Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction and Behavioural Intention in Hotel Industry J. Vijayadurai Attracting new customers alone is insufficient, as the management must concentrate on preventing “customers-exit” since the cost of attracting new customers is higher than the cost of retaining existing customers. The key to customers retention is customer satisfaction and loyalty which is largely dependant upon the service quality offered by the hotels. In this juncture, the present study has made an attempt to fulfill the following objectives: i) To identify the service quality factors in the hotel industry. ii) To analyze the customers satisfaction and their behavioral intention and iii) To examine the impact of service quality on the customers satisfaction and their behavioral intention. In total, 30 hotels have been purposively selected. From each hotel, 10 guests have been selected at the convenience of the researcher. The resulted service quality factors are Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability, Assurance, Responsiveness, Empathy, Service product and Social responsibility. The highly perceived SQFs in hotel industry among the guests are service quality delivery and tangibles. The study reveals that the guests’ perceptions are moderate in service delivery and tangibles in hotel industry whereas it is very poor on empathy and responsiveness factors. The significantly influencing SQFs in the behavioural intention among the customers are service delivery, reliability, assurance and responsiveness. The findings indicate that while service quality is an important driver of customer satisfaction and behavioural intention. It is important for service providers to understand the relevant service quality factors in their industry that could reinforce positive customers’ satisfaction. T he service sector plays an barrier industry is being perceived as an increasingly important role in attractive option for those bitten by the modern economics. In India, the entrepreneurial bug. After globalization, service sector has been emerging as the the growth of hotels have been witnessed dominant component of the economy. The to face the major challenge of improving strong economic growth, increased quality of the service offered, in order to disposable income, urbanization and the attract a large number of domestic and impact of various factors have fuelled a foreign customers. Attracting new strong need for tourism in India. The hotel customers alone is insufficient, as the business being a comparatively low entry management must concentrate on preventing “customers-exit” since the cost of attracting new customers is higher J.Vijayadurai is S.G Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, N.M.S.S.V.N.College, Madurai.14 Journal of Marketing & Communication
  2. 2. than the cost of retaining existing labour intensity to propose a twocustomers. The key to customers retention dimensional service process matrix. Heis customer satisfaction and loyalty which divided the landscape of services intois largely dependant upon the service service factory, service shop, mass service Many researchers havequality offered by the hotels. In this juncture, and professional service. defined the meaning ofthe present study has made an attempt to quality in different ways.fulfill the following objectives: Several authors have considered various This quality construct has aspects of customer contact, customer been variously defined asi) To identify the service quality factors involvement and degree of provider value (Feizenbaum, in the hotel industry. discretion (Kellogg and Chase, 1995; 1951), conformance toii) To analyze customers’ satisfaction and Lovelock 1983). This study adopts requirements (Crosby, their behavioural intention and 1979), fitness for use Schemenner classification, because itiii) To examine the impact of service (Juran et al., 1974), contains several elements of the “degree quality on customers satisfaction and meeting customers’ of customer interaction, customization” their behavioural intention. expectations under different levels of plant and (Parasuraman et al.,Conceptual Foundations: equipment intensity commonly experienced 1985) and the totality of in service delivery systems (Mills and the features andOver the past 30 years, several authors have Marguiles, 1980). As highlighted above, characteristics of aattempted to develop coherent Schemenner (1986) classified hotels (the product or service thatclassification schemes for services. The lodging industry) as a service quality. bear on its ability tointent of such schemes is to bring parsimony satisfy stated or impliedand order to allow a better understanding Service Quality (SQ) needs (ANSI/ASQS,of the characteristics that differentiate 1987).services and the organizations that provide Many researchers have defined thethem. The following section reviews some meaning of quality in different ways. Thisof these schemes. quality construct has been variously defined as value (Feizenbaum, 1951), conformanceService Typology and Service Quality to requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for use (Juran et al., 1974), meeting customers’Cook et al. (1999) chronicled the previous expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985) andwork in the development of service the totality of the features andtypology, and presented both the marketing characteristics of a product or service thatoriented and operations – oriented views bear on its ability to satisfy stated or impliedof service dimensions. Marketing-oriented needs (ANSI/ASQS, 1987). In servicesviews used in the literature to classify marketing literature, the most widely usedservice dimensions include intangibility, definition of service quality is “to meet thedifferentiation, object of transformation, customers’ expectations”, as defined bytype of customer and commitment. Parasuraman et al., (1985). They found thatClassification schemes based on the service quality could neither beoperations – oriented view include conceptualized nor evaluated by traditionalcustomers contact, customer involvement, ‘goods quality’ methods because serviceslabour intensity, and degree of possess three characteristics: intangibility,customization, degree of employee heterogeneity and inseparabilitydiscretion and production process. (Parasuraman et al., 1985). They alsoFitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2004) went developed an instrument calledfor a more detailed discussion of each of SERVQUAL to measure service quality bythe service classification outlined above. comparing of customer’s expectations withSchemenner (1986) combined the degree their perceptions of the serviceof customer contact and customization with performance. Both the originalJanuary -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 15
  3. 3. SERVQUAL version (Parasuraman et al., demonstrated the influence of diverse 1988) and the revised version product attitudes on customers’ (Parasuraman et al., 1991, 1994) contain perceptions. Zenike and Schaaf (1990) five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, identified the two distinct and disparate Oberai and Hales (1990) responsiveness, assurance and empathy. features: Human element of service used ten dimensions to delivery, which has been effectively measure the service Although SERVQUAL has become one of addressed by the SERVQUAL. The quality in hotel industry the leading instruments of service quality, process, procedures, systems and as reliability, it has been subjected with some criticisms. technology would make service responsiveness, These criticisms included the application seamlessness one. The second aspect is competitiveness, access, courteous, to other service settings (Carman, 1990), as crucial as the first one. Guests would communication, the conceptualization of service quality always like and expect the service delivery credibility, security, (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993) and processes to be perfectly standardized, understanding and the dimensions and contents of service streamlined and simplified so that they tangible. quality (Muttal and Lassar, 1996; could receive the service without any Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In the present hassles, hiccups or undesired/ inordinate study, the focus is on the contents of questioning by the service providers. SERVPERF. It is the measurement of the Drumond (1992) identified the production customers’ perceptions of the performance interface and delivery interface to measure of a service provider and adequate the service quality tourism industry. Oberai assessment for service quality (Peter et and Hales (1990) used ten dimensions to al., 1993; Bebko, 2000; Andaleep and Basu, measure the service quality in hotel 1994). industry as reliability, responsiveness, competitiveness, access, courteous, Service Quality in Hotel Industry: communication, credibility, security, understanding and tangible. Saxena and Several researchers have suggested that Kishor (1996); and Kapil Kumar (1996) the search for universal conceptualization have created some dimensions to measure of the service quality construct may be the service quality in tourism. On the basis futile (Levitt, 1987; Lovelock 1983) and of the above literature, the present study arguments have been advanced to suggest measures the service quality in hotel that service quality is either industry or industry with the help of 39 statements. In context specific (Babakus and Boller, the present study, three statements have 1992). The core service portrays the been used to measure the behavioural ‘content’ of a service what is delivered is intention among the guests. as substantial as how it is delivered. Schneider and Bowen (1995) classified that Interrelationships among SQ, CS, and many a time managers become so involved BI with all the procedures, processes and contexts for service, that they tend to Brady and Robertson (2001) believed that overlook that there is also something called service quality is antecedent to satisfaction. the ‘core service’. Rust and Oliver (1994) They argue that since service quality is a defined the service product as whatever cognitive evaluation, a positive service service ‘features’ that is offered. Schneider quality perception can head to satisfaction, and Bowmen (1995) who also argued that which may turn lead to favourable fancy facilities, modern equipment, stylish behavioural intentions. Dabholkar (1995) uniforms and terrific signs can never suggested that the antecedent role of countervail for poor financial advice. service quality and satisfaction is situation Houser and Clausing (1988) also specific and that if a consumer is cognitive16 Journal of Marketing & Communication
  4. 4. oriented, he or she will perceive the Research Methodologyrelationship as service quality causingsatisfaction, whereas if a consumer is Scale Developmentaffective oriented he or she will perceive The service quality in hotel industry,the relationship as satisfaction causing Behavioural intention customers’ satisfaction and their represents the repurchaseservice quality. Cronin et al, (2000) behavioural intention have been examined intentions word of mouth,concluded that direct link between service with the help of the statements drawn from loyalty complainingquality and behavioural intentions is the reviews. These are presented in behaviour, and pricesignificant. In the present study, the impact Table.1. sensitivity (Zeithaml etof service quality on Customer Satisfaction al, 1996). Bourton et aland behavioural intention has been (2003) revealed thatexamined separately. Table -1 customers experience is related to behavioural Service Quality Factors in Hotel Industry intentions. The more Sl. Service No. of Reliability Eigen Percent Cumulative positive the customer’s No. Quality Factors Service Coefficient value of percent of experience, the more Quality variance variance likely he or she is willing Variables explained explained to reuse the service. included 1. Service delivery 6 0.8234 3.1817 16.34 16.34 2. Tangibles 6 0.7601 2.9086 14.28 30.62 3. Reliability 5 0.1871 2.7114 11.37 41.99 4. Assurance 4 0.7336 2.5081 10.94 52.93 5. Responsiveness 4 0.8408 2.3317 9.37 62.30 6. Empathy 4 0.6808 2.0869 8.61 70.91 7. Service Product 5 0.7132 2.0263 8.08 78.99 8. Social responsibility 4 0.6569 1.8334 6.79 85.78 Total 38 KMO measure of sampling adequacy: 0.7868 Bartlett’s test of sphericity: chi-square value: 121.08*Customers Satisfaction (CS) Sample questions are: “I am satisfied with my decision to visit this hotel and “mySeveral studies seem to conclude that choice to stay at this hotel was a wise one”.satisfaction as an affective construct ratherthan a cognitive construct (Oliver, 1997; Behavioural Intention (BI)Olsen, 2002). Rust and Oliver (1994)defined satisfaction as the “Customer’s Behavioural intention represents thefulfillment response”, which is an repurchase intentions word of mouth,evaluation as well as emotion based loyalty complaining behaviour, and priceresponse to a service. Cronin et al, (2000) sensitivity (Zeithaml et al, 1996). Bourtonassessed service satisfaction using items et al (2003) revealed that customersthat include interest, enjoyment, surprise, experience is related to behaviouralanger, wise choice, and doing the right thing. intentions. The more positive theIn the present study, the concept of customer’s experience, the more likely heWestbrook and Oliver’s (1991) four or she is willing to reuse the service. Festusemotion – laden items has been used to et al., (2006) used three statements.measure the customers’ satisfaction.January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 17
  5. 5. Table - 2 The Survey Instrument Sl.No Variables I Service Quality 1. Individualized attention 2. Content of service 3. Politeness, respect and friendliness of contact personnel 4. Error free records, billing and other transaction 5. Equal treatment 6. Understanding the specific need of customer 7. Service innovation 8. Feeling of delight and satisfaction 9. Empirical and public responsibility of employees 9. Feasibility in language skill 10. Convenient and flexible operating hours 11. Perform promised service 12. Diversity and range of services 13. Ability foe a chain at the critical time 14. Giving good service at a best value 15. Approachability and ease of contact II Customers satisfaction 1. Satisfied with the decision to visit this hotel 2. My choice of this hotel is a wise are 3. I thick I did the right thing when I choose to stay in this hotel 4. I enjoy the experience with his hotel III Behavioural intention 1. I recommend this hotel to others 2. I will stay in this hotel in my future not also 3. I will adjust my program according to the availability room in this hotel. The five point scale was used to rate the highly disagree. The scores assigned on afore-said service quality variables, these scales range from 5 to 1 respectively. customers satisfaction and behavioural intention. In the case of service quality The Sample variables, the guests are asked to rate at five point scale namely highly satisfied, In order to secure a more representative satisfied, moderate, dissatisfied and highly sample, the convenience sampling dissatisfied. The statements related to approach has been administered to customers satisfaction and their distribute the questionnaires among the behavioural intention have been also rated hotel customers in Madurai city, Tamilnadu. at five point scale from highly agree to Madurai city has been selected for the18 Journal of Marketing & Communication
  6. 6. study because of two reasons since it is an behavioural intention have been examinedancient Temple city and it is also a tourist with the help of multiple regression analysis.spot especially for the pilgrims to visit The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) methodMeenakshiamman Temple. There are so has been followed to fit the regressionmany hotels in and around Meenakshi- equation. The service qualityamman Temple at the heart of city. Only variables in hotel industry are narrated bythose hotels have been selected for the Results the factor analysis. Thestudy. In total, 30 hotels have been resulted service quality Descriptive Statisticspurposively selected. From each hotel, 10 factors are Serviceguests have been selected at the delivery, Tangibles, The sample of guests ranged from theconvenience of the researcher. Our Reliability, Assurance, under graduation level of education ofsamples included employees of Major Responsiveness, Empathy, (41.20 percent) and to professionalCorporations, State, and Central Service product and education (21.71 percent). About 48.11 Social responsibility.government establishments, members of percent of the guests belonged to thedifferent religious organizations and occupational background of employees ofbusinessmen. The response rate among the major corporations, State and Centralsampled guests is only 58.66 of those government establishment followed bypercent. Those 176 completed businessmen forming 29.68 percent to thequestionnaires have been included for the total. The dominant guests’ age group waspresent study. 41 to 50 (36.19 percent) and 31 to 40 (28.04 percent). The majority of the guests hadData Analysis stayed in a hotel for 2.04 days (61.89The present study reviewed the descriptive percent).statistics with a data distribution on thebasis of level of education, annual income, Service quality factors in hotelage, occupation, and average days stayedin hotel. The Kaiser-Meyer-Ohlin (KMO) The service quality factors have beenmeasure of sampling adequacy and identified with the help of factor analysis.Bartlett’s test of sphericity have been The resulted number of service qualityexecuted to test the validity of data for factors, its Eigen value, percent of variancefactor analysis. After the confirmation of explained, reliability coefficient is illustratedthese two tests, the Principal component in Table.2.analysis has been used to narrate theservice quality variables into service quality The service quality variables in hotelfactors. In our analysis, only factors with industry are narrated by the factor analysis.Eigen value greater than one are retained. The resulted service quality factors areFactor matrix is transformed through Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability,rotation into a simpler one that is easier to Assurance, Responsiveness, Empathy,interpret. It does not affect the percentage Service product and Social responsibility.of total variance explained. However, the The important service quality factors arevariance explained by the individual factors Service delivery, Tangibles and Reliabilityis redistributed by rotation. The most since its Eigen values are 3.1817, 2.9086commonly used method is Varimax rotation and 2.7114 respectively. The percent ofprocedure. This procedure maximizes the variation explained by the above threevariance of loadings on each factor, thus service quality factors are 16.34, 14.28 andminimizing the complexity of the factors. 11.37 percent respectively. It connotes that the service quality factors namely serviceThe impact of service quality factors on delivery, tangibles and reliability explain allthe customer’s satisfaction and their 38 service quality variables together to theJanuary -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 19
  7. 7. extent of 16.34, 14.28 and 11.37 percent Assurance are 6, 6, 5 and 4 respectively. respectively. The included service quality variables in the above said four service quality factors The last three service quality factors explain the respective service quality These service quality identified by factor analysis are Empathy, factors to the extent of 82.34, 76.01, 8171 factor namely ‘service Service product and Social responsibility and 73.36 percent respectively, since their delivery’ consists of since their Eigen values are 2.0869, 2.0263 reliability coefficients are 0.8234, 0.7601, service quality variables namely standardized, and 1.8334 respectively. The respective 0.8171 and 0.7336 respectively. The structured and simplified percentage of variation explained by the service quality variables included in delivery process, getting above three factors are 8.61, 8.08 and 6.09 responsiveness, empathy, service product feedback from customers, respectively. All the eight service quality and social responsibility explain the enhancement of factors explain the service quality variables respective service quality factors to the technological capability, in the hotel industry to the extent of 85.78 extent of 84.08, 68.08, 71.32 and 65.69 effective redressal percent. percent respectively since their respective system, foolproof reliability coefficients are 0.8408, 0.6808, procedures and Service Quality Variables in each factor 0.7132 and 0.6569. The variables included procedures and in the eight service quality factors are given processes; and adequate and necessary personal The included service quality variables in in Table 3. facilities since their Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability and respective factor loadings are higher in Table 3 the service delivery Service Quality Variables in each factor factor than in the other Sl.No. Service Quality Factors Service Quality Variables factors. 1. Service delivery V 15 V28 V25 V33 V22 V37 2. Tangibles V1 V13 V7 V21 V38 V32 3. Reliability V24 V4 V27 V16 V10 4. Assurance V6 V18 V31 V12 5. Responsiveness V19 V3 V29 V9 6. Empathy V2 V36 V23 V14 7. Service Product V30 V5 V17 V26 V35 8. Social responsibility V8 V34 V11 V20 These service quality factor namely dressed personnel, classy and comfortable ‘service delivery’ consists of service quality ambient conditions, physical layout of variables namely standardized, structured equipment and others furnishings; and and simplified delivery process, getting proper housekeeping. The ‘reliability’ factor feedback from customers, enhancement of consists of right delivery of service at first technological capability, effective redressal time, service provider’s ability to display a system, foolproof procedures and positive moment of truth, perform promised procedures and processes; and adequate service, interest to solve customers problem and necessary personal facilities since their and error free records, billing and other respective factor loadings are higher in the transactions. The ‘assurance’ factor service delivery factor than in the other consists of politeness, respect and factors. The included service quality friendliness of contact personnel, feeling variables in tangibles are appearance of of delight and satisfaction, ability for action physical facilities, equipment etc; well at critical time and trust worthiness and20 Journal of Marketing & Communication
  8. 8. honesty of the service provider. The responsibility of employees since their‘responsiveness’ factor consists of respective factor loadings are higher in theproviding prompt and timely service, ability social responsibility factor compared toto communicate provision of services, other service quality factors.availability of service providers at required The service quality variables included intime and willingness to help customers SERVPERF Scale on Service Quality service product arewhereas the ‘empathy’ factor consists of Factors diversity and range ofindividualized attention, approachability and services, contact ofease of contact, flexibility in language skill The SERVPERF scale represents the service, serviceand understanding the specific needs of performance – only measurement on the innovation, convenientcustomers. service quality factors. The SERVPERF and flexible operating scale on SQFs is computed by the mean hours, and intensity andThe service quality variables included in score of perception service quality depth of service. Theservice product are diversity and range of variables in each SQF. The mean score of social responsibilityservices, contact of service, service SERVPERF scale on each SQF among the factor consists of concession toinnovation, convenient and flexible guests have been computed to exhibit the economically poor,operating hours, and intensity and depth of guests’ perception on SQFs. In order to giving to good service atservice. The social responsibility factor analyze the consistency of the perception a best value, equalconsists of concession to economically poor, on SQFs, the standard deviation and treatment, and ethicalgiving to good service at a best value, equal coefficient of variation of each SQFs have and public responsibilitytreatment, and ethical and public been measured separately. of employees since their respective factor Table 4 loadings are higher in SERVPERF Scale on Service Quality Factors among the Guests the social responsibility factor compared to other Sl.No. Service Quality Mean Score of Standard Coefficient of Factors SERVPERF Deviation Variation service quality factors. (in percent) 1. Service delivery 3.6814 0.4377 11.89 2. Tangibles 3.3403 0.4703 14.08 3. Reliability 2.9194 0.6253 21.42 4. Assurance 3.0645 0.4915 16.04 5. Responsiveness 2.5823 0.6841 26.49 6. Empathy 2.1708 0.6801 31.33 7. Service Product 3.0344 0.5768 19.01 8. Social responsibility 2.7139 0.5897 21.73The highly perceived SQFs in hotel industry and 14.08 percent respectively. Theamong the guests are service quality analysis reveals that the guests’ perceptionsdelivery and tangibles since their respective are moderate in service delivery andmean scores are 3.6814 and 3.3403. The tangibles in hotel industry whereas it is verylesser perceived SQFs in hotel industry poor on empathy and responsivenessamong the guests are empathy and factors.responsiveness since their respective meanscores are 2.1708 and 2.5823. The higher Association between Profile of theconsistency in the perception on service Guests and Their Perception on SQFsdelivery and tangibles has been identified The perception on SQFs among the guestssince their coefficient of variation is 11.89 may be associated with their profile. TheJanuary -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 21
  9. 9. included profile variables in the present delivery, tangibles, reliability, assurance, study are level of education, annual income, responsiveness, empathy, service product age, occupation and average number of and social responsibility, the one way days stayed at the hotel. In order to analysis of variance has been administered. Regarding the examine the association between the profile The results are given in Table. 5. perception in service delivery and tangibles of guests and their perception on service the significantly Table.5 associating profile Association between Profile of Guests and their SERVPERF Scale on SQFs variables are level of education, annual F. Statistcs income, age and average Sl.No Service Level of Annual Age Occupation Average number of days stayed Quality Education Income No. of since their respective ‘F’ days statistics are significant stayed at five percent level. The significantly associating 1. Service delivery 2.9198* 3.1441* 2.7803* 1.8644 2.5089* profile variables with 2. Tangibles 3.0432* 2.9617* 2.8184* 2.0861 2.7162* the perception on reliability are age and 3. Reliability 2.1143 2.0869 2.9029* 2.4533 2.4084* average number of days 4. Assurance 2.2096 2.4503* 2.4086 2.1447 2.3991* stayed whereas regarding the perception 5. Responsiveness 2.5168* 2.4114* 1.9908 1.9096 3.0144* on assurance, these 6. Empathy 2.7061* 2.0869 2.6864* 2.5163 3.1234* significant profile variables are annual 7. Service Product 3.1783* 2.7103* 2.0733 2.8189* 2.1708* income and average 8. Social responsibility 2.8189* 2.1143 2.1508 2.0614 2.6606* number of days stayed. Regarding the perception in service level of education, annual income, delivery and tangibles the significantly occupation and average number of days associating profile variables are level of stayed whereas in the perception on social education, annual income, age and average responsibility, the profile variables are level number of days stayed since their of education and average number of days respective ‘F’ statistics are significant at stayed. In total, the highly associating five percent level. The significantly profile variables with the perception on associating profile variables with the SQFs are average number of days stayed, perception on reliability are age and level of education and annual income. average number of days stayed whereas regarding the perception on assurance, Impact of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs these significant profile variables are on Customers Satisfaction annual income and average number of days stayed. Regarding the perception on The customers’ satisfaction among the responsiveness, the significantly associating guests have been computed from the mean profile variables are level of education, score of four related statements. The annual income and average number of days customers’ satisfaction may be caused by stayed whereas these significant profile their perception on SQFs. The present variables regarding the perception on study has made an attempt to analyze the empathy are level of education, age and impact of SERVPERF scale on SQFs on average number of days stayed. The customers’ satisfaction with the help of significantly associating profile variables multiple regression analysis. The field with the perception on service product are regression model is22 Journal of Marketing & Communication
  10. 10. Y = a + b 1x 1 + b 2x 2 + b 1 , b 2 , ………… b 8 –……………. + b8x8 + e Regression coefficients of independentWhereas y – score on customers variablessatisfaction a – Intercept and The significantly x 15 x 21 , ……………x 8 – R – Error term influencing SERVPERFScore of perception on eight SQFs scale on SQFs on customers’ satisfaction Table 6 are service delivery, Regression coefficient of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs on the Customers reliability, assurance, Satisfaction responsiveness and empathy since their Sl.No Service Quality Standardised Standard Error t- Statistics P - Value respective regression Factors (SQFs) Regression coefficients are Coefficient significant at five 1. Service delivery 0.3146 0.0582 5.4055 0.0217 percent level. 2. Tangibles 0.1043 0.1103 0.9456 0.2908 3. Reliability 0.2169 0.0739 2.9351 0.0432 4. Assurance 0.2345 0.0441 5.3174 0.0308 5. Responsiveness 0.3039 0.0862 3.5255 0.0371 6. Empathy 0.1864 0.0261 7.1417 0.0049 7. Service Product 0.1011 0.0863 1.1715 0.4086 8. Social responsibility 0.0689 0.1339 0.5146 0.7018 Constant 1.2345 2 R 0.7938 F – Statistics 12.8142 0.0371The significantly influencing SERVPERF as customers’ delight. When the customerscale on SQFs on customers’ satisfaction is highly satisfied, he may have repurchaseare service delivery, reliability, assurance, intention, positive word of mouth andresponsiveness and empathy since their loyalty. In the present study, the behaviouralrespective regression coefficients are intention is measured from the mean scoresignificant at five percent level. A unit of three related statements. The impact ofincrease in the perception on above said SERVPERF scale on SQFs on theSQFs result in an increase in customers behavioural intentions among the guests hassatisfaction by 0.3146, 0.2169, 0.2345, also been examined with the help of multiple0.3039 and 0.1864 units respectively. The regression analysis. The fitted regressionchanges in the perception on SQFs explain model isthe changes in customers satisfaction to theextent of 79.38 percent. Y = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + ……………. + b8x8 + eImpact of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs Whereas y – score on behaviouralon Behavioural Intention intention x 15 x 21 , ……………x 8 –The behavioural intention is a extreme level Score on Service Quality Factorsof customers satisfaction. It is also calledJanuary -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 23
  11. 11. b 1 , b 2 , ………… b 8 – a – Intercept and Regression coefficients of independent R – Error term variables The regression coefficient of SQFs is summarized in Table. 7. The changes in the perception on SQFs explain the changes in Table 7 behavioural intention Regression Coefficient of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs on Behavioural among the customers to Intention the extent of 57.32 Sl.No Service Quality Standardised Standard Error t- Statistics P - Value percent. The analysis Factors (SQFs) Regression reveals the importance Coefficient of SQFs namely service delivery, reliability, 1. Service delivery 0.1908 .0594 3.2121 0.0339 assurance and 2. Tangibles 0.0943 0.0811 1.1627 0.1863 responsiveness in 3. Reliability 0.2563 0.0791 3.2402 0.0292 building customers loyalty. 4. Assurance 0.1817 0.0834 2.1786 0.0491 5. Responsiveness 0.2406 0.0616 3.9058 0.0417 6. Empathy 0.1993 0.1208 1.6498 0.1039 7. Service Product 0.1244 0.0969 1.2838 0.2141 8. Social responsibility 0.1021 0.1733 0.5892 0.4563 Constant 0.3962 2 R 0.5732 F – Statistics 8.1784 0.0411 The significantly influencing SQFs in the guests visited the hotels. The factor behavioural intention among the customers analysis resulted in eight important service are service delivery, reliability, assurance quality factors namely service delivery, and responsiveness since their regression tangibles, reliability, assurance, coefficients are significant at five percent responsiveness, empathy, service product level. A unit increase in the perception on and social responsibility. The perception on above said SQFs result in an increase in service quality factors among the guests the behavioural intention of customers by in hotel industry are from moderate to 0.1908, 0.2563, 0.1817 and 0.2406 units dissatisfied. The highly associating profile respectively. The changes in the perception variables with their perception on SQFs are on SQFs explain the changes in their level of education annual income and behavioural intention among the customers average number of days stayed in hotel. to the extent of 57.32 percent. The analysis The significantly influencing perception of reveals the importance of SQFs namely SQFs on the customers’ satisfaction and service delivery, reliability, assurance and their behavioural intention are service responsiveness in building customers delivery, reliability, assurance and loyalty. responsiveness. Conclusions and Managerial Based on results reported in the present Implications study, service provides in the hotel industry understand the role of service delivery, The service quality developed in this study reliability, assurance and responsiveness in was calibrated using the data from the24 Journal of Marketing & Communication
  12. 12. the customers’ satisfaction and their the hotel employees have first handbehavioural intention. In order to knowledge about the characteristics of hotelsuccessfully operate a hotel that gives guests’ frequently reported problems, hotelcustomer a satisfactory experience, hotel managers should encourage and reward The hotel managementmanagers need to understand what employee input to hotel’s internal public. should establish a systemcustomers want and how they assess the Hotel managers may improve the tangibles to monitor theirhotel service quality. The present study dimensions by helping hotels’ physical customers’ needs andcomplied about of 38 smile quality variables environment clean and attractive. Up-to- their perceptions on(grouped into 8 factors) an average hotel date technology may be employed to service quality in ordercustomer often uses to assess the hotel conserve energy, reduce water to encourage finding outservices, Our operational questionnaire consumption, and present national beauty an effective resolutioncould provide several terms to hotel in the outside appearance of the hotel. strategy. Only when amanagers in items of how to shape hotel service culture is created,guests’ experience. Concentrating on the The findings indicate that while service the hotel management ensure the effectiveeight identified service quality factors, the quality is an important driver of customer delivery of service mostservice delivery, tangibles, reliability and satisfaction and behavioural intention, the desired by theirassurance appear to be slightly more managers should give more importance not customers.important than other service quality factors only on their customers’ satisfaction butsince their respective Eigen values are their delight. Given that companies couldhigher than others. increase profiles by 100 percent by remaining just 5 percent more of theirAs service delivery dimensions, front line customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990), itservice providers in hotel need to give is important for service providers tostandardized, structured and simplified understand the relevant service qualitydelivery process. Regarding the tangible factors in their industry that could reinforcedimensions, the hotel authorities have to positive customers’ satisfaction. The hotelprovide attractive physical facilities, management should establish a system toequipment etc. By the reliability dimensions monitor their customers’ needs and theirthe hotel personnel are advised to deliver perceptions on service quality in order totheir service right even at the first time encourage finding out an effectiveitself. On the other hand, in order to resolution strategy. Only when a serviceenhance assurance dimensions, hotel culture is created, the hotel managementauthority should have trained personnel in ensure the effective delivery of serviceorder to deliver polite, respected and most desired by their customers.friendly service to their customers. SinceReferences:Cook, D.P., Gobi, C and Chung, C.H. (1999)”, Service typologies: a state of the out survey”, Production and Operations Management,8(3), pp.318-338.Fitzsimons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2004), “Service Management: Operations, Strategy and Information technology, 4th edition,Irwin McGraw Hill, New York.Schemenner, R.W.(1986), “How can service businesses survive and prosper?”, Sloan Management Review, 27(3), pp.21-32.Kellogy, D.C. and Chase, E.B. (1995), “Constructing an empirically derived measure for consumer contact”, Management Science,41(11), pp.1734-17449.Lovelock, C.H. (1983), “Classifying services to gain strategic marketing insights”, Journal of Marketing, 47(3), pp.9-20.Mills, P.K. and Marguiles, N. (1980), “Toward a core typology of service organization”, Academy of Management Review, 5(2),pp.255-265. Feizenbawm, A.V. (1951), “Quality Control: Principles, Practice and Administration McGraw-Hill, New York.Crosby, P.B.(1979), “Quality is Free: The Art of making quality certain”, New American Literary, New York.January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 25
  13. 13. Juran, J.M., Gryna, F.Jrand Bingham, R.S. (1974), “Quality control hand book, McGraw-Hill, New York. Parasuraman, A., Zeithamal, V.A. and Berg, L.C. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications of future research”, Journal of Marketing, 49, pp.41-50. ANSI/ASQC (1987): Quality systems terminology, American National Standards, A3-1987 (Washington, DC, ANSI/ASQC). Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.C. (1988), “SERVQUAL A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of retailing, Vol.64, pp.12-40. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.C. (1991), “Retirement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Retailing”, Vol.67, pp.420-450. Parasuraman, A., Zeithmal, V.A, and Berry, L. C. (19940, “Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria”, Journal of retailing, Vol.70, pp.201-230. Carman, J.M. (1990), “Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of SERVQUAL dimensions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.60, pp.33-55. Crosis, J.J. Jr, and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension”, Journal of Marketing, 56(3), pp. 55-68. Muttal, B. and Lassar, W.M. (1996), “The role of personalization in service encounters”, Journal of Retailing, 72(11), p.95-109. Sureshkumar, G.S. Rajendran, C. and Kamalanathan, T.J. (2001), “Customer perceptions of service quality: A critique”, Total Quality Management, Vol.12, pp.111-124. Peter, J., Churchill, G and Browm, T. (1993), “Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), pp.655-662. Bebko, C.P. (2000), “Service intangibility and its impact on consumer expectations of service quality”, Journal of service marketing, 14(1), pp.9-26. Andaleep, S.S. and Basu, A.K. (1994), “Technical complexity and consumer knowledge as moderators of service quality evaluation in the automobile service industry”, Journal of retailing, 70(4), pp.367-381. Levitt, T. (1981), Marketing intangible products and product intangibles”, Harvand Business Review, 59(3), pp.94-102. Bababurs, E. and Boller, G.W. (1992), “An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale”, Journal of Business Research, 24(3), pp.253-268. Drumoniond, H. (1992), “The quality movement: what TQM is really all about”, Kogan, p.91. Oberoi, V. and Hales, C. (1990), “Assessing the quality of the conference hotel service product: Towards an empirically based model”, The services industries Journal, 10(4), pp. 700-721. Karumesh Saxena and Nawal Kishor (1996), “Quality in Tourism Industry: A key to customer satisfaction”, Abhigyan, Criater, pp.57- 65. Kapil Kumar, (1996), “Management issues in Tourism”, in Kapil Kumar et al., (eds.) Management in Tourism (TS-3) IGNOV, New Delhi, pp.34-35. Brady. M.K. and Robertson, C.J. (2001), “Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service quality and satisfaction: an exploratory cross national study”, Journal of Business research, 52(1), pp:53-60. Dabholkar, P.A. (1995), “A contingency framework for predicting causality between satisfaction and service quality”, in Kardes, F.R. and Sura, M(eds) Advances in consumer research role, Association for consumer research, prove, VT, pp:101-106. Cronin, J.J, Brady, M.K. and Hult, T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, customers satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environment”, Journal of retailing, 76(2), pp:193-216. Oliver, R.C. (1997), “A behavioural perspective on the consumer, Mc Grant Hill, New York, NY. Olsen, S.O. (2002), “Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction and responses loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), pp:240-249. Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.C. (1994), “Service quality: Insights and managerial implications from the frontier”, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.C. (Eds) Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, C.A, pp:72-94. Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. and Hult, T.M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, customers satisfaction on consumer behavioural intentions in service environment”, Journal of Retailing, 76(2), pp:193-216. WestBrook, R.A. and Oliver, R.C. (1991), “The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction”, Journal of consumer research, 18(1), pp:84 - 91. Zeithaml, V.A, Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A(1996), “The behavioural consequences of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, 60(2), pp:31-46. Burton, S., Sheather, S AND Roberts, J(2003), “The effect of actual and perceived performance on satisfaction and behavioural intentions”, Journal of Service Research, 5(4), pp: 292-302. Festus Olor unions, Maxwell K. Hsn and Gidwin J. vdo (2006), “Service quality, customers satisfaction, and behavioural intentions in the service quality”, Journal of service marketing, 20(1), pp:59-72. Reichheld, F and Saaser, W (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to services”, Harvand Business Review, 68(5), pp:105-111.26 Journal of Marketing & Communication