This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida] On: 17 October 2011, At: 12:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wqah20

The Impact of Technology Amenities on Hotel Guest Overall Satisfaction Cihan Cobanoglu a , Katerina Berezina b , Michael L. Kasavana c & Mehmet Erdem d a University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee, Sarasota, Florida, USA b University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA c School of Hospitality Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA d University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Available online: 14 Oct 2011

To cite this article: Cihan Cobanoglu, Katerina Berezina, Michael L. Kasavana & Mehmet Erdem (2011): The Impact of Technology Amenities on Hotel Guest Overall Satisfaction, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12:4, 272-288

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2011.541842

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wqah20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2011.541842

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Impact of Technology Amenities on Hotel Guest Overall Satisfaction

CIHAN COBANOGLU University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee, Sarasota, Florida, USA

KATERINA BEREZINA University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

MICHAEL L. KASAVANA School of Hospitality Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

MEHMET ERDEM University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA

Technology is a critical determinant in hotel guest satisfaction. Hotels often utilize technology as a value-added amenity to help promote differentiation and enhance guest satisfaction. The pur- pose of this study was twofold: to measure and document the level of guest satisfaction with existing technology-based amenities, and to examine the scope of impact of such amenities on over- all hotel guest satisfaction. A random sample of 3,000 American travelers was chosen from a national database for this study. A total of 534 usable responses were received. The results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between three fac- tors—“Business Essentials for Travelers,” “In-Room Technologies,” “Internet Access”—and hotel guest’s overall satisfaction. “Comfort technologies” factor was found not significant in predicting hotel guest’s overall satisfaction.

KEYWORDS technology amenities, hotel, guest satisfaction

Address correspondence to Cihan Cobanoglu, PhD, Professor & Dean, University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee, School of Hotel and Restaurant Management, 8350 North Tamiami Trail, Sarasota, FL 34243. E-mail: [email protected]

272

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 273

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of hospitality industry-specific technology began in the early 1970s and has been continuously advancing ever since (Collins & Cobanoglu, 2008; Kasavana & Cahill, 2007; Sammons, 2000). From its incep- tion, industry practitioners and researchers expressed concern relative to the value of technology and its possible consequences on guest satisfac- tion (Collins & Cobanoglu, 2008; Piccoli, 2004). Despite such concerns, hospitality technology applications are credited with providing a basis for competitive advantage, productivity improvement, enhanced financial per- formance, and guest service expansion (Collins & Cobanoglu, 2008; Kim, Lee, & Law, 2008; Kasavana & Cahill, 2007; Siguaw, Enz, & Namasivayam, 2000). For over a decade, industry practitioners have advocated support for the indispensible role of technology in managing hospitality transactions and operations (Collins & Cobanoglu, 2008; Ham, Kim, & Jeong, 2005; Kasavana & Cahill, 2007; Squires, 2008; Van Hoof, Combrink, & Verbeeten, 1997).

While David, Grabski, and Kasavana, (1996) suggested that technology systems may not always provide a positive impact on financial performance, such findings do not diminish the importance of front- and back-office applications to lodging operations. It has been long established that tech- nology is a critical determinant for hotel guest satisfaction (Singh and Kasavana, 2005; Van Hoof et al., 1997) and hotel choice (Cobanoglu, 2001). Hotels often utilize technology as a value-added amenity to help pro- mote differentiation, enhance guest satisfaction, and build loyalty among clientele (Cobanoglu, Ryan, & Beck, 1999). A recent American Hotel and Lodging Association survey (Brewer, Kim, Schrier, & Farrish, 2008) iden- tified both improved guest experience and enhanced guest satisfaction as major advantages of hotel technology applications. A recent trade journal article reported that incorrect or improper use of technology may produce guest dissatisfaction (Cobanoglu, 2009a). Another related article documented that in-house guests were highly dissatisfied with the implementation of a “walking” alarm clock placed in a hotel guestroom despite the fact it was easy to operate, sounded and looked attractive, and kept accurate time (Cobanoglu, 2009b). A thorough review of related literature revealed no empirical research studies that focused on the proper selection of hotel tech- nology amenities that meet guest expectations or address the issue of guest satisfaction.

Having realized that potential guests place significant emphasis on experience and satisfaction when selecting a hotel (Whitford, 1998), hotel companies tend to direct significant resources to monitoring the guest expe- rience. Given the interest of hotel companies on technology-based amenities (Erdem, Schrier, & Brewer, 2009) and the aforementioned influence of technology on guest satisfaction, the purpose of this study was twofold: to measure and document the level of guest satisfaction with existing

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

274 C. Cobanoglu et al.

technology-based amenities, and to examine the scope of impact of such amenities on guest satisfaction.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Guest Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions

Guest satisfaction is synonymous with customer or consumer satisfaction. Satisfaction refers to a post-purchase evaluation of product quality given pre-purchase expectations (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 2003). Customer is satisfied when post-purchase evaluation reveals service quality higher than guests’ expected service quality (Kotler, Bowen, & Makens, 2003). This situation is the goal for all hospitality businesses. Zeithaml, Bitner, and Gremler (2006) suggest that customer satisfaction has direct impact on customer loyalty. Different studies have investigated the relationship between service quality, satisfaction, and customer loyalty (Skogland & Siguaw, 2004; Yee, Yeung, & Cheng, 2009). There is a debate in the literature about the relationships among service quality, consumer satisfaction and consumer loyalty (Zabkar, Brencic, & Dmitrovic, 2009). Even when high service quality is provided and a customer is satisfied, it does not necessarily mean that this customer will come back (Kotler et al., 2003; Reid & Bojanic, 2009; Zeithaml et al., 2006). There can be different reasons why a customer would not come back to a property where he or she received high quality service and was satisfied. One reason could be that a customer does not want to travel to the same area, but prefers to explore something different. Another possibility is the customer’s willingness to try something new even if the customer returns to the area (he or she can intentionally look for a different hotel); and finally, a customer can be influenced by a better deal offered in another hotel. On the other hand, Yee et al. (2009) found that service quality has a significant and direct impact on customer satisfaction and that the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty is also highly significant. These findings are consistent with the results of Skogland and Siguaw (2004) who reported that satisfied stayers (satisfied returning customers) have the greatest loyalty.

Given the research objective, this paper concentrates on the hotel guest satisfaction with technology amenities, thus, the following sections will present the review of technologies implemented in hotels and studies which focused on guest satisfaction.

Technology in Hotels

The adoption of technology by the hospitality industry started in early 1970s and has been rapidly evolving ever since (Collins & Cobanoglu, 2008; Erdem, Schrier, & Brewer, 2009, Kasavana & Cahill, 2007; Sammons, 2000).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 275

As a general principle, the larger and more complex a hospitality facility (i.e., overnight accommodations, food and beverage outlets, spa treatments, recreational activities, etc.) the greater its reliance on automation (Piccoli & Torchio, 2006; Siguaw et al., 2000).

Technology in hotels is often applied at two levels:

1. At the managerial and operational level; and 2. For in-room guest services (Lee, Barker, & Kandampully, 2003).

Guest oriented technological amenities are typically introduced to enhance guest satisfaction as well as the performance and functionality of hotel staff. In-room technology amenities, designed to provide a more comfortable and safe environment, may include mini-bars, electronic locks and safes, alarm clocks, desktop computers, entertainment systems, climate control systems, fire annunciator and security systems, and others (Collins & Cobanoglu, 2008). Select hotel technology amenities are presented in the Table 1. Many hospitality industry experts emphasize the importance of in-room technologies as the traveling public continues to become more technologically savvy (Higley, 2007; Munyan, 2008; Squires, 2008).

TABLE 1 Definitions of Select Hotel Technology Amenities

Technology Description

Voice over IP (VoIP) Use of Internet protocols instead of analog media to transfer voice data

In-room Pay-Per-View (PPV) Digital video, available over a television platform, available on a payment basis

Voicemail/messaging Phone-based service that enables a caller to leave a voice mailbox message

In-room accessible outlets Electrical outlets conveniently located for hotel guest access and use room

High-speed Internet access (HSIA) Internet connectivity at speeds of 1 to 100 Megabits per second (Mbps)

In-room safe Electronic safe that can be opened by electronic card or personalized code

In-room control panel Console controls room amenities (e.g., lights, temperature, curtains, blinds)

Universal battery charger Device capable of charging the batteries of various equipment and mobile devices

Electronic locking system Access security by electronic media (e.g., magnetic stripe, smart card, RFID, NFC)

In-room game system Entertainment system available in a hotel guest room (e.g., Wii or PlayStation)

In-room fitness system Specialty devices for physical exercise in a hotel guest room (e.g., treadmill unit)

In-room video checkout Television interface enabling express folio review, account settlement, and checkout

Resource: Collins and Cobanoglu (2008).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

276 C. Cobanoglu et al.

According to recent related studies, various in-room technologies are being employed to provide a more positive guest experience (Erdem, Schrier, & Brewer, 2009). Coupled with improved front office automation applications, and occasionally supported by a technology concierge, hotels are realizing increased overall guest satisfaction (Kim et al., 2008).

Given the debate in the literature about the contribution of technol- ogy to hotel guest satisfaction and implementation of numerous technology amenities in hotels, the first purpose of the study is to measure the level of guest satisfaction with different guest-oriented technology amenities. The research question was formulated as follows:

What is the level of guest satisfaction with technology-based amenities implemented by hotels?

Technology Amenity Guest Satisfaction

Product selection, based on need and expectation, are considered critical in determining customer satisfaction. Many researchers have investigated the nature of hotel guest satisfaction (Chathoth, 2007; Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2000; Shanka & Taylor, 2003; Torres & Kline, 2006). Skogland & Siguaw (2004) concluded hotel guest satisfaction is an essential compo- nent of long-term success. Kandampully and Suhartanto (2000) cited the influence of hotel image on customer loyalty and tied satisfaction to con- geniality, service, cleanliness, and price. Torres and Kline (2006) postulated a workplace model based on the assumption that employees and facilities were the most influential factors contributing to guest satisfaction.

The role and adoption rate of hospitality technology has been a focal point for several industry studies (Beldona & Cobanoglu, 2007; Ham et al., 2005; Verma, Victorino, Karniouchina, & Feickert, 2007). Despite some incongruent findings, research results support the evolving importance of technology in property selection. In a study of upscale Korean hotels, for example, guest-related interface applications (e.g., call accounting, elec- tronic locks, energy management, in-room entertainment, in-room vending and information services) were found to have no significant effect on over- all satisfaction (Ham et al., 2005). A similar study, conducted in Thailand, produced controversial findings as researcher’s acknowledged the dominant influence of technology amenities (e.g. television, mini-bar, telephone ser- vice, etc.) on customer satisfaction, without regard to socio-demographic characteristics (Prayukvong, Sophon, Hongpukdee, & Charupas, 2007).

Chathoth (2007) concluded that an important feature of hotel informa- tion technology is the delineation of significant components (i.e., reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) involved in meeting and/or exceeding guest needs. Recently, Cornell University Center for Hospitality Research conducted research to determine hotel guest technology prefer- ences (Verma et al., 2007). The study incorporated a web-based Technology

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 277

Readiness Index (TRI) tool. The researchers sought to separate those favoring technology (i.e., higher TRI score) from those who appeared indif- ferent or uninterested. Descriptive responder characteristics included: young, highly educated, affluent, inclined to be frequent travelers, and willing to pay higher room rates. The research centered on IT adoption of a web- based hotel booking engine, self check-out service, and in-room Internet access. The study confirmed that not all hotel guests embrace technology innovation uniformly.

Further analysis by Beldona and Cobanoglu (2007) involved classi- fication of guest oriented technologies into four quadrants according to expectation of importance and satisfaction with performance. The first group, including express check-in/out, remote control TV, and in-room high speed Internet access were ranked high on both dimensions (impor- tance and performance). A second group, awarded high importance but low performance ratings, included wireless Internet access, alarm clock, easily accessible electrical outlets and on-line reservation capabilities. This group included persons who considered these technologies important when select- ing a hotel but judged performance low during occupancy. A third group, rated technologies at a low importance level in hotel selection but recorded high performance scores once in-house. Group three technologies included web TV, Pay-Per-View movies, and in-room personal computers. The fourth group indicated low ratings for both technology importance and perfor- mance. Applications in this group included videoconferencing capabilities, wireless access to hotel website, business center services, and plasma screen television.

In summary, various studies have been conducted to explore the role and importance of hotel guest technology amenities over hotel guest satisfac- tion. Additional research on this topic is intended to delineate technologies that may be implemented to enhance guest satisfaction. Therefore, the second purpose of this study is to explore the impact of technology ameni- ties on hotel guest satisfaction. The research hypothesis was formulated as follows:

H1: There is a relationship between hotel guest satisfaction with technology amenities and overall accommodation-based satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

A random sample of 3,000 American travelers was chosen from a national database (rent-a-list.com) for this study. Selected email addresses were strat- ified by state population by the national database company. Each email contained an invitation and a website link to the survey. Of the 3,000 emails in the original population, 1,332 responses were received for a response

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

278 C. Cobanoglu et al.

rate of 44.4%. The qualifying question for the study involved the respon- dent having stayed in a hotel within the immediate past 12 months. Of the 1,332 respondents, 1,172 (88%) fulfilled the qualification of a hotel stay within the last year. The remaining 160 respondents were eliminated from the study. Of the 1,172 qualified responses, 638 were found to be incomplete and therefore were also deleted. The remaining 534 responses composed the population for this study (i.e., 17.8% net response rate).

A web-hosted survey instrument, composed of four sections, was devised based on items identified in a review of relevant literature. The first section of the survey focused on traveler behavior while the second sec- tion investigated travelers’ technology behavior. Both sections were adopted from the validated instrument used in the Beldona and Cobanoglu (2007) study. The third section contained a list of select hotel technology ameni- ties. The list of technology amenities in this section was adopted from the following studies: Cobanoglu (2001), Ham et al., 2005, Verma et al., 2007 and Beldona & Cobanoglu (2007). The final section was concerned with guest-hotel satisfaction and demographic characteristics of respondent.

A non-response bias analysis using wave analysis (early versus later respondents) was conducted to determine: (1) whether non-respondents and respondents differed significantly and (2) whether equivalent data from those who did not respond would have significantly altered find- ings. Rylander, Propst, and McMurtry (1995) suggested that late respondents and non-respondents were alike and wave analysis and respondent/non- respondent comparisons tended to yield similar results. As a result, an independent t-test was conducted to evaluate variance in early responses from late responses. The analysis indicated that there was no sig- nificant difference, concluding that this survey did not suffer from non-response bias.

FINDINGS

Table 2 contains respondent demographic information indicating that 67.9% of the respondents were female travelers. Just over one-quarter of the respondents (25.7%) were between the ages of 36 and 45 years; 22.2% ranged between 46 and 55; 21% between 26 and 35; 12.6% were 25 or younger, 12% were between 56 and 65, and 6.6% were older than 66 years. About 17% were employed in professional, managerial, and related occupa- tions; 13.7% worked in sales and office occupations, 10.4% were in service industries, and 11.8% identified as students. About 30% of the respondents had an annual income of $25,001 to $50,000; 27.9% earned $50,001 to $75,000; and 10.1% reported earning $75,001 to $100,000. More than half of the respondents reported being married (55.7%), 24% were single and 12% divorced.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 279

TABLE 2 Respondent Demographics

Variable % Variable %

Gender Marital Status Male 32.1 Married 55.7 Female 67.9 Single 24.0

Age (years) Divorced 12.0 25 or younger 12.6 Separated 3.6 26–35 21.0 Widowed 1.2 36–45 25.7 Prefer not to answer 0.6 46–55 22.2 Other 3.0 56–65 12.0 66 or older 6.6

Level of education Approximate annual income High School 10.2 $25,000 or less 13.9 Associate degree (2 year) 12.6 $25,001–$50,000 30.8 Bachelor’s Degree (4 year) 29.3 $50,001–$75,000 27.9 Some college 32.9 $75,001–$100,000 10.1 Master’s Degree 10.8 $100,001–$150,000 7.2 Doctorate Degree 3.6 $150,001–$200,000 0.0 Other 0.6 $200,001–$250,000 0.5

Prefer not to answer 9.6 Occupation

Management, professional, and related occupations

17.5

Service occupations 10.4 Sales and office occupations 13.7 Farming, fishing, and forestry 1.9 Construction, extraction, and

maintenance occupations 0.9

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations

2.4

Government occupations 4.7 Technology Occupations 6.6 Student 11.8 Retired 8.5 Unemployed 5.7 Other 16.0

N = 534.

Travel Behavior

Table 3 lists the tools respondents reported using when searching for a hotel and associated mean scores. The most frequently reported search technique is the hotel’s own website (Mean = 2.5), followed by online travel agency websites, e.g., Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity (Mean = 2.7) and third party review sites such as tripadvisor.com, kayak.com, hotels.com, and trip.com (Mean = 3.5). The least utilized tool was found to be social networking sites such as Myspace and Facebook. About 41% of the respondents reported being active members of a frequent traveler program.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

280 C. Cobanoglu et al.

TABLE 3 Search Tools for Hotel Selection

Tool Mean∗ Standard Deviation

Hotel website 2.5 1.3 Online travel agency websites 2.7 1.3 Third party review sites 3.5 1.3 Social networking sites 4.4 1.0

N = 534 ∗ where: 1 = Always; 5 = Never.

Table 4 summarizes self-reported respondent travel behavior. Slightly more than one quarter of the respondents booked their last hotel stay through an Internet travel agency such as Expedia, Orbitz, or Travelocity (26.6%). The second most frequently reported booking method was phoning the hotel directly (25.3%) followed by booking through the hotel’s affiliated website (e.g., Hyatt.com, Marriott.com, or Hilton.com) at 24.5%. Using a toll- free central reservation system telephone number was cited as the next most popular method (9.4%).

Nearly one-half of the respondents reported having stayed in a midscale hotel such as Courtyard, Holiday Inn Express, or Comfort Inn, while 31.3% stayed in an upscale property such as Hyatt, Hilton, or Marriott and 16.3% stayed in an economy hotel such as Ramada, EconoLodge, or Super 8.

TABLE 4 Travel Behavior

Variable %

Means of Last Hotel Reservation Book on-line through an Internet travel agency 26.6 Call the hotel directly 25.3 Book online with hotel affiliated website 24.5 Call a toll free (800) reservation number of the hotel 9.4 Other 9.0 Use a travel agent 3.4 Use my organization’s travel agent 1.7

Type of Last hotel Luxury (e.g., Four Seasons, Ritz Carlton) 1.7 Upscale (e.g., Hyatt, Hilton, Marriott) 31.3 Midscale (e.g., Courtyard, Holiday Inn Express, Comfort Inn, 48.9 Economy (e.g., Ramada, Super 8, Motel 6, EconoLodge) 16.3 Other 1.7

Travel Scenario Vacation 39.0 Visit friends, relatives 23.2 Travel to attend travel association meeting / convention / conference 16.1 Travel to attend company meeting / meet people within the company 13.5 Travel to meet people outside the company (but not to make a sales call) 3.4 Attending a sport event 3.0 Travel to make a sales call 1.9

N = 534.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 281

A majority of the respondents traveled for leisure while about 35% traveled for business associated purposes.

Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was applied to survey data to (a) create correlated variable composites from the original attributes, and (b) apply the derived factor scores in subsequent multiple regression analysis. Principal axis factor analysis with a varimax rotation was used. The varimax, rather than quarti- max rotation, was adopted because the researchers, based on the review of similar studies, anticipated finding several dimensions of equal importance among the data. Items with factor loadings of 0.30 or higher were clustered together to form constructs, based on prior research studies (Tinsley & Kass, 1979; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). The factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 were considered significant. The solution that accounted for at least 60% of the total variance was considered a satisfactory solution (Hair et al., 1998). Utilizing the Data reduction function of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, 2000) a factor analysis was performed on all nineteen technology amenities to determine possible underlying factors.

Initially, a Spearman rank-order, inter-item correlation matrix was cal- culated for these items. Two statistics were used to test if the factor analysis was appropriate for this study. First, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statis- tic was calculated as 0.932 which is meritorious (Kaiser, 1974). Since the KMO was above 0.80, the variables were interrelated and shared common factors. In addition, the communalities ranged from 0.64 to 0.87 with an average value above 0.72, suggesting that the variance of the original val- ues were fairly explained by the common factors. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was applied and yielded a significant chi-square value in order to test the significance of the correlation matrix (÷=2395.45, df=190, p =0.000). Both tests indicated that factor analysis was appropriate for this study (Hair et al., 1998).

The results of the factor analysis produced a clean factor structure with relatively higher loadings on the appropriate factors. Most variables loaded heavily on one factor and this reflected that there was minimal overlap among factors and that all factors were independently structured. Four sta- ble factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and explaining 72.79% of the variance, were derived from the analysis. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were computed for the items that formed each factor. As Table 5 indicates, the reliability coefficients for the items in this study ranged from 0.81 to 0.90; well above the minimum value of 0.70 considered accept- able as an indication of reliability for applied research (Nunnally, 1978). The contents of the four factor dimensions were analyzed and labeled: In- room Technologies, Comfort Technologies, Business Essentials, and Internet Access (see Table 5).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

282 C. Cobanoglu et al.

TABLE 5 Results of Factor Analysis for Hotel Technology Amenities

Item Dimensions

In-Room Technologies

Comfort Technologies

Business Essentials

Internet Access

In-room VoIP service 0.680106 In-room pay-per-view (PPV) movies 0.733287 In-room voice-mail / messaging 0.679025 In-room game system (e.g. Wii or

PlayStation) 0.687389

In-room fitness system 0.618179 In-room universal battery charger 0.580698 In-room electronic safe 0.568392 In-room guest control panel (e.g.,

lights, TV, temperature, blinds, curtains, etc.)

0.661432

In-room PC 0.674866 Mobile access to hotel website

(e.g., Blackberry) 0.664414

Electronic wireless key card 0.797356 Flat panel HD Television 0.671673 Business center (e.g., computers,

fax and copier machinery, etc.) 0.733914

Express check-in / check-out 0.744941 In-room Telephone 0.798396 In-room alarm clock 0.747690 Easily accessible electronic outlets 0.730601 In-room High-Speed Internet

Access 0.833294

Wireless Internet access in public areas

0.809509

Eigenvalue 5.047 4.235 3.137 2.141 Variance Explained 25.23 21.17 15.68 10.70 Cronbach’s Alpha 0.907 0.894 0.814 0.875

N = 534. Note: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic = 0.932; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity =2395.45; df =190, p = 0.000.

Research Question

What is the level of guest satisfaction with technology-based amenities implemented by hotels?

To answer this research question, the descriptive statistics for nineteen technology amenities are used as shown in Table 6. The five highest rated technology amenities were: in-room telephone, express check-in/check- out, in-room alarm clock, easily accessible electronic outlets, and in-room high-speed internet access. Respondents were least satisfied with in-room universal battery charger, video-conferencing capabilities, in-room fitness system, in-room PC, and in-room game system (e.g., Wii or PlayStation).

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 283

TABLE 6 Level of Guest Satisfaction with Hotel Technology Amenities

Variable Mean∗ Standard Deviation

In-room Telephone 1.90 1.09 Express Check-in / Check-out 1.94 1.13 In-room Alarm Clock 1.98 1.13 Easily Accessible Electronic Outlets 2.05 1.11 In-room High-Speed Internet Access 2.19 1.28 In-room Guest Control Panel 2.23 1.23 Wireless Internet Access—Public Areas 2.31 1.24 In-room Voicemail / messaging 2.64 1.33 In-room Electronic Safe 2.64 1.36 Business Center 2.66 1.28 Flat panel HD Television 2.68 1.32 Electronic Wireless Key Card 2.77 1.36 In-room VoIP service 2.83 1.33 In-room Pay-Per-View (PPV) movies 2.83 1.31 Mobile Access to Hotel Website 2.85 1.32 In-room Universal Battery Charger 2.94 1.36 Video-Conferencing Capabilities 2.97 1.28 In-room Fitness System 3.10 1.36 In-room PC 3.11 1.38 In-room Game System 3.12 1.33 GRAND MEAN

N = 534, ∗: 1 = Very satisfied, 5 = Very unsatisfied.

Hypothesis Testing

H1: There is a relationship between guest satisfaction with technology amenities and overall accommodation-based satisfaction

To answer this question a regression analysis was conducted to esti- mate a model with a hotel guest overall satisfaction score as the dependent variable and the satisfaction scores on technology amenities’ factors as the independent variables. The cutoff significant F value for retaining a vari- able was selected at the α = 0.05 level. The purpose of estimating the regression model was to identify technology amenities that have significantly contributed to the overall satisfaction of hotel guests. The model yielded the 27.3% R2. Table 7 contains the coefficients for the significant model. The regression model for the impact of technology amenities on the hotel guest satisfaction is:

Ys = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3

where

Ys = Overall guest satisfaction β0 = Constant (coefficient of the intercept) βn = Regression Coefficients

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

284 C. Cobanoglu et al.

TABLE 7 Coefficients

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Model B SE Beta t p Value

Business Essentials for Travelers 0.291 0.074 0.392 3.932 0.000∗

In-room Technologies 0.217 0.050 0.396 4.363 0.000∗

Internet Access 0.102 0.051 0.164 2.001 0.046∗

Comfort Technologies 0.210 0.119 0.036 0.175 0.862

R2 = 0.28. ∗= Significant at α=0.05 level. SE = standard error. Note: a → dependent variable: overall hotel satisfaction.

X1 = Business Essentials for Travelers X2 = In-room Technologies X3 = Internet Access

The first significant variable is Business Essentials for Travelers (p = 0.000), indicating that there is a positive relationship between the variable’s satisfaction score and the overall satisfaction of the hotel guest. In other words, one unit of increase in the Business Essentials for Travelers factor would lead to a 0.291 unit increase in the overall satisfaction of the hotel guest. The second significant variable is In-Room Technologies (p = 0.000), indicating that there is a similar positive relationship between the satisfaction score of this variable and the overall satisfaction of the hotel guest. That means that one unit of increase in the In-Room Technologies fac- tor would lead to a 0.217 unit increase in the overall satisfaction of the hotel guest. The last significant variable is Internet Access (p = 0.046), indicating that there is a positive relationship between satisfaction score of this variable and the overall satisfaction of the hotel guest. One unit of increase in the Internet Access factor leads to a 0.102 unit increase in the overall satisfaction of the hotel guest. Interestingly, the Comfort technology variable was not found to be a significant predictor of a hotel guest’s overall satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

One of the purposes of this study was to examine the impact of technology- based amenities on hotel guest overall satisfaction. The results indicate that technology amenities can significantly impact a hotel guest’s overall satis- faction and since satisfaction is a direct determinant of future behavior, the variety and the type of technology amenities will be considered as vital factors in guest-hotel selection and return visit intention.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 285

It is important to note that not all technology amenities impact guest satisfaction equally. This study found that comfort technologies such as an in-room electronic safe, guest control panel, in-room PC, mobile access to hotel website, electronic lock, and flat screen HD television sets are not as likely to impact guest satisfaction as other applications included in the study. Perhaps, the impact of technology-based amenities is more closely related to application familiarity as many popular devices can be found in the guest’s home or office setting.

Business Essentials for Travelers were found to be strong factors impact- ing guest satisfaction. This set of amenities included business center services, express check-in/check-out, in-room telephone, in-room alarm clock, and easily accessible electronic outlets. In-room technologies, such as VoIP tele- phone services, pay-per-view movies, voicemail/messaging, game systems, and universal battery chargers possess significant potential to positively impact guest satisfaction. These findings are consistent with an earlier research study conducted by Kistner, Dickinson, and Cobanoglu (2005).

The regression model revealed that comfort technologies appear to no direct impact on hotel guest overall satisfaction. This finding indicates that guests are not as satisfied with comfort technology items as with other vari- ables contained in this study. Such comfort technologies as an in-room electronic safe, in-room guest control panel, in-room PC, mobile access to hotel website (e.g., Blackberry), electronic wireless key card, flat panel HDTV, and the like, include several emerging technologies. Technologies not considered mainstream may be categorized as disruptive technologies (Christensen, 1997; Cobanoglu, 2001). Disruptive technologies have a ten- dency to evolve into mainstream technologies and when this occurs, it may lead to significant competitive advantage for the innovator. This may be an important consideration for hoteliers contemplating near-future technology investment. A technology deemed to be unpopular or disruptive should not automatically be dismissed or ignored in strategic planning. It is critical to differentiate technologies that impact guest satisfaction currently and those projected to impact satisfaction in the future.

The findings of this study are consistent with the AHLA Technology Use Study (2008) in which a nation-wide sample of hoteliers were surveyed. According to the study, a majority of the hoteliers identified “enhancing customer experiences” as an important near term IT goal. This is particu- larly important because the findings of this study suggest that technology is indeed a significant factor impacting guest satisfaction. This validated infor- mation could prove to be helpful for hoteliers who are asked to justify technology expenses and investments in their respective properties.

Hoteliers should review and evaluate current technology amenities and related strategies and offerings. The technologies that impact guest satisfac- tion may be used in advertising campaigns to attract new customers. Future research in the areas of social networking and self-service guest technology

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

286 C. Cobanoglu et al.

applications are expected to further support the findings of this study as they present a platform enabling the promotion and extension of amenities prior to and throughout the guest’s stay. The authors recommend further examination of these particular applications in the near future.

REFERENCES

American Hotel and Lodging Association Technology Use Survey. (2008). American Hotel and Lodging Association. Retrieved from: http://www.ahla.com/ uploadedFiles/AHLA/Members_Only/Property_and_Corporate/Property_- _Publications/Current%20and%20Future%20Technology.pdf

Beldona, S., & Cobanoglu, C. (2007). Importance-performance analysis of guest technologies in the lodging industry. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 299–312.

Brewer, P., Kim, J., Schrier, T., & Farrish, J. (2008). Current and future technology use in the hospitality industry. American Hotel and Lodging Association. Retrieved from http://www.ahla.com/membersonly/content.aspx?id=5964

Chathoth, P. (2007). The impact of information technology on hotel operations, service management and transaction costs: A conceptual framework for full- service hotel firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 395–408.

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cobanoglu, C. (2001). Analysis of business travelers’ hotel selection and satisfaction. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

Cobanoglu, C. (2009a). Guests’ top 7 technologies. Hospitality Technology, 13(2). Retrieved from http://www.htmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid= 783D4AA2541D483C98659D20A3539C6E&nm=Additional&type=MultiPublishing &mod=PublishingTitles&mid=3E19674330734FF1BBDA3D67B50C82F1&tier=4 &id=69B3BB8904A443DC9FB713C5E94721AF

Cobanoglu, C. (2009b). In-room tech test. Hospitality Technology. Retrieved from http://www.htmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid= 783D4AA2541D483C98659D20A3539C6E&nm=Additional&type=MultiPublishing &mod=PublishingTitles&mid=3E19674330734FF1BBDA3D67B50C82F1&tier=4 &id=7909EF41E3A04AE8A89A972C3AF54671

Cobanoglu, C., Ryan, B., & Beck, J. (1999). The impact of technology in lodg- ing properties. International Council on Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Education Annual Convention Proceedings, 34–39.

Collins, G. R., & Cobanoglu, C. (2008). Hospitality information technology: Learning how to use it (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

David, S. J., Grabski, S., & Kasavana, M. (1996). The productivity paradox of hotel- industry technology. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 37 , 64–70.

Erdem, M., Schrier, T., & Brewer, P. (2009). Guest empowerment technologies. Journal of Hospitality Finance and Technology Professionals, 24, (3), 17–19.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

Technology Amenities and Overall Guest Satisfaction 287

Hair, J. F. Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivadate data analysis. (5th ed.). Upple Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ham, S., Kim, W. G., & Jeong, S. (2005). Effect of information technology on per- formance in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(2), 281–294.

Higley, J. (2007). Keep technology working, make guests happy. Hotel & Motel Management, 222(11), 6.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. Kandampully, J., & Suhartanto, D. (2000). Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: The

role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(6), 346–351.

Kasavana, M. L., & Cahill J. J. (2007). Managing technology in the hospitality industry (5th ed.). Lansing, MI: Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association.

Kim, T.G., Lee, J.H., & Law, R. (2008). An empirical examination of the acceptance behavior of hotel front office systems: An extended technology acceptance model. Tourism Management, 29, 500–513.

Kistner, M., Dickinson, C., & Cobanoglu, C. (2005, November). What keeps the hos- pitality industry from making the right technology investments—even when they are staring us in the face. Paper presented at the International Hotel/Motel and Restaurant Show, New York, NY.

Kotler, P., Bowen, J., & Makens, J. (2003). Marketing for hospitality and tourism (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Munyan, R. (2008). Technology in the next generation of hotels. Lodging Hospitality, 64(16), 78–88.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Piccoli, G., & Torchio, P. (2006). The strategic value of information: A manager’s

guide to profiting from information. Cornel Hospitality Report, 7(6), 1–10. Prayukvong, W., Sophon, J., Hongpukdee, S., & Charupas, T. (2007). Customers’

satisfaction with hotel guestrooms: A case study in Ubon Rachathani Province, Thailand. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 12(2), 119–126.

Reid, R. D., & Bojanic, D. C. (2009). Hospitality marketing management (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Rylander, R. G., Propst, D. B., & McMurtry, T. R. (1995). Nonresponse and recall biases in a survey of traveler spending. Journal of Travel Research, 33 (4), 39–45.

Sammons, G. (2000). Technology: How hospitality sales managers use and view it! Journal of Convention and Exhibition Management, 2(2), 83.

Shanka, T., & Taylor, R. (2003). An investigation into the perceived importance of service and facility attributes of hotel satisfaction. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 3/4(4), 119–134.

Siguaw, J., Enz, C., & Namasivayam, K. (2000). The adoption of information tech- nology in U.S. hotels: Strategically driven objectives. Journal of Travel Research, 39, 192.

Singh, A. J., & Kasavana, M. L. (2005). The impact of information technology on future management of lodging operations, Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Research, 6(1), 24–37.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

288 C. Cobanoglu et al.

Skogland, I., & Siguaw, J. A. (2004). Understanding switchers and stayers in the lodging industry. Cornell Hospitality Report, 1(4), 1–5.

Squires, M. (2008). Technology changes lodging workforce. Lodging Hospitality, 64(16), 89–94.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Kass, R. A. (1979). The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 278–291.

Torres, E. N. & Kline, S. F. (2006, January). An empirical study of customer delight in the hotel industry: preliminary findings. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Graduate Education and Graduate Student Research Conference in Hospitality and Tourism, Seattle, WA, 101–104.

Van Hoof, B. V. H., Combrink, E. T., & Verbeeten, J. M. (1997). Technology vendors and lodging managers view support they receive. FIU Hospitality Review, 15, 103–111.

Verma, R., Victorino, L., Karniouchina, K., & Feickert, J. (2007). Segmenting hotel customers based on technology readiness index. Cornell Hospitality Report, 7(13), 1–16.

Whitford, M. (1998, May 10). Customer satisfaction slump. Hotel and Motel Management, 213, 143.

Yee, R. W., Yeung, A., & Cheng, T. (2009). An empirical study of employee loyalty, service quality and firm performance in the service industry. International Journal of Production Economics. Retrieved from http://proxy.nss.udel.edu: 2109/scholar?hl=en&q=Yee+An+empirical+study+of+employee+loyalty%2C+ service+quality&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0.

Zabkar, V., Brencic, M. M., & Dmitrovic, T. (2009). Modelling perceived quality, visitor satisfaction and behavioral intentions at the destination level. Tourism Management, 31(4), 537–546.

Zeithaml, V. A., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Irwin.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

U ni

ve rs

ity o

f So

ut h

Fl or

id a]

a t 1

2: 09

1 7

O ct

ob er

2 01

View publication statsView publication stats

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233287045