Yo! Sushi Case Study
Q: I was wondering if the theater analogy was written by anyone or if its just a known metaphor? For the assignment, do we need to do extensive reading into this theory, for example articles on business source premier? I’m just confused as to how you get the literature on this topic. Also what do you mean by “evidence in the case must be distilled”?
A: Yes, the reference for the theatre metaphor is at the end of the lecture slides and one relevant article is available on Blackboard in the journal articles folder for lecture 5. You will notice that one of the criteria for higher marks is to show evidence of reading beyond the core textbook. So while the lecture slides and the core textbook are a starting point, you would be expected to look for relevant material to cite if you want to get higher marks. As I say, the article I have included on Blackboard would be worth reading, but yes, do look for other relevant articles that you can cite.
Distilling information means identifying what really matters in the case – what is important and deserves analysis.
Q: Im starting my BSM assignment and I was wondering if you could recommend any articles that really cover the theatre metaphor? I’m searching through the reference list at the end of the ‘Service Encounter’ powerpoint but haven’t found any yet.
A: The article by Grove and Fisk is very relevant (see the references at the end of the lecture slides) and you will find it in the journal articles’ folder on Blackboard.
Q: i have started looking at the coursework and have a few queastions.
Firstly, for section one is it correct to include service escape, servuction and management of encounters, when talking about the theatre metaphor?
also can comparing YO! to other organsations and restaurants help in this?
finally how can i relate consumer and employee behaviour to this? would it be things such as consumer evaluation? or more towards the fact they have to follow a script as such?
A: With regard to question 1, I shouldn’t get diverted into discussing the Servuction framework in detail. It is certainly true that the Servuction model can easily be applied to a restaurant environment, and I am not saying you can’t mention it, but I am keen in this question to hear your views on the relevance of the theatre metaphor in particular (the work primarily of Grove and Fisk). You are quite right that you will most likely mention the servicescape in this question, since setting is one element of the theatre metaphor. With regard to comparisons with other restaurants, that’s fine if you think it helps you to make a point. I’ve no problem with that at all. I can see that it could be useful. With regard to consumer and employee behaviour then yes, if you look at the lecture slides, you will see that the employee is an ‘actor’ with a ‘script’ and the consumer is the ‘audience’, though, because of the co-production role, a part-time employee too!
Q: I’m just looking over the Business and Services coursework and I’m not too sure what kind of thing will be needed in part two of question one. When you mention consumer behaviour would it be the case of applying the case study to models such as the Decision-Making Process. Also, little unsure of what theories I might apply to employee behaviour, would you recommend looking at any lectures for that please?
A: Lecture 5 is the important one for question 1 and the article by Grove and Fisk in the articles folder will also be useful. Also the work we did in the seminar on TGI Friday’s is relevant. Once you’ve been through those, I think it will become clearer. Just one very small example: just as in a theatre production, it is important for the directors to hire appropriate actors in order to bring the script to life and achieve the best performance possible, so in a service environment such as Yo! Sushi, a particular type of employee is required with the right personality traits, attitude, and behaviours.
Q: For question 2, what are the implications of viewing customers as co-producers in the service process at Yo Sushi, do I need to link customer as a co-producer to service quality? or should I just talk about the implication of customer as a co-producer due to the nature of services? Kindly advise.
A: Certainly you can think about the implications of co-production in terms of quality – both in terms of the final ‘outcome’ but also in terms of the process of service delivery. If a consumer walks into Yo! Sushi tomorrow and is a complete novice (has never been to a Yo! Sushi before) what will it mean? Think about this in comparison with someone who has visited a Yo! Sushi many times. What will be the differences? And wherever you can, use theory to support your arguments.
Q: I was wandering if we had to spend much time on defining the topics in the questions or should we go straight to answering the question? For example in question 1, do we need to explain what the theatre analogy is or are we writing it as if you already know?
A: Good question. What you need to bear in mind is that you won’t pick up many marks from simply re-iterating what is in the lecture slides (as I know you know!). The marks come from showing you can apply theory to analyse the context (Yo! Sushi) and make recommendations (where asked). For the sake of presentation, I think it is good to have a short paragraph that introduces the relevant theory or framework, but then you need to get into the real ‘meat’ of the answer by applying the theory.
Q: I couldn’t make m tutorial this week as I had to head home for work for Christmas, Im wondering if there will be anything on blackboard on the tutorial on the coursework?
A: If you click on the ‘Assessment’ tab in Blackboard you will find a summary of what was discussed in class last week regarding the coursework.
Q: Having a little difficulty with question 3 and identifying what constitutes as quality at YO! sushi…
Would I have to apply the service of YO! to the RATER theory and also would I have to identify Gaps and the causes of the gaps in the quality of the service delivered by YO! Sushi?
Secondly with regards to measuring and managing the quality of service across all restaurants would I just have to recommend research here (I.E SERVQUAL etc)? or would it need more depth to it?
A: Yes, definitely you can use RATER and/or Gronroos as frameworks to analyse what quality might mean at Yo! Sushi . In terms of managing quality, the GAPS is also a good framework (again, apply it to the case study rather than just describing the model in a generic and descriptive fashion). In terms of measuring quality, SERVQUAL could be the basis for a survey but might need adapting, or there might be other ways of measuring quality in a restaurant environment. In addition, do think about any other measurement tools that could be used besides a customer survey. Feel free (as I’m sure you would) to do a bit of research beyond the lecture slides and see what there is in the literature that you could cite/use/apply.
Q: Just wondering how you would advise on referencing the case study, would we put you down or Wilson et al. (2012) ?
A: You can use Wilson et al. (2012). The full reference by the way is: Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V., Bitner, MJ., and Gremler, D. (2012) Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus Across The Firm. 2nd edition. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
Q: For question 1, are we meant to discuss the applicability of the theatre metaphor with the employee/customer encounter only? I’ve tried to apply all elements (e.g. setting, actors/audience and performance) to the Yo! Sushi case study, but struggling to keep it within the word count.
A: First bear in mind there is no specific word count per question, so you have some flexibility (within reason – you don’t want to cheat other answers of the depth they deserve).
You should really address all aspects of the theatre metaphor that you think apply to the case study context. If you find that most are applicable, then you will need to ensure your answers are concise, avoid repetition, and favour analysis over pure description. It is tough working within a word count but it forces you to consider structure and wording more carefully, and to consider what is most important (and so deserves more attention).
Q: For question 1, I’m trying to critically assess the Theatre metaphor to Yo Sushi, with particular reference to the service encounter and employee/customer relationship. Can I make a blueprint of all possible service encounters and suggest how Yo Sushi can cater for this encounters using the theatre approach? Or is this in too much depth? I’m assuming that by using the theatre metaphor to YS, I’d have to identify the varying service encounters? Or do I just need to suggest how this approach would be generally applicable to the case?
A: Your approach (thinking through the various encounters and interactions) is a sensible one and you can certainly do that to help your thought process. However, given the word count, you might find that trying to analyse every encounter might use up too many words. You may have to select the most important ‘encounters’ to use as examples to show the appropriateness of the theatre analogy.
Q: I was just starting part 3 of the coursework and it has 2 parts to the question, first one being what constitutes quality at yo sushi and the second part is how could it be managed and measured?
I was wondering if you could recommend whether it would be better to answer them both separately, one after the other, or to say each thing that constitutes quality then straight after each one say how that particular thing would be managed and measured?
A: Well, it is entirely up to you. Neither way is necessarily better than the other, and answers will be marked flexibly, so you shouldn’t be concerned about the approach you take, providing it answers both parts of the question. I think it has to be down to what works best for your answer.
Q: Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if the coursework for BASM required us to describe the way Yo! Sushi works? I ask because I’m a bit tight on word count and have spent about a paragraph describing the layout and the conveyer belt etc etc
A: Only ‘describe’ what is absolutely necessary. Use what happens at Yo Sushi to demonstrate a point rather than ‘write a story’ about the procedure. As you say, word count is tight, and you’ve got to show you are using theory to analyse what happens at Yo Sushi. Keep description limited!
Q: Firstly, I am finding myself describing the terms I am talking about (such as the various theories and subsections of the theatre metaphor) and then applying them to Yo! Sushi afterwards – I am just concerned as to how much description, or context, is the right amount. As in, is it okay to just potentially describe the terms that I am using?
Also, for the capacity and demand question it’s clear that it is worth the most marks so should I research and place more theory into the various ways of dealing with capacity and demand into this question and then apply to Yo! Sushi afterwards? Or would it be better to use Yo! Sushi to demonstate the various ways?
Regarding the format that you would like submitted, it is in essay format isn’t it? However, is it okay to literally put a title of Yo! Sushi BaSM coursework and then Q1: etc?
A: Don’t use up too much of the word count describing theory. If you apply theory correctly, it will be clear to the marker that you understand the terms you are using. Bear in mind that you won’t get higher marks for simply reiterating what is on the lecture slides. What is important is to show that you are able to apply theory to make sense of the case. This applies to the capacity question too.
Regarding format, yes jump straight in and answer question one.
Q: Can we shorten Yo! Sushi to YS or Yo! to save on using up the word count unnecessarily? If yes, should we include an abbreviation the first time we refer to the context e.g From the case it is evidenced that Yo! Sushi (YS) ….?
In Q2 when asked to look at the implications, is this purely negative elements or do we discuss positives from using co-production also?
A: First, yes you can abbreviate and as you say introduce the abbreviation the first time you mention the name.
Second, it could be positive or negative or ‘neutral’. For example, an implication of visible kitchen staff is that they become ‘actors’ and need to understand that their role is partially to entertain as well as to prepare the food.
