DOI: 10.5937/jaes0-27957
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY 4.0
Volume 19 article 833 pages: 600-609
Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) is a common approach usually applied in examining public satisfaction and has been adopted in the transportation sector to measure the quality of service provided by the public transport system. This study, therefore, investigated the relative important service quality attributes of bus systems among both public and private modes of transportation users in Banda Aceh in Indonesia. An urban bus system known as the “Trans Koetardja” was used as a case study and a questionnaire designed based on preference (SP) survey was applied. A total of 200 samples comprising of 100 bus users and 100 private mode users including cars and motorcycles were used for the preliminary study. Also, the IPA approach was used to evaluate the Trans Koetaradja service quality attributes based on importance and performance classification. The quadrant grid plot showed the need for the operators to allocate their resources towards improving their services by considering (a) an improvement in bus stop facilities, (b) enhancement in the route and accurate timetable, and (c) shortening bus travel time and waiting time in the bus stop.
The authors express their honest gratitude to all those that helped in this study. The authors also appreciate the Universitas Syiah Kuala for providing financial support in collecting data under Contract No. 523/UN11/SPK/PNBP/2019 and the joint research program of the Institute of Materials and Systems for Sustainability, Nagoya University. The authors take responsibility for all the remaining oversight in this study.
1. Sugiarto, S., Miwa, T., Sato, H., & Morikawa, T. (2017). Explaining Differences in Acceptance Determinants Toward Congestion Charging Policies in Indonesia and Japan. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 143(2), 04016033. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000360
2. Sugiarto, S., Miwa, T., & Morikawa, T. (2017). Inclusion of latent constructs in utilitarian resource allocation model for analyzing revenue spending options in congestion charging policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 103, 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.05.019
3. Sugiarto, S., Miwa, T., & Morikawa, T. (2020). The tendency of public’s attitudes to evaluate urban congestion charging policy in Asian megacity perspective: Case a study in Jakarta, Indonesia. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 8(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2018.09.010
4. Saleh, S. M., Sugiarto, S., Hilal, A., & Ariansyah, D. (2017). A study on the traffic impact of the road corridors due to flyover construction at Surabaya intersection, Banda Aceh of Indonesia. AIP Conference Proceedings 1903, 060005. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5011559
5. Irvansyah, R., Sugiarto, S., Achmad, A., & Fahlevi, H. (2020). Analysis of the Trans Koetaradja bus services considering latent variables of bus line services. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 917, 012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/917/1/012036
6. Anggraini, R., Sugiarto, S., & Pramanda, H. (2017). Factors affecting trip generation of motorcyclist for the purpose of non-mandatory activities. AIP Conference Proceedings 1903, 060011. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5011565
7. Saleh, S. M., Sugiarto, S., & Anggraini, R. (2019). Analysis on Public’s Response Toward Bus Reform Policy in Indonesia Considering Latent Variables. The Open Transportation Journal, 13(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874447801913010017
8. Saleh, S. M., Sugiarto, S., & Salmannur, A. (2019). Attitudinal dataset for mediating the effects of public acceptance on bus reform scheme in a developing country context. Data in Brief, 25, 104035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104035
9. Safitri, E., Sugiarto, S., Anggraini, R., Achmad, A., & Fahlevi, H. (2020). Analysis on the effect of socio-economic and travel attributes to perceptions of the Trans Koetaradja quality of services. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 917, 012038. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/917/1/012038
10. Sugiarto, S., Saleh, S. M., Anggraini, R., & Merfazi, M. (2019). Investigating public perceptions and its implication toward Trans Koetaradja policy considering latent motivation. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 523, 012036. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/523/1/012036
11. Allen, J., Muñoz, J. C., & Ortúzar, J. de D. (2018). Modelling service-specific and global transit satisfaction under travel and user heterogeneity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.05.009
12. De Oña, J., De Oña, R., & López, G. (2016). Transit service quality analysis using cluster analysis and decision trees: A step forward to personalized marketing in public transportation. Transportation, 43(5), 725–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9615-0
13. Javid, M. A., Okamura, T., Nakamura, F., Tanaka, S., & Wang, R. (2016). People’s behavioral intentions towards public transport in Lahore: Role of situational constraints, mobility restrictions and incentives. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(1), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-1123-4
14. Weinstein, A. (2000). Customer Satisfaction Among Transit Riders: How Customers Rank the Relative Importance of Various Service Attributes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1735(1), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.3141/1735-15
15. Chen, F.-Y., & Chang, Y.-H. (2005). Examining airline service quality from a process perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2004.09.002
16. Del Castillo, J. M., & Benitez, F. G. (2013). Determining a public transport satisfaction index from user surveys. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 9(8), 713–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/18128602.2011.654139
17. Machado-León, J. L., de Oña, R., Baouni, T., & de Oña, J. (2017). Railway transit services in Algiers: Priority improvement actions based on users perceptions. Transport Policy, 53, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.10.004
18. Rodriguez-Valencia, A., Rosas-Satizabal, D., & Paris, D. (2019). Importance-Performance Analysis in Public Transportation: Methodological Revision for Practical Implementation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2673(2), 710–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118825125
19. Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250495
20. Boley, B. B., McGehee, N. G., & Tom Hammett, A. L. (2017). Importance-performance analysis (IPA) of sustainable tourism initiatives: The resident perspective. Tourism Management, 58, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.002
21. Putra, A. A., Yamin, M., Riyanto, B., & Mulyono, A. T. (n.d.). The Satisfaction Analysis for the Performance of Public Transport Urban Areas. 7.
22. Hidayat, N. (2018). Performance level analyses of public transportation using importance-performance analysis method. MATEC Web of Conferences, 147, 02001. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201814702001
23. de Oña, J., & de Oña, R. (2015). Quality of Service in Public Transport Based on Customer Satisfaction Surveys: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Approaches. Transportation Science, 49(3), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2014.0544
24. Susilawati, M., & Nilakusmawati, D. P. E. (2017). Study on the factors affecting the quality of public bus transportation service in Bali Province using factor analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 855, 012051. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/855/1/012051
25. Joewono, T., & Kubota, H. (2007). User Perceptions of Private Paratransit Operation in Indonesia. Journal of Public Transportation, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.10.4.5
26. Jenkins, D. G., & Quintana-Ascencio, P. F. (21 Feb 20). A solution to minimum sample size for regressions. PLOS ONE, 15(2), e0229345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229345
27. Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business (Seventh edition). Wiley.
28. Hair, J. F. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (Eighth edition). Cengage.
29. Lwanga S. K., Lemeshow S., & Organization W. H. (1991). Sample size determination in health studies: A practical manual. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/40062
30. Putri, A., Sugiarto, S., Saleh, S. M., & Basrin, D. (2020). Travel cost budget distributions among household life stages considering bus users in Banda Aceh. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 933, 012012. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/933/1/012012
31. Sever, I. (2015). Importance-performance analysis: A valid management tool? Tourism Management, 48, 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.10.022
32. Azzopardi, E., & Nash, R. (2013). A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis. Tourism Management, 35, 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.07.007
33. Ziegler, J., Dearden, P., & Rollins, R. (2012). But are tourists satisfied? Importance-performance analysis of the whale shark tourism industry on Isla Holbox, Mexico. Tourism Management, 33(3), 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.08.004
34. Cronbach, L. J. (n.d.). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. 38.
35. Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
36. O’Neill, M. A., & Palmer, A. (2004). Importance‐performance analysis: A useful tool for directing continuous quality improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410517423
37. Van Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F., van Eijck, M. W., Haste, H., den Brok, P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., Savran Gencer, A., & Bou Jaoude, S. (2015). Global Patterns in Students’ Views of Science and Interest in Science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6