Hjalager Impulsores Innovacion
Hjalager Impulsores Innovacion
Hjalager Impulsores Innovacion
To cite this article: Anne-Mette Hjalager & Sara Nordin (2011) User-driven Innovation in
Tourism—A Review of Methodologies, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12:4,
289-315, DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2011.541837
RESEARCH NOTE
ANNE-METTE HJALAGER
Danish Center for Rural Research, Esbjerg, Denmark
SARA NORDIN
ETOUR, University of Uppsala, Ostersund, Sweden
INTRODUCTION
289
290 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin
TABLE 1 Bibliographic Search of Key Words. General search/Combined with Tourism Terms
(Accessed November 2009)
Involvement of a limited
Variable Involvement of many users number of users
The upper-left field of the table shows that there are several methods that
alone, or in combination, can help to tap information from existing and
potential pools of users. This group of methods is characterized by the fact
that “many” users are likely to contribute, but on average with a limited and,
at times, untargeted effort.
Leonard, 1990). SERVQUAL has been widely adopted and further refined
since its introduction (Saleh & Ryan, 1991). The merits of the SEVQUAL are
that it identifies specifically different types of service gaps, some of which
might be helped with the introduction of new innovations (Home, 2005;
Pikkemaat & Peters, 2005).
Example: Smith & Puczkó (2009) address the wellness sector referring to
a representative survey undertaken by the organization “Small Luxury
Hotels.” It includes an identification of facilities that are much appre-
ciated by the customers, for example various massages and therapy
facilities. The customer survey also reveals a number of disliked expe-
riences, which might inspire the proprietors’ own product development.
Important information touches, for instance, on hygiene, privacy, hard-
sales tactics, crowding, particular therapy ingredients etc. Inspiration was
also collected about the preferred attitudes of staff and other managerial
issues.
Example: Caldwell (n. d.) reports from a small museum that has installed
a combined comment card and time-clock punch system, which offers
visitors an extra entertainment activity and a small gift when they hand
in the card after their visit. This approach ensures feedback that is fairly
broad, representative and quantitative, obtained in a practical way for a
small tourism provider.
Example: When having cause for complaint, a guest will often turn to the
first visible staff member. In Disneyland this is often the garbage collec-
tors. These frontline staff must be equipped to handle the most common
complaints, but they are also—as in Disneyland—important to gather-
ing valuable information embedded in these complaints. ( Tax & Brown,
1998)
Blog Mining
The number of weblogs (blogs) is increasing very rapidly, and they repre-
sent a new consumer power vis-à-vis service producers. In blogs provided
by independent or commercial organizations, customers have the opportu-
nity to leave (nearly) uncensored comments regarding any service provider.
A significant number of blog contributions are tourism related, and they may
be of importance for the development of products and services. As noted
by Akehurst (2009) tourism organizations and individual enterprises cannot
afford to ignore the development of user-generated content, peer-to-peer
web applications and virtual communities.
Research Note 297
In fact, blogging about tourism and travel is not new: Lonely Planet has
been around for a long time with facilities where travellers can share their
experiences about destinations and travel supplies (Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan,
2008). Travel pages such as tripadvisor.com and travelblog.org encourage
travellers to recommend facilities to others. Usually these word-of-mouth
services are regarded as rather anti-corporate, given the critique (valid or
not) which finds its way to these blogs. On the whole, the blogs constitute
an immense resource providing insights which may be fed into innovation
processes, but it is also difficult and costly to extract relevant information
from the immense number of contributions. Akehurst (2009) draws attention
to efforts to develop artificial intelligence systems, information retrieval and
natural language processing as a way of content trawling, analyzing and
generalization. Such systems are not yet in place.
and instantly publish verbal and/or quantitative ratings on, for example,
accommodation facilities.
From a constructive perspective, such ratings represent a chance for
owners of facilities to benchmark themselves against others, and closer
investigation may reveal what the best service providers do better than
others. Jeong and Jeon, (2008) study New York hotels using the IT-based
analysis of variance (ANOVA) in their research processes. Their research
confirms that location is a decisive factor for customers, and a comparison
of chains and independent hotels finds reviews of the former to be better
performers on average. The authors recommend that hotel owners include
findings from such analyses in their strategic planning.
The next box in the analytical table of user-driven innovation methods also
assumes that customers are passive providers of information and not par-
ticularly active in innovation per se. However, as consumers are fewer in
number, interaction with them may become closer. In these situations, it is
possible to work with other interpretation approaches in the analysis. This
category of methods might supplement those previously described which
mainly tap information for statistical analysis. Here the emphasis is on greater
understanding of consumer motivation and behavior that could eventually
lead to the advancement of products and services.
Consumer Interviews
Listening to customers is widely advocated as a precondition for success-
ful development of services (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Some tourism facilities
adopt distinct procedures for how to ask the customers about their satis-
faction when they leave the premises as a way of maintaining a positive
relationship with the market (Blichfeldt & Kessler, 2009). In professional
“exit interviewing,” the personnel are instructed to inquire in an open and
polite way and to report in an organized and comparable way on any details
that could influence operations and strategies.
Research Note 299
Example: Hudson and Shephard (1998) outline how focus groups were
used prior to recognition and measurement of performance, and evalu-
ation of importance of attributes at an Alpine ski destination. The study
led to identification of distinct areas where service providers were under-
performing, and where a (potentially innovative) effort was needed. The
study also revealed “wasted efforts” on services which customers did not
appreciate.
The advantage of the focus group compared with the individual inter-
views is that group members inspire one another during the process, and
the outcome is enhanced compared with that produced by an individual.
There are also a number of limitations with focus group research, for exam-
ple in obtaining commitment from group members, and in enabling them to
envisage products and services that are still “abstract” or not yet materialized
(Edmunds, 2000).
Observations
Observations are well-known from ethnological research, and methods are
also applied in a variety of business studies, where the aim is to determine
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. How consumers use products and services in
practice—intentionally or unintentionally—and how they compensate for
deficiencies or lack of facilities may be investigated. Practice is often not
consistent with the verbal explanations of the customers, and observations
therefore may provide important additional information.
Observations can be made with pen and paper, cameras and/or video.
There are ethical and legal issues to be taken into account, particularly if
using photographs as a means of documentation. Decrop (1999) outlines the
issues connected with planning, performing and documenting observations.
A key concern with this method is to envisage the many categories of infor-
mation that might be important for the interpretation of observations of
human behavior:
Observations may also include the gadgets and equipments that people
bring and how they use them, the use of facilities provided by the tourism
company, how facilities are filled up, etc.
Example: Observations are also possible even when tourists are not
around. Knutson (2001) suggests that in order to get a better insight into
customer preferences, managers and developers in restaurants should fol-
low at the heels of dishwashers and observe what is left over on the plates.
Likewise, information from housekeepers on how people move hotel fur-
niture around to obtain greater comfort can guide decorators in new
directions.
User Panels
Some service enterprises attempt to set up small panels, boards of users,
committees of friends and club members, which, over a longer period, com-
mit themselves to providing simple feedback about the services or aspects
hereof. Naturally, user panels are only applicable if there are a significant
number of repeat visits, which allow consumers to follow changes in the
302 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin
Diaries
Behavioral studies based on tourist diaries are widespread in ethnographic
tourism research (Markwell & Basche, 1998), and the method is considered
a suitable way of collecting factual as well as emotional data, and con-
solidating knowledge about travel routes and spending patterns. In more
recent decades, diaries have been replaced or supplemented by photographs
or videos (Scarles, 2004). Information providers deliver their material to
researchers for analysis, but are also often invited to participate in follow-up
interviews in order to enhance interpretation.
While diaries offer richness of detail and registration of modes and
temperaments, their use is also problematic if not produced under thematic
guidance. Photographs for example mainly show co-travellers and less often
artefacts or situations that could help to understand or interpret behaviors
and eventually provide information for innovation processes.
The Internet and the Web 2.0 have significantly changed the relationship
between firms and their customers. Examples are emerging of enhanced
relationships where consumers take part in distinct innovation activities
which are recognized as mutually beneficial. Distributed innovation (Lakhani
& Panetta, 2007) and crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006) are names used for these
Research Note 303
User Communities
Not all products can rely on a large group of web-based input suppliers.
Only products with some kind of “hype” or special feature attract user
groups with a dedication beyond the ordinary. IT-software, popular toys,
apparel, and gadgets are therefore particularly relevant as sites for user com-
munities. Füller et al. (2006) name NIKE and Audi as examples. The software
company Linux is probably the most prominent example of establishment
of a thriving innovation community. A collective enthusiasm to find better
solutions and an eagerness to contribute to alternatives to “monopolistic”
corporations such as Microsoft are driving forces. Brand loyalty and demon-
strable emotions in favour of the brand are also crucial (Füller el al 2008),
and may be determinant for the user’s willingness to spend time and effort
in communities. The outcome of the process depends on the intensity of
interaction, the level of multimedia richness, the communication style, the
applied tools, and the incentives offered (Füller et al, 2006).
Example: Lego produces popular toys for all age groups. Robotics are being
included in some of the products. In order to pre-test a new series of
products, Lego set up a group of dedicated users who were eager to help.
An Internet community was created to allow users to share ideas and help
one another to solve problems together with Lego’s development staff. This
closed internet community was hacked and Lego considered legal action.
However, it was soon discovered that a larger and more open community
of users alerted and expanded inputs to the company’s innovation pro-
cess dramatically. It was decided to open up the site, and it has turned
out to be a lively discussion forum for robotics enthusiasts, and a pool of
information and ideas for Lego’s development. ( Birkingshaw, Bessant, &
Delbridge, 2008)
used for innovation purposes is, however, still somewhat lacking in the field
of tourism (Baglieri & Consoli, 2009).
Henkel & von Hippel (2005) defines lead users as “First, those having a
leading edge of important trends, and they are currently experiencing needs
that will not yet be experienced by many user in that marketplace. Secondly,
they anticipate obtaining relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution
to their needs, and so they may innovate” (p. 75). In other words, the inno-
vators who seriously choose to participate in the development processes act
to a large extent in their own interests.
Inviting lead users with ideas for modifications into the innovation pro-
cesses is a way of enhancing the speed and quality of innovation processes.
If products are targeted towards selected user groups and these groups are
well organized, for example in clubs and associations, finding and obtain-
ing collaborator commitment might be simple. Limburg (2009) outlines a
seven-step process for working with lead users in festival co-creation.
Knowledge in this field is “sticky,” tacit and embodied in practice.
In order to make it explicit and transferable, an interpreting body must exist
that is able to assess, modify and adapt lead users ideas. Someone needs to
turn vague ideas or unfinished prototypes into robust products or services.
306 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin
Innovation Camps
Innovation camps and sessions/workshops are types of events that are orga-
nized in order to work with solution of specific problems. These are events
where users may be invited to participate and contribute, on the assump-
tion that it will be beneficial for developers to get an instant response to
their ideas. Nonetheless, service innovation may require a rich human-to-
human interaction between users and developers. Magnusson, Matthing, and
Kristensson (2003) claim that, even if such processes are common, there is
not much evidence of systematic procedures and impacts. However, their
empirical studies suggest that consumer contributions do make a positive
difference in terms of product quality, but that the process has to be carefully
managed.
A review of user involvement in service product development by Alam
(2002) lists a range of involvement modes. At their most active, costumers
can act as contributors to idea generation by stating needs and problems,
criticizing existing services, elaborating on wish lists and stating criteria
for service adoption. Customers can also be asked to participate in mock
or simulated delivery processes for new services. There are many specific
tools to enhance idea creation, mostly developed in ethnographical science
and research approaches, where users participate. The following are often
mentioned:
● Photo safaris are situations which borrow the eyes of the users. The meth-
ods consist of supplying users with cameras to register events and facilities
that could need improvements and changes. Users will be asked to explain
their pictures in individual or focus group interviews.
● Mock-up of physical facilities. Construction of a quick and unfinished
model for example of a building, room, furnishing or equipment. During
the events, users test and change the item, commenting on what they see
and how they experience the product.
● Mock-up of services, service provisions and service encounters. This
involves design of a play script for services, acting it out, interacting,
and changing the script during the play. Depending on the nature of
the service, the task can be to add adventurous elements or other extra
ingredients. The task could also be to remove superfluous movements or
elements in order to accelerate and rationalize services.
● Cognitive walkthroughs are mostly used for testing computer programs
(Wharton et al., 1994). The method identifies places where customers get
lost, make mistakes, spend too much time trying to find their way, etc.
● Workshops and brainstorming represent more traditional techniques
and include for example lateral thinking, mind-mapping, thinking hats,
morphology, etc.
There are many reservations with the use of innovation camps. Users
are often found to be too unaware of technical or market issues to be able
to generate ideas that are original, can be produced, and may create value
for future customers.
recognize that companies such as Coca Cola, Siemens, and Toyota rely on
avatars to influence their R&D processes and marketing.
Using input and feedback from users and customers in product and service
development is an explicitly or implicitly recognized mode of acquiring valu-
able knowledge and information. A number of different methodologies have
been outlined in previous sections without any assessment of their reliability
or the validity of the data. There is considerable uncertainty about the qual-
ity of the information provided through user-driven innovation. Research on
this issue is very scarce and anecdotal.
Pearce and Moscardo (1984) emphasize the sometimes seriously biased
information delivered in user complaints and criticisms. These users are
described as noisier than the majority of customers who are satisfied with
the product. Adaptation and amendment to subjective demands may be
financially unsustainable, and offer too little in terms of general satisfaction.
Pearce and Moscardo (1984) and Luria et al. (2009) find it useful to look
Research Note 309
into the events and situations behind the complaints and assess whether the
persons are entirely mismatched with the service provided and whether crit-
icism is caused by distress because the proprietor fails to provide adequate
action to other problems.
Despite this concern, attempts to interpret customer reactions in exter-
nal and internal contexts are valid enough as a basis for everyday managerial
adjustments, although they might be less useful if innovations are on the
agenda. Innovation processes may suffer, if the same validity and gen-
eralization standards are applied. In user-driven innovation procedures,
management will invite and pay tribute to extreme opinions. Attempts are
made to capture forms of use and demands which are not yet mainstream.
Users are given a voice with the aim of bringing the company’s thinking out
of the groove.
As shown in this inventory of methods, user-driven innovation is gen-
erally experiential in its set-up. Innovating organizations need to accept a
high level of risk, since it is hardly possible to establish the value of the
information that the processes generate in advance. In practice, it will often
be necessary to combine user inputs with other types of knowledge acquisi-
tion, and integrate these in a more comprehensive strategic process, where
the ideas are carefully assessed before implementation (Kelley, 2005).
and Linux. On their release, new versions are already objects of comment
and amendment. Payne, Storbacka, and Frow (2008) address how the co-
creation of value may be managed. They affirm that comprehension of the
user’s role is fragmented and that there is a need for further research in
this area. In a model describing interaction with users, they envisage that
managerial processes are more complicated than with in-house staff, as less-
controllable emotional, cognitive and behavioral dimensions are brought
into play. It is important to obtain a correct understanding of what is in this
for the user. Their collaboration is a crucial encounter, which the company
staff will have to interpret or use relevant intermediaries to do so. In many
constrained tourism organizations there is no time nor space to cultivate cus-
tomer relations to any depth, neither on a daily basis nor on selected project
occasions. It is doubtful whether staff skills are sufficient to undertake the
somewhat complex ethnological research tasks, which, to be done properly,
demand a considerable amount of skill and judgment.
This article has demonstrated that a range of methods exist which can be
constructively exploited to harvest valuable ideas and inspiration from cus-
tomers. The range of methods is so wide that there are probably techniques
that would fit most company cultures, purposes and budget. The typology
in the paper shows that there are many degrees of user involvement, from
relatively passive cooperation to direct co-production. It also demonstrates
that some methods are based on the screening of numerous user opinions
while others rely on in-depth learning from a limited number of leading user
attitudes, behaviors and proposals.
This study delivers no more than a review of the literature and a use-
ful framework model. Although there is a growing interest for user-driven
innovation in tourism and beyond, there is still very little comprehensive
follow-up research. There is a vast lack of evidence on the following topics,
and a need for further research:
● To what extent do companies, DMOs and other tourism actors work with
user-driven innovation practices?
● What methods are preferred in which situations and categories of
organizations?
● What is the user’s role in innovation compared to other sources of knowl-
edge and inspiration, for example suppliers, employees, competitors,
colleagues, authorities, etc.?
Research Note 311
REFERENCES
Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Roose, A., Mark, Ü., & Silm, S. (2008). Evaluating passive mobile
positioning date for tourism surveys. Tourism Management, 29, 469–486.
Akehurst, G. (2009). User generated content: the use of blogs for tourism
organizations and tourism consumers. Service Business, 3, 51–61.
Alam, I. (2002). An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service
development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 250–261.
Baglieri, D., & Consoli, R. (2009). Collaborative innovation in tourism: Managing
virtual communities. The TQM Journal, 21(4), 353–364.
Bason, C. (2007). Velfærdsinnovation. [Welfare innovation]. København, Denmark
Børsen.
312 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin
Bessant, J. R., & Tidd, J (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Chichester, UK:
Wiley & Sons.
Birkingshaw, J., Bessant, J., & Delbridge, R. (2008). Finding, forming, and perform-
ing. Creating networks for discontinuous innovation. California Management
Review, 51(1), 6–23.
Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L. (2000). Technology infusion in service
encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 28(1), 138–149.
Blichfeldt, B. S., & Kessler, I. (2009). Interpretive consumer research: Uncovering the
‘whys’ underlying tourist behavior. In M. Kozak & A. Decrop (Eds.), Handbook
of tourist behavior: Theory and practice (pp. 2–15). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, B., & Weilenmann, A. (n. d.). Designing through exploration: Using observa-
tional methods in ubiquitous technology research. Retrieved from http://www.
dcs.gla.ac.uk/~barry/papers/exploration.pdf
Buckman, R. H. (2004). Building a knowledge-driven organization. Blacklick, OH:
McGraw-Hill.
Callan, R. J. (1998). The critical incident technique in hospitality research: An
illustration from the UK lodge sector. Tourism Management, 19(1), 93–98.
Carson, D. (2008). The blogosphere as a market research for tourism destinations.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 111–119.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2007). Open business models. How to thrive in the new innova-
tion landscape. London, UK: McGraw Hill.
Dawson, B. (2008). Facilitating innovation: Opportunity in times of change.
Museums Management and Curatorship, 23(4), 313–331.
Decrop, A. (1999). Qualitative research methods for the study of tourist behavior.
In A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism.
(pp. 335–365). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Practice and principles.
London, UK: Heinemann.
Edmunds, H. (2000). The focus group research handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Füller, D., Hanlan, J., & Wilde, S. (2007). The identification and implementation
of key competitive factors for tourism based firms. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(3), 73–90.
Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H., & Mühlbacker, H. (2006). Community-based inno-
vation. How to integrate member of virtual communities into new product
development. Electronic Commerce Research, 6, 57–73.
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source
of innovation. Product Innovation Management, 25, 608–619.
Hall, C. M., & Shaw, G. (2008). Tourism and innovation. London, UK: Routledge.
Henkel, J., & von Hippel, E. (2005). Welfare implications of user innovation. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 73–87.
Hjalager, A. -M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism
Management, 23(5), 465–474.
Hjalager, A. -M. (2010a). A review of the innovation research in tourism. Tourism
Management, 31(1), 1–12.
Hjalager, A. -M. (2010b). Strategic innovation in tourism businesses. In L. Moutinho
(Ed.), Strategic management in tourism (pp. 127–140). Wallingsford, UK: CABI.
Research Note 313
Obenour, W., Patterson, M., Pedersen, P., & Pearson, L. (2006). Conceptualisation of
a meaning-based research approach for tourism service experiences. Tourism
Management, 27, 34–41.
Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespi-Cladera, R., & Martinez-Ros, E. (2005). Innovation activity
in the hotel industry: Evidence from Balearic Hotels. Tourism Management,
26(6), 851–865.
Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crotts, J. (2007). Travel blogs and the implications for
destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 35–45.
Payne, A. D., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–98.
Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1984). Making sense of tourists’ complaints.
Tourism Management, 5(1), 20–23.
Pekar, V., & Ou, S. (2008). Discovery of subjective evaluations of product features
in hotel reviews. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 15–155.
Pechlaner, H. Fischer, E., & Hammann, E. M. (2005). Leadership and innovation
processes—development of products and services based on core competencies.
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3/4), 31–57.
Pikkemaat, B., & Peters, M. (2005). Towards the measurement of innovation—A
pilot study in the small and medium sized hotel industry. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3/4), 89–112.
Pritchard, M. P., & Havitz, M. E. (2006). Destination appraisal. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(1), 25–46.
Ritchie, R. J. B., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2002). A framework for an industry supported
destination marketing information system. Tourism Management, 23, 439–454.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box. Technology and economics. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Saleh, R., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry
using SERVQUAL The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 209–221.
Scarles, C. (2004). Mediating landscapes: The practices and processes of image
construction in tourist brochures of Scotland.” Tourist Studies, 4(1), 43–67.
Shoval, N., & Isaacson, M. (2007). Tracking tourists in the digital age. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(1), 141–159.
Smith, M., & Puczkó, L. (Eds.). (2009). Health and wellness tourism, Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M. & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the
making: chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43, 408–430.
Sørensen, F. (2007). The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism.
Tourism Geographies, 9(1), 22–48.
Tax, S., & Brown, S. (1998). Recovering and learning from service failure. Sloan
Management Review, 40(1), 75–88.
Tether, B. S. (2005). Do services innovate (differently)? Industry and Innovation,
12(2), 153–184.
Urban, G. L., & von Hippel, E. (1998). Lead user analyses for the development of
new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.
Veloutsou, C., & Moutinho, L. (2009). Brand relationships through brand reputation
and brand tribalism. Journal of Business Research, 62, 314–322.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Research Note 315
von Hippel, E. (2007). Horizontal innovation networks—by and for user. Industrial
and Corporate Change, 18(4), 1–23.
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.
Management Science, 48(7), 821–833.
Wang, Y., Yu, Q., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Defining the virtual tourist community:
Implications for tourism marketing. Tourism Management, 23, 407–417.
Weiermair, K., & Fuchs, M. (1999). Measuring tourist judgment on service quality.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 1004–1021.
Wenger, A. (2008). Analysis of travel bloggers’ characteristics and their communi-
cation about Austria as a tourism destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
14(2), 169–176.
Wise, E., & Høgenhaven, D. (2008). User-driven innovation. Context and cases in
the Nordic region. Oslo, Norway: NICe.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., & Leonard, B. (1990). Delivering quality service.
Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Zillinger, M. (2007). Guided tourism—The role of guidebooks in German tourist
behavior in Sweden. Österund & Umeå, Sweden: ETOUR/Universitetstryckeriet.