The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-4529.

htm

MSQ 16,5

Which service quality dimensions are important in inbound tourism?

A case study in a peripheral location
Anna-Karin Jonsson Kvist and Bengt Klefsjo
Division of Quality and Environmental Management, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose Based on a conceptual framework drawn from the original SERVQUAL model, the purpose of the paper is to explore the question of which service-quality dimensions are deemed to be important by inbound tourists visiting a peripheral tourist location in Sweden. Design/methodology/approach Using questionnaires and interviews, Italian and British tourists visiting a peripheral tourist location in northern Sweden are studied in three phases: before the tourist experience, during the experience, and after return home. Findings Difference in the tourists perceptions of the importance of various quality dimensions are identied before and after the tourism experience. Many similarities are identied between the needs and expectations of Italian and British tourists, although some differences also emerge. Practical implications Tourism managers should recognise that the needs of their customers can be inuenced by: the time at which these needs are assessed; and cultural differences between nationalities. Keywords Tourism, SERVQUAL, Sweden Paper type Research paper

520

Managing Service Quality Vol. 16 No. 5, 2006 pp. 520-537 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-4529 DOI 10.1108/09604520610686151

1. Introduction The tourism industry is growing rapidly. By 2011, global travel and tourism are projected to generate US$7.0 trillion in economic activity and 260 million jobs (Goeldner and Ritchie, 2003). According to analyses by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (WTO, 2003), tourism is one of the largest global export industries (Burns and Holden, 1995). During the latter decades of the twentieth century, tourism developed from a marginal local activity to a global economic giant representing about 6 per cent of the global economy and creating approximately 200 million jobs worldwide. In terms of industry size, these statistics mean that the tourism industry is in the same bracket as agriculture and mining (Weaver and Oppermann, 2000). There are several reasons for this increase in the size of the tourism industry. Ongoing internationalisation, with porous borders and easier transfers between countries, has encouraged a growth in tourism. The citizens of many countries, such as those in eastern Europe, now nd it much easier to travel abroad. On a national level, it has been suggested that demographic changes might have played a part including: the greying of many populations, with a greater proportion of older people who are relatively well-off; and changing values among younger people, who appear to prefer experiences rather than things (Jonsson Kvist, 2005). Sweden receives more foreign visitors per inhabitant than the average for all European countries (Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen, 2004). In Sweden,

consumption by tourists grew to about US$16,500 million in 2001, which represented a 10 per cent increase on the preceding year, and a ve-year growth of almost 25 per cent since 1997. The tourism industry in Sweden generates more than US$667 million in value-added taxes for the Swedish government, more than any other export industry (Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen, 2001a). Moreover, despite international tourism having decreased during 2002 and 2003 as a result of the threat of terrorism, Sweden has maintained approximately the same number of foreign visitors (Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen, 2004). Personal expenditure on tourism and travelling seems to grow faster than expenditure on other products and services and there is seems to be a greater variety of leisure activities on offer. These developments imply that there will be increased competition for peoples time and money. Quality will thus become a central issue in customers choices of destinations. The tourism consumer is likely to become increasingly critical, and more likely to demand higher performance at a lower price (Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen, 2001b). In the tourism sector, the relationship between price and performance is gaining in importance. Quality is often equated with satised, or preferably delighted, customers (Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003). It is therefore extremely important to understand the needs and expectations of customers, and to take measures to ensure that these needs and expectations are fullled, or even exceeded. To do this effectively, customer experience and customer satisfaction must be measured accurately, and the information obtained must be used as a basis for appropriate quality improvements (Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003). For so-called peripheral locations, tourism can be an important source of income; indeed, it can be the key to economic survival for such locations. A peripheral location is a tourist destination that has a degree of geographical isolation and economic marginalisation which is often associated with declining traditional industries. It is often situated at some distance from places of core economic activity, with poor access to and from markets. There is often a lack of infrastructure and a reliance on imports (Wanhill, 1997). On the other hand, this relative isolation can be perceived as a touristic advantage. Perceptions of natural beauty or quaintness can be the main motivations for developing tourism in such peripheral locations (Brown and Hall, 1999). Peripheral locations that are not suitable for mass tourism depend on their visitors for goodwill and return visits. It is therefore especially important that such locations understand and satisfy their visitors. However, tourists often come from various cultures and nationalities, which makes knowledge about customers more complex. Inbound tourists from another nation or culture can have different expectations, priorities, and demands than those of domestic tourists. It is therefore crucial for peripheral locations to determine what quality means to these tourists especially service quality, since a great deal of the tourism product consists of services (Edvardsson, 1996). The key question that is addressed in this study is therefore: what are the most important service-quality dimensions as perceived by inbound tourists visiting a peripheral location?

Service quality in inbound tourism

521

MSQ 16,5

2. Literature review and conceptual analysis 2.1 Tourism and service quality Kandampully (2000) has emphasised that quality will be the main driving force of tourism as travel rms strive to meet the competitive challenges of the future. According to the WTO (2003), quality in tourism can be dened as:
. . . the satisfaction of all the legitimate product and service needs, requirements and expectations of the consumer, at an acceptable price, in conformity with the underlying quality determinants such as safety and security, hygiene, accessibility, transparency, authenticity and harmony of the tourism activity concerned with its human and natural environment.

522

This denition is in accordance with other observations on the nature of quality. For example, Bergman and Klefsjo (2003, p. 24) dened the quality of a product as . . . its ability to satisfy, or preferably exceed, the needs and expectations of the customers, and Deming (1986, p. 5) noted that . . . quality should be aimed at the needs of the customer, present and future. According to von Friedrichs Grangsjo (2001), there are at least ve factors that describe and inuence the tourism product: (1) Tourism is dominated by services; this means that consumption occurs in interaction with the suppliers of those services. (2) Demand for tourism is signicantly inuenced by seasonal variations, including climatic seasons and the timing of vacations; a consequence of this is that many staff members are hired for only short periods. (3) The tourism industry consists of a mixture of private-sector businesses and public-sector organisations; as a result, the industry operates within two systems that have different requirements, rules, and forms of control. (4) The tourism industry is fragmented. It consists of many small companies working in various business areas including lodging, travel, food, and leisure. (5) Tourism consists of a number of ingredients experienced over time, and it is seldom the case that one actor has control over all components. These factors mean that tourism quality is a complex concept. Swarbrooke and Horner (2001) likened it to a jigsaw puzzle that has many parts that must t together perfectly to satisfy the tourist. Nevertheless, despite the difculties, satisfying the tourism customer is important not only because it leads to positive word-of-mouth recommendation and repeat customers, but also because a lack of satisfaction leads to complaints, and dealing with such complaints can be expensive, time-consuming, and injurious to a destinations reputation (Swarbrooke and Horner, 2001). The term experience has become increasingly popular within tourism as entertainment options have increased rapidly in number and variety. Bitner (1992) and Mossberg (2003) have both related experiences to service quality. Bitner (1992) used the expression servicescape to describe the customers overall perception of the services on offer, and Mossberg (2003) developed this further with specic reference to tourism in discussing so-called experience areas. According to Mossberg (2003), these experience areas can include several destinations over extended geographical

distances and quite long periods of time because an experience can include various sub-components while still being regarded as a single entity. In summary, quality is judged subjectively by consumers, and is therefore a difcult concept to assess and measure. It is even more complicated in tourism experiences, because quality in this setting includes many interactions with a variety of providers. 2.2 Service quality The term service has been dened in various ways. Gronroos (2002, p. 58) dened it as follows:
A service is an activity or a series of activities of a more or less intangible nature that normally, but not necessarily, takes place in the interaction between the customer and service employees and/or physical resources or goods and/or systems of the service provider, which are provided as solutions to customer problems.

Service quality in inbound tourism

523

Quinn et al. (1987), in a denition also adopted by Zeithaml and Bitner (1996), described services as including:
. . . all economic activities whose output is not a physical product or construction, is generally consumed at the time it is produced, and provides added value in forms (such as convenience, amusement, timeliness, comfort or health) that are essentially intangible concerns of its rst purchaser.

Although many approaches to quality improvement apply equally to goods and services, there are conceptual differences between the two. These differences have been explored in detail by such authors as Edvardsson et al. (1994), Bergman and Klefsjo (2003), and Gummesson (1991). Some of the more important differences can be noted as follows: . Services are not as tangible as goods, and it can therefore be difcult to explain, specify, and measure the contents of a service. . Because services are more abstract than goods, services are perceived and evaluated more subjectively. . The customer often plays an active role in creating a service. . A service is often consumed at the same time as it is created; it cannot therefore be stored or transported. . The customer does not become the owner of a tangible property after delivery of a service. . Services often consist of a series of consequential activities; this makes it difcult (or impossible) for the consumer to test them before the purchase. . Services often consist of a system of sub-services, but the customer usually evaluates the whole and not the separate parts. A related issue that complicates the quality of services is their heterogeneous character. This means that the experience of a particular service can differ from time to time. Services are heterogeneous because both the consumer and the service provider have a signicant inuence on the production and delivery process (Gronroos, 1990). It is thus especially important that services be properly designed from the beginning because they cannot be stored, exchanged, or redone (Edvardsson, 1996).

MSQ 16,5

524

Finally, in certain cases it can be difcult for a customer to ascertain the exact nature of the outcome of a service (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). For example, the outcomes of services performed by doctors, engineers, academics, accountants, architects, and others are not always self-evidently good or bad (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). In summary, because services are an essential part of the tourism experience, service quality is thus a crucial aspect of satisfying tourists. 2.3 Service-quality dimensions The best-known instrument for measuring consumers opinions of service quality is the SERVQUAL instrument developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988). SERVQUAL is a multi-item instrument for quantifying the difference between a customers service expectations and that customers perception of the actual service received. Originally, Parasuraman et al. (1985) presented ten dimensions of service quality: (1) Tangibles. The appearance of physical artefacts and staff members connected with the service (accommodation, equipment, staff uniforms, and so on). (2) Reliability. Ability to deliver the promised service. (3) Responsiveness. Readiness of staff members to help in a pleasant and effective way. (4) Competence. Capability of staff members in executing the service. (5) Courtesy. The respect, thoughtfulness, and politeness exhibited by staff members who are in contact with the customer. (6) Credibility. Trustworthiness and honesty of the service provider. (7) Security. Absence of doubt, economic risk, and physical danger. (8) Access. Accessibility of the service provider. (9) Communication. Understandable manner and use of language by the service provider. (10) Understanding the customer. Efforts by the service provider to know and understand the customer. The scale was later revised to ensure that there was no overlap of dimensions. The resulting ve dimensions, and their empirical importance, are explained in Table I. Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) stated that reliability has been consistently shown to be the most important dimension in service quality. However, as Bergman and Klefsjo

Dimension Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibles

Weight (%) 30 25 20 16 10

Denition Doing what we have promised Willingness to help and provide prompt service Conveying trust and condence Ability to see through the customers eyes Equipment, physical facilities, etc.

Table I. The ve quality dimensions used in SERVQUAL and their signicance

Source: Zeithaml et al. (1990)

(2003) have noted, the importance of various dimensions depends of the type of service being provided for example, reliability might be more important when visiting a doctor, but tangibles might be valued more highly when visiting a restaurant. Within the tourism sector, there have been few empirical studies that have used the SERVQUAL approach. Atilgan et al. (2003) reported on the differing expectations and perceptions of German and Russian tourists with respect to service quality in tour operations. Ingram and Daskalakis (1999) used SERVQUAL to investigate hotels in Crete that had adopted the ISO 9000 (International Organization for Standardisation, 2000) quality standard; they found a divergence in perceptions of service quality between guests and managers, with the greatest gaps being found in hotels of the highest quality classication. ONeill et al. (2000) used SERVQUAL to study ve tour operators in Australia; they found that assurance was the most important indicator of service performance. Juwaheer and Ross (2003) used a modied version of SERVQUAL to measure service quality in the hotel industry in Mauritius; they identied nine dimensions, of which assurance, reliability, and responsiveness appear to have been the main determinants of service quality. However, there have also been criticisms of the validity of the SERVQUAL instrument (Keating and Harrington, 2002; Gronroos, 2002). Some authors have pointed out the difculties involved in analysing differences between expectations and perceptions, whereas others have noted the inuence of cultural background on the measurement of service-quality perceptions (Armstrong et al., 1997; Ekinci and Riley, 1998). For example, Ekinci and Riley (1998) have argued that the instrument does not address the difculty of quantifying and conceptualising expectations thus rendering it less useful as a comparison standard in assessing service quality. Some authors have expressed the view that the present scale is not sufciently comprehensive (Sureshchandar et al., 2001). Finally, criticisms have been made about SERVQUALs relevance to service quality in settings involving multiple stakeholders. For example, Baker and Fesenmaier (1997) studied service-quality expectations among visitors, employees, and managers of theme parks; they concluded that the SERVQUAL approach was inadequate in this setting because it ignores multiple stakeholders. Despite these criticisms of SERVQUAL, the quality dimensions upon which the instrument is based are often employed when discussing and measuring service quality in a variety of service sectors, including the tourism industry. The use of SERVQUALs quality dimensions in the present study thus facilitates comparison with other ndings. In addition, the dimension of communication, which was present in the original SERVQUAL model as a separate dimension, is regarded as being of particular relevance in a study in tourism, especially in a cross-cultural context. Moreover, other dimensions in the original SERVQUAL model, such as courtesy and security, are also of potential importance in the tourism context. For these reasons, the dimensions of the original ten-item SERVQUAL model are adopted for use in the present study. 2.4 Customer needs related to quality Expectations and needs are different things. People can have expectations of things that they do not actually need; conversely, they can also have needs that they do not

Service quality in inbound tourism

525

MSQ 16,5

expect. Indeed, in many situations, people do not realise what their needs are (Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003). As Witt and Muhlemann (1994, p. 420) noted:
. . . in many cases customers are not necessarily aware of exactly what they require.

526

According to the Kano model (Kano et al., 1984) illustrated in Figure 1, customers needs can be categorised into three groups (Kano, 1995, 2001; Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003): . basic needs; . expected needs; and . excitement needs. Each of these is discussed below. Basic needs are so obvious to the customer that he or she will not even mention them. Indeed, it is impossible for the customer to articulate these basic needs. If such needs are not met, the customer will be dissatised. However, meeting these needs does not produce satised customers. By meeting these basic needs, the service provider creates only must-be quality. Expected needs correspond to what the customer expects to receive and to what is experienced as important. These needs can be articulated by the customer. If these expectations are fullled, the customer will be satised; however, if they not are fullled, the customer will be dissatised. By satisfying expected needs, the service provider creates expected quality.

Figure 1. The Kano model illustrating different customer needs

Excitement needs refer to the customer obtaining something that is unexpected from the product and the organisation. This creates an attractive value to the customer. The customer is not aware of these unexpected needs, and cannot articulate them. By discovering and satisfying these needs, the service provider creates attractive quality. Such excitement needs are not necessarily restricted to technical innovations; these needs can also be met by services that are well performed or exciting (Soderlund, 2001). In summary, basic needs are expected but unspoken; expected needs are expected and expressed; and excitement needs are unexpected and unspoken. It is thus apparent that both basic needs and excitement needs are unspoken that is, the customer will not articulate them, even when asked. In discovering and meeting these unspoken needs, it is obviously very important for a service organisation to have the ability to understand its customers. In particular, service providers who succeed in identifying and fullling unspoken excitement needs are likely to have very satised customers. Such customers create value by mentioning their experiences to other people. The role of storytelling and word-of-mouth recommendation is very powerful, especially with the widespread use of information and communication technology in contemporary society (Gummesson, 2004). Although the Kano model has not been frequently used in tourism, there have been some studies that have utilised the model. For example, Tan and Pawitra (2001) used it in combination with other quality approaches to evaluate customer satisfaction, to guide improvement efforts, and to expedite the development of innovative services. Although some needs are difcult (or even impossible) to investigate because they are beyond the consciousness of the studied person Kanos model is useful in working towards an understanding for the complexity of human needs. 3. Methodology 3.1 Background to the study The present study was performed between December 2003 and March 2004 in Norrbotten a peripheral tourist location in northern Sweden. Norrbotten is a very large area; indeed, it constitutes approximately 25 per cent of the total area of Sweden. However, only about 3 per cent of the Swedish population live in this area (Lansstyrelsen i Norrbotten, 2004). The study concerned British and Italian tourists who were customers of tourism companies offering activities of some sort in the peripheral region. The study therefore excluded tourists who were customers of tourism companies that offered only accommodation or catering. The study was designed to cover three phases in the tourists experience before the experience; during the experience; and after returning home. The methodology in each of these phases is described below (Figure 2). 3.2 First phase The study in the rst phase was performed to assess the customers expectations before their visits. Questionnaires were used to collect data for this part of the study. These were sent to the respondents as early as possible before their experience. Because the availability of respondents differed, some received the questionnaires in

Service quality in inbound tourism

527

MSQ 16,5

528
Figure 2. The study consisted of three phases that were performed before, during and after the experience at the destination

their homes, others immediately before departures, others during their outward journeys, and some upon arrival. The respondents were presented with a list of the ten SERVQUAL-derived dimensions described above, and were asked to choose the three that were most important to them in creating quality in their experience. 3.3 Second phase The second phase was studied by face-to-face interviews during the tourists stays in the study area. These interviews were performed as group interviews each involving a group of people who travelled together (for example, a family or a couple). All interviews were performed with the help of an assistant who recorded the interviews on tape and took notes. The purposes for using group interviews for this phase of the study were as follows: . to ask questions while impressions were still fresh; . to observe the interviewees in situ in the area; and . to observe the group dynamics of the travelling group. With respect to the last of these, it was recognised that individuals who travel together have a signicant effect on the travelling experiences of others in the group. In addition, decisions about vacations are often compromise decisions made by the group as a whole, not by any one individual (Swarbrooke and Horner, 2001). If one individual did dominate the group interview, it was presumed that this individual was likely to have had a signicant inuence on the decisions that the group had made about the holiday and how the other members of the group had experienced the holiday. During the interview, the interviewees were asked how the three dimensions chosen in the rst phase of the study had been handled at the destination, and whether they still thought that these three were the most important dimensions for quality of experience. They were given the opportunity to nominate other dimensions if these were now perceived to be more important. The second phase of the study was not accompanied by a questionnaire and was therefore not used for the collection of quantitative data. It served mainly to collect

qualitative data to augment the quantitative data of the rst and third phases which were the main focus of the present study. 3.4 Third phase The third phase was studied when the groups had returned home. This was again conducted through questionnaires, which were sent to the homes of the respondents. The tourists again received the list of ten dimensions, and were again asked to choose the three most important in creating quality in their experience. 3.5 Overall methodology The design of the study, with data collection from the same groups on three separate occasions, meant that only a limited number of respondents could be involved in the study for practical reasons. However, despite the limited numbers involved, the study design had the advantage of allowing the researchers to follow the same respondents over time, thus facilitating the collection of more useful information about their changing expectations, experiences, and perceptions. The numbers of British and Italian respondents in the three phases are shown in Table II. As can be seen in the table, the numbers of respondents varied somewhat in the three phases. More people lled in the questionnaire in the rst phase than could be interviewed in the second phase. This was because clashes occurred with various activities and transfers, and because some respondents left before they could participate in the interviews. A few tourists who had responded in the rst two phases did not answer in the third phase, despite reminders being sent by mail and telephone. The questionnaires were prepared in English, but were translated into Italian to facilitate the Italian respondents. An Italian interpreter was used during the interviews with Italian participants. 4. Results 4.1 Findings from the rst phase In the rst phase, before the tourism experience, respondents were asked to choose the most important three (of the ten) dimensions of service quality, The results are shown in Table III. The table is based on 53 respondents, each choosing his or her three most important dimensions giving a total of 159 responses. Taking the sample as a whole, reliability was mentioned more often than any other dimension, followed by competence and tangibles. access was not mentioned at all. Understanding the customer was the second least-mentioned dimension.

Service quality in inbound tourism

529

Before phase British Italian 20 33

During phase 14 26

After phase 12 27 Table II. The number of respondents participating in the different phases broken down by nationality

Note: The different number of respondents in the rst two phases is due to the fact that it was not possible to interview all of them in the during phase. After the experience a few tourists did not answer the questionnaire, while others answered for example in the before phase and after phase

MSQ 16,5
Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Competence Courtesy Credibility Security Access Communication Understanding the customer Other Total (three answers per person)

British 13 11 9 6 7 2 5 0 6 1 0 60

Italian 11 19 14 19 9 8 7 0 8 4 0 99

Total 24 30 23 25 16 10 12 0 14 5 0 159

Total ranking 3 1 4 2 5 8 7 6 9

530

Table III. Findings for each dimension before the experience

Note: The table is based on 53 respondents, each choosing the three most important dimensions, amounting to 159 answers altogether

Some differences were apparent in comparing the British tourists with the Italian tourists. The British chose tangibles most often, followed by reliability, and responsiveness. In contrast, the Italians choose reliability and competence most commonly (and equally), followed by responsiveness. The dimensions with the largest differences between the nationalities in this phase were tangibles (which was mentioned much more frequently among the British than among the Italians), and competence and credibility (which were mentioned much more often among the Italians than among the British). Apart from these three dimensions, the others had approximately the same number of mentions within the two nationalities. 4.2 Findings from the third phase In the third phase, after the experience, the tourists were again asked to choose the three most important dimensions. The results are shown in Table IV. The table is based on 37 respondents, each choosing his or her three most important dimensions giving a total of 111 responses. Taking the sample as a whole, reliability was the most commonly mentioned dimension. The next most commonly mentioned was competence, followed by tangibles and courtesy (with an equal number of mentions). Access was perceived as the least important. Some differences were again apparent between the nationalities. Although reliability was perceived as being most important by both nationalities, there were differences with respect to the other dimensions. Tangibles was the second most commonly mentioned among the British, followed by courtesy. In contrast, among the Italians the second most important was competence, followed by credibility. The dimensions with the largest differences between the nationalities were tangibles and courtesy (which were mentioned more often by the British respondents), and competence and credibility (which were mentioned more often by the Italians). The difference between the nationalities was especially apparent with credibility, which was mentioned by more than one-third of the Italians, but not by any of the British. The other differences between the nationalities were relatively small.

British Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Competence Courtesy Credibility Security Access Communication Understanding the customer Other Total (three answers per person) 7 9 3 5 6 0 2 0 2 2 0 36

Italian 5 17 5 15 6 9 5 2 6 5 0 75

Total 12 26 8 20 12 9 7 2 8 7 0 111

Total ranking 3 1 6 2 3 5 8 10 6 8

Service quality in inbound tourism

531

Note: The table is based on 37 respondents, each having chosen the three most important dimensions, amounting to 111 answers altogether

Table IV. Findings for each dimension after the experience

4.3 Comparison of before and after Table V shows the three dimensions that had the largest differences between the rst phase of the study and the third phase of the study. The results for each dimension are presented as a percentage of the total number of respondents who mentioned the dimension in each phase. Taking the sample as a whole, the three most commonly chosen dimensions before and after the experience remained the same. Reliability was the most commonly mentioned, followed by competence and tangibles. However, it should be noted that, after the experience, the dimension of courtesy joined tangibles as the third most commonly mentioned, even though courtesy had been only the fth most commonly mentioned before the experience. The dimension of responsiveness suffered the greatest loss of support, followed by tangibles, which also lost support. The dimension that gained most in importance was reliability. In terms of nationalities, the British changed their opinions to a greater extent than did the Italians. Among the British, reliability had the greatest increase in mentions, followed by courtesy, competence, and understanding the customer. Responsiveness had the greatest decrease in mentions among the British, followed by communication and credibility. The other changes were less marked. Among the Italians, there were fewer changes than were apparent among the British. The most dramatic of the changes among the Italians was the decreased importance of responsiveness and tangibles, and the increased importance of credibility.

Before (%) Responsiveness Reliability Tangibles 43.5 56.5 45.5

After (%) 21.5 70.5 32.5

Note: Figures are calculated as a percentage of the total number of respondents in each phase

Table V. The three dimensions with the largest difference between the before phase and the after phase

MSQ 16,5

Comparing Table III with Table IV, it is apparent among both nationalities that responsiveness became less important between the rst phase of the study and the third phase of the study. The British attached less importance to credibility, whereas this dimension increased in importance among the Italians. 5. Discussion To enhance understanding of potential differences between the respondents choices of the important dimensions before the experience and after the experience, respondents were interviewed during their stays at the destination. Among other questions, they were asked: . whether the three dimensions that they had chosen before coming to the destination were now perceived as having been well handled during their stay at the destination; and . whether they still perceived the previously chosen dimensions as being the most important (and, if not, whether they wished to change one or more of them). Almost all the chosen dimensions were perceived as having been well handled. Some respondents wanted to change one or two of the chosen dimensions. Others said that they wanted to add dimensions that were not necessarily more important, but were equally important as those they had previously chosen. However, an interesting nding was that some respondents who claimed at interview to be happy about the way that their most important dimensions had been treated, and who professed that they did not want to change or add anything, nevertheless did change one or several of their choices in the third phase (after the experience). The reason for these later changes might be that respondents perceived other priorities once they had completed the whole experience and were again sitting at home reecting on what seemed to have been important at the time. During the interviews at the destination, some respondents intimated their patterns of thought with respect to their choices of dimensions. The respondents who did subsequently change their priorities seem to have changed their minds for one or other of two reasons. The rst was that some were dissatised with how a dimension had been handled at the destination, and they therefore wished to change that dimension, or add others. The second reason was that some realised that something that they had experienced at the destination was very important to them. During the interviews, communication was mentioned most often as a dimension that had been handled unsatisfactorily during the experience. Respondents commented on a lack of understanding in both spoken language and written language. This applied equally to respondents who had nominated communication as one of their three most important dimensions before the experience and to those who had not nominated this dimension at all. Moreover, communication was the dimension that was most often mentioned in the interviews as likely to be subsequently added or changed. However, in the third phase (after the experience), this dimension did not feature as one that increased in importance; rather, its importance decreased slightly from the rst phase to the third phase. It thus appears that communication is a dimension of concern to respondents during their experience, but not afterwards. It is possible that inbound tourists feel somewhat insecure about communication during the

532

experience in a foreign environment, but that this insecurity fades afterwards, and other dimensions become prioritised. Questions about other matters, apart from the ten dimensions, were also asked during the interviews in the second phase of the study. Some of these questions related to the classication of needs according to the Kano model (Kano et al., 1984; Kano, 1995). For example, some tourists were disappointed about not understanding instructions, signs, or other information from service suppliers. This need to understand communications could be interpreted as a basic need in the Kano model; if so, a failure to meet this basic need would create strong dissatisfaction. Kanos category of expected needs was exemplied by the respondents experiences of cold, snow, proximity to nature, contact with the local culture, and enjoyment of the beautiful landscape. Kanos third category, excitement needs, was exemplied among those Italians who delighted in travelling by dog sled through the countryside. 6. Conclusion This study found reliability to be the most important dimension among both British and Italian tourists to Sweden. This nding is in accordance with those of Zeithaml et al. (1990), who considered reliability to be the most important dimension in service quality, and those of Juwaheer and Ross (2003), who also emphasised reliability as one of the most important dimensions for tourists in their study in the hotel industry. In contrast, the ndings of the present study with respect to responsiveness do not accord with those of other studies. Responsiveness was considered the second most important dimension in service quality by Zeithaml et al. (1990), and also featured among the most important dimensions in the tourism studies of Juwaheer and Ross (2003) and ONeill et al. (2000). In contrast, the present study found responsiveness to be only the fourth most important dimension in the rst phase (before the experience); moreover, the present study found that responsiveness diminished further in importance in the third phase (after the experience). The results with respect to tangibles are more equivocal in comparison with previous studies. Tangibles was counted as the least important among ve dimensions of service quality according to Zeithaml et al. (1990) (see Table I), but was ranked as third most important by the respondents in the present study, both before and after the experience. Similarly, tangibles was not ranked as a top priority by either Juwaheer and Ross (2003) or ONeill et al. (2000). These comparative ndings support the notion that the relevance and importance of certain quality dimensions vary, depending on the type of service being studied (Bergman and Klefsjo, 2003). In addition, it must be acknowledged that cultural factors might inuence the importance of certain dimensions in various cultural contexts. An important nding of the present study is that differences in the rankings of dimensions were detected at various points in time. For example, the dimension of communication was quite important while at the destination, but later (after the experience) it was deemed to be less important. This changing importance of certain dimensions with time represents a major contribution of the present study especially in view of the fact that changing perceptions of quality among tourists as a result of experiences has not received much scholarly attention in the tourism literature. Another nding of the present study is that certain dimensions that are not included in later versions of SERVQUAL appeared to have some degree of importance to

Service quality in inbound tourism

533

MSQ 16,5

534

various nationalities. For example, credibility was fairly important to the Italians, whereas courtesy was valued quite highly among the British tourists. Competence was important to both nationalities. The fact that these various dimensions appeared to play a part in the tourists perceptions of service quality supports the contention of the present authors that it is appropriate to use all ten dimensions in studies of service quality in tourism, rather than grouping them together, as in the revised versions of SERVQUAL. With regard to the national differences detected in the present study, it is of interest that Atilgan et al. (2003) studied German and Russian tourists evaluations of service-quality dimensions. These authors concluded that various cultural groups can have different expectations and perceptions of service-quality dimensions, and that national differences are worthy of consideration by tourism managers in their attempts to provide a satisfactory service to all their customers. Similarly, Weiermair (2000) claimed that cultural norms affect expectations and perceptions of services. These ndings are in accordance with various ndings in the present study. Some of the service-quality dimensions differed in importance between the two nationalities before, during, and after the experience. The ndings in the present study are certainly not conclusive, but they do point to the potential importance of cultural factors. It is typical of the tourism experience that every experience is unique and complex.

7. Managerial implications It is important for all service providers, including tourism operators, to understand that there are different categories of customer needs and expectations, and that these should be identied as clearly as possible. It is also important to recognise, as the Kano model indicates, that not all needs can be elicited simply by asking customers. With this understanding, it is possible for service managers to create an experience that fulls, or preferably exceeds, the needs and expectations of the customer. This will produce customers who will return home and speak positively about their experiences to friends and colleagues. This type of marketing, referred to as storytelling, is becoming increasingly important in a world characterised by increasing information and communication technology. The present study also shows that national differences can play a part in determining customers perceptions of the importance of various quality dimensions. Tourism managers should therefore make every attempt to recognise, and satisfy, the culturally determined needs of different groups of tourists. An important nding of this study is that a tourists perceptions of the most important service-quality dimensions might differ over time. Tourism managers should be aware of this possibility in attempting to understand their customers. Some quality dimensions might be important to potential tourists when they are considering a destination, whereas other dimensions might be more important when assessing the experience afterwards. Finally, it is important to learn from previous tourists experiences. The importance of suitable customer evaluations cannot be overemphasised.

References Armstrong, R.W., Mok, C., Go, F. and Chan, G. (1997), The importance of cross-cultural expectations in the measurement of service quality perceptions in the hotel industry, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 181-90. Atilgan, E., Akinci, S. and Aksoy, S. (2003), Mapping service quality in tourism industry, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 412-22. Baker, D.A. and Fesenmaier, D.R. (1997), Effects of service climate on managers and employees rating of visitors service quality expectations, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 15-23. Bergman, B. and Klefsjo, B. (2003), Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction, 2nd ed., Studentlitteratur, Lund. Bitner, M.J. (1992), Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71. Brown, F. and Hall, D. (Eds) (1999), Case Studies of Tourism in Peripheral Areas, Research Center of Bornholm, Bornholm. Burns, P.M. and Holden, A. (1995), Tourism a New Perspective, Prentice Hall, New York, NY. Deming, W.E. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Edvardsson, B. (1996), Kvalitet och tjansteutveckling, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Edvardsson, B., Thomasson, B. and Ovretveit, J. (1994), Quality of Service: Making it Really Work, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead. Ekinci, Y. and Riley, M. (1998), A critique of the issues and theoretical assumptions in service quality measurement in the lodging industry: time to move the goal-posts?, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 349-62. Goeldner, C.R. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (2003), Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies, 9th ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Lexington Books, New York, NY. Gronroos, C. (2002), Service management och marknadsforing en CRM ansats, Liber Ekonomi, Malmo. Gummesson, E. (1991), Kvalitetsstyrning i tjanste- och serviceverksamheter, Forskningsrapport, Centrum for tjansteforskning, Hogskolan i Karlstad, Karlstad. Gummesson, E. (2004), Many-to-many Marketing, Liber, Malmo. Ingram, H. and Daskalakis, G. (1999), Measuring quality gaps in hotels: the case of Crete, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-30. International Organization for Standardisation (2000), Quality Management Systems Fundamentals and Vocabulary, International Organization for Standardisation, Geneva. Jonsson Kvist, A. (2005), Needs and expectations of inbound tourists visiting a peripheral area: a case study in Northern Sweden, Licentiate thesis, Division of Quality and Environmental Management, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea. Juwaheer, T.D. and Ross, D.L. (2003), A study of hotel guest perceptions in Mauritius, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-15. Kandampully, J. (2000), The impact of demand uctuation on the quality of service: a tourism industry example, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 10-18. Kano, N. (1995), Upsizing the organization by attractive quality creation, pp. 60-72, Proceedings the First World Congress for Total Quality Management, 10-12 April 1995, Shefeld.

Service quality in inbound tourism

535

MSQ 16,5

536

Kano, N. (2001), Life cycle and creation of attractive quality, Proceedings from Quality Management and Organizational Development (QMOD), Linkoping University, Linkoping. Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F. and Tsuji, S. (1984), Attractive quality and must-be quality, Quality, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 39-48. Keating, M. and Harrington, D. (2002), The challenges of implementing quality in the Irish hotel industry: a review, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 303-15. Lansstyrelsen i Norrbotten (2004), Swedens County Administrations, Norrbotten, available at: www.norrbotten.se/se/om_norrbotten Mossberg, L. (2003), Att skapa upplevelser fran OK till wow, Studentlitteratur, Lund. ONeill, M.A., Williams, P., MacCarthy, M. and Groves, R. (2000), Diving into service quality the dive tour operator perspective, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 131-40. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), A conceptual model for service quality and its implications for future research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Fall, pp. 41-50. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40. Quinn, J.B., Baruch, J.J. and Paquette, P.C. (1987), Technology in services, Scientic American, Vol. 257 No. 6, pp. 50-8. Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. and Kamalanabhan, T.J. (2001), Customer perceptions of service quality: a critique, Total Quality Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-24. Swarbrooke, J. and Horner, S. (2001), Consumer Behaviour in Tourism, Butterworth and Heinemann, Oxford. Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen (2001a), Ersbokslut fwr svensk turistndring, available at: www.tourist.se (accessed 26 June 2003). Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen (2001b), Trender i turismutvecklingen, available at: www.tourist.se (accessed 26 June 2003). Swedish Tourist Authority/Turistdelegationen (2004), Fakta om svensk turism 2004, Turistdelegationen, Swedish Tourist Authority, Stockholm, available at: www.tourist.se Soderlund, M. (2001), Den lojala kunden, Liber Ekonomi, Malmo. Tan, K.C. and Pawitra, T.A. (2001), Integrating SERVQUAL and Kanos model into QFD for service excellence development, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 418-30. von Friedrichs Grangsjo, Y. (2001), Destinationsmarknadsforing. En studie av turism ur ett producentperspektiv, doctoral thesis, Stockholm School of Business, Stockholm. WTO (2003), World Tourism Organization, available at: www.world-tourism.org Wanhill, S. (1997), Peripheral area tourism a European perspective, Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 47-70. Weaver, D. and Oppermann, M. (2000), Tourism Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Weiermair, K. (2000), Tourists perceptions towards and satisfaction with service quality in the cross-cultural service encounter: implications for hospitality and tourism management, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 397-409. Witt, C.A. and Muhlemann, A.P. (1994), The implementation of total quality management in tourism: some guidelines, Tourism Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 416-24. Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services Marketing, McGraw-Hill, Singapore.

Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (2000), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990), Delivering Quality Service, The Free Press, New York, NY. About the authors Anna-Karin Jonsson Kvist is a PhD candidate in Quality Technology and Management at Lulea University of Technology in Sweden. Her main interest is Quality Management within Tourism. She got her licentiate degree in 2005 with a thesis discussing needs and expectations of inbound tourists in peripheral areas. Anna-Karin Jonsson Kvist is the corresponding author Anna-Karin.Kvist@ltu.se Bengt Klefsjo is Professor of Quality Technology and Management at Lulea University of Technology in Sweden. He has published over 100 papers in reliability theory and applications and in quality technology and management in international journals and conference proceedings. He is also co-author of more than 20 published books on mathematics, statistics, and quality management. One of these, Quality from Customer Needs to Customer Satisfaction is in its second edition sold by ASQ Quality Press. He has been member of the jury of the Swedish Quality Award all the time since the start of the award in 1992.

Service quality in inbound tourism

537

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints