ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS ... 2019 Q… · 74.8 Singapore Flyer 74.7 River Safari 74.5 Universal Studios 73.9 Night Safari 73.7 Adventure Cove 72.0 Singapore

INSTITUTE OF

SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2019 Q4 RESULTS

Finance & Insurance and Healthcare

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG Methodology

How Much Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?

!4

Customer Satisfaction

CSISG (Scale of 0-100)

1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations

3. Similarity to Ideal

The CSISG Score

!5

Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal

Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance

Qn. Complaint Behaviour

Customer Expectations

(Expected Quality Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Overall Quality

Perceived Value

Customer Satisfaction

(CSISG)

Customer Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price

Qn. Predicted Overall Quality Qn. Predicted Customisation Qn. Predicted Reliability

Qn. Perceived Overall Quality Qn. Perceived Customisation Qn. Perceived Reliability

→ Denotes positive relationship between the drivers → Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers

General CSISG Structural Model

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)

Typically 100-200 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.

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.

!6

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology

!7

Company Score

Sub-Sector Score

National ScoreSector Score

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.

Local & Tourist Weights

Company Weights

Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights

• 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.

1 2 3 4

Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data

Overview of Score Calculation

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2019 Key Facts

Calendar year 1st quarter Info-Communications Retail

2nd quarter Air Transport Land Transport

3rd quarter F&B Tourism

4th quarter Finance & Insurance Healthcare

Sectors Measured in the CSISG

!9

Total Questionnaires Completed 29,670

Locals 21,925

Tourists 7,745

Distinct entities measured 671

Entities with published scores 173

CSISG 2019 Full Year Quick Facts

!10

Sectors Covered Finance & Insurance Healthcare

Survey Period Oct 2019 to Jan 2020

Total Questionnaires Completed 9,570

Locals 9,190

Tourists 380

Distinct entities measured 82

Entities with published scores 49

CSISG 2019 Q4 Quick Facts

!11

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2019 RESULTS

!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

76.9 Food & Beverage

78.3 Restaurants*82.3 Sakae Sushi*82.0 Tung Lok Signatures*79.5 Crystal Jade la Mian XiaoLong Bao78.5 Sushi Tei78.4 Seoul Garden78.3 Swensen’s78.1 Ajisen Ramen77.9 Jack’s Place77.2 Astons77.0 Crystal Jade Kitchen77.0 Nando’s76.7 Thai Express76.7 Manhattan Fish Market76.6 Soup Restaurant 76.6 Pizza Hut76.4 Din Tai Fung76.0 Boon Tong Kee75.7 Dian Xiao Er75.1 Fish & Co 80.2 Other restaurants

75.9 Snack Bars & Food Kiosks74.7 Old Chang Kee73.7 Jollibean76.3 Other snack bars & food kiosks

74.8 Cafes & Coffee Houses76.4 Starbucks73.1 Toast Box72.7 Ya Kun75.1 Other cafes & coffee houses

2019 National Score

74.3How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?

1

76.1 Air Transport 79.0 Airport* 79.0 Changi Airport 75.3 Full Service Airlines 78.8 Singapore Airlines*77.3 Garuda Indonesia*76.4 Emirates75.3 Cathay Pacific74.8 Qantas74.0 SilkAir72.6 Other full service airlines

72.4 Budget Airlines73.2 AirAsia73.1 Jetstar Asia72.3 Scoot70.3 Lion Air71.0 Other budget airlines

75.8 Tourism

75.9 HotelsLuxury & Upscale Hotels77.5 Marina Bay Sands77.1 The Ritz-Carlton76.8 Grand Hyatt76.7 Shangri-La75.5 Pan Pacific Singapore74.9 Hotel Michael74.0 Marina Mandarin73.7 Mandarin OrchardEconomy Hotels71.7 Fragrance Hotel71.3 Hotel 81

76.5 Other hotels

75.1 Attractions76.5 Sentosa75.7 Singapore Zoo75.4 Gardens By The Bay74.9 S.E.A. Aquarium74.9 Jurong Bird Park74.8 Singapore Flyer74.7 River Safari74.5 Universal Studios73.9 Night Safari73.7 Adventure Cove72.0 Singapore Discovery Centre73.2 Other attractions

74.6 Fast Food Restaurants76.2 McDonald’s75.0 Burger King74.1 Mos Burger73.7 Subway73.6 KFC72.3 Other fast food restaurants

74.6 Finance & Insurance

75.3 Banks*75.7 Citibank 75.6 DBS75.1 OCBC74.3 UOB74.2 HSBC74.0 Maybank73.6 Standard Chartered72.5 Other banks

74.0 Life Insurance76.2 Great Eastern*74.4 AIA74.1 NTUC Income73.9 Prudential71.7 Aviva71.5 Other life insurers

73.2 Motor & Other Personal Insurance74.6 AIG74.0 AXA74.0 NTUC Income72.3 Other motor & personal insurers

73.0 Health and Medical Insurance74.5 Prudential73.3 Great Eastern73.2 AIA72.4 NTUC Income72.2 Other health & medical insurers

72.7 Credit Cards73.5 Citibank73.4 DBS73.2 American Express72.9 Maybank72.8 HSBC72.7 UOB72.1 OCBC71.4 Other credit cards

!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 2019 National Score

74.3How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?

All scores displayed are accurate to one-decimal place. Entities are presented in decreasing levels of satisfaction.

* Companies indicated with an asterisk(*) are companies that have performed significantly above their sub-sector average.

* Sub-sectors indicated with an asterisk(*) are sub-sectors that have performed significantly above their sector average.

The sparklines indicate the satisfaction score of their respective sectors, sub-sectors and companies over the past few years.

statistically significant increase in customer satisfaction from 2018 to 2019

statistically significant decrease in customer satisfaction from 2018 to 2019

no significant year-on-year change in customer satisfaction score

This scorecard summarises the results of the CSISG 2019 satisfaction scores at the national, sector, sub-sector and company levels.

CSISG scores are generated based on the econometric modelling of survey data collected from end-users after the consumption of products and services. Company scores (in black) are weighted based on a separate incidence study. This incidence study helps determine each company’s sample profile and the local-tourist weights. Sub-sector scores (in blue) are derived as a weighted average of company scores, in proportion to the local and tourist incidence interactions with the constituent companies. Sector scores (in gold) are derived by aggregating the sub-sector scores proportionately to each sub-sector’s revenue contributions.

Finally, the national index of 74.3 represents a weighted average, by each sector’s contribution to GDP, of the 8 sector scores.

2

73.4 Retail

73.6 Supermarkets 74.2 NTUC Fairprice 73.7 Sheng Siong 73.5 Cold Storage 72.9 Giant 71.9 Other supermarkets

73.4 Fashion Apparels 74.1 Giordano 74.0 Zara 73.7 G2000 73.4 H&M 73.4 Esprit 72.6 Cotton On 72.3 Hang Ten 72.1 Adidas 72.0 Bossini 71.5 Uniqlo 74.1 Other fashion apparels

73.0 e-Commerce 74.7 Zalora 74.2 Fave 73.8 Ebay 73.3 Qoo10 73.1 Taobao/Tmall 72.6 Carousell 72.0 Amazon 71.1 Other e-Commerce

73.0 Department Stores 74.5 DFS 73.9 Metro 73.9 Robinsons 73.4 Takashimaya 73.3 Tangs 73.1 BHG 72.7 Isetan 70.9 OG 71.6 Other department stores

72.7 Healthcare 75.2 Private Hospitals*75.7 Mount Elizabeth Orchard75.6 Gleneagles75.5 Raffles Hospital75.4 Parkway East75.4 Mount Alvernia74.8 Mount Elizabeth Novena74.2 Thomson Medical

72.3 Polyclinics72.6 National Healthcare Group72.3 SingHealth71.7 National University

71.7 Restructured Hospitals73.1 KK Women’s & Children’s72.5 Changi General71.9 Sengkang General71.8 National University71.7 Ng Teng Fong71.7 Khoo Teck Puat71.6 Tan Tock Seng69.9 Singapore General

73.2 Wireless@SG

72.7 Mobile Telecom 75.2 Singtel* 71.9 StarHub 69.7 M1

70.6 Broadband 70.9 StarHub 70.9 M1 70.2 Singtel

70.2 PayTV 70.7 StarHub 69.7 Singtel

72.1 Info-Communications 68.0 Land Transport 73.3 Taxi Services* 75.6 Transcab*74.3 Premier72.9 ComfortDelGro72.9 SMRT71.0 Prime

68.3 Transport Booking Apps 69.1 ComfortDelGro68.2 Gojek 68.1 Grab 66.7 Public Buses 68.2 SMRT67.0 SBS Transit64.3 Other bus operators 64.9 Mass Rapid Transit System 65.0 SMRT64.7 SBS Transit

Finance & Insurance Sector

• Banks

• Credit Cards

• Life Insurance

• Health & Medical Insurance

• Motor & Other Personal Insurance

Healthcare Sector

• Restructured Hospitals

• Private Hospitals

• Polyclinics

CSISG 2019 Q4 Sub-sectors

!15

INSTITUTE OF


Finance & Insurance Sector Results

60

70

80

2007 2019

Banks

70

78Finance & Insurance Sector

60

70

80

2007 2019

Credit Cards

60

70

80

2007 2019

Life Insurance

60

70

80

2007 2019

Motor and Other Personal Insurance

60

70

80

2007 2019

Health and Medical Insurance

◼◼

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence

Finance & Insurance Sector CSISG Trends

◼

◼

!17

◼

!18

Drivers & Outcome Of Satisfaction (Finance & Insurance Sector)



(Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Quality

(After Recent Experience)

Perceived Value CSISG

Banks 74.7 ▲ 77.3 77.8 75.3

Credit Cards 72.6 75.6 75.9 72.7

Life Insurance 75.9 ▲ 76.3 77.1 74.0

Health & Medical Insurance 74.5 76.5 76.5 73.0

Motor & Other Personal Insurance 74.3 76.1 76.1 73.2


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

68

74

80

2015 2019

Customer ExpectationPerceived Quality

Banks

68

74

80

2015 2019

Credit Cards

68

74

80

2015 2019

Life Insurance

68

74

80

2015 2019


68

74

80

2015 2019


!19

Customer Expectations Rising With Perceived Quality (Finance & Insurance: Expectations-Quality Gap 5-Year Trend)

68

74

80

2015 2019

Customer ExpectationPerceived Quality

Banks

68

74

80

2015 2019

Credit Cards

68

74

80

2015 2019

Life Insurance

68

74

80

2015 2019


68

74

80

2015 2019


!20

Expectations Catching Up With Perceived Quality (Finance & Insurance: Expectations-Quality Gap 5-Year Trend)

INSTITUTE OF


Finance Sector Results & Findings

DBS/POSB 75.1

UOB 72.6

OCBC 74.5

Citibank 75.3

HSBC 73.8 Standard Chartered 73.2

Maybank 73.5

Other banks 71.3

75.6 DBS/POSB

74.3 UOB

75.1 OCBC

75.7 Citibank

74.2 HSBC

73.6 Standard Chartered 74.0 Maybank

72.5 Other banks

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

60

70

80Marginal Upticks Across Most Banks Banks (Main CASA Account holders)

Finance & Insurance Sector2007 2019

Banks 75.3

Note: Respondents must have a CASA account and have interacted with the bank in the last 3 months

Examples of Other Banks Include Bank Of China, CIMB, RHB

!22

Movements in Various Measured Attributes (Banks)

Gives you individual attention

Has products and services available when you want it

Performs services right the very first time

Range of products meet your needs

Feels comfortable and safe

Products appeal to you

Has a good reputation

Proactively helps you when neededProducts and services are presented in a way

that is clear and easy to understandBrand image complements your personality

Is innovative and forward-looking

Provides prompt service

Has your best interest at heart

Fulfills its promise at the promised time

Feels assured that things will be taken care of

Attribute Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.5 7.9 8.4

2019 Avg Rating

!23

▲

▲

▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence

▲▲

▲

▲

▼▼▼▼▼

Descending Order Of

Attributes Ratings

Empathy Attributes Top Drivers of Satisfaction (Banks: Drivers of Satisfaction)







Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand


Is innovating and forward-looking


Proactively helps you when needed

Brand image complements your personality


Feeling assured that things will be taken care of



7.0 7.7 8.4

2019 Avg Rating

!24

Significant Positive Impact

on CSISG

Limited Positive

Impact on CSISG

▼▼

▲

▲

Empathy

Assurance

Product

Responsiveness

Empathy

Assurance

Product

▲

▲

▲

▲

▼▼

▼

INSTITUTE OF


Digital Users (Bank Touch-Points)

!26

Inte

ract

ed W

ith

Cha

nnel

(%

)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

ATM or Self-Service Machine

Branch Mobile App Internet Banking Contact Centre Personal Banker

201720182019

Increase In Interaction With Various Channels (Banks: Channel Interactions)

!27

Digital Channel Users Continue to Rise (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

20%

55%

90%

2017 2018 2019

72.1%69.4%67.3%

27.9%30.6%32.7%

Did Not Use Internet Banking/Mobile AppUsed Internet Banking/Mobile App

!28

Digital Channel Usage Rising Among the Younger Customers (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users)

% o

f B

ank

Res

pond

ents

20%

55%

90%

2017 2018 2019

72.1%69.4%67.3%

27.9%30.6%32.7%

Did Not Use Internet Banking/Mobile AppUsed Internet Banking/Mobile App

▲▼ indicates statistically significant year-on-year INCREASE/DROP in proportion at 90% confidence

% U

sed

Inte

rnet

B

anki

ng /

Mob

ile

App

by

Age

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

18 to 34 Years 35 to 59 Years 60 Years & Above

▲

▲ ▲

2017 2018 2019

INSTITUTE OF


Digital Banks

!30

New Digital Bank License Applicants

Source: https://blog.seedly.sg/singapore-digital-bank-licenses/

*Above information was valid at the point of publication (8 Jan 2020)

License

Question on New Digital Banks: “The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) recently announced that it will issue new digital bank licenses which will operate entirely online without any physical bank branches.”

“Now, which of the following products would you be willing to apply for through a digital bank? ” (MA)

!31

Almost Half of Current Banking Customers Willing to Try Using the New Digital Banks (Banks: Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)

% B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Not Willing To Apply Willing To Apply

43.3%

56.7%

Online Banking Usage

Used Internet/ Mobile Banking 48.5% 51.5%Did Not Use Internet/ Mobile

Banking 77.9% 22.1%

Age

18 to 34 Years 44.1% 55.9%35 to 59 Years 56.6% 43.4%

60 Years & Above 82.9% 17.1%

Personal Income

Under SGD 3K 53.2% 46.8%SGD 3K - Under SGD 6K 46.6% 53.4%

SGD 6K - Under SGD 10K 45.2% 54.8%SGD 10K or over 65.1% 34.9%

!32

% B

ank

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Not Willing To Apply Willing To Apply

43.3%56.7%

% Within Each Demographic Sub-Group (Row Percentage)

Potential Profile of Customer of New Digital Banks: Users of Online Banking, Young, Income 3K to 10K (Banks: Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)

!33

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

ATM or Self- Service Machine

Branch Internet Banking Mobile App Contact Centre Personal Banker

11.7%

43.8%

62.2%62.9%65.6%

95.7%

15.0%

32.3%

44.8%43.9%

59.5%

92.6% Not Willing To Apply Willing To Apply

Potential Customers of New Digital Banks Tend to Interact More With their Banks Especially Through Online Channels (Banks: Channels Used by Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)

Online Banking Usage

Used Internet/ Mobile Banking 71.9 73.2

Did Not Use Internet/ Mobile Banking 69.4 73.9

Age18 to 34 Years 71.6 72.435 to 59 Years 71.6 74.1

60 Years & Above 68.7 72.6

Personal Income

Under SGD 3K 68.4 72.5SGD 3K - Under SGD 6K 70.4 73.5

SGD 6K - Under SGD 10K 70.9 74.0

SGD 10K or over 74.5 71.0

!34

Loyalty Score (0 to 100)

Not Willing70.9

Willing73.3

Willingness To Apply Products Through New

Digital Bank

GREEN/RED indicates that the proportion of Willing To Apply segment is HIGHER/LOWER than the proportion of those Not Willing To Apply with statistical significance.

More Loyal Banking Customers Also Tend to Be Those Willing to Try Out New Digital Banks (Banks: Loyalty Scores by Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)

!35

Credit Cards

Loans

Insurance

Current or Savings Account

Investment

% Bank Respondents Who Are Willing To Apply For Products Through Digital Bank

0% 50% 100%

14.5%

18.5%

18.7%

48.2%

99.7%

Credit Cards & Loans Top Products Potential Customers Willing to Try Applying Through the New Digital Banks (Banks: Products Customer Willing to Apply Through the New Digital Banks)

Reliability Issues Key to Retaining Banking Customers Willing to Try New Digital Banks (Banks: Top Differentiators of Loyalty Among Those Who Are Willing to Apply Products Through New Digital Bank)

Products and services are presented in a way that is

clear and easy to understand


Performs services right the first time



6.5 7.5 8.5

7.93

8.21

8.25

8.04

Overall Banks 2019 Avg Rating


on Loyalty Score

!36

Base: Willing To Apply Products Through New Digital Bank

!37

Familiarity With Branches & Security Key Reasons for Unwillingness to Try New Digital Banks (Banks: Reasons For Unwillingness To Apply Products Through New Digital Bank)

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

25%

50%

Used to visiting the branches

Feel that online transaction is not secure or is risky

Do not know how to use

Prefer human interaction

Digital bank is not sustainable

0.0%

5.0%

35.0%

28.2%

31.8%

0.2%

18.4%

7.5%

35.0%

39.3%

Used Internet/Mobile BankingDid not Use Internet/Mobile Banking

DBS/POSB Credit Cards 72.7

UOB Credit Cards 72.1

OCBC Credit Cards 71.4

Citibank Credit Cards 73.1

HSBC Credit Cards 71.6

Maybank Credit Cards 72.3

American Express Credit Cards 72.9

Other Credit Cards 70.1

73.4 DBS/POSB Credit Cards

72.7 UOB Credit Cards 72.1 OCBC Credit Cards

73.5 Citibank Credit Cards

72.8 HSBC Credit Cards 72.9 Maybank Credit Cards 73.2 American Express Credit Cards

71.4 Other Credit Cards

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

60

70

80

Marginal Movements Across Cards Credit Card (Most Recently Used Card)


!38

2007 2019

Credit Cards

72.7

Examples 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

Credit Cards: Impact on CSISGFlexibility of policies such as waiver of charges

Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs

Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information

Card benefits such as cashbacks,reward points, privileges



Ease of reward redemption

Card benefits are presented in a waythat is clear and easy to understand

Feels comfortable and safe when using the card



7.0 7.5 8.0

2019 Avg Rating

!39


on CSISG

Limited Positive

Impact on CSISG


▼

▼

▲

Product

Service

Branding

Product

Product

Branding

Service

Verbatim on Top 2 Drivers for Credit CardsFlexibility of policies such as waiver of charges

Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs

Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information

Card benefits such as cashbacks,reward points, privileges



Ease of reward redemption

Card benefits are presented in a waythat is clear and easy to understand

Feels comfortable and safe when using the card



7.0 7.5 8.0

2019 Avg Rating

!40


on CSISG

Limited Positive

Impact on CSISG

▼

▼

▲


Nothing fantastic with limited benefit, not flexible with annual fee waiver

They are not flexible with the annual fee waiver even I spend quite a lot using this card

Difficult to get fee waiver

I can earn cashback when I spend with this card. Fee waiver should be more flexible for this card

They are not flexible with the annual fee waiver. They can at least give discount or giving gifts for

the annual renewal

Annual fees can be cheaper, if not have more merchants with more benefits

Not a lot of places in Singapore can enjoy merchant discounts, need to have more outlets

participating

Very easy to earn cashback. Have more tie ups with merchant.

The dining privileges are attractive, able to dine and enjoy saving too. They can tied up with more merchants so that we can enjoy more privileges

Very easy to earn cashback. Have more tie ups with merchant

INSTITUTE OF


Insurance Sector Results & Findings

Prudential 72.8

AIA 73.8

Great Eastern 75.0

NTUC Income 73.3

Aviva 70.8 Other life insurers 70.8

73.9 Prudential

74.4 AIA

76.2 Great Eastern

74.1 NTUC Income

71.7 Aviva 71.5 Other life insurers

CSISG

2018

CSISG

2019

60

70

80

Marginal Upticks Across Life Insurers Life Insurance


!42

2007 2019

Life Insurance

74.0◼

Examples 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

AIA 72.7

Great Eastern 72.1

NTUC Income 71.6

Prudential 73.0

Other health & medical insurers 71.8

73.2 AIA 73.3 Great Eastern

72.4 NTUC Income

74.5 Prudential

72.2 Other health & medical insurers

CSISG

2018

CSISG

2019

Marginal Movements Among Measured Entities Health & Medical Insurance


!43

2007 201960

70

80 Health & Medical Insurance

Examples of Other Health & Medical Insurance includes Aviva, Manulife, AXA

73.0


AIG 73.5 NTUC Income 73.3

AXA 73.5

Other motor & personal insurers 71.7

74.6 AIG

74.0 NTUC Income 74.0 AXA

72.3 Other motor & personal insurers

CSISG

2018

CSISG

2019

60

70

80

Marginal Upticks & Undifferentiated Scores Motor & Other Personal Insurance


!44

2007 2019

Motor & Other Personal Insurance

73.2◼

Examples of Other Motor & Personal Insurance Includes MSIG, Direct Asia, Tokio Marine


Movement in Insurance Attributes Ratings




Has products and services available when you want itFeels assured that things

will be taken care of











7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2

2019 Avg Rating

!45

▲

▼▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year

IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2

2019 Avg Rating

Life Insurance Health & Medical Insurance

▼

▲

▼

7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2

2019 Avg Rating


▲

▲

▲

▲
















Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2

7.77

7.85

7.87

7.87

7.87

7.72

7.76

7.78

7.79

7.83

7.52

7.74

7.75

7.78

7.80

Insurance: Lowest Rated Five Attributes

!46

Life Insurance

Health & Medical Insurance


▼

▼

▼

▲


Significant Impact On CSISG






Products A Greater Differentiator of Satisfaction in 2019 (Insurance: Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG)

Life Insurance Health & Medical Insurance


2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018






Performs services right the very first

time

Is innovative & forward-looking





time











time


time


Brand image complements

your personality






!47Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact

Legend: Product

INSTITUTE OF


Digital Behaviour (Insurance)

Increasing Website Usage for Motor & Personal Insurance (Insurance: Used A Website in the Last 3 months)

% o

f R

espo

nden

ts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019

70.1%69.1%63.2%

28.8%29.2%28.0%28.1%26.0%26.4%

!49

Life

Proportion of Motor & Other Personal Insurance respondents who have used Website in 2019 & 2018 is significantly higher than in 2017.

Health & MedicalMotor & Other

Personal

!50

Customers of Motor & Other Personal Insurance More Likely to Purchase Polices Online (Insurance: Likelihood To Purchase Policies Online)

% I

nsur

ance

Res

pond

ents

0%

50%

100%

Life Insurance Respondents

Health & Medical Respondents

Motor & Other Personal Respondents

84.5%

28.0%

43.7%

15.5%

72.0%

56.3%

Not Likely To Purchase Likely To Purchase

!51

Life and Health & Medical Insurance Remains More Likely Bought Through Non-Digital Channels (Insurance: Type of Insurance Likely to Be Purchased Online)

Motor

Travel

Health

Life

0% 50% 100%

19.3%

23.1%

51.1%

59.6%

% Respondents

0% 50% 100%

5.2%

15.0%

36.5%

89.6%

0% 50% 100%

7.2%

10.7%

31.1%

97.1%

Type of Insurance Most Likely To Purchase Online

% I

nsur

ance

R

espo

nden

ts0%

50%

100%

Life Insurance Respondents

Health & Medical Respondents

Motor & Other Personal Respondents

84.5%

28.0%43.7%

Likely To Purchase

INSTITUTE OF


Healthcare Sector Results & Findings

60

68

76

2007 2019

Private Hospitals

70

78

Healthcare Sector

60

68

76

2007 2019

Restructured Hospitals

60

68

76

2007 2019

Polyclinics

Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months

◼

Healthcare Sector CSISG

◼

◼


!53

QH: checked

!54

CSISG Performance 2019 (Healthcare Sector)


Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality

Before Recent Experience)

Perceived Quality

(After Recent Experience)


Restructured Hospitals 72.9 74.4 74.7 71.7

Private Hospitals 76.1 ▲ 76.9 77.3 75.2

Polyclinics 73.5 74.8 74.4 72.3


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

SGH 69.3

KKH 71.8 CGH 71.8

TTSH 70.8

NUH 71.0

KTPH 71.4 NTFH 71.2

AH 70.7

69.9 SGH

73.1 KKH

72.5 CGH

71.6 TTSH

71.8 NUH

71.7 KTPH 71.7 NTFH

71.9 SKH

CSISG

2018

CSISG

2019

Marginal Upticks in Scores Restructured Hospitals

!55

2007 201960

69

78Restructured Hospitals

70

78

Healthcare Sector

Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months Sengkang Hospital is a newly measured entity in 2019. National University Health System (NUHS) took over the operations of Alexandra Hospital from 1 June 2018. Thus, there will be no year-on-year trending data.

71.7◼

Raffles Hospital 75.1 Mount Alvernia Hospital 75.0

Thomson Medical Centre 73.7

Mount Elizabeth Orchard 74.5 Parkway East Hospital 74.7

Gleneagles Hospital 74.3

Mount Elizabeth Novena 73.9

75.5 Raffles Hospital 75.4 Mount Alvernia Hospital

74.2 Thomson Medical Centre

75.7 Mount Elizabeth Orchard

75.4 Parkway East Hospital

75.6 Gleneagles Hospital

74.8 Mount Elizabeth Novena

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

Healthcare Sector

!56

2007 201960

69

78 Private HospitalsMarginal Upticks in Scores Private Hospitals

75.2◼


NHG 71.7

SingHealth 70.7

NUP 71.3

72.6 NHG 72.3 SingHealth

71.7 NUP

CSISG2018

CSISG2019

Marginal Upticks in Scores Polyclinics

Healthcare Sector

!57

2007 201958

68

78Polyclinics

72.3◼


!58

More Government Initiatives for Healthcare

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/revised-healthcare-subsidy-criteria-will-benefit-more-than-365000-people-from

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-budget-2019-61-billion-for-merdeka-generation-package-includes-medisave-top-ups

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/revised-healthcare-subsidy-criteria-will-benefit-more-than-365000-people-from

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/revised-healthcare-subsidy-criteria-will-benefit-more-than-365000-people-from

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-budget-2019-61-billion-for-merdeka-generation-package-includes-medisave-top-ups



INSTITUTE OF


Patient Journey

Sat

isfa

ctio

n R

atin

g (1

to

10

)

5.6

6.5

7.4

8.3

PolyclinicRestructured HospitalPrivate Hospital

Healthcare Patient Journey

!60

Waiting

time

(befo

re med

ical t

est /

cons

ultati

on)

Ease

of m

aking

appo

intmen

t

Effic

iency

of re

gistra

tion pr

oces

s

Waiting

expe

rienc

e

(such

as que

ue noti

ficati

on, s

eats

and en

tertai

nmen

t)

Clari

ty of

direc

tion sig

ns

Ease

of ge

tting

arou

nd

Amen

ities

with

in po

lyclin

ic

Clea

nline

ss of

poly

clinic

Expla

natio

n of

diagn

osis

/ con

dition

Colle

ction

of m

edica

tion

Clari

ty of

medica

tion ins

tructi

ons

Paym

ent p

roces

s

Ease of making appointment

Registration process

Waiting time (before undergoing medical test or seeing a doctor)

Waiting experience (such as queue notification, seats and entertainment)

Clarity of direction signs

Ease of getting around

Amenities within hospital

Cleanliness of hospital

Explanation of diagnosis / condition

Treatment administered or suggested

Collection of medication

Clarity of medication instructions

Payment process

5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5

Subsidised PatientPrivate Patient

Patient Journey for Restructured Hospitals (Private vs Subsidised Patients)

!61

Statistically Significant Differences

!62

Waiting Time Remains An Issue In Healthcare (Healthcare Sector: 3 Lowest Rated Attributes)

Restructured Hospital

5.0 6.5 8.0

Private Hospital


Waiting experience

Waiting time

Payment process


Waiting time

5.0 6.5 8.0

Polyclinics

5.0 6.5 8.0

Payment process

Collection of medicine

Waiting time

▼

▼ ▼▼


Restructured Hospital Private Hospital Polyclinics

CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty


Waiting experience

Waiting time Waiting time Waiting experience

Waiting experience





Collection of medication

Efficiency of registration

process

Waiting time Payment process

Payment process

Waiting experience


Treatment administered or

suggestedWaiting time Cleanliness of

hospitalPayment process

Cleanliness of polyclinic


Treatment administered or

suggested

Ease of making appointment

Efficiency of registration

process

!63

Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG & Loyalty)

Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact

Specialist Outpatient Clinics Hospitalisation A&E


Private Hospital


Private Hospital


Private Hospital

Clarity of medicine

instructionsWaiting time Ward

experienceWaiting time Waiting

experience

Clarity of medicine

instructions


Payment process


Amenities within hospital



Waiting timeClarity of medicine

instructions



Clarity of direction signs

Payment process



Waiting timeTreatment

administered or suggested




!64

Restructured & Private Hospitals: Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction By Purpose

Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact

Better Perceived Waiting Time For Visits By Appointment

!65

Satisfaction with Waiting Time

Restructured Hospitals Private Hospitals PolyclinicsNot By

Appointment By AppointmentNot By


Appointment By Appointment

4.82 6.53 6.67 7.48 5.19 7.22

▲

GREEN/RED ratings denote BETTER/WORSE performance between those who visited by appointment & those who have not with statistical significance

Satisfaction with Waiting

Time (1 to 10)

Appointment Usage Higher Among Older Patients

!66

Satisfaction with Waiting Time

Restructured Hospitals Private Hospitals PolyclinicsNot By



Appointment By Appointment

4.82 6.53 6.67 7.48 5.19 7.22

▲

GREEN/RED ratings denote BETTER/WORSE performance between those who visited by appointment & those who have not with statistical significance

0.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

18 to 34 years old

35 to 59 years old

60 years old & above

96.9%90.7%

79.6%

18 to 34 years old

35 to 59 years old


96.4%89.7%87.9%

18 to 34 years old

35 to 59 years old


60.2%

28.7%

4.1%

% of Respondents Whose Most Visits Were By Appointments In Last 6 Months

Satisfaction with Waiting

Time (1 to 10)

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

40

50

60

70

80

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

CSISG Score & Waiting Time By Appointment Usage (Healthcare: Score & Rating Trend)

!67

▲


Not By Appointment

By Appointment

Not By Appointment

By Appointment

Not By Appointment

By Appointment

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

CSISGWaiting Time (on a 0 to 100 score)

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

40

50

60

70

80

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

CSISG Score, Waiting Time & Waiting Experience (Healthcare: Score & Rating Trend)

!68

▲


Not By Appointment

By Appointment

Not By Appointment

By Appointment

Not By Appointment

By Appointment

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

CSISGWaiting Time (on a 0 to 100 score)Waiting Experience (on a 0 to 100 score)

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

40

50

60

70

80

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

Increasing Waiting Experience Can Be Associated with Higher CSISG Even Though Waiting Time Satisfaction Decreased (CSISG Score, Waiting Time & Waiting Experience)

!69

▲


Not By Appointment

By Appointment

Not By Appointment

By Appointment

Not By Appointment

By Appointment

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

CSISGWaiting Time (on a 0 to 100 score)Waiting Experience (on a 0 to 100 score)

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

!70

• National CSISG score rose with a number of sub-sectors seeing upticks in satisfaction levels.

• Finance & Insurance:

• Scores generally unchanged, improvements and declines seen across various attributes. Digital channel interactions continues to climb.

• Banks: New digital banks threaten credit card and loan business, even among currently loyal customers. Consider focusing on Reliability issues, and personal interactions.

• Insurance: Consider focusing on Products given its increased importance especially for Life and Motor and Other Personal insurance.

Key Takeaways

!71

• Healthcare:

• Waiting time and waiting experience remain as key drivers for the sector, as well as service process related attributes.

• Apart from improving processes, consider the use of appointments as a means of improving perceived waiting time and experience.

Key Takeaways

INSTITUTE OF


ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement

Documents

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS ... 2019 Q… · 74.8 Singapore Flyer 74.7 River Safari 74.5 Universal Studios 73.9 Night Safari 73.7 Adventure Cove 72.0 Singapore