86232709 Gap Analysis Dominos

MARKETING OF SERVICES

REPORT ON GAP ANALYSIS OF

DOMINO'S PIZZA

Submitted By :-

Sharad Anand

Roll No. 44

Marketing Sec B

Service GAP Analysis of Domino’s Pizza Page 1

INDEX

S.No Topic Page No.1 Executive Summary 32 Introduction 43 Service Blueprint 5

4Service Quality

Dimensions6

5 Methodology 76 Responses Summary 8 – 137 Inference & Conclusion 14

Executive Summary

This report is based on service gap analysis of Domino’s, based on the five service dimensions.

India's quick service restaurant market worth $13 billion is growing at a rate 25-30 percent a year

on the back of changing and busy lifestyle, fast emerging middle class population and surging

disposable income, the industry will continue to grow at a pace in coming years.


It now accounts for roughly half of all restaurant revenues in the developed countries and continues

to expand there and in many other industrial countries in the coming years. But some of the most

rapid growth is occurring in the developing world; where it's radically changing the way people eat.

Domino's Pizza India Ltd. has proceeded to become one of the largest and fastest growing

international food chains in South Asia. The first Domino's Pizza store in India opened in January

1996, at New Delhi. Today, Domino's Pizza India has grown into a countrywide network around

411 outlets in 95 cities

This report presents the evaluation of service gaps in different service quality dimensions.

Introduction

Quality of a service is the degree of conformance of all the relevant features and characteristics of

the service to all the aspects of the consumers’ needs limited by the price and delivery she/he will

accept. Thus to evaluate the service quality aspect of Domino’s, I have resolved to conduct the


service gap analysis to understand the gap between the expectations of Domino’s customer and his

perceptions after receiving the delivery of their service.

The GAPS model in brief as been stated as below:-

• Customer Gap:

Difference between customer expectations and perceptions

• Provider Gap 1 - The Knowledge Gap

Not knowing what customers expect, want, need

• Provider Gap 2 - The Service Design &Standards Gap

Not having the right service designs and standards

• Provider Gap 3 - The Service Performance Gap

Not delivering to service standards

• Provider Gap 4 - The Communication Gap

Not matching performance to promises

Service Blueprint of Domino’s


Before proceeding to the GAP’s model of service quality, the basic service blueprint of the

restaurant must be understand and comprehended. The above diagram explains the various lines of

interaction and visibility (from the customer’s point of view), as well as the lines of interaction,

order and implementation (from the provider’s point of view).

Dimensions of measuring ‘Service Quality’

The 5 primary dimensions of measuring service quality have been summarized below:-


Reliability- Consistency in Performance

Domino's promises-30 minutes delivery. Is it able to keep up the promise?

Do Domino's pizza items maintain an excellent quality?

Responsiveness - Willing to help

Sales people in domino's give you prompt service

Employees of Domino's are always willing to help you

Sales people in Domino's are never busy to respond your request

Assurance - Inspiring trust and confidence

Employees of Domino's have the knowledge of all the items and price

The faith and trust you have on the brand, ‘Domino's’.

Empathy - Treating customers as individuals and caring for them

Domino's employees provide special attention to customers

Domino's has operating hours that are convenient to all its customers

Tangibles - Representing the service physically

Domino's items and packaging

Domino's logo attracts you

Domino's employees’ appearance

Ambience of Domino's

METHODOLOGY


Questionnaire – The questionnaire was designed in the form of a written form, in which all were

close-ended questions. The basic format of the first half of the questionnaire (Perceptions) had the

1-7 rating scale and that of the second half (Expectations) had the 1-9 rating scale. The form

consisted of 22 questions testing the perceptions of the customer and 9 questions towards

understanding the expectations of the customers.

Data Sources & Sampling Method– The data was collected using ‘Convenience Sampling’,

whereby the questionnaires were given out to fellow students within “Alliance School Of

Business”.

Sample Size – The sample size taken for this study was 50.

RESPONSES SUMMARY


A summary of the responses collected using the questionnaire is provided below. An inference

towards identifying the gap, has been adopted using the ‘Perception’ and ‘Expectation’ scores.

PERCEPTIONS

Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy TangiblesTota

l Avg WtTota

l Avg

WtTota

l Avg Wt TotalAvg Wt

Total Avg Wt

285.6 8 19 4.75 8 26 6.5 10 28

5S.6 8 17

4.25 6

295.8 9 22 5.5 9 20 5 8 28 5.6 8 22 5.5 7

234.6 7 17 4.25 8 18 4.5 7 26 5.2 7 22 5.5 7

265.2 8 22 5.5 8 26 6.5 10 27 5.4 8 19

4.75 7

285.6 8 22 5.5 8 23

5.75 9 27 5.4 8 26 6.5 9

295.8 8 20 5 8 26 6.5 10 26 5.2 7 21

5.25 7

234.6 7 18 4.5 6 17

4.25 7 24 4.8 6 27

6.75 9

183.6 6 14 3.5 5 16 4 7 16 3.2 4 20 5 7

275.4 8 22 5.5 8 25

6.25 9 29 5.8 9 19

4.75 7

295.8 9 21 5.25 8 18 4.5 7 25 5 8 18 4.5 6

234.6 7 18 4.5 6 22 5.5 8 23 4.6 7 24 6 8

346.8 10 23 5.75 10 26 6.5 10 32 6.4 10 24 6 8

275.4 8 18 4.5 6 19

4.75 8 27 5.4 8 19

4.75 7

234.6 6 16 4 5 16 4 7 23 4.6 7 18 4.5 7

285.6 7 18 4.5 6 18 4.5 8 22 4.4 7 22 5.5 8

224.4 7 22 5.5 9 22 5.5 9 27 5.4 8 18 4.5 7

275.4 8 22 5.5 9 24 6 9 26 5.2 8 14 3.5 6

183.6 6 20 5 9 20 5 9 22 4.4 6 20 5 7

285.6 9 21 5.25 9 22 5.5 9 28 5.6 8 17

4.25 6

275.4 8 20 5 8 8 2 3 19 3.8 5 20 5 7

29 5. 9 19 4.75 9 19 4.7 8 17 3.4 5 14 3.5 6


8 5

163.2 5 17 4.25 7 11

2.75 4 18 3.6 5 27

6.75 9

285.6 8 20 5 9 23

5.75 9 27 5.4 8 19

4.75 7

15 3 5 17 4.25 8 92.2

5 3 12 2.4 4 256.2

5 9

234.6 7 23 5.75 9 22 5.5 8 29 5.8 9 18 4.5 6

142.8 6 11 2.75 5 11

2.75 4 23 4.6 7 20 5 7

316.2 10 24 6 10 23

5.75 9 27 5.4 8 24 6 8

214.2 6 22 5.5 10 20 5 8 24 4.8 7 26 6.5 9

316.2 10 23 5.75 10 23

5.75 9 29 5.8 9 28 7 10

183.6 5 18 4.5 8 13

3.25 5 19 3.8 5 22 5.5 7

265.2 8 22 5.5 9 21

5.25 8 26 5.2 7 22 5.5 7

112.2 6 15 3.75 6 12 3 5 14 2.8 4 19

4.75 6

265.2 9 21 5.25 9 19

4.75 8 24 4.8 8 22 5.5 7

265.2 8 19 4.75 7 19

4.75 8 26 5.2 8 26 6.5 9

193.8 7 17 4.25 7 18 4.5 7 24 4.8 8 23

5.75 8

234.6 7 19 4.75 7 21

5.25 8 27 5.4 8 24 6 9

285.6 8 23 5.75 9 22 5.5 8 29 5.8 9 26 6.5 9

224.4 7 19 4.75 7 17

4.25 7 24 4.8 8 22 5.5 8

163.2 6 16 4 6 15

3.75 5 18 3.6 5 18 4.5 6

295.8 10 23 5.75 9 21

5.25 8 28 5.6 8 27

6.75 10

224.4 8 18 4.5 8 14 3.5 6 20 4 7 15

3.75 5

183.6 6 15 3.75 5 19

4.75 8 19 3.8 6 24 6 9

275.4 8 23 5.75 10 23

5.75 9 29 5.8 9 20 5 7

285.6 9 21 5.25 9 21

5.25 8 29 5.8 9 26 6.5 10

244.8 6 22 5.5 9 24 6 9 30 6 10 18 4.5 6

16 3. 6 12 3 4 11 2.7 5 13 2.6 4 19 4.7 7


2 5 530 6 10 20 5 8 22 5.5 9 32 6.4 10 26 6.5 9

20 4 7 16 4 6 153.7

5 7 21 4.2 7 153.7

5 4

295.8 9 22 5.5 9 21

5.25 8 28 5.6 9 24 6 8

173.4 5 14 3.5 4 14 3.5 5 18 3.6 6 19

4.75 7

EXPECTATIONS

ReliabilityResponsiven

ess Assurance Empathy TangiblesTotal Total Avg Total Avg Total Avg Total Avg

4 7 3.5 9 4.5 12 4.67 22 4.285 11 5.5 10 5 11 4.28 20 3.894 11 5.5 9 4.5 13 5.06 20 3.895 9 4.5 10 5 11 4.28 22 4.283 9 4.5 13 6.5 9 3.50 22 4.285 10 5 10 5 12 4.67 23 4.474 9 4.5 11 5.5 11 4.28 14 2.723 7 3.5 11 5.5 9 3.50 16 3.11


5 11 5.5 11 5.5 12 4.67 22 4.285 7 3.5 11 5.5 9 3.50 17 3.315 9 4.5 9 4.5 11 4.28 20 3.896 12 6 12 6 15 5.83 28 5.445 9 4.5 9 4.5 11 4.28 19 3.693 7 3.5 9 4.5 11 4.28 18 3.505 9 4.5 11 5.5 12 4.67 20 3.897 13 6.5 11 5.5 15 5.83 32 6.224 10 5 8 4 10 3.89 20 3.895 7 3.5 9 4.5 9 3.50 16 3.115 9 4.5 9 4.5 12 4.67 22 4.285 10 5 9 4.5 9 3.50 16 3.114 9 4.5 9 4.5 11 4.28 24 4.674 9 4.5 7 3.5 11 4.28 16 3.116 9 4.5 13 6.5 11 4.28 21 4.084 10 5 7 3.5 7 2.72 22 4.286 11 5.5 12 6 11 4.28 24 4.674 9 4.5 11 5.5 11 4.28 12 2.335 9 4.5 13 6.5 14 5.44 24 4.676 10 5 12 6 11 4.28 22 4.285 9 4.5 13 6.5 14 5.44 27 5.254 9 4.5 11 5.5 11 4.28 20 3.895 9 4.5 12 6 9 3.50 18 3.504 7 3.5 5 2.5 7 2.72 14 2.725 7 3.5 9 4.5 11 4.28 19 3.696 9 4.5 11 5.5 11 4.28 26 5.063 11 5.5 12 6 11 4.28 14 2.724 9 4.5 10 5 13 5.06 16 3.114 10 5 12 6 15 5.83 19 3.694 8 4 9 4.5 9 3.50 22 4.285 7 3.5 9 4.5 9 3.50 23 4.476 12 6 14 7 16 6.22 30 5.832 5 2.5 4 2 5 1.94 8 1.564 9 4.5 11 5.5 11 4.28 12 2.334 10 5 10 5 12 4.67 18 3.503 9 4.5 13 6.5 11 4.28 16 3.114 11 5.5 9 4.5 11 4.28 18 3.503 11 5.5 12 6 9 3.50 22 4.287 11 5.5 11 5.5 14 5.44 31 6.037 9 4.5 7 3.5 13 5.06 28 5.446 11 5.5 10 5 11 4.28 22 4.284 8 4 10 5 12 4.67 20 3.89


WEIGHTED AVERGAGE GAP

ReliabilityResponsiven

ess AssuranceEmpath

y Tangibles12.8 10 20 7.47 -0.177.2 0 0 10.58 11.284.2 -10 0 1.01 11.281.6 8 15 8.98 3.3120.8 8 -6.75 15.20 20.006.4 0 15 3.73 5.444.2 0 -8.75 3.13 36.253.6 0 -10.5 -1.20 13.22


3.2 0 6.75 10.20 3.317.2 14 -7 12.00 7.17-2.8 0 8 2.26 16.89

8 -2.5 5 5.67 4.443.2 0 2 8.98 7.399.6 2.5 -3.5 2.26 7.004.2 0 -8 -1.87 12.89

-18.2 -9 0 -3.47 -12.0611.2 4.5 18 10.49 -2.33-8.4 13.5 4.5 5.40 13.225.4 6.75 9 7.47 -0.173.2 0 -7.5 1.50 13.2216.2 2.25 2 -4.39 -7.00-4 -1.75 -3 -3.39 32.75

-3.2 4.5 -6.75 8.98 4.67-5 -6 -3.75 -1.29 17.75

-9.8 2.25 -4 13.70 -1.00-7.2 -8.75 -11 2.26 18.6712 15 -6.75 -0.36 10.67

-10.8 5 -8 3.66 20.0012 12.5 -6.75 3.20 17.50-2 0 -11.25 -2.39 11.281.6 9 -6 11.90 14.00

-10.8 1.5 2.5 0.31 12.171.8 15.75 2 4.18 12.64-6.4 1.75 -6 7.38 13.005.6 -8.75 -10.5 4.18 24.224.2 1.75 2 2.76 26.0012.8 6.75 -4 -0.30 25.252.8 5.25 -1.75 10.40 9.78

-10.8 3 -3.75 0.50 0.17-2 -2.25 -14 -4.98 9.17

19.2 16 9 14.39 10.97-2.4 -3.75 -6 -2.87 33.0011.2 7.5 6.75 10.20 10.5023.4 6.75 -10 13.70 33.894.8 0 13.5 17.22 6.001.2 -10 -16.25 -3.60 3.31-10 -4 0 9.56 4.25-21 -3 1.75 -5.99 -6.78-1.8 0 2 11.90 13.78-3 -2 -7.5 -6.40 6.03

TOTAL 105.2 112 -54.25 224.19 558.19


AVERAGE 2.104 2.24 -1.085 4.48 11.16

INFERENCE & CONCLUSION

The figures of the ‘Average’ row above, indicate that the expectations of the customer are not being

met by the service provider (Domino’s) in case of the ‘Assurance’ dimension (-1.085).

Thus, it can be concluded that the highest customer service gap exists in ‘Assurance’, whereas in

case of ‘Tangibles’ it is the lowest.

To improve its service quality perspective, Domino’s needs to educate its employees and keep them

well informed and updated about its products and services, being delivered to customers. This will

in turn build the brand of ‘Domino’s’ thus instilling more trust and confidence in the minds of

customers.



Documents

86232709 Gap Analysis Dominos