ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2017 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

Transcription

1 ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2017 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

2 CSISG 2017 Q4 RESULTS Finance & Insurance and Healthcare INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

3 CSISG Methodology INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

4 How Much Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score Customer Satisfaction CSISG (Scale of 0-100) 1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations 3. Similarity to Ideal 4

5 General 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 (Expected Quality Before Recent Experience) 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

6 General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology 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 Private Hospitals Sub-sector only) Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the company/brand they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 to 2 companies/brands. Typically respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire. 6

7 Overview of Score Calculation Company Score Sub-Sector Score Sector Score National Score Local & Tourist Weights Company Weights Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights Incidence Study Identify companies with highest interactions with locals and tourists. Locals surveyed door-to-door. Tourists surveyed at Changi Airport. DOS population and STB Visitor Arrival data used to further identify proportion of locals and tourist customers. Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data Identify revenue contribution of each sub-sector to its respective sector. Identify GDP contribution of each sector to the total GDP of sectors measured in the CSISG. 7

8 CSISG 2017 Key Facts INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

9 Sectors Measured in the CSISG Calendar year 1st quarter Info-Communications Retail 2nd quarter Air Transport Land Transport 3rd quarter F&B Tourism 4th quarter Finance & Insurance Healthcare 9

10 CSISG 2017 Full Year Quick Facts Total Questionnaires Completed 30,135 Locals 22,640 Tourists 7,495 Distinct entities measured 650 Entities with published scores

11 CSISG 2017 Q4 Quick Facts Sectors Covered Finance & Insurance Healthcare Survey Period Oct 2017 to Jan 2018 Total Questionnaires Completed 9,585 Locals 9,235 Tourists 350 Distinct entities measured 83 Entities with published scores 49 11

12 CSISG 2017 RESULTS INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

13 QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/ brands (Past 3/6/12 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/ brands from different sectors 2017 National Score 72.9 How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? 74.4 Air Transport 77.1 Airport* 77.1 Changi Airport 74.2 Full Service Airlines 77.5 Singapore Airlines* 76.1 Garuda Indonesia* 75.1 Emirates 74.2 Cathay Pacific 73.6 Qantas 72.8 SilkAir 71.5 Other full service airlines 71.2 Budget Airlines 72.0 Jetstar Asia 71.8 Scoot 71.6 AirAsia 70.4 Tiger 70.8 Other budget airlines 74.2 Tourism 74.4 Hotels Luxury & Upscale Hotels 75.1 The Ritz-Carlton 74.6 Marina Bay Sands 74.2 Grand Hyatt 73.7 Hotel Michael 73.5 Pan Pacific Singapore 72.8 Shangri-La 72.2 Mandarin Orchard 72.1 Marina Mandarin Economy Hotels 70.6 Fragrance Hotel 69.5 Hotel Other hotels 73.3 Attractions 74.9 Sentosa 74.5 Singapore Zoo 73.9 Jurong Bird Park 73.4 S.E.A. Aquarium 73.2 Singapore Flyer 73.2 Gardens By The Bay 72.8 River Safari 71.9 Universal Studios 71.8 Adventure Cove 71.1 Night Safari 70.4 Singapore Discovery Centre 71.2 Other attractions 73.4 Finance & Insurance 74.1 Banks 74.5 DBS 73.9 Citibank 73.8 OCBC 73.6 Maybank 73.1 Standard Chartered 72.8 HSBC 72.4 UOB 72.0 Other banks 72.5 Life Insurance 74.4 Great Eastern 73.1 AIA 72.4 NTUC Income 72.0 Prudential 70.1 Aviva 71.1 Other life insurers 72.4 Motor & Other Personal Insurance 73.1 NTUC Income 73.0 AXA 73.0 AIG 71.8 Other motor & personal insurers 71.9 Credit Cards 72.8 American Express 72.4 Citibank 72.3 DBS 72.0 Maybank 72.0 UOB 71.5 OCBC 71.4 HSBC 70.6 Other credit cards 71.9 Health & Medical Insurance 72.2 Prudential 72.2 AIA 72.1 NTUC Income 71.1 Great Eastern 71.7 Other health & medical insurers 72.1 Retail 72.5 Fashion Apparels 75.5 Zara 73.6 Adidas 73.2 Bossini 72.9 G Uniqlo 72.1 Esprit 71.9 Cotton On 71.7 Giordano 71.2 Hang Ten 71.1 H&M 72.7 Other fashion apparels 72.4 Supermarkets 73.1 NTUC Fairprice 72.4 Sheng Siong 72.3 Cold Storage 71.6 Giant 70.0 Other supermarkets 71.4 e-commerce 73.7 Zalora* 73.1 Groupon 72.6 Ebay 71.7 Taobao/Tmall 71.5 Qoo Carousell 70.0 Amazon 69.2 Other e-commerce 71.2 Department Stores 73.6 DFS* 72.1 Takashimaya 72.1 Robinsons 71.7 Metro 71.2 BHG 70.9 Isetan 70.1 Tangs 69.2 OG 70.3 Other department stores 13

14 QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/ brands (Past 3/6/12 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/ brands from different sectors 14

15 CSISG 2017 Q4 Sub-sectors Finance & Insurance Sector Banks Credit Cards Life Insurance Health & Medical Insurance Motor & Other Personal Insurance Healthcare Sector Restructured Hospitals Private Hospitals Polyclinics 15

16 Finance & Insurance Sector Results INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

17 Finance & Insurance Sector CSISG Trends 80 Banks 70 Finance 78 & Insurance Sector Life Insurance 80 Motor and Other Personal Insurance Credit Cards 80 Health and Medical Insurance Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence No statistically significant change between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence 17

18 Finance Sector Results & Findings INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

19 Banks (Main CASA Account) (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated Between Banks) CSISG 2016 CSISG Banks Finance & Insurance Sector DBS 73.1 OCBC 72.9 Maybank 72.5 Citibank 72.5 Standard Chartered 71.9 UOB 71.7 HSBC 71.3 Other banks DBS 73.9 Citibank 73.8 OCBC 73.6 Maybank 73.1 Standard Chartered 72.8 HSBC 72.4 UOB 72.0 Other banks E.g. of Other Banks Include CIMB, Bank Of China, RHB Note: Respondents must have a CASA account and have interacted with the bank in the last 3 months 19

20 Credit Cards (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated between Issuers) CSISG 2016 CSISG Credit Cards Finance & Insurance Sector Citibank Credit Cards 72.1 American Express Credit Cards 72.1 DBS Credit Cards 70.9 Maybank Credit Cards 70.7 UOB Credit Cards 70.7 HSBC Credit Cards 70.4 OCBC Credit Cards American Express Credit Cards 72.4 Citibank Credit Cards 72.3 DBS Credit Cards 72.0 Maybank Credit Cards 72.0 UOB Credit Cards 71.5 OCBC Credit Cards 71.4 HSBC Credit Cards 70.6 Other Credit Cards Other Credit Cards 69.0 E.g. of Other Credit Cards Include Standard Chartered, CIMB, Bank Of China Note: Respondents must be the principal cardholder and have most recently used it in the last 3 months 20

21 Banks Attributes Ratings Provides efficient service Brand image complements your personality Products appeal to you Has your best interest at heart Has a good reputation Feels comfortable and safe Descending Order Of Attributes Ratings Gives you individual attention Feels assured that things will be taken care of Provides prompt service Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Performs services right the very first time Has products and services available when you want it Proactively helps you when needed Makes the effort to understand your needs Range of products meet your needs Fulfills its promise at the promised time Avg 8.0 Rating Statistically significant increase/drop between Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence 21

22 Banks: General Rise in Attribute Ratings Descending Order Of Attributes Ratings Provides efficient service Brand image complements your personality Products appeal to you Has your best interest at heart Has a good reputation Feels comfortable and safe Gives you individual attention Feels assured that things will be taken care of Provides prompt service Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Performs services right the very first time Has products and services available when you want it Proactively helps you when needed Makes the effort to understand your needs Range of products meet your needs Fulfills its promise at the promised time Avg 8.0 Rating Statistically significant increase/drop between Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence 22

23 Credit Cards: General Rise in Attribute Ratings Redemption catalogue that meet my needs Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points, privileges Flexibility of policies such as waiver of charges Descending Order Of Attributes Ratings Has a good reputation Card benefits are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Ease of reward redemption Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information Brand image complements your personality Feels comfortable and safe when using the card Avg 8.0 Rating Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence 23

24 Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG & Loyalty) Banks Credit Cards CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty Proactively helps you when needed Gives you individual attention Flexibility of policies such as waiver of charges Flexibility of policies such as waiver of charges Brand image complements your personality Products appeal to you Brand image complements your personality Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points, privileges Has your best interest at heart Has your best interest at heart Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs Gives you individual attention Fulfills its promise at the promised time Feels assured that things will be taken care of Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points, privileges Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information Ease of reward redemption Card benefits are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact 24

25 Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG & Loyalty) Banks Credit Cards CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty Legend: Proactively helps you when needed Brand image complements your personality Gives you individual attention Products appeal to you Flexibility of policies such as waiver of charges Brand image complements your personality Flexibility of policies such as waiver of charges Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points, privileges Empathy Branding Assurance Has your best interest at heart Gives you individual attention Fulfills its promise at the promised time Has your best interest at heart Feels assured that things will be taken care of Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs Card benefits such as cashbacks, reward points, privileges Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs Ease of reward redemption Card benefits are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Responsiveness Product Reliability Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact 25

26 Bank Touch-Points (Overview) INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

27 Banks: Satisfaction with Touch-points Banks Touch-points Satisfaction Ratings Personal banker/ Relationship manager Mobile App Internet Banking Branch ATM/Self-Service Machine Contact Centre Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 27

28 Increased Satisfaction With 5 Out Of 6 Touch-points (Banks: Satisfaction with Touch-points) Banks Touch-points Satisfaction Ratings Personal banker/ Relationship manager Mobile App Internet Banking Branch ATM/Self-Service Machine Statistically Significant Increase from 2016 Contact Centre Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 28

29 Banks: Touch-point Interactions By Age Group 100% Mobile App Internet Banking Branch Contact Centre Personal Banker Interacted With Touch-point (%) 75% 50% 25% 0% 18 to 34 years old 35 to 49 years old 50 years old and above 29

30 Banks: Higher Interactions with Digital Touch-Points Among the Younger Age Groups 100% Mobile App Internet Banking Branch Contact Centre Personal Banker Interacted With Touch-point (%) 75% 50% 25% 0% 18 to 34 years old 35 to 49 years old 50 years old and above 30

31 Banks: Interaction with Branches Remain High 100% Mobile App Internet Banking Branch Contact Centre Personal Banker Interacted With Touch-point (%) 75% 50% 25% 0% 18 to 34 years old 35 to 49 years old 50 years old and above 31

32 The Changing Nature of Branch Interactions Source: (1) UOB Tampines 1 Branch: Source: (2) DBS Plaza Singapura Branch: DBS_reimagines_banking_with_lifestyle_space_for_tech_generation & ISE Photos 32

33 Digital Users (Bank Touch-Points) INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

34 Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users (Used A Digital Channel in the Last 3 months) 100% Banks % of Bank Respondents 50% 32.7% 67.3% 0% Did Not Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App 34

35 Digital Users by Age Group (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users) 100% Banks % of Bank Respondents 50% 32.7% 67.3% 0% Did Not Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Age Group 18 to 34 Years 14.9% 43.2% 35 to 49 Years 10.4% 43.9% 50 Years & Above 74.8% 12.9% 35

36 Digital Users Tend to Be Younger (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users By Age Group) 100% Banks % of Bank Respondents 50% 32.7% 67.3% Age Group 0% Did Not Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App 18 to 34 Years 14.9% 43.2% 35 to 49 Years 10.4% 43.9% 50 Years & Above 74.8% 12.9% 36

37 Satisfaction & Loyalty Metrics By User Type (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users) 100% Banks % of Bank Respondents 50% 32.7% 67.3% 0% Did Not Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App CSISG Score Loyalty Score

38 Digital Users Tend to be More Satisfied & Loyal (Banks: Digital Users vs Non-Digital Users) 100% Banks % of Bank Respondents 50% 32.7% 67.3% 0% Did Not Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App CSISG Score Loyalty Score Bank respondents who use Internet Banking/ Mobile App have higher Satisfaction and Loyalty scores. GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance. 38

39 Digital Users Hold More Products With Same Bank (Banks: Digital Users vs Non-Digital Users) 100% Banks % of Bank Respondents 50% 32.7% 67.3% 0% Did Not Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App Use Internet Banking/ Mobile App CSISG Score Loyalty Score Average No. Of Products Held With Same Bank Bank respondents who use Internet Banking/ Mobile App hold more products with the same bank. GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance. 39

40 Insurance Sector Results & Findings INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

41 Life Insurance (Scores Statistically Unchanged between Insurers) CSISG 2016 CSISG Life Insurance Finance & Insurance Sector Great Eastern Great Eastern 73.2 AIA 72.8 NTUC Income 71.3 Prudential 71.1 Other Life AIA 72.4 NTUC Income 72.0 Prudential 71.1 Other Life 70.1 Aviva Aviva 69.1 E.g. of Other Life Insurance includes Manulife, AXA, Tokio Marine Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer s touch-points in the past 12 months 41

42 Life Insurance Attributes Ratings - YOY Movements Descending Order Of Attributes Ratings Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Range of products meet your needs Has a good reputation Brand image complements your personality Feels assured that things will be taken care of Performs services right the very first time Products appeal to you Gives you individual attention Fulfills its promise at the promised time Has your best interest at heart Provides prompt service Makes the effort to understand your needs Feels comfortable and safe Proactively helps you when needed Provides efficient service Has products and services available when you want it Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence Avg 8.0 Rating Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 42

43 Health & Medical Insurance (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated between Insurers) 80 Health & Medical Insurance 71.9 CSISG 2016 CSISG Finance & Insurance Sector NTUC Income 71.4 Other Health & Medical 71.3 Prudential 70.7 AIA 70.5 Great Eastern Prudential 72.2 AIA 72.1 NTUC Income 71.7 Other Health & Medical 71.1 Great Eastern E.g. of Other Health & Medical Insurance includes Aviva, Manulife, AXA Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer s touch-points in the past 12 months 43

44 Health & Medical Insurance Attributes Ratings - YOY Movements Descending Order Of Attributes Ratings Feels comfortable and safe Fulfills its promise at the promised time Feels assured that things will be taken care of Has Products and services available when you want it Gives you individual attention Performs services right the very first time Range of products meet your needs Brand image complements your personality Has your best interest at heart Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Provides efficient service Provides prompt service Makes the effort to understand your needs Proactively helps you when needed Has a good reputation Products appeal to you Avg 8.0 Rating Statistically significant increase/drop between Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence 44

45 Motor & Other Personal Insurance (Satisfaction Levels Undifferentiated between Insurers) 80 Motor & Other Personal Insurance CSISG 2016 CSISG Finance & Insurance Sector AXA 72.6 NTUC Income 72.3 AIG NTUC Income 73.0 AIG 73.0 AXA 71.8 Other Motor & Personal Other Motor & Personal 71.2 E.g. of Other Motor & Personal Insurance Includes MSIG, Direct Asia, Tokio Marine Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer s touch-points in the past 12 months 45

46 Motor & Other Personal Insurance Attributes Ratings - YOY Movements Descending Order Of Attributes Ratings Has a good reputation Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand Provides efficient service Performs services right the very first time Feels assured that things will be taken care of Brand image complements your personality Provides prompt service Gives you individual attention Products appeal to you Proactively helps you when needed Has Products and services available when you want it Feels comfortable and safe Fulfills its promise at the promised time Range of products meet your needs Has your best interest at heart Makes the effort to understand your needs Avg 8.0 Rating Statistically significant increase/drop between Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) the 2016 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence 46

47 Insurance Touch-Points INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

48 Insurance: Touch-point Interaction Proportions % of Respondents Who Interacted With 100% 50% 0% Contact Centre Customer Service Centre % Interacted With Life Insurance Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Contact Centre Health & Medical Insurance Customer Service Centre Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Motor & Other Personal Insurance Contact Centre Customer Service Centre Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep 48

49 Insurance: Touch-point Satisfaction Ratings % of Respondents Who Interacted With 100% 50% 0% Contact Centre Customer Service Centre % Interacted With Satisfaction Rating of Each Touch-Point Life Insurance Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Contact Centre Customer Service Centre Health & Medical Insurance Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Motor & Other Personal Insurance Contact Centre Customer Service Centre Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

50 Insurance: Touch-point Satisfaction Ratings % of Respondents Who Interacted With 100% 50% 0% Contact Centre Customer Service Centre % Interacted With Satisfaction Rating of Each Touch-Point Life Insurance Satisfaction With Contact Centre Significantly Lower Than Other Touchpoints Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Contact Centre Customer Service Centre Health & Medical Insurance Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Motor & Other Personal Insurance Contact Centre Customer Service Centre Website Financial Advisor/ Sales Rep Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

51 Insurance: Contact Centre Users % of Insurance Respondents 100% 50% Life Insurance 13.4% 86.6% Health & Medical Insurance 10.3% 89.7% Motor & Other Personal Insurance 41.2% 58.8% 0% Interacted With Contact Centre Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Interacted With Contact Centre Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Interacted With Contact Centre Did Not Interact With Contact Centre CSISG Score Loyalty Score Complaint Rate 7.4% 0.7% 8.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.8% 51

52 Customer Metrics Poorer Amongst Customers With Contact Centre Interactions % of Insurance Respondents 100% 50% 0% Life Insurance 13.4% Interacted With Contact Centre 86.6% Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Health & Medical Insurance 10.3% Interacted With Contact Centre 89.7% Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Motor & Other Personal Insurance 41.2% Interacted With Contact Centre 58.8% Did Not Interact With Contact Centre CSISG Score Loyalty Score Complaint Rate 7.4% 0.7% 8.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.8% GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance 52

53 % of Insurance Respondents Insurance: Contact Centre Users 100% 50% 0% Life Insurance 13.4% Interacted With Contact Centre 86.7% Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Health & Medical Insurance 89.7% 10.3% Interacted With Contact Centre Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Motor & Other Personal Insurance 41.2% Interacted With Contact Centre 58.8% Did Not Interact With Contact Centre Selected Verbatim From Customers Who Gave Contact Centres A Poor Rating (<5 points) Staff on the phone is not helpful and rude to me Service staff on the phone is impatient and rude The operator was not sure with what I am enquiring for and gave me the wrong info, she should have asked for help from other colleague. The contact centre always take their own sweet time to answer my call I have to wait very long for the operators to answer my calls Contact centre is not easy to navigate and staff is not familiar with their product. I had a hard time trying to explain to her the information I needed 53

54 Healthcare Sector Results & Findings INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

55 Healthcare Sector CSISG 76 Private Hospitals Healthcare Sector Polyclinics 76 Restructured Hospitals Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence No statistically significant change between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months 55

56 Restructured Hospitals (Scores Statistically Unchanged) 76 Restructured Hospitals CSISG 2016 CSISG Healthcare Sector KKH 71.2 KTPH 70.9 CGH 70.9 NTFH 70.1 TTSH 69.9 NUH KKH 71.5 CGH 71.4 KTPH 71.0 NUH 70.8 NTFH 70.7 TTSH 70.3 AH AH SGH SGH 67.3 Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months 56

57 Private Hospitals (Scores Statistically Unchanged) 76 Private Hospitals 74.4 CSISG 2016 CSISG Healthcare Sector Mount Alvernia Hospital 74.3 Parkway East Hospital 74.2 Gleneagles Hospital 73.6 Raffles Hospital 73.5 Mount Elizabeth Orchard 73.1 Mount Elizabeth Novena Mount Alvernia Hospital 74.7 Mount Elizabeth Orchard 74.6 Raffles Hospital 74.2 Gleneagles Hospital 74.2 Parkway East Hospital 73.9 Mount Elizabeth Novena 73.7 Thomson Medical Centre Thomson Medical Centre 71.2 Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months 57

58 Polyclinics 76 Polyclinics Healthcare Sector CSISG Score (0 to 100) NUP SingHealth NHG Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months Note: The same polyclinics measured in 2016 are measured in 2017 but are now grouped under the new polyclinic clusters Punggol and Pioneer polyclinics were not measured in this study. 58

59 Healthcare Attributes Analysis INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

60 Restructured Hospitals: Attributes Performance & Impact Satisfaction with 2017 Avg Rating Registration process Significant Impact on CSISG Payment process Waiting time Cleanliness of hospital Waiting experience Treatment administered or suggested Limited Impact on CSISG Amenities within hospital Ease of getting around Clarity of direction signs Explanation of diagnosis / condition Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Collection of Medicine, Appointment booking and Interactions With All Touch-points Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 60

61 Waiting Time Lowest Performing Attribute (Restructured Hospitals: Attributes Performance & Impact) Satisfaction with Registration process 2017 Avg Rating Significant Impact on CSISG Payment process Waiting time Cleanliness of hospital Waiting experience Treatment administered or suggested Limited Impact on CSISG Amenities within hospital Ease of getting around Clarity of direction signs Explanation of diagnosis / condition Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Collection of Medicine, Appointment booking and Interactions With All Touch-points Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 61

62 Improvement in Various Attributes (Restructured Hospitals: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes) Restructured Hospital: Attributes Comparable Year-on-Year Ease of getting around YOY Percentage Change In Satisfaction Ratings +3.6% Explanation of diagnosis / condition Waiting experience Ease of making appointment Clarity of direction signs Payment process Registration process Clarity of medication instructions Collection of medication +2.3% +1.9% +1.1% +0.9% +0.3% +0.1% +0.1% 0.0% Treatment administered or suggested -0.4% Amenities within hospital Waiting time (before undergoing medical test or seeing a doctor) -1.6% -1.9% Statistically significant year-on-year increase at 90% confidence Statistically significant year-on-year drop at 90% confidence 62

63 Waiting Time Lowest Performing Attribute (Polyclinics: Attributes Performance & Impact) Satisfaction with Doctors Efficiency of registration process 2017 Avg Rating Significant Impact on CSISG Clarity of medication instructions Waiting experience Payment process Explanation of diagnosis / condition Clinic staff Waiting time Clarity of direction signs Limited Impact on CSISG Ease of getting around Amenities within polyclinic Collection of medication Cleanliness of polyclinic Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Appointment booking and Interactions With Nurses, Allied Health Staff Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 63

64 Fall in Waiting Time Amidst Improvement In Various Attributes (Polyclinics: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes) Polyclinics: Attributes Comparable Year-on-Year Waiting experience YOY Percentage Change In Satisfaction Ratings +5.7% Ease of making an appointment Clarity of medication instructions Clarity of direction signs Amenities within polyclinic Ease of getting around Payment process Explanation of diagnosis / condition Efficiency of registration process Collection of medication +5.3% +5.2% +3.9% +3.5% +3.4% +2.1% +1.5% +1.5% +0.4% Cleanliness of polyclinic -0.3% Waiting time (before undergoing medical test or seeing a doctor) -7.4% Statistically significant year-on-year increase at 90% confidence Statistically significant year-on-year drop at 90% confidence 64

65 Waiting Time Lowest Performing Attribute (Private Hospitals: Attributes Performance & Impact) Satisfaction with Waiting time 2017 Avg Rating Administrative Staff Significant Impact on CSISG Registration process Clarity of medication instructions Payment process Amenities within hospital Doctors Collection of medication Explanation of diagnosis / condition Waiting experience Limited Impact on CSISG Ease of getting around Clarity of direction signs Treatment administered or suggested Cleanliness of hospital Note: Analysis controls for Expectations, Hospitalisation, Local- Tourist segments, Appointment booking and Interactions With Nurses, Allied Health Staff Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10) 65

66 General Improvement In Various Attributes (Private Hospitals: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes) Private Hospital: Attributes Comparable Year-on-Year Waiting experience YOY Percentage Change In Satisfaction Ratings +4.0% Ease of getting around Amenities within hospital Waiting time (before undergoing medical test or seeing a doctor) Collection of medication Explanation of diagnosis / condition Registration process Ease of making appointment Clarity of medication instructions Clarity of direction signs Payment process +3.3% +2.8% +2.0% +2.0% +2.0% +1.1% +1.0% +0.9% +0.8% +0.3% Treatment administered or suggested -0.3% Statistically significant year-on-year increase at 90% confidence Statistically significant year-on-year drop at 90% confidence 66

67 Complaint Tree (Healthcare sector) INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

68 Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company]? Yes No How would you rate the handling of your complaint? You didn t complain because... Too difficult No point No reason 68

69 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company] in the last 6 months? n=3,540 Yes No 1.5% 98.5% Note: Data is Unweighted 69

70 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company] in the last 6 months? n=3,540 Yes No 1.5% 98.5% How would you rate the handling of your complaint? (1-5) (6-10) Handled Poorly 79.6% Handled Well 20.4% Note: Data is Unweighted 70

71 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company] in the last 6 months? n=3,540 Yes No 1.5% 98.5% How would you rate the handling of your complaint? You didn t complain because... (1-5) (6-10) Handled Poorly 79.6% Handled Well 20.4% Too difficult No point No reason 1.3% 3.3% 95.4% Note: Data is Unweighted 71

72 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company] in the last 6 months? n=3,540 Yes No 1.5% 98.5% How would you rate the handling of your complaint? You didn t complain because % 20.4% 1.3% 3.3% (1-5) Handled Poorly 28.6 CSISG 73.4 CSISG (6-10) Handled Well Too difficult 29.2 CSISG No point 36.6 CSISG 95.4% No reason 74.6 CSISG Note: Data is Unweighted 72

73 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company] in the last 6 months? n=3,540 Yes No 1.5% 98.5% How would you rate the handling of your complaint? You didn t complain because % 20.4% 1.3% 3.3% (1-5) Handled Poorly 28.6 CSISG (6-10) Handled Well 73.4 CSISG Too difficult CSISG No point Complaints Do Not Necessarily Mean Poorer Satisfaction if Handled Well CSISG 95.4% No reason 74.6 CSISG Note: Data is Unweighted 73

74 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Have you complained to [company] in the last 6 months? n=3,540 Yes No 1.5% 98.5% How would you rate the handling of your complaint? You didn t complain because % 20.4% 1.3% 3.3% 95.4% Handled Poorly 28.6 CSISG Handled Well 73.4 CSISG Too difficult 29.2 CSISG No point 36.6 CSISG Unsurfaced No reason Complaints Associated with Satisfaction Levels 74.6 Similar CSISGto Poor Complaint Handling Note: Data is Unweighted 74

75 Healthcare Sector - Complaint Tree Wordcloud Of Healthcare Respondents Who Found It Too Difficult Or No Point Complaining consultation service fees bed doctors clinic n=3,540 services Yes No 1.5% 98.5% hospital condition staff hard nurse How would you rate confusing long the handling of your ward nurses complaint? wait young expensive check waiting admin assured number unbearable uncomfortable trained attention provided hours feel charges 79.6% 20.4% clear high Handled appointment Handled registrationasked Poorly 28.6 CSISG doctor inexperienced medication slow medicine short received money Wellsystem parking 73.4 CSISG Have you complained to [company] in the last 3/6 months? interested explanation improve sleep medical signages Too difficult 29.2 CSISG You didn t complain because % No point 36.6 CSISG 3.3% 95.4% No reason 74.6 CSISG Note: Data is Unweighted 75

76 Summary Rise in national CSISG score with a number of sub-sectors seeing upticks in satisfaction levels. Specifically for Q4 sub-sectors, Banks, Credits Cards and Health & Medical insurance saw statistically significant upticks. While Healthcare sub-sectors saw no detectable changes in CSISG scores, various attributes saw statistically significant improvements from

77 Summary Finance & Insurance Digitisation strategy of banks appears on-track, with higher satisfaction and loyalty seen among users of digital touchpoints. A different strategy may be necessary to address older customers who are more likely to use non-digital touchpoints like Branches. Insurers may wish to consider how to better equip Contact Centres to handle customers given the lower satisfaction ratings. 77

78 Summary Healthcare While there were upticks across various attributes, perceived waiting time remains a key issue for the industry, especially for public healthcare. Healthcare institutions may wish to consider to not only manage customer complaints, but proactively address issues in which patients were dissatisfied with, but did not formally raise it to them. 78

79 ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2017 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY