Application of the Innovative Model NIPA to Evaluate Service Satisfaction
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Construct a new important performance analysis (NIPA) of service quality in order to improve the disadvantages of the original IPA.
- (2)
- To explore customer satisfaction with service quality after attending the wedding banquet and generalize the results through NIPA.
- (3)
- Through the NIPA results, this study explores the properties of service quality, as perceived by customers after attending the wedding banquet.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Wedding Servicescape
2.2. Product Value
2.3. Service Quality
2.4. Zone of Tolerance
2.5. Important Performance Analysis (IPA)
- (1)
- Quadrant I: maintenance, importance, and performance are high; therefore, the quality of the service of this part should be retained and actively promoted as a competitive advantage of the company.
- (2)
- Quadrant II: excessive development; it is of lower importance but higher satisfaction. It means that the company might have excessive emphasis on development, and thus wastes resources. Therefore, the resources in this part can be reorganized and reapplied to improve other more important quality items.
- (3)
- Quadrant III: secondary improvement; importance and satisfaction are low. The service quality items in this part are less important; therefore, they can be treated after Quadrant IV (prior improvement).
- (4)
- Quadrant IV: prior improvement; importance is high, but satisfaction is low. They are the quality items of a company that should be improved first.
3. Research Methods
3.1. Conceptual Model
3.2. Instrument and Measures
3.3. Sampling
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Construction of NIPA (New Important Performance Analysis) Measurement Model
- (1)
- When the gap between PS (perceived service) and ES (expected service) of the service quality evaluation formula of items is equal to one figure, it means that the customer satisfaction with service shows the same gap. These items should be based on the same evaluation degree; however, the gap between the importance and satisfaction of these items is of different degrees, such as item 2 (4.58, 4.28), item 16 (4.12, 4.42), and item 17 (3.82, 4.12) in Figure 2, which is 0.3, but it should have the same degree of evaluation. Item 2 (4.58, 4.28) is in Quadrant I, the maintenance zone, item 16 (4.12, 4.42) is in Quadrant II, which is the zone of excessive development, while item 17 (3.82, 4.12) is in Quadrant III, the zone of secondary improvement (see Figure 3). The three items are in three different quadrants, and thus, they should not have the same evaluation degree.
- (2)
- When PS (perceived service)-ES (expected service) of the service quality evaluation formula of an item is <0, evaluation of service quality should be unacceptable (lower than expectation). For instance, in Figure 2, PS (perceived service)-ES (expected service) of the service quality assessment formula for all items is <0, meaning that they are unacceptable (lower than expectation); however, there are different degrees in Quadrant I, the maintenance zone, Quadrant II, the excessive development zone, Quadrant III, the secondary improvement zone, and Quadrant IV, the prior improvement zone.
- (1)
- When PS-ES = 0, customers are satisfied (it matches their need), such as ad lines, from (3,3) to (5,5).
- (2)
- When PS-ES < 0, customers cannot accept it (lower than expected and quality should be improved), such as the zone formed by ab5cd (right bottom zone of line ad).
- (3)
- When PS-ES > 0, customers are satisfied (excessive supply to demand and satisfied with quality), such as the zone formed by af5ed (left upper zone of the line ad).
- (1)
- Service properties are listed and developed as questionnaire items.
- (2)
- Users are invited to evaluate the degrees of these properties in terms of “importance” and “performance”. The former is the preference of the users and the perceived importance of the properties of a product or service; the latter is the suppliers of the performance of the product or service.
- (3)
- Calculate the means of the items, where importance is the horizontal axis and performance is the vertical axis. The evaluation degrees of the properties are the coordinates, and the properties are indicated in a two-dimensional space.
- (4)
- The NIPA model includes Zones A, B, and C, as shown in Figure 3.
- (1)
- Zone A: prior improvement, high importance, and low satisfaction.
- (2)
- Zone B: maintenance, scores of importance and performance are high.
- (3)
- Zone C: excessive development, lower importance, and higher satisfaction.
4.2. NIPA of Satisfaction with Service
5. Conclusions and Suggestions
- (1)
- Providing enough parking spaces
- (2)
- Service staff who will not ignore the needs of customers when they are busy
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lau, C.K.; Hui, S.H. Selection attributes of wedding banquet venues: An exploratory study of Hong Kong prospective wedding couples. Int. J. Hosp. 2010, 29, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.C.; Wu, H.C.; Tsai, M.C.; Chang, Y.Y.; Chen, C.T. Identifying the strategic implications of service attributes of wedding banquet halls for market competition and risk management. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.T.; Chang, Y.Y.; Cheng, C.C.; Liu, K.H. A study on Constructing a tool to Assess the wedding Banquet service quality. J. Account. Financ. Dev. 2017, 10, 19–44. [Google Scholar]
- Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing Management, 12th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; p. 143. [Google Scholar]
- Lindgreen, A.; Hingley, M.K.; Grant, D.B.; Morgan, R.E. Value in business and industrial marketing: Past, present, and future. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2012, 41, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitner, M.J. Evaluating service encounters: The effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitaker, J.; Krishnan, M.S.; Fornell, C.; Morgeson, F. How does customer service offshoring impact customer satisfaction? J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 2020, 60, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voorn, R.J.J.; van der Veen, G.; Van Rompay, T.J.L.; Hegner, S.M.; Pruyn, A.T.H. Human values as added value(s) in consumer brand congruence: A comparison with traits and functional requirements. J. Brand Manag. 2021, 28, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matzler, K.; Bailom, F.; Hinterhuber, H.H.; Renzl, B.; Pichler, J. The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A reconsideration of the importance–performance analysis. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitner, M.J. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. J. Mark. 1992, 56, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.C.; Lin, Y.H.; Lin, C.N.; Li, S.P. Research on Assessment of Service Satisfaction by Innovation Model: Using iBike as an Example. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2019, 124, 357–358. [Google Scholar]
- Paul, J.B. Guest Services in Hospitality Industry; Wiley: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 1–320. [Google Scholar]
- Getz, D. Event tourism: Definition, evolution, and research. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 403–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gronroos, C.; Scheuing, E.E.; Christopher, W.F. Quality Comes to Service. In the Service Quality Handbook; AMACOM: New York, NY, USA, 1993; pp. 7–24. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, H.-T.; CYeo Amenuvor, F.E.; Boateng, H. Examining the relationship between customer bonding, customer participation, and customer satisfaction. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 62, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 1988, 64, 12–40. [Google Scholar]
- Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. Marketing Services: Competing through Quality; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; p. 203. [Google Scholar]
- Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The Nature and Determinants of Customer Expectations of Service. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1993, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, W.; Fan, H. Omni-channel customer experience (in) consistency and service success: A study based on polynomial regression analysis. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1997–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hussain, K.; Konar, R.; Nair, P.K.; Ragavan, N.A. Towards Service Excellence: The Zone of Tolerance for Hospitality and Tourism Education in Malaysia. In Service Excellence in Tourism and Hospitality; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 191–216. [Google Scholar]
- Bitner, M.J.; Hubbert, A.R. Encounter Satisfaction Versus Overall Satisfaction Versus Service Quality: The Consumer’s Voice”. In Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice; Rust, R.T., Oliver, R.L., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994; p. 289. [Google Scholar]
- Martilla, J.A.; James, J.C. Importance-Performance Analysis. J. Mark. 1977, 41, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawes, J.M.; Rao, C.P. Using Importance-Performance Analysis to Develop Health Care Marketing Strategies. J. Health Care Mark. 1985, 5, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
- Sampson, S.E.; Showalter, M.J. The performance-importance response function: Observations and implications. Serv. Ind. J. 1999, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, W.K.K.; Huang, S.H.S. Evaluating the service requirements of Taiwanese international port distribution centres using IPA model based on fuzzy AHP. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2014, 6, 632–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, Q.; Jiang, X.; Bian, L. A decision-making method for improving logistics services quality by integrating fuzzy Kano model with importance-performance analysis. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2015, 8, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Li, X.R.; Zhen, F.; Zhang, J. How smart is your tourist attraction: Measuring tourist preferences of smart tourism attractions via a FCEM-AHP and IPA approach. Tour. Manag. 2016, 54, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alabool, H.M.; Mahmood, A.K.B. A novel evaluation framework for improving trust level of Infrastructure as a Service. Clust. Comput. 2016, 19, 389–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xi, L.; Zhang, H.; Li, S.; Cheng, J. Integrating fuzzy Kano model and fuzzy importance–performance analysis to analyse the attractive factors of new products. Int. J. Distrib. Sens. Netw. 2020, 16, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.K. An integrated fuzzy MICMAC with a revised IPA approach to explore service quality improvement. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2020, 31, 1487–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, A.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, S.; Lu, X.; Peng, Z. A review-driven customer preference measurement model for product improvement: Sentiment-based importance–performance analysis. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag. 2020, 18, 61–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanny, L.; Angelina, V.; Christian, B.B. Innovation of SME service industry in Indonesia in improving customer satisfaction. J. Sci. Technol. Policy Manag. 2021, 12, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. J. Mark. 1985, 49, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Constructs | Items |
---|---|
Tangibles (Core Service) | 1. Providing a satisfying feast. 2. Use of modern equipment and decorations. 3. Use of comforting music, layout, and atmosphere in the banquet hall. 4. Good wedding reception procedure and smooth traffic flow. |
Reliability (Generic Service) | 5. Providing a clean and convenient space (toilet). 6. Providing qualified fire-fighting equipment and escape exit settings. 7. Service staff dressed in neat clothing. 8. Providing enough parking spaces. |
Responsiveness (Expect Service) | 9. Providing Wi-Fi in the banquet hall. 10. Service staff who will not ignore the needs of customers when they are busy. 11. Providing customers with timely and appropriate services. 12. Service staff that are familiar with customer needs. |
Security (Augmented Service) | 13. Fulfilling and completing the promise to customers in a timely manner. 14. Maintaining a cordial and enthusiastic service attitude. 15. Service staff who are willing to deal with customer complaints immediately. 16. Service staff with enough professional knowledge to answer customer questions. |
Empathy (Potential Service) | 17. Giving special attention to customers and help to solve problems. 18. Providing customers with new banquet information. 19. Sale of products related to wedding banquets. 20. Providing banquet hosts and performances. |
Tolerance | 21. What is your tolerance to the degree of importance superior to satisfaction? |
PS (Perceived Service)-ES (Expected Service) | ||
---|---|---|
positive | PS-ES > 0 | customers are satisfied (excessive supply to demand and satisfied with quality) |
negative | PS-ES < 0 | customers cannot accept it (lower than expectation, and the quality should be improved) |
equal | PS-ES = 0 | customers are satisfied (it matches their need) |
Item | N | (%) | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 166 | 45.20 |
Female | 201 | 54.80 | |
Age | Under 25 | 75 | 20.47 |
26–35 | 98 | 26.77 | |
36–40 | 98 | 26.77 | |
41–45 | 46 | 12.63 | |
46–50 | 37 | 10.12 | |
Above 50 | 13 | 3.24 | |
Education | High school | 29 | 7.87 |
College | 185 | 50.39 | |
Master | 153 | 41.74 | |
Income | Below 30,000 | 4 | 1.20 |
30,001–40,000 | 48 | 13.00 | |
40,001–50,000 | 134 | 36.60 | |
Above 50,001 | 181 | 49.20 | |
Patronage | Yes | 254 | 69.29 |
No | 113 | 30.71 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, S.-P.; Lin, Y.-H.; Huang, C.-C. Application of the Innovative Model NIPA to Evaluate Service Satisfaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610036
Li S-P, Lin Y-H, Huang C-C. Application of the Innovative Model NIPA to Evaluate Service Satisfaction. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610036
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Shang-Pin, Ying-Hsiang Lin, and Chih-Cheng Huang. 2022. "Application of the Innovative Model NIPA to Evaluate Service Satisfaction" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10036. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610036