1

Bachelor thesis

Quality Perception

A quantitative study of measuring quality in the Swedish insurance market Authors:

Caroline Landin Anders Laurenius Jennifer Persson Tutor: Mosad Zineldin Examiner: Martin Amsteus Date: 2015-05-27

Subject: Business to Business Level: Bachelor thesis Course code: 2FE16E

2

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the total quality perceived by

customers in different prioritizing categories as well as a company’s own anticipation

about its customers’ perception. The Five Qualities Model was used to assess five

dimensions of quality perception and be able to receive the total quality perception. In

this thesis, collaboration was made together with the Swedish insurance company

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg and its corporate department.

Methodology: This is a quantitative study where hypotheses were developed to

investigate the quality perception of a service organization with the measurement of the

5Qs model. The study adapted a descriptive research purpose and a deductive research

approach. A convenience sample was collected from the chosen population and a survey

was sent out to gather statistical data. The hypotheses were further tested by using an

independent sample t-test and an ANOVA test to obtain statistical data in SPSS.

Findings: The investigation revealed results where corporate customers of the

concerned organization had a quite equal perception of quality in the different

prioritizing categories; similar to the company’s own anticipation. The perception of the

organization was of quite high quality despite two small differences regarding the

quality of processes and the quality of interaction between the categories. According to

the survey, the lower prioritized groups had a somewhat lower level of perceived

quality of the mentioned dimensions.

Contribution: The findings imply that the 5Qs model is comprehensive and can also

easily be adapted to other industries than what has been done previously. This study

gives implications for future research projects within the topic of quality perception,

both inside and outside the insurance market. It could be interesting for future

researchers to investigate customer prioritization categories which are more distinctive

than the ones in this thesis. The study contributes to both entrepreneurs and literature in

the sense that it emphasizes the importance for any service organization to be aware of

its perceived customer value (quality).

Keywords: Quality perception, the 5Q’s model, customer prioritizing, B2B market, insurance sector.

3

Acknowledgement

This is a bachelor thesis conducted during the spring semester of 2015 in Växjö. The process of this research gave the authors a greater knowledge of the topic of quality perception, how it can be measured statistically and analyzed in an academic manner. The authors were able to develop their cognition, their interest in the service sector and in their university orientation of business-to-business studies. There were several people that made this thesis possible; these people were mostly employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, its corporate customers, teachers and professors of the university, supporting classmates and friends. To these the authors would like to give huge gratitude.

The time for this thesis was allocated efficiently by the authors around their employments and their spare time. The planning process was a learning experience by managing such a large project with constant feedback, suggestions, and taking both positive and negative feedback into consideration.

A special thanks Billy Söderqvist.

Linnaeus University: School of Business and Economics & The Marketing

Program

Växjö, 2015-05-27

Caroline Landin, Anders Laurenius & Jennifer Persson

4

”Quality can be viewed as an absence of defects or a degree of excellence”

(Shewfelt, 1999, p. 197)

Table of contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Problematization.................................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

1.4 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................................. 6

1.5 Delimitations ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 The Authors’ Preconceptions .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Research Philosophy ........................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Epistemology, Ontology & Hermeneutics ................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Research approach ............................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1 Deductive vs. Inductive research ................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Research Strategy ................................................................................................................................................ 9

2.4.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative research ........................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Research Design ................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.5.1 Descriptive Research Purpose ................................................................................................................... 10

2.5.2 Social Survey study ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................................. 11

2.6.1 Data Sources .............................................................................................................................................. 11

2.6.2 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................................. 12

2.8 Data Analysis Method ....................................................................................................................................... 14

2.8.1 Statistical Software Program ..................................................................................................................... 14

2.8.2 Cronbach´s Alpha ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2.8.3 Independent sample T-test ......................................................................................................................... 15

2.8.4 One way ANOVA test ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.9 Data cleaning ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

2.10 Research Process ............................................................................................................................................. 17

2.10.1 The First Step - theory collection ............................................................................................................ 17

2.10.2 The Second Step - collection of company information ............................................................................ 18

2.10.3 The Third Step - development of questionnaires ..................................................................................... 19

2.10.4 The Fourth Step - Distribution of questionnaire ...................................................................................... 20

2.10.5 The Fifth Step - Data compiling, cleaning & analysis ............................................................................. 21

2.11 Reliability, Validity & Ethics .......................................................................................................................... 21

2.11.1 Reliability ................................................................................................................................................ 21

2.11.2 Validity .................................................................................................................................................... 22

2.11.3 Ethics ....................................................................................................................................................... 22

3. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................................................ 24

3.1 Perception & Satisfaction .................................................................................................................................. 24

3.2 The 5 Qualities Model ....................................................................................................................................... 25

4. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................................................ 27

4.1 Research Concept .............................................................................................................................................. 27

4.2 Operationalization ............................................................................................................................................. 27

4.3 The Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................. 31

5.1 Cronbach’s Alpha .............................................................................................................................................. 32

5.2 Independent sample T-test ................................................................................................................................. 33

5.3 ANOVA test ........................................................................................................................................................... 39

6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................ 41

7. Concluding Chapter ................................................................................................................................................. 45

7.1 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................................... 45

7.2 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................ 45

7.3 Implications for future research ......................................................................................................................... 46

7.4 Practical Implications ........................................................................................................................................ 46

7.5 Theoretical Implication ..................................................................................................................................... 47

8 List of references ....................................................................................................................................................... 48

9. Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix 1. ............................................................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix 2. ............................................................................................................................................................. 65

Appendix 3. ............................................................................................................................................................. 66

Appendix 4. ............................................................................................................................................................. 86

4.1 Corporate customer answers on the survey .................................................................................................. 86

4.2 Corporate insurance seller answers on the survey ........................................................................................ 90

Appendix 5. ............................................................................................................................................................. 94

5.1 Statistical Results.......................................................................................................................................... 94

1

1. Introduction

The first chapter of this bachelor thesis argues and problematizes the topic of

investigation. It contains the background information and current discussion about the

main concept of investigation.

1.1 Background

Evolving competition and corporate customer demand force companies to improve their

degree of flexibility and reinforce quality instantly. Due to this, organizations employ

many different quality practices. By measuring quality of a corporation, the result of the

measurement can reveal success or a failure of the company and also define the level of

quality it possess (Demirbag et al. 2006; Beer, 2003; Talib, Rahman & Qureshi, 2011;

Hietschold, Reinhardt & Gurtner, 2014; Smith, 1995). This thesis is a quantitative study

measuring quality perception of corporate customers and a service organization.

Quality has been a common topic amongst business research in which it has been

defined in multiple ways (Nabil-Tamimi, 2002; Rauyruen & Miller, 2007; Kara et al,

2005). It has been used as a measurement of satisfaction and many economists,

marketers and customers agree on that quality is a term for corporate customers’ needs

and wants (Shewfelt, 1999). The perception of individuals can depend on underlying

opinions and feelings which gives response on customers’ expectations. Therefore, the

customer perception is important to emphasize for any organization (Rickey et al, 2014;

Solomon et al, 2010). Market researchers are directing their focus towards an

understanding of how customers perceive quality of service organizations. Perceived

quality could act as a mediator of the relationship between the customer satisfaction and

value (Lai, 2015). The knowledge of customer perception can be used to develop

customer satisfaction and affect behavioral intentions (Olorunniwo, Hsu & Udo, 2006).

If high quality is perceived, customers are more likely to be satisfied and stay loyal

towards a company (Rundle-Thiele, 2005; Olorunniwo, Hsu & Udo, 2006; Lai, 2015).

Satisfied customers may also generate commitment and strengthen the relationship

between the seller and buyer, which often leads to repeated sales (Hennig-Thurau &

Klee, 1997). Quality is seen as one of the most essential predictors for future customer

2

behaviour and to improve business performance over time (Gracia, Bakker & Grau,

2011; Yee, Yeung & Cheng, 2009; Ladhari, 2009).

Over the decades, researchers have continuously pursued the task of defining, modeling

and creating measurements and data collection methods of quality (Seth, Deshmukh &

Vrat, 2005). Conceptual models try to show existing relationships between variables

(Ghobadian, Speller & Jones, 1994) and could be seen as a simple explanation of real

events. A conceptual model can help to create an image of the future, also to assess

quality issues and help planning for quality improvement initiatives (Seth, Deshmukh &

Vrat, 2005).

Dividing customers into segments according to similarities such as size or sector has

been a common practice among organizations. Segmentation may be an effective tool if

it aids companies to target a precise type of customers (Machauer & Morgner, 2001).

However, traditional segmentation does not make a distinction in regards to

profitability. To evolve segmentation, companies have started to consider the total cost

and generated revenue of customers and thereby prioritized them according to their

profitability (Zeithaml, Rust & Lemon, 2001). Companies are able to offer products and

services and assign appropriate service levels to the different categories. This is called

customer prioritization. It can therefore also be valuable to understand how customers in

different categories perceive quality. Different prioritization categories may have

different needs, wants, expectations and experiences and therefore different perception

of quality. The knowledge of differently perceived quality can be used to offer suitable

value to different customers (Zeithaml, Rust & Lemon, 2001). It happens that

companies have an image of what customers want, but their real expectations are

different (Carmon & Ariely, 2000). The customers’ understanding of quality must

therefore be found from the perspective of the company to be able to stay competitive in

the industry (Krepapa et al, 2003).

In B2B environments, successful organizations do often understand the circumstances

of their corporate customers and the unequaled features of them (Rauyruen & Miller,

3

2007; Woo & Ennew, 2004). Over the latest years, the insurance industry has grown

enormously and performances are constantly compared when it comes to quality

(Gayathri, Vinaya & Lakshmisha, 2005; Bell, Auh & Smalley, 2005). The corporate

customers are well aware of the different alternatives available regarding competing

offerings (Gayathri, Vinaya & Lakshimsha, 2005) and it is difficult for companies to be

differentiated on the market (Wong Ricky et al, 2008). Expectations are thereby

increasing and it becomes even more vital for the companies to be aware of these

requirements (Gayathri, Vinaya & Lakshimsha, 2005). There is often an interpersonal

customer focus which makes it even more important to deliver good quality (Wong

Ricky et al, 2008). Corporate insurance companies often strive for a high level of

quality and absolute customer satisfaction; fundamentally important to generate

significant performance outcomes which can maximize lifetime value of corporate

customers (Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry, 1990; Berry, 2000). Insurance

organizations need to offer quality services and advantageous policies according to

expectations in order to motivate the corporate customers to purchase their products. In

an era of rapid change, knowledge about the needs must therefore be considered as

resources (Ghandvar & Sehhat, 2015). Insurance literature holds that the motivation to

purchase insurances is to avoid risk and is commonly purchased by customer firms to

manage corporate risks (MacMinn, 1987). Lindmark, Andersson & Adams (2006) state

that the Swedish insurance market is a significant factor of the Swedish economy and

back in the 2006, a few large companies controlled the majority in an oligopoly market.

1.2 Problematization Corporate customers are today more demanding than ever before and their satisfaction

has become one of the most important accomplishments for any organization to achieve (Martin & O’Neill, 2010; Tsitskari, Tsiotras & Tsiotras, 2006; Nuviala et al, 2012). It

could be essential to assess the competitiveness and ability of the organization by

determining the corporate customers’ perceptions of quality to further satisfy their needs

(Manas et al, 2008). Often, it is quality that differs an organization from its competitors

(Bell, Auh & Smalley, 2005). According to Hansen and Bush (1999), customers are not

sure about the exact meaning of quality. A frequent customer answer to the question is; “I can’t define quality, but I know it when I see it” (Hansen & Bush, 1999, p. 120), but

an exchange will be perceived as of high quality if it confirms the customers’

4

requirements. There are various different models of measuring quality. The best suited

measurement depends on what type service organization it concerns. Factors as

customer needs, time, setting, customer expectation and the nature of the competitive

environment are influential (Seth, Deshmukh & Vrat, 2005).

Customers have different perception of quality (O’Neill & Palmer, 2003; Solomon et al,

2010) and therefore it can be challenging to ascertain the need. It is therefore also of

high importance to measure the perceived quality in service sectors and among

corporate customers (Seth, Deshmukh & Vrat, 2005). Although, some companies want

to deliver exceptional quality to all corporate customers, some marketers argue that it is

not to be profitable or efficient to exceed or satisfy all corporate customers’ demands. Therefore, companies have commonly accepted that corporate customers could be

prioritized and organizational resources distributed correspondingly (Zeithaml, Rust &

Lemon, 2001). However, the practice of customer prioritization has been questioned

because it can lead to dissatisfaction among lower prioritized customers (Gerstner &

Libai 2006). Lower prioritized customers may expect similar treatments as higher

prioritized customers, which might lead to disappointments. The more dissatisfied

customers, the higher the possibility of those customers spreading negative word of

mouth (Hogan, Lemon & Libai, 2003). Word of mouth is said to be more persuasive

than regular marketing activities (Herr, Kardes & Kim, 1991) and a bad reputation has

negative impact on the overall business performance in the long run (Hogan, Lemon &

Libai, 2003; Lee, 2012). This might cause losses of new potential corporate customers

(East, Hammond & Lomax, 2008) and it could also reduce the possibility of economy

of scale (Johnson & Selnes, 2004). Risk may also be increased if a company put too

much effort on certain customers; it is difficult to compensate losses associated with for

instance if highly prioritized customers switch to a competitor (Dhar & Glazer, 2003).

The interesting in the matter is how lower prioritized customers perceive quality in

comparison to the more prioritized.

If there exist a gap between quality perceptions and actual corporate customer

expectations it is often associated with dissatisfaction. Customers and companies tend to

address attention on different matters in the potential exchange. This difference in the

5

perspectives is significant because it affects the construction of the valuation (Carmon

& Ariely, 2000). When companies possess no accurate customer insight, it is more

challenging to deliver high quality (Hung, Huang & Chen, 2010). Companies’ and

customers’ opinions and valuation of an item might therefore differ, not only in

perception but also in how they estimate the value (Carmon & Ariely, 2000; Krepapa et

al, 2003). In those situations, companies often draw assumptions about what they think

is of importance to the customer but when investigating further, those might be of

totally different values (Jones & Shandiz, 2015). The customer is the one deciding on

what the definition of quality is and the company’s own definition or understanding is

meaningless unless it mirrors the corporate customers’ (Hansen & Bush, 1999; Berry, Parasuraman & Zeithaml, 1988). A gap between the understanding of quality from the

perspective of the buyer and seller can be grounded in organizations’ use of seller

intelligence in marketing strategies for instance. Such strategies can be problematic and

useless for the overall performance if the information is based on inaccurate

assumptions about the buyers’ perceptions (Mullins et al, 2014). When the perception of

an exchange between buyer and seller differ, it can also create misunderstandings of

each other (Mullins et al, 2014; Ickes, 1997; Krepapa et al, 2003). By relying on the

seller's own subjective perceptions of its customers, it can put the organization to

diverse risks if these perceptions do not reflect their customer’ image accurately. Examples of these risks can be financial or competitive losses (Mullins et al, 2014). In regards to the issues presented above, it is important to take into consideration that

corporate customers in different prioritization categories might have different

perception of quality. The essence of the discussion is also to explain the highly

important task for companies to deliver not only quality from the companies’

perspectives, rather the right expected quality by the corporate customers. This is due to

that companies and customers might perceive quality differently, which can lead to a

decreasing business performances in the long run. However, most empirical research

has been limited to areas of B2C. There is a lack of knowledge of quality perception in

B2B contexts (Rauyruen & Miller, 2007), a reason for the authors of this thesis to study

it further. Although there has been a lot of research about quality perception (Cronin,

Brady & Hult, 2000; Sureshchandar, Rajendran & Anantharaman, 2002; Kumar &

Grisaffe, 2004), an issue is that it has not been studied enough in relation to customers

in different prioritization categories.

6

1.3 Purpose Assess the quality perception of corporate customers in different prioritization

categories and an organization’s anticipation about its corporate customers’

quality perception.

1.4 Research Questions

Does the measured quality perception differ among different corporate

customer categories?

How can the measured quality perception differ among different corporate

customer categories?

Does the corporate customers’ total quality perception differ from the

organization’s anticipation about the customers’ perception?

1.5 Delimitations

This thesis is limited by focusing on a single Swedish B2B company and its usage of a

customer prioritization method. The study is also limited to one single industry (the

corporate insurance market) but the results can also be applied in other service settings.

7

2. Methodology

This chapter is about an explanation of the methods used and steps taken to carry out the

process of this thesis. It explains the practical decisions taken in order to fulfill the

purpose and answer the two research questions.

2.1 The Authors’ Preconceptions

This thesis has its roots from where the authors began to discuss the topic of their

interests. Both theoretical and practical knowledge were used in the process of

generating the main topic. In regards to this, it was appealing for business students to

conduct this kind of study. The authors are interested in everything that has to do with

the service sector due to their work situation where all three currently were working

within the insurance sector. The authors had also an orientation towards the B2B area of

their university studies. According to the authors, quality perception was an interesting

subject to choose mainly because it differs among individuals. The preconception made

the thesis possible and the figments could be tested.

2.2 Research Philosophy

The research philosophy aids researchers to further develop the research methodology

and strategy (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). Researchers compose certain

assumptions on how they perceive the world reflected in the research philosophy.

2.2.1 Epistemology, Ontology & Hermeneutics This study is an epistemological investigation which describes the theory of learning

and knowledge. Together with the concept of positivism, it is conducted in an approach

that advocates the application of methods of natural science into the study of social

reality (Bryman & Bell, 2011). By using positivism in the study, the authors can connect

theory to social reality in order to create an interesting research approach. Ontology is a term for reality’s constitution, the nature of existence (Denscombe, 2002). The relationship between ontology and epistemology makes up paradigms about how

8

knowledge refers to something of reality (Bryman & Bell, 2011). According to Gripsrud

(2011), hermeneutics is a term defined as the science of interpretation. It regards the

means of understanding and how to state a meaning; a form of knowledge.

The hermeneutic circle can illustrate how the human understanding constantly develops;

an exchange between a partial and full understanding. ”You have to understand the parts

in order to understand the whole, and you have to understand the whole in order to

understand the parts” (Gripsrud, 2011, p. 182).

2.3 Research approach

2.3.1 Deductive vs. Inductive research

A deductive research approach represents the most common view on how the

relationship between theory and practice within social science works. It is commonly

connected to the quantitative research procedure and is used when hypotheses are

developed from existing theories and further tested by a designed research strategy

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). In essence, a deductive approach aims to use data to test

theories rather than creating them. The process of deductive research starts with a

presentation of theories, thereafter are hypotheses created with the purpose to test the

theories. By using quantitative data collection, a result could be revealed and the

hypotheses are either rejected or confirmed and the theories revised (Eisenhardt &

Graebner, 2007). The opposite approach to deductive is the inductive research approach.

The inductive approach is more of an exploratory research where observations are

connected with theories; always constructed between individuals. Theories are rather

created than tested and the approach belongs to the qualitative research methodology

(Bryman & Bell, 2011).

This study applies the deductive research approach due to that theory of tested and the

foundation of the thesis is based on existing theory to real life events.

9

2.4 Research Strategy

2.4.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative research

There are two major research strategies when it comes to data collection are the

quantitative and the qualitative research (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009; Hyde,

2000). It could be useful to make a distinction between these strategies because the two

take different stand points from epistemological and ontological stances (Bryman &

Bell, 2011). Qualitative research aims to find new ideas or concepts that were not

expected from the beginning of the research (Britten, 1995; Bryman & Bell, 2011).

It takes into consideration that everyone’s reality is different. Individual's experiences,

values and feelings differ from one person to another. A negative aspect of using

qualitative methods is that it is not possible to generalize the conclusion (Grinnel &

Unrau, 2005). Quantitative research regards the social reality as an objective to external

reality. It can be built as a research strategy that highlights quantification in the

gathering and analysis of data in which the relationship between theory and research

follows a deductive approach. Quantitative research is a method where objective

theories are tested in order to examine the relationship between different variables (Polit

& Hungler 2013). The significance should lie on testing theories and embody the nature

of scientific models. It advocates natural science to social reality where knowledge is

gained from facts (Bryman & Bell, 2011). Quantitative research uses numerical data

collection methods and analysis procedures which often involves questionnaires, graphs

and statistics (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). However, without a closer

interaction with the respondents, it is challenging to capture their real interpretation of

values (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). It does also fail to distinguish people or

social institutions measured from the world of nature. It seems to engender a static view

on individuals or social life and often gives an artificial sense of accuracy. Although, the

benefits of such a method emphasizes replication and generalization (Bryman & Bell,

2011).

This study was performed as a quantitative research strategy because the main focus of

this thesis was to gather quantitative data with the intention to conduct a statistical

analysis.

10

2.5 Research Design

A research design grants the groundwork for gathering and analysis of data. The design

should match the choice of priority with aspects of the research process (Bryman &

Bell, 2011). In the research design, the authors must show how they will measure the

main variables of the hypotheses and how the characteristics should be like under the

circumstances of the data gathering (Bailey, 1987). A research design implies a plan for

collecting, organizing and integrate information or data which results in specific

research findings. It can be compared to a drawing of a house where the drawing is

particularly adapted only to the house (Merriam, 1988).

2.5.1 Descriptive Research Purpose

A descriptive study defines the frequency that occurs when using statistics to describe

and summarize data (Polit & Hungler, 2013). The authors therefore chose a descriptive

research purpose since it concerns a specific company situation with its customers. The

descriptive research emphasizes the characteristics of individuals, situations or groups.

This approach is used when there is already a basic comprehension and the researchers

want to describe the object, not to explain it (Björklund & Paulsson, 2003). An example

of a descriptive study is with the aim of gathering information to be able to improve an

organization. Such knowledge does often reflect on the structure of the investigation

(Ejvegård, 2009).

2.5.2 Social Survey study

The research design needs to be adapted according to the characteristics of the study.

The choice of approach is determined by the problem discussion and the research

questions. Therefore, it is argued that the use of only one specific design with strict

frames can make the research limited. By using characteristics of different designs, the

authors can use inputs from more approaches; well applicable to the study (Merriam,

1988).

This study has applied a survey study. A survey study comprises a cross-sectional

design, as the information primarily is collected through surveys or structured

11

interviews. The difference between a cross-sectional study and survey study is that in

the cross-sectional approach, more than one case is applied in the research (Bryman &

Bell, 2003). Other methods that can be used associated with survey study are content

analysis, structured observations, analysis of official statistics and journals. The aim of a

survey study is to produce a set of quantitative or quantified data that relate to two or

more variables. The variables are further analyzed in order to find different connection

patterns between the variables. Both the cross-sectional and the survey study research

are very similar to each other as both of them investigate and compare different

variables (Bryman & Bell, 2003). The authors argue that this thesis has adapted a survey

study since it investigates one topic and different variables.

2.6 Data Collection

2.6.1 Data Sources In research, there are two versions of data collection (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill,

2009). Secondary data is information collected in second-hand, already collected from

an external source and for another purpose (Hollensen, 2007). It does often provide

necessary background knowledge and is used as an alternative to get information about

primary research methods. It can also validate results from primary data. However,

secondary data might not always be available and a risk might occur that the

information is unreliable, inaccurate or not adaptable (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill,

2009). Primary data is instead information collected from the researchers in first-hand.

It is essential knowledge often used to answer stated questions in research. It is updated

information, tailor-made and specific (Hollensen, 2007). Primary data is often

indispensable when it comes to examining for example attitudes or intentions.

Drawbacks of this data collection are that it requires lots of resources and is time

consuming. It might as well be hard to find participants within the aimed population

(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).

It is essential to audit the data sources before referring from them (Bryman & Bell,

2011). According to Simmons-Mackie, Savage & Worrall (2014), the collected data for

the theoretical framework should be critically analyzed in order to extract the essence of

12

existing knowledge within the area. This was also closely made in the research process

of this study. It enables to differentiate true statements from false and helps to determine

if a source is reliable or not (Leth & Thurén, 2000). Mainly peer reviewed articles were

used in the study but also some not peer-reviewed articles. The authors argue that the

non-peer reviewed articles were supported and referring to other scientific sources and

therefore used in this thesis.

2.6.2 Questionnaire

The data collection method of this study is conducted through questionnaires. A

questionnaire is a document in where several questions are asked and the respondents

can reply by self-completion. A questionnaire is quick to administer and the respondents

will not be disturbed by an interviewer during the completion (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

The application is a useful tool to measure statistics in quantitative research approaches

(Couper & Bosnjak, 2010). It can be sent out to a large amount of respondents as well as

it is an inexpensive way of acquisition of data and most often sent by post or email.

Great benefits of such an instrument is that the participants are able to answer the survey

whenever they prefer (Eliasson, 2010), and the participants can be totally anonymous.

Drawbacks of questionnaires are instead that there is an increased risk of

misunderstandings of the questions which can have a strong impact on the result

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). It could also be associated with low response rates and

incomplete answers (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009).

However, questionnaires can be suitable in situations where the researchers want to

draw conclusions about a large population since it requires less time than qualitative

instruments (Eliasson, 2010). Other quantitative data collection methods are structured

interviews and structured observations, although these require more time and are mainly

focused on investigating behaviors (Bryman & Bell, 2011).

In this study, a questionnaire instrument is chosen due to its generalizability and as it is

suitable to large populations. It was also an easy way to reach out to the participants

through their emails. The amount of internet questionnaires have increased rapidly over

the past decade and the increase has probably been promoted due to the design,

implementation and its easy administration (Cole, 2005; Hoonakker & Carayon, 2009).

Online questionnaires are simplifying the procedure of distribution and are proven to

13

generate more answers (Jacobsen, 2002). By sending the questionnaires by email, it was

estimated to be a positive and facilitated process for the authors.

The questionnaire was created with response categories according to the Likert scale. The Likert scale is a great response tool when the intensity of the respondents’ feelings

about a certain topic is central. It is also easy to understand and facile to compile

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). It could be described as an itemized rating scale; easy to

construct, administer and understand (Jacobsen, 2002; Buckingham & Saunders, 2004;

Bryman & Bell, 2011). Mainly because the Likert scale is easily understood by

participants and due to that it is easily managed, the authors used this scale in the

survey.

2.7 Sample Strategy

According to Bryman & Bell (2011), it is essential to select a proper sample for the

population frame when conducting a questionnaire. The sample should represent an

entire population in the research context. To be able to answer the research questions,

the authors of this study were working together with the corporate insurance department

of the Swedish insurance company Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. The thesis measures the

quality perception of the corporate customers of the company in the different

prioritization categories of the organization. It does also investigate the employees’

anticipation about their customers’ perception of quality in the corporate department. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg offers customized insurance solutions to corporate customers

and the company has approximately 5300 corporate customers.

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has a corporate customer segmentation system depending on

what type of company (industry) the customers are running (Länsförsäkringar, 2015).

However, the authors chose not to make a distinction between these companies because

they are all unique even if they are in the same industry. For instance, companies are of

different sizes, have different numbers of employees, different business contracts,

different assets and therefore different needs. Instead, the authors of this thesis have

chosen to make a distinction between the customers based on how much contact

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has with its customers. The company has a prioritization

system in which corporate customers are divided according to their extent of risk that

14

needs to be monitored and updated. Some risks are required to be assessed more often

and therefore three prioritization categories were identified.

1. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg makes contact with the customers once a year.

2. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg makes contact more than once, up to a few times a

year.

3. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg contact is made every third year or contact is not

made at all1.

This means that corporate customers with higher risks and thereby special needs are

being more prioritized due to that the salespeople from Länsförsäkring Kronoberg are

visiting their facilities and create customized insurance solutions for them. The sample

technique used in this investigation was a non-probability convenience sample.

According to Bryman & Bell (2011), a convenience sample is a sample of the

population accessible to the researchers. The sample consisted of customers of the

corporate segment whose email addresses were brought from the company's IT

department. The sample strategy was therefore considered to be a convenient sample

because the respondents were simply accessible to the authors.

2.8 Data Analysis Method

Data analysis in quantitative research is typically in the late phase of a research process.

Although, there should be a constant validation about the content of the study.

Researchers must have in mind that different variables require different techniques.

Often it is the natural size of the sample which determines the analysis method (Bryman

& Bell, 2011).

2.8.1 Statistical Software Program

According to Brezavšcek, Šparl & Žnidaršic (2014), the SPSS program makes it

possible to link numbers and allocation of data sets to handle the data itself. The authors

argue that by compiling and analyzing the received data in software, it eased the

process of calculating statistics.

1 Interview with corporate manager at Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, interview conducted 23rd of April, 2015.

15

2.8.2 Cronbach´s Alpha

Cronbach´s Alpha is a method calculating reliability. The method divides all the

questions on your instrument and calculates the correlation between them. Eventually,

the computer program generates one number for Cronbach’s Alpha, which will reveal

the reliability of the instruments and items used. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient

should be estimated between the values of one to zero (Bryman & Bell, 2003). One is

the perfect internal reliability and zero is no internal reliability. Rule of thumb says that

0,8 is an acceptable level, but there are some researchers arguing that a rate of 0,6 also is

to accept (Hair et al, 2010). By using this method, it shows the reliability on the research

and if it would be conducted again, the same results would be obtained (Bryman & Bell,

2011). The authors of this thesis calculated the Cronbach’s Alpha through a statistical

software program. The Cronbach´s Alpha will be conducted and presented in the section

5, Result.

2.8.3 Independent sample T-test

An independent sample t-test is a hypothesis testing procedure. The approach is testing

if there is a significant difference between two groups that are independent of each

other. Since the groups can not include the same participants, the independent sample t-

test compares the distribution between the two groups’ means. To be able to perform an

independent sample t-test, each group needs to have one independent and one dependent

variable. The independent samples t-test estimates if the mean of the dependent variable

of one group is a significantly different from the mean of the dependent variable from

the other group (Nolan & Heinzen 2012).

By using the independent sample t-test, the authors were able to answer the hypotheses.

The independent sample t-test also shows different rates such as the means and the

significance of the different variables. The test was conducted with help of a statistical

software program. The p-value tells if the authors should reject or not reject the

hypothesis. If the p-value shows to be equal to or below 0,05, it is significant, and fails

to reject the hypothesis. If the p-value is higher than 0,05, it is non-significant and the

hypothesis should be rejected. By conducting an independent t-test, the p-value can give

the authors the results of if the customer categories perceive quality perception equally

16

or not (Rissanen, 2013, Nolan & Heinzen, 2012). Although, this study investigates three

categories, the authors chose to use this approach in order to get more specific details on

where it differs between the variables. There is a downside of conducting multiple t-

tests because “As the number of samples increases, the number of t-test necessary to

compare every possible pair of means increases at an even greater rate. And with that,

the probability of a type 1 error quickly becomes far larger than 0,05” (Nolan &

Heinzen, 2012, p. 298). When conducting three comparisons, the probability of a type 1

error is 0,143 rather than 0,05 (Nolan & Heinzen, 2012).

The performance of the independent sample t-test was also executed in a statistical

software program and is presented in the section 5, Result.

2.8.4 One way ANOVA test

Also by applying an ANOVA test, the researchers increased the credibility of the study.

The one way ANOVA test is an analysis method that compares similarities in variances

of three or more set of means. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a test similar to an

independent sample t-test which can be processed in a statistical software program.

Instead of analyzing two independent groups, ANOVA can manage to analyze three or

more independent groups. Due to this, ANOVA can be interpreted as a more advanced

independent sample t-test as it analyzes several groups. The authors have applied an

independent sample t-test to see the different variables in more specific, but to perform a

test with lower chance of type 1 error, the ANOVA test was conducted. As the ANOVA

test measures all means to each other at once, it gives the researchers a more reliable test

(Rissanen, 2013, Nolan & Heinzen, 2012).

The one way ANOVA test will be conducted and presented in the section 5, Result.

2.9 Data cleaning

SPSS is a statistical software program in which data from quantitative research can be

compiled (Bryman & Bell, 2011). When entering the data into SPSS, the authors were

aware of potential errors and challenges such as missing answers. There are four main

reasons for missing data: the respondent was not required to enter the data, the

17

respondent did not want to answer, had no opinion or missed to answer a question by

mistake. In quantitative analysis, all recorded data (few exceptions made) should be

presented in numerical forms and all variables should have a number even if data is

missing (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). When adding the data into SPSS, the

authors assigned a number according to the Likert scale for each responding answer in

order to make a statistical analysis and look for errors. Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill

(2009) state three practices when checking for data errors: researchers should look out

for illegitimate codes, illogical answers by respondents and make sure that rules are

being followed.

2.10 Research Process

The research process of this study was implemented and divided into five major steps

and a description of the procedure is described below. The first step involved the

theoretical framework extracted from reliable literature and scientific articles. The

second step was about assembling background information about the sample company

through two interviews. One interview to collect relevant information about the chosen

company and the other interview to gather knowledge about the customer prioritization

strategy of the company. The third step of the process was aimed to develop the main

investigation in form of an operationalization by creating questionnaires. The fourth step

in the process involved the sample strategy and applications of data collection were the

authors were able to send out the major data instrument. The questionnaires were

directed both to the corporate customers and the employees of the company to be able to

conduct the investigation. The fifth and final step of the research process was to compile

the collected data and also to compare it, analyze it and finally get the result; a

conclusion to the research purpose.

2.10.1 The First Step - theory collection

The first step of this study was to gather secondary data in order to create the theoretical

framework, used to develop a conceptual framework. This was for the authors of this

research books and articles used in order to gather relevant information. The theoretical

framework is well adapted to investigate the concept of quality.

Relevant literature and scientific articles from the search engines Google Scholar and

18

Linnaeus University’s search function OneSearch were read and reviewed. This was

important due to the establishment of the conceptual framework. Reliable articles from

scientific sources and related course literature were used. The thesis consists mainly of

peer reviewed articles as those are argued to be valid sources. When conducting this

study, the sources were critically audited by the authors. Source criticism refers to the

collection of methods used in order to identify supported facts and speculations. The

presentation above led the authors to the second step of the research process.

2.10.2 The Second Step - collection of company information

Next task in the research process was essential to continue the investigation and collect

important background information in order to gather more specific knowledge about the

sample company. This step was only a bridge to be able of conduct the main

investigation. Through interviews, the chosen theory of the 5Qs model was

operationalized in an insurance industry context. The progress of the second step of this

thesis required interviews in order to gain knowledge and information about the

insurance topic as well as customer prioritization categories of Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg.

The first interview performed was a semi-structured interview conducted together with

an insurance risk engineer at Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. By conducting this interview, it

gave the interviewer a chance to ask multiple questions where the questions was

prepared in advance on behalf of the authors’ purpose. The interviewee’s task at

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg was to estimate the risk of the customers’ insurances, suggest

and decide on how the proposed insurances should be customized based on the

customers’ needs. The interviewee was also managing the technical support in the entire

sales program; made follow ups and acted as a middle hand between salespeople and

customers. The choice of interviewing the risk engineer was due to that he acts as a

central part of the corporate department of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg and possesses a

lot of experience of the matter. The interview took place the 8th of April in the head

office of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, located in the city center of Växjö. 10 questions

were prepared and designed based on the theory of the 5Qs model. The whole interview

19

took about thirty minutes, was recorded and all the answers were written down in a

document.

The whole semi-structured interview is presented and summarized in the Appendices.

Further, the authors were investigating the customer prioritization categories of

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. This was made in order to further be able to discover if the

quality perception differed among the corporate customers in the different prioritization

categories of the organization. In order to gather information about these prioritization

categories, an open-ended interview was conducted together with the corporate

insurance manager at Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. It took place at the company’s office

in Växjö the 23rd of April and took about five minutes. The whole open-ended

interview was documented and is presented in the Appendices.

2.10.3 The Third Step - development of questionnaires

The next step of this study was to develop the questionnaires; the major research

instrument of this study. From the operationalization two questionnaire versions were

created; one for Länsförsäkring Kronobergs’ corporate insurance employees and

another for the corporate insurance customers. Both of the versions were very similar,

just directed towards the right group (employee or customer). The three customer

prioritization categories of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg were provided the same

questionnaire version. Just a control question on how much contact the corporate

customer had with their insurance company was added in the end to make a distinction

between the three prioritization categories.

Both the questionnaire versions were translated from English to Swedish and approved

by a knowledgeable professor in both of the languages to validate the translation. The

questionnaires were sent out in Swedish but both language versions can be found in the Appendices. The information used to create the questions were based, formulated and origins from

the background information gotten from the interview answers (See previous step). This

was made in order to conduct and formulate the questions through an operationalization.

A Likert scale was created as response tool with alternatives from one to five. The scale

20

was created according to the level of satisfaction where one was do not agree/ is not

satisfied and further up to five which was totally agree/ is very satisfied. Before the

questionnaires were sent out to the participants, eight pilot tests were sent to test the

content by the approval of professors and teachers of Linnaeus University. Also, two

pilot test versions (both for customers and employees) were sent out to the responsible

manager of the corporate insurance department and a salesperson at Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg in order to receive the approval also by the company. In total, eight pilot

tests were sent out and response were gotten from five. Once the questionnaires were

modified according to the pilot test feedback, they were sent out by email to the

participants of the study.

2.10.4 The Fourth Step - Distribution of questionnaire

The authors had taken advantage of google survey; a web application that allows people

to make web based questionnaires. Google survey was a suitable tool for this study

because the questionnaire could be sent out by a weblink that directs the respondent to

the questionnaire. It also stores and summarizes the results in a spreadsheet. The link to

the questionnaires was distributed to the customers from the corporate insurance

managers’ personal email. Unfortunately, a large amount of email addresses were not in

use. In order to receive a high response rate, some employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg also sent out the questionnaire to corporate customers’ email

addresses they currently were in contact with. A reminder to the first set of customers

was as well sent out six days after the initial distribution. In total, 200 questionnaires

were sent out to valid email addresses and 71 corporate customers answered the

questionnaire which gave a response rate of 35 %. When it comes to the company’s

anticipation about its customers, the other questionnaire version was sent out to five

employees of the corporate insurance department in Växjö and all five responded. A

response rate of 100 %.

All the questionnaire versions can be found in the Appendices.

21

2.10.5 The Fifth Step - Data compiling, cleaning & analysis

The fifth step of this study was to compile all information received from the

questionnaires. The results from the questionnaires were collected and analyzed in the

statistical software program called SPSS. It is a tool commonly used when exploring

statistical analysis in social sciences and quantitative research. When analyzing the

outcomes in SPSS, the result could be revealed and a conclusion could finally be drawn.

By the help of SPSS, the authors were able to receive and see the different outcomes

from the three different customer categories. Secondly, by compiling a general opinion

out from the three different customer categories, a mutual perception of the customers

could be gathered. Thirdly, by taking this mutual opinion from the customer's’

perception of delivered quality together with the outcome from the employees’

anticipations into consideration, possible gap could be revealed in the total quality

perception between customer and seller of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg.

The authors discovered that three respondents out of the 71 corporate customers had

missed to fill in one question each of the questionnaire. Judging from their answering

patterns, the authors thought that the respondents simply missed to fill out the questions.

To deal with the missing data, the authors replaced the answers with the total mean of

each question. The authors did not find any illogical answering patterns and it appeared

that the respondents answered everything correctly.

2.11 Reliability, Validity & Ethics

2.11.1 Reliability

The gained information could have an authoritative look but anyway incomplete,

inaccurate or not reliable enough to be of value when generalizing in a larger population

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). The study should be conceivable for another researcher to

conduct again and gather similar results (Denscombe, 2002). The measurement of

Cronbach’s Alpha was used when analyzing the internal reliability of the study. It refers

to the accuracy of the scale about whether the participants experience the items in the

investigation in the same way or not. Cronbach’s Alpha is a less conservative method to

22

use than conducting other approaches such as for instance test/retest or internal

consistency when estimating reliability of a research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). The

authors of this thesis have accurately developed the operationalization and questionnaire

according to its relevance and guidelines above.

2.11.2 Validity

Validity on the other hand refers to the degree in which the instrument measures the

phenomena at first or mirrors the abstract construct that is being examined (Burns & Grove, 2009). It refers to the research’s level of accuracy, where the instrument

measures the attribute it has been designed to measure. The intention of measuring

validity is to see that the measurement of the research is valid or relevant to the purpose

(Bryman & Bell, 2011). The author must be able to show the audience that the research

is closely connected to relevance, especially important in quantitative research

(Denscombe, 2002).

The face validity should be measured by any researcher who develops a new measure. It

measures the reflection of the content of the concept, means whether the measure is

getting at the concept or not (Bryman & Bell, 2011). To determine the face validity of

this investigation, questionnaire pilot tests were sent out to professors and teachers of

the university to approve the content quality and relevance to the study. Also,

knowledgeable professors were giving feedback on both of the language versions.

Among some things, the authors used the Likert scale with labeled numbers (one to

five) in the questionnaire, which enabled the participants to understand the choices of

answers.

2.11.3 Ethics

Over the decades, the importance of ethical considerations in research has grown

remarkably (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). “Ethical regulation in the social

sciences may be highly damaging to a society’s ability to understand itself, particularly

by constraining scientific research relative to journalism or imaginative forms of

communication” (Love, 2012, p. 3). Ethics should not bring any harm to participants,

23

intrude the respondent's privacy or make any threat for future relationships (Bryman &

Bell, 2011). The authors of this study have asked for permission by the concerned

company (Länsförsäkring Kronoberg) to take advantage of its customers’ information

and to make contact with them. The questionnaire in this study has clearly defined the

content and purpose of the investigation for the customers and explained to the

respondents that them all are anonymous. Same as for the employees interviewed for the

gathering of background information. The research would not affect the relationship

with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, not from the authors’ perspective and neither from the

participants’. The researchers also underlined that the final result was available for the

respondents if there were any interest.

24

3. Theoretical Framework

3.1 Perception & Satisfaction

People interpret and understand things and meanings differently. Two people can see or

hear the same event, but their interpretation of it may be completely different (Solomon

et al, 2010). This proposes that individual perceptions are shaped by the ability of itself

to take the perspective of other individuals during interaction (Ickes, 1997). The

understanding of a stimulus is defined by the individual's itself, which is affected by his

or hers unique impacts, needs and experiences used to interpret the surrounding world.

The process of perception is based on three stages such as exposure (sensation),

attention and interpretation (Solomon et al, 2010).

It is shown that customers have different perceptions due to different experiences and

expectations of companies (Solomon et al, 2010), and some of the most essential factors

influencing customer perception are upbringings and earlier experiences of a company

or industry (O’Neill & Palmer, 2003; Solomon et al, 2010). The basis for customers

perceiving great value in a company is dependent on the delivery of marketing activities

and other communicative sources leading to competitiveness on the market. Customers

value several aspects of an exchange in form of a purchase. Examples are the level of

service, the brand image, the product’s quality, company reputation, relationship and

interaction with sellers, monetary benefits, time and level of convenience in form of

place. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is the social value of the

company, which can be described as the image derived from the stereotyped community

(Maas & Graf, 2008). The interpretation of a purchase refers to the meaning that

customers use their perception of different stimuli and make a judgment about these

(Solomon et al, 2010).

Customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction are decided by the experience after a purchase.

It is an attitude or general feelings about an event and a constant process of evaluation

occurs in the customers’ daily consumption activities. Even though customer

satisfaction is declining in some industries, marketers are looking out for indicators of

dissatisfaction all the time and are instantly trying to eliminate them (Solomon et al,

25

2006). Factors of dissatisfaction could be for instance the product itself, the service, the

warranty or speed that the customer experience. High quality is shown to affect

customer satisfaction positively, which in return can provide the organization with

higher profits. Dimensions of tangibility, competence and empathy in service quality

have a great impact on customer satisfaction as well (Solomon et al, 2006; Mahapatra,

2014).

3.2 The 5 Qualities Model

There are several different ways to measure and examine quality (Wu, Tao & Yang

2012). Professor Zineldin (2006) created a quality measurement based and developed

out from Grönroos (2000) approaches. Grönroos (2000) divided the total quality of the

product or service into a technical- and a functional quality. Zineldin (2006) expanded

the technical- functional quality model into a framework of five quality dimensions

referred to as the 5Qs model (Zineldin, 2006). This model is argued to be a useful

measurement and better reliable than other quality measures within different areas

(Hussain & Ur Rehman, 2012; Byrd, 2009). Authors like Azimifar (2013) and Hurst

(2011) have tested 5Q items in earlier research. According to Hurst (2011), the benefits

of this model are its theoretical foundation, the multidimensional attributes missing in

other measurements and that it is compatible in large populations. Hence, it is essential

to keep in mind that the model is still a newer addition to the quality measurement

theory. The model can measure perceived quality of interaction and atmosphere which

can reflect on a customer's level of overall satisfaction. The model is more

comprehensive than for example SERVQUAL model; a measurement instrument of

service quality (Zineldin, 2006; Zineldin, Zineldin & Vasicheva, 2014). According to

Newman (2001) and Ladhari (2009), SERVQUAL is a concept widely used within the

finance organizational sector proven to favor performance in service quality but has

encountered some contradictions and criticism. For example, there is complexity in

administering the project and it might encourage a false safety to customers and an

exaggerated complacency. Another issue concerns the huge effort made for all

customers, including them generating no profit and the same amount to the important

customers whose should be given more resources. Another critique concerns the huge

focus on reputation and brand image rather than performance. Issues are also

26

emphasized in that personal service can never compensate for product quality (Newman,

2001), discussions about its validity occurs and its use in different cultures might be

difficult (Ladhari, 2009). The 5Qs model is more extensive and embodies the basic and

multidimensional attributes lacking in other models. The 5Qs are divided into five

different attributes; quality of object, quality of process, quality of infrastructure, quality

of interaction and the quality of atmosphere (Zineldin, Zineldin & Vasicheva, 2014).

The first Q in the 5Qs model represents the Quality of object; the technical quality

(what the customer receives). This Q measures the experience itself, or basically, the

main reason of why a customer is interested in a certain product. The second Q is the Quality of processes; the functional quality (on how the seller provides the service).

This Q processes measures on how well the business activities are being implemented.

For instance, it could include waiting time and speed of performing the deal or proposal.

The third Q is the Quality of infrastructure; the basic resources required in order to

perform the business. This includes the quality of the internal competence and skills,

experience, know-how, technology, internal relationships, motivation, attitudes, internal

resources and activities and also on how these activities are managed, co-operated and

coordinated. The fourth Q is the Quality of interaction; measuring the quality of the

exchanged information. This could be the financial exchange and social exchange for

instance. The last and fifth Q is the Quality of atmosphere which concerns the

atmosphere and environment where the buyer and seller cooperate and operates. It is

where the relationship and interaction process occur. The indicators of this Q should be

considered as critical due to the belief that a lack of an open and friendly atmosphere

declares poor quality (Zineldin, Zineldin & Vasicheva, 2014).

The presented attributes of the 5Qs model are intended to introduce a specific quality

factor that should be as reliable as possible. By discovering the total quality inside an

organization, it is supposed to supply and maintain an operative decision making

foundation for the overall quality management (Zineldin, Zineldin & Vasicheva 2014).

The sum of all quality dimensions of the 5Qs model get a representation of the total

delivered quality of an organization (Zineldin & Vasicheva, 2012).

27

4. Conceptual Framework

This chapter summarizes the authors’ own figments gotten from the theory chapter to be able to

bring out a contribution from the data collection instrument.

4.1 Research Concept

The main theory of this thesis is the 5Qs model because it describes several dimensions of the

aspect of quality. According to the authors, it was an interesting concept to apply in a new

industry than what has been done previously. The investigation of this thesis measures an

overall level of perceived quality among customers in different prioritization categories and

also from the company’s own understanding. According to the theory, the concept of the 5Qs

model has not yet been applied in an insurance context and nevertheless in a B2B-market.

The 5Qs model is an existing and multidimensional quality measurement concept which has

identified five quality dimensions that can be summarized together as the overall quality level

of an institution or an organization (Zineldin, 2006). This model was chosen to this study due to

that it measures the total quality perception and includes more dimensions of quality than other

quality measurements, for example SERVQUAL. It is also compatible to larger populations.

The 5Qs model has previously only been applied in healthcare and educational research

purposes which made it interesting for the authors to apply the model in this study (Zineldin,

Camgöz-Akda &Vasicheva, 2011; Zineldin & Vasicheva, 2012).

4.2 Operationalization

The theories used in the thesis should be considered in terms of their measurability in for

example an operationalization (Kumar, 2005). Bryman & Bell (2003) explained the aim of an

operationalization as making variables measurable. The questionnaires in this study were

created throughout the gathered background information in form of interviews2 and through the

5Qs model. The main investigation of this thesis was made by questionnaires sent out to

corporate customers as well as to a service organization.

2 Interview with risk manager at Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, interview conducted 8rd of April, 2015.

28

Concept / Theory Conceptual Formulated Items – Formulated Items –

Components The Customers The Corporation

1. The 5Q model – The General background How satisfied are you in How satisfied do you think

total quality perception information of total quality general with Länsförsäkring that the customers are with

perception. Kronoberg and your Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

Perception & Satisfaction corporate insurances? and your corporate

insurances in general?

2. The 5Q model – The The customer value What is your perception of What do you think the

object creators. How much are Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's customers’ perceptions are of

customers willing to pay? products in relation to their Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

Perception & Satisfaction How much of protection is prices? products in relation to their

the product in relation to

prices?

risk. The product.

3. The 5Q model – The The quality of insurances in How competitive do you How competitive do you

object relation to competitors’. The perceive Länsförsäkring think the customers perceive

customer value creators. Kronoberg's insurance Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

Perception & Satisfaction How much are customers products in relation to insurance products in

willing to pay? Market competitors on the market? relation to competitors on

competitiveness. the market?

4. The 5Q model – The The quality of insurances in How competitive do you How competitive do you

object relation to competitors’. The perceive Länsförsäkring think the customers perceive

customer value creators. Kronoberg regarding their Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

Perception & Satisfaction How much are customers prices in relation to regarding their prices in

willing to pay for what they competitors on the market? relation to competitors on

get? The Price. the market?

5. The 5Q model – The The quality of insurances in How well do you perceive How well do you think the

object relation the risk prevention Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to customers perceive

provided. The customer prevent risk in your Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

Perception & Satisfaction value creators. company? prevent risk in their

companies?

6. The 5Q model – The What do the customers Do you perceive that Do you think the customers

process want to protect and how Länsförsäkring Kronoberg perceive that Länsförsäkring

large is the risk for the has compiled a fully covered Kronoberg has compiled a

Perception & Satisfaction company? Where can profit insurance solution which fully covered insurance

be made and how does the fulfills the need of your solution which fulfills the

company work? Is the total company? needs of their companies?

customer need detected by

the company?

7. The 5Q model – The How does the company Do you perceive that the Do you think the customers

process work? What quality of service level of perceive the service level of

service are they delivering? Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

Perception & Satisfaction Service skills and customer employees is satisfying? employees as satisfying?

expectations of service.

8. The 5Q model – The Where can profit be made How do you perceive How do you think the

process and how does the company Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to customers perceive

work? What quality of manage insurance claims? Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

Perception & Satisfaction service are they delivering? manage the insurance

Customers’ expectations

claims?

and perceptions of their

purchased products.

29

9. The 5Q model – The Interaction at the purchase How well do you perceive How well do you think the

process occasion, follow-ups, that the employees of customers perceive that the

regular contact, promotion Länsförsäkring Kronoberg employees of Länsförsäkring

Perception & Satisfaction & customer service manage to communicate Kronoberg manage to

response. Service level and vital information about communicate vital

skills of the employees. insurances? information about

Collaboration. insurances?

10. The 5Q model - The What quality of service is How well do you perceive Do you think the customers

infrastructure the company delivering that the employees of of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

with the resources they Länsförsäkring Kronoberg perceive the employees to

Perception & Satisfaction possess? Is the level have access to the resources have good access to the

satisfying? needed to work efficiently? resources needed to work

efficiently?

11. The 5Q model – The The vision of great available Do you perceive How do you think the

infrastructure competence and attractive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to customers perceive the

insurance solutions. possess great competence competence of

Perception & Satisfaction Leadership inside the regarding cooperate Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

organization as insurances and customized employees regarding the

collaboration, competence, insurance solutions? cooperate insurances and

experiences, motivation, customized insurance

education, resources & solutions?

culture.

12. The 5Q model – The The vision of great available Do you perceive that Do you think the customers

infrastructure competence and attractive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg perceive that Länsförsäkring

insurance solutions. has employed a satisfying Kronoberg has employed a

Perception & Satisfaction Leadership inside the amount of employees to be satisfying amount of

organization, collaboration, able to run the business with employees to be able to run

competence, experiences, good service? the business with good

motivation, resources & service?

culture.

13. The 5Q model – The The organizational long-run Do you perceive that Do you think that the

infrastructure visions. Collaboration, Länsförsäkring Kronoberg customers perceive that

competence, experiences, pursues continuous Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

Perception & Satisfaction motivation, resources & improvements? pursues continuous

culture. The vision of the

improvements?

company.

14. The 5Q model – The Level of service provided How do you perceive the How do you think the

interaction and the purpose of a service response you receive when customers perceive the

provider. What are the contacting Länsförsäkring response they receive when

Perception & Satisfaction effort spent by the Kronoberg? contacting Länsförsäkring

employees and the

Kronoberg?

customers’ expectations?

15. The 5Q model – The Interaction at the purchase How well do you perceive How well do you think the

interaction occasion, follow-ups, that Länsförsäkring customers perceive that

regular contact, promotion Kronoberg succeed with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

Perception & Satisfaction & customer service creating a personal succeed with creating a

response. The aim of the approach? personal approach?

company. Customer’s

expectations of provided

service level.

30

16. The 5Q model – The Interaction at the purchase How involved do you How involved do you think

interaction occasion, follow-ups, perceive the employees of the customers perceive that

regular contact, promotion Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to the employees of

Perception & Satisfaction & customer service be in your insurance Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

response. Showing interest matters? are in their insurance

towards the customer’s matters?

interests. Level of service

and customers’ expectations

of the company.

17. The 5Q model – The Interaction at the purchase How do you perceive How do you think the

interaction occasion, follow-ups, Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to customers perceive

regular contact, promotion market themselves in Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

Perception & Satisfaction & customer service regards to the extent of what market themselves in regard

response. Company value they deliver? to the extent of what is

and image. delivered?

18. The 5Q model – The Environment, values and How well do you perceive How well do you think that

atmosphere general working Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to the customers perceive

environment. Company mediate a positive attitude Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

Perception & Satisfaction value and image. as an organization? mediate a positive attitude

as an organization?

19. The 5Q model – The Environment, values and Do you perceive Do you think that the

atmosphere general working Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's customers perceive

environment. Customers’ company culture as Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

Perception & Satisfaction expectation is the focus of customer-oriented? company culture as

the business. Service level.

customer-oriented?

20. The 5Q model – The Environment, values and How satisfied are you How well do you think the

atmosphere general working regarding the availability of customers perceive the

environment. Central Länsförsäkring Kronoberg’s availability of

Perception & Satisfaction locations of the offices in offices? Länsförsäkring Kronoberg’s

Kronoberg. Level of service

offices?

and value in availability.

21. The 5Q model – The Environment, values and To what extent do you think To what extent do you think

atmosphere general working that the following sentence the customers agree on the

environment. Customers’ complies "Länsförsäkring following sentence

Perception & Satisfaction expectation is the focus of Kronoberg is a company that "Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

the business. develops and supports the is a company that develops

environment in and supports the

Kronoberg"? environment in

Kronoberg"?

22. How the customers are How often are you in

prioritized by the company. contact with Länsförsäkring

Also, aimed as a control Kronoberg regarding your

question to the customers. insurances?

31

4.3 The Hypotheses

A hypothesis is an assumption formed out from the purpose with the aim to be tested.

Hypotheses involve a possible relation between two or more variables (Bryman & Bell,

2003). Five hypotheses were constructed in this investigation from the major purpose of

the study and the research concept of the 5Qs model. Hypotheses 1, 2, 3 and 4 are

measured through the method of an independent sample t-test as the authors wanted to

investigate the differences between the variables in more specific. Hypothesis 5 is

examined through an ANOVA test, as the authors wanted to explore the total

similarities or differences between the variables.

Figure 2: Hypothesis independent samples t-test

32

5. Result & Findings

The gathered information is likely to involve descriptive or inferential statistics.

Descriptive statistics describe and synthesize data in order to show patterns and trends.

The inferential statistics let the researcher to interfere where a relationship has been

noticed in a sample (Polit & Hungler, 2013). The numerical data may be presented in

two different forms. It might appear first as raw figures and percentages and secondly, it

appears in a more visual way such as line graphs, tables or histograms (Burns & Grove

2009). In order to be able to analyze these variables statistically, they have to be in a

measurable form. This suggests that it is possible by using numbers or scores (Borbasi

& Jackson, 2012).

The result chapter of this study deals with three statistical measurements, Cronbach’s Alpha, independent t-test and ANOVA test. The result is explained in numerical form

and a further investigation of the result is analyzed in the section 6, Discussion.

5.1 Cronbach’s Alpha

The Cronbach’s Alpha showed that the first Q of the 5Qs model, the product, had a rate

of 0,712. The second Q, the quality of process, resulted in a rate of 0,701. The result of

the third Q, the quality of infrastructure was 0,807 and a number of 0,850 was

calculated in the fourth Q, the interaction. The last Q, quality of atmosphere, was

calculated with a rate of 0,816 in Cronbach’s Alpha. The mean of total quality in Cronbach’s Alpha was resulted in a rate of 0,7792. This indicates that the questionnaire

investigation of this study is reliable as the rate was higher than 0,7. This refers to that

other researchers could conduct this investigation again and would gather a similar

result.

The authors of the thesis hoped to receive a higher amount of answers than was

gathered. The low response rate occurred due to that there were many inaccurate email

addresses registered in the system.

33

Figure 3: Cronbach’s Alpha levels

5.2 Independent sample T-test H1: Customers in prioritization category 1 and 2 have different perception of quality The customer prioritization category 1 included a N= 30, and the customer prioritization category 2, had a size of N= 29.

H1a: Customers in prioritization category 1 and 2 have different perception of quality of the product

The t-test revealed that the H1a is rejected, as the p=0,362 > 0,05. This numbers

supports that the customer prioritization category 1 (M=3,5250, SD=0,58113) does

perceive quality as the customer prioritization category 2 do (M=3,6552 ,SD=0,50184),

t(57)=-0,919, p=0,362.

H1b: Customers in prioritization category 1 and 2 have different perception of quality of the process

H1b failed to reject, as the rate is supported by the results of the t-test as p=0,05 = 0,05.

The customer prioritization category 1, (M=4, SD= 0,59088) The test supports that

quality perception differs in comparison to customer prioritization category 2

(M=4,293, SD= 0,53062), t(57)=-2,002, p=0,05.

34

H1c: Customers in prioritization category 1 and 2 have different perception of quality of the interaction

H1d reveals that p= 0,181 > 0,05 is rejected. The test supports that the customer

prioritization category 1 (M= 3,8917, SD= 0,56356) does not differ in quality

perception in comparison to customer prioritization category 2 (M= 4,1121, SD=

0,68330), t(57)=-1,354, p=0,181.

H1d: Customers in prioritization category 1 and 2 have different perception of quality of the infrastructure

H1c is rejected with the independent t-test result of p= 0,312 > 0,05.The test supports

that the customer prioritization category 1, (M= 3,8417, SD= 0,67109) has the same

quality perception as customer prioritization category 2, (M= 4,0259, SD= 0,71447),

t(57)=-1,021, p=0,312.

H1e: Customers in prioritization category 1 and 2 have different perception of quality of the atmosphere

H1e p= 0,242 > 0,05 is rejected due to the support of the t-test result. The test supports

that the customer prioritization category 1(M= 3,9500, SD= 0,59234) has the same

quality perception in as the customer prioritization category 2 (M= 4,1466, SD=

0,68308), t(57)=-1,182, p=0,242.

Figure 4: Hypothesis 1 results

35

H2: Customers in prioritization categories 1 and 3 have different perceptions of quality The customer prioritization category 1 included a N= 30, and the customer prioritization category 3, had a size of N= 12.

H2a: Customers in prioritization categories 1 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the product

H2a is rejected due to the independent t-test result of p= 0,893> 0,05. The test supports

that the customer prioritization category 1, (M=3,5250, SD=0,58113) does not differ in

the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3, (M=

3,5000, SD= 0,41286), t(40)=-0,136, p=0,893.

H2b: Customers in prioritization categories 1 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the process

H2b is rejected with the support of independent t-test result of p= 0,735> 0,05. The test

supports that the customer prioritization category 1, (M=4, SD=0,59088) perceive

quality the same as the customer prioritization category 3 do, (M= 4,0625, SD=

0,35556), t(40)=-0,341, p=0,735.

H2c: Customers in prioritization categories 1 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the interaction

H2d is rejected with support of the independent t-test result of p= 0,193> 0,05. The test

supports that the customer prioritization category 1, (M=3,8917, SD=0,56356) does not

differ in the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3,

(M= 3,6250, SD= 0,65279), t(40)=1,324 p=0,193.

H2d: Customers in prioritization categories 1 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the infrastructure

H2c is rejected with the support of independent t-test result of p= 0,893> 0,594. The test

supports that the customer prioritization category 1, (M=3,8417, SD=0,67109) does not

differ in the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3,

(M= 3,7292, SD= 0,41912), t(40)=0,538, p=0,594.

36

H2e: Customers in prioritization categories 1 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the atmosphere

H2e is rejected with support of the independent t-test result of p= 0,716> 0,05. The test

supports that the customer prioritization category 1, (M=3,9500, SD=0,59234) does not

differ in the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3,

(M= 4,0208, SD= 0,49381), t(40)=-0,366, p=0,716.

Figure 5: Hypothesis 2 results H3: Customers in prioritization categories 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality The customer prioritization segment 2 included a N= 29, and the customer prioritization category 3, had a size of N= 12.

H3a: Customers in prioritization categories 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the product

H3a is rejected with the independent t-test result of p= 0,351> 0,05. The test supports

that the customer prioritization category 2, (M=3,6552, SD=0,50184) does not differ in

the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3, (M=

3,5000, SD= 0,41286), t(39)=0,945, p=0,351.

37

H3b: Customers in prioritization categories 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the process

H3b is rejected with support of independent t-test result of p= 0,176 > 0,05. The test

supports that the customer prioritization category 2, (M=4,2931, SD=0,5306) does not

differ in the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3,

(M= 4,0625, SD= 0,35556), t(39)=1,378, p=0,176.

H3c: Customers in prioritization categories 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the infrastructure

H3c is rejected with the independent t-test result of p= 0,188 > 0,05. The test supports

that the customer prioritization category 2, (M=4,0259, SD=0,71447) does not differ in

the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3, (M=

3,7292, SD= 0,41912), t(39)=1,340, p=0,188.

H3d: Customers in prioritization categories 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the interaction

H3d failed to reject due to support of the independent t-test result of p= 0,042 < 0,05.

The test supports that the customer prioritization category 2, (M=4,1121, SD=0,68330)

does differ in the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category

3, (M= 3,6250, SD= 0,65279), t(39)=2,103, p=0,042.

H3e: Customers in prioritization categories 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the atmosphere

H3e is rejected with the independent t-test result of p= 0,568 > 0,05. The test supports

that the customer prioritization category 2, (M=4,1466, SD=0,68308) does not differ in

the quality perception in comparison with customer prioritization category 3, (M=

4,0208, SD= 0,49381), t(39)=0,576, p=0,568.

38

Figure 6: Hypothesis 3 results H4: Corporate customers and corporate insurance sellers have different perception of total quality

The corporate customers N= 71, was associated with a quality perception of Mean=

3,9162 (SD= 0,50996). By comparing these statistics with the seller's N= 5, that was

associated with a similar numerical quality perception with Mean= 3,9500 (SD=

0,19039), t(74)=-0,147, p=0,884.

H4 is rejected according to the independent t-test result of p= 0,884 > 0,05. The test

supports that customers and sellers do perceive total quality in the same way. There is

no difference between the two means that are not statistically significantly different

from zero at the 5% level of significance.

Figure 7: Hypothesis 4 results

39

In short, the quality perception is overall interpreted in the same between the corporate

customer categories and the corporate insurance sellers, except in two cases. The

independent t-test revealed that there is a difference in quality perception of the process

in customer prioritization category 1 and 2. Also, the t-test revealed a difference on the

perception of quality of the interaction between the customers in prioritization

categories 2 and 3.

5.3 ANOVA test

H5: Customers in prioritization categories 1, 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality Total N= 71.

H5a: Customers in prioritization categories 1, 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the product The test supports that no significant difference in means on quality perception between

the customer categories 1, 2 and 3 as p=0,553>0,05 level for the three conditions (F(2,

68) = 0,597, p = 0,553). H5b: Customers in prioritization categories 1, 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the process The test supports that no significant effect on quality perception between the customer

categories 1, 2 and 3 as p=0,104>0,05 level for the three conditions (F(2, 68) = 2,337, p

= 0,104).

H5c: Customers in prioritization categories 1, 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the infrastructure The test supports that no significant effect on quality perception between the customer

categories 1, 2 and 3 as p=0,353>0,05 level for the three conditions (F(2, 68) = 1,058, p

= 0,353).

40

H5d: Customers in prioritization categories 1, 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the interaction The test supports that no significant effect on quality perception between the customer

categories 1, 2 and 3 as p=0,076>0,05 level for the three conditions (F(2, 68) = 2,671, p

= 0,076).

H5e: Customers in prioritization categories 1, 2 and 3 have different perceptions of quality of the atmosphere The test supports that no significant effect on quality perception between the customer

categories 1, 2 and 3 as p= 0,474>0,05 level for the three conditions (F(2, 68) = 0,756,

p = 0,474).

Figure 8: Hypothesis 5 results.

The ANOVA test for all hypotheses resulted in p= >0,05 which means that there is no

difference in quality perception between the three customer prioritization segments.

41

6. Discussion

This chapter discusses the findings of data gathered from the statistical result. It makes a

practical discussion about the indications concerning the hypothesis tests made, states

their confirmation or rejection. The authors of this thesis wanted to investigate if the

sample of the chosen population had consistent answers to the perception of total

quality with regards to different prioritization categories. Organizations are suggested to

assess the real customer perception to be able to deliver high quality and assess the

company’s own understanding to match its customers’ perceptions. From the theoretical

concept of the 5Qs model, the authors mean that a total quality perception is a

combination of different dimensions which supports the concept developed by Zineldin

(2006).

Customer satisfaction is a cumulative combination of different constructs of the quality

aspects (Zineldin & Vasicheva, 2012). Looking at the different perception of the

different quality dimension in this study, the authors got an insight in how and where

perception could differ among corporate customers in different prioritization categories.

By looking at the results from the hypothesis test and the first quality dimension of the

5Qs model (the product), the answers gotten revealed that all three prioritization

categories had no significant statistical difference in perception provided by

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. This can be interpreted as the company has products

adapted to the customers in all prioritization categories. Even though more effort is

spent on some categories, there is more or less no difference in how customers perceive

quality of the insurance products. The customers in the different prioritization

categories get a different amount of effort and resources spent on them depending on

their risk assessment, insurance updates and time with salespeople. Despite the

customer prioritization, Länsförsäkring Kronoberg succeeds in creating products

(customized insurance solutions) that are equally competitive on the Swedish market as

well as affordable in the eyes of the customers. A majority of the corporate customers

experience the insurance products as of between neutral and good quality. Although, it

should be emphasized that the quality of the product had the lowest rate of all the five

qualities measured from the 5Qs model, it was although in a satisfying level. By looking

42

at the results from the hypothesis tests for the second quality dimension of the 5Qs

model (the process), the result appeared that the three customer prioritization categories

had no significant statistical difference in quality perception but with one exception.

Prioritization category 1 and 2 tended to have a slightly different perception supported

by the t-test. Due to this difference, the hypothesis failed to be rejected. This means that

in the higher prioritization category (Category 2) with more company involvement, the

higher the perception of quality of the process. However, the numerical difference in

means was very low (0,297) It could therefore be argued that there is still no significant

difference in quality perception between the customer categories. Corporate customers

of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg perceived the process as of good quality, although not of

highest quality. This can also be interpreted as the corporate customers perceived that

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg fulfilled their needs as risk holders, with a satisfying service

level and good management of insurance claims.

When examining the result from the hypothesis tests for the third dimension of the 5Qs

model (the infrastructure), the answers gotten from the questionnaires resulted in that

there were no statistical difference between the categories, only a small numerical

difference and the hypothesis was rejected. This means that prioritization category 1, 2

and 3 had similar perception of the organizational quality. A majority of the corporate

customers were satisfied with the resources possessed by Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, as

well as they were satisfied with the competence they perceived of the employees. The

responses on each question of the questionnaires were quite similar by all the

categories, but the corporate customers seemed to experience a very satisfying amount

of employees at Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. When it came to how the corporate

customers experienced the company’s development aim, a majority were perceiving

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to have this aim but the authors want to highlight that a large

group also were neutral in this question.

When it comes to the hypothesis test for the fourth dimension of the 5Qs model (the

interaction), the independent samples t-test (H3d) supported that that customer category

2 and 3 perceived the quality of interaction differently. The quality of the interaction

had the largest difference in means between these two customer categories. It appeared

to be logical because quality of the interaction involves commitment and personal

43

involvement by the company. Since customers in prioritization category 3 do not

receive the same amount of interaction with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg, those qualities

are therefore more difficult to perceive by this customer category. The overall response

rate gave that the insurance company’s response to customers when contacting it was of

high quality as well as a personal approach. It did also appear that the company was

involved in the corporate customers’ insurance matters. However, prioritization category 3 perceived Länsförsäkring Kronoberg as less

involved (question 16 see appendix) and found its approach as less personal (question

14 see appendix), compared to the other two categories. Numerically for those two

survey questions the averages were lower than in the other categories. According to the

survey participants, the marketing of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg was also perceived as

mostly relevant to what products that were provided.

The hypothesis result related to the fifth dimension of the 5Qs model (the atmosphere),

were all rejected. The independent samples t-test supported a difference between the

mean numbers of this question. Numerically speaking the questionnaire answers of this

quality dimensions showed that corporate customers perceived quality of the

atmosphere as of good quality by all customer categories. The positive attitude of

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg was perceived as high and the offices seemed to be available

to the customers according to the survey. The corporate customers perceived the

organization as supporting to the local environment as well as customer oriented.

The ANOVA test revealed if all three categories perceived the quality dimensions

differently supported that there was no significant difference between the means of the

different categories. The ANOVA test has a lower chance of experiencing a type 1 error

in which it could be regarded as more reliable than conducting a multiple independent

samples t-test. Based on the support of the ANOVA test, there was no significant

difference between the quality dimensions amongst the customer prioritization

categories.

When investigating the quality perception between the total amount of customers (still

the sample group, but the three prioritization categories together) compared to the

company’s own anticipation about the customers’ perception, the hypothesis test

44

supported that there was no significant difference between the two group means. It

appeared that the sellers had a quite accurate anticipation about how the corporate

customers would respond to the questionnaire. Here was neither a significant statistical

difference, nor a high numerical difference. This is positive for the organization because

good quality must be perceived in the eyes of the corporate customer, not only from the

perspective of the company (Hansen & Bush, 1999; Berry, Parasuraman & Zeithaml,

1988).

The result from the survey in regards to the similar quality perception between

customers and company is highly favorably for the organization (Mullins et al, 2014). It

could suggest that customers are satisfied with the company. Due to the awareness of

the company, the customers can give an adaptable service and products to the

customers. According to the survey result, the average mean of perceived overall

quality was 4.26 out of 5. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg is therefore in low risk of

disappointed customers. Anticipations about how customers perceive the company

quality could hint the company about where to put more resources and how to stand out

from competitors. Also the marketing activities and choices of customized insurance

solutions could be easier to determine out from the categories and quality measures.

45

7. Concluding Chapter

7.1 Conclusion

The perceptions of the quality dimensions of the 5Qs model were perceived similar

between the different customer prioritization categories. The ANOVA test supported no

differences at all but by judging from the independent sample t-test, there were two

quality dimensions that were perceived differently. The independent samples t-test

supported a difference in the quality dimension of the processes between prioritization

category 1 and 2, where category 1 was less satisfied (had a lower quality perception)

and was also less prioritized by the company. There was also a perceptional difference

in the quality dimension of the interaction between customer category 2 and 3

discovered. Category 3 was found to be less satisfied (had a lower quality perception),

and also belonged to the lowest prioritization category of the company. The

independent samples t-test also supported that the company’s anticipation about its

customers as accurate. There was no statistical or numerical difference between the

salespeoples’ anticipation and the customers’ perception of the organizational quality.

7.2 Limitations

The authors’ thoughts about these similarities in perception of quality between the

prioritization categories of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg might depend on that the

company does not make a huge distinction between how the corporate customers are

prioritized. Thereby, the authors mean that some less prioritized companies might not

expect more interaction and involvement from their insurance company than what they

receive. Therefore, they are satisfied with the effort Länsförsäkring Kronoberg provides

them and therefore perceive the company as of high quality.

Another issue essential to bring up is that a large amount of email addresses were not in

use or missing and therefore made the researchers unable to reach out to a great amount

of customers. A higher response rate than what was gotten would have given a more

reliable result. According to Bryman & Bell, (2011) convenience samples are not

regarded as reliable. This is important to keep in mind when reading the result. The

authors found that a stratified random sample could had been more suitable for this

46

study as it would had allowed the authors to divide the sample according to the

percentage of each prioritization category of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. Although, the

company did not have any exact statistics on how many corporate customers that

belonged to each category, the reason for the authors’ use of a manual prioritization.

Although, Länsförsäkring Kronoberg contacts approximately 80% of their corporate

customers annually. Out of all the questions stated in the questionnaire, the question

about the marketing activities in relation to the products was the questions with highest

numbers of neutral answers. The authors think it might be a risk that the neutral

respondents might not have had any opinion in this question which should be taken into

consideration.

7.3 Implications for future research

This thesis gives implications for future research projects within the topic of quality

perception, both in and outside the insurance market. It could be interesting for future

researchers to investigate customer prioritization categories which are more distinctive

than the ones at Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. It could also be interesting to investigate

which quality dimension that affects corporate customers’ quality perception the most in

a hierarchical way. For instance, different quality dimensions could affect overall

customer satisfaction differently. Another suggestion for future research could be to

explore and examine the topic in order to clarify the correlation between quality

perception and customer prioritization. It could also propose to measure correlation

between customers’ perception of quality of an organization and organizations’ own

anticipation about the customers’ quality perception.

7.4 Practical Implications

Fiercer competition and customer demands force organizations to improve their level of

quality. Hence, the authors believe that this study could support service organizations in

measuring quality perception which can be used to develop organizational

competitiveness. The practical implication of this study provides a way to assess quality

perception amongst customers in different prioritization categories and makes it

possible to compare with the organizations’ own understanding of the customers’

47

quality perception. The result of this study can be used to identify where quality

increasing activities should be deployed; what quality dimension needs to be developed.

It also helps organizations in making a distinction between customers that might have

different perception of quality; prioritization categories.

For these companies, there is no reason for Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to put a lot of

resources. Corporate customers less satisfied with their insurance company's efforts

might be profitable in the long run and the organization could put more resources on

these customers to increase their perception of the total quality. An investigation like

this can be valuable for any insurance company but also for other industries.

7.5 Theoretical Implication

By looking at the purpose and the result from this study, the theoretical implication in

this matter is a test of an existing model and that its measurement functions in more

industries than has been done previously. The theoretical contribution in this thesis

suggests that customers in different prioritization categories could perceive quality

differently due to that their organization put a different amount of resources on them, a

reason to investigate the topic further. The importance of the organizational awareness

of quality perception between such prioritization categories might be lacking in the

market. This could lead to competitive losses, as stated in previous research (see

introduction). Due to that customer prioritization systems are normal segmentation

strategies in many industries, quality measures could be of even higher importance due

to different customer perceptions of quality. This means that it can be dangerous

making lower prioritized customers dissatisfied in the long run.

48

8 List of references

Azimifar, M. (2013) Quality Management in Higher education. Life Science journal.

Vol: 10 (5), 555-58.

Bailey, K.D. (1987) Methods of Social Research. 3rd Edition. The Free Press.

New York,United States.

Beer, M. (2003) Why Total Quality Management Programs Do Not Persist: The Role of

Management Quality and Implications for Leading a TQM Transformation. Decision

Sciences. Vol: 34 (4), 623–642.

Bell, S.J., Auh, S. & Smalley, K. (2005) Customer Relationship Dynamics: Service

Quality and Customer Loyalty in the Context of Varying Levels of Customer Expertise

and Switching Costs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Vol: 33 (2), 169-

183.

Berry, L.L. (2000) Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science. Vol: 28 (1), 128-137.

Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. & Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) The service quality puzzle.

Business Horizons. Vol: 31 (5), 35-43.

Björklund, M. & Paulsson, U. (2003) Seminariehandboken – att skriva, presentera och

opponera. 1st Edition. Studentlitteratur AB. Lund, Sweden.

Borbasi, S. & Jackson, D. (2012) Navigating the Maze of Research: Enhancing Nursing

and Midwifery Practice. 3rd Edition. Mosby Elsevier. Sydney, Australia.

49

Brezavšcek, A., Šparl, P. & Žnidaršic, A. (2014) Technology Acceptance Model for

SPSS Acceptance among Slovenian Students of Social Sciences. Organizacija. Vol:

47 (2), 116-128.

Britten, N. (1995) Qualitative Interviews in Medical Research. British Medical journal.

Vol: 311 (6999), 251-253.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2003) Business Research Methods. 1st Edition. Oxford

University Press. New York, United States.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods. 2nd Edition. Oxford

University Press. New York, United States.

Buckingham, A. & Saunders, P. (2004) The survey methods workbook: from design to

analysis. 1st Edition. Polity Press Ltd. Cambridge, England.

Burns, N. & Grove, S.K. (2009) The Practice of Nursing Research: Appraisal,

Synthesis and Generation of Evidence. 6th Edition. Saunders Elsevier. Missouri, United

States.

Byrd, L. (2009) An Examination of information technology and it perceived

quality issues in single system hospitals in the United States. Diss., Auburn

University: Alabama, United States.

Carmon, Z. & Ariely, D. (2000) Focusing on the Forgone: How value can appear so

different between buyers and sellers. Journal of consumer research. Vol: 27 (3), 360-

370.

Cole, S.T. (2005) Comparing mail and web-based survey distribution methods: results

of surveys to leisure travel retailers. Journal of Travel Research. Vol: 43 (4), 422-430.

Couper, M.P. & Bosnjak, M. (2010) Handbook of Survey Research. 2nd Edition.

Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bingley, England.

50

Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K. & Hult, G.T.M. (2000) Assessing the effects of quality, value,

and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments.

Journal of Retailing. Vol 76 (2), 193–218.

Demirbag, M., Tatoglu, E., Tekinkus, M. & Zaim, S. (2006) An Analysis of the

Relationship between TQM Implementation and Organizational Performance:

Evidence from Turkish SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.

Vol: 17 (6), 829–847.

Denscombe, M. (2002) Ground Rules for Good Research: A 10 Point Guide for

Social Researchers. Open University Press. 1st Edition. Buckingham, England.

Dhar, R. & Glazer, R. (2003) Hedging Customers. Harvard Business Review. Vol: 81

(5), 86–92.

East, R., Hammond, K. & Lomax, W. (2008) Measuring the impact of positive and

negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. International Journal of

Research in Marketing. Vol: 25 (3), 215–224.

Ebrahimi, M. & Sadeghi, M. (2013) Quality management and performance: An

annotated review. International Journal of Production Research. Vol: 51 (18),

5625– 5643.

Edling, C. & Hedström, P. (2003) Kvantitativa Metoder: Grundläggande analysmetoder

för samhälls-och beteendevetenskap. Edition 1:6. Studentlitteratur AB. Lund, Sweden.

Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. (2007) Theory Building from Cases:

Opportunities and Challenges. The Academy of Management Journal Vol: 50 (1),

25-32.

Ejvegård, R. (2009) Vetenskaplig Metod. Edition 4/1. Studentlitteratur AB. Lund,

Sweden.

51

Eliasson, A. (2010) Kvantitativ Metod från Början. Edition 2:1. Studentlitteratur AB.

Lund, Sweden.

Gayathri, H., Vinaya, M.C. & Lakshmisha, K. (2005) A Pilot Study On The Service

Quality Of Insurance Companies. Journal of Services Research. Vol: 5 (2), 123-138.

Gerstner, E. & Libai B. (2006) Why Does Poor Service Prevail? Marketing Science. Vol

25 (6), 601–603.

Ghandvar, P. & Sehhat, S. (2015) Relationship between knowledge management and

quality management in insurance companies. International Journal of Academic

research. Vol: 7 (1), 475-485.

Ghobadian, A., Speller, S. & Jones, M. (1994) Service quality concepts and models.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. Vol: 11 (9), 43-66.

Gracia, E., Bakker, A.B. & Grau, R.M (2011) Positive Emotions: The Connection

between Customer Quality Evaluations and Loyalty. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly. Vol: 52 (4), 458-465.

Grinnel, M, R. jr & Unrau Y, A. (2005). Social work research and evaluation

quantitative and qualitative approaches. 7th Edition. Oxford university press.

Gripsrud, J. (2011) Medie kultur- mediesamhälle. Bokförlaget Daidalos AB. Göteborg,

Sweden.

Grönroos, C. (2000) Service Management and Marketing – A Customer Relationship

Management Approach. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Chichester, England.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. & Anderson, R. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper

Saddle River. 7th Edition, Global ed.

52

Hansen, E. & Bush, R.J. (1999) Understanding Customer Quality Requirements

Model and Application. Industrial Marketing Management. Vol: 28 (2), 119–130.

Hennig-Thurau, T. & Klee, A. (1997) The Impact of Customer Satisfaction and

Relationship Quality on Customer Retention: A Critical Reassessment and

Model Development. Psychology & Marketing. Vol: 14 (8), 737-764.

Herr, P.M., Kardes, K.R. & Kim, J. (1991) Effects of Word-of-Mouth and

Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity

Perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol: 17 (4), 454–62.

Hietschold, N., Reinhardt, R. & Gurtner, S. (2014) Measuring critical success factors

of TQM implementation successfully – a systematic literature review. International

Journal of Production Research. Vol: 52 (21), 6254-6272.

Hogan, J.E., Lemon, K.N. & Libai, B. (2003) What is the true value of a Lost

Consumer. Journal of Service Research. Vol: 5 (3), 196-208.

Hollensen, S. (2007) Global marketing. 4th Edition. Pearson Education. Harlow,

England.

Hoonakker, P & Carayon, P. (2009) Questionnaire survey nonresponse: a comparison of

postal mail and internet surveys. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.

Vol: 25 (5), 348-373.

Hung, Y.H., Huang, M.L. & Chen, K.S. (2010) Service quality evaluation by service

quality performance matrix. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Vol: 14

(1), 79-89.

Hurst. K. (2011) Bottom-up quality improvement theory and practice. International

Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 24 (8), 1-580.

Hussain, S.N. & Ur Rehman, S. (2012) Patient Satisfaction Regarding Hospital

53

Services. A study of Umeå Hospital. Master Thesis, Umeå school of business, Umeå

University. Umeå: University.

Hyde, K. (2000) Recognising deductive process in qualitative research.

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. Vol: 2 (2), 82-89.

Ickes, W. (1997) Empathic Accuracy. 1st Edition. Guilford Press. New York, United

States.

Jacobsen, D.I. (2002) Vad, hur och varför? Om metodval i företagsekonomi och andra

samhällsvetenskapliga ämnen. 1st Edition. Studentlitteratur AB. Lund, Sweden.

Johnson, M.D. & Selnes, F. (2004) Customer Portfolio Management: Toward a

Dynamic Theory of Exchange Relationships. Journal of Marketing. Vol 68 (2), 1–17.

Jones, J.L & Shandiz, M. (2015) Service Quality Expectations: Exploring the Importance

of SERVQUAL Dimensions from Different Nonprofit Constituent Groups.

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. Vol: 27 (1), 48-69.

Kara, A., Lonial, S., Tarim, M. & Zaim, S. (2005) A paradox of service quality

in Turkey. European Business Review. Vol: 17 (1), 5-19.

Krepapa, A., Berthon, P., Webb, D. & Pitt, L. (2003) Mind the gap. European Journal

of Marketing, Vol: 37 (½), 197 - 218.

Kumar, R. (2005) Research methodology a step-by-step guide for beginners. 2nd

Edition. SAGE Publications Ltd. London, United Kingdom.

Kumar, A. & Grisaffe, D.B. (2004) Effects of Extrinsic Attributes on Perceived Quality,

Customer Value, and Behavioral Intentions in B2B Settings: A Comparison Across

Goods and Service Industries pages. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing. Vol:

11 (4), 43-74.

54

Ladhari, R. (2009) A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research. International

Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. Vol: 1 (2), 172-198.

Lai, K. W. I. (2015) .The Roles of Value, Satisfaction, and Commitment in the Effect

of Service Quality on Customer Loyalty in Hong Kong–Style Tea Restaurants. Cornell

Hospitality Quarterly. Vol: 56 (1), 118–138.

Lee, C.C. (2012) Extended service quality model: Causes of agency problems and

ethical sales behaviour. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal. Vol:

40 (8), 1381-1400.

Leth, G. & Thurén, T. (2000) Källkritik för Internet (Source criticism for the

Internet). Styrelsen för psykologiskt försvar.1st Edition. Stockholm, Sweden.

Lindmark, M., Andersson, L.F. & Adams, M. (2006) The Evolution and

Development of the Swedish Insurance Market. Accounting, Business & Financial

History. Vol: 16 (3), 341–370.

Love, K. (2012) Ethics in Social Research Studies in Qualitative Methodology. 12th

Edition. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bingley, United Kingdom.

Länsförsäkringar, 2015 (Online). Available at:

http://www.lansforsakringar.se/kronoberg/foretag/forsakring/foretagforsakringar/affar-

handel/ Assessed on: 2015-03-03.

Maas, P. & Graf, A. (2008) Customer value analysis in financial services. Journal of

Financial Services Marketing. Vol: 13 (2), 107-120.

Machauer, A. & Morgner, S. (2001) Segmentation of bank customers by expected

benefits and attitudes. International Journal of Bank Marketing. Vol: 19 (1), 6-18.

MacMinn, R.D. (1987) Insurance and Corporate Risk Management. Journal of Risk and

Insurance Vol: 54 (4), 658-677.

55

Mahapatra, S.N. (2014) An empirical analysis of cause of consumer dissatisfaction

and the reasons why consumers enduring dissatisfaction. Serbian Journal of

Management. Vol: 9 (1), 71-89.

Manas, M.A., Jimenez, G., Muyor, J.M., Martinez, V. & Moliner, C.P. (2008)

Tangibles as predictors of customer satisfaction in sports services. Psicothema. Vol: 20

(2), 243-248.

Martin, D.S. & O’Neill, M. (2010) Scale development and testing: A new measure of

cognitive satisfaction in sports tourism. Event Management. Vol: 14 (1), 1-15.

Merriam, B.S. (1988) Fallstudien som forskningsmetod. Jossey- Bass Inc. Publishers.

San Francisco, USA.

Mullins, R. R, Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Hall, Z. R, & Boichuk, J.P. (2014) Know

Your Customer: How Salesperson Perceptions of Customer Relationship Quality Form

and Influence Account Profitability. Journal of Marketing. Vol: 78 (6), 38-58.

Nabil-Tamimi, R.S. (2002) How product quality dimensions relate to defining quality.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. Vol: 19 (4), 442-453.

Newman, K. (2001) Interrogating SERVQUAL: a critical assessment of service quality

measurement in a high street retail bank. International Journal of Bank Marketing. Vol:

19 (3), 126-139.

Nolan, S, A. & Heinzen, T, E. (2012) Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd

Edition. Worth Publishers. New York, United States.

Nuviala, A., Grao-Cruces, A., Perez-Turpin, J.A. & Nuviala, R. (2012) Perceived

service quality, perceived value and satisfaction in groups of users of sports

organizations in Spain. Kinesiology. Vol: 44 (1), 94-103.

56

Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. & Udo, G.J. (2006) Customer Satisfaction, and behavioural

intentions in the service factory. Journal of Service Marketing. Vol: 20 (1), 59-72.

O’Neill, M. & Palmer, A. (2003) An exploratory study of the effects of experience on

consumer perceptions of the service quality construct. Managing Service Quality: An

International Journal. Vol: 13 (3), 187-196.

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 (1), 12-40.

Polit, D.F. & Hungler, B.P. (2013) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods

Appraisal, and Utilization. 8th Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Philadelphia,

United States.

Rauyruen, P. & Miller, K.E. (2007) Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B

customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research. Vol: 60 (1), 21-31.

Rissanen, R. (2013) SPSS Manual. Institutionen for folkhalso- och vardvetenskap.

Rundle-Thiele, S. (2005) Exploring loyal qualities: assessing survey-based loyalty

measures. Journal of Services Marketing. Vol: 19 (7), 492-500.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009) Research methods for

business students. 5th Edition. FT/Prentice Hall. Harlow, England.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) Research Methods for Business

Students. 6th Edition. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Harlow, England.

Seth, N., Deshmukh, S.G. & Vrat, P. (2005) Service quality models: a review.

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management. Vol: 22 (9), 913-949.

Shewfelt, R.L. (1999) What is quality?. Postharvest Biology and Technology. Vol:

57

15 (3), 197–200.

Simmons-Mackie, N., Savage, M. & Worrall, L. (2014) Conversation therapy for

aphasia: a qualitative review of the literature. International Journal Of Language &

Communication Disorders. Vol: 49 (5), 511-526.

Smith, M. A. (1995) Measuring service quality: is SERVQUAL now redundant?

Journal of Marketing Management. Vol: 11 (3), 257-276. Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. & Hogg, M.K. (2006) Consumer Behaviour

- A European perspective. 3rd Edition. Prentice Hall. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Solomon, M.R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. & Hogg, M.K. (2010) Consumer

Behaviour - A European perspective. 4th Edition. Prentice Hall. Edinburgh, Scotland.

Sureshchandar, G.S., Rajendran, C. & Anantharaman, R.N. (2002) The relationship

between management's perception of total quality service and customer perceptions of

service quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. Vol: 13 (1), 69- 88.

Talib. F., Rahman, Z., Qureshi, M.N. (2011) Analysis of interaction among the

barriers to total quality management implementation using interpretive structural

modeling approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal. Vol: 18 (4), 563-587.

Tsitskari, E., Tsiotras, D. & Tsiotras, G. (2006) Measuring service quality in sport

services. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence. Vol: 17 (5), 623-63

Wong Ricky, Y.H., Chan, Y.K., Leung Jae, T.K.P. & Pae, H. (2008) Commitment and

vulnerability in B2B relationship selling in the Hong Kong institutional insurance

service industry. Journal of Services Marketing. Vol: 22 (2), 136-148.

Woo, K-S. & Ennew, C.T. (2004) Business-to-business relationship quality: an IMP

interaction-based conceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Marketing.

Vol: 38 (10), 1252-1271.

58

Wu, Y-L., Tao, Y-H. & Yang, P-C. (2012) Learning from the past and present:

measuring Internet banking service quality Service. The service Industries Journal. Vol:

32 (3), 477–497.

Yee, R.W.Y., Yeung, A.C.L. & Cheng, T.C.E. (2009) An empirical study of

employee loyalty, service quality and firm performance in the service industry.

International Journal of Production Economics. HYPERLINK

"http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.lnu.se/science/journal/09255273/124/1" Vol:

124 (1), 109–120.

Yusof, S.M. & Aspinwall, E. (2001) Case Studies on the Implementation of TQM in the

UK Automotive SMEs. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.

Vol: 18 (7), 722–744.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.L. (1990) Delivering Quality Service:

Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. 1st Edition. The Free Press. New

York, United States.

Zeithaml, V.A., Rust, R.T. & Lemon, K.N. (2001) The Customer Pyramid: Creating and

Serving Profitable Customers. California Management Review. Vol: 43 (4), 118-142.

Zineldin, M. (2006) The royalty of loyalty: CRM, quality and retention. Journal

of Consumer Marketing. Vol: 23 (7), 430-437.

Zineldin, M. & Vasicheva, V. (2012) The Implementation of TRM Philosophy and 5Qs

Model in Higher Education - An Exploratory Investigation at a Swedish University.

Nang Yan Business Journal. Vol: 1 (1), 65–75.

Zineldin, M., Zineldin, J. & Vasicheva, V. (2014) Approaches for reducing medical

errors and increasing patient safety. The TQM Journal. Vol: 26 (1), 63 -74.

59

Zineldin, M., Camgöz-Akda, H. & Vasicheva,V. (2011) Measuring, evaluating and

improving hospital quality parameters/dimensions – an integrated healthcare quality

approach International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. Vo:. 24 ( 8), 654 -

662.

60

9. Appendices

Appendix 1.

To gather essential background information about the organization and the insurance

context, a semi-structured interview was conducted with the risk engineer at

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. The interview took place the 8th

of April at the local office

in Växjö and took about 1,5 hours. Questions were created out of the main concept of

this thesis, the 5Qs model.

Concept / Theory Conceptual Components Formulated Items

1. The 5Q model – The product Represented questions about the What products / services are the

products and value creators. customers provided by Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg?

What features of the products creates

value for the customers?

2. The 5Q model – The process Represented a question about what What processes and activities are

activities and processes necessary to required to deliver your products?

provide insurances and work as a

competitive insurance company.

3. The5Qmodel– The Represented questions about the What company values and motivation

atmosphere environment of the company culture and does your company stand for?”

the customer experiences (feelings, What environment do you operate in?

expectations). Also, the locations of the How are your offices located in regards

offices. to your customers?

4. The5Qmodel– The Represented a question about leadership, How does the infrastructure of

infrastructure external corporations, competence, Länsförsäkring Kronoberg work in

motivation and technology inside the regard to leadership, partnership,

organization necessary to stay competence, experiences, motivation

competitive. and technology?

5. The5Qmodel– The Represented questions about the How do you interact with your

interaction communication between the sales people customers?” “How do you respond to

(employees of the company) and the you customers?

customers in form of marketing,

personal contact and insurance

documents.

61

“What products / services are the customers provided by Länsförsäkring Kronoberg?” Insurance protection is one of the main products Länsförsäkring Kronoberg offers

together with financial security and customers’ own risk judgment. This is for instance,

if there is a fire or a burglar etc. Business risk is one of the security nets Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg offers their customers.

“What features of the objects creates value for the customers?” Länsförsäkring Kronoberg offers the customers not only the selling service part, we also

offer damage prevention, suggestions and hints about risk, attractive business solutions

and counseling about proactive work. We give suggestions about how to take care of the

firm property and avoid a fire etc. Each insurance is formed individually and therefore

the prices are very different from one and another. When it comes to cooperation

customers, some of them can be described as Länsförsäkring Kronoberg’s “babies”.

These firms have owners that have created them themselves. These are companies that

lie very close to their owners’ hearts, often family firms. These customers are very

concerned about that their firms have good insurance covers. In those particular cases,

the price won’t matter very much. There are a lot to lose if an injury occurs

(investments, personal values etc.) If Länsförsäkring Kronoberg demands too high

prices, the customers will probably switch to a competitor. That is why it is important to

have reasonable pricing. Of course, some costumers will compare what Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg offers and hence to the prices and then make a purchase decision or not.

Here can we also see if there is any profit to make. If the customer demands too much,

there is a too high risk and there is not really any profit to gain, Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg can let the customer switch to a competitor.

62

“What processes and activities are required to deliver your products?” First of all, the salesmen have to figure if there is anything to insure at the costumer’s

firm. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has a checklist where the employees can look into what

the customers’ firms is all about and what the customer can insure. The checklist also

describes what kind of risk that exists, what opportunities there is for Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg to make profit and at the same time how to satisfy the customer’s needs. Most of the times, the salesmen have to visit the customers’ firms to make an own

judgment in real life. Every company is unique and different from one another and

therefore the needs are different as well. The higher the risk, the higher the prices have

to be. Here, Länsförsäkring Kronoberg can see the potential profits to gain of insuring

high-risk firms. There could also be a huge loss if they need to back up with money for

a huge injury. So that’s also what the checklist is for, to be precise of what needs to be

covered by the insurance, for what amount and what should happen if there is an injury

and who has the responsibility etc. So there is always a process, an aim to have an even

flow. Some steps could describe the process: 1. Meeting with the customer. 2. Judgment

of the company / checklist. 3. Do we have the possibility to offer an insurance plan? 4.

Should we go out and visit the properties of the customer’s company? 5. How does the

business look like? Each salesman has their own customers so the customers can always

contact the same salesperson and does not have to involve others. This gives both the

customer and salesperson control and a feeling of kilter over the situation. But when it

comes to the insurance claims of injuries, the customers need to contact the claims

department and there the sellers are not involved. When it comes to service in form of

time it is very different depending on what firm/customer it regards. The level of risk

plays a big part in this. Customers are also very heterogeneous and therefore each

company is judged differently which will take different amount of time.

“What company values and motivation does your company stand for?” and “What environment do you operate in?” Länsförsäkring Kronoberg’s cooperation department is always aiming to focus on

attractive products, competence, do the right judgment of risk and the most important,

to understand the customers’ firms. To have individual solutions is therefore important.

The customer can tell if you don’t care about them and just are focusing on sales. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg makes offerings due to the customer’s own expectations and

63

wishes; unique offerings due to specific needs. We mean that all firms are different

from each other. It could be a firm that breeds a certain kind of cows or produce a

certain kind of metal where Länsförsäkring Kronoberg creates a unique agreement with

these firms. Sometimes special agreements are made for firms with certain needs.

“How are your offices located in regards to your customers?

The head office of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg is located in the center of Växjö, which

makes it easy for the customer to access their insurance company. This also makes the

customer feeling more comfortable than just talking with random sellers over phone and

sitting in another city. What differentiates Länsförsäkring Kronoberg’s sellers with

other companies’ is that all of the employees are sitting in the same building. This

makes the sellers more able to help out each other more effectively. This is very

different to competitors where consultants often work from different cities, like

Stockholm or Gothenburg. To be able of meeting customers physically is important to

many customers. The local presence and availability is something Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg advocates.

“How does the infrastructure of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg work in regard to leadership, partnership, competence, experiences, motivation and technology?” Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has five ”pure” salesmen, two indoor salespersons, one risk

engineer and one manager. They have two different data systems where information

about the customers’ firms can be updated and looked in to. In the other system the

sales information is updated constantly and contracts are saved. All sales people have

access to these two systems. The head manager is involved in the sales only when there

are special deals somehow or if there is something unusual regarding the customers’

firms. The sellers have occasionally also education in service strategy, sales strategy,

motivation, experience sharing and attend to courses to prevent stress in order to be

good business men and deliver high service. Länsförsäkring Kronoberg aims to have

attractive solutions for customer firms in form of business plans. We focus on

development and put a big weight on competence and availability, which also is of main

importance of our visions.

64

“How do you interact with your customers and how do you respond to them?” The salespersons meet customers face to face most of the times, and also visit them at

their facilities. But the customers may also show up at the office occasionally and have

direct contact by both phone and e-mail which are normal tools to use. If there is an

injure or something has happened with the customers’ firms, they most of the times

contact the salesperson of theirs first and tell them what have happened (Although, they

should contact the claims department). This shows that there is a personal relationship

between seller and consumer where the customer relies and trusts their contact person at

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. Some follow up are occurring between the seller and

customer depending on how comprehensive the insurance is on the customers’ firms. Some customers get a yearly visit while some receive an e-mail a year to see if

everything is as normal. We want to know that our customers are satisfied. It could also

happen that they want to add or complement something in the insurance agreement.

65

Appendix 2.

To gather important background information about the organization and if they

prioritizes their customers, an open-ended interview was conducted with the responsible

corporate insurance manager. The interview was conducted the 23rd

of April in the

office of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg in Växjö and took about 5 minutes. Two questions

were created out of the concept of Customer Prioritization.

Concept / Theory Formulated Items

1. Customer Prioritization Do you have a prioritization system for

different customers?

2. Customer Prioritization How many customers do you have in total?

“Do you have a prioritization system for different customers?”

Yes, some customer companies risk needs to be measured more than others. Therefore

we conduct meetings with the customers to determine their risk. We make up to a few

meetings with certain customers every year whilst we only meet up with some

customers every third year and others only receive contact by letters.

“How many corporate customers do you have in total?”

We have approximately 5300 customers on the corporate customer department of

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg.

66

Appendix 3.

The questionnaires were sent out in two versions to the customers of Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg; one to the customers and one to the employees of the corporation

department in Växjö. The surveys were sent out in Swedish but translated from English.

Both the language versions are presented below

3.1 The corporate customer survey 3.1.1 English version Hello!

We are three marketing students of Linnaeus University making our bachelor thesis in corporation with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. Two of us are also part-time employees of the company. We would much appreciate your participation by filling out this survey so we can measure how you as a corporate customer perceive the quality provided by your insurance company. The aim of this research is to investigate how Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's corporate customers perceive the quality in comparison to the insurance company's own understanding.

It takes about 5 minutes to answer the survey and we would gladly share our bachelor thesis with you when it’s finished and if any interest. All participants are anonymous. Welcome to contact us if you have any questions: Caroline Landin cl222ky@student.lnu.se Anders Laurenius al222wb@student.lnu.se Jennifer Persson jp222ia@student.lnu.se

Thank you for your participation!

1. How satisfied are you in general with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg and your corporate insurances?

o Not at all satisfied

o Less satsified

o Neutral

o Satisfied

o Very satsisfied

2. What is your perception of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's products in relation to their prices?

o Not at all reasonable

o Less reasonable

o Neutral

o Reasonable

o Very reasonable

67

3. How competitive do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's insurance products in relation to competitors on the market?

o Not at all competitive

o Less competitive

o Neutral

o Competitive

o Very competitive

4. How competitive do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg regarding their prices in relation to competitors on the market?

o Not at all competitive

o Less competitive

o Neutral

o Competitive

o Very competitive

5. How well do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to prevent risk in your company?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

6. Do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has compiled a fully covered insurance solution which fulfills the need of your company?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

7. Do you perceive that the service level of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's employees is satisfying?

o Not at all satisfying

o Less satisfying

o Neutral

o Satisfying

o Very satisfying

68

8. How do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to manage insurance claims? o

Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

9. How well do you perceive that the employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg have access to the resources needed to work efficiently?

o Very bad access

o Bad access

o Neutral

o Good access

o Very good access

10. Do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to possess great competence regarding cooperate insurances and customized insurance solutions?

o Very bad competence

o Bad comepetence

o Neutral

o Good competence

o Very good competence

11. Do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has employed a satisfying amount of employees to be able to run the business with good service?

o Not at all satisfying

o Less satisfying

o Neutral

o Satisfying

o Very satisfying

12. Do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg pursues continuous improvements?

o Strongly disagree

o Disagree

o Neutral

o Agree

o Strongly agree

69

13. How do you perceive the response you receive when contacting Länsförsäkring Kronoberg?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

14. How well do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg succeed with creating a personal approach?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

15. How well do you perceive that the employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg manage to communicate vital information about insurances?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

16. How involved do you perceive the employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to be in your insurance matters?

o Not at all involved

o Less involved

o Neutral

o Involved

o Very involved

17. How do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to market themselves in regard to the extent of what they deliver?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good 18. How well do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to mediate a positive attitude as an

70

organization?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

19. Do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's company culture as customer-oriented?

o Not at all customer-oriented

o Less customer-oriented

o Neutral

o Customer-oriented

o Very customer-oriented

20. How satisfied are you regarding the availability of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's offices?

o Very dissatisfied

o Dissatisfied

o Neutral

o Satisfied

o Very satisfied

21. To what extent do you think that the following sentence complies "Länsförsäkring Kronoberg is a company that develops and supports the environment in Kronoberg"?

o Strongly disagree

o Disagree

o Neutral

o Agree

o Strongly agree

71

3.1.2 Swedish version

Vi är tre studenter från Linnéuniversitetet i Växjö som studerar Marknadsföringsprogrammet och skriver vårt examensarbete om företagsförsäkringar i samarbete med Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. Två av oss är också deltidsanställda i bolaget. Vi skulle vara mycket tacksamma för ert deltagande genom att fylla i denna enkät så att vi kan mäta hur du som företagskund upplever kvalitén från ditt försäkringsbolag. Syftet med vårt examensarbete är att undersöka hur Länsförsäkring Kronobergs företagskunder uppfattar kvalitén jämfört med försäkringsbolagets egna uppfattning.

Undersökningen tar ca 5 minuter att besvara och vi delar gärna med oss av examensarbetet när det är klart och vid intresse. Alla deltagare är anonyma. Har ni frågor så kontakta oss gärna: Caroline Landin cl222ky@student.lnu.se Anders Laurenius al222wb@student.lnu.se Jennifer Persson jp222ia@student.lnu.se

Tack så mycket på förhand!

1. Hur nöjd är du generellt med Länsförsäkring Kronoberg och dina företagsförsäkringar?

o Inte alls nöjd

o Mindre nöjd

o Neutral

o Nöjd

o Mycket nöjd

2. Vad är din upplevelse av Länsförsäkring Kronobergs produkter i relation till priserna?

o Inte alls prisvärda

o Mindre prisvärda

o Neutral

o Prisvärda

o Mycket prisvärda

3. Hur konkurrenskraftig anser du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är med sina produkter i relation till konkurrenter på marknaden?

o Inte alls konkurrenskraftig

o Mindre konkurrenskraftig

o Neutral

o Konkurrenskraftig

o Mycket komkurrenskraftig

72

4. Hur konkurrenskraftig anser du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är med sina priser i jämförelse med konkurrenter?

o Inte alls kokurrenskraftig

o Mindre konkurrenskraftig

o Neutral

o Konkurrenskraftig

o Mycket konkurrenskraftig

5. Hur väl upplever du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg förebygger risker i ditt företag?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

6. Hur väl anser du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg har sammanställt en försäkringslösning som uppfyller ditt företags behov?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

7. Upplever du att servicenivån på Länsförsäkring Kronobergs medarbetare är tillfredsställande?

o Inte alls tillfredställande

o Mindre tillfredställande

o Neutral

o Tillfredsställande

o Mycket tillfredställande

8. Hur upplever du Länsförsäkring Kronobergs skadehantering?

o Mycket dålig

o Dålig

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

73

9. Hur bra tillgång upplever du att medarbetarna på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg har till de resurser som behövs för att arbeta på ett effektivt sätt?

o Mycket dålig tillgång

o Dålig tillgång

o Neutral

o Bra tillgång

o Mycket bra tillgång

10. Anser du som kund att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg besitter stor kompetens när det gäller försäkringar och anpassade företagslösningar?

o Mycket dålig kompetens

o Dålig kompetens

o Neutral

o Bra kompetens

o Mycket bra kompetens

11. Tycker du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg har tillräckligt med personal för att kunna bedriva sin verksamhet med bra service?

o Inte alls tillräckligt

o Knappt tillräckligt

o Neutral

o Delvis tillräckligt

o Absolut tillräckligt

12. Strävar Länsförsäkring Kronoberg kontinuerligt efter att bli bättre?

o Instämmer inte alls

o Instämmer mindre

o Neutral

o Instämmer delvis

o Instämmer helt

13. Hur upplever du den respons du får när du kontaktar Länsförsäkring Kronoberg?

o Mycket dålig

o Dålig

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

74

14. Hur bra lyckas Länsförsäkring Kronoberg att skapa ett personligt bemötande?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

15. Hur bra tycker du att medarbetarna på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg lyckas att kommunicera och förmedla viktig information om försäkringar?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

16. Hur involverade anser du att säljarna på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är i era försäkringsfrågor?

o Inte alls involverade

o Mindre involverade

o Neutral

o Involverade

o Mycket involverade

17. Hur upplever du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg marknadsför sig i relation med vad de erbjuder?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

18. Hur väl upplever du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg utstrålar positiv attityd?

o Inte alls bra

o Mindre bra

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

75

19. Upplever du Länsförsäkring Kronobergs företagskultur som kundinriktad?

o Inte alls kundinriktad

o Mindre kundinriktad

o Neutral

o Kundinriktad

o Mycket kundinriktad

20. Hur väl upplever du tillgängligheten av Länsförsäkring Kronobergs kontor?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

21. Till vilken grad tycker du att följande mening stämmer? "Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är ett företag som utvecklar och stöttar omgivningen i Kronoberg"

o Stämmer inte alls

o Stämmer mindre

o Neutral

o Stämmer

o Stämmer helt

76

3.2 The corporate insurance salespeople survey 3.2.1 English version

Hello!

We are three marketing students of Linnaeus University making our bachelor thesis in corporation with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. Two of us are also part-time employees of the company. We would much appreciate your participation by filling out this survey so we can measure how you as employees perceive the quality provided by your company. The aim of this research is to investigate how Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's corporate customers perceive the quality in comparison to the insurance company's own understanding.

It takes about 5 minutes to answer the survey and we would gladly share our bachelor thesis with you when it’s finished and if any interest. All participants are anonymous. Welcome to contact us if you have any questions: Caroline Landin cl222ky@student.lnu.se Anders Laurenius al222wb@student.lnu.se Jennifer Persson jp222ia@student.lnu.se

Thank you for your participation!

1. How satisfied do you think that the customers are with Länsförsäkring Kronoberg and your corporate insurances in general?

o Not at all satisfied

o Less satsified

o Neutral

o Satisfied

o Very satsisfied

2. What do you think the customers perceptions are of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's products in relation to their prices?

o Not at all reasonable

o Less reasonable

o Neutral

o Reasonable

o Very reasonable

3. How competitive do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's insurance products in relation to competitors on the market?

o Not at all competitive

o Less competitive

o Neutral

o Competitive

o Very competitive

77

4. How competitive do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg regarding their prices in relation to competitors on the market?

o Not at all competitive

o Less competitive

o Neutral

o Competitive

o Very competitive

5. How well do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to prevent risk in their companies?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

6. Do you think the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has compiled a fully covered insurance solution which fulfills the needs of their companies?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

7. Do you think the customers perceive the service level of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's employees as satisfying?

o Not at all satisfying

o Less satisfying

o Neutral

o Satisfying

o Very satisfying

8. How well do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to manage the insurance claims?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

78

9. Do you think the customers of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg perceive the employees to have good access to the resources needed to work efficiently?

o Very bad access

o Bad access

o Neutral

o Good access

p Very good access

10. How do you think the customers perceive the competence of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's employees regarding the cooperate insurances and customized insurance solutions?

o Very bad competence

o Bad comepetence

o Neutral

o Good competence

o Very good competence

11. Do you think the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has employed a satisfying amount of employees to be able to run the business with good service?

o Not at all satisfying

o Less satisfying

o Neutral

o Satisfying

o Very satisfying

12. Do you think that the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg pursues continuous improvements?

o Strongly disagree

o Disagree

o Neutral

o Agree

o Strongly agree

13. How do you think the customers perceive the response they receive when contacting Länsförsäkring Kronoberg?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

79

14. How well do you think the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg succeed with creating a personal approach?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

15. How well do you think the customers perceive that the employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg manage to communicate vital information about insurances?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

16. How involved do you think the customers perceieve that the employees of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg are in their insurance matters?

o Not at all involved

o Less involved

o Neutral

o Involved

o Very involved

17. How do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to market themselves in regard to the extent of what is delivered?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

18. How well do you think that the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to mediate a positive attitude as an organization?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

80

19. Do you think that the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's company culture as customer-oriented?

o Not at all customer-oriented

o Less customer-oriented

o Neutral

o Customer-oriented

o Very customer-oriented

20. How well do you think the customers perceive the availability of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's offices?

o Very bad

o Bad

o Neutral

o Good

o Very good

21. To what extent do you think the customers agree on the following sentence "Länsförsäkring Kronoberg is a company that develops and supports the environment in Kronoberg"?

o Strongly disagree

o Disagree

o Neutral

o Agree

o Strongly agree

81

3.2.2 Swedish version Hej!

Vi är tre studenter från Linnéuniversitetet i Växjö som studerar Marknadsföringsprogrammet och skriver vårt examensarbete om företagsförsäkringar i samarbete med Länsförsäkring Kronoberg. Två av oss är också deltidsanställda i bolaget. Vi skulle vara mycket tacksamma för ert deltagande genom att fylla i denna enkät så att vi kan mäta hur du som anställd på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg upplever kvalitén från ditt bolag. Syftet med vårt examensarbete är att undersöka hur Länsförsäkring Kronobergs företagskunder uppfattar kvalitén jämfört med försäkringsbolagets egna uppfattning.

Undersökningen tar ca 5 minuter att besvara och vi delar gärna med oss av vårt examensarbete när det är klart och vid intresse. Alla deltagare är anonyma. Har ni frågor så kontakta oss gärna: Caroline Landin cl222ky@student.lnu.se Anders Laurenius al222wb@student.lnu.se Jennifer Persson jp222ia@student.lnu.se

Tack så mycket på förhand!

1. Hur nöjd tror du generellt att era kunder är med Länsförsäkring Kronoberg och era företagsförsäkringar?

o Inte alls nöjd

o Mindre nöjd

o Neutral

o Nöjd

o Mycket nöjd

2. Hur tror du att era kunder upplever Länsförsäkring Kronobergs produkter i relation till priserna?

o Inte alls prisvärda

o Mindre prisvärda

o Neutral

o Prisvärda

o Mycket prisvärda

3. Hur konkurrenskraftig tror du kunderna anser att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är med sina produkter i relation till konkurrenter på marknaden?

o Inte alls konkurrenskraftig

o Mindre konkurrenskraftig

o Neutral

o Konkurrenskraftig

o Mycket komkurrenskraftig

82

4. Hur konkurrenskraftig tror du att kunderna anser att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är med sina priser i jämförelse med konkurrenter?

o Inte alls kokurrenskraftig

o Mindre konkurrenskraftig

o Neutral

o Konkurrenskraftig

o Mycket konkurrenskraftig

5. Hur väl tror du att kunderna upplever Länsförsäkring Kronobergs förebyggande av risker i deras företag?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

6. Hur väl tror du att kunderna anser att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg har sammanställt en försäkringslösning som uppfyller deras företagsbehov?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

7. Tror du att kunderna upplever servicenivån på Länsförsäkring Kronobergs medarbetare som tillfredsställande?

o Inte alls tillfredställande

o Mindre tillfredställande

o Neutral

o Tillfredsställande

o Mycket tillfredställande

8. Hur tror du att kunderna upplever Länsförsäkring Kronobergs skadehantering?

o Mycket dålig

o Dålig

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

83

9. Hur bra tillgång tror du att kunderna upplever att medarbetarna på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg har till de resurser som behövs för att arbeta på ett effektivt sätt?

o Mycket dålig tillgång

o Dålig tillgång

o Neutral

o Bra tillgång

o Mycket bra tillgång

10. Tror du att kunderna anser att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg besitter stor kompetens när det gäller försäkringar och anpassade företagslösningar?

o Mycket dålig kompetens

o Dålig kompetens

o Neutral

o Bra kompetens

o Mycket bra kompetens

11. Tror du att kunderna tycker att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg har tillräckligt med personal för att kunna bedriva verksamheten med bra service?

o Inte alls tillräckligt

o Mindre tillräckligt

o Neutral

o Delvis tillräckligt

o Absolut tillräckligt

12. Tror du att kunderna anser att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg kontinuerligt strävar efter att bli bättre?

o Instämmer inte alls

o Instämmer mindre

o Neutral

o Instämmer delvis

o Instämmer helt

13. Hur tror du att kunderna upplever den respons de får när de kontaktar Länsförsäkring Kronoberg?

o Mycket dålig

o Dålig

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

84

14. Hur bra tror du att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg lyckas att skapa ett personligt bemötande enligt kunderna?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

15. Hur bra tror du att medarbetarna på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg lyckas kommunicera och förmedla viktig information om försäkringar enligt kunderna?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

16. Hur involverade tror du att kunderna anser att säljarna är på Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är i deras försäkringsfrågor?

o Inte alls involverade

o Mindre involverade

o Neutral

o Involverade

o Mycket involverade

17. Hur tror du att kunderna tycker att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg marknadsför sig i relation med vad de erbjuder?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

18. Hur väl tror du att kunderna upplever att Länsförsäkring Kronoberg utstrålar positiv attityd?

o Inte alls bra

o Mindre bra

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

85

19. Tror du att kunderna upplever Länsförsäkring Kronobergs företagskultur som kundinriktad?

o Inte alls kundinriktad

o Mindre kundinriktad

o Neutral

o Kundinriktad

o Mycket kundinriktad

20. Hur väl tror du att kunderna upplever tillgängligheten av Länsförsäkring Kronobergs kontor?

o Mycket dåligt

o Dåligt

o Neutral

o Bra

o Mycket bra

21. Till vilken grad tror du att kunderna tycker att följande mening stämmer? "Länsförsäkring Kronoberg är ett företag som utvecklar och stöttar omgivningen i Kronoberg"

o Stämmer inte alls

o Stämmer mindre

o Neutral

o Stämmer

o Stämmer helt

86

0% 3%

33%

54%

10%

3. How competitive do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's insurance

products in relation to competitors on

the market?

Not at allcompetitive

Lesscompetitive

Neutral

Competitive

0%7%

37%52%

4%

4. How competitive do you perceive Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg regarding their prices

in relation to competitors on the market?

Not at allcompetitive

Lesscompetitive

Neutral

Competitive

1%

10%

42%40%

7%

5. How well do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to prevent

risk in your company?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 1%

16%

56%

27%

6. Do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has

compiled a fully covered insurance

solution which fulfills the need of your company?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

Appendix 4.

4.1 Corporate customer answers on the survey

87

0% 4% 6%

41%

49%

7. Do you perceive that the service level of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

employees is satisfying?

Not at allsatisfying

Lesssatisfying

Neutral

Satisfying

Verysatisfying

0% 3%

24%

44%

29%

8. How do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to manage

insurance claims?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 3%

28%

58%

11%

9. How well do you perceive that the employees of Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg have access to the

resources needed to work efficiently?

Very badaccess

Bad access

Neutral

Good access

0% 4%

13%

55%

28%

10. Do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to possess great

competence regarding cooperate

insurances and customized insurance solutions?

Very badcompetenc

eBadcompetenc

eNeutral

Goodcompetenc

e

0% 4%

29%

26%

41%

11. Do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has employed a satisfying

amount of employees to be able to run

the business with good service?

Not at allsatisfying

Less satisfying

Neutral

Satisfying

Very satisfying

0% 6%

42%

28%

24%

12. Do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg pursues

continuous improvements?

Stronglydisagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Stronglyagree

88

0% 4%

9%

48%

39%

13. How do you perceive the response you receive when

contacting Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0%1%

13%

42%

44%

14. How well do you perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg succeed

with creating a personal

approach?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 3%

23%

44%

30%

15. How well do you perceive that the employees of Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg manage to

communicate vital information about insurances?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

1%

0%

49%44%

6%

17. How do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

market themselves in regard to

the extent of what they deliver?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0%

13%

56%

31%

18. How well do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

mediate a positive attitude as an

organization?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

89

0% 4%

16%

56%

24%

19. Do you perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's company culture as customer-oriented?

Not at allcustomer-oriented

Less customer-oriented

Neutral

Customer-oriented

1%

0%

17%

47%

35%

20. How satisfied are you regarding the availability of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

offices?

Verydissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

0% 1%

25%

53%

21%

21. To what extent do you think that the following sentence complies "Länsförsäkring Kronoberg is a

company that develops and supports the environment in Kronoberg"?

Stronglydisagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Stronglyagree

42%

41%

17%

22. How often does Länsförsäkring Kronoberg contact you regarding your

corporate inscurances?

Once a year

More thanonce a year

Every thirdyear or no

contact at all

90

0% 0% 0%

80%

20%

1. How satisfied do you think that the customers are with Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg and your corporate

insurances in general?

Not at allsatisfied

Less satisfied

Neutral

Satisfied

0% 0%

40%

60%

0%

3. How competitive do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg's insurance products in relation

to competitors on the market?

Not at allcompetitive

Lesscompetitive

Neutral

Competitive

0% 0%

40%

60%

0%

4. How competitive do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg regarding their prices in

relation to competitors on the market?

Not at allcompetitive

Lesscompetitive

Neutral

Competitive

0% 0%

80%

20%

0%

5. How well do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

prevent risk in their companies?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0%0%0%

60%

40%

6. Do you think the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has compiled a fully covered insurance

solution which fulfills the needs of their companies?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

4.2 Corporate insurance seller answers on the survey

91

0%0%0%

100%

0%

8. How well do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

manage the insurance claims?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0%

60%

40%

0%

9. Do you think the customers of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg perceive the employees to have good access to the

resources needed to work efficiently?

Very badaccess

Bad access

Neutral

Good access

Very goodaccess

0% 0%0%

60%

40%

10. How do you think the customers perceive the competence of Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg's employees regarding the

cooperate insurances and customized insurance solutions?

Very badcompetence

Bad competence

Neutral

Goodcomptence

0% 0%

20%

40%

40%

11. Do you think the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg has employed a satisfying amount of

employees to be able to run the business with good service?

Not at allsatisfying

Less satisfying

Neutral

Satisfying

0% 0%

40%

20%

40%

12. Do you think that the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

pursues continuous improvements?

Stronglydisagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

0% 0% 0%

80%

20%

7. Do you think the customers perceive the service level of Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's

employees as satisfying?

Not at allsatisfying

Less satisfying

Neutral

Satisfying

92

0%0%0%

100%

0%

13. How do you think the customers perceive the response they receive

when contacting Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0% 0%

60%

40%

14. How well do you think the customers perceive that Länsförsäkring Kronoberg

succeed with creating a personal approach?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0% 0%

80%

20%

15. How well do you think the customers perceive that the employees of Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg manage to communicate vital information about insurances?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0%

20%

40%

40%

0%

17. How do you think the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg to

market themselves in regard to the

extent of what is delivered?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0%0%

80%

20%

18. How well do you think that the customers perceive Länsförsäkring

Kronoberg to mediate a positive attitude as

an organization?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0%0%

60%

40%

16. How involved do you think the customers perceieve that the employees of

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg are in their

insurance matters?

Not at allinvolved

Less involved

Neutral

Involved

Very involved

93

0%0%0%

100%

0%

20. How well do you think the customers perceive the availability of

Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's offices?

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

0% 0%0%

60%

40%

19. Do you think that the customers perceive Länsförsäkring Kronoberg's company culture as

customer-oriented?

Not at allcustomer-

oriented

Less customer-oriented

Neutral

0%0%

40%

60%

0%

21. To what extent do you think the customers agree on the following sentence

"Länsförsäkring Kronoberg is a company that

develops and supports the environment in Kronoberg"?

Stronglydisagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

94

MeanStandraddeviation

Sample (N)

Segment 1 3,8417 0,67109 30

Segment 2 4,0259 0,71447 29

Segment 3 3,7292 0,41912 12

05

101520253035

Q3 The Infrastructure

MeanStandarddeviation

Sample (N)

Segment 1 3,8917 0,56356 30

Segment 2 4,1121 0,6833 29

Segment 3 3,625 0,65279 12

05

101520253035

Q4 Interaction

MeanStandraddeviation

Sample (N)

Segment 1 3,95 0,59234 30

Segment 2 4,1466 0,68308 29

Segment 3 4,0208 0,49381 12

05

101520253035

Q5 The Atmosphere

Appendix 5.

5.1 Statistical Results

95

MeanStandraddeviation

Sample (N)

Sellers 3,95 0,19039 5

Corporatecustomers

3,9162 0,50996 71

01020304050607080

Corporate customers vs Sellers