From internal to external: a comparison of the service standards espoused

by the Jumeirah Carlton Tower OCT) and the service delivery experienced
by its guests.
1.lntroduction
1.1 Research Objective
This paper compares the service espoused by the JCT with the service
experienced by its guests. This is be done by contrasting 'what the hotel tries to
offer' with 'what guests think they get.' The purpose of this paper is to provide
the property with practical and insightful conclusions.
1.1.1 Research Scope
This paper draws on service quality literature from both the hospitality industry
and from other service sectors. The literature provides a holistic understanding
of the elements of a quality service offering so that these can be compared to the
JCT's service provision.
The data was collected between April and July 2014 and focused on the JCT, a
luxury 5-star hotel located in Knightsbridge, London (Appendix 1).
1.1.2 Research Method
Academic sources were used to identify the critical dimensions of service quality.
Data was then collected in order to ascertain if, how and to what standard these
service quality dimensions are practiced at the JCT. This assessment involved a
360-degree examination; an internal assessment through employee interviews
and hotel collateral, and an external assessment consisting of observation and
online guest feedback
1.1.3 Structure of Paper
The literature review highlights the key frameworks and metrics used in
assessing service quality. From this review, a useful framework is identified and
employed for subsequent analysis. After both primary and secondary data
collection the evidence gathered is used to address the research question and
6
draw tentative conclusions. The paper closes with some recommendations and
thoughts for future research.
1.2 The Luxury Hotel Industry
Hotels are most frequently classified with the 'stars' system where the more
amenities and services provided, the greater the number of stars awarded to the
hotel (BBC: 2013). However, the 'stars' system does not measure the quality of
the service delivered to guests. This provides an opportunity for hotels of the
same star level to differentiate themselves primarily through promising better
service.
1.2.1 Service Matters
Luxury properties promise to create unforgettable experiences through worldclass
facilities and exceptional service (Datar eta!: 2010). However, facilities
alone do not lead to service quality standards. It is the human element; the way
facilities are supervised, offered and communicated to guests that achieve these
standards. For example, when explaining why the Dorchester was a 5* luxury
property the General Manager said that 'it was down to the stafrs relentless
pursuit of excellence' (BBC: 2013). Qualities such as personal attention, quick
responses to unusual demands, etiquette and a 'neverꞏsayꞏno' attitude are just as
fundamental. This is personified at the Four Seasons where 'a deeply instilled
ethic of personal service' is cited as one of the cornerstones of its enduring
success (The Four Seasons: 2014 ). Ultimately, if a guest leaves a property with
fond memories of the people they interacted with they are likely to positively
perceive the service (Datar eta!: 2010).
Service matters to hotels because it is a key determinant of guest satisfaction,
which in turn positively affects a hotel's profitability and market share (Heskett:
1994, Oh: 1999, Dabholkar eta!: 2000, Gupta eta!: 2006, Wilson eta!: 2012). The
importance of service quality is captured in models such as the Service-Profit
Chain (Appendix 2). Positive experiences lead to customer retention; if guests
rate their service experience highly they are more inclined to consume it again.
These loyal customers become more profitable over time because they are
7
willing to spend increasingly to stay in the hotel again and may even pay a
premium to do so (Reichheld eta!: 1990, Heskett: 1994, Rucci eta!: 1998). This
strategy also helps secure new business as satisfied customers communicate
their positive experiences to others (Gale: 1992, Kordupleski: 1993, Oh: 1999).
As demand increases, hotels can charge higher prices (Philips eta!: 1983, Garvin
eta!: 1983, Anderson eta!: 1984, Zeithaml: 2000).
1.2.2 The Customer is King
'Modern-day travellers see luxury more and more in the storytelling of having
an experience' (Waldthausen eta!: 2013, 2).
The process of achieving service quality standards is complex, involving an
accurate understanding of the guest's need, an appropriate support structure to
deal with the need, and the communicative abilities to respond to the need in a
manner which matches the guest's expectation (Maister: 2001, Visitor Guide:
2014).
1.2.3 Nowhere to Hide
To add to the growing and changing demands of consumers, the Internet has
revolutionised the way hotels are assessed. By 2008, 65% of travellers claimed
to have considered online reviews as a reliable source of information when
planning trips (Gretzel et al: 2008). User-generated content and social media
provide potential customers with rich insights into hotels' amenities, standards
and service quality (Anderson: 2012). To illustrate the power of such mediums
one only has to note that TripAdvisor, the world's leading travel website,
receives 60 million unique visitors every month (VisitorGuide: 2014).
Online tools have forced hotels to re-evaluate their daily operations (Dellarocas:
2003). Two important implications have ensued. Firstly, in a technologically
sophisticated world, a single service failure can be projected across cyberspace
within a matter of seconds. This has left hotels vulnerable to scrutiny by making
it almost impossible to ignore or overlook poor delivery. Linked to this, hotels
now have to be conscious about the promises they make their prospective
customers, as overselling and underperforming will result in negative guest
8
reviews. Together, these factors underscore why properties must endeavour to
meet or exceed expectations during every service encounter.
9
2. Literature Review
This section identifies frameworks that will support the paper's analyses by
looking at definitions, determinants and measurements of service quality.
2.1 Definition of Service Quality
2.1.1 'Service' and 'Quality'
The starting point for any assessment of service quality is to understand what is
meant by the terms 'service' and 'quality.'
Parasuraman et a! (1985) explain that a service has four qualities. It is
'intangible,' so the customer has no way of knowing what they will consume in
advance and can therefore not pre-judge the service (Sasser: 1976, Bateson:
1977, Berry: 1980, Getty et al: 2003). It is also 'inseparable,' i.e. the customer and
provider form part of the whole offering. Thus, customers contribute to their
own experience, and through their actions can also affect the service experience
of others. Moreover, unlike with goods, service providers do not always have
time to pause, reflect and refine their 'product'. By the time a service failure is
recorded it is often too late to rectify the issue. The third feature of a service is
'heterogeneity' which makes it almost impossible to maintain a consistent
standard across its provision (Berry: 1980). This can be particularly problematic
when serving repeat versus non-repeat guests and when trying to ensure each
service encounter is consistently up to standard. Finally, a service is 'perishable,'
i.e. it cannot be stored. This highlights the tension experienced by serviceproviders
trying to balance operational efficiency (back of house) and guest
satisfaction (front of house). Sometimes one has to be prioritised at the expense
of the other.
Quality refers to the ability to make and deliver a good product. What constitutes
high quality is relative to both level and context, i.e. a customer would not expect
the same level of service from a luxury resort and a roadside motel. Quality can
also be viewed as objective or subjective (Getty et al: 2003).
10
2.1.2 Objective versus Subjective Definitions
Holbrook (1994) used a spectrum to illustrate these opposing approaches. At
one end sits extreme objectivism, which holds that quality is intrinsic/innate and
exists a priori to the experience. It requires measurable characteristics, which
can be benchmarked against a standard (Adler: 1981). Scholars such as Gronroos
in his Nordic Model (Appendix 3) have used this approach to define service
quality. At the other end is extreme subjectivism, which focuses on customer
satisfaction by measuring 'how well the service level delivered matches
customer expectations' (Lewis eta!: 1983, 101, Gronroos: 1982, Smith et al:
1982, Lovelock: 1983, Heskett eta!: 1994, Vogt eta!: 1995). The overwhelming
majority of service literature employs this subjective definition.
2.1.3 Subjective Definition Explained
Subjective assessments focus on customer satisfaction. Satisfaction has two
components: customer expectations (prior to consuming the service) and
customer perceptions (experience of the service).
'Expectations are reference points against which service delivery is compared'
(Wilson et al: 2012, 51). Expectations range from a tolerable experience to an
ideal one (Teas: 1993). Firms, which distinguish themselves on service, strive for
'desired service'- a combination of what the customer should and can expect.
Perceptions are related to service experience. 'Customers perceive service in
terms of the quality of the service and how satisfied they are overall with their
experience' (Wilson eta!: 2012, 73). They form 'subjective assessments of
service experiences' based on an assessment of whether the experience matched
their expectation (Wilson: 2012. 96).
2.1.4 Use in this Paper
This paper adopted a subjective definition of service quality because this is the
approach adopted by the majority of the literature. Furthermore, from a
commercial standpoint, service-providers are ultimately concerned with
whether their customers are satisfied or not.
11
2.1.5 Frameworks of Service Quality
The models below build on a subjective definition of service quality.
The GAP Model
The GAP model, a generalised service model, helps firms address the customer
gap (difference between customer expectations and perceptions) by addressing
four provider gaps. The model is predicated on the belief that the customer, not
the provider, determines service quality (Parasuraman et al: 1985).
The provider gaps (G1-G4) focus on what the customer expects (G1), translating
customer expectations into service protocols (G2), standardising the customer
experience (G3) and ensuring honest and realistic promises are made to
customers (G4). These four gaps impact the final gap, the customer gap (G5), i.e.
the extent to which customer expectations failfmeetfexceed customer
perceptions (Appendix 4). The firm's objective is to close all the provider gaps
(G1-G4), which will lead to a closing of the customer satisfaction gap or G5. Here
the customer's expectations have been met or exceeded.
The GAP model has been commented on by a number of scholars including
Brown (1989), Brogowicz (1990) and Frost (2000). A particularly interesting
extension includes the establishment of 'Zones of Tolerance.' These refer to the
difference between 'desired' and 'adequate' service or the region where the
customer is indifferent to the service performance (Appendix 5, Zeithaml eta!:
1993). Luxury hotels are expensive, and tend to make lofty promises, so their
guests usually possess smaller Zones of Tolerance and have higher expectations
(Wilson et al: 2012).
Moments of Truth/Service Encounter Model
This model builds on the GAP model but argues that the bases for perceptions
are encounters. These are touch points where the customer interacts with the
service-provider (Normann: 2000). In most hotels there will be multiple such
points. The accumulation of these, known as a Service Encounter Cascade, affects
the customer's perception of service quality and thus their satisfaction levels
12
(Wilson et al: 2012). Each encounter provides the hotel an opportunity to
demonstrate service standards. All encounters are important but some are more
impactful than others, i.e. momentous encounters can shape a customer's entire
perception.
Companies such as McKinsey employ this theory, defining a moment of truth as
those few interactions (e.g. a lost credit card) when customers invest a high
amount of emotional energy in the outcome (Beaujean et al2006). Additionally,
data conducted by the Marriot Group (1993) found that 80% of perceptions
were formed from encounters in the first ten minutes of a guest entering a
property.
2.1.6 Use in this Paper
This paper paid attention to early encounters as they significantly affect overall
service evaluations. It was also assumed that JCT guests have higher
expectations, due to the luxury status of the hotel, and thus smaller Zones of
Tolerance.
2.2 Determinants of Service Quality
A review of the literature shows that three determinants of quality are
mentioned more frequently than others: Reliability, Responsiveness and
Tangibility (Appendix 6). Each of these is explored, and defined, by Parasuraman
and his colleagues (1985, 1990) in the GAP model (Appendix 4b).
2.2.1 Reliability
Reliability refers to the performance of a service accurately and dependably
(Parasuraman et al: 1990). To do this, emphasis must be placed on creating
productive work teams who aim to execute their tasks correctly the first time
(Parasuraman et al: 1990, Wilson et al: 2012). The Attribute Service Quality
Model (Haywood-Farmer: 1988) agrees that consistency is crucial to meeting
long-term customer expectations. This perspective also incorporates
Parasuraman et al's (1985) notion of Empathy or personalised service provision.
Heskett et al (1994) add that the CEO plays a vital role in espousing and
13
communicating the importance of service consistency to both guests and
employees.
One way of ensuring consistency is to treat the service provision like a theatrical
performance (Wilson et al: 2012). Managers carefully script their employees'
roles, expressions and behaviours in order to meet audience (customer)
expectations with the aid of a suitable setting (physical attributes). These roles
are even more important in jobs with high levels of repeat client contact. One
should note however, that over scripting can lead to customers viewing the
service as artificial (Grove et al: 1992, Berry: 1999, Beaujean et al: 2006).
An essential component of Reliability is promise-keeping. The Services
Marketing Triangle explores this by looking at the relationships between
managers, employees and customers. An organisation engages in external
marketing to deliver promises to customers. Employees are then tasked with
keeping these promises. Managers, who sit at the apex of the triangle, must
manage both groups. In particular they must provide the support and resources
required for employees to satisfy customer expectations (Bitner et al: 1995). To
meet these expectations providers should make honest and realistic promises.
This requires an understanding of what their target market expects, the
mechanism to communicate their ability to meet this need, and the means to
deliver on this promise (Parasuraman et al: 1990, Wilson et al: 2012).
2.2.2 Responsiveness
Responsiveness refers to notions such as promptness, friendliness and
willingness. It also suggests an ability to recover from service failures in an
efficient and effective manner (Parasuraman et al: 1990). In order to be
responsive employees must display Assurance qualities such as competence,
courteousness and the ability to engender trust in their customers (Parasuraman
et al: 1990).
Responsiveness can be encouraged by giving front-line staff a degree of
autonomy, e.g. in service-recovery (Heskett et al: 1994). This has been
14
implemented at the Ritz-Carlton where employees were permitted to spend up
to $2,000 per guest without approval, to create memories. This has led to prompt
service recovery and unusual requests being met quickly, e.g. a carpenter was
hired to build a shoetree for a guest (Forbes: 2009, Wilson eta!: 2012).
The Moments of Truth/Encounters Model identifies many of the sub-dimensions
of Responsiveness by stating what constitutes a positive or negative service
experience (Bitner, 1994, Gremler: 2004, Wilson eta!: 2012). To create positive
encounters providers should (Wilson eta!: 2012):
(i) Excel at service recovery.
(ii) Be adaptable to excessive or serious demands by recognising their
seriousness, attempting to accommodate, taking responsibility etc.
(iii) Be spontaneous and anticipate needs by listening and being attentive.
(iv) Cope with troublesome customers by listening, explaining and letting
go of customers where needed.
2.2.3 Tangibility
Tangibility refers to the physical elements of the service provision, e.g.
equipment, employees' appearance and design and layout of spaces
(Parasuraman et a!: 1990). Heskett eta! (1994) claim that the internal design of
the work environment influences an employee's ability to deliver quality service
to the customer. Ways of improving design include providing IT infrastructure to
support processes and installing new and easy-to-use equipment. Supportive
work infrastructure increases motivation and thus service quality (Rucci et a!:
1998).
Within this dimension, technology can play an important role in facilitating
service quality provision. For example, The Technology Infusion Matrix argues
that technology helps customise service offerings, store guest information,
recover from service failures and spontaneously delight customers (Bitner eta!:
2000).
15
2.2.4 Perceived Situational Control
Another important factor is perceived situational control. This is 'the degree to
which a subject believes he or she can influence an event' (Gotlieb eta!: 1994,
876). Evidence suggests that perceived situational control is an
antecedent to customer satisfaction. This is because the extent to which a
customer believes they have control affects how they evaluate the quality of an
encounter (Langer eta!: 1977). If a customer feels out of control they are likely
to register low levels of perceived quality, which result in low levels of customer
satisfaction. Conversely, if a customer understands why certain situational
factors have occurred, e.g. having to wait during busy periods, their Zones of
Tolerance expand and they accept lower standards of service as adequate
(Wilson eta!: 2012).
McGuire et al's (2010) framework for evaluating a customer's wait experience
found that perceived control partially mediated the relationship between
the perceived wait duration and the perceived service delivery. In the service
industry 'the waiting environment is the first contact the customer has with
the servicescape' and is therefore part of the overall evaluation of the
service (McGuire eta!: 2010, 270). If customers have to wait, and have nothing to
do during this time, they are more likely to evaluate the service negatively.
Perceived control, which enables customers to have some power over their wait
experience, can help negate this, e.g. giving customers magazines or updating
them on wait times. This will result in a more positive appraisal of the service.
Ultimately however, research shows that customers have an innate dislike for
waiting and therefore, it should be reduced or eliminated where possible
(McGuire et al: 2010).
2.2.5 Use in this Paper
This paper focused on Reliability, Responsiveness and Tangibility because they
were the most frequently cited dimensions (Appendix 6). Attention was also
given to perceived situational control, as it is a pertinent issue in the hospitality
industry.
16
2.3 Measurement of Service Quality
The discussion below explores some of the key instruments used to measure and
thus help firms achieve quality standards.
2.3.1 Customer Assessment
SERVQUAL
The SERVQUAL Index is derived from the GAP Model. Its purpose is to 'look at
perceived quality, i.e. the degree and direction of discrepancy between
consumers' perceptions and expectations' (Parasuraman eta!: 1988). The index
comprises of questions based on the five determinants (Tangibility, Assurance,
Empathy, Reliability and Responsiveness) outlined earlier. Each individual
completes the questionnaire twice; the first attempt reveals their expectations
and the second their perception. Questions measure both the outcome and
delivery of the service. A final GAP score can then be calculated by subtracting
the expectation score from the perception score (Parasuraman eta!: 1988).
Although a highly popular survey, the application of SERVQUAL has revealed
mixed results. Criticisms have been raised about the structure of the questions
and the aptness of the final score (Yoon eta!: 2004). Other studies emphasise the
explanatory value of the model with its external customer orientation and ability
to pinpoint particular gaps in the service-delivery process (Nitin eta!: 2005).
Extensions of SERVQUAL
Both the Lodging Quality Index (LQI) and the Total Service Quality Model
(TSQM) build on GAP /SERVQUAL but apply it directly to the hospitality industry.
Getty's (2003) LQI identifies Tangibility and Responsiveness as elements of
quality (also found in SERVQUAL). However, traits such as Reliability, Confidence
and Communication are also important for service quality (Appendix 7).
In the TSQM, Wilkins (2007) concurs with the GAP model (Appendix 8) in his
conclusion that a service experience is contingent on employee traits such as
politeness, personalisation and on physical elements such as the cleanliness,
layout and use of space. Additionally the quality of food and beverage also affects
17
overall service quality. The model posits that each dimension should not be
viewed in isolation, but holistically (Wilkins eta!: 2007).
Customer Delight
Rust eta! (2000) went one step beyond satisfaction by focussing on Customer
Delight. This is a state of extreme positivity where expectations have been
greatly exceeded. The model uses a complex mathematical formula to compute
the impact of high quality on the end-user. This model has important
implications. For example, achieving customer delight might be positive in the
short term but it can make it harder for the delighting firm to live up to future
expectations (Rust eta!: 2000). Therefore, firms may opt for being dependable
over exciting. as 'it is very difficult to surprise or delight a customer consistently
by providing a reliable service' (Wilson et al: 2012, 67).
2.3.2 Beyond Just the Customer
Service Encounter Dimensions
Chandon (1997, 66) claims that 'service quality depends on customers'
satisfaction with their encounters with the company's employees, but it also
depends on the quality of the service obtained and on the physical surroundings
of the service.' For employees, each service encounter follows a four-step
sequence: perceptions of customer expectations, translation of perceptions into
service proposal, service delivery and communication about the service to
customers (Chandon eta!: 1997). Judgments on satisfaction may be made at the
end of each stage but the overall assessment is cumulative. Fifteen dimensions
including Responsiveness, Personalisation, Courtesy, Aptitude, Waiting time,
Competence and Tangibility are assessed. Crucially, both the provider's and the
customer's perceptions are measured at the end of the encounter and their
answers are compared.
2.3.3 Use in this Paper
Attention was given to the dimensions of Reliability, Responsiveness and
Tangibility (Appendix 6). Technological factors were not explored in this paper.
18
The GAP Model was used because it provides a comprehensive assessment of the
components of service quality.
2.4 Conclusion
This paper employed a subjective definition of service quality where quality is
the result of customer perceptions matching customer expectations. The
dimensions of Reliability, Responsiveness and Tangibility were focussed on
because they are critical to any quality service provision (Appendix 6). Attention
was also given to early encounters and perceived situational control. Finally, the
GAP model was used to analyse how service quality has been operationalised at
the JCT and whether it has failedjmetjexceeded guest expectations.
19
3. Methodology
In this section a theoretical framework is proposed and the research methods
and process required to address the research question are outlined. Finally, key
limitations are discussed.
3.1 Theoretical Framework
This paper's objective is to compare the difference between the espoused service
at the JCT, and the service provision experienced by guests. This was done by
adopting a subjective view of service quality and analysing the data collected
(through Template Analysis) for instances of Responsiveness, Reliability and
Tangibility (Appendix 9). Zones of Tolerance, the region between desired and
adequate service, were used to analyse data derived from different sources and
to compare guest perceptions. Conclusions about whether guest expectations
were met/exceeded, and the reasons behind service failures, were made using
the GAP Model.
3.1.1 Guest Expectations
Guest expectations were met or exceeded when the experienced service met the
JCT's espoused service standards. Here guests were satisfied. A service failure
was any encounter which failed to meet guest expectations.
3.1.2 Early Encounters
Specific attention was paid to early encounters as these contribute
disproportionately to guests' service evaluations. These encounters were
classified as interactions involving the Doorman, Concierge and Reception
(check-in).
3.1.3 Perceived Situational Control
Specific attention was also given to instances showing guest reactions to
situations out of their control, i.e. waiting.
20
3.2 Research Approach
An inductive approach, where the data collected from various samples are used
to reach broader conclusions, was adopted. Interviewees were assumed to
reflect management-level perspectives on service (espoused). Observation
provided insight into the actual service provision (experienced). Guests'
feedback, (nonꞏ probability purposive sample) were seen as representative of all
JCT guests' expectations/perceptions (EasterbyꞏSmith: 2014).
The Internal Analysis: Employee Perspectives
3.3 Interviews
3.3.1 Rationale
Semi-structured interviews were used to gauge the espoused service standard at
the )CT.
3.3.2 Design and Process
The interviews began with pre-determined open-ended questions. As each
interview progressed opportunities to ask more relevant questions and to hone
in on particular comments presented themselves. This approach created an
element of comfort thus when follow up questions were asked, respondents
offered an answer (Spradley: 1979). Each interview lasted 30 minutes and took
place on site. Some of the interviews were conducted as part of the UCL
Consultancy project. Relevant responses have been included in this paper
(Respondents 1-6). These respondents were provided with interview questions
beforehand (Appendix 10). Respondents 7-11 were not provided with the
questions (Appendix 11). The questions asked on the day (given the semi
structured method), and the responses given, are captured in Appendix 12.
3.3.3 Sample
Eleven individuals from different departments and organisational levels were
selected by the JCT to interview (Appendix 13).
21
3.3.4 Timing
The time lag between interviews 1-6 and 6-11 meant that the first set of
responses shaped the questions posed to the second group.
3.4 Secondary Data
Collateral was used to supplement the conclusions made from primary data
collection. The paper used the following resources:
• The Jumeirah Group Website
• The JCT Website
• The JCT Positioning Statement (Appendix 14)
• The JCT Hallmarks (Appendix 15)
• Jumeirah Group Sales & Marketing Presentation (Appendix 16)
• Guest Satisfaction Index
The External Analysis: Guest Perspectives
3.5 Observation
3.5.1 Rationale
Observation was used to investigate service delivery. It helped uncover insights
that formal approaches may have overlooked (Anderson: 2008). Moreover, semiconcealed
observation limited JCT employees' ability to pre-plan behaviours or
responses.
3.5.2 Design and Process
A semi-concealed method using Interrupted Involvement was employed; only
some employees were aware of my role, I had no continuous longitudinal
involvement and did not participate in work (Easterby-Smith et al: 2013).
Observational data recorded service quality dimensions displayed, and used
guest reactions to assess whether expectations had been met (Appendix 9 and
9b ). Examples of situational control and early encounters were also noted.
The following locations were used:
(i) Lobby Restaurant, Chinoiserie (JCT): This location provided a view of
the hotel entrance, the lobby seating area and the restaurant.
22
(ii) Reception Uumeirah Lowndes Hotel): As a similar standard and
location to the JCT, this property was used. This location provided a
view of the hotel entrance, the lobby and the lobby seating area.
3.5.3 Sample
The attitudes and behaviours of over 100 people were captured.
3.6 Guest Feedback
TripAdvisor rankings are generated from an aggregation of guest opinions. Each
reviewer has the option to rank the property as terrible, poor, average, very good
or excellent. TripAdvisor aims to be credible by ensuring that each reviewer
registers his or her personal details. The ratings on the site are determined by
the quantity, quality and age of reviews. (Buhalis et al: 2002, TripAdvisor
Website: 2014).
3.6.1 Rationale
Properties are reticent to share their guests' experiences given the sensitivity
associated with revealing such information to third-parties. In lieu of this online
travel forums are a powerful tool for analysing guest perceptions (Cohen: 1972,
Plog: 1974). Not only are such sites impartial (do not represent the hotel in
question) but they also provide forums for guests to offer lengthy insights into
their experiences. The ratings given to properties are drawn from personal
experiences, making them in some ways more genuine than data collected by the
hotel (Henng-Thurau etal: 2004).
3.6.2 Design and Process
Ratings and comments were used to identify which dimensions guests
recognised and whether their experience failedfmetjexceeded their
expectations (Appendix 17, and 9).
23
3.6.3 Sample
As of 1st June 2014, the JCT had 325 reviews. This paper used the first 100
reviews. These reviews covered a time period similar to that referred to in
interviews and observation (2013/2014).
3. 7 Data Analysis
3.7.1 Template Analysis
Template Analysis (King: 1998) was used to identify the chosen service quality
dimensions. Pre-determined themes are superimposed onto the data and used to
extrapolate information relevant to the research question. Themes can be
updated as data is analysed. For example, 'Ease of use' was identified (from
collected data) as an important additional theme. This paper's themes were
Reliability, Responsiveness and Tangibility. Template Analysis helped collate the
data to reveal patterns (McNamara: 2009). Conclusions were then drawn about
the differences between espoused and experienced service at the JCT.
3.7.2 Application of Template Analysis
Interviews and observation revealed how management envisioned the service
standards and how junior employees delivered service. The data from
TripAdvisor and observation showed which dimensions guests identified and
their perceptions.
3.7.3 Findings
In particular Template Analysis was used to show:
• Whether the pre-determined dimensions of service quality were
exhibited.
• Whether service delivery failed/met/exceeded guest expectations.
3.7.4 Quality Control
To ensure the quality of content, all conclusions were justified to the Jumeirah
Group (King: 1998). For example, they asked why a reading of an aspect of the
data was preferred to another.
24
3.8 Limitations
3.8.1 Interviews
Semi-structured interviews made categorising responses challenging. Questions
were not always identically worded which meant that sometimes respondents
were not answering the same question (McNamara: 2009). In order to overcome
this, a judgement had to be made on which service dimensions were being
referred to and exactly what the content of the response meant in terms of
service standards at the JCT.
Furthermore, certain respondents became evasive when asked probing
questions. They were conscious of how they were portraying the JCT (especially
true of employees from Sales and Marketing) and others seemed reluctant to
share information. The paper's inability to gain more intimate access and
knowledge was due to the time-constraints of the data collection period. The
superficial rapport established between interviewee and interviewer inhibited
deeper insights (Miller et al: 1999).
3.8.2 TripAdvisor
Non-probability samples like TripAdvisor tend to contain a bias towards those
who are more accessible, i.e. those who use online forums. Therefore, they are
not proportionally representative (Easterby-Smith: 2014). TripAdvisor also
tends to record extreme experiences, either very good or very poor. This can
polarise findings.
Furthermore, this paper made a judgement on which TripAdvsior data was most
relevant and how the paper should relate this data to the selected dimensions.
This was made more challenging by the site's lack of transparency, i.e. they do
not provide the underlying metrics for each rating category.
3.8.3 Subjective Assessments
The research methods and Template Analysis required a subjective reading and
evaluation of the data. It was unavoidable that personal biases and judgments
25
affected the categorisation of content into themes, subsequent analysis and the
conclusions reached (King: 1998).
3.8.4 Ethics
An important ethical consideration was the anonymity of all participants.
Therefore, names and job titles were omitted from transcripts and notes. This
confidentiality allowed respondents to provide honest answers. In some
instances however, the content of answers clearly indicated the role or seniority
of an individual. Such content has been removed to protect the respondents'
identities.
26
4.Findings
4.1 Overview
Interviewsl revealed senior managements' commitment to providing an
anticipatory and consistent service (espoused), i.e. there was recognition of
Reliability, Responsiveness and Tangibility. The hotel stated that since April it
has only received 10 negative comments from 168 surveys. To the contrary
however, this paper identified a significant number of issues with the actual
service provision (experienced). Across the 529 touch points recorded, 1 out of
every 5 encounters was classified as a service failure. Failures related to
Friendliness, Pre-emption and overall Consistency.
4.2 The JCT Perspective
Interviews demonstrated the importance of the selected dimensions to the JCT
and provided an insight into how senior management communicated these
dimensions to junior employees.
4.2.1 Responsiveness
Senior management described Friendliness (Appendix 9) and Pre-emption as
defining features of the hotel's service provision. Competence, or knowledge of
guests, is an important antecedent to these factors because it allows employees
to build positive relationships and pre-empt needs.
• The JCT's approach to Friendliness is informal, welcoming, and relaxed.
The objective is to create an 'effortless' experience akin to a 'home away
from home.'
• To ensure guest needs are pre-empted formal policies such as the
Hallmarks (Appendix 15), pre-stay questionnaires and guest CVs exist.
• Examples of intuitive hospitality included a guest's empty toothpaste
being replaced, without being prompted, and left in the bathroom with a
small note. Another involved a guest's button being sewed back onto his
coat while he ate his meal.
1 See Appendix 18 for detailed breakdown of Findings
27
4.2.2 Reliability
A personalised and consistent service is seen as crucial to customer retention
and is ensured through both formal and informal policies. Consistency issues
arose only when guests compared the JCT to the Burj AI Arab, claiming that the
former has smaller rooms and less opulent surroundings. When these Tangibility
factors were perceived as lacking. guest dissatisfaction ensued.
• Senior management encourage long-term personal relationship building.
This is facilitated by a large percentage oflong-serving front-line
employees, who are familiar with regular guests' needs.
• Guest preferences are stored on a database, which employees can use to
customise their service.
• Examples of intuitive hospitality included accommodating a guest's desire
to have his turndown service at sunset everyday and requesting the
Concierge in Dubai to purchase a JCT guest's favourite aftershave (only
available at Dubai Airport's Duty Free counter) and send it to London.
• The standardised aspect of service is monitored through Individual
Training Reports which detail managements' expectations, e.g. offer guest
a menu within 1 minute of seating them.
4.2.3 Preferential Treatment
The JCT has a high number of repeat guests ( 45-50%), i.e. anyone who has
previously stayed at JCT, with some having visited the hotel over 100 times (Choi
eta!: 2001). Although regarded as a positive attribute, 2 respondents warned of
the dangers associated with giving repeat guests preferential treatment at the
expense of new guests.
4.2.4 Tangibility
Every respondent (9 out of 11) who mentioned Tangibility factors (such as the
gym and pool) described them as unique. However, when asked to select the
major contributors to superior service standards respondents focussed on
factors pertaining to Responsiveness and Reliability.
• Negative comments included room/bathroom sizes and smell on smoking
floors.
28
• Positive comments included guests feeling safe and appreciating the
facilities, e.g. the gym.
4.2.5 Perceived Situational Control
During busy periods, management felt that guests were content to wait, i.e. it was
within their Zones of Tolerance. Although limited measures exist to mitigate
waiting, management did not express concern about wait times being perceived
as service failures.
• Some measures exist, e.g. Guest Relations performing Reception
functions.
• Repeat guests did not generally mind waiting (for up to an hour for a
table at the Chinoiserie and a few minutes for the Concierge) because they
knew that they would get an employee's full attention when attended to.
However, a few instances a month were noted where guests got tired or
annoyed so left.
4.2.6 Front of house vs. Back of house
One respondent identified the trade off between three organisational objectives:
operational efficiency (back of house), one guest's satisfaction and all guests'
satisfaction. In order to satisfy one, another may be compromised. For example if
a repeat guest is given a lot of attention, other guests may feel neglected.2
4.2. 7 Observations
9 out of the 11 respondents were friendly and open. The 2 employees who were
less forthcoming with their answers occupied non-client facing roles. They
seemed uncomfortable and in a hurry to leave. This might be attributed to a lack
of client-facing training and busy schedules.
4.3 The Guest Perspective
Observation and TripAdvisor data revealed that most guests identified the
selected dimensions of service quality. However, TripAdvisor computed that
2 Although beyond the scope of this paper, this illustrates a valuable potential area of research for
the)CT.
29
13% of statements reflected service failures whilst observation found that 41%
of encounters similarly failed expectations. The majority of these failures were
during early encounters and with regard to Pre-emption and Friendliness.
4.4 Observational Data: JCT Lobby Restaurant (Chinoiserie)
4.4.1 Encounters and Expectations Recorded
Expectations
Dimension Failed Met Exceeded
Reliability 1 0 4
Responsiveness 22 3 25
Tangibility 3 4 6
Total per 26 7 35
expectation
Total per
dimension
5
50
13
68
The table above outlines, out of 68 encounters, how many related to which
dimension and the number that failedfmetfexceeded expectations.
4.4.2 Dimensions: Responsiveness
Encounters and Service Quality Dimensions
Reliability
7%
Tangibility
19%

I~
Responsiveness
74%
Dimension Encounters
Reliability 5
Responsiveness so
Tangibility 13
30
Responsiveness was the most frequently recorded dimension with service
encounters relating to Friendliness and employees' abilities to respond quickly
occurring 38 times.
4.4.3 Expectations
Portion of Encounters that Failed/Met/
Exceeded Expectations
Expectation Failed Met Exceeded
Encounter 26 7 35
Over one third of observed encounters (38%) failed expectations. Of these the
majority were attributed to Responsiveness; staffwere often unsmiling and the
Restaurant entrance was largely unattended leaving guests wandering in and out
without being welcomed or bid farewell to. Although none of these instances
constituted serious failures some guests with smaller Zones of Tolerance (given
the hotel's status) may evaluate such inadequacies harshly.
Pre-emption, a key service objective, was only captured in 2 encounters, neither
of which exceeded expectations.
4.4.4 Perceived Situational Control
Situations arose where guests were required to wait Although they did not seem
dissatisfied, in a few instances the wait was more than 10 minutes and with no
refreshments offered.
31
The longer wait times seemed to be exacerbated by the layout of the Lobby;
seating was concealed from the Reception/Concierge so waiting guests could not
easily be spotted. However, given the layout of the space this is difficult to
change.
4.5 Observational Data: Jumeirah Lowndes Hotel, Reception
4.5.1 Encounters and Expectations Recorded
Expectations
Dimension Failed Met Exceeded
Reliability 8 1 4
Responsiveness 26 6 33
Tangibility 1 1 3
Total per 35 8 40
expectation
Total per
dimension
13
65
5
83
The table above outlines, out of 83 encounters, how many related to which
dimension and the number that failedjmetjexceeded expectations.
4.5.2 Dimensions: Responsiveness
Encounters and Service Quality Dimensions
Tangibility
6% -
RelllllllltiJ
1ft
Responsiveness
78%
Dimension Encounters
Reliability 13
Responsiveness 65
Tangibility 5
32
Responsiveness was the most salient dimension (by frequency) with a particular
focus on the sub-dimension of Friendliness (34 ofthe 65 encounters).
4.5.3 Expectations
Portion of Encounters that Failed/Met/
Exceeded Expectations
Expectation Failed Met Exceeded
Encounter 35 8 40
A high percentage ( 42%) of encounters failed expectations. The vast majority of
these (74%) were in Responsiveness. Employees frequently failed to greet or bid
farewell to guests or did not assist them with bags or luggage.
4.5.4 Perceived Situational Control
There were periods where the Reception (and Lobby area) were busy, with
guests sometimes seated for long periods with no updates or attention.
Queues for the receptions formed on a regular basis leaving guests reconciled to
wait.
The layout of the Lobby did not facilitate employee attentiveness; reading
materials were not displayed close to seating areas and some of the seating was
concealed. This inhibited employees from identifying waiting guests. The Lobby
at the JCT also contained no technological distractions for guests, e.g. iPads or
fastWi-Fi.
33
4.6 TripAdvisor Data
4.6.1 Encounters and Expectations Recorded3
Expectations
Dimension Failed Met Exceeded Total per
dimension
Reliability 3 8 42 53
Responsiveness 4 19 87 110
Tangibility 14 23 177 214
Total per 21 50 306 377
expectation
The table above outlines, out of 377 statements analysed, how many related to
which dimension and the number that failed/met/exceeded expectations.
4.6.2 Dimensions
Most Frequently Cited Service Quality
Dimensions
~~ Reliability
- 14%
Tangibility
57% Responsiveness
29%

-
Dimension Encounters
Reliability 53
Responsiveness 110
Tangibility 214
N/A 1
3 One service encounter, recorded as an N fA, has been excluded from this table but appears in all
subsequent analysis for completeness.
34
From the sample of 100,99 people referred to one or more of the chosen
dimensions. Tangibility was the most salient dimension (by frequency) with
reviewers most frequently discussing Cleanliness and the Design and finish of
room (74 and 73 statements respectively, Appendix 19).
Consistency of standard was mentioned 36 times (Reliability) and Friendliness
64 times (Responsiveness). 'Momentous encounters' were also recorded where
guests were so delighted by the personalised service they received, e.g.
Respondent SO (Appendix 23), it shaped their entire evaluation.
Only 2 references were made to pre-emptive behaviour. This is a very small
number considering the level of importance attributed to this by the JCT.
4.6.3 Expectations
Portion of Encounters that Failed/Met/
N/A Exceeded Expectations
0%
Expectations
Exceeded
Met
Failed
N/A
Met
6%
Statements
306
21
so
1
Overall, the JCT regularly metfexceeded expectations (87%) with Cleanliness
receiving the highest number of positive ratings (67 statements).
35
Service failures were noted with the Design and finish of rooms (Tangibility).
Comments claimed the rooms were too small, noisy and sometimes contained a
stench of smoke. With an equal number of failures (8) Friendliness-related
remarks stated that employees in the Rib Room were 'military'-like, 'surly' and
'non-smiling/ the Doormen failed to remember guest names and issues arose
with Housekeeping and the Front Desk. Remedial action may be more feasible
with Friendliness as Tangibility changes require more time and financial
investment.
4.6.3 Early Encounters and Expectations
Portion of Encounters that Failed/Met/
Exceeded Expectations
Expectations
Exceeded
Met
Failed
Met
4%
Statements
46
3
18
The importance of early encounters was evident by the 67 statements that
referred to them (18% of total). Of these, 69% exceeded expectations whilst
27% failed them.
• Guests claimed that they faced long wait times to check in.
• Allocating a smoking room to a non-smoker, downgrading a frequent
guest and failing to input pre-selected preferences into the system.
• Doormen were sometimes unsmiling.
36
4. 7 Secondary Data
Secondary data (Appendix 14 and 15) supported senior managements' espoused
service standards, i.e. intuitive hospitality, which is pre-emptive, friendly and
genuine.
The Guest Satisfaction Index enabled this paper to understand some of the key
areas monitored by the JCT /luxury industry. It captures information such as staff
competency and helpfulness as well as ease of use (in 4 places), i.e. how easy
things were to operate.
Marketing collateral showed that the JCT is positioned as part of a much broader
group of hotels, the jumeirah Group (Appendix 16).
4.8 Service Failures
The data revealed differences in the number of service failures recorded and the
methods used:
• More service failures were recorded through observation ( 41 %) than
from TripAdvisor (13%). This might be because online reviewers have
larger Zones of Tolerance, e.g. they are new to the property, or have lower
expectations. It may also be because observational data was more
explicitly benchmarked against the )CT's espoused standards and thus
highlighted more failures (Appendix 20)
• The discrepancy in the number of service failures recorded by this paper
(21 %), and those by the Guest Satisfaction Index (6%), might be because
guests are more forgiving than assumed. Furthermore, the paper only
identified minor failures. Guests may be willing to discount such incidents
in their overall evaluations.4
4.9 Conclusion
Although, the )CT successfully identifies the elements of service required to
satisfy guests, it is unable to consistently achieve its espoused service delivery
• Although beyond the scope of this paper, this represents an area of potential benefit for the JCT.
Understanding different levels of failure, and guests' tolerance to them, can help improve service
delivery.
37
standards and exceed guest expectations. For a hotel of its calibre, it has
demonstrated more service failures than expected (21 %, Appendix 21 ). This
suggests that certain dimensions of its service provision require more attention.
38
5. Conclusions
The JCT's management team recognise the importance of Responsiveness,
Reliability and Tangibility, and make a conscious effort to practice these
dimensions (espoused). Despite this however, guests have experienced a
significant number of service failures across each dimension ( 40% of Observed
encounters and 13% of TripAdvisor statements failed expectations.)
Figure 1 summarises the key areas referred to and ranks them according to
relative importance (measured by both frequency and relative importance). The
literature does not offer rankings of these dimensions.
Literature
Reliability
Responsiveness
Tangibility
Service
Dimensions

/r Employees "
1. Pre-empting needs
" r Guests "
(Responsiveness) 1.Cleanliness, Design and
2. Consistency (Reliability)
layout (Taogibility)
2. Friendliness
3. Friendliness/Helpfulness (Responsiveness)
(Responsiveness)
3. Consistency (Reliability)
Facilities (Tangibility)

' 4. Personalised Service (Reliability) .I

5
" 4. Ease of use .)

Figure 1: Dimensions referred to (ranked by emphasis and frequency)

5.1 Responsiveness: Pre-empting needs
The]CT
Portrayed as one of its defining features, senior management are clear in their
desire to provide all guests with an anticipatory service (secondary data
supports this). Observation however, revealed a discrepancy between the JCT's
s The existence of pre-loaded TripAdvisor ratings for Cleanliness and Rooms contributed
significantly to the frequency of Tangibility factors under 'Guests'.
39
articulated standards and its service delivery, as very few instances of such
behaviour were recorded (GAP 2,3 or 4, Appendix 4).
The Guest
One would assume that expectations would be particularly high given the JCT's
number of repeat guests, each of whom would expect their needs to be noted and
accommodated on each stay. However, the small number of recorded references
suggests that pre-emption either doesn't occur often, or it doesn't seem to
register with guests.
Where it was noted, the following factors affected pre-emption:
• During peak times pre-emptive behaviour was compromised. This was
noticeable in the Lobby Restaurant and Reception. Employees were too
busy responding to requests to greet or assist new entrants or those
waiting.
• Longevity of staff and thus their competence enabled greater levels of preemption.
Longer serving employees were better able to understand the
hotel's demographic and repeat guests' needs (Heskett et al: 1993,
Appendix 2). Although efforts are made to pass preferences on to newer
employees, those who already have a rapport with guests were far better
placed to accurately pre-empt needs.
Overall, the JCT appears to make an active and sustained effort to encourage preemption
but a definitive conclusion cannot be reached on whether these efforts
meet or exceed guest expectations. Further investigation needs to be undertaken
into guest definitions of pre-emption, whether guests recognise pre-emption but
do not see it as a defining feature or whether they simply expect such service and
therefore do not highlight it (TripAdvisor). The data collected, and the
frameworks employed by this paper, do not provide sufficient insight.
40
5.2 Responsiveness: Friendliness
The]CT
Friendliness was considered vital to service quality and was one of the most
frequently cited sub-dimensions across all interviews. Senior managers
espoused an informal, chatty and welcoming approach. This was framed as the
best way to establish a personal and long-term relationship with guests. The
volume of repeat guests at the property has contributed to this approach,
encouraging employees to be familiar and relaxed.
The Guest
The JCT's desire to promote Friendliness was matched by the frequency with
which guests referred to this dimension when asked about their stay. An
assessment of guest perceptions however, revealed several service failures ( 41%
of all Friendliness encounters failed expectations).
The following factors affected levels of Friendliness:
• At busier locations and times JCT employees appeared less friendly, e.g.
the Doorman smiled less when the )CT entrance was busy.
• Repeat guests seemed to be constantly talking to employees, perhaps
leaving new guests feeling slightly excluded. This is inevitable given the
nature of some employee-guest relationships. Nevertheless, the JCT must
be wary of allowing such behaviours at the expense of non-regular
guests.
• Some guests did not seem keen to engage in conversation, which led to
employees adjusting their behaviour accordingly.
• Troublesome guests, (e.g. those who are rude, particularly impatient or do
not follow simple requests) are more likely to attribute service failures
extrinsically, onto JCT employees.
The GAP Model provides an insight into some of the causes and antecedents of
these service failures:
• As highlighted by GAP 1, an inability to consistently exceed expectations
of Friendliness might be explained by an inaccurate understanding of the
41
target market. A misreading of preferences will result in an inappropriate
approach to Friendliness. For example, guests may find JCT employees
overly friendly.
• On the other hand GAP 2 would suggest that the JCT's shortcoming might
be in translating market research into protocols. The property
understands its demographic but is unable to devise a relevant set of
specifications that reflect this, e.g. senior management understand that
Middle Eastern guests liked to be greeted with a refreshment, but the
employees meeting them have not been instructed to provide any.
• Additionally, the application of GAP 2 might reveal that in the JCT's desire
to ensure 'intuitive hospitality' it has encouraged employees to be friendly
and offer a personalised service at the expense of standardisation.
Although useful in helping employees respond to unconventional
scenarios and build a positive rapport with guests, the JCT might have
overlooked the need to direct employee behaviour.
As an organisation of 400 employees rules and protocols regulate
behaviour and moderate guest expectations. In some instances, minute
details may even need to be formally communicated to junior employees,
e.g. what exactly to say to a guest waiting to check-in. A basic framework
for employee behaviour, coupled with some leeway within these
parameters, will help ensure consistency, e.g. requiring employees to
avoid saying no, but not dictating the alternatives they present to guests.
Overall, Friendliness was one of the most salient sub-dimensions (by frequency
and emphasis) amongst both the JCT and its guests. Although senior
management confidently articulate their approach to Friendliness (espoused),
further efforts need to be made to ensure that the service provision
(experienced) is in sync with guest expectations.
42
5.3 Reliability: Consistency
The]CT
For the JCT, the term consistency refers to:
I. Maintaining service standards across all encounters within the
property.
II. Ensuring guests receive the same standard of service on multiple
visits.
III. Providing a standard of service in line with other Jumeirah hotels.
All department heads must adhere to the same protocols but they are free to
communicate and embody these standards within their teams as they see fit.
Such scope can raise challenges for all three aspects of Consistency and for
Reliability in general.
The Guest
When assessed over multiple stays (II), the JCT's large number of loyal
customers implies consistency in service standards. If the JCT was unable to
deliver a high standard repeatedly guests would not return (9 out of every 10
TripAdvisor statements alluding to Consistency expressed a desire to return to a
Jumeirah property). This is a commendable feat as repeat guests probably have
higher expectations and smaller Zones of Tolerance than non-regulars because
they expect an experience similar, if not better, than their previous ones.
Employees demonstrated service failures in I and III. The hotel has struggled to
consistently exceed expectations during early encounters (see section 5.5). With
regard to III, negative guest feedback resulted from guest comparisons between
the JCT and its sister hotels, especially the Burj al Arab. Although the JCT
responds to such grievances, it recognises that its overall service experience is
unlikely to ever rival that of the Burj, e.g. the Burj's rooms are larger, the decor is
more opulent and the building is iconic.
Furthermore, guests who frequent Jumeirah's Middle Eastern properties, or look
at competitor hotels in the region, tend to have higher expectations of service.
43
This is because the region is particularly renowned for world-class service
standards. The challenge for the JCT is when guests with such lofty standards fail
to adjust (by lowering) their expectations when visiting a London property (GAP
4).
Overall, Consistency in standard is an on-going issue for the )CT given its luxury
status and its position within a broader Group. The JCT has a high repeat guest
factor for a property with an overall service failure rate of 20%. This suggests
that repeat guests' expectations are perhaps met during service delivery or that
repeat guests are not the ones experiencing the service failures. Attention should
continue to be given to all elements of Consistency but a particular focus should
be placed on I and II as these are property specific.
5.4 Tangibility
The]CT
The JCT prides itself on its Tangibility factors; they were a recurrent theme with
specific attention given to the leisure facilities as key differentiators. However,
the hotel recognises that these factors do not lead to superior service standards.
This is because:
• GAP 1 shows that guests do not specifically associate Tangibility with
superior service. When referencing guest feedback, employees
interviewed focussed on adjectives linked to Responsiveness and
Reliability (e.g. friendly and courteous).
• Alternatively, GAP 2 demonstrates that in practice the )CT places little
emphasis on modifying the size of bedrooms/bathrooms or the finish of
rooms, in comparison to other service dimensions. In fact, employees
described other jumierah Group properties as more iconic and spacious.
The Guest
TripAdvisor recognised Tangibility as the most frequently cited dimension. This
can be partially explained by pre-loaded ratings on the site. Each reviewer is
asked to provide ratings for Cleanliness and Rooms when they write a review.
This increases the likelihood of these sub-dimensions being mentioned. It was
44
also noted that the majority of reviews that included these ratings, did not
include written comments about Tangibility. Where comments were included
reviewers tended to focus on other elements of service, e.g. the friendliness of
staff.
The majority of guest expectations were met or exceeded with regard to
Tangibility (89%). In 12 of the 19 instances where comments were made, and
expectations failed, guests referred to the finish and size of rooms/bathrooms,
the smell of smoke and noise. The )CT are sympathetic to such complaints but
stated that changes to room sizes are not possible given the location and
structure of the property. In addition, traffic noises are only experienced on the
ground floor and infrequently.
Overall, Tangibility is not a determinant of superior service standards at the )CT.
Tangibility components are hygiene factors; guests complained about the lack of
Tangibility factors when they were absent but when they were present,
exceptional evaluations focussed on other dimensions.
5.5 Early Encounters
The]CT
The failure of senior management to mention early points of contact, as crucial to
overall guest satisfaction, provides some evidence that the )CT's service delivery
does not give special attention to such encounters.
The Guest
Guests however did notice early encounters; 18% of all TripAdvisor statements
referred to them. Moreover, 38% of all the TripAdvisor statements that failed
expectations referenced encounters with the Doorman, Bell Boy and Reception
staff (check-in process). Observational data provided examples of the way in
which early encounters were managed.
45
The following factors affected the management of early encounters:
• Doorman friendliness or the way in which guests were spoken to or
greeted played an important role in framing subsequent service
evaluations.
• Employees' abilit;y to recognise regular guests, i.e. repeat guests were
greeted by name and their past preferences were noted and pre-arranged.
• Perceived situational control was most evident at the Reception. Factors
such as wait times and how guests were kept occupied while waiting
(refreshments, magazines etc.) influenced satisfaction levels.
• Accuracy and attention to detail during check-in influenced guest
perceptions of employee competence, e.g. important guest details noted
on the system and pre-stay requests acknowledged. Being accurate also
reduced waiting time, allowing guests to be taken up to their rooms
promptly.
The GAP model provides some insight into why the JCT is unable to regularly
meet/exceed expectations during early encounters.
• The JCT may have overlooked GAP 1 by failing to appreciate the
importance of early encounters to guests. This would explain why
espoused service standards did not mention early touch points.
• As shown in GAP 2, failed expectations might be caused by a lack of
attention to early encounters. The JCT may not have a specific set of
protocols that govern and standardise employee behaviour during early
encounters. Some guests may be privy to a highly attentive and warm
service whilst others may feel unnoticed and unwelcomed. Guests value
these early encounters and those who do not receive special attention
during this period are likely feel disappointed with the JCT's service.
• Alternatively, the JCT might recognise the importance of early encounters
(espoused) but the protocols designed to manage them may be
insufficient or not recognised by guests (GAP 3). Guests are therefore, left
feeling dissatisfied with the service (experienced).
46
Overall, the JCT does not consistently meet expectations during early encounters.
If more attention is given to guests' first few touch points this could increase the
likelihood of positive service evaluations.
5.6 Perceived Situational Control
The]CT
To manage how guests respond to wait times the JCT adopts a combination of
formal and informal measures, as well as relying on the good will ofits repeat
guests. Neither senior nor junior employees identified waiting as a key concern.
The Guest
Observation supported this thesis; although neither venue is designed to
accommodate waiting guests repeat visitors appeared content to wait, i.e. this
was either within their original Zones of Tolerance or the Zone had expanded to
accept a lower standard as adequate. However, nonꞏ regular guests may have
higher expectations when it comes to waiting, and fewer distractions in the form
of chatting to familiar employees or reading newspaper /magazines.
Overall, GAP 1 suggests that wait times should be a consideration for the JCT.
Repeat guests may display higher levels of patience but this should not be relied
on. New guests are less likely to wait, having not experienced the JCT's service
before. Thus, efforts should be made to find ways to reduce or mitigate wait
times.
5. 7 Guest Behaviour: The JCT and the Guest
JCT guests contributed to their own service experience. When guests were
willing to ask for assistance or to check whether services were available (instead
of assuming they were not) their service assessment was higher. This conclusion
can be supported by the GAP Model:
• GAP 4 suggests that whilst the JCT promises 'intuitive hospitality' its
guests need to be equally intuitive in order to understand everything on
offer. There are a range of services, though not explicitly stated, that are
available, e.g. procuring tickets to exclusive concerts or events. By
47
specifically requesting such services, guests will find that the JCT can
accommodate more than they might have assumed. A pertinent example
might be the pre-stay questionnaire. By receiving this prior to the guest's
stay the JCT can pre-empt and accommodate guest needs. Failure to
complete this can lead to frustration when guests are asked the same
questions at check-in.
Observational data concluded that when guests engaged with employees they
tended to evaluate their service experience more positively. In fact it is such
personal connections that led to momentous encounters, i.e. an event that
eclipsed all other encounters and shaped the service assessment, resulting in
very positive service evaluations.
The JCT must find a more effective mechanism to let guests know that it is able to
satisfy most requests (GAP 4). This may involve leaving a note on the bed
welcoming guests to contact the Concierge for any assistance or providing
examples of additional services offered. A focus on early encounters and rapport
building will also encourage guest proactivity.
Overall, this paper suggests that the JCT should aim to create an environment
where guests are encouraged to ask for help. This will not only allow the
property to showcase its abilities but will enable guests to be proactive and
positive, thus improving the chances of a superior service evaluation.
5.8 Ease of Use
Respondents stated that their objective was to provide guests with a comfortable
and effortless experience. A similar sentiment, ease of use, was also measured in
various parts of the Guest Satisfaction Index. This sub-dimension implies
efficiency, reduced waiting times and lower levels of confusion/frustration.
This paper did not set out to identify this sub-dimension because the literature
used did not explicitly refer to it. However, the evidence suggests it is an
important consideration for the JCT's management.
48
5.9 Conclusion
This paper concludes that the JCT does espouse the key dimensions of service
quality and has, on average, succeeded in practicing these dimensions
(experienced) to a high standard. However, service failures have been noted
across all of the dimensions assessed with some leading to more serious
consequences than others.
GAP 1 GAP2
1. The )IT understands the relative importance of 1. There is senior level commitment to translating
Reliability, Respoii!!iveness and Tangibility. service requirements into practice.
2. Places too little emphasis on early encounters. or 2. This commitment however, does not always
wait times. translate into appropriate employee behaviours.
GAP4- GAP3
1. The )IT works hard to keep the promises made to 1. There is a conscious effort made to train/re-train
guests. staff to ensure consistenly high quality service.
2. This can be challenging when part of a larger Group 2. The human element of service provision makes being
and when guests fail to play their part consistent a challenge.
Figure 2: The JCT and the GAP Model
49
6. Recommendations
To address the shortcomings noted, this paper proposes a set of
recommendations designed to focus attention on early encounters, enable the
)CT to develop a truly pre-emptive and personalised service and help the
property avoid wait times.
6.1 Early Encounters
Identify the problem (GAP 1, GAP 2)
Early encounters are important because they disproportionately influence
service evaluations and because positive early experiences may lead to a greater
willingness (by guests) to disregard subsequent failures as 'freak incidents.'
The )CT should therefore, review all guest feedback (including online) with a
particular focus on early encounters. This exercise will address and inform any
potential knowledge gap between guest expectations and management
perceptions. The frequency of references to early encounters will prove the
importance of these exchanges for guests. Analysis should then be conducted to
understand what guests liked and disliked. This data should be used to direct
learning and development.
Any decision to focus on early encounters however must recognise that doing so
might increase guests' expectations for the remainder of their stay. Therefore, if
the )CT can successfully communicate and demonstrate its service excellence
during early encounters (GAP 4) it must also meet subsequent expectations.
Engage in specialised training (GAP 3)
A training programme should be designed to address any policy gaps in current
service protocols. )CT frontꞏ line employees would benefit from a holistic
approach consisting of verbal and non-verbal guidance. Non-verbal cues such as
body language play an important role in framing guest perceptions. For example,
maintaining eye contact and smiling at appropriate times can alleviate guests'
frustrations.
so
Special attention may need to be paid to guests who arrive at the property
unhappy or stressed. Such individuals will require more time investment, higher
levels of competence and greater tolerance on the part of employees. If these
guests can be dealt with efficiently and courteously both the guests' mood and
the subsequent service evaluation could benefit.
It may be necessary to choreograph initial interactions (whilst teaching
employees to sound genuine and spontaneous.) Furthermore, senior
management should conduct frequent observation and informal departmental
checks, especially when the hotel is busy.
Don't greet a guest empty handed (GAP 2)
Another effective policy may involve greeting guests with a refreshment,
cold/hot towel or a snack. Such minor additions can help pre-empt guest
requests and provide a useful distraction while they wait. Guests' moods will
improve as their thirst is quenched and their appetites satiated. This leaves them
in a better frame of mind when consuming and rating subsequent services.
Remember that early encounters don't end at check-in (GAP 1)
First impressions don't end at the Reception; escorting the guest to their room
and the room itself matter too. The JCT must double-check guests have the room
they expect, ensure their luggage is brought up promptly and assign an employee
to escort them up. Tangibility factors such as the cleanliness, design and state of
the furniture and the smell in the room also influence early encounters.
Additional (and personalised where possible) 'goodies' should be left in the
room, e.g. a welcome note, a hamper or a bottle of wine. Personalisation may also
include a gift to mark a special occasion.
51
6.2 Pre-Emption
Focus on the guest (GAP 1, GAP 4)
The JCT may benefit from periodic reviews of how it interprets and practices
pre-emptive service in relation to guest expectations. The property must find
alignment between hotel and guest conceptions of anticipatory service, i.e. the
promises the )CT makes must be both feasible but also relevant to its guests'
needs. This exercise would involve in-depth market research of what guests
recognise and look for. Once understood, the )CT must communicate this to its
target market in an honest and effective manner.
6.3 Friendliness
Understand which guest wants what (GAP 1 & 2)
)CT employees must remember to 'read' each guest and adapt accordingly. How
guests are spoken to and treated depends on several factors including guests'
nationalities, preferences and personalities. Longer-serving employees have
more experience in gauging preferences from superficial cues as well as building
stronger personal relationships. Operating protocols should also include
collecting, updating and disseminating guest profiles regularly and requesting
the profiles of guests who have stayed at other jumeirah properties. Technology
will play an important role in capturing such information and using it to build
efficient and accessible databases.
Combine intuitive hospitality with some structure (GAP 2)
Senior management must strike a balance between allowing employees to act as
they see fit and training, monitoring and providing feedback A degree of
spontaneity and empowerment must be built into service protocols. For
example, the )CT may send out periodic bulletins with updates on the jumeirah
Group. Employees can use this information (at their discretion) to make polite
conversation with guests. In other instances, service behaviour may be
influenced by more specific requests, e.g. during Ramadan employees should
refrain from pre-emptively offering Middle Eastern guests refreshments during
the day or seating them near a display off pastries while they wait to check-in.
52
6.4 Perceived Situational Control
Avoid wait times (GAP 1)
Although not yet a pressing concern for the JCT, the hotel should remain vigilant
about wait times. Average guest waiting times during busy periods should be
logged and distractions provided to alleviate lack of perceived control, e.g. lobby
music, seating, magazines, iPads etc.
53
7. Limitations and Future Research
This section outlines the key limitations faced in the collection and analysis of
data (as opposed to methodological limitations listed earlier). Modifications and
extensions are suggested for future research.
7.1 Peak Times
Observational data was collected during quieter times because it was easier to
secure agreement from the client.
If afforded the opportunity, an observation of the JCT during peak hours, e.g. a
busy check-in period. This would provide an insight into the JCT's ability to
maintain a high standard of service whilst under pressure. This would be
particularly interesting given the high number of service failures recorded
during quiet times.
7.2 Larger Sample Size
This paper was unable to collect data from a large sample because a significant
amount of time was spent arranging interviews, accommodating schedules and
waiting for responses.
A larger sample size would enable more accurate conclusions to be drawn.
In particular, more opinions from different organisational levels would reveal
any potential discrepancies between senior managements' espoused service
standards and junior employees' service delivery.
7.3 Guest Feedback
The JCTwas unable to provide primary guest data or accommodate guest access.
Future research would benefit from contact with former or regular guests.
Although understandably difficult for the JCT to organise, an impartial third
party (such as myself) is in a powerful position to pose relevant and probing
questions, the type of questions that the JCT could never ask but would benefit
greatly from the answers.
54
7.4 Timeframe
This paper was completed over the Summer of 2014; a relatively short period to
fully delve into the complexities of a business of 400 employees. Moreover,
observational data was only captured from a particular season (Summer) and a
particular time (mornings).
If extended, a longitudinal study, which explores standards at different times of
the day, week and year, would provide a detailed account of how the )CT
performs in different contexts and periods.
7.5 A Group-wide study
Data could be taken from other properties for examination and comparison
purposes, e.g. one could compare the )CT with another European property or
with the flagship Dubai hotels.
Such an investigation requires cultural and social norms to be considered, more
data to be collected and deeper analyses to be conducted. This would help the
jumeirah Group assess the practice and consistency of service standards across
various properties.
7.6 Technology
This paper did not explore the role that technology plays in facilitating the
service experience at the )CT.
An extension of this paper could assess the type of technology used, how it is
employed and what impact it has on service standards and evaluations at the
property.
7.7 Conclusion
Given the limitations outlined above, this paper has endeavoured to provide a
fair and insightful account of service standards at the )CT. The hope is that the
conclusions and recommendations offered may contribute to the )CT's possible
future learning and development.
55
References
Adler, M.J. (1981 ). Six Great Ideas. Macmillan: New York.
Anderson, C. (2012). The Impact of Social Media on Lodging Performance. Cornell
University Centre for Hospitality Research, 12;15.
Anderson, C. Zeithaml, V. (1984). Stage of the Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and
Business Performance. Academy of Management journal, 27, pp 5-24.
Anderson, L.M. (2008). 'Participant Observation,' in R. Thorpe and R. Holt (eds), The
Sage Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research. London: Sage, pp 150-2.
Barnett, V. (1991). Sample Survey: Principles & Methods. Edward Arnold: Great Britain.
Bateson, J. (1977). Do We Need Service Marketing? In Marketing Consumer Services: New
Insights, Marketing Science Institute, pp 77-115.
BBC Magazine Website (2010). Hotel star ratings: to infinity and beyond.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8603430.stm
Beaujean, M. Davidson, J. Madge, S. (2006). The 'moment of truth' in customer service.
McKinsey Quarterly.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/the moment of truth in customer s
ervice
Berry, L. (1980). Service Marketing is Different Business, pp 24-29.
Bitner, M.J. Booms, B. (1994). Critical service encounters: the employees' view. journal of
Marketing, 58; 4, pp 95-106.
Bitner, M.j. Brown, S. Meuter, M. (2000). Technology Infusion in Service Encounters
journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28;1, pp 138-149.
Bitner. M,J. (1995). Building service relationships: it's all about promises. journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23; 4, pp 246-51.
56
Brogowicz, A., Delene, L. Lyth, D. (1990), A synthesised service quality model with
managerial implications. Intemational]ournal of Service Industry Management,1;1, pp.
27-44.
Brown, S. Swartz, T. (1989). A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality. journal of
Marketing, 53, pp 92-98.
Buhalis, D. Licata, M. (2002).The future eTourism intermediaries. Tourism Management,
23, pp 207-220.
Chandan, J-L. Leo, P-Y. Philippe, j. (1997). Service encounter dimensions- a dyadic
perspective measuring the dimensions of service encounters as perceived by customers
and personnel. International journal of Service Industry Management, 8;1, pp 65-86.
Choi, T. Chu, R. Determinants of hotel guests' satisfaction and repeat patronage in the
Hong Kong hotel industry. International journal of Hospitality Management, 20; 3, pp
277-297.
Cohen, E. (1972). Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research, 39, pp
64-82.
Cronin, j. Taylor, A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension.
journal of Marketing, 56; 3, pp 55-68.
Dabholkar, P. Shepherd, C. Thorpe, D. (2000). A comprehensive framework for service
quality: an investigation of critical conceptual and measurement issues through a
longitudinal study. journal of Retailing, 76;2, pp 131-9.
Datar, R. Chowdry, B (2010). A. Hotel star ratings: to infinity and beyond.
http:/ fwww.ida.liu.sej-stehofundfhtdd01/1080160103.pdf
Dellarocas, C. (2003). The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of
online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49;10, pp 1407-1424.
57
Digital Luxury Group. (2013). First World Luxury Index. Partnership between the
International Herald Tribune & Ecole hoteliere de Lausanne.
http://www.wtmlondon.com/librarv 2/9621070 assocPDF.pdf
Easterby-Smith, M. Thorpe, R. jackson, P. (2013). Management Research (4"' Edition].
London: Sage, pp 145-50.
Edvardsson, B. Gustafsson, A. Roos, I. (2005). Service Portraits in Service Research: A
Critical Review. International]oumal of Service Industry Management,16;1, pp 107-121.
Euromonitor International. (2012]. Luxury Travel: Experiencing the Best. Pp 1-7.
Four Seasons Website. About Us
Page.http:/ fwww.fourseasons.comfabouVour_seasonsfservice-culturef
Frost, F. Kumar, M. (2000). "INTSERVQUAL: an internal adaptation of the GAP model in a
large service organization. journal of Services Marketing, 14; 5, pp. 358-77.
Gale, B. (1992). Monitoring customer satisfaction and market-perceived quality.
American Marketing Association Worth Repeating Series, no 922C501.
Garvin, David A. (1983), "Quality on the Line," Harvard Business Review, 61 (SeptemberOctober),
65-73.
Getty,). Getty, R. (2003]. Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers' perceptions
of quality delivery. International journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,15;2,
pp 94-104.
Getty,). Getty, R. (2003]. Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers' perceptions
of quality delivery. International journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,15;2,
pp 94-104.
Gotlieb, ). Grewal, D. Brown, S. (1994). Consumer Satisfaction and Perceived Quality:
Complementary or Divergent Constructs? journal of Applied Psychology, 79;6, pp 875-
885.
58
Gremler, D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. journal of Service
Research, 7, pp 65-89.
Gretzel, U. Yoo, K. (2008). Information and communication technologies in tourism,
Springer: New York, pp 35-46.
Gunn, H. (2002]. Web-based surveys: changing the survey process. First Monday, 7; 12.
Gupta, S. Zeithami, V. (2006]. Customer metrics and their impact on financial
performance. Marketing Science, 25, pp 718-739.
Haywood-Farmer, J. (1988]. A conceptual model of service quality. International]ournal
of Operations & Production Management, 8; 6, pp 19-29.
Hennig-Thurau, T. Gwinner, K. Walsh, G. Gremler, D. (2004]. Electronic word-of-mouth
via consumer-opinion platforms. What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on
the internet? journal of Interactive Marketing, 18, pp 38-52.
Heskett,). jones, T. Loveman, G. Sasser, E. Schlesinger, L. (1994). Putting the ServiceProfit
Chain to Work. Harvard Business Review, pp 164-176.
Heskett,). Sasser, E. Wheeler,). (2008). Ownership Quotient: Putting the Service Profit
Chain to Work for Unbeatable Competitive Advantage. Harvard Business Review.
Holbrook, M.B. (1994], The nature of customer value, in Rust, R.T. and Oliver, R.L. (Eds],
Service Quality, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 21-71.
http://www.globalassetsolution.com/assets/files/The%201mportance%20of%20Servic
es.pdf
jumeirah Group Company Website. (2014). 'Aboutjumeirah Group' page.
http://www.jumeirah.com/en/jumeirah-group/about-jumeirah-group/
Kana, N. (1984]. Attractive Quality and Must-be Quality.' Quality ]SQC, 14;2.
King. N. (1998]. Template analysis in qualitative methods and analysis. In G. Symon and
C. Cassell (eds], Organisational Research: A Practical Guide (2 edn]. Sage: London.
59
Kordupleski, R. Rust, R. Zahorik, A. (1993). Why improving quality doesn't improve
quality (or whatever happened to marketing). California Management Review ,35, pp 82-
95.
Kotler, P. Armstrong. G. Wong. V. Saunders, j. (2008). Principles of Marketing (5edn).
Pearson Education: England.
Kotler, Ph. Keller, L.K. (2006]. Marketing management, Data status, Beograde.
Langer, J. Saeger, S. (1977]. Crowding and cognitive control. journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, pp 175-182.
Lewis, Robert C. and Bernard H. Booms. (1983]. The Marketing Aspects of Service
Quality, in Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing. L. Berry, G. Shostack, and G.
Upah, (eds), Chicago: American Marketing, pp 99-107.
Litvin, S. Goldsmith, R. Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
tourism management Tourism Management, 29, pp 458-468.
Maister, D. (2001). Practice What You Preach: What Managers Must Do to Create a High
Achievement Culture. The Free Press: New York
Marriot Group. (1993). How Marriot makes a great first impression. The Service Edge,
6;5, pp 1-13.
McGuire, K. Kimes, S. Michael, L Pullman, M. Russel, L. (2010]. A Framework for
evaluating the customer wait experience. journal of Service Management, 21;3, pp 269-
290.
McNamara, C. (2009]. General guidelines for conducting interviews. Free Management
Library. http: //managementhelp.org/businessresearch /interviews.htm
Miller, W. Crabtree, B (1999).'Depth interviewing' in Crabtree, Band Miller, W (eds),
Doing Qualitative Research. (2nd edn]. Sage: California, pp 89-107.
60
Naumann, E. (1995], Creating Customer Value. Thomson Executive Press: Cincinnati, OH.
Nitin, S., Deshmukh, S.G. and Perm, V. (2005). Service quality models: a review.
International journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22;9, pp 913-949.
Normann, R (2000). Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in the Services
Business (3 edn). john Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer satisfaction and customer value: a holistic
perspective.lnternational]ournal of Hospitality Management, 18, pp 67-82.
Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and
Its Implications for Future Research. The journal of Marketing, 49; 4, pp 41-50.
Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. (1985). Problems and Strategies in Services
Marketing. journal of Marketing, 49, pp 33-46.
Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. (1990). Five Imperatives for Improving Service
Quality. Sloan Management Review, 31;4, pp 29-38.
Parasuraman, A. Zeithaml, V. Berry, L. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. (1988). journal of Retailing. 64;1, pp 12-40
http://areas.kenanflagler.
unc.edu/Marketing/FacultvStaff/zeithami/Selected%20Publications/SERVOUAL
-%20A%20MultipleItem%
20Scale%20for%20Measuring%20Consumer%20Perceptions%20of%20Service
%200ualitv.pdf.
Phillips, L. Dae, C. Buzzell, R (1983). Product Quality, Cost Position, and Business Performance:
A Test of Some Key Hypotheses. journal of Marketing, 4 7,pp 26-43.
Plog, S. (197 4 ]. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity. The Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Administration Quarterly 4, pp 55-58.
Reichheld, F. Sasser, E. (1990]. Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard
Business Review, pp 101-113.
61
Reiss, R (2009). How Ritz Carlton Stays At the Top. Forbes Magazine.
http: //www.forbes.com /2009/10 /30 /simon-cooper-ritz-leadership-ceonetworkhotels.
html
Ritz Cartlon Website. About Us Page.
http://cornorate.ritzcarlton.com/en/About/GoldStandards.htm
Rucci, A. Kirn, S. Quinn, R (1998). The employee-customer-profit chain at Sears. Harvard
Business Review, pp 83-97.
Rust, R Oliver, R. (2000). Should We Delight the Customer? journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28.
Rust, R Zahorik,A. Keiningham, T. (1995). Return on Quality (ROQ): Making
service quality financially accountable. journal of Marketing, 59, pp 58-70.
Sasser, E. (1976). Match Supply and Demand in Service Industries. Harvard Business
Review, 54, pp 133-140.
Sogno, A. (2012). The importance of service. Global Asset Solution Report.
Spradley, J (1979). Asking Descriptive Questions. The Ethnographic Interview. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp 78-91.
Teas, RK (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation and consumer's perceptions of
quality. journal of Marketing, pp 18-34.
TripAdvisor Website Guidlines: https://www.tripadvisorsupportcom/hc/enau/
articles/200614 797
Veljkovit S. (2009). Marketing of services. Faculty of Economics, Belgrade.
Visitor Guide. (2014). Successful Hotel Marketing- the TripAdvisor Effect!
http://ivisitorguide.blogspotco.uk/2011/05/successful-hotel-marketingtripadvisor.
html
62
Vogt, C. Fesenmaier, D. (1995). Tourists and Retailers' Perceptions of Service. Annals of
Tourism Research, 22; 4, pp 763-780.
Waldthausen, V. Oehmichen, A. (2014). A New Breed of Traveller. How Consumers are
Driving Changing in the Hotel Industry. Hotel Valuation Services Report, pp 1-5.
Walker, R. johnson, L. Leonard, S. (2006]. Managing Service Quality, 16;1, pp 23-36.
Wilkins, H. Merrilees, B. Herington, C. (2007]. Towards an understanding of total service
quality in hotels. journal of International Hospitality Management, 26, pp 840-853.
Wilson, A. Zeithaml, V. Bitner, M.J. Gremler, D. (2012]. Services Marketing: Integrating
Customer Focus Across the Firm. McGraw Hill; Berkshire.
Wolff, M.F. (1986), Quality /process control: what R&D can do. Research Management,
29, pp. 9-11.
www.firstmonday.dk/issues!issue7 12/gunn /note3.
Yoon, S. Suh, H. (2004). Ensuring IT consulting SERVQUAL and user satisfaction: A
modified measurement tool. Information Systems Frontiers, 6;4, pp 341-351.
Zeithaml, Valarie A. 2000. Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of
Customers: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28 pp 67-87.
63
Appendices
Table of Contents for Appendices
Appendix 1: The JCT Background .............................................................................. 65
Appendix 2: The Service-Profit Chain, SPC (Heskett et al: 1994) ................... 65
Appendix 3: The Objective Definition of Quality .................................................. 66
Appendix 4: The GAP Model (Parasuraman et al, 1985) ................................... 68
Appendix 4b: The GAP Model's determinants of service quality
(Parasuraman et al: 1985) ........................................................................................... 70
Appendix 5: Zones of Tolerance (Zeithaml et al: 1993) ..................................... 71
Appendix 6: Service quality dimensions analysed .............................................. 72
Appendix 7: The Lodging Quality Index (Getty and Getty, 2003) ................... 73
Appendix 8: Total Service Quality Model (Wilkins: 2007) ................................ 73
Appendix 9: Service quality dimensions explained ............................................. 74
Appendix 9b: Observation Categories and Expectations ................................... 75
Appendix 10: Respondents 1ꞏ6 interview questions .......................................... 76
Appendix 11: Respondents 7-11 interview questions ........................................ 87
Appendix 12: Respondents 1ꞏ11 NotesfTranscripts ........................................... 93
Appendix 13: JCT employees interviewed ........................................................... 144
Appendix 14: The JCT Positioning Statement ..................................................... 144
Appendix 15: The JCT Hallmarks ............................................................................ 144
Appendix 16: Jumeirah Group sales and marketing presentation excerpts
............................................................................................................................................ 145
Appendix 17: TripAdvisor ratings and dimensions usage ............................. 148
Appendix 18: Findings explained ........................................................................... 149
Appendix 19: Pie chart of Tangibility sub-dimensions mentioned on
TripAdvisor .................................................................................................................... 153
Appendix 20: Service Failures: TripAdvisor versus Observation ................ 153
Appendix 21: Pie chart of percentage of service failures recorded at the JCT
............................................................................................................................................ 154
Appendix 22: Observational raw data .................................................................. 155
Appendix 23: TripAdvisor raw data ...................................................................... 159
Appendix 24: Acknowledgement ............................................................................ 187
64
Appendix 1: The JCT Background
The JCT is part of the Jumeirah Group, a Dubai based company, which owns 21
properties around the world. The Group's brand promise of 'Stay Different' is
echoed across all of these, the most iconic of which is Dubai's Burj AI Arab- the
Group's flagship property and 'the only 7* hotel in the world' (Jumeirah Group:
2014)
Hotels in the Jumeirah Group claim that their guests will leave with memorable
experiences because they will be offered 'the finest service quality and attention
to little details' (Jumeirah Group: 2014). At the JCT in particular guests are
promised 'intuitive hospitality' or a personalised and anticipatory service. JCT
employees pride themselves on being friendly, engaging and respectful to both
guests and to one another.
Appendix 2: The Service-Profit Chain, SPC (Heskett et al: 1994)
Operating Strategy and
Service Delivery System
0 workplace design
Ojob design
o employee selection
and development
D employee rewards
and recognition
0 tools for serving customers
0 service concept:
resulls for customer;
Dretertion
D repeat business
D referral
0 service designed and
delivered to meet
targeted customers' needs

...... .,
The SPC establishes a link between internal service quality, employee behaviour
and customer satisfaction and loyalty. A productive internal environment leads
65
to happy customers who engage in repeat business with the provider thereby
increasing profits and revenues (Heskett eta!: 1994).
The SPC cites that, 'Value [for the customer] is based both on perceptions of the
way a service is delivered and on the initial customer expectations' (Heskett et
a!: 1994, 172). This is balanced against the cost to the customer of availing
themselves of this service. To ascertain service quality, firms must analyse the
reasons given for high or low levels of satisfaction using generic metrics such as
Reliability, Timeliness and the Tangible evidence the consumer is left with
(Heskett eta!: 1994). The only caveat to this exercise is that one must be
conscious when measuring service quality because satisfaction is dependent on
individual expectations, i.e. what makes one person happy may not make
another feel the same.
Appendix 3: The Objective Definition of Quality
Although less prevalent in the literature, objective definitions have been
employed to help define service quality. The Nordic Model is one of the seminal
frameworks in this school of thought.
The Nordic Model (Gronroos: 1982)

i
Gronroos argues that a distinction can be made between quality subjectively
perceived and objective quality that is embedded in an offering and can be
66
shown to be comparatively superior with reference to some ideal standard
(Gronroos: 1982, Mattsson: 1992). Quality therefore, is intrinsic to the service, as
well as an extrinsic attribution. According to the original model, service quality
exists on two dimensions: technical quality, which involves what the customer is
actually receiving and functional quality, which focuses on the manner in which
the service is delivered to the customer (Sasser: 1978, Gronroos: 1982).
Extensions to this include the addition of a third dimension known as
'environment', which refers to the provider's internal culture and external
physical environment (Rust et al: 1994).
Building on Gronroos' Nordic Model Walker et al argue that 'value to the
customer may be defined in a way that is both intrinsic and extrinsic to the
offering: intrinsic in the sense that value may, or may not, be designed and
"engineered" into the offering, and extrinsic in the sense employed by Heskett et
al that it is a value equation performed by the customer' (Walker et al: 2006, 27).
Thus both the consumer and the service provider assess service quality.
However, it is important to note that in this model these two elements are not
mutually exclusive; the customer's assessment is based on the provider's
decisions around the standard and the delivery of the service (Naumann: 1995).
67
Appendlz 4: The GAP Model {Parasunman etal. 1985)
Customer
Gap 1
Provider
.....;,
.....;,
Expected
service

J GapS t
Perceived
service

l
s ervice delivery
(Including pre- and post contacts)

1 Gap3 f
Translation or perceptions
into service quality specifications

1 Gap 2 l
Management pe r~pt lons
of consumer expectations
The Model is divided int:D five GAPs:
Gap 4
• Word of mouth
• Personal needs
• Past experience
External communications
to customers
GAP 1: Consumer expectaUon-management percepUon gap: the Idea that
management must be aware of their target market's definition of quality, i.e.
features, performance etc. FaJlure to do this could be the result of fact:Drs such as
an overly complex organisational structure or a mismanagement of customer
complaints (Kotler et al: 2006, VelJkovlt: 2009).
GAP 2: Management perception-service quality specification gap: managerial
difficulties involved in translating the actions required to meetfexceed customer
service expectations Into business protocols. Faflure to achieve this can occur
from low levels of managerial commitment to service quality, badly designed
services, or inadequate infrastructure (Wilson et al: 2012).
GAP 3: Service quality specifications-service deliveJY gap: employees are the key
drivers of quality but it is difficult to standardise their behaviour. The service
levels required to meet customer needs may not always be attainable. Contact
personnel play a key role in this gap. Oversights in Human Resources
68
management, poor cooperation from customers and problems in staff objectives
and consistency can contribute to this gap (Parasuraman eta!: 1985).
GAP 4: Service delivery-external communications gap: firms should not promise
more than they can deliver because, 'it will raise initial expectations but lower
perceptions of quality when the promises are not fulfilled' (Parasuraman eta!:
1985, 45). A firm's marketing collateral therefore, should reflect the
organisation's true abilities and make transparent non-obvious methods used
within the firm to monitor /improve service quality. A lack of integrated
marketing, ineffective management of customer expectations and unreasonable
promises can cause this gap. Customers can also affect this gap. For example, if a
hotel asks guests to send across their personal details prior to their arrival, and
they fail to do so, the hotel's service quality may appear lacking (when they
spend twenty minutes printing out all the relevant paperwork) when in reality
the guest has failed to comply with simple requests (Wilson eta!: 2012).
GAP 5: Expected service-perceived service gap: 'the quality that a consumer
perceives in a service is a function of the magnitude and direction of the gap
between expected service and perceived service' (Parasuraman eta!: 1985, 46).
In other words:
Gap 5 = f(Gl, G2, G3, G4)
69
Appendix 4b: The GAP Model's determinants of service quality
(Parasuraman et al: 1985)
TABLE 1
Determinants of Service Quality
RELIABILITY involves consistency of performance and dependability.
It means that the firm performs the service right the fi rst time.
It also means that the firm honors its promises. Specifically, it involves:
- accuracy in billing ;
-keeping records correctly;
- performing the service at the designated time.
RESPO SIVENESS concerns the will ingness or readiness of employees to provide service. It involves timeliness of service:
-mailing a transaction slip immediately;
- calling the customer back quickly;
- giving prompt service (e .g., setting up appointments quickly).
cOMPETENCE means possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service. It involves :
- knowledge and skill of the contact personnel;
-knowledge and skill of operational support personnel ;
-research capability of the organization, e.g., securities brokerage fi rm.
ACCESS involves approachability and ease of contact. It means:
-the service is easily accessible by telephone (lines are not busy and they don't put you on hold);
-waiting time to receive service (e .g., at a bank) Is not extensive;
- convenient hours of operation;
- convenient location of service facility.
couRTESY involves politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel (including receptionists.
telephone operators, etc.). It includes :
-consideration for the consumer's property (e.g .• no muddy shoes on the carpet);
-clean and neat appearance of public contact personnel.
coMMUNICATION means keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to them. It may
mean that the company has to adjust its language for different consumers- increasing the level of sophistication
with a well-educated customer and speaking simply and plainly with a novice. It involves:
- explaining the service itself;
- explaining how much the service will cost;
-explaining the trade-offs between service and cost;
-assuring the consumer that a problem will be handled.
CREDIBILITY involves trustworthiness. be lievability, honesty. It involves having the customer's best interests at heart.
Contributing to credibi lity are :
- company name;
-company reputation;
- personal characteristics of the contact personnel;
- the degree of hard sell involved in interactions with the customer.
SECURITY is the freedom from danger, risk. or doubt It involves:
- physical safety (Will I get mugged at the automatic teller machine?);
-financial security (Does the company know where my stock certificate is?);
-confidentiality (Are my dealings with the company private?).
UNOERSTANOING/KNOWING THE cusTOMER involves making the effort to understand the customer's needs. It involves:
- learning the customer's specific requirements;
-providing individualized attention ;
-recognizing the regular customer.
TANGIBLES include the physical evidence of the service:
- physical facilities;
- appearance of personnel;
- tools or equipment used to provide the service;
- physical representations of the service. such as a plastic credit ca rd or a bank statement;
-other customers in the service facility.
70
Appendix 5: Zones of Tolerance (Zeithaml et al: 1993)
ENDURING SERVICE EXPLICIT SERVICE
INTENSIFIERS PROMISES
• Derived expectations • Advertising
• Personal service f- .-- • Personal selling
philosophies • Contracts
• Other communications

PERSONAL NEEDS
• Tangibles
} IMPLICIT SERVICE .__ PROMISES

• Price
f- WORD OF MOUTH
EXPECTED • Personal
TRANSITORY SERVICE SERVICE • "Expert• (Consumer
INTENSIFIERS f- Reports, publicity,

• Emergencies -r Desired I consultants, surrogates)

• Service problems Service I Zone H P AST EXPERIENCE l

PERCEIVED SERVICE .__ of

ALTERNATIVES I T olerance , l Adequate ]

SELF-PERCEIVED PREDICTED SERVICE l 1'--1- Service I
SERVICE ROLE f-
SITUATIONAL FACTORS GAPS
• Bad weather f-
• Catastrophe
• Random overdemand I PERCEIVED l SERVICE

71
Appendix 6: Service quality dimensions analysed
Author Madel Relennt Dimensions ldendtled Tllls Pllper's c.teaarlllltlan
Parasuraman et al (1985] GAP Model Tancibility Tangibility
Reliability Reliability
Res110nsiveness Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Haywood-Farmer (1988) Attribute Service Quality Model Reliability Reliability
Tanalbllity Tangibility
leadership
Heskett et al (1994) Service-Profit Chain Internal Design
Orsanisaitonal Culture
leadership
Infrastructure Tangibility
Reliability Reliability
Empathy
TanRibllltY Tangibility
Authority
Responsiveness Responsiveness
Wilson et al (2012) Positive Moods Responsiveness
Empathy
Self-Regulation
can-da attitude Reliability
Bitner et al (1995) Service Marketing Triangle Equipment Tangibility
Keeping Promises Reliability
Recuritment
Training
Rewards
Physical Support
Chandan et al (1997] Service Encounter Model Service Recovery Responsiveness
Unusual Requests Responsiveness
Dealine with troublesome customers
COurtesy Responsiveness
Confidence
Security Tangibility
Aptitude Responsiveness
Waiting Time
Competence Responsiveness
Tangibility
Listening
Ability to Explain
Understanding
Personall$ation Reliability
Proximity
Wilkins et al (2007) Total Service Quality Model Politeness Responsiveness
Customisation Reliability
Timeliness Responsiveness
Tanalbllity Tangibility
Food & Beverage
Getty & Getty (2003] Lodging Quality Index Tanaibility Tangibility
Responsiveness Responsiveness
Relilbility Reliability
Confidence
Communication
Dimension Number of Times Cited Number of Models
Reliability 7 8
Responsiveness 6 8
Tangibility 8 8
72
Appendix 7: The Lodging Quality Index (Getty and Getty, 2003)
Table I
Final lodging quality index (LQI) 26-items
Dinenslon
Tangibility
Scale Item
The front desk was visually appealing
The employees had clean, neat uniforms
The restaurant's atmosphere was inviting
The shops were pleasant and attractive
The outdoor surroundings were visually attractive
The hotel was bright and well lighted
The hotel's interior and exterior were well maintained
The hotel was clean
Relabllty (ilcludes o~glnal relabllty and credlbllty dimensions)
My reservation was handled effie iently
My guestroom was ready as promised
Responslven ess
TV, radio, A/ C, lights, and other mechanical equipment worked properly
I got what I paid for
Employees responded promptly to my requests
Informative literature about the hotel was provided
Employees were willing to answer my questions
Employees responded quickly to solve my problems
Room service was prompt
Confidence (Includes original competence, courtesy, security, and access dimensions)
Employees knew about local places of interest
Employees treated me with respect
Employees were polite when answering my questions
The hotel provided a safe environment
The facili ties were conveniently located
Communication (Includes original communication and unclerstandilg dinenslons)
Charges on my account were clearly explained
I received undivided attention at the front desk
Reservat ionists tried to find out my part icular needs
Employees anticipated my needs
NB. Reliability builds on SERVQUAL by including credibility, i.e. a serviceprovider's
ability to fulfil promises made. Confidence includes competence,
courtesy, security and access, i.e. employees know the required information, they
are polite, the hotel has a safe environment and the facilities are conveniently
located. Finally, Communication builds on SERVQUAL by giving weight to
employee comprehension of customer needs (Getty et al: 2003).
Appendix 8: Total Service Quality Model (Wilkins: 2007)
Wilkins employs a similar premise to the GAP model in his own work. He argues
that 'Service expectations are influenced by the intrinsic and extrinsic cues
related to a particular experience and by a global perspective built from previous
experiences and other information sources' (Wilkins: 2007, 841).
73
Appendix 9: Service quality dimensions explained
Reiab il i ty
Relaibility Sub-dimensions FAILED TO MEET EXPECTATIONS MET EXPECTATIONS EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS
Getting It rlsht the first time handled reuqest Incorrectly completed task as required handled request correctly and
provided guest additional
support.. information etc
Attention to detail failed to notice an error completed task as required noticed details that guest had
overlooked
guest noticed error
demonstrated meticulous
did not offer guest available attention to every detail
choices
Accuracy Inaccurate work or Information completed task as required checked more than once
Biven
high desree of accuracy
not interested in being precise
Provided detail
Keeping promises failed to respond to request responded to request with little responded to request and
creativity, followed protocol provided additional support,
Information etc
demonstrating a personal touch
Consistency of standard (over no intention of retuming to JCT or no mention of desire to retum or an intention to retum
time) any other JG property lack of desire to do so
Indication that consumer has
indication that consumer has had had a positive experience at
a negative experience at same same property previously
property previously
an intention to visit another JG
property based on experience at
theJCT

R espons1veness
Reponsownas Sub- FAILED TO MEET EXPECTATIONS MET EXPECTATIONS EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS
dimensions
Respondina quickly responded slowly responded just in time responded quickly
Recovery from service failures did little or nothing to rectify a recovered from failure but followed responded quickly and
service mistake protocol, no creativity appropriately to a mistake made
did not compensate guest apologised for a mistake
appropriately
compensated guest appropritely
Respondlns to unusual failed to understand request responded just In time but followed understood request
requests quickly protocol, no creativity
faied to respond to request provided guest with exactly what
they required
responded slowly
prompt
Ustening/Attentiveness at all low levels of alertness listened when required e.s. when alert
times disengaged being spoken to
unavailable engaged and willing
acessible
ability to pre-empt needs
Competence of employees lack of knowledge about facilities, know basic inforrnaiton on hotel, solid knowledge of facilities, local
local area, attractions, suests etc surroundlnss and guests area, attractions, guests etc
Friendliness unsmiling polite but reserved autgolns
rude warm
bad manners helpful
unhelpful
Pre-emptlna needs no attempt to antlcpate need e.a. attempt made e.a. offering assistance successfully ancltlpated needs
asking waiting auests if they are some of the time or offering
OK, offerlns seated guest somethlns which the guest does not
refreshments etc want

74
Tangibility
Tanslbllrty Sub-dimensions FAILED TO MEET EXPECTATIONS MET EXPECTATIONS EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS
Personnel apperance messy any comment that su~ employees tidy
untidy were di'1!S54!d as expectod wel~dressed
unruly proffesslonal
Facilities bad averqe state of the art
did not work property nothlllflspeclal new
complicated similar to other fiVe stllr hotels spa Ratlns of 4-S
Spa Ratins of 1-2 Soa Ratingof3
Layout of rooms aamped adequate spacious
dlsfunctlonol sensible lfOOd view
illosical appropriate
functional
Llyout of public spoc:es aamped fllnctlonal spacious or Intimate (context dependent!
disfunctional comfortable
illosical
Desl&n 1nd flnlsh of rooms outdlted Room Ratlns of 3 refllrblshed
old-lookins Room Ratins of 4-5
run down
aaclcs, stains, domoae
Room Ratins of 1-2
Desl&n 1nd flnlsh of pubUc outdlted nothing memorable cosy
spaces old-lookins intimate
run down c:almina
aaclcs, stains, damaae
Equipment quality outdlted averaae stateoftheart
unhelpful nothlllflspeclal perfect for requirements
overly complicated similar to other five stllr hotels
broken equipment
aeanllness Cleanliness Ratillfl of 1-2 Cleanliness RatlnK of3 Ceanllness Rltlllfl of 4-5
Safety unsafe wcurity was as expected explicit mention offl!eling safe or secure
dan serous
Feellnss of fear or anxiety over
50fety

Appendix 9b: Observation Categories and Expectations

Gu..tl!xpKWI!ans ꞏ-ꞏ
Guests thanking employees for help
Ezceeded Guests smilinl!llaushins

Guests making positive I comments to employees

Guests commentlns to other members of their sroup positively about the service
Guests lookinssurprised and delishted e.s. be ins given a birthday cake as a treat
Guests beins attended to without requestina service
Met Guests seem content but no positiVi! or neptive inclinations mades
Failed Guests lookins a nary
Guests 'slve up' and leave e.s. leavlna a queue
Guests complaining to employees
Guests criticisins the service standards to other members of their sroup
Guests unable to set employees' attention
Guests unable to understand employees' responses
Guests havln,to ask the same question repeatedly
Guests not offered assistance or help e.g. with bags
Guests iilskins to Speillk to a supervisor/manaser

75
Appendix 10: Respondents 1-6 interview questions
Respondent 1
Date: 10th Apri12014
Venue: Jumeirah Carlton Tower
Time: 1100-1130
Job Title: Human Resources
1. What are the advantages of having a Positioning Statement?
2. Is the Positioning Statement communicated through the CSI?
3. Is the Colleague Opinion Survey organisation wide?
4. What is the Hotel's process for drafting and cascading the Positioning
Statement?
5. Are you playing any role in this process?
6. Will Department Heads be given autonomy to roll out the Positioning
Statement?
7. Is there a specific or formal process for communicating the Positioning
Statement to new employees?
8. Prior to the Positioning Statement how were Execs communicating the
benefits of the Hotel down the organisation?
9. What do you find is the most effective way of communicating the
Positioning Statement to employees?
10. How do you make sure that each department understands and
implements the Positioning Statement in the same way?
76
11. Have you experienced any challenges thus far in the cascading process?
12. In your opinion, do the majority of the Hotel staff agree/disagree on the
Hotels unique selling points, i.e. the elements mentioned in the
Positioning Statement?
13. As HR how are you going to approach it? Have you got any ideas at this
point?
14. Are your employees informed about how they are different from their
competitors in the area?
77
Respondent 2
Date: 10thApril2014
Venue: Jumeirah Carlton Tower
Time: 1130-1200
Job Title: Human Resources
1. What is your role in relation to the Positioning Statement and how it is
implemented within the organisation?
2. What are the advantages of having a Positioning Statement?
3. Prior to the Positioning Statement cascading process, what mechanism
was in place?
4. How do you measure whether employees truly understand what is it that
encapsulates the Positioning Statement?
5. Is the Colleague Opinion Survey one of the ways you're looking to try and
understand how effectively the Statement is being cascaded through your
organisation?
6. How is the Statement communicated to the department from a HR point
of view (as this is not guest facing)?
7. Is there a level of autonomy across departments in how this Statement is
implemented down?
8. Is there a mechanism to feed and report that back up to the executive
level?
9. In your opinion, do the majority of the Hotel staff agree/disagree on the
Hotels unique selling points, i.e. the elements mentioned in the
Positioning Statement?
78
10. Are different parts at different stages of the process?
11. How long have you worked at Jumeirah?
12. Have a lot lot of your colleagues have been here for a while?
79
Respondent 3
Date: 11thApril2014
Venue: Jumeirah Carlton Tower
Time: 1100-1130
Job Title: General Management
1. At the Jumeirah Carlton Tower how do you differentiate yourself from
your competitors?
2. Has the Positioning Statement ever been changed?
3. How do you feel the Positioning Statement benefits the Jumeirah Carlton
Tower?
4. Whose idea was it to come up with a Positioning Statement?
5. Are there any unique elements that are not actually in the Positioning
Statement that you would like to be?
6. Are there plans to communicate the hotel's various services to new guests
that are not reflected in the Positioning Statement?
7. What about the fact that the hotel is able to do things such as obtain
guests tickets to Wimbledon and provide bikes and all sorts of things?
8. What role do you have beyond that to make sure that it's actually being
communicated and taken up, further down the organisation?
9. Do all the European hotels now have Positioning Statements?
10. Is it possible to measure how effectively the Statement is being
understood and communicated to guests?
80
11. How does the Positioning Statement link to the brand promise?
12. How do you measure the take up of the Positioning Statement?
13. Within the group you have a Mission Statement, Positioning Statement,
Brand Promise. Do you think having all of these might create some
confusion? Is there a pecking order between them?
81
Respondent 4
Date: 11"' April2014
Venue: jumeirah Carlton Tower
Time: 1200-1230
Job Title: Sales and Marketing
1. Why was the Positioning Statement thought up?
2. Do you think there is a link between the way the hotel is marketed
externally and internally?
3. What is the best way to measure the cascading of the Statement?
4. In terms of competition, where is Jumeirah now, and where do you expect
togo?
82
Respondent 5
Date: 11thApril2014
Venue: Jumeirah Carlton Tower
Time: 1030-1100
Job Title: Kitchen
1. Can you tell us about your involvement in this process, if you are involved
in it?
2. So were you part of the committee that created the Positioning
Statement?
3. What role did you play in creating the Positioning Statement?
4. Do you see the Positioning Statement as beneficial to you and your
department?
5. How do you think you can communicate the Positioning Statement to
your employees?
6. What about the new recruits?
7. The Positing Statement was changed. So what was it?
8. How do you think you can measure their practice or understanding of the
Positioning Statement elements, especially intuitive hospitality?
9. Were there challenges in implementing the new Positioning Statement?
10. How big is your department or team?
11. What are the words your department would use to define the hotel?
83
12. Is there a specific time frame in which you want to roll out the importance
of the Statement?
13. How long have you worked for Jumeirah?
14. Given that you have a lot experience before this Positioning Statement
was even drafted, do you think it will make a difference to the way in
which your department operates?
15. How do you get feedback from customers?
84
Respondent 6
Date: lOth April2014
Venue: jumeirah Carlton Tower
Time: 1130-1200
Job Title: Human Resources
1. How does your role, as Head of Learning and Development, fit within the
organisation?
2. Is the JCT is very structured in its internal communication process?
3. What is the Colleague Opinion Survey?
4. Do you think the Emotional Audit is a useful metric?
5. Do you think the Customer Service Index plays a part in perhaps
measuring the effectiveness (of the PS)?
6. Do you think the Positioning Statement, as from what we heard yesterday
it's becoming more important, especially as Nicholas and Austin are
trying to roll it out, do you think it's a nice summary of everything that an
employee might have to remember? When it comes to guests or suppliers
or internal customers.
7. Do you think the Positioning Statement reflects the unique features of
Carlton Tower?
8. Do you foresee any challenges in rolling it out within the next 6-12
months?
9. With regards to the HoDs do they have autonomy in teaching or cascading
the message down?
85
10. Are you giving input at that (HoD) level as well?
11. What are the dimensions you are trying to use for the perceptual
mapping?
12. What would be your recommendation for existing colleagues?
13. How long have you been here?