10 International Journal of Innovative Research in Management Studies (IJIRMS) Volume 1, Issue 11, December 2016. pp.10-16. A STUDY ON SERVQUAL DIMENSIONS IN SELF FINANCING ENGINEERING INSTITUTES WITH REFERENCE TO TAMILNADU Dr.R.Subramaniya Bharathy 1 and Dr.K.Raja 2 1 Assistant Professor, PRIMS, Periyar University, Salem 2 Principal, Dhaanish Ahmed College of Engineering, Chennai – 601 301, India Email: 1 bharathyprims@gmail.com, 2 drkrajamit@gmail.com Abstract— The intensified competition among higher education mirrors that found within the service sector in general. The response of many firms to the heightened call for enhanced quality was to implement continuous improvement programs such as total quality management and/or Six Sigma. A key tenet to these philosophies is that organizations should continually assess customer perceptions of service quality. Over the last three decades, higher education institutions have experienced dramatic shifts in both their funding formulas and student populations. The paper studies the students’ and faculty perceptions of service quality in the current scenario, using the service quality (SERVQUAL) instrument to measure five constructs: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The study has been done on 250 students and faculty members of self-financing engineering institute in Tamilnadu. A significantly negative gap is observed in the expectations and perceptions of the service quality of higher education, indicating a sense of dissatisfaction among the students and faculty. Keywords— SERVQUAL, Gap Analysis, Students, Faculty, Engineering Institute. INTRODUCTION Over the last three decades, higher education institutions have experienced dramatic shifts in both their funding formulas and student populations. Creating a competitive advantage, once a concept largely foreign to higher education, has become a driving force (Oldfield & Baron, 2000). The myriad of stakeholders involved in or influenced by higher education are now seeking evidence of institutions' effectiveness in achieving educational goals. Although consensus among these stakeholders as to the definition of quality education may vary by segment, the stakeholders are of the same mindset in calling for indicators that capture performance of all those involved in executing and improving the delivery of higher education (Nedwek & Neal, 1994). The intensified competition among higher education mirrors that found within the service sector in general. The response of many firms to the heightened call for enhanced quality was to implement continuous improvement programs such as total quality management and/or Six Sigma. A key tenet to these philosophies is that organizations should continually assess customer perceptions of service quality. Only when data are collected and analyzed can real improvements be made (Jensen & Artz, 2005). Universities are giving serious consideration to the issue of service quality assessment for a multitude of reasons, arguably the two most important of which are: students report that word-of-mouth recommendations play a large role in their decision to choose a university and both university quality assurance and independent assessment evaluators place heavy emphasis on the student experience as one of their assessment criteria (Cuthbert, 1996). The underlying theory is that institutions that continually improve service quality and delivery are more likely to generate high levels of customer satisfaction, resulting in both increased customer loyalty (namely, a higher retention of the current student population), and decreased costs of attracting new students (through positive word of mouth from the students and higher independent ratings). Recently, this customer-centric approach of service quality has gained momentum in educational literature as the increasing cost of education has created a new generation of students with greater customer awareness than ever before. As Oldfield and Baron (2000) pointed out, the “interaction between customer and service organization lies at the heart of the service delivery.” Employees who deliver the service, in this case the instructor, are of key importance to both the customers they serve, the students, and the employer they represent, the university. In some regards, the employee (instructor) may be the most visible route by which the employer (the university) can distinguish itself. ISSN: 2455-7188 (Online) www.ijirms.com