This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 16 April 2015, At: 18:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapt20

Assessment of university campus café

service: The students' perceptions
a b
Tekle Shanka & Ruth Taylor
a
School of Marketing , Curtin University of Technology , Perth, Australia
b
School of Management , Curtin University of Technology , Perth, Australia
Published online: 02 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Tekle Shanka & Ruth Taylor (2005) Assessment of university campus café
service: The students' perceptions, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 10:3, 329-340, DOI:
10.1080/10941660500309754

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941660500309754

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication
are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &
Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2005

Assessment of University Campus Café Service:

The Students’ Perceptions

Tekle Shanka 1 and Ruth Taylor2

1
School of Marketing, 2School of Management, Curtin University of Technology,
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

Perth, Australia

This paper presents the results of a study conducted to examine the important attributes in
food service provision on a large Australian university campus. Ten café outlets (A to J to
maintain anonymity of the café outlets) positioned across a large university campus
located in an urban residential area were surveyed. A total of 410 students participated
in the survey. Based on the frequency of patronage to the cafés results showed that five
of the ten café outlets were more frequently visited in a given week. These were Café A,
Café B, Café H, Café F, and Café I; however, the focus of this paper would be on Café A,
which was just recently opened for business. Results indicated that students considered
quality, price and service as the most important attributes in patronizing a particular café
on campus. Results also indicated that students were most satisfied with important
attributes such as convenience, ambience and quality during their visit to the café. Paired
samples’ t-test results showed statistically significant differences between the perceived
importance and level of satisfaction with all attributes except the opening hours attribute.
Results are discussed with possible implications and suggestions for further research.

Key words: university campus café, student perception, importance, satisfaction

Introduction availability of food and beverage outlets,

however, due to the spatial and temporal
University students form a captive market for characteristics of university campus oper-
the range of commercial enterprises located ations, cafés have always been an inherent
on campuses, in particular for campus food characteristic of any campus due to the need
and beverage outlets. The need for these to buy meals and refreshments in a timely
outlets may vary according to the physical manner. Hence this situation provides a
location of the campus and any alternative guaranteed clientele, or cohort of potential


E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 1094-1665 print/ISSN 1741-6507 online/05/030329 –12 # 2005 Asia Pacific Tourism Association
DOI: 10.1080/10941660500309754
 330 T. Shanka and R. Taylor

purchasers who buy the food and beverages these attributes, to understand the students’
provided in the absence of any alternatives overall satisfaction with the campus food
(Medlik, 2003; Shoemaker, 1998). service offerings.
The demand for university food service by
students and staff on campuses is the norm
on most campuses on a global basis and Expectation and satisfaction
varies according to size and location of the
campus; however, it has been noted that in Walsh (2000) states that the transitory
many cases the demand is of significant scale nature of service encounters can frustrate
to warrant further investigation (Lam & both the managers, who try to set standards
Heung, 1998). The uniqueness of this market for the transaction, and the participants in
is that it often consists of tens of thousands the encounter. Expectations are used as stan-
of students, staff and visitors that are on dards against which service performance is
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

campus, with the majority using the food measured. Duffy, Duffy & Kilbourne (2001)
and beverage outlets. For example, Lam & identify antecedents of expectations, which
Heung (1998:4) reported that “there were include personal needs, perceived service
about 62,000 full-time equivalent students of alternatives, situational factors and past
higher education and 5,700 academic staff in experiences. The antecedents of service
Hong Kong’s six universities during the aca- quality expectations include experience and
demic year 1995 – 96”. Universities in other familiarity with the service, as well as role
countries are also of significant scale in understanding and role benefit (Duffy et al.,
relation to enrolment numbers, with a study 2001). Therefore, if the actual performance
by Shoemaker (1998) of two universities in of a product or a service meets or exceeds cus-
the United States finding that the west coast tomers’ expectations, then customers will be
university had 32,000 students and the univer- satisfied (Lam & Heung, 1998). If expec-
sity in the east coast had 24,000 students, most tations do not match the customers’ expec-
of whom were living on campus. With the tations then the customer is dissatisfied
increasing number of people undertaking (Duffy et al., 2001). Customer satisfaction
higher education on a global basis, the research is important due to the established
college student market is increasing; for link between satisfaction and return behavior.
example, 14 million individuals aged 18 to Identifying customer satisfaction is also
24 were enrolled in US higher education insti- important for marketers, who have responsi-
tutions in 1998 (Knutson, 2000). While an bility for measuring dining satisfaction, and
increasing number of the student population who must position restaurant operations com-
are expected to use the services of food and petitively in the existing and future market-
beverage outlets on campus such as the place (Kivela, Inbakaran &Reece, 1999).
campus café during their studies, the need to Product and service quality is an important
provide appropriate food service is imperative. component of customers’ value perceptions
Due to the lack of research undertaken in this because it is a strong indicator of customers’
growth sector of the food and beverage indus- level of satisfaction. High customer satis-
try, this research project sought to investigate faction will usually help companies to retain
the service attributes that are perceived customers (Lam & Heung, 1998). When
important, and level of satisfaction with customers experience a high level of quality,
 Assessment of university campus café service 331

they perceive greater value for the money. The goods or services is the result of a subjective
resultant increased value perception will then comparison between expected and perceived
result in increased customer satisfaction (Oh, attribute levels.
2000). A major goal of customer satisfaction Customer satisfaction has emerged as an
research is to determine the factors which important component for the success of a
will affect the satisfaction of customers service business (Spinelli & Canavos, 2000),
(Barsky & Labagh, 1992). It is essential to and it is thought to be one of the most valuable
acknowledge the role of food service in achiev- assets of a firm (Gundersen et al., 1996).
ing customer satisfaction (Nield, Kozak & Satisfying customers is important because it
LaGrys, 2000). A core challenge for the hospi- encourages repeat business and encourages
tality industry in implementing quality word-of-mouth advertising (Spinelli &
improvement efforts is identifying the attri- Canavos, 2000; Gundersen et al., 1996) and
butes of quality that are significant. That is, therefore it is often used as an indicator of
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

it is difficult for managers to manage quality whether customers will return to a food
improvement without knowing what aspects service establishment (Dube, Renaghan &
of the service provisions the customers con- Miller, 1994). In recent years a number of
sider to be important when they are evaluating studies that focused on customer satisfaction
the experience. Second, although numerous and service quality in the hospitality industry
measuring tools for customer satisfaction have suggested various mechanisms for
have been developed, many are still too improving customer satisfaction (Gundersen
general to ensure relevant, reliable and valid et al., 1996), with Barsky & Labagh (1992,
measurement for tracking the consumer’s p. 32) stating that improving customer satis-
quality perceptions (Gundersen, Heide & faction has been recognized as “one of the
Olsson, 1996). most significant challenges facing businesses in
Satisfaction has been defined in many ways the 1990s”. Therefore, the aim of this study
by many researchers over the years (Lemon, was to establish the service attributes that are
White & Winer, 2002; Lovelock & Wright, perceived important by campus café users,
1999). According to Heung, Wong and Qu identify the level of satisfaction with these
(2002, p. 115) satisfaction is “buyer’s com- attributes, and to understand the students’
parison of the rewards and costs of the overall satisfaction with the campus food
purchase when compared to anticipated service offerings.
consequences of the product purchase.
Operationally, satisfaction is similar to atti-
tude in that it can be assessed as the sum of Methods
satisfaction with the various attributes of
the product or service.” Thus satisfaction can To address the above research question, this
be defined as “the consumer’s response to the exploratory study attempted to assess the per-
evaluation of the perceived inconsistency ceived importance of attributes and then the
between some comparison standards, for level of satisfaction with these attributes
example, expectation, and the perceived per- from on-campus students’ attending a large
formance of the product” (Yi (1990), cited in metropolitan university located in a residential
Heung et al., 2002, p. 114). Walker (1995) area. A total of ten café outlets (hereafter
argues that customer satisfaction with either referred to: A, B, C . . . to J, to maintain
 332 T. Shanka and R. Taylor

anonymity) strategically located at major ped- looking at students, then developing the
estrian traffic nodes on the campus were sur- instrument to examine other cohorts. The
veyed. In 2003 these cafés serviced the insight gained through this approach was
26,000-plus students pursuing their studies incorporated into a pre-test that consisted of
on campus, with an additional 2,800-plus attributes identified from the literature and
staff plus visitors to campus regularly using the authors’ own observation. The self-
these food services. These students and staff administered questionnaire was tested for
form a captive market for the campus café reliability and validity using split-half
service due to the need to buy meals and reliability method with acceptable alpha
refreshments and the absence of supply of coefficients (George & Mallery, 2001).
other food outlets in the surrounding streets. The questionnaire consisted of 14 questions
Of further interest is that all the food outlets divided into four parts. Part one of the ques-
surveyed are run by the student guild tionnaire sought information about the par-
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

association and provide a range of food types ticipants’ overall experience with campus
from prepared to freshly made, hot and café, frequency of usage, and approximate
cold offerings. Due to the fact that the cafés estimate of expenditure at each visit to
are all centrally managed by the student the café. The second part consisted of the
guild association, all students and staff who importance attributes that survey participants
are members of the guild receive the same were asked to evaluate on a seven-point Likert
discounts and benefits from the cafés. scale from 1 ¼ very unimportant to 7 ¼ very
Additionally many visiting staff, visiting important. Part three sought participants’
researchers and student teams come onto level of satisfaction, with the importance attri-
campus and purchase food and beverage. butes and overall satisfaction with the café’s
The café attributes considered for this study services on a seven-point Likert scale from
were based on past literature, discussion with 1 ¼ very dissatisfied to 7 ¼ very satisfied.
the students and pre-test. These combined Part four sought information on gender, age,
attributes included ambiance, convenience of level and course of study, usual country of resi-
location, friendly staff, opening hours, prices dence, and whether they belonged to the
charged, quality of food, efficient service and student guild (members of the student guild
variety of menu items those important receive a 10% discount on all food and
attributes such as quality of food service, beverages purchases).
perceptions of value for money, variety of The self-administered questionnaires were
menu items, attractiveness of surroundings, distributed to students while they were at the
opening hours, convenience of location, café outlets using random intercept based on
presentation of food and friendliness of staff. convenience. This aimed to measure the inter-
A qualitative survey of individual university actions the students had just experienced, with
café student patrons was conducted to identify the service employees involving a high number
the attributes that were most important for of moments of truth or moments of oppor-
them when considering a particular campus tunities through the interactive marketing
café. As previous studies have examined efforts of the café products and services
students’ perceptions, this study sought to (Grönroos, 2000), hence the information they
investigate the range of staff and student and provided on the questionnaire was current.
visitor groups by commencing the project A total of 410 completed questionnaires
 Assessment of university campus café service 333

was collected and analyzed using with the highest mean score of 6.38 followed
SPSS (version 11.5). This sample size was by service and price with mean a score of
considered appropriate given the onshore 6.08. All attributes scored above 5.00, hence
campus student population of 26,000þ indicating the importance of all eight attri-
(Sekaran, 2003). butes. The mean score of 6.38 for quality
indicates that most of the respondents would
most likely perceive this attribute as very
Profiles of Survey Participants important when visiting the café, followed by
price (6.08), efficient service (6.08), variety
Nearly 64% of respondents were female stu- (5.90), friendly staff (5.89), convenient
dents. Forty-three per cent were aged 20 or location (5.82), ambience (5.05), and
younger, undergraduates (90%) full-time stu- opening hours (5.04).
dents (95%) mainly enrolled in commerce For the question “How satisfied were you
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

stream (60%). Sixty per cent were local with these attributes?” the mean scores
(Australian) students and 93% were members ranged from a high of 5.54 for the con-
of the Student Guild. About 47% visited the venient attribute to a low of 4.18 for the
café two to four times in the past week and price attribute. The overall satisfaction rate
spent A$5.70 on average per visit on food was 5.06. All attribute measures in the satis-
and beverages. Detailed breakdown of the faction dimension were rated significantly
profiles are presented in Table 1. lower compared with the measures in the
importance dimension, with the exception
Results and Discussions of ambience which showed a significantly
higher mean score on the satisfaction dimen-
For the question, “In the past week, how sion than on the importance dimension;
many times did you visit the following café hence this attribute can be considered as a
outlets?” the overwhelming majority indicated possible overkill in that the attribute is rela-
that they mainly visited Café A (84%), fol- tively less important but the café performed
lowed by Café B at a distant second (41%), well on this attribute, suggesting that efforts
Café H (35%), and Café F (32%). The least be made towards maintaining high standards
visited café outlets included Café e (5%), without over-utilizing resources in this area
Café C (9%), Café G (11%), Café D (19%) (Zhang & Chow, 2004). While respondents
as shown in Table 2. The following sections were satisfied with the location of the café,
discuss the results in the context of visitations they perceived prices being charged were
to Café A. not reasonable. The paired t-test comparison
of the mean scores on importance-and satis-
faction showed statistically significant differ-
Important Attributes ences for all attributes (p , .001) except for
the opening hours attribute (Table 3). The
Students were asked to rate the importance of lower importance mean scores for the seven
various café attributes when deciding to visit attributes was indicative of the need to
the outlet. For the question “How important direct efforts and resources to these attributes
are the following attributes to you?” food to improve students’ perceptions of the
quality was the most important attribute offerings.
 334 T. Shanka and R. Taylor

Table 1 Profiles of Respondents (N ¼ 410)

Characteristics Frequency Percent

Gender
Female 261 63.7
Male 149 36.3
Age
20 years 175 43.2
21 –24 years 160 39.0
25 years 73 17.8
Country of usual residence
Australia 253 61.7
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

Malaysia 35 8.5
Singapore 24 5.9
Indonesia 21 5.1
Hong Kong 13 3.2
Thailand 7 1.7
Other 57 13.9
Mode of study
Full time 390 95.1
Part time 20 4.9
Level of study
Undergraduate 368 89.8
Postgraduate 42 10.2
Course of study
Commerce 245 59.8
Health Sciences 106 25.9
Humanities 38 9.3
Engineering & Science 17 4.1
Resources & Environment 4 1.0
Student Guild membership
Yes 380 92.7
No 30 7.3
Frequency of visit to the Café A in a week
Once only 158 38.5
2– 4 times 194 47.3
5 times 26 6.3
None 32 7.8
Amount spent on food and beverages per visit A$5.70
 Assessment of university campus café service 335

Table 2 Frequency of Campus Café Visitationsa

Café Once Only  Two Times Total

Café A 139 (33.9%) 204 (49.8%) 343 (83.7%)

Café B 76 (18.5%) 94 (22.9%) 170 (41.4%)
Café C 19 (4.6%) 20 (4.9%) 39 (9.5%)
Café D 31 (7.6%) 45 (11.0%) 76 (18.6%)
Café E 9 (2.2%) 13 (3.2%) 22 (5.4%)
Café F 60 (14.6%) 72 (17.6%) 132 (32.2%)
Café G 18 (4.4%) 29 (7.1%) 47 (11.5%)
Café H 63 (15.4%) 79 (19.3%) 142 (34.7%)
Café I 49 (12.0%) 61 (14.9%) 110 (26.9%)
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

Café J 35 (8.5%) 56 (13.7%) 91 (22.2%)

a
Percentages are in parentheses.

Overall Satisfaction and Heung (1998) reasonable price and food

quality are the most important attributes
Barsky and Labagh (1992) state that level of affecting a customer’s decision-making
satisfaction regarding a product or service process when choosing a cafeteria or student
experience is related to the value or import- restaurant. A multiple regression test result
ance the customers give to that product or showed a statistically significant model
service, multiplied by how well its attributes (F8,362 ¼ 22.516 and p , .001) in that the
met their expectations. According to Lam various attributes in the satisfaction dimension

Table 3 Paired t-test Results of Café A Attributes on the Importance and

Satisfaction Dimensions

Attribute Name Importancea Satisfactionb t-value

Ambience 5.08 5.47 25.406c

Convenience 5.82 5.54 3.730c
Opening hours 5.04 4.65 1.878
Staff 5.89 5.12 9.075c
Price 6.08 4.18 19.022c
Quality 6.38 5.14 15.879c
Service 6.08 4.86 14.539c
Variety 5.90 4.76 12.737c

a
1 ¼ very unimportant to 7 ¼ very important. b1 ¼ very dissatisfied to
7 ¼ very satisfied. cp ¼ .000.
 336 T. Shanka and R. Taylor

Table 4 Predictors of Overall Satisfactiona

Model B Std Error Beta t Sig.

Ambience .126 .043 .135 2.920 .004

Convenience .054 .035 .071 1.536 .125
Opening hours .176 .038 .233 4.647 .000
Staff 2.022 .044 2.025 2.499 .618
Price .038 .037 .051 1.012 .312
Quality .197 .046 .236 4.262 .000
Service .088 .041 .110 2.135 .033
Variety .065 .044 .080 1.493 .136
(Constant) 1.414 .317 4.459 .000
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

a
Dependent variable: Overall satisfaction F8,362 ¼ 22.516 and p , .001.
R ¼ .576; R 2 ¼ .332; Adjusted R 2 ¼ .318.

contributions towards the overall satisfaction. differences were reported on ambience, opening
The univariate examination showed hours, food quality and variety attributes.
ambiance, opening hours, food quality and
service were significant predictors of an
Important Attributes
overall satisfaction (Table 4). Of these, food
quality and opening hours accounted for
On the importance dimension, statistically sig-
nearly the same amount of variance of
nificant differences were on the service,
23.6% and 23.3% (beta ¼ .236 and .233)
variety, and opening hours attributes. Female
respectively. The contribution of ambience to
students perceived service and variety were
the prediction of overall satisfaction was
more important compared with responses
13.5% (beta ¼ .135) while service accounted
of the male respondents [service (t ¼ 2.614
for 11% (beta ¼ .110) in predicting the
and p , .05) and variety (t ¼ 3.166 and
overall satisfaction.
p , .01)]. On the other hand Australian
students considered opening hours less
importance compared with other students
Independent Samples t-test Results
(t ¼ –3.497 and p , .01) (Table 5).
Independent samples t-tests were run on the
attributes to determine if statistically significant Satisfaction attributes
differences were found between groups in
respect of gender and Australian and other stu- On the satisfaction score, statistically signifi-
dents. For gender statistically significant differ- cant differences were reported on the
ences were reported on the ambience, service, ambience, quality and variety attributes
and variety attributes on both importance and (Table 6). Females were more satisfied with
satisfaction dimensions. For the Australia the ambience compared with the mean scores
versus other students the statistically significant of males (t ¼ 2.425 and p , .05). Likewise
 Assessment of university campus café service 337

Table 5 Meana Differences on the Important Attributes

Sig. Female Male t-value

Service 6.19 (0.97) 5.86 (1.23) 2.614 .010

Variety 6.04 (1.04) 5.62 (1.30) 3.166 .002
Australian Other
Opening hours 4.82 (1.77) 5.41 (1.45) 23.497 .001

a
1 ¼ very unimportant to 7 ¼ very important. Standard deviations are in
parentheses.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

Australian students’ score on this attribute groups on the attributes both in terms of
was significantly higher than that of other importance and satisfaction. In terms of
students (t ¼ 3.545 and p , .001). On food importance only one attribute, price,
quality and variety attributes the Australian showed statistically significant difference
students’ mean scores were significantly (F2, 368 ¼ 3.631 and p , .05). The younger
higher than the other students’ mean scores, group (20 or younger) rated price signifi-
indicating that the former students were cantly higher (mean ¼ 6.23) compared with
likely to be more satisfied with these attri- older group (25 or older) whose mean
butes compared with their counterparts score was 5.74. In terms of satisfaction, two
[quality (t ¼ 4.470 and p , .001) and variety attributes showed statistically significant
(t ¼ 3.309 and p , .001)]. differences between groups. These were
quality (F2, 368 ¼ 3.388 and p , .05) and
variety (F2, 368 ¼ 5.754 and p ,.01). On the
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) quality attribute the younger group ( 20 or
younger) scored higher mean (mean ¼ 5.32)
A one-way between groups ANOVA test was compared with that of 21 –24 year group
conducted to determine if there were statisti- whose mean score was 4.94, hence the
cally significant differences between age former group indicating more satisfaction

Table 6 Meana Differences on the Satisfaction Attributes

Sig. Female Male t-value

Ambience 5.57 (1.05) 5.27 (1.25) 2.425 .016

Australian Other
Ambience 5.63 (1.15) 5.20 (1.05) 3.545 .000
Quality 5.36 (1.20) 4.77 (1.28) 4.470 .000
Variety 4.95 (1.29) 4.50 (1.24) 3.309 .001

a
1 ¼ very dissatisfied to 7 ¼ very satisfied. Standard deviations are in parentheses.
 338 T. Shanka and R. Taylor

with the quality attribute as opposed to the factors in choosing Café A compared with
latter group. On the variety attribute, once their male counterparts, Australian students
again the younger group ( 20 or younger) considered price and food quality as important
rated higher (mean ¼ 5.01) against the 21 – factors. On the other hand, students from
24 year group whose mean score were 4.51. other countries considered classes being in
On both occasions the younger group was the vicinity of Café A as an important factor
more satisfied with both quality and variety in their choice of this café outlet. As can be
attributes than the older group. seen from Table 7, classes/lectures being in
the area, price, food variety, food quality,
and dine-in facilities showed statistically
Why do Students go to Café A? significant differences between demographic
groups; however, age did not any statistically
A number of factors might have influenced stu- significant difference on any of the reasons.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

dents’ choices to visit Café A. To determine Café A is located at a premium node on the
what factors were influential students were campus for student traffic being located near
asked their opinion about nine statements on 24 hour access computer labs and two main
a Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ large lecture theaters, and its bright modern
strongly agree). To the question, “The follow- design and availability of internal and external
ing statements refer to poor perceptions on the seating facilities.
quality, value, and offerings of Café A. Please
indicate your level of agreement or disagree-
ment with the following statements” responses Implications, Summary and Conclusion
by demographic groups varied. While female
respondents considered food variety, food This study examined customers’ expectations
quality, and dine-in facilities as important of and satisfaction with food service, within

Table 7 Reasons for Choosing Café A

I visit Café A . . . Gender t-value Residence t-value

Female Male Australia Other

Class in the area 5.21 4.98 1.276 4.99 5.38 22.247a

When on campus 3.16 2.91 1.273 3.04 3.16 2.609
Price is important 5.23 4.95 1.551 5.35 4.78 3.495b
Special price offer 3.34 3.33 .076 3.26 3.46 21.181
Acoustics and décor 3.71 3.45 1.506 3.54 3.75 21.272
b
Variety of foods 4.16 3.70 2.887 4.09 3.86 1.476
b
Food quality 4.66 4.09 3.332 4.72 4.06 3.965c
b
Dine-in facility 5.04 4.50 3.174 4.98 4.66 1.894
Friendly staff 4.53 4.50 .188 4.57 4.45 .803

On a scale 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree. ap , .05; bp , .01; cp , .001

 Assessment of university campus café service 339

the university campus café sector. This study is because customer expectations and perform-
significant due to the increasing number of ance standards are continually changing. There-
higher education students on university cam- fore, managers need to keep monitoring the
puses and the ensuing demand from university needs and satisfaction levels of their customers
students, staff and visitors for food service as well as understanding the sources of custo-
availability and quality on campus. The find- mer satisfaction and service quality. Knowing
ings indicated that customers of the campus and predicting the consequences of customer
café showed some similarity with that of the satisfaction and service quality for customers’
Lam & Heung (1998) study that concluded future purchase decisions are also important
the most important attributes affecting a cus- to service managers (Heung et al., 2002).
tomer’s decision- making process in the food Food service appears to have an important
service setting were food quality and price. role in customer satisfaction in a university
The attribute of price was also found to campus. There are significant differences
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

be a significant attribute in Knutson study between satisfaction ratings of groups of res-

(Knutson, 2000). The results also showed pondents indicating that differences in gender,
that the two less important attributes were residence and age will reflect different percep-
opening hours and ambiance, supporting the tions of satisfaction. An analysis of the elements
previous findings by Lam & Heung, although or attributes of customer satisfaction should
somewhat different from that of Shoemaker provide an indication as to what actions a
(1998) who suggested the use of background food-service manager should take to increase
music as an added alternative to capture the the possibility of customers’ return intention
needs of the consumers. (Dube, Renaghan & Miller, 1994). The ability
Furthermore, the results between attributes to correctly respond to the changing needs of
on the importance and satisfaction dimensions the market while maintaining a profitable oper-
showed statistically significant differences ation is a key to success for campus food outlets
among all attributes on the two dimensions (Siguaw &Enz, 1999). In conclusion, the signifi-
except for the opening hour attribute. Respon- cance of the identified attributes that contribute
dents had lower mean ratings for satisfaction to students’ overall satisfaction with campus
on all attributes. The multiple regression result café services need to be managed effectively for
indicated that the main contributors to the stu- satisfaction of foodservice provision.
dents’ overall satisfaction were food quality, (An earlier version was presented at the Asia
opening hours, ambiance and menu variety. Pacific Tourism Association 10th Annual
These are critical attributes that management Conference, Nagasaki, Japan, July 4– 7, 2004)
should keep an eye on.
Customer satisfaction is the link between
today’s operating decisions by the service References
manager and future profits resulting from
repeat business. Satisfied customers will con- Bandy, N. M. (2003). Setting service standards: A struc-
tinue to repeat purchase, while dissatisfied tured approach to delivering outstanding customer
service for the facility manager. Journal of Facilities
customers will finally go to other service
Management, 1(4), 322– 336.
providers (Davis & Vollmann, 1990). Barsky, J. D. & Labagh, R. (1992). A strategy for custo-
However, Bandy (2003) reiterates that mer satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
customer satisfaction is a moving target, Administration Quarterly, 33(5), 32–40.
 340 T. Shanka and R. Taylor

Davis, M. M. & Vollmann T. E. (1990). A framework for Lemon, K. N., White, T. B. & Winer, R. S. (2002).
relating waiting time and customer satisfaction. The Dynamic customer relationship management: Incorpor-
Journal of Services Marketing, 4(1), 61– 69. ating future considerations into the service retention
Dube, L., Renaghan, L. M. & Miller, J. M. (1994). decision. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 1–14.
Measuring Customer Satisfaction for Strategic Manage- Lovelock, C. & Wright, L. (1999). Principles of service
ment. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis- marketing and management. Upper Saddle River, New
tration Quarterly, 35(1), 39–47. Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Duffy, J. A., Duffy, M. & Kilbourne, W. E. (2001). A com- Medlik, S. (2003). Dictionary of Travel, Tourism & Hos-
parative study of resident, family, and administrator pitality (3rd edn). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
expectations for service quality in nursing homes. Nield, K., Kozak, M. & LeGrys, G. (2000). The role of
Health Care Management Review, 26(3), 75– 83. food services in tourist satisfaction. International
George, D. &Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for Windows Step Journal of Hospitality Management, 11(5), 205.
by Step: A simple guide and reference, 10.0 update Oh, H. (2000). Diners’ perceptions of quality, value, and
(3rd edn). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon. satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admini-
Grönroos, C. (2000). Service Management and Marketing: stration Quarterly, 41(3), 58–66.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 18:55 16 April 2015

A customer relationship management approach (2nd Sekaran, U. (2003). Research Methods for Business: A
edn). New York: John Wiley. skill building approach (4th edn). New York: John
Gundersen, M. G., Heide, M. &Olsson, U. H. (1996). Wiley & Sons.
Hotel guest satisfaction among business travelers: What Shoemaker, S. (1998). A strategic approach to segmen-
are the important factors? The Cornell Hotel and Restau- tation in university foodservice. Journal of Restaurant
rant Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 72–81. & Foodservice Marketing, 3(1), 3–35.
Heung, V. C. S., Wong, M. Y. & Qu, H. (2002). A study of Siguaw, J. A. &Enz, C. A. (1999). Best practices in food
tourists’ satisfaction and post-experience behavioural and beverage management. The Cornell Hotel and
intentions in relation to airport restaurant services in Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 50– 57.
the Hong Kong SAR. Journal of Travel and Tourism Spinelli, M. A. & Canavos, G. C. (2000). Investigating the
Marketing, 12(2/3), 111–135. relationship between employee satisfaction and guest
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. &Reece, J. (1999). Consumer satisfaction. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Admin-
research in the restaurant environment, Part 1: A con- istration Quarterly, 41(6), 29–33.
ceptual model of dining satisfaction and return patron- Walker, J. L. (1995). Service encounter satisfaction:
age. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Conceptualised. The Journal of Services Marketing,
Management, 11(5), 205. 9(1), 5–14.
Knutson, B. J. (2000). College students and fast food. Walsh, K. (2000). A service conundrum. The Cornell
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quar- Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
terly, 41(3), 68–74. 41(5), 40–50.
Lam, T. C. Y. & Heung, V. C. S. (1998). University food- Zhang, H. Q. & Chow, I (2004). Application of impor-
service in Hong Kong: A study of consumers’ expec- tance-performance model in tour guides’ performance:
tations and satisfaction levels. Journal of College and Evidence from Mainland Chinese outbound visitors
University Foodservice, 3(4), 3–12. in Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 25(1), 81–91.