Importance performance analysis for evaluating city bus service quality in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Figures & data

Table 1. Service quality attributes used for the study.

Service Quality Attributes
1. Service coverage	17. Cleanliness of bus interior, seats, and windows
2. Availability of bus stops and their proximity	18. Cleanliness of bus exterior
3.Service frequency	19. Ticket cost/fare
4.Total hour of service	20. Availability of timetable/map on bus/ bus stop
5.Availability of service on weekends /holidays	21. Provision of information
6.Availability of services at night	22. Safety and competence of drivers
7.Convenient of the bus for all people	23. Security against crime on a bus
8.Punctuality of bus(runs on schedule)	24. Security against crime at bus stops and station
9.Waiting time at the bus stop	25. Staff behavior (driver and conductors)
10.Journey time (operating speed)	26. Personnel helpfulness and friendliness
11.Bus crowding level	27. Easiness to buy the ticket
12.Comfort while riding the service	28. Administration of complaints
13. bus stop comfort	29 Ease of service use
14.AC – Availability on bus	30. Accessibility of buses for people with disability
15.Availability of shelter and benches at a bus stop	31. Image of the company
16.level of noise on buses

Table 2. CSI categories.

Ranges	Interpretation
0.81–1.00	Very Satisfied
0.66–0.80	Satisfied
0.51–0.65	Quite/average satisfied
0.35–0.50	Less Satisfied
0.00–0.34	Not satisfied

Figure 1. The IPA map.

Table 3. The Quadrant’s Interpretation.

Quadrant	Meaning	Description
1. Main Priority/ concentrate here	High importance & low performance	Requires immediate attention for improvement and is a major weakness
2. Maintenance Achievement/ keep up with the good work	High importance & High Performance	Indicate opportunities for achieving or maintaining competitive advantage and are major strengths
3. Low priority	Low importance & Low performance	Are minor weaknesses and do not require additional effort
4. Excessive/Possible overkill	Low importance & High performance	The management should recognize that the present strength in these attributes is excessive and might consider transferring the resources elsewhere.

Table 4. Reliability statistics.

Attribute Scale (1–7)	Cronbach’s Alpha	N of Items
Importance level	0.939	31
Performance level	0.859	31

Figure 2. Socio-demographic profile of the sample.

Table 5. Conformity assessment of importance and performance level of attributes.

No.	Attributes	Performance Mean	Importance Mean	GAP	CR (%)
1	Service coverage/network/	4.52	5.29	−0.77	85.4
2	Availability of bus stops and their proximity	4.33	5	−0.67	86.6
3	Service frequency	3.57	5.18	−1.61	67
4	Total hour of service	4.53	5.14	−0.61	88.1
5	Availability of service on weekends/holidays	3.6	5.18	−1.58	69.5
6	Availability of services at night	3.1	5.34	−2.24	58.1*
7	Convenient of the bus for all categories of people	3.76	5.28	−1.52	71.2
8	Punctuality of bus(runs on schedule)	3.29	5.31	−2.02	62
9	Waiting time at the bus stop	3.26	5.09	−1.83	64
10	Journey time (operating speed)	4	4.47	−0.47	89.5
11	Bus crowding level	3.39	5.15	−1.76	66
12	Comfort while riding the service	3.59	5.02	−1.43	71.5
13	bus stop comfort	3.41	4.67	−1.26	73
14	AC – Availability on bus	3.84	4.55	−0.71	84.4
15	Shelter and benches at the bus stop	4.02	4.65	−0.63	86.5
16	level of noise on buses	3.32	3.94	−0.62	84.3
17	Cleanliness of bus interior, seats, and windows	4.34	5.37	−1.03	81
18	Cleanliness of bus exterior	4.66	4.55	0.11	102.4**
19	Ticket cost/fare	4.75	5.08	−0.33	93.5
20	Availability of timetable/map on bus/ bus stop	3.58	5.08	−1.5	70.5
21	Provision of information using media other ways	3.51	4.82	−1.31	72.8
22	Safety and competence of drivers	4.37	5.21	−0.84	84
23	Security against crime on a bus	3.6	5.09	−1.49	71
24	Security against crime at bus stops and station	3.16	5.12	−1.96	62
25	Staff behavior (driver and conductors)	3.58	5.15	−1.57	69.5
26	Personnel helpfulness and friendliness	3.85	4.96	−1.11	78
27	Easiness to buy the ticket	3.19	5.14	−1.95	62.1
28	Administration of complaints	3.42	4.96	−1.54	69
29	Ease of service use	4.14	5.07	−0.93	82
30	Accessibility of bus for people with disability	3.64	5.1	−1.46	71.4
31	Image of the company	4.45	5.08	−0.63	88
Total		117.8	155.0
Mean		3.8	5.0	−1.28	76

Information:** Highest conformity level

* Lowest conformity level

Table 6. CSI analysis results.

No.	Quality Attributes	Performance X	Importance Y	Weight Factor	Weight Score	CSI
		MSS	MIS	MIS/Av.MIS	MSS*WF
1	Service coverage/network/	4.52	5.29	1.06	4.79	0.68
2	Availability of bus stops and their proximity	4.33	5	1.0	4.33	0.62
3	Service frequency	3.57	5.18	1.04	3.71	0.53
4	Total hour of service	4.53	5.14	1.03	4.67	0.67
5	Availability of service on weekends/holidays	3.6	5.18	1.04	3.74	0.53
6	Availability of services at night	3.1	5.34	1.07	3.31	0.47
7	Convenient of the bus for all people	3.76	5.28	1.06	3.98	0.57
8	Punctuality of bus(runs on schedule)	3.29	5.31	1.06	3.49	0.50
9	Waiting time at the bus stop	3.26	5.09	1.02	3.33	0.48
10	Journey time (operating speed)	4	4.47	0.89	3.56	0.51
11	Bus crowding level	3.39	5.15	1.03	3.49	0.50
12	Comfort while riding the service	3.59	5.02	1.00	3.59	0.51
13	bus stop comfort	3.41	4.67	0.93	3.17	0.45
14	AC – Availability on bus	3.84	4.55	0.91	3.49	0.50
15	Shelter and benches at the bus stop	4.02	4.65	0.93	3.74	0.53
16	level of noise on buses	3.32	3.94	0.79	2.62	0.37
17	Cleanliness of bus interior	4.34	5.37	1.07	4.64	0.66
18	Cleanliness of bus exterior	4.66	4.55	0.91	4.24	0.61
19	Ticket cost/fare	4.75	5.08	1.02	4.84	0.69
20	Availability of time table /map on bus/stations	3.58	5.08	1.02	3.65	0.52
21	Provision of information using various ways	3.51	4.82	0.96	3.37	0.48
22	Safety and competence of drivers	4.37	5.21	1.04	4.54	0.65
23	Security against crime on a bus	3.6	5.09	1.02	3.67	0.52
24	Security against crime at bus stops and station	3.16	5.12	1.02	3.22	0.46
25	Staff behavior (driver and conductors)	3.58	5.15	1.03	3.69	0.53
26	Personnel helpfulness and friendliness	3.85	4.96	0.99	3.81	0.54
27	Easiness to buy the ticket	3.19	5.14	1.03	3.28	0.47
28	Administration of complaints	3.42	4.96	0.99	3.39	0.48
29	Ease of service use	4.14	5.07	1.01	4.18	0.60
30	Accessibility of bus for people with disability	3.64	5.1	1.02	3.71	0.53
31	Image of the company	4.45	5.08	1.02	4.54	0.65
	Total Average	117.8	155.0	31		16.81
		3.8	5			0.542
		Overall CSI				54.2%

Source: Field survey, 2020

Figure 3. IPA result.

Table 7. Comparison of IPA and CSI results.

No.	Quality Attributes	IPA	CSI
1	Service frequency	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
2	Availability of service on weekends/holidays	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
3	Availability of services at night	Main Priority	Less Satisfied
4	Convenient of the bus for all people	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
5	Punctuality of bus(runs on schedule)	Main Priority	Less Satisfied
6	Waiting time at the bus stop	Main Priority	Less Satisfied
7	Bus crowding level	Main Priority	Less Satisfied
8	Comfort while riding the service	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
9	bus stop comfort	Low Priority	Less Satisfied
10	level of noise on buses	Low Priority	Less Satisfied
11	Availability of time table /map on bus/stations	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
12	Provision of information using various ways	Low Priority	Less Satisfied
13	Security against crime on a bus	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
14	Security against crime at bus stops and station	Main Priority	Less Satisfied
15	Staff behavior (driver and conductors)	Main Priority	Quite satisfied
16	Easiness to buy the ticket	Main Priority	Less Satisfied
17	Administration of complaints	Low Priority	Less Satisfied
18	Accessibility of bus for people with disability	Main Priority	Quite satisfied

Data availability statement

Some or all data, models, and/or codes that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.