2019 q4 quarterly pulse check survey (qpcs) › __data › assets › pdf...2019 q4 quarterly pulse...

2019 Q4 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey (QPCS)

Summary Report

Please note that this report is not web accessible.

The accessible version is coming soon.

Item Page no.

1 Key Insights 2

2

Customer Satisfaction Measures2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Consumer2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer2.3 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business2.4 Business Confidence2.5 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business2.6 Customer Effort Score2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries

7

3

Insights on Satisfaction Drivers3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business3.3 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Effectiveness and Efficiency3.4 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Access to information and Online Services3.5 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Effectiveness and Efficiency3.6 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Access to information and Online Services3.7 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Honesty and Integrity

18

4

Channel Usage and Preference4.1 Channel Usage and Preference – Consumer4.2 Channel Usage and Preference – Business

30

5

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

33

Table of Contents

1

1. Key Insights

Theme Key Finding Evidence

Customer Satisfaction Index

CSI has remained relatively stable compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019) and last year (Q4 2018) for consumers.

• Consumer CSI has remained stable at 80.6 out of 100 compared to previous quarter (CSMS 2019)

• There is an insignificant increase in consumer CSI compared to a year ago (Q4 2018) from 79.9/ 100 to 80.6/100

Despite a significant increase in CSI for businesses compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019), CSI remains significantly lower than same period last year (Q4 2018).

The Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index shows a decline in business’ expectations of the economic climate over the next 12 months for a second quarter in a row.

• Compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019), Business CSI has increased significantly by 2.2 points to 79.8/100 from 77.6/100.

• However, compared to same period last year (Q4 2018), CSI has decreased significantly by 1.5 points to 79.8/100 from 81.3/100 (Q4 2018).

• The Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index is at 106 for November 2019, down from 111 in September 2019 and 114 in July 2019.

Customer Satisfaction Headline Measures

All three measures of customer experience (satisfaction, expectation and comparison to ideal) have remained stable amongst consumers.

• Consumer Satisfaction score is 7.8/10, Expectation score is 8/10 and Comparison to Ideal score is 7.4/10

• All three measures are statistically stable compared to CSMS 2019 as well as Q4 2018.

Decline in CSI for businesses versus a year ago (Q4 2018) has been driven by significant declines in Satisfaction and Expectations versus a year ago.

Increase in CSI versus last quarter is driven by an increase in satisfaction versus last quarter.

Business rating the NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) is seeing quarter on quarter declines.

• Compared to Q4 2018, business Expectation has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 8.0/10 to 7.7/10 and business Satisfaction has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 7.9/10 to 7.6/10.

• Compared to CSMS 2019, business Satisfaction has increased significantly by 0.2 points from 7.4/10 to 7.6/10.

• 82% of businesses rated NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) on Expectation in Q4 2018. After a brief increase in Q1 2019 to 83%, it has consistently declined quarter on quarter and stands at 77% in Q4 2019.

1.1 Key Insights

Consumer

Consumer

Business

Business

3


Customer Effort Score (CES)*

Consumer CES has remained stable compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019) as well as a year ago (Q4 2018).

While CES for consumers across different industries are quite close, NSW Government Services are at the higher end of CES scale implying consumers have to put in more effort in their dealings with NSW Government Services compared to other industries.

• NSW Government Services have a CES of 5.8 out of 10 and this has remained stable versus last quarter as well as a year ago.

• The gap between industries with highest effort score (Telco service providers – 5.9/10) and lowest effort score (Local councils, energy retailers, airlines – all with a score of 5.6/10) is only 0.3 points.

• NSW Government Services are on par with Federal Government with a CES of 5.8 out of 10.

While the long terms trends are more volatile for businesses, the CES has seen a quarterly increase for a second quarter in a row.

In comparison to other industries, NSW Government Services are rated highest in terms of the effort businesses have to put forth while dealing with them.

• CES for NSW Government Services has increased significantly compared to Q4 2018 from 6.1 out of 10 to 6.6 out of 10.

• Though not significant, there has been an increase on CES for a second quarter in a row up to 6.5 from 6.4 out of 10 in CSMS 2019.

• Compared to other industries, NSW Government Services has the highest CES score with Airlines having the lowest score of 6.1 out of 10.

1.1 Key Insights

Consumer

Business

The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. A decrease in CES is a positive shift.

4


Satisfaction Drivers Attributes corresponding to primary opportunity areas of ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’ and ‘Access to Information and Online Services’ have remained stable compared to the previous quarter as well as a year ago.

Attributes across all four areas (Employees, Processes, Values and Goals) have remained stable compared to a year ago (Q4 2018). However, significant uplift is seen for some of the attributes compared to the previous quarter (CSMS 2019).

• Performance against the following attributes increased significantly compared to last quarter:

• Employees: ‘open and honest’ and ‘clear communication’

• Values: ‘provided with good services and outcomes I could trust’ and ‘accountability for service delivered’

• Processes: ‘employee took initiative and made decisions’

• Goals: ‘privacy was upheld’ and ‘I understood the steps involved with the process’

• ‘Employees were held accountable for their actions’ and ‘Employees acted efficiently and effectively to reach the right outcomes’ are attributes relating to the primary opportunity area of ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’. Scores for these statements have remained stable at 7.4 out of 10 and 7.7 out of 10 respectively compared to the previous quarter (CSMS 2019) as well as a year ago (Q4 2018).

Attributes corresponding to the primary opportunity area of ‘Honesty and Integrity’ and ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’ have shown a significant uplift versus previous quarter (CSMS 2019) and have remained stable versus a year ago.

However, compared to a year ago, there have been significant declines in the scores for some of the attributes across all for areas of Employees, Processes, Goals and Values

• Performance against the following attributes increased significantly compared to last quarter however in all cases the result is a decline on a year ago:

• Employees: ‘employees acted efficiently and effectively to reach the right outcomes’, ‘clear communication’ and ‘employees were open and honest during the process’ – which are attributes related to the primary opportunity area of ‘Honesty and Integrity’

• Values: ‘provided with good service and outcomes I could trust’

• Processes: ‘employees took initiative and made decisions’

• Goals: ‘understood the steps involved’

1.1 Key Insights

Consumer

Business

5


Channel Usage and Preference

Face to face remains the most used as well as the most preferred channel for consumers.

There is an opportunity to better align channel usage with preference through increase online services.

• Face to face and email usage largely aligns with preference. (Face to face: 39% usage vs. 40% preference. Email: 11% usage vs. 12% preference).

• Telephone, mail and third party channel usage exceeds preference (Telephone: 19% usage vs. 17% preference, Mail: 7% usage vs. 2% preference, Third Party: 4% usage vs. 2% preference).

• Online usage currently falls short of preference (20% usage vs. 23% preference), implying there may be an opportunity to better meet customer preferences through increasing online services.

Face to face remains the most preferred as well as most used channel for businesses.

There is an opportunity to shift channel access away from telephone, mail and third party towards face to face where usage exceeds preference.

• Face to face channel preference far exceeds usage (31% usage vs. 38% preference). Usage has declined 9% points compared to Q4 2018.

• Telephone, mail and third party channel usage exceeds preference (Telephone: 21% usage vs. 17% preference, Mail: 6% usage vs. 2% preference, Third Party: 4% usage vs. 2% preference).

• Online and email channel usage aligns with preference (Online: 19% usage vs. 20% preference, Email: 18% usage vs. 17% preference).

1.1 Key Insights

Consumer

Business

6

2. Customer Satisfaction Measures

2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Consumer

2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer

2.3Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business

2.4 Business Confidence

2.5 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business

2.6 Customer Effort Score

2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries

Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2019 Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Quarterly Pulse Check Survey 2019

Quarter–on–quarter comparison of QPCS results (CSMS 2019 vs. Q4 2019)

• Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has remained stable at 80.6/100

Q4 2019 QPCS Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for consumers has remained stable when compared to both the 2019 CSMS and the same quarter last

year. The CSI for Q4 2019 is higher than the Premier’s priority target of 79.02/100.

Year–on–year comparison of QPCS results (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019)

• CSI has remained stable – an insignificant increase of 0.7 points to 80.6/100 from 79.9/100. However the shift is not statistically significant.

Note: All the numbers are subject to rounding.

2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index – Consumer

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

Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level

Q4 2019 QPCS Survey Details: Number of respondents: 1,005 consumers (1,570 responses)Fieldwork period: from 29 October to 5 November 2019

76.7

78.777.8

79.578.6

79.380.2 79.9 79.6

78.979.9 79.4

80.9 80.6 80.6

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)

CSMS 2019(n=6,492)

Q4 2019(n=1,517)

Premier’s Target –79.02

Consumer

8

Significant changes CSMS 2015*

CSMS 2016

Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017CSMS 2017

Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018CSMS 2018

Q4 2018

Q1 2019

Q22019

CSMS 2019

Q4 2019

Satisfaction NA – – – – – –

Expectation NA – – – – – –

Comparison to ideal NA – – – – – – – – –

The CSI is a composite of the following baseline measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to ideal service. All three baseline measures have

remained stable compared to last quarter (2019 CSMS vs. Q4 2019) as well as in comparison to same period last year (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019).


• Satisfaction has remained statistically stable at 7.8/10.

• Expectation has an insignificant decrease of 0.1 points from 8.1/10 to 8.0/10.

• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable at 7.4/10.



• Satisfaction has remained stable at 7.8/10.

• Expectation has remained stable at 8.0/10.

• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable – an insignificant increase of 0.1 points from 7.3/10 to 7.4/10.



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

* Data for comparison with previous period not available

–Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

7.3

7.5

7.4

7.6 7.67.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6

7.8 7.77.8

7.8 7.8

7.7

7.8 7.8

7.97.8

7.9

7.87.9 7.9 7.9

8.0

7.8

8.08.1 8.0

6.9

7.2 7.2

7.3

7.2 7.27.3

7.2 7.37.2

7.3 7.2

7.4 7.4 7.4

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

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)

CSMS 2019(n=6,532)

Q4 2019(n=1,540)

Satisfaction

Expectation

Comparison toideal

Consumer

9

9

Consumer – Outcome Measures

Satisfaction

Average (out of 10)

Expectation Comparison to Ideal

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

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

12% 15% 13% 14% 12%11% 12% 13% 11% 10%

16% 16% 14% 16% 15%

80% 77% 80% 79% 79% 84% 80% 82% 84% 84%72% 71% 75% 74% 73%

Q4 2018(n=1,583)

Q1 2019(n=1,611)

Q2 2019(n=1,577)

CSMS 2019(n=6,771)

Q4 2019(n=1,554)

Q4 2018(n=1,579)

Q1 2019(n=1,614)

Q2 2019(n=1,578)

CSMS 2019(n=6,692)

Q4 2019(n=1,547)

Q4 2018(n=1,545)

Q1 2019(n=1,590)

Q2 2019(n=1,564)

CSMS 2019(n=6,532)

Q4 2019(n=1,540)

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

Consumer

7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.4


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

Since Q2 2019, average satisfaction, expectation and comparison to ideal scores have remained relatively stable for consumers. The proportion of consumers who have rated the NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) on expectation and satisfaction measures has remained stable at 84% and 79% respectively versus the previous quarter. The proportion of consumers who rated the NSW Government Service high (7–10 out of 10) on the comparison to ideal measure declined from 75% in Q2 2019 to 73% in Q4 2019.


10

7.8 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.0 8.08.1



• Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has increased significantly by 2.2 points to 79.8/100 from 77.6/100 (CSMS 2019).

Q4 2019 QPCS Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for business has increased significantly when compared to CSMS 2019. In comparison to same period last

year (Q4 2018), it has decreased significantly.


• CSI has decreased significantly by 1.5 points to 79.8/100 from 81.3/100 (Q4 2018).

Q4 2019 QPCS Survey Details: Number of respondents: 1,012 businesses (1,493 total responses)Fieldwork period: from 29 October to 5 November 2019

Note: All the numbers are subject to rounding.

2.3 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business



76.6

78.4

76.1

77.6 77.678.3

77.8

79.6 79.7

78.2

81.3 81.280.7

77.6

79.8

CSMS 2015(n=1,645)

CSMS 2016(n=1,712)

Q4 2016(n=375)

Q1 2017(n=380)

Q2 2017(n=365)

CSMS 2017(n=1,638)

Q4 2017(n=343)

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)

CSMS 2019(n=1,745)

Q4 2019(n=1,458)

Premier’s Target –81.16

Business

11

The Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index shows a decline in business’ expectations of the economic climate over the next 12 months for a second month in a row. While Business CSI has shown an improvement in the latest survey, it remains lower than same period last year (81.3 in Q4 2018), consistent with declining confidence.

Business

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding

Comparison of Business CSI and Business Confidence Measures (Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index)

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.

79.6 79.7

75.9

81.381.2

80.7

77.6

79.8

114117

124

120

115

119117

114 114

110112

113 114112

106 106107

103

114 115 114 114

111

106

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

75

82

No

v-1

7

Dec

-17

Jan

-18

Feb

-18

Mar

-18

Ap

r-18

May

-18

Jun

-18

Jul-

18

Au

g-18

Sep

-18

Oct

-18

No

v-1

8

Dec

-18

Jan

-19

Feb

-19

Mar

-19

Ap

r-19

May

-19

Jun

-19

Jul-

19

Au

g-19

Sep

-19

Oct

-19

No

v-1

9

Bu

siness C

on

fiden

ce Ind

ex

CSI

CSI Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index*

2.4 Business Confidence

12


7.2

7.5 7.2

7.4

7.37.5 7.5

7.6

7.8

7.4

7.9

7.8

7.8

7.47.6

7.6

7.9

7.6

8.1

7.5

7.77.6

7.7

8.1

7.7

8.0 8.07.9

7.87.7

7.0

7.3

7.1

7.4

7.1 7.1 7.0

7.27.3

7.2

7.4

7.6

7.4

7.1

7.3

6.7

6.9

7.1

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

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)

CSMS 2019(n=1,753)

Q4 2019(n=1,467)

Satisfaction

Expectation

Comparison toideal

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

CSMS 2019

Q4 2019

Satisfaction NA – – – – – –

Expectation NA – –

Comparison to ideal NA – – – – – – – –

The CSI is a composite of the following baseline measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to idea service. Average satisfaction has increased

significantly in comparison to last quarter (CSMS 2019). In comparison to same period last year (Q4 2018), satisfaction and expectation have shown a

significant decrease. Average scores for comparison to ideal have remained stable compared to last quarter as well as same period last year.


• Satisfaction has increased significantly by 0.2 points from 7.4/10 to 7.6/10.

• Expectation has remained stable – insignificant decrease of 0.1 points from 7.8/10 to 7.7/10.

• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable – insignificant increase of 0.2 points from 7.1/10 to 7.3/10.


• Satisfaction has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 7.9/10 to 7.6/10.

• Expectation has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 8.0/10 to 7.7/10.

• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable – insignificant decrease of 0.1 points from 7.4/10 to 7.3/10.



* Data for comparison with previous period not available



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

Business

13

8.0

Business – Outcome Measures

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

Average (out of 10)

ExpectationSatisfaction Comparison to Ideal

5% 9% 8% 8% 11% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8% 9% 8% 10% 12% 13%16% 12% 14%

20% 13%14% 11% 14% 15% 14% 18% 13%

17%20% 16%

79% 79% 79%72% 77% 82% 83% 81% 78% 77% 73% 79% 73% 68% 71%

Q4 2018(n=1,553)

Q1 2019(n=1,469)

Q2 2019(n=1,387)

CSMS 2019(n=1,801)

Q4 2019(n=1,484)

Q4 2018(n=1,552)

Q1 2019(n=1,465)

Q2 2019(n=1,389)

CSMS 2019(n=1,786)

Q4 2019(n=1,479)

Q4 2018(n=1,535)

Q1 2019(n=1,455)

Q2 2019(n=1,378)

CSMS 2019(n=1,753)

Q4 2019(n=1,467)

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

Business

7.9 7.8 7.77.9 7.8 7.8 7.4 7.67.4 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.3



8.0

The proportion of businesses who rate NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) on Expectation has been declining since Q1 2019 from 83% to 77% in the latest quarter. The increase in the CSI compared to last quarter is a result of increasing satisfaction from 72% in CSMS 2019 to 77% in Q4 2019.

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


14

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’

Overall, businesses perceive they have to put forth higher effort than consumers when interacting with NSW Government services.Since Q4 2018, the customer effort score (CES) has remained relatively stable among consumers and is at 5.8 out of 10 in Q4 2019. Whereas the CES for businesses has seen a significant increase of 0.4 points vs. Q4 2018. CES for businesses has steadily increased quarter on quarter since Q2 2019.

LowerEffort

*The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. A decrease in CES is a positive shift.

Consumer Business

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

CSMS results

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to roundingInsights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion

5.9 5.9

5.75.9

6.15.9

6.0

6.0

5.75.8

5.85.9 5.8

6.3

6.9

6.5

4.9

6.76.9

6.0

6.6

6.1

6.5

6.1

6.4 6.5

Consumers Businesses

NSW Government service interaction Customer Effort Score.

HigherEffort

Q1 2017(n=1,529)(n=382)

Q2 2017(n=1,590)(n=366)

Q4 2017(n=1,496)(n=345)

Q1 2018(n=1,611)(n=373)

Q2 2018(n=1,585)(n=1,535)

Q4 2018(n=1,526)(n=1,508)

CSMS 2017(n=6,501)(n=1,650)

CSMS 2018(n=6,634)(n=1,496)

Q1 2019(n=1,548)(n=1,458)

Q4 2016(n=1,601)(n=378)

Q2 2019(n=1,542)(n=1,360)

ConsumerBusiness

CSMS 2019(n=6,446)(n=1,750)

Q4 2019(n=1,507)(n=1,459)

2.6 Customer Effort Score

15

6.25.9

6.05.7 5.8

6.0

5.4

6.15.8 6.0

5.6 5.66.0

5.5

6.15.8 5.9

5.5 5.7 5.95.5

6.2 5.9 6.05.6 5.8 5.9

5.65.9 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6

Telephone serviceproviders

Federal Government NSW Governmentservices

Banks My Local Council Energy retailers 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) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=735 to 928)

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?

CES for NSW Government overall is relatively high when compared to other industries. It is second highest after Telephone service providers and on par with the Federal Government at 5.8 out of 10.

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

Consumer


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


2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries – Consumers

16

6.1 6.45.8 6.0

6.0 5.8 5.6

6.26.4

5.96.2

5.8 5.8 5.8

6.4 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.16.16.6

6.1 6.2 6.1 6.2

5.6

6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.46.3 6.1

NSW Governmentservices

Telephone serviceproviders

Federal Government Energy retailers My Local Council Banks Airlines

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) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=802 to 970)

Business

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.


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


For this section, customers provided a rating for overall effort with NSW Government services in comparison to other industries/sectors

2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries – Business

Compared to other industries, businesses ranked NSW Government services as the highest in terms of effort required to deal with in Q4 2019 with an average score of 6.6 out of 10. This is a decline from Q2 2019, where NSW Government services was ranked fourth highest behind Telephone service providers, Energy retailers and Banks with an average score of 6.1 out of 10. While the trends are volatile, effort scores are relatively high (greater than 5 out of 10) across all industries, indicating that the high level of effort that businesses have to put into their interactions is not unique to the NSW Government.

17

3. Insights on Satisfaction Drivers

3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer

3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business

3.3 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Effectiveness and Efficiency

3.4 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Access to information and Online Services

3.5 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Effectiveness and Efficiency

3.6 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Access to information and Online Services

3.7 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Honesty and Integrity

8.0

7.3 7

.7 7.8

7.6 7.8

7.57.8

7.2 7.5 7.7

7.4 7.6

7.4

7.9

7.5 7.7 7.7

7.6 7.8

7.6

7.0 7.2 7.5

7.6

7.5

7.3

7.9

7.4 7.7 7.8

7.6 7.8

7.5

Employees were open andhonest during the process

Employees were heldaccountable for their actions

Employees acted efficientlyand effectively to reach the

right outcomes

Communications were clear,prompt and easy to

understand

Employees acted withempathy

I was provided with goodservice and outcomes I could

trust

I felt there was accountabilityfor services delivered

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) CSMS 2019 (n=5,686 to 6,619) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,147 to 1,492)

Der

ived

Dri

vers

(C

SMS

20

19

)A

vera

ge (

ou

t o

f 1

0)

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’.

Employees Values

Service Quality AccountabilityFairness and empathyHonesty and integrity of

employees

Consumer

Efficiency and effectiveness Communication




n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

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

In comparison to last quarter (CSMS 2019), employee attributes of ‘Open and honest during the process’ and ‘Clear communication’ have shown a significant improvement. Attributes aligned to Efficiency and Effectiveness, which has been identified as a primary opportunity for driving satisfaction showed no significant shift compared to last quarter as well as a year ago. Value attributes pertaining to Service Quality and Accountability have also increased significantly to 7.8 out of 10 and 7.5 out of 10 respectively compared to CSMS 2019.

* The corresponding CSMS attribute “Are held accountable” has also been mapped against the QPCS attribute “Employees were held accountable for their actions” for driver analysis section

19

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

7.0 7

.6

7.6

7.6

7.5

8.1

7.9

7.7

The process was simple and efficient Employees took initiative and madedecisions

My privacy was upheld & personalinformation was protected & respected

I understood the steps involved with theprocess

I had good access to information andcould find what I needed


Der

ived

Dri

vers

(C

SMS

20

19

)

Process Goals

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

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

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Consumer




Employee Autonomy increased significantly by 0.5 points to 7.5 out of 10 compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019). Attributes related to Privacy and Transparency also showed significant improvement compared to CSMS 2019 – 8.1 out of 10 and 7.9 out of 10 respectively.


Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)

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

20

7.9

7.3 7

.7 7.8

7.5 7.8

7.48

.0

7.5 7.8 7.8

7.7 7.9

7.67

.9

7.4 7.7 7.8

7.6 7.7

7.5

6.7 7.0 7.2

7.2

7.2

7.0

7.8

7.2 7.4 7.7

7.4 7.6

7.3

Employees were open andhonest during the process

Employees were heldaccountable for their actions

Employees acted efficientlyand effectively to reach the

right outcomes

Communications were clear,prompt and easy to

understand

Employees acted withempathy

I was provided with goodservice and outcomes I could

trust

I felt there was accountabilityfor services delivered


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

Der

ived

Dri

vers

(C

SMS

20

19

)

Business

Employees Values

Service Quality AccountabilityEmpathy and communication




For business, compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019), all Employee attributes except ‘employees acted with empathy’ showed a significant positive shift. The attribute pertaining to Accountability – ‘there was accountability for services delivered’ also showed a significant growth. Compared to a year ago (Q4 2018), attributes pertaining to efficiency and effectiveness, clear communication and good service outcomes showed significant declines.


Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Honesty and integrity of employees

Efficiency and effectiveness

21

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

6.6

7.4

7.27.3

7.2

8.1

7.8

7.7

The process was simple and efficient Employees took initiative and madedecisions

My privacy was upheld & personalinformation was protected & respected

I understood the steps involved with theprocess

I had good access to information andcould find what I needed


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

eriv

ed D

rive

rs

(CSM

S 2

01

9)

Business

Process Goals

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes

Responsiveness Privacy Transparency Access to information

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te




Compared to previous quarter (CSMS 2019), attributes pertaining to Responsiveness (‘took initiative and made decisions’) and Privacy showed significant positive shifts. Compared to a year ago (Q4 2018), Process attributes showed significant declines. The attribute pertaining to Transparency also declined significantly vs. Q4 2018.


Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)

22

‘Efficiency and effectiveness’ and ‘access to information and online services’ were identified as primary

opportunity areas to increase satisfaction for consumers in the 2019 CSMS Survey

The QPCS for Q4 2019 deep–dives into these primary opportunity areas by asking consumers more specific questions regarding their experiences with NSW Government Services. The following statements were asked to provide greater insight.

Efficiency and Effectiveness:• Are proactive in helping • See things from my perspective• Provide good value services • Focus on addressing customer needs • Get things done as quickly as possible • Deliver against actions promised (i.e. Do what they say they will

do)• Are respectful • Are consistent• Explain intended actions clearly

Access to information and online services:• Is making it easier to access information about their services• Is making best use of online services to improve convenience and

efficiency for customers• Provides documents that are easy to complete (i.e. it is easy to

understand instructions and complete)• Uses language that is simple and widely accessible (including

harder to reach audiences) • Is constantly keeping information up to date• Encourage public participation in decision making

Importance versus performance against each of the drivers of satisfaction 2019 for consumers

Employee Attributes

Goals Processes

HIGH

Secondary Opportunities These do not significantly impact the satisfaction score

LOW

Rel

ativ

e im

po

rtan

ce

LOW HIGH

Efficiency and effectiveness

Access to information and online services

Employee Autonomy

Privacy

Fairness and empathy

Communication

Honesty and integrity

Median across drivers

Primary Opportunities

2

1

Transparency

Strengths to ‘build on’

Median across attributes

Average score across attributes (out of 10)

Simplicity and efficiency of

processes

Consumer

23

Primary opportunity areas to increase Consumer satisfaction

(identified in the 2019 CSMS Survey)

7.6 7.7

7.6

7.5 7.6 8

.0

7.47.5 7.6

7.5

7.3 7.5 7

.9

7.4

7.3 7

.6

7.6 7.7

7.7

7.5 7.7 8

.1

7.7

7.5 7

.7

7.6

7.2 7

.5

7.1

7.67.7 7.8

7.7

7.5 7

.7 8.0

7.7

7.5 7

.8

Are proactive in helping Provide good valueservices

Focus on addressingcustomer needs

Get things done asquickly as possible

Deliver against actionspromised

Are respectful Are consistent See things from myperspective

Explain intendedactions clearly


3.3 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Effectiveness and Efficiency

‘Are Respectful’ is the attribute with the highest rating of 8.0 out of 10. Attributes that have shown significant improvement in comparison to CSMS 2019 are ‘provide good value services’ (7.8 out of 10), ‘Get things done as quickly as possible’ (7.5 out of 10), ‘Are consistent’ (7.7 out of 10), ‘See things from my perspective’ (7.5 out of 10) and ‘Explain intended actions clearly’ (7.8 out of 10).

All attribute scores have remained stable in comparison to a year ago (Q4 2018).

Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)

Employees

Consumer




Att

rib

ute

was

exc

lud

ed i

n C

SMS

20

19

Att

rib

ute

was

exc

lud

ed i

n C

SMS

20

19

Att

rib

ute

was

exc

lud

ed i

n C

SMS

20

19

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Att

rib

ute

intr

od

uce

d in

QP

CS

fro

m Q

1 2

01

9

* The corresponding CSMS attribute “Are held accountable” has also been mapped against the QPCS attribute “Employees were held accountable for their actions” for driver analysis section

Att

rib

ute

intr

od

uce

d in

QP

CS

fro

m Q

1 2

01

9

24

Q: Thinking now about its employees, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – Strongly Disagree to 10 – Strongly Agree

7.6

7.6

6.9

7.6 7

.8

7.6

7.4

7.4

6.6

7.4 7

.7

7.47.5

7.5

6.9

7.6 7.8

7.5

7.2

7.1

6.5

7.6

7.4

6.9

7.6 7

.9

7.6

Is making it easier to accessinformation about their services

Is making best use of online servicesto improve convenience and

efficiency for customers

Encourage public participation indecision making

Provides documents that are easy tocomplete

Uses language that is simple andwidely accessible

Is constantly keeping information upto date


3.4 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Access to information and Online Services

Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)Consumer




n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Goals Process

The attribute with the highest score is ‘Uses language that is simple and widely accessible’ (7.9 out of 10). Attributes relating to ‘ease of access of information’ and ‘making best use of online to improve convenience’ have seen a significant positive shift compared to CSMS 2019. ‘Encourages public participation in decision making’ is the attribute with the lowest score. However, there is a significant improvement in this attribute in comparison to CSMS 2019.

All attribute scores have remained stable in comparison to a year ago (Q4 2018).

25

Q; Thinking now about information surrounding your interaction, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

‘Efficiency and effectiveness’, ‘honesty and integrity’ and ‘access to information’ were identified as primary

opportunity areas to increase satisfaction for businesses in the 2019 CSMS Survey

Employee Attributes

Goals Processes

HIGH

Secondary Opportunities These do not significantly impact the satisfaction score

LOW

Rel

ativ

e im

po

rtan

ce

LOW HIGH

Honesty and Integrity

Access to information and online services

Simplicity and efficiency of processes

Privacy

Fairness

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Empathy and communication

Median across drivers

Primary Opportunities

3

Transparency

Strengths to ‘build on’

Median across attributes

Average score across attributes (out of 10)

Responsiveness

2

1

Business

The QPCS for Q4 2019 deep–dives into these primary areas by asking businesses more specific questions regarding their experiences with NSW Government Services. The following statements were asked to provide greater insight.

Efficiency and Effectiveness:• Are proactive in helping • See things from my perspective• Provide good value services • Are held accountable • Focus on addressing customer needs • Get things done as quickly as possible • Deliver against actions promised (i.e. Do what they say they will do)• Are respectful • Are consistent• Explain intended actions clearly

Access to information and online services:• Is making it easier to access information about their services• Is making best use of online services to improve convenience and efficiency for

customers• Provides documents that are easy to complete (i.e. it is easy to understand

instructions and complete)• Uses language that is simple and widely accessible (including harder to reach

audiences) • Is constantly keeping information up to date• Encourage public participation in decision making

Honesty and Integrity• Are honest• Are reliable• Deliver high safety standards

26

Primary opportunity areas to increase Business satisfaction

(identified in the 2019 CSMS Survey)

Importance versus performance against each of the drivers of satisfaction 2019 for businesses

7.6 7.7

7.6

7.5 7.7 8

.0

7.47

.7 7.8

7.7

7.6 7.8 8

.0

7.7

7.6 7.8

7.7

7.7

7.6

7.5 7

.7 8.0

7.7

7.5 7

.8

7.2

6.8 7

.1

6.8 7

.27.5 7.6

7.5

7.3 7

.6 7.9

7.6

7.3 7

.7

Are proactive in helping Provide good valueservices

Focus on addressingcustomer needs

Get things done asquickly as possible

Deliver against actionspromised

Are respectful Are consistent See things from myperspective

Explain intendedactions clearly


As with consumers ‘Are Respectful’ is the highest rated attribute with a score of 7.9 out of 10. Compared to CSMS 2019, ‘Provide good value and services’ (7.6 out of 10), ‘Get things done as quickly as possible’ (7.3 out of 10), ‘Are consistent’ (7.6out of 10), ‘See things from my perspective’ (7.3 out of 10) and ‘Explain intended actions clearly’ (7.7 out of 10) have shown significant improvement.

All attributes have remained stable in comparison to Q4 2018.

Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)

Employees




Att

rib

ute

was

exc

lud

ed i

n C

SMS

20

19

Att

rib

ute

was

exc

lud

ed i

n C

SMS

20

19

Att

rib

ute

was

exc

lud

ed i

n C

SMS

20

19

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Att

rib

ute

intr

od

uce

d in

QP

CS

fro

m Q

1 2

01

9

Att

rib

ute

intr

od

uce

d in

QP

CS

fro

m Q

1 2

01

9

Business

3.5 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Effectiveness and Efficiency

27


7.6

7.5

6.8

7.6 7

.9

7.57.6

7.6

7.1

7.7 7.8

7.7

7.6

7.6

7.0

7.6 7

.9

7.6

6.9

6.7

6.2

7.5

7.5

6.8

7.5 7

.8

7.6

Is making it easier to accessinformation about their services

Is making best use of online servicesto improve convenience and

efficiency for customers

Encourage public participation indecision making

Provides documents that are easy tocomplete

Uses language that is simple andwidely accessible

Is constantly keeping information upto date


3.6 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Access to information and Online Services

Compared to CSMS 2019, there has been a significant improvement in the scores of all Goal attributes: ‘making it easier to access information’, ‘making best use of online services to improve convenience’ and ‘encourage public participation’. Though, ‘encourage public participation’ has the lowest score of 6.8 out of 10.

Scores across all attributes have remained stable compared to Q4 2018.

Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)




n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

n/a

–N

ot

a C

SMS

attr

ibu

te

Goals Process

Business

28

Q; Thinking now about information surrounding your interaction, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree

7.5

7.47

.8

7.7

Are honest Deliver high safety standards

Q4 2018 QPCS Q1 2019 QPCS Q2 2019 QPCS CSMS 2019 (n=1,617 to 1,720) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,321 to 1,418)

3.7 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Honesty and Integrity

Honesty and Integrity has been identified as a new opportunity to improve satisfaction for businesses in CSMS 2019. Both attributes relevant to this driver of satisfaction have seen a significant increase in scores in comparison to CSMS 2019.

Ave

rage

(o

ut

of

10

)




Business

Employees

Introduced as a QPCS attribute in Q4 2019

Introduced as a QPCS attribute in Q4 2019

29


4. Channel Usage and Preference

4.1 Channel Usage and Preference – Consumer

4.2 Channel Usage and Preference – Business

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%

40

%

21

%

21

%

11

%

5%

2%

39

%

19

%

20

%

11

%

7%

4%

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 CSMS 2019 Q4 2019

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%

33

%

18

%

23

%

17

%

3%

2%

40

%

17

%

23

%

12

%

2% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



4.1 Channel Usage and Preference – Consumer

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 kno w/ can’t say” and therefore, may not add up to 100%

Shar

e o

f co

nta

ct m

eth

od

use

d (%

)Sh

are

of

pre

fere

nce

(%) n=1,570

n=1,005

Consumer


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 continues to be the most used and most preferred channel for Consumers. For face to face and email, usage is largely in line with the preference. For telephone, mail/ fax and third parties usage is higher than preference. Whereas, for online, usage is lower than preference.

31

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%

28

%

25

%

19

%

18

%

7%

3%

31

%

21

%

19

%

18

%

6%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



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%

28

%

23%

18%

23%

4% 2%

38

%

17

% 20

%

17

%

2%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



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 kno w/ can’t say” and therefore, may not add up to 100%

Shar

e o

f co

nta

ct m

eth

od

use

d (%

)Sh

are

of

pre

fere

nce

(%)

n=1,493

n=1,012

Business

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 continues to be the most used channel by businesses to interact with NSW Government services as well as the most preferred channel. However, compared to Q4 2018, usage of face to face has decreased by 9% points to 31% in Q4 2019. Usage of online and email has remained stable versus last year as well as CSMS 2019, and is aligned closely with preference levels. With telephone, mail/fax and third party channels, usage is higher than preference among businesses.


32

Appendix

Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Appendix B: Background to the QPCS

Appendix C: QPCS 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

Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents – Consumer

Consumer Respondent Profile

49% male

51% femaleGender: Age: Region:

18–3431% 35–54

33%

55–6415%

65+20%

Q4 2019 Consumers (n=1,005 respondents)

75% Metro

19% Regional

6% Rural

29%23%

11%6% 8% 7% 5% 5%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Employment Status:

16% 16%

27%

15%

5% 6%

15%

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 tosay/Don't

know

Annual Income:

49% male

51% femaleGender: Age:

18–3431% 35–54

33%

55–6415%

65+20%

Region: 75% Metro

19% Regional

6% Rural

Employed full time

Retired Employee part time

Unemployed Full time domestic

duties

Student Employed on a casual

basis

Other*

30%24%

11% 10% 9% 7%3% 1%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Employment Status:

Employed full time

Retired Employee part time

Unemployed Full time domestic

duties

Student Employedon a

casual basis

Self–employed /

business owner

Other

16% 19%26%

17%

5% 5%

12%

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 tosay/Don't

know

Annual Income:

Data is weighted to be representative of the NSW population (ABS) based on gender, age and regionNote*: Other includes “On maternity/paternity leave” as this option was not a part of QPCS

CSMS 2019 Consumers (n=4,110 respondents)

Consumer

Self–employed /

business owner

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100% 34

Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents – Business

Business Respondent Profile

41% male

59% female

Gender: Region:

Q4 2019 Business (n=1,012 respondents)

75% Metro

19% Regional

6% Rural

50% male

Gender: Region: 75% Metro

19% Regional

6% Rural

50% female

Business size:

Business size:

Industry:

10% 10% 10% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0.8% 0.1%

20%

-2%2%6%

10%14%18%22%

Pro

fess

ion

al,

scie

nti

fic a

nd

tech

nic

al s

ervi

ces

Ret

ail T

rad

e

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Hea

lth

car

e an

dso

cial

ass

ista

nce

Educ

atio

n an

dtr

ain

ing

Art

s an

dre

cre

atio

n s

ervi

ces

Acc

omm

od

atio

nan

d f

oo

d se

rvic

es

Tran

spo

rt, p

osta

lan

d w

areh

ousi

ng

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Agr

icul

ture

,fo

rest

ry a

ndfi

shin

g

Ad

min

istr

ativ

e a

ndsu

pp

ort

ser

vice

s

Fina

nci

al a

ndin

sura

nce

ser

vice

s

Who

lesa

le T

rade

Ren

tal,

hiri

ng a

nd

real

est

ate

serv

ices

Info

rmat

ion

med

iaan

dte

leco

mm

uni

cati

on

s

Min

ing

Ele

ctri

city

, gas

,w

ater

an

d w

aste

serv

ices

Pub

licad

min

istr

atio

n a

nd

safe

ty

Oth

ers

Industry:

CSMS 2019 Business (n=1,261 respondents)

• Data is weighted to be representative of the NSW population (ABS) based on business size and region• Note* : Others also include industries which were not a part of QPCS

20+2%

Sole Proprietor

34%2–942%

10–1922%

20+2%

Sole Proprietor

25%2–950%

10–1923%

Business

9% 11%7%

9%7%

4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4%1% 1.6% 0.6%

17%

-2%

2%

6%

10%

14%

18%

Pro

fess

ion

al,

scie

nti

fic a

nd

tech

nic

al s

ervi

ces

Ret

ail T

rad

e

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Hea

lth

car

e an

dso

cial

ass

ista

nce

Educ

atio

n an

dtr

ain

ing

Art

s an

dre

cre

atio

nse

rvic

es

Acc

omm

od

atio

nan

d f

oo

d se

rvic

es

Tran

spo

rt, p

osta

lan

d w

areh

ousi

ng

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

g

Agr

icul

ture

,fo

rest

ry a

ndfi

shin

g

Ad

min

istr

ativ

ean

d s

up

port

serv

ices

Fina

nci

al a

ndin

sura

nce

serv

ices

Who

lesa

le T

rade

Ren

tal,

hiri

ng a

nd

real

est

ate

serv

ices

Info

rmat

ion

me

dia

and

tele

com

mu

nica

tio

ns M

inin

g

Ele

ctri

city

, gas

,w

ater

an

d w

aste

serv

ices

Pub

licad

min

istr

atio

nan

d s

afet

y

Oth

ers*

Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100% 35

Appendix B: Background – Research Scope and Approach

• The QPCS Methodology is aligned to the Annual Customer Satisfaction

Measurement Survey (CSMS) approach:

• Captures feedback across 23 different NSW Government services (described

in the customers language).

• Feedback received from customers about each of the individual services is

aggregated to provide a view of the performance of NSW Government

services overall.

• Each respondent provides feedback regarding one or two services (as a

result, the total number of responses received across services is greater

than the total number of customers who completed the survey).

• The survey was completed from 29th October 2019 to 5th November 2019 and

results are therefore reflective of experiences with services over the six months

prior i.e. from May 2019 to October 2019.

• The Q4 2019 QPCS was completed with:

• N = 1,005 consumers, and

• N = 1,012 businesses

• As each respondent provides feedback regarding one or two services, the number of

responses is higher than the number of respondents. In Q4 2019 QPCS, the number

of responses was:

• N = 1,570 for consumers, and

• N = 1,493 for businesses

• All scores reported in this document are out of 10, with the exception of the

Customer Satisfaction Index which is out of 100.

In scope services

Consumer Business

Justice

• Police

• State Emergency Services

• Prisons

• Courts

• Fire Brigades

Family & Community Services

• Public Housing

• Disability Services

• Child Protection Services

• Services for Older People

Transport

• Public Transport

• Car and Boat Registration

• Major Roads

Customer Service

• Consumer Affairs (Fair Trading)

• Documentation Services

Planning , Industry & Environment

• Environment and wildlife protection

• Water Supply

• Agriculture advice and funding services

• Business Advisory Services

Education

• Public Schools

• TAFE Services

Health

• Public Hospitals

• Ambulance Services

Premier and Cabinet

• State owned art galleries and museums

36

General Considerations:

• 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 when

interpreting 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 any

seasonal impacts can be examined and adjusted accordingly.

• In the slides, the results of Q4 2019 QPCS have been compared to the results of all QPCS starting from Q4 2016 and CSMS starting from 2015. Significance

testing is based on the comparison to CSMS 2019 and Q4 2018 results at 95% confidence level. We have allowed the longitudinal trend analysis for CSMS

to QPCS 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 any

conclusions drawn.

Q12017

Q22017

2017CSMS

Q42017

Q12018

Q22018

CSMS2018

Q42018

Q12019

Q22019

CSMS2019

Q42019

1. Set a benchmark with the first data point

Interpretation Plan for Tracking Study

2. Draw insights by comparing to previous quarter

3. Form a directional trend

4. Develop a lead indicator

We are hereTime

Mea

sure

ILLUSTRATION ONLY – NOT REAL DATA

Appendix B: Background – Key Considerations for Interpreting QPCS Insights

37

Appendix C: QPCS Quantitative Research – Approach

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 been adjusted to 95% confidence level (in line with that of the QPCS). This was undertaken in order to make the significance testing comparable 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 be interpreted with caution:

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

• Sample size varies greatly i.e. 2019 CSMS sample size was n=6,492 versus 2019 Q4 QPCS sample size of n=1,517 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 to test significance of the QPCS results

• Length of the survey is different. The CSMS survey is longer than the QPCS survey.

Q4 2019 QPCS Quantitative Research:

38

Appendix D: Overview of Historical Results

Results

at a glance

Consumers

CSMS

2015

CSMS

2016Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017

CSMS

2017Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018

CSMS

2018Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

CSMS

2019Q4 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 7.8 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 8.1 8.0

Ideal

Service6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 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 80.6 80.6

Results

at a glance

Businesses

CSMS

2015

CSMS

2016Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017

CSMS

2017Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018

CSMS

2018Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019

CSMS

2019Q4 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 7.4 7.6

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 7.8 7.7

Ideal

Service7.0 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.3

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 77.6 79.8

Consumer Business




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

39

Appendix D: Satisfaction – Consumer


Average (out of 10)

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

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

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

71% 76% 73% 76% 76% 78% 78% 78% 78% 77% 80% 77% 80% 79% 79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS2015

(n=6,790)

CSMS2016

(n=7,227)

Q4 2016(n=1,652)

Q1 2017(n=1,580)

Q2 2017(n=1,647)

CSMS2017

(n=6,789)

Q4 2017(n=1,541)

Q1 2018(n=1,651)

Q2 2018(n=1,638)

CSMS2018

(n=7,000)

Q4 2018(n=1,583)

Q1 2019(n=1,611)

Q2 2019(n=1,577)

CSMS2019

(n=6,771)

Q4 2019(n=1,554)

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

Consumer

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



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

7.8 7.8 7.8

40

Appendix D: Expectation – Consumer


Average (out of 10)

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

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

16% 13% 13% 13% 14% 12% 14% 13% 12% 13% 11% 12% 13% 11% 10%

78% 80% 81% 82% 80% 82% 79% 81% 81% 81% 84% 80% 82% 84% 84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS2015

(n=6,693)

CSMS2016

(n=7,140)

Q4 2016(n=1,636)

Q1 2017(n=1,563)

Q2 2017(n=1,624)

CSMS2017

(n=6,732)

Q4 2017(n=1,537)

Q1 2018(n=1,644)

Q2 2018(n=1,642)

CSMS2018

(n=6,922)

Q4 2018(n=1,579)

Q1 2019(n=1,614)

Q2 2019(n=1,578)

CSMS2019

(n=6,692)

Q4 2019(n=1,547)

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

Consumer

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 8.08.1

41

Appendix D: Comparison to Ideal – Consumer


Average (out of 10)

% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

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

22%18% 19% 19% 18% 19% 17% 19% 17% 20% 16% 16% 14% 16% 15%

65% 70% 69% 72% 69% 70% 72% 70% 71% 69% 72% 71% 75% 74% 73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS2015

(n=6,593)

CSMS2016

(n=7,015)

Q4 2016(n=1,621)

Q1 2017(n=1,548)

Q2 2017(n=1,605)

CSMS2017

(n=6,559)

Q4 2017(n=1,518)

Q1 2018(n=1,628)

Q2 2018(n=1,618)

CSMS2018

(n=6,733)

Q4 2018(n=1,545)

Q1 2019(n=1,590)

Q2 2019(n=1,564)

CSMS2019

(n=6,532)

Q4 2019(n=1,540)

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

Consumer

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 7.47.4

42

7.5

Appendix D: Satisfaction – Business


% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

Average (out of 10)

9% 7%15%

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

18% 18%15%

24% 17% 17% 19% 22% 11% 18% 16% 12% 14%20% 13%

72% 74% 70% 69% 72% 75% 73% 73% 80% 75% 79% 79% 79% 72% 77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS2015

(n=1,700)

CSMS2016

(n=1,761)

Q4 2016(n=382)

Q1 2017(n=391)

Q2 2017(n=372)

CSMS2017

(n=1,705)

Q4 2017(n=349)

Q1 2018(n=375)

Q2 2018(n=1,570)

CSMS2018

(n=1,555)

Q4 2018(n=1,553)

Q1 2019(n=1,469)

Q2 2019(n=1,387)

CSMS2019

(n=1,801)

Q4 2019(n=1,484)

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

Business

7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.87.2




7.8 7.4 7.6

43

7.9

Appendix D: Expectation – Business


% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

Average (out of 10)

8% 5% 8% 3%10% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8%

15% 14% 14%11%

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

77% 81% 79%86%

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS2015

(n=1,677)

CSMS2016

(n=1,738)

Q4 2016(n=381)

Q1 2017(n=390)

Q2 2017(n=370)

CSMS2017

(n=1,682)

Q4 2017(n=350)

Q1 2018(n=372)

Q2 2018(n=1,555)

CSMS2018

(n=1,531)

Q4 2018(n=1,552)

Q1 2019(n=1,465)

Q2 2019(n=1,389)

CSMS2019

(n=1,786)

Q4 2019(n=1,479)

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

Business

7.6 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.07.6




7.9 7.8 7.7

44

7.3

Appendix D: Comparison to Ideal – Business


% D

istr

ibu

tio

n (

acro

ss lo

w,

neu

tral

an

d h

igh

sco

res)

Average (out of 10)

14% 9% 15% 9% 14% 11% 10% 7% 12% 11% 9% 8% 10% 12% 13%

18%20% 14%

17%18% 20% 24%

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

20% 16%

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

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

CSMS2015

(n=1,654)

CSMS2016

(n=1,718

Q4 2016(n=375)

Q1 2017(n=380)

Q2 2017(n=365)

CSMS2017

(n=1,646)

Q4 2017(n=345)

Q1 2018(n=367)

Q2 2018(n=1,554)

CSMS2018

(n=1,506)

Q4 2018(n=1,535)

Q1 2019(n=1,455)

Q2 2019(n=1,378)

CSMS2019

(n=1,753)

Q4 2019(n=1,467)

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

Business

7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.67.0




7.4 7.1 7.3

45

76.6

78.4 78.379.6 79.7

78.2

81.3 81.2 80.7

77.6

79.8

CSMS2015

(n=1,645)

CSMS2016

(n=1,712)

CSMS2017

(n=1,638)

Q12018

(n=365)

Q22018

(n=1,536)

CSMS2018

(n=1,494)

Q42018

(n=1,523)

Q12019

(n=1,449)

Q22019

(n=1,372)

CSMS2019

(n=1,745)

Q4 2019(n=1,458)

Consumer – CSI

Business – CSI

Consumer – Baseline Measures

Business – Baseline Measures

Margin of Error (QPCS)Consumer CSI: ± 1.0

Margin of Error (QPCS)Business CSI: ± 1.2

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

76.7

78.7 79.3 79.9 79.678.9

79.9 79.480.9 80.6 80.6

CSMS2015

(n=6,549)

CSMS2016

(n=6,971)

CSMS2017

(n=6,527)

Q12018

(n=1,610)

Q22018

(n=1,603)

CSMS2018

(n=6,701)

Q42018

(n=1,535)

Q12019

(n=1,575)

Q22019

(n=1,555)

CSMS2019

(n=6,492)

Q42019

(n=1,517)

7.3

7.57.7 7.7 7.7 7.6

7.87.7

7.8 7.8 7.87.7

7.87.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0

7.88.0 8.1 8.0

6.9

7.2 7.2 7.2 7.37.2

7.3 7.2

7.4 7.4 7.4

6.6

7.1

7.6

8.1

8.6

CSMS2015

(n=6,593)

CSMS2016

(n=7,015)

CSMS2017

(n=6,559)

Q12018

(n=1,628)

Q22018

(n=1,618)

CSMS2018

(n=6,733)

Q42018

(n=1,545)

Q12019

(n=1,590)

Q22019

(n=1,564)

CSMS2019

(n=6,532)

Q42019

(n=1,540)

Satisfaction Expectation Comparison to Ideal

7.27.5 7.5

7.67.8

7.4

7.9 7.8 7.8

7.4

7.6

7.6

7.97.7 7.7

8.1

7.7

8.0 8.07.9

7.87.7

7.0

7.37.1

7.27.3 7.2

7.4

7.67.4

7.17.3

6.6

7.1

7.6

8.1

8.6

CSMS2015

(n=1,654)

CSMS2016

(n=1,718)

CSMS2017

(n=1,646)

Q12018

(n=367)

Q22018

(n=1,554)

CSMS2018

(n=1,506)

Q42018

(n=1,535)

Q12019

(n=1,455)

Q22019

(n=1,378)

CSMS2019

(n=1,753)

Q42019

(n=1,467)

Satisfaction Expectation Comparison to Ideal

Appendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q4 2019 QPCSConsumer Business



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


46

Quarter on quarter trends with an additional significance test at 99% confidence level to align with the CSMS analysis.

To ensure consistency in reporting significance testing, the below table of definitions has been developed.

Appendix F: Terminology Definitions

Terminology Definition Example

Remain StableRounded numerical difference between current period result and the previous period result is not significant at 95% confidence level.

Satisfaction score moved from 8.07 to 8.12 (i.e. actual difference is 0.05). However, this is within the margin of error at 95% confidence and hence the result remains stable.

Increase/Decrease significantly

Rounded numerical difference between current period outcome measures and the previous period result is significant at 95% confidence level

Satisfaction score moved from 7.5 to 7.9 In this case, the difference of 0.4 lies outside the margin of error at 95% confidence and hence the result is a significant increase in Satisfaction score.

47

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

Sensitive: NSW Government

2019 q4 quarterly pulse check survey (qpcs) › __data › assets › pdf...2019 q4 quarterly pulse...

Documents