Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2005 Management ...Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2005 Management Service Opinion Survey Summary Report March 2006 CityU Professional Services Limited

Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2005 Management Service

Opinion Survey Summary Report

March 2006

CityU Professional Services Limited

Prepared by Quality Evaluation Centre,

City University of Hong Kong

- 2 -

Copyright © 2006 Copyright of this report is retained by Hong Yip Service Company Ltd and Quality Evaluation Centre, City University of Hong Kong. Enquiries can be directed to: CityU Professional Services Limited Quality Evaluation Centre City University of Hong Kong City University of Hong Kong 83 Tat Chee Avenue 83 Tat Chee Avenue Kowloon Kowloon Hong Kong Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2374-1711 Tel: (852) 2788-9603 Fax: (852) 2319-0984 Fax: (852) 2194-2011 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cps.com.hk Website: www.cityu.edu.hk/qec

- 3 -

1 Introduction

1.1 Objectives Since 1995, Hong Yip Service Company Limited (hereafter, the Company) has commissioned the CityU Professional Services Limited (hereafter, the Consultant) to undertake extensive customer’s satisfaction survey to collect the opinion of the Occupants and Owner’s Incorporations (OIs) regarding the services provided by the Company. In order to improve the quality of services and understand the needs of customers, the Company continued to commission the Consultant to conduct an opinion survey this year. The Consultant further commissioned the Quality Evaluation Centre of City University of Hong Kong to analyze the collected data and write up the research report. The objectives of the survey are as follows: 1. to measure the level of satisfaction from the customers’ perspective; 2. to evaluate the performance of the staff members; 3. to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of various services provided by the

Company so that improvements could be made; and 4. to identify the expectations of Occupants and OIs on facility management

services. 1.2 Methodology 1.2.1 Survey design and coverage The target respondents of the survey were divided into two groups, namely, Occupants and Ois. All Occupants and Ois living in premises managed by the Company were distributed with self-administered and structured questionnaires.

- 4 -

1.2.2 Area of Study The questionnaire is divided into four parts. Part One focuses on the Quality of Current Property Management Services with respect to (1) Management and Security; (2) Cleanliness; (3) Repair and Maintenance; (4) Shuttle Bus Service; (5) Residents’ Club House; (6) Car-park Management; (7) Swimming Pool Management; (8) Others, and (9) Overall Performance on Property Management Services. Part Two concerns with the Expectation on Value-added Services, with questions related to (1) Satisfaction on Existing Value-added Services; and (2) Satisfaction on Existing Areas of Value-added Services. Part Three emphasizes the Comparison of the Quality of Property Management Services among Different Property Management Companies. Part Four concerns with other Comments and Suggestions by Occupants and OIs. The first nine questions in Part One and Part Two use a five-point Likert Scale (“1” = very unsatisfactory and “5” = very satisfactory) to measure the satisfaction level of Occupants and OIs in the various services provided by the Company.

- 5 -

The following is a breakdown of the questionnaire structure: Area of Study Number of Items Part One: Quality of Current Property Management Services 1. Management and Security 12 2. Cleanliness 8 3. Repair and Maintenance 10 4. Shuttle Bus Service (if applicable) 5 5. Residents’ Club House (if applicable) 4 6. Car-park Management (if applicable) 6 7. Swimming Pool Management (if applicable) 3 8. Others 1 9. Overall Performance on Property Management Services 1

Part Two: Expectation on Value-added Services 1. Satisfaction on Existing Value-added Services 11 2. Satisfaction on Areas of Existing Value-added Services 3

Part Three: Others 1. Experience on other Property Management Companies 2 2. Satisfaction on services provided by the Company

when comparing with other Property Management Companies 6

Part Four: Other Comment 1. Specification(s) of management services need(s) to be improved 1 (Open-ended Question) 2. Other Comments/Suggestions 1 (Open-ended Question)

- 6 -

All of the data collected were input into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. The mean score for each question was calculated by using “simple average method” on respondents’ answers, where the missing values were not included in the “mean scores”. Hence, the total scores of performance at building, area, region and company levels were the averages of the mean scores of the first nine questions in Part One. To simplify the explanation, if there were 2 questionnaires and each had 3 questions in a specific area, and “0” represented missing value, the calculation was as follows:

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Questionnaire 1 1 0 0 Questionnaire 2 5 2 0 Score 3 2 0 The principle of calculation is based on the average score of each question but NOT each questionnaire because there may be some irrelevant questions to the respondents. The score of Question 1 is (1+5)/2 = 3. The score of Question 2 is 2, which means that the missing value in Questionnaire 1 is not counted because Question 2 is not applicable to the respondent of Questionnaire 1. The score of Question 3 is 0, which means not applicable to this area. Then, the combined mean of score is (3+2)/2 = 2.5. The value of Question 3 is not counted. The combined scores are derived from the average of the scores of Occupants and OIs.

- 7 -

1.2.3 Data Collection The survey was conducted between 28 November 2005 and 3 January 2006 by means of self-administered and structured questionnaires. The questionnaires were issued by the Consultant and dispatched by the Company. 110,000 and 233 copies of questionnaires were sent to Occupants and OIs respectively. Finally, 13,342 copies of questionnaires were collected from Occupants while 221 copies were collected from OIs, giving the response rates of 12.13% and 94.85% for Occupants and OIs respectively. In this survey, the Consultant commissioned the Quality Evaluation Centre of City University of Hong Kong to analyze the results based on the input of the respondents and write up the report. The number of questionnaires returned in each area was as follows: Area Code Area Name Occupants OIs Combined101 Aberdeen 288 13 301 102 Causeway Bay 136 6 142 103 Chai Wan 268 10 278 104 Tokwawan 247 10 257 105 Kowloon Bay 369 8 377 105A Kowloon Bay Sub-Area 39 4 43 106 Ngau Chi Wan 144 1 145 107 Mongkok (I) 211 11 222 108 Cheung Sha Wan (I) 199 11 210 109 Wonderland Villas 233 2 235 109A Wonderland Villas-Sub Area 215 1 216 110 Shatin 455 12 467 111 Tai Po 158 4 162 112 Tsuen Wan (I) 406 14 420 112A Tsuen Wan (I) Sub-Area 149 4 153 114 Tuen Mun 351 7 358 115 Yuen Long (I) 251 5 256 116 Siu Lek Yuen 697 8 705 116A Siu Lek Yuen Sub-Area I 197 1 198 116B Siu Lek Yuen Sub-Area II 119 1 120 117 Hanford Garden 0 1 1 118 Pristine Villa 65 2 67 119 San Po Kong 338 5 343 122 Sheung Shui 48 1 49 124 Tung Chung 286 1 287 125 Tai Wai 524 3 527 126 Wong Tai Sin 512 2 514 127 Yuen Long (II) 501 12 513 128 Tsuen Wan (II) 366 6 372 130 San Wai Court 302 1 303

- 8 -

131 North Point 94 5 99 132 Cheung Sha Wan (II) 404 7 411 133 Tai Po Plaza 199 2 201 134 Fung Tak Estate 437 3 440 135 Hong Yat Court 169 1 170 136 Royal Peninsula 229 3 232 136A Royal Peninsula Sub-Area 51 1 52 137 Yu Chui Court 252 1 253 138 Oscar By The Sea 203 1 204 139 Prima Villa 162 2 164 140 Tak Tin Estate 548 1 549 141 Chai Wan Sub-Area 216 1 217 143 Yuen Long (III) 234 4 238 144 Yue On Court 209 1 210 145 Park Central (R) 587 2 590 146 Park Central (S) 21 0 21 148 Village Gardens 64 1 65 149 Tsing Yi Estate 53 1 54 150 Sham Wan Towers 192 1 193 151 Happy Valley 133 5 138 152 Beneville 126 2 128 153 Mongkok(II) 57 1 58 201 Leased (III) 185 3 188 201A Leased (III) Midlevels Sub Area 15 1 16 201B Leased (III) Southern Sub Area 29 2 31 202 Leased (IV) 10 0 10 202A Leased (IV) Sub-Area 49 0 49 301 Leased (I) 147 0 147 302 Leased (II) 149 1 150 302A Leased (II) Sub-Area 44 1 45 TOTAL 13,342 221 13,564

1.2.4 Scales of Satisfaction Since the 5-point Likert Scale was used to measure the satisfaction level in this survey, the following scales of satisfaction would be adopted in the survey report. Scores Satisfactory Level 1.00-1.57 Very Unsatisfactory 1.58-2.14 Unsatisfactory 2.15-2.71 Below Average 2.72-3.28 Average 3.29-3.85 Above Average 3.86-4.42 Satisfactory 4.43-5.00 Very Satisfactory

- 9 -

2: Company-level Performance 2.1 Management and Security 2.1.1 Attitude of Estate Management Staff

Occupants OIs Combined 4.77 4.74 4.76

At t itude of Estate Management Staff

0.46%

2.28%

97.26%

0.19%

1.86%

97.95%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.1.2 Attitude, uniform and appearance of security staff in day shift


At t itude, Uniform and Appearance of Security Staff in Day Shift

0.00%

1.35%

98.65%

0.17%

0.66%

99.17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 10 -

2.1.3 Attitude, uniform and appearance of security staff in night shift


At t itude, Uniform and Appearance of Security Staff in Night Shift

0.00%

3.64%

96.36%

0.16%

1.15%

98.69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.1.4 Initiative of Estate Management Staff


Init iat ive of Estate Management Staff

0.45%

5.91%

93.64%

0.40%

2.27%

97.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 11 -

2.1.5 Initiative of Security Staff


Init iat ive of Security Staff

0.90%

4.05%

95.05%

0.21%

1.46%

98.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.1.6 Alertness of Security Staff


Alertness of Security Staff

1.35%

7.21%

91.44%

0.26%

1.97%

97.78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 12 -

2.1.7 Security Patrol


Security P at rol

1.36%

3.18%

95.45%

0.26%

1.95%

97.79%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.1.8 Handling of Complaints


Handling of Complaints

0.92%

4.59%

94.50%

0.46%

2.07%

97.47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 13 -

2.1.9 Handling of Emergency


Handling of Emergency

1.35%

5.86%

92.79%

0.31%

1.92%

97.76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.1.10 Current Channels for Communication


Current Channels for Communciat ion

0.90%

5.41%

93.69%

0.46%

2.79%

96.75%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 14 -

2.1.11 Clarification of Circulars/Notices issued by Estate Management Office


Clarificat ion of Circulars/Not ices Issues by Estate Management Office

0.00%

4.98%

95.02%

0.22%

1.59%

98.19%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

The overall performance on Management and Security Services was very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of Occupants and OIs praised the Attitude of Estate Management Staff, Attitude, Uniform and Appearance of Security Staff in Day and Night Shift, Initiative of Security Staff, Security Patrol and Clarification of Circulars/Notices issued by Estate Management Office. However, some areas of the Management and Security Services need to be further improved. For the Alertness of Security Staff and the Initiative of Estate Management Staff and Handling of Emergency, 1.35% of OIs expressed unsatisfactory. 7.21% and 5.86% of OIs rated it as average respectively. These are the areas which the Company should put more effort to improve.

- 15 -

2.2 Cleanliness 2.2.1 Attitude of Cleaners


At t itude of Cleaners

0.00%

2.71%

97.29%

0.26%

2.41%

97.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.2.2 Entrance Lobby


Ent rance Lobby

0.00%

2.30%

97.70%

0.26%

1.47%

98.27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 16 -

2.2.3 Common Corridor


Common Corridor

0.00%

4.67%

95.33%

0.56%

3.06%

96.38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.2.4 Staircases


Staircases

1.39%

5.56%

93.06%

0.55%

3.38%

96.08%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 17 -

2.2.5 Lift


Lift

0.00%

4.39%

95.61%

0.32%

2.15%

97.53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.2.6 Schedule of Refuse Collection


Schedule of Refuse Collect ion

0.46%

3.67%

95.87%

0.31%

2.87%

96.82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 18 -

2.2.7 Refuse & Junk Removal


Refuse & Junk Removal

0.91%

5.02%

94.06%

0.35%

2.82%

96.83%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

In general, Occupants and OIs were very satisfied with the Cleanliness Services. Compliment was especially given to the Attitude of Cleaners and Cleanliness of Entrance Lobby, since over 97.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied. However, further improvement is needed for the Cleanliness of Staircases and Refuse & Junk Removal because 5.56% and 5.02% of OIs were rated average for these services respectively.

- 19 -

2.3 Repair and Maintenance 2.3.1 Water Supply System


Water Supply System

0.00%

2.70%

97.30%

0.37%

2.20%

97.43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.3.2 Flushing Water Supply System


Flushing Water Supply System

0.45%

5.41%

94.14%

0.63%

3.33%

96.04%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 20 -

2.3.3 Electricity Supply System


Elect ricity Supply System

0.00%

1.80%

98.20%

0.08%

1.11%

98.81%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.3.4 Communal Aerial


Communal Aerial

1.10%

8.79%

90.11%

0.54%

3.31%

96.15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 21 -

2.3.5 Fire-fighting Installation


Fire-fight ing Installat ion

0.46%

3.21%

96.33%

0.13%

1.80%

98.07%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.3.6 Lift/Escalators


Lift /Escalators

0.00%

6.28%

93.72%

0.25%

2.24%

97.51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 22 -

2.3.7 Maintenance Arrangement


Maintenance Arrangement

1.36%

5.88%

92.76%

0.38%

2.79%

96.82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.3.8 Landscape Maintenance


Landscape Maintenance

1.23%

8.02%

90.74%

0.27%

3.00%

96.72%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 23 -

2.3.9 In-door Phone to Security


In-door P hone to Security

0.63%

7.50%

91.88%

0.35%

2.63%

97.01%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

Occupants and OIs considered that the Repair and Maintenance Services were generally very satisfactory. Over 95.00% of Occupants and OIs were satisfied with the Water Supply System, Electricity Supply System and Fire-fighting Installation. However, 8.79% of OIs stated the Communal Aerial as average, and 1.10% of them stated unsatisfied. 8.02% of OIs claimed that the Landscape Maintenance was average, and 1.23% of them were unsatisfied with this area. Furthermore, 1.36% of OIs were not satisfied with the Maintenance Arrangement. The Company is suggested to pay attention to these areas and improve them accordingly.

- 24 -

2.4 Shuttle Bus Service 2.4.1 Attitude of Bus Captain


At t itude of Bus Captain

0.00%

15.00%

85.00%

0.18%

3.04%

96.78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.4.2 Frequency


Frequency

0.00%

9.52%

90.48%

0.54%

4.55%

94.91%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 25 -

2.4.3 On Schedule


On Schedule

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.30%

2.77%

96.93%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.4.4 Cleanliness of Bus Cabinet


Cleanliness of Bus Cabinet

0.00%

4.76%

95.24%

0.42%

3.85%

95.73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

For Shuttle Bus Service, more effort is suggested to be put for further improvement. 3.04% of Occupants and 15.00% of OIs claimed that the Attitude of Bus Captain was average. Besides, the Company should try to improve the Frequency of the Shuttle Bus, since 4.55% of Occupants and 9.52% of OIs rated average.

- 26 -

2.5 Residents’ Club House Services 2.5.1 Attitude and Manners of Club House’s Staff


At t itude and Manners of Club House's Staff

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.03%

1.49%

98.48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.5.2 Recreational/Sport Activities & Interest Group


Recreat ional/Sport Act ivit ies & Interest Group

0.00%

8.82%

91.18%

0.07%

1.95%

97.98%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 27 -

2.5.3 Maintenance of Club House Facilities


Maintenance of Club House Facilit ies

0.00%

2.94%

97.06%

0.21%

2.33%

97.46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.5.4 Food and Beverages


Food and Berverages

0.00%

9.09%

90.91%

0.17%

4.14%

95.69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

For the Residents’ Club House Services, 100.0% of OIs were satisfied with the Attitude and Manners of Club House’s Staff. However, improvement was needed for other areas of the services. 1.95% of Occupants and 8.82% of OIs rated the Recreational/Sport Activities & Interest Group as average. For the Food and Beverages as average, 4.14% of Occupants and 9.09% of OIs rated average.

- 28 -

2.6 Car-park Management 2.6.1 Attitude of Car-park Staff


At itude of Car-P ark Staffs

0.00%

4.42%

95.58%

0.15%

0.98%

98.87%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.6.2 Traffic/Road Sign


T raffic/Road Sign

0.00%

5.98%

94.02%

0.15%

1.57%

98.28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 29 -

2.6.3 Lighting


Light ing

0.00%

5.93%

94.07%

0.21%

1.31%

98.48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.6.4 Control of Entry and Exit


Cont rol of Ent ry and Exit

2.56%

2.56%

94.87%

0.23%

1.28%

98.49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 30 -

2.6.5 Air Quality


Air Quality

1.74%

1.74%

96.52%

0.28%

2.12%

97.61%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

On the whole, the Car-park Management Services provided by the Company were very satisfactory. The Control of Entry and Exit is needed to make improvement, since 2.56% of OIs rated average.

- 31 -

2.7 Swimming Pool Management 2.7.1 Quality of Water


Quality of Water

0.00%

3.17%

96.83%

0.23%

2.74%

97.03%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

2.7.2 Attitude and Manners of Life Guards


At t itude and Manners of Life Guards

1.64%

13.11%

85.25%

0.34%

3.48%

96.18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 32 -

2.7.3 Cleanliness of Changing Room


Cleanliness of Changing Room

1.67%

5.00%

93.33%

0.29%

2.83%

96.88%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

The Swimming Pool Management Services are suggested to make more improvement. 2.74% of Occupants and 3.17% of OIs claimed that the Quality of Water was average. 3.48% of Occupants and 13.11% of the OIs gave average ratings on the Attitude and Manners of Life Guards. For the Cleanliness of Changing Room, 2.83% of Occupants and 5.00% of OIs rated it as average.

- 33 -

2.8 Others 2.8.1 Festival Decoration


Fest ival Decorat ion

0.46%

4.61%

94.93%

0.27%

2.77%

96.96%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

96.96% of Occupants and 94.93% of OIs praised the Festival Decoration.

- 34 -

3: Overall Performance The overall performance of the Company was evaluated through two sets of figures. The first one was the “calculated overall performance score” which was the average score of each question in Part One: “Quality of Current Property Management Services” of the questionnaire. The total sum of all the items in Part One may not be exactly equal to the above calculated overall scores as a result of rounding. The above calculated overall scores were acquired from the whole set of data rather than rounding up each item. The second one was the score in question nine: “Overall Performance on Property Management Services” of Part One of the questionnaire. It was the overall perceived satisfaction level of both the Occupants and OIs towards the Company. 3.1 Calculated Overall Performance Score Calculated Overall Performance

Occupants OIs CombinedOverall satisfaction on the management services provided by the management company

4.73 4.65 4.69

Calculated Overall P erformance Score

3.003.203.403.603.804.004.204.404.604.805.00

Occupants OIs Combined

- 35 -

3.2 Perceived Overall Performance Score Perceived Overall Performance

Occupants OIs CombinedOverall satisfaction on the management services provided by the management company

4.79 4.73 4.76

P erceived Overall Performance

0.00%

1.83%

98.17%

0.22%

1.09%

98.69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

The overall performance of management services provided was very satisfactory, as shown by the combined calculated performance score of 4.69 and perceived overall performance score of 4.76. 98.69% of Occupants and 98.17% of OIs rated the overall performance as satisfactory. It revealed that the Company has done a good job in the year of 2005. The calculated and perceived overall performance scores of Occupants were more or less the same with that of OIs. Besides, it was shown that the difference between the calculated and perceived overall performance scores was small (0.07). This meant that the overall perception of the services provided by the Company matched the actual performance of the Company.

- 36 -

4: Expectation on Value-added Services

4.1 Satisfaction on Existing Value-added Services 4.1.1 Sale of Gifts


Sale of Gift s

0.00%

3.66%

96.34%

0.14%

2.69%

97.17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

4.1.2 Postal Services


P ostal Services

0.00%

1.19%

98.81%

0.10%

1.51%

98.39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 37 -

4.1.3 Newspaper Delivery


Newspaper Delivery

1.16%

3.49%

95.35%

0.11%

2.44%

97.45%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

4.1.4 Laundry


Laundry

0.00%

3.90%

96.10%

0.05%

1.74%

98.21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 38 -

4.1.5 Housekeeping Service Occupants OIs Combined

4.83 4.70 4.76

Housekeeping Service

0.00%

7.55%

92.45%

0.03%

1.95%

98.02%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

4.1.6 Pesticide Treatment


Pest icide T reatment

0.00%

2.30%

97.70%

0.09%

1.69%

98.23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 39 -

4.1.7 Maintenance for Water and Electrical Appliance Occupants OIs Combined

4.86 4.79 4.82

Maintenance for W ater and Elect rical Appliance

0.00%

0.97%

99.03%

0.08%

1.28%

98.64%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

4.1.8 Mini Birthday Party


Mini Birthday Party

1.96%

3.92%

94.12%

0.04%

2.83%

97.13%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 40 -

4.1.9 Organizing Short Tour Occupants OIs Combined

4.80 4.70 4.75

Organizing Short T our

1.12%

4.49%

94.38%

0.19%

2.48%

97.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

4.1.10 External Window Cleaning


External Window Cleaning

1.75%

3.51%

94.74%

0.07%

1.67%

98.26%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

- 41 -

4.1.11 Take-up Services Occupants OIs Combined

4.86 4.81 4.83

T ake-up Services

0.00%

1.85%

98.15%

0.05%

0.98%

98.97%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

On the whole, the existing value-added services were satisfactory. Over 98.00% of Occupants and OIs satisfied with the Postal, Maintenance for Water and Electrical Appliance and Take-up services. On the other hand, 7.55% of OIs rated average in Housekeeping Service. Moreover, OIs were less satisfied than Occupants with the existing value-added services as most of the satisfactory percentages of OIs were smaller than that of the Occupants. The Company is recommended to pay more attention to OIs’ expectation in order to raise their satisfaction level.

- 42 -

4.2 Satisfaction on Areas of Existing Value-added Services 4.2.1 Coverage


Coverage

0.57%

6.82%

92.61%

0.38%

2.59%

97.03%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

4.2.2 Effectiveness in Implementing these Services


Effect iveness in Implement ing these Services

0.57%

6.29%

93.14%

0.27%

2.21%

97.52%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unsat isfactory

Average

Sat isfactory

Occupants

OIs

97.03% of Occupants and 92.61% of OIs were satisfied with the Coverage of existing value-added services. Furthermore, 97.52% of Occupants and 93.14% of OIs were satisfied with the Effectiveness in Implementing these Services. However, 6.82% and 6.29% of OIs rated average for the Coverage and Effectiveness of Implementation respectively. The Company should pay attention to their expectation.

- 43 -

5: Others

In this session, we will investigate the performance of the Company by comparing with other property management companies. 5.1 Other Property Management Companies

Having Used of Facility Management Services Offered by Other P ropertyManagement Companies

Yes29.79%

No70.21%

29.79% of Occupants and OIs have used facility management services offered by other property management companies. 70.21% of Occupants and OIs have not.

- 44 -

Other Property Management Companies

10.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.4%

11.8%

12.9%

14.3%

14.3%

15.3%

17.6%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%

Others

Swire P ropert ies Management Ltd.

MT R Corporat ion Ltd.

Citybase P roperty Management Ltd.

Sino Estates Management Ltd.

Hang Yick P ropert ies Management Ltd.

EastPoint P roperty Management Ltd.

Kai Shing Management Services Ltd.

Urban P roperty Management Ltd.

Synergis Management Services Ltd.

17.6% (n=483) of them have used the facilities management services offered by Synergis Management Services Ltd. 15.3% (n=419) were managed by Urban Property Management Ltd. 14.3% (n=393) were managed by Kai Shing Management Services Ltd. 14.3% (n=392), 12.9% (n=354), 11.8% (n=322), and 8.4% (n=231) of them were managed by EastPoint Property Management Ltd., Hang Yick Properties Management Ltd., Sino Estates Management Ltd., and Citybase Property Management Ltd. respectively. 7.0% (n=191) and 6.0% (n=165) of them were managed by MTR Corporation Ltd. and Swire Properties Management Ltd. respectively. And 10% (n=275) were managed by other property management companies.

- 45 -

5.2 Comparison of Services provided by Hong Yip and other Property Management Companies

Hong Yip P rovided Bet ter Services Compared with Other P roperty Management Companies

97.10% 97.01% 96.68% 97.71% 93.85% 95.97%

2.90% 2.99% 3.32% 2.29% 6.15% 4.03%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Security Cleanliness Repair andmaintenance

At t itude ofestate

managementstaff

Residents'club house

management

Car-parkmanagement

Disagree

Agree

Among the Occupants and OIs who have used facility management services offered by other property management companies, 97.10% of them agreed that the Company provided better Security Services. 97.01% of them agreed that the Company provided better Cleanliness Services, and 96.68% agreed that the Repair and Maintenance Services were better comparing with other property management companies. 97.71% and 93.85% of them agreed that the Attitude of Estate Management Staff and Residents’ Club House Services provided by the Company were better. And 95.97% of them agreed that the Car-park Management Services were better comparing with other property management companies.

- 46 -

The reasons of disagreeing that the Company has provided better services compared with other property management companies were listed in the following tables. Security

Description Occupants OIs

1. No difference compared with other security companies 9 3

2. Strangers can pass through the estate easily 5 -

3. High quality deviation 5 1

4. Each company has their own best 3 -

5. Worse than other companies 2 -

6. MTR security is better 2 1

7. Always no people stay at security counter 2 -

8. Low alertness 2 -

9. Security is weak for entrances other than the main entrance 1 -

10 Not good enough 1 -

11. The performance is not acceptable as a famous company 1 -

12. The lift is not clear 1 -

13. Can do better 1 -

14. No follow up for residents complaints 1 -

15. Security staff is not active enough 1 -

16. Not enough security guards 1 -

17. Security staff is old generally 1 -

18. More security staff 1 -

19. Security quality can only be examined through emergency 1 -

20. Always change the training base for security staff 1 -

For Security, the reason mentioned most frequently by the Occupants (n=9) was that the quality of service provided was the same as compared with other companies.

- 47 -

Cleanliness




3. High quality deviation 3 1

4. Not enough cleaning staff 2 -

5. Cannot compare 1 1


7. Not enough cleaning for the lift 1 -

8. Better than other companies 1 -

9. Worse than new housing estate 1 -


11. MTR cleaning is better 1 -

12. Acceptable 1 -

13. Have rats 1 -

14. Not enough cleaning for corridor 1 -

15. Not enough cleaning for children garden 1 -

16. Very poor 1 -

17. Rubblish collection should be more often 1 -

18. Not enough cleaning work 1 -

19. Cleaning staff is very nice 1 -

20. Still need improvement 1 -

21. Corridors should be cleaned more frequently. 1 -

22. Stairs should be cleaned more frequently. 1 -

23. Cleaning for rubblish collection area is good 1 -

24. Not enough rubblish bin inside the buildings 1 -

25. Not enough cleaning for stairs 1 -

26. Cannot meet expectation - 1

27. Not enough cleaning for the stairs - 1

For Cleanliness, the main reason for the Occupants (n=9) of disagreeing that the Company provided better service was that the quality of service provided was no difference compared with other companies.

- 48 -

Repair and Maintenance



2. No immediate maintenance work 7 1

3. Not profressional enough 3 -

4. Some buildings are older 3 -

5. High quality deviation 3 -


7. MTR maintenance service is better 2 -

8. Always deny responsibility 2 -

9. Cannot compare 1 2

10 The performance is not acceptable as a famous company 1 -

11. Lack of maintenance of the whole building 1 -

12. Poor maintenance for the pipe 1 -


14. Acceptable 1 -

15. Not enough maintenance for air-conditioner 1 -

16. Lighting of corridors should be improved 1 -

17. No obvious improvement 1 -

18. Not enough light in corridor 1 -

19. The staff is not active enough 1 -

20. No inspection and record 1 -

21. Can act on time 1 -

22. Provide free and fast service 1 -

23. Discovered water leaking 1 -

24. Supply of drinking water is frequently cut 1 -

25. There should be more patrols inside buildings 1 -

26. No periodic maintenance service - 1

For Repair and Maintenance, the main reason was the quality of service provided was the same as compared with other companies. It was suggested by 12 Occupants.

- 49 -

Attitude of Estate Management Staff


1. Quality is deviated 7 -


3. The staff is not active enough 3 2

4. Staff is not polite 2 -


6. Acceptable, but still can improve 1 -


8. Improve in many espects 1 -

9. Improve management efficiency 1 -

10 Management lacks transparency 1 -

11. MTR management staff is better 1 -

12. Need improvement 1 -

13. Personal feeling 1 -

14. Staff at night is not good enough 1 -

15. Staff doesn't smile 1 -

16. The attitude of gurads should be improved 1 -


18. The staff is not attentive 1 -

19. The staff is not enthusiastic 1 -

20. The staff is polite 1 -

21. The staff should not smoke 1 -

For Attitude of Estate Management Staff, the reason mentioned the most frequently by Occupants (n=7) was that the quality is deviated.

- 50 -

Residents’ Club House

Description Occupants OIs 1. No club house 51 -

2. Cannot compare 3 -


4. Club house has enough facilities 2 -



7. Club house environment is good 1 -

8. Club house is small 1 -

9. Club house lacks facilities 1 -

10. Club house staff doesn't smile 1 -


12. Just have swimming pool and playground 1 -

13. MTR club house is better 1 -

14. Never use club house 1 -

15 Never use the club house 1 -


For Residents’ Club House, the main reason was that there was no club house, as indicated by 51 Occupants.

- 51 -

Car-park Management

Description Occupants OIs 1. Never use car park 5 -

2. No car park 4 -


4. Cannot compare 2 -

5. Cars are always parked violating the rules 2 -



8. Being prosecuted 1 -

9. Car park is clear enough 1 -

10. Car park is subcontracted out. 1 -

11. Don't know 1 -


13. MTR management is better 1 -

14. Need improvement 1 -

15. Staff's attitude is not good enough 1 -


17. Too much space in the car park 1 -


19. Always have cars other than residents' - 1

20. Always have robbery and car damage - 1

For Car-park Management, as indicated by 5 Occupants, there is no car-park or have not used this facility.

Documents

Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2005 Management ...Hong Yip Service Company Limited 2005 Management Service Opinion Survey Summary Report March 2006 CityU Professional Services Limited