Introduction

In a market as dynamic as the present one, characterized by globalization, increased sophistication and customer demand, the pursuit of customer satisfaction, etc., many researchers consider total quality management essential for businesses to be competitive, even for small businesses (Upton et al. 2001), having proved in their research (industrial and services sector) the relationship between Total Quality and business success, for its ability to maintain or increase by the companies its market share, customer satisfaction, and employees, as well as the efficiency and quality of service to improve their internal processes, that is, the benefits derived from the implementation. Studies carried out in the industrial sector (Casadesús and Karapetrovic 2005; Camisón et al. 2007; Sila 2007; Lee et al. 2009; Mak 2011)Footnote 1 and tourism sector (Sheehan and Presenza 2011; Alonso-Almeida et al. 2012; Tarí et al. 2012).

In Spain, the market competitive strategy traditionally followed was centered in prices; however, the current socio-economic situation makes it impractical, causing a change to strategies focused on quality that are based on product differentiation offered. The tourism sector is no stranger to this trend and can also benefit from the implementation of quality management system (Lee et al. 2008; Viada-Stenger et al. 2010).

In the particular case of rural accommodation sector this requires meeting the needs of both external and internal clients, as well as improving their business results significantly, in order to survive in the highly competitive markets of today. To do so, the quality has become an important competitive tool, through continuous improvement activities that finally may lead to an overall improvement on business performance (i.e., smart growth but also efficient growth).

Despite the benefits of TQM implementation report to the tourism businesses, in Spain there exists a low rate of penetration of ISO 9000 (with just 286 companies certified through 2009 according to Forum Calidad, 2010), explained this by the high costs of the same and lack of expertise in SMEs in the tourism sector (Camisón and Yepes 1994). This has led to the implementation of quality assurance is carried out through standard sectorial own (Camisón et al. 2007), constituting itself in 1997 in Spain a quality management system own and unique in the world for the tourism sector, so arises brand Q for Tourist Quality, awarded by the Spanish Tourist Quality Institute-ICTE (private organization, independent and non-profit), and currently there are 21 standards which cover 21 tourism subsectors.

There are several reasons that drive us to carry out this research:

  1. 1.

    The literature review has allowed us to detect a gap in research in quality management in the tourism sector (sector with special characteristics for providing services; intangibility, inseparability of production from consumption…facing the industry (products), features that lead to quality cannot be managed in the same way (Camisón et al. 2007).

  2. 2.

    There are no studies on rural tourism accommodationFootnote 2 (accommodation small dimension), tourism that in recent years becomes a new emerging tourist product, driven by changes in the tastes and needs of today’s consumers. It is configured as an alternative to mass tourism as economic activity and an instrument to boost the development of regions where exists a great imbalance socioeconomic, favoring the settling of the population and the growth of its income and contributes to the preservation of its historical, cultural, and environmental.

  3. 3.

    Another reason is the study Companies that have the Brand “Q for Tourist Quality”Footnote 3 based on the standard UNE183001:2009-rural accommodation. Research quality management until now were performed mainly in the field of quality assurance, Standard ISO 9001 or total quality management, European Excellence Model (EFQM), and we consider important to the development of research in this context given the peculiarities of the standard UNE; intermediate system between the two previous, norm that standardizes, with the aim of seeking customer satisfaction, from the management system, until providing the service, including infrastructure and equipment of a tourist establishment with own characteristics and very definite of the rural accommodations.

Considering the discussed in this study we investigated the motivations that lead to rural accommodation to implement and certified with the Brand “Q for Tourist Quality;” know its structure and determine whether the decision of the managers of this kind of establishments is influenced by the desire to internal improvement of the organization (improve productivity and internal processes) or in response to the external market and analyze the influence of the same on the level of implementation of the critical factors and outcomes.

To meet these objectives, the work is divided into several sections. First, establishing the theoretical framework used to carry out the research and then setting the objectives from the theoretical review. The second section describes the methodology used, while the third includes the analysis of results. The final section presents the main conclusions and implications of the work.

Literature review and hypothesis

Certified quality systems in Spanish tourism: Q for Tourist Quality

The Spanish Tourism Quality System (SCTE) is born in response to the increasing sensitivity by the quality within the tourism sector, oriented facilitate companies of this sector a methodological tool that allows them to maintain and improve its competitive position. This system of quality management has four components (Casadesús et al. 2010, p. 607): (1) specific Quality norms for each of the tourism subsectors that define the process, service standards, and quality requirements thereof; (2) a system of certification whereby an independent third party ensures that companies meet the Standards; (3) the Mark “Q for Tourist Quality2;” (4) a management body, known as the ICTE-Spanish Tourism Quality Institute (private, independent, and non-profit) that promotes the system and is responsible for its implementation, integrity, and dissemination.

The brand Q for Tourist Quality was created in 1997 in Spain, constituting itself as a System of Quality Management own and unique in the world for the Tourism Sector,Footnote 4 granted by ICTE. At present there are 21 standards covering 21 tourism subsectors. The standard applicable to rural tourism is UNE183001:2009, which stands at an intermediate level between the ISO 9000 (quality assurance) and EFQM (Total Quality), so that the implementation of it is compatible with both certifications.

Although “Q for Quality” and ISO 9001 are compatible, not treated than two identical systems. Camisón et al. (2007, p. 618) identify a number of differences between the two: (1) the standards of ICTE take into account the requirements and recommendations of ISO 9001; (2) the ISO 9001 standard is specific to the implementation of a Management System of Quality and they are pure systems of quality assurance (they do not establish performance criteria neither service levels), while ICTE the standards of include quality of service specifications that must implement the undertaking belonging to the system; (3) the ISO 9001 standard is more versatile and applicable to any organization while the standards of ICTE only apply to tourism; (4) from the point of view of the customer, the ISO 9001 certification does not guarantee a specific quality level but rather that the service will meet the specifications set by the establishment, while the standards ICTE establish the level of quality you would expect.

This standard standardizes, with the aim of searching for customer satisfaction, from the management system, until providing the service, including infrastructure and equipment. In the case of the standards ICTE (standards that define the level of customer service) are specified which must be determined a quality system itself the tourist accommodation (Camisón et al. 2007), and include service specifications that must implement the undertaking belonging to the system.

Motivations for implementing and certifying a quality system in rural accommodation

The review of the literature regarding the motivations that lead companies to implement Systems of Quality Management has enabled us to verify that are related with, recognition of quality by their customers, competitors, etc., and internal improvement of the organization leading to improved efficiency, improved control and management of the organization, cost reduction, as well as an increase in customer satisfaction.

The reasons why companies implement and certify Management Systems are classified into various types by international studies, being the most common classification in the literature, those that group these motivations into two groups, internal and external (Weston 1995; Brown et al. 1998; Bryde and Slocock 1998; Singels et al. 2001).

In the same way, Neumayer and Perkins (2005) stress that there are, broadly speaking, two groups of motivations that lead companies to implement such standards and certify them: on one hand, internal reasons related to efficiency (efficiency motives), that is, performance improvement (performance), productivity and profitability, and, on the other hand, external or institutional reasons (institutional motives), related to the social pressure exerted by various role players in order to adopt these business management practices.

But this is not the only proposal, Huarng et al. (1999) adds another set of reasons that lead an organization to certify and which are referred to as passive and active reasons. The former aim only to obtain a certificate, while the latter refer to certification as being part of an effort by the entire organization toward total quality. These authors also refer to third groups that are those related to internationalization in the sense that the ISO 9000 certification opens doors worldwide.

There is no consensus on the conclusions of the major studios conducted in recent years with respect to which are the main reasons that have led companies from different countries to implement ISO 9000 standards, external motivations, or internal motivations. Some point out that those motivations are external (Carlsson and Carlsson 1996; Jones et al. 1997; Martinez Costa et al. 2008) that lead to implement these standards. Casadesús et al. (1998) and Martínez Fuentes et al. (2000), agree with this by stating that certification is actually a marketing strategy; however, they suggest that the implementation of the rule always generates an improvement within the organization (Casadesús et al. 1998, 1999). Gotzamani and Tsiotras (2002) state that external motivation related to the demands of consumers and certification by competitors are the main reasons that lead an organization to implement and certify the quality system.

While other studies emphasize the influence of internal factors (Boiral and Roy 2007; Casadesús et al. 2010). The study of Nottingham Trent University (1998), conducted with UK companies, state that the ISO 9000 certification involves a more efficient internal processes of the organization, and the study shows that external motivations are less important. In this respect, Yahya and Goh (2001) state that companies seeking certification for internal reasons encounter less difficulties to implement the ISO 9000 and in general, achieve more benefits than those that do so for external reasons.

Studies on the reasons leading to implement a quality management system have focused industry and few are focused in services and any in accommodation rural. The findings of various studies differ on whether internal or external motivations are more important or influential. However, an important aspect to consider is that many authors argue that the implementation of the ISO standard is a first step toward total quality (Askey and Dale 1994; Bradley 1994; Stephens 1994; Meegan and Taylor 1997; Van Der Wiele et al. 1997; Brown et al. 1998; Kanji 1998; Quazi and Padibjo 1998; McAdam and McKeown 1999), but the reasons they chose to implement it (external or internal) largely define the results obtained by the company with its implementation.

In this respect, Yahya and Goh (2001) state that companies seeking certification for internal reasons, find less difficulty to implement the ISO 9000, and in general get more benefits than those that do it for external reasons.

Research methodology

Universe and field of study

The scope of study is rural tourism accommodations that have certified “Q for Tourist Quality” based on standard UNE 183001:2009, which are listed and ranked in the website of the ICTE (Institute for Spanish Quality-www.icte.es). This decision is justified by three reasons already mentioned in the introduction of this work.

The target population was composed of 227 rural accommodations that have implemented a quality system according to the “Q for Tourist Quality” at national level. Out of the 227 questionnaires sent, 95 were returned duly completed and 8 incomplete, in which case request by mail and telephone was made in order to complete them, discarding 3, which us a sample of 100 valid questionnaires, which represents a valid response rate of 44.05 and 7.48 % margin of error.

Regarding the size or dimension of the establishments of the sample 95 % correspond to micro-businesses (0–9 employees) and the remaining 5 % are small businesses (10–49 employees). The classification into micro, small, medium and large companies has been made based on the criterion of the number of workers, as established by European Commission. If we measure size by the number of rooms to 42 % of establishments have a dimension of 1–5 rooms and 58 establishments more than 5 rooms. Of the sampled establishments there are 67 certified with a certification service of 0–3 years in the standard UNE 183001:2009 (rural tourism accommodation) and 33 with over 3 years of certification.

The data collection process began on April 1, 2010 and ended on May 30, performing it through one or more contacts by email to each of the selected establishments Table 1.

Table 1 Technical information of study
Full size table

Questionnaire

To design the questionnaire, which enables us to know the motivations/reasons which have led companies to implement/certify in a quality system, in the first place we did a literature review of the studies analyzing the motivations for implementing a quality management system. Studies which on the other hand, have been done mainly in the industrial sector. The result of this review was to generate a wide range of items available Table 2.

Table 2 Validity of the contents of measurement scales
Full size table

In this respect, the repeated use of the items to measure motivation, guarantees internal validity. Thus, we developed a questionnaire in which motivation will be measured through 15 items, using a seven-point Likert scale to measure the variables in quantitative terms (1—not important to 7—very important). The literature review on the motivations for certification leads us to state that there are many diverse reasons that lead a company to implement and certify a system of quality management. Generally, it is not only a single reason that leads a company to begin the implementation process and subsequent certification, but the combination of several.

Data analysis

To meet the first objective, a descriptive analysis of each of the reasons that lead establishment to implement a system of quality management (UNE 183001:2009) was carried out, and from the mean scores obtained (Table 3) we can say that improving company image is the most valued, followed by Strengthening the competitive advantage over competition and to consolidate and increase market share, and belief that the certification will give an advantage over its competitors. Customer request is the least valued followed by the fact that other competitors certificated as a requirement.

Table 3 Reasons for implementing and certifying a quality management system
Full size table

To respond to the second objective proposed in this paper, we conducted a “Principal Components Factor Analysis” with varimax rotation, with the aim of grouping the motivations to become certified in others, that replace the 15 we have expressed in the questionnaire with as little loss of information as possible, allowing us to analyze the structure of the motivations that drive rural accommodation to implement and certify a system of quality management.

As a preliminary step to the performance of factorial analysis, it must be specified that the data from the questionnaire are adequate for factorial analysis. This requires examining the correlation matrix and checking whether it is appropriate or not appropriate to continue with the analysis (Table 4). Thus, (1) we found that in the correlation matrix there is significant number of high correlation between all the variables available (>0.5), and the determinant of the correlation matrix also has a value close to zero;(2) Bartlett’s test of sphericity, in our case, we can reject this hypothesis because the test value is high and is associated with a significance level below 0.05; (3) adequacy test of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) in our case has values above 0.876; (4) the MSA index is unacceptable for values below 0.5, which in our case is below 0.8.

Table 4 Indicators of the degree of association between variables
Full size table

Once satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with factor analysis, we extract a small number of factors which may represent the original variables, for which we used the method of principal components and rotated the components matrix by the varimax method,Footnote 5 to facilitate its interpretation, we eliminated from its representation those factor loadings with a value of less than 0.4 minimum considered (rotated component matrix, Table 5).

Table 5 Rotated matrix of the reasons for certification (% variance)
Full size table

Using the criterion of percentage of variance, we found that there are three factors and these account for 60.012 %, surpassing the minimum 50 %, so this solution is considered satisfactory. Furthermore, the Cronbach Alpha, which measures the reliability scale is greater than 0.8 minimum recommended. Although the objective with this method is to minimize the number of significant loads on each factor, often, there are variables with high loadings on several factors. In these cases, this must be taken into account, when interpreting the factor (Hair et al. 1999, p. 101).

After obtaining the results of the analysis, we make the interpretation of the factors identified in our study, three:

  • Factor 1: which we will call “External Market Reasons”, which is made up of sales promotional tool, improving the image of the company, consolidating and increasing market share, strengthening the competitive edge over competition, believing that certification gives you an edge over your competitors, anticipating competitors. The reasons in this factor focus on improving company image and its position.

  • Factor 2: we will call “Internal Reasons” and it is made up of factors such as, reducing costs, improving internal processes/procedures, improving company control, and efficiency, the basis for total quality management, improving the quality of services provided, reducing the number of complaints, creating an awareness of quality in the company. It consists of internal reasons and supports the literature review, in a study by Escanciano et al. (2003), which they classify into efficiency-seeking reasons and reasons that seek to anticipate the market. The priority of the direction in this group is to continuously improve processes and reduce costs.

  • Factor 3: which we will call “External Reasons of Requirements,” as are the requirements of customers, certified competitors, requirement to compete in the sector, corporate-level decision. In our research, there is a variable MO7 (requirement to compete in the sector), which loads on two factors “external market reasons” and “external reasons of requirements,” which we include in this factor due to its importance.

To conclude this analysis we have to know the importance of the reasons for certification (Table 6). We see that the most important reasons for certification are market external reasons with an average of 5.8 against internal reasons with a mean of 5.14.

Table 6 Importance of the reasons for certification
Full size table

Once the factor analysis has been done, which enables us to select relevant variables to identify the groups, that is, select a criterion for grouping the companies into clusters, interpret the groups and validate the results. The goal we set ourselves is to group companies according to the motives that prompted them to implement and become certified in a quality management system.

We proceed to the application of cluster analysis to the motivations that have driven the companies surveyed to be certified in the “Q for Tourist Quality.” We apply the hierarchical analysis, and to select the groups we observe the dendrogram and the agglomeration coefficient. In Table 7, we see that with respect to the coefficients of agglomeration, the major changes occur between 3 and 6. On the other hand, the major difference between the percentages of change occurs in three clusters (27.8908), so this would be the number of groups according to these criteria.

Table 7 Coefficient of agglomeration of the reasons for certification and validation of analysis
Full size table

After obtaining the groups that will be used in the hierarchical analysis, and taking as initial centers the results from the hierarchical analysis (mean factor scores of the three groups), we apply k-means analysis. Given, the similarity of the end centroids with the initial ones, this allows us to confirm that the division into groups or clusters in both hierarchical and non hierarchical analysis in both cases is identical. This confirms the stability of clusters formed and the approximation of centroids, provided by the hierarchical cluster analysis. It was already very close to the optimal solution for that number of groups. This proximity is supported by additional information. There has been convergence in 3 iterations with changes in the cluster centers practically nil. Finally, we validate the study with the analysis of variance of a factorFootnote 6 and find that the three factors are significant (Table 7).

Then we interpret the three groups created, determining the differences between them, as well. Table 8 shows the mean scores of the original variablesFootnote 7 that are included in each factor for three group, (instead of the factor scores) to determine the mean profiles. On the other hand, the Kruskal–Wallis test is done to analyze the mean differences. We chose to use this test instead of ANOVA because when dividing the sample into four clusters, the number of firms belonging to each group is small, so it is considered more appropriate to apply the test of Kruskal–Wallis H.Footnote 8

Table 8 Means by factor and statistical test to compare differences
Full size table

The first group is characterized by companies that are certified primarily for external market reasons and do not consider or give little importance to Internal and external reasons requirements. The second and third group consists of companies are certified primarily for external market reasons and internal reasons. But the one with a higher average score is the group 3 on every factor. Thus, it is proven that to be certified for one reason or another does not depend on company size. But there is a relationship of dependency between the groups and the subsector to which the companies belong to.

At the cluster analysis performed, i.e., to the profile of the companies we add additional variables (critical factors and results) which will allow us to analyze in greater depth the profile of companies (Table 9). Data from additional variables form part of another section of our research in which we analyze in addition to the benefits, the critical factors of quality and results. We consider critical factors: quality policy (7 items), leadership (8), partnerships and resources, (7) learning, (9) Employee Management (11), process management (15) and, as a result: satisfaction customers (7), employee satisfaction (9), social impact results (8), key results (12). Factor analysis performed on the critical factors has allowed us consider in aggregate form to them.

Table 9 Means by factor and statistical tests to compare differences
Full size table

The results show significant differences between groups in the case of the critical factors, and allow us to see that the higher the average score in the internal and external reasons, the companies have a greater level of implementation of the critical factors. The results show no significant differences between groups, for at that we cannot draw conclusions.

Conclusions

With this study we have tried to know what the motivations that propels to rural accommodations to be certified, well as, analyze whether the degree in which they are motivated influences the level of implementation of the critical factors and the results obtained. The study is relevant to be made this in a sector characterized by accommodation small size (no. rooms, employees), be located in a rural environment with serious structural problems (regulatory dispersion, low occupancy, strong seasonality in certain periods of the year, signs of excess capacity).

In this study, like in previous studies, the motives that drive to the rural accommodations to implement and certify a system of quality management (Q for Tourism Quality) are grouped into external and internal reasons (ISO 9001: Casadesús Fa and Heras Saizarbitoria 2001; Magd and Curry 2003; Llopis and Tarí 2003; Cruz Ros 2007, Zaramdini 2007; Jang and Lin 2008; Q for tourism Quality: Rodríguez-Antón et al. 2008; Tarí et al. 2012), no consensus exists about which these two reasons is the most important (Casadesús and Heras 2005).

The Rural accommodation are certified by external motivations mainly (improve company image, consolidate and increase market share, etc.), also clear that the “Q of Quality” provides them with a better positioning in the market and differentiates them in the sector. These results coincide with those found by the studies conducted in the field of ISO 9001, where the companies analyzed said certified by external motivations (Jones et al. 1997, Martinez Costa et al. 2008), but also influenced by internal. In this sense, other companies are driven mainly to certification by internal motivations as Boiral and Roy (2007) and Casadesús et al. (2010).

On the other hand, this result differs of encountered in studies conducted in the service sector. Cruz Ros (2007) in their research conducted in the service sector they found that the most important reasons are internal and less valued were those related to external or market issues. Alonso-Almeida et al. 2012 in a study conducted in hotels certificates ISO 9001 or Q for Quality, they found that the internal motives were the most important. Also Alonso-Almeida et al. 2012 obtained the same result in a study conducted in hotel accommodation certified “Q for Tourism Quality” just like Tarí et al. 2012, than in his studio in hotels with Q they found that the most important motivations for seeking certification are internal, they considered also very important to the pursuit of customer satisfaction.

The result of this research could be explained for at exposed by Rodríguez-Antón et al. 2008, that in its investigation in small hotels certified “Q” try to corroborate that external reasons are more important than the interns in the case of SMEs (Gustafsson et al. 2001). Several authors argue that pressure from customers and competitors is the main motivation to obtain certification for an SME (Sun and Cheng 2002; Bendell and Boultier 2004; Boiral and Roy 2007). However, these authors in their study were unable to confirm the relevance of the external motivations that appear to be operating to the same extent both. So it is important to continue research into this line.

The explanation of the increased importance of external reasons in rural accommodation could be due to two facts: (1) the small size of establishments (especially in terms of employees) which would mean a greater concern for improving their image, increase market share, etc. that by improving internal processes; (2) the approach the assurance which follow rural accommodations to the implement the Q of Quality. Cruz Ros (2007, p. 65) in his study analyzed “whether the set of motivations that drive organizations to implement quality systems is different for those service companies that follow the assurance approach to any others that follow an approach based on total quality.” He showed that the reasons related with the market (competitive pressure, customer requirement…) have greater weight in companies that follow approaches quality assurance than those who follow a total quality approach. This approach is supported by many studies as Rayner and Porter (1991), Brown and Van der Wiele (1995), Shih et al. (1996), Huarng et al. (1999), Beattie and Sohal (1999), and Martínez et al. (1999), Martínez Fuentes et al. (2000). On the other hand, companies with a focus of Total Quality Management (Q for Tourism Quality, intermediate standard ISO and EFQM) are the internal and efficiency reasons the most important, predominantly the target set by the management team as most important reason for carrying out the implantation thereof.

As for the structure of the motivations that drive companies to implement and certify a system of quality management, the analysis of the results obtained has allowed us to group the motives in three groups (1) “External Market Reasons,” (2) “Internal Reasons,” (3) “External Reasons of Requirements.” These results are consistent with those obtained by other studies: Escanciano et al. (2001) (ISO-industry and services), Cruz Ros (2007) (ISO-services), Rodríguez-Antón et al. (2008) (Q of quality-hotel sector), Tarí et al. 2012 (Q of quality-field hotels).

Finally, we confirmed that the stronger are the motivations that promote the certification process the level of involvement of the owners of rural accommodation will be higher; and therefore, they will put more effort into the process, which leads to levels of implementation of the critical factors higher. However, we have not confirmed that a high level of motivation involves obtaining greater results.

The implication for business of this study is that external motivations drive the implementation of Q in rural lodgings. The greater the motivation the accommodations reach higher levels of implementation of the standard. This behavior is different from that obtained by other studies in the sector of hotels.

This study has limitations. The first is derived from the concretion of the study and the characteristics of the analyzed sector; on the other hand, the data come from the perceptions of the owners of the establishments, which involves the risk of receiving skewed responses by a person involved and final limitation is related to the cross section of the study as it is performed in a precise moment in time.