Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No.

2, 2012

Service Failures in the Quick-Service Restaurant Industry

from the Standpoint of Customers and Managers

Ahmed Fawzy and Yasser Ibrahim

Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management, Helwan University

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was twofold. First, it

aimed to determine what customers and managers believed were the most
common service failures that might occur in one of the worldwide
renowned quick-service restaurant chains. The second aim was to
ascertain the extent of congruence between both groups of respondents on
such service failures. Results showed that the most frequent service failure
experienced by customers was “the restaurant is too noisy”, whereas
restaurant managers identified “service is rushed” as the most common
service failure that could be encountered by customers. The independent-
samples t-test identified statistical significant differences on four attributes
including “slow service”, “service is rushed”, “some items are not
available”, and “smoking policy not followed”. Yet, “some items are not
available” and “smoking policy not followed” were discovered to be more
common failures to customers as compared to managers. Based on the
research findings, a conceptual model was constructed that depicts the ten
most common service failures indicated by customers and managers as
well as those with significant differences that were found to be more
common to customers. The developed model could equip restaurant
managers with a better insight into the actual common service failures that
might annoy their customers, the issue that could help them avoid such
failures, retain their customers and improve customer service.
KEYWORDS: service failure, customer satisfaction, quick service
restaurants.

INTRODUCTION
The global restaurant industry is growing rapidly. In the United States
alone, the restaurant industry sales reached $604 billion in 2011, with a
14% growth rate from $42 billion in 1970, of which almost 30% ($178.8

108
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

billion) were generated from the quick-service restaurant segment (NRA,

2011). From onion rings to double cheeseburgers, fast food is one of the
world's fastest growing food types. Basically, fast foods are quick,
reasonably priced, and readily available alternatives to home cooked food
(Goyal and Singh, 2007). A new and faster pace of life in big cities has
also led people to find quicker meal solutions for their shortened lunch
hours (Hanson, 2002). Moreover, as stated by Park (2004), eating out
gives consumers the opportunity to satisfy their hunger, and need for
convenience, pleasure, entertainment, time saving, social interaction and
the mood transformation.
Mack et al. (2000) implied that dissatisfying service-encounters are
particularly common in restaurants, where there is a high frequency and
diversity of customer and service provider interactions (Bitner et al., 1990;
Susskind et al., 2000) and “a greater propensity to fail due to their
intangible or experiential nature, as well as simultaneous production and
consumption” (Lee and Sparks, 2007, p. 505). A failure to deliver service
as per customer expectations creates depredation in the customer’s
psychology which can ring death knells for the organization (Dutta et al.,
2007). Therefore, the thorough detection of service failures is essential for
service firms to enhance customer satisfaction and retention (Namkung
and Jang, 2010). Customer retention, as indicated by Mathe and Slevitch
(2011), has become a continuous focus of service firms and especially
salient in the quick-service restaurant industry due to the short time with
the customer.
Although there has been a number of scholarly studies considering service
failures in restaurants, the majority of surveys have been USA based and
there is a relative scarcity of reference to other geographical locations such
as Egypt. Franchising has developed extensively in Egypt over a short
period, particularly in the quick service restaurant sector. The current food
franchise market is valued at an estimated more than US$ 300 million.
Popular chains include Chili’s, TGI Fridays, Hard Rock Café, KFC, Little
Caesars Pizza, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut and Baskin Robins. The nation also
has popular home-grown chains, though few of them have adopted the
franchise concept. Market sources project the franchising business to
continue growing at an annual rate of 10-20% over the coming years
(Invest in Egypt report, 2011).

109
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Accordingly, this research work aims to identify areas of service failure in

an international quick-service restaurant chain operating in Egypt. An
appreciation of those failures in geographical locations other than the USA
could constitute a further contribution to the body of knowledge on such a
research area and provide the basis for making international comparisons.
The resultant data could also help quick service restaurants design
appropriate procedures to proactively get rid of such failure-points and
hence, improve customer service and increase repeat patronage.

SERVICE FAILURE
Service failure is concerned with any service-related mishap, either actual
or perceived, during a customer’s experience with a firm (Palmer et al.,
2000). Because of the inherent characteristics of the people-dependent
restaurant industry, service failure inevitably occurs ((Namkung and Jang,
2010) and hence, it is not always possible to please customers (Lee et al.,
2011). Since providing “zero-defect” service is almost impossible,
identifying which service failures bother customers the most allows
restaurant managers to focus on potentially crucial service errors and
prevent customers from switching to competitors (Namkung and Jang,
2010). Switching to competitors is quite common in the restaurant
industry where the customer has many options and the demand at times is
outstripped by the growth in number of restaurants (Dutta et al., 2007).
Hoffman et al. (1995) have identified and classified service failures into
three broad service failure groups: (1) employee response to service
delivery failure (e.g., restaurant meal defects and slow or unavailable
service), (2) employee responses to customer needs and requests (e.g.,
failing to cook food as requested and responding to seating preferences),
and (3) unprompted and unsolicited employee actions (e.g., wrong order
and mischarging). A research study findings revealed that groups 1, 2, and
3 failures accounted for 44.4, 18.4, and 37.2 percent of total failures
respectively. Furthermore, five different types of group 1 failures were
identified. The first type of group 1 failures, referred to as product defects,
incidents with food described as cold, soggy, raw, burnt, or spoiled and
incidents in which inanimate objects were found in the customer’s food
such as hair, glass, band-aids, bag ties, and cardboard. The second type

110
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

included slow/unavailable service. The third type, known as facility

problems dealt with cleanliness issues such as bad smells, dirty silverware,
and animate objects found in food or crawling across the table (e.g. bugs).
The fourth type, referred to as unclear policies, embraced failures that
resulted from restaurant policies that were not clearly stated by the
restaurant and as a result were perceived by the customer as unfair
involving restaurants that would not accept checks or certain credit cards.
The final failure type included out of stock situations.
Whereas group 2 of failures, as implied by Hoffman et al. (1995),
involved employee responses to implicit/explicit customer requests. Only
two failures types were identified within this group: (1) failures resulting
from food not cooked to order, and (2) seating problems that included
seating smokers in nonsmoking sections and vice versa, lost or
disregarded reservations, denied requests for special tables, and unruly
customers. While group 3 of failures included three failure types: (1)
inappropriate employee behavior, (2) wrong orders, (3) lost orders, and (4)
customer mischarging.
Another study by Dutta et al. (2007) aimed to explore the reasons for
service failure in restaurants across two countries - India and USA. The
study has elicited responses across five categories of service failure
including: (1) operations, (2) hygiene, (3) behavioral, (4) quality of food
and beverages and (5) physical evidence. In both countries, operations
related service failures have been ranked first followed by quality of food
and beverages and physical evidence, in that order. Moreover, improper
billing, inefficient and unfriendly staff and cleanliness were found to be
the top five reasons for service failure across both countries. The least
important reason for service failure in both countries was advertisement
promises not met.
The research work of Mueller et al. (2003) had the ultimate purpose of
comparing the effects of failure and recovery strategies in the restaurant
sector of two countries with very different dining traditions - the United
States and Ireland. Analysis of over 700 personal interviews with
restaurant customers showed that there was much commonality with
regard to service failures. In both samples, the top three critical incident
failures reported were similar: cook error, wait staff error and
unreasonably slow service.

111
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

In a study conducted by Liu et al. (2001) that addressed Taiwan citizens at

restaurants located in other cultural settings, the top five service failures
were found to be: (1) slow/unavailable service, (2) product defect, (3)
employee behavior, (4) lost order, and (5) wrong order. Another
interesting service failure that occupied the seventh rank was discovered to
be spillage. On the other hand, the least common service failure was
detected to be facility problems.
Despite the fact that a large pool of scholarly research work was
conducted on service failures in hotels and restaurants, most researchers
have obtained their data from one side of the relationship only, mainly the
customer and hence, demonstrated an incomplete picture of the whole
situation under scrutiny. Nevertheless, the current study obtains empirical
data from both parties of customers and restaurant managers. It is argued
that the outcome of looking at both sides of customers and restaurant
managers could help underscore differences/similarities in perception with
reference to the most common service failures in quick service restaurants
and thus, improve relationship quality.

METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire acted as the data-gathering tool in the current study. The
questionnaire aimed to determine the most common service failures that
could occur in a quick service restaurant from the perspective of both
customers and managers. After reviewing the related literature on service
failure in restaurants, a list of twenty six attributes was compiled for
inclusion in the questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of three parts.
The first part contained the 26 attributes referred to previously. Customers
were asked, based on their experience with the international quick-service
restaurant chain, to indicate the most frequent service failures that they
could experience on a five-point scale, with “5” always, “4” usually, “3”
sometimes, “2” seldom, and “1” never. On the other hand, restaurant
managers were asked about which service failures they think are most
commonly experienced by customers in their international restaurant
chain. Service failure attributes were categorised into five subsets
including (1) operation, (2) food and beverage quality, (3) cleanliness and
hygiene, (4) staff behaviour, and (5) physical evidence in an attempt to

112
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

provide a more focussed and meaningful illustration of such attributes

(Table 1).
The second part of the survey was an open question with customers and
managers being asked to “………identify any additional service failure
attributes that were not included in the first part”. The implication of this
was to enable respondents to use their own initiative in reflecting
additional service failures as well as to examine the extent to which the
choice of the attributes enclosed in the questionnaire was valid.
The last part of the questionnaire contained a demographics section. In this
part, both sets of customers and managers were asked about their gender
and age. Additionally, customers were asked about their frequency of
visiting the quick-service restaurant chain, whereas managers were given a
question about their work experience in such a chain. The ultimate
purpose of this part was to capture information on the nature and
composition of the study subjects.
Table 1 Subsets of Service Failures
Operation Food and Cleanlines Staff Physical evidence
beverage s and behaviour
quality hygiene
Slow service Food quality Dining area Impolite staff Lacking in
problems not clean ambience/atmosphere
Service is rushed Beverage Bathroom Unfriendly The restaurant is too
quality not clean staff noisy
problems
Inefficient staff Inappropriat Untidy staff Unhelpful Smoking policy not
e food staff followed
temperature
Incorrect charges Food is not Kids corner Interior design/layout
(billing) fresh not clean not reflecting the
Some items not quality of the
available restaurant
Wrong order Air-conditioning
delivered problems
Advertisement Business hours not
promises not met standard
Promotions not
clear
Staff have limited
menu knowledge
Source: Adapted from (Hoffman et al., 1995; Liu et al., 2001; Dutta et al., 2007)

113
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

As indicated earlier, an international quick-service restaurant chain was

selected for this study. Such a selection was made on a convenience basis,
as the researchers used to teach restaurant managers, working in that
chain, on a joint programme between the chain and Helwan University and
hence, facilitating an easy data access. An additional reason for that choice
was due to the fact that such a chain is a long-established operation
associated with a renowned brand. The questionnaire was pilot tested to
examine its content validity as well as assess the wording of questions,
continuity and flow, question sequence and length and timing. In line with
this, the authors used a sample size of 10 questionnaires for this pilot test;
five were given to customers and another five to managers. Respondents’
comments revealed that the wording of questions, continuity and flow and
question sequence represented no problem to them. Also, there was no
concern about the perceived length of the questionnaire, and it took around
ten minutes to complete it.
Thirty questionnaires were handed out personally by one of the authors to
restaurant managers, completed and collected at the end of their lectures.
Ninety six questionnaires were completed by customers in the quick-
service restaurant chain. Data collection took place in 2011. This study
used descriptive statistics represented in mean ratings to identify the most
common service failures that could happen in the quick service restaurant
from the viewpoint of managers and customers and to analyse
respondents’ profile respectively. The independent-samples t-test was also
used to detect differences between the mean scores of the two samples.
Furthermore, the eta square values were obtained for criteria with
significant differences to determine the magnitude of the difference
between customers and managers on such attributes. The SPSS computer
software package for windows version 18.0 was used in data analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of Respondents
The majority of restaurant managers (90%) were males, while females
predominated in the sample of customers (58.3%). In terms of age, the
majority of restaurant managers (60%) aged from 31 to 40, 10% from 21

114
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

to 30 and 30% from 41 to 50. On the other hand, a substantial proportion

of customers (45.8%) aged from 21 to 30, 27.1% less than 21, 22.9% from
31 to 40 and 4.2% over 40. In terms of work experience, the majority of
restaurant managers (60%) had an experience over 15 years, 10% from 5
to 10 years and 30% from 11 to 15 years. This finding indicates a
relatively adequate level of work experience on the part of restaurant
managers, which in turn implies knowledgeable and intellectual
judgement on their side. In terms of customers’ frequency of visit to the
selected quick-service restaurant chain, a substantial proportion of them
(30.2%) indicated that they usually visit the chain more than once a week,
26% once a week, 11.5% once every two weeks, 16.7% once a month, and
15.6% less than once a month. Hence, the majority of customers (56.2%)
indicated that they visit the restaurant chain at least once a week, the issue
that implies knowledgeable and intellectual judgement on their part.

Additional Common Service Failures

All respondents failed to complete this part of the questionnaire. Provided
that none of the respondents in both samples completed this part helps to
validate the choice of service failure attributes.

Attribute Analysis
The first analysis conducted involved calculating the mean and standard
deviation for all the 26 service failure attributes from the perspective of
both: customers and managers (Appendix A). Nevertheless, Table 2
depicts the top ten attributes from the survey of both sets of respondents.
As shown in Table 2, customers rated “the restaurant is too noisy” as their
most common service failure followed by “bathroom not clean”, “service
is rushed”, “some items not available”, “staff have limited menu
knowledge”, and “beverage quality problems”. The remaining items
comprised “kids’ corner not clean”, “advertisement promises not met”,
“inefficient staff” and “lacking in ambience”.
Managers rated “service is rushed” as the most frequent service failure
encountered by customers, followed by “slow service”, “bathroom not
clean”, “inefficient staff”, “air-conditioning problems” and “untidy staff”.

115
 Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Other service failures attributes involved “the restaurant is too busy”,

“incorrect charges (billing)”, “advertisement promises not met”, and
“promotions not clear”. From the preceding comparison, it can be noticed
that both groups have five service failures in common as being among the
top ten attributes, yet with different opinions on their occurrence level.
Such attributes included “the restaurant is too noisy”, “bathroom not
clean”, “service is rushed”, “advertisement promises not met”, and
“inefficient staff”.
Nevertheless, it has to be noted that all service failures (with the exception
of “the restaurant is too busy”) identified by customers were almost
considered seldom incidents. Those findings imply that such a chain
applies rigorous quality systems given the fact it is an international one.
Still, if the chain fails to address those failures promptly; their frequency
of occurrence might increase causing customer dissatisfaction and loss.

Table 2 Top Ten Service Failures from the Standpoint of Customers

and Managers
Customers Managers
Attributes Mean Attributes Mean
The restaurant is too noisy 2.06 Service is rushed 2.33
Bathroom not clean 1.93 Slow service 2.30
Service is rushed 1.91 Bathroom not clean 1.87
Some items not available 1.89 Inefficient staff 1.83
Staff have limited menu knowledge 1.83 Air-conditioning problems 1.73
Beverage quality problems 1.83 Untidy staff 1.70
Kids’ corner not clean 1.81 The restaurant is too noisy 1.70
Advertisement promises not met 1.79 Incorrect charges (billing) 1.67
Inefficient staff 1.75 Advertisement promises not met 1.60
Lacking in ambience 1.74 Promotions not clear 1.60

Mean scores were calculated to provide a comparison of the five subsets’

popularity level between customers and managers (Table 3). The average
mean score for each subset was calculated by adding mean scores for all
attributes within each subset and then dividing the result by the total
number of attributes within such a particular subset.

116
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Table 3 Comparison of Subsets’ Popularity between Customers and

Managers
Customers Managers
Ranking

Subset Average Subset Average

Mean Mean
Score Score
1 Cleanliness and hygiene 1.80 Operation 1.76
2 Food and beverage quality 1.74 Cleanliness and hygiene 1.66
3 Operation 1.71 Physical evidence 1.55
4 Staff behaviour 1.68 Food and beverage quality 1.51
5 Physical evidence 1.67 Staff behaviour 1.49

From Table 3, a number of implications can be drawn as follows:

 Generally, four subsets of service failures were found to be more
popular to customers as compared to managers, including:
“cleanliness and hygiene”, “food and beverage quality”, “staff
behaviour”, and “physical evidence”. Basically, this implies a
relative disagreement between the two groups on the popularity of
those subsets.
 The top subset for customers was “cleanliness and hygiene”, which
came second to managers, with a mean difference of 0.14 between
both groups, indicating major concerns on the part of customers
regarding such a subset. However, the top subset for managers was
“operation” which came third to customers, with a small mean
difference (0.05) between both sets of respondents.
 The least mean difference (0.05) between both groups was detected
on the subset of “operation”, indicating a high level of agreement
on such a subset.
 Customers ascribed more mean scores to the subset of “staff
behaviour” than managers, implying that such an area represents a
key concern for the former group when it comes to service failures.
 The highest mean difference (0.23) between both groups was
related to the “food and beverage quality” subset indicating a clear
difference in opinion on the popularity of that subset.

117
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

The previous findings could help management to use their resources

wisely via spending time and money on items that are considered habitual
to their guests, the issue that could increase their chances of attracting
those guests to their properties and fulfil their needs satisfactorily.
Another analysis undertaken involved the use of the independent-samples
t-test that aimed to ascertain if significant differences existed between the
two groups of customers and managers across the 26 service failure
attributes at a statistically significant difference of p < 0.01. A preliminary
step for conducting the independent-samples t-test was to obtain the
results of Levene’s test for equality of variances, which was generated
using the SPSS (Appendix B).
According to Pallant (2011), if the significance (sig.) value of Levene’s
test for equality of variances is larger than .05 (e.g., .07, .10), this indicates
that the variation of scores for the two groups is the same and
consequently, the significance (2 tailed) value illustrated in the first line
within each row entitled Equal Variance Assumed should be used for
further analysis. However, if the sig. value of Levene’s test is .05 or less
(e.g., .01, .001), this implies that the variances for the two groups are not
the same and hence, the significance (2 tailed) value shown in the second
line referred to as Equal Variances Not Assumed should be used.
The results showed that only four attributes had a sig. of Levene’s test
smaller than or equal to .05 including “slow service” (.003), "incorrect
charges(billing)” (.01), “smoking policy not followed” (.000), and
“business hours not standard” (.05). However, all other remaining factors
had a significance value of larger than .05.
Having decided which significance 2 tailed value to use, it is stated by
Pallant (2011) that if the significance (2 tailed) value is equal or less than
.05 (e.g., .03, .01, .001), then a significant difference exists in the mean
scores between the two groups. On the other hand, if the value is above
.05 (e.g., .06, .10), then there is no difference between the two groups.
Using the above guidelines, a statistically significant difference was found
in the mean scores between both groups on four attributes embracing
“slow service” (.018), “service is rushed” (.05), “some items are not
available” (.042), and “smoking policy not followed” (.000).

118
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Nevertheless, the existence of a significant difference on four attributes

between both groups of customers and managers does not imply a large
magnitude of difference across those attributes. Consequently, it was
necessary to find out the relative magnitude of the differences between
means. In this respect, Pallant (2011) implies that there are a number of
different effect size statistics, the most commonly used is eta squared. The
range of eta squared is from 0 to 1. Guidelines proposed for interpreting
the eta squared value illustrate that .01 = small effect, .06 = moderate
effect and .14 = large effect. Hence, the higher the attribute’s eta squared
value the more the significant difference between both sets of respondents.
It was found that the magnitude of differences between both groups of
respondents was small (.04), (.02), and (.03) on the three attributes of
“slow service”, “service is rushed”, and “some items are not available”,
respectively. It is worth noting that the attribute of “some items are not
available” was detected to be a more common service failure to customers
as compared to managers. On the other hand, a large magnitude of
differences (0.1) was detected between both groups on the attribute of
“smoking policy not followed”. Customers rated that failure as more
frequent to occur (1.58) compared to managers (1.13).
Based on this research work findings, a conceptual model was constructed
(Figure 1) that depicts the ten most common service failures indicated by
customers and managers. Moreover, the model encompasses the two
attributes with significant difference between both groups, which were
found to be more common service failures to customers. The significance
of this framework lies in helping restaurant managers develop a better
knowledge of the most common service failures that customers could
encounter in quick service restaurants. Being aware of those service
failures could help managers get rid of them proactively, the issue that
may reduce wasteful expenditure and result in improved customer service.
Furthermore, the importance of this framework is reflected in the
likelihood of testing it by other researchers in future in different
geographical locations and hence, contribute to the further understanding
of service failures in quick service restaurants.

119
 Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Customers Managers

Top ten attributes Significantly Top ten attributes

 The restaurant is too different attributes  Service is rushed
noisy that were more  Slow service
 Bathroom not clean common to  Bathroom not clean
customers
 Service is rushed  Inefficient staff
 Some items not  Some items are not  Air-conditioning
available available problems
 Staff have limited  Smoking policy not  Untidy staff
menu knowledge followed  The restaurant is too
 Beverage quality noisy
problems  Incorrect charges
 Kids’ corner not (billing)
clean  Advertisement
 Advertisement promises not met
promises not met  Promotions not clear
 Inefficient staff
 Lacking in ambience

Figure 1: A Framework for the Top Ten Attributes as Indicated by

Managers and Customers for Fast Food Restaurant Selection
and Customers’ more Common Attributes

CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

IMPLICATIONS
This research had two aims. The first aim was to determine what
customers and managers believed were the most common service failures
that might occur in quick service restaurants. The second aim was to
ascertain the extent of congruence between both groups of respondents. In
addressing these aims, mean scores were obtained for all attributes to
determine the popularity of service failures and the independent-samples t-
test was conducted to detect significant differences. The magnitude of
differences was calculated using eta squared values. Study results depicted
the ten most common service failures chosen by both sets of respondents.

120
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Interestingly, both groups had five service failures in common as being

among the top ten attributes, yet with different opinions on their popularity
level. Such attributes included “the restaurant is too noisy”, “bathroom not
clean”, “advertisement promises not met”, “service is rushed”, and
“inefficient staff”, where the first three were more highly rated by
customers as compared to restaurant managers.
Also, statistically significant differences were detected between both sets
of respondents on four attributes embracing “slow service”, “service is
rushed”, “some items are not available”, and “smoking policy not
followed”. Yet, it was discovered that the magnitude of differences
between customers and managers on those service failures was small on
three attributes embracing “slow service”, “service is rushed”, and “some
items are not available”, and large on the attribute of “smoking policy not
followed”. Failure to follow an adequate smoking policy within quick
service restaurants could have detrimental health-related repercussions on
customers, the issue that could lead to their discomfort and
disappointment.
The research findings provided the basis for developing a conceptual
framework that illustrates the top ten service failures indicated by
customers and managers in addition to attributes with significant
difference. Thus, the significance of the model proposed in this study lies
in providing managers with an understanding of the most common service
failures anticipated by customers in quick service restaurants. Being aware
of those failures could potentially help managers to tactfully avoid them,
the issue that might eventually lead to customer satisfaction. Satisfied
customers are likely to repeat business and promote the facility to others
through positive word-of-mouth. Doing this could contribute to increasing
customer numbers, and consequently restaurant sales.
As for future implications, it is worth mentioning that the existence of
differences among customers and managers might provide researchers
with the opportunity to explore further why such differences existed in the
first place. Moreover, the significance of the proposed framework is
reflected in the potential of testing it by scholarly authors on other types of
restaurants, such as casual dining restaurants, and in different geographical
locations. Doing this could help facilitate international comparisons and
therefore, identify the perceptions of customers and restaurant managers in

121
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

an international context. It is also suggested that the different types of

service failures that emerged in the developed model could be potentially
integrated into the service recovery process, as they might provide a useful
adjunct to the remedy modelling approach.
One limitation of this study is its reliance on one international restaurant
chain and hence, the results of the current study can not be generalized.
Another limitation is represented in the small sample of customers and
managers surveyed and therefore, a larger sample is needed to validate the
findings of the study.

REFERENCES
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H. and Tetreault, M.S. (1990). The services
encounter, diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of
Marketing, 54, 71-84.

Dutta, K., Venkatesh, U. and Parsa H.G. (2007). Service failure and
recovery strategies in the restaurant sector: An Indo-US comparative
study. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
19(5), 351-363.

Goyal, A. And Singh, N.P. (2007). Consumer perception about fast food
in India: an exploratory study. British Food Journal, 109(2), 182-195.

Hanson, R. (2002). Turkey HRI food service sector report 2002. USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service Gain Report. Retrieved June 2012 from
http://fas.usda.gov.

Hoffman, K.D., Kelley, S.W. and Rotalsky, H.M. (1995). Tracking service
failures and employee recovery efforts. Journal of Services Marketing,
9(2), 49- 61.

Invest in Egypt Report. Retrieved December 2011 from

www.investment.gov.eg.

Lee, M.J., Singh, N. and Chan, E.S.W. (2011). Service failures and
recovery actions in the hotel industry: A text-mining approach. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 17(3), 197-207.

122
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Lee, Y. and Sparks, B. (2007). Appraising tourism and hospitality service

failure events: A Chinese perspective. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 31(4), 504-529.

Liu, T.C., Warden, C.A., Lee, C.H. and Huang, C.T. (2001). Fatal service
failures across cultures. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 8(2),
99-111.

Mack, R., Mueller, R., Crotts, J. and Broderick, A. (2000). Perceptions,

corrections and defections: implications for service recovery in the
restaurant industry. Managing Service Quality, 10(6), 339-346.

Mathe, K. and Slevitch, L. (2011). An exploratory examination of

supervisor undermining, employee involvement climate, and the effects on
customer perceptions of service quality in quick-service restaurants.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, July, 1-22.

Mueller, R.D., Palmer, A., Mack, R. and McMullan, R. (2003). Service in

the restaurant industry: an American and Irish comparison of service
failures and recovery strategies. Hospitality Management, 22, 395-418.

Namkung, Y. and Jang, S.S. (2010). Which stage of service failure is the
most critical?. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51(3), 323-343.

NRA (National Restaurant Association) (2011). Restaurant industry

operation report 2011, Washington, DC: National Restaurant Association
and Deloitte.

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data

analysis using SPSS, 4th edition, Open University Press: Berkshire-UK,
239-247.
Palmer, A., Beggs, R. and Keown-McMullan, C. (2000). Equity and
repurchase intention following service failure. Journal of Services
Marketing, 14(6), 513- 528.

Park, C. (2004). Efficient or enjoyable? Consumer values of eating-out

and fast restaurant consumption in Korea. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 23, 87-94.

123
‫‪Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies‬‬ ‫‪Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012‬‬

‫‪Susskind, A.M., Borchgrevink, C.P., Kacmar, K.M. and Brymer, R.A.‬‬

‫‪(2000). Customer service employee’s behavioral intentions and attitudes:‬‬
‫‪An examination of construct validity and a path model. International‬‬
‫‪Journal of Hospitality Management, 19(1), 53-77.‬‬

‫الملخص العربى‬

‫إخفاقات الخدمة فى مطاعم الخدمة السريعة من وجهة نظر العمالء والمديرين‬

‫تتناول هذه الدراسة تحديد إخفاقات الخدمة فى مطاعم الخدمة السريعة من خالل‬
‫استبيان آراء عينة من مديرى المطاعم التابعة لواحدة من سالسل مطاعم الوجبات‬
‫السريعة العالمية فى مصر و كذلك العمالء المترددين على تلك المطاعم‪ .‬أظهرت‬
‫نتائج البحث الميدانى أن "الضوضاء فى المطعم" هى أكثر العناصرالمسببة‬
‫لإلخفاق فى الخدمة من وجهة نظر العمالء بينما اختار المديرون "التعجل فى‬
‫تقديم الخدمة" كأكثر عنصرمسبب لإلخفاق فى الخدمة فى مطاعم الخدمة السريعة‪.‬‬
‫كما أظهرت نتائج الدراسة وجود فرق إحصائى صغير بين كل من المديرين و‬
‫العمالء بشأن ثالثة عناصر هى"الخدمة البطيئة"‪" ،‬التعجل فى تقديم الخدمة"‪" ،‬عدم‬
‫توفر بعض األصناف"‪ .‬هذا باالضافة الى وجود فرق إحصائى كبير بشأن عنصر‬
‫واحد متمثال فى "عدم اتباع سياسة عدم التدخين"‪ .‬ويمكن لنتائج هذه الدراسة‬
‫مساعدة مديري المطاعم فى تطوير وتحسين الخدمة والمنتجات لتلبية إحتياجات‬
‫العمالء وبالتالى تحسين رضاء العمالء وتحقيق نتائج تشغيل أفضل‪.‬‬

‫‪124‬‬
Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Appendix A Service Failures’ Mean and Standard Deviation

Attributes Type N* Mean SD
Slow service Customer 96 1.70 .872
Manager 30 2.30 1.236
Service is rushed Customer 96 1.91 1.006
Manager 30 2.33 1.155
Inefficient staff Customer 96 1.75 .808
Manager 30 1.83 1.020
Incorrect charges (billing) Customer 96 1.44 .678
Manager 30 1.67 1.028
Some items not available Customer 96 1.89 1.104
Manager 30 1.43 .858
Wrong order delivered Customer 96 1.45 .738
Manager 30 1.47 .776
Advertisement promises not met Customer 96 1.79 .857
Manager 30 1.60 1.133
Promotions not clear Customer 96 1.67 .829
Manager 30 1.60 1.070
Staff have limited menu knowledge Customer 96 1.83 2.405
Manager 30 1.60 .932
Food quality problems Customer 96 1.69 .910
Manager 30 1.60 1.070
Beverage quality problems Customer 96 1.83 1.279
Manager 30 1.43 .728
Inappropriate food temperature Customer 96 1.73 .928
Manager 30 1.57 1.104
Food is not fresh Customer 96 1.71 .972
Manager 30 1.43 1.040
Dining area not clean Customer 96 1.68 .946
Manager 30 1.53 .937
Bathroom not clean Customer 96 1.93 1.039
Manager 30 1.87 1.008
Untidy staff Customer 96 1.72 .948
Manage 30 1.70 .750
Kids corner not clean Customer 96 1.81 1.039
Manager 30 1.53 .776
Impolite staff Customer 96 1.64 .872
Manager 30 1.53 .860
Unfriendly staff Customer 96 1.61 .800
Manager 30 1.53 .900
Unhelpful staff Customer 96 1.54 .679
Manager 30 1.40 .814
Lacking in ambience/atmosphere Customer 96 1.74 .965
Manager 30 1.63 1.098
The restaurant is too noisy Customer 96 2.06 1.159
Manager 30 1.70 1.119
Smoking policy not followed Customer 96 1.58 .937
Manager 30 1.13 .346
Interior design/layout not reflecting the Customer 96 1.65 .917
quality of the restaurant Manager 30 1.63 .928
Air-conditioning problems Customer 96 1.60 .801
Manager 30 1.73 .980
Business hours not standard Customer 96 1.38 .637
Manager 30 1.48 1.090
N*= sample size, SD = Standard division

125
 Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Appendix B Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for t-test for
Equality of Equality of
Service failure attributes Variances Means
Sig. t Sig. (2-tailed)
slow service Equal variances assumed .003 -2.969 .004
Equal variances not assumed -2.482 .018
Service is rushed Equal variances assumed .083 -1.958 .052
Equal variances not assumed -1.821 .075
Inefficient staff Equal variances assumed .107 -.462 .645
Equal variances not assumed -.409 .685
Incorrect charges Equal variances assumed .010 -1.415 .159
(billing) Equal variances not assumed -1.145 .259
Some items not available Equal variances assumed .093 2.055 .042
Equal variances not assumed 2.342 .022
Wrong order delivered Equal variances assumed .783 -.120 .905
Equal variances not assumed -.117 .907
Advertisement promises Equal variances assumed .107 .986 .326
not met Equal variances not assumed .854 .398
Promotions not clear Equal variances assumed .384 .358 .721
Equal variances not assumed .313 .756
Staff have limited menu Equal variances assumed .690 .518 .605
knowledge Equal variances not assumed .781 .436
Food quality problems Equal variances assumed .994 .441 .660
Equal variances not assumed .405 .688
Beverage quality Equal variances assumed .241 1.630 .106
problems Equal variances not assumed 2.147 .035
Inappropriate food Equal variances assumed .910 .784 .434
temperature Equal variances not assumed .716 .478
Food is not fresh Equal variances assumed .374 1.330 .186
Equal variances not assumed 1.284 .206
Dining area not clean Equal variances assumed .318 .728 .468
Equal variances not assumed .732 .468
Bathroom not clean Equal variances assumed .770 .280 .780
Equal variances not assumed .284 .777
Untidy staff Equal variances assumed .111 .099 .921
Equal variances not assumed .112 .911
Kids corner not clean Equal variances assumed .171 1.356 .177
Equal variances not assumed 1.577 .120
Continued

126
 Egyptian Journal of Tourism Studies Vol. 11, No. 2, 2012

Appendix B continued
Impolite staff Equal variances assumed .316 .561 .576
Equal variances not assumed .565 .574
Unfriendly staff Equal variances assumed .750 .471 .638
Equal variances not assumed .443 .660
Unhelpful staff Equal variances assumed .536 .950 .344
Equal variances not assumed .864 .392
Lacking in ambience/ Equal variances assumed .993 .509 .612
atmosphere Equal variances not assumed .476 .637
The restaurant is too Equal variances assumed .485 1.507 .134
noisy Equal variances not assumed 1.536 .131
Smoking policy not Equal variances assumed .000 2.571 .011
followed Equal variances not assumed 3.928 .000
Interior design/layout not Equal variances assumed .748 .065 .948
reflecting the quality of Equal variances not assumed
the restaurant .065 .949
Air-conditioning Equal variances assumed .593 -.730 .467
problems Equal variances not assumed -.656 .515
Business hours not Equal variances assumed .053 -.666 .507
standard Equal variances not assumed -.507 .615

127