Analyzing Data from a Survey of Service Quality at a University Sports Centre - Research Paper Example

A REPORT BASED ON ANALYZING DATA FROM A SURVEY OF SERVICE QUALITY AT A SPORTS CENTRE By (Insert A Research Dissertation Submitted inPartial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of (insert master’s name) of the (Insert University name) July 2014. ABSTRACT Fitness industry is known for offering heterogeneous, intangible, and imperishable services that involve human engagement. The type of services offered therefore makes the sports industry unique from all other service industries. The fact that the industry involves human engagement makes the success of the industry to be based on human motivation in utilizing the available sports facility. Among the main motivations to using the sports facilities are socialization, having a different experience and participation on specific sports activities. Motivation is a factor of experience by an individual or by a friend the last time they visited the facility. The motivation drives involvement as well as performance while achieving the original goal for visiting the facility. The experience hence leads to customer’s evaluation of the perception of the facility staff as well as encourages or discourages further use of the facility. Service quality is a factor of customer evaluation. The better the evaluation, the more likely the facility will succeed in attracting and retaining customers. This research paper sought to apply SERVQUAL model in investigating whether there exists significant difference among service quality dimensions in the University Sports Centre. The research also investigated if there exist significant difference between perception and customer expectations of the University Sports Centre. The results of the analysis indicated that students rated tangibility as the best delivered while assurance was the poorly delivered service dimension in the unweight data. The weighed data presented reliability as the highly ranked. Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 4 1.1Introduction 4 1.2Statement of the problem 5 1.3Purpose of the research 5 1.4Research objective 6 1.5Research questions 6 1.6Significance of the study 6 CHAPTER 2: Literature review 6 CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology 8 3.1.Research Design 8 3.2.Evaluation of Questionnaire design 8 3.3.Sampling method 9 3.4.Research Instruments 10 3.5.Proposed analysis method 10 CHAPTER 4: Data Analysis 10 4.1Descriptive statistics 10 Sample composition 10 Descriptive statistics on service quality dimensions 13 Cross-tabulations of service quality dimensions 13 Comparing the mean differences among the weights allocated to service quality dimensions 14 Comparing the ordering of the service dimensions 14 CHAPTER 5: Summary, Conclusion and recommendation 14 REFERENCES 17 APPENDIX 1 19 APPENDIX 2: Study Questionnaire 22 APPENDIX 3:SERVQUAL.SAV Variable List 26 CHAPTER 1 1.1 Introduction Customer satisfaction has always been a product of satisfactory service or goods delivery (Reynolds, Savage, & Williams, 2000, p.39). To attract more customers as well as retain the old ones, every business has always endeavored to provide the best. This has affected the growing service industry especially because services are intangible. The service industry capitalizes on service quality as the key ingredient to achieving the business goal. Service quality is defined as the degree of meeting customer expectations and perceptions (Salvendy, 2001, p. 626). Although several researchers have delved in to the research of service quality as the determinant of growth in service economy, very few have considered studies on service quality is sports. The main reason being sports have been know to be facilitated by public sector. The government has owned the facilities and accessibility has been free to the communities around the facility. The commercialization of the sports center is however growing with the involvement of private sports bodies hosting and facilitating sports activities around the globe (Lin, Lee, & Nai, 2008, p.23). With commercialization, sports have gained economic impact that attracts measurement on different dimensions of service quality since customers will look for value for money. Of the many service quality measurement used, SERVQUAL model has been preferred by a number of people. The model approaches service quality as a five dimensional concept (Saleh & Ryan, 1991, p. 327). The dimensions are responsiveness, reliability, empathy, assurance, and tangibility (Jiang, Klein, & Suzanne, 2000, p. 732). The dimensions are measured at delivery point where the five dimensions can be accessed. At the service point, the customer experiences the service, which they measure against their initial expectations. The experience drives the customer to having a perception on whether the service agent deserves a second visit or not. Therefore, measuring service delivery point only when other factors like expectations and perception are left out does not give a comprehensive measurement of a service facility. It is therefore argued that SERVQUAL is a one sided model since it fails to measure prior and after service effects of a wholesome service delivery (Howat, Crilley, & McGrath, 2008, p. 142). This research sought to measure the five SERVQUAL dimensions; responsiveness, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and reliability. Responsiveness was considered as the staff willingness to deliver prompt services to customer request. Assurance was considered as the staffs’ ability to motivate confidence and trust in the customer. Tangibility measured the general appearance of the facility. That is the equipment available, the personnel, and the physical outlook of the facility. Empathy considered the individualized service and attention expressed to the customer and reliability measured the level of accuracy and dependability of service delivery in the facility. 1.2 Statement of the problem Sports facilities have attracted little or no attention on service delivery. This could be due to the measurement dimensions that do not consider the involvement of human and the motivation to use sports facility. This research focused on establishing if there exists any significant difference between the already established dimensions as well as investigates the gap between prior expectations and after service perception made by the customer. 1.3 Purpose of the research The research purposed to investigate the exact customer expectations, experience, and after service perception on service quality offered by University Sports Centre. 1.4 Research objective Establish if there exists significant difference between measurements of responsiveness, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and reliability in a sports facility. 1.5 Research questions The following questions guided this study 1. What expectations do customers visiting University Sports Centre have on service quality? 2. What perception on service quality do customers have after receiving services from University Sports Centre? 3. What is the difference between expectations and perceptions of the customers utilizing the services of University Sports Centre? 1.6 Significance of the study The University Sports Centre is interested in improving service quality in order to gain competitive advantage over all other private sports facilities around. The results of this research will guide the facility management in knowing the exact areas where improvements are required. The findings will also guide the stakeholders on the most effective policies to be implemented in the facility as well as contribute to the much-needed knowledge on service quality in commercialized sports facilities. Finally, the research shall open doors for further research on service quality in commercialized sports facilities. CHAPTER 2: Literature review With increased competition in the service economy, gaining competitive advantage is the new struggle in the market (Kusluvan, 2003, p. 808). Service agents have acknowledged that the only way to achieve that is to improve on service quality (Oliveira, 2003, p.5). Service quality has thus become more of a requirement than a choice for successful service business. The customer looks for value added services, they cannot access anywhere else, to be able to consider a service point (Kusluvan, 2003, p. 422). However, the greatest challenge in achieving service quality has been the intangibility, inseparability, and heterogeneity characteristics of services. The fact that there cannot be an objective measurement of service like in goods, service quality is only measured through considering customer perception of service at a service point. According to Parasuraman, Zeithams, and Berry (1988, p.15) customer perception is the collective judgment on the overall superiority of a particular item. It is a measure given to the difference between prior expectation and experience. The measure aims at quantifying the gap between expectation and perception. The smaller the gap, the more satisfied the customer and the more promising it is to have successful business. This directs the service agents to evaluate business effectiveness against perception to be able to realize the business position in the market (Verma, 2007, p. 170). Commercialization of sports facilities meant that fitness organizations are out to make profits (Pitts, 2012, p. 221). There has thus been a growing interest in customer perception on service quality. The interest is aimed at enhancing the facility relevance to its users. Facility management has invested in customer feedback that assists in gauging customer perception. For many facilities, the feedback is categorized into measurement of different dimensions of service quality (Poornima & Charantimath, 2011, p. 511). The dimensions measured in the feedbacks are basically directed by SERVQUAL model. The model gives the service characteristics that are desirable to the customers. The facility stakeholders are guided by these feedbacks in establishing areas of improvements in service quality as the facility competes to meet the demand in the market. However, a wholesome approach to service quality will involve considering the initial customer expectations as well as comparing the expectation with the experience (Bell, Bowden, & Trott, 2013. 147). Therefore, facility management can invest in collecting information on expectations to be able to offer comprehensive packages to their customers. CHAPTER 3: Research Methodology 3.1. Research Design The research used SERVQUAL model to measure service quality in the University Sports Centre. The model is known to measure the difference between customer experience and initial expectations. The lesser the difference, the more satisfied the customer is and the higher the quality of services offered (Kabir & Carlsson, 2010, p. 5). Using perception measured as a scale, the model quantifies the difference through a standardized questionnaire. 3.2. Evaluation of Questionnaire design SERVQUAL measures service quality through a standardized questionnaire design. The questionnaire is designed in a way that it captures the five service quality measures; assurance, responsiveness, reliability, tangibility, and empathy. These measures are spread through the questionnaire to ensure that all aspects of a measure are well handled. Responsiveness measured the staff willingness to deliver prompt services to customer request. Assurance measured the staffs’ ability to motivate confidence and trust in the customer. Tangibility measured the general appearance of the facility. Empathy measured the individualized service and attention expressed to the customer and reliability measured the level of accuracy and dependability of service delivery in the facility. The standardized questionnaire is divided into 3 parts with part one containing 21 questions on the five dimensions of service quality. Of the 21 questions, 1 to 6 investigate the tangibility dimension, 7, 10, 11, and 12 investigate reliability, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 15 investigate on responsiveness, 20 and 21 measure empathy, while 16 to 19 measure assurance dimension. The second part measure the weights attached to each dimension of service quality while the third part focused on the characteristics of the research respondent. The last part collects demographic data of the respondents. The grouping of the dimensions make SERVQUAL model the most comprehensive method to handle issues on service quality at the service delivery. However, the model fails to measure the before and after services effects. These are expectations and perception. The two are the main pillars to customer feedback that determines if the customer will come back or not. The recommendation is that the model should be modified to include measurements on customer expectations and perception if service economy has to grow as per the proprietors’ aim. 3.3. Sampling method The sampling frame for this research was all the students emails registered with the University Sports Centre. A probability sample of 200 with an allowance of 9% sampling error was arrived at by simple random sampling of students in Campus University in North England was arrived. To take care of non-response, 300 emails were extracted and emails sent through surveymonkey.com. Within 2 weeks of a number of reminders, there was a response rate of 67%. The response sample of 202 students was thus considered a good representation of the whole student population after it was established that there was no significant difference between early and late response. 3.4. Research Instruments Using a standardized questionnaire in Appendix 2, data was collected from the sample. The research questionnaire was pre-tested by asking questions to potential University Sports Centre users. There were no issues rose about the tool and thus was considered appropriate for collecting information on service quality in the University Sports Centre. 3.5. Proposed analysis method Descriptive statistics were run on data collected for part three of the questionnaire. Descriptive statistics allow the analyst to gather insight on how the data looks like in terms of frequencies and measure of dispersion (Anderson, et al, 2013, p.14). CHAPTER 4: Data Analysis 4.1 Descriptive statistics Sample composition Sample composition was analyzed using sample characteristics of gender, use of the Centre, year of study, Centre membership, and subject area. From the analysis in Table 1 in Appendix 1, the sample comprised of 62.4% men and 37.6% female. On use of the center, 22.8% of the respondents said they never use the center, 19.3% said they use the center once a week, 23.3% use the center twice a week, 16.8% use the center 3 times a week, 12.4% use 4 times a week and 5.4% use the center more than 5 times a week. Second years had the highest usage of the center with 41.6% followed by first years with 33.7%, then third years with 21.8% and finally fourth years with 2%. Masters and others had 1% use of the University Sports Centre. Of the 202 respondents, 48.5% were Centre members, and 45.5% paid each time they visited. The course representation had sports with 33.7%, business with 20.3%, media with 11.9% and other courses had 34.2%. Descriptive statistics on service quality dimensions From table 2 in Appendix 1, all service dimensions perform above average. This indicates that student have higher expectation when visiting the Sports Center. However, reliability and tangibility lead by 3.62 and 3.58 respectively. The least performer was responsiveness. These results indicate that students were in need of reliable services more than they were interested in the responsive nature of the Sports Centre staff. Cross-tabulations of service quality dimensions From the cross-tabs in Table 3 of Appendix 1, service dimensions have shown to have significant correlations, though a bit weak for some dimensions. Tangibility has an average correlation with reliability and responsiveness, Responsiveness has 0.5 correlation with tangibility while assurance registers an above 0.5 correlation with empathy, tangibility, responsiveness and reliability. Empathy registers below 0.5 correlations with tangibility and reliability. Comparing the mean differences among the weights allocated to service quality dimensions From Table 4 in Appendix 1, the highly ranked dimension is tangibility with mean score of 25.34 and assurance had the least score of 17.26. Empathy, followed by reliability and then responsiveness were ranked as 20.95, 18.29, and 18.25 mean scores respectively. Comparing the ordering of the service dimensions From Table 5 in Appendix 1 shows that the unweight mean demonstrated that reliability lead, followed by tangibility, then assurance, then empathy and responsiveness was last. This two ranks are different in that the unweight results showed that students were more concerned of the reliability of the service quality than they were interested in reliability. The weighted results however demonstrate that students were more concerned with physical appearance than they cared about reliability. CHAPTER 5: Summary, Conclusion and recommendation For any business to succeed, measurement of customer perception becomes one of the features that the management should adopt. This also applies to the less researched service points like Sports Centre that have been highly commercialized. Of the many service quality measurement used, SERVQUAL model has proved to be reliable in estimating the five dimensions of satisfactory service delivery. Though the model does not measure prior to expectations and after service perception, the model is reliable since the results of at the service point research can be used to identify expectations and perception. For this research, service quality dimensions have been used to evaluate service quality in University Sports Centre. Through the analysis results, it is evident that the perception is dependent on the service quality in the sports Centre. Though different people rate the quality differently, the uniqueness of each dimension directs the rating of the dimensions. The genders also affect customer perception as well as year of study. From the findings, second years students have the highest usage of the facility while the fourth years have the least. This difference could be related to the amount of course workload that goes with each year of studies. The fourth years when occupied by course work and final projects, the second years and first years have all the time to visit the facility. The female had the least representation in the study meaning they frequented the facility less often than men did. The five measures of service quality were independent based on the weak correlation coefficients between the dimensions. This heterogeneity is also expressed through the different rankings associated with each dimension. While assurance had a significance relationship with tangibility, empathy, and relevance, the same dimension had the poorest relationship with reliability. The difference in values thus explains what the students will prefer more than the other will. In this research, tangibility was highly ranked in the unweight results while reliability lead in the weighed results. This implies that students are keen to visiting a well maintained place as well as get improved services from the last feedback they gave. Weighting the dimensions presents a different ranking from the unweight dimensions. The difference in results presented from the same population could be a product of the independent traits attached to each dimension. The customers thus have varied feeling of the service quality dimension when it is in a cluster of sub measures as well as when it is an independent value. The recommendations are When planning on service quality, the management should consider their target clients the second year to be able to deliver tailor made services. The management of the University Sports Centre being aware of the different values attached to each dimension should keen to protect customer perception by enduring that more emphasis is placed on the most important dimension. Customer satisfaction should take center when the management is planning on service delivery. The facility should employ personnel that are able to implement feedback placed by customers. REFERENCES Anderson D., Sweeney D., Williams T., Camm J., Coshran J. (2013). Statistics for business & economics. Mason: Cengage learning. Bell C., Bowden M., & Trott, A. (2013). Aspects of educational and training technology. Abingdon: Routledge. Howat, G., Crilley, G., & McGrath, R. (2008). A focused Service Quality, Benefits, Overall Satisfaction and Loyalty Model for public Aquatic Centers. Managing Leisure, 13, 139-161. Jiang J. J., Klein G., & Crampton, S. M. (2000). A note on SERVQUAL reliability and validity in information system service quality measurement. Decision science, 31(3), 725-744. Kabir, H., & Carlsson, T. (2010). Service Quality- Expectations, Perceptions and Satisfaction about service Quality at Destination Gotland- a Case Study. Gotland University. Accessed on 24 October 2014 from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:351192/FULLTEXT01.pdf . Kusluvan S. (2003). Managing employee attitudes and behaviors in the tourism and hospitality industry. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Lin C., Lee P., & Nai H. (2008). Theorizing the role of sports in state-politics. International Journal of Sports and Exercise Science, 1(1), 23-32. Oliveira, S. N. C. (2003). Service Quality and Service Value in Sport Services. Accessed on 24 October 2014 from http://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/10545/5/6082_TM_01_P.pdf Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. Pitts B. G. (2012). Fundamentals of sports marketing. New York: Fitness Information Technology, Incorporated. Poornima C.M., & Charantimath, P. M. (2011). Total quality management. India: Pearson Education. Reynolds W., Savage W, & Williams A. J. (2000). Your own business: A practical guide to success. Australia: Cengage learning. Saleh F. & Ryan C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model. The service industries journal, 11(3), 324-345. Salvendy G. (2001). Handbook of industrial engineering: Technology and operations management. New York: John Wiley & sons. Verma. (2007). Service marketing: Text and cases. India: Pearson Education. APPENDIX 1 Table 1: Sample characteristics: Gender, Use of the center, year of study, center membership, and subject area Variable N % Gender Male Female 126 76 62.4 37.6 Use of the center Never Once a week or less Twice a week 3 times a week 4 times a week or more 5 46 39 47 34 25 11 22.8 19.3 23.3 16.8 12.4 5.4 Year of study 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Masters other 68 84 44 4 1 1 33.7 41.6 21.8 2.0 0.5 0.5 Center Membership Member Pay each time Missing 98 92 12 48.5 45.5 5.9 Subject area Sports Business Media Other 68 41 24 69 33.7 20.3 11.9 34.2 Table 2: Descriptive statistics of service quality dimensions Descriptive Statistics N Number of items Mean Std. Deviation tangibles 202 6 3.5784 .58571 Reliable 202 4 3.6151 .65889 Responsiveness 202 5 3.3941 .66584 Assurance 202 4 3.5569 .65257 Empathy 202 2 3.4728 .84081 Valid N (list wise) 202 Table 3: Service quality dimensions Pearson correlation matrix tangibles Reliable Responsiveness Assurance Empathy tangibles Pearson Correlation 1 .490 .490 .572 .417 Reliable Pearson Correlation .490 1 .469 .475 .394 Responsiveness Pearson Correlation .490 .469 1 .609 .539 Assurance Pearson Correlation .572 .475 .609 1 .636 Empathy Pearson Correlation .417 .394 .539 .636 1 Table 4: Service quality dimensions score rankings Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Tangibility 202 5 96 25.34 11.399 Reliability 202 1 60 18.25 7.425 Responsiveness 202 1 60 18.29 8.075 Assurance 202 1 41 17.26 7.133 Empathy 202 0 51 20.95 10.101 Valid N (listwise) 202 Table 5: Comparing the ordering of the service dimensions variable name unweight mean weighed mean Tangibility 3.5784 25.34 Reliability 3.6151 18.25 Responsiveness 3.3941 18.29 Assurance 3.5569 17.26 Empathy 3.4728 20.95 APPENDIX 2: Study Questionnaire Question 1 We would like to know your views about the universities sports centre’s service quality and performance relative to your expectations. For each of the questions below please circle just one number between 1 and 5. 1 being the very dissatisfactory and 5 very satisfactory   Low High How would you rate the quality of the centre when it comes to; 1 modern sports/gym equipment 1 2 3 4 5 2 modern changing facilities 1 2 3 4 5 3 visually appealing facilities 1 2 3 4 5 4 smart, professionally appearing staff 1 2 3 4 5 5 informative , relevant and appealing documentation   such as gym and class timetables and opening times 1 2 3 4 5 6 convenient hours of operations 1 2 3 4 5 7 providing a reliable service that is promised 1 2 3 4 5 8 dealing with customer complaints 1 2 3 4 5 9 prompt actions based on customer feedback 1 2 3 4 5 10 service carried out as promised first time 1 2 3 4 5 11 service performed at promised time 1 2 3 4 5 12 informing customers of new and changing schedules/timetables 1 2 3 4 5 13 prompt service to facility users 1 2 3 4 5 14 willingness to help facility users 1 2 3 4 5 15 readiness to respond to users requests 1 2 3 4 5 16 well mannered and informative staff 1 2 3 4 5 17 highly motivating staff for example encouraging gym staff 1 2 3 4 5 18 secure transactions e.g. Membership payments and booking facilities 1 2 3 4 5 19 knowledgeable and reliable staff 1 2 3 4 5 20 attending to the needs of every customer e.g. on a personal one to one basis 1 2 3 4 5 21 staff with good customer service   1 2 3 4 5 Question 2 Description: Below are five areas relating to the University Sports Centre and the services that it offers. We would like to know the how important each feature is to you when you evaluate the Sports Centre and the service that it provides. Please allocate 100 points amongst the five areas below; the areas that you feel to be more important should be given more point. Please ensure that once the points have been delegated they add up to a total of 100. 1. The appearance of the Sports Centre, physical facilities such as staff, gym equipment, the sports hall, and changing rooms. 2. The ability of the Sports Centre and its staff to implement the service promised reliably and accurately. 3. The Sports Centre’s willingness to help users and provide a prompt and friendly service. 4. The knowledge and manners of the Sports Centre’s staff, and their ability to supply and maintain confidence and trust within its customers. 5. The attention to detail given when dealing with a customer on a one to one basis, through being caring and sympathetic to any problems that may have arisen. Question 3 The following questions are to determine and identify some background information, in regards to our subject. (Circle where appropriate) 1. Are you MALE or FEMALE? 2. How often do you use the Sports Centre? Never Once a week or less Twice a week Three times a week Four times or more a week. 3. What year at University are you currently in? 1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / masters / other___________________________________________ 4. Are you a Member? Or do you pay each time? _______________________________________________________________________ 5. Are you studying a course at The University of Lincoln? Yes / No If Yes please specify_____________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX 3:SERVQUAL.SAV Variable List Variable Name Label Comments T1Equipment modern sports/gym equipment These variables are scaled 1 to 5 and reflect sub-questions 1 to 21 in the first section of the questionnaire T2Modchange modern changing facilities T3Visual visually appealing facilities T4smartstaff smart , professionally appearing staff T5information informative, relevant and appealing documentation such as gym and class timetables and opening times T6hours convenient hours of operation D1service providing a reliable service that is promised R1complaints dealing with customer complaints R2feedback prompt actions based on customer feedback D2firsttime service carried out as promised first time D3promisetime service performed at promised time D4informing informing customer of new and changing schedule / timetables R3prompt prompt service to facility users R4willingness willingness to help facility users R5userrequests readiness to respond to user request C1manners well mannered and informative staff C2motivating highly motivated staff for example encouraging gym staff C3transactions secure transactions e.g. membership payments and booking facilities C4knowledgeable knowledgeable and reliable staff E1one2one attending to the needs of every customer e.g. on a personal one to one basis custservice staff with good customer service Q1 the appearance of the sports centre, physical facilities such as staff, gym equipment, the sports hall, and changing rooms. These variables are scored 0-100 and reflect the sub-questions in the second section of the Questionnaire Q2 the ability of the sports centre and its staff to implement the service promised reliably and accurately. Q3 the sports centres willingness to help users and provide a prompt and friendly service. Q4 the knowledge and manners of the sports centres staff, and their ability to supply and maintain confidence and trust within its customer. Q5 the attention to detail given when dealing with a customer on a one to one basis , though being caring and sympathetic to any problems that may have arisen. gender are you male or female These are effectively the ‘independent’ variables which measure respondent characteristics usage how often do you use the centre year what year at university are you currently in? 1st /2nd/ 3rd/ 4th/ masters/ other member are you a member or do you pay each time Course subject area Variable Name Label Comments t1 Equipment Rating Weighted These variables are the weighted versions of questions 1-21 in the original questionnaire. They have been reordered and labelled to reflect the five dimensions of service quality: t1-t6 are tangibles d1 to d4 are reliability r1 to r5 are responsiveness c1 to c4 are confidence/assurance E1-E2 are empathy. They are effectively at the ‘scale’ level of measurement are suitable for procedures such as factor analysis. t2 Changing Facilituies Weighted t3 Appearance Weighted t4 Smart staff weighted t5 information weighted t6 Convenience weighted d1 Reliable Serice weighted d2 Service carried out 1st time weighted d3 Service provided as promised weighted d4 Informing Customers pf changes weighted r1 prompt actions on customer feedback weighted r2 prompt service to users weighted r3 willingness to help users weighted r4 readiness to respond to user requests weighted r5 dealing with customer complaints weighted c1 well mannered and informative staff weighted c2 highly motivated staff weighted c3 secure transactions weighted c4 knowledgeable and reliable staff weighted E1 Attending to needs of every customer weighted E2 Staff with good customer care weighted Read More