MASTER'S THESIS

Service Quality Assessment within

Notable Chain Restaurants of Tehran

Nahal Ghazali
Soha Saremi Inanlou
2015

Master of Arts (60 credits)

Business Administration

Luleå University of Technology

Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences
 Service Quality Assessment within
Notable Chain Restaurants of Tehran

Supervisor:

Prof: Dr. Mana Farshid

By:

Nahal Ghazali
&
Soha Saremi Inanlou

Institute of Training Research and Operational Consultancy for Tourism (INSTRUCT)

January, 2015

2  
 
 Acknowledgements

Of the many people who have been enormously helpful in the preparation of this

thesis, we are especially thankful to Dr. Mana Farshid, our supervisor, for her help

and support which paved the way for the accomplishment of the task. We are

grateful for her insightful comments and guidance throughout the development of this

thesis and the study it describes. We also claim being highly indebted and grateful to

Dr. Shiriyan, head of INSTRUCT, for his kind consideration throughout the process of

this research and his ever present support during the hard days of struggling with the

issue. We are also grateful to our families for the encouragement and support they

presented throughout our studies. We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to those

who completed the questionnaires and presented us with the information required. If it

were not for their help and support, we could not accomplish the task successfully.

Nahal Ghazali Soha Saremi Inanlou

3  
 
Abstarct
The present study was an attempt to investigate service quality assessment within notable chain

restaurants of Tehran. More specifically, the study aimed at conducting a research on two

famous, active and successful chain restaurants of Tehran in comparative mode to see how well

their service qualities are and if the service quality they offer has any deficiencies. They were

selected for the present study based on their fame and background. One of these two was a

traditional food restaurant, namely Hani, and the other one was Boof restaurant which provides

fast food. To do the study, Service Quality Scale (Caruana, 2002) was employed to measure the

service quality of the restaurants aforementioned. 120 questionnaires were distributed and

seventy completed ones were returned. The customers’ presented data was used to find out the

significant factors considered in the evaluation of service quality in Haani and Boof restaurants,

satisfaction and loyalty degree of customers in these two restaurants.The data collected were

analyzed via employing SPSS software version 21, employing descriptive statistics, t-test,

andmultivariate ANOVA (MANOVA). Based on the results it was revealed that among the

service quality factors on time servicing, accountability, and staff interaction were the most

significant ones for the customers while decoration and face validity was the least significant

factor. It was also found that there was not any significant difference between Boof and Haani’s

costumer satisfactions, but in terms of loyalty factors the way the restaurant was introduced, rate

of keeping costumers and evaluation, Boof restaurant’s costumers significantly trusted the

persons who introduced it more than those of Hani, but there was not any significant difference

between these two restaurants regarding their costumers’ continuing visits costumers’

evaluations.The findings of present study could be employed by the restaurant holders to

improve their marketing strategies. Also, students of hospitality and tourism as well as

4  
 
individuals interested in the field might get some insights covering the findings of the present

study.

5  
 
 Table of Contents

Chapter One: Background and Purpose 9

1.1 Introduction 9
1.2 Background 9
1.3 Problem Discussion 10
1.4 The Purpose of the Research 12
1.5 Outline of the Thesis 12

ChapterTwo: Review of the Related Literature 14

2.1 Introduction 14
2.2 Customer Satisfaction 14
2.3 Service Quality and its Role in the Restaurant Assessment 17
2.4 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality 19
2.5 The Gap Model 22
2.6 The SERVQUAL Model 25
2.6.1 Research on Validity and Reliability of SERVQUAL 29
2.7 The DINESERV Model 31
2.8 Iranian Culture and Cuisine 32
2.9 Conceptual Research Model 34

Chapter Three: Methodology 37

3.1 Introduction 37
3.2 Research Design 37
3.3 Case selection 38
3.4 Two Notable Chain Restaurants in Tehran 38
3.4.1 Haani Restaurants in Tehran 38
3.4.2 Boof Restaurants In Tehran 39
3.5 Sample selection 39
3.6 Procedure 40
3.7 Insrrumentation 41
3.8 Data Analysis 42
3.9 Quality Standards 43

Chapter Four: Data Presentation 45

4.1 Introduction 45
4.2 Results 45
4.2.1Research Question 1 45
4.2.2 Research Question 2 48
4.2.3 Research Question 3 50

6  
 
4.3 Discussion 52

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations 56

5.1 Introduction 56
5.2 Restatement of the Problem and Research Questions 56
5.3 Conclusion 57
5.4 Limitations of the Study 58
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 58

References 60

Appendices 77

Appendix I Service Quality Scale (English Version) 77

Appendix II Service Quality Scale (Persian Version) 80

7  
 
 Chapter One
Background and Purpose

1.1 Introduction
In the present chapter of this thesis, the background of the thesis title is presented,

followed by a problem discussion. Thepurpose of the study and research questions is

established and finally the outline for this thesis is illustrated.

1.2 Background
Among the hospitality related sectors, one cannot ignore the value and importance

restaurants can have. Nor can one forget about the role the restaurants play in the social

context and Iranian culture. Evaluation of service quality in restaurants is based on a

number of factors. Susskind and Chan (2000) consider the environment and provided

services along with food quality as significant elements in assessing service quality of

the dining sector. Sulek and Hensley (2004) consider quality of the food as the most

remarkable factor among the aforementioned ones.

Internationally, restaurants and guest-receiving organizations try to measure their

customer satisfaction and investigate effective tools for developing and maintaining

standard service quality for guest satisfaction (Bashirian & Majdpour, 2011). Marković

et al. (2010) suggest that the evaluation of service quality in restaurants is challenging

8  
 
as service outcome is not the only important variable; delivery of those services is also

a significant indication of the intended service quality.

1.3 Problem Discussion

According to Mittal and Kamakura (2001), customer satisfaction is a major element in

creation of customer’s desires for future purchases; moreover, the satisfied customers

most likelywill talk to others about their good experiences and the quality of the

received services. Indeed, particularly in the Middle Eastern cultures, this is of

paramount importance where the social life has been formed in a way that social

communication with other members enhances the society (Jamal & Naser, 2002). In

fact, satisfied customers turn to loyal consumers of the service (Mittal & Lassar, 1998).

From another perspective, word of mouth (WOM) which is spread by satisfied

customers, is considered as a more reliable means of attracting customers than other

forms of advertising (Taghizadeh et al., 2012).

Focusing on the measurement of service quality of in the Iranian restaurants is

important as like any other place all over the world, people do not pay for the low

quality services, unless they have no other choice. Considering the fact that there are a

lot of restaurants (both traditional ones and fast-foods) in Tehran, as the capital city of

Iran, and that these restaurants are competing with one another to absorb more

customers, running a research in this regard takes significance.

9  
 
Theoretically speaking, the problem lies in the fact that in most cases the restaurants do

not evaluate their own service quality and do not try the modern ways of absorbing

customers in the aforementioned countries. Indeed, when ''customers are dissatisfied,

then they may have the option of exiting (e.g., going to a competitor) or voicing their

complaints in an attempt to receive retribution.'' (Angelova & Zekiri, 2011, p. 243).

Hayes (1998) believes that evaluating their service allows the businesses to:

• understand whether the process works well;

• make modification to the system where it is needed;

• decide whether those modifications brought about improvement; and

• making sound decisions;

In order for the company to succeed in competitions, customer satisfaction plays a

significant role (Thorsten & Alexander, 1997). Lin and Wu (2011) also believe that

long-term retention of the consumers is contingent upon satisfaction with the provided

services; nevertheless, the rate of switching will increase dramatically.

Another problem is the discrepancies between prior expectations of customers and the

actual performance of the target firm. Parasuraman et al. (1985) believe that there is

considerable confusion in the demarcation between service quality and customer

satisfaction. As these differences play a key role in determining the success or failure of

a business, it is of paramount importance to examine the issue in practice.

10  
 
1.4 The Purpose of the Research

In the present study, the concept of service quality and the subsequent customer

satisfaction has been evaluated in Iran. In addition, this research has specifically

focused on the service quality assessment within the branches of two famous chain

restaurants in Tehran− Haani and Boof. The study is an attempt to find out ay probable

discrepancy between the clients’ expectations from the restaurants and the real services

they receive. The significant factors of service quality which are more important to the

customers of notable chain restaurants will also be discussed. As Customer satisfaction

is a substantial element for future purchase by customers who have experienced a

service before (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001), the present study aims at investigating the

most remarkable factors that influence the service quality perceived by the customers.

Thus, these research questions inform the present study:

1. What are the major factors customers consider as significant in the evaluation of

service quality?

2. How satisfied are the restaurants customers?

3. How loyal are the restaurants customers?

1.5 Outline of the Thesis

The presentthesis consists of five chapters including introduction, literature review, and

methodology, presentation of findings, and conclusion and recommendations. The first

11  
 
chapter discusses the study background of the thesis, research purpose, research

questions, and the thesis outline. The second chapter deals with presents the concepts

related to the research questions of the study and the significant points found in the

previous related studies. The conceptual framework of the present study will be also

focused on this section. The methodology of this research is presented in chapter three

in which data collection and data analysis procedures will be described. The empirical

data,a profound data analysis, and data presentation will be covered in chapter four.

Finally, chapter five presents the study findings and discusses suggestions for further

research.

Figure 1.1 Outline of the Thesis

12  
 
 Chapter Two

Review of the Related Literature

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the theoretical concepts of the study are expanded followed by a number

of relevant studies and models which create the conceptual framework.

2.2 Customer Satisfaction

Malik and Ghaffor (2012) define the concept of customer satisfaction as meeting

customer expectations regarding the special parameters of satisfaction. Zairi (2000) also

defines this notion as the accomplishment of inner requests of consumers. Indeed, this

concept has been defined differently by field scholars. Customer satisfaction is “an

indicator of whether customers will return to a restaurant” (p. 39) as Dube et al. (1994)

suggest. Vavra (1997, p. 8) also consider customer satisfaction as ''the leading criterion

for determining the quality actually delivered to customers through the product/service

and by the accompanying servicing.''

Indeed, as the most significant concept influencing service management, customer

satisfaction has received a lot of attention from marketers and researchers (Rust &

13  
 
Oliver, 1994). The concept of customer satisfaction has thus been applied to service

industry by many scholars (e.g. Andaleeb & Conway, 2006; Oh, 2000). In addition,

Yüksel and Yüksel (2002) connect this satisfaction concept to the intention for repeat

purchasing and positive word-of-mouth.

The expectancy/disconfirmation paradigm in process theory (Mohr, 1982)

provides the grounding for the vast majority of satisfaction studies and

encompasses four constructs:

1. expectations;

2. performance;

3. disconfirmation; and

4. satisfaction

Dis/confirmation arises from discrepancies between prior expectations and actual

performance. There has been significant effort in the past to look at the area of service

quality, customer satisfaction and, to a lesser extent, service loyalty. However, there is

considerable confusion in the demarcation between service quality and customer

satisfaction. GroÈnroos (1984, 1990) and Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988, 1994), both

argue that perceived service quality results from the comparison that customers make

between expected quality and experienced or outcome quality. The

expectancy/disconfirmation paradigm that ultimately results in satisfaction or

dissatisfaction makes a similar point. Regarding the chronological order, service quality

14  
 
happens first and then leads to customer satisfaction. According to Cronin and Taylor

(1992, 1994), customer satisfaction is regarded as an antecedent of service quality;

nevertheless, their research the opposite. Thus, Service quality was proposed as one of

the contributing aspects of customer satisfaction (Ruyter et al., 1997; Spreng &

Mackoy, 1996).

On the basis of the above, customer satisfaction is indicated as acting as a mediator in

the link between service quality and service loyalty, as shown in Figure 2.1.In the

satisfaction literature “expectation reflect anticipated performance” (Churchill and

Suprenant, 1982, p.492) made by the customer about the levels of performance during a

transaction. This study employs a cultural perspective to explore the role and effects of

service quality and satisfaction on such behavioral outcomes as repurchase intentions,

loyalty, and word of mouth. Previous research in other cultures (Brady & Robertson;

2011; Caruana, 2002; GroÈnroos; 1990; Selnes, 1993) has revealed that high service

quality affects the behavioral intentions of the customers and consumers' level of

satisfaction.

Mittal and Lassar (1998) refer to the strong connection between satisfaction and

customer loyalty. In addition, Oliver (1993) considers the satisfaction variable as the

central part of the marketing philosophy of any business. Lim (2010) contends that the

physical environment in restaurants can have a great effect on customers' pleasure.

15  
 
2.3 Service Quality and its Role in the Restaurant Assessment

Caruana (2002) believes that service loyalty might be considered one of the most

essential constructs in services marketing as the final effect is indicated by the

repurchasing by customers; thus, these loyal customers with their repeated purchases

are regarded as the heart of any business. The demographic characteristics of loyal

customers is one the most significant aspects that has raised the attention of the scholars

and whether any variables like these can be more essential than others and how these

information can be used for different intentions (Caruana, 2002). Nevertheless, Caruana

(2002) believes that the connection of service loyalty with other variables such as

customer satisfaction and service quality has received a lesser amount of attention.

The work by Parasuraman et al. (1998) was the starting point for examining service

quality academically which has attracted a considerable amount of attention by both

researchers and practitioners in recent years (Caruana, 2002). Caruana (2002) believes

that one of the most remarkable reasons for this interest in service quality examination

is the advantages it can bring about on the bottom-line performance for business.

Although the concept of customer satisfaction and service quality have been considered

as rather independent terms among the academics, practitioners of the field see no such

difference and thus use them interchangeably (Oliver, 1993).

Caruana (2002) states that the three concepts of customer satisfaction, service quality,

and service loyalty are connected to each other. From a theoretical point of view, the

16  
 
expectancy/disconfirmation pattern in process theory (Oliver & Swan, 1989) can be

regarded as the basis for the present study. At first, customers hold standards prior to

experiencing the service considering the level of service quality; monitor performance

of the service; and compare the real performance with standards (Bearden & Teel,

1989). They mix this observation with standard levels, and then create summary of

satisfaction assessments (Gummesson, 1987). Brady and Robertson (2011) contend that

service quality and customer satisfaction are along the lines of “the development of

service customers' behavioral intentions” (p.53).

Mediator

Customer Satisfaction

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Service Quality Service Loyalty

   
Figure 2.1: The Theoretical Model of Service Quality (adapted from Caruana, 2002, p.818)

A number of scholars have focused their attention on the concept of service quality and

customers satisfaction in the restaurant industry. Theses researchers have referred to a

number of important attributes such as: reasonable price, quality of food (taste and

17  
 
nutritional features), service, location, image, brand name, and value for money (Johns

& Howard, 1998; Tam & Yung, 2003). Johns and Pine (2002) also refer to a number of

fundamental factors for service quality in restaurants during the meal experience:

• Food (healthiness and hygiene);

• atmosphere (feeling and comfort);

• physical provision (layout and cleanliness); and

• the service received (speed, friendliness, and care).

2.4 Customer Satisfaction and Service Quality

Consumers' experience with a specific service is considered as the basis for satisfaction

evaluation; thus, service quality is regarded as the decisive element in customer

satisfaction (Cronin & Taylor, 1992). Lewis (1993) also contends that ''definitions of

consumer satisfaction relate to a specific transaction (the difference between predicted

service and perceived service) in contrast with ‘attitudes’, which are more enduring and

less situational-oriented'' (pp. 4-12). Oliver (1993), referring to the interrelationship

between service quality and customer satisfaction, believes that the former precedes the

latter. A number of researchers have also affirmed what Oliver had suggested (e.g.

Fornell et al., 1996; Spreng & Macky 1996). Parasuraman et al. (1985) consider

18  
 
perceived service quality as the determining factor for satisfaction on the part of the

customers. Saravana & Rao (2007) also affirm this idea as they connect satisfaction to

the quality of the service provided by the target firm.

Wilson et al. (2008) asserted that the two aforementioned concepts are connected;

nevertheless, they consider satisfaction as an umbrella term. For example, Zeithaml et

al. (2006) believe that many other factors can contribute to satisfaction, such as price

and product quality.

Currently, the increased competition has made service quality a popular domain of

academic research and an attentive competitive benefit satisfying relationships with

consumers (Zeithmal, 2000). Although service quality has aroused considerable interest

in research, there are difficulties measuring and even defining it since there is no

consensus in general (Wisniewski, 2001). Eshghi et al. (2008) define service quality as

the overall evaluation of a service by the customers.

Service quality is regarded as a significantaspect of competitiveness (Lewis, 1989).

Providing outstanding service quality and customer satisfaction is the criticalconcern

and challenge facing the current service industry (Hung et al., 2003). Service quality is

an essentialissue in both service industries and business (Zahari et al., 2008). The extent

a service meets customer needs and expectations or exceeds them is considered as

another explanation for service quality (Asubonteng et al., 1996; Dotchin& Oakland,

19  
 
1994a; Lewis & Mitchell, 1990; Seilier, 2004; Wisniewiski& Donnelly, 1996; Zahari et

al., 2008).

Throughout the last two decades, service quality has attracted a lot of attention of

practitioners, researchers, and managersdue to its impact on business performance,

return of investment, lower costs, customer loyalty,customer satisfaction, and gaining

profit (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Lasser et al., 2000; Leonard &Sasser, 1982; Newman,

2001; Seth &Deshmukh, 2005; Sureshchander et al., 2002).

Service quality is also synonymous to customer opinionabout how a service meets or

exceeds their expectations (Czepiel, 1990). Munusamy et al. (2010) characterize service

quality as the difference between customer's expectations and the perceptions of the

received service Customer expectation and perception are the two majorcomponents of

service quality (Munusamy et al., 2010). Consumersevaluate quality as low

whenperception does not meet their expectation and quality as high ifperception

exceeds their expectations (Oliver, 1980).

In both developed and developing countries, the speedyprogress and competition of

service quality has made it indispensable for companies to measure the quality of their

service encounters (Brown & Bitner, 2007). According to Seth and Deshmukh (2005),

some conceptual models have been createdfor measuring service quality which enable

identifying quality problems and thus aid in planning for initiating a quality

20  
 
improvement program.Indeed, the efficiency, profitability, and overall performance of

these industries will improve (Seth & Deshmukh, 2005).

2.5 The Gap Model

In a period of time between 1985 and 1994, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry

conducted a number of research projects in different service domains. They contended

that the 'gap' between service quality expectations and the perceptions of the customers

after delivery of the service could be measured with their so called Gap Model (Blešić

et al., 2011).

21  
 
 Figure 2.2 The Gap Model (Parasuraman et al., 1986, p. 44)

This model gives the highest credit to the attitudes of customers and their perception of

the provided service (ibid). According to Ljubojević (2004), the framework illustrates

the development of the service quality notion. Parasuraman et al. (1985) summarizes the

concept of discrepancy in the target service offer by 5 gaps:

22  
 
 • Gap 1: the discrepancy between customers' expectations and the way they are

perceived by the service management.

• Gap 2: the difference between the perception of the firm of customers'

expectations and service quality specifications.

• Gap 3: the discrepancy between service quality specifications of the firm and

how the service is delivered in reality.

• Gap 4: the difference between service delivery and customers' expectations

based on the firms' description.

• Gap 5: the discrepancy between customers' expectations of the firm and their

perception of that service.

Nitin et al. (2005) states that service quality based on the Gap model (Figure 2.2) can be

formulated as:

In the formula:

• SQ represents service quality;

• k indicates the number of features or attributes

23  
 
 • Pij shows the performance perception of i based on the effect of j

• Elj represents the expected quality from j in comparison with standards set for i.

The Gap model was later improved by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985, 1988,

1994) and was introduced as the SERVQUAL scale for measurement of expectations

and perception of service quality.

2.6 The SERVQUAL Model

Parasuraman et al. (1988) proposed the SERVQUAL model in order to measure gap 5

of the Gap Model. They utilized ten factors in their service quality framework:

tangibility, responsiveness, courtesy, reliability, security, accessibility, credibility,

communication, and understanding the customer. These ten factors are summarized in

five dimensions (Shahin, 2006; Van Iwaarden et al., 2003):

1. Tangibles: physical equipment, facilities, and appearance of the staff.

2. Reliability: capability to carry out the promised service perfectly.

3. Responsiveness: eagerness to help customers and provide quick service.

4. Assurance: understanding and politeness of employees and their ability to

establish trust and confidence.

5. Empathy: caring and individualized attention to the customers.

24  
 
 Figure 2.3 SERVQUAL Model (Parasuraman et al., 1988, cited in Cronin & Taylor, 1992)

The SERVQUAL model includes a questionnaire that judges the five aforementioned

generic service dimensions through 22 questions, assessing both expectation and

performance with a seven-point Likert scale. Service quality, in this approach is

evaluated by calculating the gap (difference) between customer expectations and

perceptions (service quality= P – E). 'P' indicates customer opinion of a service and 'E'

stands for expectations before the actual service is delivered (Lewis & Booms, 1983;

Parasuraman et al., 1985). If the answer is positive, satisfaction is affirmed; otherwise,

dissatisfaction is reported. This equation is generally identified as gap analysis (Zahari

et al., 2008); nevertheless, this model only evaluates gap 5.

25  
 
According to the SERVQUAL model, the discrepancy between expectation of the

customers and perception of managers is referred to as Gap 1. Kasper et al. (2006)

contend that lack of understanding customers' expectations directly might be the cause

of this gap. This usually happens when there are several layers of management between

the highest point and the personnel who are in direct contact with the customers (ibid).

Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons (2008) propose solutions bridging this gap which

include: improvement in researching the market, creation of optimum communication

between different layers.

According to Zeithaml et al. (1990), the second gap illustrates the difference

between managers' opinion about expectations of their customers and the qualifications

set for service delivery in the real world. Kasper et al. (2006) view the source of this

discrepancy in lack of managers' commitment to the standardized procedures and goals

of the organization, weakness in setting goals, and inability to perceive feasibility of

service delivery options. Gronroos (1990) believes that instead of hard and fast goal

settings, commitment among managers for providing quality service is the practical

solution for closing the gap.

Zeithaml et al. (1990) believe that the third gap is opened when service

providers are not able or willing to provide the desired level of service quality. Chenet

et al. (2000) contend that 'cooperation', 'perceived control', and 'employee-job fit' (p.

488) are the three major elements that affect this gap. Nevertheless, this gap cannot be

26  
 
illustrated without two endogenous factors which are commitment and trust. Gronroos

(2007) suggested solutions for bridging the aforementioned gap: introduction of

efficient internal marketing in the intended sector, change in the supervisory

arrangement, and superior training for employees.

The forth gap is observed when the discrepancy between the promises and the

actual delivery of a service becomes evident (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Gronroos (2007)

suggests that exaggerated advertisements and promises can affect customers'

expectations in an unrealistic way. In order to avoid this gap from opening, managers

should supervise the advertising companies to make their product as realistic as possible

(ibid). Urban (2009) believes that the service quality gaps in the SERVQUAL model

show a loop; ''in this loop there are many losses of what quality is, and what meaning of

service quality is expected by customers'' (p. 634). In his view, these gaps indicate a

causal chain where the aforementioned losses occur. ''The idea of the five service quality

gaps model is to follow the road on which the information about the customers’

expectations is carried, being careful of the places where there are dangers of its

deformations'' (p. 634). The quality gaps provide a clear picture of quality formation in a

firm which aids mangers in understanding how quality in their service emerges. As a

weak point, nevertheless, the utilization of this framework in practice lags behind the

theoretical formulations (ibid).

27  
 
Parasuraman et al. state that SERVQUAL is a valid and reliable measure of service

quality. It is founded on empirical tests with the instrument and a variety of theoretical

reflections. They also declare that SERVQUAL is appropriate for different service

contexts; however, it might be required to reword and/or enhance some of the items

(Parasuraman et al., 1988, 1991). By itself the gap model has no theoretical grounding

and the use of difference score measures relative to ideal expectations is questionable.

The approach being suggested has the advantage of providing a clearer theoretical

underpinning to the constructs, data that are more statistically reliable while cutting the

length of the questionnaire (Caruana, 2002).

2.6.1 Research on Validity and Reliability of SERVQUAL

Philip and Hazlett (1997) believe that contrary to the perceived significance of service

quality, a small number of researches have been done in this field particularly in Iran;

however, numerous studies have been carried out outside Iran. According to them, at

least 293 major articles are devoted to service quality from 1976 to 1995. The number

will increase to 4000 if the articles in which service quality is a section of the work are

considered. Obviously, the significance of service quality indicates the researchers’

interest in the concept (Philip & Hazlett, 1997)

The reliability and validity of SERVQUAL has been evaluated by its

28  
 
 developers. According to those assessments, the SERVQUAL instrument was approved

to be both reliable and valid. Due to the reliability and validity of the SERVQUAL, it

can be “suitably reworded to and/or augmented to make them more germane to the

context in which the instrument is to be used” (Parasuraman, et al., 1988, p. 28).

In addition, the reliability and validity of the SERVQUAL have been examined

in different areas by several authors (Babakus&Boller, 1992; Carman, 1990; Finn &

Lamb, 1991; Lewis, 1991; Pitt et al., 1995). According to Lam (1997), the conceptual

construct and dimensionality of SERVQUAL shouldbe verified before its application to

anyparticular sector. Finn and Lamb (1991) asserted that retailers and consumer

researchers should not consider SERVQUAL as an 'off-the-shelf' instrument for

measuring the perceived service quality.

SERVQUAL was also examined in public sector companies by Orwig et al. (1997); the

researcherscame to the conclusion that pre-testing of the instrument was required before

using it with such companies. As said by Brown et al. (1993), the gap between the

expected and the perceived quality will present low reliability. Other researchers

(Brown, et al., 1993; Lewis & Mitchell, 1990) have questioned the suitability of using a

discrete 7-point scale. Akan (1995) also tested the applicability of SERVQUAL in

Turkey. He carried out a study about the four- and five-star hotels of Istanbul with a

well-administered questionnaire. Indeed, the instrument was affirmed as a valuable tool

but not a generic one. Thus, it needs to be modified to serve the especial purpose in

29  
 
 different environments (Akan, 1995).

2.7 The DINESERV Model

Stevens et al. (1995) introduced the DINESERV scale with five aspects which are

similar to the SERVQUAL model. In an attempt to complete the scale, Johns and Tyas

(1996) designed a 7-dimension model consisting of: responsiveness, empathy, food,

assurance, reliability, tangibles, and tangibles 2. In line with them, Qin et al. (2010)

introduced another scale including six aspects: responsiveness, empathy, assurance,

reliability, tangible, and recovery.

According to Tan et al. (2014), ''the DINESERV instrument was proposed as a reliable

and comparatively easy to use tool for determining how guests evaluate restaurant

service quality'' (p. 34). They also contend that ''the original DINESERV tool consisted

of 29 items, measured on a seven-point scale. DINESERV items also fall into five

service quality dimensions'' (p.34).

The researchers state that in the context of a restaurant, tangibles include the face of a

restaurant, its cleanliness and the appearance of the staff. ''Reliability involves freshness

and temperature of the food, accurate billing and receiving ordered food.

Responsiveness in restaurants relates to staff assistance with the menu or appropriate

and prompt response to customers’ needs and requests'' (ibid, p. 34). The next

dimension, assurance, is the trust customers put in staffs' recommendations or the health

30  
 
 of the food. ''Finally, empathy refers to providing personalised attention to customers by

being considerate towards customers’ problems'' (Tan et al., 2014, p. 43).

A number of researchers have considered this tool as a reliable and valid scale for

assessing the food industry (Bougoure & Neu, 2010); nevertheless, the scale is very

similar to the SERVQUAL model. Thus, Kim et al. (2003) believe that three

dimensions should be included in the tangibles factor: appearance of facilities, menu,

and the comfortableness of facilities. In addition, Olorunniwo and Hsu (2006) affirm

the cultural variations in perception of the customers; the original scale was formulated

in western context and thus needs modifications when it comes to other countries.

Markovic et al. (2010) suggest that the scale should be updated as it includes very

general items and also it was generated many years ago.

2.8 Iranian Culture and Cuisine

Through the study of any culture, a good understanding of the people and the related

societies can be attained. Indeed, this is also the case with Iran and the present study

makes an attempt to focus on Iranian cuisine within two chain restaurants. The Iranian

culture and can express Iranian identity according to the well-known Iranologist Nelson

Frye's book on Persia as he asserts that "Iran's prize possession has been its culture"

(p.9).

31  
 
 Iranian or Persian cuisine is concerned with the traditional and modern ways of

cooking exclusive to Iran and its culture. Although the neighbor countries have

influenced the Iranian cooking style, the culinary of Iran has its own unique

characteristics. The dietary style of Iranians basically includes bread in different forms:

Barbari, Sangak, Lavash, and Taftoon baked in large clay ovens called 'tanur'. Another

kind of especial diary product made at home is yoghurt or 'mast' with its specific

fermentation process. Mast is also used to make Iranian soup and is a vital part of oil

production.

Iranian cuisine, furthermore, includes several dishes cooked with rice. Iranians

believe that rice grain holds the “it is the god” inscription. Fathi, (2010) contends that

Iranians feel closer to their creator by taking rice. Boiled rice with vegetables, meats,

and seasonings ('Plou') is one of the most popular dishes in Iran. To name a few, Chelo-

kebab, rice with lamb, meatballs with rice, Koofte, Shishlik kebab with rice, and Chelo-

khoresh can be mentioned.

Sweets are also a significant part of Iranian cuisine. Containing egg yolks,

almonds, and cardamom, 'Baghlava' is one of the most delicious ones. Sprouted wheat

grain, honey, cinnamon, and lime juice are usually the most significant ingredients of

Iranian sweets.

Regarding dessert drink in Iran, Orange syrup ('Sharbat-portagal') is one of the most

favorite ones including a mixture of orange peels, orange juice, thin sugar syrup, and

32  
 
rose water. The most preferred drink among the Iranians is tea which is served without

milk in pubs or 'GhahveKhane'.

2.9 Conceptual Research Model

Based on the literature on service quality, specifically, due in large part to the differing

theories offered in the literature as to the relationship between service quality and

satisfaction and their effects on behavioral intentions, the present researcher has tried to

examine the extent to which the causal order of service quality and satisfaction is

considered significant in the Iranian culture.

This study tries to investigate the role and effects of service quality and

satisfaction on behavioral customer outcomes such as repurchase intentions, word of

mouth, and loyalty. The literature and previous research in other cultures has indicated

that high service quality has an effect on the behavioral intentions of the customers and

consumers' level of satisfaction (Brady & Robertson; 2011; Caruana, 2002; GroÈnroos;

1990; Selnes, 1993).

It is clear from GroÈnroos (1984) that the most important aspect to perceived

service quality is the functional rather than the technical side of quality. The gap model

and its resultant SERVQUAL measure primarily focus on what GroÈnroos (1984, 1990)

terms the functional aspect of quality. It is suggested that these two models represent

parallel concepts that can both be viewed as one type of confirmation/disconfirmation in

33  
 
satisfaction theory. It is for this reason that we adopt the suggestion by Rust et al. (1996,

p. 249) who argue that service quality is simply confirmation/disconfirmation and who

advocate the direct measurement of the perception items in SERVQUAL in relation to

respondents' expectations.

As Caruana (2002) argues that service quality, service loyalty, and customer satisfaction

are interconnected. He believes that in measuring service quality, one should take into

consideration the concepts of service loyalty and customer satisfaction.

In this regard in his seminal article he presents the trinity service quality model he

considers service quality as an Independent Variable which would affect the service

loyalty as the dependent variable. These two are connected through the mediating

factor, satisfaction on the customers’ side. The present study also ties to study the

service quality of two famous chain restaurants in Tehran and has employed the very

theoretical and conceptual model presented by Caruana (2002). The model is as

follows:

34  
 
 Mediator

Customer Satisfaction

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Service Quality Service Loyalty

   

Figure 2.1: The Theoretical Model of Service quality (adapted from Caruana, 2002, p.818)

This model is utilized in the present study to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the major factors customers consider as significant in the evaluation of

service quality?

2. How satisfied are the restaurants customers?

3. How loyal are the restaurants customers?

As indicated in the model, the concept of service quality is tightly attached to customer

satisfaction and subsequently customer loyalty. Thus, in order to answer the research

questions, those factors which lead to satisfaction should be identified. Satisfaction is

supposed to depend on the quality of the provided service and this satisfaction will lead

to loyalty in the long run (Caruana, 2002).

35  
 
 Chapter Three
Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The present section deals with describing the participants of the study, the

instruments used for data collection, and the procedure which will be taken

throughout the study. The assumed data analysis and quality standards will also

be briefly presented.

3.2 Research Design

The present study deals with a qualitative measure of data collection in order to answer

the three posed research questions. According to Dornyei (2007), this type of research

was traditionally utilized in the social sciences; however, to gather in-depth data from

human behavior in various disciplines, qualitative research is given a high credit. In its

first phase, the present research enjoys an Ex post Facto Design. The reason is that,

based on Wilsonet, al. (2010), there is no treatment involved in the study, nor is the

study concerned with any leaning process the participants might have gone through as a

significant factor. No control is implemented over the effect of independent variable of

the study (Service Quality) on the dependent variable (Service Loyalty). None of the

variables of the study are manipulated to cause changes, either. What is of paramount

36  
 
importance then is the type and strength of the connection between variables of the

study; therefore an Ex Post Facto Design is the appropriate design for the

accomplishment of the purpose of the study (Field, 2009).

3.3 Case selection

The present study was an attempt to investigate service quality assessment within

notable chain restaurants of Tehran. More specifically, the study aimed at conducting a

research on two famous, active and successful chain restaurants of Tehran in

comparative mode to see how well their service qualities are and if the service quality

they offer has any deficiencies. They were selected for the present study based on their

fame and background. One of these two was a traditional food restaurant, namely

Haani, and the other one was Boof restaurant which provides fast food.

3.3.1Two Notable Chain Restaurants in Tehran

3.1.1.1Haani Restaurants in Tehran

Located in Beheshti St. (Between Bokharest St. & Modarres Highway.)

in Tehran, HaaniParseh restaurant has changed to one of the most notable self-service

restaurants in Iran. Its head, Ms. Tarighat, is an innovative lady who has full mastery

over Iranian cuisine. The restaurant serves high quality traditional food and recently has

focused on serving Pizza as well. Another innovation of Haani restaurant is the

37  
 
conserved stew (Iranian Khoresh) which has attracted the attention of a lot of people in

the supermarkets where it is sold.

3.1.1.2Boof Restaurants in Tehran

In 1375 the first branch of Boof chain restaurants was established in ValiAsr St. in

Tehran was established. From the beginning, the founders' strategy was to create

multiple branches in Tehran and other parts of the country (particularly in provincial

capitals). Today, the founders claim that the only fast food which has a management

system integrated with the academic structure in Iran is Boof. Currently the company

has 47 branches in Tehran and other parts of the country. Based on the planning of the

founders, 110 branches are planned to be established of which 100 will be in Iran and

10 other branches in other countries. In this regard, opening a foreign branch in

Malaysia (Kuala Lumpur) is considered a great step toward the target.

3.1 Sample selection

The participants of the study were 120 clients (both male and female) attending two

amous chain restaurants of Tehran (60 attending each of Haani and Boof resturants) in

different days, especially on Fridays when the restaurants are more occupied. In order to

collect the data, convenience sampling was used because we had to choose from among

the customers attracted to the restaurants and those who received services there. On the

other hand, as these people were selected by chance, they could best represent the

38  
 
sample population. The questionnaires were distributed among the participants after

their dining experience (Marković et al., 2010). Based on Creswell (2013), the least

number of individuals for data collection via questionnaire is not limited and the more

data the better. Meanwhile based on the famous table of determining sample size for

research activities (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970), the minimum sample out of the huge

population is 100. To collect the data 120 questionnaires were distributed to cover the

minimum sample required to run the research. Out of 120 questionnaires distributed, 70

returned ones were complete and usable (37 females and 33 males). These participants

received the valid SERVQUAL questionnaire developed by Caruana (2002) while they

were being served in the restaurants or after they left the restaurant.

3.2 Procedure

The Farsi version of the questionnaire was validated by the supervision committee

before administration. Then, the restaurant managers were briefed about the issue and

the concept of the research, and then they were offered the Farsi questionnaire. This

provided them with an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. Then the specific time and

day to do the research was decided upon and the questionnaires was distributed. The

researchers distributed 120 questionnaires to the customers collect the data. The

collected data then were analyzed using SPSS version 21 and the required measures

were taken. The analyzed data were used to answer the questions of the study.

39  
 
3.3 Instrumentation

The data collection instrument was the validated version of SERVQUYAL

questionnaire (Caruana, 2002) named Service Quality Scale which was applied to the

restaurant situation through minor modifications. The questionnaire includes almost 37

items focusing on various aspects of service quality in the restaurants and covers areas

such as cleanliness, manners of the staff and the waiters, prices, food quality, and other

services.This scale has been developed and validated by Caruana (2002) and has been

frequently referred to in various disciplines. A simple Google scholar search indicates

the importance of this questionnaire and its offshoots. Nearly 1000 citations (Exactly,

959 up to 2015) is good enough to show how significant the work is. Caruana’s (2002)

seminal work has been considered a seminal work as it has been the source of a lot of

other researches in service quality. On the other hand, he has created a model and

questionnaire which is frequently referred to in the literature and in almost all the

businesses.

The scale is open to almost any activity in the business and services. The scale has been

reframed for the restaurants and used in the present study. All in all the questionnaire

includes three main parts of Service Loyalty Scale with 12 items which could measure

different factors in this regard, Customer Satisfaction Scale with 4 items, and Service

Quality Scale with 24 items covering specific factors of quality. The following table

(Table 3.1) represents the scale sections:

40  
 
 Table 3.1: Descriptive Sections of SERVQUYAL questionnaire developed for the present study based on

Caruana (2002)

Scales Factors items

Introducing 1, 3
Continuing 2,4,5,6,9
Service Loyalty Scale Evaluation 7,8,10,11,12
Customer Satisfaction Scale Satisfaction 13,14,15,16
Service Quality Scale Presenting on time services 19,20,21,33
Accountability 17,18, 22,23,24,26,31
Decoration and Face validity 34,35,36,37,
Staff interaction 22,25,27,28,29,30,32,

The Persian version of the questionnaire was put to the scrutiny of two experts for

validation as well.

3.4 Data Analysis

The measures of t-test and Multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) were taken to test means

for each of the constructs against classificatory variables. Statistically significant low

and high mean scores were obtained for the three constructs. T-test is used to see the

differences of the means of the two groups as the result of implementing a treatment,

when the data distribution is normal (Dorniyei, 2007). In the present study, the opinions

of customers of two restaurants were sought to compare the service quality delivered in

those restaurants. In addition, since satisfaction and loyalty were considered as different

but related variables in the present study, MANOVA was run. There are four tests

(measures-dependent variables) in our research as follows;

41  
 
 Ø On Time Service

Ø Accountability

Ø Decoration and Face Validity

Ø Staff Interaction

We have four different means in our work. Statistically speaking Manova (Multivariate

Analysis of Variances) is the only test that enables us to compare more than two means

(Ashrafi, 2012).

3.5 Quality Standards

The researchers firstly translated SERVQUYAL questionnaire into Farsi with some

minor modifications. Then the first draft of the questionnaire was put to the scrutiny of

the two experts of the field and the supervision committee.The designed questionnaire

was distributed among 30 customers for piloting. Modifications were made to the

questionnaire based on the piloting results. The final version of the instrument was

distributed among 120 customers while being served in the restaurants or after they

leave the restaurant.Due to the piloting phase and recurrent modifications made to the

questionnaire, the validity and reliability of this instrument was affirmed to a great

extent. Caruana (2002, p.828) asserts that the reliability index o eth questionnaire based

on Cronbach’s alpha was α=0.62. Meanwhile the pilot study done by the present

researchers represented α=0.71., with 30 participants filling out the questionnaire. The

final calculation of the data with 70 participants was also done and reliability indices of

42  
 
different factors of the questionnaire and its total reliability were elicited. Table

3.2below displays the Cronbach’s alpha reliability indices for the questionnaire

employed in this study.

Table 3.2:Reliability Statistics

Cronbach'sAlphaa N of Items
Introduction .545 2
Continue .635 5
Evaluation .634 5
Costumers’ Loyalty .747 12
On Time Service .665 4
Accountability .871 7
Decoration and Face Validity .486 4
Staff Interaction .840 7
Service Quality .346 22
Costumers’ Satisfaction .244 4
Total .643 37

43  
 
 Chapter IV

Presentation of Findings

4.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with presenting the data. The data for the present study was collected

from 70 customers (male and female) eating at the two restaurants under investigation.

37 of the respondents were females and 33 were males. The research questions of the

study are presented and then the data for each of them will be given.

The first research question of the study deals with determining the major factors

customers consider as significant in the evaluation of service quality in Haani and Boof

restaurants. The second research question, however, deals with customer satisfaction

and the third one with customers’ loyalty in both restaurants.

4.2 Results

4.2.1 Research Question 1

1. What are the major factors customers consider as significant in the evaluation of

service quality?

Table 4.1 displays the mean scores for the four factors of service quality in Haani and

Boof restaurants. Haani restaurant presented better on time services (M = 45.34) and

had better decoration and face validity (M = 39.46) than the Boof restaurant. On the

other hand, Boof restaurant enjoyed a higher level of accountability (M = 42.55) and

had better staff interaction (M = 40.80) than Haani restaurant.

44  
 
 Table 4.1:Descriptive Statistics; Service Quality Factors

Mean
N Boof Haani
On- time Service 33 43.64 45.34
Accountability 33 42.55 41.20
Decoration and Face Validity 33 36.29 39.46
StaffInteraction 33 40.82 39.96

Figure 4.1: Service Quality Factors

The results of the multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) indicated that;

A: Haani restaurant (M = 45.34) significantly enjoyed a better on time services than

Boof (M = 43.64) (F (1, 68) = 4.02, p < .05, partial eta-square = .056 representing an

almost moderate effect size).

45  
 
B: There was not any significant difference between Boof (M = 42.55) and Haani (M =

39.46) regarding their accountability (F (1, 69) = 1.20, p > .05, partial eta-square = .017

representing a weak effect size).

Table 4.2:Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III Partial
Mean
Dependent Sum of df F Sig. Eta
Square
Source Variable Squares Squared
On Time 50.497 1 50.497 4.025 .049 .056
Accountability 32.130 1 32.130 1.205 .276 .017
Restaurant
Decoration 175.456 1 175.456 5.993 .017 .081
Staff Interaction 12.934 1 12.934 1.703 .196 .024
On Time 853.163 68 12.547
Accountability 1813.351 68 26.667
Error
Decoration 1990.704 68 29.275
Staff Interaction 516.395 68 7.594
139743.7
On Time 70
5
124367.3
Accountability 70
4
Total
103056.2
Decoration 70
5
114595.9
Staff Interaction 70
1

C: Haani restaurant (M = 39.46) significantly enjoyed a better decoration and face

validity than Boof (M = 36.29) (F (1, 68) = 5.99, p < .05, partial eta-square = .081

representing a moderate effect size).

46  
 
B: There was not any significant difference between Boof (M = 40.82) and Haani (M =

39.96) regarding their staff interactions (F (1, 69) = 1.70, p > .05, partial eta-square =

.024 representing a weak effect size).

The data obtained from the qualitative analysis can shed light on the success of these

two famous restaurants. As illustrated in the literature and according the SERVQUAL

and DINESERV models, the four aforementioned dimensions are among the most

significant ones (on time service, accountability, decoration, and staff interaction).

Thus, it can be concluded that the factors for a high degree of service quality are met by

the two restaurants.

4.2.2Research Question 2

How satisfied are the restaurants customers?

An independent t-test was run to compare the Boof and Haani’s costumer satisfactions.

Based on the results displayed in Table 4.3 and 4.4 it was concluded that there was not

any significant difference between Haani (M = 40.95) and Boof (M = 38.86)

restaurants’ customer satisfaction (t (68) = 1.93, p > .05).

Table 4.3:Descriptive Statistics; Costumers’ Satisfaction

Restaurant N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Haani 37 40.95 3.968 .652
Satisfaction
Boof 33 38.86 5.042 .878

47  
 
 Table 4.4: Independent Samples Test; Costumers’ Satisfaction

Levene's Test for

Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
Std. 95% Confidence
Mean
Sig. (2- Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df Differen
tailed) Differen Difference
ce
ce Lower Upper
Equal variances assumed .306 .582 1.93 68 .058 2.082 1.079 -.070 4.235
Equal variances not
1.90 60.6 .062 2.082 1.094 -.105 4.269
assumed

Figure 4.2: Costumers’ Satisfaction

Regarding the second research questions, it was observed that the level of satisfaction

from the restaurants' service quality obtained a high degree (Haani, M = 40.95; and

Boof, M = 38.86). Although no significant difference was observed between the means,

48  
 
it can be inferred from the means that the two restaurants were successful to keep their

customers satisfied.

4.2.3 Research Question 3

How loyal are the restaurants customers?

Table 4.5 displays the mean scores for the three factors of costumers’ loyalty in Haani

and Boof restaurants. For Boof restaurant (M = 43.03), the way the restaurant was

introduced was more important than Haani (M = 40.81). Boof restaurant also showed a

higher rate of keeping its costumers (M = 40) than Haani (M = 39.73). Boof also

enjoyed a higher evaluation (M = 39.82) than Haani (M = 39.41).

Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics; Costumers’ Loyalty

Mean
N Boof Haani
Introduction 33 43.03 40.81
Continue 33 40.00 39.73
Evaluation 33 39.82 39.41

49  
 
 Figure 4.3: Costumers’ Loyalty

The results of the multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) (Table 4.6) indicated that;

A: Boof (M = 43.03) restaurant’s costumers significantly trusted the persons who

introduced it more than Haani (M = 40.81) (M = 43.64) (F (1, 68) = 3.96, p < .05,

partial eta-square = .055 representing an almost moderate effect size).

B: There was not any significant difference between Boof (M = 40) and Haani (M =

39.73) regarding their costumers’ continuing visits (F (1, 69) = 1.27, p > .05, partial eta-

square = .001, representing a weak effect size).

B: There was not any significant difference between Boof (M = 39.82) and Haani (M =

39.41) regarding their costumers’ evaluations (F (1, 69) = .96, p > .05, partial eta-square

= .001, representing a weak effect size).

50  
 
 Table 4.6:Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III Partial

Mean
Dependent Sum of df F Sig. Eta
Square
Source Variable Squares Squared
Introduction 85.926 1 85.926 3.968 .050 .055
Restaurant Continue 1.274 1 1.274 .042 .837 .001
Evaluation 2.972 1 2.972 .096 .757 .001
Introduction 1472.645 68 21.657
Error Continue 2041.297 68 30.019
Evaluation 2097.828 68 30.850
Introduction 124200.0 70
Total Continue 113244.0 70
Evaluation 111872.0 70

Considering the third research question i.e. the loyalty issue, the significant effect of

word of mouth was established as discussed in the literature; costumers of Boof

significantly trusted the persons who introduced it more than Haani. In addition, as both

restaurants try to keep their customers satisfied by means of high service quality,

customers' evaluation and continuing visits were at a high degree.

4.3 Discussion

The findings of the present study suggest that Based on the results it was revealed that

among the service quality factors on time servicing, accountability, and staff interaction

were the most significant ones for the customers while decoration and face validity was

the least significant factor. It was also found that there was not any significant

51  
 
difference between Boof and Haani’s costumer satisfactions, but in terms of loyalty

factors the way the restaurant was introduced, rate of keeping costumers and evaluation,

Boof restaurant’s costumers significantly trusted the persons who introduced it more

than those of Haani, but there was not any significant difference between these two

restaurants regarding their costumers’ continuing visits costumers’ evaluations.

Findings of the present study are in line with the findings of the previous research

reported in the literature. Bearden and Teel (1989) found a high correlation between

consumer susceptibility and interpersonal influences and presented that continuous

good services can minimize the susceptibility of the customers. Czepiel (1990) asserted

that customer loyalty and retention is possible through keeping and managing

relationships with customers. Dotchin and Oakland (1994a) argued that classifying

services and understanding the customer needs will lead to presenting high quality

services and this way customer loyalty meets an increase. In this regard, Akan (1995)

found that service quality and customer satisfaction are in correlation and in case the

services offered do not lose their quality and keep up grading the customer satisfaction

and consequently, customer loyalty will be increased.

Although Eshghi, et al (2008) have focused on service quality and customer

satisfaction in the telecommunications services, their finding is noteworthy and could be

employed in other industries including restaurant management and hospitality related

concepts. They found that customer satisfaction is bound to the services offered and

52  
 
their quality even in the novel services about which the public do not have enough

information or with which they are not fully familiar. Similar results were observed in

the present research as customer satisfaction and service quality were found to be highly

connected.

Referring to Iranian cooking and the presence of new tastes in the Iranian cuisine,

Fathi (2010) implies that in the food and restaurant industry keeping the high quality

and continuing with a recognized trend will increase customer loyalty to the producer.

Indeed, the loyalty issue was reported at high degrees in the present research as both

restaurants were famous and utilized service quality dimensions to retain their

customers. In line with the findings of the present research, Bashirian and Majdpour

(2011) also presented that standard service quality holds a significant role in satisfying

customers.

Theoretically speaking GroÈnroos (1984, 1990, and 2007) discusses the relationship

between service quality, customer satisfaction, and service loyalty. The same trend was

observed in the present paper as well. Kasper et al. (2006) also assert that successful

marketing should take accounts of service quality and customer satisfaction as well as

lip servicing. They believe that being well-mannered and presenting enough

information to the customers play a significant role in customer retention and this

increase service loyalty. Caruana (2002) likewise confirms that service quality, service

loyalty, and customer satisfaction are interrelated. The conceptual research model in the

53  
 
present research was borrowed from Caruana (2002). Consequently, the results obtained

from this research could affirm those reported by Caruana.

Supporting the SERVQUAL model, Ahmed et al. (2010) investigated the connection

between service quality and customer satisfaction. The researchers were interested in

the repurchase intention of the customers as the result of their satisfaction in telecom

sector. Five dimensions of empathy, tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, and reliability

were of interest in their study.

In another study investigating the link between customer satisfaction and service

quality, Gera (2011) examined the relationship between service quality, satisfaction,

value, and behavioral intentions in the banking sector. The results indicated the

significant influence of service quality on value perception and consumer satisfaction.

According to Agbor (2011), believes the studies carried out in the domain of service

quality and customer satisfaction until 2011 report:

• Service quality and satisfaction of the customers are related;

• The SERVQUAL model can be used to measure service quality; and

• Service quality can also be assessed by other functional and technical

dimensions of service quality other than the SERVQUAL model.

54  
 
 Chapter Five

Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Introduction

The first part of the present chapter deals with restatement of the problem, as well as the

research questions, sand an overview of the procedures taken throughout the study, and

the conclusion drawn. This is followed by the pedagogical implications and suggestions

for further research.

5.2 Restatement of the Problem and Research Questions

The present study was an attempt to investigate service quality assessment within

notable chain restaurants of Tehran. More specifically, the study aimed at conducting a

research on two famous, active and successful chain restaurants of Tehran in

comparative mode to see how well their service qualities are and if the service quality

they offer has any deficiencies.The present study therefore aimed at assessing the

service quality of two notable chain restaurants in Tehran, namely Haani and Boof.

These restaurants are famous for their food quality and have built their reputations over

half a century.As Customer satisfaction is a substantial element for future purchase by

customers who have experienced a service before (Mittal & Kamakura, 2001), the

present study was aims to investigate the most remarkable factors influencing the

service quality perceived by the customers. In addition, two famous chain restaurants

and the quality of their different branches in Tehran are studied to find the real service

55  
 
quality provided in each of them. In this regard the following research questions were

raised:

1. What are the major factors customers consider as significant in the evaluation of

service quality?

2. How satisfied are the restaurants customers?

3. How loyal are the restaurants customers?

To answer the questions raised, Service Quality Scale (Caruana, 2002) was employed to

measure the service quality of the restaurants aforementioned. 120 questionnaires were

distributed and seventy completed ones were returned. The customers’ presented data

was used to find out the significant factors considered in the evaluation of service

quality in Haani and Boof restaurants, satisfaction and loyalty degree of customers in

these two restaurants.The data collected were analyzed via employing SPSS software

version 21, employing descriptive statistics, t-test, and multivariate ANOVA

(MANOVA).

5.3 Conclusion

The present study endeavored to assess the service quality in two chain restaurants in

Tehran, namely Boof and Haani. After obtaining the qualitative data and analyzing

them, it was revealed that Haani restaurant significantly enjoyed a better on time

services than Boof; however,Boof enjoyed a higher evaluation than Haani. Also, there

56  
 
was not any significant difference between Boof and Haani restaurant regarding their

accountability and staff interaction. There was also a significant difference between

these two restaurants customer’s satisfactions. Finally, Boof restaurant’s costumers

significantly trusted the persons who introduced it more than Haani, and there was not

any significant difference between Boof and Haani regarding their costumers’

continuing visits. Also, there was not any significant difference between Boof and

Haani regarding their costumers’ evaluations.

5.4 Limitations of the Study

As it is with other research, the present study suffers from a number of limitations. The

first is related to the number of participants. Although 120 questionnaires were

distributed, only 70 were returned and utilized in the study. Another limitation is the

number of restaurants compared in the experiment i.e. Hani and Boof. Regarding the

time constraints, it was not feasible to compare a larger number. In addition, only four

dimensions were examined: on-time service, accountability, decoration and face

validity, and staff interaction. Thus, such factors as trained vs. less trained staff,

restaurants income, and staff motivation were not touched.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research

1. The findings of the present study focused on assessing the service quality of two

restaurants and customer satisfaction as well as service loyalty in these two places. The

57  
 
study meanwhile did not focus on the issue of training the staff in this regard. Other

studies might be needed to focus on this significant point seeking for the difference

between the performance of the trained staff and the in-service or less trained ones in

this regard.

2. The relationship between customer loyalty, customer satisfaction, and the quality of

services offered in restaurants and the income of the restaurants in different levels and

conditions could be another topic of research which could be pursued in order to see

how important these factors could be for different restaurants.

3. Customer satisfaction and staff motivation and satisfaction degree are related together

(Verhoef, 2003). Meanwhile such a study for the Iranian restaurants in different forms

and products has not been done yet, and could be conducted to see of the relationship

works well in this context or not.

58  
 
References

Agbor, J. M. (2011). The relationship between customer satisfaction and service

quality: A study of three Service sectors in Umeå. Masters Thesis, Umea School

of Business.  

Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M.M., Usman, A., Shaukat, M.Z., Ahmed, N., & Wasin-ul- R.

(2010). Does service quality affect students' performance? Evidence from

institutes of higher learning. African Journal of Business Management, 4 (16),

3457-3462.

Akan, P. (1995). Dimensions of service quality: A study in Istanbul. Managing Service

Quality, 5 (6), 39–43.

Andaleeb, S. S., & Conway, C. (2006). Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry:

An examination of the transaction-specific model. Journal of Services

Marketing, 20(1), 3-11.  

Angelova, B., & Zekiri, J. (2011). Measuring customer satisfaction with service quality

using American Customer Satisfaction Model (ACSI Model). International

Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 1(3), 232-258.

Ashrafi, H.R. (2012). Statistics for human sciences. Tehran: Shahid Rajaei University

Press.

59  
 
Asubonteng, P., McCleaty, K.J., & Swan, J.E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: A critical

review of service quality. Journal of Service Marketing, 10(6), 62-81.

Bashirian, N., & Majdpour, T. (2011). The role of standard service quality in front

office of five star hotels in Tehran in order to satisfy customers. Master's Thesis,

Luleå University of Technology, Department of Business Administration,

Technology and Social Sciences.

Bearden, W. O., & Teel, R. G. N. J. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to

interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473-481.

Blešić, I., Ivkov-Džigurski, A., Dragin, A., Ivanović, L., & Pantelić, M. (2011).

Application of gap model in the researches of hotel services quality.

International scientific journal–Turizam, 15(1), 40-52.

Bougoure, U. S., & Neu, M. K. (2010). Service quality in the Malaysian fast food

industry: An examination using DINESERV. Services Marketing Quarterly,

31(2), 194-212

Brady, M. K., & Robertson, C.J. (2011). Searching for a consensus on the antecedent

role of service quality and satisfaction: An exploratory cross-national

study. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 53-60.

60  
 
Brown, S.W., & Bitner, M.J. (2007). Mandating a service revolution for marketing. In

R.F. Lush, & S.L. Vargo (Eds.),The service-dominant logic of marketing:

Dialog, debate and directions (pp. 393-405). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.

Brown, T. J., Churchill G. A., & Peter, J. P. (1993). Improving the measurement of

service quality. Research note. Journal of Retailing, 69 (1), 126–139.

Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating

role of customer satisfaction. European journal of marketing, 36(7/8), 811-828.

Chenet, P.,Tynan, C., & Money, A. (2000). The service performance gap: Testing the

redeveloped casual model.European Journal of Marketing 34(3/4), 472–495.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. University of Nebraska, Lincoln: Sage.

Cronin, J.J., & Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A re-examination and

extension. Journal of Marketing, 6(7), 55-68.

Cronin, J.J., & Taylor, S.A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling

performance based and perception based ± minus ± expectation measurements

of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58, 125-131.

customer loyalty in service industry. Novin Marketing Research Journal, 2(3),

27-45

61  
 
Czepiel, J. (1990). Managing relationships with customers: A differentiation philosophy

of marketing. In D. E. Bowen, R. B. Chase, & T. G. Cummings (Eds.), Service

management effectiveness (pp. 299-323). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dornyi, Z.(2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press

Dotchin, J.A., & Oakland, J.S. (1994a). Total quality management in services. Part 1:

Understanding and classifying services. International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, 11(3), 9-26.

Dotchin, J.A., & Oakland, J.S., (1994b). Total quality management in services. Part 2:

Service quality. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

11(3), 27-42.

Dube, L., Renaghan, L. M., & Miller, J. M. (1994). Measuring customer satisfaction for

strategic management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,

35(1), 39-47.

Eshghi, A., Roy, S., &Ganguli, S. (2008). Service quality and customer satisfaction: An

empirical investigation in Indian mobile Telecommunications services.

Marketing Management Journal, 18(2), 119-144.

Fathi, M. (2010). Iranian cooking: Iranian tastes. 700 types of Iranian food, sweets, and

300 key points in cooking. Tehran: Fakhroldin Publishers.

62  
 
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Los Angeles: Sage Publications

Limited.

Finn, D. W., & Lamb, C. W. (1991). An evaluation of the SERVQUAL scale in a

retailing setting. Advances in Consumer Research, 18 (4), 483–490.

Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2008). Service management: Operations,

strategy, information technology(6th ed.).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frye, R.A. (1951). The Near East and the great powers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

Fu, Y. Y., & Parks, S. (2001). The relationship between restaurant service quality and

consumer loyalty among the elderly. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism

Research, 25(3), 320-336.

Gera, R. (2011). Modelling the service antecedents of favorable and unfavorable

behavior intentions in life insurance services in India: An SEM study. Int. J.

Qual. Serv. Sci., 3(2), 225-242.

GroÈnroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its market implications. European

Journal of Marketing, 18 (4), 36-44.

GroÈnroos, C. (1990). Service management and marketing: Managing the moments of

truth in service competition. Massachusetts, Toronto: Lexington Books.

63  
 
GroÈnroos, C. (2007). Service Marketing and management: Customer management in

service competition. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Gummesson, E. (1987). Lip service – A neglected area in services marketing. The

journal of Services Marketing, 1(1), 19-23.

Hayes, B. E. (1992). Measuring customer satisfaction: Development and use of

questionnaires. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press.

Hayes, B. E. (1998). Measuring customer satisfaction: Survey design, use, and

statistical analysis methods. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press.

Haywood-Farmer, J., & Stuart, F.I., (1990). An instrument to measure the degree of

professionalism in a professional service. Service Industries Journal, 10(2), 336-

347.

Hung, Y.H., Huang, M.L., & Chen, K.S. (2003). Service quality evaluation by service

quality performance matrix. Total quality Management & Business Excellence,

14(1), 79-89.

Jamal, A., &Naser, K. (2002). Customer satisfaction and retail banking: An assessment

of some of the keyantecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking.

International Journal of Bank Marketing, 20(4), 146-160.

64  
 
Johns, N., & Howard, A., (1998). Customer expectations versus perceptions of service

performance in the foodservice industry. International Journal of Service

Industry Management, 9 (3), 248-265.

Johns, N., & Pine, R. (2002). Consumer behavior in the food service industry: A

review. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21, 119–134.

Johns, N., & Tyas, P. (1996). Use of service quality gap theory to differentiate between

foodservice outlets. The Service Industries Journal, 16(3), 321-46.

Kasper, H., Helsdingen, V. P., &Gabbott, M. (2006). Service marketing management: A

strategic perspective. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Kim, H.J., McCahon, C., & Miller, J. (2003). Assessing service quality in Korean

casualdining restaurants Using DINESERV. Journal of Foodservice Business

Research, 6(1), 67-86.

Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Lam, S. S. K. (1997). SERVQUAL: A tool for measuring patients’ opinions of hospital

service quality in Hong Kong. Total Quality Management, 8 (4), 145–152.

Lasser, W.M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R.D. (2000). Service quality perspectives and

satisfaction in private banking. Journal of Service Marketing, 14(3), 244-271.

65  
 
Leonard, F.S., &Sasser, W.E. (1982). The incline of quality. Harvard Business Review,

60(5), 163-171.

Lewis, B. R. (1989). Quality in service sector – A review. International Journal of

Brand Marketing, 7(5), 4-12.

Lewis, B. R. (1991). Service quality: An international comparison of bank customers’

expectations and perceptions. Journal of Marketing Management, 7 (1), 47–62.

Lewis, B. R., & Mitchell, V.W. (1990). Defining and measuring the quality of customer

service. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 8(6), 11-17.

Lewis, R.C., & Booms, B.H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality. In Berry,

L., Shostack, G. &Upah, G. (Eds). Emerging perspectives on service marketing

(pp. 99-107). Chicago, LL: American Marketing Association.

Lim, H. (2010). Understanding Americancustomer perceptions on Japanesefood and

services in the U.S. UNLVTheses dissertations professionalpapers capstones.

Lin, J. S. C., & Wu, C. Y. (2011). The role of expected future use in relationship based

service retention. Managing Service Quality, 21(5), 535-551.

Ljubojević, Č. (2004). Marketing of services, Faculty of Service Business, Novi Sad.

66  
 
Malik, E., &Ghaffor, M. (2012). Impact ofbrand image, service quality and priceon

customer satisfaction in Pakistantelecommunication sector.International Journal

of Business andSocial Science, 3(2), 123.

Marković, S., Raspor, S., & Šegarić, K. (2010). Does restaurant performance meet

customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a

modified DINESERV approach. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 16(2),

181-195  

Markovic, S., Raspor, S., & Sergaric, K. (2010). Does restaurant performance meet

customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a

modified DINSERV approach. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 16(2),

181-195.

Marković,S., Raspor, S., &Šegarić, K. (2010). Does restaurant performance meet

customers’ expectations? An assessment of restaurant service quality using a

modified DINESERV approach. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 16 (2),

181-195.

Mittal, B., & Lassar, W. M. (1998). Why do customers switch? The dynamics of

satisfaction versus loyalty. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(3), 177-194.

Mittal, B., &Lassar, W.M. (1998). Whydo customers switch? The dynamicsof

satisfaction versus loyalty. Journalof Services Marketing, 12(3), 177-194

67  
 
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W.A. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase

behavior: Investigatingthe moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal

of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131-142.

Mohr, L.B. (1982). Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Munusamy, J., Chelliah, S., &Mun, H. (2010). Service quality delivery and its impact

on customer satisfaction in the banking sector in Malaysia. International

Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 1 (4), 398-404.

Najafi, S.V., Saati, S., Bighami, M.K., & Abdi, F. (2013). How do customers evaluate

hotel service quality? An empirical study in Tehran hotels. Management Science

Letters, 3(12).

Newman, K. (2001). Interrogating SERVQUAL: A critical assessment of service

quality measurement in a high street retail bank. International Journal of Bank

Marketing, 19(3), 126-139.

Nitin, S., Deshmukh, S.G., & Perm, V. (2005). Service quality models: A review.

International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22 (9), 913-949.

Oh, H. (2000). Diners' perceptions of quality, value, and satisfaction: A practical

viewpoint. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 58-66.

68  
 
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of

satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.

Oliver, R. L. (1993). A conceptual model of service quality and service satisfaction:

Compatible goals, different concepts. In Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E., & Brown,

S.W. 7Eds), Advances in services marketing and management: Research and

practice (Vol. 2, pp. 65-85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and

satisfaction in transactions: A field study approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(2),

21-35.

Olorunniwo, F., & Hsu, M. K. (2006). A typology analysis of service quality, customer

satisfaction and behavioral intentions in mass services. Managing Service

Quality, 16(2), 106-123.

Orwig, R. A., Pearson, J., & Cochran, D. (1997). An empirical investigation into the

validity of SERVQUAL in the public sector. Public Administration Quarterly,

21 (1), 54–68.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service

quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-

50.

69  
 
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item

scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of

Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment

of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-450.

Philip, G., &Hazlett, S.A. (1997). The measurement of service quality: A new P-C-P

attributes model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,

14(3), 260-286.

Pitt, L. F., &Jeantriut, B. (1994). Management of customer expectations in service

firms: A study and a checklist. The Service Industries Journal, 14(2), 170-189.

Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., &Kavan, C. B. (1995). Service quality: A measure of

information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 173–187.

Qarehchi,M., &Dabuyan, F. (2011) the relation between employee loyalty and

Qin, H., Prybutok, V. R., & Zhao, Q. (2010). Perceived service quality in fast-food

restaurants: Empirical evidence from China. International Journal of Quality &

Reliability Management, 27 (4), 424-437

Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (1994). Service quality: Insights and managerial

implications from the frontier. CA: Sage, Thousand Oaks.

70  
 
Rust, R.T., Zahorik, A.J., &Keiningham, T.L. (1996). Service Marketing. New York,

NY: Harper Collins.

Ruyter, K., Bloemer, J., &Peeters, P. `Merging service quality and service satisfaction:

An empirical test of an integrative model. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18,

387-406.

Seilier, V.L. (2004). Examining Service Quality for homebuyers in the residential real

state brokerage industry. PhD thesis, Sydney: University of Western Sydney.

Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand

reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. European Journal of Marketing,27(9), 19-

35.

Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand

reputation, satisfaction and loyalty, European Journal of Marketing, 27(9), 19-35.

Seth, N., &Deshmukh, S.G. (2005). Service quality models: A review. International

Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 913-949.

Shahin, A. (2006). SERVQUAL and model of service quality gaps: A framework for

determining and prioritizing critical factors in delivering quality services. In

ParthaSarathy V. (Ed.), Service quality – Anintroduction (pp. 117-131). Andhra

Pradesh: ICFAI University Press.

71  
 
Spreng, R.A., &Mackoy, R.D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of

perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72 (2), 201-214.

Stevens, P., Knuston, B., & Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A tool for measuring

service quality in restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration

Quarterly, 36(2), 56-60.

Sulek, J. M.,& Hensley, R. L. (2004). The relative importance of food, atmosphere and

fairness or wait. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45

(3), 235-247.

Sureshchander, G.S., Rajendran, C., &Anatharaman, R.N. (2002). The relationship

between service quality and customer satisfaction: A factor specific approach.

Journal of Service Marketing, 16(4), 363-379.

Susskind, A. M., & Chan, E. K. (2000). How restaurant features affect check averages:

A study of the Toronto restaurant market. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

Administration Quarterly, 41 (6), 56-63.

Taghizadeh, H., Taghipourian, M.J., & Khazaei, A. (2012). The effect of customer

satisfaction on word of mouth communication. Research Journal of Applied

Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 5(8), 2569-2575.

72  
 
Tam, W.Y., & Yung, N.L.A. (2003). Managing customer for value in catering industry

(fast food) in Hong Kong. MBA thesis, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Tan, Q., Oriade, A., & Fallon, P. (2014). Service quality and customer satisfaction in

Chinese fast food sector: a proposal for CFFRSERV. Advances in Hospitality

and Tourism Research (AHTR), 2(1), 30-53.  

Thorsten, H. T., & Alexander, K. (1997). Theimpact of customer satisfaction

andrelationship quality on customerretention: a critical reassessment andmodel

development. Psychology&Marketing, 14(8), 737–764.

Tse, D.K., & Wilton, P.C. (1988). Models of consumer satisfaction formation: An

extension. Journal of Marketing Research, XVII, 460-469.

Urban, W. (2009). Service quality gaps and their role in service enterprises

development. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15(4),

631–645.

Van Iwaarden, J., van der Wiele, T., Ball, L., & Millen, R. (2003). Applying

SERVQUAL to web sites: An exploratory study. International Journal of

Quality & Reliability Management, 20(8), 919-935.

73  
 
Vavra, T. G. (1997). Improving your measurement of customer satisfaction: A guide to

creating, conducting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction

measurement programs. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ quality press.

Verhoef, P. C. (2003). Understanding the effect of customer relationship management

efforts on customer retention and customer share development.Journal of

marketing, 67(4), 30-45.

Wilson, A., Johns, R., Miller, K., & Pentecost, R. (2010). Presenting and using the

research results. In Marketing research: An integrated approach (pp. 243-259).

Retrieved from University of Canberra E-Reserve.

Wisniewski, M. (2001). Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public

sector services. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 380-388.

Wisniewski, M., & Donnelly, M. (1996). Measuring service quality in the public sector:

the potential for SERVQUAL. Total quality Management, 7(4), 357-365.

Yüksel, A., & Yüksel, F. (2002). Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant

services: A segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), 52-

68.  

74  
 
Zahari, W., Yusoff, W., & Ismail, M. (2008). FM-SERVQUAL: A new approach of

service quality measurement framework in local authorities. Journal of

Corporate Real Estate, 10(2), 130-144.

Zairi, M. (2000). Managing customerdissatisfaction through effectivecomplaint

management systems. TheTQM Magazine, 12(5), 331-335.

Zeithaml, V. (2000). Service quality, profitability and the economic worth of customers:

What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 28 (1), 67- 85.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering service quality:

Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York: The Free Press.

75  
 
 Appendices

Appendix I Service Quality Scale (English Version)

Dear Customer

The following questionnaire has been designed to estimate Service Loyalty, Customer
Satisfaction, and Service Quality of the restaurant you are eating at. Your point of view towards
the present status of the restaurant and its services will be presented to the managers of the
restaurant and it is hoped that your comments help the improvement of the services presented.

Thank you for participation.

Scoring Guide

1=Never/ little 2=Sometimes/alittle 3= Neutral 3=Much 5=Very much

‫ﻫﮬﮪھﺮﮔﺰ‬/ ‫ﺧﻴﯿﻠﯽ ﮐﻢ‬ ‫ﮐﻢ‬/‫ﮔﺎﻫﮬﮪھﯽ ﺍاﻭوﻗﺎﺕت‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮﯼی ﻧﺪﺍاﺭرﻡم‬ ‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩد‬ ‫ﺧﻴﯿﻠﯽ ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩد‬

Service Loyalty Scale 1 2 3 4 5

1 I say positive things about this restaurant to other people.

2 I Intend to continue eating here or buying form this restaurant.

3 I encourage friends and relatives to buy from this restaurant.

4 I seldom consider switching away from this restaurant.

5 I doubt that I would switch away from this restaurant.

6 I really like ordering food from this restaurant.

7 To me, this restaurant is clearly the best to do eat at.

8 I believe this restaurant is a good place.

9 I try to use this restaurant every time I want to eat out.

76  
 
10 I consider this restaurant my primary choice.

11 This restaurant is my first choice when I have guests.

12 This restaurant is my primary place when I want to use such services

(eating out, holding ceremonies, or in the anniversaries).

Customer Satisfaction Scale 1 2 3 4 5

13 Based on all of your experience, how satisfied overall are you with this
restaurant?

14 Based on all my experience, I am satisfied with the services I receive

here.

15 Compared to other restaurant in which you have received services, how

do like this restaurant?

16 In general I am satisfied with this restaurant.

Service Quality Scale 1 2 3 4 5

17 This restaurant is providing services as promised.

18 This restaurant is dependable in handling customer service problems.

19 This restaurant is performing services right first time.

20 This restaurant is providing services at the promised time.

21 This restaurant is keeping customers informed when service will be

provided.

22 This restaurant prompts and introduces services to the customer.

23 This restaurant is willing to help customers.

24 This restaurant is ready to respond to customers' requests.

25 Employees of the restaurant instill confidence in customers.

26 This restaurant makes customers feel safe in their transactions.

27 Employees are consistently courteous.

77  
 
28 Employees have the knowledge to answer customer questions.

29 This restaurant is giving customers individual attention.

30 Employees deal with customers in a caring fashion.

31 This restaurant is having the customers' best interests at heart.

32 Employees understand the needs of their customers.

33 This restaurant is open at convenient hours.

34 This restaurant has modem equipment.

35 This restaurant has visually appealing facilities.

36 Employees have a neat, professional appearance.

37 This restaurant has visually appealing foods associated with the service.

Factors items
Introducing 1, 3
Service Loyalty Scale Continuing 2,4,5,6,9
Evaluation 7,8,10,11,12
Service Quality Scale Presenting on time services 19,20,21,33
Accountability 17,18, 22,23,24,26,31
Decoration and Face validity 34,35,36,37,
Staff interaction 22,25,27,28,29,30,32,

78  
 
 ‫‪Appendix II‬‬ ‫)‪Service Quality Scale (Persian Version‬‬

‫ﻫﮬﮪھﺮﮔﺰ ‪1=/‬ﺧﻴﯿﻠﯽ ﮐﻢ‬ ‫ﮔﺎﻫﮬﮪھﯽ ﺍاﻭوﻗﺎﺕت‪/‬ﮐﻢ =‪2‬‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮﯼی ﻧﺪﺍاﺭرﻡم =‪3‬‬ ‫ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩد=‪3‬‬ ‫ﺧﻴﯿﻠﯽ ﺯزﻳﯾﺎﺩد =‪5‬‬

‫‪ ١۱‬ﻣﻥن ﺭرﺍاﺟﻊ ﺑﻪﮫ ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺗﻌﺭرﻳﯾﻑف ﺧﻭوﺏب ﻭو ﻣﺛﺑﺕت ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﻡم‬

‫‪ ٢۲‬ﻣﻥن ﺑﻪﮫ ﻏﺫذﺍا ﺧﻭوﺭرﺩدﻥن ﺑﻪﮫ ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺍاﺩدﺍاﻣﻪﮫ ﻣﻲ ﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﻡم ﻭو ﺍاﺯز ﺁآﻥن ﻏﺫذﺍا ﺗﻬﮭﻳﯾﻪﮫ ﻣﻲ ﻛﻧﻡم‪.‬‬
‫‪ ٣۳‬ﻣﻥن ﺩدﻭوﺳﺗﺎﻥن ﻭوﺍاﻗﻭوﺍاﻡم ﺭرﺍا ﺗﺷﻭوﻳﯾﻕق ﻣﻰ ﻛﻧﻡم ﺍاﺯز ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺧﺭرﻳﯾﺩد ﻛﻧﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٤‬ﺑﻪﮫ ﻧﺩدﺭرﺕت ﻓﻛﺭر ﻋﻭوﺽض ﻛﺭرﺩدﻥن ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺭرﺍا ﺑﺎ ﺟﺎﻳﯾﻲ ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻡم‬
‫‪ ٥‬ﻣﻥن ﺷﻙك ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻡم ﺑﺧﻭوﺍاﻫﮬﮪھﻡم ﻧﻅظﺭرﻡم ﺭرﺍا ﺩدﺭرﺑﺎﺭرﻩه ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻋﻭوﺽض ﻛﻧﻡم‬
‫‪ ٦‬ﻣﻥن ﻭوﺍاﻗﻌﺄ ﺩدﻭوﺳﺕت ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻡم ﺍاﺯز ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺳﻔﺎﺭرﺵش ﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﻡم‬
‫‪ ٧۷‬ﺑﻪﮫ ﻧﻅظﺭرﻡم ﻟﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﻬﮭﺗﺭرﻳﯾﻥن ﺟﺎﻱي ﺑﺭرﺍاﻱي ﻏﺫذﺍا ﺧﻭوﺭرﺩدﻥن ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ٨۸‬ﻣﻥن ﺑﺎﻭوﺭر ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻡم ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﻪﮫ ﻁطﻭوﺭر ﻭوﺍاﺿﺢ ﺑﻬﮭﺗﺭرﻳﯾﻥن ﺟﺎﻱي ﺑﺭرﺍاﻱي ﺧﻭوﺭرﺩدﻥن ﻏﺫذﺍا ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ٩۹‬ﻣﻥن ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﻡم ﺑﺭرﺍاﻱي ﻏﺫذﺍا ﺧﻭوﺭرﺩدﻥن ﺧﺎﺭرﺝج ﺍاﺯز ﺧﺎﻧﻪﮫ ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺭرﺍا ﺍاﻧﺗﺧﺎﺏب ﻛﻧﻡم‬
‫‪ ١۱٠۰‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺍاﻭوﻟﻳﯾﻥن ﺍاﻧﺗﺧﺎﺏب ﻣﻥن ﺩدﺭر ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻧﻬﮭﺎ ﺍاﺳﺕت ‪ ١۱١۱‬ﻭوﻗﺗﻲ ﻣﻬﮭﻣﺎﻥن ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻡم‪،٬‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺍاﻭوﻟﻳﯾﻥن‬
‫ﮔﺫذﻳﯾﻧﻪﮫ ﻣﻥن ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ١۱١۱‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﺭرﺍاﻱي ﻣﺭرﺍاﺳﻡم ﻭوﺟﺷﻥن ﻫﮬﮪھﺎ ﺩدﺭر ﺍاﻭوﻟﻭوﻳﯾﺕت ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ١۱٢۲‬ﻣﻥن ﺭرﺍاﺟﻊ ﺑﻪﮫ ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺗﻌﺭرﻳﯾﻑف ﺧﻭوﺏب ﻭو ﻣﺛﺑﺕت ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﻡم‬

‫‪ ١۱٣۳‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻣﺎﻡم ﺗﺟﺎﺭرﺑﻲ ﻛﻪﮫ ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻳﯾﺩد‪ ،٬‬ﭼﻘﺩدﺭر ﺍاﺯز ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺭرﺍاﺿﻲ ﺑﻭوﺩدﻳﯾﺩد؟‬
‫‪ ١۱٤‬ﺑﺎ ﻫﮬﮪھﻣﻪﮫ ﺗﺟﺭرﺑﻳﯾﺎﺗﻡم ‪ ،٬‬ﺍاﺯز ﺗﻣﺎﻡم ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺭرﺍاﺿﻲ ﺑﻭوﺩدﻡم‬
‫‪ ١۱٥‬ﺩدﺭر ﻣﻘﺎﻳﯾﺳﻪﮫ ﺑﺎ ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻫﮬﮪھﺎﻱي ﺩدﻳﯾﮕﺭر‪ ،٬‬ﺁآﻳﯾﺎ ﺍاﺯز ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺭرﺍاﺿﻲ ﺑﻭوﺩدﻳﯾﺩد؟‬
‫‪ ١۱٦‬ﻣﻥن ﺍاﺯز ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺩدﺭر ﻣﺟﻣﻭوﻉع ﺭرﺍاﺿﻲ ﻫﮬﮪھﺳﺗﻡم‬

‫‪ ١۱٧۷‬ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻁطﺑﻕق ﺗﻌﻬﮭﺩدﺍاﺗﺵش ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺭرﺍا ﺍاﻧﺟﺎﻡم ﻣﻳﯾﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﺩد‬

‫‪79  ‬‬
‫‪  ‬‬
 ‫‪ ١۱٨۸‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺩدﺭر ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻝل ﻣﺷﻛﻼﺕت ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻝل ﺍاﻋﺗﻣﺎﺩد ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ١۱٩۹‬ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺧﻭوﺩد ﺭرﺍا ﺩدﺭرﺳﺕت ﺍاﺯز ﺍاﻭوﻟﻳﯾﻥن ﺑﺎﺭر ﺍاﺟﺭرﺍا ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٠۰‬ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﻪﮫ ﻣﻭوﻗﻊ ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺭرﺍا ﺍاﺭرﺍاﺋﻪﮫ ﻣﻳﯾﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲١۱‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﺭرﺍا ﺍاﺯز ﺭرﻭوﻧﺩد ﺁآﻣﺎﺩدﻩه ﺷﺩدﻥن ﻭو ﺍاﺟﺭرﺍاﻱي ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﺑﺎ ﺧﺑﺭر ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٢۲‬ﺳﺭرﻭوﻳﯾﺱس ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﺩدﺭر ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﺎﻻ ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ٢۲٣۳‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻣﺎﻳﯾﻝل ﺑﻪﮫ ﻛﻣﻙك ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ٢۲٤‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺁآﻣﺎﺩدﻩه ﭘﺎﺳﺧﮕﻭوﻳﯾﻲ ﺑﻪﮫ ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻳﯾﺎﻥن ﺧﻭوﺩد ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٥‬ﻛﺎﺭرﻛﻧﺎﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻛﻡم ﻛﻡم ﺑﻪﮫ ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﺣﺱس ﺍاﻋﺗﻣﺎﺩدﻣﻲ ﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٦‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺍاﺣﺳﺎﺱس ﺍاﻣﻧﻳﯾﺕت ﺩدﺭر ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻼﺕت ﺧﻭوﺩد ﻣﻳﯾﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٧۷‬ﻛﺎﺭرﻛﻧﺎﻥن ﻫﮬﮪھﻣﻳﯾﺷﻪﮫ ﻣﻭوءﺩدﺏب ﻫﮬﮪھﺳﺗﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٨۸‬ﻛﺎﺭرﻛﻧﺎﻥن ﻣﻌﻠﻭوﻣﺎﺕت ﻻﺯزﻩه ﺭرﺍا ﺑﺭرﺍاﻱي ﭘﺎﺳﺧﮕﻭوﻳﯾﻲ ﺑﻪﮫ ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﺭرﺍا ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٢۲٩۹‬ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﻪﮫ ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻳﯾﺎﻥن ﺧﻭوﺩد ﺗﻭوﺟﻪﮫ ﻻﺯزﻣﻪﮫ ﺭرﺍا ﺩدﺍاﺭرﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳٠۰‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺑﺎ ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻳﯾﺎﻥن ﺑﻪﮫ ﺭرﻭوﺯز ﺳﺭرﻭوﻛﺎﺭرﺩدﺍاﺭرﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳١۱‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺩدﺭر ﺧﺷﻧﻭوﺩد ﻛﺭرﺩدﻥن ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﻭوﻅظﻳﯾﻔﻪﮫ ﺧﻭوﺩدﺭرﺍا ﺑﻪﮫ ﺩدﺭرﺳﺗﻲ ﺍاﻳﯾﻔﺎ ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳٢۲‬ﻛﺎﺭرﻛﻧﺎﻥن ﺩدﺭر ﺧﻭوﺍاﺳﺕت ﻭو ﺍاﺣﺗﻳﯾﺎﺟﺎﺕت ﻣﺷﺗﺭرﻱي ﺭرﺍا ﺑﺩدﺭرﺳﺗﻲ ﻣﻲ ﻓﻬﮭﻣﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳٣۳‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺩدﺭر ﺳﺎﻋﺎﺕت ﺧﻭوﺏب ﻭو ﻗﺎﺑﻝل ﺩدﺳﺗﺭرﺱس ﺑﺎﺯز ﺍاﺳﺕت‬
‫‪ ٣۳٤‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻭوﺳﺎﻳﯾﻝل ﺑﻪﮫ ﺭرﻭوﺯز ﺭرﺍا ﺍاﺳﺗﻔﺎﺩدﻩه ﻣﻲ ﻛﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳٥‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﺍاﻣﻛﺎﻧﺎﺕت ﺟﺎﻟﺑﻲ ﺭرﺍا ﻓﺭرﺍاﻫﮬﮪھﻡم ﻣﻳﯾﻛﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳٦‬ﻛﺎﺭرﻛﻧﺎﻥن ﻅظﺎﻫﮬﮪھﺭر ﻣﺭرﺗﺏب ﻭو ﺑﺎ ﻣﺣﺎﺭرﺕت ﺩدﺍاﺭرﻧﺩد‬
‫‪ ٣۳٧۷‬ﺍاﻳﯾﻥن ﺭرﺳﺗﻭوﺭرﺍاﻥن ﻏﺫذﺍاﻫﮬﮪھﺎﻱي ﺟﺎﻟﺑﻲ ﻣﻳﯾﺩدﻫﮬﮪھﺩد‬

‫‪80  ‬‬
‫‪  ‬‬