Service quality, image and performance
Research has shown that service quality and image contribute to better organizational performance. This paper aims to develop a model (with the working title of QIP model) that assesses the extent to which these factors can explain variability in organizational performance and whether one factor can...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | Icelandic |
Published: |
Research in applied business and economics
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2 |
id |
fticelandunivojs:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/3447 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
fticelandunivojs:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/3447 2023-08-20T04:07:33+02:00 Service quality, image and performance Þjónustugæði, ímynd og frammistaða Guðlaugsson, Þórhallur Örn Harðardóttir, Ásta María Ásgeirsson, Magnús Haukur 2021-12-20 application/pdf https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2 isl ice Research in applied business and economics Tímarit um viðskipti og efnahagsmál https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2/pdf https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2 Copyright (c) 2021 Tímarit um viðskipti og efnahagsmál Research in applied business and economics; Vol. 18 No. 2 (2021); 15-36 Tímarit um viðskipti og efnahagsmál; Bnd. 18 Nr. 2 (2021); 15-36 1670-4851 1670-4444 Service quality image performance M10 M19 M31 M39 Z39 Þjónustugæði ímynd frammistaða info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 2021 fticelandunivojs 2023-08-01T12:29:33Z Research has shown that service quality and image contribute to better organizational performance. This paper aims to develop a model (with the working title of QIP model) that assesses the extent to which these factors can explain variability in organizational performance and whether one factor can be considered more important than another. Furthermore, the method was used to determine if factors differ in importance depending on where respondents conduct their main business. The findings are based on quantitative data gathered in the spring of 2021 from customers of the three largest commercial banks in Iceland, which in combination have over 95% of the market share. A total of 719 individuals responded to the survey; after incomplete or incorrect answers were deleted, the number of valid responses was 480. The questionnaire used was based on a research project that began in 2004 and assessed image development, service quality, and customer recommendations of Icelandic banks. Responses were weighted by gender and age, and factor analysis revealed four factors: quality 1, quality 2, image, and performance; all factors showed satisfactory loading (? > 0.7). The results demonstrate that the model explained 65% of the variability in performance (R2 = 0.65). Of the factors used to explain the variability, quality 1 had the highest weight (? = 0.44), and that factor alone explained 9% of the variability in performance (P2 = 0.09). The second most important factor was image (? = 0.35), which explained 7% of the variability in performance (P2 = 0.07). The factor that explained the least of the variability was quality 2 (? = 0.13), which explained only 1.1% of the variability in performance (P2 = 0.011). It was revealed that some differences were dependent on where the respondents conducted their main business. Thus, quality 1 was by far the most important factor among Bank A’s customers (? = 0.56), while image was the most important factor among Bank C’s customers (? = 0.48). The importance of the factors was more ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Iceland University of Iceland: Peer Reviewed Journals |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
University of Iceland: Peer Reviewed Journals |
op_collection_id |
fticelandunivojs |
language |
Icelandic |
topic |
Service quality image performance M10 M19 M31 M39 Z39 Þjónustugæði ímynd frammistaða |
spellingShingle |
Service quality image performance M10 M19 M31 M39 Z39 Þjónustugæði ímynd frammistaða Guðlaugsson, Þórhallur Örn Harðardóttir, Ásta María Ásgeirsson, Magnús Haukur Service quality, image and performance |
topic_facet |
Service quality image performance M10 M19 M31 M39 Z39 Þjónustugæði ímynd frammistaða |
description |
Research has shown that service quality and image contribute to better organizational performance. This paper aims to develop a model (with the working title of QIP model) that assesses the extent to which these factors can explain variability in organizational performance and whether one factor can be considered more important than another. Furthermore, the method was used to determine if factors differ in importance depending on where respondents conduct their main business. The findings are based on quantitative data gathered in the spring of 2021 from customers of the three largest commercial banks in Iceland, which in combination have over 95% of the market share. A total of 719 individuals responded to the survey; after incomplete or incorrect answers were deleted, the number of valid responses was 480. The questionnaire used was based on a research project that began in 2004 and assessed image development, service quality, and customer recommendations of Icelandic banks. Responses were weighted by gender and age, and factor analysis revealed four factors: quality 1, quality 2, image, and performance; all factors showed satisfactory loading (? > 0.7). The results demonstrate that the model explained 65% of the variability in performance (R2 = 0.65). Of the factors used to explain the variability, quality 1 had the highest weight (? = 0.44), and that factor alone explained 9% of the variability in performance (P2 = 0.09). The second most important factor was image (? = 0.35), which explained 7% of the variability in performance (P2 = 0.07). The factor that explained the least of the variability was quality 2 (? = 0.13), which explained only 1.1% of the variability in performance (P2 = 0.011). It was revealed that some differences were dependent on where the respondents conducted their main business. Thus, quality 1 was by far the most important factor among Bank A’s customers (? = 0.56), while image was the most important factor among Bank C’s customers (? = 0.48). The importance of the factors was more ... |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Guðlaugsson, Þórhallur Örn Harðardóttir, Ásta María Ásgeirsson, Magnús Haukur |
author_facet |
Guðlaugsson, Þórhallur Örn Harðardóttir, Ásta María Ásgeirsson, Magnús Haukur |
author_sort |
Guðlaugsson, Þórhallur Örn |
title |
Service quality, image and performance |
title_short |
Service quality, image and performance |
title_full |
Service quality, image and performance |
title_fullStr |
Service quality, image and performance |
title_full_unstemmed |
Service quality, image and performance |
title_sort |
service quality, image and performance |
publisher |
Research in applied business and economics |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2 |
genre |
Iceland |
genre_facet |
Iceland |
op_source |
Research in applied business and economics; Vol. 18 No. 2 (2021); 15-36 Tímarit um viðskipti og efnahagsmál; Bnd. 18 Nr. 2 (2021); 15-36 1670-4851 1670-4444 |
op_relation |
https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2/pdf https://ojs.hi.is/index.php/efnahagsmal/article/view/a.2021.18.2.2 |
op_rights |
Copyright (c) 2021 Tímarit um viðskipti og efnahagsmál |
_version_ |
1774719253816016896 |