Opinion Pieces: since 2007, Prof. David Hensher has written an opinion column in the Australasian Bus and Coach magazine, where he monthly discusses a lot of different transport-related hot topics. In this section we are revisiting these columns.
October 2007
My recent participation in a number of inquiries into ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public transport has highlighted the inadequate focus on really knowing what does make a difference to actual and potential users of public transport. There appear to be a large number of customer satisfaction surveys which seem on balance to focus mainly on looking at how satisfied (happy?) existing users are with a range of existing service attributes. There is something missing – someone may be eternally satisfied with a specific feature of a service (e.g., the attitude of the bus driver or the inspector on the train or the attendant at the Ferry wharf), but is that really so important as to influence whether someone would choose to use or not use a bus or train or ferry? An obvious and simple improvement would be to identify how important specific service features are in one’s choice of means of transport and how well is the operator performing in providing the service in terms of that feature. As an example, we might think about asking how does the stakeholders’ perception of how successful the operator has been in addressing each of the issues compare with their perception of how important each of the issues are? To determine this, a simple “difference score” might be used, defined as the difference between the importance and success ratings given by each respondent to each issue as shown in the Table below.
Levels of Difference Scores |
||||
How Important Scale |
How Successful Scale |
|||
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
|
1 |
0 | -1 | -2 | -3 |
2 |
1 | 0 | -1 | -2 |
3 |
2 | 1 | 0 | -1 |
4 |
3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
A positive score indicates that the success in addressing an issue is lagging behind its importance in choosing a means of transport. Its magnitude is indicative of how much success is lagging behind importance. For example, the score “3” is obtained when the stakeholder considers an issue to be very important but the same issue has been unsuccessfully addressed by the Operator. A negative score indicates that the Operator has over addressed an issue given its importance to actual and potential passengers. For example, the score “-3” indicates that a stakeholder considers an issue to be unimportant even though it has been very successfully addressed by the Operator. A zero score indicates that the Operator has addressed the issue in line with its importance.
Given the growing importance of measuring the passenger’s (existing and potential) assessment of the effectiveness of public transport services, it is timely that we at least ask the question: Do we Really Know our Passengers? Are we measuring incorrectly if we want to grow patronage? Information is only relevant if it is useful.
¿Comments? ¿Opinions? ¿Similar News? Send them to us!
