Article

Tourism and Hospitality Research

2014, Vol. 13(2) 67–82
Customers’ preferences for new ! The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
technology-based self-services versus sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1467358413519261

human interaction services in hotels thr.sagepub.com

Hanan Saad Kattara and Osman Ahmed El-Said

Alexandria University, Egypt

Abstract
This study explores differences in customer preferences for using new technology-based self-services versus
human interaction in different service encounters at five-star hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. Data were
collected using a scenario approach in a questionnaire where customers can either use a technology-based
self-service or human interaction service. Findings showed that customers prefer to contact an employee
rather than depending on a technology-based self-service in the majority of service encounters; customers’
preferences for using technology-based self-service versus human interactions vary during different stages
of their occupancy cycle; customers’ preference for receiving a direct person contact is the most important
reason for preferring human interaction encounters; customers’ preference for speed and easy service is
the main reason for preferring technology-based self-service. Finally, the study ends up by offering useful
suggestions and practical implications for hotel managers and practitioners.

Keywords
Technology-based self-service, human interaction, guest cycle, Egypt

Human interaction services (HISs) are the kind of

Introduction
In Egypt and in many parts of the world, technology-
facilitating transactions have become increasingly
popular. High labor costs are causing service organiza-
tions to examine delivery options that allow customers
to perform services themselves. There are now a grow-
ing number of customers interacting with technology
to create service experiences, and outcomes, which
were traditionally performed by service employees
(Ong, 2010). On the other hand, technology-based
self-service (TBSS) is a term used to describe techno-
logical interfaces that allow customers to produce a
service which is independent of direct service
employee involvement (Meuter et al., 2000). Despite
the fact that nowadays, using TBSS is an influential
competitive advantage in the hospitality industry.
Egypt was chosen to conduct this research because
the hospitality industry in Egypt has been reluctant
to introduce TBSSs to their customers. Yet, little is
known about how customers would evaluate such
options (Dabholkar, 1996).
service that most people are familiar with, which is the
service that are provided by the frontline employees to
customers (Bitner et al., 1990). Frontline employees
interact with customers to learn about customers’
requests, problems, and other information and then
deliver the requested service to them (Chen, 2011).
According to Ganesh et al. (2000) employees’ inter-
actions can be the most crucial factor that affects over-
all customers’ satisfaction and the repeat visit
intention. In this context, customer experiences are
the result of all the different moments of contact
with the hotel using different channels (Shaw and
Ivens, 2002 and, as such, the different customer inter-
faces become intertwined (Birgelen et al., 2006.
Corresponding author:
Osman Ahmed El-Said, Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria
University, Dean’s office, Dr. Mostafa Mosharafa Street, Azareeta,
PO Box 386, Ibrahimia, Alexandria, Egypt.
Email: osman_ahmed12@yahoo.com
68
At present, hotels’ customers believe that TBSSs
are the trend for the future, and still some others con-
sider that traditional HISs will remain the main service
channel in the hospitality industry. Nowadays, in the
hotel industry, one can find the online reservation sys-
tems that are taking over the reservation clerks’ duties;
self check-in service by mobile device and self check-
out or automatic check-out service by the hotel televi-
sion that are taking place of the front desk services, in
addition to the automatic mini bar service that is repla-
cing guests’ room service (Chen, 2011). Therefore,
this paper is concerned with comparing customers’
preferences for using TBSSs versus HISs during dif-
ferent service encounters. The comparison takes place
during different stages of the guest cycle in five-star
hotels. Moreover, the study attempts to trace the
motives of customer preferences for TBSSs versus
HISs, in addition to exploring recommendations and
implications for the improvement of hotel services and
the enhancement of customers’ satisfaction.
Theoretical background
TBSSs
These days, customers are literally surrounded by
technologies that promise to redefine the way that
they interact with manufacturers and retailers
(Burke, 2002). By reviewing the literature, a consider-
able body of research has focused on the adoption of
TBSSs (Curran and Meuter, 2005). Researchers
recognized the critical importance of technology in
the delivery of services, and empirical studies have
investigated customer differences in the use of recent
innovations in hotels which can result in significant
cost savings for organizations (Meuter et al., 2005).
TBSS is known as a form of service that is delivered
by customers to themselves through an interaction
with technological systems or devices (Beatson et al.,
2006). TBSSs are also defined as those technologies
that enable customers to receive and consume the ser-
vice in the absence of service employees (Meuter et al.,
2000; Salomann et al., 2006). TBSSs have become
a changing force in the hospitality industry
(Lema, 2009).
Advances in technology and expensive labor cost
have made the service providers to develop and inves-
tigate the TBSS option (Shamdasani et al., 2008).
Services traditionally delivered by service staff, such
as reservation, check-in, and check-out, are now avail-
able through the internet, mobile devices, stand-alone
kiosks, or other forms of TBSSs (Kit, 2011).
According to Kit (2011) although sometimes cus-
tomers might still consult employees for the use of
the self-service systems or devices, TBSS has helped
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)
to reduce the amount of employees used in the hospi-
tality industry. Moreover, TBSSs enable organizations
to delight their customers instantly by allowing
them to solve their problems using technology
(Bitner et al., 2002).
Reasons for implementing TBSSs appear to be
numerous, not only because customers appear to
have strong preference but also because there is cost
savings involved for operators (Connolly, 2005). Some
hospitality organizations could up-sell by providing
more products or services available on the screen of
a kiosk or in-room TV without increasing labor costs
(Kim et al., 2012). Moreover, according to a study by
Beatson et al. (2006) customers who have a successful
interaction with TBSSs are more likely to stay loyal to
the organization. They are also likely to have positive
word of mouth and repeat visit intentions (Bitner
et al., 2000). Additionally, organizations can corres-
pond more quickly to customer enquiries and prob-
lems and can provide faster services that are precise
and personalized (Berry, 1999). Beatson et al. (2007)
have also confirmed this view by suggesting organiza-
tions to adopt TBSSs to build technological reputa-
tions for differentiation. TBSSs create a more
consistent service experience, and the customer will
be able to know precisely what to expect with every
service encounter (Ong, 2010). Lastly, as technologies
continue to integrate with our daily life, more and
more customer will expect and welcome a more
high-tech approach to the traditional service pattern,
TBSSs would be an appealing feature for this new
market (Kit, 2011).
Despite all the benefits of TBSSs, there are also
several weaknesses in this kind of service (Chen,
2011). First, it requires higher cost to purchase the
equipment or the systems and ongoing maintenance
fees. Second, a self-service technology system or
device may be able to help the customers to perform
various services; however, if the service list is too long,
then people may not easily find what they need (Shaw,
2004). In addition, if there is a malfunction in the
technology, it may create inconvenience to the guests
and lead to customer dissatisfaction. According to
Meuter et al. (2000) some of the most common dis-
satisfying incidents related to the TBSSs are possible
technology failure, poor design, and process/customer-
driven failures. Likewise, Bruce (2003) indicated that
only 10% of self-service banking customers will use an
ATM to deposit money due to fear of a banking error
or unforeseen problem; in other words, these individ-
uals feel comfortable taking money out of ATMs but
are hesitant to deposit money because of the potential
for service failure mistakes.
Among other deficiencies is the lack of human-
to-human interaction that can result in the possibility
Kattara and El-Said
of a service failure with inadequate or slow service
recovery methods, and service failures which are not
evident at the moment of the service delivery (Girman
et al., 2009). As much as possible hotel managers want
to impress their guest in every service encounter, but
they are afraid that the coldness of TBSSs will turn
their guests away (Kit, 2011). This is valid since
many studies have confirmed the lack of ‘‘social bond-
ing’’ in TBSSs that leads to low customer satisfaction
and negative impact on customer loyalty (Parks, 2010;
Selnes and Hansen, 2001). Additionally, Castro et al.
(2010) argued that every time technology advances
and tries to get rid of the redundant manpower,
there were always voices complaining about the loss
of human contact. Lastly, Reinders et al. (2008)
pointed out that forcing into using TBSSs has a nega-
tive impact on the experience and may eventually drive
customers away from the service provider.
There are many reasons leading to the popularity of
TBSSs among today’s customers. Customers now are
highly sensitive to the speed of service delivery
(Bateson, 1985; Silpakit and Fisk, 1985; The Wall
Street Journal, 1990), and studies have shown that
they usually overestimate the time taken to deliver a
service (Hornik, 1984). In deciding between alterna-
tive service delivery options, customers considered
speed of delivery and ease of using the service delivery
technology to be somewhat important (Dabholkar,
1996). Meuter et al. (2000) investigated customers’
reactions to a variety of technologies and applications,
including internet shopping services, pay-at-the-pump
terminals, telephone-based and interactive voice
response systems, automated hotel checkout, and
package tracking. They found that the technologies
were most satisfactory in cases where they saved
time, worked reliably, were easy to use, addressed a
salient need, and offered greater control and
accessibility.
It is noteworthy to mention that few studies were
conducted to examine the range of TBSSs available to
customers in the hotel industry (Ong, 2010). Meuter
et al. (2000) presented a conceptualization of TBSSs
options available in the hotel industry. The authors
classified TBSSs into four different technology inter-
faces, namely (1) telephone-based technologies and
interactive voice response systems, (2) internet-based
interfaces, (3) interactive kiosks, and (4) video tech-
nologies. These technologies were implemented
mainly for customers carrying out transactions and
to allow the customers to perform self-help.
Additionally, Chen (2011) indicated that there are a
lot of TBSSs in the hotel industry, such as self-reser-
vation systems, self check-in kiosks, self check-out
system on hotel television, self-serving in room mini
bar, room service ordering system, electronic menus
69
for making choices in restaurants, boarding pass print-
ing, and flight check-in kiosks, etc.
HISs
The literature provided a large number of studies
investigating the interaction between service employ-
ees and customers in the service sector. HIS is a ser-
vice that takes place in a form of direct contact
between the customer and an employee in a service
encounter. Surprenant and Solomon (1987) defined
the term service encounter as the dyadic interaction
between a customer and a service provider. Service
encounters also have been defined as that period of
time during which the customer and service organiza-
tion interact in person, over the telephone, or through
other media (Maloney and Asce, 2002). The literature
indicated that customers prefer HISs because they
need to interact with a service employee. Need for
interaction is defined as a customer’s desire to have a
personalized service (Dabholkar, 1992). In service
encounters, human interaction is extremely important
in evaluating the service (Bitner et al., 1990;
Gronroos, 1982; Solomon et al., 1985; Surprenant
and Solomon, 1987). In the TBSSs contexts,
Dabholkar (1992) examined the determinants of cus-
tomers’ attitudes toward TBSSs options and found
that the need for interaction with service employees
has a negative impact on attitude toward TBSSs.
Recently, Kim et al. (2012) indicated that customers
who indicated a high level of needs for interaction with
hospitality employees had a lower likelihood of using
TBSSs.
There are many benefits in HISs for organizations.
First, people build trust and interpersonal relationship
through the interactions (Chen, 2011). According to
Chao et al. (2007) the closeness of interpersonal rela-
tionship, in terms of trusting, liking, and knowing each
other, may serve as a shield against other competitors,
via holding up no less than a short-term continuity
business relationship. Similarly, another research had
found that the interpersonal relationships between
customer and frontline employees are a very significant
factor that can positively affect customer satisfaction
and loyalty (Guenzi and Pelloni, 2004). Second, cus-
tomer satisfaction is often dependent on a specific rela-
tionship with a contact employee, thus, the cost of
losing such an employee includes the weakening if
not loss of key customers (Duboff and Heaton,
1999). For example, Reynolds and Beatty (1999)
found a positive association between the customers’
satisfaction with a salesperson and customers’ satisfac-
tion with the organization. Third, the interactions
between customers and frontline employees are key
aspects affecting customers’ commitment and loyalty
70
(Beatson et al., 2006). For example, Bove and Johnson
(2006) found a positive association between the ser-
vice customer’s attitudinal loyalty toward one specific
service worker and the customer’s attitudinal loyalty
toward the service person’s organization. Nowadays,
customers want the employees to know their value
(Stuart, 2010): a smile, a good eye contact, a friendly
greeting, and a positive comment can bring positive
emotion to the customer, which can indirectly
affect customers’ service experience and loyalty
(Chen, 2011).
Despite the previously mentioned benefits, there are
problems in HISs for organizations. First, since the
quality of the interpersonal interaction in HIS can
affect customer satisfaction (Bitner et al., 1994) it
can have not only positive effect but also negative
effect. For example, if the employees do not use
proper language or attitude to serve the customers,
there might be customer dissatisfaction (Chen,
2011). Second, HIS is a service that is provided by
human, and all the humans are different, the service
quality they provide would be varying too. Third, other
problems with HISs are personal mistakes, such as
mistype guests’ name or card number, or give away
the wrong type of the room or wrong room key
(Chen, 2011). Some of these mistakes can create ser-
ious inconvenience to the customers and other serious
mistakes can even lead to litigations and cost the
organizations’ fame and business (Barth, 2002).
TBSSs versus HISs
Over the last two decades, services have migrated from
human interaction to the substitution of technology for
service employees or, where possible, to electronic ser-
vices that can be deployed anywhere at any time (Ong,
2010). By reviewing the literature there were many
points of view regarding customers’ preferences for
HISs versus TBSSs. On one hand, several studies sug-
gested that customers prefer to receive the service from
a machine rather than to contact an employee. For
example, Meuter et al. (2000) argued that avoiding
service personnel may be a source of satisfaction and
lead to a positive evaluation of TBSSs by some cus-
tomers. In addition, Dabholkar (1996) showed that
speed of delivery by technology interface compared
to personnel in contact has a direct effect on intentions
to use the service for people waiting longer.
Additionally, results of a study conducted by Orfila-
Sintes and Mattsson (2009) supported the positive
effect of the average customer directly booking her or
his stay on the service scope innovation.
On the other hand, other studies affirmed that
although TBSSs are an unavoidable trend and have
been widely adapted by various hotels, there are
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)
many customers who prefer to receive the service
from a contact employee rather than a machine.
According to Beatson et al. (2006), personal service
remains a very important part of customers’ satisfac-
tion and it also affects customers’ intention to develop
and maintain a stable long-term relationship and a
long-term commitment in the hotel industry.
Moreover, Pfeffer (1994) indicated that competitive
advantage through employees is becoming more
important because other sources of competitive advan-
tage are easier to access and, therefore, easier to copy.
The expertise and enthusiasm of frontline staff is a
particularly crucial aspect because it has a direct
effect on customers’ perceptions of service quality
(Hartline et al., 2000). Additionally, since it is hard
for TBSSs to express empathy in today’s technology,
customers would still prefer to complain to an
employee rather than a machine (Chen, 2011;
Yilmaz, 2009). Complaining customers are looking
for justice, well-being, and security, and they want
the employees’ authenticity, competence, and active
listening skills (Gruber, 2011). Lastly, Pursell (2011)
pointed out that some people would prefer to go to a
cashier rather than a self check-out kiosk when they
are checking out a lot of products.
A third point of view asserted that competitive
advantage of corporations will depend on arranging
the right combination of human and automated inter-
faces to go beyond any existing levels of performance
and service (Rayport and Jaworski, 2005). For exam-
ple, customers would book the travel online if they want
a lower price, and when they prefer more service, such
as travel arrangement, they would normally go to offline
agent (Lee and Cheng, 2009). According to this view,
the traditional personalized service through employees
may no longer be the only best service delivery method
because of the increase in availability of high-tech alter-
natives and its importance (Kim et al., 2012). Kim et al.
(2012) affirmed that in order for hospitality operators
to successfully implement and use TBSSs, they should
understand whether and why customers are willing to
use TBSSs. For instance, customers may value shorter
wait times, the feeling of control, or the privacy that
TBSSs can provide. In contrast, some people may not
prefer TBSSs because they feel that they lack profi-
ciency in technology and for that they are afraid of
making mistakes (Kim et al., 2012).
The sum of related research leads to the following
hypotheses and the research framework (Figure 1):
H1. Customers prefer to use HISs rather than TBSSs
during different service encounters.
H2. Customers’ preferences for HIS versus using
TBSSs vary during different stages of their hotel stay
cycle.
Kattara and El-Said 71

Customers’ preferences
(Use) (H1)

Technology-based self
services (TBSSs)
Customers’
preferences for HIS
versus using TBSSs Human Interaction
vary during different Services (HISs)
service encounters
(H2)

Speed of service and Need for human

ease of use (H4) interaction (H3)
Intention Intention
to use to use
TBSSs HISs

Figure 1. Research hypotheses and framework.

H3. Customers’ need for human interaction is the

main reason for choosing human interaction
situations.
H4. Customers’ need for a speedy service and ease of
use are the main reasons for preferring TBSSs.
Methodology
Study approach
Research hypotheses for this study were tested (using a
scenario approach in a questionnaire) for a context
where customers can either use a TBSS or HIS.
Dabholkar (1996) stated that the scenario approach
could be used for several reasons. For example, in
testing a new and as of yet widely unavailable TBSS
option, a study of potential customers and their
expectations was thought to be appropriate. In add-
ition, using the scenario approach allowed manipula-
tion of waiting time, something not easily replicated
in field experiments (Jackson et al., 1984). Sharm
El-Sheikh city five-star hotel customers were selected
as a highly relevant population for this study because
its hotels are more innovative than any other hotels in
Egyptian cities.
Questionnaire development and piloting
During September 2011, researchers collected and
reviewed preliminary qualitative data. The purpose
of collecting this data was to discus the different
scenarios that customers can choose from when deal-
ing with the hotel during different service encounters.
These data were collected through face-to-face inter-
views with 10 customers. During the interview, cus-
tomers were asked to indicate the different options
for using hotel services during different stages of
their stay in the hotel. These data were used to guide
in the development of the TBSS versus HIS question-
naire (TBSS/HIS-Q), in addition to the review of lit-
erature therein (Appendix 1). The TBSS/HIS-Q was
composed of three sections. The first section was
related to the demographic data of respondents,
namely: nationality, age, social status, purpose of
visit, education, number of visits, and length of stay.
The second section of the questionnaire consisted of
seven statements, measuring customers’ preferences
for using TBSSs versus HISs. Customers’ preferences
were measured using a five-point Likert scale, where
(5) meaning ‘‘strongly agree’’ and (1) meaning
‘‘strongly disagree.’’ The last main section of the ques-
tionnaire consisted of nine interaction scenarios cover-
ing the customers’ hotel cycle. Respondents were
asked to determine their preference between two scen-
arios: one indicating a HIS and the other expressing
TBSS usage. They were also asked to identify the
reason behind choosing a particular scenario. Face val-
idity of the questionnaire was applied on the first draft
of TBSS/HIS-Q to ensure that the questionnaire
measures precisely what it was designed to measure.
To do that the questionnaire was reviewed by a panel
of five professionals and academics. Important com-
ments were considered and several changes have been
72 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)

made, regarding the rephrasing and rewording of some
statements. The second draft was piloted to 15 cus-
tomers in order to identify questionnaire deficiencies
and problems with layout and design, to get sugges-
tions, to test the time proposed for answering the
questionnaire, and to investigate the level of compre-
hension of the constructed questionnaire. After a
review of the pilot test results, several changes were
made. Additionally, the reliability of the scale was
measured with Cronbach alpha coefficients and coef-
ficients were all greater than 0.80. This test method
was employed to ensure that the responses to the ques-
tionnaire from the same person produce the same
results on repeated trials.
Sample frame and questionnaire
distribution
The sample frame for this study comprised all cus-
tomers staying in five-star hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh
city in Egypt. Using the 30th edition of the Egyptian
Hotel Guide (EHA, 2011) the researchers were able to
prepare a list of 40 five-star hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh.
Random sampling technique was employed in the cur-
rent study in order to choose five customers from each
hotel. The cause of this low number of distributed
questionnaires in each hotel is that the researchers
received low level of cooperation from hotel managers,
as most of them refused to distribute copies of ques-
tionnaire forms in hotels they manage. Researchers
have overcome this obstacle by asking the help of
some hotel employees who helped them in achieving
this mission. Therefore, 200 TBSS/HIS-Q were dis-
tributed. This sampling technique has the advantage
of that every customer in the hotel has a known, inde-
pendent, and equal chance of being selected as a sub-
ject, and selection of one element does not affect the
selection of another element. Out of the 200 distribu-
ted questionnaires, 122 were collected. Only 106 ques-
tionnaires were valid, counting for 53% of the total
sample which represented a satisfying response rate.
Researchers distributed questionnaires to guests dir-
ectly what resulted in this high rate of response.
Results presentation and discussion
The data for the entire study were inputted into the
Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17.0 program
for Windows to interpret results. Descriptive statistics
were generated for the variables of interest, and a
second reliability analysis on the instruments was con-
ducted to ensure that questions properly represent the
study hypotheses. The four research hypotheses were
examined through various data analysis procedures
and were individually discussed in further detail as
outlined later. The following section presents a
detailed analysis of the field research data, results
obtained through the use of the predetermined statis-
tical tools, as well as the rational discussion and inter-
pretation of the findings as they relate to the
hypotheses. The demographic profile of respondents
and the characteristics of their visit are presented
in Table 1.
Presentation of results
Results of customers’ preferences for HIS versus
TBSS during guest cycle stages are presented in
Table 2. Nine scenario alternatives, representing dif-
ferent guest cycle stages, were presented to customers.
HIS scenarios were preferred by customers in seven
scenarios, representing preregistration, registration,
occupancy, and departure stages. In after departure
stage the inclination was for the TBSS interaction.

Table 1. Respondents’ profiles and characteristics of the visit.

Nationality % Age group % Educational level % Social status %

Profile of respondents
British 50.9 <30 years 35.8 Technical certificate 22.6 Single 27.4
Italian 4.7 31–40 13.3 Bachelors degree 42.5 Married 52.8
Others 44.3 41–50 17.9 Masters or Doctorate 20.8 Other 19.8
51–60 17.9 Other 14.1
Above 60 12.3
Purpose of visit % Number of visits % Length of stay %
Characteristics of the visit
Leisure 92.6 First time 88.2 2–4 nights 17
Business 5.2 Second time 9 4–6 nights 39.6
Other 2.2 More 3.8 More than a week 43.4
Kattara and El-Said 73

Table 2. Customers’ preferences for HIS versus TBSS.

Situations/scenarios No. % P value Customer cycle stages

1 Scenario 1 (HIS) 65 61.3 0.033* Preregistration or prearrival

Use the telephone for communication with
the hotel reservation agent to reserve a
room
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 41 38.7
Access the hotel website for acquiring
needed information about the hotel and
reserving the room
2 Scenario 1 (HIS) 102 96.2 00.00011* Registration or arrival
Check-in at the hotel reception area
through front desk agents
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 4 3.8
Use check-in kiosks at the hotel lobby to
finalize check-in
3 Scenario 1 (HIS) 91 85.8 0.001*
Use the telephone to order the service
directly from the room service agent
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 15 14.2
Use the touch screen terminal linked to the
television or the telephone in the room to
order requests and pay for it without calling
the room service
4 Scenario 1 (HIS) 94 88.7 0.001*
Ask the front desk agent to know
information about a certain place
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 12 11.3
Use the information directory linked to the
in-room TV for acquiring information about
a certain place
5 Scenario 1 (HIS) 91 85.8 0.001* Guest services or Occupancy
Ask the waiter about dishes that can be (ordering room service, acquir-
served when he offers the menu ing information, dining at the
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 15 14.2 restaurant, making a complaint,
Using an electronic menu for making and ordering a wake-up service)
choices, choose recipe ingredients, order
items, and pay for them, without contacting
any employee
6 Scenario 1 (HIS) 96 90.6 00.00011*
Post the complaint directly to the person in
charge and discuss it with him
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 10 9.4
Put the complaint in the complaints box
without contact with employees
7 Scenario 1 (HIS) 40 37.7 0.043*
Ask the receptionist to wake up in the
desired time
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 66 62.3
Use a wake-up device instead in the room
8 Scenario 1 (HIS) 92 86.8 0.001* Departure
Check-out at the hotel reception area
through front desk agents
Scenario 2 (TBSS) 14 13.2
Use check-out kiosks in lobbies without
contact with front desk agent
9 Scenario 1 (HIS) 38 35.8 0.032* After departure
Contacted personally by a telephone call
from the hotel after departure
Scenario 2 (TBSS) Receiving any information 68 64.2
or news from the hotel through email

* ¼ Significant variance between the two scenarios.

74
In the preregistration stage, it was found that more
than half of customers have a preference to an
employee direct contact rather than accessing the
hotel website for acquiring information regarding the
hotel and the reservation process. In the registration/
arrival stage, nearly all customers preferred to check-in
through reception clerks rather than using check-in
kiosks. In the guest service/occupancy stage, respond-
ents indicated their preferences to be provided with
services by hotel employees in four out of five situ-
ations rather than TBSS interfaces. These preferences
were highly rated for ‘‘posting complaints,’’ ‘‘obtaining
information,’’ ‘‘ordering from room service,’’ and
‘‘giving food and beverage orders.’’ On the contrary,
preferences were given to TBSS interface for ‘‘the use
of a wake-up device.’’ In the departure stage, respond-
ents favored a personal check-out service rather than
the automated check-out procedures. At the after
departure stage, TBSS interface was preferred.
Respondents favored ‘‘receiving information after
departure by emails’’ rather than to be contacted
personally.
The previous results obviously demonstrate that
hotel customers favor to be served through hotel
employees rather than using a TBSS as they preferred
the HIS in seven out of nine situations encountered
during their cycle of stay in the hotel. The P value
results, as well, were highly significant in all the HIS
scenarios. Consequently, it may be concluded that H1
is supported in this study.
These results also expose that customer preferences
were for the HIS during preregistration, registration,
occupancy, and departure stages, while the preferences
went for TBSS interface during the after departure
stage. That proves a variation in customers’ prefer-
ences among human and technological interfaces
during different guest cycle stages, which proves H2
of the study. Respondents were also asked to state the
interpretation for their service interface preferences,
either human or technological. Respondents men-
tioned several reasons to explain their preferences,
namely ‘‘safety,’’ ‘‘easiness,’’ ‘‘fastness,’’ ‘‘human
touch,’’ ‘‘technology advantages,’’ ‘‘others,’’ and ‘‘a
mixture of the previous reasons.’’ Results in Table 2
present the reasons respondents mentioned to explain
their preferences. Results of the nine situations are
displayed, where S1 represents HISs and S2 represents
TBSSs interfaces.
A deep exploration of the figures presented in
Table 3 provides a number of remarkable points. It is
obvious that in the HIS scenarios in all the situations,
except for scenario number seven, namely, ‘‘I prefer
human interaction’’ was the first reason chosen
(36.9, 51, 49, 46.8, 57.1, 60, and 38%). Although
for the scenario seven the reason ‘‘Safer, easier,
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)
faster and I prefer human interaction’’ (32.5%) pro-
ceeded. In the TBSS interactions the selected reasons
fluctuated among ‘‘easier and faster’’ for scenario one
and two (31.7 and 75%); ‘‘easier’’ for scenario three
(46.7%); ‘‘technological advantages’’ for scenarios
four, five, seven, and nine (58.3, 46.7, 34.8,
and 36.7%); and ‘‘faster’’ for scenarios six and eight
(50 and 64.3%).
One more exposure to Table 3 illustrates that in the
‘‘preregistration/prearrival’’ and ‘‘registration/arrival’’
stages the ‘‘I prefer human interaction’’ reason was
the highest (22.6 and 49.1%). In the ‘‘guest services/
occupancy’’ stage, the ‘‘I prefer human interaction’’
reason was still the dominating one in situations
three, four, five, and six (42.5, 41.5, 49.1, and 53%),
while in situation seven ‘‘technological advantages’’
and ‘‘easier’’ reasons were the pertaining ones (21.7
and 20.8%). In the departure stage, customers’
reason went for the ‘‘I prefer human interaction’’
(33%), whereas in the ‘‘after departure’’ stage, three
reasons were participating ‘‘technology advantages,’’ ‘‘I
prefer human interaction,’’ and ‘‘easier’’ (23.5, 21.7,
and 19.8%). In a further attempt to compare
between customers’ preferences to have HISs or
TBSSs interfaces, a number of statements reflecting
both interfaces were presented to respondents.
Respondents were asked to indicate their opinions
regarding each statement using a three-point Likert
scale (disagree, neutral, and agree). Results in Table
4 are evidence of customers’ preferences for HIS
versus TBSS interfaces. The mean average for the
respondents’ agreement with HIS statements reached
64.4%, while it achieved only 26.4% with the TBSS
statements.
Results presented in Table 4 revealed that in situ-
ations where customers preferred the human inter-
action, quantitative findings revealed that this was
primarily because they want to interact with an
employee. Results in Table 4 and those previously dis-
played in Table 3 support H3 of the study. In situ-
ations where customers preferred dealing with
technology, quantitative findings revealed that this
was primarily because they prefer to interact with tech-
nology. Speed of delivery ‘‘faster’’ and ease of
use ‘‘easier’’ have been shown to be a situational deter-
minant of preference for TBSS as presented in
Table 3. Therefore, it is concluded that H4 is also
supported in this study. In conclusion, all above
results confirm the customers’ preferences for HISs
versus TBSSs in various hotel cycle stages. The
dominated reason was the importance of the ‘‘human
interaction’’ in hotel services delivery. The TBSS value
only acquired a place in situations requiring speedy,
easy, safety, privacy, or trouble free in delivery
situations.
 Kattara and El-Said

Table 3. Reasons for preferring different scenarios.

Guest cycle stages Prearrival Arrival Guest services/occupancy Departure After departure

Reasons Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9

S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T S.1 S.2 T

Safer 7.7 2.4 5.7 0 7.8 7.5 2.2 0 1.9 2.1 0 1.9 0 0 0 1.0 0 .9 2.5 10.6 7.5 12.0 0 10.4 13.2 0 4.7
Easier 4.6 17.1 9.4 0 3.9 3.8 12.1 46.7 17.0 6.4 16.7 7.5 5.5 20.0 7.5 3.1 10.0 3.8 7.5 28.8 20.8 4.3 28.6 7.5 0 30.9 19.8
Faster 7.7 14.6 10.4 25.0 2.9 3.8 4.4 13.3 5.7 3.2 25. 5.7 2.2 33.3 6.6 9.4 50.0 13.2 2.5 7.6 5.7 2.2 64.3 10.4 5.3 13.2 10.4
I prefer human interaction 36.9 0 22.6 0 51.0 49.1 49 0 42.5 46.8 0 41.5 57.1 0 49.1 60 0 53 22.5 0 8.5 38.0 0 33.0 60.5 0 21.7
I prefer technology 0 24.4 9.4 0 0 0 0 13.3 1.9 0 58.3 6.6 0 46.7 6.6 0 40.0 3.7 0 34.8 21.7 0 7.1 .9 0 36.7 23.5
Safer and easier 7.7 2.4 5.7 0 2.0 1.9 0 6.7 .9 1.1 0 .9 1.1 0 .9 0 0 0 2.5 6.1 4.7 1.1 0 .9 0 0 0
Safer and employee 12.3 0 7.5 0 14.7 14.2 7.7 0 6.6 1.1 0 .9 0 0 0 3.1 0 2.8 0 1.5 .9 5.4 0 4.7 13.2 1.5 5.7
interaction
Easier and employee 18.5 0 11.3 0 0 0 15.4 0 13.2 16.0 0 14.2 18.7 0 16.0 3.1 0 2.8 20.0 0 7.5 7.6 0 6.6 0 0 0
interaction
Easier and faster 3.1 31.7 14.2 75.0 4.9 7.5 2.2 6.7 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0 2.8 0 16.2 10.4
Safer, easier and faster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.7 .9 1.1 0 .9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 4.7 0 0 0 0 0 0
Faster and employee interaction 0 0 0 0 2.9 2.8 0 0 0 4.3 0 3.8 5.5 0 4.7 4.2 0 4.7 10.0 0 3.8 4.3 0 3.8 0 0 0
Safer, easier, and faster and 1.5 0 .9 0 1.0 .9 5.5 0 4.7 16.0 0 14.2 9.9 0 8.5 14.6 0 13.2 32.5 0 12.3 21.7 0 18.9 7.9 0 2.8
employee interaction
Others 0 7.3 2.8 0 3.9 3.8 2.2 0 1.9 2.1 0 1.9 0 0 0 2.1 0 1.9 0 3.0 1.9 0 0 0 0 1.5 .9
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
P 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

S1 represents HIS and S2 represents TBSS.

75
76 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)

Table 4. Customers’ opinions for HIS versus TBSS.

HIS statements Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)

I don’t prefer to use a machine in different hotel transac- 7.5 26.4 66

tions when I could deal with a person instead
When I make a complaint I prefer to communicate it directly 3.8 8.5 87.7
with authorized persons rather than using technological
device
Sometimes I don’t use technologies because I don’t know 39.6 20.8 39.6
how to use and operate
Average mean 17 18.6 64.4
TBSS statements Disagree (%) Neutral (%) Agree (%)
Sometimes I prefer to use technology rather than dealing 29.2 26.4 44.3
with employees because it saves time
When I use technologies such as check-in kiosks my money 43.4 45.3 11.3
is safer than when I deal with front desk agents
I feel comfortable to provide my personal information 34.0 39.6 23.6
through hotel website rather than contacting the front
desk agent
Average mean 35.5 37.1 26.4

touch,’’ ‘‘technology advantages,’’ and ‘‘others’’ or

Discussion of results
Results of the study evidently revealed that hotel cus-
tomers favor to be served through hotel employees
rather than using an innovative technology during
guest cycle stages. Results indicated that HIS scenarios
were preferred by customers in seven scenarios, repre-
senting preregistration, registration, occupancy, and
departure stages. In after departure stage, customers’
tendency was for the TBSS interaction. Statistical ana-
lysis of the results confirmed, as well, the HISs prefer-
ences, as the P value results were highly significant in
all the HISs scenarios. Therefore, the first hypothesis
of the study was highly supported in this study.
The study results also highlighted that the HISs
were preferred during four stages of the hotel guest
stay, namely preregistration, registration, occupancy, and
departure stages. The TBSS interfaces were exclusively
desired at the after departure stage. From these findings
it may be revealed that hotel customers have a prefer-
ence to the human touch interactions all along their
stay in hotel, while they are away from home. Their
desires go to the TBSS interfaces once they are back
and out of the guest in house cycle. These findings
confirm customers’ preferences to the HISs and
prove a variation in customers’ preferences among
human and technological interfaces during different
guest cycle stages, which proves H2 of the study.
When respondents were asked to state the interpret-
ation for their service interface preferences, either
human or technological, they declared several reasons,
namely ‘‘safety,’’ ‘‘easiness,’’ ‘‘fastness,’’ ‘‘human
sometimes ‘‘a mixture of the previous reasons.’’
Results revealed that in about all the HISs scenarios
in all the situations, except for scenario number seven,
the ‘‘I prefer human interaction’’ was the first reason
chosen. While for the TBSS interactions the selected
reasons fluctuated among ‘‘easier and faster,’’ ‘‘easier,’’
‘‘technological advantages,’’ and ‘‘faster.’’ Moreover,
results indicated that in the ‘‘preregistration/prearri-
val,’’ ‘‘registration/arrival,’’ and ‘‘guest services/occu-
pancy’’ and the ‘‘departure’’ stages the ‘‘I prefer
human interaction’’ reason was the highest. In the
‘‘after departure’’ stage, three reasons were mentioned
‘‘technology advantages,’’ ‘‘I prefer human inter-
action,’’ and ‘‘easier.’’
Moreover, in situations where customers preferred
dealing with technology, ‘‘the speed of delivery’’ and
‘‘ease of use’’ have been shown to be a situational
determinant of preference for technology. A significant
body of research supports the role of speed of delivery
as a strong determinant of users’ intention and usage
behavior to prefer technology (Berry et al., 2002).
Perceived ease of use was also found to have a strong
effect on customers’ intention to prefer technology.
Therefore, it is concluded that H3 and H4 are sup-
ported in this study.
It is worthy to mention that, when asking customers
to report their reasons for preferring a specific scen-
ario, some customers noted some further reasons than
those written in the questionnaire. For example, one
customer pointed out that ‘‘I prefer dealing with
employees because I can ask questions and current
Kattara and El-Said
electronic tools are not reliable enough.’’ Other cus-
tomer reported that ‘‘In some situations I may use
both scenarios as technology gives overview, and per-
sonal contact gives answers to specific questions.’’ One
more reply was that ‘‘Out of my experience with hotel
services I believe that the personal touch succeeds
technology.’’ Moreover, some customers considered
dealing with employees as more reliable than dealing
with technology.
The study results and interventions confirm the
customers’ preferences for HISs versus TBSSs in vari-
ous hotel cycle stages. The reason ‘‘I prefer human
interaction’’ was a leading motive for the HISs’ pref-
erences. Customers valued the TBSS interfaces only in
situations entailing safety, privacy, or trouble free in
delivery. These findings are in line with other studies,
from different disciplines, that confirm the importance
of HIS rather than dealing with TBSS. Langeard et al.
(1981) found that respondents who did not refuel their
own car were less likely to use an ATM and more likely
to prefer being served by a bank clerk or choose a
traditional full-service restaurant. Fortune and Sibley
(2006) explored the differences in student perceptions
of learning between online (high tech) and classroom
(high touch) environments. Their results indicated
that there was a statistically significant difference in
student satisfaction between the online and on-
campus teaching modalities, and that most students
preferred the on-campus group. Moreover, Jin
(2011) wrote that there is one thing that technology
can never replace, that is ‘‘the human touch.’’
Implications and future research
This study aimed at exploring fluctuations in customer
preferences for HISs and TBSSs at different stages of
the guest hotel cycle, as well as, indicating the motives
for their preferences. To accomplish the study’s object-
ive four hypotheses were formulated and tested.
Statistical analysis of data indicated important results.
Firstly, customers prefer to contact an employee rather
than depending on a technology in most service inter-
faces. Secondly, customers’ preference to use TBSSs
rather than contacting an employee in different service
interfaces is minimal. Thirdly, customers’ preferences
for using TBSSs versus HISs vary during different
stages of their occupancy cycle. Fourthly, customers’
preference for dealing with an employee, a ‘‘preference
for human contact,’’ is the most important reason for
selecting HISs scenarios. Fifthly, customers’ prefer-
ence for speedy and easy service is the main reason
for preferring TBSS scenarios.
Based on the results of the current study, several
implications and recommendations could be driven
for hotel managers. Firstly, results of the current
77
study revealed the importance of contact employees
in the service delivery process. This result is in agree-
ment with the literature and several empirical studies
that confirmed the importance of hotel contact
employees as a source of competitive advantage. For
instance, Pfeffer (1994) study results indicated that
competitive advantage through employees is becoming
more significant, compared to other sources of com-
petitive advantage, due to its easy access. Moreover,
Gutek et al. (1999) showed that customers were
more satisfied and had more service interactions
when a specific provider was involved.
In conclusion, it can be confirmed that the human
contact is a critical determinant of customer satisfac-
tion, and when customers are satisfied with the HIS,
they may be absolving for other problems. Hospitality
managers could benefit from these findings by adapt-
ing strategies to engage and retain highly effective,
devoted, and satisfied employees. It is recommended
that managers should allocate sufficient resources for
employees’ development as this will bring organiza-
tional success and achieve customers’ satisfaction.
Hotel managers can also increase the employee-
to-guest ratio to ensure that all the people are being
taken care of. Additionally, hotel managers should
empower their employees to respond to guest prob-
lems without waiting for management’s approval.
Previously reviewed researches showed a close link
between resolving the customers’ problem on the
spot and the customers’ intention to return to the
hotel again. Employees need to receive instructions
in handling a variety of scenarios, and they also
should be given clear parameters to define what
actions they are authorized to take. Secondly, TBSSs
and HISs have their own strengths and weaknesses
that cannot be ignored. TBSSs can generate higher
productivity and lower the expenditure on human cap-
ital. HISs can establish closer interpersonal relation-
ship and keep customers back to visit. Additionally,
advancements in technology can be better used by
hotel employees to serve customers professionally.
Technologies can also help employees to recognize
the guest in an easier way, call guest by name and
provide personal service.
Thirdly, through the literature reviews, it is clear
that both TBSSs and HISs have their own group of
supporting customers. From the strengths of both ser-
vices, hoteliers can have a better understanding of
what customers are looking for. Thus, combining the
strengths from both services hoteliers can easily under-
stand what customers are look for. Customers are
looking for the flexibility in time, location, and service
options; more efficient (fast and accurate) service
encounter; interpersonal relationship (respect, wel-
come, recognition, trust, reliability, and assurance);
78
and service recovery (empathy and compensation)
when it is needed (Chen, 2011).
It is noteworthy to mention that several limitations
were encountered in the current study. These included
that the study was limited to the category of five-star
hotels in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. Future research
should explore other categories of hotels as well as
other types of service contexts such as restaurants,
motels, etc. The present study used only nine scen-
arios of the most notable service interfaces. Findings
of the study were, therefore, indicative rather than
conclusive. Field study was conducted at one specific
time; a longitudinal study that involves repeated obser-
vations of the same variables over long periods of time
would be useful. Moreover, this study can well be used
to derive many ideas for future research such as con-
ducting a research that is exclusively dedicated to
search factors making customers prefer HISs rather
than TBSSs. Other fruitful areas for future research
could include developing studies that explore cus-
tomer expectations of technology.
References
Barth S (2002) STEM the litigation tide by managing and motivat-
ing. Lodging Hospitality 58: 16.
Bateson J (1985) Self-service consumer: An exploratory study.
Journal of Retailing 61: 49–76.
Beatson A, Coote L and Rudd J (2006) Determining consumer
satisfaction and commitment through self-service technology
and personal service usage. Journal of Marketing Management
22: 853–882.
Beatson A, Lee N and Coote L (2007) Self-service technology and
the service encounter. Service Industries Journal 27: 75–89.
Berry L (1999) Discovering the Soul of Service. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Berry L, Seiders K and Grewal D (2002) Understanding service
convenience. Journal of Marketing 66: 1–17.
Birgelen M, De Jong A and Ruyter K (2006) Multi-channel service
retailing: The effects of channel performance satisfaction on
behavioral intentions. Journal of Retailing 82: 367–377.
Bitner M, Booms B and Mohr L (1994) Critical service encounters:
The employee’s viewpoint. Journal of Marketing 58: 95–106.
Bitner M, Booms B and Tetreault M (1990) The service encounter:
Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of
Marketing 54: 71–84.
Bitner M, Brown S and Meuter M (2000) Technology infusion in
service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
28: 138–149.
Bitner M, Ostrom A and Meuter M (2002) Implementing successful
self-service technologies. Academy of Management Executive 16:
96–108.
Bove L and Johnson L (2006) Customer loyalty to one service
worker: Should it be discouraged? International Journal of
Research in Marketing 23: 79–91.
Bruce A (2003) Building a High Morale Workplace. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Burke R (2002) Technology and the customer interface: What con-
sumers want in the physical and virtual store. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 30: 411–432.
Castro D, Atkinson R and Ezell S (2010) Embracing the self-service
economy. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)
Available at http://www.itif.org/files/2010-self-service.pdf
(accessed 12 November 2011).
Chao P, Fu H and Lu I (2007) Strengthening the quality-loyalty
linkage: The role of customer orientation and interpersonal rela-
tionship. Service Industries Journal 27: 471–494.
Chen W (2011) Technology base self service in hospitality industry.
UNLV Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones.
Paper available at http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdisser-
tations/1094 (accessed 12 November 2011).
Connolly D (2005) In Self-Service Takeoff: Hospitality Industry Self-
Service Technology Study. Randolph: Edgell Communications.
Curran J and Meuter M (2005) Self-service technology adoption:
Comparing three technologies. Journal of Services Marketing 19:
103–113.
Dabholkar P (1992) Role of affect and need for interaction in on-site
service encounters. Advances in Consumer Research 19: 563–569.
Dabholkar P (1996) Consumer evaluations of new technology-based
self service options: An investigation of alternative models of
service quality. International Journal of Research in Marketing
13: 29–51.
Duboff R and Heaton C (1999) Employee loyalty: A key link to
value growth. Journal of Strategy and Leadership 27: 8–12.
EHG (2011). Egyptian Hotel Guide. Cairo, Egypt: Egyptian Hotel
Association.
Fortune F and Sibley E (2006) A comparison of online high tech
and traditional high touch learning in business communication
courses in Silicon Valley. Journal of Education for Business 81:
210–214.
Ganesh J, Arnold M and Reynolds K (2000) Understanding the
customer base of service providers: An examination of the dif-
ferences between switchers and stayers. Journal of Marketing 64:
65–87.
Girman M, Keusch P and Kmec P (2009) Faults, failures and avail-
ability in self-service technology. Management Services 53: 44–46.
Gronroos C (1982) An applied service marketing theory. European
Journal of Marketing 16: 30–41.
Gruber T (2011) I want to believe they really care: How complain-
ing customers want to be treated by frontline employees. Journal
of Service Management 22: 85–110.
Guenzi P and Pelloni O (2004) The impact of interpersonal rela-
tionships on customer satisfaction and loyalty to the service pro-
vider. International Journal of Service Industry Management 15:
365–384.
Gutek B, Bhappu A, Liao-Troth M, et al. (1999) Distinguishing
between service relationships and encounters. Journal of
Applied Psychology 84: 218–233.
Hartline M, Maxham J and McKee D (2000) Corridors of influence
in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer
contact employees. Journal of Marketing 64: 35–50.
Hornik J (1984) Subjective and objective time measures: A note on
the perception of time in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer
Research 11: 615–618.
Jackson W, Keith J and Burdick R (1984) Purchasing agents’ per-
ceptions: A situational approach. Journal of Marketing 48: 75–83.
Jin E (2011) Technology can never replace human touch. Available
at http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?sec¼businessandfile
¼/2011/4/25/business/8531110 (accessed 15 January 2011).
Kim J, Christodoulidou N and Brewer P (2012) Impact of individ-
ual differences and consumers’ readiness on likelihood of using
self-service technologies at hospitality settings. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research 36: 85–114.
Kit U (2011) Using self-service technologies to solve the problem of labor
shortage in Macau’s lodging industry. UNLV Theses/Dissertations/
Professional. Available at http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/the-
sesdissertations/1163 (accessed 17 January 2011).
Kattara and El-Said
Langeard E, Bateson J, Lovelock C, et al. (1981) Service Marketing:
New Insights from Consumers and Managers. Boston, MA:
Marketing Science Institute.
Lee Z and Cheng K (2009) Predictors of customer preference for
online versus offline air travel booking. Tourism Review
International 13: 183–200.
Lema J (2009) Preparing hospitality organizations for self-service
technology. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and
Tourism 8: 153–169.
Maloney W and Asce M (2002) Construction product/service and
customer satisfaction. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 128: 522–529.
Meuter M, Bitner M, Ostrom A, et al. (2005) Choosing among
alternative service delivery modes: An investigation of customer
trial of self-service technologies. Journal of Marketing 69: 61–83.
Meuter M, Ostrom L, Roundtree R, et al. (2000) Self-service tech-
nologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-
based service encounters. Journal of Marketing 64: 50–64.
Ong L (2010). Can self service technologies work in the hotel industry in
Singapore? A conceptual framework for adopting self service technol-
ogy. UNLV Theses/Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones.
Available at http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/theses disserta-
tions/694 (accessed 20 February 2011).
Orfila-Sintes F and Mattsson J (2009) Innovation behavior in the
hotel industry. International Journal of Management Service 37:
380–394.
Parks J (2010) Lifting the burden of women’s care work: Should
robots replace the ‘‘Human Touch.’’. Journal of Hypatia 25:
100–120.
Pfeffer J (1994) Competitive Advantage Through People: Unleashing the
Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Pursell T (2011) Weis pulls self-scan lanes in some store: Giant
plans to keep them open. The Daily Item. Available at http://
dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1424061226/Weis-pulls-Self-scan-
lanes-in-some-stores (accessed 20 February 2011).
Rayport J and Jaworski B (2005) Best Face Forward: Why Companies
must Improve Their Service Interfaces with Customers. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Reinders M, Dabholkar P and Frambach R (2008) Consequences of
forcing consumers to use technology-based self-service. Journal
of Service Research 11: 107–123.
Reynolds K and Beatty S (1999) Customer benefits and company
consequences of customer salesperson relationships in retailing.
Journal of Retailing 75: 11–31.
Salomann H, Kolbe L and Brenner W (2006) Self-services in cus-
tomer relationships: Balancing high-tech and high-touch today
and tomorrow. E-Service Journal 4: 65–84.
Selnes F and Hansen H (2001) The potential hazard of self-service
in developing customer loyalty. Journal of Service Research 4:
79–90.
Shamdasani P, Mukherjee A and Malhotra N (2008) Antecedents
and consequences of service quality in consumer evaluation of
self-service internet technologies. Service Industries Journal 28:
117–138.
Shaw C and Ivens J (2002) Building Great Customer Experience. New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
79
Shaw R (2004) Hotels test self-serve kiosk acceptance. Hotel and
Motel Management 219: 1–55.
Silpakit P and Fisk R (1985) Participating’ the service encounter: A
theoretical framework. In: Bloch TM, Upah G and Zeithaml V
(eds) Services Marketing in a Changing Environment. Chicago:
American Marketing Association, pp. 117–121.
Solomon M, Surprenant C, Czepiel J, et al. (1985) A role theory
perspective on dyadic interactions: The service encounter.
Journal of Marketing 49: 99–111.
Stuart M (2010) People want more personal service, not to be a
number: They want people they buy from to know their
values. Travel Trade Gazette UK and Ireland 2932, 18.
Available at http://ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/login?url¼http://
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?Direct
¼true&db¼hjh&AN¼54988736&site¼ehost-live (accessed 20
February 2011).
Surprenant F and Solomon R (1987) Predictability and personal-
ization in the service encounter. Journal of Marketing 51: 86–96.
The Wall Street Journal (1990) Their business is on the line, B1.
Available at http://online.wsj.com/home-page.
Yilmaz I (2009) Measurement of service quality in the hotel indus-
try. Anatolia 20: 375–386.
Author Biographies
Dr. Hanan Kattara is a professor of hotel management
at Alexandria University. She has a research and pub-
lications profile with both national and international
focus. Her prime research area is in human resource
management, applied to the hospitality and tourism
sector. Particular work focuses on general hotel man-
agement, marketing, and hotel operations. She also
has an excellent work experience with extensive prac-
tice knowledge and know-how. Professor Kattara has a
relevant number of research publications in distin-
guished journals. She is actively involved in collabora-
tive research networks and projects with outstanding
international education and research institutions.
Dr. Osman Ahmed El-Said is a lecturer at the Faculty
of Tourism and Hotels, Alexandria University, Egypt.
He prepared his Master Degree in the area of
employee behavior and customer satisfaction. The
author also contributed in organizing various confer-
ences, organized by the faculty of tourism and hotels.
Author’s doctorate research covered issues related to
innovation strategy implementation in the hotels
sector.
80 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)

Appendix 1
TBSS/HIS questionnaire
Dear customer
This questionnaire is designed to study your preferences for using technological innovations versus interacting
with hotel employees during different stages of your stay at hotel. Your contribution in completing this ques-
tionnaire will be highly appreciated, as it will draw results and recommendations that help to improve the way
service is delivered to you.
Kattara and El-Said 81
82 Tourism and Hospitality Research 13(2)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.