Jumat, A R; Coffey, V and Skitmore, M (2012) Stakeholder service delivery expectations of military facilities management. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 2(2), pp. 146-166. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the quality of service of a South East Asian country's military facilities management organisation. Design/methodology/approach: An interview survey and questionnaire survey were used to obtain a description and summary of stakeholders' expectations and the extent to which they were being satisfied by the services provided. Findings: The method provides a useful means of identifying and prioritising varying expectations between stakeholder groups and of indicating any mismatch in expectations in the management of military facilities. Social implications: The development and use of a method to test and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of military facilities helps in providing better value for money. Originality/value: In addition to re-affirming Parasuraman's overall dimensions of service expectation, the empirical summary of the stakeholders' expectations obtained in this way is of practical value for the service provider in developing a strategy for expectation management. For the case studied, it is also apparent that although the current processes in service delivery are well understood by all involved stakeholders, there is a need for further improvement with regards to their expectation levels. It is also one of the very few reported studies on the management of military facilities.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | customer services quality; expectation; facilities; facilities management; service delivery; service quality |
| Index terms: | quality of service, value-for-money, facilities management, mismatch, dimension, effectiveness, service quality, questionnaire, methodology, survey, customer service, strategy, prioritizing, service delivery, efficiency, interview |
| Subjects: | health monitoring assessment and metrics, data collection methods, engineering problems, decision analysis, service delivery, evaluation, management, performance measurement, public and environmental health, research methods, performance management |
| Topics: | Value Management, Quality Management, Risk Management, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here