SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 · 2018-11-12 · SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 FINAL Report Prepared by Jetty Research for SafeWork NSW, Updated October

SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 An evaluation of satisfaction among NSW-based PCBUs with the services received from SafeWork NSW Client: SafeWork NSW Dated: August 2018

2

SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 FINAL Report Prepared by Jetty Research for SafeWork NSW, Updated October 2018

Contact: James Parker e: [email protected] p: 02 6650 9175 Level 1, 30 Industrial Drive Coffs Harbour NSW PO Box 1555 Coffs Harbour NSW 2450 w: www.jettyresearch.com.au e: [email protected] Coffs Harbour Sydney ACN 121 037 429

Prepared by Christine Dening

Reviewed by James Parker

Date August 7th 2018

Document Name SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 Draft Report

Version Final

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jettyresearch.com.au/

mailto:[email protected]

3


Table of Contents

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

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

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. 11

BUSINESS RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................... 11 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 12

PART 2: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 13

BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 2.1: Summary of interaction types ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2.2: Interaction types, 2016 - 2018 ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Table 2.3: Question types and sample sizes by interaction type .................................................................................................... 15

CONTACT LISTS ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 SURVEYS .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16

Telephone survey .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 2.5: Disposition summary for the CATI component of the interview .................................................................................... 17 Online survey ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2.6: Breakdown of interactions by phone vs. online .............................................................................................................. 18

ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Graph 2.1: Primary work role ........................................................................................................................................................... 20 Graph 2.2a: Business size ................................................................................................................................................................. 20 Graph 2.2b: Business size by interaction type ................................................................................................................................. 21 Graph 2.3: Postcode of operations ................................................................................................................................................... 21 Graph 2.4: Respondent main industry ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Graph 2.5: Respondent main industry by interaction type ............................................................................................................. 23 Graph 2.6: Respondents main industry by employment size .......................................................................................................... 24 Graph 2.7: Group .............................................................................................................................................................................. 24

PART 3: 'DRIVER' ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Picture 3.1: Drivers of “met my needs” ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Picture 3.2: Drivers of “easy to do business with” ........................................................................................................................... 26

PART 4: CORPORATE PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................................................................... 27

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Table 4.1: SafeWork acknowledged my efforts, by interaction type and business size ................................................................ 28 Table 4.2: Interaction was valuable and worthwhile, by interaction type and business size ........................................................ 28 Table 4.3: Service met my needs, by interaction type and business size ........................................................................................ 29 Table 4.4: SafeWork understood the demands or pressures of my business, by interaction type and business size .................. 29 Table 4.5: SafeWork is easy to do business with ............................................................................................................................. 30

PART 5: OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................................................................... 31

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 31 Table 5.1: As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to work or injury management, by interaction type and business size ............................................................................................................ 32 Graph 5.1: Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction? ......................................................... 32 Table 5.2: Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction?, by interaction type and business size ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Graph 5.2: What were the nature of these changes? ..................................................................................................................... 34 Graph 5.3: How likely would you be to recommend the service provided by Safework NSW? ..................................................... 35

4


Graph 5.4: Reasons for recommendation score .............................................................................................................................. 36

PART 6: SATISFACTION WITH STAFF ............................................................................................................................................ 37

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 Table 6.1: The SafeWork officer I spoke to had enough knowledge to address my issue ............................................................. 38 Table 6.2: The SafeWork Officer treated me fairly during the interaction ..................................................................................... 39 Table 6.3: The SafeWork staff member appeared competent ........................................................................................................ 39 Table 6.4: SafeWork staff provided a level of service beyond what I expected ............................................................................. 40 Table 6.5: My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner ................................................................................................. 40 Table 6.6: Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue .......................................................................... 41 Table 6.7: The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs ........................................................... 41 Table 6.8: By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner .............................................. 42

PART 7: IMPROVING SAFETY BELIEFS........................................................................................................................................... 43

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 43 Table 7.1: Improving safety makes my business more productive ................................................................................................. 43 Table 7.2: Improving safety saves my business money ................................................................................................................... 44

PART 8: TABLET USE ................................................................................................................................................................... 45

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Graph 8.1: Can you briefly explain what they used it for? .............................................................................................................. 46 Graph 8.2: The inspector used the tablet to provide me with useful information ......................................................................... 46 Graph 8.3: The tablet made the interaction more professional ..................................................................................................... 47 Graph 8.4: The tablet was distracting for me .................................................................................................................................. 47 Graph 8.5: The tablet was distracting for the inspector ................................................................................................................. 48 Graph 8.6: The tablet enhanced the overall experience ................................................................................................................. 48

PART 9: WEBINAR ...................................................................................................................................................................... 49

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Graph 9.1: Why did you decide to watch a webinar? ..................................................................................................................... 49 Graph 9.2: Did the information in the webinar help you make your business safer? .................................................................... 50

PART 10: SAFEWORK IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 51

Graph 10.1: What one thing could SafeWork do that would help you make your workplace safer? ........................................... 51 Graph 10.2: What one thing could SafeWork do that would help you make your workplace safer?, Compliance vs. Education ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

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 Each year SafeWork NSW conducts a Customer Satisfaction Survey to assess the extent to which its services are meeting the needs of customers, and their levels of satisfaction with the way services are delivered. Some 1,875 respondents were polled in 2018, across seven different interaction types. These included requests for service, incident notifications, project visits and webinars. This year’s survey also included:

• a series of questions relating to the impact of tablet use by inspectors; and

• a question asking what one thing SafeWork could do to make their workplace safer.

The results are summarised in the following table:

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

* Note: % change is calculated as the change between 2017 and 2018.

2015 2016 2017 2018 Change* Target

Performance indicators

Efforts acknowledged 73.3% 86.0% 85.4% 81.1% -4.3% 60%✓

Valuable/worthwhile 84.1% 86.8% 87.6% 87.1% -0.5% 85%✓

Met my needs 85.4% 88.4% 90.4% 88.1% -2.3% 85%✓

Understood business pressures 74.1% 82.5% 82.2% 84.0% 1.8%

Easy to do business with 86.3% 85.8% 85.8% 0.0%

Outcomes indicators

Increased confidence 71.0% 78.6% 81.1% 78.5% -2.6%

Implemented changes 66.2% 70.3% 72.2% 72.3% 0.1%

Recommend SW NSW? (0-10 scoring range, 7-10 assumed agree) 82.2% 76.4% -5.8%

Satisfaction measures

Satisfied with the process required to resolve issue 84.4% 87.3% 89.9% 88.4% -1.5% 85%✓

Issue resolved in an efficient (timely) manner 80.1% 84.9% 84.9% 81.9% -3.0% 85%

SafeWork officer I spoke to...

had enough knowledge 86.7% 90.6% 91.6% 90.4% -1.2% 85%✓

treated me fairly 92.9% 95.9% 95.4% 93.7% -1.7% 85%✓

appeared competent 90.1% 93.3% 93.7% 95.0% 1.3% 85%✓

provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected 62.9% 72.4% 72.3% 74.3% 2.0% 85%

The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for

my needs N/A 86.1% 90.0% 88.1% -1.9%

By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s raised in

a timely manner N/A 80.4% 82.4% 79.5% -2.9%

Beliefs: Improving safety...

Makes business more productive 87.3% 87.1% 90.3% 90.6% 0.3%

Saves business money 84.9% 83.6% 87.8% 89.6% 1.8%

% Agree

% Agree

% Agree

% Agree

7


Satisfaction in 2018 is high and (in most cases) stable

The results from the 2018 Customer Satisfaction Survey show very high levels of satisfaction with the quality of SafeWork staff and the services they provide. For indicators where targets have been set, in all but two indicators the targets were met or exceeded. (The indicators not meeting the target set included SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected and The issue was resolved in an efficient (timely) manner.)

Satisfaction with staff remained high, but with a number of minor falls from 2017 Most satisfaction with staff-based measures decreased slightly in 2018. Six out of the eight measures scored about 80% in agreement, with the highest ratings given to indicators of the capabilities of SafeWork staff:

i. The SafeWork officer treated me fairly (94%)

ii. The SafeWork officer appeared competent (95%)

iii. The SafeWork officer had enough knowledge (90%) A lower percentage (74%) agreed with the proposition that the SafeWork officer provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected, the only satisfaction indicator not to achieve its target (of 85%). Positively, this measure demonstrated an upward trend. While the majority (88%) of respondents agreed that Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue or question, back to levels last seen in 2016, a slightly lower level of agreement (82%) was seen in response to the proposition that My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner. This suggests there is opportunity to improve by way of response time. Satisfaction was almost uniformly more positive among larger PCBUs than among smaller (<20 employee) companies. This suggests additional work is required among smaller businesses, to make them understand the pro-active value SWNSW can bring to workplace safety.

More respondents are changing behaviour based on interaction

Overall 73% of respondents this year made changes as a result of the interaction, showing a steady increase over the last four years. The nature of these changes most frequently focussed on introducing or updating policies and procedures (46%), introducing or revising SafeWork Method Statements (30%), making changes to the physical environment (23%), and training (22%).

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’ (88%) and ‘enabling issues to be addressed in a timely fashion’ (80%). These ratings confirmed that for the vast majority of customers whose issue had been channelled through the administrative response route, the outcome was satisfactory.

8


Agreement rising that safety makes businesses more productive/saves money

Two questions probed respondents’ beliefs about improving safety, with 91% agreeing that it Makes my business more productive and 90% agreeing that it Saves my business money. Agreement rates continued their upward climb in 2018. Agreement generally rose in line with business size. 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 82% of micro businesses agreeing - compared with 94% of larger businesses. Pleasingly however, among firms with 5-19 employees the proportion agreeing that safety made their business more productive and/or saved money rose significantly year-on-year (up 5% and 8% respectively).

Strong correlation between "met my needs" and "competence of the SafeWork officer"

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 informing the perception that SafeWork NSW “met my needs” are: overall satisfaction with the process, competence of the SafeWork officer and perception that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile. The strongest drivers of the belief that SWNSW is “easy to do business with” are: Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue (or question) and the perception that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile. This suggests that the behaviour of the inspector, as well as the overall process, will have a large impact on whether the customer feels their needs are being met through the interaction and whether SafeWork is believed to be easy to do business with.

Response to the tablet use (among those recalling it) was very positive and felt to add value to the interaction Among the respondents who recalled the inspector using tablets during a visit, over three in five (63%) agreed that the tablet enhanced the overall experience of the interaction with the SafeWork Officer. Taking notes and recording information was considered the main use of the table (cited by 78%) followed by providing advice (30%) and showing me a code of practice (16%). Around two-thirds felt that the inspector used the tablet to provide them with useful information (67%) and over three-quarters agreed that the tablet made the interaction more professional (76%). The majority agreed that the use of the tablet was not distracting to either the client (87%) nor the inspector (73%). These results suggest that the roll-out of the use of tablets has been well-received by PCBUs.

9


Response to the webinar was also positive with convenience and the rebate driving viewership Among those who watched webinars (n=217 respondents) almost nine in ten who watched felt the information helped them to make their business safer. Those who felt the webinar helped to make their business safer reasoned that the webinar contained many useful tips and outlined potential risks they hadn’t thought of. They felt the webinar raised their safety conscious level and alerted them to the things to look out for. Convenience was the main factor driving individuals to watch the webinar – 91% agreed that they watched the webinar as I could watch it at a time that suited me. This was followed by those wishing to apply for the rebate which was contingent on their viewing the webinar (86%) and those in a regional area (67%). Only one-quarter watched the webinar in response to a safety problem.

Continuing to refine and improve resources was cited as something SafeWork could do to help make businesses safer

When asked what ‘one thing’ could SafeWork do that would help you make your workplace safer, PCBUs focussed on:

• The usefulness of information provided by SafeWork NSW;

• More and longer advisory visits;

• General communication;

• Website;

• Training.

Some examples of specific recommendations from PCBUs included:

• providing an industry-specific set of guidelines outlining the most likely issues and resolutions and day-to-day checklists;

• providing a generic template for creating your own Safe Work Methods Statement to encourage uniformity;

• providing alerts to help PCBUs stay up-to-date on legislation changes and upcoming workshops.

(Continued next page…)

10


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 show that for the vast majority of customers even ‘involuntary’ interactions can be 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 remained broadly positive

For the second year, 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 SWNSW 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. A Net Promoter Score of +22% was achieved, a slight decline on the 2017 NPS of +26%. NPSs varied considerably by

interaction type – from a high of +43% for advisory visits to a low of -2% of projects. This highlights the ability of

advisory visits to create ambassadors for SafeWork services more generally.

11


Recommendations

Business Recommendations

1. 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.

2. Continue to encourage use of the tablet by inspectors. With over three in five (63%) of those involved in an inspection using a tablet agreeing that the tablet enhanced the overall experience, two-thirds agreeing that the inspector used the tablet to provide them with useful information (67%) and over three-quarters feeling that the tablet made the interaction more professional (76%) it is clear that the tablet adds positively to the inspection experience.

3. Continue to encourage businesses to build webinars into their structured safety training processes. Response to the webinar was very positive among those who watched it with almost nine in ten feeling the information helped them to make their business safer.

4. Consider implementing some of the PCBU-suggested types of and ways of presenting and distributing information such as:

a. Providing an industry specific set of guidelines outlining the most likely issues and resolutions and day-to-day checklists;

b. Providing a generic template for creating your own Safe Work Methods Statement to encourage uniformity;

c. Providing a regular newsletter outlining recent case studies regarding incidents so PCBUs are provided with examples of risks and procedures for mitigating different risks, and;

d. Providing alerts to help PCBUs stay up to date on legislation changes and upcoming workshops

5. Consider research to evaluate and review the website and ensure content is up-to date and useful to NSW PCBUs.

6. Continue to ensure inspectors are well-trained particularly in regards to industry-specific conditions and issues.

7. Encourage inspectors to make themselves available to sit-down with staff (rather than just management) to discuss safety and encourage them all to be a part of the safety approach.

(Continued over page…)

12


Research Methodology Recommendations

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

2. 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.

3. Ideally re-instate contact names for complaints, as the absence of same led to a marked decline in the number of complaint-related respondents this year vs. last.

4. Consider whether it is worth persevering with online surveys, given ever-declining response rates and excellent response rates for phone. (In 2018 telephone response rate was 84%, against 20% for online.)

5. 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 and 2018). One example might be to try and prioritise the perceived importance of different SafeWork products and services, rather than just measuring the satisfaction side of the equation.

6. Consider an additional qualitative style of question to tease out more feedback from those willing to provide it.

13


Part 2: Introduction

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 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 group of customers with whom SafeWork had had an interaction. Principal objectives of the survey are to assess satisfaction levels with the SafeWork services used by customers, and to understand the impact and outcomes from the interactions. Also this year:

▪ A series of questions were added relating to the impact on the interaction of tablet use by inspectors; and

▪ a question was re-introduced asking respondents what one thing SafeWork could do to make their workplace safer.

Methodology

As in previous years, and in order to maintain consistency of methodology and hence direct comparability of results, the 2018 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 seven interaction types were covered in the 2018 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 Education Participated in a Project Education Participated in a webinar Education

1 Computer-assisted telephone interviewing

14


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 interested 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 2016-18. The interaction mix in 2018 was different to that in 2017, with far higher percentages of incidents and a significantly lower ratio of projects. (Note also that SafeWork removed a significant number of PCBUs from the "project" category in 2018, as it was running a post-intervention survey for that group of people simultaneously. This has fed through to lower respondent numbers in that interaction category.)

Table 2.2: Interaction types, 2016 - 2018

Interaction 2016 2017 2018 % change since 2017

Complaint - Inspector Response 26.1% 15.8% 12.4% -3.4%

Complaint - Admin Response 10.0% 1.0% 4.0% 3.0%

Incident - Inspector Response 13.6% 23.8% 22.1% -1.7%

Incident - Admin Response 19.1% 28.6% 37.6% 9.0%

Advisory visit 5.7% 5.8% 7.3% 1.5%

Stakeholder consultation 1.2% 0.7% N/A N/A

Projects 13.9% 19.6% 5.0% -14.6%

Webinar 7.1% 4.8% 11.6% 6.8%

Other Interaction 3.5% N/A N/A N/A

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:

15


Table 2.3: Question types and sample sizes by interaction type

Indicator Compliance Education

Co

mp

lain

ts

(in

spec

tor

resp

on

se)

Co

mp

lain

ts (

adm

in

resp

on

se)

Inci

den

t

(i

nsp

ecto

r re

spo

nse

)

Inci

den

t

(a

dm

in r

esp

on

se)

Ad

viso

ry v

isit

Pro

ject

s

Web

inar

Responses by interaction type

232

75

415

706

136

94

217

Performance indicators

Efforts acknowledged X X X X

Valuable/worthwhile X X X X X Overall, service met needs X X X X X X X

Understood business pressures X X X X

Outcomes indicators

More confidence X X X X X

Implemented changes X X X X X X X

Recommendation X X X

Satisfaction measures

Satisfied with the process required to resolve issue

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

treated me fairly X X X X

appeared competent X X X X

provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected

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

Saves my business money X X X X X X X

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

16


Contact lists

A total of 4,430 records of contact details were provided by SafeWork across the range of interaction types (compared with 5,118 in 2017). Of these, 3,503 were contacted via telephone. Additionally, 927 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 shows the breakdown of interactions supplied vs interviews conducted:

Table 2.4: Comparison of records supplied in 2017 and 2018, against interviews conducted 2018

Surveys

Of the 4,430 records supplied, a total of 1,875 valid responses were achieved – for an overall response rate of 42% (against 40% in 2017 and 38% in 2016).

Telephone survey

In preparation for the telephone survey, emails were sent to all businesses on the contact list in late April, advising them that the survey was due to take place in the next few weeks and encouraging their participation. The CATI interview ran between May 3rd and 16th, and obtained 1,690 responses (against 1600 budgeted). The telephone interview response rate and participation rate were again quite high, reflecting the high quality of 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, callbacks 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?”.

InteractionSupplied 2017

(Total = 5118)

Supplied 2018

(Total = 4430)% change

Interviews

2018

Difference

Interviews/

supplied

Complaint - Inspector Visit 19.8% 13.4% -6.4% 12.4% -1.0%

Complaint - Admin Response 0.4% 3.3% 2.9% 4.0% 0.7%

Incident - Inspector Visit 16.8% 16.5% -0.3% 22.1% 5.6%

Incident - Admin Response 25.0% 28.6% 3.6% 37.7% 9.1%

Project 19.7% 10.7% -9.0% 5.0% -5.6%

Webinar 14.6% 20.9% 6.3% 11.6% -9.4%

Advisory Visit 3.8% 6.6% 2.8% 7.3% 0.6%

17


The majority of the non-responses to the phone interview 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 interview, from those reached who were eligible to take part, was 84% - down 1% on 2017, but an improvement on the 79% recorded in 2016. The Call Outcomes (Table 2.5) shows the scope of the telephone interview, and the outcomes of the calls made. While the participation rate was high, many on the contact lists could not be reached. The overall response rate (percentage of interviews completed from telephone numbers used) was 37% - slightly down on the 39% achieved last year.

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

CATI outcome Complaints Incidents Other TOTAL

Completed 295 1095 300 1690

Multiple callback 127 110 68 305

Multiple answering machine 308 309 280 897

Fax 7 2 2 11

Deaf/No English 3 1 2 6

Survey terminated 2 4 1 7

Refused to take part 113 124 77 314

Did not qualify 1 13 5 19

No knowledge of interaction 94 16 50 160

Contact no longer works there 25 50 15 90

No answer 246 92 143 481

Multiple Engaged 20 4 5 29

Disconnected 74 30 51 155

Wrong number 36 28 23 87

Person unavailable during survey period 43 35 24 102

Other/unable to define 78 36 69 183

TOTAL 1472 1950 1115 4537

Participation rate (1) 20% 56% 27% 37%

Participation rate (2) 72% 90% 80% 84%

Participation rate 2017 (2) 81% 88% 80% 85%

(1) Completed surveys as a percentage of all records

(2) Completed surveys as a percentage of eligible businesses successfully reached

Note that the participation rate for complaints was down significantly in 2018, with only 20% of records for this interaction contactable and willing and able to participate (compared with 39% for 2017). The key difference can largely be attributed to 2018 complaints records being supplied mostly without contact names (due to issues with accuracy in 2017).

18


Online survey

Invitations to complete an online version of the survey were emailed to 927 records, predominantly those who had taken part in webinars. The online survey opened on May 5th and closed on May 16th, with two reminder emails sent in the interim. Of the 927 businesses contacted2, 185 valid online responses were obtained (against a budget of 400) - giving an overall online response rate of 20%. This is down slightly on last year's 22%, but well down on the 29% in 2016. It reflects a broader and concerning industry trend of reduced response rates to online surveys, most likely the result of businesses being constantly bombarded with online surveys. Combining phone and online samples, total respondent pool was hence n=1,875. 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

Interaction CATI Online TOTAL

Complaint - Inspector Response 221 11 232

13.1% 5.9% 12.4%

Complaint - Admin Response 74 1 75

4.4% .5% 4.0%

Incident - Inspector Response 398 17 415

23.6% 9.2% 22.1%

Incident - Admin Response 697 9 706

41.2% 4.9% 37.7%

Advisory visit 125 11 136

7.4% 5.9% 7.3%

Projects/Visit related to a project 91 3 94

5.4% 1.6% 5.0%

Webinar 84 133 217

5.0% 71.9% 11.6%

TOTAL 1690 185 1,875

100.0% 100.0% 100%

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”.

2 Plus approx. 120 CATI respondents who requested an online version of the survey be sent to them

19


Analysis

Analysis has been undertaken at a total level and tables show changes year-on-year as well as a trend line. Additionally, cross-analysis has been undertaken by business size and interaction type. Year-on-year stable results (i.e., less than 3% change) are white, while year-on-year increases of 3% or more are highlighted in light green or red (for changes of 3-4% over last year) or dark green or red (for changes of 5+%):

Each section outlines an overall summary of the main measures and then results per measure, year-on-year and by business size and interaction type. Appendix 2 summarises key results by business size, region and industry.

5+% or more increase from previous year

3-4% increase from previous year

3-4% decrease from previous year

5+% or more decrease from previous year

20


Sample Characteristics

Graphs 2.1 to 2.5 show the characteristics of the businesses represented in the customer satisfaction survey:

Graph 2.1: Primary work role

Most respondents were senior figures in the businesses - either Director/CEO/owner or Manager (totaling 52% of all respondents). WHS officers made up over a third of the sample (significantly more than in 2017).

Graph 2.2a: Business size

21


The most common business size was 200-1999 (22%). However, the sample had a relatively even mix of companies by size (as measured by employee numbers).

Graph 2.2b: Business size by interaction type

Those interacting via webinars were most likely to be from small or micro businesses while those interacting via incidents were more likely to be from large companies.

Graph 2.3: Postcode of operations

Just under half the respondents came from the Sydney metropolitan area (46%), and approximately another quarter each from the regional (north) and regional (south) areas.

7%

25%

26%

32%

79%

14%

29%

33%

40%

13%

30%

28%

29%

22%

7%

49%

18%

13%

6%

2%

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

Incident (n=1113)

Complaint (n=305)

Advisory visit (n=132)

Project (n=93)

Webinar (n=214)

Interaction by Company size

1-4 5-19 20-199 200+

22


Graph 2.4: Respondent main industry

Overall there were 618 Construction industry respondents and 1,255 from other industries. (Continued over page…)

23


Graph 2.5: Respondent main industry by interaction type

Among larger industries, Agriculture had a higher share of webinars and projects, Construction of complaints, and Public Administration and Safety, of incidents. (Continued over page…)

24


Graph 2.6: Respondents main industry by employment size

The majority of Public Administration and Safety and Health industry respondents were large enterprises, with many large enterprises also in Transport, Postal and Warehousing. Construction had a more even mix of employment sizes, while Agriculture was dominated by SMEs (<20 staff).

Graph 2.7: Group

Those from culturally or linguistically backgrounds had slightly less representation in the 2018 survey than in 2017.

25


Part 3: '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”, 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, competence of the SafeWork officer and perception that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile. 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.

26


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: Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue (or question) and the 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”.

27


Part 4: 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.

Summary of Results

Amongst these indicators, results saw only slight adjustments on previous years. Findings included:

❖ SafeWork’s perceived understanding of the business continued its upward trend with 84% agreement that SafeWork understood my business’ demands / pressures (the highest score recorded). This was higher among those experiencing an advisory visit, at 92%

❖ Ratings continued to exceed target in 2018;

o SafeWork’s acknowledgement of efforts well exceeded the target of 60% (at 81%) despite a 4% downturn. This was higher among those undertaking a workplace incident interaction and larger organisations.

o Some 87% agreed that the interaction was valuable and worthwhile (above the target of 85% and in line with 2017 results). This result was lower among those experiencing a complaint.

o Satisfaction with the services meeting their needs also remained high and above the 85% target, at 88% agreement (down 2% on 2017).

❖ 86% (same as 2017) agreed that SafeWork is easy to do business with (higher among larger organisations but lower among those involved in webinars and complaints).

❖ This year’s respondents receiving webinar interactions rated the corporate performance measures less favourably than in previous years.

Statement2015 -%

Agree

2016 -%

Agree

2017 -%

Agree

2018 -%

Agree

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts in managing safety or

return to work or injury management73.3% 86.0% 85.4% 81.2%

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile 84.1% 86.8% 87.6% 87.1%

Overall I am satisfied that the services provided were

appropriate and sufficient to meet my needs85.4% 88.5% 90.4% 88.2%

SafeWork understood my business' demands/pressures 74.1% 82.5% 82.0% 84.0%

SafeWork NSW is easy to do business with N/A 84.4% 86.3% 85.8%

28


Table 4.1: SafeWork acknowledged my efforts, by interaction type and business size

(Respondents: Complaints (inspector response), Incidents (inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects,

SafeWork acknowledged my efforts declined slightly in 2018 although it is still a very high agreement rating at 81%. Agreement was highest result among larger organisations and those experiencing a workplace incident. Conversely, scores were >5% lower for smaller companies (i.e. those with 1-19 employees), and interactions involving complaints, advisory visits and projects. Agreement was highest in manufacturing and healthcare (89%) and lowest in transport and warehousing (76%).

Table 4.2: Interaction was valuable and worthwhile, by interaction type and business size

Respondents: Complaints (inspector response), Incidents (inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Webinars

Results regarding if the interaction was valuable and worthwhile remained high and stable at 87% and was higher still among larger organisations and those experiencing advisory visits.

2015

(n=1729)

2016

(n=1208)

2017

(n=1352)

2018

(n=1094)

% Agree 73% 86% 85% 81%

% Disagree 3% 3% 2% 5%

1-4 75% 85% 84% 79%

5-19 75% 87% 87% 79%

20-199 75% 84% 86% 85%

200+ 72% 88% 84% 83%

Complaint 75% 86% 85% 79%

Workplace incident 74% 89% 85% 88%

Advisory visit 73% 83% 85% 77%

Projects 72% 85% 87% 76%

Overall

Size

Interaction

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

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=1352)

2017

(n=1436)

2018

(n=1094)

% Agree 84% 87% 88% 87%

% Disagree 5% 4% 4% 5%

1-4 85% 87% 86% 83%

5-19 85% 86% 89% 87%

20-199 84% 87% 87% 91%

200+ 82% 86% 88% 89%

Complaint 83% 83% 84% 81%

Incident 83% 88% 88% 88%


Projects 86% 90% 90% 90%

Webinar 85% 89% 86% 86%

Overall

Size

Interaction

The interaction was valuable and worthwhile

29


Table 4.3: Service met my needs, by interaction type and business size

Respondents: All

Overall service met my needs dipped slightly but not significantly in 2018, still enjoying an impressive 88%. Again, results were higher among larger organisations and particularly high among incident and advisory interactions (lowest among webinars). However agreement fell sharply among smaller companies, and those interacting via projects and webinars. Agreement was highest among manufacturing (94%) and lowest among agriculture, forestry and fishing (87%).

Table 4.4: SafeWork understood the demands or pressures of my business, by interaction type and business size

Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Other

Agreement that SafeWork understood the demands or pressures of my business continued its upward trend in 2018, driven by particularly favourable results among larger companies and advisory visit interactions. Agreement was particularly string among agriculture, forestry and fishing respondents (at 94%).

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=2000)

2017

(n=2059)

2018

(n=1875)

% Agree 85% 88% 90% 88%

% Disagree 4% 3% 3% 4%

1-4 85% 88% 89% 83%

5-19 86% 87% 93% 87%

20-199 90% 90% 90% 92%

200+ 89% 88% 90% 89%

Complaints 93% 84% 85% 81%

Incident 92% 91% 92% 91%


Stakeholder consultation 83% 79% 93% N/A

Projects 97% 91% 90% 85%

Webinar 89% 94% 89% 84%

Interaction

Overall the service provided by SafeWork met my needs

Overall

Size

2015

(n=1882)

2016

(n=1277)

2017

(n=1352)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree 74% 82% 82% 84%

% Disagree 7% 5% 6% 5%

1-4 76% 84% 81% 83%

5-19 75% 82% 82% 80%

20-199 73% 81% 83% 89%

200+ 71% 82% 82% 83%

Complaint 79% 81% 81% 79%

Incident 66% 84% 84% 86%



Projects 63% 86% 80% 79%

Size

Interaction

To what extent would you agree or disagree that the SafeWork staff member you spoke to understood the

demands or pressures of your business?

Overall

30


Table 4.5: SafeWork is easy to do business with

Respondents: All

Agreement with SafeWork being easy to do business with remained high and stable in 2018. Results were highest among larger businesses and those experiencing advisory visit or incident interactions. However there was a 6% decline for complaint-based interactions, and 7% for webinars. Agreement was highest among manufacturing respondents (93%) and lowest among those in agriculture, forestry and fishing (77%).

20152016

(n=2000)

2017

(n=2059)

2018

(n=1875)

% Agree N/A 85% 86% 86%

% Disagree N/A 4% 4% 4%

1-4 N/A 86% 82% 79%

5-19 N/A 86% 87% 84%

20-199 N/A 85% 88% 90%

200+ N/A 82% 87% 87%

Complaint N/A 84% 83% 77%

Incident N/A 84% 88% 90%

Advisory visit N/A 89% 92% 93%

Stakeholder consultation N/A 88% 73% N/A

Projects N/A 88% 84% 86%

Webinar N/A 80% 80% 73%

Interaction

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

Overall

Size

31


Part 5: Outcomes Three indicators addressed the outcomes of the interaction:

1. Increased confidence;

2. Implemented changes; and,

3. Likelihood to recommend.

In 2018, the Net Promoter Score (NPS which is calculated from the likelihood to recommend measure) is included as an Outcome Measure.

Summary of Results

Despite a slight decrease in two of the three outcome measures, results remained high. Findings included:

❖ Increased confidence dropped slightly to 78%, higher among businesses with 20 to 199 employees (88%) and those reporting against an incident (81%) or advisory visit (82%)

❖ Almost three quarters had made changes as a result of the interaction (73%)

❖ The nature of these changes most frequently focussed on introducing or updating policies and procedures (46%), introducing or revising SafeWork Method Statements (30%), making changes to the physical environment (23%) and training (22%)

❖ NPS dropped slightly but not significantly in 2018 with fewer people rating recommendation as a 10 out of 10 and an increase in those rating it 9 out of 10

(Continued over page…)

Statement2015 -%

Agree

2016 -%

Agree

2017 -%

Agree

2018 -%

Agree

As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to

improve work health and safety or return to work or injury 71.0% 78.6% 81.1% 78.3%

I have implemented changes within my workplace as a result of

the interaction66.2% 70.3% 72.2% 72.3%

How likely would you be to recommend the service provided

by SafeWork NSW?82.2% 76.4%

32


Table 5.1: As a result of the interaction I have increased confidence to improve work health and safety or return to

work or injury management, by interaction type and business size

Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects, Stakeholder Consultation, Webinar, Other

Increased confidence as a result of the visit remained stable and high in 2018 although with the proportion disagreeing displaying an upward trend. Results were mixed by businesses size (highest among micro business with 1 to 4 staff and medium businesses with 20-199 staff). However, results dropped sharply among businesses with more than 200 employees, from 77% to 70%, and those involved in projects and advisory visits. Agreement was highest in manufacturing (86%) and lowest in construction and other (77% and 75% respectively).

Graph 5.1: Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction?

Respondents: All

2015

(n=1895)

2016

(n=1419)

2017

(n=1451)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree 71% 79% 81% 79%

% Disagree 3% 3% 4% 8%

1-4 70% 81% 81% 80%

5-19 73% 84% 84% 78%

20-199 76% 75% 82% 85%

200+ 64% 73% 77% 70%

Complaints 70% 79% 78% 76%

Incident 70% 79% 80% 81%



Projects 70% 78% 84% 69%

Webinar 78% 82% 81% N/A

Interaction

Overall

Size

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

to work or injury management

33


Over seven in ten businesses had made changes as a result of the interaction – consistent with 2017, and up on previous years.

Table 5.2: Have you made any changes to your workplace as a result of the interaction?, by interaction type and

business size

Respondents: All

The proportion making changes to their workplace as a result of the interaction remained constant at 72%. Those receiving a visit due to an incident were the most likely to make changes, webinars the least. Those with 5-19 employees saw a sharp fall in likelihood to have made changes, but remained above the overall average. Conversely larger companies' likelihood rose year-on-year, while remaining below the overall average (presumably because they perceived themselves to be more rigorous/compliant to begin with.) Those in manufacturing were most likely to have made changes (at 81%, against 74% of respondents working in the construction sector and 64% of respondents working in health care and social assistance). Respondents were next asked to describe the nature of these changes: (Continued next page…)

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=2000)

2017

(n=2059)

2018

(n=1869)

% made changes 66% 70% 72% 72%

% not made changes 34% 30% 28% 28%

1-4 68% 71% 70% 72%

5-19 65% 75% 81% 75%

20-199 69% 73% 74% 75%

200+ 60% 63% 66% 69%

Complaints 67% 72% 70% 70%

Incident 65% 70% 72% 74%



Projects 64% 72% 72% 73%

Webinar 52% 53% 69% 66%

Interaction

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

Overall

Size

34


Graph 5.2: What were the nature of these changes?

The nature of these changes most frequently focussed on introducing or updating policies and procedures (46%, compared with 50% in 2017), introducing or revising SafeWork Method Statements (30%, vs. 28% last year), making changes to the physical environment (23%, against 31% in 2017) and training (22%, vs. 22% in the previous survey). (See Appendix 2 for how types of changes made varied by business size, region and industry.) In 2017, 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.

35


Chart 5.3, below, shows the NPSs for the 441 respondents with educative interactions (including advisory visits, stakeholder consultation, projects and webinars). It indicates a Net Promoter Score of +22%, a slight decline on the 2017 NPS of +26%.

Graph 5.3: How likely would you be to recommend the service provided by Safework NSW?

Respondents: Advisory visits, Stakeholder consultation, Projects, Webinars

NPSs vary considerably by interaction type – from a high of +43% for advisory visits to a low of -2% of projects. This highlights the ability of advisory visits to create ambassadors for SafeWork services more generally. NPSs were also significantly lower among small businesses (i.e. those with 5-19 employees) at +14%, against medium to larger entities (+38 among businesses with 20-199 employees and +22 among businesses with 200+ employees). Among regions, RSDN and Metro the highest NPSs, both at +27%, with RSDS and Other areas registering lower at +14% and +9% consecutively. Respondents were next asked why they gave that recommendation score: (Continued over page…)

36


Graph 5.4: Reasons for recommendation score

Reasons for recommendation scores were reasonably generic with respondents expressing they were pleased with the advice received (20%), found it to be a good service (16%), acknowledged staff as approachable and supportive (12%) and that it helped improve safety (10%). The small proportion rating their recommendation levels as low felt the service was unreliable (4%) or were generally unhappy (3%) and/or felt there was room for improvement (2%).

37


Part 6: Satisfaction with Staff Eight indicators covered the satisfaction levels of customers in relation to the staff they dealt with during the interaction:

1. The SafeWork officer I spoke to had enough knowledge to address my issue

2. The SafeWork Officer treated me fairly during the interaction

3. The SafeWork staff member appeared competent

4. SafeWork staff provided a level of service beyond what I expected

5. My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner

6. Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue

7. The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs

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

Summary of Results

❖ While still impressively high results, reflecting the quality and performance of SafeWork staff, most satisfaction with staff measures decreased in 2018 - albeit not significantly. Six out of the eight measures scored about 80% in agreement, with the highest ratings given to indicators covering the capabilities of SafeWork staff:

o The SafeWork officer treated me fairly (94%)

o The SafeWork officer appeared competent (95%)

o The SafeWork officer had enough knowledge (90%).

Statement2015 -%

Agree

2016 -%

Agree

2017 -%

Agree

2018 -%

Agree

The SafeWork officer I spoke to/heard from had an adequate

level of knowledge to address my issue86.7% 90.6% 91.7% 90.4%

Treated me fairly during that interaction 92.9% 95.9% 95.4% 93.7%

The SafeWork staff member appeared competent 90.1% 93.3% 93.7% 95.0%

SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I

expected62.9% 72.4% 72.3% 74.1%

My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner 80.1% 84.9% 84.9% 82.0%

Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the

issue (or question)84.4% 87.3% 90.0% 88.4%

The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient

for my needsN/A 86.1% 90.0% 88.1%

By receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s

raised in a timely mannerN/A 80.4% 82.4% 79.5%

38


❖ A lower percentage (74%) agreed with the proposition that the SafeWork officer provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected, the only satisfaction indicator not to achieve its target (of 85%). Positively, this measure demonstrated an upward trend.

❖ A total of 88% of respondents agreed that Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue or question, back to levels seen in 2016.

❖ And a slightly lower level of agreement (82%) was seen in response to the proposition that My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner.

In 2018, 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 2018 a high 88% of customers experiencing an administrative response agreed that this approach and associated letter was sufficient for my needs.

❖ 80% agreed that by receiving the letter it allowed me to address the issue/s in a timely manner. These ratings confirmed that for the vast majority of customers whose issue had been channelled through the administrative response route, the outcome was quite satisfactory.

Table 6.1: 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

Perception of knowledgeability remained high and stable in 2018 at 90%. Larger organisations were particularly positive but little difference existed by interaction type.

2015

(n=1883)

2016

(n=1208)

2017

(n=1352)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree 87% 91% 92% 90%

% Disagree 3% 3% 3% 4%

1-4 88% 91% 89% 88%

5-19 87% 90% 91% 88%

20-199 86% 90% 92% 93%

200+ 87% 92% 94% 91%

Complaints 87% 87% 89% 87%

Incident 86% 91% 93% 92%


Projects 89% 92% 91% 89%

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

Overall

Size

Interaction

39


Table 6.2: The SafeWork Officer treated me fairly during the interaction

Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects

Perception of being treated fairly also remained high and stable in 2018 at 94%, despite decreasing significantly among complaints and projects interactions. Agreement also fell 5% among smaller companies.

Table 6.3: The SafeWork staff member appeared competent


Perception of competence demonstrated an upward trend since commencement of tracking at a very high 95% agreement (slightly lower among micro-businesses, complaints and projects interactions).

2015

(n=1848)

2016

(n=1184)

2017

(n=1337)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree 93% 96% 95% 94%

% Disagree 2% 2% 2% 1%

1-4 92% 95% 96% 91%

5-19 93% 96% 96% 91%

20-199 92% 96% 94% 95%

200+ 94% 97% 96% 96%

Complaints 90% 94% 94% 87%

Incident 94% 98% 96% 98%


Projects 96% 97% 96% 89%

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

Overall

Size

Interaction

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=1419)

2017

(n=1451)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree 90% 93% 94% 95%

% Disagree 3% 2% 2% 1%

1-4 89% 94% 91% 91%

5-19 92% 95% 94% 95%

20-199 90% 92% 93% 97%

200+ 89% 92% 96% 96%

Complaints 91% 93% 93% 92%

Incident 90% 95% 95% 96%



Projects 92% 97% 95% 93%

Webinar 86% 91% 82% N/A

Overall

Size

Interaction

The SafeWork staff member appeared competent

40


Table 6.4: SafeWork staff provided a level of service beyond what I expected


Perception that the SafeWork staff provided a level of service beyond what I expected also demonstrated an upward trend landing on 74% in 2018. This was driven up by improved agreement rating among businesses with 20-199 employees. Agreement was highest among those in agriculture, manufacturing and health care (at 81% each), and lowest within construction (72%) and other industries (70%).

Table 6.5: My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner

Respondents: Complaints (Inspector response), Incident (Inspector response), Advisory visit, Projects

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=1419)

2017

(n=1451)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree 63% 72% 72% 74%

% Disagree 7% 5% 5% 4%

1-4 70% 78% 76% 74%

5-19 68% 76% 78% 76%

20-199 64% 70% 68% 78%

200+ 55% 64% 68% 67%

Complaints 68% 75% 71% 72%

Incident 58% 71% 70% 74%



Projects 67% 77% 80% 71%

Webinar 54% 60% 51% N/A

Interaction

Overall

Size

SafeWork staff provided a level of assistance beyond what I expected

2015

(n=1848)

2016

(n=1184)

2017

(n=1352)

2018

(n=1658)

% Agree 80% 85% 85% 82%

% Disagree 6% 3% 3% 5%

1-4 82% 88% 85% 80%

5-19 79% 87% 85% 81%

20-199 79% 81% 85% 85%

200+ 79% 81% 84% 81%

Complaints 84% 86% 83% 78%

Incident 81% 88% 89% 84%


Stakeholder consultation N/A N/A 93% N/A

Projects 73% 80% 81% 73%

Overall

Size

Interaction

My issue or question was resolved in a timely manner

41


Over four in five agreed that their issue or question was resolved in a timely manner, a slight but not significant decrease on 85% in 2017. This slight decline was driven by smaller companies, complaints, incident and projects interactions, both which decreased significantly in 2018. Agreement was highest among construction (85%) and lowest among health care and social assistance (75%).

Table 6.6: Overall I was satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue

Respondents: Complaints (all), Incident (all), Advisory visit, Projects

Almost nine in ten were satisfied with the process required to resolve the issue, stable on previous results - despite significant declines in agreement among micro-business and complaints and (to a lesser degree) projects interactions. Satisfaction was highest in the manufacturing sector (with 95% agreement).

Table 6.7: The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs

Respondents: Complaints (admin response) and Incidents (admin response)

2015

(n=1848)

2016

(n=1765)

2017

(n=1945)

2018

(n=1658)

% Agree 84% 87% 90% 88%

% Disagree 5% 4% 3% 4%

1-4 83% 89% 89% 82%

5-19 82% 85% 88% 85%

20-199 86% 87% 90% 91%

200+ 86% 88% 91% 90%

Complaints 86% 84% 87% 81%

Incident 88% 92% 93% 91%


Projects 79% 84% 86% 82%

Overall

Size

Interaction

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

20152016

(n=581)

2017

(n=608)

2018

(n=781)

% Agree N/A 87% 90% 88%


1-4 N/A 87% 91% 82%

5-19 N/A 84% 91% 84%

20-199 N/A 86% 91% 87%

200+ N/A 87% 89% 90%

Complaints N/A 81% 80% 72%


The administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for my needs

Overall

Size

Interaction

42


Similarly, agreement that the administrative response approach and letter was sufficient for their needs also remained stable despite significant decreases in agreement among complaints and business with 199 employees or less.

Table 6.8: 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)

Perception that the letter allowed them to address the issue/s raised in a timely manner remained stable in 2018. An improvement in the result for incidents was offset by an equivalent fall in satisfaction for complaints.

20152016

(n=581)

2017

(n=608)

2018

(n=877)

% Agree N/A 80% 82% 82%


1-4 N/A 85% 83% 80%

5-19 N/A 79% 88% 81%

20-199 N/A 82% 86% 85%

200+ N/A 79% 79% 81%

Complaints N/A 80% 83% 78%


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

Overall

Size

Interaction

43


Part 7: 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.

Summary of Results

This year saw further gains in the share of businesses agreeing that safe business makes for good business. Overall, in 2018:

❖ 91% of customers agreed that Improving safety makes my business more productive.

❖ Some 90% agreed that Improving safety saves my business money.

❖ These positive responses show a steady increase over the longer term.

Table 7.1: Improving safety makes my business more productive

Respondents: All

Statement2015 -%

Agree

2016 -%

Agree

2017 -%

Agree

2018 -%

Agree

Improving safety makes my business more productive 87.3% 87.1% 90.4% 90.6%

Improving safety saves my business money 84.9% 83.6% 87.8% 89.6%

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=2000)

2017

(n=2059)

2018

(n=1852)

% Agree 88% 87% 91% 91%

% Disagree 5% 4% 2% 2%

1-4 81% 77% 82% 83%

5-19 85% 80% 85% 90%

20-199 91% 92% 92% 95%

200+ 95% 96% 96% 92%

Complaints 85% 83% 90% 88%

Incident 92% 92% 93% 93%



Projects 84% 85% 84% 85%

Webinar 89% 92% 94% 82%

Interaction

Size

Improving safety makes my business more productive

Overall

44


Agreement that Improving safety makes my business more productive remained stable in 2018. Results saw some difference by interaction type, with increased agreement among advisory interactions and decreased agreement among webinar interactions. Agreement was highest among larger firms, and was particularly high in the health care sector (at 96%).

Table 7.2: Improving safety saves my business money

Respondents: All

Nine in ten agreed that Improving safety saves my business money (slightly more than 2017). This was higher among larger businesses and those experiencing incident interactions, and demonstrated an upward movement among webinar and advisory interactions. Again, agreement was significantly higher among larger firms. By industry, it was highest in the health care, transport and manufacturing sectors (at around 95% each) and lowest among those in construction and agriculture (at a still-high 86 and 84% respectively).

2015

(n=2048)

2016

(n=2000)

2017

(n=2059)

2018

(n=1875)

% Agree 85% 83% 88% 90%

% Disagree 6% 5% 4% 3%

1-4 77% 72% 79% 82%

5-19 83% 79% 81% 89%

20-199 90% 89% 91% 94%

200+ 95% 92% 94% 91%

Complaints 79% 80% 84% 85%

Incident 92% 89% 92% 93%



Projects 84% 79% 81% 82%

Webinar 87% 86% 86% 89%

Interaction

Improving safety saves my business money

Overall

Size

45


Part 8: Tablet Use The 2018 survey introduced questions regarding tablet use for the first time. Questioning of those who recalled the inspector using a tablet focussed on what they used it for and rating of agreement with the usefulness of the tablet across a number of measures.

Summary of Results

Response to the tablet was very positive among the respondents who specifically recalled the inspector using it:

❖ Taking notes and recording information was considered the main use of the tablet (cited by 78%) followed by providing advice (30%) and showing me a code of practice (16%).

❖ Around two-thirds agreed that the inspector used the tablet to provide them with useful information (67%).

❖ Over three quarters agreed that the tablet made the interaction more professional (76%).

❖ And almost none found the tablet distracting (76% strongly disagreeing that the tablet was distracting for me).

❖ Nor was it distracting for the inspector (73% strongly disagreeing that the tablet was distracting for the inspector).

❖ Over three in five (63%) agreed that the tablet enhanced the overall experience.

46


150 respondents recalled the inspector using the tablet during inspector interactions (complaints, incidents, project and advisory visits) and were asked what he/she used it for:

Graph 8.1: Can you briefly explain what they used it for?

Respondents: Those who recalled the inspector using a tablet

Taking notes and recording information was considered the main use of the tablet (cited by 78%) followed by providing advice (30%) and showing me a code of practice (16%).

Graph 8.2: The inspector used the tablet to provide me with useful information


Around two-thirds agreed that the inspector used the tablet to provide them with useful information (67%).

47


Graph 8.3: The tablet made the interaction more professional


Over three-quarters agreed that the tablet made the interaction more professional (76%).

Graph 8.4: The tablet was distracting for me


And almost none said they found the tablet distracting (87% disagreeing that the tablet was distracting for me).

48


Graph 8.5: The tablet was distracting for the inspector


Nor was it distracting for the inspector (85% disagreeing that the tablet was distracting for the inspector).

Graph 8.6: The tablet enhanced the overall experience


Over three in five (63%) agreed that the tablet enhanced the overall experience, with only 6% disagreeing.

49


Part 9: Webinar Those who watched a webinar were asked why they watched it, and whether it made their business safer.

Summary of Results

Response to the webinar was very positive among those who watched it:

❖ Convenience was the main factor driving individuals to watch the webinar – 91% agreed that they watched the webinar as I could watch it at a time that suited me. This was followed by those wishing to apply for the rebate which was contingent on their viewing the webinar (86%) and those in a regional area finding the online format convenient (67%). Only one quarter said they watched the webinar in response to a safety problem.

o Other reasons for watching the webinar included to learn more skills or for training purposes, something to do on a tools-down rainy day and due to general interest and knowledge development.

❖ Positively, almost nine in ten who watched the webinar felt the information helped them to make their business safer.

o Those who felt the webinar helped to make their business safer reasoned that the webinar contained many useful tips and outlined potential risks they hadn’t thought of. They felt the webinar raised their level of safety consciousness and alerted them to the things to look out for.

o Those who didn’t feel the webinar improved safety in their business general reasoned that the webinar did not teach them anything new.

Graph 9.1: Why did you decide to watch a webinar?

Respondents: Those who watched a webinar

50


Convenience was the main factor driving individuals to watch the webinar – 91% agreed that they watched the webinar as I could watch it at a time that suited me. This was followed by those wishing to apply for the rebate which was contingent on their viewing the webinar (86%) and those in a regional area (67%). Only one-quarter watched the webinar in response to a safety problem. Other reasons for watching the webinar included to learn more skills or for training purposes, something to do on a tools-down rainy day and due to general interest and knowledge development. Those who watched the webinar were next asked whether the information made their business safer:

Graph 9.2: Did the information in the webinar help you make your business safer?

Respondents: Those who watched a webinar

Positively, almost nine in ten who watched the webinar felt the information helped them to make their business safer. Those who felt the webinar helped to make their business safer reasoned that the webinar contained many useful tips and outlined potential risks they hadn’t thought of. They felt the webinar raised their level of safety consciousness and alerted them to the things to look out for. Those who didn’t feel the webinar improved safety in their business general believed that the webinar did not teach them anything new.

51


Part 10: SafeWork Improvements The questionnaire concluded with an open-ended question asking respondents what one thing SafeWork NSW could do to help them make their workplace safer. Responses have been coded and quantified in the graph below:

Graph 10.1: What one thing could SafeWork do that would help you make your workplace safer?

Those who were able to provide a constructive improvement (31% chose not to answer this question and 7% expressed that the service was already fine) focussed on the usefulness of information provided by SafeWork NSW, number and quality of advisory visits, general communication, website and training. These can be further categorised according to the type of interaction - compliance vs. education: (Continued over page…)

52


Graph 10.2: What one thing could SafeWork do that would help you make your workplace safer?, Compliance vs.

Education

Examples of the suggestions made are outlined below (with quotes from education-based interactions in bold):

❖ Simpler/easy-to-use/easy-to access information Industry-specific set of guidelines available to download with most likely issues and resolutions and day

to day checklists, simplified for staff to use Issue generic templates so that people would know how to create their own work methods statement

so that there is some form of uniformity to work method statement so that when we work with other industries we can produce a work method statement so that less articulate workers have better method statements

Simplify the texts & written material - more in layman’s terms Regular newsletter discussing recent accidents commutation knowledge sheet saves lives as far as I’m

concern not just our company but what procedures actually need to be done for certain circumstances and how to go about it

53


❖ More advisory visits A face-to-face visit to have a chat and help us improve Attend meetings, interact with managers breakfasts with managers what’s happening in the industry

and of changes

❖ Simpler/better/easier-to-use website Fix their website it is extremely difficult, make it easier to navigate Have an online shop where you can purchase items with the rebate to save paperwork. I am a small

business and I could not afford the $500 to spend and then have rebated More resources on website. Being able to search prosecution by type and not company Sometimes I go to QLD for online guidance, I think NSW website needs more information Website difficult to navigate

❖ More inspectors/inspectors more visible They could have more resources on the ground. There has been trimming back/people moving t

different areas. In the time that I worked on a major job in Coffs Harbour - the amount of inspectors was halved - we need more people on the ground

Having inspectors visit give us guidance where we can improve level of knowledge laws interpretation information just go through what’s happening

Interaction onsite more often, and ensure that it's equal across the board Ongoing visits, there could be something we have missed and picked up at a later date More updates via mail regarding industry changes and seminars or advisory visit to better understand

and foster safety guidelines Provide a hotline for questions. A routine legislative update bulletin and alerts for any workshops A much faster response time from SafeWork when an incident is reported

❖ More industry-specific information Provide examples, and practical advice on the type of safety equipment available on the market to the

industry Regular updates - send out reminders of industry-related checklists that we could use on a regular

basis Promote and market more safety measures about industry-related issues that we could print out, it

would be good if the inspectors could point out which information would be most useful for us to help foster safety

Industry-targeted case studies More industry specific workshops. When people apply for an award with SafeWork it would be good

to know exactly why it was turned down

❖ More rebates/subsidies Rebates as it gives us a financial reason to look at safety Continue to provide subsidy as it is a good incentive Give us a big donation- help with cost Offer us incentive payment to purchase equipment for WHS

54


❖ More approachable/less confrontational It would be helpful for if the Inspectors were helpful and more approachable, I know that they are

doing their job but sometimes it seems that small business is being targeted. Be less bullying. The inspector was not at all understanding of our specific industry or issue. He was a

complete bully

❖ Inspectors more knowledgeable of their industry Take the time to understand the business and their individuality, also speak to staff in a transparent

way and in a language they understand - no jargon Understand better the property facility management and how the subcontractors and management

processes work

❖ More focus on weeding out the "cowboys" Go and fine the builders that aren't doing the right thing Make sure that our other competitors do the work with same requirements. Our people have white

cards and maybe need more training after they have had it for a long time to refresh the requirements

❖ Deliver toolbox talks to workers Be available for more sit-down meetings and tool box meetings Come to the site and talk to our workers when we have tool box talks. Showing themselves as being

helpful and not scary

❖ More advertising More advertising on what SafeWork can do for businesses, such as training, talks Overcoming attitudes that SafeWork aren’t scary. Allowing people to access assistance more readily. A

marketing campaign

❖ More training/seminars Be more accessible for consultation rather than enforcement More one on one type workshops. I do a team seminar/info session already but a smaller group with

more personal; interaction and option for questions to be asked would be great. Even industry-specific workshops would be great. I find the workshops really helpful. Also I would like to see an industry-specific online forum for like-minded people could discuss and share ideas and knowledge

Documents

SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 · 2018-11-12 · SafeWork NSW Customer Satisfaction Survey 2018 FINAL Report Prepared by Jetty Research for SafeWork NSW, Updated October