服務滿意度調查結果 2011.pdf 
服務滿意度調查結果 2011.pdf
UM User Satisfaction Survey 2011 Survey Results Dr. Angus Cheong eRS e-Research & Solutions (Macau) August 23, 2011 Content • Sample Characteristics • Main Findings • The factors correlate satisfaction • Customer Satisfaction Index, CSI • Conclusion 2 Return/Response Rate 100% 80% 86% 79% 72% 69% 64% 91%95%96%91%96% 68% 53% 47% 36%34% 60% 40% 73% 63%60% 51%54% 20% 0% Administration Academic+Research Staff Student 2004 79% 68% 73% 91% 2005 86% 47% 63% 95% 2007 72% 53% 60% 96% 2009 64% 36% 51% 91% 2011 69% 34% 54% 96% • • • High return rate for administrative staff (69%), but rather low for academic staff (34%). Except academic/research staff , response rate got a little rise in this year. Response rate for student is very high (96%). 3 UM Homepage Visiting Frequency Student Sample How often do you browse UM homepage? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 Every day 13.1% 16.0% 20.3% 29.4% 29.0% Several times a week 32.4% 33.2% 37.2% 33.4% 41.1% Several times a month 29.5% 33.2% 28.1% 27.6% 24.3% Several times a year 9.5% 11.9% 6.4% 8.6% 5.4% Never 15.6% 5.7% 8.0% 1.0% 0.2% • • Few of students NEVER browse UM homepage. Most students (41.1%) browse UM homepage several times a WEEK. 4 UM Homepage Visiting Frequency Staff Sample How often do you browse UM homepage? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 Every day 27.4% 28.9% 39.0% 43.4% 48.3% Several times a week 36.6% 36.4% 34.6% 32.4% 33.4% Several times a month 25.2% 25.2% 22.4% 19.1% 14.9% Several times a year 9.4% 8.1% 3.3% 4.9% 2.9% Never 1.3% 1.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.6% • • • Almost half of the staff (48.3%) browse UM homepage EVERYDAY and the percentage of this group has been increasing since year 2004. More than 80% of the staff browse UM homepage at least several times a WEEK. In contrast, the frequency of staff browse UM homepage everyday is always higher than students. 5 Service Expectations (Staff & Student sample) Service Expectations Please indicate whether our services fall short of, exactly meet, or exceed your expectations. • • For staff, no difference of the expectations every year, more than 80% of the staff claim that services meet or exceed their expectations (82.8%). For students, almost 80% of them consider the services meet or exceed their expectations (77.5%). 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 2004 2005 Staff 2007 2009 2011 Students Completely Exceed Expectations(+3) 2.0% 0.5% 2.5% 0.4% 1.5% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 2.1% Somewhat Exceed Expectations (+2) 11.0% 13.7% 13.8% 11.0% 12.3% 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 6.0% 9.6% Slightly Exceed Expectations (+1) 34.0% 34.9% 32.2% 32.0% 33.2% 9.0% 17.8% 12.0% 19.0% 22.8% Exactly Meet Expectations (0) 38.0% 35.4% 32.0% 40.0% 35.8% 64.0% 46.9% 48.0% 49.0% 43.0% Slightly Fall Short of Expectation (-1) 12.0% 13.7% 16.3% 12.0% 11.7% 12.0% 23.6% 26.0% 20.0% 16.4% Somewhat Fall Short of Expectation (-2) 3.0% 1.2% 2.5% 3.0% 2.9% 10.0% 6.7% 11.0% 5.0% 3.4% Completely Fall Short of Expectation (-3) 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 2.0% 2.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.3% 2.7% 6 Recommendation of Administrative Services to Others (Staff & Student sample) How often do you praise / recommend UM's administrative services to others? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 2004 2005 Staff 2007 2009 2011 Students Always 12.0% 10.9% 12.4% 16.0% 12.1% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.8% Sometimes 52.0% 55.1% 53.3% 51.0% 53.1% 25.0% 29.8% 23.0% 30.2% 28.1% Seldom 30.0% 26.6% 30.8% 28.0% 28.7% 13.0% 24.3% 25.0% 26.0% 36.9% Never 6.0% 7.4% 3.5% 6.0% 6.1% 61.0% 43.8% 49.0% 40.9% 32.2% • • For staff, no significant differences in survey years, 65.2% claim that they always or sometimes make recommendation. For students, 32.2% claim NEVER make recommendation in 2011, 30.9% always or 7 sometimes make recommendation. Overall Performance (Staff & Student sample) In general, the overall performance of the administrative units of UM is improving? 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 2004 2005 Staff 2007 2009 2011 Students Strongly agree 17.3% 15.3% 15.8% 10.0% 10.9% 1.0% 1.6% 2.0% 3.0% 1.6% Agree 62.9% 65.4% 62.1% 67.0% 61.5% 69.0% 46.7% 43.0% 43.0% 38.4% Neutral 17.5% 16.0% 18.2% 20.0% 21.8% 17.0% 39.8% 43.0% 45.0% 49.9% Disagree 2.0% 2.4% 3.6% 3.0% 4.5% 13.0% 9.8% 11.0% 8.0% 8.7% Strongly disagree 0.2% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 1.3% 1.0% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% • • For staff, 72.4% of the staff strongly agree or agree that the overall performance is improving. For students, 40% of the students strongly agree or agree that the overall 8 performance is improving. Overall Performance of General Office – Staff Sample The overall performance of the general office of your faculty/centre unit is improving (Staff) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2005 2007 2009 2011 Strongly agree 31.8% 29.3% 28.0% 22.6% Agree 46.4% 51.5% 49.0% 54.1% Neutral 11.2% 13.8% 17.0% 10.3% Disagree 2.2% 5.4% 7.0% 9.6% Strongly disagree 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% • 76.7% of the staff strongly agree or agree that the overall performance of the general office of their faculty/centre unit is improving. 9 Problems Experienced (Staff & Student sample) Problems experienced in the past year 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2005 2007 2009 2011 2005 2007 Staff 2009 2011 Student No Answer 24.8% 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% No 56.4% 64.8% 75.0% 78.9% 69.3% 66.0% 69.0% 65.0% Yes 18.7% 31.5% 25.0% 21.1% 30.1% 34.0% 31.0% 35.0% • • For staff, 21.1% answered they had met problems in the past year. For students, 35% answered YES. 10 What Problems Experienced 員工樣本 Staff Sample 項目 Items 財務流程/程序 Financial procedure 課室器材 Classroom Equipments 電腦問題 Computer Problem 工作流程 Work Procedure 人力資源 HRO 體育場館服務 Gym Services 洗手間設施 Washroom Equipments 場地租借/服務 Space Rental/Services 服務態度 Service Attitude 公共設備 Public Facilities 課室申請 Classroom Booking … 學生樣本 Student Sample 提出次數 Frequency 15 13 9 8 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 項目 Items 公共/前台服務 Public/Frontline Services 電腦室 Computer Rooms 圖書館 Library 選科系統 Enrollment system 公共設施/設備 Public Facilities 宿舍 Dormitory 體育設施 Sports Facilities 電子系統 E-system 校內網絡 Campus Network 運作程序 Operational Procedure 餐廳/食肆 Canteen … 提出次數 Frequency 54 38 26 25 24 19 10 9 7 6 6 11 Satisfaction Ratings Staff Sample 7.1 7.3 7 6.7 7.6 7.1 7.5 7.2 6.9 2011 7.1 7.4 7.1 7 7.3 7 7.4 6.8 6.8 2009 7.1 7.2 6.9 7 7.3 6.8 7.4 6.9 6.7 2007 7.2 7.3 7.1 7.1 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.1 6.9 2005 7.2 7.4 6.8 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.1 6.9 2004 All Services Frontline Services BAF→FO CSB→ICTO GAB→CMO Library PO→AHR→HRO PR →IPR 6.9 AAB→AAO 12 Satisfaction Ratings Staff Sample Academic General Office 8.5 8 2004 2005 7.6 7.7 2007 2009 7.5 2011 10 8 6 4 2 0 CPU ELC FST FLL CMS FBA FSH FED 2004 9.4 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.2 8 2005 8.8 9.2 7.7 8.1 10 8 8.1 8.1 2007 8.1 8.1 7.3 6.9 8.3 7.1 7.7 7.9 2009 8.5 8.4 7.4 8.5 0.0 7.5 7.5 7.6 2011 0.0 9.0 7.7 8.0 8.5 7.3 7.0 7.1 13 • Based: academic staff Satisfaction Ratings Student Sample 6.5 6.7 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.7 7.4 6.8 2011 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 7 7.1 6.9 6.9 7.5 7.1 2009 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.6 7.5 6.6 2007 6.5 7 6.5 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.6 7.6 6.8 2005 6.5 6.9 6.6 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.7 7.5 6.7 2004 All Services Frontline Services REG SO→SAS TO→FO CSB→ICTO GAB→CMO Library Faculty Office Study Life 14 Satisfaction Ratings Student Sample Faculty General Office 6.7 2004 6.8 7.1 6.8 6.6 2005 2007 2009 2011 10 8 6 4 2 0 CPU FED FST FSH FBA FLL 2004 7.4 7.3 7 6.7 6.5 5.9 2005 7.2 7.5 7 6.9 6.4 6.6 2007 7.6 7.2 6.7 7 6.1 6.4 2009 7.8 7.1 7.1 7 6.9 7.1 2011 0.0 7.1 7.1 7 6.9 7.1 15 Performance of Faculty or Academic Units Student Sample Ratings of Performance of Faculty or Academic Units (by students) 7.5 7.3 7.0 7 7.0 6.9 6.7 7.0 6.9 6.6 6.5 6 The ability to provide adequate assistance Service attitude of staff in the General Office/Department Office 2005 6.7 7 2007 6.6 6.9 2009 7 7.3 2011 6.9 7.0 16 Service Items Need to be Improved Staff Items Students Frequency Items Frequency Cleaning 36.6% Canteen service 39.8% Procurement 20.4% Others, please state 31.8% Reimbursement procedures 18.1% Computer room 27.0% Computer support 16.3% Library service 18.0% Maintenance 16.1% E-purse value adding 14.0% Campus Health care service 15.1% Cleaning 13.6% Others, please state 12.1% Sports complex venue rental 13.2% Venue/meeting room booking 10.8% Payment procedures 11.1% Library Services 9.3% Applying testimonials/transcript 9.3% Classroom booking 8.4% Student hostel 9.0% Sports Venue booking 7.5% Career guidance 8.5% Car booking 6.7% Campus Health Care Service 5.0% …… …… 17 Customer Satisfaction Index, CSI 75% 74.0% 74.7% 72.5% 71.9% 70.6% 70.6% 70% 70.6% • 70.3% 69.8% 67.2% 65% 70.9% 71.3% 68.3% 72.6% 70.1% 69.2% 70.1% 67.4% 66.7% 66.6% 2004 2005 2007 2009 2011 AllStaff 70.6% 71.9% 69.8% 70.1% 70.3% AdminStaff 70.6% 71.3% 70.6% 70.9% 72.6% AcademicStaff 74.0% 74.7% 69.2% 72.5% 66.7% Student 67.2% 68.3% 66.6% 70.1% 67.4% There is a slight increase from 2009 to 2011 in groups of all staff and admin staff, while in academic staff and student, there is a considerably decrease. 18 Customer Satisfaction Index, CSI • The four groups (all staff, admin staff, academic staff and student) basically have the same fluctuation directions from 2004 to 2009. However, academic staff’s CSI value decreased rapidly and reached its lowest point from 2009 to 2011, followed by the student’s CSI value. While the all staff and admin staff’s CSI value have increased slightly in this period. • Base on the level of satisfaction, it is addressed that academic staff and admin staff may have different understanding on the performance of administrative units. • The staff of administrative units can enhance the communication between the staff (especially the academic staff) and the students, through which the service information can be clearly known. • Moreover, they can also strengthen the feedback mechanism regularly, so that they can learn more about needs of staff and students (How do they use? What should be improved? How can improve? ) 19 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample IT support service for computing facilities in offices Administrative information systems .474*** .074* Satisfaction with ICTO .251*** Support service for administrative information systems • ***P<.001, **P<.01, *P<.05, the same as follows The coefficient in “IT support service for computing facilities in offices” is the highest, indicating that it is the most important area contributes to the category, and every increase 20 one of it means the overall satisfaction degree with ICTO add 0.474 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample Staff type Disbursement by auto-pay service -.270* ..342*** Sufficient channel for payment request .195** Satisfaction with FO • The coefficient in “Disbursement by auto-pay service” is the highest, and increasing “Disbursement by auto-pay service” by one means the FO gains 0.342 in overall performance of satisfaction. .213*** .338*** Procedure for reimbursemen t claims Procurement services 21 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample Staff type Service years • -.061* Space in the Library .121*** -.193* Satisfaction with LIBRARY The coefficient in “Politeness and friendliness of the Library staff” is the highest, indicating that the evaluation has more effect on the overall satisfaction with Library, and every increase one of it means the overall satisfaction with Library correspondingly add 0.302. .251*** .288*** .302*** Library resources Politeness and friendliness of the Library staff Communicatio n with Library readers 22 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample Security service Maintenance techniques • .116* .289*** Asset moving service from general services team .178*** Satisfaction with CMO .192*** The coefficient in “Maintenance techniques” is the highest, indicating that affect the most on the overall satisfaction with CMO, and every increase one of it means CMO correspondingly gains 0.289 in overall performance of satisfaction. .209*** Venue support service Efficiency of ad hoc classroom booking (CS) 23 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample Staff type Confidentiality of staff records • -.296** .136*** Staff activities organizing .125** Satisfaction with HRO The coefficient in “Staff welfare application and processing” is the highest, which indicates it is the most effect on the overall satisfaction with HRO. Every increase one of it means the overall satisfaction with HRO correspondingly add 0.401. .324*** .401*** Staff recruitment service Staff welfare application and processing 24 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample .544*** Semester class scheduling • Satisfaction with AAO “Semester class scheduling” is significantly positively related with the overall satisfaction with the performance of AAO. In addition, every increase one in “Semester class scheduling” means the overall satisfaction with AAO correspondingly increase 0.544. 25 Key Factors for Satisfaction Staff Sample Procedure for souvenir requisition and distribution .260*** Satisfaction with IPR .729*** Media service • The coefficient in “Media service” is the highest, which indicates that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with IPR, and every increase one in “Media service” means the overall satisfaction with IPR correspondingly increase 0.729. 26 Key Factors for Satisfaction Student Sample . 424*** Suitability of class scheduling • Satisfaction with REG The coefficient in “Suitability of class scheduling” signifies that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with REG, and every increasing one in it means REG gains 0.424 in the overall satisfaction. 27 Key Factors for Satisfaction Student Sample Student dormitory management • .202*** Student counseling service ..278*** Satisfaction with SAS .226*** Career guidance service The coefficient in “Student counseling service” is the highest; shows that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with SAS, while every increase one in “Student counseling service” means the overall satisfaction with SAS correspondently add 0.278. .169*** Sport activities 28 Key Factors for Satisfaction Student Sample Sufficiency of current payment channels .257*** .350 *** Satisfaction with FO Procedure for paying fees & charges • The coefficient in “Procedure for paying fees & charges” is the highest, indicating that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with FO. In addition, every increase one in “Procedure for paying fees & charges” means the overall satisfaction with FO add 0.35. 29 Key Factors for Satisfaction Student Sample Functions provided in Student Information Web Services Supporting service in computer rooms .246*** .385*** Satisfaction with ICTO .131** Computing facilities in computer rooms • The coefficient in “Supporting service in computer rooms” is the highest, indicating that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with ICTO. Furthermore, increasing “Supporting service in computer rooms” by one means the overall satisfactions 30 with ICTO add 0.385. Key Factors for Satisfaction Student Sample Classroom facilities • Hygiene of resting areas on campus .161*** .213*** Campus greening work Satisfaction with CMO .122*** The coefficient in “Hygiene of resting areas on campus” is the highest, shows that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with CMO. And every increase one in this factor means the overall satisfaction with CMO add 0.213. .123** .09** Campus health care service Space for study room/study area 31 Key Factors for Satisfaction Student Sample Space in the Library .188*** Communicatio n with Library readers .136*** Satisfaction with LIBRARY • .436*** Politeness and friendliness of the Library staff The coefficient in “Politeness and friendliness of the Library staff” is the highest, indicating that the evaluation has the most effect on the overall satisfaction with Library. In addition, every increase one of it means the overall satisfaction with Library add 0.436 32 Key Factors and Relative Problems and Suggestions – Staff Sample Unit HRO key factors Staff welfare application and processing mean score 7.2 main problems and suggestions 7.1 ---------------------------------------------- Staff recruitment service FO 6.6 Staff recruitment should be conducted fairly, openly and honestly The recruitment process is complicated and the power is over –concentrated. 6.7 Disbursement by auto-pay service Procurement services AAO 7.2 6.6 7 Semester class scheduling (REG) 6 Reimbursements is too slow; simplify the disbursement procedure Three quotations is complicated The Registry does not consider the real teaching need and situation when scheduling classes; It is very bureaucratic; The schedule is announced at very short notice; There are large time slots between classes. The lunch breaks for students are very short. We have mentioned those key factors that influenced users’ ratings of satisfaction with the administrative units. According to the key factors (here only showed the most important one or two), we categorized and displayed those problems and suggestions which corresponding to the key factors in order to find out which services should be improved or paid more attention. 33 Key Factors and Relative Problems and Suggestions – Staff Sample Unit ICTO key factors IT support service for computing facilities in offices mean score 7.6 7.6 main problems and suggestions Support service for administrative information systems LIBRARY 7.2 IT support service should be for all computers used in school. It seems our colleague offering information on office furniture can only offer very limited information and seems reluctant to help when we would like to obtain more information. 7.5 Politeness and friendliness of the Library staff ----------------------------------------------- 7.7 Library resources CMO 7.3 There must be something wrong with the procedures of book ordering: it might take almost a year to get a book. This problem is a serious obstacle to research activity; It takes a very long time for the library to purchase certain books that one requests. 7.1 Maintenance techniques 7 Media service 6.9 6.9 IPR The facilities took too long to be maintained and improved; The serviceman should be well trained; The serviceman should be equipped with specialized tools. ----------------------------------------------- 34 Key Factors and Relative Problems and Suggestions – Student Sample Unit key factors REG mean score problems 6.7 Suitability of class scheduling SAS 5.7 Enrollment timetable; Increase the number of optional course. Bad service attitude; Can’t solve the problem within scope of official duty; The office hours are not in accord with the students; Don’t know where to consult curriculum; Lack of office workers. 6.9 Student counseling service 6.4 Career guidance service FO ----------------------------------------------- 6.4 6.8 Procedure for paying fees & charges 6.9 There is inefficient in procedure for paying fees & charges. 35 Key Factors and Relative Problems and Suggestions – Student Sample Unit key factors problems 6.9 ICTO Supporting service in computer rooms CMO LIBRARY mean score 6.3 no one repair the computer; Computer is slow; Maintenance. 6.7 Hygiene of resting areas on campus 7.6 ----------------------------------------------- Classroom facilities 7.1 ----------------------------------------------- 7.4 Politeness and friendliness of the Library staff ----------------------------------------------7.3 36 Concluding Remarks • First, the response rate for the students sample was very high so that the generalization of the results looks sounding. • However, even though the overall return rate was satisfactory for the staff sample, cautious interpretation should be made when looking at the results because the return rate of the academic units was relatively low. 37 Concluding Remarks • Second, the constructed overall Customer Satisfaction Indexes (CSI) are 70.6%, 71.9%, 69.8%, 70.1% and 70.3%in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 respectively, indicating a small fluctuating pattern. • Taking the CSI, overall satisfaction scores and specific figures of some units into consideration in the last five year surveys, the satisfaction level tends to getting stable rating from all staff while it drops from academic staff and students. 38 Concluding Remarks • Third, it was found that AAO is the most important factor that contributes to the CSI while CMO and ICTO are the two least important factors in the staff sample. • In the student sample, REG, SAS and Faculty Office are the three most important areas that contribute to the CSI while Library is the least important factor. 39 Concluding Remarks • Forth, special attention should be paid to the findings that about 21% of respondents in staff sample and 35% of student sample replied that they encountered a service problem in the past year. • These problems mainly are FO system and procedures and classroom facilities for staff, whereas enrollment and library for students. 40 Concluding Remarks • Finally, services like cleaning, procurement, reimbursement procedures, computer support, and maintenance are the top five that are suggested be improved by staff. • Canteen service, computer room service, library service, E-purse value adding, cleaning and sports complex venue rental are the most frequently mentioned services that need to be improved by students. 41 University of Macau User Satisfaction Survey 2011 eRS e-Research & Solutions (Macau) 42