This study assesses the usefulness and application of the SERVQUAL ... service dimensions and to refining their marketing efforts so that customer expectations.
Int. J. Hospitality Management Vol. 14 No. 3/4, pp. 293-310, 1995 Copyright @ 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 027B-4319195 $9.50+0.00
Pergamon
02794319(95)00037-2
Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing Centre for Tourism, Southern Cross University, P.O. Box 157, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia
Definitive conclusions have yet to be made about the criteria by which restaurant patrons assess service quality and how best restaurateurs can improve their service offerings. This study assesses the usefulness and application of the SERVQUAL instrument in measuring and comparing service quality within thefine dining sector of the restaurant industry. It demonstrates how easily and inexpensively the instrument can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual restaurants’ service dimensions so that management can improve weak aspects of service and refine their marketing efforts so that customer expectations are met. The study also offers some insights on the aspects of service which restaurant patrons consider most important.
Key words:
SERVQUAL restaurants service quality customer expectations customer perceptions competitive advantage
Introduction As many industry sectors mature, with individual businesses facing increased competition for the consumer dollar, competitive advantage through high quality service is an increasingly important weapon in business survival. Few would dispute that consumers have become increasingly more sensitive to product and service quality in recent years. Consumerism, media attention, increased advertising and promotion and technological progress have all contributed to the consumers’ belief that they have a right to receive products and services which meet their expectations (Hart and Casserly, 1985). The restaurant industry has certainly not been exempt from either increased competition or from rising consumer expectations of quality. In the highly competitive food service industry, large chain operators have tended to gain competitive advantage through cost leadership, possible only through standardisation and economies of scale arising from large market shares, whereas smaller, independent restaurants attempt to gain advantage through differentiation. However, as Worsfold and Jameson (1991) explain, of the fundamental variables contributing to customer satisfaction in a restaurant-meal quality, the environment and service-the former two can easily be improved, but it is the service element which will eventually provide a business with a sustainable competitive advan293
294
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
tage. Furthermore, other researchers have noted that the long-term financial viability of service establishments is closely linked to their ability to deliver high quality service to current and potential customers (Garvin, 1987; Keiser, 1988). Given the importance of high quality service to business prosperity, there are many potential benefits for restaurateurs from conducting a customer-based evaluation of the service quality experienced at their establishments. This article reports on a study which demonstrates the effective use of the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1985; 1988) in assessing the customer-perceived service quality of two different styles of licensed, fine dining restaurants-a French and a Chinese restaurant.
Research objectives The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness and applicability of the SERVQUAL instrument (1988) to the restaurant sector by measuring, comparing and contrasting patrons’ perceived service quality of two restaurants. The results of a quantitative assessment of service quality may provide some insights on how patrons rate the service quality of a particular restaurant, thus enabling restaurateurs to position their service quality in relation to their competitors and to identify dimensions of service where they excel or need to improve. More specifically, the research objectives were to: (1) Assess the usefulness and application of the SERVQUAL instrument (1988) to restaurants within a common sector. The few previous applications of the SERVQUAL instrument to the restaurant industry have been restricted to either comparisons of service quality across industries, or within one chain of restaurants. (2) Show, by example, how the SERVQUAL instrument can identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual restaurants’ service dimensions. Knowledge of these strengths and weaknesses will allow restaurants to direct their scarce resources to improving weak service dimensions and to refining their marketing efforts so that customer expectations are met by the service delivered. (3) Gain some insights into the dimensions of service quality which restaurant patrons consider important and whether their expectations may, or may not, differ according to the type of ethnic restaurant patronised.
Review of the related literature Despite the long existence of service industries, some characteristics which distinguish them from goods-producing industries were only first recognised in the 1930s when Fisher (1935) coined the term ‘tertiary sector’. Similarly, Judd (1964) was one of the first to distinguish between goods and non-goods services, with the latter referred to as ‘experiential possession’. While little was written on service quality until the 1970s the recognition that services are related to the experiences encountered by the customer during service delivery, paved the way for further research into service and service quality. Substantial research into service and service quality has only been undertaken in the last 20 years. As Gronroos (1990) notes, ‘We are still in the early phases of developing a theory of service’. Furthermore, Parasuraman et al. (1985) note there were limited attempts to
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
295
define and model quality in service industries during the 197Os, due to difficulties in delimiting and measuring the construct. For instance, a literature review reveals that researchers into services such as McConnell (1968), Shapiro (1972), Jacoby et al. (1973), Rathmell(1974), Hill (1977) and Chase (1978) either loosely defined the concept of quality or engaged in individual evaluations of quality, which had no generalised application. While this literature is of limited use in suggesting acceptable concepts and measurements of service quality, it does highlight the difficulties of research in this area and provides a reminder to be selective on concepts and models which purport to measure service quality. Definition and measurement of quality
Early efforts in defining and measuring quality were mostly centred in the tangible products (goods) sector, while the seemingly more difficult services sector was ignored. Gronroos (1990) notes that product quality was traditionally linked to the technical specifications of goods, with most definitions of quality arising from the manufacturing sector where quality control has received prolonged attention and research. For example, according to the Japanese philosophy, quality is ‘zero defects-doing it right the first time’ (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Crosby (1979) defines quality as ‘conformance to standards’; while for Garvin (1983), quality involves eliminating ‘internal failures’ (defects before the product leaves the factory) and ‘external failures’ (defects after product use). While these product-based definitions of quality may be appropriate to the goods-producing sector ‘knowledge about goods quality. . . is insufficient to understand service quality’ (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Literature published in the late 1970s and early 1980s provided a clearer understanding of service quality and its measurement. For example, Bateson (1979), Shostack (1977), Chase (1978) and Lovelock (1991) recognised the intangible characteristic of services and that most services are performances rather than objects and are experiences rendered, unlike goods which are tangible objects to be possessed. For the restaurant industry, the intangibility of services means that precise specifications for the uniform quality of service are difficult, if at all possible, to set. This makes it difficult for restaurant managers, staff and patrons to count, measure, test or verify service outputs and service quality. As a consequence, Bowen and Cummings (1990) suggest that ‘an organisation’s overall climate of service, the atmospherics of feel of the setting, is very important in shaping both customers’ and front-line employees’ attitude about the process and outcome of service delivery’. This implies that, for the present study, it was imperative that the instrument used for measuring service quality included a means of capturing patrons’ perception of the tangible influences on service quality, such as the physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel. Carman and Langeard (1980), Gronroos (1978, 1983) and Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982) have discussed another characteristic of services which makes service quality definition and measurement difficult-its simultaneous production and consumption. Particularly in labour-intensive services such as restaurants, quality is created during the process of service delivery, in encounters between staff and patrons. This then suggests that an instrument to measure service quality must have adequate means of assessing patrons’ perceptions of service quality during these service encounters. A third characteristic of service is its heterogeneous nature, especially in those services with high labour content. This means that service performance will vary from producer to
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
296
producer, from patron to patron and also from one encounter to the next. Booms and Bitner (1981) and Zeithaml (1981) have suggested that the heterogeneous nature of service hinders the consistency of service delivery and thus, assessment of service quality. What the establishment had intended to deliver might be quite different from what the patrons received (Booms and Bitner, 1981). An understanding of the characteristics of service is necessary in the selection of an appropriate instrument to measure service quality. Such an instrument needs to accommodate the difficulties raised above and recognise that the quality of services is more difficult for customers to evaluate than the quality of goods, that quality assessments are made not only on the service outcome, but also on the process of service delivery and that perceptions of quality result from comparisons of actual performance with the customer’s prior expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Indeed, Sasser et al. (1978), Gronroos (1982), Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982), Lewis and Booms (1983) and Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988) all concurred that service quality can be measured by comparing the expectations of patrons with their perception of the actual service performance. Indeed, Gronroos (1982), Parasuraman et aE. (1985) and Barrington and Olsen (1987) have developed models of service quality based on this concept.
The SERVQUAL
instrument
One of the few tested instruments available to measure service quality from the customer’s perspective is the SERVQUAL instrument, developed by Parasuraman et al. in 1985, and later refined. Its development involved in-depth interviews with executives from large firms in four selected service segments-appliance repair and maintenance, long-distance telephone, retail banking and credit cards-which varied along key dimensions appropriate in the categorisation of services. In addition, three customer focus groups in each of these service segments were conducted (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The results led Parasuraman et al. to the important conclusion that, irrespective of the kind of service, the criteria used by customers to assess perceived service quality will be very similar. Nevertheless, various researchers, and indeed the developers of the SERVQUAL instrument themselves, have recognised that both the instrument itself and the conceptualisation of service quality may benefit from further refinement. For example, Carman (1990), Finn and Lamb (1991), Babakus and Boller (1992) and Brown et al. (1993) have argued that the SERVQUAL instrument needs to be customised to the service in question, perhaps by including additional dimensions which are specific to the industry in question. Cronin and Taylor (1992), Brown et aE. (1993) and Teas (1993) have questioned the underlying disconfirmation paradigm which conceptualises service quality as the difference between customer perceptions and expectations. Indeed, the former two researchers have developed instruments to measure service quality based only on customer perceptions. However, as Parasuraman et al. (1993) have argued, a perceptions rating alone may not lead to the same, or the correct, practical implications as the ‘gap’ score which, for example, allows managers to better understand whether higher expectations or lower perceptions might be responsible for declining service quality assessment over time. At this point, alternative measurements of service quality have yet to demonstrate their superiority over the SERVQUAI scale. In the original SERVQUAL instrument, 10 categories were proposed which the researchers believed captured the dimensions by which consumers assess service quality.
Measuring quality
in restaurantoperations
297
Later research and scale purification resulted in the elimination and reassigning of certain categories. The end-product is the present SERVQUAL instrument, which was shown by its developers, through rigorous pretesting, validity and reliability computations across the four sectors, to have good reliability and validity, and the ability to be used in future studies with minor adaptations (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The instrument consists of five service dimensions, with two sets of 22 item statements for the ‘expectation’ and ‘perception’ sections of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). Perceived service quality is measured by subtracting customer perception scores from customer expectation scores, both for each dimension and overall. The magnitude and direction of the result identifies the areas of strengths and weaknesses of the firm’s service. The five dimensions considered distinct components of perceived service quality are: (1) Tangibles, which pertain to the establishment’s physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel. Since restaurant patrons do not receive only meals, but also a large component of service, they undoubtedly depend on other cues in the absence of tangible evidence by which to assess service quality. (2) Reliability, which refers to the organisations’ ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately. In food outlets, this may involve reservations of tables, adherence to customer requests regarding the preparation of menu items and accurate billing. (3) Responsiveness, which refers to the willingness of service providers to help customers and provide prompt service. Perceived service quality may be enhanced if, for example, patrons are assisted with the wine list and menu, or if staff respond appropriately to a customer’s request for prompt service. (4) Assurance, which relates to the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust and confidence. For example, patrons should be able to trust the recommendations of the sommelier, feel confident that food is free from contamination and be able to voice any concern without fear of insult or recrimination. (5) Empathy, which refers to the caring, individualised attention the firm provides to its customers. This may involve employees providing personalised attention to patrons’ needs, perhaps by adhering to special dietary requirements, or by being sympathetic towards customers’ problems. Application of the SERVQUAL instrument in the hospitality industry Limited applications of the SERVQUAL instrument in hospitality businesses have been documented. One application by Fick and Ritchie (1991) evaluated the perceived quality of airlines, hotels, restaurants and ski area services. Their application demonstrated the usefulness of the instrument in indicating the relative importance of customer expectations of different dimensions of service quality across different industry sectors, in comparing various dimensions of service quality across different sectors and in offering insights into the nature and extent of service quality differences across firms within industry sectors (Fick and Ritchie, 1991). While Fick and Ritchie’s research addressed service quality across a range of different industry sectors, Bojanic and Rosen (1994) applied the SERVQUAL instrument to one restaurant chain. Both Bojanic and Rosen (1994) and Fick and Ritchie (1991) found that the three most important expectations of restaurant patrons were assurance, reliability and tangibles, respectively. In addition, while customer perceptions of service were lower
298
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee
Hing
than their expectations on every dimension, the restaurants in both studies were less successful in meeting customer expectations of reliability and responsiveness, than they were for the tangible aspects of the service. Results such as these can provide important direction for management in formulating strategy, in managing customer expectations and perceptions, and in operations, marketing and human resource management (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994). Given the rigorous development and testing of the SERVQUAL instrument and its successful application across a range of industries, its use in the present study is considered appropriate. However, while the instrument has been used in the restaurant industry to compare service quality to that of other sectors and to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of one restaurant chain, it has not, to the authors’ knowledge, been used to compare the strengths and weaknesses of two or more restaurants, as was done in the present study. As Fick and Ritchie (1991) note, ‘the power of the SERVQUAL tool is perhaps greatest in situations involving comparisons of one firm with another within a common service segment. In this regard, information as to which organization is perceived to provide better service is available, along with the potential to identify specific areas of excellence or weakness’. The present study hopes to clarify the usefulness of the SERVQUAL instrument when used for these purposes.
Research methodology The subjects of the study were two restaurants situated in Launceston, Australia. Both are independent, licensed, fine-dining establishments, with a seating capacity of 80-100 patrons, centrally located and with good accessibility. In addition, each restaurant had been operating under the same management for over 6 years, and would thus be expected to have a well-established approach to service delivery. Fifty participants were randomly selected from a variety of sources to ensure a diversity of opinions on the service quality of the restaurants. A random numbers table was used to select the 50 participants from 126 volunteers from a study population of 418, consisting of 80 staff from a private school, 234 parents of students at that school, 60 medical staff of a local hospital, 24 staff from an importing firm and 20 members of a local church group. While these individuals probably represent higher than average income earners, this was considered appropriate given that the restaurants were both fine-dining establishments. Nevertheless, that the occupations of participants included teachers, doctors, nurses, accountants, tradesmen, business people, lawyers, housewives, university students and farmers, indicates sufficient diversity for the purposes of the study. In addition, participants were required to be over 18 years of age, to be regular diners in restaurants (not less than once a month) and to have dined in a licensed restaurant within the previous 3 months. A random numbers table was then used to select 25 of these participants to assess the service quality of the Chinese restaurant, with the remaining 25 assigned the French restaurant. All participants completed and returned Part A (expectations of service quality) of the SERVQUAL instrument before visiting the restaurant and were then sent Part B of the questionnaire (perceptions of service quality) after their dining experience. One hundred per cent response rate was obtained for both mailings.
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
299
The SERVQUAL instrument was used in its entirety, with only slight modification of wording to make it specific to restaurants. As in the original, a seven-point Likert scale was used for respondents to indicate their extent of agreement to the given statements, which are grouped into the five service dimensions identified earlier. In addition, Section 2 of Part A requested that respondents indicate the relative importance of each of these dimensions to their evaluation of service quality, by assigning a total of 100 points amongst the five dimensions. This allowed both weighted and unweighted scores to be calculated for each service dimension and for comparisons between the service quality of each restaurant to be made.
Results Table 1 shows the results for both restaurants for the respondents’ expectations and perceptions of service quality. The weighted and unweighted service quality scores for both restaurants along all dimensions, and their total mean scores, are also shown.
Discussion Patrons’ expectations of the restaurants’ service quality Patrons’ expectations of service quality, both along all dimensions and overall, are very similar, with the highest expectations related to assurance and reliability, respectively, and the lowest expectation related to tangibles. The results imply that restaurant patrons may have common expectations of different aspects of service quality in fine-dining restaurants, regardless of their ethnic type, although more extensive research would be needed to verify this contention. Importantly, the data support the findings of Fick and Ritchie (1991) and Bojanic and Rosen (1994) that assurance and reliability, respectively, are the two most important expectations of restaurant patrons. As Fick and Ritchie (1991) explain, ‘When the managerial situation involves limited resources, this determination of various consumer expectation levels can assist in determining an appropriate allocation of consumer service efforts’. Bojanic and Rosen (1994) suggest operational changes to improve reliability, internal marketing and training to improve assurance and total quality management programmes to improve both. The least important expectation in both restaurants was the tangible dimension. However, this result should not be interpreted to imply that management can ignore this aspect of service or that it is not important to customers. Indeed, Saleh and Ryan (1991), in their examination of service quality in the hotel industry, suggest that ‘should a service be absent, the very fact of its absence makes it important’. A ‘threshold effect’ occurs, where, if the tangible dimension of service meets the expected minimum, then patrons will focus on other dimensions in their evaluation of service quality. Restaurateurs should be careful to maintain at least this expected minimum in their physical facilities, equipment and staff appearance.
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
300
Table 1. Respondents‘ expectations the French and Chinese restaurants
and perceptions
and the resulting service quality of
Perceptionb
Unweighted quality=
Weighted qualityd
5.44 6.39 6.07 6.41 6.23 6.11
5.34 5.97 5.70 6.04 5.56 5.72
-0.10 -0.42 -0.37 -0.37 -0.67 -0.39
-0.02 -0.10 -0.04 -0.06 -0.17 -0.39
Chinese restaurant (n = 25) Tangibles 5.81 Reliability 6.46 Responsiveness 6.23 6.47 Assurance 6.08 Empathy 6.21 Total score’
5.50 3.76 3.46 3.63 3.54 3.98
-0.31 -2.70 -2.77 -2.84 -2.54 -2.23
-0.05 -0.60 -0.59 -0.51 -0.67 -2.42
Dimension
Expectationa
French restaurant (n = 25) Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Total score@
aExpectation scores are measured on a seven-point Liket-t scale, where the higher the score, the greater the expectation of service. For each respondent, ratings for each statement pertaining to a dimension were added, then divided by the number of statements. These mean scores for all respondents were added and then divided by the number of patrons to obtain a total mean expectation score of all respondents for each dimension. bTotal mean perception scores for all respondents for each dimension were obtained using the same methods as their total mean expectation scores. ‘Unweighted quality scores for each dimension for each restaurant are the difference between the perception and expectation scores. dThe weighted quality score takes into account the relative importance of the five service dimensions. The mean service quality score given by each respondent for each dimension was multiplied by the points out of 100 allocated to the importance of that dimension in evaluating service quality. Total weighted scores were obtained by adding the weighted service quality scores for all respondents across all dimensions and then dividing by 25. ‘Total scores for each restaurant were obtained by adding respondents’ mean scores for each dimension and then dividing by five.
Patrons’ perceptions of the restaurants’ service quality
As would be expected, patrons’ perceptions of the various dimensions of service quality differed between the two restaurants, with assurance, reliability and responsiveness for the French restaurant and tangibles, reliability and assurance for the Chinese restaurant being rated the highest, respectively. However, in evaluating and comparing these results, it is necessary to take into account both customer expectations, as well as the importance they attach to each service dimension.
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
301
For both the French and Chinese restaurants, customer perceptions of service quality along all dimensions fall short of patrons’ expectations, although a comparison of the unweighted quality scores indicates that the French restaurant is closer to meeting the expectations of its patrons along all dimensions of service quality than is the Chinese establishment. It is apparent that empathy and reliability are the two dimensions which fall most below customer expectations in the French restaurant, while the Chinese restaurant could substantially improve its service along all of the intangible dimensions. However, to better determine the aspects of service most worthy of attention, it is necessary to consider the relative importance which customers attach to the various dimensions of service quality, by evaluating their weighted scores. For both restaurants, the weighted quality scores indicate that improved empathy and reliability would contribute most to raising customers’ perceptions of the service experience. That is, if resources are limited, management would benefit most from concentrating on these two areas. Staff may need to be recruited, trained or encouraged to be more caring, willing to help patrons and offer more prompt and individualised attention. In addition, management could improve operational controls so that the service is consistently delivered as ordered or promised. However, for the Chinese restaurant, it should be noted that the weighted quality scores also support the earlier conclusion that management needs to make a concerted effort to improve service quality in all service dimensions, except for tangibles.
Implications
and conclusions
A number of implications can be drawn from this quantitative assessment of service quality in two restaurants. Firstly, the study has demonstrated that it is possible to measure service quality, even in labour intensive establishments such as restaurants. Furthermore, the SERVQUAL instrument has been found to provide a relatively simple and inexpensive means of doing this and this implies that interested parties can regularly conduct service assessments, which Parasuraman et al. (1988) advocate as necessary to service improvement. Regular assessments can, for example, monitor the effects of service quality programmes (Bojanic and Rosen, 1994) or track whether customer expectations of the service are changing over time (Parasuraman et al., 1993). Secondly, the results of the study indicate that the measurement of service quality has many potential benefits for restaurateurs. Identifying customer expectations and perceptions of service quality for a particular establishment allows management to better tailor its marketing efforts to ensure patrons’ expectations are met. This includes identifying, prioritising and improving areas of service weakness and ensuring that valuable resources are allocated in the most effective areas. In addition, promotional messages can be refined so that customers have realistic expectations of the service offered. As Bateson (1992) notes, ‘A problem may arise if the establishment is perceived by the (patrons) to have failed to deliver the level of service quality it promises to provide in its advertisement’. Similarly, Bojanic and Rosen (1994) contend that all restaurateurs must determine their definition of quality and communicate it to customers so that realistic expectations are formed. As Martin (1986) notes, ‘Each restaurant’s exact specification of “quality” service is unique, because each restaurant seeks to fulfil slightly different customer needs’.
302
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
Thirdly, the results of the study suggest that it is useful to compare service quality of firms within the same industry sector. For example, knowledge of a restaurant’s strengths and weaknesses in relation to its competitors can help management tailor its promotional message so that competitive advantage is maximised. To more effectively position itself in the marketplace, a restaurant may emphasise certain service strengths, or downplay other aspects on which competitors perform more competently. For large chain or franchised networks, this type of comparative analysis and positioning could be invaluable. In addition, when the performance of one outlet can affect the reputation of an entire network, identifying and improving those outlets which are a weak link in the chain can be crucial. Valuable lessons in marketing, human resource management and operations can also be learnt from those outlets where service meets or exceeds customer expectations. Finally, a quantitative assessment of service quality has potential benefits for restaurant patrons. Apart from the obvious enhancement of the dining experience which should result from identifying and improving service weaknesses, the SERVQUAL instrument offers a means of assisting restaurant patrons in their choice of food outlets. Good food guides, restaurant reviewers and dining clubs could offer a valuable service by providing such quantitative assessments. Naturally, the research results have greatest use for the two restaurants examined. The results are also limited by the small sample size, as well as geographical and temporal constraints. Extensive research on service quality in restaurants has yet to be conducted before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the criteria by which customers assess service quality and how best restaurateurs can improve their service offerings. Nevertheless, this study has contributed to this goal through an application of the SERVQUAL instrument to measure and compare service quality within one sector of the restaurant industry. References Babakus, E. and Boller, G. W. (1992) An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Business Research 24, 253-268. Barrington, M. N. and Olsen, M. D. (1987) Concept of service in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 6, 131-138. Bateson, J. E. G. (1979) Why we need service marketing. In Ferrell, 0. C., Brown, S. W. and Lamb, C. W. (eds), Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing. Chicago, American Marketing Association, pp. 131-146. Bateson, J. E. G. (1992) Managing Services Marketing: Text and Readings, 2nd edn. The Dryden Press, Florida. Bojanic, D. C. and Rosen, L. D. (1993) Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal 18, 3-14. Booms, B. H. and Bitner, M. J. (1981) Marketing strategies and organisation structures for service firms. In Donnelly, J. and George, W. (eds), Marketing of Services, pp. 47-51. American Marketing, Chicago. Bowen, D. E. and Cummings, T. G. (1990) Suppose we took service seriously? In Bowen, D. E., Chase, R. B. and Cummings, T. G. (eds), Service Management Effectiveness: Balancing Strategy, Organization, Human Resources, Operations and marketing, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco. Brown, T. S., Churchill, G. A. and Peter, J. P. (1993) Research note: improving the measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing 69, 127-139.
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
303
Carman, J. M. (1990) Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions. Journal of Retailing 66, 33-55. Carman, J. M. and Langeard, E. (1980) Growth strategies of service firms. Strategic Management Journal 7-22. Chase, R. (1978) Where does the customer fit in a service operation? Harvard Business Review 137142. Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992) Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing 56,55-68. Crosby, P. B. (1979) Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New American Library, New York. Fick, G. R. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991) Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry. Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 2-9. Finn, D. W. and Lamb, C. W. (1991) An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in a retail setting. In Holman, R. H. and Solomon, M. R. (eds), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 18. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. Fisher, A. G. B. (1935) The Clash of Progress and Security. Macmillan, London. 65-73. Garvin, D. A. (1983) Quality on the line. Harvard Business Review 61, Sept.-Oct., Garvin, D. A. (1987) Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review 65, Nov-Dee, 101-109. Gronroos, C. (1978) A service-oriented approach to marketing and services. European Journal of Marketing 12,588-601. Gronroos, C. (1982) Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration, Helsingfors, Sweden. Gronroos, C. (1983) Innovative Marketing strategies and organisations structures for service firms. In Berry, I. et al. (eds), Proceedings: Emery’s Perspective on Service marketing. American Marketing Association, Chicago. Gronroos, C. (1990) Service Management and Marketing: Moments of Truth in Service Competition. D. C. Heath-Lexington Books, Lexington, MS. Hart, C. W. L. and Casserly, G. D. (1985) Quality: a brand-new, time-tested strategy. The Cornell H. R.A. Quarterly, Nov., 52-63. Hill, T. P. (1977) On goods and services. Review of Income and Wealth 23, Dec., 315-338. Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C. and Haddock, R. A. (1973) Price, brand name and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 55,570-579. Judd, R. C. (1964) The case of redefining services. Journal of Marketing 28,59. Keiser, T. C. (1988) Strategies for enhancing service quality. Journal of Service Marketing 2, Summer, 65-70. Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J. R. (1982) Service Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions. Service Management Institute, Helsinki. Lewis, R. C. and Booms, B. H. (1983) Customer care in service organizations. In Johnston, R. (ed), The Management of Service Operations: Proceedings of the UK Operations Management AssociBedford. ation Annual International Conference. pp. 183-194. IFS Publications, Lovelock, C. H. (1991) Services Marketing, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. Martin, W. B. (1986) Defining what quality service is for you. The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly, February, 32-38. McConnell, J. D. (1968) Effect of pricing on perception of product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 52,300-303. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49, Fall, 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64, Spring, 12-37.
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
304
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry L. L. (1993) Research note: more on improving service quality measurement. Journal of Retailing 69, Spring, 140-147. Rathmell, J. R. (1974) Marketing in the Service Sector. Winthrop, Cambridge, MS. Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991) Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model. The Service Industries Journal 11, July, 324-343. Sasser, W. E., Olson, W. P. and Wyckoff, D. D. (1978) Management of Service Operations. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. Shapiro, B. (1972) The Price of Consumer Goods: Theory and Practice. Working Paper, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Shostack, G. L. (1977) Breaking Free From Product Marketing. Journalof Marketing41, April, 73-80. Teas, R. K. (1993) Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived service quality. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 8, 33-54.
Worsfold, P. and Jameson, S. (1991) Human resource management, a response to change in the 1990s. In Teare, R. and Boer, A. (eds), Strategic Hospitality Management: Theory and Practice for the 1990s. Cassell, London. Zeithaml, V. A. (1981) How consumer evaluation process differs between goods and services. In Donnelly, J. and George, W. (eds), Marketing of Services. pp. 186-190. American Marketing, Chicago.
About the Authors Yun Lok Lee (B.Arts (Economics); B.Bus (Tourism); Dip.Education) is currently a Masters by research candidate at the Centre for Tourism, Southern Cross University. He has many years of experience as the owner-operator of licensed, fine-dining restaurants in Australia, one of which has won a number of Australian awards for excellence. His research interests include restaurant management and the Tasmanian tourism product. Nerilee Hing (B.Bus. (Tourism), M.App.Sc.) is a Lecturer at the Centre for Tourism at Southern Cross University in Lismore, Australia. Her research interests include hospitality and small business management and she has designed and delivered tertiary courses in . tourism, restaurant and club management.
Appendix A: SERVQUAL questionnaire
questionnaire
instructions
for completing this
Dear Respondent Please follow these instructions
closely when completing
this questionnaire.
There are two parts of the questionnaire, Part A and Part B. You are asked to complete Part A of the questionnaire which measures your expectations of service in the restaurant you are going to dine in. On completion of this questionnaire, please kindly sent it back to me in the stamped addressed envelope one day prior to your dining at the restaurant. Please contact me by telephone the day after you have dined at the restaurant so that Part B of the questionnaire may be made available to you. This too, is to be completed and returned to me in the stamped addressed envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank
you for assisting
Yun Lok Lee
in this research
project.
305
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
Part A (To be completed before dining at the restaurant) Directions: Based on your experience as a consumer of hospitality (restaurant) service, please think about the kind of restaurant that would deliver excellent quality of service. Think about the kind of restaurant which you would be pleased to patronise. Please show the extent to which you think such a restaurant would possess the feature described in each statement. If you feel a feature is not at all essential for an excellent restaurant such as the one you have in mind, circle the number 1. If you feel a feature is absolutely essential for an excellent restaurant, circle number 7. If your feelings are less strong, circle one of the numbers in the middle. There are no right or wrong answers-all I am interested in is a number that truly reflects your feelings regarding the restaurant that would deliver excellent quality of service. Item statements El
An excellent restaurant will have modern-looking equipment, eg: dining facility, bar facility, crockery, cutlery, etc.
1234567
E2
The physical facilities, eg: buildings, signs, dining room decor, lighting, carpet, etc, at an excellent restaurant will be visually appealing.
1234567
E3
Staff at an excellent restaurant will appear neat, eg: uniform, grooming, etc.
1234567
E4
Materials associated with the service, eg: pamphlets, statements, table line, serviettes, menu and wine list will be visually appealing in an excellent restaurant.
1234567
E5
When an excellent restaurant promises to do something by a certain time, they will do so, eg: patrons request to have meals finished by a certain time.
1234567
E6
When patrons have a problem, an excellent restaurant will show a genuine interest in solving it, eg: error in the bill presentation, the food is too salty, allergic to food additive.
1234567
E7
An excellent restaurant will perform the service right the first time, eg: drink or food order correctly taken and served first time.
1234567
ES
An excellent restaurant will provide its service at the time it promises to do so, eg: drink or food served at the time promised.
1234567
E9
An excellent restaurant will insist on error-free service, eg: drinks and food given correctly, no mistakes appear on patron’s bill.
1234567
306
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
El0
Staff of an excellent restaurant will tell patrons exactly when services will be performed, eg: when food order will be taken or when meals will be served.
1234567
El1
Staff of an excellent restaurant will give prompt service to the patrons, eg: patrons are greeted promptly on arrival and shown to designated tables, drinks are served less than 10 minutes after they have been ordered.
1234567
El2
Staff of an excellent restaurant will always be willing to help patrons, eg: willing to hang up their coats, to phone them a taxi or help take photographs.
1234567
El3
Staff of an excellent restaurant will never be too busy to respond to patrons’ requests, eg: request staff to explain menu items or to get a glass of water.
1234567
El4
The behaviour of staff of an excellent restaurant will instil confidence in patrons, eg: staff professionally and capably handle a complaint, ability to perform with finesse even under tremendous work pressure.
1234567
El5
Patrons of an excellent restaurant will feel safe in their transactions, eg: staff suggestions of drinks or food can be relied upon. Drinks are the ones ordered-such as no changing of brands in mixed drinks.
1234567
El6
Staff of an excellent restaurant will be consistently courteous with patrons, eg: staff are polite, patient and exhibit proper service etiquette at all times even when facing difficult and demanding patrons.
1234567
El7
Staff of an excellent restaurant will have the knowledge to answer patrons’ questions, eg: staff demonstrate good knowledge of wine and food (Including preparation methods).
1234567
El8
An excellent restaurant will give patrons individual attention, eg: willing to cater for the special needs of patrons in food and drink, such as gluten or salt free meals.
1234567
El9
An excellent restaurant will have operating hours convenient to all their patrons, eg: trade at least 6 days and most public holidays for lunch and dinner.
1234567
E20
An excellent restaurant will have staff who give its patrons personal attention, eg: asking patrons how their meals are within a short period after being served, or topping up their drinks or asking patrons about refilling of beverages.
1234567
E21
An excellent restaurant will have the patrons’ best interests at heart, eg: sufficient portions given, prices are reasonable, customers are asked about their comfort and staff are not too pushy with their suggestive selling.
1234567
307
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
E22 The staff of an excellent restaurant will understand the specific needs of their patrons, eg: staff will attempt to provide a special setting for patrons on special occasions or the willingness of staff to cater for what the patrons have requested.
1234567
Part A: Section 2 Directions: Listed below are five features pertaining to (name of restaurant), and the service it offers. I would like to know how important each of these features is to you when you evaluate the restaurant’s quality of service. Please allocate a total of 100 points among the five features according to how important each feature is to you-the more important a feature is to you, the more points you should allocate it. Please ensure that the points you have allocated to the five features add up to 100 points. 1.
The appearance of the restaurant’s physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communications materials.
2.
The restaurant’s and accurately.
3.
The restaurant’s service.
4.
The knowledge and courtesy of the restaurant’s staff and their ability to convey trust and confidence.
5.
The caring, individualised patrons.
ability to perform the promised service dependably willingness to help patrons
attention
and provide
the restaurant
prompt
provides to its
points -points points -points 100 points
TOTAL points allocated Please enter the feature number Which feature among the above is most important to you? Which feature is second most important to you? Which feature is the least important to you?
Instructions
-points
Part B for completing this questionnaire
Dear Respondent Please follow these instructions closely when completing this questionnaire.
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee
308
Hing
This is Part B of the questionnaire. It is to be completed only after you have left the restaurant. Please kindly send the completed questionnaire back to me in the stamped addressed envelope at your earliest convenience. Thank you for assisting in this research project. Yun Lok Lee
(To be completed
Part B after dining at the restaurant)
Directions: The following set of statements relate to your feelings about the restaurant. For each statement, please show the extent to which you believe the restaurant has the feature described by the statement. Once again, circling a 1 means that you strongly disagree that the restaurant has that feature, and circling a 7 means that you strongly agree. You may circle any of the numbers in the middle to show how strong your feelings are. There are no right or wrong answers as all I am interested in is a number that best shows your perceptions about the restaurant. Item statements El
The restaurant has modern-looking equipment, facility, bar facility, crockery, cutlery, etc.
eg: dining
1234567
E2
The physical facilities, eg: buildings, signs, dining room decor, lighting, carpet, etc, at the restaurant are visually appealing.
1234567
E3
Staff at the restaurant appear neat, eg: uniform, grooming, etc.
1234567
E4
Materials associated with the service, eg: pamphlets, statements, table linen, serviettes, menu and wine list are visually appealing at the restaurant.
1234567
E5
When the restaurant promises to do something by a certain time, it does so, eg: patrons request to have meals finished by a certain time.
1234567
E6
When patrons have problems, the restaurant shows a genuine interest in solving them, eg: error in the bill presentation, the food is too salty, allergic to food additive.
1234567
E7
The restaurant performs the service right the first time, eg: drink or food order correctly taken and served first time.
1234567
E8
The restaurant provides its service at the time it promises to do so, eg: drink and food served at the time promised.
1234567
E9
The restaurant insists on error-free service, eg: drinks and food given correctly, no mistakes appear on patron’s bill.
1234567
309
Measuring quality in restaurant operations
El0
Staff of the restaurant tell patrons exactly when services will be performed, eg: when food order will be taken or when meals will be served.
1234567
El1
Staff of the restaurant give prompt service to the patrons, eg: patrons are greeted promptly on arrival and shown to designated tables, drinks are served less than 10 minutes after they have been ordered.
1234567
El2
Staff of the restaurant are always willing to help patrons, eg: willing to hang up their coats, to phone them a taxi or help take photographs.
1234567
El3
Staff of the restaurant are never too busy to respond to patrons’ requests, eg: request staff to explain menu items or to get a glass of water.
1234567
El4
The behaviour of staff of the restaurant instils confidence in patrons, eg: staff professionally and capably handle a complaint, ability to perform with finesse even under tremendous work pressure.
1234567
El5
Patrons of the restaurant feel safe in their transactions, eg: staff suggestions of drinks or food can be relied upon. Drinks are the ones ordered-such as no changing of brands in mixed drinks.
1234567
El6
Staff of the restaurant are consistently courteous with patrons, eg: staff are polite, patient and exhibit proper service etiquette at all times even when facing difficult and demanding patrons.
1234567
El7
Staff of the restaurant have the knowledge to answer patrons’ questions, eg: staff demonstrate good knowledge of wine and food (including preparation methods).
1234567
El8
The restaurant gives patrons individual attention, eg: willing to cater for the special needs of patrons in food and drink, such as gluten or salt free meals.
12
El9
The restaurant has operating hours convenient to all their patrons, eg: trade at least 6 days and most public holidays for lunch and dinner.
1234567
E20 The restaurant has staff who give its patrons personal attention, eg: asking patrons how their meals are within a short period after being served, or topping up their drinks or asking patrons about refilling of beverages.
1234567
E21 The restaurant has the patrons’ best interests at heart, eg: sufficient portions given, prices are reasonable, customers are asked about their comfort and staff are not too pushy with their suggestive selling.
1234567
3
4
5
6
7
310
Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing
E22 The staff of the restaurant understand the specificneeds of their patrons, eg: staff will attempt to provide a special setting for patrons on special occasions or the willingness of staff to cater for what the patrons have requested.
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
