Identifying customer-focused performance measures: final report 655

              IDENTIFYING CUSTOMER-FOCUSED
PERFORMANCE
MEASURES
Final Report 655
Prepared by:
Chris Tatham
ETC Institute
725 W. Frontier
Olathe, KS 66061
October 2010
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or
manufacturers' names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered
essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and the State of Arizona do not
endorse products or manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA-AZ-10-655
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
October 2010
IDENTIFYING CUSTOMER-FOCUSED
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author
Chris Tatham
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No.
ETC Institute
725 W. Frontier
Olathe, KS 66061
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR-PL-1(173)-655
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
206 S. 17TH AVENUE
13.Type of Report & Period Covered
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
Project Manager: Sally Stewart
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) completed a comprehensive customer satisfaction
assessment in July 2009. ADOT commissioned the assessment to acquire statistically valid data from residents
and community leaders to help it identify short-term and long-term transportation priorities. The survey found
that state residents feel:
• Safe on the state’s highways.
• ADOT keeps the roads clean.
• ADOT keeps the landscaping well maintained.
• Satisfied with the Motor Vehicle Division.
• ADOT is moving in the right direction.
• Dissatisfied with condition of highway shoulders should be improved.
• Dissatisfied with nighttime visibility of highway striping.
• Dissatisfied with the frequency of public transit where they live.
• Dissatisfied with traffic flow on highways during rush hour.
Both residents and community leaders said the transportation issues with the highest priorities were:
• Repairing and maintaining existing highways.
• Enhancing highway safety.
• Relieving congestion on highways.
17. Key Words
Public opinion surveys; Transportation agencies.
18. Distribution Statement
Document is available to the
U.S. public through the
National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, Virginia
22161
23. Registrant's Seal
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
20
22. Price
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
mg
(or “t”)
mg megagrams
(or “metric ton”)
1.102 short tons (2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF Fahrenheit
temperature
5(F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
ºF
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
Table of Contents
I: Executive Summary ..................................................................................................1
II: Introduction ..............................................................................................................3
III: Major Findings .........................................................................................................5
IV: Recommendations ...................................................................................................15
Appendixes (published only on the Internet)
Appendix A: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis
Appendix B: Benchmarking Analysis
Appendix C: GIS Maps
Appendix D: Resident Assessment Survey Results by Count
Appendix E: 2009 ADOT Leader Assessment Survey
Appendix F: Internal Stakeholder Interviews Summary
Appendix G: External Stakeholder Interviews Summary
Appendix H: Focus Groups Summary
Appendix I: ADOT Customer Profiles
Appendix J: Composite Customer Performance Indices
Appendix K: PowerPoint Presentation of Major Findings
Figures
Figure 1 Location of Respondents’ Homes .....................................................................4
Figure 2 Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Motor Vehicle Division .......................7
Figure 3 Overall Satisfaction with the Motor Vehicle Division ....................................9
Figure 4 Satisfaction with Highway Maintenance .......................................................10
Figure 5 Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Highway Maintenance ......................11
Figure 6 Level of Agreement with Statements Related to Management of
Highway Construction in Arizona ...............................................................12
Figure 7 Satisfaction with Various Highway Features ............................................... 13
Figure 8 Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Highway Features ............................ 14
1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) completed a comprehensive
customer satisfaction assessment in July 2009. The purpose of the assessment was to
gather statistically valid data from residents and community leaders to help identify short-term
and long-term transportation priorities for the department.
Relative Strengths
Areas where residents gave ADOT significantly better ratings than the U.S. average
included:
 Feeling of safety when traveling on state highways (+12%).
 Removing debris from highways (+10%).
 Maintaining landscaping along highways (+7%).
 Residents thinking highways are safer today than they were five years ago (+7%).
 Picking up trash and litter along highways (+6%).
 Feeling of safety when traveling through work zones on highways (+5%).
Other Strengths
 74% of the residents surveyed were satisfied with the Motor Vehicle Division
(MVD); only 5% were dissatisfied.
 Most residents thought ADOT is moving in the right direction.
 45% of the residents surveyed thought funding for transportation in Arizona
should be increased; only 3% thought it should be reduced; 31% thought it should
stay the same and 21% did not have an opinion.
Relative Weaknesses
Areas where residents gave ADOT significantly lower ratings than the U.S. average
included:
 The condition of shoulders on highways (-7%).
 The nighttime visibility of highway striping (-6%).
 Removal of snow and ice along highways (-5%).
Other Weaknesses
 46% of residents surveyed were dissatisfied with the frequency of public transit
where they live.
�� 41% of residents surveyed were dissatisfied with the availability of public transit
where they live.
 49% of residents surveyed were dissatisfied with traffic flow on highways during
rush hour.
2
Overall Priorities
Both residents and community leaders gave the three transportation issues listed below
had the highest priorities.
 Repairing and maintaining existing highways.
 Enhancing highway safety.
 Relieving congestion on highways.
Specific Issues
The specific issues listed below fit in with the more general overall priorities above.
Many of the priorities listed below were lower in satisfaction and higher in perceived
importance. Many of the specific issues below received “Very High” or “High” priority
rankings in ETC Institute’s Importance-Satisfaction Analysis, located in Appendix A of
this report.
 Improving traffic flow during rush hour on highways.
 Making alternate routes available.
 Keeping interstates and highways in good condition.
 Keeping two-lane highways in good condition.
 Minimizing delays from work zone closures.
 Removing debris from driving lanes.
 Ensuring highway striping is visible at night.
3
II. INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) completed a comprehensive
customer assessment survey during July 2009. The purpose of the survey was to help
ADOT identify which of its services are most important to Arizonans, to help it set
priorities for improvements to these services, and to assess its overall performance.
Methodology
The customer assessment survey had three major components: (1) stakeholder
interviews, (2) focus groups, and (3) statistically valid surveys. Each is described below.
Stakeholder Interviews
ETC Institute interviewed 67 stakeholders in September and October 2008 to assess their
perceptions of the quality of ADOT’s services. Forty-seven were external stakeholders—
non-ADOT state government officials, local government officials, and representatives
from private sector and non-governmental organizations; 20 were internal stakeholders—
senior ADOT officials. The information from these interviews was used to identify the
issues that were discussed in the focus groups. The summary reports for the internal and
external interviews are in appendixes F and G, which are published only on the Web.
Focus Groups
ETC Institute facilitated six focus groups for ADOT during December 2008. The focus
groups provided input from residents and community leaders about public transportation
issues. Participants were selected at random from Phoenix, Flagstaff, and Tucson—the
communities where the focus groups were conducted. Focus group participants included
local elected officials, senior city and county staff, business leaders, chamber of
commerce officials, and others.
The objectives of the focus groups were:
(1) to identify the core expectations that residents and community leaders have
regarding the delivery of transportation services,
(2) to understand how residents and community leaders evaluate ADOT’s
performance in different areas, and
(3) to identify ways that residents and community leaders think ADOT could improve
the delivery of specific services.
The summary for the focus groups is in Appendix H.
4
Surveys
In the spring of 2009, ADOT conducted two surveys—one of residents and another of
community leaders—to objectively assess customer satisfaction with ADOT’s
performance and to determine the relative importance that should be placed on issues that
were identified during the stakeholder interviews and the focus groups. The
methodology for each survey is briefly described below.
Survey of Community Leaders.
Resident Survey. The resident survey was administered to a stratified random
sample of 2,656 Arizona residents. The sample was stratified to ensure the
completion of at least 300 surveys in both Maricopa and Pima counties and 150
surveys in each of the other 13 counties. The six-page survey was administered by
both mail and telephone. Approximately seven days after the surveys were
mailed, residents who received the
survey were contacted by
telephone. Those who indicated
that they had not returned the
survey were given the option of
completing it by telephone. The
overall results of the statewide
sample have a margin of error of at
least ± 2.0% at the 95% level of
confidence. There were no
statistically significant differences
in the results of the survey based
on the method of administration
(telephone vs. mail). To better
understand how well delivery of
ADOT services is perceived in
specific areas of the state, ETC
Institute geocoded the home
address of respondents to the
survey. Figure 1 shows the
distribution of survey respondents
based on the location of their
homes. Appendix C has maps that
show the results of specific
questions in the survey.
Figure 1. Location of Respondents’
Homes.
The survey of leaders was designed to obtain
input from elected officials, government staff, business leaders, community
advocates, and other community leaders from across Arizona. Two hundred
surveys were completed. The summary for the community leaders’ survey the
Appendix E.
5
III. MAJOR FINDINGS
Current Transportation Priorities
The transportation issues that state residents feel are most important were identified by
combining the percent of residents who indicated on the survey that an item was
“Extremely Important”, “Very Important,” or “Important.” They are:
 Repairing and maintaining existing highways (96%).
 Relieving congestion on highways (93%).
 Enhancing highway safety (89%).
 Improving communication with the public (83%).
The transportation issues that leaders feel are the most important are:
 Repairing and maintaining existing highways (99%).
 Enhancing highway safety (98%).
 Relieving congestion on highways (97%).
 Expanding public transportation services (95%).
Transportation Issues that Will Be Most Important in Arizona Over the Next Two
Years
The three transportation issues that residents feel will be most important over the next
two years are:
 Repairing and maintaining existing highways (54%).
 Relieving congestion on highways (53%).
 Expanding public transportation services (39%).
The three transportation issues that leaders feel will be most important in Arizona over
the next two years are:
 Repairing and maintaining existing highways (51%).
 Expanding public transportation services (51%).
 Relieving congestion on highways (43%).
Satisfaction with ADOT’s Long-Range Transportation Planning Efforts
Some of the major findings related to overall satisfaction with ADOT's long-range
transportation planning efforts in Arizona are:
 Forty-one percent (41%) of the residents surveyed feel that ADOT uses input
from the public in its long-range planning process; 24% feel that it doesn’t
and 35% feel neutral. Nearly three-fourths (72%) of leaders surveyed feel
ADOT uses input from the public in its long-range planning process; 13% feel
it doesn’t and 15% feel neutral.
6
 Forty percent (40%) of residents surveyed feel that ADOT does a good job
planning for the state’s future transportation needs; 28% feel it doesn’t and
32% feel neutral. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of leaders surveyed feel ADOT
does a good job planning for the state’s future transportation needs; 14% feel
it doesn’t and 18% feel neutral.
 Forty percent (40%) of residents surveyed feel that ADOT does a good job
coordinating long-range planning efforts with other organizations; 22% feel it
doesn’t and 38% feel neutral. Two-thirds (66%) of leaders surveyed feel
ADOT does a good job coordinating long-range planning efforts with other
organizations; 18% feel it doesn’t and 16% feel neutral.
 Forty-eight percent (48%) of residents surveyed feel ADOT keeps the public
informed about long-range transportation planning in Arizona; 20% feel it
doesn’t and 33% feel neutral. Sixty-five percent (65%) of leaders surveyed
feel ADOT keeps the public informed about long-range transportation
planning in Arizona; 14% feel it doesn’t and 22% feel neutral. These figures
do not equal 100 percent due to rounding.
MVD Services with the HIGHEST Levels of Satisfaction
The three aspects of Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) services that have the highest levels
of satisfaction among residents surveyed are: the ease of renewing a vehicle’s registration
(90%), the ease of using MVD’s online services (82%), and the ease of getting MVD’s
information on the Internet (82%).
MVD Services with the LOWEST Levels of Satisfaction
The three aspects of MVD service with the lowest levels of satisfaction among residents
surveyed are: the ease of resolving issues with MVD by phone (37%), ease of contacting
MVD by phone (38%), and how well the customers are treated when they contact MVD
by phone (57%).
MVD Services that Should Receive the Most Emphasis Over the Next Two Years
Residents surveyed give the highest priority for improvement to the following three
MVD service areas:
 ease of contacting MVD by phone.
 courteousness of MVD employees.
 the ease of resolving issues with MVD by phone.
Importance-Satisfaction Rating for MVD
Figure 2 is an excerpt from ETC Institute’s Importance-Satisfaction rating for MVD. The
Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that state and county governments
will maximize overall resident satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in service
categories where the level of satisfaction is relatively low and the perceived importance
of the service is relatively high. The rating is calculated by summing the percentage of
responses for items selected as the first, second, third, and fourth most important services
7
for ADOT to emphasize over the next two years. This sum is then multiplied by 1 minus
the percentage of respondents who indicate they are positively satisfied with ADOT's
performance in the related area, that is, the sum of the ratings of 4 and 5 on a 5-point
scale, excluding “don't knows.” “Don't know” responses are excluded from the
calculation to ensure that the satisfaction ratings among service categories are
comparable. [IS=Importance x (1-Satisfaction)].
Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Motor Vehicle Division
Category of Service
High Priority (IS .10 - .20)
Most
Important
%
Most
Important
Rank
Satisfaction
%
Satisfaction
Rank
Importance-
Satisfaction
Rank
IS Rank
How easy it is to contact MVD by phone 21% 1 38% 11 0.1296 1
How easy it is to resolve MVD issue by phone 19% 3 36% 12 0.1187 2
Figure 2. Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Motor Vehicle Division.
No items for MVD ranked as “Very High Priorities.” Only two items ranked as “High
Priorities” and the other 10 items assessed on the survey received the lowest rating of
“Medium Priority.” Appendix A has a description of how the Importance-Satisfaction
rating is calculated and a complete breakdown of the Importance-Satisfaction rating for
all 12 MVD items assessed on the survey.
Overall Satisfaction with ADOT’s Current Level of Emphasis on Preserving and
Protecting the Environment
Forty-nine percent (49%) of residents surveyed indicate that they are satisfied with
ADOT’s current level of emphasis on preserving and protecting the environment; only
7% are dissatisfied, 30% are neutral, and 14% do not have an opinion. Nearly two-thirds
(62%) of leaders surveyed indicate that they are satisfied with ADOT’s current level of
emphasis on preserving and protecting the environment; 13% are dissatisfied, 24% are
neutral, and 1% do not have an opinion.
Satisfaction with ADOT’s Overall Efforts to Keep Customers Informed
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of residents surveyed indicate that they are satisfied or very
satisfied with ADOT’s efforts to keep them informed about transportation-related issues;
15% are dissatisfied, 33% are neutral, and 13% do not have an opinion. Sixty-three
percent (63%) of leaders surveyed are satisfied or very satisfied with ADOT’s efforts to
keep them informed about transportation-related issues; only 9% are dissatisfied, 25% are
neutral, and 3% do not have an opinion.
The Amount of Information Received from ADOT
Forty-five percent (45%) of residents surveyed feel they receive the “right amount” of
information from ADOT; 36% feel that they do not receive enough information, 1% feel
that they receive “too much,” and 18% do not have an opinion. More than two-thirds
(68%) of community leaders surveyed feel they receive the “right amount” of information
from ADOT; 27% feel that they do not receive enough information, 1% feel that they
receive “too much,” and 4% do not have an opinion.
8
Overall Satisfaction with Highways in Arizona
Overall satisfaction with the maintenance and design of highways in Arizona is provided
below:
 Sixty-five percent (65%) of residents surveyed indicate that overall they are
satisfied with ADOT’s maintenance of highways in Arizona; 10% are dissatisfied,
22% are neutral, and 3% do not have an opinion. Two-thirds (66%) of leaders
surveyed indicate they are satisfied with ADOT’s overall maintenance of
highways in Arizona; 17% are dissatisfied and 17% are neutral.
 Fifty-six percent (56%) of residents surveyed indicate they are satisfied with the
job ADOT has done designing highways in Arizona; 10% are dissatisfied, 23%
are neutral, and 11% do not have an opinion. Sixty-five percent (65%) of leaders
surveyed indicate they are satisfied with the job ADOT has done designing
highways in Arizona; 16% are dissatisfied, 17% are neutral, and 2% do not have
an opinion.
Familiarity with the Services ADOT Provides
Fifty-three percent (53%) of residents surveyed are familiar with the services ADOT
provides; 16% are not familiar, and 31% have a neutral opinion. Eighty-one percent
(81%) of leaders surveyed are familiar with the services ADOT provides; 7% disagreed
and 12% had a neutral opinion.
ADOT’s Responsiveness to Concerns of Arizonans
Forty-seven percent (47%) of residents surveyed indicate they feel ADOT is responsive
to the public’s concerns; 12% feel isn’t and 41% feel neutral. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of
the leaders surveyed indicate they feel ADOT is responsive to the public’s concerns; 15%
feel it isn’t and 22% feel neutral.
Feeling that ADOT Is Moving in the Right Direction
Fifty-five percent (55%) of residents surveyed feel ADOT is “moving in the right
direction;” 12% feel it isn’t and 33% feel neutral. Sixty percent (60%) of leaders
surveyed feel ADOT is “moving in the right direction;” 12% feel it isn’t and 28% feel
neutral.
How the Quality of ADOT Services Has Changed Compared to Two Years Ago
Thirty-one percent (31%) of residents surveyed think the quality of ADOT services has
improved compared to two years ago; 43% feel ADOT services have stayed the same,
5% feel they have worsened, and 21% do not know. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the
community leaders surveyed think the quality of ADOT services has stayed the same
compared to two years ago; 28% feel ADOT services have improved, 10% feel they have
worsened, and 3% did not know.
9
How ADOT Funding Should Change Over the Next Two Years
Forty-five percent (45%) of residents surveyed feel ADOT’s funding should be increased
above its current level during the next two years; only 3% feel it should be reduced, 31%
feel it should stay the same, and 21% do not know. More than three-fourths (77%) of
leaders surveyed feel ADOT’s funding should be increased above its current level during
the next two years; only 1% feel it should be reduced, 19% feel it should stay the same,
and 3% do not know.
Overall Satisfaction with MVD (Figure 3)
Seventy-four percent (74%) of residents indicate they are satisfied or very satisfied with
the MVD; 5% are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, 16% are neutral, and 5% do not have
an opinion.
Awareness and Use of 511
Forty percent (40%) of residents indicate they are aware that ADOT has a phone number
(511) that provides information about conditions on state highways. Of these, 31% had
called 511 during the past year, 67% had not, and 2% did not remember.
Overall Satisfaction with 511
Seventy-two percent (72%) of residents who called 511 during the past year were
satisfied or very satisfied with the 511 service, 15% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied,
8% were neutral, and 5% did not have an opinion.
Figure 3. Overall Satisfaction with the Motor Vehicle Division.
(46.4%)
(27.6%)
(4.9%)
(1.3%)
(4.2%)
(15.7%)
10
Highway Maintenance Services with the HIGHEST Levels of Satisfaction
(Figure 4)
The three highway maintenance services that have the highest levels of satisfaction
among residents are: keeping guardrails and other barriers in good condition (77%),
ensuring work zone signs are easy to see and understand (76%), and ensuring directional
and warning signs are easy to see and understand (72%).
Highway Maintenance Services with the LOWEST Levels of Satisfaction
The three highway maintenance services that have the lowest levels of satisfaction among
residents are: keeping two-lane highways in good condition (48%), minimizing delays
from work zone closures (51%), and keeping interstates/highways in good condition
(56%).
Figure 4. Satisfaction with Highway Maintenance.
11
Highway Maintenance Services that Should Have the Highest Priority Over the
Next Two Years
The top three highway maintenance priorities based on the sum of the top choices
provided by residents are:
 keeping interstates and highways in good condition.
 keeping two-lane highways in good condition.
 removing debris from driving lanes.
Importance-Satisfaction Rating for Highway Maintenance
Figure 5 is an excerpt from ETC Institute’s Importance-Satisfaction rating for highway
maintenance.
Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Highway Maintenance
Category of Service
High Priority (IS .10 - .20)
Most
Import
ant %
Most
Important
Rank
Satisfaction
%
Satisfact
ion Rank
Importance-
Satisfaction
Rank
IS Rank
Keeping interstates/highways in good condition 44% 1 56% 12 0.1940 1
Keeping 2-lane highways in good condition 33% 2 48% 14 0.1728 2
Minimizing delays from work zone closures 29% 4 51% 13 0.1405 3
Removing debris 33% 3 67% 6 0.1086 4
Ensuring highway striping is visible at night 25% 5 59% 10 0.1047 5
Figure 5. Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Highway Maintenance.
No items for highway maintenance rank as “Very High Priorities.” Five items rank as
“High Priorities” and the other nine items assessed on the survey received the lowest
rating of “Medium Priority.” Appendix A has a description of how the Importance-
Satisfaction rating is calculated and a complete breakdown of the Importance-Satisfaction
rating for all 14 highway maintenance items assessed on the survey.
Awareness and Use of ADOT’s Web Site
 Sixty-four percent (64%) of the residents know ADOT has a Web site.
 Of those who are aware of the Web site, over half (55%) had visited the site
during the past year.
Awareness and Use of MVD’s Web Site
 Seventy-one percent (71%) of residents know that MVD has a Web site.
 Of those who are aware of the Web site, 67% had visited it during the past year.
12
Statements Regarding Highway Construction Management with the HIGHEST
Levels of Agreement (Figure 6)
The three statements about highway construction management in Arizona that residents
have the highest levels of agreement with are: ADOT provides sufficient early visual
warning and safe mobility through construction zones (69%), ADOT does a good job of
informing the public prior to highway construction (66%), and overall ADOT does a
good job of managing highway projects (50%). The chart below shows the results for all
statements regarding highway construction management.
Figure 6. Level of Agreement with Statements Related to Management
of Highway Construction in Arizona.
13
Highway Features with the HIGHEST Levels of Satisfaction (Figure 7)
The three highway features with the highest levels of satisfaction among residents are
visibility of directional signage along highways (71%), usefulness of directional signage
along highways (69%), and adequacy of lighting at interchanges and intersections (66%).
Highway Features with the LOWEST Levels of Satisfaction
The three highway features with the lowest levels of satisfaction among residents are:
traffic flow during rush hour on highways (19%), availability of alternate routes (35%),
and ADOT’s project selection (46%).
Highway Features Residents Thought Were the Most Important for ADOT to
Emphasize Over the Next Two Years
Based on the sum of the top choices selected by residents, the top three highway features
that are the most important for ADOT to emphasize over the next two years are:
 Traffic flow during rush hour on highways.
 Availability of alternate routes.
 Traffic flow on highways between cities.
Figure 7. Satisfaction with Various Highway Features.
14
Importance-Satisfaction Rating for Highway Features
Figure 8 is an excerpt from ETC Institute’s Importance-Satisfaction rating for highway
features.
Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Highway Features
Category of Service
High Priority (IS .10 - .20)
Most
Import
ant %
Most
Important
Rank
Satisfaction
%
Satisfact
ion Rank
Importance-
Satisfaction
Rank
IS Rank
Very High Priority (IS>.20)
Traffic flow during rush hour on highways 50% 1 20% 13 0.4004 1
Availability of alternate routes 32% 2 35% 12 0.2096 2
High Priority (IS.10-.20)
Traffic flow on highways between cities 24% 3 52% 9 0.1174 3
ADOT’s ability to select projects most needed 19% 5 47% 11 0.1036 4
Figure 8. Importance-Satisfaction Excerpt for Highway Features.
Only two highway features rank as “Very High Priorities.” Two items rank as “High
Priorities” and the other nine items on the survey receive the lowest rating of “Medium
Priority.” Appendix A has a description of how the Importance-Satisfaction rating is
calculated and a complete Importance-Satisfaction rating breakdown of all 13 highway
features assessed on the survey.
How Arizona Compares to Other States
Below are some of the major findings from the benchmarking analysis. For a complete
breakdown of the benchmarking analysis, see Appendix B of the report.
Areas where the survey results are significantly better than the U.S. average
include:
 How safe residents feel when traveling on state highways (+12%).
 Satisfaction with debris removal from highways (+10%).
 Satisfaction with maintenance of landscaping along highways (+7%).
 The percentage of residents who thought highways are safer today than they were
five years ago (+7%).
 Satisfaction with trash and litter pick up along highways (+6%).
 How safe residents feel when traveling through work zones on highways (+5%).
Areas where the survey results are significantly lower than the U.S. average include:
 Satisfaction with the condition of shoulders on highways (-7%).
 Satisfaction with the visibility of striping on highways at night (-6%).
 Satisfaction with snow/ice removal along highways (-5%).
15
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The research team developed two sets of recommendations. The first addresses ways
ADOT can use the results of the 2009 survey to better serve the needs of its customers
now. The second addresses ways ADOT should incorporate the study into an ongoing
process for objectively assessing its performance in the future.
Recommendations to Better Serve the Needs of ADOT Customers Now
Based on the results of this study, ADOT should take the following actions over the next
two to three years to sustain or increase overall satisfaction with the department.
1) Find ways to make it easier for customers to resolve issues with MVD by
telephone. This may include doing a better job of educating customers about on-line
services and other non-phone options that MVD offers to minimize the
financial burdens of operating call centers.
2) Maintain the condition of existing highways.
3) Find ways to minimize travel delays caused by work zones along highways.
4) Manage traffic flow along highways to prevent congestion from worsening.
5) Consider ways to develop alternate routes for traffic along interstates in rural
areas that would allow vehicles to bypass accidents or other disruptions that
would otherwise completely halt traffic on the highway.
6) Continue to be responsive to the concerns of the general public by effectively
communicating ADOT’s process for selecting and prioritizing projects and
finding ways to engage and inform the public about transportation issues that
impact residents.
Recommendations for Long-Term Performance Measurement
To ensure that the results of this survey are used by ADOT to objectively assess
performance over time, ADOT should do the following:
1) Widely share the results of this survey with employees to raise awareness of the
performance measurement tools that were developed through this study.
2) Have senior managers review the survey results and identify actions that will be
taken over the next two to three years to address concerns in areas for which they
are responsible.
16
3) Adopt the Composite Customer Performance Indices that are in Appendix J as the
basis for assessing over time ADOT’s performance from a customer-oriented
perspective.
4) Conduct the resident and community leader surveys again in 2011.
5) Update the Composite Customer Performance Indices following each future
survey to show areas of improvement (or decline).
6) Use the results of future surveys to modify ADOT’s priorities to ensure the
department continues to meet the changing needs and expectations of its
customers.