Graduate Technological Education Institute of Piraeus

COMPARISON ANALYSIS BASED ON STUDENTS

SATISFACTION: UNIVERSITY VS GRADUATE
TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION INSTITUTE


N. Tsotsolas, A.Bouranta and P. Kyriazopoulos

Graduate Technological Education Institute of Piraeus
Department of Business Administration
Marketing Laboratory
pkyriaz@teipir.gr
Researchs Objectives:
The Objectives of the present research are:
the evaluation of services provided by academic
institutions using students (as internal customers)
satisfaction analysis
a comparison analysis of a University and a Graduate
Technological Education Institute (TEI)
the determination of weak and strong points of these
academic institutions as well as on the identification
of possible distinctive variations amongst them
Structure:
General Concept

Questionnaire

Methodology

Sample

Results

Comparisons

Conclusions
General Concept
Student satisfaction barometers are of vital importance
for the education institutes because they promote their
internal re-organization, strengthen their image and
emphasize on meeting the expectations and needs of
students.

The satisfaction of the students who are the main judges
of the quality of provided services will be used as the
primary criterion for the educational institutions
performance.
General Concept (1)
Relevant Studies
Students satisfaction is influenced not only by the quality of
teaching provided, but also by other benefits that they receive
from the university
Oliver and DeSarbo(1989), Browene et al.(1998), Vavra(1997)Sevier (1996)
Students however are not the only customers of the academic
organisation
Hoffman et al.(1991), Stafford(1994), Hwang and Teo (2001) Hittman(1993)
Dimensions of quality, apart from the learning process, include
also: campus life, emotional involvement, campus support
services, university reputaion, etc
Gatfield et al.(1999), Harvey(1995), Hill(1995), Athiyaman (1997), Aldridge and
Rowley(1998), Elliott Shin (2002)
General Concept (2)
TEI vs Universities
4 years ago the Greek Ministry of Education issued a law
with which TEI became equivalent to Universities. Until
then TEI had 3 years of studies and 6 months of training-
practice. Nowadays, both have 4 years of studies.
the two educational institutions have different orientation
and educational value. University focuses on academic
education whereas TEI provides more applied science.
the implementation of a comparison process should allow
TEI to compare its performance with another organization
which supposed to have better performance.
General Concept (2)
Construct measurement
Questionnaire (1)
The main satisfaction criteria:
Education: this criterion concerns the programme of
study and the teaching quality factors
Tangibles: refers to the accommodation and technical
equipment of the building and of the laboratories
Administrative Support: examines the knowledge and
the faculty of the personnel who works in the supportive
services
Image of the academic department: refers to the
reliability, prestige and the recognition of it.

Questionnaire
Questionnaire (2)
In view of above criteria a questionnaire which consists of 27
questions (criteria and sub-criteria) was drawn. The completion
time of the questionnaire varied from 10 to 12 minutes
MUSA
(Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis)
Deals with qualitative data
Its application is easy and simple
It has been successfully applied in similar surveys
The validity of its results has been verified in
relation to usual statistical methods
Provides important information for the behaviour of
the internal customer
Methodology (1)
By using MUSA we estimate:
Global satisfaction of the students in the range [0%, 100%]
Criteria/Sub-criteria satisfaction indices that show in a range
of 0% to 100% the level of partial satisfaction of the students
for each criterion/sub-criterion
Weights of criteria/sub-criteria that they show the relative
importance within a set of criteria or sub-criteria
Demanding level of students that takes values in
[-100% (not demanded at all),100% (very demanded)].

Methodology (2)
MUSA Method
The main objective of the method is the aggregation of individual judgements
into a collective value function assuming that clients global satisfaction
depends on a set of n criteria representing service characteristic dimensions.
Customers Global Satisfaction
Satisfaction
according to the
1-st criterion

The MUSA method assesses global and partial satisfaction functions Y* and X*
I

respectively, given customers judgements Y and X
i
.

=
=

=
=
1 b
X b Y
n
1 i
i
n
1 i
*
i i
*
where the value functions Y* and X*
I
are normalised in the
interval [0,100], and b
i
is the weight of the i-th criterion
Satisfaction
according to the
2-nd criterion
Satisfaction
according to the
n-th criterion
Methodology (3)
MUSA Method
Methodology (4)
CRITERIA GLOBAL
PREFERENCE


disaggregation
aggregation
Aggregation
Model

A g g r e g a t i o n
M o d e l ?

MUSA uses a preference disaggregation model. In the traditional aggregation
approach, the criteria aggregation model is known a priori, while the global
preference is unknown. On the contrary, the philosophy of disaggregation
involves the inference of preference models from given global preferences.
MUSA Method
Methodology (5)
Customer's global satisfaction
y
1
y
2
y
m
y

y
*2
y
*m
Y
*
Y
y
*1
.
.
.
.
.
.
y
*
... ...
Global Added Value Function
Satisfaction according to the 1st criterion
x
1
1
x
1
2
x
1
k
x
1
1
x
1
*2
x
1
*m
X
1
*
X
1
x
1
*i
x
1
*1
.
.
.
.
.
.
... ...
Satisfaction Function for
the 1st Criterion
Satisfaction according to the 2nd criterion
x
i
1
x
i
2
x
i
k
x
i
i
x
i
*2
x
i
*m
X
i
*
X
i
x
i
*i
x
i
*1
.
.
.
.
.
.
... ...
Satisfaction Function for
the 2nd Criterion
Satisfaction according to the n-th criterion
x
n
1
x
n
2
x
n
k
x
n
n
x
n
*2
x
n
*m
X
n
*
X
n
x
n
*n
x
n
*1
.
.
.
.
.
.
... ...
Satisfaction Function for
the n-th Criterion
...
MUSA Model
The main objective is to achieve the maximum consistency between the value
function Y* and the customers judgements Y.
y
1
y
2
y
m
y

y
*2
0
y
*m
100
Y
*
Y

j
-

j
+
... ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
| |
M 1,2,..., j 0 , 0
k i, m, 0 w , 0 z
100 w
100 z
M ,..., 2 , 1 j 0 z w

F min
j j
ik m
n
1 i
1
1 k
ik
1
1 m
m
n
1 i
j j
1 t
1 m
m
1 t
1 k
ik
M
1 j
j j
i
j ij
= > o > o
> >
=
=
= = o + o
ut
o + o =
+
=
o
=
o
=
=
+

=
=
+

s.t.
+
=
o + o =

n
1 i
*
i i
*
X b Y
~
, for each customer
100 x y
*
i
*
= =
o o
0 x y
1 *
i
1 *
= =
, normalisation

= = s
= s
+ +
+ +
n 1,2,..., i 1 1,2,..., k for
1 ,..., 2 , 1 for
i
1 1 * *
1 1 * *
o
o
m k
i
k
i
k
i
m m m m
y x x x
m y y y y

, monotonicity
Methodology (6)
Sample
Method: Random Sampling

Size:
University Dept.: 325 students
TEI Dept.: 612 students
Sample
Students Global Satisfaction
Results (1)
3.4% 3.4%
6.5%6.4%
16.0%
24.2%
52.6%
50.5%
21.5%
15.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Unsatisfied Moderately Unsatisfied Neither Satisfied/Nor
Unsatisfied
Moderately Satisfied Perfectly Satisfied
Overall Satisfaction
University Dept. TEI Dept.
Students Global Satisfaction Frequencies
Students Satisfaction
Frequencies per Criterion
Results (2)
Criteria
Unsatisfied
Moderately
Unsatisfied
Neither Satisfied/
Nor Unsatisfied
Moderately
Satisfied
Perfectly
Satisfied
Education
University Dept. 3.4% 8.6% 26.2% 55.7% 6.2%
TEI Dept. 3.8% 8.8% 29.9% 51.3% 6.2%
Tangibles
University Dept. 2.8% 12.0% 30.2% 49.2% 5.8%
TEI Dept. 1.8% 5.1% 25.2% 54.6% 13.4%
Administrative Support
University Dept. 13.5% 19.7% 39.4% 24.6% 2.8%
TEI Dept. 16.5% 21.2% 29.4% 27.9% 4.9%
Image of the Academic
Department
University Dept. 1.2% 4.3% 19.7% 54.5% 20.3%
TEI Dept. 1.6% 6.9% 31.9% 48.0% 11.6%
X
2
test (non-parametric)
Results (3)
Criteria
2
df Observed Significance
Level
Education
1.908 4 0.753
Tangibles
28.952 4 0.000
Administrative Support
11.071 4 0.026
Image of the Academic Departments
26.671 4 0.000
Total Satisfaction 11.213 4 0.024
The H
o
hypothesis of the test is that the degree of satisfaction is not
related to the educational institute in which the students belong.
Correlation between the educational institute and the satisfaction level
83.2%
77.9%
82.7%
85.6%
52.7%
41.3%
91.6%
91.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Education Tangibles Administrative
Support
Image of the
Academic Dept.
Satisfaction Level
University Dept. TEI Dept.
Criteria Satisfaction Indices
Results (4)
University Global Satisfaction Index: 85.8%
TEI Global Satisfaction Index: 83.3%
Criteria Importance
Results (5)
25.0%
18.8%
25.0%
23.8%
12.0%
11.3%
38.0%
46.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Education Tangibles Administrative
Support
Image of the
Academic Dept.
Criteria Weights
University Dept. TEI Dept.
Demanding Indices
Results (6)
-60.0%
-46.7%
-60.0%
-58.0%
-16.9%
11.3%
-72.8%
-78.3%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Education Tangibles Administrative
Support
Image of the
Academic Dept.
Demanding Indices
University Dept. TEI Dept.
University Global Demanding Index: -60%
TEI Global Demanding Index: -66.7%
Action Diagram
(Performance/Importance)


Conclusions (1)

Transfer resources
(high performance/low
importance)

Leverage opportunity
(high performance/high
importance)

Status quo
(low performance/low
importance)

Action opportunity
(low performance/high
importance)
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E


Low High
L
o
w


H
i
g
h


IMPORTANCE

Education
Tangibles
Administrative
Support
Image of the
Academic
Dept.
IMPORTANCE
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
Action Diagram TEI
(Performance/Importance)


Conclusions (2)
H
i
g
h

High
L
o
w

Low
Education
Tangibles
Administrative
Support
Image of the
Academic
Dept.
IMPORTANCE
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
Action Diagram University
(Performance/Importance)


Conclusions (3)
H
i
g
h

High
L
o
w

Low
Conclusions
Conclusions (4)
Students from the University and TEI appear to have
almost similar attitude regarding the services provided to
them by their academic departments.
The global satisfaction index for the University reaches
85.8% and for TEI 83.3%, showing that according to
students opinion the quality level of the services that are
provided by University and TEI, is quite high.
The average satisfaction indices regarding three of the
quality criteria exceed 75%. The only exception is that of
Administrative Support, which has a quite low value.
Conclusions
Conclusions (5)
As far as the importance of the criteria is concerned, it is
observed that ImageFame of the Academic Department
is considered by the students as the most important, while
the criterion Administrative Support is considered as the
least important.
Demanding indices shows that students in both educational
institutes seem to be non-demanding, in other words the
students could be satisfied in spite of the fact that a small
proportion of their expectations was fulfilled.
Final Conclusions
Conclusions (6)
Because:
students satisfaction is a dynamic parameter of the
operation of a education institute
some satisfaction dimensions may become critical in the
near future

There is a necessity of repetition of the survey on a regular basis
(creation of a permanent satisfaction barometer).