View
219
Download
4
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
2009
DoD MWR Customer Satisfaction Results
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Survey Methodology
Survey Respondents
24,920 interviews were completed and used for analysis. The resulting confidence interval is +/- 0.2 at 95% level of confidence.
Interviews were conducted via the web July 29th to August 28th.
All respondents were active duty Service members.
Results were weighted based on the Authorized Troop Strength per the National Defense Authorization Act.
Responses Proportions (before weighting)
Proportions (after weighting)
Air Force 9,896 40% 23%
Army 3,916 16% 38%
Marine Corps 5,007 20% 14%
Navy 6,101 24% 25%
Total Responses 24,920 100% 100%
22
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.3
81% CONUS, 19% Overseas
84% Male, 16% Female
75% White, 14% African American
70% Enlisted, 26% Officer
67% Married, 26% Single, 7% Joint Service
58% Have children under age 20
33% Under 30 yrs, 42% 30 to 39 yrs, 25% 40 yrs & over
20% Less than 5 yrs Active Duty, 19% 5 to 9 yrs, 41% 10 to 19 yrs, 20% 20 & over
10% Currently Deployed, 60% Previously Deployed, 30% Never Deployed
Respondent Profile
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.4
Respondent Profile
Time at Current Installation Total
Less than 3 months 9%
3 months to less than 6 months 7%
6 months to less than 1 year 14%
1 year or more 71%
Installations Stationed at Total
First 11%
2 to 5 51%
6 or more 38%
Residence Total
Off-installation 69%
On-installation 31%
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
DoD MWR CSI Model
Customer SatisfactionIndex (CSI)
OverallCompared to Expectations
Compared to Ideal
Readiness
Retention
Organizational Commitment
Unit Cohesion
Fitness CSI
Libraries CSI
Outdoor Recreation CSI
Single Program CSI
AutomotiveSkills CSI
Recreation Centers CSI
Leisure Travel CSI
5
MWRSatisfaction
ProgramSatisfaction
Outcomes
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
DoD MWR CSI Model
Customer SatisfactionIndex (CSI)
OverallCompared to Expectations
Compared to Ideal
Readiness
3.8
67
Retention
1.5
70
Organizational Commitment
1.6
81
Unit Cohesion
1.7
71
69
Fitness CSI(84% of respondents)
69
1.2
Libraries CSI(36% of respondents)
74
0.6
Outdoor Recreation CSI(29% of respondents)
72
2.3
Single Program CSI
(4% of respondents*)
73
1.1
Automotive Skills CSI
(23% of respondents)
72
0.3
Recreation Centers CSI
(8% of respondents)
72
1.1
Leisure Travel CSI
(30% of respondents)
72
0.8
6
Scores Impacts
Within the context of this study, scores in the 60s are characterized as "fine but could use work," the 70s as "good job but keep working on it" and the 80s as "excellent - keep it up.“
At the program level, as well as MWR CSI, scores in the mid-70s are expected.
It is unlikely that any program will or should achieve a score greater than 85.
Top Priority
Top Priority
*6% excluding Air Force
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Calculating ImpactsA Simple Conceptual Example for a Mazda Miata
Interior(leg room, head
room, seat comfort, etc.)
Handling(highway, snow, etc.)
Brakes (reliability,
durability, etc.)Etc.
CSI (overall, v.
expectations, v. ideal)
Pam 8 4 9 … 7
John 5 7 10 … 4
Carol 3 6 9 … 2
Impact High Low Low …
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
DoD MWR Priority Matrix
88
Top Priority
FitnessPrograms
Libraries
SingleProgram
AutomotiveSkills
RecreationCenters
LeisureTravel
65
80
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Dim
en
sion
Sco
re
Impact on Satisfaction
OutdoorRecreation
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.9
MWR CSI
69
70
68
65
72
Total
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Fitness Programs Top Priority
10
Fitness CSI(84% of respondents)
69
1.2
Facility
Programs
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.11
Fitness Programs Usage
UsageAverage
Across All Programs
Fitness Programs
Never use 69% 16%
Used in past 12 months 2% 4%
Currently use 29% 80%
Frequency of UseAverage
Across All Programs
Fitness Programs
Occasionally 38% 18%
Several times a year 31% 8%
Several times a month 17% 18%
Several times a week 11% 42%
Daily 3% 15%
Characteristics of current fitness program users are very similar
to the total survey population
Characteristics of current fitness program users are very similar
to the total survey population
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Fitness Facilities and ProgramsThemes from Verbatim Comments
The following are the most frequently mentioned areas of concern:
Quality of facilities (e.g., appearance, cleanliness, maintenance)
Hours of operation (e.g., times swimming and classes are available, seasonal availability)
Availability of facilities (e.g., not too crowded or too small, open according to schedule, convenience)
Availability of equipment (e.g., enough equipment for number of users, selection)
Variety of classes and activities (e.g., Martial Arts, Aerobics, Triathlon)
Cost of activities and services offered
Quality of equipment (e.g., meets fitness needs, functions properly, general condition)
12
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.13
Fitness Programs CSI
69
68
68
69
71
Total
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.14
Fitness ProgramsTotal
69
74
71
Fitness Programs CSI
Fitness Programs -Facility
Fitness Programs -Programs
Impact on Fitness CSI
2.4
2.1
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.15
Fitness Programs – ProgramsTotal
71
75
74
69
67
63
Fitness Programs -Programs
Fitness hours of operation
Helpfulness of fitness staff
Variety of classes (yoga, Pilates, aerobics, etc.)
Family exercise/fitness
programs
Times that classes are available
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.16
Fitness Programs – FacilityTotal
74
76
74
74
72
Fitness Programs -Facility
Quality of equipment
Variety of facilities (e.g., basketball
courts, pool, running track, etc.)
General condition of fitness facilities
Availability of equipment
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.17
Fitness ProgramsSegment Score Differences
17
Higher Scoring Segments
African American 74
Less than 3 months at current installation
73
Warrant Officer 73
20 years or more active duty 71
Navy 71
Fitness Program CSI: 69
Lower Scoring Segments
Personally disabled 59
Household member with disability
67
Masters/Doctorate degree 67
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Outdoor RecreationTop Priority
18
Outdoor Recreation CSI(29% of respondents)
72
2.3
Rental Equip
Activities
Programs
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.19
Outdoor RecreationTotal
72
73
73
72
Outdoor Recreation CSI
Outdoor Rec - Activities
Outdoor Rec - Rental Equipment
Outdoor Rec - Programs
2.4
1.5
Impact on Outdoor Rec CSI
1.0
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Remaining Programs
20
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.21
LibrariesFacility
75
77
77
75
75
74
74
72
72
Libraries - Facility
General condition of library facilities
Computer and Internet services
Having resources (i.e., reference and research material) that are current
Amount of workspace available
Variety of items available (books, magazines, DVDs, etc.)
Programs provided
Library hours of operation
Accessibility of library resources from home/ office/ other location
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.22
Single ProgramsCSI
73
68
72
78
Total
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.23
Automotive SkillsProgram
73
78
75
75
74
74
66
57
Automotive Skills -Program
Availability of tools
Having tools that are up-to-date
Prices and fees
Variety of services and programs available
Availability of lifts
Automotive hours of operation
Availability of paint booth
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.24
Leisure TravelStaff/Policy
72
79
71
66
Leisure Travel -Staff/ Policy
Helpfulness of staff
Hours of operation with leisure travel
services
Advertisement of activities
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.25
UsageAverage
Across All Programs
Rec Centers
Never use 69% 92%
Used in past 12 months 2% 0%
Currently use 29% 8%
Recreation CentersUsage and Segment Score Differences
Higher Scoring Segments
Average Rec Center Score 72
African American 78
Less than 3 months at current installation
76
Stationed at first installation 75
Navy 75
Participate in 3 or less programs*
75
Participate in less than 25 activities**
74
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Desired Outcomes
26
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.27
Readiness
67
68
66
64
69
Total
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.28
ReadinessTotal
67
73
71
66
64
63
62
Readiness
MWR programs and services provide an outlet for stress
release
The MWR programs and services improve your quality of life
MWR helps you/ your family better manage challenges of
military lifeMWR helps your family better
manage challenges of deployment
MWR programs help keep you ready for deployment
MWR programs help you to focus on your mission
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.29
ReadinessSegment Score Differences
29
Readiness: 67
Higher Scoring Segments
Participate in 11 or more programs*
72
Less than 3 months at current installation
72
African American 71
Participate in more than 30 activities**
70
40 years of age or over 69
18 years or more military service 69
Navy 69
Lower Scoring Segments
Personally disabled 58
Participate in less than 20 activities**
60
Participate in 3 or less programs* 62
Marine Corps 64
Under 25 years of age 65
*From a list of 32 services and programs, respondents were asked to identify those that they use on installation, such as library, veterinary clinic, bowling center, etc.
**From a list of 38 activities, respondents were asked to identify those in which they participate on installation or in the civilian community, such as golfing, gardening, going to movies, etc.
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.30
Unit Cohesion
71
71
69
71
73
Total
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.31
Unit CohesionTotal
71
75
72
68
68
Unit Cohesion
Service members in your unit pull together to get
the job done
Service members in your unit work well as a team
Service members in your unit really care about
each other
Service members in your unit trust each other
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.32
Organizational Commitment
81
80
81
81
81
Total
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.33
Organizational CommitmentTotal
81
84
84
83
82
79
75
Organizational Commitment
You are willing to make sacrifices to help your
Service
You are glad that you are part of your Service
The military has a great deal of personal meaning for you
Being a member of your Service inspires you to do
the best job you can
You feel a strong sense of belonging to the military
You feel like part of the military family
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.34
Retention
70
71
69
67
73
Total
Air Force
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Key Findings
35
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Key Findings
Top Priorities
Top Priority areas are 1) Fitness and 2) Outdoor Recreation
Fitness
Within Fitness, initial emphasis should be on low scoring (i.e., 60s) attributes under Programs.
Fitness Facilities also need improvement.
Fitness is the sole Top Priority area for those less than 25 years old.
Outdoor Recreation
Within Outdoor Recreation, primary focus should be on Rental Equipment.
Desired Outcomes
Of the four Desired Outcomes, MWR Satisfaction has the greatest impact on Readiness.
36
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Next Steps
37
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Next Steps
Information Review
Ensure that your decision makers, those responsible for each program, and those who are tasked with making program changes are familiar with the results
Action Planning
Set up action planning sessions to make sure that specific tasks and timelines are developed to address improvement opportunities
Ensure that improvements that can be easily implemented (i.e., low cost, minimal effort) are made as soon as possible
Survey Enhancements
Learnings from the current survey will improve the quality of the next wave
38
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Appendix A
Under 25 ModelUnder 25 Priority Matrix
39
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
DoD MWR CSI Model - Under 25 yrs
Customer SatisfactionIndex (CSI)
OverallCompared to Expectations
Compared to Ideal
Readiness
3.9
65
Retention
2.0
52
Organizational Commitment
2.4
72
Unit Cohesion
2.4
64
69
Fitness CSI(88% of respondents)
70
1.6
Libraries CSI(42% of respondents)
74
0.8
Outdoor Recreation CSI(25% of respondents)
73
1.9
Single Program CSI
(8% of respondents*)
75
1.7
AutomotiveSkills CSI
(25% of respondents)
74
0.0
Recreation Centers CSI
(9% of respondents)
73
1.7
Leisure Travel CSI
(17% of respondents)
73
0.9
40
When setting priorities for improvement initiatives, scores, impacts and the percentage of personnel who participate in each program (i.e., percentage of respondents) should all be considered.
The performance of each dimension on a 0 to 100 scale. Dimension scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions.
Scores
The change in the variable to the right that results from a five point change in a dimension score. Impacts
*excludes Air Force respondents
*14% excluding Air Force
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
DoD MWR Priority Matrix - Under 25 yrs
4141
Top Priority
FitnessPrograms
Libraries Outdoor
Recreation
SingleProgram
AutomotiveSkills
RecreationCenters
LeisureTravel
65
80
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Impact on Satisfaction
Com
pon
en
t S
core
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Appendix B
Detailed DoD MWR CSI Model
42
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
DoD MWR CSI Model
Customer SatisfactionIndex (CSI)
OverallCompared to Expectations
Compared to Ideal
Readiness
3.8
67
Retention
1.5
70
Organizational Commitment
1.6
81
Unit Cohesion
1.7
71
69
Fitness CSI(84% of respondents)
69
1.2
Libraries CSI(36% of respondents)
74
0.6
Outdoor Recreation CSI(29% of respondents)
72
2.3
Single Program CSI
(4% of respondents)
73
1.1
AutomotiveSkills CSI
(23% of respondents)
72
0.3
Recreation Centers CSI
(8% of respondents)
72
1.1
Leisure Travel CSI
(30% of respondents)
72
0.8
Staff80
Facility75
0.4
4.3
Facility74
Fees73
4.0
0.6
Facility75
Programs74
1.9
2.8
Facility74
Programs71
2.4
2.1
Staff78
Program73
1.5
3.4
Programs75
Staff/Policy72
3.0
1.8
Rental Equip73
Activities73
2.4
1.0
Programs72 1.5
43
The performance of each dimension on a 0 to 100 scale. Dimension scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions.
Scores
The change in the variable to the right that results from a five point change in a dimension score. Impacts
When setting priorities for improvement initiatives, scores, impacts and the percentage of personnel who participate in each program (i.e., percentage of respondents) should all be considered.
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Appendix C
CFI GroupAmerican Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
Score CalculationDeriving Impacts
44
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
CFI Group At a Glance
Founded in 1988; Headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan
Principals are among the world experts in constituent/ stakeholder satisfaction
Offices worldwide; 150 full-time consultants and researchers
80+ clients; 150 to 180 on-going consulting projects
Patented analytical system – US # 6,192,319
CFI Group methodology underpins the respected econometric tool, the American Customer Satisfaction Index
Results published quarterly
45
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Unique Features of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
The only uniform measure of customer satisfaction in the U.S. economy, covering sectors accounting for about 66% of GDP
Measures the quality of economic output on a quarterly basis; complementary to productivity measures and indicative of consumer spending
Uses multiple-item indicators to assess drivers of satisfaction
Meets the objective of explaining desired outcomes
Allows for comparison across agencies
Illustrates how customer satisfaction is embedded in a system of cause and effect relationships
4646
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.47
ACSI Scores – National, Sector & IndustryQ4 2008 – Q3 2009
Energy Utilities 74
Source: www.theacsi.org
76.0
Utilities73.7
Utilities73.7
Transportation72.6
Transportation72.6
Airlines 64U.S. Postal Service 74
Express Delivery 82
Information70.2
Information70.2
Health Care & Social Assistance
78.5
Health Care & Social Assistance
78.5
Newspapers 63Motion Pictures 74
Computer Software 75Fixed Line Telephone Service 72
Wireless Telephone Service 69Cellular Telephones 72Cable & Satellite TV 63
Network Cable TV News 71
Hospitals 77Ambulatory Care 80
Accommodation &Food Services
78.9
Accommodation &Food Services
78.9
Hotels 75Full Service Restaurants 84
Limited Service Restaurants 78
Manufacturing/Durable Goods
81.6
Manufacturing/Durable Goods
81.6
Personal Computers 75Electronics (TV/VCR/DVD) 83
Major Appliances 81Automobiles & Light Vehicles 84
E-Business81.5
E-Business81.5
Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods
81.5
Manufacturing/Nondurable Goods
81.5
Public Administration/Government
67.9
Public Administration/Government
67.9
Retail Trade75.2
Retail Trade75.2
Finance &Insurance
76.0
Finance &Insurance
76.0
E-Commerce80.0
E-Commerce80.0
74 Internet News & Information83 Internet Portals/Search Engines
83 Food Manufacturing84 Pet Food80 Athletic Shoes85 Personal Care &
Cleaning Products
68.0 Local Government67.8 Federal Government
76 Supermarkets74 Gasoline Stations74 Department & Discount Stores76 Specialty Retail Stores78 Health & Personal Care Stores
82 Retail74 Brokerage75 Travel
85 Soft Drinks84 Breweries72 Cigarettes82 Apparel
75 Banks84 Credit Unions73 Health Insurance78 Life Insurance81 Property & Casualty Insurance
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Attributes (questions on the survey) are typically answered on a 1-10 scale
Social science research shows 7-10 response categories are optimalCustomers are familiar with a 10 point scale
Before being reported, scores are transformed from a 1-10 to a 0-100 scale
The transformation is strictly algebraic; e.g.
The 0-100 scale simplifies reporting:• Often no need to report many, if any, decimal places• 0-100 scale is useful as a management tool
A Note About Score Calculation
Orig. (1-10) Trans. (0-100)1 02 11.13 22.2
8 77.89 88.9
10 100
48
© 2009 CFI Group. All rights reserved.
Deriving Impacts
Remember high school algebra? The general formula for a line is:
y = mx + b
The basic idea is that x is a “cause” and y is an “effect”, and m represents the slope of the line – summarizing the relationship between x & y
Y
X
Y
X
CFI Group uses a sophisticated variation of the advanced statistical tool, Partial Least Squares (PLS) Regression, to determine impacts when many different causes (i.e., quality components) simultaneously effect an outcome (e.g., Customer Satisfaction)
49
Recommended