Menu Close

Food Quality: Theory and Progression in the Field

Food Quality

Brief Summary of Theory and Progression in the Field

Customer satisfaction is a prime objective in the restaurant industry. Namkung and Jang (2007) make an exemption proposal in their study, which introduces a new determinant of customer satisfaction. The article makes a clearer argument for the effect of food quality on customer satisfaction. According to the authors, the taste and freshness of food have a definite competitive advantage in the market. As a position of strength, food quality gives restaurants a competitive edge above the atmospheric factors. The authors refer to previous studies that showed initial interest in quality of service as a component of satisfaction, setting progression in the field. Thus, the review accepts evaluation of food products using SERVQUAL and TANGSERV models that focus on food quality as a factor of customer satisfaction.

Maggon and Chaudhry (2015) examine the correlation between relationship marketing (RM) and customer relationship management (CRM). The authors recognize the importance of CRM and RM in hospitality and tourism. The article focuses on examining its variables on a time-based analysis between 2001 and 2013 in previous studies. The authors prove the progression of the study field by drawing a sequential analysis of 78 articles from a sample of 19 journals. They find a progressive growth of CRM and RM in hospitality and tourism with regard to theoretical assumptions, data technique, and paradigm shift. The result finds a relationship between CRM and RM; thus concluding with a projection of more clarity in future study parameters due to the progression of the study field.

Lee, Sardeshmukh, and Hallak (2016) also undertake a customer relations’ analytical study. With a focus on the small and medium size restaurants, the authors run a cross border comparison in the impact of innovation in the restaurant industry. The authors argue that innovation has become the differential value tool that determines the success of industry’s players. Taking the example of Australian Gelato Messina Restaurant, the articles unearths the sensitivity of innovation and creativity in the industry. The review of previous studies in the field creates a study path for the article. The study identifies the sources of innovative information, challenges and barriers to innovation encountered by restaurants. Thus, the authors’ literal evidence finds that restaurants rely on new generative ideas, observation and customer response as the main source of creative information. Therefore, the study findings conclude that there is an undeniable impact of innovation in the restaurant industry.

Yan, Wang, and Chau (2015) also provide a compelling study focusing on understanding intentions for customers’ repeat purchases from restaurants. They employing a regression analysis to show the correlation of study variable to customer retention, using over 10000 reviews collected. The study finds that service quality, price, and food quality determine customers” revisit. The article holds that only satisfied customers tend to revisit a restaurant for another meal. Also, the study employed text mining technology to grasp information on customer behavior response as an indicator of their satisfaction. The study showed that food quality and price have higher ratings than service quality and atmosphere. Thus, the analysis evidentially proved illustrative satisfaction that warrants a revisit.

Common Themes/Findings

The articles focus on examining customer relations in different fields. They also take the same approach of using documented literature to build their analysis. The technique gives a comparative analysis of their studies hence reinforcing their objectives with more credential sources that ascertain the authenticity of their information. Besides, all the articles focus on responding to components of customer satisfaction as the common theme, though in varied fronts. The founding makes the articles analytical studies with a clear definition of their research components. Their commonality in the study methods leads to a result-oriented conclusion that positively aligns to the study objectives. Therefore, the four articles have a clear similarity in theme, structural design, and research focus that is built on a clear thesis and concluded with a definite finding that reinforces and affirms the primary thesis.

Different Themes/Findings

Namkung and Jang (2007) focus its research on analyzing the role of food quality in customer satisfaction and behavioral intention. The article relied on a questionnaire to collect data that supported its hypothesis and literature review. The study reviewed its questionnaires responses and enumerated data into a quantitative method, thus distinguishing one article from the others. Maggon and Chaudhry (2015)’s article analyses the relationship between relationship marketing and customer relationship management on tourism and hospitality fields. The methodology section incorporates a statistical representation of theoretical data represented using charts and tables. Thus, the article by Lee, Sardeshmukh, and Hallak (2016) poses a mix of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Yan, Wang, and Chau (2015) undertake quantitative research on revisiting customers’ intentions by restaurants. Unlike previous articles, the articles run a numerical test of its hypothesis to experiment with their realization of the relationship between its study variables. Using SPSS method, the articles ascertain a statistical relevance of the research question which authenticates the finding. On the other hand, Lee, Sardeshmukh, and Hallak (2016)’s article takes relative qualitative research that contradicts all assumptions of Yan, Wang, and Chau (2015). The authors analyze the impact of innovation on the restaurant industry (Lee, Sardeshmukh, & Hallak 2016). Unlike other articles that only assume secondary data, this article relied on primary data from customers to support its hypothesis.

Study Limitations and how they differ across the study designs

TNamkung and Jang (2007) failed to incorporate full empirical research. For instance, the article lacks a clear definition of its scope and problem statements; hence overlying on previous studies without incorporating current observation and assumptions on their fields. The article by Lee, Sardeshmukh, and Hallak (2016) has limited reliability and validity in terms of the information used. The lack of external validation of data gives high chances of information misappropriation because qualitative information lacks measurability and dogmatic authenticity of information collected. The data is used to verify the hypothesis of the claim in methodology. In addition, the qualitative articles exhibit a lack of exploratory representation of data where the articles give final measures.

Yan, Wang, and Chau (2015) and Maggon and Chaudhry (2015) have failed to give a clear design for their calculations and assumptions of study errors; thus jeopardizing the measurability and interpretation of their data-driven results. In addition, the two articles have failed to incorporate assumptive theories that directly influence the correctness of their variables. The articles ought to have incorporative relevance to theoretical exploration to help to give ground for their data analysis.

Future Research Direction proposed in the articles

The articles have shown a reputable attempt in examining the themes of their study. With assistance to hypothesis and study objectives, the articles have created a sense of direction for future research. The articles’ reliance on past studies to analysis study background creates relevance and futurity of study. However, their distinct approach to information and data gives uncertainty in future studies. The qualitative articles assume an explorative method that lacks an empirical basis for future reliance. The empirical inconsistency can cause future rejection of the article as mere assumptions without supportive data. In addition, all the studies distinctively recommend progressive studies to ascertain the future relevance of the articles.

 

Reference

Lee, C., Sardeshmukh, S.R. and Hallak, R., 2016. A qualitative study of innovation in the restaurant industry. Anatolia27(3), pp.367-376.

Maggon, M. and Chaudhry, H., 2015. Revisiting relationship marketing and customer relationship management in leading tourism and hospitality journals: Research trends from 2001 to 2013. Journal of Relationship Marketing14(1), pp.53-77.

Namkung, Y. and Jang, S., 2007. Does food quality really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research31(3), pp.387-409

Yan, X., Wang, J. and Chau, M., 2015. Customer revisit intention to restaurants: Evidence from online reviews. Information Systems Frontiers17(3), pp.645-657

Also look at some of our business services
– 
Business Essay Writing Service
– 
Business Dissertation Writing Services
– 
Business Report Writing
– 
Business Assignment Help
– 
Business Planning Writing Service
– 
Business Assignment Writing Service

Share this Post