LOGO

Minor Thesis Presentation Entitled:

The Effect of Service Quality, Customer Value and Corporate Image on Customer Satisfaction
(Study case at PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero) Branch Malang City)

Faizal Muhammad Alhaq 0810227001

Contents

LOGO

1 2 3 4
5

Background
Theoretical Framework Research Methodology Findings and Discussion Conclusion and Recommendation

Background
Service industry development in Indonesia and intense competition.

LOGO

Delivery service provided by PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero).

The Quality of the service provided, how customer value on the service, overall customer image perception on the firm.

Customer satisfaction on PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero) as service provider.

Research Problem
Are service quality, customer value and corporate image simultaneously affecting the customer satisfaction in using the services provided by PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero)?

LOGO

Are service quality, customer value and corporate image partially affecting the customer satisfaction in using the services provided by PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero)?

Among service quality, customer value and corporate image, which attribute is dominantly affecting the customer satisfaction in using the services provided by PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero)?

Research Purpose

LOGO

To know whether service quality, customer value and corporate image are simultaneously affects the customer satisfaction in using the service provided by PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero).

To know whether service quality, customer value and corporate image are partially affect the customer satisfaction in using the services provided by PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero).

To know among service quality, customer value and corporate image, which attributes is dominantly affecting the customer satisfaction in using PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero) services.

The Advantages of the Research

Giving an overview and better understanding about the effect of service quality, customer value and corporate image over customer satisfaction for the students.

LOGO

Contribute in the academic world, especially for Management science at Economic and Business Faculty, University of Brawijaya.

As an evaluation for company to measure customer satisfaction over service offered.

Theoretical Framework
1
2

LOGO

Service Marketing Service Quality

Customer Value
Corporate Image Customer Satisfaction

Research Hypothesis

LOGO

Service Quality (X.1) - Reliability(X.1.1) - Responsiveness (X.1.2) - Assurance (X.1.3) - Empathy (X.1.4) - Tangibility (X.1.5) Customer Value (X.2) - Low Price (X.2.1) - Whatever I want in a product (X.2.2) - Quality I get for price I pay (X.2.3) - what I get for what I give(X.2.4)

Customer Satisfaction (Y)

- Product or service features (Y.1) - Customer emotions (Y.2) - Attribute for service success or failure (Y.3) - Perception on equity and fairness (Y.4) - Other family member, coworker, etc (Y.5)

Corporate Image (X.3) - High Integrity (X.3.1) - Innovative (X.3.2) - Friendly (X.3.3) - Knowledgeable (X.3.4) - Large (X.3.5)

Simultaneously affecting Partially affecting Dominantly affecting

Research Methodology
Research method

LOGO

- Quantitative method
- Explanatory research

Research location
Data source and data collection method

- PT. Pos Indonesia, Jalan Merdeka Selatan No. 5, Malang

- Primary data: Questionnaire, Interview
- Customer of PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero)
-Non Probability Sampling - Purposive sampling

Population and sample

Sampling technique

Measurement scale

- Likert scale
- Instrument Test (Validity, Reliability) - Classsical assumption (Normality, Heteroscedacticity, Multicollenearity) - Multiple Regression Analysis, F test and t test

Data analysis method

Variable Operational Definition

Service Quality (X.1) - Reliability(X.1.1) - Responsiveness (X.1.2) - Assurance (X.1.3) - Empathy (X.1.4) -Tangibility (X.1.5) Customer Value (X.2) -Low Price (X.2.1) - Whatever I want in a product (X.2.2) - Quality I get for price I pay (X.2.3) - what I get for what I give(X.2.4)

LOGO

Customer Satisfaction (Y) - Product or service features (Y.1) - Customer emotions (Y.2) - Attribute for service success or failure (Y.3) - Perception on equity and fairness (Y.4) - Other family member, coworker, etc (Y.5)

Corporate Image (X.3) -High Integrity (X.3.1) - Innovative (X.3.2) - Friendly (X.3.3) - Knowledgeable (X.3.4) - Large (X.3.5)

Finding and Discussion

Validity Test
Variable Indicato rs X.1.1 X.1.2 X.1.3 X.1.4 X.1.5 X.2.1 X.2.2 X.2.3 X.2.4 X.3.1 X.3.2 X.3.3 X.3.4 X.3.5 Y.1 Y.2 Y.3 Y.4 Y.5 Coefficient Correlation (r) 0.645 0.820 0.771 0.828 0.754 0.745 0.775 0.748 0.824 0.534 0.742 0.731 0.755 0.766 0.552 0.610 0.634 0.707 0.591 Significance 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Explanation Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Variables

LOGO

Reliability Test
Cronbanchs Alpha () 0.825 0.770 0.752 0.609 Explanation

X.1

X.1 X.2 X.3 Y

Reliable Reliable Reliable Reliable

X.2

X.3

Valid If: -Significance level is less than 5% (< 5%) - r values ( Coefficient Correlation greater than 0.3 ( > 0.3) Reliable If: - Cronbach Alpha () greater than 0.6 (> 0.6)

Classical Assumption Test

Normality Test
Data is Considered Normal If:
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

LOGO

Unstandardized Residual N Normal Parametersa,b Mean Std. Deviation Most Extreme Differences Absolute Positive Negative Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) a. Test distribution is Normal. b. Calculated from data. 100 .0000000 1.01726536 .134 .134 -.070 1.341 .055

Data spreads near diagonal line and follow the diagonal line

Significant value at Kolmogorov Smirnov Test is bigger than 5% ( > 0.05)

Classical Assumption Test

LOGO

A good data is free from Multicollenearity which shown by: -The Tollerance value is smaller than 1 (<1). - The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) smaller than 10 (<10). Multicollenearity Test
Collinearity Statistics Variable
Tollerance X.1 X.2 X.3 0.488 0.649 0.452 VIF 2.051 1.540 2.211

A good data is Homoscedacticity and not Heteroscedacticity which shown by:

- No certain pattern (waves, narrowing) in

which the spot is spreading. Heteroscedacticity Test

Explanation

No. Multicollenearity No. Multicollenearity No. Multicollenearity

Data Analysis Methods

Multiple RegressionAnalysis
Coefficientsa Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients Collinearity Statistics Toleran B 1 (Constant) x.1 x.2 x.3 a. Dependent Variable: y.1 9.722 .144 .170 .236 Std. Error .775 .046 .052 .055 .275 .251 .396 Beta t 12.544 3.103 3.266 4.308 Sig. .000 .003 .002 .000 .488 .649 .452 2.051 1.540 2.211 ce VIF

LOGO

States that:

Multiple Regression Analysis Formula is: Y = a + 1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + So Y = 9.722 + 0.144X1 + 0.170X2 +0.236X3 + e

1 = Every Service Quality (X1) variable increase by 1 point, Customer satisfaction (Y) variable will increase by 0.144 point. 2 = Every Customer Value (X2) variable increase by 1 point, Customer satisfaction (Y) variable will increase by 0.170 point. 3 = Every Corporate Image (X3) variable increase by 1 point, Customer satisfaction (Y) variable will increase by 0.236 point.

Data Analysis Methods

Coefficient of Determinant
Model Summaryb Model R
n

LOGO

Adjusted R R Square .632 Square .621

Std. Error of the Estimate 1.03304 Durbin-Watson 1.793

.795a

a. Predictors: (Constant), x.3, x.2, x.1 b. Dependent Variable: y.1

Adjusted R square = 0.621 Means: 62.1% of customer satisfaction (Y) is affected by the Service Quality (X1), Customer value (X2), and Corporate Image (X3), whereas the remaining 37.9% of customer satisfaction (Y) is influenced by other variables that had not been examined in this research.

Hypothesis Testing
F test (Simultaneously)
ANOVAb Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square Fcalculated Sig.

LOGO

Regression
Residual Total

176.302
102.448 278.750

3
96 99

58.767
1.067

55.069

.000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), x.3, x.2, x.1 b. Dependent Variable: y.1

Hypothesis: H0 : i = 0, there is no influence of X.1, X.2, X.3 on Y H1 : i 0, there are influence of X.1, X.2, X.3 over Y Proven Simultaneously Affecting if: - if Fcalculated > Ftable means that significant of correlation tight - if Fsig. < 0.05 means that there is a significant correlation

From table above: - Fcalculated (55.069) is bigger that Ftable (2.699) - Fsig. Smaller than (0.000 < 0.05)

Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis: H0 : i = 0, there is no influence of X.1, X.2, X.3 on Y H1 : i 0, there are influence of X.1, X.2, X.3 over Y

LOGO

t Test ( Partially)
Variable X.1 X.2 X.3 tcalculated 3.103 3.266 4.308 Value Sig F 0.003 0.002 0.000 Decision ttable 1.984 1.984 1.984 Reject H0 Reject H0 Reject H0 Accept H1 Accept H1 Accept H1

Partially significant affect if: -tcalculated > ttable - sig. F < 0.05

Dominant Test
Model Unstandardized Coefficients B 1 (Constant) x.1 x.2 x.3 9.722 .144 .170 .236 Std. Error .775 .046 .052 .055 .275 .251 .396 Standardized

Coefficients
Beta

To determine the variables that best define (dominant) in influencing value of dependant variable in a linear model uses the Beta Coefficient Standardized with the largest number among other . - In this research the largest is Corporate Image (X.3) with 0.396

Conclusion
The independent variables of Service Quality (X.2), Customer value (X.2) and Corporate Image (X.3) are simultaneously affecting PT. Pos Indonesia (Persero) Branch Malang Customer Satisfaction (Y).

LOGO

All independent variables of Service Quality (X.1), Customer value (X.2) and Corporate Image (X.3) are partially significant affecting the Customer Satisfaction (Y). Variable of Corporate Image (X.3) is the dominant variable that affects the customer satisfaction.

The End
Thank You so Much for the Valuable Time spend on My Minor Thesis Presentation

LOGO

LOGO

Service Defined
Service defined as any activity or benefit that one party can offer to another that essentially

LOGO

intangibles and does not result in any ownership of anything (Kotler and Armstrong, 2009: 231)

Service include all economic activity whose output is not a physical product or construction, is generally consumed at the time it is produced and provides added value in forms (such as convenient, amusement, timelines, comfort, or health) (Zeithaml , 2006:4)

Service Characteristic
1. Intangibility service cannot been seen, tasted, felt, heard or smelled before purchase 2. Inseparability service cannot be separated from their providers 3. Variability quality of service depends on who provides them and when , where and how 4. Perishability service cannot be stored for late scale or use

Back

Service Quality
-

LOGO

Because service is intangibility, perception play a greater role in assessing quality than they do with manufactured product. Because its variability, its hard to predict consistency of a

quality and there is a little or no opportunity for comparison shopping.

Quality is defined in tern of customer perception (Winner, 2007:425),

Customer often judge the quality of the service on the basis of a variety of information cues that they associate with the product or service. Some of these cues are intrinsic to the product or service, other are extrinsic.

Back

Customer value

LOGO

customer value is the differences between the prospective customers evaluation of all the benefits and all the cost of an offering and perceived alternatives. While total

customer value is the perceived monetary value of a bundle of economic, functional,

and psychological benefit customer expect from a given market offering (Kotler, 2003: 60)

Customer perceived value is thus based on the difference between what the customer get and what he or she gives for different possible choices.

Back

Corporate Image

LOGO

The image customers hold of an organization is a result of a particular combination of a number of different elements, but its essentially a distillation of a value, beliefs and

attitudes that an individual or organization has of the focus organization.

The image held by customers may vary according to the individual experiences, and will almost certainly be different from those that management thinks. This means that an organization does not have a single image but may have multiple images (Fill, 20009: 399).

Back

Customer satisfaction

LOGO

Customer satisfaction is the extent to which a products perceived performances matches buyers expectations (Kotler and Armstrong, 2009:46) Customer satisfaction depends on the products perceived performance relative to a buyers expectations. If the products performance falls short of expectations, the customer is dissatisfied. If performance matches expectations, the customer is satisfied. If performance exceeds expectations, the customer is highly satisfied or delighted (Kotler, 2003:61).

Back