SATURNO EN ASPECTO CON URANO

H0: There is no significant difference between the four banks (under study) with

respect to the research hypothesizes

H1: There is significant difference between the four banks (under study) with respect

to the research hypothesizes.

Table 5.45 and table 5.46 present the results of ANOVA and the multiple comparisons respectively.

Table 5.45: ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

CRM resources

Between Groups 135.600 3 45.200 3.151E3 .000

Within Groups 4.045 282 .014 Total 139.645 285 CRM Processes Between Groups 64.252 3 21.417 532.276 .000 Within Groups 11.347 282 .040 Total 75.599 285 Retention programs

Between Groups 139.571 3 46.524 1.799E3 .000

Within Groups 7.292 282 .026 Total 146.863 285 Customer retention Between Groups 71.093 3 23.698 340.725 .000 Within Groups 19.613 282 .070 Total 90.706 285

Considering the significance number (Sig < 0.05), hypothesis H0 is rejected and hypothesis H1 is accepted. This means that there is significant difference between the four banks (under study) with respect to the research hypothesizes.

Table 5.46: Multiple Comparisons Tukey HSD

Dependent

Variable (I) bank (J) bank

Mean

Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.

95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

CRM resources Refah Maskan .60601* .01843 .000 .5584 .6536 Saman -1.03982* .02497 .000 -1.1043 -.9753 Pasargad -.96171* .01907 .000 -1.0110 -.9124 Maskan Refah -.60601* .01843 .000 -.6536 -.5584 Saman -1.64583* .02420 .000 -1.7084 -1.5833 Pasargad -1.56773* .01805 .000 -1.6144 -1.5211 Saman Refah 1.03982* .02497 .000 .9753 1.1043 Maskan 1.64583* .02420 .000 1.5833 1.7084 Pasargad .07810* .02469 .009 .0143 .1419 Pasargad Refah .96171* .01907 .000 .9124 1.0110 Maskan 1.56773* .01805 .000 1.5211 1.6144 Saman -.07810* .02469 .009 -.1419 -.0143 CRM processes refah Maskan .61167* .03087 .000 .5319 .6914 Saman .73904* .04182 .000 .6310 .8471 Pasargad -.46340* .03194 .000 -.5459 -.3809 Maskan refah -.61167* .03087 .000 -.6914 -.5319 Saman .12737* .04053 .010 .0226 .2321 Pasargad -1.07507* .03024 .000 -1.1532 -.9969 Saman Refah -.73904* .04182 .000 -.8471 -.6310 Maskan -.12737* .04053 .010 -.2321 -.0226 Pasargad -1.20244* .04135 .000 -1.3093 -1.0956 Pasargad Refah .46340* .03194 .000 .3809 .5459 Maskan 1.07507* .03024 .000 .9969 1.1532 Saman 1.20244* .04135 .000 1.0956 1.3093 Customer retention programs of CRM Refah Maskan .74138* .02475 .000 .6774 .8053 Saman .03695 .03352 .689 -.0497 .1236 Pasargad -1.03549* .02560 .000 -1.1017 -.9693 Maskan Refah -.74138* .02475 .000 -.8053 -.6774 Saman -.70444* .03249 .000 -.7884 -.6205 Pasargad -1.77688* .02424 .000 -1.8395 -1.7142

Saman Refah -.03695 .03352 .689 -.1236 .0497 Maskan .70444* .03249 .000 .6205 .7884 Pasargad -1.07244* .03315 .000 -1.1581 -.9868 Pasargad Refah 1.03549* .02560 .000 .9693 1.1017 Maskan 1.77688* .02424 .000 1.7142 1.8395 Saman 1.07244* .03315 .000 .9868 1.1581 Customer retention Refah Maskan .91140* .04059 .000 .8065 1.0163 Saman .63783* .05498 .000 .4957 .7799 Pasargad -.25193* .04199 .000 -.3604 -.1434 Maskan Refah -.91140* .04059 .000 -1.0163 -.8065 Saman -.27358* .05329 .000 -.4113 -.1359 Pasargad -1.16333* .03975 .000 -1.2661 -1.0606 Saman Refah -.63783* .05498 .000 -.7799 -.4957 Maskan .27358* .05329 .000 .1359 .4113 Pasargad -.88975* .05437 .000 -1.0303 -.7492 Pasargad Refah .25193* .04199 .000 .1434 .3604 Maskan 1.16333* .03975 .000 1.0606 1.2661 Saman .88975* .05437 .000 .7492 1.0303

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

- Comparing the four banks from the aspect of applying CRM resources:

Comparing banks Refah and Maskan (using table 5.46), the two upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0 which is equivalent to M1>M2. Thus, we can conclude that bank Refah has applied CRM resources better than bank Maskan. But, comparing bank Refah with banks Pasargad and Saman, the two bounds are both negative; therefore, M1-M2<0 and M1<M2. This means that from the aspect of applying CRM resources, banks Pasargad and Saman are better than bank Refah.

Comparing bank Maskan with the other three banks, both the lower and upper bounds are negative; therefore, M1-M2<0; thus, M1<M2 which means that banks Refah, Pasargad, and Saman have applied CRM resources better than bank Maskan.

Comparing bank Saman with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; thus, M1-M2>0 which is equivalent to M1>M2; therefore, we can say

that from the aspect of applying CRM resources, the performance of bank Saman has been better than the performance of the other three banks.

Comparing bank Pasargad with banks Refah and Maskan, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0 (M1>M2); Thus, we can conclude that bank Pasargad has applied CRM resources better than banks Refah and Maskan. But, comparing bank Pasargad with bank Saman, the two bounds are both negative; therefore, M1-M2<0 (M1<M2) which means from the aspect of applying CRM resources, bank Saman is better than bank Pasargad.

- Comparing the four banks from the aspect of applying CRM processes:

Comparing bank Refah with banks Maskan and Saman, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; thus, M1-M2>0 which is equivalent to M1>M2; therefore, we can conclude that bank Refah has applied CRM processes better than banks Maskan and Saman. On the other hand, comparing bank Refah with bank Pasargad, the two bounds are both negative. This means M1-M2<0 (M1<M2); thus, from the aspect of applying CRM processes, bank Pasargad is better than bank Refah.

Comparing bank Maskan with bank Saman, the two upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0 (M1>M2).So, we can say that bank Maskan has applied CRM processes better than bank Saman. But, comparing bank Maskan with banks Refah and Pasargad, the two bounds are both negative; therefore, M1-M2<0 (M1<M2). This means banks Refah and Pasargad have applied CRM processes better than bank Maskan.

Comparing bank Saman with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are negative; therefore, M1-M2<0 which is equivalent to M1<M2. Thus, it can be said that from the aspect of applying CRM processes, the other three banks are better than bank Saman.

Comparing bank Pasargad with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; thus, M1-M2>0 (M1>M2); therefore, we can conclude that bank Pasargad has applied CRM processes better than the other three banks.

- Comparing the four banks from the aspect of applying customer retention programs of CRM:

Comparing bank Refah with bank Maskan, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0 which is equivalent to M1>M2; Thus, we can conclude that bank Refah has applied customer retention programs of CRM better than bank Maskan. But, comparing bank Refah with bank Saman, the lower bound is negative and the upper bound in positive; therefore, M1=M2 and sig = 0.689 (sig > 0.05); thus, we can say that there is no significant difference between these two banks in relation to applying customer retention programs of CRM. On the other hand, comparing bank Refah with bank Pasargad, both the upper and lower bounds are negative; therefore, M1-M2<0 (M1<M2). This means that from the aspect of applying customer retention programs of CRM, bank Pasargad is better than bank Refah.

Comparing bank Maskan with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are negative; thus, M1-M2<0 (M1<M2). Therefore, we can conclude that the other three banks have applied customer retention programs of CRM better than bank Maskan.

Comparing bank Saman with bank Refah, the lower bound is negative and the upper bound is positive; therefore, M1=M2 and also sig = 0.689 (sig > 0.05); thus, we can say that there is no significant difference between these two banks in relation to applying customer retention programs of CRM. On the other hand, comparing bank Saman with bank Maskan, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0 which is equivalent to M1>M2; thus, we can conclude that bank Saman has applied customer retention programs of CRM better than bank Maskan. But, comparing bank Saman with bank Pasargad, both the upper and lower bounds are negative; thus, M1-M2<0 (M1<M2) which means that from the aspect of applying customer retention programs of CRM, bank Pasargad has a better performance than bank Saman.

Comparing bank Pasargad with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0; thus, M1>M2. This means that bank Pasargad has applied customer retention programs of CRM better than the other three banks.

- Comparing the four banks from the aspect of customer retention:

Comparing bank Refah with banks Maskan and Saman, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0; thus, M1>M2. So, we can conclude that from the aspect of customer retention, bank Refah is better than banks Maskan and Saman. But, comparing bank Refah with bank Pasargad, the two bounds are negative; thus, M1-M2<0 (M1<M2). This means that the rate of customer retention in bank Pasargad is more than the rate of customer retention in bank Refah.

Comparing bank Maskan with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are negative; therefore, M1-M2<0 that is equivalent to M1<M2. Thus, it can be said that customer retention in the other three banks is better than customer retention in bank Maskan.

Comparing bank Saman with bank Maskan, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0 (M1>M2). Thus, we can say that customer retention in bank Saman is better than customer retention in bank Maskan. But, comparing bank Saman with banks Refah and Pasargad, both of the upper and lower bounds are negative; therefore, M1-M2<0; so, M1<M2 which means that from the aspect of customer retention, banks Refah and Pasargad are more successful than bank Maskan.

Comparing bank Pasargad with the other three banks, both the upper and lower bounds are positive; therefore, M1-M2>0; thus, M1>M2. This means that from the aspect of customer retention, bank Pasargad is more successful than the other three banks.

5.5. Conclusion

In this research, data analysis is done in two parts by descriptive and interferential statistics. In the descriptive part, the demography of statistical sample is investigated and the results were shown in frequency tables and diagrams, but in the inferential part, the data is analyzed using a series of steps. To do so, first of all we did the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's test to measure the adequacy of the sampling. Next, the exploratory factor analysis for deleting the questions with little factor load and communalities was done. Finally, to study and test the research hypothesizes we used

structural equation model (confirmatory factor analysis). To do so, model expression, model estimation, correction of the model (if needed), and hypothesis test were followed respectively. The final results of hypothesis test show that all the formulated hypothesizes in the third chapter are accepted. Therefore according to the first hypothesis, all the CRM resources including technological and infrastructural CRM resources have direct effect on CRM processes. The second hypothesis confirms the direct effect of CRM processes on all customer retention programs of CRM (loyalty programs, customer service, customization, and creating community). Also, based on the third (the last) hypothesis, all of these programs have direct effect on customer retention.

After testing the research hypothesizes, we did some lateral analyzes. The first one was investigating the correlation between each of the customer retention programs of CRM and customer retention. The results of Pearson correlation for this analysis show that there is a positive and significant correlation between each of the customer retention programs of CRM (customization, loyalty programs, customer service, and community) and customer retention. These results also reveal that the most significant correlation is between customer service and customer retention.

Next, two-sample t-test with independent samples was done to study the difference in each of the research variables in the two groups of private and governmental banks. According to this test, we can say that there is significant difference between the two groups of private and governmental banks with respect to the research variables from the respondents' points of view. Indeed, the respondents have assessed the situation of private banks better than governmental banks in relation to the research variables. Finally, to investigate the difference in each of the research variables in the four groups of banks, analysis of variance or comparing the means of some communities was done. The results show the significant difference between the four banks (under study) with respect to the research variables. The detailed results of this analysis are shown in the previous section.