .714 .799

.059 .870 .189 .714 .059 .418 .332

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q21 Pearson Correlation .432 .474* -.017 .448* .064 .327 .287

.070 .046 -.093 .299 .744** .327 .545* .212 .934** .744**

.267 .520* .039 1 .676** .308 .520* -.085 .594**

Sig. (2-tailed) .057 .035 .945 .048 .787 .160 .219 .769

.847 .696 .200 .000 .160 .013 .370 .000 .000 .255

.019 .870 .001 .186 .019 .720 .006

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q22 Pearson Correlation .343 .412 -.116 .352 .028 .367 .167 -

.165 .047 -.414 .225 .764** .524* .501* .108 .517* .764**

.287 .615** .306 .676** 1 .411 .615** .090 .538*

Sig. (2-tailed) .139 .071 .627 .128 .907 .111 .483 .486

.843 .070 .339 .000 .018 .025 .650 .020 .000 .221

.004 .189 .001 .072 .004 .706 .014

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q23 Pearson Correlation .126 .050 .012 .048 -.168 -.065 -.071 -

.052 -.096 -.077 .074 .453* .131 .496* -.049 .316 .453*

.735** .501* .087 .308 .411 1 .501* -.137 .257

Sig. (2-tailed) .597 .833 .959 .842 .480 .785 .765 .827

.686 .748 .756 .045 .583 .026 .838 .175 .045 .000

.024 .714 .186 .072 .024 .564 .275

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q24 Pearson Correlation .397 .515* .295 .270 .285 .464* .404 -

.312 .102 -.087 .353 .640** .360 .946** .068 .502* .640**

.702** 1.000** .429 .520* .615** .501* 1 .148

.735**

Sig. (2-tailed) .083 .020 .207 .250 .223 .039 .077 .180

.668 .715 .126 .002 .118 .000 .776 .024 .002 .001

.000 .059 .019 .004 .024 .533 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

56

Q25 Pearson Correlation .142 .573** .415 .219 .616** .564** .470* -

.076 -.020 -.265 .151 .137 .470* .162 .361 -.038 .137

.091 .148 -.192 -.085 .090 -.137 .148 1 .457*

Sig. (2-tailed) .550 .008 .069 .355 .004 .010 .037 .751

.932 .260 .525 .564 .037 .495 .117 .874 .564 .703

.533 .418 .720 .706 .564 .533 .043

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Y2 Pearson Correlation .547* .673** .556* .623** .648** .796** .658** -

.040 .155 -.025 .567** .737** .502* .792** .452* .656** .737**

.500* .735** .229 .594** .538* .257 .735** .457* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .001 .011 .003 .002 .000 .002 .868

.514 .917 .009 .000 .024 .000 .046 .002 .000 .025

.000 .332 .006 .014 .275 .000 .043

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES=Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q1

6 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Y1

/SCALE('ALL VARIABLES') ALL

/MODEL=ALPHA.

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 20 100.0

Excludeda 0 .0

Total 20 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all

variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

57

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.735 25

LOI RESULT

Correlations

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19

Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Y1

Q1 Pearson Correlation 1 -.008 .090 .422 .056 .343 -.114 -

.244 .454* -.098 .701** .376 -.070 .440 -.062 .428 .341 .217

.433 .258 .427 .296 .148 .433 .089 .524*

Sig. (2-tailed) .973 .705 .064 .814 .139 .634 .299

.045 .680 .001 .103 .769 .052 .795 .060 .142 .357

.057 .273 .061 .205 .532 .057 .709 .018

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q2 Pearson Correlation -.008 1 .346 .347 .458* .461* .015

.142 -.154 .328 .255 .519* .457* .244 .204 .431

.169 -.031 .364 -.238 .390 .392 .015 .364 .512*

.569**

Sig. (2-tailed) .973 .135 .134 .042 .041 .949 .550

.517 .158 .277 .019 .043 .300 .389 .058 .477 .896

.115 .312 .089 .087 .949 .115 .021 .009

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q3 Pearson Correlation .090 .346 1 .246 .802** .407 .012 -

.008 .054 .190 .359 .049 .010 .260 .349 .070 -.091

.038 .295 .161 -.017 -.116 .012 .295 .415 .529*

Sig. (2-tailed) .705 .135 .296 .000 .075 .959 .973

.823 .423 .120 .836 .966 .269 .132 .770 .702 .874

.207 .498 .945 .627 .959 .207 .069 .016

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q4 Pearson Correlation .422 .347 .246 1 .408 .589** .143 -

.190 -.046 .010 .695** .460* -.066 .174 .510* .466* .161

.016 .270 -.149 .448* .352 .048 .270 .219 .607**

58

Sig. (2-tailed) .064 .134 .296 .074 .006 .548 .422

.848 .967 .001 .041 .782 .462 .022 .038 .498 .946

.250 .532 .048 .128 .842 .250 .355 .005

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q5 Pearson Correlation .056 .458* .802** .408 1 .616** .132 -

.088 -.035 .147 .318 .168 .259 .251 .397 .135 .022

.098 .285 .031 .064 .028 -.168 .285 .616** .610**

Sig. (2-tailed) .814 .042 .000 .074 .004 .580 .713

.885 .536 .172 .480 .271 .285 .083 .569 .926 .681

.223 .896 .787 .907 .480 .223 .004 .004

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q6 Pearson Correlation .343 .461* .407 .589** .616** 1 .113 -

.174 -.154 -.055 .411 .421 .340 .409 .507* .335 .289

.164 .464* .309 .327 .367 -.065 .464* .564** .750**

Sig. (2-tailed) .139 .041 .075 .006 .004 .636 .464

.517 .819 .072 .065 .142 .073 .022 .149 .216 .490

.039 .185 .160 .111 .785 .039 .010 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q7 Pearson Correlation -.114 .015 .012 .143 .132 .113 1 -

.573** .177 .532* -.080 .061 -.051 .162 .340 .063 .067

.269 .184 -.087 .083 .085 .050 .184 -.171 .177

Sig. (2-tailed) .634 .949 .959 .548 .580 .636 .008

.455 .016 .738 .797 .831 .495 .142 .791 .779 .252

.438 .714 .729 .722 .833 .438 .472 .456

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q8 Pearson Correlation -.244 .142 -.008 -.190 -.088 -.174 -.573**

1 -.118 -.114 -.267 .052 .204 -.126 -.070 .168

.144 -.160 -.312 -.077 .070 -.165 -.052 -.312 -.076 -

.112

Sig. (2-tailed) .299 .550 .973 .422 .713 .464 .008

.620 .632 .255 .827 .388 .595 .770 .478 .545 .501

.180 .745 .769 .486 .827 .180 .751 .638

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q9 Pearson Correlation .454* -.154 .054 -.046 -.035 -.154 .177 -

.118 1 .198 .151 -.016 -.255 .419 -.223 .273 .104

.379 .293 .042 .195 -.245 .016 .293 -.232 .173

59

Sig. (2-tailed) .045 .517 .823 .848 .885 .517 .455 .620

.403 .526 .946 .279 .066 .344 .243 .663 .099 .210

.861 .410 .298 .946 .210 .326 .467

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q10 Pearson Correlation -.098 .328 .190 .010 .147 -.055 .532* -

.114 .198 1 .194 .120 -.100 .086 .263 .271 .016

.053 .097 -.304 .254 .020 .086 .097 -.072 .252

Sig. (2-tailed) .680 .158 .423 .967 .536 .819 .016 .632

.403 .412 .614 .676 .719 .263 .247 .947 .826

.683 .193 .281 .933 .719 .683 .763 .284

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q11 Pearson Correlation .701** .255 .359 .695** .318 .411 -.080 -

.267 .151 .194 1 .272 -.272 .223 .200 .280 .094 -

.048 .315 .014 .292 .247 .058 .315 .265 .570**

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .277 .120 .001 .172 .072 .738 .255

.526 .412 .246 .246 .345 .398 .232 .694 .841

.176 .952 .211 .293 .809 .176 .259 .009

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q12 Pearson Correlation .376 .519* .049 .460* .168 .421 .061

.052 -.016 .120 .272 1 .655** .676** .185 .821** .808**

.474* .640** .087 .744** .764** .453* .640** .137 .752**

Sig. (2-tailed) .103 .019 .836 .041 .480 .065 .797 .827

.946 .614 .246 .002 .001 .434 .000 .000 .035

.002 .714 .000 .000 .045 .002 .564 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q13 Pearson Correlation -.070 .457* .010 -.066 .259 .340 -.051

.204 -.255 -.100 -.272 .655** 1 .460* .122 .368 .697**

.366 .311 .073 .256 .451* .088 .311 .442 .414

Sig. (2-tailed) .769 .043 .966 .782 .271 .142 .831 .388

.279 .676 .246 .002 .041 .609 .111 .001 .113

.182 .761 .276 .046 .711 .182 .051 .070

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q14 Pearson Correlation .440 .244 .260 .174 .251 .409 .162 -

.126 .419 .086 .223 .676** .460* 1 .091 .569** .736**

.783** .881** .378 .458* .411 .441 .881** .130 .755**

Sig. (2-tailed) .052 .300 .269 .462 .285 .073 .495 .595

.066 .719 .345 .001 .041 .702 .009 .000 .000

.000 .100 .042 .072 .051 .000 .583 .000

60

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q15 Pearson Correlation -.062 .204 .349 .510* .397 .507* .340 -

.070 -.223 .263 .200 .185 .122 .091 1 .219 .155 -

.003 .041 -.130 .175 .068 -.075 .041 .353 .453*

Sig. (2-tailed) .795 .389 .132 .022 .083 .022 .142 .770

.344 .263 .398 .434 .609 .702 .354 .513 .991

.864 .586 .461 .776 .754 .864 .127 .045

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q16 Pearson Correlation .428 .431 .070 .466* .135 .335 .063

.168 .273 .271 .280 .821** .368 .569** .219 1 .640**

.323 .502* -.066 .934** .517* .316 .502* -.038 .684**

Sig. (2-tailed) .060 .058 .770 .038 .569 .149 .791 .478

.243 .247 .232 .000 .111 .009 .354 .002 .165

.024 .783 .000 .020 .175 .024 .874 .001

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q17 Pearson Correlation .341 .169 -.091 .161 .022 .289 .067

.144 .104 .016 .094 .808** .697** .736** .155 .640** 1

.574** .485* .241 .533* .547* .324 .485* .071 .592**

Sig. (2-tailed) .142 .477 .702 .498 .926 .216 .779 .545

.663 .947 .694 .000 .001 .000 .513 .002 .008

.030 .306 .016 .012 .163 .030 .766 .006

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q18 Pearson Correlation .217 -.031 .038 .016 .098 .164 .269 -

.160 .379 .053 -.048 .474* .366 .783** -.003 .323 .574** 1

.629** .149 .177 .194 .669** .629** .058 .456*

Sig. (2-tailed) .357 .896 .874 .946 .681 .490 .252 .501

.099 .826 .841 .035 .113 .000 .991 .165 .008

.003 .531 .456 .413 .001 .003 .807 .043

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q19 Pearson Correlation .433 .364 .295 .270 .285 .464* .184 -

.312 .293 .097 .315 .640** .311 .881** .041 .502* .485*

.629** 1 .429 .520* .615** .501* 1.000** .148

.757**

Sig. (2-tailed) .057 .115 .207 .250 .223 .039 .438 .180

.210 .683 .176 .002 .182 .000 .864 .024 .030 .003

.059 .019 .004 .024 .000 .533 .000

61

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q20 Pearson Correlation .258 -.238 .161 -.149 .031 .309 -.087 -

.077 .042 -.304 .014 .087 .073 .378 -.130 -.066 .241

.149 .429 1 .039 .306 .087 .429 -.192 .216

Sig. (2-tailed) .273 .312 .498 .532 .896 .185 .714 .745

.861 .193 .952 .714 .761 .100 .586 .783 .306 .531

.059 .870 .189 .714 .059 .418 .359

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q21 Pearson Correlation .427 .390 -.017 .448* .064 .327 .083

.070 .195 .254 .292 .744** .256 .458* .175 .934** .533*

.177 .520* .039 1 .676** .308 .520* -.085 .621**

Sig. (2-tailed) .061 .089 .945 .048 .787 .160 .729 .769

.410 .281 .211 .000 .276 .042 .461 .000 .016 .456

.019 .870 .001 .186 .019 .720 .003

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q22 Pearson Correlation .296 .392 -.116 .352 .028 .367 .085 -

.165 -.245 .020 .247 .764** .451* .411 .068 .517* .547*

.194 .615** .306 .676** 1 .411 .615** .090 .545*

Sig. (2-tailed) .205 .087 .627 .128 .907 .111 .722 .486

.298 .933 .293 .000 .046 .072 .776 .020 .012 .413

.004 .189 .001 .072 .004 .706 .013

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q23 Pearson Correlation .148 .015 .012 .048 -.168 -.065 .050 -

.052 .016 .086 .058 .453* .088 .441 -.075 .316 .324

.669** .501* .087 .308 .411 1 .501* -.137 .288

Sig. (2-tailed) .532 .949 .959 .842 .480 .785 .833 .827

.946 .719 .809 .045 .711 .051 .754 .175 .163 .001

.024 .714 .186 .072 .024 .564 .218

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Q24 Pearson Correlation .433 .364 .295 .270 .285 .464* .184 -

.312 .293 .097 .315 .640** .311 .881** .041 .502* .485*

.629** 1.000** .429 .520* .615** .501* 1 .148 .757**

Sig. (2-tailed) .057 .115 .207 .250 .223 .039 .438 .180

.210 .683 .176 .002 .182 .000 .864 .024 .030 .003

.000 .059 .019 .004 .024 .533 .000

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

62

Q25 Pearson Correlation .089 .512* .415 .219 .616** .564** -.171 -

.076 -.232 -.072 .265 .137 .442 .130 .353 -.038 .071

.058 .148 -.192 -.085 .090 -.137 .148 1 .432

Sig. (2-tailed) .709 .021 .069 .355 .004 .010 .472 .751

.326 .763 .259 .564 .051 .583 .127 .874 .766 .807

.533 .418 .720 .706 .564 .533 .057

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

Y1 Pearson Correlation .524* .569** .529* .607** .610** .750** .177 -

.112 .173 .252 .570** .752** .414 .755** .453* .684** .592**

.456* .757** .216 .621** .545* .288 .757** .432 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .009 .016 .005 .004 .000 .456 .638

.467 .284 .009 .000 .070 .000 .045 .001 .006 .043

.000 .359 .003 .013 .218 .000 .057

N 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20 20 20 20

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 20 95.2

Excludeda 1 4.8

Total 21 100.0

a. Listwise deletion based on all

variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.731 25

63

Appendix 3 – LOI & LOP RESULT

LOI RESULT ON EXCEL

64

q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 4

3 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3

4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3

5 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 4 4 4

6 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3

7 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4

8 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4

9 4 5 4 4 4 4 1 4 5 5 5

10 2 3 5 4 5 5 1 3 3 3 3

11 5 4 2 5 4 4 1 4 4 4 3

12 1 4 1 4 2 3 3 1 4 4 3

13 1 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3

14 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3

15 2 4 2 2 2 3 2 1 4 4 4

16 1 4 5 1 5 1 2 1 3 4 3

17 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 4 3 3

18 5 2 3 5 3 2 3 5 4 2 4

19 5 4 5 4 4 4 2 5 3 2 4

20 2 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 4 4 4

21 3 4 4 2 2 4 2 3 4 5 4

22 1 4 2 3 3 2 3 1 4 4 4

23 3 3 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 4

24 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 5 4 3 3

25 4 4 4 4 4 2 5 2 4 2 4

Respondent

65

26 2 4 4 3 1 4 2 4 4 4 4

27 2 3 4 4 4 5 2 4 3 3 3

28 1 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3

29 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4

30 2 3 4 4 2 5 4 5 4 4 3

31 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 3

32 1 1 2 4 4 4 5 3 4 1 3

33 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 3

34 3 3 5 4 3 4 1 2 3 3 3

35 2 4 3 4 2 3 3 2 3 3 3

36 4 3 4 4 5 4 2 1 3 4 3

37 5 4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 3

38 4 4 4 3 4 4 1 3 3 5 3

39 5 3 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4

40 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3

41 4 3 4 4 4 4 2 5 3 3 3

42 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 2 3

43 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

44 4 3 2 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 3

45 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3

46 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3

47 4 2 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 4

48 5 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 3 3 3

49 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 3

50 5 4 5 4 3 3 5 5 3 3 3

66

q12 q13 q14 q15 q16 q17 q18 q19 q20 y1

2 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 46

3 3 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 55

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 46

2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 53

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 67

5 4 4 2 3 4 4 3 4 74

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 74

4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 79

3 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 85

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 66

2 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 5 72

5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 63

5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 61

4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 62

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 62

1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 56

3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 58

2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 69

4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 75

5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 76

4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 75

5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 68

4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 76

4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 5 71

3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 73

67

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 71

4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 68

3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 5 65

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 80

1 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 72

4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 73

3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 63

1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 71

4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 65

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 62

5 4 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 71

3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 71

4 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 70

4 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 2 72

3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 63

4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 67

4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 71

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 80

5 5 5 3 3 4 4 3 5 73

5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 73

3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 66

2 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 71

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 70

5 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 73

4 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 79

LOP RESULT ON EXCEL

68

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 tangible E1 E2 empathy

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2.5

3 2 3 1 2 1 1.8 1 1 1

4 2 3 3 3 2 2.6 2 2 2

5 2 4 3 2 3 2.8 3 4 3.5

6 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 4 3 3.5

7 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 4 5 4.5

8 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 5 4 4.5

9 2 5 4 4 4 3.8 4 3 3.5

10 2 3 5 4 5 3.8 5 4 4.5

11 2 4 2 5 4 3.4 4 4 4

12 2 4 1 4 2 2.6 3 3 3

13 2 3 4 4 4 3.4 2 2 2

14 2 3 3 3 3 2.8 2 2 2

15 2 4 2 2 2 2.4 3 3 3

16 2 4 5 1 5 3.4 1 4 2.5

17 2 3 3 3 1 2.4 1 1 1

18 2 2 3 5 3 3 2 3 2.5

19 2 4 5 4 4 3.8 4 4 4

20 2 4 4 4 5 3.8 4 3 3.5

21 2 4 4 2 2 2.8 4 2 3

22 2 4 2 3 3 2.8 2 3 2.5

23 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 2 3

24 2 4 3 2 3 2.8 3 4 3.5

25 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 2 5 3.5

Respondent

69

26 2 4 4 3 1 2.8 4 2 3

27 2 3 4 4 4 3.4 5 2 3.5

28 2 3 3 4 4 3.2 3 2 2.5

29 2 5 4 4 4 3.8 4 4 4

30 2 3 4 4 2 3 5 4 4.5

31 2 3 4 4 4 3.4 2 3 2.5

32 2 1 2 4 4 2.6 4 5 4.5

33 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 1 4 2.5

34 2 3 5 4 3 3.4 4 1 2.5

35 2 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 3

36 2 3 4 4 5 3.6 4 2 3

37 2 4 4 4 3 3.4 5 3 4

38 2 4 4 3 4 3.4 4 1 2.5

39 2 3 5 4 3 3.4 4 4 4

40 2 2 4 4 4 3.2 4 3 3.5

41 2 3 4 4 4 3.4 4 2 3

42 2 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4

43 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 4 4 4

44 2 3 2 4 3 2.8 4 3 3.5

45 2 4 4 4 4 3.6 4 4 4

46 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3

47 2 2 4 2 3 2.6 3 3 3

48 2 4 4 3 5 3.6 4 4 4

49 2 4 3 4 4 3.4 4 3 3.5

50 2 4 5 4 3 3.6 3 5 4

158.4 160

70

Rb1 Rb2 Rb3 Rb4 Rb5 Reliabilty

2 2 2 2 2 2

1 3 3 3 2 2.4

2 3 3 3 1 2.4

3 3 3 3 2 2.8

3 4 4 4 3 3.6

4 4 4 3 5 4

2 4 4 4 4 3.6

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 5 5 5 3 4.4

3 3 3 3 4 3.2

4 4 4 3 2 3.4

1 4 4 3 5 3.4

2 3 3 3 5 3.2

3 3 3 3 4 3.2

1 4 4 4 1 2.8

1 3 4 3 1 2.4

3 4 3 3 3 3.2

5 4 2 4 2 3.4

5 3 2 4 4 3.6

2 4 4 4 5 3.8

3 4 5 4 4 4

1 4 4 4 5 3.6

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 4 3 3 4 3.8

2 4 2 4 3 3

71

4 4 4 4 4 4

4 3 3 3 4 3.4

3 3 4 3 3 3.2

5 4 4 4 1 3.6

5 4 4 3 1 3.4

4 4 4 3 4 3.8

3 4 1 3 3 2.8

4 4 4 3 1 3.2

2 3 3 3 4 3

2 3 3 3 4 3

1 3 4 3 5 3.2

3 3 4 3 3 3.2

3 3 5 3 4 3.6

4 3 3 4 4 3.6

4 3 3 3 3 3.2

5 3 3 3 4 3.6

3 3 2 3 4 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

2 4 4 3 5 3.6

4 4 3 3 5 3.8

3 3 4 3 3 3.2

4 3 2 4 2 3

4 3 3 3 4 3.4

4 4 5 3 5 4.2

5 3 3 3 4 3.6

168.8

72

q13 q14 q15 q16

2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 2 3 3.25

4 4 4 4 4

3 4 4 4 3.75

4 5 4 5 4.5

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 3 3 3.5

4 4 3 3 3.5

3 3 3 3 3

3 3 4 3 3.25

4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 3 3 3.5

4 4 4 4 4

4 3 3 4 3.5

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 5 4.25

4 4 4 5 4.25

3 4 4 3 3.5

4 4 4 4 4

73

4 4 4 4 4

4 3 3 3 3.25

4 3 4 3 3.5

4 4 4 4 4

4 4 4 5 4.25

4 4 4 3 3.75

3 4 4 3 3.5

4 4 4 4 4

3 3 4 3 3.25

3 3 3 3 3

4 3 4 5 4

3 4 4 4 3.75

3 3 3 3 3

3 4 4 4 3.75

3 3 3 3 3

4 3 3 3 3.25

3 4 3 3 3.25

4 4 4 4 4

5 5 3 3 4

4 4 3 3 3.5

4 4 4 3 3.75

4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4

178.5

74

q17 q18 q19 q20 y1

4 3 3 3 3.25 53

3 3 3 3 3 60.9

3 3 3 2 2.75 54.2

3 3 3 2 2.75 64.4

4 4 4 3 3.75 83.9

4 2 3 4 3.25 85.35

4 4 4 4 4 92.7

4 4 4 5 4.25 94.85

5 4 5 5 4.75 101.2

3 3 3 4 3.25 83.5

4 3 3 5 3.75 85.3

4 3 3 3 3.25 75.5

3 3 3 4 3.25 73.6

3 4 3 5 3.75 73.25

4 4 4 3 3.75 75.2

3 3 3 4 3.25 70.3

4 5 3 2 3.5 68.1

4 4 4 1 3.25 78.9

3 3 4 4 3.5 87.9

4 4 4 3 3.75 91.1

4 4 4 5 4.25 86.8

4 4 4 3 3.75 82.15

5 4 4 4 4.25 89.25

4 4 3 5 4 83.6

4 4 4 3 3.75 85.1

75

4 4 4 3 3.75 84.8

3 3 3 4 3.25 80.55

3 4 3 5 3.75 78.4

4 4 4 5 4.25 93.4

4 4 3 3 3.5 87.15

4 4 3 4 3.75 84.45

4 4 4 3 3.75 78.4

4 4 4 4 4 84.3

3 4 3 5 3.75 77.15

3 3 3 5 3.5 74

4 4 3 2 3.25 82.8

3 4 4 2 3.25 83.35

5 3 4 4 4 80.5

2 3 4 2 2.75 83.75

2 3 3 2 2.5 73.9

3 3 3 1 2.5 77.25

3 3 3 4 3.25 83.25

4 4 4 3 3.75 92.6

4 3 3 5 3.75 83.9

4 3 3 3 3.25 86.9

3 4 3 4 3.5 78.95

5 3 5 5 4.5 80.6

3 3 3 3 3 81

4 3 4 4 3.75 86.1

5 3 3 4 3.75 90.2

178