Analysis of Service Quality Using a Combination of The Servqual Method and Importance-Performance Analysis at Event Organizer

Service quality is essential for event organizing companies because participants expect comfortable facilities, accurate information, timely services, and responsive staff. This study evaluates service quality at an anonymized event organizing company and identifies practical priorities for improvement. A quantitative survey was conducted with 104 event participants selected through purposive sampling. Twenty service attributes were assessed across five SERVQUAL dimensions by comparing perceived performance with participant expectations. Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) was then used to classify attributes into four quadrants, while a Fishbone diagram was applied to explore potential causes of priority service problems. The results showed an average SERVQUAL gap of −0.25, indicating that perceived service performance remained below expectations. Reliability recorded the largest negative gap (−0.32), followed by responsiveness (−0.29), empathy (−0.28), tangibles (−0.26), and assurance (−0.07). IPA identified seven priority attributes: venue comfort, supporting facilities, service clarity, information accuracy, ease of contact, understanding participant needs, and convenient service timing. Fishbone analysis suggested that staffing constraints, unclear task assignments, inconsistent communication procedures, inadequate facilities, and weak post-event evaluation contributed to these shortcomings. The findings indicate that service improvements should focus first on high-priority attributes rather than treating all problems equally. Recommended actions include improving facilities, establishing clear communication procedures, defining staff responsibilities, providing accessible customer support, and collecting digital feedback after each event. This integrated assessment offers a practical basis for allocating resources and monitoring subsequent improvements, although the proposed actions require evaluation after implementation. Future evaluations should compare participant ratings and complaint patterns across successive events to assess progress.