(Luận văn thạc sĩ) ảnh hưởng của năng lực cạnh tranh đến kết quả hoạt động của doanh nghiệp trường hợp các khách sạn tại tỉnh lâm đồng

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ TP HỐ CHÍ MINH ẠC N Ư NG C NGỌC N NG OÀNG N C CẠN OẠT ĐỘNG C TR N O N TP HỒ C ẾT NG TRƯỜNG HỢP CÁC KHÁCH SẠN TẠI TỈN N N T ẾN ĐẾN N MINH - N M 2018 ÂM ĐỒNG TẾ BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC KINH TẾ TP HỐ CHÍ MINH ẠC N Ư NG C NGỌC N NG OÀNG N C CẠN OẠT ĐỘNG C TR N O N ĐẾN ẾT NG TRƯỜNG HỢP CÁC KHÁCH SẠN TẠI TỈN ÂM ĐỒNG CHUYÊN NGÀNH: QU N TRỊ KINH DOANH M Ố 0101 N N T ẾN NGƯỜ Ư NG N N O PGS.TS hước Minh Hiệp TS Nguyễn Văn ũng TP HỒ C MINH - N M 2018 TẾ ỌC CỘNG Ộ C Đ -T NG - V TN M nh h 30 Ờ C M ĐO N ăm 2018 MỤC LỤC Trang bìa ph Trang L M cl c Danh m c ch vi t tắt Danh m c B ng, Ph l c CHƯƠNG TỔNG QUAN VỀ ĐỀ TÀI NGHIÊN CỨU 1.1 V ó 1.2 Tình hình nghiên c 1.2.1 Tình hình nghiên c u n lu n án .7 ớc ớc 1.2.2 Tình hình nghiên c 1.3 S c n thi t c a nghiên c u 12 1.3.1 X ịnh kho ng tr ng nghiên c u 12 1.3.2 Tình hình ho ng c a khách s n 2011-2015 16 1.4 M c tiêu nghiên c u 22 1.5 1.6 P ng ph m vi c a nghiên c u 23 1.7 ó u 23 ó a nghiên c u .24 1.8 B c c lu n án 24 C ƯƠNG CƠ 2.1 Khái ni 2.1.1 C 2.1.2 2.1.3 K t qu ho LÝ THUYẾT VÀ MƠ HÌNH NGHIÊN CỨU .26 cc 26 26 .28 ng 33 2.2 35 2.2.1 t qu n lý ch ị 2.2.2 2.2.3 ng toàn di n (TQM) 35 ớng thị ng 47 ng dịch v .50 2.3 Mơ hình nghiên c u lý thuy t .56 2.3.1 Các khái ni m mơ hình nghiên c u 56 2.3.2 C ƯƠNG xu t mơ hình nghiên c u 66 T ẾT KẾ NGHIÊN CỨU 72 3.1 Quy trình nghiên c u 72 3.2 Mô t u 74 3.3 Xây d 75 331P 332P 3.4 Nghiên c .75 ị ị ơ 76 77 3.4.1 Cách th c th c hi n .77 3.4.2 K t qu 3.5 Nghiên c 351 352P u ch nh b sung n i ị 78 82 ng v n .82 3.5.3 K t qu nghiên c n m u 83 ị 83 3.6 Giới thi u nghiên c u th c 89 3.6.1 M u nghiên c u 89 3.6.2 Thi t k b ng câu hỏi .90 363P C ƯƠNG li u nghiên c u th c 91 KẾT QU NGHIÊN CỨU VÀ TH O LU N 97 4.1 Th ng kê mô t .97 4.2 K t qu tin c ’ A 98 4.3 K t qu phân tích nhân t khám phá (EFA) .102 4.4 K t qu phân tích nhân t khẳ FA 4.4.1 K t qu 4.4.2 K t qu FA 4.5 K t qu ịnh (CFA) 102 ớng 103 ớng 109 ng tới h n .111 ịnh mơ hình lý thuy t mơ hình c u trúc n tính SEM 115 4.6 Ki 4.6.1 K t qu mơ hình c u trúc n tính 115 4.6.2 Ki ịnh gi thuy t c a mơ hình nghiên c u .116 Ướ ng mơ hình lý thuy t Bootstrap .117 4.7 Th o lu n k t qu 118 C ƯƠNG ẾT LU N VÀ HÀM Ý QU N TRỊ 124 5.1 K t lu n nghiên c u 124 52 ó ó a nghiên c u 125 5.3 Hàm ý qu n trị 128 5.3.1 ị ớng phát tri n ngành du lịch/ khách s n .132 5.3.2 G i ý m t s gi i pháp c th hỗ tr khách s ng k t qu ho c c nh tranh 136 5.4 H n ch c a nghiên c ớng nghiên c u ti p theo 147 DANH MỤC CƠNG TRÌNH C A TÁC GI 149 TÀI LI U THAM KH O .150 PHỤ LỤC 168 N CFA: MỤC C C C V ẾT T T Confirm Factor Analysis P F EFA: A ẳ ị P EFQM: European Foundation Quality Management GDP: Gross Domestic Product ( IPO: Input - Process - Output ( ISO: The International Organization for Standardization ( ) -X - ) ó ) NQTU: ị ROA: Return On Assets ROE: Return On Equity 10 SEM: Structural Equation Modeling ( 11 TQM: Total Quality Management ên doanh thu) ) 12 TP.HCM: 13 UBND: 14 WTO: World Trade Organization N ng 1 MỤC NG 11 - 2015 17 ng ị 11 - 2015 20 ng Mã hóa khái ni m 79 ng B ng k t qu u ch nh t ng 80 ng 81 ng 81 ng 3.5: ’ A ng FA ng FA ng FA ng FA 83 85 ị ị 86 ị 87 87 ng c kh o sát 97 ng ị ng ị ng ị ng ị ng ị ’ A 99 16 105 108 113 114 ng ị ó 116 ng ị 117 ng ằ rap 118 ng D báo nhu c u phòng khách s n 136 ng Giá trị l ch chu n c a nhân t 137 N MỤC nh 1 nh 2.1: 73 FA 16 nh FA nh FA nh FA nh FA nh 14 70 nh nh P N 104 109 ị ị 110 111 112 ó 116 N Phụ lục 1: Nghiên c MỤC Ụ LỤC ịnh tính 168 Phụ lục 2: B ng câu hỏi kh o sát 178 Phụ lục 3: K t qu nghiên c Phụ lục 4: Ki ị 183 ịnh phân ph i chu n c a nghiên c u th c 191 ’ A Phụ lục 5: FA Phụ lục 6: Phụ lục 7: ị FA 16 193 197 204 Phụ lục 8: u trúc SEM 228 Phụ lục 9: ịnh Bootstrap 235 Service climate is the result of the organization's business strategy and customer orientation, directly affecting the organization's performance, helping the organization achieve operational goals such as: Customer satisfaction, building long-term relationships with customers to enhance their loyalty (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Czepiel, 1990), building a professional working culture and employee commitment (He & ctg, 2011), followed by growth in service quality (Boshoff & Tait, 1996), revenue and profit (Farh & ctg, 1998) The service climate has also been shown by many scholars to have a direct impact on team performance (Way & ctg, 2010), financial results (Yavas & ctg, 2010), sales (Wang, 2009) and corporate income (Towler & GCG, 2011) From here, the final hypothesis is stated as follows: H5: Service climate positively affects hotel performance CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research process This empirical research is using both qualitative and quantitative methods The study was divided into two phases: preliminary research and official research Preliminary research includes preliminary qualitative research and preliminary qualitative research Preliminary qualitative research was conducted using discussion techniques to explore, adjust, and supplement the scale of the research model Preliminary qualitative research had been conducted by direct interviewing middle managers of some hotels in Da Lat through questionnaire to assess the scale reliability before official study was implemented The official study was conducted using questionnaire survey method to understand the relationship between the four constructs: TQM, service climate, martket orientation and organizational performance Data was analyszed through SPSS 22 and AMOS 21 software with the following steps: Scale Reliability Test, EFA Discovery Factor Analysis, and CFA Assay Factor Analysis Test the theoretical model of the study using the SEM model Figure Research process 3.2 Research methods 3.2.1 Measurement All measurement items were adapted from prior studies although some terms were changed a little bit to accommodate the social media context TQM scale was adapted from Grandzol (1998) Service climate measurements were adapted from Salanova (2005) Market orientation measurements were adapted from Wang et al (2012) All variables were measured on five-point Likert-style scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) The questionnaire was first drafted in English and then translated into Vietnamese by two academic domain experts in business administration Then, ten professionals in hotel management were interviewed for suggestions to validate the questionnaire We also conducted a pre-test with 60 samples to check for reliability of scale and none item was dropped in this step After that, the official study was launched Appendix contains the final pool of items 3.2.2 Data collection Data of official research was collected from May 2016 to December 2016 During the data collection period, 300 hotel directors answered the online questionnaire After removing those responses with excessive missing information, 256 valid survey responses were obtained There are 30.4% of 1-star hotels, 32.4% of 2-stars hotels, 13.5% of 3-stars hotels and 7.5% of 4-5 stars hotels Thus, more than 60% of the hotels surveyed were 1-2 stars 3.2.3 Data analyses The reliability of the scale is evaluated through the coefficient of Cronbach Alpha and the corrected-item total correlation The validity of the scale is evaluated through the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) Convergent validity measures the correlation between two observed variables used to measure the same construct and is expected when the estimated pattern coefficient on the under- lying construct factor of the estimated pattern of each coefficient is significant Items that have factor loadings exceeding 0.45 are approval Discriminate validity was assessed using the approach suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) In this study, AMOS version 21 was used to perform structural equation modeling on the data.Two-step approach was adopted to perform SEM analysis First step involved identifying the fit of the measurement model through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) In the second step, hypothesized relationships among constructs were tested using the structural model CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS 4.1 Reliability of scale Every factor in the research model has the Cronbach's Alpha greater than 0.6; If any of the observed variables are dropped, the Alpha was decrease, and the coefficient correlation is greater than 0.3, so all observations are retained The scale of shared interpretation is the lowest with Cronbach's Alpha 0.696 and the highest Cronbach's Alpha is 52.6% belongs to process management scale Testing EFA all variable: The scale is accepted when the total variance is equal or greater than 50% The EFA results show that there are sixteen factors of the model were extracted The total variance was achieved at 60.1% (> 50%) The results show that the coefficients of sixteen official factors were achieved the coefficient above 0.5 Therefore, all the scale of the research model is achieved valuable convergence 4.2 Confirm Factors Analysis The confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement models relied on AMOS 21 because it was deemed appropriate for assessing the theories during the early developmental stages (Fornell and Bookstein, 1981) Measurement model fit was assessed, and results reveal that the measurement model fit the data well as its fit indices met all their threshold values such as: Cmin/df = 1,253 (0,9); RMSEA = 0,031 (0,8) (Hair et al, 2010) Table 1: Realiability and convergent validity coefficients Construct CR AVE Indicators Lead Emfu Learn InCo TQM 0,888 0,46 OutCo Imp Cusfo Proma Igene Ishare Market orientation 0,797 0,53 Idis Oresp Cresul Organizational performance 0,748 0,446 Ereusl Kresul Loading 0,645 0,701 0,697 0,724 0,756 0,607 0,686 0,598 0,879 0,676 0,651 0,684 0,575 0,69 0,73 To validate the measurement model, convergent validity and discriminant validity were evaluated To determine the convergent validity, composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated (Hair et al, 1998) In the studies involving AMOS analysis, 0.7 is the minimum recommended level of reliability (Chin 1998) and 0.4 is the minimum acceptable level of the AVE (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) In this study, the composite reliabilities ranged from 0.748 to 0.888 and the AVE values were 0.446 to 0.53 exceeding the threshold values for satisfactory convergent validity (see Table 1) In addition, the factor loadings of the indicators are all above 0.6 and significant (p ≤ 0.01), ranging from 0.643 to 0.8671 which also reveals the presence of construct validity Discriminant validity is acceptable based on the rule that square of correlation between any two distinct constructs is lower than AVE from these constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) In Table 2, for each variable, the square root of the AVE value was larger than the correlation coefficient values with any other variable, thereby verifying the discriminant validity of this study Table 2: Discriminate validity coefficients Sercli Sercli MO TQM Sercli TQM < > < > < > < > < > < > TQM Perfo Perfo Perfo MO MO Correlation 0,459 0,51 0,542 0,475 0,427 0,603 SE 0,069 0,067 0,065 0,069 0,07 0,062 CR P-value Square correlation 7,822 0,000 0,211 7,317 0,000 0,26 7,001 0,000 0,294 7,663 0,000 0,226 8,14 0,000 0,182 6,392 0,000 0,364 4.3 Hypotheses testing: structural equation modeling Figure Results for research model The structure model is analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) conducted in AMOS 21 The results for the main effects are shown in Figure The results suggest that hypothesized structural model appears to fit the date well: Cmin/df = 1,256 (0,9); CFI = 0,941 (>0,9); p = 0,000 (