ity, due to the complexity of the concept, the difficulties faced in measuring service quality are many. According to Davies et al, (1999, p. 33),
             "One of the most evident concerns with respect to service provision is the assessment and assurance of quality".
             Thus, although measuring service quality is not simple or straight forward, if service organizations are to be promoted or if their progress is to be sustained, service quality will have to be assessed or measured (Galloway, 1998; O'Herlihy, 1991).
             Assessing service quality is hampered by the inherent problems that are associated with adequately defining many of the key terms (Phillip and Hazlett, 1997a). It is variously defined and means different things to different people. However, in the services industry the meaning of quality is generally understood to mean the satisfaction of customers' needs and expectations. This theme is reflected among the various definitions found in service quality literature. The main protagonists, Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, (1985), cited in Parasuraman, 1995, p.145, define service quality as:
             "discrepancy between customers' service perceptions and expectations".
             While, Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons, (2000), Gronroos, (2000), Webster and Hung, (1994), and Lewis and Booms, (1983), cited in Parasuraman, 1995, support this definition, Teas on the other hand 1993a, (in Robinson, 1999), suggest that service quality is derived from the comparison of performance with ideal standards. Further more, transcendent, meeting customer requirements, conformance to specification, free from errors, value for money and exceeding customer requirements are alternate definitions put forward by Galloway, (1998). Sureshchandhar et al, 2000, describes service
             quality as a form of attitude which is disagreed with by Teas, (1993) (in Robinson, 1999) who is of the opinion that service quality is specific to each transaction.
             Therefore as is evident ...