2019 Q4 Quarterly Pulse Check Survey (QPCS)
Summary Report
Please note that this report is not web accessible.
The accessible version is coming soon.
Item Page no.
1 Key Insights 2
2
Customer Satisfaction Measures2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Consumer2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer2.3 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business2.4 Business Confidence2.5 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business2.6 Customer Effort Score2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries
7
3
Insights on Satisfaction Drivers3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business3.3 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Effectiveness and Efficiency3.4 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Access to information and Online Services3.5 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Effectiveness and Efficiency3.6 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Access to information and Online Services3.7 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Honesty and Integrity
18
4
Channel Usage and Preference4.1 Channel Usage and Preference – Consumer4.2 Channel Usage and Preference – Business
30
5
AppendixAppendix A: Demographic Profile of RespondentsAppendix B: Background to the QPCSAppendix C: QPCS Quantitative Research ApproachAppendix D: Historical Consumer and Business Baseline MeasuresAppendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q1 2019 QPCS (CSMS at 99% Confidence Level)Appendix F: Terminology Definitions
33
Table of Contents
1
1. Key Insights
Theme Key Finding Evidence
Customer Satisfaction Index
CSI has remained relatively stable compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019) and last year (Q4 2018) for consumers.
• Consumer CSI has remained stable at 80.6 out of 100 compared to previous quarter (CSMS 2019)
• There is an insignificant increase in consumer CSI compared to a year ago (Q4 2018) from 79.9/ 100 to 80.6/100
Despite a significant increase in CSI for businesses compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019), CSI remains significantly lower than same period last year (Q4 2018).
The Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index shows a decline in business’ expectations of the economic climate over the next 12 months for a second quarter in a row.
• Compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019), Business CSI has increased significantly by 2.2 points to 79.8/100 from 77.6/100.
• However, compared to same period last year (Q4 2018), CSI has decreased significantly by 1.5 points to 79.8/100 from 81.3/100 (Q4 2018).
• The Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index is at 106 for November 2019, down from 111 in September 2019 and 114 in July 2019.
Customer Satisfaction Headline Measures
All three measures of customer experience (satisfaction, expectation and comparison to ideal) have remained stable amongst consumers.
• Consumer Satisfaction score is 7.8/10, Expectation score is 8/10 and Comparison to Ideal score is 7.4/10
• All three measures are statistically stable compared to CSMS 2019 as well as Q4 2018.
Decline in CSI for businesses versus a year ago (Q4 2018) has been driven by significant declines in Satisfaction and Expectations versus a year ago.
Increase in CSI versus last quarter is driven by an increase in satisfaction versus last quarter.
Business rating the NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) is seeing quarter on quarter declines.
• Compared to Q4 2018, business Expectation has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 8.0/10 to 7.7/10 and business Satisfaction has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 7.9/10 to 7.6/10.
• Compared to CSMS 2019, business Satisfaction has increased significantly by 0.2 points from 7.4/10 to 7.6/10.
• 82% of businesses rated NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) on Expectation in Q4 2018. After a brief increase in Q1 2019 to 83%, it has consistently declined quarter on quarter and stands at 77% in Q4 2019.
1.1 Key Insights
Consumer
Consumer
Business
Business
3
Theme Key Finding Evidence
Customer Effort Score (CES)*
Consumer CES has remained stable compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019) as well as a year ago (Q4 2018).
While CES for consumers across different industries are quite close, NSW Government Services are at the higher end of CES scale implying consumers have to put in more effort in their dealings with NSW Government Services compared to other industries.
• NSW Government Services have a CES of 5.8 out of 10 and this has remained stable versus last quarter as well as a year ago.
• The gap between industries with highest effort score (Telco service providers – 5.9/10) and lowest effort score (Local councils, energy retailers, airlines – all with a score of 5.6/10) is only 0.3 points.
• NSW Government Services are on par with Federal Government with a CES of 5.8 out of 10.
While the long terms trends are more volatile for businesses, the CES has seen a quarterly increase for a second quarter in a row.
In comparison to other industries, NSW Government Services are rated highest in terms of the effort businesses have to put forth while dealing with them.
• CES for NSW Government Services has increased significantly compared to Q4 2018 from 6.1 out of 10 to 6.6 out of 10.
• Though not significant, there has been an increase on CES for a second quarter in a row up to 6.5 from 6.4 out of 10 in CSMS 2019.
• Compared to other industries, NSW Government Services has the highest CES score with Airlines having the lowest score of 6.1 out of 10.
1.1 Key Insights
Consumer
Business
The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. A decrease in CES is a positive shift.
4
Theme Key Finding Evidence
Satisfaction Drivers Attributes corresponding to primary opportunity areas of ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’ and ‘Access to Information and Online Services’ have remained stable compared to the previous quarter as well as a year ago.
Attributes across all four areas (Employees, Processes, Values and Goals) have remained stable compared to a year ago (Q4 2018). However, significant uplift is seen for some of the attributes compared to the previous quarter (CSMS 2019).
• Performance against the following attributes increased significantly compared to last quarter:
• Employees: ‘open and honest’ and ‘clear communication’
• Values: ‘provided with good services and outcomes I could trust’ and ‘accountability for service delivered’
• Processes: ‘employee took initiative and made decisions’
• Goals: ‘privacy was upheld’ and ‘I understood the steps involved with the process’
• ‘Employees were held accountable for their actions’ and ‘Employees acted efficiently and effectively to reach the right outcomes’ are attributes relating to the primary opportunity area of ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’. Scores for these statements have remained stable at 7.4 out of 10 and 7.7 out of 10 respectively compared to the previous quarter (CSMS 2019) as well as a year ago (Q4 2018).
Attributes corresponding to the primary opportunity area of ‘Honesty and Integrity’ and ‘Efficiency and Effectiveness’ have shown a significant uplift versus previous quarter (CSMS 2019) and have remained stable versus a year ago.
However, compared to a year ago, there have been significant declines in the scores for some of the attributes across all for areas of Employees, Processes, Goals and Values
• Performance against the following attributes increased significantly compared to last quarter however in all cases the result is a decline on a year ago:
• Employees: ‘employees acted efficiently and effectively to reach the right outcomes’, ‘clear communication’ and ‘employees were open and honest during the process’ – which are attributes related to the primary opportunity area of ‘Honesty and Integrity’
• Values: ‘provided with good service and outcomes I could trust’
• Processes: ‘employees took initiative and made decisions’
• Goals: ‘understood the steps involved’
1.1 Key Insights
Consumer
Business
5
Theme Key Finding Evidence
Channel Usage and Preference
Face to face remains the most used as well as the most preferred channel for consumers.
There is an opportunity to better align channel usage with preference through increase online services.
• Face to face and email usage largely aligns with preference. (Face to face: 39% usage vs. 40% preference. Email: 11% usage vs. 12% preference).
• Telephone, mail and third party channel usage exceeds preference (Telephone: 19% usage vs. 17% preference, Mail: 7% usage vs. 2% preference, Third Party: 4% usage vs. 2% preference).
• Online usage currently falls short of preference (20% usage vs. 23% preference), implying there may be an opportunity to better meet customer preferences through increasing online services.
Face to face remains the most preferred as well as most used channel for businesses.
There is an opportunity to shift channel access away from telephone, mail and third party towards face to face where usage exceeds preference.
• Face to face channel preference far exceeds usage (31% usage vs. 38% preference). Usage has declined 9% points compared to Q4 2018.
• Telephone, mail and third party channel usage exceeds preference (Telephone: 21% usage vs. 17% preference, Mail: 6% usage vs. 2% preference, Third Party: 4% usage vs. 2% preference).
• Online and email channel usage aligns with preference (Online: 19% usage vs. 20% preference, Email: 18% usage vs. 17% preference).
1.1 Key Insights
Consumer
Business
6
2. Customer Satisfaction Measures
2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Consumer
2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer
2.3Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business
2.4 Business Confidence
2.5 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business
2.6 Customer Effort Score
2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries
Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2019 Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Quarterly Pulse Check Survey 2019
Quarter–on–quarter comparison of QPCS results (CSMS 2019 vs. Q4 2019)
• Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has remained stable at 80.6/100
Q4 2019 QPCS Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for consumers has remained stable when compared to both the 2019 CSMS and the same quarter last
year. The CSI for Q4 2019 is higher than the Premier’s priority target of 79.02/100.
Year–on–year comparison of QPCS results (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019)
• CSI has remained stable – an insignificant increase of 0.7 points to 80.6/100 from 79.9/100. However the shift is not statistically significant.
Note: All the numbers are subject to rounding.
2.1 Customer Satisfaction Index – Consumer
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Q4 2019 QPCS Survey Details: Number of respondents: 1,005 consumers (1,570 responses)Fieldwork period: from 29 October to 5 November 2019
76.7
78.777.8
79.578.6
79.380.2 79.9 79.6
78.979.9 79.4
80.9 80.6 80.6
CSMS 2015(n=6,549)
CSMS 2016(n=6,971)
Q4 2016(n=1,612)
Q1 2017(n=1,540)
Q2 2017(n=1,594)
CSMS 2017(n=6,527)
Q4 2017(n=1,508)
Q1 2018(n=1,610)
Q2 2018(n=1,603)
CSMS 2018(n=6,701)
Q4 2018(n=1,535)
Q1 2019(n=1,575)
Q2 2019(n=1,555)
CSMS 2019(n=6,492)
Q4 2019(n=1,517)
Premier’s Target –79.02
Consumer
8
Significant changes CSMS 2015*
CSMS 2016
Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017CSMS 2017
Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018CSMS 2018
Q4 2018
Q1 2019
Q22019
CSMS 2019
Q4 2019
Satisfaction NA – – – – – –
Expectation NA – – – – – –
Comparison to ideal NA – – – – – – – – –
The CSI is a composite of the following baseline measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to ideal service. All three baseline measures have
remained stable compared to last quarter (2019 CSMS vs. Q4 2019) as well as in comparison to same period last year (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019).
Quarter–on–quarter comparison of QPCS results (CSMS 2019 vs. Q4 2019)
• Satisfaction has remained statistically stable at 7.8/10.
• Expectation has an insignificant decrease of 0.1 points from 8.1/10 to 8.0/10.
• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable at 7.4/10.
2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer
Year–on–year comparison of QPCS results (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019)
• Satisfaction has remained stable at 7.8/10.
• Expectation has remained stable at 8.0/10.
• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable – an insignificant increase of 0.1 points from 7.3/10 to 7.4/10.
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
No significant movement from previous quarter or same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
* Data for comparison with previous period not available
–Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.6 7.67.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6
7.8 7.77.8
7.8 7.8
7.7
7.8 7.8
7.97.8
7.9
7.87.9 7.9 7.9
8.0
7.8
8.08.1 8.0
6.9
7.2 7.2
7.3
7.2 7.27.3
7.2 7.37.2
7.3 7.2
7.4 7.4 7.4
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.1
8.3
CSMS 2015(n=6,593)
CSMS 2016(n=7,015)
Q4 2016(n=1,621)
Q1 2017(n=1,548)
Q2 2017(n=1,605)
CSMS 2017(n=6,559)
Q4 2017(n=1,518)
Q1 2018(n=1,628)
Q2 2018(n=1,618)
CSMS 2018(n=6,733)
Q4 2018(n=1,545)
Q1 2019(n=1,590)
Q2 2019(n=1,564)
CSMS 2019(n=6,532)
Q4 2019(n=1,540)
Satisfaction
Expectation
Comparison toideal
Consumer
9
9
Consumer – Outcome Measures
Satisfaction
Average (out of 10)
Expectation Comparison to Ideal
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
8% 9% 8% 7% 9% 6% 8% 5% 6% 6%13% 13% 11% 11% 11%
12% 15% 13% 14% 12%11% 12% 13% 11% 10%
16% 16% 14% 16% 15%
80% 77% 80% 79% 79% 84% 80% 82% 84% 84%72% 71% 75% 74% 73%
Q4 2018(n=1,583)
Q1 2019(n=1,611)
Q2 2019(n=1,577)
CSMS 2019(n=6,771)
Q4 2019(n=1,554)
Q4 2018(n=1,579)
Q1 2019(n=1,614)
Q2 2019(n=1,578)
CSMS 2019(n=6,692)
Q4 2019(n=1,547)
Q4 2018(n=1,545)
Q1 2019(n=1,590)
Q2 2019(n=1,564)
CSMS 2019(n=6,532)
Q4 2019(n=1,540)
Low (1-4) Medium (5-6) High (7-10)
Consumer
7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.4
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence levelNote: Figures in the graph are subject to roundingPlease refer to appendix section “Historical Consumer and Businesses Baseline Measures” for more historical data
Since Q2 2019, average satisfaction, expectation and comparison to ideal scores have remained relatively stable for consumers. The proportion of consumers who have rated the NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) on expectation and satisfaction measures has remained stable at 84% and 79% respectively versus the previous quarter. The proportion of consumers who rated the NSW Government Service high (7–10 out of 10) on the comparison to ideal measure declined from 75% in Q2 2019 to 73% in Q4 2019.
2.2 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Consumer
10
7.8 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.8 8.0 8.08.1
Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2019 Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Quarterly Pulse Check Survey 2019
Quarter–on–quarter comparison of QPCS results (CSMS 2019 vs. Q4 2019)
• Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) has increased significantly by 2.2 points to 79.8/100 from 77.6/100 (CSMS 2019).
Q4 2019 QPCS Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) for business has increased significantly when compared to CSMS 2019. In comparison to same period last
year (Q4 2018), it has decreased significantly.
Year–on–year comparison of QPCS results (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019)
• CSI has decreased significantly by 1.5 points to 79.8/100 from 81.3/100 (Q4 2018).
Q4 2019 QPCS Survey Details: Number of respondents: 1,012 businesses (1,493 total responses)Fieldwork period: from 29 October to 5 November 2019
Note: All the numbers are subject to rounding.
2.3 Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) – Business
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
76.6
78.4
76.1
77.6 77.678.3
77.8
79.6 79.7
78.2
81.3 81.280.7
77.6
79.8
CSMS 2015(n=1,645)
CSMS 2016(n=1,712)
Q4 2016(n=375)
Q1 2017(n=380)
Q2 2017(n=365)
CSMS 2017(n=1,638)
Q4 2017(n=343)
Q1 2018(n=365)
Q2 2018(n=1,536)
CSMS 2018(n=1,494)
Q4 2018(n=1,523)
Q1 2019(n=1,449)
Q2 2019(n=1,372)
CSMS 2019(n=1,745)
Q4 2019(n=1,458)
Premier’s Target –81.16
Business
11
The Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index shows a decline in business’ expectations of the economic climate over the next 12 months for a second month in a row. While Business CSI has shown an improvement in the latest survey, it remains lower than same period last year (81.3 in Q4 2018), consistent with declining confidence.
Business
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Comparison of Business CSI and Business Confidence Measures (Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index)
About the Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index: The Index is based on 5 different attributes measuring Australian business’ expectations of the economic climate over the next 12 months. (n=~1,000 Australian businesses per month). Data points for the Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index are taken from the corresponding month of QPCS/CSMS fieldwork. http://www.roymorgan.com/morganpoll/consumer–confidence/roy–morgan–business–confidence.
79.6 79.7
75.9
81.381.2
80.7
77.6
79.8
114117
124
120
115
119117
114 114
110112
113 114112
106 106107
103
114 115 114 114
111
106
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
75
82
No
v-1
7
Dec
-17
Jan
-18
Feb
-18
Mar
-18
Ap
r-18
May
-18
Jun
-18
Jul-
18
Au
g-18
Sep
-18
Oct
-18
No
v-1
8
Dec
-18
Jan
-19
Feb
-19
Mar
-19
Ap
r-19
May
-19
Jun
-19
Jul-
19
Au
g-19
Sep
-19
Oct
-19
No
v-1
9
Bu
siness C
on
fiden
ce Ind
ex
CSI
CSI Roy Morgan Business Confidence Index*
2.4 Business Confidence
12
Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Customer Satisfaction Measurement Survey 2019 Source: NSW Office of the Customer Service Commissioner, Quarterly Pulse Check Survey 2019
7.2
7.5 7.2
7.4
7.37.5 7.5
7.6
7.8
7.4
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.47.6
7.6
7.9
7.6
8.1
7.5
7.77.6
7.7
8.1
7.7
8.0 8.07.9
7.87.7
7.0
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.1 7.1 7.0
7.27.3
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.1
7.3
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.1
8.3
CSMS 2015(n=1,654)
CSMS 2016(n=1,718)
Q4 2016(n=375)
Q1 2017(n=380)
Q2 2017(n=365)
CSMS 2017(n=1,646)
Q4 2017(n=345)
Q1 2018(n=367)
Q2 2018(n=1,554)
CSMS 2018(n=1,506)
Q4 2018(n=1,535)
Q1 2019(n=1,455)
Q2 2019(n=1,378)
CSMS 2019(n=1,753)
Q4 2019(n=1,467)
Satisfaction
Expectation
Comparison toideal
Significant changes CSMS 2015*
CSMS 2016
Q4 2016
Q1 2017 Q2 2017
CSMS 2017
Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018
Q4 2018
Q1 2019
Q2 2019
CSMS 2019
Q4 2019
Satisfaction NA – – – – – –
Expectation NA – –
Comparison to ideal NA – – – – – – – –
The CSI is a composite of the following baseline measures: expectation, satisfaction and comparison to idea service. Average satisfaction has increased
significantly in comparison to last quarter (CSMS 2019). In comparison to same period last year (Q4 2018), satisfaction and expectation have shown a
significant decrease. Average scores for comparison to ideal have remained stable compared to last quarter as well as same period last year.
Quarter–on–quarter comparison of QPCS results (CSMS 2019 vs. Q4 2019)
• Satisfaction has increased significantly by 0.2 points from 7.4/10 to 7.6/10.
• Expectation has remained stable – insignificant decrease of 0.1 points from 7.8/10 to 7.7/10.
• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable – insignificant increase of 0.2 points from 7.1/10 to 7.3/10.
Year–on–year comparison of QPCS results (Q4 2018 vs. Q4 2019)
• Satisfaction has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 7.9/10 to 7.6/10.
• Expectation has decreased significantly by 0.3 points from 8.0/10 to 7.7/10.
• Comparison to ideal service has remained stable – insignificant decrease of 0.1 points from 7.4/10 to 7.3/10.
2.5 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
* Data for comparison with previous period not available
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
No significant movement from previous quarter or same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level–
Business
13
8.0
Business – Outcome Measures
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
Average (out of 10)
ExpectationSatisfaction Comparison to Ideal
5% 9% 8% 8% 11% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8% 9% 8% 10% 12% 13%16% 12% 14%
20% 13%14% 11% 14% 15% 14% 18% 13%
17%20% 16%
79% 79% 79%72% 77% 82% 83% 81% 78% 77% 73% 79% 73% 68% 71%
Q4 2018(n=1,553)
Q1 2019(n=1,469)
Q2 2019(n=1,387)
CSMS 2019(n=1,801)
Q4 2019(n=1,484)
Q4 2018(n=1,552)
Q1 2019(n=1,465)
Q2 2019(n=1,389)
CSMS 2019(n=1,786)
Q4 2019(n=1,479)
Q4 2018(n=1,535)
Q1 2019(n=1,455)
Q2 2019(n=1,378)
CSMS 2019(n=1,753)
Q4 2019(n=1,467)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Business
7.9 7.8 7.77.9 7.8 7.8 7.4 7.67.4 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.3
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
8.0
The proportion of businesses who rate NSW Government Services high (7–10 out of 10) on Expectation has been declining since Q1 2019 from 83% to 77% in the latest quarter. The increase in the CSI compared to last quarter is a result of increasing satisfaction from 72% in CSMS 2019 to 77% in Q4 2019.
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to roundingPlease refer to appendix section “Historical Consumer and Businesses Baseline Measures” for more historical data
2.5 Satisfaction, Expectation and Comparison to Ideal – Business
14
In this section, customers rated the level of effort for individual services; this graph shows the average of those ratings Q: Thinking about your direct dealing with [SERVICE], how much effort did you personally have to put forth? 1 is ‘Low effort’ and 10 is ‘High effort’
Overall, businesses perceive they have to put forth higher effort than consumers when interacting with NSW Government services.Since Q4 2018, the customer effort score (CES) has remained relatively stable among consumers and is at 5.8 out of 10 in Q4 2019. Whereas the CES for businesses has seen a significant increase of 0.4 points vs. Q4 2018. CES for businesses has steadily increased quarter on quarter since Q2 2019.
LowerEffort
*The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. A decrease in CES is a positive shift.
Consumer Business
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence levelStatistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
CSMS results
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to roundingInsights from Q2 Qualitative Discussion
5.9 5.9
5.75.9
6.15.9
6.0
6.0
5.75.8
5.85.9 5.8
6.3
6.9
6.5
4.9
6.76.9
6.0
6.6
6.1
6.5
6.1
6.4 6.5
Consumers Businesses
NSW Government service interaction Customer Effort Score.
HigherEffort
Q1 2017(n=1,529)(n=382)
Q2 2017(n=1,590)(n=366)
Q4 2017(n=1,496)(n=345)
Q1 2018(n=1,611)(n=373)
Q2 2018(n=1,585)(n=1,535)
Q4 2018(n=1,526)(n=1,508)
CSMS 2017(n=6,501)(n=1,650)
CSMS 2018(n=6,634)(n=1,496)
Q1 2019(n=1,548)(n=1,458)
Q4 2016(n=1,601)(n=378)
Q2 2019(n=1,542)(n=1,360)
ConsumerBusiness
CSMS 2019(n=6,446)(n=1,750)
Q4 2019(n=1,507)(n=1,459)
2.6 Customer Effort Score
15
6.25.9
6.05.7 5.8
6.0
5.4
6.15.8 6.0
5.6 5.66.0
5.5
6.15.8 5.9
5.5 5.7 5.95.5
6.2 5.9 6.05.6 5.8 5.9
5.65.9 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.6
Telephone serviceproviders
Federal Government NSW Governmentservices
Banks My Local Council Energy retailers Airlines
Q2 2018 QPCS (n=711 to 943) Q4 2018 QPCS (n=680 to 929) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=688 to 940) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=713 to 940) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=735 to 928)
For this section, customers provided a rating for overall effort with NSW Government services in comparison to other industries/sectors Q: Thinking about all your direct dealings with each of the following Australian industries and Government services over the previous 6 months, how much effort did you personally have to put forth?
CES for NSW Government overall is relatively high when compared to other industries. It is second highest after Telephone service providers and on par with the Federal Government at 5.8 out of 10.
Customer Effort Score benchmarked at a Whole of Government level against other industries/sectors.
Consumer
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
*The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. A decrease in CES is a positive shift. Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries – Consumers
16
6.1 6.45.8 6.0
6.0 5.8 5.6
6.26.4
5.96.2
5.8 5.8 5.8
6.4 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.16.16.6
6.1 6.2 6.1 6.2
5.6
6.6 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.46.3 6.1
NSW Governmentservices
Telephone serviceproviders
Federal Government Energy retailers My Local Council Banks Airlines
Q2 2018 QPCS (n=726 to 902) Q4 2018 QPCS (n=707 to 922) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=760 to 960) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=793 to 962) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=802 to 970)
Business
Q: Thinking about all your direct dealings with each of the following Australian industries and Government services over the previous 6 months, how much effort did you personally have to put forth?
Customer Effort Score benchmarked at a Whole of Government level against other industries/sectors.
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
*The lower the average Customer Effort Score, the easier customers perceive interactions to be with different services. A decrease in CES is a positive shift. Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
For this section, customers provided a rating for overall effort with NSW Government services in comparison to other industries/sectors
2.7 Comparison of Customer Effort Score to other industries – Business
Compared to other industries, businesses ranked NSW Government services as the highest in terms of effort required to deal with in Q4 2019 with an average score of 6.6 out of 10. This is a decline from Q2 2019, where NSW Government services was ranked fourth highest behind Telephone service providers, Energy retailers and Banks with an average score of 6.1 out of 10. While the trends are volatile, effort scores are relatively high (greater than 5 out of 10) across all industries, indicating that the high level of effort that businesses have to put into their interactions is not unique to the NSW Government.
17
3. Insights on Satisfaction Drivers
3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer
3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business
3.3 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Effectiveness and Efficiency
3.4 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Access to information and Online Services
3.5 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Effectiveness and Efficiency
3.6 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Access to information and Online Services
3.7 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Honesty and Integrity
8.0
7.3 7
.7 7.8
7.6 7.8
7.57.8
7.2 7.5 7.7
7.4 7.6
7.4
7.9
7.5 7.7 7.7
7.6 7.8
7.6
7.0 7.2 7.5
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.9
7.4 7.7 7.8
7.6 7.8
7.5
Employees were open andhonest during the process
Employees were heldaccountable for their actions
Employees acted efficientlyand effectively to reach the
right outcomes
Communications were clear,prompt and easy to
understand
Employees acted withempathy
I was provided with goodservice and outcomes I could
trust
I felt there was accountabilityfor services delivered
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,146 to 1,518) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,155 to 1,527) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,146 to 1,525) CSMS 2019 (n=5,686 to 6,619) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,147 to 1,492)
Der
ived
Dri
vers
(C
SMS
20
19
)A
vera
ge (
ou
t o
f 1
0)
Q: We would now like to ask you some questions specifically about your experience with [SERVICE]. Thinking now about [its employees; its processes; service overall; the values they uphold], to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’.
Employees Values
Service Quality AccountabilityFairness and empathyHonesty and integrity of
employees
Consumer
Efficiency and effectiveness Communication
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer (1/2)
In comparison to last quarter (CSMS 2019), employee attributes of ‘Open and honest during the process’ and ‘Clear communication’ have shown a significant improvement. Attributes aligned to Efficiency and Effectiveness, which has been identified as a primary opportunity for driving satisfaction showed no significant shift compared to last quarter as well as a year ago. Value attributes pertaining to Service Quality and Accountability have also increased significantly to 7.8 out of 10 and 7.5 out of 10 respectively compared to CSMS 2019.
* The corresponding CSMS attribute “Are held accountable” has also been mapped against the QPCS attribute “Employees were held accountable for their actions” for driver analysis section
19
7.6
7.4
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.4
7.3
8.0
7.9
7.6
7.5
7.5
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.0 7
.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
8.1
7.9
7.7
The process was simple and efficient Employees took initiative and madedecisions
My privacy was upheld & personalinformation was protected & respected
I understood the steps involved with theprocess
I had good access to information andcould find what I needed
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,216 to 1,521) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,262 to 1,547) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,217 to 1,528) CSMS 2019 (n=5,486 to 6,277) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,220 to 1,509)
Der
ived
Dri
vers
(C
SMS
20
19
)
Process Goals
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes Employee Autonomy Privacy Transparency Access to information
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Consumer
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Employee Autonomy increased significantly by 0.5 points to 7.5 out of 10 compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019). Attributes related to Privacy and Transparency also showed significant improvement compared to CSMS 2019 – 8.1 out of 10 and 7.9 out of 10 respectively.
Q: We would now like to ask you some questions specifically about your experience with [SERVICE]. Thinking now about [its employees; its processes; service overall; the values they uphold], to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’.
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
3.1 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Consumer (1/2)
20
7.9
7.3 7
.7 7.8
7.5 7.8
7.48
.0
7.5 7.8 7.8
7.7 7.9
7.67
.9
7.4 7.7 7.8
7.6 7.7
7.5
6.7 7.0 7.2
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.8
7.2 7.4 7.7
7.4 7.6
7.3
Employees were open andhonest during the process
Employees were heldaccountable for their actions
Employees acted efficientlyand effectively to reach the
right outcomes
Communications were clear,prompt and easy to
understand
Employees acted withempathy
I was provided with goodservice and outcomes I could
trust
I felt there was accountabilityfor services delivered
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,203 to 1,503) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,241 to 1,426) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,105 to 1,344) CSMS 2019 (n=1,586 to 1,761) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,231 to 1,443)
3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business (1/2)
Der
ived
Dri
vers
(C
SMS
20
19
)
Business
Employees Values
Service Quality AccountabilityEmpathy and communication
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
For business, compared to last quarter (CSMS 2019), all Employee attributes except ‘employees acted with empathy’ showed a significant positive shift. The attribute pertaining to Accountability – ‘there was accountability for services delivered’ also showed a significant growth. Compared to a year ago (Q4 2018), attributes pertaining to efficiency and effectiveness, clear communication and good service outcomes showed significant declines.
Q: We would now like to ask you some questions specifically about your experience with [SERVICE]. Thinking now about [its employees; its processes; service overall; the values they uphold], to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’.
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Honesty and integrity of employees
Efficiency and effectiveness
21
7.5
7.5
8.1
8.0
7.7
7.6
7.6 8
.1
8.0
7.8
7.5
7.5
8.1
8.0
7.7
6.6
7.4
7.27.3
7.2
8.1
7.8
7.7
The process was simple and efficient Employees took initiative and madedecisions
My privacy was upheld & personalinformation was protected & respected
I understood the steps involved with theprocess
I had good access to information andcould find what I needed
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,253 to 1,517) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,241 to 1,434) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,137 to 1,360) CSMS 2019 (n=1,554 to 1,703) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,267 to 1,459)
3.2 Impact of Satisfaction Drivers – Business (2/2)D
eriv
ed D
rive
rs
(CSM
S 2
01
9)
Business
Process Goals
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Simplicity and Efficiency of Processes
Responsiveness Privacy Transparency Access to information
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Compared to previous quarter (CSMS 2019), attributes pertaining to Responsiveness (‘took initiative and made decisions’) and Privacy showed significant positive shifts. Compared to a year ago (Q4 2018), Process attributes showed significant declines. The attribute pertaining to Transparency also declined significantly vs. Q4 2018.
Q: We would now like to ask you some questions specifically about your experience with [SERVICE]. Thinking now about [its employees; its processes; service overall; the values they uphold], to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 is ‘Strongly disagree’ and 10 is ‘Strongly agree’.
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
22
‘Efficiency and effectiveness’ and ‘access to information and online services’ were identified as primary
opportunity areas to increase satisfaction for consumers in the 2019 CSMS Survey
The QPCS for Q4 2019 deep–dives into these primary opportunity areas by asking consumers more specific questions regarding their experiences with NSW Government Services. The following statements were asked to provide greater insight.
Efficiency and Effectiveness:• Are proactive in helping • See things from my perspective• Provide good value services • Focus on addressing customer needs • Get things done as quickly as possible • Deliver against actions promised (i.e. Do what they say they will
do)• Are respectful • Are consistent• Explain intended actions clearly
Access to information and online services:• Is making it easier to access information about their services• Is making best use of online services to improve convenience and
efficiency for customers• Provides documents that are easy to complete (i.e. it is easy to
understand instructions and complete)• Uses language that is simple and widely accessible (including
harder to reach audiences) • Is constantly keeping information up to date• Encourage public participation in decision making
Importance versus performance against each of the drivers of satisfaction 2019 for consumers
Employee Attributes
Goals Processes
HIGH
Secondary Opportunities These do not significantly impact the satisfaction score
LOW
Rel
ativ
e im
po
rtan
ce
LOW HIGH
Efficiency and effectiveness
Access to information and online services
Employee Autonomy
Privacy
Fairness and empathy
Communication
Honesty and integrity
Median across drivers
Primary Opportunities
2
1
Transparency
Strengths to ‘build on’
Median across attributes
Average score across attributes (out of 10)
Simplicity and efficiency of
processes
Consumer
23
Primary opportunity areas to increase Consumer satisfaction
(identified in the 2019 CSMS Survey)
7.6 7.7
7.6
7.5 7.6 8
.0
7.47.5 7.6
7.5
7.3 7.5 7
.9
7.4
7.3 7
.6
7.6 7.7
7.7
7.5 7.7 8
.1
7.7
7.5 7
.7
7.6
7.2 7
.5
7.1
7.67.7 7.8
7.7
7.5 7
.7 8.0
7.7
7.5 7
.8
Are proactive in helping Provide good valueservices
Focus on addressingcustomer needs
Get things done asquickly as possible
Deliver against actionspromised
Are respectful Are consistent See things from myperspective
Explain intendedactions clearly
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,241 to 1,493) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,244 to 1,506) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,230 to 1,491) CSMS 2019 (n=5,686 to 6,363) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,250 to 1,465)
3.3 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Effectiveness and Efficiency
‘Are Respectful’ is the attribute with the highest rating of 8.0 out of 10. Attributes that have shown significant improvement in comparison to CSMS 2019 are ‘provide good value services’ (7.8 out of 10), ‘Get things done as quickly as possible’ (7.5 out of 10), ‘Are consistent’ (7.7 out of 10), ‘See things from my perspective’ (7.5 out of 10) and ‘Explain intended actions clearly’ (7.8 out of 10).
All attribute scores have remained stable in comparison to a year ago (Q4 2018).
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
Employees
Consumer
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Att
rib
ute
was
exc
lud
ed i
n C
SMS
20
19
Att
rib
ute
was
exc
lud
ed i
n C
SMS
20
19
Att
rib
ute
was
exc
lud
ed i
n C
SMS
20
19
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Att
rib
ute
intr
od
uce
d in
QP
CS
fro
m Q
1 2
01
9
* The corresponding CSMS attribute “Are held accountable” has also been mapped against the QPCS attribute “Employees were held accountable for their actions” for driver analysis section
Att
rib
ute
intr
od
uce
d in
QP
CS
fro
m Q
1 2
01
9
24
Q: Thinking now about its employees, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – Strongly Disagree to 10 – Strongly Agree
7.6
7.6
6.9
7.6 7
.8
7.6
7.4
7.4
6.6
7.4 7
.7
7.47.5
7.5
6.9
7.6 7.8
7.5
7.2
7.1
6.5
7.6
7.4
6.9
7.6 7
.9
7.6
Is making it easier to accessinformation about their services
Is making best use of online servicesto improve convenience and
efficiency for customers
Encourage public participation indecision making
Provides documents that are easy tocomplete
Uses language that is simple andwidely accessible
Is constantly keeping information upto date
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,216 to 1,491) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,262 to 1,508) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,217 to 1,482) CSMS 2019 (n=6,5486 to 6,235) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,220 to 1,481)
3.4 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Consumers: Access to information and Online Services
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)Consumer
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Goals Process
The attribute with the highest score is ‘Uses language that is simple and widely accessible’ (7.9 out of 10). Attributes relating to ‘ease of access of information’ and ‘making best use of online to improve convenience’ have seen a significant positive shift compared to CSMS 2019. ‘Encourages public participation in decision making’ is the attribute with the lowest score. However, there is a significant improvement in this attribute in comparison to CSMS 2019.
All attribute scores have remained stable in comparison to a year ago (Q4 2018).
25
Q; Thinking now about information surrounding your interaction, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree
‘Efficiency and effectiveness’, ‘honesty and integrity’ and ‘access to information’ were identified as primary
opportunity areas to increase satisfaction for businesses in the 2019 CSMS Survey
Employee Attributes
Goals Processes
HIGH
Secondary Opportunities These do not significantly impact the satisfaction score
LOW
Rel
ativ
e im
po
rtan
ce
LOW HIGH
Honesty and Integrity
Access to information and online services
Simplicity and efficiency of processes
Privacy
Fairness
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Empathy and communication
Median across drivers
Primary Opportunities
3
Transparency
Strengths to ‘build on’
Median across attributes
Average score across attributes (out of 10)
Responsiveness
2
1
Business
The QPCS for Q4 2019 deep–dives into these primary areas by asking businesses more specific questions regarding their experiences with NSW Government Services. The following statements were asked to provide greater insight.
Efficiency and Effectiveness:• Are proactive in helping • See things from my perspective• Provide good value services • Are held accountable • Focus on addressing customer needs • Get things done as quickly as possible • Deliver against actions promised (i.e. Do what they say they will do)• Are respectful • Are consistent• Explain intended actions clearly
Access to information and online services:• Is making it easier to access information about their services• Is making best use of online services to improve convenience and efficiency for
customers• Provides documents that are easy to complete (i.e. it is easy to understand
instructions and complete)• Uses language that is simple and widely accessible (including harder to reach
audiences) • Is constantly keeping information up to date• Encourage public participation in decision making
Honesty and Integrity• Are honest• Are reliable• Deliver high safety standards
26
Primary opportunity areas to increase Business satisfaction
(identified in the 2019 CSMS Survey)
Importance versus performance against each of the drivers of satisfaction 2019 for businesses
7.6 7.7
7.6
7.5 7.7 8
.0
7.47
.7 7.8
7.7
7.6 7.8 8
.0
7.7
7.6 7.8
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5 7
.7 8.0
7.7
7.5 7
.8
7.2
6.8 7
.1
6.8 7
.27.5 7.6
7.5
7.3 7
.6 7.9
7.6
7.3 7
.7
Are proactive in helping Provide good valueservices
Focus on addressingcustomer needs
Get things done asquickly as possible
Deliver against actionspromised
Are respectful Are consistent See things from myperspective
Explain intendedactions clearly
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,268 to 1,479) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,275 to 1,405) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,163 to 1,323) CSMS 2019 (n=1,586 to 1,724) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,280 to 1,425)
As with consumers ‘Are Respectful’ is the highest rated attribute with a score of 7.9 out of 10. Compared to CSMS 2019, ‘Provide good value and services’ (7.6 out of 10), ‘Get things done as quickly as possible’ (7.3 out of 10), ‘Are consistent’ (7.6out of 10), ‘See things from my perspective’ (7.3 out of 10) and ‘Explain intended actions clearly’ (7.7 out of 10) have shown significant improvement.
All attributes have remained stable in comparison to Q4 2018.
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
Employees
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Att
rib
ute
was
exc
lud
ed i
n C
SMS
20
19
Att
rib
ute
was
exc
lud
ed i
n C
SMS
20
19
Att
rib
ute
was
exc
lud
ed i
n C
SMS
20
19
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Att
rib
ute
intr
od
uce
d in
QP
CS
fro
m Q
1 2
01
9
Att
rib
ute
intr
od
uce
d in
QP
CS
fro
m Q
1 2
01
9
Business
3.5 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Effectiveness and Efficiency
27
Q: Thinking now about its employees, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – Strongly Disagree to 10 – Strongly Agree
7.6
7.5
6.8
7.6 7
.9
7.57.6
7.6
7.1
7.7 7.8
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.0
7.6 7
.9
7.6
6.9
6.7
6.2
7.5
7.5
6.8
7.5 7
.8
7.6
Is making it easier to accessinformation about their services
Is making best use of online servicesto improve convenience and
efficiency for customers
Encourage public participation indecision making
Provides documents that are easy tocomplete
Uses language that is simple andwidely accessible
Is constantly keeping information upto date
Q4 2018 QPCS (n=1,253 to 1,455) Q1 2019 QPCS (n=1,241 to 1,415) Q2 2019 QPCS (n=1,137 to 1,346) CSMS 2019 (n=1,554 to 1,692) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,267 to 1,417)
3.6 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Access to information and Online Services
Compared to CSMS 2019, there has been a significant improvement in the scores of all Goal attributes: ‘making it easier to access information’, ‘making best use of online services to improve convenience’ and ‘encourage public participation’. Though, ‘encourage public participation’ has the lowest score of 6.8 out of 10.
Scores across all attributes have remained stable compared to Q4 2018.
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
n/a
–N
ot
a C
SMS
attr
ibu
te
Goals Process
Business
28
Q; Thinking now about information surrounding your interaction, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – strongly disagree to 10 – strongly agree
7.5
7.47
.8
7.7
Are honest Deliver high safety standards
Q4 2018 QPCS Q1 2019 QPCS Q2 2019 QPCS CSMS 2019 (n=1,617 to 1,720) Q4 2019 QPCS (n=1,321 to 1,418)
3.7 Primary Opportunity Driver Deep Dive for Business: Honesty and Integrity
Honesty and Integrity has been identified as a new opportunity to improve satisfaction for businesses in CSMS 2019. Both attributes relevant to this driver of satisfaction have seen a significant increase in scores in comparison to CSMS 2019.
Ave
rage
(o
ut
of
10
)
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Business
Employees
Introduced as a QPCS attribute in Q4 2019
Introduced as a QPCS attribute in Q4 2019
29
Q: Thinking now about its employees, to what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following statements describes [SERVICE] in NSW? 1 – Strongly Disagree to 10 – Strongly Agree
4. Channel Usage and Preference
4.1 Channel Usage and Preference – Consumer
4.2 Channel Usage and Preference – Business
36
%
20
%
21
%
11
%
9%
4%
41
%
20
% 22
%
9%
5%
2%
38
%
20
%
18
%
11
%
7%
3%
34
%
19
%
21
%
12
%
7%
4%
35
%
20
% 22
%
11
%
6%
3%
41
%
19
% 23
%
9%
5%
2%
36
%
21
%
19
%
13
%
7%
4%
35
%
21
%
19
%
14
%
7%
4%
35
%
22
%
19
%
12
%
8%
4%
39
%
20
% 23
%
10
%
6%
3%
38
%
20
%
18
%
13
%
8%
3%
40
%
21
%
18
%
11
%
7%
4%
38
%
19
%
20
%
13
%
7%
3%
40
%
21
%
21
%
11
%
5%
2%
39
%
19
%
20
%
11
%
7%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Face to face Telephone Online Email Mail, posted letter, fax Third parties such as Australia Post
CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 CSMS 2019 Q4 2019
39
%
15
%
28
%
10
%
3%
1%
32
%
19
%
25
%
15
%
4%
1%
40
%
17
% 21
%
13
%
2%
1%
41
%
17
%
24
%
13
%
2%
1%
38
%
17
%
24
%
14
%
3%
1%
35
%
18
%
28
%
15
%
4%
1%
38
%
18
%
19
%
15
%
3%
3%
39
%
19
% 22
%
15
%
2%
1%
40
%
17
% 22
%
13
%
3%
1%
33
%
18
%
25
%
16
%
4%
1%
41
%
18
% 20
%
14
%
2%
1%
41
%
17
% 20
%
13
%
3%
2%
40
%
16
%
23
%
14
%
3%
1%
33
%
18
%
23
%
17
%
3%
2%
40
%
17
%
23
%
12
%
2% 2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Face to face Telephone Online Email Mail, posted letter, fax Third parties such as Australia Post
CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 CSMS 2019 Q4 2019
4.1 Channel Usage and Preference – Consumer
Contact Methods Used*
Q: Which of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? (Multi–select)
* Contact methods used is a multi response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “None of the above” option. Channel usage has been rebased on total number of responses for comparison to channel preference** Contact methods preferred is a single response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “Don’t kno w/ can’t say” and therefore, may not add up to 100%
Shar
e o
f co
nta
ct m
eth
od
use
d (%
)Sh
are
of
pre
fere
nce
(%) n=1,570
n=1,005
Consumer
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Q: Which of the following contact methods do you most prefer to use when dealing directly with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? Contact Methods Preference**
Face to face continues to be the most used and most preferred channel for Consumers. For face to face and email, usage is largely in line with the preference. For telephone, mail/ fax and third parties usage is higher than preference. Whereas, for online, usage is lower than preference.
31
27
%
24
%
20
%
15
%
10
%
4%
29
%
27
%
20
%
16
%
7%
2%
24
%
26
%
22
%
15
%
10
%
3%
29
%
22
%
19
%
15
%
9%
5%
30
%
16
%
25
%
16
%
9%
4%
27
%
25
%
19
%
20
%
7%
2%
24
%
26
%
17
%
19
%
9%
6%
32
%
20
%
19
%
16
%
9%
4%
34
%
20
%
20
%
14
%
8%
3%
28
%
24
%
19
%
19
%
6%
4%
40
%
20
%
18
%
12
%
6%
4%
30
%
22
%
18
%
18
%
8%
4%
30
%
22
%
20
%
17
%
7%
4%
28
%
25
%
19
%
18
%
7%
3%
31
%
21
%
19
%
18
%
6%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Face to face Telephone Online Email Mail, posted letter, fax Third parties such as Australia Post
CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 CSMS 2019 Q4 2019
38
%
20
% 24
%
13
%
3%
1%
27
%
21
%
23
%
23
%
3%
1%
26
%
24
% 27
%
16
%
3%
1%
33
%
20
%
22
%
17
%
3%
2%
35
%
24
%
16
% 20
%
3%
1%
27
%
24
%
19
% 25
%
4%
1%
33
%
24
%
19
%
11
%
7%
2%
37
%
17
%
25
%
16
%
2%
1%
37
%
17
% 22
%
18
%
3%
1%
27
%
24
%
21
%
22
%
4%
2%
41
%
16
% 21
%
14
%
3%
1%
33
%
21
%
19
%
18
%
3%
2%
34
%
21
%
22
%
18
%
2%
1%
28
%
23%
18%
23%
4% 2%
38
%
17
% 20
%
17
%
2%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Face to face Telephone Online Email Mail, posted letter, fax Third parties such as Australia Post
CSMS 2015 CSMS 2016 Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 CSMS 2017 Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 CSMS 2018 Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 CSMS 2019 Q4 2019
4.2 Channel Usage and Preference – Business
Contact Methods Used*
Q: Which of the following contact methods have you used to carry out your direct dealings with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months? (Multi–select)
* Contact methods used is a multi response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “None of the above” option. Channel usage has been rebased on total number of responses for comparison to channel preference** Contact methods preferred is a single response question; Figures in the graph does not include the response for “Don’t kno w/ can’t say” and therefore, may not add up to 100%
Shar
e o
f co
nta
ct m
eth
od
use
d (%
)Sh
are
of
pre
fere
nce
(%)
n=1,493
n=1,012
Business
Q: Which of the following contact methods do you most prefer to use when dealing directly with [SERVICE] in NSW in the last 6 months?Contact Methods Preference**
Face–to–face continues to be the most used channel by businesses to interact with NSW Government services as well as the most preferred channel. However, compared to Q4 2018, usage of face to face has decreased by 9% points to 31% in Q4 2019. Usage of online and email has remained stable versus last year as well as CSMS 2019, and is aligned closely with preference levels. With telephone, mail/fax and third party channels, usage is higher than preference among businesses.
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
32
Appendix
Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents
Appendix B: Background to the QPCS
Appendix C: QPCS Quantitative Research Approach
Appendix D: Historical Consumer and Business Baseline Measures
Appendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q1 2019 QPCS (CSMS at 99% Confidence Level)
Appendix F: Terminology Definitions
Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents – Consumer
Consumer Respondent Profile
49% male
51% femaleGender: Age: Region:
18–3431% 35–54
33%
55–6415%
65+20%
Q4 2019 Consumers (n=1,005 respondents)
75% Metro
19% Regional
6% Rural
29%23%
11%6% 8% 7% 5% 5%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Employment Status:
16% 16%
27%
15%
5% 6%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Up to$30,000
$30,001 to$50,000
$50,001 to$100,000
$100,001 to$150,000
$150,001 to$180,000
Over$180,001
Prefer not tosay/Don't
know
Annual Income:
49% male
51% femaleGender: Age:
18–3431% 35–54
33%
55–6415%
65+20%
Region: 75% Metro
19% Regional
6% Rural
Employed full time
Retired Employee part time
Unemployed Full time domestic
duties
Student Employed on a casual
basis
Other*
30%24%
11% 10% 9% 7%3% 1%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Employment Status:
Employed full time
Retired Employee part time
Unemployed Full time domestic
duties
Student Employedon a
casual basis
Self–employed /
business owner
Other
16% 19%26%
17%
5% 5%
12%
0%
10%
20%
30%
Up to$30,000
$30,001 to$50,000
$50,001 to$100,000
$100,001 to$150,000
$150,001 to$180,000
Over$180,001
Prefer not tosay/Don't
know
Annual Income:
Data is weighted to be representative of the NSW population (ABS) based on gender, age and regionNote*: Other includes “On maternity/paternity leave” as this option was not a part of QPCS
CSMS 2019 Consumers (n=4,110 respondents)
Consumer
Self–employed /
business owner
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100% 34
Appendix A: Demographic Profile of Respondents – Business
Business Respondent Profile
41% male
59% female
Gender: Region:
Q4 2019 Business (n=1,012 respondents)
75% Metro
19% Regional
6% Rural
50% male
Gender: Region: 75% Metro
19% Regional
6% Rural
50% female
Business size:
Business size:
Industry:
10% 10% 10% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0.8% 0.1%
20%
-2%2%6%
10%14%18%22%
Pro
fess
ion
al,
scie
nti
fic a
nd
tech
nic
al s
ervi
ces
Ret
ail T
rad
e
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Hea
lth
car
e an
dso
cial
ass
ista
nce
Educ
atio
n an
dtr
ain
ing
Art
s an
dre
cre
atio
n s
ervi
ces
Acc
omm
od
atio
nan
d f
oo
d se
rvic
es
Tran
spo
rt, p
osta
lan
d w
areh
ousi
ng
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g
Agr
icul
ture
,fo
rest
ry a
ndfi
shin
g
Ad
min
istr
ativ
e a
ndsu
pp
ort
ser
vice
s
Fina
nci
al a
ndin
sura
nce
ser
vice
s
Who
lesa
le T
rade
Ren
tal,
hiri
ng a
nd
real
est
ate
serv
ices
Info
rmat
ion
med
iaan
dte
leco
mm
uni
cati
on
s
Min
ing
Ele
ctri
city
, gas
,w
ater
an
d w
aste
serv
ices
Pub
licad
min
istr
atio
n a
nd
safe
ty
Oth
ers
Industry:
CSMS 2019 Business (n=1,261 respondents)
• Data is weighted to be representative of the NSW population (ABS) based on business size and region• Note* : Others also include industries which were not a part of QPCS
20+2%
Sole Proprietor
34%2–942%
10–1922%
20+2%
Sole Proprietor
25%2–950%
10–1923%
Business
9% 11%7%
9%7%
4% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 4% 4%1% 1.6% 0.6%
17%
-2%
2%
6%
10%
14%
18%
Pro
fess
ion
al,
scie
nti
fic a
nd
tech
nic
al s
ervi
ces
Ret
ail T
rad
e
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Hea
lth
car
e an
dso
cial
ass
ista
nce
Educ
atio
n an
dtr
ain
ing
Art
s an
dre
cre
atio
nse
rvic
es
Acc
omm
od
atio
nan
d f
oo
d se
rvic
es
Tran
spo
rt, p
osta
lan
d w
areh
ousi
ng
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g
Agr
icul
ture
,fo
rest
ry a
ndfi
shin
g
Ad
min
istr
ativ
ean
d s
up
port
serv
ices
Fina
nci
al a
ndin
sura
nce
serv
ices
Who
lesa
le T
rade
Ren
tal,
hiri
ng a
nd
real
est
ate
serv
ices
Info
rmat
ion
me
dia
and
tele
com
mu
nica
tio
ns M
inin
g
Ele
ctri
city
, gas
,w
ater
an
d w
aste
serv
ices
Pub
licad
min
istr
atio
nan
d s
afet
y
Oth
ers*
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100% 35
Appendix B: Background – Research Scope and Approach
• The QPCS Methodology is aligned to the Annual Customer Satisfaction
Measurement Survey (CSMS) approach:
• Captures feedback across 23 different NSW Government services (described
in the customers language).
• Feedback received from customers about each of the individual services is
aggregated to provide a view of the performance of NSW Government
services overall.
• Each respondent provides feedback regarding one or two services (as a
result, the total number of responses received across services is greater
than the total number of customers who completed the survey).
• The survey was completed from 29th October 2019 to 5th November 2019 and
results are therefore reflective of experiences with services over the six months
prior i.e. from May 2019 to October 2019.
• The Q4 2019 QPCS was completed with:
• N = 1,005 consumers, and
• N = 1,012 businesses
• As each respondent provides feedback regarding one or two services, the number of
responses is higher than the number of respondents. In Q4 2019 QPCS, the number
of responses was:
• N = 1,570 for consumers, and
• N = 1,493 for businesses
• All scores reported in this document are out of 10, with the exception of the
Customer Satisfaction Index which is out of 100.
In scope services
Consumer Business
Justice
• Police
• State Emergency Services
• Prisons
• Courts
• Fire Brigades
Family & Community Services
• Public Housing
• Disability Services
• Child Protection Services
• Services for Older People
Transport
• Public Transport
• Car and Boat Registration
• Major Roads
Customer Service
• Consumer Affairs (Fair Trading)
• Documentation Services
Planning , Industry & Environment
• Environment and wildlife protection
• Water Supply
• Agriculture advice and funding services
• Business Advisory Services
Education
• Public Schools
• TAFE Services
Health
• Public Hospitals
• Ambulance Services
Premier and Cabinet
• State owned art galleries and museums
36
General Considerations:
• The QPCS results do not replace the Annual CSMS results, but rather provide
a directional indication of the shift in the results.
• Although the QPCS sample characteristics are closely representative of the
NSW population, different customers have been surveyed and as such the
results are directional indicators of shifts in the Annual CSMS results only.
• The margin of error (MoE) for the QPCS needs to be considered when
interpreting the results.
Considerations for interpreting the QPCS data points:
• The QPCS results need to be interpreted in the context of the time of the year and in light of events in order to normalise seasonal trends in the data.
Therefore, overall caution should be taken when interpreting the QPCS findings until a minimum of a full year of results has been collected, so that any
seasonal impacts can be examined and adjusted accordingly.
• In the slides, the results of Q4 2019 QPCS have been compared to the results of all QPCS starting from Q4 2016 and CSMS starting from 2015. Significance
testing is based on the comparison to CSMS 2019 and Q4 2018 results at 95% confidence level. We have allowed the longitudinal trend analysis for CSMS
to QPCS having applied a 95% confidence level to both CSMS and QPCS datasets.
• The Annual CSMS results have been provided as additional context for the QPCS data point and should not be used as a comparison to QPCS results.
• A longitudinal dataset will need to be built over time in order to identify 'real' trends in the QPCS results and to strengthen the reliability and validity of any
conclusions drawn.
Q12017
Q22017
2017CSMS
Q42017
Q12018
Q22018
CSMS2018
Q42018
Q12019
Q22019
CSMS2019
Q42019
1. Set a benchmark with the first data point
Interpretation Plan for Tracking Study
2. Draw insights by comparing to previous quarter
3. Form a directional trend
4. Develop a lead indicator
We are hereTime
Mea
sure
ILLUSTRATION ONLY – NOT REAL DATA
Appendix B: Background – Key Considerations for Interpreting QPCS Insights
37
Appendix C: QPCS Quantitative Research – Approach
The approach undertaken to assess changes between the CSMS results and the QPCS topline results is outlined below:
• In order to compare the CSMS topline results against the QPCS topline results, the confidence level of CSMS (typically 99%) has been adjusted to 95% confidence level (in line with that of the QPCS). This was undertaken in order to make the significance testing comparable between CSMS and QPCS results
• In doing this however, it should be noted that the survey methodology differs for CSMS versus QPCS in the following ways, and should be interpreted with caution:
• Respondents are asked about their direct dealings with a service reflecting on their last 12 months in CSMS but the last 6 months in the QPCS, therefore recall about their experience differs
• Sample size varies greatly i.e. 2019 CSMS sample size was n=6,492 versus 2019 Q4 QPCS sample size of n=1,517 for consumers (this can impact margin of error which directly impacts significance testing)
• 99% confidence interval is used to test significance of results for the CSMS results versus 95% confidence interval which is used to test significance of the QPCS results
• Length of the survey is different. The CSMS survey is longer than the QPCS survey.
Q4 2019 QPCS Quantitative Research:
38
Appendix D: Overview of Historical Results
Results
at a glance
Consumers
CSMS
2015
CSMS
2016Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017
CSMS
2017Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018
CSMS
2018Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019
CSMS
2019Q4 2019
Satisfaction 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8
Expectation 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.0
Ideal
Service6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.4
CSI 76.7 78.7 77.8 79.5 78.6 79.3 80.2 79.9 79.6 78.9 79.9 79.4 80.9 80.6 80.6
Results
at a glance
Businesses
CSMS
2015
CSMS
2016Q4 2016 Q1 2017 Q2 2017
CSMS
2017Q4 2017 Q1 2018 Q2 2018
CSMS
2018Q4 2018 Q1 2019 Q2 2019
CSMS
2019Q4 2019
Satisfaction 7.2 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.4 7.6
Expectation 7.6 7.9 7.6 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.7
Ideal
Service7.0 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.1 7.3
CSI 76.6 78.4 76.1 77.6 77.6 78.3 77.8 79.6 79.7 78.2 81.3 81.2 80.7 77.6 79.8
Consumer Business
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
Note: CSI is out of 100; all other measures represent scores out of 10
39
Appendix D: Satisfaction – Consumer
Consumer – Outcome Measures
Average (out of 10)
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
10% 9% 10% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 8% 9% 8% 7% 9%
19% 16% 17% 16% 17% 14% 13% 14% 13% 15% 12% 15% 13% 14% 12%
71% 76% 73% 76% 76% 78% 78% 78% 78% 77% 80% 77% 80% 79% 79%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CSMS2015
(n=6,790)
CSMS2016
(n=7,227)
Q4 2016(n=1,652)
Q1 2017(n=1,580)
Q2 2017(n=1,647)
CSMS2017
(n=6,789)
Q4 2017(n=1,541)
Q1 2018(n=1,651)
Q2 2018(n=1,638)
CSMS2018
(n=7,000)
Q4 2018(n=1,583)
Q1 2019(n=1,611)
Q2 2019(n=1,577)
CSMS2019
(n=6,771)
Q4 2019(n=1,554)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Consumer
7.3 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.8 7.7
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%
7.8 7.8 7.8
40
Appendix D: Expectation – Consumer
Consumer – Outcome Measures
Average (out of 10)
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
7% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6% 7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 8% 5% 6% 6%
16% 13% 13% 13% 14% 12% 14% 13% 12% 13% 11% 12% 13% 11% 10%
78% 80% 81% 82% 80% 82% 79% 81% 81% 81% 84% 80% 82% 84% 84%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CSMS2015
(n=6,693)
CSMS2016
(n=7,140)
Q4 2016(n=1,636)
Q1 2017(n=1,563)
Q2 2017(n=1,624)
CSMS2017
(n=6,732)
Q4 2017(n=1,537)
Q1 2018(n=1,644)
Q2 2018(n=1,642)
CSMS2018
(n=6,922)
Q4 2018(n=1,579)
Q1 2019(n=1,614)
Q2 2019(n=1,578)
CSMS2019
(n=6,692)
Q4 2019(n=1,547)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Consumer
7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.8
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%
8.0 8.08.1
41
Appendix D: Comparison to Ideal – Consumer
Consumer – Outcome Measures
Average (out of 10)
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
13% 12% 12% 9% 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 11% 13% 13% 11% 11% 11%
22%18% 19% 19% 18% 19% 17% 19% 17% 20% 16% 16% 14% 16% 15%
65% 70% 69% 72% 69% 70% 72% 70% 71% 69% 72% 71% 75% 74% 73%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CSMS2015
(n=6,593)
CSMS2016
(n=7,015)
Q4 2016(n=1,621)
Q1 2017(n=1,548)
Q2 2017(n=1,605)
CSMS2017
(n=6,559)
Q4 2017(n=1,518)
Q1 2018(n=1,628)
Q2 2018(n=1,618)
CSMS2018
(n=6,733)
Q4 2018(n=1,545)
Q1 2019(n=1,590)
Q2 2019(n=1,564)
CSMS2019
(n=6,532)
Q4 2019(n=1,540)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Consumer
6.9 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.2
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%
7.4 7.47.4
42
7.5
Appendix D: Satisfaction – Business
Business – Outcome Measures
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
Average (out of 10)
9% 7%15%
7% 11% 9% 8% 5% 9% 7% 5% 9% 8% 8% 11%
18% 18%15%
24% 17% 17% 19% 22% 11% 18% 16% 12% 14%20% 13%
72% 74% 70% 69% 72% 75% 73% 73% 80% 75% 79% 79% 79% 72% 77%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CSMS2015
(n=1,700)
CSMS2016
(n=1,761)
Q4 2016(n=382)
Q1 2017(n=391)
Q2 2017(n=372)
CSMS2017
(n=1,705)
Q4 2017(n=349)
Q1 2018(n=375)
Q2 2018(n=1,570)
CSMS2018
(n=1,555)
Q4 2018(n=1,553)
Q1 2019(n=1,469)
Q2 2019(n=1,387)
CSMS2019
(n=1,801)
Q4 2019(n=1,484)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Business
7.2 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 7.4 7.9 7.87.2
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%
7.8 7.4 7.6
43
7.9
Appendix D: Expectation – Business
Business – Outcome Measures
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
Average (out of 10)
8% 5% 8% 3%10% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 5% 7% 8%
15% 14% 14%11%
16%16% 17% 16% 9% 15% 14% 11% 14% 15% 14%
77% 81% 79%86%
74% 77% 77% 78% 84% 79% 82% 83% 81% 78% 77%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CSMS2015
(n=1,677)
CSMS2016
(n=1,738)
Q4 2016(n=381)
Q1 2017(n=390)
Q2 2017(n=370)
CSMS2017
(n=1,682)
Q4 2017(n=350)
Q1 2018(n=372)
Q2 2018(n=1,555)
CSMS2018
(n=1,531)
Q4 2018(n=1,552)
Q1 2019(n=1,465)
Q2 2019(n=1,389)
CSMS2019
(n=1,786)
Q4 2019(n=1,479)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Business
7.6 8.1 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.07.6
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%
7.9 7.8 7.7
44
7.3
Appendix D: Comparison to Ideal – Business
Business – Outcome Measures
% D
istr
ibu
tio
n (
acro
ss lo
w,
neu
tral
an
d h
igh
sco
res)
Average (out of 10)
14% 9% 15% 9% 14% 11% 10% 7% 12% 11% 9% 8% 10% 12% 13%
18%20% 14%
17%18% 20% 24%
20% 15% 19% 18% 13%17%
20% 16%
67% 71% 71% 73% 68% 69% 66%73% 73% 71% 73% 79% 73% 68% 71%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
CSMS2015
(n=1,654)
CSMS2016
(n=1,718
Q4 2016(n=375)
Q1 2017(n=380)
Q2 2017(n=365)
CSMS2017
(n=1,646)
Q4 2017(n=345)
Q1 2018(n=367)
Q2 2018(n=1,554)
CSMS2018
(n=1,506)
Q4 2018(n=1,535)
Q1 2019(n=1,455)
Q2 2019(n=1,378)
CSMS2019
(n=1,753)
Q4 2019(n=1,467)
Low (1-4) Med (5-6) High (7-10)
Business
7.1 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.67.0
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding and may not sum to 100%
7.4 7.1 7.3
45
76.6
78.4 78.379.6 79.7
78.2
81.3 81.2 80.7
77.6
79.8
CSMS2015
(n=1,645)
CSMS2016
(n=1,712)
CSMS2017
(n=1,638)
Q12018
(n=365)
Q22018
(n=1,536)
CSMS2018
(n=1,494)
Q42018
(n=1,523)
Q12019
(n=1,449)
Q22019
(n=1,372)
CSMS2019
(n=1,745)
Q4 2019(n=1,458)
Consumer – CSI
Business – CSI
Consumer – Baseline Measures
Business – Baseline Measures
Margin of Error (QPCS)Consumer CSI: ± 1.0
Margin of Error (QPCS)Business CSI: ± 1.2
Note – Sample size for CSI and Baseline measure may differ on the basis of “Don’t Know” option selection
Note – Significance testing between CSMS and QPCS is not possible due to differing confidence intervals
76.7
78.7 79.3 79.9 79.678.9
79.9 79.480.9 80.6 80.6
CSMS2015
(n=6,549)
CSMS2016
(n=6,971)
CSMS2017
(n=6,527)
Q12018
(n=1,610)
Q22018
(n=1,603)
CSMS2018
(n=6,701)
Q42018
(n=1,535)
Q12019
(n=1,575)
Q22019
(n=1,555)
CSMS2019
(n=6,492)
Q42019
(n=1,517)
7.3
7.57.7 7.7 7.7 7.6
7.87.7
7.8 7.8 7.87.7
7.87.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 8.0
7.88.0 8.1 8.0
6.9
7.2 7.2 7.2 7.37.2
7.3 7.2
7.4 7.4 7.4
6.6
7.1
7.6
8.1
8.6
CSMS2015
(n=6,593)
CSMS2016
(n=7,015)
CSMS2017
(n=6,559)
Q12018
(n=1,628)
Q22018
(n=1,618)
CSMS2018
(n=6,733)
Q42018
(n=1,545)
Q12019
(n=1,590)
Q22019
(n=1,564)
CSMS2019
(n=6,532)
Q42019
(n=1,540)
Satisfaction Expectation Comparison to Ideal
7.27.5 7.5
7.67.8
7.4
7.9 7.8 7.8
7.4
7.6
7.6
7.97.7 7.7
8.1
7.7
8.0 8.07.9
7.87.7
7.0
7.37.1
7.27.3 7.2
7.4
7.67.4
7.17.3
6.6
7.1
7.6
8.1
8.6
CSMS2015
(n=1,654)
CSMS2016
(n=1,718)
CSMS2017
(n=1,646)
Q12018
(n=367)
Q22018
(n=1,554)
CSMS2018
(n=1,506)
Q42018
(n=1,535)
Q12019
(n=1,455)
Q22019
(n=1,378)
CSMS2019
(n=1,753)
Q42019
(n=1,467)
Satisfaction Expectation Comparison to Ideal
Appendix E: Customer Satisfaction Index Q4 2019 QPCSConsumer Business
Statistically significant movement from same quarter previous year at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from previous quarter at 95% confidence level
Statistically significant movement from the previous CSMS year at 99% confidence level
Note: Figures in the graph are subject to rounding
46
Quarter on quarter trends with an additional significance test at 99% confidence level to align with the CSMS analysis.
To ensure consistency in reporting significance testing, the below table of definitions has been developed.
Appendix F: Terminology Definitions
Terminology Definition Example
Remain StableRounded numerical difference between current period result and the previous period result is not significant at 95% confidence level.
Satisfaction score moved from 8.07 to 8.12 (i.e. actual difference is 0.05). However, this is within the margin of error at 95% confidence and hence the result remains stable.
Increase/Decrease significantly
Rounded numerical difference between current period outcome measures and the previous period result is significant at 95% confidence level
Satisfaction score moved from 7.5 to 7.9 In this case, the difference of 0.4 lies outside the margin of error at 95% confidence and hence the result is a significant increase in Satisfaction score.
47
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
Sensitive: NSW Government