Client Satisfaction Research - Final Report 2012-2013

Table of Contents

I hereby certify as Senior Officer of EKOS Research Associates Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Derek Jansen
Vice President
EKOS Research

Executive Summary

Background and Methodology

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and economic regulator. It makes decisions and determinations on a wide range of matters involving air, rail and marine modes of transportation under the authority of Parliament, as set out in the Canada Transportation Act and other legislation.

The Agency has conducted three previous research projects examining client satisfaction (in 2009-2010; 2010-2011; and 2011-2012). The Agency commissioned EKOS Research Associates to conduct another survey for clients who have dealt with the Agency during fiscal year 2012-13.

The methodology for this study involved an online survey of clients of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The sample was provided to EKOS by the Agency. The following audiences were sampled:

  • parties involved in facilitation (FAC)

  • parties involved in travel-related dispute adjudication (ADJ)

  • parties involved in non- travel dispute adjudication (NTD)

  • parties involved in mediation (MED)

  • air carrier representatives involved in new license application and representatives of industry organizations who were inspected (LIC/INSP)

The table below presents the number of completed surveys and response rates across the five target audiences surveyed.

Table 1.1: Response Rate
 FACADJNTDMEDLIC/INSPTotals
Complete

111

9

3

9

55

187

Sent

343

18

15

16

267

659

Response Rate (%)

32%

50%

20%

56%

21%

28%

Research results from this iteration of the survey are compared with the 2011/2012, 2010/2011, and 2009/2010 surveys to help gauge shifts in perceptions of Agency service over time.

The contract amount of this research is $32,223.65 (including HST).

Key findings from the study are outlined below, and results are described in more detail in the remainder of this report.

Key Findings

Satisfaction with the Agency

Clients were asked how satisfied they were with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency, regardless of the outcome of their interaction with the Agency. Three quarters (75 per cent) report satisfaction with the service that they received from the Agency. The 2012/2013 results are virtually identical to those found in 2011/2012 (when 76 per cent of clients indicated satisfaction with the Agency), and are significantly better than those found in earlier years of surveying.

Clients were also asked to rate the extent to which they felt that their interaction with the Agency met their objectives. A majority of clients (61 per cent) say that the process met their objectives either fully (44 per cent) or largely (17 per cent). However, it should also be noted that those who indicated their objectives were not met at all is up to 25 per cent (from 18 per cent in 2011/2012).

Respondents were asked how long it took to resolve their issue, and what they consider to be an acceptable time to resolve the issue. One in four (26 per cent) said it took between one and thirty days for their issue to be resolved, and three in ten (31 per cent) indicated it to be between 31 and 60 days. Tracking reveals a significant decline from 2011/2012 in terms of the proportion who indicated the Agency resolved their issue in 30 days or less. Results further reveal that the majority of clients (53 per cent) expect the Agency to resolve their issue in 30 days or less.

Views on Agency Interactions

Clients were asked to rate the importance of various attributes of service from the Agency. Results reveal that all of the attributes of service examined are seen as very important by a majority of clients, although the knowledge and competence of staff is seen as particularly important. Accuracy of information, helpfulness of staff, and being provided with information that is easy to understand are also seen as highly important. The time it takes to acknowledge their issue, and the time it takes to resolve the matter, are seen as relatively less important issues (although a majority of clients still see these as very important service aspects).

Respondents were also asked to rate their satisfaction with these various attributes of service. Results reveal that the majority of clients are at least somewhat satisfied across all of the aspects examined. Respondents are most satisfied with the courtesy of staff, and the ease of dealing with staff. A clear majority are also satisfied with respect to the knowledge and competence of staff, the accuracy of the information provided, and the helpfulness of staff. The time required to receive acknowledgment and the time it took to resolve the matter garnered the lowest levels of satisfaction. Tracking reveals a decline over the past year in satisfaction levels across all of the aspects examined, particularly the time it took to acknowledge the client’s issue, the accessibility of staff, and the impartiality of staff.

When asked to identify the attributes of service the Agency could improve upon, respondents most often identify resolution time (29 per cent) and the clarity and ease of understanding information (26 per cent). Many of the areas for improvement are identified more often than in 2011/2012, particularly the impartiality of staff (from 8 per cent to 17 per cent currently).

Respondents were also asked to indicate how important they found several other aspects of service from the Agency. Results reveal that all aspects are seen as at least somewhat important by eight in ten or more respondents, however, clients place the most importance on fairness of treatment, and having their questions answered. Across several of these aspects, the perceived importance has risen somewhat over the past year, particularly in terms of Agency forms being easy to complete.

Clients were also asked whether or not they agreed with a number of statements about these same aspects of service. Across all of the statements, at least two in three respondents strongly or somewhat agreed (i.e., expressed satisfaction), however, satisfaction varies significantly across the service aspects. Respondents most often agree that the contact they had with the Agency was in the official language of their choice, that they were informed of everything they had to do in order for their matter to be dealt with by the Agency, and that they were treated fairly. Clients are least likely to agree that they gained a good understanding of the mandate of the Agency, or that the Agency’s forms were easy to complete. Tracking reveals a decline in agreement with many of these statements over the past year, particularly in terms of Agency forms being easy to complete, being treated fairly, and gaining an understanding of the mandate/jurisdiction of the Agency.

When asked which aspects of service the Agency could improve, a better explanation of its role, and fairness of treatment were mentioned most often, and both are identified more often than in 2011/2012. Tracking also reveals an increase among those who identify an area for improvement (those who offered no response declined from 42 per cent in 2011/2012 to 35 per cent currently).

Views on Agency Process

Respondents were also asked whether or not they agreed with a number of statements about Agency processes. Four in five agree that the Agency made clear the information required for submission, and that the process was carried out in a professional manner. Fewer than six in ten, however, feel that the process was impartial, or that they had enough opportunity to respond to the other party’s point of view. Comparing these results to those found in 2011/2012 reveals a decrease in agreement across all of the areas examined, particularly with respect to impartiality, and the final outcome being clear/easy to understand.

When asked to identify aspects of the process upon which the Agency could improve, the need for enough opportunity to respond to the other party’s point of view was mentioned most often, followed by conducting the process impartially, and ensuring that the final outcome is clear. The perceived importance of providing more opportunity to respond to the other party has increased significantly over the past year. Tracking also reveals an increase among those who identify an area for improvement.

Interacting with the Agency

Respondents were asked which method they used to get information about the Agency. The method identified most often is email, followed by the Agency’s website, and the telephone. Results are largely consistent with those found in 2011/2012 in terms of email and the Agency website; however, the use of telephone as a source of information about the Agency is down significantly over the past year.

Clients were also asked which method they would most prefer to use to get information about the Agency. Four in ten indicated email (42 per cent), or the Agency website (41 per cent, up 10 per cent since 2011/2012). Only about one in six (15 per cent) indicate a preference for telephone.

Survey results further reveal that over nine in ten clients (95 per cent) said that they have visited the Agency’s website (and this is up six percentage points since 2011/2012). However, satisfaction ratings of the website are mixed. Six in ten indicate that the information on the website was easy to understand, and that the website had the information they were looking for, and just over half indicated that it was easy to find information they needed on the website. Tracking reveals a decrease in satisfaction across all of the aspects of the website examined.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Survey results reveal that overall satisfaction with Agency is high, and has remained stable over the past year. Moreover, most clients believe that their objectives were met in their dealings with the Agency (although results are down somewhat over the past year).

However, findings also reveal that while satisfaction with specific aspects and attributes of service is high, satisfaction levels are down across many of these aspects/attributes, particularly in terms of impartiality and fairness.

Results reveal a strong correlation between objectives met and overall satisfaction – the lower score for objectives met could be a reason for the lower satisfaction ratings.

Results also reveal an increase in the proportion identifying areas for improvement across these service aspects/attributes. Suggestions for improvement to the Agency’s service revolve around the time it takes to resolve the matter, providing clear information, explaining what the Agency can and cannot do, and fairness/impartiality.

Findings also reveal that the vast majority of clients have visited the Agency’s website and the website is increasingly seen as the preferred method to get information about the Agency. However, satisfaction with the website is mixed, and has declined since 2011/2012.

These results suggest some areas are in need of Agency attention:

  • The Agency needs to improve the time it takes to resolve issues (or communicate better the time required for issue resolution). The proportion of clients who indicated their issue was resolved in less than 30 days is down substantially over the past year, and clients express high expectations that issues should be resolved within 30 days.

  • Impartiality/fairness is mentioned many times as an area for improvement, and satisfaction in this area is down across several questions. The Agency should look into recent decisions to determine if there is a reason for these findings.

  • Improving clarity of information should also be given high priority, as this is identified as an area in need of attention across several indicators.

  • The website receives mixed results, however, the Agency is currently working on updating the site so this may help improve ratings next year.

Given the very small number of responses from several of the target audiences, qualitative research among these audiences may be a more effective approach to understanding their perspectives than a survey.

Finally, the Agency should continue to examine client perceptions to monitor key issues such as whether satisfaction ratings are rebounding, and if satisfaction with website is increasing with the redesign.

1. Background, Objectives, And Methodology

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and economic regulator. It makes decisions and determinations on a wide range of matters involving air, rail and marine modes of transportation under the authority of Parliament, as set out in the Canada Transportation Act and other legislation.

The Agency’s mandate includes:

  • Economic regulation, to provide approvals, issue licences, permits and certificates of fitness, and make decisions on a wide range of matters involving federal air, rail and marine transportation.

  • Dispute resolution, to resolve complaints about federal transportation services, rates, fees and charges.

  • Accessibility, to ensure Canada's national transportation system is accessible to all persons, particularly those with disabilities.

The Agency supports the goal of a competitive and accessible national transportation system that fulfills the needs of Canadians and the Canadian economy.

1.1 Objectives Of The Research

Client satisfaction research data allows the Agency to gauge its success as a client-centered organization. This ongoing collection of feedback on its services, relationships and performance is part of its process for continuous improvement, and has proved invaluable in shaping the Agency’s priorities. Feedback received has enabled the Agency to develop a better understanding of the responsiveness and quality of its services and processes, identify areas and priorities for improvement, and chart progress in making them clearer, simpler and more effective.

The Agency’s research on client satisfaction is directly related to the Government of Canada’s management framework on results for Canadians. Most significantly, it supports the government’s initiative on client-centered service delivery, and ultimately leads to better quality information for parliamentarians about the Agency’s programs and results.

Also, as per the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Management Accountability Framework (MAF), the 2008-2011 and 2011-14 Strategic Plans and the Agency’s ongoing commitment to service delivery excellence, the Agency is becoming more client-centric by seeking ways to understand the client/ stakeholder experience and providing insight into what drives overall satisfaction with the Agency.

A formal Client Satisfaction Survey Framework was therefore designed to complement existing mechanisms for capturing client/stakeholder perceptions of their interaction with the Agency. Client satisfaction surveys are a decision-making tool intended to help the organization improve its service delivery.

EKOS Research Associates was commissioned by the Canadian Transportation Agency to conduct a survey of client satisfaction. The research has several objectives:

  • Establishing baseline levels of satisfaction with various aspects of service and measuring improvement over time

  • Identifying elements of service in need of improvement in order to be client-centred and responsive

  • Connecting the research to government-wide efforts to deliver client-centred services

This research employs a range of core measures from the Common Measurement Tool (CMT), including overall client satisfaction, and satisfaction with timelines, accessibility of service, fairness, competence, and ease of access to information. The establishment of baseline data on client satisfaction is an important element of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Service Improvement Initiative.

The Agency has conducted three previous research projects examining client satisfaction (in 2009-2010; 2010-2011; and 2011-2012), and many findings in this report are compared with these earlier surveys.

1.2 Methodology

The methodology for this study involved an online survey of clients of the Canadian Transportation Agency. The sample was provided to EKOS by the Agency. The following audiences were sampled:

  • Travel-related dispute adjudication: Those with travel-related adjudicated disputes and determinations

  • Facilitation: Passengers with travel-related complaints processed through facilitation (including persons with disabilities)

  • Inspection and new licensing: New licensing and inspection activity

  • Mediation: Those who have been involved in mediations

  • Non-travel dispute adjudication: Those with both non-travel-related disputes and determinations

The table below presents the number of completed surveys and response rates across the five target audiences surveyed.

Table 1.1: Response Rate
 FACADJNTDMEDLIC/INSPTotals
Complete

111

9

3

9

55

187

Sent

343

18

15

16

267

659

Response Rate (%)

32%

50%

20%

56%

21%

28%

The surveys were conducted primarily online, although a limited number of surveys were administered by paper and returned to EKOS for manual data entry.

Among the five audiences interviewed, two audiences generated completed surveys in numbers high enough for independent statistical analysis: inspection and new licensing (n=55, when taken together), and facilitation (n=111). The other audiences, drawing from much smaller universes, did not generate large enough samples for independent statistical analysis. As a result, the data from these smaller audiences should be interpreted as directional in nature (topline reports for each of the target audiences is available under separate cover).

The research employs a range of core measures from the Common Measurement Tool (CMT), including overall client satisfaction, and satisfaction with timelines, accessibility of service, fairness, competence, and ease of access to information. The establishment of baseline data on client satisfaction is an important element of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s Service Improvement Initiative. While some questions in the survey were specific to a particular audience, several areas of inquiry, based on the Common Measurement Tool, were common to all audiences. This report provides the results of those questions asked in a common fashion across multiple audiences. Please also note that responses may not always sum to 100 per cent due to rounding.

Throughout the research results are tracked to the 2011/2012, 2010/2011, and 2009/2010 iterations. The audiences included in 2010/2011 and 2009/2010 surveys differed slightly from the 2011/ 2012 survey and the current research. In 2010/2011, respondents who made an inquiry to the Agency were included, while during the 2009/2010 research, only facilitation and mediation clients were included.

2. Detailed Findings

2.1 Satisfaction With The Agency

In order to determine clients’ level of satisfaction with their Agency interaction, respondents were asked to rate their overall satisfaction with the Agency, and why they felt this way.

Clients were asked how satisfied they were with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency, regardless of the outcome of their interaction with the Agency, using a scale of one to five, where one means very dissatisfied and five means very satisfied. Three quarters of respondents (75 per cent) report satisfaction with the service that they received from the Agency (rating as a four or five on the scale). One in five (17 per cent) report dissatisfaction with the quality of service that they received (rating as a one or two on the scale), and 7 per cent express a neutral view (rating as a 3 on the scale).

The 2012/2013 results are virtually identical to those found in 2011/2012 (when 76 per cent of clients indicated satisfaction with the Agency). These results are significantly better than those found in earlier years of surveying. In both 2010/2011 and 2009/2010, 65 per cent of respondents indicated overall satisfaction with the Agency (please note that the question during these years was slightly different, asking respondents to rate their level of satisfaction aside from their view of the particular process they had undergone with the Agency, rather than apart from the outcome).

Figure 1 - Satisfaction With The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 1 - Text version: Satisfaction With The Agency

2.2 Reason For Satisfaction With The Agency

Respondents satisfied with the Agency were asked to identify the main reason for their satisfaction with the service received. These respondents most often say that they are satisfied because of the excellent service they received (45 per cent, and this is up from 9 per cent in 2011/2012), or that they were satisfied with the outcome of the interaction (12 per cent).

Figure 2 - Reason For Satisfaction With The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 2 - Text version: Reason For Satisfaction With The Agency

2.3 Reason For Dissatisfaction With The Agency

Those who indicated that they were dissatisfied with the service they received tend to feel the Agency was not impartial in dealing with them (33 per cent, up from 20 per cent in 2011/2012), or believed that the Agency had a lack of authority or jurisdiction in the matter (18 per cent).

Figure 3 - Reason For Dissatisfaction With The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 3 - Text version: Reason For Dissatisfaction With The Agency

2.4 Perception Of Agency Process Meeting Respondents’ Objectives

Clients were also asked to rate the extent to which they felt that their interaction with the Agency met their objectives. About six in ten (61 per cent) say that the process met their objectives either fully (44 per cent) or largely (17 per cent). This is down slightly from the 2011/2012 sounding, however, this is still considerably better than earlier iterations of the survey. In 2010/2011, only 44 per cent said that the process met their objectives either fully (28 per cent) or largely (16 per cent), and in 2009/2010, just over half indicated that the process met their objectives either fully (43 per cent) or largely (8 per cent).

However, it should also be noted that those who indicated their objectives were not met at all is up to 25 per cent (from 16 per cent in 2011/2012).

Figure 4 - Perception Of Agency Process Meeting Respondents’ Objectives, text version available via the link below
Figure 4 - Text version: Perception Of Agency Process Meeting Respondents’ Objectives

2.5 Impact Of Outcome On Satisfaction With The Agency

As in previous years, satisfaction with the overall quality of service provided by the Agency is closely tied to whether or not the objectives of the respondents’ interaction were met. Among those who say that their objectives were met, over nine out of ten respondents report satisfaction with the overall quality of service (97 per cent among those whose objectives were fully or mostly met). Sixty-three per cent report satisfaction with the overall quality of service among those whose objectives were met to an acceptable degree. Among those who say that their objectives were met only a bit or not at all, satisfaction with the service they received declines to 38 per cent.

In 2011/2012, overall satisfaction was lower among those whose objectives were fully or mostly met (91 per cent), and higher among those respondents who felt that their objectives had been met to an acceptable degree (95 per cent).

Figure 5 - Impact Of Outcome On Satisfaction With The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 5 - Text version: Impact Of Outcome On Satisfaction With The Agency

2.6 Timeliness Of Acknowledgement From The Agency

Clients were asked how long it took to receive an acknowledgement from the Agency, and what timeframe would be acceptable to receive an acknowledgementReturn to reference1. Results reveal that four in ten respondents (37 per cent) say they received an acknowledgement from the Agency within five days, and an additional 16 per cent indicated they received an acknowledgement within five to nine days. The proportion who received an acknowledgement within nine days is down somewhat (to 53 per cent from 71 per cent in 2011/2012).

Results also reveal a growing desire to receive this information within five days (40 per cent, up from 32 per cent in 2011/2012).

Relatively few clients indicated they had to wait more than 20 days for an acknowledgement (23 per cent), and even fewer (7 per cent) would find it acceptable to wait this long.

Figure 6 - Timeliness Of Acknowledgement From The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 6 - Text version: Timeliness Of Acknowledgement From The Agency

2.7 Timeliness Of Resolution From The Agency

Respondents were also asked how long it took from the time they submitted their issue to the Agency to the resolution of the issue, and also what they consider to be an acceptable time to resolve their issue. One in four (26 per cent) said it took between one and thirty days for their issue to be resolved, and three in ten (31 per cent) indicated it to be between 31 and 60 days. Tracking reveals a significant decline from 2011/2012 in terms of the proportion who indicated the Agency resolved their issue in 30 days or less; results are back to those found in 2010/2011 and 2009/2010.

Results further reveal that a majority of respondents (53 per cent) expect the Agency to resolve their issue in 30 days or less (although this is down from 72 per cent in 2011/2012).

Figure 7 - Timeliness Of Resolution From The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 7 - Text version: Timeliness Of Resolution From The Agency

2.8 Impact Of Timeliness On satisfaction With The Agency

Satisfaction with the overall quality of service experienced by respondents is also connected with perceptions about the time it took for the Agency to either acknowledge or to resolve their issue. Eight in ten respondents (79 per cent) who were satisfied with the time it took to acknowledge their issue were also satisfied with the overall service they received from the Agency. By comparison, only eight per cent of those who were dissatisfied with the time it took to acknowledge their issue say that they were satisfied with the overall service provided by the Agency. Similarly, 77 per cent of those satisfied with the time it took to resolve their complaint were also satisfied with the overall service provided by the Agency. Among those dissatisfied with the time it took to resolve their issue, overall satisfaction with the service they received from the Agency declines to 11 per cent.

In 2010/2011, the basic relationship was the same, however, higher levels of overall satisfaction were seen among those satisfied with the time to acknowledge (86 per cent) or resolve their issue (86 per cent), suggesting a slight diminishment in terms of the connection between overall satisfaction and timely acknowledgement or resolution of the issue in the current round of surveying.

Figure 8 - Impact Of Timeliness On Satisfaction With The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 8 - Text version: Impact Of Timeliness On Satisfaction With The Agency

2.9 Importance Of Attributes Of Agency Service

Clients were asked to rate the importance of various aspects of service from the Agency on a scale of one to five, where one means not at all important, and five means very important. Subsequently, they were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with those aspects of service on a five-point scale, where one means very dissatisfied and five means very satisfied.

Results reveal that all of the aspects of service examined are seen as very important by a majority of clients, although the knowledge and competence of staff is seen as particularly important (84 per cent of respondents feel this aspect is very important). Accuracy of information provided, helpfulness of staff, and being provided with information that is easy to understand are also seen as highly important (each being rated as very important by 80 per cent of respondents). The time it takes to acknowledge their issue (60 per cent), and the time it takes to resolve the matter (62 per cent), are seen as relatively less important issues (although a majority of clients still see these as very important service aspects).

Figure 9 - Importance Of Attributes Of Agency Service, text version available via the link below
Figure 9 - Text version: Importance Of Attributes Of Agency Service

2.10 Satisfaction With Attributes Of Agency ServiceReturn to reference2

Respondents were also asked to rate their satisfaction with these various aspects of service. Results reveal that the majority of clients are at least somewhat satisfied across all of the aspects examined. Respondents are most satisfied with the courtesy of staff (87 per cent very or somewhat satisfied, although this is down from 92 per cent in 2011/2012), and the ease of dealing with staff (83 per cent very or somewhat satisfied, down from 89 per cent in 2011/2012). About eight in ten are satisfied with respect to the knowledge and competence of staff (80 per cent), the accuracy of the information provided (79 per cent), and the helpfulness of staff (78 per cent). Somewhat lower levels of satisfaction were expressed in terms of staff accessibility (75 per cent), clarity and ease of understanding of that information (74 per cent), and the impartiality of staff (74 per cent). The time required to receive acknowledgment and the time it took to resolve the matter garnered the lowest levels of satisfaction (63 per cent each).

Tracking reveals a decline over the past year in satisfaction levels across all of the aspects examined, particularly the time it took to acknowledge the client’s issue (down 14 per cent since 2011/2012), the accessibility of staff (down 11 points since 2011/2012, and the impartiality of staff (down 10 points).

Figure 10 - Satisfaction With Attributes Of Agency Service, text version available via the link below
Figure 10 - Text version: Satisfaction With Attributes Of Agency Service

2.11 Gap Analysis

As reported earlier, respondents were asked to rate the importance of various attributes of service, and then asked to rate their satisfaction in each of these areas. We conducted a gap analysis for each of these service attributes to help identify the areas most in need of attention. In conducting this analysis, we subtracted the proportion who indicated very satisfied across each of the attributes from the proportion who indicated the attribute was very important. The resulting number reflects areas where gaps exist between the priority of the issue relative to the satisfaction with this issue.

Results from this analysis reveal that gaps are most pronounced in terms of clear information, accuracy of information, and the knowledge and competence of staff, suggesting that these are the areas most in need of attention from the Agency.

Figure 11 - Gap Analysis, text version available via the link below
Figure 11 - Text version: Gap Analysis

2.12 Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Interactions

Clients were asked to identify two aspects of service upon which the Agency could improve. Respondents most often identify resolution time (29 per cent) and the clarity and ease of understanding information (26 per cent) as the areas in need of improvement, followed by impartiality of staff (17 per cent). Many of the areas for improvement are identified more often than in 2011/2012, particularly the impartiality of staff (from 8 per cent to 17 per cent currently). Tracking also reveals an increase among those who identify an area for improvement (those who offered no response declined from 42 per cent in 2011/2012 to 39 per cent currently).

Figure 12 - Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Interactions, text version available via the link below
Figure 12 - Text version: Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Interactions

2.13 Importance Of Aspects Of Service From The Agency

Respondents were also asked to indicate how important they found several specific aspects of their experience with service from the Agency on a scale of one to five, where one means not at all important, and five means very important. Subsequently, they were asked whether or not they agreed with a number of statements about these aspects of service, using a five-point scale, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree.

Results reveal that all aspects are seen as at least somewhat important by roughly eight in ten or more clients. Focusing on the “very important” responses only, results reveal that clients place the most importance on the fairness of treatment they receive (87 per cent see this as very important), and that their questions are answered (81 per cent rated this as very important). Eight in ten also feel that being informed of everything they need to do (80 per cent) is very important. Three-quarters (75 per cent) see being told what the Agency can and cannot do as very important. Having a variety of means to contact Agency staff is seen as relatively less important (only 48 per cent rate this as very important).

Across several of these aspects, the perceived importance has risen somewhat over the past year, particularly in terms of Agency forms being easy to complete (from 85 per cent in 2011/2012 to 90 per cent currently).

Figure 13 - Importance Of Aspects Of Service From The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 13 - Text version: Importance Of Aspects Of Service From The Agency

2.14 Assessment Of Various Aspects Of ServiceReturn to reference3

Clients were also asked whether or not they agreed with a number of statements about these same aspects of service, using a scale of one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree.Return to reference4 Across all of the statements, at least two in three respondents strongly or somewhat agreed (i.e., expressed satisfaction), however, results vary significantly when looking at the “strongly agree” responses only. Respondents most often agree that the contact they had with the Agency was in the official language of their choice (74 per cent strongly agree with this statement). Three in five strongly agree that they were informed of everything they had to do in order for their matter to be dealt with by the Agency (61 per cent), and that they were treated fairly (58 per cent). About half strongly agreed that all their questions were answered (56 per cent); that they were offered a variety of means of contacting Agency staff (52 per cent); that staff responded quickly (52 per cent); and that the Agency let them know what they could do in dealing with their matter (51 per cent). Only about four in ten strongly agreed that they gained a good understanding of the mandate of the Agency (43 per cent), or that the Agency’s forms were easy to complete (41 per cent).

Tracking reveals a decline in agreement with many of these statements over the past year, particularly in terms of Agency forms being easy to complete, being treated fairly, and gaining an understanding of the mandate/jurisdiction of the Agency.

Figure 14 - Assessment Of Various Aspects Of Service, text version available via the link below
Figure 14 - Text version: Assessment Of Various Aspects Of Service

2.15 Gap Analysis

As with the previous service attributes questions, we conducted a gap analysis for these service aspects to help identify the areas most in need of attention. Again, we subtracted the proportion who indicated very satisfied across each of the aspects from the proportion who indicated the aspect was very important. The resulting number reflects areas where gaps exist between the priority of the issue relative to the satisfaction with this issue.

Results from this analysis reveal that gaps are most pronounced in terms of fairness of treatment, questions being answered, and the Agency informing clients about what they could do in dealing with the matter, suggesting that these are the areas most in need of attention from the Agency.

Figure 15 - Gap Analysis, text version available via the link below
Figure 15 - Text version: Gap Analysis

2.16 Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Service Attributes

When asked to identify two aspects of service upon which the Agency could improve, a better explanation of its role (21 per cent) and fairness of treatment (21 per cent) were mentioned most often, and both are identified more often than in 2011/2012. Tracking also reveals an increase among those who identify an area for improvement (those who offered no response declined from 42 per cent in 2011/2012 to 35 per cent currently).

Figure 16 - Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Service Attributes, text version available via the link below
Figure 16 - Text version: Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Service Attributes

2.17 Views On Agency ProcessReturn to reference5

Respondents were asked whether or not they agreed with a number of statements about Agency processes, using a scale of one to five, where one is strongly disagree and five is strongly agree.

Four in five respondents agree that the Agency made clear the information required for submission (81 per cent), and that the process was carried out in a professional manner (79 per cent). A further three in four (74 per cent) agree the Agency’s process was clearly explained to them. About seven in ten agreed that they had enough opportunity to present their case (71 per cent), and that the final outcome was easy to understand (67 per cent). Fewer than six in ten, however, feel that the process was impartial (58 per cent), or that they had enough opportunity to respond to the other party’s point of view (57 per cent).

Comparing these results to those found in 2011/2012 reveals a decrease in agreement across all of the areas examined, particularly with respect to impartiality, and the final outcome being clear/easy to understand.

Figure 17 - Views On Agency Process, text version available via the link below
Figure 17 - Text version: Views On Agency Process

2.18 Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Process

When asked to identify two aspects of the process upon which the Agency could improve, the need for enough opportunity to respond to the other party’s point of view was mentioned most often (30 per cent), followed by conducting the process impartially (20 per cent), and ensuring that the final outcome is clear (17 per cent). The perceived importance of providing more opportunity to respond to the other party has increased significantly over the past year (to 30 per cent, up from 18 per cent in 2011/2012). Tracking also reveals an increase among those who identify an area for improvement (those who offered no response declined from 46 per cent in 2011/2012 to 36 per cent currently).

Figure 18 - Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Process, text version available via the link below
Figure 18 - Text version: Suggestions For Improvement Of Agency Process

2.19 The Agency’s Website

Clients were also asked a number of questions about the Agency’s website. Respondents were asked if they had ever visited the Agency’s website. Over nine in ten (95 per cent) said that they have visited the Agency’s website (and this is up six percentage points since 2011/2012).

Among those who visited this website, nearly half (49 per cent) said they had visited the Agency’s website within the past three months, and one-third (32 per cent) visited the website between three and six months ago (results for this question are very similar to those found in 2011/2012).

Figure 19 - The Agency’s Website, text version available via the link below
Figure 19 - Text version: The Agency’s Website

2.20 Satisfaction With The Agency’s Website

Those who visited the Agency’s website were also asked about their satisfaction with the website. Roughly six in ten indicate that the information on the website was easy to understand (61 per cent); that the website had the information they were looking for (61 per cent); and that it was easy to find information they needed on the website (54 per cent). Tracking reveals a decrease in satisfaction across all of the aspects of the website examined.

Figure 20 - Satisfaction With The Agency’s Website, text version available via the link below
Figure 20 - Text version: Satisfaction With The Agency’s Website

2.21 Interacting With The Agency

Clients were asked how they became aware of the Agency. Four in ten (40 per cent) mention a web search as their source of awareness, while about one in four (27 per cent) say that they already knew of the Agency. About one in ten indicate that they had previous contact with the Agency (14 per cent), that the information came from a transportation service provider (13 per cent), or that they became aware of the Agency from another government department (10 per cent).

These results have remained largely stable over the past year.

Figure 21 - Interacting With The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 21 - Text version: Interacting With The Agency

2.22 Source Of Information About The Agency

Respondents were also asked which method they used to get information about the Agency during the course of their interaction with the Agency. The method identified most often to obtain information about the Agency is email (73 per cent), followed by the Agency’s website (58 per cent) and the telephone (46 per cent).

Tracking reveals that results are largely consistent with those found in 2011/2012 in terms of email and the Agency website; however, the use of telephone as a source of information about the Agency is down over the past year (from 57 per cent in 2011/2012 to 46 per cent currently).

Figure 22 - Source Of Information About The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 22 - Text version: Source Of Information About The Agency

2.23 Preferred Source Of Information About The Agency

Clients were then asked which method they would most prefer to use to get information about the Agency. Four in ten indicated email (42 per cent, down 4 per cent since 2011/2012), or the Agency website (41 per cent, up 10 per cent since 2011/2012). Only about one in six (15 per cent) indicate a preference for telephone, down 3 per cent since 2011/2012.

Figure 23 - Preferred Source Of Information About The Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 23 - Text version: Preferred Source Of Information About The Agency

2.24 Additional Comments – Satisfaction With Quality Of Service From Agency

When asked to provide additional comments about the Agency and/or its services, those satisfied with the service they received mention excellent service (in general) most often (16 per cent). Over half of satisfied respondents (61 per cent) had no additional comments.

Figure 24 - Additional Comments – Satisfaction With Quality Of Service From Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 24 - Text version: Additional Comments – Satisfaction With Quality Of Service From Agency

2.25 Additional Comments – Dissatisfaction With Quality Of Service From Agency

Among those who report overall dissatisfaction with the Agency’s service, many felt that the Agency is biased (18 per cent), or that it should be faster/reduce backlog (12 per cent). Over half of dissatisfied respondents (52 per cent) provided no comment.

Figure 25 - Additional Comments – Dissatisfaction With Quality Of Service From Agency, text version available via the link below
Figure 25 - Text version: Additional Comments – Dissatisfaction With Quality Of Service From Agency

Date modified: