Running head: SERVICE QUALITY APPROACH 1
SERVICE QUALITY APPROACH
4
Service Quality Approach: A Scenario Analysis of the Hospitality Industry Quality Improvement Process
American Military University
Professor Paulette Williams
Introduction
The notions and ideals behind the establishment of systems used to analyze and implement quality control and improvement procedures is an ever evolving process. According to the American Society for Quality (n.d.) – a provider of professional certification and knowledge base for the quality community – “Continuous improvement, sometimes called continual improvement, is the ongoing improvement of products, services or processes through incremental and breakthrough improvements”. Essentially, the processes behind quality improvements are mobile and ephemeral, and should never be utilized or implemented under the auspices of a static use program. The constant changes of societal norms, and the fast-paced evolution of technologies, demand managerial attention of controls to ensure the proper levels of quality are maintained and expanded across all levels of the company. This need for continuous improvement is especially vital within the Service Industry sector where the delivery of the highest quality service is the principle reason for the businesses existence.
Within the hospitality industry there is a constant drive to create a service culture focused upon the customers which seek the services provided by them. In order to achieve the highest level of quality and ensure every employee is engaged in the process, there needs to be active standard operating procedures in place to measure and ensure the quality of every product and service provided (Woods & King, 2010). In order to properly introduce and manage quality improvement procedures it is vitally important to identify the multiple management processes and tailor them to meet the needs of the organization. The purpose of this paper is to first identify two separate quality improvement processes and compare and contrast their similarities and differences. Next, I will introduce a hospitality sector scenario which will provide a background and description of the issue. Finally, I will conduct an analysis of which process is best suited for the scenario to include three applicable points from W. Edwards Deming’s quality management model
Quality Improvement Processes
The first quality improvement process I will cover is The Shewhart Model of Quality Assurance. Developed by a former Bell Telephone Labs employee named Walter Shewhart, he fully understood the requirement of adapting current procedures and processes in order to create a business environment that was both functional and profitable for the business and its consumers. The Shewhart model consist of four continuous management steps: Plan, Do, Check and Act (commonly known as PDCA). Simplistic in its approach, the model underscores the necessity of constant obse ...
On National Teacher Day, meet the 2024-25 Kenan Fellows
Running head SERVICE QUALITY APPROACH1SERVICE QUALITY APPROAC.docx
1. Running head: SERVICE QUALITY APPROACH 1
SERVICE QUALITY APPROACH
4
Service Quality Approach: A Scenario Analysis of the
Hospitality Industry Quality Improvement Process
American Military University
Professor Paulette Williams
Introduction
The notions and ideals behind the establishment of systems
2. used to analyze and implement quality control and improvement
procedures is an ever evolving process. According to the
American Society for Quality (n.d.) – a provider of professional
certification and knowledge base for the quality community –
“Continuous improvement, sometimes called continual
improvement, is the ongoing improvement of products, services
or processes through incremental and breakthrough
improvements”. Essentially, the processes behind quality
improvements are mobile and ephemeral, and should never be
utilized or implemented under the auspices of a static use
program. The constant changes of societal norms, and the fast-
paced evolution of technologies, demand managerial attention
of controls to ensure the proper levels of quality are maintained
and expanded across all levels of the company. This need for
continuous improvement is especially vital within the Service
Industry sector where the delivery of the highest quality service
is the principle reason for the businesses existence.
Within the hospitality industry there is a constant drive to
create a service culture focused upon the customers which seek
the services provided by them. In order to achieve the highest
level of quality and ensure every employee is engaged in the
process, there needs to be active standard operating procedures
in place to measure and ensure the quality of every product and
service provided (Woods & King, 2010). In order to properly
introduce and manage quality improvement procedures it is
vitally important to identify the multiple management processes
and tailor them to meet the needs of the organization. The
purpose of this paper is to first identify two separate quality
improvement processes and compare and contrast their
similarities and differences. Next, I will introduce a hospitality
sector scenario which will provide a background and description
of the issue. Finally, I will conduct an analysis of which process
is best suited for the scenario to include three applicable points
from W. Edwards Deming’s quality management model
Quality Improvement Processes
3. The first quality improvement process I will cover is The
Shewhart Model of Quality Assurance. Developed by a former
Bell Telephone Labs employee named Walter Shewhart, he fully
understood the requirement of adapting current procedures and
processes in order to create a business environment that was
both functional and profitable for the business and its
consumers. The Shewhart model consist of four continuous
management steps: Plan, Do, Check and Act (commonly known
as PDCA). Simplistic in its approach, the model underscores
the necessity of constant observation and evaluation of
management practices to ensure total quality. However, in
order for the model to be successful, management must be open
for the consideration of new ideas and procedures, and be
willing to support and incorporate them (SkyMark, 2017).
Management and personnel must also be open to observation, in
that, should the original plan not succeed, they must restart the
cycle with lessons learned and begin the cycle again. This
essentially “close-loops” the process and reinforces the
scientific method of the process.
The second quality improvement model is the IDEAL
model. IDEAL is an acronym of the five phases of
organizational improvement: Initiating, Diagnosing,
Establishing, Acting and Learning/Leveraging. Developed
originally by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie
Mellon Research University, and based on the Shewhart model
of Quality Assurance, this Software Process Improvement (SPI)
initiative was used to “guide development of a long-range,
integrated plan for initiating and managing a SPI program”
(McFeeley, 1996). The IDEAL model, used successfully within
the programming world was then adapted for use for the
business world where it house found success as a process
improvement model.
Both process and quality assurance models are similar in
the fact that the IDEAL model used the Shewhart model as the
basis for its design. Both models begin with the notion of
identifying a process issue, however where the Shewhart model
4. begin with identify, recognizing, and planning based on
deficiencies in the process, the IDEAL model ventures much
more in depth by ensuring you have proper sponsorship and
backing for the change proposal. Ultimately, both process
improvement models arrive at the same outcome. Where the
purpose of conducting the cycle finalizes and the team
dedicated to quality improvement must decide whether or not
the change recommend will be implemented or abandoned. If
accepted the change will be sanctioned across the board. If not,
then the cycle starts again with newer recommendations for
study and testing.
Quality Improvement Scenario
Recently, a beach resort/hotel complex in Charleston,
South Carolina went through an acquisition and management
changeover from a privately held organization to a larger multi-
national branded hospitality group. As with all mergers and
acquisitions there were issues and procedures which required
updating, and many areas required restructuring and re-staffing
in the eyes of the new owners. Many of the career mid-level
managers which had been with the hotel since inception were
transferred to other departments or were let go all together.
This situation created unnecessary strife and contention with
many workers as apprehension grew towards their futures, and
furthered apathy towards new management. Though corporate is
thus far please with the transition process, the Chief Marketing
Officer (CMO) was concerned as to how deeply the changes in
ownership and staff restructuring were affecting both internal
and external marketing, and affect the overall climate and
quality of the resort. Since the initial announcement of the
take-over, he has seen a marked drop in overall guest
satisfaction surveys, as well as a significant drop in customer-
contact employee attitude. In order to get out in front of this
building issue, the CMO has coordinated a Department Head
suggestion and decision meeting with representatives from
Operations and Human Resources to develop and implement a
course of action.
5. The results of the brainstorming session reveal several
deficiencies within management in the way the transition
process has been handled. First and foremost, department heads
and supervisors will conduct a weekly meeting with all section
employees to give a status update on the transition, brief them
on upcoming events, and provide the opportunity for employees
to report problems and provide suggestions to improving the
work environment. Secondly, All staff members (whether they
are contact employees or not) will be empowered and required
to assist any and all guests even if it is not there area of
responsibility. Employees shall be publicly commended – not
reprimanded – for assisting a guest with and issue or complaint.
Finally, each department head will be required to conduct
training for all charges in regards to employee and supervisors
rights and responsibilities. This should include corporate
expectations and guidelines, ethics, departmental procedures,
and establish the parameters of rebuilding the hotels service
culture.
Analysis
This scenario is representative of a worst case scenario for
any hotel operation. Markedly, the most important aspect of
any hospitality organization, and arguably its soul, is its
employees. Because ultimately, the hospitality industry is
unique in the simple aspect that employees are part of the
product and services offered. In this scenario the most viable
option for process improvement would be the Shewhart model
of Quality Assurance. This is due in part to the rapid nature in
which the process improvements must be planned, tested,
implemented and observed. The IDEAL model, though similar,
requires much more in-depth planning and requires more time to
implement. This most important aspect to rectify in this
situation is the confusion and apathy felt by the employees
towards management and the transition process. This requires a
management team with the ability to not only direct, but to
listen. By identifying a deficiency and coordinating a plan to
reverse the current trend, the CMO is demonstrating a need
6. create constancy of purpose within the organization (point 1of
Deming’s Points for management) (as cited in Woods & King,
2010).
In regards to the courses of action adopted by the session to
reinstitute a culture of service at the hotel, the empowering of
employees to solve guests issues without reprisal is a first step
in breaking down barriers between departments, and allows a
sense of pride in ownership as part of the service process (Point
9 of Deming’s Points for Management). This process
improvement in-and-of itself can be a very powerful proposition
for workers knowing that have played a vital role in the
operation of the hotel. Finally, by instituting organizational
training for all staff members conducted by the Department
Heads, he is removing all barriers to leadership and allowing
staff members to directly interact with an executive at a training
level (Point 7 of Deming’s Points for Management). This key
step essentially placing a face with a name and instituting
proactive style of leadership vice directive (as cited in Woods &
Kings, 2010).
References
American Society for Quality. (n.d.). Continuous Improvement
Model - Learning Resources| ASQ. Retrieved from
http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/continuous-
improvement/overview/overview.html
McFeeley, B. (1996). IDEAL: A user's guide for software
process improvement (CMU/SEI-96-HB-001). Retrieved from
Defense Technical Information Center website:
http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/Handbook/1996_002_00
1_16433.pdf
SkyMark. (n.d.). Walter Shewhart- The Grandfather of Total
Quality Management. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from
http://www.skymark.com/resources/leaders/shewart.asp
Woods, R. H., & King, J. Z. (2010). The quest for quality. In
Quality leadership and management in the hospitality industry
(3rd ed., pp. 75-93). Retrieved from
