ABSTRACT

Research findings show that fast food restaurants have turned into one of the most profitable source of

income throughout the globe. Delivering high quality service during the service encounter is central to

competitive advantage in service organizations. However, achieving such high quality while controlling

the costs is major challenge for service managers.

Consequently the present research aims to investigate the customer satisfaction in application of

SERVQUAL model among the fast food restaurant KFC which was chosen as the sample

To achieve this end, this study has enlisted a field descriptive survey design. The instrument for

collecting the data was a researcher developed questionnaire containing fifty attributes for expectation

and perception.

150 questionnaires were distributed among the customers at KFC Fast Food Restaurant at Quatre

Bornes, Curepipe, Flacq, Port Louis and Beau Bassin among which only 147 were usable.

SPSS Software was utilized for analyzing the obtained data at both descriptive statistical levels. The

findings revealed that the customers’ perceptions of the offered service was delivered the expected

average level.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We, Rahsna, Prisca, Josian, Rikesh and Kevin would like to thank the lecturer, Mrs. P. Munhurrun for

giving us the opportunity to assess the service quality in fast food restaurant in Mauritius. This has

enabled us to emphasize on team spirit and have better coordination in the delegation of work and above

all this study has enhanced our knowledge.

A special thanks to the staff of KFC who allowed us to carry our survey in their outlets in different

regions of Mauritius.

We equally like to thank our respective work place for having given us the necessary releases to carry

out the surveys.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

In the recent years, there have been a remarkable growth in fast food restaurants in Mauritius; this

expansion is due to the change in eating habits, a fast growing of middle class population and lifestyle.

Also more people are eating out from their homes. As the demand for fast food has been increasing

drastically, fast food outlets also increased to meet the demand, leading to the establishment of

international franchise in Mauritius.

The development model of a conceptual model by (Parasuraman et al, 1985), this model shows how

customer expectations are influenced by three factors not under the control of the organization: word of

mouth from friends and relatives; the exact needs of the customers; and past experience of that or similar

services. Expectations are also affected by marketing communications and/or press releases.

Subsequently, when a customer experiences that service, they form their own perceptions of the service.

Assuring a service quality is one of the most important aspects for any business who want to

differentiate from competitors and gain sustainable competitive advantage, and enhance efficiency (Mei

et al., 1999; Kandampully and Suhartanto, 2000; Gounaris et al., 2003). Organizations providing

superior service also experience high level customer satisfaction and favorable word-of-mouth (Gilbert

et al., 2004; Gilbert and Veloutsou,2006). Customers’ perceptions of service quality are important to

international organizations because such measures are susceptible to cultural factors and variations

(Furrer et al., 2000; Heskett et al., 1990; Mattila, 1999; Trompenaars, 1994). The benefits of service

quality include increased customer satisfaction, improved customer retention, positive word of mouth,

reduced staff turnover, decreased operating costs, enlarged market share, increased profitability, and

improved financial performance (Rust and Zahorik,1993; Cronin et al., 2000; Kandampully and

Suhartanto, 2000; Duncan and Elliott, 2002; Janda et al., 2002; Sureshchandar et al., 2002; Gounaris et

al., 2003; Kang and James, 2004; Yoon and Suh, 2004)

3

1.1 Aims and Objectives

So the purpose of our study is to assess the service quality of the major fast food restaurant

chain, KFC, in Mauritius. Through this study an analysis of customer perception and expectation of the

KFC chain will be done while comparing gathered data followed by a comparative analysis of the fast

food chains where emphasis will be put upon customer satisfaction and service quality.

1.3 Objectives of the study:

To investigate on customers’ expectations and perceptions of KFC, employing a modified

SERVQUAL approach by integrating the food quality aspect.

To analyse the gap between those expectations and perceptions.

To explore the potential dimensions of service quality for KFC on the local context.

1.4 Outline of the Study:

The study consists of 5 chapters. Some of the chapters are described below:

Chapter 1: Refers to the introduction of the research, it highlights the problem statement, the aim and objectives of the study and also a brief overview of each of the main chapters that will be outlined.

Chapter 2: Consists of the literature review on service quality, characteristics of services, and the Servqual model, the model of service quality gap, customer’s expectation and perception.

Chapter 3: Relates to the methodology, on how to carry out the survey, the method used to collect the data, the sampling techniques used and the data analysis.

Chapter 4: Consists of the results and discussions of the scores of the dimensions, analysis of the Servqual questionnaire and the gap analysis.

Chapter 5: Consists with the conclusion and the recommendation referring to the study.

4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Quality of Service

"With service excellence, everyone wins. Customers win. Employees win.

Management wins. Stockholders win. Communities win. The country wins. "

(Zeithaml et al., 1990)

What Is Quality?

There is no doubt that quality in the hotel industry is an important issue (Jones and Lockwood, 1989),

but what does it actually mean? Quality has often been confused with the 'best'. Dictionary definitions

talk about quality as 'the degree or standard of excellence of something'.

However, a universally agreed definition of quality does not exist. Deming (1986), views quality as

"...conformance to standards". Authors such as Juran et al. (1974),Feigenbaum (1986) and Ishikawa

(1985) also offer similar definitions where quality is taken to mean 'satisfying customer's requirements'

or 'fitness for purpose'. Those approaches rely on the ability of the organisation to determine customers,

requirements and then meet these requirements.

The British Standards Institute (1987) defines quality from a business perspective as 'the totality of

features and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy a stated or implied

need'. As Lockwood et al. (1996) write: "The stated or implied need is that of the customer -the final

arbiter of quality. The hospitality industry deals for the most part with customers' implied needs."

It is thus clear that definitions of quality cannot just be defined in relation to some abstract concept of

'excellence', but instead should be seen in relation to the demands of the user of the final product. As

Clark (1992) cited, 'quality' suggests, "how consistently the product or service delivered, meets or

exceeds the customers, (external or internal) expectations and needs".

Service quality management is now identified in tourism as the cutting edge practice and one of the

factors contributing to this rising prominence is that " ... superior quality is proving to be a winning

competitive strategy" (Zeithaml et al., 1990). As Seaton and Bennett (1996) pointed out: "Everyone

appreciates good customer service when they see it or experience it. Similarly a poor service is equally

instantly recognisable. The quality of service provided in any given situation is thus appraised very

quickly indeed. Nowhere is this more pertinent than in tourism by its very nature the tourism product is

service driven making the quality of the product intrinsically linked to the level of service provided. "

According to Kandampully (1999), "... service quality refers to the customer perceived quality. It is the

customer who determines and is the final judge of quality; hence it is the customer's definition

5

(interpretation) of quality which counts." Bitner (1990) is of view that service quality is the customer's

overall judgement about a firm's excellence or superiority. Another definition of 'service quality' is that

of Horowitz (1990) who claims that service quality is ", ...the minimum level of service that a firm

chooses to provide in order to satisfy its target clientele. At the same time it' is the degree of consistency

the firm can maintain in providing this predetermined level of service. "

2.1 Determinants of Quality

To fully understand the concept of quality, the salient aspects of 'quality' need to be determined. As

Ghobadian et al. (1994) asserted, quality is not a singular but a multi- dimensional phenomenon, hence

the need to take a look at the genetic determinants of 'service quality'.

To start with, Sasser et al. (1978) have identified three different dimensions of service quality: a level of

material facilities and personnel According to them, service quality is affected by the quality of

materials, which constitute part of the service offering, such as food in a restaurant. This is also true of

the quality of facilities that complement the core offering, like for example a comfortable bed in a hotel

room.

The third element they stressed on is the behaviour of the personnel that they claim similarly influences

the service quality. The important aspect of this tracheotomy is the notion that service quality involves

more than the outcome 'quality'. A further development of this view was proposed by Gronroos (1982)

and by Lehtinen and Lentinen (1982).

Gronroos (1978) argued that 'service quality' has three dimensions, namely that of the technical quality

of the outcome, the functional quality of the service encounter, and finally, the corporate image.

1) The technical quality of outcome: This relates to what the customer receives or what is delivered, that

is the actual outcome of the service encounter.

Examples could be food in a restaurant or room and bed in a hotel.

2) The functional quality of the service encounter: This relates to how the outcome is delivered or what

Gronroos (1984b) calls the "expressive performance of a service". This element of 'quality' is concerned

with the interaction between the provider and the recipient of a service, which is often perceived in a

subjective manner, such as the attitude of the waiter.

3) The corporate image: This third point relates to the customers' perceptions of the service organisation

and depend on the technical and functional quality; price; external communications; physical location;

appearance of the site; and the competence and behaviour of the firms' employees.

According to Gronroos (1978), the functional quality of a service, that is, 'how' a firm's contact personnel

render a service, commonly assumes more importance than the technical quality of the outcome.

6

Gronroos model is therefore important because it reminds us that service quality must include the

manner in which it is actually delivered.

Authors such as Lehtinen and Lentinen (1982) also identified two sets of quality dimensions, which are,

process quality and output quality. According to them, these two elements are both inherent in all

services, and when combined, exist as' service quality'. They argue that, through the intimacy of the

production process with the customer, in many services, the customer experiences the production process

through interaction and participation.

Process quality in services is, therefore, subjective in nature and judged by the customer during the

service. On the other hand, output quality' is customers, evaluation of the service relative to its result. In

services such as tourism where there are no 'apparent' final products, it is process quality, which is of

vital importance to the visitor.

Another major contribution in this field has been that of Parasuraman et al. (1985) who developed the

'Gap' model. This model is a means of describing customer dissatisfaction in the context of service

quality, that is, it defines the quality perceived in a service to be a function of the gap between

customers' expectations of service and their perceptions of the actual service as delivered by the

organisation. It means that customers assess service quality by comparing the service they receive

(perceptions -'what I get') with the service they 'desire' (expectations -'what I want').

As part of this same research, ten key criteria for evaluating service quality were identified, which

Parasuraman et al. (1985) caned "Service Quality Determinants", and noted that despite the different

types of service analysed, customers used fairly similar criteria. The ten Service

Quality Determinants are:

1) Tangibles: Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication materials.

2) Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.

3) Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.

4) Competence: Possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service.

5) Courtesy: Politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of the contact personnel.

6) Credibility: Trustworthiness, believability, and honesty of the service provider.

7) Security: Freedom from danger, risk or doubt.

8) Access: Approachability and ease of contact.

9) Communication: Keeping customers informed in language they can understand and listening to

them.

10) Understanding the customer: Making the effort to know customers and their needs.

7

2.2 Quality Standards

Any industry that markets a product in a highly competitive market, competing for the consumer's

disposable income, needs to be aware of quality issues (Jones and Lockwood, 1989). While setting

standards, an organisation's duty is to determine a standard for the level of quality it aims, and can afford

to provide, and it is important that the standard be clear and communicated to staff (Wright, 1999). The

presence of performance standards is a prerequisite for providing high service quality as advocated by

Zeithaml et al. (1990).

According to these authors, the quality of service delivered by customer-contact personnel is critically

influenced by the standards against which they are evaluated and compensated since the standards signal

to those employees what management's priorities are and which type of performance is required. When

service standards are absent or when those in place do not reflect customers' expectations, quality of

service as perceived by customers is likely to suffer. In contrast, when there are standards reflecting what

customers expect, such as a courteous treatment or a quick response, the quality of service is likely to be

enhanced (Zeithaml et al. 1990).

Also, for quality standards to be effective, they must not only reflect or exceed customers' expectations

but must also be backed up by adequate and appropriate resources like people, systems and technology,

Hence, since quality relates to consumers' needs and expectations, the standards adopted by the industry

are mostly established by its customers, and these standards have been changing due to the changing

needs of consumers (Jones and Lockwood, 1989).

Therefore, if these standards are continuously upgraded according to customer/market needs, they will

form the cornerstone for continuous improvement in benchmarking the firm's performance, regarding

both customer requirements and the combination (Berry et al., 1990). According to Ernst & Young

consulting group (1990), standard should aim to bind everyone in the organisation, to ensure that

everyone works within the standards, and also that standards become the working practice. Thus

standards are indeed the cornerstones to continuous improvement and should thus be given their due

attention.

2.3 Measuring Service Quality

To ascertain the value of customer service, some form' of assessment must be introduced. Here,

Derning's (1986) 'conformance to standards' definition is helpful because it gives management

something to measure against -the 'standard'. One of Derning's important principles were that unless

there were measurements of quality, one could never be sure that quality was, in fact, improving.

8

However, as with anything intangible (like the service in the hotel industry), this becomes an acutely

difficult task (Stabler, 1993).

Gronroos' (1978) technical and functional dimensions of service mentioned above are important here.

The functional element of the service encounter, which is concerned with the customer-provider

relationship, is totally intangible and therefore difficult to measure in a way that is both consistent and

meaningful (Witt, 1993). Meanwhile, technical service, which relates to what the customer actually

receives, hence to more tangible aspects including resources and equipment, can be more readily

qualified on the basis of price, quality and speed (Seaton and Bennett, 1996). These authors also note

that one aspect which can be measured is the cost of getting things wrong, that is, the costs of non-

conformance to set standards.

2.4 The SERVQUAL Instrument

The SERVQUAL instrument developed by (Parasuraman et al., 1991) has proved popular, being used in

many studies of service quality. This is because it has a generic application and is a practical approach

to any area. A number of researchers have applied the SERVQUAL model to measure service quality in

the hospitality industry with modified constructs to suit specific hospitality situations.

(Parasuraman et al., 1985) developed the gap model and the subsequent SERQUAL instrument designed

to identify and measure the gaps between customers’ expectations and perceptions of the service

received. Service quality from the consumer’s perspective depends on the direction and degree of

difference between the expected service and the perceived service. Thus by comparing customer’s

expected service with customer’s perceived service, hotels, for example can determine whether its

service standard is appropriate. The gap between expectations and perceptions of performance

determines the level of service quality from a customer’s perspective.

The servqual instrument consists of 22 statements for assessing consumer perceptions and expectations

regarding the quality of a service. Respondent are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement

with the given statements.

Consumer’s perceptions are based on the actual service they receive while consumer’s expectations are

based on past experiences and information received. The statements represent the determinants or

dimensions of service quality.

9

2.5 Customer Expectations

Customer expectations are considered as desires or wants of customers about what they expect a service

provider to offer them more than they are expecting to offer. Parasuraman et al. (1991) suggested that, if

a firm correctly understands consumer’s expectations, service is delivered adequately. Following studies

shows that researchers kept developing and extending the initial conceptual model of expectations, while

putting a emphasis on important elements relative to customer expectations. (Parasuraman et al.,

1991; Zeithaml et al., 1993; Walker and Baker, 2000).

Parasuraman et al. (1991) proposed that customer expectations comprise two levels: desired and

adequate (as shown in Figure 1). Desired expectations represented the level of service a customer hopes

to receive, defined as the level at which the customer wanted the service to perform. It was a

combination of what the customer believed “can be” and “should be”, while adequate expectations, a

lower level of expectation, considered to be customer's acceptable level of performance. It was relied on

the customer's assessment of what the service “will be” (Zeithaml et al., 1993). The latter was the basic

expectation level for customers to determine the service performance; whereas, the former expectation

level, which was higher than adequate expectation, could attract the customers, i.e. customers might be

surprised and overwhelmed while the service providers were reaching or exceeding customer

expectations. These actions directly made the customers tend to think the performance better and be

satisfied with the service.

Customers buy goods and services to meet specific needs. Needs are often deeply rooted in people’s

unconscious minds and may concern long-term existence and identify issues. When people feel a need,

they are motivated to take action to fulfil it. In many instances, purchase of a good or service may be

seen as offering the best solution to meeting a particular need.

Subsequently, consumers may compare what they received against what they expected, especially if it

cost them money, time, effort that could have been devoted to obtaining an alternative solution

(Parasuraman et al., (1991).

Customer expectations embrace several elements, including desired service, adequate service, predicted

service and a zone of tolerance that falls between the desired and adequate service levels

2.5.1 Desired and Adequate Service Levels

The type of service customers hope to receive is termed as desired service. It is a wished-for level: a

combination of what customers believe can and should be delivered in the context of their personal

needs. However, most customers are realistic and understand that companies can’t always deliver the

10

desired level of service; which is defined as the minimum level of service customers will accept without

being dissatisfied. Among the factors that set this expectation are situational factors affecting service

performance and the level of service that might be anticipated from alternative suppliers.

The levels of both desired and adequate service expectations may reflect explicit and implicit promises

by the provider, word-of-mouth comments, and the customer’s past experience (Parasuraman et

al., (1991).

2.5.2 Cost of Quality

"Quality does not come cheaply. It is not free. To instil a quality culture into an organisation will take

time, require total commitment and will cost money. But the alternative is to lose your place in the

market, and eventually your organisation will be no more. The payback for the investment in quality is

in the long term, and benefits of higher quality are the reduction of costs, higher profits, growth and

survival" (Wright, 1999).

According to Zeithaml et al. (1990), the cost of quality can be divided into two types, namely the costs

of conformance and the costs of non-conformance. The costs of conformance are those involved in

assuring that everything comes out right and includes all prevention efforts and training. The costs of

non-conformance are those costs incurred when work or service is not performed to the standard set by

the organisation. The work or service then, has to be corrected, done again or the customer has to be

recompensed. These costs that can be measured will include for example waste of wages for re-doing

work, wasted time and perhaps waste of material (Wright, 1999). Also, there are also costs of loss

opportunities and loss of enthusiasm by workers that cannot be measured.

The worst cost, however, is the unknown cost of lost customers and lost opportunities, as per Wright

(1999). It has been suggested, for example, that the cost of replacing a customer is five times that of

keeping one (Lewis, 1993). According to Laws (1992), dissatisfied customers can damage the company

in several ways; those who complain impose costs on the organisation which will have to devote

resources to investigation and response, and others will discuss their bad experiences with friends,

relatives or colleagues, possibly influencing them against future purchases from the company. That is

why there is a real need to get it right first time so that not only are customers won, but are also

maintained. As Zeithaml et al. (1990) wrote: "The potential payoff from service excellence is

considerable. Quality does pay."

11

2.6 Customer Satisfaction

According to Evans and Dean (2003), the customer is the judge of quality. Understanding customer

needs, both current and future and keeping pace with changing market require effective strategies for

listening to and learning from customers, measuring their satisfaction relative to competitors and

building relationships. Satisfaction and dissatisfactions information are important because understanding

them leads to the right improvements that can create satisfied customers who reward the company with

loyalty.

Thus customer satisfaction can be defined as the experiences and encounter that a Customers’ overall

satisfaction with service is based on all their encounters and experiences with the host organization.

Service delivery involves direct and indirect interaction with customers which usually involves

processes which occurs in real time situations. While companies are aiming for an increasing

competitive strength, much emphasis has to be directed on customers’ needs. It is anticipated that

organisation spends considerable resources in measuring and managing customer satisfaction. In order

to improve customer satisfaction and to foster customer loyalty, organization are concentrating on

factors influencing customer satisfaction and loyalty behaviour, on the process, essential areas are

analysed and rectified in order to deliver more consistent and quality services (Agnes K.Y. Law, Y.V.

Hui and Xiande Zhao, 2004).

In 2004 Gilbert et al states that satisfaction is expressed in many ways, like positive word-of-mouth,

complementing the service provider and brand loyalty to the service organization where it is often

assumed that satisfied consumers are loyal customers. A satisfied customer purchases again and frequent

purchases lead to faithful customers. In turn, customer’s loyalty leads to enhanced brand equity and

higher profits.

2.7 Customer Loyalty

Ehigie (2006) states that customer loyalty is an important concept in the contemporary competitive

market and loyalty is viewed as a strong element on the on the performance of firms (Lam, 2004). As

Ehigie (2006), suggests, satisfied consumers are more prone to sustain the relationship between the

service provider and the satisfied customers. Consequently, the management of organizations needs to

develop effective strategies and complaint-handling policies and procedures in order foster customer

loyalty. According to previous researches, customer loyalty can uplift the enterprise’s profitability 25 to

80 per cent (Lee et al., 1997). As a result, customer loyalty is direct determinant of relationship

marketing as Ehigie (2006) indicates that loyalty is an influential aspect of relationship marketing.

12

2.8 Service Encounter

For service science to be a complete discipline it must address how customers experience services with

the same depth of analysis as it studies the analytics of information and physical flow processes that

deliver the service. The heart of a service is the encounter between the server and the customer. It is here

where emotions meet economics in real time and where most people judge the quality of the service. As

currently conceived, service science treats satisfaction with an encounter predominantly as a function of

engineering measures of throughout and output quality. Thus, if a service is performed efficiently and

process output variability is low, it is assumed that the service process has been optimised. Our view is

that this misses critical psychological variables that lie at the subconscious level, and which if

understood by management could be managed in such a way to enhance customer satisfaction.

The most immediate evidence of service quality occurs during the service encounter or “moment of

truth” (Gronroos, 1990) where the customer and service provider interacted with one another.

Memorable incidents that occur during this encounter whether can determine whether a customer leaves

satisfied or dissatisfied and ultimately whether he or she returns. Besides, the service encounter involves

at least two people, it is important to understand the encounter from multiple perspectives in or to

uncover some of the underlying reasons for poor service quality.

Understanding customer behaviour lies at the heart of marketing. High contact service encounters

between customers and service organizations differ sharply from low-contact ones. Some services, such

as restaurants, hospitals and airlines require customers to have active contact with the organization

including visits to its facilities and face-to-face interactions with employees. By contrast, customers of

service industries such as insurance and cable TV companies

2.9 Model of Service Quality Gaps

There are five major gaps in the service quality concept, which are shown in Figure 1. The model is

from Parasuraman et al (1985). For this survey, we are only studying the gap between the customer

expectation and customer perception of service quality at the FFR. The starting premise for the model is

that “perceived service quality (or satisfaction with service) is a function of the difference between

expected service levels and delivered (perceived) service. The following diagram which summarises

how perceived service can diverge from expected service, constitutes the essence of the possible

contributing factors of the following gaps listed.

The challenge to the organization is to isolate which variables are influencing service quality perception

negatively and how to eliminate them. Of key importance to the organization is Gap 1. Gap 5 relates to

13

the overall perception the client-base has of the unit’s ability (for this survey, the FFR’S unit ability) to

deliver on service commitments made

The Figure below illustrates the different service quality gaps:

14

Word of Mouth

Communications Personal needs Past experience

Expected Service

Perceived Service

Service delivery (Including pre-and Post contacts)

Service delivery (Including pre-and

Post contacts)

Employee perceptions of consumer expectation

Translation of perceptions into service quality specifications

Management perceptions of

consumer expectations

Consumer

Provider

Gap5

Gap6

Gap1

Gap4

Gap3

Gap7 Gap2

Figure1. Model of Service Quality Gaps (Parasuraman et al, 1985; Curry, 1999; Luk and Layton, 2002)

According to Brown and Bond (1995), “The gap model is one of the best received and most heuristically

valuable contributions to the services literature”. The model identifies seven key discrepancies or gaps

relating to managerial perceptions of service quality, and tasks associated with service delivery to

customers. The first six gaps (Gap1, Gap2, Gap3, Gap4, Gap6 and Gap7) are identified as functions of the

way in which service is delivered, whereas Gap5 pertains to the customer and as such is considered to be

true measure of service quality.

According to Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml, et al (1985) five distinct gaps on the service provider’s side

can impede on the delivery of services that consumers perceive as high quality.

3. METHODOLOGY

The servqual is an instrument to measure the service quality in many organizations.

There are different models of service quality that have been developed Brogowicz et al 1990, Grönroos 2007, Parasuraman et al 1985)

We have used the one of Parasuraman et al 1985; it is the only type of instrument which is adequate to measure service quality in fast food.

A questionnaire was developed with two set of 25 questions each measures adapted to the attributes of Fast Food Restaurant. This was designed to measure perception and expectation of service quality at KFC. The questionnaire is consisted of 22 item SERVQUAL measure developed by Parasuraman et al. (1991) which was divided into 5 important dimensions to measure the expectation and perception of the customers and 1 additional dimension for food quality.

The 5 dimensions: Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy

Tangible consist are 4 questions on the materials at KFC, Reliability there are 5 questions on their honesty when they promise to do something. Responsiveness consist are 4 questions, there are 4 question on Assurance how they guarantee the customers about the services deliver, 5 question on Empathy of the employees towards the clients. And finally 3 questions on the food quality at KFC

To consider future purchase at their outlets respondents were asked their expectation about KFC if there will be a change in the service delivery. All items except the three demographic questions were rated on a 1 to 5 strongly disagree-strongly agree, scale. One questionnaire form asked the perception and the other one on their expectation based on the 5 dimensions of SERVQUAL followed by the 3 demographic questions.

15

The survey for this study consisted of the general public in five different regions of the island near KFC. The general public because many people likes chicken and it was the growing leader of fast food in Mauritius.

3.1 The Servqual Instrument

SERVQUAL was originally measured on 10 aspects of service quality: reliability, responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security, understanding the customer and tangibles. It measures the gap between customer expectations and experience.

Servqual has its detractors and is considered overly complex, subjective and statistically unreliable. It is an efficient model in helping an organization shape up their efforts in bridging the gap between perceived and expected service.

Francis Buttle critiques SERVQUAL in the article "SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda" on a number of theoretical and operational bases. He particularly notes that SERVQUAL's 5 dimensions (Reliability, Assurance, Tangibility, Empathy, and Responsiveness) are not universals, and that the model fails to draw on established economic, statistical and psychological theory.

Although SERVQUAL's face and construct validity are in doubt, it is widely used in published and modified forms to measure customer expectations and perceptions of service quality.

Luis Lages and Joana Fernandes in the article "The SERPVAL scale: A multi-item instrument for measuring service personal values" suggests that consumer final decisions are taken at a higher-level of abstraction. Similarly to the SERVQUAL scale, the Service Personal Values (SERPVAL) scale is also multi-dimensional. It presents three dimensions of service value to 1) peaceful life, 2) social recognition, and 3) social integration. All three SERPVAL dimensions are associated with consumer satisfaction. While service value to social integration is related only with loyalty, service value to peaceful life is associated with both loyalty and repurchases intent.

Strength and benefit of Servqual:

Most users would agree that a comprehensive and a thorough examination of service needs and service quality provides an invaluable approach to improving service quality. Servqual provides detail information about:

Customer perceptions of service (benchmark establish by your own customer)

16

Performance levels as perceive as perceived by customers

Customer’s comments and suggestion

Impressions from employees with respect to customers expectations and satisfaction.

Limitation of Servqual and disadvantage:

There are a number of studies that doubt the validity of the 5 dimensions. According to an analysis by Thomas .P.Van.Dyke, Victor R.Pryutok, and Leon A.Kappleman, it appears that the use of different scores in calculating Servqual contributes to problems with the reliability, discriminate validity, and predictive of the measurement. These findings suggest that caution should be exercised in the use of Servqual scores and that further work is needed in the development of measures for assessing the quality of information services.

Importance of Customer service:

Most anyone will agree that customer service is one of the most important parts of your company's overall strategy to conducting business. Without customers you really don't have a business.

Customer service is the provision of service to customers before, during and after a purchase.

Customer service is a series of activities designed to enhance the level of customer satisfaction – that is, the feeling that a product or service has met the customer expectation.

Customer service is normally an integral part of a company’s customer value proposition. Customer service may be provided by a person e.g., sales and service representative.

The last person to buy from you is the most likely to buy again and soon.

This I can testify to be true as we have many repeat sales from existing customers. A repeat customer does not happen by accident. A repeat customer is the result a relationship you have built up through excellent customer service.

Twenty–five attributes have commonly been used to describe these five determinants with respondents

being asked to state what they expected from the service and how they perceived the service. Each of the

25 questions pertains to one of the dimensions:

Table 1 : Dimensions

Dimensions Related Questions Total of Questions

Tangibles 1-4 4

Reliability 5-9 5

Responsiveness 10-13 4

17

Assurance 14-17 4

Empathy 18-22 5

Food Quality 23-25 3

3.2 The Likert Scale

Based on the comparisons between customer’ expectation and experiences , among these 25 attributes,

an overall quality score can be calculated on a five point Likert Scale , with a score of one indicating

that the respondent disagrees and score of five indicating they strongly agree .

3.3 Survey Administration

To conduct the survey, we handed out and collected 150 surveys during specified time periods in at KFC as per

our request. The data was collected via Face- to- face person administrated survey format in order to complete

and accurate information as it enables a better control of respondent’s selection and explanation of questions.

The customers were interviewed right after the FFR’s service was consumed. This ensured that they would

have fresh memories of the experience.

3.4 Questionnaire Design

The SERVQUAL questionnaire (Appendix A) includes scales for six different aspects of service quality:

Tangibles, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy and Food Quality. The survey includes two

sets of 25-items measures adapted to the attributes of Fast Food Restaurant, a five-point Likert Scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was determined. One set of measures is used to

assess expectations regarding service quality, while the second set is used to determine perceptions

regarding actual service quality.

3.5 Pilot Test

A pilot test was done before the finalization of the questionnaire. Since we were all members of the

group consumers of KFC, we had given our own opinion. Above that, we had friends who were KFC

eaters fill in questionnaire. In total there we gathered 10 pilot questionnaires.

No changes were brought to the initial questionnaire as it was already user friendly and straightforward.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

18

4.1 Servqual Gap Analysis

Good service quality is that which matches or exceeds customer expectations. Judgement of high and

low service quality depends on how customers perceive the actual service performance in the context of

what they expected. These two key concepts are then compared through difference scores of “gaps”,

SERVQUAL gap analysis is used to measure the gaps between customers’ expectations and customers’

perceptions. The Gap is obtained by subtracting expectations from perceptions. (SQ = P – E). A

positive score signified that the service quality was meeting or exceeding expectations.

A negative score mean that the service quality was not meeting expectations of customers.

4.2 Tangibles Dimension

This service quality dimension involves the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, materials and

personnel of the

organization. Table 2

shows the mean ratings of

score for respondents

for each specific item.

RESULTS

Table 2

DISCUSSIONS

As it can be deduced from table 2, the gap between perceptions and expectations is negative, that is, -

0.23.This negative gap relates that most expectations of the customers were not met through different

19

Tangibles Statement (E) Mean

(P) Mean

Gap (P - E)

KFC has modern looking equipment.

4.04 3.9 -0.14

KFC’s physical features are visually appealing.

4.34 4.52 0.18

KFC's service counter employees are neat appearing.

4.68 4.14 -0.54

Materials associated with the service (such as take away boxes, napkins and items related to) are visually appealing at the KFC.

3.87 4.14 0.27

TOTAL SCORES 16.93 16.7 -0.23

factors that affect this service quality dimension (tangibles).The perceptions of the customers to witness

modern equipments is lower than their expectations which means that KFC has to review and update

their equipment. The physical features of KFC have exceeded the customers’ expectations which mean

the physical surroundings for example the parking area was more spacious of what the customers were

expecting. The customers were expecting to see the KFC’s service counter employees to be well-

groomed and have a good way of communication but when witnessing the appearance and way of

communicating of the employees it was not the case, for e.g a KFC’s service counter girl was not

wearing a cap when delivering the service. Finally the gap between the perceptions and expectations of

the materials associated with the service is positive that is, for example the take away boxes were useful

to the customers who want to have their meal at home.

4.3 Reliability Dimension

This quality dimension involves the consistent, dependable and accurate delivery of promised services.

Table 3 represents the means rating for this dimension and items.

RESULTS

Reliability Statement (E) Mean

(P) Mean

Gap (P - E)

When KFC promises to do something by a certain time, it does so.

3.63 4.33 0.7

When you have a problem, KFC shows a sincere interest in solving it.

3.57 3.43 -0.14

KFC performs the service right the first time.

3.39 3.75 0.36

KFC provides its service at the time it promises to do so.

3.92 3.08 -0.84

KFC insists on error free records. 3.58 2.39 -1.19

TOTAL SCORES 18.09 16.98 -1.11

Table 3

DISCUSSIONS

The result and gap gathered in this service quality dimensions which refers to how KFC is performing

and completing the service, quality and accuracy within the given set requirements between itself and

the customer is a negative one which means that the service quality did not exceed the customers’

20

expectations. When KFC promised to do something by certain time, it does so and this service quality

exceed customers’ expectations, for example a customer was told to wait for one minute for the French

fries and before this one minute the product was delivered. The sincere interest in solving a problem was

not well perceived by the customers and that’s why there is a negative gap. Customers going first time to

KFC were expected to witness the right service and their expectations were exceeded.

4.4 Responsiveness Dimension

This dimension service quality encompasses those aspects of the personnel that demonstrate the

willingness of an organization to help customers and provide prompt service. See table 4 for a display of

the response.

RESULTS

Responsiveness Statement (E) Mean

(P) Mean

Gap (P - E)

Employees at KFC tell you exactly when the services will be performed.

3.58 3.19 -0.39

Employees at KFC give you prompt service.

4.16 3.38 -0.78

Employees at KFC are always willing to help you.

3.84 2.63 -1.21

Employees at KFC are never too busy to respond to your request.

3.83 2.70 -1.13

TOTAL SCORES 15.41 11.9 -3.51

Table 4

DISCUSSIONS

In this statement there is negative gap between the perceptions and expectations which is -3.51. This

means that the customer did not feel that they were valued as they did not get the best possible quality in

the service due to lack of willingness of KFC’s employees to help. When an employee told a customer

that the food will be ready in 15 minutes and that it was delivered in almost 30 minutes which was that

the service was not performed exactly as told and there was no prompt service delivered. The

willingness of the KFC’ employees to help did not meet the expectations of the customers as they did

not help the customers the way they are intended to do so. The employees are often busy to respond to

request of the customers. For example, a customer ask the KFC service encounter employee to put l slice

of cheese in the zinger but as the employee were busy talking to this friends forgot to put it and

21

delivered it to the customers without the slice. This will obviously create a negative image of the

company and will not incite the customer to come back again.

4.5 Assurance Dimension

This dimension service quality includes the knowledge, skill ability of the personnel, as well as the

ability to inspire trust and confidence from customers. Table 5 follows with the mean ratings for the

dimension of each item.

RESULTS

Assurance Statement (E) Mean

(P) Mean

Gap (P - E)

The behaviour of employees at KFC will instil confidence in you.

3.87 2.38 -1.49

Customers of KFC feel safe in transactions

4.65 3.78 -0.87

Employees at KFC are consistently courteous with you.

3.35 4.06 0.71

Employees at KFC have the knowledge to answer your questions.

3.75 3.29 -0.46

TOTAL SCORES 15.62 13.51 -2.11

Table 5

DISCUSSIONS

The results in this statement show a gap of -2.11 between the perceptions and expectations of the

customers in relation to the knowledge and courtesy of employees and the ability to convey trust and

confidence. This means that the behaviour of the employees did not instil confidence in the customers as

they have delivered a poor service and will not incite the customers to come back again. Customers do

not feel safe in transactions as according to them the employees lack of knowledge and are unfamiliar in

dealing with cash and credit card transactions. For example, a KFC service counter employee lacking of

mathematical skills will definitely make errors when encashing money and may wrongly returned the

change to the customers either less or more. One positive result in this statement is that the KFC

employees are courteous to the customers and obviously exceed their expectations and convey customer

satisfaction. To conclude the results show that the employees were lacking knowledge concerning their

22

product for example, a customer asking what’s the component of the mashie potato and the employee is

not being able to reply as he or she does not know what’s really in it. This is due to lack of supervision

and training by the management.

4.6 Empathy Dimension

This dimension service quality relates to the level of caring and individualized attention that personnel

provide to customers and clients. Table 6 shows the mean ratings for this dimension and each item.

RESULTS

Empathy Statement (E) Mean

(P) Mean

Gap (P - E)

KFC gives you individual attention. 3.84 3.55 -0.29

KFC has operating hours convenient to all its customers

4.63 3.33 -1.3

KFC has employees who give you personal attention.

3.27 3.09 -0.18

KFC has your best interests at heart.

3.77 3.71 -0.06

The employees at KFC understand your specific needs

2.68 3.52 0.84

TOTAL SCORES 18.19 17.2 - 0.99

Table 6

DISCUSSIONS

This service quality dimension shows a negative gap between perceptions and expectations which is -

0.99.The Empathy service quality dimension refers to how the company cares and gives individualized

attention to their customers, to make the customers feeling extra valued and special. This fifth dimension

is actually combining the second, third and fourth dimension to a higher level, even though it really

cannot be compared as individuals. If the customers feel they get individualized and quality attention

there is a very big chance that they will return to the company and do business there again. In the case of

KFC, it can be deduced that no individual attention is perceived by most of the customers and also that

the operating hours in not suitable to all its customers.

23

4.7 Food Quality Dimension

This dimension service quality indicates to the level of food that is acceptable to consumers. This

includes external factors as appearance (size, shape, colour, gloss, and consistency), texture, and flavour.

RESULTS

Food Quality Statement (E) Mean

(P) Mean

Gap (P -E)

Food items ordered at KFC are well cooked

3.72 3.72 0

Portion size of food items at KFC are well respected

4.06 3.04 -1.02

Food items served at KFC are at right temperature

4.60 4 -0.6

TOTAL SCORES 12.38 10.76 -1.62

Table 7: Food Quality Scores

DISCUSSIONS

Again in this final service quality dimension the gap between the perceptions and expectations is a

negative one (-1.62).The gap between the expectations and perceptions concerning that the food items

ordered at KFC are well cooked is nil which means the customers’ expectations have been met. Whereas

there is negative gap concerning the portion size of food items at KFC as for example a customer buys a

large chips is given sometimes the same quantity as a medium one. They are at different prices but the

portion is the same. Customer feels also that the food items are not at the right temperature when served.

The crispy strips which must be mostly served at a hot temperature are served cold instead and the

customer will not really experience the real good quality of food at KFC and will incite them also not to

return to one the KFC’s outlet.

4.8 SERVQUAL Gap

24

This is calculated by first summing all mean perception scores of the five dimensions and then the

summing of all the mean scores of the five dimensions. The SERVQUAL Gap is then calculated by

subtracting the total scores from the total mean perception scores such as shown below:

Service Quality Gap = Perception – Expectation

Subsequently, after calculating the SERVQUAL Gap, the mean SERVQUAL Gap needs to be

determined. This is achieved by dividing the value of the SERVQUAL Gap by the number of

dimensions concerning the service quality. The results are presented in table below (8).

Table: SERVQUAL Quality Scores

SN Statements PERCEPTION EXPECTATION GAP

Mean Scores Mean Scores

1. Tangibles 16.7 16.93 -0.23

2. Reliability 16.98 18.09 -1.11

3. Responsiveness 11.09 15.41 -3.51

4. Assurances 13.51 15.62 -2.11

5. Empathy 17.2 18.19 -0.99

6. Food Quality 10.76 12.38 -1.62

As it can be deduced from table 8, the negative gaps in all the dimensions reveal that the higher the gap

between expectations and perceptions, the more serious is the service quality shortfall in the eyes of the

customers. Data analysis revealed that the negative gap of the ‘tangibles’, ‘reliability’ and

‘responsiveness’ dimensions was related to poor appearance of physical facilities, personnel of the

organization were not dependable which means that there was no sincere interest in problem solving, no

accurate delivery of promised services, no provision of adequate information from the employees which

lead to no prompt response to customers request. The ‘assurance’ dimension results a negative gap

between the expectations and perceptions as there was lack of reputation service and there no advanced

information about services. Concerning the ‘empathy’ dimension again the negative gap states that there

is no allocation of required time to deliver each service and also there is not a cultivation of friendly

25

relationship. Finally the ‘food quality’ dimension which results in a negative gap due to the portion of

food not being respected and also the temperature of the food item which are relatively not reasonable.

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

The purpose of this survey is to show how a hospitality organisation delivers quality service, care for his

customers, compete among other hospitality organization, and meet the customer’s expectation and

satisfaction. For that particular reason KFC was chosen as this fast food restaurant is among the best fast

food in the world that deliver an outstanding service quality using Parasuraman or Zeithaml formula.

Moreover, this survey is an example on how KFC provides service quality expressed explicitly to both

customers and employees for what is being promised by the organization and what standard the

customer expect of them. The quality service presents the organization an opportunity to take immediate

corrective action, which is crucial to convert dissatisfied customers into satisfied ones. Consequently, it

can be argued that one of the significant benefits of the service quality is immediate feedback of

customers’ changing expectations. The service quality does not only enable a firm to learn from

customer’ complaints, it effectively compels the organization to respond to customer feedback

immediately. In realizing the cost involved with each failure, the company has an additional opportunity

to learn from the mistake and so eliminate the possibility of further similar mistakes.

In essence the service quality assists an organization to create a customer-driven standard of service.

Service management literature suggests that well managed service guarantee programs substantially

affect organizational benefits whose success has been linked to their service quality programs.

This study examined the relationship between the servqual and perceived quality, and the relationship

between the servqual and the customer’s satisfaction. Overall, this study found that the reliability,

empathy, responsiveness, assurance and tangibility of food service and condition of KFC negatively

influenced the people perception and their satisfaction.

 

This study also discovered that the effect of KFC’s service and food quality on satisfaction can differ the

depending on how the physical environment of the fast food is perceived claimed that quality is usually

26

antecedent to satisfaction. Servqual can be used as a key determinant to predict the overall customer’s

satisfaction. Studies have identified service quality have a positive relationship with customer

satisfaction. Unfortunately, this research conducted has effectively proven that there is a significant

influence of service quality on customer dissatisfaction. The literature review and hypothesis has been

accepted and supported. The most widely used approach to conceptualizing and measuring service

quality has been developed by Parasuraman and Zeitham.

Service quality has ten dimensions to it. But most research using service quality is focused on the five

main dimensions as stated by Andreas C.S.et al.(1998) and defined by Parasuraman (1988) which were

tangibility, reliability, empathy, responsiveness, and assurance.

The servqual model is seen as a model that produce successful outcome. Based on the research

conducted by Grönroos 2007, the servqual model offers a suitable conceptual frame for the research and

service quality measurement in the service sector.

A negative result means that the service quality is not meeting expectations and perception of customers

as in a country like Mauritius. Customers going to any KFC’s outlet were expected to witness the right

service and their expectations which were not at all. Due to lack of good management, supervision and

lack of training, customers will prefer elsewhere rather than KFC.

To summarize, servqual can be widely applied, not only in science but also in practice in various

services (Grönroos 2007) and further research can be conducted in order to provide more information

about the roles of service quality that exactly influenced the perception of quality from the customers

and also their satisfaction.

5.2 Recommendations

Continue with great taste.

Have something for everyone.

Offer a choice without confusing.

Let the customer know what they will be getting there every time.

Consistency into brand loyalty.

More advertising campaign should be carried out.

Must keep on with the clean environment.

27

Continue to focus on marketing strategy

Training should be provided to staffs

Continue with the marketing concept that is to find the right product for the customer.

Best performance in task accuracy and hygiene

Continue to provide comfort for everyone

REFERENCES:

John Wiley & Sons (1996) TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. (1985), "Quality counts in services too", Business

Horizon, May/June, pp.44-52.

Czepiel, J.A. (1990), "Service encounters and service relationships: implications for research", Journal

of Business Research, Vol. 20 No.1, pp.13-21.

Ehigie, B. (2006), ‘‘Correlates of customer loyalty to their bank: a case study in Nigeria’’,

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 494-508.

Furrer, O., Liu, B.S., Sudharshan, D. (2000), "The relationships between culture and service quality

perceptions", Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No.4, pp.355-71.

Gronroos, C. (1982), Strategic Management and Marketing in the Service Sector, Swedish School of

Economics and Business Administration, Helsingfors.

Gronroos, C. (1984), “A service quality model and its marketing implications,” European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.

Jain, S.K., Gupta, G. (2004), "Measuring service quality: SERVQUAL vs SERVPERF

scales", VIKALPA, Vol. 29 No.2, pp.25-37.

Oliver, Richard L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

28

Tang, T.L.P., Kim, J.K., Tang, D.S.H. (2000b), "Does attitude toward money moderate the relationship

between intrinsic job satisfaction and voluntary turnover?", Human Relations, Vol. 53 No.2, pp.213-45.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), "A conceptual model of service quality and its

implication", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), "SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for

measuring consumer perceptions of the service quality", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 12- 40.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1991), "Refinement and reassessment of the

SERVQUAL scale", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67, pp. 420-450.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1993), "Research note: more on improving service

quality measurement", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 69, No. 1, pp. 140-147.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), "Reassessment of expectations as comparison

standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,

pp. 111-124.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality an

its implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for

measuring customer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12 -37.

29

30