Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
40 Although only eight of 22 surveyed transit agencies had both a service guarantee and customer-focused transparency practices, the objective of this synthesis was partly to understand how these two practices may or may not work together as part of a transit agencyâs efforts to be more customer focused. Some noteworthy findings were uncovered when data from the section of the survey on service guarantees were compared with data from the section on customer-focused practices. For instance, in both sections, transit agencies were asked similar questions about why they implemented the customer-focused practice (service guarantee or customer-focused transparency). Transit agen- cies were asked to rank a set of predetermined options. Comparison of responses in both sections of the survey are provided in Table 17; reasons are sorted in order by the most often ranked first to the most often ranked last. The comparison reveals a high level of similarity between the reasons for implementing service guarantees and the reasons for implementing customer-focused transparency; in particular, increasing customer confidence, improving public perceptions, and relating both practices to a broader strategic plan or quality commitment were all ranked in the top five for both practices. However, customer-focused transparency was more likely to be requested by a third partyâ either through external mandate or through a board or other oversight body. Service guarantees were more likely implemented as a temporary solution to respond to an existing service problem. Transit agencies were also asked to report the perceived benefits of both service guarantees and customer-focused transparency using a five-point scale, with values from âstrongly disagreeâ to âstrongly agree.â When comparing the number of agreement responses (either moderately or strongly agree) for benefits associated with service guarantees to the number of agreement responses for benefits associated with customer-focused transparency, several noteworthy results were found (see Figure 15). The data suggest that although both service guarantees and customer-focused transpar- ency benefited agencies in similar ways, transparency provided more benefits in the form of an improved transit agency image with elected officials, the media, and the general public. Customer-focused transparency appears to be more focused on increasing the satisfaction and confidence of a transit agencyâs amalgamated stakeholders through regular improvements in average performance. Improvements in performance (e.g., increased service reliability) effected through the power of performance reporting will likely be long term and sustainable. Service guarantees, on the other hand, do not deal with average performance but are directly tied to a specific individualâs experience on a particular transit trip. Service guarantees are focused C h a p t e r 5 Combined Role of Service Guarantees and Customer-Focused Transparency The main reasons for implementing service guarantees AND customer- focused transparency were ⢠Increasing customer confidence; ⢠Improving public perception; and ⢠Enacting a strategic plan or customer commitment.
Combined role of Service Guarantees and Customer-Focused transparency 41 on increasing the satisfaction of individual ridersâparticularly after they experience a service problem. Although service guarantees may motivate improvements in service because of the potential financial penalty associated with customer remuneration, service guarantees alone may not be enough to effect long-term, sustainable improvements in service. Transparency itself likely has little direct effect on customer satisfaction after a service prob- lem. However, as previous research has suggested (e.g., Lidén 2004), service guarantees with remuneration can substantially increase customer satisfaction after a service problem. Ultimately, the question of how service guarantees and customer-focused transparency interact to influence customer satisfaction (in the short and long term) requires additional research. Reason Service Guarantee Rank Transparency Rank Average Rank To increase customer confidence 2 1 1.5 To improve public perception 1 4 2.5 Part of a strategic plan or quality commitment 3 2 2.5 Requested by board (or other oversight body) 7 3 5 Temporary; in response to service problems 4 8 6 To increase ridership (more passenger trips) 5 7 6 Requested by public 6 6 6 External mandate 9 5 7 Table 17. Comparison of ranked reasons for implementing service guarantees and customer-focused transparency. Increased fare revenue Brought new customers to the transit agency Increased ridership Improved customer satisfaction Helped the transit agency improve service quality Improved the transit agencyâs employeesâ commitment to customer service Improved the transit agencyâs image with the general public Improved the transit agencyâs image with elected officials Improved the transit agencyâs image with the media Customer-Focused Transparency Service Guarantee 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 15. Comparison of level of agreement with perceived benefits for service guarantees and customer-focused transparency. Note: The percentage agreements do not represent equal quantities (14 transit agencies had service guarantees, and 17 transit agencies had customer-focused transparency).