This chapter sets out to clarify how quality is judged by customers and monitored by an organization. If we can understand how this occurs, then it is easier to develop quality sys- tems, tools and techniques to give accurate data to organizations searching for continu- ous improvement, customer retention, etc.
Satisfied customers are more economical to an organization as they not only generate repeat business but they will also recommend the service to others.
The lack of a definitive definition of qual- ity (see Chapter 4) gives some indication of the difficulty of measuring customer satisfaction and therefore setting standards.
The definitions of quality and service quality that are considered relevant to the service industry all place the customers, both internal and external to the organization, centrally in the appraisal of the service or products being delivered (Crosby, 1979;
Parasuraman et al., 1985; Peters, 1987;
Garvin, 1988; Juran, 1988a; Feigenbaum, 1991;
Wyckoff, 1992).
The notion of customer needs being important is a recent attitude in the public sector of the tourism and leisure industry.
A range of other people may be interested in the service delivered, including council tax payers or donors to voluntary organ- izations, and they are known as ‘stake- holders’. Their interaction with the organ- ization is considered in Chapter 3, but this chapter concentrates on users of the services.
Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
The customer could judge the quality of the service delivered as ‘good’ but they may not have had satisfaction from the experience (Randall and Senior, 1996).
Crompton and MacKay (1989) submitted the premise that satisfaction and service quality are not the same thing, stating: ‘Satisfaction is a psychological outcome emerging from an experience, whereas service quality is concerned with the attributes of the service itself.’ Parasuraman et al. (1988) agreed but stated that customers use the same criteria to judge both, as the two are interrelated.
Oliver (1997) alluded to the differences in how customers judge service quality and customer satisfaction (Table 5.1).
©CABInternational2003.Service Quality in Leisure and Tourism
(C. Williams and J. Buswell) 59
On completion of this chapter it is expected that you will be able to:
•
understand the difference between service quality and customer satisfaction;•
appreciate how judgements on service quality and customer satisfaction are formu- lated and what can influence them;•
understand how heterogeneity of individu- als, both front-line staff and customers, impacts on customer satisfaction and its significance to global operators;•
explore customer dissatisfaction.Peters (1987), Normann (1991) and Anderson and Fornell (1994) considered that service quality is too subjective for customers to formulate their own judgements. Edvards- son (1994) also considered that the judgement of services has an element of subjectivity and that it is modified by customer socio- economic variables (e.g. income level).
Gummesson (1994) did not condemn customer judgements but suggested that the organization’s interpretation of them may be faulty:
Yet we know that asking the customer, par- ticularly through structured questionnaires, only reveals a superficial layer of attitudes and behaviour, not the roots. We accept a customer’s statement as a phenomenological fact, but the interpretation is loaded with uncertainties.
Customer Satisfaction
Most of the service quality management writers have considerable difficulty in under- standing how customers judge services. This is important to the leisure and tourism practi- tioner, because until this is known it is not possible to develop methods to assess customer satisfaction.
One of the original service quality theo- ries is that customers are satisfied when their judgement of the service they have received (perception) equals or exceeds what they expected:
Customer satisfaction (CS) = Perceptions (P) = Expectations (E) This is known as thegap analysis theory (Zeithamlet al., 1990) orOliver’s expectancy–
disconfirmation(Anderson and Fornell, 1994;
Oliver, 1997).
Oliver’s theory (Oliver and De Sarbo, 1988) has three potential satisfaction levels:
•
Negative disconfirmationoccurs when the service is worse than expected.•
Positive disconfirmation occurs when the service is better than expected.•
Simple confirmation occurs when the service is as was expected.It has been questioned whether or not customers assess satisfaction in these terms (Crompton and MacKay, 1989; Buttle, 1996).
Cronin and Taylor (1994) suggested that there is no research to support this premise.
Although many writers are convinced that there is an interrelation between service qual- ity and customer satisfaction, Berry (1995) pointed out that measuring the elements of service is not the same as measuring custom- er expectations and perceptions (Box 5.1).
Whilst the debate on whether or not service quality and customer satisfaction are interrelated is academic, these underlying theories have consequences for the validity of measuring tools that have been developed for practitioners to use. Two indicators of cus- tomer satisfaction are the Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) and the Ameri- can Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). SCSB
Box 5.1. Example of measuring service quality.
Monitoring elements of service delivery can be an internal event without involving the customers. An example most frequently encountered is the service standard of answering the telephone within a certain number of rings. Electronic telephone equipment can easily monitor the performance achieved. While the telephones may be answered 100% of the time to the set standard, it is frequently observed that customers are left standing at reception desks, box offices, etc. as they are not considered to be part of this process.
Although a set of data would be produced by the telephone monitoring equipment, customer perception of the service cannot be accessed by this method.
Service quality Customer satisfaction Evaluated using
specific clues Based on perceptions of ‘excellence’
Cognitive
Evaluation more holistic Based on needs Emotional Table 5.1. Customer judgement of service quality and customer satisfaction.
measures overall satisfaction via customer expectations and perceptions of quality (Johnson, 1995); and ASQI measures the same plus value for money (Rosenberg, 1996).
Visitors to free-entrance facilities (museums and art galleries) have been known to state that their experiences were not value for money, which is indicative of them including the costs incurred in travelling to the site.
Tourism and Leisure Satisfaction Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) used the term
‘tourism quality jigsaw’. They stated that the individual components of the tourism prod- uct are different in size but are of equal importance to the tourist (e.g. weather, in-flight services, bars and restaurants, shopping opportunities).
Customer satisfaction is impinged upon by all aspects of the service delivery processes (encounters with staff; tangible elements;
time it takes the service to be delivered and whether or not it has been delivered correctly) as well as the outcomes of the experience.
Arousal Levels
One of the main satisfaction elements within the tourism product, in the opinion of Swarbrooke and Horner (1999), is arousal.
This can be found on a continuum from too little to too much, together with its consequences (Fig. 5.1).
The initial selection of a holiday desti- nation should form the basis for the correct arousal level. Others take a different point of view; they consider ‘arousal’ to be of a higher order than ‘satisfaction’ and that it can occur in many, if not all, service interactions. Their premise is that arousal is necessary to achieve
‘delighted’ consumers (i.e. exceeding custo- mer satisfaction levels). Swarbrooke and
Horner’s (1999) research is based on two leisure experiences: a zoo and a symphony concert. To leisure practitioners these are two areas where arousal would be considered as part of the basic service – the thrill of seeing the animals and the emotion of the music. To paraphrase Mosscrop and Stores (1991),
‘Quality in Tourism and Leisure is the experi- ence of knowing you’ve had a good time.’
The ‘good time’ experience of some customers could be a mediocre or bad time for others. The component of the tourism and leisure experience that has caused the overall feeling of a bad time may be external to the organization, such as transportation, other customers or members of the customer’s own group, or even themselves. The interaction of all or some of these factors can create the perception of a bad experience. Swarbrooke and Horner (1999) noted that gamblers were dissatisfied with the resort of Las Vegas when they did not win.
Liljander and Strandvik (1997) commen- ted that emotions play a part in being satisfied but those emotions need not be all positive.
They cited Arnould and Price’s (1993) work concerning high satisfaction caused by positive and negative emotions combined (e.g. watching horror films, or taking part in white-water rafting).
Customer Satisfaction in Multinational Organizations
The spread of service organizations through- out the world can be readily observed and tourism and hospitality companies are amon- gst the most prolific (e.g. theme parks, hotels, aquariums, fast-food outlets). The search for continuous improvement and customer satis- faction still has to be pursued in sometimes very different operational environments.
The transferability of a standardized service across the globe is reliant on the notion
Too little Too much
Boredom Relaxing Adventure holiday Frenzy, panic
Fig. 5.1. Arousal level continuum.
of ‘cultural homogenization’, that is, the same market segments throughout the world require the same services. Segal-Horn (1994) suggested that there is some foundation to this debate, hence the success of companies like McDonald’s.
It should be noted that in practice even standardized products and services are modi- fied to meet the needs of the local community.
In fast-food outlets, changes might be made to the amount of seasoning to suit local tastes, or items might even be removed from the menu if the main religion of the country forbids it.
The ban on alcoholic drinks by Disney at its theme parks was lifted at Disneyland Paris to accommodate the French custom of drinking wine with meals.
In transnational hotel chains, customers select the same service provider to reduce risk by gaining a similar experience as they travel throughout the world. At the same time the organization will have to adapt some ele- ments of the operations to accommodate the local culture (e.g. not serving alcohol or pork).
A number of organizations import senior staff from their parent company particularly at the start of operations (e.g. Disneyland Paris) to try to ensure that service delivery systems are correctly adapted.
Another problem of transnational opera- tions, highlighted by Varva (1998), is one of translating centrally produced question- naires. The sense of the question can be totally lost if a direct translation is carried out. The word ‘leisure’ is almost unknown to the gen- eral public in The Netherlands, where this concept is called ‘free time’ or ‘recreational recreation’.
A third element in the multinational dimension is the fact that tourist attractions and events attract many visitors from over- seas. The Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002 is but one example and the Football World Cup in 2006 will be another. Different nationalities will expect different service standards and if the service provider is not aware of these needs, satisfaction levels will be reduced. This applies to the participants as well as the spectators with these major multinational events.
The solutions to all three scenarios is for organizations to carry out research so that
they know what their customers want and to be familiar with the general working environ- ment, customs, practices and legislation for each country of operation and each cultural group using or working in the facility.
Zone of Tolerance Theory Customers’ subjective judgement as to whether or not they are satisfied with the ser- vice they have received is not as simple as a yes/no answer. Satisfaction can be to a lesser or greater degree, from ‘adequate’ through
‘desired’ to ‘delight’ (exceeding). Between
‘desired’ and ‘adequate’, Parasuraman (1995) suggested, is the customer’s ‘zone of tolerance’. Below ‘adequate’ the continuum represents totally unacceptable levels of service (Fig. 5.2).
Johnson (1995) gave instances of custom- er expectations having an effect on the width of the zone of tolerance. If customers perceive that the activity has a ‘high risk’ (e.g. white- water rafting) their zone of tolerance will be very narrow; the same activity to someone who is very familiar with it may be perceived as a ‘low risk’ and therefore have a wider zone.
It is suggested that service providers can manipulate these two extremes by giving information as well as assurance. With some spectator activities, even when no thought is given to customer service, manipulation is taking place (Box 5.2).
‘Delighting’ rather than just satisfying the customer is seen to be a positive surprise to the consumer. This strategy is increas- ingly implemented by practitioners. The implications for leisure and tourism prac- titioners of knowing the zone of tolerance of their customers is that they could reduce the level of service, reduce their costs and still satisfy them. Measuring these phenomena is difficult and many managers resort to trial and error especially in times of financial constraints.
The individual components that con- tribute to customer satisfaction, customer expectations of what a service should be and their perceptions of what they received, will be considered next.
Customer Expectations
Zeithamlet al. (1990) considered that the fac- tors that influence customers’ formulation of their expectations areword of mouth,personal needs,external communications and past experi- ence. Gummesson and Grönroos (1987) also considered that the image of the organization plays a part in the formulation of this judgement.
Johnson and Mathews (1997) noted that the expectations of a frequent user of a facility would rely more on the influence of past expe- riences than on other sources of information (e.g. advertisements). Researchers have no way of knowing what a first-time user’s expectations are based upon. Dale (1994a)
suggests that ‘world class’ experiences are used to formulate expectations, but Table 5.2 illustrates the problems of this for the tourism and leisure industry.
The examples in Table 5.2 are extreme, but customers’ past experience could be via television programmes, especially for first-time visitors who have no previous experience. Museums and art galleries may be judged against a virtual reality site rather than an actual facility. Harrington and Lenehan (1998) pointed out that some holidaymakers have high expectations of the intangible aspects of a service, which are rarely achieved (i.e. a holiday becoming a ‘dream experience’).
Parasuramanet al. (1988) tried to set cus- tomer expectations in context by suggesting Box 5.2. Football fans’ expectations of service (pre-Taylor Report).
Fans of football and other team sports are in many ways different from customers of other service organi- zations. Sociologists refer to the ‘tribalism’ of team sports fans or suggest that they are part of a ‘fandom’
(Bale, 1989). It could be argued that football clubs prior to the Taylor Report (1989) manipulated ‘their fans’ into thinking that they were in low-risk situations – their zone of tolerance was so wide that anything was acceptable and nothing was unacceptable (e.g. poor toilets, poor catering facilities, inadequate safety standards). The only ‘service standard’ the spectators were interested in was whether or not their team won. Even after many British fans had experienced ultra modern overseas stadia, they did not include this in their expectations of a UK professional football ground.
Customer expectations
Customer perceptions
Customer satisfaction
levels
Pre-purchase During
purchase
Post-purchase
Delight
Desirable service
Satisfactory service
Unacceptable service Zone of
Tolerance
Fig. 5.2. Zone of Tolerance theory. (Adapted from Parasuraman, 1995.)
that they are what an organization ‘should’
offer. Theoretically, this means that practitio- ners require customers to have expectations of what a three-star hotel should offer in order to be able to judge another three-star hotel. This may seem a reasonable request but it cannot be guaranteed (Teas, 1993).
Parasuraman et al. (1993) stated that expectations should be ‘normative standards’
and identified two norms for customer expectation service standards: desired and adequate service (Parasuramanet al., 1994).
Having different types of expectation stan- dards had been considered by Bouldinget al.
(1993) when they criticized Zeithamlet al.’s (1990) previous theory that customer expecta- tions were ‘one-dimensional’.
Miller (1977, cited in Randall and Senior, 1996) said that there are four levels of customer expectations: (i) ideal; (ii) pre- dicted; (iii) deserved; and (iv) minimum tolerance. Most of the methods for measuring customer expectations and perceptions (e.g.
SERVQUAL, see Chapter 13) concentrate on collecting data on customers’ ideal expectations and the lower but acceptable levels are ignored. For public sector leisure and tourism organizations, knowing their customers’ lower but satisfactory levels of expectations would aid them in devising service delivery specifications when the organization’s resources are limited. Equally,
service providers have to be aware that cus- tomer expectations are constantly changing.
Changes in Expectations
Customers are more aware of alternative service providers than ever before, partly because of the increase in the number of organizations in the service sector. Also the public, via various consumer programmes on television, are not only aware of alternative services but are also given information regarding poor service providers. The ability to purchase services on-line (e.g. air tickets) means that the choice of service provider is now global.
This is affecting the tourism sector at present more than leisure. People still require local providers for regularly used facilities (swimming pools, aerobic or music classes).
Increased competition means that service providers are not only escalating the standard of their core service but also augmenting their services (see Chapter 7). This leads to an upward movement of customers’ minimum tolerance levels (Lewis, 1995). For example, tea-making facilities are now the norm in overnight accommodation, including inex- pensive bed-and-breakfast establishments.
Factors such as changes in population demographics can affect the expectation of the service provider’s clients. Demographic changes mean that the population has a higher proportion of older people in it. These people are more discerning about service standards than younger age groups; as well as having higher expectations they expect to get ‘value for money’.
The case study in Box 5.3 shows that different levels of expectation can come about when an organization’s image is included in customers’ expectation judgement.
Box 5.3. Case study: Expectations of users of a public sector golf course.
Research carried out at a golf course suggested that its customers did not expect to receive an excellent service from a public sector organization. Comments were made such as, ‘They do the best they can in the circumstances’ and, ‘Well, it isn’t a private course.’ They did not take into account the fact that the course was run by contractors but they still had lower expectations than if they were going to play on a site managed by the commercial sector.
Location (judged against) Best in the world Leisure centre
Golf course Amusement park
Sydney 2000 Olympics facilities Open Golf
Championship course Disney World Table 5.2. World-class tourism and leisure experiences. (Adapted from Williams, 1998.)
Customer Perceptions
The final part of the customer satisfaction equation is their judgement of the service they have received: their perceptions. Oliver (cited in Taylor, 1997) defined customer perceptions as ‘a comparison to excellence in service by the customer’. It has already been stated how difficult it is for practitioners to know what ‘excellent’ is in the minds of individual customers and whether or not it is appropriate to judge a particular facility at that standard.
It is often considered that customer perceptions of a service are made at the end of a service encounter. Zeithamlet al. (1990) disagreed. They believed that there is an endless potential for judgements to be made during the service delivery process (as customers generally have to be present) and then once more at the post-consumption stage. O’Neillet al. (1998) took the view that all of these judgements are interrelated and therefore a holistic approach to researching customer perceptions is required.
Berry and Parasuraman (1994) consid- ered that some services are too technical for customers to judge whether they are being carried out correctly and stated that organiza- tions need to be fair when offering them (e.g.
passenger ferries). Berry (1995) and Grönroos (1990a) both discussed the notion of ‘service fairness’ and it would seem that an organ- izational philosophy of conducting business ethically must underpin the operational pro- cesses in these circumstances.
As previously stated, Peters (1987), Normann (1991) and Becker (1996) questioned the accuracy of customer perceptions. It is known that customer expectations are influ- enced by past experiences and that previous perceptions of the service contribute to this. It is also well known that people’s memories are not reliable. O’Neillet al. (1998) suggested that exit surveys to ascertain customer perceptions will give little information as to how they will view the service some time later, when considering repeating the experience.
To add to the complexity of customer per- ceptions, Armistead (1994) outlined a range of influences on this judgement:
•
The purpose of the encounter. Although tourism and leisure experiences could be seen as being secondary to other aspects of everyday life, they can be as signifi- cant and, for some people, more vital.•
The importance the customer places on the encounter. If someone has waited all year for a 2-week holiday, that service encounter is a major event to that cus- tomer. Gummesson (1995) expanded on Armistead’s ‘importance’ factor by sug- gesting that customers buy ‘offerings’rather than services. These offerings cre- ate value to them (e.g. the dream of the holidaymaker; the fitness gym providing a healthier lifestyle).
•
Perceived risk. There is always an element of risk in purchasing an unseen tourism or leisure experience. The growth in multinational chains of hotels and fast-food restaurants enables cus- tomers to reduce that perceived risk.•
Costs involved. The effect that this will have is directly related to the availability of an individual’s disposable income.Research by Chebatet al. (1995) indicated that the mood of the customer could affect their perceptions of the service, in particular the interactive parts of the experience. It is quite possible therefore for two individuals to formulate totally different perceptions of an identical service experience; this is in part due to the subjective nature of their judgement (Johnson and Mathews, 1997).
Schneider et al. (1998) found that customer perceptions are directly related to employees’ perceptions of the service and vice versa. They suggested that, as employees are internal customers of the organization, their needs must be met. Their level of effectiveness in delivering the service to external customers is a direct result of how they have perceived the service delivered to them.
Customer perceptions of a service are a complex series of judgements made during and at the end of the experience but are modi- fied by a range of factors including their mood, importance of the encounter, etc. The tourism and leisure industry has to be aware of these elements, especially when designing methods of receiving feedback from customers.