An Analysis of Service Quality using Importance Performance

Analysis and Gap Analysis at a Commercial Bank in Indonesia

Dedy Ansari Harahap

1,2

, Ratih Hurriyati

, Disman

, Vanessa Gaffar

, Dita Amanah

1,3

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Bandung, Indonesia

Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara, Medan, Indonesia

Universitas Negeri Medan, Medan Indonesia

Keywords: Service Quality, Importance Performance Analysis, Gap Analysis & Banking.

Abstract: Increasingly complex challenges in the banking industry and the rapid advancement of information

technology, encourage the banking industry to respond quickly to fulfill customer needs by providing safe

and quality banking products and services. This study aims to measure and determine the service quality of

PT. BNI (Persero) Tbk, USU Medan. This study is a descriptive quantitative research with the sample of 120

respondents and analyzed statistically using Importance Performance Analysis (IPA) and Gap Analysis

(GAP). The results showed the service quality with the IPA method was very good with the level of

performance is 80.40%, while the GAP method obtained from the whole instrument is -0.95, which indicates

that the service quality is good. This article provides guidelines that every bank must continuously improve

its service to customers thus customers feel satisfied and do not switch to another bank. Service quality is

important in order to attract customers become loyal to the bank.

1 INTRODUCTION

Banks are required to be more professional,

trustworthy in service and able to meet customer

desires quickly. An increasingly competitive banking

industry, not only competing with each other; but also

with non-banks and other financial institutions

(Kaynak & Kucukemiroglu, 1992;Hull, 2002). All

services and facilities provided by banks have a very

important role in measuring the level of quality of

banking services along with banking performance.

Intensification of competition in the financial services

industry to remain competitive, financial institutions

have provided a variety of financial services (Hinson,

Mohammed, & Mensah, 2006). All research was

carried out using SERVQUAL on the basis of five

dimensions namely; tangibility (physical facilities),

reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.

Quality of service is considered a critical measure

of organizational performance. This remains the most

important issue in the marketing literature in general

and the special service marketing literature (Jensen

and Markland, 1996).

Academic researchers (Hawes & Rao, 1985;

Hermmasi, Strong, & S. Taylor, 1994; Martilla &

James, 1977; Swinyard, 1980), advocate the use of

importance-performance analysis (IPA) as a

managerially relevant approach to the interpretation

of customer perceptions of services into strategic

application and organizational resources. There is a

precedent for using IPA to get a better understanding

of banking customers' perceptions of selected service

factors (Ennew, Reed, & Binks, 1993; Joseph,

McClure, & Joseph, 1999; Joseph & Stone, 2003;

Swinyard, 1980).

The reputable banking practitioners (Albro, 1999;

Motley, 1999), have recommended great adoption of

performance-interest grids (described in detail later in

this article) as heuristic decision tools that are useful

for guiding strategic analysis.

BNI USU Medan is the main branch office located

in the largest university area in North Sumatra located

in Medan. Customers are not only the society, but also

USU students, staff and lecturers who are making

transaction at this bank. This bank is very strategic

that can help every one of the surrounding their

business activities. This bank also holds the salary

accounts of all USU lecturers and staff, banks for

paying tuition fees for students, registration fees for

state university tests. This bank has experienced a lot

of renewal in the physical building in 2017-2018, so

Ansari Harahap, D., Hurriyati, R., Disman, ., Gaffar, V. and Amanah, D.

An Analysis of Service Quality using Importance Performance Analysis and Gap Analysis at a Commercial Banks in Indonesia.

DOI: 10.5220/0008437901610168

In Proceedings of the 4th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference (SEABC 2018), pages 161-168

ISBN: 978-989-758-387-2

161

it is known as a bank that has the best service, fast,

clean and comfortable room (IDLokasi, 2018).

This article discusses the gaps in the literature by

analyzing the performance-importance of customer

perceptions of bank service. According to the authors,

the research on service quality using IPA and GAP

analysis is still a little done, so it is important to

analyze the performance-importance of customer

perceptions especially at BNI banks. The main focus

of this research is to identify gaps in service quality

between consumer expectations and perceptions at

BNI USU Medan. So that it can be a customer's

preference in considering the quality of service of a

bank in Medan in particular and Indonesia in general.

This study found that what consumers expect is

far more than their perceptions. The key to the

success of a bank is to remain competitive and

continually improve the quality of services to better

meet customer needs and provide superior services.

Banks must understand clearly and precisely

customer expectations, because customers compare

perceptions with expectations in assessing the quality

of bank services.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Service quality is the result of an evaluation

process in which consumers compare expectations

with the reality of services perceived and accepted by

customers (Lai & Hitchcock, 2016). Service quality

can also distinguish between customer expectations

received and services perceived from a particular

place (Kuo, Wu, & Deng, 2009). Bitner (1990),

defines service quality as the customer's overall

impression of the inferiority/relative advantage of

service providers that is often considered the same as

the customer's overall attitude towards the company

(Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). Service

quality includes several points, one of which is the

attitude developed above all previous meetings with

service companies (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry,

1985; Parasuraman et al., 1988; Bitner, 1990).

Since its formulation, SERVQUAL has been used

in various service industries and various countries.

Some SERVQUAL-based writers have questioned

psychometric strengths and their uses. The principle

among these is that criticism depends on two scales

measuring perception and hope, when one scale

(simple perceptions or performance measures) will be

shorter, simpler and easier to understand and

ultimately more effective. The use of hope is

questioned by (Babakus & Mangold, 1992; Cronin &

Taylor, 1992), measuring the quality of services in

banks concludes that the disconfirmation approach

has little support both theoretically and empirically.

Teas (1994), questions the interpretation and

operationalization of expectations, and (Avkiran,

1999), notes the tendency to set higher expectations

than perceptions so as to make the gap between

perception and expectations inevitable. In addition,

for practical reasons the use of two scales and

negative-tone question items is both time-consuming

and too complex for most respondents (Avkiran,

1999).

Researchers have tried to develop conceptual

models to explain service quality and to measure

service quality perceived by consumers in different

industries (Seth, Deshmukh, & Vrat, 2005). The

SERVQUAL model has become the most extensive

and successful measurement of service quality used

in the twenty-first century (Tsoukatos & Rand, 2006).

A good operational example of a standard framework

for understanding service quality is the SERVQUAL

instrument developed by Parasuraman. The

researchers found five general dimensions with focus

group interviews that they labeled: reliability,

responsiveness, physical evidence, assurance and

empathy (Wong & Sohal, 2002). Service quality is an

important factor for success in the banking sector.

Thus, some bank managers emphasize various

dimensions of service quality (Glaveli, Petridou,

Liassides, & Spathis, 2006).

Most researchers support the quality of service as

a multidimensional construct such as tangibles,

responsiveness, reliability, empathy and assurance

(Parasuraman et al., 1985; Parasuraman et al., 1988;

Carman, 1990; Bitran & Lojo, 1993; Lewis, Orledge,

& Mitchell, 1994; Amin & Isa, 2008). Likewise in the

study, Harahap (2006), measures the quality of

services using 5 dimensions, namely; tangible,

reliability, responsiveness, assurance & empathy.

Generally, service quality has two main dimensions

(Grönroos, 1984; Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml,

1991; Mcdougall & Levesque, 1994; Levesque,

Terrence; Mc Dougall, 1996). The first dimension is

called the core aspect of service (reliability), while the

second dimension is called the service process aspect

(tangibles, responsiveness, empathy and assurance).

More precisely, reliability is primarily related to

service outcomes, while physical evidence,

responsiveness, empathy and assurance are

associated with the release of services (Parasuraman

et al., 1991).

SERVQUAL was originally developed by

Parasuraman et al., (1985). This model consists of ten

components. SERVQUAL provides technology to

measure and manage service quality (SQ).

SEABC 2018 - 4th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference

162

SERVQUAL fills the gap between what customers

expect by SQ method and what they actually get. SQ

is presented as a multi-dimensional construction. In

the original formulation (Parasuraman et al., (1985),

identified ten components of SQ. In the 1988 work

this dimension was reduced to five dimensions:

tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and

empathy.

Customer evaluation of bank service quality

involves the use of a variety of criteria that tend to

differ in importance based on individual needs and

preferences, with several criteria that clearly carry

more weight than others. While some criteria may be

important, only a few are most important.

Martilla & James (1977), developing simple

importance-performance techniques, the most

interesting features are the importance and

performance results can be illustrated graphically on

a two-dimensional grid. The four quadrants on the

grid can provide in-depth information about each of

the attributes tested. According to Ortinau, Bush,

Bush, & Twible (1989), each quadrant can be

described as follows: 1). Concentrate here; This is

where customers feel that certain attributes are very

important but their performance is not satisfactory, 2).

Keep up the good work; This is where

customers feel that certain attributes are very

important and they are satisfied with their

performance, 3). Low priority; Where customers are

not satisfied with the performance of certain attributes

but they do not consider it important, and 4). Possible

overkill; Customers are satisfied with the

performance of certain attributes but customers do not

consider it important.

Hermmasi et al., (1994), redeveloping the grid of

importance-performance, by drawing axes based on

their importance and overall performance rather than

based on the midpoint of the scale. Hermmasi et al.,

(1994), provides an alternative tool that is useful for

developing strategies because it provides a clearer

picture of the factors that are very important for

resource allocation. Research using importance-

performance measurement has been carried out in a

number of industries including food, housing and

education (Martilla & James, 1977; Joseph & Joseph,

1997) and in the banking industry (Joseph et al.,

1999).

Although many measures of service quality have

their supporters and critics, according to Hermmasi et

al., (1994), the method of importance-performance is

the most appropriate method for measuring service

quality in the banking industry. This method seems to

provide a useful and practical regulatory tool for

recognizing what is most important from the

customer's perspective, allowing bank managers to

ensure that the level of performance in the most

important areas is equal to the customer's perception.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

The sample was obtained through a questionnaire

distributed to customers who transacted at BNI USU

Medan. To get the right sampling frame, non

probability sampling was chosen as a sampling frame

that was more suitable for the purpose of this study.

Respondents were randomly selected from customers

who came during the transaction. Overall 130

questionnaires were distributed but only 120

questionnaires could be used. List of questions related

to customer expectations and the performance of bank

service quality. This research is a quantitative

descriptive research that is processed statistically by

the importance performance analysis (IPA) method

and gap analysis (GAP). Calculation of analysis used

version 22.00 Windows of the SPSS (Statistical

Packages for the Social Science) program.

4 RESULTS

Based on calculations from the results of the five-

dimensional SERVQUAL research namely; tangible,

responsiveness, reliability, assurance and empathy.

The measurement is done by calculating the

comparison between the reality of the service

received and the expectation of the desired service.

An Analysis of Service Quality using Importance Performance Analysis and Gap Analysis at a Commercial Banks in Indonesia

163

Table 1: Average Calculation of Suitability Level of Service Quality Dimensions

Dimensions

SERVQUAL

Average

Importance

Average

Performance

Level of

Conformity

(%)

Tangible

4,71

3,98

84,44%

Reliability

4,87

3,95

81,15%

Responsiveness

4,80

3,79

78,87%

Assurance

4,80

3,86

80,41%

Empathy

4,82

3,73

77,27%

Average

4,80

3,86

80,40%

Table 1. shows that the average of the five

SERVQUAL dimensions for service quality is

80.40%. While in each dimension is tangible 84.44%,

reliability 81.15%, responsiveness 78.87%, assurance

80.41% and empathy 77.27%. Based on the results of

the research data as a whole the quality of services

seen from the dimensions (reliability, responsiveness,

assurance, empathy & tangible) has the value of

conformity is very good according to the customer.

Table 2: Average Gap Analysis Calculation of Service Quality Dimensions

Dimensions

SERVQUAL

Average

Importance

Average

Performance

GAP

(P-I)

Tangible

4,71

3,98

-0,73

Reliability

4,87

3,95

-0,92

Responsiveness

4,80

3,79

-1,02

Assurance

4,80

3,86

-0,94

Empathy

4,82

3,73

-1,10

Average

4,80

3,86

-0,95

Table 2. shows that the mean of the five

SERVQUAL dimensions for PI gap assessment is -

0.95. Whereas in each dimension are tangible -0.73,

reliability -0.92, responsiveness -1.02, assurance -

0.94 and empathy -1.10. Based on the results of the

research data as a whole the quality of services seen

from dimensions (reliability, responsiveness,

assurance, empathy & tangible) has a gap value that

is good according to the customer.

Table 3: Bank Service Quality Performance

Attribute

number

Attribute

Level of

Importance

(Yi)

Level of

Perfomance

( Xi)

Scores

Servqual

Performance

The company has modern equipment

581

489

84.17

very good

The physical facilities available are quite

interesting

551

466

84.57

very good

Neat looking employee

548

506

92.34

very good

Service-related materials (such as pamphlets

or brochures) appeal to customers

580

446

76.90

good

RL1

Companies always keep promises to do things

at certain times.

582

465

79.90

good

RL2

The company provides solutions if customers

face problems

586

474

80.89

very good

RL3

The company prioritizes service

587

485

82.62

very good

RL4

The company provides services and promises

to do so

586

473

80.72

very good

RL5

The company is responsive in solving

operational problems in banking transactions

582

474

81.44

very good

SEABC 2018 - 4th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference

164

RS1

Employees always explain well the questions

asked by customers

578

476

82.35

very good

RS2

Employees provide fast service to customers

577

445

77.12

good

RS3

Employees always strive to help customers

576

462

80.21

very good

RS4

Employees do not object to meeting each

customer's request

574

434

75.61

good

AS1

Customers trust employees

582

478

82.13

very good

AS2

Customers feel safe when making transactions

578

506

87.54

very good

AS3

Employees are always friendly to their

customers

572

404

70.63

good

AS4

Employees have more knowledge when

answering each customer's questions

571

463

81.09

very good

EM1

The company gives full attention to each

customer

576

445

77.26

good

EM2

The company always instills confidence in its

customers

575

473

82.26

very good

EM3

The company has employees who pay

attention to each customer

579

431

74.44

good

EM4

The company tries to attract customers

586

461

78.67

good

EM5

Employees understand the customer's specific

needs

577

426

73.83

good

Based on the results of respondents' evaluations of

BNI service quality performance attributes, in Table

3. the average is 80.30%. This illustrates that the

customer's assessment of BNI's service quality

performance is in very good criteria.

Importance-performance analysis in this study

was conducted on all respondents. From the data

using SPSS 22.00, the Cartesius diagram of IPA is

obtained for all customer respondents on the quality

of bank services, as follows:

Figure 1: Cartesian Diagram of Service Quality Dimensions

Kuadran I

Kuadran II

Kuadran III

Kuadran IV

An Analysis of Service Quality using Importance Performance Analysis and Gap Analysis at a Commercial Banks in Indonesia

165

Based on the figure 1 Cartesius Diagram on the

dimensions of service quality above can be explained

that:

Decision Making (IPA)

Quadrant I

Concentrate here

Attribute number : 4, 11, 20, 21, 22

Quadrant II

Keep up the good work

Attribute number : 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15

Quadrant III

Low priority

Attribute number : 12, 13, 16, 18

Quadrant IV

Possible overkill

Attribute number : 2, 3, 17, 19

Figure 1. shows that service quality has 5 (five)

attributes found in quadrant I (Concentrate Here). The

company prioritizes to focus on improving the

attributes in this quadrant, because the quality of

service performance is not satisfactory. 9 (nine)

attributes in Quadrant II (Keep Up The Good Work),

where it was concluded that customers were very

satisfied. Companies must maintain service quality

attributes in this quadrant II. 4 (four) attributes in

quadrant III (Low Priority), where attributes in this

quadrant are considered insignificant by the customer

and the service is not satisfactory. 4 (four) attributes

in quadrant IV (Possible Overkill), where customers

already feel satisfied with the performance of BNI

services.

5 DISCUSSION

Based on the results of research from the five

dimensions of SERVQUAL namely; tangible,

responsiveness, reliability, assurance and empathy.

Statistical techniques using the Importance

Performance Analysis (IPA) method show that the

level of bank service quality performance of 80.40%

is appropriate and very good, and Gap Analysis

(GAP) shows that the level of bank service quality

gap of -0.95 is good according customer. According

to Parasuraman et al., (1991), if the result of the gap

< -1 means good, and the result > -1 means that the

quality of the service provided is not good. In

principle, the data obtained through the SERVQUAL

instrument is used to calculate the gap score from the

average service quality dimensionon.

The In the Cartesian diagram shows the quality of

service is there 5 attributes (tangible4,

responsiveness2, empathy3, empathy4, empathy5) in

quadrant I, 9 attributes (tangible1, reliability1,

reliability2, reliability3, reliability4, reliability5,

responsiveness1, assurance1, assurance2) in quadrant

II, 4 attributes (responsiveness3, responsiveness4,

assurance3, empathy1) quadrant III and 4 attributes

(tangible2, tangible3, assurance4, empathy2)

quadrant IV.

Research with the analysis of "importance-

performance" carried out by (Martilla & James, 1977;

Ennew et al., 1993; Hermmasi et al., 1994; Slack,

1994), stated that customer assessment of the

performance of retail banks is compared with the

score of importance that they feel in the individual e-

SQ attribute. This result is also graphically illustrated

in a two-dimensional grid, which places the e-SQ

factor into one of four quadrants, namely;

"Concentrate here" (service area with a high level of

customer importance but a low level of performance);

"Keep up the good work" (areas with high importance

and strong levels of performance); "Low priority"

(service dimensions with a low level of importance

and performance); and "Possible overkill" (service

area with low importance but strong performance

level). Thus, this grid provides managers with

strategic tools that are useful for recognizing the most

important attributes from customer's perspective, and

challenging them to ensure high levels of

performance in areas considered critical by customers

(Martilla & James, 1977; Hermmasi et al., 1994;

Slack, 1994).

According to Buzzell & Gale (1987), Company

performance in the long run depends on the quality of

products and good services, a business can grow by

improving its quality, which leads to increased

market share and market expansion.

6 CONCLUSIONS

The SERVQUAL application has received a lot of

support and criticism. Overall, from bank services,

the gap approach to service quality and the IPA

SEABC 2018 - 4th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference

166

approach is conceptually interesting and

operationally useful.

A brief description of the 22 items in the tested

questionnaire provides a better understanding of gap

analysis, so that it can be concluded; 1) The level of

conformity through the Importance Performance

Analysis (IPA) method shows that BNI's service

quality performance is 80.40%. Means the service is

appropriate and customer assessment is very good. 2)

The level of gap through Gap Analysis (GAP) shows

that the level of BNI service quality gap is -0.95. This

is good according to customers. 3) Attributes that are

considered important and have excellent service

quality performance for bank customers are tangible,

reliability and assurance while responsiveness and

empathy are considered good by customers.

Customers expect high quality in service but

actual customer satisfaction is low. So this can be a

key for BNI to improve the quality of services. For

example, BNI is responsive in providing assistance to

customers. Concisely, this research contributes to

understanding important issues related to the quality

of bank services and provides some useful managerial

insights for bank.

REFERENCES

Albro, W. (1999). A strategy grid helps improve customer

service. Bank Marketing, 31(12), 36.

Amin, M., & Isa, Z. (2008). An examination of the

relationship between service quality perception and

customer satisfaction: A SEM approach towards

Malaysian Islamic banking. International Journal of

Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management,

1(3), 191–209.

https://doi.org/10.1108/17538390810901131

Avkiran, N. K. (1999). Quality customer service demands

human contact. International Journal of Bank

Marketing, 17(2), 61–74.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02652329910258862

Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the

SERVQUAL Scale to Hospital Services: An Empirical

Investigation. Health Services Research, 26(6), 767–

786. https://doi.org/January 17,1991

Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The

Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee

Responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1251871

Bitran, G. R., & Lojo, M. (1993). A framework for

Analyzing Service Operations. European Management

Journal, 11(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-

2373(93)90053-K

Buzzell, R. D., & Gale, B. T. (1987). The PIMS Principles:

Linking Strategy and Performance. New York: Free

Press.

Carman, J. M. (1990). Consumer perceptions of service

quality: An assessment of the SERVQUAL dimensions.

Journal of Retailing, 66(1), 33–55.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. a. (1992). Measuring Quality : A

Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing,

56(3), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252296

Ennew, C. T., Reed, G. V., & Binks, M. R. (1993).

Importance‐Performance Analysis and the

Measurement of Service Quality. European Journal of

Marketing.

https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569310026402

Glaveli, N., Petridou, E., Liassides, C., & Spathis, C.

(2006). Bank service quality: Evidence from five

Balkan countries. Managing Service Quality, 16(4),

380–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610675711

Grönroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its

Marketing Implications. European Journal of

Marketing, 18(4), 36–44.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910954864

Harahap, D. A. (2006). Hubungan Kualitas dan Loyalitas

Nasabah Jasa Perbankan PT. Bank Rakyat Indonesia

(Persero), Tbk Kota Medan. Program Pascasarjana

Syiah Kuala Banda Aceh.

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UGK4Z

Hawes, J. M., & Rao, C. P. (1985). Using importance-

performance analysis to develop health care marketing

strategies. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 5(4), 19–

25.

Hermmasi, M., Strong, K., & S. Taylor. (1994). Measuring

service quality for planning and analysis in service

firms. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10(4),

24–34.

Hinson, R., Mohammed, A., & Mensah, R. (2006).

Determinants of Ghanaian Bank Service Quality in a

Universal Banking Dispensation. Banks and Bank

Systems, 1(2), 69–81. Retrieved from

papers3://publication/uuid/FC81DFFC-21CE-4199-

BD5F-D9CB93A03B49

Hull, L. (2002). Foreign-owned banks : Implications for

New Zealand ’ s financial stability (No. DP2002/05).

New Zealand.

IDLokasi. (2018). Bank BNI Cabang USU Medan, Bank

BNI Di Jalan Dr Mansyur. Medan. Retrieved from

https://www.idlokasi.com/2018/02/06/bank-bni-

cabang-usu-medan/

Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (1997). Service quality in

education : a student perspective. Quality Assurance in

Education, 5(1), 15–21.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412979839

Joseph, M., McClure, C., & Joseph, B. (1999). Service

quality in the banking sector : the impact of technology

on service delivery. International Journal of Bank

Marketing, 17(4), 182–191.

Joseph, M., & Stone, G. (2003). An empirical evaluation of

US bank customer perceptions of the impact of

technology on service delivery in the banking sector.

International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 31(4), 190–202.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550310469185

Kaynak, E., & Kucukemiroglu, O. (1992). Bank and

Product Selection : Hongkong. International Journal of

An Analysis of Service Quality using Importance Performance Analysis and Gap Analysis at a Commercial Banks in Indonesia

167

Bank Marketing, 10(1), 3–16.

Kuo, Y. F., Wu, C. M., & Deng, W. J. (2009). The

relationships among service quality, perceived value,

customer satisfaction, and post-purchase intention in

mobile value-added services. Computers in Human

Behavior, 25(4), 887–896.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.03.003

Lai, I. K. W., & Hitchcock, M. (2016). A comparison of

service quality attributes for stand-alone and resort-

based luxury hotels in Macau: 3-Dimensional

importance-performance analysis. Tourism

Management, 55, 139–159.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.007

Levesque, Terrence; Mc Dougall, G. H. G. (1996).

Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking.

International Journal of Bank Marketing , 14(7), 12–

20. Retrieved from

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/0

2652329610151340

Lewis, B. R., Orledge, J., & Mitchell, V.-W. (1994).

Service Quality: Students’ Assessment of Banks and

Building Societies. International Journal of Bank

Marketing, 12(4), 3–12.

Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-

Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1),

77–79.

Mcdougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. J. (1994). A Revised

View of Service Quality Dimensions A Revised View

of Service Quality Dimensions : An Empirical

Investigation. Journal of Professional Services

Marketing, 11(1), 189–201.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J090v11n01

Motley, L. B. (1999). Customer surveys that work. Bank

Marketing, 31(12), 40.

Ortinau, D. J., Bush, A. J., Bush, R. P., & Twible, J. L.

(1989). The Use of Importance-Performance Analysis

for Improving the Quality of Marketing Education:

Interpreting Faculty-Course Evaluations. Journal of

Marketing Education, 11(2), 78–86.

Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991).

Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL

scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–450.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A

Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its

Implications for Future Research. The Journal of

Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988).

SERQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring

Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of

Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-

2963(99)00084-3

Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., & Vrat, P. (2005). Service

quality models: a review. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management (Vol. 22).

https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710510625211

Slack, N. (1994). The Importance‐Performance Matrix as a

Determinant of Improvement Priority. International

Journal of Operations & Production Management,

14(5), 59–75.

https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579410056803

Swinyard, W. R. (1980). Strategy development with

importance/performance analysis. Journal of Bank

Research, 10(4), 228–234.

Teas, K. R. (1994). Expectations as a comparison standard

in measuring service quality : An assess ... Journal of

Marketing, 58(1), 132–139.

Tsoukatos, E., & Rand, G. K. (2006). Path analysis of

perceived service quality, satisfaction and loyalty in

Greek insurance. Managing Service Quality, 16(5),

501–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610686746

Wong, A., & Sohal, A. (2002). Customers’ perspectives on

service quality and relationship quality in retail

encounters. Managing Service Quality: An

International Journal, 12(6), 424–433.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520210451902

SEABC 2018 - 4th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference

168