Analysis of Service Operations at John Lewis Department Store - Essay Example

Analysis of service operations at John Lewis department store BY YOU YOUR SCHOOL INFO HERE HERE Analysis of service operations at John Lewis department store 1. Introduction John Lewis has a rich history of providing service excellence in the UK, giving the business a powerful brand due to the store’s longevity in the country. John Lewis has, in recent years, introduced many private label brands and diversified merchandise offerings to cater to more diverse markets with varying needs, motivations and psycho-social characteristics. Outside of the merchandising and supply strategy in operations, John Lewis has developed a streamlined service package that is both simplistic in terms of line-production methodologies enhanced by co-production systems for consumer self-service. This essay describes the service dimensions of John Lewis identified through qualitative primary research supported by a tangible visit to the organisation to observe and inquire, where appropriate, about the service dynamics that bring John Lewis such a recognised and alleged strong brand reputation. 2. The dynamics of service at John Lewis It should be noted that the research on the service organisation being studied is largely subjective as John Lewis does not openly publicise its service philosophy and structures in this highly competitive and saturated retail industry. Thus, the researcher visited John Lewis equipped only with theoretical information about service management as guidance for conducting the qualitative study. This knowledge was applied to the real-world retail environment in Nottingham as an anchor store in the Victoria Centre. The service package at John Lewis consists of four dimensions: the sales facility, facilitating goods, and a blend of implicit and explicit services. Upon entering the store, there were some dimensions of the servicescape that were unappealing. The departmentalisation of the facility was confusing with no distinct signage or direction illustrating the tangible constructs between men’s- and women’s-wear products. Additionally, the Victoria Centre had been built in 1972, thus there were drab water spots on the exterior concrete, making the anchor store rather unappealing immediately at first glance from the exterior. Schiffman and Kanuk (2010) identify that consumers often resort to their first impressions when interpreting service quality. This visit was no different and immediately impacted preliminary faith in the ability of John Lewis to fulfil service and purchasing needs. Facilitating goods include a variety of merchandise catering to many different market characteristics, including clothing, home and garden products, electronics, children’s toys and more, common in many department store formats. These goods were sporadically scattered between four different floors in the store, however with no distinct rationale for the distribution of the diverse product lines, making the process of identifying the appropriate department to fulfil the consumers’ needs quite puzzling. Explicit services consisted of the benefits easily perceived by the senses, including sales and price discounting on a variety of products, the sporadic yet easily accessible check-out facilities available throughout the store, availability of restroom facilities clearly identified, and the presence of self-service kiosks that allowed price checking and gift registration. All of these dimensions of explicit service were compatible with a well-designed store layout. Implicit services were more difficult to quantify, as it involved interactions with staff and their level of courtesy and competency, the overhead music within the servicescape, and the presence of in-store security to ensure consumer safety during their shopping experiences. The service design was a blend of consumer co-production systems which was evident in the availability of the self-service kiosks. Coupled with co-production was a standardisation philosophy, which limits the services available to only a few, streamlined options (in this case routine processes) that assist in better managing quality (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons 2011). By standardising and providing opportunities for self-service, consumers achieved benefits associated with their own labour by injecting convenience into the service model (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons). Reducing the necessary levels of interaction with service support staff also managed to break down the staffs’ job roles into rather simplistic tasks under what appeared to be an effective line-production approach. Managing capacity successfully was evident in the widespread availability of check-out services manned by service staff that were present on all four floors, each check-out centre equipped to provide the service regardless of the specific piece of merchandise selected by the consumer in all different departments. This provided more convenience to the customer by not forcing departmentalised payment services and allowing for freer browsing of the servicescape. It would likely inject negative perceptions about service quality if consumers were forced to pay for their merchandise selections on each floor housing the different products, thus John Lewis was adept at providing convenience in this dimension of service delivery. The customer service area managed queues through the take a number system, providing a level of perceived fairness related to walk-in customers regardless of the volume. Upon observation of this area of service, there was an instance where the queue had grown significantly and immediately a new service agent was called upon to handle the overflow of customer volume. Though it was clear through observation that several customers had grown impatient during their wait time for service (observable through body language and hushed discussions), the level to which consumers openly expressed these concerns to the service staff was non-existent. Through the take a number system, equity was apparent in the service model and no discrimination evident. There was little observable evidence of quality management practices, other than discussions overhead by the researcher about engaging in a satisfaction survey available online and printed on the back of John Lewis merchandise receipts. These surveys were incentivised with opportunities for sweepstakes drawings for participation and promoted by the service staff at check-out. Additionally, there were clearly-labelled management presences visible throughout the organisation that were engaging with service staff at check-out, customer service, and with sales support staff charged with interaction with walk-in customers in various departments on all floors. On one occasion, the researcher overhead an employee being chastised for failing to man their allocated service region, thus quality control and management is evident in the managerial practices related to establishment of control and punishment systems. 3. An analysis emphasising quality management at John Lewis Interactions with staff and the service environment dictate what consumers feel about a brand and also their overall relationship with the service brand (Grace and O’Cass 2004; Chang and Chieng 2006; Berry and Carbone 2007). Moving beyond just the observation process and actually engaging staff illustrated potential problems with quality management as it relates to training and then follow-up on the outcomes of training. Dandy (1996) suggests that John Lewis is a leader in service quality associated with training and establishing a cohesive organisational culture in which employees are valued, treated equitably. This is under the philosophy that proper treatment and emphasis on the human resources processes will, in turn, translate into the same behaviour toward customers. Personal experience in the John Lewis environment did not illustrate that positive outcomes related to customer engagement had been achieved with all staff members. When browsing through home electronics, the researcher engaged one service staff member asking a variety of rather simplistic questions about product features that should have been largely understood by service staff. Such inquiries included attachment features (i.e. HDMI inputs and other relevant product attributes). It quickly became clear that the service member, who was male and approximately 30 years of age, was growing frustrated with the researcher’s line of questioning. This was evident in ambiguous responses in what appeared to be an effort to superimpose false knowledge over lack of proper training and through body language. After being unable to satisfy the researcher, the serviceperson stated that he would find someone better-suited to assist and left with what was perceived as an effort to locate a more skilled serviceperson. After approximately 10 minutes of waiting for further assistance without being serviced properly, the researcher left the department in search of another service encounter with the sales team. Upon returning to the first floor, the first serviceperson that maintained limited product knowledge was observed smoking a fag at the front entrance, seemingly oblivious that he had been involved in a radical service failure with an inquisitive potential buyer. In another instance, the researcher engaged a service staff member in the menswear area, launching what appeared to be a quality intervention as the serviceperson was diligent in approaching the researcher without having to seek out their service guidance. However, this engagement also wound up being an inferior service encounter as the line of inquiries proposed by the researcher additionally met with little knowledge of product. During the service encounter, the department manager indicated to the serviceperson that their scheduled break period had passed and he would have to depart the sales floor immediately. As such, the researcher was left mildly confounded at being left to complete self-service in this department. Boulding, Kalara, Staelin and Zeithaml (1993) strongly iterate that there is a distinct and measurable correlation between quality of service as it is perceived by consumers and their willingness to make future purchases and recommend the service environment to other consumers. There were clearly breakdowns in service quality and service quality management at this particular John Lewis location and, if having been a legitimate customer, the researcher would likely provide significantly negative word-of-mouth to others and suggest seeking another retail outlet to handle their shopping needs. Managers, rather than being observant and making mental notes of serviceperson quality of interaction, were clearly more concerned with satisfying the structural demands of the business model than in being more interactive in ensuring quality of the service encounter. This was difficult to believe considering the simplicity of standardised services which provide the structure by which to more effectively measure and ensure service quality (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons 2011). Furthermore, in an effort to examine the reliability of the consumer co-production system, the researcher attempted to utilise the gift registry self-service kiosk. Almost immediately after following the directions on kiosk present on the touch screen, the program locked and would allow no further inquiries or exiting of the frozen self-service technology. Interested in how John Lewis measured this type of service failure, the researcher located a departmental manager to inform her of the service breakdown. The response was one of lack of concern, with the manager identifying that such failures were common and it was recommended to visit another John Lewis store to fulfil registry needs. A shrug of the shoulders from this member of the management team and a brief apology secured the integrity of the service encounter. Zhang and Chan (2009) offer that attachments to a brand are most likely achievable when a brand (in this case John Lewis holistically) provides opportunities for self-expansion. The failure of the self-service kiosk depleted these opportunities for improving the researcher’s lifestyle and social position which was strongly reinforced by service encounter failures and clear lack of interest in the potential consequences of a lost customer with no positive sentiment toward the John Lewis brand name. There were no efforts made by any service staff members or management to attempt to recover service. Repurchasing intentions, brand commitment, and reliability of positive word-of-mouth advertising are strongly influenced by the methodology by which brands have attempted to recover service failures (Blodgett, Hill and Tax 1997). To test how John Lewis attempted service recovery as part of quality management, the researcher asked a salesperson to speak with a senior-level manager to discuss problems with the diverse service encounters that occurred. After waiting at least 10 minutes, another divisional manager (and not a senior official) spoke with the researcher, offering apologies for the negative experiences. Rather than offer discounts for future merchandise or some other recovery effort, the manager asked the researcher to walk through the store and identify the specific service staff members that had contributed to the service failures. This strategy, as offered by the manager, would have further burdened the researcher in an attempt to utilise the buyer as a control and disciplinary methodology. There was no effort to take full responsibility for the service failures, which according to theory create negative sentiment about customer satisfaction and will instil belief in the consumer that such failures will occur again and again (Gooding and Kinicki 1995). The researcher did not expect, in any fashion, to fit the profile of a theoretical buyer that has experienced negative service quality in the retail environment. However, failure to take responsibility and attempt to recover the service breakdown strongly impacted the overall perception of brand quality and significantly reduced any likelihood that the researcher would visit John Lewis again. The only quality management systems evident in the business was management, who were rather incompetent in utilising appropriate service recovery strategies and taking accountability for the failures of others under their charge. Coupled with customer satisfaction surveys provided post-purchase, which are ineffective in gaining a holistic perspective of the total service experience, it would appear that John Lewis (at least this particular location) maintained no legitimate and research-supported quality management tools. The process structure of service design and researcher concern over whether the business was even utilising an appropriate service blueprint deeply impacted the holistic view of the John Lewis brand. Standardising service design elements was intended, subjectively, for John Lewis to be able to adapt more effectively to meeting consumer needs and providing service excellence. This should have been accomplished by simplifying individual service support staff job roles to focus specifically on providing excellence of service. What made this particular case study so perplexing was that other retail organisations with much more dynamic and complex service designs are able to more effectively delivery quality of service and measure its positive or negative outcomes. John Lewis maintains such limited service package dimensions that are even further eroded by establishing consumer co-production systems. Service failures were recurrent throughout the organisation in nearly every department and with every encounter with management and staff, making it difficult to determine how John Lewis has managed to maintain its alleged positive brand reputation in the contemporary shopping environment. Perhaps all of the aforementioned experiences incurred by the researcher were unique, however that is highly doubtful considering the depth and breadth of numerous service failures with no attempts to try to recover the service and retain a potentially profitable customer. 4. Conclusion The researcher’s visit to the John Lewis brand was, in nearly all accounts, a complete service failure. Other than the queuing strategy in the take a number system, practically all theoretical models that support how to establish an effective system of service delivery and service design were inappropriate and risky to the profit expectations of the business. From the dismal servicescape that provided an immediate negative first impression due to the facility exterior to the multitude of negative service encounters, the researcher now maintains a very negative opinion of the John Lewis brand holistically and not just with the Nottingham store. If the researcher were given an in-depth customer satisfaction survey in which to rank the quality of service provided at John Lewis, on a ranking scale of 1-10, the business would receive a two; and that is very liberal. It is recommended that the brand establish a more theory-aligned system of service delivery and service recovery if John Lewis hopes to remain competitive. References Berry, L. and Carbone, L.P. (2007). Build loyalty through experience management, Quality Progress, 40(9), pp.26-32. Blodgett, J.G., Hill, D.J. and Tax, S.S. (1997). The effects of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on post-complaint behaviour, Journal of Retailing, 73(2), pp.185-210. Boulding, W., Kalara, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions, Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), pp.7-27. Chang, P. and Chieng, M. (2006). Building consumer-brand relationship: a cross-cultural experiential view, Psychology and Marketing, 23(11), pp.927-959. Dandy, J. (1996). The ethical route to service quality at John Lewis Partnership, Managing Service Quality, 6(5), pp.17-19. Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2011). Service Management – Operations, Strategy, Information Technology, 7th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Gooding, R.Z. and Kinicki, A.J. (1995). Interpreting event causes: the complementary role of categorisation and attribution processes, Journal of Management Studies, 32(January), pp.1-22. Grace, D. and O’Cass, A. (2004). Examining service experiences and post-consumption evaluations, Journal of Services Marketing, 18(6), pp.450-461. Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2010). Consumer Behaviour, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall International Inc. Zhang, H. and Chan, D. (2009). Self-esteem as a source of evaluative conditioning, European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(3), pp.1065-1074. Read More