The mere intermediate for provider of quick, efficient and

The
objective of this study is to assess customer perceptions and expectations of
service quality amongst the commercial banks in Thiruvannamalai district. Using
Servqual as the main service
quality measuring instrument, the researcher has framed the following
objectives;

1.     
To identify the various dimensions of
service quality   of commercial
Banks   

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2.     
To measure the service quality gap in
select commercial banks.

3.     
To identify the most significant service
quality variable of select Banks.

4.     
To offer suggestions for the improvement
of service quality in select banks.

 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY:

In the fast developing country like India,
the use of technology for day-to-day business and personal transactions has
seen a major boost. The banking industry is a paradigm of industries that has
experienced a major uplift with the use of technological innovation. The change
in banking service is unparallel when compared to the entire period of banking
history in India. In recent days, the growing universalisation and internationalization
of banking operations, driven  by a
combination of factors, such as the continuing deregulation, heightened
competition and technological advancements have altered the face of the banks
from mere intermediate for  provider of
quick, efficient and consumer friendly services.

 

Therefore, the present study has examined
the level of customer satisfaction on the services rendered by commercial
banks. Several studies have been conducted to examine the same purpose but
those studies fail to include the technological and financial aspects in the
service quality measurement. In addition, this study investigates the
relationship between the socio-economic variable with eight service quality
dimensions namely, Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance,
Accessibility, Empathy, Financial and Technological. Under each broad
dimension, several related services are grouped to measure the service quality
gap on the above services rendered by commercial banks with the help of the
sample customers’ perceived and desired levels.

 

 

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study made
use of respondents only at a point of time. The memory difficulties on the part
of the respondents were bound to have some effect on their response. A study on
customer service cannot provide enduring findings over time as the expectations
and perceptions of the customers and the type of services rendered by
commercial banks change from time to time. Therefore, the findings of the study
indicate only contemporary views of the customers and may not hold good for all
time to come.

 

MEASURING
SERVICE QUALITY

According
to Parasuraman et al (1988) measuring service quality involves a comparison of
customer expectations and customer perceptions of actual service performance.

 

PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS’

 The following table shows the profile of the
responds’.

Majority of the respondents age is 40 years, male,
married, post graduates qualification, Government employees, their annual
income falls between 100001 and 200000 and most of them are having current
accounts for a period of 4-5 years.

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Area of the study

The main
objective of the study is to examine the quality of customer services rendered
by commercial banks. It requires a suitable place to conduct the research work
and sample respondents are also required to monitor the questionnaires.
Tiruvannamalai District has been selected as the area for the study since there
are almost all branches of commercial banks have been opened up and more over
the researcher belongs to this area, hence, the researcher would visit in
person all places of the district.

Research Design

A cross
sectional survey method has been used to analyze the service quality among the
commercial banks. The search design has been made appropriate to find out Gap
between the p rating and desired ratings.

 

 

 Sample size

 A Convenient sampling of 100 customers among the commercial banks in Thiruvannamalai
district has been taken for study.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Descriptive
analysis, Friedman’s mean rank, Rank Correlation is used as statistical tool
for analyzing the eight dimensions of service quality. The result of the study
is given below:

RELIABILITY STATISTICS:

            Before
using the data further analysis, it is necessary to check the trust worthy and
internal consistency of the data. The reliability coefficient Cronbach’s Alpha
arrived is above in each of the dimensions is greater than 0.70 hence it is
concluded that all items are giving reasonable contribution to the scales
reliability.

Table – 1

DIMENSION WISE RELIABILITY STATISTICS

Sl. No

Dimension
Wise Reliability Statistics

No. of
Items

Reliability(Alpha)

1

Tangibility

16

0.822

2

Reliability

12

0.770

3

Responsiveness

10

0.781

4

Assurance

10

0.798

5

Empathy

10

0.798

6

Accessibility

10

0.682

7

Financial

12

0.824

8

Technology

10

0.865

9

Combined Scale

92

0.957

 

HYPOTHESIS
TO BE TESTED

1)     
There is no significant difference among
the perceived variables under the eight service quality dimensions.

2)     
There is no significant difference
among desired variables under the eight service quality dimensions.

Fried man’s Mean Rank

The Friedman test is the
non-parametric alternative to the one-way ANOVA with repeated measures. It is
used to test the
differences between groups. The result of the analysis is given below:

 

                                                            Table 
No.2- Tangibility

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived(Actual)

Desired(expected)

GAP

Tangibility

Mean

Sd

c.v%

rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

rank

Mean

1

Parking space on the bank
premises

4.30

2.144

50

3.29

5.9

2.484

42

3.67

1.60

2

Adequacy of space and layout of
counters

5.11

2.093

41

4.32

6.35

2.302

36

4.36

1.24

3

Up-to-date equipment

5.13

2.196

43

4.36

6.45

2.027

31

4.20

1.32

4

Availability of bank slips,
challans and pamphlets

5.92

2.452

41

5.40

6.68

2.049

31

4.87

0.76

5

Indication of timings and boards
at appropriate counters

5.38

2.102

39

4.66

6.89

2.183

32

5.12

1.51

6

Employees are well-dressed/neat

5.95

2.254

38

5.27

6.54

2.294

35

4.63

0.59

7

Furniture, water and toilet
facilities are convenient

4.89

2.291

47

4.02

6.27

2.49

40

4.28

1.38

8

Sufficiency of bank staff

5.33

2.035

38

4.69

6.78

2.272

34

4.88

1.45

Average

5.25

2.20

42

4.50

6.48

2.26

35

4.50

1.23

 Source: Primay Data

 

Table No.3-Reliability

 

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Reliability

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Level of service is same
at all times

4.82

2.245

47

3.77

6.44

2.244

35

3.42

1.62

2

Bank meets their promised
time-frames for response

4.61

2.035

44

3.53

6.42

2.425

38

3.45

1.81

3

Staff are sincere in solving
customer problems

4.85

2.393

49

3.62

6.4

2.243

35

3.39

1.55

4

Staff  are dependable

5.05

2.134

42

3.86

5.85

2.591

44

3.12

0.80

5

Bank provides service
as promised

5.15

2.236

43

4.72

6.81

2.264

33

3.70

1.66

6

Bank  keep accurate records.

5.63

2.545

45

4.08

6.96

2.188

31

3.94

1.33

Average

5.02

2.26

45

3.93

6.48

2.33

36

3.50

1.46

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table
No.4-.Responsiveness

 

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Responsiveness

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Interest and willingness of the
bank staff to help customers-

4.55

2.213

49

2.92

6.45

2.267

35

2.94

1.90

2

Prompt service from employees-

4.83

2.07

43

3.10

6.85

1.956

29

3.09

2.02

3

Response in case of emergency and
seriousness-

4.85

2.071

43

3.09

6.5

2.355

36

2.92

1.65

4

Responsiveness  in comments and suggestions-

4.86

2.22

46

3.01

6.51

2.12

33

2.95

1.65

5

Attention given to grievances and
the follow up actions-

4.69

2.009

43

2.89

6.66

1.96

29

3.11

1.97

Average

4.76

2.12

45

3.00

6.59

2.13

32

3.00

1.84

 

Table
No.5-Assurance

 

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Assurance-Variables

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Attitude and Courtesy of the
staff-

4.39

2.02

46

2.54

6.05

2.409

40

2.52

1.66

2

Customer’s  feel safe when transacting with employees-

5.49

2.232

41

3.52

6.65

2.19

33

3.19

1.16

3

Bank employees politeness to
answer customers’ questions–

4.38

2.215

51

2.62

6.51

2.209

34

2.99

2.13

4

Conveying information in the
languages known to customers–

4.89

2.274

47

3.02

6.46

2.134

33

2.89

1.57

5

Knowledge of the bank staff to
use computers and other technical services-

5.48

2.213

40

3.32

6.96

1.969

28

3.42

1.48

Average

4.93

2.19

44

3.00

6.53

2.18

33

3.00

1.60

 

Table
No.6 –Empathy

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Empathy-Variables

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Individual attention given by the
bank staff-

4.73

2.21

47

2.8

6.45

2.134

33

2.88

1.72

2

Understanding the specific needs
of the customer–

5.08

2.268

45

3.05

6.54

1.956

30

2.86

1.46

3

Convenient working hours for
customers-

5.32

2.215

42

3.09

6.89

1.885

27

3.2

1.57

4

Punctuality of commencement of
work-

5.31

2.268

43

3.23

6.82

2.19

32

3.29

1.51

5

Discrimination is made among the
customers-

4.82

2.194

46

2.84

6.08

2.411

40

2.78

1.26

Average

5.05

2.23

44

3.00

6.56

2.12

32

3.00

1.50

 

 

 

Table
No.7 -Accessibility

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Accessibility-Variables

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Accessibility of branch manager
and higher officials-

4.78

2.308

48%

2.77

6.46

2.134

33%

2.91

1.68

2

Accessibility of service
counters-

5.1

2.163

42%

3.19

6.46

2.12

33%

2.9

1.36

3

Accessibility of staff over
telephone-

4.74

2.14

45%

2.75

6.28

2.211

35%

2.97

1.54

4

Accessibility of location of bank-

5.64

1.823

32%

3.59

6.84

1.857

27%

3.29

1.20

5

Waiting Time to avail service
is extensive-

4.55

2.231

49%

2.72

6.25

2.307

37%

2.94

1.70

Average

4.96

2.13

43%

3.00

6.46

2.13

33%

3.00

1.50

 

 

Table7-Financial

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Financial Variables

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Reasonability of the rate of
interest given to deposits-

4.81

2.25

47%

3.14

6.61

2.103

32%

3.63

1.80

2

Reasonability of rate of interest
charged to loans-

5.11

2.326

46%

3.53

6.02

2.252

37%

3.22

0.91

3

Reasonability of rate of interest
charged to housing loans-

4.92

2.182

44%

3.51

6.32

2.169

34%

3.4

1.40

4

Reasonability of rent charged for
safety lockers-

5.21

2.194

42%

3.64

6.32

2.309

37%

3.32

1.11

5

Reasonability of commission
charged for draft-

5.04

2.15

43%

3.47

6.4

2.065

32%

3.6

1.36

6

Reasonability of  commission for transfer of funds.-

5.21

2.24

43%

3.72

6.5

2.125

33%

3.84

1.29

Average

5.05

2.22

44%

3.50

6.36

2.17

34%

3.50

1.31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table.8-Technology

Service Quality Dimension

Perceived

Desired

GAP

Technology Variables

Mean

Sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

sd

c.v%

Rank

Mean

1

Provision of ATM facility.-

5.1

2.665

52

2.86

6.63

2.246

34

2.94

1.53

2

use of computers and modern
devices.-

5.5

2.443

44

3.06

6.48

2.376

37

2.77

0.98

3

Provision of  e. banking facility.-

5.42

2.133

39

2.99

6.59

1.928

29

2.93

1.17

4

Provision of  core banking facility.-

5.21

2.119

41

2.82

6.67

2.084

31

3.12

1.46

5

Provision of mobile banking
facility

5.81

2.44

42

3.28

6.91

2.216

32

3.26

1.10

Average

5.41

2.36

44

3.00

6.66

2.17

33

3.00

1.25

 

Table No.9-Significance differences
of service quality variables

No.

Service
Quality Dimension

Chi-Square-
Perceived
(Asymp.sig)

Chi-Square-
Desired (Asymp.sig)

Degrees
of Freedom

Perceived-in mean ranks of groups

Desired-
in mean ranks of groups

Hypothesis
(at5%significance )

1.     
 

Tangibility

59.297 (0.000)

29.711 (0.000)

7

yes

Yes

Both Rejected

2.     
 

Reliability

27.682 (0.000)

13.867 (0.016)

5

yes

Yes

Both Rejected

3.     
 

Responsiveness

1.745
(0.783)

1.572 (0.814)

4

No

No

Both Accepted

4.     
 

Assurance

33.942
(0.000)

22.634 (0.000)

4

yes

Yes

Both Rejected

5.     
 

Empathy

6.199
(0.185)

10.367 (0.035)

4

No

No

Perceived Rejected/
Desired Accepted

6.     
 

Accessibility

26.367
(0.000)

5.051 (0.282)

4

Yes

No

Perceived Rejected/
Desired Accepted

7.     
 

Financial

6.890
(0.229)

9.444 (0.093)

5

No

No

Both Accepted

8.     
 

Technology

6.655
(0.155)

7.704 (0.103)

4

No

No

Both Accepted

 

Interpretation:

Friedman’s
test shows that there are significant differences in the mean ranks of
Tangibility, Reliability and in both perceived and desired groups. There is no
significant difference in Responsiveness, Empathy, Financial and technology in
both perceived and desired groups. In accessibility there is significant
difference in perceived groups but no such significant differences in desired
groups. Higher C.V (Co-efficient of
Variation) shows high fluctuations and lower shows instability.

The GAP Model :

 Service
quality is the function of differences between expectation and actual
performance along the q