Download - Report of Nazmul-2003
A STUDY ON
Consumer satisfaction and attitude of Lucas battery
For the partial fulfillment of the course Research Methodology (MGT-411)
Name: Md Nazmul Islam
8thsemester (A)
Roll No.06671599
Under the supervision of-
Md. Shahidul Islam FakirAssistant Professor
Department of Management StudiesJagannath University
Dhaka.
Submission Date: June 21, 2012
Department of management studies
Jagannath University, Dhaka.
Introduction
1.1 Origin of the study
This report has been a part of BBA program supervised by Mr. Shahidul Islam Fakir, Assistat
Professor, Department of Management studies, Jagannath University. This report has been prepared on
“Consumer satisfaction and attitude of Lucas battery” at Rahimafrooz Ltd.
1.2 Problem Identification
Satisfying customers are the only way to stay competitive in today's marketplace. The balancing act
between what customers want and what company can provide must be optimized in order to maximize
company’s long-term profits. Lucas Battery already is in a good position in the consumer mind but by
understanding the customer satisfaction level, it will help the company to exceed the present level of
customer satisfaction.
For the last few years other battery companies’ growth is remarkable. The market share of Lucas is
high. Major portion of battery market is being captured by Lucas battery. Navana and Rangs have
improved a lot. Consumers’ perception about these brands is improving.
Now a day’s battery market is almost saturated and consumers are much more knowledgeable than
they were in past time. So Lucas Battery must have to know consumers needs and wants and attitude
towards Lucas Battery. Therefore the research problem is assessing the consumers’ satisfaction
situation of Lucas Battery.
1.3 Research Question
Are consumers satisfied with Lucas Battery of Rahimafrooz?
1.4 Objectives
Broad Objective
To find out in what extent consumers of Lucas battery are satisfied with the current level of
performance and what are the problems associated with the service provided.
Specific Objectives
The specific objectives are:
1. To find out the most preferable brand in battery industry
2. To find out how many customers give emphasis on performance to purchase battery.
3. To find the sources of information through which they get to know about Lucas Battery
4. To find the level of awareness level of customers about Lucas battery
5. To find the customers impression about durability of Lucas battery
1.5 Hypothesis
The hypothesis based on the specific objectives is given below:
1. In terms of price Lucas is the most preferable brand
2. Consumers are quality conscious about battery usage.
3. Performance of Lucas battery is excellent.
4. Customers are aware about Lucas battery.
5. Lucas batteries are durable
1.6 Scope
This study covers different zones at Dhaka city to estimate the satisfaction level of customer using
Lucas Battery. The scope of the study was fully on the basis of broad customer survey.
1.7 Methodology of the study:
1.7.1 Nature of the study:
The nature of this research is exploratory and both quantitative and qualitative methods are used. After
formulating the problem statement, a detailed background study has conducted. This background study
helped me to determine the necessary broad objectives. As the whole process is not structured enough,
the background study is done through exploratory research, using literature survey and experience
survey.
From the broad objectives, specific objectives were developed centering on single and multiple
concepts. The research requires primary data to meet the specific objectives.
1.7.2 Data Sources:
Primary data has been collected from following sources:
Industry user of battery
Household user of battery
Drivers
Motor cycle user
Commercial vehicle owner
Automobile user
Primary data has been collected through: -
Questionnaire.
Personal Interview
Observation
Secondary data collected from: -
Publications.
Internet
1.7.3 Design and Method
Research Approach and DesignSurvey Research and Rationale In relation to the conducting of
surveys, there are two broad categories of clients:Owner of Automobiles
Drivers
The type of survey research that was used for drivers was household survey for the clients. Household
surveys give depth of information. Since the questionnaire was very detailed and long for the
respondents to fill it up, household surveys gave the best environment available for the survey. The
questionnaire contained questions that require adequate attention from the respondents’ part and
household surveys made it easy for them to think deeply before answering any question.
1.7.4 Sampling Technique
The technique of sampling that was used in this research is non-probability sampling. The reason for
this is that there was no known or equal chance that every person of the population will be picked.
There was no sampling frame available of the population and its sub-groups.
The different zones were based on the qualitative study, whereby sales representatives gave an idea
about the proportions of customers from different areas or zones. The most number of customers are
from Dhanmondi, Motijheel and Elephant zone. The specific areas which fall under different zones are
shown below:
Area A: Motijheel/ Polton/ kamlapur
Area B: Dhanmondi / Kalabagan
Area C: Shahbag / Paribag
Area D: Lalmatia / Mohammadpur
Area E: Siddeswari / Shantinogor
Area F: Azimpur / Nilkhet / Elephant Road
1.7.5 Type of non-probability sampling
The type of non-probability sampling that has been used in this research is “Area based Sampling”
primarily where members of the population were chosen based on their zones. In a particular zone, the
method of choosing a customer was by ‘Convenience Sampling’, where members are chosen based on
their relative ease of access.
1.7.5.1 Sample Size Determination
Since the type of sampling used is non-probability sampling, the sample size has been determined in
terms of the time availability.
Survey Starting Date –20 May, 2012
Survey Completion Date – 20 June March, 2012
Total Time Allocated – 4 weeks
No. of surveys that can be carried out in a day (Avg) – 4
Calculation of sample number:
No. of weeks 4
No. of working days ×6
Total Number of working days 24
(-) Holidays on working days 8
__
16
(-) 2day for collection
of clients’ contact numbers,
Reporting, making phone calls,
Strategy discussions etc -2
14
(-) Day missed for miscellaneous
reasons -1
13
Effective No. of Days for Survey = 13
Total No. of Sample Respondents = Effective No. of Days × Avg No. per day
= 13 × 4
= 52-2
=50
1.7.6 Field Plan
Area wise sampling has been used for this research. The detail addresses and other required
information have been collected from Rahimafrooz batteries. Each sales representative maintains their
own collection of customers’ information. Appointments for surveys have been made by the
researcher and therefore two days are kept for making phone calls. It is expected and assumed that 4
interviews can be done in one day.
The area wise sample distribution of the actual survey is shown below:
Area/Zones Sample no.
A (Motijheel/ Polton/ kamlapur) 10
B (Dhanmondi / Kalabagan) 05
C (Shahbag / Paribag) 2
D (Lalmatia / Mohammadpur) 2
E (Siddeswari / Shantinogor) 2
F (Azimpur / Nilkhet / Elephant Road) 05
Total 26
Table 2: Number of Survey Respondents in Different Zones
1.8 LIMITATIONS
In the research I faced some obstacles that hindered me from obtaining the objectives of my project. In
brief the problems that I faced are:
Time problem was a significant problem for my report. In two months it was so difficult for me
to complete the survey.
Non response error – this type of error occurs when the researcher cannot locate the pre-
designated sample element to be studied.
Another significant problem was trying to strike a balance between finding the customers’ free
time and at the same time doing the required number of surveys each day.
Every organization has some rules and regulations regarding its privacy policy, so does
Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. Moreover financial information is regarded more sensitive. That is
why I failed to collect some market share related information in different months which would
have proved very effective in preparing the report. However this limitation is not very
unnatural.
Financial problem was another problem, because Rahimafrooz gave me this support but not in
that extent.
Experience comes into play in communicating the exact message under a topic, in some
instances my inexperience may show in the report.
The word ‘Satisfaction’ actually covers a large area. It extended my study somewhere but for
the same reason I had to restrict myself from various information’s that are relevant to
customer satisfaction.
Review of related literature: Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is the extent to which a product’s perceived performance matches a buyer’s expectations. (Philip Kotler, Prin. of Marketing, 2005, P.13)
“Everyone knows what satisfaction is, until asked to give a definition. Then, it seems, nobody knows.”
This quote from Richard L. Oliver (1977), respected expert and long time writer and researcher on the
topic of customer satisfaction, expresses the challenge of defining this most basic of customer concept.
Building from previous definitions, Oliver offers his own formal definition:
Satisfaction is the consumer’s fulfillment response. It is a judgment that a product or service feature,
or the product or service itself, provides a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment.
The word satisfaction first appeared in English during the thirteenth century. The word satisfaction
itself is derived from the Latin satis (meaning enough) and the Latin ending - faction (from the Latin
facere - to do/make). Early usage centered on satisfaction being some sort of release from wrong
doing. Later citing of the word emphasis satisfaction as a "release from uncertainty" (The Oxford
Library of Words and Phrases, 1993). Modern usage of the word has tended to be much broader, and
satisfaction is clearly related to other words such as satisfactory (adequate), satisfy (make pleased or
contented) and satiation (enough). The difficulty faced when trying to define any word is that the
meaning often depends on the context in which the word is used. In a marketing context, satisfaction is
used to have a more "specific" meaning. It appears that there are two basic approaches adopted in
attempting to define the concept of customer satisfaction. Satisfaction can be viewed as an outcome of
a consumption activity or experience; however, it is also represented as a process. Currently, the most
widely adopted description of customer satisfaction is that of a process; an evaluation between what
was received and what was expected (Oliver, 1977, 1981; Olson and Dover, 1979; Tse and Wilton,
1988). By looking at satisfaction as a process, these definitions concentrate on the antecedents to
satisfaction rather than satisfaction itself. Consequently, much research effort has been directed at
understanding
the cognitive processes involved in satisfaction evaluations.
This strand of theory appears to have origins in discrepancy theory (Porter, 1961) and a number of
authors have, over the years, used some form of comparison to model satisfaction. Early contributions
include Contrast Theory (Cardozo, 1965; Howard and Sheth, 1969), which supposed that consumers
would exaggerate any contrasts between expectations and product evaluations. This was developed
into assimilation-contrast theory (Anderson, 1973). Many studies support the occurrence of
assimilation (Olshavsky and Miller, 1972; Olson and Dover, 1979).
A further point concerns expectations that are defined differently in the satisfaction and quality
literature. In the satisfaction literature "expectations reflect anticipated performance" (Churchill and
Suprenant, 1982, p. 492) made by the customer about the levels of performance during a transaction.
On the other hand, in the service quality literature, expectations are conceptualized as a normative
standard of future wants (Boulding, Kalra, Staelin & Zeithaml, 1993). These normative or ideal
standards represent enduring wants and needs that remain unaffected by the full range of marketing
and competitive factors. Normative expectations are therefore more stable and can be thought of as
representing the service the market oriented provider must constantly strive to offer (Zeithaml, Berry
& Parasurama, 1993).
Assuming that the customer is capable of evaluating the service performance, the result is compared to
expectation prior to purchase or consumption (Oliver, 1980). In the past, corporation did not pay much
attention to customer satisfaction but were focused more on attracting new customers to expand their
market share. Now, due to lower sales resulting from product maturity, corporations are turning
around to stabilizing their existing customers to ensure their market share (Dhabolkar & Thorpe,
1994). Thus the concept of customer satisfaction is under further scrutiny. For the current study, the
definition put forward by Oliver will be the construct, as it is the most appropriate for the selected
study.
ANOVA:
Suppose,
Hο= Customers of Lucas battery are satisfied.
Hı = Customers of Lucas battery are not satisfied.
Here the significance is .099 which is higher than the .05 level of significance.
So, Hο is not rejected. With some negative response, Customers are satisfied using Lucas battery.
.
Hypothesis Testing
Statistics
Brand preferability considering PRICE50
0
3.9600
2.07964
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Brand preferability considering PRICE
16 32.0 32.0 32.0
12 24.0 24.0 56.0
6 12.0 12.0 68.0
5 10.0 10.0 78.0
5 10.0 10.0 88.0
4 8.0 8.0 96.0
2 4.0 4.0 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
Spark
Green Power
Hamko
Navana
Volvo
Lucas
Rangs
Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
In the section below the hypothesis testing has been carried out.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 1 :
To find out the most preferable brand in battery industry
Hypothesis tested under the objective:
“In terms of price Lucas is the most preferable brand.”
HO: In terms of price Lucas is the most preferable brand.
HA: In terms of price Lucas is not the most preferable brand.
Decision Rule: Null Hypothesis is not rejected if highest percentage of the respondents chooses Lucas
as their preferable brand.
Finding: 1
Statistics
Product quality of Lucas50
0
3.8000
1.06904
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Product quality of Lucas
2 4.0 4.0 4.0
6 12.0 12.0 16.0
4 8.0 8.0 24.0
26 52.0 52.0 76.0
12 24.0 24.0 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
In terms of price, Spark is the most preferable brand following Green power, Hamko and Navana.
Lucas charges higher price than others because of its quality. Since price of Lucas is high Spark
captures major market share.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 2:
To find out how many customer give emphasis on quality when they purchase Battery
Hypothesis tested under the objective
“Product quality of Lucas battery is satisfactory”
HO: Product quality of Lucas battery is satisfactory.
HA: Product quality of Lucas battery is not satisfactory.
Decision Rule: If Arithmetic mean is above 2.5 HO will not be rejected.
Finding: 2
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Product quality of Lucas
It is seen from the table above that the arithmetic mean is 3.8. This is well above 2.5 which means that
the mean is towards the side of agreement to the statement in the question. Thus it can be concluded
that Product quality of Lucas battery is satisfactory.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 3:
To find out how many customer give emphasis on performance to purchase battery.
Hypothesis tested under the objective
“Performance of Lucas battery is excellent”
HO: Performance of Lucas battery is excellent.
HA: Performance of Lucas battery is poor
Decision Rule: If Arithmetic mean is above 2.5 HO will not be rejected.
Respondent opinion about performance of Lucas
23 46.0 46.0 46.0
17 34.0 34.0 80.0
7 14.0 14.0 94.0
3 6.0 6.0 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
Average
Excellent
Outstanding
Below Average
Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
Statistics
Respondent opinion about performance of Lucas50
0
2.4400
.81215
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Finding: 3
It is seen from the table above that the arithmetic mean is 2.44 which is well above 2.0 means that the
mean is towards the side of agreement to the statement in the question. Thus it can be concluded that
Product performance of Lucas battery is excellent.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 4:
Outstanding
Excellent
Average
Below Average
Respondent opinion about performance of Lucas
Statistics
Awareness level of Lucas50
0
3.0600
.91272
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Awareness level of Lucas
5 10.0 10.0 10.0
4 8.0 8.0 18.0
24 48.0 48.0 66.0
17 34.0 34.0 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
Low
Below Average
Average
High
Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
To find the level of awareness level of customer about Lucas battery
Hypothesis tested under the objective
“Customers are aware about Lucas battery”
HO: Customers are aware about Lucas battery
HA: Customers are not aware about Lucas battery
Decision Rule: If Arithmetic mean is above 2.5 HO will not be rejected.
Finding: 4
Low
Below Average
Average
High
Awareness level of Lucas
Statistics
Battery of Lucas are Durable50
0
3.9000
.95298
Valid
Missing
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Battery of Lucas are Durable
1 2.0 2.0 2.0
5 10.0 10.0 12.0
4 8.0 8.0 20.0
28 56.0 56.0 76.0
12 24.0 24.0 100.0
50 100.0 100.0
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagreenor Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Total
ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent
CumulativePercent
It is seen from the table above that the arithmetic mean 3.06 which is well above 2.0 means that the
mean is towards the side of agreement to the statement in the question. Thus it can be concluded that
awareness level of Lucas battery is very high.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE 5:
To find the customer impression about durability of Lucas battery
Hypothesis tested under the objective
“Lucas batteries are durable”
HO: Lucas batteries are durable
HA: Lucas batteries not are durable
Decision Rule: If Arithmetic mean is above 2.5 HO will not be rejected.
Finding: 5
It is seen from the table above that the arithmetic mean is 3.90 which is well above 2.5 so we can say
that the mean is towards the side of agreement to the statement in the question. Thus it can be
concluded that the battery of Lucas is durable.
Recommendation and Conclusion
Recommendation
The following recommendations can be draw for the further development of customer satisfaction of the Lucas battery-
Customers are price sensitive. With quality of battery they also consider price when they take
decision to purchase of battery.
Compare to other battery company price of Lucas battery is high that help others brand to gain
more market share. So, price of Lucas battery should be competitive.
Purchase decision also depends on availability of battery. According to respondent Battery of
Lucas is available but to capture more make share it should search new market and make it
available.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Disagree nor Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Battery of Lucas are Durable
Consumers give emphasis on quality when they purchase battery. Rahimafrooz should
communicate with the customer of Lucas about its quality. Consumers may face some shorts of
rumor for which they might be confused about purchase of Lucas.
In customer mind, performance of Lucas battery is good enough. But now-a-days battery
market is competitive, so product performance of Lucas should never be deteriorated rather
improving.
The more frequent the advertisements of a brand, the more familiarity the brand gains.
Familiarity creates an impression that influences the purchase decision. Using different media
Lucas should inform its present and future customer about its product quality, performance etc.
among different media TV, Billboard and sticker has better power to influence the customer.
If customers are more aware about a product, that will help them to take decision. Different
campaign should be launched to aware the prospect.
Battery is purchased for long time use, so its durability is essential feature. More durability of
the battery more loyal customer will be created. Comparing to other brands Lucas is more
durable .it should maintain its performance.
After sales service should be available so that customer can easily get the service.
Since battery is technical product, through seminar or training product knowledge of sales
representative should be enhanced.
Conclusion
Lucas battery is the market leader in battery sector of our country. In each category of battery usages it
is clearly leading in the market with wide range of model. Though Lucas possesses more market share
but in the near future it may face tough competition with its competitors. In within few years some
new companies make this market so competitive among them Volvo and Green Power from Panna
group and Hamko. Launching new product these company offer low price to dealer and retailer level
so, it hamper the present growth rate of Lucas. In this situation strategies should be improved or
restructured depending on findings in secondary research, qualitative and quantitative studies.
As a market leader Lucas battery has the competitive advantage. Its price may high but there is an
advantage that quality and product performance is higher than any other brand and operating long time
in the market it has positive image in customer mind.
Bibliography
Books
1. Naresh K. Malhotra, Marketing Research, 5th Edition Prentice-hall 2008,ch-3,8,10,11,16,17.
2. Douglas A Lind, Statistical Techniques in Business and Economics ,13th Edition, McGraw Hill 2008, ch12,13,14
3. Philip Kotler, Principles of Marketing, 11th Edition, Prentice-hall 2006, PP.13,19
4. Lawrence L. Lapin, Statistics for Modern Business Decisions,6th Edition, Dryden, 1993, PP.407.413.423
5. Raymond V. Lesikar, Business Communication, 6th Edition, A.I.T.B.S 2003, PP.429-466
Sources
Annual report Of “Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd” in 2006
Annual report Of “Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd” in 2007
Websites
www.wikipedia.com
www.rahimafrooz.com/...batteries/rahimafrooz_batteries_profile.asp
www.rahimafrooz.com
Appendix
Questionnaire
The information given by you will help me to accomplish a survey based internship report, and here I also assure you that the information given by you will be kept as confidential data and use only for academic purpose. So I am looking forward to get your support.
1. Contact person:
Name:………………………………………..
[Please put tick marks ( ) in appropriate box]2. Gender:
Male Female
3. Designation:
Industry user Driver Motor cycle user Commercial vehicle owner Automobile owner
Others
4. Price has an impact on battery purchase-
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
5. In terms of price which one is the most preferable brand to you?
Lucas Spark Navana Rangs Volvo Green power Hamko
6. Which brand you bought last time?
Lucas Hamko Navana Rangs Green power Spark Volvo Others…………………..
7. Do you recall the name of Lucas whenever you think about battery?
Always Sometimes Never
8. Awareness level of Lucas battery is high
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
9. Do you recommend Lucas battery to others?
Yes No
10. Lucas battery is durable
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
11. What is your perception about quality of Lucas battery?
Outstanding Excellent Average Below average