The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm

Malaysian public
An exploratory study of service service sector
quality in the Malaysian public
service sector
177
Arawati Agus
School of Business Management, Faculty of Economics and Business,
National University of Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
Sunita Barker
Centre for Business Research, Deakin University, Malvern, Australia, and
Jay Kandampully
Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to obtain a better understanding of the extent to which service quality
permeates within the Malaysian public service sector by drawing on management and customer
perceptions of service quality.
Design/methodology/approach – Two separate surveys were distributed to managers and
customers across 86 branches of a public sector department within the Malaysian Ministry. The
manager survey comprised instruments relating to organisational service performance, while the
customer survey contained instruments relating to service quality and customer satisfaction. A total of
430 manager and customer surveys were completed, representing a 95 percent response rate.
Findings – The results support the conceptual model in demonstrating a strong correlation between
service quality dimensions, service performance and customer satisfaction. In particular, service
providers classified as “excellent” were rated most favourably in terms of responsiveness, access and
credibility.
Research limitations/implications – The generalisability of the results is limited by the absence
of the employees’ perception of service quality.
Practical implications – This research adds to the body of knowledge relating to public service
quality management.
Originality/value – The originality of this paper lies within the context in which this study took
place. The study addresses key relationships between service dimensions, service performance and
service quality within the Malaysian public service sector. Although previous research has addressed
similar issues within the context of the public sector, relatively few studies pertain directly to
Malaysian public services.
Keywords Customer services quality, Customer satisfaction, Performance measurement (quality),
Public sector organizations, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Over the past two decades, the theory and practice of service quality has received International Journal of Quality &
considerable attention from academics and practitioners alike. Viewed as a means by Reliability Management
Vol. 24 No. 2, 2007
which customers distinguish between competing organisations (Marshal and pp. 177-190
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Murdoch, 2001), service quality is known to contribute to market share and 0265-671X
customer satisfaction (Anderson and Zeithaml, 1984; Buzzell and Gale, 1987; DOI 10.1108/02656710710722284
IJQRM Parasuraman et al., 1985; Zeithaml, 2000). Thus, the pursuit of quality services in both
24,2 private and public sector organisations is driven by the need to survive and remain
competitive.
As with most “new” management practices, private sector organisations have
adopted the principles of service quality at a much faster rate than those in the public
sector. This can be attributed to the inherent differences between the sectors in terms of
178 their historical and environmental contexts. In particular, the primary objective of most
public sector organisations is to provide a social benefit within a limited budget and
reduce costs (Dewhirst et al., 1999). This is in direct contradiction to private sector
organisations, whose primary focus is on increasing profits. It is not surprising,
therefore, that private sector organisations have higher productivity and profitability
than public sector organisations (Ehrlich et al., 1994).
The slow uptake of service quality practices in public sector organisations is further
exacerbated by difficulties in measuring outcomes, greater scrutiny from the public
and press, a lack of freedom to act in an arbitrary fashion, and a requirement for
decisions to be based in law (Teicher et al., 2002). Irrespective of these difficulties,
however, public sector organisations have come under increasing pressure to deliver
quality services (Randall and Senior, 1994), improve efficiencies, and respond to
government legislation (Robinson, 2003).
In most developed countries, quality concepts such as total quality management
(TQM) and new public management (NPM) have been adopted by public sector
organisations since the early 1990s. The key objective of NPM, for instance, is to
improve the delivery of public-service quality by taking a customer-oriented approach
(Mwita, 2000) and by focusing on performance and measurement. More recently
however, the public sector has turned its attention to “electronic government”
(“e-government”) (Teicher et al., 2002) in an effort to improve quality by providing
greater accessibility. Despite the growing popularity of quality concepts in public
service management, the issue remains largely under investigated.
This purpose of this paper is to discuss service quality concepts and their
application to the Malaysian public service sector. Since Malaysia gained
independence in 1957, the public sector has undergone a number of transformations.
Two examples include the introduction of the “Look East Policy” and the “Malaysia
Incorporated and Privatisation Policy” – both of which were introduced in the early
1980s. Whereas the former was aimed at increasing productivity and efficiency, the
latter established the public sector as the facilitator and regulator of the economic
functions of the private sector (Triantafillou, 2002). It has been noted, however, that
relatively little attention has been given to the application of service quality in the
Malaysian public service (Kadir et al., 2000). Furthermore, although quality schemes
are becoming an integral part of public-service management, their impact on service
delivery remains largely unknown (Robinson, 2003).
Based on established service concepts and relationships, a conceptual model that
links service quality, service performance and customer satisfaction is introduced.
This model is tested through an exploratory study in an effort to establish the extent to
which the adoption of service quality has enhanced service performance and customer
satisfaction in the Malaysian public service. The results are then discussed, and
implications for academics and practitioners are highlighted.
Service quality in the public sector Malaysian public
There are two perspectives to the ongoing pursuit of service quality. From the perspective
of the service organisation, there is a desire to survive and compete in a global
service sector
environment. From the perspective of the customer, there is a desire for better quality
services. Whereas service quality has achieved considerable popularity across the private
sector, the public sector has been slower to take up the concept. However, service quality
has now moved to the forefront of public sector management as a result of the combined 179
pressure of growing customer expectations, an increased focus on revenue, and growing
competition between public and private sector organisations who offer identical services.
Not surprisingly, the vast majority of service-quality research in the literature
focuses on the private sector. This has resulted in a number of dilemmas which occur
when service quality management practices derived from the private sector are
transferred to the public sector (Buckley, 2003). According to Kearsey and Varey
(1998), these dilemmas include:
.
multiple, non-financial, conflicting and ambiguous goals;
. lack of agreement on means-end;
.
environmental turbulence;
.
immeasurable outputs; and
.
effects of management intervention unknown.
Several studies have suggested that there are a number of distinct differences between
private and public sector organisations (Wamsley, 1990; Zeppou and Sotirakou, 2003)
because the two sectors operate in distinctively different environments. In particular,
public-sector organisations operate in an environment characterised by resource
constraints, market competition, and growing customer expectations (Robinson, 2003).
It has been argued that the public sector is inherently inefficient because of the absence
of incentives that exist in the private sector – which operates in an open market and
has a decentralised model of decision-making (Bhatta, 2001).
The purpose of the public sector (in the current environment) can be viewed as a
paradox – the pursuit of public good and a sustainable competitive advantage
(Mathews and Shulman, 2005). In contrast the private sector’s singular focus is on
economic efficiency, as it is generally viewed that profit and/or cost reduction are key
ingredients to survival and growth (Cooper, 2004; Ranson and Stewart, 1994). The
manner in which cash is allocated in public sectors is therefore based on the needs of
the public, whereas shareholders are central in the private sector’s emphasis on profits
and returns (Cooper, 2004).

Types of customer
According to Donnelly et al. (1995), the public sector caters for two types of customers:
(1) those who pay for the provision of a service; and
(2) those who do not pay for the provision of a service.
Public services that charge (and thus generate revenue) are more likely to be in
competition with services offered in the commercial sector, thereby offering the
customer a choice (Robinson, 2003). The relevance of service quality (largely driven by
competition) in this situation is clearly evident. On the other hand, it can be argued that
IJQRM public services that are free of charge are less inclined to adopt service quality
practices unless pushed by customer demands and government legislation.
24,2
Types of quality
Service quality in the public sector tends to make reference to three areas of quality:
(1) customer quality (what the customer wants from the service);
180 (2) professional quality (the processes used to meet customer needs); and
(3) management quality (the use of resources to meet customer needs) (Curry and
Herbert, 1998; Ovretreit, 1991; Kadir et al., 2000).
Customer or client quality refers to what customers want from a service at both the
individual and group level, which is measured through customer satisfaction
measures. Professional quality relates to procedures and techniques used to meet
customer needs, which are ensured through organisational audits and setting
standards. Management quality refers to the efficient use of resources to meet customer
demands and is measured through the broader quality approach of the organisation
(Ovretveit, 1991; Curry and Herbert, 1998).
To date, research has shown that quality schemes in the public sector are perceived to
improve facility management and staff motivation (Lentell, 2000, 2001; Robinson, 1995,
1999; Williams, 1998). Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggests that quality principles
yield positive outcomes in terms of performance and satisfaction in the public sector. For
example, Dewhirst et al. (1999) stated that the principles of TQM have improved the
operational efficiency of public services. To obtain a better understanding of the extent to
which service quality permeates the Malaysian public sector, a quantitative study
utilising a slight modification of the original SERVQUAL model was undertaken.

Conceptual model
This paper explores the relationships among service quality, service performance, and
customer satisfaction within the context of the public service. The proposed conceptual
model (as depicted in Figure 1) is based on four existing service factors, each of which
have attracted a large body of research. The service factors are:
(1) service dimensions;
(2) service quality;
(3) service performance; and
(4) customer satisfaction.
Essentially, service quality represents a customer’s assessment of the overall level of
service offered by an organisation (Parasuraman et al., 1988), and this assessment is
often based on perceptions formulated during service encounters (Bitner et al., 1990;
Johnston, 1995). The majority of the service dimensions depicted in the conceptual
model relate to the human-interaction elements of service delivery. Thus, service
quality is depicted as a product of service dimensions comprised of employee-related
behaviours and organisational practices which, taken together, have the capacity to
influence service performance and customer satisfaction.
In addition to improving levels of customer satisfaction (Parasuraman et al., 1991),
service quality has also been shown to provide benefits in terms of differentiation
(Zeithaml and Bitner, 2000), market share, profitability (Buzzell and Gale, 1987), and
 Malaysian public
service sector

181

Figure 1.
Conceptual model linking
service quality, service
performance, and
customer satisfaction

developing strategy (Grönroos, 2000). The proposed model uses service dimensions
derived from the original SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman et al.
(1988). The SERVQUAL instrument is accepted as a standard for assessing various
dimensions in service quality (Buttle, 1994), and is based on the concept of
service-quality “gaps” (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988).
Nine of the ten original service dimensions identified by Parasuraman et al. (1985)
were considered to relate to distinctive features of public-service quality and are
therefore incorporated in the present conceptual model. These dimensions are:
(1) tangibles – physical characteristics of the service, such as the décor, ambience,
technology, and equipment that are viewed as contributing to a public servant’s
ability to provide a desired level of service;
(2) reliability – a public servant’s ability to perform promised services in a
dependable and accurate manner;
(3) responsiveness – a public servant’s willingness to assist customers and provide
prompt service while being aware of the need for flexibility in customising
services to the needs of individual customers;
(4) competence – possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform
services in the public sector;
(5) courtesy – politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of a public
servant;
(6) credibility – trustworthiness, believability, and honesty of a public servant;
IJQRM (7) access – a public servant’s approachability and ease of contact;
24,2 (8) communication – listening to customers and acknowledging their comments,
and keeping customers informed in a language they understand; and
(9) understanding the customer – making an effort to understand customers and
identify their needs.
182 Although the SERVQUAL model has received widespread acclaim among
academics who study services marketing and management, the model has
attracted critics who have argued that there is no universal model that caters for all
the different contexts and situations in which service quality operates (Bowers et al.,
1994; Brady and Cronin, 2001; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Grönroos, 1982; Lehtinen
and Lehtinen, 1982; Rust and Oliver, 1994). Researchers, however, consider that not
all service-quality determinants have the same effect on consumer quality
perceptions and satisfaction.
Despite these disagreements on certain aspects of service-quality determinants,
there is agreement regarding the importance of service employees. Service employees
are frequently referred to as the “face” of a service organisation, and they have been the
subject of much research – particularly with respect to their role in achieving customer
satisfaction. Customer satisfaction can be defined as the “customer’s response to the
evaluation of the perceived discrepancy between prior expectation and the actual
performance of the product as perceived after its consumption” (Tse and Wilton, 1998,
p. 204). Research has shown that motivated employees are more likely to have a clear
understanding of the importance of service quality and are therefore likely to provide
superior service which, in turn, positively influences customer satisfaction (Bowen and
Lawler, 1992; Schneider and Bowen, 1985).
The conceptual model presented here is based on service concept relationships
that have already been established within the private sector. The purpose of this
paper is therefore to test these relationships within the context of the public sector,
particularly that of Malaysia. For the purpose of the evaluation of the model, service
performance is evaluated by service managers on the basis of the quality and speed
of service delivery. In contrast, satisfaction is evaluated in the present study by the
customer on the basis of the quality of the service (in terms of employee and
organisational performance) and queue times. It is important to note that whereas
the SERVQUAL model focused on identifying “gaps” between expectations and
actual delivery, the present model focuses only on perceptions of actual service
delivery. Further, the model does not encompass all of the elements that are likely
to influence service quality and perceptions thereof.

Methodology
Hypotheses
The purpose of this exploratory study was to obtain a better understanding of the
relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction, and service performance in
the Malaysian public sector. Subsequently, the following three hypotheses were tested:
H1. That service quality positively influences customer satisfaction and service
performance.
H2. That service performance positively influences customer satisfaction.
 H3. That certain service dimensions (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, Malaysian public
competence, courtesy, credibility, access, communication, and understanding
the customer) positively influence service quality.
service sector
Although an exploration of the relationships among these concepts is not unique in
itself, the current context in which it was tested has not been previously explored. In
accordance with the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1, customer satisfaction was
measured in terms of the department, employees, and queues, whereas service 183
performance was measured in terms of:

.
the time taken to obtain feedback, provide information, or resolve customer
problems; and
.
quality of the service provided by employees.
Research design
Two structured surveys were developed. These included nine of the ten service
dimensions identified by Parasuraman et al. (1985). The questions in the surveys were
tailored to identify management and customer perceptions of service-quality practices
and outcomes within the Malaysian public sector.
The surveys were undertaken in the Malay language. Perceived service quality was
assessed through a series of statements directly related to the nine SERVQUAL
dimensions noted above. Customer satisfaction was assessed through three statements
relating to the services provided by the department, services given by employees, and
queuing time at the service counter. Customers rated these statements on a seven-point
Likert-type scale from “strongly agree” (7) to “strongly disagree” (1). Managers rated
the level of service performance on their perceptions of the organisation’s performance
over the past two years.
To test for reliability, internal consistency, and stability of the measures, each
measure was tested using Cronbach’s alpha (Churchill, 1979). The alpha coefficients
ranged from 0.8068 to 0.9151. It was therefore concluded that the multi-item
service-quality scales were reliable measures.

Research sample
The focus of the present research is on a public sector department in one Malaysian
Ministry (in order to keep the anonymity of the study we will not be able to disclose the
name of the department or the Ministry). The major function of the Ministry is to
ensure that the laws that govern the county are in accordance with the country’s needs.
The Ministry claims to strive for the following (see www.kdn.gov.my):
.
to provide an efficient and effective service in the issuance of important
documents;
.
to eradicate activities which contravene the Safety Act and Safety Regulations;
.
to provide customers with quick and quality services in accordance with
international standards; and
.
to ensure the path and implementations are parallel with the objective and
mission of the country.
The Ministry consists of a network of 86 branches and provides a range of free and
“at-cost” services. Before distribution of the questionnaires, a letter was forwarded to
IJQRM the director of the Ministry requesting the Ministry’s participation in, and support for,
the study. Once this approval was obtained, surveys were distributed to 450 managers
24,2 (across all 86 branches) who were identified as being in charge of a service counter. For
each manager who completed a survey, a customer was randomly approached to
complete a survey. A total of 430 managers and 430 customers completed the survey –
which represents a 95 percent response rate. All surveys were either collected in person
184 or mailed back to the researchers.

Findings
Correlation analyses
Correlation analyses were conducted to establish the relationships among the
service-quality dimensions. As is evident from Table I, there were positive correlations
among the various dimensions. Additional correlation analyses (as depicted in Table II)
showed that the three service-quality dimensions that correlated most strongly with
service performance were “credibility” (r ¼ 0:298), “responsiveness” (r ¼ 0:295), and
“competence” (r ¼ 0:293). The three dimensions that correlated most strongly with
customer satisfaction were “communication” (r ¼ 0:735), “credibility” (r ¼ 0:714), and
“competence” (r ¼ 0:704). It is apparent that “credibility” and “competence” both
correlated strongly with the two outcome measures.

Service quality
dimensions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Tangibility 1.00
2 Reliability 0.625 * * 1.00
3 Responsiveness 0.674 * * 0.717 * * 1.00
4 Competence 0.625 * * 0.665 * * 0.669 * * 1.00
5 Courtesy 0.627 * * 0.664 * * 0.748 * * 0.729 * * 1.00
6 Credibility 0.604 * * 0.630 * * 0.706 * * 0.753 * * 0.741 * * 1.00
7 Access 0.578 * * 0.598 * * 0.648 * * 0.653 * * 0.676 * * 0.730 * * 1.00
Table I. 8 Communication 0.585 * * 0.595 * * 0.657 * * 0.661 * * 0.705 * * 0.737 * * 0.706 * * 1.00
Correlations between 9 Understanding 0.571 * * 0.639 * * 0.659 * * 0.667 * * 0.723 * * 0.742 * * 0.707 * * 0.759 * * 1.00
service quality
dimensions Notes: *p # 0:05; * *p # 0:01 (all t-tests are two-tailed)

Service quality dimensions Service performance Customer satisfaction

1 Tangibility 0.276 * * 0.626 * *

2 Reliability 0.244 * * 0.660 * *
3 Responsiveness 0.295 * * 0.695 * *
4 Competence 0.293 * * 0.704 * *
Table II. 5 Courtesy 0.271 * * 0.698 * *
Correlation between 6 Credibility 0.298 * * 0.714 * *
service quality 7 Access 0.279 * * 0.644 * *
determinants, overall 8 Communication 0.241 * * 0.735 * *
service performance and 9 Understanding 0.248 * * 0.691 * *
overall customer
satisfaction indicators Notes: *p # 0:05; * *p # 0:01 (all t-tests are two-tailed)
Cluster analyses Malaysian public
A cluster analysis was conducted to explore the segmentation of organisations in this
study. The cluster analysis categorised organisations into one of two groups:
service sector
(1) “excellent” service providers; and
(2) “average” service providers.
Table III shows the service dimensions that distinguish the “average” service 185
providers from the “excellent” service providers. The results show that
“responsiveness”, “access”, and “credibility” rated most strongly in the “excellent”
category, whereas “understanding the customer”, “courtesy”, and “credibility” rated
most strongly in the “average” category.

Structural equation modelling

Structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to test the relationship between
observed and latent variables. The SEM results (x 2 ¼ 195:562, df ¼ 43, p ¼ 0:00)
demonstrate that the conceptual model had an unsatisfactory fit. However, statistical
structural indices – such as the Bentler CFI (0.960) (Bentler, 1993), incremental fit
index (0.960), Tucker and Lewis TLI (0.949), NFI (0.949), and RFI (0.935) – suggest that
the model had a good fit. It can therefore be argued that the initial result of a “poor fit”
was due to the high levels of random error associated with a large number of
parameters (service dimensions) (Bagozzi et al., 1991).
An investigation of the loadings of the service dimensions on the main latent
construct (service quality) showed that “credibility” (structural loading ¼ 0:88) had the
greatest impact, followed closely by “courtesy” (structural loading ¼ 0:87) and
“responsiveness” (structural loading ¼ 0:86). Service dimensions with high factor
loadings are considered to be more valid indicators of service quality. The original
conceptual model was therefore modified accordingly – with the modified model being
limited to these three dimensions (“credibility”, “courtesy”, “responsiveness”).
To test the fit of the modified model, SEM was again utilised. In this instance, SEM
showed a good fit (x 2 ¼ 15:844, df ¼ 17, p ¼ 0:535). Furthermore, the structural
effects of service quality on service performance (0.25) and customer satisfaction (0.85)
were also shown to be significant, as was the link between service performance and
customer satisfaction. It can therefore be concluded that “responsiveness”, “courtesy”,

Excellent service providers Average service providers

Friedman’s Friedman’s
Service dimension test Rank Mean SD test Rank Mean SD

Tangibles 5.00 5 6.469 0.599 4.82 7 5.097 0.938

Reliability 4.64 8 6.389 0.669 4.80 8 5.081 0.914
Responsiveness 5.48 1 6.593 0.528 5.05 4 5.142 0.929
Competence 4.16 9 6.329 0.590 4.30 9 4.984 0.815 Table III.
Courtesy 5.26 4 6.538 0.542 5.26 2 5.213 0.868 Rankings of service
Credibility 5.27 3 6.542 0.535 5.24 3 5.213 0.822 quality dimensions based
Access 5.35 2 6.542 0.617 5.02 5 5.168 0.903 on “average” and
Communication 4.92 7 6.458 0.568 4.99 6 5.148 0.903 “excellent” service
Understanding the customer 4.93 6 6.462 0.542 5.53 1 5.284 0.762 providers
IJQRM and “credibility” significantly influence overall service performance and customer
satisfaction within the Malaysian public service.
24,2 H1 was tested using structural equation modelling and in part indirectly through
correlation analyses. Results generated from the former test showed that service
quality has significant structural effects on service performance (0.25) and customer
satisfaction (0.85). On the other hand, based on the correlation analyses (presented in
186 Table II), it appears that the nine service dimensions (which act as a measure of service
quality) correlated strongly with customer satisfaction and to a lesser degree with
service performance.
H2 was tested using structural equation modelling. Based on these results it was shown
that there is a significant link between service performance and customer satisfaction.
H3 was tested using structural equation modelling following a modification of the
original model (in an effort to find the best fit). The results generated from this test
revealed that three out of the original nine service dimensions had a significant link
with service quality. These dimensions are responsiveness (structural loading ¼ 0:86),
courtesy (structural loading ¼ 0:87) and credibility (structural loading ¼ 0:88).
The results confirm H1 and H2, while H3 was partially proven as three (courtesy,
credibility, responsiveness) of the nine dimensions showed a significantly strong
relationship with service quality.

Conclusion and managerial implications

In all parts of the world, the public sector is becoming increasingly aware of the
benefits to be derived from service-quality programs. The results of this exploratory
study confirm established relationships among service quality, service performance,
and customer satisfaction. The study highlights the need for customer-oriented
approaches that focus on improving the delivery of public-service quality. What sets
this research apart from previous studies is the context in which the study took place –
the Malaysian public service.
The results highlight the important role played by employees (in terms of
responsiveness, courtesy, and credibility) in improving customer satisfaction and service
performance. This finding supports previous research in suggesting that an employee’s
attitude to customers has significant short-term and long-term implications for the
organisation concerned. There is no doubt that employee courtesy generates more
favourable perceptions of service quality and satisfaction among customers (Guiry, 1992;
Johnston, 1995; Dabholkar et al., 2000). Employees who are attentive, courteous,
cooperative, and keen to listen are more likely to enhance customers’ perceptions of
service than those who are rude, inattentive, and unapproachable (Guiry, 1992). Given
that customers are increasingly discerning and increasingly able to choose between
private and public services (Rowly, 1998), it is apparent that service quality should be an
integral component of the management strategy of the Malaysian public service.
The objectives of the private sector (such as reducing costs and improving the
responsiveness, quality and service aspects of their operations in an effort to provide a
more efficient and effective service) are increasingly aligning with those of the public
sector (Yasin et al., 2001). Public sector management can therefore learn from the
experiences of the private sector, specifically in relation to customer orientation and the
subsequent role and importance of the service provider in delivering and maintaining
quality standards. A customer-oriented approach to public service management is
essential given that the public compares public service performance with that of private
sector enterprises. The disparity in service performance between the public and private Malaysian public
sector and the resulting public dissatisfaction has instigated government legislation to service sector
render public service entities to be customer-oriented. For example, US President Clinton
signed an Executive Order in 1993 requiring federal government to promote
customer-oriented standards that serve the American people in the following ways:
.
identify the customers;
.
survey customer needs;
187
.
identify required service standards and measure the results;
.
benchmark customer service against best practices;
.
survey frontline employees;
.
provide customers with choice;
.
make systems easily accessible; and
.
provide means of addressing complaints (Gore, 1997).

Service enhancement through customer orientation will provide the public sector with
an opportunity to gain confidence from the tax-paying public. In their research on the
public sector in Taiwan, Chen et al. (2004) proposed a customer-oriented service
enhancement (COSE) system that can be effectively used by the public sector to
improve the quality of service. They proposed five stages that encompass continuous
improvement of quality in the public sector – customer identification, customer needs
survey, service system design, service delivery, and service recovery – which may be
adopted to improve the quality of service within the Malaysian public sector.
There are a number of limitations to this study that influence the reliability of the
results and restrict the extent to which the findings can be generalised across the
Malaysian public service. First, this study looked at the perceptions of management and
customers, thereby excluding the views of frontline staff. It can be argued that
management perceptions of organisational service quality practices are likely to be
overstated when compared with frontline employees and customers. Furthermore, a single
evaluation of customer satisfaction for each service counter is not necessarily indicative of
the often wide-ranging feedback generated from customer-satisfaction surveys.
The research findings and research limitations have also contributed to the
identification of several areas for future research. First, the perceptions of key
stakeholders could be obtained and assessed. Such multiple sources of feedback on the
delivery of public services would provide a more holistic view of the extent to which
service quality permeates the organisation. In particular, although this study noted the
service-quality perceptions of managers and customers, the perceptions of the
employees who actually deliver the service are absent.
Secondly, the public service is comprised of a number of different and quite distinct
services. Each of these services is different in terms of its cost to the public and its
operational requirements. It can be argued that there are likely to be differences in the
quality of service between those services that are paid for and those that are free of
charge. This is an issue that warrants further investigation.
It is also recommended that future studies could:
.
utilise larger sample sizes to increase the reliability of the results (which, in turn,
would allow for more accurate generalisations); and
IJQRM .
be conducted on a longitudinal basis to allow for theory development and
refinement in the field of public-service quality management.
24,2
References
Anderson, C. and Zeithaml, C.P. (1984), “Stage of the product life cycle, business strategy, and
business performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 5-24.
188 Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational
research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 421-58.
Bentler, P.M. (1993), Structural Equation Model as Non-Linear Regression Model, Elsevier
Science, New York, NY.
Bhatta, G. (2001), “Corporate governance and public management in post-crises Asia”,
Asian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990), “The service encounter: diagnosing
favorable and unfavourable incidents”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 71-84.
Bowen, D. and Lawler, E.E. (1992), “The empowerment of service workers: what, why, how, and
when”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 31-9.
Bowers, M.R., Swan, J.E. and Koehler, W.F. (1994), “What attributes determine quality and
satisfaction with health care delivery”, Health Care Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 49-55.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualising perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 34-49.
Buckley, J. (2003), “E-service quality and the public sector”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 453-62.
Buttle, F. (1994), “What’s wrong with SERVQUAL”, Working Paper No. 277, Manchester
Business School, Manchester.
Buzzell, R.D. and Gale, B.T. (1987), The PIMS Principles: Linking Strategy to Performance,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Chen, C.K., Yu, C.H., Yang, S.J. and Chang, H.C. (2004), “A customer-oriented
service-enhancement system for the public sector”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 414-25.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Cooper, D. (2004), “Organisational change: from public to private sector – a UK based reflective
case study”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5 Nos 1/2, pp. 474-80.
Cronin, J.J. Jr and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a re-examination and
extension”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 55-68.
Curry, A.C. and Herbert, D. (1998), “Continuous improvement in public services – a way
forward”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 339-49.
Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000), “A comprehensive framework for
service quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a
longitudinal study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 139-73.
Dewhirst, F., Martinez-Lovente, A.R. and Dale, B.G. (1999), “TQM in public organisations:
an examination of the issues”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 265-73.
Donnelly, M., Wisniewshi, M., Dalrymple, J.F. and Curry, A.C. (1995), “Measuring service quality
in local government: the SERVQUAL approach”, International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 8, pp. 15-20.
Ehrlich, I., Gallois-Hammano, G., Liv, Z. and Lutter, R. (1994), “Productivity growth and firm Malaysian public
ownership: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 102, pp. 257-98.
service sector
Grönroos, C. (1982), “A service quality model and its managerial implications”, paper presented
at the Workshop of Research into the Management of Service Business, London Business
School, London, January.
Grönroos, C. (2000), Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management
Approach, 2nd ed., Wiley, Chichester. 189
Gore, A. (1997), Businesslike Government, National Performance Review, Washington, DC.
Guiry, M. (1992), “Consumer and employee roles in service encounters”, Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 19, pp. 666-72.
Johnston, R. (1995), “The determinants of service quality: satisfiers and dissatisfiers”,
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 407-27.
Kadir, S.L.S.A., Abdullah, M. and Agus, A. (2000), “On service improvement capacity index:
a case study of the public service sector in Malaysia”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11
Nos 4-6, pp. 837-43.
Kearsey, A. and Varey, R.J. (1998), “Managerialist thinking on marketing for public services”,
Public Money and Management, January-March, pp. 51-61.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1982), “Service quality: a study of quality dimensions”, research
report, Service Management Institute, Helsinki.
Lentell, R. (2000), “Untangling the tangibles: physical evidence and customer satisfaction”,
Managing Leisure: An International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 1-16.
Lentell, R. (2001), “Customer views of the results of managing quality through ISO 9002 and
investors in people in leisure services”, Managing Leisure: An International Journal, Vol. 6,
pp. 15-34.
Marshal, G. and Murdoch, I. (2001), “Service quality in marketing of consulting engineers”,
International Journal of Construction Marketing, Vol. 3, November.
Mathews, J. and Shulman, A.D. (2005), “Competitive advantage in public-sector organizations:
explaining the public good/sustainable competitive advantage paradox”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 232-40.
Mwita, J.I. (2000), “Performance management model”, The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Ovretveit, J. (1991), Quality Health Services, BIOSS, Brunel University, Uxbridge.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, W. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 2-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, A.A. and Berry, L.L. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-50.
Randall, L. and Senior, M. (1994), “A model for achieving quality in hospital hotel services”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management, Vol. 6, pp. 68-74.
Ranson, S. and Stewart, J. (1994), Management for the Public Domain, Macmillan, London.
Robinson, J. (1999), “Following the quality strategy: the reasons for the use of quality
management in UK public leisure facilities”, Managing Leisure: An International Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 201-17.
IJQRM Robinson, L. (1995), Quality Management – An Investigation of the Use of Quality Programmes in
Local Authority Sport and Leisure Facilities, Institute of Sport and Recreation
24,2 Management, Melton Mowbray.
Robinson, L. (2003), “Committed to quality: the use of quality schemes in UK public leisure
services”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 247-55.
Rowly, J. (1998), “Quality measurement in the public sector: some perspectives from the service
190 quality literature”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 Nos 2/3, pp. 321-33.
Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (1994), “Service quality: insights and managerial implications from
the frontier”, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory
and Practices, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-19.
Schneider, B. and Bowen, D. (1985), “Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks:
replication and extensions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 423-33.
Teicher, J., Hughes, O. and Dow, N. (2002), “E-government: a new route to public service quality”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 384-93.
Triantafillou, P. (2002), “Machinating the responsive bureaucrat: excellent work culture in the
Malaysian public sector”, Asian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 185-209.
Tse, D.K. and Wilton, P.C. (1998), “Models of consumer satisfaction formation: an extension”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 25, May, pp. 204-13.
Wamsley, G. (1990), “The agency perspective”, in Wamsley, G., Bacher, R.N., Goodsell, C.T.,
Kronenberg, P.S., Rohr, J.A., Stivers, C.M., White, O. and Wolf, J.F. (Eds), Refounding
Public Administration, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Williams, C. (1998), “Is the SERVQUAL model an appropriate management tool for measuring
service delivery quality in the UK public sector?”, Managing Leisure: An International
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 98-110.
Yasin, M.M., Wafa, M.A. and Small, M.H. (2001), “Just in time implementation in the public
sector: an empirical examination”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 9/10, pp. 1195-204.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2000), “Service quality, profitability and the economic worth of customers: what
we know and what we need to learn”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 67-85.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), Services Marketing: Integrated Customer Focus Across the
Firm, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Zeppou, M. and Sotirakou, T. (2003), “The STAIR model: a comprehensive approach for
managing and measuring government performance in the post-modern era”,
The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 16, pp. 320-2.

Further reading
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service; Balancing
Customer Perceptions and Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Jay Kandampully can be contacted at: Kandampully.1@osu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints