1. Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction
and Behavioural Intention in Hotel
Industry
J. Vijayadurai
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.
T
he service sector plays an barrier industry is being perceived as an
increasingly important role in attractive option for those bitten by the
modern economics. In India, the entrepreneurial bug. After globalization,
service sector has been emerging as the the growth of hotels have been witnessed
dominant component of the economy. The to face the major challenge of improving
strong economic growth, increased quality of the service offered, in order to
disposable income, urbanization and the attract a large number of domestic and
impact of various factors have fuelled a foreign customers. Attracting new
strong need for tourism in India. The hotel customers alone is insufficient, as the
business being a comparatively low entry management must concentrate on
preventing “customers-exit” since the
cost of attracting new customers is higher
J.Vijayadurai is S.G Lecturer, Department of Business
Administration, N.M.S.S.V.N.College, Madurai.
14 Journal of Marketing & Communication

2. than the cost of retaining existing labour intensity to propose a two
customers. The key to customers retention dimensional service process matrix. He
is customer satisfaction and loyalty which divided the landscape of services into
is largely dependant upon the service service factory, service shop, mass service
Many researchers have
quality offered by the hotels. In this juncture, and professional service.
defined the meaning of
the present study has made an attempt to quality in different ways.
fulfill the following objectives: Several authors have considered various This quality construct has
aspects of customer contact, customer been variously defined as
i) To identify the service quality factors
involvement and degree of provider value (Feizenbaum,
in the hotel industry.
discretion (Kellogg and Chase, 1995; 1951), conformance to
ii) To analyze customers’ satisfaction and
Lovelock 1983). This study adopts requirements (Crosby,
their behavioural intention and 1979), fitness for use
Schemenner classification, because it
iii) To examine the impact of service (Juran et al., 1974),
contains several elements of the “degree
quality on customers satisfaction and meeting customers’
of customer interaction, customization”
their behavioural intention. expectations
under different levels of plant and
(Parasuraman et al.,
Conceptual Foundations: equipment intensity commonly experienced 1985) and the totality of
in service delivery systems (Mills and the features and
Over the past 30 years, several authors have Marguiles, 1980). As highlighted above, characteristics of a
attempted to develop coherent Schemenner (1986) classified hotels (the product or service that
classification schemes for services. The lodging industry) as a service quality. bear on its ability to
intent of such schemes is to bring parsimony satisfy stated or implied
and order to allow a better understanding Service Quality (SQ) needs (ANSI/ASQS,
of the characteristics that differentiate 1987).
services and the organizations that provide Many researchers have defined the
them. The following section reviews some meaning of quality in different ways. This
of these schemes. quality construct has been variously defined
as value (Feizenbaum, 1951), conformance
Service Typology and Service Quality to requirements (Crosby, 1979), fitness for
use (Juran et al., 1974), meeting customers’
Cook et al. (1999) chronicled the previous expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985) and
work in the development of service the totality of the features and
typology, and presented both the marketing characteristics of a product or service that
oriented and operations – oriented views bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied
of service dimensions. Marketing-oriented needs (ANSI/ASQS, 1987). In services
views used in the literature to classify marketing literature, the most widely used
service dimensions include intangibility, definition of service quality is “to meet the
differentiation, object of transformation, customers’ expectations”, as defined by
type of customer and commitment. Parasuraman et al., (1985). They found that
Classification schemes based on the service quality could neither be
operations – oriented view include conceptualized nor evaluated by traditional
customers contact, customer involvement, ‘goods quality’ methods because services
labour intensity, and degree of possess three characteristics: intangibility,
customization, degree of employee heterogeneity and inseparability
discretion and production process. (Parasuraman et al., 1985). They also
Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2004) went developed an instrument called
for a more detailed discussion of each of SERVQUAL to measure service quality by
the service classification outlined above. comparing of customer’s expectations with
Schemenner (1986) combined the degree their perceptions of the service
of customer contact and customization with performance. Both the original
January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 15

3. SERVQUAL version (Parasuraman et al., demonstrated the influence of diverse
1988) and the revised version product attitudes on customers’
(Parasuraman et al., 1991, 1994) contain perceptions. Zenike and Schaaf (1990)
five dimensions: tangibles, reliability, identified the two distinct and disparate
Oberai and Hales (1990) responsiveness, assurance and empathy. features: Human element of service
used ten dimensions to delivery, which has been effectively
measure the service Although SERVQUAL has become one of addressed by the SERVQUAL. The
quality in hotel industry the leading instruments of service quality, process, procedures, systems and
as reliability, it has been subjected with some criticisms. technology would make service
responsiveness,
These criticisms included the application seamlessness one. The second aspect is
competitiveness, access,
courteous,
to other service settings (Carman, 1990), as crucial as the first one. Guests would
communication, the conceptualization of service quality always like and expect the service delivery
credibility, security, (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Teas, 1993) and processes to be perfectly standardized,
understanding and the dimensions and contents of service streamlined and simplified so that they
tangible. quality (Muttal and Lassar, 1996; could receive the service without any
Sureshchandar et al., 2001). In the present hassles, hiccups or undesired/ inordinate
study, the focus is on the contents of questioning by the service providers.
SERVPERF. It is the measurement of the Drumond (1992) identified the production
customers’ perceptions of the performance interface and delivery interface to measure
of a service provider and adequate the service quality tourism industry. Oberai
assessment for service quality (Peter et and Hales (1990) used ten dimensions to
al., 1993; Bebko, 2000; Andaleep and Basu, measure the service quality in hotel
1994). industry as reliability, responsiveness,
competitiveness, access, courteous,
Service Quality in Hotel Industry: communication, credibility, security,
understanding and tangible. Saxena and
Several researchers have suggested that Kishor (1996); and Kapil Kumar (1996)
the search for universal conceptualization have created some dimensions to measure
of the service quality construct may be the service quality in tourism. On the basis
futile (Levitt, 1987; Lovelock 1983) and of the above literature, the present study
arguments have been advanced to suggest measures the service quality in hotel
that service quality is either industry or industry with the help of 39 statements. In
context specific (Babakus and Boller, the present study, three statements have
1992). The core service portrays the been used to measure the behavioural
‘content’ of a service what is delivered is intention among the guests.
as substantial as how it is delivered.
Schneider and Bowen (1995) classified that Interrelationships among SQ, CS, and
many a time managers become so involved BI
with all the procedures, processes and
contexts for service, that they tend to Brady and Robertson (2001) believed that
overlook that there is also something called service quality is antecedent to satisfaction.
the ‘core service’. Rust and Oliver (1994) They argue that since service quality is a
defined the service product as whatever cognitive evaluation, a positive service
service ‘features’ that is offered. Schneider quality perception can head to satisfaction,
and Bowmen (1995) who also argued that which may turn lead to favourable
fancy facilities, modern equipment, stylish behavioural intentions. Dabholkar (1995)
uniforms and terrific signs can never suggested that the antecedent role of
countervail for poor financial advice. service quality and satisfaction is situation
Houser and Clausing (1988) also specific and that if a consumer is cognitive
16 Journal of Marketing & Communication

4. oriented, he or she will perceive the Research Methodology
relationship as service quality causing
satisfaction, whereas if a consumer is Scale Development
affective oriented he or she will perceive The service quality in hotel industry,
the relationship as satisfaction causing Behavioural intention
customers’ satisfaction and their represents the repurchase
service quality. Cronin et al, (2000) behavioural intention have been examined intentions word of mouth,
concluded that direct link between service with the help of the statements drawn from loyalty complaining
quality and behavioural intentions is the reviews. These are presented in behaviour, and price
significant. In the present study, the impact Table.1. sensitivity (Zeithaml et
of service quality on Customer Satisfaction al, 1996). Bourton et al
and behavioural intention has been (2003) revealed that
examined separately. Table
-1 customers experience is
related to behavioural
Service Quality Factors in Hotel Industry
intentions. The more
Sl. Service No. of Reliability Eigen Percent Cumulative
positive the customer’s
No. Quality Factors Service Coefficient value of percent of experience, the more
Quality variance variance likely he or she is willing
Variables explained explained to reuse the service.
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) Sample questions are: “I am satisfied with
my decision to visit this hotel and “my
Several studies seem to conclude that choice to stay at this hotel was a wise one”.
satisfaction as an affective construct rather
than a cognitive construct (Oliver, 1997; Behavioural Intention (BI)
Olsen, 2002). Rust and Oliver (1994)
defined satisfaction as the “Customer’s Behavioural intention represents the
fulfillment response”, which is an repurchase intentions word of mouth,
evaluation as well as emotion based loyalty complaining behaviour, and price
response to a service. Cronin et al, (2000) sensitivity (Zeithaml et al, 1996). Bourton
assessed service satisfaction using items et al (2003) revealed that customers
that include interest, enjoyment, surprise, experience is related to behavioural
anger, wise choice, and doing the right thing. intentions. The more positive the
In the present study, the concept of customer’s experience, the more likely he
Westbrook and Oliver’s (1991) four or she is willing to reuse the service. Festus
emotion – laden items has been used to et al., (2006) used three statements.
measure the customers’ satisfaction.
January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 17

5. 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 highly disagree. The scores assigned on
afore-said service quality variables, these scales range from 5 to 1 respectively.
customers satisfaction and behavioural
intention. In the case of service quality The Sample
variables, the guests are asked to rate at
five point scale namely highly satisfied, In order to secure a more representative
satisfied, moderate, dissatisfied and highly sample, the convenience sampling
dissatisfied. The statements related to approach has been administered to
customers satisfaction and their distribute the questionnaires among the
behavioural intention have been also rated hotel customers in Madurai city, Tamilnadu.
at five point scale from highly agree to Madurai city has been selected for the
18 Journal of Marketing & Communication

6. study because of two reasons since it is an behavioural intention have been examined
ancient Temple city and it is also a tourist with the help of multiple regression analysis.
spot especially for the pilgrims to visit The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method
Meenakshiamman Temple. There are so has been followed to fit the regression
many hotels in and around Meenakshi- equation. The service quality
amman Temple at the heart of city. Only variables in hotel
industry are narrated by
those hotels have been selected for the Results
the factor analysis. The
study. In total, 30 hotels have been resulted service quality
Descriptive Statistics
purposively selected. From each hotel, 10 factors are Service
guests have been selected at the delivery, Tangibles,
The sample of guests ranged from the
convenience of the researcher. Our Reliability, Assurance,
under graduation level of education of
samples included employees of Major Responsiveness, Empathy,
(41.20 percent) and to professional
Corporations, State, and Central Service product and
education (21.71 percent). About 48.11 Social responsibility.
government establishments, members of
percent of the guests belonged to the
different religious organizations and
occupational background of employees of
businessmen. The response rate among the
major corporations, State and Central
sampled guests is only 58.66 of those
government establishment followed by
percent. Those 176 completed
businessmen forming 29.68 percent to the
questionnaires have been included for the
total. The dominant guests’ age group was
present study.
41 to 50 (36.19 percent) and 31 to 40 (28.04
percent). The majority of the guests had
Data Analysis
stayed in a hotel for 2.04 days (61.89
The present study reviewed the descriptive percent).
statistics with a data distribution on the
basis of level of education, annual income, Service quality factors in hotel
age, occupation, and average days stayed
in hotel. The Kaiser-Meyer-Ohlin (KMO) The service quality factors have been
measure of sampling adequacy and identified with the help of factor analysis.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity have been The resulted number of service quality
executed to test the validity of data for factors, its Eigen value, percent of variance
factor analysis. After the confirmation of explained, reliability coefficient is illustrated
these two tests, the Principal component in Table.2.
analysis has been used to narrate the
service quality variables into service quality The service quality variables in hotel
factors. In our analysis, only factors with industry are narrated by the factor analysis.
Eigen value greater than one are retained. The resulted service quality factors are
Factor matrix is transformed through Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability,
rotation into a simpler one that is easier to Assurance, Responsiveness, Empathy,
interpret. It does not affect the percentage Service product and Social responsibility.
of total variance explained. However, the The important service quality factors are
variance explained by the individual factors Service delivery, Tangibles and Reliability
is redistributed by rotation. The most since its Eigen values are 3.1817, 2.9086
commonly used method is Varimax rotation and 2.7114 respectively. The percent of
procedure. This procedure maximizes the variation explained by the above three
variance of loadings on each factor, thus service quality factors are 16.34, 14.28 and
minimizing the complexity of the factors. 11.37 percent respectively. It connotes that
the service quality factors namely service
The impact of service quality factors on delivery, tangibles and reliability explain all
the customer’s satisfaction and their 38 service quality variables together to the
January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 19

7. extent of 16.34, 14.28 and 11.37 percent Assurance are 6, 6, 5 and 4 respectively.
respectively. The included service quality variables in
the above said four service quality factors
The last three service quality factors explain the respective service quality
These service quality identified by factor analysis are Empathy, factors to the extent of 82.34, 76.01, 8171
factor namely ‘service Service product and Social responsibility and 73.36 percent respectively, since their
delivery’ consists of
since their Eigen values are 2.0869, 2.0263 reliability coefficients are 0.8234, 0.7601,
service quality variables
namely standardized, and 1.8334 respectively. The respective 0.8171 and 0.7336 respectively. The
structured and simplified percentage of variation explained by the service quality variables included in
delivery process, getting above three factors are 8.61, 8.08 and 6.09 responsiveness, empathy, service product
feedback from customers, respectively. All the eight service quality and social responsibility explain the
enhancement of factors explain the service quality variables respective service quality factors to the
technological capability, in the hotel industry to the extent of 85.78 extent of 84.08, 68.08, 71.32 and 65.69
effective redressal percent. percent respectively since their respective
system, foolproof reliability coefficients are 0.8408, 0.6808,
procedures and Service Quality Variables in each factor 0.7132 and 0.6569. The variables included
procedures and
in the eight service quality factors are given
processes; and adequate
and necessary personal The included service quality variables in in Table 3.
facilities since their Service delivery, Tangibles, Reliability and
respective factor
loadings are higher in Table 3
the service delivery Service Quality Variables in each factor
factor than in the other
Sl.No. Service Quality Factors Service Quality Variables
factors.
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 dressed personnel, classy and comfortable
‘service delivery’ consists of service quality ambient conditions, physical layout of
variables namely standardized, structured equipment and others furnishings; and
and simplified delivery process, getting proper housekeeping. The ‘reliability’ factor
feedback from customers, enhancement of consists of right delivery of service at first
technological capability, effective redressal time, service provider’s ability to display a
system, foolproof procedures and positive moment of truth, perform promised
procedures and processes; and adequate service, interest to solve customers problem
and necessary personal facilities since their and error free records, billing and other
respective factor loadings are higher in the transactions. The ‘assurance’ factor
service delivery factor than in the other consists of politeness, respect and
factors. The included service quality friendliness of contact personnel, feeling
variables in tangibles are appearance of of delight and satisfaction, ability for action
physical facilities, equipment etc; well at critical time and trust worthiness and
20 Journal of Marketing & Communication

8. honesty of the service provider. The responsibility of employees since their
‘responsiveness’ factor consists of respective factor loadings are higher in the
providing prompt and timely service, ability social responsibility factor compared to
to communicate provision of services, other service quality factors.
availability of service providers at required The service quality
variables included in
time and willingness to help customers SERVPERF Scale on Service Quality
service product are
whereas the ‘empathy’ factor consists of Factors
diversity and range of
individualized attention, approachability and services, contact of
ease of contact, flexibility in language skill The SERVPERF scale represents the service, service
and understanding the specific needs of performance – only measurement on the innovation, convenient
customers. service quality factors. The SERVPERF and flexible operating
scale on SQFs is computed by the mean hours, and intensity and
The service quality variables included in score of perception service quality depth of service. The
service product are diversity and range of variables in each SQF. The mean score of social responsibility
services, contact of service, service SERVPERF scale on each SQF among the factor consists of
concession to
innovation, convenient and flexible guests have been computed to exhibit the
economically poor,
operating hours, and intensity and depth of guests’ perception on SQFs. In order to
giving to good service at
service. The social responsibility factor analyze the consistency of the perception a best value, equal
consists of concession to economically poor, on SQFs, the standard deviation and treatment, and ethical
giving to good service at a best value, equal coefficient of variation of each SQFs have and public responsibility
treatment, and ethical and public been measured separately. of employees since their
respective factor
Table 4 loadings are higher in
SERVPERF Scale on Service Quality Factors among the Guests the social responsibility
factor compared to other
Sl.No. Service Quality Mean Score of Standard Coefficient of
Factors SERVPERF Deviation Variation service quality factors.
(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 and 14.08 percent respectively. The
among the guests are service quality analysis reveals that the guests’ perceptions
delivery and tangibles since their respective are moderate in service delivery and
mean scores are 3.6814 and 3.3403. The tangibles in hotel industry whereas it is very
lesser perceived SQFs in hotel industry poor on empathy and responsiveness
among the guests are empathy and factors.
responsiveness since their respective mean
scores are 2.1708 and 2.5823. The higher Association between Profile of the
consistency in the perception on service Guests and Their Perception on SQFs
delivery and tangibles has been identified The perception on SQFs among the guests
since their coefficient of variation is 11.89 may be associated with their profile. The
January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 21

9. included profile variables in the present delivery, tangibles, reliability, assurance,
study are level of education, annual income, responsiveness, empathy, service product
age, occupation and average number of and social responsibility, the one way
days stayed at the hotel. In order to analysis of variance has been administered.
Regarding the
examine the association between the profile The results are given in Table. 5.
perception in service
delivery and tangibles
of guests and their perception on service
the significantly Table.5
associating profile
Association between Profile of Guests and their SERVPERF Scale on SQFs
variables are level of
education, annual F. Statistcs
income, age and average
Sl.No Service Level of Annual Age Occupation Average
number of days stayed
Quality Education Income No. of
since their respective ‘F’
days
statistics are significant stayed
at five percent level. The
significantly associating 1. Service delivery 2.9198* 3.1441* 2.7803* 1.8644 2.5089*
profile variables with 2. Tangibles 3.0432* 2.9617* 2.8184* 2.0861 2.7162*
the perception on
reliability are age and 3. Reliability 2.1143 2.0869 2.9029* 2.4533 2.4084*
average number of days 4. Assurance 2.2096 2.4503* 2.4086 2.1447 2.3991*
stayed whereas
regarding the perception 5. Responsiveness 2.5168* 2.4114* 1.9908 1.9096 3.0144*
on assurance, these 6. Empathy 2.7061* 2.0869 2.6864* 2.5163 3.1234*
significant profile
variables are annual 7. Service Product 3.1783* 2.7103* 2.0733 2.8189* 2.1708*
income and average 8. Social responsibility 2.8189* 2.1143 2.1508 2.0614 2.6606*
number of days stayed.
Regarding the perception in service level of education, annual income,
delivery and tangibles the significantly occupation and average number of days
associating profile variables are level of stayed whereas in the perception on social
education, annual income, age and average responsibility, the profile variables are level
number of days stayed since their of education and average number of days
respective ‘F’ statistics are significant at stayed. In total, the highly associating
five percent level. The significantly profile variables with the perception on
associating profile variables with the SQFs are average number of days stayed,
perception on reliability are age and level of education and annual income.
average number of days stayed whereas
regarding the perception on assurance, Impact of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs
these significant profile variables are on Customers Satisfaction
annual income and average number of days
stayed. Regarding the perception on The customers’ satisfaction among the
responsiveness, the significantly associating guests have been computed from the mean
profile variables are level of education, score of four related statements. The
annual income and average number of days customers’ satisfaction may be caused by
stayed whereas these significant profile their perception on SQFs. The present
variables regarding the perception on study has made an attempt to analyze the
empathy are level of education, age and impact of SERVPERF scale on SQFs on
average number of days stayed. The customers’ satisfaction with the help of
significantly associating profile variables multiple regression analysis. The field
with the perception on service product are regression model is
22 Journal of Marketing & Communication

10. Y = a + b 1x 1 + b 2x 2 + b 1 , b 2 , ………… b 8 –
……………. + b8x8 + e Regression coefficients of independent
Whereas y – score on customers variables
satisfaction a – Intercept and
The significantly
x 15 x 21 , ……………x 8 – R – Error term
influencing SERVPERF
Score of perception on eight SQFs scale on SQFs on
customers’ satisfaction
Table 6 are service delivery,
Regression coefficient of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs on the Customers reliability, assurance,
Satisfaction responsiveness and
empathy since their
Sl.No Service Quality Standardised Standard Error t- Statistics P - Value respective regression
Factors (SQFs) Regression coefficients are
Coefficient significant at five
1. Service delivery 0.3146 0.0582 5.4055 0.0217 percent level.
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
2
R 0.7938
F – Statistics 12.8142 0.0371
The significantly influencing SERVPERF as customers’ delight. When the customer
scale on SQFs on customers’ satisfaction is highly satisfied, he may have repurchase
are service delivery, reliability, assurance, intention, positive word of mouth and
responsiveness and empathy since their loyalty. In the present study, the behavioural
respective regression coefficients are intention is measured from the mean score
significant at five percent level. A unit of three related statements. The impact of
increase in the perception on above said SERVPERF scale on SQFs on the
SQFs result in an increase in customers behavioural intentions among the guests has
satisfaction by 0.3146, 0.2169, 0.2345, also been examined with the help of multiple
0.3039 and 0.1864 units respectively. The regression analysis. The fitted regression
changes in the perception on SQFs explain model is
the changes in customers satisfaction to the
extent of 79.38 percent. Y = a + b1x1 + b2x2 + …………….
+ b8x8 + e
Impact of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs Whereas y – score on behavioural
on Behavioural Intention intention
x 15 x 21 , ……………x 8 –
The behavioural intention is a extreme level Score on Service Quality Factors
of customers satisfaction. It is also called
January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 23

11. b 1 , b 2 , ………… b 8 – a – Intercept and
Regression coefficients of independent R – Error term
variables The regression coefficient of SQFs
is summarized in Table. 7.
The changes in the
perception on SQFs
explain the changes in Table 7
behavioural intention Regression Coefficient of SERVPERF Scale on SQFs on Behavioural
among the customers to Intention
the extent of 57.32 Sl.No Service Quality Standardised Standard Error t- Statistics P - Value
percent. The analysis Factors (SQFs) Regression
reveals the importance Coefficient
of SQFs namely service
delivery, reliability, 1. Service delivery 0.1908 .0594 3.2121 0.0339
assurance and 2. Tangibles 0.0943 0.0811 1.1627 0.1863
responsiveness in
3. Reliability 0.2563 0.0791 3.2402 0.0292
building customers
loyalty. 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
2
R 0.5732
F – Statistics 8.1784 0.0411
The significantly influencing SQFs in the guests visited the hotels. The factor
behavioural intention among the customers analysis resulted in eight important service
are service delivery, reliability, assurance quality factors namely service delivery,
and responsiveness since their regression tangibles, reliability, assurance,
coefficients are significant at five percent responsiveness, empathy, service product
level. A unit increase in the perception on and social responsibility. The perception on
above said SQFs result in an increase in service quality factors among the guests
the behavioural intention of customers by in hotel industry are from moderate to
0.1908, 0.2563, 0.1817 and 0.2406 units dissatisfied. The highly associating profile
respectively. The changes in the perception variables with their perception on SQFs are
on SQFs explain the changes in their level of education annual income and
behavioural intention among the customers average number of days stayed in hotel.
to the extent of 57.32 percent. The analysis The significantly influencing perception of
reveals the importance of SQFs namely SQFs on the customers’ satisfaction and
service delivery, reliability, assurance and their behavioural intention are service
responsiveness in building customers delivery, reliability, assurance and
loyalty. responsiveness.
Conclusions and Managerial Based on results reported in the present
Implications study, service provides in the hotel industry
understand the role of service delivery,
The service quality developed in this study reliability, assurance and responsiveness in
was calibrated using the data from the
24 Journal of Marketing & Communication

12. the customers’ satisfaction and their the hotel employees have first hand
behavioural intention. In order to knowledge about the characteristics of hotel
successfully operate a hotel that gives guests’ frequently reported problems, hotel
customer a satisfactory experience, hotel managers should encourage and reward
The hotel management
managers need to understand what employee input to hotel’s internal public.
should establish a system
customers want and how they assess the Hotel managers may improve the tangibles to monitor their
hotel service quality. The present study dimensions by helping hotels’ physical customers’ needs and
complied about of 38 smile quality variables environment clean and attractive. Up-to- their perceptions on
(grouped into 8 factors) an average hotel date technology may be employed to service quality in order
customer often uses to assess the hotel conserve energy, reduce water to encourage finding out
services, Our operational questionnaire consumption, and present national beauty an effective resolution
could provide several terms to hotel in the outside appearance of the hotel. strategy. Only when a
managers in items of how to shape hotel service culture is created,
guests’ experience. Concentrating on the The findings indicate that while service the hotel management
ensure the effective
eight identified service quality factors, the quality is an important driver of customer
delivery of service most
service delivery, tangibles, reliability and satisfaction and behavioural intention, the desired by their
assurance appear to be slightly more managers should give more importance not customers.
important than other service quality factors only on their customers’ satisfaction but
since their respective Eigen values are their delight. Given that companies could
higher than others. increase profiles by 100 percent by
remaining just 5 percent more of their
As service delivery dimensions, front line customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990), it
service providers in hotel need to give is important for service providers to
standardized, structured and simplified understand the relevant service quality
delivery process. Regarding the tangible factors in their industry that could reinforce
dimensions, the hotel authorities have to positive customers’ satisfaction. The hotel
provide attractive physical facilities, management should establish a system to
equipment etc. By the reliability dimensions monitor their customers’ needs and their
the hotel personnel are advised to deliver perceptions on service quality in order to
their service right even at the first time encourage finding out an effective
itself. On the other hand, in order to resolution strategy. Only when a service
enhance assurance dimensions, hotel culture is created, the hotel management
authority should have trained personnel in ensure the effective delivery of service
order to deliver polite, respected and most desired by their customers.
friendly service to their customers. Since
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.
January -April 2008 Vol. 3 Issue 3 25

13. 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.
26 Journal of Marketing & Communication