| Literature DB >> 29932142 |
Kai-Jung Chen1, Tsu-Ming Yeh2, Fan-Yun Pai3, Der-Fa Chen4.
Abstract
People are paying greater attention to health. To maintain a good health status and obtain food fast, customers may go to healthy fast-food chain restaurants such as Subway more often than before in China and Taiwan. Healthy fast-food chain restaurants come with a healthy spin, seeking to differentiate themselves from other fast-food restaurants. This paper combined the refined Kano model and the quality function deployment (QFD) method. The refined Kano model was used to understand how customers perceive service attributes developed based on DINESERV measurements. QFD was employed to describe the relationships among the critical service attributes and corresponding improvements as well as to identify the priority for these improvements. The analysis results revealed that providing limited offers (due to periods, seasons, and regions) should be at the top of their improvement list, followed by staff suggestions for ingredients, and a temperature display to enhance the image of fresh ingredients. Other improvement actions include providing regular launches of new flavors/products, designing new and attractive slogans, and providing restaurant apps.Entities:
Keywords: DINESERV; QFD; fast-food chain restaurants; refined Kano model; service quality
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29932142 PMCID: PMC6068690 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15071310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The refined Kano model.
Quality attribute classification in the Kano model.
| Customer Preference | Dysfunctional Form of the Questions (Negative Questions) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Like | Must-be | Neutral | Live with | Dislike | |
| Functional Form of the Questions (Positive Questions) | |||||
| Like | Q | A | A | A | O |
| Must-be | R | I | I | I | M |
| Neutral | R | I | I | I | M |
| Live with | R | I | I | I | M |
| Dislike | R | R | R | R | Q |
Attribute definitions in the Kano model vs. the refined Kano model.
| Kano Model | Refined Kano Model | |
|---|---|---|
| Quality Attribute | High Important Attributes | Low Important Attribute |
| Attractive quality | High attractive quality | Low attractive quality |
| One-dimensional quality | High value-added quality | Low value-added quality |
| Must-be quality | Critical quality | Necessary quality |
| Indifferent quality | Potential quality | Care-free quality |
Participant information in focus group (n = 15).
| Item | Breakdown | No. | Item | Breakdown | No. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 5 | Visits per month | Less than 1 | 3 |
| Female | 10 | Less than 2 | 4 | ||
| Age | 25 years old or below | 4 | Less than 4 | 5 | |
| 26–35 years old | 3 | More than 5 | 3 | ||
| 36–45 years old | 5 | Major transpiration (how interviewees visit Subway) | Walking | 5 | |
| Older than 46 years | 3 | Motorcycle | 5 | ||
| Occupation | Military, governmental employees, and teachers | 3 | Motors | 5 | |
| Manufacturing industry | 3 | ||||
| Business | 5 | ||||
| Healthcare | 1 | ||||
| Student | 3 |
Focus group interview findings.
| Dimension | Service Attributes in DINESERV | Service Attributes from Focus Group Interviews | No. of Mentions | No. of Customer Mentions | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food quality | 1. Overall quality of the food | 1. Overall quality of the food | 20 | 15 | 6.68% |
| 2. Taste of the food | 2. Taste of the food | 9 | 7 | 3.01% | |
| 3. Visual appeal of the food | 3. Visual appeal of the food | 22 | 14 | 7.35% | |
| 4. Freshness of the food | 4. Freshness of the food | 22 | 15 | 7.35% | |
| 5. A variety of main courses (new) | 9 | 5 | 3.01% | ||
| Service quality | 5. Staff appearance | 8. Staff appearance | 17 | 15 | 5.68% |
| 6. Attentive services | 9. Attentive services | 15 | 14 | 5.01% | |
| 7. Staff’s service attitudes | 10. Staff’s service attitudes | 13 | 13 | 4.34% | |
| 8. Staff’s professional knowledge about the food | 11. Staff’s professional knowledge about the food | 13 | 13 | 4.34% | |
| 9. Reliable services | 12. Reliable services | 25 | 15 | 8.36% | |
| 13. Short ordering time (new) | 6 | 5 | 2.00% | ||
| Price and value | 10. Good value for money | 17. Good value for money | 18 | 14 | 6.02% |
| 11. Appropriate portion size | 18. Appropriate portion size | 13 | 11 | 4.34% | |
| 12. Reasonable prices | 19. Reasonable prices | 20 | 13 | 6.68% | |
| 13. Overall value of the dining experience | 20. Overall value of the dining experience | 16 | 14 | 5.35% | |
| 21. Appropriate promotional activities (new) | |||||
| Atmosphere | 14. Cleanness of facilities | 22. Cleanness of facilities | 16 | 13 | 5.35% |
| 15. Dining area environment | 23. Dining area environment | 19 | 13 | 6.35% | |
| 16. Level of comfort in the dining | 24. Level of comfort in the dining | 7 | 6 | 2.34% | |
| 25. Sufficient tables and seats (new) | |||||
| Convenience | 17. Convenient location | 26. Convenient location | 7 | 7 | 2.34% |
| 18. Short walking distance | 27. Short walking distance | 12 | 8 | 4.01% | |
| 28. Sufficient parking space (new) | |||||
| 29. Offering of drive-through services (new) | |||||
| TOTAL | 299 | 100% | |||
Descriptive statistical data for the Kano model respondents.
| Item | Breakdown | No. | % | Item | Breakdown | No. | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 105 | 39.9 | Spending per visit | <NT$100 | 64 | 24.4 |
| Female | 158 | 60.1 | NT$101–150 | 151 | 57.6 | ||
| Visits per month | 5 times or less | 223 | 85.1 | NT$151–200 | 39 | 14.9 | |
| 6–10 times | 27 | 10.3 | NT$201–300 | 7 | 2.3 | ||
| 11–15 times | 7 | 2.7 | >NT$301 | 2 | 0.8 | ||
| 16 times or more | 6 | 1.9 | Educational level | High school or below | 48 | 18.2 | |
| Age | 25 years old or below | 167 | 63.7 | Bachelor’s degree | 166 | 63.1 | |
| 26–35 years old | 61 | 23.3 | Graduate school | 49 | 18.7 | ||
| 36–45 years old | 18 | 6.5 | Occupation | Military, governmental employees, and teachers | 16 | 6.1 | |
| 46 years old or above | 17 | 6.5 | Labor | 9 | 3.4 | ||
| Monthly income | <NT$30,000 | 149 | 56.8 | Business | 49 | 18.3 | |
| NT$30,000–60,000 | 92 | 35.1 | Healthcare | 15 | 5.7 | ||
| NT$60,000–90,000 | 17 | 6.1 | Student | 151 | 57.6 | ||
| >NT$90,000 | 5 | 2.0 | Others | 23 | 8.8 |
Quality attribute classification.
| Dimension | Modified Question | Kano Attribute | Refined Kano Attribute | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food quality | 1. Overall quality of the food | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.36 |
| 2. Taste of the food | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.42 | |
| 3. Visual appeal of the food | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.38 | |
| 4. Freshness of the food | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.50 | |
| 5. A variety of main courses | Attractive | Highly attractive | 4.32 | |
| 6. A variety of side dishes | Indifferent | Care-free | 3.89 | |
| 7. A variety of sauces | Indifferent | Care-free | 4.19 | |
| Service quality | 8. Staff appearance | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.48 |
| 9. Attentive services | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.47 | |
| 10. Staff’s service attitudes | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.51 | |
| 11. Staff’s professional knowledge about the food | Indifferent | Potential quality | 4.33 | |
| 12. Reliable services | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.47 | |
| 13. Short ordering time | Attractive | Highly attractive | 4.42 | |
| 14. Proactive services | Attractive | Highly attractive | 4.41 | |
| 15. Chin–Chieh | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.50 | |
| 16. Quick takeaways with prepared meals | Indifferent | Care-free | 3.84 | |
| Price and value | 17. Good value for money | Indifferent | Care-free | 4.12 |
| 18. Appropriate portion size | Indifferent | Care-free | 3.96 | |
| 19. Reasonable prices | Must-be | Necessary | 4.01 | |
| 20. Overall value of the dining experience | One-dimensional | Low value-added | 4.33 | |
| 21. Appropriate promotional activities | Attractive | Highly attractive | 4.10 | |
| Atmosphere | 22. Cleanness of facilities | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.50 |
| 23. Dining area environment | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.39 | |
| 24. Level of comfort in the dining | One-dimensional | High value-added | 4.36 | |
| 25. Sufficient tables and seats | Indifferent | Care-free | 4.02 | |
| Convenience | 26. Convenient location | Indifferent | Care-free | 4.24 |
| 27. Short walking distance | Indifferent | Care-free | 4.13 | |
| 28. Sufficient parking space | One-dimensional | Low value-added | 4.17 | |
| 29. Offering of drive-through services | Indifferent | Care-free | 3.84 |
Figure 2Quality function deployment (QFD) analysis process.
Figure 3The house of quality for Subway.
Improvement prioritization in house of quality.
| Improvement Actions (HOWs) | Weighted Sum | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Limited offers | 115.2 | 1 |
| Suggestions for ingredients mix-and-match | 84.7 | 2 |
| Temperature display | 79.74 | 3 |
| Freshly squeezed juices | 78.3 | 4 |
| Regular launch of new flavors/products | 52.02 | 5 |
| New and attractive slogans | 40.59 | 6 |
| Display of the time when bread taken out of oven | 40.5 | 7 |
| Restaurant app | 16.72 | 8 |