EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS IN RESTAURANT

SERVICES: THREE DIMENSION GAP ANALYSIS

Ming-Chun Tsai1, Chien-Lin Lin2,*

1
Department of Business Administration, Chung Hua University
2
Department of Technology Management, Chung Hua University,
Department of Tourism Management, Hsing Wu College,
No. 707 Sec.2 WuFu Rd., Hsinchu Taiwan 30012 ROC
082001@mail.hwc.edu.tw

ABSTRACT
Service quality is a crucial factor affecting customer satisfaction and business
performance. The importance of service quality was recognized by Parasuraman et al.
(1985). Researchers have been deeply engaged in the studies of service quality gap.
Among them, Lin, et al. (2009) have developed the IPGA model by integrating the
strengths of the importance-performance analysis (IPA) and the gaps analysis. This
study intends to develop a three dimension service quality gap model by extending the
IPGA model through adding in the construct of management perceptions of consumer
expectations. Based on the model, the service quality gap will be identified and
problems causing the gap analyzed. This research empirically investigates the
feasibility of the model at four various restaurant outlets of a hotel in Taiwan using
DINESERV, a 29-item instrument developed in 1995 by Steven, hoping to provide a
guide to researchers and the service industry as well for their future study on service
quality management.

Keyword: Service Quality, Gap Analysis, Important-Performance Analysis, IPGA,

DINESERV

INTRODUCTION
Service quality is a crucial factor affecting customer satisfaction and enhancing
business performance. Many researchers argued that service quality does indeed
increase customer satisfaction and loyalty (Bruhn and Grund, 2000; Gronholdt et al.,
2000; Martensen et al., 2000; Cassel and Eklof, 2001). Hence, it has become a prime
concern for the management to identify critical service attributes so as to improve
service quality. The importance of service quality was also recognized by
Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), who developed the Gaps model that defines
service quality as the differences between customers’ expectations and perceptions.
Much effort has also been put into exploration of service quality gaps. (Tsai, et al.,
2007, Lee and Chen, 2009, and Lin, et al. 2009) A number of studies maintained that
the Gap Analysis and the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) are the main
analytical approaches helping professionals improve service quality (Parasuraman et
al., 1985; Marr & Jeffrey, 1986; Hammasi et al., 1994; Chu and Choi, 2000; O’neill
and Palmer, 2004; Chen and Chang, 2005; Breiter and Milman, 2006; Abalo et al.,
2007). IPA (Martilla and James, 1977) provides advantages for evaluating customer
acceptance of a marketing program and gives management insights into which aspect
of the marketing mix requiring more attention and identifies areas that may be
consuming too many resources. Although the Gaps Analysis and IPA are considered to
be effective managerial tools and are widely used by researchers in various areas,
each of them has its limitations that have entailed related studies on modified
conceptions (Slack, 1996; Skok et al., 2001; Soetanto et al., 2001; Aigbedo and
Parameswaran, 2004; Chen and Chang, 2005; Bei & Shang, 2006; Pakdil and Aydin,
2007; Abalo et al., 2007). Among them, Lin, et al. (2009), by integrating the strengths
of IPA and Gap Analysis, developed the IPGA model, which has not only provided a
solution to both the theoretical and practical weaknesses generated while applying
IPA and Gap Analysis, but also helped redefine the actual quality attributes needed to
be improved in a service system.
This study intends to extend the IPGA model by Lin, et al. (2009) through adding in
the construct of management perceptions on consumer expectations, in addition to the
construct of consumer expectations and perceptions, so as to develop a three
dimension service quality gaps model. With the model, service quality gaps can be
identified and problems causing the gaps can be further analyzed. An empirical
investigation into the feasibility of the model was conducted at four various restaurant
outlets of a hotel in Taiwan using DINESERV, hoping to provide a guide to
researchers and the service industry as well for their future study on service quality
management.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Gaps model & DINESERV

Service quality is undeniably crucial in achieving customer satisfaction and business
performance. There have been ample studies attributed to enhancing the quality of
service. Researchers such as Bruhn and Grund argued that service quality helps boost
customer satisfaction and loyalty (Bruhn and Grund, 2000; Gronholdt et al., 2000;
Martensen et al., 2000; Cassel and Eklof, 2001). Parasuraman et al. (1985) proposed
the Gaps model that defines service quality as the differences between customer
expectations and perceptions. The five gaps are: Gap 1, the listening gap; Gap 2, the
service designs and standards gap; Gap 3, the service performance gap; Gap 4, the
communication gap; and Gap 5, the customer gap. Using SERVQUAL as the basis,
Stevens et al. (1995) developed DINESERV to determine how customers view a
restaurant’s quality by refining LODGSERV (Knutson and Stevens,1990 ), which was
drafted by Knutson and Stevens for measuring service quality for lodging properties.
DINESERV has been regarded as a reliable, relatively simple tool to measure
restaurant service quality.

Importance-Performance Analysis
The Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA), proposed by Martilla and James (1977),
was originally applied to analyze the performance of the automobile industry. IPA
identifies the importance of the attributes associated with a service or product as well
as the degree of performance. The results are displayed on a two-dimensional grid.
The importance of the service attributes is plotted as the vertical axis while their
performance levels plotted as the horizontal axis. The means of performance and
importance divide the grid into four quadrants: Keep up the Good Work, Concentrate
Here, Low Priority, and Possible Overkill. The IPA, an effective technique for a
company to evaluate its competitive position in the market and to identify its
defective service qualities, has become a popular managerial tool and been widely
used by researchers in various areas, such as the travel and tourism industry (Zhang
and Chow, 2004; Deng, 2007), the traffic and transportation industry (Chen and
Chang, 2005, Tam and Lam, 2004, Leong 2008), and the hospitality industry (Chu &
Choi, 2000, Janes & Wisnom, 2003, Qu & sit, 2007) etc.

IPGA Model
Although IPA has been considered as an effective technique, there are researchers
proposing several modified conceptions, based upon two implicit assumptions about
the traditional IPA: (1) attributes performance and importance are two independent
variables, and (2) the relationship between attributes performance and overall
performance is linear and symmetric (Lin, et al., 2009). Therefore, Matzler et al.
(2003) proposed a revised IPA that derives attributes importance from partial
correlation analysis between attributes performance and overall customer satisfaction.
Oliver (1997) argued that confusion arises concerning the most suitable means of
calculating and distributing performance and importance scores along their respective
axes. Pakdil and Aydin (2007) measured airline service quality using SERVQUAL
scores weighted by loadings derived from factor analysis. Deng et al. (2008)
presented a revised IPA which integrates three-factor theory and benchmarking.
Moreover, Lin, et al., (2009) developed the IPGA model, by integrating the strengths
of the IPA and the Gaps analysis. The IPGA technique, unlike the traditional IPA,
replaces the matrix’s coordinate axes with the relative importance (RI) and relative
performance (RP) respectively. The results are then displayed on a two-dimensional
grid. The relative importance of the service attributes is plotted as the vertical axis
while the relative performance is plotted as the horizontal axis. When the average
importance of customer perceptions I .j of the jth attribute is equal to the total
average importance of customer perceptions I .. , the relative importance RI of the
attribute is 1, thus the dividing point of the matrix’s vertical axis is 1. In addition,
when there is no significant difference between the average performance and
importance of the attribute, the score of the relative performance RP is 0, and the
dividing point of the matrix’s horizontal axis is 0. Therefore the intersection
coordinate of IPGA matrix is (0,1). The dividing point (0,1) separates the grid into
four quadrants (Figure 1):

FIGURE 1. Importance-Performance-Gap Matrix (IPGM)

Relative Importance (RI)

II. Concentrate Here I. Keep Up The Good Work

High RI / Low RP High RI / High RP

III. Low Priority IV. Possible Overkill

Low RI / Low RP Low RI / High RP

Relative Performance (RP)

Quadrant I. Attributes situated in the quadrant are perceived to have high relative
importance and high relative performance.
Quadrant II. In the quadrant, attributes have high relative importance but low relative
performance. This implies that improvement efforts should be concentrated here.
Quadrant III. Attributes located in the quadrant have both low relative importance and
performance
Quadrant IV. The quadrant contains attributes of low relative importance with high
relative performance. Present efforts on the attributes in this quadrant are over-utilized
and management should consider reallocate its resources.

METHODOLOGY
Three dimensional service quality gaps model
In the conceptual Gaps model, the customer gap (gap 5) is the result of the other four
gaps, whereas the listening gap, Gap 1, deals with the differences between customer
expectations and management perceptions. In most service companies, the
management is responsible for the design of service quality standards. Thus
management perceptions of customer expectations will affect service quality designs
and standards and influence service delivery and company’s external communications
to customers. An inadequate understanding of customer expectations will ultimately
lead to inferior service performance of the firm. It is therefore critical for the
management to fully understand customers’ expectations. In this study Gap 1 is
categorized as the construct of “management perception”. Gaps 2 through 4 are
categorized as the constructs of “management execution”. To accommodate the
relative importance to the customer, the relative performance level and the
management perceptions of customer expectations, a three dimensional service
quality gaps model is thus developed by extending the IPGA model (Lin, et al., 2009).
By means of the three dimension gaps model, this study tries to further analyze the
causes of service gaps which need to be improved. The three dimensional service
quality gaps model is comprised of three steps as following:

Step 1: Measuring customer perceptions toward the importance of service attributes,

their performance levels and management perceptions for customer
expectations.
Assuming there are n number of respondents, m number of management personnel, p
number of service attributes, CI ij is written indicating the cognitive importance of
the ith respondent to the jth attribute, and CPij indicating the satisfaction level
(performance) of the ith respondent at the jth attribute. MI ij is written indicating the
cognitive importance of the ith management personnel to the jth attribute

Step 2: Calculating the relative importance, the relative performance levels and the
relative importance of management perceptions for customer expectations.
Based on the IPGA model developed by Lin et al. (2009), the definitions of the
relative importance of customer perceptions (CRI), the relative performance of
customer perceptions (CRP) and the relative importance of management perceptions
(MRI) are as following:
I. The relative importance for customer perceptions (CRI):
n
CI .j = ∑ CI ij n , where n is the number of respondents; thus, CI .j is the average
i =1
 n p
importance of the j th
attribute; CI .. = ∑∑ CI ij np , where p is the number of
i =1 j =1

attributes); thus, CI .. is the total average importance of p attributes. CRI(j)

= CI j / CI .. , where function CRI(j) is the relative evaluation value of the importance of
jth attribute as compared to the total average value.
II. The relative performance for customer perceptions (CRP):
n , where n is the number of respondents; thus, CP j is the average
CP . j = ∑ CPij n
i =1
performance of the jth attribute; n p , where p is the number of
CP .. = ∑∑ CPij n
i =1 j =1

attributes; thus, CP .. is the total average performance of p attributes. When the

average performance of the jth attribute is significantly larger than the average
importance of jth attribute, the score of the CRP(j) is written as CP . j / CP .. , indicating
that the positive service gap exists in the jth attribute. When the average performance
of the jth attribute is significantly smaller than the average importance of the jth
attribute, the score of the CRP(j) is written as –( CP j / CP.. )-1, indicating that the
negative service gap exists in the jth attribute. When there is no significant difference
between the average performance and importance of the jth attribute, the score of the
CRP(j) is 0, meaning there is no service gap in the jth attribute. The function CRP is
the relative evaluation value of performance of jth attribute as compared to the total
average value shown as following (Table 1):

Table 1. The Calculation of the Relative Performance (CRP)

Contingency t-test Relative performance (CRP)

CP .j > CI .j Significant CP .j / CP ..
CP .j < CI .j Significant − (CP .j / CP .. ) -1
CP .j < CI .j or CP .j > CI .j Non-significant 0

III. The relative importance for management perceptions (MRI)

m , where m is the number of management personnel; thus, MI . j is

MI . j = ∑ MI ij m
i =1
the averageimportance of management perception of the jth attribute;
m p , where p is the number of attributes; thus, MI .. is the total
MI .. = ∑∑ MI ij m p
i =1 j =1

average importance of management perceptions of p attributes. When the average

importance of management perceptions of the jth attribute is significantly larger than
the average importance for the customer perceptions of jth attribute, the score of the
MRI(j) is written as MI . j / MI .. , indicating that a positive gap exists between
customer expectations and management perceptions in the jth attribute. When the
average importance of management perceptions of the jth attribute is significantly
smaller than the average importance for the customer perceptions of jth attribute, the
score of the MRI(j) is written as − ( MI . j / MI .. ) −1 , indicating a negative gap exists
between management perceptions and customer expectations in the jth attribute. When
there is no significant difference between the average importance of management
perceptions and the average importance of the customer perceptions of the jth attribute,
the score of the MRI(j) is 0, namely there is no gap between management perceptions
and customer expectations in the jth attribute. The calculations of the relative
importance of management perceptions for customer expectations (MRI) are shown as
following (Table 2):

TABLE 2. The calculations of the relative importance of management

perceptions of customer expectations (MRI)

Relative Important for

Contingency t-test Manager’s Perception
(MRI)
MI .j > CI .j Significant MI .j / MI ..
MI .j < CI .j Significant − ( MI .j / MI .. ) -1
MI .j > CI .j or MI .j < CI .j Non-significant 0

Step 3: Find the attributes in the eight quadrants of the Three Dimension Service
Quality Gaps
The relative importance of the service attributes is plotted as the vertical axis while
the relative performance is plotted as the horizontal axis. When the average
importance CI . j of the jth attribute is equal to the total average importance CI .. , the
score of relative importance CRI of the attribute is 1, thus the dividing point of the
matrix’s vertical axis is 1. When there is no significant difference between the average
performance and importance of the attribute, the score of the relative performance
CRP is 0, and the dividing point of the matrix’s horizontal axis is 0. In addition, when
there is no significant difference between the average performance and importance of
the attribute, the score of the relative performance MRI is 0, and the dividing point of
the matrix’s 3rd axis is 0.Therefore the intersection coordinate of the three dimensional
matrix is (0,1,0). The dividing point (0,1,0) separates the matrix into eight
quadrants(Figure 2):
FIGURE 2. The three dimension service quality gaps matrix

High CRP

Low

CRI
Low High

High
MRI
Low
Gap 1 is categorized as the construct of “management perception”. Gaps 2 through 4
are categorized as the constructs of “management execution”. Thus all the service
attributes are divided into the eight quadrants with the two constructs (Table 3).

TABLE 3. The Eight Quadrants of the Three Dimension Service Quality Gaps
CRI CRP MRI Results
≥0 I. Quality leading attributes
≥0
<0 II. Quality risk attributes
III. Leading faulty attributes on management
≥1 ≥0
execution
<0
IV. Leading faulty attributes on management
<0
perceptions
V. Resources overflow attributes on management
≥0
perceptions
≥0
VI. Resources overflow attributes on management
<0
execution
<1
VII. Secondary faulty attributes on management
≥0
execution
<0
VIII. Secondary faulty attributes on management
<0
perceptions

The management applications of the three dimension service quality gaps are as
following:
Quadrant I. Attributes situated in quadrant I are perceived to have high relative
importance, high relative performance and positive management
perceptions of customer expectations. Attributes in this quadrant are
categorized as quality leading attributes. Managers should keep up the
good work and maintain their quality edge.
Quadrant II. Attributes situated in quadrant II are perceived by the customer to have
high relative importance and high relative performance, but a negative
gap exists between management perceptions and customer expectations
(Gap 1 exists). Customers consider these attributes very important and
the firm is currently performing well on those areas. However, the
management may fail to realize their importance and run the risk of
causing service quality gaps in the future. Attributes that fall in this
quadrant are categorized as quality risk attributes.
Quadrant III. Attributes in quadrant III are perceived to have high relative importance
both by the customer and the management, but of low relative
performance. This implies problems causing the service quality gap are
from the construct of “management execution” (Gap 2 through Gap 4).
Therefore, we named these attributes as leading faulty attributes on
management execution. Improvement efforts should be concentrated on
customer-driven service designs and standards, service delivery and
external communications to customers etc.
Quadrant IV. Attributes in quadrant IV are perceived to have high relative importance
by the customer but with low relative performance and a negative gap
exists between management perceptions and customer expectations. This
implies that problems causing the gap are from the construct of
 “management perception”. Hence, these attributes are named as the
leading faulty attributes on management perceptions. Managers should
first concentrate on acquiring accurate information about customer
expectations through marketing research such as surveys or customer
feedback systems etc., and examine possible flaws of their service
implementations.
Quadrant V. Attributes in quadrant V are perceived by the customer to have low
relative importance, but high relative performance and a positive gap
exists between management perceptions and customer expectations.
Managers may overestimate the importance of these attributes and
present efforts on the attributes are over-utilized. These attributes are so
named as resources overflow attributes on management perceptions. The
management is encouraged to pay less attention to these attributes and
start allocating their resources in a reduced manner.
Quadrant VI. Attributes in quadrant VI are perceived by the customer to have low
relative importance, but high relative performance and a negative gap
exists between management perceptions and customer expectations. This
implies resources are over-utilized on these attributes even the customer
and management recognize them as being low importance. These
attributes are named as resources overflow attributes on management
execution. When attributes fall in this quadrant, the management is
advised to re-examine its service designs and standards as well as service
delivery to avoid possible resources overkill.
Quadrant VII. Attributes in quadrant VII are perceived to have low relative
importance and performance by the customer, while the management
thinks highly of these attributes. The result is an indication that the
customer does not perceive the attributes to be very important. Though
the quality of the attributes needs to be improved, it should be low on the
list of priorities. These attributes are named as secondary faulty attributes
on management execution. When attributes fall in this quadrant, the
management should go over its service designs and standards, service
delivery, etc.
Quadrant VIII. Attributes in quadrant VIII are perceived by the customer to have low
relative importance and relative performance and a negative gap exists
between management perceptions and customer expectations. Since the
result is largely due to management perceptions, these attributes are
therefore named as secondary faulty attributes on management
perceptions. The management should first raise its awareness over the
attributes and then consider necessary rectifications relating its
performance. However, the priority for the improvement is low.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
The following is an example case presented to demonstrate the application of the
three dimensional service quality gaps model.

Scope and object of study and data collection

This research was undertaken at four fine dining restaurants of a hotel with 337 rooms
in Hsin Chu, a city in northern Taiwan. A survey was administered during a two-week
span in Nov., 2009. The questionnaires were designed in two different formats
separately for guests and supervisors and managers. As a result, 204 effective
responses were obtained from the guests, and 49 from the supervisors and managers.

Measures
Customers’ service quality expectations and perceptions of the restaurants were
measured using DINESERV. The 29-item DINESERV instrument includes 10 items
for tangibles, 5 items for reliability, 3 items for responsiveness, 5 items for assurance
and 5 items for empathy (Stevens et al. 1995). The customer questionnaire consists of
two parts. The first part is designed to measure the respondents’ expectations and
perceptions regarding the quality of services offered by the restaurants. Customers
were asked to rate the service attributes, using 5-point Likert scale.
Prior to the survey, a pilot test had been conducted to assess the reliability of the
attributes, and to ensure that the wording of the questionnaire was clear. Twenty-nine
questionnaires were completed by master and doctoral students who had dined at
hotel restaurants. Reliability analysis was also applied to test the internal consistency
of each expectation and perception attribute. The results showed that the Cronbach’s
α coefficients for the expectation and perception attributes are 0.943 and 0.941
respectively, which means they were internally consistent and reliable.

Means analysis for restaurant attributes

According to Table 4, the respondents perceived all restaurant attributes as important
(3.94-4.36) and the mean is 4.19. Among them, “has dining areas that are thoroughly
clean”, “serves your food exactly as you ordered it”, and “provides an accurate guest
check” were considered the most important attributes. On the contrary, respondents
regarded the attributes, “has a visually attractive menu that reflects the restaurant’s
image”, “has visually attractive building exteriors’, and “has a menu that is easily
readable” as the least important attributes.
The respondents’ perceptions of the attributes’ performance ranged from 3.72 to 4.01
with the grand mean at 3.89. “has a dining area that is comfortable and easy to more
around” and “ has staff members who are clean, neat and appropriately dressed” were
the only two attributes with satisfaction ratings greater than 4. The next highest
ratings included “provides an accurate guest check” and “has a visually attractive
dining area. Conversely, the respondents were least satisfied with the attributes of
“has a visually attractive menu that reflects the restaurant’s image”, “anticipates your
individual needs and wants”, and “gives extra effort to handle your special requests”.
The managers perceived all restaurant attributes of customer expectations as
important (3.80-4.82) and the mean was 4.39. The most important attributes of
customer expectations perceived by the managers were “has dining areas that are
thoroughly clean”, “is dependable and consistent”, and “provides an accurate guest
check”. In contrast, the least important attributes of customer expectations perceived
by the managers were “has visually attractive building exteriors”, “has a visually
attractive menu that reflects the restaurant’s image”, and “makes you feel special”.

Gaps analyses
Paired sample t-tests were used to test if such the customer gap, Gap 5, existed. The
average means of service performance perceived by the customers were all lower than
those of their expectations (Table 4). Twenty seven out of twenty nine of these
differences were statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The largest gaps existed in
the attributes such as “has employees who can answer your questions completely”,
“seems to give employees support so that they can do their job well” and “serves your
food exactly as you ordered it”.
Gap 1, the listening gap, is the difference between customer expectations and
management perceptions of those attributes. Independent sample t-tests were used to
test if Gap 1 existed. The managers overestimated the respondents’ expectations on
twenty five out of the twenty nine attributes (Table 4). Fourteen items showed a
statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level. The largest gaps appeared in such
attributes as “has dining areas that are thoroughly clean”, “is dependable and
consistent”, and “makes you feel personally safe”. However, the managers
underestimated such attributes as “has visually attractive building exteriors”, “makes
you feel special”, “seems to have the customers’ best interests at heart” and “has a
visually attractive menu that reflects the restaurant’s image”.

TABLE 4. Gap Analysis for Restaurant Service Attributes

Gap 5 Gap 1
Restaurant Service Attributes Mean(CI) Mean(CP) Mean(MI)
CP-CI MI-CI
1. has visually attractive parking areas. 4.225 3.941 4.286 -0.284*** 0.060
2. has visually attractive building exteriors. 3.946 3.838 3.796 -0.108 -0.150
3. has a visually attractive dining area. 4.216 3.966 4.429 -0.250*** 0.213**
4. has staff members who are clean, neat and
4.108 4.010 4.510 -0.098 0.402***
appropriately dressed.
5. has a décor in keeping with its image and
4.123 3.863 4.327 -0.260*** 0.204
price range.
6. has a menu that is easily readable. 3.971 3.838 4.143 -0.132** 0.172
7. has a visually attractive menu that reflects
3.936 3.721 3.898 -0.216*** -0.038
the restaurant’s image.
8. has a dining area that is comfortable and
4.191 4.010 4.347 -0.181*** 0.156
easy to move around in.
9. has restrooms that are thoroughly clean. 4.270 3.946 4.673 -0.324*** 0.404***
10. has dining areas that are thoroughly clean. 4.363 3.966 4.816 -0.397*** 0.454 ***
11. serves you in the time promised. 4.225 3.897 4.531 -0.328*** 0.305 ***
12. quickly corrects anything that is wrong. 4.240 3.892 4.592 -0.348*** 0.352***
13. is dependable and consistent. 4.275 3.936 4.714 -0.338*** 0.440***
14. provides an accurate guest check. 4.289 3.985 4.694 -0.304*** 0.405***
15. serves your food exactly as you ordered
4.328 3.926 4.449 -0.402*** 0.121
it.
16. during busy times has employees helping
each other to maintain speed and quality 4.250 3.853 4.469 -0.397*** 0.219**
of service.
17. provides prompt and quick service. 4.206 3.887 4.510 -0.319*** 0.304**
18. gives extra effort to handle your special
4.108 3.814 4.163 -0.294*** 0.055
requests.
19. has employees who can answer your
4.250 3.828 4.531 -0.422*** 0.281***
questions completely.
20. makes you feel comfortable and confident
4.230 3.868 4.469 -0.363*** 0.239***
in your dealings with them.
21. has personnel who are both able and 4.137 3.868 4.286 -0.270*** 0.148
 willing to give you information about
menu items, their ingredients, and
methods of preparation.
22. makes you feel personally safe. 4.216 3.882 4.653 -0.333*** 0.437***
23. has personnel who seem well-trained,
4.235 3.868 4.286 -0.368*** 0.050
competent, and experienced.
24. seems to give employees support so that
4.240 3.833 4.388 -0.407*** 0.148
they can do their job well.
25. has employees who are sensitive to your
individual needs and wants, rather than
4.172 3.863 4.245 -0.309*** 0.073
always relying on policies and
procedures.
26. makes you feel special. 4.221 3.912 4.122 -0.309*** -0.098
27. anticipates your individual needs and
4.142 3.814 4.224 -0.328*** 0.082
wants.
28. has employees who are sympathetic and
4.206 3.897 4.469 -0.309*** 0.264 **
reassuring if something is wrong.
29. seems to have the customers’ best
4.235 3.926 4.184 -0.309*** -0.052
interests at heart.
*p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.001

The three dimension service quality gaps analysis

The measurement of relative performance is based on the transformation of its gap
direction by means of the function CP . j / CP .. or − (CP . j / CP .. ) −1 . From the results
in Table 5, there were two service attributes without significant difference between
the average relative importance and performance. Hence, their scores of CRPs were 0.
The two attributes showing no gap were “has visually attractive building exteriors”
and “has staff members who are clean, neat and appropriately dressed”. Most of the
restaurant service attributes had negative gaps and the scores of their relative
performance were between -1.046 and -0.970, with the exception of two attributes. As
Table 5 shows, the relative importance scores for the restaurant service attributes
ranged from 0.939 to 1.041. The measurement of relative performance is based on the
transformation of its gap direction by means of the function MI . j / MI .. or
− ( MI . j / MI .. ) −1 . As indicated in Table 5, there were fifteen attributes without
significant difference between the average relative importance and performance.
Hence, the scores of MRP were 0. The scores of the other fourteen attributes ranged
from 1.010 to 1.098 which indicated that managers overestimated the importance of
the customers’ expectations on these fourteen attributes.

TABLE 5. The Three Dimension Service Quality Gaps Analysis

Restaurant Service attributes CRI CRP MRI

1. has visually attractive parking areas. 1.008 -0.987*** 0.000

2. has visually attractive building exteriors. 0.941 0.000 0.000
***
3. has a visually attractive dining area. 1.006 -0.981 1.010**
4. has staff members who are clean, neat and
0.980 0.000 1.028***
appropriately dressed.
5. has a décor in keeping with its image and price range. 0.984 -1.007*** 0.000
**
6. has a menu that is easily readable. 0.947 -1.014 0.000
7. has a visually attractive menu that reflects the
0.939 -1.046*** 0.000
restaurant’s image.
8. has a dining area that is comfortable and easy to
1.000 -0.970** 0.000
move around in.
9. has restrooms that are thoroughly clean. 1.019 -0.986*** 1.065***
10. has dining areas that are thoroughly clean. 1.041 -0.981*** 1.098***
11. serves you in the time promised. 1.008 -0.999*** 1.033**
12. quickly corrects anything that is wrong. 1.012 -1.000*** 1.047***
13. is dependable and consistent. 1.020 -0.989*** 1.075***
14. provides an accurate guest check. 1.023 -0.976*** 1.070***
15. serves your food exactly as you ordered it. 1.033 -0.991*** 0.000
16. during busy times has employees helping each other
1.014 -1.010*** 1.019**
to maintain speed and quality of service.
17. provides prompt and quick service. 1.003 -1.001*** 1.028**
18. gives extra effort to handle your special requests. 0.980 -1.020*** 0.000
19. has employees who can answer your questions
1.014 -1.016 1.033**
completely.
20. makes you feel comfortable and confident in your
1.009 -1.006*** 1.019**
dealings with them.
21. has personnel who are both able and willing to give
you information about menu items, their ingredients, 0.987 -1.006*** 0.000
and methods of preparation.
22. makes you feel personally safe. 1.006 -1.002*** 1.061***
23. has personnel who seem well-trained, competent, and
1.010 -1.006*** 0.000
experienced.
24. seems to give employees support so that they can do
1.012 -1.015*** 0.000
their job well.
25. has employees who are sensitive to your individual
needs and wants, rather than always relying on 0.995 -1.007*** 0.000
policies and procedures.
26. makes you feel special. 1.007 -0.995*** 0.000
27. anticipates your individual needs and wants. 0.988 -1.020*** 0.000
28. has employees who are sympathetic and reassuring if
1.003 -0.999*** 1.019**
something is wrong.
29. seems to have the customers’ best interests at heart. 1.010 -0.991*** 0.000
*p＜0.1. **p＜0.05. ***p＜0.001

Three dimension service quality gaps matrix

In order to identify the service quality gaps and further analyze the problems causing
the gaps, this study applied the intersection coordinate (0,1,0) to set the three
dimension service quality gaps matrix. The dividing point (0,1,0) separates the matrix
into eight quadrants. As shown in Table 6, twenty attributes in quadrant III had high
relative importance perceived both by the customers and the management, but had
low relative performance. This conveys a message that extra work is needed here and
it also implies the problems causing the service quality gaps were from the constructs
of “management execution” (Gap 2 through Gap 4). These attributes were thus named
as leading faulty attributes on management execution. Improvement efforts should be
concentrated on customer-driven service designs and standards, service delivery and
external communications to customers etc. Seven attributes were situated in quadrant
VII which had low relative importance and performance perceived by the customers,
while the management thought highly of these attributes. These attributes were thus
named as secondary faulty attributes on management execution. Though the attributes
needs to be improved, their priorities are not to be placed overly. Only two attributes
were situated in quadrant V perceived by the customer to have low relative
importance, but high relative performance and a positive gap existed between
management perceptions and customer expectations. These attributes were thus
named as resources overflow attributes on management perceptions. Managers might
have overestimated the importance of these attributes and present efforts on the
attributes have been over-utilized. The restaurant managers are encouraged to pay less
attention to and consider cutting back their resources on these attributes.

TABLE 6. The Three Dimension Service Quality Gaps Model

Restaurant Service attributes CRI CRP MRI Quad.
1. has visually attractive parking areas. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
2. has visually attractive building exteriors. <1 ≥0 ≥0 V
3. has a visually attractive dining area. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
4. has staff members who are clean, neat and appropriately
<1 ≥0 ≥0 V
dressed.
5. has a décor in keeping with its image and price range. <1 <0 ≥0 VII
6. has a menu that is easily readable. <1 <0 ≥0 VII
7. has a visually attractive menu that reflects the restaurant’s
<1 <0 ≥0 VII
image.
8. has a dining area that is comfortable and easy to move
≥1 <0 ≥0 III
around in.
9. has restrooms that are thoroughly clean. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
10. has dining areas that are thoroughly clean. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
11. serves you in the time promised. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
12. quickly corrects anything that is wrong. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
13. is dependable and consistent. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
14. provides an accurate guest check. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
15. serves your food exactly as you ordered it. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
16. during busy times has employees helping each other to
≥1 <0 ≥0 III
maintain speed and quality of service.
17. provides prompt and quick service. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
18. gives extra effort to handle your special requests. <1 <0 ≥0 VII
19. has employees who can answer your questions completely. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
20. makes you feel comfortable and confident in your dealings
≥1 <0 ≥0 III
with them.
21. has personnel who are both able and willing to give you
information about menu items, their ingredients, and <1 <0 ≥0 VII
methods of preparation.
22. makes you feel personally safe. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
23. has personnel who seem well-trained, competent, and
≥1 <0 ≥0 III
experienced.
24. seems to give employees support so that they can do their
≥1 <0 ≥0 III
job well.
25. has employees who are sensitive to your individual needs
and wants, rather than always relying on policies and <1 <0 ≥0 VII
procedures.
26. makes you feel special. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III
27. anticipates your individual needs and wants. <1 <0 ≥0 VII
28. has employees who are sympathetic and reassuring if
≥1 <0 ≥0 III
something is wrong.
29. seems to have the customers’ best interests at heart. ≥1 <0 ≥0 III

CONCLUSION
The main purpose of this study was to identify current service gaps by applying the
IPGA technique. A three dimension gaps model was proposed by adding in the
construct of management perception of customer expectation in order to find out the
problems causing the aforementioned gaps. Based on the model, this research
empirically investigates the feasibility of the model at four various restaurant outlets
of a hotel in Taiwan using DINESERV, a 29-item instrument developed in 1995 by
Steven.
The main results are the development of a three dimension model that integrates the
perception of customers and managers. By the three dimension model, the service
quality gaps can be identified and problems causing the gaps further analyzed.
In the empirical research, the intersection coordinate (0,1,0) was applied to divide the
three dimension gaps matrix into eight quadrants. Twenty attributes were identified as
the leading faulty attributes on management execution in quadrant III. Improvement
endeavor should be concentrated on customer-driven service designs and standards,
service delivery and external communications to customers. Seven attributes named
as the secondary faulty attributes on management execution were situated in quadrant
VII. Though the need for improvement on the attributes is certain, their priorities
should not be overly emphasized. Only two attributes named as resources overflow
attributes on management perceptions were situated in quadrant V. The implications
are that the managers might stress excessive importance of these attributes and current
endeavor on the attributes was more than enough. The restaurant managers are
encouraged to pay less attention to these attributes and start allocating their resources
in a reduced manner. To sum it up, all 29 attributes were categorized into three
quadrants, quadrants III, V and VII. Twenty-seven of the attributes fell in quadrants
III and VII which occur due to the problems of execution. It is manifest that certain
rectifying measures need to be taken by the restaurant management with regard to the
service designs and standards, service delivery, such as human resources policies, a
proper employee training system, and external communications to customers such as
appropriate pricing and advertising etc. Fifteen of the attributes showed no significant
difference between the average importance of management perceptions and the
average importance of the customer perceptions. It demonstrates that the restaurant
managers had a clear picture of what their customers expected. The managers
overemphasized the importance of the customers’ expectations on the other fourteen
attributes. This study presents a framework for further exploring the knowledge about
customer expectations and identifying areas for service improvement and resources
allocation. The IPGA model is an effective tool for measuring service quality with
relative importance and perceptions perceived by the customer. By connecting with
relative management perceptions of customer expectations, the three dimension
service quality gaps model is able to single out not only problems but, more
importantly, who or what caused the problems in service gaps. Therefore, it makes it
more efficient and accurate for the management to develop a successful strategy for
improving service quality.
In this study, the three dimension model can be used to identify the service quality
gaps and then the problems causing the gaps can be further analyzed. But the model
can only distinguish the gaps into problems of management perceptions (gap 1) or
problems of management execution (gap 2~gap 4). For future research, it is suggested
to distinguish from gap 2 to gap 4 for problems of management execution.

REFERENCES
Abalo, J., Varela, J. and Manzano, V. 2007. Importance Values for Importance-
Performance Analysis: A Formula for Spreading Out Values Derived from
Preference Rankings. Journal of Business Research, 60(2), 115-121.
Aigbedo, H. & Parameswaran, R. 2004. Importance-Performance Analysis for
Improving Quality of Campus Food Service. The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 21(8), 876-896.
Bei, L. T. & Shang, C. F. 2006. Building Marketing Strategies for State-Owned
Enterprises against Private Ones Based on the Perspectives of Customer
Satisfaction and Service Quality. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
13(1), 1-13.
Breiter, D. & Milman, A. 2006. Attendees’ Needs and Service Priorities in A Large
Convention Center: Application of The Importance-Performance Theory.
Tourism Management, 27(6), 1364-1370.
Bruhn,M. & Grund, M. A. 2000. Theory, development and implementation of national
customer satisfaction indices: The Swiss Index of Customer
Satisfaction(SWICS). Total Quality Management, 11(7), 1017-1028
Cassel, C. & Eklof, J.A. 2001. Modelling customer satisfaction and loyalty on
aggregate levels: Experience from the ECSI pilot study. Total Quality
Management, 12(7), 834-841.
Chen, F. Y. & Chang, Y. H. 2005. Examining Airline Service Quality from A Process
Perspective. Journal of Air Transport Management, 11(2), 79-87.

Chu, R. K. S. & Choi, T. 2000. An importance-performance analysis of hotel selection

factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: A comparison of business and
leisure travelers. Tourism Management, 21, 363-377.
Deng, W.J. 2007. Using a revised importance-performance analysis approach: The
case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1274-
1284.
Gronholdt L., Martensen, A. & Kristensen, K. 2000. The relationship between
customer satisfaction and loyalty: cross-industry differences. Total Quality
Management. 11(4-6), 509-514.
Hammasi, M.,Strong, K.C. and Taylor S. A. 1994. Measuring Service Quality for
Strategies Planning and Analysis in Service Firms, Journal of Applied
Business Research,10(4), 24-34.
Janes, P.L., & Wisnom M.S. 2003. The Use of Importance Performance Analysis in
the Hospitality Industry: A Comparison of Practices, Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 4(1/2), 23-45
Knutson, B, Stevens P., Wullaert, C., Patton, M., Yokoyama. F., 1990. LODGSERV: A
service Quality Index for the Lodging Industry, Hospitality Research Journal,
14(2), 277-284.
Lee, Y.C., Chen, Jih-Kuang 2009, A New Service Development Integrated Model, The
Service Industries Journal, 29(12), 1669–1686.
Leong, C.C., 2008. An Importance-Performance Analysis to Evaluate Airline Service
Quality: The Case Study of a Budget Airline in Asia, Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 8(3), 39-59.
Lin, Shu-Ping, Chan, Ya-Hui and Tsai, Ming-Chun 2009, A Transformation Function
Corresponding to IPA and Gap Analysis, TQM & Business excellence, 20(8),
829-846.
Marr & Jeffrey W. 1986. Letting the Customer to be the Judge of Quality, Quality
Progress, pp.46-49.
Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L. & Kristensen, K. 2000. The drivers of customer
satisfaction and loyalty: Cross-industry findings from Denmark. Total Quality
Management, 11(4-6), 544-553
Martilla, J. A. & James, J. C. 1977. Importance-performance analyses. Journal of
Marketing, 41(1), 77-79
O’neill, M. A. and Palmer, A. 2004. Wine Production and Tourism: Adding Service to
a Perfect Partnership. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 45(3), 269-284.
Pakdil, F., & Aydm O., 2007. Expectations and perceptions in airline service: An
analysis using weighted SERVQUAL scores, Journal of Air Transport
Management, 13, 229-237.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L., 1985. A Conceptual Model of
Service Quality and Its Implication for Future Research, Journal of Marketing,
49(4), 41-50.
Qu, H. & Sit, C.Y., 2007.Hotel Service Quality in Hong Kong: An Importance and
Performance Analysis, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, 8(3), 49-71
Skok, W., Kophamel, A. and Richardson, I. 2001. Diagnosing Information Systems
Success: Importance-Performance Maps in The Health Club Industry.
Information & Management, 38(7), 409-419.
Slack, N. 1994. The Importance-Performance Matrix as A Determinate of
Improvement Priority. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 14(5), 50-75.
Soetanto, R., Proverbs, D. G. and Holt, G. D. 2001. Achieving Quality Construction
Projects Based on Harmonious Working Relationships. The International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 18(5), 528-548.
Stevens, P., Knutson, B. and Patton, M. 1995. DIVESERV: a tool for measuring
service quality in ‘restaurant, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, 36, 56–60.
Tam, M.L. & Lam, W. H.K. 2004. Determination of service levels for passenger
orientation in Hong Kong international airport. Journal of Air Transport
Management, 10(3), 181-189
Tsai, Ming-Chun, Shih, Kuang-Hsun, Jason C.H. Chen 2007, A comparison of the
service quality of fast food chain franchises, International Journal of Services
and Standards, 3(2), 222-238.
Zhang, H.Q. & Chowl, I. 2004. Application of importance-performance model in tour
guides’ performance: Evidence from mainland Chinese outbound visitors in
Hong Kong. Tourism Management, 25(1), 81-91.