This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]

On: 22 September 2014, At: 07:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20
A gap analysis model for improving
airport service quality
Wen-Hsien Tsai
a
, Wei Hsu
b
& Wen-Chin Chou
c
a
Department of Business Administration , National Central
University , Jhongli, Taoyuan, 32001, Taiwan
b
Department of Business and Entrepreneurial Management ,
Kainan University , Luzhu, Taoyuan, 33857, Taiwan
c
Department of Finance , Yu Da University , Chaochiao, Miaoli,
36143, Taiwan
Published online: 20 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Wen-Hsien Tsai , Wei Hsu & Wen-Chin Chou (2011) A gap analysis model
for improving airport service quality, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22:10,
1025-1040, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2011.611326
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.611326
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

A gap analysis model for improving airport service quality
Wen-Hsien Tsai
a
, Wei Hsu
b
and Wen-Chin Chou
c
a
Department of Business Administration, National Central University, Jhongli, Taoyuan 32001,
Taiwan;
b
Department of Business and Entrepreneurial Management, Kainan University, Luzhu,
Taoyuan 33857, Taiwan;
c
Department of Finance, Yu Da University, Chaochiao, Miaoli 36143,
Taiwan
Due to the increasing importance of customer orientation to a competitive advantage,
airport managers emphasise passengers perceptions and expectations of airport
services quality. This paper aims to develop a multi-criteria evaluation model to
evaluate the gap between passengers perceptions (perceived service quality) and their
expectations (expected service quality), and to diagnose managerial strategies of gap
reduction within the airport passenger service context. This multi-criteria evaluation
model is combined with the analytic hierarchy process method, the VIKOR
(VIsekriterijumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Resenje in Serbian, which means
Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution) method, and the importance
performance analysis (IPA) technique. The multi-criteria model can not only overcome
the weaknesses of traditional IPA, it can also consider passenger preferences and
satisfaction simultaneously to analyse managerial strategies for reducing the customer
gap, thus improving service quality and meeting passengers expectations. This paper
also provides an empirical case study of passenger services at Taoyuan International
Airport in Taiwan, demonstrating the suitability and effectiveness of the multi-criteria
evaluation model.
Keywords: air transport; passenger service evaluation; perceived service quality; gap
analysis; multiple criteria decision analysis
1. Introduction
Nowadays, there is an increasing urgency among airport managers to differentiate their
airports by meeting passengers needs; managers clearly understand the importance of pas-
senger perceptions of airport service quality (Fodness & Murray, 2007). While passengers
perceptions of airport service quality are only one of several variables that contribute to
overall airport attractiveness, it is nevertheless an important factor because of the
increasing importance of customer orientations to a competitive advantage in the industry
(Fodness & Murray, 2007). Thus, researchers measure passenger perceptions of airport
service quality based on the voice of the customer, using these measurements to build
performance benchmarks (Chen, 2002; Fodness & Murray, 2007) and to identify opportu-
nities for service improvement (Yeh & Kuo, 2003).
The service quality for an airport is often expressed in terms of perceived level of
service delivered to the airport user (Francis, Humphreys, & Fry, 2003). Zeithaml and
Bitner (2003) introduced the service quality gap model, which identies the customer
gap occurring between perceived service quality and expected service quality. Service
providers satisfy customers and full their expectations by closing this customer gap.
ISSN 1478-3363 print/ISSN 1478-3371 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2011.611326
http://www.tandfonline.com

Corresponding author. Email: whtsai@mgt.ncu.edu.tw

Total Quality Management
Vol. 22, No. 10, October 2011, 10251040
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Based on the concept of the customer gap, managers in the airport industry nd multiple
criteria that enable service evaluations, which help managers to achieve the degree of
expected/aspired levels; the gap notion also helps analyse performance-value distances,
which helps managers to improve services or set improvement goals, ultimately develop-
ing a winwin strategy.
An improvement strategy for perceived service quality can only be effective and ef-
cient if it is based on an appropriate selection of service attributes in need of improvement
(Lin, Chan, & Tsai, 2009). In this regard, an importanceperformance analysis (IPA)
technique (Martilla & James, 1977) can be used to set priorities that are based on the
voice of the customer (Mikulic & Prebezac, 2008). In our evaluation model, we
employed the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method and the VIKOR (VIsekriteri-
jumska optimizacija i KOmpromisno Resenje in Serbian, which means Multicriteria
Optimization and Compromise Solution; Opricovic, 1998, 2011) method to overcome
the shortcomings of the traditional IPA.
This paper aims to evaluate the customer gap between passenger perceptions (passen-
gers perceived service quality) and expectations (passengers expected service quality)
and to analyse appropriate strategies to reduce the gap within the context of airport
passenger service quality. This evaluation is involved in a multiple criteria decision-
making (MCDM) problem. Chang and Yeh (2002) had used an MCDM model to evaluate
service quality for domestic airlines in Taiwan. In terms of the analysis of airport passen-
ger service quality, we provide a multi-criteria model, combining AHP, VIKOR and IPA
methods, which can consider airport passenger preferences and satisfaction simul-
taneously. In this study, the AHP method was employed to measure the relative impor-
tance of each criterion as the passenger preference of airport passenger service; then,
the VIKOR method was used to integrate the passenger preferences (obtained from
AHP) and satisfaction simultaneously in order to compute the customer gaps of airport
passenger service. After evaluating these gaps, we address managerial strategies to
improve airport passenger services by reducing the gaps based on IPA techniques.
2. Literature review
Service quality is a function of service quality gaps (Candido, 2005). The service quality
gap model, developed by Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry in the late 1980s (Parasura-
man, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1985; Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithaml, 1988, 1991), positions
the key concepts in services marketing in a manner that begins with the customer. The
organisations tasks are then built around what is needed to close the gap between custo-
mer expectations (customers expected service quality) and perceptions (customers per-
ceived service quality) (Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003). Customer perceptions are subjective
assessments of actual service experiences; customer expectations are beliefs about
service delivery that function as reference or ideal points against which performance is
evaluated. Customers not only compare their perceptions of performance with these
ideal points when evaluating service, but they also perceive services in terms of the
quality of the service and how satised they are with their overall experiences. The
central focus of the service quality gap model is the customer gap, shown in Figure 1,
which represents the difference between customer expectations and perceptions (Zeithaml
& Bitner, 2003). This gap needs to be closed in order to satisfy customers, enabling rms
to build long-term relationship with their customers. Customer perceptions of a service are
focused evaluations of satisfactions that reect the customers perceptions of the three
elements, which are physical environment, interaction and outcome (Zeithaml &
1026 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Bitner, 2003). Accordingly, passengers will judge airport services based on their
perceptions of the technical outcome, the process by which that outcome was delivered
and the quality of the physical surroundings where the service was delivered.
An IPA technique (Martilla & James, 1977) is useful to diagnose the managerial strat-
egies by analysing passenger preferences (importance) and passenger satisfaction (per-
formance). IPA has been popular among researchers and practitioners involved in
customer satisfaction and quality management, and several empirical studies have used
the IPA technique to identify critical attributes or features of various products (Matzler,
Bailom, Hinterhuber, Renzl, & Pichler, 2004). Passenger satisfaction is a key performance
indicator for the operation of an airport (Yeh & Kuo, 2003) and should play a central role
in the airports total quality management (Eklof & Westlund, 1998). For traditional IPA,
researchers have examined actual or relative performances of customer satisfaction. In
previous airport service studies, the majority of passenger satisfaction surveys only ana-
lysed the actual performance and did not consider the performance relative to an ideal
level (e.g. Chang, Liu, Wen, & Lin, 2008; Park, 2007). Actual performance scores are
not compared with the competition or the reference point and do not enable researches
to discern the split point between high and low performance (e.g. Matzler et al, 2004).
When examining relative performance, researchers can easily use the midpoint of the
performance axis as the split point to discriminate between high and low performance.
However, previous researchers calculated performance scores by comparing the relative
performance to that of the best competitor (e.g. Garver, 2003). Problems arise when the
competitors have equivalent or worse performances, which render the competitors as
inappropriate reference points (Tsai, Hsu, & Lin, 2011). In order to avoid this problem,
we employed the VIKOR method; it is a multiple criteria method to build a ranking
index based on the particular measure of closeness to the ideal level and allows the
decision-maker to evaluate the relative distances between perceived performances and
the ideal performance (Opricovic & Tzeng, 2004).
The traditional IPA uses stated or statistically inferred methods to determine the
importance ratings for attributes (e.g. Garver, 2003; Matzler et al., 2004). Stated impor-
tance ratings often display an inability on the customers part to discriminate between pre-
ferences of attributes (Myers, 2001). Customers often deem that everything is very
important. Analysis reveals that 78% of customer service attributes are very important,
with little variance in importance between these attributes (Garver, 2003). The purpose of
IPA is to determine the relative importance of attributes and to prioritise improvement
Figure 1. Service quality gap model (source: Zeithaml & Bitner, 2003, p. 533).
Total Quality Management 1027
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

opportunities accordingly. This purpose is defeated when everything is classied as very
important. Although statistically inferred methods can overcome the shortcomings of
stated importance ratings, they carry the assumptions of relatively normal data, linear
relationships between independent and dependent variables, and the relatively low
multi-collinearity between independent variables; in customer satisfaction research,
these assumptions are almost always violated (Garver, 2003).
The AHP method can overcome these weaknesses and has been introduced to deal with
passenger preferences of airport service (Yoo & Choi, 2006). The AHP method is a multi-
criteria decision analysis tool that uses pair-wise comparisons to determine the relative
ranking or preferences of decision alternatives. It has an advantage in obtaining a set of
weights from measuring relative importance of service attributes or criteria; this set of
weights, represented as customer preferences, can be subsequently involved in an evalu-
ation of the customer gaps in terms of improving airport passenger services. According to
the service quality gap model, quality airports are those that can eliminate the gap between
perceived and expected services. To be successful, airport managers must be able to
integrate customer requirements and expectations into a service strategy. In this paper,
we apply the IPA technique to devise managerial strategies that efciently reduce the
customer gaps in airport passenger service within the empirical cases of Taiwans inter-
national airport.
3. The evaluation model
The evaluation model, shown in Figure 2, built in the present paper was combined with the
AHP method, the VIKOR method and the IPA technique. The AHP method was employed
to measure the relative importance (passenger preferences) of each attribute or feature of
airport passenger service; the VIKOR method was used to integrate passenger preferences
and satisfactions simultaneously in order to compute the customer gaps of airport
passenger service. After evaluating the customer gaps of airport passenger services, the
IPA technique was employed to integrate the relative importance from AHP and the
distances of unimproved gaps to analyse managerial strategies to improve the airport
passenger service by reducing the gaps. The following sections describe the three
methods of our proposed evaluation model in greater detail.
Figure 2. A scheme of the evaluation model.
1028 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

3.1. The AHP method
The AHP method for determining the relative values of various criteria or features of
airport passenger service was used to model passenger preferences in response to experi-
mentally designed services. This method has been used successfully to detect the prefer-
ences of decision-makers in a variety of academic elds, including airline service quality
(Liou & Tzeng, 2007), hospitality management (Tzeng, Teng, Chen, & Opricovic, 2002),
conict management (Lam & Chin, 2005), public transportation (Tzeng, Lin, & Opricovic,
2005), Internet marketing system performance evaluation (Shih & Hu, 2008), Internet
retailing pricing (Tsai & Hung, 2009a) and green supply chain optimisation (Tsai &
Hung, 2009b). The AHP method is also a measurement theory that prioritises the hierarchy
and consistency of judgmental data provided by a group of decision-makers. Other
approaches that can dene the factor utilities may also be used for priority purposes, but
AHP is a robust approach that is easy to implement (Seol & Sarkis, 2005).
AHP is a systematic procedure used to represent the elements of a problem hierarchi-
cally. The AHP method was developed by Saaty in 1971 (Saaty, 1980), with the three
main procedures summarised as following steps:
Step 1: Structuring the hierarchy for evaluation. The AHP method is used to make
the decomposition (or structuring) of the problem as a hierarchy. Thus, the systematical
hierarchy of multiple criteria should be structured in this step.
Step 2: Constructing the pair-wise comparison matrix. After structuring the hierarchy,
the pair-wise comparisons should be conducted for discovering the relative importance of
different criteria with respect to attributes.
Step 3: Calculating the weights and testing the consistency. For each pair-wise com-
parison matrix (A); we used the theory of eigenvector, i.e. (A l
max
I)w = 0, to calculate
the eigenvalue .. and the eigenvector (w = (w
1
, w
2
, ..., w
n
)) (weights can be estimated).
Finally, the consistency of the comparison matrix was tested and the opinions of the
regional decision-maker group were integrated. In the consistency test (Saaty, 1990), a
consistency index (CI = (l
max
n)/(n 1))was used to verify the consistency of the
comparison matrix, where RI represents the average consistency index over numerous
random entries of same order reciprocal matrices, and a consistency ratio (CR = CI/RI)
was utilised to determine the degree of consistency. When CR 0.1, it is acceptable
(Saaty, 1990).
3.2. The VIKOR method
The VIKOR method was developed to solve MCDM problems, assuming that compromis-
ing is acceptable for conict resolution, the decision-maker wants a solution that is the
closest to the ideal, and the alternatives are evaluated according to all established criteria
(Opricovic & Tzeng, 2007). VIKOR has been applied to several different elds such as
hospitality management (Tzeng et al., 2002), public transportation (Tzeng et al., 2005),
policy-making (Yang & Wang, 2006), university development (Chen & Chen, 2008)
and water resources planning (Opricovic, 2011). Wang, Ho, Feng and Yang (2004)
applied another compromise ranking method, Technique for Order Preferences by
Similarity to an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), to evaluate the operational performance of
Taiwans airports. However, Opricovic and Tzeng (2004) compared VIKOR and
TOPSIS, which are based on an aggregate function representing closeness to the ideal
point, and also demonstrated that TOPSIS does not consider the relative importance of
these distances. The VIKOR method provides measurements of determining the aggregate
relative distance between a perceived alternative and the ideal point (Tsai, Chou, & Lai,
Total Quality Management 1029
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

2010), and it is appropriate and useful for this study. In order to involve passenger prefer-
ences in the computation of the relative distance between a compromise solution and the
ideal point, we applied the weights of criteria obtained from the AHP method into the
VIKOR method. In terms of simultaneously considering both passenger preferences and
satisfaction to determine the relative distance between the perceived alternative (customer
satisfaction of perceptions/perceived services) and the ideal point (customer satisfaction of
expectations/expected services), we nally used the VIKOR method to integrate both of
the weights of passenger preferences and satisfaction and to analyse the customer gaps
of airport passenger services.
The multi-criteria merit for the VIKOR method is developed from the d
q
metric used
in the compromise programming method (Zeleny, 1982). The alternative airport in this
paper is Taoyuan International Airport; the n criteria of airport passenger services will
be denoted as c
1
, c
2
, ..., c
n
. f
i
is the evaluation value of ith criterion (c
i
) function and
the larger f
i
represents better performance.
Figure 3 illustrates the best possible point, F

= (f

1
, f

2
), the worst possible point,
F

= (f

1
, f

2
), and a perceived alternative F
p
= (f
p
1
, f
p
2
) for a two-criterion problem.
Compromise programming method introduces the d
q
metric as an aggregate function.
The development of the VIKOR method started with the following form of the d
q
metric:
d
q
=

n
i=1
w
i
(f

i
f
i
)
(f

i
f

i
)

q

1/q
, 1 q 1. (1)
The VIKOR method was used here according to the following steps:
Step 4: Determining the values of the best possible point and worst possible point.
Based on the concept of VIKOR, the best possible point (f

i
) represents the best perform-
ance value, and the worst possible point (f

i
) means the worst performance value. In Figure
3 (a two-criterion problem), the perceived alternative (F
p
) can be mapped out according to
the best possible point (F

) and the worst possible point (F

). Therefore, the values of the

best possible point and the worst possible point should be determined before the process
of analysis. In this study, we set all f

i
= 5 and f

i
= 1, and the relative distance to best
possible point and worst possible point ((f

i
f
i
)/(f

i
f

i
)) can be calculated.
Figure 3. Illustration of VIKOR (source: Tzeng et al., 2002).
Notes: The x-axis indicates values of satisfactions of Criterion 1; the y-axis indicates values of
satisfactions of Criterion 2. F
p
indicates the perceived alternative; F

represents the best possible

point and F

, the axe, represents the worst possible point.

1030 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Step 5: Computing the degree of majority utility and degree of regret. By the com-
promise ranking method, the compromise solution is determined, which could be accepted
by the decision-makers because it provides a maximum group utility of the majority
(with measure C representing the degree of majority utility) and a minimum individual
regret of the opponent (with measure D representing the degree of regret). Thus, we
computed the values of measures C and D, the measure C of the best possible point
(C*), the measure C of the worst possible point (C

), the measure D of the best possible

point (D*) and the measure D of the worst possible point (D

) by the relations:
C = d
q=1
=

n
i=1
w
i
(f

i
f
i
)
(f

i
f

i
)
, (2)
D = d
q=1
= max
i
(f

i
f
i
)
(f

i
f

i
)

i = 1, 2, . . . , n

, (3)
where the weights of the criteria (w
i
) are introduced to express the relative importance of
the criteria calculated by the AHP method. The smaller value of measure C indicates the
larger group utility of the majority; the smaller value of measure D indicates the
smaller individual regret of the opponent.
Step 6: Calculating the aggregate distance to the best possible point. We computed the
values of measure G as the aggregate distance to the best possible point by the relation
G =
v(C C

)
(C

)
+
(1 v)(D D

)
(D

)
, 0 v 1, (4)
where C

is the measure C of the best possible point, C

is the measure C of the worst

possible point, D

is the measure D of the best possible point, D

is the measure D of
the worst possible point, v is introduced as the weight of the strategy of the majority of
criteria (or the maximum group utility) and 1 v is the weight of the individual
regret. The smaller value of measure G represents the smaller customer gap.
In other words, when v . 0.5, it is an indication that C is emphasised more than D in
Equation (4), whereas when v , 0.5, it is an indication that D is emphasised more than C
in Equation (4). More specically, when v=1, it represents a decision-making process that
could use a strategy of maximum group utility; whereas when v = 0, it represents a
decision-making process that could use a strategy of minimum individual regret, which
is obtained among maximum individual regrets/gaps of lower level criteria. The weight
(v) would affect the measurement of the aggregate gap, which is usually determined by
the experts or decision-makers, usually v = 0.5.
3.3. The IPA method
In the strategy analysis phase, we employed the IPA method to diagnose the managerial
strategies for reducing customer gaps. In the traditional IPA method, attributes or criteria
pertaining to a particular service are evaluated on the basis of how important each factor is
to the customer, and how the services performance is perceived according to each
attribute (Sampson & Showalter, 1999). In this study, we rst applied the AHP weight
of each criterion as the relative importance value of each criterion, and then we used
Total Quality Management 1031
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

the unweighted relative distance (obtained from VIKOR) to replace the performance and
to represent the relatively unimproved distance.
Step 7: Determining the values of importance and unimproved distance. We applied
the AHP weight (w
i
) as the relative importance value of the ith criterion (c
i
). Then, we
used the unweighted relative distance (f

i
f
i
)/(f

i
f

i
) to indicate the relative unim-
proved distance of the ith criterion (c
i
) (i.e. f

i
is the evaluated value of the ith criterion
(c
i
) of the best possible point; f

i
is the evaluated value of the ith criterion (c
i
) of the
worst possible point and f
i
is the evaluated value of the ith criterion (c
i
)).
Step 8: Depicting the improvement strategy map and diagnosing the strategies. We
map the values of unimproved distance (x-axis) and importance (y-axis) of each criterion
on a two-axis map, which is the improvement strategy map shown in Figure 4.
The two-axis improvement strategy map can be interpreted in a straightforward
manner by categorising the mapping of airport criteria/features into one of four types.
In Figure 4, criteria or features in Quadrant I refer to those of relatively higher importance
and larger unimproved distance. The higher importance (AHP weight) of an individual
feature indicates that improving the same spaces of this feature will lead to larger
reductions of the aggregate gap than that of another feature with lower importance (i.e.
a feature with the higher importance has more potential to rapidly reduce the aggregate
gap). The larger unimproved distance creates more opportunities of gap reductions
(improvable spaces); therefore, managers should treat these features as a higher priority
for improvement. Features in Quadrant II refer to those with relative high importance
and small unimproved distance; that is, the same improvement leads to greater gap
reductions, but the smaller unimproved distance creates fewer opportunities of gap
reductions. Therefore, managers should try to nd the possibility of improvement.
Features in Quadrant III refer to those with relative lower importance and small unim-
proved distance; that is, the same improvement leads to smaller gap reductions and the
smaller unimproved distance creates fewer opportunities of reductions. Thus, the best
strategy for managers may be simply to maintain the good performance. Features in Quad-
rant IV refer to those with relative lower importance but larger unimproved distance; that
is, the same improvement leads to smaller gap reductions but the larger unimproved dis-
tance means creates more opportunities of gap reductions. Thus, managers might need to
make these features a lower priority for improvement. Since a feature with higher impor-
tance and larger unimproved distance has more potential to rapidly reduce the aggregate
Figure 4. Improvement strategy map of gap reduction.
1032 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

gap and creates more opportunities to lead the perceptive alternative closer to the best
possible point, the feature mapped closer to the top-right point has higher priorities of
improvement. Thus, features in the grey area are identied as opportunities, and features
in the white area are identied as satiated needs.
4. Empirical case study
In this section, we evaluated the passenger service of Taoyuan International Airport in
Taiwan, by using the model mentioned in Section 3. In terms of establishing the hierarchy
of criteria or features for evaluating airport passenger services, we collected in-depth
qualitative data from executives in the Civil Aeronautics Administration of Taiwan,
asking them to suggest attributes and criteria that reected our conceptual variables for
evaluating airport passenger services. Based on the responses of the executives and experi-
enced airline passengers, a review of existing airport passenger service offerings and a
review of academic and practitioner literature, we designed a framework based on the cus-
tomer evaluation elements (physical environment and interaction and outcome) of
service quality provided by Zeithaml and Bitner (2003). This framework was then pre-
sented to the ve executives in the Civil Aeronautics Administration and two professors
of Business Administration, all of whom were blind to the purpose of the study, who
were then asked to verify our classications. Table 1 lists the nal set of attributes and
their classications mapped onto various conceptual variables of airport passenger
services.
In this case study, we chose Taoyuan International Airport as the analytical case.
Taoyuan International Airport, the largest international airport of Taiwan, is located in
the north of Taiwan. We randomly found a total of 226 respondents in Taoyuan Inter-
national Airport to ll out both AHP and VIKOR questionnaires during May and June
of 2008. During the data collection phase of passenger preferences, each respondent
was asked to respond to 15 pair-wise comparison questions of the AHP questionnaire.
All related values can be determined by using a scale of 19, representing a range of
equal importance to extreme importance. The geometric mean was used to aggregate
the relative importance data of respondents. After eliminating incomplete questionnaires,
our total sample size was 204 (52.9% male and 47.1% female). We also applied the con-
sistency test and eliminated data according to the consistency ratio (threshold value is
Table 1. List of elements, attributes and criteria of airport passenger services.
Elements Attributes Criteria/features
Physical environment Airport facilities planning Sanitary condition of lavatory (c
1
)
Environment beauty and cleanliness (c
2
)
Facilities allocation and space design (c
3
)
Airport circulation
planning
Internal direction line arrangement (c
4
)
Exterior surrounding circulation planning
(c
5
)
Convenience of public transportation (c
6
)
Interaction and
outcome
Basically procedural
service
Airport receptionists attitude (c
7
)
Security inspection procedure (c
8
)
Check-in and baggage delivery service (c
9
)
Flight information service On-time departure of ights (c
10
)
Clarity of broadcasting system (c
11
)
Accuracy of ight information board (c
12
)
Total Quality Management 1033
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

CR 0.1). After screening for consistency, our total valid sample size was 186, and the
average consistency ratio of the total valid sample size was approximately 0.0001.
For the data collection phase of passenger satisfactions, each respondent was also
asked to respond to 12 questions of the satisfaction questionnaire. A likert ve-point
scale with a range of 15, representing a range of very dissatisfactory to very satisfac-
tory, was used to evaluate passenger satisfaction levels of each criterion. The arithmetic
mean was used to aggregate the performance data of respondent satisfactions.
4.1. Assessment of airport passenger preferences
In the assessment of passenger preferences, we obtained the weights of attributes and cri-
teria through the AHP method, shown in Table 2. A software, Super Decisions 1.6.0
(Saaty, 2003), was applied to aid all calculations of AHP. Overall, air passengers empha-
sised interaction and outcome (52.06%) of airport services slightly over physical
environment (47.94%). In reviewing the four attributes of airport passenger service, pas-
sengers focused on ight information services (29.94%), followed by airport circulation
planning (28.49%). In reviewing the 12 criteria, on-time departure of ights (11.85%),
internal direction line arrangement (10.27%) and accuracy of ight information board
(10.06%) were the three most important criteria for air passengers.
4.2. Measurement of the customer gaps
In the case of airport passenger service, we set the value of the best possible point f

i
(the
best performance of customer satisfaction) as the scale of very satisfactory of each
criterion; the value of the worst possible point f

i
(the worst performance of customer
satisfaction) as the scale of very dissatisfactory of each criterion of each criterion.
Hence, f

i
= 5; f

i
= 1, i = 1,2,. . .,12. The evaluation results of Taoyuan International
Airport by VIKOR are presented in Table 3. Overall, the averaged perceived performance
values (f
i
) of all criteria were considered to be satisfactory (the value with more than 3).
Table 2. The AHP weights/importance.
Elements/attributes/criteria Weight (%) Ranking
Physical environment 47.94
Airport facilities planning 19.45 (IV)
Sanitary condition of lavatory (c
1
) 9.67 (4)
Environment beauty and cleanliness (c
2
) 4.88 (12)
Facilities allocation and space design (c
3
) 4.90 (11)
Airport circulation planning 28.49 (II)
Internal direction line arrangement (c
4
) 10.27 (2)
Exterior surrounding circulation planning (c
5
) 8.73 (6)
Convenience of public transportation (c
6
) 9.49 (5)
Interaction and outcome 52.06
Basically procedural service 22.12 (III)
Airport receptionists attitude (c
7
) 7.43 (9)
Security inspection procedure (c
8
) 6.36 (10)
Check-in and baggage delivery service (c
9
) 8.33 (7)
Flight information service 29.94 (I)
On-time departure of ights (c
10
) 11.85 (1)
Clarity of broadcasting system (c
11
) 8.03 (8)
Accuracy of ight information board (c
12
) 10.06 (3)
1034 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Then, exterior surrounding circulation planning (c
5
) and convenience of public
transportation (c
6
) were the features with the lowest passenger satisfaction; airport
receptionists attitude (c
7
) was the feature with the highest passenger satisfaction.
By using the VIKOR method, we can map the relative distance between the perceived
alternative and the best possible point. Following Figure 3 as a model, we rst mapped the
two-element results. The 12 criteria can be simplied to two elements; one is interaction
and outcome and the other is physical environment. Thus, we calculated the average
passenger satisfaction of the six physical environment criteria and the average passenger
satisfaction of the six interaction and outcome criteria, and then mapped these values on
a two-element sketch map in Figure 5. The x-axis indicates values of satisfactions of
physical environment; the y-axis indicates values of satisfactions of interaction and
outcome. The dotted line in Figure 5 represents the two-element aggregate customer
gap of airport passenger service of Taoyuan International Airport to the best possible
point. The two-element (physical environment and interaction and outcome) result
was computed by the VIKOR method; the measure C, representing degree of majority
utility, is 0.2118; the measure D, representing degree of regret, is 0.2450; and the
measure G (v = 0.5), representing the aggregate distance, is 0.2284.
Similarly, the VIKOR method can help us to compute the relative distance between the
perceived alternative and the best possible point in our 12-criterion problem. More accu-
rate than the two-element results, the 12-criterion result from the VIKOR method is shown
in Table 3. If we rank the unweighted unimproved gaps of the 12 criteria/features, the
highest is exterior surrounding circulation planning (c
5
). It is obvious that the exterior
surrounding circulation of Taoyuan International Airport may not conform to public sat-
isfactions and is in greatest need of improvement. If we rank the weighted unimproved
gaps of the 12 criteria/features, on-time departure (c
10
) is the feature with the largest
weighted unimproved distance. The reasons the weighted unimproved gap for on-time
Figure 5. Illustration of the customer gap of the airports.
Notes: The dotted line represents the two-element aggregate gap to the ideal point. The x-axis
indicates values of satisfactions of physical environment; the y-axis indicates values of satisfactions
of interaction and outcome.
Total Quality Management 1035
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Table 3. The 12-criterion VIKOR results.
Criteria/features (c
i
) c
1
c
2
c
3
c
4
c
5
c
6
c
7
c
8
c
9
c
10
c
11
c
12
Summary
Importance weights (w
i
) 0.097
(4)
a
0.049
(12)
0.049
(11)
0.103
(2)
0.087
(6)
0.095
(5)
0.074
(9)
0.064
(10)
0.083
(7)
0.119
(1)
0.080
(8)
0.101
(3)
1.000
Negative performance values (f

i
) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12
Perceived performance values (f
i
) 4.198
(6)
b
4.000
(9)
3.997
(10)
4.133
(7)
3.855
(12)
3.937
(11)
4.485
(1)
4.243
(4)
4.297
(3)
4.087
(8)
4.238
(5)
4.302
(2)
49.772
Aspired performance values (f

i
) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 60
Unweighted unimproved distances/
unweighted gaps
((f

i
f
i
)/(f

i
f

i
))
0.200
(7)
c
0.250
(4)
0.251
(3)
0.217
(6)
0.286
d
(1)
0.266
(2)
0.129
(12)
0.189
(9)
0.176
(10)
0.228
(5)
0.190
(8)
0.175
(11)
2.557
Weighted unimproved distances/
weighted gaps
((w
i
(f

i
f
i
)/(f

i
f

i
)))
0.019
(5)
c
0.012
(10)
0.012
(9)
0.022
(4)
0.025
(3)
0.025
(2)
0.010
(12)
0.012
(11)
0.015
(8)
0.027
(1)
0.015
(7)
0.018
(6)
0.212
e
Aggregate gap (G(v= 0)) 0.286
f
Aggregate gap (G(v= 0.5)) 0.249
f
Aggregate gap (G(v= 1)) 0.212
f
a
The ranking of importance values.
b
The ranking of performance values.
c
The ranking of gaps.
d
The value that is also the value of measure D (degree of regret).
e
The value that is also the value of measure C (degree of majority utility).
f
The values of measure G, calculated by Equation (4), in different v values.
1
0
3
6
W
.
H
.
T
s
a
i
e
t
a
l
.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

departure (c
10
) are high may reside in the requirement of the highest level of on-time
departure for air passengers. This nding indicates that airport managers might have
different decisions regarding improvement when they consider passenger preferences
and satisfaction simultaneously. Using Equations (2) and (3) of Section 3, we obtained
the values of measure C (degree of majority utility) and measure D (degree of regret),
which is also displayed in Table 3. In order to understand how the aggregate gap (G) is
affected by v (0 v 1), this study, respectively, adopts v = 0, v = 0.5 and v = 1 to
compare these index values (G) in Table 3. When the strategy of maximum group
utility is adopted and the individual regret ignored, v = 1 can be selected for the calcu-
lation, whereas when the individual regret is considered and the strategy of maximum
group utility ignored, v = 0 can be selected. Generally speaking, if airport managers
decide to simultaneously address the strategy of maximum group utility and minimum
individual regret, then v = 0.5 should be selected. This selection is decided based on the
preferences of the airport managers.
4.3. Gap reduction analysis
Subsequently, we mapped the values of unimproved distance (x-axis) and importance (y-
axis) of Taoyuan International Airport on the two-axis improvement strategy map, shown
as Figure 6. The mean (0.0833) of the important values of the 12 criteria was used to split
between high importance and low importance; the top scale (0.1666) was twice as many as
the mean. The mean (0.2131) of the 12 unweighted relative distances was used to split
between large unimproved distance and small unimproved distance; the top scale
(0.4262) was twice as many as the mean. Since improving a feature with higher
importance and larger unimproved distance should have more opportunities to lead the
perceptive alternative closer to the best possible point, features in the grey area of
Figure 6 are identied as opportunities and features in the white area are satiated needs.
Figure 6 illustrates the importanceunimproved distance map of Taoyuan Inter-
national Airport. In Figure 6, several ndings are apparent, as follows: (1) the four
features, internal direction line arrangement (c
4
), external surrounding circulation
Figure 6. The importanceunimproved distance map of Taoyuan International Airport.
Notes: c
1
= sanitary condition; c
2
= environment beauty; c
3
= facilities allocation; c
4
= direction
line arrangement; c
5
= surrounding circulation planning; c
6
= public transportation convenience;
c
7
= receptionist attitude; c
8
= security inspection; c
9
= check-in and baggage delivery; c
10
= on-time
departure; c
11
= broadcasting system and c
12
= ight information board.
Total Quality Management 1037
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

planning (c
5
), convenience of public transportation (c
6
) and on-time departure of ights
(c
10
), are mapped in Quadrant I. Thus, these four features should be regarded as improve-
ment items with the highest priority because they have more potential to rapidly reduce the
customer gap. (2) Environment beauty and cleanliness (c
2
) and facilities allocation and
space design (c
3
) are mapped in Quadrant IV, so these two features are regarded as lower
priority improvement items because they contained large rooms for improvement while
being relatively unimportant to air passengers. (3) In Quadrant II, sanitary condition of
lavatory (c
1
) and accuracy of ight information board (c
12
) are two important features
for passengers to evaluate airport service. Although the two features are categorised to
those with relative smaller unimproved distances, managers may adopt the strategy of
nding any possible methods of improving these to reduce gaps. (4) The remaining
features (c
7
, c
8
, c
9
and c
11
) mapped in Quadrant III with relative lower importance and
smaller unimproved distances are those with satiated passenger needs; airport managers
could employ the strategy of maintaining these features.
Consequently, airport managers can arrange appropriate strategies according to
passenger preferences and unimproved gaps of present services in order to reduce the
customer gap and to achieve passenger expectations. Therefore, this research proposes
the multi-criteria evaluation model as a suitable and effective method for evaluating
and reducing the gaps of the improvement of airport passenger services.
5. Conclusions
This paper employed the AHP and VIKOR methods to overcome the shortages of the tra-
ditional IPA. This paper also used an empirical sample of Taoyuan International Airport
to evaluate airport passenger services by the multi-criteria evaluation model combined
three methods: AHP, VIKOR and IPA. The application of both the AHP and the VIKOR
methods to the empirical data was employed to analyse passenger preferences and passenger
satisfactions and also to illustrate the customer gap of airport passenger services. The IPA
technique was then applied to diagnose managerial strategies for reducing the customer
gap between passenger perceptions and expectations. The improvement strategy map of
gap reduction was conducted to categorise various features of airport passenger services.
The major contribution of this paper lies in the development of an integrated model,
which incorporates diversied issues for evaluating airport passenger services. Through
this evaluation model, airport managers can decide which features should be further
improved in order to achieve air passengers aspired levels. Our empirical case study
demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed model. This proposed
model successfully integrates AHP, VIKOR and IPA methods; it can simultaneously
deal with air passenger preferences and satisfactions and help the airport managers to
condently create improvement strategies. In addition, this model can be used to solve
different kinds of problems by modifying the constructs of the hierarchy trees and
nding the appropriate improvement strategy. However, since the empirical results
were from the analysis in the airport of Taiwan and culture is a signicant inuence
in marketing management, the results might not be generalised broadly. For further
research, one could consider the relations among criteria or features of service quality.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of Taiwan for nancially
supporting this research under Grant NSC97-2410-H-008-029.
1038 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

References
Candido, C.J.F. (2005). Service quality strategy implementation: A model and the case of the
Algarve hotel industry. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16(1), 314.
Chang, W.L., Liu, H.T., Wen, Y.S., & Lin, T.A. (2008). Building an integrated model of future
complaint intentions: The case of Taoyuan International Airport. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 14(2), 7074.
Chang, Y.H., & Yeh, C.H. (2002). A survey analysis of service quality for domestic airlines.
European Journal of Operational Research, 139(1), 166177.
Chen, H.L. (2002). Benchmarking and quality improvement: A quality benchmarking deployment
approach. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19(6), 757773.
Chen, J.K., & Chen, I.S. (2008). VIKOR method for selecting universities for future development
based on innovation. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 5359.
Eklof, J.A., & Westlund, A. (1998). Customer satisfaction index and its role in quality management.
Total Quality Management, 9(4/5), 8085.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (2007). Passengers expectations of airport service quality. Journal of
Services Marketing, 12(7), 492506.
Francis, G., Humphreys, I., & Fry, J. (2003). An international survey of the nature and prevalence of
quality management systems in airports. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
14(7), 819829.
Garver, M.S. (2003). Best practices in identifying customer-driven improvement opportunities.
Industrial Marketing Management, 32(6), 455466.
Lam, P.K., & Chin, K.S. (2005). Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conict man-
agement in collaborative new product development. Industrial Marketing Management,
34(8), 761772.
Lin, S.P., Chan, Y.H., & Tsai, M.C. (2009). A transformation function corresponding to IPA and gap
analysis. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(8), 829846.
Liou, J.J.H., & Tzeng, G.H. (2007). A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(3), 131138.
Martilla, J.A., & James, J.C. (1977). Importanceperformance analysis. Journal of Marketing,
41(1), 7779.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H.H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relation-
ship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration
of the importanceperformance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4),
271277.
Mikulic, J., & Prebezac, D. (2008). Prioritizing improvement of service attributes using impact
rangeperformance analysis and impact-asymmetry analysis. Managing Service Quality,
18(6), 559576.
Myers, J. (2001). Measuring customer satisfaction: Hot buttons and other measurement issues.
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Belgrade: Faculty of
Civil Engineering.
Opricovic, S. (2011). Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Systems
with Applications, 38(10), 1298312990.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative
analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2),
445455.
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking
methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 178(2), 514529.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 1240.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Renement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 4150.
Park, J.W. (2007). Passenger perceptions of service quality: Korean and Australian case studies.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(4), 238242.
Saaty, R.W. (2003). Decision making in complex environments: SuperDecisions. Retrieved April 27,
2011, from http://www.superdecisions.com/index_tables.php3
Total Quality Management 1039
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to mark a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of
Operational Research, 48(9), 926.
Sampson, S.E., & Showalter, M.J. (1999). The performance-importance response function: obser-
vations and implications. The Service Industries Journal, 19(3), 125.
Seol, I., & Sarkis, J. (2005). A multi-attribute model for internal auditor selection. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 20(8), 876892.
Shih, Y.Y., & Hu, J.S. (2008). Fuzzy quality attributes for evaluating Internet marketing system
performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(12), 12191234.
Tsai, W.H., Chou, W.C., & Lai, C.W. (2010). An effective evaluation model and improvement
analysis for national parks websites: A case study of Taiwan. Tourism Management, 31(6),
936952.
Tsai, W.H., Hsu, W., & Lin, T.W. (2011). New nancial service development for banks in Taiwan
based on customer needs and expectations. The Service Industries Journal, 31(2), 215236.
Tsai, W.H., & Hung, S.J. (2009a). Dynamic pricing and revenue management process in Internet
retailing under uncertainty: A real options approach. OMEGA The International Journal
of Management Science, 37(2), 471481.
Tsai, W.H., & Hung, S.J. (2009b). A fuzzy goal programming approach for green supply chain
optimisation under activity-based costing and performance evaluation with a value-chain
structure. International Journal of Production Research, 47(18), 49915017.
Tzeng, G.H., Lin, C.W., & Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses
for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33(11), 13731383.
Tzeng, G.H., Teng, M.H., Chen, J.J., & Opricovic, S. (2002). Multicriteria selection for a restaurant
location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(2), 171187.
Wang, R.T., Ho, C.T., Feng, C.M., & Yang, Y.K. (2004). A comparative analysis of the operational
performance of Taiwans international airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 10(5),
353360.
Yang, C., & Wang, T.C. (2006). VIKOR method analysis of interactive trade in policy-making.
The Business Review, Cambridge, 6(2), 7785.
Yeh, C.H., & Kuo, Y.L. (2003). Evaluating passenger services of Asia-Pacic international airports.
Transportation Research Part E, 39(1), 3548.
Yoo, K.E., & Choi, Y.C. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process approach for identifying relative impor-
tance of factors to improve passenger security checks at airports. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 12(3), 135142.
Zeithaml, V.A., & Bitner, M.J. (2003). Service marketing: Integrating customer focus across the rm
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple criteria decision making. New York, NY: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
1040 W.H. Tsai et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

B
i
r
m
i
n
g
h
a
m
]

a
t

0
7
:
1
3

2
2

S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
4