Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS Announcement
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS
AIR TRANSPORT & LAND TRANSPORT
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
csisg methodology
!4
Customer Satisfaction
CSISG (Scale of 0-100)
1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations
3. Similarity to Ideal
How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score
CSISG Structural Model
!5!5
Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal
Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance
#Qn. Positive Word-of-Mouth #Qn. Price Tolerance
Qn. Complaint Behaviour
Customer Expectations
(Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Overall Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value
Customer Satisfaction
(CSISG)
Customer Complaints
Customer Loyalty/
User Trust#
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
# Note: MRT Systems and Public Buses respondents are administered questions on User Trust instead of Customer Loyalty.
not here as well
General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology
!6
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 all sub-sectors except Transport Booking Apps)
Typically 100-200 respondents per entity/ company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.
Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the entity/ company they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 entity/ company.
Overview of Score Calculation
!7!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
CSISG 2019 Q2 Sub-Sectors
!8
Land Transport Sector Air Transport Sector
• Mass Rapid Transit System
• Public Buses
• Taxi Services
• Transport Booking Apps
• Full Service Airlines
• Budget Airlines
• Changi Airport
!8
CSISG 2019 Q2 Quick Facts
!9!9
Sectors Covered Land Transport Air Transport
Survey Period Apr to Jul 2019
Total Questionnaires Completed 6,400
Locals 3,690
Tourists 2,710
Distinct entities measured 59
Entities with published scores 26
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2019 Q2 RESULTS
How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2019 Q2 Results Overview
!11
* Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores
QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with company (Past 3 months for Land Transport, Past 6 months for Full Service
Airlines & Budget Airlines) (2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 company within the Air Transport and Land Transport sector
!11
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
air transport sector results
Air Transport Sector CSISG Trends
!13
70
78
Air Transport Sector
55
75
95Airport
2007 2019
Budget Airlines
Full Service Airlines
!13
▲▼Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence
2007 2019
2007 2019
◼◼
◼
Air Transport Sub-Sectors Scores (Year-on-Year Movement in Satisfaction Drivers)
!14!14
Customer Expectations
(Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value CSISG
Full Service Airlines 75.4 77.4 76.5 75.3(+0.7%) (+0.3%) (-1.1%) (+1.1%)
Budget Airlines 72.9 74.8 74.9 72.4(+0.4%) (0.0%) (-0.7%) (-1.0%)
Changi Airport 74.9 79.9 ▲ 78.2 79.0(+1.2%) (+2.7%) (-0.7%) (+1.3%)
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value CSISG
Complaints
Customer Loyalty
Improvement in Airport Perceived Quality Scores
!15!15
Perceived Product Quality
Perceived Service Quality
Perceived Quality
Changi Airport 79.0 ▲ 81.1 ▲ 79.9 ▲(+3.2%) (+2.5%) (+2.7%)
Service Quality
Product Quality
Perceived Quality
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Automated Check-In Services At Changi Airport
!16!16
Links (1) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/automated-services-at-changi-airport-s-t4-improve-efficiency-but-10885590 (2) http://www.changiairport.com/en/airport-guide/departing/checking-in/fast-check-in.html
01 Nov 2018
Airport: Significant Increase In Usage of Automated Check-In Machine
!17
% C
hang
i Air
port
Res
pond
ents
(n
=5
50
)
0%
50%
100%
Used Auto Check-In Did Not Use Auto Check-In
47.7%52.3%
67.3%
32.8%
2018 2019
!17
No Statistically Significant Difference in Satisfaction (Airport: Use of Automated Check-In Machine)
!18
ScoresCSISG 79.0 78.8
Perceived Service Quality 80.8 81.2
Age Group
18 to 29 Years 31.9% 7.8%
30 to 49 Years 64.5% 57.4%
50 Years & Above 3.6% 34.9%
% C
hang
i Air
port
R
espo
nden
ts
(n=5
50
)
0%
50%
100%
Used Auto Check-In Did Not Use
47.7%52.3%
2019
!18
No significant
differences in scores
Singapore Airlines 78.1
Qantas 73.9 SilkAir 73.1
Cathay Pacific 74.7
Emirates 75.6
Garuda Indonesia 76.4
Other full service airlines 71.6
78.8 Singapore Airlines
74.8 Qantas 74.0 SilkAir
75.3 Cathay Pacific
76.4 Emirates
77.3 Garuda Indonesia
72.6 Other full service airlines
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
Marginal Movements Across Full Service Airlines (Full Service Airlines)
!19!19
200755
70
85
2019
Full Service Airlines75.3
2007
E.g. of Other full service airlines includes Korean Air, Philippine Airlines, Malaysia Airlines
Jetstar Asia 72.4
Airasia 72.2
Lion Air 69.9
Scoot 75.3
Other budget/nAirlines 70.5
73.1 Jetstar Asia 73.2 Airasia
70.3 Lion Air
72.3 Scoot
71.0 Other budget/nAirlines
CSISG
2018
CSISG
2019
!20
200755
70
85
2019
Budget Airlines
72.4
2007
E.g. of Other budget airlines includes Cebu Pacific, VietJet Air, Firefly
Marginal Decline in Sub-Sector Satisfaction Score (Budget Airlines)
Scoot Flight Delays
!21
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/technical-issue-delays-second-scoot-flight-two-days-time-29-hours
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/scoot-flight-taipei-singapore-delayed-over-10-hours
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sorry-we-messed-upa
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Budget vs. Full Service Airlines
Full Service Airlines vs Budget Airlines (Short & Medium Haul Flights)
!23
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
65
70
75
80
Customer Expectations
Overall Perceived Quality
Perceived Value
Customer Loyalty
Customer Expectations
Overall Perceived Quality
Perceived Value Customer Loyalty
71.3
75.675.5
73.5
69.7
74.474.4
72.5 72.5
77.377.5
76.0
71.8
75.0
76.6
73.9
Short-Haul (Flight Time of 3 Hours & Below)
!23
GREEN/RED scores indicates Full Service Airlines performed BETTER/WORSE than Budget Airlines respondents with statistical significance
◼Full Service Airlines
◼Budget Airlines
CSISG 74.3 72.1
◼Full Service Airlines
◼Budget Airlines
CSISG 75.8 72.7
76.6
71.8
76.0
Medium-Haul (Flight Time of Between 3 Hours to 6 Hours)
Full Service Airlines vs Budget Airlines (Short & Medium Haul Flights)
!24
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
60
70
80
Customer Expectations
Perceived Overall Quality
Perceived Value
Customer Expectations
Perceived Overall Quality
Perceived Value
75.675.5
73.574.474.4
72.5
77.377.576.0
75.0
76.6
73.9
Short-Haul (Flight Time of 3 Hours & Below)
!24
GREEN/RED scores indicates Full Service Airlines performed BETTER/WORSE than Budget Airlines respondents with statistical significance
◼Full Service Airlines
◼Budget Airlines
CSISG 74.3 72.1
◼Full Service Airlines
◼Budget Airlines
CSISG 75.8 72.7
76.676.0
Medium-Haul (Flight Time of Between 3 Hours to 6 Hours)
Top 5 Attributes with Impact On Perceived Quality Score
Short-Haul Flights (3 Hours & Below) Medium-Haul Flights (Between 3 to 6 hours)
Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines
Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my
needs
Airline is able to accommodate to your
needs
Airline is able to accommodate to your
needs
Brand image complements your lifestyle
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Professionalism of the cabin crew
Range of in-flight entertainment options
Brand image complements your lifestyle Condition of the cabin
Professionalism of the ground staff
Ease of getting information Comfort of the journeyAirline has a good
reputation Ease of getting information
Quality of food and beverage
Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my
needs
Brand image complements your lifestyle
Efficiency with the overall check-in process
Increasing Impact
On Quality Score
!25
Differentiators for Long & Short Haul Flights (Top 5 Quality Drivers for Short & Medium Haul Flights)
Note: ‘Food and beverage options’ & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ were not included in impact analysis for Short-Haul Budget Airlines & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ for Medium-Haul Budget Airlines due to a large
proportion of respondents who did not rate the question
Top 5 Attributes with Impact On Perceived Quality Score
Short-Haul Flights (3 Hours & Below) Medium-Haul Flights (Between 3 to 6 hours)
Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines
Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my
needs
Airline is able to accommodate to your
needs
Airline is able to accommodate to your
needs
Brand image complements your lifestyle
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Professionalism of the cabin crew
Range of in-flight entertainment options
Brand image complements your lifestyle Condition of the cabin
Professionalism of the ground staff
Ease of getting information Comfort of the journeyAirline has a good
reputation Ease of getting information
Quality of food and beverage
Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my
needs
Brand image complements your lifestyle
Efficiency with the overall check-in process
!26
Service Staff Attributes Remains Key Differentiator (Differentiators for Long & Short Haul Flights)
Note: ‘Food and beverage options’ & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ were not included in impact analysis for Short-Haul Budget Airlines & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ for Medium-Haul Budget Airlines due to a large
proportion of respondents who did not rate the question
Increasing Impact
On Quality Score
Top 5 Attributes with Impact On Perceived Quality Score
Short-Haul Flights (3 Hours & Below) Medium-Haul Flights (Between 3 to 6 hours)
Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines Full Service Airlines Budget Airlines
Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my
needs
Airline is able to accommodate to your
needs
Airline is able to accommodate to your
needs
Brand image complements your lifestyle
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Airline staff has your best interest at heart
Professionalism of the cabin crew
Range of in-flight entertainment options
Brand image complements your lifestyle Condition of the cabin
Professionalism of the ground staff
Ease of getting information Comfort of the journeyAirline has a good
reputation Ease of getting information
Quality of food and beverage
Cabin crew is friendly and attentive in meeting my
needs
Brand image complements your lifestyle
Efficiency with the overall check-in process
!27
Branding Also Important Especially for Medium Haul Flights for Full Service Airlines (Differentiators for Long & Short Haul Flights)
Note: ‘Food and beverage options’ & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ were not included in impact analysis for Short-Haul Budget Airlines & ‘Range of in-flight entertainment options’ for Medium-Haul Budget Airlines due to a large
proportion of respondents who did not rate the question
Increasing Impact
On Quality Score
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
land transport sector results
Land Transport Sector CSISG Trends
!29
70
78
Land Transport Sector
55
70
85Taxi Services
2007 2019
Mass Rapid Transit SystemPublic Buses
Transport Booking Apps
◼
!29
▲▼Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between 2019 and 2018 scores at 90% confidence
2007 2019
2007 20192007 2019
◼
◼◼
Land Transport Scores (Year-on-Year Movement in Satisfaction Drivers)
!30
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality
Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value CSISG
User Trust/ Customer Loyalty
Mass Rapid Transit System 69.3 68.0 ▲ 68.7 ▲ 64.9 63.7
(+1.2%) (+3.2%) (+3.0%) (+2.0%) (-5.4%)
Public Buses 69.5 70.6 ▲ 70.8 66.7 67.9(+1.7%) (+3.9%) (+2.6%) (+1.8%) (-1.3%)
Taxi Services 74.5 75.7 76.1 73.3 71.0(+1.0%) (+0.4%) (+0.8%) (+1.2%) (-0.8%)
Transport Booking Apps 70.5 71.6 73.4 ▲ 68.3 67.9
(-0.2%) (+2.6%) (+4.1%) (+0.5%) (-3.6%)
!30
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value CSISG
Complaints
Customer Loyalty
Improvements in Public Transport
!31Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/rail-reliability-improved-in-2018-on-course-to-meet-target-khaw-10890026
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/smrt-taps-predictive-technology-prioritise-maintenance
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/mrt-network-sets-new-high-in-reliability
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/smrt-improves-app-stations-in-effort-to-help-commuters
Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/5-year-s-1-1b-bus-service-enhancement-programmme-complete-9484638
Rise in Perceived Quality Driven Largely by Locals (Mass Rapid Transit System & Public Buses)
!32
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
60
66
72
78
84
Expectations Quality Value Expectations Quality Value
!32
◼Locals ◼Tourists
CSISG 62.0 76.3
◼Locals ◼Tourists
CSISG 66.4 75.2
GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance
▲
▲ ▲
Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence Year-on-year movements are not statistically significant
Trains: Gap Between Predicted Quality and Actual Perceived Quality Narrowing for Locals (Trains: Locals Only)
!33
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
60
65
70
2017 2018 2019
65.3
63.363.9
68.067.3
68.9
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality) Perceived Quality
▲
▼
▼
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE from the year before at 90% confidence Year-on-year movements are not statistically significant
Gap of 5.0-pts
Gap of 4.0-pts
Gap of 2.7-pts
Buses: Actual Perceived Quality Marginally Higher Than Predicted Quality In 2019 (Locals Only)
!34
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
65
68
71
2017 2018 2019
70.2
67.6
65.6
69.2
68.1
66.2
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality) Perceived Quality
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence
Change colour for the gap if it’s
not sig
Trust Related Metrics for Public Transport Improvement Among Locals
!35
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
50
65
80
User Trust Confidence Best Interest User Trust Confidence Best Interest
Mass Rapid Transit System Public Buses
!35
GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance
▲
▲ ▲
▲
◼Locals ◼TouristsCSISG 62.0 76.3
◼Locals ◼TouristsCSISG 66.4 75.2
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence Year-on-year movements are not statistically significant
Note: Confidence measures respondents’ confidence that the operator will continue to do a good job in the future. Best Interest measures respondents’ belief that the operator is working in their best interest.
Not
mea
sure
d fo
r To
uris
ts
Not
mea
sure
d fo
r To
uris
ts
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Mass Rapid Transit System
SMRT Trains 63.4 SBS Transit Trains 63.9
65.0 SMRT Trains 64.7 SBS Transit Trains
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
SMRT Trains Marginally Higher Than SBS Trains (MRT System)
!37
2007
!37
55
70
85
2019
Mass Rapid Transit System
64.9
2007
Upticks in Scores Across All Lines But Not Statistically Significant (CSISG Scores by Train Lines)
!38
!38
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
56
64
722018 2019
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
Line NSL (Red)
Circle Line (Orange)
NEL (Purple)
EWL (Green)
Downtown Line
(Blue)
Punggol LRT
Sengkang LRT
Bukit Panjang
LRT
Operator SMRT SMRT SBS SMRT SBS SBS SBS SMRT
LRT*MRTOverall MRT CSISG: 64.9 Overall LRT CSISG: 63.8
*For LRT, only locals were measured
Satisfaction for Older Lines Lower Among Locals (CSISG Scores by Train Lines)
!39
!39
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
56
64
72
64.064.165.165.165.762.863.1
64.562.6
64.1
2018 2019
Line NSL (Red)
Circle Line (Orange)
NEL (Purple)
EWL (Green)
Downtown Line (Blue)
Operator SMRT SMRT SBS SMRT SBS
MRTS
core
(0
to
10
0)
56
64
72
60.461.262.763.2
64.6
59.760.562.562.062.0
Overall
Locals
Line Circle Line (Orange)
Downtown Line (Blue)
NEL (Purple)
NSL (Red)
EWL (Green)
Operator SMRT SBS SBS SMRT SMRT
Locals MRT CSISG: 62.2
Overall MRT CSISG: 64.9
Improvement Across Most Attributes for Locals (Train Attributes: Locals Only)
Accuracy of information provided throughout the station
Cleanliness of station amenities
Cleanliness of trains
Ease of clearing fare gate
Maintenance of station amenities
Safety and security considerations
Sufficiency of train arrival informationAssistance and information for passengers with special needs
Accuracy of train information during the train ride
Helpfulness of staff
Ease of moving within station
Travel time to reach destination
Reliability of trains
Handling of disruptions
Comfort of ride
Train frequency
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.0 7.0 8.0
20192018
!40▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
Improvement Among Key Drivers (Train Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)
Comfort of ride
Travel time to reach destination
Reliability of trains
Handling of disruptions
Maintenance of station amenities
Ease of moving within station
Assistance and information for passengers with special needs
Accuracy of train information during the train ride
Train frequency
Cleanliness of trains
Helpfulness of staff
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.0 7.0 8.0
!41
Significant Impact
on Perceived
Quality Score
2019 Avg Rating
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
Largest Increase
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence
Shift in Importance of Key Drivers (Train Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)
!42!42
Top 5 Attributes with Significant Impact on Perceived Overall Quality
2019 2018
Comfort of ride Reliability of trains
Travel time to reach destination Handling of disruptions
Reliability of trains Assistance and information for passengers with special needs
Handling of disruptions Travel time to reach destination
Maintenance of station amenities Comfort of ride
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
Shift in Importance of Key Drivers (Train Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)
!43!43
Top 5 Attributes with Significant Impact on Perceived Overall Quality
2019 2018
Comfort of ride Reliability of trains
Travel time to reach destination Handling of disruptions
Reliability of trains Assistance and information for passengers with special needs
Handling of disruptions Travel time to reach destination
Maintenance of station amenities Comfort of ride
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
‘Comfort Of Ride’ Top Driver But Rated Below Average (Top 5 Quality Drivers for Trains: Locals Only)
Comfort of ride
Travel time to reach destination
Reliability of trains
Ease of moving within station
Maintenance of station amenities
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.5 7.3 8.0
!44
Top 5 Attributes with
Significant Impact
on Perceived Quality Score
2019 Avg Rating
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence
▲
▲
▲
▲
Selected Verbatim Among Dissatisfied Local Respondents (CSISG <50)
The size of the train is too small and can only fit very limited number of commuters, so sometimes morning have to wait quite long to board the train
Train is crowded during rush hours, cabin is hot and squeezy
Train was very packed and I felt suffocated from the overcrowding
Train is too cramped during rush hours, feel very uncomfortable
Very packed train and I felt very stuffy
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Public Buses
Marginal Improvements in Public Buses Scores (Public Buses)
!46
SMRT Buses 67.3
SBS Transit Buses 65.2
Other Bus Operators 63.4
68.2 SMRT Buses
67.0 SBS Transit Buses
64.3 Other Bus Operators
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
!46
200755
70
85
2019
Public Buses
66.7
2007
Other bus operators includes Go-Ahead and Tower Transit
Improvement Across Most Attributes for Locals (Bus Attributes: Locals Only)
!47
Availability of bus route information
Safety of the ride
Accuracy of bus arrival information
Clarity of bus route information
Helpfulness of bus captain
Ease of boarding buses
Comfort of the ride
Condition of the buses
Bus frequency
Travel time to reach destination
Smoothness of the bus journey
Ease of moving within the bus
Politeness of the bus captain
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.0 7.0 8.0
20192018
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
Top 3 Drivers Remain Similar for Buses (Bus Attributes Drivers: Locals Only)
!48!48
Top 5 Attributes with Significant Impact on Perceived Quality
2019 2018
Safety of the ride Comfort of the ride
Comfort of the ride Safety of the ride
Bus frequency Bus frequency
Condition of the buses Politeness of the bus captain
Smoothness of the bus journey Availability of bus route information
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
Efforts in Improving Ride Safety for Buses
!49
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/sbs-buses-go-high-tech-to-look-out-for-road-users
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/how-singapore-could-further-improve-road-safety
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Taxis & Transport Booking Apps Sub-Sectors
Marginal Upticks Across All Taxi Companies (Taxis)
!51
ComfortDelGro 72.3 SMRT 72.1
Prime 70.0
Premier 73.8 Transcab 74.0
72.9 ComfortDelGro 72.9 SMRT
71.0 Prime
74.3 Premier
75.6 Transcab
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
!51
200755
70
85
2019
Taxi Services
73.3
2007
Taxis Attributes: Y-O-Y MovementsCourtesy of taxi driver
Smoothness of the ride
Taxi drivers’ road knowledge
Clarity of fare structure
Condition of the taxi
Cleanliness of the taxi
Interaction with taxi driver
Availability of feedback channels
Fares charged
Safety of the ride
Payment process
Payment options available
Comfort of the ride
Helpfulness of taxi driver
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.5 7.3 8.0
20192018
!52
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence
Marginal Upticks For ComfortDelGro & Grab (Transport Booking Apps)
!53
Grab 67.5
ComfortDelGro 68.8
68.1 Grab
69.1 ComfortDelGro
68.2 Gojek
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
!53
200755
70
85
2019
Transport Booking Apps
68.3
2007
Note: Gojek is a newly measured company in CSISG 2019
Transport Booking App Attributes: Y-O-Y Movements (Locals Only)
Driver’s road knowledge
Safety of the ride
Ease of getting a ride
Clarity of fare structure
Ease of using app
Helpfulness of driver
Cleanliness of the vehicleSecurity measures to safeguard
personal detailsComfort of the ride
Payment process
Courtesy of driver
Accuracy of waiting time estimation
Range of service types
Ease of providing feedback
Fares chargedAttractiveness of app
promotions and discounts
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.0 7.0 8.0
20192018
!54
▲
▲
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence
Sorted in descending
order of 2018
attributes ratings
Initially Fewer Grab Promos Following Uber Exit in 2018
!55
Source: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/grab-promo-codes-fewer-10189526
May 2018
GrabRewards Revaluation in July 2018
!56Source: https://blog.seedly.sg/grabrewards-revaluation-better-worse/
Devaluation in Multiplier for GrabRewards Point System
Standardised Points for Grab Vouchers Redemption
Revamped GrabRewards Membership Tiers Requirement
Membership Tiers
Pay with Grab Pay Pay with Cash
OLD NEW OLD NEW
Members
x16
x3
x8
x1
Silver x3 x1
Gold x4.5 x1.5
Platinum x6 x2
Membership Tiers
$5 Grab Voucher $10 Grab Voucher
OLD NEW OLD NEW
Members 2,200 points
2,200 points
4,200 points
4,200 points
Silver 2,100 points 4,000 points
Gold 2,000 points 3,800 points
Platinum 1,900 points 3,600 points
Membership Tiers OLD NEW
Members 0 point 0 point
Silver 3,000 points 300 points
Gold 9,000 points 1,200 points
Platinum 19,000 points 4,500 points
1 2
31.Drop in Earn-Rates: Reduction
in reward points earn rate 2.Poorer Burn Rates: Increase in
cost of vouchers 3.Revision in Membership Tiers:
Reduced requirements to achieve become a Platinum member
Return of Competition: Entry Of Gojek & ComfortDelGro’s Fixed Fares & Dynamic Pricing
!57
Source: https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/expect-competitive-prices-spore-gojek-woos-customers-says-ride-hailing-firm
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/comfortdelgro-to-trial-dynamic-fares-from-may-15
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Taxi vs. Private Hire Cars
Taxis Vs. Private Hire Cars (PHC) 2019 (Locals Only)
!59
(Statistically Different)
(Statistically Different)
Taxis Vs. Private Hire Cars (PHC) Y-o-Y (Locals Only)
!60
Preferred Mode Of Getting A Ride (Locals Only)
!61
Flag down or taxi stands
Transport Booking Apps
Hotline or calling for a cab
Taxi Services Respondents Private Hire Car Respondents
% Respondents
100% 50% 0
4.1%
35.7%
60.2%
% Respondents
0% 50% 100%
0.0%
79.9%
20.1%
Preferred Mode Of Getting A Ride
Older Taxi Customers Prefer to Flag (Taxis Sub-sector: Locals Only)
!62
Private Hire Car Respondents
Flag down or taxi stands
Transport Booking Apps
Hotline or calling for a cab
% Respondents
100% 50% 0
4.1%
35.7%
60.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
18-29 30-49 50-69 >69
0%1%
53%46%
1%
35%
52%
12%
Flag Down or Taxi Stands Transport Booking Apps
Preferred Mode Of Getting A RideTaxi Services Respondents
Age Group
% Respondents
0% 50% 100%
0.0%
79.9%
20.1%
Preference for Flagging Primarily Due to Availability & Waiting Time (Taxis Sub-sector: Locals Only)
!63
Private Hire Car Respondents
Flag down or taxi stands
Transport Booking Apps
Hotline or calling for a cab
% Respondents
100% 50% 0
4.1%
35.7%
60.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Availability Waiting Time Price Vehicle Options Rewards Ability to Set Pick Up Location
26%
4%
15%18%19%19%
0%0%0%
15%
33%
52%
Flag Down or Taxi Stands Transport Booking Apps
Preferred Mode Of Getting A RideTaxi Services Respondents
Reasons for Preference
% Respondents
0% 50% 100%
0.0%
79.9%
20.1%
Some App Users Still Prefer to Flag (Private Hire Cars: Locals Only)
!64
Flag down or taxi stands
Transport Booking Apps
% Respondents
100% 50% 0
4.0%
35.7%
60.3%
0%
23%
47%
70%
18-29 30-49 50-69 >69
0%
20%
61%
19%
0%
26%
47%
27%
Flag Down or Taxi Stands Transport Booking Apps
Taxi Services Private Hire Car Respondents
Age Group
% Respondents
0% 50% 100%
79.9%
20.1%
Preferred Mode Of Getting A Ride
Similarly Due to Availability & Waiting Time (Private Hire Cars: Locals Only)
!65
Flag down or taxi stands
Transport Booking Apps
% Respondents
100% 50% 0
4.0%
35.7%
60.3%
Taxi Services Private Hire Car Respondents
Reasons for Preference
0%
20%
40%
60%
Waiting Time Availability Price Vehicle Options Rewards Ability to Set Pick Up Location
10%6%8%
30%24%22%
0%0%0%
21%
37%42%
Flag Down or Taxi Stands Transport Booking Apps
% Respondents
0% 50% 100%
79.9%
20.1%
Preferred Mode Of Getting A Ride
More Disruption in Land Transport? Zipster: A “Meta App"
!66
Key Highlights
!67
Overall Customer Satisfaction scores remained statistically unchanged for both Air and Land Transport sub-sectors.
Air Transport
• Airport: Perceived Quality up driven by improvements in Perceived Service and Product quality. Increase usage of Automated Check-in had no adverse impact on satisfaction.
• Airlines: Consider focusing on service staff. Staff-related attributes are key drivers of perceived quality regardless of Airline type (Full Service or Budget), and length of flight (short or medium haul).
Key Highlights
!68
Land Transport
• Public Transport: Overall satisfaction unchanged, but Perceived Quality higher, driven largely by locals. For locals, gap between customer expectations and perceived quality narrowing. For Trains comfort of ride and travel time are now top drivers.
• Taxi & Transport Booking Apps: Apps saw recovery in ratings on fares and promos. Taxis tend to outperform PHCs in terms of driver-related attributes. With a substantial proportion of commuters still preferring to flag down for rides, companies might want to leverage on this in future innovations.