The Effects of the Service Environment on Affect and Consumer Perceptions of Waiting Time - Research Paper Example

Restaurant Sector Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Background The report is about customer satisfaction and service quality in the restaurant industry. The reports give direction on a number of issues regarding customer satisfaction and quality service in the restaurant sector. The paper highlights a number of methods that have been put in place to measure service quality, for instance, SERVQUAL, DINESERVE, IF and IPA. The paper illuminates a number of factors that ought to be put in consideration so that quality service and customer satisfaction can be attained. It also provides methods that can be pertinent in enhancing quality service and customer satisfaction. Methodology Primary data was used in conducting the research. Questionnaires were used in the data gathering process. The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part, respondent’s expectations about service quality in restaurant was measured. The second section examined respondents’ perceptions of service quality and the last part had demographic questions. The questionnaires were developed in various languages such as English, Italian, German as well as Croatian. This was aimed at capturing domestic as well as international restaurant visitors. The extent of expected as well as perceived service quality was measured on 35 restaurants attributes. The attributes represent five dimensions: reliability, tangible, empathy, assurance and responsiveness. Some attributes were also selected Andaleeb and Conway’s (2006) research and represent two dimensions: satisfaction and price. The research was carried out in settings, which managers agreed to take part in the study. The restaurants staff helped to distribute as well as collect survey sheets from customers who took part in the exercise. SPSS 12.0 was used in the analysis of data. Statistical surveys were also conducted in order to comply with the survey goals, bivariate, descriptive and multivariate. Service quality as well as customer satisfaction have been put as distinct, however they are closely related. There is link amid customer satisfaction as well as service quality. The following hypothesis can be adhered to; there is a correlation between tangibles as well as customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). There lacks a correlation between customer satisfaction and reliability in the restaurant industry. There is no general agreement regarding the nature or content of multiple dimensions of service quality. It can also be hypothesized that e-service satisfaction depends on a number of factors. Service quality is significant in the restaurant industry. According to the SERVQUAL, method cannot be exempted from criticism; consequently, another measurement of perceived service quality was developed. Major findings There are a number of definitions of customer satisfaction however: this paper will use the definition in Oliver’s (1997) terms: he defines it as consumer’s fulfilment response. Judgment that a good feature, or the good provides offers a level of fulfillment. Briefly, this is the general contentment with a product/service experience. The restaurant sector is very demanding and accentuates on high customer service as well as consistent improvement of quality. When lifestyles change, and dining becomes usual, customers desire fresh flavors, pleasant memories along with comfortable ambience. Concisely customers prefer an excellent dining experience. The experience can include both intangible and tangible factors. Tangible factors can be improved easily while the intangible services need much consideration (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Dining expectations among individuals has advanced owing to changing social environment, healthy dieting, and establishment of culinary culture as well as cultural influences. In the near future, customers are likely to be more sophisticated when making their decisions since their willingness to increase their dining levels and try out new things. Restaurants customers will look for new experiences, which satisfy their changing expectations. Therefore, it is fundamental to plan and meet customers’ expectations (Tzeng & Chang, 2011). Lately, the restaurant industry in the world is large and ubiquitous (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Therefore providing various products and services, the restaurant sector nearly touches on all the households various ways. In the restaurant sector, customer satisfaction is the centre of marketing. Customer satisfaction is vital in a number of ways since research shows that customers who are dissatisfied will always complain or seek redress from the management (Tzeng & Chang, 2011). Apparently, when a customer is satisfied with services offered in a particular restaurant, he is more likely to visit the restaurant repeatedly; this results in him being loyal to the service provider. Similarly, researchers have discovered a resilient link between loyalty and customer satisfaction. In Szymanski & Henard (2001), according to their meta-analysis, show 15 positive as well as significant relationships between loyalty and customer satisfaction. Nonetheless, the correlation is not just a simple light one. The behaviour can be dependent on consumer attributions, for instance, belief in causes of the CS/D assessment. According to Richard, Sundara, Alaway (1994) marketing practitioners often align their bets with customer satisfaction, they use slogans such as “our focus is customer satisfaction” or “Customer is the king”. Service quality is a significant element that drives customer satisfaction. Nonetheless, there exists some controversy whether customer satisfaction is because of service quality (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). A school of thought refers to service quality as a global assessment regarding a particular organization or a specific service category. Customer satisfaction relates to a particular transaction since most approaches of customer satisfaction relate to evaluation of a specific service experience. Therefore, instances of customer satisfaction after some time results in perceptions of service quality (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). Service quality can be perceived as the whole picture album and customer satisfaction is just a snapshot. Service quality and customer satisfaction are common to each other. Generally, service quality is a constituent of satisfaction while service quality is a constituent of satisfaction. Since satisfaction derives from a number of sources, for instance, service-encounter satisfaction and overall satisfaction. Little customer satisfaction based on service experience lead to satisfaction with the service (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Academicians have been involved in the service quality; this has led to considerable debate over its conceptualization. SERVQUAL is a method of assessing customer satisfaction for service industries; the measurement involves different customer viewpoint as well as expectations based on these five dimensions: reliability, tangibles, assurance, responsiveness as well as empathy. According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry (1985), they proposed the service quality model and developed consumer perceptions of the service quality systems. Perception is based on the gap between expectations of the customer service and the perceived service experience. Ten service quality dimensions were developed (Johnson & Mathews, 1997). These dimensions comprise the difference between expected service and perceived service. Additionally, service quality dimensions establish the relationship between service quality models (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). The 10 dimensions were reduced to five that includes dimensions: reliability, tangible, responsiveness, empathy and assurance. The SERVQUAL model now has a number of service science issues. Research based on this approach has been applied industry by Stevens (1995) who developed DINESERV from SERVQUAL with some encouraging results. DINESERV was used to evaluate consumer’s opinion of restaurants service quality. In DINESERVE, items are grouped into five service quality dimensions (Stevens, Knutson & Patton, 1995). SERVQUAL is an instrument that is used to measure customer’s perspective. The instrument has two main sections. One section comprises of 22 items, which measure customers’ expectations. The other section comprises of 22 corresponding items which measure customers’ opinion regarding the service offered. The 22 items represents the five service measurements, which customers use to assess service quality: reliability, tangibles, responsiveness, empathy as well as assurance. Even though the SERVQUAL approach has been used with much enthusiasm in a number of service industries, empirical evidence for the approach is not always encouraging. Some authors have argued that service quality can be predicted using perception only. However, in some specific service contexts it is vital to modify or delete some of the SERVQUAL dimensions. Additionally, finding the gap between anticipations and performance can be challenging (Carolyn & Andaleeb, n.p). According to the SERVQUAL instrument, service quality is measured basing on comparison of customers; expectations and the perceptions of the service delivered (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). SERVQUAL gap refers to the difference between perception scores and expectations. A positive gap shows that the consumer’s perception exceeded the expectations, and on the other hand, a negative gap shows that the service did not meet expectations of the customer (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). As mentioned before, the distinction between customer perception and expectations is based on the five SERVQUAL dimensions; a) reliability – this is meeting the standards of a promised service. b) Responsiveness – this is the eagerness to aid consumers with interest so that they can satisfy the customer. c) Assurance – this is the employee’s method this includes knowledge as well as courtesy so that the service provider can get customers trust. d) Empathy – this is individual interest as well as care that a consumer gains from the restaurants employees. e) Tangibles – this includes the appearance of written materials, equipment’s as well as other physical amenities. Tangible entails comfortable and clean environment, and constant cleaning staff are the most fundamental elements since dining quality as well as cleanliness are the main components of any customer service (Gronroos, 1990). The tangibility of the entity is depicted by customer volume in the value of alternative indicators and intangible services (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). For instance, restaurants give customers ample seating, space, comfortable and clean environment, constant cleaning staff as well as environment. As for reliability, food joints with more than one certification audit quality is the most significant elements since service staff attitudes as well as professional skills have an impact on customer satisfaction (Menon & Dube, 2000). In order to improve service, staff attitudes along with technology should be improved and managers ought to put focus on staffs’ technical expertise so that they can resolve customer questions and develop a professional image. In assurance, the behaviour of the personnel in right restaurants will give confidence to the customers. This is the significant element since customers require an environment that is clean (Baker & Cameron, 1996). The management ought to be keen on ensuring that the restaurants as well as its utensils are clean (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). This is something that cannot be tolerated when it comes to the restaurant sector since when the utensils are dirty or the environment is not clean the customer may not have appetite for food therefore resulting in him avoiding the dirty restaurant. As for empathy, restaurants that have excellent services have staffs who offer their customers personal attention (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). The staffs also proactively offers customers quality services so that the business can accrue a sustainable advantage along with creating value. Satisfaction is the customer’s assessment of a product or service that is whether the product has fulfilled customer’s expectations as well as needs (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). It is clear that satisfaction takes place when customer’s expectations go beyond after utilizing the product. Satisfaction can be perceived in two ways, for instance, overall satisfaction as well as service encounter satisfaction. In service encounter satisfaction, either dissatisfaction or satisfaction is experienced with the particular service encounters (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). On the other hand, the overall satisfaction is based on multiple experiences. Through these encounters, a consumer forms an opinion regarding services offered, and he bases on distinction between perceptions and expectations. According to Zopiatis & Pribic (2007), general cleanliness, quality of food menu, employees’ attitude, employees’ professionalism along with the atmosphere are instrumental elements in influencing a customer’s dining choices. Quality is the manner of supervising a business process so that it can warrant satisfaction at every level both externally and internally. Quality is something that is multidisciplinary and it includes all the aspects in any business (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Service quality is the general assessment that includes customers’ expectations as well as how the firm performs. Service quality = perception – expectation Emphasis on service quality upgrading along with enhancement is pertinent for a service producing industry to be competitive. One of the significant factors that drive customer satisfaction is service quality. Good service quality prompts customer satisfaction that results in high customer loyalty along with informing other people the quality service provided to him. External service quality has impacts on customer satisfaction in an array of ways, for instance, safety and choice – this implies to how free the customer feels while at the restaurant. Secondly, organizational image – this entails all the facets of a restaurant, for instance, menu approach, environment, waiters personality. These factors can make the customer feel at home since he is satisfied with the services being offered by the firm. Usually, service quality is considered more in comparison with customer satisfaction (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Thirdly, product quality, restaurants are mainly involved in preparing food for its customers. Quality food ought to be provided by the restaurant so that the customer can satisfied with the product being offered. There are a number of factors that guarantee synthesis of product quality. They include food presentation, healthy options, tastes and freshness, temperature and atmosphere quality. This can be applied in the food industry in the following ways, for instance, food presentation; this is an instrumental element of product quality (Sulek & Hensley 2004). Food that is well presented appears great to the customer and can even satisfy his hunger. Secondly, healthy options, this entails offering healthy and nutritious food. Presently many individuals are health conscious and very concerned with their personal health. Therefore, this has prompted nutritious food to be one of the major elements of ensuring satisfaction. Thirdly, tastes and freshness, food that is given to the customer ought to be tasty (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). Tasty and fresh food can satisfy someone’s hunger and influences restaurant satisfaction along with future behaviour intentions. Freshness can imply food that has crispy, juicy and its aroma. Atmosphere quality also influences product quality, for instance, physical environment can lead to feelings of pleasure, excitement or relaxation atmospheric features comprise of design, space, music and colour. Enough space develops a sense of intimacy and cosiness (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Price of products available in a restaurant’s menu influences customer satisfaction since price has the supremacy of attracting or repelling the customer (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). If a restaurant’s prices are low then it is likely to a question of the restaurant’s aptitude to give product quality. When the prices are high then customers will expect high quality services (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Customer’s satisfaction can be affected adversely when the prices are higher than what the customer expected. It goes without saying that good food and service makes customers satisfied nonetheless it is only good food quality that makes the customer to return again. Evaluating service quality in the restaurant sector is intricate since assessments are not only made on the service outcome, but also on the process of service delivery (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). As mentioned before, service encounters in the restaurant sector consists of three main factors: customers, for instance, interaction with others, employees, and this can entail reliability and professional skills and lastly environmental factors such as lighting, music and design (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). For anyone to comprehend all the features required in measurement of service quality, the appropriate measurement tool ought to be developed. Comparing customers’ expectations with the feeling of service offered can be instrumental in measuring service quality. Three methods SERVQUAL, IPA and IF can explain significant amount of service quality. Service quality elements of IPA have more consideration compared to those of IF and SERVQUAL (Richard, Sundara, Alaway, 1994). Measuring service quality elements as put forward by Parasuraman et al. (1988), among the factors, “responsiveness” is the most fundamental element. This implies that business enterprises ought to respond promptly to customers’ requirements according to appropriate changes in the process (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Service-oriented enterprises develops clients’ needs rather than fulfilling customers’ needs to shape the situation and life, developing physical and mental experiences so that they can change their consumption behaviour. Simultaneously, high relative significance of “responsiveness”, the remaining dimensions ought to be considered in the service quality model structure (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Both IPA and SERVQUAL were developed to measure calculations of weightings for service quality improvement elements in popular top 10 restaurants of blog. Critics may contend that only customers should be surveyed when assessing service quality in the restaurant sector, since they are in the management process. Stakeholders comprise of employers and managers (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Conclusion Customer satisfaction is the general contentment with a product/service experience. Experience can be both intangible and tangible factors. Tangible factors can be improved easily while the intangible services need much attention. Complaints from customers ought to be handled with a lot of seriousness since when customers complain and their concerns are not addressed it is likely to lead to grave ramifications. Marketing practitioners often align their bets with customer satisfaction, they use slogans such as “our focus is customer satisfaction” or “Customer is the king”. Service quality is a significant element that drives customer satisfaction. Research based on this approach has been applied industry by Stevens (1995) who developed DINESERV from SERVQUAL with some encouraging results. DINESERV was used to evaluate consumer’s opinion of restaurants service quality. In DINESERVE, items are grouped into five service quality dimensions (Markovic, Komsic & Stifanic). The distinction between customer perception and expectations is based on the five SERVQUAL dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy as well as tangibles. Quality is the manner of supervising a business process so that it can warrant satisfaction at every level both externally and internally. External service quality has impacts on customer satisfaction in an array of ways, for instance, safety and choice, organizational image. Price of products available in a restaurant’s menu influences customer satisfaction since price has the supremacy of attracting or repelling the customer. Evaluating service quality in the restaurant sector is intricate since assessments are not only made on the service outcome, but also on the process of service delivery. Service encounters in the restaurant sector consist of three main factors: customers, employees, and environmental factors. Implications The research findings will be instrumental in filling the gap. The findings of the several journals will help in displaying research topic that has been overdone. On the other hand, the research findings will show areas that have had little attention so that more research can be done on. There is an urgent need for conceptual changes to be established since the current concept of service quality does not fit the multidimensional environment in different nations. The application of SERVQUAL scale can help with various services in organizations assessing perceptions of service quality. Application of SERVQUAL can aid in identifying areas that require managerial attention as well as action to bolster service quality. SERVQUL can help managers to measure the external service quality as well as internal service quality, so that employees can understand their task in offering quality services to customers. Additionally, this instrument can help to ignite the required empirical research focusing on service quality, its antecedents as well as implications. References Baker, J & Cameron, M. (1996). The Effects of the Service Environment on Affect and Consumer Perceptions of Waiting Time: An Integrative Review and Research Proposition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 338-349. Butt, H & Murtaza, M. (2011). Measuring customer satisfaction w.r.t restaurant industry in Bahawalpur. European journal of business and management. 3 (5). Carolyn, C & Andaleeb, S. (n.d). Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: An examination of the transaction-specific model. Gronroos, C. (1990). Services Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition. New York: Lexington Books. Johnson, C & Mathews, B. P. (1997). The influence of experience on service expectations. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8, 290-305. Markovic, S., Komsic, J & Stifanic, M. (n.d). Measuring service quality in city restaurant settings using DINSERV scale. Recent advances in business management and marketing. Markovic, S., Raspor, S & Segaric, K. (2010). Does restaurant performance meet consumers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a modified DINESERVE approach. Tourism and hospitality management 16 (2). Menon, K & Dube, L. (2000). Ensuring Greater Satisfaction by Engineering Salesperson Response to Customer Emotions. Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 285-307. Oliver, R.L. (1997). Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41-50. Richard, M. D., Sundara, D. S., Alaway, A. W., (1994). Service quality and choice behavior: an Empirical investigation, Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing. 1(2). Stevens, P., Knutson, B. & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A Tool for Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (2), 56-60. pp. 93-109. Sulek, J. M. & Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere and fairness of wait. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 235-247. Tzeng, G & Chang, H. (2011). Applying importance-performance analysis as a service quality measure in food service industry. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 6 (3). Appendix Author(s) DV= Dependent Variable IV=Independent Variable Relationship with DV Measurement used Country Method Number of Respondent & Response Rate Population size Survey method Unit of Analysis (Conway & Andaleeb, 2006) Other relevant studies United States of America Quantitative 600 Interview Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the specific model (Butt & Murtaza, 2011) Bahawalpur Quantitative 172 Snowball sampling - questionnaires Measuring customer satisfaction w.r.t restaurant industry I Bahawalpur (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010) Quantitative 156 Random Does restaurant performance meet customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a modified DINESERV approach (Tzeng & Chang, 2011) Quantitative 154 questionnaire Applying importance-performance analysis as a service quality measure in food security industry (Markovic, Raspor & Segaric, 2010). Quantitative 103 Random sampling Measuring service quality in city restaurant settings using DINESERV scale Read More