TLH339 Service Quality
Assessment Brief 2020/21 TLH339 Service Quality
Assessment 001: Canvas & JIRA Deadline: Tuesday 22nd June 2021 by 2pm
Upon successful completion of this module, students will have demonstrated Knowledge
- A critical understanding of the main theories and principles surrounding the management of service quality
- A critical understanding of the range and importance of tools used for assessing service quality
- The ability to critically appraise the management of service quality for a given service organization
- The ability to critically evaluate a range of theories and sources associated with service quality
(Please ensure that the sequence numbering of the assessments is in the correct chronological order for the module, as this may affect funding.)
|Required For KIS return to HESA|
|Seq.||Element||% of module||Summary||Pass||LO||Written||Written||Coursework||Practical|
|assessment||Mark||exam –||exam –||(% of the||(% of the|
|(% of the||(% of the|
|001||Written Assessme nt||100%||4,500 word written assessme nt||*||1,2, 3 and 4||100 %||Written Asses sment|
Assessment 001 a critical evaluation report assessing learning outcomes 1, 2, 3 and 4 contributing 100% of final module mark
INDICATIVE READING LIST
Ford, C., Sturman, M. and Heaton, C. (2012). Managing Quality Service in Hospitality.
International Edition. Cengage, London.
Fleming, J. and Asplund, J. (2007). Human Sigma: Managing the Employee Customer Encounter, Gallup Press
Hollins, B. and Shinkins, S. (2009). Managing Service Operations. Sage, London.
Heskett, J. L., Sasser, W. E. and Schlesinger, L. A. (2003) The Service Profit Chain. Free Press, New York
Hudson, S & Hudson, L. (2013) Customer Service for Hospitality & Tourism. London: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd.
Johnston, R. and Clark, G., (2008) Services Operations Management: improving service delivery
3rd ed Prentice Hall New Jersey
Kandampully J. Mok, C., and Sparks, B. (2009) Service Quality Management in Hospitality, Tourism, and Leisure. Hawarth, New York.
Kelemen, M.L. (2009). Managing Quality. Sage, London.
Lovelock, C and Wirtz, J. (2011) Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy, 7th Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Schneider, B and White, S. (2004) Service Quality: research perspectives. Sage Publications.
Assessment 1: Project Report
Individual project report, assessing learning outcomes 1 to 4, contributing 100% of module marks
You have been appointed as quality management consultant by a service organization to improve their current service delivery. Your task is to write a report to the Management of the hotel and it should include the following:
- A critical evaluation of the main theories and principles of managing service quality. Justify the importance of measuring service quality.
- A critical appraisal of the management of service quality for the given service organisation in the case study, establishing the impact of its current service delivery practices on the motivation and engagement of staff.
- Produce a Customer Feedback System (CFS) framework that the organisation can utilise to monitor and continually improve service quality.
Make a reasoned argument in an academically well written report that leads the reader through argument and debate to a clear conclusion. The argument will therefore embrace the service concept whilst identifying a range of theoretical quality models.
The word limit is 4,500 words.
Assessment deadline: Check your Academic Calendar CASE STUDY: The West India Quay Hotel.
The West India Quay Hotel is a 4-star hotel and has been operating since 2000 AD. Situated close to Canary Wharf in East London, the hotel has 120 modern and stylish en-suite rooms, including standard, executive and premier. In 2005, they opened a conference and banqueting suite of three event venue spaces which are suitable for hosting conferences, meetings, weddings and other functions. Other Hotel facilities include a gym, spa and swimming pool. The food and beverage operations include a formal dining area where breakfast and lunches are served at the Brasserie, and Kings Bar and Restaurant which are open at lunch time and for evening service for a range of local and international cuisine.
The Hotel attracts both business and leisure guests, and has recently been refurbished; updating the reception area, restaurants and rooms. Since the refurbishment and development of the conference and banqueting suite, the West India Quay Hotel has had a 100% increase in room and event bookings combined. However, whilst profits have significantly increased, customer complaints have also risen within this period. In the last six months Trip Advisor reviews have been highlighting various issues within the Hotel – such as “Great facilities but poor service., “long waiting times, busy front desk, staff trying really hard to accommodate all guests as they were understaffed and unable to cope”, “callous attitude of waiter to solve the problem, no apologies for inconvenience, lack of clarity about compensation”.The Hotel Manager only checks Trip Advisor Reviews once a month and instructs employees to refer any customer complaints directly to him. The management team has only recently become aware that customers are also leaving reviews on
the Hotel’s Facebook page. As Hotel occupancy, conference, and banqueting event bookings have increased, the management team is struggling to find the time to respond to customer feedback.
The service culture emphasizes the importance of the guest’s experience, however staff feel that there is no ownership, and that they are not cared for. There are no reward schemes or active empowerment of the staff, and they feel that management do not value them. Currently 50% of staff are employed part time, with only the management team and supervisors on full time contracts and staff turnover is increasing. There have also been complaints about the minimum wage paid, the bureacratic style of management and lack of empowerment. In terms of recruitment, the management team has no planned approach and recruits on an ad hoc basis. Training lasts one week and is provided on the job by the on duty supervisor.
The Hotel used to operate on good service standards in quality assurance, recognition and attentiveness. This included a personalized approach by using the guests name once it is known and by calling the guest 15 minutes after checking in to make sure the room is satisfactory. However, since the increase in hotel occupation and staff turnover, these standards are neither being upheld, nor are the management team enforcing it.
The management of the West India Quay Hotel has approached you as a Service Quality consultant to analyse the present situation and to ensure that the Hotel maintains the standards expected; the hotel four star rating and modern and stylish en-suite rooms, food and beverage and public areas.
|WORD COUNT PENALTIES Exceeds limit by up to 10%||No penalty – tolerance band (see below)|
|Exceeds limit by 10.1-20%||-5 percentage points|
|Exceeds limit by 20.1-30%||-10 percentage points|
|Exceeds limit by 30.1-40%||-15 percentage points|
|Exceeds limit by 40.1-50%||-20 percentage points|
|Exceeds limit by more than 50%||Mark of zero|
A. Generic Assessment Criteria – Undergraduate
These should be interpreted according to the level at which you are working
|Grade||Relevance||Knowledge||Analysis||Argument and||Critical Evaluation||Presentation||Reference to Literature|
|86 –||The work examined is exemplary and provides clear evidence of a complete grasp of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. There is also unequivocal evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that|
|100%||Level are fully satisfied. At this level it is expected that the work will be exemplary in all the categories cited above. It will demonstrate a particularly compelling|
|evaluation, originality, and|
|elegance of argument, interpretation or discourse.|
|76-||The work examined is excellent and demonstrates comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of|
|85%||the qualification. There is also excellent evidence showing that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are fully satisfied. At|
|this level it is expected that|
|the work will be excellent in the majority of the categories cited above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and|
|elegance of argument,|
|interpretation or discourse and some evidence of|
|The work examined is of a high standard and there is evidence of comprehensive knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate|
|ate to the Level of the|
|qualification. There is clearly articulated evidence that all the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that level are|
|70 –||demonstrating satisfied At|
|this level it is expected that the standard of the work will be high in the majority of the categories cited|
|75%||above or by demonstrating particularly compelling evaluation and elegance of argument, interpretation or|
|Directly relevant to the||A substantial||Comprehensiv e||Well supported,||Contains distinctive||Well written, with standard||Critical appraisal of up-to-|
|60 –||requirements||knowledge of||analysis – clear||focused argument||or independent||spelling||date and/or appropriate|
|69%||of the assessment||relevant material,||and orderly||which is clear and||thinking; and begins||and grammar, in||literature. Recognition of|
|Pass||showing a clear||presentation||logically structured.||to formulate an||a readable style||different perspectives.|
|grasp of themes,||independent position||with acceptable||Very good use of a wide|
|questions and||in relation to theory||format||range of sophisticated|
|issues therein||and/or practice.||source material.|
|Some attempt to||Adequate||Significant||Generally coherent||May contain some||Competently||Uses a good variety of|
|50 –||address the||knowledge of a fair||analytical||and logically||distinctive or||written, with||literature which includes|
|59%||requirements of||range of relevant||treatment which||structured, using||independent thinking;||only||recent texts and/or|
|the assessment:||material, with||has a clear||an appropriate mode||may begin to||minor lapses from||appropriate literature,|
|may drift away from||intermittent||purpose||of||formulate an||standard||including a substantive|
|this in less||evidence of an||argument||Independent||grammar, with||amount beyond library|
|focused passages||appreciation of its||and/or||position in relation to||acceptable||texts. Competent use of|
|significance||theoretical||theory and/or||format||source material.|
|40 –||Some correlation with||Basic||Some analytical||Some attempt to||Sound work which||A simple basic||Evidence of use of|
|49%||the requirements of||understanding of||treatment, but||construct a coherent||expresses a coherent||style but with||appropriate literature|
|the assessment but||the subject but||may be prone to||argument, but may||position only in broad||significant||which goes beyond that|
|there are instances of||addressing a||description, or to||suffer loss of focus||terms and in uncritical||deficiencies in||referred to by the tutor.|
|irrelevance||limited range of||narrative, which||and consistency,||conformity to one or||expression or||Frequently only uses a|
|material||lacks clear||with issues at stake||more standard views||format that may||single source to support a|
|analytical purpose||stated only vaguely,||of the topic||pose obstacles||point.|
|or theoretical||for the reader|
|mode(s) couched in|
|35 –||Relevance to the||A limited||Largely||A basic||Some evidence of a||Numerous||Barely adequate use of|
|Fail||39%||requirements of||understanding of a||descriptive or||argument is||view starting to be||deficiencies||literature. Over reliance|
|the assessment||narrow range of||narrative, with||evident, but||formed but mainly||in||On material provided by the|
|may be very||material||little evidence of||mainly||derivative.||expression and||tutor.|
|intermittent, and||analysis||supported by||presentation; the|
|may be reduced to||assertion||writer may|
|its vaguest and least||and there may be||achieve|
|challenging||a lack of clarity||clarity (if at all) only|
|terms||and coherence||by using a|
The evidence provided shows that the majority of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied
– for compensation consideration.
30 – The work examined provides insufficient evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence
34% provided shows that some of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in some of the indicators.
15-29% The work examined is unacceptable and provides little evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence shows that few of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in several of the indicators.
0-14% The work examined is unacceptable and provides almost no evidence of the knowledge, understanding and skills appropriate to the Level of the qualification. The evidence fails to show that any of the learning outcomes and responsibilities appropriate to that Level are satisfied. The work will be weak in the majority or all of the indicators.