Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2007 Management Service ... · 6 1.Introduction 1.1 Objectives In...

Hong Yip Service Company Limited

2007 Management Service

Opinion Survey Report

(Summary)

May 2008

Centre for Social Policy Studies

The Department of Applied Social Sciences

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

2

Copyright © 2008 All Rights Reserved.

Copyright of this report is retained by Hong Yip Service Company Limited and Centre for

Social Policy Studies of The Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong

Polytechnic University.

Enquiries can be directed to﹕

General Enquiries：




Telephone：(852)2766 4656

Facsimiles：(852)2334 8464

E-mail ：[email protected]

Website ：http://www.acad.polyu.edu.hk/~sscsps

Consultant Services Enquiries：




Telephone：(852)2766 4860

Facsimiles：(852)2334 8464

E-mail ：[email protected]

3

Table of Content

1﹕﹕﹕﹕ Introduction……………………………………………… 6

1.1 Objectives…...……………………………………………………

1.2 Methodology..……………………………………………………

1.2.1 Survey design and coverage..……………………………….

1.2.2 Area of Study….…………………………………………….

1.2.3 Data Collection…..………………………………………….

1.2.4 Scales of Satisfaction…………………………….………….

2﹕﹕﹕﹕ Company-level Performance……………………………. 12

2.1 Management Services....................................................................... 12

2.1.1 Politeness, appearance and attitude of estate management

staff…………………………………………………………...

2.1.2 Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff in day shift……..

2.1.3 Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff in night shift…....

2.1.4 Politeness, appearance and attitude of repair and

maintenance technicians……………………………………..

2.1.5 Working efficiency…………………………………………..

2.1.6 Handling of complaints and opinions………………………..

2.1.7 Handling of emergency……………….……………………..

2.1.8 Ability of language / communication……………………….

2.2 Security Services…………………………………………………... 17

2.2.1 Security Patrol..........................................................................

2.2.2 Entrance control of the building...............................................

2.2.3 Security facility........................................................................

2.2.4 Alertness of security staff........................................................

2.2.5 Initiative of security staff.........................................................

2.3 Repair and Maintenance................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Lift / escalators........................................................................

2.3.2 Electricity supply.....................................................................

2.3.3 Water supply............................................................................

2.3.4 Flushing water supply..............................................................

2.3.5 Communal aerial......................................................................

2.3.6 Fire-fighting installation..........................................................

2.3.7 Landscape Maintenance..........................................................

2.3.8 In-door phone to security.........................................................

2.3.9 Appearance of the building......................................................

2.3.10 Central Air-conditioning supply..............................................

4

2.4 Cleanliness of public area................................................................. 26

2.4.1 Entrance lobby and common corridor.....................................

2.4.2 Lift / escalators........................................................................

2.4.3 Staircases.................................................................................

2.4.4 Gardens Podium.......................................................................

2.4.5 Handling of refuse & junk.......................................................

2.4.6 Refuse & junk removal time....................................................

2.4.7 Attitude of cleaners..................................................................

2.4.8 Pest Control.............................................................................

2.5 Shuttle Bus Service........................................................................... 30

2.5.1 Attitude of bus captain.............................................................

2.5.2 Frequency................................................................................

2.5.3 On schedule.............................................................................

2.5.4 Cleanliness of bus cabinet.......................................................

2.6 Resident’s club House Management................................................ 33

2.6.1 Attitude and manners of club house’s staff.............................

2.6.2 Recreational / sport activities & interest groups......................

2.6.3 Maintenance of club house facilities........................................

2.6.4 Food and beverages..................................................................

2.7 Car-park Management....................................................................... 36

2.7.1 Attitude of car-park staff……………………………………..

2.7.2 Traffic / road sign.....................................................................

2.7.3 Lighting....................................................................................

2.7.4 Control of entry and exit..........................................................

2.7.5 Control of cargo loading..........................................................

2.7.6 Air quality................................................................................

2.8 Swimming Pool Management........................................................... 40

2.8.1 Quality of water.......................................................................

2.8.2 Attitude and manners of life guards........................................

2.8.3 Cleanliness of changing room.................................................

2.9 Others............................................................................................... 42

2.9.1 Festival decoration...................................................................

2.9.2 Promotion of Shopping Mall...................................................

2.9.3 Notice and information............................................................

2.9.4 Active and adequate communication channels........................

2.9.5 Concern the feelings of Owners / Occupants in

communications……………………………………………...

2.10 Overall Performance........................................................................ 45

2.10.1 Overall Performance on Property management Services........

2.10.2 Overall Performance on Property management Services

(Large-Scale Residential Estate)..............................................

5


(Small & Medium Residential Estate).....................................


(Public Housing & Home Ownership Scheme Estate)............


(Industrial / Office / Commercial Building)............................


(Shopping Mall).......................................................................

3﹕﹕﹕﹕ Expectation on Value-added Services………………….. 49

3.1 Satisfaction on Existing Value-added Services............................... 49

3.1.1 Sale of seasonal gifts...............................................................

3.1.2 Sale of household consumables...............................................

3.1.3 Sale of Office consumables.....................................................

3.1.4 Newspaper ordering.................................................................

3.1.5 Laundry....................................................................................

3.1.6 Housekeeping service..............................................................

3.1.7 Pesticide treatment....................................................................

3.1.8 Minor repairs and maintenance...............................................

3.1.9 External window cleaning.......................................................

3.1.10 Mini birthday party................................................................

3.1.11 Organizing short tour.............................................................

3.1.12 Interests class.........................................................................

3.1.13 Property agency.....................................................................

3.2 Opinion on Value-added Services................................................... 57

3.2.1 Coverage..................................................................................

3.2.2 Effectiveness in Implementing these Services.........................

4﹕﹕﹕﹕ Others…………………………………………………….. 58

4.1 Other Property Management Companies......................................... 58

4.2 Comparison of Services provided by Hong Yip and other Property

Management Companies………………………………... 60

6

1. Introduction

1.1 Objectives In 2007, Hong Yip Service Company Limited (hereafter, the Company) has commissioned

the Centre for Social Policy Studies of the Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong

Kong Polytechnic University to undertake extensive customer’s satisfaction survey to collect

the opinion of the Occupants and Owner’s Incorporations (OIs) regarding the services

provided by the Company. In order to improve the quality of services and understand the

needs of customers, the Company commissioned the Centre to conduct an opinion survey this

year. The Centre was also to analyse the collected data and write up the research report.

The objectives of the survey are as follows：

1. to measure the level of satisfaction from the customers’ perspective；

2. to evaluate the performance of the staff members；

3. to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of various services provided by the Company so

that improvements could be made；and

4. to identify the expectations of Occupants and OIs on facility management services.

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 Survey design and coverage

The survey was conducted between 7 December 2007 and 5 January 2008. The target

respondents of the survey were divided into two groups, namely, Occupants and OIs. All

Occupants and OIs working or living in premises managed by the Company were distributed

with self-administered and structured questionnaires.

The self-administered and structured questionnaires were designed by the Centre for Social

Policy Studies of the Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic

University. In order to collect the opinion of the services provided the property management

companies in different types of estates / buildings, there are totally five sets of questionnaires

were issued to each type of estate / building.

For the reason of comparing the satisfactory level of Management Services in different types

of estates / buildings, there are several core questions in all five sets of questionnaires to

measure their correspondent opinion on the Management Services. And these five sets of

questionnaires were used in Large-Scale Residential Estate, Small & Medium Residential

Estate, Public Housing & Home Ownership Scheme Estate, Industrial / Office / Commercial

Building and Shopping Mall respectively.

1.2.2 Area of Study

7

The questionnaire is divided into four parts. Part One focuses on the Quality of Current

Property Management Services with respect to (1) Management; (2) Security; (3) Cleanliness;

(4) Repair and Maintenance; (5) Shuttle Bus Service; (6) Residents’ Club House; (7) Car-

park Management; (8) Swimming Pool Management; (9) Others, and (10) Overall

Performance on Property Management Services.

Part Two concerns with the Expectation on Value-added Services, with questions related to

(1) Consideration of Using Value-added Services; (2) Satisfaction on Existing Value-added

Services; and (3) Satisfaction on Existing Areas and Effectiveness of Implementation of

Value-added Services.

Part Three emphasizes the Comparison of the Quality of Property Management Services

among Different Property Management Companies.

Part Four concerns with other Comments and Suggestions by Occupants and OIs.

The first nine questions in Part One and Part Two of the Expectation on Value-addedServices

use a seven-point Likert Scale（「1」= very unsatisfactory and「7」 = very satisfactory）which is different from the five-point Likert Scale used before. The Scale is expected to

measure the satisfaction level of Occupants and OIs in the various services provided by the

Company.

The following is a breakdown of the questionnaire structure：

Area of Study

Part One：：：： Quality of Current Property Management Services No. of Items

1. Management Services

9

2. Security Services

6

3. Repair and Maintenance

9

4. Cleanliness of public area

9

5. Shuttle Bus Service (if applicable)

5

6. Resident’s club House Management (if applicable)

5

7. Car-park Management (if applicable)

6

8. Swimming Pool Management (if applicable)

4

9. Others

5

10. Overall Performance on Property management Services 1

8

Part two begins to use a seven-point Likert Scale（「1」= very unsatisfactory and

「7」 = very satisfactory）to measure the satisfaction level of value-added services

among those OIs and Occupants who have already used the services. It also ask the

respondents whether they “will”, “may” or “will not” consider using value-added

services.

Part Two：：：： Opinion and Expectation on Value-added Services

1. Satisfaction on Existing Value-added Services (if have used)

13

2. Consideration in using value-added services (pay-as-you

consume)

13

3. Satisfaction with the Coverage and Effectiveness in

implementing services

3

Part Three：：：： Others

1. Experience on other Property Management Companies

2

2. Satisfaction on services provided by the Company when

comparing with other Property Management Companies

6

3. Improvement of the current property management services

(Open-end Question)

1

4. Other comments / suggestions on the existing value- added

services (Open-end Question)

1

Part Four：：：：Personal Particulars

If respondents want Hong Yip Service Company Ltd to follow up to

make contact directly, they may fill out the personal particulars.

4

All of the data collected were input into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

for analsis. The mean score for each question was calculated by using “simple average

method” on respondents’ answers, where the missing values were not included in the”mean

scores”. Hence, the total scores of performance at building, area, region and company levels

were the averages of the mean scores of the first nine questions in Part One. To simplify the

explanation, if there were 3 questionnaires and each had 3 questions in a specific area, and

“0” represented missing value, the calculation was as follows：

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3

Questionnaire 1 3 0 0



Score 5 4 0

9

The principle of calculation is based on the average score of each question but NOT each

questionnaire because there may be some irrelevant questions to the respondents.

The score of Question 1 is (3+5+7)/3=5. The score of Question 2 is (2+6)/2=4, which means

that the missing value in Questionnaire 1 is not counted because Question 2 is not applicable

to the respondent of Questionnaire 1. The score of Question 3 is 0, which means not

applicable to this area.

Then, the combined mean of score is (5+4)/2=4.5. The value of Question 3 is not counted.

The combined socres are derived from the average of the scores of

Occupants and OIs.

1.2.3 Data Collection

The survey was conducted between 7 December 2007 and 5 January 2008 by means of self-

administered and structured questionnaires. The questionnaires were issued by the Centre for

Social Policy Studies of the Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong

Polytechnic University and dispatched by Hong Yip Service Limited Company. A total of

17,579 Occupants (13.99% of the total) and 264 OIs (99.62% of the total) valid

questionnaires were collected in this survey. The Centre for Social Policy Studies was

further to conduct the analysis and provide a thorough report for the results obtained.

The number of questionnaires returned in each area was as follows：

Area Area Name Occupants OIs Combined

011 Tai Po Sub-Area 279 1 280

012 Tsuen Wan(I)San Wai Court Sub-Area 372 1 373

101 Aberdeen 269 12 281

101A AberdeenSouth Sub-Area 90 1 91

101B AberdeenWest Sub-Area 186 9 195

103 Chai Wan 173 9 182

103B Chai Wan East Sub-Area 127 4 131

104 Tokwawan 352 10 362

105 Kowloon Bay 424 9 433

105A Kowloon Bay Sub-Area 67 7 74

106 Ngau Chi Wan 203 1 204

107 Mongkok(I) 243 12 255

108 Cheung Sha WanI 211 15 226

109 Wonderland Villas 268 2 270

110 Shatin 453 12 465

111 Tai Po 299 4 303

112 Tsuen Wan(I) 457 16 473

10


114A Tsuen Wan(I)Meadowlands Sub-Area 132 1 133

115 Yuen Long(I) 263 6 269

116 Siu Lek Yuen 844 9 853

116A Ming Nga Court 209 1 210

116C Siu Lek Yuen Sub-Area III 109 1 110

117 Hanford Garden 11 1 12

118 Pristine Villa 80 2 82

119 San Po Kong 268 7 275

121 Tsz Wan Shan 201 1 202

122 Sheung Shui 265 4 269

124 Tung Chung 279 1 280

125 Tai Wai 556 3 559

126 Wong Tai Sin 445 3 448

127 Yuen Long(II) 324 10 334

128 Tsuen Wan(II) 343 6 349

131 North Point 134 7 141

132 Cheung Sha WanII 345 5 350

133 Tai Po Plaza 159 2 161

134 Fung Tak Estate 423 3 426

135 Hong Yat Court 204 1 205

136 Royal Peninsula 237 1 238

136A Royal Peninsula Sub-Area 173 4 177

137 Yu Chui Court 297 1 298

138 Oscar By The Sea 356 1 357

139 Prima Villa 243 2 245

140 Tak Tin Estate 357 1 358

141 Chai Wan Sub-Area 205 1 206

143 Yuen Long(III) 230 6 236

144 Yue On Court 209 1 210

145 Park Central-Residential 913 6 919

146 Park Central-Shopping Arcade 31 0 31

148 Village Gardens 81 1 82

149 Tsing Yi Estate 267 1 268

149A Kwai Hing Estate 191 1 192

150 Sham Wan Towers 245 1 246

151 Happy Valley 266 9 275

152 Beneville 157 2 159

153 Mongkok(II) 165 5 170

155 On Ning Garden 403 1 404

11


158 Grenville House 29 1 30

159 Tsuen Wan(III) 560 8 568

160 Lei Tung Estate 1017 1 1018

161 Yue Fai Court 140 1 141

201 Leased(III) 182 4 186

201B Leased (III) Sub Area South 28 3 31

202 Leased(IV) 32 0 32

202A Leased (IV) Sub-Area 40 0 40

301 Leased(I) 124 0 124

302 Leased(II) 255 2 257

302A Peninsula Tower 79 0 79

Total 17,579 264 17,843

1.2.4 Scales of Satisfaction

Since the 7-point Likert Scale was used to measure the satisfaction level in this survey, the

following scales of satisfaction would be adopted in the survey report.

Scores Satisfactory Level

1.00 - 1.86 Very Unsatisfactory

1.87 - 2.71 Unsatisfactory

2.72 – 3.56 Quite Unsatisfactory

3.57 - 4.43 Average

4.44 - 5.28 Quite Satisfactory

5.29 - 6.13 Satisfactory

6.14 - 7.00 Very Satisfactory

12

2. Company-level Performance 2.1 Management Services

2.1.1 Politeness, appearance and attitude of estate management staff

Occupants OIs Combined

6.68 6.68 6.68

2.1.2 Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff in day shift


6.73 6.65 6.69

Politeness, appearance and attitude of estate management staff

0.00%

2.33%

97.67%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory OccupantsOIs

Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff in day shift

0.00%

1.54%

98.46%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

13

2.1.3 Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff in night shift


6.66 6.59 6.63

2.1.4 Politeness, appearance and attitude of repair and maintenance technicians


6.58 6.55 6.56

Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff in night shift

0.00%

2.32%

97.68%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Politeness, appearance and attitude of repair and maintenance technicians

0.00%

3.53%

96.47%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

OccupantsOIs

14

2.1.5 Working efficiency


6.61 6.43 6.52

2.1.6 Handling of complaints and opinions


6.58 6.43 6.51

Working efficiency

1.54%

3.08%

95.38%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Handling of complaints and opinions

1.54%

2.69%

95.77%

0.00%

0.29%

99.71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

15

2.1.7 Handling of emergency


6.59 6.44 6.52

2.1.8 Ability of language / communication


6.59 6.52 6.55

Handling of emergency

1.93%

1.93%

96.14%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Ability of language / communication

0.39%

3.09%

96.53%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

16

The overall performance on Management Services was very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of

Occupants and OIs praised the Politeness, appearance and attitude of staff (including estate

management staff, staff in day shift, staff in night staff & repair and maintenance

technicians)、Working efficiency、Handling of complaints and opinions、Handling of

emergency and Ability of language / communication. However, some areas of the

Management Services need to be further improved. Some OIs rated Unsatisfactory in four

areas of Working efficiency, Handling of complaints and opinions, Handling of emergency

and Ability of language / communication.

17

2.2 Security Services

2.2.1 Security Patrol


6.64 6.51 6.57

2.2.2 Entrance control of the building


6.60 6.43 6.52

Security Patrol

0.00%

4.21%

95.79%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Entrance control of the building

2.31%

1.54%

96.15%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

18

2.2.3 Security facility


6.58 6.51 6.54

2.2.4 Alertness of security staff


6.61 6.41 6.51

Security facility

0.77%

1.53%

97.70%

0.00%

0.29%

99.71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Alertness of security staff

1.15%

3.07%

95.79%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

19

2.2.5 Initiative of security staff


6.63 6.44 6.53

The overall performance on Security Services was very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of

Occupants and OIs praised Security Patrol, Entrance control of the building, Security facility

and Alertness of security staff. However, some OIs rated Average and Unsatisfactory for

Initiative of security staff which made it the only one not up to 95.00% Satisfactory, it

reflects that some areas of the Security Services need to be further improved.

Initiative of security staff

1.53%

4.21%

94.25%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

20

2.3 Repair and Maintenance

2.3.1 Lift / escalators


6.48 6.48 6.48

2.3.2 Electricity supply


6.65 6.70 6.67

Lift / escalators

0.83%

2.90%

96.27%

0.00%

0.60%

99.40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Electricity supply

0.00%

0.78%

99.22%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

21

2.3.3 Water supply


6.59 6.63 6.61

2.3.4 Flushing water supply


6.48 6.56 6.52

Water supply

0.39%

0.78%

98.83%

0.00%

0.29%

99.71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Flushing water supply

0.00%

2.34%

97.66%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

22

2.3.5 Communal aerial


6.37 6.34 6.35

2.3.6 Fire-fighting installation


6.57 6.55 6.56

Communal aerial

0.54%

2.69%

96.77%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Fire-fighting installation

0.39%

2.36%

97.24%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

23

2.3.7 Landscape Maintenance


6.48 6.42 6.45

2.3.8 In-door phone to security


6.45 6.38 6.41

Landscape Maintenance

0.00%

3.49%

96.51%

0.00%

0.50%

99.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

In-door phone to security

1.90%

2.53%

95.57%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

24

2.3.9 Appearance of the building


6.50 6.71 6.61

2.3.10 Central Air-conditioning supply


6.64 6.69 6.66

Occupants and OIs considered that the Repair and Maintenance Services were generally very

satisfactory. Over 95.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with the Lift / escalators,

Electricity supply, Water supply, Flushing water supply, Communal aerial, Fire-fighting

installation, Landscape Maintenance, In-door phone to security & Appearance of the building.

Appearance of the building

0.00%

2.90%

97.10%

0.00%

0.69%

99.31%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Central Air-conditioning supply

0.00%

6.25%

93.75%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

25

However, 6.25% OIs rated the Central Air-conditioning supply as average, the company is

suggested to pay attention to these areas and improve them accordingly.

26

2.4 Cleanliness of public area

2.4.1 Entrance lobby and common corridor


6.61 6.60 6.61

2.4.2 Lift / escalators


6.57 6.56 6.56

Entrance lobby and common corridor

0.00%

1.59%

98.41%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Lift / escalators

0.00%

2.07%

97.93%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory Occupants

OIs

27

2.4.3 Staircases


6.52 6.50 6.51

2.4.4 Gardens Podium


6.47 6.39 6.43

Staircases

0.39%

1.95%

97.66%

0.00%

0.29%

99.71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Gardens Podium

0.60%

2.41%

96.99%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

28

2.4.5 Handling of refuse & junk


6.51 6.42 6.47

2.4.6 Refuse & junk removal time


6.52 6.49 6.50

Handling of refuse & junk

1.16%

3.09%

95.75%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Refuse & junk removal time

0.39%

3.49%

96.12%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

29

2.4.7 Attitude of cleaners


6.59 6.55 6.57

2.4.8 Pest Control


6.47 6.46 6.47

In general, Occupants and OIs were very satisfied with the Cleanliness Services. Over

95.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with all eight areas of Entrance lobby and

common corridor, Lift / escalators, Staircases, Gardens Podium, Handling of refuse & junk,

Refuse & junk removal time, Attitude of cleaners & Pest Control. The Company is

recommended to keep up the high standard of service in the coming future.

Attitude of cleaners

0.38%

1.92%

97.69%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Pest Control

0.40%

2.80%

96.80%

0.00%

0.29%

99.71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

30

2.5 Shuttle Bus Service

2.5.1 Attitude of bus captain


6.73 6.25 6.49

2.5.2 Frequency


6.73 6.57 6.65

Attitude of bus captain

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Frequency

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

31

2.5.3 On schedule


6.70 6.86 6.78

2.5.4 Cleanliness of bus cabinet


6.66 6.63 6.64

On schedule

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Cleanliness of bus cabinet

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

32

In general, Occupants and OIs were very satisfied with the Shuttle Bus Service. Over

95.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with all four areas of Attitude of bus captain,

Frequency, On schedule and Cleanliness of bus cabinet. The Company is recommended to

keep up the high standard of service in the coming future.

33

2.6 Resident’s club House Management

9.6.1 Attitude and manners of club house’s staff


6.65 6.59 6.62

2.6.2 Recreational / sport activities & interest groups


6.50 6.45 6.48

Attitude and manners of club house’s staff

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

34

2.6.3 Maintenance of club house facilities


6.48 6.36 6.42

Recreational / sport activities & interest groups

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Maintenance of club house facilities

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

35

2.6.4 Food and beverages


6.51 6.27 6.39

Occupants and OIs considered that the Resident’s club House Management were generally

very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with the Attitude and

manners of club house’s staff, Recreational / sport activities & interest groups and

Maintenance of club house facilities. However, 6.67% OIs rated the Food and beverages as

average, the company is suggested to pay attention to these areas and improve them

accordingly.

Food and beverages

0.00%

6.67%

93.33%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

36

2.7 Car-park Management

2.7.1 Attitude of car-park staff


6.70 6.62 6.66

2.7.2 Traffic / road sign


6.59 6.56 6.58

Attitude of car-park staff

0.00%

2.00%

98.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Traffic / road sign

0.00%

2.78%

97.22%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

37

2.7.3 Lighting


6.61 6.57 6.59

2.7.4 Control of entry and exit


6.62 6.54 6.58

Lighting

0.00%

2.68%

97.32%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Control of entry and exit

2.00%

2.00%

96.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

38

2.7.5 Control of cargo loading


6.65 6.76 6.71

2.7.6 Air quality


6.49 6.54 6.52

On the whole, the Car-park Management Services provided by the Company were very

satisfactory. Over 95.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with all six areas of Attitude

of car-park staff, Traffic / road sign, Lighting, Control of entry and exit, Control of cargo

Control of cargo loading

0.00%

1.82%

98.18%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Air quality

0.00%

3.38%

96.62%

0.00%

0.98%

99.02%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

39

loading and Air quality. The Company is recommended to keep up the high standard of

service in the coming future.

40

2.8 Swimming Pool Management

2.8.1 Quality of water


6.47 6.49 6.48

2.8.2 Attitude and manners of life guards


6.32 6.20 6.26

Quality of water

0.00%

2.82%

97.18%

0.00%

1.45%

98.55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Attitude and manners of life guards

3.08%

7.69%

89.23%

1.54%

0.00%

98.46%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

41

2.8.3 Cleanliness of changing room


6.42 6.24 6.33

The Swimming Pool Management Services are suggested for more improvements on Attitude

and manners of life guards & Cleanliness of changing room. 7.69% and 6.06% of OIs

claimed them were average. The company is suggested to pay attention to these areas and

improve them accordingly.

Cleanliness of changing room

1.52%

6.06%

92.42%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

42

2.9 Others

2.9.1 Festival decoration


6.57 6.57 6.57

2.9.2 Promotion of Shopping Mall


6.69 - 6.69

Festival decoration

0.38%

2.69%

96.92%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Promotion of Shopping Mall

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants

43

2.9.3 Notice and information


6.60 6.51 6.56

2.9.4 Active and adequate communication channels


6.58 6.50 6.54

Notice and information

0.39%

2.70%

96.91%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Active and adequate communication channels

0.78%

3.89%

95.33%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

44

2.9.5 Concern the feelings of Owners / Occupants in communications


6.58 6.52 6.55

The overall performance on Other Services was very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of

Occupants and OIs praised Festival decoration, Promotion of Shopping Mall, Notice and

information, Active and adequate communication channels. However, some OIs rated

Average and Unsatisfactory for Concern the feelings of Owners / Occupants in

communications which made it the only one not up to 95.00% Satisfactory, it is suggested

that the company trains their staff to pay attention to the feelings of Owners / Occupants in

communications.

Concern the feelings of Owners / Occupants in communications

1.17%

4.28%

94.55%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory Occupants

OIs

45

2.10 Overall Performance



6.67 6.58 6.63

Overall Performance on Property management Services

0.39%0.00%0.39%2.73%2.73% 24.22% 69.53% 85.39%

0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.86% 13.75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Very UnsatisfactoryUnsatisfactoryQuite UnsatisfactoryAverageQuite SatisfactorySatisfactoryVery SatisfactoryOccupantsOls

For Overall Performance on Property Management Services, 97.73% of Occupants and OIs

were satisfied (99.07% in 2006 by the survey conducted by CityU Professional Services

Limited in 2006). All Occupants (100.00%) and 96.48% of OIs rated the overall

performance as satisfactory. It revealed that the Company has done a good job in the year of

2007.

The calculated and perceived overall performance scores of Occupants were more or less the

same with those of OIs. It was shown that the difference between the calculated and

perceived overall performance scores of Occupants and OIs were insignificant. It is

suggested that the Company pay more attention on OIs’ opinion and keep up the high

standard of service in the coming future.

46


(Large-Scale Residential Estate)


6.62 6.62 6.62


(Large-Scale Residential Estate)

0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%3.45% 31.03%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 83.33%65.52%16.67%



(Small & Medium Residential Estate)


6.65 6.47 6.56


(Small & Medium Residential Estate)

0.82%0.00%0.82%2.46%3.28% 61.48%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.45% 31.15%12.32% 86.23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Very UnsatisfactoryUnsatisfactoryQuite UnsatisfactoryAverageQuite SatisfactorySatisfactoryVery SatisfactoryOccupantsOls

47


(Public Housing & Home Ownership Scheme Estate)


6.41 6.58 6.50


(Public Housing & Home Ownership Scheme Estate)

0.00%0.00%0.00%2.63%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 31.58%7.89%13.16% 76.32%68.42%



(Industrial / Office / Commercial Building)


6.76 6.78 6.77


(Industrial / Office / Commercial Building)

0.00%0.00%0.00%1.49%1.49%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.76% 89.39%82.09%14.93%9.85%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Very UnsatisfactoryUnsatisfactoryQuite UnsatisfactoryAverageQuite SatisfactorySatisfactoryVery SatisfactoryOccupantsOls

48


(Shopping Mall)


6.88 - 6.88


(Shopping Mall)

0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 90.91%9.09%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Very UnsatisfactoryUnsatisfactoryQuite UnsatisfactoryAverageQuite SatisfactorySatisfactoryVery SatisfactoryOccupants

All Occupants and OIs of the Large-Scale Residential Estate (100.00%) and Shopping Mall

(100.00%) were satisfied with the Property Management Services, while 97.12%, 94.74%

and 98.52% of them were satisfied in Small & Medium Residential Estate, Public Housing &

Home Ownership Scheme Estate and Industrial / Office / Commercial Building respectively.

49

3. Value-added Services

3.1 Satisfaction on Existing Value-added Services

3.1.1 Sale of seasonal gifts


6.46 6.54 6.50

Sale of seasonal gifts

0.00%

2.81%

97.19%

0.00%

0.97%

99.03%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

50

3.1.2 Sale of household consumables


6.38 6.36 6.37

3.1.3 Sale of Office consumables


6.62 6.77 6.70

Sale of household consumables

0.83%

3.33%

95.83%

0.00%

3.35%

96.65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Sale of Office consumables

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

51

3.1.4 Newspaper ordering


6.38 6.52 6.45

3.1.5 Laundry


6.40 6.55 6.47

Newspaper ordering

0.00%

4.23%

95.77%

0.50%

2.00%

97.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Laundry

0.00%

3.03%

96.97%

0.00%

2.79%

97.21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

52

3.1.6 Housekeeping service


6.30 6.19 6.25

3.1.7 Pesticide treatment


6.44 6.51 6.47

Housekeeping service

0.00%

11.54%

88.46%

0.00%

2.73%

97.27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Pesticide treatment

0.00%

4.23%

95.77%

0.00%

2.70%

97.30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

53

3.1.8 Minor repairs and maintenance


6.51 6.62 6.56

3.1.9 External window cleaning


6.39 6.30 6.34

Minor repairs and maintenance

0.00%

2.11%

97.89%

0.00%

1.95%

98.05%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

External window cleaning

0.00%

7.41%

92.59%

0.00%

2.87%

97.13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

54

3.1.10 Mini birthday party


6.32 6.35 6.34

3.1.11 Organizing short tour


6.35 6.63 6.49

Mini birthday party

4.35%

0.00%

95.65%

0.00%

4.85%

95.15%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Organizing short tour

0.00%

2.67%

97.33%

0.00%

3.37%

96.63%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

55

3.1.12 Interests class


6.31 6.41 6.36

3.1.13 Property agency


6.52 6.73 6.62

Interests class

0.00%

1.79%

98.21%

0.00%

3.39%

96.61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Property agency

0.00%

1.92%

98.08%

0.40%

2.00%

97.60%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

56

On the whole, the existing value-added services were very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of

Occupants and OIs were satisfied with eleven areas of Sale of seasonal gifts, Sale of

household consumables, Sale of Office consumable, Newspaper ordering, Laundry, Pesticide

treatment, Minor repairs and maintenance, Mini birthday party, Organizing short tour,

Interests class and Property agency. However, 11.54% and 7.41% of OIs were rated the

Housekeeping service and External window cleaning as average. The Company is

recommended to pay more attention to OIs’ expectation in order to raise their satisfaction

level.

57

3.2 Opinion on Value-added Services

3.2.1 Coverage


6.42 6.40 6.41

3.2.2 Effectiveness in implementing these services


6.45 6.40 6.42

In general, over 90.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with the Value-added Services

including the coverage and effectiveness in implementing these services. The Company is

recommended to keep up the high standard of service in the coming future.

Coverage

1.69%

6.21%

92.09%

0.00%

2.91%

97.09%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

Effectiveness in implementing these services

2.31%

3.47%

94.22%

0.33%

1.30%

98.37%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Unsatisfactory

Average

Satisfactory

Occupants OIs

58

4. Others

In this session, we will investigate the performance of the Company by comparing with othe

property management companies.

4.1 Other property management companies

Having Used of Facility Management Services Offered by

Other Property Management Companies

34.86%

65.14%

Yes

No

Of 12,873 Occupants and OIs that indicated whether they had used or had not used facility

management services provided by other property management companies, 34.86% of them

did use facility management services offered by other property management companies.

59

Other Property Management Companies

21.48%5.75%6.20%7.56% 9.98%10.39% 13.33%14.44%14.82% 18.23%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%OtherSwire Properties Management LtdMTR Corporation LtdCity Property Management LtdHang Yick Properties Management LtdSino Estates Management LtdUrban Property management LtdKai Ching management Services LtdEastPoint Property Management LtdSynergis Management Services Ltd

Among those Occupants and OIs who have used facility management services offered by

other property management companies, 18.23% (n=818) of Occupants and OIs have used the

facility management services offered by Synergis Management Services Ltd. 14.82% (n=665)

were managed by EastPoint Property Management Ltd. 14.44% (n=648) were managed by

Kai Ching management Services Ltd. Furthermore, 13.33% (n=598), 10.39% (n=466),

9.98% (n=448) and 7.56% (n=339) of them were managed by Urban Property management

Ltd, Sino Estates Management Ltd, Hang Yick Properties Management Ltd and City Property

Management Ltd respectively. 6.20% (n=278) and 5.75% (n=258) were managed by MTR

Corporation Ltd and Swire Properties Management Ltd respectively. And 21.48% were

managed by other property management companies.

60

4.2 Compared with other property management companies & Hong Yip Service

Company Hong Yip Provided Better Services Compared with Other Property Management Companies

94.28% 94.98% 94.54% 95.21% 91.52% 93.28%5.72% 5.02% 5.46% 4.79% 8.48% 6.72%

86%88%90%92%94%96%98%100%102%

Security Cleanliness Repair and maintenance Attitude of estatemanagement staff Residents' club housemanagement Car-park managementDisagreeAgree

Among the Occupants and OIs who have used facility management services offered by other

property management companies, 94.28% of them agreed that the Company provided better

Security Services. 94.98% of them agreed that the Company provided better Cleanliness

Services. 94.54% agreed that the Repair and Maintenance Services were better when

compared with other property management companies. Respectively, 95.12% and 91.52% of

them agreed that the attitude of estate management staff and Residents’ Club House Services

provided by the Company were better. And 93.28% of them agreed that the Car-park

Management Services were better when compared with other property management

companies.

61

The reasons of disagreeing that the Company has provided better services compared with

other property management companies were listed in the following tables:

Security

Description Occupants OIs Quality of service provided was the same as those provided by other

companies 53 - Low alertness 25 - Other companies provided better services 12 1

Can not compare directly 8 1

Some Security guards are not up to standard 7 - Security problems in Entrance control of the building 5 1 Inadequate security guards and facilities 4 - Laziness of security guards 4 - Insufficient initiative and politeness 3 1

Inadequate manpower 2 1

Work attitude of security guards is not so serious 2 - No comments 2 - Too high turnover rates 2 - Inadequate security partrol in public areas 2 - Decreasing security standard 2 - Insufficient initiative 2 1 Communication skills of security guards 1 -

Not so serious 1 - Insufficient supervision 1 - Insufficient security in Entrance control of the building 1 - Some female stranger lingered in rear staircase 1 - Some property agents can get through Entrance control easily 1 - Burglar 1 - Security guards should not have the duty to open door for guests 1 -

Insufficient security services 1 - No improvement 1 - Security guards sometimes not on duty 1 - Insufficient security force in night shift 1 - Poor attitude of security guards 1 - No security guards on duty in kiosk 1 -

No update of Security facility 1 - High turnover of security guards 1 - Location of security kiosk 1 - Some staff need to further improve their services 1 - Let the residents to pray in corridor 1 - Staff was lazy and talk over the phone 1 - Fixed guards’ kiosk 1 -

Lack of smiles 1 - Recognize the residents 1 - Management staff not up to standard 1 -

62

Cleanliness


companies 55 1 More cleanings in staircase 14 - Insufficient cleanings 10 1 Pets relieve the bowls 8 - The quality of building is different 8 1

Other companies provided better services 6 - More cleanings in corridors 6 -

Average 6 - Inadequate Hygiene in public areas 4 - Terrible odor and smell after Refuse & junk removal 3 - Frequency of cleanings 2 - Most of the cleanings are outsourcing 2 - Fixed cleaning time 2 -

Rubbish in the podium 2 - More cleanings in lobby and staircase 2 - Management fees are the same, so the services 1 - Too much dust when some residents fix up their rooms 1 - Stains are found in lobby 1 - More cleanings in the facilities in playground 1 - Some staff need to make further improvement 1 -

Poor hygiene in toilets 1 - No antiseptic facilities in entrance and exit 1 - Odor and hygiene of the place Handling refuse & junk 1 - Insects and rats in everywhere 1 - Stains are found somewhere 1 - Too much refuse & junk 1 -

Too much rubbish when residents fix up their rooms 1 - Can have a better job 1 - The previous company provided better services 1 - Fixed times to have refuse & junk removal 1 - Insufficient cleanings in staircase and corridor 1 - Some residents pray in corridor and maculate 1 -

Residents fix up their rooms and then masculate the lobby 1 -

63

Repair and Maintenance


companies 38 - Repairing time is too long 17 1

Can not compare them directly 15 1

Repair and Maintenance services not up to standard 8 - Lifts are broken too frequent 8 - Average 6 - Other companies provided better services 4 1 Damage in public areas 2 - No regular maintenance 2 - Damage in floor and tiles on walls 2 - No detailed solution on safety problem 1 - Pretend insufficient fund to postpone maintenance work 1 - Insufficient support to residents 1 -

Poor communication between office and technical staff 1 - Poor maintenance work and facilities depreciate after maintenance 1 - More initiative 1 - Lighting need to further improve 1 - Computers in Residents’ Club House are not updated 1 - Gardens Podium 1 -

Decreasing services standard 1 - High repair and maintenance fees 1 1 Smoking of repair and maintenance technicians 1 - Flushing water supply not reliable 1 - No maintenance on parts of electricity and water supply 1 - Insufficient transparency 1 - Insufficient professional knowledge 1 - Redundant personnel 1 -

Unwilling to make maintenance work in advance 1 - Security services need to further improve 1 - Cancel the resident engineers 1 - Inexperience 1 - Wells choked and insufficient Flushing water supply 1 - Replacement of fluorescent lamp and repair of rubbish bun take too

long time 1 -

Impoliteness of repair and maintenance technicians 1 - Dropsys are found 1 - Tiles on wall fall off and nobody dealing with 1 -

Leaking on wall and nobody follow up 1 - Insufficient lighting in parks 1 - No free of charge maintenance work 1 - Nobody follow up in repair and maintenance services 1 - The cooling of air-conditioning system 1 - Damage in water tank of the building 1 -

64

Checking and decoration for house buyer is not up to standard 1 -

65

Attitude of Estate Management Staff


companies 48 -

Some staff are not up to standard 15 - Other companies provided better services 13 2 Insufficient initiative 11 -

Average attitude 8 - Can’t compare them directly 6 1 Impoliteness and lack of smiles 4 - Management staff need to further improve 2 2

Sometimes the management staff sleep while working 2 - Lazy and passive 1 - Nice and professional 1 - High turnover of officer and staff in estate management 1 - Tolerance towards the decoration work 1 -

Unaccountable response for complaints 1 - Can’t solve the problems instantly over the phone 1 - Inefficient to handle complaints 1 - Usually lazy and gossip 1 - Impoliteness and lack of smiles 1 - The reserve security guards are lack of smiles 1 -

Quite initiative 1 - Insufficient night shift management staff on duty 1 - Insufficient professional knowledge 1 - Other companies’ services attained higher standard 1 - No follow up on complaint cases 1 - Can’t give instant response 1 - Pay more attention on Occupants’ opinion 1 -

Passive 1 - No improvement 1 - Not enough devotion and care 1 - Not enough supervision 1 - Company shirk responsibility for their staff 1 - No comment 1 -

Lazy working 1 - No registration of car entrance 1 -

66

Residents’ Club House


companies 10 - No comparison 10 - Other companies provided better services 8 - Poor attitude 6 -

Some staff are not up to standard 4 - Passive 4 - Average 4 - High turnover rate 3 - Non-residents can enter into the residents’ club house 2 - Not professional 2 - Too many repairing machines present in club house 1 -

Quality of club house is substandard 1 - Staff are not familiar with the facilities 1 - Too noisy in club house 1 - Poor variety of foods provided 1 - Redundant personnel 1 - Insufficient security in club house 1 -

Insufficient maintenance in children playroom 1 - No comparison 1 -

67

Car-park Management


companies 27 1

Have not used the car park before 8 - No comparison 7 -

Other companies provided better services 6 - Cleaning in car-park is poor 4 - Poor Control of entry and exit 4 1 The building have not provided this service 3 - Average 3 - Dropsy and rubbish present in car-park 2 - Not enough initiative 2 - No management at all 2 -

Inefficient to solve problems 1 - Complaints of owners in OIs’ meetings 1 - Residents are usually to clean their cars on their parking lots 1 - High turnover of management staff in car-park 1 - Comprehensive facilities in car-park 1 - Rudeness of car-park staff 1 -

Impoliteness and passive of Staff 1 - No security patrol 1 - Insufficient traffic and road signs 1 - Pedestrians 1 - Insufficient security patrol in car-park 1 - Insufficient parking lots 1 - Parking lots’ owners occupy public area 1 -

No car park 1 - Using non-contact ID card in entrance 1 - Too few regular parking lots 1 - Not flexible 1 - Enough routes to choose from 1 -

Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2007 Management Service ... · 6 1.Introduction 1.1 Objectives In...

Documents

Transcript of Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2007 Management Service ... · 6 1.Introduction 1.1 Objectives In...