2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey (QPCS) Summary Report...2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey...

2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey (QPCS) Summary Report

Table of Contents

Item Page no.

Sensitive: NSW Government

1

Executive Summary

2 --

Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Key Insights

2

Customer Satisfaction Measures

7

---------

Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) - Consumer Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal - Consumer Findings on Key Findings - Qualitative Research for Consumer Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) - Business Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal - Business Findings on Key Findings- Qualitative Research for Business Comparison to Business Confidence Indices Customer Effort Score Customer Effort Comparison Score

3

Insights on Satisfaction Drivers

20 ---

Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business Key Drivers of Satisfaction – Qualitative Research

4

Channel Usage and Preference

26 ---

Channel Usage and Preference - Consumer Channel Usage and Preference - Business Impact of Channel Expectations – Qualitative Research

5

Appendix

30

------

Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents Appendix B: Background to the QPCS Appendix C: QPCS Qualitative and Quantitative Research Approach Appendix D: Historical Consumer and Business Baseline Measures Appendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q1 2019 QPCS (CSMS at 99% Confidence Level) Appendix F: Terminology Definitions

1

1. Executive Summary

-

–

2

1.1 Customer Satisfaction Index Scores (CSI) - Consumer

1.2 Key Insights -- Consumer

1.3 Customer Satisfaction Index Scores (CSI) – Business

1.4 Key Insights -- Business

Consumer

1.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) - Consumer Margin of Error (QPCS) Consumer CSI: ± 1.3

76.7 78.7 79.3 79.9 79.6 78.9 79.9 79.4

80.9

CSMS 2015

CSMS 2016

CSMS 2017

Q1 2018

Q2 2018

CSMS 2018

Q4 2018

Q1 2019

Q2 2019

(n=6,549) (n=6,971) (n=6,527) (n=1,610) (n=1,603) (n=6,701) (n=1,535) (n=1,575) (n=1,555)

Consumer – CSI

Consumer – Baseline Measures

8.6

7.3

7.5 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6

7.8 7.7

7.8 7.7 7.8

7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.8

8.0

7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2

7.3 7.2

7.4

6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4

6.6 6.9

CSMS 2015

(n=6,593)

CSMS 2016

(n=7,015)

CSMS 2017

(n=6,559)

Q1 2018

(n=1,628)

Q2 2018

(n=1,618)

CSMS 2018

(n=6,733)

Q4 2018

(n=1,545)

Q1 2019

(n=1,590)

Q2 2019

(n=1,564)

Satisfaction Expectation Comparison to Ideal

Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level

3

Sample size for CSI and Baseline measure may differ on the basis of “Don’t Know” option selection For comparison between CSMS and QPCS results, please refer to Appendix Section for “Interpretation notes for Q2 QPCS report» For CSMS at 99% confidence level, please refer to Appendix «page 43»

Consumer

1.2 Key Insights - Consumer

Consumer Satisfaction

Index

1. The consumer CSI hasincreased (statisticallysignificant). Thisindicates an overalluplift in experienceswith NSW Governmentservices.

• Consumer CSI has increased (statistically significant) to 80.9 from 79.4.

• The significant increase in CSI is above Premier’s Priority Target of 79.02. This is the highest recorded CSIindicating strong performance this quarter.

Consumer Satisfaction

Index

• The increase in the CSI can be attributed to increases (statistically significant) since last quarter across allthree baseline measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to ideal.

2. All three measures ofcustomer experience(satisfaction,expectation andcomparison to ideal)experienced astatistically significantincrease.

• Comparison to ideal has experienced its first statistically significant increase since the 2016 CSMS result. Thisresult indicates that NSW Government services are moving closer towards consumers’ ideal serviceexperience.

• With satisfaction and expectation increasing significantly, this result indicates consumers have increasingpositive views of NSW Government services. The satisfaction gap to expectation of 0.2 indicates thatalthough consumers continue to have high expectations of NSW Government services, service performanceis close to meeting these expectations.

Satisfaction Drivers

3a. Perceptions of employees have significantly improved this quarter.

• Of the employees related drivers, Honesty and integrity, Efficiency and effectiveness, Empathy andcommunication and Accountability all experienced a statistically significant increase since last quarter.

• All employee related drivers are highly correlated to overall satisfaction indicating that overall experiencewith employees is having a significant impact on improving customer experience.

• Of the values related drivers, Service quality and Accountability, have increased (statistically significant)since last quarter. Value related drivers reflect consumers’ perceptions of trust and outcomes delivered. 3b. Perceptions of

values have significantly improved this quarter.

4

8.6

6.6 7.0

CSMS 2015

(n=1,654)

CSMS 2016

(n=1,718)

7.1

CSMS 2017

(n=1,646)

Q1 2018

(n=367)

Q2 2018

(n=1,554)

CSMS 2018

(n=1,506)

Q4 2018

(n=1,535)

Q1 2019

(n=1,455)

Q2 2019

(n=1,378)


7.2

7.5 7.5 7.6

7.8

7.4

7.9 7.8 7.8 7.6

7.9 7.7 7.7

8.1

7.7

8.0 8.0 7.9

7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4

7.6 7.4 7.1

7.6

8.1

76.6 78.4 78.3

79.6 79.7 78.2

81.3 81.2 80.7

Margin of Error (QPCS) Business CSI: ± 1.2

CSMS CSMS 2015 2016

(n=1,645) (n=1,712)

CSMS 2017

(n=1,638)

Q1 2018

(n=365)

Q2 2018

(n=1,536)

CSMS 2018

(n=1,494)

Q4 2018

(n=1,523)

Q1 2019

(n=1,449)

Q2 2019

(n=1,372)

Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level

Business

1.3 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business Business – CSI

Business – Baseline Measures

5

Sample size for CSI and Baseline measure may differ on the basis of “Don’t Know” option selection For comparison between CSMS and QPCS results, please refer to Appendix Section for “Interpretation notes for Q2 QPCS report» For CSMS at 99% confidence level, please refer to Appendix «page 43»

Business

1.4 Key Insights – Business

Business Satisfaction

4. The business CSI hasseen a slight decreasein performance.Satisfaction andexpectations havestabilised andcomparison to ideal hasdecreased.

6. Perceptions of service quality (measured through driver performance) hasstabilised this quarter.

5. The businesscustomer effort scorehas decreased (statistically significant).

• Business CSI has decreased (not statistically significant) to 80.7 from 81.2. This result is below thePremiers Priority Target of 81.16. This decrease in CSI is due to the stabilisation of overall satisfactionand the decrease in expectation and comparison to ideal scores (statistically significant) compared tolast quarter.

• The satisfaction gap to expectation has decreased by 0.1 compared to last quarter. This resultindicates that although perceptions of performance are moving closer to meeting expectations,businesses have decreasing expectations of NSW Government services.

• The Roy Morgan Business Confidence index decreased by 3 points in the last quarter from 105.9 (January 2019) to 102.9 (April 2019). The decrease in business confidence mirrors the slight decrease in the business CSI seen this quarter.

*

• The business customer effort score (CES) has decreased (statistically significant) to 6.1 this quarterfrom 6.4 last quarter resulting in NSW Government services having the 2nd lowest effort when compared to other industries This indicates that businesses are finding it easier to interact with NSW Government services.

• The result this quarter is consistent with historical trends observed since 2017, where businesscustomer effort decreased from Q1 to Q2.

• This decrease in business effort mirrors a decrease in effort across all other sectors, except banks.Notably, banks experienced a statistically significant increase in effort when compared to Q2 2018.

• Although the decrease in effort is a positive change in businesses overall experience with NSWGovernment services, this decrease does not influence the CSI as the CSI and CES are not correlated.

• All satisfaction drivers across employees, values, processes and goals have stabilised as compared tolast quarter.

• Following the significant uplift in driver performance in Q4 2018, this performance has beenmaintained this quarter, with no significant decrease for any driver.

Business Customer

Effort Score

*Source: Roy Morgan Business Confidence poll April 2019 6

Satisfaction Drivers

2. Customer Satisfaction Measures

7

2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) -- Consumer

2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal -- Consumer

2.3 Findings on Key Measures -- Qualitative Research for Consumer

2.4 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) -- Business

2.5 Business Confidence

2.6 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal –– Business

2.7 Findings on Key Measures -- Qualitative Research for Business

2.8 Customer Effort Score

2.9 Customer Effort Comparison Score

76.7

78.7 77.8

79.5 78.6 79.3

80.2 79.9 79.6 78.9

79.9 79.4 80.9

Premier’s Target -79.02

CSMS 2015 (n=6,549)

CSMS 2016 (n=6,971)

Q4 2016 (n=1,612)

Q1 2017 (n=1,540)

Q2 2017 (n=1,594)

CSMS 2017 (n=6,527)

Q4 2017 (n=1,508)

Q1 2018 (n=1,610)

Q2 2018 (n=1,603)

CSMS 2018 (n=6,701)

Q4 2018 (n=1,535)

Q1 2019 (n=1,575)

Q2 2019 (n=1,555)

Quarter-on-quarter comparison of QPCS results (Q1 2019 vs. Q2 2019) Year-on-year comparison of QPCS results (Q2 2018 vs. Q2 2019) - -

Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Quart tmerely r SPatulsisef Cachetiocn Mk Surevasey ur2019 eme Sensitive: NSW Government

Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level

Consumer

2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) - Consumer

QPCS Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has statistically significantly increased to 80.9/100 when compared to Q1 2019 and Q2 2018, bringing it well above the Premier’s target of 79.2 and making it the highest CSI the QPCS and CSMS has ever seen.

• Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has increased by 1.5 points(statistically significant) to 80.9/100 from 79.4/100 (Q1 2019).

• CSI has increased by 1.3 points (statistically significant) to 80.9/100from 79.6/100 (Q2 2018).

Q2 2019 QPCS Survey Details: Number of respondents: 1,003 consumers (1,600 responses) Fieldwork period: from 15 April to 23 April 2019

Note: All the numbers are subject to rounding. 8

Consumer 2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer (1/2) The CSI is composite of the following key measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to idea service. All three key measures experienced a statistically significant increase when compared to Q1 2019 attributing to the significant uplift in the CSI. The satisfaction gap to expectation has widened slightly by 0.1. This is due to a larger increase in expectation than satisfaction this quarter. This result indicates that consumers continue to have high expectation of NSW Government services but service performance is close to meeting these high expectation.

Quarter-on-quarter comparison of QPCS results (Q1 2019 vs. Q2 2019) - - Year-on-year comparison of QPCS results (Q2 2018 vs. Q2 2019)

• Expectation has increased by 0.2 points (statistically significant) to 8.0/10 from 7.8/10 (Q1 2019).

• Expectation has increased by 0.1 points (not statistically significant) to8.0/10 from 7.9/10 (Q2 2018).

• Satisfaction has increased by 0.1 points (statistically significant) to 7.8/10 from 7.7/10 (Q1 2019).

• Satisfaction has increased by 0.1 points (statistically significant) to 7.8/10from 7.7/10 (Q2 2018).

• Comparison to ideal service has increased by 0.2 points (statisticallysignificant) to 7.4/10 (Q1 2019) from 7.2/10 (Q1 2019).

• Comparison to ideal service has increased by 0.1 points (statisticallysignificant) to 7.4/10 from 7.3/10 (Q2 2018).

8.2 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9

Satisfaction 7.7

Expectation

7.2

Comparison to 7.3

7.5 7.4

ideal 6.9 6.7 CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 (n=6,593) (n=7,015) (n=1,621) (n=1,548) (n=1,605) (n=6,559) (n=1,518) (n=1,628) (n=1,618) (n=6,733) (n=1,545) (n=1,590) (n=1,564)

7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7

7.8

7.7 7.8 7.8

7.8 7.8

7.9 7.8

7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3

7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.2

7.4

Significant changes CSMS 2015*

CSMS 2016

Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017

Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018

Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

Satisfaction NA - - - - -

Expectation NA - - - - -

Comparison to ideal NA - - - - - - - -

* Data for comparison with previous period not available Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level

- No significant movement from previous quarter or same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

9

Expectation

Average (out of 10)

Satisfaction Comparison to Ideal

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

7% 6% 6% 8% 5% 9% 8% 8% 9% 8% 12% 11% 13% 13% 11% 12% 13% 11% 12% 13% 13% 15% 12% 15% 13%

17% 20% 16% 16% 14%

81% 81% 84% 80% 82% 78% 77% 80% 77% 80% 71% 69% 72% 71% 75%

Q2 2018 (n=1,642)

CSMS 2018 (n=6,922)

Q4 2018 (n=1,579)

Q1 2019 (n=1,614)

Q2 2019 (n=1,578)

Q2 2018 (n=1,638)

CSMS 2018 (n=7,000)

Q4 2018 (n=1,583)

Q1 2019 (n=1,611)

Q2 2019 (n=1,577)

Q2 2018 (n=1,618)

CSMS 2018 (n=6,733)

Q4 2018 (n=1,545)

Q1 2019 (n=1,590)

Q2 2019 (n=1,564)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7.9 7.9 8.0 8.0 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4

CSMS results

7.8

Consumer


2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer (2/2)

Compared to the last quarter, the increase in expectation, satisfaction and comparison to ideal is being driven by a 2%, 3% and 4% increase in consumers who rate their experience as high (i.e. 7-10 out of 10). This increase is expectation, satisfaction and comparison to ideal is further driven by a 3%, 1% and 2% decrease in consumer’s who rate their experience as low (i.e. 1-4 out of 10).

Comparison to Ideal experienced its first statistically significant increase since Q1 2019 indicating that NSW Government is moving closer to delivering consumers’ ideal services.

Please refer to appendix section “Historical Consumer and Businesses Baseline Measures” for more historical data Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

Consumer –– Outcome Measures

10

• Overall, there has been positive sentiment supporting the increasein CSI for NSW Government services

• Consumers positively mentioned that having the option to utiliseonline channels and services provides them greater flexibility tocomplete processes and receive status updates via their preferredchannel when interacting with government services

• Consumers have also expressed positivity to government servicesdue to recent improvements in infrastructure supporting servicedelivery such as refurbished service centres. Customers mentionthat these changes make it easier to interact with services due togreater availability of staff and information, and increase timeefficiencies during dealings with government services

2.3 Findings on Key Measures – Qualitative Consumer

• Consumers have expressed feeling a sense of trust and reliabilitywith the service if they are met with staff that display empathy andeffective communication during the process

• Consumers are increasingly impressed by the product knowledgeand empathy of staff especially within the service categories ofemergency services and social services. Consumers have statedthat this has allowed them to build greater trust with services

Employee drivers have contributed to increasing consumer satisfaction

“When I think about the changes I’ve seen to government services in last 12 months, I feel relief because, most of the information and

enquiries can be solved and done online. I really don’t want to waste tons of time by visiting centres

”“I think there have been a lot of changes implemented in the last 12months, change to the service centres, being open all weekend,

Green slip rebate are all good positive changes to happen. The new centres are so much brighter, open, friendly and staff are pleasant

and nice to you

” “ My experience has improved over the last few months by virtue of the move to making services more accessible through online self service portals. This reflects an understanding on behalf of the

government the importance of allowing users to access services they need in a flexible manner

” “ I felt really close and warm when I met the personnel from the school, it gave me the feeling of trust. This can be maintained as

long as those people happy and their expectation from the government is met

” “Shout out to the very helpful and delightful employee at Service NSW Brookvale who guided me through and sped up process of applying

for a replacement driver licence last month

”Insights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion

11

Consumers show positive sentiment towards changes in services

76.6

78.4

76.1 77.6 77.6

78.3 77.8

79.6 79.7 78.2

81.3 81.2 80.7 Premier’s Target – 81.16

CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 (n=1,645) (n=1,712) (n=375) (n=380) (n=365) (n=1,638) (n=343) (n=365) (n=1,536) (n=1,494) (n=1,523) (n=1,449) (n=1,372)

Quarter-on-quarter comparison of QPCS results (Q1 2019 vs. Q2 2019)

Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2019 Sensitive: NSW Government

Business

2.4 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business

For Business, the QPCS Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has decreased to 80.7/100 (not statistically significant) when compared to the last quarter but increased by 1.0 points when compared to Q2 2018. The slight decrease in CSI is due to the stabilisation of the overall performance of satisfaction and expectation at a high level.

• Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has decreased by 0.5 points (not statistically significant) to 80.7/100 from 81.2/100 (Q1 2019).

Year-on-year comparison of QPCS results (Q2 2018 vs. Q2 2019)

• CSI has increased by 1.0 points (not statistically significant) to80.7/100 from 79.7/100 (Q2 2018).

Q2 2019 QPCS Survey Details: Number of respondents: 1,009 businesses (1,394 total responses)


Fieldwork period: from 15 April to 23 April 2019

Note: All the numbers are subject to rounding. Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Quarterly Pulse Check Survey 2019 12

79.59 79.69

75.92

81.25 81.20 80.70

114

117 124 120

115

119 117

114 114

110 112

113 113.8 112.2

105.9 105.6 106.7

102.9

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

75

82

Nov

-17

Dec-

17

Jan-

18

Feb-

18

Mar

-18

Apr-

18

May

-18

Jun-

18

Jul-1

8

Aug-

18

Sep-

18

Oct

-18

Nov

-18

Dec-

18

Jan-

19

Feb-

19

Mar

-19

Apr-

19

Business Confidence Index

CSI

CSI Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index*

Business

2.5 Business Confidence

Comparison of Business CSI and Business Confidence Measures

About the Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index: The Index is based on 5 different attributes measuring Australian business’ expectations of the economic climate over the next 12 months. (n=~1,000 Australian businesses per month). Data points for the Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index are taken from the corresponding month of QPCS/CSMS fieldwork. http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/consumer-confidence/roy-morgan-business-confidence.

Business Confidence (Roy Morgan Index) and Business CSI

75.92

80.70

42

49

42

50

34

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

75

82

Mar

-18

Jun-

18

Sep-

18

Dec-

18

Mar

-19

Business Confidence Index

CSI

CSI Sensis Business Confidence Index

Business Confidence (Sensis) and Business CSI

About the Sensis Business Confidence Index:. This index is calculated by subtracting the number of respondents who are negative about the current economic climate from the number that are positive (n=1,000 small and medium Australian businesses per quarter). Data points for the Sensis index are taken from the corresponding month of QPCS/CSMS fieldwork. https://www.sensis.com.au/about/sensis-business-index

The decrease in business CSI mirrors the results of the Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index and the Sensis Business Confidence Index. The Roy Morgan index experienced a decrease of 3.0 when compared to Q1 2019 and the Sensis Index decreased by 16 when compared to Q1 2019. The trends of the Roy Morgan Index, Sensis Index and the business CSI indicates that businesses have decreasing confidence and perceptions of their ability to effectively manage their business in the current economic environment.

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding 13

http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/consumer-confidence/roy-morgan-business-confidence

https://www.sensis.com.au/about/sensis-business-index

8.3 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 Satisfaction 8.1 7.9 7.7

Expectation 7.5 7.3 7.1

Comparison to 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.1

7.2

7.5 7.2

7.4

7.3 7.5 7.5

7.6 7.8

7.4

7.9 7.8

7.8

7.6

7.9

7.6 7.5

7.7 7.6 7.7 7.7

7.9

7.3 7.4

7.2 7.3 7.2

7.4

7.6

7.4

7.0 7.0 ideal 6.7 CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 (n=1,654) (n=1,718) (n=375) (n=380) (n=365) (n=1,646) (n=345) (n=367) (n=1,554) (n=1,506) (n=1,535) (n=1,455) (n=1,378)

Source: NNSSWW OOffffiiccee ooff tthehe CCususttoommeerr SSeerrvviiccee CCoommmmiissssiioonenerr,, CQusuartotmerely r SPatulsisef Cachetiocn Mk Surevasey ur2019 ement Survey 2019 Sensitive: NSW Government

Business

2.6 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business (1/2)

The CSI is composite of the following key measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to idea service. The satisfaction gap to expectation has narrowed to 0.1 as a result of satisfaction stabilising and expectation slightly increasing.

Quarter-on-quarter comparison of QPCS results (Q1 2019 vs.Q2 2019)

• Expectation has decreased by 0.1 points (not statistically significant) to7.9/10 from 8.0/10 (Q1 2019).

• Satisfaction has remained stable at 7.8/10.

• Comparison to ideal service has decreased by 0.2 points (statisticallysignificant) to 7.4/10 from 7.6/10 (Q1 2019).

Year-on-year comparison of QPCS results (Q2 2018 vs. Q2 2019)

• Expectation has decreased by 0.2 points (statistically significant) to7.9/10 from 8.1/10 (Q2 2018).

• Satisfaction has remained stable at 7.8/10.

• Comparison to ideal service has increased by 0.1 points (not statisticallysignificant) to 7.4/10 from 7.3/10 (Q2 2018).

Significant changes CSMS 2015*

CSMS 2016

Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017

Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018

Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

Satisfaction NA - - - - - -

Expectation NA -

Comparison to ideal NA - - - - - - -* Data for comparison with previous period not available Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level

Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level No significant movement from previous quarter or same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level -


Business

2.6 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business (2/2)

7.7

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

Average (out of 10)

Expectation Satisfaction Comparison to Ideal

6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 9% 7% 5% 9% 8% 12% 11% 9% 8% 10% 9% 15% 14% 11% 14% 11% 18% 16% 12% 14%

15% 19% 18% 13% 17%

84% 79% 82% 83% 81% 80% 75% 79% 79% 79% 73% 71% 73% 79% 73%

Q2 2018 (n=1,555)

CSMS 2018 (n=1,531)

Q4 2018 (n=1,552)

Q1 2019 (n=1,465)

Q2 2019 (n=1,389)

Q2 2018 (n=1,570)

CSMS 2018 (n=1,555)

Q4 2018 (n=1,553)

Q1 2019 (n=1,469)

Q2 2019 (n=1,387)

Q2 2018 (n=1,554)

CSMS 2018 (n=1,506)

Q4 2018 (n=1,535)

Q1 2019 (n=1,455)

Q2 2019 (n=1,378)

8.0 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.48.1

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10) CSMS results

Business – Outcome Measures–

Compared to the last quarter, the decrease in comparison to ideal for business is being driven by a 6% decrease in the businesses that rate their experience as high (i.e. 7-10 out of 10).

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level Please refer to appendix section “Historical Consumer and Businesses Baseline Measures” for more historical data Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level

15

Business

2.7 Findings on Key Measures – Qualitative

Businesses show mixed sentiment towards recent changes

Businesses have a lower expectation towards government processes

“ I would say that a majority of the changes haven't improved my experience with dealing with the relevant Govt. Services.

Compliance has been become a top priority and trying to adhere to some of the changes has been challenging and also frustrating.

”

“When I think about the changes I’ve seen to government services in the last 12 months I feel in the last 12 months that the government

approach has become more personal and much more approachable. I like that you get an email from a genuine person

rather than just an auto response and a follow up call from the same person really makes you feel like your concerns matter

”

“ I feel really happy as they have improved immensely by making customer service a place you can do a lot of different things…a lot

more things can be done online which is much less time consuming …which really helps for small business owners

” “ Duplicating steps is frustrating, a waste of time and makes me que

stion whether the process I'm following is accurate or not. I don't want to be led down a rabbit hole where you need to go to various

sites, departments, organisations just to complete one process

” “I would be angry I found any duplicative steps in a process as I would find it a waste of time – where I could spend more time on my

business. If there were duplicative steps within a process - it would make me question if it was reputable and trustworthy source or not.

” “Over the phone is always hard as they don't have the customer and their documents in front of them

”

• Businesses have expressed mixed sentiment towards the changeswithin government services and overall satisfaction

• On one side, businesses have mentioned that the introduction ofonline channels has improved their experience. It provides greaterconvenience and status transparency during the process

• On the other hand, businesses have expressed the need foreffective communication between offline and online channels tocreate a more seamless experience. This potentially removesduplicative steps in the process as businesses need to uploaddocuments for approval and also prove these documents in person

• Businesses want to focus efforts on their business and customers.Hence, a lack of integration between channels can causeduplicative steps, reducing the time spent on growing the business

• Businesses mentioned that phone and online channels wereunable to provide a reliable seamless experience with a tailoredservice aligned to their needs and situation. Although expectationshave not been met, offline channels are perceived to be moreapproachable, as they allow for a more personal interaction

Insights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion 16

Consumer Business

2.8 Customer Effort Score

In this section, customers rated the level of effort for individual services; this graph shows the average of those ratings

Q: Thinking about your direct dealing with [SERVICE], how much effort did you personally have to put forth? 1 is ‘Low effort’ and 10 is ‘High effort’

NSW Government service interaction Customer Effort Score.

Higher Effort 6.9

5.9 5.9 5.7

5.9 6.1

5.9 6.0

6.0

5.7 5.8

5.8

6.3 6.5

4.9

6.7 6.9

6.0

6.6

6.1

6.5

6.1

Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Consumer (n=1,601) (n=1,529) (n=1,590) (n=6,501) (n=1,496) (n=1,611) (n=1,585) (n=6,634) (n=1,526) (n=1,548) (n=1,542) Business (n=378) (n=382) (n=366) (n=1,650) (n=345) (n=373) (n=1,535) (n=1,496) (n=1,508) (n=1,458) (n=1,360)

Lower Consumers Businesses CSMS results Effort

Overall, businesses have to put forth higher effort than consumers when interacting with NSW Government services. Since Q1 2019, the customer effort score (CES) has remained stable among consumers at 5.8/10 and decreased by 0.4 points (statistically significant) among businesses to 6.1/10 from 6.5/10 (Q1 2019). Comparing to Q2 2018, the CES has decreased by 0.2 points (not statistically significant) among consumers to 5.8/10 from 6.0/10 and has increased by 0.1 points (not statistically significant) among businesses to 6.1/10 from 6.0/10. Since 2017, a seasonal decrease in business CES from Q1 to Q2 has been observed.

• Businesses have mentioned theefficiencies of having more digitallyavailable services

• These services allow businesses toconduct multiple processessimultaneously, saving time andallowing them to be proactivelyinformed of their status via theirpreferred channel

• Information about the process isproactively provided online andbusinesses are able to completeprocesses at their own conveniencewhich reduces the effort duringdealings with government services

“I find it handy to just go online whilst travelling…also I can renew my

business licences online and get a discount for doing so

” “ Generally being informed … via text works really well and I’m satisfied

”Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level *The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level A decrease in CES is a positive shift.

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

Insights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion 17

6.2 6.0 5.9 6.0 5.8 5.7 5.4 6.1 6.0 5.8 6.0

5.6 5.6 5.5 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.5

6.2 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.6

Telephone service providers

NSW Government services

Federal Government Energy retailers My Local Council Banks Airlines

Q2 2018 QPCS (n=711 to 943) Q4 2018 QPCS (n=680 to 929) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=688 to 940) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=713 to 940)

Consumer

2.9 Customer Effort Score: Comparison of NSW Government Services Overall to Other Industries – Consumer

For this section, customers provided a rating for overall effort with NSW Government services in comparison to other industries/sectors Q: Thinking about all your direct dealings with each of the following Australian industries and Government services over the previous 6 months, how much effort did you personally have to put forth?

Customer Effort Score benchmarked at a Whole of Government level against other industries/sectors.

CES for NSW Government overall is relatively high when compared to other industries - consumer CES increased by 0.1 points (not statistically significant) to 6.0/10 from 5.9/10 (Q1 2019) placing NSW Government services as the second highest effort behind Telephone service providers. When compared to the same quarter, previous year (Q2 2018), NSW Government services effort score has remained stable in the relative effort required for interactions among consumers.

*The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level A decrease in CES is a positive shift. Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level


6.7 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.5 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1 5.8 5.9 5.8 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.6

Telephone service Energy retailers Banks NSW Government My Local Council Federal Government Airlines providers services

Q2 2018 QPCS (n=726 to 902) Q4 2018 QPCS (n=707 to 922) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=760 to 960) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=793 to 962)

Business

2.9 Customer Effort Score: Comparison of NSW Government Services Overall to Other Industries – Business

For this section, customers provided a rating for overall effort with NSW Government services in comparison to other industries/sectors Q: Thinking about all your direct dealings with each of the following Australian industries and Government services over the previous 6 months, how much effort did youpersonally have to put forth?

Customer Effort Score benchmarked at a Whole of Government level against other industries/sectors.

Compared to other industries, businesses ranked NSW Government services as the fourth highest in terms of effort, behind Telephone service providers, Energy retailers and Banks. For NSW Government services, businesses reported a decrease of 0.3 points (statistically significant) to 6.1/10 from 6.4/10 (Q1 2019). Businesses reported a decrease in effort for Airlines by 0.5 points (statistically significant) to 5.6/10 from 6.1/10 (Q1 2019) and a decrease in effort for Federal Government by 0.4 points to 6.1/10 from 6.5/10 (Q1 2019).

*The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level A decrease in CES is a positive shift.


3. Insights on Satisfaction Drivers

20

3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer

3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business

3.3 Key Drivers of Satisfaction – Qualitative Research

7.8

7.5 7.7

7.4 7.7

7.4

6.8 7.

4

7.4

7.0 7.

3

7.1

8.0

7.7 7.8

7.6

7.3 7.

8

7.5 7.

8

7.5 7.7

7.4

7.2 7.

6

7.4 7.

9

7.7 7.7

7.6

7.5 7.

8

7.6

Employees were open and honest during the process

Employees acted efficiently and effectively to reach the

right outcomes

Communications were clear, prompt and easy to

understand

Employees acted with empathy

Employees were held accountable for their actions

I was provided with good service and outcomes I could

trust

I felt there was accountability for services delivered

Q2 2018 QPCS (n=1,431 to 1,575) CSMS 2018 (n=5,690 to 6,779) Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,146 to 1,518) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,155 to 1,527) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,146 to 1,525)

Deriv

ed D

river

s(C

SMS

2018

) Av

erag

e (o

ut o

f 10)

Employees Values

n/a

for Q

1 &

Q2

2018

– n

ew a

ttrib

ute

intr

oduc

ed fr

om Q

4 20

18 Q

PCS

Service Quality Accountability Accountability Honesty and integrity of employees

Efficiency and effectiveness of employees Empathy and communication

n/a

for C

SMS

– ne

w a

ttrib

ute

intr

oduc

ed fr

om Q

4 20

17 Q

PCS

Consumer

3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer (1/2)

Drivers of Satisfaction Comparing to Q1 2019, the employee drivers honesty and integrity of employees, employees acted with empathy and employee accountability have increased (statistically significant). Looking at the values drivers, service quality and accountability have increased (statistically significant). These attributes are positively correlated to consumer CSI indicating that overall experience with employees is having a significant impact on improving customer experience. When compared to the same time last year (Q2 2018), the employee drivers efficiency and effectiveness of employees and employees acted with empathy have increased (statistically significant).

Q: We would now like to ask you some questions specifically about your experience with [SERVICE]. Thinking now about [its employees; its processes; service overall; the values they uphold], to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’.

Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level


7.3

7.3 8.

0

7.8

7.5

6.9 7.

5

7.5 7.6

7.4 8.

1

7.9

7.7

7.4

7.3 8.

0

7.9

7.6

7.5

7.5 8.

1

7.9

7.7

The process was simple and efficient Employees took initiative and made decisions

My privacy was upheld & personal information was protected & respected

I understood the steps involved with the process

I had good access to information and could find what I needed

Deriv

ed D

river

s(C

SMS

2018

)

Process Goals

n/a

– N

ot a

CSM

S at

trib

ute

Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes Employee Autonomy Privacy Transparency Access to information

n/a

– N

ot a

CSM

S at

trib

ute

Aver

age

(out

of 1

0)


Consumer

3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer (2/2)

Drivers of Satisfaction For process and goal drivers in Q2 2019, employee autonomy experienced a statistically significant increase since Q1 2019. When compared to the same time last year (Q2 2018), employee autonomy and access to information experienced a statistically significant increase.




8.0

7.5 7.7

7.6 7.7

7.4

6.7 7.

5

7.1 7.

4

7.3

7.0

7.9

7.7

7.3 7.

8

7.5 7.8

7.4 8.

0

7.8

7.5 7.

8

7.7 7.9

7.6 7.

9

7.7

7.4 7.

8

7.6 7.7

7.5

Employees were open and honest during the process

Employees acted efficiently and effectively to reach the

right outcomes

Employees were held accountable for their actions

Communications were clear, prompt and easy to

understand

Employees acted with empathy

I was provided with good service and outcomes I could

trust

I felt there was accountability for services delivered


Deriv

ed D

river

s(C

SMS

2018

)

Employees Values

n/a

for Q

2 20

18 –

new

att

ribut

ein

trod

uced

from

Q4

2018

QPC

S

Service Quality Accountability Customer focus & action oriented Clear communication Integrity and high standards

n/a

for C

SMS

– ne

w a

ttrib

ute

intr

oduc

ed fr

om Q

4 20

17 Q

PCS

Aver

age

(out

of 1

0)

Business

3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business (1/2)

Drivers of Satisfaction In Q2 2019, there was no statistically significant changes for the drivers since Q1 2019. Similarly, when compared to the same time last year (Q2 2018) all drivers did not experience any statistically significant movement.




Business

3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business (2/2)

Drivers of Satisfaction In Q2 2019, there was no statistically significant changes for process and goals related drivers since Q1 2019. Similarly, when compared to the same time last year (Q2 2018) these drivers did not experience any statistically significant movement performance of these drivers have stabilised after experience significant increases over the last year.

7.4

7.4 8.

2

7.9

7.7

6.8 7.

3

7.4 7.5

7.5 8.

1

8.0

7.7

7.6

7.6 8.

1

8.0

7.8

7.5

7.5 8.

1

8.0

7.7

The process was simple and efficient Employees took initiative and made decisions

My privacy was upheld & personal information was protected & respected

I understood the steps involved with the process

I had good access to information and could find what I needed

Deriv

ed D

river

s(C

SMS

2018

)

Process Goals

n/a

– N

ot a

CSM

S at

trib

ute

Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes Employee Autonomy Privacy Transparency Access to information

n/a

– N

ot a

CSM

S at

trib

ute

Aver

age

(out

of 1

0)





Consumer Business

3.3 Key Drivers of Satisfaction – Qualitative Research

Quality of service and accountability drive satisfaction

• Especially important in emergency and social services, consumers feelthat empathetic employees who are open and honest helped improvesatisfaction. This is crucial as the most important points throughout theprocess as highlighted by consumers and businesses, relate to face toface interactions rather than online channels

*

• Further support is seen via negative experiences with employees wholacked product knowledge. This contributed to dissatisfaction during anexperience, with many consumers stating this as a reason for making itdifficult to build trust with the service

• However, there are differences between consumers and businesses.Empathy and communication as well as honesty and integrity iscommonly addressed as a key driver of satisfaction whilst, efficiency andeffectiveness is a key theme for businesses. This is due to theimportance of time and need for efficient processes within businesses

• Quality of service is key to improving satisfaction. Forconsumers, having simple language and being guided throughthe process helps ease the interaction with governmentservices. For businesses, the convenience of being able tocomplete multiple processes helps to decrease effort

• For consumers, accountability has also contributed tosatisfaction, with customers that interacted with accountablestaff and services having greater trust and satisfaction. Beingable to provide status updates via a preferred channel has alsobeen important to increasing satisfaction

• Customers showed positivity towards services that providedstatus updates on time, via their preferred channel anddelivered on what was promised

“We were greeted nicely and the client I was assisting was

treated with the utmost respect …everything was handled

professionally, quickly, respectfully, no double

handling and I was impressed

” ”

“ Staff training so that staff can find the information they need in the system…in

timely fashion would be another driver. I think if processes are designed to be time efficient, simple and require the minimum

level of updates be an essential precursor to achieving customer satisfaction and trust

”

“ I was emailed with a written response confirming receipt of my written

complaint with a reference number which outlined when I would receive a call…After speaking to them I received a further email outlining

what steps to take and when I would be contacted again and then received a further phone call asking if I needed anymore help or advice

” *Importance is commonly defined by stages within a process which require the most effort from both respondents and government services Insights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion

25

Employee drivers support the increase in satisfaction

4. Channel Usage and Preference

4.1 Channel Usage an d Preference - Consumer -

4.2 Chann el Usage an d Preference - Bu - siness

4.3 Impact of Channel Exp ectations – Qualitative Research –

26

36%

20% 21

%

11%

9%

4%

41%

20% 22

%

9%

5%

2%

38%

20%

18%

11%

7%

3%

34%

19%

21%

12%

7%

4%

35%

20% 22

%

11%

6%

3%

41%

19% 23

%

9%

5%

2%

36%

21%

19%

13%

7%

4%

35%

21%

19%

14%

7%

4%

35%

22%

19%

12%

8%

4%

39%

20% 23

%

10%

6%

3%

38%

20%

18%

13%

8%

3%

40%

21%

18%

11%

7%

4%

38%

19%

20%

13%

7%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Face to face Telephone Online Email Mail, posted letter, fax Third parties such as Australia Post

CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

Shar

e of

con

tact

met

hod

used

(%) n=1,003

Consumer

4.1 Channel Usage and Preference - Consumer For consumers, usage of all contact methods did not experience any notable movements, with all channels increasing or decreasing by 1%-2% when compared to Q1 2019. Face to face remains the most used channel among this group and the percentage of respondents interacting face to face has increased by 3% since Q2 2018. Face to face also remains the most preferred contact channel for consumers when dealing with NSW Government services since 2015. Consumers who interact face to face have the highest expectation and satisfaction with these channels.

39%

15%

28%

10%

3% 1%

32%

19%

25%

15%

4%

1%

40%

17% 21

%

13%

2% 1%

41%

17%

24%

13%

2% 1%

38%

17%

24%

14%

3% 1%

35%

18%

28%

15%

4%

1%

38%

18% 19

%

15%

3% 3%

39%

19% 22

%

15%

2% 1%

40%

17% 22

%

13%

3% 1%

33%

18%

25%

16%

4%

1%

41%

18% 20

%

14%

2% 1%

41%

17% 20

%

13%

3% 2%

40%

16%

23%

14%

3% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Shar

e of

pre

fere

nce

(%) n=1,600

Contact Methods Used*

Q: Which of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? (Multi-select)

* Contact methods used is a multi response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “None of the above” option. Channel usage has been rebased on total number of responses for comparison to channel preference ** Contact methods preferred is a single response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “Don’t know/ can’t say” and therefore, may not add up to 100%


Q: Which of the following contact methods do you most prefer to use when dealing directly with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? Contact Methods Preference**

This is also a historical trend.

27

27%

24%

20%

15%

10%

4%

29%

27%

20%

16%

7%

2%

24% 26

%

22%

15%

10%

3%

29%

22%

19%

15%

9%

5%

30%

16%

25%

16%

9%

4%

27%

25%

19%

20%

7%

2%

24% 26%

17% 19

%

9%

6%

32%

20%

19%

16%

9%

4%

34%

20%

20%

14%

8%

3%

28%

24%

19%

19%

6% 4%

40%

20%

18%

12%

6%

4%

30%

22%

18%

18%

8%

4%

30%

22%

20%

17%

7%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



)Sh

are

of c

onta

ct m

etho

d us

ed (%

n=1,009

38%

20% 24

%

13%

3% 1%

27%

21% 23

%

23%

3%

1%

26%

24% 27

%

16%

3% 1%

33%

20% 22%

17%

3% 2%

35%

24%

16% 20

%

3% 1%

27%

24%

19% 25

%

4%

1%

33%

24%

19%

11%

7%

2%

37%

17%

25%

16%

2% 1%

37%

17% 22

%

18%

3% 1%

27%

24%

21%

22%

4% 2%

41%

16% 21

%

14%

3% 1%

33%

21%

19%

18%

3% 2%

34%

21%

22%

18%

2% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



Shar

e of

pre

fere

nce

(%)

n=1,394

4.2 Channel Usage and Preference - Business

Contact Methods Used*

Q: Which of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? (Multi-select)

* Contact methods used is a multi response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “None of the above” option. Channel usage has been rebased on total number of responses for comparison to channel preference ** Contact methods preferred is a single response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “Don’t know/ can’t say” and therefore, may not add up to 100%

Business

28

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding 1Indicative only - does not indicate statistical significance.

Q: Which of the following contact methods do you most prefer to use when dealing directly with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? Contact Methods Preference**

Face to face is the most used channel for businesses and its usage has remained stable since Q1 2019. The use of other contact methods have remained similar to Q1 2019. Businesses prefer face to face contact and this preference has increased by 1% since Q1 2019. In Q2 2019, businesses’ preference for online has increased by 2% compared to Q1 2019, while preference for telephone and email have remained stable. Similar to consumer results, businesses who interact face to face or online have the highest levels of satisfaction and expectation.

1

Consumer Business

4.3 Impact of Channel on Expectations – Qualitative Research

Face to face interactions support satisfaction via employee drivers

• Face to face interactions help to support satisfaction as staff canprovide a highly empathetic and personal service. Comprehensiveproduct knowledge was identified as key to these staff interactions

• In addition, great service quality by having the right supportiveinfrastructure is also important. This creates efficiencies during theprocess, such as Roads where there are efficient ticketing systems,helping to exceed expectations

Online channels need to be integrated seamlessly to reduce effort

• Customers acknowledge that NSW Government online processes have contributed to the satisfaction and expectation of government services due to greater convenience and time efficiencies. Havingmultiple channels allows them to receive status updates and conduct dealings via their preferred channel, reducing the need to travel to a branch or explain complications over the phone

• Businesses commonly initiate processes via an online channel andonly interact face to face if necessary. This is creates duplications andtime inefficiencies, which reduces customer satisfaction. Hence, online channels need to be seamlessly integrated with offline channels through constant communication

“The fact that the service assistant did as she said she would made me trust the service provider and the process in that they did what

they say they would, and therefore increased my satisfaction. It meant that I did not have to chase for an answer.

” “I feel like the staff were friendly (and) patient…and wanted to do all they could to get a positive outcome for me. I feel it really made

me trust the process more when I was getting calls from the same person as I feel like had a genuine interest in the process

” “ Transitioning to an App based notification would work...such an example would be a great customer experience as it consolidates all communications within one platform, speeds up the receipt of

communications

” “ I found that the NSW Service centre has a seamless process in place which all staff and customers appear to benefit from,

everything was handled professionally, quickly, respectfully, no double handling and I was impressed with it as a whole and they

could be used as a benchmark for other NSW Govt Offices / Departments.

” “Just to complete one process. It makes me question whether these departments…actually communicate with one another.

”Insights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion 29

Appendix Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Appendix B: Background to the QPCS

Appendix C: QPCS Qualitative and Quantitative Research

Appendix D: Historical Consumer and Business Baseline Measures

Appendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q1 2019 QPCS (CSMS at 99% Confidence Level)

Appendix F: Terminology Definitions

30

49% male

51% female Gender: Age: Region:

18-34 31% 35-54

33%

55 64 15%

65+ 20%

75% Metro

19% Regional

6% Rural

33% 24%

11% 9% 7% 6% 5% 3% 3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Employment Status:

Employed full time

Retired Employee part time

Full-time domestic

duties

Unemployed Student Employed on a

casual basis

Other

17% 16%

26%

17%

5% 5%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Up to $30,000

$30,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

$150,001 to $180,000

Over $180,001

Prefer not to say/Don't

know

Annual Income:

Self-employed /

business owner

=Q2 2019 Consumers (n=1,003 respondents)

27% 25%

11% 10% 9% 6%

3% 3% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Employment Status:

17% 20%

26%

13%

5% 5%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Up to $30,000

$30,001 to $50,000

$50,001 to $100,000

$100,001 to $150,000

$150,001 to $180,000

Over $180,001

Prefer not to say/Don't

know

Annual Income:

49% male

51% female Gender: Age:

18-34 31% 35-54

33%

55-64 15%

65+ 20%

Region: 75% Metro

19% Regional

6% Rural

Employed full time

Retired Full-time domestic

duties

Unemployed Employed part time

Student Employed on a casual

basis

Other Self-employed /

business owner

Consumer

Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents - Consumer

Consumer Respondent Profile*

• Data is weighted to be representative of the NSW population (ABS) based on gender, age and region

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100% 31

Q1 2019 Consumers (n=1,007 respondents)

-

53%Gender: female 47% male Business size:

Sole 10-19 Proprietor 20% 2-9 20+

29% 49% 2%

Region:

6% Rural 19%

Regional

75% Metro

Prof

essio

nal,

scie

ntifi

c an

dte

chni

cal s

ervi

ces

Reta

il Tr

ade

Heal

th c

are

and

soci

al a

ssist

ance

Industry: 18%

12%14% 9% 9% 10%

6% 2%

-2%

Educ

atio

n an

dtr

aini

ng7% 7%

Cons

truc

tion

6% 5%

Arts

and

recr

eatio

n se

rvice

s

Acco

mm

odat

ion

and

food

serv

ices

4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Fina

ncia

l and

insu

ranc

e se

rvic

es

Rent

al, h

iring

and

real

est

ate

serv

ices

Agric

ultu

re,

fore

stry

and

fishi

ng

Adm

inist

rativ

e an

dsu

ppor

t ser

vice

s

Man

ufac

turin

g

Who

lesa

le T

rade

Tran

spor

t, po

stal

and

war

ehou

sing

2% 1% 0.8%

Info

rmat

ion

med

iaan

dte

leco

mm

unic

atio

ns

Publ

icad

min

istra

tion

and

safe

ty

Elec

tric

ity, g

as,

wat

er a

nd w

aste

serv

ices

15%

0.7%

Min

ing

Oth

ers

-

Gender: 52% female

48% male

Business size: Region: Sole 10-19

Proprietor 22% 2-9 20+ 31% 44% 3% 6% Rural

75% Metro

19% Regional

Prof

essio

nal,

scie

ntifi

c an

dte

chni

cal s

ervi

ces

Reta

il Tr

ade

Heal

th c

are

and

soci

al a

ssist

ance

Industry: 18%

12%14% 10%9% 10%

6% 2%

-2%

Educ

atio

n an

dtr

aini

ng

Cons

truc

tion

6% 7%

Arts

and

recr

eatio

nse

rvic

es

Acco

mm

odat

ion

and

food

serv

ices

4% 5%

Fina

ncia

l and

insu

ranc

ese

rvic

es

Rent

al, h

iring

and

real

est

ate

serv

ices

Agric

ultu

re,

fore

stry

and

fishi

ng

5%3% Ad

min

istra

tive

4%3% 3% 3% 2% an

d su

ppor

tse

rvic

es

Man

ufac

turin

g

Who

lesa

le T

rade

Tran

spor

t, po

stal

and

war

ehou

sing

4% 1% 0.5%

Info

rmat

ion

med

ia a

ndte

leco

mm

unic

ati

ons

Publ

icad

min

istra

tion

and

safe

ty

Elec

tric

ity, g

as,

wat

er a

nd w

aste

serv

ices

17%

0.5%

Min

ing

Oth

ers

Business

Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents - Business

Business Respondent Profile* Q2 2019 Business (n=1,009 respondents)

Q1 2019 Business (n=1,003 respondents)

=

=

• Data is weighted to be representative of the NSW population (ABS) based on business size and region


Consumer Business

Appendix B: Background - Research Scope and Approach

In scope services • The QPCS Methodology is aligned to the Annual Customer SatisfactionMeasurement Survey (CSMS) approach:

• Captures feedback across 23 different NSW Government services (describedin the customers language).

• Feedback received from customers about each of the individual services isaggregated to provide a view of the performance of NSW Governmentservices overall.

• Each respondent provides feedback regarding one or two services (as aresult, the total number of responses received across services is greaterthan the total number of customers who completed the survey).

• The survey was completed from 15th April 2019 to 23rd April 2019 and results aretherefore reflective of experiences with services over the six months prior i.e. fromOctober 2018 to April 2019.

• The Q2 2019 QPCS was completed with:

• N = 1,003 consumers, and

• N = 1,009 businesses

• As each respondent provides feedback regarding one or two services, the Q2 2019QPCS number of responses:

• N = 1,600 for consumers, and

• N = 1,394 for businesses

Industry • Agricultural Advice and

Funding Services• Business Advisory Services• Water Supply• TAFE Services

• Police• State Emergency Services• Prisons• Courts• Fire Brigades

• Public Housing• Disability Services• Child Protection Services•

Justice

Family & Community Services

Finance, Services & Innovation Planning & Environment

Services for Older People

Transport • Public Transport• Car and Boat Registration• Major Roads

Health • Public Hospitals• Ambulance Services

Education • Public Schools

• Consumer Affairs (FairTrading)

• Environment and WildlifeProtection

• Art Galleries and Museums

• All scores reported in this document are out of 10, with the exception of theCustomer Satisfaction Index which is out of 100.

Multiple clusters • Documentation Services (including certificates for births

deaths and marriages; trade licenses and certificates; anddrivers licenses)

33

Interpretation Plan for Tracking Study

ILLUSTRATION ONLY - NOT REAL DATA

1. Set a benchmark with 4. Develop a leadthe first data point indicator

3. Form aMea

sure

2. Draw insights by directional trend comparing to previousquarter

Q1 Q2 2017 Q4 Q1 Q2 CSMS Q4 Q1 Q2 2017 2017 CSMS 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019

Time We are here

General Considerations:

Appendix B: Background - Key Considerations for Interpreting QPCS Insights

• The QPCS results do not replace the Annual CSMS results, but rather provide a directional indication of the shift in the results.

• Although the QPCS sample characteristics are closely representative of the NSW population, different customers have been surveyed and as such the results are directional indicators of shifts in the Annual CSMS results only.

• The margin of error (MoE) for the QPCS needs to be considered wheninterpreting the results.

Considerations for interpreting the QPCS data points:

• The QPCS results need to be interpreted in the context of the time of the year and in light of events in order to normalise seasonal trends in the data.Therefore, overall caution should be taken when interpreting the QPCS findings until a minimum of a full year of results has been collected, so that anyseasonal impacts can be examined and adjusted accordingly.

• Contextual factors for the results (Q2 2019) have been considered and include factors such as train delays and strikes, stadium upgrades and light railconstruction. Contextual factors are further explored as part of the analysis of the summary report.

• In the slides, the results of Q2 2019 QPCS have been compared to the results of all QPCS starting from Q4 2016 and CSMS starting from 2015. Significancetesting is based on the comparison to Q2 2018 and Q1 2019 results at 95% confidence level. We have allowed the longitudinal trend analysis for CSMS toQPCS having applied a 95% confidence level to both CSMS and QPCS datasets.

• The Annual CSMS results have been provided as additional context for the QPCS data point and should not be used as a comparison to QPCS results.

• A longitudinal dataset will need to be built over time in order to identify 'real' trends in the QPCS results and to strengthen the reliability and validity of anyconclusions drawn.

34

Appendix C: QPCS Qualitative and Quantitative Research - Approach Q2 2019 QPCS Qualitative Research:

Qualitative research complements the QPCS survey results by providing further insights and context into the results of the quantitative survey. In Q2 2019, the qualitative research will provide insight into the Special Interest Topic – Process and status transparency.

An online discussion forum was used as the qualitative research approach in Q2 2019 QPCS. There were 2 online discussion forums, a consumer group and a business group. Participants from each group were recruited from the respondents of Q2 2019 QPCS survey with a mix of demographics. The 3-day online discussion forums ran from 13th to 15th May 2019 for the consumer group and 15th to 21st May 2019 for the business group. Participants were required to answer all the pre-designed questions and encouraged to comment on other people’s posts. Moderators monitored the two forums and follow up questions were posted which prompted to participants to make sure sufficient insights were captured. The final responses came in both text and video formats which provided an in-depth understanding of baseline measures of Q2 2019 and the SIT topic.

Q2 2019 QPCS Quantitative Research:

The approach undertaken to assess changes between the CSMS results and the QPCS topline results is outlined below:

• In order to compare the CSMS topline results against the QPCS topline results, the confidence level of CSMS (typically 99%) has beenadjusted to 95% confidence level (in line with that of the QPCS). This was undertaken in order to make the significance testingcomparable between CSMS and QPCS results

• In doing this however, it should be noted that the survey methodology differs for CSMS versus QPCS in the following ways, and should beinterpreted with caution:

• Respondents are asked about their direct dealings with a service reflecting on their last 12 months in CSMS but the last 6 monthsin the QPCS, therefore recall about their experience differs

• Sample size varies greatly i.e. 2018 CSMS sample size was n=6,733 versus 2018 Q4 QPCS sample size of n=1,545 for consumers(this can impact margin of error which directly impacts significance testing)

• 99% confidence interval is used to test significance of results for the CSMS results versus 95% confidence interval which is used totest significance of the QPCS results

35

Structure of the Discussion Guide

Topics

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Introduction

Changes in experience over the past few months

Discussion on process transparency

Discussion on status transparency

Process Transparency Improvements

Storyboard of Process Transparency

Storyboard of Status Transparency

Best practice from real-world examples

Appendix C: QPCS Qualitative Research - Overview of Online Discussion Forum Approach

Approach:

• Participants were recruited from the respondents of Q2 2019 QPCS survey. Participants come from backgrounds with a mix of age, gender, location and experience interacting with NSW Government services

• The online discussion forums ran from 13th to 15th May 2019 for the consumer group and 15th to 21nd May 2019 for the business group.

• Participants were asked to provide insights into their experiences around process and status transparency.

Activity One: Unpacking the quantitative insights

Using the quantitative questions and responses as a base, we will ask the participants questions around the following:

Activity Two: Storyboard of Process Transparency

Activity Three: Drawing process transparency best practice from other real-world examples

• What makes a processtransparent and why?

• How are participants keptinformed of their status andhow does this impact theirsatisfaction with the service overall?

Participants will recall their journey, pain points, and moments of delight from a NSW Government process they experienced. This can be a linear path or a storyboard.

Following this, participants will add in key points of status transparency

Using examples of tools used to track the status of a process, we will seek to understand what specific features and attributes are important and useful for customers.

Customers can also reflect on how these aspects would improve their experience if applied to a recent interaction with a NSW Government service.

Group Number of Respondents

Consumer 22

Business 16

36

Consumer Business

Appendix D: Overview of Historical Results

Results at a glance

Consumers

CSMS 2015

CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS

2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

Satisfaction 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.8

Expectation 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.8 8.0

Ideal Service 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4

CSI 76.7 78.7 77.8 79.5 78.6 79.3 80.2 79.9 79.6 78.9 79.9 79.4 80.9

Results at a glance

Businesses CSMS 2015

CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS

2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

Satisfaction 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.8 7.8

Expectation 7.6 7.9 7.6 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.0 7.9

Ideal Service 7.0 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.4

CSI 76.6 78.4 76.1 77.6 77.6 78.3 77.8 79.6 79.7 78.2 81.3 81.2 80.7

Note: CSI is out of 100; all other measures represent scores out of 10



10% 9% 10% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 8%

19% 16% 17% 16% 17% 14% 13% 14% 13% 15% 12% 15% 13%

71% 76% 73% 76% 76% 78% 78% 78% 78% 77%

Average (out of 10)

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

80% 77% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS 2015 (n=6,790)

CSMS 2016 (n=7,227)

Q4 2016 (n=1,652)

Q1 2017 (n=1,580)

Q2 2017 (n=1,647)

CSMS 2017 (n=6,789)

Q4 2017 (n=1,541)

Q1 2018 (n=1,651)

Q2 2018 (n=1,638)

CSMS 2018 (n=7,000)

Q4 2018 (n=1,583)

Q1 2019 (n=1,611)

Q2 2019 (n=1,577)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7.3 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7

CSMS results

7.8

Consumer

Appendix D: Satisfaction - Consumer

Consumer – Outcome Measures –



–

7% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 8% 5%

16% 13% 13% 13% 14% 12% 14% 13% 12% 13% 11% 12% 13%

78%

Average (out of 10)

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

80% 81% 82% 80% 82% 79% 81% 81% 81% 84% 80% 82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS 2015 (n=6,693)

CSMS 2016 (n=7,140)

Q4 2016 (n=1,636)

Q1 2017 (n=1,563)

Q2 2017 (n=1,624)

CSMS 2017 (n=6,732)

Q4 2017 (n=1,537)

Q1 2018 (n=1,644)

Q2 2018 (n=1,642)

CSMS 2018 (n=6,922)

Q4 2018 (n=1,579)

Q1 2019 (n=1,614)

Q2 2019 (n=1,578)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.8

CSMS results

8.0

Consumer

Appendix D: Expectation - Consumer

Consumer – Outcome Measures



–

13% 12% 12% 9% 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 11% 13% 13% 11%

22% 18% 19% 19% 18% 19% 17% 19% 17% 20% 16% 16% 14%

65%

Average (out of 10)

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

70% 69% 72% 69% 70% 72% 70% 71% 69% 72% 71% 75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS 2015 (n=6,593)

CSMS 2016 (n=7,015)

Q4 2016 (n=1,621)

Q1 2017 (n=1,548)

Q2 2017 (n=1,605)

CSMS 2017 (n=6,559)

Q4 2017 (n=1,518)

Q1 2018 (n=1,628)

Q2 2018 (n=1,618)

CSMS 2018 (n=6,733)

Q4 2018 (n=1,545)

Q1 2019 (n=1,590)

Q2 2019 (n=1,564)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2

CSMS results

7.4

Consumer

Appendix D: Comparison to Ideal - Consumer


Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%

Consumer – Outcome Measures

40

9% 7% 15% 7% 11% 9% 8% 5% 9% 7% 5% 9% 8%

18% 18% 15% 24% 17% 17% 19% 22% 11% 18% 16% 12% 14%

72%

7.5

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

Average (out of 10)

74% 70% 69% 72% 75% 73% 73% 80% 75% 79% 79% 79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS 2015 (n=1,700)

CSMS 2016 (n=1,761)

Q4 2016 (n=382)

Q1 2017 (n=391)

Q2 2017 (n=372)

CSMS 2017 (n=1,705)

Q4 2017 (n=349)

Q1 2018 (n=375)

Q2 2018 (n=1,570)

CSMS 2018 (n=1,555)

Q4 2018 (n=1,553)

Q1 2019 (n=1,469)

Q2 2019 (n=1,387)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.8

CSMS results

7.2 7.8

Business

Appendix D: Satisfaction- Business

Business – Outcome Measures



8% 5% 8% 3% 10% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5%

15% 14% 14% 11%

16% 16% 17% 16% 9% 15% 14% 11% 14%

77% 81% 79%

7.9

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

Average (out of 10)

86% 74% 77% 77% 78% 84% 79% 82% 83% 81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS 2015 (n=1,677)

CSMS 2016 (n=1,738)

Q4 2016 (n=381)

Q1 2017 (n=390)

Q2 2017 (n=370)

CSMS 2017 (n=1,682)

Q4 2017 (n=350)

Q1 2018 (n=372)

Q2 2018 (n=1,555)

CSMS 2018 (n=1,531)

Q4 2018 (n=1,552)

Q1 2019 (n=1,465)

Q2 2019 (n=1,389)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7.6 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.0

CSMS results

7.6 7.9

Business

Appendix D: Expectation - Business




14% 9% 15% 9% 14% 11% 10% 7% 12% 11% 9% 8% 10%

18% 20% 14% 17% 18% 20% 24%

20% 15% 19% 18% 13% 17%

7.3

% D

istrib

utio

n (a

cros

s lo

w,

neut

ral a

nd h

igh

scor

es)

Average (out of 10)

67% 71% 71% 73% 68% 69% 66% 73% 73% 71% 73% 79% 73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS 2015 (n=1,654)

CSMS 2016 (n=1,718

Q4 2016 (n=375)

Q1 2017 (n=380)

Q2 2017 (n=365)

CSMS 2017 (n=1,646)

Q4 2017 (n=345)

Q1 2018 (n=367)

Q2 2018 (n=1,554)

CSMS 2018 (n=1,506)

Q4 2018 (n=1,535)

Q1 2019 (n=1,455)

Q2 2019 (n=1,378)

Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)

7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.6

CSMS results

7.0 7.4

Business

Appendix D: Comparison to Ideal - Business




Consumer Business

Appendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q2 2019 QPCS (CSMS Sig-test at 99% significance level) Consumers – CSI Margin of Error (QPCS)

Consumer CSI: ± 1.3

76.7

78.7 79.3 79.9 79.6 78.9 79.9 79.4

80.9

CSMS CSMS CSMS Q1 Q2 CSMS Q4 Q1 Q2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019

(n=6,549) (n=6,971) (n=6,527) (n=1,610) (n=1,603) (n=6,701) (n=1,535) (n=1,575) (n=1,555)

Consumers – Baseline Measures

8.6

8.1

7.6

7.1

6.6

7.3

7.5 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6

7.8 7.7

7.8 7.7

7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9

8.0 7.8

8.0

7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4

6.9 CSMS CSMS CSMS Q1 Q2 CSMS Q4 Q1 Q2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019

(n=6,593) (n=7,015) (n=6,559) (n=1,628) (n=1,618) (n=6,733) (n=1,545) (n=1,590) (n=1,564)


Businesses – CSI Businesses – Baseline Measures Margin of Error (QPCS) Business CSI: ± 1.2

76.6 78.4 78.3

79.6 79.7 78.2

81.3 81.2 80.7

CSMS CSMS CSMS Q1 Q2 CSMS Q4 Q1 Q2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019

(n=1,645) (n=1,712) (n=1,638) (n=365) (n=1,536) (n=1,494) (n=1,523) (n=1,449) (n=1,372)

8.6

8.1

7.6

7.1 7.2

7.5 7.5 7.6

7.8

7.4

7.9 7.8 7.8 7.6

7.9 7.7 7.7

8.1

7.7

8.0 8.0 7.9

7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4

7.6 7.4

7.1 7.0 6.6 CSMS CSMS CSMS Q1 Q2 CSMS Q4 Q1 Q2 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019

(n=1,654) (n=1,718) (n=1,646) (n=367) (n=1,554) (n=1,506) (n=1,535) (n=1,455) (n=1,378)


Note - Sample size for CSI and Baseline measure may differ on the basis of “Don’t Know” option selection Note – Significance testing between CSMS and QPCS is not possible due to differing confidence intervals


Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level Statistically significant movement from the previous CSMS year at 99% confidence level

44

Appendix F: Terminology Definitions

To ensure consistency in reporting significance testing, the below table of definitions has been developed and will be used for all future reporting for CSMS and QPCS.

Terminology Definition Example

Remain Stable Rounded numerical difference between current period result and the previous period result is less than 0.1 (in line with the chart visualisations).

Satisfaction score moved from 8.07 to 8.12 (i.e. actual difference is 0.05). In this case, rounded values are both 8.1 thus the results remained stable

Increase/Decrease Rounded numerical difference between current period outcome measures and the previous period result is larger than or equal to 0.1 (in line with the chart visualisations).

Satisfaction score moved from 8.07 to 8.21 (i.e. actual difference is 0.14). In this case, the rounded value moved from 8.1 to 8.2 thus the result increased.

Statistically significant Statistically significant movement (decrease or increase) from the previous period at 95% confidence level

Not statistically significant No statistically significant movement (decrease or increase) detected from the previous period at 95% confidence level

Visual difference Rounding numbers up to one decimal place and updating commentary based on visible difference in charts

Satisfaction score increased from 7.66 to 7.84 (i.e. actual difference is 0.18. In this case rounded values are 7.7 and 7.8, thus difference will be stated as increase of 0.1

45

Sensitive: NSW Government

2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey (QPCS) Summary Report...2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey...

Documents

Transcript of 2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey (QPCS) Summary Report...2019 Q2 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey...