INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2019 Q4 RESULTS
Finance & Insurance and Healthcare
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG Methodology
How Much Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?
!4
Customer Satisfaction
CSISG (Scale of 0-100)
1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations
3. Similarity to Ideal
The CSISG Score
!5
Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal
Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance
Qn. Complaint Behaviour
Customer Expectations
(Expected Quality Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Overall Quality
Perceived Value
Customer Satisfaction
(CSISG)
Customer Complaints
Customer Loyalty
Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price
Qn. Predicted Overall Quality Qn. Predicted Customisation Qn. Predicted Reliability
Qn. Perceived Overall Quality Qn. Perceived Customisation Qn. Perceived Reliability
→ Denotes positive relationship between the drivers → Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers
General CSISG Structural Model
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.
Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport.
(Applicable to Private Hospitals Sub-sector only)
Typically 100-200 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
General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology
!7
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
Overview of Score Calculation
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2019 Key Facts
Calendar year 1st quarter Info-Communications Retail
2nd quarter Air Transport Land Transport
3rd quarter F&B Tourism
4th quarter Finance & Insurance Healthcare
Sectors Measured in the CSISG
!9
Total Questionnaires Completed 29,670
Locals 21,925
Tourists 7,745
Distinct entities measured 671
Entities with published scores 173
CSISG 2019 Full Year Quick Facts
!10
Sectors Covered Finance & Insurance Healthcare
Survey Period Oct 2019 to Jan 2020
Total Questionnaires Completed 9,570
Locals 9,190
Tourists 380
Distinct entities measured 82
Entities with published scores 49
CSISG 2019 Q4 Quick Facts
!11
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2019 RESULTS
!13
QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/
brands (Past 3/6/12 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates
satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors
76.9 Food & Beverage
78.3 Restaurants*82.3 Sakae Sushi*82.0 Tung Lok Signatures*79.5 Crystal Jade la Mian XiaoLong Bao78.5 Sushi Tei78.4 Seoul Garden78.3 Swensen’s78.1 Ajisen Ramen77.9 Jack’s Place77.2 Astons77.0 Crystal Jade Kitchen77.0 Nando’s76.7 Thai Express76.7 Manhattan Fish Market76.6 Soup Restaurant 76.6 Pizza Hut76.4 Din Tai Fung76.0 Boon Tong Kee75.7 Dian Xiao Er75.1 Fish & Co 80.2 Other restaurants
75.9 Snack Bars & Food Kiosks74.7 Old Chang Kee73.7 Jollibean76.3 Other snack bars & food kiosks
74.8 Cafes & Coffee Houses76.4 Starbucks73.1 Toast Box72.7 Ya Kun75.1 Other cafes & coffee houses
2019 National Score
74.3How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?
1
76.1 Air Transport 79.0 Airport* 79.0 Changi Airport 75.3 Full Service Airlines 78.8 Singapore Airlines*77.3 Garuda Indonesia*76.4 Emirates75.3 Cathay Pacific74.8 Qantas74.0 SilkAir72.6 Other full service airlines
72.4 Budget Airlines73.2 AirAsia73.1 Jetstar Asia72.3 Scoot70.3 Lion Air71.0 Other budget airlines
75.8 Tourism
75.9 HotelsLuxury & Upscale Hotels77.5 Marina Bay Sands77.1 The Ritz-Carlton76.8 Grand Hyatt76.7 Shangri-La75.5 Pan Pacific Singapore74.9 Hotel Michael74.0 Marina Mandarin73.7 Mandarin OrchardEconomy Hotels71.7 Fragrance Hotel71.3 Hotel 81
76.5 Other hotels
75.1 Attractions76.5 Sentosa75.7 Singapore Zoo75.4 Gardens By The Bay74.9 S.E.A. Aquarium74.9 Jurong Bird Park74.8 Singapore Flyer74.7 River Safari74.5 Universal Studios73.9 Night Safari73.7 Adventure Cove72.0 Singapore Discovery Centre73.2 Other attractions
74.6 Fast Food Restaurants76.2 McDonald’s75.0 Burger King74.1 Mos Burger73.7 Subway73.6 KFC72.3 Other fast food restaurants
74.6 Finance & Insurance
75.3 Banks*75.7 Citibank 75.6 DBS75.1 OCBC74.3 UOB74.2 HSBC74.0 Maybank73.6 Standard Chartered72.5 Other banks
74.0 Life Insurance76.2 Great Eastern*74.4 AIA74.1 NTUC Income73.9 Prudential71.7 Aviva71.5 Other life insurers
73.2 Motor & Other Personal Insurance74.6 AIG74.0 AXA74.0 NTUC Income72.3 Other motor & personal insurers
73.0 Health and Medical Insurance74.5 Prudential73.3 Great Eastern73.2 AIA72.4 NTUC Income72.2 Other health & medical insurers
72.7 Credit Cards73.5 Citibank73.4 DBS73.2 American Express72.9 Maybank72.8 HSBC72.7 UOB72.1 OCBC71.4 Other credit cards
!14
QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/
brands (Past 3/6/12 months) (2) Each respondent evaluates
satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors 2019 National Score
74.3How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers?
All scores displayed are accurate to one-decimal place. Entities are presented in decreasing levels of satisfaction.
* Companies indicated with an asterisk(*) are companies that have performed significantly above their sub-sector average.
* Sub-sectors indicated with an asterisk(*) are sub-sectors that have performed significantly above their sector average.
The sparklines indicate the satisfaction score of their respective sectors, sub-sectors and companies over the past few years.
statistically significant increase in customer satisfaction from 2018 to 2019
statistically significant decrease in customer satisfaction from 2018 to 2019
no significant year-on-year change in customer satisfaction score
This scorecard summarises the results of the CSISG 2019 satisfaction scores at the national, sector, sub-sector and company levels.
CSISG scores are generated based on the econometric modelling of survey data collected from end-users after the consumption of products and services. Company scores (in black) are weighted based on a separate incidence study. This incidence study helps determine each company’s sample profile and the local-tourist weights. Sub-sector scores (in blue) are derived as a weighted average of company scores, in proportion to the local and tourist incidence interactions with the constituent companies. Sector scores (in gold) are derived by aggregating the sub-sector scores proportionately to each sub-sector’s revenue contributions.
Finally, the national index of 74.3 represents a weighted average, by each sector’s contribution to GDP, of the 8 sector scores.
2
73.4 Retail
73.6 Supermarkets 74.2 NTUC Fairprice 73.7 Sheng Siong 73.5 Cold Storage 72.9 Giant 71.9 Other supermarkets
73.4 Fashion Apparels 74.1 Giordano 74.0 Zara 73.7 G2000 73.4 H&M 73.4 Esprit 72.6 Cotton On 72.3 Hang Ten 72.1 Adidas 72.0 Bossini 71.5 Uniqlo 74.1 Other fashion apparels
73.0 e-Commerce 74.7 Zalora 74.2 Fave 73.8 Ebay 73.3 Qoo10 73.1 Taobao/Tmall 72.6 Carousell 72.0 Amazon 71.1 Other e-Commerce
73.0 Department Stores 74.5 DFS 73.9 Metro 73.9 Robinsons 73.4 Takashimaya 73.3 Tangs 73.1 BHG 72.7 Isetan 70.9 OG 71.6 Other department stores
72.7 Healthcare 75.2 Private Hospitals*75.7 Mount Elizabeth Orchard75.6 Gleneagles75.5 Raffles Hospital75.4 Parkway East75.4 Mount Alvernia74.8 Mount Elizabeth Novena74.2 Thomson Medical
72.3 Polyclinics72.6 National Healthcare Group72.3 SingHealth71.7 National University
71.7 Restructured Hospitals73.1 KK Women’s & Children’s72.5 Changi General71.9 Sengkang General71.8 National University71.7 Ng Teng Fong71.7 Khoo Teck Puat71.6 Tan Tock Seng69.9 Singapore General
73.2 Wireless@SG
72.7 Mobile Telecom 75.2 Singtel* 71.9 StarHub 69.7 M1
70.6 Broadband 70.9 StarHub 70.9 M1 70.2 Singtel
70.2 PayTV 70.7 StarHub 69.7 Singtel
72.1 Info-Communications 68.0 Land Transport 73.3 Taxi Services* 75.6 Transcab*74.3 Premier72.9 ComfortDelGro72.9 SMRT71.0 Prime
68.3 Transport Booking Apps 69.1 ComfortDelGro68.2 Gojek 68.1 Grab 66.7 Public Buses 68.2 SMRT67.0 SBS Transit64.3 Other bus operators 64.9 Mass Rapid Transit System 65.0 SMRT64.7 SBS Transit
Finance & Insurance Sector
• Banks
• Credit Cards
• Life Insurance
• Health & Medical Insurance
• Motor & Other Personal Insurance
Healthcare Sector
• Restructured Hospitals
• Private Hospitals
• Polyclinics
CSISG 2019 Q4 Sub-sectors
!15
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Finance & Insurance Sector Results
60
70
80
2007 2019
Banks
70
78Finance & Insurance Sector
60
70
80
2007 2019
Credit Cards
60
70
80
2007 2019
Life Insurance
60
70
80
2007 2019
Motor and Other Personal Insurance
60
70
80
2007 2019
Health and Medical Insurance
◼◼
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Finance & Insurance Sector CSISG Trends
◼
◼
!17
◼
!18
Drivers & Outcome Of Satisfaction (Finance & Insurance Sector)
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Customer Expectations
(Predicted Quality Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value CSISG
Banks 74.7 ▲ 77.3 77.8 75.3
Credit Cards 72.6 75.6 75.9 72.7
Life Insurance 75.9 ▲ 76.3 77.1 74.0
Health & Medical Insurance 74.5 76.5 76.5 73.0
Motor & Other Personal Insurance 74.3 76.1 76.1 73.2
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value CSISG
Complaints
Customer Loyalty
68
74
80
2015 2019
Customer ExpectationPerceived Quality
Banks
68
74
80
2015 2019
Credit Cards
68
74
80
2015 2019
Life Insurance
68
74
80
2015 2019
Motor and Other Personal Insurance
68
74
80
2015 2019
Health and Medical Insurance
!19
Customer Expectations Rising With Perceived Quality (Finance & Insurance: Expectations-Quality Gap 5-Year Trend)
68
74
80
2015 2019
Customer ExpectationPerceived Quality
Banks
68
74
80
2015 2019
Credit Cards
68
74
80
2015 2019
Life Insurance
68
74
80
2015 2019
Motor and Other Personal Insurance
68
74
80
2015 2019
Health and Medical Insurance
!20
Expectations Catching Up With Perceived Quality (Finance & Insurance: Expectations-Quality Gap 5-Year Trend)
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Finance Sector Results & Findings
DBS/POSB 75.1
UOB 72.6
OCBC 74.5
Citibank 75.3
HSBC 73.8 Standard Chartered 73.2
Maybank 73.5
Other banks 71.3
75.6 DBS/POSB
74.3 UOB
75.1 OCBC
75.7 Citibank
74.2 HSBC
73.6 Standard Chartered 74.0 Maybank
72.5 Other banks
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
60
70
80Marginal Upticks Across Most Banks Banks (Main CASA Account holders)
Finance & Insurance Sector2007 2019
Banks 75.3
Note: Respondents must have a CASA account and have interacted with the bank in the last 3 months
Examples of Other Banks Include Bank Of China, CIMB, RHB
!22
Movements in Various Measured Attributes (Banks)
Gives you individual attention
Has products and services available when you want it
Performs services right the very first time
Range of products meet your needs
Feels comfortable and safe
Products appeal to you
Has a good reputation
Proactively helps you when neededProducts and services are presented in a way
that is clear and easy to understandBrand image complements your personality
Is innovative and forward-looking
Provides prompt service
Has your best interest at heart
Fulfills its promise at the promised time
Feels assured that things will be taken care of
Attribute Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.5 7.9 8.4
2019 Avg Rating
!23
▲
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
▲▲
▲
▲
▼▼▼▼▼
Descending Order Of
Attributes Ratings
Empathy Attributes Top Drivers of Satisfaction (Banks: Drivers of Satisfaction)
Has your best interest at heart
Provides prompt service
Gives you individual attention
Products appeal to you
Feels comfortable and safe
Range of products meet your needs
Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand
Has products and services available when you want it
Is innovating and forward-looking
Fulfills its promise at the promised time
Proactively helps you when needed
Brand image complements your personality
Has a good reputation
Feeling assured that things will be taken care of
Performs services right the very first time
Attribute Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.7 8.4
2019 Avg Rating
!24
Significant Positive Impact
on CSISG
Limited Positive
Impact on CSISG
▼▼
▲
▲
Empathy
Assurance
Product
Responsiveness
Empathy
Assurance
Product
▲
▲
▲
▲
▼▼
▼
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Digital Users (Bank Touch-Points)
!26
Inte
ract
ed W
ith
Cha
nnel
(%
)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
ATM or Self-Service Machine
Branch Mobile App Internet Banking Contact Centre Personal Banker
201720182019
Increase In Interaction With Various Channels (Banks: Channel Interactions)
!27
Digital Channel Users Continue to Rise (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users)
% o
f B
ank
Res
pond
ents
20%
55%
90%
2017 2018 2019
72.1%69.4%67.3%
27.9%30.6%32.7%
Did Not Use Internet Banking/Mobile AppUsed Internet Banking/Mobile App
!28
Digital Channel Usage Rising Among the Younger Customers (Banks: Digital Users vs. Non-Digital Users)
% o
f B
ank
Res
pond
ents
20%
55%
90%
2017 2018 2019
72.1%69.4%67.3%
27.9%30.6%32.7%
Did Not Use Internet Banking/Mobile AppUsed Internet Banking/Mobile App
▲▼ indicates statistically significant year-on-year INCREASE/DROP in proportion at 90% confidence
% U
sed
Inte
rnet
B
anki
ng /
Mob
ile
App
by
Age
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
18 to 34 Years 35 to 59 Years 60 Years & Above
▲
▲ ▲
2017 2018 2019
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Digital Banks
!30
New Digital Bank License Applicants
Source: https://blog.seedly.sg/singapore-digital-bank-licenses/
*Above information was valid at the point of publication (8 Jan 2020)
License
Question on New Digital Banks: “The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) recently announced that it will issue new digital bank licenses which will operate entirely online without any physical bank branches.”
“Now, which of the following products would you be willing to apply for through a digital bank? ” (MA)
!31
Almost Half of Current Banking Customers Willing to Try Using the New Digital Banks (Banks: Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)
% B
ank
Res
pond
ents
0%
50%
100%
Not Willing To Apply Willing To Apply
43.3%
56.7%
Online Banking Usage
Used Internet/ Mobile Banking 48.5% 51.5%Did Not Use Internet/ Mobile
Banking 77.9% 22.1%
Age
18 to 34 Years 44.1% 55.9%35 to 59 Years 56.6% 43.4%
60 Years & Above 82.9% 17.1%
Personal Income
Under SGD 3K 53.2% 46.8%SGD 3K - Under SGD 6K 46.6% 53.4%
SGD 6K - Under SGD 10K 45.2% 54.8%SGD 10K or over 65.1% 34.9%
!32
% B
ank
Res
pond
ents
0%
50%
100%
Not Willing To Apply Willing To Apply
43.3%56.7%
% Within Each Demographic Sub-Group (Row Percentage)
Potential Profile of Customer of New Digital Banks: Users of Online Banking, Young, Income 3K to 10K (Banks: Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)
!33
% R
espo
nden
ts
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
ATM or Self- Service Machine
Branch Internet Banking Mobile App Contact Centre Personal Banker
11.7%
43.8%
62.2%62.9%65.6%
95.7%
15.0%
32.3%
44.8%43.9%
59.5%
92.6% Not Willing To Apply Willing To Apply
Potential Customers of New Digital Banks Tend to Interact More With their Banks Especially Through Online Channels (Banks: Channels Used by Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)
Online Banking Usage
Used Internet/ Mobile Banking 71.9 73.2
Did Not Use Internet/ Mobile Banking 69.4 73.9
Age18 to 34 Years 71.6 72.435 to 59 Years 71.6 74.1
60 Years & Above 68.7 72.6
Personal Income
Under SGD 3K 68.4 72.5SGD 3K - Under SGD 6K 70.4 73.5
SGD 6K - Under SGD 10K 70.9 74.0
SGD 10K or over 74.5 71.0
!34
Loyalty Score (0 to 100)
Not Willing70.9
Willing73.3
Willingness To Apply Products Through New
Digital Bank
GREEN/RED indicates that the proportion of Willing To Apply segment is HIGHER/LOWER than the proportion of those Not Willing To Apply with statistical significance.
More Loyal Banking Customers Also Tend to Be Those Willing to Try Out New Digital Banks (Banks: Loyalty Scores by Willingness To Apply Products Through the New Digital Banks)
!35
Credit Cards
Loans
Insurance
Current or Savings Account
Investment
% Bank Respondents Who Are Willing To Apply For Products Through Digital Bank
0% 50% 100%
14.5%
18.5%
18.7%
48.2%
99.7%
Credit Cards & Loans Top Products Potential Customers Willing to Try Applying Through the New Digital Banks (Banks: Products Customer Willing to Apply Through the New Digital Banks)
Reliability Issues Key to Retaining Banking Customers Willing to Try New Digital Banks (Banks: Top Differentiators of Loyalty Among Those Who Are Willing to Apply Products Through New Digital Bank)
Products and services are presented in a way that is
clear and easy to understand
Has products and services available when you want it
Performs services right the first time
Has a good reputation
Attribute Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
6.5 7.5 8.5
7.93
8.21
8.25
8.04
Overall Banks 2019 Avg Rating
Significant Positive Impact
on Loyalty Score
!36
Base: Willing To Apply Products Through New Digital Bank
!37
Familiarity With Branches & Security Key Reasons for Unwillingness to Try New Digital Banks (Banks: Reasons For Unwillingness To Apply Products Through New Digital Bank)
% R
espo
nden
ts
0%
25%
50%
Used to visiting the branches
Feel that online transaction is not secure or is risky
Do not know how to use
Prefer human interaction
Digital bank is not sustainable
0.0%
5.0%
35.0%
28.2%
31.8%
0.2%
18.4%
7.5%
35.0%
39.3%
Used Internet/Mobile BankingDid not Use Internet/Mobile Banking
DBS/POSB Credit Cards 72.7
UOB Credit Cards 72.1
OCBC Credit Cards 71.4
Citibank Credit Cards 73.1
HSBC Credit Cards 71.6
Maybank Credit Cards 72.3
American Express Credit Cards 72.9
Other Credit Cards 70.1
73.4 DBS/POSB Credit Cards
72.7 UOB Credit Cards 72.1 OCBC Credit Cards
73.5 Citibank Credit Cards
72.8 HSBC Credit Cards 72.9 Maybank Credit Cards 73.2 American Express Credit Cards
71.4 Other Credit Cards
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
60
70
80
Marginal Movements Across Cards Credit Card (Most Recently Used Card)
Finance & Insurance Sector
!38
2007 2019
Credit Cards
72.7
Examples of Other Credit Cards Include Standard Chartered, CIMB, Bank Of China
Note: Respondents must be the principal cardholder and have most recently used it in the last 3 months
Credit Cards: Impact on CSISGFlexibility of policies such as waiver of charges
Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs
Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information
Card benefits such as cashbacks,reward points, privileges
Is innovative and forward-looking
Has a good reputation
Ease of reward redemption
Card benefits are presented in a waythat is clear and easy to understand
Feels comfortable and safe when using the card
Brand image complements your personality
Attribute Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.5 8.0
2019 Avg Rating
!39
Significant Positive Impact
on CSISG
Limited Positive
Impact on CSISG
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
▼
▼
▲
Product
Service
Branding
Product
Product
Branding
Service
Verbatim on Top 2 Drivers for Credit CardsFlexibility of policies such as waiver of charges
Merchant tie-ups that meet your needs
Ease of accessing card balance and transaction information
Card benefits such as cashbacks,reward points, privileges
Is innovative and forward-looking
Has a good reputation
Ease of reward redemption
Card benefits are presented in a waythat is clear and easy to understand
Feels comfortable and safe when using the card
Brand image complements your personality
Attribute Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.5 8.0
2019 Avg Rating
!40
Significant Positive Impact
on CSISG
Limited Positive
Impact on CSISG
▼
▼
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
Nothing fantastic with limited benefit, not flexible with annual fee waiver
They are not flexible with the annual fee waiver even I spend quite a lot using this card
Difficult to get fee waiver
I can earn cashback when I spend with this card. Fee waiver should be more flexible for this card
They are not flexible with the annual fee waiver. They can at least give discount or giving gifts for
the annual renewal
Annual fees can be cheaper, if not have more merchants with more benefits
Not a lot of places in Singapore can enjoy merchant discounts, need to have more outlets
participating
Very easy to earn cashback. Have more tie ups with merchant.
The dining privileges are attractive, able to dine and enjoy saving too. They can tied up with more merchants so that we can enjoy more privileges
Very easy to earn cashback. Have more tie ups with merchant
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Insurance Sector Results & Findings
Prudential 72.8
AIA 73.8
Great Eastern 75.0
NTUC Income 73.3
Aviva 70.8 Other life insurers 70.8
73.9 Prudential
74.4 AIA
76.2 Great Eastern
74.1 NTUC Income
71.7 Aviva 71.5 Other life insurers
CSISG
2018
CSISG
2019
60
70
80
Marginal Upticks Across Life Insurers Life Insurance
Finance & Insurance Sector
!42
2007 2019
Life Insurance
74.0◼
Examples of Other Life Insurance includes Manulife, AXA, Tokio Marine
Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer’s touch-points in the past 12 months
AIA 72.7
Great Eastern 72.1
NTUC Income 71.6
Prudential 73.0
Other health & medical insurers 71.8
73.2 AIA 73.3 Great Eastern
72.4 NTUC Income
74.5 Prudential
72.2 Other health & medical insurers
CSISG
2018
CSISG
2019
Marginal Movements Among Measured Entities Health & Medical Insurance
Finance & Insurance Sector
!43
2007 201960
70
80 Health & Medical Insurance
Examples of Other Health & Medical Insurance includes Aviva, Manulife, AXA
73.0
Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer’s touch-points in the past 12 months
AIG 73.5 NTUC Income 73.3
AXA 73.5
Other motor & personal insurers 71.7
74.6 AIG
74.0 NTUC Income 74.0 AXA
72.3 Other motor & personal insurers
CSISG
2018
CSISG
2019
60
70
80
Marginal Upticks & Undifferentiated Scores Motor & Other Personal Insurance
Finance & Insurance Sector
!44
2007 2019
Motor & Other Personal Insurance
73.2◼
Examples of Other Motor & Personal Insurance Includes MSIG, Direct Asia, Tokio Marine
Note: Respondents must have bought or interacted with at least one of the insurer’s touch-points in the past 12 months
Movement in Insurance Attributes Ratings
Performs services right the very first time
Range of products meet your needs
Products appeal to you
Has products and services available when you want itFeels assured that things
will be taken care of
Has your best interest at heart
Has a good reputation
Fulfills its promise at the promised time
Proactively helps you when needed
Feels comfortable and safe
Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand
Brand image complements your personality
Gives you individual attention
Provides prompt service
Is innovative and forward-looking
7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2
2019 Avg Rating
!45
▲
▼▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year
IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2
2019 Avg Rating
Life Insurance Health & Medical Insurance
▼
▲
▼
7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2
2019 Avg Rating
Motor & Other Personal Insurance
▲
▲
▲
▲
Products and services are presented in a way that is clear and easy to understand
Brand image complements your personality
Gives you individual attention
Provides prompt service
Is innovative and forward-looking
Is innovative and forward-looking
Products appeal to you
Fulfills its promise at the promised time
Has products and services available when you want it
Performs services right the very first time
Fulfills its promise at the promised time
Proactively helps you when needed
Has a good reputation
Feels comfortable and safe
Feels assured that things will be taken care of
Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.4 7.8 8.2
7.77
7.85
7.87
7.87
7.87
7.72
7.76
7.78
7.79
7.83
7.52
7.74
7.75
7.78
7.80
Insurance: Lowest Rated Five Attributes
!46
Life Insurance
Health & Medical Insurance
Motor & Other Personal Insurance
▼
▼
▼
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
Significant Impact On CSISG
Significant Impact On CSISG
Significant Impact On CSISG
Significant Impact On CSISG
Significant Impact On CSISG
Significant Impact On CSISG
Products A Greater Differentiator of Satisfaction in 2019 (Insurance: Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG)
Life Insurance Health & Medical Insurance
Motor & Other Personal Insurance
2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018
Products appeal to you
Gives you individual attention
Fulfills its promise at the promised time
Has your best interest at heart
Feels assured that things will be taken care of
Performs services right the very first
time
Is innovative & forward-looking
Has your best interest at heart
Has your best interest at heart
Feels assured that things will be taken care of
Performs services right the very first
time
Gives you individual attention
Range of products meet your needs
Proactively helps you when needed
Gives you individual attention
Provides prompt service
Range of products meet your needs
Feels comfortable and safe
Proactively helps you when needed
Feels comfortable and safe
Performs services right the very first
time
Performs services right the very first
time
Products appeal to you
Brand image complements
your personality
Provides prompt service
Products appeal to you
Feels comfortable and safe
Range of products meet your needs
Has your best interest at heart
!47Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact
Legend: Product
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Digital Behaviour (Insurance)
Increasing Website Usage for Motor & Personal Insurance (Insurance: Used A Website in the Last 3 months)
% o
f R
espo
nden
ts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
70.1%69.1%63.2%
28.8%29.2%28.0%28.1%26.0%26.4%
!49
Life
Proportion of Motor & Other Personal Insurance respondents who have used Website in 2019 & 2018 is significantly higher than in 2017.
Health & MedicalMotor & Other
Personal
!50
Customers of Motor & Other Personal Insurance More Likely to Purchase Polices Online (Insurance: Likelihood To Purchase Policies Online)
% I
nsur
ance
Res
pond
ents
0%
50%
100%
Life Insurance Respondents
Health & Medical Respondents
Motor & Other Personal Respondents
84.5%
28.0%
43.7%
15.5%
72.0%
56.3%
Not Likely To Purchase Likely To Purchase
!51
Life and Health & Medical Insurance Remains More Likely Bought Through Non-Digital Channels (Insurance: Type of Insurance Likely to Be Purchased Online)
Motor
Travel
Health
Life
0% 50% 100%
19.3%
23.1%
51.1%
59.6%
% Respondents
0% 50% 100%
5.2%
15.0%
36.5%
89.6%
0% 50% 100%
7.2%
10.7%
31.1%
97.1%
Type of Insurance Most Likely To Purchase Online
% I
nsur
ance
R
espo
nden
ts0%
50%
100%
Life Insurance Respondents
Health & Medical Respondents
Motor & Other Personal Respondents
84.5%
28.0%43.7%
Likely To Purchase
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Healthcare Sector Results & Findings
60
68
76
2007 2019
Private Hospitals
70
78
Healthcare Sector
60
68
76
2007 2019
Restructured Hospitals
60
68
76
2007 2019
Polyclinics
Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months
◼
Healthcare Sector CSISG
◼
◼
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
!53
QH: checked
!54
CSISG Performance 2019 (Healthcare Sector)
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality
Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value CSISG
Restructured Hospitals 72.9 74.4 74.7 71.7
Private Hospitals 76.1 ▲ 76.9 77.3 75.2
Polyclinics 73.5 74.8 74.4 72.3
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value CSISG
Complaints
Customer Loyalty
SGH 69.3
KKH 71.8 CGH 71.8
TTSH 70.8
NUH 71.0
KTPH 71.4 NTFH 71.2
AH 70.7
69.9 SGH
73.1 KKH
72.5 CGH
71.6 TTSH
71.8 NUH
71.7 KTPH 71.7 NTFH
71.9 SKH
CSISG
2018
CSISG
2019
Marginal Upticks in Scores Restructured Hospitals
!55
2007 201960
69
78Restructured Hospitals
70
78
Healthcare Sector
Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months Sengkang Hospital is a newly measured entity in 2019. National University Health System (NUHS) took over the operations of Alexandra Hospital from 1 June 2018. Thus, there will be no year-on-year trending data.
71.7◼
Raffles Hospital 75.1 Mount Alvernia Hospital 75.0
Thomson Medical Centre 73.7
Mount Elizabeth Orchard 74.5 Parkway East Hospital 74.7
Gleneagles Hospital 74.3
Mount Elizabeth Novena 73.9
75.5 Raffles Hospital 75.4 Mount Alvernia Hospital
74.2 Thomson Medical Centre
75.7 Mount Elizabeth Orchard
75.4 Parkway East Hospital
75.6 Gleneagles Hospital
74.8 Mount Elizabeth Novena
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
Healthcare Sector
!56
2007 201960
69
78 Private HospitalsMarginal Upticks in Scores Private Hospitals
75.2◼
Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months
NHG 71.7
SingHealth 70.7
NUP 71.3
72.6 NHG 72.3 SingHealth
71.7 NUP
CSISG2018
CSISG2019
Marginal Upticks in Scores Polyclinics
Healthcare Sector
!57
2007 201958
68
78Polyclinics
72.3◼
Note: Respondents must have sought medical consultation at the institution in the last 6 months
!58
More Government Initiatives for Healthcare
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/revised-healthcare-subsidy-criteria-will-benefit-more-than-365000-people-from
Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-budget-2019-61-billion-for-merdeka-generation-package-includes-medisave-top-ups
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Patient Journey
Sat
isfa
ctio
n R
atin
g (1
to
10
)
5.6
6.5
7.4
8.3
PolyclinicRestructured HospitalPrivate Hospital
Healthcare Patient Journey
!60
Waiting
time
(befo
re med
ical t
est /
cons
ultati
on)
Ease
of m
aking
appo
intmen
t
Effic
iency
of re
gistra
tion pr
oces
s
Waiting
expe
rienc
e
(such
as que
ue noti
ficati
on, s
eats
and en
tertai
nmen
t)
Clari
ty of
direc
tion sig
ns
Ease
of ge
tting
arou
nd
Amen
ities
with
in po
lyclin
ic
Clea
nline
ss of
poly
clinic
Expla
natio
n of
diagn
osis
/ con
dition
Colle
ction
of m
edica
tion
Clari
ty of
medica
tion ins
tructi
ons
Paym
ent p
roces
s
Ease of making appointment
Registration process
Waiting time (before undergoing medical test or seeing a doctor)
Waiting experience (such as queue notification, seats and entertainment)
Clarity of direction signs
Ease of getting around
Amenities within hospital
Cleanliness of hospital
Explanation of diagnosis / condition
Treatment administered or suggested
Collection of medication
Clarity of medication instructions
Payment process
5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5
Subsidised PatientPrivate Patient
Patient Journey for Restructured Hospitals (Private vs Subsidised Patients)
!61
Statistically Significant Differences
!62
Waiting Time Remains An Issue In Healthcare (Healthcare Sector: 3 Lowest Rated Attributes)
Restructured Hospital
5.0 6.5 8.0
Private Hospital
Registration process
Waiting experience
Waiting time
Payment process
Registration process
Waiting time
5.0 6.5 8.0
Polyclinics
5.0 6.5 8.0
Payment process
Collection of medicine
Waiting time
▼
▼ ▼▼
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
Restructured Hospital Private Hospital Polyclinics
CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty CSISG Loyalty
Clarity of medication instructions
Waiting experience
Waiting time Waiting time Waiting experience
Waiting experience
Collection of medicine
Registration process
Clarity of medication instructions
Registration process
Collection of medication
Efficiency of registration
process
Waiting time Payment process
Payment process
Waiting experience
Explanation of diagnosis / condition
Treatment administered or
suggestedWaiting time Cleanliness of
hospitalPayment process
Cleanliness of polyclinic
Explanation of diagnosis / condition
Treatment administered or
suggested
Ease of making appointment
Efficiency of registration
process
!63
Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on CSISG & Loyalty)
Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact
Specialist Outpatient Clinics Hospitalisation A&E
Restructured Hospital
Private Hospital
Restructured Hospital
Private Hospital
Restructured Hospital
Private Hospital
Clarity of medicine
instructionsWaiting time Ward
experienceWaiting time Waiting
experience
Clarity of medicine
instructions
Collection of medicine
Payment process
Explanation of diagnosis / condition
Amenities within hospital
Collection of medicine
Cleanliness of hospital
Waiting timeClarity of medicine
instructions
Collection of medicine
Cleanliness of hospital
Clarity of direction signs
Payment process
Treatment administered or suggested
Treatment administered or suggested
Waiting timeTreatment
administered or suggested
Explanation of diagnosis / condition
Cleanliness of hospital
Explanation of diagnosis / condition
!64
Restructured & Private Hospitals: Top 5 Differentiators of Satisfaction By Purpose
Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact
Better Perceived Waiting Time For Visits By Appointment
!65
Satisfaction with Waiting Time
Restructured Hospitals Private Hospitals PolyclinicsNot By
Appointment By AppointmentNot By
Appointment By AppointmentNot By
Appointment By Appointment
4.82 6.53 6.67 7.48 5.19 7.22
▲
GREEN/RED ratings denote BETTER/WORSE performance between those who visited by appointment & those who have not with statistical significance
Satisfaction with Waiting
Time (1 to 10)
Appointment Usage Higher Among Older Patients
!66
Satisfaction with Waiting Time
Restructured Hospitals Private Hospitals PolyclinicsNot By
Appointment By AppointmentNot By
Appointment By AppointmentNot By
Appointment By Appointment
4.82 6.53 6.67 7.48 5.19 7.22
▲
GREEN/RED ratings denote BETTER/WORSE performance between those who visited by appointment & those who have not with statistical significance
0.0%
25.0%
50.0%
75.0%
100.0%
18 to 34 years old
35 to 59 years old
60 years old & above
96.9%90.7%
79.6%
18 to 34 years old
35 to 59 years old
60 years old & above
96.4%89.7%87.9%
18 to 34 years old
35 to 59 years old
60 years old & above
60.2%
28.7%
4.1%
% of Respondents Whose Most Visits Were By Appointments In Last 6 Months
Satisfaction with Waiting
Time (1 to 10)
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
40
50
60
70
80
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
CSISG Score & Waiting Time By Appointment Usage (Healthcare: Score & Rating Trend)
!67
▲
Restructured Hospital Private Hospital Polyclinics
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
CSISGWaiting Time (on a 0 to 100 score)
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
40
50
60
70
80
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
CSISG Score, Waiting Time & Waiting Experience (Healthcare: Score & Rating Trend)
!68
▲
Restructured Hospital Private Hospital Polyclinics
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
CSISGWaiting Time (on a 0 to 100 score)Waiting Experience (on a 0 to 100 score)
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
40
50
60
70
80
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
Increasing Waiting Experience Can Be Associated with Higher CSISG Even Though Waiting Time Satisfaction Decreased (CSISG Score, Waiting Time & Waiting Experience)
!69
▲
Restructured Hospital Private Hospital Polyclinics
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
Not By Appointment
By Appointment
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
CSISGWaiting Time (on a 0 to 100 score)Waiting Experience (on a 0 to 100 score)
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
!70
• National CSISG score rose with a number of sub-sectors seeing upticks in satisfaction levels.
• Finance & Insurance:
• Scores generally unchanged, improvements and declines seen across various attributes. Digital channel interactions continues to climb.
• Banks: New digital banks threaten credit card and loan business, even among currently loyal customers. Consider focusing on Reliability issues, and personal interactions.
• Insurance: Consider focusing on Products given its increased importance especially for Life and Motor and Other Personal insurance.
Key Takeaways
!71
• Healthcare:
• Waiting time and waiting experience remain as key drivers for the sector, as well as service process related attributes.
• Apart from improving processes, consider the use of appointments as a means of improving perceived waiting time and experience.
Key Takeaways
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2019 Full Year & Q4 RESULTS Announcement