Fyp-importance-Aspects-overall Satisfaction - Buying Behavior and Loyalty

www.final-yearprojects.co.cc | www.troubleshoot4free.
com/fyp/
PROJECT REPORT ON HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THE IMPORTANCE OF ASPECTS IN OVERALL SATISFACTION, BUYING BEHAVIOR AND LOYALTY FOR METRIC CONSULTANCY LTD
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AFFLIATED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF PUNE BY MAHESH V. SANDBHOR MBA-2nd YEAR 2005-2006 OF VISHWAKARMA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
www.final-yearprojects.co.cc | www.troubleshoot4free.com/fyp/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Summer training project is the foundation on which the career of MBA student develops. My two months project at METRIC Consultancy has been high lightening in the professional environment of the organization. This report is the mirror of my sincere efforts. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to DR. Arvind .Karandikar of METRIC Consultancy for giving me opportunity as summer trainee in their esteemed organization. I am also highly grateful to all my research officers at METRIC Consultancy. Their timely Inquiries about the progress of the project, critical appraisal, suggestions & motivational words continued to come throughout the course of the project for its betterment. This served to spiral my ambition to greater heights. I, take this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to Prof. Avinash Nene, my project guide and Dr. Sharad Joshi, our mentor for providing me resourceful guidance. Last but not the least, I express my gratitude to all the members of Metric consultancy & my college who guided me in carrying out this project successfully.
Mahesh V. Sandbhor
CONTENTS
Sr. no
1
Title Introduction Why I chose this topic Objectives of project
Page No.
3 5 6 13 23 40 58 74 82 84 88 90 92
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Company profile Overview of MOSTER Baxter s Model Gaps Model of Service Quality Observations and Calculations Charts and Interpretation Limitations and scope for study Relationship between gaps model and Baxter s model
10 11 12
Summary Bibliography Annexure
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
"Your brand is created out of customer contact and the experience your Customers have of you" - Stelios Haji-Ioannou, Chairman, EasyGroup No matter what you have heard from advertising agencies, advertising and branding are not synonymous. Furthermore no matter what you may have heard from the accountants the real aim of a business is actually to find, grow and keep customers not to make profits. Customers are where the
profits come from and profits are a measure not a process. So let's strip out years of indoctrination and get to the real issue. The entire energy of every organization should be focused on one thing the
customer experience. This is true whether you are in the public or private sector, deliver a service or a product, a manufacturer, a wholesaler or a dealer. The customer experience is the whole interface between your firm, its products and service and its chosen customer. My project is an attempt to understand the customer better by finding out which aspects affect the customer experience in the overall satisfaction, buying behavior and loyalty. Recent research suggests that perceived service quality and satisfaction can be seen as distinct concepts and that perceived service quality precedes satisfaction, which is closely related to the customers behavioural responses (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Liljander and Strandvik, 1995; Oliver, 1993a; Parasuraman et al., 1994a). Customers evaluation of service quality can be described as a cognitive process where customers consider the goodness/badness of different components of the service, either by evaluating the perceived service performance only, or by comparing the service performance with some predetermined standard. Satisfaction, on the
other hand, is believed to contain an affective dimension too, without which customers responses cannot be fully accounted for.
Why I chose this topic? A friend of mine, who is a prominent professional athlete, teaches a class of four-year-old children. He takes a special interest in them and takes time to greet them. He affirms their value and worth. As a result, they wouldn't miss his class for anything. They want to climb all over him and sit in his lap.
Our customers are no different than these children. They want to be called by name. They want to feel that the company representative really cares about them. It makes a huge difference. In fact, it's often what makes or breaks the deal. Father of nation Mahatma Gandhi has said Customers are like a God. It takes years to make a customer & takes only a second to break them. In today s growing competitive market when customers have got lot of choice of the products in the market it becomes prime important for the companies to attract the customers by offering best products, reasonable prices, good after sales service, value addition. Company has to do lot of research & survey on customer Satisfaction, dissatisfaction. The company which can fulfill the above criteria s can survive in the market for a longer time as a leader. As a customer, I can usually tell if frontline service providers are "totally present" during the few seconds we interact as they take my order or deal with my request. If they're totally present, I sense that they really care. This is one of the aspects which are of outmost importance to me. But my fascination prompted me to analyze this process further. Metric Consultancy provided me this opportunity. At Metric Consultancy they already had a model to measure customer satisfaction index known as MOSTER (MOnitoring Satisfaction To Ensure Retention). They were in a process of testing the feasibility and upgrading their existing model by finding out whether there were other models better than MOSTER and if so how they could improve MOSTER. One of the facet on which wanted to work was the way importance of aspects in overall satisfaction, buying behavior and loyalty are measured and how this process can be made better.
Why I chose this organization? Metric Consultancy Ltd is an independent professional market research, training and consultancy organization. It is one of the various organizations who work on the consumer satisfaction index study. It has a global presence by the way global partners who markets their consumer satisfaction index product in their respective countries. They have developed various models for the measurement of consumer satisfaction index.
Objectives of the project There project objectives were as follows To find importance of aspects in overall satisfaction, buying behavior and loyalty. To find existing model which could be used to measure these aspects.
COMPAN Y PROFILE
Company Profile METRIC SERVICE SPECTRUM
Marketing research
Customized research Syndicated research
Research based on Metric s proprietary

Models
Training
Customer interface staff Middle level managers Senior Management
Consultancy
Channel architecture Marketing strategies & tactics Marketing organization
Direct Marketing
High value consumer durables Specialty services
Company s Global Presence Country PR China PR China PR China Kenya Italy Argentina New-Zealand Portugal Bulgaria Germany Canada Indonesia Mexico USA Brazil Thailand Thailand Gulf Countries Franchisees Sino Marketing Research Ltd. CBC Marketing Research & Business Consulting Diag Aid Marketing Research Research Solutions Ltd. Metron S.r.I. Leventer Group S DE RL DE CV Key Research & Marketing Consulmark Market Test Ltd. Psyma Marketing Research Gmbh The Dunvegan Group PT DEKA Marketing Research Market Sciences Dimension Research Inc. Leventer Group S DE RL DE CV Infosearch Limited Market Support Co.Ltd. PAN Arab Research Center
10
Clients BPL TVS Ralli LML Daewoo TI cycles TATA steel TATA motors GlaxoSmithKline Bank of Maharashtra Larsen and Toubro Carborundum Universal Whirpool Honda Novartis BILT Thermax KSB Pumps Bajaj Tempo SPIC Ranbaxy EID parry Kinetic Mercedes Benz VSNL Swaraj Mazda TQMS Kirloskar Oil Engines L&T John Deere Honda Motorcycles and Scooters BPCL Cummins Auto Hindustan Petroleum Yamaha ICPA
11
METRIC s Area Of Expertise Customer Value Management Measurement & monitoring of customer satisfaction & delight Strategies for maximizing customer value. Building customer centric organization. Channel Management Channel evaluation Designing channel architecture. Improving conversation at the counter. Managing channel satisfaction and productivity. New Products Concept testing and product positioning Promotion. Evolving new products using Dr Kano s theory of two dimensional quality. Social and Micro Economic Issues Planning & evaluation of public policies & developmental project. Corporate social responsibilities: strategies and impact evaluation. Ethics Management. Employee Satisfaction Measuring and monitoring employee satisfaction and delight.
12
Benchmarking with other industries. Identifying action areas. Sales Management We make it happen. Rural marketing Quantify risk aversion behavior of rural investors and consumers. Sales promotion strategies and tactics to overcome aversion. Training to avoid urban bias. Product concepts and market development methods.\
13
MATRIX PROPRIETORY MODELS DE Matrix: Dealership Evaluation for better Channel Architecture.
RIRA:
Rural investor s risk Aversion: Measurement & Minimization.
MOSTER:
Monitoring Satisfaction & Delight to ensure Retention, Loyalty & positive referrals.
CRIDA:
Credit Rating of Market Dealers.
LOCATE:
Locating Retail Outlets for maximizing Customer Traffic.
E-Sat:
Identifies how to retain best employees.
14
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MOSTER
15
Brief Overview of MOSTER
MOnitoring Satisfaction To Ensure Retention Delight your customers MOSTER is a robust research methodology to diagnose and quantify the path to customer delight. Based on the models of Herzberg and Noriaki Kano, MOSTER is being used in 22 countries around the world. MOSTER classifies attributes of your product or service into those that create delight and those that if not provided will create dissatisfaction and calculates The ability of an attribute to create satisfaction or delight How well the attribute is rated on a product or brand Sensitivity of each attribute to effect change in customer perception MOSTER - gives actionable results, which guarantees delight. Customer Satisfaction Measurement The process of formal satisfaction measurement Identify the aspects responsible for Customer satisfaction. Split each aspect into relevant and measurable sub aspects or attributes. Sample selection and identification of respondents. Respondents evaluate the company performance for attribute on a scale. Process and analyze the data and present the finding. Limitations of the Traditional approach
16
Traditional approach to satisfaction measurement is based on erroneous one dimensional perspective.

The traditional approach Highly Satisfied
More the company delivers on each attribute, more satisfied are the customers.
100 Performance
Less Satisfied
Customer Satisfaction & Customer Retention In early '90s, U.S Congress commissioned a study* of Baldridge Award winning companies. The surprising finding was " While customer satisfaction levels had increased amongst these companies, customer retention levels had almost remained stagnant "
Source: Management Practices: U.S. Companies, improving performance through quality efforts , The General Accounting Office of USA, 1990.
17
The MOSTER System

Ushering a paradigm shift in Satisfaction Measurement
A Systematic Plan for Delighting the customers

Theoretical Basis of MOSTER system 4 Must Be Attribute Lower performance on these attributes causes dissatisfaction. For example: Condition of product on delivery.
Delight
0 Performance
100
Must be attributes
Dissatisfaction
18
Theoretical Basis of MOSTER system 5 Delight Attribute Higher performance of these attributes generates delight for the customer. For example: Value added service.
Delight
Delight attributes
0
Performance
100
Dissatisfaction
Theoretical Basis of MOSTER system 6 Linear Attribute Satisfaction increases with improved performance. For example: Product Reliability.
Delight
0 Performance
100
19
Clarifying the core concepts - 1

Dissatisfaction
The class of attributes changes from one person to another. Consider different users of internet and their transmission speed: Another user who has an ordinary file, may be a research paper to send, speed may be an delight attribute. When you want to send a one liner greeting, speed is really not an issue. You are indifferent to it. The class of attribute depends on ones need and his/her expectations. Clarifying the core concepts - 2 The class of attributes changes from one market segment to another. It is important to note that the dissatisfaction and delight causing attributes are different for different market segments. A high resolution monitor is a must be attribute for graphic designers. Low resolution will cause dissatisfaction. But for others it may be a delight attribute. It is important to note that the dissatisfaction and delight causing attribute are different for different market segments. Condition of a product on delivery is a must be attribute for customers buying a new car. But for a customer who is buying a second hand car it can be a delight attribute. Clarifying the core concepts 3
Class of attribute changes with time. Customer expectations and responses change over time. What is delight generating today becomes minimum expected tomorrow. For example: Internet PC with a built in modem was a delight attribute 5 years back but today it is a must be attribute.
20
Our current understanding
Performance
Delight
Delight Threshold Critical zones Loyal Volunteers positive word
Satisfaction
Dissatisfaction
Will never BUY again
Implementing MOSTER
The Interview
a. Select must have attributes b. Score* the must have attributes to establish lower threshold scores for each whereby purchase would not take place List of Attributes Attribute ABC
c. Select delight attributes.
21
d. Score* the delight attributes to establish what threshold scores would be high enough on these for enticing repeat purchase. e. Request respondents profile/demographics Score* the specific brand or service on ALL attributes PLUS overall * all scores are between 1 to 10.
What does MOSTER deliver?
Divides the entire satisfaction space into three regions Dissatisfaction zone
Satisfaction zone
Delight Zone
Delight zone
Satisfaction zone
The customers are located in one of the these three zones with respect to satisfaction level against each attribute.
Dissatisfaction zone
Customer satisfaction zones in MOSTER system For each attribute we measure the % who Are delighted Are marginally below delight Are satisfied Are marginally dissatisfied
10
Distance from
Delighted Dissatisfaction
Threshold
22
Marginally below delight
Are dissatisfied
-10
MOSTER System: Analysis (1)
10
Calculating Sensitivity of each attribute % customers likely to change behaviour with a small change in the rating of that feature. A small change of ratings on this attribute will result in 18% moving from dissatisfied to satisfied AND 12% from satisfied to delighted= 30% Likely Impact Of Marginal Improvement
10
Figures are in % of total respondents
Delighted
-10
10
12 18
Dissatisfied Satisfied -10
31
30
23
MOSTER System: Analysis (2) The analysis provides: 1. Overall Satisfaction. How your company performs.
2. How well is your product or service rated on all the attributes.
3. The importance of each attribute - the ability of each attribute to create dissatisfaction or delight.
4. Sensitivity of each attribute or feature - % customers likely to change behaviour with a small change in the rating of that feature.
5. Priorities - a combination of 3 and 4 above - identifies the features most likely to provide an immediate response.
24
BAXTERS MODEL
25
What do our customers want? Not all of our customers base their satisfaction levels on the same criteria. If they did, we would determine how to satisfy all of them all the time, and then we could focus on something else. We would know what emphasis we should place on our service excellence. Our challenge, however, is determining not only what each of our customers expects of our relationship, but keep up with the dynamics of these changing expectations. For most of the part if we are running a successful business, we can fairly accurately presume that we are doing a good job of matching products and services to the needs of our customers. Unfortunately, this does not necessarily mean that we are fully satisfying their requirements. We also have to identify which customers are not fully satisfied, which are fairly satisfied, and which are very satisfied. The ones we must be very concerned about are those in the first two categories. They are the ones who will get angry over something and leave us. They are the ones who will switch suppliers on a whim. And they are the ones who have been looking for our replacement but haven t told us. The customers who are very satisfied must be kept the way through ongoing efforts. We need these satisfied customers to help our companies thrive and grow. Satisfaction and Perceptions Mounting evidence tells that satisfying customers all the time and being perceived as a quality leader in a market carry significant advantages. Unfortunately, it has been very difficult to determine what features, services, innovations (or combination of these and other product and service attributes) will lead to being perceived as the quality leader. It is even difficult to answer the following question: Which of the myriad things we could do to improve our product, or the sales, service, and support activities that go with it, will lead to increase in perceived quality? The answer to this question contains important strategic information because it also reveals where a company s product and services are most vulnerable to quality improvements by its competitors. And inversely, it reveals where a company s competitors may be most vulnerable to quality improvements that it might undertake.
26
Dimensions of Quality One reason it has so difficult to define quality from the customer s perspective is that there has not been a sufficient framework from which to launch a investigation. In practice, we could simply ask purchasers in a given market what they consider to be the attributes of a quality product or service. Experience has shown, however, that responses to such questions vary too widely to lead to an effective quality management strategy. David Garvin of Harvard Business School has been one of the first to address the challenge. The framework proposed by Dr. Garvin in his book Managing Quality is called the dimensions of quality. The dimensions function as a negotiating device, providing intermediate ground between the language of customers (that is, nice looking, easy to use, or solid feel ) and the language of product developers and strategic planners (that is features mix, mean times between failures, or modular construction ). The dimensions have become major feature of the Baxter Healthcare Corporation s customer requirements research efforts. They provide a framework for developing quality objectives. These dimensions of quality include performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality.
Dimensions of quality
Aesthetics Perceived Quality
Serviceability
Performance
Durability
Features
Conformance
Reliability
The dimensions create a more complete picture of quality than had been available before. The surveys and interviews used in investigating a
27
product s or service s market focus first on overall quality perceptions, then proceed to the dimensions, and then lastly discuss specific product and service attributes. The dimensions remove the confusion caused by the many definition to the word quality and the hundreds of product and service attributes that constitute the perceived quality of a specific product or service in the market. The difficulty with seeking data only from one of the dimensions is that responses often cannot be compared, since language differs from company to company. Furthermore, few responses are capable of responding to all of the hundred questions of specific product and service attributes. Seeking data from the dimensions overcomes these difficulties. The dimensions refer to more specific criteria than does the term quality, thereby forcing respondents to provide information that is more precise and comparable. At the same time, the dimensions can be used to represent groups of product and service attributes without necessitating a familiarity with each. Quality evaluation based on dimensions is more useful with two groups of people: customer suppliers and senior managers. Customer supplier quality perceptions based on the dimensions become more specific and comparable and can be used to create a more complete picture of the ideal relationship. Senior managers gain a way of setting strategic, companywide quality objectives. For example, saying We must improve quality can be interpreted in various ways across a company, while a mandate to improve reliability carries more specific implications. Dr. Garvin notes that just as the customer s perceptions of quality guide their purchasing behavior in the market, management s internal quality perceptions influence strategic direction. This is why customer s requirements research activities include interviews with managers and product developers and ask questions very similar to those asked of customers. Customer requirement research Baxter Healthcare Corporation QLP group created customer requirement research (CRR) as a means of beginning a dialogue and identifying issues with customers and suppliers. This research activity delineates what customers in Baxter market mean when they say This is what I all a high quality service. The research method, which is applied on a product by product or service by service basis, determines which requirements and requirement
28
In contrast to standard market research projects, this research methodology goes beyond concerns of product design or market positioning. The requirements established have companywide and strategic implications because they touch every job and function in the organization. CRR includes four phases Internal research External research Analysis and report Result incorporation Internal research establishes perceptions of the company s management. Through one hour interviews with top managers, researchers determine what managers believe the customers recognizes as quality. These interviews grouping correlate most closely with the perception of being a quality leader. identify the major attributes of the product or service under investigation.
Internal Research
External Research
Analysis and Report
Result Incorporation
Fig. Customer Requirements Research
External research establishes quality perceptions of purchasers and supplies in the market. This research creates a picture of ideal quality and determines where future quality improvement should take place. It also assesses the major competitors currently in the market. This research consists of a qualitative survey of about twenty purchasers or suppliers to
29
establish the attributes that correlate with each quality dimension. It also includes a mail survey involving statistically significant samples of purchasers. The analysis and report phase examines the data collected in internal and external research and explores three potential quality gaps: 1. A gap between manager s perceptions of how customers and suppliers recognize quality and how customers and suppliers actually perceive it. 2. A gap between quality as defined by the company s current configuration of its product or service and that expressed as ideal by purchasers and suppliers. 3. A gap between the company s current offering and the quality offered by competitors. Incorporating results has two implications for the company: planning and ongoing implementation of the Quality Leadership Process. The CRR consultant works with the company s planners and sets up additional strategic quality measurements, as required. The CRR project also achieves the following objectives: 1. Helps direct activities to excel as a quality leader. 2. Creates a more strategic and competitive picture of quality, highlighting three potential gaps. 3. Defines a more active and appropriate role for senior managers in QLP. 4. Builds a launch point for quality function deployment (QFD) activities. The Bentley Pilot Experience In late 1988, Bentley Laboratories became one of the first Baxter divisions to undertake a CRR project. The primary objective of that project was to specifically delineate what quality means to purchasers. Bentley s investigation focused on the membrane oxygenator, one of its primary product lines. The membrane oxygenator is a disposable (that is, single use) medical device used to replenish oxygen to the blood during open heart
30
surgery. This is a expensive (approximately $350) plastic device about the size of a large household blender. More than half a million of them were sold wordwide in1988, and Bentley had the second largest market share. The project helped to define the customer s perception of quality in terms of the membrane oxygenator by identifying the elements that created that perception. The study investigated quality at three levels: Overall perceptions of quality Dimensions of quality Specific product and service attributes David Garvin consulted extensively on the project design, and Walker: Customer Satisfaction Measurements of Indianapolis conducted the external research. As a pilot, one objective was to establish a capable and repeatable methodology. With this objective in mind, the investigation in mind, the investigation was limited to membrane oxgenators. In addition, the external research was limited to U.S market, even though international sales comprised a significant portion of the total. Market data were sought from perfusionists, even though cardiovascular surgeons and, to a small extent, purchasing agents also impact the purchase decision. The findings contained in the report provide reliable and valuable insights into this particular market because the survey was sent to nearly every practicing purfusionist in the U.S and the return rate was well in excess of 30 percent. Over 50 percent of the respondents claimed to make the final decision regarding the purchase of membrane oxygenators, and nearly 90 percent said they influenced that decision. It is important to note, though that the influence on the purchase decision does not perfect equate with influence on the perception of quality leader. Qualitative decisions with Bentley marketing professionals and perfusionists themselves indicated that since perfusionists have hands on contact with oxygenators, their influence on the perception of quality leader is fairly high. The final results of the Bentley study are confidential. However, the following tables provide a look mat the type of finding that a CRR project such as this can generate.
31
Table 1
A ve r a g e V a l u e A s s i g n e d b y B e n t l e y M a n a g e r s o f t h e E i g h t D i m e n s i o n s a n d t h e P r o d u c t a n d S e r vi c e A t t r i b u t e A s s o c i a t e d w it h e a c h D i m e n s i o n
D im e n s io n P e r fo r m a n c e
A ve r a g e A s s ig n e d va l u e 2 4 .6
Range 1 5 -6 5 G H H C B
A t t rib u t e s o f t h is D im e n s io n
P e rc e n t a g e in c lu d in g A t t rib u t e
94 82 54 32 18 82 82 59 47 12
a s t r a n s fe r eat E xchange e m o d y n a m ic d e s ig n o n s is t e n c y io c o m p a t ib ilit y
F e a t u re s
2 1 .1
1 5 -8 0
S a fe t y E a s e o f S e tu p L o w p rim in g In t e g r a t e d d e s i g n B io c o m p a t ib ilit y
* B a s e d o n a 1 0 0 -p o in t a llo c a t io n e x e rc is e
Table 2
B e n t l e y M a n a g e m e n t A s s e s s m e n t o f t h e R e l a t i v e Im p o r t a n c e o f V a r i o u s P r o d u c t s a n d S e r vic e A t t r ib u t e s t o T h e ir C u s t o m e r s
A t t rib u t e P rim in g V o lu m e S e t u p t im e P r o d u c t d e live r y t im e S a le s F o rc e e x p e rt is e
A ve r a g e A s s ig n e d V a lu e 1 5 .3 1 1 .6 8 .5 6 .3
Table 3
B e n t l e y M a n a g e m e n t A s s e s s m e n t o f t h e R e l a t i v e Im p o r t a n c e o f V a r i o u s P r o d u c t s a n d S e r vic e A t t r ib u t e s t o T h e ir C u s t o m e r s A ve r a g e A s s ig n e d V a lu e * , B y F u n c t i o n S a le s & A t t rib u t e F in a n c e R& D M a n u fa c t u r i n g M a rk e t in g P r i m i n g va lu e 1 1 .9 2 3 .6 1 0 .5 1 1 .9 In t e g r a t e d s y s t e m s 4 .6 1 1 .4 8 .7 7 .6 P r o d u c t d e live r y t i m e 7 .1 5 .1 1 6 .4 8 .9 P ro b le m re s p o n s e t im e 6 .1 5 .6 1 2 .9 3 .7
32
Input-Process-Output Model Knowing what is meant by requirements is a good start towards achieving quality leadership. The next step is to expand on that meaning in order to answer the following important questions: Whose requirements are we meeting? How do we find out what those requirements are? How do we determine whether we are meeting requirements? Although these requirements can be difficult to answer, we need to answer them if we expect to achieve quality. This can be done by a method called Input-Process-Output (IPO) Model. `
Requirements Supplier Input Process Output
Requirements Customer
Fig. Input-Process-Output Model
The IPO model consists of seven components: input requirements, supplier, inputs, process, output, customer, and customer requirements. These components represent each phase of the work we do. No matter what our job is, each of us takes inputs-material, equipment, data, procedures-and puts them through a process to produce a product or service, which is our output. The inputs come from our suppliers; the outcome goes to our customers.
33
By applying the IPO model to the work we do, we can start to develop answers to the three questions we asked earlier. We can also analyze the impact each component has on the others to determine if what we producewhether a product a product or service-is meeting our customer s requirements.
Employee sends time card Supervisor receives time card Supervisor sends time card to Payroll receives payroll time card Payroll sends employee paycheck data to bank Bank receives the data. Bank sends paycheck to payroll Payroll receives paycheck Employee receives paycheck Payroll sends check to employee
Supplier Customer
Fig. The Customer Supplier Chain
Process flow for meeting customer requirements Here is a good example that Erica Meshii, program manager for the Quality Leadership Process at Baxter, developed to demonstrate how customer s requirements can be met. The example concerns an emergency room of a mid sized hospital in the Northwest that was in the initial stages of implementing the Quality Leadership Program. Defining requirements
34
Before beginning any improvement projects in the emergency room, a team was formed to determine what services the emergency room provided, who the customers were of these services, and who the suppliers were. Having identified the customers, they began conducting selected interviews of both the internal and external customers, using a set of requirements dimensions. As a result of their interviews, they discovered that their admitting procedure was failing to meet many of their customer s requirements. They decided to start their improvement efforts by reviewing, in detail, what their admitting procedure was. They also decided that they would look at their admitting procedure for critical and non critical patients separately. The team began looking at the process of admitting a non critical patient into the emergency room. The customer in this case was nursing, which felt that the admitting process was cause of multiple problems that affected the level of patient care the hospital delivered. To begin their analysis of admitting a non critical patient, they developed an input-process-output model to help them identify the customers of the process and those customer s requirements. Having identified customer requirements, they were able to then focus on what input they would need to meet those requirements, who their suppliers would be for that input, and what their requirements they needed to establish with their suppliers. By defining customer requirements first and then establishing supplier requirements, they assured themselves of providing a customer focused service. (See fig). Next, they jointly developed a process flow diagram that depicted the process as it existed (see fig). organizations are often tempted to skip this step, since most people feel that they know the process and that it would, therefore, be a waste of time to develop a diagram. However, it is important not to fall into the trap. A process flow diagram represents the way the process is actually done, not the way we think it should be done or the way the procedure manual says it should be done. Developing the process flow diagram as a team not only enhances understanding of the process, it also encourages open communication among team members. In some cases, improvements are realized immediately just by developing a common understanding. The development of a graphic representation of a graphic representation of a process shows us where steps are out of sequence and where steps can be eliminated. It also allows us to Build a common understanding Identify key steps in the process
35
Identify areas where measurement should be established

Supplier Patient Hosp. Management Nurse Input Requirements Complete Information Accurate Information Timely information Open patient room Standard Hosp. Procedure Comprehensive form System up
Customer Nursing Patient

Output Requirements Timely Paperwork Delay-free admittance Accurate information Consistent information Available nursing staff Available room
Inputs Patient Information Hosp. Procedure Patient room Forms Hosp. System Process Admitting Non clinical Patient
Output Patient admitted
Fig. Input-process-output model: admitting a non critical emergency room patient

Begin
Patient arrives in ER Pt checks in with desk clerk ER admission clerk available No Yes Yes Nurse available Pt waits Pt signs paperwork System available No Yes Yes Admission clerk gives paperwork to nurse No Nurse available No Pt waits Nurse puts pt in room ER admission clerk enters pt data on computer Pt name called
Pt waits in waiting room
End
Fig. Emergency department process flow diagram
36
Collecting and organizing data The hospital team decided to implement some measurements at several steps they perceived a key. Since they knew what the timeliness of the admitting process was an important component in the delivery of quality service, and they also knew there had been some complaints about time delays, they wanted to gather data could help them focus on areas where they could improve. Thus, they designed a series of logs to be completed at each identified critical step. Log1 identifies the time the patient arrives. The reception clerk maintains a log. Date 11/26/90 11/26/90 11/26/90 Patient Name Sam Jones Susan Anderson Ken Bishop Time of arrival 11:00 a.m. 11:20 a.m. 11:40 a.m.
Log2 identifies what time the admission clerk calls the patient s name to begin taking patient information. It also identifies when the patient signs the paperwork, which is their measure of when the paperwork is complete. The admission clerk maintains this log. Date 11/26/90 11/26/90 11/26/90 Patient Name Sam Jones Susan Anderson Ken Bishop Time patient name called 11:05 a.m. 11:21 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Time patient signs paperwork 11:30 a.m. 11:25 a.m. 11:50 a.m.
Log3 identifies the time nursing obtains the paperwork, as well as the time nursing puts the patient in an examining room. Nursing maintains this log. Date 11/26/90 11/26/90 11/26/90 Patient Name Sam Jones Susan Anderson Ken Bishop Time patient name called 11:20 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 12:00 a.m. Time patient signs paperwork 11:30 a.m. 11:30 a.m. 12:00 a.m.
These logs were maintained for one week, and then collected and summarized. A histogram was developed for each area measured to show time in minutes it took to complete the admitting paperwork.
37
The histogram measured the time it took to complete admitting paperwork. However, this information could be interpreted in more than one way. Each would produce a different picture of the admitting process. Listing and Prioritizing Improvement Opportunities The customer interviews, the IPO model, process flow diagram, the preliminary measurements taken, and the customer complaints previously received were all taken into consideration when the team developed a list of improvement opportunities using the improvement opportunity selection matrix.
Improvement opportunity 1 Improve rate of room availability 2 Improve rate of nurse availability 3 Improve speed of paperwork completion Support organizational objectives? Of value to customer? Can i/we implement it? Does it have a deadline? When is it? No Estimated savings(price of non conformance) and gains Increase patient retention Increase nursing retention Save time spent tracking down paperwork Estimated implementation costs (1-10)*
Other
Yes
Yes
No
---
Yes
Yes
Yes and No
No
---
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
4.5
---
Fig. Improvement opportunity selection matrix
Using the information gathered on the improvement opportunity selection matrix, the team determined that it would focus on completing admitting paperwork within five minutes of the patient s arrival. They developed the following improvement objective: Current Situation: Ten percent of the time there is a delay in paperwork being completed. This causes delays in ordering labs and X rays, which lead to delays in admission as well as delays in nursing being able to complete the patients charts. Expected Outcome: Paperwork should be completed within five minutes of patient s arrival.
38
Measurements: Logs will be maintained by emergency room staff that will show time elapsed from the arrival to paperwork completion. Analyzing and Selecting Most Significant Root Cause Once the team had identified the improvement opportunity and had defined their improvement objective, it was time to look at why they weren t currently meeting their goal. The tool they used for this was the fishbone diagram, which was developed during brainstorming session.
People Environment
Not available
Procedures
Patient
Filling out admission form

Confusing
Admission clerk
Busy with another patient Not available
Too long
Admission form
Not available
Patient Information
Not available
Printer
Backed up Down
Admission paperwork not completed within five minutes of patient s arrival
Computer
Down
Supplies
Information
Equipment
Not available
Fig. Fishbone diagram: causes for delays in admission paperwork Having identified this list of potential causes they wanted to determine which of these causes to work on. Rather than guessing or making decisions based on which because they felt was the most significant one, they decided to turn once again to measurement. Over a one week period they kept logs that indicated the reason for the delays that occurred. At the end of the week, they compiled their data and displayed it on the Pareto chart. Out of 200 occurrences of paperwork not completed within their targeted time frame of five minutes, 140, or 70 percent, occurred because the admission clerk was busy or not available. At this point, the team had a very clear understanding of where to focus their effort.
39
Generating Potential Solutions The team gathered once again for another brainstorming session. This time they used a force field analysis to help them identify several potential solutions.
Admission clerk is busy answering phones Admission clerk is helping another patient Admission clerk is on a break
Admission clerk busy
Incoming phone calls to be directed to information desk
Train Schedule backup volunteers to help with Cross train other E/R personnel to help admission admission desk process
Fig. Force-field analysis: completion of admission paperwork Selecting the best solution Following this analysis, they were able to identify several potential solutions. The next step was to select the solution they felt would be the most effective. To do this they developed a solution selection matrix. By laying out the data in this way, they were able to easily identify which solution they should focus on. The team determined they would concentrate their efforts on cross training other emergency room personnel to assist with the completion of the admission paperwork.
40
Implementing Solutions It was now time to lay out a method for implementing their solution. They identified the task that would need doing, the personnel who would be responsible for each task, the targeted start and finish dates for each, and expected result. Tracking effectiveness It is critical to establish ongoing measurement to ascertain the effect of the implemented solution. In this case, the team determined it would continue to gather data on logs and display the data on Gantt frequency charts. Customer requirements can be met Once we accept the challenge of meeting our customer s expectations 100 percent of the time, we make a commitment to strengthening our customer relationship and keeping up with the dynamics of their changing requirements. We also have a better reading on how many of our customers are not really satisfied, are fairly satisfied, and are very satisfied. We then expand our opportunity to elevate the number of very satisfied customers, thereby improving our competitive position, increasing our market share, and building an indestructible barrier to competitive strategies.
Possible Solutions Incoming calls directed to info desk Train volunteers to help with admission process Cross-train other E/R personnel to help admission clerk Schedule backup Cost to implement* Med Savings and gains Low Chances of success Low Percentage** of Root Cause removed Low
Med
Med
High
Med
Med
Med
High
High
Low
Low
Med
Med
* Insert actual cost to implement if available ** Insert actual % of root cause if measurements have been taken
41
Fig. Solution Selection Matrix: completion of admission paperwork
Department Name: Emergency Room (all shifts) What (task or activity) 1 Cross-train other shifts 2 Develop schedule for backup for other shifts 3 Implement schedule/plan Who Admission clerks and other ER staff When(start/finish) Within 3 weeks Expected results Individual cross trained in admitting process Schedules developed for all shifts Plan put in place
Same
Within 3 weeks
Same
4th week
Fig. Final implementation plan: completion of admission paperwork
42
GAPS MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY
43
GAPS MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY THE CUSTOMER GAP The central focus of the gaps model is the customer gap, the difference between customer expectations and perceptions. Expectations are the reference point s customers have coming in to a service experience; perceptions reflect the service as actually received. The idea is that firms will want to close this gap-between what is expected and what is received-to satisfy their customers and build long-term relationships with them. To close this all-important customer gap, the model suggests that four other gaps-the provider gaps-need to be closed. THE PROVIDER GAPS The provider gaps are the underlying causes behind the customer gap: Gap 1 - Not knowing what customers expect. Gap 2 - Not selecting the right service designs and standards. Gap 3 - Not delivering to the service standards. Gap 4 - Not matching performance to promises. The primary cause in many firms for not meeting customer s expectations is that the firm lacks accurate understanding of exactly what those expectations are. A gap exists (gap1) between company perceptions of customer expectations and customers actually expect. Even if the firm does not clearly understand its customer s expectations, there still may be problem if that understanding is not translated into customer driven service design and standards (gap2). Once service designs and standards are in place, it would seem the firm is well on its way to delivering high quality services. This is true, but still not enough. There must be systems, processes, and people in place to ensure that service delivery actually matches (or is even better than) the designs and standards in place (gap3). Finally, with everything in place to effectively meet or exceed customer expectations, the firm must ensure that what is promised to customers matches what is delivered (gap4).
44
Customer
Expected Service Customer gap
Perceived Service
Gap 1 Gap 3
Service delivery
Gap 4 Customer-driven service designs and standards Gap 2 Company perceptions pf consumer expectations Company
External communications to customers
Fig. Gaps Model of Service Quality CLOSING THE CUSTOMERS GAP In a broad sense, the gaps model says that a service marketer must first close the customer gap, between customer perceptions and expectations. To do so, the provider must close the four provider gaps, or discrepancies within the organization that inhibit delivery of service. The gaps model focuses on strategies and processes that firms can employ to drive service excellence.
SERVICES: SEARCH VERSUS EXPERIENCE VERSUS CREDENCE PROPERTIES? One framework for isolating differences in evaluation processes between goods and services is a classification of properties of offering. This can be done in three major ways.
45
Search qualities Experience qualities Credence qualities Search qualities, attributes that a customer can determine before purchasing a product. These include color, style, price, fit, feel, hardness, and smell. Goods such as automobiles, clothing and furniture, and jewelry are high in search qualities because attributes can be completely determined and evaluated before purchase. Experience qualities, attributes that a consumer can discerned only after purchase or during consumption. These include taste and wearability. Goods and services such as vacations and restaurant meals are high in experience qualities because their attributes cannot be known or assessed until they have been purchased and are being consumed. Credence qualities, includes characteristics that the consumer may find impossible to evaluate even after purchase and consumption. Examples of offering high in credence qualities are appendix operations and brake relining on automobiles. Few consumers possess medical or mechanical skills sufficient to evaluate whether these services are necessary or are performed properly, even after have been prescribed and produced by the seller.
46
Most goods
Most services
Easy to evaluate Medical Diagnosis Television repair Automobiles Restaurant meals Legal Services
Difficult to evaluate
High in search qualities
High in experience qualities
High in credence qualities
Fig. Continuum of Evaluation for Different Types of Products Fig arrays goods and services high in search, experience, or credence qualities along a continuum of evaluation ranging from easy to evaluate to difficult to evaluate. Goods high in search qualities are the easiest to evaluate (left end of the continuum). Goods and services high in experience qualities are more difficult to evaluate because they must be purchased and consumed before assessment is possible (center of continuum). Goods and services high in credence qualities are most difficult to evaluate because the consumer may be unaware of or may lack sufficient knowledge to appraise whether the offerings satisfy given wants or needs even after consumption (right end of continuum). The major premise is that most goods fall to the left of the continuum, whereas most services fall to the right of the continuum.
47
Auto repair
Furniture
Child care
Root Canal
Houses
Vacations
Hair cuts
Clothing
Jewelry
Services are different Goods Tangible Resulting Implications Services cannot be inventoried. Services cannot be patented. Services cannot be readily displayed or communicated. Pricing is difficult. Standardized Heterogeneous Service delivery and customer satisfaction depend on employee actions. Service quality depends on many uncontrollable factors. There is no sure knowledge that the service delivered matches what was planned and promoted. Production Simultaneous Customers participate in and affect the separate from production and transaction. consumption consumption Customers affect each other. Employees affect the service outcome. Decentralization may be essential. Mass production is difficult. Nonperishable Perishable It is difficult to synchronize supply and demand with services. Services cannot be returned or resold. Services Intangible
Meaning and type of Service Expectations To say that expectations are reference points against which service delivery is compared is only the beginning. The level of expectation can vary widely depending on the reference point the customer holds. The highest can be termed as desired service: the level of service the customer hopes to receive the wished for level of performance. Desired service is a blend of what the customer believes can be and should be . For example, you will engage the services of your college placement office when you are ready to graduate. What are your expectations of the service? In all you want the office
48
to find you a job the right job in the right place for the right salary because that is what you hope and wish for. However, you probably also see that the economy may constrain the availability of ideal job openings in companies and not all companies you may be interested in have a relationship with your placement office. In this situation and in general, customers hope to achieve their services desires but recognize that this is not always possible. We call the threshold level of acceptable service adequate service the level of service the customer will accept. Customers typically hold similar desired expectations across categories of service, but these categories are not as broad as whole industries. Among subcategories of restaurants are expensive restaurants, ethnic restaurants, fast food restaurants and airport restaurants. A customer s desired service expectation for fast food restaurants is quick, convenient, tasty food in a clean sitting. The desired service expectation for an expensive restaurant, on the other hand, usually involves elegant surroundings, gracious employees, candlelight, and fine food. In essence, desired service expectations seem to be the same for service providers within industry categories or subcategories that are viewed as similar by customers. The adequate service expectation level, on the other hand, may vary for different firms within a category or subcategory. Within fast food restaurants, a customer may hold a higher expectation for McDonald s than for Burger King, having experienced consistent service at McDonald s over time and somewhat inconsistent service at Burger King. The Zone of Tolerance As we know that services are heterogeneous from the above discussion in that the performance may vary across providers, across employees and the same provider, and even with the same service employee. The extent to which customers recognize and are willing to accept this variation is called the zone of tolerance. If service drops below adequate service the minimum level considered acceptable customers will be frustrated and their satisfaction with the company will be undermined. If the service performance exceeds desired service customers will be very pleased and probably quite surprised as well.
49
Desired Service
Zone of Tolerance
Adequate Service
Fig. Dual Customer Expectation Levels & Zone of Tolerance
Different customers possess different Zones of Tolerance Some customers have narrow zones of tolerance, requiring a tighter range of service from providers, whereas other customers allow a greater range of service. For example, very busy customers would likely always be pressed for time, desire short waiting times in general, and also hold a constrained range for the length of acceptable wait times. An individual customer s zone of tolerance increases or decreases depending upon number of factors, including company controlled factors such as price. When prices increase, customers tend to be less tolerant of poor service. In this case, the zone of tolerance decreases because the adequate service level shifts upward. Zone of Tolerance Vary for Service Dimensions: Customer s tolerance zones also vary for different service attributes or dimensions. The more important the factor, the narrower the zone of tolerance is likely to be. In general, customers are likely to be less tolerant about unreliable service (broken promises or service errors) than other service deficiency, which means that they have higher expectations for this factor. In addition to the higher expectations for the most important service dimensions and attributes, customers are likely to be less willing to relax these expectations than those for less important factors, making zone of tolerance for the most important service dimension smaller and the desired and adequate service levels higher.
50
Level of Expe ctatio n
Desired Service Adequate Service Zone of Tolerance Zone of Tolerance Adequate Service
Adequate Service
Most important factors
Least important factors
Fig. Zone of Tolerance For Different Service Dimensions

Source: Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml (1993)
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS OF SERVICE Sources of Desired Service Expectations Personal needs, those states or conditions essential to the physical or psychological well being of the customer, are pivotal factors that shape what we desire in service. Personal needs can fall into many categories, including physical, social, psychological, and functional. Enduring service intensifiers are individual, stable factors that lead the customer to a heightened sensitivity to service. One of the most important of these factors can be called derived service expectations, which occur when customer expectations are derived by another person or group of people. A niece from a big family who is planning a 90th birthday party for a favorite aunt is representing the entire family in selecting a restaurant for the celebration. Her needs are driven by the derived expectations from the other family members. Another enduring service intensifier is personal service philosophy the customer s underlying generic attitude about the meaning of service and the proper product of service providers. In general, the customers who are
51
themselves in service businesses or have worked for them in the past seem to have especially strong service philosophies.
Enduring service intensifiers EXPECTED SERVICE Desired Service Personal needs Zone of Tolerance
Adequate Service
Fig. Factors That Influence Desired Service
Sources of Adequate Service Expectations

Transitory service intensifiers Desired Service
Perceived service alternatives
Self-perceived service role
Zone of Tolerance
Situational factors
Adequate Service
Predicted Service
Fig. Factors that Influence Adequate Service
52
Transitory service intensifiers, consists of temporary, usually short-term, individual factors that make a customer more aware of the need for service. Personal emergency situations in which service is urgently needed (such as a accident and the need of the automobile insurance or a breakdown in office equipment during a busy period) raise the level of responsiveness required and considered acceptable. Perceived service alternatives are other providers from whom the customer can obtain service. If customers have multiple service providers to choose from, or if they can provide the service for themselves (such as lawn care or personal grooming), their levels of adequate service are higher than those of customers who believe it is not possible to get better service elsewhere. Customer s self-perceived service role are the customers perceptions of the degree to which customers exert an influence on the level of service they receive. A customer who is very explicit with a waiter about how rare he wants his steak cooked in a restaurant will probably be more dissatisfied if the meat comes to the table overcooked than a customer who does not articulate the degree of doneness expected. Situational factors are service performance conditions that customers view as beyond the control of the service provider. For example, where personal emergencies such as serious automobile accidents would likely intensify customer service expectations of insurance companies, catastrophes that affect a large number of people at one time(tornadoes or earthquakes) may lower service expectations because customers might realize that insurers are inundated with demands for their services. Predicted service, is the level of service customers believe they are likely to get. Predicted service performance implies some objective calculation of the probability of performance or estimate of anticipated service performance level. For example, your predicted service expectations about the length of time you will spend in the waiting room the next time you visit your doctor will likely be expressed in terms of the number of minutes or hours you have spent in the waiting room this time.
53
Sources of both Desired and Predicted Service Expectations
Desired Service
Zone of Tolerance
Adequate Service
Perceived service alternatives Perceived service alternatives
Fig. Factors that Influence Desired and Predicted Service Explicit service promises are personal and non personal statements about the service made by the organization to the customers. The statements are personal when they are communicated by salespeople or service or repair personnel; they are non personal when they come from advertising, brochures, and other written publications. Explicit promises are one of the few influences on expectations that are completely in the control of the service provider. Implicit service promises are service related cues other than explicit promises that lead to inferences about what the service should and will be like. These quality cues are dominated by price and the tangibles associated with the service. In general, higher the price and the more impressive the tangibles, the more a customer will expect from the service.
54
Word of mouth communication in shaping expectations of service is well documented. These personal and sometimes non personal statements made by the parties other than the organization convey to customers what the service will be like and influence both predicted and desired service. Word of mouth tends to be more important in services that are difficult to evaluate before purchase and direct experience of them. Experts (including Consumer Reports, friends family) are word of mouth sources that can affect the levels of desired and predicted service. Past experience, the customer s previous exposure to service that is relevant to the focal service, is another force in shaping predictions and desires. For example, you probably compare each stay in a particular hotel with all previous stays in that hotel.
Practical implementation of GAPS MODEL Implementation of the Gaps Model was done by selecting a prominent service industry like the coffee industry. We assume that there are two major players in the coffee industry viz. Caf Coffee Day and Barista. A survey was carried to measure three service dimensions
Caf Staff
People
Caf Service
Proces s
Physical evidence
Caf
Fig. Evidence of Service (from customer point of view)
55
Because services are intangible, customers are searching for evidence of every interaction they have with the organization. The three major categories of evidence as experienced by the customer: People, Process and Physical Evidence. These categorize together represent the service and provide the evidence that tangibilizes the offering. We take the key attributes of these dimensions and measure them. The survey includes 19 core questions, as well as an open ended comment box where the customers can submit their feedback on the caf. For example When it comes to receiving what is ordered . The customers are asked to mark the minimum level of service that they would find acceptable, the desired level that they expected, and the perceived service level (the level of service that the caf would provides) on the scale 1(low) to 9(high).
Please rate every item in all the three columns by darkening to mark your rating When it comes to My Minimum Service Level is Low Service 1. Receiving what is ordered 2. Time of receiving order High My Desired Service Level is Low High My Perceived Service Level is Low High
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Each question therefore has three sets of score associated with it: one for minimum service, one for desired service and third for perceived service.
To understand the gap scores, it helps to envision the three number scores for each question as points on a single line. The space between the desired and the minimum scores is called the zone of tolerance. Zone of Tolerance = Desired - Minimum
56
There are two types of gaps measured by this survey. First is the service superiority gap score, is calculated by subtracting the desired score from the perceived score on any given question. In this example, the gap score is negative because the user s perceptions of service quality are below their desired score. Ser vice Super ior it y = Desir ed - Perceived
Second is the service adequacy gap score, is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived score. For this example the gap score is positive since the perceived score is above the minimum score.
Service Adequacy = Perceived - Minimum
57
User s perception of service quality does not always fall between minimum and desired . In this question you can see that there is a positive service adequacy gap, since the user s perception of service quality is above the minimum level. Question also shows a positive superiority gap, where users indicate that their perceived level of service quality is greater than the desired level of service quality.
This question illustrates negative gap scores. In this case, negative service adequacy gap score indicates that user perceptions of service quality fall below their minimum acceptable level.
Radar Chart Radar chart are the helpful way to summarize the 19 questions and the three scales. To create a radar chart, scores from individual user surveys are combined to form one set of aggregate survey data. The minimum, perceived and desired mean scores for each question may be mapped as single points on a line, with differences between them highlighted in color. On the radar chart these lines each representing one question are laid out like spokes on a wheel, and the differences are shaded accordingly.
58
For each survey question, the chart has the minimum, desired and the perceived scores, as well as mean scores for the service adequacy and service superiority gaps. Areas between each of the mean scores on the radar chart are color coded to highlight the differences. This process is repeated for each individual item. Mean scores are mapped as points on a single line and the areas between scores are highlighted. On the Radar chart, differences are highlighted in color: red indicates areas where the perceived scores is less than the minimum score; blue is where perceived scores are greater than minimum scores; By looking at the radar chart as the whole, for Caf Coffee Day and Barista you can have overall understanding between the service quality of the two coffee shops. Also the total radar chart comprising of the both the Caf Coffee Day and Barista will show what is the users perception of service quality of the total coffee service industry (our assumption which states that Caf Coffee Day and Barista cover the total coffee service industry).
59
OBSERVATION S AN D CALCULATIONS
60
Caf Coffee Day Observations Service (1)Receiving what is ordered My Min. service level is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean 5 4 5 5 7 7 6 5 8 8 4 6 4 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 157 6.28 My Desired service level is 7 6 6 5 8 8 7 5 8 8 9 6 7 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 9 9 9 9 9 195 7.8 My Perceived level is 6 3 3 5 8 8 6 7 8 8 7 6 7 7 9 7 9 6 9 5 7 6 8 8 8 171 6.84 My Min. service level is 8 5 5 2 7 6 7 4 7 8 9 7 4 6 8 9 9 8 4 7 5 5 5 5 5 155 6.2 (2)Time of receiving order My Desired service level is 9 5 6 2 8 8 7 4 8 8 9 8 6 9 9 9 9 8 9 7 8 8 9 8 8 189 7.56 My Perceived level is 6 3 8 2 4 3 6 7 6 8 8 7 6 7 9 6 7 8 5 5 8 7 7 8 7 158 6.32 My Min. service level is 6 5 7 1 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 5 7 7 9 9 4 4 7 5 5 5 5 5 149 5.96 (3)Time of getting serviced My Desired service level is 6 6 7 4 8 8 6 7 7 6 8 7 7 9 9 9 9 6 8 7 8 7 8 8 8 183 7.32 My Perceived level is 8 6 5 3 3 3 3 7 5 6 7 7 6 7 9 6 7 7 5 6 8 7 8 7 7 156 6.24
Sr. no
Superiority Gap -1 -3 -3 0 0 0 -1 2 0 0 -2 0 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 1 -2 -2 -3 -1 -1 -1 -24 -0.96
Adequacy gap 1 -1 -2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 -2 0 -2 0 -3 3 -1 2 1 3 2 3 14 0.56
Superiority Gap -3 -2 2 0 -4 -5 -1 3 -2 0 -1 -1 0 -2 0 -3 -2 0 -4 -2 0 -1 -2 0 -1 -31 -1.24
Adequacy gap -2 -2 3 0 -3 -3 -1 3 -1 0 -1 0 2 1 1 -3 -2 0 1 -2 3 2 2 3 2 3 0.12
Superiority Gap 2 0 -2 -1 -5 -5 -3 0 -2 0 -1 0 -1 -2 0 -3 -2 1 -3 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -27 -1.08
Adequacy gap 2 1 -2 2 -4 -4 -4 1 -2 0 0 1 1 0 2 -3 -2 3 1 -1 3 2 3 2 2 7 0.28
61
Caf Coffee Day Observations Caf (6)Caf Merchandise My Min. service level is 6 5 7 4 7 6 5 7 7 8 3 7 5 3 4 8 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 6 5 139 5.56 My Desired service level is 7 5 7 6 8 8 6 7 7 8 9 7 6 3 8 8 8 7 8 4 9 9 9 9 9 176 7.04 My Min. service level is 9 6 7 8 6 6 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 9 3 9 7 4 7 9 5 5 5 5 5 161 6.44 My Desired service level is 9 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 8 8 9 8 8 9 8 9 8 7 7 9 9 8 8 9 8 196 7.84 (7)Ambience My Min. service level is 7 5 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 8 6 6 6 9 2 9 6 5 6 7 5 6 5 5 5 154 6.16 My Desired service level is 9 8 7 8 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 5 8 9 3 9 9 8 9 7 8 8 9 7 9 193 7.72 (8)Music
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
My Perceived level is 8 6 3 5 6 6 5 6 8 8 7 6 5 3 4 8 6 7 5 3 7 6 7 8 7 150 6
Superiority Gap 1 1 -4 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 1 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -4 0 -2 0 -3 -1 -2 -3 -2 -1 -2 -26 -1.04
Adequacy gap 2 1 -4 1 -1 0 0 -1 1 0 4 -1 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1 -1 2 1 2 2 2 11 0.44
My Perceived level is 7 7 5 8 5 6 7 5 9 8 8 7 7 7 3 9 6 7 6 3 8 7 8 7 7 167 6.68
Superiority Gap -2 1 -2 1 -2 -1 0 -1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -5 0 -2 0 -1 -6 -1 -1 0 -2 -1 -29 -1.16
Adequacy gap -2 1 -2 0 -1 0 0 -1 2 1 2 0 1 -2 0 0 -1 3 -1 -6 3 2 3 2 2 6 0.24
Superiority Gap -1 -3 -6 0 -2 -3 0 -1 1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 3 -2 -4 0 -6 0 0 -2 -3 0 -3 -35 -1.4
Adequacy gap 1 0 -6 1 -2 -2 0 1 2 0 2 -1 1 -1 4 -2 -1 3 -3 0 3 0 1 2 1 4 0.16
62
Caf Coffee Day Observations Caf (9)Time My Desired service level is 8 7 7 4 8 7 5 8 4 8 8 7 7 9 7 8 7 7 7 5 8 8 8 8 8 178 7.08 (10)Value for money My Desired service level is 8 7 6 7 8 8 6 8 1 9 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 9 9 9 8 9 189 7.56
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
My Min. service level is 8 7 7 2 6 5 5 5 1 8 6 7 3 9 6 8 6 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 139 5.56
Superiority Gap -2 0 -2 -1 -2 -1 0 0 2 0 -1 -1 -2 0 -1 0 -2 1 0 0 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1 -19 -0.72
Adequacy gap -2 0 -2 1 0 1 0 3 5 0 1 -1 2 0 0 0 -1 3 3 0 1 2 2 1 2 20 0.8
Superiority Gap 0 -2 -2 1 -2 -2 0 0 3 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -4 -5 0 -4 1 -2 -3 -3 -2 -3 -32 -1.28
Adequacy gap 4 0 -2 2 -1 -1 0 1 3 0 0 -1 3 0 -1 -4 -2 2 -1 1 1 1 -1 0 1 13 0.52
63
Caf Coffee Day Observations Caf (11)Location My Min. service level is 7 6 7 8 7 5 8 7 2 7 4 8 3 7 8 9 7 6 7 9 6 5 5 5 5 158 6.32 My Desired service level is 7 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 6 9 4 8 6 8 8 9 8 8 7 9 8 8 8 8 8 190 7.6 My Min. service level is 5 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 3 7 4 7 1 8 7 7 6 7 4 9 5 5 5 5 5 145 5.8 (!2)Other Customers My Desired service level is 6 7 7 7 7 8 6 7 6 7 6 7 8 8 7 6 9 8 7 9 8 8 8 8 9 184 7.36 My Min. service level is 7 5 7 8 6 5 6 6 1 7 6 8 6 8 7 8 7 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 149 5.96 My Desired service level is 7 6 7 8 8 8 6 8 7 9 8 8 9 8 7 8 9 7 7 5 8 8 8 8 9 191 7.64 (!3)Overall Caf
Sr.no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap -1 1 -2 0 -2 -1 0 1 -1 -2 2 -1 1 0 1 0 -1 -3 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -8 -0.32
Adequacy gap -1 1 -2 0 -1 2 0 2 3 0 2 -1 4 1 1 0 0 -1 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 24 0.96
Superiority Gap 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -2 0 1 0 0 1 0 -5 0 1 2 -2 0 -5 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -17 -0.68
Adequacy gap 1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 -2 0 3 2 2 2 2 22 0.88
Superiority Gap -1 -2 -2 0 -2 -1 0 0 -3 -1 -1 -1 0 0 2 0 -4 1 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -21 -0.84
Adequacy gap -1 -1 -2 0 0 2 0 2 3 1 1 -1 3 0 2 0 -2 3 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 21 0.84
64
Caf Coffee Day Observations Caf Staff (14)Courteousness My Min. service level is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean 7 5 7 9 6 6 5 6 5 9 5 9 6 9 8 9 6 6 6 7 5 5 5 5 5 161 6.44 My Desired service level is 8 7 7 9 7 8 6 8 6 9 6 9 7 9 8 9 8 8 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 198 7.92 My Min. service level is 9 6 7 7 7 5 7 6 6 7 5 7 6 8 7 7 6 6 5 8 5 5 5 5 5 158 6.32 My Desired service level is 9 7 7 8 8 7 8 8 6 7 5 8 7 8 8 7 6 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 189 7.56 (15)Dressing My Min. service level is 6 5 7 5 7 5 5 7 7 7 5 9 6 7 7 7 7 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 150 6 (16)Rate of giving individual attention My Desired service level is 6 6 7 6 8 8 5 8 7 7 8 9 9 7 8 8 7 5 9 6 9 8 9 9 9 188 7.52
Sr.no
Superiority Gap -3 -1 -4 0 -1 -2 -1 0 -2 -1 0 -2 0 0 1 -3 -4 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 -2 -1 -2 -33 -1.32
Adequacy gap -2 1 -4 0 0 0 0 2 -1 -1 1 -2 1 0 1 -3 -2 1 0 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 0.16
My Perceived level is 8 7 5 7 7 7 7 8 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 5 8 5 8 8 8 7 8 7 175 7
Superiority Gap -1 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 2 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -14 -0.56
Adequacy gap -1 1 -2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 -1 1 -1 -1 2 0 0 3 3 2 3 2 17 0.68
Superiority Gap -1 -2 -4 0 -2 -2 0 0 -1 0 -3 -3 -4 0 -3 -2 0 3 -6 0 -2 -1 -2 -2 -3 -17 -0.68
Adequacy gap -1 -1 -4 1 -1 1 0 1 -1 0 0 -3 -1 0 -2 -1 0 3 -2 0 2 2 2 2 1 21 0.84
65
Caf Coffee Day Observations Caf Staff (17)Readiness to respond to questions My Desired service level is 8 7 7 7 7 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 9 8 7 9 8 8 8 9 8 7 9 7 9 196 7.84 (18)Dependability on handling user service problems My Desired service level is 4 6 7 7 7 6 8 8 9 6 8 8 9 8 7 8 7 8 6 7 8 8 9 8 9 186 7.44 (19)Overall Caf Staff My Desired service level is 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 8 9 9 7 8 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 198 7.92
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap -1 -1 -4 -1 -1 -2 -1 0 -5 -4 -2 -2 -2 0 -2 -4 -6 -1 -3 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -3 -49 -1.96
Adequacy gap -1 1 -4 2 0 0 0 2 -5 0 0 -2 1 0 -2 -4 -4 3 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 -5 -0.2
Superiority Gap 2 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -2 0 -4 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1 1 -3 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -30 -1.2
Adequacy gap 4 1 -2 0 0 1 -1 2 -4 -1 1 -1 2 0 1 -3 -1 3 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 14 0.56
Superiority Gap 1 -2 -2 0 -1 0 -1 0 -4 -1 0 -1 -2 0 -1 -4 -3 0 -4 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -29 -1.16
Adequacy gap 1 -1 -2 0 0 1 -2 2 -4 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -4 1 2 -1 1 3 2 2 2 2 7 0.28
66
Barista Observations Service (1)Receiving what is ordered My Min. service level is 5 4 9 4 6 7 8 9 9 4 8 5 5 5 8 7 7 8 6 8 4 4 6 6 5 159 6.36 My Desired service level is 7 5 9 8 8 7 8 9 9 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 6 205 8.2 My Perceived level is 4 7 3 7 7 6 8 9 7 6 8 7 6 8 8 9 7 9 4 8 8 8 6 6 7 173 6.92 My Min. service level is 7 7 7 6 7 5 6 7 9 5 9 7 6 5 6 9 7 8 6 7 5 6 6 7 4 164 6.56 (2)Time of receiving order My Desired service level is 7 9 7 8 8 6 5 7 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 9 8 8 9 9 6 200 8 My Perceived level is 8 9 8 7 8 6 6 7 5 3 8 7 7 7 6 9 7 6 4 8 7 4 6 7 6 166 6.64 My Min. service level is 7 5 4 5 6 7 6 7 8 3 9 6 6 6 5 9 8 8 8 8 5 6 6 6 6 158 6.32 (3)Time of getting serviced My Desired service level is 8 7 4 9 7 7 7 7 8 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 9 8 9 9 8 8 9 9 6 190 7.6 My Perceived level is 7 6 8 8 7 7 7 7 5 5 7 6 6 7 3 8 7 9 6 6 6 3 6 5 7 159 6.36
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap -3 2 -6 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -2 -2 0 -2 -3 -1 -1 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 -3 -3 1 -32 -1.28
Adequacy gap -1 3 -6 3 1 -1 0 0 -2 2 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 -2 0 4 4 0 0 2 14 0.56
Superiority Gap 1 0 1 -1 0 0 1 0 -4 -6 -1 -2 -2 -1 -2 1 -2 -2 -4 -1 -1 -4 -3 -2 0 -34 -1.36
Adequacy gap 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 -4 -2 -1 0 1 2 0 0 0 -2 -2 1 2 -2 0 0 2 2 0.08
Superiority Gap -1 -1 4 -1 0 0 0 0 -3 -4 -2 -2 -2 -1 -6 0 -2 1 -3 -3 -2 -5 -3 -4 1 -31 -1.24
Adequacy gap 0 1 4 3 1 0 1 0 -3 2 -2 0 0 1 -2 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 1 -3 0 -1 1 1 0.04
67
Barista Observations Service (4)Time of getting the bill My Min. service level is 8 9 2 7 6 6 8 7 8 1 8 5 5 5 8 9 6 6 8 7 4 5 6 7 4 155 6.2 My Desired service level is 8 9 4 8 8 6 8 7 9 9 8 7 7 8 8 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 200 8 My Perceived level is 8 9 7 7 8 6 8 8 6 5 9 7 7 7 3 8 7 8 6 6 6 3 6 7 7 169 6.76 My Min. service level is 8 8 6 8 6 6 8 7 9 4 9 5 5 5 8 9 7 7 8 7 4 6 7 7 5 169 6.76 My Desired service level is 8 9 6 8 8 6 8 7 9 9 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 6 206 8.24 (5)Overall Service My Perceived level is 8 9 6 7 8 6 8 7 7 5 5 7 7 7 4 8 7 8 5 8 6 3 6 7 7 166 6.64
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap 0 0 3 -1 0 0 0 1 -3 -4 1 0 0 -1 -5 -1 -2 0 -3 -3 -3 -6 -3 -2 1 -31 -1.24
Adequacy gap 0 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 -2 4 1 2 2 2 -5 -1 1 2 -2 -1 2 -2 0 0 3 14 0.56
Superiority Gap 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -2 -4 -3 -1 -1 -1 -5 -1 -2 -1 -4 -1 -3 -6 -3 -2 1 -40 -1.6
Adequacy gap 0 1 0 -1 2 0 0 0 -2 1 -4 2 2 2 -4 -1 0 1 -3 1 2 -3 -1 0 2 -3 -0.12
68
Barista Observations Caf (6)Caf Merchandise My Min. service level is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean 9 5 8 8 6 6 6 5 8 3 8 6 5 6 6 8 7 8 7 7 4 5 8 7 5 164 6.56 My Desired service level is 9 5 8 8 8 6 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 9 8 7 202 8.08 My Min. service level is 6 9 8 8 6 7 7 8 9 5 9 6 5 6 9 8 8 8 8 7 4 5 8 7 5 176 7.04 My Desired service level is 9 9 8 8 8 7 7 9 9 9 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 213 8.52 (7)Ambience My Min. service level is 8 7 6 7 6 8 7 8 9 9 8 7 5 5 8 8 7 7 8 6 4 5 7 7 6 173 6.92 My Desired service level is 8 9 6 6 8 8 7 9 9 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 9 8 205 8.2 (8)Music
Sr. no
Superiority Gap -1 2 0 -1 -2 0 0 -2 -1 -5 0 -1 -2 -1 -4 -2 -3 -4 -2 0 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -39 -1.56
Adequacy gap -1 2 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -1 1 2 2 -1 -1 -1 -3 0 1 2 3 0 0 1 -1 -0.04
Superiority Gap 0 0 -1 -1 -2 0 -2 -2 -1 -3 0 -1 -2 0 -5 -1 -4 -4 -4 -2 0 -4 -1 -1 -1 -42 -1.68
Adequacy gap 3 0 -1 -1 0 0 -2 -1 -1 1 0 1 2 2 -5 -1 -3 -3 -3 0 5 0 0 1 1 -5 -0.2
Superiority Gap -1 -2 1 0 -1 0 0 -4 -4 -5 -1 -3 0 0 -5 0 -2 -2 -4 -2 0 -3 -2 -1 -2 -43 -1.72
Adequacy gap -1 0 1 -1 1 0 0 -3 -4 -5 -1 -1 2 3 -4 0 0 0 -4 0 4 1 0 1 0 -11 -0.44
69
Barista Observations Caf (9)Time My Desired service level is 8 5 7 7 6 7 5 9 9 5 6 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 9 8 194 7.76 My Desired service level is 9 9 5 8 7 7 6 9 9 8 6 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 205 8.2 (10)Value for money
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 -1 0 -1 -2 -1 -7 -1 -2 -3 -3 0 0 -5 -2 -2 -1 -37 -1.48
Adequacy gap 3 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -2 0 -1 0 1 0 2 -6 0 -1 -1 -2 1 2 -1 1 1 2 -2 -0.08
Superiority Gap -2 -4 -1 -1 -2 0 0 -3 -5 -7 0 -2 -3 -2 -8 -1 -3 -5 -5 -3 -1 -5 -2 0 -3 -68 -2.72
Adequacy gap 4 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -2 -5 -4 1 2 0 1 -7 0 -3 -3 -4 -1 -1 -1 1 2 -1 -25 -1
70
Barista Observations Caf (11)Location My Min. service level is 7 7 7 8 5 8 7 6 9 6 9 6 5 5 8 8 8 8 9 7 5 5 6 7 4 170 6.64 My Desired service level is 7 7 7 8 7 8 7 5 9 9 9 8 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 8 5 202 6.64 My Min. service level is 8 5 7 7 6 7 5 3 9 9 9 5 5 5 8 7 8 7 9 6 5 5 6 7 4 160 6.64 (12)Other Customers My Desired service level is 8 6 7 7 8 7 7 5 9 9 9 8 7 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 7 6 197 6.64 My Min. service level is 9 8 6 7 6 7 7 7 9 4 6 5 5 5 9 8 8 8 9 6 5 5 8 7 6 170 6.8 My Desired service level is 9 8 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 8 5 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 8 8 202 8.08 (!3)Overall Caf
Sr.no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap -1 2 0 -1 -1 0 -1 1 0 -3 0 -1 0 -1 -2 -2 -1 -6 -1 0 0 -5 -1 -1 0 -29 0
Adequacy gap -1 2 0 -1 1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 -1 -1 0 -5 -1 1 3 -1 2 0 1 3 0
Superiority Gap -3 0 1 -1 -1 0 0 1 0 -5 0 0 0 0 -5 -2 -1 -4 -5 -1 -1 -4 -2 1 1 -31 0
Adequacy gap -3 1 1 -1 1 0 2 3 0 -5 0 3 2 3 -4 0 0 -2 -5 1 2 0 1 1 3 6 0
Superiority Gap -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 -2 -1 -4 -5 0 0 -5 -2 -1 -2 -39 -1.56
Adequacy gap -1 0 0 -1 1 0 1 -1 -1 2 -2 2 2 2 -5 -1 0 -3 -5 2 3 -1 -1 0 0 -7 -0.28
71
Barista Observations Caf Staff (14)Courteousness Sr.no My My Min. service level Perceived Superiority level is is Gap 1 7 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean 7 4 8 5 5 7 7 8 8 8 5 5 5 9 8 8 6 7 5 5 4 8 6 5 160 6.4 8 7 8 7 5 7 9 8 9 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 9 8 7 202 8.08 8 7 8 6 5 7 7 7 5 6 8 7 7 3 8 8 7 5 8 8 2 5 7 6 163 6.52 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -2 -1 -4 -2 0 -2 -2 -6 -1 -1 -1 -4 -1 0 -6 -4 -1 -1 -39 -1.56 Adequacy gap 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 -1 -3 -2 3 2 2 -6 0 0 1 -2 3 3 -2 -3 1 1 3 0.12 My Min. service level is 5 6 7 8 6 6 7 4 9 4 7 5 6 5 7 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 8 8 5 155 6.2 My Desired service level is 8 7 7 8 7 6 7 8 9 8 7 8 7 8 8 9 9 8 9 9 8 8 9 8 5 195 7.8 (15)Dressing My Perceived Superiority Adequacy level is Gap gap 6 -2 1 7 8 8 7 6 7 7 7 5 6 7 7 7 4 8 7 6 5 8 5 5 7 8 6 164 6.56 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -1 -1 0 -1 -4 -1 -2 -2 -4 -1 -3 -3 -2 0 1 -31 -1.24 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 -2 1 -1 2 1 2 -3 0 -1 0 -1 2 1 1 -1 0 1 9 0.36 My Min. service level is 8 7 3 9 5 7 5 5 9 5 5 5 6 5 9 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 8 6 5 154 6.16 (16)Rate of giving individual attention My Desired service level is 8 7 3 9 7 7 6 8 9 9 6 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 200 8 My Perceived Superiority level is Gap 7 -1 5 2 7 6 7 6 7 6 3 6 7 8 8 2 8 9 6 4 8 8 1 6 6 7 150 6 -2 -1 -2 -1 0 0 -1 -3 -6 0 -2 0 -1 -7 -1 0 -3 -5 -1 -1 -7 -3 -2 -1 -50 -2
Adequacy gap -1 -2 -1 -2 1 0 1 2 -3 -2 1 2 2 3 -7 0 1 0 -2 2 4 -3 -2 0 2 -4 -0.16
72
Barista Observations Caf Staff (17)Readiness to respond to questions My Desired service level is 5 8 6 7 7 8 4 8 9 9 6 9 9 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 8 201 8.04 (18)Dependability on handling user service problems My Desired service level is 8 7 8 8 8 7 6 8 9 7 6 9 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 8 202 8.08 (19) Overall Caf Staff My Desired service level is 8 6 6 8 7 7 7 8 9 9 5 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 198 7.92
Sr. no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Mean
Superiority Gap 0 0 1 0 -2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -2 -2 0 -5 -1 -2 -3 -5 -2 -3 -5 -4 -4 -1 -45 -1.8
Adequacy gap 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 1 2 2 3 -5 0 -1 0 -1 1 0 -1 -1 -3 2 2 0.08
Superiority Gap -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -3 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 -2 -2 -3 -4 -2 -2 -5 -4 -3 -2 -46 -1.84
Adequacy gap -1 -1 0 -1 1 0 0 0 -3 3 1 3 2 2 -3 -1 -1 -1 0 1 1 -1 -1 0 1 1 0.04
Superiority Gap 0 2 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 -2 -3 0 -1 -1 -1 -6 -1 -1 -3 -4 0 0 -5 -4 -2 -1 -37 -1.48
Adequac y gap 3 1 -1 -1 0 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 2 2 -5 0 -1 -2 -1 2 4 -1 -3 -1 2 7 0.28
73
Caf Coffee Day Calculations Sr. No

Service
Attribute
Minimum Desired Perceived Superiority Adequacy Mean Mean Mean Gap Gap
1 2 3 4 5
Receiving what is ordered Time of receiving order Time of getting served Time of getting the bill Overall service Caf
6.28 6.2 5.96 5.4 6.12
7.8 7.56 7.32 7.28 8.08
6.84 6.32 6.24 5.72 6.52
-0.96 -1.24 -1.08 -1.56 -1.56
0.56 0.12 0.28 0.32 0.4
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Merchandise Ambience Music Time Value for money Location Other customers Overall caf Caf Staff
6.44 6.44 6.16 5.56 5.76 6.32 5.8 5.96
7.84 7.84 7.72 7.08 7.56 7.6 7.36 7.64
6.68 6.68 6.32 6.36 6.28 7.28 6.68 6.8
-1.16 -1.16 -1.4 -0.72 -1.28 -0.32 -0.68 -0.84
0.24 0.24 0.16 0.8 0.52 0.96 0.88 0.84
14 15 16 17 18 19
Courteousness Dressing Rate of giving individual attention Readiness to respond to questions Dependability on handling user service problems Overall caf staff
6.44 6.32 6 6.08 5.68 6.48
7.92 7.56 7.52 7.84 7.44 7.92
6.6 7 6.84 5.88 6.24 6.76
-1.32 -0.56 -0.68 -1.96 -1.2 -1.16
0.16 0.68 0.84 -0.2 0.56 0.28
* Number in red for adequacy score indicate immediate attention is required at these attributes * Number in green for superiority gap indicates that score is below desired hence negative but within zone of tolerance.
74
Barista Calculations
Sr. No
Service
Attribute
Minimum Desired Perceived Superiority Adequacy Mean Mean Mean Gap Gap
1 2 3 4 5
Receiving what is ordered Time of receiving order Time of getting served Time of getting the bill Overall service Caf
6.36 6.56 6.32 6.2 6.76
8.2 8 7.6 8 8.24
6.92 6.64 6.36 6.76 6.64
-1.28 -1.36 -1.24 -1.24 -1.6
0.56 0.08 0.04 0.56 -0.12
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Merchandise Ambience Music Time Value for money Location Other customers Overall caf Caf Staff
6.56 7.04 6.92 6.36 6.48 6.8 6.4 6.8
8.08 8.52 8.2 7.76 8.2 8.08 7.84 8.08
6.52 6.84 6.48 6.28 5.48 6.92 6.64 6.52
-1.56 -1.68 -1.72 -1.48 -2.72 -1.16 -1.2 -1.56
-0.04 -0.2 -0.44 -0.08 -1 0.12 0.24 -0.28
14 15 16 17 18 19
Courteousness Dressing Rate of giving individual attention Readiness to respond to questions Dependability on handling user service problems Overall caf staff
6.4 6.2 6.16 6.16 6.2 6.16
8.08 7.8 8 8.04 8.08 7.92
6.52 6.56 6 6.24 6.24 6.44
-1.56 -1.24 -2 -1.8 -1.84 -1.48
0.12 0.36 -0.16 0.08 0.04 0.28
* Number in red for adequacy score indicate immediate attention is required at these attributes * Number in green for superiority gap indicates that score is below desired hence negative but within zone of tolerance.
75
CHARTS AND INTERPRETATION
76
Caf Coffee Day

Attributes
1 Receiving what is ordered 2 Time of receiving order 3 Time of getting served 4 Time of getting the bill 5 Overall Service 6 Merchandise 7 Ambience 8 Music 9 Time 10 Value for money 11 Location 12 Other Customers 13 Overall Caf 14 Courteousness 15 Dressing 16 Rate of giving individual attention 17 Readiness to respond to questions 18 Dependability on handling user service problems 19 Overall Caf Staff
Desired mean Minimum mean Perceived mean
1 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 10 8 6 4 2 0 7 5 6 2 3 4
Radar Chart: In Radar chart, radial lines indicates the attributes, while the circular lines indicate the scale (0-10)
77
Barista
Attributes
1 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 10 8 6 4 2 0 7 5 6 2 3 4
Radar Chart: In Radar chart radial lines indicates the attributes, while the circular lines indicate the scale (0-10)
78
Total Coffee Industry

Attributes
1 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 3 4 5 6 7
Radar Chart: In Radar chart, radial lines indicates the attributes, while the circular lines indicate the scale (0-10)
79
Interpretation and suggestions from the charts: For Caf Coffee Day From the Radar chart it is clear that the mean perceived score for attribute number 17 (Readiness to respond to questions) is below the mean minimum score this means that this attribute needs immediate attention from the caf staff since this attribute may be cause of dissatisfaction and hence should be taken care of. Also if you have look at the radar chart it is found that the mean perceived score for none of the attribute has crossed the mean desired score, this means that there is a scope for improvement for the caf to improve the service quality on all the three dimensions. This can be done by having a look at open ended questions (comment box) and designing the service (service blueprinting) so as to plug the gaps. The attributes for which the mean perceived score falls in between mean desired and mean minimum are in fact not a reason to worry since the customers can tolerate the amount of service quality received but if efforts are made to increase the service quality above the mean desired score along with consistency in service may cause delight in the customers and hence be loyal customers spreading positive word of mouth. The attributes like attribute no 17 should be taken extra care off since it may be cause of dissatisfaction for some customers which would not mind to switch to the caf s competitors. If the attributes for which the mean perceived scores are below the mean minimum scores can be improved then there is a greater chance for the caf to at least retain these customers.
80
For Barista From the Radar chart it is clear that the mean perceived score for attribute number 5 (Overall Service), 7(Ambience), 8(Music), 9(Time), 10(Value for money), 13(Overall cafe) and16 (Rate of giving individual attention) is below the mean minimum score this means that this attribute needs immediate attention from the caf staff since this attribute may be cause of dissatisfaction and hence should be taken care of. Also if you have look at the radar chart it is found that the mean perceived score for none of the attribute has crossed the mean desired score, this means that there is a scope for improvement for the caf to improve the service quality on all the three dimensions. This can be done by having a look at open ended questions (comment box) and designing the service (service blueprinting) so as to plug the gaps. The attributes for which the mean perceived score falls in between mean desired and mean minimum are in fact not a reason to worry since the customers can tolerate the amount of service quality received but if efforts are made to increase the service quality above the mean desired score along with consistency in service may cause delight in the customers and hence be loyal customers spreading positive word of mouth. The attributes like attribute no 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and16 should be taken extra care off since it may be cause of dissatisfaction for some customers which would not mind to switch to the caf s competitors. If the attributes for which the mean perceived scores are below the mean minimum scores can be improved then there is a greater chance for the caf to at least retain these customers. Some comments from customers regarding FOR CAF COFFEE DAY People More attention should be paid to older age people Staff should be ready to face dissatisfied customers. Process
81
Bill should be received faster. Service should be made more prompt. Physical Evidence More sitting arrangements should be made. Music should not be too loud. More sitting arrangements should be provided. Air conditioning equipment should be in working condition. Should have smoking and non smoking zones. Problem of parking should be solved. Price Prices should be reduced. FOR BARISTA People Need to give more personal attention to the customers. Staff should welcome the customers by a smile. Process Late service. Self service should not be there. Physical Evidence Parking must be provided. Should have smoking and non smoking areas. Books should be made available. Music too loud. More variety of music should be there. Price Reasonable pricing should be adopted.
82
Comparison between Caf Coffee Day and Barista Service Superiority score
Att. No CCD Barista 1 0.96 1.28 2 1.24 1.36 3 1.08 1.24 4 1.56 1.24 5 1.56 1.60 6 1.16 1.56 7 1.16 1.68 8 1.40 1.72 9 0.72 1.48 10 1.28 2.72 11 0.32 1.16 12 0.68 1.20 13 .840 1.56 14 1.32 1.56 15 0.56 1.24 16 0.68 2.00 17 1.96 1.80 18 1.20 1.84 19 1.16 1.48
Service Adequacy score

Att. No CCD Barista 1 0.56 0.56 2 0.12 0.08 3 0.28 0.04 4 0.32 0.56 5 0.40 0.12 6 0.24 0.04 7 0.24 0.20 8 0.16 0.44 9 0.80 0.08 10 0.52 1.00 11 0.96 0.12 12 0.88 0.24 13 0.84 0.28 14 0.16 0.12 15 0.68 0.36 16 0.84 0.16 17 0.20 0.08 18 0.56 0.04 19 0.28 0.28
From the Radar charts it is clear that the service quality of the Caf Coffee Day is much better than that of Barista. For the overall service factor the mean perceived score of Barista is below the minimum score while that of Caf Coffee Day is well above the minimum score which indicates that overall service of Caf Coffee Day is better than that of Barista. For the overall Caf factor the mean perceived score of Barista is below the minimum score while that of Caf Coffee Day is well above the minimum score which indicates that the overall caf experience of Caf Coffee Day is better than that of Barista. For the overall staff factor the mean perceived score of Barista and Caf Coffee Day is above the minimum score which indicates that both Caf Coffee Day and Barista are at par regarding the cafe staff. More comparison in detail can be made if we compare each attribute of Barista and Caf Coffee Day by calculating the superiority and adequacy gaps From the tables it can be seen that Service superiority score for Caf Coffee Day is greater than that of Barista for all the attributes except for attribute number 4 &17. Also the Service Adequacy score for Caf Coffee Day is greater than that of Barista for all the attributes except for attribute no. 4 and is same for attribute no. 1 & 19.
83
LIMITATIONS AND SCOPE FOR FURTHER STUDY
84
Limitations of the survey This survey was conducted only for the external customers hence the exact between the perceptions of the internal customers (provider) and the external customers which should be bridged cannot be established. The perceptions of the service quality of the internal customers (provider and employees) should also be measured by modifying the questionnaire. The sample size is selected by the method of The project was done for the Pune city only. Sample size of the survey was 25. More accuracy could be there if it is increased. Scope for further study The survey for internal customers can be carried out by slightly modifying the questionnaire. Gap between the external customers and internal customers should ideally be zero (the perception of the external customer matches with that of the internal customer) but if a gap exists then those aspects are the ones that required to be studied and steps to be taken to reduce the gap. Consumer buying behavior needs to be studied while implementing the change.
85
RELATION SH IP BETWEEN GAPS MODEL AN D BAXTER S MODEL
86
Relation between Gaps model and Baxter s model Both GAPS model and Baxter s model are used to provide the basic framework for improving the service delivery and maintaining the quality of service delivered required for satisfying the consumers. Gaps model gives the basic framework while the Baxter s model tells us how to improve the service with the help of Quality function deployment and by service blueprinting. Both models also say that the service quality is one of the important factor which affect the customer satisfaction apart from product quality, price, personal factors and situational factors. In fact, Baxter s model is itself a useful tool for reducing the Gap between the customer and the provider on which the gaps model of service quality focuses. Baxter s model offers some unique advantages 1. Errors due to oversimplication are reduced. For example: to say that portfolio management means buying and selling stocks is like describing the space shuttle as something that flies. Words are simply inadequate to describe a whole complex service system. 2. Errors due to incompleteness are reduced. In describing service, people (employees, managers, customers) tend to omit details of the service with which they are not familiar. For example: A person might do a fairly incredible job of describing how a discount stock brokerage service takes orders from customers. But would that person be able to describe how the monthly statements are created, how interactive system works, and how these two statements are integrated into the order taking process? 3. Errors due to subjectivity are reduced. Any one person describing a service in words will be biased by personal experiences and degree of exposure to service. There is natural (and mistaken) tendency to assume that because all people have gone to a fast food restaurant, they all understand what that service is.
87
4. Errors due to biased interpretation are reduced. No two people will define responsive, quick, or flexible in exactly the same way. For example: a supervisor or manager may suggest to a frontline service employee that the employee should try to be more flexible in providing service to the customer. Unless flexibility is further defined, the employee is likely to interpret the word differently from the manager. All these risks become very apparent in the new service development process, when the organization may be attempting to design services never before experienced by the customer. It is critical that all involved (managers, front line employees, and behind scenes support staff i.e internal customers) be working on customer (external customer) needs and expectations. For a service that already exists, any attempt to improve it will also suffer unless everyone has a shared vision of the service and associated issues. Apart from the advantages of the Baxter s model, Gaps model also helps in 1. Providing what the customers expect. 2. Providing the right service quality designs and standards. 3. Helps in delivering according to service standards. 4. Helps in matching performances with promises. Both make an attempt to satisfy the internal customers (employees) and the external customers. Hence, it can be said that Employee satisfaction + Customer satisfaction = Sustained profitability. We categorize some services where these models could be applied from major innovations to minor style changes. Major innovations are new services for market as yet undefined. Start up businesses consists of new services for a market that is already served by existing products that meet the same generic needs.
88
New services for the currently served market represent attempt to offer existing customers of the organization a service not previously available from the company (may be available from other companies). Service line extensions represents augmentations for the existing service line, such as a restaurant adding new menu items, an airline offering new routes etc. Service improvements represents perhaps the most common type of service innovation. For example, faster execution of service process etc. Style changes represent the most modest innovations, although they are highly visible. For example, changing the color scheme of a restaurant, website redesign etc.
89
SUMMARY
90
Summary Baxter s Model gives the systematic procedure of how to determine the important aspects of the service and it also gives the method how to determine these aspects and improve the service quality. It also says that improvement in quality is the most important in the service delivery process. This quality can be achieved if various aspects of quality (Dimensions of quality) are attained. These in turn could be achieved by involving external and internal customers and by the way of continuous improvement. Gaps Model of Service Quality gives a insight in understanding the customer expectations and perceptions. It says that there are basically two types of gaps one is on the customer side and other on the provider side (4 gaps). For closing the gaps on the customer side it is necessary to plug the 4 gaps on the provider side. For plugging the gaps the aspects which are rated below the minimum service level are given more importance so that the customer from the dissatisfied zone moves to the zone of tolerance and he is at least retained. For the aspects which are rated between the zone of tolerance, these aspects should also be improved so that the perception of the customer about service quality moves above the desired service level and the customer feels more satisfied and becomes loyal spreading positive word of mouth.
91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
92
Bibliography Literature 1. Customer Retention Through Quality Leadership: The Baxter Approach By Deborah G. Fliehman David D. Auld 2. Services Marketing (3rd edition) By Valarie A. Ziethaml Mary Jo Bitner 3. Metric Consultancy Data Base 4. http://www.arl.org/libqual/ 5. http://www.metricconsultancy.com
93
ANNEXURE
94
Questionnaire
Caf Name: Caf Coffee Day Barista Age: 15-25 25-35 35-45 45 & above No of times you visit the caf: ___________________________________________
Please rate every item in all the three columns by circling to mark your rating When it comes to My Minimum Service Level is Low Service 1 Receiving what is ordered 2. Time of receiving order 3. Time of getting served 4. Time of getting the bill Overall Service Cafe 1. Merchandise 2. Ambience 3. Music 4. Time 5. Value for money 6. Location 7. Other customers Overall Caf Caf Staff 1. Courteousness 2. Dressing 3. Rate of giving individual attention 4. Readiness to respond to questions 5. Dependability on handling user service problems Overall Caf staff High My Desired Service Level is Low High My Perceived Service Level is Low High
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Any improvement you would like to suggest
95

Fyp-importance-Aspects-overall Satisfaction - Buying Behavior and Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fyp-importance-Aspects-overall Satisfaction - Buying Behavior and Loyalty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fyp-importance-Aspects-overall Satisfaction - Buying Behavior and Loyalty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.final-yearprojects.co.cc | www.troubleshoot4free.

Title Introduction Why I chose this topic Objectives of project

Summary Bibliography Annexure

Company Profile METRIC SERVICE SPECTRUM

Customized research Syndicated research

Research based on Metric s proprietary

Customer interface staff Middle level managers Senior Management

Channel architecture Marketing strategies & tactics Marketing organization

High value consumer durables Specialty services

Rural investor s risk Aversion: Measurement & Minimization.

Credit Rating of Market Dealers.

Locating Retail Outlets for maximizing Customer Traffic.

Identifies how to retain best employees.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MOSTER

Brief Overview of MOSTER

Traditional approach to satisfaction measurement is based on erroneous one dimensional perspective.

The MOSTER System

A Systematic Plan for Delighting the customers

Clarifying the core concepts - 1

Our current understanding

c. Select delight attributes.

What does MOSTER deliver?

Figures are in % of total respondents

2. How well is your product or service rated on all the attributes.

Analysis and Report

Fig. Customer Requirements Research

a s t r a n s fe r eat E xchange e m o d y n a m ic d e s ig n o n s is t e n c y io c o m p a t ib ilit y

A t t rib u t e P rim in g V o lu m e S e t u p t im e P r o d u c t d e live r y t im e S a le s F o rc e e x p e rt is e

Requirements Supplier Input Process Output

Fig. Input-Process-Output Model

Fig. The Customer Supplier Chain

Identify areas where measurement should be established

Customer Nursing Patient

Output Patient admitted

Fig. Input-process-output model: admitting a non critical emergency room patient

Pt waits in waiting room

Fig. Emergency department process flow diagram

Fig. Improvement opportunity selection matrix

Filling out admission form

Admission paperwork not completed within five minutes of patient s arrival

Admission clerk busy

Incoming phone calls to be directed to information desk

Fig. Solution Selection Matrix: completion of admission paperwork

Fig. Final implementation plan: completion of admission paperwork

GAPS MODEL OF SERVICE QUALITY

External communications to customers

High in search qualities

High in experience qualities

High in credence qualities

Fig. Dual Customer Expectation Levels & Zone of Tolerance

Level of Expe ctatio n

Most important factors

Least important factors

Fig. Zone of Tolerance For Different Service Dimensions

Fig. Factors That Influence Desired Service

Sources of Adequate Service Expectations

Perceived service alternatives

Self-perceived service role