A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON A BOOK SHOP (PUNJAB BOOK DEPOT) IN BARNALA (PUNJAB)

BY USING SERVQUAL QUESTIONNAIRE

PROJECT GUIDE: Dr .S.Garimella Guest Faculty, LM Thapar School of Management, Patiala

TEAM MEMBERS
MANDEEP SINGH -500802507 SAMRITI SHARMA -500802509 DARPAN SINDHWANI -500902010 MANIK SOOD -500902024 MANOJ SAINI -500902026

PREFACE
This project work has been given to us by Mr. S. Garimella (Guest Faculty, Thapar University) for a group exercise as part of curriculum (Operations in Service Industry). We had given liberty to choose a service outlet of our own choice and work upon it. This project is all about analyzing quality measures. For this matter we chose, Punjab Book Depot (Barnala, Pb.) as our project organization. This outlet is dealing with books and stationary retails. This report is the outcome of primary research (survey). For primary research we would like to thank the employees of Punjab Book Depot. We would like to quote of thanks to Mr. Harish Kumar (Owner, Punjab Book Depot). He helped us throughout the survey. We are also thankful to the customers of PBD. Apart from the academic submission of this report to Mr. S. Garimella, we also will send this report to Punjab Book Depot. We would feel proud if this report helps them in their operations for any matter.

INDEX

METHODOLOGY FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS LIMITATIONS ANNEXURES

METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire included 27 questions designed to capture respondents' views on expectations of service, perceptions of the services and thus any gap between the two. Respondents were asked to score each question on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 represented low opinions of service and 7 high opinions.

Instrument Used:

ServQual

No.of Respondents: 25 Sampling Technique: Convenience

FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE WEIGHTED SCORE OF EACH FACTOR

Factors Average Tangible Weighted Score Average Reliability Weighted Score Average Responsiveness Weighted Score Average Assurance Weighted Score Average Empathy Weighted Score

Average score 20.32 21.08 20.04 18.92 19.64

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA

i)

Customers viewed the reliability aspects of the service as most important to them (ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately)

ii)

Tangible and responsiveness aspects of service are almost equally important.

iii)

Assurance is least important for the customers of Punjab Book Depot.

ON THE BASIS OF TANGIBILITY ASPECT

20 Wtd. Score=Score from table 1 ximpotane wt 10 0 -10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

-20
-30

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA (SEE ANNEXURE-I)

i)

There is a gap between perception and expectations in the tangible aspect.

ii)

More than 50% of the respondents are unsatisfied with the physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials. Since reliability is the second most important (weighted) factor considered by the customers. Thats why this has to be taken care of.

iii)

There is only one customer whose perception exceeded the expectations of tangibles provided by Punjab Book Depot

ON THE BASIS OF RELIABILITY ASPECT

25

Wtd. Score=Score from table 1 ximpotane wt

20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA (SEE ANNEXURE-II)

i)

Punjab book depot is able to match the expectations and perceptions of its almost 50% customers in Reliability Aspect.

ii)

Almost 40% customers are satisfied by ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.

ON THE BASIS OF RESPONSIVENESS ASPECT

15 Wtd. Score=Score from table 1 ximpotane wt 10 5

0
-5 -10 -15 -20 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA (SEE ANNEXURE-III)

i)

Some are customers (45%) are very much dissatisfied with the responsiveness aspect of Punjab Book Depot.

ON THE BASIS OF ASSURANCE ASPECT

45 40 Wtd. Score=Score from table 1 ximpotane wt 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-5
-10

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA (SEE ANNEXURE-IV)

i)

PBD employees are very courteous and they have ability to convey trust and confidence. This resulted in an excellent plot figure on PBDs record. There is almost one respondent whose perception does not match with the expectations.

ii)

ON THE BASIS OF EMPATHY ASPECT

30

Wtd. Score=Score from table 1 ximpotane wt

25 20 15 10 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -5 -10

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA (SEE ANNEXURE-V)

i)

PBD provides caring and individual attention to its customers. Therefore it has scored very high on the empathy aspects.

ON THE BASIS OF OVERALL

16 14 12 Average Wtd Score Overall 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

-2
-4 -6

SOURCE: PRESENTERS DATA (SEE ANNEXURE-VI)

i)

35% of the customers perceptions do not meet with the expectations. This is the serious matter of concern. PBD have to look upon the tangibles and responsiveness aspects of services to retain, acquire and expand their customer base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

i)

PBD lacks in physical evidence and service scape. In the image given below, one can easily observe that for the display of writing pens there is hardly allocated space.Display board can be used displaying writing stationary items to attract attention from consumers.

Pens are hanging on the racks. No designated space is there for pen display.

ii)

There is a difference b/w customer driven service design and standards & service delivery (GAP 3). To bridge that gap PBD can give training to its employees on How to deal with the customers.

iii)

Again there is one more aspect of matching supply with the demand which is factors of GAP 3. Since they have underutilized space at the first floor, PBD can utilize this space and provide its customer a better retailing experience.

LIMITATIONS

1. The owner of the shop was directly involved in the survey. Since the convenience sampling was used for the survey and most of the respondents were known to the owner. Thats why the results may differ in other sampling techniques like random and snowball sampling etc.

2. This survey is subject to particular shop and city. These results cannot be generalized. Results may vary in case of different city and shop. Because people possess different set of attributes in different cities. Peoples expectations and perceptions may also differ in different cities in context to book shops.

ANNEXURES
Annexure I Respondent SERVQUAL Dimension No. Score Importance Weight from FROM Table 2 TABLE 1 -0.75 -0.25 -0.25 0 0 -0.25 -0.25 -0.5 0 -0.25 0 -0.5 0 -0.5 0 0 0 0.5 -0.75 -0.75 -1 0 -0.25 -0.25 -0.2 Weighted Score

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible Average Tangible TOTAL AVERAGE (TOTAL/25)

20 15 15 15 20 15 15 20 25 25 20 15 40 18 20 25 20 20 25 25 15 20 20 20 20 508

-15 -3.75 -3.75 0 0 -3.75 -3.75 -10 0 -6.25 0 -7.5 0 -9 0 0 0 10 -18.75 -18.75 -15 0 -5 -5 -4 -119.25 -4.77

20.32

ANNEXURE II Respondent No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SERVQUAL Dimension Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Average Reliability Total AVERAGE Reliability (TOTAL/25) Score FROM TABLE Importance Weight from Weighted Score 1 Table 2 0 20 0 0.8 25 20 -0.2 25 -5 0 25 0 -0.2 20 -4 0.4 20 8 0 20 0 0 25 0 0.4 20 8 -0.4 20 -8 0 25 0 0 22 0 0.2 20 4 -0.2 20 -4 0.4 25 10 0 25 0 0 15 0 0.4 20 8 0.4 20 8 0.2 20 4 0 20 0 0 20 0 0 25 0 0 15 0 0.4 15 6 527 21.08 55 2.2

ANNEXURE III

Respondent No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SERVQUAL Dimension Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Average Responsiveness Total Average

Score FROM TABLE 1 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0 -0.25 0 0 0.5 -0.25 -0.25 0 -0.25 -0.5 -0.75 0 -0.75 -0.25 -0.25

Importance Weight from Weighted Table 2 Score 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 5 20 5 20 0 20 5 20 5 15 0 25 6.25 20 0 19 -4.75 20 0 27 0 20 10 25 -6.25 25 -6.25 20 0 15 -3.75 20 -10 15 -11.25 20 0 20 -15 15 -3.75 20 -5 501 20.04 -29.75 -1.19

ANNEXURE IV Respondent No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SERVQUAL Dimension Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Average Assurance Score FROM TABLE Importance Weight 1 from Table 2 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.5 0.25 0.25 -0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0 0 2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.5 Weighted Score 15 15 15 15 20 25 20 25 20 20 20 18 10 25 15 15 25 20 15 15 25 20 15 25 20 0 0 0 3.75 0 12.5 5 6.25 -5 5 0 4.5 2.5 12.5 7.5 0 0 40 3.75 3.75 6.25 5 3.75 5 10

Total Average

132 5.28

ANNEXURE V Respondent No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SERVQUAL Dimension Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Average Empathy Total Average Score FROM TABLE Importance Weight 1 from Table 2 1 ` 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.4 -0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 Weighted Score 25 25 25 25 20 20 25 10 20 10 15 26 10 10 20 10 15 20 25 20 25 20 20 25 25 25 25 5 5 0 4 0 4 -4 2 0 5.2 0 2 4 -2 -3 8 10 0 0 8 4 10 15 127.2 5.088

ANNEXURE VI

Respondent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

AVERAGE (= Total / 5) WEIGHTED SERVQUAL SCORE -4.2 -4 -2.45 -1.85 -1.65 -0.75 -0.51 -0.2 -0.2 -0.15 0 0.2 0.3 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.3 2 2.6 2.75 4.15 4.4 6.3 8.25 13.2