Customer Expectations in the Hospitality

Customer Expectations in the Hospitality Industry

Customers' expectations are the future of any organization, and this is particularly relevant to the hospitality industry. To the extent an organization creates expectations and accurately fulfills them is to the extent they gain customer loyalty and market share.

The intent of this paper is to evaluate how expectations are created, and second, explain the dominant approaches used for measuring customer expectations. An analysis of how customer expectations are managed in the hospitably industry is next discussed with an assessment of how customer satisfaction measurement approaches are specifically applied to the hospitality industry.

How Expectations Are Formed

The development of expectations is formed from the interaction of social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors, with both sets of factors contributing to the formation and growth of trust. The intent of this analysis is defines what expectations are in general including their nature and characteristics, including an analysis of how expectations are formed. The interaction of customer satisfaction, trust, commitment as social exchange behaviors, and loyalty, cooperation and participation as voluntary performance behaviors serve as the foundations for how expectations are formed. All six of these combined factors contribute to the development of expectations (Hawes, Strong, Winick, 1996). Specifically the level of performance or quality of a product or service to be delivered is defined by the interaction of social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors. As a result, confirmation of expectations being met or not leads to expectations being reinforced and a new level of performance defined (Hawes, Mast, Swan, 1989). The continual increasing of expectations is entirely dependent on each of these specific sets of factors staying in equilibrium and balanced with each other. Social exchange and voluntary behaviors however require trust to be present, and strengthened in each interaction and product or service experience (Young, Wilkinson, 1989). In organizations that rely extensively on distribution channels the interaction of both social exchange and voluntary behaviors is inherently more difficult to manage given the specific coordination efforts between channel partners (Zaheer, McEvily, Perrone, 1998). Expectations of customers across each distribution channel they interact with vary significantly, and have been proven to be directly related to the level of electronic enablement within each given channel and its levels of personalization, perceived level of security and trustworthiness (Zaheer, McEvily, Perrone,1998). This has been shown to extend into the services sectors of the global economy as well, specifically in the hospitality industry as well (Lee, 1983).

Expectations are in fact solidified when the two sets of factors, social exchange and voluntary behaviors, are strengthened through greater consistent levels of trust (Chow, Holden, 1997). What emerges from this analysis is that the managing expectations over time need to be consistent, transparent and deliberate if trust is to be gained (Hawes, Mast, Swan, 1989). Expectations and trust are in fact interrelated, and from the standpoint of a consumer acquiring services, the interlinking of these two factors is even more integrated than that of consumers purchasing products. The reason is that implicit in the sale of any service is the implied expectation that their delivery will be to the satisfaction level agreed upon (Milliman, Fugate, 1988).

Nature and Characteristics of Expectations

The interchange between social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors that fuel and are also fueled by the validation and reinforcement of trust serve as the catalyst of expectations being created and sustained. Implicit in the defining of expectations is that they will align with and be congruent to the ethical norms from both an organizational and individual level (Larzelere, Huston,1980), and this is particularly relevant in the acquiring of services, where expectations are integral to the purchase process (Altinay, 2007).

The nature and characteristics of expectations, especially in service-related industries, can be defined through the model shown in Figure 1, Proposed Services Expectation Model, which is a graphical representation of how both social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors are influenced by organizational and individual ethical norms, all of which directly contribute to the validation and reinforcement of trust. The tight and loose coupling of the components of the model are meant to define its ability to quickly remain permeable and agile enough to support how expectations vary across the wide variety of company cultures, distribution channels used, and previous experiences with the specific company. This graphical representation is entirely predicated on trust being continually being strengthened through the interaction of ethical norms, social exchange, and voluntary performance behaviors, all contributing to a more recursive approach to expectations fueling trust over the long-term. Based on the studies cited and an analysis of how trust is achieved in service industries where the deliverable is often the experience, the need for a recursive model that takes into account expectations of individual and organizational norms is essential. Taking this a step further, the need for consistency and equilibrium indirectly between social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors, and directly via organizational and individual ethical norms, is crucial if expectations are to be initially met and continually sustained. Arguably keeping these aspects of expectations synchronized with each other is critical for trust to be achieved and loyalty eventually attained.

Figure 1: Proposed Services Expectation Model

This model is particularly relevant in the hospitality industry, where the social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors interact before, during, and after services are provided. The processes required to create, execute on, and fulfill expectations is also defined within the Proposed Services Expectation Model through the tight/lose coupling of organizational ethical norms and the validation and reinforcement of trust. Only by making this interrelationship agile enough to sustain cultural change can a service-based company hope to create enough sustained trust that leads to customer loyalty.

Consistently creating and fulfilling expectations as part of any services strategy also requires an intensive level of coordination across positioning strategies that appeal to customers' social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors as well, which is implied in the Proposed Services Expectation Model.

For any services organization to create sustainable value and differentiation that transcends specific services offerings and generations, inclusive of pricing strategies there needs to be a strategic focus on achieving balance throughout the Proposed Services Expectation Model illustrated in Figure 1. Just as Porter's Determinants of Competitive Advantage have proven their ability to predict international global competitiveness emanating from establishing local competitive uniqueness and core differentiated values first, the same holds true for the Proposed Services Expectation Model from a managing of expectations standpoint.

What is implicit in the design of the model is that and balance between organizational ethical norms and individual ethical norms, and like the Porter model of global competitive advantage, this proposed model becomes more relevant over time, as loyalty is achieved between companies and their customers as services expectations are consistently exceeded. This bond surpasses the transaction level, which has proven to be transient at best, but at the values and trust level. When a service company's performance reaches this level, it is called solution selling. Solution selling is a deliberate strategy to become a trusted advisor to customers, focusing on their unmet needs over merely fulfilling transactions over time. Solution selling will be discussed in detail later in this paper.

The biggest challenge for many organizations, both profit and non-profit focused, is the ability to generate and sustain trust through the continual meeting and exceeding of expectations. Given the skepticism brought on partially by the disillusionment of dotcom failures and the wanton disregard of ethics by Enron and others, trust has rapidly become the most precious commodity a company has to trade with their prospects and customers with. Trust first into the center of the Proposed Services Expectation Model as it is a critical component of expectations being set and consistently fulfilled. Trust is the catalyst of the Proposed Services Expectation Model and its effects. The higher the level of trust, the greater the congruence between Organizational ethical norms and Individual ethical norms, fueling greater congruence of Social Exchange and Voluntary Performance Behaviors. The lesser the level of trust, the greater the fragmentation of each component of the model, and the disintegration of relationships and processes flows that encompass it, and the eventual decline in customer activity in this framework. A significant proof point for this model can also be found in the work of (Hatch, Schultz, 2002) which also shows that aspiring to the role of a trusted advisor actually increases the coherence and consistency between organizational and individual ethical norms.

When the interactions in the proposed Services Expectation Model are taken into account it's no wonder that so many firms in hospitality services industry specifically focus on the position of trusted advisor for both business and pleasure travel. When the proposed Services Expectation Model is applied to a services business the role of trusted advisor is further strengthened by the consistency between Organizational and Individual Ethical norms. By being in alignment with both organizational and individual ethical norms, services companies become trusted advisors over time. Trusted advisors are created through consistency of ethical norms and consistency of execution between social exchange and voluntary performance behaviors. For any hospitality services business to attain the role of trusted advisor they must consistently keep these elements of the proposed Services Expectation Model synchronized with each other.

The approaches companies take to create Cooperative Advantage of accomplishing improved organizational performance on the one hand and superior customer value on the other require the prerequisite of their being a tightly coupled integration between Validation and Reinforcement of Trust and Social Exchange Behaviors and Voluntary Performance Behaviors. Where previous maturity models that have been defined (Hatch, Schultz, 2002) contribute to this dynamic including the work done is in continually looking at an organization for the potential of creating trustworthy experiences for customers. Every customer, at any specific point in time, is at a specific level of trust or mistrust with an organization. To the extent that an organization can earn the trust of its customers is the extent to which the velocity and flow of information through proposed Services Expectation Model is achieved. More critical than that, yet more long-term, is the ability to re-define organizational values based on what customers require an organization to be, and vice versa. In this sense the proposed Services Expectation Model needs to be reciprocal in fostering and nurturing trust within the organization of customers' expectations being accurate and attainable.

Also inherent in the nature and character of expectations in the ability of company cultures to consistently create and sustain intense brand loyalties. Apple has been very successful at tightly coupling their values with their customers, and creating in effect an ecosystem where values where one reinforces the other. Another example is Toyota and the trusted advisor status they have achieved in the auto industry. There are many more examples of this dynamic, where the proposed Services Expectation Model is illustrated in the relative distance or proximity and intimacy an organization is capable of achieving with its customers.

Validation and Reinforcement of Trust must be tightly coupled with Social Exchange and Voluntary Performance Behaviors to create equilibrium and balance throughout an organization. The ability to earn and keep trust defines the extent of a Cooperative Advantage overall that leads to the development of consistent organizational performance and the development of exceptional customer value over time. Trust becomes the catalyst of continual financial performance and growth, not price or the short-term focus on competitive tactics. From this perspective, customer loyalty earned though consistently exceeding expectations becomes the unique competitive advantage of any firm. This becomes particularly relevant in the area of hospitality firms where the development of a unique competitive advantage must emanate from the staff's ability to sense and respond to the unique requirements of customers and tailor their response to their specific needs. The agility and responsiveness of hospitality firms to sense and accurately respond to these unique requirements of customers in a service setting, once defined first as a process and then engrained into its culture, is critical for long-term competitive advantage.

Like Porter's Determinants of Competitive Advantage, the proposed analytical construct of the Services Expectation Model also illustrates the need to create localized competitive competence and strength first, and then scale globally specifically focusing on how to transform the ability to regularly exceed expectations as a competitive advantage.

This point is made apparent in the need for equilibrium in the model first, and the ever-growing requirement of transforming an organization from being trusted only a regional basis to deliver value into a global one. The proposed Services Expectation Model also shows how organizations need to create shared visions, make shared commitments and promises, and work with intensity to fulfill, in fact, exceed the many expectations they create. Only by making this dynamic a core strength, the ability to set and keep a series of visions, commitments, and promises, can an organization hope to remain viable and competitive in the years to come.

One of the more valuable aspects of expectations being continually met over time is the creation of a high perceived value of the product or service being delivered. When a given product or service attains this level of value, the credibility and integrity of the brand becomes part of the nature and characteristics of expectations consumers have. Specifically in the hospitality industry this is apparent in the expectations customers have when checking into a Four Seasons vs. A mid-tier hotel from Accor or Marriott for example. The ability of any services firm or organization to consistently meet expectations, leading to high levels of customer loyalty leads to value creation for the company's brand over time. Value creation is the accumulation of customer loyalty over time; it is in fact being increasingly quantified in the context of the hospitality industry today (Bowen, Sparks, 1998). The creation of customer value has increasingly been seen as the next source of competitive advantage (Woodruff, 1997). Yet, despite the attention focused on this concept, there is still remarkably little in the way of agreement in the literature on what constitutes "value" and "customer value" or how it is related to expectations and the creation of customer loyalty.

Both value and customer value now need to be seen in the context of customer and organizational values alignment, which may be referred to as "relational value congruence."

The notion of value creation through continual reinforcement of and exceeding of expectations has been implicit in marketing science since the beginnings of study of how loyalty affects perception of service quality as well. Gronroos (1996), for example, referred to an ancient Chinese merchant who progressively built stronger and deeper relationships with the customers in his village by changing his role from that of "transaction-oriented channel member to a value-enhancing relationship manager." In this way the merchant continually sought to exceed the expectations of his clients by continually reinforcing their trust. Sheth and Parvatijar (1995) pointed out that relational bonding between traders in preindustrial society was prevalent and that the development of markets in this period was concerned with the continuity of a repeat purchaser which also served to quantify trust as a differentiator in service relationships. Such continuity was achieved because those who participated in the market knew and trusted each other (MacKenney, 1987). These early examples illustrate buyer-seller relationships in which both parties received some form of value and had common preferences that led to an ongoing relationship. The foundation of these findings is in the fact that expectations met or exceeded over time led to higher levels of trust being attained.

Value is also implied in theoretical work on exchange theory. For example, the pioneering work of Kotler and Levy (1969) and Kotler (1972) on broadening the concept of the marketing mix regarded the process of exchange as an essential part of marketing activity: "The core concept of marketing is transaction. A transaction is the exchange of values between two parties. The things-of-value need not be limited to goods, services, and money; they include other resources such as time, energy, and feelings" (Kotler, 1972). A little later, Bagozzi (1975) focused on the importance of the exchange process in greater detail, noting that there are three broad determinants of exchange relationships: (a) social actor variables (attraction, similarity, prestige, and expertise), (b) social influence variables (specific actions, communications, and information transmitted between parties), and - situational variables (alternative sources of value, the physical and psychological setting, and the legal and normative setting or organizational norms and values). However, while the exchange theory of marketing provides good normative rules for exchange relationships, it does not yet explain why and how values and, arguably, value is directly created from expectations (Sheth, Gardner, & Garrett, 1988).

Consumer values and consumer value were researched extensively in the 1970s and 1980s to specifically understand how expectations influence them over time from a marketing standpoint. Much of this research was based on the seminal work of Kotler (1972). The specific use of the term "value" (and values) as applied to marketing has emerged in the literature over the past 25 years. However, the term "value" as suggestive of values derived from work outside marketing, such as that undertaken by (Altinay, 2007). Much of this early work focused on value as preference. More recently, researchers have explored value as a way of explaining economic behavior based on expectations fueling trust over time. Other work focused on developing a priori lists of values such as that developed by Rokeach (1973), who created a classification scheme based on 36 personal values, further attempting to quantify the effects of expectations on long-term perception of value on the part of services purchasers.

Work on consumer values has its origins in work on human values. However, it is important not to confuse the terms consumer "values" and consumer "value," and a distinction needs to be made between value (singular) and values (plural). According to Holbrook (1994), the term value refers to a preferential judgment, while values are used to refer to the criteria by which such judgments are made. Rokeach (1973) described values as deeply held beliefs, whereas value implies a preference that results in a trade-off (e.g., between benefits and sacrifices) and an interaction (e.g., between a customer and the product/service). As indicated earlier, the research on consumer values in marketing can be traced to work in consumer research by such researchers as Kotler (et.al.), who sought to understand the decision-making and buying behaviors of consumers by identifying the product attributes that could be linked to a customer's values.

Levitt (1969) pointed out that competition is not between what companies produce in their factories but between what they add to their factory output in the form of packaging, services, advertising, customer advice, financing, delivery arrangements, warehousing, and other things that people value, and most importantly if their expectations were met or not. In later work, Levitt (1980) proposed that, in addition to the generic or core product, there also existed an expected product, an augmented product, and a potential product. Levitt (1981) also distinguished between the marketing of intangible products and product intangibles, noting that, from the buyer's perspective, the product is a promise, or a cluster of value expectations, wherein intangible parts are as important as tangible parts. Here, the concept of value for the customer came to be viewed as an inherent part of the product or service. Levitt's model allows us to reconcile the marketer's traditional view of the product, seen in terms of the various inputs and processes needed to produce it, and the consumer's view of the product as a set of solutions and supporting benefits.

Research into customer satisfaction and service quality as defined by expectations, which is concerned with the measurement of value outputs, has recently focused on multi-attribute measurement models developed by researchers such as Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985, 1988). These multi-attribute models of customer satisfaction and service quality are primarily concerned with value outputs. Such work on customer satisfaction and service quality has made a significant impact on our understanding of what customer's value in terms of product and service attributes.

Measurement of Customers' Expectations

There are several different approaches to capturing the expectations of consumers; the most commonly used are briefly discussed in this section. Customer satisfaction is often considered the most measurable aspect of expectations. Attitudinal measures of performance that depend on 5- and 7-point Likert scaling, in addition to the use of multi-dimensional scaling to plot the data for graphical analysis are techniques to aid in the analysis of expectations and resulting satisfaction levels. Researchers will often rely on combining the approaches mentioned below depending on the study objectives, strategies and approaches in use. The following briefly explain each approach researchers use to capture customer expectations.

The first is telephone surveying, which is by far the most widely used survey method. Telephone surveying enables researchers to quickly collect data. While this method is generally considered cost-effective, refusal rates among telephone surveys have increased over the past ten years, and given the enactment of the U.S. National Do Not Call list, researchers expect telephone refusal rates to continue to rise.

The second is the use of online and e-mail surveying. This technique is often cited as more time- and cost-efficient than traditional research methods, online methodologies are widely-used approaches for collecting customer satisfaction data. Companies benefit the most from this technology if the majority of their customers are accessible through online channels.

The third approach is the use of focus groups to understand what customers' expectations are and their levels of satisfaction. While focus groups enable companies to gather data from only a small number of customers, they serve as effective forums for engaging customers in qualitative discussions to identify key underlying drivers for satisfaction, as well as causes of dissatisfaction.

The fourth approach is the use of reply cards and mail surveying. Although a relatively easy-to-administer research approach that provides wide access to a company's customer base, mail surveys do not facilitate the depth obtained with face-to-face research in which trained moderators administer follow-up questions.

The fifth is mystery shopping, mostly used by retailers to gain candid and often anonymous information on how their stores are operating. This approach to gathering customers' expectations is designed to evaluate specific customer interactions with employees; shopper studies measure the process of delivering customer service while other satisfaction techniques tend to assess the outcome of customer service performance. Shopper studies may contain "shopper bias," as the mystery shoppers visit a location with specific instructions to critique predetermined attributes.

Research professionals emphasize that effective customer satisfaction programs focus on assessing customers' perceptions of how well a company delivers on critical satisfaction drivers. For example, General Electric uses a Customer Satisfaction Index Model identify four general categories of customer satisfaction drivers: Image, Expectations, Products or Services, and Customer Service. Within each of these categories exists a variety of specific satisfaction drivers. These underlying drivers will vary by division and sometimes even between lines of business within the same company, and for business-to-business companies these factors may vary between customer groups in the GE supply chain. The Customer Satisfaction Index Model maps the impact of the four general categories of satisfaction on customers' perceptions of value, satisfaction levels, and loyalty. The degree to which each driver affects perceived value varies by industry and influences perceived value, customer satisfaction, and loyalty in different manners. GE has found that their divisions that fail to identify positive correlations between customer satisfaction, loyalty, and retention often discover that customers did not consider the drivers as relevant or applicable; hence there was a lost connection with them between expectations and satisfaction. To ensure that any given division of GE identifies and measures the correct drivers, the company has found that conducting qualitative research to confirm the importance of the drivers identified is critical. In an attempt to move towards a customer-centric strategy, GE regularly conducts focus groups to better understand the underlying drivers of customers' satisfaction with the company's service.

Customer Expectations in the Hospitality Industry

In managing expectations in the hospitality industry, the role of trusted advisors is critical and the foundation of consistent competitive advantage. If every hospitality firm or provider in the market follows a market-driven strategy, constantly adapting to competitors' strategic moves, no one hospitality firm or provider will be able to offer a value proposition superior to the competition. Further, the actors who pursue this strategy lose trusted advisor status quickly and must strive to regain their core competitive strength by looking first to the productivity strategies necessary to create and sustain trust with prospects and customers. To achieve superior performance, hospitality providers need to actively influence the market (Jaworski et al., 2000). Kumar (2000) argued that the two necessary conditions for driving a market are as follows: (a) a leap in a customer value proposition and (b) a unique business system. A company such as Southwest Airlines epitomized these conditions when it introduced competitive prices -- "a leap in customer value -- "while delivering superior service through a unique business system. Both of these necessary conditions for driving greater value to customers is also predicated on the delivery of greater levels of making and fulfilling commitments of quality as well. Tied to the concept of managing expectations with customers, these conditions of delivering greater value must be continually delivered to be of any long-term competitive value. Their delivery must be persistent and focused for the sustained integration of values to become strong, sustained, and able to foster repeat transactions over years of relationships with customers.

Secondly, trusted advisors in the hospitality industry provide for a sustainable competitive advantage over time. This is supported by the insights gained from Porter (et.al) and the theories of comparative and competitive advantage he has theorized and written about. Specifically, Porter (1985) saw competitive advantage as growing "fundamentally out of the value a firm is able to create for its buyers." In essence, firms create competitive advantage by creating some product or service that their customers cannot easily create for themselves for which those customers are willing to pay. Firms that fail to create competitive advantage eventually fail because they are unable to generate the value their customers demand. Developing competitive advantage becomes critical at the market entry stage and remains important throughout the life of the business as firms adapt to changing environments. This is especially the case when managing expectations that are transforming into competitive advantage throughout a hospitality firm. Porter also argued that a fundamental aspect of competitive adaptation is the specialization of suppliers to meet variations in buyer demand. Alderson (1965) was the first to recognize that firms should strive to create unique characteristics that distinguish them from competitors in the eyes of the consumer. Later, Hamel and Prahalad (1989) and Dickson (1992) discussed the need for firms to learn how to create new advantages that will keep them ahead of the competition. In the hospitality industry, some firms are more profitable than others, regardless of whether the average profitability of the industry is high or low, and to a large extent this can be defined by their ability to consistently manage and then exceed the expectations of their clients. This also assumes there is a highly defined approach to synchronizing the many systems within the company to assure a high level of customer-centered responsiveness and professionalism in service delivery consistent with the brand and the expectations of the customer.

In addition to trust being the foundation of the proposed Services Expectation Model mentioned earlier and the catalyst for becoming the trusted advisor within any segment of the hospitality industry, providers need to also segment their audiences based on trust. The superior performers in the hospitality industry including Accor, Marriott and others have found the ability to transform expectations into trust, transforming these attributes into a competitive advantage. This competitive strength or distinction can arise from many sources, from their branding to the education and ownership of processes by hotel personnel, to the processes and streamlined systems integration for ensuring guests' preferences, hotel billing and specific requirements are handled correctly and accurately.

For financial services firms, it is the ability to attract and retain key fund managers who are adept at navigating investments on behalf of clients. For manufacturers, the ability to produce products at a substantially lower cost with higher quality delivers greater value. As disparate and different as these business models are, their unifying uniqueness is the fact that in defining their own values, they have connected with the values of their customers. Trust is a primary differentiator for any successful company.

These unique sets (resources) are considered sources of competitive advantage (Stalk et al., 1992). The basis for the long-term success of a firm is its ability to achieve and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a high level of trust with consumers by knowing customer expectations and efficiently and thoroughly responding to them. Thus, understanding which resources and firm behaviors lead to such an advantage is fundamental to marketing strategy. A competitive advantage can result either from the implementation of a value-creating strategy not employed by current or prospective competitors or from superior execution of the same strategy as competitors. In the context of the hospitality industry the more profitable approach has been to rely on the latter approach. This decision has also been supported by the extensive use of loyalty programs and the use of point-based systems to reward the most frequent customers and attempt to turn them into the best employees. This is a practice that Marriott uses for example on a global scale in an attempt to transform the loyalty of customers into advocates of their brand. Competitive advantage is sustained when other firms are unable to easily duplicate the benefits of this strategy, especially in the area of loyalty over time by exceeding commitments. Sustainability is achieved when the advantage resists erosion by competitor behavior or environmental shifts (Porter, 1985). Winter (2004) stated that there are three characteristics of competitive advantage. First, it must be able to generate customer value. Customers may define customer value in terms of speedy delivery, lower prices, convenience, or other characteristics. Second, the customer must be able to perceive the increased value of the product or service. Whether or not the product is superior is not as important as whether the customer perceives it to be so. Third, for competitive advantage to be effective, it should be difficult for competitors to copy.

Research into strategies explains why some firms outperform others, typically using profit rates, shareholder returns, and other continuous dependent variables based on their relative levels of attitudinal performance as well.

Customer expectations transformed over time into loyalty are the most potent yet elusive differentiator in the hospitality industry. The suggested Services Expectation Model provides insights into how the dynamics associated with expectations and their transformation over time into trust and loyalty are the catalyst of lasting competitive advantage over time, leading to increased viability of firms competing in the hospitality industry.

Measurement of Customer's Expectations in the Hospitality Industry

There are two methodologies used in the majority of studies to measure and evaluate customer's expectations and satisfaction in the hospitality industry. These include SERVQUAL and LODGSERV. Both of these function as indices that specifically measure customers' attitudinal rankings of the performance of specific attributes associated with the hospitality industry. SERVQUAL in fact is used throughout all service organizations as it measures the variance between expectations and actual performance on the part of the service provider. Longitudinal studies have shown that over time SERVQUAL figures can provide insights into how trust is generated and maintained over time within specific service industries. SERVQUALs' methodology states that the assessment of the quality of a service needs to be completed during the actual delivery process. This way, the interaction between the service provider and customer can be accurately and completely evaluated and quantified. Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, and 1991) defined the SERVQUAL metric, defining five generic dimensions of service quality for customers' expectations to be met. These five dimensions are briefly discussed here.

First is the need for assurance. This is the dimension that specifically focuses on the training, knowledge and ability of employees to quickly convey trust and confidence throughout their organizations. This is also foundational to the development of credibility and integrity with customers, the catalyst of customer leadership and the ability to transform expectations into customer loyalty. In the context of the proposed Services Expectation Model, assurance is the strength of the interlinking of trust with voluntary and school exchange behaviors. The strength of these interrelationships is brought about through the use of process-based expertise for delivering exceptional service and surpassing customers' expectations. The net effect of assurance is the development of trust and confidence in the hospitality provider as a result of exceptional performance. The second factor, empathy, is the innate ability of a service organization to define processes and also create a culture that nurtures a caring, individualized attention to customers that is sincere. The third factor is reliability of the service organization to deliver on a consistent basis the promised services dependably and accurately. The fourth factor and one of the most critical is responsiveness, which must be a cultural value over a process. Responsiveness must emanate out of the culture of any organization to be consistently delivered and targeted, relevant enough to consistently exceed the expectations of customers. Responsiveness needs to also be celebrated as part of a company's culture so that the extra effort required is continually seen as a foundation for future growth and for validating the need for employees to go far above and beyond what is expected of them. The fifth factor is the tangible items, or the branding, communication materials, equipment, physical facilities, and most importantly, the personnel.

The essence of the model is the conceptualization of service quality as a gap between customer's expectations (E) and the perception of the service providers' performance (P). According to Parasuraman et al. (1985), service quality should be measured by subtracting customer's perception scores from customer expectation scores. Parasuraman theorized that the greater the positive experience, the higher the service quality, therefore the more interval- to ratio-level the data would be in the analysis. Data at this specific level of the ratio scale would be perfectly aligned with more advanced analytics and statistical analysis techniques, therefore making it possible to define more effective conclusions in the process.

In this context, a gap that may exist between the customers' expected and perceived service is not only a measure of the quality of the service but is more critically an indicator of a lack of customer service process integration where it matters most: in the service of a customer. Measuring the gap between expected and perceived service is a routine method of utilizing customer feedback. Zeithaml et al., (1988) suggested a model that details the gaps between customer expectations and the actual service delivered.

SERVQUAL is often used as a measurement instrument, to also construct service strategy components as well (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). These strategy components form the foundation for the gap analyses that are included as part of the extended conceptual service quality model. The framework provides the author with both a research instrument structure to implement the methodology of the study on, and also defines service model gaps comprising Service Quality (SQ), which are measures of variation between expected and actual service received by customers. SERVQUALs' predecessor body of research and use as a research instrument has given the researcher the ability to both quantify and monetize the differences between customers' expectations of service and the actual service received. The five gaps of the extended conceptual service quality model also have the potential to explain and account high levels of variation in the expected vs. actual service levels received by customers. The five areas of gaps are defined here: