Problem definition

Service providers (in-house departments or contractors) want to know what customers (aka end-users) care about. Service quality is a good guess. Price, and to a minor degree product quality, also count. But for service providers, customers care most about service quality. Check the research. Statistically valid research. Of course, providers can always ask customers. But lacking the money, time and skills, why not look to the leading research for that understanding? Even though service quality research has progressed since1990.

There are five dimensions for measure the service quality. But All dimensions are important to customers, but some more than others. Service providers need to know which are which to avoid majoring in minors. At the same time they can't focus on only one dimension and let the others suffer. Thisfound five dimensions customers use when evaluating service quality. They named their survey instrument SERVQUAL. SERVQUAL research showed dimensions' importance to each other by asking customers to assign 100 points across all five dimensions. SERVQUAL research showed it's important to communicate that expertise to customers. If a service provider is highly skilled, but customers don't see that, their confidence in that provider will be lower. And their assessment of that provider's service quality will be lower.

Customers' assessments include expectations and perceptions across all five SERVQUAL dimensions. Service providers need to work on all five, but emphasize them in order of importance. If sacrifices must be made, use these dimensions as a guide for which ones to rework.

Also, providers can use SERVQUAL dimensions in determining specific customer and site needs. By asking questions around these dimensions, providers can learn how they play out at a particular location/bid opportunity.

RAISE CUSTOMER AWARENESS OF COMPETENCIES Service providers must communicate their expertise and competencies - before they do the work. This can be done in many ways that are repeatedly seen by customers, such as:

Display industry certifications on patches, badges or buttons worn by employees Include certification logos on emails, letters & reports Put certifications into posters, newsletters & handouts

By communicating competencies, providers can help manage customer expectations. And influence their service quality assessment in advance.

SERVICE DELIVERY MATTERS Providers' service delivery can be as important as how it was done. Provider employees should be trained how to interact with customers and their end-users. Even a brief session during initial orientation helps. Anything to help them understand their impact on customers' assessment of service qualit

Literature review
Quality definition
Quality is the ability of a product or service to meet a customer's expectations for that product or service. MEETS ALL CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS The manufacture/distribution of a product/service which provides both tangible(quality product/service, low cost$$$) and intangible(customer satisfaction) value to the internal and external customer. (Wikipedia )

Service quality
Quality of service is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, users, or data flows, or to guarantee a certain level of performance to a data flow. (Wikipedia)

Service quality dimensions

The 5 Dimensions Defined

After extensive research, Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry found five dimensions customers use when evaluating service quality. They named their survey instrument SERVQUAL.

In other words, if providers get these dimensions right, customers will hand over the keys to their loyalty.Because they'll have received service excellence. According to what's important to them. The five SERVQUAL dimensions are:

TANGIBLES-Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials ELIABILITY-Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately RESPONSIVENESS-Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service ASSURANCE-Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence EMPATHY-Caring, individualized attention the firm provides its customer

The 5 Service Dimensions Customers Care About

What's this mean for service providers?

1. Just Do It

RELIABILITY: Do what you say you're going to do when you said you were going to do it. Customers want to count on their providers. They value that reliability. Don't providers yearn to find out what customers value? This is it.It's three times more important to be reliable than have shiny new equipment or flashy uniforms. Doesn't mean you can have ragged uniforms and only be reliable. Service providers have to do both. But providers first and best efforts are better spent making service reliable. Whether it's periodics on schedule, on-site response within Service Level Agreements (SLAs), or Work Orders completed on time.

2. Do It Now RESPONSIVENESS: Respond quickly, promptly, rapidly, immediately, instantly. Waiting a day to return a call or email doesn't make it. Even if customers are chronically slow in getting back to providers, responsiveness is more than 1/5th of their service quality assessment. Service providers benefit by establishing internal SLAs for things like returning phone calls, emails and responding on-site. Whether it's 30 minutes, 4 hours, or 24 hours, it's important customers feel providers are responsive to their requests. Not just emergencies, but everyday responses too.

3. Know whatyouredoing ASSURANCE: Service providers are expected to be the experts of the service they're delivering. It's a given.
5

4. Care about Customers as much as the Service EMPATHY: Services can be performed completely to specifications. Yet customers may not feel provider employees care about them during delivery. And this hurts customers' assessments of providers' service quality. For example, a day porter efficiently cleans up a spill in a lobby. However, during the clean up doesn't smile, make eye contact, or ask the customer if there is anything else they could do for them. In this hypothetical the provider's service was performed fully. But the customer didn't feel the provider employee cared. And it's not necessarily the employees fault. They may not know how they're being judged. They may be overwhelmed, inadequately trained, or disinterested.

5. Look Sharp TANGIBLES: Even though this is the least important dimension, appearance matters. Just not as much as the other dimensions. Service providers will still want to make certain their employees appearance, uniforms, equipment, and work areas on-site (closets, service offices, etc.) look good. The danger is for providers to make everything look sharp, and then fall short on RELIABILITY or RESPONSIVENESS. (www.serviceperformance.com/articles/30)

THE FIVE DIMENSIONS OF QUALITY

Quality, in its highest state, exists in five distinct dimensions. These include

(1) Experience; (2) Measurement; (3) Relationships and systems thinking; (4) Inter-connectivity and paradigm logic; (5) Value sharing. The recent quality movement to "delight the customer" highlights the fifth dimension, value sharing. However, although value sharing provides the foundation for the integration of all other dimensions, it does not exist in a vacuum. "Customer delight" cannot exist or continue on a sustained basis without the utilization of the other four dimensions of quality. In fact, these dimensions are so integrated that they are holographic: each dimension reflects all the other dimensions. Since these dimensions provide the structure for the service quality, a basic understanding of them is essential. The summary of these dimensions below, will provide the background for understanding their role in fulfilling service quality. 1. The experiential dimension. In this single dimension things are actually done. "Vision becomes reality." Unless it is integrated with the other dimensions, it remains a string of incidents, such as a stream of consciousness story. However, when integrated with the other dimensions, it becomes the tool of actualization. Its power is that unless it is fulfilled, plans remain plans and are not put into action. Experience provides the "footprint" of the system in place. By measuring and understanding that "footprint" we can evaluate whether the system is doing what is needed. Experience also provides the learning needed for proper implementation of the continuous improvement cycle. 2. The measurement dimension. In this dimension, (two dimensions), we recognize not only that something was done, but also how well or how poorly it was done and its impact. This dimension provides us with knowledge of the system. It is knowledge of the system that builds trust in the system and further

facilitates "driving out fear" as everyone in the organization understands their role in the system. 3. The relationship and systems thinking dimension. This dimension permits us to observe a correlation between activities and results of activities. It helps us see the interrelationship among people, plant and equipment, processes, policies and procedures, and environment. It permits us to standardize systems so that organizational learning is retained. This dimension also utilizes the power of interpersonal relationships to "build a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust" with suppliers (including employees) so that we can avoid "awarding business on the basis of price tag" . It permits us to "break down barriers between departments" internally within our organization so that the entire organization can function as an integrated system, rather than as sub-optimized subsystems. 4. The inter-connectivity dimension. This dimension is approached by looking at the same information through a new paradigm, a new set of eyes, a new set of rules, a new frame of reference. This new perception may be inconsistent with the traditional view, but the power of the paradigm shift is that it provides its own logic. Within that new logic, the new paradigm provides a perfectly valid means of understanding and interpreting the information.

5. The value sharing dimension. This dimension is illustrated by the phrase, "If I give you something that has more value to you than it does to me, then together we are better off as a result of the trade." This dimension is expressed by "delight the customer.

FULFILLING SERVICE QUALITY

Service quality does not exist in a vacuum. Rather it exists in relation to the entire environment in which the organization exists. To be effective, service quality must reflect the dynamics of that environment. Traditional quality thinking, particularly in the manufacturing environment, has a linear rather than a dynamic orientation. It breaks down the organization and its environment into components, makes assumptions about each of those components, and then tries to integrate those pieces. Since service quality must encompass the dynamics of the entire system rather than focus on the system's components, it is important to understand what that environment is and how and why it is different from the traditional environment. The difference between service quality and traditional quality control is that service quality focuses on cultivating the environment in which the components can freely operate and grow, while traditional quality control focuses on control of the components, much like one would control finances. This five-step process is as follows: (1) cultivate a consecration culture in which delighting internal and external customers becomes the driving force; (2) plan the paradigm and let the paradigm drive the behavior (the Plan stage); (3) employ experience in order to bring vision into actualization and to facilitate organizational learning (the Do stage); (4) manage measurement, because "you get what you measure" (the Study stage); (5) reinforce relationships to help others become "sustaining members" of the organization and to standardize processes that work well (the Act stage).

1. Cultivate a Consecration Culture (Create the Environment for Service Quality).

9

Joel A. Barker says that the quality paradigm is essential to excel in the 1990's, but by the turn of the century will be a necessary condition for even being in business. This is a natural consequence of firm after firm turning its focus to "delighting the customer." This value sharing paradigm is the only paradigm which has the power to build and sustain long-term relationships with customers so that they become "sustaining members" of the organization. ." Value sharing, which is the ultimate expression of relational economic theory, provides the link between quality and economics. Value sharing is described as follows: Where there is a relationship, a buyer will pay more and a seller will accept less. This expands the trading range, and increases the likelihood that a trade will take place. But more importantly, the trade takes on a new dimension. The trade begins to flow from the relationship, rather than the relationship existing merely because of the trade. Price becomes a less important consideration, and is adjusted to reflect the needs of the participants. Long-term relationships provide a continuous stream of income as customers become "sustaining members" of the organization. The focus turns from "selling to the customer" to "fulfilling customer needs." The resource base is expanded through more open sharing of human, information, and capital resources among all participants, both customers and suppliers. There are four conditions necessary for a consecration culture: First, there must be a relationship among the participants such that there is value in sharing value. Second, there must be a level of trust among the participants such that each can depend on the other participants not to abuse or take advantage of the relationship. Third, all participants must engage in mutual consecration of resources such that value sharing is reciprocated. Fourth, there must be no hoarding of resources by any of the participants. The value of the value sharing paradigm is that as the needs of the participants (the "customers") are anticipated and fulfilled, resources are allocated most efficiently and most equitably because they are placed where they are needed when they are needed, resulting in optimization of value. Long-term relationships are enhanced as the trading flows from the relationship rather than the relationship existing merely because of the trade. Through the resulting long-term relationships, customers become "sustaining members" of the organization, providing a constant stream of income to support the organization.
10

2. Plan the Paradigm (the Plan step). Paradigm logic is becoming one of the most powerful tools of service quality and cultural change. While a new paradigm may be inconsistent with the traditional view, it provides its own logic. It provides a perfectly valid means for understanding and interpreting behavior. Another firm's move to a responsibility paradigm resulted in less time taken by employees at break time. The firm eliminated the buzzer signaling the beginning and end of the break when there was confusion about what the buzzer meant (should the employees leave the break room or be back at their position when the buzzer sounded?). Had the owner simply requested employees to take a shorter break time, the "irresponsible" paradigm would have been emphasized, and the attempt at behavioral change would have been resisted by employees. As it was, they felt they were receiving a benefit. Service quality is most effective when it involves planning the paradigm rather than planning the behavior. If the principle paradigm of the organization is not understood and planned, it will seek an equilibrium level of its own. However, equilibrium will take place around the lower dimensional levels. For example, an organization that refuses to "break down barriers between departments" as advocated by Dr. Deming suffers from competition among its various departments as each department hoards its resources, even though those resources may be more valuable to other departments. Consequently, sub-optimization results, and the competition paradigm is reinforced, and if left unbridled, can even lead to punishment or apathy between departments. Similarly, the achievement paradigm can lead to competition among participants as each seeks allocation of scarce resources (e.g., customer base or capital resources) to achieve its goals. In fact, firms which do not build relationships with their customers often find themselves in win-lose "competition" with their customers as they are constantly negotiating over price. Where there is a relationship, price becomes less of a consideration, and focus turns toward helping each other fill each others' needs. As noted above, quality is driven by the value sharing paradigm. Unless this becomes the principle paradigm of the organization, the organization will lack the capacity to achieve the dedication of its participants that is necessary to sustain the organization over the long term.

11

3. Employ Experience (the Do step). Experience is the only dimension through which actualization of the vision is achieved. It is experience that builds the frame of reference of participants and increases the firm's ability to respond to the needs of customers. The attorney who has had experience in handling a particular type of case is, in general, better able to serve clients with similar cases than attorneys without experience in that type of case. Visible changes not only employs people with experience, but engages in a continuous program of training and development, thus providing an ever-expanding experience base. Experience is employed through utilization of the "Do" step of Dr. Deming's Plan-Do-StudyAct cycle. By actually implementing the proposed improvement on a test or full scale basis, the firm gains knowledge that it would not obtain through attempting to logically deduce the results without actually implementing. This is because the success (or failure) of the project may be explained by a new paradigm that would appear illogical under the existing paradigm. The success (or failure) of the project and the new underlying paradigm would not be discovered without actually implementing the project.

4. Manage Measurement (the Study step). In some organizations, measurement is mismanaged, producing results inconsistent with the true needs of the organization. For example, the computer consulting firm that began measuring "quality" by the number of lines its computer programmers wrote in a day were actually encouraging longer, more memory consumptive programs which were actually inconsistent with the needs of their customers. Similarly measurement of performance, with the implication that the participant has control over the performance when 85% of the control belongs to the system and not the participants, can lead to sub-optimization which is inconsistent with the needs of the firm. One manufacturer found that its incentive pay program encouraged its employees to work on projects tied to the incentive system at the expense of critical current customer needs. Some organizations waste their time measuring everything and, as a consequence, create an

12

environment in which measurement is not taken seriously, or worse yet, encourage behavior inconsistent with the true vision of the organization. Although they are more difficult to obtain, measurements of the higher dimensions of quality provide better information for fulfilling service quality. This is particularly true of service quality, in which the product is normally produced at the time of delivery, so there is no chance for rework prior to delivery. Measurements of paradigms (fourth dimension measurements) can provide significant leverage for shifting corporate culture, as illustrated by the bereavement policy example. In contrast, measurement and control of behavior (a first dimension measure) can actually be counterproductive. Value sharing is measured through measurements of the strength of relationships (fifth dimension measurements of "social capital"). There are three measures of the strength of relationships: first, the level of consecration; second, the level of repeat business; and third, the level of referral business. The level of consecration is measured by the degree to which the participants are willing to give more than is required. The level of repeat business is an indication of the extent to which customers have become "sustaining members" of the organization. The level of referral business reflects the extent to which the customer has truly become a participant in sharing the vision of the organization by seeking other participants to contribute resources to (and to share value with) the organization.

5. Reinforce Relationships (the Act step). Since it is long-term relationships that provide the sustaining lifeblood of the organization, these relationships need to be constantly nourished and reinforced. These relationships are built and strengthened through the firm's willingness to share value with its internal and external participants. Another type of relationship which must be reinforced is the delivery method or system which is developed for serving internal and external customers. There is a direct relationship
13

between a successful process and "customer delight." This relationship is reinforced by standardizing the process and making it part of the system. Full application of the Act stage of Dr. Deming's Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle does not take place until any improvements generated through the Plan and Do portion of the cycle are verified through measurement and are made a part of the system. It is this standardization step which assists the organization in retaining its learning, which would otherwise be lost upon the death or termination of the employees who developed the improved processes. It is through this standardization that the organization becomes "free of mortal risk." Another relationship that must be understood and reinforced is the relationship of the organization in its socioeconomic environment. The firm that understands the dynamics of its environment and its own role in those dynamics can more effectively use those dynamics for its benefit. The firm which does not understand the dynamics or its role will be "tossed to and fro" by those system dynamics. (Fulfilling service quality through quality's five dimensions,Richard E. Winder)

A Quality Call Center begins with Quality People

The main focus of a quality call center is to provide excellent customer care to retain clients. There are many different aspects of running a quality customer service call center, none more important than any other From people to equipment, there are many things to think about. Call centers may have the same type of structure, but by no means are they run the same way. Some low quality call centers may focus more on simply getting the calls answered, leaving little focus on good customer service (ugh!), while others spend hundreds of hours training their agents to provide the highest quality customer service available. Starting with the top, and working our way down I will show you the important roles the different call center people plays.

14

Service offering chart of call center

So who are these folks?

It all begins with the operations manager, sometimes also known as a call center manager. They are responsible for all departments within the call center, as well as relations with all outside contacts such as maintenance, vending, payroll, human resources, or any other company the call center works with.

The shift supervisor is the person that communicates between the operations manager and the team managers, ensuring everyone is on the same page. They will produce reports that are needed and make sure all team managers report directly to them in regards to problems with things such as attendance, call times, and customer satisfaction rates.
15

Team managers spend their time on the call floor, coaching the customer service agents in a positive manner when it comes to attendance, quality, policy adherence, and following procedure. Customer service agents would report directly to the team manager in all aspects of their work including calling them when they will miss a day, or coming to them when they have an issue they cannot correct or handle on their own. This position is one that you will have to stand out as a positive role model, knowing that what is said and done by a team manager is what sets the tone for everyone else.

Training is an important aspect of running a quality call center, as customer service agents will not appropriately represent a company without it. Within a training department, there is usually a training manager that oversees trainers on a daily basis and reports daily achievements and problems to the operations manager.

Quality assurance is monitored within a call center, to ensure customers are receiving the best possible experience when calling in. Quality teams will consist of a manager within the department who reports to the shift supervisor, and a team of agents who listen to customer calls and score them on a number of things.

Without an IT team, the call center simply cannot run. They are the ones to keep the equipment including phones and computers running smoothly so calls can be answered in a timely fashion. The IT department will usually report to the operations manager, but all departments will report to the IT team with problems that need to be addressed.

Last but certainly not least is the bread and butter of the call center. A customer service agent is what makes a company. Without them, there is nothing to operate, as they are the ones whom are relied on to represent the company and take care of any customer contacting the company. There is a lot of responsibility for an agent to deal with on a daily basis as far as keeping within policy and procedure guidelines while sometimes dealing with irate customers and still keeping a smile on their face.

In all honesty, of all different aspects of a call center, customer service agents are known to have the highest turnover for many different reasons. To lessen the turnover in a company all departments must operate effectively with each other to provide the agent with essential needs such as support and ongoing training.
16

Without it, the agent simply cannot deliver great service to the customer!

( making a point of good customer service, 2003-2009 CustomerServicePoint.com)

Broad Dimensionsof Service Quality:

Reliability - perform promised service dependably and accurately Responsiveness - willingness/readiness to provide prompt service Competence - possess knowledge and skill to perform the service Access - approachability and ease of contact of service personnel Courtesy - politeness, consideration, and friendliness of service personnel Communication - keeping customers informed; listening to customers Credibility - trustworthy, believable, honest Security - freedom from danger, risk, or doubt Understanding/knowing customer - knowing customer's needs Tangibles - physical evidence of service (http://wiki.answers.comWhat_are_the_five_dimensions_of_service_quality )

Analyze According to the above proposal that we made .we have selected a sample including hundred people for measure service quality of Dialog Sri Lanka Telecommunication Company. We have selected 42 women and 58 men for this sample and we only considered people who are above 18 in their ages. The sample included 08 people from the age group 18 to 20, 65 people from the age group 20 to 35.and 07 people from the age group above 50 to up. And in this sampled 08 people have educated up to the primary level, 17 people have educated up to the ordinary level 30 people have educated up to the Advanced level. And 46 people have educated up to the higher education level.
Age levels Cumulative Percent 8.0

Valid

Bellow 35

Frequency 8

Percent 8.0

Valid Percent 8.0

17

20 to 35 35 to 50 over 50 Total Gender

65 20 7 100

65.0 20.0 7.0 100.0

65.0 20.0 7.0 100.0

73.0 93.0 100.0

Frequency Valid female male Total Education level 42 58 100

Percent 42.0 58.0 100.0

Valid Percent 42.0 58.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 42.0 100.0

Valid

up to grade 8 up to ordinary level up to advance level above advance level 5 Total

Frequency 7 17 30 45 1 100

Percent 7.0 17.0 30.0 45.0 1.0 100.0

Valid Percent 7.0 17.0 30.0 45.0 1.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 7.0 24.0 54.0 99.0 100.0

In here we resumed that values 1 to 3 as agreed level and 3to 5 non-agreed level according to the responses we have collected through the questionnaires. We can begin the analyze part of our experiment to the data in to information as follows. In here we have to analyze questionnaires building under the variables like tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy to measure the service quality of Dialog Sri Lanka Telecommunication Company. We used the responses we have got for the questions related to equipment, employees, stationeries and quality for study about the tangible status of the Dialog. We took mean values as 2.17, 2.31, 2.65, and2.33. In here most of the respondents have responded higher value to the stationary. How ever the values we have got questions related to other equipment, the service of the employees and quality are below the mean value2.5. So in this we can present the information we have gathered from the sample on tangible questions using a Frequency table.

Equipment Cumulative Percent 12.0 82.0 93.0 96.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree 12 70 11 3 4

Percent 12.0 70.0 11.0 3.0 4.0

Valid Percent 12.0 70.0 11.0 3.0 4.0

18

Total

100

100.0

100.0

Employer's service Cumulative Percent 12.0 69.0 91.0 97.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 12 57 22 6 3 100

Percent 12.0 57.0 22.0 6.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 12.0 57.0 22.0 6.0 3.0 100.0

Stationary Cumulative Percent 11.0 47.0 82.0 95.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 11 36 35 13 5 100

Percent 11.0 36.0 35.0 13.0 5.0 100.0

Valid Percent 11.0 36.0 35.0 13.0 5.0 100.0

Quality Cumulative Percent 9.0 71.0 90.0 97.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 9 62 19 7 3 100

Percent 9.0 62.0 19.0 7.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 9.0 62.0 19.0 7.0 3.0 100.0

For more on we have evaluated the descriptive statistics to understand the tangible status of the service quality. The descriptive statistics table as follows.

Descriptive Statistics

19

N Equipment Quality Employer's service Stationary Valid N (listwise) 100 100 100 100 100

Mean 2.17 2.33 2.31 2.65

Validi (N) In here the fact we have to realize there is an acceptable or agreed level of respondents about the tangible status. When we consider about the quality of the service we can further explain the idea of the sample in the tangible variables using following pie charts.

20

Strongly Disagree

Employer's service
Disagree Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

No idea

Agree

21

Stationary

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

22

Quality

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

23

Equipment

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

We can clearly understand that most of the respondents have responded their ideas by accepting or agreeing the physical status by looking at above pie charts. It means the service quality of the physical variables in a higher level. We can understand the responses provided for the tangible factors by the each individual by their each factors. In here when we consider about the question related to equipment most of the respondents have responded positively (agreed level) In there when we look at the answers we have got for question related to equipment 12% of them heavily agreed with that they are using modern equipment for providing the service 70% among them are agreed normally with the statement 11% of have response that they dont have any idea with the question and 7% of respondents are not agreed with the statement.

24

How ever when we look at the above graph we can clearly understand that 82% of the sample agreed that dialog is being used modern equipment for providing their service to the customers. So we can Cleary get an idea that the higher customer acceptance on equipments those are using to measure the service quality drives through to accelerate the service quality higher and higher. It means the service quality of the above factor is maximum. When we considering about the influence of the employees on service quality most of the respondents has agreed with it. So its means the employee are doing a great job to maximize service quality. We can explained it by studding the below percentages. In there 12% of them are heavily agreeing with the employees are influences of better service quality 57% of respondents have been agreed. 22% of them have no idea about the statement. 9% of the respondents have not agreed with the above statement and have a negative idea about that so when we look at the above details higher percentage of respondents have been agreed with the statement that the employees service influences on service quality . So its clearly shows the employee service factor is higher in the Dialog. We have studied about the stationeries vouchers leaflets those are helpful for marking a better service quality as the next factor of measure tangible variables for service quality. So 11% of respondents have heavily agreed with the statement that the service of the stationeries influences on service quality of Dialog. 36% of them have agreed with statement. 35% of respondents have no idea with it and 18% of them havent agreed with statement. How ever when we considering above variable by look at the above details nearly 50% of the respondents have positive responses with it.(here positive response means agreed level) so we can clearly understand most of the respond ends (over50%) not agreed with the service that dialog delivered through the stationeries. So under the tangible variables the service qualities of stationeries have earned a lower value or non-agreed level in Dialog Sri Lanka. In here the last factor under the tangible variable is the qualities of the tangible factors in this 71% of respondents have agreed with the statement. 9% of them are heavily agreed with the quality of the tangible factors. 19% of respondents have no idea with the statement.10% of them are not agreed with the statement. So we can understand that the most of the respondents have been agreed with the quality factor under the tangible variable and its value takes a higher one, by studying about the graph draws by using above details. We can understand the value of the tangible factors under the service quality variables by looking at the all four graph at once. Most of the respondents have given positive ideas (Agreed) for all four factors under tangible variable. It means there are higher qualities in the four factors under the tangible variable and the respondent seems to be agreed with the statement. How ever this can be understand by looking at the mean values of above four factors as well. The reason for that is the value we gained for the mean are between 1 and 3. It takes more than 2.5 means value, when we consider the answers we have got for the reliability questions according to the information we collected through the sample. In here we can

25

get according to the frequency value for the time, 2.20 for the customer problems, 2.55 for perform, 2.85 for goods and service supply, 2.72 for error free records as mean values. We can see the mean values we have got for reliability by looking at the below charts. Descriptive Statistics N Time customer problems perform continusly service error-free-record Valid N (listwise) 100 100 100 100 100 100 Mean 2.72 2.20 2.55 2.85 2.72

In here we can see that all the mean values are more than 2.5.It seems that the Dialog Sri Lanka has earned a good reliability among the customers. Here are the pie charts we can use to study when we measuring the service quality based on reliability.

Time

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

26

customer problems

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

perform

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

27

continusly service

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

28

error-free-record

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

In here we can describe the responses we collected on factors of reliability variable in Dialog Sri Lanka one by one according to the pie charts. First we can see here in the reliability variable 47% of the responds have agreed with the fact that Dialog is delivering their service on time .When customer needs it 28%among them express hat they have no idea with that 25% of the sample have not agreed with it or Dialog Sri Lanka is not delivering the service right time when customer or consumer wants it. According to above detail and studying the pie charts we can Cleary come to concussion that the percentage of non agreed respondents are higher than the percentage of agreed respondents with the fact of delivering the service when it needs to the customer .But there is a another thing we should realized in the above education is more percentage in non- agreed responded consists with no ideas respondents. So it makes some difference the out put. So that by considering that higher percentage of no ideas responded we can conclude that the Dialog Sri Lanka is delivering the service on time to its customers.

29

Time Valid Percent 14.0 33.0 28.0 17.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 14.0 47.0 75.0 92.0 100.0

Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 14 33 28 17 8 100 14.0 33.0 28.0 17.0 8.0 100.0

We gather data about the quality of the customer service to solve the customer problems as the second factor under the reliability variables from the sample. In that , 18% of the sample heavily agreed and 56% of the respondents expressed that they agreed with it .So we can see here 74% of the respondents agreed heavily or normally with the fact that the Dialog Sri Lanka is delivering a quality customer service to resolve customer problems. Further we can see 17% of the sample expressed their responses that they have no idea with the fact and 9% of the respondents not agreed with the fact that Dialog Sri Lanka is not delivering a better customer service to resolve customer problems.

Customer problems Valid Percent 18.0 56.0 17.0 6.0 3.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 18.0 74.0 91.0 97.0 100.0

Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 18 56 17 6 3 100 18.0 56.0 17.0 6.0 3.0 100.0

30

We can see it by looking at the pie chart that the Dialog Sri Lanka is delivering a quality customer service to resolve the customer problems as well large Ares of the pie chart clearly shows the higher percentage of agreed respondents with the above fact. But from that agreed percentage includes large amount of agreed respondents than the heavily agreed respondents percentage. However in here we check the quality or the involvement of customer service to resolve the customer problems under the reliability factor for measure the service quality of Dialog Sri Lanka. It seems that most of responds are satisfying with the quality of the service to resolve the customer problems. By considering all above information we can come to the final decision that quality or the involment of the customer service to resolve customer problems is much better in Dialog Sri Lanka. Then as the we considered about the per performance of the Dialog Sri Lanka to make sure a better service for the customer. In here 54% of the customer agreed with it how ever in here 34% of the responds express they have no idea with it and 12% of the sample not agreed Perform Valid Percent 7.0 47.0 34.0 8.0 4.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.0 54.0 88.0 96.0 100.0

Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 7 47 34 8 4 100 7.0 47.0 34.0 8.0 4.0 100.0

When we look at the pie chart we can see the most of the responded are agreed with the fact that the Dialog Sri Lanka performance helpful for delivering better service quality to the customer .In there only a very small percentage not agreed with the performance factor under the reliability variable. So we can understand that the quality of the performance is high in Dialog and it surely helpfully for makes the quality of the service better. Under reliability variable next factors we consider was unstoppable service for the customers in here 43% of the respondents have responded saying that they are agreed with the statement 32% of the respondents have responded that they have no idea with the statement and there 25% of the sample have not agreed with that Dialog Sri Lanka is providing a unstoppable service to their customer.

31

continusly service Valid Percent 5.0 38.0 32.0 17.0 8.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5.0 43.0 75.0 92.0 100.0

Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 5 38 32 17 8 100 5.0 38.0 32.0 17.0 8.0 100.0

When we study the above pie carts we can see there is higher percentage of agreed responds than the non- agreed with the fact that Dialog Sri Lanka providing their service continuously with out and interruption. So we can understand by considering all above details and pie charts that the quality of the providing a unstoppable service is in a good mood or nigh.

The mean value we have received is 2.55 and its between 1 and 3 again proves the above condition. The last factor we evaluate under the reliability variable is dialog Sri Lanka keeping error free records about the customers. In that 50% of the respondents agreed with the above statement and expressed that the dialog Sri Lanka keeps error free records for them. It proves that dialog Sri Lanka is manages payment bills and details bills without any errors.

Error free record frequency table

Error-free-record Cumulative Percent 5.0 50.0 82.0 91.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 5 45 32 9 9 100

Percent 5.0 45.0 32.0 9.0 9.0 100.0

Valid Percent 5.0 45.0 32.0 9.0 9.0 100.0

32

And also the looking at the pie chart we can see the agreed percentage is more than the non-agreed respondent percentage. According above details it makes sure that the quality of the above considering factor is high. And the mean value we got for the above factor is 2.72 and its between 1 and 3. When we analyze the information collected through the sample about customer base variable we have calculate the mean values for its factors as follows. 2.57 mean value for customer base, 2.68 for help customer factor and 2.75 mean values for responsiveness.

Means tiyena table eka

Statistics customer base N Mean Valid Missing 100 0 2.57 help customer 100 0 2.68

respond 100 0 2.75

Above detail can be presented using pie charts as bellow. In that case the information we collected under the responsiveness variable as follows.

Customer base

help cust

respond

charts

33

customer base

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

customer base

34

help customer

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

help customer

respond

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

respond

35

In this variable we can see most of the respondents have agreed with customer base, help customer, respond factors.

Customer base frequency table (out put res..save)

Customer base Cumulative Percent 14.0 56.0 80.0 93.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 14 42 24 13 7 100

Percent 14.0 42.0 24.0 13.0 7.0 100.0

Valid Percent 14.0 42.0 24.0 13.0 7.0 100.0

In here 56% of respondents have agreed with that the dialog Sri Lanka is delivering their service based on customer or customer based service when providing their service no idea with customer base service and 20% of the sample expressed their ideas that dialog Sri Lanka is not delivering customer-based services shows more percentage of the respondents agreed with first factor under the responsiveness variable.

Help customer frequency table

Help customer Cumulative Percent 7.0 50.0 80.0 95.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 7 43 30 15 5 100

Percent 7.0 43.0 30.0 15.0 5.0 100.0

Valid Percent 7.0 43.0 30.0 15.0 5.0 100.0

Under the responsiveness variable we evaluate customer ideas about customer responsiveness. 50% percent of the responsiveness are agreed that dialog provides sufficient responsiveness for their services. 30% percent of respondents do not declare they idea 20%
36

percent dont accept that dialog provide sufficient responsiveness for their services. When using this information we can identify majority of the respondent accept their dialog provide sufficient responsiveness for their customers. According to these information we can conducive when provide services, the quality factors of help customer is high. This status can be confirmed in using the mean value of 2.68. The lot factors of the customer responsive variable is how employee responded to customer when provide service is evaluated. In here 50% percent of the respondent have agreed and accept that and 24% have not agreed. 26% percent did not empress they idea about employee responsiveness.

Respond for frequency table

Respond Cumulative Percent 8.0 50.0 76.0 91.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 8 42 26 15 9 100

Percent 8.0 42.0 26.0 15.0 9.0 100.0

Valid Percent 8.0 42.0 26.0 15.0 9.0 100.0

When consider the chart we can identify majority of the respondent accept this idea and this can be confirm by using the mean value of 2.75. There for we can say when provide services they try to maintain the high quality of the service.

Then we are considered about the assurance that dialog Sri Lanka provides to their customers under the assurance 4 factors have been evaluated. The 4 factors are confidence, safety, courteous and knowledge. According to the information we have gathered through the sample the mean value of the all above four factors are higher than 2. The mean value for confidence, 2.45 mean value for safety, 2.39 mean values for 2.39 and 2.47 mean values for knowledge.

Table

37

Statistics confidence N Mean Valid Missing 100 0 2.45 safety 100 0 2.45 courteous 100 0 2.39 knowledge 100 0 2.47

We can future describe the responses given by the respondents in the sample four factors under the assurance variable using bar charts as follows.

Confidence

safety

courteous

knowledge

confidence

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

confidence

38

safty

60

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

safty

39

courteous

60

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

courteous

40

knowledge

50

40

Frequency

30

20

10

0 Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

knowledge

By studying above bar harts it seems that most of the respondents have agreed with that the assurance dialog provided for their customers is good. But there are reasonable percentage of
respondents they have expressed no idea as well. We can use few frequency tables to further evaluate the above situation.
Confidence Cumulative Percent 12.0 62.0 85.0 96.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 12 50 23 11 4 100

Percent 12.0 50.0 23.0 11.0 4.0 100.0

Valid Percent 12.0 50.0 23.0 11.0 4.0 100.0

In here 62% of respondents have agreed with that the dialog Sri Lanka is delivering their service in a way building the confidence of customers. 15% of samples have not agreed with the above factor 41

and other 23% of respondents have expressed that they have no-idea with the factor. How ever when look at the bar charts we can realize the agreed percentage is in a high position. And the mean value we have calculated for this factor is 2.45. This again confirms the agreed level is high. We can finally come to decision that quality of the building confidence in customers mind is high in dialog Sri Lanka. When we evaluate the service quality of the assurance variable the next factor we consider is the safety that the dialog Sri Lanka provides their customer when delivers the service. In that 62% of respondents have agreed with that the dialog providers good safety when distributing their service to customers. 15% of samples have not agreed with it. And 23% of respondents have expressed that they have no idea about the safety of dialog.

Safety Cumulative Percent 11.0 62.0 85.0 97.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 11 51 23 12 3 100

Percent 11.0 51.0 23.0 12.0 3.0 100.0

Valid Percent 11.0 51.0 23.0 12.0 3.0 100.0

According to the bar chart that shows information related to above factor clearly present that the most of the respondents are in an agreed level with the safety. Next heavily agreed then the no idea level. The mean value for this factor is 2.45. So the mean value confirms the quality of the safety factor is high in the dialog Sri Lanka. After that we have gathered the information about the courteous factor of the dialog. In here 66% of respondents have agreed with the factor. 15% of respondents have not agreed and 19% of sample have expressed that they have no idea about courteous.
Courteous Cumulative Percent 15.0 66.0 85.0 95.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 15 51 19 10 5 100

Percent 15.0 51.0 19.0 10.0 5.0 100.0

Valid Percent 15.0 51.0 19.0 10.0 5.0 100.0

42

When we look at the value shows by the courteous bar chart it clearly indicates that the most of the respondents have been agreed with above factor. And mean value of this factor we calculated is 2.39 its between 1 and 3 also confirms the service quality of this factor is high. Them we have measured the capability of delivering service accurately to the customer of dialog Sri Lanka as the last factor under Assurance variable. Do they have enough knowledge to service the market? According to the responses we have got 58% of the respondents have agreed with that the dialog is capable of delivering their service accurately. 27% of the respondents have expressed that they have no idea with the factor.155 of the respondents have not agreed and be lives dialog havent got enough knowledge when serving the market.
Knowledge Cumulative Percent 14.0 58.0 85.0 96.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 14 44 27 11 4 100

Percent 14.0 44.0 27.0 11.0 4.0 100.0

Valid Percent 14.0 44.0 27.0 11.0 4.0 100.0

When we look at the information shows by the bar chart it clearly indicates that the agreed level is high on knowledge factor. It confirms through the 2.47 mean values we have calculated for the knowledge factor. After we can understand that the employees of the dialog have enough knowledge to service their customers accurately. So the high agreed level conforms that the service quality of that factor is high. The next variable we have considered for measure the service quality is empathy. Under the empathy variable we paid our attention and collected information about four factors. Those are Individual attention, convenient hours, personal attention, and specific need. The mean values we have calculated for each factor is 2.5 or more than it according to the information we have collected from respondents. It can furthers describes by the below chart
Statistics individual attention N Mean Valid Missing 100 0 2.65 convenient hours 100 0 2.50 personal attention 100 0 2.63 specific needs 100 0 2.60

43

In here we can see most of the respondents high percentages of the sample have agreed with the empathy variable. We can get same clear idea by studding the below 04 pie charts on four factors built based on the responses given by the respondents of the sample.

individual attention

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

44

convenient hours

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

45

personal attention

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

46

specific needs

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

We can understand that the more respondents of the sample have agreed with the each and every factor under the empathy variable by looking at the above 4 pie charts build based on each factor. When considering the individual attention factor of dialog Sri Lanka under the empathy variable approximately 50% of respondents consist with the heavily agreed and agreed respondents. From that other 30% of them have expressed that they have no idea with the factor. 16% of the respondents have given their responses that they have not agreed with the individual attention. 4% of the samples have heavily disagreed with the factor. In here according to the above information it indicates that the 50% of the respondent have agreed and other 50% of the samples have disagreed with the individual attention.

47

Individual attention Cumulative Percent 9.0 50.0 80.0 96.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 9 41 30 16 4 100

Percent 9.0 41.0 30.0 16.0 4.0 100.0

Valid Percent 9.0 41.0 30.0 16.0 4.0 100.0

individual attention

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

When we consider about the second factor, convenient hours under the empathy variable it shows as 63% of the respondents have heavily agreed or normally agreed with the factor. In here another 21% of the respondents have expressed that they have no idea. 11% of the samples have normally disagreed with the factor. There is a another 5% of the respondents they have heavily disagreed with the convenient hours factor as well. The mean value we have found for this factor is 2.5 and its between 1 and 3 again confirms that the convenient factor under the empathy variable is high or the service quality of this factor provides by the dialog Sri Lanka is high. And also we can further analyze above information we have gather through the respondents by using below frequency table and the pie chart.

48

Convenient hours Cumulative Percent 8.0 63.0 84.0 95.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 8 55 21 11 5 100

Percent 8.0 55.0 21.0 11.0 5.0 100.0

Valid Percent 8.0 55.0 21.0 11.0 5.0 100.0

convenient hours

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

The next factor we have chosen to measure the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka under the empathy variable is personal attention for customers. It means that do they pay enough personal attention on their customers. In here 10% of the respondents have heavily agreed with the statement and 48% of the respondents have normally agreed with the factor. 18% of the sample have expressed that they have no idea with the personal attention on customers of dialog Sri Lanka. 24% of the responded have disagreed with statement. How ever the mean value of this factor we 49

have calculated is 2.63. Its between 1 and 3 that again confirms that the higher level of agree percentage of the convenient hours factor and the service quality of the above factor is high in dialog Sri Lanka.
Personal attention Cumulative Percent 10.0 58.0 76.0 93.0 100.0

Frequency Valid Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total 10 48 18 17 7 100

Percent 10.0 48.0 18.0 17.0 7.0 100.0

Valid Percent 10.0 48.0 18.0 17.0 7.0 100.0

personal attention

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

50

Finally we have evaluated the last factor specific need under the empathy variable to measure the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka. It means how much they careful and paying attention on specific need of specific customer. In here 52% of the respondents have agreed with the statement. 30% of the respondents have expressed that they have no idea the factor. 5% of the samples have strongly agreed with the specific needs factor by expressing that the dialog has not fulfilled specific needs of specific customers. we discuss the mean value we have calculated for this factor is 2.6 this value again confirms that the service quality of this factor under the empathy variable is high because of the value is in between 1 and 3 we can further describe above detail by using below frequency table and pie chart.

Specific needs Cumulative Percent 11.0 52.0 82.0 95.0 100.0

Valid

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree Total

Frequency 11 41 30 13 5 100

Percent 11.0 41.0 30.0 13.0 5.0 100.0

Valid Percent 11.0 41.0 30.0 13.0 5.0 100.0

51

specific needs

Strongly Agree Agree Not idea Disagree Strongly disagree

How ever it respondents 2.365 when we consider the overall mean value of the tangible variable. We can understand that the service quality of the tangible factor is high. Because of the mean value we have calculated is between 1 and 3. The overall mean value for reliability variable respondents 2.6080 related to service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka. So when w considers this mean value it also in between 1 and 3 confirms that the customers of the dialog Sri Lanka has agreed with the fact that he service quality of the company is high. And also when we study the all factors under the responsiveness variable overall mean value represents 2.63.In here we can understand that the customers of the dialog Sri Lanka have agreed with the service quality of responsiveness variable is high in the company as well.
52

The overall mean value for the assurance variable is 2.44. So its a value between 1 and 3 confirms that most of the respondents have been agreed with the statement. Its means dialog Sri Lanka is providing a better assurance for their customers to increase the service quality. The last variable we have evaluated for measuring the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka is empathy. The overall mean value we have got for this variable is approximately 2.595.Its also a value between 1 and 3. This again makes sure that the most of the respondents have been agreed with the statement related to empathy variable. We can further analyze the overall mean values for the above variable s using below frequency tables and pie chart and learn how customers think about the quality of the dialog Sri Lanka.
Reliability Cumulative Percent 1.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 17.0 30.0 47.0 59.0 79.0 82.0 91.0 92.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0 100.0

Valid

1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 5.00 Total

Frequency 1 2 3 3 8 13 17 12 20 3 9 1 3 1 1 1 2 100

Percent 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 8.0 13.0 17.0 12.0 20.0 3.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 8.0 13.0 17.0 12.0 20.0 3.0 9.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

53

relabilit

1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 5.00

Responsiveness Cumulative Percent 2.0 10.0 17.0 36.0 49.0 67.0 77.0 84.0 87.0 91.0 95.0 96.0 100.0

Valid

1.00 1.33 1.67 2.00 2.33 2.67 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00 4.33 4.67 5.00 Total

Frequency 2 8 7 19 13 18 10 7 3 4 4 1 4 100

Percent 2.0 8.0 7.0 19.0 13.0 18.0 10.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 100.0

Valid Percent 2.0 8.0 7.0 19.0 13.0 18.0 10.0 7.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 100.0

54

responsivenesst

1.00 1.33 1.67 2.00 2.33 2.67 3.00 3.33 3.67 4.00 4.33 4.67 5.00

assurance Cumulative Percent 2.0 4.0 11.0 20.0 41.0 49.0 66.0 77.0 85.0 89.0 92.0 97.0 98.0 100.0

Frequency Valid 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.25 5.00 Total 2 2 7 9 21 8 17 11 8 4 3 5 1 2 100

Percent 2.0 2.0 7.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 17.0 11.0 8.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 2.0 2.0 7.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 17.0 11.0 8.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

55

assurance

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.25 5.00

Empathy Cumulative Percent 1.0 2.0 7.0 16.0 29.0 37.0 56.0 69.0 83.0 84.0 90.0 96.0 98.0 100.0

Valid

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 5.00 Total

Frequency 1 1 5 9 13 8 19 13 14 1 6 6 2 2 100

Percent 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 13.0 8.0 19.0 13.0 14.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 13.0 8.0 19.0 13.0 14.0 1.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 100.0

56

emphathy

1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 5.00

Tangible Cumulative Percent 3.0 7.0 15.0 35.0 62.0 80.0 87.0 92.0 93.0 96.0 97.0 98.0 100.0

Frequency Valid 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.75 4.00 4.25 5.00 Total 3 4 8 20 27 18 7 5 1 3 1 1 2 100

Percent 3.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 27.0 18.0 7.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

Valid Percent 3.0 4.0 8.0 20.0 27.0 18.0 7.0 5.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 100.0

57

tangible

1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.75 4.00 4.25 5.00

In this research we have calculated separate mean values for the sample by dividing the ample in to 2 parts as males and females. In here we have to consider how they have responded for the variables related to measuring the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka by their gender basis. So the mean values we have found for the males in the sample for tangible variable is 2.3929 and 2.3448 for the 2.3448.
Report Mean gender female male Total tangible 2.3929 2.3448 2.3650

58

In here the mean values we have calculated for both males and females are between 1and 3 and it indicates that the respondents of the both genders have a same idea in their minds. It clearly shows that the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka is high. According to the gender basis the mean values for the reliability variable are 2.6571 for females and 2.5724 for males. Above data can be arranged in the following chart as follows.
Report Mean gender female male Total reliability 2.6571 2.5724 2.6080

When we look at the mean values we have calculated for the responsiveness variable according to the gender basis both of the male and females are between 1 and 3.The mean value for the female is 2.67 and for males 2.56.In here just like the results of above two variables both of the mean values are between 1and 3 again confirms that the agreed level of the respondents for the responsiveness variable is high.

Report Mean gender female male Total responsive ness 2.5635 2.6782 2.6300

When measuring the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka the fourth variable we have evaluated is assurance. In here both mean values for the males and females are between 1and 3.according to the above means values we have calculated both genders indicate that most of them have agreed with the high quality of the variable and it factors as well.
Report Mean gender female male Total assurance 2.4524 2.4310 2.4400

59

The last variable we have evaluated when measuring the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka is the Empathy variable. And like the other factors its mean value for both genders also in between 1 and 3.
Report Mean gender female male Total empathy 2.5774 2.6078 2.5950

We can conclude the information using the below frequency table

Report Mean gender female male Total tangible 2.3929 2.3448 2.3650 reliability 2.6571 2.5724 2.6080 responsive ness 2.5635 2.6782 2.6300 assurance 2.4524 2.4310 2.4400 empathy 2.5774 2.6078 2.5950

The mean value we calculate based on the age groups of the sample are in between 1 and 3 as well. So the mean values we have got for both gender basis and age group basis have expressed same message when measuring the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka. Age level
Report Mean age levels Bellow 35 20 to 35 35 to 50 over 50 Total tangible 2.4688 2.3538 2.2750 2.6071 2.3650 reliability 2.4750 2.6708 2.3800 2.8286 2.6080 responsive ness 2.6250 2.7487 2.1667 2.8571 2.6300 assurance 2.3750 2.4962 2.2000 2.6786 2.4400 empathy 2.6250 2.6538 2.3750 2.6429 2.5950

According to the above table we can clearly understand that the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka in all consideration is in high agreed level of the respondents.

60

Now we can come to a final decision after consideration all the factors under selected variables are between 1 and 3. Its indicates us most of the respondents have agreed with the service quality of the dialog Sri Lanka. The basic idea of the above all details and percentages is most of the customers are happy or satisfy with the service quality delivered by the dialog in all tangible, responsiveness, assurance, reliability angles

Conclusions
In here we can represent overall idea we gained by evaluating the responses we collected from the respondents about tangible, responsiveness ,reliability ,assurance, empathy variables of Dialog Sri Lanka as conclusions. We can conclude that the quality of the tangible variable is high. The quality of the responsive variable is high. We can conclude that the quality of the reliability variable is high. The quality of the Assurance variable is high. We can conclude the service quality of the empathy variable is high. We can see the respondents have responded some for high percentage to have no idea. So there is a little dought on have they got enough knowledge about the service quality of the customers.

References 1. Rohana P mahaliyana aracchi, Sevice Marketing 2. CENGIZ Hacksever, Barry Render , Roberta S. russel ,Roblert G murdick. Service management and Operations 2nd edition.

3. Christoper Lovelock. Service marketing people , Technoledgy, Strategy 5th edition. 4. Valaria A Zelthaml , mary jo bitner Service Marketing 3 rd edition.

5. Adrain Buckleg The essence of service Marketing Acknowledgement

Our Sincere thanks to Mrs Kanchana Nishadi, Mr A.C. Karunarathne , Mr Tharaka , Mr Nishmi for the valuable guidance. We offer our sincere hanks to the manager of the dialog archade in matara and who have participated to give their responces and ideas to us. specialy we thank our lecture Mrs Kanchana nishadi who gave such a knowledge about research reporting asa well as service Marketing.
61

62