Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
Indian Management Education: Service Quality
Perspective
K K Ramachandran and D. Padmanaban
Management education in India exists around five decades. During this period,
there has been a tremendous growth in the number of institutions offering
management education. Business schools (B-schools) in India had grown
tremendous in the past four years: their number swelled to an estimated 4,500 in
2012-13 from 3,000 in 2009-10. MBA is looked upon as a degree to elevate one
into corporate success with high salaries and image. While the inquisitiveness
about such programs grew, so were the criticisms about the functioning and quality
of institutions churning out future managers, especially affiliated institutions. The
aim of this research paper is to suggest measures to improve service quality of
management education institutions to foster efficient teaching-learning process and
value-addition. The faculty’s perspective is presented employing Structural
Equation Modelling.
Keywords: Management Education, Service Quality.
I. Background
Management education in India exists around five decades. During this period, there
has been a tremendous growth in the number of institutions offering management
education. Business schools (B-schools) in India had grown tremendous in the past
four years: their number swelled to an estimated 4,500 in 2012-13 from 3,000 in
2009-10.
MBA is looked upon as a degree to elevate one into corporate success with high
salaries and status. While the inquisitiveness about such programs grew, so were the
criticisms about the functioning and quality of institutions churning out future
managers, especially affiliated institutions. Literature has focused mainly on issues
like infrastructure, faculty, placements, and foreign tie-ups. Some publication houses
brought out “ranking” reports but these were not in-depth studies backed by credible
evidence. There existed a need for a holistic evaluation of service quality by taking
the major players, namely, students, faculty and administrators into account and
ascertaining their perceptions. This was more required than just focusing on
placements and salaries.
It has become more and more imperative to focus on service quality to deliver
satisfaction and delight. Service quality is a focused evaluation that reflects the
customer's perception of specific dimensions of service. It is an assessment of how
well a delivered service conforms to the client's expectations.
II. Objectives of Research
The aim of the research was to suggest measures to improve service quality of
management education institutions to foster efficient teaching-learning process and
value-addition.
______________________________________
Dr K K Ramachandran, Director, GRD Institute of Management, Coimbatore, India – 641 014.
Mobile: +91 98422 45058 E-Mail: dr.k.k.ramachandran@gmail.com
Dr.D. Padmanaban, Chairman, Dr.GRD College of Science, Coimbatore, India – 641 014.
E-Mail: grdscib@grd.org
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
The primary objective of the research was to ascertain the service quality of
Management education institutions offering full-time management education.
The secondary objectives of the study were:
a) to ascertain the perception of faculty in management education institutions
about intangible factors like reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy;
about tangible factors like ambience, space and utilities; about learning and
development factors like training and activities in multiple domains.
b) to study the perception of Management education institutions‟ faculty
satisfaction with intangibles, tangibles, learning & development satisfaction.
c) to assess the impact of intangibles, tangibles, learning & development on
overall service quality of management education institution.
III. Scope of Research
The scope of the research broadly encompassed sub themes like Management
education, Category of Institution, Variables impacting satisfaction with intangibles,
satisfaction with tangibles, satisfaction with learning & development, service quality of
Management education institution and demographic profile.
IV. Research Methodology
Research Design: Causal research design was employed for data collection, analysis
and testing of service quality research model used in this research.
Sampling Design: The population comprised full-time faculty serving in management
education institutions offering BBA / MBA degree programs. The frame comprised
full-time faculty serving in management education affiliated institutions offering BBA /
MBA degree programs. Proportionate Stratified sampling was employed wherein
strata comprised three categories, namely, 3 institutions offering only UG programs,
14 institutions offering only PG programs, and 4 institutions offering both UG and PG
programs. The actual sample size was 105 faculty.
Data Collection Design: Primary Data Collection Method was survey method.
Primary Data Collection Instruments was an undisguised structured questionnaire for
survey.
Statistical Tools: The main tools used for statistical analysis were Percentages,
Means, Standard deviation, and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).
Reliability Coefficient: The reliability coefficient (cronbach alpha) was found to be
0.889 for survey instrument comprising 30 items. The alpha value is more than the
minimum acceptable value of 0.7.
Limitations of Research: The limitations of the research were: (a) the study is
focused on service quality of management education institution only and other
dynamics of service marketing and management are not under its purview; (b) There
may be changes in the service sector / education sector environments in the future
which in turn may influence changes in service quality levels, expectations and
perceptions.
V. Conceptual Framework
Conceptual framework of the research was based upon research gaps and
exhaustive review of literature. The rationale behind constructing this framework was
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
that it attempts to facilitate a more holistic model relating to service quality of the
Institution by adding more determinants. The model has been inspired and partly
adapted from (i) the SERVQUAL model of Soutar (1996) Pariseau (1997) Chua
(2004), (ii) Perceived service quality model of Morales (1999), (iii) Transformation
system model of Sahney (2004), and (iv) Holonic model of Karapetrovic (1999).
The variables extracted from review of literature were mainly sourced from journal
articles authored by Pereda (2007), Abdullah (2005), Sohail (2004), Banwet (2003),
Wiklund (2003), Tam (2002) McAdam (2000), Oldfield (2000), Yorke (1999, 1995),
Joseph (1997), Cuthbert (1996), Owlia (1996), and McKenna (1995).
Factors affecting service quality comprised three determinants and eight subdeterminants. The sub-determinants in turn comprised 30 variables.
26 variables were identified from survey of literature. These 26 variables
comprised Innovative strategies, Tie-ups with foreign institutions, Reputation of the
Institution, Institution-Corporate interaction, Institution‟s vision & mission, Academic
freedom, Participation in decision-making, Online / Digital resources, Peers,
Resources for new initiatives, Professional networks, Opportunities for personal
growth and development, Recognition of research and other achievements, Quality
of students, Residential Accommodation, Campus maintenance, Class Room &
Labs, Library facilities, Reprography (Xerox) facility, Support services, Office and
administration, Campus technology, Program curriculum, Training Programs,
Pursuing cross-disciplinary work, and Research Work.
Four variables were added to the study keeping in mind current scenario, namely,
Deputation to external events, Balance between work and life, Compensation, and
Job security.
The Endogenous (Descriptive) Variables were: Intangibles; Tangibles; Learning
and Development, and Service Quality.
The Exogenous (Operational) Variables were: Assurance; Empathy; Reliability;
Responsiveness; Tangibles; Ambience; Spaces and utilities; Training; and Activities
in multiple domains.
VI. Research Questions and Hypotheses
Research Questions (RQ) were:
RQ1: Do intangible service factors have an effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction
with intangibles?
RQ2: Do tangible service factors have an effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction
with tangibles?
RQ3: Do training and activities in multiple domains have an effect on faculty‟s
perception satisfaction with Learning & Development?
RQ4: Does faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with intangibles have an effect on service
quality of institution?
RQ5: Does faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with tangibles have an effect on service
quality of institution?
RQ6: Does faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with Learning & Development have an
effect on service quality of institution?
Main Hypotheses were:
H01a: Reliability has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with intangibles.
H01b: Responsiveness has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with
intangibles.
H01c: Assurance has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with intangibles.
H01d: Empathy has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with intangibles.
H02a: Space and utilities has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with
tangibles.
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
H02b: Ambience has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with tangibles.
H03a: Training has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with Learning &
Development.
H03b: Activities in multiple domains has no effect on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction
with Learning & Development.
H04: Perceived satisfaction with intangibles has no effect on faculty‟s perceived
satisfaction with service quality of institution.
H05: Perceived satisfaction with tangibles has no effect on faculty‟s perceived
satisfaction with service quality of institution.
H06: Perceived satisfaction with Learning & Development has no effect on faculty‟s
perceived satisfaction with service quality of institution.
Exhibit 1: SEM Analysis for Research Model
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
VII. Major Findings
Major Findings based on survey of faculty were:
i.
The coefficient of reliability (0.185); coefficient of responsiveness (0.19);
coefficient of assurance (0.191); and coefficient of empathy (0.322) represent
the positive effect of these variables on faculty‟s perceived satisfaction with
intangibles.
ii.
The coefficient of spaces and utilities (0.288) and coefficient of ambience
(0.383) represent the positive effect of these variables on faculty‟s perceived
satisfaction with tangibles.
iii.
The coefficient of training (0.436) and coefficient of activities in multiple
domains (0.381) represent the positive effect of these variables on faculty‟s
perceived satisfaction with learning & development.
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
iv.
The coefficient of learning & development (0.39); coefficient of intangibles
(0.161) and coefficient of tangibles (0.262) represent the positive effect of
these variables on faculty‟s perceived service quality of management
education institution.
VIII. Output
The top five variables (highest rating) influencing service quality of institution were
Value-added courses, Hostel Accommodation, Participation in decision-making,
Innovative strategies and Resources for programs.
The bottom five variables (lowest rating) influencing service quality of institution
were Peers, Office and administration, Tie-ups with foreign institutions, Job security
and Deputation to external events.
The highest mean rating was for learning and development followed by tangibles.
Intangibles were rated the least.
The mean rating for service quality was found to be 2.5 out of 4 indicating that it
was placed between „satisfactory‟ and „good‟.
It is found that the calculated p value was greater than 0.05; Goodness of Fit
index (GFI) value, Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) value and Comparative Fit
index (CFI) value were greater than 0.9 indicating a very good fit. It was found that
Root Mean Score Error of Approximation (RMSEA) value was minimal (0.037).
IX. Implications
It was found that reliability; responsiveness, assurance and empathy had a
positive impact on intangibles. Ambience and spaces & utilities had a partial positive
impact on tangibles. Training and activities in multiple domains had a partial positive
impact on learning and development. These three impacted dimensions in turn had a
partial positive impact on service quality of institution.
An action plan for improving service quality of management education institution
could comprise:
a) Frequent corporate interaction
b) Continuous up gradation of curriculum
c) Fostering of right attitude amongst stakeholders
d) Importance to social responsibility, quality of life and sustainable
development
e) Provision of diversified portfolio
f) Innovative suitable pedagogy
g) Efficient integration of technology
h) Investments in physical and intellectual capital
i) Good quality placement and guidance
j) Good corporate governance
k) Energized Qualified faculty
l) Active research and development
m) Inculcation of multiple perspectives
n) Exposure to real business issues
o) Globalization of management education institutions
p) Establishment of professional and empowered councils
q) Evolving a national testing service
r) Encouraging value-based education
s) Multi-lateral collaboration
t) Development of relevant teaching materials and case studies
u) Efficient Brand-building
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
X. Select References
1. Abdullah, F. (2006) “The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring
instrument of service quality for the higher education sector”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 30: 569-581.
2. Adee, A. (1997), “Linking Student Satisfaction and Service Quality Perceptions:
The Case of University Education”, European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7), 528535.
3. Avdjieva, M. and Wilson, M. (2002) “Exploring the Development of Quality in
Higher Education”, Managing Service Quality. 12 (6), 372-383.
4. Barnes, B.R (2006) “Analysing Service Quality: The Case of Post-Graduate
Chinese Students”, ISSN 1743-6796
5. Brochado, A. (2009) “Comparing alternative instruments to measure service
quality in higher education”, Quality Assurance In Education, 17: 174-190.
6. Buttle, F. (1996) “SERVQUAL: Review, Critique, Research Agenda”, European
Journal of Marketing, 30(1): 8-32.
7. Entwistle, N. J. & Tait, H. (1990) “Approaches to learning evaluation of teaching
and preferences for contrasting academic environments”, Higher Education.
18: 483-490.
8. Faganel, A. 2010 “Quality Perception Gap Inside The Higher Education
Institution”, International Journal of academic research. 2(1): 213-215.
9. Ford, J. B., Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1999) “Importance-Performance
Analysis as a Strategic Tool for Service Marketers: The Case of Service Quality
Perceptions of Business Students in New Zealand and the USA”, The Journal
of Services Marketing. 13(2): 171-181.
10. Gbadamosi, Gbolahan & De Jager, Johan (2008) “Measuring Service Quality in
South Africa Higher Education: Developing a Multidimensional Scale”, Global
Business and Technology Association (GBATA), United States. ISBN 1932917-04-7
11. Gao, Y. & Wei, W. (2010) “Measuring Service Quality and Satisfaction of
Student in Chinese Business Education” accessed from world wide web.
http://it.swufe.edu.cn/UploadFile/other/xsjl/sixwuhan/Paper/IM131.pdf
12. Grönroos, C. (2000) “Service management and marketing. A customer
relationship management approach”, Wiley, Chichester.
13. Hampton, G. M. (1993) “Gap analysis of college student satisfaction as a
measure of professional service quality”, Journal of professional service
marketing, 9(1):115-128
14. Kaleem, A. & Rahmat (2004) “Analyzing the Services quality of Business
Schools In Pakistan: A Comparative and Analytical View”, In proceedings of
South Asian Management Forum: 86-95.
15. LaBay, D. G. and Comm, C. L. (2003) “A Case Study Using Gap Analysis to
Assess Distance Learning versus Traditional Course Delivery”, The
International Journal of Education Management, 17(6&7): 312-317.
16. Lau, L. K. (2003) “Institutional Factors Affecting Student Retention”, Education.
124(1): 126-136.
17. Lee, J.-W. & Tai. S.W. (2008) “Critical factors affecting customer satisfaction
and higher education in Kazakhstanv”, International Journal of Management in
Education, 2: 46–59.
18. Leblanc, Nguyen, G. & Nha (1994) “Searching for excellence in business
education: An exploratory study of customer impressions of service quality”, In
proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada, Education Management Division, 15(10): 1-118
19. Lehtinen,U. and Lehtinen,J.R. (1992) “Service Quality: A Study of Quality
Dimensions”, Working Paper, Service Management Institute, Helsinki.
Proceedings of Annual Tokyo Business Research Conference
15 - 16 December 2014, Waseda University, Tokyo, japan, ISBN: 978-1-922069-67-2
20. Mc Elwee, G. & Redman, T. (1993) “Upward appraisal in practice: An
illustrative example using the Qualid model”, Education + Training, 35(2): 2731.
*******