Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Audit-Tool-Of-The-Blue-Sky-Antiques-And 👈

1. Olivia Anderson (100317695)
Alexandra Tomczyk (100345210)
Service Excellence for the Events Industry
4EM504
Course Work 1
Audit tool of the Blue Sky Antiques and
Collectors Fair
Word Count (excluding quotes and references): 1494
Module Leader: Lisa Wakefield
!1

2. Contents Page
1. Introduction 3
2.1 Measuring Customer Service 3
2.2 Methodology 4
2.3 RATER Model and Data Analysis 5
3. Conclusion 6
4. References 7
5. Appendices 8
Appendix No.1 8
Appendix No.2 10
Appendix No. 3 13
Appendix No.4 13
!2

3. 1. Introduction
The aim of this report is to measure the quality of a selected event by creating and applying a custom
qualitative auditing tool. The following objectives will be considered:
1. To identify 5 areas of access that will be applied to the event.
2. To create a comprehensive mystery shopper questionnaire.
3. To justify the chosen assessment method.
4. To present collected data from the chosen event.
5. To introduce and apply the RATER model.
The event selected was the Blue Sky Antiques and Collectors Fair, which took place on
22nd February 2015, in Belper Leisure Centre. The event is held monthly at different Derbyshire
locations and attracts numerous stallholders and patrons. The event was selected because it is small,
regularly occurring and is expected to have areas which could be improved.
2.1 Measuring Customer Service
“Customer service is […] more important than ever before, especially during difficult economic
times, when customers are looking to increase value for money and are less forgiving of mediocre
service.” (Miller, quoted in Hudson & Hudson, 2013, pp.5)
According to experts customer service is a key factor influencing customer satisfaction and retention
(Stevens, 2010; Customer Service Excellence, 2015). The event industry is unique as the products provided
are not tangible, hence the quality measures focus on functional aspects and delivery of the service (Allen et
al, 2011). Customer service can be measured using qualitative or quantitative methods. Qualitative data
represents people’s experiences and emotions (Boeije, 2010), therefore is more suitable for customer service
quality evaluation.
Some forms of measuring customer service include: interviews or focus groups, where customers are
encouraged to share their experiences with the product (Critical Incident Studies); comment or feedback
cards, often collected online; and questionnaires, and mystery shopper activities (Stevens, 2010, Hudson &
Hudson, 2013).
!3

4. 2.2 Methodology
The auditing tool presented in this report was created using the mystery shopping concept.
According to Hudson and Hudson (2013, P.127) mystery shopping “provides information about the service
experience as it unfolds” thus the event’s quality can be measured throughout its duration. This type of
quality measure engages customer’s perceptions, expectations and feelings.
The most significant advantage of the tool is that it allows the experience to be neutral and not
created for the purpose of measuring the service quality (Bootte & Mathews, 1999, in Hudson & Hudson,
2013). Therefore the researchers/customers use their own expectations and experiences to assess the quality
of the audited product. The customer service industry relies on enhancing experiences of individuals
(Stevens, 2010), hence measuring the quality by engaging individuals can create accurate, diverse data.
Some disadvantages of the tool include high time and recourse consumption, personal bias and
ethical issues, such as questioning if it is acceptable to observe performance without consent (Jorgensen,
1989, Grove and Fisk, 1992, in Hudson & Hudson, 2013).
The auditing tool uses a complex open question survey, built around the six areas of access detailed
below. Each section contains questions assessing different sub-areas (see Appendix No.1).
The internet has influenced customer’s expectations and perceptions, giving us more opportunities to
research and compare products before making purchase decisions (Stevens, 2010). Allen et al (2011)
highlight the significance of functionality and user friendliness of an event’s website, which indicates their
importance in customer interaction. The website of the Collectors Fair was the first access point to the event
hence the importance of measuring its quality.
The guest arrival sets the “anticipatory tone”, and marks the beginning of an event (Allen, 2009, P.
166). The category ‘arrival/departure’ considers parking, signage, etc (see Appendix No.1) and assesses all
essential areas regarding first and last impression created on the customer.
There is a law requirement to provide adequate ingress facilities, and as access potentially limits
customers it is important it is assessed. The Collectors Fair is an open event, hence it should comply with
accessibility needs of potential customers.
Amenities inside a venue are an important part of the event, lack of facilities can influence a guests
decision to attend, and for how long.
Customer Service is an essential area for the service industry. This field allows businesses to
distinguish oneself from all competitors and gain loyal customers (Stevens, 2010).
The ‘overall feeling’ was chosen as the last category to summarise researcher's experience of the
event, and highlight any noteworthy moments or fulfilled expectations.
After attending the event and completing the survey, the quality of services measured by each
question was scored from 1 (poor) to 5 (satisfactory). The total sum of scored points provides an indication
to the overall quality of the audited event (see Appendix No2).
To analyse the findings a RATER model was applied to the collected data.
!4

5. 2.3 RATER Model and Data Analysis
The RATER model is a simplified tool for measuring the customer’s perception of quality, derived
from SERVQUAL (Buttle,1995). The RATER model highlights five areas customers consider substantial
when purchasing a product (Mind Tools, 2015). The following areas are: Reliability (consistent, accurate,
and timely provision of services); Assurance (expertise and credibility); Tangibles (physical evidence of
existence, such as offices, etc); Empathy (relationships between customers and employees); and
Responsiveness (ability to provide quality service, appear friendly and approachable) (Mind Tools, 2015). To
apply the RATER model the questions were categorised into the relevant areas.
To assess the reliability of the event following aspects have been evaluated. The website provided
sufficient information including details of previous and upcoming events. This information created assurance
by asserting the continuity and ability of the company to regularly organise the event. After attending the
event researchers felt that staff appeared professional but the inability to provide detailed directions to
necessary facilities proved them unreliable. Another issue was the layout of stalls in the venue. The
walkways were not wide enough for a convenient flow of pedestrian traffic and customers in wheelchairs or
with pushchairs would find it difficult to move freely. A positive aspect of the event was the ticket price.
Researchers found that the low ticket cost was reflected in the low quality of the event.
The questions that aligned to the assurance area showed that some aspects of the event, such as
venue entrance, were well maintained and reflected positively. Others, such as lack of detailed information
about the venue on the website, scored lower. The venue choice had an affect on the score for the assurance
area. Although Belper Leisure Centre has good facilities and is accessible, the lighting was considered
unsuitable. The lighting could have negatively affected the perception of products (see Appendix No4).
The tangible characteristics of the event were two-fold. Some features, such as parking space or
ticketing facilities, were adequate. However, lack of signage and informational boards as well as the
indistinguishable staff, were unsatisfactory. The website was considered as unprofessional, the interface was
not customer friendly, and information was kept to a minimum. There was also a lack of signage inside the
venue directing guests towards the event. The most significant set-back was the lack of a cash point.
Empathy of the staff during the event was unsatisfactory. Guests were not greeted upon arrival, and
only acknowledged by the ticketing officer when enquiring about the ticket price. In addition, the stallholders
did not engage in conversation with customers unless asked a question. Upon departure guests were bid a
quick, dismissive farewell. Although guests were not ignored by the staff, it was considered that no
significant relationship of bond was created.
The last area inspected was responsiveness. Whilst evaluating the website, the contact details were
only available on one dedicated sub-website. Ticketing officers were considered more approachable than the
stall holders. According to the questionnaire the overall impression was unfavourable, which was reflected in
the amount of points scored by the event.
To conclude the survey a combination of all aspects were considered and used in conjunction with a
theory model proposed by Stevens (2010).
!5

6. ‘Moments of truth’ are what Stevens (2010) calls all points in time during which customer
experiences emotions evoked by the product or service. There are three types of moments of truth: bad,
neutral, and good or ‘wow’. Stevens warns, that lack of exceptional service and numerous neutral moments
lead to a dissatisfied client. Researchers found that the Fair did not meet expectations, yet there were no
‘bad’ moments. As no ‘wow’ moments were experienced, the overall feeling was neutral, but in recollection
disappointing.
3. Conclusion
This report discussed the creation and methodology of an auditing tool designed to measure the
quality of customer service of the Blue Sky Fair. Using Hudson & Hudson’s (2013) concept of mystery
shopping a customised measuring system was developed.
By applying the RATER model, the collected data was systemised, and revealed that some areas of
the event were well prepared, and some needed more attention. Proving the ‘moments of truth’ theory
(Stevens, 2010), the overbearing number of neutral moments render the event disappointing.
!6

7. 4. References
Allen, J. (2009) Event Planning. 2nd Edition. Canada: Wiley & Sons.
Allen, J., O’Toole, W., Harris, R. & McDonnell, I. (2011) Festival & Special Event Management. 5th
Edition. Milton: Wiley.
Boeije, H. (2010) Analysis in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
Buttle, F. (1995) ‘SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda ‘, European Journal of Marketing, 30(1),
pp. 8-32.
Customer Service Excellence (2015) Information Hub. Available at: http://
www.customerserviceexcellence.uk.com/homeCSE.html (Accessed 21.03.2015).
Gabbott, M., Hogg, G. (2000) 'An empirical investigation of the impact of non-verbal communication on
service evaluation', European Journal of Marketing, 34(3) pp. 384 - 398.
Hudson, L. & Hudson, S. (2013) Customer Service for Hospitality and Tourism. Oxford: Goodfellow
Publishers.
Mind Tools (2015) The RATER Model. Available at: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/rater.htm
(Accessed: 18.03.2015).
Stevens, D. (2010) Brilliant Customer Service. Harlow: Prentice Hall Business.
!7

8. 5. Appendices
Appendix No.1
Mystery Shopper Questionnaire
Website:
Is there sufficient information about the event?
Is there sufficient information about facilities in the venue?
Are the contact details easily accessible?
Are there directions to the venue? Are they Precise?
Does the website appear professional?
Arrival/Departure:
Is there available parking spaces?
Does the entrance comply with health and safety regulations?
Is the venue disabled accessible?
Were we greeted upon arrival at the event?
Were the ticketing facilities sufficient for a number of guests (queues/organised)
Is there an information board/leaflets displaying the venue layout?
Would there be a need for a parking Stewart? (If yes, did they perform well?)
On departing the event did staff acknowledge exiting guests?
Accessibility:
Is there sufficient signage onsite? (Including all disability features, braille, induction loop)
Are all the facilities disable accessible? (Ramps, lifts, disabled toilets)
Is the venue suitable for the event?
Is the layout clear and convenient?
Amenities:
Are there a sufficient number of toilets and were they well maintained?
Is there an information desk?
!8

9. Are there seating/rest areas?
Are there concessions available?
Is there a cash withdrawal machine?
Customer Service:
Are the staff clearly distinguishable from guests/stallholders?
What is the general attitude of the staff? (Helpful, cheerful etc.)
Are the staff approachable and easy to communicate with?
Do the staff appear trustworthy/reliable?
How did the staff deal with enquiries?
Are the stallholders friendly and approachable?
Overall feeling:
Did the event appear as good ‘value for money’?
Were there any ‘wow’ or bad moments?
Would you attend the event again?
Did the event meet your expectations?
!9

10. Appendix No.2
Question
Bad
(1) -
(5)
Go
od
Notes
Website
(Access
ed
18.02.2
015)
Is there sufficient
information about the
event?
4
Sufficient information but lacks detail, some parts are
outdated.
Is there sufficient
information about
facilities in the venue?
1
No information about the facilities available in the
venue.
Does the website appear
professional?
3
Contains all necessary information but appears plain
and lacks customer appeal.
Are there directions to the
venue? Are they Precise?
2 The available directions lacked detail and clarity.
Are the contact details
easily accessible?
3
‘Contact us’ page contains detailed information but
there are no visible
contact details on any other sub-website.
Arrival/
Depart
ure
(22.02.
2015)
Is there available parking
spaces?
5 Yes, there was sufficient free parking.
Does the entrance comply
with health and safety
regulations?
5 Yes
Is the venue disabled
accessible?
4
Yes, although some passages might be too narrow for
wheelchairs, etc.
Were we greeted upon
arrival at the event?
1
No signage inside the venue directing or greeting
guests to the event, no greeting from the ticketing
officer.
Were the ticketing
facilities sufficient for a
number of guests
(queues/organised)
4
Yes, one person taking payments (trestele table with
flyers) and issuing ticket slips.
Is there an information
board/leaflets displaying
the venue layout?
1
No layout map or list of stallholders. Flyers with scarce
information about current and upcoming event.
Would there be a need for
a parking stewart? (If yes,
did they perform well?)
0 No need for a parking steward.
!10

11. On departing the event
did staff acknowledge
exiting guests?
4 The farewell seems automated but cheerful.
Accessi
blity
Is there sufficient signage
onsite? (Including all
disability features, braille,
induction loop)
2
Disabled parking spaces, ramps and toilets but no
Braille signage ot induction loop.
Are all the facilities
disable accessible?
(Ramps, lifts, disabled
toilets)
4 Yes, some passages too narrow.
Is the venue suitable for
the event?
3
Venue was a large, open space. Great indoor space for
a very cold day. Poor lighting distorting the appearance
of objects. Sufficient parking.
Is the layout clear and
convenient?
4
Clear layout but passages not wide enough for buggies/
wheelchairs which could block the walkthrough.
Ameniti
es
Are there a sufficient
number of toilets and
were they well
maintained?
5 No queues, Leisure Centre facilities.
Is there an information
desk?
5 Yes, but not signposted (the same desk as ticketing).
Are there seating/rest
areas?
4 Yes, but the space was limited, crowded and stuffy.
Are there concessions
available?
4 Yes, buffet bar and numerous vending machines.
Is there a cash withdrawal
machine?
1
No ATM, closet in driving distance, no in walking
distance.
Custom
er
Service
Are the staff clearly
distinguishable from
guests/stallholders?
1 Staff was not distinguishable from guests.
What is the general
attitude of the staff?
(Helpful, cheerful etc.)
2
Staff answered the query but did not appear
enthusiastic or trustworthy (hesitant), general
appearance could be summed up as miserable.
Are the staff
approachable and easy to
communicate with?
2
Some staff seemed more approachable than others, but
the general appearance was not inviting.
Do the staff appear
trustworthy/reliable?
3
Staff was hesitant whilst answering the questions and
did not address the clients(us) directly.
!11

12. Answered mystery shopper questionnaire
How did the staff deal
with enquiries?
2
Staff made a hesitant suggestion but did not apologise
or seemed concerned by the lack of the facilities
required (ATM). No information about the local area.
Are the stallholders
friendly and
approachable?
2
The stallholders did not seem approachable and would
only acknowledge clients who asked specific questions
or showed interest in one particular objects on sale.
Overal
feeling
Velue for money? 5 Yes, we found the event reasonable “value for money”.
Wow/bad moments? 2
There was no wow or particularly bad moment, the
whole event didn't not leave us over or underwhelmed.
Would you attend the event
again?
1 No, we would not attend the event again.
Did the event meet our
expectations?
2
The event did not meet our expectations (we expected
better food and drink facilities and generally more
bubbly atmosphere) but it did not disappoint us.
Overal score (out of 31
questions/155 points)
91 Neutral event
Grading points scale out of 155 points: Great event: 155-120; Good event 120-100; Neutral
event 100-70; Bad event 70-0. This scale was developed according to our personal
perspective on essential facilities and amenities for a successful event.
The Belper Vintage Fair did not disappoint or wow, and our overall score reflects our
experience of the event. The good and bad areas even out, leaving us with a neutral feeling
and nothing significant to recall.
!12

13. Appendix No. 3
The event’s website (Blue Sky Fairs, 2015), available at http://www.blueskyantiquesfairs.com (accessed
29.01.2015).
Appendix No.4
The venue: sports hall in Belper Leisure Centre.
!13