SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017 · 2018. 4. 9. · FINAL REPORT Prepared for...

SafeWork NSW

Customer Satisfaction Survey

2017

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for SafeWork NSW by Jetty Research and Strategic Economic Solutions

Dated: July 21st 2017

SafeWork NSW 2017 Customer Satisfaction Survey © Jetty Research and Strategic Economic Solutions, July 2017

2

Table of Contents

DISCLAIMER ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 6

PART 2: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 11

BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................................. 11 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 11 TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF INTERACTION TYPES .................................................................................................................. 11 TABLE 2.2: INTERACTION TYPES, 2015 - 2017 ................................................................................................................. 12 TABLE 2.3: QUESTION TYPES AND SAMPLE SIZES BY INTERACTION TYPE ................................................................................. 13 CONTACT LISTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 14 TABLE 2.4: BREAKDOWN OF DATABASE BY INTERACTION TYPE AND SURVEY METHOD .............................................................. 14 SURVEYS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 14 TELEPHONE SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 TABLE 2.5: DISPOSITION SUMMARY FOR THE CATI COMPONENT OF THE SURVEY ................................................................... 15 ONLINE SURVEY ............................................................................................................................................................ 16 TABLE 2.6: BREAKDOWN OF INTERACTIONS BY PHONE VS. ONLINE ....................................................................................... 16 ANALYSIS AND REPORTING.............................................................................................................................................. 17 PERFORMANCE AND SATISFACTION MEASURE SCORES ......................................................................................................... 17

PART 3. SURVEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 18

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE.............................................................................................................................................. 18 CORPORATE PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 18 OUTCOMES.................................................................................................................................................................. 19 SATISFACTION WITH STAFF ............................................................................................................................................. 19 IMPROVING SAFETY BELIEFS ........................................................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 3.1: AGREE SCORES FOR 17 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION STATEMENTS, 2015-17 ........................................................... 21 FIGURE 3.1: RESPONDENTS BY INTERACTION TYPE 2015-2017 .......................................................................................... 22 TABLE 3.2: SATISFACTION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INSPECTOR RESPONSE AND ADMIN RESPONSE .............................................. 23 CATEGORY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3.3: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, BY PHONE VS. ONLINE ........................................................................................... 25 NET PROMOTER SCORES ................................................................................................................................................ 26 FIGURE 3.2: NPS FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY SAFEWORK NSW (EDUCATION-BASED INTERACTIONS ONLY) ............................... 26 'DRIVER' ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 27 PICTURE 3.1: DRIVERS OF “MET MY NEEDS” ..................................................................................................................... 27 PICTURE 3.2: DRIVERS OF “EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH” .................................................................................................... 28

PART 4. QUESTION-BY-QUESTION RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 29

TABLE 4.0: SUMMARY TABLE OF 2017 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 29 4.1 EFFORTS ACKNOWLEDGED ........................................................................................................................................ 30 FIGURE 4.1.1: ‘SAFEWORK ACKNOWLEDGED EFFORTS’, ALL RESPONDENTS ........................................................................... 30 TABLE 4.1.1: ‘SAFEWORK ACKNOWLEDGED EFFORTS ’BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ............................................ 31 TABLE 4.1.2: ‘SAFEWORK ACKNOWLEDGED EFFORTS’ BY INDUSTRY´ BY BUSINESS SIZE ............................................................ 31 4.2 INTERACTION VALUABLE/WORTHWHILE ...................................................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 4.2.1: ‘INTERACTION WITH SAFEWORK WAS VALUABLE/WORTHWHILE’, ALL RESPONDENTS ......................................... 32 TABLE 4.2.1: ‘INTERACTION VALUABLE/WORTHWHILE’ RATINGS BY INTERACTION TYPE........................................................... 33 TABLE 4.2.2: ‘INTERACTION VALUABLE/WORTHWHILE’ BY BUSINESS SIZE .............................................................................. 33 4.3 SERVICE MET NEEDS ................................................................................................................................................ 34 FIGURE 4.3.1: ‘SERVICE MET MY NEEDS’, ALL RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................... 34


3

TABLE 4.3.1: ‘SERVICE MET MY NEEDS’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ............................................................... 35 TABLE 4.3.2: ‘SERVICE MET MY NEEDS’, BY BUSINESS SIZE .................................................................................................. 35 4.4 SAFEWORK UNDERSTOOD BUSINESS PRESSURES .......................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 4.4.1: ‘UNDERSTOOD THE DEMANDS OR PRESSURES OF BUSINESS’, ALL RESPONDENTS ................................................ 36 TABLE 4.4.1: ‘UNDERSTOOD DEMANDS OR PRESSURES OF BUSINESS’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017....................................... 37 TABLE 4.4.2: ‘UNDERSTOOD DEMANDS OR PRESSURES OF BUSINESS’ BY BUSINESS SIZE ........................................................... 37 4.5 ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO ADDRESS MY ISSUE .............................................................................................................. 38 FIGURE 4.5.1: ‘ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO ADDRESS MY ISSUE’, ALL RESPONDENTS ................................................................. 38 TABLE 4.5.1: ‘ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO ADDRESS MY ISSUE’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 .................................. 39 TABLE 4.5.2: ‘ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO ADDRESS MY ISSUE’, BY BUSINESS SIZE ..................................................................... 39 4.6 TREATED ME FAIRLY ................................................................................................................................................ 40 FIGURE 4.6.1: ‘TREATED FAIRLY’, ALL RESPONDENTS ......................................................................................................... 40 TABLE 4.6.1: ‘TREATED FAIRLY’ IN 2017 AND 2016 ......................................................................................................... 41 TABLE 4.6.2:‘TREATED FAIRLY’ BY BUSINESS SIZE ............................................................................................................... 41 4.7 INCREASED CONFIDENCE .......................................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 4.7.1: ‘INCREASED CONFIDENCE’, ALL RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................. 42 TABLE 4.7.1: ‘INCREASED CONFIDENCE’ BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ............................................................... 43 TABLE 4.7.1: ‘INCREASED CONFIDENCE’, BY BUSINESS SIZE ................................................................................................. 43 4.8 APPEARED COMPETENT ........................................................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 4.8.1: ‘APPEARED COMPETENT’, ALL RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................... 44 TABLE 4.8.1: ‘APPEARED COMPETENT’ BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ................................................................ 45 TABLE 4.8.2: ‘APPEARED COMPETENT’, BY BUSINESS SIZE ................................................................................................... 45 4.9 PROVIDED A LEVEL BEYOND EXPECTATIONS ................................................................................................................. 46 FIGURE 4.9.1: ‘BEYOND EXPECTATIONS’, ALL RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................... 46 TABLE 4.9.1: ‘BEYOND EXPECTATIONS’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ............................................................... 47 TABLE 4.9.2: ‘BEYOND EXPECTATIONS’, BY BUSINESS SIZE ................................................................................................... 47 4.10 RESOLVED IN A TIMELY MANNER ............................................................................................................................. 48 FIGURE 4.10.1: ‘RESOLVED IN A TIMELY MANNER’, ALL RESPONDENTS ................................................................................. 48 TABLE 4.10.1: ‘RESOLVED IN A TIMELY MANNER’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ................................................. 49 TABLE 4.10.2: ‘RESOLVED IN A TIMELY MANNER’ BY BUSINESS SIZE...................................................................................... 49 4.11 SATISFIED WITH THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE ................................................................................... 50 FIGURE 4.11.1: ‘SATISFIED WITH THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE’, ALL RESPONDENTS ...................................... 50 TABLE 4.11.1: ‘SATISFIED WITH THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ....... 51 TABLE 4.11.2: ‘SATISFIED WITH THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE’ BY BUSINESS SIZE ........................................... 51 4.12 THE ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE APPROACH AND LETTER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR MY NEEDS ................................................ 52 FIGURE 4.12.1: ‘ADMIN SUFFICIENT FOR MY NEEDS’, ALL RESPONDENTS .............................................................................. 52 TABLE 4.12.1: ‘ADMIN SUFFICIENT FOR MY NEEDS’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2016 .............................................................. 53 TABLE 4.12.2: ‘ADMIN SUFFICIENT FOR MY NEEDS’, BY BUSINESS SIZE .................................................................................. 53 4.13: LETTER ALLOWED ME TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE/S RAISED IN A TIMELY MANNER ................................................................ 54 FIGURE 4.13.1: ‘LETTER ALLOWED ME TO ADDRESS ISSUE EFFICIENTLY’, ALL RESPONDENTS ..................................................... 54 TABLE 4.13.1: ‘LETTER ALLOWED ME TO ADDRESS ISSUE EFFICIENTLY’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ..................... 55 TABLE 4.13.2 ‘LETTER ALLOWED ME TO ADDRESS ISSUE EFFICIENTLY’ BY BUSINESS SIZE........................................................... 55 4.14 IMPROVING SAFETY MAKES MY BUSINESS MORE PRODUCTIVE ...................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 4.14.1: ‘IMPROVING SAFETY MORE PRODUCTIVE’, ALL RESPONDENTS ....................................................................... 56 TABLE 4.14.1: ‘IMPROVING SAFETY MORE PRODUCTIVE’ IN 2017 AND 2016 ....................................................................... 57 TABLE 4.14.2: ‘IMPROVING SAFETY MORE PRODUCTIVE’ BY BUSINESS SIZE ............................................................................ 57 4.15 IMPROVING SAFETY SAVES MY BUSINESS MONEY ........................................................................................................ 58 FIGURE 4.15.1: ‘IMPROVING SAFETY SAVES MY BUSINESS MONEY’, ALL RESPONDENTS............................................................ 58 TABLE 4.15.1: ‘IMPROVING SAFETY SAVES MY BUSINESS MONEY’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 AND 2016 ............................ 59 TABLE 4.15.2: ‘IMPROVING SAFETY SAVES MY BUSINESS MONEY’ BY BUSINESS SIZE ................................................................ 59 4.16 EASY TO DEAL WITH .............................................................................................................................................. 60 FIGURE 4.16.1: ‘SAFEWORK NSW IS EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH’, ALL RESPONDENTS .......................................................... 60 TABLE 4.16.1: ‘SAFEWORK NSW IS EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH’, BY INTERACTION TYPE IN 2017 ........................................... 61 TABLE 4.16.2: ‘SAFEWORK NSW IS EASY TO DO BUSINESS WITH’ BY BUSINESS SIZE ............................................................... 61 4.17 MADE CHANGES TO WORKPLACE ............................................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE 4.17.1: ‘HAVE YOU MADE ANY CHANGES TO YOUR WORKPLACE AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION’ ............................... 62


4

TABLE 4.17.1: ‘MADE CHANGES TO WORKPLACE AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION’ BY INTERACTION AND YEAR ........................ 62 TABLE 4.17.2: ‘MADE ANY CHANGES’ BY BUSINESS SIZE .................................................................................................... 63 TABLE 4.17.3: 'MADE ANY CHANGES' BY INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................... 63 FIGURE 4.17.2: NATURE OF CHANGES MADE ................................................................................................................... 64 TABLE 4.17.4: CHANGES MADE, BY INDUSTRY .................................................................................................................. 65 4.18 LIKELY TO RECOMMEND ......................................................................................................................................... 66 FIGURE 4.18.1: ‘WOULD RECOMMEND THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY SAFEWORK NSW’ ............................................................ 66 TABLE 4.18.1: ‘WOULD RECOMMEND THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY SAFEWORK NSW’, BY INTERACTION TYPE .............................. 66 TABLE 4.18.2: ‘WOULD RECOMMEND THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY SAFEWORK NSW’, BY BUSINESS SIZE .................................... 67 FIGURE 4.18.2: REASONS FOR RECOMMENDING / NOT RECOMMENDING SAFEWORK NSW ................................................... 67

PART 5: RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS .......................................................................................................... 68

MOST RECENT INTERACTION ........................................................................................................................................... 68 FIGURE 5.1 MOST RECENT INTERACTION .......................................................................................................................... 68 PRIMARY WORK ROLE .................................................................................................................................................... 69 BUSINESS SIZE .............................................................................................................................................................. 69 POSTCODE OF OPERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 72 MAIN INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................................................................... 73 RESPONDENT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 76

ATTACHMENT 1: INTERACTION DESCRIPTIONS.................................................................................................. 77


5

Disclaimer While all care and diligence has been exercised in the preparation of this report, Jetty Research Pty. Ltd. does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained within and accepts no liability for any loss or damage that may be suffered as a result of reliance on this information, whether or not there has been any error, omission or negligence on the part of Jetty Research Pty. Ltd. or its employees.


6

Part 1: Executive Summary The results from the 2017 Customer Satisfaction Survey are summarised in the following table. The number of responses to each measure varied between 608 and 2,059, depending on the question.

2017* 2016* 2015* Change** Target

Corporate Performance indicators % Agree

Efforts acknowledged 85.4% 86.0% 73.3% -0.6% 60%✓

Valuable/worthwhile 87.6% 86.8% 84.1% 0.8% 85%✓

Met my needs 90.4% 88.4% 85.4% 2.0% 85%✓

Understood business pressures 82.0% 82.5% 74.1% -0.3%

Easy to do business with 86.3% 84.7% N/A N/A

Outcomes indicators % Agree

Increased confidence 81.1% 78.6% 71.0% 2.5%

Website useful N/A N/A 70.0% N/A

Customer Service Centre useful N/A N/A 61.9% N/A

Knowledge (3rd party providers) N/A N/A 59.6% N/A

Skills (3rd party) N/A N/A 50.6% N/A

Confidence (3rd party) N/A N/A 53.2% N/A

Implemented changes 72.2% 70.3% 66.2% 1.9%

Satisfaction with Staff measures % Agree

Satisfied with the process required to resolve issue 90.0% 87.3% 84.4% 2.6% 85%✓

Issue resolved in an efficient (timely) manner 84.9% 84.9% 80.1% 0.0% 85%✓

SafeWork officer I spoke to...

had enough knowledge 91.7% 90.6% 86.7% 1.0% 85%✓

treated me fairly 95.4% 95.9% 92.9% -0.5% 85%✓

appeared competent 93.7% 93.3% 90.1% 0.4% 85%✓

provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected

72.3% 72.4% 62.9% -0.1% 85%

The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs

90.0% 86.1% N/A N/A

By receiving the letter, it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner

82.4% 80.4% N/A N/A

Beliefs: Improving safety... % Agree

Makes business more productive 90.4% 87.1% 87.3% 3.2%

Saves business money 87.8% 83.6% 84.9% 4.2%

* percentage of respondents choosing ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’. ** Margin of error at 95% confidence is +/-2% for large samples, down to +/-4% for smallest sub-sample


7

Satisfaction in 2017 is high and (in some cases) rising

The results from the 2017 Customer Satisfaction Survey show very high levels of satisfaction with the quality of SafeWork staff and the services they provide, with many indicators showing further increases over 2016 (particularly with regard to the “strongly agree” measures), while others remained stable. For indicators where targets have been set, in all but one indicator the targets were met or exceeded. (The only indicator not meeting the target set is ‘SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected’.) Overall, 86% of respondents agreed that ‘SafeWork NSW is easy to deal with’, a slight increase on 2016. Pleasingly, the often hard-to-satisfy smaller business customer group gave the highest rates of agreement to this proposition. In total, 85-90% of respondents across all interaction types ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that the services were valuable/worthwhile, met their needs, and/or that the processes were satisfactory. Even higher levels of agreement were given in relation to statements about the knowledge, competence and fairness of SafeWork staff (92% - 95% agreeing). Satisfaction ratings were typically as high for interactions triggered by a compliance issue (Complaint or Incident) as they were for the education interactions (advisory visit, Stakeholder Consultation, Webinar, or participation in a SafeWork Project).

More respondents are changing behaviour based on interaction

Overall 72% of respondents this year made changes as a result of the interaction, showing a steady increase over the last three years. Changes made were mostly introducing or updating policies and procedures, or making changes to the physical environment. Changes were most common among advisory visit respondents. While Complaints and Interaction respondents also generally made changes, changes were more likely when the Complaint or Incident was handled through an inspector visit (71% and 80%) rather than the administrative response pathway (55% and 66%).

The administrative pathway seems to be working well

Review of satisfaction ratings from customers interacting on each of these two pathways showed that the administrative response pathway is perceived as ‘sufficient’ and ‘enabling issues to be addressed in a timely fashion’ for 90% and 82% of people experiencing this SafeWork service. These percentages have increased since the evaluation of satisfaction with these services began in 2016.


8

Agreement rising that safety makes businesses more productive/saves money

Two questions probed respondents’ beliefs about improving safety, with 90% agreeing that it ‘Makes my business more productive’ and 88% agreeing that it ‘Saves my business money’. Agreement rates are up around 4 percentage points on the 2016 results. Agreement rates rose strongly in line with business size, indicating that these messages are still not landing well with smaller businesses. This is likely to be due to a range of factors including the generally lower level of WHS and IM capability in smaller businesses, the lower frequency of incidents, and lower ability to invest in high levels of WHS and IM. The difference was most stark in relation to the proposition that ‘improving safety saves my business money’, with 79% of micro businesses agreeing, compared with 94% of larger businesses agreeing.

Strong correlation between "easy to do business with" and "understands my business pressures"

A driver analysis was undertaken to drill down into the specific drivers of perceptions of SafeWork “met my needs” and SafeWork NSW is “easy to do business with”. This uncovered the correlations between the specific statements and the extent to which SafeWork NSW meets customer needs and is easy to do business with. The strongest drivers of SafeWork NSW “easy to do business with” were: 'SafeWork officer understanding of the demands and pressures of the customers’ business', satisfaction with the process, and perception 'that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile'. This suggests that the process and how it impacts the customers’ business will be what drives perceptions of SafeWork being “easy to do business with”. The strongest drivers of SafeWork NSW “met my needs” were: overall satisfaction with the process, perception that the interaction was knowledgeable and worthwhile, knowledge of the SafeWork officer, perception of the SafeWork officer providing a level of assistance beyond what they expected and resolution of the issue in a timely manner. This suggests that the behaviour of the SafeWork officer as well as the overall process will have a large impact on whether the customer feels their needs are met through the interaction.

Changes in 2017 interaction mix from Complaints to Incidents

The interaction mix surveyed in 2017 was different to that in 2016, with a higher percentage of Incidents and a correspondingly lower share of Complaints. This change in mix will have had some impact on overall satisfaction ratings, as on many indicators satisfaction levels reported by customers responding to an Incident are usually higher than those responding to Complaints. Other factors being equal, then, the mix change would have induced higher overall satisfaction levels. Looked at in further detail, though, it is clear that on most satisfaction measures every interaction type gave similar or higher ratings in 2017 than 2016, so the positive results are not due to change in the sample.


9

No real differences between Compliance- and Education-based satisfaction measures

As in previous years, few measures showed any marked differences between the Compliance and Education interaction groups. This shows the value of SafeWork’s twin roles, and also demonstrates SafeWork’s ability to offer high quality service to customers whose interaction was not by choice but as a result of a complaint or notifiable incident. The high ratings undermine the uninformed but prevalent general ‘dislike’ of SafeWork in the business community, and show that for the vast majority of customers even these ‘involuntary’ interactions were in fact very positive. To illustrate this, the Compliance group showed higher levels of satisfaction in relation to key performance measures that the ‘issue was resolved in a timely manner’, and that they were ‘satisfied with the process’. These are powerful messages in relation to SafeWork’s ability to work co-operatively and effectively with customers who probably would have preferred to have not had the interaction in the first place.

Net promoter scores were broadly positive in their first year

This year for the first time, a "Net Promoter score" (NPS) question was added for those respondents with an education-based interaction. This score is designed to measure to what extent customers are willing to recommend the services of a supplier to others. NPS is typically ranked on a 0-10 Likert scale. Those scoring 9 or 10 are deemed to be active "promoters" (or ambassadors) of the brand, while those scoring 0-6 are considered "detractors". The NPS then becomes the percentage of promoters less the percentage of detractors. (Those scoring 7 or 8 are disregarded as being neither promoters nor detractors.) While it can be argued over what constitutes an "acceptable" NPS score – though certainly it would need to be positive - NPSs are more typically tracked over time to see to what extent the organisation is creating or losing its promoters. That said, the baseline score of +26% (being 45% promoters against 19% detractors) seems a very positive starting point. NPSs were highest among those receiving advisory visits (+45%), companies with 200+ employees (+30%) and those respondents in the RSDN region (+36%).


10

Recommendations

1. Continue to maintain the ability to look at sub-samples and cross-tabulations by continuing the large-scale survey.

2. Consider adding qualitative questions to add context to the robust quantitative data collected. Such questions could include: “What one change could SafeWork make to its processes or approach that would help make your workplace or industry safer?” or “Apart from SafeWork, what other sources do you trust to provide accurate and useful information on work health and safety?”

3. Continue to use the annual survey to monitor impacts of SafeWork process changes – such as the administrative response pathway for some complaints and incidents – on satisfaction levels. The administrative response pathway clearly is satisfactory to most customers, but does not trigger as much workplace change. Preventing harm and building capability are two key corporate goals, and making changes is the main way in which progress towards these desired outcomes can be measured. SafeWork needs to closely monitor how its changing processes are impacting on these desired outcomes.

4. Safework should consider bringing Investigations interactions back into the customer satisfaction survey in 2018 as this important customer group has been missing from the sample in recent years. Including it again will enable SafeWork to benchmark its customer satisfaction ratings on Investigations against those in other states.

5. SafeWork should consider a greater focus on getting the message across to small business that improving safety ‘Makes my business more productive’ and ‘Saves my business money’ - as the share of small businesses agreeing with these statements was well below the share of large businesses agreeing.

6. Continue monitoring of CATI vs online response rates, interaction type mixes and responses to check for induced sample bias.

7. Continue to utilise both the CATI and the online methodologies to ensure a robust and reliable spread of customers are able to provide feedback.

8. Continue to uncover insights through new analysis techniques which will assist in pinpointing action areas for improving performance and allocating resources (such as the driver analysis undertaken in 2017). One example might be to try and prioritise the relative perceived importance of different SafeWork products and services, rather than just measuring the satisfaction side of the equation.


11

Part 2: Background, Objectives and Methodology

Background Each year SafeWork NSW conducts a Customer Satisfaction Survey to assess the extent to which its services are meeting the needs of its customers, and their levels of satisfaction with the way services are delivered. As in previous years, a random telephone survey of businesses that had had an interaction with SafeWork was complemented by an online survey – with invitations to complete the online survey emailed to a random group of customers with whom SafeWork had had an interaction.

Research Objectives As per previous years, the principal objective in this year’s survey was to assess satisfaction levels with the SafeWork services used by customers. In addition to satisfaction measures, questions were also asked about the impact and outcomes from the interactions with SafeWork.

Research Methodology As in previous years, and in order to maintain consistency of methodology and (hence) direct comparability of results, the 2017 research comprised:

(a) a large scale CATI1 survey of stakeholders across a range of interaction types; and (b) an online survey covering the same performance and satisfaction measures.

Records of contact details were provided by SafeWork across the range of interaction types, and many of these included contact names and phone numbers which were used during the CATI survey. For others with email addresses, emails were sent inviting customers to complete the online survey. A total of eight interaction types were covered in the 2017 surveys, comprising a mix of compliance and education interactions:

Table 2.1: Summary of interaction types

INTERACTION Response or Prevention

Complaint (divided into inspector or admin response) Compliance Incident (divided into inspector or admin response) Compliance Workplace Advisory Visit - advisory visit Education Participated in a Project Education Stakeholder consultation meeting Education Participated in a webinar Education

1 Computer-assisted telephone interviewing


12

This split was done to highlight the balance between the regulatory (compliance) and prevention (education) functions of staff and programs. Such an approach enables some testing of which approach is delivering better results for different interactions and customer types. Since 2016, complaints and incidents have been divided into two categories – those requiring an inspector response, and those for which an administrative response (typically a letter or email) were deemed sufficient. Again, we were keen to see how satisfaction differed between the two interaction types. Table 2.2, below, shows the breakdown of the overall sample by interaction type, for 2015-17. The interaction mix in 2017 was different to that in 2016, with far higher percentages of incidents and a significantly lower ratio of complaints. (This change was directly proportional to records supplied by SafeWork, suggesting a wider change in interactions over the course of the previous 12 months.).

Table 2.2: Interaction types, 2015 - 2017

Table 2.3, next page, shows the mix of questions asked of each interaction type, and the total number of responses obtained from each interaction type:

Interaction 2015 2016 2017 % change since 2016

Complaint - Inspector Response 26.1% 15.8% -10.3%Complaint - Admin Response 10.0% 1.0% -9.0%Incident - Inspector Response 13.6% 23.8% 10.2%

Incident - Admin Response 19.1% 28.6% 9.5%Advisory visit 20.6% 5.7% 5.8% 0.1%

Stakeholder consultation 1.7% 1.2% 0.7% -0.5%Projects 9.6% 13.9% 19.6% 5.7%

Webinar 8.1% 7.1% 4.8% -2.3%

Other Interaction 3.4% 3.5% N/A N/AThird party provider 7.5% N/A N/A N/A

24.7%

24.5%


13

Table 2.3: Question types and sample sizes by interaction type

Indicator Compliance Education

Co

mp

lain

ts (i

nsp

ecto

r

resp

on

se)

Co

mp

lain

ts

(a

dm

in

resp

on

se)

Inci

den

t

(i

nsp

ecto

r re

spo

nse

)

Inci

den

t

(ad

min

resp

on

se)

advi

sory

vis

it

Pro

ject

s

Stak

eho

lder

con

sult

atio

n

Web

inar

Responses by interaction type

32

5

20

49

0

58

8

11

9

40

3

15

99

Performance indicators Efforts acknowledged X X X X X Valuable/worthwhile X X X X X X Overall, service met needs X X X X X X X X Understood business pressures X X X X X Outcomes indicators More confidence X X X X X X Implemented changes X X X X X X X X

Satisfaction measures Satisfied with the process required to resolve issue X X X X X X

Issue resolved in a timely manner X X X X

SafeWork officer I spoke to ..

had enough knowledge X X X X X

treated me fairly X X X X

appeared competent X X X X X X provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected X X X X X X

Admin response

Admin response sufficient X X Allowed me to address issue in a timely manner X X

Beliefs: Improving safety … Makes my business more productive X X X X X X X X

Saves my business money X X X X X X X X

SafeWork NSW is easy to deal with X X X X X X X X


14

Contact lists A total of 5,118 records of contact details were provided by SafeWork across the range of interaction types, and from these 3,423 were contacted via telephone. Additionally, 1,695 emails were sent inviting customers to complete the identical online survey. SafeWork staff greatly assisted the survey process by checking records to ensure that contact details were up-to-date and correct.

Table 2.4: Breakdown of database by interaction type and survey method

Surveys Of the 5,118 records supplied, a total of 2,059 valid responses were achieved – for an overall response rate of 40% (against 38% in 2016 and 35% in 2015).

Telephone survey In preparation for the telephone survey letters were sent to all businesses on the contact list in mid-March, letting them know that the survey was due to take place in the next few weeks and encouraging their co-operation. The CATI survey ran between May 3rd and 16th, and obtained a total of 1,688 responses The telephone survey response rate and participation rate were again quite high, reflecting the high quality contact information made available by SafeWork. The average length of the 2017 survey was 8 minutes, with calls ranging from 5 to 22 minutes. As in previous years, call backs were scheduled at different times on different days, and provision was made for a call back to be booked at a particular time. Up to five call-backs were made to each valid number. The lists provided contained records with and without contact names, and those with contact names were called first. All records were contacted at least once, and for those without contact names the person who answered the phone was asked “Can I speak to whoever is responsible for work health and safety”.

Interaction type Email addresses No email Total in

interaction 2017 survey (actual)

Complaints - Inspector visits 208 805 1013 805 phone + 208 onlineComplaints - Letter 3 18 21 18 phone + 3 onlineIncidents - Inspector visits 452 407 859 700 phone + 159 onlineIncidents - Letter 1002 275 1277 900 phone + 377 onlineAdvisory visits 93 103 196 103 phone + 93 onlineProjects 109 897 1006 897 phone + 109 onlineWebinars 746 0 746 0 phone + 746 online

TOTAL 2017 2613 2505 5118 3423 (67%) phone + 1695 (33%) online


15

The majority of the non-responses to the phone survey came as a result of inability to contact the person who was nominated as having had the interaction with SafeWork. The actual rate of participating in the CATI survey, from those reached who were eligible to take part, was 85% - a marked improvement on the 79% recorded in 2015 and 2016. The Call Outcomes (Table 2.5) shows the scope of the telephone survey, and the outcomes of the calls made. While the participation rate was high, many on the contact lists could not be reached. However the overall response rate (percentage of surveys completed from telephone numbers used) was 39% - well up on the 35% achieved last year.

Table 2.5: Disposition summary for the CATI component of the survey

CATI outcome Complaints Incidents Other TOTALCompleted 310 939 439 1688Multiple callback 56 98 70 224Multiple answering machine 22 43 22 87Fax 5 0 8 13Deaf/No English 2 2 6 10Survey terminated 10 16 10 36Refused to take part 73 124 112 309Did not qualify 0 1 1 2No knowledge of interaction 42 60 32 134Contact no longer works there 61 76 50 187No answer 12 33 18 63Multiple Engaged 3 1 1 5Disconnected 52 34 58 144Wrong number 52 75 45 172Person unavailable during survey period 32 30 18 80Other/unable to define 65 54 48 167TOTAL 797 1586 938 3321

Participation rate (1) 39% 59% 47% 51%Participation rate (2) 81% 88% 80% 85%Participation rate 2016 (2) 75% 86% 78% 79%

(1) Completed surveys as a pecentage of all records(2) Completed surveys as a percentage of eligible businesses successfully reached


16

Online survey Invitations to complete an online version of the survey were emailed on 1,695 businesses who had provided email addresses. The online survey opened on May 5th and closed on May 16th, with two reminder emails sent in the interim. Of the 1,695 businesses contacted, 371 valid online responses were obtained - giving an overall online response rate of 22%. This compares with 29% in 2016 and 35% in 2015, highlighting a broader industry trend of reduced response rates to online surveys. Combining phone and online samples, total respondent pool was hence n=2,059. Table 2.6, below, shows the breakdown of interactions by whether surveys were conducted by phone or online:

Table 2.6: Breakdown of interactions by phone vs. online

It indicates that the vast majority of complaint, incident and project-based interactions were conducted over the phone. As one would expect, webinars made up the largest proportion of online surveys, followed by “Incident – Inspector Response” and “Incident – Admin Response”.

Phone Online

296 29 32514.4% 1.4% 15.8%

14 6 20.7% .3% 1.0%415 75 490

20.2% 3.6% 23.8%524 64 588

25.4% 3.1% 28.6%58 61 119

2.8% 3.0% 5.8%0 15 15

.0% .7% .7%381 22 403

18.5% 1.1% 19.6%0 99 99

.0% 4.8% 4.8%1688 371 205982.0% 18.0% 100.0%

Phone v OnlineTotal

Complaint - Inspector Response

Complaint - Admin Response

Total

Incident - Inspector Response

Incident - Admin Response

Advisory visit

Stakeholder consultation

Projects/Visit related to a project

Webinar


17

Analysis and reporting In analysing the results for each question, overall tallies and percentages have been presented, along with details showing the responses split into ‘Compliance’ and ‘Education’ type interactions, main interaction type, industry and business size. For each interaction, the percentage of respondents saying they ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ is drawn out, and both of these combine to the overall ‘agree’ measure used in the summary tables. Where comparable questions were asked in 2016, last year’s results are also shown.

The responses for each measure are presented for different business sizes:

• 1 to 4 employees (non-employing and micro businesses)

• 5 to 19 employees (small businesses)

• 20 to 199 employees (medium sized businesses)

• 200+ employees (large businesses)

Additional results were extracted for respondents who identified as either being an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, or from a Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Background, or having a disability which impacts on their work. However, the number of respondents from these backgrounds was quite small:

• ATSI 34 (vs. 42 in 2016 and 44 in 2015)

• CALD 340 (vs. 327 in 2016 and 336 in 2015)

• Disability 29 (vs. 51 in 2016 and 54 in 2015)

The ATSI and Disability respondent numbers are too small to be reliable. The CALD respondent numbers were higher, and showed very little difference from the responses provided by all other respondents, but levels of agreement were slightly higher on many measures.

Performance and satisfaction measure scores It is important to note that in determining the scores for the performance and satisfaction measures in 2017, methodology is consistent with previous years. The score is a percentage calculated by dividing the number of customers agreeing (i.e. the top two – ‘strongly agree’ plus ‘agree’ in a scaled question) by the number who answered the question - but excluding, in 2015, “unsure/not applicable”. Note this option was dropped in 2016.


18

Part 3. Survey Findings

Statistical significance With 2,059 valid responses, the 2017 survey has a large sample pool and small margins of error (+/- 2.2% at the 95% confidence level on the overall sample). Margins of error are obviously considerably larger for the smaller sub-samples – such as the 14 stakeholder consultation respondents.

Corporate Performance Five indicators cover Safework’s corporate performance during the interaction:

1. SafeWork acknowledged my efforts;

2. Interaction was valuable and worthwhile;

3. Service met my needs;

4. SafeWork understood the demands or pressures of my business; and

5. SafeWork is easy to do business with.

Amongst these indicators, ratings were either virtually the same or higher in 2017 than in 2016, and once again have exceeded the targets set. The 90% rating given to the overarching service evaluation Overall I am satisfied that the services provided were appropriate and sufficient to meet my needs is the highest yet achieved in any year that this annual satisfaction survey has been completed. Nearly 88% of the customers surveyed agreed that the interaction with SafeWork had been valuable and worthwhile. SafeWork continues to rate very highly in terms of customer recognition that it understood my business' demands/pressures (82%) and acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management (85%). These two questions were only asked of customers who had experienced contact with a SafeWork officer, and clearly staff are doing very well in addressing these two concerns. Once again there was very little difference between the Compliance and Education interaction groups – showing that in both sets of drivers SafeWork is performing very well. Even with the often hard-to-please small business sector, SafeWork was rated highly – especially in terms of ‘understanding business pressure’ with 81% of micro-business respondents agreeing. In 2016 an additional overarching performance question was introduced asking respondents if they agreed that ‘SafeWork is easy to do business with’. Overall 86% of respondents agreed, with the rating especially high amongst small (but not micro) businesses. Even Complaints and Incidents driven respondents agreed – with 84% and 88% of these interaction types agreeing.


19

Outcomes Two indicators addressed the outcomes of the interaction:

1. Increased confidence; and

2. Implemented changes.

The two indicators measuring the outcomes achieved by the interaction both scored higher this year. Overall, as a result of the interaction 81% of respondents agreed that they had increased confidence – compared with 79% in 2016, while 72% had implemented changes (up from 70%). Increased confidence was very high (96%) for the small group reporting on Stakeholder Consultations, but they were the least likely to make changes as a result (62%), which is not surprising as making changes is not the purpose of these consultations. Complaints and Incidents respondents were the least likely to say they had increased confidence as a result of the interaction (at 78% and 80% respectively), but these rates of agreement still show that more than three-quarters of these customers have gained confidence from the interaction – even though it was initiated through a notification. The Advisory Visits customers were the most likely to make changes (82%), confirming findings in previous years that this is the single most effective interaction type for inducing workplace and work practice changes. The next most influential interaction was an Inspector visit in response to an Incident, with 80% of these employers making changes as a result of the visit. An Inspector visit following a complaint had a lower impact – 71% making changes – on par with respondents who had taken part in a Project (72%). The admin response letters were associated with the lowest rates of changes made – just 55% for Complaints and 66% for Incidents. The changes that were made were mostly related to workplace practices: procedure and policies (50% of respondents), safe work method statements (28%) and training in procedures and policies (23%), along with a sizeable group (31%) making changes to the physical workplace environment.

Satisfaction with staff Eight indicators covered the satisfaction levels of customers in relation to the staff they dealt with during the interaction:

1. Process followed was satisfactory;

2. Issue or question was resolved in a timely manner;

3. Staff member had enough knowledge;

4. Staff member treated me fairly;

5. Staff member appeared competent;

6. Staff member provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected;

7. Admin response letter was sufficient for my needs; and

8. Admin response letter allowed me to address the issue/s in a timely manner


20

High levels of satisfaction were reported in 2017 across all indicators, which reflect the quality and performance of SafeWork staff. Most of these measures scored between 85% to 96%, and several showed modest increases over 2016. Five of the six satisfaction indicators met or exceeded targets. The highest ratings were given to indicators covering the capabilities of SafeWork staff:

• The SafeWork officer treated me fairly (95%)

• The SafeWork officer appeared competent (94%)

• The SafeWork officer had enough knowledge (92%).

As in 2016, a lower percentage (72%) agreed with the proposition that the SafeWork officer provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected. This should not be seen as a sign of dissatisfaction, with expectations being not only met but exceeded for almost three-quarters of respondents. This was the only satisfaction indicator not to achieve its target (of 85%). A total of 90% of respondents agreed that Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue or question marking a significant increase over 2016 from 87% to 90%. And a slightly lower level of agreement (85%) was seen in response to the proposition that My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner. This is despite the share of customers in 2017 whose issue was dealt with via an administrative response letter rather than an inspector visit. And it came despite the shift in the sample towards Incidents rather than Complaints, and an associated increase in the share of Incidents resolved via an administrative response letter. In 2017 two specific questions were put to customers whose Complaint or Incident had been handled administratively via letter rather than through an inspector visit. SafeWork introduced this procedural change at the end of 2014 and the same questions were asked for the first time in 2016 to review the impact of this change on customer satisfaction. Overall, in 2017 a high 90% of customers experiencing an administrative response agreed that this approach and associated letter was sufficient for my needs. Furthermore, 82% agreed that by receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s in a timely manner. These ratings were each slightly higher than in 2016, and confirmed that for the vast majority of customers whose issue had been channelled through the administrative response route, the outcome was quite satisfactory.

Improving Safety Beliefs Two indicators assessed the safety beliefs of customers:

1. Improving safety makes my business more productive; and

2. Improving safety saves my business money.


21

This year saw further gains in the share of businesses agreeing that safe business makes for good business. Overall in 2017, 90% of customers agreed that Improving safety makes my business more productive and 88% agreed that Improving safety saves my business money. These positive responses were up 3 - 4 percentage points from 87% and 84% respectively in 2016, and show a steady increase over the longer term. The larger the business the more likely the respondent was to agree – with 82% of micro businesses agreeing that improving safety makes their business more product rising to 96% of large businesses agreeing. Both results are above the ratings given in 2016. The longitudinal trends in the indicator ratings achieved over from 2015 to 2017 are shown in the following table.

Table 3.1: Agree scores for 17 customer satisfaction statements, 2015-17

Statement 2015 -% Agree

2016 -% Agree

2017 -% Agree

74.1% 82.5% 82.0%

80.1% 84.9% 84.9%

86.7% 90.6% 91.7%

92.9% 95.9% 95.4%

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management 73.3% 86.0% 85.4%

As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to work or injury management 71.0% 78.6% 81.1%

The SafeWork staff member appeared competent 90.1% 93.3% 93.7%

SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected 62.9% 72.4% 72.3%

Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue (or question) 84.4% 87.3% 90.0%

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile 84.1% 86.8% 87.6%

Improving safety makes my business more productive 87.3% 87.1% 90.4%

Improving safety saves my business money 84.9% 83.6% 87.8%

SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with N/A 84.4% 86.3%

The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs N/A 86.1% 90.0%

By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner N/A 80.4% 82.4%

66.2% 70.3% 72.2%

85.4% 88.5%


22

The table above shows results for 17 different attitudinal or behavioural statements, compared (where possible) with 2016 and 2017 results. Year-on-year stable results are white, and year-on-year increases are highlighted in light green (for changes of up to 3% over last year) or dark green (for changes of >3%). Most measures showed year-on-year increases, with those not increasing remaining very close to the levels recorded last year. There were no significant falls in ratings between 2016 and 2017. The following chart shows that there is a difference in the mix of interaction types between 2016 and 2017, with more Incidents and Projects and fewer Complaints. Third party providers were not surveyed in 2016 or 2017.

Figure 3.1: Respondents by interaction type 2015-2017

This change in mix will have had some impact on overall satisfaction ratings, as on many indicators satisfaction levels reported by customers responding to an Incident are usually higher than those responding to Complaints. Other factors being equal, then, the mix change would have induced higher overall satisfaction levels. Looked at in further detail, though, it is clear that on most satisfaction measures every interaction type gave similar or higher ratings in 2017 than 2016, so the positive results are not due to change in the sample. In 2016 and 2017 a new category of interaction was measured separately to reflect the fact that for some categories of complaints and incidents, a letter was deemed sufficient response. Measuring satisfaction with this new approach separately enables SafeWork to monitor whether satisfaction for this form of response varies significantly from that of the traditional interaction involving an inspector visit. Table 3.2, next page, shows the results for the five indicators asked of both categories of respondents:


23

Table 3.2: Satisfaction differences between inspector response and admin response

The results indicate that those Complaints interaction respondents who had an inspector visit generally had a higher level of satisfaction that those receiving an administrative (or letter) response – though the pattern was reversed for Incidents where customers who received a letter gave higher satisfaction ratings. It is important to note that the administrative response pathway yielded significantly less self-reported workplace changes than the inspector pathway for both interaction types. This was also the case in 2016. It is noteworthy that the Inspector response to a Complaint rated higher satisfaction in terms of the SafeWork service ‘meeting customer needs’, though this was not the case for Incidents. The survey sample included 20 customers (9 large businesses) who had had an admin response to a complaint, while there were 588 customers who had received an admin letter in response to an Incident. Of these, over 54% were larger businesses.

Category Analysis Starting with the broad findings, it is clear that in 2017 once again the highest ratings (92% to 95%) were given to the measures reflecting satisfaction with the quality and ability of SafeWork staff. The measures of more process-oriented corporate performance rated a little lower (82%-90%), especially in terms of SafeWork understanding business pressures. Agreement was also high for the administrative response mechanism (82%-90%) and with the two safety belief questions (88%-90%). Ratings given by interaction types varied widely across the set of measures researched, and show that in terms of ‘efficiency’ and ‘outcome’, respondents who had experienced Incidents interactions gave particularly high ratings while those involved with a Complaint typically gave slightly lower ratings. The relatively small number of advisory visit interactions in 2017 (119) still showed particularly high levels of satisfaction across all measures, and in particular with the qualities of the SafeWork officer they saw, and the value of the interaction. A large group of these (34%) were micro businesses.

Indicators common to inspector response and administrative response (% agree)

Complaint - Inspector Response (n=325)

Complaint - Admin

Response (n=20)

Incident - Inspector Response (n=490)

Incident - Admin

Response (n=588)

71.4% 55.0% 80.2% 65.8%85.2% 80.0% 91.2% 92.9%87.1% 80.0% 91.2% 94.0%89.8% 90.0% 91.6% 94.7%84.3% 85.0% 90.8% 93.4%


24

The small sample (15) of respondents who had been involved with a Stakeholder Consultation showed differences in their ratings due to the unique aspects of their interaction. Quite rightly they rated SafeWork’s understanding of the pressures on their business quite low (60%) as this is not really a feature of these interactions. Similarly, most did not make changes (only 47% made changes as a result of the interaction). They gave high ratings (93%) to the proposition that the interaction met their needs and that improving safety makes their business more productive. As in previous years, few measures showed any marked differences between the Compliance and Education interaction groups. This shows the value of SafeWork’s twin roles, and also demonstrates SafeWork’s ability to offer high quality service to customers whose interaction was not by choice but as a result of a complaint or notifiable incident. These high ratings completely undermine the uninformed but prevalent apparent general ‘dislike’ of SafeWork in the business community, and show that for the vast majority of customers even these ‘involuntary’ interactions were very positive. To illustrate this, the Compliance group showed higher levels of satisfaction in relation to key performance measures that the issue was resolved in a timely manner, and that they were satisfied with the process. These are powerful messages in relation to SafeWork’s ability to work co-operatively and effectively with customers who probably would have preferred to have not had the interaction in the first place. The increase in confidence as a result of the interaction was clearly highest amongst Education interactions (84% to 79%). In 2017 there was little variation in the ratings of measures when examined by business size. Micro and small businesses generally gave the same ratings for most measures, and they were generally similar to the ratings given by larger businesses. Micro and small businesses gave particularly high ratings on indicators of SafeWork staff performing beyond expectations, and that the administrative response letter helped resolve the issue in a timely fashion. Smaller businesses were also the most satisfied with the overall timely resolution of issues, and were more likely to agree that the administrative response letter enabled a timely addressing of the matter. As in previous years, small and medium sized businesses were the most likely to have made changes as a result of the interaction. Smaller businesses were less likely to agree with the propositions that improving safety increases productivity and improving safety saves money, confirming again that this message is getting through to larger businesses, but is slower to be accepted by smaller employers. Table 3.3, on the next page, shows how results differed by whether the survey was conducted by phone or online: (Continued over page…)


25

Table 3.3: Performance indicators, by phone vs. online

Performance Indicators % Agree % Agree

(phone) (online)

The SafeWork officer I spoke to had enough knowledge to address my issue 92.0% 89.1%

The SafeWork officer I spoke to treated me fairly during the interaction 95.7% 93.0%

Overall the service provided by SafeWork met my needs 90.4% 90.6%

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management 85.8% 83.2%

As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to work or injury management

81.3% 80.4%

The SafeWork staff member appeared competent 94.9% 89.0%

SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected 74.0% 65.8%

My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner 84.3% 88.1%

Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue (or question) 89.7% 91.1%

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile 88.3% 85.0%

The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs 90.1% 88.6%

By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner 82.5% 81.4%

Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction? 71.6% 74.7%

Improving safety makes my business more productive? 90.6% 89.5%

Improving safety saves my business money? 88.3% 85.2%

To what extent would you agree or disagree that the SafeWork staff member you spoke to understood the demands or pressures of your business?

82.7% 78.2%

To what extent would you agree or disagree that SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with? 86.7% 84.4%

In almost all cases, the results for phone and online surveys were statistically equivalent. The exceptions are the four indicators highlighted in blue (above mean) and pink (below mean). This suggests that:

• Phone-based respondents were more likely to respond that SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what was expected, and a little more likely to respond that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile, and that staff understood the pressures and demands of business.

• Conversely, phone-based respondents were less likely to report that their issue was resolved in a timely manner.


26

Net Promoter scores This year for the first time, a "Net Promoter score" (NPS) question was added for those respondents with an education-based interaction. This score, used widely among commercial clients, is designed to measure to what extent customers are willing to recommend the services of a supplier to others. NPS is typically ranked on a 0-10 Likert scale. Those scoring 9 or 10 are deemed to be active "promoters" (or ambassadors) of the brand, while those scoring 0-6 are considered "detractors". The NPS then becomes the percentage of promoters less the percentage of detractors. (Those scoring 7 or 8 are disregarded as being neither promoters nor detractors.) While it can be argued over what constitutes an "acceptable" NPS score – though certainly it would need to be positive - NPSs are more typically tracked over time to see to what extent the organisation is creating or losing its promoters. Chart 3.2, below, shows the NPSs for the 636 respondents with educative interactions. It indicates an initial Net Promoter Score of +26%

Figure 3.2: NPS for services provided by SafeWork NSW (education-based interactions only)

NPSs vary considerably by interaction type – from a high of +45% for advisory visits to a low of +21% of projects. This highlights the ability of advisory visits to create ambassadors for SafeWork services more generally. NPSs were also significantly lower among micro-companies (i.e. those with 1-4 employees) at +20%, against larger entities (28-31%). Among regions, RSDN had the highest NPS at +36%, with RSDS the lowest at +20%.

3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 9%4%

10%

27%

11%

34%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 -Not at all

likely

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -Extremely

likely

How likely would you be to recommend the service provided by Safework NSW?(n=636)

2017 NPS = +26%


27

'Driver' analysis To drill down into the specific drivers of perceptions of overall “met my needs” and SafeWork NSW is “easy to do business with”, this year we have additionally undertaken a driver analysis. This seeks to understand the correlations between the specific statements and the extent to which SafeWork NSW meets customer needs and is easy to do business with. Essentially the analysis outlines what some researchers refer to as the derived importance of specific service elements. This offers us an alternative way to prioritise service tasks. Some service tasks will have a greater impact on perceptions of meeting customer needs and being easy to do business with than others. First, the picture below outlines the ranking of specific service tasks according to how influential they are on impacting ratings of “met my needs”. The closer the correlation coefficient is to 1.0, the stronger it is as a driver of “met my needs”.

Picture 3.1: Drivers of “met my needs”

This driver analysis indicates that the strongest drivers of SafeWork NSW “met my needs” are: overall satisfaction with the process, perception that the interaction was knowledgeable and worthwhile, knowledge of the SafeWork officer, perception of the SafeWork officer providing a level of assistance beyond what they expected and resolution of the issue in a timely manner. This suggests that the behaviour of the SafeWork officer as well as the overall process will have a large impact on whether the customer feels their needs are met through the interaction.


28

Second, the picture below outlines the ranking of specific service tasks according to how influential they are on impacting ratings of “easy to do business with”. Again, the closer the correlation coefficient is to 1.0, the stronger it is as a driver of “easy to do business with”.

Picture 3.2: Drivers of “easy to do business with”

The driver analysis indicates that the strongest drivers of SafeWork NSW “easy to do business with” are: SafeWork officer understanding of the demands and pressures of the customers’ business, satisfaction with the process and perception that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile. This suggests that the process and how it impacts the customers’ business will be what drives perceptions of SafeWork being “easy to do business with”.


29

Part 4. Question-by-question results

Table 4.0: Summary Table of 2017 results

Performance Indicators % Agree % Neutral

% Disagree

Count total

The SafeWork officer I spoke to had enough knowledge to address my issue 91.6% 5.5% 3.0% 1352

The SafeWork officer I spoke to treated me fairly during the interaction 95.4% 2.9% 1.7% 1337

Overall the service provided by SafeWork met my needs 90.4% 6.7% 2.9% 2059

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management 85.4% 12.6% 1.9% 1352

As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to work or injury management 81.1% 15.3% 3.6% 1451

The SafeWork staff member appeared competent 93.7% 4.1% 2.2% 1451

SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected 72.3% 23.1% 4.6% 1451

My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner 84.9% 12.0% 3.1% 1352

Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue (or question) 89.9% 6.9% 3.2% 1945

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile 87.6% 8.4% 4.0% 1436

The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs 90.0% 7.1% 3.0% 608

By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner 82.4% 13.3% 4.3% 608

Improving safety makes my business more productive 90.4% 7.3% 2.3% 2059

Improving safety saves my business money 87.8% 8.6% 3.6% 2059

Tthe SafeWork staff member I spoke to understood the demands or pressures of my business 82.0% 11.9% 6.1% 1352

SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with 86.3% 9.6% 4.1% 2057


30

4.1 Efforts acknowledged

Question: “SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management” Respondents: Complaints (inspector response), Incidents (inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation

Outcome: Overall 85% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ The proportion who “strongly agree” to this question continued its upward climb in 2017.

Figure 4.1.1: ‘SafeWork acknowledged efforts’, all respondents

(Continued over page…)


31

In terms of individual interactions, the projects and complaints had the highest agreement to “acknowledged my efforts”, at 87% and 85% respectively. However incidents were not far behind, at 85% also.

Table 4.1.1: ‘SafeWork acknowledged efforts ’by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management

Interaction type 2017 2016

Complaint 85.2% 85.8%

Workplace incident 85.1% 88.9%

Advisory visit 84.9% 82.5%

Stakeholder consultation 73.3% 87.5%

Projects 86.6% 84.9%

All Types 85.4% 86.0%

The next table shows agreement rates analysed by business size. Responses were remarkably consistent on this measure.

Table 4.1.2: ‘SafeWork acknowledged efforts’ by industry´ by business size

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or return to work or injury management

Number employed Number agreeing Percentage agreeing

1 -4 (Micro) 249 84.4%

5-19 (small) 288 87.3%

20-199 (medium) 362 86.0%

200+ (large) 255 83.6%

Total 1154 85.4%

N=1351


32

4.2 Interaction valuable/worthwhile

Question: “The interaction was valuable and worthwhile.” Respondents: Complaints (inspector response), Incidents (inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Webinars, Other Outcome: Overall 89% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was a very strong positive response to this question with over half (57%) agreeing strongly, 89% agreeing in total and just 4% disagreeing.

Figure 4.2.1: ‘Interaction with SafeWork was valuable/worthwhile’, all respondents



33

In terms of individual interaction types, the advisory visit group had the highest agreement to the “Interaction valuable / worthwhile” at 92%, and the complaints group had the lowest agreement at 84%.

Table 4.2.1: ‘Interaction valuable/worthwhile’ Ratings by interaction type.

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile


Complaint 83.7% 83.3%

Incident 87.6% 87.5%



Webinar 85.9% 89.4%

All Types 87.6% 86.8%

N= 1435

The next table shows agreement rates analysed by business size. There was little variation in response with business sizes. All responded within the narrow range of 85% and 89% agreement.

Table 4.2.2: ‘Interaction valuable/worthwhile’ by business size

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile


1 -4 (Micro) 284 85.5%

5-19 (small) 318 89.1%

20-199 (medium) 379 87.3%

200+ (large) 276 88.5%

Total 1257 87.6%

N= 1435


34

4.3 Service met needs Question: “Overall the service provided by SafeWork met my needs.” Respondents: All Outcome: Overall 90% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ Again, there was a very strong positive response to this question over 60% agreeing strongly, 90% agreeing in total and only 3% disagreeing.

Figure 4.3.1: ‘Service met my needs’, all respondents

Continued next page…


35

In terms of individual interaction types, the complaints and webinar groups showed the least agreement (85 and 89% respectively). Highest agreement was among the advisory visits and stakeholder consultation groups (93%).

Table 4.3.1: ‘Service met my needs’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Service met my needs


Complaints 84.9% 84.20%

Incident 92.1% 91.40%



93.3% 79.20%

Projects 90.1% 91.00%

Webinar 88.9% 93.70%

All types 90.4% 85.40%

N= 2057

The next table shows agreement rates analysed by business size. Responses were again consistent on this measure.

Table 4.3.2: ‘Service met my needs’, by business size

Service met my needs


1 -4 (Micro) 328 88.9%

5-19 (small) 396 93.0%

20-199 (medium) 552 89.9%

200+ (large) 585 90.3%

Total 1861 90.5%

N= 2057


36

4.4 SafeWork understood business pressures Question: “To what extent would you agree or disagree that the SafeWork officer you spoke to understood the demands or pressures of your business?” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Other Outcome: Overall 82% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ The vast majority (82%) agreed that the SafeWork officer they spoke with understood the demands or pressures of their business (consistent with 2016):

Figure 4.4.1: ‘Understood the demands or pressures of business’, all respondents

Continued next page…


37

There were marked differences in response over the interaction types. Stakeholder consultation interactions showed just 60% agreement, while all other interactions had more than 80%.

Table 4.4.1: ‘Understood demands or pressures of business’, by interaction type in 2017

Understood demands or pressures of business

Interaction type 2017

Complaint 80.9%

Incident 83.9%

Advisory visit 85.7%

Stakeholder consultation 60.0%

Projects 80.4%

All types 82.0%

N=1352

Responses were similar by business size:

Table 4.4.2: ‘Understood demands or pressures of business’ by business size

Understood demands or pressures of business


1 -4 (Micro) 238 80.7%

5-19 (small) 272 82.4%

20-199 (medium) 348 82.7%

200+ (large) 250 82.0%

Total 1108 82.0%

N = 1352


38

4.5 Enough knowledge to address my issue Question: “The SafeWork officer I spoke to had enough knowledge to address my issue.” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation Outcome: Overall 92% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was a very strong positive response to this question with 65% agreeing strongly, 92% agreeing in total and less than 3% disagreeing.

Figure 4.5.1: ‘Enough knowledge to address my issue’, all respondents

(Continued next page…)


39

In terms of individual interaction types, the complaints group showed the least agreement although agreement was still very high (89%). The stakeholder consultation group showed the highest level of agreement (100%).

Table 4.5.1: ‘Enough knowledge to address my issue’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Enough knowledge to address my issue



Incident 93.5% 91.10%



100.0% 91.70%

Projects 90.6% 92.10%

All types 91.6% 90.60%

N=1351

The next table shows agreement rates analysed by business size. The percentage agreeing that the interaction met their needs did not vary on this basis.

Table 4.5.2: ‘Enough knowledge to address my issue’, by business size

Enough knowledge to address my issue


1 -4 (Micro) 264 89.5%

5-19 (small) 300 90.9%

20-199 (medium) 386 91.7%

200+ (large) 287 94.1%

Total 1237 91.6%

N=1351


40

4.6 Treated me fairly Question: “The SafeWork Officer treated me fairly during the interaction” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects Outcome: Overall 96% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ Consistent with the previous years, there was a very strong positive response to this question with 78% agreeing strongly, 95% agreeing in total and less than 3% disagreeing.

Figure 4.6.1: ‘Treated fairly’, all respondents


1% 1% 5%24%

69%

1% 1%2%

22%

74%

1% 1% 3% 17%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5Strongly agree

The SafeWork officer I spoke to treated me fairly during the interaction

2015 (n=1848) 2016 (n=1184) 2017 (n=1337)

2015 % Agree = 93%2016 % Agree = 96%2017 % Agree = 95%


41

Agreement was very high across all groups, lowest amongst complaints at 94%.

Table 4.6.1: ‘Treated fairly’ in 2017 and 2016

Treated Fairly



Incident 96.1% 97.80%


Projects 95.5% 97.10%

All types 95.4% 95.90%

N = 1,336

The percentage agreeing that the interaction met their needs showed little movement with business size:

Table 4.6.2:‘Treated fairly’ by business size

Treated Fairly


1 -4 (Micro) 280 95.6%

5-19 (small) 316 95.8%

20-199 (medium) 393 94.2%

200+ (large) 285 96.3%

Total 1274 95.4%

N = 1,336


42

4.7 Increased confidence

Question: “As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to work or injury management” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Webinar, Other Outcome: Overall 81% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was a cautiously positive response to this question, with 52% agreeing strongly, 81% agreeing in total and less than 4% disagreeing. The result continued the upward climb seen in 2015.

Figure 4.7.1: ‘Increased confidence’, all respondents


1% 2%26% 32% 39%

1% 1%

19% 34%44%

2% 2% 15%29%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5 Stronglyagree

As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to work or injury management

2015 (n=1895) 2016 (n=1419) 2017 (n=1451)



43

In terms of individual interaction types the stakeholder consultations group showed the least agreement (67%). Highest agreement was amongst the advisory visits group at 87% - a significant improvement on 2016 results.

Table 4.7.1: ‘Increased confidence’ by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Increased confidence







Webinar 80.8% 82.4%

All types 81.1% 78.6%

N=1,450

There were some differences by business size. Large businesses (with 200 or more staff) had the lowest agreement (76.6%) followed by micro businesses (80.5%).

Table 4.7.1: ‘Increased confidence’, by business size

Increased confidence


1 -4 (Micro) 269 80.5%

5-19 (small) 301 84.3%

20-199 (medium) 360 82.2%

200+ (large) 246 76.6%

Total 1176 81.1%

N=1,450


44

4.8 Appeared competent Question: “The SafeWork staff member appeared competent.” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Webinar, Other Outcome: Overall 94% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ Again, there was a very strong positive response to this question with 70% agreeing strongly, 94% agreeing in total and less than 3% disagreeing.

Figure 4.8.1: ‘Appeared competent’, all respondents


1% 2% 7%

33%

57%

1% 1% 5%

30%

63%

1% 1% 4%24%

70%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5Strongly agree

The SafeWork staff member appeared competent

2015 (n=2048) 2016 (n=1419) 2017 (n=1451)



45

In terms of individual interaction types the webinar group showed the least agreement (82%). The stakeholder consultation group showed the strongest agreement (100%).

Table 4.8.1: ‘Appeared competent’ by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Appeared competent







Webinar 81.8% 90.8%

All types 93.7% 93.3%

N=1,450

Agreement showed little movement by business size:

Table 4.8.2: ‘Appeared competent’, by business size

Appeared competent


1 -4 (Micro) 305 91.3%

5-19 (small) 337 94.4%

20-199 (medium) 409 93.4%

200+ (large) 307 95.6%

Total 1358 93.7%

N=1,450


46

4.9 Provided a level beyond expectations Question: “SafeWork staff provided a level of service beyond what I expected.” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Webinar, Other Outcome: Overall 72% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was a positive response to this question with 42% agreeing strongly, 72% agreeing in total and around 4% disagreeing.

Figure 4.9.1: ‘Beyond expectations’, all respondents


2% 5%30% 33% 30%

2% 3%

23% 35% 38%

2% 2%23% 30%

42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5Strongly agree

SafeWork staff provided a level of assistancebeyond what I expected

2015 (n=2048) 2016 (n=1419) 2017 (n=1451)



47

Agreement that they “provided a level beyond expectations” varied greatly by interaction type. Agreement was highest amongst the advisory visits group (81%) and projects groups (80%) but lowest amongst the webinar group (51%).

Table 4.9.1: ‘Beyond expectations’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Beyond expectations







Webinar 50.5% 59.9%

All types 72.3% 72.4%

N=1,450

Agreement that they “provided a level beyond expectations” was highest among small businesses (77.9%) and lowest among large businesses (67.9%).

Table 4.9.2: ‘beyond expectations’, by business size

Beyond expectations


1 -4 (Micro) 254 76.0%

5-19 (small) 278 77.9%

20-199 (medium) 298 68.0%

200+ (large) 218 67.9%

Total 1048 72.3%

N=1,450


48

4.10 Resolved in a timely manner

Question: “My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner.” Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects Outcome: Overall 85% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was a very strong positive response to this question with 55% agreeing strongly, 85% agreeing in total and less than 4% disagreeing.

Figure 4.10.1: ‘Resolved in a timely manner’, all respondents


2% 3% 14%31%

49%

2% 2% 12%32%

52%

2% 1% 12%28%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5Strongly agree

My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner

2015 (n=1848) 2016 (n=1184) 2017 (n=1352)



49

In terms of individual interaction types the stakeholders' consultation and incidents had the highest agreement to “resolved in a timely manner”, at 93 and 89% respectively. However, the advisory visit group was not far behind, at 86%.

Table 4.10.1: ‘Resolved in a timely manner’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Resolved in a timely manner





Stakeholder consultation 93.3% N/A


All types 84.9% 84.9%

N=1,351

The next table shows agreement rates analysed by business size. Results by business size showed little differences.

Table 4.10.2: ‘Resolved in a timely manner’ by business size

Resolved in a timely manner


1 -4 (Micro) 250 84.7%

5-19 (small) 282 85.5%

20-199 (medium) 359 85.3%

200+ (large) 257 84.3%

Total 1148 85.0%

N=1,351


50

4.11 Satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue

Question: “Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue” Respondents: Complaints (all), Incident (all), Advisory visit, Projects Outcome: Overall 90% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree The majority were satisfied with the process required to resolve their issue: 60% agreeing strongly, 90% agreeing in total and less than 4% disagreeing.

Figure 4.11.1: ‘Satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue’, all respondents


3% 3% 10%

33%52%

2% 2% 9%

33%

54%

2% 1% 7%29%

60%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5Strongly agree

Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue (or question)

2015 (n=1848) 2016 (n=1765) 2017 (n=1945)



51

In terms of individual interaction types the stakeholder consultation and incidents groups had the highest level of agreement (93 and 89%). The projects group had the lowest agreement (81%).

Table 4.11.1: ‘Satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue





Stakeholder consultation 93.3% N/A


All types 84.9% 84.9%

N=1,943

Agreement showed little variation by business size.

Table 4.11.2: ‘Satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue’ by business size

Satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue


1 -4 (Micro) 292 89.0%

5-19 (small) 353 88.5%

20-199 (medium) 533 89.9%

200+ (large) 570 91.5%

Total 1748 90.0%

N=1,943


52

4.12 The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs

Question: “The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs” Respondents: Complaints (admin response) and Incidents (admin response) Outcome: Overall 90% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was a very strong positive response to this new question, with 62% agreeing strongly, 90% agreeing in total and less than 4% disagreeing.

Figure 4.12.1: ‘Admin sufficient for my needs’, all respondents

Only those undertaking complaints or incident reporting were asked for their level of agreement that “the administrative response…was sufficient for my needs”. Between the two groups, agreement was highest amongst the incident group (90%). (Continued over page…)

2% 3% 9%

33%53%

1% 2% 7%28%

62%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1Strongly disagree

2 3Neutral/ unsure

4 5Strongly agree

The administrative response approachand letter was sufficient for my needs2017 (n=581) 2017 (n=608)

2016 % Agree = 88%2017 % Agree = 90%


53

Table 4.12.1: ‘Admin sufficient for my needs’, by interaction type in 2016

Admin sufficient for my needs




All types 90.0% 86.1%

N=607

The percentage agreeing that the administrative response was sufficient for their needs showed little variation with business size.

Table 4.12.2: ‘Admin sufficient for my needs’, by business size

Admin sufficient for my needs


1 -4 (Micro) 32 91.4%

5-19 (small) 63 91.3%

20-199 (medium) 161 91.5%

200+ (large) 291 89.0%

Total 547 90.1%

N=607


54

4.13: Letter allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner

Question: “By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner” Respondents: Complaints (admin response) and Incidents (admin response)

Outcome: Overall 82% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ There was solid agreement that receiving the letter allowed the respondent to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner with 56% agreeing strongly, 82% agreeing in total and just 4% disagreeing.

Figure 4.13.1: ‘Letter allowed me to address issue efficiently’, all respondents

Only complaints or incidents were asked for their level of agreement. Between the two groups, agreement was highest amongst the incidents group (82.5%) but only marginally. (Continued over page…)


55

Table 4.13.1: ‘Letter allowed me to address issue efficiently’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Letter allowed me to address issue efficiently




All types 82.4% 80.4%

N=607

The next table shows agreement rates analysed by business size. Agreement was highest among small businesses (88.4%) and lowest among 200+ businesses (79.2%).

Table 4.13.2 ‘Letter allowed me to address issue efficiently’ by business size

Letter allowed me to address issue efficiently


1 -4 (Micro) 29 82.9%

5-19 (small) 61 88.4%

20-199 (medium) 152 86.4%

200+ (large) 259 79.2%

Total 501 82.5%

N=607


56

4.14 Improving safety makes my business more productive Question: “Improving safety makes my business more productive” Respondents: All Outcome: Overall 91% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ The majority were in agreement that “improving safety makes my business more productive” with 72% agreeing strongly, 91% agreeing in total and less than 3% disagreeing.

Figure 4.14.1: ‘Improving safety more productive’, all respondents

Agreement was higher among compliance than education (92 and 86% respectively) but showed little variation by interaction type and was highest among the webinar, stakeholder consultation and incident groups (94, 93 and 93% respectively). Agreement was lowest among the advisory visit group (84%). (Continued over page…)


57

Table 4.14.1: ‘Improving safety more productive’ in 2017 and 2016

Improving safety more productive


Complaints 90%

Incident 93%

Advisory visit 84%

Stakeholder consultation 93%

Projects 84%

Webinar 94%

All types 90%

N=2057

Agreement that “improving safety makes my business more productive” increased by size of business and was highest among large businesses (97%) and lowest among micro businesses (82%).

Table 4.14.2: ‘Improving safety more productive’ by business size

Improving safety more productive


1 -4 (Micro) 304 82.4%

5-19 (small) 364 85.4%

20-199 (medium) 567 92.3%

200+ (large) 625 96.5%

Total 1860 90.4%

N= 2057


58

4.15 Improving safety saves my business money Question: “Improving safety saves my business money” Respondents: All Outcome: Overall 88% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ Over 68% agreed strongly that improving safety saves my business money”. Some 88% agreed in total and less than 4% disagreed. The balance (8%) were neutral or unsure.

Figure 4.15.1: ‘Improving safety saves my business money’, all respondents



59

The response was greater for compliance (90%) than education (82%). And in terms of individual interaction types the incident group showed the highest agreement (92%) and the projects group the least (81%).

Table 4.15.1: ‘Improving safety saves my business money’, by interaction type in 2017 and 2016

Improving safety saves my business money


Complaints 84.3%

Incident 92.2%



Projects 80.9%

Webinar 85.9%

All types 87.8%

N=607

Again, agreement that “improving safety saves my business money” increased by size of business and was highest among large businesses (94%) and lowest among micro businesses (77%).

Table 4.15.2: ‘Improving safety saves my business money’ by business size



1 -4 (Micro) 290 78.6%

5-19 (small) 347 81.5%

20-199 (medium) 558 90.9%

200+ (large) 611 94.3%

Total 1806 87.8%

N= 2057


60

4.16 Easy to deal with Question: “SafeWork NSW is easy to deal with” Respondents: All Outcome: Overall 86% ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ The majority agreed that SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with (50% agreed strongly, 36% slightly and 10% were neutral or unsure).

Figure 4.16.1: ‘SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with’, all respondents



61

Agreement was highest among advisory visits and lowest among stakeholder consultation (at 92 and 73% respectively).

Table 4.16.1: ‘SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with’, by interaction type in 2017

SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with


Complaint 83.5%

Incident 88.2%



Projects 84.1%

Webinar 79.8%

All types 86.3%

N=2057

Agreement also showed very little variation by business size.

Table 4.16.2: ‘SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with’ by business size



1 -4 (Micro) 303 82.1%

5-19 (small) 372 87.3%

20-199 (medium) 537 87.6%

200+ (large) 562 86.9%

Total 1774 86.3%

N= 2059


62

4.17 Made changes to workplace Question: “Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction?” Respondents: All Outcome: 72% of respondents had made changes to the workplace as a result of the interaction.

Figure 4.17.1: ‘Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction’

The highest percentage of changes were made as a result of an advisory visit i.e. in 82.4% of this type of interaction. However, stakeholder consultations and webinars resulted in relatively low rates of change (47 and 69% respectively).

Table 4.17.1: ‘Made changes to workplace as a result of the interaction’ by interaction and year

Made changes to workplace as a result of the interaction







Webinar 68.7% 52.8%

All types 72.2% 70.3%


63

The lowest percentage of changes to workplace as a result of the interaction were made by businesses employing 200+ and the most by those employing 1-4.

Table 4.17.2: ‘Made any Changes’ by business size

Made changes to workplace as a result of the interaction


1 -4 (Micro) 258 69.9%

5-19 (small) 345 81.0%

20-199 (medium) 452 73.7%

200+ (large) 429 66.2%

Total 1484 72.2%

N=2,056

By industry, those in education and training were most likely to have made changes. This was closely followed by agriculture, forestry and fishing. Construction matched the overall mean (71%), while those least likely to make changes were in the professional, scientific and technical services.

Table 4.17.3: 'Made any changes' by industry

Industry % making changes

Education and training 81%Agriculture, forestry and fishing 79%Wholesale Trade 77%Manufacturing 76%Public administration and safety 74%Accommodation and food services 73%Electricity, gas, water and waste services 73%Administrative and support services 72%Retail trade 71%Construction 71%Mining 71%Information Media and Telecommunication 70%Rental,hiring and real estate services 70%Health care and social assistance 69%Transport,postal and warehousing 69%Financial and insurance services 67%Arts and recreational services 62%Professional, scientific and technical services 59%


64

Changes made were mostly introducing or reviewing WHS policies and procedures, including updating safe work method statements (50%). Almost one third (or 31%) of those who made changes reported making changes to the physical environment, while over one in four (28%) said they had introduced safe work methods and 23% had introduced or revised training in procedures and policies.

Figure 4.17.2: Nature of changes made

The table on the next page shows changes made, by industry:


65

Table 4.17.4: Changes made, by industry

IndustryPolicies and procedures

introduced or updated

Safe work method

statements introduced

Procedures for reporting

issues, hazards or accidents

Changes to physical

environment

Removal of identified hazards

Consultation arrangements

introduced

Training in procedures and

policies introduced or

revised

Improved record

keeping/ paperwork

Risk analysis undertaken or

revised

Maintenance or replacement of

equipment

Purchase of new

equipment

Agriculture, forestry and fishing 47% 20% 9% 40% 16% 10% 25% 12% 16% 22% 16%Mining 42% 42% 33% 33% 0% 8% 25% 17% 8% 17% 8%Manufacturing 51% 27% 12% 43% 8% 14% 21% 7% 15% 17% 5%Electricity, gas, water and waste services 61% 32% 17% 18% 5% 15% 26% 8% 14% 9% 8%Construction 49% 33% 12% 26% 4% 20% 22% 9% 15% 7% 5%Wholesale Trade 50% 24% 15% 30% 4% 13% 22% 7% 20% 9% 9%Retail trade 43% 17% 12% 40% 10% 18% 22% 9% 19% 21% 13%Accommodation and food services 48% 22% 20% 46% 11% 8% 24% 9% 24% 6% 3%Transport,postal and warehousing 58% 28% 18% 30% 8% 14% 18% 11% 16% 7% 8%Information Media and Telecommunications 38% 24% 5% 19% 5% 14% 43% 10% 14% 14% 10%Financial and insurance services 75% 25% 13% 13% 13% 13% 25% 13% 0% 25% 13%Rental,hiring and real estate services 29% 29% 14% 29% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14% 14% 14%Professional, scientific and technical services 51% 26% 26% 33% 5% 18% 23% 15% 18% 18% 13%Administrative and support services 62% 31% 23% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 38% 15% 8%Public administration and safety 55% 35% 17% 17% 12% 20% 25% 10% 20% 6% 4%Education and training 57% 17% 10% 31% 5% 7% 29% 5% 10% 10% 17%Health care and social assistance 42% 22% 16% 23% 13% 16% 32% 5% 20% 11% 3%Arts and recreational services 57% 29% 14% 21% 21% 0% 21% 7% 29% 0% 21%TOTAL COUNT 745 410 206 463 113 234 345 133 245 171 111


66

4.18 Likely to recommend Question: “How likely would you be to recommend the service provided by Safework NSW?” Respondents: Advisory visits, Stakeholder consultation, Projects, Webinars Outcome: Overall 72% of respondents would recommend the service provided by Safework NSW (providing a score of 8 or higher).

Figure 4.18.1: ‘Would recommend the service provided by Safework NSW’

Those undertaking advisory visit interactions were the most likely to recommend the services provided by SafeWork NSW (recommendation score of 8.55 out of 10) followed by those undertaking stakeholder consultation visits (8.07).

Table 4.18.1: ‘Would recommend the service provided by Safework NSW’, by interaction type

Would recommend the service provided by Safework NSW

Interaction type 2017 mean score

Advisory visit 8.55

Stakeholder consultation 8.07

Projects/Visit related to a project 7.82

Webinar 7.84

All Types 7.96


67

Micro businesses were the least likely to recommend SafeWork NSW and small businesses the most (at mean scores of 8.19 and 7.67 respectively).

Table 4.18.2: ‘Would recommend the service provided by Safework NSW’, by business size

Would recommend the service provided by Safework NSW

Number employed 2017 mean score

1 -4 (Micro) 7.67

5-19 (small) 8.19

20-199 (medium) 8.05

200+ (large) 8.09

Total 7.97

N=636

Reasons for intending to recommend the service related to perceptions of the high quality staff, advice and overall service. Reasons for not recommending related to being unhappy with the service or feeling that SafeWork takes a blanket approach to advice.

Figure 4.18.2: Reasons for recommending / not recommending SafeWork NSW

3%<1%<1%<1%<1%<1%1%1%2%2%

3%3%3%4%4%5%

7%8%

10%12%

22%33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

OtherNeed to be more flexible

UnreliableSafety police/ enforcers

ExpensiveOver the top/ overkill

not effective/ necessaryNo targeted approach

Not happy with the servicePrompt service

Not sureHelp improve safety

I have/ would recommendUnderstood our business

Room for improvementGood online information/ resources

Important/ necessary/ no alternativeImproved my business

Good service/ easy to deal withOverall positive experience

Good advice/ informationGood staff / approachable / supportive

Can you briefly explain why you gave this score?(n=618, multiple responses allowed)


68

Part 5: Respondent Characteristics

Most recent interaction Over half the overall sample had had a workplace incident-related interaction (52%), 19% a project related incident and 17% a complaint related incident. In 2017, the proportion of incidents respondents increased significantly at the expense of complaints visits (which decreased from 36% of the respondent pool to 17%). This was in line with the sampling frame supplied by SafeWork.

Figure 5.1 Most recent interaction


69

Primary work role

Most respondents were senior figures in the businesses - either Director/CEO/owner or Manager (totalling 58% of all respondents). WHS officers made up over a quarter of the sample.

Figure 5.2: Primary work role

Business size

The most common business size was 5 to 19 employees (21%). However, the sample had a relatively even mix of companies by size (as measured by employee numbers): (Continued next page…)


70

Figure 5.3: Business size

As seen in Table 5.2, the survey sample is biased towards medium and large businesses

Table 5.2: Respondent businesses by employment size

* Source: ABS Counts of Australian Businesses, for June 2014, ABS Cat 8165.0)

2016

Number Per cent Per cent NSW*

1 101 4.9% 8.7% 58.5%

2-4 268 13.0% 17.6%

5-19 426 20.7% 27.1%

20-49 279 13.6%

50-199 335 16.3%

200-1999 376 18.3% 12.4%

2000+ 244 11.9% 7.0%

Prefer not to answer 5 0.2% 0.2%

Don't know 23 1.1% 0.2%

Total 2057 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

39.1%

26.8% 2.2%

0.2%

2017


71

Figure 5.4 shows how interactions vary by company size. It indicates, for example, that the majority of stakeholder consultations and incidents were with companies of 200 or more employees, while projects and advisory visits were most common among smaller companies (1-19 employees).

Figure 5.4: Business size by interaction type



72

Postcode of operations

Just under half the respondents came from the Sydney metropolitan area (47%), and almost another quarter each from the regional (north) and regional (south) areas.

Figure 5.5: Postcode of business operations



73

Main industry

Overall there were 620 Construction industry respondents and 1,380 from other industries.

Figure 5.6: Respondent main industry

The survey sample does not reflect the mix of businesses in NSW by industry, being weighted towards Construction, Manufacturing, Agriculture and Retail businesses. By interaction type, the industries most represented (construction, manufacturing and retail) each showed a fairly even mix across the different interaction types. Agriculture had a higher share of webinars, retail of projects and health care incidents: (Continued next page…)


74

Figure 5.7: Industry by interaction type

The following chart shows the mix of industries by size2. It shows that the majority of Health industry respondents were very large enterprises, with many large enterprises also in transport, postal and warehousing. Retail had a more even mix of employment sizes, and Construction and agriculture both have some large enterprises but are dominated by SMEs (2-20 staff). (Continued next page…)

2 This table is restricted to industries with >100 survey respondents


75

Figure 5.8: Industry by employment size



76

Respondent background

• Do you identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?

• Are you from a culturally or linguistically diverse background?

• Are you disabled in a way that influences the way you work? As shown in Figure 5.9, 2017 data is consistent with 2016 in regard to each of these three questions.

Figure 5.9 Respondents by membership of disadvantaged groups


77

INTERACTION DEFINITION

made a complaint A health and safety complaint was made about your workplace which resulted in a subsequent interaction with SafeWork.

an incident A serious safety related incident occurred at your workplace involving injury or illness, which resulted in a subsequent interaction with SafeWork

a request for service (RFS) A request made for intervention by the regulator regarding a range of concerns in relation to WHS. RFS may also include advisory visits or other requests relating to a statutory requirement by the regulator e.g. Section 231 (request to prosecute), review of PIN, review of workgroups and other issues related to consultative mechanisms in the workplace

a rebate For purchasing and installing safety improvements or adopting approved safety solutions.

a regular consultation meeting You attended a regular meeting about health & safety with SafeWork with the intention of exchanging health or safety information.

a SafeWork workplace visit - Verification activity

You had a specific hazard or risk area examined (verified) for compliance - this was not as a result of a complaint or investigation or RFS. Including HRW licence checks.

Project You participated in a targeted industry intervention or industry strategy project or activity, as part of an identified priority industry or hazard issue.

participated in a webinar You participated in a seminar, presentation, lecture or workshop that was conducted on the Internet.

a SafeWork advisory visit - advisory visit

A SafeWork representative was invited to your workplace for a meeting to discuss health and safety.

attended a workshop or seminar You attended an information only session or workshop hosted by SafeWork.

Attachment 1: Interaction descriptions

SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017 · 2018. 4. 9. · FINAL REPORT Prepared for...

Documents

Transcript of SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2017 · 2018. 4. 9. · FINAL REPORT Prepared for...