Transcript Document

STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
September 2014
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the research is to provide feedback on the experiences and views of key EQC stakeholders;
and more specifically to understand the extent to which stakeholders:
•
Rate EQC’s performance on their three core functions – research, education and natural disaster insurance.
•
Believe that EQC is trustworthy, fair and competent.
•
Perceive that EQC’s performance is improving
EQC also wants to ascertain what stakeholders perceive EQC currently does well, and what could be improved on.
APPROACH
The research was conducted via an online survey. The survey approach is outlined below:
Letter from EQC was
sent to 69
stakeholders
introducing the
survey, while 9 who
had no address were
sent an email (in
total 78 stakeholders
were contacted).
Nielsen followed up
this letter with an
email invitation
containing the
online survey link.
Reminder emails
were sent to those
who had not yet
completed the
survey.
Follow up calls were
made to around 30
key stakeholders
who had not
responded.
A final reminder
email was sent out
encouraging those
yet to respond to
complete the survey
before the closing
date.
A good response rate of 58% was achieved with 45 stakeholders completing the survey.
Stakeholders were selected as organisation representatives, with one to two stakeholders invited per organisation.
Stakeholders were asked to respond to the survey based on dealings they had had with EQC in a professional
capacity, rather than based on any dealings related to personal matters.
KEY FINDINGS
Just over half (54%) of stakeholders are satisfied with EQC’s overall performance (this decreases to 34% when
looking only at those who rate performance as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ which should be the targeted
response going forward).
Stakeholders have noticed a significant improvement in performance over the last 12 months (73% state that
performance is better, 27% the same and 0% feel performance is worse).
They have identified some areas for further improvement, as outlined below:
• In terms of EQC’s three functions, there is a lack of knowledge about EQC’s role among stakeholders.
• Just over half of stakeholders perceive EQC to be a trustworthy organisation, fair and competent. As these
are your key stakeholders that you have relationships with, these ratings are relatively low.
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
• Only a fifth (20%) of stakeholders are satisfied with how you communicate what you are doing. The
verbatim comments acknowledge that there has been more communication over the past 12 months or so
but suggest that stakeholders want communication to be more open and transparent.
• A quarter of stakeholders (26%) are confident in the direction that EQC is currently heading. The remaining
stakeholders don’t lack confidence as such (rating between 2 and 7) but more needs to be done to convince
them of EQC’s strategy.
Overall the verbatim comments are very positive providing further evidence for the suggestion that EQC’s
performance has improved over the past 12 months. It is clear that the stakeholders want to work closely with
you with the aim of forming collaborative and transparent relationships
3
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
OVERALL PERFORMANCE
Just over half (54%) of stakeholders are satisfied with EQC’s performance overall. However, 9% rate overall
performance as ‘poor’ and a further 36% as just ‘fair’.
The aim should be to have stakeholders rating performance as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’.
Q4. Taking everything into consideration, how would you rate the overall performance of EQC?
WHAT IS EQC DOING WELL?
14%
20%
54% rate EQC’s
performance as
good, very good
or excellent
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
20%
9%
FAIR
GOOD
VERY GOOD
EQC has responded to the Canterbury Earthquakes very well
indeed. Although many people don't understand the difficulty of
the task. It has been a difficult job balancing a managed repair
programme against the desire by homeowners to have their
homes fixed as soon as possible. Overall EQC has done
exceptionally well. (Fletcher Building)
I believe that the performance of EQC overall has improved in
recent times, specifically the connection with support agencies
and working together to produce the best service that can be
provided to insured homeowners. (Canterbury Advocacy Group)
36%
POOR
Manages the disaster insurance area very well. Commits to
disaster research very well. Assists with public awareness well.
(Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management)
EXCELLENT
Base: All Respondents, excluding those who said don't know, n=44
Call centre staff are on the whole empathetic and tolerant. The
EQC website is a good source of information.
(TC3 Residents Group)
I think the EQC manages the risk portfolio for the country very
well especially with reinsurance markets and in the leadership of
research. (Tonkin & Taylor)
5
WHAT CAN EQC DO BETTER?
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Q7. And what, if anything, do you think EQC needs to improve on?
Communication and
engagement with
homeowners and
those looking to
assist. A better joined
up system would
benefit along with
more transparency
around decision
making and
application of policies
to individuals .
(Residential Advisory
Service)
Timely decision
making, clearer
communication,
identifying ways to
improve way of
partnering with the
private insurers in a
disaster to
minimise customer
confusion, double
handling and costs.
(IAG)
I think the linkage
between EQC and
Public is constrained
by the Act. What
people think of as
insurance and what
the Act provides for
are not the same in
my experience.
Better tools to
communicate and
interpret the Act
with the public
would assist.
(Tonkin and Taylor)
Communication to the
wider world regarding
its post-disaster
claims assessment
and payment role,
particularly in respect
of the interface with
private insurers, and
the constraints on the
exercise thereof.
(Anonymous)
I think EQC needs to
understand the
community and its
expectations better to
deliver a better service
and develop more
appropriate education
packages. I think it also
needs to understand its
role in the context of
other agencies better.
(Emergency
Management
Canterbury)
6
PERFORMANCE COMPARED WITH 12 MONTHS AGO
No stakeholders rated EQC’s performance as worse compared to 12 months ago. In fact, three
quarters of stakeholders (73%) perceive that EQC’s performance has improved, with the
remaining 27% noting no change.
Q7. Overall, on balance, do you think that EQC is performing better than it was 12 months ago, the same as 12 months ago,
or worse than 12 months ago?
WHY HAS PERFORMANCE IMPROVED?
Its people have made an effort to get out and engage with other
agencies when EQC has got bad feedback. Staff have been put in
extremely difficult and confrontational circumstances, and I hope
EQC is supporting its staff to do this work because they are a
credit to the organisation. (Emergency Management Canterbury)
27%
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Improved communication, open interaction with the
community and engagement. Greater transparency
with customers and community. (Fletcher EQR)
73%
WORSE
THE SAME
BETTER
Note: 9% said ‘don’t know’ but have
been excluded from this chart.
Base: All Respondents, excluding those who said don't know, n=41
EQC’s presence on the ground showed people they were
working in the area. Urgent situations were able to be assessed
quickly. Payments flowed through quicker to enable repairs to
begin immediately. After CHCH - Cook Strait Seddon event although much smaller, showed how (managed from one
contact point) people had a place to go to get immediate
assistance from EQC assessors. (Awatere Community Trust
Centre)
EQC has learnt from the actions it has had to take and
progressively improved in areas where there were no
previous models to draw on. (Alchimie NZ Ltd)
7
A CLOSER LOOK AT PERFORMANCE
PERFORMANCE IN THE THREE MAIN FUNCTIONS
Overall, stakeholders are quite satisfied with EQC’s performance in providing natural disaster insurance (38%
rated ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’). Among EQC’s three main functions, the performance of EQC in education is
generally rated less positively by stakeholders (24% rated performance positively).
When looking at the proportion that said ‘don’t know’ across the three functions, it is clear that there is a lack
of knowledge of EQC’s role among stakeholders.
% rated
excellent or
very good
Q3. How would you rate EQC's performance on each of its three functions?
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Natural disaster
insurance - protecting
people against the
financial costs of natural
disasters
Research - helping
communities understand
what makes them
vulnerable in natural
disasters, and helping to
reduce this vulnerability
Education - encouraging
communities to take
steps to reduce the
effects of natural
disasters
9% 2%
16%
11% 2%
Don't know
Base: All Respondents, n=45
22%
29%
7%
22%
22%
24%
Poor
27%
Good
20%
Very Good
38%
33%
13%
20%
38%
Fair
11%
4%
24%
Excellent
9
PERCEPTIONS OF EQC
Just over half of stakeholders perceive EQC to be a trustworthy organisation, fair and
competent, while the other half are indifferent or disagree. As these are your key stakeholders
that you have relationships with, these ratings are relatively low.
% strongly
agree and
agree
Q10. To what extent do you agree or disagree that EQC….
Is an organisation
2%
you trust
11%
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Is fair 2% 9%
Is competent 2% 9%
Strongly disagree
31%
36%
38%
36%
38%
Disagree
44%
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
18%
56%
18%
54%
7%
51%
Strongly agree
In general, stakeholders with high trust in EQC and those who perceive EQC to be competent and fair (‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’) are more likely to
be more positive about how well EQC communicates with stakeholders (‘very well’ and ‘extremely well’).
Base: All Respondents, n=45
10
SATISFACTION WITH EQC’S COMMUNICATION
A fifth (20%) of stakeholders are satisfied with how EQC communicates what it is
doing. A selection of comments relating to communication are shown on the next
slide.
Q11. How well do you feel that EQC communicates with stakeholders (such as government agencies, local councils,
businesses, etc) about what it is doing?
2%
18%
20% say EQC
communicates
very well or
extremely well
Extremely well
Very well
42%
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Quite well
Not very well
38%
Not at all well
Those who believe EQC does not communicate well with stakeholders (not very well or not at all well) are more likely to have contact with EQC
on a more regular basis (Once a week or 2-3 times a month). They are also more likely to have a negative view of EQC’s performance in each of
their three main functions.
Base: All Respondents, n=45
11
COMMENTS RELATING TO COMMUNICATION
POSITIVE COMMENTS
Requested information is on the whole more forthcoming
and received in shorter timeframes - willingness to
engage with community representatives/groups.
(TC3 Residents Group)
Communications appear to be more frequent and better
visuals on work in Christchurch. (Aon Benfield)
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Communicating better with public; overall performance
better. (Anonymous)
I think they are starting to listen to people (e.g. this
survey) and they have been communicating directly
with our group which is appreciated and positive.
(Flockton Cluster Group)
Community engagement - this is now more proactive.
Ability to engage and front foot issues is critical to our
reputations. (Fletcher EQR)
Communication is better, there are not the "clangers"
happening in the media and the job is getting done well.
(Fletcher Building)
HOW TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION?
Human interface - communication, engagement,
processes and procedures, transparency, integrity and
auditing of staff and decision making, access to staff.
Communicating what EQC does other than claim
settlement. Understanding the interface between EQC
and other agencies in a recovery setting. Clear
procedures for interpretation of the EQ Act. (CANcern)
Continued connections with those that work with
homeowners to ensure understanding of current phases of
recovery and how best to connect with the homeowners
both face to face and by written communication.
(Canterbury Advocacy Group)
Communication with homeowners. I believe it was a
mistake not to inform homeowners when their house
could be fixed. Also, I believe EQC could make New
Zealanders much more aware of what they do and
perhaps at the end of the programme, what they have
done for Canterbury. (Fletcher Building)
Ability to connect to decision makers .More transparency
of decisions/ open communication. More decisive around
decisions. (Residential Advisory Service)
12
FUTURE DIRECTION
IS EQC HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?
A quarter of stakeholders (26%) are confident in the direction that EQC is currently
heading. The remaining stakeholders don’t lack confidence as such (rating between 2 and
7) but more needs to be done to convince them of EQC’s strategy.
Q12. While you may or may not be totally happy with EQC at present, we would like to know whether or not, on balance,
you are confident that they are heading in the right direction.
26%
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
7% 2% 7%
4%
0 - Not at all confident (0)
Base: All Respondents, n=45
22%
1
31%
2
3
4
5
6
7
18%
8
9
4% 4%
10 - Extremely confident (10)
14
WHAT SHOULD EQC DO DIFFERENTLY?
Ability to connect to decision makers. More
transparency of decisions/ open communication.
More decisive around decisions.
(Residential Advisory Service)
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
Regular updates or
communications on actions that
EQC are progressing and the issues
you are facing, so agencies can see
if there are areas they may need to
know more of or be involved in.
(Anonymous)
Continuing to work as one team
developing joint solutions to ensure
success for both organisations.
(Fletcher EQR)
EQC has dealt with house land and contents in total isolation, I believe
people where house claims are complicated by complex land issues
should have a separate team to manage their claims in a coordinated
manner. EQC has set arbitrary rules about land claims which are
confusing and unfair. The people of Christchurch should not have to
go to court to get a fair outcome post earthquake.
(Flockton Cluster Group)
I think employing some more
specialists in community engagement
and communication who are able to
help the whole organisation
communicate better with agencies and
the general community would help
EQC to do a better job.
(Emergency Management Canterbury)
Work with the private insurance sector to create
protocols and ways of working in the event of
future disasters so we can have a smoother
response for customers.
(IAG)
Linking up on funding, linking up
on purchasing, linking up on
resource. There is plenty we can
start doing. It would pay to
engage now rather than waiting
for an emergency.
(Accident Compensation
Corporation)
EQC could utilise training and workshops for all staff, especially
regarding understanding clients under stress, communication and
staff care. EQC staff have a complicated job in Christchurch and it is
clear they want to do the best they can for residents. It is important
the organisation supports them to do so.
(Red Cross Christchurch)
15
NEXT STEPS
CLOSING THE RESEARCH LOOP
COMMUNICATING KEY OUTTAKES FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS’ FEEDBACK
Stakeholders need to know that it is worth their while in taking the time to provide direct
feedback for EQC. They need to know that their voice have been heard, listened to and
will result in action.
We recommend a communication to all stakeholders thanking them for their participation
be sent as soon as possible. This should include some key outtakes and any actions that
will be undertaken as a result.
Copyright ©2013 The Nielsen Company. Confidential and proprietary.
INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDER’S FEEDBACK
While this report allows EQC to understand the views of their stakeholders as a group, a
key benefit of this research is the ability to delve into the views of each individual
stakeholder and manage their relationship with this information in mind. In this report we
have attempted to include a variety of feedback from individual stakeholders, however
the dataset (for those who gave consent) is also provided for EQC to review the answers
given by each stakeholder.
17