CHAPTER VII

QUALITY GAPS IN FAST-FOOD INDUSTRY

The data analysis and interpretation for Fast-Food (Pizza) Restaurants, one of the five

services selected for the research, is presented in this Chapter. The legacy of Fast-Food

started with Pizza Hut in 1958, when two college students from Wichita, Kansas, United

States of America (U.S.A.) were approached by a family friend with the idea of opening a

pizza parlour. Although the concept was relatively new to many Americans at that time,

the brothers quickly saw the potential of this new enterprise. After five four decades, the

concept hit the Indian market. The traditional Indian cuisine and family dining started

giving way to consumption of fast-food outdoors. The criteria for selecting this service is

mentioned in Chapter 1.

The result of entrepreneurial efforts was the first Pizza Hut restaurant and the foundation

for what became the largest and most successful pizza restaurant chain in the world.

Building the leading pizza company required innovation, a commitment to quality, and a

dedication to service and value. But perhaps as much as anything, it has taken the

qualities of entrepreneurship, growth and leadership, which have characterised the

business through more than four decades of success. Pizza Hut franchisees, for example,

exemplify the entrepreneurial spirit which launched the system back in 1958. Through

their interest and initiative, the Pizza Hut system was able to develop new territories both

in the United States and overseas. Today, franchisees and joint venture partnerships

account for nearly half of the system's total units.

190
 As part of the PepsiCo corporate family, Pizza Hut shared its leadership position with

such fine products as Pepsi-Cola brand soft drinks and Frito-Lay brand snack foods. In

October 1997, PepsiCo spun off the restaurant businesses (Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco

Bell) and Tricon was founded. Tricon is also the parent company to two other segment

leaders, Taco Bell and KFC. When combined with Pizza Hut, these organisations make

up the world's largest restaurant group.

In 2001, Pizza Hut became the first company to deliver pizza to the pioneers living in

outer space on the International Space Station. Pizza Hut uses more than 700 million

pounds of flour each year, representing the annual yield from nearly 500,000 acres of

wheat. Pizza Hut uses more than the equivalent of 525 million pounds of tomatoes each

year.

Service Quality in Fast-Food: Customers, who are central to the fast-food restaurant

service, are not a homogeneous class. They come from varying socio-economic and

cultural backgrounds. The perception of the Quality of Fast-food restaurant services

provided will differ from customer to customer and even for the same customer at

different points of time, depending on the mood and mind-set of the same user at a

particular point of time. A customer who needs pizza and comes to an outlet in the

afternoon to find that it is not working is likely to be much more dissatisfied. Some other

factors that may influence perceptions of fast-food restaurant service quality are: Overall

ambience at the fast-food restaurant, Past experiences with the fast-food restaurant,

Familiarity with the services offered by the fast-food restaurant, Procedures followed etc.,

Knowledge of or experience with competitors' products and services, Fast-food

191
restaurant with a particular menu which may be regarded as a status symbol. Interaction

with and / or opinions of other customers' desires, etc.

Where there is direct interface with the fast-food restaurant's employees, it must be

ensured that all customers go back with a sense of satisfaction. Many fast-food

restaurants have set standards - for example, not more than five people should be waiting

in a queue at any outlet, all in a queue should be attended to within 20 minutes, A fast-

food restaurant should attempt to formulate quantitative determinants to enable objective

measurement of various parameters.

Quantitative determinates could be, for example, time taken to: (1) Accept an order,

(2) Accept a bill amount, (3) Complete an order, (4) Complete a further order, (5) Issue a

menu card, (6) Issue a bill, (7) Issue ordered items, (8) Give promotioi' material,

(9) Update the order, (10) Clear a Table, (11) Answer customer queries, (12) Attend to

complaints, (13) Complete serving process, (14) Sanction offers, (15) Process personal

details.

Pizza Restaurant Chains in India: There were three main players in the pizza market

during 2002, namely, Domino's, Pizza Hut and Pizza Corner. While the first two are

global chain restaurants, Pizza Corner is based at Chennai. The market profile of pizza

restaurants in India at the end of the first quarter of 2002 is depicted in Table 7-1.

192


Table 7-1

Profile of Pizza Chains in India in 2002

( Parameters J Domino's I I_ Pizza Hut Pizza Corner

C it ies Covered in II II
India
23
H_H 6

Outletscovered 90 II_30 II_29

Delivery On 68 II_- 8
F Delivery and Take-
_____
- I 5
away 11 -
Delivery and Dine - in II_22 I I_- J 14
Take away II_- II_-_1 7
Dine-in, Take-away I
and Delivery _ I - I
I
25 -

Number of Pizzas I I
l2,00015,000*
Sold Per Day I
15,00
i_ 2,500
i ^ I

(*Estimated that Pizza Hut sells only higher value 8" and plus unlike others)
Source: "Pizza and Pizzazz" Business Tod April 14, 2002, p 18.

It can be seen from Table 7-1 that the profile indicates that though Pizza Hut has only

one-third the outlets as compared with Domino's, it equals pizza sales of Domino's.

However the business model of these restaurants differ in terms of service offering

apropos dine-in, delivery and take-away. There are also other independent fast-food

restaurants selling pizzas across India.

Pizza Restaurant Chains at Chennai: In the first quarter of 2003, Pizza Hut had S dine-

in outlets at Chennai - Nungambakkam, Adyar, Anna Nagar, T. Nagar and R. K. Salai

which also offer delivery and take-away options. Pizza Corner had 3 dine-in outlets -

Adyar, Nungambakkam and Anna Nagar while Domino's had 4 outlets - R.K. Salai,

Anna Nagar, Ashok Nagar and Adyar.

193
Current Research: A structured questionnaire was administered to 315 respondents

(customers of pizza restaurants) at the city of Chennai, capital of the, in South India. The

questionnaire comprised 8 questions besides the respondent profile section. The format of

the questionnaire can be referred to in Annexure-V.

Fast-Food Restaurants Surveyed: The players in the pizza restaurant market comprised

Pizza Hut, Domino's and Pizza Corner. The first two chains were covered under the

study while the remaining chain, Pizza Corner, did not permit research to be undertaken

at their restaurants. Consumers at Pizza Hut outlets accounted for a little more than three-

fourths of the respondents (76.19%) while nearly a quarter of the respondents (23.81%)

were Domino's consumers.

Demographic Profile: The purpose of ascertaining the demographic profile was to

utilise such data for statistical analysis in order to accept or reject the hypotheses framed

for the study. The respondents were requested to indicate certain demographic

characteristics like gender, average monthly personal income and average monthly

household income. The class intervals for average monthly personal income and average

monthly household income were fixed based on the pilot study.

Gender: It was found that three-fifths of the respondents were male (60.63%) while two-

fifths of the of respondents were female (39.37%).

194
Average Monthly Personal Income: About one-third of the respondents were in the

average monthly personal income groups of up to Rs. 10,000 and above Rs. 20,000 each.

Average Monthly Household Income: About one-third of the of respondents were in

the average monthly household income groups between Rs. 10,001 and Rs. 20,000 while

one-fifth of the respondents were in the average monthly household income group

between Rs. 20,001 and Rs. 30,000.

Consumption of Fast-food Outdoors: Indian eating habits changed drastically with

exposure to imported products and aping of western culture, thereby facilitating the

mushrooming of the fast-food industry. Interestingly, quick snacks have been named as

"junk food" with contempt. There is a heated debate about the nutritional content of such

food besides that fact that such food are turning the population into "couch potatoes",

people who sit for hours in front of their television sets or those who browse the Internet

for hours, feasting on such food. Table 7-2 depicts the fast-food consumption pattern of

the respondents.
Table 7-2

Consumption of Fast-Food Outdoors

Consumption Outdoors Number of Respondents 1

69 (21.90)
I I Once a week
2 ]lTwice or thrice a week I 5 c16.5I)
1 3 I Once in a fortnight I 50 (15.87) I
1 4 I Few times in a month
16.51) 52
92 (29.21)
I lUther / Unable to specify II I

(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out ot 31 responcients)

Source: Primary.

195
It can be seen from Table 7-2 that nearly one-third of the respondents (29.21%) did not

have any fixed fast-food consumption pattern. The remaining respondents were more less

equally divided among four groups, namely, once a week (21.90%), twice or thrice a

week (16.51%), once in a fortnight (15.87%) and few times in a month (16.51%). The

respondents seem to make about two visits to the pizza restaurants on an average per

month.

Home Delivery of Fast-food: Home-delivery of fast-food is very convenient for those

who either do not have the time to venture out due to family chores or those who prefer to

enjoy the food in the comfort of their homes. Table 7-3 depicts the respondents' fast-food

home-delivery ordering pattern.

Table 7-3

Home Delivery of Fast-Food

S.o.Il Home Delivery I! Number of Respondents 1

1 I Once a month I -- 6(19.05)
2 1 Twice a month 40(12.7) -. I
3 Thrice a month IT l6(5. I
1 4 I-8 times in a month 23 (7.30) 1
: 4(1.27)
5 10 - 15 times in a month
6 r
j No home delivery / Unable to specify 172(54.60) I
I Total II 315
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out 01 i I respondents)
Source: Primary.

It can be seen from Table 7-3 that half the respondents either did not order for home-

delivery or did not have any fixed pattern of ordering. One-fifth of the respondents

196
ordered for home-delivery once a month. This indicates that there is more preference for

visiting the fast-food restaurants than home-delivery.

Preferred Time for Visiting Pizza Outlet: The preferred time for visiting a pizza outlet

varies from person to person depending upon work commitments, eating habits or group

dynamics. Table 7-4 depicts the respondents' preferred time for visiting pizza outlet.

Table 7-4

Preferred Time for Visiting Pizza Outlet

Preferred Time for Visiting Pizza Number of Respondents

Outlet
I 11.00 am - 3.00 pm 19 (6.03)
[
2 3.01pm -5.00pm]8(2.54) _
Aim I

3 5.01 pm-7.00pm 101 (32.06) I

_I0_pm-9.00pm 163(51.75) __I

9.01pm_11.00pm
6(1.91) I
H 1

6jUnable to specify time 18(571) I

(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out of 315 respondents)

Source: Primary.

It can be seen from Table 7-4 that half the respondents prefer to visit the pizza outlet

between 7.00 pm and 9.00 pm. One-third of the respondents prefer to visit between

5.00 pm to 7.00 pm.

197


Preferred Time for Home Delivery of Pizza: The preferred time for home-delivery

from pizza outlet varies from family to family depending upon number and age group of

family members, occasion or availability of members for cooking at home. Table 7-5

depicts the respondents' preferred time for home delivery from pizza outlet.

Table 7-5

Preferred Time for Home Delivery of Pizza

Preferred Time for Home Delivery I! Number of Respondents I

[ i fl 11.00 am— 1.00 pm F 1(6M3)

[_ 2 H 1.01 pm-3.00pm 1L 1
[ II 3 3.01 pm - 5.00 pm VOMMMfgO (6.35)

1 5.01
4 pm-7.00pm 1F 5)(IX.73) -
7.01
5 11 pm-9.00pm -- 10(31.75) I
PI19.01 pm— 11.00 pm ft- 225) I
LI_7 JJ Unable to specify time II S326.35)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out of 315 respondents)
I

Source: Primary.

It can be seen from Table 7-5 that nearly one-third of the respondents (31.75%) prefer

home delivery of pizza between 7.01 pm and 9.00 pm. Nearly one-fifth of the

respondents (18.73%) prefer home delivery of pizza between 5.01 pm and 7.00 pm.

However a little more than a quarter of the respondents (26.35%) were unable to specify

a preferred time.

Additional Offerings Desired at Pizza Restaurant: The pizza outlets essentially serve

pizzas comprising a menu from different cuisines. However, pizzas are not eaten in

isolation. Outlets serve soft drinks, juices, salads and desserts among other items in

198
 addition to their main product. Table 7-6 depicts the additional items that the respondents

desire.

Table 7-6

Additional Offerings Desired at Pizza Restaurant

S. No. II Additional Offerings Desired II

Number of Respondents I

1 [Fresh juices 161 (51.11) I

2 Soft drinks I 145(46.03) I

I 3 IlDesserts II 134(42.54) I
I IlSoups II 101(3270) I
I 5 Salads lOt (32.06) I

6 I Snacks 80(25.40)
I P -

P 7 1 Chocolates 77 (24.44)
I 8 IlCakes 72(22.86)

L 9
10
I Beverages
liFruits
I 69 (21.90)
38(12.06)
I

I
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage out of 31 respondents)
Source: Primary.

It can be seen from Table 7-6 that half the respondents preferred fruit juices to be offered

on the menu. Soft drinks came a close second followed by desserts. Pizza outlets should

keep in mind the variety fare that they need to offer in addition to pizzas to keep the

consumers delighted.

Promotional Offers Desired from Pizza Restaurant: Any product or service requires

some promotional efforts to either create awareness or to aid in brand recall. Table 7-7

depicts the promotional offers desired by the respondents.

199


Table 7-7

Promotional Offers Desired from Pizza Restaurants

Standard
Promotional Offers Mean Sum Rank
Deviation
Additional free pizza 2.7846 2.8998 724 I
(equivalent or smaller size)
Complimentary soft drinks / 3.7869 3.1577 924 II
2
beverages
Discount coupons (limited period 3.2431 1109 III
3 4.6992
offer)
Discounts for repeat orders 3.0457 1147 IV
4 5.0978
(especially home delivery) _______ ________
1[ G i ft vouchers II5.46821I 3.0556 I 1203 II V I
6 ] Gifts / Discounts for bulk ordering 11 5.76501 3.0361
1251 IL VI I
Surprise gifts (on birthdays, 5.2397 3.3879 1268 VII
7
[anniversaries)
Food festivals (for different pizza VIII
8 1I cuisines

from around the world)
6.5818 3.8780 1448

9 Invites to events J 6.7982 I[ 3.3609 1482 I IX I

10 Membership to their Pizza Club {7.1 121 L.6510 II 1522 I X I
Gifts / coupons for constructive 7.3462 3.4704 1528 XI
11
suggestions / feedback ______
I 12 I Pizza eating contests .l1521I 3.9558 I1i761 II XII I
Source: Primary.

It can be seen from Table 7-7 that additional free pizza is the most preferred promotional

offer. This concept was well popularised by Pizza Hut. Complimentary soft drinks and

beverages come second. This reiterates the need to serve such drinks as was seen in the

response for the previous question. Discount coupons and gift vouchers are the next most

preferred offers. The pricing of pizzas are not standard. Extra charges are levied

depending upon type of pan crust desired, stuffing of crust and toppings, among others.

200
 Service Attribute Rating Scale: A Likert-scale was employed to facilitate the

respondents to rate the 28 attributes of the pizza restaurant's services in order to

determine the level of service quality. The five points on the scale and the interpretation

for each point is shown in Table 7-8.

Table 7-8

Service Attribute Rating Scale

Rating I Meaning I Interpretation I

Service falls far short of my expectations OR
Ri Very Poor Quality
Service does not exist
I R2 Poor Quality j FS rvice slightly falls short of my expectations
I R3 IF Satisfactory Service slightly just matches my expectations
Quality_ I
I R4 I_Good_Quality Service slightly exceeds my expectations 1
I R5 II Excellent Quality II Service greatly exceeds my expectations I

It can be seen from Table 7-8 that the scale involves ratings ranging from very poor

quality to excellent quality. This rating-scale question (FOODQUAL) is a modification of

the SERVQUAL instrument devised by Parasuraman and his associates. There is no

repetition of the attributes for Perception and Expectation scores. The number of items

have been increased from the original 22 besides the fact that the instrument has been

modified to suit the fast-food industry under study which makes it more realistic and

relevant. Table 7-9 depicts the ratings for 28 attributes of the pizza outlet's services. The

Figures in parentheses indicate percentage for each rating level. Table 7-10 presents the

mean, standard deviation and sum of the service attribute ratings, computed using SPSS

package.

201


Table 7-9

Ratings for Pizza Restaurant's Service Attributes

S. Ratings for Pizza Restaurant's Ratings (R) I

No. Service Attributes I Ri II R2 R3 II R4 II R5 I j

Ambience (surrounding environment) of 7 14 128 132 34

F1 I the Pizza outlet (APO)
^
(2.2) 4.4) (40.6) (41.9) (10.8)
412 109 142 48
2 Appearance of staff (AOS) (1.3) (3.8) (34.6) (45.1) (15.2)

3
Physical representation of the service
(menu cards, displays, furniture, etc.)
4 28 111 125 47I
(1.3) (8.9) (3s.2j (39.7) (14.9)

4] Parking facilities (PKF)

1

11
37 63 132 55
(11.7)11(20) 1 41.9) (17.5) I (8.9)
Recreational / Special facilities (play area 54 108 90 52 11
5] l'or children, indoor games, etc.) (RSF)
1
(17.1) (34.3) (28.6) (16.5) (3.5)
F
6 1
Staff's acknowledgement on entering the 14 fli 114 102 F 47
(4.4) (12.1) (36.2) (32.4) (14.9)
outlet (SAE)
5 24 138 106 42
Service provision in time (SPT) (1.6)1 (7.6) (43.8) (33.7) (13.3)
- Ethical practices (using vegetarian 4 7 133 122 49
8 ingredients only for vegetarian orders, (1.3) (2.2) (42.2) (38.7) (15.6)
fresh ingredients, etc.) (ETP) _ __

- 8 37 112 113 45
Assistance for seating (AFS) (2.5) (11.7) (35.6) (35.9) (14.3)
1-91 1

537 153 95 25
10 More outlets (MOU) (1.6) (11.7) (48.6) (30.2) (7.9)
629 158 95 27
HAccommodation of requests (AOR) (1.9) (9.2) (50.2) (30.2) 1 (8.6)
Individual attention paid to you (when in
FI 2]a group) (lAP)
7 1 29 1 50 93 36
(2.2) (9.2) 1(47.6) (29.5) (11.4)
T
Providing reliable information (menu 6 41 130 H08 30
13 ingredients, nutritional value, offers, etc.) (1.9) (13) (41.3) (34.3) (9.5)

r
(PRI)_______

Response to suggestions / feedback / 8 38 149 92 28

14__
complaints (RTS) (2.5) (12.1) (47.3) (29.2) (8.9)
F

15 rTh31 126 40
15 Staffs knowledge in answering (SKA) (0.3) (4.8) (43.2)j - (40) (12.7)
I aute uiLuuu

202
 UI1LIiIU1LIUIi ILUIJI P1 VVIUU

Effective utilisation of personal details 13 41 170 72 I9

(for mailers, feedback, offers, etc.) (EUP) (4.1) (13) (54) (22.9) (6)

21 75 149 52 18
17 Pricing of pizzas (POP) (6.7) (23.8) (47.3) (16.5) (5.7)

2 19 117 125 52
HImage of the pizza chain (IPC) (37.1) (39.7) (16.5)
(0.6) (6)

4 14 111 123 63
HAccuracy in billing (AIB) 39) (20)
(1.3) (4.4) (35.2)

20 Convenience of outlet hours (COH) (3.8) (40) (40) (14.9)

(1.3)

21 Items used to provide the service (cutlery, 4 19 111 127 54

crockery, tissue paper, etc.) (IPS) (1.3) (6) (35.2) (40.3) (17.1)

Courtesy shown by staff (CSS) (1) (4A) (27.3) (46) (21.3)

j
3 16 9 143 61
Location of outlet (LOO) (1) (5.1) (29.2) (45.4) (19.4)

21 51 169 65 9
HPromotional offers (POF) (6.7) (16.2) (53.7) (20.6) (2.9)

Provision of items mentioned in menu 5 22 143 115 30

card (PIM) (1.6) (7) (45.4) (36.5) (9.5)

Maintenance of Hygiene / Cleanliness 47 92 149

(MHC) (l) (2.2) (29.2) (47.3) (20)

5 10 103 148 49
27 Correct provision of ordered items (CPO) (1.6) (3.2) (32.7) (47) (15.6)

28 Quality of preparation (ordered items) 1 10 89 147 68

(QOP) (0.3) (3.2) (28.3)] (46.7) (21.6)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage and alphabets in parentneses inaicate
abbreviation)
Source: Primary.

203
 Table 7-10

Mean, Standard Deviation and Sum for Pizza Outlet's Service Attributes

S. Attributes Mean Standard Sum

No. (Out of 5) Deviation (Out of Maximum
1575)
I APO 3.5460 II 0.8296 I 1117
2 U AOS I 3.6921 0.8200 I 1163 J
3 PHY F 3.5810 0.8935 1 1128
4 PKF
F7 2.9175 IL 1.0941 I 919 1
I 5 J RSF 2.5492 1.0648 L 803 I
6 ] SAE 3.4127 1.0257 IL 1075
7 1 S F 3.4952 1 8756 II 1101 I
I 8 IF ETP --IF H 3.6508 II 0.8131 1F- 1150
9 I F AFS I 3.47621 0.9620 IT 1095
I 10 IF MOU II 3.3111 0.8399 1043 I
Ii AOR I 3.3429 II 0.835 1 I 1053 I
I 12 I TAP HF 3.3873 H 0.8865 1067----]
1 13 I PRI HF 3.3651 0.8941 L 1060 I
14 II RTS 1F 3.2984 II 0.8850 1 39 I
15 J SKA 3.6000 1 7811 1134 I
16 II EUP HF 3.1365 1 8653 988 I
17 POP 2.9079 1 9449 i I 916 I
I 18 I[ IPC IT- 3.6540 0.8470 I 1151 1
19 AIB Ii 3.7206 0.8768 1172 I
I 20 I COH H 3.6349 0.8275 I 1145 I
I 21 I IPS H 3.6603 0.8755 1153
22 I CSS 3.8222 1 0.8485 1204 ]
I_23_IL_LOO F 3.7714 I 0.8513 I_1188
24 I POF I_2.9683 IF 0.8664 I_935
I_25 I PIM 3.4540 I 0.8218 II_1088
[7 MHC 3.8254 0.8166 15J
27 _I CPO 3.7175 0.8214 JI
_1171 _ I
QOP H_3.8603 0.7978 1216

204
 It can be seen from Table 7-10 that the attributes in terms of highest sums (sum

abovel 150) are Quality of preparation (QOP), Maintenance of hygiene / cleanliness

(MHC), Courtesy shown by staff (CSS), Location of outlet (LOO), Accuracy in billing

(AIB), Correct provision of ordered items (CPO), Appearance of staff (AOS), Items used

to provide the service (IPS), Image of pizza chain (IPC) and Ethical practices (ETP).

The three attributes which obtained the highest sums thereby indicating good service

quality were Quality of preparation, Maintenance of hygiene / cleanliness, and Courtesy

shown by staff.

The attributes which obtained the least sums (sum of 1060 and below) are Recreational

Special facilities (RSF), Pricing of pizza (POP), Parking facilities (PKF), Promotional

offers (POF), Effective utilisation of personal details (EUP), Response to suggestions /

feedback / complaints (RTS), More outlets (MOU), Accommodation of requests (AOR)

and Providing reliable information (PRI).

The three attributes which obtained the least sums thereby indicating poor service quality

were Recreational / Special facilities, Pricing of pizza, and Parking facilities.

Reliability Analysis: The Cronbach alpha (reliability coefficient) values for the rating

scale, obtained using SPSS package, are presented in Table 7-11 along with the values for

number of respondents and number of attribute items. The literature about this coefficient

is mentioned in Chapter 1 under the section titled "Cronbach Alpha Reliability Test".

205
 Table 7-11

Comparison of Cronbach Alpha Values

\:iIuc obtained Values obtained

S No Statistic
from Pilot Study survey
I Number of Cases I P 30 IF 315 I
2 Number of Items I! 28 1 28 I
3 I Alpha Value I 0)I4 0.9284 I
An alpha value above 0.7 indicates good reliability. It can be seen from Table 7-11 that

the alpha values were found to be very good for both pilot study as well as survey.

Factor Analysis: Factor analysis denotes a class of procedures primarily used for data

reduction and summarisation. There may be a large number of variables, most of which

are correlated and which must be reduced to a manageable level. In Principal Component

Analysis, the total variance in the data is considered. The diagonal of the correlation

matrix consists of unities, and full variance is brought into the factor matrix. The primary

concern is to determine the minimum number of factors that will account for maximum

variance. The factors are called principal components. Although the initial or unrotated

factor matrix indicates the relationship between the factors and individual variables, it

seldom results in factors that can be interpreted. Varimax procedure is an orthogonal

(axes are maintained at right angles) rotation method that minimises the number of

variables with high loadings on a factor, thereby enhancing the interpretability of the

factors. This results in factors that are uncorrelated. The rotated factor matrix using SPSS

package (Principal Components Methods with Varimax rotation resulting in 3 iterations)

is presented in Table 7-12.

,,,
 Table 7-12

Rotated Factor Matrix for Pizza Restaurant's Service Attributes

Pizza Restaurant's I Factors (F) I

Service Attribute
I F I I F2 I
1 I lAP IF 0.663 II 0.322 I
1 2 II SAE 0.655 II 0.239 I
I 3 II PRI I F7 0.638 II 0.197 I
4 RTS 0.628 II 0.136 I
I I SKA II 0.621 IF 0.258 I
6 AOR II Q.594 I I 0.262 I
1 ' I AFS 0.591 0.325 I
S SPT H_0.570 _____ II_0.336 I
EUP II_0.542 ____ II_0.163 I
RSF II_0.508____0.059 I
AOS I_0.474 .3 73
I_12 II_PHY I_0.460 0.269
I_13 II_MOU I_0.430 II_0.367
APO 0.429 _ _ I[_0.343
POP .407 ___________l _0.231
PKF 0.309 IT_0.158
MHC 0.15() I 0.715
I_18 CPO F 0.253 0.688 1
19 AM F7777 220__________ I 0.665
I_20 PIM 0.166 ________0.646]
21 ii_QOP II_0.207__ II_0.635
22 IT _co w 1_0.217 II_0.631
23 _II_IPC JI_0.222 _______0.571
24 II_CSS II_0.436_ __ ___ II_0.555
I_25 IPS II_0.386 II_0.459
I_26_II_ETP II_0.357 II_0.446
POF II_0.33 1 __II_0.399 1
LOO II 0.259 IT 0.375

207


It can be seen from Table 7-12 that Principal Components Methods with Varimax

rotation resulting in 3 iterations produced two factors. Values above 0.50 were taken for

each factor grouping and the attributes under each factor along with their corresponding

values are presented factor-wise in Tables 7-13 and 7-14.

Table 7-13

Significant Loading of Attributes on Varimax Factor 1

I Attribute
Pizza Restaurant's Service Attributes Value ] Factor Name
Number If
J
I Individual attention paid to you (when in
I a group) J L^]
I Staff's acknowledgement on entering t 0.655
I outlet
Providing reliable information (menu II
'3 0.638 1
1 ingredients, nutritional value, offers, etc.)

14 1 Response to suggestions / feedback / I

0.628
1 complaints
i
Personalised service
and customer
15 Staff's knowledge in answering 0.621
delight
II I Accommodation of requests 0.5 94
9 f Assistance for seating 0.591
7 Service provision in time 0.5 70
Effective utilisation of personal details
16I
(for mailers, feedback, offers, etc.) I 0.542
Recreational / Special facilities (play
5 0.508
area for children, indoor games, etc.)

It can be seen from Table 7-13 that the attributes under factor number I comprised

Individual attention paid to you (when in a group), Staff's acknowledgement on entering

the outlet, Providing reliable information (menu ingredients, nutritional value, offers,

etc.), Response to suggestions / feedback / complaints, Staff's knowledge in answering,

208
 Accommodation of requests, Assistance for seating, Service provision in time, Effective

utilisation of personal details (for mailers, feedback, offers, etc.), and Recreational /

Special facilities (play area for children, indoor games, etc.). The ten attributes have been

grouped together and named "Personalised service and customer delight", as this name

best describes the cluster.

Table 7-14

Significant Loading of Attributes on Varimax Factor 2

Attribute
Number Pizza Restaurant's Service Attributes Value Factor Name
26 Maintenance of Hygiene/Cleanliness [ 0.715 I
27 I[Correct provision of ordered items I 0.688 I
19 I [Accuracy in billing 0.665 I
Provision of items mentioned in menu
25 0 Service design and
card I delivery
I 28 J [Quality of preparation (ordered items) [ 0.63 5 ]
20 Convenience of outlet hours 0.631
18 Image of the pizza chain II 0.571
1 22 I_Courtesy shown by staff I 0.555
It can be seen from Table 7-14 that the attributes under factor number I comprised

Maintenance of Hygiene / Cleanliness, Correct provision of ordered items, Accuracy in

billing, Provision of items mentioned in menu card, Quality of preparation (ordered

items), Convenience of outlet hours, Image of the pizza chain and Courtesy shown by

staff. The eight attributes have been grouped together and named "Service design and

delivery", as this name best describes the cluster.

KOVE
Overall Points Tally for Pizza Restaurant's Service Attributes: : The respondents

were asked to award a maximum of 100 points for each of the five categories depicting

different facets of the Pizza restaurant's services, depending on their encounters with the

Pizza restaurant thus far. The mean, standard deviation and sum for the seven categories

is presented in Table 7-15.

Table 7-15

Overall Points Tally for Pizza Restaurant's Service Attributes

S. Standard
Pizza Restaurant 's Overall attribute Mean . . Sum Rank
Deviation
The Pizza outlet's commitment to 14.5778 25418 I
1 80.6921
quality, hygiene and ethics
The knowledge and courtesy of the
2 Pizza outlet's staff and their ability to 77.9429 15.0181 24552 II
convey trust and confidence
The willingness of the Pizza outlet to 75.3016 15.9146 23720 III
help its customers
The appearance of the Pizza outlet's
4 physical facilities, personnel and 74.4476 13.7787 23451 IV
communication materials
The ability of the Pizza outlet to
5 perform the promised service 74.219014.7244 23379 V
dependably and accurately
Source: Primary.

It can be seen from Table 7-15 that maximum points were awarded to the Pizza outlet's

commitment to quality, hygiene and ethics. The knowledge and courtesy of the Pizza

outlet's staff and their ability to convey trust and confidence were voted second while the

willingness of the Pizza outlet to help its customers was rated third. However, the areas

where the pizza outlets are lacking comprise the appearance of the Pizza outlet's physical

210
 facilities, personnel and communication materials and the ability of the Pizza outlet to

perform the promised service dependably and accurately. Thus, though the services of the

pizza outlets have been rated as good with respect to quality of food, hygiene and staff,

the areas lacking are communication and service delivery. There are no standards for

delivery inside the restaurants sometimes resulting in delays in serving the ordered items

or availability of the items on the menu card itself. On the other hand, home delivery is

executed within thirty minutes, albeit with the application of certain conditions.

Regression on Gender: Regression analysis was performed with gender as the

dependent variable using SPSS package. The analysis gave rise to I model with the

corresponding R square values as shown in Table XI-A in Annexure Xl. The beta and

significance values were also noted for the variable under the model.

It can be seen from Table XI-A that the variable influencing gender is courtesy shown by

staff

Regression on Personal Income: Regression analysis was performed with average

monthly personal income as the dependent variable using SPSS package. The analysis

gave rise to 2 models with their corresponding R square values as shown in Table XI-B in

Annexure XI. The model with the highest R square value was chosen as the best model

and this was found to be model 2. The beta and significance values were also noted for

the variables under different models.

It can be seen from Table XI-B that the variables influencing personal income groups, in

decreasing order of importance, are accommodation of requests and promotional offers.

Regression on Household Income: Regression analysis was performed with average

monthly household income as the dependent variable using SPSS package. The analysis

gave rise to 4 models with their corresponding R square values as shown in Table XI-C in

Annexure XI. The model with the highest R square value was chosen as the best model

and this was found to be model 4. The beta and significance values were also noted for

the variables under different models.

It can be seen from Table XI-C that the variables influencing household income groups,

in decreasing order of importance, are accommodation of requests, Staff's

acknowledgement on entering the outlet, pricing of pizzas and promotional offers.

Mann-Whitney U-Test on Gender: This test was administered to see if the data from

two groups, namely, male and female respondents, were identical in terms of rankings for

promotional offers by pizza chain. The statistical analysis is presented in Table XI-D in

Annexure XI. The results are presented in Table 7-16.

It can be seen from Table 7-16 that all the null hypotheses are accepted except the null

hypothesis concerning food festivals which is rejected at 5% level of significance. Hence

excepting food festivals, there is no significant difference in the rankings by male and

female respondents for promotional offers.

212
 Table 7-16

Mann-Whitney U-Test on Gender

Null Hypothesis
Result
Number Statement

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H01 Accepted
for additional free pizza are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H02 Accepted
for Complimentary soft drinks are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H03 Accepted
for Discount coupons (limited period offer) are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H04 Accepted
for Gift vouchers are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H05 Accepted
for Pizza eating contest are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H06 Accepted
for Gifts / Discounts for bulk ordering are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H07 Accepted
for Discounts for repeat orders are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

H08 Accepted
for Invites to events are identical.
L
The rankings by male respondents and female respondents
H09 Accepted
for Membership to Pizza club are identical.

The rankings by male respondents and female respondents

Ho10 Accepted
for Surprise gifts are identical.
F
The rankings by male respondents and female respondents
Ho for Gifts / Coupons for constructive suggestions / feedback Accepted
are identical.
The rankings by male respondents and female respondents
H012 Rejected
for Food festivals are identical.
Source: Table XI-D in Annexure Xl.

213
Kendall's Coefficient Of Concordance W Test: This test is administered to ascertain

whether the respondents (k' judges) are applying the same standard in ranking the factor

under study ('n" objects). The statistical analysis is presented in Table XI-E in

Annexure XI.

The null hypothesis (H 013) framed was: The respondents are not applying es

same standard in ranking the promotional offers of pizza outlets. It can be seen from

Table XI-E that the value for Kendall's coefficient of concordance was 0.186 while the

value for Chi-square for II degrees of freedom was 399.863. The Significance value was

0.000 and hence the resulting value is significant at I % level of significance and hence

the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, the respondents are applying ess. the

same standard in ranking the promotional offers of pizza outlets.

Marketing Mix Mean Ratings: A check-list of the marketing mix was compiled based

on interactions with front-line employees and executives of different fast-food

restaurants. The marketing mix elements have been depicted in the form of fish-bone

diagram (cause-and-effect diagram) as presented in Figure 7-1. The diagram also

highlights the mean ratings given by the respondents.

The following attributes were found to obtain mean ratings of 3.5 and above thereby

qualifying for the status of 'Good Service Quality": Ambience (APO), Appearance of

Staff (AOS), Physical representation of the service (PHY), Ethical practices (ETP),

Staffs knowledge in answering (SKA), Image of the Pizza chain (IPC), Accuracy in

billing (AIB), Convenience of outlet hours (COH), Items used to provide the service

214
(IPS), Courtesy shown by the staff (CSS), Location of outlet (LOO), Maintenance of

Hygiene / Cleanliness (MHC), Correct provision of ordered items (CPO) and Quality of

preparation (QOP). All other attributes need to be monitored and quality improvement

measures undertaken.

In the case of Environment, all the three attributes have been rated as having good service

quality whereas in the case of Management, two out of four attributes have been billed as

possessing good service quality. This indicates a hundred and fifty percent rate

respectively. The People category is not far behind with three out of five attributes being

rated as having good service quality.

In the case of Process, six out of fifteen attributes in this category have been rated as

having good service quality. This category needs drastic improvements.

Service Quality Dimensions Mean Scores: The mean scores for the five service quality

dimensions, namely, Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy, are

presented in Table 7-17 and Figure 7-2. It can be seen from Table 7-17 that the two out

of five dimensions, namely, Responsiveness and Empathy, have obtained a mean score

below 3.5 indicating satisfactory service quality. The percentage of service attributes

having been billed as possessing good service quality (mean score above 3.5) within the

dimension are: Tangibles - 100%, Reliability - 60%, Responsiveness - zero percent,

Assurance - 80% and Empathy - 44.44%.

215
 QUALITY

fM

WD

rJ

'C
'C

ON

lj
Q)

co

WD cl ca
eg

OQ
V
CID 0

ç Cl
&)

V
cc
rA
.— V
- V

V
0

V0

rci
cd

216
 Table 7-17

Mean Scores for Fast-Food Service Quality Dimensions

Tangibles Reliability [Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

APO - 3.546 FAIB - 3.7206 A - 3.3429 FAFS - 3.4762 1 [COH - 3.6349

AOS-3.6921 CPO-3.7175_J 1AP-3.3873 CSS-3.8222 EUP-3.1365

Lies - 3.6603 PRI - 3.3651 FRTS - 3.2984 11 ETP - 3.6508-3.7714

LOO

MHC - 3.8254 PIM - 3.454

PHY - 3.581_j FQOP - 3.8603

SPT - 3 .4952
1 IPC - 3.654

3.6
MOU
-3.3111

PKF - 2.9175

-
F - I - POP - 2.9079

-_I 1 -
-
- -
[_POF-2.9683

- Ir RSF - 2.5492

Tangibles
-

Reliability
1 -
-
Responsiveness Assurance
SAE-3.4127

Empathy
Mean = Mean = Mean = Mean = Mean
3.6661 3.6235 3.3809 3.6406 3.1788
Attribute Scores in bold indicate mean rating above 3.5 out of 5.
Note: For Abbreviations Refer Tables 7-9 and 7-10.

Summary of Service Quality Gaps in Fast-Food: The significant service quality gaps

identified from the current study which require immediate and focused attention are

presented in Table 7-18.

217
 00
In
fn

I.
ri:

MD

cdD V

cM
H
V
C.)

.- 0

-
.'

cJ
cc

.. z

N
00
00

vi
r')

218
 Table 7-18

Significant Service Quality Gaps

Identified in Fast-Food

Gap More outlets, Parking facilities, Recreational / Special facilities.

Service provision in time, Assistance for seating, Provision of items mentioned in

Gap menu card, Staff's acknowledgement on entering the outlet, Accommodation of
requests.

Gap 5 Individual attention paid to you, Promotional offers, Pricing of pizzas.

Gap 6 Providing reliable information, Response to suggestions / feedback / complaints,

Effective utilisation of personal details.

Source: Table 7-10.

The fast-food restaurants need to concentrate on the attributes mentioned in Table 7-18 in

order to raise the service quality level.

SCOT Analysis for Fast-Food: The SCOT analysis for the fast-food industry is

presented in Table 7-19 on the basis of personal interviews with employees of fast-food

restaurants besides the findings of the current research study.

219
 Table 7-19
SCOT Analysis for Fast-Food (Pizza) Restaurants
STRENGTHS
• Popular image(western culture).
• Vegetarian and Non-vegetarian
offerings.
OPPORTUNITIES
• Growing inclination to consume
food outdoor.
• Blending of Indian and foreign
cuisines.
• Home delivery and take-aways.
Source: Compiled by Researcher.
220
CHALLENGES
• Custom ising the standard product
(pizza).
• Creating more interest in western
fast-food.
• Increasing the frequency of visits.
• Low-cost pricing.
• Creating awareness about products,
ingredients, nutritional value.
• Pizzas from local / independent
shops - regional and unoi
players.
• Service Quality.
THREATS
• Campaigns against foreign culture.
• Preference for vegetarian food.
• Diet-conscious populatic
• Unshakable preference for
traditional Indian cuisine
• Limited seating area and self-
service.
• Using ingredients which are not
fresh'.
• Penetration of "Dabbawala' (Tiffin
Box meals / snacks) culture.