)) ( (

Abstract:
Islamic Bank in Jordan emerged to substitute the usury-prohibited commercial
banks, but unfortunately they succeeded in neither substituting nor being a major
competitor to the commercial banks. So to improve the market share of the Islamic
Bank they should try to measure their services forwarded to their customer and
according the result of these measures they should try to improve their services to
mach their customer needs, in achieving this trarget.
The result of this study shows that the Islamic Banks in Jordan needs to review their
services forwarded to the customers periodically and try to improve their performance
to improve their market share and their profitability.
:






.




.





.

.
) ( 400

.
:


.

1979
1998
,




.


) (
,


2002 ) (77 %16
.


.

:
.1 .
.2 .
.3
.
:

.

.
:
:
.1
.
.2

.
.3

.
.4

.
:
:
.1

.
.2
.
.3


.

 .4
.
:


,


.


.
:
H.O :

.
H.O :

.
H.O :
.
H.O :
.
H.O :
.
:

:
.1

.
.2



48 77 %62
.
:

 .
23
)( .
) (400
) (310 . %77,5






) ( :
.1
. %68.4
.2
.%81.4
.3
.%71.8
.4
. %69.7
.5
.%77.3

)
. (%60
:

) (400
.
:
.1

.
.2

.
.
.3 ) (Correlation Variation

.
.4 ) (Multiple Regression Analysis

.
:

 .1




.
.2 )
(


.
.3



.
:



)(Gronroos, C. 1995 P.218) . (1


,


,


.


,

.





)) . (2
(De Primis 1997 P357

(Ghobadian etl 1994 P52) (3) :
.1

.

 .2

.
.3

.
.
.4
.
.5
.
:



(Payne ,Adrian 1996 P181) (4) :
.1
.
.2
.
.3
.
.4

.
.5
.
:

)(1

18-30
31-40
41-60
51-60
60

)(1


12%
23%
35%
22%
8%
76%
24%
41%
52%

100
100-200
200-300
300-500
500-1000
1000

7%
20%
41%
32%
4%
3%
9%
15%
32%
30%
9%
8%

) (1 :
41 50
%35
30 40 . .
%76
%24 .

%52 .

300-200
%32 500-300 %30
%62 .
)(2

86%

14%

3%

32%
5-1
22%
10-5
15%
15-10
17%
20-15
11%
20

31%
69%

) (2 %86
%14



.


10 %54 .

%31



.

:

.
)( ) (BETA
)(R2
) (Adjusted R2

) (T-test ) (Beta ) (3 .
)(3

10%
32

21%
65

41%
126

18%
54

10%
33

100%
310

%10 %21
%41 %18
%10
.


.


)58 (2
.


)142 (0

) (P=10
:
)(4


Sign
T
Beta

0.138
0.017
0.105
0.008
0.155

2.847
0.0198
1.715
0.0076
2.164

0.007
0.882
0.044
0.930
0.025

Mean square =2.346

F = 13.194
Sign =00
R = 0.371
R2 =138
Adjusted = 127
) (4


.

.

Beta )138 (0 P > 0.05


.
Beta 0.017
0.882 .
Beta 0.105
P>0.1


.
Beta 0.008
0.91 .
Beta 0.155
P > 0.025


.




.

)(5

374
(1 621. 3.23
422
699 4085

1
2

 (2
3
422
732 3.98

4
427
786 4.16
(3
5
438
457 2.53

(4

6
443
796 2.75
(5
7
448
896 1.81

8
453
916 4.13
(6
9
469
796 3.62

10
470
776 2.87
(7

11
472
996 3.18
(8

12
476
858 3.03
(9
13
497
925 1.91

14
498
952 1.17
(10
15
498
893 2.65

16
500
894 3.40
(11
17
507
118 3.77

(12
18
520
938 2.98

19
538
903 1.91
(13
20
557
710 3.09

(14
21
580
144 3.18
(15
22
655
(16 547 2.24
(17
23
832
906 1.76

(18

(19

(20

(21
(22

(23



.
:


.

.


.

:
.1

.
.2

.
.3


.
.4
.
.5


.
.6

.

.7


)(W.O.T
.8


%40

.


1.
Gronroos, C. Services Management and Marketing, Lexington: Lexington
Book, 1995.
2.
De Primio, Quality Assurance in Services Organization, London: Chilton Book
Co. 1997.
3.
Payne, Adrian, The Essence of Services Marketing, New York: Prentice Hall,
1996.
4.
Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension- Cronin J. and
Taylor S (1992).
5.
Angular, Maghukar. Nataraajan, R and J. (1999). Service quality in the
Banking industry. International Journal of Banking Marketing13-3
6.
Ingram, H and Daskalakis, G. (1999). Measuring quality gaps in hotels: the
case of Crete. International journal of contemporary Hospitality management. 1-11
7.
Parasuraman, A. Berry, L. and Zeithmal, V. (1999). Refinement and
reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing 67: 420-450