ise industry forum csisg 2018 q3 results ......ise industry forum csisg 2018 q3 results announcement...

INSTITUTE OF

SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS Announcement

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS

F&B AND TOURISM

INSTITUTE OF


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

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

CSISG Structural Model (For Q3 Sectors)

Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance

Qn. Complaint Behaviour

Qn. Perceived Product Quality Qn. Perceived Product Customisation Qn. Perceived Product Reliability

Qn. Perceived Service Quality Qn. Perceived Service Customisation Qn. Perceived Service Reliability

Perceived Service Quality

Perceived Product Quality

Perceived Overall Quality

(After Recent Experience)

Perceived Value

Customer Satisfaction

Customer Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality

Before Recent Experience)

Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price

Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability

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

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology

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. (Not Applicable to Hotel Sub-sector)

Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport.

Typically 50-200 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.

Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the company/brand they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 to 2 companies/brands.

!6

!7

Overview of Score Calculation

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

!8

CSISG 2018 Q3 Sub-sectors

F&B Sector

• Restaurants

• Fast Food Restaurants

• Cafes & Coffee Houses

• Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

Tourism Sector

• Attractions

• Hotels

!9

Sectors Covered Food & Beverages Tourism

Survey Period Jul to Oct 2018

Total Questionnaires Completed 6,900

Locals 3,060

Tourists 3,840

Distinct entities measured 352

Entities with published scores 57

CSISG 2018 Q3 Quick Facts

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2018 Q3 Results Overview

!11* Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores

QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/brands

(Past 3 months for F&B, Past 6 months for Tourism)

(2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors

INSTITUTE OF


Tourism Sector Results

60

70

80

60

70

80Attractions

Hotels

2007 2018

70

78

Tourism Sector

!13

▲▼Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence

Tourism Sector CSISG Trends

◼

▲



Perceived Quality


Perceived Value CSISG Customer

Loyalty

Hotels 74.2 75.6 75.5 ▲ 75.3 72.3

Attractions 74.3 ▲ 75.2 ▲ 75.1 ▲ 74.1 ▲ 73.4 ▲

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

Service Quality

Product Quality

Customer Expectations

Perceived Quality

Perceived Value CSISG

Complaints

Customer Loyalty

!14

Significant Increases Y-O-Y In All Drivers

Note: Only Tourists are measured in the Hotels sub-sector

!15



Perceived Overall Quality

Hotels 75.0 76.3 75.6

Attractions 75.1 ▲ 75.4 75.2 ▲

Service Quality

Product Quality

Perceived Quality

Perceived Quality Up For Attractions, Driven By Increase in Perceived Product Quality

Note: Only Tourists are measured in the Hotels sub-sector


INSTITUTE OF


Attraction Findings

Marginal Upticks in Satisfaction Across Attractions

Sentosa 74.9

Jurong Bird Park 73.9

Singapore Zoo 74.5

Night Safari 71.1

River Safari 72.8

Universal Studios 71.9

Singapore Discovery Centre 70.4

Adventure Cove 71.8

Singapore Flyer 73.2 Gardens By The Bay 73.2

S.E.A Aquarium 73.4

Other attractions 71.2

75.6 Sentosa

74.2 Jurong Bird Park

74.7 Singapore Zoo

72.8 Night Safari

73.9 River Safari

73.1 Universal Studios

70.9 Singapore Discovery Centre

72.8 Adventure Cove

73.9 Singapore Flyer

74.4 Gardens By The Bay

73.6 S.E.A Aquarium

72.0 Other attractions

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

!17

Attractions

60

70

80

Other attractions includes ArtScience Museum, Trickeye Museum, Wild Wild Wet

74.1

70

78

Tourism Sector2007 2018

Clarity of directions within the attraction

Friendliness and courtesy of the staff

Ease of finding information within the attraction

Cleanliness of the attraction

Helpfulness of the staff

Range of activities/ exhibits

Staff knowledge about the attractionEntertainment and/or educational value

of the attractionAmenities within the attraction

Safety and security measures within the attraction

Waiting time to get into the attraction

Ease of getting around the attraction

Ease of getting to the attraction

Quality of food and beverage given the prices

Food and beverage options

Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.2 7.7 8.2

!18

Higher Satisfaction Across Various Attributes (Attractions attributes)

▲

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

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

#

# Attribute answered only by respondents who dined at the attraction

▲

▲

2018 Avg Rating

!19!19


7.0 7.6 8.2


8.2 7.6 7.0

Cleanliness of the attraction

Staff knowledge about the attraction

Clarity of directions within the attraction

Ease of finding information within the attraction

Range of activities/ exhibits

Friendliness and courtesy of the staff

Amenities within the attraction

Ease of getting around the attraction

Safety and security measures within the attraction

Helpfulness of the staff

Entertainment/ educational value of attraction

Waiting time to get into the attraction


Quality of food and beverage given the prices#

Ease of getting to the attraction

LocalsTourists


▲

▲▲▲

▲

▲▲

▲

▲

▲▼

▼

▲▲▼

# Attribute answered only by respondents who dined at the attraction

Higher Attribute Ratings Driven by Tourists (Attractions attributes by Segments)

INSTITUTE OF


Information Search & Visitor Experience

More Visitors Searching for Information Prior to Visit (Attractions: Sources Of Information)

2016

2017

2018 47.3%

48.2%

56.7%

52.7%

51.8%

43.3%

Searched for information prior to visit Did not search

!21

% R

espo

nden

t W

ho

Sea

rche

d Fo

r In

form

atio

n

0%

30%

60%

Attraction's Website, Social Media, Mobile App

Brochures Word Of Mouth Print Media (Newspaper, Magazine)

Other sources of information

2016

2017

2018 47.3%

48.2%

56.7%

52.7%

51.8%

43.3%


Source of Information (2018)

!22

More Visitors Searching for Information Prior to Visit (Attractions: Sources Of Information)

Visitors Who Search For Information - Locals vs Tourists

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Searched for information

Did not search

Searched for information

Did not search

52.3%47.7%

34.1%

65.9%

Locals

!23

Tourists

60

70

80


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value

CSISG CustomerLoyalty


!24


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value

CSISG CustomerLoyalty

Locals Tourists

denotes that this segment’s score is significantly HIGHER at 90% confidence

Higher Scores Seen Across Measured Satisfaction Dimensions For Tourists Who Searched For Information

INSTITUTE OF


Hotel Findings

Grand Hyatt 74.2

Marina Mandarin 72.1 Mandarin Orchard 72.2

Pan Pacific Singapore 73.5

Shangri-La 72.8

Hotel Michael 73.7

The Ritz-Carlton 75.1

Marina Bay Sands 74.6 74.9 Grand Hyatt

73.2 Marina Mandarin 73.1 Mandarin Orchard

74.7 Pan Pacific Singapore 74.4 Shangri-La 74.0 Hotel Michael

75.7 The Ritz-Carlton 75.5 Marina Bay Sands

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

Marginal Upticks in Satisfaction Scores (Luxury & Upscale Hotels)

60

70

80

!26

Hotels 75.3

70

78

Tourism Sector

2007 2018

Fragrance Hotel 70.6

Hotel 81 69.5

71.3 Fragrance Hotel

70.6 Hotel 81

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

Similar Upticks in Economy Hotel Scores (Economy Hotels)

!27

60

70

80Hotels 75.3

70

78

Tourism Sector

2007 2018

Luxury & Upscale Hotels Economy Hotels

Impact On Quality

Staff's ability to provide local recommendations and information

Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)

Hotel ambience Comfort of the room

Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts) Cleanliness of the room

Comfort of the room Ambience of the room

Ability of the hotel to accommodate to your needs or requests Reliability of the internet connection

!28

Top 5 Differentiators of Quality (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality)

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct

Luxury & Upscale Hotels Economy Hotels

Impact On Quality

Staff's ability to provide local recommendations and information

Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)

Hotel ambience Comfort of the room

Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts) Cleanliness of the room

Comfort of the room Ambience of the room

Ability of the hotel to accommodate to your needs or requests Reliability of the internet connection

!29

Service Elements Remain Differentiators for Luxury Hotels (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality)

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct

Service ProcessLegend: ProductService Staff

Product Service Process Service Staff

Comfort of the room

Maintenance of the hotel's public area

Cleanliness of the room

Hotel ambience

Hotel facilities

Reliability of the internet connection


Ambience of the room

Amenities in room (TV, air-con & hair-dryer)

YOY % Change

-0.9%

+0.5%

+1.4%

+1.7%

+2.0%

+2.7%

+3.5%

+3.6%

+7.3%

Efficiency of the check-out process

Efficiency of the check-in process

Ease of making reservations

Ability of the hotel to accommodate to

your needs or requests

+1.2%

+2.0%

+2.3%

+2.9%

YOY % Change

◼Statistically significant year-on-year increase at 90% confidence

◼Statistically significant year-on-year drop at 90% confidence

Staff's ability to provide local

recommendations and information

Responsiveness of staff

Helpfulness of staff

Staff's ability to communicate professionally

-1.0%

-0.5%

+1.0%

+1.2%

YOY % Change

Improvement in Various Attributes (Upscale & Luxury Hotels: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes)

!30

INSTITUTE OF


Food & Beverages Sector Results

F&B Sector CSISG Trends 70

F&B Sector

60

70

80Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

2007 2018

Cafes & Coffee Houses Fast Food Restaurants

Restaurants

▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence

▲

!32

◼

◼ ▲



Perceived Quality


Perceived Value CSISG Customer

Loyalty

Snack Bars & Food Kiosks 76.2 77.5 77.1 75.3 73.0

Restaurants 75.5 ▲ 76.4 ▲ 76.2 ▲ 74.4 ▲ 72.1

Cafes & Coffee Houses 74.7 75.8 75.6 ▲ 73.9 73.4

Fast Food Restaurants 74.3 75.2 75.4 73.6 ▲ 73.3

Service Quality

Product Quality


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value CSISG

Complaints

Customer Loyalty

!33

Satisfaction & All Drivers For Restaurants Saw Upticks (Drivers of Satisfaction)


!34



Perceived Quality

Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

77.2 77.9 77.5

Restaurants 75.9 ▲ 76.9 ▲ 76.4 ▲

Cafes & Coffee Houses

75.5 76.1 75.8

Fast Food Restaurants

74.9 75.5 75.2

Service Quality

Product Quality

Perceived Quality


Both Product And Service Quality Up For Restaurant

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expect-ations

Quality Value Expect-ations



Quality Value


!35

Locals Tourists

CSISG 73.3 77.7


Locals Tourists

72.6 77.4


Locals Tourists

73.1 74.7

Restaurants

Locals Tourists

73.8 73.6

Tourists More Satisfied Than Locals For Restaurants And Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

GREEN/RED scores indicate Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expect-ations




Quality Value


!36

Locals Tourists

CSISG 73.3 77.7


Locals Tourists

72.6 ▲ 77.4 ▲


Locals Tourists

73.1 74.7

Restaurants

Locals Tourists

73.8 ▲ 73.6

Increase in Restaurants CSISG Scores Driven by Both Locals & Tourists

GREEN/RED scores indicate Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

▲


▲ ▲

▲▲ ▲

▲

TungLok Signatures Scored Significantly Higher Than Sub-sector Average (Restaurants)

TungLok SignaturesCrystal Jade Kitchen

Soup RestaurantFish & Co

Boon Tong KeeThai ExpressSakae SushiDin Tai Fung

Swensen'sJack's Place

AstonsAjisen Ramen

Manhattan Fish MarketSushi Tei

Seoul GardenCrystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long Bao

Dian Xiao ErNando's

Pizza HutXin Wang HK CafeOther restaurants

CSISG Scores (0 to 100 scale)

60 67 73 80!37

Restaurants Sub-sector CSISG: 74.4

▲

▲

▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2018 and 2017 scores at

90% confidence

McDonalds 72.7

KFC 70.4

Burger King 72.9

Mos Burger 71.6

Subway 70.7

Other fast-food restaurants 70.3

74.9 McDonalds

72.7 KFC

74.2 Burger King

71.9 Mos Burger 71.9 Subway

72.1 Other fast-food restaurants

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

Upticks in Scores Across Most Fast Food Restaurants (Fast Food Restaurants)

!38

2007 201858

69

80Fast Food Restaurants

Other fast food includes Carl’s Junior, Long John Silver’s, Popeyes

73.6

70

78

Food & Beverage Sector

Starbucks 73.2

Ya Kun 70.2 Toast Box 70.3

Other cafes & snack bars 72.2

75.6 Starbucks

72.3 Ya Kun

71.4 Toast Box

74.2 Other cafes & snack bars

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

58

69

80

Upticks for Cafes & Coffee Houses (Cafe & Coffee Houses)

!39

2007 2018

Cafes & Coffee Houses 73.9

Food & Beverage Sector

Other cafes & coffee houses includes Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, TCC, Delifrance

Old Chang Kee 72.6

Jollibean 71.0

Other snack bars & food kiosks 74.2 74.5 Old Chang Kee

71.7 Jollibean

75.8 Other snack bars & food kiosks

CSISG2017

CSISG2018

Upticks for Snack Bars & Food Kiosks (Snack Bars & Food Kiosks)

!40

58

69

80

2007 2018Food & Beverage Sector

Snack Bars & Food Kiosks 75.3

Other snack bars & food kiosks includes LiHo, Dunkin Donuts, Tori Q

INSTITUTE OF


F&B Attributes

Restaurants Fast Food Restaurants



Impact on Quality

Received food within reasonable time Serves good quality food Staff knows the menu

items wellFood is tasty

Food is tasty Received food within reasonable time

Has a pleasant ambience


Food looks appetizing Staff provides prompt and quick service Serves good quality food Staff is proactive in

offering help

Serves good quality food Staff is approachable and personable Food is tasty Staff provides prompt

and quick service

Staff is approachable and personable

Food is tasty Food looks appetizing Staff is approachable and personable

!42

Top 5 Differentiators of Quality (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality)

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct




Impact on Quality


items wellFood is tasty




Food looks appetizing Staff provides prompt and quick service

Serves good quality food Staff is proactive in offering help

Serves good quality food Staff is approachable and personable Food is tasty Staff provides prompt

and quick service


Food is tasty Food looks appetizing Staff is approachable and personable

!43

Product Attributes Important Across All Sub-sectors

Legend: Product

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct




Impact on Quality


items well Food is tasty




Food looks appetizing Staff provides prompt and quick service

Serves good quality food Staff is proactive in offering help

Serves good quality food Staff is approachable and personable

Food is tasty Staff provides prompt and quick service

Staff is approachable and personable Food is tasty Food looks appetizing Staff is approachable

and personable

!44

StaffLegend: Ordering & Processes

Service Elements Equally As Important

Incr

easi

ng P

osit

ive

Impa

ct

INSTITUTE OF


Self-Ordering System Vs Ordering Through Service Staff

Increasing Implementation Of Self-Order Systems

!46

Kiosks Tablets/ Phones

Sources: 1. https://theendivechronicles.com/mcdonalds-self-serve-kiosk.html 2. https://www.aigens.com/portfolio-item/fete-fully-cashier-less-kiosk-restaurant-central-2-3-2/ 3. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/popeyes-self-ordering-kiosks-serve-up-efficiency 4. https://www.yelp.com.sg/biz_photos/363-katong-laksa-singapore 5. http://holeinthewall.sg/2018/07/14/eatsy-park-bench-deli/ 6. http://gadgetsmagazine.com.ph/technology/technology-news/rev-an-interactive-self-ordering-device-for-the-fb-industry.html

1 2

3

4 5

6

Serving portions are appropriate

Menu is easy to understand

Serves good quality food


Food is tasty

Received food within reasonable time

Serves good quality beverages

Easy to find what I need

Staff provides prompt and quick service

Is comfortable to dine in

Menu options suit my needs

Able to get table within reasonable time

Staff knows the menu items well

Staff is proactive in offering help

Design of the outlet is visually appealing


Food looks appetizing

Ordering process is simple


7.2 7.7 8.2

!47

Fast Food Attributes2018 Avg Rating

Descending Order Of

Mean Ratings

% F

ast

Food

Res

pond

ents

(n=

60

0)

0%

50%

100%

Service Staff Self-Order

8.9%

91.1%

Most Frequent Ordering Method

!48

Most Customer Still Order Through Service Staff (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)

% R

espo

nden

ts (

n=6

00

)

0%

50%

100%


8.9%

91.1%Most Frequent Ordering Method

!49

Age Group

18 to 29 Years 86.9% 13.1%

30 to 49 Years 90.3% 9.7%

50 to 84 Years 100.0% 0.0%

Proportion In Each Age Group

Younger Customers More likely to Use Self-Order (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)

% R

espo

nden

ts (

n=6

00

)

0%

50%

100%


8.9%


!50

Service Quality Score 75.4 77.0CSISG 73.7 73.3

Loyalty Score 73.3 73.6

Score (0 to 100)

No significant differences in scores

No Difference in Scores Regardless of Method Used (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)

% R

espo

nden

ts (

n=6

00

)

0%

50%

100%


8.9%


!51

Service Quality Score 75.4 77.0CSISG 73.7 73.3

Loyalty Score 73.3 73.6

Ordering process is simple 7.65 8.02

Higher Ratings for ‘Ordering Process Is Simple’ for Customers Who Frequently Use Self-Order (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)

Rating (1 to 10)

Score (0 to 100)

GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance

INSTITUTE OF


What about Implementing in other F&B sub-sectors?

Restaurants Fast Food

!53

F&B: Preferred Method To Order

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Service Staff

Self-Order Service Staff



Self-Order

14.7%

85.3%

16.1%

83.9%

20.6%

79.4%

6.3%

93.7%




Age Group

18 to 29 Years

87.7% 12.3% 64.3% 35.7% 73.3% 26.7% 77.1% 22.9%

30 to 49 Years

93.9% 6.1% 80.0% 20.0% 83.8% 16.2% 86.2% 13.8%

50 to 84 Years

99.9% 0.1% 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 0.0% 99.1% 0.9%

Proportion In Each Age Group!54

F&B: Preferred Method To Order by Age

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Service Staff




Self-Order

14.7%

85.3%

16.1%

83.9%

20.6%

79.4%

6.3%

93.7%




Age Group

18 to 29 Years

87.7% 12.3% 64.3% 35.7% 73.3% 26.7% 77.1% 22.9%

30 to 49 Years

93.9% 6.1% 80.0% 20.0% 83.8% 16.2% 86.2% 13.8%

50 to 84 Years

99.9% 0.1% 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 0.0% 99.1% 0.9%

Proportion In Each Age Group!55

Less Preference for Use of Self-Order for Older Customers and Restaurants

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Service Staff




Self-Order

14.7%

85.3%

16.1%

83.9%

20.6%

79.4%

6.3%

93.7%



!56

• Both Food & Beverage and Tourism Sectors saw statistically significant increases in CSISG scores for 2018.

• Increases were led by improvements in Attractions, Restaurants and Fast Food sub-sectors.

• Tourism Sector:

• Attractions: More visitors finding information about attractions prior to their visit. These visitors tend rate their experiences better.

• Hotels: While upticks seen across product and process-related attributes, service staff remain important.

Summary

!57

• Food & Beverage:

• Fast Food & Self-Ordering Technology: Proportion of users who frequently order through self-ordering kiosks remain low. However, these users do not appear to give lower service quality scores, and rate ordering processes better.

• Preference for self-ordering: Potentially higher resistance for Restaurant visitors and older customers to adopt self-ordering, due to lower preference for its use. Other F&B sub-sectors like Fast-Food may have lower resistance with higher preference for self-ordering.

Summary

INSTITUTE OF


ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS Announcement

ise industry forum csisg 2018 q3 results ......ise industry forum csisg 2018 q3 results announcement...

Documents