Differentiating service quality impact between the online and off-line context: an empirical investigation of a corporate travel agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Corporate travel represents a significant source of revenue for the tourism industry. Therefore, the quality of service is essential for maintaining and expanding corporate cliental bases. Despite the importance, the extant literature has yet sufficiently examined corporate travel service quality (SQ) and its impact. To make up for the drawback, this study aims to differentiate the impact of SQ perceptions on customer satisfaction between the online and off-line contexts through an empirical investigation in one of the top five corporate travel agencies in North America. Design/methodology/approach The well-established SERVQUAL measurement is applied in differentiating the impact of SQ dimensions between the online and off-line context. To empirically test the proposed corporate travel agency (CTA) SQ conceptual model, a set of survey data of “Welcome Back Survey” from HRG (a top five CTA in North America) was examined. Findings The study finds that for online services, assurance, responsiveness and empathy affect perceived SQ, whereas for off-line services, assurance, empathy and tangible are the three dimensions of perceived SQ. Research limitations/implications By relying on the existing survey, the off-line context has one less dimension than the online context. Yet as an early effort in differentiating the differences in the impact of SQ between two service contexts, the study offers insightful findings. Practical implications The findings will be helpful for business managers of CTAs to identify the factors that influence SQ in both online booking and off-line booking context. In particular, assurance and empathy are two dimensions that exert a significant impact on customer satisfaction. Originality/value This paper is the first to compare the differences of the SQ of online and off-line corporate travel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".