CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.3. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Like all empirical research, this study had its limitations. Firstly, this research did not identify the effect of personal characteristics on the citizens‟ evaluation about factors affecting their satisfaction. By identifying the different characteristics affecting perception and evaluation, this research proposed more practical solutions to improve citizens‟
satisfaction.
Second, this research do not study the policies to improve public service quality and citizen‟s satisfaction in comparison with perspective of Servants and leaders of offices in Thai Nguyen province.
Future research may focus on identifying the factors affecting citizens‟ satisfaction in comparison with current public service management of Thai Nguyen government. Extending the scope of research: future research should study citizens‟ satisfaction with public administrative services at different levels.
REFERENCES
Asubonteng, P., McCleaty, K.J. & Swan, J.E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service quality. Journal of Service Marketing, 10(6), 62-81.
Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M., Usman, A., Shaukat, M., Ahmad, N., and Iqbal, H., (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.
Antreas, D. A., & Opoulos, A. I. (2003). Modeling customer satisfaction in telecommunication:
Assessing the multiple transaction points on perceived over all performance of the provider.
Production and Operation Management, 12(2): 224-245.
Aydin S, ệzer G, Arasil ệ (2005), Customer loyalty and the effect of switching costs as a moderator variable: A case in the Turkish mobile phone market. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
2005; 23(1):89-103.
Barnes, James G. (1997). Closeness, Strength, and Satisfaction: Examining the Nature of Relationships Between Providers of Financial Services and Their Retail Customers.
Psychology and Marketing 14 (8): 765 790.
Cavana, R., Corbett, L., & Lo, Y. (2007). Developing zones of tolerance for managing passenger rail services quality. International Journal of Quality Reliability Management, 7-31.
Coner, Altan and Mustafa Ozgur, Gungor, 2002, „Factors affecting customer loyalty in the competitive Turkish metropolitan“, Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(1), pp. 189- 195.
De Lancer Julnes, P. and Holzer, M. (2001). „Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation‟ , Public Administration Review, Vol. 61(6): 693-708.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y, Wei, K. K., Zhang, J. (2009), “Understanding customer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical study of mobile instant messages in China”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 30, pages 289–300.
Do Huu Nghiem (2010), Examining the satisfaction levels of taxpayers with the quality of public services in Tax Department of Binh Duong Province. Thesis at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
Fatima JK; Razzaque MA, 2010, 'Understanding the role of service quality, customer involvement and rapport on overall satisfaction in Bangladesh banking service', in ANZMAC 2010 Conference Proceedings, Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 1 - 9, presented at ANZMAC 2010, Christchurch, New Zealand, 29 November - 01 December 2010
Fountain, J.E. (2001). Paradoxes of Public Sector Customer Service. Governance, 14(1), 55- 73.
Gowan, M., Seymour, J., Ibarreche, S. & Lackey, C. (2001) “Service quality in a public agency: same expectations but different perceptions by employees, managers, and customers,” Journal of Quality Management, vol. 6, p. 275-291.
Ho, A., & Coates, P. (2004). Citizen-initiated performance assessment: The initial iowa experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 29-50.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom , A. & Grayson, K., 1995. Distinguishing service quality and customer satisfaction: the voice of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Volume 4, pp. 277- 303.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2007). Marketing in the public sector: A roadmap for improved performance. New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.
Lai, F., Griffin, M., & Babin, B.J. (2009) How quality, value, image, and satisfaction create loyalty at a Chinese telecom. Journal of Business Research, 62(10): 980-986.
Le Dan (2011), "The plan to assess the satisfaction of public administrative services of citizens and organizations", Journal of Science and Technology, University of Danang, No. 3 (44).
Nguyen Toan Thang (2010). Improving the quality of public service about Business Registration in One - stop shop in the Department of Planning and Investment of Dak Lak province. Thesis at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
Nguyen Quoc Nghi, Phan Minh Nhat (2015), Factors affecting citizens‟ satisfaction at One- Stop-Shop of Thot Lot District, Can Tho City. Journal of science – Can Tho University, Vietnam, Vol 38, pp 91-97.
Nguyen Huu Hai and Le Viet Hoa (2010), "Criteria for evaluating the quality of public administrative services at state administrative agencies", Journal of State Organization, No. 3, 2010
Ndubisi, N.O., Wah, C.K. (2005) "Factorial and discriminant analyses of the underpinning of relationship marketing and customer satisfaction", International Journal of bank marketing, 23(7): 542-557.
Omachonu V., Johnson W.C. & Onyeaso G. (2008), An empirical test of the drivers of overall customer satisfaction: evidence from multivariate Granger causality, Journal of Services Marketing, 22/6, pp. 434-444
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, 49:41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64 (1):12-40.
Phan Thi Dinh (2013). Research people's satisfaction with the public administrative services at the People’s Committee of Ngu Hanh Son District. Thesis at Da Nang University.
Randall, L. and Senior M. (1994), “A model for achieving quality in hospital hotel services”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospital Management, Vol. 6 P. 68-74.
Rosen and Surprenant (1998),Evaluating relationships: are satisfaction and quality enough?
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9, No 2, pp 103-125.
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 Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA pp 1-19.
Salazar, A., Costa, J. and Rita, P., (2004), Relationship Between Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Behavioural Intentions: A case study of the hospitality sector, Proceedings of the 33rd EMAC, May, 2004, Murcia, Spain.
Shah Abdullah, H., & Kalianan, M. (2008). From customer satisfaction to citizen satisfaction:
Rethinking local government service delivery in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 4(11), 87-92.
Spreng, R. A., Mackey, R. D. (1996), “An Empirical Examination of a Model of Perceived Service Quality and Satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing, 72 (2), Summer, 201-204.
Sriyam, A. (2010), Customer Satisfaction towards Service Quality of Front Office Staff at the Hotel, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Szymanski, D.M. and Henard, D.H. (2001), "Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence", Journal of Academic of Marketing Science, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 16-35.
Tan, B-in, Wang, Choy-Har, Lam, C. H., Ooi, K-B and Chee-YewNg, F (2010), “Assessing the link between service quality dimensions and knowledge sharing: Student Perspective”, African Journal of Business Management Vol. 4 (6), Pp. 1014-1022.
Teicher, J., Hughes, O. & Dow, N. (2002) “E-government: a new route to public service quality”, Managing Service Quality, vol. 12(6), p. 384-93.
Tran Thi Kim Thu (2013), Theory of statistics, National Economics University Publisher.
Szymanski, D. M. & Henard, D. H.. (1999). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 16-35.
Vo Nguyen Khanh (2011). Measuring the satisfaction of the people for public administrative services when applying ISO in District No. 1 - Ho Chi Minh City. Thesis at University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City.
Wang, H., Singh, S.R., Zheng, Z., Oh, S.W., Chen, X., Edwards, K., Hou, S.X. (2006). Rap- GEF signaling controls stem cell anchoring to their niche through regulating DE- cadherin-mediated cell adhesion in the Drosophila testis. Dev. Cell 10(1): 117--126.
APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE
The following items are requested for some statistical purposes only. Please place a check mark or write the numbers in the categories that best describes you.
You are: Male Female Age:
Grade:
Please read the following statements and circle the most appropriate numbers.
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. In general, I am satisfied with service I receive from this administrative agency
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Overall, I think the service offered by employees in this agency is good
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. This service offered by employees of this agency meet my expectation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I think the service is good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. Employees are enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Employees are considerate and thoughtful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Employee are always on time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Civil servants are friendly and helpful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Civil servants enthusiastically guide and advise citizens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Civil servants create trust 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. Civil servants have good professional qualifications 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Civil servants in administrative agencies are professional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Civil servants have ability to explain laws and policies for citizens
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Civil servants with clear badges and name tags 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Civil servants comply with work schedule 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Civil servants implement the procedures flexibly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Civil servants accept the recommendations and
suggestions from customers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Comments are accepted respectfully by Civil servants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. I have to pay extra money for fast services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I have to pay more for the service out of reported fee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. I have to pay some more money for employee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Costs are very low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Publicity and transparency concerning costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Reasonable transaction fees 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Full charge receipts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. I have to wait for long time/ time spent waiting to get results
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. I have to spend hours for public service at this agency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. The time for public service is very short 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. I usually have to wait for my turn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Working time by regulation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Transaction time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. Convenient parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Place to wait for transactions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Clear guidance diagrams 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Good support equipment (sanitary conditions, water, fan, etc.)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Clear guidance tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Quality of computers and other supporting devices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Circle the most appropriate number
1. Records and procedures requested are reasonable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Forms are designed scientifically 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Transaction procedures are simple 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Transaction sequences are conducted reasonably 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5.Guidance activities to revise incomplete or unsatisfactory records
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Clear appointments to get results 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. Simplifying procedures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE
The following items are requested for some statistical purposes only. Please place a check mark or write the numbers in the categories that best describes you.
You are: Male Female Age:
Grade:
Please read the following statements and circle the most appropriate numbers.
Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Order Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.
The office has conducted survey to understand the citizens‟ needs periodically
2. The office is aware of citizens‟ needs periodically
3.
The office has identified the citizens‟ needs periodically
4.
The office has built a service delivery process based on the citizens‟ needs and regulation
5.
The office has consulted with other agencies in developing a public service delivery process
6.
The service delivery process is deployed to each part of the unit
7. Everybody has known the service delivery process.
8. Service standards are unified
9.
Office leaders conduct periodic inspections to check the staff‟s provision of services
10. The office leaders help staff when they needed
APPEDIX 3: Correlations
ATT COM COST TIME FAC PRO SAT
ATT
Pearson Correlation 1 .860* .088 .302* .479* .701* .786**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .075 .000 .000 .000 .000
Sum of Squares and Cross-
products 542.632 426.576 62.791 174.617 273.965 337.524 433.517
Covariance 1.337 1.051 .155 .430 .675 .831 1.068
N 407 407 407 407 407 407 407
COM
Pearson Correlation .860* 1 .146* .379* .618* .716* .707**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000
Sum of Squares and Cross-
products 426.576 453.219 94.587 200.084 322.714 315.476 356.485
Covariance 1.051 1.116 .233 .493 .795 .777 .878
N 407 407 407 407 407 407 407
COST
Pearson Correlation .088 .146* 1 .260* .303 .144 .106*
Sig. (2-tailed) .075 .003 .000 .000 .004 .033
Sum of Squares and Cross-
products 62.791 94.587 930.577 196.703 226.579 90.975 76.268
Covariance .155 .233 2.292 .484 .558 .224 .188
N 407 407 407 407 407 407 407
TIME
Pearson Correlation .302 .379* .26* 1 .619* .404* .266**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Sum of Squares and Cross-
products 174.617 200.084 196.703 616.353 377.158 207.683 156.217
Covariance .430 .493 .484 1.518 .929 .512 .385
N 407 407 407 407 407 407 407