Menu

As claimed by Bitner and Hubbert

As claimed by Bitner and Hubbert (1994) de?ne service quality as “the customer’s over-all impression of the relative inferiority and superiority of the organizationand its services” (p. 77). Grönroos (1984) maintains that the customer per-ception of service quality should be measured based on a comparison between expected service and perceived service, namely, the outcome of a comparative evaluation process. Holbrook and Corfman (1985) note that
service quality is a highly subjective and relativistic phenomenon in terms of
customers’ points of view.
According to Parasuraman et al. (1988), service quality can be defined as an overall judgment similar to attitude towards the service and generally accepted as an antecedent of overall customer satisfaction (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). Parasuraman et al. (1988) have defined service quality as the ability of the organization to meet or exceed customer expectations. It is the difference between customer expectations of service and perceived service (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Perceived service quality results from comparisons by customers of expectations with their perceptions of service delivered by the suppliers (Zeithaml et al., 1990). If expectations are greater than performance, then perceived quality is less than satisfactory and hence customer dissatisfaction occurs (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Lewis and Mitchell, 1990).
As verified by Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1988), SERVQUAL
has been considered as the instrument of service quality, which is widely accepted in a variety of industries. In general, this instrument is designed to measure the gap between what customers expect from a service organization and their perceptions of the service provided. However, despite the popularity of SERVQUAL, this instrument has been highly criticized (Babakus & Boller, 1992; Bolton & Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Chen, Gupta, & Rom, 1994; Cronin & Taylor, 1992).
As prescribed by Mill (2007) “An Introduction To Restaurant Management” pg. 150, customers develop certain expectation about the service they are to receive based on such things as their own past experience, word of mouth from friends to have tried the restaurant, the advertisements of the restaurant itself, and their own needs and wants.
As validated by Parasuraman et al. (1988) suggested that customer expectations are what the customers think a service should offer rather than what might be on offer. Zeithaml et al. (1990) identified four factors that influence customers’ expectations: word-of-mouth communications; personal needs; past experience; and external communications. A gap is created when the perceptions of the delivered service is not as per the expectations of the customer. This gap is addressed by identifying and implementing strategies that affect perceptions, or expectations, or both (Parasuraman et al., 1985; Zeithaml et al., 1990). Parasuraman et al. (1988) stated that SERVQUAL had been designed to be “applicable across a broad spectrum of services” and the format could be adapted to fit specific needs, and that it would be most valuable when used to track service quality trends periodically. They proposed that the SERVQUAL model could be extended to measure gaps in quality and could therefore be used as a diagnostic tool to enable management to identify service quality shortfalls.
According to Lovelock (2001) “Services Marketing People, Technology, Strategy” pg. 120, the terms quality and satisfaction are sometimes used interchangeably, researchers stress the need for greater precision. Zeithaml and Bitner, for example, portray satisfaction as a broader concept, arguing that perceived service quality is but one component of customer satisfaction, which also reflects price-quality tradeoffs and personal and situational factors.
Local Literature
As prescribed by Mill (2007) “An Introduction To Restaurant Management” pg. 150, customers develop certain expectation about the service they are to receive based on such things as their own past experience, word of mouth from friends to have tried the restaurant, the advertisements of the restaurant itself, and their own needs and wants.
As reputed by Mill (2007) “An Introduction To Restaurant Management” pg. 54, customer satisfaction implies that the operation must not only bring customers in, it must bring them back. Finally, the idea of exchange means that the satisfaction of customers’ needs must bring economic benefit to the organization.
As stated by “The Maya Kitchen” Food Service and Catering Management published by ANVIL PUBLISHING, 2004. In catering, delivering a high standard of service is of utmost importance. To do this, having adequate equipment is necessary. Durability and a reasonable price are two things one should look for when buying such equipment.
As specified by “The Maya Kitchen” Food Service and Catering Management published by ANVIL PUBLISHING, 2004. It is equally important to create a menu which will not only satisfy the clients the first time they try out the dishes offered, but will also entice them to try out the dishes offered, but will also entice them to try out new offerings by acquiring the caterer’s services again. A basic tenet to remember is that a well-planned menu satisfies the gastronomic as well as the economic criteria.
As stated by Richardson “Total Quality Management” 1997 pg. 177, customer assessment is used to learn customers’ level of satisfaction and expectations regarding existing products and services. To continue to satisfy the customer, all customers must be identified by systematic and continues marketing research. The emphasis is on reaching current customers and seeking new customers for the future.