2009 DoD MWR Customer Satisfaction Results. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Survey...

2009

DoD MWR Customer Satisfaction Results

© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.

Survey Methodology

Survey Respondents

24,920 interviews were completed and used for analysis. The resulting confidence interval is +/- 0.2 at 95% level of confidence.

Interviews were conducted via the web July 29th to August 28th.

All respondents were active duty Service members.

Results were weighted based on the Authorized Troop Strength per the National Defense Authorization Act.

Responses Proportions (before weighting)

Proportions (after weighting)

Air Force 9,896 40% 23%

Army 3,916 16% 38%

Marine Corps 5,007 20% 14%

Navy 6,101 24% 25%

Total Responses 24,920 100% 100%

22

© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.3

81% CONUS, 19% Overseas

84% Male, 16% Female

75% White, 14% African American

70% Enlisted, 26% Officer

67% Married, 26% Single, 7% Joint Service

58% Have children under age 20

33% Under 30 yrs, 42% 30 to 39 yrs, 25% 40 yrs & over

20% Less than 5 yrs Active Duty, 19% 5 to 9 yrs, 41% 10 to 19 yrs, 20% 20 & over

10% Currently Deployed, 60% Previously Deployed, 30% Never Deployed

Respondent Profile


Respondent Profile

Time at Current Installation Total

Less than 3 months 9%

3 months to less than 6 months 7%

6 months to less than 1 year 14%

1 year or more 71%

Installations Stationed at Total

First 11%

2 to 5 51%

6 or more 38%

Residence Total

Off-installation 69%

On-installation 31%


DoD MWR CSI Model

Customer SatisfactionIndex (CSI)

OverallCompared to Expectations

Compared to Ideal

Readiness

Retention

Organizational Commitment

Unit Cohesion

Fitness CSI

Libraries CSI

Outdoor Recreation CSI

Single Program CSI

AutomotiveSkills CSI

Recreation Centers CSI

Leisure Travel CSI

5

MWRSatisfaction

ProgramSatisfaction

Outcomes


DoD MWR CSI Model



Compared to Ideal

Readiness

3.8

67

Retention

1.5

70


1.6

81

Unit Cohesion

1.7

71

69

Fitness CSI(84% of respondents)

69

1.2

Libraries CSI(36% of respondents)

74

0.6

Outdoor Recreation CSI(29% of respondents)

72

2.3

Single Program CSI

(4% of respondents*)

73

1.1

Automotive Skills CSI

(23% of respondents)

72

0.3


(8% of respondents)

72

1.1

Leisure Travel CSI


72

0.8

6

Scores Impacts

Within the context of this study, scores in the 60s are characterized as "fine but could use work," the 70s as "good job but keep working on it" and the 80s as "excellent - keep it up.“

At the program level, as well as MWR CSI, scores in the mid-70s are expected.

It is unlikely that any program will or should achieve a score greater than 85.

Top Priority

Top Priority

*6% excluding Air Force


Calculating ImpactsA Simple Conceptual Example for a Mazda Miata

Interior(leg room, head

room, seat comfort, etc.)

Handling(highway, snow, etc.)

Brakes (reliability,

durability, etc.)Etc.

CSI (overall, v.

expectations, v. ideal)

Pam 8 4 9 … 7

John 5 7 10 … 4

Carol 3 6 9 … 2

Impact High Low Low …


DoD MWR Priority Matrix

88

Top Priority

FitnessPrograms

Libraries

SingleProgram

AutomotiveSkills

RecreationCenters

LeisureTravel

65

80

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Dim

en

sion

Sco

re

Impact on Satisfaction

OutdoorRecreation


MWR CSI

69

70

68

65

72

Total

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


Fitness Programs Top Priority

10


69

1.2

Facility

Programs


Fitness Programs Usage

UsageAverage

Across All Programs

Fitness Programs

Never use 69% 16%

Used in past 12 months 2% 4%

Currently use 29% 80%

Frequency of UseAverage

Across All Programs

Fitness Programs

Occasionally 38% 18%

Several times a year 31% 8%

Several times a month 17% 18%

Several times a week 11% 42%

Daily 3% 15%

Characteristics of current fitness program users are very similar

to the total survey population

Characteristics of current fitness program users are very similar

to the total survey population


Fitness Facilities and ProgramsThemes from Verbatim Comments

The following are the most frequently mentioned areas of concern:

Quality of facilities (e.g., appearance, cleanliness, maintenance)

Hours of operation (e.g., times swimming and classes are available, seasonal availability)

Availability of facilities (e.g., not too crowded or too small, open according to schedule, convenience)

Availability of equipment (e.g., enough equipment for number of users, selection)

Variety of classes and activities (e.g., Martial Arts, Aerobics, Triathlon)

Cost of activities and services offered

Quality of equipment (e.g., meets fitness needs, functions properly, general condition)

12


Fitness Programs CSI

69

68

68

69

71

Total

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


Fitness ProgramsTotal

69

74

71

Fitness Programs CSI

Fitness Programs -Facility

Fitness Programs -Programs

Impact on Fitness CSI

2.4

2.1


Fitness Programs – ProgramsTotal

71

75

74

69

67

63

Fitness Programs -Programs

Fitness hours of operation

Helpfulness of fitness staff

Variety of classes (yoga, Pilates, aerobics, etc.)

Family exercise/fitness

programs

Times that classes are available


Fitness Programs – FacilityTotal

74

76

74

74

72

Fitness Programs -Facility

Quality of equipment

Variety of facilities (e.g., basketball

courts, pool, running track, etc.)

General condition of fitness facilities

Availability of equipment


Fitness ProgramsSegment Score Differences

17

Higher Scoring Segments

African American 74

Less than 3 months at current installation

73

Warrant Officer 73

20 years or more active duty 71

Navy 71

Fitness Program CSI: 69

Lower Scoring Segments

Personally disabled 59

Household member with disability

67

Masters/Doctorate degree 67


Outdoor RecreationTop Priority

18


72

2.3

Rental Equip

Activities

Programs


Outdoor RecreationTotal

72

73

73

72

Outdoor Recreation CSI

Outdoor Rec - Activities

Outdoor Rec - Rental Equipment

Outdoor Rec - Programs

2.4

1.5

Impact on Outdoor Rec CSI

1.0


Remaining Programs

20


LibrariesFacility

75

77

77

75

75

74

74

72

72

Libraries - Facility

General condition of library facilities

Computer and Internet services

Having resources (i.e., reference and research material) that are current

Amount of workspace available

Variety of items available (books, magazines, DVDs, etc.)

Programs provided

Library hours of operation

Accessibility of library resources from home/ office/ other location


Single ProgramsCSI

73

68

72

78

Total

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


Automotive SkillsProgram

73

78

75

75

74

74

66

57

Automotive Skills -Program

Availability of tools

Having tools that are up-to-date

Prices and fees

Variety of services and programs available

Availability of lifts

Automotive hours of operation

Availability of paint booth


Leisure TravelStaff/Policy

72

79

71

66

Leisure Travel -Staff/ Policy

Helpfulness of staff

Hours of operation with leisure travel

services

Advertisement of activities


UsageAverage

Across All Programs

Rec Centers

Never use 69% 92%

Used in past 12 months 2% 0%

Currently use 29% 8%

Recreation CentersUsage and Segment Score Differences


Average Rec Center Score 72

African American 78


76

Stationed at first installation 75

Navy 75

Participate in 3 or less programs*

75

Participate in less than 25 activities**

74


Desired Outcomes

26


Readiness

67

68

66

64

69

Total

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


ReadinessTotal

67

73

71

66

64

63

62

Readiness

MWR programs and services provide an outlet for stress

release

The MWR programs and services improve your quality of life

MWR helps you/ your family better manage challenges of

military lifeMWR helps your family better

manage challenges of deployment

MWR programs help keep you ready for deployment

MWR programs help you to focus on your mission


ReadinessSegment Score Differences

29

Readiness: 67


Participate in 11 or more programs*

72


72

African American 71

Participate in more than 30 activities**

70

40 years of age or over 69

18 years or more military service 69

Navy 69

Lower Scoring Segments

Personally disabled 58

Participate in less than 20 activities**

60

Participate in 3 or less programs* 62

Marine Corps 64

Under 25 years of age 65

*From a list of 32 services and programs, respondents were asked to identify those that they use on installation, such as library, veterinary clinic, bowling center, etc.

**From a list of 38 activities, respondents were asked to identify those in which they participate on installation or in the civilian community, such as golfing, gardening, going to movies, etc.


Unit Cohesion

71

71

69

71

73

Total

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


Unit CohesionTotal

71

75

72

68

68

Unit Cohesion

Service members in your unit pull together to get

the job done

Service members in your unit work well as a team

Service members in your unit really care about

each other

Service members in your unit trust each other



81

80

81

81

81

Total

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


Organizational CommitmentTotal

81

84

84

83

82

79

75


You are willing to make sacrifices to help your

Service

You are glad that you are part of your Service

The military has a great deal of personal meaning for you

Being a member of your Service inspires you to do

the best job you can

You feel a strong sense of belonging to the military

You feel like part of the military family


Retention

70

71

69

67

73

Total

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy


Key Findings

35


Key Findings

Top Priorities

Top Priority areas are 1) Fitness and 2) Outdoor Recreation

Fitness

Within Fitness, initial emphasis should be on low scoring (i.e., 60s) attributes under Programs.

Fitness Facilities also need improvement.

Fitness is the sole Top Priority area for those less than 25 years old.

Outdoor Recreation

Within Outdoor Recreation, primary focus should be on Rental Equipment.

Desired Outcomes

Of the four Desired Outcomes, MWR Satisfaction has the greatest impact on Readiness.

36


Next Steps

37


Next Steps

Information Review

Ensure that your decision makers, those responsible for each program, and those who are tasked with making program changes are familiar with the results

Action Planning

Set up action planning sessions to make sure that specific tasks and timelines are developed to address improvement opportunities

Ensure that improvements that can be easily implemented (i.e., low cost, minimal effort) are made as soon as possible

Survey Enhancements

Learnings from the current survey will improve the quality of the next wave

38


Appendix A

Under 25 ModelUnder 25 Priority Matrix

39


DoD MWR CSI Model - Under 25 yrs



Compared to Ideal

Readiness

3.9

65

Retention

2.0

52


2.4

72

Unit Cohesion

2.4

64

69


70

1.6


74

0.8


73

1.9

Single Program CSI

(8% of respondents*)

75

1.7



74

0.0


(9% of respondents)

73

1.7

Leisure Travel CSI


73

0.9

40

When setting priorities for improvement initiatives, scores, impacts and the percentage of personnel who participate in each program (i.e., percentage of respondents) should all be considered.

The performance of each dimension on a 0 to 100 scale. Dimension scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions.

Scores

The change in the variable to the right that results from a five point change in a dimension score. Impacts

*excludes Air Force respondents

*14% excluding Air Force


DoD MWR Priority Matrix - Under 25 yrs

4141

Top Priority

FitnessPrograms

Libraries Outdoor

Recreation

SingleProgram

AutomotiveSkills

RecreationCenters

LeisureTravel

65

80

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Impact on Satisfaction

Com

pon

en

t S

core


Appendix B

Detailed DoD MWR CSI Model

42


DoD MWR CSI Model



Compared to Ideal

Readiness

3.8

67

Retention

1.5

70


1.6

81

Unit Cohesion

1.7

71

69


69

1.2


74

0.6


72

2.3

Single Program CSI

(4% of respondents)

73

1.1



72

0.3


(8% of respondents)

72

1.1

Leisure Travel CSI


72

0.8

Staff80

Facility75

0.4

4.3

Facility74

Fees73

4.0

0.6

Facility75

Programs74

1.9

2.8

Facility74

Programs71

2.4

2.1

Staff78

Program73

1.5

3.4

Programs75

Staff/Policy72

3.0

1.8

Rental Equip73

Activities73

2.4

1.0

Programs72 1.5

43

The performance of each dimension on a 0 to 100 scale. Dimension scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions.

Scores

The change in the variable to the right that results from a five point change in a dimension score. Impacts

When setting priorities for improvement initiatives, scores, impacts and the percentage of personnel who participate in each program (i.e., percentage of respondents) should all be considered.


Appendix C

CFI GroupAmerican Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)

Score CalculationDeriving Impacts

44


CFI Group At a Glance

Founded in 1988; Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan

Principals are among the world experts in constituent/ stakeholder satisfaction

Offices worldwide; 150 full-time consultants and researchers

80+ clients; 150 to 180 on-going consulting projects

Patented analytical system – US # 6,192,319

CFI Group methodology underpins the respected econometric tool, the American Customer Satisfaction Index

Results published quarterly

45


Unique Features of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)

The only uniform measure of customer satisfaction in the U.S. economy, covering sectors accounting for about 66% of GDP

Measures the quality of economic output on a quarterly basis; complementary to productivity measures and indicative of consumer spending

Uses multiple-item indicators to assess drivers of satisfaction

Meets the objective of explaining desired outcomes

Allows for comparison across agencies

Illustrates how customer satisfaction is embedded in a system of cause and effect relationships

4646


ACSI Scores – National, Sector & IndustryQ4 2008 – Q3 2009

Energy Utilities 74

Source: www.theacsi.org

76.0

Utilities73.7

Utilities73.7

Transportation72.6

Transportation72.6

Airlines 64U.S. Postal Service 74

Express Delivery 82

Information70.2

Information70.2

Health Care & Social Assistance

78.5

Health Care & Social Assistance

78.5

Newspapers 63Motion Pictures 74

Computer Software 75Fixed Line Telephone Service 72

Wireless Telephone Service 69Cellular Telephones 72Cable & Satellite TV 63

Network Cable TV News 71

Hospitals 77Ambulatory Care 80

Accommodation &Food Services

78.9

Accommodation &Food Services

78.9

Hotels 75Full Service Restaurants 84

Limited Service Restaurants 78

Manufacturing/Durable Goods

81.6

Manufacturing/Durable Goods

81.6

Personal Computers 75Electronics (TV/VCR/DVD) 83

Major Appliances 81Automobiles & Light Vehicles 84

E-Business81.5

E-Business81.5

Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods

81.5

Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods

81.5

Public Administration/Government

67.9

Public Administration/Government

67.9

Retail Trade75.2

Retail Trade75.2

Finance &Insurance

76.0

Finance &Insurance

76.0

E-Commerce80.0

E-Commerce80.0

74 Internet News & Information83 Internet Portals/Search Engines

83 Food Manufacturing84 Pet Food80 Athletic Shoes85 Personal Care &

Cleaning Products

68.0 Local Government67.8 Federal Government

76 Supermarkets74 Gasoline Stations74 Department & Discount Stores76 Specialty Retail Stores78 Health & Personal Care Stores

82 Retail74 Brokerage75 Travel

85 Soft Drinks84 Breweries72 Cigarettes82 Apparel

75 Banks84 Credit Unions73 Health Insurance78 Life Insurance81 Property & Casualty Insurance


Attributes (questions on the survey) are typically answered on a 1-10 scale

Social science research shows 7-10 response categories are optimalCustomers are familiar with a 10 point scale

Before being reported, scores are transformed from a 1-10 to a 0-100 scale

The transformation is strictly algebraic; e.g.

The 0-100 scale simplifies reporting:• Often no need to report many, if any, decimal places• 0-100 scale is useful as a management tool

A Note About Score Calculation

Orig. (1-10) Trans. (0-100)1 02 11.13 22.2

8 77.89 88.9

10 100

48


Deriving Impacts

Remember high school algebra? The general formula for a line is:

y = mx + b

The basic idea is that x is a “cause” and y is an “effect”, and m represents the slope of the line – summarizing the relationship between x & y

Y

X

Y

X

CFI Group uses a sophisticated variation of the advanced statistical tool, Partial Least Squares (PLS) Regression, to determine impacts when many different causes (i.e., quality components) simultaneously effect an outcome (e.g., Customer Satisfaction)

49

2009 DoD MWR Customer Satisfaction Results. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Survey...

Documents

Transcript of 2009 DoD MWR Customer Satisfaction Results. © 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved. Survey...