Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203 — 217

Research in hospitality systems and technology

David Kirk!, Ray Pine"
!Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Queen Margaret College, Edinburgh,
Scotland EH12 8TS, UK
" Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

Abstract
This article firstly addresses the development of systems thinking, particularly in relation to
business applications. Distinctions between hard and soft approaches are discussed in relation
to human activity systems, such as the hospitality industry. Secondly, the subject of technology
transfer is described because of its significance to the successful exploitation of technology
within the hospitality industry. This is followed by a review of recent papers which describe
particular innovative technological applications within the hospitality industry. In conclusion,
parallels are drawn between the key features of soft systems and technology transfer, namely
that the successful application of technology within the hospitality industry requires a full
recognition of the importance of all people involved with the service, a thorough analysis of the
appropriateness of the technology and a detailed plan for the design and implementation of the
technology. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Systems; Technology; Technology transfer; Research methodology

In reviewing the uses made of the theories and applications of both systems and
technology within the hospitality industry, it is useful initially to explore the meaning
of these terms within this paper, as they both have a range of common meanings. The
term technology is usually related to the use of scientific method where a reductionist
approach is used in situations where ‘‘problems as a whole are better understood if
they are reduced into the simplest possible elements’’ (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). In
business literature, technology generally has at least three meanings (Grosse, 1996,
p. 782): ‘‘product technology, the knowledge used to produce any product — the
information that specifies the product’s characteristics and uses; process technology,
the knowledge used in production to organise the inputs and operate the machinery
— it relates to the process by which a given product or service is produced; management
technology, the knowledge used in operating a business — the management skills that
enable a firm to compete by using its resources effectively’’.
Within this range of technology types, systems (e.g. operating systems, communica-
tion systems, management systems) can themselves be considered as technology, and
like ‘‘hard’’ technologies will not make the organisation or business a success simply
0278—4319/98/$19.00 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 02 7 8— 4 31 9 ( 98 ) 0 00 1 6— 4
204 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

by their possession. In this respect Grosse (1996, p. 782) raises the concept of superior
technology, where the technology in a firm’s possession may be the same as that held
by many others, but its ‘‘superior’’ nature is derived from the actual competitive
advantage which accrues to the firm from its use. ‘‘Each of these types of technology
can create a competitive advantage for the firm that posses it. That is, although firms
possess each type of technology, an advantage accrues to firms that are able to obtain
or deploy superior technology’’.
Although the word systems is very old, its modern meaning goes back to the middle
of this century when engineers and designers were finding increasing problems with
the reductionist approach of the scientific method when applied to complex situations.
The development in systems thinking as an alternative to this reductionist approach,
which began in the 1950s, is discussed by Johnston (1994). He makes the point that,
particularly in the developing service industries, the reductionist approach (with its
emphasis on optimisation of a small component of the business) was not leading to the
anticipated overall benefits. Instead there was a need for a more holistic view of the
organisation, a view supported by Grönroos (1994). Furthermore, the holistic per-
spective provided by the use of systems theory helps an organisation to better
appreciate its technology needs in relation to all elements of the organisation, and
how best to deploy such technology.

1. Developments in systems

The modern use of the term ‘‘systems’’ began, when it was found that many natural
and man-made organisations could not be described by looking at the detailed
interaction of individual parts (reductionism); instead it was necessary to look at the
relationship of the parts (or sub-systems) and of their interactions (holism). Because of
the need to consider situations of high complexity, the systems approach became
increasingly important (Jenkins, 1981). This approach to understanding complex
organisations had great significance in that it could be applied just as effectively to the
management of businesses as it could to ecological systems, solar systems and
engineering systems. In contrast to this systemic approach (which looks at the
components of a system and the nature of their interactions both with each other and
with their environment), the idea of a systematic approach to problem solving was
developed (Patching, 1990, p. 125). Here, a set of defined stages or steps was used as
a problem-solving tool. In particular, this approach was developed for use by com-
puter scientists in order to develop the process of systems analysis and programming.
Another important concept which came out of the systems movement was the need
to look at those outputs of the system which could not be predicted directly from the
known behaviour of the individual parts. These outputs (or emergent properties)
occur at a higher level in the hierarchy of the system and can only be predicted from
a study of the interaction between the sub-systems (Patching, 1990, pp. 10—12), not
from an understanding of the sub-systems in isolation.
The principles of the general systems theory, systems analysis and systems behav-
iour have all been applied to business organisations. However, understanding a busi-
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 205

ness organisation is insufficient by itself. One significant development has been the
ability to predict the behaviour of a complex system through the process of ‘systems
modelling’. Models of systems may be delivered through precise mathematical
equations where the output can be accurately determined from a knowledge of
the inputs (deterministic models). These are essentially glass box models, where the
precise relationship between components is modelled on the basis of known relation-
ships.
With many natural and human activity systems, the output can only be determined
in a probabilistic manner based upon a statistical (stochastic) model. These are often
black box models where we establish explanations of how the systems works by
understanding the relationships between inputs (independent variables) and outputs
(dependent variables). When considering models of business organisations, multivari-
ate models have proved to be particularly useful to explain complex interactive
relationships.
In very complex systems, even these systems models have been found often not to
work. A more recent development, chaos theory, has been used to model known but
complex relationships. Although chaos theory has been mainly applied in areas such
as mathematics, engineering and meteorology, Lorentz (1993) points out that ‘‘eco-
nomists have learned from experience how various aggregates of people can influence
the economy. They have formulated simple systems of equations that incorporate
some of the assumed interactions and in some instances have encountered chaotic
solutions’’. The application of this theory to the business organisation has also been
considered (Glass, 1996). Because the contemporary business organisation is a com-
plex open system (under the influence of internal political and cultural processes) and
operating in an environment which is undergoing rapid change, conventional linear
planning models cannot work and a simulation of the system is likely to be much
more effective. Chaos theory develops the concepts of dynamic systems modelling, but
in situations where the initial conditions can have a highly significant effect on the way
in which the model develops over time (Hibbert and Wilkinson, 1994). Chaos theory
has been suggested as a means of modelling complex and dynamic business systems in
order to develop alternative strategies (Levy, 1994).
Another important development in the field of systems is that of soft systems
(Checkland, 1981). In a soft systems approach, relatively unstructured problems
without clear or agreed goals can be solved. The soft systems approach has been
applied to a wide range of problem situations (Patching, 1990, pp. 123—165). This
approach recognises that people in the system have different implicit and explicit roles
and that they each come with their own world view or ¼eltanshaung (Smyth and
Checkland, 1976). Whilst a lot of the origins of systems thinking lies in the area of hard
systems, where dynamic systems can be modelled using a range of mathematical
techniques, the value in relation to many human activity systems is in the concepts of
holism, hierarchies and emergent properties. In this context, hard systems ‘‘thinking
and analysis is essentially concerned with the question of how to achieve a predeter-
mined aim; soft is concerned with defining the options for improvement; in other
words, addressing the what to do question’’ (Patching, 1990, p. 27). Soft systems
approaches are very relevant to any human activity system, and, in particular, at the
206 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

interface of human activities and technology and in organisations undergoing change

(Wilson, 1990; Checkland and Scholes, 1990).
A number of hospitality researchers have used the concepts of systems in their
work. For example, use has been made of systems to describe and evaluate the
inter-relationships between aspects of the food production system (Livingston, 1979;
Minor and Cichy, 1984). Escueta et al. (1986) used systems analysis to classify hospital
catering systems in terms of a four component model, which they extended to a six
stage model for cook-chill. Jones and Huelin (1990) suggested expanding this model to
cover both hotels and hospitals, using a ten stage model. Systems analysis has also
been used to characterise service delivery systems (Boger, 1995). As another example,
Mullins (1993) demonstrates how system can be used to describe alternative models of
organisational analysis in hotels. A multivariate statistical model was used by Griffin
(1995) to evaluate factors leading to the successful implementation of lodging yield
management systems.
Jones and Lockwood (1995) show how the ideas of hierarchy and emergence can be
used to model the relationship between all levels within the hierarchy of the hospital-
ity systems from operational to strategic levels. They stress that emergent properties
have considerable significance in relation to control, management and planning
functions. A contrast of soft systems and hard systems is provided by Kirk (1995), who
suggests that for many hospitality situations, a soft systems approach (with a particu-
lar emphasis on a holistic and participative approach to decision making) is most
appropriate, but that this can involve aspects of hard systems approaches where
quantifiable aspects are identifiable. Smith (1994) discusses some of the problems
when using simulation techniques, as applied to the service industries. Using a com-
puter-based simulation package, Smith demonstrates its use at the planning stage of
an operation, using as an example the development of a model of the passenger
carrying capacity of a monorail passenger system located in a garden festival.
Although the ideas of chaos theory are new and have not been used to any
significant extent in practice of hospitality, it has been suggested as being of signifi-
cance to the hospitality industry by Parry and Drost (1995), who, in a conceptual
paper, suggest that chaos theory affects the strategic planning process in the hospital-
ity industry, in that it makes accurate modelling of the future impossible. They go on
to indicate that the principles of chaos theory can be used to eliminate instability.

2. Technology

A dictionary definition of technology (Longman, 1984) indicates that technology is

related to ‘‘the theory and practice of applied science’’ or ‘‘the totality of the means and
knowledge used to provide objects necessary for human sustenance and comfort’’. Of
these two definitions, the second which relates to the ‘sustenance’ of the organisation
and the ‘comfort’ of the client seems to have the most relevance to hospitality, since
technology cannot be considered in isolation of people, both those within the organ-
isation together with its clients and customers. Pine (1997) has offered a hospitality-
based descriptive definition which refers to technology being regarded as the skills,
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 207

knowledge and methods for achieving plans in a changing environment, and thus
encompasses management systems and techniques as well as the physical artefacts of
technology, such as equipment and machines.

3. Types of technology

Using these definitions, technology can be seen to relate to any developments in

scientific knowledge and understanding that can be used to improve the products and
services of the hospitality industry. This provides a very broad scope for this review,
covering topics such as (Kirk, 1996):
f ‘‘Building technology: The design and construction and maintenance of the building
to provide clients with the types of built environment which they require, parti-
cularly in relation to multi-functional buildings which can provide a mixture of
accommodation, restaurants, bars, conference, meeting and function spaces.
f Environmental management technology: Control of the internal environment in such
a way as to minimise demands on scarce resources and with controlled impacts on
local communities. This covers a wide range of aspects, including energy, water,
cleaning, the atmosphere and waste management (IHEI, 1993).
f Food production and service technology: The provision of food and drink to all
clients of an appropriate quality and at a controlled cost. The industry also has
a responsibility to provide food which is safe, wholesome and nutritious and which
meets the needs of its customers. There have been many experiments with the
application of the principles of food technology to the provision of foodservice in
the hospitality industry (Kirk, 1989). These experiments in the transfer of techno-
logy from food science into the foodservice production process have met with
mixed success. However, they cannot be isolated from the overall benefits which
have been obtained through the use of food technology processes in the total food
supply chain.
f Information technology: The use of computing and communication technology to
maximise benefits to all clients. These developments have to be seen against
a background of changes in society and organisations as we move towards a post-
industrial society (Stonier, 1983). We have seen the greatest developments in this
area of technology in the last few years, and organisation have had to learn to
function within an ‘‘information society’’ and a ‘‘global context’’ (Handy, 1989)’’.
However, in comparison with many other industries, it can be argued that the use of
technology in the hospitality industry is not widespread, and its assimilation is
expected to be slow. AH&MA (1989, p. 4) describe two major reasons for this: the gap
between management’s business needs and technology understanding; and, hospital-
ity technology buyers being uncertain about the effectiveness of investments in
technology, exacerbated by the proliferation of technology choices making evaluation
of specific technologies more difficult.
Hence, not only is technology itself an important factor, but the way technology
is introduced into and used by organisations (technology transfer) is crucial to
208 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

its successful utilisation. The successful utilisation of any technology is not only
dependent upon its technical aspects, but also, and probably more, dependant on the
way people (as individuals, work teams, or whole societies) interact with and accept
the technology. This is the process of technology transfer.

4. Technology transfer

Hawthorne (1971, p. 8), Stewart (1987, p. 169) and Seurat (1979, p. 1) provide basic
definitions of technology transfer, all of which identify the transmission of knowledge
from the transferor to the transferee. Stewart and Nihei (1987, p. 3) equate technology
transfer with foreign direct investment and the ability of local employees to implement
new technology in local organisations. Dahlman and Westphal (1983, p. 7) identify three
levels of technology transfer, which it is possible to align to a hotel industry context.
f ¸evel 1. The capability required to operate a technology, for example, to run and
maintain a plant [or hotel].
f ¸evel 2. Investment capability — that required to create new productive capacity
[or new hotels].
f ¸evel 3. Innovation capability — the ability to modify and improve methods and
products [or hotel services and provision].
All these levels require different types of skills and different supporting institutions.
Levels 1 and 2 are relatively easy to achieve (through learning on the job and through
formal training). Level 3 is the most difficult to achieve as it demands not necessarily
a highly technical ability, but ‘‘imagination and a mental set always seeking better
ways’’ (Stewart and Nihei, 1987, p. 4). The possession of an appropriate attitude or
mental set, plus the ability to benefit from vocational education, are linked to the
educational provision available in a country (Pine, 1991, 1992, 1996). Hong (1994, p.
21) argues that the key issue of technology transfer is how to create methods of
learning technology and to change the way that trainees think. ‘‘Technology transfer
usually requires training, but the technology receiver will never catch up if the training
is inefficient or ineffective’’.
Reddy and Zhao (1990) provide a most comprehensive review of international
technology transfer (ITT). It should be appreciated that their review focuses on
transfer at national country level, but even so the overall process they describe can be
applied to a greater or lesser extent to a specific industry or even an individual firm.
Furthermore, the framework they produced for their literature review is itself en-
lightening in providing the reader with a better understanding of technology transfer
just by reference to the various factors listed for consideration, as shown in Table 1.
They first identify two dimensions of ITT, horizontal and vertical. The horizontal
component has three base elements: home country (or catering equipment supplier, or
reservations software producers, or hotel group head office operations manuals),
which is where the technology originates; host country (or restaurant, or reservations
department, or group hotel), which is the recipient of the technology; and, a transac-
tion. The vertical dimension is a recognition that there will be issues and analyses
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 209

Table 1
International technology transfer literature review framework (Reddy and Zhao, 1990:
p. 286)

Home country Impact of ITT on home country

Government policy
MNCs and technology transfer
Adaptability of MNC technology
Do MNCs actually adapt technology?
Do MNCs adapt better than local firms?
Determinants of MNCs’ adaptation
Choice of technology to transfer
Overseas R&D investment
Host country Impact of ITT on host country
Government policy
Determinants of LDCs’ regulatory policies
LDCs’ regulatory approaches
Technological capability and appropriate technology
Concept of technological capability
Acquisition of technological capability
Concept of appropriate technology
Availability of appropriate technology
Technology acquisition and adaptation
Factors influencing choice of which technology to acquire
Nature of technology acquired by LDCs
Adaptation of technology
¹ransaction The role and nature of technology transfer
Nature of technology
Taxonomy of technology
Nature of technology transfer
Type and phase of transfer
Concentration of technology
ITT Costs and payments
Costs and resource requirements
Determinants of transfer costs
ITT payment
Conflict and code of conduct in ITT
Relationship between MNCs and LDC firms
International code of conduct
Mode of technology transfer
Choice of transfer mode
Determinants of transfer mode
Effective transfer of technology
Measure of effective transfer
Factors influencing effective transfer
Pricing of technology

which are specific to the home and the host countries, as well as the individual
industry or firm involved in each country.
In a study of 73 firms (including 10 hotels) across five service industry sectors in
Latin America, Grosse (1996, pp. 786—787) identifies various key technology types.
210 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

The key technology in every service sector was found to be some sort of personal
knowledge held by employees; they are all ‘‘soft’’ skills, not embodied in a firm’s
machines or physical resources, but in its people. The top five, in descending order,
were:

1. knowledge of/experience in the business;

2. methodology for producing the service;
3. management skill;
4. technical/specialised information; and
5. financial skills.

If these are categorised in the same way as for industrial firms, then the first of these
most closely relates to product technology, the second and fourth to process techno-
logy, and third and fifth to management technology. Interestingly, knowledge of, or
experience in, the business is the only (or most significant) key technology found in
hotels in the study. In his conclusions, Grosse (1996, p. 796) reports that there were
a variety of ways in which these key technologies were transferred internationally, but
they all emphasised people-transfers, e.g. training programs, visits by experts and the
employment of expatriates. In fact, these are very similar to the measures of techno-
logy transfer specifically in the hotel industry used by Pine (1991).
Research focusing on the use of technology in the UK catering industry (Pine, 1985)
and then more broadly targeting technology transfer in the international hotel
industry (Pine, 1991) reached relatively similar conclusions to each other and to more
recent work by Grosse, i.e. that the people involved in the process are of crucial
importance for the overall success of the technology. Not only do people need to be
capable and willing participants in the transfer process, but they need to be provided
with adequate education, training, development and promotion opportunities so that
they can fully participate in the process (Pine, 1992, 1996).

4.1. Technology applied to the hospitality industry

As pointed out by Baker and Riley (1994) the service industry literature has
a weakness in establishing the relationship between the use of technology and its
impact on productivity. Within this existing literature base, much of the focus has
been on information technology. Interviews with several senior hotel executives
revealed that a common view of information technology is to allow hotels to ‘‘do more
with less’’ (Go et al., 1994), although there is a caution that technology alone is not
a full answer in such a people-service dominated industry. In their discussion on
globalisation in the hotel industry, Go and Pine (1995) make continuous references to
various areas of technology, particularly information technology, and its relevance to
many aspects of success. IHA (1996, p. 58) recognises the continuing importance of
technology to the hospitality industry, reporting that technology is ‘‘shaping up to be
the most significant competitive advantage hospitality firms can have throughout the
remainder of the 1990s and beyond’’. The IHA report lists those areas where techno-
logy can, or can become, a major force in providing such competitive advantage as
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 211

follows: competitive methods; decision support; smart hotel room; security manage-
ment; communications technology; improved management control; environment;
alternatives to travel; restructuring of the hospitality firm; and, marketing the indus-
try. Some of these possibilities are in the areas of productivity, management decision-
making, education and training, the guest experience, and marketing channels.
It is frequently claimed that a major impact of technology is to improve productiv-
ity, particularly labour productivity. Pickworth (1994) discusses the relationship
between technology and productivity. The use of the term ‘‘productivity paradox’’ has
been coined, to signify increasing evidence that potential productivity gains predicted
on the basis of an investment in technology do not, in practice, always materialise.
Without the introduction of a change in management strategy and the training and
motivation of staff, investment in technology may be wasted (Haywood, 1990).
However, Wilcocks and Lester (1996) indicate that the productivity paradox is not
inevitable provided that technology is properly planned and that considerable
attention is paid to the human issue. In this regard, Holiday Inn Worldwide state
that information technology can provide not only improved quality and productivity,
but also competitive advantage, especially in service businesses when technology
is used to empower employees to better serve customers and to empower cus-
tomers by making it easier for them to do business with the firm (Go and Pine, 1995).
David et al. (1996), in a survey of chief financial officers of large hotel companies,
found actual productivity benefits resulting from the use of information technology
in reservations, rooms, guest accounting, general management and back of house
procedures.
Information technology can be used to support management decision making
(Kasavana, 1996). For example, packages can be used for simulation, modelling and
decision making (Durocher and Niman, 1993). Suggested examples from the literature
are: the use of expert systems to provide a greater yield from a hotel (Cho and
Connolly, 1996); and to provide the knowledge base of the hotel concierge (Cho et al.,
1996).
Technology can also enhance education and training through the use of interactive
computer based video instruction (Kavanaugh and Ninemeier, 1991). A useful review
of the uses of information technology in the hospitality curriculum is provided by
Kluge (1996).
Fourth, it is claimed by some authors that information technology can satisfy as yet
unmet demands from guests, through the provision of in-room facilities, based on the
in-room TV plus console as a computer terminal together with sockets for modem
communication (Baker, 1993). These in-room facilities, coupled with business suites, it
is claimed, can enhance the guest experience and provide a marketing advantage.
Information technology is also affecting the nature of marketing communications
and channels of distribution. The development of integrated communications networks
covering in-room services, business suites, integration with airline reservation systems,
travel agents, global distribution systems (GDS) (Emmer et al., 1993), electronic
financial transactions (FTPOS) telecommunications, EMAIL, teleconferencing (Sing
and Chon, 1993; Go and Pine, 1995) and networking (Chervenak, 1993; Moore and
Wilkinson, 1993; Go and Pine, 1995) is revolutionising the business. In addition to
212 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

these uses of information technology, developments of the Internet (and in particular

the World Wide Web) will, it is claimed, revolutionise the way in which consumers
choose and reserve hotels and restaurants (Murphy et al., 1996). However McBride
(1997) found that, in a survey of almost 40 organisations in the UK who used the
Internet , many could not provide a strategic justification for this decision. According
to Kasavana (1995) and Collins (1991), developments in electronic point-of-
sale technology (EPOS) will bring both customer related benefits (faster service,
fewer errors and automated credit card processing) together with higher labour
productivity.
There is a danger of technology push in this area, particularly if customers do not
have a need for these facilities. Indeed, the technology definition provided by Pine
(1997) specifically warns against the dangers of infatuation with technology’s physical
manifestations, acquiring machines and equipment simply because they are the most
up-to-date or sophisticated models available on the market. Furthermore, it is not
unusual for hospitality organisations to install technology simply because their
competitors have done so, fearing (often without foundation) that not having such
items may induce potential guests to stay elsewhere. In a survey conducted by Van
Hoof et al. (1995a), customers benefited from improved in-room facilities, but did
not always gain full benefit, possibly because of a lack of awareness of how to use
them.
In relation to the impact of technology, this must be viewed within the context of
the whole system or organisation (Pine, 1987, 1992). Technology has often been
disappointing in relation to securing productivity gains. Many applications of food
technology such as cook-freeze, cook-chill and sous vide have had mixed success and
many of these developments have been abandoned because the potential benefits did
not accrue. Hotels have been shown to obtain much better returns through design and
training (Johns, 1993) than through technology. At a time of rapid change, expensive
technological-based solutions can soon become outdated. Also, the evolution of
global standards may shorten the life of hardware and software.
A service is only as good as its weakest link and if this is the interface between
technology, customer and staff, this will work to eliminate any possible competitive
advantage (Lovelock, 1995). In this context, it is interesting to note that, in a survey of
over 400 lodging managers in North America and the UK, it was found that one of the
weakest aspects of the use of technology was in the areas of training and related
support (Van Hoof et al., 1997).

5. The future

Two recent reports aim to look at the future of the hospitality industry and both
include sections on technology. Hospitality 2000: A »iew to the Next Millennium
(Anon, 1996) focuses mainly on the impact of computers and information technology.
However, they also examine the ‘‘people versus computers’’ issue, reporting that 85%
of their 498 survey respondents agree that technology cannot replace the human
element involved in delivering quality service. They also confirm the anomalous
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 213

situation where technology can decrease markets (for example the use of interactive
video transmissions reducing the demand for hotel rooms as business travel becomes
less necessary) and also increase markets (for example, portable computers and
efficient communication networks allow business people to be free from a fixed and
physical office, allowing them to travel more to have personal interaction with
customers, business partners, suppliers, etc., and thus create a greater demand for
hotel rooms and facilities). Into the New Millennium (IHA, 1996) has a similar view of
computer-based technology, but also looks at the way technology, more generally,
can be utilised by the industry, for example to address increasing labour costs by the
use of more automation and more efficient systems of operation, hotel design and the
provision of innovative services and products. Examples given in the report include
the use of ‘‘electronic concierges’’ to provide guest information in the room, in public
areas of the hotel or even via internet. The use of other technology based guest services
such as check-in/check-out, room security and climate controls and external com-
munications ‘‘will continue to become major competitive weapons which allow an
increasingly individualistic guest to control their own travel environment’’ (IHA,
1996, p. 59).

6. Methodological issues

The methodological approaches used by authors in the fields of systems and

technology are shown in Tables 2 and 3. These tables need some explanation and
justification. Only those papers which are specific to hospitality have been included in
order to make it representative of the field. It is clear from this that there has been a far
greater volume of work in the area of technology (80%) than there has in systems
(20%). Having said that, there is some overlap. For example, when deciding on
a choice of category, papers on information technology systems were classified as
technology. It is also clear that much of the work is either conceptual in nature or
relies on secondary data (66% of systems papers and 60% of technology papers).
Within this category there are two distinct types of paper, those which extrapolated

Table 2
Approach to research in hospitality systems

Secondary: Primary research

Conceptual Quantitative Qualitative

Escueta et al. (1986) Boger (1995) —

Jones and Huelin (1986) Griffin (1995)
Jones and Lockwood (1995) Smith (1994)
Kirk (1995)
Livingston (1979)
Parry and Drost (1995)
Minor and Cichy (1984)
214 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

Table 3
Approach to research in hospitality technology

Secondary Primary research

Conceptual Quantitative Qualitative

AH&MA (1989) Baker (1993) IHA (1996)

Baker and Riley (1995) David et al. (1996) Johns (1993)
Chernavak (1993) Go et al. (1994)
Cho and Connolly (1996) Kasavana (1995)
Collins (1991) Murphy et al. (1996)
Durocher and Niman (1993) Pine (1991)
Emmer et al. (1993) Pine (1992)
Go and Pine (1995) Sing and Chon (1993)
Haywood (1990) Van Hoof et al. (1995)
IHEI (1993) Van Hoof et al. (1997)
Kavanaugh and Ninemeier (1991)
Kirk (1989)
Kirk (1996)
Kluge (1996)
Moore and Wilkinson (1993)
Mullins (1993)
Pickworth (1994)
Pine (1985)
Pine (1987)
Pine (1996)
Pine (1997)

and speculated on developments in technology and those which developed a concep-

tual/theoretical understanding of an aspect of the field. Of the papers using empirical
data, the vast majority use quantitative methods (33% of systems papers and 30% of
technology papers), although there were some mixed methods papers using quantitat-
ive and qualitative approaches.

7. Conclusions

In this review, the authors have attempted to demonstrate that, whilst technology is
undoubtedly being used to shape the future hospitality industry, its use is not without
problems. Much of the literature addresses the use of technology at an operational
and control level, rather than at a planning or strategic level. Technology should be
viewed as a potential for advancement and not as advancement per se. A study of
technology transfer indicates that technology can only be successfully integrated into
a business if human factors are taken into account. This information parallels our
understanding of the change process as explained by soft systems concepts. In the area
of human activity systems, simple reductionist models of relationships between
investment in technology and improvements in productivity are unlikely to be realised
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 215

unless full account is taken of a number of factors: the importance of all people in the
system (staff and customers); the importance of the proper selection of technology and
the avoidance of ‘‘off-the-shelf solutions’’; the avoidance technology infatuation; and
the importance of proper objectives for the use of technology.
In coming to these conclusions, it can be seen that there are analogies between the
use of soft systems approaches in business and in the adoption of technological
solutions, particularly as they relate to the involvement of people within the system.
By viewing technology as part of holistic human activity systems, successful techno-
logy transfer is more likely to be achieved, and then the technology is more likely to
make a useful and acceptable contribution to the organisation.

References

AH&MA, 1989. Looking Forward: A Management Perspective of Technology in the Lodging Industry.
American Hotel and Motel Association and Anderson Consulting, Washington, DC.
Anon., 1996. Hospitality 2000: A View to the Next Millennium. Anderson Worldwide SC/New York
University, New York.
Baker, M., Riley, M., 1994. New perspectives on productivity in hotels: some advances and new directions.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 13 (4), 297—311.
Baker, S., 1993. Amenities. In: Khan, M., Olsen, M., Var, T. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Hospitality and
Tourism, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 495—501.
Ballé, M., 1994. Managing with Systems Thinking. McGraw Hill, London, pp. 127—140.
Boger, C.J., 1995. A comparison between different delivery systems of quick service food facilities.
Hospitality Research Journal, 18 (3), 111—124.
Checkland, P.B., 1981. Towards a systems-based methodology for real world problem solving. In: Open
Systems Group (Eds.), Systems Behaviour, 3rd ed. Harper Row, London, pp. 288—314.
Checkland, P.B., Scholes, J., 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 173—203.
Chervenak, L., 1993. Hotel technology at the start of the millennium. Hospitality Research Journal 17 (1),
113—120.
Cho, W., Connolly, D.J., 1996. The impact of information technology as an enabler on the hospitality
industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8 (1), 33—35.
Collins, G., 1991. Selecting point of sale systems for table service restaurants. FIU Hospitality Review 9 (2),
36—46.
Dahlman, C., Westphal, L., 1983. The transfer of technology-issues in the acquisition of technological
capacity by developing countries. Finance and Development.
David, J.S., Grabski, S., Kasavana, M., 1996. The productivity paradox of hotel industry technology.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37 (2), 64—70.
Durocher, J.F., Niman, N.B., 1993. Information technology: management effectiveness and guest services.
Hospitality Research Journal, 17(1), 121—131.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., Lowe, A., 1991. Management Research. Sage, London, p. 23.
Emmer, R.M., Tauck, C., Wilkinson. S., Moore, R.G., 1993. Marketing hotels using global distribution
systems. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34 (6), 80—89.
Escueta, E.S., Fiedler, K.M. Resiman, A., 1986. A new hospital foodservice classification system. Journal of
Foodservice Systems, 4, 107—116.
Glass, N., 1996. Chaos, non-linear systems and day-to-day management. European Management Journal,
14 (1), 98—106.
Go, F.M., Pine, R., 1995. Globalisation Strategy in the Hotel Industry. Routledge, London.
Go, F.M., Pine, R., Yu, R., 1994. Hong Kong: sustaining competitive advantage in Asia’s hotel industry.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35 (5), 50—61.
216 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217

Griffin, R.K., 1995. A categorization scheme for critical success factors of lodging yield management
schemes. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 14 (3/4), 325—338.
Grönroos, C., 1994. From scientific management to service management. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 5 (1), 5—20.
Grosse, R., 1996. International technology transfer in services. Journal of International Business Studies,
781—799.
Handy, C., 1989. The Age of Unreason. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Hawthorn, E.P., 1971. Technology Transfer. OECD, Paris.
Haywood, K.M., 1990. A strategic approach to managing technology. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 31 (1), 39—45.
Hibbert, B., Wilkinson, I.F., 1994. Chaos theory and the dynamics of marketing systems. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 22 (3), 218—233.
Hong, J.-C., 1994. Technology transfer and human resource development. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 26 (11), 17—21.
IHA, 1996. Into The New Millennium (A White Paper on the Global Hospitality Industry). International
Hotel Association, Paris.
IHEI, 1993. Environmental Management for Hotels. Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1993.
Jenkins, G.M., 1981. The systems approach. In: Open Systems Group (Eds.) Systems Behaviour, 3rd ed.
Harper Row, London, pp. 142—168.
Johns, N., 1993. Productivity management through design and operation: a case study. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 5 (2), 20—24.
Johnston, R., 1994. Operations: from factory to service management. International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 5 (1), 49—63.
Jones, P., 1994. Catering systems. In: Davis, B., Lockwood, A. (Eds.), Food and Beverage Management:
a Selection of Readings. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 131—144.
Jones, P., Huelin, A., 1990. Thinking about catering systems. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 10 (8), 42—51.
Jones, P., Lockwood, A., 1995. Hospitality operating systems. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 7 (5), 17—20.
Kasavana, M.L., 1995. PC based registers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (2),
50—55.
Kasavana, M.L., 1996. Hospitality computer systems. In Haywood, M.K., Hobson, P., Jones, P. (convenors)
Hospitality Management, The State of the Art at http://www.mcb.co.uk/services/conferen/apr96/hospi-
tality/kasavana/systems.htm.
Kavanaugh, R., Ninemeier, J., 1991. Interactive video instruction: a training tool whose time has come. FIU
Hospitality Review, 9 (2), 1—6.
Kirk, D., 1989. Catering technology — development of equipment and processes to increase productivity. In:
Cooper, C. (Ed.), Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management. Belhaven Press,
London, pp. 232—241.
Kirk, D., 1996. Technology. In: Haywood, M.K., Hobson, P., Jones, P. (convenors) Hospitality Manage-
ment, The State of the Art at http://www.mcb.co.uk/services/conferen/apr96/hospitality/kirk/touch.htm.
Kirk, D., 1995. Hard and soft systems: a common paradigm for operations management. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7 (5), 13—16.
Kluge, E.A., 1996. A literature review of information technology in the hospitality curriculum. Hospitality
Research Journal, 19 (4), 45—64.
Levy, D., 1994. Chaos theory and strategy: theory, applications and managerial implications. Strategic
Management Journal, 15, 167—178.
Livingston, G.E., 1979. Development of the systems approach to the design of food service operations. In:
Livingston G.E., Chang, C.M. (Eds.), Food Service Systems. Academic Press, New York, pp. 3—18.
Longman, 1984. Longman Dictionary of the English Language. Longman, Harlow.
Lorentz, E., 1993. The Essence of Chaos, UCL Press, London, p. 149.
Lovelock, R., 1995. Competing on service: technology and teamwork in supplementary services. Planning
Review, 23 (4), 32—39.
Minor, L.J., Cichy, R.F., 1984. Foodservice Management Systems. AVI, Westport, Conn., pp. 29—58.
 D. Kirk, R. Pine/Hospitality Management 17 (1998) 203—217 217

Moore, R.G., Wilkinson, S., 1993. Communications technology. Hospitality Research Journal, 17 (1),
133—144.
McBride, N., 1997. Business use of the INTERNET: strategic decision or another bandwagon? European
Management Journal, 15 (1), 58—67.
Mullins, L.J., 1993. The hotel open systems model of organisational analysis. Service Industries Journal,
13 (1), 1—16.
Murphy, J., Forrest, E., Wotring, C.E., 1996. Restaurant marketing on the World Wide Web, Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37 (1), 61—71.
Parry, B., Drost, R., 1995. Is Chaos theory good for your profits? International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 7 (1), i—iii.
Patching, D., 1990. Practical Soft Systems. Pitman, London.
Pickworth J., 1994. Productivity improvement. In: Davis, B., Lockwood, A., (Eds.), Food and Beverage
Management: a Selection of Readings. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 272—284.
Pine, R., 1997. Technology. In: Jafari, J. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Tourism, Routledge, London.
Pine, R., (1996) Technology and people. In: Haywood, M.K., Hobson, P., Jones, P., (convenors), Hospitality
Management, The State of the Art at http://www.mcb.co.uk/services/conferen/apr96/hospitality/
pine/pine.htm.
Pine, R., 1992. Technology transfer in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
11 (1), 3—22.
Pine, R., 1991. Technology transfer in the hotel industry. unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Bradford University,
UK.
Pine, R., 1987. Management of Technological Change in the Catering Industry. Avebury, Aldershot.
Pine, R., 1985. Catering technology — some issues for effective utilisation, unpublished MPhil Thesis,
CNAA, UK.
Reddy, N.M., Zhao, L., 1990. International technology transfer: a review. Research Policy, 19, 285—307.
Seurat, S., 1979. Technology Transfer: a Realistic Approach. Gulf Publishing, Houston.
Sing, A., Chon, K., 1993. Teleconferencing technology: recent developments and implications for the hotel
industry. FIU Hospitality Review, 11 (2), 1—6.
Smith, D. J., 1994. Computer simulation applications in service operations: a case study from the leisure
industry. Service Industries Journal, 14 (3), 395—408.
Stewart, S., 1987. The transfer of high technology to China: problems and options. International Journal of
Technology Management, 3 (1/2), 167—179.
Stewart, T.S., Nihie, Y., 1987. Technology Transfer and Human Factors. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Stonier, T., 1983. The Wealth of Information. Thames Methuen, London, pp. 21—32.
Smyth, D.S., Checkland. P.B., 1976. Using a systems approach — the structure of root definitions. Journal of
Applied Systems Analysis, 5 (1).
Van Hoof, H.B., Collins, G.R., Combrink, T.E., Verbeeten, M.J., 1995. Technology needs and perceptions.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (5), 64—69.
Van Hoof, H.B., Combrink, T.E., Verbeeten, M.J., 1997. Technology vendors and lodging managers view
support they receive. FIU Hospitality Review, 15 (1), 103—112.
Wilcocks, L., Lester, S., 1996. Beyond the IT productivity paradox. European Management Journal, 15 (3),
279—290.
Wilson, B., 1990. Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp.
154—268.