A Comparison of Service Quality Attributes For Stand-Alone and Resort-Based Luxury Hotels in Macau PDF

Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman
A comparison of service quality attributes for stand-alone and

resort-based luxury hotels in Macau: 3-Dimensional importanceperformance analysis
Ivan Ka Wai Lai a, *, Michael Hitchcock b
a
b
School of Business and Hospitality Management, Caritas Institute of Higher Education, Tseung Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong
Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, UK
h i g h l i g h t s
Establish a new service measurement scale for luxury hotels.
Integrate importance-performance analysis approach with the three-factor theory.
Develop a 3-dimensional importance-performance analysis approach.
Compare service quality gaps between stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotels.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 8 October 2014
Received in revised form
9 January 2016
Accepted 18 January 2016
Available online xxx
As tourism took off in Macau, more luxury hotels were constructed to satisfy demand, many of them
located in leisure resort complexes. This study uses the case of luxury hotels in Macau to examine the
importance of specic characteristics in leisure resorts using a 3-dimensional importance-performance
analysis (3-D IPA) approach that integrates the IPA approach with the three-factor theory. A new service quality measurement scale was developed and a total of 299 visitors staying overnight in the luxury
hotels in Macau were surveyed. The results reveal the types (basic, excitement, and performance) of 45
service attributes in the 3-D IPA cube for stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotels. This study indicates
a variation of types of three factors for service attributes may occur in different market segments. This
study contributes a new service measurement scale for luxury hotels and 3-D IPA approach for researchers to conduct future studies.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Service quality measurement scale
Luxury hotel
Importance-performance analysis
Three-factor theory
1. Introduction
Macau is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's
Republic of China, which was created in 1999, following the
handover of this former Portuguese territory to China. Following
the return of Macau, the service sector expanded rapidly
(Humborstad, Humborstad, Whiteld, & Perry, 2008) and the SAR
government set a clear policy direction whereby tourism, gaming,
conventions, and exhibitions were to be the head, and the service
industry the body, responsible for driving the overall development
of other industries (Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ilai@cihe.edu.hk
(M. Hitchcock).
(I.K.W.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.007
0261-5177/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Lai),
m.hitchcock@gold.ac.uk
2006). In 2014, Macau received 31.52 million visitors, though it is

difcult in practice to disaggregate tourists from people traveling to
work and cross-border traders who may move in and out across the
frontier between China and Macau many times a day (Macau
Tourism Industry Net, 2015). Macau has 104 hotels offering over
31,700 hotel rooms with an average occupancy rate of 84.6 percent
in 2015. In all, near 30 percent are 5-star hotels (30 hotels) and
many of them are located in leisure resort complexes (such as City
of Dreams) that house casinos and offer a variety of entertainment
such as acrobatic shows and cabarets. As a major tourism destination, Macau has both stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotels
and thus makes an ideal destination in which to study how these
different kinds of hospitality providers differentiate themselves in
the market. Stand-alone hotels are usually focused on hospitality
operations, though they may offer limited other facilities such as
travel agents and small retail outlets. Their turnover needs not be
140
I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159
smaller than a resort-based hotel, though the overall size of the

operation is modest when compared with a whole resort. They may
target guests who are not as interested in having a range of attractions under one roof and who may ultimately have more
diverse holiday tastes involving visits to heritage sites and museums, and seeking out highly rated restaurants which may or may
not be stand-alone or located in resort complexes. The focus enables them to have a tighter control over service quality relating to
hospitality than the resort-based hotels that are engaged in more
diverse operations. The market for stand-alone hotels is smaller
than that of resort-based ones who commonly have many thousands of rooms, but not all guests want to stay in such large hotels,
perhaps because of the perceived lack of a personal touch. In
contrast, resort-based hotels have access to considerably larger
revenue streams and can make use of the huge marketing capabilities of the resorts; both kinds of hotels have their advantages
and disadvantages and there is no evidence as yet to suggest that
one or other of the models will prevail at the expense of the other.
Since hotels serve different market segments catering to customers
with different expectations of service (Heung & Wong, 1997), then
it is reasonable to assume that different service quality models
should be developed for different market segments. Because many
Asian countries have already legalized or are planning to legalize
casinos, then complexes of the kind found in Macau offering hospitality, gaming and entertainment are becoming established
elsewhere, notably in Singapore and Vietnam. Therefore, there is a
need to develop a service quality measurement model suitable for
the fast-growing upscale hotel market sector, especially with regard to resort-based luxury hotels.
In terms of service quality, importance-performance analysis
(IPA) is a popular tool for understanding customer satisfaction and
prioritizing service quality improvement. Martilla and James (1977)
introduced this approach in which the importance and performance of each attribute are plotted on a two-dimensional grid that
comprises four quadrants, each representing four marketing strategies. Over the years, some researchers have identied various
shortcomings in the original IPA model (Azzopardi & Nash, 2013;
Bacon, 2003; Oh, 2001) and some have offered different IPA
methods for addressing some of those shortcomings (e.g., Abalo,
Varela, & Rial, 2006; Mikulic & Prebezac, 2012). One of the most
critical observations is that quality attributes should fall into three
categories e basic, excitement, and performance e in accordance
with Kano's (1984) three-factor theory. Also, in the original IPA
approach, it was assumed that the relationship between performance and overall satisfaction is linear and symmetrical and thus
all quality attributes would produce overall satisfaction when the
performance was high and overall dissatisfaction when the performance was low. However, Matzler, Pechlaner, and Siller (2001)
argued that relationship between performance and overall satisfaction is nonlinear and asymmetrical for basic and excitement
attributes; basic attributes are crucial when performance is low and
are non-crucial when performance is high. Also excitement factors
are critical when performance is high and are non-critical when
performance is low (Deng, Kuo, & Chen, 2008a) leading to a revision of the IPA approach to resolve these contradictions (e.g., Fallon
& Schoeld, 2006; Matzler, Bailom, Hinterhuber, Renzl, & Pichler,
2004). However, these revisions were not widely accepted and
were not commonly applied in further research as compared with
the original IPA approach. One of the reasons is that most threefactor theory IPA approaches used complicated methods to measure implicit importance; researchers never considered the relationships among explicit importance and actual performance
which together comprise a critical and commonly accepted IPA
measurement dimension. Thus this study integrates the concept of
three-factor theory with the IPA approach in an alternative way; it
develops a 3-dimensional IPA (3-D IPA) approach that extends the

original two-dimensional (explicit importance and actual performance) grid with the third dimension (implicit importance) in order to measure service quality gaps using a newly developed
service quality measurement scale designed for luxury hotels.
The development of large-scale leisure resort complexes is an
important trend within tourism, especially in Asia, but it does not
necessarily mean that stand-alone luxury hotels will be supplanted
by them, especially not in the short term; however, there is no
doubt that there is competition between these two varieties.
Therefore, the means by which stand-alone luxury hotels differentiate themselves in order to avoid direct competition with resortbased luxury hotels has become a matter that merits further
investigation. Fller and Matzler (2008) argued that different roles
of basic, excitement, and performance factors should exist in
different market segments and they showed that these three factors vary signicantly among different lifestyle groups. As Macau
has both kinds of luxury hotel complexes, it provides a good opportunity to compare and contrast the roles of basic, excitement,
and performance factors between stand-alone and resort-based
luxury hotels. This investigation not only aims to provide practical recommendations for luxury hotel operators to adapt their
service quality strategies for markets, but also investigates how the
three factors play different roles in different market segments even
when the segmentation gap is relatively minor. The results of the
study will also provide guidance for the allocation of resources on
how to delight customers in different segments and will contribute
to the understanding the three-factor theory in market segmentation as comparatively little research has been conducted on this
area.
The aims of the study are to (1) develop a service quality measurement scale for the luxury hotel sector, (2) to extend the IPA
approach for measuring service quality gaps in the luxury hotel
sector, and (3) to compare service quality gaps between standalone and resort-based luxury hotels. After reviewing the literature on basic IPA techniques, the three-factor theory IPA models,
and service quality measurement models for hotels, the development of new quality measurement scale for luxury hotels and a 3-D
IPA approach will be explained. A survey by questionnaire was
conducted with guests staying in luxury hotels in Macau. The results of survey were analyzed by 3-D IPA and provide insights for
stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotel operators to help design
their service quality strategies in order to enhance their service
quality with the ultimate aim of attracting and retaining customers.
Also, this study contributes a new service quality measurement
scale for luxury hotels and 3-D IPA approach for researchers to
perform their further studies.
2. Literature review
2.1. Importance-performance analysis techniques
IPA was rst introduced by Martilla and James (1977) as a
framework for analyzing product attributes in order to identify
critical performance attributes for products and/or services. It
became a popular managerial tool, especially in the eld of tourism.
For example, Hollenhorst and Gardner (1994) created recommendations for management based on IPA in the U.S. tourism industry.
IPA begins with the development of a list of attributes on which the
evaluation is carried out. Based on the list, a survey questionnaire
can be developed using Likert or other numerical scales to measure
the scores of performance and importance of each attribute in the
list. The calculated mean performance and importance scores are
subsequently used as coordinates for plotting individual attributes
in two-dimensions with the attribute performance on the x-axis
and the attribute importance on the y-axis (Sampson & Showalter,

1999). As shown in Fig. 1, the IPA map is graphically presented as
grid divided into four quadrants. Different strategies are proposed
to handle attributes in different quadrants. Attributes in the
concentrate here quadrant are perceived as important and indicate where performance is insufcient. Attributes in keep up the
good work quadrant are both important and are being performed
well. Attributes in low priority quadrant are of low importance
and only of limited performance. Attributes in possible overkill
have the attributes of high performance and low importance.
One of the most critical arguments is the adoption of direct
assessment methods that cause uniformly high importance ratings.
Abalo, Varela, and Manzano (2007) suggested the development of
indirect measures of importance helps to circumvent the above
problem. The most common indirect method is the use of standardized regression coefcients obtained by multivariate regression of attribute-level importance ratings over the overall
satisfaction rating given to the product or service (Dolinsky &
Caputo, 1991; Matzler & Sauerwein, 2002; Matzler et al., 2004).
However, this method may provide negative effects for some attributes (Mittal, Ross, & Baldasare, 1998; Sethna, 1982) and may
have the problem of collinearity (Bacon, 2003; Danaher, 1997).
Another common indirect method is correlation analysis (O'Leary &
Adams, 1982; Deng et al., 2008a). No paper thus far has shown
which method is superior to the others.
2.2. Three-factors theory and revised IPA approach
According to Oliver's (1980) expectation-disconrmation theory, satisfaction is formed by way of a cognitive comparison of
perceived performance of a product or service and the expectations
the customer had before purchase. Therefore, a quality attribute
produces satisfaction when its performance is higher than its
expectation and dissatisfaction when its performance is lower than
its expectation. Although this expectation-disconrmation theory
was widely adopted in service quality research over three decades,
some researchers have argued that the three-factor structure of
customer satisfaction should be utilized (Anderson, Fornell, &
Mazvancheryl, 2004; Berman, 2005; Fller, Matzler, & Faullant,
2006; Oliver, 1997). The three-factor theory was rst formulated
by Kano (1984) and scholars eventually extended this approach to
customer satisfaction studies and to distinguish three satisfaction
factors that contribute differently to overall customer satisfaction
(Matzler & Sauerwein, 2002). They stated that the basic factors are
minimum requirements which, if not fullled, produce consumer
Fig. 1. Original IPA approach (adapted from Martilla & James, 1977).
141
dissatisfaction, but do not result in customer satisfaction when

fullled or exceeded; in other words poor performance for these
attributes has a greater impact on satisfaction than good performance. On the other hand, excitement factors are attributes that
increase customer satisfaction when delivered, but cause no
dissatisfaction when not delivered; good performance for these
attributes has a stronger inuence on consumer satisfaction than
poor performance. Performance factors lead to satisfaction if performance is high and lead to dissatisfaction if performance is low;
performance for these attributes has a linear correlation with
customer satisfaction. Fig. 2 shows the three-factor structure of
customer satisfaction.
Some researchers revised the IPA model in order to address this
issue arguing that basic factors are similar to must-be quality elements and that performance factors are similar to onedimensional quality elements, and excitement factors are similar
to attractive quality elements. Therefore, the IPA map was extended
to become a three-factor theory measure (Fallon & Schoeld, 2006).
The basic rule of strategic actions for three-factor theory IP map is
as follows: fulll all basic factors, be competitive with regard to
performance factors, and stand out from the competition with regard to excitement factors (Matzler et al., 2004). Table 1 summarizes the studies conducted in the three-factor approach to IPA. This
summary reveals that researchers used different methods to
calculate the implicit importance and then plotted the IPA matrix
using implicit importance versus actual performance (e.g., Deng
et al., 2008a; Matzler et al., 2004; Pezeshki, Mousavi, & Grant,
2009) or classied three factors by mapping implicit importance
with explicit importance (e.g., Fallon & Schoeld, 2006; Matzler &
Sauerwein, 2002; Matzler, Sauerwein, & Heischmidt, 2003). They
have not considered the relationship between explicit importance
and actual performance that is widely accepted in IPA studies. Also,
comparatively little research has been conducted in this area recent
years, especially with regard to the hospitality and tourism.
2.3. Service quality measurement models for hotels
nroos (1984), as a pioneer of service quality research, sugGro
gested that service quality is consumers' perceived service quality
and dened it as the outcome of an evaluation process in which the
consumer compares his/her expectations with the service s-he
perceives and has received. He identied two dimensions of the
Fig. 2. Kano's model of customer satisfaction (adapted from Kano, 1984).
142
Table 1
Three-factor theory IPA studies.
Authors
Industry
Sample
size
No. of
Methods
attributes
Matzler & Hiterbuber (1998) Skis
Haven't
10
mentioned
Matzler and Sauerwein

(2002)
Hospital IT
department
171
Matzler et al. (2003)
Bank service
153
12
Aigbedo and Parameswaran Campus food

(2004)
service
Matzler et al. (2004)
Automotive
298
20
259
Fallon and Schoeld (2006) Destination
467
22
Deng (2007)
Hot spring hotels
412
20
Deng (2008)
Hot spring hotels
412
20
Deng, Chen, and Pei (2008b) Hot spring hotels
412
20
Deng et al. (2008a)
Hot spring hotels
412
20
Fller and Matzler (2008)
Ski resorts
6172
34
Deng and Pei (2009)
Hot spring hotels
412
20
Pezeshki et al. (2009)
Mobile
270
telecommunication
Alegre and Garau (2011)
Sun and send

destinations
1786
24
Caber, Albayrak, & Loiacono Travel agency

(2013)
336
26
Kaviania, Abbasib, Yuseb,

and Zareinejada (2014)
82
Cement industry
Using mathematical formula to calculate customer satisfaction coefcient and customer

satisfaction coefcient
Graph: satisfaction vs dissatisfaction
Implicit importance was calculated using a multiple regression analysis with overall satisfaction
The classication of the factors was based on the matrix (explicit importance vs implicit
importance)
Implicit importance was calculated using partial correlation with overall satisfaction
Classication of the factors was based on the matrix (explicit importance vs implicit importance)
Partial ranking equations and congruence metrics for importance-performance grid
Implicit importance was measured using a multiple regression analysis with overall satisfaction
The sample was grouped into satised (7e10 on the satisfaction scale) and dissatised (1e6 on
the satisfaction scale) customers. Then, for both groups the IPA matrix was constructed
IPA matrix: actual performance vs implicit importance
The derived importance was measured using a multiple regression analysis with overall
satisfaction
IPA matrix: derived importance vs direct importance
Implicit importance was measured using partial correlation with overall satisfaction
Fuzzy theory based performance was calculated using average triangular fuzzy number to
customer perceptions of attribute performances and overall customer satisfaction
Implicitly derived importance was measured using partial correlation with overall satisfaction
IPA matrix: fuzzy set theory based performance vs implicitly derived importance
The implicit importance was calculated using back-propagation neural network
Implicit importance was measured using partial correlation with overall satisfaction
IPA matrix: performance ratio vs implicit importance
The sample was grouped into highly satised and lowly satised customers.
Dissatised coefcient and satised coefcient were calculated using a multiple regression
analysis with overall satisfaction.
The classication of the factors was based on the ratio of satised coefcient and dissatised
coefcient.
Penalty-reward analysis
Fuzzy theory based performance was calculated using average triangular fuzzy number to
customer perceptions of attribute performances and overall customer satisfaction
Implicitly derived importance was calculated using back-propagation neural network
IPA matrix: fuzzy theory based performance vs implicitly derived importance
Statistically inferred importance was measured using a multiple regression analysis with overall
satisfaction
Implicit importance values were obtained by the partial correlation coefcients between overall
satisfaction
The classication of the factors was based on the matrix (explicit importance vs implicit
importance)
The coefcients of satisfaction for penalty-reward analysis were obtained using the results of a
regression model where overall satisfaction
Asymmetric impact-performance analysis was performed by a multiple regression analysis with
overall satisfaction
Impact-Performance matrix: impact asymmetry vs actual performance
Applied fuzzy analytical AHP method to measure the relative importance
IPA matrix: relative importance vs actual performance
Remark: AHP e Analytic Hierarchy Process, IPA e Importanceeperformance analysis.
service quality construct including technical quality and functional

quality (how the service is delivered). Zeithaml, Berry, and
Parasuraman (1988) stated that service quality is the consumer's
assessment of the overall excellence or superiority of the service.
He identied four unique characteristics of service quality such as
intangibility, the inseparability of production and consumption,
heterogeneity, and perishability. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry
(1985) used ten terms to describe the service encounter including
reliability, responsiveness, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding, and tangibles. They further reduced
these ten terms to ve dimensions including tangibles, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. These ve dimensions
became the most widely used measurement scale known as
SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
In the early 1990s, Fick and Ritchie (1991) measured service
quality in the travel and tourism industry using SERVQUAL and

identied the ve dimensions of service quality for hotel services as
being: reliability, assurance, tangibles, responsiveness, and
empathy. Then, Cronin and Taylor (1992) proposed a similar
performance-based service quality model (SERVPERF) for services
research. At the same time, Knutson, Stevens, Wullaert, Patton, and
Yokoyama (1990) extended SERVQUAL to LODGSERV (26 items) for
the measurement of service quality in the hotel industry. The results of their study on service quality in U.S. hotels indicated that
reliability is the most important dimension, followed in turn by
assurance, responsiveness, tangibles, and empathy. Later on, Heung
and Wong (1997) employed LODGSERV to measure guests' expectations of service quality for hotels in Hong Kong and compared the
service expectations of business and leisure visitors. They found
that responsiveness and empathy are more important to business
travelers than leisure travelers. Mok and Armstrong (1998) used

SERVQUAL to examine the expectations of hotel service quality in a
cross-cultural context. They concluded that there are signicant
differences in two expectation dimensions (tangibles and empathy)
among guests from different countries with visitors from the U.K.
having the highest overall expectations. Mei, Dean, and White
(1999) used the SERVQUAL instrument as a foundation and developed a new scale they named HOLSERV (44 items) to examine the
dimensions of service quality in the hotel industry in Australia.
They concluded that service quality is represented by three dimensions in the hotel industry relating to employees, tangibles,
and reliability; the best predictor of overall service quality is the
dimension referred to as employees, followed in turn by tangibles
and reliability (ibid.). Other researchers further revised and
extended these models based on SERVQUAL, LODGSERV, and
HOLSERV for their studies in different types of hotels in different
countries, such as: Getty and Getty's (2003) study in U.S.A.;
Juwaheer's
(2004)
study
in
Mauritius;
Albacete-Saes,
ns-Montes's (2007) study of rural acFuenteseFuentes, and Llore
commodation in Spain; and Ladhari's (2009) study in Canada. Some
of them focused on studying service quality measurement models
for luxury hotels such as: Mei et al.s (1999) study in Australia; Min,
Min, and Chung's (2002) study in Korea; Presbury, Fitzgerald, and
Chapman's (2005) study in Sydney; Wilkins, Merrilees, and
Herington's (2007) study in Queensland; and Mohsin and
Lockyer's (2010) study in New Delhi. Since the business environment for the hotel industry is constantly changing, the quality
measurement scales for hotels should be updated to reect the new
environment.
The literature reveals that few studies of quality measurement
scales for resort hotels have been conducted, presumably because
resort hotels were not especially numerous or popular in the 1990s.
The earliest study of a resort hotel was in Ekinci, Riley, and FifeSchaw's (1998) study of seaside resorts in Turkey. They combined
SERVQUAL with LODGSERV items and reduced the measurement
items from 47 to 38. After performing factor analysis, they further
reduced the nal instrument from 38 to 18 items in 5 dimensions.
Recently, Akbaba (2006) searched for additional dimensions that
could be included in the SERVQUAL model applied in business
hotels in the international environment. She identied ve service
quality dimensions (29 items) and her ndings revealed that
business travelers had the highest expectations for the dimension
of convenience following in turn by assurance, tangibles, adequacy in service supply, and understanding and caring.
Ramsaran-Fowdar (2007) used SERVQUAL as a foundation and
developed a service quality questionnaire (59 items) for the hotel
industry in Mauritius. She conducted in-depth interviews with 32
tourists over a period of two months to probe their needs and the
services they hoped to obtain from their hotels. She found two
additional quality dimensions, namely core hotel benets and
hotel technologies and a few additional items within each of the
generic quality dimensions. However, neither she nor other researchers have tested this service quality measurement model
through statistical processes like factor analysis and so whether or
not this model can be applied reliably remains questionable.
Nowadays, resort-based luxury hotels have become more important in terms of the economic receipts from tourism, but the literature reveals an absence of quality measurement scales suitable for
this kind of hospitality provision.
3. Research method
3.1. Scale development
The rst step of this study was to develop a quality
143
measurement scale for the luxury hotel sector. Although many researchers developed various service quality measurement models
for the hotel industry, there was no research which measured the
service quality in the luxury hotels that are located in leisure resort
complexes surrounded by casinos and other amenities. Thus, this
study addresses this gap through developing a model based on
Ramsaran-Fowdar's (2007) questionnaire because her questionnaire had a rich source of measurement items which had yet to be
tested. In order to update Ramsaran-Fowdar's scale and to ensure
its contemporary relevance, an expert panel consultation was
conducted with 4 industry experts to validate and improve her
service quality measurement scale. After an expert panel consultation meeting in early February 2012, 4 measurement items were
removed and 7 additional measurement items were amended. The
provision of clean beaches, the provision of beach facilities, the
availability of non-smoking areas in restaurants, and reasonable
restaurant/bar prices were removed because hotels in Macau
commonly do not have beaches and all restaurants in Macau are
non-smoking; also, restaurant price is a measurement of value
rather than service quality. The seven additional measurement
items were dened as belonging to the dimension of entertainment which is an important feature of leisure resorts. Measurable
items for entertainment include: casinos, variety shows (such as
concerts), recreation and therapy (such as spas), shopping centers,
acrobatic performances (such as the House of Dancing Water),
convention and exhibition centers, and other tourist attractions.
The measurement model that emerged comprised 62 measurable
items (as shown in Table 3).
3.2. Questionnaire design
A questionnaire survey was used in order to ascertain guests'
expectations of the service quality provided by luxury hotels in
Macau. The questionnaire included one lter question and four
sections. The lter question was used to conrm whether or not the
respondents would be staying overnight in luxury hotels. Respondents were asked to rate the level of importance before their
actual experience of the hotel's service among 62 items based on
their expectations along a 7-point Likert-type scale, with 1 set as
strongly unimportant, 4 set as average, and 7 set as strongly
important (in section 1 of the questionnaire). The use of 7-point
Likert-type scale was based on Lai and Hitchcock's (2015) guidelines for conducting IPA studies. A day or a few days later, respondents were asked to rate the level of performance among 62
items based on their actual experiences of enjoying the hotel's
services along a 7-point Likert-type scale, with 1 set as very poor
performance, 4 set as average, and 7 set as excellent performance
(in section 2 of the questionnaire). Section 3 inquires into contextual general background information, and section 4 is used to
measure the overall satisfaction with the hotel services encountered. The overall satisfaction was measured through three items
(satised with the services, expectations, and satised with experience) adapted from Maxham and Netemeyer (2002) and the
American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) model from Fornell,
Johnson, Anderson, Cha, and Bryant (1996). Table A1 in the Appendix shows the questionnaire design.
3.3. 3-Dimensional IPA approach
In accordance with Vavra's (1997) importance gridding
approach, basic, excitement, and performance factors could be
distinguished by comparing explicit importance scores relating to
specic service attributes with implicit importance scores as shown
in Fig. 3. Vavra (ibid.) stated that excitement factors in surveys tend
to obtain low importance scores but show a high (implicit)
144
Fig. 3. Importance grid (adapted from Vavra, 1997).
inuence on overall satisfaction; however, basic factors are rated

high but have little inuence on overall satisfaction; performance
factors show coinciding explicit and implicit importance scores.
This study integrates Vavra's (1997) importance grid with the
IPA grid to create a 3-D IPA cube as shown in Fig. 4. The grand
means of explicit importance, implicit importance, and actual
performance were calculated for the cross-points in the 3-D IPA
cube. The levels of actual performance were divided into four levels
as very low, low, high, and very high and attributes were placed
in sixteen regions, as shown in Table 2. Different strategic actions
were recommended according to the combined natures of the attributes. For the performance factors, the strategic actions were the
same as in the original IPA approach. However, for the basic factors,
in which the level of performance was very high or high, it was
recommended that managers should reduce and slightly reduce
their resources to average performance levels rather than keeping
up the good work because exceeded performance does not increase
customer satisfaction. For the basic factors in which the level of
performance is low, it is suggested that a low priority be given to
improving performance to an average level. For the excitement
factors in which the level of performance is high, it is still necessary to place a low priority on efforts to improve them rather than
reduce their resources. This is because there is still room for
increasing satisfaction. There are two strategic actions for the
excitement factors in which the level of performance is low or
Fig. 4. 3-D IPA approach.
very low. If rms have sufcient resources, it is recommended that

they make more effort to improve or largely improve their performance to an above average performance level. It is because
consumers will only be satised when the level of performance of
excitement attributes exceeds the average level. On the other hand,
if rms only have limited resources, rms should utilize their resources more effectively and they should concentrate their efforts
to improve the performance of performance factors and keep the
performance of these excitement factors at the current level. This is
because little improvement for excitement factors under average
performance level does not increase satisfaction and just wastes
the rm's resources.
The explicit importance is a self-stated measure and the implicit
importance is a relative measure. Researchers can either perform
multiple regression analysis or partial correlation to obtain implicit
importance ratings. With reference to Lai and Hitchcock's (2015)
guidelines, the importance attributes in this study are independent variables and overall satisfaction is a dependent variable.
Partial correlation was employed because there are a large number
of attributes and thus the results of multiple regressions may
dominate few attributes (in which coefcients are very large)
thereby causing other attributes fall into the low implicit importance area. Furthermore, the correlation between the importance of
each attribute and overall satisfaction is independent of other
correlations; thus using a partial correlation is more appropriate in
this case because partial correlation only measures the degree of
association between two variables, so partial correlation analysis is
more suitable than regression analysis for quantifying the inuence
of independent variables on dependent variables (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1995). Furthermore, it does not in practice
require normally distributed variates for computing Pearson's
correlation coefcient (Nefzger & Drasgow, 1957; Rodgers &
Nicewander, 1988; Yule & Kendall, 1950), but regression analysis
requires relatively normal data (Taylor, 1997).
3.4. Data collection
In this study, the questionnaire was checked by two professors
to ascertain whether there are misunderstandings or ambiguities
and to check for content validity. In order to evaluate the readability
of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted with 30 guests at
the beginning of March 2012. Although the questionnaire was long,
most of the respondents patiently completed the questionnaire
within 30 min. The feedback from the respondents indicated that
the questionnaire was appropriate. Respondents could rate the
importance of luxury hotel services even they did not have experience of some of them. However, respondents could not rate the
performance of some luxury hotel services that they had not
experienced. Thus, an option no experience was added in rating
the level of performance. The rst interviewer-administered survey
was conducted at Starbucks in four luxury hotels in Macau from
March to May 2012. However, it was observed that this data
collection setting might cause a common bias because respondents
were asked to rate the performance section just after nishing the
importance section, although respondents found it hard to
memorize the rates of 62 measurable items in previous importance
section. In the light of this observation, the data collection setting
was revised for the second survey from August 2013 to January
2014.
In order to reduce the methodological bias, respondents were
asked to rate the levels of importance and levels of performance at
different periods of time (before and after experiencing hotel services). The interviewers collected data in 13 locations including the
Gongbei-Macau border gate, the two ferry terminals, and ten hotel
lobbies. Interviewers stayed in each location for one to two weeks
145
Table 2
3-D IPA resources allocation.
Actual
performance
Explicit
importance
Implicit
importance
Three-factor
theory
Original IPA
approach
Resources
allocation
Very High
Very High
Very High
Very High
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Performance
Basic
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Keep
Keep
Reduce
Reduce
Keep
Keep
Reduce
Reduce
Improve
Improve
Keep
Reduce
Keep
Reduce
Keep
Slightly reduce
Low priority
Reduce
Improve
Low priority
Low
Low
High
Excitement
Low priority
Keep/Improve*
Low
Very Low
Very Low
Very Low
Low
High
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
Performance
Performance
Basic
Excitement
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Low priority
Very Low
Low
Low
Performance
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Keep/Largely
improve*
Low priority
Reasons for proposed resources allocation
Reduction to average performance level will not affect satisfaction

Retain level of satisfaction
Reduction to average performance level will not affect satisfaction

Still have room to increase satisfaction
Little improvement is sufcient to reach average performance

level
Satisfaction only can be increased when services are provided
above average level
Satisfaction only can be increased when services are provided

above average level
Remark: *depend on the availability of the resources.
from 11:00 to 19:00 and selected one respondent every 30 min. A

printed list that included 22 ve-star hotels was shown to the
respondent and a lter question will you lodge in the hotel in the
list? was asked to conrm whether or not the respondent would
experience a stay in a target luxury hotel. The well-trained interviewers also assessed other selection criteria through observation such as whether the respondents were over 18 years old to
avoid any ethical issues. If they were a bit unsure, then they would
ask the respondents to conrm their eligibility for the study. The
survey setting helped to reduce discrepancies in the guests' perceptions and experiences in few hotels and the results showed that
all ve-star hotels have been covered. Qualied respondents were
then asked to rate the importance among 62 items for luxury hotels
in Macau (not the hotel they planned to stay in). A cookies coupon
(USD2.5) was given to those who completed rating the importance
of 62 attributes (section 1 of the questionnaire). Interviewers would
assign a code for each questionnaire following the completion of
section 1. They then gave respondents another questionnaire with
same code that consists of section 2e4 in which section 2 measures
the actual performance of 62 attributes for each hotel that respondents have experienced. Section 3 contains the respondent's
information, and section 4 consists of 3 measurable items of overall
customer satisfaction. The reason for this is to ensure that respondents would not be inuenced by previous importance ratings
when rating the performance of the hotel services. This change
shortened the rst surveying time from 30 min to 15 min. Respondents could return the questionnaire to the interviewers in the
hotel lobbies after checking out or at the border gate and ferry
terminals when leaving Macau. A souvenir (USD2.5) was given for
those who completed sections 2e4. A total of 705 sets of questionnaire were distributed, but only 324 sets of completed questionnaire were collected. However, 25 incomplete questionnaires
were eliminated, leaving 299 questionnaires as valid for analysis.
The median for all the sample sizes of similar studies listed in
Table 1 is 284. So the sample size of this study is adequate.
a bachelor's degree. Respondents with a monthly income below

US$1000 accounted for 33.77 percent and followed by
US$1000e2999 (25.08 percent). Detailed information on the sample description is presented in Table A2 in the Appendix.
4. Findings
4.1. Scale purication
An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on importance attributes using SPSS version 16 to examine the dimensionality of the 62 items using principal components analysis with
Varimax rotation. The initial value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is
0.904. The KMO value indicates that patterns of correlations are
relatively compact. Also, Bartlett's test is highly signicant (pvalue < 0.001) and therefore, EFA is appropriate (Hair, Black, Babin,
& Anderson, 2010). After seven cycles of decreasing the number of
factors retained, 17 measurement items were removed and 45
measurement items were retained. Table 3 shows the results of EFA.
The remaining 45 items have high loadings (0.564e0.873) on their
own factors and have low cross-loadings. The nal KMO is 0.896.
The 45 retained measurement items are distributed into seven
components that represent approximately 67.5% of the total variance (see Tables A4 and A5 in the Appendix). The scree plot shows
that seven components are an appropriate solution (see Fig. A1 in
the Appendix). The percentage of variance for the rst factor is 32.6
and the ratio of the rst and second eigenvalue is 3.12 (less than
four) (shown in Table 4A in the Appendix), so the issue of unidimensionality is not present (Gorsuch, 1985). These seven dimensions are cataloged as basic (tangible), reliability, assurance,
empathy, environment, technology, and entertainment. The
results of EFA provided evidence of construct validity and convergent for rening new attributes in IPA studies (Lai & Hitchcock,
2015).
4.2. Construct reliability and validity
3.5. Demographic information

The sample consisted of 148 males (49.50 percent) and 151 females (50.50 percent) guests. The majority of respondents
(52.51 percent) were between the ages of 20e29. In all,
17.39 percent held a master's degree and higher, 34.78 percent held
Table 3 shows the standardized factor-loading of all retained

items and the Cronbach's alpha values of seven new dimensions.
The reliability of this study is considered acceptable (Hair et al.,
2010) because all the Cronbach's alpha values of seven new dimensions exceed 0.7 (0.854e0.951). For construct validity, Average
Table 3
Reliability and construct validity.
Basic (Tangible) (Cronbach's Alpha 0.843, AVE 0.535, CR 0.873)

Q1 Modern and comfortable furniture
Q2 Appealing interior and exterior hotel decoration
Q3 Attractive lobby
Q4 Cleanliness and comfort of rooms
Q5 Spaciousness of rooms
Q6 Hygienic bathrooms and toilets
Reliability (Cronbach's Alpha 0.941, AVE 0.505, CR 0.929)
Q13 Staff performing services right the rst time
Q14 Performing the services at the time promised
Q15 Well-trained and knowledgeable staff
Q16 Experienced staff
Q17 Staff with good communication skills
Q18 Accuracy in billing
Q22 Timely housekeeping services
Q23 Availability of transport facilities
Q24 Reliable message service
Q25 Willingness of staff to provide help promptly
Q26 Availability of staff to provide service
Q27 Quick check-in and check-out
Q38 Problem-solving abilities of staff
Assurance (Cronbach's Alpha 0.881, AVE 0.501, CR 0.750)
Q29 Friendliness of staff
Q30 Courteous employees
Q31 Ability of staff to instill condence in customers
Empathy (Cronbach's Alpha 0.840, AVE 0.610, CR 0.824)
Q32 Giving special attention to the customer
Q33 Recognizing the hotel customer
Q34 Calling the customer by name
Environment (Cronbach's Alpha 0.921, AVE 0.530, CR 0.909)
Q41 Comfortable, relaxed and welcome feeling
Q42 Quietness of room
Q44 Security of room
Q45 Security and safety at the hotel
Q46 Comfortable and clean mattress, pillow, bed sheets and covers
Q47 Reasonable room rates
Q48 Variety of basic products and services offered (toothpaste, soap, shampoo, towels, toilet paper, stationery,
laundry, ironing, tea, coffee, drinking water)
Q49 Room items in working order (kettle, air conditioning, lighting, toilet, fridge, etc.)
Q50 Quality of food in restaurant(s)
Technology (Cronbach's Alpha 0.944, AVE 0.651, CR 0.789)
Q54 In-room technologies (Wi, smart TV, telephone, voicemail, on demand PC, television, internet plug, meal
ordering, email, wake-up system)
Q55 Hotel technologies (online reservation, email, internet, fax, international calling facilities, hotel website,
direct hotel email, computerized feedback form, special promotions on hotel website, acceptance of credit
and debit cards)
Entertainment (Cronbach's Alpha 0.912, AVE 0.555, CR 0.918)
Q52 Provision of children's facilities (playground, baby-sitting, swimming pool, etc.)
Q53 Provision of evening entertainment
Q56 Casino
Q57 Variety show (such as concert)
Q58 Recreation and therapy (such as SPA)
Q59 Shopping center
Q60 Acrobatics performances (such as the House of Dancing Water)
Q61 Convention and exhibition center
Q62 Tourist attractions
Removed measurement items
Q7 Convenient hotel location
Q8 Neat and professional appearance of staff
Q9 Availability of swimming pool, sauna and gym
Q10 Complimentary items
Q11 Visually appealing brochures, pamphlets, etc.
Q12 Image of the hotel
Q19 Accuracy of food order
Q20 Accurate information about hotel services
Q21 Advance and accurate information about prices
Q28 Prompt breakfast service
Q35 Availability of room service
Q36 Understanding the customers' requirements
Q37 Listening carefully to complaints
Q39 Hotel to have customers' best interests at heart
Q40 Customer loyalty programme
Q43 Variety/quality of sports and recreational facilities
Q51 Choice of menus, buffet, beverages and wines
Ramsaran-Fowdar's
(2007) dimensions
This
Factor
Communalities
study loading
TAN
TAN
TAN
TAN
TAN
TAN
BAS1
BAS2
BAS3
BAS4
BAS5
BAS6
0.632
0.755
0.779
0.777
0.729
0.705
0.505
0.656
0.647
0.682
0.604
0.573
REL
REL
REL
REL
REL
REL
REL
REL
REL
RES
RES
RES
EMP
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
REL8
REL9
REL10
REL11
REL12
REL13
0.814
0.873
0.781
0.742
0.684
0.670
0.692
0.669
0.650
0.609
0.658
0.690
0.663
0.760
0.824
0.744
0.669
0.603
0.601
0.668
0.592
0.545
0.523
0.614
0.627
0.605
ASS
ASS
ASS
ASS1
ASS2
ASS3
0.702
0.756
0.663
0.809
0.825
0.668
EMP
EMP
EMP
EMP1 0.717
EMP2 0.807
EMP3 0.816
0.764
0.757
0.732
COR
COR
COR
COR
COR
COR
COR
ENV1
ENV2
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
0.613
0.796
0.862
0.812
0.838
0.684
0.641
0.657
0.748
0.796
0.762
0.773
0.606
0.675
COR
COR
ENV8 0.681
ENV9 0.564
0.679
0.646
TEC
TEC1
0.805
0.869
TEC
TEC2
0.809
0.899
COR
COR
ENT1
ENT2
ENT3
ENT4
ENT5
ENT6
ENT7
ENT8
ENT9
0.642
0.789
0.736
0.801
0.661
0.731
0.745
0.808
0.772
0.535
0.713
0.616
0.725
0.542
0.633
0.601
0.657
0.636
TAN
TAN
TAN
TAN
TAN
TAN
REL
REL
REL
RES
EMP
EMP
EMP
EMP
EMP
COR
COR
Remark: AVE average variance extracted, CR composite reliability, TAN e Tangible, BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, RES e Responsiveness, ASS e Assurance, EMP
e Empathy, COR e Core hotel benets, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT e Entertainment.
Variance Extracted (AVE) and Construct Reliability (CR) of each

construct are examined in Table 3. All the AVE values exceed 50
percent and all the CR values exceed 0.7. These results fulll Hair
et al.s (2010) guidelines where EVA > 0.5 percent and CR > 0.7.
Therefore, the above results show that the model has good
convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010).
Table 4 shows the correlation coefcients and the square-root of
AVE of seven dimensions. All of the correlation values among the
constructs of the model are signicant (p < 0.01), with the values
ranging from a minimum of 0.148 to a maximum of 0.662. The
square-root of the AVE of each dimension is higher than the correlations between it and any other dimensions in the scale model.
Thus, seven dimensions are distinct from each other; it indicates
high discriminant validity (Fornell & Cha, 1994).
The aim of Conrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in IPA studies was
to assess the quality of the factor structure (Lai & Hitchcock, 2015).
The value of multivariate kurtosis for the importance attributes is
297.84. The data is not normally distributed and thus Mplus version
17 maximum likelihood mean (MLM) estimator was chosen to
perform CFA because MLM estimation is robust to non-normality
(Muthen & Muthen, 2012). The values of X2, df, p-value, and relative/normed X2 are 2739.730, 969, <0.001, and 2.827 respectively.
The value of relative/normed X2 ranged from 1 to 3 indicates an
acceptable t of the model (Wheaton, 1987). The values of
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) are 0.901 (>0.900) and 0.078 (<0.08)
respectively. The results of goodness-of-t statistics indicate a good
t to the factor structure of the measurement model (Hu & Bentler,
1999; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).
4.3. Calculation of importance indices and performance values
The means of the self-stated importance of 45 attributes were
calculated as the explicit importance of the attributes (range from
5.067 to 6.789). The grand mean of explicit importance is 6.184
which is the cross-point of explicit importance in the 3-D IPA cube.
The correlation coefcients of self-stated importance with
customer satisfaction of 45 attributes were calculated as the implicit importance of the attributes (range from 0.004 to 0.220). For
computing the correlation coefcients using SPSS, the average
score of three customer satisfaction questions was used. The mean,
standard deviation, and value of Cronbach's Alpha for customer
satisfaction are 5.334, 1.132 and 0.924 respectively. The grand mean
of implicit importance is 0.118 which is the cross-point of implicit
importance in the 3-D IPA cube. The means of self-stated performance of 45 attributes were calculated as the actual performance
values of the attributes (range from 4.391 to 6.336). The crosspoints between very high and high, high and low, and low
and very low for self-stated importance are 5.227, 5.512, and 5.839
Table 4
Correlation matrix.
BAS
REL
ASS
EMP
ENV
TEC
ENT
Square-root of AVE
BAS
REL
ASS
0.731
0.711
0.708
0.781
0.728
0.807
0.745
0.389
0.289
0.292
0.148
0.281
0.228
0.662
0.555
0.546
0.423
0.328
0.511
0.469
0.331
0.229
EMP
ENV
TEC
147
respectively. Some respondents selected no experience for

measuring the actual performance of some attributes. Table 5
shows the explicit importance, implicit importance, actual performance, and a number of respondents who rated the actual performance of each attribute.
4.4. Distributions in 3-D IPA cube
The results of 3-D IPA reveal that 23 attributes are performance
factor and they are widely placed on the assurance, empathy,
environment, and entertainment dimensions; 13 attributes are
basic factors and most of them are categorized in terms of basic
(tangible) and reliability dimensions; and 8 attributes are
excitement factors that mainly belong to the technology and
entertainment dimensions. Table 5 shows their distributions in a
3-D IPA cube and corresponding strategic actions include original
IPA strategic actions and 3-D IPA strategic actions. Fig. 5 shows the
distributions of 45 attributes in the 3-D IPA cube.
4.5. A comparison of the distributions of stand-alone and resortbased luxury hotels
Among the 299 travelers, 108 stayed in stand-alone luxury hotels and 191 in resort-based luxury hotels. The same cross-points
obtained from the previous section were employed for the comparisons between stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotels.
Table 6 shows the results of 3-D IPA for stand-alone luxury hotels.
11 attributes should be largely improved. They belong to the
empathy, technology, and entertainment dimensions. 15 attributes should also be improved. 4 out of 6 attributes of basic
(tangible) dimension should be improved. The service quality of 7
attributes should be kept. They are mainly in the environment
dimension. 8 attributes should be treated in low priority for
improving service quality. They mainly belong to the reliability
dimension. 2 attributes should be slightly reduced and other 2 attributes should be reduced in efforts to maintain their service
quality.
Table 7 shows the results of 3-D IPA for resort-based luxury
hotels. Only 1 attribute should be largely improved (Q32, EMP1)
and 8 attributes should improve their service quality. They belong
to the reliability, environment, and technology dimensions. The
service quality for 16 attributes should be kept and 7 attributes
should be placed as a low priority for improving service quality.
The efforts for maintaining service quality for 3 attributes can be
slightly reduced and the effects for maintaining service quality for
10 attributes may even be reduced where the 5 attributes belong
to the entertainment dimension.
Table 8 shows the similarity and differences in 3-D IPA strategies
among all, stand-alone, and resort-based luxury hotels. 13 attributes should be employed the same strategies for service quality
management, however, 8 attributes show opposite strategies
where improving service quality should be taken for stand-alone
luxury hotels and efforts for maintaining service quality can be
reduced for resort-based luxury hotels. Most of them were categorized as belonging to the entertainment dimension.
4.6. 3-D IPA for seven dimensions
0.359
0.385
0.396
0.450
0.358
0.506
Remark:
(1) All correlations are signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
(2) AVE e average variance extracted, BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, ASS e
Assurance, EMP e Empathy, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT e
Entertainment.
Table 9 shows the results of 3-D IPA for seven dimensions of the
proposed measurement scale for luxury hotels. 5 out of 7 dimensions for all luxury hotels are performance factors; the basic
(tangible) dimension is a basic factor, and the technology
dimension is an excitement factor. For 5 performance factors, either
keep or low priority actions are recommended. For basic
(tangible) dimension, reduce action is suggested. For the
148
Table 5
Results of 3-D IPA for all luxury hotels (n 299).
Actual performance
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q38
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q41
Q42
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q54
Q55
Q52
Q53
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
Grand
BAS1
BAS2
BAS3
BAS4
BAS5
BAS6
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
REL8
REL9
REL10
REL11
REL12
REL13
ASS1
ASS2
ASS3
EMP1
EMP2
EMP3
ENV1
ENV2
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
ENV8
ENV9
TEC1
TEC2
ENT1
ENT2
ENT3
ENT4
ENT5
ENT6
ENT7
ENT8
ENT9
main
Explicit importance
Implicit
importance
N*
Mean
S.D.
Level
Mean
S.D.
Level
Coefcient
Level
299
299
297
299
299
299
296
267
279
269
291
281
274
282
252
256
277
296
260
299
299
279
208
182
174
295
296
297
295
298
285
289
298
259
283
267
150
222
257
202
148
260
186
167
234
5.468
5.599
5.414
6.130
5.686
6.117
5.439
5.659
5.530
5.487
5.436
5.940
5.682
5.706
5.234
5.188
5.404
5.334
5.331
5.545
5.702
5.532
4.938
4.736
4.391
5.671
5.993
6.323
6.312
6.336
5.140
5.754
6.027
5.498
5.088
5.082
4.947
5.509
5.848
5.262
5.318
5.508
5.247
5.222
5.286
5.511
1.094
1.198
1.255
0.948
1.193
0.971
1.373
1.195
1.159
1.088
1.228
1.115
1.144
1.209
1.232
1.353
1.193
1.227
1.264
1.224
1.165
1.113
1.366
1.432
1.576
1.180
1.015
0.978
1.042
0.892
1.335
1.063
1.073
1.108
1.390
1.349
1.404
1.279
1.357
1.563
1.365
1.689
1.543
1.781
1.626
H
H
L
VH
H
VH
L
H
H
L
L
VH
H
H
L
VL
L
L
L
H
H
H
VL
VL
VL
H
VH
VH
VH
VH
VL
H
VH
L
VL
VL
VL
L
VH
L
L
L
L
VL
L
6.284
6.408
6.408
6.789
6.348
6.682
6.505
6.475
6.391
6.231
6.448
6.334
6.388
6.398
5.950
6.127
6.334
6.411
6.388
6.485
6.515
6.291
5.783
5.465
5.067
6.428
6.656
6.756
6.786
6.779
6.538
6.495
6.549
6.425
5.876
5.836
5.679
5.619
5.592
5.324
5.579
6.027
5.589
5.288
5.545
6.184
0.809
0.765
0.729
0.524
0.835
0.652
0.804
0.820
0.888
0.911
0.819
0.991
0.861
0.789
1.040
0.918
0.887
0.720
0.825
0.748
0.779
0.810
1.110
1.229
1.429
0.754
0.612
0.588
0.513
0.548
0.625
0.642
0.681
0.784
1.103
1.119
1.276
1.235
1.324
1.458
1.347
1.173
1.272
1.534
1.167
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
0.125
0.062
0.011
0.054
0.019
0.004
0.093
0.093
0.147
0.165
0.085
0.177
0.116
0.116
0.211
0.025
0.080
0.190
0.175
0.184
0.196
0.138
0.164
0.070
0.004
0.140
0.176
0.139
0.130
0.138
0.138
0.095
0.095
0.150
0.220
0.195
0.081
0.067
0.138
0.064
0.159
0.120
0.107
0.159
0.104
0.118
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
L
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
L
L
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
Original IPA strategy
3-D IPA strategy
Three-factor theory
Keep
Keep
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Improve
Keep
Keep
Improve
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Improve
Keep
Keep
Improve
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Reduce
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Keep
Slightly reduce
Low priority
Reduce
Slightly reduce
Reduce
Low priority
Slightly reduce
Keep
Improve
Low priority
Keep
Slightly reduce
Slightly reduce
Improve
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Largely improve
Low priority
Low priority
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Improve
Slightly reduce
Reduce
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Low priority
Low priority
Keep
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Low priority
Largely improve
Low priority
Performance
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Excitement
Performance
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Basic
Basic
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Remark: S.D. - standard deviations, BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, ASS e Assurance, EMP e Empathy, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT e Entertainment,
VH e very high, H e high, L e low, VL e very low.
Note: N* e Since some respondents selected no experience in the actual performance, so the mean of actual performance of each item was calculated based on the number of
respondents who have rated this item.
technology dimension, improve action is recommended. Fig. 6

shows the distributions of seven dimensions in the 3-D IPA cube.
For stand-alone luxury hotels, basic (tangible) and reliability
dimensions are basic factors; assurance, empathy, and environment are performance factors; and technology and entertainment are excitement factors. It is suggested the hotel should
consider large improvement with regard for excitement factors;
improve action for the assurance dimension; keep action for
environment dimension; and assign low priority action for
others. For resort-based luxury hotels, basic (tangible) and environment dimensions are basic factors; reliability, assurance,
empathy, and entertainment dimensions are performance factors; and only technology dimension is an excitement factor. It is
suggested to take improve action for excitement factor, reduce
action for basic factors, and variety actions for performance factors.
Fig. 6 shows the distributions of seven dimensions in the 3-D IPA
cube.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical contribution
5.1.1. A new measurement scale
This study examines the levels of importance and performance
among 62 measurement items of service quality in luxury hotels in
Macau. The results of EFA retain 45 measurement items in seven
dimensions. Basic (tangible), reliability, assurance, and
empathy are originated from SERVQUAL. Environment is extracted mainly from core hotel benets dimension of RamsaranFowdar's (2007) questionnaire where the environment dimension focuses on the conditions of hotel environment in the luxury
hotels such as quietness of room and security of room. The results
149
Fig. 5. The distributions of 45 attributes in the 3-D IPA cube.
of the study indicate that travelers lodging in the luxury hotels are
concerned about the hotel environment. On the other hand, they
also enjoy entertainment offered by resort-based casino consortia.
Many researchers have showed that entertainment is an evaluative
factor that inuences tourist satisfaction with a destination and
inuences decisions to revisit a destination (Chen & Tsai, 2007;
Petrick, Morais, & Norman, 2001; Qu, Kim, & Im, 2011; Yoon &
Uysal, 2005). Availability and easy access to entertainment facilities also inuence tourist satisfaction with hotels (Poon & Low,
2005). Thus, the entertainment dimension is an important measure for the service quality of these kinds of luxury hotels as they
are not simply providers of overnight accommodation, but offer a
variety of attractions in which entertainment features highly. This
study contributes a new measurement scale of service quality for
luxury hotels.
5.1.2. 3-D IPA approach
The IPA approach is widely used in tourism studies because of its
simplicity (Oh, 2001). Some researchers tried to combine the IPA
approach with the three-factor theory in order to solve nonlinear
relationships between the performance of quality attributes and
overall satisfaction (e.g., Deng, 2007; Deng & Pei, 2009). However,
their proposed methods are too complex for junior researchers.
This study introduces a 3-D IPA with a relatively simple statistical
calculation and is thus suitable for all levels of researchers. The
results of this study indicate that this 3-D IPA provides more
adaptive strategic recommendations as compared with the original
IPA for resort managers to develop their service quality management plan. For example, casino entertainment (Q56, ENT3) is a
major strength for tourism in Macau as compared with non-gaming
tourism destinations, but the original IPA recommends an unreasonable action of having to reduce casino services. On the other
hand, 3-D IPA suggests a more logical keep strategy for maintaining casino services. Furthermore, the Macau government put
the development of the exhibition industry as priority policy in
2010, thus the suggestion from original IPA for setting low priority
for improving exhibition services is against the government's policy. Resort managers should take appropriate actions for largely
improving the service quality for exhibition and convention centers. Hotel technologies enhance customers' travel experiences
during visits. For example, travelers like to share pictures through
social networks such as Facebook and Whatsapp while on vacation
and so hotel operators should largely improve hotel technologies
such as internet access rather than maintaining a low priority for
them as the original IPA suggested. The above examples demonstrate that 3-D IPA provides a more appropriate set of strategic
actions than original IPA.
The aim of conventional IPA approach is to measure the quality
gaps identied in a two-dimensional matrix for stakeholders to
determine which quality characteristics need to be maintained,
improved, and reduced to serve as a basis for developing appropriate action plans (Bacon, 2003; Martilla & James, 1977). With the
integration with three-factor theory, the factor structure of each
quality attribute can be identied because the customers recognize
that importance can be reected in the implicit signicance of a
function of satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Matzler et al., 2004).
Therefore, the 3-D IPA approach not only can measure the quality
gaps of quality characteristics but can also identify the factor
structure causing satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and both. So, this
study provides added value by extending the IPA approach from
studying quality gaps to indicating the areas of satisfaction and
dissatisfaction.
This study contributes a 3-D IPA approach and tests it in the
luxury hotel setting. In this study, partial correlation analysis was
used to obtain the values of the implicit importance of the attributes; however, the values of correlation coefcients are low
(ranged from 0.004 to 0.220 with an average 0.118). Therefore, we
compared the results of previous studies that used correlations
measuring implicit importance. We found that the values of correlation coefcients for measuring implicit importance in most
previous studies (e.g., Deng, 2007; Deng et al., 2008a; Alegre &
Garau, 2011) were also low. Thus, there should not be anything
150
Table 6
Results of 3-D IPA for stand-alone luxury hotels (n 108).
Actual performance
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q38
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q41
Q42
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q54
Q55
Q52
Q53
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
BAS1
BAS2
BAS3
BAS4
BAS5
BAS6
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
REL8
REL9
REL10
REL11
REL12
REL13
ASS1
ASS2
ASS3
EMP1
EMP2
EMP3
ENV1
ENV2
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
ENV8
ENV9
TEC1
TEC2
ENT1
ENT2
ENT3
ENT4
ENT5
ENT6
ENT7
ENT8
ENT9
Explicit importance
Implicit importance
Mean
S.D.
Level
Mean
S.D.
Level
Coefcient
Level
5.185
5.167
5.000
5.880
5.213
5.870
5.157
5.485
5.257
5.337
5.148
5.699
5.614
5.444
4.978
4.990
5.188
5.346
5.183
5.315
5.519
5.327
4.803
4.859
4.483
5.333
5.830
5.897
5.991
6.148
5.069
5.537
5.704
5.247
4.695
4.600
4.714
5.369
5.471
4.815
4.914
4.582
4.600
4.359
4.288
1.153
1.322
1.353
1.030
1.176
1.077
1.375
1.304
1.246
1.226
1.338
1.187
1.095
1.247
1.326
1.403
1.231
1.214
1.359
1.294
1.300
1.147
1.440
1.510
1.662
1.297
1.009
1.220
1.307
1.003
1.388
1.114
1.225
1.209
1.422
1.491
1.275
1.315
1.523
1.704
1.513
1.773
1.662
2.039
1.887
VL
VL
VL
VH
VL
VH
VL
L
L
L
VL
H
H
L
VL
VL
VL
L
VL
L
H
L
VL
VL
VL
L
VH
VH
VH
VH
VL
H
H
L
VL
VL
VL
L
L
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
VL
6.361
6.500
6.417
6.806
6.333
6.694
6.407
6.398
6.296
6.241
6.370
6.204
6.306
6.306
5.954
6.046
6.176
6.352
6.287
6.444
6.435
6.269
5.852
5.685
5.269
6.352
6.519
6.593
6.676
6.704
6.500
6.315
6.463
6.343
5.769
5.769
5.565
5.509
5.509
5.213
5.528
5.602
5.389
5.065
5.389
0.848
0.755
0.725
0.442
0.832
0.618
0.886
0.820
0.910
0.975
0.903
1.057
0.880
0.814
1.036
0.951
1.031
0.715
0.821
0.715
0.800
0.744
0.984
1.149
1.243
0.765
0.704
0.737
0.639
0.615
0.604
0.665
0.647
0.738
1.107
1.116
1.285
1.350
1.417
1.354
1.315
1.360
1.331
1.493
1.118
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
0.026
0.032
0.011
0.091
0.031
0.002
0.036
0.029
0.053
0.040
0.031
0.066
0.095
0.009
0.106
0.002
0.003
0.124
0.147
0.173
0.185
0.170
0.144
0.152
0.003
0.161
0.205
0.154
0.154
0.121
0.220
0.141
0.134
0.161
0.198
0.156
0.127
0.186
0.139
0.281
0.248
0.169
0.183
0.277
0.177
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Three-factor theory
3-D IPA strategy
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Improve
Improve
Improve
Reduce
Improve
Reduce
Improve
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Slightly reduce
Slightly reduce
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Improve
Keep
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Low priority
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Improve
Keep
Keep
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Improve
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
amiss with the measurement; it may simply be a methodological

characteristic of using correlation coefcients in IPA studies. In
order to nd out the reasons for low correlation coefcients, further
studies are recommended by testing more experimental cases.
5.1.3. Existence of the three factors

The results of this study indicate that most attributes of basic
(tangible) and reliability dimensions for stand-alone luxury hotels
are basic factors; however, they have become performance factors
for resort-based luxury hotels. It means that guests of stand-alone
luxury hotels perceive the services in basic (tangible) (i.e.,
attractive lobby) and reliability (e.g., staff with good communication skills) to be a must, and they are unhappy when quality of
these services cannot be met a certain level. The guests of standalone luxury hotels are aware that stand-alone luxury hotels have
insufcient resources to complete with resort-based hotels, so they
are not looking for extremely high level of services in basic
(tangible) and reliability as compared with the guests of resort-
based hotels. On the other hand, the attributes of the environment dimension for stand-alone luxury hotels are performance
factors, but some of them have become basic factors for resortbased luxury hotels. The guests of resort-based luxury hotels
expect that there should be many basic products offered and room
items should be in working order. They pay a high price for resortbased luxury hotels because they want to have a comfortable,
relaxed and welcome feeling. That's why they treat these items in
terms of environment as basic factors. The attributes of the
entertainment dimension for stand-alone luxury hotels are
excitement factors and some of them become basic and performance factors for resort-based luxury hotels. The guests of standalone luxury hotels do not expect much entertainment to be
offered in these hotels, but they become excited once they discover
that such entertainment (e.g., spas) are offered. Therefore, the
above results indicate that the three factors for service attributes
vary for different market segments. Although previous researches
have demonstrated the existence of the three factors for products
151
Table 7
Results of 3-D IPA for resort-based luxury hotels (n 191).
Actual performance
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q38
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q41
Q42
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q54
Q55
Q52
Q53
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
BAS1
BAS2
BAS3
BAS4
BAS5
BAS6
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
REL8
REL9
REL10
REL11
REL12
REL13
ASS1
ASS2
ASS3
EMP1
EMP2
EMP3
ENV1
ENV2
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
ENV8
ENV9
TEC1
TEC2
ENT1
ENT2
ENT3
ENT4
ENT5
ENT6
ENT7
ENT8
ENT9
Explicit importance
Implicit importance
Mean
S.D.
Level
Mean
S.D.
Level
Coefcient
Level
5.628
5.843
5.647
6.272
5.953
6.257
5.601
5.762
5.685
5.573
5.607
6.079
5.722
5.847
5.381
5.304
5.528
5.328
5.413
5.675
5.806
5.644
5.007
4.670
4.342
5.866
6.084
6.563
6.495
6.442
5.180
5.884
6.211
5.629
5.320
5.371
5.059
5.594
6.048
5.475
5.578
5.912
5.519
5.623
5.679
0.817
1.050
1.135
0.870
1.121
0.878
1.351
1.117
1.080
0.994
1.128
1.049
1.173
1.167
1.154
1.314
1.156
1.237
1.204
1.165
1.071
1.081
1.326
1.390
1.533
1.062
1.010
0.708
0.804
0.806
1.307
1.013
0.930
1.031
1.321
1.169
1.455
1.254
1.218
1.451
1.199
1.484
1.411
1.496
1.324
H
VH
H
VH
VH
VH
H
H
H
H
H
VH
H
VH
L
L
H
L
L
H
H
H
VL
VL
VL
VH
VH
VH
VH
VH
VL
VH
VH
H
L
L
VL
H
VH
L
H
VH
L
H
H
6.241
6.356
6.403
6.780
6.356
6.675
6.560
6.518
6.445
6.225
6.492
6.408
6.435
6.450
5.948
6.173
6.424
6.445
6.445
6.508
6.560
6.304
5.743
5.340
4.953
6.471
6.733
6.848
6.848
6.822
6.560
6.597
6.597
6.471
5.937
5.874
5.743
5.681
5.639
5.387
5.607
6.267
5.702
5.414
5.634
0.784
0.767
0.733
0.566
0.839
0.672
0.751
0.820
0.874
0.875
0.767
0.946
0.849
0.772
1.045
0.898
0.784
0.722
0.825
0.767
0.765
0.847
1.175
1.258
1.516
0.745
0.540
0.462
0.414
0.502
0.637
0.607
0.696
0.807
1.098
1.122
1.270
1.164
1.269
1.514
1.368
0.977
1.227
1.546
1.188
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
H
L
L
L
0.198
0.129
0.012
0.120
0.010
0.019
0.113
0.147
0.186
0.244
0.147
0.228
0.115
0.173
0.270
0.027
0.115
0.217
0.175
0.185
0.191
0.121
0.184
0.056
0.023
0.117
0.131
0.093
0.086
0.133
0.090
0.031
0.060
0.132
0.222
0.210
0.045
0.018
0.130
0.004
0.110
0.036
0.042
0.080
0.050
H
H
L
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
H
L
L
H
L
L
L
H
H
H
L
L
H
L
L
L
L
L
L
Three-factor theory
3-D IPA strategy
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Keep
Keep
Slightly reduce
Keep
Reduce
Reduce
Low priority
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Slightly reduce
Keep
Improve
Low priority
Slightly reduce
Improve
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Largely improve
Low priority
Low priority
Reduce
Keep
Reduce
Reduce
Keep
Improve
Improve
Improve
Keep
Improve
Improve
Low priority
Reduce
Keep
Low priority
Reduce
Reduce
Low priority
Reduce
Reduce
and services (e.g. Fuchs, 2004; Johnston, 1995; Matzler, Renzl, &
Rothenberger, 2006; Mittal et al., 1998), few researchers have
indicated that same attribute can be classied into different varieties of the three factors in different market segments. The attributes of the entertainment dimension for stand-alone luxury
hotels are excitement factors because customers expect standalone luxury hotels to only have limited entertainment. Therefore, customers are not dissatised if there are fewer kinds of
entertainment; however, they will feel surprisingly pleasant if they
nd stand-alone luxury hotels that they have stayed in providing
exceptional entertainment. Customers are delighted when their
expectations are exceeded to a surprising degree (Rust & Oliver,
2000). On the other hand, in cases where customers select a
given hotel on the basis of offered entertainment, customers have
an expectation of enjoying good entertainment. Therefore, the
provision of entertainment becomes a performance factor for
resort-based luxury hotels. Customers in different market segments have different expectations of a service provided by luxury
hotels. The desired level of expectation towards a service attribute

may alter the type of the three factors of the service, but further
research is needed to clarify this. This study also demonstrates how
3-D IPA can be effectively used as a tool to identify basic, performance, and excitement factors in different market segments that
help hotel operators understand the subtle differences among
consumers in order to allocate critical resources effectively.
5.1.4. Application of three-factor theory in market segmentation

Although the three-factor theory was rst introduced by Kano in
the 1980s for the study of job satisfaction, it began to be extended
to study customer satisfaction. The literature review informs us
that there are few studies concerned with using the three-factor
theory in market segmentation and there is only one study in
tourism that identied that three factors perform different roles in
different lifestyle groups in ski resort (Fller & Matzler, 2008). In
Fller and Matzler's (2008) study, they examined the consumer's
position and divided respondents into ve clusters with ten
152
Table 8
Comparison of 3-D IPA strategies between stand-alone and resort-based luxury hotels.
3-D IPA strategy
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q38
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q41
Q42
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q54
Q55
Q52
Q53
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
BAS1
BAS2
BAS3
BAS4
BAS5
BAS6
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
REL8
REL9
REL10
REL11
REL12
REL13
ASS1
ASS2
ASS3
EMP1
EMP2
EMP3
ENV1
ENV2
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
ENV8
ENV9
TEC1
TEC2
ENT1
ENT2
ENT3
ENT4
ENT5
ENT6
ENT7
ENT8
ENT9
Three-factor theory
All
Stand-alone
Resort-based
Stand-alone
Resort-based
Keep
Slightly reduce
Low priority
Reduce
Slightly reduce
Reduce
Low priority
Slightly reduce
Keep
Improve
Low priority
Keep
Slightly reduce
Slightly reduce
Improve
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Largely improve
Low priority
Low priority
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Improve
Slightly reduce
Reduce
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Low priority
Low priority
Keep
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Low priority
Largely improve
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Improve
Reduce
Improve
Reduce
Improve
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Slightly reduce
Slightly reduce
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Improve
Improve
Keep
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Low priority
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Improve
Keep
Keep
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Improve
Improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Largely improve
Keep
Keep
Slightly reduce
Keep
Reduce
Reduce
Low priority
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Keep
Slightly reduce
Keep
Improve
Low priority
Slightly reduce
Improve
Improve
Keep
Keep
Keep
Largely improve
Low priority
Low priority
Reduce
Keep
Reduce
Reduce
Keep
Improve
Improve
Improve
Keep
Improve
Improve
Low priority
Reduce
Keep
Low priority
Reduce
Reduce
Low priority
Reduce
Reduce
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Performance
Basic
Basic
Basic
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Performance
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
X
X
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
X
S
S
S
S
S
X
X
X
X
X
Remark: X e Opposite strategies, S e Same strategies, BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, ASS e Assurance, EMP e Empathy, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT
e Entertainment.
lifestyles and studied the effects of seven factors on customer

satisfaction/dissatisfaction. This study tests the effects of threefactor theory in an alternative way, as it offers a commercial
angle and evaluates the effects of 45 quality attributes in seven
dimensions on overall satisfaction in stand-alone and resort-based
luxury hotels. Since these 45 quality attributes are tailored for
luxury hotels, the results of this study provide more solid evidence
to support the application of three-factor theory in market segmentation. Also, the outcomes of 3-D IPA approach provide applicable strategic actions for different segments that are not
mentioned in any previous studies.
5.2. Practical implications
The results of this study identify the roles of 45 attributes in 7
dimensions affecting customer satisfaction between stand-alone
and resort-based luxury hotels that allow hotel managers to pursue more accurate planning and marketing decisions. The results of
3-D IPA in 7 service quality dimensions for all luxury hotels (in
Table 9) show that customers are generally satised with luxury

hotels in Macau. Therefore, either keep or low priority actions for
5 performance factors are recommended. However, for some attributes (such as Q16 experienced staff), improve action is recommended (see Table 5). The efforts for maintaining attributes in
the basic (tangible) dimension can be reduced, but hotel operators
should make more effort to largely improve Q32 the attention to
the customer, Q61 exhibition service, and Q54 & Q55 hotel technologies (such as Wi access, smart TV including smart room
management systems, online reservation etc.) in order to delight
their customers.
This study uses the grand means of actual performance, explicit
importance, and implicit importance for all luxury hotels as
standard cross-points to compare the outcomes for stand-alone
and resort-based luxury hotels. Thus, the overall actual performance for stand-alone luxury hotels is lower than resort-based
luxury hotels. Stand-alone luxury hotels cannot provide much
variety and scale with regard to entertainment as compared with
resort-based luxury hotels, but they can still mount specic kinds
153
Table 9
Results of 3-D IPA for seven dimensions.
Actual performance
Explicit importance
Implicit importance
Mean
Level
Mean
Level
Mean
Level
VH
H
H
VL
VH
L
L
6.487
6.337
6.430
5.438
6.601
5.856
5.582
6.013
H
H
H
L
H
L
L
0.052
0.169
0.191
0.083
0.169
0.213
0.146
0.146
L
L
L
VL
H
VL
VL
6.519
6.257
6.383
5.602
6.496
5.769
5.419
H
H
H
L
H
L
L
VH
H
H
VL
VH
L
H
6.469
6.382
6.457
5.345
6.661
5.906
5.675
H
H
H
L
H
L
L
BAS
5.736
REL
5.490
ASS
5.593
EMP
4.688
ENV
5.895
TEC
5.085
ENT
5.350
Grand mean
5.405
Stand-alone luxury hotels
BAS
5.386
REL
5.294
ASS
5.387
EMP
4.715
ENV
5.640
TEC
4.648
ENT
4.790
Resort-based luxury hotels
BAS
5.933
REL
5.602
ASS
5.708
EMP
4.673
ENV
6.039
TEC
5.346
ENT
5.610
Three-factor theory
3-D IPA strategy
L
H
H
L
H
H
L
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Performance
Reduce
Keep
Keep
Low priority
Keep
Improve
Low priority
0.038
0.059
0.193
0.115
0.203
0.260
0.245
L
L
H
L
H
H
H
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Low priority
Low priority
Improve
Low priority
Keep
Largely improve
Largely improve
0.107
0.217
0.184
0.091
0.124
0.221
0.065
L
H
H
L
L
H
L
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Basic
Excitement
Performance
Reduce
Keep
Keep
Low priority
Reduce
Improve
Reduce
Remark: BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, ASS e Assurance, EMP e Empathy, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT e Entertainment, VH e very high, H e high, L
e low, VL e very low.
Fig. 6. The distributions of seven dimensions in the 3-D IPA cube.
of entertainment to delight their customers. A huge improvement

in hotel technologies is needed urgently because people are living
in a high-tech world. For example, keeping a conformable and
relaxed room environment is essential and smart management
systems that provide easy ways of controlling air conditioning and
lighting are becoming increasingly important. Improving basic

facilities (such as furniture and lobby) and reliable services are
essential because these attributes cause dissatisfaction if they
remain unfullled.
The results of 3-D IPA for resort-based luxury hotels are
154
similar with the results for all luxury hotels. Although customers
are happy to enjoy different types of entertainment offered in
resort-based luxury hotels, customers are still asking for highend hotel technologies in their hotel and hotel rooms. Keeping
current reliable and assurance services are sufcient to satisfy
customers. Maintaining luxury interiors and attractive lobbies
can make customers satised. Although the above recommendations are obtained from comparisons between stand-alone and
resort-based luxury hotels using standard cross-points for all
luxury hotels, similar results are obtained if cross-points are
individually calculated in separate cases (see Table A6 in
Appendix).
5.3. Limitations
This study provides a measurement scale of service quality in
the luxury hotel industry in Macau, however this measurement
model may not be generalized to other countries. Additional
research is appropriate to validate this model in other countries
that have casino consortia such as Singapore.
The small sample size from respondents is another limitation of
the study. Further studies can be conducted on different hotel
segments such economic and middle-class hotels with a reasonably
large sample size for each segment under study.
The results of this research indicate that entertainment is
important in both kinds of hotels that were studied, but this is
becoming an increasingly complex issue, especially with regard to
customers' expectations and a further research focused on this area
alone is needed to shed light on its role in Macau and elsewhere.
Finally, there is a limitation in the design of research instrument.
The two measurable items of technology dimension taken from
Ramsaran-Fowdar's (2007) study may cause validity issues with
the measurable model. These two measurable items could be
revised by separately measure different functions of the in-room
and hotel technologies when using this measurement scale for
further study.
Table 1A (continued )
Section 1: Please rate the importance of following items for luxury hotels in
Macau based on your expectation (not only focus on the hotel you plan to stay
in). 1 set as strongly unimportant, 4 set as average, and 7 set as strongly
important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q35
Q36
Q37
Q38
Q39
Q40
Q41
Q42
Q43
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q51
Q52
Q53
Q54
Appendix
Q55
Table 1A
Questionnaire
Section 1: Please rate the importance of following items for luxury hotels in
Macau based on your expectation (not only focus on the hotel you plan to stay
in). 1 set as strongly unimportant, 4 set as average, and 7 set as strongly
important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Modern and comfortable furniture

Appealing interior and exterior hotel decoration
Attractive lobby
Cleanliness and comfort of rooms
Spaciousness of rooms
Hygienic bathrooms and toilets
Convenient hotel location
Neat and professional appearance of staff
Availability of swimming pool, sauna and gym
Complimentary items
Visually appealing brochures, pamphlets, etc.
Image of the hotel
Staff performing services right the rst time
Performing the services at the time promised
Well-trained and knowledgeable staff
Experienced staff
Staff with good communication skills
Accuracy in billing
Accuracy of food order
Accurate information about hotel services
Advance and accurate information about prices
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
Timely housekeeping services

Availability of transport facilities
Reliable message service
Willingness of staff to provide help promptly
Availability of staff to provide service
Quick check-in and check-out
Prompt breakfast service
Friendliness of staff
Courteous employees
Ability of staff to instill condence in customers
Giving special attention to the customer
Recognizing the hotel customer
Calling the customer by name
Availability of room service
Understanding the customers' requirements
Listening carefully to complaints
Problem-solving abilities of staff
Hotel to have customers' best interests at heart
Customer loyalty programme
Comfortable, relaxed and welcome feeling
Quietness of room
Variety/quality of sports and recreational facilities
Security of room
Security and safety at the hotel
Comfortable and clean mattress, pillow, bed sheets and
covers
Reasonable room rates
Variety of basic products and services offered
(toothpaste, soap, shampoo, towels, toilet paper,
stationery, laundry, ironing, tea, coffee, drinking water)
Room items in working order (kettle, air conditioning,
lighting, toilet, fridge, etc.)
Quality of food in restaurant(s)
Choice of menus, buffet, beverages and wines
Provision of children's facilities (playground, babysitting, swimming pool, etc.)
Provision of evening entertainment
In-room technologies (Wi, smart TV, telephone,
voicemail, on demand PC, television, internet plug, meal
ordering, email, wake-up system)
Hotel technologies (online reservation, email, internet,
fax, international calling facilities, hotel website, direct
hotel email, computerized feedback form, special
promotions on hotel website, acceptance of credit and
debit cards)
Casino
Variety show (such as concert)
Recreation and therapy (such as SPA)
Shopping center
Acrobatics performances (such as the House of Dancing
Water)
Convention and exhibition center
Tourist attractions
Section 2: Please rate the performance of following items for the hotel you have
stayed based on your actual experiences of enjoying the hotel's services. 1 set
as very poor performance, 4 set as average, 7 set as excellent performance,
N/A set as no experience
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/
A
<<Same questions as in section 1>>
Section 4: Please rate the overall satisfaction with the hotel services
encountered. 1 set as very unsatised, 4 set as average, 7 set as very
satised
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q1
Q2
Q3
I was fully satised with the services offered by this

hotel.
The services offered by this hotel met my expectations.
I am satised with my experience in this hotel.
155
Table A2
Description of respondents (n 299)
Gender
Age
Income
Education
Variables
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Male
Female
Under 20
20e29
30e39
40e49
50 or above
Below USD1000
USD1000e2999
USD3000e4999
USD5000 or above
Primary school
Secondary school
College diploma
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
148
151
15
157
63
37
27
101
75
61
62
38
41
64
104
52
49.50
50.50
5.02
52.51
21.07
12.38
9.03
33.77
25.08
20.40
20.74
12.71
13.71
21.40
34.78
17.39
Table A3
Means, standard deviations, skew and kurtosis
Importance
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Q11
Q12
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q19
Q20
Q21
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q28
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q35
Q36
Q37
Q38
Q39
Q40
Q41
Q42
Q43
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Performance
Mean
S.D.
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean
S.D.
Skewness
Kurtosis
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
6.284
6.408
6.408
6.789
6.348
6.682
6.358
6.231
5.699
6.047
5.037
6.338
6.505
6.475
6.391
6.231
6.448
6.334
6.130
6.284
6.395
6.388
6.398
5.950
6.127
6.334
6.411
6.054
6.485
6.515
6.291
5.783
5.465
5.067
6.140
6.164
6.418
6.388
6.284
5.813
6.428
6.656
5.920
6.756
6.786
6.779
6.539
6.495
0.809
0.765
0.729
0.524
0.835
0.652
0.853
0.877
1.151
1.089
1.478
0.921
0.804
0.820
0.888
0.911
0.819
0.991
0.901
0.943
0.900
0.861
0.789
1.040
0.918
0.887
0.720
1.175
0.748
0.779
0.810
1.110
1.229
1.429
0.963
0.925
0.796
0.825
0.845
1.155
0.754
0.612
1.111
0.588
0.513
0.548
0.625
0.642
0.831
1.251
1.065
2.883
1.215
2.343
1.184
1.069
0.548
1.145
0.516
1.862
1.712
1.773
1.951
1.305
1.511
1.524
0.953
1.201
1.780
1.633
1.123
0.783
0.936
1.318
0.909
1.768
1.499
1.574
1.036
0.867
0.508
0.417
1.308
0.921
1.498
1.765
1.217
1.063
0.985
1.587
1.110
2.771
2.829
2.909
1.019
0.901
0.191
1.176
0.623
9.232
0.997
5.599
0.846
0.770
0.146
1.264
0.308
4.825
2.330
3.076
4.597
1.913
1.651
1.676
0.616
0.738
3.113
2.788
0.440
0.179
0.346
1.631
0.112
4.219
2.456
2.192
0.951
0.754
0.146
0.268
2.614
0.071
3.011
5.896
1.527
1.766
0.210
1.351
1.698
8.048
9.332
9.293
0.019
0.260
299
299
297
299
299
299
297
297
203
245
264
298
296
267
279
269
291
281
239
269
281
274
282
252
256
277
296
255
299
299
278
208
182
174
259
263
194
260
240
206
295
296
236
297
295
298
285
289
5.468
5.599
5.414
6.130
5.686
6.117
5.434
5.842
5.103
4.943
4.742
5.668
5.439
5.659
5.530
5.487
5.436
5.940
5.515
5.535
5.715
5.682
5.706
5.234
5.188
5.404
5.334
5.271
5.545
5.702
5.532
4.938
4.736
4.391
5.568
5.156
5.237
5.331
5.004
5.442
5.671
5.993
5.483
6.323
6.312
6.336
5.140
5.754
1.094
1.198
1.255
0.948
1.193
0.971
1.187
1.023
1.287
1.430
1.309
1.172
1.374
1.195
1.159
1.088
1.228
1.115
1.202
1.253
1.229
1.144
1.209
1.232
1.353
1.193
1.227
1.355
1.224
1.165
1.113
1.366
1.432
1.576
1.332
1.205
1.322
1.264
1.334
1.195
1.180
1.015
1.128
0.978
1.042
0.892
1.335
1.063
0.592
0.694
0.759
0.929
0.625
1.100
0.917
0.651
0.490
0.695
0.242
0.794
0.772
0.714
0.647
0.676
0.510
0.752
0.811
0.602
0.674
0.891
0.891
0.532
0.804
0.616
0.617
0.961
0.736
0.953
0.802
0.644
0.462
0.487
1.074
0.580
0.581
0.459
0.573
0.337
0.615
0.965
0.568
1.755
1.869
1.314
1.001
0.788
0.062
0.144
0.362
0.358
0.465
0.875
0.815
0.280
0.049
0.184
0.380
0.554
0.294
0.133
0.033
0.707
0.450
0.350
0.681
0.275
0.410
1.150
0.650
0.069
0.799
0.488
0.009
1.091
0.170
0.862
0.994
0.016
0.038
0.240
1.157
0.570
0.059
0.055
0.200
0.659
0.492
0.748
0.073
3.402
3.554
1.566
1.205
0.514
(continued on next page)
156
Table A3 (continued )
Importance
Q49
Q50
Q51
Q52
Q53
Q54
Q55
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
Performance
Mean
S.D.
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean
S.D.
Skewness
Kurtosis
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
299
6.549
6.425
6.298
5.679
5.619
5.876
5.836
5.592
5.324
5.579
6.027
5.589
5.288
5.545
0.681
0.784
0.808
1.276
1.235
1.103
1.119
1.324
1.458
1.347
1.173
1.272
1.534
1.167
1.334
1.159
0.747
1.088
0.996
1.219
1.062
0.755
0.708
0.964
1.460
0.854
0.891
0.683
0.941
0.433
0.603
1.452
0.967
1.882
1.341
0.007
0.007
0.856
2.624
0.928
0.350
0.711
298
259
238
150
222
283
267
257
202
148
260
186
167
234
6.027
5.498
5.336
4.947
5.509
5.088
5.082
5.848
5.262
5.318
5.508
5.247
5.222
5.286
1.073
1.108
1.298
1.404
1.279
1.390
1.349
1.357
1.563
1.365
1.689
1.543
1.781
1.626
1.075
0.960
0.774
0.568
1.009
0.422
0.503
1.255
0.870
0.625
1.101
0.779
0.954
0.961
0.764
2.007
0.482
0.017
1.261
0.472
0.029
1.415
0.303
0.211
0.420
0.226
0.115
0.241
Table A4
Total variance explained
Initial eigenvalues
Total
% of variance
Cumulative %
1
14.676
32.613
32.613
2
4.730
10.510
43.123
3
3.601
8.001
51.124
4
2.652
5.894
57.019
5
1.887
4.193
61.212
6
1.552
3.448
64.660
7
1.267
2.815
67.475
8
0.984
2.187
69.662
9
0.927
2.061
71.723
10
0.822
1.827
73.550
11
0.769
1.708
75.258
12
0.718
1.596
76.854
13
0.679
1.508
78.363
14
0.621
1.380
79.742
15
0.602
1.337
81.079
16
0.554
1.231
82.310
17
0.531
1.179
83.490
18
0.513
1.140
84.630
19
0.505
1.121
85.751
20
0.478
1.063
86.814
21
0.473
1.052
87.866
22
0.436
0.968
88.835
23
0.426
0.947
89.782
24
0.391
0.869
90.651
25
0.373
0.830
91.481
26
0.346
0.770
92.251
27
0.328
0.728
92.978
28
0.310
0.689
93.667
29
0.286
0.636
94.303
30
0.257
0.572
94.875
31
0.241
0.535
95.409
32
0.233
0.518
95.927
33
0.226
0.502
96.429
34
0.210
0.466
96.895
35
0.197
0.437
97.332
36
0.181
0.402
97.734
37
0.162
0.360
98.094
38
0.153
0.339
98.433
39
0.145
0.323
98.756
40
0.129
0.286
99.042
41
0.115
0.256
99.298
42
0.100
0.222
99.520
43
0.083
0.185
99.705
44
0.073
0.163
99.868
45
0.059
0.132
100.000
Extraction method: principal component analysis.
Extraction sums of squared loadings
Rotation sums of squared loadings
Total
% of variance
Cumulative %
Total
% of variance
Cumulative %
14.676
4.730
3.601
2.652
1.887
1.552
1.267
32.613
10.510
8.001
5.894
4.193
3.448
2.815
32.613
43.123
51.124
57.019
61.212
64.660
67.475
8.352
5.781
5.771
3.692
2.676
2.290
1.800
18.561
12.847
12.825
8.204
5.948
5.090
3.999
18.561
31.408
44.234
52.438
58.386
63.475
67.475
Table A5
Exploratory factory analysis (n 299)
BAS1
BAS2
BAS3
BAS4
BAS5
BAS6
REL1
REL2
REL3
REL4
REL5
REL6
REL7
REL8
REL9
REL10
REL11
REL12
REL13
ASS1
ASS2
ASS3
EMP1
EMP2
EMP3
ENV1
ENV2
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
ENV8
ENV9
TEC1
TEC2
ENT1
ENT2
ENT3
ENT4
ENT5
ENT6
ENT7
ENT8
ENT9
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q13
Q14
Q15
Q16
Q17
Q18
Q22
Q23
Q24
Q25
Q26
Q27
Q38
Q29
Q30
Q31
Q32
Q33
Q34
Q41
Q42
Q44
Q45
Q46
Q47
Q48
Q49
Q50
Q54
Q55
Q52
Q53
Q56
Q57
Q58
Q59
Q60
Q61
Q62
0.632
0.755
0.779
0.777
0.729
0.705
0.098
0.123
0.120
0.046
0.122
0.049
0.228
0.160
0.145
0.209
0.246
0.155
0.038
0.145
0.103
0.050
0.049
0.128
0.056
0.025
0.033
0.006
0.027
0.043
0.121
0.034
0.152
0.108
0.129
0.151
0.157
0.035
0.088
0.065
0.001
0.054
0.070
0.002
0.009
0.261
0.210
0.011
0.071
0.163
0.207
0.814
0.873
0.781
0.742
0.684
0.670
0.692
0.669
0.650
0.609
0.658
0.690
0.663
0.483
0.428
0.380
0.403
0.143
0.095
0.270
0.209
0.136
0.274
0.172
0.205
0.359
0.278
0.378
0.171
0.225
0.179
0.153
0.063
0.156
0.151
0.044
0.017
0.033
0.152
0.055
0.009
0.131
0.072
0.083
0.024
0.052
0.099
0.093
0.098
0.231
0.089
0.204
0.087
0.073
0.154
0.296
0.252
0.072
0.702
0.756
0.663
0.185
0.205
0.022
0.333
0.257
0.107
0.040
0.142
0.047
0.090
0.177
0.082
0.082
0.063
0.094
0.121
0.060
0.006
0.133
0.142
0.123
0.029
0.014
0.036
0.162
0.100
0.137
0.134
0.032
0.043
0.059
0.190
0.250
0.112
0.150
0.050
0.062
0.050
0.122
0.058
0.065
0.177
0.114
0.137
0.225
0.717
0.807
0.816
0.173
0.002
0.138
0.135
0.092
0.216
0.204
0.254
0.341
0.109
0.168
0.198
0.187
0.043
0.046
0.088
0.025
0.090
0.002
0.083
0.045
0.070
0.032
0.184
0.048
0.154
0.275
0.141
0.017
0.051
0.224
0.282
0.300
0.285
0.064
0.220
0.168
0.221
0.320
0.191
0.190
0.111
0.001
0.074
0.066
0.613
0.796
0.862
0.812
0.838
0.684
0.641
0.681
0.564
0.240
0.146
0.117
0.099
0.128
0.051
0.156
0.250
0.004
0.006
0.078
0.135
0.045
0.032
0.085
0.095
0.033
0.037
0.008
0.128
0.138
0.036
0.201
0.047
0.035
0.285
0.020
0.030
0.044
0.040
0.039
0.040
0.101
0.199
0.072
0.013
0.056
0.031
0.017
0.051
0.056
0.061
0.177
0.063
0.121
0.805
0.809
0.066
0.085
0.201
0.226
0.181
0.102
0.133
0.046
0.056
0.118
0.091
0.099
0.089
0.098
0.079
0.083
0.118
0.241
0.151
0.058
0.011
0.009
0.158
0.089
0.150
0.001
0.092
0.152
0.102
0.054
0.094
0.110
0.129
0.219
0.252
0.055
0.062
0.065
0.084
0.170
0.229
0.127
0.188
0.315
0.342
0.642
0.789
0.736
0.801
0.661
0.731
0.745
0.808
0.772
Remark:
(1)Extraction method: Principal component analysis, rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization, rotation converged in 6 iterations.
(2)BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, ASS e Assurance, EMP e Empathy, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT e Entertainment, VH e very high, H e high, L e low,
VL e very low.
Table A6
Results of 3-D IPA for seven dimensions using individual cross-points.
Actual performance
Explicit importance
Implicit importance
Mean
Level
Mean
Level
Mean
Level
H
H
H
L
VH
VL
L
6.519
6.257
6.383
5.602
6.496
5.769
5.419
6.064
H
H
H
L
H
L
L
0.038
0.059
0.193
0.115
0.203
0.260
0.245
0.159
VH
H
H
VL
VH
L
H
6.469
6.382
6.457
5.345
6.661
5.906
5.675
6.128
H
H
H
L
H
L
L
0.107
0.217
0.184
0.091
0.124
0.221
0.065
0.144
Stand-alone luxury hotels

BAS
5.386
REL
5.294
ASS
5.387
EMP
4.715
ENV
5.640
TEC
4.648
ENT
4.790
Grand mean
5.123
Resort-based luxury hotel
BAS
5.933
REL
5.602
ASS
5.708
EMP
4.673
ENV
6.039
TEC
5.346
ENT
5.610
Grand mean
5.559
Three-factor theory
3-D IPA strategy
L
L
H
L
H
H
H
Basic
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Excitement
Excitement
Slightly reduce
Slightly reduce
Keep
Low priority
Keep
Largely improve
Improve
L
H
H
L
L
H
L
Basic
Performance
Performance
Performance
Basic
Excitement
Performance
Reduce
Keep
Keep
Low priority
Reduce
Improve
Reduce
Remark: BAS e Basic (tangible), REL e Reliability, ASS e Assurance, EMP e Empathy, ENV e Environment, TEC e Technology, ENT e Entertainment, VH e very high, H e high, L
e low, VL e very low.
158
Fig. A1. Scree plot.
References
Abalo, J., Varela, J., & Manzano, V. (2007). Importance values for importanceperformance analysis: a formula for spreading out values derived from preference rankings. Journal of Business Research, 60(2), 115e121.
Abalo, J., Varela, J., & Rial, A. (2006). El Analisis de Importancia-Valoracion aplicado
a la gestion de servicios. Psicothema, 18(4), 730e737.
Aigbedo, H., & Parameswaran, R. (2004). Importance-performance analysis for
improving quality of campus food service. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, 21(8), 876e896.
Akbaba, A. (2006). Measuring service quality in the hotel industry: a study in a
business hotel in Turkey. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(2),
170e192.
ns-Montes, F. J. (2007). Service
Albacete-Saes, C. A., Fuentes-Fuentes, M. M., & Llore
quality measurement in rural accommodation. Annual of Tourism Research,
34(1), 45e65.
Alegre, J., & Garau, J. (2011). The factor structure of tourist satisfaction at sun and
sand destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 50(1), 78e86.
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004). Customer satisfaction and
shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 172e185.
Azzopardi, E., & Nash, R. (2013). A critical evaluation of importance-performance
analysis. Tourism Management, 35, 222e233.
Bacon, D. R. (2003). A comparison of approaches to importance-performance
analysis. International Journal of Market Research, 45(1), 55e71.
Berman, B. (2005). How to delight your customers. California Management Review,
48(1), 129e151.
Caber, M., Albayrak, T., & Loiacono, E. T. (2013). The classication of extranet attributes in terms of their asymmetric inuences on overall user satisfaction: an
introduction to asymmetric impact-performance analysis,. Journal of Travel
Research, 52(1), 106e116.
Chen, C. F., & Tsai, D. C. (2007). How destination image and evaluative factors affect
behavioral intentions? Tourism Management, 28(4), 1115e1122.
Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and
extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55e68.
Danaher, P. J. (1997). Using conjoint analysis to determine de relative importance of
service attributes measured in customer satisfaction surveys. Journal of
Retailing, 73(2), 235e260.
Deng, W. J. (2007). Using a revised importanceeperformance analysis approach: the
case of Taiwanese hot springs tourism. Tourism Management, 28(5), 1274e1284.
Deng, W. J. (2008). Fuzzy importance-performance analysis for determining critical
service attributes. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(2),
252e270.
Deng, W. J., Chen, W. C., & Pei, W. (2008b). Back-propagation neural network based
importanceeperformance analysis for determining critical service attributes.
Expert Systems with Applications, 34(2), 1115e1125.
Deng, W. J., Kuo, Y. F., & Chen, W. C. (2008a). Revised importanceeperformance
analysis: three-factor theory and benchmarking. The Service Industries Journal,
28(1), 37e51.
Deng, W. J., & Pei, W. (2009). Fuzzy neural based importance-performance analysis
for determining critical service attributes. Expert Systems with Applications,
36(2), 3774e3784.
Dolinsky, A. L., & Caputo, R. K. (1991). Adding a competitive dimension to
importance-performance analysis: an application to traditional health care
systems. Health Marketing Quarterly, 8(3e4), 61e79.
Ekinci, Y., Riley, M., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1998). Which school of thought? the dimensions of resort hotel quality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(2), 63e67.
Fallon, P., & Schoeld, P. (2006). The dynamics of destination attribute importance.
Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 709e713.
Fick, G. R., & Ritchie, J. R. (1991). Measuring service quality in the travel and tourism
industry. Journal of Travel Research, 30(2), 2e9.
Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced
methods of marketing research (pp. 52e78). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. (1996). The American
customer satisfaction index: description, ndings, and implications. Journal of
Marketing, 60(4), 7e18.
Fuchs, M. (2004). Destination benchmarkingdan indicator's potential for exploring
guest satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 58(3), 1e25.
Fller, J., & Matzler, K. (2008). Customer delight and market segmentation: an
application of the three-factor theory of customer satisfaction on life style
groups. Tourism Management, 29(1), 116e126.
Fller, J., Matzler, K., & Faullant, R. (2006). Asymmetric effects in customer satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1159e1163.
Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (2006), 12 October, www.dicj.gov.mo.
Getty, J. M., & Getty, R. L. (2003). Lodging quality index (LQI): assessing customers'
perceptions of quality delivery. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 15(2), 94e104.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1985). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). , Philadelphia: Saunders Press.
nroos, C. (1984). A service quality model and its marketing implications. EuroGro
pean Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36e44.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data
analysis: With readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Heung, V. C. S., & Wong, M. Y. (1997). Hotel service quality in Hong Kong: a study of
tourists' expectations. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 3(3), 264e271.
Hollenhorst, S., & Gardner, L. (1994). The indicator performance estimate approach
to determining acceptable wilderness conditions,. Environmental Management,
18(6), 901e906.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6(1), 1e55.
Humborstad, S. I. W., Humborstad, B., Whiteld, R., & Perry, C. (2008). Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high power-distance organizations.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1349e1364.
Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: satisers and dissatisers.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53e71.
Juwaheer, T. D. (2004). Exploring international tourists' perceptions of hotel operations by using a modied SERVQUAL approach: a case study of Mauritius.
Managing Service Quality, 14(5), 350e364.

Kano, N. (1984). Attractive quality and must be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality), 14(2),
147e156 (in Japanese).
Kaviania, M. A., Abbasib, M., Yuseb, M. M., & Zareinejada, M. (2014). Prioritizing
operation strategies of companies using fuzzy AHP and importanceperformance matrix. Decision Science Letters, 3(3), 353e358.
Knutson, B., Stevens, P., Wullaert, C., Patton, M., & Yokoyama, F. (1990). LODGSERV: a
service quality index for the lodging industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 14(2),
277e284.
Ladhari, R. (2009). A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research. International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(2), 172e198.
Lai, I. K. W., & Hitchcock, M. (2015). Importance-performance analysis in tourism: a
framework for researchers. Tourism Management, 48, 242e267.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1(2), 130e149.
Macau Tourism Industry Net (2015). http://industry.macautourism.gov.mo/en/
index.php.
Martilla, J. A., & James, J. C. (1977). Importanceeperformance analysis. Journal of
Marketing, 41(1), 77e79.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, J. (2004). The asymmetric relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer
satisfaction: a reconsideration of the importanceeperformance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(4), 271e277.
Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). How to make product development projects more successful by integrating Kano's model of customer satisfaction into
quality function deployment. Technovation, 18(1), 25e38.
Matzler, K., Pechlaner, H., & Siller, H. (2001). Die ermittlung von basis-, leistungsund begeisterungsfaktoren der gastezufriedenheit. Tourismus Journal, 5(4),
445e469.
Matzler, K., Renzl, B., & Rothenberger, S. (2006). Measuring the relative importance
of service dimensions in the formation of price satisfaction and service satisfaction: a case study in the hotel industry. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality
and Tourism, 6(3), 179e196.
Matzler, K., & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The factor structure of customer satisfaction: an
empirical test of the importance grid & the penaltyerewardecontrast analysis.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 13(4), 314e332.
Matzler, K., Sauerwein, E., & Heischmidt, K. A. (2003). Importance-performance
analysis revisited: the role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction. The
Service Industries Journal, 23(2), 112e129.
Maxham, J. G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). A longitudinal study of complaining
customers' evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal
of Marketing, 66(4), 57e71.
Mei, A. W. O., Dean, A. M., & White, C. J. (1999). Analyzing service quality in the
hospitality industry. Managing Service Quality, 9(2), 136e143.
Mikulic, J., & Prebezac, D. (2012). Accounting for dynamics in attribute-importance
and for competitor performance to enhance reliability of BPNN-based importanceeperformance analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5),
5144e5153.
Min, H., Min, H., & Chung, K. (2002). Dynamic benchmarking of hotel service
quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(4), 302e321.
Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric impact of negative
and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase
intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 33e47.
Mohsin, A., & Lockyer, T. (2010). Customer perceptions of service quality in luxury
hotels in New Delhi, India: an exploratory study. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(2), 160e173.
Mok, C., & Armstrong, R. W. (1998). Expectations for hotel service quality: do they
differ from culture to culture? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 4(4), 381e391.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
n & Muthe
n.
Muthe
Nefzger, M. D., & Drasgow, J. (1957). The needless assumption of normality in
pearson's r,. The American Psychologist, 12(10), 623e625.
Oh, H. (2001). Revisiting importance-performance analysis. Tourism Management,
22(6), 617e627.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460e469.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Customer satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Leary, J. T., & Adams, M. B. (1982). Community-views concerning urban forest recreation resources, facilities and services. Chicago, Illinois: Cooperative Research
Project. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.
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),
41e50.
Petrick, J. F., Morais, D. D., & Norman, W. C. (2001). An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers' intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel
159
Research, 40(1), 41e48.

Pezeshki, V., Mousavi, A., & Grant, S. (2009). Importance-performance analysis of
service attributes and its impact on decision making in the mobile telecommunication industry. Measuring Business Excellence, 13(1), 82e92.
Poon, W. C., & Low, K. L. T. (2005). Are travellers satised with Malaysian hotels?
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 17(3), 217e227.
Presbury, R., Fitzgerald, A., & Chapman, R. (2005). Impediments to improvements in
service quality in luxury hotels. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal, 15(4), 357e373.
Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: integrating
the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management,
32(3), 465e476.
Ramsaran-Fowdar, R. R. (2007). Developing a service quality questionnaire for the
hotel industry in Mauritius. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 13(1), 19e27.
Rodgers, J. L., & Nicewander, W. A. (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation
coefcient. The American Statistician, 42(1), 59e66.
Rust, R. T., & Oliver, R. L. (2000). Should we delight the customer? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 86e94.
Sampson, S. E., & Showalter, M. J. (1999). The performanceeimportance response
function: observations and implications. The Service in Industries Journal, 19(3),
1e25.
Sethna, B. N. (1982). Extensions and testing of importanceeperformance analysis.
Business Economics, 17(4), 28e31.
Taylor, S. (1997). Assessing regression-based importance weights for quality perceptions and satisfaction judgments in the presence of higher order and/or
interaction effects. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 135e159.
Vavra, T. G. (1997). Improving your measurement of customer satisfaction d A guide to
creating, conducting, analyzing, and reporting customer satisfaction measurement
programs. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQ Quality Press.
Wheaton, B. (1987). Assessment of t in over-identied models latent variable.
Sociological Methods & Research, 16(1), 118e154.
Wilkins, H., Merrilee, B., & Herington, C. (2007). Toward an understanding of total
service quality in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(4),
840e853.
Yoon, Y., & Uysal, M. (2005). An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model,. Tourism Management,
26(1), 45e56.
Yule, G. U., & Kendall, M. G. (1950). An introduction to the theory of statistics (14th
ed.). New York: Hafner.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control
processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35e48.
Professor Ivan K.W. Lai is a professor in the School of

Business and Hospitality Management at the Caritas
Institute of Higher Education, Hong Kong. He has published research papers in various journals such as Tourism
Management, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, and International Journal of Hospitality
Management. His current research focuses on research
methods for hospitality and tourism studies.
Professor Michael Hitchcock is a professor in the Institute for Creative and Cultural Entrepreneurship at the
Goldsmiths, University of London, UK. He holds a doctorate
from the University of Oxford. He has published research
papers in various journals such as Tourism Management,
Current Issues in Tourism, International Journal of Heritage
Studies, and International Journal of Tourism Research. His
current research focuses on cultural heritage management.

A Comparison of Service Quality Attributes For Stand-Alone and Resort-Based Luxury Hotels in Macau PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

A Comparison of Service Quality Attributes For Stand-Alone and Resort-Based Luxury Hotels in Macau PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

A comparison of service quality attributes for stand-alone and

2006). In 2014, Macau received 31.52 million visitors, though it is

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

smaller than a resort-based hotel, though the overall size of the

develops a 3-dimensional IPA (3-D IPA) approach that extends the

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

and the attribute importance on the y-axis (Sampson & Showalter,

dissatisfaction, but do not result in customer satisfaction when

Fig. 2. Kano's model of customer satisfaction (adapted from Kano, 1984).

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Matzler & Hiterbuber (1998) Skis

Matzler and Sauerwein

Matzler et al. (2003)

Aigbedo and Parameswaran Campus food

Fallon and Schoeld (2006) Destination

Hot spring hotels

Hot spring hotels

Deng, Chen, and Pei (2008b) Hot spring hotels

Deng et al. (2008a)

Hot spring hotels

Fller and Matzler (2008)

Deng and Pei (2009)

Hot spring hotels

Pezeshki et al. (2009)

Alegre and Garau (2011)

Sun and send

Caber, Albayrak, & Loiacono Travel agency

Kaviania, Abbasib, Yuseb,

Using mathematical formula to calculate customer satisfaction coefcient and customer

Remark: AHP e Analytic Hierarchy Process, IPA e Importanceeperformance analysis.

service quality construct including technical quality and functional

quality in the travel and tourism industry using SERVQUAL and

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

travelers than leisure travelers. Mok and Armstrong (1998) used

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Fig. 3. Importance grid (adapted from Vavra, 1997).

inuence on overall satisfaction; however, basic factors are rated

Fig. 4. 3-D IPA approach.

very low. If rms have sufcient resources, it is recommended that

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Reasons for proposed resources allocation

Reduction to average performance level will not affect satisfaction

Reduction to average performance level will not affect satisfaction

Little improvement is sufcient to reach average performance

Satisfaction only can be increased when services are provided

Remark: *depend on the availability of the resources.

from 11:00 to 19:00 and selected one respondent every 30 min. A

a bachelor's degree. Respondents with a monthly income below

3.5. Demographic information

Table 3 shows the standardized factor-loading of all retained

Basic (Tangible) (Cronbach's Alpha 0.843, AVE 0.535, CR 0.873)

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Variance Extracted (AVE) and Construct Reliability (CR) of each

respectively. Some respondents selected no experience for

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Original IPA strategy

3-D IPA strategy

technology dimension, improve action is recommended. Fig. 6

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159

Fig. 5. The distributions of 45 attributes in the 3-D IPA cube.

I.K.W. Lai, M. Hitchcock / Tourism Management 55 (2016) 139e159