csisg 2017 q4 110618 - singapore management university 201… · credit cards (satisfaction levels...

INSTITUTE OF

SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

CSISG 2017 Q4 RESULTS

Finance & Insurance and Healthcare

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG Methodology

How Much Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?

!3

Customer Satisfaction

CSISG (Scale of 0-100)

1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations

3. Similarity to Ideal

The CSISG Score

!4

Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal

Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance

Qn. Complaint Behaviour

Customer Expectations

(Expected Quality Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Overall Quality

Perceived Value

Customer Satisfaction

(CSISG)

Customer Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price

Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability

Qn. Perceived Overall Quality Qn. Perceived Customisation Qn. Perceived Reliability

→ Denotes positive relationship between the drivers → Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers

General CSISG Structural Model

Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes.

Homes are selected from a random address listing that matches the housing profile of Singapore resident population.

Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport.

(Applicable to Private Hospitals Sub-sector only)

Typically 100-200 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.

Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the company/brand they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 to 2 companies/brands.

!5

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology

!6

Company Score

Sub-Sector Score

National ScoreSector Score

Incidence Study

• Identify companies with highest interactions with locals and tourists.

• Locals surveyed door-to-door. • Tourists surveyed at Changi Airport. • DOS population and STB Visitor

Arrival data used to further identify proportion of locals and tourist customers.

Local & Tourist Weights

Company Weights

Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights

• Identify revenue contribution of each sub-sector to its respective sector.

• Identify GDP contribution of each sector to the total GDP of sectors measured in the CSISG.

1 2 3 4

Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data

Overview of Score Calculation

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2017 Key Facts

Calendar year 1st quarter Info-Communications Retail

2nd quarter Air Transport Land Transport

3rd quarter F&B Tourism

4th quarter Finance & Insurance Healthcare

!8

Sectors Measured in the CSISG

Total Questionnaires Completed 30,135

Locals 22,640

Tourists 7,495

Distinct entities measured 650

Entities with published scores 174

!9

CSISG 2017 Full Year Quick Facts

!10

Sectors Covered Finance & Insurance Healthcare

Survey Period Oct 2017 to Jan 2018

Total Questionnaires Completed 9,585

Locals 9,235

Tourists 350

Distinct entities measured 83

Entities with published scores 49

CSISG 2017 Q4 Quick Facts

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2017 RESULTS

74.4 Air Transport 77.1 Airport* 77.1 Changi Airport 74.2 Full Service Airlines 77.5 Singapore Airlines*76.1 Garuda Indonesia*75.1 Emirates74.2 Cathay Pacific73.6 Qantas72.8 SilkAir71.5 Other full service airlines

71.2 Budget Airlines 72.0 Jetstar Asia71.8 Scoot71.6 AirAsia70.4 Tiger70.8 Other budget airlines

73.4 Finance & Insurance

74.1 Banks 74.5 DBS73.9 Citibank73.8 OCBC73.6 Maybank73.1 Standard Chartered72.8 HSBC72.4 UOB72.0 Other banks 72.5 Life Insurance 74.4 Great Eastern73.1 AIA72.4 NTUC Income72.0 Prudential70.1 Aviva71.1 Other life insurers

72.4 Motor & Other Personal Insurance 73.1 NTUC Income73.0 AXA73.0 AIG71.8 Other motor & personal insurers

71.9 Credit Cards 72.8 American Express72.4 Citibank72.3 DBS72.0 Maybank72.0 UOB71.5 OCBC71.4 HSBC70.6 Other credit cards

71.9 Health & Medical Insurance 72.2 Prudential72.2 AIA72.1 NTUC Income71.1 Great Eastern71.7 Other health & medical insurers

72.1 Retail

72.5 Fashion Apparels 75.5 Zara 73.6 Adidas 73.2 Bossini 72.9 G2000 72.4 Uniqlo 72.1 Esprit 71.9 Cotton On 71.7 Giordano 71.2 Hang Ten 71.1 H&M 72.7 Other fashion apparels

74.2 Tourism

74.4 HotelsLuxury & Upscale Hotels 75.1 The Ritz-Carlton74.6 Marina Bay Sands74.2 Grand Hyatt73.7 Hotel Michael73.5 Pan Pacific Singapore72.8 Shangri-La72.2 Mandarin Orchard72.1 Marina MandarinEconomy Hotels70.6 Fragrance Hotel69.5 Hotel 81

74.9 Other hotels

73.3 Attractions74.9 Sentosa74.5 Singapore Zoo73.9 Jurong Bird Park73.4 S.E.A. Aquarium73.2 Singapore Flyer73.2 Gardens By The Bay72.8 River Safari71.9 Universal Studios71.8 Adventure Cove71.1 Night Safari70.4 Singapore Discovery Centre71.2 Other attractions

2017 National Score

72.9How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?

72.4 Supermarkets 73.1 NTUC Fairprice 72.4 Sheng Siong 72.3 Cold Storage 71.6 Giant 70.0 Other supermarkets

71.4 e-Commerce 73.7 Zalora* 73.1 Groupon 72.6 Ebay 71.7 Taobao/Tmall 71.5 Qoo10 71.4 Carousell 70.0 Amazon 69.2 Other e-Commerce

71.2 Department Stores 73.6 DFS* 72.1 Takashimaya 72.1 Robinsons 71.7 Metro 71.2 BHG 70.9 Isetan 70.1 Tangs 69.2 OG 70.3 Other department stores

1

!12

QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/

brands (Past 3/6/12 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates

satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors

!13

QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/

brands (Past 3/6/12 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates

satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors

!14

Finance & Insurance Sector

• Banks

• Credit Cards

• Life Insurance

• Health & Medical Insurance

• Motor & Other Personal Insurance

Healthcare Sector

• Restructured Hospitals

• Private Hospitals

• Polyclinics

CSISG 2017 Q4 Sub-sectors

INSTITUTE OF


Finance & Insurance Sector Results

60

70

80Banks

2007 2017

70

78Finance & Insurance Sector

!16

60

70

80Credit Cards

2007 2017

60

70

80 Life Insurance

2007 201760

70

80 Motor and Other Personal Insurance

2007 2017

60

70

80Health and Medical Insurance

2007 2017

◼

▲

◼

▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence

Finance & Insurance Sector CSISG Trends

▲▲

INSTITUTE OF


Finance Sector Results & Findings

DBS 73.1

UOB 71.7

OCBC 72.9

Citibank 72.5

HSBC 71.3

Standard Chartered 71.9

Maybank 72.5

Other banks 70.8

74.5 DBS

72.4 UOB

73.8 OCBC 73.9 Citibank

72.8 HSBC 73.1 Standard Chartered 73.6 Maybank

72.0 Other banks

CSISG2016

CSISG2017

60

70

80

Banks (Main CASA Account) (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated Between Banks)


!18

2007 2017

Banks 74.1▲

E.g. of Other Banks Include CIMB, Bank Of China, RHB

Note: Respondents must have a CASA account and have interacted with the bank in the last 3 months

DBS Credit Cards 70.9

UOB Credit Cards 70.7

OCBC Credit Cards 70.0

Citibank Credit Cards 72.1

HSBC Credit Cards 70.4

Maybank Credit Cards 70.7

American Express Credit Cards 72.1

Other Credit Cards 69.0

72.3 DBS Credit Cards

72.0 UOB Credit Cards 71.5 OCBC Credit Cards

72.4 Citibank Credit Cards

71.4 HSBC Credit Cards

72.0 Maybank Credit Cards

72.8 American Express Credit Cards

70.6 Other Credit Cards

CSISG2016

CSISG2017

60

70

80

Credit Cards (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated between Issuers)


!19

2007 2017

Credit Cards71.9▲

E.g. of Other Credit Cards Include Standard Chartered, CIMB, Bank Of China

Note: Respondents must be the principal cardholder and have most recently used it in the last 3 months

Banks Attributes RatingsProvides efficient service

Brand image complements your personality

Products appeal to you

Has your best interest at heart

Has a good reputation

Feels comfortable and safe

Gives you individual attention

Feels assured that things will be taken care of

Provides prompt serviceProducts and services are presented in a way

that is clear and easy to understandPerforms services right the very first time

Has products and services available when you want it

Proactively helps you when needed

Makes the effort to understand your needs

Range of products meet your needs

Fulfills its promise at the promised time

Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.5 8.0

!20

2017 Avg Rating

▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence

Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

Banks: General Rise in Attribute RatingsProvides efficient service








Provides prompt serviceProducts and services are presented in a way

that is clear and easy to understandPerforms services right the very first time

Has products and services available when you want it






7.0 7.5 8.0

!21

2017 Avg Rating

▲

▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲


Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

▲

Credit Cards: General Rise in Attribute RatingsRedemption catalogue that meet my needs

Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points, privileges

Flexibility of policies such as waiver of charges


Card benefits are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand

Ease of reward redemption

Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs

Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information


Feels comfortable and safe when using the card


7.0 7.5 8.0

!22

2017 Avg Rating

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲


Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

▼

Banks Credit Cards

CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty



Flexibility of policies such as waiver of

charges


charges

Brand image complements your

personality



personality

Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points,

privileges



Merchant tie-ups that meet your

needs


needs


Feels assured that things will be taken

care of


privileges


Fulfills its promise at the promised

time

Products and services are

presented in a way that is clear and

easy to understand

Ease of accessing card balance and

transaction information

Card benefits are presented in a way that is clear and

easy to understand

!23Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact

Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG & Loyalty)

Banks Credit Cards

CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty




charges


charges


personality



personality


privileges




needs


needs


Feels assured that things will be taken

care of


privileges


Fulfills its promise at the promised

time

Products and services are

presented in a way that is clear and

easy to understand

Ease of accessing card balance and

transaction information

Card benefits are presented in a way that is clear and

easy to understand

!24

Empathy

Legend:

Assurance

Responsiveness

Branding

Product

Reliability

Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG & Loyalty)

Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact

INSTITUTE OF


Bank Touch-Points (Overview)

!26Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.8 8.5

7.33

7.63

7.52

7.71

7.73

8.08

7.70

7.78

7.81

7.96

8.04

8.09 20172016

Personal banker/ Relationship manager

Mobile App

Internet Banking

Branch

ATM/Self-Service Machine

Contact Centre

Banks: Satisfaction with Touch-points

Banks Touch-points Satisfaction Ratings

Increased Satisfaction With 5 Out Of 6 Touch-points (Banks: Satisfaction with Touch-points)

!27

Banks Touch-points Satisfaction Ratings

Statistically Significant Increase

from 2016


7.0 7.8 8.5

7.33

7.63

7.52

7.71

7.73

8.08

7.70

7.78

7.81

7.96

8.04

8.09 20172016

Personal banker/ Relationship manager

Mobile App

Internet Banking

Branch

ATM/Self-Service Machine

Contact Centre

Inte

ract

ed W

ith

Touc

h-po

int

(%)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

18 to 34 years old 35 to 49 years old 50 years old and above

Mobile App Internet Banking Branch Contact Centre Personal Banker

Banks: Touch-point Interactions By Age Group

!28

Inte

ract

ed W

ith

Touc

h-po

int

(%)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Banks: Higher Interactions with Digital Touch-Points Among the Younger Age Groups

!29

Inte

ract

ed W

ith

Touc

h-po

int

(%)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Banks: Interaction with Branches Remain High

!30

The Changing Nature of Branch Interactions

!31

Source: (2) DBS Plaza Singapura Branch: https://www.dbs.com/newsroom/DBS_reimagines_banking_with_lifestyle_space_for_tech_generation & ISE Photos

Source: (1) UOB Tampines 1 Branch: https://www.facebook.com/tampines1/posts/10160350622035112 http://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/uob-banking-on-millennials-at-tampines-1-branch

https://www.dbs.com/newsroom/DBS_reimagines_banking_with_lifestyle_space_for_tech_generation

https://www.dbs.com/newsroom/DBS_reimagines_banking_with_lifestyle_space_for_tech_generation

https://www.facebook.com/tampines1/posts/10160350622035112

http://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/uob-banking-on-millennials-at-tampines-1-branch

INSTITUTE OF


Digital Users (Bank Touch-Points)

Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users (Used A Digital Channel in the Last 3 months)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Did Not Use Internet Banking/

Mobile App

Use Internet Banking/

Mobile App

67.3%

32.7%

!33

Banks

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App


Mobile App

67.3%

32.7%

18 to 34 Years 14.9% 43.2%

35 to 49 Years 10.4% 43.9%

50 Years & Above 74.8% 12.9%

!34

Age Group

Banks

Digital Users by Age Group (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App


Mobile App

67.3%

32.7%

18 to 34 Years 14.9% 43.2%35 to 49 Years 10.4% 43.9%

50 Years & Above 74.8% 12.9%

!35

Age Group

Banks

Digital Users Tend to Be Younger (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users By Age Group)

CSISG Score 72.7 74.9

Loyalty Score 69.7 71.8

!36

Satisfaction & Loyalty Metrics By User Type (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App


Mobile App

67.3%

32.7%

Banks

!37

Digital Users Tend to be More Satisfied & Loyal (Banks: Digital Users vs Non-Digital Users)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App


Mobile App

67.3%

32.7%

GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance.

Banks

CSISG Score 72.7 74.9Loyalty Score 69.7 71.8

Bank respondents who use Internet

Banking/ Mobile App have higher

Satisfaction and Loyalty scores.

CSISG Score 72.7 74.9Loyalty Score 69.7 71.8

Average No. Of Products Held With Same Bank 1.23 1.66

!38

Digital Users Hold More Products With Same Bank (Banks: Digital Users vs Non-Digital Users)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%


Mobile App


Mobile App

67.3%

32.7%

GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance.

Bank respondents who use Internet

Banking/ Mobile App hold more products with the same bank.

Banks

INSTITUTE OF


Insurance Sector Results & Findings

Prudential 71.1

AIA 72.8

Great Eastern 73.2

NTUC Income 71.3

Aviva 69.1

Other Life 70.2

72.0 Prudential

73.1 AIA

74.4 Great Eastern

72.4 NTUC Income

70.1 Aviva

71.1 Other Life

CSISG

2016

CSISG

2017

60

70

80

Life Insurance (Scores Statistically Unchanged between Insurers)


!40

2007 2017

Life Insurance72.5◼

E.g. of Other Life Insurance includes Manulife, AXA, Tokio Marine

Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer’s touch-points in the past 12 months

Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand





Performs services right the very first time





Provides prompt service




Provides efficient serviceHas products and services available

when you want it


7.0 7.5 8.0

Life Insurance Attributes Ratings - YOY Movements

!41

2017 Avg Rating

▲

▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲


Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

▲

▲

Health & Medical Insurance (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated between Insurers)

AIA 70.5

Great Eastern 70.1

NTUC Income 71.4

Prudential 70.7

Other Health & Medical 71.3

72.2 AIA

71.1 Great Eastern

72.1 NTUC Income

72.2 Prudential

71.7 Other Health & Medical

CSISG2016

CSISG2017


!42

2007 201760

70

80 Health & Medical Insurance

E.g. of Other Health & Medical Insurance includes Aviva, Manulife, AXA

71.9▲





Has Products and services available when you want it





Has your best interest at heartProducts and services are presented in a way

that is clear and easy to understandProvides efficient service







7.0 7.5 8.0

Health & Medical Insurance Attributes Ratings - YOY Movements

!43

2017 Avg Rating

▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲


Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

▲

AIG 72.2 NTUC Income 72.3

AXA 72.6

Other Motor & Personal 71.2

73.0 AIG 73.1 NTUC Income

73.0 AXA

71.8 Other Motor & Personal

CSISG

2016

CSISG

2017

60

70

80

Motor & Other Personal Insurance (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated between Insurers)


!44

2007 2017

Motor & Other Personal Insurance

72.4◼

E.g. of Other Motor & Personal Insurance Includes MSIG, Direct Asia, Tokio Marine


Has a good reputationProducts and services are presented in a way

that is clear and easy to understandProvides efficient service








Has Products and services available when you want it







7.0 7.5 8.0

Motor & Other Personal Insurance Attributes Ratings - YOY Movements

!45

2017 Avg Rating

▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲


Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

▲

▲▲

▲

INSTITUTE OF


Insurance Touch-Points

Insurance: Touch-point Interaction Proportions

0%

50%

100%% Interacted With


Life Insurance Health & Medical Insurance

!47

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

% o

f R

espo

nden

ts W

ho I

nter

acte

d W

ith

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

Insurance: Touch-point Satisfaction Ratings

Sat

isfa

ctio

n R

atin

g (S

cale

of

1 t

o 1

0)

7.0

7.7

8.4

0%

50%

100%Motor & Other Personal

InsuranceLife Insurance Health & Medical

Insurance

!48

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

% o

f R

espo

nden

ts W

ho I

nter

acte

d W

ith

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

0%

50%

100%% Interacted With Satisfaction Rating of Each Touch-Point

Insurance: Touch-point Satisfaction Ratings

0%

50%

100%

0%

50%

100%% Interacted With Satisfaction Rating of Each Touch-Point

!49

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

% o

f R

espo

nden

ts W

ho I

nter

acte

d W

ith Life Insurance

Satisfaction With Contact Centre

Significantly Lower Than Other Touch-

points

Sat

isfa

ctio

n R

atin

g (S

cale

of

1 t

o 1

0)

7.0

7.7

8.4Motor & Other Personal

InsuranceHealth & Medical

Insurance

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

Cont

act C

entre

Custo

mer Se

rvice

Cen

tre

Websit

e

Finan

cial A

dviso

r/

Sales

Rep

Insurance: Contact Centre Users

CSISG Score 69.1 73.0 67.8 72.2 72.6 72.2

Loyalty Score 67.9 71.0 66.8 71.9 70.3 70.5

Complaint Rate 7.4% 0.7% 8.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.8%!50

Life InsuranceHealth & Medical

Insurance

% o

f In

sura

nce

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Interacted With

Contact Centre

Did Not Interact With

Contact Centre

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

58.8%

41.2%

89.7%

10.3%

86.6%

13.4%


Customer Metrics Poorer Amongst Customers With Contact Centre Interactions

CSISG Score 69.1 73.0 67.8 72.2 72.6 72.2

Loyalty Score 67.9 71.0 66.8 71.9 70.3 70.5

Complaint Rate 7.4% 0.7% 8.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.8%!51


Insurance

% o

f In

sura

nce

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

58.8%

41.2%

89.7%

10.3%

86.6%

13.4%


GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance

!52


Insurance

% o

f In

sura

nce

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

Interacted With

Contact Centre


Contact Centre

58.8%

41.2%

89.7%

10.3%

86.7%

13.4%


Insurance: Contact Centre Users

Selected Verbatim From Customers Who Gave Contact Centres A Poor Rating (<5 points)

Staff on the phone is not helpful and rude to me The contact centre always take their own sweet time to answer my call

Service staff on the phone is impatient and rudeI have to wait very long for the operators to answer

my calls

The operator was not sure with what I am enquiring for and gave me the wrong info, she should have

asked for help from other colleague.

Contact centre is not easy to navigate and staff is not familiar with their product. I had a hard time trying to explain to her the information I needed

INSTITUTE OF


Healthcare Sector Results & Findings

60

68

76Private Hospitals

2007 2017

70

78

Healthcare Sector

60

68

76Restructured Hospitals

2007 201760

68

76Polyclinics

2007 2017

Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months

◼

!54

▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence

Healthcare Sector CSISG

◼

◼

Restructured Hospitals (Scores Statistically Unchanged)

SGH 67.3

KKH 71.2

CGH 70.9

AH 68.5

TTSH 69.9 NUH 69.8

KTPH 70.9

NTFH 70.1

68.6 SGH

71.8 KKH

71.5 CGH

70.3 AH

70.7 TTSH

71.0 NUH

71.4 KTPH

70.8 NTFH

CSISG

2016

CSISG

2017

!55

2007 201760

68

76Restructured Hospitals

70

78

Healthcare Sector


70.7◼

Raffles Hospital 73.5

Mount Alvernia Hospital 74.3

Thomson Medical Centre 71.2

Mount Elizabeth Orchard 73.1

Parkway East Hospital 74.2 Gleneagles Hospital 73.6

Mount Elizabeth Novena 72.7

74.6 Raffles Hospital

75.4 Mount Alvernia Hospital

73.7 Thomson Medical Centre

74.7 Mount Elizabeth Orchard

74.2 Parkway East Hospital 74.2 Gleneagles Hospital

73.9 Mount Elizabeth Novena

CSISG2016

CSISG2017 Healthcare Sector

!56

2007 201760

68

76 Private Hospitals


Private Hospitals (Scores Statistically Unchanged)

74.4◼

PolyclinicsC

SIS

G S

core

(0

to

10

0)

65

70

75

NUP SingHealth NHG

70.470.8

72.2

Healthcare Sector

!57

2007 201758

67

76Polyclinics 71.0◼

Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months Note: The same polyclinics measured in 2016 are measured in 2017 but are now grouped under the new polyclinic clusters

Punggol and Pioneer polyclinics were not measured.

INSTITUTE OF


Healthcare Attributes Analysis

Restructured Hospitals: Attributes Performance & Impact

Registration process

Payment process

Waiting time

Cleanliness of hospital

Waiting experience

Treatment administered or suggested

Amenities within hospital

Ease of getting around

Clarity of direction signs

Explanation of diagnosis / condition


5.5 6.3 7.2 8.0

!59

Significant Impact

on CSISG

Limited Impact on

CSISG

2017 Avg Rating

Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Collection of Medicine, Appointment booking and Interactions With All Touch-points

Satisfaction with


Payment process

Waiting time


Waiting experience







5.5 6.3 7.2 8.0

!60

Significant Impact

on CSISG

Limited Impact on

CSISG

2017 Avg Rating

Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Collection of Medicine, Appointment booking and Interactions With All Touch-points

Satisfaction with

Waiting Time Lowest Performing Attribute (Restructured Hospitals: Attributes Performance & Impact)



Waiting experience

Ease of making appointment


Payment process


Clarity of medication instructions

Collection of medication



Waiting time (before undergoing medical test or seeing a doctor)

!61

-1.9%

-1.6%

-0.4%

0.0%

+0.1%

+0.1%

+0.3%

+0.9%

+1.1%

+1.9%

+2.3%

+3.6%

Restructured Hospital: Attributes Comparable Year-on-Year

◼Statistically significant year-on-year increase at 90% confidence

◼Statistically significant year-on-year drop at 90% confidence

YOY Percentage Change In Satisfaction Ratings

Improvement in Various Attributes (Restructured Hospitals: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes)

Doctors

Efficiency of registration process


Waiting experience

Payment process


Clinic staff

Waiting time



Amenities within polyclinic


Cleanliness of polyclinic


5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

!62

Significant Impact

on CSISG

Limited Impact on

CSISG

2017 Avg Rating

Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Appointment booking and Interactions With Nurses, Allied Health Staff

Satisfaction with

Waiting Time Lowest Performing Attribute (Polyclinics: Attributes Performance & Impact)

Waiting experience

Ease of making an appointment



Amenities within polyclinic


Payment process


Efficiency of registration process


Cleanliness of polyclinic


!63

-7.4%

-0.3%

+0.4%

+1.5%

+1.5%

+2.1%

+3.4%

+3.5%

+3.9%

+5.2%

+5.3%

+5.7%

Polyclinics: Attributes Comparable Year-on-Year




Fall in Waiting Time Amidst Improvement In Various Attributes (Polyclinics: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes)

Waiting time

Administrative Staff



Payment process


Doctors



Waiting experience






5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0

!64

Significant Impact

on CSISG

Limited Impact on

CSISG

2017 Avg Rating

Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Hospitalisation, Local-Tourist segments, Appointment booking and Interactions With Nurses, Allied Health Staff

Satisfaction with

Waiting Time Lowest Performing Attribute (Polyclinics: Attributes Performance & Impact)

Waiting experience







Ease of making appointment



Payment process


!65

-0.3%

+0.3%

+0.8%

+0.9%

+1.0%

+1.1%

+2.0%

+2.0%

+2.0%

+2.8%

+3.3%

+4.0%

Private Hospital: Attributes Comparable Year-on-Year




General Improvement In Various Attributes (Private Hospitals: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes)

INSTITUTE OF


Complaint Tree (Healthcare sector)

You didn’t complain because...

Yes No

No reason

Too difficult

No point

How would you rate the handling of your

complaint?

Have you complained to [company]?

!67

Complaint Tree

Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree

Yes No

!68Note: Data is Unweighted

1.5% 98.5%

n=3,540

Have you complained to

[company] in the last 6 months?


Yes No


1.5% 98.5%

n=3,540


complaint?

Handled Well

Handled Poorly

20.4%79.6%



(6-10)(1-5)



Yes No

No reason

Too difficult

No point


1.5% 98.5%

1.3% 95.4%

n=3,540


complaint?

Handled Well

Handled Poorly

20.4%79.6%



3.3%

(6-10)(1-5)



Yes No


1.5% 98.5%

n=3,540


complaint?

74.6 CSISG

29.2 CSISG

73.4 CSISG

28.6 CSISG



No reason

Too difficult

No point

95.4%

Handled Well

Handled Poorly

20.4%79.6% 1.3% 3.3%

36.6 CSISG

(6-10)(1-5)



Yes No


1.5% 98.5%

n=3,540


complaint?

29.2 CSISG

28.6 CSISG



Too difficult

No point

95.4%

Handled Poorly

20.4%79.6% 1.3% 3.3%

36.6 CSISG

(6-10)(1-5)

Complaints Do Not Necessarily Mean Poorer

Satisfaction if Handled Well74.6 CSISG

No reason

73.4 CSISG

Handled Well

74.6 CSISG

No reason




Yes No1.5% 98.5%

n=3,540


complaint?

73.4 CSISG

28.6 CSISG



95.4%

Handled Well

Handled Poorly

20.4%79.6%

Too difficult

No point

29.2 CSISG

3.3%

36.6 CSISG

1.3%

Unsurfaced Complaints

Associated with Satisfaction Levels

Similar to Poor Complaint Handling




Yes No1.5% 98.5%

n=3,540


complaint?

74.6 CSISG

73.4 CSISG

28.6 CSISG


[company] in the last 3/6 months?

No reason

95.4%

Handled Well

Handled Poorly

20.4%79.6%

Wordcloud Of Healthcare Respondents Who Found It Too Difficult Or No Point Complaining

3.3%1.3%

No point36.6 CSISG

Too difficult

29.2 CSISG

longwaiting

doctorstaffhospital

appointment

consultationservice

expensivenurse

slow

wait

condition

registration

fees ward

asked

bed

charges

checkdoctors

hard

inexperienced

medical

confusing

explanation

feel

medicine

money

provided

signagesadmin

assured

attention

clear

clinic

high

hours

improveinterested

medication

number

nurses

parking

received

services

short

sleep

system

trainedunbearable

uncomfortable

young

!75

• Rise in national CSISG score with a number of sub-sectors seeing upticks in satisfaction levels.

• Specifically for Q4 sub-sectors, Banks, Credits Cards and Medical & Health insurance saw statistically significant upticks.

• While Healthcare sub-sectors saw no detectable changes in CSISG scores, various attributes saw statistically significant improvements from 2016.

Summary

!76

Finance & Insurance

• Digitisation strategy of banks appears on-track, with higher satisfaction and loyalty seen among users of digital touch-points.

• A different strategy may be necessary to address older customers who are more likely to use non-digital touch-points like Branches.

• Insurers may wish to consider how to better equip Contact Centres to handle customers given the lower satisfaction ratings.

Summary

!77

Healthcare

• While there were upticks across various attributes, perceived waiting time remains a key issue for the industry, especially for public healthcare.

• Healthcare institutions may wish to consider to not only manage customer complaints, but proactively address issues in which patients were dissatisfied with, but did not formally raise it to them.

Summary

csisg 2017 q4 110618 - singapore management university 201… · credit cards (satisfaction levels...

Documents