Applying revised gap analysis model in measuring hotel service quality – SpringerPlus

Service quality literature

The SERVQUAL model is the most widely used instruments to measure the customer satisfaction in various industries and across different countries, developed by Parasuraman et al. 1985, then refined in 1988 and 1991. The model is based on the customer’s assessment of service quality, which is a comparison of the expected and the obtain value as well as a consideration of gaps in the process of service provision. The foundation of SERVQUAL instrument was the gap model. The model shown in Fig. 1 identifies five gaps. Gap 1 is the difference between customer expectation and management perceptions of customer expectation, Gap 2 is the difference between management perceptions of customer expectations and service quality specifications, Gap 3 is the difference between service quality specifications and the service actually delivered, Gap 4 is the difference between service delivery and external communication, and Gap 5 is the difference between customer expectation on the service and their perceptions of service performance.

Fig. 1

Service quality model

Full size image

Previous studies (Brown et al. 1993; Babakus and Boller 1992; Martin 2003; Han and Baek 2004; Gonzalez et al. 2008; Wei et al. 2011; Stefano et al. 2015) have applied SERVQUAL to measure Gap 5 and Gap 5 has functional relationships with Gaps 1–4 in the PZB model. However, these relationships are problematic because the individual measurement of a gap cannot be determined by combining the gaps.

Application of the Gap model

Luo and Qu (2016) indicated quality of service is more difficult to define, measure, and manage than manufacturing products due to the unique characteristics of services.

Saleh and Ryan (1991) identified the existence of gaps between clients’ and management perceptions of attributes of the hotel, and between client expectation and perception of the services offered. Some researchers (Large and Konig 2009; Frederick and Mukesh 2001) designed INTSERVQUAL, an internal service quality measurement scale based on the “gap model” to successfully measure the difference between internal customers’ understanding and expectation from frontline service staff. Dedeoğlu and Demirer (2015) indicated while most of the studies on the hotel sector in the literature focus mainly on the evaluation of customers for service quality, other stakeholders’ (employees’ and managers’) perceptions have been ignored. It is argued that the existence of these gaps is a source of dissatisfaction with services provided (Saleh and Ryan 1991). Therefore, numerous of studies have been revised the gap model to focus on Gap 5, Gap 1, and other additional gaps (Jannadi et al. 2000; Tsang and Qu 2000; Chen and Chang 2005; Kang and Bradley 2002; Dedeoğlu and Demirer 2015). Jannadi et al. (2000) investigated four gaps of service quality in the Saudi Consolidated Electric Company in the Eastern Province and revealed that Gap 3 (service performance) was more critical than the others in affecting perceived service quality, making service delivery the main area of improvement. In addition, there was a revised gap model concentrated on Gap 5, Gap 1, and two additional identified gaps (Gap 6 and Gap 7) demonstrated by Tsang and Qu in 2000. Moreover, a conceptual “gaps model” of information technology (IT) service quality was developed by Kang and Bradly in 2002, which identified seven gaps between customers and IT service suppliers. Dedeoğlu and Demirer (2015) addressed the nature and characteristics of differences in service quality perceptions among customers, managers and employees. Torres et al. (2013) emphasized that studies are required in the field that include the examination of various kinds of feedback (i.e. guests, experts, and operators). The different levels of value provide the need for tourism and hospitality operators to adopt a more comprehensive strategy to collect, analyze, and take appropriate actions.

Some researchers have confirmed that a revised gap analysis was relevant to the research scope and effectively evaluated service quality problems which could provide management with important insights. Particularly, Lee et al. (2007) revised the conceptual model by decomposing service activities and focused on Gap 5, Gap 1, and three identified additional gaps (Gap 8, Gap 9, and Gap 10); Although Gap 5 has a functional relationship with Gaps 1–4 in the PZB model (Parasuraman et al. 1985), individual measurement of gap cannot be shown as the combination of gaps. Therefore, our studies applied the revised gap model designed by Lee et al. (2007). The structure is shown conveniently identified and service quality could be clearly measured through these gap scores in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Source: Adapted from Lee et al. (2007)

Revised conceptual model.

Full size image

The definitions of Gap 5 and Gap 1 are the same as in the PZB model; Gap 5 is the difference between customer perceptions and expectations, and Gap 1 is the difference between management perceptions and customer expectations. Gap 8 is the difference between management perceptions of customer expectations and service encounter perceptions of management perceptions. Gap 9 is the difference between service encounter perceptions of management perceptions and service delivery. This gap represents the gap of service perceptions through the service delivery process. Gap 10 is the difference between service delivery and the perceived service. The functional relationship can be indicated as follows:

$${\text{Gap }}5 \, = {\text{ Gap }}1 \, + {\text{ Gap }}8 \, + {\text{ Gap }}9 \, + {\text{ Gap }}10$$

(1)

The revised conceptual model is another better way to measure gaps of service quality, because it provides a functional relationship that indicates the combination of gaps and the decomposition of service activity. Especially, it offers direction for developing and improving service quality as well (Lee et al. 2007).

Service quality of an international hotel

Despite SERVQUAL’s wide use by academics and practicing managers in various industries, a number of studies have questioned the conceptual and operational base of the model (Babakus and Boller 1992; Carman 1990; Teas 1994; Saleh and Ryan 1991). Some researchers suggested that further customization of the scale for the hospitality industry was necessary (Saleh and Ryan 1991). Various measurement scales such as LODGSERV, HOLSERV, LODGQUAL and DINESERV have been developed for service quality evaluation purposes in the tourism industry. LODGSERV (Knutson et al. 1990) and HOLSERV (Mei et al. 1999) are used in the accommodation industry. LODGQUAL (Getty and Thompson 1994) is to assess service quality in the lodging industry while DINESERV (Stevens et al. 1995) is used in the restaurant services sector. Knutson et al. (1990) adapted SERVQUAL dimensions and developed an instrument called LODGSERV. Reliability is the most critical element in LODGSERV. By contrast, Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000) identified customer satisfaction with housekeeping as the only significant factor affecting customer loyalty. Mei et al. (1999) revised SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al. 1991) to include three dimensions of service quality: employees, tangibles, and reliability. They found that the employee dimension was the best predictor of overall service quality. Dedeoğlu and Demirer (2015) stress the factors contributing to hotel service quality are often the services related to employee behavior and tangibles. In addition, HOLSERV scale more parsimonious and user-friendly than SERVQUAL (Wu and Ko 2013). Moreover, consideration of the type of hotel and the range of facilities available, the HOLSERV instrument is suitable for our study in the hospitality industry in Taiwan, to design service strategies that meet guest expectations.