International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

The Impact of Quality Public Service Delivery

on Customer Satisfaction in Bahir Dar City
Administration: The Case of Ginbot 20 Sub-city

Besfat Dejen Engdawhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9070-7629

To cite this article: Besfat Dejen Engdawhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9070-7629 (2019):

The Impact of Quality Public Service Delivery on Customer Satisfaction in Bahir Dar City
Administration: The Case of Ginbot 20 Sub-city, International Journal of Public Administration, DOI:
10.1080/01900692.2019.1644520

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1644520

Published online: 31 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1644520

The Impact of Quality Public Service Delivery on Customer Satisfaction in Bahir

Dar City Administration: The Case of Ginbot 20 Sub-city
Besfat Dejen Engdaw
Governance and Development studies, Bahir Dar University, School of Law, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study is conducted with the general objective of assessing the impact of quality public SERVQUAL; quality public
service delivery on customer satisfaction in Ginbot20 sub-city. To conduct the study correlational service delivery; customer
research design, and quantitative research approach have been employed. A total of 88 samples satisfaction; customer
service provider; Ginbot20
both from customers (68) and service providers (20) were selected using simple random sampling
sub-city
and systematic random sampling techniques respectively. Data were collected using question-
naires. Based on the data collected, the study comes up with certain findings. Among the major
findings, the perception of customers and service providers on quality service delivery and
customer satisfaction is different, responsiveness, tangibility, assurance, and reliability have posi-
tively associated with customer satisfaction. However, empathy has negatively associated with
customer satisfaction. Generally, the likelihood of customers gets satisfied when there is quality
service delivery is 0.84 (84%) while get satisfied with the probability value of 0.038948(3.8948%) in
the absence of quality service delivery.

Introduction services need to be delivered with integrity, centered

Public service delivery is a service which is provided by
the government to people living within its jurisdiction,
either directly through the public sector or by the
financial provision of service. (Wikipedia, 2018)
There have been many problems that can be cited in
public service delivery process. Among these problems
inefficiency, ineffectiveness, unresponsiveness, inacces-
sibility, and unreliability are some of them. As a result
of this, countries around the world have been striving
to promote quality public service delivery, however,
there is no single way out or solutions. Improving
public service delivery requires making policy makers,
public servants and service providers accountable to
citizens and promoting citizens’ engagement and trust
in public institutions. The inter-connections between
institutions, service delivery, and citizens’ trust as well
as engagement plays a great role in the provision
of quality public service. (http://www.worldbank.org).
“It is not enough for the public service to be efficient
and fair; it should also be seen as such. The image of
the public service in the eyes of the public matters
a great deal. Citizens need to feel confident in the
government that provides public services on their
behalf” (McCourt, 2007). Moreover, quality public
around citizens and responsible to their needs, particu-
larly the need of the most vulnerable, promoting
greater transparency and enabling ordinary citizens to
access the quality, adequacy and effectiveness of basic
service to voice their needs and preferences (Ringgold,
Alaka, Koziol, & Srinvasan, 2012).
There have been different mechanisms that are used to
measure quality service delivery. Among these,
SERVQUAL, which is developed by Zeithaml,
Parasuraman and Bery in the 1980s, is the prominent
and widely used instruments to measure quality service
delivery. Originally it was set to measure 10 aspects of
service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence,
access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security,
understanding or knowing the customer and tangibles.
However, by the early 1990s, the authors had refined the
model with five dimensions: reliability, assurance, tangi-
bles, empathy, and responsiveness (Van der Wal,
Pampallis, & Bond, 2002, p. 325). These instruments are
applied in the study to measure quality service delivery.
There have been many scientific findings supporting
quality service delivery has a greater effect the customer
satisfaction. The status of customer satisfaction tends to
be high as long as the quality service delivery is main-
tained. Customer satisfaction varies in degree

CONTACT Besfat Dejen Engdaw besfloved@gmail.com Governance and Development studies, Bahir Dar University School of Law, Kebele 16, Tana
Sub-City, Bahir Dar 1709, Ethiopia.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lpad.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. D. ENGDAW
depending on service quality provided by the govern-
ment and the expectation or perception of customers
on a particular service. Customers derived satisfaction
from a service when the service is owed complying with
reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and respon-
siveness. Customer satisfaction is all about how the
goods and services provided by the government are
aligned with customers’ expectations.
Like other countries in the world, Ethiopia has also
adopted service delivery policy in 2001 with the main
objectives of; ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of
service delivery; equity in access to government ser-
vices; and ensuring accountability for failure to provide
services. Article 6 of the policy paper provides the
following instruments and direction for public service
delivery; Formation of mission statement, promoting
positive attitude towards serving the public, defining
eligibility, facilitating easy access, establishing
a complaints handling mechanism, providing adequate
information, consulting with service users, setting up
service standards, providing cost-effective services, and
promoting transparency (Bekele, 2009).
In 2001, the government has also enacted the direc-
tive on “complaints handling on public service delivery”
with the main objectives of providing quick responses to
customer complaints and collecting feedback. Therefore,
the entire gist of the policy and directive is all about
enhancing public service delivery to improve customer
satisfaction. Besides, different reforms, like BPR, BSC,
citizens charter, and deliverology, have been introduced
to enhance the performance of public sectors which in
turn enhances the quality service delivery and at last
improving customer satisfaction (Bekele, 2009).
However, there have been many research findings indi-
cating the poor quality of service delivery which in turn
reduced the satisfaction of customers. Among these, the
inconvenience of service location, unpleasant setting
appearances, incompetent professional employees, unre-
liable and unclear information, untrustworthy of com-
pliant system, unfriendly and uncooperative employees,
inability to align services with customer’s needs, less
responsiveness, and inefficient and ineffective service
delivery process are some of the challenges of quality
service delivery in Ethiopia. A study conducted in 2017
by the Amhara National regional state civil service
bureau confirmed that the status of public service deliv-
ery has been rated at lower state. It farther assured that
there have been a number of challenges that could affect
the implementation of service delivery policy reforms
which in turn contributed to undermining the level of
customer satisfaction (Wondimagegn, 2012).
This study is conducted with the main objective of
assessing the impact of quality public service delivery
on customer satisfaction in the Ginbot20 sub-city. The
study specifically aspires to identify the major chal-
lenges of public service delivery, to assess the impact
of the quality of public service delivery on customer
satisfaction in the study area.
The hypothesis of the study
(1) Ho: Tangibles doesn’t positively affect custo-
mer satisfaction
(2) Ho: Empathy doesn’t positively affect customer
satisfaction
(3) Ho: Reliability doesn’t positively affect custo-
mer satisfaction
(4) Ho: Responsiveness doesn’t positively affect
customer satisfaction
(5) Ho: Assurance doesn’t positively affect custo-
mer satisfaction
(6) Ho: The perception of customers and service pro-
viders is not different in quality service delivery.
Literature review
Public service delivery
Public service delivery means delivering services consis-
tent with citizen preference and whether they were doing
it right providing service of a given quality at the lowest
cost to citizens. The current reform agenda in public
Administration can be associated to worldwide trends
such as social, political and economic changes in indus-
trialized countries, which underwent and rightward
shifted during the 1970s and in the early in 1980s as
political leaders recognized the unsustainable nature of
the compressive centralized system of public service
delivery (Denhardt & Grubbs, 2003, p. 334).
According to Gaster and Squires (2003, p. 8) Public
services is a term usually employed to mean services
provided by the government to the citizens, either
directly (through the public sector) or indirectly by
financing the private provision of the services, and it
is associated with a social consensus (usually expressed
through democratic elections) that certain services
should be available to all, regardless of their income
Public service delivery is the most important element
of NPM driven PSRs. Kiragu (2002, p. 6) stated that
among the factors that caused the failure of the first
and second generation of reforms in developing countries
was the lack of emphasis on public service delivery. Batley
(2004, p. 53) also stated that the major failure of the first
generation reform of the 1980s and 1990s was a mere
focus on reforms in the organization rather than on public

service delivery, due to the pressure of crisis and structural
adjustments. The third generation reforms emphasized
on public service delivery based on the lessons learned
from the previous reforms. PSRs that fail to emphasize on
public service delivery is unlikely to be successful. Despite
reforms have been introduced, providing quality public
service become a bottleneck issue. This might probably
because of the dynamism and subjectivity of customers’
needs and expectation. Service quality involves determin-
ing whether perceived service delivery meets, exceeds or
fails to meet customer expectations varies from person to
person. According to Agyapong (2011), quality service is
all about customers’ perceptions of how services best meet
or exceed customers’ expectations. Generally, quality ser-
vice is the extent of the discrepancies between the norma-
tive expectation of customers on the service provided and
the perception of the actual performance of services given
(Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990). Hence, service
quality is determined with customers’ evaluations of ser-
vices available to them (Eshghi, Roy, & Ganguli, 2008).
From those definitions, we can say that quality public
service delivery is the degree by which customers’ percep-
tion of public service delivery either meets or exceeds
their anticipations.
Measuring public service delivery
Measuring service quality and customer satisfaction is
a central issue to evaluate PSDRs implementation. It is
the best instrument to check whether the reform pro-
gram has been successful or not. However, it is not an
easy task. The challenge arises from the absence of
a universal definition of quality services and measure-
ment indicators. Gaster and Squires (2003, p. 3)
explained the challenges as “differences of definition
and identification of need, conflicts of interests, con-
straints of finance, arguments about policy, and legal
requirements must necessarily be taken into account in
decisions about the extent, nature, and focus of services
to and for the public. Therefore any discussion of quality
and its improvements must be within this context.”
Chakrapani (1998, p. 4) indicated the difficulties of
defining quality and suggested to avoid getting into an
academic definition of quality by accepting some opera-
tional definitions. He stated that “a product or service has
quality if customer’s enjoyment exceeds their perceived
value for expectation. In a competitive market, the pro-
duct or service with the highest quality is the one that
provides the greatest enjoyment”. This definition focuses
on customer satisfaction to measure service quality.
Leisen and Vance (2001, pp. 308, 309) identified two
schools of thought on service quality from a theoretical
perspective. The first school of thought is, the European
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
school of thought which maintains that consumers
judge the quality of services on two broad aspects:
(1) The service delivery process – the way the
services are performed; and
(2) The service outcome – the end-result of the
service.
The second one, the US school of thought on service
quality, identifies five service quality dimensions, which
in general correspond most closely to the European
process component of the service. These five dimen-
sions of services quality are reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, empathy, and tangibles.
The above-mentioned schools of thought, in general,
agreed with the idea that the quality of services should
be measured or judged by the customers. However,
they differ in the techniques or methods of how custo-
mer satisfaction is measured in relation to service qual-
ity. The European school of thought includes both the
process and outcome of the services to measure quality,
while the US school of thought focuses on the process
aspects of the services.
Besides these, there have been also a number of
theories that try to theorize the relationship between
quality service and customer satisfaction. Among these,
the expectation disconfirmation paradigm and the per-
formance paradigm are notable ones. The expectation
disconfirmation perspective argues that service quality
should be measured based on the extent by which
service provision meets customers’ expectations. On
the other hand, the performance perspective under-
states the importance of customers’ expectations in
evaluating the quality of service. It rather gives due
attention to performances. These two debates lead to
the emergence of two theories called SERVQUAL
(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985; Zeithaml
et al., 1988) and SEVPERF (Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
These are the two prominent measures of service qual-
ity and customer satisfaction. Suresuchandar et al.
(2002, p. 363) stated that the SERVQUAL instrument
is the most popular and widely used instrument to
measure service quality. Leisen and Vance (2001,
p. 309) also indicated that SERVQUAL has been
applied both in its original and slightly modified form
in a number of international service settings. Based on
the fact that performance in public sectors as compared
with the private sector is fragile and pathetic. However,
customers’ perception and expectation are very power-
ful to measure service quality in the public sector.
Therefore, as this paper examines quality public service
delivery, the SERVQUAL model is adopted. Brysland
and Curry (2001), have argued that deferent literature
4 B. D. ENGDAW
has supported the use of SERVQUAL model in the
public sector. SERVQUAL was developed in the
mid1980s by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Bery.
Originally it was set to measure 10 aspects of service
quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access,
courtesy, communication, credibility, security, under-
standing or knowing the customer and tangibles.
However, by the early 1990s, the authors had refined
the model with five dimensions: reliability, assurance,
tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness (Zeithaml et al.,
1988). Van der Wal et al. (2002, p. 325) elaborated
these five dimensions as follows:
Tangibles
Tangibles involve the company’s or service provider’s
physical facilities, materials, equipment, dresses of their
employees, decor and communication materials.
Different empirical research support that tangible is
positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Empirical research findings of Abdel Fattah Mahmoud
(2015), Ramon Tumiwa, Nova Mamuaya, and Freddy
Kawatu (2018), Hussein (2016), Suleiman (2011), Iqbal
et al. (2010), Jamal and Anastasiadou (2009) and Safiek,
Yaleakho, and Ibrahim (2011) show that tangibles has
positively associated with customers satisfaction.
Therefore, the paper develops the hypothesis in the
following way;
Ho: Tangibles doesn’t affect customer satisfaction
positively
H1: Tangibles does affect customer satisfaction
positively
Reliability
Reliability involves the ability of the service providers
to perform the service accurately and dependable, as
promised. It depends on the ability of service providers
in handling customer service issues, executing service
for the first time, and provides services on time.
Moreover, reliability consists of the right order fulfill-
ment accurate
records; accurate quote; right in the bill; Results are
more accurate than commissions; keep the promise of
service. Empirical research findings of Abdel Fattah
Mahmoud (2015), Ramon Tumiwa et al. (2018),
Hussein (2016), Suleiman (2011), Iqbal et al. (2010),
Jamal and Anastasiadou (2009) and Safiek et al. (2011)
show that reliability has positively associated with cus-
tomers satisfaction. Therefore, the paper develops the
hypothesis in the following way;
Ho: Reliability doesn’t affect customer satisfaction
positively
H1: Reliability does affect customer satisfaction
positively
Assurance
Assurance is all about the knowledge and courtesy of the
company’s employees and their ability to inspire trust
and confidence in the customer towards the service
company. Trust is very important in quality service
delivery. Employees should treat customers in a way
that customers can trust them. Feeling safe and trust
are important things that customers looking everywhere.
Customers should not feel puzzled and scared in the
service provision process. Empirical research findings
of Abdel Fattah Mahmoud (2015), Ramon Tumiwa
et al. (2018), Hussein (2016), Suleiman (2011), Iqbal
et al. (2010), Jamal and Anastasiadou (2009) and Safiek
et al. (2011) show that reliability has positively associated
with customers satisfaction. Therefore, the paper devel-
ops the hypothesis in the following way;
Ho: Assurance doesn’t affect customer satisfaction
positively
H1: Assurance does affect customer satisfaction
positively
Responsiveness
Responsiveness involves the willingness of the employ-
ees to help customers and to provide the requested
service promptly. It is the extent to which employees
are prompted to provide the required services.
Employees should always present themselves for custo-
mers and show at most of their willingness the help
them in time.
Empirical research findings of Abdel Fattah
Mahmoud (2015), Ramon Tumiwa et al. (2018),
Hussein (2016), Suleiman (2011), Iqbal et al. (2010)
Jamal and Anastasiadou (2009) and Safiek et al.
(2011) show that reliability has positively associated
with customers satisfaction. Therefore, the paper devel-
ops the hypothesis in the following way;
Ho: Responsiveness doesn’t affect customer satisfac-
tion positively
H1: Responsiveness does affect customer satisfaction
positively

Empathy
Empathy refers to the ability of the service provider to
provide a caring and personalized attention to each cus-
tomer satisfaction. Employees should treat customers
equally. Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2001) suggest
that empathy contains approachability, sensitivity, and
efforts to understand customer needs. Besides, Johnston
(1997) defined empathy as the ability to make customers
feel welcome, especially by staff contact. Despite some
empirical findings do not support that empathy has posi-
tively associated with customer satisfaction many empiri-
cal findings confirmed that empathy has positively
associated with customer satisfaction. Research findings
of Abdel Fattah Mahmoud (2015), Jamal and
Anastasiadou (2009), and Safiek et al. (2011) supported
that empathy has positively associated with customer
satisfaction. Therefore, the paper develops the hypothesis
in the following way;
Ho: Empathy doesn’t affect customer satisfaction
positively
H1: Empathy does affect customer satisfaction
positively
Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is a judgment by the customer on
post service delivery. The most popular view of customer
satisfaction in academia is that customer satisfaction is
the judgment borne out of the comparison of pre-service
provision expectations with post-service provision eva-
luation of the product or service experience (Oliver,
1997). Customer satisfaction can be borne out of any
dimension (whether or not it is quality related) and its
judgments may arise from non-quality issues (e.g. needs,
equity and perception of ‘fairness’) and require experi-
ence with the service or provider (Howard & Sheth,
1969; Taylor & Baker, 1994). Strong linkages have been
apparent between service quality dimensions (e.g. speedy
responses to inquiries) and overall customer satisfaction
(Anderson & Sullivan, 1993). Customer satisfaction is
the outcome of purchase and use resulting from the
comparison of the rewards and costs vis-à-vis customers’
expectations and actual performance of the product pur-
chased in relation to the expected consequences
(Anderson, Fornell & Lehmann, 1994). Customer satis-
faction is a measure of the extent that the existing service
provider is fulfilling the general expectations of
a customer and how far and/or close does the existing
service provider come to the customer’s ideal service in
its mind (Beerli, Martin, & Quintana, 2004). Customer
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5
satisfaction can also be viewed as the future intentions of
customers towards the service provider, which is more
or less related to the attitude (Levesque & McDougall,
1996). Recently, there has been a keen interest, especially
in banking, where banks are looking at the lifetime value
of the customer base rather than focusing on the cost of
transactions. Customers perceive services in terms of the
quality of the service and how satisfied they are overall
with their experiences (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003).
Satisfaction is the consumer’s fulfillment response.
Customer satisfaction is influenced by price, product qual-
ity; service quality and brand image (Wirtz & Chew, 2002).
Customer Satisfaction is concerned with Satisfying
customers and needs and interests is the ultimate goal
of PSDRs (Public service delivery reforms). Unless cus-
tomers are satisfied on provisions of services, it is
impossible to say PSDR are successfully implemented.
The indicators are presented as follows:
A. Accessibility of services
Predetermined service standards are essential for
customers to know about the services they are going
to be provided, so that they will be able to complain if
services are not rendered according to the standards. In
addition to this, other information such as office indi-
cators and information desk should be provided to
make services easily accessible to customers. The public
service institutions should serve citizens without dis-
crimination at affordable fees.
B. Customers assessment towards the organiza-
tional setup
The organizational factors have a direct impact on
customer satisfaction. The organizational factors iden-
tified for this study are assessed by customers based on
the measurement indicators.
C. Customers assessment towards staff willingness
and capacity to deliver services
Employees who are going to provide services are the
central element to satisfy customers. The willingness of
employees to help customers and their readiness to respond
to customers’ request are essential to the successful imple-
mentation of reforms. The quick service provision, will-
ingness to help customers, service provision as promised,
honesty, knowledge, and skill of the staff are the indicators.
Most of the time, it is difficult to determine the percep-
tion and expectation of customers with respect to the
services available to them. Hence, the perception and
expectation of customers may vary from the perception
6 B. D. ENGDAW
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for quality service delivery and
customer satisfaction.
and expectation of service providers. Service providers
may think that they are doing well in making customers
satisfied but customers may not be satisfied. Therefore,
this paper examined the perception of customers’ expec-
tations and service providers’ expectations. The following
hypothesis is developed accordingly
Ho: The perception of customers and service provi-
ders is not different in quality service delivery.
H1: The perception of customers and service provi-
ders is different in quality service delivery.
Materials and methods
The study employed correlation research design because
the study measures the relation between quality public
service delivery and customer satisfaction. Hence, correla-
tional research design is helpful in measuring the relation-
ship between thus variables. Both systematic and simple
random sampling techniques have been used in the study.
Systematic random sampling was employed to draw sam-
ples from Ginbot20 sub-city employees and simple random
sampling techniques were also employed to draw samples
from customers in Ginbot20 sub-city. Using these two
sampling techniques a total of 88 (eighty-eight) samples
were taken. 20(twenty) samples were taken from Ginbot 20
sub-city government employees and the rest 68 (sixty-
eight) samples were taken from customers of Ginbot 20
sub-city.
The sample size has been determined using the fol-
lowing formula
z2 :N:p:ð1  pÞ
n¼
ðN  1Þ:ðeÞ þ Z 2 :p:ð1  pÞ
e = the level of error, 0.1
p = sample proportion 0.5
Z = z value for 90% Confidence level, 1.645
The study henceforth distributed a questionnaire to the
respondents. A total of 22 questions were prepared to
measure quality public service delivery and 5 questions
were also prepared to measure customer satisfaction. The
questionnaires were distributed for employees and custo-
mers. The study was intended to use standardized ques-
tions for five indicators (tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, empathy, and assurance) in quality ser-
vice delivery. The Cronbach alphas for tangibles, reliabil-
ity, empathy, responsiveness, and assurance are 0.66, 0.8,
0.81, 0.82, and 0.79 respectively. The Cronbach alpha for
customer satisfaction questions is 0.74. This shows that
there is high inter-item consistency among each question
as the values are closer and greater than 0.70.
Having distributed the questionnaire, data were
collected, interpreted and analyzed. Hence, inferential
statistics were used to analyze the collected data.
Among the inferential statistics t-test (to analyze the
whether there is a difference in perception between
customers and service providers on customer satisfac-
tion), chi-square test (to check the goodness of test of
the model which is developed to trace out the impact
of service delivery on customer satisfaction) and bin-
ary logistic regression (since our dependent and inde-
pendent variable are converted into dichotomous
variables the study has to use binary logistic regres-
sion, this model is used to know how likely quality
public service delivery affect customer satisfaction)
are the prominent one. All conditions that are neces-
sary for t-test (i.e. normality test, Levene’s test) and
binary logistic regression (i.e dependent variable set
dichotomous, the goodness of test) were fulfilled
before tests were run.
Model specification
A logistic regression particularly binary logistic
regression has been used to predict the effect of
quality service delivery on customer satisfaction in
Ginbot20 kebele. In binary logistic regression the
probability that one variable expressed as a result of
the prevalence of other variables has been identified.
In doing so, the odds ratio and the probabilities
based on odds have been used. The odds ratio
explains the likelihood that the dependent variable
will be expressed in a case where the independent
variable exists. Whereas the probabilities for the
dependent variables to happen following the occur-
rence of the independent variable is computed using
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7

either the odds or the coefficients of the binary logis- groups are not similar for the following variables; relia-
tic regression model for the variables. The binary bility (.53666, .93857, f = 7.066, p < .05), Empathy
logistic regression model used in the research is (.51363, 1.1375, f = 14.664, p < .05), Responsiveness
modeled by (.77724, 1.101, f = 6.5, p < .05). Therefore, instead of

 equal variance assumed, the researcher used Levene’s
p
ln ¼ b0 þ bi ðxÞ equal variances not assumed test. However, for the
1p
variables of tangibles (1.03682, .87525 f = 1.042,
Where: Ln = the natural logarithm p > .05), Assurance (.80541, 1.02963, f = 1.318,
P = the short form of p(y = 1)- the probability that the p > .05), and customer satisfaction (.17502, .18466,
dependent variable exists f = 0.532, p > .05) the researcher used Levene’s equal
p
ð1pÞ = the odds for p(y = 1) variance assumed instead of equal variances not
h i assumed. Moreover, looking at the t-test, the study
p
ln ð1pÞ = natural logarithm of the odds for p(y = 1) rejecting the null hypothesis that assumed there is no
Based on this model the researcher computes the prob- statistically significant mean difference different mean
ability that y = 1, meaning the dependent variable between the two groups. It finds out that there is
designated as y will happen as a result of x = 1, mean- a statistically significant mean difference between the
ing the independent variable is occurring. The reason perceptions of service providers and customers on cus-
why I assign X = 1 for the independent or Y = 1 for the tomer satisfaction. Therefore, table 2 indicated that the
dependent variable is because of the data coding pro- perception of service providers and customers is statis-
cess in the Likert scale as the responses (1 = strongly tically different (t = 4.155, p < .05, t = 9.375, p < .05,
disagree to 4 strongly agree) are categorized into two: 0 t = 4.456, p < .05, t = 8.103, p < .05, t = 5.369, p < .05,
for the values ‘strongly disagree and disagree’ in either t = 7.086, p < .05, t = 8.232, p < .05) on tangibles,
case the variable doesn’t exist and 1 for the values/ reliability, empathy, responsiveness, assurance and cus-
responses of ‘agree or strongly agree’ in either case tomer satisfaction respectively.
the variable exists.
Regression analysis
The fit-goodness test of the model is given in the Table 3
Results and discussion
using Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi-square. The researcher pre-
T-test results and interpretation fers Hosmer-Lemeshow Chi-square than Pearson chi-
square test because the later is not precise and suitable to
In the study the researcher aimed at measuring whether
a few observations for each predictor. As shown in the
there is a statistically significant difference between
Table 3, the model’s suitability is determined using the
perceptions of customers and service providers on cus-
difference between the observed and expected values of
tomer satisfaction. Hence, the researcher first checked
the model. Therefore, it was assumed that the model was
the standard deviations for the two groups. The table 1
in agreement with the assumption as p > .05, which is
indicated that the standard deviations for the two
statistically significant and that the null hypothesis was
accepted.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics. In the table 4, a binary logistic regression was performed
Std. Std. Error and a total of 5 variables are treated in the model. The
Variables respondents N Mean Deviation Mean
Tangibles Service 20 3.3500 1.03682 .23184
model which is developed in the study fits well (LR X2
providers 54.410, which is significant at p < .05) and the Pseudo R2
Customers 68 2.2904 .87525 .10614 also confirmed that the independent variables (tangibles,
Reliability Service 20 3.8800 .53666 .12000
providers responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and reliability)
Customers 68 2.3294 .93857 .11382 explained the dependent variable (customer satisfaction)
Empathy Service 20 4.1750 .51363 .11485
providers by 47.65% in the model. Therefore, the model is suitable.
Customers 68 2.7206 1.13750 .13794 The table 4 also showed how much each independent
Responsiveness Service 20 3.6900 .77724 .17380
providers variables explain the dependent variable. As a result of
Customers 68 2.5132 1.10100 .13352 this, one unit changes intangibles would increase 1.54
Assurance Service 20 3.9500 .80541 .18010
providers unit of change in the dependent variable which is signifi-
Customers 68 2.3971 1.02963 .12486 cant at P < .05. At the same time, one unit of change in
Customer Service 20 1.7300 .17502 .03914
satisfaction providers responsiveness, assurance, and reliability would lead to an
Customers 68 1.3588 .18466 .02239 increase in 2.65, 2.12, 2.05 unit of changes in the dependent
8 B. D. ENGDAW

Table 2. Independent sample t-test.

Independent samples test
Levene’s
test for
equality of
Variances t-test for equality of means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Sig. Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Tangibles Equal variances assumed 1.042 .310 4.560 86 .000 1.05956 .23235 .59767 1.52145
Equal variances not 4.155 27.457 .000 1.05956 .25498 .53679 1.58233
assumed
Reliability Equal variances assumed 7.066 .009 7.039 86 .000 1.55059 .22028 1.11268 1.98849
Equal variances not 9.375 55.764 .000 1.55059 .16539 1.21924 1.88194
assumed
Empathy Equal variances assumed 14.66 .000 5.537 86 .000 1.45441 .26267 .93223 1.97659
Equal variances not 8.103 71.286 .000 1.45441 .17950 1.09653 1.81229
assumed
Responsiveness Equal variances assumed 6.500 .013 4.456 86 .000 1.17676 .26409 .65177 1.70176
Equal variances not 5.369 43.726 .000 1.17676 .21916 .73499 1.61853
assumed
Assurance Equal variances assumed 1.318 .254 6.201 86 .000 1.55294 .25043 1.05510 2.05078
Equal variances not 7.086 39.094 .000 1.55294 .21914 1.10971 1.99617
assumed
Customer Equal variances assumed .532 .468 7.992 86 .000 .37118 .04644 .27885 .46350
satisfaction
Equal variances not 8.232 32.491 .000 .37118 .04509 .27939 .46297
assumed

Table 3. Logistic regression model goodness – of – fit test. Table 5. Odds ratio of logistic regression of customer satisfac-
Logistic model for customersatisf, goodness-of-fit test tion and quality public service delivery.
(Table collapsed on quantiles of estimated probabilities) Customer satisfaction Coef. St.Err t-value p-value Sig.
(There are only 8 distinct quantiles because of ties)
Tangibles 4.669 3.366 2.14 0.033 **
number of observations = 88 Reliability 7.817 7.154 2.25 0.025 **
number of group = 8 Responsiveness 14.183 15.692 2.40 0.017 **
Hosmer-Lemeshow chi2 (6) = 3.36 Assurance 8.340 7.765 2.28 0.023 **
Prob> Chi2 = 0.7621 Empathy 0.030 0.047 −2.26 0.024 **
_cons 0.041 0.038 −3.41 0.001 ***
Mean dependent var 0.352 SD dependent var 0.480
Pseudo r-squared 0.476 Number of obs 88.000
Table 4. Logistic regression result on customer satisfaction and Chi-square 54.412 Prob > chi2 0.000
quality public service delivery. Akaike crit. (AIC) 71.784 Bayesian crit. (BIC) 86.648
Customer *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
satisfaction Coef. St.Err t-value p-value Sig. Decision
Tangibles 1.541 0.721 2.14 0.033 ** accepted
Reliability 2.056 0.915 2.25 0.025 ** accepted significant at p< 0.05. This means that when tangibles
Responsiveness 2.652 1.106 2.40 0.017 ** accepted
Assurance 2.121 0.931 2.28 0.023 ** accepted have ascertained the odds of customers to be satisfied is
Empathy −3.500 1.550 −2.26 0.024 ** accepted higher than the odds of dissatisfaction. Hence, the
_cons −3.206 0.939 −3.41 0.001 ***
Mean dependent 0.352 SD dependent var 0.480 conclusion goes supporting tangibles could increase
var customer satisfaction. In the same table, table 5, custo-
Pseudo r-squared 0.476 Number of obs 88.000
Chi-square 54.412 Prob > chi2 0.000 mer satisfaction (Y = 1) would also increase 14.2 times
Akaike crit. (AIC) 71.784 Bayesian crit. (BIC) 86.648
when there is responsiveness (X = 1) than the absence
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
of it, holding other variables constant, which is signifi-
cant at p < .05. This means that when responsiveness is
variable which is significant at p < .05. However, the model assured the odds of customer satisfaction is higher by
shows anomalies while predicting empathy. It confirmed 14.2 times than the odds of dissatisfaction (Y = 0).
that one unit of change in empathy would lead to Therefore, it is possible to conclude that responsiveness
a decrease in the dependent variable by 3.5. promotes customer satisfaction. The other variable
In the table 5, the odds ratio clearly depicted that the which is inbuilt in the model is assurance. Just like
odds of customer satisfaction (Y = 1) increase 4.7 times the other variables, this variable showed positive asso-
when there are tangibles (X = 1) than the absence of it ciations with customer satisfaction. The odds ratio for
holding other variables remained constant, which is this variable traced that customer satisfaction increases

(Y = l) 8.3 times when there is assurance than the
absence of it holding other variables unchanged,
which is significant at p < .05. This means that when
assurance is maintained, the likelihood of customers to
be satisfied is higher than the case of Y = 0. Therefore,
assurances could likely increase customer satisfaction.
In the same table, the likelihood of customer satisfac-
tion(Y = 1) decreases by 0.03 times, which is significant
at P < .05 when there is empathy, holding other vari-
ables constant. This means that when empathy exists
(X = 1) the odds of customer satisfaction(Y = 1) tends
to be low and customer dissatisfactions (Y = 0)
increases. But the coefficient of the odds for this vari-
able is remained very insignificant to bring powerful
predictive capacity in the model. The last variable
which is computed in the model is reliability.
Customer satisfaction (Y = 1) increase 7.8 times when
there is reliability, which is significant at p < .05 than
the absence of reliability, holding other variables
remained unchanged. This means that when reliability
is uplifted, the likelihood of customer satisfaction tends
to be higher than dissatisfaction (Y = 0). Therefore,
reliability significantly increases the level of customer
satisfaction.
From the table 5, it is clearly indicated that the odds
ratio is 4.867, 14.183, 8.339, 0.0302, 7.817. However, as the
odds ratio doesn’t provide appropriate meanings, we need
2:718283:2058þ1:5408ð1Þþ2:6520ð1Þþ2:1210ð1Þ3:5004ð1Þþ2:0563ð1Þ
P¼
1 þ 2:718283:2058þ1:5408ð1Þþ2:6520ð1Þþ2:1210ð1Þ3:5004ð1Þþ2:0563ð1Þ
2:718283:2058þ1:5408ð0Þþ2:6520ð0Þþ2:1210ð0Þ3:5004ð0Þþ2:0563ð0Þ
P¼
1 þ 2:718283:2058þ1:5408ð0Þþ2:6520ð0Þþ2:1210ð0Þ3:5004ð0Þþ2:0563ð0Þ
to convert the odds ratio into the probability value in the
following ways. In this case, the regression equation given
by the following formula is used:


p gets satisfied when there is quality service delivery is about
ln ¼ b 0 þ b1 ð x Þ
1p
Where: Ln = the natural logarithm
P = the short form of p(y = 1)- the probability that
y = 1 rather than zero
h i
p
ln 1p = the odds for p(y = 1) – the probability that
y = 1 for a given ‘’ x’’ value, divided by the probability
that y = 0 for that ‘’x’’ value
h i
p
ln 1p = natural logarithm of the odds of food insecurity.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9
Therefore, bo = ln of odds when xi = 0, 0.041:
ln0.041 = −3.206 and b1 = ln of odds when x1 = 1, 4.867:
ln4.867 = 1.541. b2 = ln of odds when x2 = 1, 14.183:
ln14.183 = 2.652, b3 = ln of odds when x3 = 1, 8.339:
ln8.339 = 2.121 b4 = ln of odds when x4 = 1, 0.0302:
ln0.0302 = −3.5, b5 = ln of odds when x5 = 17.817:
ln17.817 = 2.056.To convert the coefficients into odds,
the formula is eb0 for the odds when x = 0 and eb1 for the
odds xi = 1, hence e°0.041 = −3.206, e1.541 = 4.87,
e2.652 = 14.183,e2.121, e−3.5, e2.056, where e = 2.7182
Hence, the regression model based on the odds will
be developed as;
h i
p
ln 1p = 0.041 + 1.541 × 1 + 2.652x2 + 2.121x3 + (−3.5)
x4 + 2.056x5 – is indicated in the regression output
showing the result of coefficients.
To make the analysis more plausible, we have to
translate the model into probabilities as follows:
h i
p
ln 1p = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + b5x5 take ‘’e”
to the power of both sides
p b0 + b1(x)
1p = e then calculate the odds for x = 1 and
x = 0 and compare the probabilities.
eboþblx1þb2x2þb3x3þb4x4þb5x5
P¼ forX ¼ 1
1 þ eboþblx1þb2x2þb3x3þb4x4þb5x5
forX ¼ 1
forX ¼ 0
x = 1, 0.840761
x = 0, 0.038948
This clearly depicted that the likelihood of customers
0.84 (84%) while get satisfied with the probability value of
0.038948(3.89%) in the absence of quality service delivery.
There have been different findings in which different
studies have brought about. For example, Jamal and
Anastasiadou (2009), confirmed that reliability, tangibi-
lity, and empathy are positively related to customer
satisfaction. Other findings revealed by Safiek et al.
(2011) showed tangibility (β = 0.331) as having the
strongest impact on satisfaction. The next most impor-
tant variable was empathy (β = .267), followed by
10 B. D. ENGDAW
assurance (β = .175) and responsiveness (β = .15).
Macharia Shiphira (2012) in the study “Relationship
between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in
Retail Banking in Kenya” had come up with the findings
that bank executives think that the dimension of banks
being responsive to customer needs was the most
favored, followed by service reliability and service
acceptability. Other findings revealed by Suleiman
(2011) has confirmed that service reliability, tangibility,
Responsiveness, and assurance have a significant positive
relationship with customer satisfaction while empathy
was found to have a significant negative effect on custo-
mer satisfaction. Moreover, Iqbal et al. (2010) show that
the dimension of empathy is negatively related with
satisfaction while other four dimensions; tangibles,
assurance, responsiveness, and reliability are positively
related with the satisfaction. All the dimensions have
a significant relationship with the satisfaction of custo-
mers. Therefore, the findings of this study are comple-
mentary to Suleiman’s, Hassan Iqbal’s and et’al findings.
Conclusion
Subject to limited time and budget, the study does focus
only on the five dimensions of quality service using
SERVQUA model. Hence, future study should focus on
other dimensions of service quality using other models.
Moreover, future studies are encouraged to scope out and
deepening their studies. Generally, in the study, it is
revealed that quality public service delivery and customer
satisfaction are highly intertwined. Customer satisfaction
is improved when quality service is delivered. Many
research findings proved that quality public service deliv-
ery enhances the satisfaction of customers. Likewise, the
present study comes up with the conclusion that quality
public service delivery affects customer satisfaction in the
Ginbot20-sub city office. In the study, among the five
dimensions of quality public service delivery, except
empathy, all the other dimensions have a positive impact
on customer satisfaction. The study pinpointed the fol-
lowing findings concerning the impact of quality service
delivery on customer satisfaction in Ginbot20-sub city:
● Empathy has a negative impact on customer satis-
faction in the study area. The study confirmed that
one unit of change in empathy would lead to
a decrease in odds customer satisfaction with by
3.5. Moreover, customer satisfaction decreases by
0.03 times with the presence of empathy.
● Tangibility, reliability, assurance, and responsibility
have a positive impact on customer satisfaction in
the Ginbot20- sub-city. The study finds out that,
a one unit changes in the tangibles would increase
odds of customer satisfaction by 1.54 unit which is
significant at P < .05. At the same time, one unit of
change in responsiveness, assurance, and reliability
would lead to an increase in 2.65, 2.12, 2.05 unit of
changes in odds of customer satisfaction which is
significant at p < .05. Looking at the odds ratio,
customer satisfaction would also increase by 14.2
times when there is responsiveness than its absence.
Customer satisfaction could also increase by 8.3 times
when there is assurance than the absence of it.
Customer satisfaction increases 4.7 times when
there are tangibles than the absence of it. Customer
satisfaction increases 7.8 times when there is reliabil-
ity than the absence of reliability
● Generally, the likelihood of customers gets satisfied
when there is quality service delivery is about 0.84
(84%) while get satisfied with the probability value of
0.038948(3.8948%) in the absence of quality service
delivery.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge Absira Anteneh, Essayas Nachce,
Getachew Mola, Tesfaye Defere and Yigezu Erase for they
have collected the data. Besides, I would also like to acknowl-
edge all participants who filled out the questionnaires.
Disclosure statement
No conflict of interest.
References
Agyapong, G. (2011). The effect of service quality on custo-
mer satisfaction in the utility industry – A case of
Vodafone (Ghana). International Journal of Business and
Management, 7(5), 203–210.
Anderson, E., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). Customer satisfac-
tion, market share, and profitability. Marketing Science, 12,
125–143. doi:10.1287/mksc.12.2.125
Anderson, E. W, Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994).
Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability:
findings from sweden. Market Share, and Profitability:
Findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, 58(July),
53–66. doi:10.1177/002224299405800304
Batley, R. (2004). The politics of service delivery reform,
journal of development and change. Blackwell Publishing,
35(1), 31–56.
Beerli, A., Martin, J. D., & Quintana, A. (2004). A model of
customer loyalty in the retail banking market. European
Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 253–275. doi:10.1108/
03090560410511221
Bekele, B. (2009). service delivery policy of the federal demo-
cratic republic of Ethiopia: Policy implementation challenges
and prospects. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: unpublished.

Brysland, A., & Curry, A. (2001). Service improvements in public
services using SERVQUAL; Managing service quality. Journal
of Service Theory and Practice, 11(6), 389–401.
Chakrapani, C. (1998). How to measure service quality & customer
satisfaction. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring service quality: A
re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56,
55–68. doi:10.1177/002224299205600304
Denhardt, B. R., & Grubbs, W. J. (2003). Public administration
an action orientation. Belmont, CA: Thomson Weadsworth.
Eshghi, A., Roy, S. K., & Ganguli, S. (2008). Service quality
and customer satisfaction: An empirical investigation in
Indian mobile telecommunications services. Marketing
Management Journal, 18(2), 119–144.
Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2001). Service
management (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gaster, L., & Squires, A. (2003). Providing quality in the
public sector: A practical approach to improving public
services. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer
behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hussein, A. A. (2016). Service quality practices and customer
satisfaction in taxi companies in Nairobi (Thesis). Nairobi,
Kenya.
Iqbal, H., Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M., Usman, A., Shaukat, M. Z., &
Ahmad, N. (2010). Impact of Service Quality on Customers'
Satisfaction: Empirical evidence from telecom sector of
Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research
in Business, 1(12), 98–113.
Jamal, A., & Anastasiadou, K. (2009). Investigating the effects
of service quality dimensions and expertise on loyalty.
European Journal of Marketing. 43(3/4). 398-420. doi:
10.1108/03090560910935497.
Johnston, R. (1997). Identifying the critical determinants of
service quality in retail banking: Importance and effects.
The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 75(4),
111–119. doi:10.1108/02652329710189366
Kiragu, K. (2002). ‘Improving service delivery through public
service reform: Lessons of experiences from select Sub-
Sahara Africa countries’, Paper presented at the second meet-
ing of the Design Automation Conference (DAC) Network
on Good Governance and Capacity Development. OECD,
Headquarters, February 14–15.
Leisen, B., & Vance, C. (2001). Cross-national assessment of
service quality in the telecommunication industry. Journal
Service Quality, 11(5), 7–717.
Levesque, T., & McDougall, G. (1996). Determinants of cus-
tomer satisfaction in retail banking. International Journal
of Bank Marketing, 14(7), 12–20. doi:10.1108/
02652329610151340
Mahmoud, A. F. (2015). The impact of service quality dimen-
sions on customer satisfaction: A field study of Arab Bank in
Irbid city, Jordan. European Journal of Business and
Management, 7(15), 45–53.
McCourt, W. (2007). Efficiency, integrity, and capacity: An
expanded Agenda for public management? In A. Shah
(Ed.), Performance accountability and combating corrup-
tion (pp. 33–55). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11
Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the
consumer. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985).
A conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.
doi:10.1177/002224298504900403
Ramon Tumiwa, A., Nova Mamuaya, C., & Freddy Kawatu, S.
(2018). Analysis of service quality and public satisfaction on
local government agencies in Manado city. International
Journal of Business and Management Invention, 7(6), 16–28.
Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/govern
ance/brief/public-service-delivery-global-solutions-group
Ringgold, D., Alaka, H., Koziol, M., & Srinvasan, S. (2012).
Citizens and service delivery: Assessing the use of social
accountability; approaches in human development.
Washington, DC: International Bank for reconstruction
and development.
Safiek, M., Yaleakho, A., & Ibrahim, M. (2011). Municipal service
quality and citizen satisfaction in Southern Thailand. Journal of
Public Administration and Governance, 1(1), 122–137.
Shiphira, M. W. (2012). The relationship between service
quality and customer satisfaction in retail banking in
Kenya (MBA thesis). University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
Kenya: unpublished.
Suleiman, A. (2011). Basic dimension of the SERVQUAL
Model and its impact on the level of customer satisfaction:
An empirical study of the Housing Bank in Karak. Jordan:
European Scientific Journal, 9(1), 21–34.
Sureshchandar, G. S., Chandrasekharan, R., & Anantharaman, R.
N. (2002). The relationship between service quality and custo-
mer satisfaction–a factor specific approach. Journal of Services
Marketing, 16, 363–379. doi: 10.1108/08876040210433248
Taylor, S. A., & Baker, T. L. (1994). An assessment of the
relationship between service quality and customer satisfac-
tion in the formation of customer purchase intention. Journal
of Retailing, 2, 163–178. doi:10.1016/0022-4359(94)90013-2
Van der Wal, R. W. E., Pampallis, A., & Bond, C. (2002). Service
quality in a cellular telecommunications company: A South
African experience. Managing Service Quality, 12(5),
323–335. doi:10.1108/09604520210442119
Wikipedia. (2018). Public_service. Retrieved from https://en.
wikipedia.org:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service
Wirtz, J., & Chew, P. (2002). The effects of incentives, deal prone-
ness, satisfaction and tie strength on word-of-mouth behavior.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(2),
141–162. doi:10.1108/09564230210425340
Wondimagegn, G. (2012). The opportunities, challenges, and
impacts of service delivery reform on women’s empower-
ment on three selected Amhara regional bureaus
(Unpublished). Bahir Dar Univerisity, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. (1990).
Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions
and expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Zeithaml., V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). A
multiple item scale for measuring consumer perception of
service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Service marketing.
New Delhi: Tata MCGraw Hill.