Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Associate Professor of Sport Management, Birjand University
2 M.Sc. of Sport Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
3 Ph.D. of Operation Research Management, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
4 Assistant Professor of Sport Management, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University
Abstract
One of the most important factors affecting customers’ satisfaction is the quality of services provided by sports clubs. The purpose of this research was to identify the s to assess service quality and performance of women’s health clubs in Mashhad using combined fuzzy AHP / QFD / BSC method. This study is a qualitative one and in terms of methodology, it is Grounded theory. Service quality measures and the performance of health clubs were identified by preliminary studies, interviews with managers and club officials, and final decision made by sports experts through coding, and after the final designing of the questionnaire, it was distributed between 13 sports experts. Then the collected data were analyzed using fuzzy AHP and the geometric mean in the framework of QFD method. The results showed that customer value strengthening standards and revenue-generating opportunities in financial perspective, offering special services for loyal customers, having modern attractive facilities from customer perspective, identifying strengths and weaknesses of the club and maintaining competency in educators from the perspective of internal processes, and ultimately strengthening management skills, coaches' competency assessment, and the quality of their functioning in growth and learning have the highest rating compared to other measures in women’s health clubs.
Keywords
- Balanced Scorecard
- Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis
- Health Clubs
- Performance
- Quality Function Deployment
- Quality of Service
Main Subjects
2. Bayle, E., & Madella, A. (2002). Development of taxonomy of performance for national sport organizations. European Journal of Sport Science, 2(2), 1–21.
3. Bayle, E., & Robinson, L. (2007). A framework for understanding the performance of national governing bodies of sport. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(1), 240–68.
4. Boyd, T., & Shank, M. (2004). Athletes as product endorsers: The effect of gender and product relatedness. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(2), 82-93.
5. Chen, S., Yang, C. C., & Shiau, J. Y. )2006(. Scorecard in the performance evaluation of higher education. Total Quality Management Magezine, 18(2), 190-205.
6. Doorandish, A., Elahi, A., & Poursoltani, H. (2016) Anticipated customer satisfaction and willingness to participate again in sports clubs components of quality of service. Journal of Research in Sport Management and Motor Behavior, 14(11), 30-9. (Persian).
7. Hauser, J. R., & Clausing, D. (1988). The house of quality. Harvard Business Review, 1(13), 63–73.
8. Hickman, F., Lawrence., W. (2005). A social identities perspective on the effects of corporate sport sponsorship on employees, Marketing Management, 14(4), 212-4.
9. Honari, H., Mohammadi, L., Ghafouri, F., & Afshari, M. (2013). PCA is used in evaluating the performance of sports federations approach based on the EFQM. New Trends in Sport Management, 1(2). 19-29. (Persian).
10. Huong, C. (2009(. Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planing: A balaced scorecard perspective. Expert System with Application, 36(1), 209-18.
11. Jackson, R., Shawn, L., & Gooden, C. (2001). The marketing of black-college Judd VC differentiates with the 5th P: People. Industrial Marketing Management, 16(4), 241-7.
12. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P) .1992(. Using the balaces scorecard measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 70-9.
13. Leea, C. K. M., Ying Rub, C. T., Yeunga, C. L., & Choya, K. L. (2015). Analyze the healthcare service requirement using fuzzy QFD. Computers in Industry, 74(1), 1–15.
14. O’Boyle, I. (2014). Determining best practice in performance monitoring and evaluation of sport coaches: Lessons from the traditional business environment. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 9(1), 233–46.
15. Peetz, J. B., Parks, N. E., & Spencer, T. B. (2004). Sport heroes as sport product endorsers: The role of gender in the transfer of meaning process for selected undergraduate students. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(3), 111-25.
16. Pitts, B. G. (2002). Teaching sport marketing: Notes from the Trenches. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(4), 255-60.
17. Saaty, T. L. (1994). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytical hierarchy process, Pittsburgh. International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practic, 2(1), 35-44.
18. Salehi, H., Movahedi, M., & Khodabakhsh. A. (2014). Identify and prioritize organizational performance measurement systems with an integrated approach BSC and fuzzy ANP. Journal of Management, 11(35), 113-29. (Persian).
19. Schmidt, R. (1997). The implementation of simultaneous engineering in the stage of product concept development: a process orientated improvement of quality function deployment. European Journal of Operational Research. 100(1). 293–314.
20. Sezi, C., Gülçin, B., Başar, O, & Cengiz, K. (2016). A new hesitant fuzzy QFD approach: An application to computer workstation selection. Applied Soft Computing, 46(1), 1–16.
21. Umashankar, V., & Dutta, K. (2007). Balanced scorecards in managing higher education institutions: An Indian perspective. Internatioanl Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 54-67.
22. Vanegas, L. V., & Labib, A. W. (2001). A fuzzy quality function deployment model for deriving optimum targets. International Journal of Production Research, 39(1), 99–120.
23. Westerbeek, H. M. (1999). Focus on “place” in the marketing mix for facility dependent sport services. Sport Management Review, 2(1), 259-72.
24. Winand, M., Rihoux, B., Robinson, L., & Zintz, T. (2012). Pathways to high performance: A qualitative comparative analysis of sport governing bodies. Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 739–62.
25. Winand, M., Zintz, T., Bayle, E., & Robinson, L. (2010) Organizational performance of olympic sport governing bodies: Dealing with measurement and priorities. Managing Leisure, 15(4), 279–307.
)