Serbian Part2

The International Journal of Logistics Management
Measurement of logistics service quality in freight forwarding companies: A case

study of the Serbian market
Milorad Kilibarda, Svetlana Nikolicic, Milan Andrejic,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Milorad Kilibarda, Svetlana Nikolicic, Milan Andrejic, (2016) "Measurement of logistics service quality
in freight forwarding companies: A case study of the Serbian market", The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Issue: 3, pp.770-794, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2014-0063
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 12:59 17 March 2018 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-04-2014-0063
Downloaded on: 17 March 2018, At: 12:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 94 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1224 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"The development of outbound logistics services in the automotive industry: A logistics service
provider’s view", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp. 707-737 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2012-0082">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2012-0082</a>
(2016),"Customer orientation, relationship quality, and performance: The third-party logistics
provider’s perspective", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Iss 3 pp. 738-754
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2013-0093">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-08-2013-0093</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:383794 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm
IJLM
27,3
Measurement of logistics
service quality in freight
forwarding companies
770
A case study of the Serbian market
Received 11 April 2014
Revised 26 December 2014 Milorad Kilibarda
Accepted 11 September 2015 Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering,
University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Svetlana Nikolicic
Department of Traffic and Transportation,
University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, and

Milan Andrejic
Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering,
University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine how customers from different market segments
assess the quality of freight forwarding services, depending on the structure of services, as well as the
mutual relation between the freight forwarder and the customers.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on the SERVQUAL model and surveys.
The methodology for measuring the quality of logistics services in freight forwarding companies is
developed. On the basis of the proposed methodology, the empirical research was conducted.
The study includes 120 logistics professionals dealing with import and export trade flows who thereby
use the services of freight companies. The verification of the SERVQUAL instrument, results and
hypotheses are conducted using the factor analysis and ANOVA.
Findings – The results show that logistics service quality (LSQ) of freight forwarding companies in
Serbia is not at a satisfactory level. Different market segments evaluate the level of quality of service in
a different way. Also, customer exceptions and the level of quality depend on the structure of services,
as well as the mutual relation between the freight forwarder and the customers.
Research limitations/implications – Empirical research and the results are limited to the Serbian
market, and only one measurement tool.
Practical implications – The procedure and results of the research have practical applications and
set the basis for the improvement of forwarding and logistics services.
Originality/value – This is one of the first papers dealing with the LSQ of freight forwarding
companies in Serbia. Generally, the developed approach can be successfully applied on other markets,
which adds value to this paper. New research hypotheses are developed and tested. In that manner,
this paper makes contribution in measuring and improving the LSQ.
Keywords SERVQUAL model, Quality, Confirmatory factor analysis, Freight forwarding,
Logistic services, Serbian market
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The International Journal of
Logistics Management During the last two decades, significant changes in the logistics and freight forwarding
Vol. 27 No. 3, 2016
pp. 770-794
services at the Serbian market have taken place. New market trends, privatization,
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited economic transition, inclusion in the open and global markets have significantly changed
0957-4093
DOI 10.1108/IJLM-04-2014-0063 the business operations of freight forwarding companies. Earlier, freight forwarders were
mainly oriented toward customs procedures, preparation of documents and mediation in Measurement
transport, while today they strive to offer and provide a wide range of freight forwarding of LSQ
services. They are primarily oriented to the organization and realization of the import/
export trade flows. Traditional freight forwarding companies grow into logistic
providers, which operate in very strict market conditions, constantly striving to make
their work competitive and profitable (Murphy and Daley, 2001; Shang and Lu, 2012).
However, the stated aspirations can be realized only if the companies offer and 771
provide the service quality that will thoroughly meet the demands and expectations of
the clients. The price of the services is no longer a sufficient instrument for gaining new
clients, and especially not a guarantee for keeping the existent clients. The service
quality and logistic excellence were long ago recognized in the world as the key
components of market operations, revenue generation and profitability (Lun, 2008;
Lambert and Lewis, 1983; Lammik et al., 1996). The quality of the logistic service has a
very strong market influence, while a significant number of studies and papers suggest
a strong link between improving the quality of the logistic services and increasing the
overall customer satisfaction ( Juga et al., 2010; Saura et al., 2008).
Freight forwarding companies are in a constant dilemma regarding the service
quality which the client requests and expects, i.e. to what extent the offered and
provided services meet the client’s expectations. In order to successfully answer the
posed questions, the service quality has to be constantly measured, monitored and
improved (Liang et al., 2004, 2006; Lin and Liang, 2011; Ding and Tsai, 2012). On the
Serbian market, however, there has been no significant measuring of or research into
the logistic and freight forwarding services quality. Freight forwarding and logistics
companies are unsure as to what service quality the clients expect or how they perceive
and assess the quality of the services rendered. Without this knowledge, however, it is
not possible to improve the quality, since, in order to improve something, it is necessary
to measure it first. These facts have prompted and motivated the authors of this paper
to conduct a concrete research and to present their results.
The basic goal of this paper is to develop a new approach for measuring the quality of
logistics services of freight forwarding companies. The aim is to measure the quality of
logistics services of freight forwarding companies on the Serbian market. The objective is
to become aware, in the best possible manner, of the client’s expectations on the total
Serbian market and per separate market segments, as well as to determine to what extent
the freight forwarding companies meet these expectations, i.e. assess the quality of the
services rendered. The authors have strived, by means of the obtained results, to create
a basis for suggesting the measures and solutions tied in with the introduction and
the improvement of the service quality of logistics and freight forwarding companies. The
service quality analysis was performed by means of the SERVQUAL model, one of the
best-known instruments for measuring the service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991).
The paper is organized in the following manner. Literature review is provided in the
next section. The problem of research and the formulated basic hypotheses are
presented in the third section. The fourth section encompasses the research
methodology, surveys and analyses of the obtained results. The fifth section refers to
the discussion related to the boundaries and future research directions. The paper is
closed by concluding remarks.
2. Literature review
In the past, a significant research effort has been devoted to the topic of measuring the
quality of the logistics services. It could be said that the researches referred to the
IJLM following topics: conceptual solutions (Grönroos, 1984; Parasuraman et al., 1985;
27,3 Martinez and Martinez, 2010), models of measuring the quality of the logistics service
(Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991, 1994; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Teas, 1994; Brady
and Cronin, 2001), as well as the consequences of poor quality (Zeithaml et al., 1996).
The most researches and studies measuring the quality of the logistics services refer to
marketing researches and interviewing the end users (Babakus and Boller, 1992; Brown
772 et al., 1993; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Several
authors expand the theoretical domain of the services quality by integrative and
complex hierarchical models (Bennington and Cummane, 1998; Brady and Cronin,
2001; Bienstock et al., 1997; Dabholkar et al., 2000; Mentzer et al., 1999, 2001).
Simultaneously with the above, different approaches for measuring the quality of the
logistics services were developed (Millen and Maggard, 1997). One of the most significant
approaches to research and measure the quality of the logistics service is based on the
SERVQUAL model (Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991), which analyses the difference
between the user’s perception and expectation (Sterling and Lambert, 1989; Lambert
et al., 1990; Zinn and Parasuraman, 1997; Davis and Mentzer, 2006). In this way the base
of defining and measuring the quality of the logistics services has been defined.
Neo et al. (2004) apply the SERVQUAL model in practice when measuring the
quality of the logistics services of the 3PL company that deals with the distribution of
the consumer goods. Chen et al. (2009) use the SERVQUAL instrument for measuring
the quality of services in the sea transport, where they investigate two new gaps
referring to different business users (freight forwarders and transporters) and the
different position of employees. The authors tried to upgrade the Zeithaml’s gap model.
Ho et al. (2012) use modified SERVQUAL model for determining the influence of the
logistics service quality (LSQ) dimensions on customer satisfaction in the courier
services industry in Malaysia. The authors analyze four dimensions of service quality:
timeliness, condition/accuracy of order, quality of information and availability/quality
of personnel. According to the results, all dimensions affect user satisfaction. The
greatest influence on customer satisfaction has the condition/accuracy of order, which
is not in accordance with previous studies where the highest influence on customer
satisfaction is attributed to timelines. Taşkin and Durmaz (2010) use SERVQUAL
model to examine how the LSQ and customers’ perception influence the creation of
value for customers. In addition to the five dimensions of SERVQUAL model, the
authors also investigate the customers’ perception criteria: professionalism and ability,
attitudes and behaviors, accessibility and flexibility, reliability and truthfulness,
gaining customers, company fame, and credibility.
Franceschini and Rafele (2000) compare SERVQUAL dimensions with eight traditional
indicators of the LSQ: lead time, regularity, reliability, completeness, flexibility,
correctness, harmfulness and productivity. Rafele (2004) later reduces these eight
dimensions to three: tangible components, ways of fulfillment and information actions.
Seth et al. (2006) claim that the gap analysis of the SERVQUAL instrument is a useful
framework for assessing the quality of the logistics services in the 3PL relationship.
Since the service quality significantly influences the users’ satisfaction, certain
papers suggest the application of the SERVPERF instruments (Cronin and Taylor,
1994), pointing out that, instead of advancing certain quality dimensions, the focus
should be on the perceived performance and the improvement of the users’ satisfaction.
The more detailed research on the validity of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models in
the area of the logistics services in the maritime freight transport is done by Durvasula
et al. (1999). The authors say that the results from the SERVPERF analysis in
comparison to the results of the SERVQUAL analysis present a more convenient Measurement
foundation in the area of maritime freight transport. The researches done by Chen et al. of LSQ
(2009) confirm that the SERVQUAL model does not show predominance in comparison
to the SERVPERF instrument, when the sea transport of goods is considered. Juga et al.
(2010) use the SERVPERF model for assessing the impact of the LSQ on customer
satisfaction and loyalty in the logistics outsourcing relationship. Mentioned authors
consider three central dimensions of the service quality: operational service quality, 773
personal service quality and technical service quality. They find that all three
dimensions significantly affect the customer satisfaction.
Bienstock et al. (1997) emphasize the shortcomings of applying the SERVQUAL
model and define the physical distribution service quality (PDSQ) based on three
dimensions: availability, timeliness and condition. This model largely corresponds to
the model that is defined by Mentzer et al. (1989), also including three components:
availability, timeliness and quality. The lack of the mentioned models is that all three
dimensions are focused on the attributes of the service; hence the customers do not
receive necessary attention. Numerous authors argue that it is necessary to add a
customer perspective to the service attributes. For example, Mentzer et al. (1997)
distinguish two components: PDSQ and customer service quality. Grönroos (2001)
states that the LSQ consists of technical and functional components. Davis (2006)
defines two-dimensional model consisting of operational LSQ and relational LSQ.
Mentzer et al. (1999) continue developing the scale to be useful for measuring the
quality of the logistics service and develop a new multidimensional model called LSQ.
LSQ contains nine key components: personnel contact quality, order release quantities,
information quality, ordering procedures, order accuracy, order condition, order
quality, order discrepancy handling and timeliness. A large number of authors confirm
that the timeliness has the greatest importance (Bienstock et al., 1997; Mentzer et al.,
2001). Rahman (2006) later argues that the on-time delivery is the most important
component of LSQ. LSQ scale is primarily developed to measure the quality of the
internal logistics services. Later, LSQ begins to be used for measuring the quality of
the external logistics services. Rafiq and Jaafar (2007) use the LSQ scale for measuring
the service quality of TPL industry in the UK. The authors confirm the applicability
of the model, though also highlight significant limitations.
Richey et al. (2007) use the LSQ scale to examine the impact of the technological
readiness of manufacturing and trading companies on the quality of logistics services,
market and financial performances. Authors also use the LSQ scale to investigate the
relationship between the technological complementarity and the quality of service.
Grant (2003) examines the connectivity between the customer services, service quality
and users satisfaction in the logistics of food industry. The research is based on the
adapted Mentzer et al. (1989) model that examines marketing and the logistic aspect of
the customer service, as well as on the well-known PZB model of transaction and global
satisfaction, developed by Parasuraman et al. (1994). The model has two parts, where
the first part refers to the satisfaction with the services before and during the ordering
and delivery of goods, while the second part refers to the relations with the user.
Kamble et al. (2011) apply the original LSQ scale for measuring the service quality of
logistics providers in India and they confirm that the original scale can be used
successfully in this market (this has contributed to its further generalization).
However, Feng et al. (2007) state that the original LSQ scale was developed for the
US market and it cannot be used for other markets, since the dimensions of quality can
be affected by local communities. These authors develop their model for measuring the
IJLM quality of the logistics services to online shopping with six dimensions, including
27,3 timeliness, personal contact quality, order quality, order discrepancy handling, order
condition and convenience. The model is suitable for online shopping malls, though the
question is whether it can be used in other logistics systems as well.
Jian and Zhenpeng (2008) discuss the LSQ on the basis of customers’ assessment,
emphasizing the need for the multi-objective evaluation of qualitative and quantitative
774 factors. It is very difficult to determine the mentioned factors. In that manner, they
propose the usage of the gray correlation method as a simple and very fast method.
They propose six dimensions of the LSQ: personnel’s quality, information quality,
order the course, intact intensity of the goods, the error is dealt with and timeliness.
Bienstock et al. (2008) consider the expansion of the basic model for measuring the
quality of logistics services through the application of the technology acceptance model
(TAM) for assessing the logistics information technology. The authors distinguish two
main TAM components, perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU).
Unlike previous TAM research results, which show that PU has a stronger impact than
PEOU, this research shows that the relationship between two elements is equal.
Similarly, Saura et al. (2008) pay special attention to information and communication
technologies when analyzing the relationship between the LSQ, satisfaction and
loyalty. They define the LSQ scale with two factors. The first relates to personnel
quality, information quality and order quality with six items, while the second relates to
timeliness with four items. Ding et al. (2014) emphasize that the quality of information
affects the supply chain food quality performance.
Thai (2013) points out the fact that a number of papers and models for quality
measurement are based on the logistics service attributes and that the authors are not
sufficiently dealing with the quality assessment from the customer perspective. This
author proposes a model for measuring the LSQ from the perspective of users and
providers. The model includes five factors (customer focus quality, order fulfillment
quality, timeliness, information quality and corporate image) and 20 items. Empirical
studies conducted in Singapore confirm that the model is reliable for measuring the
quality of logistics services.
Sohal et al. (1999) conduct a comparative analysis of three quality management
studies in the field of logistics in North America, Europe and Australia (Read and Miller,
1991; Millen and Maggard, 1997; Sohal, 1995). They suggest nine components of quality
in logistics: total support of customer needs, on-time delivery, error free transaction,
no out of stocks, no goods damaged in handling and shipping, consistency of order cycle,
reliable suppliers, accurate inventory information, and defined procedures and
instructions. The surveys suggest that in North America and Europe the three most
important components are: total support of customer needs, on-time delivery and error
free transaction, while in Australia total support of customer needs, on-time delivery and
reliable suppliers are the most important. Quality audit by internal services is listed as
the most important method for the measurement of changes in the quality practice in
logistics. For measuring the expectations of customers, authors suggest the following:
customer surveys, line management visits to customer sites and internal measures of
repeat business. The most important methods for measuring the improvements in
logistics are: flowcharts, statistical process control, histograms and Pareto charts.
Rahman (2006) examines quality management in the logistics practice in Australia and
compares it with the quality management in manufacturing companies.
So et al. (2006) assess and measure the quality of the logistic provider’s service by
applying the analytic hierarchy process methods (AHP). The AHP method is applied
for measuring, assessing and comparing the service quality of four logistics providers, Measurement
which can be chosen by users according to five basic dimensions. Кilibarda et al. (2012) of LSQ
develop the new model for measuring the quality of the offered logistics services based
on multi-attribute decision making. In contrast to the most other approaches that are
focused on realized services, this model allows measuring the quality of services as an
element of logistics provider offer.
Meng et al. (2011) apply the Kano model for the quantitative analysis of logistics in 775
express delivering industries in China. Kano model identifies the key elements of logistics
services from the user’s perspective, though it also defines the priorities in attributes in
terms of the long-term improvement of LSQ. Franceschini and Rafele (2000) propose
three categories of the Kano model in the context of indicators’ aging. Huiskonen and
Pirttila (1998) use the Kano quality classification in defining the strategy of logistics
service planning. Baki et al. (2009) apply the integrated SERVQUAL, Kano model and
QFD approach for measuring and improving the LSQ in Turkey.
Kuei et al. (2008) propose a strategic framework to develop a quality management

system in supply chains (supply chain quality management), integrating vision and
gap approaches. The research conducted by Kannan and Tan (2007) refers to the way
the quality of operations on the internal and external level influences the quality
measurement and the way the users experience the quality.
Based on the insight into the different approaches and models for measuring
the logistics services quality, i.e. after surveying the theoretical and empirical results, the
authors decided to use the original SERVQUAL scale. In this paper, the methodology for
analyzing the LSQ in freight forwarding companies on the Serbian market is developed.
The basic procedures and the results are shown in the following parts of the paper.
3. Defining the problem and research hypotheses

3.1 Characteristics of the freight forwarding activity on the Serbian market
Over 2,000 companies in Serbia are registered as freight forwarding companies, out of
which 800 companies have a significant participation in the import/export trade flows,
while over 70 percent of all import/export services is provided by around 100 largest
freight forwarders. Freight forwarding companies realize around 95 percent of the
international trade flows and in the year 2011 they achieved freight transport of around
three million tons (around 900,000 processed customs declarations). The average
financial turnover of the companies amounts between 2 and 30 million USD annually.
Headquarters of the companies are located differently on the Serbian market, while
over 80 percent freight forwarders is located in the region of large cities and economic
centers. On the present-day Serbian market, freight forwarding companies provide
services related to the development of the logistic processes, preparation of documents,
insurance and customs clearance of goods (Figure 1). However, it is possible to single
out three types of freight forwarding companies: companies that offer and provide a
wide range of logistics services (packing of goods, forming logistic units,
transportation, storage and reloading of goods, preparation of documents, customs
clearance, transportation insurance); companies that predominantly deal with the
customs brokerage; and companies which predominantly deal with the brokerage in
transport and organization of trade flows.
A certain number of domestic freight forwarding companies have developed into
logistics providers offering various forms of contractual logistics, outsourcing and
logistic partnership with the customers. Apart from this, there are leading global
providers operating on the Serbian market, such as Schenker, Kuehne Nagel, DHL, etc.
IJLM Freight forwarding services in the export of goods
27,3 Logistic processes when shipping the goods
Exporter
Documents Insurance Customs
776
Figure 1. Documents Insurance Customs
Basic freight
forwarding services Importer
Logistic processes when receiving the goods
in the import/export
trade flows Freight forwarding services in the import of goods
By means of building the logistics centers, purchasing the means and equipment,
developing the logistics and business networks, opening subsidiaries and various
forms of cooperation, the freight forwarding companies are equipped for consolidating
trade flows and more intensively applying the container transportation systems.
Currently, around 40 percent of companies have their own resources, while the
remaining 60 percent of freight forwarders has no resources. Freight forwarders are
included into different international business associations and logistics alliances, and it
makes them competitive on the international market. There have been significant
changes in the owner’s structure and size of the companies. Earlier, freight forwarders
had mainly the domestic capital and were in the private and domestic ownership, while
today over 30 percent of the companies has the foreign capital, around 50 percent has
the domestic one and 20 percent has the mixed capital. It is important to mention that
the leading companies have the foreign or mixed capital. The freight forwarding
companies vary in size, so that the small ones (up to 20 employees) make around
60 percent of the total number of freight forwarding companies, 25 percent of
the companies are mid-sized (up to 100 employees), while around 15 percent of the
companies are large (over 100 employees).
3.2 Research hypotheses development

The mentioned trends and market changes have led to a very severe competition on the
logistics market. Freight forwarding companies try to beat the competition and win a
more significant market share using different solutions. One of the important
instruments of a successful market competition is certainly the service quality. However,
in their operations so far, the freight forwarding companies on the Serbian market have
not necessarily devoted attention to quality. Much more than this, they have dealt with
prices and other business elements. The assumption is that the service quality is not at
the appropriate level and that it does not satisfy the clients’ expectations. The general
opinion is that, in the area of quality, there are significant possibilities of improving the
overall business. In order to prove the stated assumption, that is to define the directions
of the possible improvements, it is necessary to perform the measuring and analysis of
the service quality first. It is necessary to determine the service quality which the clients
expect as well as how the clients perceive and assess the quality of the services rendered.
In that manner, research hypotheses have been developed.
As already mentioned, numerous authors identify quality as a gap between the
expected and perceived value. On the basis of this approach, the most common
concepts and models for service quality measurement and analysis in different Measurement
industries are developed (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1991). A larger number of studies of LSQ
conducted in the field of logistics indicate a significant difference between the expected
and the perceived quality of logistics services (Franceschini and Rafele, 2000; Neo et al.,
2004; Seth et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2009; Taşkin and Durmaz, 2010; Ho et al., 2012).
The hypothesis has the following form:
H1. There is a significant difference between the expected and perceived quality of 777
the freight forwarding services on the Serbian market.
The customers of freight forwarding services are located in a variety of industrial and
economic activities and have different requirements, expectations and perceptions of
LSQ attributes. For these reasons, it is necessary to make market segmentation and to
adjust logistics services according to market segments (Murphy and Daley, 1994;
Sharma and Lambert, 1994; Mentzer et al., 2001, 2004). The research results show that
there are very heterogeneous demands for service quality and that users from
different segments have different expectations and perceptions of LSQ (Sohal, 1995;
Rahman, 2003; Richey et al., 2007; Rafiq and Jaafar, 2007). Having in mind the results
of surveys and the structure of users of freight forwarding companies, the following
hypothesis is defined:
H2. Different market segments (trade, production, distribution) have different
expectations regarding the attributes of the service quality, i.e. their manner of
assessing the service quality is different.
Logistics and freight forwarding companies have different relations with customers.
A growing number of companies has developed logistics partnerships and has annual
contracts with customers. In recent decades, logistics outsourcing has significantly
increased. A small number of users engage a freight forwarding company in
accordance with the current offer on the market. Growing number of studies find a
significant relationship between the level of relation development with the user
perception of the quality of logistics services (Grant, 2005; Seth et al., 2006; Saura et al.
2008; Juga et al., 2010; Hofer et al. 2014). Based on the above, we set the following
hypothesis:
H3. Customer expectations and service quality assessment depend upon the mutual
relation between the freight forwarder and the client. Those clients that have
annual contracts with freight forwarding companies or who developed logistic
partnership assess the quality differently in comparison to the clients that do
not have that form of cooperation.
In the import and export flows, there are different freight forwarding services.
Customers generally distinguish four groups of services provided by freight
forwarding companies: physical distribution services, information services and
preparation of documents, customs services, and insurance. Studies have shown that
costumers have different expectations and perceptions of the quality for individual
services. The attributes of physical distribution are identified as a key factor of
complete logistics services (Bienstock et al., 1997; Mentzer et al., 2001). Likewise, the
quality of information services and preparation of the documents has a strong
influence on the expectations and perception of users (Landrum et al., 2009; Rafele,
2004; Saura et al., 2008; Bienstock et al., 2008; Ho et al., 2012 ; Thai, 2013). Besides the
above services, the important role is attributed to the quality of customs brokerage
IJLM (Preskar, 2013) and insurance (Dalic ́ et al., 2008; Skorna, 2011). In order to determine the
27,3 difference in the quality assessment of individual freight forwarding service, we define
the following hypothesis:
H4. Customer expectations and service quality provided by freight forwarding
companies depend upon the service type. Thus, for instance, it is presumed
that expectations and quality of services related to the physical flow of goods
778 differ from those concerning the preparation of documents, customs clearance,
and insurance.
The research of the proposed hypotheses requires the application of certain
methodology and the procedure of measuring and analyzing the service quality. To the
best of the authors’ knowledge, there have been no papers in the relevant literature
dealing with the freight forwarding service quality in more detail. For these reasons, we
develop a new methodology that can be successfully used in various freight forwarding
markets. The proposed hypotheses are explored in the Serbian market.
4. Methodology and process of research

4.1 Choosing the sample
The sample was chosen in accordance with the goal of research. The sample comprises
of the users of the logistics and freight forwarding services in the import/export trade
flow on the Serbian market. The chosen respondents are logistics managers, on the
strategic level of decision making in the trade, distribution and production companies.
The strategic validity of the research is provided in this manner. The respondents were
chosen randomly from the list of all importers and exporters provided by the Customs
Administration of Serbia. The data were gathered from logistics experts who, in their
companies, deal with the import/export trade flows and who use the freight forwarding
services. The web-based survey method was used for data gathering, following the
guidelines determined in the paper by Griffis et al. (2003). The respondents were
contacted by e-mail and asked to fill in the survey questionnaire on the internet.
In order to increase the responding rate, the respondents were reminded and
encouraged, by a friendly reminder, to fill in the survey questionnaire.
Out of 513 sent e-mails, 60 returned undelivered and thus were erased from the
sample, which resulted in the net potential sample having 453 respondents. Out of this
number, 135 questionnaires were filled in (29.8 percent), out of which 15 questionnaires
were only partially filled in and 120 (26.4 percent) ready-to-use questionnaires
remained. The majority of respondents are at the position of logistics managers
(82.6 percent), while 11.7 percent are at the positions of vice-president, president or
general manager of the company. The remaining 5.7 percent of respondents are
employed at different logistics positions.
The users of logistics services are from different industrial and economic branches,
so, along with measuring the LSQ, it is necessary to perform the market segmentation
(Mentzer et al., 2001; Murphy and Daley, 1994; Gilmour et al., 1994). In this research, all
respondents are classified within three market segments: MS1 – market segment
comprised of production companies from different economic branches, MS2 – market
segment comprised of trade companies with a retail network and MS3 – distribution
companies without a retail network. The clients mainly state four groups of services
that freight forwarding companies provide for them: physical distribution of goods,
preparation of documents, customs clearance and transport insurance. A significant
number of users (65.8 percent) has annual contracts with some of the freight
forwarding companies, while the remaining ones (34.2 percent) engage different Measurement
companies from the market, in accordance with the current offer. Over 90 percent of the of LSQ
surveyed companies have the annual revenue less than 15 million USD, i.e. the total
export (import) is less than seven million USD per year. Table I shows the basic
characteristics of the sample.
As suggested by Kumar et al. (1993), the competence of respondents was assessed
on the basis of their personal data. It is considered that the competence or bias should 779
not be a problem in this study, since 95 percent of respondents are or were at the level
of the logistics manager or higher. The average work experience of respondents in the
field of logistics amounts to 9.2 years, while they have spent 5.6 years on average in
their current seats. In order to test the impartiality of respondents, the comparison of
the answers from the early and late phase of research was conducted. Namely, all
received questionnaires were divided into four equal portions, according to the date of
response. t-Tests were conducted in order to assess the difference in answers obtained
in certain periods of survey and it was established that there was no significant
statistical difference in answers, leading to the conclusion that there was no significant
partiality (Armstrong and Overton, 1977).
4.2 Defining the survey questionnaire

The survey questionnaire is threefold. The first portion contains questions referring to
the general data on the user. The second portion includes questions related to the
expectations of the users regarding the service quality provided by freight forwarding
companies, while the third portion refers to the perceived quality of the service
rendered. The research uses the original SERVQUAL questionnaire with 22 items, by
means of which the users state their opinion on the expected and perceived quality
(Table II). In principle, the SERVQUAL questionnaire consists of two sections: the
section on expectations (22 statements concerning expectations) and the section on
perceptions (22 statements concerning the perceptions of users). Each item is assessed
by using the Likert scale ranging from 1 – low level of expectations (perception) to
7 – high level of expectations (perception). Thus, for instance, when a user expresses
their opinion concerning the statement “ABC company insists on flawless service,” the
value 1 means that it is not important at all, while the value 7 implies that it is crucially
Characteristic Category %
Market segment MS1 – production companies 25

MS2 – trade companies 40
MS3 – distribution companies 35
Size of the company (number of employees) o5 7.45
5-50 37.63
50-200 33.27
200-500 11.61
W 500 6.38
Unknown 3.76
Experience in using the freight forwarding services (years) o5 15.09
5-10 66.56
10-20 18.35 Table I.
W 20 7.83 Characteristics
Unknown 6.45 of the sample
IJLM Variable Definition
27,3
V1 When ABC company promises to do something within a certain period of time, it fulfils
the promise
V2 When a user has a problem, ABC company shows a sincere interest in solving the problem
V3 ABC company provides the adequate services from the first time onwards
V4 ABC company will provide the services at the promised time
780 V5 ABC company insists on flawless service
V6 ABC company will inform the users about the exact time when the service will be performed
V7 The employees in the ABC company will provide prompt service to the users
V8 The employees in ABC company will be ready to help the users at any time
V9 The employees in ABC company will never be too busy to answer the requests of the users
V10 The behavior of the employees in ABC company instils confidence in the clients
V11 The clients feel secure in the business operations with ABC company
V12 The employees in ABC company are always polite to the users
V13 The employees in ABC company have the knowledge to answer the questions of the users
V14 ABC devotes individual attention to every user
V15 The employees in ABC company devote personal attention to users
V16 ABC company will focus its attention on that which is the best for the client
V17 The employees in ABC company understand the specific needs of the clients
V18 The business hours of ABC company suit the needs of all users
Table II. V19 ABC company has equipment that looks modern (reloading and transport means, loading units)
Deﬁnitions of V20 ABC company has a visually attractive interior (offices, warehouses, desktops)
measured variables V21 The employees in ABC company always look neat
SERVQUAL V22 The materials connected with the services (documents, promotional materials) are
questionnaire visually attractive
important for the user (1 ¼ “not important at all,” 7 ¼ “crucially important”). Likewise,
when measuring the perceived quality using the same statement, the user is asked
to give an answer ranging from 1 (“I totally disagree with the statement”) to 7
(“I absolutely agree with the statement”).
On the basis of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in several applications
(Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991, 1994), it is established that the SERVQUAL scale
has five basic dimensions under which all variables can be subsumed, and these
include the following:
(1) reliability (variables V1-V5);
(2) responsiveness (variables V6-V9);
(3) assurance (variables V10-V13);
(4) empathy (variables V14-V18); and
(5) tangibility (variables V19-V22).
4.3 Testing the model

The original and then modified SERVQUAL model has been awarded by the highest
recognitions and has been the driving force in researching and measuring the service
quality. Many authors, however, criticize the usage of the SERVQUAL method as the
general instrument for measuring the service quality. The critiques are coming from
both the theoretical-conceptual and methodological-operational viewpoints (Carman,
1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Ladhari, 2009; Mauri et al., 2013). The critics emphasize
that the model, in the course of application, has to be adjusted to the concrete service Measurement
system and the specific characteristics of the measured quality dimensions. However, of LSQ
the model in its original and improved edition continues to be applied in the scientific
research and applied studies. Initially, the model measured the services rendered to the
end-consumers; later, it was used in the industrial sector for business consumers as well
(Asubonteng et al., 1996). Concerning the industrial environment, the results are
different (Bienstock et al., 1997; Cronin and Taylor, 1992). Detailed researches into the 781
validity of the SERVQUAL and the SERVPERF models in the field of logistics services
in the maritime freight transport are performed by Durvasula et al. (1999). These
authors reveal that, in the field of maritime freight transport services, it is more suitable
to apply the results of the SERVPERF analysis in comparison to the results of the
SERVQUAL model. Cronin and Taylor (1992) and Babakus and Boller (1992)
empirically show that the perceptive component SERVQUAL exceeds the SERVQUAL
gap, which indicates that, through perception, the service quality is measured better
than through gap results. However, some of these critiques are challenged by
Parasuraman et al. (1994), who claims that the SERVQUAL gap, as the result, gives
useful information on the service quality. Zeithaml et al. (2006) claim that the
SERVQUAL instrument has significant advantages in the application, provided that
the validity of the application can be empirically verified. Thus, the debate on the
efficiency of the SERVQUAL scale continues.
Significant contributions to this subject are introduced by Buttle (1996), Coulthard
(2004) and Ladhari (2009). Ladhari (2009) explores the period of 20 years (1988-2008)
of the SERVQUAL model application and identifies a number of theoretical and
empirical criticisms. However, this author concludes that SERVQUAL remains a
useful instrument for researching the quality of services and stresses that it is
necessary to adapt it to the specific conditions. Similar conclusions are presented in
the paper by Mauri et al. (2013) who analyze 30 years (1985-2013) of SERVQUAL
instrument application.
Considering all the mentioned dilemmas, before the application of the SERVQUAL
instrument in this research, we performed the testing and validation of it by the means
of factor analysis and metric characteristics, such as reliability, as well as convergent
and discriminant validity. Prior to this, we assessed the suitability of the sample for the
application of factor analysis. One of the prerequisites for the application of
the analysis was the correlation between the source variables. By examining the
correlation, it was established that the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy amounted to 0.846 (Stewart, 1981), while the Bartlett’s test of sphericity
(647,385) was significant at the level of 1 percent, indicating that the sample was
suitable for factor analysis (Stewart, 1981).
The CFA was conducted with the aim to empirically test and verify the factor
structure of the SERVQUAL instrument (Green et al., 1999). The obtained results
(Table III, Figure 2) show that each of five SERVQUAL factors explains the high
percentage of total variation (from 60.91 percent concerning the empathy to 76.169
percent regarding the responsiveness). In such situations, the solution which explains
over 60 percent of total variation is considered the acceptable one (Hair et al., 1998).
The reliability of the SERVQUAL instrument is established through the Cronbach’s
α coefficient whose value is from 0.776 to 0.946 (Table III). As these values are
significantly higher than 0.7, it is considered that the condition of reliability is fulfilled
and that it is acceptable that five SERVQUAL dimensions represent the key factors
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
IJLM Abbreviation Construct
27,3 of measured variable Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles
a
V1 0.835 (na )
V2 0.73 (11.88b)
V3 0.799 (24.52)
V4 0.79 (14.99)
782 V5 0.814 (16.01)
V6 0.865
V7 0.761 (18.23)
V8 0.847 (17.25)
V9 0.778 (12.13)
V10 0.761
V11 0.881 (15.92)
V12 0.7568 (22.72)
V13 0.809 (14.93)

V14 0.788
V15 0.8123 (19.81)
V16 0.766 (13.53)
V17 0.855 (23.39)
V18 0.809 (18.37)
V19 0.797
V20 0.808 (18.51)
Table III. V21 0.746 (11.68)
Factor loadings V22 0.832 (10.31)
(t-values), reliability Variance extracted (%) 73.068 76.169 66.14 64.26 71.91
and total Cronbach’s α 0.786 0.946 0.824 0.836 0.912
variation of the Notes: aValues is not available for the fixed factor loadings. bt-Values shown in parentheses. All are
SERVQUAL scale significant ( p o 0.001)
Convergent validity and dimensionality of the SERVQUAL instrument was tested

through factor loadings, which indicate the link between the factors and the belonging
variables. Standard factor loadings in all cases amount to around 0.5, which provides the
support for the validity of SERVQUAL dimensions (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Gerbing
and Anderson, 1988). Statistic significance of the factor loadings is estimated and it is
established that all t-values are higher than 10 (for po0.001), which in turn indicates a
strong link between the variables within the observed factors (Table III). Variables and
factors represent a unique concept and the condition of unidimensionality of the
SERVQUAL factors is fulfilled. The discriminant validity of the SERVQUAL scale is
tested by the means of the correlation among the SERVQUAL factors (Table IV). It is
established that the correlation among factors is weak (from 0.018 to 0.292), which in turn
indicates that they differ from one another significantly. In this manner, the discriminant
validity of the SERVQUAL factors is proved (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).
Since the results of the conducted tests confirm the validity and suitability of the
SERVQUAL instrument application, on the observed sample, we move on to assessing
the service quality, that is, to determine and test the SERVQUAL gap. The results
obtained are described in the following section.
4.4 Results
The service quality of the freight forwarding companies is assessed by the means of
SERVQUAL gap, that is to say, the difference between the perceived and expected
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 Measurement
0.83 0.73 0.80 0.79 0.81
of LSQ
Reliability
Variance extracted 76.169%

Corbach’s α 0.94
–0.237 –0.114 783
V19 0.79
0.86 V6
Tangibility Responsiveness
V20 0.80
0.131 0.76 V7
Variance extracted 76.169% Variance extracted 76.169%
V21 0.74 Corbach’s α 0.94 Corbach’s α 0.94 0.84 V8
V22 0.83
0.77 V9
0.292 –0.143
–0.177 0.215
Empathy Assurance
Variance extracted 76.169% Variance extracted 76.169%

Corbach’s α 0.94 0.113 Corbach’s α 0.94
Figure 2.
Diagram of
0.78 0.81 0.76 0.85 0.80 0.76 0.88 0.75 0.80
connections between
factors and variables
V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V10 V11 V12 V13
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy
Responsiveness −0.114 (0.002) a
Assurance −0.143 (0.01) 0.215 (0.018) Table IV.

Empathy 0.292 (0.02) 0.233 (0.023) 0.113 (0.02) Correlations
Tangibility −0.237 (0.05) −0.131 (0.087) −0.267 (0.03) −0.177 (0.04) and standard
Note: aConfidence intervals around factor correlations indicate that in general SERVQUAL factors are errors among
not distinct from each other SERVQUAL factors
values per items of the SERVQUAL scale. If the difference is positive, it is considered
that the client receives a satisfactory quality, and if the difference is negative, the
service quality is not satisfactory. Table V shows the average perceived and expected
values, as well as the SERVQUAL gap per five basic dimensions of the service quality.
As it has been already determined, by applying the Kolmogorov Smirnov test, all
variables are normally distributed, while the t-test is applied in order to determine the
Perception Expectations SERVQUAL gap

Dimensions P E P-E t-values p-value
Reliability 4.836 6.447 −1.611 23.46 0.000 Table V.

Responsiveness 5.548 6.452 −0.904 16.75 0.000 The difference
Assurance 4.332 5.164 −0.832 11.56 0.000 between the
Empathy 4.865 5.597 − 0.714 17.84 0.000 perceived
Tangibility 4.513 5.347 −0.834 29.36 0.000 and expected
Total SERVQUAL gap 4.818 5.801 −0.982 12.47 0.000 service quality
IJLM statistical significance of the SERVQUAL gap. On the basis of the obtained results and
27,3 t-values (t-values are higher than 10 for p o 0.001), it can be concluded that there is a
significant difference between the expected and the perceived quality, per all
SERVQUAL dimensions. Per each dimension, the perceived values are smaller than the
expected ones, indicating the unsatisfactory level of the freight forwarding service
quality. In this manner, H1 has been proved. The total average value of the
784 SERVQUAL gap amounts −0.9826. The highest value refers to the dimension of
reliability (−1.661), and the lowest one to the dimension of empathy (−0.714), which
means that the lowest level of quality refers to the reliability of services, and the highest
one to empathy. These results partially differ from the previous researches. Taşkin and
Durmaz (2010) suggest that physical appearance, assurance and empathy have the
greatest impact on the total customer value increase. They also point out that the
reliability, empathy, responsiveness and assurance have the greatest impact on cost
reduction. Franceschini and Rafele (2000) argue that the reliability and responsiveness
have a very strong relationship with the traditional indicators of LSQ, while the
tangibles and assurance have a weak relationship. In the North America and Europe
markets, the most important dimensions for customers are the following: total support
of customer needs, on-time delivery and error free transaction. The results are similar
for Australian market as well. Total support of customer needs, on-time delivery and
reliable suppliers are the most important dimensions (Read and Miller, 1991; Millen and
Maggard, 1997; Sohal et al., 1999).
Having established that there is a significant difference between the expected and
the perceived quality on the complete sample, it is necessary to establish whether
certain market segments have the same or different expectations, i.e. whether the
service quality differs in relation to the observed market segment. For three market
segments (MS1 – trade, MS2 – production and MS3 – distribution), the average
expectation and SERVQUAL gap per basic dimensions (Table VI) has been established.
The aim is to determine whether there is a significant difference between the market
segments in terms of expectations and SERVQUAL gap, i.e. to test H2.
Market segments
SERVQUAL dimensions MS1 – trade MS2 – production MS3 – distribution F-value
Reliability
Expectations 6.52 5.82 6.41 1.43
SQ gap −1.56 −1.39 −1.95 8.93
Responsiveness
Expectations 6.62 5.73 6.17 2.56
SQ gap −1.1 −0.75 −0.95 7.65
Assurance
Expectations 5.56 5.19 6.12 1.01
SQ gap −0.95 −0.54 −0.85 9.12
Empathy
Expectations 4.8 5.5 5.2 2.12
SQ gap −0.83 −0.76 −1.23 8.65
Table VI.
Expectations and Tangibility
SERVQUAL gap per Expectations 5.65 4.77 5.35 1.23
market segments SQ gap −0.87 −0.34 −0.95 7.89
The statistic significance of these values per market segments is tested by the means of Measurement
ANOVA analysis (Table VI). It is established that there is no significant difference of LSQ
between the expectations per market segments (F-values ranging from 1.01 to 2.56 with
p o 0.001), though market segments differ significantly in relation to the SERVQUAL
gap (F-values ranging from 7.65 to 9.12 with p o 0.001). This means that market
segments have approximately the same expectations, though different perceptions of
the rendered service quality. Using the least significant difference test, the significance 785
of the difference between particular market segments is established. F-value between
MS1 and MS2 amounts to 9.56 (for p o 0.001), indicating a significant difference in the
quality assessment between users from the field of trade and users from the field of
production. On the other hand, the F-value between MS1 and MS3 amounts to
2.35 ( p o 0.001), meaning that there is no significant difference in quality assessment
by trade and distribution companies. F-value between MS2 and MS3 amounts to
7.76 ( p o 0.001), referring that there is a significant difference in quality assessment by
production and distribution companies. On the basis of the presented results, it can be
stated that H2 has been partially proved. Richey et al. (2007) indicate that manufacturing
and trading companies have different perceptions of the quality of logistics services, from
the point of impact of technological readiness and complementarity.
Certain researches come up with claims that the relation between the service system
and the user affects the total assessment of the service quality. Given these claims, the
analysis of expectations and the gap for two groups of users (Table VII) is calculated.
The first group comprises of users who have an adequate annual contract or a certain,
developed, level of partnership with freight forwarding companies, while the second
group comprises users who have no such contracts. Hofer et al. (2014) emphasize
that the long-term relationship with customers has a positive impact on the quality
and 3PL performances. It is necessary to examine whether there is a significant
difference between the two groups in terms of expectations and SERVQUAL gap, as
argued in H3. By applying the ANOVA analysis, it is ascertained that there is a
Relation between the freight forwarder and client

SERVQUAL dimensions There is partnership There is no partnership F-value
Reliability
Expectations 6.75 5.89 12.46
SQ gap −0.12 −0.78 7.84
Responsiveness
SQ gap −0.26 −0.95 9.37
Assurance
SQ gap −0.17 −1.01 7.83
Empathy Table VII.
Expectations 6.83 5.67 18.03 Expectations and
SQ gap −0.09 −0.98 6.47 SERVQUAL gap
depending on the
Tangibility relation between the
Expectations 6.15 6.75 11.52 freight forwarder
SQ gap −0.07 −0.86 8.12 and client
IJLM significant statistic difference between these two groups of users per all dimensions.
27,3 F-values range from 11.52 to 23.02 ( p o 0.001) concerning expectations, that is from
6.47 to 9.37 ( p o 0.001) regarding the SERVQUAL gap. Given these results, H3 has
been fully proved. The results show that the first group of users has somewhat higher
expectations, though significantly smaller values of the SERVQUAL gap, implying
that these users are more satisfied than the users from the second group. The above
786 mentioned facts show the necessity of developing a logistics partnership and
outsourcing. Results of previous studies indicate a strong influence of the quality of
logistics services to the satisfaction and loyalty in relationships of logistics outsourcing
( Juga et al., 2010; Saura et al., 2008).
Freight forwarding companies provide a different structure of services and different
services are often of a different quality. For these reasons, the value of the expected
quality and the value of the SERVQUAL gap (Table VIII) is established for four typical
groups of freight forwarding services (physical flow of goods, preparation of
documents, customs clearance and transport insurance). The aim is to determine

whether the expectations and SERVQUAL gaps vary depending on the type of
forwarding services, as stated in H4. On the basis of the provided results, it can be
concluded that users have the highest expectations regarding the quality of the service
of the physical distribution of goods. These expectations range from 6.28 (tangibility) to
6.86 (responsiveness). At the same time, this group of services marks the lowest level of
quality, since the value of the SERVQUAL gap ranges from −0.83 (tangibility) to −1.15
(responsiveness). The lowest expectations of users are those regarding the services of
goods insurance (from 5.35 regarding reliability to 6.78 regarding responsiveness).
These services mark the lowest level of the SERVQUAL gap (from −0.09 to 0.17),
meaning that their quality is assessed as the best one. It is ascertained that the
services significantly differ according to the expected and perceived quality as well.
By applying the ANOVA analysis, a significant statistic difference is ascertained
per all dimensions and in relation to the expectations of users (F-values from 0.11 to
Services
SERVQUAL dimensions Logistics Documents Customs Insurance F-value
Reliability
Expectations 6.63 6.15 6.10 5.35 23.43
SQ gap −0.97 −0.15 −1.12 −0.09 9.14
Responsiveness
Expectations 6.86 5.94 6.25 6.78 15.75
SQ gap −1.15 −0.25 −0.86 −0.35 8.65
Assurance
Expectations 6.74 6.06 5.68 6.13 19.54
SQ gap −0.92 −0.57 0.85 −0.17 7.54
Empathy
Expectations 6.62 5.94 6.33 6.01 11.23
Table VIII. SQ gap −0.95 −0.64 −0.73 −0.24 12.42
Expectations and
SERVQUAL gap Tangibility
in relation to the Expectations 6.28 6.57 6.13 5.64 17.85
service type SQ gap −0.83 −0.77 −0.68 −0.18 8.67
23.43; p o 0.001), as well as regarding the SERVQUAL gap (F-values from 7.54 to 12.42; Measurement
p o 0.001); hence, H4 has been proven. This is in accordance with the previous results. of LSQ
Research conducted by Thai (2013) in Singapore shows that employees, together with
timeliness of order processing and delivery of goods that belong to the dimension of
responsiveness, have the large influence on LSQ. Ho et al. (2012) investigate the
influence of the LSQ dimensions on customer satisfaction in the courier services
industry in Malaysia. The greatest influence is attributed to condition/accuracy of 787
order. In contrast to other studies, these authors do not find any correlation between
personnel and customer satisfaction.
On the basis of the analysis of the obtained results, it can be concluded that the
formulated research hypotheses have been confirmed to a great extent. In general, the
freight forwarding service quality on the Serbian market is not at the adequate level.
Different market segments assess the service quality in different manners. The service
quality is connected with the development level of the relationship between the clients
and freight forwarders, and different kinds of freight forwarding services have
different quality levels.
The conducted research and the results have confirmed the full practical applicability
of the developed methodological procedure. The universality of the proposed
methodology is reflected in the fact that it can be applied for different logistics and
freight forwarding services in different conditions and markets in the world.
5. Discussion and future research directions

This is the first paper dealing with the service quality of the freight forwarding
companies on the Serbian market. The obtained results represent a starting point and a
foundation for improving the quality of freight forwarding and logistics services.
However, the conducted researches have several significant limitations and it is
important to solve them in the future. First, although the SERVQUAL instrument
proves to be acceptable in the process of testing, concerning the observed sample, it
would be interesting to use some other approaches and models of measuring the LSQ
and compare those results with the results of this research (Thai, 2013; Sohal et al.,
1999; So et al., 2006; Franceschini and Rafele, 2000; Rafele, 2004; Jian and Zhenpeng,
2008; Mentzer et al., 1999, Meng et al., 2011). Similarly, it would be important to use the
SERVQUAL instrument integrated with other approaches for measuring the quality of
logistics services. Second, this research has ascertained the unsatisfactory service level
without going into further detail regarding the low quality. Although certain samples
can be identified on the basis of the obtained answers from the SERVQUAL
questionnaire, it would be necessary to analyze the causes of the low quality in detail,
since it is possible to improve the service quality only by eliminating or reducing the
impact of the causes. The causes can be in the domain of technology, information,
location, organization, human resources and the like. It is especially necessary to
perform further research into the service dimensions, for which this research has
ascertained low-quality level. For example, major obstacles to the improvement of the
quality according to Sohal et al. (1999) are the following: lack of management support,
lack of human resources, lack of financial resources and no pressure to initiate.
Changing the corporate culture and staff training are designated as key measures to
improve the quality of logistics services (Rahman, 2006). Third, the service quality in
this paper has been observed exclusively from the marketing viewpoint and from
the perspective of the client. This notion, however, is very complex and it should be
observed from the perspective of the freight forwarders, as well as from the perspective
IJLM of the environment (Thai, 2013). From the perspective of the freight forwarders, it is
27,3 necessary to analyze the quality of unfolding the logistics and business processes; from
the perspective of the environment, primarily the environmental quality and the quality
of the work environment should be investigated. Fourth, the research refers to the
analysis of the quality of the already realized freight forwarding services, while, in the
future researches, it would be necessary to attempt to measure the quality of the offered
788 services. The point is that freight forwarders should research in further detail the
requests of the clients and form the offer of services that will satisfy those requests as
best as possible. This is why it is necessary to develop a procedure that will measure
the service quality in the stage of offer formation, that is, based on which the freight
forwarding company will be able to assess, as best as possible, to what extent the
offered quality complies with the requests of the client (Кilibarda et al., 2012). This
would prevent or reduce the user dissatisfaction with the service provided. The stated
directions of future research would significantly contribute to solving the limitations
shown by this paper, thus leading to procedures which have a more universal
application in measuring the service quality of various logistics systems.
6. Conclusion
Studies have shown that the problems of the freight forwarding service quality are not
treated with the necessary attention. There are few studies and researches dealing with
these problems. The obtained results indicate that the service quality provided by the
freight forwarding companies on the Serbian market is not at the adequate level and
that it does not fulfill the expectations of the clients. Improvement is necessary. The
prerequisite of the improvement is measuring the service quality. Due to significant
specificities characteristic for logistics and freight forwarding services, it is necessary
to develop and apply different approaches, models and methods of measuring the
quality. One of these approaches has been presented in this paper. Despite the initial
reservations which the authors have over the SERVQUAL scale, the process of testing
and validating has established the suitability of the application of this instrument to
measuring the service quality on the observed sample.
The proposed methodology is general and can be used for measuring the quality of
logistics and freight forwarding services in different markets and conditions. The
developed procedure and the obtained results represent the significant theoretical and
practical contributions for measuring the quality of logistics services.
The results clearly indicate that there is a significant difference between the
perception and expectations of the users, per all five SERVQUAL dimensions.
Reliability, however, has received the lowest value, meaning that freight forwarding
companies in Serbia should devote a special attention to this dimension of the quality.
Empathy, as a service quality dimension, has received the highest value, although this
one too has a negative value of the SERVQUAL gap. The quality analysis per market
segments has shown that users have approximately the same expectations, regardless
the market segment, i.e. the business activity to which they belong. However, users
from the field of production have a different perception of the quality of the service
rendered in comparison to the users from the domain of distribution and trade. Those
users that have a developed contractual relationship or partnership with freight
forwarders are more satisfied with the service quality in comparison to the users that
have no such relationships. Freight forwarding companies should strive to develop a
partnership with their clients. Concerning separate services, clients have the highest
expectations regarding the physical distribution of the goods services, while these
services, at the same time, have the lowest quality. It is necessary for freight Measurement
forwarding companies to develop and improve the range of logistics services of LSQ
pertaining to shipping and delivering of the goods. The quality of services pertained to
transport insurance has been the best rated one.
References
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys”, 789
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. and Swanson, J. (1996), “SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of
service quality”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 62-81.
Babakus, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 253-268.
Baki, B., Basfirinci, C.S., Cilingir, Z. and Murat, I.A.R. (2009), “An application of integrating
SERVQUAL and Kano’s model into QFD for logistics services: a case study from Turkey”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 106-126.
Bennington, L. and Cummane, J. (1998), “Measuring service quality: a hybrid methodology”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 395-405.
Bienstock, C.C., Mentzer, J.T. and Bird, M.M. (1997), “Measuring physical distribution service
quality”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Bienstock, C.C., Royne, M.B., Sherrell, D. and Stafford, T.F. (2008), “An expanded model of
logistics service quality: incorporating logistics information technology”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 205-222.
Brady, M.K. and Cronin, J.J. (2001), “Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 34-49.
Brown, T.J., Churchill, G.A. and Peter, J.P. (1993), “Improving the measurement of service
quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 127-139.
Buttle, F. (1996), “SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-32.
Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL
dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Chen, K., Chang, C. and Lai, C. (2009), “Service quality gaps of business customers in the shipping
industry”, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 222-237.
Coulthard, L.J.M. (2004), “Measuring service quality. A review and critique of research using
SERVQUAL”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 479-497.
Cronin, J. and Taylor, S. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-131.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension’ ”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 55-68.
Dabholkar, P.A., Shepherd, C.D. and Thorpe, D.I. (2000), “A comprehensive framework for service
quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a
longitudinal study”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 139-173.
Dalic,́ D., Durbek, S. and Orlic ́ Babic,́ A. (2008), “Carrier’s liability insurance in the function of
transportation service quality”, PROMET – Traffic & Transportation, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 37-41.
Davis, B.R. and Mentzer, J.T. (2006), “Logistics service-driven loyalty: an exploratory study”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 53-74.
IJLM Davis, E.R. (2006), “The role of logistics service quality in creating customer loyalty”, PhD
dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
27,3
Ding, J.D., Jie, F., Parton, K.A. and Matanda, M.J. (2014), “Relationship between quality of
information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing
industry”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-108.
Ding, J.F. and Tsai, P.P. (2012), “Evaluating quality improvement of service recovery for
790 ocean freight forwarders in Taiwan”, Information Technology Journal, Vol. 11 No. 11,
pp. 1579-1587.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. and Mehtta, S.C. (1999), “Testing the SERVQUAL scale in the
business-to-business sector: the case of ocean freight shipping service”, The Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 132-150.
Feng, Y., Zheng, B. and Tan, J. (2007), “Exploratory study of logistics service quality scale
based on online shopping malls”, Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A, Vol. 8 No. 6,
pp. 926-931.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 39-50.
Franceschini, F. and Rafele, C. (2000), “Quality evaluation in logistic services”, International
Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 49-53.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1988), “An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 186-192.
Gilmour, P., Borg, G., Duffy, P.A., Johnston, N.D., Limbek, B.E. and Shaw, M.R. (1994), “Customer
service: differentiating by market segment”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 18-24.
Grant, D.B. (2003), “Customer service, satisfaction and service quality in UK food processing
logistics”, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.
Grant, D.B. (2005), “The transaction-relationship dichotomy in logistics and supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 38-48.
Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J. and Akey, T.M. (1999), Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and
Understanding Data, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Griffis, S.E., Goldsby, T.J. and Cooper, M. (2003), “Web-based and mail surveys: a comparison of
response, data and cost”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 237-258.
Grönroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Grönroos, C. (2001), “The perceived service quality concept – a mistake?”, Managing Service
Quality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 150-152.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ho, J.S.Y., Teik, D.O.L., Tiffany, F., Kolk, L.F. and Teh, T.Y. (2012), “Logistic service quality
among courier services in Malaysia”, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Economics, Business Innovation, Singapore.
Hofer, A.R., Smith, R.J. and Murphy, P.R. (2014), “Spillover effects of a firm’s relationship
marketing orientation in the logistics triad”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 270-288.
Huiskonen, J. and Pirttila, T. (1998), “Sharpening logistics customer service strategy planning by
applying Kano’s quality element classification”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vols 56-57 No. 1, pp. 253-260.
Jian, X. and Zhenpeng, C. (2008), “Logistics service quality analysis based on gray correlation Measurement
method”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 58-61.
of LSQ
Juga, J., Juntunen, J. and Grant, D.B. (2010), “Service quality and its relation to satisfaction and
loyalty in logistics outsourcing relationships”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 496-510.
Kamble, S.S., Raut, D.D. and Dhume, D.R. (2011), “Validating the logistics service quality (LSQ)
scale in Indian logistics industry”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Business 791
and Economics Research, pp. 81-85.
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2007), “The impact of operational quality: a supply chain view”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 14-19.
Кilibarda, M., Zečević, S. and Vidović, M. (2012), “Measuring quality of logistic service as an
element of the logistics provider offering”, Total Quality Management and Business
Excellence, Vol. 23 Nos 11-12, pp. 1345-1361.
Kuei, C.H., Madu, C.N. and Lin, C. (2008), “Implementing supply chain quality management”,
Total Quality Management, Vol. 19 No. 11, pp. 1127-1141.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993), “Conducting interorganizational
research using key informants”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6,
pp. 1633-1651.
Ladhari, R. (2009), “A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research”, International Journal of
Quality and Service Sciences’, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 172-198.
Lambert, D., Stock, J. and Sterling, J. (1990), “A gap analysis of buyer and seller perceptions of the
importance of marketing mix attributes”, Proceedings of the Summer Educators Conference
Proceedings, Washington, DC, p. 208.
Lambert, D.M. and Lewis, M.C. (1983), “Managing customer service to build market share and
increase profit”, Business Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 50-57.
Lammik, J., Wetzels, M. and Koelemeijer, K. (1996), “Manufacturer-distributor relationships and
channel service quality”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 33-42.
Landrum, H., Prybutok, V., Zhang, X. and Peak, D. (2009), “Measuring IS system service quality
with SERVQUAL: users’ perceptions of relative importance of the five SERVPERF
dimensions”, Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Liang, G.S., Chou, T.Y. and Kan, S.F. (2006), “Applying fuzzy quality function deployment to
identify service management requirements for an ocean freight forwarder”, Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 539-554.
Liang, G.S., Pan, H.L. and Ding, J.F. (2004), “Evaluating key capabilities of ocean freight
forwarder: the application of fuzzy MCDM”, Maritime Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 29-47.
Lin, W.C. and Liang, G.S. (2011), “Applying fuzzy zot to explore the customer service quality to
the ocean freight forwarder industry in emerging Taiwan market”, Research Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 77-88.
Lun, Y.H.V. (2008), Adoption of EC by Logistics Service Providers: Adoption of EC by Logistics
Service Providers in Hong Kong, VDM, Saarbrücken.
Martinez, J.A. and Martinez, L. (2010), “Some insights on conceptualizing and measuring service
quality”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Mauri, A.G., Minazzi, R. and Muccio, S. (2013), “A review of literature on the gaps model on
service quality: a 3-decades period: 1985-2013”, International Business Research, Vol. 6
No. 12, pp. 134-144.
IJLM Meng, Q., Zhou, N., Tian, J., Chen, Y. and Zhou, F. (2011), “Analysis of logistics service attributes
based on quantitative Kano model: a case study of express delivering industries in China”,
27,3 Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2001), “Logistics service quality as a
segment-customized process”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 82-104.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J. and Kent, J.L. (1999), “Developing a logistics service quality scale”,
792 Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Mentzer, J.T., Gomes, R. and Krapfel, R.E. (1989), “Physical distribution service: a fundermental
marketing concept? ”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Mentzer, J.T., Myers, M.B. and Cheung, M.S. (2004), “Global market segmentation for logistics
services”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 15-20.
Mentzer, J.T., Rutner, S.M. and Matsuno, K. (1997), “Application of the means-end value hierarchy
model of understanding logistics service quality”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 230-243.

Millen, R. and Maggard, M. (1997), “The change in quality practices in logistics: 1995 versus
1991”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 173-179.
Murphy, P.R. and Daley, J.M. (1994), “A framework for applying logistical segmentation”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 13-20.
Murphy, P.R. and Daley, J.M. (2001), “Profiling international freight forwarders: an update”,
pp. 152-168.
Neo, H.Y., Xie, M. and Tsui, K.L. (2004), “Service quality analysis: case study of 3PL company”,
International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 64-80.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. and Zeithaml, V.A. (1991), “Refinement and reassessment of the
SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), “Reassessment of expectations as a
comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-124.
Preskar, S. (2013), “The computer system provides a simpler quality services in the customs
procedure”, Journal of Process Management – New Technologies, International, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 101-105.
Rafele, C. (2004), “Logistics service measurement: a reference framework”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 280-290.
Rafiq, M. and Jaafar, H.S. (2007), “Measuring customers’ perceptions of logistics service quality of
3PL service providers”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 159-175.
Rahman, S. (2003), “Quality management in logistics: a comparison of practices between
manufacturing and retail companies and logistics firms”, working paper, The University of
Sydney and Monash University, Sydney.
Rahman, S. (2006), “Quality management in logistics: an examination of industry practices”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 233-240.
Read, W.F. and Miller, M.S. (1991), “The state of quality in logistics”, The International Journal of Measurement
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 268-288.
of LSQ
Richey, R.G., Daugherty, P.J. and Roath, A. (2007), “Firm technological readiness and
complementary: capability impacting logistics service competency and performance”,
Saura, I.G., Francés, D.S., Contrí, G.B. and Blasco, M.F. (2008), “Logistics service quality: a new
way to loyalty”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 5, pp. 650-668. 793
Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. and Vart, P. (2006), “A framework for measurement of quality of service
in supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An Interantional Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 82-94.
Shang, K.C. and Lu, C.S. (2012), “Customer relationship management and firm performance: an
empirical study of freight forwarder services”, Journal of Marine Science and Technology,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 64-72.
Sharma, A. and Lambert, D.M. (1994), “Segmentation of markets based on customer service”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 50-58.
Skorna, A.C.H. (2011), “Risk and loss prevention within the transport chain”, Proceedings of the
20th International Conference on Management of Technology Risk and Loss Prevention
within the Transport Chain, pp. 10-14.
So, S., Kim, J.J., Cheong, K. and Cho, G. (2006), “Evaluating the service quality of TPL service
providers using the analytic hierarchy process”, Journal of Information Systems and
Technology Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 261-270.
Sohal, A.S. (1995), “Quality practices in Australian firms”, Monash University/Ernst & Young
Report, Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne.
Sohal, A.S., Millen, R., Maggard, M. and Moss, S. (1999), “Quality in logistics: a comparison of
practices between Australian and North American/European firms”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 267-280.
Sterling, J.U. and Lambert, D.M. (1989), “Customer service research: past, present and future”,
pp. 3-23.
Stewart, D.W. (1981), “The application and misapplication of factor analysis in marketing
research”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 51-62.
Taşkin, E. and Durmaz, Y. (2010), “The role of service quality of the logistic activities in
creating customer value and a research on the institutional customers of Yurtici
Cargo”, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 170-178.
Teas, K.R. (1994), “Expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality:
an assessment of a reassessment”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 132-139.
Thai, V.V. (2013), “Logistics service quality: conceptual model and empirical evidence”,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 114-131.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus Across the Firm, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Zinn, W. and Parasuraman, A. (1997), “Scope and intensity of logistics-based strategic alliances:
a conceptual classifications and managerial implications”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137-147.
IJLM Further reading
27,3 Sterling, J. and Lambert, D. (1987), “Establishing customer service within the marketing mix”,
About the authors

Milorad Kilibarda is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering,
University of Belgrade. His field of academic expertise is the business logistics and freight
794 forwarding. His scientific and professional activities are specifically focused on: research of
logistics services, market research, development of freight forwarding and logistics provider,
marketing in logistics, modeling and improvement of quality in logistics and determining and
monitor key performance indicators logistics. He is the author of monograph Marketing in
Logistics and co-author of 70 published scientific papers and monograph Quality Management in
Logistics. He participated in the preparation of a number of scientific studies and research
projects in the field of logistics centers, marketing and quality in logistics and the logistics of the
transport, trade and industrial enterprises.
Svetlana Nikolicic is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Technical Sciences – Department

for Traffic and Transportation, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. Her field of academic expertise is the
logistics and intermodal transportation. Her research interests are: the logistics organization in
company, modeling and improvement logistics processes and logistics performances in the
manufacturing and trading companies. Recent years, she has been studying the impact of IT on
logistics performance in retail supply chains. She was a Member of the research teams in over ten
projects, related to logistics topics, most of them have been funded by Serbian Ministry of Science.
She has contributed about ten articles to academic and professional journals and presented over
30 conference presentations on logistics topics in the country and abroad.
Milan Andrejic is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Logistics at the Faculty of
Transport and Traffic Engineering, University of Belgrade, Serbia. His research interests lie in
areas of logistics management, supply chain management, performances evaluation, business
logistics, measuring and improving efficiency and effectiveness, freight forwarding, logistics
quality, case study research, etc. Milan Andrejic is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: m.andrejic@sf.bg.ac.rs
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Serbian Part2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Serbian Part2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The International Journal of Logistics Management

Measurement of logistics service quality in freight forwarding companies: A case

University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia, and

Kuei et al. (2008) propose a strategic framework to develop a quality management

3. Defining the problem and research hypotheses

Documents Insurance Customs

3.2 Research hypotheses development

markets. The proposed hypotheses are explored in the Serbian market.

4. Methodology and process of research

4.2 Defining the survey questionnaire

Market segment MS1 – production companies 25

4.3 Testing the model

V13 0.809 (14.93)

Convergent validity and dimensionality of the SERVQUAL instrument was tested

Variance extracted 76.169%

Variance extracted 76.169% Variance extracted 76.169%

Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

Responsiveness −0.114 (0.002) a

Assurance −0.143 (0.01) 0.215 (0.018) Table IV.

Perception Expectations SERVQUAL gap

Reliability 4.836 6.447 −1.611 23.46 0.000 Table V.

Relation between the freight forwarder and client

documents, customs clearance and transport insurance). The aim is to determine

5. Discussion and future research directions

Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 230-243.

About the authors

Svetlana Nikolicic is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Technical Sciences – Department

Você também pode gostar