The Evaluation of Service Quality Attributes of Korean Restaurants by North American and Chinese Residents in Korea Based on the Kano Model

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the service quality attributes of Korean restaurants by North American and Chinese residents in Korea based on the Kano model. This survey was performed from September to December 2010. The subjects consisted of 135 North Americans and 165 Chinese in Seoul. The service quality attributes of Korean restaurants were composed of twenty three items in the categories of 'food quality', 'employee's service quality', 'sanitation quality', 'facility quality', and 'convenience quality'. For North Americans, there were five 'attractive quality' items, eleven 'one-dimensional quality' items and six 'indifferent quality' items, and one item had the same frequency on both 'attractive quality' and 'one-dimensional quality'. For the Chinese, there were twelve 'attractive quality' items, and ten 'one-dimensional quality' items, and one item had the same frequency on 'attractive quality' and 'one-dimensional quality'. According to the customer satisfaction coefficient developed by Timko, 'taste of the 'food (0.80)' for North Americans and 'freshness of the ingredients (0.94)' for Chinese were highest scores in the 'Better coefficient'. On the other hand, within the 'Worse coefficient', 'sanitation of the food' had the lowest score for both North Americans (-0.89) and Chinese (-0.90).

Korean Restaurants’ Consumer Needs Based on Marketing Mix Through the Kano Model

“…Marketing mix attributes falling into the one-dimensional category have been depicted to boost consumer satisfaction, while their absence could cause consumer dissatisfaction. The findings of this study are consistent with those of Yi et al (2016), who discovered that the taste of good food became an essential factor for both North American and Chinese consumers. This factor fell into the one-dimensional category.…”

“…Finally, paying attention and Rural Development Research to fulfilling the estimated waiting time was also necessary because when it took too long, it would surely disappoint consumers. These results are slightly different from those of Yi et al (2016), in which the food taste attribute obtained the highest SC score for North American consumers, while the highest SC for Chinese consumers was the freshness of food ingredients-the lowest DC score resulted from the attributes related to cleanliness. In this study, the cleanliness of the eating area received the lowest score, whereas, in Yi et al (2016), the cleanliness of the food was the one obtaining the lowest score.…”

“…Consumers also found the variety of menus and food portions in Korean restaurants engaging. Similar to the findings of Yi et al (2016), the attractive category covered Korean-style interior decoration and ease of access. These results also highlight the importance of studying the price and promotion variables, as they directly affected the level of consumer satisfaction and loyalty of Korean restaurants in Yogyakarta.…”

“…In addition, other similarities comprise the cleanliness of the dining area (including tables and cutlery), the appearance of employees, and service time; all belonged to the one-dimensional category. Whereas Yi et al (2016) only mentioned service speed, this research addressed service time based on the estimated time. The study's findings suggested that both consumers with higher and lower minimum wages appreciated it when restaurants made an effort to serve delicious Korean food and maintain the cleanliness of the dining area.…”

“…In addition, Wibowo's (2020) research solely measured consumer loyalty associated with demographic information on Korean restaurants' consumers in Greater Jakarta. Moreover, Yi, Yu, and Kwak (2016) conducted the Kano model research at Korean restaurants in Korea with different respondents: North Americans and Chinese people living in Korea. Pai, Yeh, and Tang (2018) also employed the Kano model in the restaurant industry chain to classify service quality attributes but only limited to several attributes of the marketing mix (product, place, people, process, and physical evidence).…”