2013 nsw registry of births, deaths and marriages customer survey · 2013 nsw registry of births...

2013 NSW Registry of Births,

Deaths and Marriages

Customer Survey

Monitoring Satisfaction

Prepared by

IRIS Research Ltd

I n s i g h t f o r

B u s i n e s s & G o v e r n m e n t

IRIS Research ABN 16 002 278 793 The University of Wollongong Innovation Campus, Level 1, iC Cental, Squires Way, North Wollongong

Postal address: Northfields Ave, Wollongong. NSW 2522 Telephone: (02) 4285 4446 Fax: (02)4285 4448

Net: http://www.iris.org.au Email: [email protected]

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................1

1.3 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................2

1.4 SURVEY ACCURACY ...............................................................................................................................2

2 CUSTOMER PROFILE ...............................................................................................4

2.1 AGE AND SEX .......................................................................................................................................4

2.2 ABORIGINALITY .....................................................................................................................................1

2.3 LANGUAGE SPOKEN...............................................................................................................................2

2.4 SPECIAL NEEDS ......................................................................................................................................4

2.5 INCOME ...............................................................................................................................................6

2.6 LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................8

3 ENQUIRY CHARACTERISTICS AND STATUS ...........................................................9

3.1 SUBJECT OF ENQUIRY .............................................................................................................................9

3.2 ENQUIRY STATUS ..................................................................................................................................10

4 OPINIONS ON OVERALL REGISTRY SERVICE ......................................................13

4.1 SATISFACTION WITH ENQUIRY RESOLUTION ...............................................................................................13

4.2 SATISFACTION WITH HANDLING ENQUIRY .................................................................................................15

4.3 COMPARING SATISFACTION SCORES ......................................................................................................18

5 OPINIONS ON CUSTOMER SERVICE ...................................................................20

5.1 IMPORTANCE RATINGS..........................................................................................................................20

5.2 SATISFACTION RATINGS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES .............................................................24

5.3 OVERALL SATISFACTION........................................................................................................................33

5.4 CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS OF WAITING TIME .............................................................................................37

5.5 RECOMMEND BDM CALL ....................................................................................................................39

6 REGISTRY OFFICES ...............................................................................................41

7 BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES PHONE NUMBER..........................................42

8 POST OFFICE CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS.........................................................43

APPENDIX I.................................................................................................................45

APPENDIX 2................................................................................................................53

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of the 2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages call centre

(BDM Call) Customer Satisfaction Survey. IRIS Research was commissioned by LawAccess NSW, the

operator of the BDM Call, to conduct a comprehensive telephone-based survey amongst BDM

Call customers. The broad aim of this survey was to evaluate and compare the satisfaction levels

and needs of users with respect to key components of the services provided against previous

year’s results. The results of the survey provide key inputs into management’s performance

monitoring and quality improvement process.

This is the eighth wave of the survey, with the original baseline study conducted in April 2006. In

general customers were surveyed within 48 hours of the initial enquiry to the call centre. Survey

fieldwork was carried out on the IRIS Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system during

the month of May. At the end of the fieldwork period a total of 1004 completed interviews had

been conducted.

The key findings from each section of the report are summarised over the next few pages.

Customer profile

� Results showed an increase in the proportion of female customers over the period from 2012

(68.2%) to 2013 (70.9%), while the number of male customers decreased (31.7% in 2012 to 29.1%

in 2013).

� Persons in the 25-39 years age bracket make up four in every nine (44.6%) callers, which is an

increase from two fifths of callers (39.9%) in 2012.

� 3.3% of the customer base is comprised of Aboriginal persons, while around two in every seven

(28.2%) customers speak a language other than English at home.

Enquiry characteristics and status

� Just below half (48.9%) of enquiries received by the BDM Call relate to births, with marriages

accounting for another fifth of all enquiries (20.9%) and change of name (adults) a further

16.7%.

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey iii

� Of the customers interviewed in the 2013 survey, 62.5% (n=628) indicated that the matter of their

enquiry had been resolved at the time of the interview. 68.2% stated that the matter was

resolved during their first contact; statistically lower than the 2012 result or 73.5%.

Satisfaction with enquiry handling

� Prior to focusing on overall satisfaction with the call centre experience, customers were

questioned on their level of satisfaction with the handling of their needs by the Registry. This year

90.6% of customers whose enquiry had been resolved at the time of interview were ‘highly

satisfied’ with the outcome they had received from the Registry. The resulting mean score of

8.88 out of 10 was found to have stayed statistically the same since 2012 (8.94).

� Satisfaction amongst customers with unresolved enquires increased from 66.2% providing a high

satisfaction rating in 2012 to 68.9% in 2013.

� When the results of both enquiry groups (resolved and unresolved) are combined, the Registry

achieved a mean satisfaction score of 8.2 (out of a possible 10). This is a slight decrease on the

2012 mean of 8.4.

Overall satisfaction

� The level of customer satisfaction remained statistically unchanged from that achieved in 2012,

with 92.8% of customers providing a ‘high’ satisfaction rating.

� A high mean score 8.97 out of 10 was achieved. Testing found this to be statistically the same

as the overall satisfaction score of 9.18 recorded in 2012.

Prioritising service areas for improvement

In-depth analysis of importance and satisfaction ratings for key service components revealed the

following service attributes as the key areas to maintain (and perhaps even further improve)

overall customer satisfaction:

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey iv

Table e1: Top priorities for improvement

Identified as not meeting customer expectations in�

Quadrant Analysis Gap Analysis

Priority Rank Key services component

(High importance/ Low satisfaction)

(Higher than average gap b/w importance & satisfaction)

1 Accuracy & consistency of the information provided X

4 The waiting time to reach an operator X

� No service components were identified as an area for improvement in both the quadrant and

gap analysis. The quadrant analysis identified no service components as above average

importance but below average satisfaction. However, ‘the waiting time to reach an operator’

and ‘accuracy & consistency of the information provided’ should not be ignored as the

findings showed a notable gap between customer satisfaction levels and the importance

placed on this service component. The reason these attributes were not identified in the

quadrant analysis (higher importance/lower satisfaction) was that customers placed relatively

higher importance on other service attributes, and therefore ‘waiting time’ and ‘accuracy &

consistency of the information provided’ was considered to be of lesser importance in the

context of the other variables that were measured.

Meeting customer expectations

� Approximately eight out of ten customers (79.8%) indicated that the service they received

from the BDM Call customer service operator had exceeded their expectations (rating of 7-

10).

� The overall mean expectation score fell from 8.38 out of 10.0 in 2012 to 8.14 in this latest

measure.

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey v

Waiting times

� The proportion of BDM Call customers that perceived their waiting time to reach a customer

service representative as being longer than 5 minutes significantly increased from 19.7% to

51.6%; statistically the same as the highest result recorded in 2008.

� At the same time, the proportion of customers that reached a customer service representative

in 30 seconds or less (including no wait) stood at 5.1%; statistically lower from the last measure

(13% recorded in 2012).

Service recommendation

� Nearly all of the customers (93.7%) surveyed in 2013 indicated that they would recommend

BDM Call to others. While this was an exceptionally high proportion, it fell slightly in 2012 and

below the high displayed in 2011 of 97.4%.

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

The NSW Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages (BDM) is responsible for issuing official certificates

such as birth certificates, death certificates, marriage certificates, change of name, family history

checks and single status. The BDM Call deals with most enquiries, providing information and

advice to customers over the phone.

In 2006 LawAccess began the process of developing a strategic initiative to improve customer

service levels in their BDM Call. As part of the process, LawAccess sought to benchmark customer

satisfaction with the delivery of services provided by Customer Service Representatives (CSRs). This

report outlines the results of the sixth follow-up survey, which seeks to measure changes in

customer satisfaction towards the various aspects of service provided by the BDM Call since the

previous study.

IRIS Research completed surveys with 1004 customers during the April 2013 fieldwork period.

Overall the survey aimed to provide BDM Call management with an understanding of the

satisfaction levels and needs of users with respect to key components of the services delivered.

1.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The broad objectives for the survey were to:

� To provide a demographic and socio-economic profile of customers;

� To understand how customers are made aware of the service;

� To measure the importance of and satisfaction with key components of customer service

for the delivery of services by customer service representatives;

� To monitor BDM Call's customer satisfaction with benchmark levels;

� To identify areas for improving customer satisfaction;


1.3 DATA COLLECTION

The sample for the survey was collected using the following steps.

� On completion of the enquiry the BDM CSR invited the customer to participate in the survey.

� On agreement the CSR logged the customer’s contact details, which were forwarded in real

time to IRIS’ secure Internet site. These details were automatically transferred to an IRIS

interviewer.

� The customer was then called by an experienced IRIS interviewer and asked whether it was

convenient to conduct the short survey. If the customer was not in a position to conduct the

interview a more convenient time was arranged for the interview.

� In general customers were interviewed within 48 hours of the initial enquiry.

� The survey was implemented under Interviewing Quality Control Australia (IQCA) guidelines.

Interviews were conducted using our computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) system.

Continuous interviewer monitoring was used and post interview validations were conducted

within five days of the close of the survey.

� In all, 1004 completed interviews were conducted by telephone during May 2013.

1.4 SURVEY ACCURACY

A sample of over 1000 was chosen to provide accurate survey results that can be applied to the

broader customer population. As is the case with all sample surveys, the results are subject to

sampling variability. When analysing results for the entire sample (1004 responses), the maximum

error rate will be ±3.1% at the 95% confidence level, if a proportional response of 50% was

achieved for any of the survey's questions. That is, we can be confident that if the survey were to

be repeated there are approximately 95 chances in 100 that the new results would be within

±3.1% of the result achieved in this survey.

However, various breakdowns of the survey results by age, gender and circumstance have also

been provided. As these groups are based on smaller samples, a general rule of 10 percentage

points or more should be employed before assuming differences across groups are significant at

the 95% confidence level.


SURVEY RESULTS


2 CUSTOMER PROFILE

This section provides an overview of the client profile for the 2013 survey, as well as a comparison of respondent characteristics

against the six prior surveys.

2.1 AGE AND SEX

Table 2.1: Age and Gender of Customers (% of total surveyed)

2007 (n=1004) 2008 (n=1020) 2009 (n=1006) 2010 (n=1004) 2011 (n=1004) 2012 (n=1003) 2013 (n=1004)

Age Group Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Trans-

gender Male Female

16-17 years 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

18-24 years 2.2% 7.7% 1.1% 6.8% 2.0% 6.8% 2.2% 5.2% 1.8% 7.7% 2.2% 4.6% 0.0% 0.8% 7.2%

25-39 years 8.4% 31.9% 13.7% 35.5% 10.4% 32.3% 11.2% 28.8% 9.7% 30.4% 11.8% 28.1% 0.0% 13.2% 31.4%

40-54 years 6.9% 20.3% 7.7% 17.7% 8.5% 17.8% 7.7% 19.0% 9.1% 19.8% 10.1% 18.8% 0.1% 7.5% 17.7%

55+ years 8.2% 14.0% 5.7% 11.5% 8.0% 13.9% 8.7% 16.9% 6.9% 14.4% 7.6% 16.6% 0.0% 7.6% 14.2%

Total 25.9% 74.1% 28.1% 71.8% 28.9% 71.0% 29.7% 70.3% 27.4% 72.6% 31.7% 68.2% 0.1% 29.1% 70.9%


Key results:

� There was an increase in the number of female customers during 2013 (70.9%) compared to

2012 (68.2%), while the number of male customers decreased over this same period (31.7%

in 2012 to 29.1% in 2013).

� There was a significant increase in the percentage of customers aged 25-39 from 39.9% in

2012 to 44.6% in 2013.

2.2 ABORIGINALITY

� Customers of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage made up 3.3% of the BDM Call

customer base in 2013. This remains statistically unchanged with the 2011 (4.3%) and 2012

(3.8%) results.


2.3 LANGUAGE SPOKEN

Graph 2.1: Speak a language other than English at home (n = 1004)

Key results:

� Around two in every seven customers surveyed (28.2%) stated that they spoke a language

other than English at home. This was unchanged from the 24.8% reported in 2012.


Graph 2.2: Other languages spoken at home (n= 280)

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

.7

1.1

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.4

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

2.1

2.1

3.2

3.6

3.6

3.9

3.9

3.9

4.6

6.4

7.1

7.9

8.9

13.6

.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0

Serbian

Thai

Punjabi

Pol is h

Malaya lam

Gujarati

Fars i

Burmes e

Bunjabi

As syrian

African

Sinhales e

Russ ian

Tongan

Tamil

Nepales e

Japanes e

Macecdonian

Korean

Croatian

Maltes e

Chines e

Portuges e

French

German

Ita l ian

Vietnames e

Spanis h

Taga log (Fi l ipino)

Turkis h

Cantones e

Greek

Hindi

Mandarin

Other

Arabic

% (n=280)

Key results:

� 13.6% of the respondents that stated they spoke a language other than English at home

spoke ‘Arabic’, with Mandarin being the second most common at 7.9%.


2.4 SPECIAL NEEDS

Graph 2.3: Forms of disability

Key results:

� The 2013 survey revealed that 6.0% of BDM Call customers had special needs due to a

disability. This has remained statistically unchanged across all previous measures.


� ‘Physical’ disabilities remain the most prevalent form of disability among customers at 3.1% in

2013.

� The percentage of customers who indicated they had a visual disability increased from 0.1%

to 0.6%.


2.5 INCOME

Graph 2.4: Take home pay per week


Key results:

� One in five customers (20.9%) indicated that their weekly take home pay falls in the range of

$100 to $399, with around one quarter (27.1%) bringing home between $400 and $799 per

week.

� In comparison, 17.7% earn more than $1,000 per week. This proportion was statistically the

same as the 15.7% recorded in 2012, although is the highest percentage recorded since 2006.

� 24.7% of respondents either chose not to state what their weekly take home pay per week

was or could not provide an applicable response. Customers earning less than $100 per week

fit into this category.


2.6 LOCATION

Table 2.2: Location of customers

2007

(n=1004) 2008

(n=1020) 2009

(n=1006) 2010

(n=1004) 2011

(n=1004) 2012

(n=1003)

% % % % % %

2013 (n=1004)

%

Sydney 43.7 44.6 44.8 41.5 43.0 40.8 45.1

Other NSW 37.0 36.0 36.5 37.5 38.3 38.6 37.4

North West 14.5 13.0 14.2 14.7 16.3 16.3 13.1

Hunter 7.3 6.2 7.1 7.2 6.3 6.0 5.9

Illawarra 3.4 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.1 4.8

Mid-North 3.4 2.9 3.0 3.5 4.1 3.6 2.9

Central West 1.7 2.1 1.9 2.2 1.5 1.6 2.8

Richmond Tweed 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.7

Northern 1.7 2.3 0.7 1.5 2.2 1.6 2.3

Murrumbidgee 1.8 2.0 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.8

Murray 0.9 0.8 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5

South Eastern 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4

Far West 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Interstate 18.2 18.0 17.7 20.7 17.6 19.9 16.2

ACT 1.0 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2

QLD 7.1 6.6 6.6 9.1 6.9 7.0 5.6

Other 10.2 10.2 10.4 10.7 9.8 11.8 9.5

Location Unknown 1.1 1.5 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.7 1.3

Key results:

� Four in every nine customers (45.1%) were located in the Sydney Metropolitan Region in 2013;

statistically the same as 2012.

� The proportion living in interstate areas accounted for one in six customers (16.2%).

� The majority of the 37.4% respondents living in regional areas of NSW came from the North

West (13.1%), Hunter (5.9%) and Illawarra (4.8%).


3 ENQUIRY CHARACTERISTICS AND STATUS

3.1 SUBJECT OF ENQUIRY

“What was the reason for your recent registry enquiry?”

Table 3.1: Subject of enquiry

2007

(n=1004)

2008 (n=1020)

2009 (n=1006)

2010 (n=1004)

2011 (n=1004)

2012 (n=1003)

% % % % % %

2013 (n=1004)

%

Births 50.7 55.0 53.0 45.1 48.9 41.0 48.9

Marriage 20.1 19.4 19.7 20.0 21.6 20.9 17.5

Change of name (adult) 12.1 7.3 12.5 15.4 16.8 16.7 17.0

Change of name (child) 3.4 2.5 3.4 3.1 3.6 4.1 4.2

Family history 4.2 2.8 2.0 3.4 1.9 2.5 1.7

Death 4.2 3.7 3.0 3.1 1.8 4.1 4.4

Single status 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.5

Interstate/overseas registration 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 0.7 1.3 0.7

Divorce 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3

Wills 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0

Adoption 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

Birth card 0.7 6.0 - - - - -

Other 3.2 2.0 4.7 7.4 3.4 8.3 4.8

Key results:

� In line with previous years, enquiries about ‘Births’ were the predominant type of enquiry in

2013. Just under half (48.9%) of responses related to ‘Births’ which is an increase from 41.0% in

2012, returning to 2011 levels.

� Enquiries relating to marriages and change of name for adults were again prominent, at 17.5%

and 17.0% respectively.


3.2 ENQUIRY STATUS

“What is the current status of your enquiry?”

Customers were asked during the survey to indicate whether their enquiry matter had been

resolved.

To aid accurate recall of their experience most customers were interviewed within 48 hours of their

contact with the Registry. However, this may not have been a sufficient time frame to allow for an

enquiry resolution to be reached for many customers.

3.2.1 Resolved enquiries

Table 3.1 Resolved enquiries

Yes No Not sure

Resolved enquiry (n = 1004) 62.5 37.0 0.5

How many times did you call the registry to finalise your enquiry (n = 653) % of respondents with resolved

enquires (n = 628)

% of all

respondents

(n = 1003)

Only once 68.2 42.6

2 times 20.2 12.6

3 times 5.7 3.6

4 times 3.0 1.9

5 plus times 2.9 1.8

Can’t recall 0.0 0.0

Unresolved enquiries / not sure - 37.5

Total 100.0% 100.0%

� Of the customers interviewed in the 2013 survey, 62.5% (n=628) indicated that the matter of

their enquiry to the BDM Call had been resolved at the time of the interview. This is

statistically the same as reported last year (65.0%).


� Of the customers that had resolved their enquiry at the time of the survey, two thirds

(68.2%) stated that it was resolved during their first contact; statistically lower than the 2012

result of 73.5%.

� The number of customers requiring 4 or more calls to finalise the matter has also remained

statistically unchanged from 2012 (2.6%) to stand at 2.9%.

3.2.2 Unresolved enquiries

� In this wave of the survey, 37.0% (n=371) of customers indicated that their enquiry matter

had not been resolved, while a further 0.5% (n=5) were unsure.

� This proportion was further prompted to describe the current status of their enquiries. The

responses were coded within several main categories as shown below:


Graph 3.1: Status of unresolved enquiry (n = 357)

Key results

� Approximately one third of the customers with unresolved enquires (33.4%) stated that they

were waiting to receive a certificate. This is significantly higher than the 2012 result of 14.8%.

� 12.6% indicated that they were still filling out forms or in the process of sending the

information in, while an additional 12.3% were waiting for forms to come.


4 OPINIONS ON OVERALL REGISTRY SERVICE

This section presents BDM Call customers’ attitudes and opinions regarding the service offered by

the Registry with regards to either their ‘resolved’ or ‘unresolved’ enquiry. In Sections 4.1 and 4.2

the level of customer satisfaction with the resolution and handling of their enquiry is measured,

with a comparative measure between customer groups demonstrated. The reasons for expressed

dissatisfaction with the registry experience are also explored to help identify any perceived weak

components of the BDM service. Section 4.3 compares the results of these two groups over time.

4.1 SATISFACTION WITH ENQUIRY RESOLUTION

“How satisfied are you with the overall resolution of your enquiry?”

Customers who indicated that their matter with the registry had been resolved at the time of

interview (62.5%), were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the resolution of their enquiry,

using a satisfaction scale of 0 to 10. Graph 4.1 illustrates a comparison of this level of satisfaction

against that of the five previous survey measures.

Graph 4.1: Satisfaction of enquiry resolution

Mean 2010 = 8.87 Mean 2011 = 9.10

Mean 2012 = 8.94 Mean 2013 = 8.88


Key results

� 90.6% of customers whose enquiry had been resolved were highly satisfied with the

outcome (that is, a satisfaction rating of 7-10 out of 10).

� The 2013 level of satisfaction, amongst customers with resolved enquiries, was 8.88 which is

statistically the same as the 2012 mean of 8.94.

4.1.1 Reasons for Dissatisfaction with Enquiry Resolution

� Only 1.4% (9 respondents) of the 628 surveyed customers whose enquiry had been

resolved gave a low satisfaction score (0-3) for the resolution of their enquiry. The verbatim

responses are shown below:

- Delay in receiving certificate(s).

- Confusion over payment (e.g. no record of payment received by BDM).

- Poor response times.

- Documents dating back six years only. I would like more.

- Wrong information.

- It took four weeks after the application was sent before it was processed.


4.2 SATISFACTION WITH HANDLING ENQUIRY

"How satisfied were you with the overall handling of your enquiry by the Registry to date?”

Similarly, customers who stated that their enquiries had not yet been resolved (37.0%) or were

unsure (0.5%) were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the BDM Call's handling of the case

‘to date’. Customers were asked to use a scale 0 to 10 to rate their satisfaction where 0 was equal

to ‘very dissatisfied’ and 10 was equal to ‘very satisfied ‘. The figure below illustrates a comparison

between the current results and that of the previous six surveys.

Graph 4.2: Satisfaction with handling of the enquiry so far

Key results

� Satisfaction amongst customers with unresolved enquiries increased from 66.2% in 2012 to

68.9% providing a high satisfaction rating (7-10) in 2013. This result is statistically the same as

in 2011 and 2012.

Mean 2010 = 7.66 Mean 2011 = 7.57

Mean 2012 = 7.30 Mean 2013 = 7.28


4.2.1 Unresolved Enquiries; Reasons for Dissatisfaction

The 34 customers (3.4% of entire sample) whose enquiry had not yet been resolved and who

expressed dissatisfaction (0-3 satisfaction rating) with the Registry’s handling of their enquiry were

asked to identify the reason for their dissatisfaction. The results are shown below.

Table 4.1: Reasons for dissatisfaction

% Dissatisfied Respondents

2007

(n=42) 2008

(n=74) 2009

(n=56) 2010

(n=35) 2011

(n=27) 2012

(n=34) 2013

(n=41)

Delay in receiving certificate(s) 31.1 43.2 39.3 11.4 14.8 17.6 43.9

Errors on certificate(s) received 0.0 5.4 10.7 8.6 11.1 11.8 7.3

Issues with application 33.3 12.2 12.5 28.6 22.2 20.6 4.9

Confusion over payment 0.0 4.1 3.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.4

Further fee required 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.7 0.0 2.4

Wasn’t entitled to the certificate requested 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.9 2.4

Incorrect certificate(s) received 4.8 1.4 1.8 8.6 14.8 0.0 0.0

Proof of Identity required 2.4 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.7 2.9 0.0

Incorrect number of certificates received 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.9 0.0

Incorrect payment deducted 0.0 1.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Late registration of birth 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Notice of intention to marry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Passport Office Australian Embassy - - - - - 2.9 0.0

Other 23.8 29.7 30.4 31.4 22.2 38.2 36.6

Key results:

� A significantly higher percentage of customers, from 2012 (17.6%) to 2013 (43.9%), were

dissatisfied with their unresolved enquiry due to ‘delays in receiving certificate(s)’.

� ‘Errors on certificate(s) received’ rose to second place (7.3%), followed by a significantly

less proportion of customers noting ‘issues with their application’ (20.6% in 2012 to 4.9% in

2013).

� When probed, the 15 customers who mentioned ‘other‘ reasons for their dissatisfaction

offered the following explanations for their position:

- $160.00 for correction system problem.

- Sent wrong form.

- Department sent wrong certificate, returned at own expense still waiting

- Appointment problem


- Incorrect instructions

- Get confused answers from department

- Post office mix-up

- Not getting any answers

- Contradictory information: put out of system: long wait to get back

- Conflicting information from department

- Department rude: took 5 weeks: needed urgent for university identification

- Bad service

- No follow up or communication with customer

- Contradictory information: had to start again: delay of weeks


4.3 COMPARING SATISFACTION SCORES

Graph 4.3 shows a year on year comparison of the satisfaction scores for the two groups: those

respondents whose enquiry had not yet been resolved, and those respondents whose enquiry

had been resolved. The combined satisfaction score for all respondents, based on an average of

the two separate groups, is also included.

Graph 4.3: Comparison of mean satisfaction scores


Key results – Resolved enquiry

� Mean satisfaction with the resolution of enquiries (8.9) stayed the same over the past 12

months. The mean satisfaction levels remain quite high.

� No statistical differences were found when analysed by age or sex.

Key results – Unresolved enquiry

� Satisfaction with the handling of unresolved enquiries also was identical to the 2012 result

at 7.3.

Key results – Overall

� Total satisfaction with both unresolved and resolved enquiries fell slightly from the previous

result of 8.4, to stand at 8.2 in 2013.


5 OPINIONS ON CUSTOMER SERVICE

This section presents BDM Call customers’ attitudes and opinions of the services delivered by CSRs.

To understand what customers perceived to be important in the delivery of this type of service,

customers were first asked to rate the importance of key service attributes. To provide these

ratings customers were asked to think about enquiries they had made to large customer service

organisations such as banks and government departments and then to rate the perceived

importance of the components. Using the same attributes customers were then asked to rate their

satisfaction with the most recent enquiry they had made to BDM Call.

In sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this report the importance and satisfaction ratings measured in the 2013

survey are compared to those of the previous five surveys. In section 5.3 they are then combined

to develop a compositional model to determine those components which require most

improvement from the point of improving customer satisfaction with the services delivered by

customer service representatives.

5.1 IMPORTANCE RATINGS

“I would now like you to think about the times you made an enquiry to any large customer

service organisation. Can you tell me how important the following features are to you?”

Respondents to the survey were asked to rate the importance of a range of aspects concerning

enquiries they have made to any service based organisation using a scale of 0 to 10 , where 0 =

‘not important’ and 10 = ‘very important’. The findings have been presented alongside the results

of the previous five surveys in the table below.


Table 5.1a: Importance scores 2006-2013

Importance rating (%)

Attribute

N/R Low

(0-3)

Medium

(4-6)

High

(7-10)

Mean Score (Ranking)

2006 0.6 0.0 1.7 97.7 9.6

2007 0.2 0.2 1.1 98.4 9.6

2008 0.2 0.0 1.7 98.1 9.5

2009 0.3 0.0 1.8 97.9 9.5

2010 0.2 0.2 1.2 98.4 9.6

2011 0.6 0.2 1.2 98.0 9.5

2012 0.2 0.1 1.3 98.4 9.6

Accuracy & consistency of the information provided

2013 0.0 0.1 1.6 98.3 9.6

2006 0.4 0.0 3.1 96.5 9.4

2007 0.2 0.1 1.5 98.2 9.4

2008 0.2 0.0 2.6 97.3 9.3

2009 0.2 0.1 1.9 97.8 9.4

2010 0.3 0.0 1.5 98.2 9.5

2011 0.4 0.2 1.7 97.7 9.4

2012 0.0 0.2 2.4 97.4 9.4

The operator understands your needs or what you want

2013 0.0 0.1 2.2 97.7 9.5

2009 0.1 0.2 2.1 97.6 9.4

2010 0.2 0.1 1.6 98.1 9.6

2011 0.6 0.5 1.6 97.3 9.5

2012 0.1 0.4 2.4 97.1 9.5

The operator speaks clearly

2013 0.0 0.2 1.1 98.7 9.4

2009 0.2 0.2 1.5 98.1 9.4

2010 0.3 0.0 1.8 97.9 9.5

2011 0.5 0.1 1.6 97.3 9.4

2012 0.2 0.1 2.0 97.7 9.5

The listening skills of the operator

2013 0.0 0.3 2.5 97.2 9.4

2006 0.4 0.0 1.8 97.8 9.4

2007 0.3 0.2 1.9 97.6 9.4

2008 0.1 0.0 2.2 97.7 9.3

2009 0.2 0.1 2.5 97.2 9.3

2010 0.2 0.3 1.7 97.8 9.4

2011 0.6 0.2 1.6 97.6 9.4

2012 0.2 0.1 1.7 98.0 9.4

Understanding of what you need to do next

2013 0.0 0.1 1.9 98.0 9.4

2006 0.4 0.2 4.4 95.0 9.3

2007 0.2 0.0 3.3 96.5 9.4

2008 0.1 0.1 3.5 96.3 9.3

2009 0.1 0.4 2.1 97.4 9.3

2010 0.4 0.3 2.0 97.3 9.4

2011 0.4 0.0 2.2 97.4 9.4

2012 0.0 0.0 2.7 97.3 9.4

Knowledge and competence of the operator

2013 0.0 0.1 1.8 98.1 9.4

2006 0.4 0.0 2.4 97.2 9.4 The helpfulness of the operator

2007 0.2 0.1 2.2 97.5 9.4


2008 0.1 0.0 2.5 97.4 9.3

2009 0.2 0.1 3.0 96.7 9.2

2010 0.5 0.2 2.7 96.6 9.4

2011 0.4 0.2 2.7 96.7 9.4

2012 0.0 0.2 2.5 97.3 9.4

2013 0.0 0.2 1.7 98.1 9.4

2006 0.4 0.0 4.0 95.6 9.3

2007 0.2 0.3 2.4 97.1 9.3

2008 0.0 0.3 3.6 96.1 9.2

2009 0.1 0.0 3.0 96.9 9.3

2010 0.2 0.3 2.5 97.0 9.3

2011 0.3 0.6 2.3 96.8 9.4

2012 0.0 0.2 2.4 97.4 9.4

The information provided by the operator is easy to understand

2013 0.0 0.1 2.2 97.7 9.4

2006 0.5 0.1 4.7 94.7 9.1

2007 0.3 0.3 3.6 95.8 9.2

2008 0.0 0.2 5.6 94.2 8.9

2009 0.1 0.5 4.4 95.0 9.0

2010 0.2 0.4 4.0 95.4 9.2

2011 0.6 0.4 3.4 95.6 9.2

2012 0.0 0.4 4.9 94.7 9.1

Respect and sensitivity given to you by the

operator

2013 0.1 0.2 3.2 96.5 9.2

2006 0.4 0.1 5.6 93.9 9.1

2007 0.3 0.2 3.3 96.2 9.2

2008 0.1 0.2 5.3 94.4 8.9

2009 0.1 0.1 4.7 95.1 8.9

2010 0.2 0.3 3.6 95.9 9.1

2011 0.6 0.4 3.6 95.4 9.2

2012 0.0 0.3 4.2 95.5 9.1

Friendliness and courteous nature of the operator

2013 0.0 0.4 3.8 95.9 9.1

2006 0.5 0.2 6.4 92.9 8.9

2007 0.3 0.6 4.9 94.2 9.0

2008 0.0 0.2 6.9 92.9 8.8

2009 0.5 0.3 6.5 92.7 8.8

2010 0.2 0.9 5.2 93.7 9.0

2011 0.5 0.5 4.9 94.1 9.0

2012 0.0 0.6 4.9 94.5 8.9

The efficiency or speed in dealing with the enquiry

2013 0.0 0.1 4.5 95.4 9.0

2006 0.4 0.2 9.1 90.3 8.9

2007 0.2 0.9 5.0 93.9 9.0

2008 0.1 0.8 7.4 91.8 8.9

2009 0.2 0.9 8.9 90.0 8.8

2010 0.2 0.8 6.5 95.2 9.0

2011 0.5 0.6 6.3 92.6 9.0

2012 0.2 1.2 6.6 92.0 8.9

The waiting time to reach an operator

2013 0.3 0.8 7.2 91.7 8.9

2006 1.0 0.2 8.4 90.4 8.8

2007 0.6 1.2 5.2 93.0 8.8

The amount of time given to your enquiry

2008 0.4 0.5 8.3 90.8 8.7


2009 0.6 0.4 8.3 90.7 8.7

2010 0.5 0.8 7.1 91.6 8.9

2011 0.7 0.7 6.2 92.4 8.9

2012 0.3 0.6 6.6 92.5 8.9

2013 0.4 0.6 8.0 91.0 8.7

Cells with sig. higher scores relative to yellow cells Cells with sig.lower scores relative to green cells

Key results:

� Mean importance scores ranged from 9.6 (accuracy and consistency of the information

provided) to 8.7 (the amount of time given to your enquiry) out of 10, placing them all in

the ‘high’ importance category. The average of all individual attribute importance scores

in the 2013 survey was 9.3, statistically the same as 2011 and 2012.

� Further analysis found significant differences in the levels of importance from 2012 to 2013

for ‘the amount of time given to your enquiry’ (8.9 in 2012 to 8.7 in 2013), ‘the listening skills

of the operator’ (9.5 in 2012 to 9.4 in 2013) and ‘the operator understands your needs and

what you want’ (up from 9.4 in 2012 to 9.5 in 2013).

� Females were found to be significantly more likely to place higher importance on all of the

CSR service attributes measured than their male counterparts. It should be noted however

that the level of importance on all attributes as rated by males was overall high.

� Residents that speak a language other than English at home displayed a tendency to

place lower importance on the following service attributes; ‘the waiting time to reach an

operator’ (8.7 versus 8.9), ‘accuracy & consistency of the information provided’ (9.0 versus

9.1) and ‘the operator speaks clearly’ (9.3 versus 9.4) compared to those that do not speak

another language at home. The same residents showed higher ratings of importance for

‘the amount of time given to your enquiry’ (8.8 versus 8.7) compared to those who only

speak English at home.


5.2 SATISFACTION RATINGS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVES

"Thinking about the most recent conversation you had with the operator from the Births Deaths &

Marriages call centre, can you tell me how satisfied you were with the following [service] aspects

of the call?”

Customers were asked to think about their most recent conversation with the BDM Call and to

rate their satisfaction with the previously listed features on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 = ‘very

dissatisfied’ and 10 = ‘very satisfied’.

Table 5.2: Satisfaction scores 2006-2013

Satisfaction rating (%)

Attribute

N/R Low (0-3)

Medium (4-6)

High (7-10)

Mean Score

(Ranking)

2009 0.0 1.2 4.7 94.1 9.1

2010 0.1 0.2 2.6 97.1 9.5

2011 0.3 0.1 1.0 98.6 9.6

2012 0.0 0.4 2.3 97.3 9.7

The operator speaks clearly

2013 0.2 0.5 2.5 96.8 9.4

2006 0.1 0.6 5.2 94.2 9.2

2007 0.0 0.9 4.8 94.3 9.2

2008 0.2 1.4 5.1 93.3 9.1

2009 0.0 0.9 3.8 95.3 9.2

2010 0.3 0.7 2.8 96.2 9.3

2011 0.4 0.4 3.6 95.6 9.4

2012 0.0 0.6 2.7 96.7 9.4

The information provided by the operator is easy to understand

2013 0.3 0.6 4.0 95.1 9.3

2006 0.0 0.7 3.2 96.1 9.4

2007 0.0 0.7 3.2 96.1 9.4

2008 0.0 0.4 3.7 95.9 9.3

2009 0.2 1.1 3.9 94.8 9.2

2010 0.1 0.5 2.6 96.8 9.4

2011 0.3 0.1 2.2 97.4 9.5

2012 0.1 0.6 2.9 96.4 9.4

Friendliness and courteous nature of the operator

2013 0.2 1.2 4.2 94.4 9.2

2006 0.1 0.8 3.3 95.8 9.3

2007 0.2 0.8 3.6 95.4 9.3

2008 0.0 1.0 3.6 95.4 9.1

2009 0.1 1.4 4.3 94.2 9.1

2010 0.3 0.4 3.3 96.0 9.3

2011 0.6 0.5 1.9 97.0 9.4

2012 0.2 0.7 2.7 96.4 9.4

Respect and sensitivity given to you by the operator

2013 0.2 1.2 3.9 94.7 9.2


2006 0.0 1.1 4.4 94.5 9.2

2007 0.0 1.1 4.6 94.3 9.2

2008 0.1 1.0 4.7 94.2 9.1

2009 0.0 1.1 4.4 94.5 9.1

2010 0.1 0.6 3.1 96.2 9.3

2011 0.3 0.2 3.2 96.3 9.4

2012 0.0 0.7 3.2 96.1 9.4

The operator understands your needs or what you want

2013 0.2 1.3 4.3 94.2 9.2

2009 0.0 0.5 3.0 96.5 9.3

2010 0.1 1.0 2.3 96.6 9.3

2011 0.3 0.4 2.0 97.3 9.5

2012 0.0 0.7 2.9 96.4 9.4

The listening skills of the operator

2013 0.1 0.7 5.2 94.0 9.2

2006 0.1 1.2 4.3 94.4 9.3

2007 0.0 1.3 4.4 94.3 9.2

2008 0.0 1.5 5.0 93.5 9.1

2009 0.0 1.7 4.9 93.4 9.1

2010 0.1 1.3 2.6 96.0 9.3

2011 0.3 0.7 2.0 97.0 9.5

2012 0.2 1.1 3.4 95.3 9.4

The helpfulness of the operator

2013 0.0 2.0 4.5 93.5 9.2

2006 0.3 1.2 5.2 93.3 9.2

2007 0.6 1.0 4.5 93.9 9.2

2008 0.2 2.8 6.7 90.4 8.9

2009 0.5 2.5 5.5 91.6 9.0

2010 0.2 1.3 3.3 95.2 9.3

2011 0.6 1.0 3.1 95.3 9.3

2012 0.2 0.9 4.0 94.9 9.3

Understanding of what to do next

2013 0.2 1.6 5.0 93.2 9.1

2006 0.0 0.7 4.8 94.5 9.2

2007 0.2 0.7 3.9 95.2 9.2

2008 0.0 1.8 7.8 90.5 8.8

2009 0.4 1.3 5.5 92.8 9.0

2010 0.2 1.0 2.1 96.7 9.3

2011 0.5 0.3 2.6 96.6 9.3

2012 0.0 0.8 3.7 95.5 9.2

The amount of time given to your enquiry

2013 0.1 0.9 5.4 93.6 9.1

2006 0.1 1.0 4.9 94.0 9.1

2007 0.1 1.0 5.9 93.0 9.0

2008 0.0 1.8 5.7 92.5 8.8

2009 0.2 2.0 6.2 91.7 8.9

2010 0.2 0.8 3.9 95.1 9.2

2011 0.5 0.3 3.4 95.8 9.2

2012 0.1 0.8 3.5 95.6 9.2

Knowledge and competence of the operator

2013 0.2 0.9 5.3 93.6 9.1

2006 2.8 21.0 5.2 89.9 9.1 Accuracy & consistency of the information provided

2007 1.5 2.3 4.9 91.3 9.1


2008 4.5 3.6 7.8 84.1 8.7

2009 2.7 2.5 6.2 88.7 8.9

2010 1.9 1.6 4.3 92.2 9.2

2011 2.6 1.1 3.9 92.4 9.2

2012 1.2 1.5 4.3 93.0 9.2

2013 0.8 1.6 5.9 91.7 9.1

2006 1.2 1.2 6.8 90.8 9.0

2007 0.5 1.6 5.9 92.0 9.0

2008 0.3 3.7 9.1 86.8 8.6

2009 0.6 2.5 7.1 89.9 8.8

2010 0.3 1.5 3.9 94.3 9.1

2011 0.6 1.0 3.4 95.0 9.3

2012 0.3 2.1 4.2 93.4 9.1

The efficiency or speed in dealing with the enquiry

2013 0.3 2.1 6.3 91.3 8.9

2006 0.4 1.6 14.3 83.7 8.3

2007 1.0 2.7 11.5 84.8 8.4

2008 0.1 20.0 27.9 52.0 6.2

2009 0.6 8.4 24.0 67.0 7.2

2010 0.6 3.3 11.6 84.6 8.3

2011 0.7 2.1 10.4 86.9 8.4

2012 0.3 5.3 14.0 80.5 8.0

The waiting time to reach an operator

2013 0.2 12.2 24.3 63.3 6.9

Cells with sig. higher scores relative to yellow cells Cells with sig.lower scores relative to green cells

Key results:

� Mean satisfaction scores ranged from 9.4 (the operator speaks clearly) to 6.9 (the waiting

time to reach an operator) out of 10.

� Analysis showed that all attributes recorded significantly lower satisfaction scores to the

previous 2012 measure except ‘knowledge and competence of the operator’ and

‘accuracy & consistency of the information provided’ which stayed statistically the same.

� Statistical testing revealed that the combined satisfaction measure for all 13 key attributes

was 9.0; statistically lower than in 2012 (9.3) and 2011 (9.4).

� Females were found to be significantly more satisfied on ‘understanding what to do next’

(9.2) compared to their male counterparts (8.9). There were no other significant differences

between the sexes.


� Further analysis revealed that customers of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent were

more satisfied with ‘accuracy & consistency of the information provided’ compared to

those that are not (10.5 versus 9.0).

� 25 to 39 year old respondents were less satisfied than older respondents with the

‘helpfulness of the operator’.


5.2.1 Relationship between performance and expectations (Quadrant analysis)

Quadrant analysis is a useful way of analysing both the level of importance that a service attribute

holds for customers and the satisfaction they have with the provision of that service. To do this,

mean satisfaction scores are plotted against mean importance scores for each service attribute.

In order to form the quadrants (or opportunity matrix) that separate higher and lower level priority

services, combined mean importance and satisfaction scores were calculated for the entire set of

13 attributes. These scores were: Importance = 9.26 & Satisfaction = 8.99. Thus for example, service

attributes with a mean importance score of less than 9.26 (i.e. a score lower than the overall

mean importance score), were classified as having ‘lower’ importance. Conversely, service

attributes with a mean score above 9.26 were classified as having ‘higher’ importance. The results

of the quadrant analysis are displayed in Graph 5.1.

Graph 5.1: Quadrant analysis

Satisfaction

Importance


Key results:

Dividing the figure above into quadrants based on the overall mean scores for importance and

satisfaction allows a specific interpretation:

1) Upper right quadrant (high importance and high satisfaction) represents BDM Call’s current

major strengths in service delivery. In 2013 eight of the thirteen components fell into this

category: ‘the operator speaks clearly’, ‘the listening skills of the operator’, ‘the operator

understood your needs or what you wanted’, ‘understanding of what to do next’, ‘knowledge

and competence of the operator’, ‘accuracy and consistency of the information provided’,

‘the information provided by the operator is easy to understand’, and ‘the helpfulness of the

operator’.

In comparison in 2012 there were five components that fell into this category: ‘the operator

speaks clearly’, ‘the listening skills of the operator’, ‘the operator understood your needs or what

you wanted’, ‘the information provided by the operator is easy to understand’, and ‘the

helpfulness of the operator’.

2) The upper left-hand quadrant (high importance but relatively lower satisfaction) denotes

service components where satisfaction could be improved. In 2013 no components fell into

this category, which is an excellent result.

In comparison in 2012 there were three components that fell into this category: ‘accuracy and

consistency of the information provided’, ‘understanding of what to do next’ and ‘’knowledge

and competence of the operator’.

3) The lower left quadrant (relatively lower importance but relatively lower satisfaction)

represents lower priority areas. Two attributes fell into this quadrant: ‘the efficiency or speed in

dealing with the enquiry’ and ‘the waiting time to reach an operator’.

In comparison in 2012 there were three components that fell into this category: ‘the efficiency or

speed in dealing with the enquiry’, ‘the amount of time given to your enquiry’ and ‘the waiting

time to reach an operator’.

4) The lower right-hand quadrant (relatively lower importance and high satisfaction) is often

interpreted as service components where delivery is exceeding expectations. The 2013 survey

found that three services attributes fell into this quadrant, these were: ‘respect and sensitivity

given to you by the operator’ ‘the amount of time given to your enquiry’ and ‘friendliness and

courteous nature of the operator’.


In comparison in 2012 there were two components that fell into this category: ‘respect and

sensitivity given to you by the operator’ and ‘friendliness and courteous nature of the operator’.


5.2.2 Prioritising Service Components

Despite its usefulness, quadrant analysis is not a complete priority assessment tool. For example, it

does not explicitly identify the gaps between importance and satisfaction. It is possible that a

large gap could exist between importance and satisfaction, even though a service or facility

appeared in the ‘high importance and high satisfaction’ quadrant.

Consequently, gap analysis was used as the second component in analysing the results. Gap

measures were calculated by subtracting the mean satisfaction score from the mean importance

score for each attribute. Generally, the larger the gap between importance and satisfaction, the

larger the gap between the operator’s service performance and client expectations.

Gap scores are presented in Table 5.3 below. The table ranks individual service aspects from the

highest gap to the lowest gap. Statistical testing was used to help categorise attributes as high,

medium and lower priority for improvement. Those aspects with a gap score that was found to be

significantly larger than the overall mean gap score (µ = 0. 2681) were given top priority (i.e. a

rating of 1). Service attributes with a gap score statistically equal to the overall mean gap score

were given second priority (rating of 2). Attributes with a gap score that was found to be

significantly less than the overall mean gap score were given third priority (rating of 3).

Table 5.3: Performance gap scores – gap between importance and satisfaction

Service attributes Performance

Gap* Priority

level Shift in priority level since 2012

The waiting time to reach an operator 1.95 1 No change

Accuracy & consistency of the information provided 0.50 1 No change

Understanding of what you need to do next 0.34 2 Decreased in priority

The operator understands your needs or what you want 0.30 2 No change

Knowledge and competence of the operator 0.27 2 Decreased in priority

The helpfulness of the operator 0.25 2 No change

The listening skills of the operator 0.19 2 No change

The information provided by the operator is easy to understand 0.13 3 Decreased in priority

The efficiency or speed in dealing with the enquiry 0.08 3 New attribute

The operator speaks clearly 0.06 3 Decreased in priority

Respect and sensitivity given to you by the operator -0.05 3 No change

Friendliness and Courteous nature of the operator -0.16 3 No change

The amount of time given to your enquiry -0.38 3 No change


Key results:

It is important to note that the overall mean gap score has increased from 2012 to 2013 due to the

significant increase in the gap score of ‘the waiting time to reach an operator’ (0.93 to 1.95

retrospectively). This has therefore lowered the priority of all other attributes even though

performance gap scores have generally stayed constant.

� The service attributes of ‘the waiting time to reach an operator’, and ‘the accuracy and

consistency of information provided’ were given priority ratings of 1. A priority rating of 1

indicates an ‘above average’ gap between the importance rating and the satisfaction

rating of these aspects.

- This indicates that ‘the waiting time to reach an operator’ could be improved as it

received a medium mean satisfaction score of 6.9, significantly lower than in 2012.

The BDM call centre did however still achieve high satisfaction scores for ‘the

accuracy and consistency of information provided’ (and therefore a relatively

small expectation gap) it is therefore more imperative that the current standard of

‘the accuracy and consistency of information provided’ at least be maintained.

� Attributes that were given priority level 2 ratings were found to have performance gaps

that were statistically the same as the average gap score of 0.2681. These attributes were:

‘understanding of what you need to do next’, ‘the operator understands your needs or

what you want’, knowledge and competence of the operator’, ‘the helpfulness of the

operator’ and ‘the listening skills of the operator. The two attributes ‘understanding of

what you need to do next’ and ‘knowledge and competence of the operator’ moved

down from priority level 1 to 2 since to 2012.

� Finally service attributes that were given priority level 3 were identified as having gap

scores that were significantly below the average gap score. These service attributes were:

‘the information provided by the operator is easy to understand’, ‘the efficiency or speed

in dealing with the enquiry’, ‘the operator speaks clearly’, ‘respect and sensitivity given to

you by the operator’, ‘friendliness and courteous nature of the operator’ and ‘the amount

of time given to your enquiry’. These all also achieved priority level 3 ratings in 2012, except

‘the information provided by the operator is easy to understand’ and ‘the operator speaks

clearly’ were priority level 2.


5.3 OVERALL SATISFACTION

"How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall service that you received from the

customer service operator? Use a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you were ‘very dissatisfied’

and 10 means you were ‘very satisfied’”.

Graph 5.2: Overall satisfaction with customer service operators

� The level of customer satisfaction remained statistically unchanged from that achieved in

2012, with 92.8% of customers providing a ‘high’ satisfaction score.

� A high mean score of 8.97 out of 10 was achieved. Testing found this to be statistically

lower than the overall satisfaction score of 9.18 recorded in 2012.

� Customers living in the Far West were significantly less satisfied than customers from other

regions.

� Only 1.4% (14 respondents) indicated they were dissatisfied with the overall service

provided by BDM Call CSRs (rating of 0-4). Below is the list of responses given by these

customers:

Mean 2010 = 9.14

Mean 2011 = 9.29

Mean 2012 = 9.18 Mean 2013 = 8.97


- Wrong information given.

- They interrupted me during the call and did not attempt to help me.

- Problem with the payment and credit card.

- Operator gave wrong information.

- Documents arrived with mistake with wrong information. They were

sarcastic they said “I don’t care”.

- Rude, not polite or understanding, angry when asked for information,

wanted to end call.

- He didn’t understand my anxiety over getting my certificate in time.

- Waiting too long money has already deducted from account no results.

- Didn’t take any initiative in finding out what I needed help with, off phone

fast.

- Lack of knowledge, not referring to others, poor English.

- Overall service dissatisfied, difficulty getting documents.

- She talked over me, not interested. Long time to get information as hard to

ask question.

- They could not give me information related to VIC or Canberra.

- Information was wrong, no idea when processed, overall 3 operators, 3

different answers.

- The form had incorrect information on it.

- Most of the time I called them they were very unfriendly, felt they were

always angry.

- Just said they’ll send a letter, no information on progress of enquiry.

- Brisk no straight answer on why taking so long, they came up with extra

document demands.

- Friendly but gave tracking number and wasted journey rather than looking

it up.

- Could not understand everything that was being said.

- Some comments made by CSO, general sense of lack of care.

- They were not helpful and didn’t appreciate the urgency and the

problems.

- Rang twice a week for 5 weeks regarding receiving certificate.

- Questions were not answered operator couldn’t understand.

- Taken too long to receive certificates.


"To what extent did the overall service that you received from the customer service operator

meet your expectations? I would like you to use a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is much worse than

expected and 10 is much better than expected.

Graph 5.3: Meeting customer expectations

Key results

� Approximately 8 in every 10 customers (79.8%) indicated that the service they received

from the BDM customer service representative had exceeded their expectations (rating of

7-10).

� The overall mean expectation score fell to 8.14 out of 10.0, from the previous measure of

8.38 in 2012.

� Statistical testing revealed a number of significant differences between different groups of

customers:

– Customers aged 40 to 54 years (8.4) were more likely to indicate that the service

they received from the CSR exceeded their expectations than those aged 25-39

years (8.0).

Mean 2010 = 8.27

Mean 2011 = 8.55 Mean 2012 = 8.38

Mean 2013 = 8.14


� The 30 customers who indicated the service delivered by BDM Call CSRs was below their

expectations (0-3 rating), were asked to indicate why. A list of their comments is provided

below:

– Wrong information was given.

– Told different things each time.

– She did not explain what documents I had to produce.

– Sent wrong certificate still haven’t received the right one.

– Rude. I expected more understanding and manners. They should have recognised

the importance of the issue.

– Other operators were good: this one was unhelpful and lacked knowledge.

– Operator was sarcastic, unprofessional, had the wrong information and there was

a 15 minute wait.

– Operator made issue more complicated than it had to be, no previous information

on documents.

– I expected the enquiry to be resolved sooner than this.

– Didn’t realise how difficult the enquiry would be.

– Shortage of staff delayed getting through to a customer Service operator

– Issue wasn’t resolved

– Info on wife: no info on self then no info on wife allowed: 3 calls: paid extra

– Taken long time to sort things out :passport:

– Nothing has been resolved

– I was given inconsistent info: delay in response time

– Expected to have form sent out just told go on internet : print

– Application was submitted 8 weeks prior at went missing

– Unhelpful: gave no info on progress of application: unfriendly

– Time the it will take to get what you need

– Still waiting taking to long

– Rather complex

– Quality of service: unfriendly: unhelpful: very rushed: uninterested

– Operator seemed disinterested in query:

– Not very informative and not interested

– Expected to get more help than was given

– Expected to get more help and direction on website

– Due to lost money order and getting run around

– 2 long waits on one call: long wait for documents: operator was fine

– The operator agreed the form was misleading


5.4 CUSTOMER PERCEPTIONS OF WAITING TIME

"Still thinking about the last enquiry you made to the Registry, approximately how long were you

on hold for before you reached a customer service operator?”

Graph 5.4: Customer perceptions of waiting time


Key results

� The proportion of BDM Call customers that perceived their waiting time to reach a BDM

Call CSR as being longer than 5 minutes significantly increased from 19.7% to 51.6%;

statistically the same as the highest result recorded in 2008.

� At the same time, the proportion of customers that reached a BDM Call CSR in 30 seconds

or less (including no wait) stood at 5.1%; statistically lower than the last measure (13%

recorded in 2012).

� Generally it is evident that the perceived waiting times of customers has increased in 2013

compared to the previous study in 2012.

� It is important to note that this question is a measure of perceived waiting time and may

be significantly different from actual measured waiting time.


5.5 RECOMMEND BDM CALL

"Would you recommend the Registry’s call Centre to others?”

Graph 5.5: Recommend registry

Key results

� In line with previous years, nearly all customers (93.7%) surveyed in 2013 indicated that they

would recommend the Registry’s call centre to others. While this was an exceptionally high

proportion, it did continue a downward trend from the high displayed in 2011 of 97.4%.


The 54 respondents (5.4%) who indicated that they would not recommend the service to others

were probed further as to why this was the case.

Table 5.4: Reasons why customer will not be recommending the BDM Call

% of

respondents

(n=63)

Number of

responses

Too long on hold waiting to talk to an operator 36.5 23

Better to go into the office / face to face 25.4 16

Better to go online, same information but much quicker 7.9 5

Depends on the operator you get, some are incompetent 1.6 1

It was not helpful 4.8 3

They don't have all the information 3.2 2

Conflicting information between operator and the office itself 3.2 2

No response given 3.2 2

Other 14.3 9

� As can be seen by the responses given in Table 5.4, the number one reason why customers

will not be recommending the BDM Call is because they are on hold too long waiting to

talk to an operator.


6 REGISTRY OFFICES

This section aims to identify whether BDM Call customers are aware of the locations of the

Registry’s three regional offices.

“Did you know that the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages has an office at the following

locations...?”

Graph 6.1: Awareness of regional offices (n=1004)

Key results

� Awareness of the four Registry offices has stayed statistically the same as the 2012

measure.

� Further analysis found that customers who spoke another language other than English at

home were significantly less likely to be aware of the Parramatta and Chippendale offices

compared to customers who only spoke English.


7 BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES PHONE NUMBER

The survey sought to find out how customers found the phone number to contact the BDM Call.

“Where did you find the phone number for the BDM Call?”

Graph 7.1: Phone number for BDM call (n = 1004)

Key results

� The proportion of customers using the internet to find Registry's phone number (BDM Call),

either through the use of a search engine (25.2%) or directly via the Registry website

(38.1%) has stayed statistically the same at 63.3%, since the last measure in 2012 of 61.0%.

� Following a downward trend, 8.9% of customers indicated that they use the phone book.

This is a significantly smaller proportion than the 16.8% reported in 2011 and 12.0% in 2012.


8 POST OFFICE CERTIFICATE APPLICATIONS

The survey lastly asked BDM Call customers about the option of applying for their certificate at

their local Australia Post office.

“Are you aware that you can now apply for a non-urgent Birth, Death or Marriage Certificate at a

number of Australia Post outlets?”

Graph 8.1: Aware of applying for a certificate through Australia Post. (n = 1004)

Key results

� Around one in three customers (33.8%) are aware that they can apply for a non-urgent

Birth, Death or Marriage Certificate through an Australia Post outlet. This is statistically the

same as the 2012 measure of 30.3%.

2013 NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey

44

“Would you prefer to utilise this service rather than post your application or visit the registry

personally?”

Graph 8.2: Preference for using Australia Post to apply for a certificate. (n = 1004)

Key results

� Of all customers 16.7% indicated that they would prefer to use Australia Post to apply for a

non-urgent certificate. This proportion equates to 49.6% of customers that are aware that

they can go through Australia Post. Statistically this is unchanged from 2012.


45

APPENDIX I

Questionnaire


46

Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Hello, my name is ...... from IRIS Research. Can I speak to …………

Hello, my name is .... and I am calling from IRIS Research. We are conducting a survey on behalf of the NSW Registry of

Births Deaths & Marriages and you indicated in a recent telephone enquiry that you would be interested in participating in

the survey.

Is it convenient to talk to you now? [ IF NOT, SCHEDULE CALL BACK ]

Great...the information you provide will of course be completely confidential and will not affect any further dealing you

have with the Registry.

The survey should take about 7 minutes and I just have to inform you that my supervisor may monitor this call for quality

control purposes.

SECTION 1: OVERALL REGISTERY EXPERIENCE

In this first section of the survey I would just like to get some information about your overall experience in dealing with the

Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages.

Q1. Firstly, what was the reason for your recent Registry enquiry?

1. Adoption

2. Births

3. Change of name – Adult

4. Change of name – Child

5. Death

6. Divorce

7. Family history

8. Interstate registration/overseas registration

9. Marriage

10. Single status

11. Wills

12. Other

Q2. And has your enquiry been resolved?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Not Sure

Q3. What is the current status of your enquiry?


47

Q4. OK, and using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you were ‘Extremely dissatisfied’ and 10 means you were

‘extremely satisfied’, how satisfied are you with the overall handling of your enquiry by the Registry to date?

[ CONFIRM: “So you were satisfied / dissatisfied” ]

0. ‘Extremely dissatisfied’

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

7

8

9

10 ‘Extremely satisfied’

X CANT SAY [ DO NOT READ OUT ]

Q5. What is the main reason for your dissatisfaction?

1. Issues with application

2. Wasn’t entitled to the certificate requested

3. Delay in receiving Certificate(s)

4. Errors on certificate(s) they received

5. Incorrect certificate(s) received

6. Incorrect number of certificates received

7. Confusion over payment (e.g. no record of payment received by BDM)

8. Further fee required

9. Incorrect payment deducted

10. Late registration of birth

11. Notice of intention to marry

12. Passport Office Australian Embassy

13. Proof of identity required

14. OTHER (Please specify)

Q6. Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means you were ‘Extremely dissatisfied’ and 10 means you were ‘extremely

satisfied’, how satisfied were you with the overall resolution of your enquiry?

[CONFIRM: “So you were satisfied / dissatisfied”]

0. ‘Extremely dissatisfied’

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6

7

8

9

10 ‘Extremely satisfied’

X CANT SAY [DO NOT READ OUT]


48

Q7. What was the main reason for your dissatisfaction?

1. Issues with application

2. Wasn’t entitled to the certificate requested

3. Delay in receiving Certificate(s)

4. Errors on certificate(s) they received

5. Incorrect certificate(s) received

6. Incorrect number of certificates received

7. Confusion over payment (e.g. no record of payment received by BDM)

8. Further fee required

9. Incorrect payment deducted

10. Late registration of birth

11. Notice of intention to marry

12. Passport Office Australian Embassy

13. Proof of identity required

14. OTHER (Please specify)

Q8. How many times did you have to call the Registry in order to finalise your enquiry?

1. Only Once

2. 2 times

3. 3 times

4. 4 times

5. 5 or more times

SECTION 2: BDM CALL CENTRE EXPERIENCE

Now we will turn our attention to the performance of the Registry’s Call Centre.

Q9. Firstly, I want you to think about the times you have made an enquiry to a large customer service organisation over the

phone. Please tell me how important each of the following features are to you.

Use a scale from 0 to 10, where a score of 0 means that aspect is ‘not at all important’ to you and a score of 10 means it is

‘very important’.

Importance Rating

So, when making telephone enquiries how important is…on

that scale from 0 to 10?

0.

Not at

all

imp.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Very

Imp. CAN’T

SAY

The knowledge & competence of the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

The operator understands your needs or what you want � � � � � � � � � � � �

The information provided by the operator is easy to

understand � � � � � � � � � � � �

The helpfulness of the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

Efficiency or speed in dealing with the enquiry � � � � � � � � � � � �

Friendliness & courteous nature of the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

Respect & sensitivity given to you by the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

The waiting time to reach an operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

The amount of time given to your enquiry � � � � � � � � � � � �

Understanding of what you need to do next � � � � � � � � � � � �

Accuracy & consistency of the information provided � � � � � � � � � � � �


49

PREAMBLE (FOR CUSTOMERS DISSATISFIED WITH OVERALL ENQUIRY OUTCOMES)

In this section of the survey we are interested in your satisfaction with the level of service you received from the operator

you talked to on the phone.

We understand that you may have issues with the registry regarding the resolution of your enquiry, however, we would like

you to put issues related to the outcome of your enquiry aside for the moment and FOCUS ONLY ON THE CUSTOMER

SERVICE YOU RECEIVED FROM THE CALL CENTRE OPERATOR.

Q10. Now, thinking about the most recent conversation you had with an operator from the Births Deaths & Marriages call

centre, can you tell me how satisfied you were with the following aspects of the call?

For each please rate your level of satisfaction on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means very dissatisfied and 10 means very

satisfied.

Importance Rating

So, how satisfied were you with…on that scale from 0 to 10?

0.

Very

dissati

sfied.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Very

Satisfi

ed

CAN’T

SAY

The knowledge & competence of the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

The operator understands your needs or what you want � � � � � � � � � � � �

The information provided by the operator is easy to

understand � � � � � � � � � � � �

The helpfulness of the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

Efficiency or speed in dealing with the enquiry � � � � � � � � � � � �

Friendliness & courteous nature of the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

Respect & sensitivity given to you by the operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

The waiting time to reach an operator � � � � � � � � � � � �

The amount of time given to your enquiry � � � � � � � � � � � �

Understanding of what you need to do next � � � � � � � � � � � �

Accuracy & consistency of the information provided � � � � � � � � � � � �

Q11. And using that same 0 to 10 scale, how would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the service that you

received from the customer service operator?

0. Very Dissatisfied

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. Very Satisfied

X. Can't Say

Q12. Why were you dissatisfied?


50

Q13. To what extent did the overall service that you received from the customer service operator meet your expectations?

Use a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‘much worse than you expected’ and 10 is ‘much better than you expected’.

0. Much Worse than expected

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.About what expected

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.Much better than expected

X. CANT SAY

Q14. Why did you provide this rating?

Q15. Still thinking about the last enquiry you made to the Registry call centre, approximately how long were you on hold

for before you reached a customer service operator? [READ OUT OPTIONS]

1. I was never on hold

2. Less than 30 seconds

3. 30 seconds to a minute

4. 1 to 2 minutes

5. 2 to 3 minutes

6. 4 to 5 minutes

7. Longer than 5 minutes

8. Unsure/can't say

Q16. Would you recommend using the Registry’s Call Centre to others?

1. Yes

2. No

Q17. Why do you say that?

Q18. Did you know that the Registry has an office at the following locations?

1. Parramatta (y/n)

2. Wollongong (y/n)

3. Newcastle (y/n)

4. Chippendale (y/n)

5. Not aware of any (y/n)


51

Q19. Where did you find the phone number of the BDM call centre?

1. Used a search engine to find the number

2. Went directly to the BDM website

3. Another State Government website

4. Another website

5. Physical phone book (phone directory)

6. Other (please specify)

Q20. Are you aware that you can now apply for a non-urgent Birth, Death or Marriage Certificate at a number of Australia

Post Outlets?

1. Yes

2. No

Q21. Would you prefer to utilise this service rather than post your application or visit the registry personally?

1. Yes

2. No

SECTION 3: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Q22. Which of following age groups do you fall into? (READ OUT AS NECESSARY)

1. 16 to 17 years

2. 18 to 24 years

3. 25 to 39 years

4. 40 to 54 years

5. 55 years plus

6. Refused

Q23. And from your voice I assume you are………..

1. Male

2. Female

3. Transgender

4. Refused

Q24. Are you Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

1. Yes

2. No

Q25. Do you speak a language other than English at home?

1. Yes

2. No

Q26. Which language do you speak at home?

1. Arabic including Lebanese

2. Cantonese

3. Italian


52

4. Greek

5. Vietnamese

6. Mandarin

7. Spanish

8. Tagalog (Filipino)

9. Macedonian

10. Korean

11. Hindi

12. Croatian

13. German

14. Serbian

15. Turkish

16. Other (specify)

Q27. Can you provide me with the postcode of your residential address?

Q28. Do you consider yourself to be a person with special needs due to a disability?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Refused

Q29. What form of disability do you have?

1. Hearing

2. Visual

3. Physical

4. Intellectual

5. Psychiatric

6. NOT STATED

7. Other (specify)

Q30. What is your take home pay each week?

1. Between $100 and $200





6. Over $1000

7. NOT STATED

8. NOT APPLICABLE – NO INCOME

CONCLUSION

That completes our interview. As this is social research it is carried out in compliance with the Federal Privacy Act. The

information you provided is confidential and only used for research purposes.

Again my name is ………… and my supervisor’s name is Judy. If you have any questions about the survey, you can call us

on 02- 42854446 between 9 and 5pm weekdays

Thank you for your co-operation.


53

APPENDIX 2

Margin of Error

NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages Customer Survey 2013 54

Size of sub sample

Proportion 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 250 300 350 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

5% 8.7% 6.2% 5.0% 4.4% 3.9% 3.6% 3.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4%

10% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 6.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.2% 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9%

15% 14.3% 10.1% 8.2% 7.1% 6.4% 5.8% 5.4% 5.0% 4.5% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.2% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3%

20% 16.0% 11.3% 9.2% 8.0% 7.2% 6.5% 6.0% 5.7% 5.1% 4.6% 4.3% 4.0% 3.6% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5%

25% 17.3% 12.2% 10.0% 8.7% 7.7% 7.1% 6.5% 6.1% 5.5% 5.0% 4.6% 4.3% 3.9% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7%

30% 18.3% 13.0% 10.6% 9.2% 8.2% 7.5% 6.9% 6.5% 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 4.6% 4.1% 3.7% 3.5% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9%

35% 19.1% 13.5% 11.0% 9.5% 8.5% 7.8% 7.2% 6.7% 6.0% 5.5% 5.1% 4.8% 4.3% 3.9% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0%

40% 19.6% 13.9% 11.3% 9.8% 8.8% 8.0% 7.4% 6.9% 6.2% 5.7% 5.2% 4.9% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1%

50% 20.0% 14.1% 11.5% 10.0% 8.9% 8.2% 7.6% 7.1% 6.3% 5.8% 5.3% 5.0% 4.5% 4.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.3% 3.2%

60% 19.6% 13.9% 11.3% 9.8% 8.8% 8.0% 7.4% 6.9% 6.2% 5.7% 5.2% 4.9% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1%

65% 19.1% 13.5% 11.0% 9.5% 8.5% 7.8% 7.2% 6.7% 6.0% 5.5% 5.1% 4.8% 4.3% 3.9% 3.6% 3.4% 3.2% 3.0%

70% 18.3% 13.0% 10.6% 9.2% 8.2% 7.5% 6.9% 6.5% 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 4.6% 4.1% 3.7% 3.5% 3.2% 3.1% 2.9%

75% 17.3% 12.2% 10.0% 8.7% 7.7% 7.1% 6.5% 6.1% 5.5% 5.0% 4.6% 4.3% 3.9% 3.5% 3.3% 3.1% 2.9% 2.7%

80% 16.0% 11.3% 9.2% 8.0% 7.2% 6.5% 6.0% 5.7% 5.1% 4.6% 4.3% 4.0% 3.6% 3.3% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5%

85% 14.3% 10.1% 8.2% 7.1% 6.4% 5.8% 5.4% 5.0% 4.5% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 3.2% 2.9% 2.7% 2.5% 2.4% 2.3%

90% 12.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.0% 6.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5% 3.2% 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9%

95% 8.7% 6.2% 5.0% 4.4% 3.9% 3.6% 3.3% 3.1% 2.8% 2.5% 2.3% 2.2% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4%