Research Report. STAR Survey Headline findings. Prepared for: Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing Prepared by: Francis Bolton, Senior Researcher

Transcription

1 Research Report STAR Survey Headline findings Prepared for: Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing Prepared by: Francis Bolton, Senior Researcher

2 STAR Survey Headline findings Prepared for: Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing Prepared by: Francis Bolton, Senior Researcher Date: December 2016 Produced by BMG Research BMG Research Ltd, Project: 1081 Registered in England No Registered office: BMG Research Beech House Greenfield Crescent Edgbaston Birmingham B15 3BE UK Tel: +44 (0) UK VAT Registration No Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626 Market Research Society Company Partner The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 20252:2012 The provision of Market Research Services in accordance with ISO 9001:2008 The International Standard for Information Security Management ISO 27001:2013 Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614 Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z A Fair Data organisation Cyber Essentials certification The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of BMG Research Ltd.

3 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Background Methodology Key findings Overall perceptions of KNH Quality of home perceptions Value for money of rent Neighbourhood as a place to live Repairs and maintenance Grounds maintenance Communication Contact with KNH Headline findings Tracking of key measures over time Benchmarking against national data Overall perceptions of KNH Overall satisfaction with KNH Perceived change in housing service over the last year Likelihood of recommending KNH (Net Promoter Score) Quality of home perceptions Value for money of rent Neighbourhood as a place to live Repairs and maintenance Online repair booking service Grounds maintenance Communication Listening to views and acting on them Keeping tenants informed Contact with KNH Contact experience Helpfulness of staff... 34

4 STAR Survey Headline findings Query answered in a reasonable time Satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently Satisfaction with the final outcome Perceptions of the contact experience by channel and enquiry type Profile information Appendix: Statement of Terms Table of Figures Figure 1: Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by KNH? (Valid responses)... 7 Figure 2: Overall satisfaction year-on-year (Valid responses)... 7 Figure 3: Satisfaction with the overall service provided by KNH - By key demographic groups (Valid responses)... 8 Figure 4: Proportion satisfied with the overall service provided by KNH - By area (Valid responses)... 9 Figure 5: Do you feel that the housing service you have received over the last year has changed? Has it got better, worse, or has there been no change? (Valid responses) Figure 6: How likely would you be to recommend KNH to family and friends if they needed accommodation? (Valid responses) Figure 7: Net Promoter Score (NPS) year on year (Valid responses) Figure 8: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall quality of your home? (Valid responses) Figure 9: Satisfaction with quality of home year-on-year (Valid responses) Figure 10: Satisfaction with quality of home - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) Figure 11: Interaction between quality of home perceptions and household composition - those living in a house (Valid responses) Figure 12: Proportion satisfied with the quality of home - By area (Valid responses) Figure 13: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the value for money of your rent? (Valid responses) Figure 14: Satisfaction with value for money of rent year-on-year (Valid responses)

5 Introduction Figure 15: Satisfaction with value for money of rent - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) Figure 16: Proportion satisfied with the value for money of rent - By area (Valid responses) Figure 17: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the neighbourhood as a place to live? (Valid responses) Figure 18: Satisfaction with neighbourhood as a place to live year-on-year (Valid responses) Figure 19: Proportion satisfied with neighbourhood as a place to live - By area (Valid responses) Figure 20: Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way KNH deals with repairs and maintenance? (Valid responses) Figure 21: Satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service year-on-year (Valid responses) Figure 22: Were you aware that you can now order repairs online? (Valid responses, those who have had a repair completed in the last 12 months) / Have you ordered a repair online? (Valid responses, those aware of the service) Figure 23: Why have you not ordered a repair online? (Valid responses, those who have had a repair completed in the last 12 months, are aware of the online service but have not used it) Figure 24: Overall how satisfied are you with the following in your local area? (Valid responses) Figure 25: Proportion satisfied with the quality of grass cutting - By area (Valid responses) 26 Figure 26: Proportion satisfied with the quality of shrub / rose bed maintenance and hedge maintenance - By neighbourhood (Valid responses) Figure 27: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that KNH listens to your views and acts upon them? (Valid responses) Figure 28: Satisfaction that KNH listens to views and acts upon them year-on-year (Valid responses) Figure 29: Satisfaction that KNH listens to views and acts on them - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) Figure 30: How good or poor do you feel KNH is at keeping you informed about things that affect you as a tenant? (Valid responses) Figure 31: Keeping residents informed year-on-year (Valid responses) Figure 32: Have you contacted KNH in the last 12 months? (Valid responses) / How did you last contact KNH in the last 12 months? / What did you last have contact about? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 33: Did you find the staff...? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months)

6 STAR Survey Headline findings Figure 34: Proportion finding staff helpful, year on year (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 35: Proportion saying their query was answered within a reasonable time (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 36: Thinking about your contact with KNH in the last 12 months, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 37: Satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently year-on-year (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 38: Thinking about your contact with KNH in the last 12 months, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the final outcome of your query? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 39: Satisfaction with the final outcome year-on-year (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Figure 40: Perceptions of the contact experience by channel (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Table of Tables Table 1: Tracking of KPIs over time... 5 Table 2: Comparison of Kirklees scores across key indicators in comparison to the latest available HouseMark averages (General Needs)

7 Introduction 1 Introduction 1.1 Background Kirklees Neighbourhood Housing (KNH) has carried out a number of annual customer satisfaction surveys using the STATUS/STAR questionnaire and methodology. The objectives of KNH s 2016 STAR Survey were to gauge the current satisfaction levels of its tenants across a range of services, benchmarking against previous findings and against national and regional benchmarks. In addition, questions were included to measure awareness of the new online facility for ordering repairs online, and any barriers to using this service. 1.2 Methodology A postal survey of 2,000 tenants was carried out between October and November The initial mailing comprised the questionnaire, a letter explaining the purpose of the survey, and a BMG Research reply paid envelope. This was followed by two reminder mailings to those who had not responded to the initial mailing, complete with a fresh copy of the questionnaire. In total, 665 questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 33%. Based on a total tenant base of 22,004 (the number of valid contacts sent to BMG), the sample is subject to a maximum standard error of +/-3.7% at the 95% confidence level on an observed statistic of 50%. Therefore, we can be 95% confident that if all KNH tenants completed the survey a score of 50% would range from 46.3% and 53.7%. In order to ensure that the survey results reflect the views of all tenants the data was weighted prior to analysis. The weights applied were by neighbourhood (Batley/Spen, Dewsbury, Huddersfield North, and Huddersfield South), and by property type within each of these neighbourhoods (bungalow, house, flat/maisonette/studio). This weighting corrects the relative imbalances within the survey returns by neighbourhood and property type. The data used in this report are rounded up or down to the nearest whole percentage. It is for this reason that, on occasions, tables or charts may not add to 100%. Where tables and graphics do not match exactly the text in the report this occurs due to the way in which figures are rounded up (or down) when responses are combined. Results that do differ in this way should not have a variance which is any larger that 1%. In addition to this written report, data tabulations have also been produced which present the data as a whole. The written report is based on valid responses, i.e. if a respondent did not answer a question, or answered it incorrectly they were excluded from the analysis for that question. 1

8 STAR Survey Headline findings 2 Key findings 2.1 Overall perceptions of KNH Four in five tenants (81%) are satisfied with the overall service provided by KNH, whilst 13% are dissatisfied. Whilst most are therefore satisfied with the service they receive, satisfaction levels are at the lowest level recorded to date, and significantly lower compared to pre-2015 iterations of the research. As a result, satisfaction with KNH falls within the lower quartile of satisfaction nationally according to HouseMark benchmarking data. There are a range of potential contributing factors to this decline in perceptions, with satisfaction on the following measures falling to their lowest level to date: quality of home, neighbourhood as a place to live, and listening to tenants views and acting on them. As with the trend in overall satisfaction, it should be noted that none of these changes compared to the 2015 findings are statistically significant. 2.2 Quality of home perceptions Four in five tenants are satisfied with the quality of their home (81%), whilst 13% are dissatisfied. These perceptions are marginally less positive than previous iterations of the research, although satisfaction on this measure remains similar to the HouseMark median (84%). 2.3 Value for money of rent Four in five tenants are satisfied with the value for money of their rent (81%), whilst 8% are dissatisfied. Perceptions on this measure are similar to previous findings. 2.4 Neighbourhood as a place to live Approaching eight in ten tenants (78%) are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live, whilst 15% are dissatisfied. Whilst most are therefore satisfied on this metric, satisfaction levels are at the lowest level recorded to date, and significantly lower compared to pre-2015 iterations of the research. As a result, satisfaction falls within the lower quartile of satisfaction nationally according to HouseMark benchmarking data. By neighbourhood, satisfaction is significantly lower compared to the average amongst Dewsbury tenants; this is driven primarily by tenants living in Dewsbury Area West, although elsewhere perceptions are also significantly lower amongst Dalton tenants. 2

9 Key findings 2.5 Repairs and maintenance Four in five tenants are satisfied with the way KNH deals with repairs and maintenance (81%), with 10% dissatisfied. Perceptions on this key measure have therefore not altered significantly compared to previous iterations of the research. Specifically in relation to the online repair booking service, most (84%) are aware of this service 1, but of this group just 17% have ordered a repair online. Given the high levels of awareness that this service is available, KNH will need to consider other barriers to using the service; these can be summarised as follows: Four in ten (40%) of those aware of the online repair booking service state that they do not have internet access. In total, half (49%) do not have internet access, do not have the skills or confidence to go online, and/or cannot afford to go online; Most of those contacting KNH about a repair do so by telephone, and perceptions of the contact experience are particularly positive amongst those contacting KNH about a repair (see Section ). Current tenants may therefore be reluctant to change from telephoning KNH about a repair to reporting the repair online. 2.6 Grounds maintenance Satisfaction with grounds maintenance services (quality of grass cutting, quality of shrub / rose bed maintenance, quality of hedge maintenance) is broadly similar to previous findings. However, dissatisfaction with these services is at its highest levels to date, with around a quarter of those who feel these services apply to their local area expressing dissatisfaction. 2.7 Communication Approaching three-quarters (73%) rate KNH as good at keeping them informed, similar to findings. However, perceptions that KNH listens to tenants views and acts on them are at their lowest level to date (59% satisfied, 16% dissatisfied); this represents a significant fall in satisfaction compared to the 2014 findings, although not As a result, satisfaction on this metric falls within the lower quartile of satisfaction nationally according to HouseMark benchmarking data. Further work may be required to establish whether this is due to a perceived lack of involvement opportunities, or to a perceived lack of responsiveness on specific service issues such as grounds maintenance. 1 Based on those who have had a repair completed in the last 12 months 3

10 STAR Survey Headline findings 2.8 Contact with KNH Those making contact with KNH mostly do so by telephone (85% of contacts), compared to 7% who visited the office and 5% who ed. None of those completing a survey last made contact via Facebook or Twitter. Whilst telephone is typically the most-used channel to make contact in this sector, this still suggests that there is scope to expand usage of and social media channels. As with previous findings, most of those making contact rate their experience positively: 83% found staff helpful; 84% agree that their query was answered within a reasonable time; 82% were satisfied with the ability of staff to deal with their query quickly and efficiently; 76% were satisfied with the final outcome of their query. 4

11 Headline findings 3 Headline findings 3.1 Tracking of key measures over time The table below tracks key perception measures over time. Whilst perceptions have in most cases deteriorated compared to the 2015 findings, none of the changes shown compared to 2015 are statistically significant. Table 1: Tracking of KPIs over time Question wording Change Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service 83% 86% 87% 85% 86% 84% 81% -3 provided by KNH? Overall how satisfied are you with the overall quality of your 83% 85% 86% 83% 83% 83% 81% -2 home? Overall how satisfied are you with this neighbourhood as a 80% 83% 84% 85% 84% 82% 78% -4 place to live? Overall how satisfied are you with the value for money for 83% 84% 82% 81% 83% 81% 81% - your rent? Did you find staff helpful? 79% 84% 83% 82% 83% 84% 83% -1 Were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the final 66% 77% 75% 76% 78% 79% 76% -3 outcome? Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way your landlord deals with 77% 86% 85% 82% 85% 83% 81% -2 repairs and maintenance? How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that KNH listens to 59% 66% 69% 62% 65% 64% 59% -5 your views and acts on them? How good or poor do you feel your landlord is at keeping you informed about things that might affect you as a tenant? 73% 77% 77% 78% 74% 72% 73% +1 5

12 STAR Survey Headline findings 3.2 Benchmarking against national data Compared against the latest available national data provided by HouseMark, satisfaction with the overall service provided falls within the lower quartile of benchmarking data, as does satisfaction with neighbourhood as a place to live, KNH listening to views and acting on them, and Net Promoter Score (NPS). Table 2: Comparison of Kirklees scores across key indicators in comparison to the latest available HouseMark averages (General Needs) Kirklees HouseMark 2013/14 data (General needs) Description 2016 Upper quartile Median Lower quartile Satisfied with overall service 81% 89% 86% 82% Satisfied with quality of home Satisfied with neighbourhood as a place to live Satisfied that rent provides value for money Satisfied with repairs and maintenance Satisfied that landlord listens to views and acts on them 81% 87% 84% 79% 78% 88% 84% 79% 81% 84% 80% 76% 81% 84% 79% 75% 59% 74% 68% 62% Net Promoter Score (NPS)

13 Overall perceptions of KNH 4 Overall perceptions of KNH 4.1 Overall satisfaction with KNH Four in five tenants (81%) are satisfied with the overall service provided by KNH, whilst 13% are dissatisfied. As Figure 2 below indicates, satisfaction levels are at the lowest level recorded to date; whilst overall satisfaction is broadly in line with the 2015 findings, it is significantly lower compared to pre-2015 iterations of the research. Figure 1: Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by KNH? (Valid responses) Very satisfied 37% Fairly satisfied 43% Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 6% 5% 8% Satisfied 81% Dissatisfied 13% Unweighted sample base: 655 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 2: Overall satisfaction year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 80% 86% 87% 85% 86% 84% 81% 60% 40% Satisfied Dissatisfied 20% 7% 8% 10% 10% 11% 13% 0% Sample bases vary

14 STAR Survey Headline findings This data can then be broken down by key demographic variables: By age group, there is no clear correlation between age and satisfaction levels; Supported tenants indicate higher levels of satisfaction than general needs tenants; however, due to the low sample size for supported tenants (24 responses at this question), this difference is not statistically significant; Households consisting of just one adult (and no children) are significantly more likely to be satisfied compared to the average (84% satisfied cf. 81%); Tenants living in houses are significantly less likely compared to the average to be satisfied. Figure 3: Satisfaction with the overall service provided by KNH - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) (65) 70% 13% 17% (56) 90% 2% 8% Age group (97) 72% 10% 18% (103) 75% 8% 17% (149) 75+ (153) 89% 86% 4% 7% 3% 11% Housing type General Needs (631) Supported Housing (24) 81% 92% 6% 13% 0% 8% Household composition Single adult (372) Multiple adults (92) 75% 84% 7% 4% 12% 17% Family (80) 76% 8% 16% Bungalow (138) 83% 2% 16% Flat/ Studio/ Maisonette (284) 84% 6% 10% Property type House (233) 77% 8% 15% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied 8

15 Overall perceptions of KNH By neighbourhood, Huddersfield South tenants record significantly higher levels of satisfaction compared to the average (88% satisfied cf. 81% overall). No Huddersfield South respondents described themselves as very dissatisfied with the service they receive from KNH. Broken down by management area, Dewsbury Area West and Thornhill tenants record significantly lower levels of satisfaction compared to the average (69%); similar lower levels of satisfaction are recorded in Birstall and Dalton, however the relatively low sample sizes for these areas mean that the difference compared to the average is not significant. It should also be noted that Huddersfield Central tenants are the most likely to be very dissatisfied with the service they receive (15% very dissatisfied cf. 5% overall). Figure 4: Proportion satisfied with the overall service provided by KNH - By area (Valid responses) Batley / Spen: 77% satisfied 16% dissatisfied Batley Central (50) Birstall (25) Cleckheaton (50) Heckmondwike (41) 75% 68% 87% 74% Dewsbury: 78% satisfied 12% dissatisfied Dewsbury Area East (32) Dewsbury Area West (39) Ravensthorpe (51) Thornhill (43) 69% 69% 88% 87% Huddersfield North: 80% satisfied 16% dissatisfied Dalton (36) Dearne Valley (27) Deighton (46) Huddersfield Central (50) 69% 90% 87% 77% Huddersfield South: 88% satisfied 7% dissatisfied Almondbury (27) Colne Valley (40) Crosland Moor (21) Holme Valley (23) Newsome (54) 93% 89% 100% 83% 82% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 9

16 STAR Survey Headline findings 4.2 Perceived change in housing service over the last year All respondents were asked whether or not they feel the housing service they have received has changed over the last year. Whilst responses on balance remain positive, tenants are now only slightly more likely to believe that the service has got better than worse over this period (20% cf. 15%), in keeping with the fall in overall satisfaction discussed earlier in this section. Figure 5: Do you feel that the housing service you have received over the last year has changed? Has it got better, worse, or has there been no change? (Valid responses) 80% 60% 64% 64% 60% 68% 63% 66% 40% 20% 25% 25% 24% 21% 24% 20% 0% 11% 11% 16% 11% 13% 15% Better Worse No change Sample bases vary 10

17 4.3 Likelihood of recommending KNH (Net Promoter Score) Overall perceptions of KNH Tenants were asked to rate how likely they would be to recommend KNH to friends and family on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all likely and 10 is extremely likely. The answers to this question can then be grouped into three categories: Promoters (9-10), Passives (7-8), and Detractors (0-6). This analysis allows us to calculate a Net Promoter Score (NPS), by subtracting Detractors from Promoters. As can be seen in the chart below, 35% of all tenants are extremely likely to recommend KNH to family and friends, while at the other end of the spectrum, just 4% would not recommend KNH at all. KNH s NPS has not changed significantly compared to previous findings; however, as shown in Section 3.2 the NPS is within the bottom quartile of data as measured by HouseMark nationally. Figure 6: How likely would you be to recommend KNH to family and friends if they needed accommodation? (Valid responses) 0 - Not at all likely % 2% 1% 2% Detractors: 29% 4 5 3% 11% NPS % 7 9% Passives: 26% 8 17% Extremely likely 9% 35% Promoters: 45% Unweighted sample base: 641 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 11

18 STAR Survey Headline findings Figure 7: Net Promoter Score (NPS) year on year (Valid responses) Sample bases vary

19 Quality of home perceptions 5 Quality of home perceptions Respondents were asked to rate the overall quality of their home. This is a key area for KNH findings indicate that 54% of tenants regard this as one of their top three priorities, second only to repairs and maintenance in importance. Four in five tenants are satisfied with the quality of their home (81%), whilst 13% are dissatisfied. These perceptions are marginally less positive than previous iterations of the research. Figure 8: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall quality of your home? (Valid responses) Very satisfied 35% Fairly satisfied 46% Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 4% 6% 9% Satisfied 81% Dissatisfied 13% Unweighted sample base: 655 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 9: Satisfaction with quality of home year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 80% 85% 86% 83% 83% 83% 81% 60% 40% Satisfied Dissatisfied 20% 8% 10% 12% 11% 11% 13% 0% Sample bases vary

20 STAR Survey Headline findings As with the findings on overall satisfaction, perceptions are most positive amongst supported tenants, single-occupancy households, and those living in a bungalow or flat / studio / maisonette. Perceptions are significantly lower amongst tenants with families / living in houses, compared to the average. As Figure 11 overleaf indicates, the lower levels of satisfaction amongst house-dwellers are driven by families - 66% of tenants with a family living in a house are satisfied with the quality of their home, compared to 81% for all KNH tenants, the biggest gap in satisfaction between this group and the average recorded on this survey. By contrast, a quarter (25%) are dissatisfied. To improve quality of home perceptions, KNH may therefore need to look at the suitability of its houses for tenants with families. By contrast, 86% of tenants with families who live in other stock are satisfied; however, this is based on just 14 responses. By age group, perceptions of quality of home are significantly more positive amongst older tenants. Perceptions are similar when comparing wheelchair users against nonwheelchair users; however, wheelchair users are significantly more likely to be very satisfied with the quality of their home (50% very satisfied compared to 34% of nonwheelchair users). Figure 10: Satisfaction with quality of home - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) (65) 66% 10% 24% (54) 76% 9% 15% Age group (100) (103) 75% 75% 7% 5% 18% 19% (150) 90% 5% 6% 75+ (151) 91% 2% 7% Housing type General Needs (630) Supported Housing (25) 80% 97% 6% 14% 3% 0% Single adult (375) 86% 5% 10% Household composition Multiple adults (92) Family (79) 69% 79% 9% 4% 17% 22% Property type Bungalow (140) Flat/ Studio/ Maisonette (284) House (231) Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 82% 76% 86% 7% 6% 12% 4% 10% 16% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied 14

21 Quality of home perceptions Figure 11: Interaction between quality of home perceptions and household composition - those living in a house (Valid responses) Single adult: 85% satisfied Multiple adults: 79% satisfied Families: 66% satisfied 15

22 STAR Survey Headline findings By neighbourhood, Huddersfield South tenants are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the quality of their home compared to Huddersfield North (86% satisfied cf. 76%). The relatively low satisfaction recorded by Huddersfield North tenants is driven mainly by Dalton, where satisfaction with the quality of home is significantly lower compared to the average. Elsewhere, satisfaction is also significantly lower amongst Thornhill tenants. Huddersfield Central tenants are also the most likely to be very dissatisfied with the quality of their home (11% very dissatisfied cf. 4% overall), although the proportion satisfied overall is similar to the average. Figure 12: Proportion satisfied with the quality of home - By area (Valid responses) Batley / Spen: 84% satisfied 10% dissatisfied Batley Central (50) Birstall (25) Cleckheaton (50) Heckmondwike (40) 83% 78% 89% 82% Dewsbury: 78% satisfied 16% dissatisfied Dewsbury Area East (34) Dewsbury Area West (40) Ravensthorpe (51) Thornhill (43) 76% 80% 85% 69% Huddersfield North: 76% satisfied 16% dissatisfied Dalton (37) Dearne Valley (27) Deighton (45) Huddersfield Central (49) 59% 78% 79% 93% Huddersfield South: 86% satisfied 11% dissatisfied Almondbury (26) Colne Valley (42) Crosland Moor (21) Holme Valley (22) Newsome (53) 84% 84% 100% 88% 81% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 16

23 Value for money of rent 6 Value for money of rent Four in five tenants are satisfied with the value for money of their rent (81%), whilst 8% are dissatisfied. Perceptions on this measure are similar to previous findings. Figure 13: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the value for money of your rent? (Valid responses) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 41% 41% Neither 11% Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 3% 5% Satisfied 81% Dissatisfied 8% Unweighted sample base: 616 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 14: Satisfaction with value for money of rent year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 80% 84% 82% 81% 83% 81% 81% 60% 40% Satisfied Dissatisfied 20% 7% 8% 8% 8% 9% 8% 0% Sample bases vary

24 STAR Survey Headline findings As with other key satisfaction measures, perceptions of the value for money of rent are more positive amongst supported tenants. Whilst there are no significant differences by property type in terms of the proportion satisfied, tenants living in a house are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied compared to the average. Again, this is in keeping with other satisfaction measures on this survey. Figure 15: Satisfaction with value for money of rent - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) (62) 77% 9% 13% (54) 82% 7% 11% Age group (98) 74% 11% 14% (93) 77% 15% 8% (141) 84% 13% 2% 75+ (141) 91% 4% 4% Housing type General Needs (592) Supported Housing (24) 81% 93% 11% 8% 7% 0% Household composition Single adult (345) Multiple adults (91) 76% 84% 10% 6% 11% 12% Family (79) 81% 8% 10% Bungalow (133) 84% 9% 8% Flat/ Studio/ Maisonette (267) 83% 13% 4% Property type House (216) 79% 9% 12% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied 18

25 Value for money of rent By neighbourhood, satisfaction with the value for money of rent is significantly lower amongst Huddersfield North tenants compared to the average. This is driven by relatively low ratings given by Dalton and Huddersfield Central tenants. Figure 16: Proportion satisfied with the value for money of rent - By area (Valid responses) Batley / Spen: 88% satisfied 6% dissatisfied Batley Central (44) Birstall (23) Cleckheaton (45) Heckmondwike (40) 73% 87% 91% 95% Dewsbury: 78% satisfied 8% dissatisfied Dewsbury Area East (30) Dewsbury Area West (38) Ravensthorpe (49) Thornhill (41) 85% 74% 79% 74% Huddersfield North: 74% satisfied 14% dissatisfied Dalton (37) Dearne Valley (26) Deighton (42) Huddersfield Central (45) 64% 67% 80% 93% Huddersfield South: 85% satisfied 5% dissatisfied Almondbury (26) Colne Valley (39) Crosland Moor (19) Holme Valley (20) Newsome (52) 95% 86% 89% 87% 75% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 19

26 STAR Survey Headline findings 7 Neighbourhood as a place to live Approaching eight in ten tenants are satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live (78%), whilst 15% are dissatisfied. Perceptions are therefore at their lowest level to date, with the proportion dissatisfied significantly higher compared to 2015 and the proportion satisfied significantly lower compared to pre-2015 findings. Figure 17: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the neighbourhood as a place to live? (Valid responses) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 37% 41% Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 5% 7% 10% Satisfied 78% Dissatisfied 15% Unweighted sample base: 633 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 18: Satisfaction with neighbourhood as a place to live year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 80% 83% 84% 85% 84% 82% 78% 60% 40% Satisfied Dissatisfied 20% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 15% 0% Sample bases vary

27 Neighbourhood as a place to live By neighbourhood, satisfaction is significantly higher compared to the average amongst Huddersfield South tenants, and significantly lower amongst Dewsbury tenants. The relatively low rating given by Dewsbury tenants is driven primarily by tenants living in Dewsbury Area West. The proportion satisfied on this measure is also significantly lower than the average amongst Dalton tenants. Figure 19: Proportion satisfied with neighbourhood as a place to live - By area (Valid responses) Batley / Spen: 82% satisfied 13% dissatisfied Batley Central (46) Birstall (24) Cleckheaton (47) Heckmondwike (39) 62% 88% 85% 84% Dewsbury: 71% satisfied 20% dissatisfied Dewsbury Area East (32) Dewsbury Area West (38) Ravensthorpe (50) Thornhill (42) 55% 70% 74% 82% Huddersfield North: 75% satisfied 18% dissatisfied Dalton (37) Dearne Valley (27) Deighton (44) Huddersfield Central (46) 56% 74% 82% 90% Huddersfield South: 86% satisfied 10% dissatisfied Almondbury (27) Colne Valley (41) Crosland Moor (20) Holme Valley (21) Newsome (52) 93% 80% 82% 91% 85% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 21

28 STAR Survey Headline findings 8 Repairs and maintenance On the 2015 survey, tenants rated repairs and maintenance as much the most important aspect of the service they receive from KNH. Four in five tenants are satisfied with the way KNH deals with repairs and maintenance (81%), with 10% dissatisfied. Perceptions on this key measure have therefore not altered significantly compared to previous iterations of the research. Encouragingly, those who have had recent experience of the service (with a repair completed in the last 12 months) are significantly more likely to be satisfied with the repairs and maintenance service than those who have not (84% satisfied cf. 70%). Figure 20: Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way KNH deals with repairs and maintenance? (Valid responses) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 39% 42% Neither 9% Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 5% 5% Satisfied 81% Dissatisfied 10% Unweighted sample base: 649 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 21: Satisfaction with the repairs and maintenance service year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 86% 85% 82% 85% 83% 81% 80% 60% 40% Satisfied Dissatisfied 20% 8% 9% 12% 10% 10% 10% 0% Sample bases vary

29 Repairs and maintenance 8.1 Online repair booking service Seven in ten tenants have had a repair completed in the last 12 months (70%). Of this group, most are aware that repairs can now be ordered online (84%); however, just 17% of this group have ordered a repair online. Given the high levels of awareness that this service is available, KNH will need to consider other barriers to using the service. Those aware of the service but not using it for a recent repair were asked why, and responses to this question are summarised overleaf. The leading reason given is wanting to speak to a person about the repair (54%); this may be linked to tenants wanting to use the method that they have used in the past to report repairs, or to get a personalised response in terms of how quickly the repair can be done, etc. As discussed in Section , perceptions of the contact experience when contacting KNH about a repair are mainly positive, and current tenants may therefore be reluctant to change from telephoning KNH about a repair to reporting the repair online. Importantly, however, four in ten also state that they do not have internet access (40%). In total, half (49%) do not have internet access, do not have the skills or confidence to go online, and/or cannot afford to go online. Encouragingly, just 8% report issues with using the system. Figure 22: Were you aware that you can now order repairs online? (Valid responses, those who have had a repair completed in the last 12 months) / Have you ordered a repair online? (Valid responses, those aware of the service) No 16% Yes 84% 17% of those aware that repairs can be ordered online have used the service Unweighted sample base: 446 (awareness of service), 370 (use of service) 23

30 STAR Survey Headline findings Figure 23: Why have you not ordered a repair online? (Valid responses, those who have had a repair completed in the last 12 months, are aware of the online service but have not used it) I wanted to speak to a person about my repair 54% I don't have access to the internet either through computer or smartphone 40% I don't have the skills or confidence to go online 17% I can't afford to go online e.g. data charges The system was too difficult to use when I tried it I don't have time to go online Other 10% 8% 5% 5% Summary: Issues with internet access/confidence 49% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Unweighted sample base:

31 Grounds maintenance 9 Grounds maintenance Tenants were also asked to rate a set of three grounds maintenance services in their local area. A not applicable option was provided, and those giving this response are excluded from the data below. Whilst only 11% stated that grass cutting does not apply to them (or did not answer the question), just over a third did this for the other two measures (quality of shrub / rose bed maintenance and quality of hedge maintenance). It is therefore important to bear in mind that the latter two measures may be of less importance to KNH tenants. Perceptions of the grass cutting service are markedly more positive than perceptions of the quality of shrub / rose bed maintenance and hedge maintenance, as the figure below indicates. Satisfaction levels are broadly similar to previous findings; however, for all three services the proportion dissatisfied is at its highest level to date (these questions were introduced from the 2012 survey). There has been an increase of 5 percentage points in dissatisfaction compared to 2015 (6 points for grass cutting). Figure 24: Overall how satisfied are you with the following in your local area? (Valid responses) The quality of grass cutting (594) 68% 10% 22% The quality of any shrub and/or rose bed maintenance (438) 51% 25% 24% Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied The quality of any hedge maintenance (430) 51% 23% 26% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 25

32 STAR Survey Headline findings By neighbourhood, satisfaction with the quality of grass cutting is higher amongst Batley / Spen tenants, although the difference in satisfaction is only significant when compared to Dewsbury. In spite of this, perceptions are particularly positive amongst Dewsbury Area West tenants as well as Heckmondwike tenants. Over 80% of Almondbury and Crosland Moor respondents expressed satisfaction with the service, however it should be noted that sample sizes in these areas are low. Conversely, satisfaction levels are relatively low amongst Ravensthorpe, Thornhill, Dalton, Colne Valley, and Newsome tenants. It should also be noted that three in ten Dalton tenants (30%) are very dissatisfied with the grass cutting service, significantly more compared to the average. Figure 25: Proportion satisfied with the quality of grass cutting - By area (Valid responses) Batley / Spen: 75% satisfied 17% dissatisfied Batley Central (48) Birstall (21) Cleckheaton (45) Heckmondwike (36) 74% 62% 73% 85% Dewsbury: 63% satisfied 24% dissatisfied Dewsbury Area East (33) Dewsbury Area West (36) Ravensthorpe (47) Thornhill (39) 57% 54% 63% 81% Huddersfield North: 66% satisfied 26% dissatisfied Dalton (33) Dearne Valley (22) Deighton (40) Huddersfield Central (47) 53% 64% 77% 67% Huddersfield South: 67% satisfied 22% dissatisfied Almondbury (21) Colne Valley (38) Crosland Moor (19) Holme Valley (19) Newsome (50) 58% 58% 69% 83% 86% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 26

33 Grounds maintenance By neighbourhood, satisfaction with the quality of shrub / rose bed maintenance is significantly higher amongst Batley / Spen tenants compared to Dewsbury and Huddersfield North tenants. As the figure below indicates, no more than half of Dewsbury and Huddersfield North tenants are satisfied with this service; however, levels of dissatisfaction, for either of the services shown, are similar by neighbourhood: Shrub / rose bed maintenance: 23% - 26% dissatisfied depending on neighbourhood; Hedge maintenance: 24% - 28% dissatisfied depending on neighbourhood. More detailed area analysis is not shown due to the lower sample sizes at these questions. Figure 26: Proportion satisfied with the quality of shrub / rose bed maintenance and hedge maintenance - By neighbourhood (Valid responses) Batley/ Spen 60% 58% Dewsbury Huddersfield North 43% 45% 45% 50% Shrub / rose bed maintenance Hedge maintenance Huddersfield South 51% 55% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Sample bases vary 27

34 STAR Survey Headline findings 10 Communication As with the 2015 survey, respondents were asked to rate KNH on two measures of communication and responsiveness Listening to views and acting on them Six in ten tenants (59%) are satisfied that KNH listens to their views and acts on them, whilst 16% are dissatisfied. This is the lowest level of satisfaction to date, and represents a significant fall compared to the 2014 findings, although not compared to Figure 27: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that KNH listens to your views and acts upon them? (Valid responses) Very satisfied 22% Fairly satisfied 37% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 25% Fairly dissatisfied 9% Very dissatisfied 7% Satisfied 59% Dissatisfied 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Unweighted sample base:

35 Communication Figure 28: Satisfaction that KNH listens to views and acts upon them year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 80% 60% 66% 69% 62% 65% 64% 59% Satisfaction 40% Dissatisfaction 20% 10% 10% 14% 13% 13% 16% 0% Sample bases vary

36 STAR Survey Headline findings Breaking these findings down by key demographics, supported housing tenants record particularly high levels of satisfaction, with no respondents from this group indicating that they were dissatisfied. Multiple-occupancy households and those living in houses record significantly higher levels of dissatisfaction that KNH listens to their views and acts on them, compared to the average. By area, satisfaction that KNH listens to views and acts on them is similar across the four neighbourhoods. Figure 29: Satisfaction that KNH listens to views and acts on them - By key demographic groups (Valid responses) (65) 52% 25% 22% Age group (55) (99) 61% 47% 24% 33% 29% 6% (101) 61% 21% 18% (146) 64% 28% 8% 75+ (153) 64% 22% 14% Housing type General Needs (625) Supported Housing (24) 59% 75% 24% 25% 17% 0% Household composition Single adult (369) Multiple adults (90) 49% 63% 29% 25% 22% 12% Family (81) 52% 26% 22% Bungalow (135) 62% 24% 15% Flat/ Studio/ Maisonette (285) 62% 25% 13% Property type House (229) 56% 24% 20% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied Unweighted sample bases in parentheses 30

37 Communication 10.2 Keeping tenants informed Approaching three-quarters (73%) rate KNH as good at keeping them informed, whilst 13% are dissatisfied. This is broadly in line with findings. There are no significant differences in perceptions compared to the average by the key demographics or by neighbourhood. Figure 30: How good or poor do you feel KNH is at keeping you informed about things that affect you as a tenant? (Valid responses) Very good 29% Fairly good 44% Neither good nor poor 14% Fairly poor 9% Very poor 4% Good 73% Poor 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Unweighted sample base: 660 Figure 31: Keeping residents informed year-on-year (Valid responses) 100% 80% 77% 77% 78% 74% 72% 73% 60% 40% Good Poor 20% 8% 8% 9% 10% 10% 13% 0% Sample bases vary

38 STAR Survey Headline findings 11 Contact with KNH As with the 2015 findings, 78% of tenants have contacted KNH in the last 12 months. Again similar to previous findings, most of these contacts (85%) are made by telephone. A further 7% indicated that they made contact by visiting the office. None of those making contact did so via Facebook or Twitter. Use of peaks at 8% of tenants aged who made contact, whilst just 2% of the group who typically are most likely to be online year olds - used this channel. Whilst telephone is typically the most-used channel to make contact in this sector, this still suggests that there is scope to expand usage of and social media channels. Most enquiries concern repairs (74%), also similar to previous findings. Contacts concerning garden / communal areas have doubled compared to 2015, possibly reflecting the increase in dissatisfaction with aspects of grounds maintenance discussed in Section 9. However, even on the latest findings just 6% of contacts relate to this aspect of the service provided by KNH. 32

39 Contact with KNH Figure 32: Have you contacted KNH in the last 12 months? (Valid responses) / How did you last contact KNH in the last 12 months? / What did you last have contact about? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Can't remember No 6% 15% Yes 78% Telephoned Visited office Letter Facebook/Twitter Other 7% 5% <0.5% 0% 1% 85% Repairs Rent / housing benefit Garden / Communal areas Neighbours / Neighbourhood issues Transfer / exchange Other 9% 6% 5% 1% 6% 74% Unweighted sample bases: Contact with KNH: 639; Method of last contact: 468; What last contact was about:

40 STAR Survey Headline findings 11.1 Contact experience Those respondents who had been in contact with KNH in the last twelve months were asked to rate their contact experience Helpfulness of staff Most of those making contact found staff helpful (83%), in line with previous findings. Figure 33: Did you find the staff...? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Helpful 83% Unhelpful 7% Neither 9% Can't remember <0.5% Unweighted sample base: 495 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 34: Proportion finding staff helpful, year on year (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) 100% 80% 84% 83% 82% 83% 84% 83% 60% 40% Helpful Unhelpful 20% 6% 8% 9% 10% 9% 7% 0% Sample bases vary

41 Contact with KNH Query answered in a reasonable time Most also agree that their query was answered within a reasonable time (84%), again similar to previous findings. Figure 35: Proportion saying their query was answered within a reasonable time (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 88% 84% 81% 82% 83% 84% 0% Sample bases vary

42 STAR Survey Headline findings Satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently Over four in five (82%) were satisfied with the ability of staff to deal with their query quickly and efficiently, with 11% dissatisfied. This does not represent a significant change in perceptions compared to previous iterations of the research. Figure 36: Thinking about your contact with KNH in the last 12 months, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the ability of staff to deal with your query quickly and efficiently? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied 38% 44% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 7% 6% 5% Satisfied 82% Dissatisfied 11% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Unweighted sample base: 493 Figure 37: Satisfaction with the ability of staff to deal with the query quickly and efficiently year-on-year (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) 100% 80% 83% 84% 81% 84% 85% 82% 60% 40% Satisfied Dissatisfied 20% 10% 10% 15% 12% 10% 11% 0% Sample bases vary 36

43 Contact with KNH Satisfaction with the final outcome Satisfaction with the final outcome of the enquiry is, as we normally see on metrics of this kind, less positive than perceptions of the staff who dealt with the enquiry. However, three quarters (76%) were satisfied with the final outcome of their enquiry, whilst 17% were dissatisfied. This is, again, in line with previous findings. Figure 38: Thinking about your contact with KNH in the last 12 months, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the final outcome of your query? (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Very satisfied 42% Fairly satisfied 35% Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied 7% 6% Very dissatisfied 11% Satisfied 76% Dissatisfied 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Unweighted sample base: 442 Figure 39: Satisfaction with the final outcome year-on-year (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) 100% 80% 77% 75% 76% 78% 79% 76% 60% 40% 20% 18% 18% 20% 15% 16% 17% Satisfied Dissatisfied 0% Sample bases vary 37

44 STAR Survey Headline findings Perceptions of the contact experience by channel and enquiry type Those making contact about a repair are significantly more likely, compared to the average, to rate their contact experience positively on the metrics shown. 87% - 88% of this group found staff helpful, state that their query was answered within a reasonable time, and were satisfied with the ability of staff to deal with their query quickly and efficiently. Most (84%) were also satisfied with the final outcome of their query. Given these positive ratings, it may be that even tenants with internet access will initially be reluctant to change from their usual channel for reporting repairs (mainly telephone) to the new online repairs service. Those making contact by give less positive ratings on their experience, as the figure below indicates. No more than 22 respondents made contact by and responded to these questions, so these findings should be treated with caution; however, this suggests that work may be required to improve the contact experience of those using this channel, particularly in relation to answering the query promptly and the final outcome of the query. Of the other main channels used (telephone or visiting the office), satisfaction with these aspects of the contact experience are similar to / slightly above the average. Figure 40: Perceptions of the contact experience by channel (Valid responses, those contacting KNH in the last 12 months) Staff helpful 76% 83% Query answered within a reasonable time 70% 84% Total Satisfied with ability of staff to deal with query quickly 76% 82% Contact by Satisfied with final outcome of query 64% 76% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sample bases vary 38

45 Profile information 12 Profile information Gender Weighted Unweighted Base Male 39% 41% Female 57% 55% Not provided 4% 4% Age Weighted Unweighted Base % 1% % 2% % 7% % 9% % 15% % 8% % 8% % 23% % 17% 85+ 6% 6% Prefer not to say 2% 2% Not provided 3% 3% Length of time as a tenant of KNH Weighted Unweighted Base Under 1 year 5% 5% 1-2 years 7% 7% 3-5 years 15% 16% 6-10 years 15% 16% years 22% 23% 21+ years 30% 29% Don t know / can t remember 3% 3% Not provided 2% 2% Household composition Weighted Unweighted Base One adult under 60 16% 17% One adult aged 60 or over 36% 40% Two adults both under 60 7% 6% Two adults, at least one 60 or over 5% 4% Three or more adults, 16 or over 4% 3% One parent family with children, at least one under 16 7% 6% Two parent family with children, at least one under 16 8% 7% Other 10% 10% Not provided 7% 7% 39

46 STAR Survey Headline findings Day to day activity limited due to a health problem Weighted Unweighted Base Yes, limited a lot 27% 27% Yes, limited a little 27% 28% No 42% 41% Not provided 4% 4% Use wheelchair Weighted Unweighted Base Yes 10% 10% No 87% 87% Not provided 3% 4% Religious belief Weighted Unweighted Base None 23% 22% Christian (all denominations) 57% 59% Buddhist <0.5% <0.5% Jewish <0.5% <0.5% Muslim 8% 7% Any other religion 2% 2% Prefer not to say 4% 4% Not provided 5% 5% Sexual orientation Weighted Unweighted Base Heterosexual 83% 83% Gay man 1% 1% Gay woman <0.5% <0.5% Bisexual 1% 1% Other 1% 1% Prefer not to say 8% 8% Not provided 6% 6% Ethnic group Weighted Unweighted Base White: British 77% 78% White: Irish 2% 2% Any other White background 3% 3% Mixed: White and Black Caribbean <0.5% <0.5% Mixed: White and Black African <0.5% <0.5% Mixed: White and Asian <0.5% <0.5% Any other Mixed background <0.5% <0.5% Asian/Asian British: Indian 2% 1% Asian/Asian British: Pakistani 4% 4% Asian/Asian British: Chinese <0.5% <0.5% Any other Asian background 1% 1% Black/Black British: Caribbean 3% 3% 40

47 Profile information Black/Black British: African 1% 1% Any other Black background <0.5% <0.5% Prefer not to say 3% 3% Not provided 4% 4% 41

48 STAR Survey Headline findings 13 Appendix: Statement of Terms Compliance with International Standards BMG complies with the International Standard for Quality Management Systems requirements (ISO 9001:2008) and the International Standard for Market, opinion and social research service requirements (ISO 20252:2012) and The International Standard for Information Security Management ISO 27001:2013. Interpretation and publication of results The interpretation of the results as reported in this document pertain to the research problem and are supported by the empirical findings of this research project and, where applicable, by other data. These interpretations and recommendations are based on empirical findings and are distinguishable from personal views and opinions. BMG will not publish any part of these results without the written and informed consent of the client. Ethical practice BMG promotes ethical practice in research: We conduct our work responsibly and in light of the legal and moral codes of society. We have a responsibility to maintain high scientific standards in the methods employed in the collection and dissemination of data, in the impartial assessment and dissemination of findings and in the maintenance of standards commensurate with professional integrity. We recognise we have a duty of care to all those undertaking and participating in research and strive to protect subjects from undue harm arising as a consequence of their participation in research. This requires that subjects participation should be as fully informed as possible and no group should be disadvantaged by routinely being excluded from consideration. All adequate steps shall be taken by both agency and client to ensure that the identity of each respondent participating in the research is protected. 42

49

50 With more than 25 years experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy. BMG serves both the public and the private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance. Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of the most up to date technologies and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.