The relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction in the driving test center, ho chi minh city college of transportation, vietnam

MEIHO UNIVERSITY Graduate Institute of Business and Management MASTERS THESIS The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the DrivingTest Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation, Vietnam In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Business Administration Advisor: Dr Kuo-Hung Tseng Co-advisor: Dr Nguyen Minh Tuan Graduate Student: Nguyen Trong Diep December, 2010 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, please let me say thanks to the Managing Board of Ho Chi Minh City University of Industry and Meiho University, Taiwan for allowing me taking part in the 2-year Master of Business Administration program jointed between the two universities I’m very thankful to Prof Dr Kuo-Hung Tseng, Chair of College of Business and Management, Meiho University, Taiwan due to guiding and encouraging me when implementing this research thesis I’m also very thankful to Dr Nguyen Minh Tuan, Dean of Department of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh City University of Industry I express my heartfelt thanks to Nguyen Quang Vinh, PhD candidate in National Sun Yatsen University, Taiwan for giving me useful advices and ideas during the time of completing this thesis Sincerely thank to Lecturers of Department of Postgraduate Program, Department of Business Administration, Ho Chi Minh City University of Industry and my EMBA2 classmates Especially, thank administrative staffs and instructors in the Driving-test Center – Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation for the useful helps, supports and encouragements during the past years Also, I would like to thank Professors, administrative staffs of the Graduate Institute of Business and Management and the International Education and Collaboration Office of Meiho University as well as Taiwanese MBA classmates for all their supports and helps through the program duration Finally, I would like to show deep gratitude to my family, colleagues and friends about their sincere and useful affections, concernments, helps, encouragements during this program Completing this thesis is not only obligation but also the most sincere sentiment to me Thanks to everyone! Respectfully thanks! I The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Driving-Test Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation, Vietnam ABSTRACT Graduation thesis "The relationship between service quality and Satisfaction of customers in driving test center, the College of Transportation, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam " made with purposes: to find out the evaluation of customers on service quality of Driving-Test Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation, through inspection of the components that make up the service quality of the Driving test center Based on the thesis, the Center provides the evaluation of service quality and proposes innovative solutions of service quality to increase competitiveness, create stable development for the Driving test center The object of topic Research topic was carried out with three research objectives as follows: Determining components that create service quality of the driving-test center and whether it influences customer satisfaction of the Center Determining impact level of those components towards customer satisfaction of the driving-test center Proposing some solutions to improve service quality of the driving-test center Research method and results: Topic was studied by quantitative methods, starting from making up research model & research hypotheses; identify subject for investigation, make up questionnaires and conduct formal surveys and data processing obtained by SPSS software Research topics used questionnaire with 5-point Likert scale to collect survey data from investigative subjects of topic After consulting the experts, the question items were modified and supplemented, the preliminary questionnaire was formed and preliminary investigation was done All response data is processed with SPSS 14.0 software to measure the reliability and reasonableness of question items with each research group II Then official research was carried out with the sample size of n = 377 Entire response data of 377 questionnaires measured reliability and reasonableness of each question, in each research question group Research model and hypotheses were tested by the method of linear regression analysis According to research results, there is evidence that service quality of driving test center, the Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation includes five components, which are (1) The Reliability, measured by observation variables, (2) The Response, measured by the observation variables, (3) The Assurance, measured by observation variables, (4) The Empathy, measured by observation variables; (5) The Tangibility, measured by observation variables Research result also shows that: The Tangibility is the most influential component to satisfaction of customers; next in turn is Empathy, Reliability, and Response Component that has the least impact to satisfaction of customer is Assurance Meaning of topic This study is to evaluate the service quality that provided by Driving test center, as well as the level of satisfaction of customer to service quality of Driving test center Research results is basis to improve, raise service quality of Driving test center Topic has built the set of scale “service quality of Driving test center” that used for customers’ evaluation This set of scales as well as research results will be useful reference material for next studies Keyword: Service Quality, Satisfaction of Customer, Driving Test Center III The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Driving-Test Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation, Vietnam Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I ABSTRACT II Contents IV Tables VI Figures VII Chapter1 Introduction 1.1 Research Motivation 1.2 Research Purpose 1.3 Research Scope and Limitations 1.4 Definition of Terms Chapter Literature Review 2.1 Service 2.2 Service Quality 2.3 Customer Satisfaction 12 2.4 Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction 13 Chapter Research Methodology 14 3.1 Research Framework and Hypotheses 14 3.2 Research Process 15 3.3 Subjects of Survey 17 3.4 The Survey Instrument - Questionnaire 17 3.4.1 Preliminary questionnaire 17 3.4.2 Official questionnaire 21 3.5.1 Sample of survey 22 3.6 Analytical Methods 22 Chapter Research Results and Analysis 24 4.1 Demographic Analysis 24 4.2 Evaluation Questionnaire 28 IV 4.3 Analyzing the Correlation Coefficient between Variables 29 4.4 Single Linear Regression Analysis 31 4.4.1 Testing hypothesis H1: Reliability has positive effect on customer satisfaction of the Center 31 4.4.2 Testing hypothesis H2: Response has positive influence on satisfaction of customer of Center 32 4.4.3 Testing hypothesis H3: Assurance has positive influence on satisfaction of customer of Center 33 4.4.4 Testing hypothesis H4: Empathy has positive influence on satisfaction of customer of Center 34 4.4.5 Testing hypothesis H5: Tangibility has positive influence on satisfaction of customer of Center 35 4.5 Analysis of Multiple Linear Regressions 36 4.6 Analysis Comments 38 Chapter Conclusions, Recommendations and Implications 39 5.1 Conclusions 39 5.1.1 The components that make up the service quality of driving test center for testing drivers that affect satisfaction of customers 39 5.1.2 Level of influence of the components that make up the service quality of Driving test center to satisfaction of customers 40 5.1.3 Solutions need to improve the service quality of driving test center 40 5.2 Limitations of Research Topics 42 References 44 Attachment 1.1 Servperf Scale 47 Attachment 1.2 Summary of Expert Opinions 49 Attachment 1.3 Preliminary Questionnaire 55 Attachment 1.4 The Pilot Test Analysis Result - 32 Persons 59 Attachment 1.5 Official Questionnaire Survey 60 Attachment 1.6 Basis for Determining Sample Size 64 Attachment 2.1 Frequency Table 66 Attachment 2.2 Comments Gatherred 79 V Tables Table 3-1 List of Experts 18 Table 3-2 Summary of Sources for Questionnaire Development 19 Table 4-1 Result of Analysis Describing Informations about Gender and Component 24 Table 4-2 Result of Analysis Describing Informations about Age, Education and Income 24 Table 4-3 Presents Mean and Std Deviation of Answer to Each Question 25 Table 4-4 Summary of Results the Reliability Appraisal of Questionnaire 29 Table 4-5 Correlations Coefficient between Variables 30 Table 4-6 Model Summary 31 Table 4-7 ANOVA(b) 31 Table 4-8 Coefficients(a) 31 Table 4-9 Model Summary 32 Table 4-10 ANOVA(b) 32 Table 4-11 Coefficients(a) 32 Table 4-12 Model Summary 33 Table 4-13 ANOVA(b) 33 Table 4-14 Coefficients(a) 33 Table 4-15 Model Summary 34 Table 4-16 ANOVA(b) 34 Table 4-17 Coefficients(a) 34 Table 4-18 Model Summary 35 Table 4-19 ANOVA(b) 35 Table 4-20 Coefficients(a) 35 Table 4-21 Conclusion of Testing Hypothesis 36 Table 4-22 Model Summary 37 Table 4-23 ANOVA(b) .37 Table 4-24 Coefficients(a) 37 Table 4-25 General Data of Comments .38 VI Figures Figure 1-1 Overview Driving - Test Centre .4 Figure 2-1 Service ( Master Nguyễn Văn Tâm, 2010 ) .5 Figure 2-2 5-Gaps service quality model of Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V A., & Berry, L L (1985) 10 Figure 2-3 SERVQUAL Model (Parasuraman, zeithaml&Berry, 1998) 11 Figure 2-4 Customer Perception Model of Quality and Satisfaction .13 Figure 3-1 Research Framework 14 Figure 3-2 Presents the Steps of the Research Process 16 Figure 5-1 Driving Test Center 43 VII DU Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Percent Valid Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.1 1.1 1.3 10 2.7 2.7 4.0 Denotes agree 120 31.8 31.8 35.8 Denotes completely agree 242 64.2 64.2 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree DU 10 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.6 1.6 1.9 11 2.9 2.9 4.8 97 25.7 25.7 30.5 Denotes completely agree 262 69.5 69.5 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree Denotes agree DU 11 Cumulative Frequency Valid Denotes disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.3 1.3 1.3 27 7.2 7.2 8.5 Denotes agree 115 30.5 30.5 39.0 Denotes completely agree 230 61.0 61.0 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 69 DU 12 Cumulative Frequency Valid Completely disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.1 1.1 1.1 Denotes disagree 13 3.4 3.4 4.5 Denotes neither disagree nor 21 5.6 5.6 10.1 Denotes agree 116 30.8 30.8 40.8 Denotes completely agree 223 59.2 59.2 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 agree DU 13 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Percent Valid Percent Completely disagree 5 Denotes disagree 2.1 2.1 2.7 14 3.7 3.7 6.4 Denotes agree 123 32.6 32.6 39.0 Denotes completely agree 230 61.0 61.0 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree DU 14 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 8 Denotes disagree 1.6 1.6 2.4 12 3.2 3.2 5.6 Denotes agree 114 30.2 30.2 35.8 Denotes completely agree 242 64.2 64.2 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 70 DB 15 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Completely disagree Percent Valid Percent 5 Denotes disagree 12 3.2 3.2 3.7 Denotes neither disagree nor 20 5.3 5.3 9.0 98 26.0 26.0 35.0 Denotes completely agree 245 65.0 65.0 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 agree Denotes agree DB 16 Cumulative Frequency Valid Denotes disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.6 1.6 1.6 21 5.6 5.6 7.2 Denotes agree 101 26.8 26.8 34.0 Denotes completely agree 249 66.0 66.0 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree DB 17 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.9 1.9 2.1 24 6.4 6.4 8.5 Denotes agree 148 39.3 39.3 47.7 Denotes completely agree 197 52.3 52.3 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 71 DB 18 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.3 1.3 1.6 23 6.1 6.1 7.7 Denotes agree 100 26.5 26.5 34.2 Denotes completely agree 248 65.8 65.8 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree DC 19 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 1.6 1.6 1.6 Denotes disagree 1.3 1.3 2.9 17 4.5 4.5 7.4 Denotes agree 124 32.9 32.9 40.3 Denotes completely agree 225 59.7 59.7 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree DC 20 Cumulative Frequency Valid Completely disagree Percent Percent Valid Percent 3 Denotes disagree 12 3.2 3.2 3.4 Denotes neither disagree nor 20 5.3 5.3 8.8 Denotes agree 104 27.6 27.6 36.3 Denotes completely agree 240 63.7 63.7 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 agree 72 DC 21 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 5 Denotes disagree 8 1.3 11 2.9 2.9 4.2 Denotes agree 102 27.1 27.1 31.3 Denotes completely agree 259 68.7 68.7 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree DC 22 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Percent Valid Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.9 1.9 2.1 16 4.2 4.2 6.4 Denotes agree 137 36.3 36.3 42.7 Denotes completely agree 216 57.3 57.3 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 73 HH 23 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Percent Valid Percent Completely disagree 5 Denotes disagree 1.3 1.3 1.9 15 4.0 4.0 5.8 Denotes agree 127 33.7 33.7 39.5 Denotes completely agree 228 60.5 60.5 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree HH 24 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.6 1.6 1.9 18 4.8 4.8 6.6 Denotes agree 117 31.0 31.0 37.7 Denotes completely agree 235 62.3 62.3 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree HH 25 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.1 1.1 1.3 14 3.7 3.7 5.0 99 26.3 26.3 31.3 Denotes completely agree 259 68.7 68.7 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree Denotes agree 74 HH 26 Cumulative Frequency Valid Completely disagree Percent Percent Valid Percent 8 Denotes disagree 20 5.3 5.3 6.1 Denotes neither disagree nor 30 8.0 8.0 14.1 Denotes agree 163 43.2 43.2 57.3 Denotes completely agree 161 42.7 42.7 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 agree HH 27 Cumulative Frequency Valid Completely disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 3 Denotes disagree 10 2.7 2.7 2.9 Denotes neither disagree nor 35 9.3 9.3 12.2 Denotes agree 139 36.9 36.9 49.1 Denotes completely agree 192 50.9 50.9 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 agree HL 28 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 5 Denotes disagree 1.1 1.1 1.6 24 6.4 6.4 8.0 Denotes agree 121 32.1 32.1 40.1 Denotes completely agree 226 59.9 59.9 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 75 HL 29 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Percent Valid Percent Completely disagree 3 Denotes disagree 1.9 1.9 2.1 20 5.3 5.3 7.4 99 26.3 26.3 33.7 Denotes completely agree 250 66.3 66.3 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree Denotes agree HL 30 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 5 Denotes disagree 1.6 1.6 2.1 22 5.8 5.8 8.0 Denotes agree 109 28.9 28.9 36.9 Denotes completely agree 238 63.1 63.1 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree HL 31 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Completely disagree 5 Denotes disagree 1.1 1.1 1.6 18 4.8 4.8 6.4 Denotes agree 105 27.9 27.9 34.2 Denotes completely agree 248 65.8 65.8 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 76 HL 32 Cumulative Frequency Valid Denotes disagree Percent Percent Valid Percent 2.1 2.1 2.1 26 6.9 6.9 9.0 Denotes agree 107 28.4 28.4 37.4 Denotes completely agree 236 62.6 62.6 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree HL 33 Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Completely disagree Valid Percent Percent 5 Denotes disagree 21 5.6 5.6 6.1 Denotes neither disagree nor 17 4.5 4.5 10.6 Denotes agree 151 40.1 40.1 50.7 Denotes completely agree 186 49.3 49.3 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 agree HL 34 Cumulative Frequency Valid Denotes disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.3 1.3 1.3 23 6.1 6.1 7.4 Denotes agree 103 27.3 27.3 34.7 Denotes completely agree 246 65.3 65.3 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 77 HL 35 Cumulative Frequency Valid Denotes disagree Percent Valid Percent Percent 1.9 1.9 1.9 24 6.4 6.4 8.2 Denotes agree 110 29.2 29.2 37.4 Denotes completely agree 236 62.6 62.6 100.0 Total 377 100.0 100.0 Denotes neither disagree nor agree 78 Attachment 2.2 Comments Gatherred Part III of the questionnaire is used to record trainee’s comments on service quality of the Driving-test center Each questionnaire is assigned an number These comments are particularly valuable for the process to gather more research information, and will contribute to improving the service quality of the Center I EXTREMELY SATISFIED COMMENTS Questionnaire No 60 63 66 68 Demographics COMMENTS Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Candidates-students College From -10 millions I just know about the Center, but generally it is ok Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Candidates-students College Under millions Overall activities of the Centre are good Most of class time is on time, procedure is fast Male Under 25 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I really agree how the training and guidance of staff and teacher of center Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I am very pleased with the testing center, it makes me feel comfortable to pass the test Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I totally satisfy Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Overall I am very pleased with the testing center 79 Candidates-students High school Under millions 83 102 135 137 138 145 146 150 Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Officer - Tester UniversityPostgraduate Under millions Through survey, I see that Center works relatively well through drive training , operating conditions Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Candidates-students College Under millions Further develop and improve the quality Male From 25 to 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I am very pleased with teaching way of center, make me feel comfortable when study here Male Under Candidates-students High school Under millions I totally agree with the practical guidance and theoretical teaching of the teachers and staff of the center Totally agree with the service of center I feel right when I chose to learn driving at center Male Over 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school From - 10 millions I am very pleased to service of driving test center and thanks for helping me get driver license Male from 25-40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I am very pleased to service of driving test center and thanks for helping me get driver license Male from 25-40 yr olds Candidates-students College Over 10 millions For me, Center has good quality, not complain Male Over 40 yr olds Candidates-students Center trains driver and has good service 80 High school Under millions 185 272 Male from 25-40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I really satisfy Male from 25-40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Under millions I am very pleased with teaching way of center I feel comfortable when study here II RELATIVELY SATISFIED COMMENTS Questionnaire No 57 72 81 Demographics COMMENTS Male Over 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school From 5-10millions Parking area of 2-wheel vehicles is easy abuse to remind candidates, when performing take car into the parking Male From 25- 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school From 5-10millions Center is very good, quality of car is not, because there are some cars have no air condition as the car No 23 and the clutch pedal is heavy, the center would consider quality vehicles Male From 25- 40 yr olds Officer - Tester UniversityPostgraduation From 5-10millions Overall the service style of all employees of the center are very enthusiastic and dedicated The means used for testing is relatively good, but some cars are broken car while testing Assembly room is relatively good, but not focus on testing than 500 students, because not enough room area Staffs and teachers of the center are devoted to their work, enthusiastic with customers Sensitive equipment, testing car need to supplement or replace for better service Male Over 40 yr olds Driving instructor UniversityPostgraduation From 5-10millions 81 105 115 136 Female From 25- 40 yr olds Candidates - students UniversityPostgraduation From 5-10millions There should be more space for students to rest and clean restroom, fully equipped, canteens should sell more food to serve for students Male Over 40 yr olds Driving instructor UniversityPostgraduation Under millions Center should have to available cars, in case the car breaks down suddenly (only cars B2 only) because this car works continuously and the students are new, so they not know how us technology proficiently, cars are easily damaged Arrange time for each student to practice by car takes less time Road and pratical form need to expand to prevent jamming while pratising Building parking lots for long term usage There should be female teachers, not only male teachers Male Over 40 yr olds Candidates-students High school From 5-10millions III DISSATISFIED COMMENTS Questionnaire No 12 82 101 106 Demographics COMMENTS Male Under 25 yr olds Candidates - students UniversityPostgraduation Over10 millions Staff guidance is very annoying, procedure takes long time Male From 25- 40 yr olds Officer - Tester UniversityPostgraduation From 5-10millions Air conditione does not work well There is few trees in the center, it leads to lack of shade Toilets need to be cleaner Male Over 40 yr olds Driving instructor College From 5-10 millions Toilets are dirty, lack of accommodation for teachers Male From 25-40 yr olds The toilet is too dirty Lack of tables and chairs for students 82 Candidates-students UniversityPostgraduation From 5-10millions 121 147 Male From 25-40 yr olds Driving instructor College Under millions Center should keep the car clean inside; asking for hiring staff to clean inside of the car Center should replaced battery in time when it has sign of weak battery Many cars have no air condition (Air condition does not work) Driving staff (practice) speaks loudly to students (not polite) Male From 25-40 yr olds Candidates-students High school Over 10 millions 83 ... Service Quality, Satisfaction of Customer, Driving Test Center III The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in the Driving- Test Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation,. .. the College of Transportation, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam " made with purposes: to find out the evaluation of customers on service quality of Driving- Test Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation,. .. Driving- Test Center, Ho Chi Minh City College of Transportation, Vietnam ABSTRACT Graduation thesis "The relationship between service quality and Satisfaction of customers in driving test center,