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

9 56. Staff Cooperation and Behaviour Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 42.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 12.7 28.9 52.3 33.1 56.5 30.950 Chisquare p-value 46. Speed of ATM and related service Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 6.7 48.4 0.0 0.0 4.0 10.0 0.169 0. Interacting on internet Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 13. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 82 39.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2 37.131 0.538 Chisquare p-value .0 10. Speedy Service Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 0.5 41.0 2.0 56.9 2.2 0.3 47.5 4.2 2.8 4.9 3.0 PRIVATE Percent 0.0 4.0 0.4 46.3 53.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC PRIVATE Percent 13.209 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 15.7 48.5 32.104 0.2 0.116 0.6 40.0 Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied 9.4 46.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 10.0 0.0 0.6 PRIVATE Percent 0.9 2.347 Chisquare p-value Type of Bank PUBLIC 11.6.

0 14.578 Chisquare p-value .0 0.7 0.9 50.0 46.9 40.0 PRIVATE Percent 20.906 0.666 0.8 56.0 3.7 48.0 0.974 0.2 45.0 42. Loan and related facilities with clear and standard terms and conditions Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.6 0. problem solving attitude / specific staff Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 15.2 0.0 4.272 Chisquare p-value Type of Bank PUBLIC 16.002 Chisquare p-value Type of Bank PUBLIC 14. Better rate of interest Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 15.5 8.8 6.0 0.0 10.6.0 34.4 0.0 30.033 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 6.1 PRIVATE Percent 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 83 Type of Bank PUBLIC 13.0 0.0 Type of Bank PRIVATE Percent 6.2 57.8 35.825 0.7 37.0 1. Variety of service Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.2 50.0 39.3 0.7 28.4 4.4 0.9 4.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 15.0 2.7 57.

0 0.260 Chisquare p-value .0 26.0 39.0 24.0 19.0 2.431 Chisquare p-value Type of Bank PUBLIC 19.867 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 0.4 39.0 26.9 Chisquare 3.2 2.1 47.8 10. payment and other facility Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.0 17.0 0.757 0. New product and services Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.285 0.0 0. Online Service .008 Type of Bank PUBLIC 18.7 55.0 8.5 PRIVATE Percent 0.651 0.2 Type of Bank PUBLIC 20.4 55.0 6.6 0.8 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 84 Chisquare PUBLIC 17.1 66.7 p-value 9.7 44.7 56.013 0. Frequency of response Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.5 34.0 4.452 PRIVATE Percent 0.1 37.7 2.0 30.8 PRIVATE Percent 0.3 PRIVATE Percent 8.6.671 p-value 0.6 17.0 0. Presence Geographically Highly dissatisfied Percent 4.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 21.4 50.9 2.6 20.4 26. Home service like delivery of cash Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.2 31.

7 33. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 85 13.2 8.9 41.3 47.4 4.7 13.6. Quality of Service and Staff Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 6.3 32.3 6.7 2.2 26.4 24.0 Type of Bank PUBLIC 23.2 Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Type of Bank PUBLIC 22.0 2.1 0.8 PRIVATE Percent 4. Data protection and privacy of individual details Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Percent 0.3 0.185 0.2 13.785 Chisquare p-value Type of Bank PUBLIC 24.2 34.6 0. Better Competitor Offerings Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 15.7 4.0 PRIVATE Percent 31.5 19.4 28.9 3.1 26.477 Chisquare p-value .506 0.0 13.4 42.066 0. Well trained and matures Staff to handle errors and critical situations etc Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 0.3 41.6 41.0 41.7 22.181 0.8 0.085 Chisquare p-value PRIVATE Percent 8.0 21.382 Chisquare p-value Type of Bank PUBLIC 25.1 2.0 22.6 31.0 PRIVATE Percent 4.2 37.3 31.2 35.0 10.0 1.9 26.

Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 6.2 % of respondents are moderately dissatisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 51.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 4.7 41.3 37.6 35.9 %. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 86 43.8 46.3 30.2 6.5 19.032 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 .501 0.877 and p value 0. • Understanding Customer expectation Response from various respondents indicates that customers from both banks are moderately dissatisfied.4 0.806 and p value 0.3 % of respondents are neutral where as in case of Private Banks it is 28. .0 it shows that this factors is significant and need to be focused by both Public Banks and Private banks.7 2. • 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 customer 54.7 Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Type of Bank PUBLIC 26. 24X7 –Telephonic support Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Percent 6.0 PRIVATE Percent 0.6.6 26.After analyzing the various factors considered in research it is observed that following 8 factors are significant as compared to other factors.Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank 52.097 it shows that this factors is significant and need to be focused by both banks.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 17. 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 55.5 21.670 and p value 0.6 %.0 13.1%.165 Chisquare p-value Analysis: .

666 and p value 0.888 and p value 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 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.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 6.8 % of respondents are Highly Satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 66.5 % of respondents are neutral where as in case of Private Banks it is 28.085 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Private Banks.008 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Public Banks.8 % of respondents who are moderately satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 26. • Well trained and Mature Staff to handle Errors and critical situations etc Response from various respondents indicates that in Public Bank have 47. • 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.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 8.651 and p value 0. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank only 56.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 9. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank only 39. Comparing Public and Private Banks it is observed that in Public Bank 56. • Online service .181 and p value 0.825 and p value 0.9 %.7 %.032 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Private Banks. payment and other services Response from various respondents indicates that Bank in Public Bank only 34.1 % of respondents are highly satisfied where as in case of Private Banks it is 57.5 % of respondents are neutral where as in case of Private Banks it is 28.002 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused. 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.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 14.9 %. Though Private banks .033 it shows that this factor is significant and need to be focused by Public Banks.Calculating and understanding the Chi Value that is 14.7 %.6.8 %. Above details shows that respondent from Private Banks feel higher risk while using internet facility from bank as compared to Public bank customers.

CRM Interpretation & Analysis 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.

0 23 .6 100.8 34. Question Set Main I was having 45 questions and all questions were discussed with Bank Staff to understand their views on the same. 0 12.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 10.7 20.5 29.0 Chisquare value p valu e 9. To understand the response of staff on each question table were made with response from different level from Top Management.0 20.8 100.0 0.3 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.7 15.0 15. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 6. 0 13. Detail analysis of each question is done on Public and Private Bank Respondednts.0 0.0 Total publi privat c e 10.6 31. Middle Management and Lower Management in each Bank.6.Though we have CRM.8 9.71* 0.3 12. Each point is observed and comments are made against the responses which were found significant. 1: . Annexure 2 Table A2-3 to A2-6 shows details frequency distribution for each bank with different respondents.0 33. I believe that people are not using it adequately. Response was aligned in form of tables and final Total is calculated from the Frequency count against each response.3 100.7 100.0 50.1 16.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.7 20.7 21. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.5 24.1 100.6 14.0 0. 0 9.4 23.0 45.0 100.5 100.5 22.0 33. Then Chi Square and p value is calculated using SPSS software as shown below table. Question set has been divided into different form to have a clear view of individual segment.6 26. 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.0 22.Public Banks are SBI.7 39.7 17.3 0. PNB and Private Banks are ICICI & HDFC.4 25.4 22. 0 50.3 6.3 0.7 100.

0 50.32 .0 100.0 43. 2: . CRM Interpretation & Analysis 90 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.0 0.9 100.8 %.0 21.1 24.7 % are moderately dissatisfied and in case of Private Banks 20.2 21. 0 100. 0 0.0 17.2 15. 0 4.0 39.0 31.2 43.650 0.7 10.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 10.6.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 20. Most respondents that is 34.3 20.8 100.7 12.0 17.5% respondents are moderately dissatisfied.On the whole I am satisfied with CRM here.5 100.2 13. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0. 0 8.5 22.5% and in Public Banks it is 12.0 Chisquare value p valu e 10.0 100.0 0. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 15.6 100.1 32. In case of Public Banks it is observed that CRM implementation is still a high concern.0 50.9 38. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.2 100.0 Total publi privat c e 13.4 18.5 0.6 15.0 100.8 47.5 8.9 20. So CRM Implementation to full extend in both sectors is very important and need to be focused by individual sectors.

1 19.5 17.3 0.5 16.0 100.6 13.1 12.0 33.9 19.1 100.6 11.820* 0.7 23.2 40.1 20.7 % are moderately dissatisfied and in case of Private Banks 23. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.2 31.7 22.6.0 Chisquare value p valu e 5.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 26.0 33. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 91 3: .5% . 0 100.3 21.8 100.0 0.1 25.4 31.7 15.5 10.0 0.0 100.1 20. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents are still not happy with CRM implementation.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 21.0 100. 0 100.3 0.05 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. 0 100.3 0.1 21.I feel secure and happy with CRM in the bank so far.1 11.0 0. Most respondents that is 36.0 27.6 21. 0 100.0 36.5 13.0 Total publi privat c e 23.0 9.1 12.3 5.

3 privat e 0.2 Total publi c 10.3 0.1 31. 34 Top Mgt Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied publi c 0.0 20.0 5.8 13.7 21.0 privat e 0.8 3.840 5:-I think.0 100.6 20.0 Total publi c 8.3 100. 0 privat e 10. p va lu e 0.5 31.8 14.8 13.1 23.1 15.6. 0 privat e 3.5 26.0 0.5 22. additional inputs are needed.1 privat e 2.8 44.1 27.0 Middle mgt publi c 10.3 26. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 12.7 26.2 30.0 50.0 50.7 100.0% and in Public Banks it is 9. 44 0 Top Mgt Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total publi c 0.0 33.300 .9 28.0 Lower mgt publi c 11.2 29.3 100.5 13. 0 privat e 0.7 13.7 100.0 Chisquare value 12. So CRM Implementation to full extend in both sectors is very important and need to be focused by individual sectors.0 privat e 50. 0 privat e 6.3 33. p va lu e 0.0 13.3 100.4 17.1 25.6 33.0 33. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 92 respondents are moderately dissatisfied.6 26.0 7.0 0. 4: -CRM needs to be improved in Bank.0 0.0 Middle mgt publi c 0.5 100.0 0.0 Chisquare value 6.1 %.7 Lower mgt publi c 21.0 100.0 5.

3 0.3 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 93 0.9 20.1 100.3 50.3 33.6.8 16.7 21.5 14.0 19.0 Chisquare value p valu e 4.7 31. 0 100. 0 100.1 14. 0 35.0 50.8 17.3 33.360 0.0 100.5 31.3 24.5 30. 0 43.7 100.3 20.0 100.6 33.0 50.7 26.1 21.0 Total publi privat c e 2.4 9.7 11.2 30.9 24.0 27.0 0.0 10. 0 0 6: -CRM leads to improved performance in Bank Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.7 32.0 21.5 20. 0 100.2 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 0.0 100.0 0.0 17.5 10. 0 31.7 31.7 30.0 31. 0 100.0 33.5 29.3 24.5 41.4 18.0 36.0 10.6 8.7 100.5 29.0 33.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.0 100.0 Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total 33.5 26.3 100.0 33.7 26.72 .8 100.2 100.4 26.0 0.3 13.1 21.3 100.

5 100.0 Chisquare value p valu e 5.0 33.0 0.1 26.8 22.4 25.3 25.3 19.1 8. 0 100.7 21.0 29.6.2 13.60 8: -Do you think better work will be done.0 0.5 16.5 31.3 0.9 12.5 15.0 Total publi privat c e 6.3 0.7 35.0 33. if CRM is made better.2 27.0 0. 0 100.1 21.0 12. .2 10.0 7.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 6. 0 100.0 35.300 0.0 33.4 21. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 94 7:-In Bank business is primarily based on relations. 0 100.1 100.3 100. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.8 15.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.0 30.7 19.0 100.0 17.5 100.8 21.7 40.

0 0.0 0.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 6.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 3.7 39.7 0.6 32.1 17.0 0. 0 100.0 29.0 Total publi privat c e 4.3 14. 0 100.0 33.2 11.8 26.5 100.5 30.670 0.9 38.7 33.6 38.0 4.7 29.8 13.6 100.9 11.2 100.1 26.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 8.0 Chisquare value p valu e Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.5 19.0 66.8 14.9 5.6 16.7 16.4 21.5 17.6.0 31. 0 100.2 36.0 100.0 20.0 66.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5. 0 100.3 55.7 0.0 50.0 3.1 33.0 0. 0 100.8 5.42 .0 0.0 36.0 30.7 13.0 100.7 31.4 26.7 20.0 7.0 0.7 50.0 Total publi privat c e 4.7 100.6 27.1 10.3 50.0 25.8 19.5 16.9 38. 0 100.7 20.5 100.3 0.5 100.0 17.9 13.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7. 0 100.33 9: -Do you think time has come to make use of CRM extensively in Banks. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.1 26.0 7.1 22.8 8. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 95 Middle mgt publi privat c e 0.0 50.380 0.0 33.7 17. 0 100.0 27.

0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 0.0 100.0 0. 0 100.44 11: -CRM is going to improve the business in Banks.5 33.0 0.750 0. 0 100.0 19.5 42.0 4.0 0.1 21.6 22.0 66.2 30. 0 100.2 11.0 33.0 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 96 10: -CRM is very important in service organization like Banks.9 19.0 Chisquare value p valu e 5.5 0.4 10.0 29.5 18.0 3. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.4 48.0 19.8 16.1 41.0 4.0 Total publi privat c e 0.6.7 100.7 100.0 0.0 40.1 40.5 100.2 21.8 19.0 15.0 6.7 100. 0 100.5 31.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 0. .3 0.7 29.

5 26. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 0.0 0.2 15.0 100.6.0 Total publi privat c e 6.4 26.7 100.5 15.3 22.0 30.1 42.5 100.2 33.0 50. 0 100.5 29.0 0.3 32.6 0.3 0.7 17.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 6.7 10.2 30.36 .8 6.3 50.3 26.1 30.6 20.4 100.7 31.9 22.0 17.0 33.0 10.0 33.5 47.5 100.5 28.3 0.0 Total publi privat c e 8.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7.0 10.0 0.7 21.3 100. 0 100.0 0.6 100.3 0.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 15.0 100.5 26.2 30.5 12.5 10.7 26.0 33.4 20.4 10. 0 100.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7.7 14. 0 100. 0 100.760 0.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.3 29.6 21.2 20.3 12.0 0.5 25. 0 100.0 33.0 10.3 0.0 0.790 0.0 26. 0 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 97 Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33. Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 100.5 19.3 20.7 26.8 18.0 33.3 8.6 30.0 21.0 18.0 24.40 12: -CRM is better than any other management system.9 14.2 24.0 13.0 16.

4 16.8 100.2 100. 0 100.6.0 25.9 27.1 25. 0 100.9 20.0 13.7 12.2 23.8 24.0 0. 0 100.9 24. 0 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 98 13: -Customers will increase with CRM Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 66.0 Chisquare value p valu e 8.2 26.32 .2 27.3 21.7 12.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.1 15.5 100.8 36.1 39.0 33.9 18.3 0.2 20.0 Total publi privat c e 11.0 0.0 25.0 100.7 0.0 0.1 8.0 50.0 50.0 13.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 8.7 16.8 15.1 13.200 0.7 27.5 23.0 0.

0 100. 0 100.0 33.05 .9 13.0 40.3 0.0 21.0 33.1 16.0 24.3 0. 0 100.0 0.3 50.0 0.0 0. 0 100.5 100.5 23.1 44.0 100.300 0.0 100.0 0.6 6.3 40.0 33.3 0.7 30.0 50.0 28.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 10.5 21.0 50.7 14.1 13.4 26.2 29.0 33.0 0.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 3.1 26. 0 100.9 7.3 14.4 12.7 12.3 30. 0 100.5 11.29* 0.3 100.41 15:-Have you implemented CRM guidelines? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.3 29.9 10.8 23.0 100.2 10.0 26.5 10.0 36.7 0.8 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 99 14: -Have you managed customers according to CRM? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.6 16.5 100.5 100.0 17.2 25.6 44.0 0.0 29.6.0 33.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 3.7 21.4 39.2 36.1 18.0 0.0 Total publi privat c e 6.7 21.0 16.0 66.8 27.0 Chisquare value p valu e 3.2 26.0 0.0 Total publi privat c e 4.7 33.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7. 0 100.1 100.1 44.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.4 18.0 36. 0 100.0 6.0 50.3 0.

1 16.0 0.5 23.0 50.3 0.5 100.0 36.3 19.9 30.5% and in Public Banks it is 10.2 38.5 18.3 50.3 23. 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 .In case of Private Banks 33.9 35.0 21.5% respondents are moderately satisfied.5 10.2 24.3 22.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 10. 0 100.2 100.1 13.5 29. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 100 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.7 20. 0 100.1 6.6 38.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 23.7 26.7 26. 0 100.0 33.5 12.6 4.0 0.0 19.0 Total publi privat c e 9.6 3.6.37 0 .6 5.8 25. Employees feel once policy framed then there is no issue but if any thing not defined in policy that is not followed .0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 5.0 0.0 23. 0 100.0 100.670 0.8 %. 16:-Have you evaluated CRM? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.0 33.3 0.0 100.

In case of Private Banks 44.9 30.9 26.7 % are moderately dissatisfied. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that customers are not as per customer orientation Most respondents that is 30.3 22.0 0.0 17.5 15.0 26.5% .5 0.0 Chisquare value p valu e 4.6. 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 23.9 39.7 0.0 0.0 10.5 100.7 24.0 30.7 21.2 56.5 32.7 50.0 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 101 17:-Are your CRM practices customers oriented? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.7 44.0 Total publi privat c e 4.1 21.0 0.1 31.730* 0.4 100.0 50.3 8.2 30.0 0. 0 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 0.0 66.04 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case. 0 100.3 0.0 100. 0 100.0 33.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 6.5 37.0 38.0 0.3 0.

8 5.0 33.1 100.0 0. 0 100.0 0. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 5.4 21.010 0.1 11.6.So CRM Practices need to be modified in case of Public Sector where as in case of Private Banks it need some alignment only.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 0.9 26.8 4.3 33.5 15.2 19.5 13.0 Total publi privat c e 4.47 .7 10.1 %.9 30.5 13.0 100.8 5.1 35.0 3.5 19.2 31.5 20.0 33.0 50.5 100.0 33.0 0.1 100.1 21. 0 100.47 19: -Have you improved customer handling? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.3 0.3 28.2 29.5 34.6 11.0 11.4 26.3 0.0 0.3 0.5 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 17.0 Total publi privat c e 8.0 0.110 0.6 23.7 29.6 24.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7.8 37. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 102 respondents are moderately satisfied.7 27.6 18.5 35.0 0.2 15.3 50.3 30.8 37. 0 100.5 41.0 0. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0% and in Public Banks it is only 15.6 12.1 16.0 28.0 100.0 10.3 43.3 15.5 23.0 19.7 0.8 40.5 100.4 29. 0 100.0 66. 0 100. 18:-Have redesigned jobs according to the requirement of CRM? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.6 10.2 21.0 0.5 21.0 Chisquare value p valu e 6.6 21.8 5.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 0.0 100.2 24.2 15. Where as highly satisfaction level in Private Banks is 31.

3 35. 0 100. 0 100.0 0. 0 100.6.0 0.0 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 0.4 25.0 36.0 11.0 66. 0 100.0 50.4 0.1 5.0 30.8 30.0 14. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 103 20: -Have you improved relations with the customers? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 21.4 36.9 21.0 13.8 33.0 Total publi privat c e 4.51 .7 27.5 100.2 5.7 50.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 8.8 100.0 100.0 42.0 33.5 5.1 32.0 Chisquare value p valu e 4.8 28.1 10.6 24.920 0.0 0.1 43.9 0.7 40.0 0.

0 Chisquare value p valu e 4.1 14.6 27.6 13.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 17.5 100.7 21.9 29.5 15.0 33.0 0.6 30.1 15.5 31.5 10.7 100.8 21.3 0.0 0.1 21.3 17.5 22.0 100.0 0.1 27.2 18.7 100.4 31.0 0.8 10.1 13.750 0.8 15.0 66. 0 100.4 24.0 50.68 .0 Total publi privat c e 13.3 14.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 10. 0 100.6 21. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 104 21: -Have you prepared your people to work in CRM environment? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.6. 0 100.3 26.5 21.7 50.7 12.0 28. 0 100.

0 100.9 49.6.5 100.5 12.6 12.7 21.0 100.7 26.5 21.7 100.1 29.8 6. 0 100.7 18. 0 100.3 0.3 0.5 21.990 0.0 100.1 0.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.3 0.7 22.8 20.0 17. 0 100.0 33.8 38.7 15.0 8.0 Total publi privat c e 8.0 33.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 12.7 17. 0 100.9 24.0 33.5 35.0 21.42 .5 26.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7.2 31.2 0.0 33.0 0.0 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 105 22: -Have you benchmarked your organization performance with best practices of other banks? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.9 25.9 13.

0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.5 31.6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 106 23: -Have you driven out the fear? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 0.8 45.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 8.7 5.1 33.0 33.5 36.0 33.0 16.0 11.5 100.0 100.6 5.1 26.0 100.9 0.0 5.0 33. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 0. 0 100.0 Chisquare value p valu e 5.9 42.0 0.5 26.0 Total publi privat c e 2. 0 100.5 24.3 0.8 49.0 100.0 Chisquare value p valu e 10.3 44.0 26.6 16.8 100.5 100.3 0.5 25.3 0.0 50.2 100.6 20. 0 100.0 100.6 0.1 8.1 55.3 0.1 8.5 11.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.8 34.5 9. 0 100. 0 100.0 17.8 31.7 25.0 50.0 0.490 0.3 26.0 0.0 33. 0 100. 0 100.0 19.1 54.8 31.6 0.6 37.840 0.0 33.8 10.55 24: -Have you adopted an organization culture with shared version.7 5.0 21.1 18.0 66.8 31.5 2.30 . values and analysis? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.4 2.7 50.0 0.8 2.0 0.1 22.0 26.0 6.8 21.1 7.0 50.0 Total publi privat c e 6.3 27.5 36.6 31.

3 0.9 13.0 Chisquare value p valu e 8.0 35.0 18.6 100.0 Total publi privat c e 8. 0 100.0 100.0 33.8 27.5 25.0 33.9 24.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 12.0 33.35 . 0 100.0 0.7 24.5 100.5 100.8 26.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.6.0 100.0 33.7 27.4 24.450 0.0 0.7 21.0 10.7 5.1 21.3 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 107 25: -Has organization taken transformation initiative? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.8 17.0 29.6 7.2 33. 0 100.8 5.8 15.2 41.0 19.3 0. 0 100.7 32.8 9.2 11.1 10.

6 17.Have you evaluated management skills? Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 25.9 26.0 0. 0 100.0 16.8 29. 0 100.4 2.5 31.0 0.1 5.0 11.7 50.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.25 .3 50.8 35.0 33.0 33.1 5.1 21.3 0.0 0.9 17.0 23.0 27.7 100.5 41.0 33.8 54.0 0.0 0.3 100. 0 100.0 100.6.0 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 108 26: .4 35.0 42.8 34.0 100. 0 100.6 5.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 0.3 50.5 24.380 0.0 Chisquare value p valu e 7.0 Total publi privat c e 2.5 7.

7 5.9 70.6 33.0 37.0 33.7 17. 0 27.0 36.0 35.0 100.5 35.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 30.0 100.0 100.1 42.2 20. 0 31.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 47. Y/N Top Mgt publi privat c e 66. 0 24.1 100.4 9.6 0.0 6.0 0.2 48.6 13.0 0.0 0.8 100.0 Total publi privat c e 4. 0 100.5 100.0 60.2 52. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 27: -Do you feel motivated with CRM polices? 109 Satisfaction level Highly dissatisfied Moderately dissatisfied Neutral Moderately satisfied Highly satisfied Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.8 2.5 49.0 50.7 21.0 50.0 5.6 100.6.3 36.0 0.520 0.0 100.0 Chisquare value p valu e 8. 0 0.53 . 0 100.0 24. 0 100.8 41.7 0.3 100.35 28:-Identifying potential.1 100.6 5.2 59.06 Satisfaction level No Yes Total p value 0.5 6.0 Total publi privat c e 39.0 0.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.7 17.8 49.0 64.8 100.6 0.8 26.0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 5.0 Chisquare value 1.2 50.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 5.

9 100.4 46.0 Total publi privat c e 43. 0 43.37 0.5 100. 0 49.0 Chisquare value p valu e 2.1 62.7 100.5 57.0 50. 0 49.38 .3 50. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 110 29:-Identify training needs. 0 100.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0. Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 53.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 37. 0 100.6.6 100.8 56.

4 40.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 57.0 60.9 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 111 30: -Generating data for key skills.7 50.6 42.42 31:-I feel CRM is just a formality Y/N Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.0 33. 0 100.9 55.5 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 50.6 64. 0 100.0 100.0 66.7 50.5 64.4 35.4 52.2 35. Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 66.07 Satisfaction level No Yes Total p value 0.8 66.6.0 100.1 100.2 33.0 Total publi privat c e 39.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 44.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 47.4 100.6 51.3 50.0 100. 0 100.0 49.3 50. 0 100.13 p valu e 0.0 Chisquare value 1. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 35. 0 100.1 52.6 60.0 Chisquare value 2.0 100.6 47.8 64.4 49.58 .

2 43.8 56.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 38.0 66.4 43. 0 100.9 100.5 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 112 32:-I feel parameters used in our present CRM are relevant. 0 100. Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.6.9 43.0 Total publi privat c e 43.6 .0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 52.0 100.3 50.9 61. 0 100.5 56.1 56.6 56. 0 100.91 p value 0.1 100.0 Chisquare value 0.7 50.1 47.

0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 46. 0 100.78 p valu e 0.7 50.3 46.7 53.6.0 66. 0 100. Y/N .5 59.7 44.0 Chisquare value 0.0 Total publi privat c e 40.5 100.0 100.7 49.1 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 113 33.3 55.9 100.3 50. 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 36.3 50. 0 100.9 63.I feel business is better with CRM rather then without Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.1 53.63 34:-Inflexibility to change.

0 100. 0 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 114 Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 100.2 61.0 Chisquare value p valu e 2.8 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 32.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 47.1 100.0 100. 0 0.0 58.9 52.0 100.2 31.0 0.8 100. 0 68.6 64.0 100.37 .2 100. 0 30.6.0 100.19 0.1 100.4 100.4 41.0 Total publi privat c e 38.4 69. 0 55.34 0. 0 42.36 35:-Insupportable technology Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 0.2 67.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 35.0 Total publi privat c e 39.4 100.6 100.8 44. 0 59.6 100. 0 0.0 60.0 100. 0 59.9 62.8 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 37.0 Chisquare value p valu e 2.0 100.0 100.6 40.

0 60.3 73.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 26.0 100. 0 100.6 61.0 65.0 66.9 63.3 0.6 100.7 42.8 69.0 Chisquare value 1.0 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 39.9 p valu e 0.37 p valu e 0.3 69. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 115 36: -Delayed responsiveness across the organization Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 66.49 . 0 100.3 35.7 100.41 37: -losses faced by the organization Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.4 62.1 100.7 100.0 Chisquare value 2.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 46.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 36.7 65. 0 100. 0 100.3 0.0 Total publi privat c e 34.9 53.6.3 57.7 100.0 33.2 30.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 37.1 100.9 58. 0 100.4 39.7 30.0 100.1 41. 0 100.

5% respondents says YES..7 31.0 100.6. 0 100.3 100.1 52.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 34.0 100.7 50. . Public banks feel they are ready and slowly and slowly improving to face competition. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that they are ready for competition Most respondents that is 59.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 47. 0 100.3 % states YES .0 Chisquare value 2.3 69. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 116 38: -Ready to face competition.05 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.0 Total publi privat c e 40.In case of Private Banks 69.8 56. Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.2 43.0 59.4 15. So here is the major significance in highly satisfaction level in both sectors.04* p valu e 0. 0 100.6 84.9 100. Employees in private sector feel that customer’s expectations from private banks are very high so need 100% accuracy to retain them. 0 100.3 50.7 65.0 66.

0 52.0 Total publi privat c e 47.3 68.2 60.Employees in private sector feel that customer’s expectation from private banks are very high so need 100% accuracy to retain them.0 Chisquare value 2.11* p value 0. 0 100.0 100. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that they have resources and there is an improvement on date but still 64.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 37.6 69.9 45.0 33. 100.0 66.5 100. 0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 35.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 51.7 0.3 50.4 31.0 100.6 55.1 54.2 68.9 70.6 % says YES.7 31.33* p valu e 0.5 53.In case of Private Banks 55% respondents stated YES .0 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 31.0 64. 40:-Improved performance Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.6 100.8 39.4 45.0 Chisquare value 1.8 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 46. 100. Y/N 117 Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 66. Employees feel they have started rotational job but still results are to be achieved as compared to private banks .6. 0 100.3 48. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 39: -Underutilization of resources. 0 100.3 100. 0 100.7 100. 0 100.4 62.04 .1 29.7 50.0 100.034 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.

0 100. 41: -As a status symbol Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33. 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 52.1 100.6 % .0 Chisquare value 1.0 Total publi privat c e 37.9 55.9 68.6.0 62.3 0. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 118 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.4 36. 0 100.0 100.6 42: -Satisfied customer Y/N .0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 31.7 31.1 100.0 100.In case of Private Banks 69% respondents say YES on improved performance .0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 44.0 66.6 64.02 p valu e 0. 0 100.4 43.6 56.7 100. 0 100.3 68.

42* p valu e 0.5 100.6.0 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.7 46.3 50.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 46.1 48. Employees feel that they have limited customers and public sector has improved a lot in terms of last impression.2 43. 100.7 53.2 19.0 33. 0 100.7 32.7 50. 43: -More Business Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 66.8 100.5 67. 0 100.5% respondents says YES.0 48.3 53. In case of Private Banks 53. 0 100.9 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 42.9 51.7 0. Employees in private sector feel that customer’s expectation from private banks are very high so need 100% accuracy to retain them.1 78. 100.05 .04 Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.8 80.3 100.2 47.0 Chisquare value 1.Most respondents that is 67. In case of Public Banks it is observed that respondents fell that customers are satisfied . 0 100.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 52.3 67.0 100.0 100.26* p valu e 0.3 % says YES.1 100.0 100.0 Total publi privat c e 51. In terms of ATM networks they have largest as compared to private sector. 0 100.0 66.0 Total publi privat c e 32.3 100. 100.6 75.4 25.8 56.0 Chisquare value 1. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 119 Middle mgt publi privat c e 21.9 57.

Private sector is more confident on business growth as compared to public sector.0 66.In case of Private Banks 75% respondents say YES .2 49.12 p valu e 0.4 48.2 67. 0 100.8 43.0 100.3 0.0 Chisquare value 1. 0 100.9 59.6 100.1 40.0 58. 0 100.0 100.8 50.54 .8 100.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 32.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 51. 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 . 0 100. 44: -Is it results in satisfaction level of customer? Y/N Satisfaction level No Yes Total Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.Only 48.7 100.0 Total publi privat c e 41.6. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 120 From the table and graph it is analyzed that results are significant in this case.2 57.6 % respondents feel that they are having better business opportunity as compared to private sector .

63 Satisfaction level No Yes Total .0 Total publi privat c e 40.6.0 Chisquare value 0.9 100.7 44. 0 100. 0 100.5 59.7 53.3 55.0 66.0 Middle mgt publi privat c e 46.5 100. 0 100. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 121 45: -Do customers give references to other people of your Bank? Y/N Top Mgt publi privat c e 33.3 46.3 50.0 Lower mgt publi privat c e 36.0 100.9 63.1 100.3 50. 0 100.1 53.7 50.78 p valu e 0.7 49.

First for Public Sector. In each case questions were asked to 100 respondents. Second for Private Sector and Third for Total. Detail Correlation tables are attached in Appendix 4 . It seems that if banks will solve customer problem efficiently they will feel satisfied. CRM Interpretation & Analysis 122 A Paired Sample Correlation Analysis is applied for customer review. response is significant or highly significant. It is applied on questions.131 0.186 .131.50 respondents were considered in case of each bank Section E no 1 to 10 (Refer Appendix 1). But when total respondents were taken Total Correlation value is 0. 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. Refer Appendix 4. In case of Public Banks it is observed that Correlation is 0.242 0.From these table of Correlation details were analyzed. Three different Correlations were run.186 Analyzing the details it is observed that these questions are positive correlated with each other . Those case have been analyze below A 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 .242 and in case of Private Banks it is 0. 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.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.6. From Final Total Correlation table above it was found that in three cases. 0 = No ) Private Banks Correlation ( Refer Table Correlation Public Banks ) N=65 Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Total ) N=127 0.

0 = No ) Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Total ) N=127 0. 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 . CRM Interpretation & Analysis 123 B 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 .098 -0. Respondent response shows that against the problem solving attitude they . Analyzing the details it is observed that these questions are negatively correlated with each other but of significance. 0 = No ) Private Banks Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Public Banks ) N=65 Correlation (Refer Table Correlation Total ) N=127 -0.6.233 -0.Analyzing the details it is observed that these questions are negatively correlated with each other as per table .248 Seeing the table generated by SPSS software it is observed the value is highly significant .0281 -0.When most of the respondents were asked that you will again come in future then customer’s response shows negative correlation of the same to give reference of banks to others.192 Seeing the Total Correlation Table generated by SPSS Software the value is Significant.275* -0.

6. . CRM Interpretation & Analysis 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.