TITLETOTALQUALITYMANAGEMENTINTHEHOSPITALITY...

Title: TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY , By: Saunders, Ian W., Graham, Mary Ann, Total Quality Management, 09544127, 1992, Vol. 3, Issue 3Database: Academic Search Premier TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY Abstract Total quality management (TQM) has achieved notable success as a philosophy of management in manufacturing industry. This paper examines the differences between the manufacturing situation and that of service industry in general and the hospitality industry in particular to identify the similarities and differences and highlight the likely difficulties in implementing TQM in the hospitality industry. We conclude that the primary area of difficulty is in identifying appropriate quality measures. Some approaches to overcoming the problems are suggested and a case study of the application of measurement techniques in a hotel is described. 1. Introduction Visualize the lobby of a hotel that is renowned for its quality service. The General Manager is discretely observing the activity in the foyer. Nearby is the front desk and guests are being checked in, and from his vantage point the Manager can hear what is being said. The front desk clerk is confirming the arrangements of the booking with the guest and the following discussion occurs: Sir, you will be charging your accommodation to the company and paying your other expenses. No, all expenses will be paid by the company. I am sorry sir, but according to this we have only authorized charge of the accommodation. Last time I stayed here I had the same problem and last week I personally rang to sort this out. All expenses are to be charged. The clerk goes to get authorization on the account and the now disgruntled guest turns to his companion and says in exasperation: . . . you see its exactly as I said it would happen. I stay here every month and yet every time I have this same problem. The General Manager considers the exchange with concern. That guest had not received the quality service the hotel was aiming to provide and if the guest continually had this experience it would simply be a matter of time before he decided to try one of the competitors. Not only could that one guests custom be lost, but he could be the manager of a company who frequently stay at the hotel and hold functions there. The difficulty for the Hotel Manager is to determine how to react to this situation. Is it a problem that only this particular guest faces or is it a common problem experienced by many? Whose fault is it that the problem arises initially? What is the appropriate action to be taken? 2. TQM and service quality Total quality management (TQM) is an approach to management that focuses on quality as the key to success. The Quality Triangle summarizes the components of Quality Manager (see Fig. 1): The focus on the customer in defining Quality. The importance of teamwork in unifying goals. The need for a scientific approach and decisions based on data. Following the publication of the Foley Report (Report of the Committee of Review of Standards, Accreditation and Quality Control and Assurance, Australian Government Printing Service, 1987), which concluded that Few, if any issues are more important than quality in meeting the need to improve the competitiveness of Australian Industry. (Foley Report, p.43) there has been heightened interest in Australia in the implementation and effective use of Quality Management. The acceptance of W. Edwards Demings ideas in Japan, followed by the rapid success of Japanese industry, goes some way to explaining the current interest in TQM in Western countries. Japan has to a great extent replaced the USA in providing models of good management practice. In the immediate post-war period, Japanese management practices were often characterized by Western writers as irrational hangovers from a feudal past (e.g. Abegglen, 1958). Japanese management practices now find a place in the curricula of most management courses. TQM holds a significant place in Japanese management practice and is claimed by its proponents (Deming, 1986 and many others) to be the fundamental reason for Japans success. TQM originated in a manufacturing environment and its terminology and techniques have largely been developed in that environment. Its application in a service environment thus requires adaptation of the ideas to a different set of circumstances. How is service industry different? According to Enrick (1986): Modern methods of quality control were developed and matured in manufacturing industries. These involve the processing and fabrication of materials into finished durable and nondurable goods. Service, however, is a relatively distinct non manufacturing activity. Work is performed for someone else. The major distinctions between service and manufacturing organizations are that the product: is intangible and ephemeral; is perishable; frequently involves the customer in the delivery of the product; is not perceived as a product by employees. The intangible nature of the service as a product means that it could be very difficult to place quantifiable terms on the features that contribute to the quality of the product. This could make measurement of the quality of the product a problem for TQM. As service products are perishable, they cannot be stockpiled and must be produced on demand. The result is that the process for delivering a service may be highly complex involving the co-ordination of primary and support systems in what is usually a very time sensitive relationship with the customer. This is in contrast to manufacturing organizations where although time may be an important aspect in the delivery of the goods it is rarely regarded as a feature of the goods which will affect its quality. In the case of a service organization time is regarded as an assessable quality or feature of the product. For example people usually book aeroplane flights based on the departure and arrival times that are most convenient. If a traveler is expecting to arrive at a destination at a specified time, and the aeroplane is 2 hours late the product will most likely have failed to meet the persons satisfaction. This is irrespective of how comfortable the aeroplane was, how good the inflight service was, or the fact that the flight had been made safely. The customer is frequently directly involved in the delivery of the service and as such introduces an unknown and unpredictable influence on the process. The customer also adds uncertainty to the process because it is often difficult to determine the exact requirements of the customer and what they regard as an acceptable standard of service. This problem is magnified by the fact that, standards are often judgmental, based on personal preferences or even mood, rather than on technical performance that can be measured (King, 1985). This has the result that while a service completely satisfied a customer yesterday exactly the same service may not do so today because of the mood of the customer. Therefore there is a problem of the fickle customer! Deming (1986) suggests a further difference: An important difference between manufacturing and service organisations is that a production worker in manufacturing not only has a job: he is aware that he is doing his part to make something that somebody will see, feel and use in some way.In contrast, in many service organisations, the people that work there only have a job. They are not aware that they have a product and that this product is service. In manufacturing industries the product is highly visible and therefore identifiable whereas in service organizations the product is frequently invisible and the customer cannot easily be identified. Often a person in a service industry has no perception of their work being a product and that the way in which his job is performed has an impact on the success of the organization as a whole. How do these differences impact on the implementation of TQM in a service organization? Looking again at the Quality Triangle, it is clear that the Focus on the Customer is very much a part of the provision of a service. The further development of identifying internal customers and building the concepts of Teamwork is less immediate. The intangible nature of the product may make it harder for each individual to see that they are contributing to a common goal: Whereas a person making a physical object can usually readily identify the next step in the process, and identify their contribution to the final product and its quality, a clerk in the accounts receivable section of a hospital may find it difficult to identify their customers and see how the quality of their work will affect the final product. However, the difference is one of degree and simply requires, as in manufacturing, that each person be made aware of the value of their role in producing a quality product and be allowed to contribute to continuous improvement in the product. A more fundamental difference lies in the third corner of the triangle: the Scientific Method. This involves the use of measurements and a scientific approach to problem solving in the search for ongoing improvement in quality. Measuring the length of a steel rod or the weight of a packet of biscuits is a simple matter. It can be carried out on line, or the objects to be measured can be stored for later measurement. If the measurements are taken in a timely manner, any defects can be detected before the shipment leaves the factory, so that the high costs of a failure reaching the customer are avoided. Thus the use of Scientific Method is (relatively) straightforward. In service provision the situation is very different. The involvement of the customer makes the definition of quality varying from moment to moment. Service cannot be stored, so the measurement must be immediate. Finally, the service is delivered at the moment it is produced. Any measurement taken is thus too late to avoid a failure in contact with the customer. The critical difference in the application of TAM to service industries thus lies in the area of quality measurement and it is this issue that we shall address in the remainder of this paper. 3. Quality in the hospitality industry Quality is considered to be of very great importance in the hospitality industry. Mill (1986) identifies the aim of service quality as being able to ensure a satisfied customer. However, the focus of quality initiatives has been primarily on selection and training of front line staff (see, for example, Gober & Tannehill, 1984; Mill, 1986; Cathcart 1988). The issues of measurement and process improvement have been largely neglected. The Mayfair Crest Hotel in Brisbane, Queensland, has adopted an approach to service quality which resembles TQM. Kerr et al. (1988) describe this approach. It is based on an overall mission for the hotel: The Spirit of the Mayfair Crest is Serving You. This mission was cascaded through the hotel by each department and subsequently each employee being asked to define the meaning of this mission in their own context. Thus the overall direction of the staff of the hotel was brought together to develop the teamwork that is vital to TQM. However, the issue of measurement still remained a problem. Only feedback from How do you rate us? forms and indirect measures of employee satisfaction were used to measure their performance. Like all such measures, they are received too late to prevent a problem affecting a customer. How can appropriate measurements be developed for a hotel that can complete the quality triangle and fully implement the TQM ideal? 4. Internal and external service quality measures Service quality, which always involves the customer as part of a transaction, will therefore always be a balance: the balance between the expectations that the customer had and their perceptions of the service received. A high quality service is one where the customers perceptions meet or exceed their expectations. The components of perceived service quality have been identified (Parasuraman et al., 1988) as 1. Reliability: the ability to provide a service as expected by the customer. 2. Assurance: the degree to which the customer can feel confident that the service will be correctly provided. 3. Tangibles: the quality of the physical environment and materials used in providing the service. 4. Responsiveness: the ability of the service provider to respond to the individual needs of a particular customer. 5. Empathy: the courtesy, understanding and friendliness shown by the service provider. Note that these are external measures: they can be obtained only after the service is delivered. They thus suffer from the problems noted above for service quality measures: a failure can be detected only when it is too late to respond. Such measures have great value, but not in the ongoing business of monitoring and improving quality. Rather they can indicate the targets that must be aimed for. They define what the customer is expecting and so what we must aim to deliver. In order to deliver these expectations, we need internal measures: measures that will tell us how we can deliver what the customer expects. More importantly, how we can know before delivery that the service will exceed the customers expectations? Zimmerman & Enell (1988) advise that careful consultation with the customer and an appraisal of the performance of competitors is needed in order to create any scales or measurements of quality which they place in a narrowed down framework of four quality standards. The four service quality categories are: timeliness; integrity; predictability; customer satisfaction. Timeliness of service has been referred to by a number of authors as an important component in the quality of a service. It is a reasonable feature of service to be given high priority because the service has to be produced on demand and the interval in provision is an element of the actual product. Timeliness may be separated into three types: access time (the time taken to gain attention from the company); queuing time (this can be influenced by the length of the queue, or its integrity); and action time (the time taken to provide the required service). Integrity deals with the completeness of service and must set out what elements are to be included in the service in order for the customer to regard it as a satisfactory product. This standard will set out precisely what features are essential to the service. Predictability refers to the consistency of the service and also the persistence, or the frequency of the demand. Standards for predictability identify the proper processes and procedures that need to be followed . . . (and) may include standards for availability of people, materials and equipment, and schedules of operation (Zimmerman & Enell, 1988). Finally customer satisfaction is designed to provide the targets of success, which may be based on relative market position for the provision of a specific service. These are the external measures noted above. Once these service standards have been determined the next step is to develop measurement techniques to monitor how well the standards are being achieved. The measurement step is the second vital component of TQM, without which the supporting philosophies lack coherence. Once measurement methods have been developed and results derived the process being studied can be placed in this measured context and decisions made accordingly. The remaining aspects of TQM present no greater difficulties than in a manufacturing organization. 5. Case study The concepts developed above were implemented in a study of processes at the Sheraton Brisbane Hotel and Towers. Sheraton have implemented for some years the Sheraton Guest Satisfaction Scheme which has focused the attention of Sherton staff on the importance of service quality. However, prior to the study they had made limited use of internal quality measurement and the main aim of the project was to develop such measures for some of the processes within the hotel. The processes chosen for study were identified at a meeting with the hotels Executive Committee. They were chosen to be of interest to the Committee and also to be likely to give reasonable results in the time available for the study. The processes chosen were: 1. The reservation process, from the time a guest makes a booking until they arrive at their room. 2. The function process, from the time the organizers book the function room to the completion of the function. The first step in studying the process was the preparation of detailed flow charts of the processes. 1. Meetings were held with the managers of divisions directly involved in the processes. This ensured that these key managers understood the aims of the project and would give their support. 2. Interviews were conducted with staff at all stages of each process to identify: their roles and activities; other staff with whom they interacted; their sources of information; their customers. 3. Sections of the processes were observed in action to ensure that the information gained in the interviews was correctly understood. 4. Flowcharts were drawn up: where necessary, additional information was obtained to allow them to be completed. These were then checked with staff involved in the processes. Having thus clearly defined the steps involved in these processes, measurement points were identified that would allow assessment of timeliness, integrity, predictability and satisfaction. Some of the measures that were identified are shown in Table 1. A number of these were studied. Here we shall concentrate on three of them: The Towers Check-in; The Luggage Survey; The Event Order. 5.1 Check-in at the Towers The Towers part of the Sheraton Brisbane Hotel and Towers offers a very high standard of accommodation and service. In order to speed check-in for Towers guests, a separate check-in desk had been established on the 27th floor. However, the Hotels management were concerned that too many Towers guests were unaware of this and were waiting in line at the Front Desk before being redirected to the 27th floor. In an attempt to rectify this a sign indicating the separate Towers reception area had recently been placed in the Lobby, however management had no information regarding the effectiveness of the sign in providing directions to the Towers guests. The aim of this study was therefore to determine how Towers guests knew that check-in was on the 27th floor. In order to collect the necessary data a study was constructed that involved three different measurements: (a) a study of the process of the arrival of Towers guests; (b) a measure of the number of Towers guests approaching Hotel reception; (c) an informal questioning of the Towers guests on their arrival at Towers reception regarding how they were aware that reception was separate from the Hotel reception and where it was. The process study indicated that once the guest is at the Hotel it is possible for them to gain information about the Towers check-in from three sources: the Doorman or Bellman; the Front Desk; or the Towers direction sign in the Lobby. It is important to know this when constructing a measurement such as a record sheet for use in the Towers reception relating to how the guest knew where the Towers reception was. The objective of the study was to determine how guests knew how to locate the Towers Reception. From the process study it was possible to isolate the Front Desk and the Towers Reception as the two points of the guests journey where it would be possible to gather useful data. So it was decided to