Competing in a Disrupted and Changing Environment ISES INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2016 Q2 RESULTS ANNOUNCEMENT INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2016 Q2 RESULTS land transport, air transport, logistics, public education and private education INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG Methodology INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
The CSISG Score Customer Satisfaction CSISG (Scale of 0-100) 1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations 3. Similarity to Ideal 4
CSISG Structural Model Qn. Perceived Overall Quality Qn. Perceived Customisation Qn. Perceived Reliability Qn. Complaint Behaviour Perceived Overall Quality Customer Complaints Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price Perceived Value Customer Satisfaction (CSISG) Customer Expectations Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal Customer Loyalty Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability Denotes positive relationship between the drivers Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance 5
Overview of the CSISG Main Fieldwork Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes. Homes are selected from a random address listing that matches the housing profile of Singapore resident population. Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport. (Applicable to all sectors except Transport Booking Apps and Education) Polytechnics and Universities students are surveyed outside the institutions. Quotas are set by size of faculty. For ITE and Private Education Institutions, online surveys were used. Each respondent answers up to 17 CSISG questions and about 24 touchpoint questions about a company they had recent experiences with. Typically 100-200 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire. 6
CSISG 2016 Q2 Quick Facts Sectors Covered Air Transport Land Transport Logistics Public Education Private Education Survey Period Apr to Jul 2016 Total Questionnaires Completed 13,355 Face-to-Face (Locals) 7,076 Tourists at Changi Airport 2,295 Online 3,984 Distinct entities measured 206 Entities with published scores 40 7
CSISG 2016 Q2 Sub-sectors Land Transport Sector Mass Rapid Transit Public Buses Taxi Services Transport Booking App NEW Logistics Sector Courier Services Postal Services Public Education Sector Universities Polytechnics ITE Air Transport Sector Airlines Budget Airlines Changi Airport Private Education Sector Private Education Institutions 8
CSISG 2016 Q2 RESULTS INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2016 Q2 Results Overview 75.7 Public Education 77.1 Universities* 80.5 SMU* 77.6 NUS 76.0 NTU 74.2 SUTD 73.0 SIT 72.5 ITE 71.5 Polytechnics 76.0 Singapore* 75.0 Temasek* 72.2 Ngee Ann 67.8 Republic 65.8 Nanyang 75.5 Air Transport 81.4 Airport* 81.4 Changi Airport 73.5 Airlines 76.7 Singapore Airlines* 75.1 Garuda Indonesia* 74.1 Emirates 73.3 Cathay Pacific 71.9 Qantas 71.7 Silkair 70.8 Other airlines 69.5 Budget Airlines 70.3 Jetstar Asia 69.9 AirAsia 68.6 Tigerair 68.2 Scoot 70.9 Other budget airlines 71.2 Logistics 72.4 Courier Services 73.6 FedEx 72.7 Speedpost 72.0 DHL 71.3 UPS 68.9 Other courier services 67.9 Postal Services 67.9 Singapore Post 66.8 Land Transport 70.0 Taxi Services* 72.2 Premier* 71.9 Transcab 70.1 SMRT 69.3 ComfortDelGro 68.5 Prime 68.8 Transport Booking App* 69.7 Uber 69.0 Grab 68.0 ComfortDelGro 67.2 Other transport booking app 66.4 Mass Rapid Transit System 66.5 SBS Transit 66.3 SMRT 62.7 Public Buses 64.4 SMRT 61.9 SBS Transit 65.0 Private Education 65.0 Private Education Institutions * Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores 10
land transport INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Land Transport Satisfaction Drivers Sub-sector CSISG Score Perceived Overall Quality Customer Expectations Perceived Value Mass Rapid Transit System 66.4 68.3 69.5 68.1 Public Buses 62.7 66.6 67.4 66.0 Taxi Services 70.0 72.4 73.1 72.8 Transport Booking App* 68.8 (na) 69.2 (na) 74.1 (na) 71.5 (na) *Transport Booking App was not measured in 2015 GREEN scores performed better than 2015 with statistical significance. RED scores performed worse than 2015 with statistical significance. 12
Trains: Significant Rise in Trains Scores MRT Trend CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 Land Transport Sector 66.4 66.5 SBS Transit 66.3 SMRT 2007 2016 SBS Transit 63.9 SMRT 61.5 13
MRT System Performed Better Than The LRT System 70.0 MRT (Overall CSISG: 66.5) LRT (Overall CSISG: 64.0) CSISG Score (0 to 100) 65.0 60.0 67.3 66.6 66.3 65.8 65.4 64.4 64.0 63.3 55.0 Line NEL (Purple) NSL (Red) EWL (Green) Circle Line (Orange) Downtown Line (Blue) Punggol LRT Sengkang LRT Bukit Panjang LRT Operator SBS SMRT SMRT SMRT SBS SBS SBS SMRT Note: Overall MRT scored statistically higher than LRT 14
Trains: Getting Commuters to their Destination Efficiently Key to Perceived Quality Reliability of trains Helpfulness of staff Train frequency Average Rating Increasing Impact on Quality Score Cleanliness of stations and trains Handling of train disruptions Travel time to reach destination Accuracy of information provided throughout the station Sufficiency of train arrival information Ease of moving within station Operating hours of train system Limited Impact on Quality Score Comfort of the ride Ease of using General Ticketing Machine Comfort at station platform Safety and security considerations Note: Analysis controls for Expectations and Local/Tourist segments 6.0 7.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 15
Public Buses: No Significant Changes in Scores Public Buses Trend CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 Land Transport Sector 2007 2016 62.7 64.4 SMRT Buses SMRT Buses 62.2 61.9 SBS Transit Buses SBS Transit Buses 60.4 16
Public Buses: Comfort and Information Key to Perceived Quality Comfort of the ride Helpfulness of bus captain Average Rating Increasing Impact on Quality Score Limited Impact on Quality Score Clarity of bus route information Accuracy of bus arrival information provided by the company Ease of moving within the bus Availbility of bus route information on buses, bus stops and interchange Bus frequency Travel time to reach destination Cleanliness of buses Safety of the ride Operating hours of bus system 6.0 7.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) Note: Analysis controls for Expectations and Local/Tourist segments 17
Taxi Services: Significant Rise in Satisfaction Taxi Services Trend CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 Land Transport Sector 70.0 72.2 Premier 71.9 Transcab 2007 2016 Transcab 67.4 Premier 66.9 SMRT 66.2 ComfortDelGro 65.6 70.1 SMRT 69.3 ComfortDelGro 68.5 Prime Prime 62.3 18
Taxi: Payment & Driver Key to Perceived Quality Payment process Taxi drivers road knowledge Average Rating Increasing Impact on Quality Score Fares charged by company Comfort of the ride Interaction with driver Clarity of fare structure Limited Impact on Quality Score Safety of the ride Cleanliness of the vehicle 7.0 7.5 8.0 Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) Note: Analysis controls for Expectations and Local/Tourist segments 19
Helpfulness of Staff Common Drivers in Public Transport Attributes with Significant Impact on CSISG Score Apart from the general satisfaction drivers of Perceived Quality, Expectations and Perceived Value are as follows: Trains Buses Taxis Reliability of trains Comfort of the ride Payment process Top 5 Attributes Based on Increasing Impact on Quality Score Helpfulness of staff Train frequency Cleanliness of stations and trains Helpfulness of bus captain Clarity of bus route information Accuracy of bus arrival information Taxi drivers road knowledge Fares charged by company Comfort of the ride Handling of train disruptions Ease of moving within the bus Interaction with taxi driver 20
Transport Booking Apps: No Significant Difference in Scores Across Providers Transport Booking App Trend 80 68.8 Land Transport Sector 2007 2016 CSISG Score (0 to 100) 70 60 69.7 69.0 68.0 67.2 50 Uber Grab ComfortDelgro Taxi App Others 21
Transport Booking App: Security and Ease of Use Key Factors in Driving Perceived Quality Increasing Impact on Quality Score Limited Impact on Quality Score Security measures (personal details) Information provided on booking app User experience of app Ease of getting a ride Drivers road knowledge Payment process Comfort of the ride Safety of the ride Attractiveness of promotions and discounts Sufficiency of feedback channels Fares charged by company or taxi Ease of setting up the app Cleanliness of the vehicle Interaction with driver Options of different types of vehicles Accuracy of fare estimates Clarity of fare structure Accuracy of waiting time estimation Average 6.0 7.0 Rating Note: Analysis controls for Expectations and Local/Tourist segments Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 22
Air transport INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Air Transport Satisfaction Drivers Sub-sector CSISG Score Perceived Overall Quality Customer Expectations Perceived Value Airlines 73.5 74.9 74.4 73.9 Budget Airlines 69.5 71.2 71.4 71.8 Airport 81.4 78.7 77.8 82.2 GREEN scores performed better than 2015 with statistical significance. RED scores performed worse than 2015 with statistical significance. 24
No Significant Changes to Full-Service Airlines Airlines Trend CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 73.5 Air Transport Sector 2007 2016 Singapore Airlines 76.1 Emirates 73.3 Cathay Pacific 73.0 Silkair 70.5 Qantas 69.4 Other Airlines 69.3 76.7 Singapore Airlines 75.1 Garuda Indonesia 74.1 Emirates 73.3 Cathay Pacific 71.9 Qantas 71.7 Silkair 70.8 Other Airlines New company measured in 2016: Garuda Indonesia Note: Singapore Airlines and Garuda scored significantly better than Qantas, SilkAir. Singapore Airlines also scored significantly higher than Cathay Pacific. 25
No Significant Changes In Budget Airline Scores CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 Budget Airlines Trend Air Transport Sector 2008 2016 69.5 Other budget airlines 70.3 AirAsia 68.0 Jetstar Asia 67.5 70.9 Other budget airlines 70.3 Jetstar Asia 69.9 AirAsia 68.6 Tiger Airways 68.2 Scoot Tiger Airways 65.8 New company measured in 2016: Scoot Note: Other budget airlines include companies like Cebu Pacific, Indigo and VietJet 26
Tourist Rated Full Service Airlines Similar Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Score (on a 0 to 100 scale) 80 70 Locals Tourists Satisfaction 74.0 73.3 Locals Tourists Satisfaction 64.5 72.8 Locals Tourists Tourists scores significantly higher than Locals 60 Expectations Quality Value Expectations Quality Value 27
Top 3 Quality Attributes for Air Transport Beyond the general Customer Expectations driver, these are the attributes that positively impacts Perceived Quality: Locals Full Service Airlines Tourists Ease of booking flights through company Comfort of the cabin Overall check-in experience Food and beverage options Ease of booking flights through company Quality of food and beverage Locals Budget Airlines Tourists Ability of airline to accommodate to my needs Cleanliness of cabin Food and beverage options Cleanliness of cabin Food and beverage options Comfort of the cabin 28
Logistics INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
General Increase In Satisfaction for Courier Services CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 Courier Services Trend 72.4 Logistics Sector 2012 2016 Fedex 73.2 Speedpost 72.2 DHL 71.2 UPS 69.9 73.6 Fedex 72.7 Speedpost 72.0 DHL 71.3 UPS 68.9 Other courier services Other courier services 67.0 30
Rise in Satisfaction for Business & Local Services Purpose of Services Used Types of Services Used 76 2015 2016 Significant Increase Significant Increase CSISG Score (0 to 100) 68 60 Personal Business Local International 31
Courier Services: Touchpoints Satisfaction Ratings Reliability of delivery Increasing Impact on Quality Score Timeliness of courier staff Ease of arranging pick-up for articles / parcels Interaction with courier staff Sufficiency of tracking information Limited Impact on Quality Score Availability of information provided by company Payment process Responsiveness to queries Note: Analysis controls for Expectations Average 6.0 7.0 8.0 Rating Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 32
education INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Education Satisfaction Drivers Sub-sector CSISG Score Customer Expectations Perceived Overall Quality Universities 77.1 73.8 78.1 Polytechnics 71.5 69.0 70.3 ITE 72.5 65.6 76.3 Private Education Institutions 65.0 72.1 67.8 GREEN scores performed better than 2015 with statistical significance. RED scores performed worse than 2015 with statistical significance. 34
No Change in Universities Scores CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 Universities Trend 77.1 Public Education Sector 2007 2016 80.5 SMU SMU 79.1 NUS 76.5 NTU 73.3 77.6 NUS 76.0 NTU 74.2 SUTD 73.0 SIT New universities measured in 2016: SUTD, SIT 35
No Change in Polytechnic Scores Polytechnics Trend CSISG 2015 CSISG 2016 71.5 Public Education Sector 2007 2016 Singapore Polytechnic 74.8 76.0 Singapore Polytechnic 75.0 Temasek Polytechnic Temasek Polytechnic 73.4 72.2 Ngee Ann Polytechnic Ngee Ann Polytechnic 70.5 Republic Polytechnic 67.1 67.8 Republic Polytechnic 65.8 Nanyang Polytehcnic Nanyang Polytechnic 63.6 36
Student Support Services & Teaching Matters Key Quality Drivers for the Education Sector Top 3 Quality Drivers for Education Sector ITE Polytechnics Universities Private Education Institutions Relevance (Belief in enrolled course to provide relevant experience and future opportunities) Student Support Services (Counselling, career, and financial assistance) Student Support Services (Counselling, career, and financial assistance) Student Support Services (Counselling, career, and financial assistance) Teaching Matters (Quality, dedication, mutual respect exhibited by teaching staff) Teaching Matters (Quality, dedication, mutual respect exhibited by teaching staff) Teaching Matters (Quality, dedication, mutual respect exhibited by teaching staff) Teaching Matters (Quality, dedication, mutual respect exhibited by teaching staff) Campus (Convenience, facilities, study spaces, learning resources, campus life) Course-Fit (Suitability, interest, expectations in relation to enrolled course) Computing Matters (IT infrastructure and support) Course-Fit (Suitability, interest, expectations in relation to enrolled course) 37
Summary Overall, Public Education, Air and Land Transport saw significant increases in satisfaction in 2016. Public Transport: Satisfaction for public transport is generally driven by factors that efficiently and effectively help commuters get to their intended destination. Air Transport: Different attributes matter to locals and tourists. Education: Student Support and Teaching Matters are common areas that drive perceived quality. 38