Using SERVQUAL model for comparative service quality analysis of the Indian non-life insurance sector.

Kumar, Rohit ; Singh, Manjit

Introduction

Indian Non-life insurance industry has suddenly witnessed a major boom. Being a globalized market, the customers seek and demand world class products. In today's global market everything is benchmarked and compared. The market for insurance business is found to be vast, the potential policyholders are in a very good number, and their needs and requirements are not identical. The success of insurance companies in the market rests on the availability of customized product and also the service quality offered to customers. At this juncture, the insurance companies should evaluate their services and identify their distinction from others. The only way to succeed in the market is the formulation of differentiated service to different customer segments. Delivering of quality services to the customers has become an indispensable factor for success and survival in today's competitive insurance environment. Non-life insurance is a professional service which is characterized by high involvement of the consumers due to the importance of tailoring to the specific needs, the variability of the products available, the complexity involved in the policies and processes, and the need to involve the consumer in every aspect of the transaction. The post-liberalized insurance industry in India has been witnessing a discernible shift from the seller to the buyers' market. The reformed insurance industry has offered a plethora of new customer friendly products, new delivery channels like bancassurance, corporate agents, brokers and direct selling through the internet, greater use of computerization and information technology. The detariffing will be a major reform of the insurance pricing regime and is likely to introduce a paradigm change in the non-life sector. The customers' expectations have reached an all time high. The opening up of the market has brought competition in the market, and the customer decides the price of the product and service level offered. So, the customer is the focus of the business, not only marketing practices acquire critical importance, but the manner in which the customer is served also needs close attention. The customer is now better informed and his expectations are on the rise in marketing. These changing circumstances are exerting pressure on the existing players in the industry to rewrite their strategies and policies. They will have to raise their level of customer services to fight for survival in the market place. They will have to become much sharper and more market savvy. Non-life insurance companies themselves feel the need to improve service quality. Under these circumstances, there is a need to assess how far the public and private non-life insurance companies will be able to satisfy their customers by providing quality service. Performance evaluation of an individual insurance company will be insignificant for this purpose. Inter-firm comparison within the non-life insurance companies as a whole is required to examine how they are performing in the post-reform period.

Measurement of Service Quality

Notwithstanding the recognized importance of service quality there have been methodological issues and application problems with regard to its operationalization. Quality in the context of service industries has been conceptualized differently and based on different conceptualizations, alternative scales have been proposed for service quality measurement. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF constitute two major service quality measurement scales. The consensus, however, continues to elude till date as to which one is superior.

SERVQUAL Scale

The foundation for the SERVQUAL scale is the gap model proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). According to the gap model, satisfaction is related to the size and direction of disconfirmation of a person's experience vis-a-vis his or her initial expectations. As a gap or difference between customer expectations and perceptions, service quality is viewed as lying along a continuum ranging from ideal quality to totally unacceptable quality with some points along the continuum representing satisfactory quality. Parasuraman et al. (1988) held that when perceived or experienced service is less than expected service, it implies less than satisfactory service quality. But, when the perceived service is more than the expected service, the obvious inference is that service quality is more than satisfactory. Parasuraman et al. (1988) pointed out that while a negative discrepancy between perceptions and expectations--a 'performance gap' as they call it--causes dissatisfaction, a positive discrepancy leads to consumer delight. Parasuraman et al. identified a set of 22 variables/items tapping five different dimensions of service quality construct. Since service quality has been operationalized as being a gap between customer's expectations and perceptions of performance on these variables, the service quality scale comprised of total 44 items (22 for expectations and 22 for perceptions). The higher the perception minus expectation score, the higher is perceived to be the level of service quality. Several issues have been raised with regard to use of (P-E) gap scores, i.e., disconfirmation model. Validity of (P-E) measurement framework has also come under attack due to problems with the conceptualization and measurement of expectation component of the SERVQUAL scale.

In 1988, Parasuraman et al. developed SERVQUAL, a method to assess customer loyalty for service industries. Their measurement involved the difference between customers' perceptions and expectations based on five generic dimensions:

* Tangibility: appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and written materials.

* Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.

* Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.

* Assurance: employees' knowledge and courtesy and their ability to inspire trust and confidence.

* Empathy: caring, individualized attention given to customers.

Parasuraman et al. (1985) proposed that service quality is a function of the differences between expectation and performance along the quality dimensions. They developed a service quality model based on gap analysis. This model of service quality is derived from the magnitude and direction of five gaps which include consumer expectations-experiences discrepancies in addition to the differences in service design, communications, management and delivery. The first four gaps affect the way in which service is delivered, and the existence of these four gaps leads to the extent of gap five.

According to this model, the service quality is a function of perception and expectations and can be modeled as:

SQ = [[summation].sup.k.sub.j=1] ([P.sub.ij] - [E.sub.ij])

Where

SQ = overall service quality; k= number of attributes.

Pij = Performance perception of stimulus i with respect to attribute j.

Eij = Service quality expectation for attribute j that is the relevant norm for stimulus i.

No doubt, the SERVQUAL scale entails greater data collection work, but employing direct rather than computed expectation, disconfirmation measures can ease it out. So, in this study, SERVQUAL scale is used to assess the comparative service quality of both the public and private sector non-life insurance companies due to its better diagnostic ability in providing an insight into managerial intervention and strategy formulation.

Review of Literature

Service quality has emerged as an important area in the sustainability and growth of the business and its various dimensions have been explored by various academicians and researchers at the national and international level. Parasuraman et al. (1988), described the development of 22-item instrument (called SERVQUAL) for assessing customer perceptions of service quality in service and retailing organisations. The results indicated a refined scale (SERVQUAL) with 22 items spread among five dimensions; namely, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. Carman (1990), reported on the replication and testing of the SERVQUAL and offered suggestions for its use by retailers. Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (PZB) have developed an instrument for measuring quality that they propose as a "basic skeleton" for use "across a broad spectrum of services." Parasuraman et al. (1991), described a multi-sector study in which they refined their original SERVQUAL instruments and re-examined the reliability and validity of this scale. The results indicated that the reliability co-efficients for the perception minus expectation gap scores for the five SERVQUAL dimensions are consistently high across the various samples, thereby indicating high internal consistency among items within each dimension. Cronin and Taylor (1992), investigated the conceptualization and measurement of service quality and the relationships between service quality, customer satisfaction and purchase intention. The results suggested that service quality should be measured as an attitude. The performance based scale developed (SERVPERF) is more efficient in comparison to the SERVQUAL scale. Teas (1993), examined the validity of P-E "gap" framework as currently specified and on the basis of this examination, developed and tested alternative models of consumers' perception of quality. The results indicated that the evaluated performance (EP) model may be more valid than the SERVQUAL, P-E, and the normed quality (NQ) model. Stott (2001), investigated the issues related to achieving service delivery excellence in an active and developing insurance company. The paper concludes that if a company cannot deliver both quality products and services successfully, it will eventually be overtaken by the competition. Forbes (2000), emphasized on delivering excellent customer service in the insurance industry. It has been described that the outstanding customer service although conceptually simple, is difficult to achieve. Brady et al. (2002), evaluated the two service quality measurement models of the performance only index (SERVPERF) and the gap-based SERVQUAL scale. The results of first study indicated that the replication successfully duplicated their finding as to the superiority of the 'performance only' measurement of service quality. The results from the other two studies also lent storing support again for the superiority of the 'performance only' approach 'to the measurement of service quality'. Jain and Gupta (2004), assessed the diagnostic power of the two service quality scales, namely, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales. The study found SERVPERF scale to be providing a more convergent and discriminant valid explanation of the service quality construct. However, the scale was found deficient in its diagnostic power. Tripathy (2004), made an endeavor to find out the perception of customers towards insurance companies through marketing variables, and also analyzed the performance of customers and the importance they assigned to different attributes. The author suggested that to achieve greater insurance penetration, private companies have to create more vibrant and competitive industry, with greater efficiency, choice of products and value for customers. Rand (2004), examined the suitability of SERVQUAL'S application in the insurance industry to diagnose service quality in the insurance industry of Greece and Kenya. The results indicated that the quality gaps that are obtained in the insurance industries of Greece and Kenya are largely the same. In both countries, the customers' expectations were in excess of their perceptions. The dimensions of reliability and empathy were the most deficient and need appropriate actions to improve the quality of their services. Goswami (2007), made an attempt to understand the dimensions of service quality which help ensuring maximum customer satisfaction, and hence, help life insurers to acquire a large share of the market. The results indicated that the responsiveness of service quality provided maximum customer satisfaction in the life insurance industry in India. The study suggested the insurers to improve customer relationship. Devasenathipathi et al. (2007), compared and rated all the life insurance companies, measured the customer perception, purchase behavior, consumer awareness regarding life insurance industry and also studied the privatization, policy awareness and life coverage awareness among the consumers. The study concluded that the entry of private players brought better service, quicker settlement, greater awareness and more choice. Chawla and Singh (2008), investigated the service quality factors affecting customer satisfaction levels of the policyholders. The comparison of overall mean satisfaction based on various factors expected showed that respondents who had purchased insurance policies before privatization had a higher mean score as compared to respondents who took insurance policies after privatization.

The perusal of these studies reveal that large number of research has been conducted on insurance sector but no worth while research has been conducted on comparative service quality level of Indian Non-life Insurance Companies using SERVQUAL approach. So, this study is an attempt in this direction.

Objectives of the Study

The present study is conceived with following objectives:

1. To assess the comparative service quality level of the Government owned and Private Sector Non-life Insurance Companies.

2. To make suggestions to the Non-life insurance companies to improve the service quality level.

Developing the Research Instrument

For analyzing the customers' perception and expectation towards service quality of non-life insurance companies, a modified SERVQUAL type questionnaire relevant to the insurance industry was constructed. A questionnaire included 22-items from the original five dimensions (i.e. Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) of the SERVQUAL instrument developed and updated by Parasuraman et al. (1994). In order to obtain an even more comprehensive and insurance industry specific measure of the service quality, 16 additional items were added to the SERVQUAL scale. The additional items were derived by reviewing the studies conducted in the insurance sector, personal interviews with managers, employees, officers and customers of non-life insurance companies. Thus, in total, 38 items were included under seven dimensions (i.e. Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, Product Availability, and Product Convenience) to measure the service quality. All the items were measured on the five-point Likert scale from 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree).

Sample and Sampling Design

The universe of the study is all non-life insurance companies operating in India but due to non-feasibility and time constraint, the scope of the study has been restricted to five non-life insurance companies, i.e., two companies from the government owned, namely, New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.; and three from the private sector companies, namely, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., and IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. The criterion adopted for selecting the private sector companies was their year of registration. The reforms in the insurance industry were initiated in the year 1999 and the private sector non-life insurance companies started their business in 2000. A total of six companies were registered during this period. However, for the purpose of uniformity, top three private sector non-life insurance companies registered on the basis of their market share were selected. The primary data was drawn from customers of both public and private sector non-life insurance companies and only in the state of Punjab. As many as 430 customers were approached to collect the required data for the study. However, 300 questionnaires filled by the respondents, 60 each from all the five selected companies, with a response percentage of 69.8 were found complete in all respects for the analysis. T-test was used to analyze the significant mean difference between the gap of customers' perceptions and expectations of the public and private sector companies regarding service quality dimensions.

Results and Discussions

The objective of the study is to investigate the comparative service quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies. An attempt has been made to examine the significant gap between the service quality of government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies by using t-test on the gaps (P-E) on all the items of seven dimensions.

Tangibility

The table reveals that the difference between gap (P-E) regarding item numbers 1, 3 and 4 under tangible dimension of the government owned and private sector is insignificant because P-value is greater than the threshold limit 0.05. The item called "physical facilities visually appealing" shows a significant difference between gap (P-E) of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies. The analysis provides that the service quality of the private sector is significantly higher than that of the government owned as far as the second item is concerned.

Reliability

As is evident from the table, the service quality on two items of reliability, namely, "show sincere interest in solving customers' problems" and "goodwill" of the private sector is significantly higher than that of the government owned. There is no significant gap between service quality level on the other five attributes of reliability among the private and government owned non-life insurance companies.

Responsiveness

Table 3 highlights the variation in comparative service quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies. The results indicated that the service quality of the private sector non-life insurance companies on the item "employees and agents constantly communicate with customers" is significantly better than that of the government owned. There is no significant gap between the service quality level of both the government owned and private sector companies on the other five items of responsiveness dimension under study.

Assurance

The analysis of the table reveals that the service quality of private sector on the items called "employees and agents are courteous with customers" is significantly higher than that of the government owned. There is no significant gap between the service quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies on the other four items of assurance dimension.

Empathy

As is evident from the table that the service quality of the private sector non-life insurance companies on three items under empathy dimension, namely, operating hours convenient to all their customers, understand the specific needs of their customers, and commit to ethics and promote ethical behavior is significantly higher than that of the government owned non-life insurance companies. There is no significant gap between the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies regarding other five attributes under empathy dimension of service quality.

Product Availability

Table 6 shows that there is no significant difference between service quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies on all the five attributes under product availability dimension.

Product Convenience

Table 7 reveals that there is no significant difference between service quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies on all the three dimensions under product convenience dimension.

Findings, Conclusions and Suggestions

The present study further investigates the comparison of the difference of negative gaps of perceptions and expectations between the government owned and private sector, to make a comparison of service quality level of the government owned and private sector non-life insurance companies. The results indicated that the negative gap scores of the government owned insurers are significantly higher in eight items representing 'Physical facilities visually appealing' of tangibility, 'Company shows sincere interest in solving customer problem' and 'Goodwill' of reliability, 'Employees and agents constantly communicate with customers' of responsiveness, 'Employees and agents are courteous with customers' of assurance and 'operating hours convenient to all their customers', 'Understand the specific needs of their customers' and 'Commit to ethics and promote ethical behavior' of empathy dimension. Therefore, it is found that the service quality of the private sector on 8 out of 38 items is significantly higher than that of the government owned because in these items the negative gap score of the government owned is significantly higher than that of the private sector. The service quality of the government owned and private sector is insignificantly different regarding the other thirty items which implies that the service quality of the private insurers is better than that of the government owned insurers in few areas only. The study suggests that if the government owned insurers want to increase its service quality level as compared to the private sector, it should enhance the level of service on eight items, namely, 'Physical facilities visually appealing' of tangibility, 'Company shows sincere interest in solving customer problems' and 'Goodwill' of reliability, 'Employees and agents constantly communicate with customers' of responsiveness, 'Employees and agents are courteous with customers' of assurance, and 'operating hours convenient to all their customers', 'Understand the specific needs of their customers' and 'Commit to ethics and promote ethical behavior' of empathy dimension, where the negative gap of service quality of the private sector is significantly lesser than the government owned. In order to bring improvement in these areas, the government owned insurers should invest large amount in the renovation of their offices, where all modern facilities need to be provided to customers like air conditioners, clean toilets, attractive furniture and suitable sitting arrangements. These insurers should employ certain employees specifically to listen and redress customers' problems, constantly communicate with the customers regarding the products, policies, the status of their policies and claims, due date of renewal of policies and all other information which the customers require. The agents and employees should be properly trained to perform their duties in the changed competitive environment. They should be trained in such a way that their behavior towards the customers is friendly and courteous. An attempt should also be made to inculcate ethical values in them so as to encourage fair practices in the business. These insurers should also keep their offices open in the late hours, which facilitate customers to reach the office after performing their duties and business work. There is need to spend more on enhancing their brand image too. All these steps will go a long way for improving the service quality in Non-life Insurance sector in India and will help the companies to survive in the competitive environment.

References

Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.; and Brand, R.R. (2002), "Performance Only Measurement of Service Quality: A Replication and Extension", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No.1, pp.17-31.

Carman, J.M. (1990), "Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Assessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions", Journal of Retailing, Vol.66, No.1, pp. 33-55.

Chawla, S.; and Singh, F. (2008), "Service Quality Perceptions of Life Insurance Policyholders in Northern India: Pre-privatization vs. Post-privatization", The ICFAI University Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.VII, No.4, pp. 24-53.

Cronin, J.; and Taylor, S.A. (1992), "Measuring Service Quality: A Re-examination and Extension", Journal of Marketing, Vol.56, No.3, July, pp.55-67.

Devasenathipathi, T.; Saleendran, P.T.; and Shanmugasundaram, A. (2007), "A Study on Consumer Preference and Comparative Analysis of All Life Insurance Companies", The ICFAI Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol.11, No.4, pp. 7-15.

Forbes (2000), "Delivering Customer Service Excellence" Insurance Research and Practice, Vol.15, pt. 1, pp. 19-23.

Goswami, P. (2007),"Customer Satisfaction with Service Quality in the Life Insurance Industry in India", The ICFAI Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. V, No.1, pp. 25-29.

Jain, S.K.; and Gupta, G. (2004), "Measuring Service Quality: SERVQUAL Vs. SERVPERF Scales", Vikalpa, Vol.29, No.2, April-June, pp. 25-37.

Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), "A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and its Implications for Future Research", Journal of Marketing, Vol.49, pp. 41-50.

Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; and Berry, L.L. (1988), "SERVQUAL: A Multiple Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality", Journal of Retailing, Vol.64, No.1, pp. 12-40.

Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; and Berry, L.L. (1991), "Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale", Journal of Retailing, Vol.67, No.4, pp. 420-40.

Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994), "Reassessment of Expectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research" Journal of Marketing, Vol.58, January, pp. 111-124.

Rand, G.K. (2004), "Diagnosis and Improvement of Service Quality in the Insurance Industries of Greece and Kenya", Accessed on 7-5-2005, Available at: www.Lums.Lancs.ac.uk,

Standard and Poor's (2007), "Regional Challenges" Asia Insurance Post, October, pp.19-21.

Stott, D.(2001),"Service Quality in a Developing Market", The Journal, Jan.-June, pp.16-23.

Teas, R.K. (1993), "Expectations, Performance, Evaluation and Consumers' Perceptions of Quality", Journal of Marketing, Vol.57, Oct., pp. 18-34.

Tripathy, N.P.(2004),"An Application of Multi-dimensional Scaling Model towards Brand Positioning of Insurance Industry", Insurance Chronicle, October, pp. 1925.

1. Dr. Rohit Kumar, Assistant Professor, Punjabi University College, Moonak (SANGRUR)

Email: [email protected] , Mobile No. 09501512500

2. Dr. Manjit Singh, Associate Professor, School of Applied Management, Punjabi University, Patiala(147002), Email: [email protected] Mobile No. 08146100227 (Corresponding Author)

Table 1
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Tangible Dimension

 Government Private t-value p-
Tangibility owned Sector value
 Gap (P-E) Gap (P-E)

Modern equipment -0.33 -0.18 -1.368 0.172
and technology

Physical facilities -0.43 -0.19 -2.138 0.033
visually appealing

Employees and agents -0.33 -0.19 -1.007 0.315
neat in appearance

Materials associated -0.28 -0.09 -1.432 0.153
with the services
appealing

Table 2
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Reliability Dimension

Reliability Government Private t-value p-value
 owned Gap Sector
 (P-E) Gap (PE)

Promise to do -0.46 -0.48 0.139 0.890
something by a
certain time, they
do so.

Show sincere -0.67 -0.38 -2.124 0.035
interest in solving
customers problems

Perform the service -0.53 -0.38 -1.007 0.315
at the first
instance.

Provide their -0.60 -0.43 -1.130 0.260
services at the time
they promise to do
so.

Error free record -0.58 -0.49 -0.643 0.520

Sound financial -0.26 -0.27 0.113 0.910
strength

Goodwill -0.32 -0.06 -2.064 0.040

Table 3
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Responsiveness Dimension

Responsiveness Governme Private t-value p-value
 nt owned Sector
 Gap (P-E) Gap (PE)

Employees and agents -0.33 -0.22 -0.820 0.413
tell customers
exactly when
services performed.

Employees and agents -0.49 -0.24 -1.927 0.055
give prompt services
to customers.

Employees and agents -0.38 -0.19 -1.540 0.125
willing to help
customers.

Employees and agents -0.33 -0.18 -1.012 0.312
are never too busy
to respond to
customers' requests.

Employees and agents -0.33 0.22 -4.109 0.000
constantly
communicate with
customers.

Method of -0.38 -0.32 -0.501 0.617
communication suits
the needs of
customers.

Table 4
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Assurance Dimension

Assurance Government Private t-value p-value
 owned Gap Sector
 (P-E) Gap (PE)

The behavior of -0.38 -0.23 1.131 0.259
employees and agents
instills confidence
in customers.

Customers feel that -0.39 -0.37 0.192 0.848
their transactions
are safe.

Employees and agents -0.33 -0.03 2.278 0.023
are courteous with
customers.

Employees and agents -0.38 -0.36 0.149 0.881
have knowledge to
render professional
service to
customers.

Employees and agents -0.16 -0.22 0.462 0.645
give accurate
presentation of
products and
services.

Table 5
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Empathy Dimension

Empathy Government Private t-value p-value
 owned Sector
 Gap (P-E) Gap (PE)

Customers' -0.43 -0.272 -1.170 0.243
individual
attention.

Operating hours -0.40 -0.150 -1.958 0.049
convenient to all
their customers.

Employees and agents -0.29 -0.111 -1.331 0.184
who give customer
personal attention.

The customers' best -0.39 -0.239 -1.126 0.261
interests at heart.

Understand the -0.43 -0.083 -2.570 0.011
specific needs of
their customers.

Welcome complaints -0.41 -0.317 -0.683 0.495
and criticism and
respond positively.

Organize consumer -0.37 -0.272 -0.786 0.432
awareness programmes
under CRM.

Commit to ethics and -0.38 -0.039 -2.655 0.008
promote ethical
behavior.

Table 6
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Product Availability Dimension

Product Availability Government Private p-value
 owned Sector t-value
 Gap (P-E) Gap (P-E)

Products and -0.25 -0.089 -1.270 0.205
services of utmost
quality.

Diversified products -0.32 -0.217 -0.845 0.399
and policies.

Competitive price of -0.36 -0.367 0.067 0.947
their products and
services.

Customers assured of -0.30 -0.361 0.424 0.672
highest product/
services through
appropriate
guarantees.

Differentiate -0.23 -0.106 -0.927 0.354
adequately their
products and
services.

Table 7
Sector-wise Gap Regarding Product Convenience Dimension

Product Convenience Government Private t-value p-value
 owned Sector
 Gap (P-E) Gap (PE)

Contract of -0.53 -0.47 -0.492 0.623
insurance policies
with clear and
transparent terms.

Settle customers' -0.60 -0.41 -1.278 0.202
claims without any
delay.

Formalities for -0.33 -0.17 -1.112 0.267
taking a policy of
the company are
simple.