How to use public resources in such a way that government agencies can provide better service at lower cost to a growing number of citizens

Transcription

1 How to use public resources in such a way that government agencies can provide better service at lower cost to a growing number of citizens Professor Claes Fornell University of Michigan Improving Public Services Group Expert Meeting on Measuring Customer Satisfaction The Office of Public Services Reform London, June 27 th

2 Government System Requirements Key requirements: Accurate measurement Operational information for improvement Benchmarking to private sector 2

3 Introducing Two Best in Class Systems Professor Jan Eklöf Stockholm School of Economics Dr Forrest Morgeson University of Michigan Share powerful, proven methodology Breadth of application Quality of guidance 3

4 A Brief History 1989 Sweden starts the first national index of customer satisfaction 1993 U.S. Congress passes Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 1993 President Clinton signs Executive Order 12862, Setting Customer Service Standards 1994 ACSI, based on the Swedish approach, is launched 1999 President Clinton s President s Management Council (PMC) selects ACSI to measure 30 high impact agencies 2005 Mexico pre-approve & Canada evaluating ACSI e-government measurement 4

5 U.S. Expansion since Number of Participating Agencies 5

6 System Costs in the U.S. Development cost $1.5 million Agency cost $35,000 per annum 6

7 A System for Pan European Measurement of Customer Satisfaction with Public Services Jan Eklöf, IFCF and EPSI Rating 7

8 EPSI Rating History 1989: The first systematic customer satisfaction studies using similar principles as EPSI Rating were started in Sweden in : Development took place on a Pan European basis, with the European quality organisations (EFQM and EOQ) : Feasibility study supported by the European commisison 1999: Pilot study with 11 countries and 5 common sectors 2000 Onwards: Annual studies conducted in 8 20 countries 8

9 EPSI Rating Governance EPSI Rating governed through IFCF (International Foundation for Customer Focus); Established in 1998 by representatives from half a dozen academic institutions; Current membership exceeds 20 academic institutions in 15 countries. Methodological development channeled through its expert committees; Agreements for EPSI national studies are signed with national platforms (often including EOQ/EFQM partners); Coordination, data analysis, Pan European reporting, etc. hosted by Stockholm School of Economics (SSE). 9

10 Common Sectors and Industries EPSI Rating started with a focus on: Retail banking Insurance Supermarkets Telecoms (especially mobile phone operators) Public services have been added step-by-step, including: Public transport Health Public administration 10

11 EPSI Rating Core Output A measurement of customer satisfaction as well as key success factors of individual agencies, companies and organisations in a specific market via periodical analyses by a respected, neutral institution using quality standards based on state-of-the art methodology 11

12 The Generic Structure Used Image Customer Expectations Perceived Quality Product characteristics (Hardware) Perceived Quality Service characteristics (Software) Perceived Value Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Loyalty Loyalty (retention) Trust 12

13 This Means A causal model approach that is not merely descriptive but gives cause effect relations An understanding why users have the experienced feelings they express A precise decision making approach The relationships and strength of links (impact) are estimated Qualitative measures to further validate the model 13

14 The Analytical Tool The model is estimated using structural equation techniques (based on Partial Least Squares approaches); Results are obtained for: customer perceived index levels impact strength/importance of all aspects (manifests) Model quality (accuracy, explanation power, robustness) Can by preference be used also for goods and services not paid directly at purchase/use 14

15 Design Aspects (the Pan European approach) Survey design properties Questionnaire design Sample selection (250 per domain) Field operation (experience required) 15

16 Questionnaire Design A set of master questionnaires is developed and tested; A common scale is used (1-10); The wording is calibrated on the Pan-European level (with adoption to national peculiarities ); Each latent variable is covered by at least 3 manifest questions. 16

17 Some Contemporary Results - Public services EPSI Rating and benchmarks Health (a few country results) Public transport The Police 17

18 Public Service EPSI Sweden Index value Sector Primary Health Supplied by Govern Supplied privately Nursery homes Education Primary education Secondary education Academic education Homes for elderly The Police The Tax Authority Year 1998 Year 1999 Year 2000 Year 2001 Year 2002 Year 2003 Year

19 EPSI Results Matter! Some examples: Police: results play an important role in Swedish public sector policy, and caused substantive re-organisation, especially on county level (what crimes to prioritise?) Health Sector: results used extensively for priority setting and restructuring in the hospital sector (for example, Greece) Public Transport: results used for benchmarking on Pan European level 19

20 Subscription Arrangement The national platform offers subscription at standard charge, including national analysis and reporting; Geographic dis-aggregation special arrangement is offered (with extended number of intreviews) at marginal cost; Studies are conducted as syndicated research keeping the costs down; Reports with priority matrices, and presentations, as well as what-if analyses are included 20

21 Critics and Criticism At institutional level: We already have a system for this, what does the EPSI approach add? Why should we benchmark? Our business is unique; We need the results more frequently, or at other intervals, or other levels of detail. At national level: We are not involved in strategic development; The politicians do not understand it... 21

22 European Performance Satisfaction Index 22

23 A Proven System Providing Valued Guidance To Public & Private Sector Managers ACSI and Government June 27, 2005 Forrest Morgeson, University of Michigan 23

24 Participating Agencies Department of Education, Grants Administration Payments Department of Housing and Urban Development Employment Standards Administration Federal Aviation Administration General Services Administration Health Resources and Services Administration Immigration and Naturalization Service Internal Revenue Service Office of Personnel Management Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Small Business Administration Social Security Administration Bureau of Labor Statistics Education Information Service Environmental Protection Agency Food and Drug Administration Food Safety and Inspection Service National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation Occupational Safety and Health Administration United States Customs Service United States Mint 24

25 Participating Agencies Administration for Children and Families Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Board of Veterans Appeals Bureau of Consular Affairs Bureau of Land Management Census Bureau Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Corps of Army Engineers Employment and Training Administration Export-Import Bank Energy Information Agency Farm Service Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Highway Administration Federal Housing Administration Fish and Wildlife Service Administration for Children Food and Nutrition Service Forest Service National Agricultural Statistical Services National Cemetery Administration National Park Service Natural Resources Conservation Service Office of Justice Programs Patent and Trademark Office Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Railroad Retirement Board Student Financial Assistance Veterans Benefits Administration Veterans Health Administration 25

26 The Cause-and-Effect Model Perceived Quality Customer Complaints Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) Customer Expectations Citizen Trust 26

27 Enhanced Model for Government (Generic) Ease/Accessibility Timeliness Process Clarity Usefulness Information Perceived Quality Customer Complaints Courtesy Professionalism Customer Service Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) Customer Expectations Citizen Trust Confidence Recommend 27

28 What Agencies Receive Ease/Accessibility Timeliness Process 72 Clarity Usefulness Information 73 Perceived Quality 78 15% Customer Complaints Courtesy 80 Professionalism 80 Customer Service Customer Expectations 72 Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) Citizen Trust 76 Scores on scale How is the agency performing? Confidence Recommend

29 What Agencies Receive Ease/Accessibility Timeliness Process Clarity Usefulness Information Perceived Quality % Customer Complaints Courtesy 80 Professionalism 80 Customer Service Customer Expectations Customer Satisfaction (ACSI) Citizen Trust 76 Scores on scale How is the agency performing? Confidence Recommend Impacts What is the best leverage? 29

30 What difference has it made? 30

31 Case Study: Internal Revenue Service Poor delivery potentially compromising revenue collection Before leveraging customer satisfaction Dissatisfied taxpayers Disgruntled employees As only one taxpayer representative out of thousands across the country, I have seen dozens of taxpayers severely damaged and even made homeless by the IRS collection division. Anonymous Witness #1, IRS Employee Senate IRS Hearings 1997 The long list of IRS horribles included arbitrary collection decisions, sale of taxpayer lien property far below value, and the cavalier mistreatment of taxpayers. Bob Zelnick, ABC Good Morning America September 26,

32 Case Study: Internal Revenue Service A Key Discovery: ACSI Study 1999 e-filers vastly more satisfied far fewer errors quicker problem resolution status tracking faster refunds e-filing was the key. IRS decides to: devote more resources to develop e-filing persuade more taxpayers to e-file 32

33 Case Study: Internal Revenue Service A performance measure Number of e-filers nearly triples in 6 years 60% 55% 50% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% We realize we have more work to do, but the survey is just one more indication that the IRS reorganization and its emphasis on customer service are paying off. The satisfaction with IRS e-file won t surprise any taxpayer who has used it. When they try it, they like it. It is fast, accurate and dependable. - Charles O. Rossotti, IRS commissioner, December 17,

34 Case Study: Internal Revenue Service A systematic improvement Tax filer satisfaction increases Increased awareness and usage of e-filing % from

35 Government Improving more than Private Sector 75 National ACSI % from % from Federal Government

36 How to use public resources in such a way that government agencies can provide better service at lower cost to a growing number of citizens Professor Claes Fornell University of Michigan Information? Jan Eklöf, EPSI Rating: , jan.eklof@hhs.se Guy Whitaker, CFI Group: , gwhitaker@cfigroup.com 36