Evaluating the quality of service at the SETAs to improve the synergies between

SETA, Business and Training Providers: Case Study, Chemical Industries

Education and Training Authority (CHIETA)

Ivy Motsatsi Msomi

Graduate School of Business Leadership, MBL, Program in Maters of Business

Leadership, University of South Africa (UNISA), Midrand, South Africa

imsomi03@gmail.com

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate service quality at Chemical industries education

and training authority (CHIETA) using SERVQUAL, outcome and interactive quality

from hierarchal service quality model (HSQM), image and overall service. A

quantitative method using a questionnaire was employed. There were 42 completed

responses that were evaluated from the potentially 105 organisations from the CHIETA

database.

This study showed the following key outcomes, which were in line with the formulated

hypothesis formulated for the study, namely:

Firstly, this study has shown that the above-mentioned can effectively measure

the service quality and can afford the management of the organization to

complement the staff or the highlighted areas of improvement.

Secondly, the finding showed that outcome quality and service process quality

positively influence the overall service quality at the CHEITA. Findings show

the areas of improvement like the error in the record and friendliness in the areas

of compliment

Thirdly, the image of CHIETA in the industry is at an acceptable level but it can

be improvement, there are pockets of excellence from certain sectors, but there

are also areas of concern in other spheres

Lastly, the overall service at the CHIETA is split between three pockets, only

33% is certain, the other third is indifferent and the last 33% does not agree that

the overall service is simpler, effective and efficient.

Based on the outcomes which can be regarded as the baseline assessment, the

managerial implications and recommendations include establishing the minimum

acceptable levels of service quality at CHIETA, put action plans with target dates for

deficiencies to ensure effective corrective actions and benchmarking for continuous

improvement within world class similar industries with mature service quality agenda.

This study is classified as being successful because of effective use of the service quality

approaches.

Keywords: Service quality, CHIETA, skills development

1. Introduction

The shortage of skilled labour in South Africa is one of the most challenging socio-

economic issues which require urgent attention. The skills development challenges that

South Africa is faced with are very complex and span across numerous industries and

skills levels (Deloitte, 2013). The South African Government continues to be committed

to economic development and productivity improvement in the country, however, the

key enabler for success in this quest is skills availability, and this remains difficult in

light of the already mentioned country’s skills shortage. In fact the above-mentioned

skills challenges, seriously threatens the economic growth prospects, employment

creation and effective global participation of the country (Rogerson, C.M., & Rogerson,

J.M. 2002). To this end, industry specific Sector Education and Training Authorities

(SETAs) were set up by the Government of South Africa as mechanism to attain long

term human capital development in support of long term economic growth.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses

Many researchers have given differing opinions on the issue of service quality

dimension. Having taken into account of all their views, there seems to be some kind of

unanimity that, ultimately, service quality is multi-dimension. On this topic, there seems

to have existed two broad schools of thought on service quality, namely, the European

and the US views of service quality. Brady et al (2001) made a huge attempt to reconcile

these two views. In terms of the European school of thought, consumers judge the

quality of services on two comprehensive aspects (Pollack, 2009). :

Service outcome quality also known as the technical quality

Service process quality also known as the functional quality

Pollack, (2000) explained technical quality as follows: how well the core service meets

the customer’s expectations and functional quality: as the impact of the interaction

process or how the service production and delivery process itself is perceived (Grönroos,

1984). Although the core service is the primary motivating factor for contracting with

the service providers, (e.g. training providers, because they want to get accreditation to

make sure the training they provide is of the highest standard). Research suggests that

both facets influence the perceived service quality and loyalty behaviours (Richard, M.D

& Allaway, A.W, 1993).

In the case of the CHIETA, this process may result in providers registering with other

SETAs and only receive a memorandum of agreement with the CHIETA if the service is

perceived as bad.

On the one end, the US school of thinking, as articulated by Pollack (2009) highlights

that, service quality is underpinned by dimensions, namely: reliability, responsiveness,

assurance, empathy, and tangibles – refer to by Parasuraman et al. (1988).

Parasuraman et al. (1988) explained this dimensions as follows:

Reliability is referred to as the ability to carry out the guaranteed service reliably and

accurately,

Responsiveness is referred to as the preparedness to help customers and deliver

speedy service,

Assurance is referred to as the employees’ understanding and courteousness, their

ability to encourage trust and confidence.

Empathy is referred to as, providing considerate, bespoke attention to customers and,

Tangibles are referred to as the exterior of physical facilities, equipment, personnel,

and written materials.

The most popular measures of the construct to date that measures service quality is the

SERVQUAL instrument. This is despite the criticism surrounding this instrument Buttle

(1996). Most researchers have claimed that SERVQUAL measures only the service

process dimensions (i.e. interaction quality). However, the perceived quality of the

service result is not considered. Analysis the author’s argument, it means the overall

model is questioned on its adequacy, hence the author further suggested that the

dimension importance depends on the service quality (Pollack, 2009).

Authors such as Babakus, E. & Boller, G.W. (1992) indicated that service quality is

intricate and multi-dimensional for certain services. In support of Babakus, E. & Boller,

G.W. (1992), Llosa et al (1998) made similar observations and indicated that the kind of

the service quality dimensions differs by service, and therefore, the question of whether

one can go beyond the two factor model suggested by the European school of thoughts

was raised. In support of the broader two-factor European model, Mels et al (1997) also

confirmed that service quality is a function of two factors, namely, technical and

functional dimensions.

The critique on the European model is that, it does not include the quality of the physical

service surroundings that matches to the tangibles dimension of SERVQUAL. Authors

such as Shostack (1977) indicated that service perceptions “appears to be shaped to a

large extent by the things that the consumer can comprehend with his five senses-

tangible things”. But service cannot be tangible, so reliance must be placed on

peripheral clues as much as possible, management of the physical environment should

be one of a service marketer’s highest priorities. This statement of emphasising the

physical environment was also reiterated by Bitner (1990).

Service quality dimensions, defined by several authors provided a measure of service

quality performance.

Based on the above-mentioned, the following hypothesis was formulated:

(a) Reliability, (b) responsiveness (c) assurance and (d) empathy are regarded as

important dimensions by the customers of the CHIETA on measuring the service quality.

It is hypothesised that four dimensions are important for measuring the service quality.

The fifth dimension, the tangibles, was not evaluated as it was deemed not very relevant

to the case study being evaluated, the above was confirmed through an advice during the

measuring instrument of reliability and validity exercise and these elements are included

in the delimitation of the study.

H1

The service outcome quality and service process quality both positively influence the

overall service quality at the CHIETA

Several authors believe that consumers judge the quality of services on two broad

aspects (Pollack, 2009); namely:

service outcome quality

service process quality

Service outcome quality also known as technical quality, refers to how well the core

service meets customers’ expectations and service process quality also known as

functional quality, refers to the impact of the interaction process or how the service

production and delivery process itself is perceived (Grönroos, 1984). While, the core

service is the primary motivating factor for contracting with the service provider,

research suggests that both facets influence consumers’ service quality evaluations and

loyalty behaviors (Richard, M.D & Allaway, A.W, 1993).

H2

The image and reputation of CHIETA is good in the industry.

In addition to the technical and function quality Kang et al (2004) have found that it is

important also to measure the image of the organisation during the study of the service

quality. Although, at a different level Grönsburg (1990) also brought forward the

importance of the image in the service quality. In this regard, the following hypothesis

was formulated:

H3

The overall perceived service quality as measured by the setting and encounter at the

CHIETA is good, which is effective and efficient.

Considering the overall view of hypothesis 1, 2 and 3, hypothesis 4 can be formulated as

follows:

3. Methodology

This study employed the quantitative method using a survey design. The survey method

entailed the use of questionnaires to ascertain the outcome of the study. This was done in

line with Dooley (1984)’s view that this survey design is the most used design in social

sciences.

This research is trying to ascertain the link between the variables and population. This is

done by looking at the amounts, of one or more variables of concern. A cross-sectional

survey was used to determine the perceived service quality satisfaction levels during the

interaction with CHIETA. According to Shaughnessy. J.J, & Zechmeister. E.B., (1997)

this design is the most ideal for descriptive and predictive functions, which was the

approach of this study. A detailed questionnaire was developed aimed at determining the

effects of service quality at the SETAs, using the CHIETA as a case study , twenty five

questions were used to 7 determine predictor or impact variables.

These questions were based on the foundations of study and literature review. It was

expected that service excellence of organisation would be associated with perceived

service quality. Reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy SERVQUAL was

tested. The tangibility was excluded based on the setting of the CHIETA and the advice

of the questionnaire testing individual.

For any study to be credible, the validity and reliability need to be assessed and

confirmed to ensure its quality. Lee W.T (1999), based on this study, four tests was

suggested to establish the quality of study suggests four tests that need to be conducted

to establish the quality of the study.

The validity of this study was evaluated as it deals with the extent to which the research

conclusions correctly represent what is really happening in the situation (Welman, et al.

2009). The extent to which a particular measure is free from both systematic and

random error indicated the validity of the measure. Construct validity is intended to

establish the correct functioning procedures for the Convergence of data collected which

will also be determined in the process to further strengthen the validity of the (Welman

et al., 2009). If a relationship between the independent and the dependent variables

exists, the question becomes whether the relationship is interpreted as being of a causal

nature or not. The term internal validity describes the degree to which changes in the

dependent variable are indeed due to the independent variable rather than inconclusive

results (Welman et al., 2009).

To ensure the content validity of the instrument, the draft questionnaire was submitted to

a selected individuals and experts to determine significance of each item. Pre-testing of

the questionnaire was done, individuals from different regions wherein administered

questionnaires were distributed to participants to comment on the clarity of the

questions. Evaluation of results was conducted.

In addition to validity, the reliability was also conducted; reliability intended to

demonstrate that the procedures of a study such as data collection process can be

repeated with the same results. This measure ensures free from accidental error

(Diamantopoulos et al, 2000) the findings of the research and relates to the

trustworthiness of the conclusions (Welman et al., 2007). The extent to which a measure

is free from random error indicated the reliability of the measure. The requirement of

generalisation relates to the reliability of the scores obtained (Welman et al., 2009).

4. Results

The 4 of the 5 service quality dimensions (reliability, responsiveness, assurance,

empathy and tangibles), except of the tangibles were evaluated at the CHIETA and their

summary statistics is given in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Summary statistics of service quality dimensions at CHIETA

Variable Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

n 42 42 42 42

Mean 3,05 3,02 3,31 3,12

Standard Deviation 1,06 1,14 0,92 1,15

Minimum 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00

Q1 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00

Median 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00

Q3 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00

Maximum 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00

Skewness 0,16 0,06 -0,09 -0,14

Kurtosis -0,62 -0,92 -0,06 -0,63

Mode 3,00 2,00 3,00 3,00

Reliability

The respondents were requested to rate the reliability of the CHIETA and the results are

given in Figure 4.1 .

Figure 4.1: Findings on the reliability of CHIETA

The summary statistics as given in table 1, this distribution is clear from the mean of

3.05 and a mode of 3.0. The skewness is 0.16 with a kurtosis of -0, 62. The positive

skewness indicate that the larger frequencies are toward the low end of the variables

while the higher frequencies toward the high end. This is commonly known as the

“tale” to the right.

It was clear from these results that about 33% of the respondents believed that the

service at the CHIETA is not reliable, a further 33% is undecided as they could neither

disagree nor agree with the statement. There was only 9.5% who strongly agree with the

reliability service and further 23.8% agree with the service. This means there is a split of

33% across all three sectors, where one believed the service is unreliable, the middle one

is undecided and the last believed the service is reliable.

4.8

28.6

33.3

23.8

9.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Stronglydisagree

disagree neitherdisagree or

agree

Agree Strongly agree

Responsiveness

The summary statistics show similarity to those of the reliability, although the mode

dropped from 3 to 2, and kurtosis is more negative at -0.92 (table 1). Figure 4.2 give the

pictorial findings of the perceived service quality at the CHIETA.

Figure4.2: Finding on responsiveness of CHIETA

Almost 40% of the respondents are of the view that the CHIETA is not responsive, with

further 24% undecided about this service quality at the CHIETA. About 38% of the

respondents are satisfied with the CHIETA’s responsiveness.

Assurance

Of all the four dimensions evaluated the assurance has the highest mean at 3.31

compared to the other three and the lowest standard deviation at 0.92 (table 1). Its

skewness and kurtosis are close to 0, at -0.09 and -0.06, respectively. This flat kurtosis

value indicates platykurtic distribution which is flatter than a normal distribution with a

wide peak, the probability of extreme values is less than that of the normal distributions

and the values are wider spread around the mean.

7.1

31.0

23.8

28.6

9.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neitherdisagree or

agree

Agree Strongly agree

Figure 4.3: Findings on assurance at CHIETA

The graph in figure 4.3 shows a more bias toward right, in line with the mean scored.

This means more respondents are more satisfied with the assurance at the CHIETA with

only less than 20% with outright not satisfied. At the same time there is more than 40%

respondents who are agree or strongly agree that the assurance at the CHIETA is good.

Empathy

The data in table 4.1 shows that the factor for empathy is negatively skewed, with value

of -0.14. Although, marginally small, this generally implies that the larger frequencies

are toward the high end of the variables while the smaller frequencies toward the lower

end. This is commonly known as the “tale” to the left. Kurtosis value of -0.63, which is

similar to the value of -0.62 from the reliability dimension was found.

2.4

14.3

42.9

31.0

9.5

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neitherdisagree or

agree

Agree Stronglyagree

Figure 4.4: Findings on empathy at CHIETA

Figure 4.4 shows a fairly normal distribution with high similarity with the three sectors

found in the reliability dimension. The marginal difference is that there is 38% on the

high side as opposed to 29% on the low side.

Table 4.2: Summary statistics of interactive quality at CHIETA

It can be seen in Table 4.2 that the means scores are generally high with the highest

score at 4.17 out of a possible score of 5, and the lowest score being 3.50. The highest

score at 4.17 is that the employees at the CHIETA are friendly and lowest even though it

is still higher than the service dimension at 3.5 is that the CHIETA employees respond

quickly to our organisational needs. The data in this table shows that virtually all the

factors are negatively skewed. This generally implies that the larger frequencies are

toward the high end of the variables while the smaller frequencies toward the lower end.

This is commonly known as the “tale” to the left.

9.5

19.0

33.3

26.2

11.9

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neitherdisagree or

agree

Agree Stronglyagree

Variable

Overall, the

quality of

interactions

with CHIETA is

excellent:

The quality of my

organisation's

interactions with

the employees at

CHIETA is

excellent:

Employees of

CHIETA are

friendly:

CHIETA

employees’

attitudes

demonstrate

their

willingness

to help:

CHIETA

employees’

attitudes show that

they understand

our organisational

needs:

CHIETA

takes actions

to address

our

organisation

al needs:

CHIETA

employees

respond

quickly to

our

organisation

al needs:

The behavior

of the

employees

indicates

that they

understand

our

CHIETA

employees

know their

jobs:

CHIETA

employees

are able to

answer

questions

quickly:

CHIETA

employees

understand

that our

organisation

relies on their

knowledge to

n 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

Mean 4,17 4,07 4,31 4,07 3,69 3,62 3,50 3,67 3,93 3,88 3,79

Standard

Deviation 1,27 1,28 0,87 1,26 1,41 1,51 1,37 1,28 1,11 1,23 1,30

Minimum 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00

Q1 3,25 3,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00

Median 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00

Q3 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00

Maximum 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00

Skewness -1,16 -1,10 -0,90 -1,30 -0,58 -0,64 -0,27 -0,28 -0,52 -0,66 -0,49

Kurtosis -0,24 -0,10 -0,40 1,20 -0,83 -0,88 -1,29 -1,39 -1,15 -0,91 -1,29

Mode 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00

Quality Outcome.

Table 4.3: Summary statistics of outcome quality at CHIETA

Summing up, it is clear in this study that the SERVQUAL gives a view of service

quality at the CHIETA, at the same time the interactive quality and outcome quality give

more detail of the areas of complement and areas of improvements required. For

example the errors in the records, is a big area of improvement and the service with a

“smile” that is being friendly is an area of big complement which will make people to

want come back again. Although, not very obvious some of the mentioned shortcoming

of SERVQUAL mentioned by Buttler (1996) and discussed in chapter 3 are partly

showing in these findings.

Variable

Our

organisation

always has

an excellent

experience:

The waiting

time for

service or

enquiry is

predictable

and

reasonable:

CHIETA's

records are

error free

and up to

date:

CHIETA

understands

the impact

that time

delays has on

our

organisation:

CHIETA

provides

superior

service:

CHIETA's core

service meets

the

customer's

expectations:

The delivery

process of

the service

by CHIETA is

excellent:

n 42 42 42 42 42 42 42

Mean 3,45 3,31 2,81 3,26 3,21 3,52 3,31

Standard

Deviation 1,29 1,46 1,27 1,36 1,30 1,44 1,44

Minimum 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00

Q1 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 2,00

Median 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 4,00 3,00

Q3 5,00 5,00 3,00 5,00 4,75 5,00 5,00

Maximum 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00

Skewness 0,00 -0,22 0,45 0,11 0,14 -0,39 -0,16

Kurtosis -1,50 -1,04 -0,69 -1,36 -1,15 -1,00 -1,08

Mode 5,00 5,00 2,00 5,00 3,00 5,00 5,00

REFERENCING

1. Babakus, E. & Boller, G.W. 1992, “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL

scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 24, pp. 253-68.

2. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical

surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54, 69-82.

3. Brady, M. & Robertson, C. (2001), “Searching for consensus on the antecedent

role of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross-national study”,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 53-60.

4. Buttle & Francis (1996). Review, Critique, Research Agenda [Electronic Version].

European Journal of Marketing; 1996; Vol. 30; No.l; pg. 8 – 32

5. Deloitte. 2013. Skills development – developing people for the future of business.

6. Department of Higher Education & Training, Republic of South African, 2011,

Framework for National Skills Development Strategy 2011/12 – 2015/16, pg11-

12, Pretoria

7. Department of Labour, Republic of South African, 2005, National Skills

Development Strategy 1 April 2005 – 31 march 2010, pg4-16, Pretoria

8. Diamantopoulos A, & Siguaw J., Introducing LISREL (SAGE, London, 2000)

9. Dooley, D. 1984 Social Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

10. Grönroos, C., 1984, “A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications”,

European Journal of Marketing, volume 18, NC 4, pg38-40, Swedish School of

Economics, Finland

11. Kang, Gi-Du; & James, Jeffrey, 2004. Service Quality Dimensions: An

Examinationof Gronroos's Service Quality Models. Managing Service Quality;

pg. 266.

12. Kang; Gi-Du; James, Jeffrey; & Alexandris, Kostas (2004). Measurement of

Internal Service Quality: Application of the SERVQUAL Battery to Internal

Service Quality Managing Service Quality; 2002; Vol. 12, 5; pg. 278 - 291.

13. Lee, M.C. & Hwan, I.S. (2005). “Relationships among Service Quality, Customer

Satisfaction and Profitability in the Taiwanese Banking Industry”. International

Journal of Management; pg. 635.

14. Llosa, S., Chandon, J. & Orsingher, C., 1998, “An empirical study of ServQual

Dimensionality”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 16-44.

15. M.K. Brady & C.J. Robertson., 2001, Searching for a consensus on the

antecedent role of service quality and customer satisfaction: An Explanatory

Cross-national Study, journal of business Research volume 51 (1) pg53-60

16. Mels, G., Boshoff, C., & Nel, D., 1997. “The dimensions of service quality”: The

original European perspective revisited. Service Industries Journal, 17, 173-189.

17. Parasuraman, A., 2010, “Service Production, Quality and Innovation”, Emerald,

International Journal of Quality and Service Science Volume 2 No.3, pg277-284,

from www.emeraldinsight.com/1756-669X.htm

18. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L.L., 1988, ‘’SERVEQUAL: a

multiple item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality

“Journal of retailing, Vol. 64. No 1, pg.12-37

19. Parasuraman, A., Valerie A., Zeithaml A.V. & Berry, L.L., 1985, “A conceptual

model of service quality and its implications for future research”, Journal for

Marketing vol.49, pg45-46

20. Pollack, B. L., 2009. “Linking the hierarchical service quality model to customer

satisfaction and loyalty”. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(1), 42-50.

21. Port, J., “Understanding Variation” Analysing Cause to Implement Corrective

Action pg64, viewed: 1 August 2013 from www.qualityprogress.com

22. Rogerson, C.M., & Rogerson, J.M. 2002. Dealing in scarce skills: Employer

responses to the brain drain. In D.A. McDonald and J Crush (Ed.), Losing our

minds: skills migration and the South African brain drain. African century

publications no 5. Pretoria: Africa Institute of South Africa and Southern African

Migration Project.

23. Richard, M.D & Allaway, A.W, 1993, “Service Quality Attributes and Choices

Behavior” Journal of Services Marketing Vol 7. No1pg59-68.

24. Shostack, L.G. 1977, “Breaking free form product marketing”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 41, April, pp. 73-80

25. Welman, K & Mitchell (2007) Research Methodology 3rd Ed., Oxford University

Press, Cape Town

About the Author

Ivy Motsatsi Msomi is an MBL student at the University of South Africa (UNISA),

Midrand, South Africa. Her research interests include investigation of the service

quality at Chemical Industries Education and Training Authority (CHIETA) using

SERVQUAL, outcome and interactive quality from hierarchal service quality model

(HSQM), image and overall services. She received an Honours Degree in Educational

Leadership and Management from the University of Johannesburg, Auckland Park,

South Africa. She is experienced in the service quality arena, as she worked as the

Safety Health and Environmental Rep at Sasol Synfuels, and Quality Management

Systems Specialist/Manager at the Chemical Industries and Education Authority.