Transcript Berichtsvorlage - RFC-7

fresh thinking for powerful marketing
We increase the impact of marketing measures and enhance our
customers’ brand value. In order to achieve this goal we combine
market research and consulting to create a tailor-made solution.
RFC Satisfaction Survey 2014
Report for RFC 7
October 2014
Table of Content
1
Study Design
4
2
Satisfaction with the RFC
6
3
Sample Description
21
4
Non/potential users
27
5
Summary
29
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 3
1
Study Design
table of content
Survey Design
19 respondents
17 RFC7 users / 2 non-users
18 full interviews / 1 partial interviews
17 nominated by RFC7 / 2 nominated by other RFCs
2 agreed to forward name
Computer Aided Web Interviews (CAWI)
Contacts (e-mail address) delivered by RFCs
91 e-mail invitations sent
Field Phase: 3 September to 6 October 2014
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 5
2
Satisfaction with the RFC
table of content
Satisfaction with Infrastructure
percentage of respondents
adequacy of network of lines
infrastructure standards
0%
6
6
13
13
31
31
44
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
don't know
mean
13
19
40%
2
60%
3
4
25
80%
5
6% (1 of 17)
4,1
6% (1 of 17)
3,6
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"The following question is about the network of railway lines designated to a corridor. To what extent are you satisfied with the adequacy of the selected lines?
Are they the right ones in your opinion? || To what extent are you satisfied with the Infrastructure standards of all designated lines, including diversionary routes,
dedicated to the RFC concerning parameters like Train length, Axle load, Electrification, Loading gauges, etc.?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 7
Satisfaction with Coordination of Possessions
percentage of respondents
value of information in list of works
granularity of list of works
involvement of RU in coordination
process
0%
7
13
27
19
6
33
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
don't know
mean
13
25
13
13
4
5
6% (1 of 17)
3,6
20
80%
12% (2 of 17)
3,8
13
20
60%
3
13
25
13
40%
2
27
12% (2 of 17)
2,8
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"To what extent are you satisfied with the value of the information given in the list of works with effect on availability of the line? || How do you judge the
“granularity” of content in the list? Is it detailed enough? || How do you feel about the involvement of you as a Railway Undertaking in the coordination process?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 8
Satisfaction with Corridor Information Document (CID)
percentage of respondents
structure of CID
14
content of CID
15
comprehensibility of CID
0%
8
21
43
38
1 = very unsatisfied
21
31
25
20%
don't know
mean
25
33
40%
2
8
60%
3
4
5
8
100%
24% (4 of 17)
3,5
8
80%
18% (3 of 17)
3,7
24% (4 of 17)
4,1
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"To what extent are you satisfied with the structure of the Corridor Information Document (CID)? Can you easily find the information you want? Is the information
organized in a logic way? || … with the content of the CID? Is the content adjusted for your business needs? Is the detail level sufficient? || … with the
comprehensibility of the CID? Is the wording clear and user-friendly? Are there enough graphical elements? Is the CID layout design attractive?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 9
Satisfaction with Pre-arranged Path (PAP)
percentage of respondents
PAP parameters
25
origin/destinations and middle
stops in PAP
PAP schedule (adequate
travel/departure/arrival times)
PAP quantity (number of paths)
PAP reserve capacity
0%
58
33
23
8
17
33
31
31
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
33
40%
60%
2
3
4
80%
5
24% (4 of 17)
3,3
18% (3 of 17)
3,5
15
17
24% (4 of 17)
3,0
23
31
8
8
17
23
23
33
don't know
mean
18% (3 of 17)
3,3
8
100%
24% (4 of 17)
3,6
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"To what extent are you satisfied with the Pre-arranged Path (PAP) parameters such as length, weight, etc.? || To what extend are you satisfied with the
origin/destinations and middle stops? || To what extent are you satisfied with the PAP schedule? || To what extent are you satisfied with the PAP quantity? || To
what extent are you satisfied with the Reserve Capacity offered by the RFC? Compared to the PAP offer, is the Reserve Capacity enough/adequate?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 10
Satisfaction with Corridor One-Stop Shop (C-OSS)
percentage of respondents
availability of C-OSS
15
business know-how of C-OSS
10
result of allocation process
by C-OSS
11
process of conflict solving
by C-OSS
overall offers by C-OSS
0%
23
10
20
22
17
1 = very unsatisfied
8
4,4
18% (3 of 17)
50
10
4,4
35% (6 of 17)
22
33
30
20%
54
33
17
10
don't know
mean
17
30
40%
2
3
4
80%
5
41% (7 of 17)
3,1
17
20
60%
11
59% (10 of 17)
4,0
10
100%
35% (6 of 17)
3,9
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"How do you judge the availability of the Corridor One-Stop Shop (C-OSS)? || How do you judge the business know-how of the C-OSS? || How satisfied are you
with the result of the allocation process? Did it cover your request? || In case of conflict-solving – how did you experience the process? || How do you judge the
overall offers provided by the C-OSS (PAP, remaining capacity, conflict solving and allocation)?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 11
Path Coordination System (PCS) - Usage
don't know
percentage of respondents
PaPs
7
PaPs + feeder/outflow
7
other path requests
8
20
33
33
25
20%
always
6% (1 of 17)
60
17
0%
6% (1 of 17)
40
40%
frequently
24% (4 of 17)
50
60%
seldom
80%
100%
never
"Does your company use the booking tool PCS for international path requests?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 12
Path Coordination System (PCS) - volume
percentage of respondents - PCS is used (always/frequently/seldom)
don't know
volume of path requests in PCS
0%
57
20%
1 to 10 requests
29
40%
11 to 20 requests
60%
21 to 30 requests
22% (2 of 9)
14
80%
100%
more than 30 requests
"What is the volume of path requests (dossiers) you placed in PCS for Timetable 2015?"
n=9
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 13
Satisfaction with Path Coordination System (PCS)
percentage of respondents - PCS is used (always/frequently/seldom)
PCS overall
14
usability of PCS display of PAP-offer
usability of PCS display of remaining capacity
usability of PCS selection of remaining capacity
0%
14
29
33
usability of PCS selection of PAPs
usability of PCS modification/post-processing of
PAPs
14
14
25
43
14
20
33
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
29
40
17
40%
2
60%
3
4
5
0% (0 of 9)
3,5
11% (1 of 9)
22% (2 of 9)
44% (4 of 9)
3,8
17
80%
3,4
3,0
20
33
22% (2 of 9)
3,6
11
38
14
20
14
56
38
don't know
mean
33% (3 of 9)
4,0
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"How satisfied are you all in all with PCS as booking tool for international path requests? Did it cover your needs? || How do you judge the usability of the
booking tool PCS concerning the display of the PaP-offer? || … the usability of the booking tool PCS concerning the selection of required PaPs? || ... concerning
the modification/post-processing of PaPs? || ... concerning the display of remaining capacity? || ... concerning the selection of required remaining capacity?"
n=9
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 14
Satisfaction with Terminal Services
percentage of respondents
provision of terminals
supply of terminal information
0%
18
9
22
45
11
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
don't know
mean
27
33
40%
2
22
60%
3
4
80%
5
11
100%
1
2
3
3,8
29% (5 of 17)
3,9
41% (7 of 17)
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"To what extent are you satisfied with the RFCs’ provision of terminals? Are all relevant terminals included / described in the CID? || To what extent are you
satisfied with the supply of Terminal information?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 15
Satisfaction with Train Performance Management
percentage of respondents
performance reports
10
measures to improve punctuality
11
availability/know-how of
performance manager
0%
14
10
20
11
50
10
33
14
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
don't know
mean
33
43
40%
2
60%
3
11
14
4
80%
5
35% (6 of 17)
3,4
41% (7 of 17)
3,2
14
53% (9 of 17)
3,9
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"How satisfied are you with the performance reports? Do they show the information you need? || How do you judge the efficiency of measures taken in order to
improve the punctuality? || How satisfied are you with the availability and the professional know-how of your performance manager?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 16
Satisfaction with Traffic Management
percentage of respondents
information from operation centres
10
usefulness of information in case
of disturbances
10
helpfulness of traffic management
by infrastructure managers
0%
10
60
20
18
10
1 = very unsatisfied
20
30
9
20%
don't know
mean
30
45
40%
2
3
4
80%
5
35% (6 of 17)
3,5
27
60%
35% (6 of 17)
3,8
29% (5 of 17)
3,8
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"How do you judge the information you get from the different operation centres on the corridor while operating trains? || How useful is the information you get
from the operation centres in case of disturbances? || How helpful is the Infrastructure Managers’ (IMs’) traffic management for you to run your trains in a good
quality?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 17
Satisfaction with Co-operation with the RFC Management Board (1)
percentage of respondents
representation in RFC governance
structure (RAG/TAG)
handling of complaints within RFC
0%
25
33
17
22
17
67
20%
1 = very unsatisfied
don't know
mean
40%
2
4
80%
5
24% (4 of 17)
3,5
11
60%
3
8
41% (7 of 17)
3,9
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"How satisfied are you with your representation in the RFC governance structure as an RU Advisory Group/Terminal Advisory Group (RAG/TAG)? || Are you
satisfied with the procedure of handling complaints within the RFC?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 18
Satisfaction with Co-operation with the RFC Management Board (2)
don't know
percentage of respondents
opinions of Advisiory Board properly considered
decisions by Management Board
comprehensible
information regarding functioning of RFCs
available and understandable
0%
42
36
yes
12% (2 of 17)
64
40
20%
24% (4 of 17)
58
6% (1 of 17)
60
40%
60%
partly
80%
100%
no
"Do you perceive that the opinions of the Advisory Group have been properly considered by the RFC Management Board? || Are the respective
decisions taken by the RFC Management Board comprehensible for you? || Is the information regarding the functioning if the RFC easily available and
understandable for you?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 19
Satisfaction with Overall RFC Communication
percentage of respondents
information on RFCX website
7
21
RAG meetings
10
communication with management
board (except RAG meetings)
11
brochures of RFCX
11
newsletters of RFCX
13
annual report of RFCX
0%
14
36
10
29
30
11
33
22
14
1 = very unsatisfied
38
29
13
29
40%
2
22
33
25
60%
3
4
14
80%
5
12% (2 of 17)
4,1
4,2
35% (9 of 17)
4,1
41% (7 of 17)
20
44
20%
7
30
11
13
don't know
mean
3,7
41% (7 of 17)
3,8
47% (8 of 17)
53% (9 of 17)
3,6
100%
1
2
3
4
5
6
6 = very satisfied
"To which extent are you satisfied with the information provided by RFCX website? || To which extent are you satisfied with the RAG Meetings? || To which
extent are you satisfied with the communication with the management board of RFCX other than at the RAG meetings? || To which extent are you satisfied with
the brochures/newsletters/annual report of RFCX (as far as they exist)?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 20
3
Sample Description
table of content
Volume of International Rail Freight Business
percentage of respondents
22%
33%
22%
17%
less than 100.000
500.001 to 1 Million
more than 10 Million
6%
100.001 to 500.000
1 Million to 10 Million
[gross kilometre tonnage/year]
"What is the volume of your company’s international rail freight business (in gross kilometre tonnage/year)?"
n = 19 non/potential users included
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 22
Trains operated as responsible RU
percentage of respondents
28%
72%
trains operated as responsible RU
trains not operated as responsible RU
"Do you operate the trains on your own as the responsible Railway Undertaking (RU)?"
n = 19 non/potential users included
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 23
Open Access or Co-operation
percentage of respondents
44%
56%
operate on my own
cooperate with partner(s)
both
"Do you operate cross-border (open access) or do you make use of (a) co-operation partner(s) on sections of the train run?"
n = 19 non/potential users included
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 24
Type of company
percentage of respondents (multiple response)
Railway Undertaking (RU)
78
Terminal Manager
22
Logistic Provider (Shipper, Freight Forwarder
etc.)
22
Terminal Operator
Authorised Applicant
other
0%
11
6
11
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
"Which of the following type or types characterize your company best?"
n = 19 non/potential users included
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 25
Path Coordination System (PCS) - Usage
don't know
percentage of respondents
Czech Republic
25
19
Austria
47
Slovakia
7
25
13
Hungary
6
13
40
Bulgaria
19
13
0%
7
19
13
6
6
6% (1 of 17)
25
13
13
13
6
6% (1 of 17)
50
6% (1 of 17)
63
40%
several days per week
60%
weekly
80%
monthly
6% (1 of 17)
12% (2 of 17)
33
6
6
20%
daily
7
12% (2 of 17)
27
6
13
6% (1 of 17)
25
7
31
56
Romania
Greece
25
yearly
100%
never
"Does your company use the booking tool PCS for international path requests?"
n = 17
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 26
4
Non/potential users
table of content
Users vs. non users
percentage of respondents
89%
none of the corridors run through Poland
11%
RFC users
n = 19
no business of the corridors
non/potential users
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 28
5
Summary
table of content
Summary - Satisfaction Rating
mean
4,4
4,4
business know -how of C-OSS
availability of C-OSS
RAG meetings
adequacy of netw ork of lines
communication w ith management board (except RAG meetings)
comprehensibility of CID
information on RFCX w ebsite
process of conflict solving by C-OSS
usability of PCS - selection of remaining capacity
overall offers by C-OSS
handling of complaints w ithin RFC
supply of terminal information
availability/know -how of performance manager
helpfulness of traffic management by infrastructure managers
provision of terminals
information from operation centres
usability of PCS - display of remaining capacity
value of information in list of w orks
new sletters of RFCX
structure of CID
brochures of RFCX
PAP reserve capacity
annual report of RFCX
PCS overall
granularity of list of w orks
infrastructure standards
content of CID
representation in RFC governance structure (RAG/TAG)
usability of PCS - selection of PAPs
usefulness of information in case of disturbances
PAP schedule (adequate travel/departure/arrival times)
usability of PCS - display of PAP-offer
performance reports
origin/destinations and middle stops in PAP
PAP quantity (number of paths)
measures to improve punctuality
result of allocation process by C-OSS
PAP parameters
usability of PCS - modification/post-processing of PAPs
involvement of RU in coordination process
4,2
4,1
4,1
4,1
4,1
4,0
4,0
3,9
3,9
3,9
3,9
3,8
3,8
3,8
3,8
3,8
3,8
3,7
3,7
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,6
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,4
3,4
3,3
3,3
3,2
3,1
3,0
3,0
Top 10
aspects
Bottom 10
aspects
2,8
1
2
3
4
5
6
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 30
Contact Information
Dr.
Christian Bosch
Mag.
Martin Fuchs
Managing Director
Senior Research Consultant
+43-1-369 46 26-16
[email protected]
+43-1-369 46 26-26
[email protected]
RFC User Satisfaction Survey 2014 || RFC7 || 31