A RESEARCH PROJECT On

MEASUREMENT OF SERVICE QUALITY OF THE AUTHORIZED SERVICE CENTRES FOR THE AUTOMOBILE BRANDS IN DELHI/NCR REGION

Submitted to Dr. S.K. Pandey Fore School of Management On 08/03/2011

Submitted By Group 6- FMG19C Ankit Garg 191126 Ankita Garg 191127 Gaurav Sakhuja 191140 Madhur Gautam- 191144 Sonal Saraogi 191175 Sudarshan Chitlangia 191177
1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We express our sincere thanks and acknowledgements to Dr. S.K. Pandey who has been our mentor in this research project. We are thankful to him for taking pains to provide us the necessary guidance and support. We would also like to thank all the respondents for their cooperation. We would also like to thank Mr. Nishant Sinha and Mr. Gokul Nath, students of FMG-18 for their guidance and support. Thanking all, Group VI FMG XIX C FORE School of Management, Delhi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Competitiveness and search for profits have called more attention towards customers satisfaction and increased researchers interest on the topic of service quality. In this context, this study applies SERVQUAL for assessing service quality in the automobile authorized service centres. The main objective is to assess quality service dimensions that are delivered through the perspectives of managers and customers. A questionnaire was developed based on the service quality dimensions from which results were analyzed. The results of this study show the quality dimensions and characteristics that call managerial attention. Since the sample size for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai is large, the study is concentrated on the two brands of automobiles. Among Honda, Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki we have found that the average percentage of unsatisfied customers are highest in Maruti Suzuki 9.02 percentage. The unsatisfaction percentage is particularly notable for Reliability dimension in Hyundai 13% and Responsiveness in Maruti Suzuki 25%. Maruti Suzuki has a gap of 0.6129 in Responsiveness dimension. Hyundai has a gap of 0.6428 in Reliability dimension. . This suggests that there is a difference between the expectations and the perceived service quality of the customers. Also there is no significant difference between the mean values of serqual scores of Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai across all service dimensions.

Contents
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Automobile Industry in India ........................................................................................................................... 9 Services ............................................................................................................................................................ 9 Service Quality............................................................................................................................................... 10 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 13 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................ 20 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 21 Research Design............................................................................................................................................. 21 Scope of the study .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Method of Data Collection............................................................................................................................. 21 Sampling Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Sampling Unit ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Sample Size .................................................................................................................................................... 22 Process Flow Chart ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Methodology .................................................................................................................................................. 22 ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 24 FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 47 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................. 48 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 49 ANNEXURE...................................................................................................................................................... 50

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: GENDER AND OCCUPATION ......................................................................................................... 24 Table 2: SEGMENT AND BRAND NAME ..................................................................................................... 25 Table 3:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR MEAN SCORE OF MALE AND FEMALE .................................... 28 Table 4: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVICE QUALITY FACTOR FOR DIFFERENT BRANDS WHILE BUYING A CAR ............... 29 Table 5: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVICE QUALITY FOR DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS. .............................................................. 30 Table 6: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVICE QUALITY FOR DIFFERENT CAR SEGMENTS. ............................................................ 31 Table 7:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TANGIBLES EXPECTED ............................................................... 32 Table 8:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RELIABILITY EXPECTED ............................................................ 32 Table 9:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR ASSURANCE EXPECTED.............................................................. 33 Table 10:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR EMPATHY EXPECTED ................................................................ 33 Table 11:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RESPONSIVENESS EXPECTED ................................................. 33 Table 12:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TANGIBLES PERCEIVED............................................................ 34 Table 13:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RELIABILITY PERCEIVED ......................................................... 34 Table 14:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR ASSURANCE PERCEIVED .......................................................... 34 Table 15:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR EMPATHY PERCEIVED .............................................................. 35 Table 16:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RESPONSIVENESS PERCEIVED ................................................ 35 Table 17: SERVQUAL SCORES ...................................................................................................................... 39 Table 18: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR TANGIBLE DIMENSION BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI ................................................................................................................................................ 40 Table 19: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR RELIABILITY BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI ....... 41 Table 20: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR ASSURANCE BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI ........ 42 Table 21: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR EMPATHY BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI. ............ 43 5

Table 22: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR RESPONSIVENESS BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI. .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

LIST OF GRAPHS
GRAPH 1: GENDER AND OCCUPATION PERCENTAGE.......................................................................... 24 GRAPH 2: PERCENTAGE OF CAR SEGMENT AND BRAND NAME....................................................... 25 GRAPH 3: SEGMENT OF CAR AND OCCUPATION .................................................................................. 26 GRAPH 4: BRAND NAME AND OCCUPATION .......................................................................................... 27 GRAPH 5: FREQUENCY OF UNSATISFIED CUSTOMERS ....................................................................... 37 GRAPH 6: PERCENTAGE OF UNSATISFIED CUSTOMERS ..................................................................... 37 GRAPH 7: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE UNSATISFIED ................................................................................ 38

LIST OF ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1: QUESTIONNAIRE...47

INTRODUCTION
Automobile Industry in India

Since the 90s many service companies have pursued to enhance their performance and effectiveness in search of achieving differentiation in the market. An example of that is the attempt to convince customers that their quality is superior to the competitors. In addition, the importance of service sector has sharply increased at both developed and developing countries. India's automotive industry is one of the key drivers of the country's economy. With an estimated size of around USD 40 billion, it accounts for 5 percent of India's GDP. The industry has been growing at a rate of 12 percent CAGR over the past 7 years (2002-03 to 2009-10), with both domestic and export markets growing during the period. The Government's Automotive Mission Plan 2016 envisages the industry to grow to approximately USD 145 billion by 2016, thereby contributing 10 percent to the GDP. The automotive service market is estimated between Rs.50, 000 crores to Rs 60,000 crores, in terms of turnover. As a consequence, Service quality is one of the major issues facing operations managers but it is an area characterized by debate concerning the need for assessing customer expectations and service quality assessment. In this sense, the objective in this study is to identify which quality dimensions are most important to customers of an automobile service centre. In addition, it also assesses the service that is delivered to them.

Services
Services are commodities that cannot be stored or disappear in use, or as activities that require personal contact. The distinct characteristics of services are intangibility; perish ability, heterogeneity of the product, and simultaneity of production and consumption. Two economic units are required for a service to be produced the consumer and the producer. While the consumer cannot retain the actual service after it is produced, the effect of the service can be retained. Managing a service operation requires the manager to understand the service concept, service delivery system, and service levels. As the consumer has a key role in the definition and evaluation of all three elements, it is imperative that service managers
9

have a clear understanding of consumer expectations and perceptions. Services may be provided by private or public agencies. These characteristics enhance the importance of certain marketing strategies that are unique to services marketing, such as service customization, managing evidence, making the service tangible, and synchronizing supply and demand patterns.

Service Quality
Quality is a strategic tool for attaining operational efficiency and improved business performance. Importance of quality to service firms and have demonstrated its positive relationship with profits, increased market share, returns on investment, customer satisfaction, and future purchase intentions. Service quality has been described as a form of attitude, related but not equivalent to satisfaction, which results from the comparison of expectations with performance (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry 1988). Service quality involves a comparison of expectations with performance: it is a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customer expectations on a consistent basis. Service quality has been conceptualized as a function of consumer expectations towards the service situation and process, and of the output quality they perceived themselves to have received. The ultimate goal of service quality measurement is to assist managers in ensuring service quality and customer satisfaction (Webster, 1988). Measurement is a necessary step towards devising any action plan. However, because of its elusiveness and indistinctness, explication and measurement of quality also present problems for researchers, who often bypass definitions and use unidimensional self-report measures to capture the concept. The emergence of service quality and its assessment has attracted the attention of numerous researchers in the past two decades or so. In this sense, there are two main lines of thoughts on measuring service quality an American and an European perspective. The focus on functional quality attributes is referred to as the American perspective of service quality while the European perspective suggests that service quality considers two more components. The European perspective considers the quality of a service as perceived by customers
10

consists of three dimensions: functional (the process of service delivery to customers), technical (the outcomes generated by the service to the customers), and image (how the customers view the company). Considering those dimensions, the quality of the service is dependent upon two variables: the expected service and the perceived service. Functional quality of a service is often assessed by measures of customers attitudes, as in customer satisfaction questionnaires. The process of identifying customers attitudes begins with determining customers requirements or quality dimensions. The author, Parasuraman et al. (1985) explains two ways of identifying important quality dimensions of services: quality dimension development approach and critical incident approach. The first one uses different sources of information, such as opinions of providers and literature. The other one is a process to obtain information from customers. The 10 determinants of service quality established by Parasuraman et al. (1985) provide a list that can guide investigation on the first approach. The authors subsequently developed SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al., 1988), a two-part instrument for measuring service quality that was refined later (Parasuraman et al., 1991). SERVQUAL provided a means of measurement for researchers to determine how well service level is delivered and how it matches customer expectations on a consistent basis. There are 10 potentially overlapping dimensions: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, communication, credibility, assurance, competence, courtesy, understanding/knowing the customer, and access. Afterwards, these dimensions were reduced to five, namely: tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy. The five key gaps or discrepancies on the service provider's side that are likely to affect consumers' perceptions of service quality are:Gap 1: Consumer expectation-management perception gap, which is the gap between consumer expectations of service quality and management perceptions of these expectations Gap 2: Management perception-service quality perception gap, that is, the gap between management perceptions of consumer expectations and the firm's service quality specifications Gap 3: Service quality specifications-service delivery gap, the gap between service quality specifications and actual service quality.
11

Gap 4: Service delivery-external communications gap, or the gap between actual service delivery and external communications about the service Gap 5: Expected service-perceived service gap, which is the gap between expected service and perceived service.

Applications of the SERVQUAL scale have been made to measure service quality in hospitals, hotels, travel and tourism, telecom companies, insurance companies and banks, business school placement centre, retail stores and acute care hospital physicians, dentists, attorney, financial and banking institutions, laundry/dry cleaning and automobile companies.

12

LITERATURE REVIEW

Sasser et al. (1978) The paper defines services as commodities that cannot be stored or disappear in use, or as activities that require personal contact. The distinct characteristics of services are intangibility, perish ability, heterogeneity of the product, and simultaneity of production and consumption Two economic units are required for a service to be produced the consumer and the producer. While the consumer cannot retain the actual service after it is produced, the effect of the service can be retained. Managing a service operation requires the manager to understand the service concept, service delivery system, and service levels. As the consumer has a key role in the definition and evaluation of all three elements, it is imperative that service managers have a clear understanding of consumer expectations and perceptions. Services may be provided by private or public agencies. These characteristics enhance the importance of certain marketing strategies that are unique to services marketing, such as service customization, managing evidence, making the service tangible, and synchronizing supply and demand patterns. Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than goods quality. Perceptions of service quality result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service performance. Quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome of a service; they also involve an evaluation of the process of service delivery.

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985,1988) The paper pointed out that the concept of quality prevalent in the goods sector is not extendable to the services sector. Being inherently and essentially intangible, heterogeneous, perishable, and entailing simultaneity and inseparability of production and consumption, services require a distinct framework for quality explication and measurement. As against the goods sector where tangible cues exist to enable consumers to evaluate product quality, quality in the service context is explicated in terms of parameters that largely come under the domain of experience and credence properties and are as such difficult to measure and evaluate (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985; Zeithaml and Bitner, 2001).
13

One major contribution of Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) was to provide a terse definition of service quality. They defined service quality as a global judgment, or attitude, relating to the superiority of the service, and explicated it as involving evaluations of the outcome (i.e., what the customer actually receives from service) and process of service act (i.e., the manner in which service is delivered). In line with the propositions put forward by Gronroos (1982) and Smith and Houston (1982), Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985, 1988) posited and operationalized service quality as a difference between consumer expectations of what they want and their perceptions of what they get. Based on this conceptualization and operationalization, they proposed a service quality measurement scale called SERVQUAL. The SERVQUAL scale constitutes an important landmark in the service quality literature and has been extensively applied in different service settings.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988) initially identifies ten dimensions regarding service quality in their SERVQUAL model, however these were reduced to five dimensions namely: Reliability, Assurance, Tangibles, Empathy and Responsiveness. Zanudin b .Hj. Awang., Mohd Azuhari b. Che Mat. & Meer Farouk Amir Razli., uses SERVQUAL approach after its customization, here they have added 15 more service quality items relevance to higher education environment. Adele Berndt (2009) explains these five dimensions with respect to automobile service centre as follows:

Reliability (Promised delivery): Dealerships are known to contact the customer promising that the vehicle will be ready for delivery at a specific time. It is the most important dimension of service quality.

Assurance (Confidence and trust): At dealership, the main source of assurance is with the service adviser, their knowledge and manner of interaction with the customer inspires trust in the organization.

Tangibles (Physical cues): Tangible cues that form part of this dimension include the signage, parking and layout of the dealership itself. Empathy (Importance): In the case of dealership, this can be seen in the interactions between the organization and the customer, and the nature of this interaction.

14

Responsiveness (Willingness to serve): This refers to the changes that have been observed in service hours from just being weekdays to include weekend and night services, due to the changes in the needs of customers.

Boulding et al. (1993) perceived the dimensions of service quality as a function of a customer's prior expectations of what will and what should transpire during a service encounter, as well as the customer's most recent contact with the service delivery system. These perceptions of quality dimensions form the basis for a person's intended behaviour. Their findings suggest that the two different types of expectations have opposing effects on perceptions of service quality and that service quality perceptions positively affect intended behaviours.

Zeithaml et al. (1993) The paper explored the gap between expectations and perceptions to better understand expectations as they pertain to customer assessment of service quality and to extend the theoretical work that exists in the customer satisfaction literature. Based on their study, the gap between customer expectations and perceptions as proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985) can be conceptualized to reflect two comparison standards: desired service which reflects what customers want, and adequate service which indicates the standard that customers are willing to accept. The comparison between desired service and perceived service or the level of service customers believe is likely to occur, called perceived service quality (PSQ) is the perceived service superiority gap. The comparison between adequate service and perceived service, called PSQ Gap 5 is the perceived service quality adequacy gap. The smaller the gap between desired service and perceived service, the higher is the perceived superiority of the firm. The smaller the gap between adequate service and perceived service, the higher is the perceived adequacy of the service.

Lowndes and Dawes (2001) have found that Service quality is commonly thought to comprise of five generic dimensions - responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, empathy and reliability. These dimensions form the basis for service measurement tool SERVQUAL. This tool predominantly focused on customer perceptions and expectations of quality and helps the organizations to improve upon their service quality resulting in greater customer retention.
15

Jain and Gupta (2004) have done a comparative analysis of two major service quality measurement scales: SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. An ideal service quality scale is one that is not only psychometrically sound but is also diagnostically robust enough to provide insights to the managers for corrective actions in the event of quality shortfalls. This study assesses the diagnostic power of the two service quality scales. Using data collected through a survey of consumers of fast food restaurants in Delhi, the study finds the SERVPERF scale to be providing a more convergent and discriminant valid explanation of service quality construct. However, the scale is found deficient in its diagnostic power. It is the SERVQUAL scale which outperforms the SERVPERF scale by virtue of possessing higher diagnostic power to pinpoint areas for managerial interventions in the event of service quality shortfalls. SERVPERF scale should be used for assessing overall service quality of a firm because of its psychometric soundness and greater instrument parsimoniousness. One should employ the The SERVPERF scale should also be the preferred research instrument when one is interested in undertaking service quality comparisons across service industries.

Arasli et al (2005) They have analyzed and compared service quality in the commercial banking sector of a small island economy Cyprus. The author with others investigated the relationship between overall bank customer satisfaction in the Turkish- and Greekspeaking areas of Cyprus and positive word-of-mouth about their banks. There is disparity in the banking sector of a divided Cyprus, where banks in the South have undergone significant restructuring before EU accession and banks in the North are affected by the economic crisis and need to restructure if they want to join the EU. After descriptive and factor analysis, multivariate regression was used to estimate the impact of service quality dimensions on overall customer satisfaction and word of mouth. It was found that the responsiveness dimension failed to load and thus the SERVQUAL scale proved to be of a four-dimensional structure in this study. Research results revealed that the expectations of bank customers in both areas were not met and that the largest gap was found in the empathy dimension. The assurance dimension had the largest influence on customer satisfaction and overall satisfaction of bank customers in both areas of Cyprus had a positive effect on their word-ofmouth. The study helped the banks in both areas of Cyprus to redefine their corporate image to one that is customer-focused and driven by service quality.
16

Prajapati and Kachwala (2006) The study has found out that the delivery of information i.e. knowledge transmission in the case of Management Education Institutes (MEI) is intangible in nature. Therefore, the inputs in terms of delivery of this knowledge - faculty, equipment and the entire environment and infrastructure are very important for quality. A gap was found between the quality rendered by faculty and service provider, and quality required by students. It is essential to understand the exact quality required by the students to develop a course and curriculum that suit their requirements. Service quality needs to be quantified and thus it can be described in terms of objective and perceptual characteristics: Objective characteristics include things like, lecture time, wait time, etc., and can be easily quantified. Perceptual characteristics on the other hand, depend on the students' perceptions, which include dimensions of service quality based on the SERVQUAL and other service quality instruments. The study encompassed Business Schools in Mumbai as perceived by students are evaluated. The questionnaire is on the basis of a hypothesized model for service quality. Factor analysis of the responses helped to develop a working model for the perceived service quality factors in Management Education Institutes. This helped in identifying the improvements in Service Quality in Management Education Institutes.

Cauchick Miguel et al (2007) have highlighted the fact that competitiveness and search for profits have called for more attention towards customers satisfaction and increased organizations interest in service quality. SERVQUAL technique is applied on a multinational company service chain including one hundred shops located throughout the country, to assess quality service dimensions that are delivered through the perspectives of managers and customers. It was found that the certain quality dimensions and characteristics call for managerial attention. Responsiveness and assurance were found to be the most relevant to shop managers and customers, respectively. Quality improvement initiatives were proposed to enhance the service rendered by the car repair shops. The paper concludes that there are differences among the perspectives of shop owners and customers with regard to quality dimensions.

Hii Geng Hing (2007) has examined Service Quality (SERVQUAL) variables from the perspective of hotel guests in Sibu. Since Sibu is an emerging market for tourism industry so
17

the information obtained from hotel guests can be utilized to attract more guests. Stanley has used Gap 5 (Gap between expected service and perceived service) and factor analysis to analyze the data obtained in order to determine satisfaction and perception of the guests. Data obtained from 189 respondents revealed a negative Gap 5 perception and a rich expectation and perception factors. Recommendations for managers and future studies are presented.

Saravan and Rao (2007) have highlighted that in service firms the practitioners are interested to know the customer perceptions of service quality for identifying shortfalls and improving service delivery. This study has analyzed the discrimination among the three groups (customer oriented, employee oriented and technology oriented) of overall service quality from the customers perspective. The results indicate that both the technological factors and the people-oriented factors appear to contribute more in discriminating the three groups of overall service quality. Further, the service quality indices in the Indian automobile service sector as a whole indicate a satisfactory performance.

Swaid and Wigand (2007) in their study have found that to satisfy and retain customers the organization has to offer a superior service quality. The study indicates that the key dimensions of ecommerce service quality are website usability, information quality, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and personalization. Secondly customer satisfaction is influenced mostly with the perception of reliability, while customer loyalty is affected by the perception of assurance and customer retention is predicted by the customer satisfaction index.

Rajagopal (2008) has analyzed the impact of market orientation strategies and performance of customer services on customer acquisition, retention and sales of automobiles which reveals overall performance of automobile dealers in Mexico. The study comprehends understanding on customer-dealer relationship in the automobile market segment referring to key factors which establishes service quality encompassing tangibility, responsiveness, trust, accuracy and empathy. It was found that the customers perceive better quality of relationship in a given frame of functions that are performed effectively by the dealer lowering the extent of conflicts thereof. High conformance quality services of dealers and value added customer relationship to offer high customer satisfaction develop life time customer value and strengthen the customer-dealer.
18

SEYED HOSSEIN SIADAT (2008) has mapped the different dimensions of service quality. The paper gives a clear idea of the five dimensions of service quality and the necessary descriptions of each dimension, so that mapping can be done adequately. A descriptive statistics analysis was used to evaluate the level of service quality of Iranians online shops from the customers perspective. This study also examined the service quality gap by comparing customers expectations and their actual perceptions. The results of the study indicated that all of the service quality factors are important. The Access is fast is the most important factor among the others and respondents are not satisfied with current connection speed although they are fine with extra services. Tangibility was rated as the most important dimension followed by assurance, reliability, responsiveness, and empathy. Abhishek Pandit (2009) has used serqual scale to identify the gaps in service quality. The paper gives a clear picture of how the serqual scale is used and how the gap is calculated for service quality. The paper also takes into account different dimensions of service quality and the corresponding serqual scores for each of them.

19

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research is to measure the current service quality level of the authorized service centres for the automobile brands in Delhi/NCR region. Service quality level depends on satisfaction /dissatisfaction of the customers. Dissatisfaction may be caused by various reasons. The reason(s) may be on all dimensions of the SERVQUAL model. We have tried to focus on two fold objectives. First, to find out the most influencing factor of dissatisfaction. Second, to find the gap if any in the perceived and expected service quality. The purpose of this project is to utilize the SERVQUAL scale to assess customers' perceptions of the service quality offered by major Automobile brands. The various dimensions of service quality of the automobile services, the overall level of service of the authorized service centres and the relative importance of each of the dimensions in influencing consumers' perception of service quality is examined. Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than goods quality. Perceptions of service quality result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service performance. Quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome of a service; they also involve an evaluation of the process of service delivery. In judging quality of service provided, consumers perceive the actual service performance in the context of what they expected. Thus the perceived service quality is the result of the consumer's comparison of expected service with perceived service. It is to be noted that the dimensions of service quality as a function of a customer's prior expectations of what will and what should transpire during a service encounter, as well as the customer's most recent contact with the service delivery system. These perceptions of quality Dimensions form the basis for a person's intended behaviour. The comparison between desired service and perceived service or the level of service customers believe is likely to occur, called perceived service quality (PSQ) is the perceived service superiority gap. The comparison between adequate service and perceived service, called PSQ, is the perceived service quality adequacy gap. The smaller the gap between desired service and perceived service, the higher is the perceived superiority of the firm. The smaller the gap between adequate service and perceived service, the higher is the perceived adequacy of the service.
20

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The research design is exploratory and descriptive in nature as it involves studying the perceptions and expectations of customers in order to measure the service quality provided by the service provider. The study thus finds out the major areas of improvement so that company services to the customers can be improved.

Scope of the study

The study is limited to Delhi/NCR Region.

Method of Data Collection

The primary data was collected with the help of a structured, electronic questionnaire. Secondary data was collected from journals, books & research papers with a view to supplement the primary data. The study of secondary sources made the structuring of questionnaire easy.

Sampling Plan
1. Universe of the study: This involves all the people using the product or the service. For this project all the people who are availing automobile services from authorized service stations in the world, forms the universe. 2. Population of the study: This involves all those people using the product/service residing in a particular area. So here the population will be all those people who are availing the service from authorized service stations in Delhi/NCR region. 3. Sampling frame: The sampling frame is the list of respondents from where the researcher draws the sample. In this research study, sampling frame comprises of friends, families and relatives. 4. Sampling technique: The sampling technique applied is snowball sampling technique.

Sampling Unit
Every single individual undertaken in the research study is called the sampling unit. In this research study sampling unit is every single individual in the sampling frame who gets his vehicle serviced at an Authorized Service Station.
21

Sample Size
The sample size undertaken in this research study is 148.

Process Flow Chart

Customer satisfaction /dissatisfaction is now the key element in the measurement of the service quality level. Dissatisfaction may occur at any interaction between customer and dealer. At service centre customers come for after-sales service. Servicing of vehicle is carried out through a sequential process. Figure shows flow process chart includes different activities. According to customers view, whole activities can be categorized as visible actions and invisible actions. In this process service advisor plays important role because he always being in the direct contact with the customer.

Figure 1: PROCESS FLOW CHART

Methodology
This study used the SERVQUAL scale designed by Parasuraman et al. (1988) to measure the perceived service quality of DADA MOTORS automobile service users. This approach has practical appeal, operational simplicity and potential for immediate and long-term strategic impact. This study follows closely the steps taken to measure the unweighted average SERVQUAL scores To measure the unweighted average SERVQUAL scores several steps were taken.
22

The first step was the calculation of the SERVQUAL score for each of the 5 pairs of expectation/perception items. The SERVQUAL score was defined and computed as follows: SERVQUAL score = Perception - Expectation score

The next step was to compute the SERVQUAL score for each dimension by adding the SERVQUAL score for each item pair obtained in the first step, across all the items which pertain to that dimension and dividing by the number of items.

In step 3, for each dimension, the SERVQUAL scores were then added for all the respondents and divided by the total number of the respondents. In step 4, the overall SERVQUAL score was then obtained, the five SERVQUAL scores obtained for each of the five dimensions were added up and divided by 5. This gave the overall SERVQUAL score which was an unweighted average of the five scores computed in step 3.

23

ANALYSIS

Tangibles Visually appealing facilities and modern looking equipment.

Reliability Timely delivery of the car.

Assurance Instil confidence in you for quality and safe delivery.

Empathy Personal attention and Hospitality.

Responsiveness Time for initial check up.

Figure 2: CATEGORIZATION OF DIMENSIONS

The expected service quality and perceived service quality variables are categorized according to the five dimensions of service quality in the above figure. Descriptive statistics of the 148 respondents based on brand of car, car segments are mentioned in tables and pie charts below.
Gender Male Female Occupation Service Student Business House Wife 55 76 12 5

115 33

Table 1: GENDER AND OCCUPATION

Gender
Female 22%

House Wife 4% Business 8%

Occupation

Service 37% Male 78% Student 51%

GRAPH 1: GENDER AND OCCUPATION PERCENTAGE

24

Car Segment
Hatchback Sedan SUV 68 62 18

Table 2: SEGMENT AND BRAND NAME

Brand Name Maruti Suzuki Hyundai Tata Motors Honda Toyota

62 42 9 24 11

Car Segment
SUV 12%

Toyota 8%

Brand name
Maruti Suzuki 42% Hyund ai 28%

Honda 16% Hatch back 46% Tata Motors 6%

Sedan 42%

GRAPH 2: PERCENTAGE OF CAR SEGMENT AND BRAND NAME

House Wife 1%

Hatchback

Busine ss 9%

House Wife 5%

SUV

Busine ss 0%

Studen t 47%

Service 43%

Stude nt 28%

Servic e 67%

25

HouseW ife 5%

Sedan

Business 10%

Student 62%

Service 23%

GRAPH 3: BRAND OF CAR AND OCCUPATION

House Wife 4%

Honda
Busine ss 17% Service 17%

Hous eWife 0%

Hyundai
Busine ss 15%

Studen t 62%

Studen t 49%

Service 36%

House Wife 8%

Maruti Suzuki

Busines s 3%

House Wife 11%

Tata Motors
Busine ss 0%

Studen t 48%

Service 41%

Service 45% Studen t 44%

26

HouseW ife 9%

Toyota

Business 0%

Student 45%

Service 46%

GRAPH 4: BRAND NAME AND OCCUPATION

27

1. There is no significant difference between the mean score of males and females for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. This result is derived from the t-test below.
Table 3:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR MEAN SCORE OF MALE AND FEMALE

Ho: There is no significant difference between the mean score of male and female for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car Ha: There is a significant difference between the mean score of male and female for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Variable 1 4.242424 0.814394 33 0 43 -1.13314 0.131717 1.681071 0.263435 2.016692 Variable 2 4.434783 0.475973 115

Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference Df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

So, the mean value of service quality as a factor in customers decision while buying a car has no significant difference between male and female.

28

2. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the five brands (Honda, Hyundai, Maruti Suzuki, Tata Motors and Toyota) of automobile for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. This result is derived from the annova test below.
Table 4: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVICE QUALITY FACTOR FOR DIFFERENT BRANDS WHILE BUYING A CAR

Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota

1 2 3 4 5

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of service quality factor for different brands while buying a car Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of service quality factor for different brands while buying a car

Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis ONE WAY Descriptives SERVICE N 1 2 3 4 5 Total 24 42 62 9 11 148 Mean 4.375 4.452381 4.370968 4.444444 4.272727 4.391892 S.D. 0.875388113 0.669997486 0.70673275 1.013793755 0.786245393 0.743544875 Std. Error 0.1786879 0.1033829 0.0897551 0.3379313 0.2370619 0.061119 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Min. Max. Lower Bound Upper Bound 4.005356019 4.744643981 1 5 4.243595038 4.661166867 3 5 4.191491229 4.550444255 2 5 3.665173581 5.223715308 2 5 3.74452043 4.800934115 3 5 4.271106464 4.51267732 1 5

ANOVA SERVICE BetweenGroups Within Groups Total SumofSquares df 0.3687 80.902 81.27 Mean Square 4 0.092181506 143 0.565745065 147 F Sig. 0.1629382 0.956783533

So, the mean scores of service quality as a factor for buying a car have no significant difference between the brands of the automobile.

29

3. There is a significant difference between the mean scores of the type of occupation

(Business, Housewife, Service, and Student) for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. This result is derived from the annova test below.
Table 5: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVICE QUALITY FOR DIFFERENT OCCUPATIONS.

Business House Wife Service Student

1 2 3 4

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of service quality for different occupations. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of service quality for different occupations.

ONE WAY ANOVA SERVICE Sum Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total SERVICE N OCCUPATI WallerDuncan 2 1 4 3 5 12 76 55 76.4968 81.2703 144 147 4.77346 3 of df

Reject Null Hypothesis

Mean Square F Sig.

1.5912

2.9952371

0.032857932

0.5312

Subset for alpha = .05 1 3.6 4.0833 4.08333 4.43421 4.47272 2

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed. a Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 12.712. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error b c levels are not guaranteed. Type 1/Type 2 Error Seriousness Ratio = 100.

There is a Significant difference between the mean values of service quality in Housewife and Service, Housewife and Student.
30

4. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the segments of car (hatchback, sedan, SUV) for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. This result is derived from the annova test below.
Table 6: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVICE QUALITY FOR DIFFERENT CAR SEGMENTS.

Hatchback Sedan SUV

1 2 3

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of service quality for different car segments. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of service quality for different car segments. Fail to reject null hypothesis

ONE WAY Descriptives SERVICE Std. E r r o r 95% Confidence Interval Min Max Lower Bound Upper Bound 0.078 4.226 4.539 3 0.104 4.211 4.628 1 0.198 3.916 4.751 2 0.061 4.271 4.513 1

N 1 2 3 Total 68 62 18 148

Mean 4.382 4.419 4.333 4.392

S.d. 0.647 0.821 0.840 0.744

5 5 5 5

ANOVA SERVICE Sum of S q u a r e s df Between Group s Within Groups Total Mean S q u a r eF

Sig.

0.115 81.156 81.270

2 145 147

0.0573 0.5597

0.10244

0.902695596

31

5.

The five dimensions of service quality are segregated into tables. The Expected

dimensions are mentioned as Important and Unimportant, while the neutral values are not taken into account. A Chi Square test for Independence is performed to check the dependence of dimensions of expected service quality on the brands of authorized service stations. The perceived dimensions are mentioned as Satisfied and Unsatisfied, while the neutral values are not taken into account. A similar Square test for Independence is performed to check the dependence of dimensions of perceived service quality on the brands of authorized service stations.
Table 7:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TANGIBLES EXPECTED

Tangibles

Expected

Important Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 22 36 56 7 10

Unimportant 1 2 1 1 1

Ho: Tangibles expected at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Tangibles expected at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 2.85

Table 8:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RELIABILITY EXPECTED

Reliability

Expected

Important Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 23 40 56 8 10

Unimportant 1 0 0 1 0

Ho: Reliability expected at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Reliability expected at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 8.74

32

Table 9:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR ASSURANCE EXPECTED

Assurance

Expected

Important Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 23 34 58 8 9

Unimportant 0 3 1 1 0

Ho: Assurance expected at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Assurance expected at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 5.37

Table 10:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR EMPATHY EXPECTED

Empathy

Expected

Important Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 21 31 42 5 10

Unimportant 2 2 3 1 1

Ho: Empathy expected at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Empathy expected at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 0.94

Table 11:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RESPONSIVENESS EXPECTED

Responsiveness

Expected

Important Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 19 30 48 6 10

Unimportant 2 1 1 1 0

Ho: Responsiveness expected at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Responsiveness expected at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 4.29

33

Table 12:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR TANGIBLES PERCEIVED

Tangibles

Perceived

Satisfied Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 22 35 50 5 9

Unsatisfied 1 3 2 2 1

Ho: Tangibles perceived at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Tangibles at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 6.29

Table 13:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RELIABILITY PERCEIVED

Reliability

Perceived

Satisfied Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 21 34 54 6 8

Unsatisfied 2 5 3 1 3

Ho: Reliability perceived at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Reliability at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 5.48

Table 14:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR ASSURANCE PERCEIVED

Assurance

Perceived

Satisfied Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 18 29 48 8 10

Unsatisfied 1 1 3 1 0

Ho: Assurance perceived at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Assurance at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 1.48

34

Table 15:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR EMPATHY PERCEIVED

Empathy

Perceived

Satisfied Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 21 28 37 4 8

Unsatisfied 1 1 2 1 1

Ho: Empathy perceived at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Empathy at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 2.75

Table 16:HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR RESPONSIVENESS PERCEIVED

Responsiveness

Perceived

Satisfied Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota 18 28 30 4 7

Unsatisfied 2 2 10 2 1

Ho: Responsiveness perceived at the service centre does not depend upon the Brand of Automobile service Station Ha: Responsiveness at the service centre depends upon the Brand of the Automobile Service Station Critical Chi Value Observed Chi Value Fail to Reject Null Hypothesis

9.488 6.19

In all the above cases we Fail to reject the Null Hypothesis. This suggests that the expected and perceived level (Important or Unimportant and Satisfied or Unsatisfied) of the service dimensions like Tangibles, Assurance, Reliability, Empathy and Responsiveness does not depend upon the Brand of the Automobile service station.

35

Frequency of Unsatisfied Customers for the Five Dimensions of Service Quality

Honda Unsatisfied
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Honda Unsatisfied 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Hyundai Unsatisfied

Hyundai Unsatisfied

Maruti Suzuki Unsatisfied

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Maruti Suzuki Unsatisfied 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Tata Motors Unsatisfied

Tata Motors Unsatisfied

36

Toyota Unsatisfied
3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Toyota Unsatisfied

GRAPH 5: FREQUENCY OF UNSATISFIED CUSTOMERS

Percentage of Unsatisfied Customers for brands with respect to the Five Dimensions

Percentage of Unsatisfied Customers

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Tangibles Honda Reliability Hyundai Assurance Maruti Suzuki Emapthy Tata Motors Responsiveness Toyota

GRAPH 6: PERCENTAGE OF UNSATISFIED CUSTOMERS

37

Average Percentage Unsatisfied across all Dimensions

25 20 15 10 5 0 Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota Series1

GRAPH 7: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE UNSATISFIED

Since the sample size for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai is Large, we are going to concentrate on the two brands of automobiles. Among Honda, Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki we can see that the average percentage of unsatisfied customers are highest in Maruti Suzuki around 9 percentage. Also if we segregate the average score across the five dimensions of service quality, we can comment that Hyundai can improve its Reliability dimension, i.e deliver the service on time as promised to the customer since the unsatisatisfaction percentage for reliability is 13%. Surprisingly, Maruti Suzuki which is well known for its service delivery and large service network has to focus on the responsiveness aspect. The unsatisfaction in responsiveness suggests that the customers have to wait long for the initial check up their cars in the authorized service centre. The unsatisfaction rate is as high as 25%.

38

Serqual Scores Compute the gap for each statement pair for each consumer. SERVQUAL score = Perceptions Score - Expectations Score
Table 17: SERVQUAL SCORES

Serqual Score

Tangibles

Reliability

Assurance

Empathy

Responsiveness

Brand Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota -0.2083 -0.2619 -0.2581 -0.5555 -0.3636 -0.4583 -0.6428 -0.4838 -0.5555 -0.8181 -0.375 -0.4761 -0.4838 -0.5555 -0.0909 0 -0.1907 -0.2258 -0.1111 -0.0909 -0.25 -0.2619 -0.6129 -1 -0.4545

Average Serqual Score -0.25832 -0.36668 -0.41288 -0.55552 -0.3636

In the serqual score table, we can see all but one score is negative. This suggests that there exist a gap in each of the service quality dimensions for all the brands. The maximum gap that can exist is of 4 negative points. So, even though there exists a gap, its not comparable to the maximum score which is a positive sign for the automobile brands. But still there is a scope of improvement if we consider Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai. Maruti has a gap of 0.6129 in Responsiveness. This suggests that there is a difference between the expectations and the perceived service of the customers. Customers have to wait more than their expectation for the initial check up of their car a Maruti Suzuki Authorized Service Station. Hyundai has a gap of 0.6428 in reliability dimension, which suggests that the delivery of the car is not done according to the date promised to the customer. Reliability is an issue for all the brands, as can be seen by the gap in service quality for these brands and hence there is a scope for improvement.

39

Table 18: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR TANGIBLE DIMENSION BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI

Brand Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota

Serqual Score for Tangibles -0.208333333 -0.261904762 -0.258064516 -0.555555556 -0.363636364

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of serqual score for tangible dimension between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of serqual score for tangible dimension between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Variable 1 Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail -0.261904762 0.734610918 42 Mean 0 91 -0.021925606 0.491277652 1.661771156 0.982555304 1.98637711 Fail to reject Null Hypothesis. Variable 2 -0.258064516 0.817556848 62

This suggests that there is no significant difference between the mean values of Serqual score for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai for the dimesion- Tangibles.

40

Table 19: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR RELIABILITY BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI

Brand Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota

Serqual Score for Reliability -0.458333333 -0.642857143 -0.483870968 -0.555555556 -0.818181818

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Reliability between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Reliability between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Variable 1 -0.642857143 1.405923345 42 Mean 0 65 -0.763285674 0.22402729 1.668635976 0.448054579 1.997137887 Fail to reject Null Hypothesis Variable 2 -0.483871 0.61448969 62

Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

This suggests that there is no significant difference between the mean values of Serqual score for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai for the dimesion- Reliability.

41

Table 20: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR ASSURANCE BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI

Brand Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota

Serqual Score Assurance

for

-0.375 -0.476190476 -0.483870968 -0.555555556 -0.090909091

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Assurance between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Assurance between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki.

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Variable 1 Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail -0.476190476 0.694541231 42 Mean 0 91 0.045030088 0.482090997 1.661771156 0.964181994 1.98637711 Fail to reject Null Hypothesis Variable 2 -0.48387 0.778424 62

This suggests that there is no significant difference between the mean values of Serqual score for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai for the dimesion- Assurance.

42

Table 21: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR EMPATHY BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI.

Brand Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota

Serqual Score Empathy

for

0 -0.19047619 -0.225806452 -0.111111111 -0.090909091

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Empathy between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Empathy between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki.

t-Test:

Two-Sample Variances

Assuming

Unequal

Variable 1 Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail Fail -0.19047619 0.792102207 42 0 99 0.179715271 0.428871716 1.660391157 0.857743431 1.9842169 to reject Null Hypothesis

Variable 2 -0.22581 1.226864 62

This suggests that there is no significant difference between the mean values of Serqual score for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai for the dimesion- Empathy..

43

Table 22: HYPOTHESIS TESTING FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN VALUES OF SERVQUAL SCORE FOR RESPONSIVENESS BETWEEN HYUNDAI AND MARUTI SUZUKI.

Brand Honda Hyundai Maruti Suzuki Tata Motors Toyota

Serqual Score Responsiveness

for

-0.25 -0.261904762 -0.612903226 -1 -0.454545455

Ho: There is no significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Responsiveness between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. Ha: There is a significant difference between mean values of serqual score for Responsiveness between Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki. t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Variable 1 Variable 2 0. 61 29 03 2 1.3886832 62

Mean

-0.261904762

Variance Observations Hypothesized Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

0.588269454 42 Mean 0 102 1.839617312 0.03436638 1.659929976 0.068732759 1.983495205 Fail to reject Null Hypothesis

This suggests that there is no significant difference between the mean values of Serqual score for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai for the dimesion- Responsiveness.

44

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDTIONS

1. There is no significant difference between the mean score of males and females for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. 2. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the five brands (Honda, Hyundai, Maruti Suzuki, Tata Motors and Toyota) of automobile for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. 3. There is a significant difference between the mean scores of the type of occupation (Business, Housewife, Service, and Student) for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. The significant difference is between Housewives and Service, Housewives and Students. 4. There is no significant difference between the mean scores of the segments of car (hatchback, sedan, SUV) for the service quality at the authorized service centre as a factor for buying a car. 5. Since the sample size for Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai is large, the study is concentrated on the two brands of automobiles. Among Honda, Hyundai and Maruti Suzuki we can see that the average percentage of unsatisfied customers are highest in Maruti Suzuki 9.02 percentage. 6. If we segregate the average score across the five dimensions of service quality, we can comment that Hyundai can improve its Reliability dimension, i.e deliver the service on time as promised to the customer since the unsatisatisfaction percentage for reliability is 13%. 7. Maruti Suzuki which is well known for its service delivery and large service network has to focus on the responsiveness aspect. The unsatisfaction in responsiveness suggests that the customers have to wait long for the initial check up of their cars in the authorized service centre. The unsatisfaction rate is as high as 25%.
8. There exists a gap in each of the service quality dimensions for all the brands. The

maximum gap that can exist is of 4 negative points. So, even though there is a gap, its not comparable to the maximum score which is a positive sign for the automobile brands. 9. Maruti has a gap of 0.6129 in Responsiveness dimension. This suggests that there is a difference between the expectations and the perceived service quality of the

45

customers. Customers have to wait more than their expectation for the initial check up of their car a Maruti Suzuki Authorized Service Station. 10. Hyundai has a gap of 0.6428 in Reliability dimension, which suggests that the delivery of the car is not done according to the date promised to the customer. Reliability is an issue for all the brands, as can be seen by the gap in service quality for these brands and hence there is a scope for improvement. 11. There is no significant difference between the mean Serqual scores of Maruti Suzuki and Hyundai for all the service quality dimensions- Tangibles, Reliability, Assurance, Empathy and responsiveness.

46

LIMITATIONS
1. Location: Our research is conducted in Delhi/NCR region where authorized service centres can be easily found. There may be difference in opinion of people living in other cities where service centres are limited. 2. Wide Scope: The scope of the project is wide. In future we would like to limit our study to a particular service centre for a particular brand of automobile. 3. Sample Size: Our sample size is very small as compared to the population. The sample size is 148 and the total number of registered cars in Delhi/NCR is more than 2 million. There is a huge gap between the population and the sample size.

47

CONCLUSION
The findings of this study have important practical implications to management of quality of the Authorized automobile service stations for automobile brands in Delhi/NCR region. This study demonstrates the usefulness of the SERVQUAL approach as a measure of service quality. The results of the study indicate that the SERVQUAL scale could make a valuable contribution by enhancing the understanding of the perceived service quality of automobile services. The measurement scale also serves to identify symptoms and the underlying problems that inhibit the effective provision of quality services in automobile sector.

48

REFERENCES
1. Cauchick Miguel, Paulo A; Terra da Silva, Mrcia ; Chiosini, Elias L. and Schtzer Klaus, Assessment of service quality dimensions: a study in a vehicle repair service chain. 2. Hii Geng Hing, Stanley , Hotel Guest Satisfaction: A Gap 5 Study in Sibu. The Icfai Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 18-38, September 2007. 3. Jain ,Sanjay K and Gupta, Garima, Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF Scales, Vikalpa ,Volume 29 , No 2 , April - June 2004. 4. Lowndes, Michelle; Dawes John , Distinct SERVQUAL dimensions: A measure of service quality. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Vol. 16, 2, 2001 pp. 41-53 5. Prajapati, B.A.; Kachwala Tohid, Service Quality Measurement in Management Education Institutes. The Icfai Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 3552, November 2006 6. Rajagopal , Effects of customer service efficiency and market effectiveness on dealer Performance http://www.geocities.com/prof_rajagopal/homepage.html 7. Saravan, R and Rao, K.S.P, Service Quality From the Customers Perspective: An Empirical Investigation, Quality Management Journal, VOL.14, NO.3, 2007. 8. Swaid, I.Samar; Wigand, Rolf T., Key dimensions of E-commerce service quality and its relationships to satisfaction and loyalty .20th Bled e-Conference e-Mergence: Merging and Emerging Technologies, Processes, and Institutions June 4 - 6, 2007; Bled, Slovenia. 9. M.K.Rampal, S.L.Gupta., 2008, Chapter 21-23: Service Marketing: Concepts, Applications and cases, Galgotia Publishing Company, New Delhi, 289-315. 10. I. Kolanovic., J. Skenderovic., Z. Zenzerovic., Defining the Port Service Quality Model by using the Factor Analysis, Pomorstvo, god. 22, br. 2 (2008), str. 283-297. 11. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multipleitem scale for measuring consumer perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. 12. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1993). Research note: More on Improving Service Quality Measurement, Journal of Retailing, 69(1), 140-147. 13. KPMG Huazhen, 2007 a Sino-foreign joint venture in the Peoples Republic of China and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

49

ANNEXURE Questionnaire

50

51

52