NISRA Customer Satisfaction 2014. Produced March 2015

Similar documents
2011 Census User Satisfaction Survey. Summary Report

The Planning Service Customer Satisfaction Survey Planning Service Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010

Statistics Quality Management Handbook

HMRC Tax Credits Error and Fraud Additional Capacity Trial. Customer Experience Survey Report on Findings. HM Revenue and Customs Research Report 306

CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS

Analysis of Results from the Planning Service 2007/08 Customer Survey. July 2009

Primary Care Emergency Service Patient Satisfaction Survey July 2010

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY

How to Develop an Effective Customer Satisfaction Survey

Quality Standard Customer Service Complaints Handling

ACG Events Survey Analysis

BUSINESS REGISTRATION AND LICENSING AGENCY (BRELA) CLIENT SERVICE CHARTER

Life Expectancy for areas within Northern Ireland Published 2 nd October 2015

Content Sheet 13-1: Overview of Customer Service

13 July 2010 QUALITY OF SERVICE GFK. GfK NOP Anders Nielsen, Priyesh Patel & Amanda Peet

University College London Staff survey 2013: results presentation

Survey of Property Asset Management in Central Government

Quality of Customer Service report

McClelland_Robert_425

Office of Quality Performance. Report on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Field Office (FO) Telephone Service Replacement Project (TSRP) Survey

How To Rate Christchurch Family Medical Practice

INSURANCE REGULATORY AUTHORITY FACTORS AFFECTING INSURANCE UPTAKE BY TEACHERS IN PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS: CASE STUDY KISII COUNTY

August Page 1 PSA

Landscape Design Team

Sickness Absence in the Northern Ireland Public Sector

July TD Bank Checking Experience Index 2013

THE OREGON STATE REHABILITATION COUNCIL AND OFFICE OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES 2008 CLIENT CONSUMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Redundancy & Insolvency payments application Claim for payments from the National Insurance Fund

National Passenger Survey Autumn 2012 Main Report

Presenting survey results Report writing

PME Inc. Final Report. Prospect Management. Legal Services Society Tariff Lawyer Satisfaction Survey

Teacher Assistant Performance Evaluation Plan. Maine Township High School District 207. Our mission is to improve student learning.

NORTHERN IRELAND WAITING TIME STATISTICS: INPATIENT WAITING TIMES QUARTER ENDING SEPTEMBER 2012

Measuring client s satisfaction the integrated management System of the Post-Service Satisfaction Survey at Statistics Portugal

Approved Partner Programme. Professional, Practical, Proven.

Experience of Public Records in Northern Ireland Findings from the September 2006 Omnibus Survey

Quality of Customer Service report

National Measurement Institute Service Charter

Using Surveys for Data Collection in Continuous Improvement

Intranet site for the Employee Engagement Survey

The framework for inspecting residential provision in further education colleges

Guide to to good handling of complaints for CCGs. CCGs. May April

Cervical Screening Programme

Texas Optometry Board

ABI Response to FCA Consultation Paper: Improving Complaints Handling (CP14/30)

Payroll Satisfaction Survey - A Timesheet Analysis

Research and information management strategy Using research and managing information to ensure delivery of the Commission s objectives

Ley Hill Surgery Patient Questionnaire Results 2015

CISC Working Paper No.11 March Ralf Burbach 1. Tony Dundon 2

Customer Service. 1 Good Practice Guide

2015 Surplus Property Departmental Customer Satisfaction Survey: Summary Results and Next Steps

Passenger Rail Service Satisfaction Quarter 2 Statistical Release. 18 December Responsible Statistician: Dr Fazilat Dar

Student Life Centre: Report of Student Questionnaire 2014/15

A Guide to Clinical Coding Audit Best Practice

Treating. A simple guide to our Standards of Conduct and how we work for you. fairly

Final Report Audit of Vendor Performance and Corrective Measures. September 18, Office of Audit and Evaluation

Performance Management Discussion Guide Career Service Authority

Version: 1.0. Effective From: 24/06/2013

Summary Report. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. Industry and Small Business Policy Division

Background Quality Report: Community Care Statistics : Grant Funded Services (GFS1) Report - England

Toyota I_Site Managing your assets

NABL NATIONAL ACCREDITATION

Policies, Procedures, Guidelines and Protocols

Telecommunications Customer Satisfaction

Complaints Monitoring Report

Northern Ireland Waiting Time Statistics:

Work Experience Policy and Guidance for Users

Purchasing Performance Audit MARSHALL UNIVERSITY. 101 Southpointe Drive, Suite E Edwardsville, IL v f

NHS LQF 360 ETHICAL DILEMMAS

Performance Management Handbook. City of American Canyon

Employee Support and Development Performance Management Planning. Government Departments and Agencies

Re: Implementing the European Gas Regulation (EC) 715/2009 in Northern Ireland

The Office of Public Services Reform The Drivers of Satisfaction with Public Services

The administration of medicines and health care procedures in schools. Findings from a survey of schools

Assessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics

Managing Customer. Relationships

How to make a complaint about quality of care, waiting times, customer service, or other concerns

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

Barringtons Hospital Organisational Standard Operating Policy / Procedure

Customer requirements. Asset management planning Inspection and assessment Route asset planning Annual work plans Contracting strategy

Marketing in Ireland Usage by Irish Consumers and Marketers. April 2011

The Emotional Intelligence Appraisal MR & 360 Editions

Analysis of Employee Contracts that do not Guarantee a Minimum Number of Hours

Quality Assurance of Pre-registration Tutors

Sickness Absence Policy

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Internal Audit Report. Audit of Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting.

Making the Most of Your Local Pharmacy

Customer Satisfaction Survey. Broadband Results

Administrative Support Professionals Competency Framework. The Centre for Learning and Development

Scotland s Census User Satisfaction Survey Summary Report

CUSTOMER SERVICE EXCELLENCE

PERARES PROJECT EVALUATIONS

Customer Satisfaction with Oftel s Complaint Handling. Wave 4, October 2003

WSDOT 511 IVR Survey and Usability Testing Results. May PRR, Inc.

Care service inspection report

Counter Fraud and Security Management Service complaints handling policy and procedure

2010 Client Satisfaction Survey Results

Improving information to support decision making: standards for better quality data

How to complain to your claims management company

PAYMENT PROTECTION INSURANCE RESEARCH

Transcription:

NISRA Customer Satisfaction 2014 Produced March 2015

.

Contents Key Points 1 Page Introduction 3 Results Overall 5 NISRA versus non-nisra respondents 7 Use of NISRA in the future 9 Top ten words to describe the service provided by NISRA 11 Appendices I - Key Customers versus Non-Key Customers 13 II - Comparison with previous years 15 III - Three words to describe the service provided by NISRA 19 IV - Data Quality 21

Key Points 98% of respondents were satisfied with the service provided by NISRA. Some 96% of customers said that they were likely to use NISRA s services again. The great majority of customers (98%) were satisfied with the overall service provided by NISRA, with similar levels of satisfaction found for various aspects of that service. Satisfaction with the service provided by NISRA was higher amongst respondents who were not NISRA staff, than those who were NISRA staff. The proportion of respondents who were very satisfied with the overall service provided by NISRA increased to 68% in 2014, compared to 59% in 2013. 1

. 2

Introduction Background The 2014 NISRA Customer Satisfaction Survey is the eleventh in a series of annual customer surveys. The report details the level of customer satisfaction and provides NISRA with feedback on how it is performing, and how it can make improvements. In April 2012, the DFP Departmental Board agreed that customer surveys should include three core questions. NISRA has included these questions in this and previous customer surveys. The findings from the customer survey are also used to monitor achievement of one of NISRA s 2014/2015 Chief Executive Targets, To achieve no less than 96% of users rating NISRA s services and products as satisfactory or better. Notes Customers were identified by NISRA branches and provided to Human Resource Consultancy Services (HRCS). The questionnaire was issued by email through SNAP Webhost to 2,010 individuals who had been identified as a customer during 2014. The fieldwork was carried out over a three week period during January and February 2015. Response A total of 437 customers submitted a response, amounting to a response rate of 24% of the valid email addresses supplied 1. This is comparable with the same survey in the previous year. Around one fifth of those who responded were staff from within NISRA. Some individuals were identified as being a customer by more than one NISRA branch. Consequently, some customers reviewed more than one branch, and a total of 489 cases were recorded. 1 178 email addresses were not valid. Contact For further information, please contact: HR Consultancy Services Level 7A, Royston House Upper Queens Street Belfast BT1 6FD david.finlay@dfpni.gov.uk 028 905 42083 Download http://www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/nisra_customer_satisfaction.html Earlier NISRA customer satisfaction surveys can be found at this link: www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/nisra_customer_satisfaction.html All content in this report is licensed and available under the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, go to: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 3

... 4

Results - overall The overall results from the 2014 customer survey are detailed in Figure 1. Comparative data for 2011, 2012 and 2013 are also included. A further breakdown is available in Appendix II. The majority of customers were satisfied with the overall service provided by NISRA, and all aspects of that service. Fig 1 % Satisfied / V satisfied In 2014, how satisfied were you... % V Satisfied % Satisfied % Dissatisfied % V Dissatisfied (Combined) 2014 2013 2012 2011... overall, with the services provided by the branch? 68 30 2 98 97 97 97... with the politeness/courtesy of staff in the branch? 81 19 100 99 99 -... with the knowledge of staff in the branch? 72 26 1 98 99 99 99... with the accessibility of the branch? 68 29 2 97 97 96 97... with the timeliness of response from the branch? 67 29 2 97 96 96 97... with the professionalism of staff in the branch? 78 21 1 99 99 99 - - this question was not asked.. 5

6

Results - NISRA versus non-nisra respondents Table 1 In 2014, how satisfied were you... % Satisfied / Very satisfied (Combined) 2014... overall, with the services provided by the branch?... with the politeness/courtesy of staff in the branch?... with the knowledge of staff in the branch?... with the accessibility of the branch?... with the timeliness of response from the branch?... with the professionalism of staff in the branch? NISRA Staff 96 non-nisra 99 NISRA Staff 99 non-nisra 100 NISRA Staff 96 non-nisra 100 NISRA Staff 96 non-nisra 98 NISRA Staff 97 non-nisra 97 NISRA Staff 97 non-nisra 100 Around one fifth of customers who responded to the survey were staff within NISRA. Table 1 compares the survey responses from NISRA staff and non-nisra staff who were customers of the Agency during 2014. A breakdown of results in terms of key and other non key customers identified by NISRA is provided in Appendix I. 7

. 8

Results - use of NISRA in the future The majority of respondents said that they would be likely to use the services provided by NISRA again (Figure 2). Further breakdowns are available in Appendix II. Fig 2 How likely are you to... % Very likely % Quite likely % Quite unlikely % Very unlikely % Don't know % Very likely/likely (Combined) 2014 2013 2012 2011 1...use the services provided in the future? 77 19 2 2 96 97 93 94 9

. 10

Results - Top ten words to describe the service provided by NISRA In response to the question, 'what three words would you use to characterise the service provided by NISRA?', the 10 most common words are displayed below. The full list of words used to describe NISRA's services can be found in Appendix III. Fig 3 - Frequency of the 10 most common words used to describe NISRA Efficient 55 Timely 43 Accurate 32 Knowledgeable 31 Friendly 31 Reliable 23 Informative 21 Helpful 80 Professional 138 Prompt 19 11

. 12

Appendix I - Key Customers versus Non-Key Customers Table 2 In 2014, how satisfied were you...... overall, with the services provided by the branch?... with the politeness/courtesy of staff in the branch?... with the knowledge of staff in the branch?... with the accessibility of the branch?... with the timeliness of response from the branch?... with the professionalism of staff in the branch? Customer Type % Satisfied / Very satisfied (Combined) 2014 Non-Key Customer 99 Key Customer 97 Non-Key Customer 100 Key Customer 99 Non-Key Customer 99 Key Customer 98 Non-Key Customer 98 Key Customer 97 Non-Key Customer 97 Key Customer 97 Non-Key Customer 100 Key Customer 98 Branches were asked to determine whether or not each customer they identified was considered to be a Key Customer. Around three fifths of respondents were considered to be key customers by NISRA's branches. Table 2 compares the responses of those identified as key customers to those considered not to be, labelled as non-key customers. 13

. 14

Appendix II - Comparison with previous years Results from the 2014 customer survey showing all response options are detailed below, with comparative data for 2011, 2012 and 2013 also included where possible. Table 3 Overall, how satisfied were you with the products and services provided? Very satisfied (%) 2014 68 2013 59 2012 70 2011 61 Satisfied (%) 30 38 27 36 Dissatisfied (%) 2 2 2 2 Very Dissatisfied (%) 0 1 1 1 Number of cases 1 489 529 529 679 Table 4 How satisfied were you with the politeness/courtesy of staff in [the Branch]? Very satisfied (%) 2014 81 2013 75 2012 81 2011 - Satisfied (%) 19 24 18 - Dissatisfied (%) 0 0 1 - Very Dissatisfied (%) 0 0 0 - Number of cases 1 489 529 538-1 Some respondents were customers of more than one branch. A respondent who gave views on two branches was counted as two cases, for example. - This question was not asked. 15

Appendix II - Comparison with previous years Table 5 How satisfied were you with the knowledge of staff in [the Branch]? 2014 2013 2012 2011 Very satisfied (%) 72 65 70 61 Satisfied (%) 26 34 28 37 Dissatisfied (%) 1 0 1 1 Very Dissatisfied (%) 0 1 0 0 Number of cases 1 489 529 531 677 Table 6 How satisfied were you with the accessibility of [the Branch]? 2014 2013 2012 2011 Very satisfied (%) 68 56 66 62 Satisfied (%) 29 41 31 35 Dissatisfied (%) 2 3 3 2 Very Dissatisfied (%) 1 1 1 1 Number of cases 1 489 529 534 673 Table7 How satisfied were you with the timeliness of response from [the Branch]? 2014 2013 2012 2011 Very satisfied (%) 67 58 66 57 Satisfied (%) 29 39 30 40 Dissatisfied (%) 2 3 4 3 Very Dissatisfied (%) 1 1 0 0 Number of cases 1 489 529 532 668 1 Some respondents were customers of more than one branch. A respondent who gave views on two branches was counted as two cases, for example. 16

Appendix II - Comparison with previous years Table 8 How satisfied were you with the professionalism of staff in [the Branch]? 2014 2013 2012 2011 Very satisfied (%) 78 69 75 - Satisfied (%) 21 30 23 - Dissatisfied (%) 1 1 1 - Very Dissatisfied (%) 0 0 0 - Number of cases 1 489 529 534 - Table 9 Did you also use services from this branch in the previous year, that is, 2013? Yes (%) 76 78 73 85 No (%) 19 18 25 11 Don't know (%) 5 3 3 4 Number of cases 1 489 529 534 677 Table 10 Do you think the service provided by [the Branch] in 2014 was better, worse or about the same as the service provided in 2013? 2014 2013 2012 2011 2014 2013 2012 2011 Much better (%) 2 2 1 4 Better (%) 15 17 16 22 About the same (%) 82 79 81 72 Worse (%) 2 2 1 2 Much worse (%) 0 0 0 0 Number of cases 1 371 414 386 573 1 Some respondents were customers of more than one branch. A respondent who gave views on two branches was counted as two cases, for example. - This question was not asked. 17

Appendix II - Comparison with previous years Table 11 How likely are you to use the services provided by [the branch] in the future? 2014 2013 2012 2011 Very likely (%) 77 75 72 74 Quite likely (%) 19 22 21 20 Quite unlikely (%) 2 2 2 3 Very unlikely (%) 1 0 1 1 Don't know (%) 2 1 4 1 Number of cases 1 489 529 533 674 Table 12 Did you complain about any aspect of the service provided by this branch? Yes (%) 2014 1 2013 1 2012 2 2011 1 No (%) 99 99 98 98 Don't know (%) 0 0 1 1 Number of cases 1 489 529 521 665 Table 13 How satisfied were you with the way your complaint was handled? 2 Very satisfied 2014 1 2013 1 2012 0 2011 2 Satisfied 2 3 3 2 Dissatisfied 2 1 4 2 Very Dissatisfied 1 0 0 1 Number of cases 1 6 5 7 7 1 Some respondents were customers of more than one branch. A respondent who gave views on two branches was counted as two cases, for example. 2 Due to small base, numbers are provided rather than percentages. 18

Appendix III- Three words to describe the service provided by NISRA What three words would you use to characterise the service provided by NISRA? Table 14 Word Frequency Word Frequency Word Frequency Word Frequency PROFESSIONAL 138 THOROUGH 4 IMPORTANT 1 UNDERUTILISED 1 HELPFUL 80 ESSENTIAL 4 PLEASANT 1 INTERESTED 1 EFFICIENT 55 INCISIVE 4 ENLIGHTENING 1 TAILORED 1 TIMELY 43 CLEAR 4 CONNECTED 1 KEEN 1 ACCURATE 32 PRECISE 4 PRICELESS 1 SPECIFIC 1 FRIENDLY 31 SLOW 3 CUSTOMER FRIENDLY 1 ACCOMMODATING 1 KNOWLEDGEABLE 31 VALUABLE 3 INTERESTING 1 SIMPLE 1 RELIABLE 23 DEDICATED 3 CONSIDERED 1 EXCEPTIONAL 1 INFORMATIVE 21 RELEVANT 3 FACTUAL 1 UNDERSTANDING 1 PROMPT 19 INFORMED 3 PASSIONATE 1 ROBUST 1 EXCELLENT 15 APPROACHABLE 3 INSIGHTFUL 1 OBJECTIVE 1 SPEEDY/FAST/QUICK 14 CONSTRUCTIVE 3 CONFUSING 1 BUSINESS-LIKE 1 COURTEOUS 14 MEANINGFUL 2 OUT OF TOUCH 1 LACKING CUSTOMER FOCUS 1 EFFECTIVE 13 USER FRIENDLY 2 POOR 1 ENCOURAGING 1 USEFUL 13 PERSONAL 2 INDIFFERENT 1 AGREEABLE 1 GOOD/VERY GOOD 13 BENEFICIAL 2 FLEXIBLE 1 SATISFACTORY 1 POLITE 13 PROACTIVE 2 UNDERVALUED 1 DILIGENT 1 RESPONSIVE 10 INDEPENDENT 2 OBLIGING 1 SOLID 1 ACCESSIBLE 10 CONCISE 2 CO-OPERATIVE 1 COSTS TOO MUCH 1 COMPREHENSIVE 9 TRUST/TRUSTED 2 SCIENTIFIC 1 VALUE-ADDING 1 QUALITY 9 FIRST/TOP CLASS 2 IMPROVING VALUE 1 CUSTOMER FOCUSED 1 EXPERT 7 DETAILED 2 CONSERVATIVE 1 COMPETENT 1 SUPPORTIVE 7 TRANSPARENT 2 DIFFICULT 1 FRIENDLY/AMIABLE 6 UNTAPPED RESOURCE 1 COMPLETE 1 Key: CONSISTENT 4 CURRENT 1 THOUGHTFUL 1 POSITIVE WORD NECESSARY 4 APPROPRIATE 1 PATIENT 1 NEGATIVE WORD VITAL 4 PUNCTUAL 1 INDIVIDUAL SERVICE 1 19

20

Appendix IV - Data Quality Relevance The questionnaire was approved by NISRA Corporate Services and captures the data considered necessary to measure the level of satisfaction with the Agency overall. This is in line with requirements outlined by DFP Departmental Board and with various dimensions of customer service. The findings from the customer survey are also used to monitor achievement of one of NISRA s 2014/2015 Chief Executive Targets, To achieve no less than 96% of users rating NISRA s services and products as satisfactory or better. Accuracy The figures represent the online survey responses received during the period Monday 26th January to Friday 13th February. SNAP 11 Survey Software was used to produce the survey, with SNAP Webhost used to administer the survey online to customers. Staff in Human Resource Consultancy Services (HRCS) carried out validation checks on the email lists supplied by each NISRA branch, as well as the electronic responses. Questions were routed and respondents were required to answer only those questions that applied to them. Certain questions were compulsory, which eliminated the possibility of a respondents accidently omitting to answer. The SNAP survey saved a small text file (cookie) on a respondent's computer, which saved their position in the survey and prevented them completing multiple copies of the questionnaire. The customer list was dependent on participating NISRA branches supplying a comprehensive list of their customers - flagged as key and non-key customers as defined by the branch. Thirty two branches within NISRA were asked to supply such a list. In a small number of cases, invalid email addresses were supplied, so the survey did not reach the full list of customers. It should be noted that customers were flagged as key and non key customers by NISRA branches it is possible that some non key customers had limited contact with NISRA. Some individuals were identified as being a customer of up to six NISRA branches. The response rate for the survey was 24%, which is comparable to previous years. An improved response rate is one quality issue that will need to be addressed for subsequent surveys. 21

Appendix IV - Data Quality Timeliness and Punctuality The report relates to customers of NISRA during 2014. A short headline report was sent to NISRA Corporate Services within one week of the survey closing. The full report NISRA Customer Satisfaction 2014 has been produced by Friday 13th March 2015. The publication date is Thursday 26th March 2015. Accessibility and Clarity The questionnaire was administered electronically to each email address supplied and was available in text format to aid users of most screen-reading software. Survey administrators were also available to assist and advise respondents by both telephone and email should they have required additional assistance. The questionnaire was available in other formats upon request. These findings include tables, charts and text highlighting key facts and are available in other formats upon request. Coherence and Comparability The 'NISRA Customer Satisfaction 2014' report provides a comparison of responses to the same surveys carried out in 2011, 2012 and 2013 and includes the key questions. However, NISRA responses are based on a 4-point scale, which is not in line with the rest of DFP. A NISRA working group will convene in 2015 to consider improving coherence and comparability and other quality issues such as the response rate. Confidentiality The results are presented in such a way that no respondent is identifiable. Rounding Percentages are presented as whole numbers for ease of reading. To give maximum accuracy, rounding is performed at the final stage of calculation. Due to the rounding process, totals may not be exactly 100%. For example, if you add together the % Strongly agree, % Agree, % Disagree and % Strongly disagree these will not total 100% on each occasion. 22

Appendix IV - Data Quality Abbreviations NISRA HRCS Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency Human Resource Consultancy Services - This question was not asked. Contact For further information please contact: HR Consultancy Services Level 7A Royston House Upper Queen Street Belfast BT1 6FD david.finlay@dfpni.gov.uk 028 90 542083 23