BENCHMARKING AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT Transparencies 2003 EU-funded Urban Transport Research Project Results TRANSPORT

BENCHMARKING AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT


Transparencies 2003

EU-funded Urban Transport Research Project Results

www.eu-portal.net

TRANSPORT TEACHING MATERIAL


OVERVIEW SLIDE

Introduction

7 quality management tools

Fundamentals, partnerships, responsibilities

Conclusion


INTRODUCTION

First short approach of definition of quality and benchmarking in public transport.

Pedagogical objectives of the presentation.

Why these notions are important.


7 QUALITY MANAGEMENT TOOLS

• Quality partnerships

• Guarantee of service

• Quality loop

• CEN framework

• Benchmarking

• Standardisation and certification

• Self-assessment methods


QUALITY LOOP

Expected Targeted

Perceived Delivered

Measurement of the performance

Measurement of the customer satisfaction

FINAL CUSTUMERS: SERVICE CONTRIBUTORS: Passengers and city dwellers Operator, Authorities, Police,

Road department


QUALITY LOOP: « EXPECTED »


QUALITY LOOP: « WANTED »


QUALITY LOOP: « PROVIDED »


QUALITY LOOP: « PERCEIVED »


QUALITY LOOP: « OVER-QUALITY »


SELF-ASSESSMENT METHODS (1)

Definition: measure one’s own performance

Example: EFQM self-assessment model (nine management data sources and proposes a weighted assessment method).

Example: EQUIP model (UPT indicators).


SELF-ASSESSMENT METHODS (2)The EFQM self assessment model

Leadership10%

PeopleManagement 9%

PeopleSatisfaction 9%

Processes

14%

BusinessResults

15%

Policy andStrategy 8%

Resources9%

CustomerSatisfaction 20%

Impact OnSociety 6%

Enablers 50% Results 50%

Source: EFQM


EQUIP clustering of indicators:


1 Company profile (21)

2 External influences on operator (13)

3 Revenue and fare structure (9)

4 Asset/Capacity utilisation (8)

5 Reliability (5)

6 Production costs (3)

7 Company performance (4)

8 Technical performance (6)

9 Employee satisfaction (12)

10 Customer satisfaction (7)

11 Safety and security (3)

Total: 91



EQUIP major indicators: 27



Passengers perception of quality

Opinion rating

Importance rating

AD

C B

3

4321

2

1

(2.92, 2.76)

4


BENCHMARKING (1)

The concept of Benchmarking:

• The word itself

• The goals


• Internal benchmarking

• External benchmarking among operators

• External benchmarking among authorities

BENCHMARKING (2)

Types of benchmarking in UPT:


The approach itself

Key factors for successful benchmarking:

BENCHMARKING (3)

• General conditions

• Role of management

• Choice of the subject

• Choice of the people


BENCHMARKING: CONDITIONS


BENCHMARKING: MANAGEMENT


BENCHMARKING: CHOICE


BENCHMARKING: PEOPLE


BENCHMARKING: APPROACH


Phase 1 : Planning and data collection

Phase 2 : Analysis

Phase 3 : Integration

Phase 4 : Action

BENCHMARKING (4)

The formal benchmarking process:


STANDARDISATION AND CERTIFICATION

ISO = by the processes

AFNOR : by the service provided

Two main approaches:


STANDARDISATION


• A recent approach

• Example of UK

QUALITY PARTNERSHIPS


GUARANTEE OF SERVICE

Objectives

• Charters: different types

• Compensations: financial or others

• Service guarantees and contracts


CEN QUALITY FRAMEWORK (1)

1. Availability

2. Accessibility

3. Information

4. Time

8 main indicators:


CEN: AVAILABILITY


CEN: ACCESSIBILITY


CEN: INFORMATION

On street underground real time displayer in Stuttgart


CEN: TIME


CEN QUALITY FRAMEWORK (2)

8 main indicators (continuing):

5. Customer care

6. Comfort

7. Security

8. Environment


CEN: CUSTOMER CARE


CEN: COMFORT


FUNDAMENTALS, PARTNERSHIPS, RESPONSIBILITIES

• Fundamentals of quality management

• Contracts and tenders

• Responsibilities of the main actors

Content of the second part of the presentation:


2.1. FUNDAMENTALS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN UPT (1)

• Quality and planning

• A shared responsibility

• Measurement and management

• UPT and quality of environment

• People’s management

• A virtuous process


2.1. FUNDAMENTALS OF QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN UPT (2)

Source: Quattro

A virtuous process: the willingness to pay circle

BETTER SERVICEQUALITY

INCREASED FINANCIALCAPACITY TO IMPROVE

SERVICE QUALITY

HIGHERATTRACTIVENESSOF THE SERVICES

HIGHER WILLINGNESSTO PAY

PERFORMANCE OF QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

HIGHER FARES NEW CUSTOMERS LOST CUSTOMERS

HIGHER REVENUES3


2.2. QUALITY CONTRACTS AND TENDERS

• Influence of the legal framework

• Influence of the share of risks

• Use the tender to promote quality

• Quality in the contract itself


2.2. QUALITY CONTRACTS AND TENDERSInfluence of the legal framework

Market regulation

Procedures regulated limited competition free competition

free access

open tendering

restricted tendering

direct negotiation


Source: Quattro

2.2. QUALITY CONTRACTS AND TENDERSInfluence of the share of risks

Types of contracts

net cost gross cost management

Risks auth both ope auth both ope auth both ope

political

production

revenue

financial

planning

environmental

contractual


QUALITY AND CONTRACTS


QUALITY AND TENDERS


2.3. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MAIN ACTORS

• Public authorities

• Operators

• Equipment manufacturers


• Although « Quality » is a rather complex concept, there are many tools to implement and improve it (the 7 dwarfs !)

• Among them, Benchmarking is a more and more recognised useful tool.

• Beside the tools, several key elements contribute strongly to interact with quality.

• Let ’s now use the same European concepts... !

CONCLUSION

Documents

BENCHMARKING AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT Transparencies 2003 EU-funded Urban Transport Research Project Results TRANSPORT