Analys Intrprt

6.
CRM Interpretation & Analysis
78
BANKS DATA ANALYSIS
6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 6.1 CRM Analysis for Public Sector Banks and Private Sector Banks
79
Detail Analysis have been done to understand the relation between various questions put to various staff members of Private and Public Banks. Question set has been divided into different form to have a clear view of individual segment. Question Set Main I with Section A, B, C, D (Refer Annexure 1) was having 45 questions and all questions were discussed with Bank Staff to understand their views on the same. Question Set E with 10 questions were asked to customers to review CRM related to each Bank. Various Factors (26) extracted from various existing researchers and articles related to CRM was summarized and put to respondents to rate each Factor satisfaction. These details are considered in Question Set Main II (Appendix 1) To understand the response of staff on each question Valid Response, Mean, Std. Error, Median, Std. Deviation, and Variance is calculated and shown in the Annexure 2.
Sample size: The number of cases n is the number of numeric entries for the variable that fulfill the selection criterion. In this analysis 91 respondents has given the response from Top Management, Middle Management & Lower Management.127 customers from Public and Private Banks have responded to various questions asked to them. The lowest value and highest value of all observations (range).The lowest value used in the analysis 1 and the highest value is 5 Analyses have been done to understand the basic statistical tools and results Table Shows the results of various questions asked to Staff of Public and Private Banks. Sample size used is the actual responses received from various respondents. In the below table respondent ratio is as mentioned below SBI and PNB 46 respondent, ICICI and HDFC 45 respondent. Total respondent from Staff= 46+45= 91 respondent .Following Section of questions have been analysis A) Perception of Official Respondents on CRM B) Performance review by Official Respondents C) Problem Analysis by Official Respondents D) Importance of CRM by Official Respondents
6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 6.2 Important Factors Analyzed
80
During the research various factors have been analyzed and documented and same were added in questionnaire set main II (Appendix 1).Same factors were asked to rate by respondents to understand the importance of each. After having responses on 26 factors it was analyzed that 8 factors are more significant and they play important role in Banking Sector. For each factor frequency response is taken from both Public and Private bank respondednts.There Chi Square and p value is calculated to understand the significant factors. Below table show the details. Table No. 6.1
Table No.
:- Analysis of various Factors for Public and Private Banks Type of Bank PUBLIC PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 4.4 35.6 60.0 2.147 0.342
1. Relationship with customer Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied
Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2
Chisquare
p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 2. Customer Prospecting Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 8.7 28.3 47.8 13.0 2.2 Type of Bank PUBLIC 3. Interactive Management Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.0 10.9 52.2 37.0 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.4 55.6 6.877 0.032 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 4.4 48.9 33.3 13.3 0.0 5.295 0.258 Chisquare p-value
6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis
81
Type of Bank PUBLIC 4. Empowerment to customers Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 41.3 54.3 4.3 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 5. Understanding customer expectation Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 17.4 52.2 30.4 0.0 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 6. Partnership Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 19.6 60.9 19.6 0.0 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 7. Personalization Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.0 6.5 63.0 30.4 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 8.9 48.9 42.2 1.850 0.396 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 20.0 51.1 28.9 0.0 0.0 1.207 0.547 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 4.4 51.1 44.4 0.0 0.0 4.670 0.097 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 26.7 44.4 28.9 0.0 0.0 17.806 0.000 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 8. Presence of Internet facility without risk Highly dissatisfied Percent 0.0 PRIVATE Percent 22.2 Chisquare 14.888 p-value 0.002
82
39.1 56.5 4.3 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC PRIVATE Percent 13.3 53.3 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.104 0.950 Chisquare p-value 46.7 28.9 2.2 0.0
Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied
9. Interacting on internet Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied
Percent 13.0 56.5 30.4 0.0 0.0
Type of Bank PUBLIC 10. Speedy Service Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.0 10.9 52.2 37.0 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 4.4 46.7 48.9 2.116 0.347 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 11. Speed of ATM and related service Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 6.5 41.3 47.8 4.3 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 12. Staff Cooperation and Behaviour Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.0 10.9 56.5 32.6 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 4.4 46.7 48.9 3.131 0.209 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 15.6 40.0 42.2 2.2 0.0 2.169 0.538 Chisquare p-value
83
Type of Bank PUBLIC 13. Loan and related facilities with clear and standard terms and conditions Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 34.8 56.5 8.7 0.0 PRIVATE Percent 20.0 46.7 28.9 4.4 0.0 14.666 0.002 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 14. problem solving attitude / specific staff Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 15.2 50.0 30.4 4.3 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 15. Variety of service Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.0 10.9 50.0 39.1 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.2 57.8 6.825 0.033 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 6.7 57.8 35.6 0.0 0.0 3.906 0.272 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 16. Better rate of interest Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 15.2 45.7 37.0 2.2 0.0 Type of Bank PRIVATE Percent 6.7 48.9 40.0 4.4 0.0 1.974 0.578 Chisquare p-value
84
Chisquare
PUBLIC 17. Online Service , payment and other facility Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.0 8.7 56.5 34.8
PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 2.2 31.1 66.7
p-value
9.651
0.008
Type of Bank PUBLIC 18. Home service like delivery of cash Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 17.4 39.1 37.0 6.5 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 26.7 44.4 26.7 2.2 2.757 0.431 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 19. Frequency of response Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 39.1 47.8 10.9 2.2 Type of Bank PUBLIC 20. New product and services Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 30.4 50.0 19.6 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 21. Presence Geographically Highly dissatisfied Percent 4.3 PRIVATE Percent 8.9 Chisquare 3.671 p-value 0.452 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 26.7 55.6 17.8 0.0 0.285 0.867 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 0.0 24.4 55.6 20.0 0.0 4.013 0.260 Chisquare p-value
85
13.0 41.3 41.3 0.0 22.2 35.6 31.1 2.2
Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied
Type of Bank PUBLIC 22. Quality of Service and Staff Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 6.5 19.6 41.3 32.6 0.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 23. Well trained and matures Staff to handle errors and critical situations etc Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 10.9 41.3 47.8 0.0 PRIVATE Percent 4.4 24.4 42.2 26.7 2.2 8.181 0.085 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 8.9 26.7 33.3 31.1 0.0 1.066 0.785 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 24. Better Competitor Offerings Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 15.2 37.0 21.7 13.0 13.0 PRIVATE Percent 31.1 26.7 22.2 13.3 6.7 4.185 0.382 Chisquare p-value
Type of Bank PUBLIC 25. Data protection and privacy of individual details Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Percent 0.0 2.2 34.8 PRIVATE Percent 4.4 4.4 28.9 3.506 0.477 Chisquare p-value
86
43.5 19.6 35.6 26.7
Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied
Type of Bank PUBLIC 26. 24X7 Telephonic support Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 6.5 21.7 41.3 30.4 0.0 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 13.3 37.8 46.7 2.2 6.501 0.165 Chisquare p-value
Analysis: - After analyzing the various factors considered in research it is observed that following 8 factors are significant as compared to other factors. Interactive Management
Response from various respondents indicates that Bank initiative with customer plays very important role. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank only 37 % of respondents are very Highly Satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 55.6 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 6.877 and p value 0.032 it shows that this factors is significant and need to be focused by Public Banks Empowerment to customers
Response from various respondents indicates that Empowerment to customers is still have a neutral response .Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank customer 54.3 % of respondents are neutral where as in case of Private Banks it is 28.9 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 17.806 and p value 0.0 it shows that this factors is significant and need to be focused by both Public Banks and Private banks. Understanding Customer expectation
Response from various respondents indicates that customers from both banks are moderately dissatisfied.Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank 52.2 % of respondents are moderately dissatisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 51.1%.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 4.670 and p value 0.097 it shows that this factors is significant and need to be focused by both banks.
87
Presence of internet facility without risk
Response from various respondents indicates that though now both Public and Private sector Bank provide this facility but risk factors play still an important concern. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank 56.5 % of respondents are neutral where as in case of Private Banks it is 28.9 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 14.888 and p value 0.002 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused. Above details shows that respondent from Private Banks feel higher risk while using internet facility from bank as compared to Public bank customers. Loan and related facilities with clear and standard terms and conditions
Response from various respondents indicates that Bank initiative with customer plays very important role. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank only 56.5 % of respondents are neutral where as in case of Private Banks it is 28.9 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 14.666 and p value 0.032 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Private Banks. Though it is easy to get loan in Private Banks but still respondent feel that Public banks terms and conditions are more clear and they follow the same where as in case of Private banks respondent feel that terms and conditions changes fast with subject to market conditions Variety of Services
Response from various respondents indicates that Bank services play important role. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank only 39.1 % of respondents are highly satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 57.8 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 6.825 and p value 0.033 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Public Banks. Online service , payment and other services
Response from various respondents indicates that Bank in Public Bank only 34.8 % of respondents are Highly Satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 66.7 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 9.651 and p value 0.008 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Public Banks.
Well trained and Mature Staff to handle Errors and critical situations etc
Response from various respondents indicates that in Public Bank have 47.8 % of respondents who are moderately satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 26.7 %.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 8.181 and p value 0.085 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Private Banks. Though Private banks
88
have more young staff who is well trained as compared to Public banks but respondents still feel that mature staff is present in Public Sector Banks who can handle errors or similar critical situations with there experience.
6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 6.3 DETAIL ANALYSIS
89
Detail Analysis have been done to understand the relation between various questions put to various staff members of Private and Public Banks. Question set has been divided into different form to have a clear view of individual segment. Question Set Main I was having 45 questions and all questions were discussed with Bank Staff to understand their views on the same. To understand the response of staff on each question table were made with response from different level from Top Management, Middle Management and Lower Management in each Bank. Response was aligned in form of tables and final Total is calculated from the Frequency count against each response. Then Chi Square and p value is calculated using SPSS software as shown below table. Detail analysis of each question is done on Public and Private Bank Respondednts.Public Banks are SBI, PNB and Private Banks are ICICI & HDFC. Annexure 2 Table A2-3 to A2-6 shows details frequency distribution for each bank with different respondents. Annexure 3 shows a collective Frequency distribution of questions in form of total Public banks response and total private bank response Each response was analyzed with graph to understand and conclude the results from the same. Each point is observed and comments are made against the responses which were found significant. 1: - Though we have CRM, I believe that people are not using it adequately.
Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total
Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 100. 0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.6 26.7 20.6 31.7 15.6 100. 0 12.7 21.5 22.7 20.4 22.7 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 10.0 45.6 14.4 23.3 6.7 100. 0 9.1 16.7 39.4 25.8 9.1 100.0
Total publi privat c e 10.8 34.7 17.5 24.3 12.8 100. 0 13.0 20.5 29.0 22.0 15.5 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
9.71*
0.0 23
90
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that CRM implementation is still a high concern. Most respondents that is 34.7 % are moderately dissatisfied and in case of Private Banks 20.5% respondents are moderately dissatisfied. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 15.5% and in Public Banks it is 12.8 %. So CRM Implementation to full extend in both sectors is very important and need to be focused by individual sectors. 2: - On the whole I am satisfied with CRM here.
Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 100. 0 0.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 10.0 8.8 47.2 43.1 32.2 21.5 0.0 17.7 10.6 100. 0 8.8 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 20.0 43.9 38.9 20.2 13.3 20.2 15.6 15.7 12.2 100. 0 0.0 100.0
Total publi privat c e 13.1 24.0 39.0 31.0 21.5 22.5 8.4 18.0 17.9 100. 0 4.5 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
10.650
0.32
91
3: - I feel secure and happy with CRM in the bank so far.
Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 26.1 20.4 31.7 22.7 15.6 21.5 16.1 21.5 10.6 13.8 100. 0 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 21.1 19.2 40.0 27.3 21.1 11.1 12.2 31.3 5.6 11.1 100. 0 100.0
Total publi privat c e 23.9 19.0 36.7 23.5 17.1 20.5 13.1 25.0 9.1 12.0 100. 0 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
5.820*
0.05
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents are still not happy with CRM implementation. Most respondents that is 36.7 % are moderately dissatisfied and in case of Private Banks 23.5%
92
respondents are moderately dissatisfied. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 12.0% and in Public Banks it is 9.1 %. So CRM Implementation to full extend in both sectors is very important and need to be focused by individual sectors.
4: -CRM needs to be improved in Bank. p va lu e 0. 44 0
Top Mgt Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total publi c 0.0 33.3 0.0 33.3 33.3 100. 0 privat e 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 100.0
Middle mgt publi c 10.0 5.6 26.1 31.7 26.7 100. 0 privat e 3.8 3.8 44.2 30.4 17.7 100.0
Lower mgt publi c 11.1 15.6 33.3 26.7 13.3 100. 0 privat e 10.1 25.8 14.6 20.2 29.3 100.0
Total publi c 8.8 13.1 27.9 28.7 21.5 100. 0 privat e 6.5 13.5 31.5 26.5 22.0 100.0
Chisquare value
6.840
5:-I think, additional inputs are needed. p va lu e 0. 34
Top Mgt Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied publi c 0.0 0.0 privat e 50.0 0.0
Middle mgt publi c 0.0 5.0 privat e 0.0 7.7
Lower mgt publi c 21.1 23.3 privat e 0.0 20.2
Total publi c 10.8 13.1 privat e 2.0 13.0
Chisquare value 12.300
93
0.0 50.0 0.0 100.0 31.7 31.7 31.7 100. 0 31.5 31.5 29.2 100.0 10.0 27.8 17.8 100. 0 43.9 24.7 11.1 100.0 21.5 30.3 24.3 100. 0 35.5 29.5 20.0 100.0
Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total
33.3 33.3 33.3 100. 0
6: -CRM leads to improved performance in Bank
Chisquare value
p valu e
4.360
0.72
94
7:-In Bank business is primarily based on relations.
Chisquare value
p valu e
5.300
0.60
8: -Do you think better work will be done, if CRM is made better.
95
Middle mgt publi privat c e 0.0 7.7 16.7 13.8 26.7 39.2 36.1 22.7 20.6 16.5 100. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 6.7 0.0 17.8 13.6 32.2 11.1 33.3 55.1 10.0 20.2 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 4.0 4.0 15.9 13.0 29.0 27.0 31.9 38.5 19.1 17.5 100. 0 100.0 Chisquare value p valu e
7.670
0.33
9: -Do you think time has come to make use of CRM extensively in Banks.
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.380
0.42
96
10: -CRM is very important in service organization like Banks.
Chisquare value
p valu e
5.750
0.44
11: -CRM is going to improve the business in Banks.
97
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.790
0.40
12: -CRM is better than any other management system.
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.760
0.36
98
13: -Customers will increase with CRM
Chisquare value
p valu e
8.200
0.32
99
14: -Have you managed customers according to CRM?
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.300
0.41
15:-Have you implemented CRM guidelines?
Chisquare value
p valu e
3.29*
0.05
100
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that customers are not managed as per CRM Policy Most respondents that is 33 % are neutral . Employees feel once policy framed then there is no issue but if any thing not defined in policy that is not followed .In case of Private Banks 33.5% respondents are moderately satisfied. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 23.5% and in Public Banks it is 10.8 %. 16:-Have you evaluated CRM?
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.670
0.37 0
101
17:-Are your CRM practices customers oriented?
Chisquare value
p valu e
4.730*
0.04
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that customers are not as per customer orientation Most respondents that is 30.7 % are moderately dissatisfied. In case of Private Banks 44.5%
102
respondents are moderately satisfied. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 31.0% and in Public Banks it is only 15.1 %.So CRM Practices need to be modified in case of Public Sector where as in case of Private Banks it need some alignment only. 18:-Have redesigned jobs according to the requirement of CRM?
Chisquare value
p valu e
6.110
0.47
19: -Have you improved customer handling?
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.010
0.47
103
20: -Have you improved relations with the customers?
Chisquare value
p valu e
4.920
0.51
104
21: -Have you prepared your people to work in CRM environment?
Chisquare value
p valu e
4.750
0.68
105
22: -Have you benchmarked your organization performance with best practices of other banks?
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.990
0.42
106
23: -Have you driven out the fear?
Chisquare value
p valu e
5.490
0.55
24: -Have you adopted an organization culture with shared version, values and analysis?
Chisquare value
p valu e
10.840
0.30
107
25: -Has organization taken transformation initiative?
Chisquare value
p valu e
8.450
0.35
108
26: - Have you evaluated management skills?
Chisquare value
p valu e
7.380
0.25
6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 27: -Do you feel motivated with CRM polices?
109
Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100. 0 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.6 5.0 5.6 13.8 26.1 42.2 20.6 100. 0 31.5 49.6 0.0 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 5.6 0.0 6.7 5.6 33.3 36.7 17.8 100. 0 24.7 21.2 48.5 100.0
Total publi privat c e 4.8 2.5 6.4 9.5 35.0 36.7 17.1 100. 0 27.0 37.0 24.0 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
8.520
0.35
28:-Identifying potential. Y/N Top Mgt publi privat c e 66.7 0.0 33.3 100.0 100. 0 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 47.8 49.2 52.2 50.8 100. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 30.0 35.9 70.0 64.1 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 39.8 41.0 60.2 59.0 100. 0 100.0 Chisquare value 1.06
Satisfaction level No Yes Total
p value 0.53
110
29:-Identify training needs. Y/N
Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 0.0 100. 0 100.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 53.3 50.4 46.7 100. 0 49.6 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 37.8 56.1 62.2 100. 0 43.9 100.0
Total publi privat c e 43.0 50.5 57.0 100. 0 49.5 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
2.37
0.38
111
30: -Generating data for key skills. Y/N
Top Mgt publi privat c e 66.7 50.0 33.3 50.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 57.8 64.6 42.2 35.4 100. 0 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 44.4 35.9 55.6 64.1 100. 0 100.0
Total publi privat c e 50.6 51.0 49.4 49.0 100. 0 100.0
p valu e 0.42
31:-I feel CRM is just a formality Y/N Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.3 50.0 66.7 50.0 100. 0 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 47.2 33.1 52.8 66.9 100. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 35.6 47.5 64.4 52.5 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 39.4 40.0 60.6 60.0 100. 0 100.0 Chisquare value 1.07
p value 0.58
112
32:-I feel parameters used in our present CRM are relevant. Y/N
p value 0.6
113
33.I feel business is better with CRM rather then without Y/N
p valu e 0.63
34:-Inflexibility to change. Y/N
114
Top Mgt publi privat c e 100. 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 32.2 67.8 100. 0 30.4 69.6 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 35.6 64.4 100. 0 59.6 40.4 100.0
Total publi privat c e 38.2 61.8 100. 0 42.0 58.0 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
2.19
0.36
35:-Insupportable technology Y/N
Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 100.0 100. 0 0.0 100. 0 100.0
Middle mgt publi privat c e 37.2 31.9 62.8 100. 0 68.1 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 47.8 44.9 52.2 100. 0 55.1 100.0
Total publi privat c e 39.4 41.0 60.6 100. 0 59.0 100.0
Chisquare value
p valu e
2.34
0.37
115
36: -Delayed responsiveness across the organization Y/N
Chisquare value 1.9
p valu e 0.41
37: -losses faced by the organization Y/N
p valu e 0.49
116
38: -Ready to face competition. Y/N
Chisquare value 2.04*
p valu e 0.05
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that they are ready for competition Most respondents that is 59.3 % states YES ..In case of Private Banks 69.5% respondents says YES. So here is the major significance in highly satisfaction level in both sectors. Employees in private sector feel that customers expectations from private banks are very high so need 100% accuracy to retain them. Public banks feel they are ready and slowly and slowly improving to face competition.
6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 39: -Underutilization of resources. Y/N
117
Lower mgt publi privat c e 37.8 39.4 62.2 60.6 100. 100.0
Total publi privat c e 35.4 45.0 64.6 55.0 100. 100.0
p value 0.034
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that they have resources and there is an improvement on date but still 64.6 % says YES. Employees feel they have started rotational job but still results are to be achieved as compared to private banks .In case of Private Banks 55% respondents stated YES .Employees in private sector feel that customers expectation from private banks are very high so need 100% accuracy to retain them.
40:-Improved performance Y/N
p valu e 0.04
118
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that there is an improvement as compared to last financial year Most respondents says YES that is 52.6 % .In case of Private Banks 69% respondents say YES on improved performance . 41: -As a status symbol Y/N
p valu e 0.6
42: -Satisfied customer Y/N
119
Middle mgt publi privat c e 21.1 48.1 78.9 51.9 100. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 42.2 43.9 57.8 56.1 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 32.7 46.5 67.3 53.5 100. 0 100.0 Chisquare value 1.26* p valu e 0.04
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that customers are satisfied .Most respondents that is 67.3 % says YES. Employees feel that they have limited customers and public sector has improved a lot in terms of last impression. In terms of ATM networks they have largest as compared to private sector. In case of Private Banks 53.5% respondents says YES. Employees in private sector feel that customers expectation from private banks are very high so need 100% accuracy to retain them. 43: -More Business Y/N
Middle mgt publi privat c e 46.7 32.7 53.3 67.3 100. 100.0
Lower mgt publi privat c e 52.2 19.2 47.8 80.8 100. 100.0
Total publi privat c e 51.4 25.0 48.6 75.0 100. 100.0
p valu e 0.05
120
From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that in present scenario private Banks are getting more business as compared to Public sector .Only 48.6 % respondents feel that they are having better business opportunity as compared to private sector .In case of Private Banks 75% respondents say YES .Private sector is more confident on business growth as compared to public sector. 44: -Is it results in satisfaction level of customer? Y/N
p valu e 0.54
121
45: -Do customers give references to other people of your Bank? Y/N Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.3 50.0 66.7 50.0 100. 0 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 46.7 53.1 53.3 46.9 100. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 36.7 44.9 63.3 55.1 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 40.7 49.5 59.3 50.5 100. 0 100.0 Chisquare value 0.78 p valu e 0.63
122
A Paired Sample Correlation Analysis is applied for customer review. It is applied on questions.50 respondents were considered in case of each bank Section E no 1 to 10 (Refer Appendix 1). Detail Correlation tables are attached in Appendix 4 .From these table of Correlation details were analyzed. To analyze the response from various respondent data was converted to Correlation Table for each sector that is Public Sector Bank and Private Sector Bank. In each case questions were asked to 100 respondents. Final response received in case of Public Sector Banks is N=62 and in case of Private sector Banks N=67 and total N=127. Three different Correlations were run. First for Public Sector, Second for Private Sector and Third for Total. Refer Appendix 4. From Final Total Correlation table above it was found that in three cases, response is significant or highly significant. Those case have been analyze below
Are you Satisfied with the problem solving Attitude of bank Public Banks Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Public Banks) N=62 Are you Satisfied with the bank ( 1= Yes , 0 = No ) Private Banks Correlation ( Refer Table Correlation Public Banks ) N=65
Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Total )
N=127
0.242
0.131
0.186
Analyzing the details it is observed that these questions are positive correlated with each other .When most of the respondents were asked about there satisfaction level it is observed they have mix response and most of them have correlated the same with Problem solving attitude of the bank. It seems that if banks will solve customer problem efficiently they will feel satisfied. In case of Public Banks it is observed that Correlation is 0.242 and in case of Private Banks it is 0.131. But when total respondents were taken Total Correlation value is 0.186
123
Will you refer other to this bank Private Banks Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Public Banks ) N=65
Public Banks Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Public Banks) N=62 Will you again come in future Here ( 1= Yes , 0 = No )
N=127
0.275*
-0.233
-0.248
Seeing the table generated by SPSS software it is observed the value is highly significant .Analyzing the details it is observed that these questions are negatively correlated with each other as per table .When most of the respondents were asked that you will again come in future then customers response shows negative correlation of the same to give reference of banks to others. It is observed that Respondent due to convince of reach will again come to bank but is negative correlated to refer the same to others. C Do you think this bank is better than other bank Public Banks Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Public Banks) N=62 Are you satisfied with problem solving attitude to bank ( 1= Yes , 0 = No )
Private Banks Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Public Banks ) N=65
N=127
-0.098
-0.0281
-0.192
Seeing the Total Correlation Table generated by SPSS Software the value is Significant. Analyzing the details it is observed that these questions are negatively correlated with each other but of significance. Respondent response shows that against the problem solving attitude they
124
still feel that problems can be handled in much better and efficient way They feel many other banks solve the problem in better way.

Analys Intrprt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analys Intrprt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6.

CRM Interpretation & Analysis

BANKS DATA ANALYSIS

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 6.2 Important Factors Analyzed

Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.8 65.2

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied

Percent 13.0 56.5 30.4 0.0 0.0

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

PRIVATE Percent 0.0 0.0 2.2 31.1 66.7

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

Presence of internet facility without risk

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 6.3 DETAIL ANALYSIS

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

3: - I feel secure and happy with CRM in the bank so far.

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

4: -CRM needs to be improved in Bank. p va lu e 0. 44 0

5:-I think, additional inputs are needed. p va lu e 0. 34

Middle mgt publi c 0.0 5.0 privat e 0.0 7.7

Lower mgt publi c 21.1 23.3 privat e 0.0 20.2

Total publi c 10.8 13.1 privat e 2.0 13.0

Chisquare value 12.300

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total

33.3 33.3 33.3 100. 0

6: -CRM leads to improved performance in Bank

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

7:-In Bank business is primarily based on relations.

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

10: -CRM is very important in service organization like Banks.

11: -CRM is going to improve the business in Banks.

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

12: -CRM is better than any other management system.

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

13: -Customers will increase with CRM

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

14: -Have you managed customers according to CRM?

15:-Have you implemented CRM guidelines?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

17:-Are your CRM practices customers oriented?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

19: -Have you improved customer handling?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

20: -Have you improved relations with the customers?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

21: -Have you prepared your people to work in CRM environment?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

23: -Have you driven out the fear?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis

25: -Has organization taken transformation initiative?

6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis