Objective quality and customer satisfaction

BEST CIG

Berlin 2007-10-02

The CIG

Participants:Oslo SporveierHelsinki City TransportStockholm TransportSAMOT research center, Karlstad

Questions in the CIG

How is PT satisfaction related to actual PT quality? What do people judge when they judge

satisfaction?What else than objective quality?And how do they do it?

Implications for how to collect, interpret and use customer data

Activities in the CIG

After the kick-off in Copenhagen Meetings in Helsinki and

Oslo Discussion of practices,

measurement systems and results (see BEST web page)

Experiences, problems and solutions

Begun work with a CIG report

A summary complex picture of public transport satisfaction

Objective quality, current

journey

Customer journey quality expectations

The customer's perception of journey quality relative to expectations

+b+c

Customer satisfaction,

previous journeys

"External noise"

+aCustomer satisfaction,

+e+f +/–g

–d

Examples of insights and conclusions so far

Impact of expectationsHistory/previous experienceMedia/reputation

Methods of data collection and analysisCustomer surveysCustomer complaints

How to interpret the resultAnd how to use them

Oslo – What is behind the satisfaction data

Interview follow-up of onboard survey of journey satisfaction

The scale In general: 1-2 are used when the

respondent is dissatisfied, 3-5 is used when the customer is satisfied.

The responses: not only performancePrevious experienceExpectations

Count.

Previous experiences influences This influences the answers adversely, not

positively.

Examples: Punctuality: "The tram was on time, I could have

given a top score. Still, in the back of my mind were all the delays lately, so I gave a poorer score."

Cleanliness: "In general, the metro is always dirty, people are spitting and putting their feet on the seat. Giving a top score is impossible".

Helsinki – Quality and compalints

Customer complaints and satisfactionComputerized system for analysing

customer complaintsContent analysis/conceptual mappingQuantifications and linkage to satisfaction

measuresComplaint data reveals the causes of

(dis-)satisfaction Immediate reaction of service problems

Count.

Quality grades (buses)

7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0

Fluency of the journey

Waiting at the stop

Changing

Order, safety

Punctuality

Equipment of vehicles

Looseness of travelling

Tidiness of vehicles

Information given by driver

Driver's w ay of driving

Service given by driver

Grade

2005

2006

Amount of feedback (buses)

0 10 20 30 40

Fluency of the journey

Waiting at the stop

Changing

Order, safety

Punctuality

Equipment of vehicles

Looseness of travelling

Tidiness of vehicles

Information given by driver

Driver's way of driving

Service given by driver

Feedback / million passengers

2005

2006

Discussion issues

Satisfaction in times of change Internal/external changesPositive/negative changes

Why satisfaction measures?Quality controlFollow up of operators/incentivesEffects of improvements Input to strategic decisions

Discussion issues (count)

Methodological aspectsData sources InstrumentsScalesSamples

Additional forcesAffective dimensions Impact of cultureMedia/reputation

Critical incidents

Critical incidents and satisfaction

Critial incidents, attributes and satisfaction

The Kano-model of quality attributes

High

Low

High

”Must be” (hygene factors)

”Delights” (attractors)

Traditional one-dimensional attributes

Customer satisfaction

Objective qualityLow