Industry 4.0-Tourism 4.0 And Human Factor: Voice Of Customer

Industry 4.0 – Tourism 4.0 and Human Factor

The original Industrial Revolution, which started in the early 1760s, is called Industry 1.0, which was based on division of labor and steam / hydro power. This revolution was followed by Industry 2.0, led by the development of electricity. Today, Industry 3.0, which is based on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) enabling the advancement of production and service sectors in particular, has come to a point of completion. Now, sensors, RFID chips, "cyber-physical" systems and the Internet of Objects (IoT) manage production and service processes throughout the entire supply chain. An important component of these changes is the decentralized control: smart components work in every stage where system, a part, an order or information moves. In this system, effective communication is used at every step. Whenever needed, any addition, processing, and application is easily accomplished, and increased number of customer demands are met more easily and quickly. Industry 4.0, introduced globally by German companies such as Siemens, has gradually begun to be used across the globe (Srivastava, 2015). The four stages of the industrial development process are shown in Figure 1 in terms of time and complexity.

See Full Size >

Industry 4.0 of which global recognition is gradually increasing affects three main areas in the corporate world: integration and digitization of horizontal and vertical value chains; digitalization of products and services; the formation of the digital business model and customer relations (Guban & Kovacs, 2017). “Industry 4.0” has the main features of virtualization, interoperability, autonomization, real-time availability, flexibility, service orientation and energy efficiency. On the other hand, which technologies and concepts may be classified under the term “Industry 4.0” in these three areas is being investigated and identified. In this respect, many technologies and concepts have been analyzed and grouped into 4 relevant and representative headings: Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), Internet of Things/Services (IoT/IoS), Smart Data, and Smart Factory. Finally, in what ways the aforementioned technologies and concepts provide the features of Industry 4.0 and serve its purpose has been identified (Prales, Alarcon & Bacon, 2016 ).

In a study done on the automotive industry, one of the leading sectors where Industry 4.0 is becoming increasingly widespread, the production industry in Germany was examined and it was found that these systems make significant contributions in terms of efficiency (Rubman, 2015). The physical product sector, where the human element is extensively being used in ordinary jobs during the production process, it has been found that with robots replacing people, there is a decrease in costs, a decrease in production mistakes and an increase in productivity. An analysis of the impact of Industry 4.0 on German production is expected to result in an increase of 6% in employment over the next decade. The demand for workers in the mechanical-engineering sector has been suggested to increase by up to 10% during the same period. However, it seems that different skills will be needed. In the short run, it is predicted that the trend towards greater automation will overtake some of the low-skilled workers who perform simple, repetitive tasks. At the same time, it is stated that the increasing use of software, links and analytics will raise the demand for mechatronics specialists with various engineering disciplines and software skills like software development as well as IT technology competencies. This transformation of competence in employment is considered to be one of the important challenges for qualified employment in the future (Rubman, 2015).

While the human resource factor in the physical product sector stands out, there is a debate as to whether the future replacement of human factor by robots is advantageous in the tourism sector, one of the labor-intensive sectors. It is clear that systems do not create themselves. There are teams of experts behind every new idea and very specialized engineers and software designers are required to convert these ideas into working software (Kinzel, 2016).

The role of the human in Industry 4.0 has been treated in four different ways. The first one is “Complex Systems communicating with Humans” . A machine is a device that consists of a number of technical components. (Kramer & Zimolong, 2005). Within a machine, there are a number of interfaces designed to provide the communication of the control signals between all components such as control lines, sensor signals, or the commands of a computer-based control system. A more complex machine or the combination of machines can be called a system. This system communicates with the human being(s) by means of a user interface. This may consist of gauges and control lights, or more likely today, a computer screen. In return, the human controlling such a system enters commands by pressing buttons or using keyboards and control sticks. Timpe and Kolrep (Timpe & Kolrep, 2002) include the component “human” into a technical system and call this component “sociotechnical component”. Secondly, human is a system user(s). As a user, humans are included in the system either individually or as a group. The skills of each individual are important for an effective system utilization (Helander, 2006). Third, there is a human factor as the system designer engineers and software designers. Finally, there are humans as clients and society. Marketing and business development specialists evaluate the expectations and requirements of the clients and report these back to the manufacturing place. In the case of the complex Industry 4.0 concept, this covers a large sector of our lives. The efficiency of giving the customer a personalized product or service by an analysis of the information gained with large databases is a matter of debate (Kinzel, 2017).

In short, it seems that human beings should be a part of this system as a service provider or consumer. As mentioned above, one of the areas that Industry 4.0 influences is customer relations. In tourism services where delivering service is labor-intensive, there are customers who aim to experience and take pleasure from this experience. It can be seen that determining the expectations of the customers to receive services from robots and automation systems instead of people, or to participate in the process as a part of the system in this sector seems to be a subject that is worth to be investigated.

Voice of Customer and Kano Model

Voice of customer is the first phase of Quality Function Deployment (QFD) which aims to improve the quality of products and services to increase consumer satisfaction (Mazur, 1996). The Voice of the Customer process has important outputs and benefits for product developers. It provides a detailed understanding of the customer’s requirements, a common language for the team going forward in the product development process, key input for the setting of appropriate design specifications for the new product or service, and a highly useful springboard for product innovation. As may be seen in the examples presented, gathering the Voice of Customer is an extremely important part of the new product development process. It forms a solid basis for design and marketing decisions from concept development through product launch (Gaskin, et al., 2018).

One of the most well-known methods used to determine customer requirements is the Kano Model. Understanding customer’s requirements and determining their differences are important for their management. Focusing on customer should be done not only to respond to the customer’s demands, but also to understand what those requirements are for. There are classical methods like interviews and focus groups, but there is also the “Kano Model” used in classifying the requirements (Okul, 2007). The Kano Model is a model which is used in order to categorize the customer’s requirements. In classical methods, there is a simple logictating that responding to customer’s requirements will lead to customer satisfaction, and not responding to these requirements will lead to dissatisfaction. However, the Kano Model classifies the customer requirements and determines the level of satisfaction (Bilgili & Ünal, 2008).

The requirements described in the Kano Model are shown in Figure 2 .

See Full Size >

According to this model, the features that the customer mainly expects from the product are defined in three ways (Kano et. al., 1984; Delice & Güngör, 2008; Bilgili, Erciş & Ünal, 2011):

Must-be Requirements (M): These are the default requirements that must be found in the product and are already supposed to be available by the customer. Having these features does not increase satisfaction although in case of a lack, satisfaction will be affected negatively.

One Dimensional Requirements (O): This is the answer when a customer is asked what s/he expects from a particular product. The customer expects basic performance from the product. When these requirements are fulfilled, they lead to customer satisfaction, and when they are not fulfilled, they cause dissatisfaction. Customer satisfaction is increasing in direct proportion to the level of success. In other words, as the degree of the fulfillment of customer requests increases, the level of satisfaction increases.

Attractive Requirements (A): These are the product features that lead to high customer satisfaction. The customer does not have expectance for these features, but s/he is satisfied when these requirements are met. Yet, if the product that does not have these features, it does not cause customer dissatisfaction. The relationship between customer satisfaction and product success shows an increasing parabolic behavior. While the success of the product increases up to a certain value, customer satisfaction increases with a steeper acceleration. That means that the product has enabled a customer satisfaction that is beyond expectation. As a result, these features are the ones that distinguish them from the competing products. In addition to these features, there are 3 more features as follows (Witell & Löfgren, 2007);

Indiffirent Requirements (I): This feature does not have a meaning for the customer, so having or not having this feature is not important for the customer. For example, the presence of a cigarette lighter on an automobile is not an important feature.

Reverse Requirements (R): Although these requests are the desired product characteristics for the customer, the opposite characteristics are also expected. The customer does not just want these features, but also expects to be provided the opposite features. For example, although under normal conditions a house with large windows is desired, a small-window house could be preferred for energy-saving purposes.

Questionable Requirements (Q): In this type either the question was misrepresented, or the customer misunderstood, or an unreasonable answer was given.

In short, the Kano Model is a very useful method to categorize customer expectations especially during the development studies of new products and processes, and to plan these processes in the most accurate way for the customer expectations ( Kano, 1984; Delice & Güngör, 2008; Bilgili, Yağmur & Yazarkan, 2012). For this reason, the Kano Model was used in the research to determine the expectations of customers in terms of innovations for the use of Industry 4.0 in tourism services.

Sample and Data Collection

In this study, which of both of a qualitative and a quantitative quality, it has been tried to determine future consumer expectations for the possible applications of Industry 4.0 in accommodation enterprise services. The population of the study consists of consumers who are experienced in accommodation services. By using the snowball sampling method, 67 people who intensively purchased hotel services were included in the research sample. 13 main service items were determined in the accommodation enterprises, and the questionnaires were prepared using these services. Participants included in the research sample were explained and helped to visualize the applications that can be realized within the scope of Industry 4.0 in accommodation enterprises. Participants' expectations within this framework were tried to be determined through questionnaires prepared by the KANO model. The frequencies of the data in the questionnaires were obtained from the SPSS statistical program and manually calculated.

Analyses

The questionnaire from which the primary data was collected consists of questions regarding the accommodation enterprise services, which were categorized under 13 main headings. In the original version of the theory of attractive quality (Kano et al., 1984) the classification process is based on a survey using a Kano questionnaire. This questionnaire is constructed through pairs of customer requirement questions. Each question consequently has two parts: how do you feel if that feature is present in the Industry 4.0 (functional form of the question), and how do you feel if that feature is not present in the Industry 4.0 (dysfunctional form of the question) (see Kano et al., 1984; Berger et al., 1993). For each part of the questions, the customer selects one of five alternative answers. These five alternatives were described as “like”; “must-be”; “no feeling”; “give up”; and “do not like” (Kano et al., 1984). The perceptions were then evaluated into quality dimensions on the basis of how the respondents perceived the functional and dysfunctional form of a quality attribute.The five-level Kano classification are Attractive quality (A), One-dimensional quality; (O), Must-be quality (M), Indifferent quality (I), Reverse quality (R).

In order to be able to distribute the needs according to the categories, the importance level of providing services with Industry 4.0 applications was asked with 5-point Likert-type scale. Thus, in accordance with the Kano Model, participants were addressed 3 different questions related to a service delivery (Figure. 3 ). All details of the analysis of the canoe model are given in the findings section. In line with the results of the research, the concept of "Industry 4.0-Tourism 4.0" was discussed with a different perspective within the VOC framework.

See Full Size >