Quality

Generally business executives agree that good business strategies include a concern for quality.
However, Quality still involves confusions around it, when it comes to defining and functioning of
quality. Quality is a perceptive term and different managers view quality differently. Quality is
simpler than making product. It’s a multidimensional concept that cannot be easily defined or
measured. This is evident in an industry where there is more highlight on technological advances than
customer – service. Being in the service industry importance is given to packaging than human
interactions. Lodging industry makes this look more evident since the perception on quality in such
types of industry depends on human aspect.

Strategies have been focussed on increased customer loyalty and repeated travels which mean that
you have to pick up a healthier approach towards providing aptly what the customer expects. Good
mechanism needs to be developed for accessing customer perception to check the level of quality
which the operators provide.

An improved option is to consistently providing the expectations of the customer. This means that
operators must have a mechanism for assessing customer perception of the level of quality their
operations deliver. Developing such an assessment is not easy. The diversity of property types within
the hospitality industry, combined with the varied needs of customers, suggest that the concept of
delivered quality must be assessed from angels. A luxury hotel cannot be expected to deliver quality
at the same level, and in the same context, as a roadside motel. Each property type may deliver the
best quality as expected by the customer and yet be different. Consequently, the assessment measures
have to reflect on the large scope of quality construct.

Parasuraman’s original instrument was modified in 1990 by three pioneers Knutson, Wullaert, Patton,
and Yokoyama, in order to create more effective and appropriate measure for the service industry.
The new 26-item scale measuring lodging service quality was called LODGSERV. LODGSERV is a
26-item index (alpha = .92) designed to measure consumers' expectations for service quality in the
hotel experience. The index confirms the five generic dimensions of service quality: Tangibility,
Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy. LODGSERV utilises the five core dimensions
of SERVQUAL. Reliability factor was the highest ranking of all in the SERVQUAL across the five
dimensions mentioned which were assurance, responsiveness, tangibles and empathy. Parasuraman
revealed that the criteria for assessing service quality could be categorized into ten service quality
dimensions with ninety-seven items

 Tangibles - the physical evidence of the service such as physical facilities and appearance of
personnel.
 Reliability - consistency of performance and dependability.
 Responsiveness - the willingness or readiness of employees to provide service.
 Competence - possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service.
 Access - approachability and ease of contact.
 Courtesy - politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel.
 Communication - keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening
to them.
 Credibility - trustworthiness, believability, and honesty.
 Security - the freedom from danger, risk, or doubt.
 Understanding/knowing the customer - making the effort to understand the customer's needs.
Further in 1998 Parasuraman reduced these dimensions to five, namely

 Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel

LODGSERV has been experienced in both domestic and international market and proved consistent
in cross cultures.

The importance of customer expectations has been well accredited; this means that comparison is
made between what the customer expects and the operator offering it. This approach has been viewed
in different angels. In one approach, we take into account what the customer predicts about their
experience whereas other approach is the ideal standard of expectation i.e. how a customer wants the
provider to perform.

Since there are different views of what standards are to be followed, Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman (1993) proposed a widespread conceptual model that expressed the nature and
determinants of customer expectations of service. The model illustrates wide understanding of
expectations desired and also introduced a term ‘desired service’ i.e. what customers wish to receive.
It differentiates from what a customer believes ‘can be’ and ‘should be’. Further, Service quality
arises when a comparison is made between service desired and service perceived, by the customer.

Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman contend that such comparison was the intended understanding of
customer expectations in their original 1985 gaps model. The 1993
conceptual model of customer expectations also retains the understanding of predicted expectations,
through which Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman incorporated the concept of customer satisfaction
into their new model of customer expectations. They differentiate customer satisfaction from service
quality assessments in that the former results from the comparison made by customers between
predicted service – defined as the level of service customers believe they are likely to get – and
perceived service, while the latter results from the comparison between desired service and perceived
service. In the model of customer expectations, Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman added a new type
of standards termed adequate service. They posit that customers’ assessments of service quality are
based on not only what they desire but also what they deem acceptable, and the difference between
the two types of standards (desired service versus adequate service) is the zone of tolerance. The zone
of tolerance may become wider or narrower depending on a number of influences. Some of these
antecedents include the number of available alternatives, the price of the service, urgency or other
situational factors and an individual’s predisposition toward service quality.
Customer expectations and branding 

As a concept intertwined with the measurement of service quality, the study of customer expectations
has evolved with that of service quality, and in many instances propels and even outgrows the latter.
Its significance to both marketing academia and practitioners becomes increasingly magnified, as a
wider spectrum of industries embrace the shift from transaction marketing to relationship marketing,
and recognize the service quality as a determining factor in customer satisfaction and loyalty. At the
turn of the new century, branding began to take central stage in contemporary marketing. The concept
of customer expectations is the foundation on which branding is studied and practiced. Understanding
the needs and wants of consumers and delivering products and services to satisfy them are at the heart
of successful marketing. A leading school of thought on branding is the customer-based brand equity
(CBBE) model. Its basic premise is that ‘the power of a brand lies in what customers have learned,
felt, seen, and heard about the brand as a result of their experience over time (Keller, 2003).’ In
examining the branding practices in the lodging industry, Cai and Hobson (2004) proposed an
integrated approach to communicating brand messages in building strong hotel brands, as in Figure 1.

The Say–Do–Confirm model 

The ‘Say–Do–Confirm’ model integrates customer expectation and other marketing concepts of

(http://www.hotelmule.com/hospitality_travel_wiki/wiki/Customer%20expectations%20General
%20model%20of%20customer%20expectations)