See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222497565

Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of the

SERVQUAL instrument

Article  in  International Journal of Hospitality Management · September 1995

DOI: 10.1016/0278-4319(95)00037-2

CITATIONS READS

197 7,222

2 authors:

Yun-Lok Lee Nerilee Hing

Southern Cross University Central Queensland University
16 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS    261 PUBLICATIONS   4,819 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Clarence Valley Healthy Communities Project View project

The convergence of online gaming and gambling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yun-Lok Lee on 21 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Int. J. Hospitality Management Vol. 14 No. 3/4, pp. 293-310, 1995
Pergamon Copyright @ 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
027B-4319195 $9.50+0.00

02794319(95)00037-2

Measuring quality in restaurant operations: an application of

the SERVQUAL instrument

Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

Centre for Tourism, Southern Cross University, P.O. Box 157, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia

Definitive conclusions have yet to be made about the criteria by which restaurant
patrons assess service quality and how best restaurateurs can improve their service
offerings. This study assesses the usefulness and application of the SERVQUAL
instrument in measuring and comparing service quality within thefine dining sector of
the restaurant industry. It demonstrates how easily and inexpensively the instrument
can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of individual restaurants’ service
dimensions so that management can improve weak aspects of service and refine their
marketing efforts so that customer expectations are met. The study also offers some
insights on the aspects of service which restaurant patrons consider most important.

Key words: restaurants service quality SERVQUAL

customer expectations customer perceptions
competitive advantage

Introduction

As many industry sectors mature, with individual businesses facing increased competition
for the consumer dollar, competitive advantage through high quality service is an
increasingly important weapon in business survival. Few would dispute that consumers
have become increasingly more sensitive to product and service quality in recent years.
Consumerism, media attention, increased advertising and promotion and technological
progress have all contributed to the consumers’ belief that they have a right to receive
products and services which meet their expectations (Hart and Casserly, 1985).
The restaurant industry has certainly not been exempt from either increased compe-
tition or from rising consumer expectations of quality. In the highly competitive food
service industry, large chain operators have tended to gain competitive advantage through
cost leadership, possible only through standardisation and economies of scale arising from
large market shares, whereas smaller, independent restaurants attempt to gain advantage
through differentiation. However, as Worsfold and Jameson (1991) explain, of the
fundamental variables contributing to customer satisfaction in a restaurant-meal quality,
the environment and service-the former two can easily be improved, but it is the service
element which will eventually provide a business with a sustainable competitive advan-

293
294 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

tage. Furthermore, other researchers have noted that the long-term financial viability of
service establishments is closely linked to their ability to deliver high quality service to
current and potential customers (Garvin, 1987; Keiser, 1988).
Given the importance of high quality service to business prosperity, there are many
potential benefits for restaurateurs from conducting a customer-based evaluation of the
service quality experienced at their establishments. This article reports on a study which
demonstrates the effective use of the SERVQUAL instrument (Parasuraman et al., 1985;
1988) in assessing the customer-perceived service quality of two different styles of
licensed, fine dining restaurants-a French and a Chinese restaurant.

Research objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the usefulness and applicability of the SERVQUAL
instrument (1988) to the restaurant sector by measuring, comparing and contrasting
patrons’ perceived service quality of two restaurants. The results of a quantitative
assessment of service quality may provide some insights on how patrons rate the service
quality of a particular restaurant, thus enabling restaurateurs to position their service
quality in relation to their competitors and to identify dimensions of service where they
excel or need to improve. More specifically, the research objectives were to:
(1) Assess the usefulness and application of the SERVQUAL instrument (1988) to
restaurants within a common sector. The few previous applications of the SERVQUAL
instrument to the restaurant industry have been restricted to either comparisons of service
quality across industries, or within one chain of restaurants.
(2) Show, by example, how the SERVQUAL instrument can identify the strengths and
weaknesses of individual restaurants’ service dimensions. Knowledge of these strengths
and weaknesses will allow restaurants to direct their scarce resources to improving weak
service dimensions and to refining their marketing efforts so that customer expectations
are met by the service delivered.
(3) Gain some insights into the dimensions of service quality which restaurant patrons
consider important and whether their expectations may, or may not, differ according to
the type of ethnic restaurant patronised.

Review of the related literature

Despite the long existence of service industries, some characteristics which distinguish
them from goods-producing industries were only first recognised in the 1930s when Fisher
(1935) coined the term ‘tertiary sector’. Similarly, Judd (1964) was one of the first to
distinguish between goods and non-goods services, with the latter referred to as ‘experien-
tial possession’. While little was written on service quality until the 1970s the recognition
that services are related to the experiences encountered by the customer during service
delivery, paved the way for further research into service and service quality.
Substantial research into service and service quality has only been undertaken in the last
20 years. As Gronroos (1990) notes, ‘We are still in the early phases of developing a theory
of service’. Furthermore, Parasuraman et al. (1985) note there were limited attempts to
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 295

define and model quality in service industries during the 197Os, due to difficulties in
delimiting and measuring the construct. For instance, a literature review reveals that
researchers into services such as McConnell (1968), Shapiro (1972), Jacoby et al. (1973),
Rathmell(1974), Hill (1977) and Chase (1978) either loosely defined the concept of quality
or engaged in individual evaluations of quality, which had no generalised application.
While this literature is of limited use in suggesting acceptable concepts and measurements
of service quality, it does highlight the difficulties of research in this area and provides a
reminder to be selective on concepts and models which purport to measure service quality.

Definition and measurement of quality

Early efforts in defining and measuring quality were mostly centred in the tangible
products (goods) sector, while the seemingly more difficult services sector was ignored.
Gronroos (1990) notes that product quality was traditionally linked to the technical
specifications of goods, with most definitions of quality arising from the manufacturing
sector where quality control has received prolonged attention and research. For example,
according to the Japanese philosophy, quality is ‘zero defects-doing it right the first time’
(Parasuraman et al., 1985). Crosby (1979) defines quality as ‘conformance to standards’;
while for Garvin (1983), quality involves eliminating ‘internal failures’ (defects before the
product leaves the factory) and ‘external failures’ (defects after product use). While these
product-based definitions of quality may be appropriate to the goods-producing sector
‘knowledge about goods quality. . . is insufficient to understand service quality’ (Parasura-
man et al., 1985).
Literature published in the late 1970s and early 1980s provided a clearer understanding
of service quality and its measurement. For example, Bateson (1979), Shostack (1977),
Chase (1978) and Lovelock (1991) recognised the intangible characteristic of services and
that most services are performances rather than objects and are experiences rendered,
unlike goods which are tangible objects to be possessed. For the restaurant industry, the
intangibility of services means that precise specifications for the uniform quality of service
are difficult, if at all possible, to set. This makes it difficult for restaurant managers, staff
and patrons to count, measure, test or verify service outputs and service quality. As a
consequence, Bowen and Cummings (1990) suggest that ‘an organisation’s overall climate
of service, the atmospherics of feel of the setting, is very important in shaping both
customers’ and front-line employees’ attitude about the process and outcome of service
delivery’. This implies that, for the present study, it was imperative that the instrument
used for measuring service quality included a means of capturing patrons’ perception of
the tangible influences on service quality, such as the physical facilities, equipment and
appearance of personnel.
Carman and Langeard (1980), Gronroos (1978, 1983) and Lehtinen and Lehtinen
(1982) have discussed another characteristic of services which makes service quality
definition and measurement difficult-its simultaneous production and consumption.
Particularly in labour-intensive services such as restaurants, quality is created during the
process of service delivery, in encounters between staff and patrons. This then suggests
that an instrument to measure service quality must have adequate means of assessing
patrons’ perceptions of service quality during these service encounters.
A third characteristic of service is its heterogeneous nature, especially in those services
with high labour content. This means that service performance will vary from producer to
296 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

producer, from patron to patron and also from one encounter to the next. Booms and
Bitner (1981) and Zeithaml (1981) have suggested that the heterogeneous nature of
service hinders the consistency of service delivery and thus, assessment of service quality.
What the establishment had intended to deliver might be quite different from what the
patrons received (Booms and Bitner, 1981).
An understanding of the characteristics of service is necessary in the selection of an
appropriate instrument to measure service quality. Such an instrument needs to accommo-
date the difficulties raised above and recognise that the quality of services is more difficult
for customers to evaluate than the quality of goods, that quality assessments are made not
only on the service outcome, but also on the process of service delivery and that
perceptions of quality result from comparisons of actual performance with the customer’s
prior expectations (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Indeed, Sasser et al. (1978), Gronroos
(1982), Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1982), Lewis and Booms (1983) and Parasuraman et al.
(1985, 1988) all concurred that service quality can be measured by comparing the
expectations of patrons with their perception of the actual service performance. Indeed,
Gronroos (1982), Parasuraman et aE. (1985) and Barrington and Olsen (1987) have
developed models of service quality based on this concept.

The SERVQUAL instrument

One of the few tested instruments available to measure service quality from the customer’s
perspective is the SERVQUAL instrument, developed by Parasuraman et al. in 1985, and
later refined. Its development involved in-depth interviews with executives from large
firms in four selected service segments-appliance repair and maintenance, long-distance
telephone, retail banking and credit cards-which varied along key dimensions appropri-
ate in the categorisation of services. In addition, three customer focus groups in each of
these service segments were conducted (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The results led
Parasuraman et al. to the important conclusion that, irrespective of the kind of service, the
criteria used by customers to assess perceived service quality will be very similar.
Nevertheless, various researchers, and indeed the developers of the SERVQUAL
instrument themselves, have recognised that both the instrument itself and the conceptua-
lisation of service quality may benefit from further refinement. For example, Carman
(1990), Finn and Lamb (1991), Babakus and Boller (1992) and Brown et al. (1993) have
argued that the SERVQUAL instrument needs to be customised to the service in
question, perhaps by including additional dimensions which are specific to the industry in
question. Cronin and Taylor (1992), Brown et aE. (1993) and Teas (1993) have questioned
the underlying disconfirmation paradigm which conceptualises service quality as the
difference between customer perceptions and expectations. Indeed, the former two
researchers have developed instruments to measure service quality based only on
customer perceptions. However, as Parasuraman et al. (1993) have argued, a perceptions
rating alone may not lead to the same, or the correct, practical implications as the ‘gap’
score which, for example, allows managers to better understand whether higher expec-
tations or lower perceptions might be responsible for declining service quality assessment
over time. At this point, alternative measurements of service quality have yet to
demonstrate their superiority over the SERVQUAI scale.
In the original SERVQUAL instrument, 10 categories were proposed which the
researchers believed captured the dimensions by which consumers assess service quality.
 Measuring quality in restaurantoperations 297

Later research and scale purification resulted in the elimination and reassigning of certain
categories. The end-product is the present SERVQUAL instrument, which was shown by
its developers, through rigorous pretesting, validity and reliability computations across the
four sectors, to have good reliability and validity, and the ability to be used in future
studies with minor adaptations (Parasuraman et al., 1988). The instrument consists of five
service dimensions, with two sets of 22 item statements for the ‘expectation’ and
‘perception’ sections of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). Perceived service quality is
measured by subtracting customer perception scores from customer expectation scores,
both for each dimension and overall. The magnitude and direction of the result identifies
the areas of strengths and weaknesses of the firm’s service. The five dimensions considered
distinct components of perceived service quality are:
(1) Tangibles, which pertain to the establishment’s physical facilities, equipment and
appearance of personnel. Since restaurant patrons do not receive only meals, but also a
large component of service, they undoubtedly depend on other cues in the absence of
tangible evidence by which to assess service quality.
(2) Reliability, which refers to the organisations’ ability to perform the promised service
dependably and accurately. In food outlets, this may involve reservations of tables,
adherence to customer requests regarding the preparation of menu items and accurate
billing.
(3) Responsiveness, which refers to the willingness of service providers to help
customers and provide prompt service. Perceived service quality may be enhanced if, for
example, patrons are assisted with the wine list and menu, or if staff respond appropriately
to a customer’s request for prompt service.
(4) Assurance, which relates to the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their
ability to inspire trust and confidence. For example, patrons should be able to trust the
recommendations of the sommelier, feel confident that food is free from contamination
and be able to voice any concern without fear of insult or recrimination.
(5) Empathy, which refers to the caring, individualised attention the firm provides to its
customers. This may involve employees providing personalised attention to patrons’
needs, perhaps by adhering to special dietary requirements, or by being sympathetic
towards customers’ problems.

Application of the SERVQUAL instrument in the hospitality industry

Limited applications of the SERVQUAL instrument in hospitality businesses have been
documented. One application by Fick and Ritchie (1991) evaluated the perceived quality
of airlines, hotels, restaurants and ski area services. Their application demonstrated the
usefulness of the instrument in indicating the relative importance of customer expectations
of different dimensions of service quality across different industry sectors, in comparing
various dimensions of service quality across different sectors and in offering insights into
the nature and extent of service quality differences across firms within industry sectors
(Fick and Ritchie, 1991).
While Fick and Ritchie’s research addressed service quality across a range of different
industry sectors, Bojanic and Rosen (1994) applied the SERVQUAL instrument to one
restaurant chain. Both Bojanic and Rosen (1994) and Fick and Ritchie (1991) found that
the three most important expectations of restaurant patrons were assurance, reliability
and tangibles, respectively. In addition, while customer perceptions of service were lower
298 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

than their expectations on every dimension, the restaurants in both studies were less
successful in meeting customer expectations of reliability and responsiveness, than they
were for the tangible aspects of the service. Results such as these can provide important
direction for management in formulating strategy, in managing customer expectations and
perceptions, and in operations, marketing and human resource management (Bojanic and
Rosen, 1994).
Given the rigorous development and testing of the SERVQUAL instrument and its
successful application across a range of industries, its use in the present study is considered
appropriate. However, while the instrument has been used in the restaurant industry to
compare service quality to that of other sectors and to highlight the strengths and
weaknesses of one restaurant chain, it has not, to the authors’ knowledge, been used to
compare the strengths and weaknesses of two or more restaurants, as was done in the
present study. As Fick and Ritchie (1991) note, ‘the power of the SERVQUAL tool is
perhaps greatest in situations involving comparisons of one firm with another within a
common service segment. In this regard, information as to which organization is perceived
to provide better service is available, along with the potential to identify specific areas of
excellence or weakness’. The present study hopes to clarify the usefulness of the
SERVQUAL instrument when used for these purposes.

Research methodology

The subjects of the study were two restaurants situated in Launceston, Australia. Both are
independent, licensed, fine-dining establishments, with a seating capacity of 80-100
patrons, centrally located and with good accessibility. In addition, each restaurant had
been operating under the same management for over 6 years, and would thus be expected
to have a well-established approach to service delivery.
Fifty participants were randomly selected from a variety of sources to ensure a diversity
of opinions on the service quality of the restaurants. A random numbers table was used to
select the 50 participants from 126 volunteers from a study population of 418, consisting of
80 staff from a private school, 234 parents of students at that school, 60 medical staff of a
local hospital, 24 staff from an importing firm and 20 members of a local church group.
While these individuals probably represent higher than average income earners, this was
considered appropriate given that the restaurants were both fine-dining establishments.
Nevertheless, that the occupations of participants included teachers, doctors, nurses,
accountants, tradesmen, business people, lawyers, housewives, university students and
farmers, indicates sufficient diversity for the purposes of the study. In addition, partici-
pants were required to be over 18 years of age, to be regular diners in restaurants (not less
than once a month) and to have dined in a licensed restaurant within the previous 3
months.
A random numbers table was then used to select 25 of these participants to assess the
service quality of the Chinese restaurant, with the remaining 25 assigned the French
restaurant. All participants completed and returned Part A (expectations of service
quality) of the SERVQUAL instrument before visiting the restaurant and were then sent
Part B of the questionnaire (perceptions of service quality) after their dining experience.
One hundred per cent response rate was obtained for both mailings.
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 299

The SERVQUAL instrument was used in its entirety, with only slight modification of
wording to make it specific to restaurants. As in the original, a seven-point Likert scale was
used for respondents to indicate their extent of agreement to the given statements, which
are grouped into the five service dimensions identified earlier. In addition, Section 2 of
Part A requested that respondents indicate the relative importance of each of these
dimensions to their evaluation of service quality, by assigning a total of 100 points amongst
the five dimensions. This allowed both weighted and unweighted scores to be calculated
for each service dimension and for comparisons between the service quality of each
restaurant to be made.

Results

Table 1 shows the results for both restaurants for the respondents’ expectations and
perceptions of service quality. The weighted and unweighted service quality scores for
both restaurants along all dimensions, and their total mean scores, are also shown.

Discussion

Patrons’ expectations of the restaurants’ service quality

Patrons’ expectations of service quality, both along all dimensions and overall, are very
similar, with the highest expectations related to assurance and reliability, respectively, and
the lowest expectation related to tangibles. The results imply that restaurant patrons may
have common expectations of different aspects of service quality in fine-dining restaur-
ants, regardless of their ethnic type, although more extensive research would be needed to
verify this contention.
Importantly, the data support the findings of Fick and Ritchie (1991) and Bojanic and
Rosen (1994) that assurance and reliability, respectively, are the two most important
expectations of restaurant patrons. As Fick and Ritchie (1991) explain, ‘When the
managerial situation involves limited resources, this determination of various consumer
expectation levels can assist in determining an appropriate allocation of consumer service
efforts’. Bojanic and Rosen (1994) suggest operational changes to improve reliability,
internal marketing and training to improve assurance and total quality management
programmes to improve both.
The least important expectation in both restaurants was the tangible dimension.
However, this result should not be interpreted to imply that management can ignore this
aspect of service or that it is not important to customers. Indeed, Saleh and Ryan (1991), in
their examination of service quality in the hotel industry, suggest that ‘should a service be
absent, the very fact of its absence makes it important’. A ‘threshold effect’ occurs, where,
if the tangible dimension of service meets the expected minimum, then patrons will focus
on other dimensions in their evaluation of service quality. Restaurateurs should be careful
to maintain at least this expected minimum in their physical facilities, equipment and staff
appearance.
300 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

Table 1. Respondents‘ expectations and perceptions and the resulting service quality of
the French and Chinese restaurants

Unweighted Weighted
Dimension Expectationa Perceptionb quality= qualityd

French restaurant (n = 25)

Tangibles 5.44 5.34 -0.10 -0.02
Reliability 6.39 5.97 -0.42 -0.10
Responsiveness 6.07 5.70 -0.37 -0.04
Assurance 6.41 6.04 -0.37 -0.06
Empathy 6.23 5.56 -0.67 -0.17
Total score@ 6.11 5.72 -0.39 -0.39

Chinese restaurant (n = 25)

Tangibles 5.81 5.50 -0.31 -0.05
Reliability 6.46 3.76 -2.70 -0.60
Responsiveness 6.23 3.46 -2.77 -0.59
Assurance 6.47 3.63 -2.84 -0.51
Empathy 6.08 3.54 -2.54 -0.67
Total score’ 6.21 3.98 -2.23 -2.42

aExpectation scores are measured on a seven-point Liket-t scale, where the higher the
score, the greater the expectation of service. For each respondent, ratings for each
statement pertaining to a dimension were added, then divided by the number of
statements. These mean scores for all respondents were added and then divided by the
number of patrons to obtain a total mean expectation score of all respondents for each
dimension.
bTotal mean perception scores for all respondents for each dimension were obtained
using the same methods as their total mean expectation scores.
‘Unweighted quality scores for each dimension for each restaurant are the difference
between the perception and expectation scores.
dThe weighted quality score takes into account the relative importance of the five service
dimensions. The mean service quality score given by each respondent for each dimension
was multiplied by the points out of 100 allocated to the importance of that dimension in
evaluating service quality. Total weighted scores were obtained by adding the weighted
service quality scores for all respondents across all dimensions and then dividing by 25.
‘Total scores for each restaurant were obtained by adding respondents’ mean scores for
each dimension and then dividing by five.

Patrons’ perceptions of the restaurants’ service quality

As would be expected, patrons’ perceptions of the various dimensions of service quality
differed between the two restaurants, with assurance, reliability and responsiveness for
the French restaurant and tangibles, reliability and assurance for the Chinese restaurant
being rated the highest, respectively. However, in evaluating and comparing these results,
it is necessary to take into account both customer expectations, as well as the importance
they attach to each service dimension.
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 301

For both the French and Chinese restaurants, customer perceptions of service quality
along all dimensions fall short of patrons’ expectations, although a comparison of the
unweighted quality scores indicates that the French restaurant is closer to meeting the
expectations of its patrons along all dimensions of service quality than is the Chinese
establishment. It is apparent that empathy and reliability are the two dimensions which fall
most below customer expectations in the French restaurant, while the Chinese restaurant
could substantially improve its service along all of the intangible dimensions.
However, to better determine the aspects of service most worthy of attention, it is
necessary to consider the relative importance which customers attach to the various
dimensions of service quality, by evaluating their weighted scores. For both restaurants,
the weighted quality scores indicate that improved empathy and reliability would contrib-
ute most to raising customers’ perceptions of the service experience. That is, if resources
are limited, management would benefit most from concentrating on these two areas. Staff
may need to be recruited, trained or encouraged to be more caring, willing to help patrons
and offer more prompt and individualised attention. In addition, management could
improve operational controls so that the service is consistently delivered as ordered or
promised. However, for the Chinese restaurant, it should be noted that the weighted
quality scores also support the earlier conclusion that management needs to make a
concerted effort to improve service quality in all service dimensions, except for tangibles.

Implications and conclusions

A number of implications can be drawn from this quantitative assessment of service quality
in two restaurants.
Firstly, the study has demonstrated that it is possible to measure service quality, even in
labour intensive establishments such as restaurants. Furthermore, the SERVQUAL
instrument has been found to provide a relatively simple and inexpensive means of doing
this and this implies that interested parties can regularly conduct service assessments,
which Parasuraman et al. (1988) advocate as necessary to service improvement. Regular
assessments can, for example, monitor the effects of service quality programmes (Bojanic
and Rosen, 1994) or track whether customer expectations of the service are changing over
time (Parasuraman et al., 1993).
Secondly, the results of the study indicate that the measurement of service quality has
many potential benefits for restaurateurs. Identifying customer expectations and percep-
tions of service quality for a particular establishment allows management to better tailor its
marketing efforts to ensure patrons’ expectations are met. This includes identifying,
prioritising and improving areas of service weakness and ensuring that valuable resources
are allocated in the most effective areas. In addition, promotional messages can be refined
so that customers have realistic expectations of the service offered. As Bateson (1992)
notes, ‘A problem may arise if the establishment is perceived by the (patrons) to have
failed to deliver the level of service quality it promises to provide in its advertisement’.
Similarly, Bojanic and Rosen (1994) contend that all restaurateurs must determine their
definition of quality and communicate it to customers so that realistic expectations are
formed. As Martin (1986) notes, ‘Each restaurant’s exact specification of “quality” service
is unique, because each restaurant seeks to fulfil slightly different customer needs’.
302 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

Thirdly, the results of the study suggest that it is useful to compare service quality of
firms within the same industry sector. For example, knowledge of a restaurant’s strengths
and weaknesses in relation to its competitors can help management tailor its promotional
message so that competitive advantage is maximised. To more effectively position itself in
the marketplace, a restaurant may emphasise certain service strengths, or downplay other
aspects on which competitors perform more competently. For large chain or franchised
networks, this type of comparative analysis and positioning could be invaluable. In
addition, when the performance of one outlet can affect the reputation of an entire
network, identifying and improving those outlets which are a weak link in the chain can be
crucial. Valuable lessons in marketing, human resource management and operations can
also be learnt from those outlets where service meets or exceeds customer expectations.
Finally, a quantitative assessment of service quality has potential benefits for restaurant
patrons. Apart from the obvious enhancement of the dining experience which should
result from identifying and improving service weaknesses, the SERVQUAL instrument
offers a means of assisting restaurant patrons in their choice of food outlets. Good food
guides, restaurant reviewers and dining clubs could offer a valuable service by providing
such quantitative assessments.
Naturally, the research results have greatest use for the two restaurants examined. The
results are also limited by the small sample size, as well as geographical and temporal
constraints. Extensive research on service quality in restaurants has yet to be conducted
before definitive conclusions can be drawn about the criteria by which customers assess
service quality and how best restaurateurs can improve their service offerings. Neverthe-
less, this study has contributed to this goal through an application of the SERVQUAL
instrument to measure and compare service quality within one sector of the restaurant
industry.

References

Babakus, E. and Boller, G. W. (1992) An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal
of Business Research 24, 253-268.
Barrington, M. N. and Olsen, M. D. (1987) Concept of service in the hospitality industry.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 6, 131-138.
Bateson, J. E. G. (1979) Why we need service marketing. In Ferrell, 0. C., Brown, S. W. and Lamb,
C. W. (eds), Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing. Chicago, American
Marketing Association, pp. 131-146.
Bateson, J. E. G. (1992) Managing Services Marketing: Text and Readings, 2nd edn. The Dryden
Press, Florida.
Bojanic, D. C. and Rosen, L. D. (1993) Measuring service quality in restaurants: an application of
the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal 18, 3-14.
Booms, B. H. and Bitner, M. J. (1981) Marketing strategies and organisation structures for service
firms. In Donnelly, J. and George, W. (eds), Marketing of Services, pp. 47-51. American
Marketing, Chicago.
Bowen, D. E. and Cummings, T. G. (1990) Suppose we took service seriously? In Bowen, D. E.,
Chase, R. B. and Cummings, T. G. (eds), Service Management Effectiveness: Balancing Strategy,
Organization, Human Resources, Operations and marketing, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.
Brown, T. S., Churchill, G. A. and Peter, J. P. (1993) Research note: improving the measurement of
service quality. Journal of Retailing 69, 127-139.
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 303

Carman, J. M. (1990) Consumer perceptions of service quality: an assessment of the SERVQUAL

Dimensions. Journal of Retailing 66, 33-55.
Carman, J. M. and Langeard, E. (1980) Growth strategies of service firms. Strategic Management
Journal 7-22.
Chase, R. (1978) Where does the customer fit in a service operation? Harvard Business Review 137-
142.
Cronin, J. J. and Taylor, S. A. (1992) Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension.
Journal of Marketing 56,55-68.
Crosby, P. B. (1979) Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain. New American Library,
New York.
Fick, G. R. and Ritchie, J. R. B. (1991) Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism industry.
Journal of Travel Research, Fall, 2-9.
Finn, D. W. and Lamb, C. W. (1991) An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in a retail setting. In
Holman, R. H. and Solomon, M. R. (eds), Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 18. Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT.
Fisher, A. G. B. (1935) The Clash of Progress and Security. Macmillan, London.
Garvin, D. A. (1983) Quality on the line. Harvard Business Review 61, Sept.-Oct., 65-73.
Garvin, D. A. (1987) Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review 65,
Nov-Dee, 101-109.
Gronroos, C. (1978) A service-oriented approach to marketing and services. European Journal of
Marketing 12,588-601.
Gronroos, C. (1982) Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector. Swedish School of
Economics and Business Administration, Helsingfors, Sweden.
Gronroos, C. (1983) Innovative Marketing strategies and organisations structures for service firms.
In Berry, I. et al. (eds), Proceedings: Emery’s Perspective on Service marketing. American
Marketing Association, Chicago.
Gronroos, C. (1990) Service Management and Marketing: Moments of Truth in Service Competition.
D. C. Heath-Lexington Books, Lexington, MS.
Hart, C. W. L. and Casserly, G. D. (1985) Quality: a brand-new, time-tested strategy. The Cornell
H. R.A. Quarterly, Nov., 52-63.
Hill, T. P. (1977) On goods and services. Review of Income and Wealth 23, Dec., 315-338.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C. and Haddock, R. A. (1973) Price, brand name and product composition
characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 55,570-579.
Judd, R. C. (1964) The case of redefining services. Journal of Marketing 28,59.
Keiser, T. C. (1988) Strategies for enhancing service quality. Journal of Service Marketing 2,
Summer, 65-70.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J. R. (1982) Service Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions. Service
Management Institute, Helsinki.
Lewis, R. C. and Booms, B. H. (1983) Customer care in service organizations. In Johnston, R. (ed),
The Management of Service Operations: Proceedings of the UK Operations Management Associ-
ation Annual International Conference. pp. 183-194. IFS Publications, Bedford.
Lovelock, C. H. (1991) Services Marketing, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Martin, W. B. (1986) Defining what quality service is for you. The Cornell H.R.A. Quarterly,
February, 32-38.
McConnell, J. D. (1968) Effect of pricing on perception of product quality. Journal of Applied
Psychology 52,300-303.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985) A conceptual model of service quality
and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49, Fall, 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for
measuring customer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64, Spring, 12-37.
304 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry L. L. (1993) Research note: more on improving
service quality measurement. Journal of Retailing 69, Spring, 140-147.
Rathmell, J. R. (1974) Marketing in the Service Sector. Winthrop, Cambridge, MS.
Saleh, F. and Ryan, C. (1991) Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using the
SERVQUAL model. The Service Industries Journal 11, July, 324-343.
Sasser, W. E., Olson, W. P. and Wyckoff, D. D. (1978) Management of Service Operations. Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
Shapiro, B. (1972) The Price of Consumer Goods: Theory and Practice. Working Paper, Marketing
Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Shostack, G. L. (1977) Breaking Free From Product Marketing. Journalof Marketing41, April, 73-80.
Teas, R. K. (1993) Consumer expectations and the measurement of perceived service quality.
Journal of Professional Services Marketing 8, 33-54.
Worsfold, P. and Jameson, S. (1991) Human resource management, a response to change in the
1990s. In Teare, R. and Boer, A. (eds), Strategic Hospitality Management: Theory and Practice for
the 1990s. Cassell, London.
Zeithaml, V. A. (1981) How consumer evaluation process differs between goods and services. In
Donnelly, J. and George, W. (eds), Marketing of Services. pp. 186-190. American Marketing,
Chicago.

About the Authors

Yun Lok Lee (B.Arts (Economics); B.Bus (Tourism); Dip.Education) is currently a
Masters by research candidate at the Centre for Tourism, Southern Cross University. He
has many years of experience as the owner-operator of licensed, fine-dining restaurants in
Australia, one of which has won a number of Australian awards for excellence. His
research interests include restaurant management and the Tasmanian tourism product.
Nerilee Hing (B.Bus. (Tourism), M.App.Sc.) is a Lecturer at the Centre for Tourism at
Southern Cross University in Lismore, Australia. Her research interests include hospita-
lity and small business management and she has designed and delivered tertiary courses in
tourism, restaurant and club management. .

Appendix A: SERVQUAL questionnaire instructions for completing this

questionnaire

Dear Respondent
Please follow these instructions closely when completing this questionnaire.

There are two parts of the questionnaire, Part A and Part B. You are asked to complete
Part A of the questionnaire which measures your expectations of service in the restaurant
you are going to dine in. On completion of this questionnaire, please kindly sent it back to
me in the stamped addressed envelope one day prior to your dining at the restaurant.

Please contact me by telephone the day after you have dined at the restaurant so that
Part B of the questionnaire may be made available to you. This too, is to be completed and
returned to me in the stamped addressed envelope at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for assisting in this research project.

Yun Lok Lee
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 305

Part A
(To be completed before dining at the restaurant)

Directions: Based on your experience as a consumer of hospitality (restaurant) service,

please think about the kind of restaurant that would deliver excellent quality of service.
Think about the kind of restaurant which you would be pleased to patronise. Please show
the extent to which you think such a restaurant would possess the feature described in each
statement. If you feel a feature is not at all essential for an excellent restaurant such as the
one you have in mind, circle the number 1. If you feel a feature is absolutely essential for an
excellent restaurant, circle number 7. If your feelings are less strong, circle one of the
numbers in the middle. There are no right or wrong answers-all I am interested in is a
number that truly reflects your feelings regarding the restaurant that would deliver
excellent quality of service.

Item statements
El An excellent restaurant will have modern-looking equip- 1234567
ment, eg: dining facility, bar facility, crockery, cutlery, etc.

E2 The physical facilities, eg: buildings, signs, dining room 1234567

decor, lighting, carpet, etc, at an excellent restaurant will
be visually appealing.
E3 Staff at an excellent restaurant will appear neat, eg: uni- 1234567
form, grooming, etc.
E4 Materials associated with the service, eg: pamphlets, state- 1234567
ments, table line, serviettes, menu and wine list will be
visually appealing in an excellent restaurant.
E5 When an excellent restaurant promises to do something by 1234567
a certain time, they will do so, eg: patrons request to have
meals finished by a certain time.
E6 When patrons have a problem, an excellent restaurant will 1234567
show a genuine interest in solving it, eg: error in the bill
presentation, the food is too salty, allergic to food additive.
E7 An excellent restaurant will perform the service right the 1234567
first time, eg: drink or food order correctly taken and
served first time.
ES An excellent restaurant will provide its service at the time it 1234567
promises to do so, eg: drink or food served at the time
promised.
E9 An excellent restaurant will insist on error-free service, eg: 1234567
drinks and food given correctly, no mistakes appear on
patron’s bill.
306 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

El0 Staff of an excellent restaurant will tell patrons exactly 1234567

when services will be performed, eg: when food order will
be taken or when meals will be served.
El1 Staff of an excellent restaurant will give prompt service to 1234567
the patrons, eg: patrons are greeted promptly on arrival
and shown to designated tables, drinks are served less than
10 minutes after they have been ordered.
El2 Staff of an excellent restaurant will always be willing to help 1234567
patrons, eg: willing to hang up their coats, to phone them a
taxi or help take photographs.
El3 Staff of an excellent restaurant will never be too busy to 1234567
respond to patrons’ requests, eg: request staff to explain
menu items or to get a glass of water.
El4 The behaviour of staff of an excellent restaurant will instil 1234567
confidence in patrons, eg: staff professionally and capably
handle a complaint, ability to perform with finesse even
under tremendous work pressure.
El5 Patrons of an excellent restaurant will feel safe in their 1234567
transactions, eg: staff suggestions of drinks or food can be
relied upon. Drinks are the ones ordered-such as no
changing of brands in mixed drinks.
El6 Staff of an excellent restaurant will be consistently cour- 1234567
teous with patrons, eg: staff are polite, patient and exhibit
proper service etiquette at all times even when facing
difficult and demanding patrons.
El7 Staff of an excellent restaurant will have the knowledge to 1234567
answer patrons’ questions, eg: staff demonstrate good
knowledge of wine and food (Including preparation
methods).
El8 An excellent restaurant will give patrons individual atten- 1234567
tion, eg: willing to cater for the special needs of patrons in
food and drink, such as gluten or salt free meals.
El9 An excellent restaurant will have operating hours con- 1234567
venient to all their patrons, eg: trade at least 6 days and
most public holidays for lunch and dinner.
E20 An excellent restaurant will have staff who give its patrons 1234567
personal attention, eg: asking patrons how their meals are
within a short period after being served, or topping up their
drinks or asking patrons about refilling of beverages.
E21 An excellent restaurant will have the patrons’ best interests 1234567
at heart, eg: sufficient portions given, prices are reason-
able, customers are asked about their comfort and staff are
not too pushy with their suggestive selling.
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 307

E22 The staff of an excellent restaurant will understand the 1234567

specific needs of their patrons, eg: staff will attempt to
provide a special setting for patrons on special occasions or
the willingness of staff to cater for what the patrons have
requested.

Part A: Section 2

Directions: Listed below are five features pertaining to (name of restaurant), and the
service it offers. I would like to know how important each of these features is to you when
you evaluate the restaurant’s quality of service. Please allocate a total of 100 points among
the five features according to how important each feature is to you-the more important a
feature is to you, the more points you should allocate it. Please ensure that the points you
have allocated to the five features add up to 100 points.
1. The appearance of the restaurant’s physical facilities, equipment, -points
personnel and communications materials.
2. The restaurant’s ability to perform the promised service dependably points
and accurately.
3. The restaurant’s willingness to help patrons and provide prompt -points
service.
4. The knowledge and courtesy of the restaurant’s staff and their ability points
to convey trust and confidence.
5. The caring, individualised attention the restaurant provides to its -points
patrons.
TOTAL points allocated 100 points

Please enter the feature number

Which feature among the above is most important to you?

Which feature is second most important to you?

Which feature is the least important to you?

Part B
Instructions for completing this questionnaire

Dear Respondent
Please follow these instructions closely when completing this questionnaire.
308 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

This is Part B of the questionnaire. It is to be completed only after you have left the
restaurant. Please kindly send the completed questionnaire back to me in the stamped
addressed envelope at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for assisting in this research project.

Yun Lok Lee

Part B
(To be completed after dining at the restaurant)

Directions: The following set of statements relate to your feelings about the restaurant.
For each statement, please show the extent to which you believe the restaurant has the
feature described by the statement. Once again, circling a 1 means that you strongly
disagree that the restaurant has that feature, and circling a 7 means that you strongly agree.
You may circle any of the numbers in the middle to show how strong your feelings are.
There are no right or wrong answers as all I am interested in is a number that best shows
your perceptions about the restaurant.

Item statements

El The restaurant has modern-looking equipment, eg: dining 1234567

facility, bar facility, crockery, cutlery, etc.

E2 The physical facilities, eg: buildings, signs, dining room 1234567

decor, lighting, carpet, etc, at the restaurant are visually
appealing.

E3 Staff at the restaurant appear neat, eg: uniform, grooming, 1234567

etc.

E4 Materials associated with the service, eg: pamphlets, state- 1234567

ments, table linen, serviettes, menu and wine list are
visually appealing at the restaurant.

E5 When the restaurant promises to do something by a certain 1234567

time, it does so, eg: patrons request to have meals finished
by a certain time.

E6 When patrons have problems, the restaurant shows a 1234567

genuine interest in solving them, eg: error in the bill
presentation, the food is too salty, allergic to food additive.

E7 The restaurant performs the service right the first time, eg: 1234567
drink or food order correctly taken and served first time.

E8 The restaurant provides its service at the time it promises to 1234567

do so, eg: drink and food served at the time promised.

E9 The restaurant insists on error-free service, eg: drinks and 1234567

food given correctly, no mistakes appear on patron’s bill.
 Measuring quality in restaurant operations 309

El0 Staff of the restaurant tell patrons exactly when services 1234567
will be performed, eg: when food order will be taken or
when meals will be served.
El1 Staff of the restaurant give prompt service to the patrons, 1234567
eg: patrons are greeted promptly on arrival and shown to
designated tables, drinks are served less than 10 minutes
after they have been ordered.
El2 Staff of the restaurant are always willing to help patrons, 1234567
eg: willing to hang up their coats, to phone them a taxi or
help take photographs.
El3 Staff of the restaurant are never too busy to respond to 1234567
patrons’ requests, eg: request staff to explain menu items
or to get a glass of water.
El4 The behaviour of staff of the restaurant instils confidence in 1234567
patrons, eg: staff professionally and capably handle a
complaint, ability to perform with finesse even under
tremendous work pressure.
El5 Patrons of the restaurant feel safe in their transactions, eg: 1234567
staff suggestions of drinks or food can be relied upon.
Drinks are the ones ordered-such as no changing of
brands in mixed drinks.
El6 Staff of the restaurant are consistently courteous with 1234567
patrons, eg: staff are polite, patient and exhibit proper
service etiquette at all times even when facing difficult and
demanding patrons.
El7 Staff of the restaurant have the knowledge to answer 1234567
patrons’ questions, eg: staff demonstrate good knowledge
of wine and food (including preparation methods).
El8 The restaurant gives patrons individual attention, eg: will- 12 3 4 5 6 7
ing to cater for the special needs of patrons in food and
drink, such as gluten or salt free meals.
El9 The restaurant has operating hours convenient to all their 1234567
patrons, eg: trade at least 6 days and most public holidays
for lunch and dinner.
E20 The restaurant has staff who give its patrons personal 1234567
attention, eg: asking patrons how their meals are within a
short period after being served, or topping up their drinks
or asking patrons about refilling of beverages.
E21 The restaurant has the patrons’ best interests at heart, eg: 1234567
sufficient portions given, prices are reasonable, customers
are asked about their comfort and staff are not too pushy
with their suggestive selling.
 310 Yun Lok Lee and Nerilee Hing

E22 The staff of the restaurant understand the specificneeds of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

their patrons, eg: staff will attempt to provide a special
setting for patrons on special occasions or the willingness of
staff to cater for what the patrons have requested.

View publication stats