32605215

14 Journal of Marketing & Communication

Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction

and Behavioural Intention in Hotel

IndustryJ. Vijayadurai

J.Vijayadurai is S.G Lecturer, Department of Business

Administration, N.M.S.S.V.N.College, Madurai.

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.

The service sector plays an

increasingly important role in

modern economics. In India, the

service sector has been emerging as the

dominant component of the economy. The

strong economic growth, increased

disposable income, urbanization and the

impact of various factors have fuelled a

strong need for tourism in India. The hotel

business being a comparatively low entry

barrier industry is being perceived as an

attractive option for those bitten by the

entrepreneurial bug. After globalization,

the growth of hotels have been witnessed

to face the major challenge of improving

quality of the service offered, in order to

attract a large number of domestic and

foreign customers. Attracting new

customers alone is insufficient, as the

management must concentrate on

preventing “customers-exit” since the

cost of attracting new customers is higher

January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 15

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 customers’ satisfaction and

their behavioural intention and

iii) To examine the impact of service

quality on customers satisfaction and

their behavioural intention.

Conceptual Foundations:

Over the past 30 years, several authors have

attempted to develop coherent

classification schemes for services. The

intent of such schemes is to bring parsimony

and order to allow a better understanding

of the characteristics that differentiate

services and the organizations that provide

them. The following section reviews some

of these schemes.

Service Typology and Service Quality

Cook et al. (1999) chronicled the previous

work in the development of service

typology, and presented both the marketing

oriented and operations – oriented views

of service dimensions. Marketing-oriented

views used in the literature to classify

service dimensions include intangibility,

differentiation, object of transformation,

type of customer and commitment.

Classification schemes based on the

operations – oriented view include

customers contact, customer involvement,

labour intensity, and degree of

customization, degree of employee

discretion and production process.

Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2004) went

for a more detailed discussion of each of

the service classification outlined above.

Schemenner (1986) combined the degree

of customer contact and customization with

labour intensity to propose a two

dimensional service process matrix. He

divided the landscape of services into

service factory, service shop, mass service

and professional service.

Several authors have considered various

aspects of customer contact, customer

involvement and degree of provider

discretion (Kellogg and Chase, 1995;

Lovelock 1983). This study adopts

Schemenner classification, because it

contains several elements of the “degree

of customer interaction, customization”

under different levels of plant and

equipment intensity commonly experienced

in service delivery systems (Mills and

Marguiles, 1980). As highlighted above,

Schemenner (1986) classified hotels (the

lodging industry) as a service quality.

Service Quality (SQ)

Many researchers have defined the

meaning of quality in different ways. This

quality construct has been variously defined

as value (Feizenbaum, 1951), conformance

to requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for

use (Juran et al., 1974), meeting customers’

expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985) and

the totality of the features and

characteristics of a product or service that

bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied

needs (ANSI/ASQS, 1987). In services

marketing literature, the most widely used

definition of service quality is “to meet the

customers’ expectations”, as defined by

Parasuraman et al., (1985). They found that

service quality could neither be

conceptualized nor evaluated by traditional

‘goods quality’ methods because services

possess three characteristics: intangibility,

heterogeneity and inseparability

(Parasuraman et al., 1985). They also

developed an instrument called

SERVQUAL to measure service quality by

comparing of customer’s expectations with

their perceptions of the service

performance. Both the original

Many researchers have

defined the meaning of

quality in different ways.

This quality construct has

been variously defined as

value (Feizenbaum,

1951), conformance to

requirements (Crosby,

1979), fitness for use

(Juran et al., 1974),

meeting customers’

expectations

(Parasuraman et al.,

1985) and the totality of

the features and

characteristics of a

product or service that

bear on its ability to

satisfy stated or implied

needs (ANSI/ASQS,

1987).


SERVQUAL version (Parasuraman et al.,

1988) and the revised version

(Parasuraman et al., 1991, 1994) contain

five dimensions: tangibles, reliability,

responsiveness, assurance and empathy.

Although SERVQUAL has become one of

the leading instruments of service quality,

it has been subjected with some criticisms.

These criticisms included the application

to other service settings (Carman, 1990),

the conceptualization of service quality

(Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993) and

the dimensions and contents of service

quality (Muttal and Lassar, 1996;

Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In the present

study, the focus is on the contents of

SERVPERF. It is the measurement of the

customers’ perceptions of the performance

of a service provider and adequate

assessment for service quality (Peter et

al., 1993; Bebko, 2000; Andaleep and Basu,

1994).

Service Quality in Hotel Industry:

Several researchers have suggested that

the search for universal conceptualization

of the service quality construct may be

futile (Levitt, 1987; Lovelock 1983) and

arguments have been advanced to suggest

that service quality is either industry or

context specific (Babakus and Boller,

1992). The core service portrays the

‘content’ of a service what is delivered is

as substantial as how it is delivered.

Schneider and Bowen (1995) classified that

many a time managers become so involved

with all the procedures, processes and

contexts for service, that they tend to

overlook that there is also something called

the ‘core service’. Rust and Oliver (1994)

defined the service product as whatever

service ‘features’ that is offered. Schneider

and Bowmen (1995) who also argued that

fancy facilities, modern equipment, stylish

uniforms and terrific signs can never

countervail for poor financial advice.

Houser and Clausing (1988) also

demonstrated the influence of diverse

product attitudes on customers’

perceptions. Zenike and Schaaf (1990)

identified the two distinct and disparate

features: Human element of service

delivery, which has been effectively

addressed by the SERVQUAL. The

process, procedures, systems and

technology would make service

seamlessness one. The second aspect is

as crucial as the first one. Guests would

always like and expect the service delivery

processes to be perfectly standardized,

streamlined and simplified so that they

could receive the service without any

hassles, hiccups or undesired/ inordinate

questioning by the service providers.

Drumond (1992) identified the production

interface and delivery interface to measure

the service quality tourism industry. Oberai

and Hales (1990) used ten dimensions to

measure the service quality in hotel

industry as reliability, responsiveness,

competitiveness, access, courteous,

communication, credibility, security,

understanding and tangible. Saxena and

Kishor (1996); and Kapil Kumar (1996)

have created some dimensions to measure

the service quality in tourism. On the basis

of the above literature, the present study

measures the service quality in hotel

industry with the help of 39 statements. In

the present study, three statements have

been used to measure the behavioural

intention among the guests.

Interrelationships among SQ, CS, and

BI

Brady and Robertson (2001) believed that

service quality is antecedent to satisfaction.

They argue that since service quality is a

cognitive evaluation, a positive service

quality perception can head to satisfaction,

which may turn lead to favourable

behavioural intentions. Dabholkar (1995)

suggested that the antecedent role of

service quality and satisfaction is situation

specific and that if a consumer is cognitive

Oberai and Hales (1990)

used ten dimensions to

measure the service

quality in hotel industry

as reliability,

responsiveness,

competitiveness, access,

courteous,

communication,

credibility, security,

understanding and

tangible.


oriented, he or she will perceive the

relationship as service quality causing

satisfaction, whereas if a consumer is

affective oriented he or she will perceive

the relationship as satisfaction causing

service quality. Cronin et al, (2000)

concluded that direct link between service

quality and behavioural intentions is

significant. In the present study, the impact

of service quality on Customer Satisfaction

and behavioural intention has been

examined separately. Table - 1

Service Quality Factors in Hotel Industry

Sl. Service No. of Reliability Eigen Percent Cumulative

No. Quality Factors Service Coefficient value of percent of

Quality variance variance

Variables explained explained

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)

Several studies seem to conclude that

satisfaction as an affective construct rather

than a cognitive construct (Oliver, 1997;

Olsen, 2002). Rust and Oliver (1994)

defined satisfaction as the “Customer’s

fulfillment response”, which is an

evaluation as well as emotion based

response to a service. Cronin et al, (2000)

assessed service satisfaction using items

that include interest, enjoyment, surprise,

anger, wise choice, and doing the right thing.

In the present study, the concept of

Westbrook and Oliver’s (1991) four

emotion – laden items has been used to

measure the customers’ satisfaction.

Sample questions are: “I am satisfied with

my decision to visit this hotel and “my

choice to stay at this hotel was a wise one”.

Behavioural Intention (BI)

Behavioural intention represents the

repurchase intentions word of mouth,

loyalty complaining behaviour, and price

sensitivity (Zeithaml et al, 1996). Bourton

et al (2003) revealed that customers

experience is related to behavioural

intentions. The more positive the

customer’s experience, the more likely he

or she is willing to reuse the service. Festus

et al., (2006) used three statements.

Research Methodology

Scale Development

The service quality in hotel industry,

customers’ satisfaction and their

behavioural intention have been examined

with the help of the statements drawn from

the reviews. These are presented in

Table.1.

Behavioural intention

represents the repurchase

intentions word of mouth,

loyalty complaining

behaviour, and price

sensitivity (Zeithaml et

al, 1996). Bourton et al

(2003) revealed that

customers experience is

related to behavioural

intentions. The more

positive the customer’s

experience, the more

likely he or she is willing

to reuse the service.


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

afore-said service quality variables,

customers satisfaction and behavioural

intention. In the case of service quality

variables, the guests are asked to rate at

five point scale namely highly satisfied,

satisfied, moderate, dissatisfied and highly

dissatisfied. The statements related to

customers satisfaction and their

behavioural intention have been also rated

at five point scale from highly agree to

highly disagree. The scores assigned on

these scales range from 5 to 1 respectively.

The Sample

In order to secure a more representative

sample, the convenience sampling

approach has been administered to

distribute the questionnaires among the

hotel customers in Madurai city, Tamilnadu.

Madurai city has been selected for the


study because of two reasons since it is an

ancient Temple city and it is also a tourist

spot especially for the pilgrims to visit

Meenakshiamman Temple. There are so

many hotels in and around Meenakshi-

amman Temple at the heart of city. Only

those hotels have been selected for the

study. In total, 30 hotels have been

purposively selected. From each hotel, 10

guests have been selected at the

convenience of the researcher. Our

samples included employees of Major

Corporations, State, and Central

government establishments, members of

different religious organizations and

businessmen. The response rate among the

sampled guests is only 58.66 of those

percent. Those 176 completed

questionnaires have been included for the

present study.

Data Analysis

The present study reviewed the descriptive

statistics with a data distribution on the

basis of level of education, annual income,

age, occupation, and average days stayed

in hotel. The Kaiser-Meyer-Ohlin (KMO)

measure of sampling adequacy and

Bartlett’s test of sphericity have been

executed to test the validity of data for

factor analysis. After the confirmation of

these two tests, the Principal component

analysis has been used to narrate the

service quality variables into service quality

factors. In our analysis, only factors with

Eigen value greater than one are retained.

Factor matrix is transformed through

rotation into a simpler one that is easier to

interpret. It does not affect the percentage

of total variance explained. However, the

variance explained by the individual factors

is redistributed by rotation. The most

commonly used method is Varimax rotation

procedure. This procedure maximizes the

variance of loadings on each factor, thus

minimizing the complexity of the factors.

The impact of service quality factors on

the customer’s satisfaction and their

behavioural intention have been examined

with the help of multiple regression analysis.

The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method

has been followed to fit the regression

equation.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The sample of guests ranged from the

under graduation level of education of

(41.20 percent) and to professional

education (21.71 percent). About 48.11

percent of the guests belonged to the

occupational background of employees of

major corporations, State and Central

government establishment followed by

businessmen forming 29.68 percent to the

total. The dominant guests’ age group was

41 to 50 (36.19 percent) and 31 to 40 (28.04

percent). The majority of the guests had

stayed in a hotel for 2.04 days (61.89

percent).

Service quality factors in hotel

The service quality factors have been

identified with the help of factor analysis.

The resulted number of service quality

factors, its Eigen value, percent of variance

explained, reliability coefficient is illustrated

in Table.2.

The service quality variables in hotel

industry are narrated by the factor analysis.

The resulted service quality factors are

Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability,

Assurance, Responsiveness, Empathy,

Service product and Social responsibility.

The important service quality factors are

Service delivery, Tangibles and Reliability

since its Eigen values are 3.1817, 2.9086

and 2.7114 respectively. The percent of

variation explained by the above three

service quality factors are 16.34, 14.28 and

11.37 percent respectively. It connotes that

the service quality factors namely service

delivery, tangibles and reliability explain all

38 service quality variables together to the

The service quality

variables in hotel

industry are narrated by

the factor analysis. The

resulted service quality

factors are Service

delivery, Tangibles,

Reliability, Assurance,

Responsiveness, Empathy,

Service product and

Social responsibility.


extent of 16.34, 14.28 and 11.37 percent

respectively.

The last three service quality factors

identified by factor analysis are Empathy,

Service product and Social responsibility

since their Eigen values are 2.0869, 2.0263

and 1.8334 respectively. The respective

percentage of variation explained by the

above three factors are 8.61, 8.08 and 6.09

respectively. All the eight service quality

factors explain the service quality variables

in the hotel industry to the extent of 85.78

percent.

Service Quality Variables in each factor

The included service quality variables in

Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability and

Assurance are 6, 6, 5 and 4 respectively.

The included service quality variables in

the above said four service quality factors

explain the respective service quality

factors to the extent of 82.34, 76.01, 8171

and 73.36 percent respectively, since their

reliability coefficients are 0.8234, 0.7601,

0.8171 and 0.7336 respectively. The

service quality variables included in

responsiveness, empathy, service product

and social responsibility explain the

respective service quality factors to the

extent of 84.08, 68.08, 71.32 and 65.69

percent respectively since their respective

reliability coefficients are 0.8408, 0.6808,

0.7132 and 0.6569. The variables included

in the eight service quality factors are given

in Table 3.

Table 3

Service Quality Variables in each factor

Sl.No. Service Quality Factors Service Quality Variables

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

‘service delivery’ consists of service quality

variables namely standardized, structured

and simplified delivery process, getting

feedback from customers, enhancement of

technological capability, effective redressal

system, foolproof procedures and

procedures and processes; and adequate

and necessary personal facilities since their

respective factor loadings are higher in the

service delivery factor than in the other

factors. The included service quality

variables in tangibles are appearance of

physical facilities, equipment etc; well

dressed personnel, classy and comfortable

ambient conditions, physical layout of

equipment and others furnishings; and

proper housekeeping. The ‘reliability’ factor

consists of right delivery of service at first

time, service provider’s ability to display a

positive moment of truth, perform promised

service, interest to solve customers problem

and error free records, billing and other

transactions. The ‘assurance’ factor

consists of politeness, respect and

friendliness of contact personnel, feeling

of delight and satisfaction, ability for action

at critical time and trust worthiness and

These service quality

factor namely ‘service

delivery’ consists of

service quality variables

namely standardized,

structured and simplified

delivery process, getting

feedback from customers,

enhancement of

technological capability,

effective redressal

system, foolproof

procedures and

procedures and

processes; and adequate

and necessary personal

facilities since their

respective factor

loadings are higher in

the service delivery

factor than in the other

factors.


honesty of the service provider. The

‘responsiveness’ factor consists of

providing prompt and timely service, ability

to communicate provision of services,

availability of service providers at required

time and willingness to help customers

whereas the ‘empathy’ factor consists of

individualized attention, approachability and

ease of contact, flexibility in language skill

and understanding the specific needs of

customers.

The service quality variables included in

service product are diversity and range of

services, contact of service, service

innovation, convenient and flexible

operating hours, and intensity and depth of

service. The social responsibility factor

consists of concession to economically poor,

giving to good service at a best value, equal

treatment, and ethical and public

responsibility of employees since their

respective factor loadings are higher in the

social responsibility factor compared to

other service quality factors.

SERVPERF Scale on Service Quality

Factors

The SERVPERF scale represents the

performance – only measurement on the

service quality factors. The SERVPERF

scale on SQFs is computed by the mean

score of perception service quality

variables in each SQF. The mean score of

SERVPERF scale on each SQF among the

guests have been computed to exhibit the

guests’ perception on SQFs. In order to

analyze the consistency of the perception

on SQFs, the standard deviation and

coefficient of variation of each SQFs have

been measured separately.

Table 4

SERVPERF Scale on Service Quality Factors among the Guests

Sl.No. Service Quality Mean Score of Standard Coefficient of

Factors SERVPERF Deviation Variation

(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 21.73

The highly perceived SQFs in hotel industry

among the guests are service quality

delivery and tangibles since their respective

mean scores are 3.6814 and 3.3403. The

lesser perceived SQFs in hotel industry

among the guests are empathy and

responsiveness since their respective mean

scores are 2.1708 and 2.5823. The higher

consistency in the perception on service

delivery and tangibles has been identified

since their coefficient of variation is 11.89

and 14.08 percent respectively. The

analysis 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.

Association between Profile of the

Guests and Their Perception on SQFs

The perception on SQFs among the guests

may be associated with their profile. The

The service quality

variables included in

service product are

diversity and range of

services, contact of

service, service

innovation, convenient

and flexible operating

hours, and intensity and

depth of service. The

social responsibility

factor consists of

concession to

economically poor,

giving to good service at

a best value, equal

treatment, and ethical

and public responsibility

of employees since their

respective factor

loadings are higher in

the social responsibility

factor compared to other

service quality factors.


included profile variables in the present

study are level of education, annual income,

age, occupation and average number of

days stayed at the hotel. In order to

examine the association between the profile

of guests and their perception on service

delivery, tangibles, reliability, assurance,


and social responsibility, the one way

analysis of variance has been administered.

The results are given in Table. 5.

Table.5

Association between Profile of Guests and their SERVPERF Scale on SQFs

F. Statistcs

Sl.No Service Level of Annual Age Occupation Average

Quality Education Income No. of

days

stayed

1. Service delivery 2.9198* 3.1441* 2.7803* 1.8644 2.5089*

2. Tangibles 3.0432* 2.9617* 2.8184* 2.0861 2.7162*

3. Reliability 2.1143 2.0869 2.9029* 2.4533 2.4084*

4. Assurance 2.2096 2.4503* 2.4086 2.1447 2.3991*

5. Responsiveness 2.5168* 2.4114* 1.9908 1.9096 3.0144*

6. Empathy 2.7061* 2.0869 2.6864* 2.5163 3.1234*

7. Service Product 3.1783* 2.7103* 2.0733 2.8189* 2.1708*

8. Social responsibility 2.8189* 2.1143 2.1508 2.0614 2.6606*

Regarding the perception in service

delivery and tangibles the significantly

associating profile variables are level of

education, annual income, age and average

number of days stayed since their

respective ‘F’ statistics are significant at

five percent level. The significantly

associating profile variables with the

perception on reliability are age and

average number of days stayed whereas

regarding the perception on assurance,

these significant profile variables are

annual income and average number of days

stayed. Regarding the perception on

responsiveness, the significantly associating

profile variables are level of education,

annual income and average number of days

stayed whereas these significant profile

variables regarding the perception on

empathy are level of education, age and

average number of days stayed. The

significantly associating profile variables

with the perception on service product are

level of education, annual income,

occupation and average number of days

stayed whereas in the perception on social

responsibility, the profile variables are level

of education and average number of days

stayed. In total, the highly associating

profile variables with the perception on

SQFs are average number of days stayed,

level of education and annual income.

Impact of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs

on Customers Satisfaction

The customers’ satisfaction among the

guests have been computed from the mean

score of four related statements. The

customers’ satisfaction may be caused by

their perception on SQFs. The present

study has made an attempt to analyze the

impact of SERVPERF scale on SQFs on

customers’ satisfaction with the help of

multiple regression analysis. The field

regression model is

Regarding the

perception in service

delivery and tangibles

the significantly

associating profile

variables are level of

education, annual

income, age and average

number of days stayed

since their respective ‘F’

statistics are significant

at five percent level. The

significantly associating

profile variables with

the perception on

reliability are age and

average number of days

stayed whereas

regarding the perception

on assurance, these

significant profile

variables are annual

income and average

number of days stayed.


Y = a + b1x

1 + b

2x

2 +

……………. + b8x

8 + e

Whereas y – score on customers

satisfaction

x15

x21

, ……………x8 –

Score of perception on eight SQFs

b1, b

2, ………… b

8 –

Regression coefficients of independent

variables

a – Intercept and

R – Error term

Table 6

Regression coefficient of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs on the Customers

Satisfaction

Sl.No Service Quality Standardised Standard Error t- Statistics P - Value

Factors (SQFs) Regression

Coefficient

1. Service delivery 0.3146 0.0582 5.4055 0.0217

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

R2 0.7938

F – Statistics 12.8142 0.0371

The significantly influencing SERVPERF

scale on SQFs on customers’ satisfaction

are service delivery, reliability, assurance,

responsiveness and empathy since their

respective regression coefficients are

significant at five percent level. A unit

increase in the perception on above said

SQFs result in an increase in customers

satisfaction by 0.3146, 0.2169, 0.2345,

0.3039 and 0.1864 units respectively. The

changes in the perception on SQFs explain

the changes in customers satisfaction to the

extent of 79.38 percent.

Impact of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs

on Behavioural Intention

The behavioural intention is a extreme level

of customers satisfaction. It is also called

as customers’ delight. When the customer

is highly satisfied, he may have repurchase

intention, positive word of mouth and

loyalty. In the present study, the behavioural

intention is measured from the mean score

of three related statements. The impact of

SERVPERF scale on SQFs on the

behavioural intentions among the guests has

also been examined with the help of multiple

regression analysis. The fitted regression

model is

Y = a + b1x

1 + b

2x

2 + …………….

+ b8x

8 + e

Whereas y – score on behavioural

intention

x15

x21

, ……………x8 –

Score on Service Quality Factors

The significantly

influencing SERVPERF

scale on SQFs on

customers’ satisfaction

are service delivery,

reliability, assurance,

responsiveness and

empathy since their

respective regression

coefficients are

significant at five

percent level.


Table 7

Regression Coefficient of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs on Behavioural

Intention

Sl.No Service Quality Standardised Standard Error t- Statistics P - Value

Factors (SQFs) Regression

Coefficient

1. Service delivery 0.1908 .0594 3.2121 0.0339

2. Tangibles 0.0943 0.0811 1.1627 0.1863

3. Reliability 0.2563 0.0791 3.2402 0.0292

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

R2 0.5732

F – Statistics 8.1784 0.0411

The significantly influencing SQFs in the

behavioural intention among the customers

are service delivery, reliability, assurance

and responsiveness since their regression

coefficients are significant at five percent

level. A unit increase in the perception on

above said SQFs result in an increase in

the behavioural intention of customers by

0.1908, 0.2563, 0.1817 and 0.2406 units

respectively. The changes in the perception

on SQFs explain the changes in

behavioural intention among the customers

to the extent of 57.32 percent. The analysis

reveals the importance of SQFs namely

service delivery, reliability, assurance and

responsiveness in building customers

loyalty.

Conclusions and Managerial

Implications

The service quality developed in this study

was calibrated using the data from the

guests visited the hotels. The factor

analysis resulted in eight important service

quality factors namely service delivery,

tangibles, reliability, assurance,


and social responsibility. The perception on

service quality factors among the guests

in hotel industry are from moderate to

dissatisfied. The highly associating profile

variables with their perception on SQFs are

their level of education annual income and

average number of days stayed in hotel.

The significantly influencing perception of

SQFs on the customers’ satisfaction and

their behavioural intention are service

delivery, reliability, assurance and

responsiveness.

Based on results reported in the present

study, service provides in the hotel industry

understand the role of service delivery,

reliability, assurance and responsiveness in

b1, b

2, ………… b

8 –

Regression coefficients of independent

variables

a – Intercept and

R – Error term

The regression coefficient of SQFs

is summarized in Table. 7.The changes in the

perception on SQFs

explain the changes in

behavioural intention

among the customers to

the extent of 57.32

percent. The analysis

reveals the importance

of SQFs namely service

delivery, reliability,

assurance and

responsiveness in

building customers

loyalty.


the customers’ satisfaction and their

behavioural intention. In order to

successfully operate a hotel that gives

customer a satisfactory experience, hotel

managers need to understand what

customers want and how they assess the

hotel service quality. The present study

complied about of 38 smile quality variables

(grouped into 8 factors) an average hotel

customer often uses to assess the hotel

services, Our operational questionnaire

could provide several terms to hotel

managers in items of how to shape hotel

guests’ experience. Concentrating on the

eight identified service quality factors, the

service delivery, tangibles, reliability and

assurance appear to be slightly more

important than other service quality factors

since their respective Eigen values are

higher than others.

As service delivery dimensions, front line

service providers in hotel need to give

standardized, structured and simplified

delivery process. Regarding the tangible

dimensions, the hotel authorities have to

provide attractive physical facilities,

equipment etc. By the reliability dimensions

the hotel personnel are advised to deliver

their service right even at the first time

itself. On the other hand, in order to

enhance assurance dimensions, hotel

authority should have trained personnel in

order to deliver polite, respected and

friendly service to their customers. Since

the hotel employees have first hand

knowledge about the characteristics of hotel

guests’ frequently reported problems, hotel

managers should encourage and reward

employee input to hotel’s internal public.

Hotel managers may improve the tangibles

dimensions by helping hotels’ physical

environment clean and attractive. Up-to-

date technology may be employed to

conserve energy, reduce water

consumption, and present national beauty

in the outside appearance of the hotel.

The findings indicate that while service

quality is an important driver of customer

satisfaction and behavioural intention, the

managers should give more importance not

only on their customers’ satisfaction but

their delight. Given that companies could

increase profiles by 100 percent by

remaining just 5 percent more of their

customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990), it

is important for service providers to

understand the relevant service quality

factors in their industry that could reinforce

positive customers’ satisfaction. The hotel

management should establish a system to

monitor their customers’ needs and their

perceptions on service quality in order to

encourage finding out an effective

resolution strategy. Only when a service

culture is created, the hotel management

ensure the effective delivery of service

most desired by their customers.

References:

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.

The hotel management

should establish a system

to monitor their

customers’ needs and

their perceptions on

service quality in order

to encourage finding out

an effective resolution

strategy. Only when a

service culture is created,

the hotel management

ensure the effective

delivery of service most

desired by their

customers.


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.