CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY - … · KFC Kenya Forest College ... 2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector 12 ... KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012 Smart Frontiers 4

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

October 2012

Report

SF Smart Frontiers

Prepared and submitted by Smart Frontiers P.O. Box 6169 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected]

KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012

Smart Frontiers ii

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken by Smart Frontiers. We would like to thank everyone who contributed the

various aspects towards the realization of this survey. We wish to convey thanks to the staff of KFS for

their enthusiastic help in conducting this assessment: Abraham Wafula and Eric Wainaina greatly

appreciative to the persons of the invaluable advice in relation to the consultative discussion that provided

critical support and direction during the course of data collection. Special thanks are also extended to the

data collection and data entry teams for their due dedication and commitment throughout the data

collection and data entry process.

Finally, and most important, appreciation is extended to the KFS stakeholder group who willingly

participated in the survey and for providing the valuable information that is the outcome of this report.

Smart Frontiers however solely remain responsible for any of the errors that may remain.

Consultancy team

June 2012


Smart Frontiers iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

DK Don‟t Know

GoK Government of Kenya

CSI Customer Satisfaction Index

CSS Customer Satisfaction Survey

FGD Focus Group Discussion

KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

KFC Kenya Forest College

KFC Kenya Forest Service

NGO Non Government Organizations

NR No Response

PC Performance Contracts

RBM Result Based Management

SPSS Statistical Products and Services Solutions


Smart Frontiers iv

Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1

Section 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background 4

1.2 This survey 4

1.3 Research Strategy 5

1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample ......................................................................... 7 Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya ................................................................................. 11

2.1 The Kenya Forest Service 11

2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector 12

2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030 .................................. 13 2.2.2 Challenges ..................................................................................................... 14 Section 3: Results of the Quantitative Survey ........................................................................ 15

3.1 Overall Performance 15

3.1.1 Customer Satisfaction Index ......................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Customer satisfaction gaps .......................................................................... 16 3.2 Perceptions of KFS Service Delivery Dimensions 18

3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate ........................... 18 3.2.2 KFS commitment to its core values ............................................................. 18 3.2.3 Customer focus and continued improvement ............................................. 19 3.2.4 Service delivery standards............................................................................ 20 3.3 Service delivery measure of access 21

3.3.1 Affordability ratings of the services provided by KFS ................................ 21 3.3.2 Accessibility ratings of the services provided by KFS ............................... 22 3.4 Communication and Engagement 23

3.4.1 Services sought through facility visit .......................................................... 24 3.4.2 Outcomes of the services sought through telephone ................................. 25 3.4.3 Outcomes of the services sought through email ........................................ 26 3.4.4 Outcomes of the services sought through website visit ............................ 28 3.4.5 Outcomes of the services sought through a letter ...................................... 29 3.5 Assessment of procurement procedures 30

3.6 Factors driving customer satisfaction 31

3.6.1 Factors underlying customer satisfaction ................................................... 31 Section 4: Results of the Qualitative Assessment ....................................................................... 35

4.1 Forest Activities and Motivation ................................................................... 35 4.2 Challenges and Opportunities ...................................................................... 37 4.3 Management of Forests ................................................................................. 39 Section 5: Results of the Mystery Shopping Assessment ............................................................ 41


Smart Frontiers v

5.1 Ambience ....................................................................................................... 41 5.2 Facilities ......................................................................................................... 41 5.3 Customer service ........................................................................................... 42 5.4 Service delivery standards............................................................................ 43 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 44


Smart Frontiers vi

List of Figures

Fig 3.1: Customer satisfaction index by overall and customer segments 13

Fig 3.2: Affordability ratings of the services 20

Fig 3.3: Accessibility ratings of services 21

Fig 3.4: Proportion that visited KFS facility to seek service 22

Fig 3.5: Proportion that used telephone to seek service 23

Fig 3.6: Proportion that used email to seek service 25

Fig 3.7: Proportion that visited KFS website 26

Fig 3.8: Proportion that used a letter to seek service 27

Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with procurement procedures 29

Fig 3.10: Proportion that used a letter to seek service 32


Smart Frontiers vii

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy 5

Table 1.2: Sample characteristics 6

Table 1.3: Distribution of the focus groups 7

Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010 12

Table 3.1: Customer Satisfaction Index by service delivery dimension 14

Table 3.2: Customer satisfaction gaps with aspects of facility level services 15

Table 3.3: Satisfaction with regard to KFS communication and address of its

mandate 16

Table 3.4: Satisfaction with regard to KFS commitment to its core values 17

Table 3.5: Satisfaction with regard to customer focus and continued improvement 18

Table 3.6: Satisfaction with services delivery standards 19

Table 3.7: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through facility visit 23

Table 3.8: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through phone 24

Table 3.9: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email 25

Table 3.10: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through website 27

Table 3.11: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email 28

Table 3.12: Factors that underline customer satisfaction with service delivery 31


Smart Frontiers 1

Executive Summary

This survey was conducted during the month of June, 2012 by Smart Frontiers in the framework of

Performance Contracts to assess the quality of service delivery to the customers of Kenya Forest Service

and its constituent college, Kenya Forest College. In this way, the survey sought to establish whether

KFS is meeting its service expectations. The findings presented in this report highlight the key issues

emerging, and ultimately, the actions required to enhance employee satisfaction levels.

Key highlights of the survey findings are as follows:

Customer satisfaction index

An aggregate CSI of 71.72 points was observed. Comparison across the customer segments show that

the index scores are in the range between 67 to about 85 points. With the index points around 85.29

points, the suppliers segment ranked the highest, and conversely, the lowest CSI figures observed

among the forest adjacent communities (67.64). Analysis by the criterion of KFS service delivery

dimensions show that KFS generally performed better in direct customer service, through services

delivered in person (i.e. facility visit by the customers), phone or email – 74.05. This is followed by the

dimension on „communication and delivery of organizational mandate (72.77).

Satisfaction gaps

The overall satisfaction gaps, in order of importance, are highest in respect to „Access to felling plan‟ (-

0.4), „Time it takes to be served‟ (-0.4), „Providing timber license‟ (-0.5), „Providing nature based

enterprises licenses‟ (-0.5), „Access to timber import/export permit‟ (-0.5) and „Authorization to sale

minor forest produce‟ (-0.5). Conversely, on the lower end, the gaps observed suggest that customer

levels of expectation against satisfaction levels are least in respect to „Conducting awareness

programme‟ (-0.9), „Field demonstration services‟, both depicting -0.9; and „Providing maps showing

way leave‟ (-0.8), „Developing and maintaining essential infrastructure for effective forest protection &

management‟ (-0.8), „Providing forest extension information‟, „Providing ecotourism licenses‟,

„Enhancing productivity of industrial forest plantations‟ and „Promoting farm forestry‟, all depicting -

0.8.


Smart Frontiers 2

Satisfaction drivers

On the basis of PCA, the data does indicate employee satisfaction is based on three platforms: The

leading factor, interpreted as Service Assurance accounted for 26.28% of the variance. This factor

constituted eight attributes that are essentially related to quality of the services. The second factor,

Responsiveness to customer needs and accounted for 25.61% of the variance. This comprised eight

attributes that are primarily related to value accorded clients. This last factor is named Competency and

Accountability, and represented 25.21% of the variance. The factor constitutes eight items, primarily

oriented on staff professionalism and integrity issues.

Recommendations

On the basis of these findings, the following strategies are suggested as a way of enhancing the level

and quality of output of KFS:

1. Customer service: Address service delivery deficiencies, including waiting time. There is need

to strengthen the ability of the departments to deal with these deficiencies.

2. Reviewing regulations: The importance of reviewing regulation pertaining to licenses and

permits is underlined. Here, we take note that this remains one of the issues where disquiet is

notable.

3. Communication: This relates to „customer engagement‟. It appears that there are hurdles that

prevent access to information by certain segments of the general public. The concern expressed

here was that information seems to focus on the market players rather than investors. Different

customer segments are in need of different information features, and mainstreaming information

along these segments would be useful in terms of enhancing engagement.

4. Complaints management: There is need to enhance complaints handling process. This would

entail putting into place complaints mechanisms and letting the public have knowledge of the

same, and also to recognize and take appropriate action on the complaints lodged

5. Public education: Results from the FGDs show that information gaps remain in public

knowledge regarding the range of investment opportunities in forest related activities. There

should be energetic move to improve access to investment information to that regard

6. Accessibility: Given the challenges of accessing a number of stations, KFS should consider

establishing liaison offices to bring the services nearer in those areas where the forest stations

are not easy to access

7. Sanitation facilities: This is critical in terms of improving the satisfaction of customers that visit

the facilities


Smart Frontiers 3

8. Internet services: Improvements in the quality of service delivered through email is an area in

need of improvement. Additionally, KFS should consider enriching its website by uploading

more and upto date information and providing relevant useful URL links on the forest sector.

This will make the website an information resource.


Smart Frontiers 4

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Background

The Government of Kenya (GoK) has embraced the Result Based Management (RBM) as a tool to

improving public service delivery. The essence of RBM is to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the

delivery of public services, and that citizens can hold public servants accountable for the levels of

service they receive from public institutions. This is in line with Kenya‟s public service accountability

initiative known as Performance Contracts (PC), which was introduced in 2003, and which is expected

to support the goals and objectives outlined in Kenya‟s Vision 2030 strategy.1 The PC initiative forms

the basis of improvement in the public service delivery, which seeks to progressively work towards

increasing quality of output within public institutions.

Under these broader public sector reforms, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) aims to ensure that services

are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers and excellence is attained in its operations. In

complement to this Reform Agenda, one pillar in this move is to monitor the level of satisfaction of both

the internal and external stakeholders.

Thus, in pursuit of ensuring that services are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers, KFS

commissioned a survey with a view to gain insights into the satisfaction with and perceptions of its

services. The outcomes are intended to assist the KFS to align management and directorial processes

with employee and customer expectations in order to facilitate greater performance. This survey

generally focuses on the KFS Service Delivery Charters on the key performance indicators.

1.2 This survey

In accordance with the brief set by the KSF, the broader motivation underpinning the proposed survey is

to enable the assessment of customer satisfaction. In this way, the survey sought to establish whether

KFS is meeting its service expectations. The specific objectives of the survey comprised:

1 Muthaura, F., (2003), Head of Public Service


Smart Frontiers 5

1. Develop a composite measure index of customer satisfaction (CSI) and use it to determine

the overall rating of the current level of staff satisfaction;

2. Find out staff perception of the job dimensions;

3. Identify gaps in the workplace;

4. Identify specific areas that require improvement.

1.3 Research Strategy

Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) is an exercise in which service delivery systems are examined by

reflecting on organization‟s customers‟ and stakeholders perceptions, preferences and service delivery

constraints. Given the scope of objectives to be addressed, this survey leveraged five techniques of

enquiry; namely:

1) Secondary data review,

2) Quantitative survey

3) Focus group discussions (FGDs),

4) Mystery shopping, and

5) Key informant interviews.

1.3.1 Geographical Scope

For addressing the objectives of the survey, it was recognized that in order to obtain breadth of

perspectives, the data collected should represent a range of locations across the country. Working with

three zones per conservancy (exception being Nairobi, Ewaso North and North Eastern), the survey

covered a total coverage of 24 zones. While it would be of interest to include more zones, the cost of so

doing and the logistical requirements involved would outweigh its potential value. These zones are

nonetheless selected to reflect differences in terms of in terms of geographical location, socio-economic

diversities and size of conservancies, and can thus reflect representativeness to that regard. Table xxx

displays the sample distribution by the conservancies covered.


Smart Frontiers 6

Secondary data review

The preliminary tasks involved a review of existing data and literature. One important goal was to

evaluate how KFS has performed in terms of service delivery over the past years. The previous survey

approach and findings will be partly fed into the primary research in order to allow for tracking and

comparison on a number of aspects. The sources to be reviewed will also include the following:

1) Previous customer and employee satisfaction survey reports

2) KFS Service Charter

3) Strategic Plan

4) Other documents

1.3.2 Approach to the primary data investigation

Quantitative survey

A fundamental consideration and one that informs the entire research strategy is the necessity to draw

inferences at the individual, community and institutional levels. The quantitative survey was thus

conducted using purposive sample of respondents drawn from KFS‟ delineated range of stakeholders

(customers). Accordingly, the following are considered the important stakeholders that were

interviewed at various points during the data collection sessions:

i) Civil Society Organizations

ii) Forest dependent/adjacent communities

iii) Community Based Organizations

iv) Women Groups

v) Youth Groups

vi) Private Sector (saw millers, timber loggers, charcoal dealers, commercial tree growers,

ecotourism based enterprises)

vii) Agro-based Industry (coffee, tea, wheat farmers)

viii) Public Institutions (government and local authorities)

ix) Research/Academic Institutions

x) Suppliers


Smart Frontiers 7

As shown in Table 1.1, the customer sample was spread across the ten KFS conservancies in addition to

the KFC. The highest percentages were drawn from Nairobi (23%), and the lowest drawn from North

Eastern (3%) and Ewaso North (4%).

Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy

Conservancy Number Percent

Central Highlands 30 7

Coast 56 13

Eastern 38 9

Ewaso North 15 4

Mau 54 13

Nairobi 100 23

North Eastern 14 3

North Rift 33 8

Nyanza 33 8

Western 54 13

Central Highlands 30 7

Coast 56 13

1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample

Table 1.2 displays the sample characteristics in terms of years of interaction with KFS and customer

category. In terms of category, 44% represented community segment (comprising forest adjacent

communities, youth and women‟s groups). Agro and forest based businesses constituted 37% of the

sample, while the institutional segment (comprising public institutions and NGOs) and suppliers

constituted 10 and 8% respectively.

Regarding number of years of interaction with KFS, half the sample (50%) have interacted with KFS,

slightly less than one-fifth (18%) have done so for 2 to 3 years, while one-tenth has done so for 1 year or

less. Another one-tenth (9%) did not comment on this.


Smart Frontiers 8

Table 1.2: Sample characteristics

Period of interaction with KFS

1 year or less 41 10

2 to 3 yrs 76 18

4 to 6 yrs 212 50

7 to 10 yrs 36 8

10+ yrs 22 5

NR 40 9

Customer category

Community segment 188 44

Agro and forest based businesses 159 37

Institutional segment (Public institutions

and NGOs) 36 8

Suppliers 44 10

1.1.1 Focus Group Discussions

FGDs are necessary due to the depth of information required. This approach will provide opportunity to

extract a multiplicity of views within a group context, and would be useful for shared understandings of

the participants‟ practices, attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding the issues under investigation. One

advantage is that they can be used to confirm the responses received from the participants. Another

advantage is that the technique enables a larger number of individuals to be interviewed in a shorter

period.

For this study, the FGDs were used to explore the dynamics and complexities of forest related issues at

the individual and community levels. More specifically, FGDs were used to elicit participants‟

underlying motivations, benefits – i.e. socio-economic influences for investment in forest sector, and

forest management issues. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted, along individual and community

groups domains. This distribution is intended to reflect various profiles of the customer. The distribution

of the FGDs is reflected in Table 1.3.


Smart Frontiers 9

Table 1.3: Distribution of the focus groups

Zone Sub-branch Level of assessment

Nairobi Ngong Individual

Baringo Kabartonjo Individual

Kajiado Kajiado Community group

Mombasa Likoni Individual

Kerugoya Kangaita Community group

Busia Port Victoria Community group

Machakos Mutituni Community group

1.1.2 Key Informant Interviews

The study will canvass representatives from relevant institutions public and private institutions. Here,

the study leverages the concept of specialization and devolution of roles and areas of specialization of

different actors and will provide the basis to examine the phenomenon through the perspective of the

key "actors". The key informant interviews were thus intended to facilitate assessment of the forest

related business and organizations. The reference target group for this survey constituted individuals

with experiences and at appropriate levels of authority, and therefore better placed to provide

information relevant to the survey objectives. Thus, considering the distinctiveness of the target

population, the sample was drawn on purposive sampling technique in order to capture a diverse range

of perspectives and ensure variability in terms of institution. A total of 6 key informant interviews were

conducted, along sector domains. The sample is reflected in Table 1.4

Table 1.4: Sample characteristics of the key informants

Zone Sub-branch Title Sector

Baringo Kabartonjo Village Elder Timber sowing

Busia Port Victoria Group Chairperson Forest related community group

Kerugoya Kangaita Group Chairperson Forest related community group

Nairobi Ngong Proprietor Forest related business


Smart Frontiers 10

1.1.3 Simulated Client (Mystery Shopping)

Simulated client were undertaken in the context of mystery-client techniques. This entailed data

collection through disguised trial-shopper assessment, and was intended to provide first-hand experience

on how service is being provided at the KFS points of service.

For the assessment, a total of 16 mystery shopping were conducted across 8 zones. These covered both

main and sub-branch zonal offices. The distribution of the sample is displayed in Table 1.5


Smart Frontiers 11

Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya

2.1 The Kenya Forest Service

The oversight institution responsible for management of the forest sector in Kenya is the KFS. The KFS

was established by an act of Parliament as a body corporate under the Forest Act, 2005, to provide for

the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and rational

utilization of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. Under the existing

legislation, the broader mandate of KFS extends to all forests.

Mandate

To provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and

rational utilization of forest resources for environmental protection and socio-economic development of

the country

Core Functions

On this account, the specific functions of KFS include the following:

1. To sustainably manage natural forests for social, economic and environmental benefits

2. Increase productivity of industrial forest plantations and enhance efficiency in wood utilization

3. Promote farm forestry and commercial tree farming

4. Promote efficient utilization and marketing of forest products

5. To promote sustainable management of forests in the drylands

6. To protect forestry resources and KFS property

7. To develop and maintain essential infrastructure for effective forest management and protection

Vision

“To be the leading organization of excellence in sustainable forest management and conservation”


Smart Frontiers 12

Mission

“To enhance conservation and sustainable management of forests and allied resources for environmental

stability and socio-economic development”

Stakeholders

In undertaking it functions, KFS works with a broad range of stakeholders (customers). The key

customers include but not limited to:

1. Communities and land owners e.g. community forest associations, organized community

groups, farmers, pastoralists and commercial tree growers.

2. Private Sector e.g. licensees, concessionaires, saw miller, ecotourism based enterprises, Small

and Medium Enterprises and Suppliers

3. Non Government Organizations (NGO)

4. Development partners (governmental and non-governmental)

5. Government agencies: these include local authorities and parastatals

6. The General public

7. Service providers

2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector

Forests are among the Kenya‟s important natural resources as they supply goods and services for socio

economic and cultural development. The gazetted forestland is estimated to be 1.7 million hectares. This

is just about 2.5 % per cent of the country‟s land area. Recent estimates, based on remote sensing,

indicate that Kenya has a critical 1.7 per cent of closed canopy forest cover (UNEP, 2001).

The gazetted forests constitute 0.12 million hectares of plantation forest, 1.21 million hectares of

indigenous forest, and 0.5 million hectares of protective bush and grassland. A total of 36.7 million

hectares of other forest associations exist under other legal frame works that include National Parks,

Ranches, Trustlands and forests private ownership. As Water Catchment, forests in Kenya play a vital

role as home to the nation‟s “Water towers”, i.e. the five main water catchments (Mt Kenya,

Cherangani, Aberdare‟s, Mau and Mt Elgon) constituting the bulk of Kenya‟s high forests.


Smart Frontiers 13

2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030

Kenya‟s Vision 2030 notes that, globally, deforestation and forest degradation accounts for 20% of

green house gases (GHG) emissions and that forest conservation can provide 20% of the solution to

global warming. It therefore calls for the urgent need to conserve, protect and rejuvenate Kenya‟s

forests. The Vision 2030 recognizes the importance of forest industries to the national economy -

accounting for more than 2% of the GDP.

Forestry business in many African countries is mainly transacted in the informal sector. This is a sector

that operates at the interface of the monetized and traditional economies. The types of activities that

characterize the sector include subsistence collection of forest products, processing and trade in

firewood, charcoal, forest foods and handicrafts. It is assumed that in some countries, business

conducted in the informal forestry sector may contribute more to rural livelihoods than that in the formal

forestry sector. They provide employment opportunities in various industries, thereby contributing to

improved income and livelihoods of many Kenyans. These include: sawmills, pulp and paper industry,

woodfuel industry, basketry, charcoal production, marketing and transportation industry, wood curving

industry, and non-timber forest products industries.

The Forest Act 2005 and the KFS strategic plan (2006 to 2011) stipulate that Kenya‟s forests will be

broadly managed for the following purposes:

1) Biodiversity, soil and water conservation and provision of other environmental services;

2) Wood production (timber, pulp, woodfuel and poles) and employment – current and potential;

3) Conservation of wildlife habitats; and,

4) Production of non-wood forest products and ecotourism development. More specifically, the

Act clearly states that plantation forests will be managed primarily for the production of wood

and other forest products and services for commercial purposes.

The ban on forest timber harvesting which has now been reviewed was for a long time a major

constraint to forest management and in particular, it affects the level of royalty collection, the quality of

timber products (including exposing plantations to risk of fires and disease/insect infestation),

insufficient or lack of raw materials supply, and increased cost of forest commodities.


Smart Frontiers 14

2.2.2 Challenges

One of the main challenges currently facing the sector is deforestation and degradation. Loss of forest

resources, general land degradation and desertification are serious environmental as well as socio-

economic problems globally and in Kenya.2 Three key drivers have been identified as having immensely

contributed to this problem in Kenya. These include: Clearing for agriculture, unsustainable utilization

and poor governance and institutional failures. Thus, the past two decade has seen decline in the

coverage of the sub-total forest land by about 12,050 ha annually.

Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010

Category of forest resource

(using FAO definitions) Area (‘000 Ha)

Annual Change

(‘000 Ha)

1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 - 2010

1. Indigenous closed Canopy Forest 1,240 1,190 1,165 1,140 -5

2. Indigenous Mangroves 80 80 80 80 0

3. Open woodlands 2,150 2,100 2,075 2,050 -5

4. Public Plantation Forests 170 134 119 107 -3.15

5. Private Plantation forests 68 78 83 90 +1.1

Sub - total Forest land

(total of above categories) 3,708 3,582 2,357 3,467 -12.05

6. Bush-land 24,800 24,635 24,570 24,510 -14.5

7. Farms with Trees 9,420 10,020 10,320 10,385 +48.25

Total Area of Kenya 58,037 58,037 58,037 58,037 0

2 Mr Aeneas Chuma, Resident Representative, UNDP, Kenya


Smart Frontiers 15

Section 3: Results of the Quantitative Survey

3.1 Overall Performance

3.1.1 Customer Satisfaction Index

Calculation of the CSI incorporated 57 service delivery variables. An aggregate CSI of 71.72 points was

observed. Comparison across the customer segments show that the index scores are in the range

between 67 to about 85 points. With the index points around 85.29 points, the suppliers segment ranked

the highest, and conversely, the lowest CSI figures observed among the forest adjacent communities

(67.64). The results are presented in Figure 3.1.

Fig 3.1: Customer satisfaction index by overall and customer segments

The CSI findings are further analyzed using the criterion of KFS service delivery dimensions. As shown

in Table 3.1, the results show that KFS generally performed better in direct customer service, through

services delivered in person (i.e. facility visit by the customers), phone or email – 74.05. This is

followed by the dimension on „communication and delivery of organizational mandate (72.77).

0

100

Overall Communities segment

Agro & Forest based

businesses

Institutional segment

Suppliers

71.72 69.19 70.18 73.71

85.29


Smart Frontiers 16

Table 3.1: Customer Satisfaction Index by service delivery dimension

Satisfaction Index

Direct customer service (Facility visit, phone, email) 74.05

Communication and delivery of organizational mandate 72.77

Specific services (refer to Table 3.1) 71.51

Commitment to core values 70.78

Service delivery and cost of services 70.41

Customer focus and continued improvement 69.34

3.1.2 Customer satisfaction gaps

Relative to customer levels of expectation, satisfaction levels are decidedly negative. As observed in

Table 3.2, the overall satisfaction gaps, in order of importance, are highest in respect to „Access to

felling plan‟ (-0.4), „Time it takes to be served‟ (-0.4), „Providing timber license‟ (-0.5), „Providing

nature based enterprises licenses‟ (-0.5), „Access to timber import/export permit‟ (-0.5) and

„Authorization to sale minor forest produce‟ (-0.5).

Conversely, on the lower end, the gaps observed suggest that customer levels of expectation against

satisfaction levels are least in respect to „Conducting awareness programme‟ (-0.9), „Field

demonstration services‟, both depicting -0.9; and „Providing maps showing way leave‟ (-0.8),

„Developing and maintaining essential infrastructure for effective forest protection & management‟ (-

0.8), „Providing forest extension information‟, „Providing ecotourism licenses‟, „Enhancing productivity

of industrial forest plantations‟ and „Promoting farm forestry‟, all depicting -0.8.

In comparison, satisfaction gaps, almost without exception, remain higher on most attributes for among

the Communities segment and Forest and Afro-based industry segments. Among the former, the figures

suggest that disquiet with performance occurs most in respect to the following aspects: „Conducting

awareness programme‟, „Field demonstration services‟, „Developing and maintaining essential

infrastructure for effective forest protection & management‟. In respect to Forest and Afro-based

industry, the figures suggest that disquiet performance occurs most in respect to the following:

„Conducting awareness programme‟, „Providing maps showing way leave‟ and „Providing ecotourism

licenses‟.


Smart Frontiers 17

Table 3.2: Customer satisfaction gaps with aspects of facility level services

Overall

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based

businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

Conducting awareness programme -0.9 -0.95 -1.1 -0.5 -0.3

Field demonstration services -0.9 -0.95 -0.9 -0.5 -0.4

Providing maps showing way leave -0.8 -0.80 -1.1 -0.6 -0.1

Developing and maintaining infrastructure for

effective forest protection & management

-0.8

-1.00

-0.9

-0.5

-0.2

Providing forest extension information -0.8 -0.85 -0.9 -0.7 -0.2

Providing ecotourism licenses -0.8 -0.90 -1.0 0.0 0.1

Enhancing productivity of industrial forest

plantations

-0.8

-0.60

-1.0

-0.7

-0.4

Promoting farm forestry -0.8 -0.80 -0.9 -0.5 0.1

Enhancing efficiency in wood utilization -0.7 -0.70 -0.9 -0.5 0.1

Promoting commercial tree planting -0.7 -0.80 -0.8 -0.5 0.2

Providing license for base transmission/receiver

station

-0.7

-0.70

-1.0

0.8

-0.3

Protecting forestry resources -0.7 -0.55 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5

Authorization for mining prospecting in forest

areas -0.7 -0.60 -0.9 -0.4 0.1

Price of the KFS forest products -0.6 -0.70 -0.7 -0.7 -0.1

Water easement authority -0.6 -0.70 -0.7 -0.4 -0.1

Providing annual operation license -0.6 -0.55 -0.9 -0.4 0.2

Efficient utilization and marketing of forest

products

-0.6

-0.65

-0.7

-0.2

-0.3

Sale of Seedlings -0.6 -0.50 -0.8 -0.4 -0.5

Providing certification of origin -0.6 -0.60 -0.8 0.2 0.0

Providing certification of origin -0.6 -0.60 -0.8 0.2 0.0

Authorization for forest areas camping -0.6 -0.50 -1.0 0.5 -0.2

Authorization to sale minor forest produce -0.5 -0.65 -0.5 -0.5 0.1

Providing nature based enterprises licenses -0.5 -0.50 -0.8 0.2 0.1

Providing timber license -0.5 -0.35 -0.8 -0.3 -0.2

Access to timber import/export permit -0.4 -0.30 -0.7 -0.1 0.2

Access to felling plan -0.4 -0.25 -0.8 0.7 0.4


Smart Frontiers 18

3.2 Perceptions of KFS Service Delivery Dimensions

3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate

The dimension related to communication and address of mandate looks at five key service variables

(depicted in Table 3.3). The percentage of respondents providing a positive response was fairly high,

ranging from 55% to 63%. Respondents reported the highest levels of satisfaction with regard to „The

way KFS is addressing its mandate to improve tree cover‟ (63%) and „The core value of the KFS‟

(61%).

For the four customer segments, a higher proportion of the suppliers segments showed satisfaction

across all the four aspects examined, exception being the communities segment, which depicts a lower

satisfaction score in respect to „The way KFS is communicating its Service Delivery Charter‟

Table 3.3: Satisfaction with regard to KFS communication and address of its mandate

% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”

Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

The way KFS is addressing its

mandate to improve tree cover

63

57

62

74

82

The core value of the KFS 61 57 60 61 82

The way KFS is communicating its

vision and mission

58

54

56

56

84

The way KFS is communicating its

Service Delivery Charter

55

53

46

68

83

3.2.2 KFS commitment to its core values

This dimension encompassed eight service variables (displayed in Table 3.4). As shown, overall

satisfaction ranged from 51% to 63%, with the aspects related to „Professional competence

demonstrated by staff‟ (63%), „Excellence in service delivery‟, (62%) and „Adhere to best scientific


Smart Frontiers 19

practices‟ (60%) receiving the highest rating. Conversely, the aspect related to „Zero tolerance to

corruption at KFS‟ (51%) got the lowest.

In terms of customer segments, there are clear contrasts between these five categories on a number of

aspects, with the largest margins of “very/somewhat satisfied” being similarly observed among

suppliers and institutional segments.

Table 3.4: Satisfaction with regard to KFS commitment to its core values


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

Professional competence

demonstrated by staff

63

59

61

73

77

Excellence in service delivery 62 59 61 66 76

Adhere to best scientific practices 60 57 57 63 79

Transparency in dealings with

customers

59

58

55

59

83

Sharing knowledge on forestry

information

58

51

57

69

84

The level of honesty and truthfulness

of staff

57

50

57

59

78

Extent KFS scientific findings are

applied

56

51

57

53

82

Zero tolerance to corruption at KFS 51 39 55 53 80

3.2.3 Customer focus and continued improvement

The dimension on customer service covered twelve service variables (shown in Table 3.5). As observed,

overall satisfaction scores fall within fairly low to fairly high range (53% to 59%). Respondents reported

the highest levels of satisfaction with regard to „Cooperation between KFS and its customers‟,

„Promptness of service delivery‟ and „Demonstrates a clear understanding of customers needs‟, all

depicting 59%, and conversely lowest in respect to „Seeks opinion of its customers in its decisions‟

(47%).


Smart Frontiers 20

For a comparison by customer sub-groups in this regard, it is apparent that the suppliers segment record

the highest satisfaction levels across virtually all the twelve service aspects. Conversely, the

communities segment emerges at the lower end in virtually all the aspects. Most striking, however, is

the rather lower satisfaction apparent among the Institutional segment on two aspects: „The extent KFS

is a team player‟ (47%) and „Adjusts operations in response to customer feedback‟ (39%).

Table 3.5: Satisfaction with regard to customer focus and continued improvement


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

Extent of cooperation between KFS

and its customers

59

51

61

69

86

Promptness of service delivery 59 55 56 70 84

Demonstrating a clear understanding

of customers needs

59

52

59

73

82

Efficiency of KFs operations 58 51 60 68 82

Level of customer focus 58 49 61 61 82

Extent KFS customer care impacts

positively its image

56

47

60

65

84

The extent KFS is a team player 55 47 60 47 81

Resolving customers‟ complaints

promptly & satisfactorily

55

52

50

71

79

Making the customers aware of

services

55

48

54

76

74

Open to complaints, suggestions,

compliments

53

48

49

68

78

Adjusting operations in response to

customer feedback

52

48

53

39

77

Seeking opinion of its customers in

its decisions

47

45

43

53

76

3.2.4 Service delivery standards

Looking at satisfaction with service delivery standards, the proportion of those showing satisfaction

ranged from 55% to 61%. The results, as shown in Table 3.6, show that satisfaction with performance is


Smart Frontiers 21

higher in respect to: „Environmental friendliness of technologies‟, „Quality of information on products

received‟ and „Quality of services provided to customers‟, all depicting 61%. On the other hand,

satisfaction with performance is higher in respect to: „Timeliness of delivery of services‟ and „The way

complaints are addressed‟, both depicting 55%.

For a comparison by customer categories in this regard, the suppliers segment lead across all the

aspects. Notably, slightly lower scores are evident among communities segment in respect to „The way

complaints are addressed‟ and „Timeliness of delivery of services‟.

Table 3.6: Satisfaction with services delivery standards


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

Environmental friendliness of

technologies 61 56 63 63 81

Quality of information on products

received 61 58 62 67 74

Quality of services provided to

customers 61 54 61 73 74

Timeliness of delivery of services 55 52 55 50 74

The way complaints are addressed 55 51 54 55 81

3.3 Service delivery measure of access

3.3.1 Affordability ratings of the services provided by KFS

To examine opinions on the affordability of services, participants were asked to rate their satisfaction

with the affordability of services, on a 5-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”.

To evaluate participants‟ perceptions to that regard, responses are grouped into three categories as

illustrated:

Scale 4 & 5: Affordable

Scale 3: Fairly affordable

Scale 1 & 2: Not affordable


Smart Frontiers 22

As displayed in Figure 3.2, it is observed that, overall, just above half (56%) of participants thought the

services were affordable, with another one-third (31%) rating the charges as „fair‟. Fairly less than one-

tenth (13%) were unequivocally negative about the charges.

Looking at the results by customer segment, a rather wide range is observed. Among those who rated

the services as affordable, the highest percentage emerged among the suppliers segment (81%),

followed by the institutional segment (63%).

Fig 3.2: Affordability ratings of the services

3.3.2 Accessibility ratings of the services provided by KFS

Another measure of access is “accessibility”. Participants again rated their satisfaction with the services

in these terms, on a 5-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”. Similarly, to

evaluate participants‟ perceptions to that regard, responses are grouped into three categories as

illustrated:

Scale 4 & 5: Accessible

Scale 3: Fairly accessible

Scale 1 & 2: Not accessible

Customer segment

Community segment 51% 33% 16%Agro and Forest based businesses 54% 34% 12%

Institutional segment 63% 29% 8%

Suppliers 81% 13% 6%

56%

31%

13%

0%

100%

Affordable Fairly affordable Not affordable


Smart Frontiers 23

As observed in Figure 3.3, just below one-fifth (17%) of the participants rated the services as accessible,

while another one-fifth (20%) though the level of accessibility was fair. Notably, with the majority

(65%) were unequivocally negative.

Across the four customer segments, communities segment fared the best, with 21% rating the services

as accessible. Conversely, institutional segment seem to fare least positively, with [0%] rating the

services as „accessible‟.

Fig 3.3: Accessibility ratings of services

3.4 Communication and Engagement

The dimension related to communication looks at both the functional 3 outcomes of customer

engagement with KFS, focusing the five modes of engagement, namely: Facility visit, telephone, email,

letter and website. Analyses under this section are based on the proportion of participants who reported

that they ever engaged with KFS using these modes.

3 Relates to the process of service delivery

Customer segment

Community segment 21% 23% 56%Agro and Forest based businesses 17% 17% 66%

Institutional segment 0% 35% 65%

Suppliers 17% 6% 77%

17% 20%

63%

0%

100%

Accessible Fairly accessible Not accessible


Smart Frontiers 24

3.4.1 Services sought through facility visit

As observed in Figure 3.4, overall, considerable majority (80%) reported ever visiting KFS office or

station. Making a comparison, this proportion varied from 93% (suppliers segment) to 72%

(institutional segment).

Looking at the outcomes of services sought through facility visit, results show that the proportion of

those showing satisfaction ranged from 73% to 35%. The results, as shown in Table 3.7, show that,

across the four aspects, satisfaction with performance is higher in respect to: „general standards of

cleanliness of the environment‟. Most striking is the rather lower satisfaction in respect to „use of

modern technology‟ and „conduciveness of sanitation facilities.‟

For a comparison by customer categories in this regard, what stands out is the relatively lower

satisfaction levels among the institutional segment with the „general conditions of service facilities (e.g.

waiting rooms, chairs, desks, etc)‟, „conduciveness of the sanitation facilities‟ and „use of modern

technology.

0%

100%

Total Community segment

Agro and Forest based

businesses


Suppliers

80% 75%83%

72%

93%% - Visited KFS facility to seek service


Smart Frontiers 25

Table 3.7: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through facility visit


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

General standard of cleanliness of

the environment 73 68 75 63 92

Time taken to be served 69 66 66 67 87

Organization of KFS offices and

stores 67 67 62 65 86

General conditions of service

facilities (e.g. waiting rooms, chairs,

desks, etc)

62

61

62

41

85

Conduciveness of sanitation facilities 36 41 27 16 65

Use of modern technology for service

delivery

35

42

25

11

62

3.4.2 Outcomes of the services sought through telephone

With regard to services sought through telephone, it is observed (in Figure 3.5), that overall, just below

half (47%) ever used telephone to seek service. Comparatively, the highest proportion of this category is

found among the suppliers segment.

Fig 3.5: Proportion that used telephone to seek service

0%

100%



businesses


Suppliers

47% 45% 44% 46%

69%

% - Used telephone to seek service


Smart Frontiers 26

In respect to the outcomes of services sought through phone, results show that the proportion of those

showing satisfaction ranged from 73% to 63%. As observed in Table 3.8, satisfaction with performance

is higher in respect to: „Ability of the receptionist help you to get assistance‟ and‟ Language/etiquette of

the person who received you call‟.

In comparison, relatively higher levels of satisfaction are observed, across all the customer segments,

perhaps, with minimal concerns among the communities segment with regard to: „timeliness of

feedback when they promise to call back‟ and „how easy it is for the numbers to go through‟.

Table 3.8: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through phone


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

Ability of the receptionist help you to

get assistance 73 73 66 79 85

Language/etiquette of the person who

received you call 70 66 68 79 79

Time taken for your call to be

received 69 63 72 64 82

How easy it is to get to connected to

the person you want to speak to 68 65 67 64 81

How easy it is to call the stations in

other zones (other than Head office) 66 60 68 67 75

Timeliness of feedback when they

promise to call back 64 59 63 71 76

How easy it is for the numbers to go

through 63 57 63 64 75

3.4.3 Outcomes of the services sought through email

With regard to services sought through email, it is observed (in Figure 3.6), that roughly one-tenth

(11%) ever used email to seek service. Making a comparison, the highest proportion of this category

emerged among the suppliers segment (38%), distantly followed by institutional segment (12%).

Conversely, the lowest proportion was found among the communities segment (7%).


Smart Frontiers 27

Fig 3.6: Proportion that used email to seek service

Looking at the outcomes of services sought through email, results show that the proportion of those

showing satisfaction ranged from 63% to 57%. As observed in Table 3.9, satisfaction with performance

is higher in respect to: „how welcoming and keen the initial response was‟ and „the extent the reply

considered inquiry carefully‟.

In comparison, notable contrasts emerged; the results showed relatively lower levels of satisfaction are

observed among the communities segment, with all the four aspects recording satisfaction scores below

40%.

Table 3.9: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

How welcoming and keen the initial

response was 63 38 63 75 88

The extent the reply considered your

inquiry carefully 60 33 56 75 87

How easy it is for your email get

through (i.e. not bounce-back) 58 31 53 75 88

Immediate acknowledgement of your

email 57 33 63 50 75

0%

30%



businesses


Suppliers

11%

7%9%

12%

38%% - Used email to seek service


Smart Frontiers 28

3.4.4 Outcomes of the services sought through website visit

Turning to services sought through website, it is observed (in Figure 3.7), that just above one-tenth

(14%) visited the KFS website. Making a comparison, the highest proportion of this category emerged

among the institutional segment (37%), distantly followed by suppliers segment (20%).

Fig 3.7: Proportion that visited KFS website

Looking at the outcomes of website visit (Table 3.10), the results show that the proportion of those

showing satisfaction ranged from 67% to 55%. Satisfaction with performance was highest in respect to:

„the level of professionalism in design of website‟ and „the ease with which the website opens‟.

In comparison, the results showed relatively lower levels of satisfaction among the communities

segment Agro and Forest based businesses on the four aspects.

0%

60%



businesses


Suppliers

14% 12% 10%

37%

20%

% - Visited website


Smart Frontiers 29

Table 3.10: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through website


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

The level of professionalism in

design of website 67 58 50 92 88

The ease with which the website

opens 65 57 40 100 88

Extent information is up to date 56 46 40 75 88

Usefulness of website in terms of

your information needs 55 46 38 92 67

3.4.5 Outcomes of the services sought through a letter

Looking at engagement through letter, it is again observed (in Figure 3.8) that, overall, roughly one-fifth

(19%) used this mode. Making a comparison, the highest proportion of this category emerged among

the suppliers segment (53%).

Fig 3.8: Proportion that used a letter to seek service

In terms of outcomes (Table 3.11), the results show that the proportion of those showing satisfaction

ranged from 58% to 49%. Satisfaction with performance was highest in respect to: „how welcoming and

keen the initial response was‟ and „the extent the reply considered inquiry carefully‟.

0%

100%



businesses


Suppliers

19% 17% 14% 18%

53%

% - Used letter to seek service


Smart Frontiers 30

In comparison, the results similarly showed relatively lower levels of satisfaction among the

communities segment Agro and Forest based businesses on the four aspects.

Table 3.11: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email


Total

Communities

segment

Agro & Forest

based businesses

Institutional

segment

Suppliers

segment

How welcoming and keen the initial

response was 58 48 53 57 76

The extent the reply considered your

inquiry carefully 54 48 40 57 76

Immediate acknowledgement of your

letter 49 45 38 43 67

3.5 Assessment of procurement procedures

The dimension on procurement entirely focused on the Suppliers segment, and included seven

statements relating to procurement procedures. Results, as shown in Figure 3.9, suggest reasonably high

satisfaction on most of the aspects.

The aspects on which KFS received the highest ratings were: „time taken to process the necessary

document‟, both depicting positive scores of 80%. The aspect on which KFS receives the lowest ratings

was „compliance with the government public procurement regulations‟ – 30%. It is however observed

that relatively high proportion offered the response DK/NR.


Smart Frontiers 31

Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with procurement procedures

3.6 Factors driving customer satisfaction

3.6.1 Factors underlying customer satisfaction

To explore the factors driving employee satisfaction with the services provided by KFS, Exploratory

Factor Analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify service constituents at

which satisfaction levels are highest. The purpose of PCA is to reduce the data by identifying the

patterns of correlation between different attributes.

The analysis extracted three factors, with the measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) against all

attributes was found at 0.957, with significance level (BC) found at p = 0.00. The three factors extracted

collectively covered 24 attributes, which cumulatively explained 77.10% of the variance in the data. The

estimates of the variance in each item were < 0.70.

30

50

55

60

70

80

80

30

50

20

25

10

10

10

20 20

25

15

20

0% 100%

The extent KFS complies with the government public procurement regulations

The compliancy to the contract agreements, in regards to payment of services offered

The extent KFS provides enabling environment to facilitate fair competition

The extent tendering process is transparent and fair

The support provided to KFS staff to follow up on payment

The feedback to service providers and merchants

The time taken to processes the necessary documents (e.g. contracts)

Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied DK/NR


Smart Frontiers 32

Accordingly, the pattern of correlation (displayed in Table 3.12) shows that the three factors, in order of

importance, can be interpreted as:

Factor 1: The leading factor, interpreted as Service Assurance accounted for 26.28% of the

variance. This factor constituted eight attributes that are essentially related to quality of the

services.

Factor 2: The second factor, Responsiveness to customer needs and accounted for 25.61% of the

variance. This comprised eight attributes that are primarily related to value accorded clients.

Factor 3: This last factor is named Competency and Accountability, and represented 25.21% of

the variance. The factor constitutes eight items, primarily oriented on staff professionalism and

integrity issues.


Smart Frontiers 33

Table 3.12: Factors that underline customer satisfaction with service delivery

Factor (% of variance)

The quality of services provided by KFS to

stakeholders 0.77

Service Assurance (26.28%)

The accessibility of services 0.77

Timeliness of delivery of services by KFS 0.77

Environmental friendliness of technologies used at

KFS 0.80

Improvement in service delivery over time 0.74

Cost of the products and/ or services 0.74

The quality of information on products and services

you receive from KFS 0.80

The way complaints are addressed 0.77

The extent KFS is a customer focused organization 0.80

Responsiveness to customer needs

(25.61%)

The extent KFS demonstrates a clear understanding of

customers needs

0.80

Promptness of service delivery at KFS 0.77

The extent KFS customer care impacts positively its image

0.72

The effort put by KFS to make its customers aware of its

services

0.77

The extent KFS adjusts its operations in response to

feedbacks from customers 0.77

The level of cooperation between KFS and its customers /

stakeholders 0.76

The extent KFS seeks opinion of its customers in

its decisions

0.69

The level of professional competence demonstrated by staff 0.73

The extent KFS‟s staffs are committed to excellence in service delivery 0.71

The extent KFS staffs are transparent in its dealings with customers 0.78

The level of honesty and truthfulness of KFS‟s staff 0.78 Competency and Accountability

The extent KFS adhere to best scientific practices 0.82 25.21%

The extent to which the KFS scientific findings are applied 0.80

The extent KFS shares general knowledge on forestry information 0.74

The extent of zero tolerance to corruption at KFS 0.68


Smart Frontiers 34

Fig. 3.10 looks at the relative contribution of factors to overall satisfaction. It is seen that across the

three factors account for relatively the same share in terms of customer satisfaction.

Fig 3.10: Proportion that used a letter to seek service

Service Assurance

, 34%

Responsiveness to customer

needs, 33%

Staff comptenecy

and

Integrity, 33%


Smart Frontiers 35

Section 4: Results of the Qualitative Assessment

This section of this report presents the views and opinions captured from the key informants and FGD

participants. These are presented as summarized opinions and direct statements from respondents. The

consultancy accepted respondents‟ answers as given.

4.1 Forest Activities and Motivation

The survey revealed that the activities of the forest adjacent communities had strong link to the forest. In

response to the question: “What forest or environment related activities are you involved in”,

participants mentioned an array of activities. These revolve around small scale informal businesses,

including timber selling, and charcoal business, firewood selling, tree nurseries, herbal medicine

practices, and other forest supported activities such as beekeeping. The levels at which these activities

are undertaken are individually, household or through community groups. Drawing from the experience

of the Port Victoria Community Forest Association, the study established that the participants work in

group effort with members of their households in a range of income generating such as agro-forestry

and commercial tree farming, as well as forest conservation activities. The other groups of interest was

the Crown Land Group of Kangaita Kerugoya, which is involved in beekeeping, rabit keeping, dairy

goat keeping, banana plantation and tree nurseries; and the Meta Meta group of Kajiado. This is

involved in tree nurseries and beekeeping.

4.1.1 Motivation for engaging in forest activities

Responses to the question: “What factors motivate you to undertake forest or environment activities?”

elicited two main responses from the FGD participants, with the responses obtained from the various

groups of respondents being all very similar, these mainly motivations mainly linking forest activities to

either economic or environmental benefits.


Smart Frontiers 36

Economic benefits

In terms of economic benefits, financial benefits featured heavily in participants responses, with the

income generating activities corresponded to the forest and environment related activities already cited.

It is worth noting that the different initiatives to generate income and employment by various groups

have had notable impact. In all circumstances, it was apparent that the communities did not directly earn

from the gazette forests since these are not accessible, mostly they sourced the products from bush-lands

and farms with trees.

In terms of income, although a number of participants could not indicate the approximate income on

monthly basis, since they earned incomes after certain duration (say 6 moths), it was apparent that the

level of income obtained varied by the activity and season, with the monthly values ranging from Ksh.

2,000 to 20,000. For example, for the Crown Land Group of Kangaita Kerugoya, they sell a seedling at

Ksh. 25, and honey at not less than Ksh. 400 per kg. For one participant, the average income he raised

from beekeeping was Ksh. 5,000 to 10, 000 per month. For seedlings and firewood, the approximately

income per month is Ksh. 10,000. For timber business, the monthly income range from Ksh. 10,000

to 15,000. The highest income levels are apparent in charcoal business, with average monthly

income ranging from Ksh. 30,000 to 60,000. In other circumstances, the income generated

contributed to supporting the community at large. A female FGD participant in Machakos

stated that, “the income I get after selling seedlings supports me in taking care of the orphans

and some members of the community that are disadvantaged”.

Environmental benefits

On the other hand, illustrating environmental benefits, participants responses showed that there is wide

knowledge if these benefits. These benefits include clean atmosphere and water catchment. Of interest

was to assess the views of the Port Victoria Community Forest Association with regard to

environmental conservation. From the discussions with the members, the main reasons that motivated

their engagement in forest related activities is the realization that, trees had numerous benefits that could

be tapped these include: firewood, building materials, provision of shade, they can thrive hand in hand

with other crops they produce fruits, they produce non timber products like castor and gum resin. They

also attended forums that sensitized them and made them understand how significant trees are. Trees

prevent soil erosion and minimize the effects of floods which have been prevalent in Bunyala area. They


Smart Frontiers 37

also realized that as trees were diminishing, the rainfall was also diminishing in the area. These

activities have also been generating income either when one sells a tree or even subsidizing the family

budget.

4.2 Challenges and Opportunities

The perception of the participants on current forest coverage and the use of forest resources spanned a

spectrum of positive to negative opinions. Largely, the views emerging were in support of expansion of

current forest coverage; as noted by a participant in Machakos, “because the forest benefits them a lot

as in providing rain, fresh air, timber, charcoal, grass, firewood, water and beatifies the environment

naturally.” In terms of use of forest resources, a large number of views did not favour exploitation of the

resources or the gazetted forests; rather, they expressed preference for opportunity to plan their own

trees to curb too much usage of forest resources from the gazetted forests. To this end, the participants

felt that KFS needs to promote aforestation initiatives by:

a. Educating the local communities on how to plant trees in their homes and what kind of

trees

b. Providing the community with necessary seedlings for planting in their homes and

forest

c. Let the community give a hand in planting the trees in the forest and watering them as

well to see them grow well

d. The foresters should visit the community members‟ homes and see the trees they have

planted

e. Enlighten them on the policy they have put in place about the use of the forest resources

Current challenges

Forest conservation has however, been plagued with a number of challenges. According to the Port

Victoria Community Forest Association, the members feel that KFS officials in a way contribute to

destruction of the forest. This is because they issue permits to people to get into the forest and cut trees

unnecessarily. Charcoal burners and timber dealers have cleared the forest of indigenous and medicinal

trees. The forest has been heavily depleted and what remains are a couple of bushes scattered all over.

Besides, the Kenya-Uganda border is very porous. Uninspected timber which is infected gets smuggled

into the country and infects forests with aphids and other timber defects. Another challenge has been

lack of funding. Forests that are normally funded are the heavily canopied ones. The members felt that


Smart Frontiers 38

there should be equity in forest funding even though some have a more significant role. The funds

would go a long way in reforestation of Port Victoria Forest. The government also needs to invest in

tools like fire extinguishers. The CFA members have had to use twigs and sand to put out forest fires

which has proven cumbersome and in efficient.

Opportunities

In terms of opportunities, participants‟ views consistently focused reduced reliance on forest for

livelihood activities. For example, in Kabartonjo, the participants advocated, not only for planting of

more trees, but also for reduce dependence, as noted in the following comment: “The community should

stop depending too much on forest and plant their own trees especially indigenous trees.” Additionally,

the community should use the right channels to acquire trees from the forests instead of stealing and this

will help to protect our forests, while KFS should educate the community on how to prevent destruction

of trees. For the Port Victoria Community Forest Association, this came out more explicitly, with the

view that, “the government and the community should advocate for use of alternative energy sources

like solar energy and biogas in place of firewood and charcoal. This will result in less trees being cut

and this makes for a more dense forest.”

On the other hand, Nonetheless, it as noted that increased forest resources utilization need not mean

destruction of the environment because once a tree is felled at least two trees should be planted in

return. Utilization of forest resources would be in order because it will mean that members of the

community have enough resources to educate their children. For the he Port Victoria Community Forest

Association participants, there should be criteria however that should govern tree harvesting such that

members get rewarded for their efforts to conserve forests because there has been a tendency for KFS to

reward people with big companies at the expense of the community which dampens their morale. This

ensures continuity of the forest. In essence, what good is a tree if it can‟t serve mankind?

Other direct utilization of the forest resources, it was noted that forests can also create alternative

income opportunities such as in tourism. This was well captured in the following illustration by the Port

Victoria Community Forest Association participants:

“There are opportunities however, that need exploiting in order to increase forest coverage and

utilization for instance, letting people plant medicinal trees in the forest. This will help fill up

the gaping spaces in the forests. When the forest is adequately canopied, they can then introduce

wildlife into the forest which will attract tourists into the area. There is also an interesting well

atop Busia (Mumbaka) Hill. The well mysteriously connects to Lake Victoria somehow such


Smart Frontiers 39

that when water gets polluted In the lake, the well emits “smoke” It is also claimed that once

you drop something into the well, it ends up in Lake Victoria. This could make for a lucrative

ecotourism venture. Once a sizeable number of tourists are attracted to the area, a hotel can then

be built to accommodate them.”

4.3 Management of Forests

On responsibility for the management of forests, participants‟ indicated that, although KFS currently has

oversight responsibility for management of forests in the country, the general consensus was that both

the government and the community have a responsibility. According to most of the participants, the

communities can do this if they are facilitated and supported by KFS. For example, the Port Victoria

Community Forest Association participants felt that this can be achieved if they were provided with

quality seedlings to make the forest denser. Exotic and indigenous seedlings need to be sourced for

planting. On this, they noted that carbon trading is a concept that can be introduced to boost the incomes

of the forest adjacent communities.

The second way would be to provide support to forest supported projects, such a beekeeping. Currently,

Port Victoria Community Forest Association practice small time bee farming because they cannot afford

to buy modern hives whose cost ranges from 4000-7000 Kenyan shillings a piece. They therefore, don‟t

earn much from bee keeping because with their traditional hives and harvesting methods, they only get

about 20 liters of honey in a season. If they are financially offset, bee keeping could be a lucrative

activity in Budalangi.

Cross-cutting issues

Asked to reflect on issues that affect the forest sector, the responses advanced showed a relatively

high level of knowledge of the management and administrative gaps in the sector. The crosscutting

issues included, lack of transparency, mismanagement (in terms of fraudulent issuing of permits) and

illegal logging, some of which is associated with the staff of KSF. The combination of these factors has

been a bad precedence for the management of the country‟s forest resources. For the business people,

the challenges they experience stem from the current approach for managing government forest. As

noted by the participants in Machakos, these administrative bottlenecks include:

Unreasonable timeline in issuing of permits for ferrying and cutting of trees (often 3 days). The

permit expires before one finishes cutting and carrying out the timbers. This lead to corruption.


Smart Frontiers 40

Challenges related to transporting of timber, charcoal and firewood. On this, it was noted that

the Kenya police on the road do not recognize the permit issued on the carriage by the Kenya

forest. They stop and heavily impose a fine on transporters often without issuing of receipt

Kenya forest does not recognize the permit issued by foresters from other locations you bought

the forest resources. They thus levy heavy fines on the resources carried with no receipt

Too many permits are issued for cutting and for ferrying – this is time wasting and costly


Smart Frontiers 41

Section 5: Results of the Mystery Shopping Assessment

This section presents the findings from the mystery shopping survey. The results are presented by the

mean scores of the different spheres of assessment. The mystery shoppers posed as potential customers,

using scenarios of service seeking. The key objective was to assess both the technical and functional

dimensions of service delivery. For the 19 mystery shopping, 4 constituted scenarios for purchase of

seedlings, 2 constituted scenarios of tender enquiries, 3 constituted scenarios of permits for charcoal

business, 6 constituted scenarios of permits for timber business, and 2 constituted scenarios for logging

permits.

5.1 Ambience

In terms of ambience (Table 5.1), overall, a mean score of 3.6 was recorded for ambience, with the

scores ranging from 4.7 in respect to temperature to 3.6 in respect to arrangement of the reception area.

Notable contrasts are observed across main zone offices and sub-branch offices, depicting overall mean

score difference of 1.1 in favour of the former.

Table 5.1: Mean score on office ambience

Ambience

Main zone

office

Sub-branch

office Mean score

The station clean and tidy 4.1 3.9 4.0

The building well lit 4.4 4.0 4.2

The reception was well arranged 4.1 3.0 3.6

The temperature was comfortable 4.4 5.0 4.7

Overall satisfaction 4.1 3.0 3.6

5.2 Facilities

With regard to facilities (Table 5.2), the results depict overall a mean score of 2.7, with the scores

ranging from 1.0 in respect to toilets to 2.8 in respect to cleanliness of the desks and ability to move


Smart Frontiers 42

through the compound with ease. Notable contrasts are observed across main zone offices and sub-

branch offices, with overall mean score difference of 1.4 being observed in favour of the former.

Table 5.2: Mean score on facilities

Facilities

Main zone

office

Sub-branch

office Mean score

Ability to move through the compound with ease 3.6 2.0 2.8

Signage were useful 3.0 2.0 2.5

Desks were clean and tidy 3.5 2.0 2.8

Toilet was clean 2.7 1.0 1.9


5.3 Customer service

Looking at customer service (Table 5.3), the results depict overall a mean score of 4.9. The range of

scores is relatively high across all the 8 aspects, ranging from range from 4.2 to 4.9. The lower scores

are evident in respect to aspect on „the extent customer care staff made it clear how enquiry would be

handled‟ and „the extent staff were presentable.‟ Similarly, two aspects tie with a mean score of 4.9: „service was

provided in a timely manner‟, „staff were able to communicate satisfactorily.‟ Minimal contrasts are observed

across main zone offices and sub-branch offices, with overall mean score difference of 0.3 being

observed in favour of the latter.

Table 5.3: Mean score on customer service

Customer service

Main zone

office

Sub-branch

office Mean score

Staff were friendly and welcoming 4.7 4.6 4.6

Service was provided in a timely manner 4.7 5.0 4.9

Staff were presentable 4.4 4.0 4.2

Staff were able to communicate satisfactorily 4.8 5.0 4.9

Customer care staff made it clear how enquiry

would be handled 4.3 4.0 4.2

Staff probed for further understanding where

appropriate 4.6 4.7 4.6

It was easy t be referred to the appropriate person 4.7 5.0 4.9


Staff were friendly and welcoming 4.7 4.6 4.6

Service was provided in a timely manner 4.7 5.0 4.9


Smart Frontiers 43

5.4 Service delivery standards

Lastly, looking at service delivery standards (technical dimension – Table 5.4), the results depict overall

a mean score of 4.9. The range of scores is relatively high across all the 4 aspects, ranging from range

from 4.1 in respect to „quality of the service delivery‟ to 5.0, in respect to „Level of understanding the

advisor had of the needs‟ and „Usefulness of the information provided‟. In comparison, no contrasts are

observed across main zone offices and sub-branch offices to that regard.

Table 5.4: Mean score on service delivery standards

Service delivery standards

Main zone

office

Sub-branch

office Mean score

Level of understanding the advisor had of the

needs 5.0 5.0 5.0

Usefulness of the information provided 4.9 5.0 5.0

Quality of the service delivery 4.9 4.3 4.6

Overall satisfaction with visit 4.8 4.8 4.8


Smart Frontiers 44

Conclusion

This Section is concerned with reporting on Forest Sector performance with regard to the specific

mandates of KFS. One key point may be derived from these findings: In terms of customer category, the

suppliers segment appears to score higher levels of satisfaction on a number of aspects, and conversely,

the community segment scoring the lowest. Given that the community segment, being the only group

that is non-institutional, these differences may reflect service delivery disparities, in terms of the quality

of service provided to different segments of customers.

Looking at the areas that are most responsible for satisfaction among customers, the findings of this

survey reveal that customer contentment cluster on three main platforms, namely: Service Assurance,

Responsiveness to customer needs, and Competency and Accountability. On the other hand, with regard

to performance, it is found that, relative to customer expectations, satisfaction gaps (decidedly negative)

occur in five areas: i) Access to felling plan, ii) Time it takes to be served, iii) Providing timber license,

iv) Providing nature based enterprises licenses, v) Access to timber import/export permit, and vi)

Authorization to sale minor forest produce. We take note that these issues in one way or another were

also acknowledged as shortfalls in the responses provided by the focus group discussants. These

Constraints seem to dampen the impact of the Service on the sector. Particularly, responsiveness to

customer needs is viewed to constrain delivery of quality services to the stakeholders, underlining the

need to address the shortfalls to that regard.

Looking at the two measures of access, i.e. affordability and access, it is notable that a higher proportion

of the participants considered the services to be affordable, overall reflected in 86% positive ratings for

those who felt that the services were either affordable or fairly affordable. On the other hand, regarding

accessibility, this aspect remains an area of relative concern, to the institutional and non-institutional

customer segments. This was reflected in a combined positive score of 37% who mentioned that the

services were access or fairly accessible. These issues have implications on the overall costs of access to

the services, and it is possible that they contribute a great deal to customer disaffection.


Smart Frontiers 45

Assessment of customers‟ direct experiences of services sought using various modes of engagement; the

results show fairly high satisfaction levels on various service delivery aspects obtained using these

modes. Nonetheless, the results reveal that the overarching concerns on „Conduciveness of sanitation

facilities‟ and „Use of modern technology for service delivery‟. These aspects, being predominantly

associated with facility visit, the survey results showed that less than 40% of those who used this mode

of engagement were satisfied with the experience. Consistent with the above viewpoint on sanitation

facilities, it is noted that this aspect similarly received quit low scores from the mystery shopping

assessment.

The other aspects depicted modest levels of satisfaction were those relating to the services accessed

through email and website. On the former, aspects of email bounce – „i.e. how easy it is for the email

get through‟ (i.e. not bounce-back) and „immediate acknowledgement of email‟ recorded satisfaction

levels below 60%. On the other hand with regard to the service sought through website, the survey

depicts lower scores with regard to the „extent information is up to date‟ and „usefulness of website in

terms of information needs.‟ Similarly, both of these aspects depict satisfaction levels below 60%. On

this note, even though both aspects record satisfaction levels above 50%, ensuring that these aspects of

service delivery are responsive is critical in terms of improving the satisfaction of customers that use

these modes to seek service.

Lastly, one aspect that similarly emerged as an area of concern was the management system with regard

to issuance of permits. Reporting a range of concerns such as expiry timelines of the permits and the

requirement for multiple licenses for cutting and ferrying, the combination of these factors has been a

bad precedence for the management of the country‟s forest resources. In particularly, for the business

people, most of the challenges they currently experience stem from this approach to management of the

country‟s forests.

Recommendations

On the basis of these findings, the following strategies are suggested as a way of enhancing the level

and quality of output of KFS:

9. Customer service: Address service delivery deficiencies, including waiting time. There is need

to strengthen the ability of the departments to deal with these deficiencies.

10. Reviewing regulations: The importance of reviewing regulation pertaining to licenses and

permits is underlined. Here, we take note that this remains one of the issues where disquiet is

notable.


Smart Frontiers 46

11. Communication: This relates to „customer engagement‟. It appears that there are hurdles that

prevent access to information by certain segments of the general public. The concern expressed

here was that information seems to focus on the market players rather than investors. Different

customer segments are in need of different information features, and mainstreaming information

along these segments would be useful in terms of enhancing engagement.

12. Complaints management: There is need to enhance complaints handling process. This would

entail putting into place complaints mechanisms and letting the public have knowledge of the

same, and also to recognize and take appropriate action on the complaints lodged

13. Public education: Results from the FGDs show that information gaps remain in public

knowledge regarding the range of investment opportunities in forest related activities. There

should be energetic move to improve access to investment information to that regard

14. Accessibility: Given the challenges of accessing a number of stations, KFS should consider

establishing liaison offices to bring the services nearer in those areas where the forest stations

are not easy to access

15. Sanitation facilities: This is critical in terms of improving the satisfaction of customers that visit

the facilities

16. Internet services: Improvements in the quality of service delivered through email is an area in

need of improvement. Additionally, KFS should consider enriching its website by uploading

more and upto date information and providing relevant useful URL links on the forest sector.

This will make the website an information resource.

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY - … · KFC Kenya Forest College ... 2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector 12 ... KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012 Smart Frontiers 4

Documents