Supplemental Reading Posts . Please follow all steps and directions. Choose a third item on your own either an article or video.

http://cqx.sagepub.com/ Administration Quarterly

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant

http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/48/3/299 The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0010880407304023

2007 48: 299Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly Srikanth Beldona and Cihan Cobanoglu

Importance-Performance Analysis of Guest Technologies in the Lodging Industry

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Cornell University School of Hotel Administration

can be found at:Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration QuarterlyAdditional services and information for

http://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cqx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/48/3/299.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 20, 2007Version of Record >>

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 299

Importance- Performance

Analysis of Guest Technologies in the

Lodging Industry by SRIKANTH BELDONA and CIHAN COBANOGLU

© 2007 CORNELL UNIVERSITY DOI: 10.1177/0010880407304023

Volume 48, Issue 3 299-312

An assessment of how hotel guests view in-room tech- nology compared the importance of those technologies to how they perform. Based on 265 responses, this importance-performance analysis indicates that impor- tant basic technologies like in-room temperature con- trols and alarm clocks fail to perform in the way guests want, while relatively new technologies like plasma screen TVs and in-room printers and faxes are less important but perform well when they are in place. In addition, the study finds that internet access is an inte- gral part of the lodging product.

Keywords: hotel operation; guest-room technol- ogy; technology adoption; importance- performance analysis

G uest-room technologies have become the focus of recent industry initiatives to replicate home- based technologies in hotel rooms and keep

pace with the technologies used by U.S. consumers. Given that technology is integral to a hotel stay, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the importance and

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 299

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

300 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

performance of key guest-room technologies, new and old. The study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to assess customers’ view of twenty-four technologies, ranging from toll-free phone numbers to plasma TVs.

Guest Technologies in the U.S. Lodging Industry

The hotel industry is often faulted for being slow to implement current technology, an accusation that seems to apply to guest rooms more than to overall operations (Price n.d.). To address this perception, an industry forum of technology experts started the In- Room Technology Workgroup aimed at developing the guest room of the future, which has been displayed, for instance, at HITEC 2006 (“The Guest of the Future” 2006; “Guestroom 2010” 2006).

The academic literature has often con- cluded that the lodging industry is late in implementing technology in guest rooms in favor of technologies that improve employee productivity and enhance revenue (Siguaw, Enz, and Namasivayam 2000). At the same time, the industry’s own perception of the value of guest-oriented technology is mixed. A study of South Korean hotel managers found that the managers believed that guest technologies have only a marginal impact on hotel performance (Ham, Kim, and Jeong 2005). Moreover, a 1996 study found that hotel managers thought that guests did not use guest-operated devices effectively (Van Hoof, Verbeeten, and Combrink 1996). At the same time, Singh and Kasavana (2005) contended that guests expect to find com- mon technologies in hotel rooms. In sum, the combined effect of these findings suggests that the industry is slow to adopt guest- room technologies, perhaps because oper- ators perceive that technology does not boost performance.

The issues that seem to haunt the indus- try’s decision to adopt technology are the

determination of when a potential new technology is sufficiently accepted that it should be implemented in guest rooms, and when guest-room technologies should be upgraded. In the case of new technologies, the technology adoption life cycle serves as a valuable framework to determine the via- bility of a technology. As for monitoring the performance of existing technologies, nov- elty theory serves as a guideline for con- sumer evaluation. These frameworks are discussed in the next two sections.

Technology Adoption Life Cycle The technology adoption life cycle is

a framework for analyzing the extent to which technology has become integral to a product’s definition. For the hotel indus- try, in-room television provides a classic example. In the 1960s, guests typically were charged extra if they wanted to have a television in their rooms, and properties would take pains to advertise the presence of TV (color TV, at that). Fast forward to the present, and television is merely an expected attribute of a hotel room in all but idiosyncratic operations. Instead, the “extra” technology seems to be internet access, for which hotels often charge extra. We expect that this situation is bound to change, and the study discussed in this arti- cle points to the likelihood that for most hotels internet access will become an inte- gral part of the definition of a guest room.

One framework that explains this phe- nomenon of technology evolution is the technology life cycle, which outlines the various stages in the progression that a technology may undergo in the market- place. The stages—namely, introduction, growth, maturity, and decline—may apply to a particular technology, or to a version or generation of a technology.

Of interest to hoteliers is not the stage of the technology life cycle so much as who is adopting that technology, as characterized

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 300

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

by the closely related technology adoption life cycle. This cycle distinguishes segments that adopt a technology at various stages of the technology life cycle. Rogers (1995), for instance, outlined the user categories as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. In the same vein, Parasuraman and Colby (2001) character- ized five segments in the adoption process, namely, explorers, pioneers, skeptics, para- noids, and laggards. The attributes and atti- tudes of each of these segments vary based on a combination of optimism, innovative- ness, discomfort, and insecurity toward the technology. Each segment typically devel- ops over time to become a viable customer group. The process is not exactly sequential, although the categorization provides a strong set of guidelines for customer segmentation.

A key aspect of the technology adoption life cycle is that innovators (explorers) fol- lowed by early adopters (or pioneers) need to accept the technology before it can move into the next stage of dissemination among a broader market. These early adopter seg- ments seek technology but also have high standards in its evaluation.

Moore (1991) termed the transition of a technology into the general population as crossing the chasm. Crossing the chasm is critical for technology firms because it involves the transition of serving one set of needs (of early adopters) to another (of later adopters). Early adopters are more oriented to technological performance, while later- adopting segments largely seek solutions and convenience (Norman 1998; Parasuraman and Colby 2001). Purveyors of technological items seek to cross the chasm because later adopters constitute a relatively larger seg- ment of the market than do early adopters.

The chasm for technology in hotel rooms involves the moment when a lodging tech- nology becomes a part of the product. The core lodging product is accommodation, which is the hotel’s key benefit or solution addressing a specific consumer need (Kotler,

Bowen, and Makens 2003). The actual prod- uct comprises the features and attributes combined as a brand to help deliver the core product benefit. Technology involved in the actual product has generally crossed the chasm. On the early side of the chasm, the augmented product comprises services and benefits that are beyond the core and actual product. They are not automatically expected but are appreciated by numerous guests.

As an example, high-speed internet has long been a part of the augmented lodging product. However, to the extent that it has become a mainstream technology, lodging operators should consider whether internet access in fact has crossed the chasm to become a part of their actual product. If so, the way hotels package high-speed internet access, including how they charge for it, will change. To what extent is the high-speed internet access of today analo- gous to television in an earlier era? We know that the cost of providing a TV has been integrated into room rates, while the status of high-speed internet on the tech- nology chasm will tell us whether its cost is also part of room tariffs.

Novelty and Technology Novelty theory suggests that some hotel

guests will seek out technology due to curiosity (Hirschman 1980). Typically, the novelty effect diminishes with repeated use. At the same time, as novelty wears off, the user is likely to become more proficient with the use of the technology. With this profi- ciency comes a tougher-minded evaluation of the relatively old technology, especially when compared with evaluation of new tech- nologies. This effect must be kept in mind as we discuss our importance and performance analysis in the rest of this article.

The Study The study was done in two stages. First,

we asked a focus group of ten persons (six men and four women) from our community

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 301

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 301

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

in Newark, Delaware, to identify a broad list of guest technologies that customers probably would use when selecting a hotel. The focus group helped identify the technol- ogy amenities, services, and applications that travelers desire when selecting lodging accommodations.

A convenience sample, the average age of members in the focus group was thirty- nine, and mean annual household income was $65,000. They took an average of six trips per year, three-quarters of them for business. The moderator gave the partici- pants a list of forty-five technology attrib- utes that guests might consider when they select a hotel. Based on the focus group’s assessment of how mainstream and influ- ential each item is in determining the selection of a hotel, we created a list of twenty-four key technologies to test in an online survey instrument.

For the online survey, a sample of two thousand consumers with e-mail addresses was selected randomly from a national data- base of U.S. consumers, stratified based on state population. By e-mail, we sent an invi- tation containing the survey web site link, followed by three reminders spaced a week apart.

We received 306 responses from the 2,000 e-mail messages, for a 15.3 percent response rate. We note that this response level is in keeping with the relatively modest responses to web-based surveys (Vehovar et al. 2002). We would have preferred the 50 to 60 percent response rate that is consid- ered to be acceptable in survey research of this nature. As a consequence of the low response, we needed to gauge how represen- tative our respondents were of the target population (Diem 2002). To do so, we fol- lowed one of the several strategies that are suggested to deal with a relatively high nonresponse rate. (Those are following up with nonrespondents, comparing respon- dents to the population, comparing early to

late respondents, “double-dipping” nonre- spondents, and comparing respondents to nonrespondents [Moore and Tarnai 2002].)

For this study, we compared respon- dents by dividing them into three cate- gories, according to when they responded, early, midstudy, and late. Testing these three groups on three social-demographic variables (age, education, and income), analysis of variance (ANOVA) found no significant dif- ferences. Likewise, we found no significant differences using chi-square cross-tabulations of response levels with gender. No significant differences were found based on sociode- mographic variables. Another ANOVA test ascertained differences in perceptions of the importance of the twenty-four technologies among the three groups of respondents. With the exception of the importance of express check-in and checkout, no other ANOVA comparisons were significant. Given that this was only one item of twenty-four, and that there were no differences across sociodemo- graphic variables, we inferred that the sample was a fair representation of the target popula- tion.

The questionnaire comprised four sec- tions. The first section asked respondents whether they had stayed in a hotel in the past twelve months and, if yes, the number of nights they spent in a hotel for leisure and for business purposes. Respondents who had not stayed in a hotel within twelve months of the survey were excluded, yielding a final response number of 265.

Exhibit 1 outlines the descriptive statistics of the sample. The majority of the respon- dents were women (71.4%). To address the gender skew in the sample, t-tests were con- ducted to explore possible differences across all the variables (importance and satisfac- tion). There were no significant differences found. The sample had a wide distribution by age, which allowed us to compare young respondents’ view of technology with older respondents, as we describe later.

302 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 302

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

In addition to questions about internet use, the second section included a self- reported technology adoption scale. The third section listed the twenty-four technol- ogy applications or amenities and asked the respondents to rate both the importance of that item and their satisfaction with that item during their most recent hotel stay. The survey concluded with demographic questions.

Analysis Our chief analysis involved importance-

performance analysis (IPA). This tool allows us to create a two-by-two matrix of the relative positioning of the twenty-four tech- nologies, based on high or low importance and high or low performance (satisfaction). Based on that positioning, a hotel can deter- mine which items should command more attention and which may be consuming too

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 303

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 1: Descriptive Statistics (N = 240)

Variable %

Age ≤ 25 14.5 26-35 30.2 36-45 19.8 46-55 21.9 56-65 11.6 ≥ 66 2.1

Gender Male 28.6 Female 71.4

Marital status Single/widowed/separated 48.3 Married with children 37.6 Married without children 14.0

Income ≤ $25,000 16.1 $25,001-$50,000 36.4 $50,001-$75,000 21.9 $75,001-$100,000 13.6 ≥ $100,001 11.9

Education Associate’s degree and less 47.6 Bachelor’s degree and more 52.4

Member of frequent guest programs Yes 44.2 No 55.8

Purpose of trip Business 25.4 Leisure 73.8

Annual average number of nights Business 6.73 Leisure 8.14 Business and leisure 2.31

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 303

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

many resources (Martilla and James 1977). IPA is an effective analytical technique to address the two central research questions of this study, namely, the existence of potential new technologies that have crossed the chasm in the technology adoption life cycle and the performance of existing technologies, which implicitly involves novelty theory. The importance-performance matrix result- ing from our survey, shown in Exhibit 2, gives the relative positioning of each guest technol- ogy. In this particular matrix, the quadrants are separated by the mean scores for impor- tance and performance. The technologies in Quadrant I, which are of low importance but high on performance, are absorbing considerable resources while offering little customer satisfaction. The other high- performance section is Quadrant II, which includes technologies that are of high impor- tance and high performance. For these tech- nologies, hotels should try to maintain their good work because these items result in high customer satisfaction. Hotel operators should pay careful attention to the items in Quadrant III, which indicates the area for important technologies that are not meeting expecta- tions. This is an area of concern where hotels

should focus additional effort. Finally, the technologies in Quadrant IV are both low in importance and satisfaction. The importance- performance matrix indicates to lodging operators where they might direct their technology resources most effectively.

Findings To compare respondents’ view of technol-

ogy by age, we divided the respondents into two groups, one aged thirty-five years old and younger and the other age thirty-six and older. Differences between the groups were not as great as one might expect. The older consumers ascribed significantly greater importance to only three items, namely, the toll-free number for reservations (t = –3.38, p < .001), in-room temperature control (t = –2.30, p < .05), and easily accessible electri- cal outlets (t = –1.87, p < .05). All other importance scores showed no significant differences.

We found no differences in the respon- dents’ view of the importance of technology when we divided them on the sample’s median income, $50,000. However, we did find differences when we split the sample by education. Respondents with associate degrees or less perceived greater importance than those with at least a bachelor’s degree when it came to express check-in and check- out (t = 2.93, p < .01), free long distance (voice over internet protocol [VoIP]) calls (t = 2.59, p < .01), a central toll-free reserva- tion number (t = 2.81, p < .01), and in-room temperature control (t = 2.44, p < .01). In contrast, compared to those with lower edu- cational attainment, those with at least a bachelor’s degree assigned greater impor- tance to wireless internet access (t = –2.22, p < .05) and wireless personal digital assis- tant (PDA) access to the hotel’s web site (t = –2.01, p < .05).

The sample comprised members and nonmembers of loyalty programs. t-tests showed that members of loyalty programs

304 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

Quadrant I

Quadrant IIIQuadrant IV

Concentrate Here

Low Priority

Keep Up the Good Work

Possible Overkill

S a

tis fa

ct io

n

H ig

h L

o w

Quadrant II

Importance Low High

Exhibit 2: Importance-Performance (Satisfaction) Grid

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 304

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

perceived significantly higher importance than did nonmembers when it came to high-speed internet access (t = –2.72, p < .01), wireless internet access (t = –2.22, p < .05), and the need for online reserva- tion capabilities (t = –2.49, p < .01).

Although our sample was composed mostly of leisure travelers (80 percent of trips), we conducted t-tests to explore dif- ferences in importance ratings between leisure and business travelers, with the results highlighted in Exhibit 3. Note that

the means for most technologies, with the exception of those relating to conventional television, are greater in value for business travelers than for leisure travelers (albeit most differences are not statistically sig- nificant). Arguably, if one were to apply a broad brush to these numbers, in-room tech- nology is of greater importance to the busi- ness traveler than to the leisure traveler.

The significant differences between the importance ratings by business travelers as compared to leisure travelers came with

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 305

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 3: Business and Leisure Travelers, t-Test Statistics

Business Leisure Significance (n = 61) (n = 161) t-Value (Two-Tailed)

Express check-in and checkout 3.82 3.51 1.66 .099 Free long-distance telephone 2.81 2.66 0.68 .496

calls (voice over internet protocol [VoIP])

Videoconferencing capabilities 1.93 1.57 1.96 .053 Business centers (computers, 3.12 2.30 3.72 .000

fax, copiers) Central 800 reservation number 3.72 3.32 1.87 .063 In-room temperature control 4.67 4.52 1.51 .132 Remote control TV 4.39 4.40 –0.063 .949 Pay-per-view 2.14 2.40 –1.27 .207 Web TV 1.98 1.98 0.03 .975 Portable or speaker phone in room 2.41 1.88 2.51 .014 Voice mail 2.85 2.33 2.30 .023 Alarm clock 4.31 4.19 0.70 .484 Easily accessible electrical outlets 4.45 4.05 2.75 .007 Additional data line accessible to desk 3.43 2.61 3.56 .000 High-speed internet access 3.78 3.07 2.95 .004 Wireless internet access in hotel 3.44 2.79 2.76 .006 In-room personal computer 2.78 2.31 2.18 .030 In-room fax machine 2.26 1.69 2.96 .004 In-room printer 2.47 1.77 3.38 .001 In-room electronic safety boxes 3.02 2.58 1.96 .053 Online reservation capability 4.08 4.19 –0.60 .552 Wireless access to hotel 2.41 2.13 1.34 .181

web site (i.e., Palm) Electronic key cards 3.93 3.83 0.56 .574 Plasma screen TV 2.58 2.17 2.04 .043

Note: Bold indicates statistical significance.

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 305

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

productivity-oriented technological ser- vices, such as business centers and voice mail. Likewise, business travelers favored technologies that save time and effort, including easily accessible electrical out- lets, an in-room fax machine, and computing- and internet-oriented technologies, such as an additional data line to the desk, high- speed internet access, wireless internet access, and an in-room personal computer. Plasma TVs are also a hit with our busi- ness travelers.

Travel frequency. Our sample ranged from 1 to 275 nights per year in a hotel. To determine whether travel frequency influ- enced the way respondents viewed the twenty-four technology items, we created three groups based on the distribution of the average number of hotel nights spent in a year (which did not allow us to divide the sample into three equal thirds). Forty per- cent of respondents fell into the “low” cate- gory, staying 5 nights or less in a hotel each year. The “moderate” category (35 percent) included respondents who stayed between 6 and 15 nights annually; and the “high” cate- gory, 16 or more nights per year, took in the remaining 25 percent of respondents. Using these groups, we compared the relative posi- tioning of technologies in the four quadrants for the three groups, applying no statistical tests. The results are shown in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6. We then conducted a statistical analysis in which we used paired compari- son t-tests on ratings of importance and per- formance for the sample as a whole.

Comparing Technologies’ Importance and Performance by Travel Frequency

Three technologies fell into Quadrant II, which symbolizes “keep up the good work.” All three groups agreed that express check- in and checkout (A), remote control TV (G), and high-speed internet access (O) have high importance and performance. This

emphasizes the fact that high-speed internet access has crossed the divide to become an expected amenity in hotels.

Quadrant III, the “concentrate here” box, found four items in common. Wireless inter- net access (W), alarm clock (L), easily acces- sible electrical outlets (M), and online- reservation capabilities (U) are all high in importance, but our respondents rated their performance relatively low. For travelers who do not use hotels all that often (low and moderate groups), the toll-free reservation number (E) is also in this “concentrate here” box. Once again, the presence of wireless internet access in this quadrant reflects the way that internet access has become part of the lodging product. Additionally, the finding also indicates that hotels need to reevaluate the performance of alarm clocks (a basic functional technology) and should review their room designs to provide easily accessible electrical outlets. It also appears that the industry should attend to its online reservation capabilities.

In the “possible overkill” box (Quadrant I), we find web TV (I), pay-per-view (H), and in-room personal computers (Q). These technologies are of low importance to most of our respondents, but all three groups recorded high performance. Last, in the “low-priority” box (Quadrant IV), all three groups placed videoconferencing capabili- ties (C), wireless access to hotel web site (V), business centers (D), and plasma screen TVs (X).

Comparing the views of the three groups, both the moderate and high groups put in-room temperature control in Quadrant II, while the low group has this item in Quadrant III. Moderate and frequent travel- ers agreed that an in-room printer (S) and in-room fax (R) are both in low-priority Quadrant IV, and low users relegated these to the possible overkill Quadrant I.

Indeed, infrequent travelers viewed more technologies as possible overkill than did frequent travelers, who rated relatively more

306 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

(text continues on page 310)

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 306

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 307

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 4: Importance-Performance Matrix for Infrequent Travelers (Five or Fewer Room-Nights per Year)

Express check-in/checkout A Free long-distance telephone calls B

(voice over internet protocol [VoIP]) Videoconferencing capabilities C Business centers (computers, fax, D

copiers) Central 800 reservation number E In-room temperature control F Remote control TV G Pay-per-view H Web TV I Portable/speaker phone in room J Voice mail K Alarm clock L Easily accessible electrical outlets M Additional data line accessible to desk N High-speed internet access O Electronic key cards W In-room personal computer Q In-room fax machine R In-room printer S In-room electronic safety boxes T Online reservation capability U Wireless access to hotel web site V

(i.e., Palm) Wireless internet access in hotel P Plasma screen TV X

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 307

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

308 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

Exhibit 5: Importance-Performance Matrix for Moderately Frequent Travelers (Six to Fifteen Room-Nights per Year)

Express check-in/checkout A Free long-distance telephone calls B

(voice over internet protocol [VoIP]) Videoconferencing capabilities C Business centers (computers, fax, copiers) D Central 800 reservation number E In-room temperature control F Remote control TV G Pay-per-view H Web TV I Portable/speaker phone in room J Voice mail K Alarm clock L Easily accessible electrical outlets M Additional data line accessible to desk N High-speed internet access O Electronic key cards W In-room personal computer Q In-room fax machine R In-room printer S In-room electronic safety boxes T Online reservation capability U Wireless access to hotel web site V

(i.e., Palm) Wireless internet access in hotel P Plasma screen TV X

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 308

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 309

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 6: Importance-Performance Matrix for Frequent Travelers (Sixteen or More Room-Nights per Year)

Express check-in/checkout A Free long-distance telephone calls (voice B

over internet protocol [VoIP]) Videoconferencing capabilities C Business centers (computers, fax, copiers) D Central 800 reservation number E In-room temperature control F Remote control TV G Pay-per-view H Web TV I Portable/speaker phone in room J Voice mail K Alarm clock L Easily accessible electrical outlets M Additional data line accessible to desk N High-speed internet access O Electronic key cards W In-room personal computer Q In-room fax machine R In-room printer S In-room electronic safety boxes T Online reservation capability U Wireless access to hotel web site V

(i.e., Palm) Wireless internet access in hotel P Plasma screen TV X

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 309

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

technologies as low priority. It seems clear that infrequent travelers do not seek func- tionally driven technologies the way fre- quent travelers do. As we explain next, this observation arises from statistically signifi- cant differences between the low group and the high group regarding functionally driven technologies in Quadrant I, namely, in-room printer, in-room fax, VoIP, wireless internet, and in-room computer.

Paired Sample t-Tests: The Gap between Importance and Satisfaction

Exhibit 7 illustrates importance and sat- isfaction performance means for the sample as a whole for the guest technologies that we studied. Paired-samples t-tests using SPSS 13.0 determined whether there were significant differences in our respondents’ view of the importance of these technolo- gies and their satisfaction with them. Prior to conducting t-tests, missing values were replaced using SPSS 13.0 across all responses so as to ensure a semblance of parity over sample sizes across the range of tests. Findings clearly indicate significant differences between the two measures for all but six of the technologies. As shown by the significance levels marked in bold, sat- isfaction was significantly greater than importance for most of those technologies. However, satisfaction with four technolo- gies (marked in bold italics) was signifi- cantly less than their importance. Those were in-room climate controls, accessible outlets, wireless internet access, and the online reservation system. Technologies having the highest importance are at the top of the table, and those three are near the top.

Thus, we see that the most important technologies have either significantly lesser satisfaction scores or that there are no sig- nificant differences between importance and performance scores. Most of these important technologies are commonplace necessities. Interestingly, the technologies

listed in the bottom of the table, which our respondents judged least important, are also relatively new.

Discussion and Implications The study’s findings provide an updated

perspective of guest technologies based on a relative standing with one another. Based on the technology adoption life cycle, high- speed internet (wireless or cable based) is a mainstream technology and well integrated into the lodging product. Whether it is priced separately or included in the overall price of the room is a matter of market specifics. Nonetheless, lodging operators will be well advised to reevaluate their prevailing strate- gies by examining the current needs of their customers.

The industry also needs to take into account that travelers bring with them mobile devices, such as laptops, cell phones, and mp3 players, all of which need to be powered or recharged in the room. The comfort and reliability of a room will depend on easily accessible power outlets that do not require moving a bed or unplugging a lamp. Lodging operators would do well to focus on the pro- vision of this important technology. It is worth looking into products that allow for simple relocation of most common audio and video connections and electrical ports to more convenient and accessible parts of the room.

Other baseline technologies that need reevaluation are in-room temperature con- trols and, of all things, alarm clocks. The day of wake-up calls appears to be over. Instead, your guests want to be able to set a reliable alarm clock. Given this critical role, it is a contributing factor toward the reliabil- ity of the lodging product. Moreover, since alarm clocks are common items, their func- tionality is subject to considerable scrutiny. Guests will compare the clock offered in hotel rooms with contemporary models they use at home.

The increasing popularity and conve- nience of wireless internet access affects

310 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 310

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

travelers’ demand on reliable and convenient wireless internet access in public and private areas of the hotel. The study showed that wireless internet access falls in the “con- centrate here” section of the importance- performance analysis quadrant for all of our respondent groups.

The findings provide insights pertinent to the role of technology in the lodging product. Lodging operators can tailor their product development strategies based on

the relative positioning of guest technolo- gies for their individual properties or mar- ket segments.

Our study is limited by the fact that it is heavily represented by leisure travelers. We suspect that a sample of travelers divided more evenly according to business and leisure travelers will provide greater vari- ability in relative differences of the tech- nologies. This study came from a relatively generic population, and these results can be

AUGUST 2007 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 311

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY HOTEL MANAGEMENT

Exhibit 7: Paired-Sample t-Test Statistics—Guest Technologies in the Hotel Industry

Significance Importance Satisfaction N (Two-Tailed)

In-room temperature control 4.50 4.33 260 .004 Remote control TV 4.38 4.41 264 .635 Alarm clock 4.25 4.19 256 .505 Online reservation capability 4.21 4.06 243 .052 Easily accessible electrical outlets 4.19 3.98 253 .009 Electronic key cards 3.88 4.10 253 .004 Express check-in and checkout 3.57 3.98 265 .000 Central 800 reservation number 3.54 3.42 243 .659 High-speed internet access 3.31 3.39 238 .491 Wireless internet access in hotel 3.99 3.21 232 .000 Additional data line accessible 2.87 3.40 233 .000

to desk In-room electronic safety boxes 2.83 3.02 222 .119 Free long-distance telephone 2.81 3.14 242 .008

calls (voice over internet protocol [VoIP])

Voice mail 2.55 3.45 229 .000 In-room personal computer 2.55 2.76 222 .111 Business centers (computers, 2.53 3.02 224 .000

fax, copiers) Pay-per-view 2.39 3.47 234 .000 Plasma screen TV 2.35 2.87 219 .000 Wireless access to hotel 2.33 3.06 216 .000

web site (i.e., Palm) Portable or speaker phone 2.12 3.11 224 .000

in room In-room printer 2.00 2.72 218 .000 Web TV 1.97 3.16 227 .000 In-room fax machine 1.87 2.70 220 .000 Videoconferencing capabilities 1.73 3.02 225 .000

Note: Bold indicates that satisfaction was significantly greater than importance. Bold italic indicates that satisfaction was significantly less than importance.

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 311

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

generalized only to this context. Individual firms may wish to evaluate their own cus- tomers according to appropriate categories.

Another limitation is the potential for Type I error, wherein a multitude of tests of differences are done individually in a study rather than modeling them together. In this context, the number of t-tests con- ducted raises the potential for Type I error in the results.

Finally, we must point out that the fact that the sample was entirely drawn from online sources limits the generalizability of the findings to active internet users only. With a 73 percent internet penetra- tion in the United States, we believe that this should not be a limiting factor of the study (Madden 2006). The fact remains, however, that there is an element of self- selection. Therefore, future research might expand on the population of this study to include those who prefer not to participate in internet-based studies. Additionally, we believe that the study’s findings will vary if we base it on the market segment in which a hotel operates. Future research can focus on this analysis and develop a more tiered perspective of technology use across the various lodging segments.

Future research can also specifically focus on the aspect of the performance of the hotel room as a home away from home within the context of technology usage. One needs to empirically determine whether the lodging product has kept pace with the over- all growth of technology use. An exhaustive study in this direction will shed more light on the evolution of the lodging product from a technology perspective.

References

Diem, Keith. 2002. Maximizing response rate and control- ling non-response error in survey research. www .rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs997.pdf (accessed April 26, 2006).

The guest of the future: In-room technology preferences today and tomorrow. 2006. CeME-HTNG In-Room Technology Work Report. www.marketplatforms .com/mpd/Uploads/HTNG%20Exec%20Summary% 20Final.pdf (accessed June 20, 2006).

Guestroom 2010. 2006. Hospitality Financial and Technology Professionals, Austin, TX. www.hitec.org/content.cfm? pgid=450 (accessed June 25, 2006).

Ham, Sunny, Woo Gon Kim, and Seungwhan Jeong. 2005. Effect of information technology on performance in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management 24 (2): 287.

Hirschman, Elizabeth. 1980. Innovativeness, novelty seek- ing, and consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research 7:287.

Kotler, Philip, John. T. Bowen, and James. C. Makens. 2003. Marketing for hospitality and tourism. 3rd ed. New York: Prentice Hall.

Madden, Mary. 2006. Internet penetration and impact. Pew Internet & American Life Project, www.pewinternet .org/pdfs/PIP_internet_Impact.pdf (accessed June 15, 2006).

Martilla, John A., and John C. James. 1977. Importance– performance analysis. Journal of Marketing 41:15.

Moore, Danna L., and John Tarnai. 2002. Evaluating nonresponse error in mail survey. In Survey nonre- sponse, ed. R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A. Little, 197-212. New York: John Wiley.

Moore, Geoffrey A. 1991. Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech goods to mainstream cus- tomers. New York: Harper Business.

Norman, Don A. 1998. The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so com- plex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Parasuraman, A., and Charles L. Colby. 2001. Techno-ready marketing: How and why your customers adopt tech- nology. New York: Free Press.

Price, Nicholas. N.d. Quoted in Industry leaders will work together on next generation guestroom technology. www.htng.org/HTNG_Release_092304.htm (accessed June 16, 2005).

Rogers, Everett M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.

Siguaw, Judy, Cathy Enz, and Karthik Namasivayam. 2000. The adoption of information technology in U.S. hotels: Strategically driven objectives. Journal of Travel Research 39:195.

Singh, A. J., and Michael Kasavana. 2005. The impact of information technology on future management of lodging operations: A Delphi study to predict key technological events in 2007 and 2027. Tourism and Hospitality Research 6 (1): 24-37.

Van Hoof, Hubert, Marja J. Verbeeten, and Thomas E. Combrink. 1996. Information technology revisited— International lodging-industry technology needs and perceptions: A comparative study. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 37 (6): 86-91.

Vehovar, V., Z. Batagelj, K. L. Manfreda, and M. Zaletel. 2002. Nonresponse in web surveys. In Survey nonre- sponse, ed. R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A. Little, 229-42. New York: John Wiley.

312 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly AUGUST 2007

HOTEL MANAGEMENT IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF GUEST TECHNOLOGIES IN THE LODGING INDUSTRY

Srikanth Beldona, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of hotel, restaurant, and institutional management at the University of Delaware ([email protected]), where Cihan Cobanoglu, Ph.D., is an associate professor ([email protected]).

CQ304023.qxd 6/29/2007 4:43 PM Page 312

at US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on August 25, 2013cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from