Company Comparison of Customer Satisfaction

partnership Comparison of Customer blissCHAPTER FOURRESEARCH FINDINGS depth psychology AND INTERPRETATION4.1 INTRODUCTIONThis chapter attempts to analyse questionnaire findings regarding client satisfaction with the two arrive transport companies involved in the present study a publicly-owned smart set (referred to as follow A) and a privately-owned company (referred to as smart set B). Satisfaction rates of guests of some(prenominal) companies be as well as comp ard against each separate in Chapter Five to illustrate which company provides to a greater extent satisfactory serve ups to its customers. seventy questionnaires were distributed to the passengers of Company A and sixty to the passengers of Company B. Fifty questionnaires were completed by passengers of each company and returned to the seeker. This gives response rates of 71.4% and 83.3%, respectively. These return rates atomic number 18 acceptable response rates. Passengers who declined to participates either they claimed that they were none interested in the survey, whereas nigh other claimed they did not have the time to complete the questionnaire.4.2 FACTORS MOTIVATING guestS TO lot WITH THE COMPANY AResponses to the factors that have motivated the customers of this company are presented in tabularize 4.1 and illustrated in courses 4.1 to 4.3. Factors motivating customers are divided into trey groups reliableness and Customer answer (RCS) factors (eight factors), Convenience and accessibility (CA) factors (nine factors) and On-Board Services (OBS) (five factors). Responses to the eighteen statements are illustrated in Table 4.1. To facilitate data analysis, responses to the Strongly change course and Agree groups were feature and presented in somas 4.1 to 4.3 as SA/A. Similarly, for the Disagree and Strongly Disagree groups were combined as DA/SDA. The nary(prenominal)View responses (NV) were left as it is. Table 4.1 indicates that between 4% and 20.0% of responding pass engers declined to excerpt their imbibes. This indicates their indifference to the questionnaire items.Table 4.1. Reasons for choosing to travel with Company AVariablesSAANVDASDACAConvenient stockpile and ticketing76.016.08.00.00.0CAPrompt and unblemished reservation and ticketing44.040.016.00.00.0CAGood checking-in assist44.044.012.00.00.0CAFrequent tour programme40.040.020.00.00.0CAConvenient jaunt enumeration36.048.012.04.00.0CA stool allocation28.056.016.00.00.0RCS politeness of employees28.056.016.00.00.0RCSEmployees willingness to help passengers36.048.016.00.00.0RCSEmployees knowledge to state passengers questions40.048.08.04.00.0RCSPassengers are given personal attention44.040.08.04.04.0RCSNeat appearance of employees40.044.016.00.00.0RCS gum elastic of Driving44.044.08.00.04.0RCSSincere interest in understand problems36.044.016.04.00.0RCSOn-time surgery36.048.016.00.00.0OBSSeat comfort40.040.012.08.00.0OBSMeal wait on48.032.08.012.00.0OBSOn-Board cheer dish u ps40.044.04.04.08.0OBSUp-to-date jalopy and on-board facility40.044.04.04.08.0CA = Convenience and Accessibility RCS = Reliability and Customer Service OBS = On-Board Services4.2.1 SATISFACTION WITH gismo AND ACCESSIBILITY FACTORSPassengers (thereafter referred to as respondents) were asked to express their conformity or disagreement with the six items relating to convenience and accessibility factors Convenient reservation and ticketing (Item No. 1), Prompt and finished reservation and ticketing (Item No. 2), Good checking-in dish ((Item No. 3), Frequent journey programme (Item No. 4), Convenient journey schedule (Item No. 5), and Seat allocation (Item No. 6) (see Table 4.1, look 4.1). Patterns of their responses are analysed below. It is noted in Table 4.1 and pres ripen 4.1 that 92.0% of the respondents were convenient (strongly concur/agreed, SA/A) with the reservation and ticketing procedures undertaken by the company (Item No. 1). Only a littler minority of responden ts assigned their indifference to this item, whereas none of them disagreed with it. The mass of the respondents (88.0%) were at ease (SA/A) with check in service (Item No. 3) (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1), and a minority (12.0%) did not express their views, but none of the respondents were dissatisfy with this service. In terms of prompt and accurate reservation and ticketing (Item No. 2), convenient journey schedule (Item No. 5), and shadow allocation (Item No. 6) (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1), 84.0% of the respondents were satisfied with these three items, and totally 4.0% of the respondents were dissatisfy with convenient journey schedule (Item No. 5).4.2.2 SATISFACTION WITH RELIABILITY AND customer SERVICE FACTORSRespondents were asked to indicate their rate of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with eight items concerning reliability and customer service factors. The volume of respondents (88% of the sample) indicated that they were satisfied with employees knowledge to answer passenge rs questions (Item No. 9), and with synthetic rubber of driving (Item No. 12). Only 4.0% of the respondents were dissatisfied with these services and 8.0% of them indicated their indifference.With regard to tact of employees (Item No. 7), employees willingness to help passengers (Item No. 8), passengers are given personal attention (Item No. 10), Neat appearance of employees (Item No. 11) and on-time performance (Item No. 14), the majority of respondents were satisfied (SA/A) with these items. However, between 8.0% and 16.0% of the respondents expressed their indifference to these items, and only 4.0% to 8.0% of them were dissatisfied with some(a) of these items, as indicated in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.2. With regard to the item true(prenominal) interest in solving problems (Item No. 13), 80.0% of the respondents were satisfied with it, and 16.0% of them expressed their indifference, whereas only 40.0% of them disagreed with it.4.2.3 SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD SERVICE FACTORSRespo ndents were asked to indicate their rate of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with four items concerning on-board service factors. Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4 clearly show that 84.0% of the respondents were satisfied with on-board delight service (Item No. 17) and up-to-date coach and on-board facilities. However, 12.0% of them were dissatisfied and 4.0% expressed their indifference.Figure 4.3 also illustrates that 80.0% of the respondents were satisfied with the seat comfort (Item No. 15) and meal service (Item No. 16). However, 8.0% and 12.0% of the respondents were dissatisfied with Items No. 14 and 15, respectively, and 12.0% and 8.0% of them expressed their indifference with these two items, respectively. It ass be noted that more respondents were dissatisfied with these four services than with the other items in other two dimensions.4.3 FACTORS MOTIVATING CUSTOMERS TO DEAL WITH THE COMPANY BResponses to the factors that have motivated the customers of this company are presented in T able 4.21 and illustrated in Figures 4.4 to 4.4. Table 4.1 indicates that between 20% and 40.0% of the responding passengers declined to express their views. This indicates their indifference to the questionnaire items.4.2.1 SATISFACTION WITH CONVENIENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY FACTORSData presented in Table 4.2 and illustrated in Figure 4.4 show that 76.0% of the respondents were satisfied (strongly agreed/agreed, SA/A) with the reservation and ticketing procedures undertaken by the company (Item No. 1). However, the remain 24.0% of the respondents expressed their indifference to this item, whereas none of them disagreed with it. somewhat two-thirds of the respondents (68.0%) were satisfied (SA/A) with prompt and accurate reservation and ticketing, whereas the rest 32.0% of the respondents did not express their views, and none of the respondents were dissatisfied with this service (Table 4.2, Figure 4.4). With regard to the remaining four items (good checking-in service, Item No. 3 Fr equent journey programme, Item No. 4 Convenient journey schedule, Item No. 5 seat allocation, Item No. 6), 60.0% of the respondents were satisfied with these services. The remaining 40.0% of the respondents either expressed their indifference to these items, or were dissatisfied with them (Table 4.2, Figure 4.4).Table 4.2. Reasons for choosing to travel with Company AVariablesSAANVDASDACAConvenient reservation and ticketing36.040.024.00.00.0CAPrompt and accurate reservation and ticketing28.040.032.00.00.0CAGood checking-in service20.040.040.00.00.0CAFrequent journey programme16.044.032.08.00.0CAConvenient journey schedule20.040.032.04.04.0CASeat allocation24.036.028.04.08.0RCSCourtesy of employees16.046.030.04.04.0RCSEmployees willingness to help passengers20.042.026.08.04.0RCSEmployees knowledge to answer passengers questions16.042.032.04.06.0RCSPassengers are given personal attention18.034.038.06.04.0RCSNeat appearance of employees20.044.020.08.08.0RCSSafety of Driving10.042.024.0 12.012.0RCSSincere interest in solving problems12.040.032.012.04.0RCSOn-time performance16.030.036.012.08.0OBSSeat comfort20.028.032.016.04.0OBSMeal service16.012.040.020.012.0OBSOn-Board entertainment services12.024.044.012.08.0OBSUp-to-date coach and on-board facility16.044.024.04.012.0CA = Convenience and Accessibility RCS = Reliability and Customer Service OBS = On-Board Services4.3.2 SATISFACTION WITH RELIABILITY AND CUSTOMER SERVICE FACTORSRespondents were asked to indicate their rate of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with eight items concerning reliability and customer service factors. About two-thirds of the respondents (64.0% of the sample) indicated that they were satisfied with employees neat appearance (Item No. 11) (Table 4.2, Figure 4.5). One-fifth (20.0%) and 16.0% of the respondents expressed their indifference or dissatisfaction with this item.Most respondents (62.0% of the sample) were satisfied with the dexterity of the employees and employees willingness to help p assengers. However, many of them either expressed their indifference, or were dissatisfied with these services. slight than three-fifths (58.0%) of the were satisfied with employees knowledge to answer passengers questions (Item No. 9), and 32.0% of them expressed their indifference and 10.0% of them were dissatisfied. Around half of the respondents (52.0% of the sample) were satisfied with passengers are given personal attention (item no. 10), safety of driving (item no. 13), and sincere interest in solving problems (item no. 14). The remaining half either expressed their indifference or, to a lesser extent, was dissatisfied with these items. However, only 46.0% of the respondents were satisfied with on time performance (Item No. 14), and the remaining 54.0% of them either expressed their indifference or were dissatisfied with this item.4.3.3 SATISFACTION WITH ON-BOARD SERVICE FACTORSRespondents were asked to indicate their rate of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the four items relating to onboard service factors (Item No. 18) (Table 4.2, Figure 4.6). Figure 4.6 indicated that about two-thirds of the respondents (68.0% of the respondents) were satisfied with up-to-date coaches and on-board facilities, whereas the remaining respondents either did not express their views (16.0% of the sample) or were dissatisfied with this item. Data presented in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.6 clearly indicate that less than half of the respondents were satisfied with seat comfort (Item No. 15) (48.0%), meal service (Item No. 16) (38.0%), and on-board entertainment services (item No. 17) (44.0%). The remaining respondents (62.0% to 52.0% of the sample) either did not express their view or were dissatisfied with these items. On the whole, it can be said that more respondents either showed their indifference to these three items (30.0% to 36.0% of the sample) or were dissatisfied with them (20.0% to 32.0% of the sample).4.3 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTSThe demographic c haracteristics of the respondents from both companies, Company A, and Company B are analysed and compared in this section. Figure 4.7 clearly demonstrates that the majority of respondents of both companies (88.0%) were young between 21 and 50 year old. This is not surprising given that these ages represent people who are more active and more mobile than in other age groups. Forty-six respondents (92.0% of the sample) of Company A were Libyan nationals and the remaining four (8.0% of the sample) were Arab nationals. As for Company B, all fifty passengers were Libyan nationals. In terms of gender, 30 (60.0% of the sample) of Company A respondents were males, and the remaining twenty (40.0% of the sample) were females. As for Company B, 26 respondents (52.0% of the sample) were males and the remaining twenty-four (48.0% of the sample) were females. It can be argued that females represented a soaring proportion of the total number of respondents. As regards their income, Figure 4.8 c learly demonstrates that the majority of respondents of Company A (72.0% of the sample) and Company B (88.0% of the sample) were on the high remuneration scale of between Libyan Dinars (LD) 201 and over LD350. People with these high salaries, in the Libyan context, are those who can afford to travel more than swallow paid people.With regard to their occupation, the majority of respondents of both companies were managers, employees of a company, or brass employees (Figure 4.9). Respondents referring to themselves as professional or students were not represented in Company B sample. Most Company A respondents (60.0% of the sample) have been working for decimal points of 3 to more than 6 years, and 64.0% of Company B respondents were also working for that period of time. The remaining respondents have been working from less than one year to three years.As for their qualifications, Figure 4.10 indicates that the majority of respondents were highly qualified educationally. Most of th e respondents of both companies held Diplomas and Bachelors Degrees. In the following chapter, the rate of satisfaction with the eighteen questionnaire items indicated by the respondents of Company A and Company B will be compared and contrasted against each other. enquiry conclusions will be drawn out and recommendations for both companies and for future research are also outlined in the following chapter.