INSTITUTE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS Announcement
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS Announcement
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS
F&B AND TOURISM
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG Methodology
!4
Customer Satisfaction
CSISG (Scale of 0-100)
1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations
3. Similarity to Ideal
How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score
Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal
CSISG Structural Model (For Q3 Sectors)
Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance
Qn. Complaint Behaviour
Qn. Perceived Product Quality Qn. Perceived Product Customisation Qn. Perceived Product Reliability
Qn. Perceived Service Quality Qn. Perceived Service Customisation Qn. Perceived Service Reliability
Perceived Service Quality
Perceived Product Quality
Perceived Overall Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value
Customer Satisfaction
Customer Complaints
Customer Loyalty
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality
Before Recent Experience)
Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price
Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability
!5→ Denotes positive relationship between the drivers → Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers
General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology
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. (Not Applicable to Hotel Sub-sector)
Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport.
Typically 50-200 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
!7
Overview of Score Calculation
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
!8
CSISG 2018 Q3 Sub-sectors
F&B Sector
• Restaurants
• Fast Food Restaurants
• Cafes & Coffee Houses
• Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
Tourism Sector
• Attractions
• Hotels
!9
Sectors Covered Food & Beverages Tourism
Survey Period Jul to Oct 2018
Total Questionnaires Completed 6,900
Locals 3,060
Tourists 3,840
Distinct entities measured 352
Entities with published scores 57
CSISG 2018 Q3 Quick Facts
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS
How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2018 Q3 Results Overview
!11* Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores
QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/brands
(Past 3 months for F&B, Past 6 months for Tourism)
(2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands from different sectors
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Tourism Sector Results
60
70
80
60
70
80Attractions
Hotels
2007 2018
70
78
Tourism Sector
!13
▲▼Statistically significant IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence
Tourism Sector CSISG Trends
◼
▲
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality
Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value CSISG Customer
Loyalty
Hotels 74.2 75.6 75.5 ▲ 75.3 72.3
Attractions 74.3 ▲ 75.2 ▲ 75.1 ▲ 74.1 ▲ 73.4 ▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Service Quality
Product Quality
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value CSISG
Complaints
Customer Loyalty
!14
Significant Increases Y-O-Y In All Drivers
Note: Only Tourists are measured in the Hotels sub-sector
!15
Perceived Product Quality
Perceived Service Quality
Perceived Overall Quality
Hotels 75.0 76.3 75.6
Attractions 75.1 ▲ 75.4 75.2 ▲
Service Quality
Product Quality
Perceived Quality
Perceived Quality Up For Attractions, Driven By Increase in Perceived Product Quality
Note: Only Tourists are measured in the Hotels sub-sector
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Attraction Findings
Marginal Upticks in Satisfaction Across Attractions
Sentosa 74.9
Jurong Bird Park 73.9
Singapore Zoo 74.5
Night Safari 71.1
River Safari 72.8
Universal Studios 71.9
Singapore Discovery Centre 70.4
Adventure Cove 71.8
Singapore Flyer 73.2 Gardens By The Bay 73.2
S.E.A Aquarium 73.4
Other attractions 71.2
75.6 Sentosa
74.2 Jurong Bird Park
74.7 Singapore Zoo
72.8 Night Safari
73.9 River Safari
73.1 Universal Studios
70.9 Singapore Discovery Centre
72.8 Adventure Cove
73.9 Singapore Flyer
74.4 Gardens By The Bay
73.6 S.E.A Aquarium
72.0 Other attractions
CSISG2017
CSISG2018
!17
Attractions
60
70
80
Other attractions includes ArtScience Museum, Trickeye Museum, Wild Wild Wet
74.1
70
78
Tourism Sector2007 2018
Clarity of directions within the attraction
Friendliness and courtesy of the staff
Ease of finding information within the attraction
Cleanliness of the attraction
Helpfulness of the staff
Range of activities/ exhibits
Staff knowledge about the attractionEntertainment and/or educational value
of the attractionAmenities within the attraction
Safety and security measures within the attraction
Waiting time to get into the attraction
Ease of getting around the attraction
Ease of getting to the attraction
Quality of food and beverage given the prices
Food and beverage options
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.2 7.7 8.2
!18
Higher Satisfaction Across Various Attributes (Attractions attributes)
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
▲
#
# Attribute answered only by respondents who dined at the attraction
▲
▲
2018 Avg Rating
!19!19
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.0 7.6 8.2
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
8.2 7.6 7.0
Cleanliness of the attraction
Staff knowledge about the attraction
Clarity of directions within the attraction
Ease of finding information within the attraction
Range of activities/ exhibits
Friendliness and courtesy of the staff
Amenities within the attraction
Ease of getting around the attraction
Safety and security measures within the attraction
Helpfulness of the staff
Entertainment/ educational value of attraction
Waiting time to get into the attraction
Food and beverage options
Quality of food and beverage given the prices#
Ease of getting to the attraction
LocalsTourists
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
▲
▲▲▲
▲
▲▲
▲
▲
▲▼
▼
▲▲▼
# Attribute answered only by respondents who dined at the attraction
Higher Attribute Ratings Driven by Tourists (Attractions attributes by Segments)
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Information Search & Visitor Experience
More Visitors Searching for Information Prior to Visit (Attractions: Sources Of Information)
2016
2017
2018 47.3%
48.2%
56.7%
52.7%
51.8%
43.3%
Searched for information prior to visit Did not search
!21
% R
espo
nden
t W
ho
Sea
rche
d Fo
r In
form
atio
n
0%
30%
60%
Attraction's Website, Social Media, Mobile App
Brochures Word Of Mouth Print Media (Newspaper, Magazine)
Other sources of information
2016
2017
2018 47.3%
48.2%
56.7%
52.7%
51.8%
43.3%
Searched for information prior to visit Did not search
Source of Information (2018)
!22
More Visitors Searching for Information Prior to Visit (Attractions: Sources Of Information)
Visitors Who Search For Information - Locals vs Tourists
% R
espo
nden
ts
0%
50%
100%
Searched for information
Did not search
Searched for information
Did not search
52.3%47.7%
34.1%
65.9%
Locals
!23
Tourists
60
70
80
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value
CSISG CustomerLoyalty
Searched for information prior to visit Did not search
!24
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value
CSISG CustomerLoyalty
Locals Tourists
denotes that this segment’s score is significantly HIGHER at 90% confidence
Higher Scores Seen Across Measured Satisfaction Dimensions For Tourists Who Searched For Information
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Hotel Findings
Grand Hyatt 74.2
Marina Mandarin 72.1 Mandarin Orchard 72.2
Pan Pacific Singapore 73.5
Shangri-La 72.8
Hotel Michael 73.7
The Ritz-Carlton 75.1
Marina Bay Sands 74.6 74.9 Grand Hyatt
73.2 Marina Mandarin 73.1 Mandarin Orchard
74.7 Pan Pacific Singapore 74.4 Shangri-La 74.0 Hotel Michael
75.7 The Ritz-Carlton 75.5 Marina Bay Sands
CSISG2017
CSISG2018
Marginal Upticks in Satisfaction Scores (Luxury & Upscale Hotels)
60
70
80
!26
Hotels 75.3
70
78
Tourism Sector
2007 2018
Fragrance Hotel 70.6
Hotel 81 69.5
71.3 Fragrance Hotel
70.6 Hotel 81
CSISG2017
CSISG2018
Similar Upticks in Economy Hotel Scores (Economy Hotels)
!27
60
70
80Hotels 75.3
70
78
Tourism Sector
2007 2018
Luxury & Upscale Hotels Economy Hotels
Impact On Quality
Staff's ability to provide local recommendations and information
Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)
Hotel ambience Comfort of the room
Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts) Cleanliness of the room
Comfort of the room Ambience of the room
Ability of the hotel to accommodate to your needs or requests Reliability of the internet connection
!28
Top 5 Differentiators of Quality (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality)
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
Luxury & Upscale Hotels Economy Hotels
Impact On Quality
Staff's ability to provide local recommendations and information
Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)
Hotel ambience Comfort of the room
Maintenance of the hotel's public area (e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts) Cleanliness of the room
Comfort of the room Ambience of the room
Ability of the hotel to accommodate to your needs or requests Reliability of the internet connection
!29
Service Elements Remain Differentiators for Luxury Hotels (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality)
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
Service ProcessLegend: ProductService Staff
Product Service Process Service Staff
Comfort of the room
Maintenance of the hotel's public area
Cleanliness of the room
Hotel ambience
Hotel facilities
Reliability of the internet connection
Food and beverage options
Ambience of the room
Amenities in room (TV, air-con & hair-dryer)
YOY % Change
-0.9%
+0.5%
+1.4%
+1.7%
+2.0%
+2.7%
+3.5%
+3.6%
+7.3%
Efficiency of the check-out process
Efficiency of the check-in process
Ease of making reservations
Ability of the hotel to accommodate to
your needs or requests
+1.2%
+2.0%
+2.3%
+2.9%
YOY % Change
◼Statistically significant year-on-year increase at 90% confidence
◼Statistically significant year-on-year drop at 90% confidence
Staff's ability to provide local
recommendations and information
Responsiveness of staff
Helpfulness of staff
Staff's ability to communicate professionally
-1.0%
-0.5%
+1.0%
+1.2%
YOY % Change
Improvement in Various Attributes (Upscale & Luxury Hotels: Year-on-Year Change In Attributes)
!30
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Food & Beverages Sector Results
F&B Sector CSISG Trends 70
F&B Sector
60
70
80Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
2007 2018
Cafes & Coffee Houses Fast Food Restaurants
Restaurants
▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant change between the 2018 and 2017 scores at 90% confidence
▲
!32
◼
◼ ▲
Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality
Before Recent Experience)
Perceived Quality
(After Recent Experience)
Perceived Value CSISG Customer
Loyalty
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks 76.2 77.5 77.1 75.3 73.0
Restaurants 75.5 ▲ 76.4 ▲ 76.2 ▲ 74.4 ▲ 72.1
Cafes & Coffee Houses 74.7 75.8 75.6 ▲ 73.9 73.4
Fast Food Restaurants 74.3 75.2 75.4 73.6 ▲ 73.3
Service Quality
Product Quality
Customer Expectations
Perceived Quality
Perceived Value CSISG
Complaints
Customer Loyalty
!33
Satisfaction & All Drivers For Restaurants Saw Upticks (Drivers of Satisfaction)
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
!34
Perceived Product Quality
Perceived Service Quality
Perceived Quality
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
77.2 77.9 77.5
Restaurants 75.9 ▲ 76.9 ▲ 76.4 ▲
Cafes & Coffee Houses
75.5 76.1 75.8
Fast Food Restaurants
74.9 75.5 75.2
Service Quality
Product Quality
Perceived Quality
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence ◼No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence
Both Product And Service Quality Up For Restaurant
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
60
66
72
78
84
Expect-ations
Quality Value Expect-ations
Quality Value Expect-ations
Quality Value Expect-ations
Quality Value
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
!35
Locals Tourists
CSISG 73.3 77.7
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Locals Tourists
72.6 77.4
Fast Food Restaurants
Locals Tourists
73.1 74.7
Restaurants
Locals Tourists
73.8 73.6
Tourists More Satisfied Than Locals For Restaurants And Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
GREEN/RED scores indicate Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance
Sco
re (
0 t
o 1
00
)
60
66
72
78
84
Expect-ations
Quality Value Expect-ations
Quality Value Expect-ations
Quality Value Expect-ations
Quality Value
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
!36
Locals Tourists
CSISG 73.3 77.7
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Locals Tourists
72.6 ▲ 77.4 ▲
Fast Food Restaurants
Locals Tourists
73.1 74.7
Restaurants
Locals Tourists
73.8 ▲ 73.6
Increase in Restaurants CSISG Scores Driven by Both Locals & Tourists
GREEN/RED scores indicate Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance
▲
▲▼Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence
▲ ▲
▲▲ ▲
▲
TungLok Signatures Scored Significantly Higher Than Sub-sector Average (Restaurants)
TungLok SignaturesCrystal Jade Kitchen
Soup RestaurantFish & Co
Boon Tong KeeThai ExpressSakae SushiDin Tai Fung
Swensen'sJack's Place
AstonsAjisen Ramen
Manhattan Fish MarketSushi Tei
Seoul GardenCrystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long Bao
Dian Xiao ErNando's
Pizza HutXin Wang HK CafeOther restaurants
CSISG Scores (0 to 100 scale)
60 67 73 80!37
Restaurants Sub-sector CSISG: 74.4
▲
▲
▲▼Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2018 and 2017 scores at
90% confidence
McDonalds 72.7
KFC 70.4
Burger King 72.9
Mos Burger 71.6
Subway 70.7
Other fast-food restaurants 70.3
74.9 McDonalds
72.7 KFC
74.2 Burger King
71.9 Mos Burger 71.9 Subway
72.1 Other fast-food restaurants
CSISG2017
CSISG2018
Upticks in Scores Across Most Fast Food Restaurants (Fast Food Restaurants)
!38
2007 201858
69
80Fast Food Restaurants
Other fast food includes Carl’s Junior, Long John Silver’s, Popeyes
73.6
70
78
Food & Beverage Sector
Starbucks 73.2
Ya Kun 70.2 Toast Box 70.3
Other cafes & snack bars 72.2
75.6 Starbucks
72.3 Ya Kun
71.4 Toast Box
74.2 Other cafes & snack bars
CSISG2017
CSISG2018
58
69
80
Upticks for Cafes & Coffee Houses (Cafe & Coffee Houses)
!39
2007 2018
Cafes & Coffee Houses 73.9
Food & Beverage Sector
Other cafes & coffee houses includes Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, TCC, Delifrance
Old Chang Kee 72.6
Jollibean 71.0
Other snack bars & food kiosks 74.2 74.5 Old Chang Kee
71.7 Jollibean
75.8 Other snack bars & food kiosks
CSISG2017
CSISG2018
Upticks for Snack Bars & Food Kiosks (Snack Bars & Food Kiosks)
!40
58
69
80
2007 2018Food & Beverage Sector
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks 75.3
Other snack bars & food kiosks includes LiHo, Dunkin Donuts, Tori Q
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
F&B Attributes
Restaurants Fast Food Restaurants
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
Impact on Quality
Received food within reasonable time Serves good quality food Staff knows the menu
items wellFood is tasty
Food is tasty Received food within reasonable time
Has a pleasant ambience
Has a pleasant ambience
Food looks appetizing Staff provides prompt and quick service Serves good quality food Staff is proactive in
offering help
Serves good quality food Staff is approachable and personable Food is tasty Staff provides prompt
and quick service
Staff is approachable and personable
Food is tasty Food looks appetizing Staff is approachable and personable
!42
Top 5 Differentiators of Quality (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality)
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
Restaurants Fast Food Restaurants
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
Impact on Quality
Received food within reasonable time Serves good quality food Staff knows the menu
items wellFood is tasty
Food is tasty Received food within reasonable time
Has a pleasant ambience
Has a pleasant ambience
Food looks appetizing Staff provides prompt and quick service
Serves good quality food Staff is proactive in offering help
Serves good quality food Staff is approachable and personable Food is tasty Staff provides prompt
and quick service
Staff is approachable and personable
Food is tasty Food looks appetizing Staff is approachable and personable
!43
Product Attributes Important Across All Sub-sectors
Legend: Product
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
Restaurants Fast Food Restaurants
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
Impact on Quality
Received food within reasonable time Serves good quality food Staff knows the menu
items well Food is tasty
Food is tasty Received food within reasonable time
Has a pleasant ambience
Has a pleasant ambience
Food looks appetizing Staff provides prompt and quick service
Serves good quality food Staff is proactive in offering help
Serves good quality food Staff is approachable and personable
Food is tasty Staff provides prompt and quick service
Staff is approachable and personable Food is tasty Food looks appetizing Staff is approachable
and personable
!44
StaffLegend: Ordering & Processes
Service Elements Equally As Important
Incr
easi
ng P
osit
ive
Impa
ct
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
Self-Ordering System Vs Ordering Through Service Staff
Increasing Implementation Of Self-Order Systems
!46
Kiosks Tablets/ Phones
Sources: 1. https://theendivechronicles.com/mcdonalds-self-serve-kiosk.html 2. https://www.aigens.com/portfolio-item/fete-fully-cashier-less-kiosk-restaurant-central-2-3-2/ 3. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/popeyes-self-ordering-kiosks-serve-up-efficiency 4. https://www.yelp.com.sg/biz_photos/363-katong-laksa-singapore 5. http://holeinthewall.sg/2018/07/14/eatsy-park-bench-deli/ 6. http://gadgetsmagazine.com.ph/technology/technology-news/rev-an-interactive-self-ordering-device-for-the-fb-industry.html
1 2
3
4 5
6
Serving portions are appropriate
Menu is easy to understand
Serves good quality food
Staff is approachable and personable
Food is tasty
Received food within reasonable time
Serves good quality beverages
Easy to find what I need
Staff provides prompt and quick service
Is comfortable to dine in
Menu options suit my needs
Able to get table within reasonable time
Staff knows the menu items well
Staff is proactive in offering help
Design of the outlet is visually appealing
Has a pleasant ambience
Food looks appetizing
Ordering process is simple
Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)
7.2 7.7 8.2
!47
Fast Food Attributes2018 Avg Rating
Descending Order Of
Mean Ratings
% F
ast
Food
Res
pond
ents
(n=
60
0)
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff Self-Order
8.9%
91.1%
Most Frequent Ordering Method
!48
Most Customer Still Order Through Service Staff (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)
% R
espo
nden
ts (
n=6
00
)
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff Self-Order
8.9%
91.1%Most Frequent Ordering Method
!49
Age Group
18 to 29 Years 86.9% 13.1%
30 to 49 Years 90.3% 9.7%
50 to 84 Years 100.0% 0.0%
Proportion In Each Age Group
Younger Customers More likely to Use Self-Order (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)
% R
espo
nden
ts (
n=6
00
)
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff Self-Order
8.9%
91.1%Most Frequent Ordering Method
!50
Service Quality Score 75.4 77.0CSISG 73.7 73.3
Loyalty Score 73.3 73.6
Score (0 to 100)
No significant differences in scores
No Difference in Scores Regardless of Method Used (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)
% R
espo
nden
ts (
n=6
00
)
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff Self-Order
8.9%
91.1%Most Frequent Ordering Method
!51
Service Quality Score 75.4 77.0CSISG 73.7 73.3
Loyalty Score 73.3 73.6
Ordering process is simple 7.65 8.02
Higher Ratings for ‘Ordering Process Is Simple’ for Customers Who Frequently Use Self-Order (Fast Food: Most Frequent Ordering Method)
Rating (1 to 10)
Score (0 to 100)
GREEN/RED scores indicates one segment performed BETTER/WORSE than the other segment with statistical significance
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
What about Implementing in other F&B sub-sectors?
Restaurants Fast Food
!53
F&B: Preferred Method To Order
% R
espo
nden
ts
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order
14.7%
85.3%
16.1%
83.9%
20.6%
79.4%
6.3%
93.7%
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
Restaurants Fast Food
Age Group
18 to 29 Years
87.7% 12.3% 64.3% 35.7% 73.3% 26.7% 77.1% 22.9%
30 to 49 Years
93.9% 6.1% 80.0% 20.0% 83.8% 16.2% 86.2% 13.8%
50 to 84 Years
99.9% 0.1% 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 0.0% 99.1% 0.9%
Proportion In Each Age Group!54
F&B: Preferred Method To Order by Age
% R
espo
nden
ts
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order
14.7%
85.3%
16.1%
83.9%
20.6%
79.4%
6.3%
93.7%
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
Restaurants Fast Food
Age Group
18 to 29 Years
87.7% 12.3% 64.3% 35.7% 73.3% 26.7% 77.1% 22.9%
30 to 49 Years
93.9% 6.1% 80.0% 20.0% 83.8% 16.2% 86.2% 13.8%
50 to 84 Years
99.9% 0.1% 97.5% 2.5% 100.0% 0.0% 99.1% 0.9%
Proportion In Each Age Group!55
Less Preference for Use of Self-Order for Older Customers and Restaurants
% R
espo
nden
ts
0%
50%
100%
Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order Service Staff
Self-Order
14.7%
85.3%
16.1%
83.9%
20.6%
79.4%
6.3%
93.7%
Cafes & Coffee Houses
Snack Bars & Food Kiosks
!56
• Both Food & Beverage and Tourism Sectors saw statistically significant increases in CSISG scores for 2018.
• Increases were led by improvements in Attractions, Restaurants and Fast Food sub-sectors.
• Tourism Sector:
• Attractions: More visitors finding information about attractions prior to their visit. These visitors tend rate their experiences better.
• Hotels: While upticks seen across product and process-related attributes, service staff remain important.
Summary
!57
• Food & Beverage:
• Fast Food & Self-Ordering Technology: Proportion of users who frequently order through self-ordering kiosks remain low. However, these users do not appear to give lower service quality scores, and rate ordering processes better.
• Preference for self-ordering: Potentially higher resistance for Restaurant visitors and older customers to adopt self-ordering, due to lower preference for its use. Other F&B sub-sectors like Fast-Food may have lower resistance with higher preference for self-ordering.
Summary
INSTITUTE OF
SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY
ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2018 Q3 RESULTS Announcement