# A Project Report on

COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS OF SERVICE OF PIZZA HUT AND DOMINO’S PIZZA

(Approved by AICTE, Govt. of India) ACADEMIC SESSION (2007 – 2009)

Submitted to:
Dr. Manish Agarwal

Submitted by:
Parinita Rastogi (096) Priyanka Tiwari (110) Reema Goyal (122) Saumil Gupta (133) Siddharth Agarwal (149) Tanusha Agarwal ( )

Acknowledgement
This report bears the imprint of many people and without their support it would not have existed. First of all we would like to express our sincere indebtedness and profound gratitude to our parents whose support in all manners had made us capable to complete this project. We acknowledge our deepest thanks to Prof. Timira Shukla and Dr. Manish Agarwal for all their care and encouraging words and giving suggestion at different point of times. At the outset we would like to put on record our sincere gratitude to all of our friends for giving us valuable ideas throughout of our project. Team members: Parinita Rastogi Priyanka Tiwari Reema Goel Saumil Gupta Siddharth Agarwal Tanusha Agarwal

Table of Content Introduction Domino’s PIZZA HUT INDIA DATA ANALYSIS MODEL Factor Analysis : Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY 4 5 10 13 13 15 26 27

LIST OF TABEL TABEL1: Pizza hut Communalities TABEL2: Rotated component Matrix TABEL3: Component Transformation Matrix TABEL4: Domino’s Communalities TABEL5: Rotated component Matrix TABEL6: Component Transformation Matrix TABEL7: GAP Model Output TABEL8: GAP Of Both Pizza joint TABEL9: Interpretation pizza hut TABEL10: : Interpretation Domino’s 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 24

RECIEW OF LITERATURE
This study is completely based on the servqual gap model. In this study we are trying to know the GAP in services between the pizza hut and dominos in the NCR(INDIA). Its not always possible that all customer are satisfied for every service encounter they have. We have taken 29 points on the basis of which we are trying to get the gaps and the factors are important for a customer for the service. There are number of studies that have been conducted in the past from which our research also get a direction and clearing out the queries. The gap between the expected and perceived service is called as zone of tolerance if company is able to minimize the gap then the level of satisfaction of customer increases more. For services it is said that “Do right first time and every time”. Keywords: ServQual, Quality Assessment, Survey Validation, Gap Scores, factor analysis and T-test. INTRODUCTION This research is based on service comparsion of pizza hut and domnios. Dilvering quality service is of utmost important. This research is based to test the quality of service and comparsion between two pizza joints, with seeking the factor with the GAP. With this study, we wanted to demonstrate the easiness of use of SERVQUAL instrument in the case of the HEI, showing that the questionnaires can easily be reproduced and adapted to any services organization. Therefore the present model in order to be applied in this kind of organization needs future and profound refinements. LITERATURE REVIEW A consumer’s perception of quality levels has long been a focus for marketing literature research. For example, the consumer’s judgement concerning an entity’s overall level of excellence or superiority has been used as a measurement of perceived quality . Objective measures of quality, measured by elements such as the “conformance to requirements” or “freedom from deficiencies” have been defined as the basis for quality assessment. However, these objective measures are difficult to translate into methods for assessing service (as opposed to product) quality. This difficulty led to the development of ServQual, intended to assess user perceptions of quality in a service environment From the methodological point of view:Respondents fatigue at having to rate all service attributes twice.They also tend to rate most dimensions as being highly important, since they are unable to distinguish between aspects that are very and extremely important Respondents may interpret the expectation / importance questions in different ways. [Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) “SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality.” Journal of Retailing (64.1) 12-37]developed the original 22 item ServQual scale with questions intended to assess five specific dimensions (tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy). [Parasuraman et al. (1985)] identify the 10 core components of service quality as reliability (consistent performance and dependability), responsiveness

(willingness/readiness to serve), competence (possessing knowledge and skills), access (approachability and ease of contact), courtesy (politeness, consideration and friendliness of staff), communication (updating and listening to customers), credibility (trustworthy and reputable, with customer interests at heart), security (freedom from danger and risk), customer knowledge (understanding needs and personalized attention), as well as tangibles (facilities and physical features). The ServQual instrument utilizes a “gap (or difference)[ Carman, James M. (1990) “Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality]: score”] analysis methodology, wherein the user’s expectations for service quality are assessed at the same time as the user’s perception of the actual system performance. The difference between these two scores (performance minus expectation) is used as the basis of analysis. CONCERNS ABOUT SERVQUAL’S UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS IACIS 2002 463 Multiple Marketing-oriented researchers have identified factor stability as a problem for the ServQual instrument’s assessment of service quality. At least two studies have found evidence that ServQual represents a unidimensional model. [Charles W. Lamb. (1991) “An Evaluation of the ServQual Scales in a Retailing Setting”,] A 1993 study concluded that the performance-only element of ServQual (referred to as ServPerf) “performs about as well as ServQual itself”. The authors found that “Overall, the nomological validity evidence somewhat favors the non-difference score measure to the ServQual measure”. CONCERNS ABOUT SERVQUAL’S UNDERLYING DIMENSIONS One of the aims of this study involves the use of SERVQUAL instrument in order to ascertain any actual or perceived gaps between customer expectations and perceptions of the service offered. Another aim of this paper is to point out how management of service improvement can become more logical and integrated with respect to the prioritized service quality dimensions and their affections on increasing/decreasing service quality gaps. In the following, after a brief review of the service quality concept, the model of service quality gaps and the SERVQUAL methodology is demonstrated and an example is presented to pinpoint the application of the SERVQUAL approach. Then, after a discussion, major conclusions are derived. The point (the number and dimensions of service quality vary depending on the context and culture involved) is of particular concern when evaluating service quality in developing countries. For example, [Imrie et al. (2002)] highlight interpersonal relations as a dimension important to Taiwanese customers not adequately addressed by SERVQUAL. [Sureshchandar et al. (2003)] emphasise the significance of technological and human factors with bank customers in India. Other studies such as [Angur et al. (1999) and Wang et al. (2003)] have also found the SERVQUAL dimensions to be inadequate in that they do not fully describe the service criteria important to customers of emerging markets

INTRODUCTION
The project undertaken is about the comparative analysis of service between the two pizza giants PIZZA HUT and DOMINO’S which are very popular for their excellent service and attractive schemes. Customers always have some kind of expectations from the service provider but many times there is a the difference between perceived and expected level of services . So in order to study this gap between the perceived and expected GAP model is applied and the main purpose is to reduce the gap and make the service more satisfactory and customer oriented. In this project we have studied the gap between the perceived and expected services provided by the pizza giants and along with that the major factors which are responsible are also studied with the help of factor analysis. So these are the two tools applied for conducting the research. The study provides us with the deep insight of the different services provided by pizza giants and also about the perception of the customers about that.

Domino’s Story
The Domino's Pizza story is one of passion, determination, the ability to overcome adversity and, most importantly, a single-minded dream of becoming number one in the pizza homedining industry. Four Decades Of Experience The '60s Domino's Pizza began with one store in Ypsilanti, Michigan on December 9, 1960. Its owner, Thomas S. Monaghan, was a 23-year-old student at the University of Michigan School of Architecture who was looking for a business venture to sponsor his studies. With his brother James, he bought an existing pizza store called Dominick's Pizza. He soon found himself absorbed in the pizza business and immediately began to make improvements. Although a novice in terms of pizza making skills and knowledge of the industry, Monaghan had the self-determination to get the job done and to do it better than anyone else. What was needed was to consistently make great pizzas fast and safely deliver them to the customer's door. His partnership with his brother was dissolved in 1961, By 1965, Monaghan own three stores and officially changed the company name to Domino's Pizza, Inc. A pioneer and innovator in the pizza delivery industry, Monaghan continuously looked for better and faster ways to handle the rush. He developed a fast pizza-making method and an efficient order taking system. From the moment the phone rang to the time the pizza was delivered to the customer's door, Monaghan stressed the need for hustle. "Never get behind" was the operating motto. Even though delivery drivers were instructed to abide by the traffic laws at all times, once they got out of their delivery vehicles they were to run to the customer's house, ensuring a piping hot pizza. Capitalising on the success he had found in his three stores servicing college campuses, Monaghan adapted the same successful system at Michigan State University in 1967. A massive pizza craving population of 20,000 students living on one campus, offering one size of pizza with only six toppings to choose from and introducing the company's 30 minute pledge soon made this store the company's biggest money maker. This store is also notable because it solidified in Monaghan's mind the need to expand. Monaghan sold his first franchise to Charles Gray on April 1, 1967, after personally training Gray for the job himself. The company suffered its first serious setback when on February 8, 1968 the company's central office and commissary were destroyed by fire. The company was inadequately insured and Monaghan was only able to recoup \$13,600 in losses. Nevertheless, Monaghan's belief in his dream drove him to push the company forward once again. By

the end of 1969, Domino's Pizza, Inc., consisted of 42 stores reporting an estimated \$8.1 million in total sales.

The Future
Many changes have been made since Domino's was sold to Bain Capital, and a new spirit of excitement has paved the way for the future. Despite encountering setbacks and obstacles along the way, the story of Tom Monaghan's 39 years at the helm of Domino's Pizza is one of never giving up on your dreams. What began as one man's vision evolved into a thriving worldwide industry.

Domino’s Pizza India Limited

Domino’s vision is “Exceptional people on a mission, to be the best pizza delivery company in the world!”. Domino’s is committed to bringing fun and excitement to the lives of our customers by delivering delicious pizzas to their doorstep in 30 minutes or less, and all our strategies work for fulfilling this commitment towards our large and ever-growing customer base. Domino's constantly strives to develop the product that suits the taste of its customers to bring out the 'WOW' effect (i.e. the feel good factor). Domino’s believes in the strategy of “Think local and act regional” that is blended with a playful image personified by our "Hungry Kya?" positioning. Thus, time and again Domino’s has been innovating toppings, suitable to the tastebuds of the locals and these have been very well accepted by the Indian market, are doing extensively well in the market. We are constantly in the process of innovating further, we introduce new topping every 3 –4 months

Domino’s understands customers demand and is constantly developing local flavours understanding the local sentiments. Also, the ingredients, sauces etc. are made keeping in mind the tastebuds of Indian consumers while retaining the international flavour. Domino’s constantly strive to make the company an integral part of the lives of the target audiences by getting involved with the clientele at the emotional level and building longterm relationship with them. Thus, Domino’s concentrate more on carrying out belowthe-line activities in the area it serves. Domino’s believe in bringing fun and excitement into the lives of our clientele. We take our delivery proposition very seriously and our entire corporate ethic is based on it. Domino's is the recognized world leader in Pizza delivery. But it isn't just about delivering, it's also about giving back to the community. Domino’s believes that an essential component of corporate responsibility is to provide support to charitable organizations that benefit the communities where its employees and customers work and

live. Domino’s worldwide is known for its commitment toward social causes and believes in adding fun to the lives of our customers and communities it serves. In India, Domino’s has been associated with the NGO’s devoted to the cause of underprivileged children’s. Domino’s conducts Store Educational Tour (SET) for the underprivileged children time-to-time. Recently this was done in the one of the Domino’s outlet in Delhi and Mumbai with the underprivileged children from CRY (Child Relief and You) where Domino’s took the pledge to provide part-time employment to the eligible wards from CRY who are above 18 years, reiterating its commitment towards social causes. Also, fifty- percent of that days first 20 deliveries of the store were given to CRY toward the cause of the underprivileged children. The children had a gala time while they learned to make and bake pizzas at the store and finally tasted the sumptuous offerings made by them during the Store Educational Tour. Domino’s Pizza India also boasts about its commitment to serve its customers on time by implementing the “30 MINUTES OR FREE” service commitment, They have been able to achieve this as a result of continuous efforts and dedication of the entire team in improving operating efficiencies. Domino’s Pizza India has been consistently rated amongst the top 2 pizza chains worldwide in the Domino’s family by Domino’s International, in terms of quality of operations . Our pizza delivery times have also been judged as the best delivery times in the world across all Domino’s .

PIZZA HUT INDIA
Background Pizza Hut entered India in 1996, and opened its first restaurant in Bangalore. Since then it has captured a dominant and significant share of the pizza market and has maintained an impressive growth rate of over 40 per cent per annum. Pizza Hut now has 95 outlets across 24 cities in India; and employed nearly 4,000 people by end of 2004. Yum! has invested about US\$ 25 million in India so far; this is over and above investments made by franchisees. Yum! Brands Inc is the owner of the Pizza Hut chain worldwide. A Fortune 300 company, Yum! Brands owns Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, A&W and Long John Silver’s restaurants worldwide. Yum! generated more than US\$ 25.9 billion in worldwide sales in the year 2003, and has more than 33,000 restaurants in over 100 countries.

A major player in the Indian fast food and beverage sector
Market share Pizza Hut is believed to have close to 50 per cent market share of the organised pizzaretailing segment in India.

Financial performance According to an article in Financial Express, the market size of the pizza segment is around US\$ 87 million and currently growing at the rate of 15 per cent to 17 per cent per annum. According to Pizza Hut sources, most of their outlets are financially successful, encouraging further expansion. In India, the average investment for each outlet is US\$ 275,000-335,000 and is borne by the franchisee.

Factors for Success
Offering value food Employing economies of scale, Pizza Hut has made its offerings more affordable. Its delivery offer of US\$ 4.4 for four personal pan pizzas has been very successful, helping it grow the business by 25 per cent. They have recently introduced a range of vegetarian personal pan pizzas for US\$ 1.1. Most Pizza Hut restaurants are located in the metros and smaller metros. In taking long strides across the country, Pizza Hut is consolidating its position by opening more restaurants in the metros where it already has a presence as well as opening outlets in new markets. Moving beyond metros According to company sources, Pizza Hut is moving beyond the metros and foraying into 12 to 13 new markets including Trichy, Nagpur, Bhubhaneswar, Thiruvananthapuram and Pondicherry to increase penetration. Aggressive marketing and tie-ups with local and popular brands Pizza Hut has increased its visibility by launching a well-received TV campaign aimed at the young crowd. It has formed partnerships with recognised brands such as Nestle and Pepsi. It also holds regular promotional campaigns targeted at children and uses these alliances to offer packages during these campaigns. Developing the local supply chain The local supply chain for Pizza Hut was developed by Yum! and currently 95 per cent of the ingredients they use are locally produced. They now import very few specialty items like pepperoni.

Leveraging the India Advantage : International brand with an Indian heart
Pizza Hut is one of the first international pizza chains with purely vegetarian dine-ins at Chowpatty (Mumbai), Ahmedabad and Surat, which also serve Jain menus. Pizza Hut has even opened two all-vegetarian restaurants in the western state of Gujarat to cater to the Jain religious community, whose members prefer not to eat at places where meat is served. Offering more than the international menu International food chains typically offer only a few localised products in other parts of the world. However, Pizza Hut’s local menu is as large as the international one. According to Pizza Hut, the Indian food heritage is very rich, and hence Indians like local flavours. The Tandoori range of pizzas, which was developed locally, has a menu mix of over 20 per cent. Indigenous sourcing of raw materials Pizza Hut has reduced costs through indigenous sourcing of raw material. It has tied up with a local company Dynamix Dairy Industries Ltd (DDIL) for sourcing mozzarella cheese. The landed cost of imported mozzarella comes to US\$ 3.3 - 3.5 per kilogram. The domestic price, however, works out to US\$ 2.99 - 3.1 per kilogram. Pizza Hut is adding to the bottom line by localising equipment as well as by paying attention to inventory replenishment, which has been reduced from 60 to 30 days. Future plans According to Yum! Restaurants International, India is amongst the top five growth markets for Pizza Hut. Pizza Hut is also experiencing double-digit growth in India and hence is confident about expanding its operations in India. Pizza Hut hopes to increase the number of Pizza Hut outlets in India to 180 by the end of 2008 from the present figure of 130. The expansion programme will make Pizza Hut the fastest growing western restaurant chain in India. In addition, Yum! plans Pizza Hut to be in 42 cities by end of 2007, and 55 cities by end of 2008.

DATA ANALYSIS
Type Of Data : Primary data has been used through method of questionnaire Sampling Method: Convenience sampling Sample size : 120 respondants Sampling Frame : Outlets located in Delhi/NCR of Pizza Hut and Domino’s Tools Used : Factor analysis followed by service GAP Model Model of Service Quality Gaps There are seven major gaps in the service quality concept, which are shown in Figure 1. Gap1: Customers’ expectations versus management perceptions: as a result of the lack of a marketing research orientation, inadequate upward communication and too many layers of management. Gap2: Management perceptions versus service specifications: as a result of inadequate commitment to service quality, a perception of unfeasibility, inadequate task standardisation and an absence of goal setting. Gap3: Service specifications versus service delivery: as a result of role ambiguity and conflict, poor employee-job fit and poor technology-job fit, inappropriate supervisory control systems, lack of perceived control and lack of teamwork.

Gap4: Service delivery versus external communication: as a result of inadequate horizontal communications and propensity to over-promise. Gap5: The discrepancy between customer expectations and their perceptions of the service delivered: as a result of the influences exerted from the customer side and the shortfalls (gaps) on the part of the service provider. In this case, customer expectations are influenced by the extent of personal needs, word of mouth recommendation and past service experiences. Gap6: The discrepancy between customer expectations and employees’ perceptions: as a result of the differences in the understanding of customer expectations by front-line service providers. Gap7: The discrepancy between employee’s perceptions and management perceptions: as a result of the differences in the understanding of customer expectations between managers and service providers.

Fig : 1

Factor Analysis :
Factor analysis is a statistical method used to explain variability among observed variables in terms of fewer unobserved variables called factors. The observed variables are modeled as linear combinations of the factors, plus "error" terms. The information gained about the interdependencies can be used later to reduce the set of variables in a dataset. Factor analysis originated in psychometrics, and is used in behavioral sciences, social sciences, marketing, product management, operations research, and other applied sciences that deal with large quantities of data.

Factor analysis is often confused with principal components analysis. The two methods are related, but distinct, though factor analysis becomes essentially equivalent to principal components analysis if the "errors" in the factor analysis model are assumed to all have the same variance. Analysis The analysis will isolate the underlying factors that explain the data. Factor analysis is an interdependence technique. The complete set of interdependent relationships are examined. There is no specification of either dependent variables, independent variables, or causality. Factor analysis assumes that all the rating data on different attributes can be reduced down to a few important dimensions. This reduction is possible because the attributes are related. The rating given to any one attribute is partially the result of the influence of other attributes. The statistical algorithm deconstructs the rating (called a raw score) into its various components, and reconstructs the partial scores into underlying factor scores. The degree of correlation between the initial raw score and the final factor score is called a factor loading. There are two approaches to factor analysis: "principal component analysis" (the total variance in the data is considered); and "common factor analysis" (the common variance is considered).

Factor Analysis Output
Pizza Hut

Communalities Initial Location Service Sincerity IndividualAttention ParkingSpace WorkingHours NeedUnderstanding PromptService EmployeesKnowledge StaffBehaviour EquipmentsPizzaHut EmployeesCourtesy CustomerBestInterest EmployeeReliability PhoneAttending CorrectionofMistakes Ambiance AvailabilityServices Complaints ServiceCharges Neatness WaitingTime FriendlyAtm CreditCard Pricing ImageofBrand PromotionalScheme Customization GroupingServices Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Extraction .978 .912 .934 .917 .928 .793 .980 .865 .966 .805 .806 .978 .921 .759 .978 .932 .930 .904 .952 .909 .951 .972 .958 .943 .932 .861 .941 .967 .959

Table 1

Rotated Component Matrix(a) Component 1 Location service sincerity IndividualAttention ParkingSpace WorkingHours NeedUnderstanding PromptService EmployeesKnowledge StaffBehaviour EquipmentsPizzaHut EmployeesCourtesy CustomerBestInterest EmployeeReliability PhoneAttending CorrectionofMistakes Ambiance AvailabilityServices Complaints ServiceCharges Neatness WaitingTime FriendlyAtm CreditCard Pricing ImageofBrand PromotionalScheme Customization GroupingServices .183 .263 .292 .516 -.091 .506 .754 .865 .375 .697 .196 .521 .839 .680 .869 .381 .181 .164 .654 .411 .501 .005 .055 .438 -.086 .644 .727 .246 2 .150 -.078 .365 .405 .134 .207 .295 -.118 .201 -.001 -.136 .262 .306 .009 .062 -.036 .523 .788 .439 .333 .743 .531 .892 .047 .874 -.020 .072 -.062 3 .304 .849 .730 .559 .908 .386 .087 -.054 .451 .250 .010 .091 .160 .383 -.069 .634 .217 .377 .283 .220 .012 .131 .040 .079 -.037 .193 .339 .214 .420 4 .891 .331 .248 -.371 .155 .099 .126 .293 .376 .436 -.070 .267 .147 .143 -.106 .106 .738 -.065 .388 .025 .383 .664 .213 .073 .114 .447 -.221 .158 -.129 5 .149 -.044 .192 .165 .109 .539 .211 .105 .556 .172 .109 .739 .262 .270 .215 .422 .029 .241 -.023 .094 .035 .232 .103 .765 -.006 .173 .437 .173 .218 6 .112 .064 .005 .077 .195 -.004 -.478 -.031 .359 .191 .356 -.102 .038 .199 .372 -.184 .141 .226 -.073 .295 -.027 -.250 .081 .375 -.379 .380 .219 .883 .194 7 -.040 .003 .291 .064 -.049 .212 .171 -.042 -.053 .002 -.778 -.036 .078 .132 -.139 .401 .109 -.015 .308 .696 -.004 .340 .307 -.104 .041 .186 .071 -.145 -.173

.780 .207 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

Table-2

Component Transformation Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 .678 -.378 -.496 .072 -.208 -.220 2 .346 .655 -.224 -.169 .597 -.061 3 .417 .012 .687 -.473 -.180 .060 4 .290 .334 .316 .816 -.182 .068 .022 5 .351 -.163 -.038 -.063 .116 .724 -.554 6 .151 -.408 .359 .146 .548 -.488 -.349 7 .131 .351 -.041 -.226 -.469 -.420 -.640

.235 .107 .308 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table-3

Domino’s
Communalities Initial Location Service Sincerity IndividualAttention ParkingSpace WorkingHours NeedUnderstanding PromptService EmployeesKnowledge StaffBehaviour EquipmentsPizzaHut EmployeesCourtesy CustomerBestInterest EmployeeReliability PhoneAttending CorrectionofMistakes Ambiance AvailabilityServices Complaints ServiceCharges Neatness WaitingTime 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Extraction .894 .891 .603 .949 .941 .734 .816 .930 .977 .903 .889 .834 .857 .947 .782 .914 .896 .894 .636 .859 .896 .890

FriendlyAtm CreditCard Pricing ImageofBrand PromotionalScheme Customization GroupingServices Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

.939 .845 .942 .874 .952 .956 .937

Table-4
Rotated Component Matrix(a) Component 1 Location service sincerity IndividualAttention ParkingSpace WorkingHours NeedUnderstanding PromptService EmployeesKnowledge StaffBehaviour EquipmentsPizzaHut EmployeesCourtesy CustomerBestInterest EmployeeReliability PhoneAttending CorrectionofMistakes Ambiance AvailabilityServices Complaints ServiceCharges Neatness WaitingTime FriendlyAtm CreditCard Pricing ImageofBrand PromotionalScheme Customization GroupingServices .539 .287 .266 -.062 -.066 -.168 .288 .757 .691 .844 .151 .659 .886 .832 .121 .821 .905 .818 .737 .702 .832 .781 .926 .105 .710 .870 .877 .414 2 .176 .886 .719 .855 .902 .789 .720 .423 -.158 .037 -.025 .400 .137 .174 -.079 .358 .004 -.071 .208 .233 -.145 -.240 .069 -.273 .051 -.020 .305 .370 .135 3 .650 -.092 -.043 .170 .285 .021 -.229 .270 .529 .008 .358 .083 -.028 .367 .161 .245 .245 .401 -.159 .510 .230 .235 .230 .807 .530 .276 .116 .796 .680 4 .267 .100 .100 -.076 -.078 -.265 .113 .009 .405 .430 .856 .289 .224 .290 .856 .156 .130 .136 .134 .128 -.156 .180 -.149 .277 .224 -.078 .270 .121 .557 5 -.281 -.068 .058 .423 -.187 .114 -.386 .324 -.175 .059 -.063 .386 .057 .078 .055 .166 .023 -.199 -.075 -.191 -.326 .367 .044 .177 .323 -.187 -.055 .012 .140

.355 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 8 iterations.

Table-5

Component Transformation Matrix Component 1 2 3 4 5 1 .863 -.091 -.493 .037 -.052 2 .205 .959 .178 .042 .072 3 .380 -.176 .646 -.637 .034 4 .261 -.201 .534 .761 .164 5 .026 .035 .151 .106 -.982

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Table-6

GAP Model Output
Components
Location service speed sincerity IndividualAttention ParkingSpace WorkingHours NeedUnderstanding PromptService EmployeesKnowledge StaffBehaviour EquipmentsPizzaHut EmployeesCourtesy CustomerBestInterest EmployeeReliability PhoneAttending CorrectionofMistakes Ambiance AvailabilityServices Complaints ServiceCharges Neatness WaitingTime FriendlyAtm CreditCard Pricing ImageofBrand PromotionalScheme

Average Scores Of Pizza Hut and Domino's Expected pizza perceived pizza Expected hut hut domino
3.64 4.26 4.21 4.46 4.07 3.85 4.23 3.92 3.69 3.77 3.92 3.85 4.07 3.77 3.69 4.15 3.92 4.23 4.07 4.15 4.15 3.54 3.69 3.61 3.54 3.54 3.31 3.69 4.08 3.62 4 3.23 3.46 4.07 3.76 3.46 3.62 3.7 3.77 3.84 3.38 3.62 4.23 3.77 4.15 3.93 3.92 4.38 4 3.85 4 4 3.69 3.92 4.31 4.62 4.31 4.23 3.69 3.38 4.23 4 3.85 4.46 3.69 4.77 4.31 3.92 3.85 3.46 4.54 4.08 3.92 4 4.31 3.85 3.92 4.15 3.77 3.85 3.92

perceived domino
2.62 3.92 4.08 3.77 3.54 3.23 4.08 3.92 4.08 4.23 3.23 3.69 3.92 3.69 3.38 3.92 4.23 4.00 3.62 3.54 4.23 4.38 4.00 3.69 4.08 4.23 4.08

Customization GroupingServices

3.77 3.85

3.3 3.46

3.76 3.46

3.38 3.38

Table-7

Components Location service speed sincerity IndividualAttention ParkingSpace WorkingHours NeedUnderstanding PromptService EmployeesKnowledge StaffBehaviour EquipmentsPizzaHut EmployeesCourtesy CustomerBestInterest EmployeeReliability PhoneAttending CorrectionofMistakes Ambiance AvailabilityServices Complaints ServiceCharges Neatness WaitingTime FriendlyAtm CreditCard Pricing ImageofBrand PromotionalScheme Customization GroupingServices ABPizza Hut Domino’s

GAP A 0.05 -0.18 -0.59 -0.46 -0.84 -0.39 -0.16 -0.16 -0.23 -0.15 -0.22 -0.08 -0.23 -0.39 -0.07 0.08 -0.15 -0.08 -0.14 -0.23 0.23 0.46 0.16 0.39 0.46 0.15 0.61 -0.47 -0.39

GAP B -1.69 -0.70 -0.23 -0.46 -0.15 -0.15 -0.15 -0.08 0.23 -0.23 -0.46 -1.08 -0.39 -0.23 -0.47 0.46 -0.31 -0.08 -0.30 -0.46 -0.08 0.53 0.08 -0.46 0.31 0.38 0.16 -0.38 -0.08

Table -8

Interpretation

Pizza Hut :

Factors
1.

Components
Customer Best Interest, Need Understanding, Prompt Service,Growings Services, Employee Reliability, promotional Schemes, Staff Behaviour,phone Attending, Complains, Image brand Availability of Services, Neatness, Friendly Atmosphere, Pricing

2.

3.

Parking Space, Service, Sincerity, Individual Attention, Correction of Mistakes

4.

Location, Ambiance, Waiting Time

5.

Working Hours, Employees Knowledge, Employees Courtesy, Credit Card

6.

Equipments, Customization

7.

Service Charges

Table-9

Domino’s

Factors

Components

1.

Neatness, Waiting Time, Friendly Environment, Pricing, Correction of Mistakes, Ambiance, Prompt Service, Staff Behaviour, Service Charge, Emp. Knowledge, Courtesy, Image Brand, Customers Best Interest, Availability of Services, Complains, Promotional Schemes, Reliability Service, Sincerity, Individual Attention, Parking Space, Working Hours, Need understanding.

2.

3.

Location, Credit Card, Customization, Services

4.

Equipments, phone attending

5. -----------

Table-10 After applying factor analysis on components of Pizza hut , it is further divided into 7 factors which tells that service quality of Pizza hut basically influenced by Customer Best Interest, Need Understanding, Prompt Service, Growings Services, Employee Reliability, promotional Schemes, Staff Behaviour, phone Attending, Complains, Image of brand out of 23 components(Table-2) or it can be interpreted that the quality of service depends on employees skills and their behavior with the customers. For Domino’s , components are divided in 5 factors and factor consists of Neatness, Waiting Time, Friendly Environment, Pricing, Correction of Mistakes, Ambiance, Prompt Service, Staff Behaviour, Service Charge, Emp. Knowledge, Courtesy, Image Brand, Customers Best Interest, Availability of Services, Complains, Promotional Schemes, Reliability (Table 5)

From analyzing the GAPs of Pizza Hut (Table-8) , it can be concluded that Pizza Hut leads in various promotional schemes and offers and most of the customers are attracted by this , with a greatest positive gap of 0.61 . It also means that the customer’s perceived value is much more than expectation of cutomers . Further they are very good at their less waiting time and reasonable pricing of the products which are other two components having a positive gap of 0.46 and 0.39. But they have scored a negative gap of 0.84 ,0.59 and 0.47 in providing parking space , sincerity and customization and these are the components in which they are lacking. For Domino’s , they are also a leader in terms of providing very less waiting time for the customers with a positive gap of 0.53 and very prompt while correction of mistakes (0.46) . They are having a very strong brand image in the customer’s mind for their fast delivery services . Now coming to the negative part, location of the outlets are still a problem for the customers having a highest negative gap of 1.69 .

Now moving one step further we check both for the following hypothesis H0: There is no difference between the services of Pizza hut and Domino’s

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean Pair 1 pizzahut dominos -.1041 -.2231

N 29 29

Std. Deviation .33049 .45074

Std. Error Mean .06137 .08370

Paired Samples Test Paired Samples Test Sig. (2tailed)

Paired Differences

t

df

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Upper Lower .30230 1.329 28 .195

Pair 1

pizzahut dominos

.11897

.48199

.08950

-.06437

According to paired t-test , the significant value is 0.195 which is greater than 0.05 which means that null hypothesis is accepted. We can say that there is no difference between the services of Pizza hut and Domino’s . They both are leaders in terms of service quality and both are at par.

Conclusion - We can conclude that both Pizza hut and Domino’s are known for their
best services and according to the factor analysis and GAP model we can summarize the whole that Employees behavior is the major factor which influence the customer perception most about the pizza outlets while they are followed by environment , parking space and external factors .

Bibliography www.dominos.co.in/ www.pizzahut.co.in/ classshares.student.usp.ac.fj/TS401/SERVQUAL/Servqual.pdf

Sign up to vote on this title