- Email: [email protected]
Assessing university students' satisfaction with on-campus cafeteria services
Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp
Assessing university students' satisfaction with on-campus cafeteria services Osman Ahmed El-Said a,⁎, Eslam Ahmed Fathy b a b
Department of Hotel Management, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt Department of Hotel Management, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Pharos University, Egypt
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 September 2015 Received in revised form 22 September 2015 Accepted 27 September 2015
Keywords: Undergraduate students Food and beverage quality Service quality Reasonable prices and overall student satisfaction
a b s t r a c t In this study, perceptions of different service attributes that have an impact on university students' overall satisfaction were examined. Students using different university cafeterias were selected through convenience samples of different college students at the university. A total number of 543 valid questionnaires were used for statistical analysis. Results indicated that student satisfaction with different service attributes was below average. Moreover, all service attributes were found to have a significant and positive impact on the overall student satisfaction. Based on the results of the current study, several recommendations were derived for university management to increase student satisfaction with food and beverage services provided at different university cafeterias. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Food services are an important component of overall planning that affects the quality of life at universities (Klassen, Trybus, Kumar, 2005). Moreover, the number of students enrolled in universities is increasing continuously, causing the explosive growth of this market (Garg, 2014). This contributes to increasing demands, and consequently, competition between foodservice operators inside the university and surrounding operators (Martin, Sneed, & White, 1992). Therefore, the evaluation of university foodservices became essential (Knutson, 2000), because students will go to an off-campus foodservice if the on-campus foodservice facilities do not meet their needs (Eckel, 1985). Saglik, Gulluce, Kaya, and Ozhan (2014) confirmed that all food service operations should give importance to the quality of service in order to survive in today's competitive market, because foodservice quality is considered an effective factor in satisfying students (Raman & Chinniah, 2011). Also, they need to investigate other important quality requirements, such as food and beverage quality, as well as reasonable prices, in order to be able to satisfy students (Joung, Lee, Kim, Ahn, & Huffman, 2011). However, no previously published researches investigated the quality of university foodservice in Egyptian universities and its effect on student satisfaction, leaving a gap in the body of knowledge of student opinions and behaviors of the on-campus foodservice in Egypt. This ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O.A. El-Said), [email protected] (E.A. Fathy).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.006 2211-9736/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
study aims at addressing this issue through three main objectives. Firstly, university students' perceptions of different service attributes that make up the total dining experience will be investigated. Secondly, the impact of those service attributes on student satisfaction will be measured. Thirdly, a comparison between the importance and significant impact of different service attributes on student satisfaction will be done, in order to identify the most important factor that influences college students' perception of a foodservice operation.
2. Literature review 2.1. Drivers of student satisfaction in university foodservice cafeterias Cafeteria foodservices can be found in hospital facilities, nursing homes, child and senior care centers, prisons, schools and university campuses. The demand for foodservice has constantly grown, particularly in universities, as there are a continuously increasing number of students. As a result, these increased demands on university foodservice operations are putting an increased pressure on operators to satisfy students' needs, due to intense competition (Li, 2008). By reviewing the existing literature, there were many factors found to influence students when choosing a foodservice property such as: the quality of food and beverages, the quality of service, value, price, hygiene and cleanliness, location, and product variety (Ng, 2005). For the purpose of the current study, three factors will be investigated in relation to their impact on student satisfaction: food and beverage quality, service quality and the price-to-value relationship.
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
2.2. Food and beverage quality Previous studies indicated the important role of food and beverage quality in shaping student satisfaction. Food and beverage quality is the acceptable quality property for customers such as: taste, smell, appearance, size, shape, color, gloss, consistency, and texture (Imram, 1999; McWilliams, 2000). These researchers also emphasized the importance of other quality attributes such as texture, appearance and flavor that distinguish raw from processed food products. Moreover, Oh (2000) found a high positive correlation between consumer satisfaction with food and beverage quality and his/her intention to return again to a specific restaurant. In the same vein, Ng (2005) stated that overall food quality attributes (taste, freshness, and appearance) play a higher important role in achieving or exceeding customer satisfaction and intention to return than other factors such as price, value, convenience and cleanliness. Furthermore, Mattila (2001) found that food quality was ranked as the most important factor for customers targeting a specific restaurant. Other researchers found that “quality of food” was ranked second among another twelve variables, and most students noted that they would deal with on-campus foodservices more often in case of the improvement of food and beverage quality, and keep the dining dollars on campus rather than in off-campus foodservice (Andaleeb & Caskey, 2007; Lee, 2004). Accordingly, we formulate the following research hypothesis: H1. : There is a significant and positive relationship between food and beverage quality and students' overall satisfaction.
2.3. Service quality Abo-Baker (2004) described service quality as the organization's ability to satisfy the customers, within the determination of specifications, characteristics and requirements of service that gratify the desires and needs of customers and exceed their expectations. Yılmaz (2008) stated that service quality can be studied as a phenomenon considered within the context of comparing customers' expectations and perceptions regarding the provided service. In other words, service quality can be determined by customers' expectations and perceptions of service. Therefore, the same service can be perceived as low quality by a customer and as high quality by another customer, depending on the customer's perception of the service offered (Küçükaltan, 2007). If the provided service does not meet or is less than the customers' expectations, then the perceived service quality will be low; if it does exceed the customers' expectations, then the perceived service quality will be high (Akbaba & Kilinc, 2001). Therefore, the term “perceived quality of service” is widely used in the literature instead of the “quality of service”. The perceived quality of service is the gap between the customer's expectations and his/her actual experience of a particular service. In the other words, the magnitude and trend of the difference between customers' expectations and perceived performance are assessed as a result of a comparison between them (Zeithmal & Bitner, 2000). Also, perceived service quality, according to Oliver (1997), has been accepted as an antecedent of customer satisfaction. According to Andaleeb and Caskey (2007), students' expectations and perceptions regarding the quality of service vary from one student to another and from one semester to the next. Hence, this variation leads to a more complex, diverse and dynamic business environment, a difficulty in measuring service quality, and a difficulty in identifying the determinants of service quality. It is worth mentioning that service operators should enhance the quality of service provided in on-campus outlets to discourage students from searching for alternative foodservice operations off-campus. Students are not limited to on-campus foodservice quality, as they are aware of surrounding foodservice quality (Andaleeb & Caskey, 2007). Indeed, they have the freedom to have their foodservice off-campus (Gassenheimer, Davis, & Dahlstrom, 1998).
319
Many researchers have attempted to develop valid measurement tools to evaluate service quality in different hospitality establishments. For example, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) defined and built the service quality gap model through ten dimensions to determine the difference between customer expectations and perceptions: (1) tangibility; (2) reliability; (3) competence; (4) responsiveness; (5) courtesy; (6) credibility; (7) convenience; (8) security/safety; (9) communication; and (10) understanding. These ten dimensions were then reduced to five dimensions resulting in the known SERVQUAL instrument (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1988). LODGSERV is another instrument, which was designed to assess service quality in hotels and banquet halls (Barsky, 1992; Knutson, Stevens, Wullaert, & Patton, 1991). Additionally, Stevens, Knutson, and Patton (1995) adopted and refined the DINSERV scale from SERVQUAL and LODGSERV to assess customers' perceptions of restaurant quality. The DINSERV scale comprises 29 statements in five dimensions of the SERVQUAL scale. It is frequently used to measure the service quality in foodservice operations which is the case of the current study. Previous researchers have addressed the importance of the quality of service in influencing the satisfaction of customers in foodservice establishments. For example, customers rated service quality as the second significant attribute after the quality of food in influencing their intention to return again to a particular restaurant (Soriano, 2002). Similarly, Ng (2005) found that the dimension of service quality came after food quality in affecting student satisfaction with food service facility. Service quality attributes includes appearance of employees', staff attentiveness, level of service, food items' knowledge, and friendly treatment (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & Luke, 1997; Qu, 1997). Accordingly, we formulate the following research hypothesis: H2. : There is a significant and positive relationship between service quality and student satisfaction.
2.4. Reasonable price It is well-known that students have limited budgets that affect their decisions of choosing foodservice operations, as they continually seek reasonable prices (Li, 2008). Klassen, Trybus, and Kumar (2005) found that price is the most significant factor in choosing a food and beverage service provider for students with limited budgets. In the same vein, Nadzirah, Ab-Karim, Ghazali, and Othman (2013) posit that price is the first student concern in a university foodservice, because students buy food on limited funds. Also, they indicated that if the prices of the campus foodservice are too high for students, the students prefer to get cheaper prices from off-campus foodservices. In another study, customers indicated that receiving the right value for the money paid is among the most important factors that encourage them to revisit a foodservice establishment again (Yuksel & Yuksel, 2002). Nadzirah et al. (2013) posited that the paid price should be suitable for the food quantity served, so the customer would feel that the product and service received were worth their price, resulting in student satisfaction. Nadzirah et al. (2013) suggested that the foodservice operators should develop the menu with food and beverage items with more reasonable prices. Thus, the campus foodservice operators should focus on the pricing factor as a significant determinant of student satisfaction. It should also lower the prices so that students would be able to afford to consume food from an on-campus rather than off-campus foodservice. Similarly, other researchers indicated that the operators of on-campus foodservices should focus value for money with an appropriate portion size, in order to guarantee student satisfaction (Ng, 2005; Xi & Shuai, 2009). Moreover, Soriano (2003) asserted that the customers' quality expectations depend on the price they pay for getting the service and when this price increases the quality expectations will increase consequently. In the same study, Soriano (2003) showed that
320
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
the price of a meal is equally important to other satisfaction determinants. Accordingly, we formulate the following research hypothesis: H3. : There is a significant and positive relationship between price and value, and student satisfaction.
3. Methodology 3.1. Research approach and sampling method The main aim of this research is to determine university students' satisfaction with different dimensions of food and beverage services. Therefore, in order to empirically test the proposed hypotheses in this study, a quantitative research approach, based on the distribution of questionnaires and online surveys, was applied within this study. The quantitative research strategy can be seen as one of the most commonly and popular applied methods within the tourism and hospitality research, since “it involves the collection of customer-based data, which, in turn, can be used to statistically analyze and investigate a priori specified relationships among variables of interest to the corresponding study” (Neuman, 2003). The total population of this study included all students enrolled in first, second, third and fourth years of undergraduate programs at the University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt. According to the data obtained from Departments of Student Affairs at different faculties (Tourism and Hotels, Arts, Commerce, Law and Education), there are more than 10,000 students enrolled in undergraduate programs at these faculties. Due to this large number of students, it was difficult to use random sampling techniques. Therefore, a convenience sample of different college students at the university was the most suitable sampling technique to employ in this research. 3.2. Questionnaire development and data collection The questionnaire utilized in the current study comprised three sections. The first section consisted of ten questions and aimed at collecting demographic data of students and their behavior characteristics (faculty, gender, age, academic level, number of visits to the cafeteria, monthly expenditure, daily expenditure, who they go to the cafeteria with, recommending the cafeteria to others and intention to continue eating at the cafeteria). The second section of the questionnaire consisted of three parts. Statements in these parts were adapted from the DINESERV questionnaire. DINESERV is adapted from the SERVQUAL instrument and was created by Stevens et al. (1995), and is dedicated for the foodservice industry. The first part of the second section consisted of eight statements and aimed at measuring students' perceptions of quality of food and beverages offered at the cafeteria. Part two of the second section consisted of 7 statements and aimed at measuring students' service quality perceptions in the cafeteria. The final part of the second section was designed to measure students' perceptions of price compared to the value they receive. The questionnaire third section aimed at measuring students' overall satisfaction in terms of: overall satisfaction with food and beverage quality, overall satisfaction with service quality, overall satisfaction with the price paid versus the value obtained, and their overall satisfaction with the dining experience. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate statements in sections two and three, where 5 = Very Satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Dissatisfied, and 1 = Very Satisfied. In order to determine the internal consistency of the survey questionnaire, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient reliability analysis was conducted. This method shows an indication of the average correlation between all the items of the research questionnaire on the Likert scale, in this case. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the questionnaire was measured to be 0.92. Therefore, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient is well above the 0.7 standard reliability suggested by Nunnally (1967)
and Schmitt (1996). Questionnaire face validity was assured through the help of some academic experts in the field of survey design. After the questionnaire was edited based on their comments, it was then piloted to 40 students to discover the extent of their understanding of sentences as well as the time taken to answer questions. Finally, based on the pilot test review, several changes were performed to reach the final version of the questionnaire. To guarantee a high response rate, two methods were used for data collection. Firstly, the researchers, with the assistance of 15 students enrolled in the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Hotel Management Department, approached students from different faculties in the cafeteria and asked them in person to fill out a brief questionnaire. Prior to data collection, the 15 students were given information about the research topic and the content of the survey form. Additionally, they were trained on how to deal with respondents and how to gather required data. Another method of data collection was through the design of an internet-based questionnaire, which was posted to university students as a link on faculties' social-media groups, such as Face-book and Twitter (http://goo.gl/forms/8Ukdizggtw). The survey took between 5 and 10 min to complete. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was ensured. Students were invited to participate in the study during the period of January–March 2015, and a total of 567 questionnaires were collected. From this number, 24 questionnaires were invalid, and therefore the total number of valid questionnaires was 543. 4. Result analysis and discussion Data was processed and analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Windows Version 18. In order to achieve the objective of the study, different statistical tests, such as frequencies, means of scores, and coefficients of Pearson correlations were used. Frequencies were first computed to examine demographic and behavioral characteristics of respondents. Secondly, means of scores were calculated in order to gauge students' perceptions regarding different service attributes. Thirdly, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the existence and degree of significant relationships between different research variables. 4.1. Demographic characteristics of students The demographic characteristics of students are presented in Table 1. The sample consisted of 44.2% male students and 55.8% female students. Among the 543 respondents, 25.9% of students were enrolled
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents. Demographics
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Gender Male Female
240 303
44.2 55.8
Academic year 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
140 135 131 137
25.9 24.8 24.1 25.2
Faculty Arts Commerce Education Law Tourism and Hotels
94 86 141 112 110
17.3 15.8 26.0 20.6 20.3
Age 17–19 20–21 22–23 24 and above
101 333 100 9
18.6 61.3 18.4 1.6
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
in the first year, 24.8% enrolled in the second year, 24.1% enrolled in the third year, and 25.2% enrolled in the fourth year. As per the faculty, 17.3% of students were from the Faculty of Arts, 15.8% from the Faculty of Commerce, 26% from the Faculty of Education, 20.6% from the Faculty of Law, and 20.3% of students were enrolled in the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels. A high percentage of students (61.3%) were aged between 20 and 21 years, 18.6% were between 17 and 19 years old, and only 1.6% were 24 years old and above. 4.2. Behavioral characteristics of students The behavioral characteristics of students are described in Table 2. As shown in the table, 34.1% of surveyed students visited the cafeteria daily, 36.7% visited the cafeteria either once or twice a week, and 20.3% of students visited the cafeteria less than once a week. Approximately half of the students (46%) reported that their monthly average expenditure was between 250 and 500(EGP). 15.8% stated that their monthly average expenditure was above 501(EGP), and 38.1% spent less than 250(EGP) monthly. As for the average check per time, 58.2% of students stated that they spent between 10 and 20(EGP) every time they visited the cafeteria, 20.4% stated that they spent less than 10(EGP) on each visit, 15.1% spent between 21 and 30(EGP) every time, and only 6.3% of students spent more than 30(EGP) on every visit. Furthermore, most students indicated that they preferred to have their meals at the cafeteria with their friends (89.5%), while only 10.5% indicated that they dined at the cafeteria on their own. Similarly, a high percentage of students were not willing to recommend the university cafeterias to their friends (78.1%), and only 21.9% of them were willing to recommend them to their friends. Finally, about two-thirds of students did not intend to continue having their meals at the university cafeterias until graduation (65.9%), and 34.1% reported that they intended to continue having their meals at the university cafeterias until graduation. 4.3. Analyzing student perceptions for different research variables In order to accomplish the first objective of the study, the means of scores of student perceptions of different research variables were Table 2 Behavior characteristics of students. Behavior characteristics
Frequency
The average numbers of visit to the cafeteria Daily 185 Less than once a week 110 Once a week 56 Twice a week 192
Percentage (%) 34.1 20.3 10.3 35.4
Average check per time Less than ten EGP 10–20 EGP 21–30 EGP More than 30 EGP
316 82 111 34
20.4 58.2 15.1 6.3
Monthly average expenditure 250–500 EGP 501–750 EGP Less than 250 EGP More than 750 EGP
250 48 207 38
46.0 8.8 38.1 7.0
With whom do you go to the cafeteria Alone 57 With friends 486
10.5 89.5
Would you recommend university's cafeterias to your friends Yes 119 No 424
21.9 78.1
Will you still have your meals at the university's cafeterias until graduation Yes 185 34.1 No 358 65.9
321
computed, as presented in Table 3. Students rated their levels of satisfaction with attitude statements that were positively and negatively phrased using a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 = Very Unsatisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Firstly, students' overall perceptions regarding food and beverage quality presented at the cafeterias were below average (overall mean for the quality of food and beverage items = 2.96). According to the results presented in the table, a high percentage of students were dissatisfied with the nutritional content, as well as the health and safety aspect of the food and beverage items offered (M = 2.6). Student satisfaction with other food and beverage quality attributes ranged from slight satisfaction with the diversity of displayed food and beverage items (M = 3.6), and appropriate temperature of food and beverage items (M = 3.3), to slight dissatisfaction with the freshness of food and beverage items (M = 2.9), and attractive display of food and beverage items (M = 2.7). Similar opinions were given about the items related to service quality. Students' overall perceptions regarding the service quality presented at the different university cafeterias were less than average (overall mean for the service quality attributes = 2.81). A large number of the students were either strongly dissatisfied or dissatisfied about the feeling of employees' motivation and interest when serving them at the cafeterias (M = 2.3), excellence and professionalism in service delivery (M = 2.4). The speed of service, the friendly treatment by cafeteria staff, and the behavior of cafeteria staff recorded satisfaction means ranged from 2.6 to 2.9. Staff knowledge of the items sold recorded the highest mean score among service quality attributes (M = 3.4), followed by cooperation of workers at the cafeteria and answering any questions (M = 3.00). The third variable that students were asked about was the price they paid compared to the value they received. The value that students received was measured in terms of the quality and quantity of food and beverage items they received. As presented in Table 3, most students felt that the quality of food and beverage items provided was unsuitable, given the price paid (M = 2.5). Additionally, the quantity of food and beverage items, given the price paid, was perceived to be not satisfactory (M = 2.7). The last research variable measured was students' overall satisfaction. Recorded means reported by students indicated that the majority of students were explicitly dissatisfied with the overall performance of the university cafeterias (M = 2.78). Overall student satisfaction was measured using the following statements: overall satisfaction regarding the quality of food and beverage items (M = 2.79), overall satisfaction regarding the service quality (M = 2.79), overall satisfaction regarding the prices (M = 2.75), and the extent to which food and beverage services provided met student expectations (M = 2.78). 4.4. Hypotheses testing and discussion of results As shown in Table 4, an investigation of the existence and level of correlation between different research variables and students' overall satisfaction was performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Firstly, H1 was supported after the Pearson correlation testing was conducted. The results indicated a significant correlation between food and beverage quality and students' overall satisfaction (r = 0. 710, P b 0.01). The Pearson correlation coefficient values emphasize the positive correlation between food and beverage quality and students' overall satisfaction. Previous researches indicated the role played by food and beverage quality in shaping customer satisfaction. For example, Pettijohn et al. (1997) found that food quality was the most important factor that influenced customer satisfaction and intention to return to a particular restaurant. Mattila (2001) indicated that food quality was the most significant factor for the respondents to patronize their target restaurant. Moreover, Lee (2004) found that quality of food was ranked second in importance among twelve variables that affect students' satisfaction. Secondly, the results of the Pearson correlation test revealed a significant and positive correlation between service quality and students' overall satisfaction (r = 0. 571, P b 0.01). Therefore, the second
322
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
Table 3 Frequencies and means for the research variables. Overall satisfaction Very Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
R.
%
R.
%
R.
%
R.
%
R.
%
40 64 67 33 91 94 28 50
7.4 11.8 12.3 6.1 16.8 17.3 5.2 9.2
85 185 122 97 137 163 59 86
15.7 34.1 22.5 17.9 25.2 30.0 10.9 15.8
248 152 199 235 234 174 116 139
45.7 28.0 36.6 43.3 43.1 32.0 21.4 25.6
170 116 135 161 81 94 237 203
31.3 21.4 24.9 29.7 14.9 17.3 43.6 37.4
0 26 20 17 0 18 103 65
0 4.8 3.7 3.1 0 3.3 19.0 12.0
3.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.6 3.6 3.3 2.96
B. Service quality 1. Speed of service 2. Your feeling with interest of employees at the cafeteria 3. Friendly treatment by the staff cafeteria 4. The behavior of the cafeteria staff 5. Excellence and professionalism in service delivery 6. Staff knowledge of the items sold 7. Cooperation of workers at the cafeteria and answering any questions Overall mean for service
62 124 64 78 105 23 47
11.4 22.8 11.8 14.4 19.3 4.2 8.7
132 194 89 142 176 72 102
24.3 35.7 16.4 26.2 32.4 13.3 18.8
180 165 232 242 192 164 209
33.1 30.4 42.7 44.6 35.4 30.2 38.5
148 50 130 70 61 210 145
27.3 9.2 23.9 12.9 11.2 38.7 26.7
21 10 28 11 9 74 40
3.9 1.8 5.2 2.0 1.7 13.6 7.4
2.9 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.4 3.4 3.0 2.81
C. Price and value 1. Suitability of the quality of food and beverage items provided with the price paid 2. Suitability of the quantity of food and beverage items provided with the price paid Overall mean for price and value
110 93
20.3 17.1
149 132
27.4 24.3
174 186
32.0 34.3
102 113
18.8 20.8
8 19
1.5 3.5
2.5 2.7 2.61
D. Overall satisfaction 1. Overall satisfaction regarding the quality of food and beverage items 2. Overall satisfaction regarding the service quality 3. Overall satisfaction regarding the prices 4. The extent to which food and beverage services provided meet your expectations Overall mean for overall satisfaction
71 64 68 65
13.1 11.8 12.5 12.0
120 148 145 138
22.1 27.3 26.7 25.4
211 173 202 212
38.9 31.9 37.2 39.0
129 150 109 104
23.8 27.6 20.1 19.2
12 8 19 24
2.2 1.5 3.5 4.4
2.79 2.79 2.75 2.78 2.78
Research variables
A. Quality of F&B 1. Good taste of food and beverage items 2. Attractive display of food and beverage items 3. Freshness of F&B 4. Appropriate flavor of food and beverage items 5. The nutritional content of food and beverage items 6. Health and safety of F&B 7. Diversity of displayed food and beverage items 8. Appropriate temperature of food and beverage Overall mean for Quality of F&B
hypothesis was supported. Pearson correlation coefficient values emphasize the positive impact that service quality has on students' overall satisfaction. Previous researches support this result, as for instance, service quality was ranked the second important factor after food quality in determining the customer's intention to return to a particular restaurant (Soriano, 2002). The final research hypothesis addressed the issue of whether there is a significant and positive relationship between students' perception of the suitability of price to the value obtained and their overall satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, the correlation analysis was performed between price/value and students' overall satisfaction. Results indicated that there was a statistically significant and positive association between the two variables (r = 0. 683, P b 0.01). Therefore, the third hypothesis was also supported. The literature confirmed the
Mean
role of price as an important factor in predicting students' purchasing behavior and shaping their overall satisfaction. Klassen et al. (2005) showed that price is the most important factor for students, who consider price when making a decision. Nadzirah et al. (2013) stated that because students buy food on limited funds, they consider price very carefully. Therefore, foodservice operators should develop the menu with food and beverage items with more reasonable prices, because pricing is a significant determinant of student satisfaction. Additionally, Yuksel and Yuksel (2002) indicated that the majority of customers tend to visit and revisit foodservices not only because of food quality and service quality, but also because they feel that they are receiving the products and services worth the money paid for them.
Table 4 Variables' correlations. Research variables Quality of food & beverages
Service quality
Reasonable price
Combined effect of research variables Overall satisfaction
Quality of food & beverages Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Service quality
Reasonable price
.417⁎ .000 .417⁎ .000 543
543
543
543
.423⁎ .000 .744⁎ .000 .710⁎ .000
543
.000 543
543
.423⁎ .000 543
.450⁎ .000 543 .762⁎
.571⁎ .000
Combined effect of research variables
.450⁎ .000
543
.846⁎ .000 543 .638⁎ .000 543
Overall satisfaction
.744⁎ .000 543
.762⁎ .000
543
.846⁎ .000 543
.807⁎ .000 543
.710⁎ .000 543
543
543
543
.571⁎ .000 .638⁎ .000 .807⁎ .000
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
5. Conclusion This part presents a concise and comprehensive conclusion of the study's findings. Basically, this study was carried out to achieve three main objectives. The first objective was to measure university students' perceptions of different service attributes that make up the total satisfaction with the dining experience. This objective was achieved through asking students to evaluate the different attributes that impact their overall satisfaction. Based on the results presented previously in Table 3, it is clear that student satisfaction with food and beverage quality, service quality and price/value was below average. These findings were also assured through student responses to some behavioral questions. For example, a high percentage of students were not willing to recommend the university cafeterias to their friends and about two-thirds of them did not intend to continue having their meals at the university cafeterias until graduation. The second and third objectives of the study were realized through the use of Pearson correlation coefficients to analyze the existence and level of correlation between different research variables and students' overall satisfaction. Results of the analysis indicated the following; Firstly, quality of food and beverage items was found to have the greatest impact on students' overall satisfaction. The second priority was given to the price of food and beverage items. Finally, service quality was found to have the lowest impact on students' overall satisfaction compared to other variables. These results mean that the students are primarily interested in the quality of food and beverage items, followed by the price and finally by the service quality. These findings are similar to those of Pettijohn et al. (1997), who found that food and beverage quality was the most important factor that influenced customer satisfaction and intention to return to a particular restaurant. Similarly, Ng (2005) found that overall food quality dimensions were significantly more important factors than any other factor such as cleanliness, value, price, and convenience, which ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth. Students indicated many reasons for their dissatisfaction. Some of these reasons were related to dissatisfaction with food and beverage quality, such as: small portion sizes, bad food and food not served at the appropriate temperature. Other reasons were related to dissatisfaction with the price paid, and those were: much higher prices than last year's prices; very high prices, given the quality and nutritional value of the food or beverage items served; and higher quality/lower prices of the same items in outside restaurants. The third group of reasons was related to dissatisfaction with the quality of service provided, such as: bad treatment of staff, delayed serving of orders, too few employees relative to the large numbers of students, lack of interest of employees, and bad appearance of employees. Other reasons for students' dissatisfaction included: obligation to eat at the university cafeterias due to the lack of time between lectures to go to restaurants outside the university, poor cleanliness of the place and the presence of insects. 6. Implications and future research directions Based on the results, several implications and recommendations could be derived for university management to increase student satisfaction about food and beverage services provided by different university cafeterias: (1) University management should receive feedback from students expressing their opinions about the performance of the cafeteria operators, and they should inform the operators about students' opinions in order to solve any problems promptly. These opinions should be taken into consideration when contracting with cafeteria operators. (2) The Faculty of Tourism and Hotels should be responsible for ongoing screening and monitoring processes of the level of services provided by the cafeteria operators. The Faculty should institutionalize systems for continuous training of cafeteria employees through customized programs designed for them. (3) Cafeteria operators should focus on providing appropriate mechanisms to increase food quality at a
323
reasonable price, as well as service quality provided at the university cafeterias. (4) University management should put into consideration contracting branded operators in order to guarantee the level of product quality provided. (5) University management should give special consideration to contracting the best operator, who gives attention to the following practices: training employees on the main principles of providing good service; safety and sanitation management programs; ensuring a clean and attractive dining area; providing food and beverage items at reasonable prices; and providing a pleasant environment and atmosphere for students. (6) University management charges large amounts of monthly rent from cafeteria operators, and thus has a huge impact on their operational policies. These amounts should be reduced in order to be able to meet student needs. Future studies can expand the sample and include more categories, such as university academics and administrative staff, in order to provide more representative results and to improve sample generalizability. Other studies may compare these findings with other findings in other hospitality sectors such as restaurants and hotels. Moreover, because of time restrictions, this study was conducted at a single time point. Suggestions for future researchers are to adopt a time crossing methodology for research design rather than a single time point. Findings of the study were, therefore, indicative rather than conclusive. References Abo-Baker, M. (2004). Marketing management in modern establishments. Egypt: University House in Alexandria. Akbaba, A., & Kilinc, I. (2001). Servqual practices in service quality and tourism management. Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 22(2), 162–168. Andaleeb, S., & Caskey, A. (2007). Satisfaction with food services: Insight from a college cafeteria. Foodservice Business Research Journal, 10(2), 51–65. Barsky, J. (1992). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Meaning and measurement. Hospitality Research Journal, 16(1), 51–73. Eckel, P. J. (1985). College & university foodservice management standards, Vol. 6, AVI Publishing Company. Garg, A. (2014). Mechanic clues vs. humanic clues: Students' perception towards service quality of fast food restaurants in Taylor's University campus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144(1), 164–175. Gassenheimer, J., Davis, C., & Dahlstrom, R. (1998). Is dependent what we want to be? Effects of incongruency. Retailing Journal, 74(2), 247–272. Imram, N. (1999). The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product. Nutrition & Food Science, 99(5), 224–230. Joung, H., Lee, D., Kim, H., Ahn, J., & Huffman, L. (2011). Evaluating on-campus dining service using importance-performance analysis. Retrieved from University of Massachusetts Amherst Scholar Works (website) http://scholarworks.umass.edu/gradconf_ hospitality/2011/Presentation/58/ Klassen, K., Trybus, E., & Kumar, A. (2005). Planning food services for a campus setting. Hospitality Management, 24(1), 579–609. Knutson, B. J. (2000). College students and fast food – How students perceive restaurant brands. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 68–74. Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C., & Patton, M. (1991). LODGSERV: A service quality index for the lodging industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(3), 277–284. Küçükaltan, D. (2007). Turizm Endüstrisinde Hizmet Kavramı. In Ş. Gümüşoğlu (Eds.), Hizmet kalitesi (pp. 29–37). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. Lee, S. (2004). College students' perception and preference of brand name foodservices in university dining operations. (Published Master Thesis) Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University. Li, G. (2008). Difficulties facing university catering service work and responses. Science and Technology Information, 14, 72–73. Martin, J., Sneed, J., & White, G. (1992). School food service in the year 2000 and beyond. School Food Service Research Review, 16(2), 101–106. Mattila, A. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 73–79. McWilliams, M. (2000). Foods: Experimental perspectives (2nd ed). New York: Measure consumer satisfaction. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(2), 63–74. Nadzirah, S., Ab-Karim, S., Ghazali, H., & Othman, M. (2013). University foodservice: An overview of factors influencing the customers' dining choice. International Food Research Journal, 20(3), 1459–1468. Neuman, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ng, Y. (2005). Study of the impact of customer satisfaction on intention to return and return intention, and word-of-mouth endorsement in university dining operations. (Published master thesis) Oklahoma. USA: Graduate College of Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Oh, H. (2000). Diners' perception of quality, value, and satisfaction: A practical viewpoint. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58–66. Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
324
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). Conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research. Marketing Journal, 49, 41–50. Pettijohn, L., Pettijohn, C., & Luke, R. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons, and impact on future patronage. Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing Journal, 2(3), 3–20. Qu, H. (1997). Determinant factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining: A multivariate approach. Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, 2(2), 35–49. Raman, S., & Chinniah, S. (2011). An investigation on higher learning students satisfaction on food services at university cafeteria. Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management, 1(2), 12–16. Saglik, E., Gulluce, A., Kaya, U., & Ozhan, Ç. (2014). Service quality and customer satisfaction relationship: A research in erzurum ataturk university refectory. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(1), 100–117. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. Soriano, D. (2002). Customers' expectations in restaurants, Spain situation. Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19, 1055–1067. Soriano, D. (2003). The Spanish restaurant sector: Evaluating the perception of quality. Journal of Service Industries, 23(2), 183–194. Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56–60. Xi, L., & Shuai, Z. (2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in student food service. An example of student cafeteria in NHH. Quality and Service Sciences International Journal, 1(1), 113–124. Yılmaz, E. (2008). Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ve İnsan Merkezli Kütüphanecilik. Symposium of scientific communication and knowledge management (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, 12– 14 September 2006 (pp. 185–211). Ankara: Üniversite ve Araştırma Kütüphanecileri Derneği. Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2002). Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services: A segment based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 52–68.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 35–48. Zeithmal, V., & Bitner, M. (2000). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Osman Ahmed El-Said is a lecturer at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt. He obtained his Master's Degree in the areas of employee behavior and customer satisfaction. The author also contributed in organizing various conferences, organized by the faculty of tourism and hotels. The author's doctorate research covered issues that are related to innovation strategy implementation in 5-star hotels. The author published a series of researches in different disciplines such as: human resources, marketing, innovation management and other issues related to the hospitality business.
Eslam Ahmed Fathy is a lecturer at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Pharos University, Egypt. He obtained his doctorate degree in the area of transformational leadership and its impact on employees' performance. The author's research interests are concentrated on food and beverage issues related to hospitality establishments.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management Perspectives journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tmp
Assessing university students' satisfaction with on-campus cafeteria services Osman Ahmed El-Said a,⁎, Eslam Ahmed Fathy b a b
Department of Hotel Management, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt Department of Hotel Management, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Pharos University, Egypt
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 September 2015 Received in revised form 22 September 2015 Accepted 27 September 2015
Keywords: Undergraduate students Food and beverage quality Service quality Reasonable prices and overall student satisfaction
a b s t r a c t In this study, perceptions of different service attributes that have an impact on university students' overall satisfaction were examined. Students using different university cafeterias were selected through convenience samples of different college students at the university. A total number of 543 valid questionnaires were used for statistical analysis. Results indicated that student satisfaction with different service attributes was below average. Moreover, all service attributes were found to have a significant and positive impact on the overall student satisfaction. Based on the results of the current study, several recommendations were derived for university management to increase student satisfaction with food and beverage services provided at different university cafeterias. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Food services are an important component of overall planning that affects the quality of life at universities (Klassen, Trybus, Kumar, 2005). Moreover, the number of students enrolled in universities is increasing continuously, causing the explosive growth of this market (Garg, 2014). This contributes to increasing demands, and consequently, competition between foodservice operators inside the university and surrounding operators (Martin, Sneed, & White, 1992). Therefore, the evaluation of university foodservices became essential (Knutson, 2000), because students will go to an off-campus foodservice if the on-campus foodservice facilities do not meet their needs (Eckel, 1985). Saglik, Gulluce, Kaya, and Ozhan (2014) confirmed that all food service operations should give importance to the quality of service in order to survive in today's competitive market, because foodservice quality is considered an effective factor in satisfying students (Raman & Chinniah, 2011). Also, they need to investigate other important quality requirements, such as food and beverage quality, as well as reasonable prices, in order to be able to satisfy students (Joung, Lee, Kim, Ahn, & Huffman, 2011). However, no previously published researches investigated the quality of university foodservice in Egyptian universities and its effect on student satisfaction, leaving a gap in the body of knowledge of student opinions and behaviors of the on-campus foodservice in Egypt. This ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (O.A. El-Said), [email protected] (E.A. Fathy).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.006 2211-9736/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
study aims at addressing this issue through three main objectives. Firstly, university students' perceptions of different service attributes that make up the total dining experience will be investigated. Secondly, the impact of those service attributes on student satisfaction will be measured. Thirdly, a comparison between the importance and significant impact of different service attributes on student satisfaction will be done, in order to identify the most important factor that influences college students' perception of a foodservice operation.
2. Literature review 2.1. Drivers of student satisfaction in university foodservice cafeterias Cafeteria foodservices can be found in hospital facilities, nursing homes, child and senior care centers, prisons, schools and university campuses. The demand for foodservice has constantly grown, particularly in universities, as there are a continuously increasing number of students. As a result, these increased demands on university foodservice operations are putting an increased pressure on operators to satisfy students' needs, due to intense competition (Li, 2008). By reviewing the existing literature, there were many factors found to influence students when choosing a foodservice property such as: the quality of food and beverages, the quality of service, value, price, hygiene and cleanliness, location, and product variety (Ng, 2005). For the purpose of the current study, three factors will be investigated in relation to their impact on student satisfaction: food and beverage quality, service quality and the price-to-value relationship.
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
2.2. Food and beverage quality Previous studies indicated the important role of food and beverage quality in shaping student satisfaction. Food and beverage quality is the acceptable quality property for customers such as: taste, smell, appearance, size, shape, color, gloss, consistency, and texture (Imram, 1999; McWilliams, 2000). These researchers also emphasized the importance of other quality attributes such as texture, appearance and flavor that distinguish raw from processed food products. Moreover, Oh (2000) found a high positive correlation between consumer satisfaction with food and beverage quality and his/her intention to return again to a specific restaurant. In the same vein, Ng (2005) stated that overall food quality attributes (taste, freshness, and appearance) play a higher important role in achieving or exceeding customer satisfaction and intention to return than other factors such as price, value, convenience and cleanliness. Furthermore, Mattila (2001) found that food quality was ranked as the most important factor for customers targeting a specific restaurant. Other researchers found that “quality of food” was ranked second among another twelve variables, and most students noted that they would deal with on-campus foodservices more often in case of the improvement of food and beverage quality, and keep the dining dollars on campus rather than in off-campus foodservice (Andaleeb & Caskey, 2007; Lee, 2004). Accordingly, we formulate the following research hypothesis: H1. : There is a significant and positive relationship between food and beverage quality and students' overall satisfaction.
2.3. Service quality Abo-Baker (2004) described service quality as the organization's ability to satisfy the customers, within the determination of specifications, characteristics and requirements of service that gratify the desires and needs of customers and exceed their expectations. Yılmaz (2008) stated that service quality can be studied as a phenomenon considered within the context of comparing customers' expectations and perceptions regarding the provided service. In other words, service quality can be determined by customers' expectations and perceptions of service. Therefore, the same service can be perceived as low quality by a customer and as high quality by another customer, depending on the customer's perception of the service offered (Küçükaltan, 2007). If the provided service does not meet or is less than the customers' expectations, then the perceived service quality will be low; if it does exceed the customers' expectations, then the perceived service quality will be high (Akbaba & Kilinc, 2001). Therefore, the term “perceived quality of service” is widely used in the literature instead of the “quality of service”. The perceived quality of service is the gap between the customer's expectations and his/her actual experience of a particular service. In the other words, the magnitude and trend of the difference between customers' expectations and perceived performance are assessed as a result of a comparison between them (Zeithmal & Bitner, 2000). Also, perceived service quality, according to Oliver (1997), has been accepted as an antecedent of customer satisfaction. According to Andaleeb and Caskey (2007), students' expectations and perceptions regarding the quality of service vary from one student to another and from one semester to the next. Hence, this variation leads to a more complex, diverse and dynamic business environment, a difficulty in measuring service quality, and a difficulty in identifying the determinants of service quality. It is worth mentioning that service operators should enhance the quality of service provided in on-campus outlets to discourage students from searching for alternative foodservice operations off-campus. Students are not limited to on-campus foodservice quality, as they are aware of surrounding foodservice quality (Andaleeb & Caskey, 2007). Indeed, they have the freedom to have their foodservice off-campus (Gassenheimer, Davis, & Dahlstrom, 1998).
319
Many researchers have attempted to develop valid measurement tools to evaluate service quality in different hospitality establishments. For example, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985) defined and built the service quality gap model through ten dimensions to determine the difference between customer expectations and perceptions: (1) tangibility; (2) reliability; (3) competence; (4) responsiveness; (5) courtesy; (6) credibility; (7) convenience; (8) security/safety; (9) communication; and (10) understanding. These ten dimensions were then reduced to five dimensions resulting in the known SERVQUAL instrument (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1988). LODGSERV is another instrument, which was designed to assess service quality in hotels and banquet halls (Barsky, 1992; Knutson, Stevens, Wullaert, & Patton, 1991). Additionally, Stevens, Knutson, and Patton (1995) adopted and refined the DINSERV scale from SERVQUAL and LODGSERV to assess customers' perceptions of restaurant quality. The DINSERV scale comprises 29 statements in five dimensions of the SERVQUAL scale. It is frequently used to measure the service quality in foodservice operations which is the case of the current study. Previous researchers have addressed the importance of the quality of service in influencing the satisfaction of customers in foodservice establishments. For example, customers rated service quality as the second significant attribute after the quality of food in influencing their intention to return again to a particular restaurant (Soriano, 2002). Similarly, Ng (2005) found that the dimension of service quality came after food quality in affecting student satisfaction with food service facility. Service quality attributes includes appearance of employees', staff attentiveness, level of service, food items' knowledge, and friendly treatment (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & Luke, 1997; Qu, 1997). Accordingly, we formulate the following research hypothesis: H2. : There is a significant and positive relationship between service quality and student satisfaction.
2.4. Reasonable price It is well-known that students have limited budgets that affect their decisions of choosing foodservice operations, as they continually seek reasonable prices (Li, 2008). Klassen, Trybus, and Kumar (2005) found that price is the most significant factor in choosing a food and beverage service provider for students with limited budgets. In the same vein, Nadzirah, Ab-Karim, Ghazali, and Othman (2013) posit that price is the first student concern in a university foodservice, because students buy food on limited funds. Also, they indicated that if the prices of the campus foodservice are too high for students, the students prefer to get cheaper prices from off-campus foodservices. In another study, customers indicated that receiving the right value for the money paid is among the most important factors that encourage them to revisit a foodservice establishment again (Yuksel & Yuksel, 2002). Nadzirah et al. (2013) posited that the paid price should be suitable for the food quantity served, so the customer would feel that the product and service received were worth their price, resulting in student satisfaction. Nadzirah et al. (2013) suggested that the foodservice operators should develop the menu with food and beverage items with more reasonable prices. Thus, the campus foodservice operators should focus on the pricing factor as a significant determinant of student satisfaction. It should also lower the prices so that students would be able to afford to consume food from an on-campus rather than off-campus foodservice. Similarly, other researchers indicated that the operators of on-campus foodservices should focus value for money with an appropriate portion size, in order to guarantee student satisfaction (Ng, 2005; Xi & Shuai, 2009). Moreover, Soriano (2003) asserted that the customers' quality expectations depend on the price they pay for getting the service and when this price increases the quality expectations will increase consequently. In the same study, Soriano (2003) showed that
320
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
the price of a meal is equally important to other satisfaction determinants. Accordingly, we formulate the following research hypothesis: H3. : There is a significant and positive relationship between price and value, and student satisfaction.
3. Methodology 3.1. Research approach and sampling method The main aim of this research is to determine university students' satisfaction with different dimensions of food and beverage services. Therefore, in order to empirically test the proposed hypotheses in this study, a quantitative research approach, based on the distribution of questionnaires and online surveys, was applied within this study. The quantitative research strategy can be seen as one of the most commonly and popular applied methods within the tourism and hospitality research, since “it involves the collection of customer-based data, which, in turn, can be used to statistically analyze and investigate a priori specified relationships among variables of interest to the corresponding study” (Neuman, 2003). The total population of this study included all students enrolled in first, second, third and fourth years of undergraduate programs at the University of Alexandria, Alexandria, Egypt. According to the data obtained from Departments of Student Affairs at different faculties (Tourism and Hotels, Arts, Commerce, Law and Education), there are more than 10,000 students enrolled in undergraduate programs at these faculties. Due to this large number of students, it was difficult to use random sampling techniques. Therefore, a convenience sample of different college students at the university was the most suitable sampling technique to employ in this research. 3.2. Questionnaire development and data collection The questionnaire utilized in the current study comprised three sections. The first section consisted of ten questions and aimed at collecting demographic data of students and their behavior characteristics (faculty, gender, age, academic level, number of visits to the cafeteria, monthly expenditure, daily expenditure, who they go to the cafeteria with, recommending the cafeteria to others and intention to continue eating at the cafeteria). The second section of the questionnaire consisted of three parts. Statements in these parts were adapted from the DINESERV questionnaire. DINESERV is adapted from the SERVQUAL instrument and was created by Stevens et al. (1995), and is dedicated for the foodservice industry. The first part of the second section consisted of eight statements and aimed at measuring students' perceptions of quality of food and beverages offered at the cafeteria. Part two of the second section consisted of 7 statements and aimed at measuring students' service quality perceptions in the cafeteria. The final part of the second section was designed to measure students' perceptions of price compared to the value they receive. The questionnaire third section aimed at measuring students' overall satisfaction in terms of: overall satisfaction with food and beverage quality, overall satisfaction with service quality, overall satisfaction with the price paid versus the value obtained, and their overall satisfaction with the dining experience. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate statements in sections two and three, where 5 = Very Satisfied, 4 = Satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Dissatisfied, and 1 = Very Satisfied. In order to determine the internal consistency of the survey questionnaire, a Cronbach's alpha coefficient reliability analysis was conducted. This method shows an indication of the average correlation between all the items of the research questionnaire on the Likert scale, in this case. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the questionnaire was measured to be 0.92. Therefore, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient is well above the 0.7 standard reliability suggested by Nunnally (1967)
and Schmitt (1996). Questionnaire face validity was assured through the help of some academic experts in the field of survey design. After the questionnaire was edited based on their comments, it was then piloted to 40 students to discover the extent of their understanding of sentences as well as the time taken to answer questions. Finally, based on the pilot test review, several changes were performed to reach the final version of the questionnaire. To guarantee a high response rate, two methods were used for data collection. Firstly, the researchers, with the assistance of 15 students enrolled in the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Hotel Management Department, approached students from different faculties in the cafeteria and asked them in person to fill out a brief questionnaire. Prior to data collection, the 15 students were given information about the research topic and the content of the survey form. Additionally, they were trained on how to deal with respondents and how to gather required data. Another method of data collection was through the design of an internet-based questionnaire, which was posted to university students as a link on faculties' social-media groups, such as Face-book and Twitter (http://goo.gl/forms/8Ukdizggtw). The survey took between 5 and 10 min to complete. Participation was voluntary and anonymity was ensured. Students were invited to participate in the study during the period of January–March 2015, and a total of 567 questionnaires were collected. From this number, 24 questionnaires were invalid, and therefore the total number of valid questionnaires was 543. 4. Result analysis and discussion Data was processed and analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Windows Version 18. In order to achieve the objective of the study, different statistical tests, such as frequencies, means of scores, and coefficients of Pearson correlations were used. Frequencies were first computed to examine demographic and behavioral characteristics of respondents. Secondly, means of scores were calculated in order to gauge students' perceptions regarding different service attributes. Thirdly, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to measure the existence and degree of significant relationships between different research variables. 4.1. Demographic characteristics of students The demographic characteristics of students are presented in Table 1. The sample consisted of 44.2% male students and 55.8% female students. Among the 543 respondents, 25.9% of students were enrolled
Table 1 Demographic characteristics of respondents. Demographics
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Gender Male Female
240 303
44.2 55.8
Academic year 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
140 135 131 137
25.9 24.8 24.1 25.2
Faculty Arts Commerce Education Law Tourism and Hotels
94 86 141 112 110
17.3 15.8 26.0 20.6 20.3
Age 17–19 20–21 22–23 24 and above
101 333 100 9
18.6 61.3 18.4 1.6
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
in the first year, 24.8% enrolled in the second year, 24.1% enrolled in the third year, and 25.2% enrolled in the fourth year. As per the faculty, 17.3% of students were from the Faculty of Arts, 15.8% from the Faculty of Commerce, 26% from the Faculty of Education, 20.6% from the Faculty of Law, and 20.3% of students were enrolled in the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels. A high percentage of students (61.3%) were aged between 20 and 21 years, 18.6% were between 17 and 19 years old, and only 1.6% were 24 years old and above. 4.2. Behavioral characteristics of students The behavioral characteristics of students are described in Table 2. As shown in the table, 34.1% of surveyed students visited the cafeteria daily, 36.7% visited the cafeteria either once or twice a week, and 20.3% of students visited the cafeteria less than once a week. Approximately half of the students (46%) reported that their monthly average expenditure was between 250 and 500(EGP). 15.8% stated that their monthly average expenditure was above 501(EGP), and 38.1% spent less than 250(EGP) monthly. As for the average check per time, 58.2% of students stated that they spent between 10 and 20(EGP) every time they visited the cafeteria, 20.4% stated that they spent less than 10(EGP) on each visit, 15.1% spent between 21 and 30(EGP) every time, and only 6.3% of students spent more than 30(EGP) on every visit. Furthermore, most students indicated that they preferred to have their meals at the cafeteria with their friends (89.5%), while only 10.5% indicated that they dined at the cafeteria on their own. Similarly, a high percentage of students were not willing to recommend the university cafeterias to their friends (78.1%), and only 21.9% of them were willing to recommend them to their friends. Finally, about two-thirds of students did not intend to continue having their meals at the university cafeterias until graduation (65.9%), and 34.1% reported that they intended to continue having their meals at the university cafeterias until graduation. 4.3. Analyzing student perceptions for different research variables In order to accomplish the first objective of the study, the means of scores of student perceptions of different research variables were Table 2 Behavior characteristics of students. Behavior characteristics
Frequency
The average numbers of visit to the cafeteria Daily 185 Less than once a week 110 Once a week 56 Twice a week 192
Percentage (%) 34.1 20.3 10.3 35.4
Average check per time Less than ten EGP 10–20 EGP 21–30 EGP More than 30 EGP
316 82 111 34
20.4 58.2 15.1 6.3
Monthly average expenditure 250–500 EGP 501–750 EGP Less than 250 EGP More than 750 EGP
250 48 207 38
46.0 8.8 38.1 7.0
With whom do you go to the cafeteria Alone 57 With friends 486
10.5 89.5
Would you recommend university's cafeterias to your friends Yes 119 No 424
21.9 78.1
Will you still have your meals at the university's cafeterias until graduation Yes 185 34.1 No 358 65.9
321
computed, as presented in Table 3. Students rated their levels of satisfaction with attitude statements that were positively and negatively phrased using a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 = Very Unsatisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Firstly, students' overall perceptions regarding food and beverage quality presented at the cafeterias were below average (overall mean for the quality of food and beverage items = 2.96). According to the results presented in the table, a high percentage of students were dissatisfied with the nutritional content, as well as the health and safety aspect of the food and beverage items offered (M = 2.6). Student satisfaction with other food and beverage quality attributes ranged from slight satisfaction with the diversity of displayed food and beverage items (M = 3.6), and appropriate temperature of food and beverage items (M = 3.3), to slight dissatisfaction with the freshness of food and beverage items (M = 2.9), and attractive display of food and beverage items (M = 2.7). Similar opinions were given about the items related to service quality. Students' overall perceptions regarding the service quality presented at the different university cafeterias were less than average (overall mean for the service quality attributes = 2.81). A large number of the students were either strongly dissatisfied or dissatisfied about the feeling of employees' motivation and interest when serving them at the cafeterias (M = 2.3), excellence and professionalism in service delivery (M = 2.4). The speed of service, the friendly treatment by cafeteria staff, and the behavior of cafeteria staff recorded satisfaction means ranged from 2.6 to 2.9. Staff knowledge of the items sold recorded the highest mean score among service quality attributes (M = 3.4), followed by cooperation of workers at the cafeteria and answering any questions (M = 3.00). The third variable that students were asked about was the price they paid compared to the value they received. The value that students received was measured in terms of the quality and quantity of food and beverage items they received. As presented in Table 3, most students felt that the quality of food and beverage items provided was unsuitable, given the price paid (M = 2.5). Additionally, the quantity of food and beverage items, given the price paid, was perceived to be not satisfactory (M = 2.7). The last research variable measured was students' overall satisfaction. Recorded means reported by students indicated that the majority of students were explicitly dissatisfied with the overall performance of the university cafeterias (M = 2.78). Overall student satisfaction was measured using the following statements: overall satisfaction regarding the quality of food and beverage items (M = 2.79), overall satisfaction regarding the service quality (M = 2.79), overall satisfaction regarding the prices (M = 2.75), and the extent to which food and beverage services provided met student expectations (M = 2.78). 4.4. Hypotheses testing and discussion of results As shown in Table 4, an investigation of the existence and level of correlation between different research variables and students' overall satisfaction was performed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Firstly, H1 was supported after the Pearson correlation testing was conducted. The results indicated a significant correlation between food and beverage quality and students' overall satisfaction (r = 0. 710, P b 0.01). The Pearson correlation coefficient values emphasize the positive correlation between food and beverage quality and students' overall satisfaction. Previous researches indicated the role played by food and beverage quality in shaping customer satisfaction. For example, Pettijohn et al. (1997) found that food quality was the most important factor that influenced customer satisfaction and intention to return to a particular restaurant. Mattila (2001) indicated that food quality was the most significant factor for the respondents to patronize their target restaurant. Moreover, Lee (2004) found that quality of food was ranked second in importance among twelve variables that affect students' satisfaction. Secondly, the results of the Pearson correlation test revealed a significant and positive correlation between service quality and students' overall satisfaction (r = 0. 571, P b 0.01). Therefore, the second
322
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
Table 3 Frequencies and means for the research variables. Overall satisfaction Very Unsatisfied
Unsatisfied
Neutral
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
R.
%
R.
%
R.
%
R.
%
R.
%
40 64 67 33 91 94 28 50
7.4 11.8 12.3 6.1 16.8 17.3 5.2 9.2
85 185 122 97 137 163 59 86
15.7 34.1 22.5 17.9 25.2 30.0 10.9 15.8
248 152 199 235 234 174 116 139
45.7 28.0 36.6 43.3 43.1 32.0 21.4 25.6
170 116 135 161 81 94 237 203
31.3 21.4 24.9 29.7 14.9 17.3 43.6 37.4
0 26 20 17 0 18 103 65
0 4.8 3.7 3.1 0 3.3 19.0 12.0
3.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.6 3.6 3.3 2.96
B. Service quality 1. Speed of service 2. Your feeling with interest of employees at the cafeteria 3. Friendly treatment by the staff cafeteria 4. The behavior of the cafeteria staff 5. Excellence and professionalism in service delivery 6. Staff knowledge of the items sold 7. Cooperation of workers at the cafeteria and answering any questions Overall mean for service
62 124 64 78 105 23 47
11.4 22.8 11.8 14.4 19.3 4.2 8.7
132 194 89 142 176 72 102
24.3 35.7 16.4 26.2 32.4 13.3 18.8
180 165 232 242 192 164 209
33.1 30.4 42.7 44.6 35.4 30.2 38.5
148 50 130 70 61 210 145
27.3 9.2 23.9 12.9 11.2 38.7 26.7
21 10 28 11 9 74 40
3.9 1.8 5.2 2.0 1.7 13.6 7.4
2.9 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.4 3.4 3.0 2.81
C. Price and value 1. Suitability of the quality of food and beverage items provided with the price paid 2. Suitability of the quantity of food and beverage items provided with the price paid Overall mean for price and value
110 93
20.3 17.1
149 132
27.4 24.3
174 186
32.0 34.3
102 113
18.8 20.8
8 19
1.5 3.5
2.5 2.7 2.61
D. Overall satisfaction 1. Overall satisfaction regarding the quality of food and beverage items 2. Overall satisfaction regarding the service quality 3. Overall satisfaction regarding the prices 4. The extent to which food and beverage services provided meet your expectations Overall mean for overall satisfaction
71 64 68 65
13.1 11.8 12.5 12.0
120 148 145 138
22.1 27.3 26.7 25.4
211 173 202 212
38.9 31.9 37.2 39.0
129 150 109 104
23.8 27.6 20.1 19.2
12 8 19 24
2.2 1.5 3.5 4.4
2.79 2.79 2.75 2.78 2.78
Research variables
A. Quality of F&B 1. Good taste of food and beverage items 2. Attractive display of food and beverage items 3. Freshness of F&B 4. Appropriate flavor of food and beverage items 5. The nutritional content of food and beverage items 6. Health and safety of F&B 7. Diversity of displayed food and beverage items 8. Appropriate temperature of food and beverage Overall mean for Quality of F&B
hypothesis was supported. Pearson correlation coefficient values emphasize the positive impact that service quality has on students' overall satisfaction. Previous researches support this result, as for instance, service quality was ranked the second important factor after food quality in determining the customer's intention to return to a particular restaurant (Soriano, 2002). The final research hypothesis addressed the issue of whether there is a significant and positive relationship between students' perception of the suitability of price to the value obtained and their overall satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, the correlation analysis was performed between price/value and students' overall satisfaction. Results indicated that there was a statistically significant and positive association between the two variables (r = 0. 683, P b 0.01). Therefore, the third hypothesis was also supported. The literature confirmed the
Mean
role of price as an important factor in predicting students' purchasing behavior and shaping their overall satisfaction. Klassen et al. (2005) showed that price is the most important factor for students, who consider price when making a decision. Nadzirah et al. (2013) stated that because students buy food on limited funds, they consider price very carefully. Therefore, foodservice operators should develop the menu with food and beverage items with more reasonable prices, because pricing is a significant determinant of student satisfaction. Additionally, Yuksel and Yuksel (2002) indicated that the majority of customers tend to visit and revisit foodservices not only because of food quality and service quality, but also because they feel that they are receiving the products and services worth the money paid for them.
Table 4 Variables' correlations. Research variables Quality of food & beverages
Service quality
Reasonable price
Combined effect of research variables Overall satisfaction
Quality of food & beverages Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Service quality
Reasonable price
.417⁎ .000 .417⁎ .000 543
543
543
543
.423⁎ .000 .744⁎ .000 .710⁎ .000
543
.000 543
543
.423⁎ .000 543
.450⁎ .000 543 .762⁎
.571⁎ .000
Combined effect of research variables
.450⁎ .000
543
.846⁎ .000 543 .638⁎ .000 543
Overall satisfaction
.744⁎ .000 543
.762⁎ .000
543
.846⁎ .000 543
.807⁎ .000 543
.710⁎ .000 543
543
543
543
.571⁎ .000 .638⁎ .000 .807⁎ .000
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
5. Conclusion This part presents a concise and comprehensive conclusion of the study's findings. Basically, this study was carried out to achieve three main objectives. The first objective was to measure university students' perceptions of different service attributes that make up the total satisfaction with the dining experience. This objective was achieved through asking students to evaluate the different attributes that impact their overall satisfaction. Based on the results presented previously in Table 3, it is clear that student satisfaction with food and beverage quality, service quality and price/value was below average. These findings were also assured through student responses to some behavioral questions. For example, a high percentage of students were not willing to recommend the university cafeterias to their friends and about two-thirds of them did not intend to continue having their meals at the university cafeterias until graduation. The second and third objectives of the study were realized through the use of Pearson correlation coefficients to analyze the existence and level of correlation between different research variables and students' overall satisfaction. Results of the analysis indicated the following; Firstly, quality of food and beverage items was found to have the greatest impact on students' overall satisfaction. The second priority was given to the price of food and beverage items. Finally, service quality was found to have the lowest impact on students' overall satisfaction compared to other variables. These results mean that the students are primarily interested in the quality of food and beverage items, followed by the price and finally by the service quality. These findings are similar to those of Pettijohn et al. (1997), who found that food and beverage quality was the most important factor that influenced customer satisfaction and intention to return to a particular restaurant. Similarly, Ng (2005) found that overall food quality dimensions were significantly more important factors than any other factor such as cleanliness, value, price, and convenience, which ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth. Students indicated many reasons for their dissatisfaction. Some of these reasons were related to dissatisfaction with food and beverage quality, such as: small portion sizes, bad food and food not served at the appropriate temperature. Other reasons were related to dissatisfaction with the price paid, and those were: much higher prices than last year's prices; very high prices, given the quality and nutritional value of the food or beverage items served; and higher quality/lower prices of the same items in outside restaurants. The third group of reasons was related to dissatisfaction with the quality of service provided, such as: bad treatment of staff, delayed serving of orders, too few employees relative to the large numbers of students, lack of interest of employees, and bad appearance of employees. Other reasons for students' dissatisfaction included: obligation to eat at the university cafeterias due to the lack of time between lectures to go to restaurants outside the university, poor cleanliness of the place and the presence of insects. 6. Implications and future research directions Based on the results, several implications and recommendations could be derived for university management to increase student satisfaction about food and beverage services provided by different university cafeterias: (1) University management should receive feedback from students expressing their opinions about the performance of the cafeteria operators, and they should inform the operators about students' opinions in order to solve any problems promptly. These opinions should be taken into consideration when contracting with cafeteria operators. (2) The Faculty of Tourism and Hotels should be responsible for ongoing screening and monitoring processes of the level of services provided by the cafeteria operators. The Faculty should institutionalize systems for continuous training of cafeteria employees through customized programs designed for them. (3) Cafeteria operators should focus on providing appropriate mechanisms to increase food quality at a
323
reasonable price, as well as service quality provided at the university cafeterias. (4) University management should put into consideration contracting branded operators in order to guarantee the level of product quality provided. (5) University management should give special consideration to contracting the best operator, who gives attention to the following practices: training employees on the main principles of providing good service; safety and sanitation management programs; ensuring a clean and attractive dining area; providing food and beverage items at reasonable prices; and providing a pleasant environment and atmosphere for students. (6) University management charges large amounts of monthly rent from cafeteria operators, and thus has a huge impact on their operational policies. These amounts should be reduced in order to be able to meet student needs. Future studies can expand the sample and include more categories, such as university academics and administrative staff, in order to provide more representative results and to improve sample generalizability. Other studies may compare these findings with other findings in other hospitality sectors such as restaurants and hotels. Moreover, because of time restrictions, this study was conducted at a single time point. Suggestions for future researchers are to adopt a time crossing methodology for research design rather than a single time point. Findings of the study were, therefore, indicative rather than conclusive. References Abo-Baker, M. (2004). Marketing management in modern establishments. Egypt: University House in Alexandria. Akbaba, A., & Kilinc, I. (2001). Servqual practices in service quality and tourism management. Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 22(2), 162–168. Andaleeb, S., & Caskey, A. (2007). Satisfaction with food services: Insight from a college cafeteria. Foodservice Business Research Journal, 10(2), 51–65. Barsky, J. (1992). Customer satisfaction in the hotel industry: Meaning and measurement. Hospitality Research Journal, 16(1), 51–73. Eckel, P. J. (1985). College & university foodservice management standards, Vol. 6, AVI Publishing Company. Garg, A. (2014). Mechanic clues vs. humanic clues: Students' perception towards service quality of fast food restaurants in Taylor's University campus. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 144(1), 164–175. Gassenheimer, J., Davis, C., & Dahlstrom, R. (1998). Is dependent what we want to be? Effects of incongruency. Retailing Journal, 74(2), 247–272. Imram, N. (1999). The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product. Nutrition & Food Science, 99(5), 224–230. Joung, H., Lee, D., Kim, H., Ahn, J., & Huffman, L. (2011). Evaluating on-campus dining service using importance-performance analysis. Retrieved from University of Massachusetts Amherst Scholar Works (website) http://scholarworks.umass.edu/gradconf_ hospitality/2011/Presentation/58/ Klassen, K., Trybus, E., & Kumar, A. (2005). Planning food services for a campus setting. Hospitality Management, 24(1), 579–609. Knutson, B. J. (2000). College students and fast food – How students perceive restaurant brands. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 68–74. Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C., & Patton, M. (1991). LODGSERV: A service quality index for the lodging industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(3), 277–284. Küçükaltan, D. (2007). Turizm Endüstrisinde Hizmet Kavramı. In Ş. Gümüşoğlu (Eds.), Hizmet kalitesi (pp. 29–37). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık. Lee, S. (2004). College students' perception and preference of brand name foodservices in university dining operations. (Published Master Thesis) Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University. Li, G. (2008). Difficulties facing university catering service work and responses. Science and Technology Information, 14, 72–73. Martin, J., Sneed, J., & White, G. (1992). School food service in the year 2000 and beyond. School Food Service Research Review, 16(2), 101–106. Mattila, A. (2001). Emotional bonding and restaurant loyalty. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(6), 73–79. McWilliams, M. (2000). Foods: Experimental perspectives (2nd ed). New York: Measure consumer satisfaction. Hospitality Research Journal, 17(2), 63–74. Nadzirah, S., Ab-Karim, S., Ghazali, H., & Othman, M. (2013). University foodservice: An overview of factors influencing the customers' dining choice. International Food Research Journal, 20(3), 1459–1468. Neuman, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ng, Y. (2005). Study of the impact of customer satisfaction on intention to return and return intention, and word-of-mouth endorsement in university dining operations. (Published master thesis) Oklahoma. USA: Graduate College of Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Oh, H. (2000). Diners' perception of quality, value, and satisfaction: A practical viewpoint. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58–66. Oliver, R. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the customer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
324
O.A. El-Said, E.A. Fathy / Tourism Management Perspectives 16 (2015) 318–324
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). Conceptual model of service quality and its implication for future research. Marketing Journal, 49, 41–50. Pettijohn, L., Pettijohn, C., & Luke, R. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons, and impact on future patronage. Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing Journal, 2(3), 3–20. Qu, H. (1997). Determinant factors and choice intention for Chinese restaurant dining: A multivariate approach. Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, 2(2), 35–49. Raman, S., & Chinniah, S. (2011). An investigation on higher learning students satisfaction on food services at university cafeteria. Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management, 1(2), 12–16. Saglik, E., Gulluce, A., Kaya, U., & Ozhan, Ç. (2014). Service quality and customer satisfaction relationship: A research in erzurum ataturk university refectory. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(1), 100–117. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. Soriano, D. (2002). Customers' expectations in restaurants, Spain situation. Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19, 1055–1067. Soriano, D. (2003). The Spanish restaurant sector: Evaluating the perception of quality. Journal of Service Industries, 23(2), 183–194. Stevens, P., Knutson, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring service quality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 56–60. Xi, L., & Shuai, Z. (2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in student food service. An example of student cafeteria in NHH. Quality and Service Sciences International Journal, 1(1), 113–124. Yılmaz, E. (2008). Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ve İnsan Merkezli Kütüphanecilik. Symposium of scientific communication and knowledge management (Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara, 12– 14 September 2006 (pp. 185–211). Ankara: Üniversite ve Araştırma Kütüphanecileri Derneği. Yuksel, A., & Yuksel, F. (2002). Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services: A segment based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 52–68.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 53(April), 35–48. Zeithmal, V., & Bitner, M. (2000). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Osman Ahmed El-Said is a lecturer at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt. He obtained his Master's Degree in the areas of employee behavior and customer satisfaction. The author also contributed in organizing various conferences, organized by the faculty of tourism and hotels. The author's doctorate research covered issues that are related to innovation strategy implementation in 5-star hotels. The author published a series of researches in different disciplines such as: human resources, marketing, innovation management and other issues related to the hospitality business.
Eslam Ahmed Fathy is a lecturer at the Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Pharos University, Egypt. He obtained his doctorate degree in the area of transformational leadership and its impact on employees' performance. The author's research interests are concentrated on food and beverage issues related to hospitality establishments.