An Assessment of the Operational Performance of Supermarkets in ...

An Assessment of the Operational Performance ofSupermarkets in MauritiusLomendra Vencataya*The success of a profit making organization is not only assessed by financialmeasures but is also governed by its operational effectiveness, which is usually astrong determinant in the organization’s quest for excellence and survival in highlycompetitive markets.The operational performance of an organization determines how far it is producinggoods and services in the most effective and efficient manner and the extent to whichthose goods and services satisfy the needs and expectations of customers. In theresearch that has been conducted, the operational performance of five supermarketswhich represent five different chains in Mauritius has been assessed. The study is anexamination of the performance dimensions of five supermarkets. For the purpose ofthis research, four performance objectives have been taken into consideration namely:quality, speed, dependability and flexibility.The study has been conducted through a survey of 150 questionnaires across theretail industry to include five supermarket chains. The customers of the five mostpopular supermarket chains were interviewed to evaluate the performance of therespective chain with regards to the four dimensions listed above. According to thefindings, the supermarkets have done fairly well in all the four dimensions. This isfurther supported by survey results that show a high level of customer satisfactionderived by customers from their shopping experience. However it should be noted thatroom for improvement has been identified for all the operational performanceobjectives.The research conducted highlights the importance of operational performance inorganizations.In the context of supermarkets, each of the four dimensions analyzed plays asignificant role in the survival of the organizations. Since customers possess a highswitching power, they easily switch to another supermarket.Therefore the four performance objectives are highly relevant for economic successand survival in these days of intense competition. The findings are particularly usefulfor supermarket chains in devising strategies for improving their operationaleffectiveness or performance.Field of research: Operations Management_______________________*Mr. Lomendra Vencataya, Department of Management, Faculty of Law & Management, University ofMauritius, email: l.vencataya@uom.ac.mu

1.0 IntroductionThe retailing industry business has been around for centuries in the world. Researchhas shown that the advent of globalization, mechanization, modernization andtechnology advancements have had and are still having a great impact on the retailingindustry. Nowadays, supermarkets and hypermarkets play an important role in servingthe local community. They are the places where majority of people would shop for fooditems and grocery. In this competitive and turbulent business environment, it becomesprimordial for supermarket operators to sustain business developments and fostercustomers‟ trust by upholding good practices in their operations. The relationshipbetween a retail store‟s strategy and its operations is a key determinant of its ability toachieve long-term success or even survival. The success of supermarkets is only likelyto result if short- term operational activities are consistent with long-term strategicintentions. The objective of the operations function is to produce the goods or servicesrequired by customers whilst at the same time achieving service excellence in terms ofquality, speed, dependability and flexibility. Many research works have been done toexplore the prospect of supermarkets in developed countries. Undoubtedly, asubstantial amount of literature is available worldwide, but there is limited research workthat has assessed the operational performance of supermarkets in Mauritius. Hence thisstudy will contribute to literature by filling the gap in the field of retailing in a developingcountry such as Mauritius.Therefore, the main objective of this research is to assess the four main performanceobjectives of supermarkets which include quality, speed, dependability and flexibility.Five well-known supermarkets were selected to carry out the study. The paper reviewsrelevant literature on operational performance of organizations in the retail industry. Italso elaborates on the research methodology used to obtain empirical findings. Theresearch findings are then analyzed and recommendations are provided towardsimproving the overall operational performance of retail stores. Directions for futureresearch are also proposed in the sphere of operations excellence in the retail industry.2.0 Food Retailing Industry in MauritiusWhile there are a number of different types of outlets today, the Mauritian food retailingindustry is characterized mainly by modern, western-style supermarkets andhypermarkets. With new initiatives for business development such as the opening ofhuge mega stores and the introduction of fresh food sections, supermarkets in Mauritiushave experienced rapid transformation and expansion in the recent years. The foodretailing industry is characterized by several retail formats comprising of supermarketsconcentrated mainly in the region of Plaine Wilhems. These retail stores competeagainst each other on the basis of price, product quality, customer service and servicequality. As a result of cut throat competition existing between them, retail outlets need toconstantly improve their operational performance, be effective and efficient in servicedelivery and be customer- oriented (Yu and Ramanathan, 2008).

3.0 Literature Review3.1 Operations Strategy in Retail industryOperations strategy concerns the pattern of strategic decisions and actions which setthe role, objectives and activities of the operation, (Johnston and Clark, 2007).According to Kumar and Suresh (2009), while assessing the potential within an industry,an overall organisational strategy must be developed, including some basic choices ofthe primary basis for competing. As such, they argued that operations priorities areestablished among the following four characteristics of quality (product performance),cost efficiency (low cost price), dependability (reliable, timely delivery of orders tocustomers) and flexibility (responding rapidly with new products or changes in volume)(Kumar et al., 2009). A study carried out by Sparks (2010) explains how reorienting theoperations strategy of a supermarket such as Asda in the UK led the firm from doom tosuccess. Among the operations priorities were the need to be customer focused, to be aprice leader and to increase store productivity. In order to remain competitive, Martinelli(2003) elaborated on the following operations strategy as adopted by UK food retailers.This included understanding and meeting customer needs and behaviors, exercisingmassive control on supply chain and undertaking new store development programs. Onthe other hand Alexander and Akehurst (2000) explained how the use of financialproducts is a strategy that can enhance customer loyalty. By providing financialservices, retailers secure themselves a competitive advantage towards directcompetitors: they aim to build stronger and longer customer relationships, derived fromcustomer confidence in the retail store brand.3.2 Quality as an Operational Performance Objective.Quality is consistent conformance to customers‟ expectations, in other words, „doingthings right‟, but the things which the operation needs to do right will vary according tothe kind of operation (Slack, Chambers and Johnston, 2007). All operations regardquality as a particularly important objective. In some ways quality is the most visible partof what an operation does. Furthermore, it is something that a customer finds relativelyeasy to judge about the operation. Thus, it is clear that quality has “a major influence oncustomer satisfaction or dissatisfaction” (Slack et al., 2007). It is clearly specified thatquality covers a huge number of dimensions in the delivery of products and services:performance features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics andperceived quality. In service provision, issues such as personal attention, dependability,empathy, knowledge, security and kindness hold much importance (Gronroos, 2000).Quality in a supermarket might mean for example goods are in good condition, the store

is clean and tidy, decor is appropriate and attractive, and staffs are courteous, friendlyand helpful. As far as internal operations are concerned, quality is important as itreduces costs and increases dependability. In most consumer markets, there is more toshopping than finding the lowest price. A product‟s quality can have large effects ondemand and consumer welfare. Although theory has long recognized that firms withmarket power may reduce their products‟ quality in order to save costs and maximizetheir profits (Chamberlin 1933; Abbott 1955), empirical research and competition policytend to focus almost exclusively on price setting (Draganska, Mazzeo, and Seim 2009).While the potential for competition to have a significant effect on product quality isrecognized in theory, its empirical importance is much less clear. In the retail sector, afirm‟s “product” is the shopping experience it provides its customers. Like for physicalproducts, retail product quality has many dimensions, including the store‟s cleanliness,its checkout speed, the courteousness of its staff, and the depth of its productassortment. Moreover, Differentiation through service has traditionally been a forcefulcompetitive tool (Parasuraman, Berry and Zeithaml, 1988; Mazursky and Jacoby, 1986)and according to numerous marking researchers the offer and supply of high qualityservice is often said to be of fundamental importance in retailing (Berry, 1986;Reichheld and Sasser, 1990, Dabholkar, Wesley and Amy, 1996). Quality seems to bea variable that has been examined in relation on supermarket selection; however, it isdoes not appear to be the determinant factor on supermarket choice. Sirohi, McLaughlinand Wittink (1998) found that service quality was by far the most critical determinant ofmerchandise quality perception in supermarkets. In more recent studies the quality ofproduct has been found to be important for consumers, but may not in fact exert muchof an influence on patronage behaviour by some researchers (Hutcheson and Moutinho,1998), but it was argued to be amongst the key drivers in the past (Louviere and Gaeth,1987).3.3 Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty in the Retailing Industry.Customer Satisfaction is one of the most important outcomes in the marketing literature.It serves to link processes culminating purchase and consumption with post purchasephenomena such as attitude change, repeat purchase, and brand loyalty (Surprenantand Churchill, 1982).According to Foss and Stone (2001), customer loyalty relates to what customers thinkand do (or try to do). Most customer loyalty experts would agree that loyalty is bestdefined as a state of mind, a set of attitudes, beliefs, desires etc. In principle, previousresearch suggests that supermarket customers are relatively loyal. Rhee and Bell(2002) found that nearly three quarters of the shoppers show progressive attachment totheir current main store. Loyalty is developed by approaches which reinforce anddevelop a positive state of mind and the associated behaviors. The exchange ofinformation is one of the keys of loyalty, and provides a critical bridge between state ofmind and behaviour (Levy and Weitz, 2001). Also, retailers highly value loyal customers

who intentionally choose their stores over others, irrespective of the offerings at otherstores (Cronin et al., 2000).Zeithaml et a.l (2008) developed a conceptual model that correlates Service Quality,Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty in one frame. According to the model,service quality is the outcome of reliability, assurance, responsiveness, empathy andtangibles. Customer satisfaction is influenced by the quality of service and product andprice as well as the situational and personal factors.Achieving customer satisfaction has long been identified as the key to customer loyalty(Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Bolton, 1998; Szymanski and Henard, 2001). As in anyretail environment, customer loyalty is paramount. For the retailers who offer loyaltyprograms, loyal consumers generated 79 percent of their store sales (Agnese, 2003).Today‟s frequent shopper programs use bar-coded cards to track consumer purchases,offer discounted prices and customize promotions based on past use (Corsten andKumar, 2003). Service providers seek to manage and increase satisfaction (Ranaweeraand Prabhu, 2003); however, satisfaction does not always result in customer loyalty,and dissatisfaction does not necessarily result in switching (Egan, 2004; Jones et al.,2000). In addition, several different moderating roles have been proposed betweensatisfaction and customer loyalty, such as relationship age (Cooil et al., 2007; Verhoefet al., 2002), category similarity (Bolton et al., 2004), sociodemographics (Cooil et al.,2007; Homburg and Giering, 2001; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001), inertia (Anderson andSrinivasan, 2003), locational convenience (Jones et al., 2003), relational orientation(Garbarino and Johnson, 1999), perceived risk (Selnes, 1998), expertise (Cooil et al.,2007), and commitment (Brown et al., 2005).3.4 Speed as an Operational ObjectiveWaiting in line to pay for purchases in retail outlets is a necessary but undesirableactivity that customers must undertake to complete their purchases (Tom and Lucey,1995). Speed means the elapsed time between customers requesting products orservices and their receipt of them (Slack, 2007). However, Robert Lowson (2002: 51)argues that „response‟ which is closely related to flexibility, speed and time basedcompetition dominates many sectors. Also, speed is a shorthand way of saying „Speedof response‟. It means the time between an external or internal customer requesting aproduct or service, and them getting it (wps.pearsoned.com).Slack et al (2007) sorted that the main benefit of speedy delivery of goods and servicesto the operation‟s (external) customers lies in the way it enhances the operation‟soffering to the customer. Thus, the faster customers can have the product or service,the more likely they are to buy it, or the more they will pay for it, or the greater thebenefits they receive (Slack, 2007). Externally, speed is important because it helps torespond quickly to customers. Again, this is usually viewed positively by customers whowill be more likely to return with more business. Sometimes also it is possible to charge

higher prices when service is fast. The postal service in most countries and mosttransportation and delivery services charge more for faster delivery, for example. Thebenefits associated with speed are that it reduces inventories, reduces risks and allowsflexible response in Time.A 1990 survey by the Food Marketing Institute (Alcott, 1991) reported that 89% of theshoppers interviewed indicated that a fast checkout was important, while only 69% ofthe same shoppers reported that stores met their expectations. Thus, despitesupermarkets‟ efforts, and large expenditures on technological improvements to speedup the checkout process, almost one customer in four remains dissatisfied. Time seemsto be the factor most critical to customers‟ shopping experiences, not just in grocerystores but in retail outlets in general (Peritz, 1993). Some consumers dislike waiting inline so much that they hire people to wait in lines for them (Geist, 1984; Guirl, 1986).3.5 DependabilityDependability means doing things in time for customers to receive their goods orservices exactly when they are needed, or at least when they were promised, (Indran,2007). Customers might judge the dependability of an operation only after the productor service has been delivered. Initially this may not alert the emergency of services asthe supermarket authority might get think that the supply products are all enough forcustomers and they give least importance to operations of the retail services.Dependability means „being on time‟. In other words, customers receive their productsor services on time. In practice, although this definition sounds simple, it can be difficultto measure. It vividly enforces upon the customers to be dependable on the retailservice. Client will assess if the product or service needed was on time or not.Furthermore, in terms of dependability it can also be that the supermarket has deliveredthe expected products at the clients‟ place or something. Or certain supermarketspromise delivery the second time after it failed to be delivered the first time, this is whatcustomers examine before being loyal to a supermarket. Hence, these factors haveboth external and internal affects, (Slack et al., 2010).Dependability affects the likelihood that customers will select the service – they havealready „consumed‟ it. Over time, however, dependability can override all other criteria.No matter how cheap or affordable a supermarket is, if the service is always late,delivery not on time, or products out of stocks, or customers having to wait in longqueues, then obviously clientele may swift to competitors (Ott, 2011). Therefore, theactual supermarket may have to apply techniques to retain its customers. Inside theoperation dependability has a similar effect. Dependability is known to save money andgives stability.

3.6 FlexibilityA clear result of responding to a dynamic environment is that organization change theirproducts and services and changes the way they do business. This performanceobjective is known as „flexibility‟. Flexibility is the ability to adapt, in a reversible manner,to an existing situation, as opposed to evolution, which is irreversible (Bucki andPesqueux, 2000). Flexibility means being able to change the operation in some way.This may mean changing what the operation does how it is doing it or when it is doing it.Specifically, customers will need the operation to change so that it can provide fourtypes of requirement namely, product/service flexibility, mix flexibility, volume flexibilityand delivery flexibility.Flexibility measures how good the supplier is at shortening the agreed lead time whenasked, (Roy, 2009). For instance, if a customer requires a supermarket to deliver goodsas home delivery a week earlier than initially agreed, then will the supermarket beflexible enough to accommodate this order? Therefore, in any calculation of flexibility,the lead-time itself plays an important part. Developing a flexible operation can alsohave advantages to the internal customers within the operation. Flexibility insupermarkets would conform to providing products as per the requirements ofcustomers; and/or giving a personalized service to loyal customers, also withoutforgetting to proceed upon the customers‟ obligations for home delivery. Theadvantages of Flexibility are that it speeds up response, saves time and maintainsdependability (Slack et al.).4.0 Research MethodologyThis research is a descriptive study where primary data were collected from five well -known supermarkets through a survey questionnaire. The research instrument used tocollect data was a 7-part structured questionnaire. Section A dealt with preference ofsupermarkets. Section B assessed the quality performance of the supermarket. SectionC measured speed performance objective. Section D focused on evaluating thedependability objective. Section E focused on evaluating the flexibility objective. SectionF pertains to Customer Loyalty and finally Section G collected demographic details. Afive-point Likert Scale was used in the questionnaire to assess the four performanceobjectives.Prior to data collection, a pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted to ensurecomprehensiveness, clarity and reliability of the research instrument. The questionnairewas pre-tested among 15 customers at random and only minor modifications weremade to the wordings of some survey questions. Concerning target population, thestudy has targeted 150 customers and the sample technique used was the conveniencesampling, whereby subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility andproximity to the researcher. It should also be noted that 150 questionnaires were

distributed among the five supermarkets whereby 30 respondents were allocated toeach supermarket and were interviewed accordingly and the total response rateamounted to 150 respondents. The Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS16.0) for Windows were used to analyze the data collected.5.0 Research FindingsFrom a demographic perspective, 38% of the respondents were between 35 and 51years, followed by 35% between 25 and 35 years, 16% were of age between 18 and 25years and 11% represented respondents above 51 years. In terms of education level,the data collected showed that 39% of the respondents were degree holders, 35% haveattained Higher School Certificate Level; whilst 26% have attained School CertificateLevel. From a gender perspective, it has been observed that 60% of the respondentswere female and 40% were male. As far as marital status was concerned, the majorityof the respondents were married people (51%) and singles accounted for only 49%.5.1 Preference of SupermarketsBased on the empirical findings, there is a high frequency of visits to Way (24%),followed by 23% of respondents who have visited Super U. 20% have visited Winners,18% have visited GSR, whilst 15% have visited Kaddy Plus. Moreover, the respondentswere also asked to rate their supermarkets from most preferred to least preferred andthe findings showed that the majority of respondents mostly prefer and visit Super USupermarket (29%) followed by 27% who feel that they are satisfied with WaySupermarket and 31% have a neutral preference concerning Winners Supermarket.The respondents had an average preference (28%) for Kaddy Plus and the leastpreference for GSR (40%).5.2 Quality ObjectiveFrom the empirical findings, it can be revealed that the majority of respondents choosetheir supermarket based on availability of Good Quality products (54%). While 23% ofthe respondents have a Neutral response with regards to quality ratings, only 18% ofthe respondents would go for Best Quality shopping. 5% of the respondents showedthat they would still shop in a supermarket despite Low Quality goods are available. Asurvey was also carried out to assess quality of service in relation to the followingfactors: Hygiene and Sanitation, Fresh fruits and Vegetables, Branded Products, Value

for Money, Customer Friendly, Courtesy and Politeness of Staff. The majority ofrespondents agreed that good quality service is when supermarkets provide Brandedproducts (67%) followed by Hygiene and Sanitation (74%), Fresh fruits and Vegetables(67%) as well as Value for Money and Customer Friendly (37%).5.3 Speed/Dependability ObjectiveGenerally, people prefer faster service delivery. For the study in question, respondentswere asked to rate their level of agreement with respects to four characteristics. As persurvey findings, 61% of the respondents agree that stock of products/brands is alwaysavailable and 58% agreed that there is immediate availability of goods. 40% claimedthat there is a well- organized store layout to facilitate purchase. However, there is lessagreement concerning quick customer service (53%).Dependability means „being on time‟. The dependability objective was measured on alikert scale where respondents were requested to rate their satisfaction on dependabilitybased on six factors. Based on the empirical findings, 56% of the respondents perceivethat amount of time spent in queues is reasonable and there is timely delivery of bothproducts and services (61%). 68% of the respondents claim that opening hours areconvenient , hence customers receive their products/services on time.5.4 Flexibility ObjectiveFlexibility means adapting to changing circumstances quickly without disrupting the restof the operation. According to survey findings, 76% of the respondents perceive that thesupermarkets provide them with a wide range of products, followed by 67% who agreethat supermarkets meet their individual expectations for product and service. 65% agreethat there is appropriate and punctual information on sales promotion. However, thereare 45% of the respondents who believe that supermarkets cannot manage crowdseffectively on peak days. The important point to remember is that flexibility alwaysmeans „being able to change the operation in some way‟ (Newman, 1995). Hence, thisjustifies the need for the above supermarkets to change their operations in terms ofmanaging crowds.

5.5 Customer Loyalty and customer satisfactionCustomer loyalty is one of the most frequently addressed subjects in customer serviceliterature (Andreassen, 1999 and Lindestad, 1998). Based on the survey carried out,78% of the respondents are likely to switch supermarkets. The survey has also providedthe motives behind such switching. For instance, each supermarket provides differentsales promotions at different intervals of time and different variety of products andservices. Most of the studies on customer loyalty (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Andersonand Sullivan, 1993; Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998a; Lin and Wang, 2006) haveconcluded that customer satisfaction is one of the major determinants of customerloyalty. Besides customer satisfaction, low perceived value compels customers towardsswitching to competing businesses in order to increase perceived value whichconsequently contributes to decline in loyalty (Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003).However the study also claims that 20% of respondents will not switch supermarketsdue to convenience of supermarket location and customer derive high level ofsatisfaction from one supermarket.As far as customer satisfaction is concerned, the empirical findings demonstrate that75% of respondents are satisfied with the overall level of performance of their mostpreferred supermarket, 15% have a neutral opinion and 10% are dissatisfied.5.6 Hypothesis Testing5.6.1 Quality and Customer SatisfactionH 0 : There is no significant correlation between quality and customer satisfaction.H 1 : There is a significant correlation between quality and customer satisfaction.

Table 1: Pearson Bivariate Correlation between Quality and Overall CustomerSatisfactionPearson Bivariate CorrelationOverall CustomerSatisfactionHygiene and Sanitation 0.681**Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 0.578**Branded Products 0.576**Value for Money 0.526**Courteous and Polite Staff 0.475**Customer Friendly 0.377****. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).It can be noted that all the correlations between quality and overall customersatisfaction are positively correlated. This shows that quality is an important determinantin enhancing customer satisfaction and support the view of Oliver (1997) thatsatisfaction is closely linked with the quality of the product or service. It can be notedthat there is a positive relationship between the overall customer satisfaction expressedin terms of hygiene and sanitation provided in supermarkets (r= 0.681, p< 0.01).Similarly, there exists a positive correlation between the availability of fresh fruits andvegetables and overall customer satisfaction (r= 0.578, p< 0.01). We therefore acceptH 1 concluding that there is a significant correlation between quality and customersatisfaction.5.6.2 Speed/ Dependability and Customer SatisfactionH 0 : There is no significant correlation between speed/dependability and overallcustomer satisfaction.H 1 : There is a significant correlation between speed/dependability and overall customersatisfaction.

Table 2: Pearson Bivariate Correlation between Speed/Dependability and OverallCustomer SatisfactionPearson Bivariate CorrelationOverall Customer SatisfactionTimely Delivery 0.543**Quick Customer Service 0.520**Convenient Opening Hours 0.478**Advertised Product in Stock 0.442**Organised Store Layout 0.418**Unavailable discounted products 0.379**Likely to switch supermarket 0.353**Reasonablequeue 0.262**Well located parking 0.218**Immediate re-stocking of goods 0.196****. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).It can be seen that there is a strong positive relationship between the overall customersatisfaction and the provision of timely delivery(r= 0.543, p

organizations should plan and conduct relevant training to improve the customer careskills of the employees.Survey results indicate that that customer‟s perception with regards to the speedobjective is not favorable to some extent for two parameters namely speed of customerservice and immediate availability of goods. Supermarkets should therefore lay moreemphasis on reviewing the effectiveness of their operational procedures with regards toservice delivery. Any changes in the procedures should then be communicated to theemployees. If this is properly implemented, the employees will be in a better position toperform their respective work in a more effective and efficient manner. Furthermore,supermarkets should closely monitor the stock level of their items on a regular basisand should also study the consumption pattern of their products. This will help thesupermarkets forecast to a good degree of accuracy the demand of their products bothin the short-term and long-term.Research results have shown that 20% of the respondents perceive that queuing time isnot reasonable. The findings have also revealed that customer‟s perception is notfavorable to some extent in relation to the ability of the organization to adjust to thenumber of customers served during busy periods, as 35% of respondents perceive thatthe supermarkets have difficulties in managing crowds on peak days. To improve theirdependability and volume flexibility, the supermarkets should lay greater emphasis onadjusting their capacity to meet customer‟s demand by, for instance, recruiting part-timestaff for less than the normal working day on peak days or during busy periods. Thismethod is extensively used in service operations such as supermarkets and fast-foodrestaurants (Slack et al., 2010). The supermarkets should also encourage job flexibilityin the work place, they should train the workers to be multi-skilled so that during busyperiods staff from other sections could serve on idle check-out counters to reducequeuing time to a minimum. The adoption of this flexible approach could further bereinforced by promoting teamwork in the organization. Finally, the supermarkets shouldalso consider the option of investing in technological improvements such as self checkoutpoints to speed up check-out processes and reduce long waiting queues.7.0 ConclusionThe aim of this research was to make an assessment of the four performanceobjectives of quality, speed, dependability and flexibility in a retail organization such asa supermarket. For the purpose of this study, five well known supermarkets in Mauritiuswere chosen. Quality as an operating objective has a major influence on customersatisfaction and loyalty. This has been supported by both literature and empiricalfindings that define a good quality service as availability of branded products, fresh fruitsand vegetables and good hygienic and sanitary conditions. Being able to do things fastis another performance objective highly demanded by customers who, armed withinformation, expect faster service and consistent responses. Based on survey findings,it has been found that supermarkets in Mauritius achieve such aim by providing a well-

organized store layout to facilitate purchase, provide quick customer service and ensureavailability of goods on shelf all the time. The dependability objective which has beendefined as meeting customer needs on time was also measured in the Mauritian contextand findings showed that there is timely delivery of both products and services,customers perceive the amount of time spent in queues as reasonable and openinghours suit their convenience, hence customers receive their products/services on time.Flexibility as an operating objective is crucial if supermarkets want to survive and evolvein a dynamic environment. It can be concluded from the research survey that the fivelocal supermarkets provide appropriate and punctual information on their salespromotion and meet customer expectations. However, there is evidence of encounteringdifficulties in managing crowds on peak days. Hypothesis testing was carried out to findthe correlation between quality and customer satisfaction and speed/flexibility andcustomer satisfaction. In both cases, the tests showed that there is high positivecorrelation between the two hypotheses.In a nutshell, it is critical for supermarkets to improve the performance of people andoperational processes in order to increase business effectiveness. Supermarkets mustfind a consistent approach to measuring and monitoring operational performancethroughout the organization and determine which approach can best fit theirrequirements. Ultimately, by improving the performance objectives of quality, speed,dependability and flexibility, these businesses can have a global growth and high levelof customer satisfaction.8.0 Direction For Future ResearchIt is apparent that this study has highlighted and attempted to analyze some significantissues in assessing the operational performance of supermarkets. It should be notedthat research has been conducted only in the context of customers. Furthermore thepresent study has referred to a number of sources which highlighted perceptions thatcustomers have while visiting a supermarket, in terms of quality, speed, flexibility anddependability. However one important operations performance objective has beenmissed in the study, which is Cost. Another study could be carried out to take intoconsideration the Cost objective as well. Future research projects can be carried out tocomplement and validate this research. A case study on the organizations‟ performancecan provide additional evidence to support the findings. Hence there is a need for morein-depth research into the complexity of assessing a retail business‟ operations. Inaddition, more relevant studies into the attitudes of managers and employees dealingwith customer service could be carried out within the supermarkets as the present studyhas only incorporated the perceptions of customers of the supermarkets. Crosssectionalstudies between supermarkets and hypermarkets could also be carried out toevaluate to what extent the operational performance differs.

REFERENCESAbbott L. 1955, Quality and Competition: an Essay in Economic Theory, NewYork, Columbia University Press.Agnese, J. 2003. “Industry surveys: supermarkets & drugstores”, accessedonline, available at: www.standardandpoors.com.Akehurst, G. and Alexander, N. 2000, Retail Marketing, Frank Cass Publishing,London, pp. 204-14.Alcott, M.J. 1991, “Grocers move to ease life in not-so-fast lane”, SacramentoBee, April 22, pp. c1.Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M. 1993, “The antecedents and consequences ofcustomer satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, vol. 12, pp. 125-43.Anderson, E.T., Gavan, J., Fitz, S. and Duncan, S. 2006, “Measuring andMitigating the Costs of Stock outs”, Management Science, 52(11), pp. 1751-63.Anderson, R.E. and Srinivasan, S.S. 2003, “E-satisfaction and e-loyalty: acontingency framework”, Psychology and Marketing, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 123-38.Andreassen, T.W. 1999, “What drives customer loyalty with complaintresolution?‟, Journal of Service Research”, vol. 2, pp. 324-32.Bamford, D. and Forrester, P. 2010, Essential Guide to Operations Management,West Sussex, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Beerli, A., Martin, J. D. and Quintana, A. 2004. “A model of customer loyalty inthe retail banking market‟, European Journal of Marketing”, vol.38 (1/2), pp. 253-275.Bennett, R. and Rundle-Thiele, S. 2004. “Customer Satisfaction should not bethe only goal‟, Journal of Services Marketing”, vol. 7, pp. 514–23.Berry, L. 1986. “Retail Businesses Are Services Businesses‟, Journal ofRetailing”, vol. 62, no1, pp. 3-7.BITNER, M. J., 1994. “Critical Service Encounters: The Employee‟s Viewpoint,‟Journal of Marketing”, vol. 58 (1), pp. 95–106.Blodgett, J. and Wakefield, K. 1999. “Customer response to intangible andtangible service factors‟, Psychology and Marketing”, 16 (1), pp. 51.Bolton, R. and Drew, J. 1991. “A Multi stage Model of Customers' Assessmentsof Service Quality and Value‟, Journal of Consumer Research”, vol. 17(4), pp.375.Bolton, R.N. 1998. “A dynamic model of the duration of the customer‟srelationship with a continuous service provider: the role of satisfaction‟, MarketingScience”, vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-65.Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. 2004. “The theoreticalunderpinnings of customer asset management: a framework and propositions forfuture research‟, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science”, vol. 32, no. 3, pp.271-92.Booms, B. H. and Bitner, M. J. 1981. “Marketing Services by Managing theEnvironment, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly”, pp. 35–9.California, New York.

Brown, S., Lamming, R., Bessant, J.E. and Jones, P. 2005, Strategic OperationsManagement. 2nd Edition, Great Britain: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,Linacre House, Jordon Hill, Oxford OX2 DP 30.Brown, T. J., Churchill, G. A. and Peter, J. P. 1993. “Improving the MeasurementMeasurement of Service Quality‟, Journal of Retailing”, 69(1), 127. BusinessReview, vol. 68, no 5, pp. 105-12.Chamberlin, E.H. 1933, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. CambridgeMass: Harvard 22 University Press.Cheng, T., Lai, L., and Yeung, A. 2008. “The driving forces of customer loyalty: astudy of internet service providers in Hong Kong‟, International Journal of E-business Research, 4(4), pp. 26-42.Codrington, G. 2002. Welcome to the Future World. Future Business: Marketing,Media, and Business in S.A.Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L. and Hsu, M. 2007. “A longitudinal analysisof customer satisfaction and share of wallet: investigating the moderating effectof customer characteristics‟, Journal of Marketing”, vol. 71, January, pp. 67-83.Corsten, D. and Kumar, N. 2003. “Profits in the pie of the beholder‟, HarvardBusiness Review”, May, pp. 22-3.Cronin, J and Taylor, A. 1992. “Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination andExtension‟, Journal of Marketing”, (563), pp. 55.Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., and Hult, C. T. M. 2000. “Assessing the Effects ofQuality, Value and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions inService Environments‟, Journal of Retailing”, vol.76 (2), pp. 193–218.Dabholkar, P., Wesley, J. J. and. Amy, S. C. 1994. “The Dynamics of Long-TermBusiness-to-Business Exchange Relationships‟, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science”, vol. 22 (1), pp. 130 45.Draganska, M., Mazzeo, M.J. and Seim, K. 2009. “Addressing EndogenousProduct Choice in an Empirical Analysis of Merger Effects”, NorthwesternUniversity. Economic Inquiry, vol.17 (2): pp 177-96.Du Plessis, P. J., Rousseau, G.G. and Blem, N.H. 1995, Consumer Behavior: ASouth African Perspective, Pretoria: Sigma.Egan, J. 2004, Relationship Marketing: Exploring Relational Strategies inMarketing, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow.Erasmus, A. C. and Donoghue, S. 1998. “Consumer Satisfaction: AnUnattainable Ideal‟, Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences”, vol.26(1), pp. 35– 9.Fogli, L., 2006, Customer Service Delivery, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Foss, B. and Stone, M. 2001, Successful customer relationship marketing, 1sted. London: Kogan Page Limited.Garbarino, E. and Johnson, M.S. 1999. “The different roles of satisfaction, trust,and commitment in customer relationships‟, Journal of Marketing”, vol. 63 No. 2,pp. 70-87.Garland, R. and Gendall, P. 2004. “Testing Dick and Basu‟s customer loyaltymodel‟ Australasian Marketing Journal”, vol. 12(3), pp.81-87.

Garvin, D. 1992, Operations Strategy, Text and Cases. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.Geist, W. 1984. “They’re hiring others to stand in line”, The New York Times,June 6.Giele, L. and Cote, J., 2000. “Defining Consumer Satisfaction”, Academy ofMarketing Science Review.Gronroos, C. 2000, Service management and marketing: a customer relationshipmanagement Approach, 2nd ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Guirl, G. 1986. “Pressed for time? New companies mind your peas and queues”,Adweek , Vol. 27, May 19, pp. 1, 6.Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham R. 2007, MultivariateData Analysis. 6th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.Homburg, C. and Giering, A. 2001. “Personal characteristics as moderators ofthe relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical analysis‟,Psychology and Marketing”, Vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 43-66.Indran, S. 2007. Strategic Roles and Objectives of Operations. Accessed online,available from http://mindran.com/operation/027370849X_pp02.pdfJamal, A. and Naser, K. 2002. “Customer Satisfaction and Retail Banking: anassessment of some key antecedents of customer satisfaction in retail banking‟,The International Journal of Bank Marketing”. 20(4), pp. 146-160.Jamal, A. and Naser, K. 2003. “Factors influencing customer satisfaction in theretail banking sector in Pakistan‟, International Journal of Commerce andManagement”, 13(2), pp. 29.Johnston, R. 1997, “Identifying the critical determinants of service quality in retailbanking: importance and effects‟, The International Journal of Bank Marketing”,15(4), pp. 111-119.Johnston, R. and Clark, G. 2001, Service Operations Management. HemelHempstead: Prentice Hall.Jones, M.A., Mothersbaugh, D.L. and Beatty, S.E. 2003. “The effects oflocational convenience on customer repurchase intentions across service types‟,Journal of Service Marketing”, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 701-12.Kumar, M., Kee, F. T. and Manshor, A. T. 2009. Determining the relativeimportance of critical factors in delivering service quality of banks: an applicationof dominance analysis in SERVQUAL model. Managing Service Quality. 19(2),211-228.Kumar, S.A. and Suresh, N. 2009, Operations Management. India: New AgeInternational (P) Limited Publishers.Levy, M. and Weitz, B. 2001, Retailing Management, New York: McGraw-Hill.Lewis, B. R. and Soureli, M. 2006. “The antecedents of consumer loyalty in retailbanking‟, Journal of Consumer Behaviour”, 5(1), pp. 15-31.Lin, H.H., and Wang, Y.S., 2006. “An examination of the determinants ofcustomer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts”, Information and Management.Lindestad, B., 1998. “Customer Loyalty and Complex Services: The impact ofcorporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with

varying degrees of service expertise‟, International Journal of Service Industrymanagement”, vol. 9, pp 418 - 450. Martinelli, E. 2003. “Food Retailers and Financial Services in the UK: a coopetitiveperspective‟, British Food Journal”, vol. 105, no. 9, pp 577 -590. Mazursky, D. and Jacoby, J. 1986. “Exploring the development of store images‟,Journal of Retailing”, Vol. 62, no 2, pp.145-165. Mengi, P.2009. “Customer Satisfaction with Service Quality: an empirical study ofPublic and Private Sector Banks‟, IUP Journal of Management Research”, 8(9),7-17. Mishra, A. A. 2009. “A study on Customer Satisfaction in Indian Retail Banking‟,IUP Journal of Management Research”, 8(11), pp. 45-61. Mittal, V. and Kamakura, W.A. 2001. “Satisfaction, repurchase intent andrepurchase behavior: investigating the moderating effect of customercharacteristics‟, Journal of Marketing Research”, vol. 38, February, pp. 131-42. Monks, J.G. 2004, Theory and Problems of Operations Management, 2ndEdition. Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. Newman, A.J. 1995. “Is the way-forward bright?”, Professional Marketing, vol. 3,no. 5, pp. 24-5. Nielsen, A. C. 2002. “What’s Hot around the Globe,” Accessed online, availablefrom http://www.acnielsen.com. Oliver, R. L. 1997, Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer,Boston: McGraw-Hill. Oliver, R., 1980. “A cognitive model of the Antecedents and consequences ofsatisfaction decisions‟, Journal of Marketing Research”, 17(4), pp. 460. Ott, A. 2010. “The 24-hour Customer: New Rules for Winning in a Time-starved”,Always-connected Economy- Harper Business. Pannerselvam, R. 2004, Production and Operations Management, 9th Ed.Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited. Parasuraman, A. 1991. “Understanding Customer Expectations of Service‟,Sloan Management Review, Journal of Retailing”, 32 (3), pp. 39–48. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. A. 1988. “SERVQUAL: A multipleitemscale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality‟, Journal ofRetailing”, 64 (1), pp.12. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. and Zeithaml, V. A. 1993. “More on Improving ServiceQuality Measurement‟, Journal of Retailing”, 69(1), pp. 140. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L. and Zeithaml, V. A., 1985. “A Conceptual Model ofService Quality and Its Implications for Future Research‟, Journal of marketing”,49(4), pp. 41. Peritz, J. 1993. “Retailers who keep score know what their shoppers value”,Marketing News, vol. 27, May 24, p. 9. Ranaweera, C. and Prabhu, J. 2003. “The influence of satisfaction and trust andswitching barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting‟,International Journal of Service Industry Measurement”, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 374-95.

Reicheld, F. F and Sasser, W. R. 1990, Zero defections quality comes to service,Harvard University Press. Rhee, H. and Bell, D.R. 2002. “The inter-store mobility of supermarket shoppers‟,Journal of Retailing”, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 225-37. Roy, R. N. 2009, A Modern Approach to Management, 4 th Edition, PearsonEducation Limited. Selnes, F. 1998. “Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction inbuyer-seller relationships‟, European Journal of Marketing”, vol. 32 Nos 3/4, pp.305-22. Shemwell, D. J., Yavas, U. and Bilgin, Z. 1998. “Customer-Service ProviderRelationships: An Empirical Test of a Model of Service Quality, Satisfaction andRelationship-Oriented Outcomes”, vol. 9 (2), pp. 155–68. Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W. and Wittink, R. 1998. “A model of consumerperceptions and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer‟, Journal ofRetailing”, Vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 223-45. Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston R. 2007, Operations Management, 5thEdition. England: Pearson Education Limited. Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston R. 2010. Operations Management. 5thEdition, England: Pearson Education Limited. Sparks, L. 2010. “Settling for second best?‟ International Journal of Retail&Distribution Management”. vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 114-129. Spence, A. and Michael, L. 1975. Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation. BellJournal of Economics, 6(2), pp. 417 29. Spreng, R. A., Mackenzie, S. B. and Olshavsky, R.W. 1996. “A re-examination ofthe determinants of consumer satisfaction‟. Journal of Marketing”, 60(3), pp. 15. Surprenant, C. and Churchill, D.G., 1982. “An investigation into the determinantsof customer satisfaction‟, Journal of Marketing Research”, 19(4), pp. 491. Szymanski, M.D. and Hise, T.R. 2000. “E-satisfaction: an initial examination‟,Journal of Retailing”, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 309-22. Taylor, S.A., 1994. “An assessment of the relationship between service qualityand customer satisfaction in the formation of consumers purchase intentions‟,Journal of Retailing”, vol.70. Thang, D. and Tan, B. 2002. “Linking Consumer Perception to Preference ofRetail Stores: An Empirical Assessment of the Multi-Attributes of Store Image”,accessed online, accessed online, available fromwww.sciencedirect.com/journalofretailingand customer service. Tom, G. and Lucey, S. 1995. “Customer Loyalty‟, Journal of services marketing”,MCB University Press, vol. 9, no. 5 pp. 20-29. Verett, E. Adam, J.R. and Ronald J.E. 1994, Production and OperationsManagement, 5th Edition, Prentice- Hall of India Private Limited. Verhoef, P.C., Franses, P.H. and Hoekstra, J.C. 2002. “The effect of relationalconstructs on customer referrals and number of services purchased from amultiservice provider: does age of relationship matter?‟, Journal of Academy ofMarketing Science”, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 202-16.

Yu, W. and Ramanathan, R. 2008. “An assessment of operational efficiencies inthe UK Retail Sector‟, International Journal of Retail and DistributionManagement”, Volume 36. No. 11, pp 861-882. Emerald group Publishing Ltd.Zeithaml, V. A., Wilson, A. and Bitner, M. J. 2008, Services Marketing, 4thEdition, New Delhi: The McGraw-Hill Companies.