1 / 16

Objective quality and customer satisfaction

Objective quality and customer satisfaction. BEST CIG Berlin 2007-10-02. The CIG. Participants: Oslo Sporveier Helsinki City Transport Stockholm Transport SAMOT research center, Karlstad. Questions in the CIG. How is PT satisfaction related to actual PT quality?

amaya-diaz
Télécharger la présentation

Objective quality and customer satisfaction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Objective quality and customer satisfaction BEST CIG Berlin 2007-10-02

  2. The CIG • Participants: • Oslo Sporveier • Helsinki City Transport • Stockholm Transport • SAMOT research center, Karlstad

  3. Questions in the CIG • How is PT satisfaction related to actual PT quality? • What do people judge when they judge satisfaction? • What else than objective quality? • And how do they do it? • Implications for how to collect, interpret and use customer data

  4. Activities in the CIG • After the kick-off in Copenhagen • Meetings in Helsinki and Oslo • Discussion of practices, measurement systems and results (see BEST web page) • Experiences, problems and solutions • Begun work with a CIG report

  5. Objective + a quality, current + c journey Customer The customer's perception of journey + satisfaction, b quality relative to + e – expectations d + +/ – Customer journey g f quality expectations Customer satisfaction, previous journeys "External noise" A summary complex picture of public transport satisfaction

  6. Examples of insights and conclusions so far • Impact of expectations • History/previous experience • Media/reputation • Methods of data collection and analysis • Customer surveys • Customer complaints • How to interpret the result • And how to use them

  7. Oslo – What is behind the satisfaction data • Interview follow-up of onboard survey of journey satisfaction • The scale • In general: 1-2 are used when the respondent is dissatisfied, 3-5 is used when the customer is satisfied. • The responses: not only performance • Previous experience • Expectations

  8. Count. • Previous experiences influences • This influences the answers adversely, not positively. • Examples: • Punctuality: "The tram was on time, I could have given a top score. Still, in the back of my mind were all the delays lately, so I gave a poorer score." • Cleanliness: "In general, the metro is always dirty, people are spitting and putting their feet on the seat. Giving a top score is impossible".

  9. Helsinki – Quality and compalints • Customer complaints and satisfaction • Computerized system for analysing customer complaints • Content analysis/conceptual mapping • Quantifications and linkage to satisfaction measures • Complaint data reveals the causes of (dis-)satisfaction • Immediate reaction of service problems

  10. Count.

  11. Discussion issues • Satisfaction in times of change • Internal/external changes • Positive/negative changes • Why satisfaction measures? • Quality control • Follow up of operators/incentives • Effects of improvements • Input to strategic decisions

  12. Discussion issues (count) • Methodological aspects • Data sources • Instruments • Scales • Samples • Additional forces • Affective dimensions • Impact of culture • Media/reputation

  13. Critical incidents

  14. Critical incidents and satisfaction

  15. Critial incidents, attributes and satisfaction

  16. Customer satisfaction ”Delights” (attractors) High Traditional one-dimensional attributes Objective quality High Low ”Must be” (hygene factors) Low The Kano-model of quality attributes

More Related