About Us

We are expertise in Tailoring with 40 years of

excellence. Enriched fine finishing is our
brand attribute. We prefer the best quality to
our customers.

Product and services

Our ultimate goal is to serve high quality end
products to our clients. We take special care in
We Design your professional attire the quality of products and services.
We specialize in suit tailoring and alterations,
including:
 Lower & Shorten Collar
 Shaping chest on coat
 Resizing shirts Location: Visakhapatnam, The City of Destiny
 Coat shoulders
 Handmade working buttonholes
 Shaping skirts
Superfine
Tailors
 Sleeves
 Pants Waist
 Pants Taper & Many More.

Contact Us Superfine Tailors

S. No: 14-37-37 ½
Contact Number: 8297027145 Krishna Nagar, Maharanipeta
EnrichedininFine
Enriched Finefinishing
finishing
Email Id: sivajisharma@gmail.com Visakhapatnam Urban,
Andhra Pradesh 530002
 Superfine Tailors Stitched with care.

K. Satyanarayana, the Founder and CEO of Superfine Tailors founded in 1982 and mastered in tailoring with 46
years of excellence.

POSITION/ PERCEPTION MAPS- Superfine Tailors

One marketing research technique is taking consumer's views about a product and then plotting
these perceptions on a positioning chart. Performance, packaging, price and size. These qualitative
answers are transferred to a chart referred to a position or perception map. The results can be used
to improve the product or provide the background for developing new ones.

This position map defines the market in terms of the way buyers perceive key characteristics of
competing products. The basic position map normally uses price and quality as the two key
variables, but other variables are used, such as low or high quality of mapping Superfine Service
 Superfine Tailors
Quality with pricing.
Average Customer Rating
S. No Name of the customer/ Consumer [Quality] [Breathable] [Comfortable] [Affordable ] [Design] Overall Rating
1 Kalavalapalli swaroop Excellent Execellent Execellent Very Good Execellent 5
2 Narendra Execellent Execellent Execellent Good Very Good 5
3 SHAIK ZUBAIDA BEGUM Very Good Very Good Good Excellent Very Good 5
4 Abhishek hemraj Excellent Execellent Execellent Excellent Excellent 4.5
5 Supraja very Good very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 5
6 Prabhat Kumar Singh Excellent Execellent Execellent Good Very Good 4.5
7 T.Datta prasad Very Good Very Good Very Good Good Very Good 5
8 Chelluru Kiran Kumar Excellent Execellent Execellent Very Good Excellent 4.6
9 Sahithi Good Good Very Good Average Good 4.9
10 Vikram Varma Very Good Execellent Execellent Good Very Good 4.6
11 Harsha Vardhan Excellent Very Good Execellent Good Very Good 4.4
12 Bhargav Very Good Very Good Very Good Good Good 4.9
13 Pawan Good Good Good Good Good 5
14 Jaswanth Very Good Good Good Excellent Very Good 4.6
15 Harish Very Good Very Good Very Good Excellent Excellent 4.9
16 Shyam kumar potala Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good Excellent 5
17 T.Datta prasad Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good 5
18 V Akilesh Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good 4.8
19 Teja k Average Excellent Very Good Average Good 3.5
20 Vinay Kumar Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 5
21 Lakshmi Sai Teja Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 5
22 B VINODH KUMAR Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 5
23 Yajas Excellent Excellent Very Good Very Good Excellent 4.8
24 Lakshmi Narayana Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 4.7
25 D Sudhakar reddy Excellent Very Good Very Good Excellent Very Good 4.7
26 siva Excellent Excellent Excellent Very Good Excellent 5
27 Vinay Kumar Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 4.8
28 shyam Good Good Good Good Good 4.4
29 Bhishma Very Good Good Good Excellent Very Good 5
30 Dr Raja P Pappu Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 5
31 Prasanth Excellent Very Good Very Good Excellent Very Good 5
32 Prof. S S Prasada Rao Excellent Very Good Very Good Excellent Excellent 4.6
33 Swathi Reddy Kolli Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 5
34 Rustum Basha Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent 5
Average Customer Rating 4.80
Abstract:
Service quality or customer perception about service quality in customized stitching and tailored fit clothing for both men, women and kids wear is a critical factor which determines the competitiveness of a firm.
Quality is a mental perception of customers based on various performances attributes of a service. In services marketing literature, service quality has been concisely defined as the overall assessment of a service by the
customers. Service quality is playing an increasingly important role in the present environment where there is no further scope for the firms to differentiate themselves other than the quality of the service provided by
them. Delivering superior service quality than the competitors is the key to the success of any organization. Service quality is a difference between consumer expectations of what they want and their perceptions of
what they get. Based on this conceptualization and operationalization, a service quality measurement scale called SERVQUAL was developed. The aim of this research questionnaire depicts the measuring the quality of
services offered by the service provider (SUPERFINE TAILORS) is the measurement of the customers perceptions of the quality of service they are experiencing from the service provider.

Keywords: Service Quality, Perception, Network, Servqual, etc.

____________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION: III. THE SERVICE QUALITY QUESTIONNAIRES

Within the last four decades, service quality has become the main concern in the business world,
especially in the services sector. The key to success in winning the global battle now and in future
is to have high standards of service. Hence, it is helpful for service organizations to know the
customer service quality perceptions to overcome the competitors and attract and retain the
customers. Because of the globalization and liberalization of Indian economy, Indian service
sector has been opened for Multinational companies. To overcome the competition and to retain
the world-class service standards, Indian companies have been forced to adopt quality
management programs. Services are defined as: the activities, which are involved in producing
intangible products as education, entertainment, food and lodging, transportation, insurance, trade,
government, financial, real estate, medical, consultancy, repair, and maintenance like occupation.
Quality has become a strategic tool in obtaining efficiency in operations and improved
performance in business. This is true for both the goods and services sectors. Quality has been
defined differently by various authors. Some prominent definitions include conformance to
requirements, fitness for use or one that satisfies the customer.
According to the production philosophy of Japan, quality has been defined as zero defects in the
firm ‘s offerings. Quality has become a strategic tool for obtaining efficiency in operations and
improved business performance. This is true for the services sector too. Several authors have
discussed the unique importance of quality to service firms and have demonstrated its positive
relationship with profits, increased market share, return on investment, customer satisfaction, and
future purchase intentions. One obvious conclusion of these studies is that firms with superior
quality products outperform those marketing inferior quality products.
To evaluate the acceptance of e-health in nursing homes is a complicated task because of the
complex nature of health care and the high sensitivity of acceptance level to socio-cultural
variations. According to Akter et al, subjective satisfaction is a dynamic, multidimensional, and
comprehensive indicator which can be used to evaluate the interactions between humans and
systems efficiently. This viewpoint was confirmed by subsequent empirical research. In current
service literature, the SERVQUAL model and health service quality scale have been the two major
model used to measure service quality in healthcare settings. The unique attributes of service have
made it difficult to apply knowledge of physical quality measurement to the service domain. First,
because of the intangibility of service, it cannot be displayed, demonstrated, or illustrated
concretely. Second, service cannot be standardized. The performance of services is dependent to
some extent on the level of demand. Third, there is a high degree of customer involvement in the
delivery of service. Parasuraman et al. proposed the customer’s perception of service quality based
on a gap model, identifying five major gaps in the service quality concept. The five major gaps are
the knowledge gap, the standards gap, the communications gap, the delivery gap, and the expected
and service quality gap. Service quality as defined by the gap model can be examined by comparing
the customers’ expectations with their perceptions of the performance of the service provider. Under
this concept, the SERVQUAL questionnaire was developed by Parasuraman and his colleagues.
(1) Gap1: The knowledge gap. Differences exist between the market’s expected service and
management’s perceptions of the market’s expected service.
(2) Gap2: The standards gap. Differences exist between management’s perceptions of customers’
expectations and the translation into service procedures and specifications.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE (3) Gap3: The delivery gap. Differences exist between service quality specifications and the service
actually delivered.
This Research paper presents the theoretical foundation based on the pertinent literature to the
present research work by first reviewing the service quality concept, followed by criticism of (4) Gap4: The communications gap. Differences exist between service delivery intentions and what
SERVQUAL scale, service quality attributes, and service quality attributes of telecommunication is communicated to the customer.
services.
(5) Gap5: The expected and perceived service gap. Differences exist between the customers’
expectations and their perception of the actual service delivered.

This self-report questionnaire contains twenty items covering five dimensions (reliability, assurance,
tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The
SERVQUAL is used to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of service quality, and it is widely
regarded as the most comprehensive instrument for this assessment.
However, apart from its wide use, several theoretical and operational criticisms of the measurement
model have been pointed out 20. In theoretical aspects, there is little evidence that customers access
service quality in terms of perception (P) minus expectation (E) gaps. Furthermore, SERVQUAL focus
on the process of service delivery, not on the outcomes of the service encounter, while process and
outcome together are a better predictor than process or outcome alone. Finally, SERVQUAL five
dimensions are not universal. In other words, items do not always load on to the five dimensions
proposed by Parasuraman and his colleagues. In operational aspects, the term expectation is polysemic
and consumers use different concepts other than expectations to evaluate service quality. In addition, the
seven -point Likert scale has been criticized on several grounds, for instance, it has been criticized for its
lack of verbal labeling for points two to six. This will cause respondents to overuse the extreme ends of
the scale. Finally, two administration of the instrument always causes repetitiveness and confusion.
Respondents appear to be confused by the two administration of the expectation and the
perception versions of the SERVQUAL, which will result in imperil data quality.
IV. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To measure the overall service quality of Superfine Tailoring Service.
2. To find out the gap between perceived and expected service quality of Superfine Tailoring Service.
3. To identify the areas of improvement in Tailoring service sector.
4. To measure customers level of perception and expectation of various service quality factors on the
SERVQUAL scale.
5. To analyze the association between the profile of the customer and various service quality factors.
V. METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN:
A research design is a master plan specifying methods and procedures for collecting and analyzing the
required data. It is a means that is to be followed in completing a research study. The research design
helps the researcher to obtain relevant data to fulfill the objectives of the study. There are three types
of research designs namely exploratory, descriptive, and causal research designs. This study adopts,
descriptive research design, which helps provide answers to the questions of who, what, when, where,
and how associated with a particular research problem; a descriptive study cannot conclusively
ascertain answers to why. Descriptive research is used to obtain information concerning the status of
the phenomena and to describe "what exists" with respect to variables or conditions in a situation.
Target respondents:
The target respondents are customers of Superfine Tailors
Population:
We have calculated from the population size of 5000 u Superfine Tailors
Sample:
The sample size was fixed at 51 customers for our convenience.
Sampling Technique:
Convenience sampling technique was used to get the questionnaire filled by the mobile phone users.
Tools for analysis
The study uses the following tools viz.,
 SERVQUAL Scoring analysis.
 IBM SPSS
This analysis is based on the service quality (SERVQUAL) model, which is basically consider five
dimension to measure the perceived and expected quality in the service industry.
Five dimensions of SERVQUAL model (RATER) are given below
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. Assurance : Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence
5. Empathy : Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customers
Service gas is identified for each of the dimension by the formula given below :
SGi= ∑ (Pij - Eij)
Where SG = Service Gap for individual ‘i’
P-Perceived Service Quality for individual ‘i’ for service attribute ‘j’ -arrived by the arithmetic average
of score obtained in the survey
E-Expected Service Quality individual ‘i’ for service attribute ‘j’ -arrived by arithmetic average of score
obtained through the survey
S. No Dimension Description Main Factor No. Dimension/Question Area
Tangibles T1 Up-to-date equipment
1 Tangibles The appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and
T2 Physical facilities are visually appealing
communication materials.
T3 Employees well-dressed/neat
T4 Appearance of the physical facilities are consistent with the
2 Reliability The ability to perform the promised service dependably type of service industry
accurately. Reliability R1 The firm meets their promised timeframes for response
R2 The firm is sympathetic and reassuring when the customer
3 Responsiveness The willingness to help customers and to provide prompt service
has problems
R3 They are dependable
4 Assurance The knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to R4 They provide their services at the times promised
convey trust and confidence. R5 They keep accurate records
Responsiveness RS1 They shouldn’t be expected to tell customers exactly when
5 Empathy The provision of caring, individualized attention to customers.
the service will be performed, negative
RS2 It is not reasonable to expect prompt service from
employees, negative
RS3 Employees do not always have to be willing to help
IV. SERVQUAL DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
customers, negative
Data collected through a primary data i.e., google form questionnaire and survey has been analyzed for RS4 It’s OK to be too busy to respond promptly to customer
each dimension separately and identified the perceived/ performance service quality, expected service requests, negative
quality gap. Assurance A1 Employees should be trustworthy
A2 Customers should feel safe when transacting with employees
Result has been presented in the tabular form for each dimension individually.
A3 Employees should be polite
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROBLEM A4 Employees should get adequate support from the firm to do
their job well
The entire mobile operators are surging ahead to project themselves as the most preferred by customers E1 Firms should not be expected to give each customer
Empathy
as a customer are becoming more sophisticated in their needs and are increasingly demanding a higher individualized attention, negative
standard of service. To them, service means Customer satisfaction, customers ‘delight, excellent service
E2 Employees should not be expected to give each customer
delivery and customer relationship etc. In recent years, a number of new players have entered the Indian
individualized attention, negative
market and made it more competitive. The survival and growth only depend on its ability to provide
qualitative service to its customer but in building a long-term mutually beneficial and trustworthy E3 It is unrealistic to expect employees to fully understand the
relationship with its customers. So, it has become necessary to design and execute the best customer needs of the customer, negative
practices and to internalize them for providing enhanced satisfaction to the customer through employees. E4 It is unreasonable to expect employees to have the best
At this juncture, the mobile service provider has to gain knowledge on following questions: interests of the customer at heart, negative
E5 Firms should not necessarily have to operate at hours
1. How to gain a competitive edge over the competitor in terms of service quality? convenient to all customers, negative
2. What are the expectations and perceptions of the customers towards various service quality
dimensions?

3. How to bridge the service quality gap, if any?

PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION- GOOGLE FORM QUESTIONNAIRE:
Service Gap- Questionnaire on Tailoring Service

Data Analysis & Interpretation of Demographic Profiles Of Respondents

S. No Particulars No of respondents Percentage Analysis of Demographic Profiles

%
1 Male 38 75 From the above table out of 51 respondents, 38 (75per cent) of respondents are male,
2 Female 13 25
Total 51 100 13(25 per cent) of respondents are female. From table shows that out of 51,
S .No Particulars No of respondents Percentage
% 4 (9.6 per cent) of respondents belongs to the age category of below 18- 25 yrs., 13 (25
1 18-25 4 9.6
2 26- 35 13 25 per cent) of respondents belongs to 26-35 yrs., 17 (32.7 per cent) of respondents belong to
3 36- 45 17 32.7
4 46-55 13 25 36- 45 yrs. and 13 (25 per cent) of respondents are above 46-55 yrs. of age and 55 above
5 55 and Above 4 7.7
are 4 (7.7%) .
Total 51 100
S .No Particulars No of respondents Percentage
% Above table reveals, that out of 51, 9 (17.3 per cent) of respondents are a student, 23 (46
1 Student 9 17.3
2 Employee 23 46.2 per cent) of respondents are a employee, 8 (15.4 per cent) of respondents are unemployed
3 Unemployed 8 15.4 and 11 (21.2per cent) of respondents are business.
4 Business 11 21.2
Total 51 100
S .NO PARTICULARS No of percentage% From the above Table No.3, out of 51, 11 respondents are a student without any earning.
respondents
1 Less Than 1 Lakh 11 21.2 Out of remaining respondents, 9 (17.3 per cent) of respondents are below 1-3 lakh, 13 (25
2 1- 3 Lakhs 9 17.3
per cent) of respondents are, 3-5 lakh, 18 (36.5 per cent) of respondents are above 5 lakhs.
3 3- 5 Lakhs 13 25
4 5 Lakhs and above 18 36.5
Total 51 100
 Statistics
Age
Age Gender Profession Annual Income From the main table of the demographic’s frequencies, it
N %
N Valid 51 51 51 51 is observed that the mean and standard deviation for the
18- 25 5 9.8%
Missing 0 0 0 0 age and annual income is 2.98, 1.104 and 2.76, 1.159
26- 35 12 23.5%
Mean 2.98 2.76
36- 45 17 33.3%
Std. Deviation 1.104 1.159
46- 55 13 25.5%
55 and Above 4 7.8%
Statistics
Age
Gender N Valid 51
N % Missing 0
Female 13 25.5% Mean 2.98
Male 38 74.5% Std. Deviation 1.104

Profession
Annual Income N %

N % Business 10 19.6%

Less Than 1 Lakh 11 21.6% Employee 24 47.1%

1- 3 Lakhs 8 15.7% Student 9 17.6%

3- 5 Lakhs 14 27.5% Unemployee 8 15.7%

5 Lakhs and above 18 35.3%

Statistics
Annual Income
N Valid 51
Missing 0
Mean 2.76
Std. Deviation 1.159
 RESULTS
SERVEQUAL DATA ANALYSIS
TANGIBLES- STATISTICS

Expected PT1 Expected PT2 Expected PT3 Expected PT4 Expected Performance
N Valid 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 5.00 4.75 5.00 4.51 5.00 4.53 5.00 4.43 20.00 18.22
Std. Deviation .000 .560 .000 .703 .000 .644 .000 .671 .000 2.138
GS= P-E -0.25 -0.49 -0.47 -0.57 -1.87

Note: It is observed that All the factors of Tangibles are above 4 which is a good score. There is overall gap of -1.78 with the standard deviation of 2.138

PAIRED SAMPLES TEST Pair 4

Paired Differences
(GAP SCORE=P-E): Appearance of the physical facilities are
95% Confidence
Interval of the consistent with the type of service industry] – Expected= -0.569
Std. Std. Error Difference Sig. (2- The study showed there is (-1.784) gap exists between service quality,
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper T df tailed) Tangible of Expectation, and performance of Superfine Tailors. The
Pair 1 PT1 -.255 .560 .078 -.412 -.097 -3.250 50 .002
expectation mean scores of all items of service quality-Tangible are
(GAP
SCORE=P-E) greater than the Performance scores which show that a gap exists in
Pair 2 PT2 -.490 .703 .099 -.688 -.292 -4.976 50 .000 the respect of service quality Tangible. If we rank the service quality
(GAP
in the respect of Tangible factor the highest expectation of the account
SCORE=P-E)
Pair 3 PT3 -.471 .644 .090 -.652 -.290 -5.222 50 .000 holders from the performances are connected to the item where gap
(GAP between Tangible of Expectation and performance of Superfine
SCORE=P-E) Tailors is (-1.784)
Pair 4 PT4 -.569 .671 .094 -.757 -.380 -6.052 50 .000
If this GAP is reduced, then service of Superfine Tailors will be
(GAP
SCORE=P-E) substantially Increases.
Pair 5 Performance - -1.784 2.138 .299 -2.386 -1.183 -5.959 50 .000 Table: Mean score of expectation service and performance items of
(GAP SCORE=P- Expected tangible.
E)
Independent T test for tangibles

GROUP STATISTICS
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean From the group statistics table we can observe that males are
PT1 Male 38 4.74 .554 .090 highest with 38 and females are 13 for that tangibles
Female 13 4.77 .599 .166 determinants and all the factors are above 4. So, it indicates that
PT2 Male 38 4.50 .762 .124 all the factors are performing very good service quality and there
Female 13 4.54 .519 .144 is very less gap
PT3 Male 38 4.61 .638 .104
Female 13 4.31 .630 .175 The table shows that the significance value is (000) which is less
PT4 Male 38 4.47 .687 .111 than 0.05 at 95% level of significance so that null hypothesis is
Female 13 4.31 .630 .175 rejected We can conclude that there is gap between service
Performance Male 38 18.32 2.291 .372 quality tangibles of expected and performance for superfine
Female 13 17.92 1.656 .459 Tailors

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST

Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
PT1 Equal variances .042 .839 -.178 49 .859 -.032 .182 -.398 .333
assumed
Equal variances -.171 19.514 .866 -.032 .189 -.427 .362
not assumed

PT2 Equal variances 1.351 .251 -.168 49 .867 -.038 .228 -.497 .420
assumed
Equal variances -.203 30.814 .841 -.038 .190 -.426 .349
not assumed

PT3 Equal variances .005 .942 1.455 49 .152 .298 .204 -.113 .709
assumed
Equal variances 1.464 21.056 .158 .298 .203 -.125 .720
not assumed
PT4 Equal variances .201 .656 .767 49 .447 .166 .216 -.269 .601
assumed

Equal variances .800 22.532 .432 .166 .207 -.263 .595

not assumed

Performance Equal variances 1.000 .322 .568 49 .573 .393 .692 -.997 1.783
assumed
Equal variances .665 28.842 .512 .393 .591 -.816 1.602
not assumed
 Paired Samples Statistics
Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 PT1 4.75 51 .560 .078
GAP SCORE=(P-E) ET1 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 2 PT2 4.51 51 .703 .099
GAP SCORE=(P-E) ET2 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 3 PT3 4.53 51 .644 .090
GAP SCORE=(P-E) ET3 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 4 PT4 4.43 51 .671 .094
GAP SCORE=(P-E) ET4 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 5 Performance 18.22 51 2.138 .299
GAP SCORE=(P-E) Expected 20.00 51 .000 .000
Note: It is observed that Standard deviations for every factor is <0.01 (null hypothesis) achieved.

ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
PT1 Between Groups 2.149 3 .716 2.487 .072
Within Groups 13.538 47 .288
Total 15.686 50
PT2 Between Groups .485 3 .162 .313 .816
Within Groups 24.260 47 .516
Total 24.745 50
PT3 Between Groups 1.246 3 .415 1.003 .400
Within Groups 19.460 47 .414
Total 20.706 50
PT4 Between Groups .743 3 .248 .535 .661
Within Groups 21.767 47 .463
Total 22.510 50
Performance Between Groups 8.860 3 2.953 .632 .598
Within Groups 219.767 47 4.676
Total 228.627 50

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated on participants' ratings. The analysis was significant, Participants found the between groups more objectionable when they were attributed to
within groups (M =4.51 , SD = 0.56) than when (M = 4.43, SD = 0.703) or country music (M = 4.51, SD = 0.671). Comparisons indicated that the between group was significantly different from the
within group.
 Reliability
Leonard et al. investigated that Reliability could provide the promised service regularly, consistently, timely and accurately to the consumers

RELAIBILITY STATISTICS
Expected PR1 Expected PR2 Expected PR3 Expected PR4 Expected PR5 Expected Performance
N Valid 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 5.00 4.59 5.00 4.45 5.00 4.33 5.00 4.45 5.00 4.69 25.00 22.51
Std. Deviation .000 .572 .000 .642 .000 .887 .000 .673 .000 .547 .000 2.556
GS= (P-E) -0.41 -0.55 -0.67 -0.55 -0.31 -2.49

It is observed as (PR3-ER3)= -0.67 is the gap score for superfine Tailors are dependable where this gab should be reduced to
improve the service quality for customers
GROUP STATISTICS PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS
Std. Error Std. Std. Error
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Mean Mean N Deviation Mean
PR1 Male 38 4.63 .541 .088 Pair 1 PR1 4.59 51 .572 .080
Female 13 4.46 .660 .183 GS= (P-E)
ER1 5.00 51 .000 .000
PR2 Male 38 4.45 .645 .105 Pair 2 PR2 4.45 51 .642 .090
Female 13 4.46 .660 .183 GS= (P-E)
ER2 5.00 51 .000 .000
PR3 Male 38 4.29 .984 .160 Pair 3 PR3 4.33 51 .887 .124
Female 13 4.46 .519 .144 GS= (P-E)
ER3 5.00 51 .000 .000
PR4 Male 38 4.45 .686 .111 Pair 4 PR4 4.45 51 .673 .094
Female 13 4.46 .660 .183 GS= (P-E)
ER4 5.00 51 .000 .000
PR5 Male 38 4.66 .582 .094 Pair 5 PR5 4.69 51 .547 .077
Female 13 4.77 .439 .122 GS= (P-E)
Performance Male 38 22.47 2.778 .451 ER5 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 6 Performance 22.51 51 2.556 .358
Female 13 22.62 1.850 .513
GS= (P-E) Expected 25.00 51 .000 .000
 PAIRED SAMPLES TEST
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Sig.
Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t Df (2-tailed)
PR1-ER1 -.412 .572 .080 -.573 -.251 -5.142 50 .000
Pair 1
GS= (P-E)
PR2-ER2 -.549 .642 .090 -.730 -.368 -6.104 50 .000
Pair 2
GS= (P-E)
PR3-ER3 -.667 .887 .124 -.916 -.417 -5.368 50 .000
Pair 3
GS= (P-E)
PR4-ER4 -.549 .673 .094 -.738 -.360 -5.828 50 .000
Pair 4
GS= (P-E)
PR5-ER5 -.314 .547 .077 -.468 -.160 -4.093 50 .000
Pair 5
GS= (P-E)
PRTOT- ERTOT -2.490 2.556 .358 -3.209 -1.771 -6.957 50 .000
Pair 5
GS= (P-E)

ANOVA
Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
PR1 Between Groups 1.703 3 .568 1.821 .156
Within Groups 14.650 47 .312
Total 16.353 50
PR2 Between Groups 1.864 3 .621 1.557 .212
Within Groups 18.763 47 .399
Total 20.627 50
PR3 Between Groups 3.804 3 1.268 1.678 .185
Within Groups 35.529 47 .756
Total 39.333 50
PR4 Between Groups .153 3 .051 .107 .956
Within Groups 22.474 47 .478
 Total 22.627 50
PR5 Between Groups 1.021 3 .340 1.146 .340
Within Groups 13.959 47 .297
Total 14.980 50
Performance Between Groups 23.140 3 7.713 1.194 .322
Within Groups 303.605 47 6.460
Total 326.745 50

This is the table that shows the output of the ANOVA analysis and whether there is a statistically significant difference between our group means. We
can see that the significance value is 0.322 (i.e., p = .322), which is above 0.05. and, therefore, there is was no effect was observed.

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST

Levene's Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
PR1 Equal variances assumed 1.549 .219 .924 49 .360 .170 .184 -.200 .540
Equal variances not .837 17.848 .413 .170 .203 -.257 .597
assumed
PR2 Equal variances assumed .000 .983 -.068 49 .946 -.014 .208 -.433 .405
Equal variances not -.067 20.411 .947 -.014 .211 -.454 .425
assumed
PR3 Equal variances assumed 8.101 .006 -.600 49 .551 -.172 .287 -.748 .404
Equal variances not -.801 40.032 .428 -.172 .215 -.606 .262
assumed
PR4 Equal variances assumed .111 .740 -.065 49 .949 -.014 .218 -.453 .425
Equal variances not -.066 21.538 .948 -.014 .214 -.459 .431
assumed
PR5 Equal variances assumed 1.924 .172 -.629 49 .532 -.111 .177 -.467 .244
Equal variances not -.723 27.596 .476 -.111 .154 -.427 .204
assumed
Performance Equal variances assumed 1.936 .170 -.171 49 .865 -.142 .829 -1.809 1.525
 Equal variances not -.207 31.556 .837 -.142 .683 -1.533 1.250
assumed

It is observed that PR 3- Mean Difference- 0.172 which is higher, and it should be reduce and it is also observed that LCL= -0.748, UCL= 0.404
 Assurance means knowledge of competence, courtesy of staff, respects of customers, probity and confidentiality, safety and security and
creditability

ASSURANCE- STATISTICS
Expected PA1 Expected PA2 Expected PA3 Expected PA4 Expected Performance
N Valid 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 5.00 4.59 5.00 4.53 5.00 4.61 5.00 4.45 20.00 18.18
Std. Deviation .000 .669 .000 .612 .000 .695 .000 .642 .000 2.151
GS= P-E -0.41 -0.47 -0.39 -0.15 -0.82

GROUP STATISTICS It is observed from the table there is a overall gap score of -0.82 for
assurance determinant with -0.47 PA2 safety and security.
Std. Std. Error
Gender N Mean Deviation Mean From group statistics we can observe that the mean is 18.18 and
standard deviation is exceeded 2. 0 for males and 1.8 which is less
PA1 Male 38 4.55 .724 .117 than 2
Female 13 4.69 .480 .133 And males are the highest respondents with 38 and females are 13
and from independent sample test we can observe that there is
PA2 Male 38 4.55 .602 .098
<0.01% So null hypothesis satisfied
Female 13 4.46 .660 .183

PA3 Male 38 4.63 .714 .116

We can observe t= -6.053 for the paired sample test
Female 13 4.54 .660 .183
A negative t-value indicates a reversal in the
PA4 Male 38 4.45 .645 .105 directionality of the effect, which has no bearing on the
significance of the difference between groups.
Female 13 4.46 .660 .183

Performance Male 38 18.18 2.276 .369

Female 13 18.15 1.819 .504

INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST

Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper

PA1 Equal variances assumed 2.957 .092 -.646 49 .521 -.140 .216 -.574 .295

Equal variances not -.786 31.690 .437 -.140 .178 -.502 .222
assumed

PA2 Equal variances assumed .224 .638 .460 49 .648 .091 .198 -.307 .489

Equal variances not .439 19.283 .666 .091 .208 -.343 .525
assumed

PA3 Equal variances assumed .034 .853 .413 49 .681 .093 .225 -.359 .546

Equal variances not .430 22.351 .671 .093 .217 -.356 .542
assumed

PA4 Equal variances assumed .000 .983 -.068 49 .946 -.014 .208 -.433 .405

Equal variances not -.067 20.411 .947 -.014 .211 -.454 .425
assumed

Performance Equal variances assumed .377 .542 .043 49 .965 .030 .698 -1.373 1.434

Equal variances not .049 25.896 .962 .030 .625 -1.255 1.316
assumed
The Independent Samples t Test compares the means of two independent groups in order to determine whether there is statistical evidence that the
associated population means are significantly different. The Independent Samples t Test is a parametric test.

PAIRED SAMPLES TEST

Paired Differences
Std. 95% Confidence Interval of the
Std. Error Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 PA1-EA1 -.412 .669 .094 -.600 -.224 -4.398 50 .000
GS= (P-E)
Pair 2 PA2-EA2 -.471 .612 .086 -.643 -.299 -5.494 50 .000
GS= (P-E)
Pair 3 PA3-EA3 -.392 .695 .097 -.588 -.197 -4.029 50 .000
GS= (P-E)
Pair 4 PA4-EA4 -.549 .642 .090 -.730 -.368 -6.104 50 .000
GS= (P-E)
Pair 5 PATOT-EATOT -1.824 2.151 .301 -2.429 -1.218 -6.053 50 .000
GS= (P-E)

ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
PA1 Between Groups .616 3 .205 .444 .723
Within Groups 21.737 47 .462
Total 22.353 50
PA2 Between Groups .320 3 .107 .273 .845
Within Groups 18.386 47 .391
Total 18.706 50
PA3 Between Groups .628 3 .209 .418 .741
Within Groups 23.529 47 .501
Total 24.157 50
PA4 Between Groups .527 3 .176 .411 .746
Within Groups 20.100 47 .428
Total 20.627 50
Performance Between Groups 4.378 3 1.459 .302 .824
Within Groups 227.034 47 4.831
Total 231.412 50

PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS P= 0.824

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean P > 0.05 is the probability that the null hypothesis is
Pair 1 PA1 4.59 51 .669 .094 true. 1 minus the P value is the probability that the
alternative hypothesis is true. A
EA1 5.00 51 .000 .000 statistically significant test result (P ≤ 0.05) means
Pair 2 PA2 4.53 51 .612 .086 that the test hypothesis is false or should be rejected.
A P value greater than 0.05 means that no effect was
EA2 5.00 51 .000 .000
observed.
Pair 3 PA3 4.61 51 .695 .097

EA3 5.00 51 .000 .000

Pair 4 PA4 4.45 51 .642 .090
EA4 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 5 PATOT 18.18 51 2.151 .301
EATOT 20.00 51 .000 .000
 RESPONSIVENSS- STATISTICS GROUP STATISTICS
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Expected PRS1 Expected PRS2 Expected PRS3 Expected PRS4 Expected Performance PRS1 Male 38 3.03 1.700 .276
N Valid 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 Female 13 4.15 1.214 .337
PRS2 Male 38 2.97 1.636 .265
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Female 13 3.92 1.256 .348
Mean 5.00 3.31 5.00 3.22 5.00 3.41 5.00 3.25 13.20 20.00 PRS3 Male 38 3.21 1.436 .233
Female 13 4.00 1.528 .424
Std. Deviation .000 1.655 .000 1.591 .000 1.486 .000 1.495 5.810 .000 PRS4 Male 38 3.05 1.524 .247
GS= P-E -1.69 -1.78 -1.59 -1.75 -6.7 Female 13 3.85 1.281 .355
Performance Male 38 20.00 .000a .000
Female 13 20.00 .000a .000

a. t cannot be computed because the standard deviations of both groups are 0.

ANOVA
INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Levene's Test RS1 Between Groups 18.830 3 6.277 2.497 .071
for Equality Within Groups 118.150 47 2.514
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means Total 136.980 50
Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of RS2 Between Groups 16.451 3 5.484 2.339 .085
Sig. (2- Differenc Differenc the Difference Within Groups 110.176 47 2.344
F Sig. t df tailed) e e Lower Upper
Total 126.627 50
PRS1 Equal variances assumed 5.920 .019 -2.200 49 .033 -1.128 .513 -2.157 -.098
RS3 Between Groups 9.467 3 3.156 1.470 .235
Equal variances not assumed -2.590 29.234 .015 -1.128 .435 -2.018 -.238
Within Groups 100.886 47 2.147
PRS2 Equal variances assumed 5.528 .023 -1.905 49 .063 -.949 .498 -1.951 .052 Total 110.353 50
Equal variances not assumed -2.168 27.018 .039 -.949 .438 -1.848 -.051 RS4 Between Groups 6.679 3 2.226 .996 .403
PRS3 Equal variances assumed .038 .845 -1.684 49 .099 -.789 .469 -1.732 .153 Within Groups 105.007 47 2.234
Equal variances not assumed -1.633 19.769 .118 -.789 .483 -1.799 .220 Total 111.686 50
PRS4 Equal variances assumed 1.256 .268 -1.682 49 .099 -.794 .472 -1.741 .154 Performance Between Groups .000 3 .000 . .
Equal variances not assumed -1.833 24.560 .079 -.794 .433 -1.686 .099 Within Groups .000 47 .000
The Independent Samples t Test compares the means of two independent groups in order to determine whether there is Total .000 50
statistical evidence that the associated population means are significantly different. The Independent Samples t Test is a parametric test.

PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean It is observed from the table there is an overall gap score of -6.7 which is very high positive for superfine Tailors and negative for
Pair 1 PRS1 3.31 51 1.655 .232 customers
ERS1 5.00 51 .000 .000 Two sections (boxes) appear in the output: Group Statistics and Independent Samples Test. The first section, Group Statistics, provides basic
Pair 2 PRS2 3.22 51 1.591 .223 information about the group comparisons, including the sample size (n), mean, standard deviation, and standard error for factors of tangibles
ERS2 5.00 51 .000 .000 by group. In this, there are 38 male and 13 Female. The mean for males are 20, and the mean females Are 20
Pair 3 PRS3 3.41 51 1.486 .208 We can observe t= -6.853 for the paired sample test
ERS3 5.00 51 .000 .000
A negative t-value indicates a reversal in the directionality of the effect, which has no bearing on the significance of the
Pair 4 PRS4 3.25 51 1.495 .209
difference between groups.
ERS4 5.00 51 .000 .000
Pair 5 PRSTOT 20.00 51 .000 .000
ERSTOT 13.20 51 5.810 .814 ANNOVA: P= 0.824
P > 0.05 is the probability that the null hypothesis is true. 1 minus the P value is the probability that the alternative hypothesis
is true. A statistically significant test result (P ≤ 0.05) means that the test hypothesis is false or should be rejected. A P
value greater than 0.05 means that no effect was observed.
 PAIRED SAMPLES TEST
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Std. Interval of the
Deviati Difference Sig. (2-
Mean on Std. Error Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
Pair 1 PRS1-ERS2 -1.686 1.655 .232 -2.152 -1.221 -7.276 50 .000
GS=(P-E)
Pair 2 PRS2-ERS2 -1.784 1.591 .223 -2.232 -1.337 -8.007 50 .000
GS=(P-E)
Pair 3 PRS3-ERS3 -1.588 1.486 .208 -2.006 -1.170 -7.635 50 .000
GS=(P-E)
Pair 4 PRS4-ERS4 -1.745 1.495 .209 -2.165 -1.325 -8.339 50 .000
GS=(P-E)
Pair 5 PRSTOT-ERSTOT 6.804 5.810 .814 5.170 8.438 8.363 50 .000
GS=(P-E)
 EMPATHY- STATISTICS
Expected Performanc
Expecte Empathy e Empathy
PE1 EE1 PE2 EE2 PE3 d PE4 Expected PE5 Expected Total Total
N Valid 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 2.96 5.00 3.08 5.00 3.08 5.00 3.18 5.00 3.14 5.00 25.00 15.43
Std. Deviation 1.280 .000 1.146 .000 1.111 .000 .994 .000 1.040 .000 .000 5.228
GS= P-E -2.04 -1.92 -1.92 -1.82 -1.86 -9.57

GROUP STATISTICS ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Std. Error
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Mean PE1 Between Groups 10.799 3 3.600 2.379 .082

PE1 Male 38 2.79 1.298 .211 Within Groups 71.122 47 1.513

Female 13 3.46 1.127 .312 Total 81.922 50

PE2 Male 38 2.92 1.124 .182 PE2 Between Groups 8.743 3 2.914 2.406 .079

Female 13 3.54 1.127 .312 Within Groups 56.943 47 1.212

PE3 Male 38 2.92 1.124 .182 Total 65.686 50

Female 13 3.54 .967 .268 PE3 Between Groups 4.458 3 1.486 1.220 .313

Within Groups 57.229 47 1.218

PE4 Male 38 3.00 1.013 .164
Total 61.686 50
Female 13 3.69 .751 .208
PE4 Between Groups 8.271 3 2.757 3.149 .034
PE5 Male 38 3.00 1.040 .169
Within Groups 41.141 47 .875
Female 13 3.54 .967 .268
Total 49.412 50
PE Total Male 38 14.63 5.170 .839
PE5 Between Groups .601 3 .200 .176 .912
Female 13 17.77 4.850 1.345
Within Groups 53.438 47 1.137

Total 54.039 50

Performance Between Groups 139.996 3 46.665 1.788 .162

Empathy Total
Within Groups 1226.514 47 26.096

Total 1366.510 50
 INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Mean
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Std. Error Difference Lower Upper

PE1 Equal variances assumed 3.006 .089 -1.663 49 .103 -.672 .404 -1.484 .140

Equal variances not assumed -1.784 23.779 .087 -.672 .377 -1.450 .106

PE2 Equal variances assumed 1.237 .271 -1.708 49 .094 -.617 .361 -1.344 .109

Equal variances not assumed -1.707 20.786 .103 -.617 .362 -1.370 .135

PE3 Equal variances assumed 1.515 .224 -1.766 49 .084 -.617 .350 -1.320 .085

Equal variances not assumed -1.903 23.988 .069 -.617 .324 -1.287 .052

PE4 Equal variances assumed 3.429 .070 -2.254 49 .029 -.692 .307 -1.309 -.075

Equal variances not assumed -2.609 28.072 .014 -.692 .265 -1.236 -.149

PE5 Equal variances assumed .143 .707 -1.639 49 .108 -.538 .329 -1.199 .122

Equal variances not assumed -1.699 22.232 .103 -.538 .317 -1.195 .118

PE Total Equal variances assumed 1.464 .232 -1.917 49 .061 -3.138 1.637 -6.426 .151

Equal variances not assumed -1.979 22.059 .060 -3.138 1.585 -6.425 .149

The Independent Samples t Test compares the means of two independent groups in order to determine whether there is statistical evidence that the associated population means are significantly different.
The Independent Samples t Test is a parametric test.

It is observed from the table there is a overall gap score of -9.57 for EMPATHY factors which is negative for customers but more positive for superfine Tailors

Two sections (boxes) appear in the output: Group Statistics and Independent Samples Test. The first section, Group Statistics, provides basic information about the group comparisons, including the sample size (n),
mean, standard deviation, and standard error for factors of tangibles by group. In this, there are 38 male and 13 Female. The mean for males are 14.63, and the mean females are17.77=

ANNOVA:

P= 0.162

P > 0.05 is the probability that the null hypothesis is true. 1 minus the P value is the probability that the alternative hypothesis is true. A statistically significant test result (P ≤ 0.05) means that the test hypothesis is
false or should be rejected. A P value greater than 0.05 means that no effect was observed.
 PAIRED SAMPLES STATISTICS
Std. Std. Error
Mean N Deviation Mean

Pair 1 PE1 2.96 51 1.280 .179 PAIRED SAMPLES TEST

EE1 5.00 51 .000 .000 Paired Differences

Pair 2 PE2 3.08 51 1.146 .160 95% Confidence

Interval of the
EE2 5.00 51 .000 .000 Difference
Std. Std. Error Sig. (2-
Pair 3 PE3 3.08 51 1.111 .156 Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df tailed)
EE3 5.00 51 .000 .000 Pair 1 PE1 - EE1 -2.039 1.280 .179 -2.399 -1.679 -11.377 50 .000
Pair 4 PE4 3.18 51 .994 .139 Pair 2 PE2 - EE2 -1.922 1.146 .160 -2.244 -1.599 -11.973 50 .000
EE4 5.00 51 .000 .000 Pair 3 PE3 – E3 -1.922 1.111 .156 -2.234 -1.609 -12.355 50 .000
Pair 5 PE5 3.14 51 1.040 .146 Pair 4 PE4 – E4 -1.824 .994 .139 -2.103 -1.544 -13.100 50 .000
EE5 5.00 51 .000 .000 Pair 5 PE5 – EE5 -1.863 1.040 .146 -2.155 -1.570 -12.796 50 .000
Pair 6 Performance Empathy Total 15.43 51 5.228 .732 Pair 6 PETOT- EETOT -9.569 5.228 .732 -11.039 -8.098 -13.071 50 .000
Expected Empathy Total 25.00 51 .000 .000
RESEARCH FINDINGS
From the analysis carried out to answer research questions and hence fulfill the purpose of the study that include finding out how customers perceive Superfine Tailors service quality, factors hindering customer
satisfaction, identifying what dimensions highly contribute to customer satisfaction and what should be done to improve customer satisfaction for Superfine Tailors.

The findings from analysis reveal that the SERVQUAL model is a better instrument to measure service quality for superfine Tailors business working environment. The gap score analysis carried out, found that, the
overall service quality is very high as perceived by SF Tailors’ customers and hence unsatisfactory customer satisfaction. Customers have higher expectations than what they experience from SF Tailors even though
the difference is not highly significant. To answer the main research question, which is how customers perceive service quality, the gap scores analysis carried out provided answers to these questions. The overall
perceived service quality is high as expectations exceed perceptions.

Further evaluation on the perceptions and expectations of the customers, it has been observed that no dimension of service quality that contributes to customer satisfaction.

The findings on the factors hindering satisfaction for SF Tailors, it has been found that most of customers were not happy with SF Tailors customer care service, voucher availability, phones type and prices, airtime
charges and flexibility. Evidence from the study shows that, SF Tailors must improve performance on all dimensions of service quality to increase customer satisfaction as customers expect more than what is being
offered by SF Tailors. By improving customer service quality means strengthening company competitive edge within the industry.

SUGGESTIONS

1. Ambience should the maintained neat and tidy as the physical appearance of the showroom is the attractive factor for the customers

2. More Customization should be done.

3. As there is uncertainty due to COVID-19 many customers are looking for safety precautions.

4. More time management and need to follow the responsiveness.

5. More Employee engagement should be done for the better improvement of the service for the customization

6. More Social Media Marketing should be done in order to increase the customers demand and market.

CONCLUSION
The main purpose of this study was to assess service quality and customer satisfaction using SERVQUAL model from SF Tailors current business set ups. It also reveals how customers of SF Tailors perceive service
quality, see how applicable the SERVQUAL model in the context of SF Tailors using its dimensions to measure service quality, factors hindering satisfaction in SF Tailors and what to be done to improve customer
satisfaction in SF Tailors. Knowing how customers perceive service quality and being able to measure service quality will benefit management of service organizations including SF Tailors. Measuring service quality
helps management to provide reliable data that can be used to monitor, maintain, and improve service quality. Findings show that SF Tailors customers expects more than what they perceive therefore SF Tailors must
strive hard to improve all the service quality dimensions for 135 improved customer satisfaction.