Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INVESTOR PROFILE
INVESTOR PROFILE
NO. OF RESPONDENTS
Male
Female
54
46
SEX
AGE
Below 30
30-40
40-50
50 and above
OCCUPATION
Salaried
Businessman/Professional
Housewives
ANNUAL INCOME
Below 2,00,000
2,00,000-3,00,000
3,00,000-4,00,000
Above 4,00,000
PRODUCTS
Fixed Deposits
Saving Account
Current Account
Other
BANKS
State Bank Group
ICICI Bank
Andhra Bank
HDFC Bank
Bank of Baroda
Other Banks
RELATIONSHIP WITH BANK
Less than 3 Year
3-5 Years
5-10 Years
More Than 10 Years
FACTORS AFFECTING
CHOICE
Ownership/ Reputation
Nearness/Accessibility
Commercials
Friends/Family
25
42
22
10
58
31
11
31
36
23
10
27
42
25
6
37
21
13
12
8
9
21
25
23
31
31
42
14
13
SATISFACTION PARAMETERS
INITIAL EXPERIENCE
Highly
Satisfied
Satisfied
Moderately
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
50
32
10
45
26
13
13
38
40
10
25
38
24
36
24
21
10
Not at all
Satisfied
Coun
t
5
5
5
5
5
Sum
100
100
100
100
100
Averag
e
20
20
20
20
20
SS
df
MS
Varianc
e
422
262
306
183.5
123.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within Groups
Total
518
8
518
8
20
259.4
Pvalue
1
F crit
2.8660
81
24
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
difference in the sample is due to random sampling error.
Highly
Satisfied
43
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
29
Moderately
Satisfied
15
Not at all
Satisfied
7
33
26
11
16
14
32
21
26
12
39
42
28
36
18
13
Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
Row 4
Row 5
Count
5
5
5
5
5
Sum
100
100
100
100
100
Avera
ge
20
20
20
20
20
Varian
ce
250
84.5
91.5
355.5
149.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within Groups
0
3724
4
20
Total
3724
24
SS
df
MS
0
186.2
Pvalue
F
0
F crit
2.8660
81
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
difference in the sample is due to random sampling error
SERVICE EXPERIENCE
SERVICE
Highly EXPERIENCE
Satisfied Moderately Dissatisfied Not at all
Satisfied
36
41
Satisfied
12
Satisfied
7
34
28
23
Anova:
Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Row 1
Row 2
Count
5
5
Sum
100
100
Avera
ge
20
20
Varian
ce
296.5
145.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within Groups
Total
SS
0
1768
1768
df
MS
1
8
9
0
221
F
0.0
Pvalue
1
F crit
5.3176
55
The
F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers consider all the
attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that customers
consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The difference
in the sample is due to random sampling error.
RELATIONSHIP EXPERIENCE
RELATIONSHIP
EXPERIENCE
Frequency and quality of
contact
Knowledge of company
products and customer
opportunities
Conduct and Communication
of relationship person
Highly
Satisfied
54
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
32
Moderately
Satisfied
10
Not at all
Satisfied
0
55
29
10
29
36
14
10
11
Su
m
10
0
10
0
10
0
Avera
ge
Varian
ce
df
MS
Anova: Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Cou
nt
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
20
422
20
500.5
20
138.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
0
424
4
424
4
2
12
0
353.66
67
Pvalue
F
0
F crit
3.8852
94
14
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
difference in the sample is due to random sampling error.
Highly
Satisfied
54
40
41
Satisfied
Deposits
Loan
Interst on
loan
Interest on 36
deposit
Process of
45
loan
Third party 36
product
Dissatisfied
36
28
22
Moderately
Satisfied
4
11
12
6
15
16
Not at all
Satisfied
0
6
9
29
14
13
28
13
12
41
12
Anova: Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Value
is
less than
Cou
nt
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
Row 4
Row 5
Row 6
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
0
660
2
Total
660
2
critical or
SS
Su
m
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
10
0
df
5
24
Avera
ge
Varian
ce
20
566
20
191.5
20
161.5
20
141.5
20
293.5
20
296.5
MS
0
275.08
33
Pvalue
F
0
F crit
2.6206
54
The
much
the
table
29
value which shows that customers consider all the attributes as important while rating their
satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that customers consider all the attributes important while
rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The difference in the sample is due to random sampling
error
GRIEVANCE HANDLING
Anova: Single Factor
Highly
Satisfied Moderately
GRIEVANCE HANDLING
Satisfied
Satisfied
41
22
12
SUMMARY
Timeliness
of complaint
Cou Su Averag Varian
resolution
Groups
nt 35m
e25
ce12
Quality of complaint
10
resolution
Row 1
5 38 0
161.5
6 20
26
Knowledge and empathy of
10
the customer
servicing staff. 5
Row 2
0
20
97
10
Row 3
5
0
20
159.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
0
167
2
167
2
df
2
12
MS
0
139.33
33
Pvalue
F
0
Dissatisfied
16
Not at all
Satisfied
9
12
13
11
19
F crit
3.8852
94
14
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
difference in the sample is due to random sampling error.
ATM SERVICES
Highly
Satisfied
47
35
39
Conveniently located
54
ATM Services
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
31
26
20
Moderately
Satisfied
22
28
16
0
5
18
Not at all
Satisfied
0
6
7
31
11
Anova: Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Cou
nt
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
Row 4
Su Avera Varian
m
ge
ce
10
0
20 413.5
10
0
20 186.5
10
0
20 137.5
10
0
20 503.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
0
496
4
496
4
df
3
16
MS
0
310.2
5
Pvalue
F
0
F crit
3.2388
72
19
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
INTERNET BANKING
SERVICES
Account information and
balance enquiry
E- payments
Account to Account transfer
Statement request( by email,
fax, mail)
Highly
Satisfied
54
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
36
Moderately
Satisfied
4
Not at all
Satisfied
0
36
30
41
29
23
24
14
32
26
8
4
9
13
11
0
Anova: Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Cou
nt
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
Row 4
Su Avera Varian
m
ge
ce
10
0
20
566
10
0
20 141.5
10
0
20 147.5
10
0
20 253.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
0
443
4
443
4
df
3
16
19
MS
0
277.1
25
Pvalue
F
0
F crit
3.2388
72
The F Value is
much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers consider all the attributes as
important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that customers consider all the
attributes important
while rating their
satisfaction
stands
accepted.
The
difference
in
the
sample is due to
random
sampling
error.
Highly
Satisfied
Satisfied
26
Bank has up - to - date 37
equipment & technology
40
25
SUMMARY
Location of the Bank
Cou ofSuATM
Avera
Varian
46
30
Sufficient number
Groups
nt
m
ge
ce
machines
34
26
Cash counting machines10
Row 1
5
0
20
129.5
28
Counter partitions in bank and 40
10
Rowits2 branches
5
0
20
159.5
21
Materials associated with
10 the 35
Rowbanks
3 office
5
0
20
350.5
10
Row 4
5
0
20
148.5
10
Row 5
5
0
20
191.5
10
Row 6
5
0
20
130.5
Anova:
TANGIBILITY
Single
Factor
Moderately
Satisfied
14
Dissatisfied
9
Not at all
Satisfied
5
12
19
13
5
10
0
25
11
4
15
11
6
26
12
TANGIBILITY
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
SS
0
444
0
444
0
df
MS
24
185
29
Pvalue
0
F crit
2.6206
54
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
difference in the sample is due to random sampling error.
SECURITY
SECURITY
Highly
Satisfied
34
36
28
31
Moderately
Satisfied
21
18
7
6
Not at all
Satisfied
10
9
32
29
24
11
40
30
19
45
28
13
12
Satisfied
Anova: Single
Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Cou
nt
Row 1
Row 2
Row 3
Row 4
Row 5
Su Avera Varian
m
ge
ce
10
0
20 132.5
10
0
20 174.5
10
0
20 144.5
10
0
20 231.5
10
0
20 240.5
ANOVA
Source of
Variation
SS
df
MS
Pvalue
F crit
Dissatisfied
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total
0
369
4
369
4
20
184.7
2.8660
81
24
The F Value is much less than the critical or table value which shows that customers
consider all the attributes as important while rating their satisfaction. Therefore the hypothesis that
customers consider all the attributes important while rating their satisfaction stands accepted. The
difference in the sample is due to random sampling error.
The satisfaction level of customers in the age group of more than 65 years
is highest with the mean score of 3.83 and the lowest satisfaction is of those
customers who belonged to the age group less than 25 years.
Banks focus more on the high net-worth individuals and business classes
Hence satisfaction of high income group and business class have expressed
high levels of satisfaction.
SBI, a public sector bank is rated highest amongst all the banks under study.
Foreign Banks like Citi Bank and ABN AMRO have also gained good credit
from its customers. The least score is of Union Bank of India.
The customer service quality rating has been very high in case of private
banks and low in case of public sector banks.
Public sector banks suggest: increase human resources, hire skilled and young staff, and
bringing technological improvement
Foreign bank employees suggest: train employees on interpersonal relationships, focus on other
classes of society than focusing only on HNI customers and increase the number of Branches
Private sector bank employees suggest: Recruit employees who are well versed in local
language, Increase number of branch nation-wide including rural areas, Improvement in
technology and infrastructure.
The expectations of the customers are on the increase, especially those customers who belong
to generation . Hence banks have to revisit their traditional practices and adapt themselves to
satisfy the needs of the young customers.
Banks are focusing more on High net worth individuals, and business classes, the other
customer segments have been ignored to a very great extent, reflecting low satisfaction scores
from the latter. A conscious effort is needed to work on all the segments and, make every
segment profitable.
Metro cities satisfaction scores were high but when we look at individual servqual gaps, the
gaps are also high and significant. This shows that there is a need for the bank branches in
metros to work on details rather than focusing on the big picture.
Public sector banks, reliability is high whereas, low on tangibility. Foreign banks reliability is
high. Private banks assurance gap is high. Hence, Private and Public sector banks have to focus
on assurance, whereas Foreign banks have to work on reliability.
Professionalism not only speaks about the way of doing things, but also takes into account, the
way you present yourself as a part of the organization. To maintain a standard, it is very
essential that the bank follows a dress code with its employees.
Efficient and knowledgeable employees are always a big boon for any organization. Employees
should be trained on technical and behavioral aspects, so that banks can deliver quick and
prompt services.
Establishing branches in every possible area would be a better way to progress. This would
really help banks to create more accounts and give more reach to the banks.
CONCLUSION
The customer needs grow with no limits, and it is very much evident from the various
service offerings by the other banks day to day. Not just to rebel the competition with the private
and the foreign banks, but also to retain the existing customers, it is very necessary that the public
sector banks take a charge on this. Irrespective of the banks, employees who interface the
customers directly, are ought to be very empathetic and should be able to understand the customer
needs and requirements. Training the human resource in this regards would help the banks retain
their customers and also attract more. Customer relationship is one another aspect the banks need to
be given par importance. Managing customer relation efficiently is an advantage that the banks
should concentrate to win the situation. The banks should focus on pooling and retention of
customers. Large database would create a trust and reliability culture which would bring in more
and more customers. Addressing to the individual customer needs is one crucial aspect to be
considered, as the customer would find himself as a part of the organization. This would build a
good relationship between the bank and the customer.
Public sector banks are always known for the trust, they have developed with the customers
and for their existence in the society for a very long period of time. Hence, it is suggested that the
public sector banks keep the trust factor and improve on the other aspects of service quality. Also it
is advisable that the public sector banks associate more with the technology and good infrastructure
facilities to provide timely and efficient service to the customers. Publicizing the bank in the right
area adds value to the brand. Foreign banks utilize the proper media resource for promoting their
services. Its very important that both the public and the private sector banks come forward and use
the same to a greater extent.