TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS AND EDUCATION CSISG 2013 Q2 RESULTS

Transcription

1 TRANSPORT & LOGISTICS AND EDUCATION CSISG 2013 Q2 RESULTS

2 CSISG 2013 Q2 Results CSISG 2013 Q2 results overview Transport & Logistics results and findings Public and Private Education results and findings 2

3 Overview of the CSISG Main Fieldwork Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes. Homes are selected via a SingStat random listing of 40,000 household addresses that match housing profile of Singapore resident population. Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport. Each respondent answer up to 17 CSISG questions and 15 touchpoint questions about a company they had recent experiences with. Typically 250 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire. 3

4 CSISG 2013 Q2 Quick Facts Sectors Covered Transport & Logistics Public Education Private Education Survey Period May to July 2013 Total Questionnaires Completed 11,123 Face-to-face at residents homes 6,758 Face-to-face at Changi Airport 2,988 Online with ITE Students 1,377 Distinct entities measured 191 Entities with published scores 31 4

5 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics and Education 72.8 Public Education 73.2 ITE 73.1 Universities 73.3 NUS 73.2 SMU 72.7 NTU 72.2 Polytechnics 73.8 Singapore 72.0 Republic 71.6 Ngee Ann 71.6 Temasek 71.3 Nanyang 72.7 Transportation & Logistics 85.5 Airport* 85.5 Changi Airport 77.1 Airlines* 79.4 Singapore Airlines* 76.5 SilkAir 76.3 Cathay Pacific Airways 76.1 Emirates 74.1 Qantas Airlines 70.6 Other Airlines 72.8 Courier Services 73.6 FedEx 72.5 DHL 70.5 UPS 70.2 Speedpost 72.8 Other Courier Services 67.5 Budget Airlines 68.3 AirAsia 66.9 Jetstar Asia 66.0 Tiger Airways 70.3 Other Budget Airlines* 67.3 Postal Services 67.3 Singapore Post 67.3 Taxi Services 72.0 Premier* 70.5 SMRT Taxis* 69.4 Transcab 65.5 Comfort Delgro Taxis 70.4 Other Taxi Operators* 64.1 Mass Rapid Transit System 67.3 SBS Transit Trains* 63.3 SMRT Trains 60.6 Public Buses 62.2 SMRT Buses 60.1 SBS Transit Buses 72.2 Private Education 72.2 Commercial Schools * Indicates company is significantly higher than its sub-sector score 5

6 CSISG 2013 Q2 Sector Results All three sectors improved significantly from Public Education 5.3 point increase from Transport & Logistics 4.4 point increase from Private Education 3.2 point increase from

7 CSISG 2013 Q2 RESULTS TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS

8 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics Sub-sectors year-on-year change Change CSISG 2013 Sub-sector * Changi Airport Budget Airlines Courier Services Taxi Services * Airlines MRT/LRT Public Buses Postal Services (SingPost) Notes: Significant year-on-year changes are represented in red/green * symbol indicates significantly higher than sector average 8

9 Year-on-year changes in locals satisfaction of Transport & Logistics sector and sub-sectors T&L Sector T&L Changi Airport MRT/LRT (+2.7) (+12.8) T&L Average Local Satisfaction Taxis Budget Airlines (+1.0) (+2.4) Airlines (-0.1) Buses (-1.5)

10 Year-on-year changes in tourists satisfaction of Transport & Logistics sector and sub-sectors T&L Sector T&L Sector Changi Airport Buses (+10.8) (+13.9) T&L Average Tourist Satisfaction Taxis (+9.5) Budget Airlines (+9.2) MRT / LRT (+7.3) Airlines (+5.2)

11 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics sub-sectors MRT/LRT * SBS Transit Trains SMRT Trains Public Buses SBS Transit Buses SMRT Buses Taxi Services * Premier * SMRT Taxis Transcab ComfortDelGro * Other taxi operators Courier Services FedEx Speedpost DHL UPS Other courier services Notes: Significant year-on-year changes are represented in red/green * Indicates company is significantly higher than its sub-sector score 11

12 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics sub-sectors Airlines SilkAir Cathay Pacific Airways * Singapore Airlines Qantas Airlines Emirates Other airlines Budget Airlines AirAsia Jetstar Asia Tiger Airways * Other budget airlines Notes: Significant year-on-year changes are represented in red/green * Indicates company is significantly higher than its sub-sector score 12

13 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics MRT System and Public Buses MRT System Public Buses

14 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics MRT System and Public Buses Marginal movements in CSISG; though significant improvement at SBST Trains For the MRT, improvements in commuters perceptions of quality and value For Public Buses, improvement in perceptions of quality (no sig. diff.) 14

15 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics MRT System and Public Buses Latest results show public transport operators have closed the Quality-Expectations gap, i.e., better able to match expectations with service delivery Over time, improvements across Expectations, Quality, and Value, should lead to improved Customer Satisfaction 68 MRT sub-sector 68 Buses sub-sector Expectations Quality

16 CSISG 2013 Q2 Transport & Logistics MRT System and Public Buses MRT System Touchpoints ordered by decreasing importance Rating (1-10) YoY Change Ride comfort Frequency Punctuality Safety & Security Station comfort * Cleanliness * Operating hours Information services * Customer service * Public Buses Touchpoints ordered by decreasing importance Rating (1-10) YoY Change Customer service Ride comfort Frequency Cleanliness Punctuality Safety & Security Travel time * Information services Operating hours Greyed touchpoints do not have a statistically significant impact on perceptions of quality An (*) indicates a significant change from the previous year 16

17 CSISG 2013 Q2 RESULTS EDUCATION

18 CSISG 2013 Q2 Education Sub-sectors year-on-year change Change CSISG 2013 Public Education Sub-sector Universities ITE Polytechnics Change CSISG 2013 Private Education Sub-sector Commercial Schools Notes: Significant year-on-year changes are represented in red/green * symbol indicates significantly higher than sector average 18

19 CSISG 2013 Q2 Public Education sub-sectors Polytechnics Nanyang Poly Singapore Poly Republic Poly Ngee Ann Poly Temasek Poly Universities NUS NTU SMU Notes: Significant year-on-year changes are represented in red/green * Indicates company is significantly higher than its sub-sector score 19

20 CSISG 2013 Q2 Education Universities, Polytechnics, Commercial Schools Students from different educational institutions care about different things Administrators should consider paying attention to aspects of student experience that most strongly impact students perceptions of quality 20

21 CSISG 2013 Q2 Education Universities, Polytechnics, Commercial Schools In CSISG 2013, Uni/Poly/Commercial School respondents were asked about these matters: Campus Computing Course-Fit Relevance Support Teaching Convenience, facilities, study spaces, learning resources, campus life IT infrastructure and support Suitability, interest, expectations in relation to the enrolled course Belief in the enrolled course to provide relevant experience and future opportunities Counselling, career, and financial assistance Quality, dedication, mutual respect exhibited by teaching staff 21

22 CSISG 2013 Q2 Education Universities, Polytechnics, Commercial Schools Universities Polytechnics Commercial Schools Course-Fit Relevance Course-Fit Support Campus Teaching 2007 Campus Support Campus Teaching Course-Fit Relevance Computing Computing Support Relevance Teaching Computing The importance ranking of these dimensions are accurate at the sub-sector level and will differ when computed for individual institutions

23 CSISG 2013 Q2 Education Universities, Polytechnics, Commercial School Regardless of the Education sub-sector, Campus Experience is consistently of high importance to students. Satisfaction levels of polytechnic students are most affected by the alignment of their polytechnic activities to their future careers. Both university and commercial school students satisfaction levels are most affected by what and how they learn. 23

24 Conclusion An efficient way to raise perceived quality and customer satisfaction is to improve areas of the customer experience that matter most to your target audience 24