2007/08 stakeholder survey - summary

Note: The full text of the survey report is available as a 1.87 MB PDF.

Prepared June 2008 by UMR Research Limited

Background

In 2007 the survey was significantly redesigned to produce a shorter and better targeted survey to elicit a higher response rate than those conducted previously. As part of the redesign process, UMR carried out in-depth face-to-face interviews with 10 Land Transport NZ stakeholders, including a group interview with multiple stakeholders to ensure the new survey design met Land Transport NZ’s needs and better reflected the measures stakeholders wanted to be surveyed on.

In 2008, the same survey questionnaire was used which has enabled comparisons to be made throughout the report between performance this year and last year.

Research objectives

The primary objectives of the study are to:

• Provide annual statistics for reporting against Land Transport NZ’s performance measures
• Gauge the effectiveness of Land Transport NZ’s stakeholder relationships and explore concerns and interests of stakeholders; and,
• Assess performance of and provide feedback regarding individual key projects.

and to measure how effective Land Transport NZ is in meeting the following objectives of the Land Transport Strategy:

• Assisting economic development
• Assisting safety and personal security
• Improving access and personal mobility
• Protecting and promoting public health
• Ensuring environmental sustainability.

and to measure performance with respect to a number of key roles and activities including:

• Provision of registration, licensing and regulatory services
• Assisting land transport sector partners with planning and expertise
• Financial audits
• Technical audits
• Promotion of economically sustainable land transport
• Promotion of environmentally sustainable land transport
• Promotion of integrated land transport
• Promotion of safe land transport
• Informing stakeholders about its policies and rules
• Facilitating collaboration between stakeholders in the land transport industry
• Providing training
• Providing research on land transport issues
• Developing policy and rules for the land transport industry
• Enforcing policy and rules for the land transport industry
• Assisting with safety management systems.

Target audience and sample

An email was sent to 525 Land Transport NZ stakeholders, explaining the survey, and inviting them to complete it via an imbedded link. Sixty-eight of these invitations ‘bounced back’ i.e. the email addresses to which they were sent were no longer current. Forty-one stakeholders initially selected to receive the on-line survey were found to have incomplete email addresses, and were not sent the original invitation. These stakeholders were approached to supply their email address or complete the survey by telephone. Fifty-seven stakeholders ‘opted out’ of the survey, indicating that they did not want to take part in the survey or receive any further communication about it.

The on-line survey was live from 18th April until the 26th May 2008. During that time six reminders were sent out to stakeholders who had not completed the survey, and had not opted out. In some cases stakeholders contacted UMR to suggest alternative or additional members of their organisation who should receive an invitation to complete the survey.

Of the 457 who actually received the survey, 195 completed it, representing a response rate of 43%. This was 7% lower than the 50% response rate recorded last year.

The margin of error for a 50% figure at the ‘95% confidence level’ is + 5.32%.

On the following page is a breakdown of all the stakeholders across various demographics who participated in this survey in 2007 and 2008. This shows that most respondents have had considerable experience within the industry and there is a more or less even balance in respondents according to their dealings with each of the regional offices. There was a much higher representation of respondents from other government agencies and Minister’s offices than in 2007, which may also have explained the larger database we received this year, and as a consequence there is a higher representation of respondents who deal mainly with the National Office. The sample is heavily weighted toward those from organisations who receive funding from Land Transport NZ.

It needs to be noted that some tables will not add to 100% due to rounding.

Sample demographics

Sample information
	2007 (n=200) %	2008 (n=195) %
Best description (of respondent’s organisation or position):
Road Controlling Authority staff	39.5	37.9
Road Controlling Authority Elected Officials/CEO	18.0	14.4
Regional Council Staff	10.5	8.7
Regional Council Chairperson/CEO	4.0	3.6
Transit	8.0	5.6
Government agencies/Minister’s Office	2.5	17.9
Contractors and Consultants	8.5	4.6
Road User Groups	5.5	5.1
Auckland Regional Transport Authority	2.5	1.0
Other	1.0	1.0
	100	100
Number of years in the road transport industry:
1-5 years	14.5	18.5
6-10 years	15.0	21.0
11-15 years	17.0	8.7
16-20 years	11.0	11.3
More than 20 years	42.5	40.5
	100	100
Frequency in dealing with Land Transport NZ:
Daily	3.0	5.1
Weekly	18.5	22.6
Fortnightly	12.5	14.9
Monthly	35.0	29.7
Quarterly	19.5	15.9
Twice yearly	4.5	5.1
Annually	4.0	2.1
Other	3.0	4.6
	100	100
Deal with Land Transport NZ through the:
Northern Regional Office	12.5	17.9
Midland Regional Office	20.5	15.9
Central Regional Office	25.0	17.9
Southern Regional Office	21.5	19.0
National Office	18.5	27.2
Other	2.0	2.1
	100	100
Organisation receives funding from Land Transport NZ
Yes	87.5	79.0
No/ Unsure	12.5	21.0
	100	100
Base: All respondents

Methodology

A total of 525 stakeholders were invited to take part in Land Transport NZ Stakeholder Survey. Sixty-eight of these invitations ‘bounced back’ i.e. the email addresses to which they were sent were no longer current. Forty-one stakeholders initially selected to receive the on-line survey were found to have incomplete email addresses, and were not sent the original invitation. These stakeholders were approached to supply their email address or complete the survey by telephone. Fifty-seven stakeholders ‘opted out’ of the survey, indicating that they did not want to take part in the survey or receive any further communication about it. Of the 457 who actually received the survey, 195 completed it, representing a response rate of 43%.

All stakeholders received a letter directly from Land Transport NZ informing them of the forthcoming survey and UMR’s role in delivering it. An email was sent out by UMR to Land Transport NZ stakeholders, explaining the survey, and inviting them to complete it by following a link imbedded in the email.

The on-line survey was live from 16th April until the 28th May. During that time six reminders were sent out to stakeholders who had not completed the survey, and had not opted out. In some cases stakeholders contacted UMR to suggest alternative or additional members of their organisation who should receive an invitation to complete the survey.

Of the 457 who actually received the survey, 195 completed it, representing a response rate of 43%.

Overview

Maintaining overall favourability

• Land Transport NZ has more or less retained its favourability rating over the past 12 months. This year’s survey shows 76% of all stakeholders hold a favourable opinion of Land Transport NZ and last year’s survey gave a 79% overall satisfaction rating. Although some improvements have occurred in some indicators that were rated relatively low last year, others have remained much the same and there has been slippage in some areas. The rising price of fuel and the implications that brings has introduced fresh concerns that were not apparent in 2007.

Key highlights

There are some areas in which Land Transport does a particularly good job in the eyes of its stakeholders. The following are selected key highlights from the report:

• The top rating attribute in terms of rating stakeholder engagement with Land Transport NZ was how accessible staff were which received a mean rating of 5.6 (on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘very dissatisfied’ and 7 ‘very satisfied) which was the same as last year. 78% of stakeholders were satisfied (ratings 5-7) with staff accessibility
• The top rating attribute in terms of Land Transport’s effectiveness in meeting its objectives was assisting safety and personal security with a mean rating of 5.0 (down from 5.1 last year) with 71% of stakeholders rating it as effective (ratings 5-7)
• The top three areas of performance were the same ones as last year:
  • Technical and procedural audits (mean 5.7 with 66% rating 5-7 – this was down from a mean of 5.9 last year)
  • Promotes safe land transport (mean 5.6 with 85% rating 5-7 – this was the same mean as last year)
  • Informs stakeholders about its policies and rules (mean 5.4 with 79% rating 5-7 – this was the same mean as last year).

Key points to focus on

• The key driver of favourable opinion of Land Transport NZ is the high quality of the relationships staff have with stakeholders. There are areas where improvement can be made to address aspects of performance that are rated lower than others and recurrent themes that emerged from responses to open-ended questions.

These are:

• Inconsistent decision-making at regional, national and Board level (the mean rating for the consistency of decision-making between these three levels fell this year from 4.4 to 4.2)
• Lack of balance of local, regional and national funding priorities (although there has been some improvement in this area over the past year – the mean rating for whether priorities at the national, regional and local level were balanced has risen from 4.2 to 4.4 this year)
• How well current funding rules meet local needs (Stakeholders gave a mean rating of 4.1 in assessing whether policies and rules met their funding needs, the same rating that was given last year)
• Making LTP On-line more user-friendly (although there has been some improvement in this area over the past year – the mean rating for satisfaction rose from 4.1 to 4.4 this year)
• The need to address the implications of rising fuel costs and the anticipated demand for public transport
• The need for more consultation particularly in more remote areas
• Addressing the perception that Land Transport NZ is focused too much on economic benefits than meeting broader outcomes and that it is somewhat rule-bound
• Simplify and streamline funding application processes and speed up decision-making
• Address concerns that processes may not be sufficiently well aligned to achieve sustainability and non-road project outcomes (e.g. examples where problems have arisen trying to achieve funding for walking and cycling projects – a point that may link to implications arising from increasing fuel costs) and
• Ensure the merger with Transit does not create problems for stakeholders.

Key strategic outcomes

• There was an improvement this year on assisting with economic development (mean effectiveness rating of 4.5 a marked improvement on 4.2 last year). However, there remains a perceived need for greater effectiveness to be shown with respect to:
  • Protecting and promoting public health (mean effectiveness rating of 4.3, a slight improvement on 4.2 last year)
  • Ensuring environmental sustainability (mean effectiveness rating of 4.3, down from 4.4 last year).

Key performance areas to focus on

• There was a marked improvement in facilitating collaboration between stakeholders in the land transport sector which last year rated a mean of 4.4 with 42% rating performance as neutral or poor. This year it rated 4.8.
• Relatively lower ratings were recorded for performance in the following areas:
  • Providing training (mean performance rating of 4.4 (4.5 in 2007) with 43% rating performance as neutral or poor)
  • Promoting integrated land transport (mean performance rating of 4.5 (4.6 in 2007) with 46% rating performance as neutral or poor)
  • Promoting sustainable land transport (mean performance rating of 4.5 (4.7 in 2007) with 40% rating performance as neutral or poor).

Key stakeholders to focus on

• In a similar pattern to last year, we have identified the following stakeholder groups either generally tend to have a lower rating of Land Transport NZ or a significant proportion of the individuals who comprise that group provide a lower rating:
• Road Controlling Authorities elected officials/ CEOs (more particularly with respect to issues like assisting economic development, promoting integrated transport and balancing regional and national priorities)
  • Transit (some individuals)
  • Road Users Groups (some individuals and tend to be self-interested specific issues)
• Those with quarterly or less frequent contact with Land Transport NZ
• Those that deal mainly with the Northern Regional and National Offices (mean ratings for key indicators were consistently lower than for other offices)
• Contractors and Consultants (some individuals).

Favourability

• Land Transport NZ continues to be well regarded by most respondents. More than three-quarters (76%) of those surveyed hold a favourable opinion (‘very favourable’ + ‘somewhat favourable’), with 21% holding a very favourable opinion. One fifth (21%) have an unfavourable opinion (‘very unfavourable’ + ‘somewhat unfavourable’) with 2% who hold a very unfavourable opinion.
• Last year 79% had a favourable opinion and 19% an unfavourable one. Within the margin of error the results show little change.
• The accessibility, helpfulness and professionalism of staff are the mainstay of Transport NZ’s favourability rating. There is also recognition that staff have a difficult job to do balancing competing priorities.
• The main reasons why those who give Land Transport NZ’ an unfavourable rating revolve around inflexibility and difficulty achieving funding for certain projects. There was also some low level negative comment about loss of continuity of staff.

Engagement with stakeholders

• 78% of survey respondents are satisfied (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘very dissatisfied’ and 7 ‘very satisfied’) with the accessibility of Land Transport NZ’s staff (79% in 2007), 75% (74% in 2007) with Land Transport NZ’s understanding of their organisation and 71% (65% in 2007) with how well Land Transport NZ meets your information needs.
• A majority are satisfied with how clearly Land Transport NZ communicates its objectives (67% - 66% in 2007), the timeliness of its responses (66% - 63% in 2007), and how well it consults (61% - 62% in 2007).
• Respondents are least satisfied with its responsiveness to stakeholders’ views (50% - 58% in 2007) and the consistency of decision-making between regional offices, the national office and the Board (30% were satisfied compared with 37% in 2007).
• Almost two-thirds of respondents (65%) say Land Transport NZ’s engagement with their organisation is much the same as 12 months ago, over one-fifth (21%) say its engagement has improved and 12% say it is worse.
• More personal contact and consultation with stakeholders as well as more feedback on decisions were the key suggestions made as to how Land Transport NZ could improve its engagement with stakeholders.

Sources of information

• Stakeholders get most of their information from Land Transport NZ by direct contact with its staff (47%) or from its publications (21%). Almost 20% also report getting information from the Land Transport NZ website.

Strategic alignment

• A majority of respondents (51%) rate Land Transport NZ and its procedures as well aligned (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘not that well aligned’ and 7 ‘very well aligned’) with the Land Transport Management Act and the Government’s objectives for land transport. This is down from 58% who said this in 2007.
• Those who say its procedures are well aligned tend to focus on Transport NZ citing Government policy.
• 15% rate Land Transport NZ and its procedures as not well aligned (rating 1-3 on a 1-7 scale) compared with 12% last year and 12% rate them neutrally (rating 4) compared to 15% last year.
• Those who say things are not well aligned focus on lack of willingness to fund projects particulalrly non-road projects  and the lack of flexibility on processes and procedures.

Effectiveness of Land Transport NZ

• A majority of survey participants rate Land Transport NZ as effective (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘very ineffectively’ and 7 ‘very effectively’) in meeting its objectives of assisting safety and personal security (71%, down from 73% in 2007) and in improving access and personal mobility (51%, down from 54% in 2007).
• There are lower ratings of effectiveness for assisting economic development (49%, but up from 44% in 2007), ensuring environmental sustinability (47%, but up from 46% in 2007), and protecting and promoting public health (40%, but up from 37% in 2007).

Importance of the relationship between Land Transport NZ and stakeholders

• Almost all respondents (95%) say Land Transport NZ is important to them as a stakeholder (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘not that important’ and 7 ‘very important’), with over three-quarters (78%) saying Land Transport NZ was very important. These results are very much in line with those for 2007.
• However, there is a significant change in ratings when stakeholders are asked to rate how important they think Land Transport NZ rates them as a stakehlder. 67% say Land Transport NZ considers them as  important as stakeholders, 18% say Land Transport NZ does not consider them as important (rating 1-3 on a 1-7 scale), and 14% say it rates them neutrally (rating 4).

Managers questions

The second part of the on-line survey consisted of a series of questions directed primarily at managers such as Land Transport Programme Managers, Passenger Transport Managers, or Planning Managers. Respondents were given the option of skipping questions that were not relevant to them.

Evaluation of Land Transport NZ’s key roles

• A majority of stakeholders rate Land Transport NZ to be perfoming almost all of its key roles well (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘not very well’ and 7 ‘very well).
• The most well performed roles are the promotion of safe land transport (85%, up from 83% in 2007) informing stakeholders about its policies and rules (79%, down from 82% in 2007),  administering and processing funding applications and procurement procedures (73%, down from 76% in 2007), promoting land transport sector education and communications (70%, up from 63% in 2007) and technical and procedural audits (66%, down from 76% in 2007).
• The key roles where it is considered to perform least well relative to other roles are promoting sustainable land transport (52%, down from 55% in 2007), promoting integrated land transport (46% down from 55% in 2007), enforcing  operational policy and rules for the land transport sector (54%, down from 61% in 2007), and providing training (43%, down from 48% in 2007).
• Stakeholders say Land Transport NZ could make improvements by simplifying funding processes, providing more focus on sustainability and non-road projects and by providing more education and training.

Communication channels

• Documents outlining Land Transport NZ policies and procedures were rated the most useful communication channel followed by the website. The website was rated as useful (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘not at all useful’ and 7 ‘very useful’) by 72% of respondents (up from 68% in 2007) while documents outlining Land Transport NZ’s policies and procedures were rated as useful by 79% (down from 85% in 2007). The newsletters received lower ratings with Land Transport News rated useful by 67% (70% last year) and Land Transport Research was rated useful by 62% (60% last year).

LTP On-line

• Slightly more than half (54 of respondents who use LTP on-line are satisfied (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where 1 meant ‘very dissatisfied’ and 7 meant ‘very satiusfied’ with it) and just under a third (29%) are dissatisfied (rating 1-3 on a 1-7 scale). Even so, there has been an improvement on 2007 with the mean rating rising from 4.1 to 4.4.
• Suggested improvements continue to be to make it more user-friendly.

Land Transport NZ and funding

• There continues to be a reasonable level of dissatisfaction with the way Land Transport NZ balances national land transport priorities with those at a regional and local level. Under half of the respondents (46% - up from 43% in 2007) say Land Transport NZ balances the different transport priorities well (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where  1 meant ‘not that well’ and 7 ‘very well)’, almost a third (28% - down from 30% in 2007) say it does not balance priorities well (rating 1-3) and 17% are neutral (rating 4) compared to 20% in 2007.
• The key concerns of respondents  revolve around perceived disadvantages for rural and low-taffic areas as well as for those seeking funding for non-road projects. There are also ongoing concerns about the complexity and slowness of the process.
• A minority of respondents (38% compared to 44% in 2007) say funding policies and rules are well designed (rating 5-7 on a 1-7 scale where  1 meant ‘not well designed’ and 7 ‘very well designed) to meet their needs, almost a third (28% compared to 34% in 2007) say they are not well designed (rating 1-3) and 22% (17% in 2007) hold neutral opinions (rating 4).

Evaluation of projects

• A review of the individual projects that respondents chose to comment on showed repeated concnerns about the time it took to approve projects. Other issues raised included a desire for greater flexibility over rules and funding for non-road projects.
• More consultation, feedback and clearer communications as well as simplifying processes are the key suggestions as to how Land Transport NZ could improve its relationship with stakeholders.

Most important transport issues over the next 12 months

• As was the case last year, funding of major and minor roading projects is the most commonly cited transport issue facing respondents in the next 12 months. A new dimension to this issue this year is the rising cost of fuel prices and the implications this may have for public transport funding.
• 33% of respondents cite funding issues compared with 20% who mention the ability to deliver on projects, 18% who identify sustainability issues, and 13% who mentioned road safety matters.

page top

Page created: 29 October 2008