Customer Satisfaction Pilot Studies and Analysis

ASCI Questions/Index and Additional State Questions (continued)

Table 7: Relation of State F Employer Service Characteristics to ACSISAT, continued

State F Additional Questions
Question
 
Correlation to ACSISAT
15 .SCREENING DONE
 
-.089*
16. PROMPTNESS OF REFERRALS
 
.047
17. EASE OF LISTING
 
.079
18. SENSE OF URGENCY
 
.272**
19. WORKS AS A PARTNER
Key driver
.357**
20. RECOMMEND TO COLLEAGUE
 
.506**
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).** significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7 Comments.

This table presents a more detailed approach to presenting correlation information. Rather than present only the services that are strongly correlated, all possible correlations are presented. The actual correlation value for each of State F's additional questions with the ACSISAT score are presented. For many audiences, this level of detail will require careful explanation and may be most appropriate for performance measurement and monitoring staff. It does provide a clear contrast between those aspects of service that are important to satisfaction and those that are not.

This analysis of questions related to the ACSISAT suggests that at least 6 questions (numbers 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17) have little relationship to satisfaction and at some future date might be eliminated from the survey in favor of other questions or a shorter survey. The analysis also indicates that there are four key drivers: staff understands the needs of the customer, being responsive, knowledgeable staff, and works as a partner. Improvement in these areas are likely to produce the largest improvements in satisfaction. Since three of those areas are directly related to the skills and knowledge of staff, this particular example suggests that staff development to create even more responsive, knowledgeable staff would pay off handsomely. Such an analysis is particularly useful to program managers and staff looking to maximize resources by providing the services customers value most.

This table also presents the results of another analysis, involving the creation of a new measure. By adding together the different services that each employer indicated they had received, a new measure is created, called a multi-service count. A correlation analysis of the relationship between the multi-service count and the ACSISAT score indicates that the ACSISAT score went up as the number of services received went up (see number 1 in Table 7). This finding does not necessarily mean that giving more services, whether or not there is a need, will produce more satisfaction. In fact, it is just as likely that those who are more satisfied tend to come back for additional services. This finding could also be associated with a specific service; that is, those who receive certain services are more satisfied than those who receive some other services. Therefore, such a finding calls for additional investigation. Are some services more strongly associated with satisfaction? If so, what causes satisfaction to be associated with that service, i.e., what specifically about that service satisfies customers? Interviews, focus groups, or on-site observations may be required to fully address this question.

In fact, an analysis to determine which employer service produced the highest satisfaction indicated that those who received LMI or services listed as "Other" were significantly more satisfied than those who received other services, including those who received money for customized job training. This finding, that something other than funding produced satisfaction, could be very helpful in planning staffing levels and fund allocations.

Each of these tables and analyses demonstrate additional values of the ACSISAT. The score provides valuable information on its own regarding the level of general customer satisfaction. Additional questions tailored to the services of the State or local WIB can illuminate and flesh out the sources of that satisfaction. It also helps program managers think critically about the allocation of services and resources according to the types of service most valued by customers.

Overall Satisfaction and Outcomes>>

10This question is not discussed as a driver because it is not a quality of service descriptor but another identifier of customer reaction to service, similar to satisfaction.

 
 
Home | About | Resources | Services | Forums