Tour Operator's Service Quality Evaluation Model

ISSN 1392-1142ORGANIZACIjg VADYBA:SISTEMINIAI TYRIMAI: 2012.61 AudriUS SIMKUS

Tour Operator's Service QualityEvaluation Model

The peculiarities of services quality, its conception in tourism market, different theoretical models of servicequality evaluation are being analyzed in the article. Service quality maximization, its constant improvement,and timely renewal of the tourism of service offering strategy become vitally important in contemporary com-petitive market. The problem solved in this article was how to measure and evaluate tourism service quality?As the result, the authors of the article on the basis of other theoretical models of service quality elaborate thetour operator s service quality evaluation model.Keywords: service quality, service quality evaluation, tour operator.

Straipsnyje analizuojami paslaugtj kokybès ypatumai, paslaugtj kokybès koncepcija turizmo rinkoje, teori-niai paslaugij kokybès vertinimo modehai. Paslaugt} kokybès maksimizavimas, nuolatinis jos tobuhnimas,savalaikis atnaujinimas tampa gyvybiskai svarbüs siuolaikinèje konkurencingoje turizmo rinkoje. Straipsnyjesprendziama problema - kaip matuoti ir vertinti turizmo paslaugos kokybç. Straipsnio pabaigoje pateikiamaskelionii] organizatoriij teikiamtj paslaugtj kokybès vertinimo modehs, sudarytas paslaugij kokybès teoriniqmodeliq pagrindu.Raktiniai zodziai: kelionitj organizatorius, paslaugij kokybé, paslaugij kokybès vertinimas.

Introduction a main factor differentiating products ofservice industry, herewith, creating com-

Relevance of the research. The field petitive advantage. The trend is emphaticof services can be named as one of the in tourism industry, where competitionsmost rapidly growing economic sec- as well as processes of changing consumertors in Lithuania. Many Lithuanian and requirements are constantly intensify-foreign authors (Ruzevicius et al., 2007; ing. This encourages organizations to payPaulavicienè and Arlauskaitè, 2007; Hud- greater attention to recognition of cus-son et al, 2004) highlight the importance tomer expectations, constant improve-of quality in the processes of World s eco- ments of the main competitive advan-nomic integration and globalization as tage - service quality.

Lina PILELIENÉ - doctor of Social sciences; marketing, consumer behaviour, customer loyalty; associate pro-fessor at the Department of Marketing, Faculty of Economics and Management, Vytautas Magnus University.Address: Daukanto st. 28, LT-44246, Kaunas, Lithuania, phone: 00 370 37 327856, fax: 00 370 37 327856,[email protected].

Audrius SiMKUS - Volunteerism management, quality management; PhD student at the Department of Man-agement, Faculty of Economics and Management, Vytautas Magnus University, Daukanto st. 28, LT-44246,Kaunas, Lithuania, phone: 00 370 37 327856, fax: 00 370 37 327856, E-mail: [email protected].

102 Lina PILELIENÉ, Audrius SIMKUS

Scientific problem. In Lithuanian, aswell as in foreign scientific literature, theproblem of designing and maintaininghigh quality services and products, can beobserved and analyzed. One approach sug-gests (Ghobadian et al, 1994) that prob-lems of service quality mainly occur in theorganizations, where the proper concernabout identification of customer needsand expectations and feedback gettingpersists; the other approach (Cepinskiset al., 2005; Navickas and Malakauskaité,2007) concerns the impact of tough com-petition on the possibilities for organiza-tions in differentiating their products inthe market, formatting new attractingservice packages, and representing it toconsumers. Consequently, quality maxi-mization, its constant improvement, andtimely renewal of the tourism marketstrategy become vitally important. Theproblem rises with the question: how tomeasure and evaluate tourism servicesquality?

The subject of the research is the eval-uation of service quality.

The aim of the research is to elaboratethe model for evaluation of the quality ofservices provided by tour operators.

The authors of the article, on the basisof scientific insights and other theoreti-cal models of service quality, elaboratethe model for evaluation of the quality ofservices provided by tour operators.

Research methods. On purpose ofanalyzing possibilities and methods forservice quality's evaluation, the theoreti-cal analysis and synthesis were provided;considering the necessity of elaboration ofproper model for tour operators servicequality evaluation, methods of deductionand induction were used. The researchbasis was scientific insights of foreign andnational researchers.

Conception of tour operator andits service quality

Among the service industries, tourismis especially significant in terms of itssensitivity to quality issues, impact onnational economies, and recent expan-sion (Atilgan et al , 2003). Service qual-ity in this industry is one of the mostimportant factors, which determinesthe success and expansion of the busi-ness. In tourism industry, tour operatorsare is one of the principal actors, havinghuge direct impact on the performancequality factors. However, sometimes itbecomes hard for the customer to distin-guish one tour operator's products fromanother. Service quality can be named asthe exceptional competitive advantage,determining customer's future decisionsand business's future success. Atilgan etal. (2003) defines tour operator as "theprincipal service provider who is respon-sible for delivering and/or contractingand monitoring the promised servicemix, including all arrangements such asflights, transportation, accommodation,excursions, guidance etc. throughout theservice delivering period".

According to the Law on Tourism ofthe Republic of Lithuania (2002,6) " [t] ouroperator is a juridical person who regu-larly plans tour itineraries and preparesthe required packages of tour servicesfor these tours". At the same Law, touristservice is defined as "activity linked withsatisfaction of tourist needs, by providingservices in connection with organising oftourist travel, transport, accommodation,eating, information or special services".However, there are no limits or frame-work for service quality establishment.

Service is a subjective concept anda complicated phenomenon (Bowie,

TOUR OPERATOR'S SERVICE OUALITY EVALUATION MODEL 103

Chang, 2005). Vveinhardt and Kigaité(2005) state that perception of servicequality is rather subjective process; andthe perception of tourism service qual-ity is determined by staff professional-ism, skills, expertise, and ability to createa good impression, attitude and behavior.Still and all, Bowie and Chang (2005)highlight the intangibility of a service asa primary obstacle for a proper servicequality's evaluation and control. Accord-ing to the authors, it usually means sell-ing intangible services when selling a tourproduct. Quality of service is difficult tocontrol before it is sold or consumed; itsinvisible and intangible nature makescustomers rely on the image of a firm forfurther purchases. Consequently, servicequality is decisive only from the momentof service encounter.

Bowie and Chang (2005), analyzingdifferent scientific insights about serv-ice quality, highlight some importantmoments. The previously mentionedservice encounter occurs when the cus-tomer assesses the service quality and his/her satisfaction with the complex set ofbehaviors which have happened betweenthe customer, the server and the servicecompany. According to Zeithaml andBitner (2003), service quality is basedon customer's perceptions of service andnot on the criteria that determine what aservice would have or not to be. In otherwords, service quality can be defined as acustomer's verdict about the service's orservice organization's expertise and supe-riority among others.

Cabbott and Hogg (1998) state thatduring service delivery the quality of theservice encounter involves two signifi-cant elements: service personnel and theservice setting (Bowie, Chang, 2005). Theimportance of personnel was also high-

lighted by Miranda (2003), who stated that"[t]he achievement of quality should bethe main purpose of the organization andof everyone working within it". To ensurethat every employee accepts responsibil-ity for quality, all should be encouraged tosee themselves as customers, even insidethe same company. According to the latterapproach, customer is becoming the corepoint for an organization, and his/herneed satisfying should be the main aim ofa business.

According to Bowie and Chang (2005),three characteristics of service personneldirectly affect consumer's service experi-ence: employees' expertise, employees'attitude and the demographic backgroundof the employee. Besides, service encoun-ter involves five service personnel orienteddimensions: time, physical proximity,participation, engagement and degree ofcustomization. Meeting these dimensionshelps to build and maintain high servicequality and customer orientation.

Service quality is often considered asa principal factor differentiating serviceproducts and substantiating competitiveadvantage in tourism industry. The proc-ess by which customers evaluate a pur-chase, thereby determining satisfactionand likelihood of repurchase, is importantto all marketers but especially to servicesmarketers because, unlike their manu-facturing counterparts, they have fewerobjective measures of quality by which tojudge their production (Zeithaml et al.,1988; Brown, Swartz, 1989; Hudson et al.,2004). The Mediation Model of Tourists'Repurchase Intentions (see Figure 1) sup-plements the latter point of view, linkingperceived value and perceived quality torepurchase intentions through tourismsatisfaction.


Fig. 1. A Full Mediation Model

Source: He and Song (2009).

He and Song (2009) define 'perceivedvalue' as the evaluation of the customer'soverall assessment of the utility of a serv-ice product based on perceptions of whatis received and what is given, 'tourism sat-isfaction' as overall tour satisfaction - anoverall affective response that reflects acustomer's emotional state of mind cre-ated by his or her exposure to a serviceexperience, while 'perceived quality' isan evaluation of the attributes of a serv-ice that are primarily controlled by a sup-plier (Baker, Crompton 2000; Cronin etal., 2000). Two main questions were usedto indicate overall tourism satisfaction:'How well the service quality of the tourconforms to customer's prior expectationsbefore joining the tour' and 'How closethe service quality of the tour is to that ofcustomer's ideal case'. 'Repurchase inten-tions' in the model are determined by theultimate question 'How likely customer isto visit the travel agent again'. Hence, themain goal of tour operator is the provisionof the service which: encouraged customerto return; induced trust and confidence inservice provider; met customer's expecta-tions or even exceeded them.

According to O'Neill et al. (2000), touroperators must understand that servicequality is essentially a customer issue -customers determine it, and not the serv-ice provider. There is a need to understandthe specific requirements of customersand tailoring the service delivery systemto meeting these requirements. Successfulorganizations are able to diagnose theircustomer expectations fully and satisfythem completely, during each and everyservice encounter (Zemke and Schaaf,1990).

While analyzing tourism industry,Vveinhardt and Kigaité (2005) cite WTO(2005) and provide the following defini-tion of quality in tourism: "the result ofa process which implies the satisfactionof all the legitimate product and serviceneeds, requirements and expectations ofthe consumer, at an acceptable price, inconformity with mutually accepted con-tractual conditions and the underlyingquality determinants such as safety andsecurity, hygiene, accessibility, transpar-ency, authenticity and harmony of thetourism activity concerned with its humanand natural environment."


While analyzing tourism service indus-try, the growth of the attention for servicequality provision in accordance to custom-ers' requirements can be detected. Accord-ing to Fache (2000), this is the consequenceof the increase of the degree of dominanceof the customer in the service process.This degree of dominance is high, if thecustomer can dictate his/her demands tothe service provider. Wide range of alter-natives in tourism industry strengthenscustomers' power. Contemporary touristsare well-informed about traveling, moreproficient in their choices; hence, theirrequirements concerning service provid-ers are growing. Consequently, serviceproviders pay greater attention to servicequality enhancement in compatibility withcustomer needs and requirements.

Whereas a choice of service provideris an important part of consumer behav-

ior (usually the process leads to formationof further relationship between serviceprovider and customer), it is important tounderstand the factors affecting the choiceof one or another service provider. Kugytèand Sliburytè (2005) analyze how consum-ers choose among service providers andwhat criterions make the hugest impacton their choice. Authors provided a mod-ified model of service provider selectioncriteria (based on other related insights),where their contribution is delineatedusing dotted line (see Figure 2).

Eight basic criteria categories aredefined in the model: pricing, conven-ience, technology and tangibles, core serv-ice, service encounter, recommendationsby others, reputation, and brand image/familiarity, grouped into three broadgroups - search, experience and cre-dence - based on the degree of risk per-

<w

o

gaitdCL.

Htí

wpciO

: r ^

I L J _

Pricing

Convenience

Technolo gy/tangibles

Core service

Service encounter

Recommendations

Reputation

Brand image/fadmliarity

Selectionof a service

provider

I'a

S-o

ao

I•i

Satisfaction

Dis satis faction

Fig. 2. A modified model of service provider selection criteria

Source: Kugyté and Sliburytè (2005).


ceived, information search conducted andinformation sources used, and behavioralintentions associated with each criteriacategory.

Search-based attributes are those thatcan be accurately evaluated prior to mak-ing a choice. They denote the highest pre-purchase knowledge and lowest perceivedrisk, lowest search time, reliance on massmedia and lowest behavioral intentions.Experience attributes are those that canbe accurately assessed only after the serv-ices have been purchased and used. Theydenote a moderate pre-purchase knowl-edge, perceived risk, search time, behav-ioral intentions, reliance on mass mediaand personal sources while credence cri-teria are identified by the lowest pre-pur-chase knowledge, the highest perceivedrisk, search time, behavioral intentionsand reliance on personal sources and theymay or may not be evaluated even afterthe purchase is made simply because theconsumer may lack the necessary expe-rience or knowledge (Kugyté, Sliburyté,2005).

The model of service provider selec-tion criteria helps in understanding theessence of customer choice of serviceprovider and highlights the aspects thatshould dominate in service package.

A comparative analysis of servicequality evaluation models

The abundance of service quality evalu-ation models provided in national andforeign scientific literature reveals thecomplexity of service quality evaluationand encourages the search for holisticmodel for quality evaluation (Hopeniené,Ligeikiené, 2002; He, Song, 2009). On pur-pose of elaborating conventional model

for service quality evaluation, existingones: Grönroos' (1984) Perceived ServiceQuality Model; Parasuraman et al's. (1985,1988) Service Gap Analysis Model; Brogo-wicz et al's. (1990) Synthesised ServiceQuality Model were analyzed, criticized,and improved.

According to Schembri and Sandberg(2002), three dominant service qualitymodels emerged in the past two decades:Grönroos' (1984) Perceived Service Qual-ity (PSQ) Model; Parasuraman et al's.(1985, 1988) Service Gap Analysis Model;and Boulding et al.'s Dynamic ProcessModel of Service Quality. The commonfeature of the models is consensus thatservice quality is a multidimensionalobject according attitude held by consum-ers, with each dimension comprising of anumber of attributes or service aspects.Hence, achieving to understand themeaning of service quality for consum-ers, primarily there is a need for criticalanalysis and evaluation of existing modelsof service quality.

Grönroos (1984) emphasizes theimportance of understanding what con-sumers are really looking for and whatthey evaluate (Schembri, Sandberg,2002). Two dimensions are indicated inthe model: technical quality (related tooutcome) and functional quality (relatedto process). The two dimensions are sup-plemented with 'image' which contrib-utes to consumer's perception of serviceprovider (Lewis, 1989; Thai, 2008) (seeFigure 3).

According to Hopeniené andLigeikiené (2002), Grönroos' (1984)model is the most general model usefulfor perceiving service quality dimensionsand evaluation of service provision proc-ess. However, model lacks of evaluationof consumer's internal characteristics

TOUR OPERATOR'S SERVICE QUALITY EVALUATION MODEL 107

EXPECTEDQUALITY

tMarket communicationTraditionsIdeologyLive word

Perceived service qualityOBTAINEDQUALITY

TECHNICALQUALITY

EUNCTIONALQUALITY

Who? How?

Fig. 3. Perceived Service Quality Model

Source: adapted from Grönroos (1984).

and consumer him/herself as an externalfactor. Consequently, it can be called too'narrow' for service quality evaluation.

Parasuraman's, Zeithaml's and Berry's(1988) Quality Gap Analysis Model canbe assigned to the most appropriate forservice quality evaluation. The modelprovides quality evaluation instrument,also known as SERVQUAL methodol-ogy. The quality gap analysis model andSERVOUAL methodology are analyzedand adapted by various national andforeign scientists: Swan, Bowers (1998);O'Neill (2000); Tarn (2000); Marshall,Murdoch (2001); Hopeniené, Ligeikiené(2002); Schembri, Sandberg (2002); Atil-gan et al. (2003); Hudson et al. (2004);Piligrimiené, Buciüniené (2005); Collier,Bienstock (2006); Gil et al. (2006); Car-rillat et al. (2007); Skalen, Fougère (2007);Thai (2008), and others.

SERVQUAL model (see Figure 4) ena-bles to determine the discrepancy amongcustomer's expected service and perceivedservice. The discrepancy is called the 'gap'.Parasuraman's, Zeithaml's and Berry's(1988) model was elaborated for evalu-ation of the situation perceived servicequality, which was defined as customer'sopinion about common product's or serv-ice's ability of meeting customer's needsor expectations (Hopeniené, Ligeikiené,2002).

Despite of all advantages of themodel, the critics exists. Cronin and Tay-lor (1994) highlight that fact of asking arespondent to mark his or her perceptionsof performance already lead him/her tocompare mentally perceptions and expec-tations. In other words, the estimation ofperceptions might already include a per-ception minus expectation mental proc-


Words ol tnoulhcommunication

Consumer

Personal needs Past experience

Lxpcctcd scrv ice

CAPS

Perceived service-

Marketer

GAPl

Service delivery (includingpre and post contacts)

GAP 3

GAP 4

Translation of perceptionsinto service quality

specifications

GAP 2 ,^ T

Externalcommuni-cations to

theconsumer

Management perceptions ofthe consumer expectations

Fig. 4. Service Quality Model

Source: Parasuraman's, Zeithaml's and Berry's (1985).

ess (Hudson et al., 2004). Authors suggestthat only performance can be evaluatedto represent total quality; the SERVPERFmethodology was suggested. However,Parasuraman et al (1993) in their modelemphasized that the critical indicator fora firm willing to improve its service qual-ity is the amplitude and the direction of thegap between the expectation and percep-tions scores, not the perception itself.

Five service quality gaps (see Table 1)are defined in SERVQUAL model.

Brogowitcz et al. (1990) provided asynthesised model of service quality (seeFigure 5) on the basis of earlier servicequality models from the two streams ofresearch on service quality: the Nordic

school and the North American school.The model encompasses technical andfunctional quality conceptions, qualitygaps, dimensions and factors determiningservice quality perception.

Analyzing the synthesised servicequality model, Seth et al. (2005) statethat "[a] service quality gap may existeven when a customer has not yet expe-rienced the service but learned throughword of mouth, advertising or throughother media communications. Thus thereis a need to incorporate potential custom-ers' perceptions of service quality offeredas well as actual customers' perceptionsof service quality experienced". The gapof service quality at the center of the


The five gaps of service quality/ table

GAPS

lgap

2 gap

3 gap

4 gap

5 gap

Scope

Discrepancy between customers expectations and service provider's ability and effortsto understand them

Discrepancy between the understanding of customer's expectations and their modification intoservice's features (quality standards)

Discrepancy hetween quality standards and service provision process

Discrepancy between service provision and marketing communication

Discrepancy between customer's expectations and service encountered(satisfaction with the service)

Source: adapted from Hopeniené and Ligeikiené (2002), Skalen and Fougère (2007).

Fig. 5. SynthesJsed service quality model

Source: Brogowicz et al. (1990).

110 Lina PILEUENÉ, Audrius SIMKUS

model emerges after customer's expecta-tions related to service quality exceed theobtained service quality (Brogowicz et al.,1990; Seth et al., 2005).

According to Seth et al. (2005), themodel attempts to integrate traditionalmanagerial framework, service designand operations, and marketing activities.The purpose of this model is to identifythe dimensions associated with servicequality in a traditional managerial frame-work of planning, implementation andcontrol (Seth et al., 2005).

The three analyzed models of servicequality are specified as most appropriatefor tourism service quality evaluation inscientific literature. Considering scien-tific insights analysed, the model for tour

operator's service quality evaluation willbe provided.

The analyzed models suggest that serv-ice quality is multidimensional (at custom-er's point of view), and every dimensionconsists of various features and serviceaspects. Not only the obtained result ofservice provision, but the provision processas a whole is important for the customer.Service provision process encompassesvarious dimensions helping to determinecustomer's expectations and perceivedservice quality gaps. As it was mentionedbefore, the models analyzed have weak-nesses which could evoke difficulties inevaluating tour operator's service quality.

The elaborated model (see Figure 6)consists of two principal blocks which

Tourism serviceprovision for the

customer

External influenceMarketing efforts

Tour operator's image

Tourism sei-vice offering

Obtained tourismserviceTourism service quality

standards

TechnicalFunctional

Determination ofcustomer's expectations

Perceived tourismservice quality

TangiblesReliability

ResponsivenessAssuranceEmpathy

Tour operator's missionand objectives

Feedback

Information !

lOUROPIRAlOli

Fig. 6. Tour Operator's Service Quality Evaluation Model

TOUR OPERATOR'S SERVICE QUALITY EVALUATION MODEL 111

help to distinguish customer's and touroperator's participation and interaction intourism service provision process. Thereare five levels which correspond with theprogress of tour operator's service provi-sion process. Dotted lines highlight onefactor's influence on another; and fivegaps of tourism service quality provisionare numbered and named 'G'.

The process's initiation is in the firstlevel where tour operator's mission andobjectives are established. That is the prin-cipal step to creation and provision of anestablished quality service. At the secondlevel, tour operator determines customer'sexpectations. Various customer and staffsurveys are applied here on purpose of cus-tomer's expectations-based determinationof employee education and establishmentof activity standards. Tour operator deter-mines technical and functional aspects(service quality standards) of service offer-ing at the third level. Technical quahty rep-resents 'what' customer receives (materialtools and technologies of service provi-sion), whereas functional quality deter-mines 'how' customer does receive it (thebehaviour characteristics of tour operator'spersonnel: appearance, attitude, complai-sance of contact personnel). The ways ofproviding technical outcomes for the cus-tomer (technical quality) are important forthe perceived service. Perceived tourismservice is the result of customer's attitudeto various technical and functional dimen-sions framed by dotted line in Figure 6.

The fourth level represents tourismservice provision for the customer. Exter-nal influences, marketing efforts, andorganization's image appear in this level.As pointed with the dotted line in themodel (see Figure 6), external influence(culture, social structure, verbal commu-nication, mass-media, competition), mar-

keting efforts (advertising, public relations,personal selling, sales promotion, pricing,distribution) and tour operator's imageform customer's expectations and deter-mine expected tourism service quality.

External communication stronglyimpacts customer's needs and expecta-tions. Promotional efforts can be usedas tools for promise giving to customers,enabling customer affection and awakingdesired reaction. The promises influencecustomer's expectations and form thevision of expected service. On the otherhand, customer's expectations form onthe basis of attitude to the tour opera-tor, its image (which relates to reputa-tion and previously experienced servicequality from same tour operator). At thefourth level it is important not to promisemore than tour operator can afford. Realcommunication is necessary for avoidingexaggeration of customer's expectationsand reducing perception of quality.

Provided service is being evaluatedunder customer's attitude at the fifth levelof the process. As the analysis of scientificinsights revealed, perceived service qual-ity is the outcome of customer's evalu-ation process, when he/she comparesservice-related expectations to obtainedservice; hence, perceived service quality isexpressed as a disparity between obtainedand expected service. Perceived tour-ism service quality is measured using fivequality evaluation dimensions concern-ing WTO's (2005) definition of qualityin tourism: tangibles (physical elements,equipment, personnel appearance, tools ofcommunication, hygiene, and authentic-ity); reliability (ability to provide preciseand accurate service, without withdrawalsand at the promised time, assuring mutu-ally accepted contract condition at stableprices); responsiveness (personnel's desire


and readiness for helping customer andtimely service provision; this dimensionreflects safety of tourism service); assurance(personnel's knowledge, skills, helpfulness,and ability creating confidence; tourismservice security and harmony with humanand natural environment is assured); andempathy (carefulness, tenderness, individ-ual attention to customer, service transpar-ency). The quality dimensions helps in gapdetermination between customers expec-tations and obtained service.

Five quality gaps of service provisionare emphasized in the model. The first(lG) emerges between service expectedby customer and the ability of tour opera-tor to understand and determine custom-er's expectations. The second (2G) opensbetween determination of customer expec-tations and their conversion into tourismservice features (quality standards). Thethird (3G) emerges between service qual-ity standards and the process of serviceprovision to the customer. The fourthone (4G) is the discrepancy between thetourism service provision and marketingefforts. Finally, the fifth gap (5G) includesthe discrepancy between customer'sexpectations and obtained tourism service(the extent of this gap depends on all fourpreviously mentioned gaps). The extent offifth gap has a direct impact on customer'sperception about total tourism servicequality. Consequently, the identificationof the gaps is particularly important inmistake determination and strategy selec-tion for fulfilling customer needs.

All the tasks in tour operator's manage-ment require information and feedbackabout customer's needs, external influ-ence, tour operator's image, service qualityexpectations, and perceived encounteredservice quality. Unimpeded feedback isessential at every level. Only having feed-

back, enables the constant process evalu-ation, determination of mistakes at thepoint of their emergence, selection ofproper actions for problem resolution atthe right place and time. Tourism serviceprovision and its evaluation is continuous,constantly renewable, monitored and con-trolled process. Without the informationobtained by tour operator's service qualityevaluation process and constant feedback,the probability of service quality gapsemergence increases, gaps become hardlyidentified, reduced and removed.

Conclusions

Tour operator is the principal service pro-vider in tourism industry, responsible forthe provision of promised service pack-age, fulfilling commitments, and con-stant control through the whole period ofservice provision. Tour operator's servicequality depends on understanding of cus-tomers' requirements, and the adjustmentof the whole service provision system tomeeting those requirements.

The analyzed service quality evalua-tion models contain weaknesses whichcould determine limited service qual-ity evaluation. Therefore, on the basisof principal ideas of analyzed models,tour operator's service quality evalua-tion model was elaborated. The model isdesigned for the evaluation of perceivedservice quality and based on the discrep-ancy between obtained and expectedservice quality evaluated by five qualitydimensions. Various customer surveys onpurpose of provided service quality evalu-ation, quality gap determination, or cus-tomer expectation-based activity stand-ard determination can be provided withinthe framework of the model.


References

1. Atilgan, E., Akinci, S., Aksoy, S. (2003). Mappingthe service quality in the tourism industry //Managing Service Quality, 13 (5).

2. Baker, D. A., Crompton, J., L. (2000). Quality, Sa-tisfaction and Behavioral Intentions // Annals ofTourism Research, 27 (3).

3. Bowie, D., Chang, J. Ch. (2005). Tourist satisfac-tion: A view from a mixed international guidedpackage tour // Journal of Vacation Marketing,11(4).

4. Brogowicz, A. A., Delene, L. M., Lyth, D., M.(1990). A Synthesised Service Quality Modelwith Managerial Implications // Internatio-nal Journal of Service Industry Management,1(1).

5. Carrillat, F. A., Jaramillo, E, Mulki, J. P. (2007).The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERFscales A meta-analytic view of 17 years of rese-arch across five continents // International Jour-nal of Service Industry Management, 18 (5).

6. Collier, E. J., Bienstock, C. C. (2006). MeasuringService Quahty in E-Retailing // Journal of Ser-vice Research, 8 (3).

7. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., Huit, G. T. M. (2000).Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value and Cus-tomer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral In-tentions in Service Environments // Journal ofRetailing, 76 (2).

8. Cepinskis, J., Bakanauskas, A., Pileliené, L.(2005). Pardavimq skatinimo naudojimo poky-ciai ziniij ekonomikos aplinkoje // Organizacijijvadyba; sisteminiai tyrimai.

9. Fache, W. (2000). Methodologies for innovationand improvement of services in tourism // Ma-naging Service Quality, 10 (6).

lO.Ghobadian, A., Speller, S., Jones, M. (1994).Service Quality Concepts and Models // Inter-national Journal of Quality & Reliability Mana-gement, 11 (9).

11. Gil, S. M., Hudson, S., Quintana, T. A. (2006).The Influence of Service Recovery and Loyaltyon Perceived Service Quality: A Study of HotelCustomers in Spain // Journal of Hospitality &Leisure Marketing, 14 (2).

12.Grönroos, Ch. (1984). A Service Quality Mo-del and its Marketing Implications // EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 18 (4).

13. He, Y., Song, H. (2009). A Mediation Model ofTourists' Repurchase Intentions for PackagedTour Services // Journal of Travel Research.

14. Hopeniené, R., Ligeikiené, R. A. (2002). Turizmopaslaugij kokybés vertinimo metodologiniai irpraktiniai aspektai // Socialiniai mokslai, 2 (34).

15. Hudson, S., Hudson, P., Miller, G. A. (2004).The Measurement of Service Quality in the TourOperating Sector: A Methodological Compari-son // Journal of Travel Research.

16. Yanqun, H., Haiyan, S. (2009). A Mediation Modelof Tourists' Repurchase Intentions for PackagedTour Services // Journal of Travel Research. 47 (3).

17. Kugyté, R., Sliburyté, L. (2005). A Methodolo-gical Approach to Service Provider SelectionCriteria // Organizacijij vadyba: sisteminiai ty-rimai.

18. Lewis, B. R. (1989). Quality in the Service Sec-tor: A Review // International Journal of BankMarketing, 7 (5).

19. LR turizmo ¡statymo pakeitimo jstatymas (2002).Valstybés zinios, 2002-12-24, Nr. 123-5507.

20. Marshall, G., Murdoch, I. (2001). Service qualityin the marketing of consulting engineers // In-ternational Journal for Construction Marketing,3 (November).

21. Miranda, A. (2003). Total Quality Managementand Inequality: The Triple HeHx in Global Histo-rical Perspective // Science, Technology, & Hu-man Values, 28 (1).

22.Navickas, V, Malakauskaité, A. (2007). Jvykiijtaikymas turizmo plétros skatinimui Lietuvoje //Organizacijij vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai, 42.

23. O'Neill, M. A., Williams, P, MacCarthy, M.,Groves, R. (2000). Diving into service quality -the dive tour operator perspective // ManagingService Quality, 10(3).

24. Paulaviciené, E., Arlauskaité, Z. (2007). Visuoti-nés kokybés vadybos poveikis finansiniams or-ganizacijos rezultatams // Organizacijij vadyba:sisteminiai tyrimai, 44.

25. Piligrimiené, Z., Buciüniené, I. (2005). Sveikatosprieziüros paslaugij kokybés vertinimas: medici-nos ir marketingo poziüris // Organizacijij vady-ba: sisteminiai tyrimai, 34.

26. Ruzevicius, J., Adomaitiené, R., Serafinas, D.(2007). Peculiarities of Quality Assurance inHigher Education: a Study of Lithuanian Insti-tutions // Organizacijij vadyba: sisteminiai tyri-mai, 44.

27. Schembri, S., Sandberg, J. (2002). Service Quali-ty and the Consumer's Experience: Towards anInterpretive // Marketing Theory, 2.


28.Seth, N., Deshmukh, S. G., Vrat, P. (2005). Ser-vice quality models: a review // InternationalJournal of Quality & Reliability Management,22 (9).

29. Skalen, P., Fougère, M. (2007). Be(com)ing nor-mal - not excellent. Service management, thegap-model and disciplinary power // Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, 20 (1).

30. Swan, J. E., Bowers, M. R. (1998). Services qua-lity and satisfaction: the process of people doingthings together // Journal of services marketing,12(1).

31. Tarn, Jackie L. M. (2000) The Effects of Service

Quality, Perceived Value and Customer Satisfac-tion on Behavioral Intentions // Journal of Hos-pitality Marketing & Management, 6 (4).

32. Thai, V. V. (2008). Service quality in maritimetransport: conceptual model and empirical evi-dence // Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing andLogistics, 20 (4).

33. Vveinhardt, J., Kigaité, K. (2005). Turizmo pas-laugij kokybés sistemos teoriné apzvalga ir pro-hlematika // Vadyba, 1 (6).

34.Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J. (2003). ServicesMarketing: Integrating Customer Focus Acrossthe Firm. Third edition, McGraw-HiU Irwin.

The paper submitted: January 10, 2012

Prepared for pubhcation: March 6, 2012

Lina PILELIENÉ, Audrius SIMKUS

KELIONig ORGANIZATORiy TElKlAMg PASLAUGg KOKYBÉS VERTINIMO MODELISS a n t r a u k a

Tiek uzsienio, tiek lietuvii} mokslinéje literatürojepastebimas ir analizuojamas problematiskas orga-nizacijos aukstos kokybés paslaugij ir produktij su-kûrimas hei islaikymas. Vieni autoriai (Ghobadianet al., 1994) teigia, kad paslaugij kokybés problemosdazniausiai pasireiskia organizacijose, kurios nérasutelkusios pakankamai démesio vartotojq porei-kiij ir lükesciq identiñkavimui ir nesulaukia grjz-tamojo rysio is savo klientij, kiti (Cepinskis ir kt.,2005; Navickas ir Malakauskaité, 2007) svarsto, kadkonkurencinémis solygomis, organizacijoms tampavis sunkiau i.sskirti savo siulomus produktus ar tei-kiamas paslaugas is kitij, suformuoti nauj^, jdomt}paslaugij paket^ bei netradiciskai jj reprezentuotivartotojams. Del siij priezasciij kokyhés maksimi-zavimas, nuolatinis tobulinimas bei savalaikis at-naujinimas tampa gyvybiskai svarbus organizacijai.Taigi, nagrinéjant turizmo paslaugij rink^, kyla pro-bleminis klausimas: kaip matuoti ir vertinti turizmopaslaugos kokybç?

Straipsnio objektas - paslaugij kokybés verti-nimas.

Straipsnio tikslas - sudaryti kelioniij organiza-toriij teikiamq paslaugij kokybés vertinimo modelj.

Analizuojant paslaugij kokybés vertinimo ga-limybes ir metodus, atlikta mokslinés literatûrosanalizé ir sintezé. Akcentuojant modelio, skirtokelioniij organizatoriij teikiamq paslaugij kokybésvertinimui reikalingum^, taikyti dedukcijos ir in-

dukcijos metodai. Tyrimo bazç sudaré Lietuvos iruzsienio autoriij mokslinés ¡zvalgos. Straipsnio au-toriai nagrinétij moksliniq jzvalgq ir teoriniq pas-laugq kokybés modeUq pagrindu sudaro kelioniqorganizatoriq teikiamq paslaugq kokyhés vertinimomodelj.

Atlikus mokslinés literatûros analizç, nusta-tyta, kad kelioniq organizatorius yra svarbiausiaspaslaugq teikéjas turizmo industrijoje. Sio asmensatsakomybés sritys apima zadamo paslaugq pake-to sudarymij ir teikim^, jsipareigojimq klientamsispildym^, ir nuolatinç kontrolç paslaugos teikimolaikotarpiu. Kelioniq organizatoriaus paslaugq ko-kybé priklauso nuo vartotojq keliamq reikalavimqsupratimo, paslaugos teikimo sistemos pritaikymominétiems reikalavimams taip, kad atitiktq vartoto-jq reikalavimus.

Straipsnyje analizuoti paslaugq kokyhés ver-tinimo modeliai pasizymi trûkumais, ribojanciaispaslaugq kokybés vertinimq. Atsizvelgiant j esminesanalizuotq modeliq idéjas, buvo sudarytas kelioniqorganizatoriq paslaugq kokybés vertinimo modelis.Modelis skirtas suvokiamos paslaugos kokybés nu-statymui ir yra grindziamas neatitikimu tarp gautosir lauktos paslaugos kokybés, isreikstos penkiomiskokybés dimensijomis. Taikant sudaryt^ modelj,gali büti atliekami jvairûs vartotojq tyrimai, kuriqmetu nustatoma teikiamos paslaugos kokybé beikokybés spragos.

Copyright of Management of Organizations: Systematic Research is the property of Management of

Organizations: Systematic Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a

listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or

email articles for individual use.

Tour Operator's Service Quality Evaluation Model

Documents

Transcript of Tour Operator's Service Quality Evaluation Model