UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST SERVICE QUALITY IN HOTELS: A CASE OF ACCRA METROPOLIS BY EUNICE FAY AMISSAH THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOSPITALITY AND TOURISM MANAGEMENT OF THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN TOURISM SEPTEMBER, 2014 ■- • __________ XT. CHECKED FINAL CHcCKED ••• ***citer AWHSSlON No. CALL No. ’'■I DECLARATION Candidate’s Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own original work and elsewhere. Candidate’ Signature: Name: Eunice Fay Amissah Supervisors’ Declaration We hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the thesis were supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of thesis laid down by the University of Cape Coast. Principal Supervisor’s Signature:. Date: Name: Prof. Laud Alfred Dei HCo-Supervisor’s Signature: Date: Name: Dr. Edem Kwesi Amenumey ii that no part of it has been presented for another degree in this university or Date:..^.7^ ■................ ABSTRACT Ghana is said to have the distinctive peculiarity of delivering poor service and anecdotal evidence suggests that hotel customers, both domestic and international guests have in one way or the other experienced shortfalls in the quality of services offered. Guests have expressed varied needs and expectations during their stay but hotels have not responded adequately. This study examined the gap between guests’ expectations and perceptions of service quality and also the dimensions of service quality in hotels. The study further explored the perceptual interface between guests and service providers. The study gathered cross-sectional data using questionnaires from 172 hotel guests, 197 frontline employees and 125 management staff. Factor analysis was employed to extract the dimensions of service quality while the standard multiple regression was used to analyse the predictive dimensions of service quality. The findings of the study reveal that guests perceived service quality to be far below their expectations. The results also indicate that guests and service providers use different sets of factors to assess service quality. There were significant differences between guests and recommended that hotel managers should pay more attention to the tangible, empathy and the reliability aspects of service because customers have the highest expectations scores expectations from time to time in terms of products and services. Employee training programmes in hotels should pay particular attention to “interpersonal communication” and “customer care” factors. iii service providers’ expectations and perceptions of service quality. It is on these dimensions. Hotels must re-assess guests’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all those who have contributed in various ways and assisted me to undertake and complete this research. Some of these influences have enabled me to complete my PhD and others gave me the support and opportunity to start my PhD studies. First, I would like to thank the University for the financial support they provided to me during my PhD studies. I would like to sincerely thank my supervisors, Professor L. A. Dei and Dr. Edem K. Amenumey. I would like to gratefully acknowledge their valuable time, commitment and for providing me with the guidance, feedback and encouragement to keep me moving forward. I would also like to give special thanks to all senior members of the former Department of Geography and Tourism for their advice and encouragement, which were valuable beyond words. I would like to express my appreciation to Prof. Francis Eric Amuquandor for the encouragement and support which enabled me to undertake this research. I Issahako, Emmanuel Gamor and Charles Adongo for their assistance with my data analysis. Their support enabled me to complete this thesis and to develop a better understanding of quantitative research methods. I am indebted to many of my friends and PhD colleagues, who made my study much more enjoyable. I especially want to thank my husband, for his sacrifices, which have enabled me to reach this point. He has been my foundation and given me strength throughout this PhD journey. To my me. iv mum and siblings, I say thank you for being there for am grateful to Anita, Mavis and Francisca. I am most thankful to Mr. Adam DEDICATION To Nana and Eyram for your love and support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PageContent iiDECLARATION iiiABSTRACT ivACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEDICATION v viTABLE OF CONTENTS xiiiLIST OF TABLES xviLIST OF FIGURES xviiLIST OF ACRONYMS 1CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1Background to the study 8Problem statement 12Research objectives 12Hypotheses of the study 13Significance of the study 16Profile of the Study Area 17Thesis outline 17Summary vi CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF SERVICE QUALITY 18 18Introduction Definitions of service 18 19Characteristics of service 21Definitions of quality 22Definitions of service quality 25Concept of service quality 28The service encounter 29The role of the customer, manager and employee in service quality 31Measuring service quality 32Service quality in the tourism industry 34Service quality in the hospitality industry 37Hotel service 38The role of frontline employees in delivering service quality in hotels 39Models of service quality 39Technical and functional quality model 40Internal service quality model 42The gap model 45Extended gap model 48Summary vii CHAPTER THREE: EMPIRICAL ISSUES IN SERVICE 50QUALITY 50Introduction Development of the SERVQUAL instrument 50 52History of service quality assessment 57Variations of the SERVQUAL instrument 60Advantages of SERVQUAL 60Criticisms of the SERVQUAL instrument 63Validity of the SERVQUAL measures 64Applications of SERVQUAL in other service industries 65Applications of SERVQUAL to banking 65Applications of SERVQUAL to healthcare 66Applications of SERVQUAL in other service sectors 67Applications of SERVQUAL in hospitality and tourism The difference between guests’ expectations and their perceptions of 69 service quality The difference in guests’ expectations and service providers’ perceptions 71 of guests’ expectations 71Dimensions of service quality in the hotel industry 79Demographic characteristics and service quality 81Conceptual framework of the study 88Summary viii CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY 89 89Introduction 89Research philosophy 91Research design 92Sources of data 92Target population 93Sample size and sampling procedure 98Development of research instrument 101Reliability and validity of the research instrument 102Pre-testing of the research instrument 103Field survey 104Challenges encountered on the field 106Response rate 108Ethical considerations 109Data analysis and presentation 110Summary CHAPTER FIVE: STAKEHOLDERS CHARACTERISTICS AND 112THEIR EXPECTATIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY IN HOTELS 112Introduction 112Socio-demographic profile of hotel guests 117Level of guests’ expectations of service quality 118Relationship between Expectations of Service Quality and Socio- ix demographic characteristics of hotel guests background characteristics 124 Socio-demographic profile of service providers 130 136Summary CHAPTER SIX: STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE 138 QUALITY IN HOTELS 138Introduction 139Guests’ expectations and perceptions of service quality Guests’ expectations versus perceptions of service quality (gap 5- 148perceived service quality) 155Differences in guests’ perceptions of service quality Service providers’ understanding of guests’ expectations and the former’s 160perception of their service performance Service providers’ perception of guests’ expectations versus service 170providers perception of actual service delivered (Internal evaluation gap) 177Summary 178CHAPTER SEVEN: PERCEPTIONS GAPS IN SERVICE QUALITY IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY 178Introduction 179Perception gaps in guest expectations: guests versus managers and x Differences in guests’ expectations of service quality across their frontline staff Guests’ expectations and management expectations (understanding gap - 179gap 1) Guests expectations and frontline staff perceptions of those expectations 188 (gap 7) Management and frontline perceptions of guests’ expectations of service 189 quality (gap 8) Perception gaps in actual service delivered: Guests versus frontline staff 190 and managers Guests perceptions and management perceptions of actual service 191 delivered (gap 6) Guests perceptions and Frontline staffs perceptions of actual service 200 delivered (gap 9) Management and frontline perceptions of service performance (gap 10) 201 202Effects of all the other gaps on perceived service quality (gap 5) 204Summary CHAPTER EIGHT: DIMENSIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY IN 206THE HOTEL INDUSTRY IN ACCRA 206Introduction 207Dimensions of service quality 212Dimensions of service quality in hotels in Accra from guests’ perspective 214Dimensions of service quality in hotels: Service providers’ Perspectives xi Predictors of overall service quality 220 Predictors of guests’ overall service quality 220 Predictors of service providers’ overall understanding of guests 221 expectations of service quality Dimensional dynamics among stakeholders perceptions of service quality 222 Dynamics of service quality dimensions across guests’ background 225characteristics 231Variations in dimensions of service quality among service providers 239Summary CHAPTER NINE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND 241RECOMMENDATIONS 241Introduction 244Summary of major findings 252Conclusion 262Contribution to knowledge 265Contribution to practice 265Implications of the study 268Recommendations 271Recommendations for Future Research 273BIBLIOGRAPHY 333APPENDICES 333APPENDIX I- Questionnaire for hotel guests xii APPENDIX 2- Questionnaire for hotel managers and frontline employees 345 xiii LIST OF TABLES PageTable Definitions of service quality 241 Examples of applications of the SERVQUAL scale in hotels 682 77Dimensions of service quality from literature3 94List of registered hotels in Accra4 96Determining sample size from a given population5 97Sampled frontline employees and managers6 107Sample and response rate for service providers7 108Sample and response rate for guests8 114Profile of hotel guests9 118Level of guests’ expectations of service quality10 Relationship between guests’ profile and their level of11 119expectations Differences in guests’ expectations of service quality across their12 125profile 131Profile of service providers13 140Guests’ expectations and perceptions of service quality14 149Gap analysis for guests (Perceptions minus Expectations)15 Differences in guests’ perceptions of service quality across their16 156 xiv profile Service providers’ understanding of guests’ expectations and the 16217 former’s perception of their service performance Gap analysis for service providers’ perceptions of guests’18 expectations and their perceptions of the service performance 171 Perception gaps in guest expectations: guests versus managers19 180and frontline staff Perception gaps in actual service delivered: guests versus20 managers and frontline staff 192 Effects of all the other gaps on perceived service quality (gap 5) 20321 Dimensions of service quality in hotels in Accra from guests22 209perspective Dimensions of service quality in hotels: Perspectives from23 215service providers 221Predictors of overall service quality24 222Predictors of service providers’ overall service quality25 Dynamics of service quality dimensions across guests;26 223background characteristics 232Variations in dimensions of service quality among providers27 xv 28 263 xvi Comparison of dimensions of service quality from literature and this study LIST OF FIGURES PageFigure Map of the study area 161 40Service quality model2 41Internal service quality model3 44Gap analysis model4 46The extended gap analysis5 47Service quality model6 83Conceptual framework7 Proposed framework: Hotel service quality model 2588 xvii LIST OF ACRONYMS American Automobile AssociationAAA Accra Metropolitan AssemblyAMA Analysis of VarianceANOVA Greater Accra RegionGAR Gross Domestic ProductGDP Ghana Hoteliers AssociationGHA Ghana Tourism AuthorityGTA International Labour OrganizationILO International Standards OrganizationISO Least Significant DifferenceLSD Statistical Package for Social SciencesSPSS United Arab EmirateUAE United KingdomUK United Nations World Tourism OrganizationUNWTO United States of AmericaUSA Visiting Friends and RelativesVFR Variance Inflation FactorVIF World Tourism OrganizationWTO World Travel and Tourism CouncilWTTC xviii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background to the study increasingly becoming important both domestically and internationally. Services contributed a total of 66.7 per cent of world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the year 2011 (WTTC, 2011). However, many service sector businesses have had to contend with intense competition and rapid changes in order to achieve competitive advantage and efficiency (UNWTO, 2010). These businesses have to seek ways of differentiating their services from others in the market. Companies that search for the most effective ways to incorporate the best service methods and processes tend to be winners in the long term in terms of favourable customer perceptions (Wahid, Mohamed & Zahari, 2012). Services are difficult to manage due to certain inherent characteristics such as physical intangibility, simultaneity (in production/consumption and the joint effort of the employee and customer in the delivery of the service) leading to the variability of service encounters (Amenumey, 2007). This variability stems from three main sources: the service provider, the customer and the 1 surroundings. According to Desmet, Van Looy and Van Dierdonk (2003) as The service sector is cited in Amenumey (2007), variability makes quality control difficult and has implications for how service is delivered. The intangibility and inseparability elements of the service encounter require some form of employee involvement even in a highly standardized tayloristic situation (Lashley, 1999). According to Amenumey (2007), with employees involved, the issue of variability in quality of service delivery can potentially increase. The personal interaction between consumers and service providers is at the heart of most service experiences and it has been termed as in the marketing literature (Czepiel, Solomon,the Suprenant & Gutman, 1985; Shostack, 1987; Carev, 2008; Hersh, 2010). The service encounter has become the focus of attention in service quality research. The research on service encounters and service quality by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985; 1988) suggests a number of factors that may influence consumers’ satisfaction with services. These factors pertain to the service outcome and the manner in which employees deliver service to consumers. Consumers and service providers participate in the service encounter each party’s expectations of their own behaviour as well as the anticipated complementary behaviour of each other (Smith & Houston, 1983). Their roles encompass a set of learned behaviours appropriated to the particular service setting and depended on situational cues such as each other’s attitudes and behaviours. 2 “service encounter” like actors on stage reading from a common “service script” which represents The complex nature of services, coupled with the growing prominence of the services sector has also increased the need for better service quality. Therefore, service quality is increasingly recognized as one of the key strategic values of organizations in both the manufacturing and service sectors (Lewis, 1991; Vijayadurai, 2008; Ukwayi, Eja & Unwanede, 2012; Amissah, 2013). The delivery of high service quality has a number of advantages: • It allows organisations to distinguish themselves from their competitors by increasing sales and market shares (Lewis, 1989; Newman & Cowling, 1996; Woodruff, 1997; Mack, Mueller, Crotts & Broderick, 2000; Lau, Akbar & Yong, 2005; Crick & Spencer, 2011; Lee, 2014); • It results in the satisfaction and retention of customers and employees, thus reducing turnover rates (Taylor & Baker, 1994; Teas, 1994; Vavra, 1997; Oh, 1999; Skogland & Siguaw, 2004, Tang & Tang, 2012; Wong & Fong, 2012); • It leads to repeat purchase behaviour and brand loyalty and enables an organisation to attract new customers through positive word-of-mouth, (Lewis, 1991; Leon, Schiffman & Lazer, 2000; Newman, 2001; Caruana, 2002; Wang Lo & Hui., 2003, Wilkins, Merrilees & Herington, 2010; Yong, Jou & Cheng, 2011; Prentice, 2013). Hotel services are an important part of the services industry (Mishkin, 2001). And they are described as a synthetic service industry because severe competition results in little variation of facilities. As such service quality has 3 The complex nature of services, coupled with the growing prominence of the services sector has also increased the need for better service quality. Therefore, service quality is increasingly recognized as one of the key strategic values of organizations in both the manufacturing and service sectors (Lewis, 1991; Vijayadurai, 2008; Ukwayi, Eja & Unwanede, 2012; Amissah, 2013). The delivery of high service quality has a number of advantages: • It allows organisations to distinguish themselves from their competitors by increasing sales and market shares (Lewis, 1989; Newman & Cowling, 1996; Woodruff, 1997; Mack, Mueller, Crotts & Broderick, 2000; Lau, Akbar & Yong, 2005; Crick & Spencer, 2011; Lee, 2014); • It results in the satisfaction and retention of customers and employees, thus reducing turnover rates (Taylor & Baker, 1994; Teas, 1994; Vavra, 1997; Oh, 1999; Skogland & Siguaw, 2004, Tang & Tang, 2012; Wong & Fong, 2012); • It leads to repeat purchase behaviour and brand loyalty and enables an organisation to attract new customers through positive word-of-mouth, (Lewis, 1991; Leon, Schiffman & Lazer, 2000; Newman, 2001; Caruana, 2002; Wang Lo & Hui., 2003, Wilkins, Merrilees & Herington, 2010; Yong, Jou & Cheng, 2011; Prentice, 2013). Hotel services are an important part of the services industry (Mishkin, 2001). And they are described as a synthetic service industry because severe competition results in little variation of facilities. As such service quality has 3 been identified as one of the main drivers of successful hotel business operation. Service quality delivery to hotel guests has become a central theme in the global hotel business (Ladhari, 2008). In this highly competitive hotel of the most important elements for gaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the market place (Markovic & Raspor, 2010). According to Baker and Fesenmaier (1997) and Iglesias and Guillien (2004), the global hotel industry has over the years ensured service quality at all levels as a differentiation tool to establish competitive positioning and to improve return on investment. Baker and Crompton (2000) and ZeithamI and Bitner (2000) have also argued that there is a positive correlation between quality service and business profits. Service quality plays a vital role in customer satisfaction since it reduces costs, increases sales and encourages repeat business in hotels (Barsky & Labagh, 1992; Walker & Braunlich 1996; Yi and Jeon, 2003, Peter & Nicole, 2006). Generally, hotel guests require a high quality experience from their stay in a hotel. They expect quality service, product, atmosphere, entertainment and value for money. It has also been stated that it does not matter how much effort is put into producing quality service, it is the perception of customers that is paramount (Johns, 1996; Knuston, 2000; Getty & Getty, 2003, Kumar, Smart, Maddem & Maull, 2008; Mola & Jusoh, 2011). This argument is buttressed by Mack, Mueller, Crotts and Broderick (2000) who stress that it is important for businesses to talk to their customers to find out what their expectations are and make strenuous efforts to retain them in order to sustain profits. The main 4 business, service quality becomes one responsibility of hoteliers is the delivery of quality service to their guests (Hsieh, Lin & Lin, 2008). But a study by Briggs, Sutherland and Drummond (2007) revealed major inconsistencies in service quality performance across the hotel sector. Their study further suggested that most customers are not in fact overly demanding and are satisfied with a personal service that represents value for money and provides accurate information. The main difference between excellent and poor service for them relates to the absence of the personal touch and how the staff deal with their complaints (Briggs, Sutherland & Drummond, 2007). Keating and Harrington (2003) suggested that many quality programmes fail as a result of the lack of commitment on the part of senior and middle level management, and front-line employees. Mei, Dean and White (1999), Raymond and Choi (2001) and Marko vic and Raspor (2010), on the other hand, studied the factors influencing service quality and found the problem centered on employees. Front-line employees play a very important role both in service and products (Reynose & Moores, 1995) because they have contact with customers directly and give them service. The behaviour and attitude of frontline employees usually influences the customers’ perception and feeling of service quality at the hotel they choose. The behaviour and attitude of frontline employees in hotels is shaped by their perceptions of service quality and their understanding of what hotel customers expect (Yee, Yeung & Cheng, 2010). 5 responsibility of hoteliers is the delivery of quality service to their guests (Hsieh, Lin & Lin, 2008). But a study by Briggs, Sutherland and Drummond (2007) revealed major inconsistencies in service quality performance across the hotel sector. Their study further suggested that most customers are not in fact overly demanding and are satisfied with a personal service that represents value for excellent and poor service for them relates to the absence of the personal touch and how the staff deal with their complaints (Briggs, Sutherland & Drummond, 2007). Keating and Harrington (2003) suggested that many quality programmes fail as a result of the lack of commitment on the part of senior and middle level management, and front-line employees. Mei, Dean and White (1999), Raymond and Choi (2001) and Markovic and Raspor (2010), on the other hand, studied the factors influencing service quality and found the problem centered on employees. Front-line employees play a very important role both in service and products (Reynose & Moores, 1995) because they have contact with customers directly and give them service. The behaviour and attitude of frontline employees usually influences the customers’ perception and feeling of service quality at the hotel they choose. The behaviour and attitude of frontline employees in hotels is shaped by their perceptions of service quality and their understanding of what hotel customers expect (Yee, Yeung & Cheng, 2010). 5 money and provides accurate information. The main difference between Managers in the service industry are under increasing pressure to demonstrate that their services are customer-focused and that continuous improvement is being delivered. Given the financial and resource constraints under which service organisations must manage, it is essential that customer expectations are properly understood and measured (Shanin & Dabestani, 2010). Delivering quality service is a major challenge facing hospitality managers (Lazer & Layton, 1999, Carev, 2008), especially hotel managers because most services are characterized by an encounter between three parties; the customer, the frontline staff and the organisation represented by the manager. This interaction defines quality service in the mind of the customer. This encounter is called the “moment of truth” by Richard Norman (King & Cichy, 2006). The brief encounter, “a moment of truth”, is when the customer evaluates the service and forms an opinion on its quality. It is during this moment of truth that the service provider has the opportunity to influence the customer’s perception of service quality. The power enjoyed by customers has raised their expectations and these expectations often determine whether they will stay at a particular hotel or not. According to Cooper, Fletcher, Fyfall, Gilbert and Wanhill (2008), customers are travelling more widely, returning with new ideas and new standards regarding accommodation demands. This has led to the study of stakeholders (customers, frontline staff and managers) perceptions of service quality relevant in the marketing literature. 6 Edvardsson, Thomasson and Qvretveit (1994) posit that stakeholders’ perceptions of service quality may differ between employee, manager and the customer. The differences in perception may be due to various reasons. Managers and employees generally do not like to mention deficiencies in the quality of their services. In other words, they usually do not downplay the work and services they have delivered (Grandey, 2000). In contrast, they may have a tendency to exaggerate the quality of their services (Koyuncu, Burke, Astakhova, Eren & Cetin, 2014). As a result, the customer’s perceptions of service quality may be ignored. Such differences among the stakeholders’ approaches may be one of the reasons for different service quality perceptions. However, it should be noted that the differences in perceptions of quality presented can create barriers to achieving the desired level of service quality (Tsaur & Lin, 2004). In this context, it can be posited that the perceptions of stakeholders in the hotel business with regard to service quality performance become important. There may be various reasons why customers have lower levels of service quality perception. Employees may have a higher quality perception of the services they deliver compared to customers’ perception. Managers may determine inadequate quality standards. This may lead to ignorance of customers’ quality perceptions. This may be a negative consequence of long term employed employees emotional labour experiences. The productivity of long term employed employees experiencing emotional labour experiences may fall as they get indolent (Tsai & Yang, 2010). Consequently, customers 7 perceptions of service quality may fall below the level of both managers’ and employees’ perceptions. However, Berry, Will and Carbone (2006) stated that, it is one of the manager’s responsibilities to anticipate customers’ demands and expectations and convey them to employees. As a result, it can be said that determining the existence of a service quality perception difference among customers, managers and employees is a requirement for success in a highly competitive hotel industry. Therefore, individual hoteliers must find ways to make their products and services stand out among the competition. To achieve this, hoteliers must understand their customers’ needs and wants and then deliver their services in a way to meet these needs or exceed them. As Sureshchander, Rajendran and Anatharaman (2002) stated, in order to improve service quality, the hotel industry needs to know which service attributes might affect the choice intention of customers. Failure to give the necessary attention to these attributes might result in a customer’s negative evaluation of the hotel services and may ruin the chance of that guest returning to the hotel. Statement of the problem Service quality is one of the most researched topics in the marketing literature. Despite the vast amount of research done in the area of service quality, quality related issues have received very little research attention within the hotel industry in Ghana especially, Accra. According to Mensah (2009), hospitality businesses in Ghana find it very challenging in providing their 8 guests with quality service because there seems to be a paucity of credible data on service quality in Ghana’s hospitality industry, making it difficult to fashion out an appropriate management intervention to address the problem. Also, there has been little attempt to link service quality to the organizational customers and the characteristics of the customers patronizing the facilities (Mensah, 2009). Most of the studies on service quality have produced a number of classifications of services that emphasised the service receiver’s or customer’s perspective (Rathmell, 1974; Chase, 1978; Sasser, Olson & Wyckoff, 1978; Gro"nroos, 1979, 2000; Lovelock, 1985; Schmenner, 1986; Shostack, 1987; Edvardsson, 1996; Robledo, 2001; Alexandris, Dimitriados & Markata, 2002; Antony, Antony & Ghosh, 2004; Kang & James, 2004; Salazar, Costa & Paulo, 2010; Ukwayi, Eja & Unwanede, 2012; Browning, So & Sparks, 2013; Prentice, 2014). Nonetheless, very few researchers have emphasised the (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Brown & Swartz, 1989; Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry, 1990; Echeverri, 1999; Svensson, 2002; Qin, 2005). More so, most research in the field of service marketing ignore the service provider’s perspective, and there have been too few studies that attempted to explore the concept of the service encounter beyond the service receiver’s perspective (Anthanassopoulos, 1998; Tsang & Qu, 2000 Tam & Wong, 2001; Svensson, 9 importance of the interaction between actors in a service encounter Vandermerwe & Chadwick, 1989; Saleh & Ryan, 1991; Akan, 1995; characteristics of facilities providing services to 2002; Choi & Chu, 2000, 2001; Luk & Layton, 2002; Dedeke, 2003; Mola and Jusoh, 2011; Bondzi-Simpson, 2012). Furthermore, the few studies on service quality in hospitality have been measure service quality in hotels in developed economies and not emerging tourist destinations like Ghana where service quality is important for the industry’s success. Also, there is a lacuna of studies addressing relationships between stakeholders’ characteristics and service quality expectations and perceptions as well as the dimensions of service quality. The general perception that in the absence of world service leaders and /or a benchmark competition, the hotel industry had leisurely ticked over with issue of service quality in hotels in Ghana (Akyeampong, 2007). Researchers like Appaw-Agbola and Afenyo (2011), Boakye and Bohene (2009) and Teye (1991) have alluded that Ghana has the distinctive peculiarity of delivering poor service. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that hotel customers, both domestic and international, have in one way or the other experienced shortfalls in the quality of services offered. Guests express varied needs and expectations during their stay but hotels in Ghana have not responded adequately (Bondzi- Simpson, 2012). Anecdotal evidence also shows that the conservative nature of the complain, has led to unprofessional, inefficient service standards being accepted as the norm. 10 on quality dimensions in hotels, particularly, the criteria customers use to an “anything goes” service attitude, thus, resulting in the endemic nature of the Ghanaian population, who are disinclined to Bondzi-Simpson (2012) intimated that there are service quality gaps in the delivery of services in hotels in the Central Region of Ghana. The study also showed that management of these hotels did not have accurate knowledge of what customer expectations were with regard to the dimensions of the quality of services provided. Another study by Amissah (2013) revealed that service quality is poor in hotels in Cape Coast and Elmina both major urban centres in Southern Ghana. It is against this backdrop that the study seeks to answer the following questions: both guests and service providers? 2. Are there differences in the dimensions of service quality among socio­ demographic, travel and work characteristics of guests and service providers? 3. What factors influence guests’ and service providers’ expectations of service quality? 4. What is the difference between guests’ expectation of service quality and service providers’ perception of guests’ expectation of service quality in hotels? 5. What is the difference between guests’ perception of actual service received and service providers’ perception of actual service delivered? 11 1. What are the dimensions of service quality from the perspectives of Objectives of the study The main objective of this study is to assess service quality in hotels from the perspectives of both guests and service providers The specific objectives are to: Examine the gap between guests’ expectations and perceptions ofi. service quality (perceived service quality) Explore the perceptual interface between guests and service providersii. on service quality expectations and service performance in hotels (Gaps 1,6, 7, 8, 9 & 10). Examine the possible implications of the interface on perceived serviceiii. quality. Explore the differences between guests’ profile and their expectationsiv. and perceptions of service quality. Assess the dimensions of service quality in hotels.v. Examine the predictor(s) of overall service quality in hotels.vi. Assess the dynamics of service quality dimensions among stakeholders.vii. Hypotheses of the study The following hypotheses were formulated and tested There is no significant difference between guests’ expectation ofi. service quality from their perception of actual service received (Gap 5). There is no significant difference between guests expectation andii. management perception of guests’ expectation (Gap 1). 12 There is no significant difference between frontline employees’ andiii. managements’ perception of guests expectation (Gap 6). There is no significant difference between service providers’ perceptioniv. of guests’ expectation and their perception of the actual service delivered. There is no significant difference between guests’ and management’sv. perceptions of actual service delivered (Gap 7). Significance of the study The importance of service quality to emerging destinations cannot be over-emphasized as service quality is possibly the foremost determinant of success in the tourism and hospitality industry (Amissah, 2013). Proper maintenance of the building and comfortable indoor conditions for customers is essential (Parkan, 2005). The issue of service quality has always been a major concern to both customers and managers. Customers complain about poor service while managers also feel that they are doing their best to provide the best service to customers. A study by Zemke (1989) showed that managers of their customers, and the wish to respond to them. This study will first and foremost bring to the attention of managers or service providers whether they perspective or from customers’ perspective by identifying the service delivery 13 are providing quality service from their own are “obsessed” with listening to the changeable wishes, needs and expectations bottlenecks which are central to Ghana producing satisfied customers and eventually the success of the hotel industry. Secondly, it will identify the importance customers attach to the dimensions of service quality so that service providers can improve on those dimensions to ensure satisfaction. It will provide hotels with appropriate measures to improve service delivery and standards not only from the tangible aspects in Ghana’s hotel industry. The study will also contribute to providing safe and secured environment for tourists who crave for quality. Finally, the result of the study is expected to contribute to filling existing research gaps and to provide firms with appropriate measures to improve service delivery and standards in Ghana’s hospitality industry. It will form the base or provide the needed information for monitoring service quality in hotels in Ghana. The conclusions of the study could be a basis for future research in service quality in Ghana. Academia and industry can use the findings and recommendations to improve service quality in Ghana. Profile of the study area The study area is the Accra Metropolis in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Accra doubles as the capital and seat of government and the most prominent commercial city in Ghana (Grant & Yankson, 2003). Prior to Accra becoming the capital, Cape Coast served as the capital of the then Gold Coast Colony. Accra became the capital of the then Gold Coast Colony in 1877 and 14 has remained so to date. Accra has the most diversified economy in relation to any other area in Ghana (Grant & Yankson, 2003). It is the headquarters to diplomatic missions in Ghana. This has made it an “epi-centre” when it comes to the establishment of high quality commercial accommodation in Ghana foreign patrons coming for both business and leisure purposes but serve the needs of locals as well. Over the years, the Greater Accra Region, and for that matter Accra, has had the highest concentration of all the categories of hotels. This fact is supported by the 2009 hotels list of Ghana compiled by the then Ghana Tourist Board. Akyeampong (2007) gives credence to this fact by stating that “Accra not only leads in terms of numbers but also possesses all the different types found in the national stock (p. 139). This makes Accra an ideal location to conduct a study on hotels in Ghana since it offers the diversity and the mix needed to collate divergent information that this study will use. Figure 1 is a map of Accra showing the distribution of the various star-rated hotels. 15 (Akyeampong, 2007). These accommodation facilities do not only serve many international organizations and enterprises and home to all the VWH N GAE4ST GA WEST MUNICIPALITY A’AW ■- GA SOUTH Legend Gulf of Guinea 5 Source: Geography Information System Centre, Department of Geography and Regional Planning, University of Cape Coast, 2013 16 (TlffO’W 1 I O’lZttW 0*15VW I crizxrw i 0’9TW I I (F901Y 0'6'0’W LEDZOKUKU KROWOR MUNICIPALITY I I 0*180 0*150117 Figure 1: Map of the Study Area i Tl A i z b r b z io 11 4 Hotels (Star) ☆ 2 ^3 / r IA IM // mamprobi ' MALAM KANESHIE * 4 {J Airport . Z'*'* Road X 5 Lagoon zAsli A. !j -«W1 ■"""" ■ ~a:- ? W —■ -KORLE-‘Vr-V 0 1.25 2.5 . i -fr MAA: -M' 'MMMt Thesis outline The study was organised into eight chapters. Chapter One dealt with the introduction of the study which covers the background information, profile of the study area, the statement of the problem and objectives of the study. Chapter Two focuses on a review of related literature on the topic while Chapter Three looks at empirical issues and various models on service quality as well methodology comprising of the research design, sampling issues and data collection and analysis are presented in Chapter Four. Findings from the field are presented in the next three chapters. Chapter Five discusses respondents’ characteristics and the level of guests’ expectations of service quality while Chapter Six looks at stakeholders perceptions of service quality in hotels in Accra. Chapter Seven presents the differences in guests and service providers’ perceptions of service quality; Chapter Eight examines the dimensions of service quality as well as the relative importance of these dimensions. Chapter Nine captures the summary, conclusions and recommendations of the study. Summary Chapter One discussed the introduction of the study. It delved into issues such as the background of the study, statement of the research problem and objectives of the study. The significance of the study as well as the hypotheses was also presented in the chapter. Finally, the profile of the study area and chapter organization was discussed as well. 17 as the conceptual framework guiding the study. The research CHAPTER TWO THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF SERVICE QUALITY Introduction This chapter looks at the literature related to service quality. Issues discussed in the chapter include the definitions of key concepts used in the study such as service, quality and service quality; concept of service quality, customer expectations in service quality, the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction, and service quality in the hospitality and tourism industry. The role of frontline employees in delivering quality service, the dimensions or factors of service quality, various theories and models of service quality are also discussed in this chapter. Definitions of service The term service has been defined in various ways. Sasser, Olsen and Wyckoff (1978) defined service as a commodity that cannot be stored or disappeared in use or as activities that require personal contact while Cateora and Graham (2005) described a service as intangible and having intrinsic value, resulting from a process, a performance or an occurrence that only exists while it is being created. Kotler and Keller (2006), on the other hand, defined service as any act, performance or deed that one party can offer to another 18 which is essentially intangible and does not result in the ownership of anything. Gronroos (2006) defined it as “an activity or a series of a activities of a more or less intangible nature that normally, but not necessarily, takes place physical resource or goods and or systems of the service provider, which are provided as solutions to customer problems”. Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) also physical product or construction, is generally consumed at the time it is produced and provides added value in forms (such as convenience, amusement timeless, comfort or health) that are essentially intangible concerns for its first purchaser”. This study adopted the definition of a service as an activity or series of activities of more or less intangible nature that normally, but not necessarily, take place in interactions between customers and service employees and/or physical resources or goods and/or systems of the service provider, which are provided as solutions to customer problems (Fitzsimmons & Fitzsimmons, 2000). Characteristics of a service Although many approaches to quality apply equally to good and services, there are conceptual differences between the two. These differences have been explored in details by scholars such as Edvardsson, Thomasson and Qvretveit (1994), Bergman and Klefsjo (2003) and Gummesson (1995). 19 in the interaction between the customer and service employees and / or described services as “including all economic activities whose output is not a According to Bagherian (2007), some of the important differences can be noted as follows: Services are not tangible as goods and it can therefore be difficult to explain, specify and measure the contents of a service. Because services are more abstract than goods, services are perceived and evaluated more subjectively. The customer often plays an active role in creating a service. A service is often consumed at the same time as it is created; it cannot be stored or transported. The customer does not become the owner of any tangible property after delivery of a service. Services often consist of a series of consequential activities; this makes it difficult or impossible for the consumer to test them before the purchase. Services often consist of a system of sub-services, but the customer usually evaluates the whole and not the separate parts (Bagherian, 2007, pp. 77). A related issue that complicates the quality of service is their heterogeneous character. This means that the experience of a particular service can differ from time to time. Services are heterogeneous because both the consumer and the service provider have production and delivery process (Gronroos, 1990). A service is intangible and heterogeneous; its production, distribution, and consumption are simultaneous 20 a significant influence on the processes; it is an activity or a process; it is a core value created in buyer-seller interactions; customers participate in its production; it cannot be stored; and there is no transfer of ownership when it is sold (Groonroos, 2000). These characteristics indicate that there are significant interactive qualities in service encounters - that is, services are produced, distributed, and consumed in an interactive process which involves the perspectives of both the service provider and the service receiver. It is thus especially important that services be properly designed from the beginning because they cannot be stored, exchanged or redone (Edvardsson, 1996). Definitions of quality From the review of literature on quality, it emerges that early research efforts only concentrated on defining and measuring the quality of tangible goods and products. Gronroos (1990) notes that product quality is traditionally linked to the technical specifications of goods, with most definitions of quality arising from the manufacturing sector where quality control has received extensive attention and research. Reeves and Bednar (1994) identified six different definitions of quality namely value, conformance to specifications, conformance to requirements, fitness for use, loss of avoidance and exceeding customers’ expectations. Quality has also been defined as conformance to requirements (Crosby, 1979); conformance to design (Chase, Kumar & Youngddahl 1992); design and 21 conformance to quality characteristics that are of interest to customers when evaluating the product offered (Bolton & Drew, 1991). According to Juran (1992), quality is fitness for use while Garvin (1984) measured quality by counting the incidence of ‘internal’ failures (those observed before a product leaves the factory) and external failures (those incurred in the field after a unit had been installed). These product-based definitions of quality may be appropriate to the goods-producing sector; however, knowledge about the quality of goods is insufficient to understand service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1985). Definitions of service quality Attempts have been made to distinguish between product quality and service quality. Services are generally described in terms of four unique attributes: (Bateson, 1977; Lovelock, 1985; Gronroos, 1990; Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). According to Mei et al., (1999), in the hospitality industry, other attributes such as imprecise standards and fluctuating demands have been identified. Service quality has been linked to the success of hospitality businesses (Kotler, 2003). It has also been argued that service quality is the great differentiate Suhartanto, 2000, 2003), there has been no agreed definition of service quality. Juran (1985) stated that the quality of a product or service is determined by its 22 among service providers (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Kandampully & fitness for use by internal and external customers. Gundersen, Heide and intangibility, heterogeneity, inseparability and perishability Oslon (1996) also argued that a customer’s experience is a product of both the service quality as the attributes of the service itself and those attributes develop positive perceptions of the service. These definitions suggest that service quality is subjective. There is no universal definition for it. However, there is another school of thought that holds that every service has a product component. Gronroos (1992) distinguished between technical quality and functional quality as components of the service image delivery. Technical quality is what the consumer actually receives from the service provider such as the quality of the food served in a restaurant. Functional quality, on the other hand, is how the technical component of the service is delivered to the consumer. Kotler (2003) identified a third component of quality, societal (ethical) quality. According to him, societal quality is credence quality, which consumers cannot evaluate in advance of purchase. In this light, hospitality businesses concerned about quality service must combine, balance and juggle the tangible and intangible product (Ribeiro, 2003 as cited in Mensah, 2009). Table 1 below depicts some of the various definitions of service quality in the literature. 23 tangible and intangible aspects, whereas Crompton and Mackay (1989) saw Table 1: Definitions of service quality Definition of service qualityAuthor/Year Customers’ perception of actual service performance andGronroos (1984) prior expectations of customers for service and consumer perception through comparison overall superiority ofevaluationCustomers’Zeithaml (1988) on excellence of service A form of the attitude different from of an objectiveParasuraman et al. quality of a customer’s judgment on overall superiority or(1988) excellence of a specific service. Customers’ evaluation on superiority and excellence ofBojanic (1991) products and services. Consumers’ overall impression on relative inferiority orBitner and Hubert superiority of the organization and its services.(1994) The difference between customers’ expectations forAsubonteng, service performance prior to the service encounter andMcCleary and their perceptions of the service received.Swan (1996) Is an attitude or global judgment about the superiority ofRobinson (1999) agreed. Service quality focuses on the interaction between theHernon and Whitman customer and the service provider. (2001) 24 a service, although the exact nature of this attitude is not Table 1 (Continued) Bitner, Booms and inferiority or superiority of the organization and itsTetreault (1990) as cited in Kassim & service quality when he interacts with the personnel ofBojei, 2002) the organization. Service quality is highly dependent on the performance of employees. Service quality entails physical quality, interactive qualityLehtinen and and corporate or quality. Physical quality relates to theLehtinen (1982 as tangible aspects of the service. Interactive qualitycited in Kang & involves the interactive nature of service and refers to theJames, 2004) two-way flow that occurs between the customer and the service provider, or a representative, and also includes both automated and animated interactions. Palmer (2010) Concept of service quality The subject of service quality is wide and varied. The concept of service quality has been greatly developed by many researchers. It was established after there had been a growing interest in the quality of services provided. Garvin (1984) was among the first scholars who examined the quality concepts to cover both goods and services. He explained perceived quality as the subjective perception of quality through indirect measures of 25 The standard of service delivery expressed in terms of the extent to which customers’ expectations are met._______ Source: Review of literature services. The customer formulates his perception of The consumer’s overall impression of the relative Table 1 (Continued) The consumer’s overall impression of the relativeBitner, Booms and inferiority or superiority of the organization and itsTetreault (1990) as services. The customer formulates his perception ofcited in Kassim & service quality when he interacts with the personnel ofBojei, 2002) the organization. Service quality is highly dependent on the performance of employees. Service quality entails physical quality, interactive qualityLehtinen and and corporate or quality. Physical quality relates to theLehtinen (1982 as cited in Kang & involves the interactive nature of service and refers to theJames, 2004) two-way flow that occurs between the customer and the service provider, or a representative, and also includes both automated and animated interactions. Palmer (2010) Concept of service quality The subject of service quality is wide and varied. The concept of service quality has been greatly developed by many researchers. It was established after there had been a growing interest in the quality of services provided. Garvin (1984) was among the first scholars who examined the quality as the subjective perception of quality through indirect measures of 25 quality concepts to cover both goods and services. He explained perceived The standard of service delivery expressed in terms of the extent to which customers’ expectations are met._______ Source: Review of literature tangible aspects of the service. Interactive quality quality comparison. Much current service quality research is rooted in which holds that customers perceive service quality as the difference between the actual service performance and their expectations. Disconfirmation is positive when service performance exceeds expectations and negative, when the opposite is the case. Based on the perceived service quality concept, Parasuraman et al. (1985) applied premises from other previous studies to form their model of service quality gaps. The model explored that a consumer had difficulty in evaluating service quality rather than goods quality, that a perception of service quality was developed from a comparison of consumer expectation with actual service performance; also quality evaluation involved the evaluation of both the process and outcome of service delivery. Therefore, service quality gap denotes the gap between customer’s expectations or what the service should provide, and the customer's perception of what the service actually provides (Shahin & Dabestani, 2010). The assessment of service quality is made during the service delivery process. perceptions of the service received with the expectations of the service desired. When expectations are exceeded, service is perceived to be of exceptional perceived service, quality is satisfactory. Antony, Antony, Kumar & Cho 26 expectancy-disconfirmation theory (Bolton & Drew, 1991; Oliver, 1993) Customer satisfaction with a service quality, according to Fitzstimmons & Fitzsitmmons (1999), can be defined by comparing quality and also a pleasant surprise. When expectations are confirmed by (2007) also stated that service quality involves the concept of meeting and exceeding the expectations of the customer. Presbury, Fitzgerald and Chapman (2005) observed that though service quality is what differentiates hospitality agreed that service quality is dependent on the guests’ needs and expectation. According to Ekinci, Dawes and Massey (2008), quality is simply exceeds preset standards or promises. If expectations exceed performance, then perceived quality is less than satisfactory, hence, customer dissatisfaction occurs (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Lewis & Mitchell, 1990). Service quality is a concept that has aroused considerable interest in the marketing research literature because of the difficulties in its definitions and measurements with no consensus emerging on either (Wisniewski, 2001). One of the commonly used definitions of service quality is the extent to which a service meets customers’ expectations (Asubonteng, McCleary & Swan, 1996, Wisniewski & Wisniewski, 2005). Definitions of service quality have revolved around the idea that it is the result of the comparism between customer’s expectations about a service and their perceptions of the service (Lihtinen & Lehtinen, 1982; Parasuraman et al., 1985). It is widely accepted in the literature that service quality is dependent on consumers’ needs and expectations, and whether the level of service meets these needs and expectations. Services quality has, thus, been distinguished as 27 businesses, there is no agreed definition for it. However, it is accepted or conformance to specifications; positive quality is when a service meets or a “gap” between customers’ expectations and the performance they actually received (Parasuraman et. al., 1985). The service encounter Hotel services are characterized by an encounter between a service provider and (Normann, 1991). According to Fitzstimmons and Fitzsitmmons (1998), this brief encounter is a moment in time when the customer is evaluating the service and forming an opinion on its quality. Every moment of truth involves an interaction between a customer and a service provider; each has a role to play in an environment staged by the service organisation. A customer experiences many encounters with a variety of service providers and each moment of truth is customer’s perceptions of the service quality. Moments of truth are critical in achieving a reputation for superior quality. According to Jan Carlson’s philosophy, an organisation exists to serve the front-line workers who have His revolutionary thinking stood the olddirect contact with customers. organization chart on its head and placed the customer-encounter personnel (formerly at the bottom) now at the top of the chart. He intimates that it has now become everyone else’s responsibility to serve frontline personnel who in turn served the customer. Changing the organisational chart showed a move to refocus on satisfying the customer and managing moments of truth. 28 a customer. This encounter, which defines the quality of the an opportunity to influence the service in the mind of the customer, has been called the “moment of truth” The Role of the customer, manager and employee in service quality In service quality the customer is the determinant of the level of service pleased with the quality of the services provided, they will choose the business again and will promote the business within their immediate surroundings. In fact, Cronin and Taylor (1992), Boulding, Kalra, Staelin and Zeithaml (1993), Baker and Crompton (2000) and Gonzalez, Comesaia and Brea (2007) reaffirm this claim that customers who are satisfied with the business service quality are more likely to choose that business again. In the same way, Harrison-Walker (2001) and Chowdhury (2011) expressed that customers with the highest levels of perception of service quality contribute to the business image positively via word-of-mouth communications. Managers are responsible for knowing customers’ expectations and passing them on to their employees (Berry, Parasuraman & Zeithaml, 1988). Since they are in charge of their employees, managers first need an accurate perception of the quality of service offered. Indeed, managers will not be able to transmit/transfer a situation to their employees if they do not understand it properly. Employees, however, are the bridge between customers and the hotel business. Employees have a direct influence over customers’ perceptions of service quality (Paulin, Ferguson & Payaud, 2000). Chen, Ekinci, Riley, Yoon and Tjelflaat (2001) and Tsaur and Lin (2004) as well as Chao, Fu and Lu (2007) revealed that one of the influencing factors of customers perceptions of 29 quality that is submitted (Parasuraman et al., 1985). If the customers are service quality is the employees. Employees who have higher service quality perceptions than customers may not meet their customers’ expectations (Wang, 2011). This is why determining how employees perceive service quality becomes critical. Apart from the issues mentioned above, how customers perceive the quality of services is also important for managers because managers develop their own service quality standards regarding customers’ evaluations and make employees meet these standards. However, managers and employees who think that the quality of the services they deliver is better than customers’ perceptions may not strive to improve the quality of their service performance. In other words, their work motivation and performance decrease (Grandey, 2000). From this point of view, managers are primarily supposed to guide perceptions. Thus, it can be said that the comparison of employees and managers perceptions regarding their services with customers’ perceptions is a requirement for success. Moreover, it is important to know that the service quality perceptions of employees and managers may differ to a degree. But managers who have higher service quality perceptions than their subordinates are incapable of leading their employees to reach the desired level of service quality. Managers are supposed to perceive the quality of services more accurately than employees since they are the auditors of employees. Likewise, it would be impossible for managers to transfer things they did not perceive 30 employees as they examine customers’ service quality performance accurately to their subordinates. That is why it becomes highly important to determine whether managers service quality perceptions differ from the perceptions of subordinates and customers. As Berry et al. (1988) stated, managers are responsible for knowing about the expectations of employees and customers. Measuring service quality While there may be general agreement that the evaluation of services is more subjective than that of tangible products, there has been less agreement about how to operationalise service quality as a construct (Gabbott & Hogg, 1997; Cronin & Taylor, 1992, 1994; Dabholkar, Sherpherd & Thorpe, 2000). Firms throughout the world use a combination of methods to assess customers’ perceptions of service quality. Asher (1996) suggested that service transactions are subjectively judged and that service quality depends on the degree to which a customer’s perceived expectations have been met. Customers decide when they are satisfied (Bagherian, 2007). Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1986) measured service quality by separately subtracting the former from the latter. Using factor analysis, they demonstrated five empirical components, which usually denoted tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy, that are variously described as dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1986) or determinants (Johnston, 1995) of service quality. 31 scoring customers’ perceptions of expectations and performance and A substantial number of other researchers have sought to confirm this substantial number have failed. Parasuraman et al. (1991) were themselves unable to replicate their own work in a later study, which produced six factors (two apparently closely related) rather than the expected five. Parasuraman et al. (1988, 1991) proposed a gap theory, which states that customers’ assessment of overall service quality is determined by the degree and direction of the gap between their expectations and perceptions of performance levels. Specifically, they suggested that perceived service quality perceptions of actual service performance. Service quality in the tourism industry Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000) emphasized that quality will be the main driving force of the tourism industry as travel businesses strive to meet the competitive challenges of the future. According to the World Tourism Organisation (2003), quality in tourism can be defined as c... .the satisfaction of all the legitimate product and service needs, requirements and expectations of the consumer, at an acceptable price in conformity with the underlying quality determinants like safety and security, hygiene, accessibility, transparency, authenticity and harmony of the tourism activity concerned with its human and natural environments. This definition is in accordance with other observations on the nature of quality. For example, Bergman and Klefsojo (2003) define the 32 can be determined by calculating the difference between expectations and result, and although some have managed to find a five-factor pattern, a quality of a product as its ability to satisfy or preferably exceed the needs and needs of the customer, present and future. According to Yin, Zhu and Gan (2005) and Bask and Markku (2013), there 1. Tourism is dominated by services; this means, consumption occurs in interaction with the suppliers of those services 2. Demand for tourism is significantly influenced by seasonal variations including climatic seasons and the timings of vacations, a consequence of this is that, many staff members are hired for only short periods. 3. The tourism industry consists of a mixture of private sector businesses and public sector organisations. As a result, the industry operates within two systems that have different requirement, rules and forms of control. 4. The tourism industry is fragmented. It consists of many small companies working in various business areas including lodging, travel, food and leisure. 5. Tourism consists of a number of ingredients experienced over time and it is seldom the case that one has control over all components. These factors Swarbrooke and Homer (2001) likened it to 33 expectations of the customers and noted that this quality should be aimed at the a jigsaw puzzle that must fit mean that tourism quality is a complex concept. are at least five factors that describe and influence the tourism product: together perfectly to satisfy the tourist. Despite the difficulties, satisfying the tourism customer is important not only because it leads to positive word of mouth recommendation and repeat customers, but also because lack of satisfaction leads to complaints and dealing with complaints can be expensive, time consuming and injurious to a destination’s or a company’s reputation (Swarbrooke & Horner, 2001). The term ‘experience’ has become increasingly popular within tourism as entertainment options have increased rapidly in number and variety. Bitner (1992) and Mossberg (2007) have both related experiences to service quality. Bitner (1992) used the expression “servicescape” to describe the customers over all perception of the services offered while Mossberg (2007) developed this further with specific reference to tourism. According to him, these “experience areas” can include several destinations over extended geographical sub-components while still being regarded as a single entity. Quality is judged subjectively by consumers and it is, therefore, a difficult concept to assess and measure. It is even more complicated in tourism experiences because quality in this setting includes many interactions with a variety of providers. Service quality in the hospitality industry The hotel business has evolved over the years from the provision of limited overnight service to a more sophisticated product designed to meet the overall needs of its guests (Soliman & Alzaid, 2002). This change came about 34 distances and quite long periods of time because an “experience” can include satisfaction, the intense global competition in the industry, the complex nature of the hotel environment and the fast pace of change. The industry continues to make every effort to satisfy its customers because it recognizes that they are the key to success as well as a prerequisite for survival in today’s competitive Service quality that leads to customer satisfaction is thereforeworld. considered to be a very important objective pursued by all hospitality establishments in recent times (Soliman & Alzaid, 2002; Crick & Spencer, 2011). Quality of guests’ experience is the antecedent to both satisfaction and perceived value (Petrick, 2004). This statement is supported by several empirical studies that found that price and quality perceptions influence value perceptions (Matzler, Renzi & Rothenberger, 2006). It is also clear that quality has both a moderate and direct effect on behavioral intentions (Petrick, 2004), such as repurchase intentions. Therefore, satisfaction is a direct result of quality, which is stressed by Caruana, Money and Berthon (2000) as cited in Petrick (2004). Research shows that service quality is more important than price in differentiating between hospitality companies such as hotels and cruise lines. It is also more important for promoting guest loyalty (Matzler, Renzi & Rothenberger, 2006). There is a clear distinction between satisfaction and quality, which is worth mentioning for clarity purposes. Quality in hospitality is a measure of the hospitality provider’s performance, while satisfaction is a 35 as a result of factors such as the desire of the industry to increase guests’ global measure of how the provider’s performance (the service experience) makes the guest feel (Petrick, 2004). Generally, hotel guests require a high quality experience from their stay in a hotel. They expect quality service, product, atmosphere, entertainment and value for money. It has also been stated that it does not matter how much effort is put into producing quality service, it is the perception of customers that is Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) have also argued that there is a positive correlation between quality service and business profits. This argument is buttressed by Mueller, Crotts and Broderick (2000) who stressed that it is important for businesses to talk to their customers, to find out what their expectations are and make strenuous efforts to retain them in order to sustain profits. Choi and Chu (2001) also suggested that to be successful in the industry, hoteliers must provide guests with service satisfaction. Guests’ experience in hotels is greatly influenced by the type of service they receive at the hotel in which they stay. Therefore, hotels have to strive to deliver to their guests not only their products and services, but also quality and satisfaction that may lead to long-lasting survival and profitability. As observed by Ramsaran-Fowder (2008), providing quality service improves guest satisfaction which is believed to lead to increased visitation, repeat purchases, customer loyalty and relationship commitment. It is also believed that highly satisfied guests spread positive word-of-mouth which in turn influences guests’ expectations (Qin, 2005). 36 paramount (Getty & Getty, 2003). Baker and Crompton (2000) as well as The hotel service had run its course. This had dij) ered from most, but beneath unprecedented events, routines had continued. Reservations, receptions, administration, housekeeping, garage, treasure, kitchens ... all combined in a single, simple function. To welcome the traveller, sustain him, provide him with rest and speed him on. Soon, the cycle would begin again” (Hailey, 2000). This simple quotation highlights the cyclical and multi-functional nature of hotel operations and the hypothesis that a systemic approach is highly suitable (Erto & Vanacore, 2002; Ingram & Roberts, 2000). The hotel is a system whose vital aim is to satisfy and hopefully delight) the customer. Each identifiable subsystem (reception, room, bathroom, restaurant, support services) concurs to realize this aim by means of a peculiar process. The customer actively participates in several service processes and affects the result in terms of quality and added value. Edvardsson (1998) highlights that a company (here a hotel) does not sell services, but opportunities for services. As a consequence, the most central goal of a service provider (here the owner, the management and the staff) is to guarantee the best and right service preconditions for well­ functioning processes and the corresponding outcomes desired by the customer. 37 “Now it was night. With the hotel, the cycle of another inn keeping day The role of frontline employees in delivering service quality in hotels Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry (1990) suggested that the provision of high-quality services has become essential to survival for all sectors, including the hospitality industry. Service provision is inevitably social in nature involving interaction between customers and employees. Therefore, many highly competent personnel are required. Employees in hotels need to be “performers” rather than workers (Yoon & Suh, 2003) and skilful in terms of interaction with customers (Nikolich & Sparks, 1995), as their behaviour is a determinant of customers’ perceptions of the quality of service they receive. As Darby and Daniel (1999, p. 278) claim: Front line personnel are normally the key to clients' perceptions of the delivery of high quality services because they have a major influence on forming expectations and controlling customer experiences and as such they cannot be separated from the focal point of the actual service. In terms of a hotel, front-line personnel include not only those working at the reception, but at the restaurant, the bar, even on the floors. In fact, several researchers have concluded that the quality of interaction between customer and contact employees significantly influences the former’s perceptions of service quality (Schneider, White & Paul, 1998; Bitner, Faranda, Hubbert & Zeithaml 1997; Schneider & Bowen, 1985; Schneider et 38 al., 1998). The key role of contact employees is further reinforced by the fact that within the hospitality service industry, the majority of output is characterized by intangibility, heterogeneity, and simultaneous production and consumption (Gronroos, 1997). Models of service quality Various models have been developed to find, measure and assess service quality. Among them are the Technical functional quality model by Gronroos (1984), Internal service quality model (Frost & Kumar, 2000), GAP model (Parasuraman et al., 1985), Extended Gap model by Luk & Layton, (2002) and the Service quality model by Zeithml et al, (1989). Each model is discussed in detailed in the following sections. Technical and functional quality model (Gronroos, 1984) A firm, in order to compete successfully must have an understanding of consumer perception of the quality, and the way service quality is influenced by different factors. Managing perceived service quality means that the firm has to match the expected service and perceived service to each other so that consumer’s satisfaction is achieved. The author identified two components of service quality, technical quality and functional quality: 1. Technical quality is the quality of what a consumer actually receives as a result of his/her interaction with the service firm and is important to him/her and to his/her evaluation of the quality of service. 39 2. Functional quality is how a customer gets the technical outcome. This is because it shapes the views of services received by the customer. To him, image is very important to service firms and this can be expected to build up mainly by technical and functional quality of service including the other factors (tradition, ideology, word of mouth, pricing and public relations). 4> Image How?What? Figure 2: Service quality model Source: Gronroos, 1984 Internal service quality model (Frost and Kumar, 2000) The two authors developed an internal service quality model based on the GAP model (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The model (Figure 3) evaluates the 40 Traditional Marketing activities (advertising, field selling, PR, Pricing) and external influence by traditions, ideology and word of mouth Expected service Technical Quality Perceived service quality Functional Quality Perceived sendee dimensions, and their relationships that determine service quality among internal customers (front-line staff) and internal suppliers (support staff) within a large service organization. Front line staff Expected Service Internal Gap 3 Service Delivery Internal Gap 2 Figure 3: Internal service quality model Source: Frost and Kumar, 2000 The internal gap 1 shows the difference between support staffs perception of service quality (internal supplier) and frontline staff s expectation of service quality (internal customers). Internal gap 2 is the significant difference between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered resulting in an internal service performance gap and internal 41 Translation of Perceptions into service quality specifications i i i i i i i i i i i i i i _________________ i_____________ i i i i Support itaff I Interhal Gap 1 i i _____________ i__________ Support staff Perceptions of Front-line Expectations Perceived Service gap 3 is the gap which focuses on the front-line staff (internal customers). The perceptions of support staffs (internal supplier) service quality. The GAP model (Parasuraman et al., 1985) Much of the recent research on service quality has been carried out within the framework of the service quality gap model developed from the extensive work of Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, and 1991). The service quality gap model was derived from the magnitude and direction of five “gaps” (Figure 1) which are: 1. Gap between customers’ expectations and management’s perceptions (also known as knowledge gap). This gap may result from a lack of understanding of what customers expect from a particular service due to the absence of a proper marketing research orientation. and service quality2. Gap between management’s perception specifications (service standards gap). This gap shows the disparity between management’s knowledge of client’s expectations and the process of service producing resulting from an inadequate commitment to service quality, standardisation and the absence of goal setting. 3. Gap between service quality specification and service delivery (performance gap). This gap is the consequence of role ambiguity and conflict, lack of teamwork and poor technology. Even when guidelines 42 a perception of unfeasibility, inadequate task gap is based on the difference between front-line staffs expectations and not be up to standard due to poor performance. delivery and external communications established by promises made by a service provider’s promotional messages. This gap results from inconsistencies between the quality image portrayed in promotional activities and the actual quality of services delivered. 5. Gap between consumer’s expectation and perceived service. This gap depends on size and direction of the four gaps associated with the delivery of service quality on the marketer’s side (Parasuraman et al. (1985,1988, and 1991)). According Brown and Bond (1995), “the gap model is one of the best received and most heuristically valuable contributions to the services literature”. The model identifies four key internal discrepancies or gaps relating to managerial perceptions of service quality and tasks associated with service delivery to customers. The first four gaps (Gap 1, Gap 2, Gap 3 and Gap 4) are identified as functions of the way in which service is delivered whereas Gap 5 suggests the gap between customers’ expectations and their perceptions of actual performance and drives the perception of service quality. 43 or specifications exist for performing excellent service, its delivery may (communications gap). Customer expectations are 4. Gap between service Personal needs Past experience Consumer >Marketer GAP 3GAP1 J GAP 2 Figure 4: Gap analysis model Source: Parasuraman et al., 1985 44 Expected service | -------- r Words of mouth communication Management perceptions of the consumer expectations Translation of perceptions into service quality specifications External communi­ cations to the consumer ------------------------------ GAP 4 Service delivery (including pre and post contacts) J GAP 5 V Perceived service Extended gap model (Luk and Layton, 2002) While Parasuraman et al. (1988) identified five gaps that can result in unsuccessful service delivery; majority of the literature has focused on the fifth gap, which is the difference between customer’s expectation and perception of service quality. This study is not limited to the five gaps as Luk & Layton (2002) and Shahin, Dehghan and Albadvi (2006) addressed more gaps. There are two additional gaps that have been identified which were not included in the original service quality model (Lewis, 1987; Luk & Layton, 2002). These gaps are labelled as Gap 6 and Gap 7. Figure 5 depicts the extended gap model with the two additional gaps. Gap 6 is the discrepancy in the perceptions of customers’ expectations of service quality between hotel guests and frontline staff and Gap 7 is the gap between customer expectations of frontline staff and management perceptions of such expectations. Given that gap 5 is a function of gap 1 [Parasuraman et. al. 1985), it is logical to assume that as well as gap 1; the presence of these reasons (Luk & Layton, 2002). First, the occurrence of gaps 6 and 7 will enlarge the service delivery gap. Front-line employees holding strong faith in their knowledge of customer expectations will tend to deliver the service deviated from the specifications that were translated on the basis of the management’s understanding of customer expectations. 45 new gaps could also ultimately lead to the occurrence of gap 5 for several < GAP 5 GAP 6 GAP 4GAP 1 GAP 3 GAP 2 > Second, “when providers and consumers are operating under different perceptions there is a higher likelihood of a low quality evaluation resulting in dissatisfaction” (Brown & Swartz, 1989: 193). Zeithaml et al. (1985) also 46 Figure 5: The Extended Gap Model Source: Luk & Layton, 2002 > > > Word of Mouth Communication Service Delivery (including pre & post-contracts) Translation of Perception into Service Quality Spec. Management of Perceptions of Consumer Expectation Perceived Service Expected Service Personal Needs Past Experience External Communication Employee Perceptions of Consumer Expectation i i i GAP 7 ; I I identified two additional gaps that were not included in the original gaps proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985). These gaps are labelled as gap 6 and gap 7 in Figure 6. > > GAP 5 < Consumer Marketer GAP 3 GAP 1 GAP 2 > Figure 6: Service Quality Model Source: Zeithaml et al., 1985 47 GAP 4 ◄-------- Word of Mouth Communication Service Delivery (including pre & post-contracts) Translation of Perception into Service Quality Spec. Management of Perceptions of Consumer Expectation Expected Service Personal Needs ------ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1GAP7 I I I I I I “I I I I I I Past Experience External Communication Perceived Service f GAP 6 I- Gap 6 is the difference between consumer expectations of service and what management believes they deliver. This gap according to Zeithaml et al. (1985), is pertinent to the simple question, “Do managers overestimate their organisation’s service delivery in meeting consumers’ expectations in the hotel industry”? As mentioned in the literature review, some studies (Lewis, 1987; Coyle & Dale, 1993; Tsang & Qu, 2000) found that managers in the hotel industry tended to be very self-assured and they believed they knew best. Thus, they perceived their service delivery as being more successful than customers perceived it to be, in most cases. Gap 7 is the difference between management perceptions of consumer expectations and management’s perception of its service delivery. This gap measures the internal situation: "Does management believe they deliver as much as they believe customers expect?” Measuring management perceptions of service quality is just as important as measuring consumers' perceptions, because management perceptions of service quality directly affect service quality standards. Measurement of the gap (Gap 7) between management perceptions of consumer expectations and employees’ perceptions of an organization's service quality delivery could bring to light whether or not management has confidence in meeting customers' expectations. Summary This chapter looked at the literature related to service quality. Issues discussed in the chapter included the definitions of service, quality and service 48 quality; concept of service quality, customer expectations in service quality, the relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction and service quality in the hospitality and tourism industry. The role of frontline employees in delivering quality service and the dimensions or factors of service quality were discussed in this chapter. Finally, service quality models and theories were also discussed. 49 CHAPTER THREE EMPIRICAL ISSUES IN SERVICE QUALITY Introduction Chapter Three discusses empirical issues in the study of service quality in the hotel industry. It examines various topics such as the development of the SERVQUAL instrument, variations of the instrument, advantages and criticisms of the instrument. Validity of service quality measures, applications of SERVQUAL in different service industries including the hospitality and tourism industries are also presented in this chapter. Also the difference in guests’ expectations and service providers’ perceptions of guests’ expectations, tools and techniques used in service quality studies and some key findings from previous studies are presented in this chapter. The chapter ends with a discussion of the conceptual framework underpinning the work. Development of the SERVQUAL instrument Service quality has been the most researched area of service marketing (Fisk, Brown, & Bitner, 1993). A key point in the service marketing literature began with a series of interviews conducted in the 1980s (Parasuraman et. al., 1985). They undertook an exploratory investigation of service quality by beginning with a series of focus group interviews with consumers and 50 I, • Service quality attributes as perceived by service firm managers and consumers. • Common problems and tasks associated with providing high quality service to customers. Differences perceptions of service quality. • The feasibility of combining consumer and marketer perceptions into one service quality model viewed from the consumer’s perception (Parasuraman et al., 1985). As a result of their research, Parasuraman et al., (1985) concluded that service quality is based on the difference between what the consumer expects, and what they actually receive. Others have used the same definition (Sasser, Olsen, & Wychoff, 1978). Parasuraman and his fellow researchers suggest that service quality must be measured as the difference between the sum of customers’ expectations and perceptions of actual performance levels for a set of service attributes (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1991a). They identified exceeding customer expectations as a way to maximize quality. The higher the performance-minus-expectation score is, the higher the level of perceived service quality. The SERVQUAL instrument emerged from the Parasuraman, Berry, 51 attempting to gain insights into the following areas: executives at four nationally recognized service firms. The researchers were and Zeithaml research as an often used measure of service quality. This in consumer and service marketers’ instrument has been adapted and used in many other service industries. Examples of instruments used include, but are not limited to, industries such as retail (Hui & Toffoli, 2006), local government (Wisniewski, 2001), library service (Cook & Thompson, 2000), hospital service (Lam, 1997), shipping (Durvasula, Lysonski, & Mehta, 2004), and information systems (Jiang, Klein, & Crampton, 2000; Kettinger & Lee, 1997), where the applicability of the instrument has been studied and researchers (Jiang, Klein & Carr, 2002; Jiang et al., 2000; Kettinger & Lee, 1997; Pitt, Watson & Kavan, 1997) argue that it has great potential. History of service quality assessment The 1985 Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml article, resulting from in- depth interviews, identified a group of five key gaps that exist with regard to executives’ perception of service quality. This began the modem service quality discussion in the marketing discipline. The gaps identified in the 1985 article and a definition of each follows. Difference between consumer expectations and managementGapl: perceptions of consumer expectations. Gap2: Difference between management perceptions of consumer expectations and service quality specifications. Gap 3: Difference between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered. 52 I Gap 4: Difference between service delivery and what is communicated about the service to consumers. Gap 5: Difference between consumer expectations and perceptions of actual service. The focus groups used in the 1985 article revealed a common set of criteria used in evaluating service quality. These criteria were labelled “service quality determinants” and a brief description of each is as follows: Reliability involves honouring promises, delivering service on-time, and maintaining a consistent level of performance and dependability. Responsiveness is the willingness of an employee to perform a service in a timely manner. Competence is the possession of the needed skills and knowledge to attain a service goal. Access is the convenience and ease of contacting a service provider. Courtesy involves appearance, politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of the service provider. Communication is the information, including cost, service level, and problem resolution processes, provided to the service customer (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1991a). Credibility of the service provider revolves around keeping the believability and honesty. The eighth of the ten determinants is security and is risk.anddangereliminatingconcerned with minimizing or Understanding/knowing the customer involves taking the time to recognize the needs of the customers, as well as providing individual attention. Lastly, 53 Is il 1 I I customers’ best interest in mind. Credibility entails trustworthiness, tangibles include the physical presence of the service such as facilities, personnel appearance, and equipment (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1991a). After assessing the determinants and gaps associated with service quality, an instrument expectations of service category and 97 items related to a customer’s perception of the actual service quality that was received during the last service encounter with a particular service provider (Parasuraman, et al., 1988). The 97 items were constructed based on the ten service quality dimensions determined earlier. The instrument was administered to 200 adult respondents in a large shopping mall. The respondents were segmented across five service categories - appliance repair and maintenance, retail banking, long distance telephone, securities brokerage, and credit cards. The above five service categories were chosen because they were representative of service in general (Lovelock, 1983). performance of the service provider and customer expectations. The famous equation, Q=P-E was derived from Gap 5, where Q= perceived service quality, P= perceived service, and E= expected service. According to the equation, the key to maximizing service quality is in maximizing the perceived service - expected service gap. The resulting items were then plotted in rank order by correlation for each dimension. Items with low correlations were removed from the instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1991a). 54 i ■ I i a customer would expect within a particular service was produced which contained 97 items related to ■■ I r Measurement items were calculated by comparing perceived An iterative process was undertaken until a final set of 54 items was revealed. Factor analysis was then performed to further investigate. Thirty-four items emerged from the factor analysis representing seven distinct dimensions. responsiveness, understanding/knowing customer, and access. The remaining five dimensions, communication, credibility, security, competence, and courtesy, collapsed into two distinct factors labelled D4 and D5 (Parasuraman, et al., 1988). To further evaluate the instrument, a second sample was selected from a shopping centre in another part of the country. An analysis of the survey data ultimately resulted in a 22 item SERVQUAL after 12 items were removed due to low correlation scores and poor factor loadings. Factor analysis resulted in five factors. The factors Tangibles, Reliability, and Responsiveness remained the same as in the previous analysis. Two new factors were established by collapsing previously established factors together. Assurance evolved as a result of combining D4 and D5, while Empathy emerged from the combining of Understanding/Knowing the Customer and Access (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1991a). Items representing the original dimensions of communication, credibility, security, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing customer, and access, ultimately loaded in the dimensions Assurance and Empathy. Although SERVQUAL resulted in five distinct factors, each of the original 10 55 i ( I j I 3 Five of the 10 original dimensions remained tangibles, reliability, dimensions is represented in the instrument. A brief description of the five dimensions follows (Parasuraman, et al., 1988): Tangibles represent the physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel and presence of users. The tangible aspect of a service is one of the few dimensions that potential service patrons can know and evaluate in advance. Reliability refers to the ability to perform the promised service organisation’s promotional efforts can contribute to customers’ expectations. Consistency of performance at the highest standard is crucial to reliability. Responsiveness is the willingness to help customers and provide prompt attention. Hotel guests expect their requests to be handled quickly and accurately. Assurance indicates courteous and knowledgeable employees who convey trust and confidence. Assurance contains elements of the hotel’s credibility, competence and security. The empathy dimension includes caring and individual attention to Quantitative tests on the data across multiple industries and stages revealed high reliability in the instrument. Further, a consistent factor was developed, even after returning to the stage one data, removing the 12 items displaced in stage two, and reanalyzing the data. Further tests provide statistical support for validity of the instrument. Ultimately, a 22-item scale was developed, with good reliability and validity that could be used to measure and understand service quality (Parasuraman, et al., 1988). 56 t I users. Empathy expresses an understanding of customers’ needs and wants. dependably and accurately. Promises made through an Parasuramaii, Berry, and Zeithaml continued their work into the 1990s later discovered (Zeithaml et al., 1993). Evaluating the zone of tolerance required the addition of another SERVQUAL section or column, namely the minimal level of service required. This newer conceptual SERVQUAL model was based on the following two propositions: 1. Customers assess service performance based on two standards: what they desire and what they deem acceptable. 2. A zone of tolerance separates desired service from adequate service (Parasuraman et al., 1985). In essence, the zone of tolerance is the area in which customers tolerate service levels. As long as customers are in this zone, they are accepting of the level of service currently being received. This zone is apt to fluctuate depending on a number of factors such as price (Zeithaml et al., 1993). For example, an increase in the price of a service may not affect the desired level of service required by a customer although the price increase could require a higher level of adequate service, thus decreasing the size of the zone of tolerance. Variations of the SERVQUAL instrument The SERVQUAL instrument is one of the premiere instruments used to measure perceived service quality by customers (Lam, Wong & Yeung, 1997; 57 J I L I ! customer’s adequate level of service and their desired level of service, was with success as well. A zone of tolerance, or the difference between a Van Dyke, Prybutok, & Kappelman, 1999; Newman, 2001). It has a rich tradition in the marketing literature and has been validated numerous times in a variety of situations. The original version of SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988) consists of two sections, both containing 22 questions. The first section second section measures the customers’ perception about a particular company I in that industry. modifications included: 1. The “should” terminology which contributed to unrealistically high expectation scores. Thus slightly different wording was used to alleviate this potential problem. The revised wording focused on what customers would expect from companies that deliver excellent service. An example of an original and updated item follows. Original item 2. Their physical facilities should be visually appealing. Revised item 2. The physical facilities at excellent telephone companies will be visually appealing. 2. On the perception side of the scale, slight wording changes were expectation items. 58 i si I I Several changes were made to the original instrument in 1991. The made to make items more consistent with the revised measures service expectations of companies within certain industry. The negatively worded. Empirical tests revealed that the negatively worded items could potentially cause problems. Negatively worded items were re-worded in a positive format. 4. Two items were dropped and two were added. The items were substituted to more fully capture the dimensions and to incorporate suggestions made by managers who were involved in pretesting the instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The next SERVQUAL version, in 1994, (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1991) was based on the zone of tolerance concept (Zeithaml et al., 1993). The calculation of the zone of tolerance is achieved by subtracting minimum service from the desired service rating. The addition of minimum service resulted in a third column (in addition to one for perceived service and one for expected or desired service), thus the SERVQUAL. The use of gap measures, inherent in all SERVQUAL versions, has been challenged by some researchers (Carr, 2002; Peter, Churchill & Brown, 1993). They argued that service quality, measured with the SERVPERF instrument, should be measured as perceived service quality only due to i problems associated with the gap scoring, greater variance explanation with SERVPERF, and the smaller number of items used (Bolton & Drew, 1991; Churchill & Suprenant, 1982; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Cadotte, Woodruff & Jenkins, 1987). A comparison of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF 59 i j i 3. In the original SERVQUAL format, six of the 22 items were “three-column format” of r f instruments provided support for the superiority of SERVPERF