Tourism Management Flashcard
An importance-performance analysis of hotel choice factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparing of concern and leisure travelers Raymond K. S. Chu. Tat Choi* Department of Hotel and Tourism Management. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Hung Hom. Kowloon. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. People’s Republic of China Received 16 December 1998 ; accepted 3 February 1999
Abstract Using an Importance } Performance Analysis ( IPA ) . this paper examined concern and leisure travellers’ perceived importance and public presentation of six hotel choice factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry. The six hotel choice factors identi”ed were: Service Quality. Business Facilities. Value. Room and Front Desk. Food and Recreation. and Security. Both concern and leisure travelers held the same perceptual experiences towards all the six hotel choice factors.
The IPA grids illustrated that the Value factor fell into the Concentrate Here quadrant ; Service Quality. Room and Front Desk and Security in the Keep Up the Good Work quarter-circle ; and Business Facilities and Food and Recreation in the Low Priority quarter-circle. Room and Front Desk and Security were found to be the deciding factors for concern and leisure travelers. severally. in their hotel pick choice. Deductions for Hong Kong hotelkeepers and research workers were discussed. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Importance } Performance Analysis ; Hotel choice factors ; Business and leisure travelers
1. Introduction 1. 1. The Hong Kong hotel and touristry industry Hong Kong has long been Asia’s most popular tourer finish. The entire visitant reachings for 1996 reached a record of 11. 7 million. stand foring a singular 14. 7 per cent growing over 1995. with HK $ 84. 5 billion ( US $ 10. 8 billion ) # owing into the Particular Administrative Region’s economic system in foreign exchange net incomes. The 14. 7 per cent growing rate in 1996 out-performed the universe norm of 4. 5 per cent. every bit good as the mean growing rates for East Asia/Paci”c and South Asia. with 7. 9 per cent and 4. 0 per cent severally ( WTO. 1997 ) . In add-on. about 8 per cent of Hong Kong’s Gross Domestic Product ( GDP ) is attributable to touristry ( HKTA. 1998 ) . However. since the beginning of 1997. Hong Kong’s inward touristry industry has experienced an unprecedented diminution. As illustrated in Table 1. the Hong Kong Tourist Association ( HKTA ) revealed that the Numberss of visitants declined from 11. 7 million in 1996 to 10. 4 million in 1997. stand foring a 12 per cent autumn ( HKTA. 1998 ) . The autumn in visitant reachings has been aggravated by the regional currency convulsion. which has made Hong Kong an expensive finish to go in comparing with other Southeast Asiatic parts ( Poole. 1997 ) .
The depreciation of the Thai tical. the Indonesian rupiah. the Malayan ringgit. and the Philippine peso has necessarily attracted international travelers who prefer to seek deal visits to these cheaper finishs. Hong Kong is now considered less & A ; vacation-friendly’ than antecedently as high in # ation has driven up monetary values. In 1989. 60 per cent of travelers rated shopping in Hong Kong as & amp ; above average’ in value for money. but in 1993 the figure fell below 45 per cent ( HKTA. 1998 ) . In the early 1990s. Hong Kong su! ered from a comparatively high in # ation rate of about 10 per cent per annum as a consequence of an addition in labor and land costs.
This paper attempts to place both the importance and public presentation of hotel choice factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry utilizing the Importance } Performance Analysis ( IPA ) theoretical account. More speci”cally. the paper intends to compare perceptual experiences of concern and leisure travelers. in footings of importance and public presentation of hotel choice factors. By placing the demands. desires and outlooks of di! erent sections. hotelkeepers will be in a better place to develop bespoke selling schemes to provide for their mark clients and to accomplish competitory advantages.
Beginning: Adapted from A Statistical Review of Tourism. Hong Kong Tourist Association ( 1998 ) .
2. Literature reappraisal cent per annum in recent old ages ( Hueng. 1997 ) . The lifting cost of adjustment in Hong Kong and the dwindling figure of shopping deals are continuously a! ecting the Hong Kong touristry industry ( Brevetti. 1995 ) . Such monetary value in # ation threatens Hong Kong’s repute as a Shopping Paradise. Looking at the visitant pro”le. in peculiar at a comparing of concern and leisure travelers. there appears to hold non much signi”cant alteration between the two groups. The leisure section has constituted about 60 per cent of entire visitant reachings to Hong Kong over the past 10 old ages. while the concern section contributed up to 30 per cent of entire visitant reachings over the same period ( see Table 1 ) . Sing the hotel industry in Hong Kong. room rates have long been considered as the premier factor that adds to the cost of a trip. lending to tourism downswing ( Beck. 1997 ; Schloss. 1997 ) . Schloss ( 1997 ) reported that Hong Kong hotels are more expensive to remain in than in Tokyo hotels. even when they o! er price reductions.
Beck ( 1997 ) mentioned that Hong Kong hotels are excessively expensive and that the high cost is the individual factor that continues to a! ect touristry in Hong Kong earnestly. Research surveies have shown that satisfaction with hotel belongingss. including services. installations and monetary value. appears to be one of the major factors taking to the success and repetition backing of the finish ( Shih. 1986 ; Stevens. 1992 ) . To be successful in concern. one must understand how clients perceive the merchandise or service properties. their importance and public presentation when compared with other rivals. The importance of & A ; being competitive’ and & A ; o! ering competitory advantage’ has been recognised for some old ages. In the hotel environment. where competition dominates. hotelkeepers must analyze the strengths and failings of the merchandise or service they provide and accurately de”ne their importance and public presentation.
To keep Hong Kong’s present position as one of the world’s most attractive tourer finishs. hotelkeepers 2. 1. Importance } Performance Analysis Importance } Performance Analysis ( IPA ) conceptually underlies the multi-attribute theoretical accounts that day of the month back to the late seventiess. Martilla and James ( 1977 ) applied the IPA technique to analyze the public presentation of the car industry. Hawes. Kiser and Rao ( 1982 ) and Hawes and Rao ( 1985 ) used the IPA construct in retirement communities and wellness attention applications. Sethna ( 1982 ) found the IPA technique to be a valid and powerful technique for placing service quality countries that require remedial strategic actions. The implicit in premise of the IPA technique is that customers’ degree of satisfaction with the properties is chiefly derived from their outlooks and judgement of the product’s or service’s public presentation.
IPA has become a popular managerial tool that has been loosely used to place the strengths and failings of trade names. merchandises. services and retail constitutions in assorted industries in recent old ages ( Chapman. 1993 ; Cheron. McTavish & A ; Perrien. 1989 ) . Hemmasi. Strong and Taylor ( 1994 ) measured the service quality of infirmary services utilizing IPA as an option to the traditional SERVQUAL instrument devised by Parasuraman. Zeithaml and Berry ( 1988 ) . While Evans and Chon ( 1989 ) used the IPA to explicate and measure touristry policy. Keyt. Yavas and Riecken ( 1994 ) and Hsu. Byun and Yang ( 1997 ) adopted the IPA technique in eating house placement.
Lewis ( 1985 ) used the IPA as a competitory analysis technique to place tourists’ perceptual experiences of the hotel industry. Lewis and Chambers ( 1989 ) reported the vitamin E! ective usage of IPA by the Sheraton Hotel in supervising client satisfaction. Almanza. Ja! vitamin E and Lin ( 1994 ) used the IPA matrix to find agencies for bettering client satisfaction. Martin ( 1995 ) examined service providers’ perceptual experiences of customers’ outlooks of quality service in the hotel industry utilizing the IPA technique. In an progressively competitory environment. a finding of the strengths and failings of a have high degrees of public presentation in relation to these activities. In the Low Priority quarter-circle. properties have low importance and low public presentation. Although public presentation degrees may be low in this cell. directors should non be excessively concerned since the properties in this cell are non perceived to be really of import. Limited resources should be expended on this & A ; low priority’ cell. Last. the Possible Overkill quarter-circle contains properties of low importance. but of comparatively high public presentation.
Respondents are satis”ed with the public presentation of the administrations. but directors should see present vitamin E! orts on the properties of this cell as being overutilised ( Evans and Chon. 1989 ; Hemmasi. Strong & A ; Taylor. 1994 ; Keyt et Al. . 1994 ; Martilla & A ; James. 1977 ; Martin. 1995 ) . Fig. 1. Importance } Performance Analysis grid. Quadrant I Attributes are perceived to be really of import to respondents. but public presentation degrees are reasonably low. This sends a direct message that betterment vitamin E! orts should concentrate here. Quadrant II Attributes are perceived to be really of import to respondents. and at the same clip. the administration seems to hold high degrees of public presentation on these activities.
The message here is To Keep up the Good Work. Quadrant III Attributes are with low importance and low public presentation. Although public presentation degrees may be low in this cell. directors should non be excessively concerned since the property in this cell is non perceived to be really of import. Limited resources should be expended on this low precedence cell. Quadrant IV This cell contains properties of low importance. but comparatively high public presentation. Respondents are satis”ed with the public presentation of the administrations. but directors should see present vitamin E! orts on the properties of this cell as being overutilised.
2. 2. Perceived importance and public presentation of properties Attribute importance is by and large regarded as a person’s general appraisal of the signi”cance of an property for a merchandise. Many surveies have attempted to analyze client satisfaction in footings of both outlooks that relate to certain of import properties and judgements of the attribute public presentation ( Myers & A ; Alpers. 1968 ; Swan & A ; Coombs. 1976 ) . However. there appears to hold been diverse decisions made about how one should associate property importance and public presentation. The construct of & A ; importance’ is viewed by clients the same as satisfaction ( Barsky. 1992 ; Rosenberg. 1956 ) . When a client perceives an property as of import. the client will believe that the property will play a signi”cant function in in # uencing his or her merchandise pick ( MacKenzie. 1986 ) .
More late. the term & A ; importance’ has been used to mention to the sensed importance of an property and its vitamin E! ECT on merchandise or service quality ( Carman. 1990 ) . Lilien. Kotler and Moorthy ( 1993 ) de”ned the term & A ; of import attributes’ as those considered of import by consumers. and that the assorted trade names or merchandises are perceived to di! Er. Hemmasi et Al. ( 1994 ) . nevertheless. stated that public presentation lies in client perceptual experiences of public presentation of the property.
Therefore. the more favorable the perceptual experience of public presentation. the greater the likeliness of the pick from among similar options. Therefore. it is strategically of import for hotelkeepers to understand and to place the merchandise ( or service ) attributes perceived by clients as of import. and to analyze how clients perceive these merchandise ( or service ) attributes. It is besides really likely that a customer’s favorable post-purchase experience may take him or her to buy back if the client is satis”ed with the hotel public presentation. 2. 3. Hotel attributes in hotel pick choice Those properties straight in # uencing pick are & amp ; deciding attributes’ : they may elicit consumers’ purchase purposes and di! erentiate from competitors’ O! erings product’s or service’s importance and public presentation seems an undeniable component of success.
The reading of the IPA is diagrammatically presented on a grid divided into four quarter-circles. Fig. 1 illustrates the IPA grid. The & gt ; -axis reports the customers’ perceived importance of selected properties. and the X-axis shows the product’s ( or service’s ) public presentation in relation to these properties. The four identi”able quarter-circles are: Concentrate Here. Keep Up the Good Work. Low Priority and Possible Overkill. In the Concentrate Here quadrant. properties are perceived to be really of import to respondents. but public presentation degrees are seen as reasonably low. This sends a direct message that betterment vitamin E! orts should concentrate here. In the Keep Up the Good Work quarter-circle. properties are perceived to be really of import to respondents. and at the same clip. the administration seems to ( Alpert. 1971 ) . The services and installations o! ered by a hotel. or hotel properties. are those characteristics of merchandises or services that lead consumers to take one merchandise over others ( Lewis. 1983 ) .
Wuest. Tas and Emenheiser ( 1996 ) de”ned perceptual experiences of hotel properties as the grade to which travelers “nd assorted services and installations of import to customers’ satisfaction. Atkinson ( 1988 ) found that cleanliness of the adjustment. followed by safety and security. adjustment value for money. courtesy and helpfulness of sta! were identi”ed as top properties for travelers in hotel pick choice. Wilensky and Buttle ( 1988 ) mentioned that personal service. physical attraction. chances for relaxation. criterion of services. appealing image. and value for money were signi”cantly evaluated by travelers.
Rivers. Toh and Alaoui ( 1991 ) examined the hotel choice determinations of members and non-members of frequent invitee plans. Their consequences showed that convenience of location and overall service received the highest evaluations. Ananth. DeMicco. Moreo and Howey ( 1992 ) surveyed 510 travelers. inquiring them to rate the importance of 57 hotel properties in hotel pick determination. The consequences showed that & amp ; monetary value and quality’ was rated as the most of import property across all age classs. followed by properties related to & A ; security’ and & A ; convenience of location’ . LeBlanc and Nguyen ( 1996 ) . in peculiar. examined the “ve hotel factors that may signal a hotel’s image to travelers. These “ve factors were: physical environment. corporate individuality. service forces. quality of services and handiness. They suggested that marketing vitamin E! orts should be directed to foreground the environmental cues in order to pull new clients.
An extended reappraisal of the literature for the cordial reception industry suggests that properties such as cleanliness. location. room rate. security. service quality. and the repute of the hotel have been considered by most tourers in hotel pick determination ( Ananth. DeMicco. Moreo & A ; Howey. 1992 ; Atkinson. 1988 ; Barsky & A ; Labagh. 1992 ; Cadotte & A ; Turgeon. 1988 ; Knutson. 1988 ; LeBlanc & A ; Nguyen. 1996 ; Lewis. 1984. 1985 ; Marshall. 1993 ; McCleary. Weaver & A ; Hutchinson. 1993 ; Rivers. Toh & A ; Alaoui. 1991 ; Wilensky & A ; Buttle. 1988 ) .
2. 4. Hotel attributes as perceived by concern and leisure travelers Many surveies have looked into a comparing between concern and leisure travelers in their hotel choice standards. These surveies indicated that the of import attributes a! ecting concern travellers’ hotel picks were cleanliness and location ( Lewis & A ; Chambers. 1989 ; McCleary et Al. . 1993 ; Taninecz. 1990 ) . whereas security. personal interactions. and room rates were considered as of import by their leisure opposite numbers ( Clow. Garretson & A ; Kurtz. 1994 ; Lewis. 1985 ; Marshall. 1993 ; Parasuraman et Al. . 1988 ) . Taninecz ( 1990 ) found that cleanliness. comfort of mattresses and pillows. and quality of towels received the highest evaluations from concern travelers. Lewis and Chambers ( 1989 ) and McCleary et Al. ( 1993 ) besides found that location was the most of import factor in # uencing hotel choice by all concern travelers. However. they argued that a hotel’s catering installations were non of import in hotel choice. as there are frequently many alternate dining picks nearby.
Leisure travelers seem to be more concerned with room rates and value in their initial hotel choice ( Lewis. 1985 ) . Parasuraman et Al. ( 1988 ) found that the quality of personal interactions with employees was a critical constituent of the service quality rating. Employees’ service quality has been cited as of import to leisure travelers when choosing nightlong adjustment ( Parasuraman et Al. . 1988 ) . Knutson ( 1988 ) mentioned that leisure travelers were chiefly concerned with a hotel’s safety and security. This concern might stem from the thought that leisure trips frequently involve households. and these travelers have a high sensitiveness to what may happen around them when their households are involved. Marshall ( 1993 ) and Clow et Al. ( 1994 ) revealed that security was cited as one of the most of import standards in choosing a hotel. Tourists want to be safe and secure in their adjustment. and are willing to pay for this.
The safety and security system may di! erentiate one belongings from its competition. hence going a competitory scheme that helps a hotel to derive tourists’ con”dence and trust. Ananth et Al. ( 1992 ) found that leisure travelers were likely to show concern with respect to a hotel’s repute and name acquaintance. Other surveies have suggested that some hotel properties are seen as of import by both concern and leisure travelers. Knutson ( 1988 ) examined the di! erences between concern and leisure travelers in an effort to find the properties that ab initio pull these two types of travelers to a hotel. and that conveying them back.
Her “ndings suggested that the undermentioned factors were considered by both concern and leisure travelers when choosing a hotel for the “rst clip or for repeat backing: ( 1 ) clean. comfy. well-maintained suites. ( 2 ) convenient location. ( 3 ) prompt and gracious service. ( 4 ) safe and secure environment. and ( 5 ) friendly and gracious employees. Lewis ( 1984. 1985 ) tested 66 hotel properties to find the footing of hotel choice by 1314 concern and leisure travelers in six hotels.
The “ndings showed that location and monetary value were the deciding properties for hotel choice for both concern and leisure travelers. Cadotte and Turgeon ( 1988 ) examined informations from members of the AH & A ; MA ( American Hotel & A ; Motel Association ) on the comparative frequence of 26 classs of regards. Survey consequences found that the “ve most frequent regards were: ( 1 ) helpful attitude of employees. ( 2 ) cleanliness of constitution. ( 3 ) spruceness of constitution. ( 4 ) quality of service. and ( 5 ) employee cognition of service.