F oreword

The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has completed its first independent
Customer Satisfaction Assessment. This has been spearheaded by the
Monitoring and Evaluation arm of the Customer Service Branch, within the
Ministry. The execution of this assessment is in keeping with the Office of the Cabinet (OoC)
initiative that commenced in 2015 and subsequent mandate by the Cabinet Secretary for all
Permanent Secretaries to develop a Customer Service Improvement Plan (CSIP) across their
portfolio Ministries. The CSIP, which is guided by the principles of the Service Excellence
Policy, will be monitored and evaluated by annually published reports on customer satisfaction
and service quality.

The Ministry therefore, fully endorses the information contained in this Customer Satisfaction
Assessment report, which is necessary for paving the way forward for a transformed and
modernised service culture of the Public Sector. Providing service excellence will foster an
enabling environment for national competitiveness, economic growth and sustainability for all
relevant industries and stakeholders within the sector.

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Brief Overview of the Ministry
The Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries (MoAF) is responsible for driving the production of
primary agricultural produce, livestock and fisheries to widen the supply chains; integrate
production and develop a robust value chain. This mandate will facilitate value added and full
commercialisation of outputs for the agriculture sector. The Ministry oversees a portfolio of
twenty-four (24) divisions, nine (9) portfolio bodies; five (5) statutory bodies, and ten (10) public
investment projects, which provide important services to the sector; as well as, the
organisations that work to promote growth within the sector.

Being a large part of a service related industry; the Government of Jamaica is on a mission of
transforming the public sector bodies into mordernised ogranisations that can drive economic
growth and sustainability of the country in a globally competitive market. The Public Sector
Transformation and Modernisation (PSTM) Programme led by the Office of the Cabinet was
introduced as the strategic tool to mobilise service culture. Mover so, contributing to the
achievement of this vision is the implementation of projects and programmes that will lead to the
creation of a dynamic public service that is responsive to the changing needs of the Jamaican
Society to deliver professionalism, performance and service excellence, which brings to life the
National Vision for Jamaica. This requires the public sector to be client-focused, results-
oriented and constantly seeking ways to improve the delivery of public services.

The Ministry has, therefore, adapted the Service Excellence Policy and Framework that was
developed by the Office of the Cabinet Jamaica (OoC), as the guiding principle for the
transformation of the Public Sector service culture. The Government of Jamaica has outlined its
Vision for a transformed Public Sector, the achievement of which rests on the modernisation of
public service to: increase professionalism of public sector workers; foster change in service
culture and national competitiveness to facilitate efficiency, accountability and responsiveness in
service outputs to meet citizens’ needs, along with other relevant stakeholders.

On this basis, the Ministry has developed a Customer Service Improvement Plan (CSIP) geared
towards providing strategic directives and clear objectives on how to deliver, evaluate and
improve service delivery. The CISP was established from the guiding principles of the Service
Excellence Policy, to assess the performance of service delivery, identify gaps in service quality
and recommend areas for improvement to serve its external customers. Monitoring of

ii

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
performance and overall satisfaction of the external customers will be done through the
Ministry’s Customer Satisfaction Assessment.

iii

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Executive Summary
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries had successfully completed its Customer Service
Improvement Plan. As a result, the Customer Service Branch within the Ministry was
commissioned to undertake its first Customer Satisfaction Survey, as an initiative to monitor and
evaluate the satisfaction level of its external customers. A total of five (5) portfolio agencies and
four (4) intra-ministerial divisions participated in the survey. The views and satisfaction with
service quality were captured, collectively, for 331 customers. The result of the findings revealed
that the entities, governed by the Ministry, have been making significant strides to providing
responsive and reliable services. The mechanism put in place to bolster ease of doing business
is one of the most important factors of service quality. Based on the result, it was evident that
the entities have conducted its business affairs in a manner that was conducive for efficiencies
of doing business.

However, the entities still grappled with the concerns of level communication; many customers
have highlighted the fact that the entities need to improve on interaction and communicate more
through regular updates on the status of the services. Increase in communication efforts will
ultimately increase customers’ appreciation, patience and corporation with the entities. Increase
in communication not only sparks awareness, but also fosters an environment for trust, integrity
and transparency and subsequently strengthens customer relations

Public sector entities have undergone a long hold repetition for poor customer service and
inefficiencies; however, notwithstanding the challenges, the Ministry’s entities have proven that
customers in general are satisfied with the service they have been receiving, but have also
highlight that the service quality is still in need of improvement. The top three performing entities
that achieved the target customer satisfaction rate of 80 per cent were, Veterinary Services
Division (VSD), Rural Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) and Agricultural Land
Management Division (ALMD). The other agencies and division achieved scores that ranged
from 70 to 77 per cent, recording either a ten (10) or three (3) percentage decline from meeting
the target score. Consequently, the overall scores of each entities resulted in the Ministry
obtaining an overall customer satisfaction rate of 76 per cent. This represented a marginal four
(4) percentage score from meeting the Government of Jamaica’s target service standard score
of 80 per cent.

iv

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
In order to facilitate the mandate of the Ministry, and by extension the Government of Jamaica,
the portfolio agencies and divisions are being encouraged to review processes and
improvement of facility; and bolster communication efforts to increase interaction with
customers. This will ultimately improve the service outputs to further meet the needs and
satisfaction of the citizens of Jamaica, in which it serves.

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Table of Contents
FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................................... I
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MINISTRY ............................................................................................................ I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. IV
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
I.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 1
I.2 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT .............................................................................................................. 1
I.3 OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................................... 2
I.4 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................. 2
I.4.1 LAYOUT OF THE REPORT........................................................................................................ 2
II. APPROACH............................................................................................................................................. 3
II.1 SAMPLING METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 3
II.2 DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................................... 3
II.3 DATA PROCESSING ....................................................................................................................... 3
II.3.1 RECODED VARIABLES .............................................................................................................. 4
II.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL MEASURES.......................................................................... 4
II.4.1 FIVE (5) POINT AGREEMENT/SATISFACTION SCALE .............................................................. 4
II.4.2 TEN (10) POINT RATING SCALE............................................................................................... 5
II.4.3 CROSS-TABULATION FREQUENCY .......................................................................................... 5
II.4.4 MULTIPLE RESPONSE .............................................................................................................. 5
II.5 LIMITATION TO SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 5
III. SUMMARY TABLES OF MAIN FINDINGS........................................................................................... 7
III.1 SUMMARY OF CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ................................................................................ 7
III.2 SUMMARY OF AGREEMENT SCALE ............................................................................................. 8
III.3 SUMMARY OF SATISFACTION SCALE .......................................................................................... 8
III.4 SUMMARY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE ........................................................................ 9
IV. LIST OF ENTITIES SURVEYED .......................................................................................................... 9
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 11
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ........................................................... 11
2. TYPE OF CUSTOMER BY GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION .................................................................. 11
3. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 12
4. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................................... 13
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 13
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS/SERVICES ............................................................................................. 14
2. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 14
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................... 15
V. PROCESS & FACILITY ......................................................................................................................... 16
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................................................................................. 16
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ................................................................................................................. 17
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................ 17
VI. COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................................................... 18
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................................... 18
2. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION .................................................... 19
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 20
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ................................................................................................. 21
PAYMENT PROCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 21

vi
 1. AVAILABILITY OF DIFFERENT PAYMENT OPTION ........................................................................ 22
2. WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FASTER SERVICE............................................................................... 22
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .......................................................................................................................... 23
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................... 23
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ............................................................................ 24
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE.................................................................................. 24
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................... 25
ANNEX REPORTS .................................................................................................................................... 28
AGRO-INVESTMENT CORPORATION ........................................................................................................... 29
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... 30
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 31
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE & SEX ............................................................... 31
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 31
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................................... 32
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 32
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES...................................................................................... 32
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
33
PROCESS AND FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 36
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................ 38
COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 38
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................................... 38
2. AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................ 39
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION .................................................... 40
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 40
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ................................................................................................. 41
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .......................................................................................................................... 41
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................... 41
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ............................................................................ 41
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE.................................................................................. 42
JAMAICA DAIRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD .................................................................................................... 43
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... 44
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 45
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ........................................................... 45
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 45
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................................... 46
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 47
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS/SERVICES ............................................................................................. 47
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
47
3. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 48
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................... 49
PROCESS AND FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 49
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................................................................................. 49
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ................................................................................................................. 50
3. FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS ................................................................................................... 51
vii

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................ 51
COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 51
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................................... 51
2. AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................ 52
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION ...................................................................... 53
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 53
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .......................................................................................................................... 54
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................... 54
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ............................................................................ 54
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE.................................................................................. 54
JAMAICA AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY ..................................................... 55
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... 56
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 57
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ........................................................... 57
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 57
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................................... 58
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 59
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICE ....................................................................................... 59
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................. 59
3. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 60
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................... 61
PROCESS AND FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 62
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................................................................................. 62
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ................................................................................................................. 62
3. FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS ................................................................................................... 63
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................ 63
COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 64
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................................... 64
2. AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................ 65
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION ...................................................................... 65
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 66
1. PERCEIVED OF CUSTOMER LOYALTY ........................................................................................... 66
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .......................................................................................................................... 67
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................... 67
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ............................................................................ 67
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE.................................................................................. 67
NATIONAL IRRIGATION COMMISSION ........................................................................................................ 68
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... 69
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 70
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ........................................................... 70
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 70
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................................... 71
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 71
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES...................................................................................... 71
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................. 72
3. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 73
viii

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................... 73
PROCESS AND FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 74
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................................................................................. 74
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ................................................................................................................. 75
3. FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS ................................................................................................... 75
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................ 75
COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 76
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................................... 76
2. AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................ 77
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION ...................................................................... 77
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 77
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ................................................................................................. 78
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION .......................................................................................................................... 79
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................... 79
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ............................................................................ 79
3. OVER CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE ........................................................................................ 79
RURAL AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ................................................................................ 80
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... 81
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 82
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ........................................................... 82
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 82
1. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................................... 83
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 84
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES...................................................................................... 84
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................. 84
3. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 85
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................... 86
PROCESS AND FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 86
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................................................................................. 86
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ................................................................................................................. 87
3. FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS ................................................................................................... 87
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................ 88
COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 88
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ......................................................................................................... 88
2. AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION ........................................................................................ 89
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION ...................................................................... 90
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................................... 90
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ................................................................................................. 91
OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ......................................................................................................... 92
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................... 92
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ............................................................................ 92
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE.................................................................................. 93
AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT DIVISION ........................................................................................ 94
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................... 95
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 96
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ........................................................... 96
ix

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ....................................... 96
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCT AND SERVICE......................................................... 97
RESPONSIVENESS ......................................................................................................................................... 97
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES...................................................................................... 97
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................. 98
3. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ................................................................................................................. 98
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................... 99
PROCESS AND FACILITY .............................................................................................................................. 99
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ............................................................................................................. 99
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ............................................................................................................... 100
3. FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS ................................................................................................. 100
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY .......................................................... 101
COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................................................................... 101
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................................... 101
2. FACTORS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION .................................................................................. 102
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION .................................................................... 103
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................................... 103
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ............................................................................................... 104
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ........................................................................................................................ 104
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................. 104
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 104
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE................................................................................ 104
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ............................................................................................... 105
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 106
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ..................................................................................................................... 107
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ......................................................... 107
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................... 107
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................................................... 108
RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................................................................................... 109
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.................................................................................... 109
2. AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ............... 109
3. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ............................................................................................................... 110
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ..................................................................... 111
PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................................................................................ 111
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ........................................................................................................... 111
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ............................................................................................................... 112
3. FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS ................................................................................................. 113
4. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY .......................................................... 113
COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................................................................... 113
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................................... 113
2. FACTORS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION .................................................................................. 114
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION .................................................................... 115
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................................... 115
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ............................................................................................... 116
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION ........................................................................................................................ 117
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................. 117
x

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 117
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE................................................................................ 117
PLANT QUARANTINE PRODUCE INSPECTION ............................................................................................ 118
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 119
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ..................................................................................................................... 120
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ......................................................... 120
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................... 120
3. PREFERRED METHOD TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................................................... 120
RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................................................................................... 121
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.................................................................................... 121
2. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ............................................................................................................... 122
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ..................................................................... 122
PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................................................................................ 123
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ........................................................................................................... 123
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ............................................................................................................... 123
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY .......................................................... 124
COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................................................................... 124
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................................... 124
2. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION .................................................................... 125
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................................... 125
OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE............................................................................................. 126
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................. 126
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 126
3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE................................................................................ 127
VETERINARY SERVICES DIVISION ................................................................................................. 128
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS.................................................................................................................. 129
CUSTOMERS’ COMPOSITION ..................................................................................................................... 130
1. NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS SURVEYED BY AGE AND SEX ......................................................... 130
2. CUSTOMERS’ MAIN METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ..................................... 130
3. PREFERRED METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ................................................. 130
RESPONSIVENESS ....................................................................................................................................... 131
1. DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.................................................................................... 131
2. STAFF RESPONSIVENESS ............................................................................................................... 132
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS ..................................................................... 132
PROCESS AND FACILITY ............................................................................................................................ 132
1. EASE OF DOING BUSINESS ........................................................................................................... 132
2. COMFORT OF FACILITY ............................................................................................................... 133
3. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS AND FACILITY .......................................................... 134
COMMUNICATION ...................................................................................................................................... 134
1. LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................................... 134
2. OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COMMUNICATION .................................................................... 135
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................................... 135
1. PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY ............................................................................................... 135
OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE............................................................................................. 136
1. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE ................................................................................. 136
2. SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE .......................................................................... 136
xi

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. OVERALL CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATE................................................................................ 136
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 137
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ................................................................................................................................. 138
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................ 140
VI.1 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................... 141
VI.2 APPENDIX 2: SWITCHING FACTORS ............................................................................................ 147
VI.3 APPENDIX 3: FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS & FACILITY ....................................................... 147
VI.4 APPENDIX 4: FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS AND FACILITY ................................................... 148
VI.5 APPENDIX 5: FACTORS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION ............................................................. 149
VI.6 APPENDIX 6: FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS AND FACILITY ................................................... 150
VI.7 APPENDIX: 7 FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS & FACILITY ....................................................... 151

xii

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
i. Introduction

i.1 Background
The office of the Cabinet is committed to carrying-out the mandate of the Government of
Jamaica for a paradigm shift of customer-centricity across the Public Sector, through
transformation of human resources, business processes, and technology to facilitate an
enabling environment for the growth and development for a service excellence culture. As such,
the Office of the Cabinet had selected two Ministries, Ministry of Health (MoH) and the former
Ministry of Industry, Commerce, Agriculture and Fisheries (MICAF), to undertake a Customer
Satisfaction Assessment that was used to assess customers’ satisfaction.

This was needed to expedite and inform the decision making process for the development of a
Service Improvement Plan for both Ministries and by further extension other Ministries within the
Public Sector. These Assessments were conducted within the periods of 2015 and 2018. A
Common Measurement Tool (CMT) was adapted from the Canadian Centre for Management
Development in 1998, as the research instrument used for data collection. However, the
instrument was edited to service the need of the Government of Jamaica.

To-date, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has completed its Customer Service
Improvement Plan (CSIP). As a driver of the CSIP, the Ministry conducted its first independent
Customer Service Satisfaction Assessment in in July 2020 to October 2020. This will allow
monitoring and evaluation of customer satisfaction for its external customer. Therefore, the
CMT was adapted from the OoC and was further edited by the Ministry to undertake the data
collection exercise. The development of the CSIP was guided by the principles of the Service
Excellence Policy and Framework.

i.2 Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is to present descriptive statistic on the findings of the surveys
carried-out for the agencies and divisions that participated in the exercise. The findings were
used to develop wholesome recommendations and to provide each agency and division with
their respective results, which can be used for service recovery and other necessary measures
that are required by each entity.

1
i.3 Objectives
The objectives of the Survey are to:

 Establish the satisfaction rate for the focus area

 Distinguish the key focus areas for reinforcement of satisfaction
 Establish the key focus area for service recovery
 Identify gaps in service quality
 Ascertain the overall customer satisfaction rate

i.4 Scope of work

Nine (9) entities were surveyed, which included five (5) portfolio agencies and four (4) divisions.
Each entity was assessed on efficiency across five (5) service dimensions or focus areas, in
keeping with the Service Excellence Policy:

 Responsiveness
 Process and Facility
 Level of Communication
 Payment Process
 Reliability of Service

Efficiency of the service dimensions were measured by the respondents’ level of agreement or
satisfaction with statements that were asked in relation to each area. The results were
measured against the target satisfaction rate that was stipulated by the OoC of a score no less
than 80 per cent to meet the accepted service standard.

i.4.1 Layout of the Report

The data was first presented in a collective manner to facilitate an all-encompassing analysis of
the findings for the Ministry’s agencies and divisions, with subsequent conclusion and
recommendations. The data was then disaggregated for each agency and division, in order to
provide the agreement scores and overall customer satisfaction rate separately. This will
facilitate extrapolated data for each entity to bolster strategic decisions for service recovery or
positive reinforcement of areas that met the target service standard.

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
ii. Approach
The survey was a quantitative study that collected primary data by means of a structured
research instrument/questionnaire (Appendix 1). The questionnaire consisted of six (6)
sections. The sections were mainly composed of statements that were measured on a five (5)
point likert scale of agreement or satisfaction. A ten (10) point rating scale was further used to
ascertain the respondents’ level of satisfaction across specified focus areas. The averages of
each satisfaction rate were, then, used to compute the overall customer satisfaction rate for the
Ministry, and then disaggregated to illustrate the same for each entity. Additionally, open-ended
questions were used to ascertain the respondents’ views on factors that could improve service
quality across the focus areas.

ii.1 Sampling Method

Each portfolio agency and division provided a databank that consisted of customers’ contact
information and name. A systematic random sampling method was deployed to select
customers by assigning every tenth (10th) person or every other person to the sample list. The
use of the selection methods were determined by the size of the customer databanks that were
received from the entities.

A sample size of fifty (50) respondents was established as the target for each entity.

ii.2 Data Collection

Telephonic interviews were used to collect data and were undertaken by trained interviewers.
Data collection and entry ran concurrently; the electronic platform, Survey Gizmo, was used to
enter the data.

ii.3 Data Processing

The raw data was cleaned and imported from Survey Gizmo into the software ‘Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)’. The dataset was checked for missing values and data
quality of consistency and accuracy. All the missing values were removed from the dataset by
3

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
ascribing missing values codes for data that was either directly missing, not applicable or where
the respondents indicated a no response.

ii.3.1 Recoded Variables

1. The variables measured by the ten (10) point rating scale were recoded into new
variables and ascribed the values: very poor (10%), poor (20-30%), average (40-
50%), fair (60-70%) good (80-90%), excellent (100%).
2. The responses for the open-ended questions were grouped and recoded into similar
responses.

ii.4 Data Analysis and Statistical Measures

The results and analysis was done using descriptive statistics. The arithmetic mean was the
sole Central tendency that was used to provide the averages for each rating scale. Also cross-
tabulation frequency outputs were done to provide bivariate analysis between specific variables.
Multiple response outputs were utilised to determine the exact number of respondents and
responses that were provided for the statements across the focus areas.

ii.4.1 Five (5) Point Agreement/Satisfaction Scale

The agreement scale consisted of statements that required respondents to either strongly
agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree or be neutral in their response. The scale ran from
one (1) to five (5) respectively. The satisfaction scale, also ranged from one (1) to five (5) where
the options were extremely satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, extremely dissatisfied or neutral. The
likert scale presented in the analysis is an interval scale and therefore the averages (mean of
the means) was calculated to ascertain the level of agreement and or satisfaction of the
respondents across the focal areas. It should be noted that neutral in the survey was not an
option for undecided, but it was reflective of the respondents that did not have a strongly
inclination to agree nor disagree with the respective statements. More so, it was a suggestion
that they were not fully dissatisfied but that they were not satisfied.

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
ii.4.1.1 Mean of the Means
The statements were grouped and computed. The mean of means was used to attain the
overall average score for the statements used to measure the respondents’ agreement or
satisfaction for each focus areas. This was done by finding the average scores for each
statement, and dividing the sum of those means by the total number of statements within the
focus area being assessed.

ii.4.2 Ten (10) Point Rating Scale

The ten (10) point rating scale was used to obtain the overall customer satisfaction rating for the
focus areas. Similarly to the mean of means, each average of the customer satisfaction rate,
across the focus areas, were summed and divided by the total maximum score (100%) for each
area . This was done to ascertain whether the entities met the target score of 80 per cent, in
order to achieve the acceptable threshold for service standard.

ii.4.3 Cross-tabulation Frequency

Cross-tabulation frequency output were utilised to show a bivariate analysis to compare results
across two variables; no statistical test was conducted to measure correlation between the
variables.

ii.4.4 Multiple Response

Multiple response outputs were used to ascertain the number of respondents and responses
obtained for the statements assessed for each focus area.

ii.5 Limitation to Survey

The methodology of the survey, as it relates to the target sample size, data collection, entry of
data and data analysis were impacted by the following limitations:

1. Sample Collection

- Lack of corporation from some entities to provide customers’ information.

- Challenges of some agencies and divisions to provide customers’ information in a
timely manner.
5

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 - Lack of active/updated customer information from agencies and visions.
- High level of inaccurate customer information.

2. Data Collection/ Telephonic Interviews

- Scheduled telephonic interviews interrupted the personal or work time of the

respondents
- Often difficult to reconnect with respondents that requested a call back at their
specified time.
- Disruption of broadband and telephone connection issues to conduct the interviews
- Data was not normally distributed and therefore limited the analysis of the findings to
mainly descriptive statistic.
- Limited staff members to accelerate the timely completion of the data collection
exercise.

3. Period of Survey

- Covid-19 related issues caused disruption in the normal operations of respondents

and entities to actively participate in the survey.

4. Research Instrument/ Likert Scale

- The survey instrument was lengthy and took approximately 20 to 30 minutes on

average to complete; this caused annoyance for some respondents.
- Perception surveys with scale type questions can be easily misinterpreted.
- Susceptible for skewed data.
- Possibility to produce bias responses.

5. Data Processing & Analysis

- Difficult and time consuming to group open-ended responses into similar groups.
Produces outliers
- Data was not normally distributed and therefore limited the analysis of the findings to
mainly descriptive statistic.
- Unable to make generalisations, as inferential statics to measure relationships and
patterns could not have been utilised.

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
iii. Summary Tables of Main Findings
This section provides a brief summary of the main findings:

 Table iii.1 Customers’ Composition

 Table iii.2 Average score for Agreement Scale
 Table iii.3 Average score for Satisfaction Scale
 Table iii.4 Customer Satisfaction on Ten (10) Point Rating Scale

iii.1 Summary of Customers’ Composition

The data provides a summary of the customers’ composition. The results are presented, either,
in the full percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution for the category or variable.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondent Surveyed: 331
 Males 230 (69.6%)
 Females 101 (30.5%)
Type of Customer: Number of Respondent: 331
 Individual 274 (82.8%)
 Organisation 57 (17.2%)
Customers’ Main Methods to Access Number of Respodents:326
Products & Services:
 Walk-in 168 (51.5%)
 Telephone 81 (24.8%)
Preferred Methods to Access Products & Number of Respondents:329
Services:
 Walk-in 116 (35.3%)
 Online 99 (30.1%)

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
iii.2 Summary of Agreement Scale
The table below presents the average score for statements that were used to measure each
focus area on the five (5) point agreement scale. All the statements, within each focus area,
were sum and the averages computed.

Agreement Scale
Mean Number of Number of
Focus Areas Analysis of Score
Score Respondents Responses
Responsiveness** Responses mainly showed agreement
2 328 2034 that the entities were responsive with
service delivery.
Process & Facility** Responses mainly showed agreement
2 326 2439 that the entities’ process and facility
were efficient.
Communication** Responses were neutral on level of
3 326 1732
communication being efficient.
Reliability of Service Responses mainly showed agreement
2 322 1079
** that service was reliable.
Payment Process** Responses were neutral that the
3 311 548
payment process was efficient.
Agreement Scale** 1 Strongly Agree, 2 Agree, 3 Neutral, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly Disagree

iii.3 Summary of Satisfaction Scale

The table below shows the average score for satisfaction with customer service and customer
experience.

Satisfaction Scale
Mean Number of
Focus Areas Analysis of Score
Score respondents
Customer Service *** Respondents were mainly
2 321
satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Respondents were mainly
Experience*** 2 320 satisfied with Customer
Experience
Satisfaction Scale*** 1 Extremely Satisfied, 2 Satisfied, 3 Neutral, 4 Dissatisfied, 5 Extremely Dissatisfied

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 iii.4 Summary of Overall Customer
Satisfaction Rate
The table below illustrates the average rating on the ten (10) for the overall satisfaction rate with
efficiencies of the focus areas. This was used to compute the Ministry’s over customer
satisfaction rate.

Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Average Target
Focus Areas Analysis of Score
Rating Rating
Responsiveness **** 80% 80% Met target service standard
Efficiency of Process &
80% 80% Met target service standard
Facility****
Efficiency of
70% 80% Did not meet target service standard
Communication****
Overall Customer
76% 80% Did not meet target service standard
Satisfaction Rate
Ten Point Rating Scale**** 1 Very Poor, 2- 3-Poor, 4-5 Average, 6-7 Fair, 8-9 Good, 10 Excellent

iv. List of Entities Surveyed

The table below illustrates the entities and the respective number of respondents that were
surveyed.

Number of
Portfolio Agencies
Respondents
Jamaica Dairy Development Board (JDDB) 26
National Irrigation Commission (NIC) 67
Jamaica Agricultural Commodities Regulatory
27
Authority (JACRA)
Agro Investment Corporation (AIC) 17
Rural Agricultural Development Authority (RADA) 50
Divisions
Research & Development Division 48
Plant Quarantine Produce Inspection Division
37
Agricultural Land Management Division (ALMD)
31
Veterinary Services Division
28

Total 331
9

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 COMPREHENSIVE REPORT

10

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

A total of 331 customers were surveyed; approximately 69% (230) of the distribution were
males. There was a similar spread of nearly 23% for each age category, expect for those within
the age range of 21-30 years. That age group accounted for only eight (8) per cent (26) of the
distribution (Figure 1).

Age Group Distribution

Over 60 yrs 18
59 Group Frequency (%)

51 - 60 yrs 16 21-30 26 7.9%

59
31-40 77 23.3%
AGE GROUP

41 - 50 yrs 28
48
41-50 76 23.0%
31 - 40 yrs 27
50 51-60 75 22.7%

21 - 30 yrs 12 60 + 77 23.3%
14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total 331 100.0%

Female Male

F IGURE 1: AGE & SEX COMPOSITION

2. Type of Customer by Geographical Location

Of 331 customers, 83% (274) were individual customers; while the remainder was customers
associated through an organisation.

Among the individual customers, the largest proportion resided or operated in the parishes of
Kingston and St. Andrew, which represented 20% (56) of the sample. The second largest
proportion was from the parishes of St. Catherine and Clarendon, which accounted for 18% (48)
and 15% (42) of the distribution, respectively (Figure 2).

11

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 60 56
50 48

No. of Respondents
40 42
30 30
20 18
25
11 12
10 8 10
3 7 4
0

Parish

F IGURE 2: I NDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS BY LOCATION

3. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
A sum 326 respondents indicated their main methods to access products and services across
the agencies and divisions. Approximately 52% (168) physically visited the entities, while 25%
(81) said they used the telephone. The remaining respondents either accessed the services
online or a representative visited the customers directly (Table 1).

T ABLE 1: CROSS TABULATION - MAIN M ETHODS BY AGE GROUP

Main Methods
Age Group
Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

21 - 30 11 (42.3%) 5 (19.2%) 8 (30.8%) 2 (7.7%) 26 (7.9%)

31 - 40 44 (58.7%) 19 (25.3%) 6 (8.0%) 6 (8.0%) 75 (23.1%)
41 - 50 48 (64.9%) 7 (9.5%) 11 (14.9%) 8 (10.8%) 74 (22.7%)
51 - 60 29 (39.2%) 28 (37.8% 8 (10.8%) 9 (12.2%) 74 22.7%)
Over 60 36 (46.8%) 22 (28.6%) 4 (5.2%) 15 (19.5%) 77 (23.6%)
Column
168(51.5%) 81(24.8%) 37 (11.3%) 40 (12.3%) 326 (100.0%)
Total (%)

12

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. Preferred Methods to Access Products and Services
The preferred methods to access service was analysed against the respondents’ main methods;
this information was disclosed by 329 respondents. The largest proportion of the distribution,
(35%, 116), indicated they would rather to physically visit the entities.

However it was discovered that in comparison to their main methods, more respondents
specified that they would prefer to access the products and service online. This accounted for
30% (99) of the respondents, which was the second largest proportion. The data showed that
more respondents within the 21 to 30 age group would rather to do online services; this was
also a noticeable pattern across all age groups (Table 2).

T ABLE 2: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age Group
Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

21 - 30 8 (30.8%) 5 (19.2%) 13 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 26 (7.9%)

31 - 40 24 (31.2%) 20 (26.0%) 25 (32.5%) 77 (23.4%)

8 (10.4%)
41 - 50 33 (44.6%) 7 (9.5%) 27 (36.5%) 7 (9.5%) 74 (22.5%)
51 - 60 23 (30.7%) 18 (24.0%) 23 (30.7%) 11 (14.7%) 75 (22.8%)
Over 60 28 (36.4%) 20 (26.0%) 11 (14.3%) 18 (23.4%) 77 (23.4%)
Colum
Total (%) 116 (35.3%) 70 (21.3%) 99 (30.1%) 44 (13.4%) 329 (100.0%)

Responsiveness
Responsiveness measures the speed and quality at which the agencies and divisions provided
service excellence to its customers. Responsiveness was therefore assessed by the customers’
agreement on the service standard of delivery time of products and services and how the
respective staff delivered the same.

13

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 1. Delivery of Products/Services
Just about 54% (175) of the respondents said they agreed that the entities delivered the
products and services within the standard time-frame; while 24% (76) strongly agreed when
compared to 15% (48) that, collectively, disagreed and strongly disagreed that the entities
delivered the products and service within the stipulated time-frame.

For expectations on quality of delivery, 52% (170) agreed that the entities’ quality of service
delivery met their expectations (Figure 3).

Therefore, the mean score across both statements was two (2) along the agreement scale; this
indicated that the majority of the respondents agreed that the entities were generally responsive
with product and service delivery.

Strongly Disagree 11 7
Disagree 37 22
Neutral 23 30
Agree 175 170
Strongly Agree 76 97

Delivered products/service within standard time

Quality of product/service met expectation
F IGURE 3: AGREEMENT SCALE - RESPONSIVENESS

2. Staff Responsiveness
A total of 320 respondents provided 1386 responses on staff responsiveness. The mean score
obtained for this category was two (2); as 52% (738) of the responses were in agreement (738)
that the Ministry’s staff, across the portfolio agencies and divisions, were responsive to service
delivery.

The statements with the most disagreement were with ‘staff returning a call if a promised to do
so was made, accessibility of staff and the frontline staff ability to resolve concerns’ (Figure 4).

14

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 FRONTLINE STAFF WAS EMPATHIC & ABLE TO
RESOLVE CONCERNS
83 178 16 14 4

STAFF WAS READILY ACCESSIBLE 91 139 26 18 10

AGENT RETURNED CALLED IF PROMISED 68 134 14 32 16

FRONTLINE STAFF APPROACHABLE &
KNOWLEDGEABLE
110 147 19 50

WALK-IN APPOINTS STAFF WAS PROFESSIONAL 103 140 14 50

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 4: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

3. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

A sum of 325 respondents rated the overall responsiveness to delivery products and services
on a ten (10) point rating scale. The average rating was 80 per cent. This was due to 44% (144)
of the respondents that rated responsiveness as being good, while 26% (85) and 19% (90)
expressed that it was either fair or excellent, respectively (Figure 5).

160 144
Rating Scale Frequency(%)
140 1 Very poor 3 (0.9%)
NO. OF RESPONDENTS

120
2-3 Poor 6 (1.8%)
100 85
80
4-5 Average 27 (8.3%)
60
60 6-7 Fair 85 (26.2%)
40 27 8-9 Good 144 (44.3%)
20 6
3 10 Excellent 60 (18.5%)
0
Very Poor Poor Average Fair Good Excellent Total 325 (100.0%)
RATING
F IGURE 5: SATISFACTION WITH RESPONSIVENESS

15

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
v. Process & Facility
Efficiency of process and facility was measured by ease of doing business and comfort of
facility.

1. Ease of doing Business

Ease of doing business was reported by 326 respondents, which gave a total of 1869 responses
across the agreement scale to measure ease of doing business. The mean score obtained was
two (2); approximately 53% (998) of the responses were in agreement that there was some form
of ease in the processes when conducting business with the entities.

While this was so, 22% (407) of the responses, collectively, disagreed that there was ease of
doing business. There were noticeable records of disagreement with statements on efficiency
on service delivery, availability of different payment options and calls being answered within
service standard time-frame of five (5) rings (Figure 6).

36 147 16 8 3

Calls were answered within five(5) rings 40 160 30 29 6

Queries sent by e-mails was addressed within a… 21 69 6 11 8

E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 18 73 14 15 11

Had various payment options 31 142 36 31 10

Delivery time satisfactory and Efficient 63 176 27 33 17

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 10 24 18 151 57

Steps/process to access service was easy to… 78 207 20 143

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 6: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINES S

16

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Comfort of Facility

The comfort of the facilities was measured by the three (3) statements in the figure below.
Comfort of the facility was reported by 229 respondents, which gave 570 responses along the
agreement scale.

The collective mean of the statements was three (3), which highlighted that the average
responses were neutral that the facilities provided adequate comfort to enhance customers’
experience. This result was affected by the respondents mainly disagreeing that the entities
were equipped to handle customers with a disability. However, they did agree that the entities
had adequate security and amenities (Figure 7).

Facility had adequate security 31 136 27 20 3

Facility had sufficient amentities 23 131 30 28 5

Facility was equipped to handle customers

4 53 10 52 17
with a disability

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 7: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

3. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

The efficiency of the process and facility obtained an averaged satisfaction rating of 80%;
almost one half, (49%, 131), of the respondents rated the efficiency of the process and facility
as being good; while another 39% (105) said it was fair (Figure 8).

17

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Satisfaction -Process &
Facility

Very Poor, 5, Poor, 5, 2%

2%
Good, 131, Average, 22,
49% 8%

Fair, 105, 39%

F IGURE 8: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PROCESS & FACILITY

vi. Communication
Six (6) statements were used to measure agreement of the entities’ level of communication to
serve the public. The statements were used to ascertain whether the customers’ perceived that
the level of communication from the entities were in an efficient manner to deliver quality of
service and heighten customer experience.

1. Level of Communication
A sum of 326 respondents reported on the level of communication along the agreement scale;
exactly 1732 responses were obtained. The sum mean, for this focus area, recorded an overall
score of three (3) on the scale; this seeks to explain that the average number of respondents
were mainly neutral in their perception that the entities’ level of communication was efficient
(Figure 9).

18

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 There were adequate advertisment in the media 16 90 36 83 22

Documents were written in a manner that was easily

70 204 13123
understood
Touch points to access info about product/service was
37 144 62 1211
communicated clearly
Staff communicated effectively about
79 209 23 11
products/services
Entity invited you to participate in the design of
18 47 9 156 70
product/service
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new
53 90 23 89 40
products

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

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 9: A GREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

The respondents largely agreed with the statements that documents were written in a clear
manner; staff was capable to communicate with customers effectively; and that touch points to
access information were available.

The main areas of disagreement were with adequate advertisements in the media, invitation to
participate in the design and development of the service; and adequate follow-up to notify
customers about the products and services (Figure 9).

2. Overall Satisfaction with Level of Communication

A total of 314 respondents rated the entities’ level of communication. The average satisfaction
rating received was 70%, which highlighted that the majority of the respondents perceived that
the level of communication was fair. This was due to roughly one half (46%, 143) of the
distribution that rated communication between fair to very poor; while 54% (171) accounted for
those that rated communication from good to excellent (Figure 10).

19

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 OVERALL SATISFACTION-COMMUNICATION
Very Poor, 5,
2%
Excellent, 52, Poor, 12, 4%
16%
Average, 44,
14%

Good, 119, Fair, 82, 26%

38%

F IGURE 10: OVERALL SATISFACTION - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

Reliability of Service
Reliability of service was measured by the five (5) statement variables provided in figure 11
below. The mean score, of these statements, along the agreement scale was two (2); which
mainly purported that customers agreed that the services of agencies and divisions were
reliable (Figure 11).

If there was another entity that provided the same

10 56 66 139 31
products/services you would switch
Found the online platforms to be functional and up-to-
65 52 28 70
date

Prefer more flexible business hours 2 3 1 1 0

Service can be reliably accessed during regular work

70 216 1361
hours
Generally feel confident that you will always get the
68 169 44 25 1
best quality of service

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 11: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

20

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Majority of the respondents agreed that they felt confident that they would generally get quality
service from the entities. Additionally, they also reported to be satisfied with the regular
business hours and did not need extended hours to access the services. However, based on
the results, it was noted that respondents mainly disagree on the functionality the entities’ online
platforms (Figure 11).

1. Perceived Customer Loyalty

The respondents were asked if there were other entities that provided the same services and
products, as the Ministry’s agencies and divisions, would they switch to those providers.
Approximately 56% (170) of 302 respondents disagreed; while 22% (66) agreed that they would
switch (Figure 12).

200 170
150
No of RESPONDENTS

100 66 66
50

0
Yes Unsure No
RESPONSES

F IGURE 12: PERCEPTION ON S WITCHING TO ANOTHER SERVICE PROVIDER

Exactly 57 of the 66 respondents that said they would switch provided the reasons. The largest
proportion (23%, 13) said they had received poor service, while 18% (10) reportedly would
switch because of the fees and prices for the products and services (Appendix 2).

Payment Process
Efficiency of payment process was measure by the respondents’ agreement on willingness to
pay more for faster service and the entities’ availability of different payment options.

21

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 1. Availability of Different Payment Options
Agreement that the entities had different payment options to meet of customers’ needs was
provided by 250 respondents. Just about 57% (142) agreed that the entities had implemented
different payment options, when compared to a combination of 16% (41) that disagreed and
strongly disagreed that the entities had various types of payment options (Figure 13).

160
140 142
120
No. of Responses

100
80
60
40 36
31
20 31 10
0
Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
Frequency 31 142 36 31 10
F IGURE 13: A GREEMENT SCALE - PAYMENT OPTIONS

2. Willingness to Pay for Faster Service

Agreement on willingness to pay for faster service was expressed by 298 respondents. When
combined, just about 50% (149) of the distribution disagreed and strongly disagreed that they
would be willing to pay more. Additionally, 11% (33) of the respondents were neutral on the
idea; while the remaining 39% (116) either said they agreed or strongly agreed (Figure 14).
NO. OF RESPONDENTS

92 95

54
33
24

Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
Frequency 24 92 33 95 54

F IGURE 14: W ILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FOR FASTER SERVICE

22

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
In combination of the two statement variables, the average mean received a score of three (3);
this indicated that the majority of the respondents were neutral that the entities had an efficient
payment process (Figure 14).

Overall Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Exactly 321 respondents reported on their level of satisfaction with the customer service
received the agencies and divisions. A little over one half (52%, 167) revealed that they were
satisfied when compared to 34% (110) that expressed that they were extremely satisfied.
Extreme dissatisfaction was expressed by only one (1) respondent, while three (3) per cent
indicated that they were only dissatisfied with the service. The remaining 10% (33) of the
respondents expressed that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (Figure 15).

350
321 320
300

250
No. of Respondnets

200 167 176

150
110
96
100

50 33 35
10 13 1 0
0
Extremely Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Extremely Total
Satisfied Dissatisfied

satisfaction with customer service Satisfaction with entire customer experience

F IGURE 15: SATISFACTION SCALE - CUSTOMER SERVICE & CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

23

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience
A total of 320 respondents expressed their overall views on how satisfied they were with the
entire customer experience1. Approximately 55% (176) of the respondents felt that they were
satisfied with their experience; 30% (98) were extremely satisfied, while only four (4) per cent
expressed dissatisfaction. The remaining 11% (35) of the respondents felt neutral about their
experience (Figure 15).

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Among the five (5) inter-ministerial agencies, only Rural Agricultural Development Authority
(RADA) obtained a satisfaction score of 80 per cent. The others recorded scores that ranged
from 70 per cent to 77 per cent. Of the four (4) intra-ministerial divisions, only Agricultural Land
Management and Veterinary Services achieved a satisfaction score of 80% and 83%,
respectively. As a result, the Ministry obtained an overall customer satisfaction score of 76%;
this represented a four (4) percentage gap in service quality from meeting the target service
standard of 80 per cent (Table 3)

T ABLE 3: MINISTRY ’ S OVERALL CUSTOMER S ATISFACTION RATE

Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate
Service Dimensions/Focus Areas
Process and Average
Name of Entity Responsiveness Facility Communication Score
1 Agricultural Land
80% 80% 80% 80%
Management Division
2 Agro-Investment
70% 70% 70% 70%
Corporation
3 Research and
80% 70% 60% 70%
Development Division
4 Jamaica Agricultural
Commodities Regulatory 70% 70% 70% 70%
Authority
5 Jamaica Dairy
80% 70% 80% 77%
Development Board
6 National Irrigation
70% 70% 70% 70%
Commission
7 Plant Quarantine
80% 80% 70% 77%
Produce Inspection
8 Rural Agricultural
80% 80% 80% 80%
Development Authority
9 Veterinary Services
90% 80% 80% 83%
Division
Overall Customer Satisfaction rate 76%

1
Customer experience, in general, is the result of every interaction a customer has with an entity, from
navigating the website to talking to customer service and receiving the final product or service
24

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Conclusion & Recommendation
The survey was conducted during one of the most challenging period, with the presence of the
novel corona virus (COVID 19) pandemic. Despite this challenge, the Ministry was able to
conduct its first independent customer satisfaction survey for its external customers.

Approximately 331 respondents were surveyed across nine (9) entities. The preponderance of
the sample was males, which was chiefly as a result of agricultural industries being male
dominated. Across the different age groups there was a similar spread in the distribution, except
for those within the 20 to 31 cohort; this age group accounted for only eight (8) per cent of the
sample. This too, could be as a result of agricultural industries, mainly farming, being classified
as a rural, gender and age stereotype that mostly males of older age groups, living in rural
communities practice farming.

The respondents primarily accessed the services by walk-in appointments and were mainly
individual customers or sole traders that predominately operated in the parishes of Kingston and
St. Andrew, St. Elizabeth, Clarendon and St. Catherine. The majority of the respondents
indicated that they would prefer to continue walk-in appointments to access products and
services, but this reflected a decrease in the numbers of respondents. This was so, because the
second largest proportion of the respondents expressed preferences for doing business online.
There was no significant difference in preference of online services versus walk-in appointments
across the age groups. However, it was noted that the youngest age group (20 to 31 years) had
the highest percentage preference for online services.

Based on the service experiences across the focus areas, the respondents felt that the entities
were responsive in the delivery of products and services. They largely believed that staff was
professional and knowledgeable when delivering the same. More importantly, in a culture that
desire quick and hassle-free service, the respondents mainly felt that the entities provided ease
of doing business and that the processes to access the products and services were easy to use
and understand. Based on this positive outlook, they ultimately agreed that the service was
somewhat reliable. However, the respondents reported high level of disagreement that the
Ministry’s portfolio agencies and divisions were adequately equipped to serve customers that
were living with a disability.

25

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
As it relates to level of communication, the respondents were of a neutral view on the entities’
efficiency to successfully interact. They perceived that the entities did not do enough to keep
customers aware of the products and services through traditional and social media. More so,
they were of the opinion that the entities did not provide sufficient interaction and engagement
with customers. They desired regular follow-ups through text messages, telephone calls and e-
mails that would facilitate updates on service status.

Notwithstanding the challenges, the respondents were reportedly satisfied with the customer
service, as efficiencies with responsiveness and process and facility met the service standards
and obtained an 80% customer satisfaction rate. But, the respondents thought that the entities
could do more to improve areas of communication to better serve the public. Communication
was the only service dimension that did not meet the target score. This focus area achieved an
overall satisfaction rate of 70%, which was a ten (10) percentage gap in service quality. The
surveyed proved that while the entities had made strides in providing service quality, there were
still some level of dissatisfaction and subsequent need for gradual improvement. Of the nine (9)
entities, only three (3) were able to achieve an overall customer satisfaction rate of 80 per cent.
Consequently, this hampered the Ministry from achieving the target score. For the year under
review, the Ministry’s overall customer satisfaction rate was 76 per cent, falling four (4) per cent
behind from the 80% target score.

Nonetheless, majority of the respondents were of the perception that they would not switch from
the Ministry’s entities, if there were other entities available that provided the same products and
services. While this was so, the minority that thought they would switch, revealed that this could
be contributory to poor service, high processing fees and slow turn-around time to delivery
products and services.

It is therefore being recommended that the entities develop robust strategies to strengthen
relationship ties and involvement with their customers to enhance the efforts of service delivery
and quality. Based on these findings it is being recommended:

1. Increase horizontal coordination between inter-ministerial agencies with interconnected

services to improve efficiency of service delivery.
2. Each portfolio agency and division should use their respective results to analyse the
focus areas that needs improvement and arrange strategic efforts to bolster service
recovery.
26

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Entities should review their level of communication, and seek ways to increase
interaction to mobilise customer engagement.
4. Tailor communication efforts and service delivery by targeting and segmenting
customers into to similar clusters by their demographic composition to maximise
efficiency of service delivery needs.
5. In order to improve and maintain customer satisfaction, entities should increase level of
customers’ involvement in the design and development of products, service and
process.
6. Entities should review their payment process to reinforce the efficiency with ease of
doing business by implementing various methods of payment, such as online payment.
7. Based on the limitations of the survey, each entity is being encouraged to keep an active
and regularly updated customer databank; as this will facilitate efficiency when
conducting the monitoring and evaluation of customer satisfaction.
8. Heads of Departments should liaison with their internal departments to encourage and
foster corporation for greater level of participate with the Ministry’s mandate to monitor
and evaluate satisfaction among its external customers.
9. Majority of the customers accessed the products and services by walk-in appoint;
entities can therefore increase efforts of service recovery by implementation and
monitoring of an active suggestion box to recover complaints, queries and compliments.
10. Online services were the second preferred method to access products and services,
entities should revise mechanisms that can improve their online presence and service
offerings.

27

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
ANNEX REPORTS
List of Reports
1. Agro-Investment Corporation
2. Jamaica Diary Development Board
3. Jamaica Agricultural Commodities Regulatory Authority
4. National Irrigation Commission
5. Rural Agricultural Development Authority
6. Agricultural Land Management Division
7. Research And Development Division
8. Plant Quarantine Produce Inspection
9. Vet Services Division

28

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 AGRO-INVESTMENT
CORPORATION

29

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for the 17 respondents that were
surveyed. The frequency output either reflects the full percentages or the largest proportion of
the distribution. The scale type responses are presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 17
 Males 15 (88.2%)
 Females 2 (11.8%)
Main Methods to access Products &
Services:
 Walk-in 10 (58.8%)
 Telephone 6 (35.3%)
Preferred Methods to access Products
&Services:
 Walk-in 8 (47.1%)
 Online 4 (23.5%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Responsiveness 2 -Agreed that the entity was responsive
with service delivery
Process & Facility 2- Agreed that entity’s process and facility
was efficient
Communication 2- Agreed that level of communication
was efficient
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Efficiency of Responsiveness 70% - Did not meet target service standard
Efficiency of Process and Facility 70% - Did not meet target service standard
Efficiency of Communication 70%- Did not meet target service standard
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Customer Satisfaction Rate 70%- Did not meet target service standard

30

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age & Sex

A total of 17 respondents were captured during the survey; 88% (15) were males. The
respondents’ age group ranged from 31 to 40 years up to 60 years and over. The only two (2)
female respondents were within the age groups 51 to 60 years and 60 years and over (Figure
16).

51 - 60 yrs
Age Group

31 - 40 yrs
0 2 4 6

31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs

Female 0 0 1 1
Male 5 2 3 5

F IGURE 16: AGE & SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
The table below illustrates the main methods respondents used to access products and
services. More than one half (59%, 10) of the respondents visited the entity. Approximately
35% (6) said they used the telephone; while only one (1) respondent gained access online.

T ABLE 4: CROSS TABULATION - MAIN METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Main Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

31 - 40 2 (40.0%) 2 (40.0%) 1 (20.0%) - 5 (29.4%)

41 - 50 2(100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 2 (11.8%)
51 - 60 1 (25.0%) 3 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 4 (23.5%)
Over 60 5 (83.3%) 1 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) - 6(35.3%)
Column
Total (%) 10 (58.8%) 6 (35.3%) 1 (5.9%) - 17(100.0%)

31

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Preferred Methods to Access Products and Services
The 17 respondents disclosed their preferred methods of access. Just about 47% (8) said they
would prefer to continue visiting the entity; 24% (4), each, would rather to use the telephone or
online. In comparison to the main methods, the data revealed that more persons would prefer
online services (Table 5).

T ABLE 5: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age
Group Visit from Tele- Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent conferencing (%)

31 - 40 2 (40.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (40.0%) - 1 (20.0%) 5 (29.4%)

41 - 50 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 0 (0.0%) 2 (11.8%)

51 - 60 1 (25.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (25.0%) - 0 (0.0%) 4 (23.5%)

Over 60 3 (50.0%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (16.7%) - 0 (0.0%) 6 (35.3%)

Colum
Total
(%) 8 (47.1%) 4 (23.5%) 4 (23.5%) - 1 (5.9%) 17(100.0%)

Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

Among the respondents, a total of 34 responses were received on the statements used to
measure responsiveness to delivery products and services. Plates one (1) and two (2), shows
the distribution of the respondents’ views along the agreement scale.

Roughly, 77% (13) agreed that the entity delivered the product in standard time-frame (Plate 1).
For customers’ expectation on quality of the delivery of products and service, 53% (9) and 23%
(4) indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed that the quality met their expectations,
respectively (Plate 2). Therefore, the average score for responsiveness to delivery products
and services was two (2) on the agreement scale.

32

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Strongly
Strongly Disagree-
Agree- 2 (12%)
1(5%) Neutral- 2
(12%)
Disagree-
3(18%) Strongly agree- 4
(23%)

Agree- 13 (77%) Agree- 9 (53%)

P LATE 1: STANDARD DELIVERY TIME P LATE 2: EXPECTATION ON QUALITY OF DELIVERY

2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Delivery

of Products and Services
The respondents were asked to state factors that they liked and or dislike about the
products and services received from the entity. Approximately, 29% (5) and 24% (4)
indicated that they either liked the quality of the products and services or the interaction they
received from the staff, respectively. The third largest proportion, with 17% (3), liked the fact
that the entity provided support for small businesses (Figure 17).

Accessiblity to Information/process 1
Product/Service was good 5
Type of Resoponses

Service was personalized 1

Convenience of facility 1
Product/Service Cost Effective 1
Provide support for small business 3
Interact/follow-up with customer 4
Staff helpful/Pleasant/Professional 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

No. of Respondents
F IGURE 17: AREAS OF SATISFACTIO N WITH PRODUCTS & SERVICES

33

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
As for the factors that the respondents disliked, 25% (3) perceived the level of communication or
service to be unsatisfactory, while 17% (2) thought the turn-around time for product and service
delivery was lengthy.

There was an even distribution of respondents that thought the entity did not fulfill its promises,
had strict policies and regulations or provided inaccurate information about the products and
services (Figure 18).

Areas of Dissatisfaction

Turn around time slow

2, 17%
3, 25%
Strict policy, restrictions
1, 9% regulations

1, 8% 1, 9% Does not fulfil promise to

customer
1, 8% 1, 8% Received Inaccurate/
1, 8% 1, 8% inadequate nformation

F IGURE 18: AREAS OF DISSATISFAC TION WITH PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

1. Staff Responsiveness
Staff responsiveness to service customers was measured with five (5) statements below. A sum
of 81 responses was received on the agreement the statements. The mean score obtained was
two (2), as 58% (47) of responses revealed that the respondents mainly agreed that staff was
responsive; while another 22% (18) strongly agreed.

Areas with the high level of agreement were with staff being professional, approachable and
knowledgeable about the products and services (Figure 19).

34

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Frontline staff was empathic & able to resolve
1 11 2 3
concerns

Staff was readily accessible 4 7 2 1 1

Agent returned called if promised 2 11 1 2

Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 4 10 1 1

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 7 8 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 19: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

2. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

Approximately 65% (11) of 17 respondents rated responsiveness between fair to good; as a

result, the average score for this focus area received an overall satisfaction rating of 70 per
cent (Figure 20).

Overall Satisfaction Rating -Responsiveness

6, 35%
5, 29%
7, 41%
2, 12%

3, 18%

1, 6%

Very Poor Average Fair Good Excellent

F IGURE 20: OVERALL RATING - RESPONSIVENESS

35

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Process and Facility
1. Ease of Doing Business
A total of 112 responses on the agreement with ease of doing business were measured by the
statements illustrated in figure 21 below. Just about 59% (66) of the responses were agreement
that there was ease of doing business. As a result, the mean score obtained was two (2) along
the scale (Figure 21).

Steps/process to access service was easy to use 2 11 2 1

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 2 1 12

Delivery time satisfactory and Efficient 1 10 2 3 1

Had various payment options 2 8 2 2 1

E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 5 2 1 2

Queries sent by e-mail were addressed within a… 1 6 2

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 2 11 1 1

Telephone operate was efficient and correctly… 2 13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 21: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
Comfort of the entity was measured by adequate security to make customers feel safe while
conducting business, the facility’s physical infrastructure to serve customers living with a
disability and adequate amenities such as chairs and water coolers.

A sum of 39 responses was recorded. The average score on the scale was three (3); this was
an indication that responses were neutral about the comfort of the facility. This was largely
attributed to significant disagreement with the facility being equipped to handle customers with a
disability. However, the respondents did agree that the entity had adequate security and
provided sufficient amenities for comfort while conducting business (Figure 22).

36

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Facility had adequate security 3 11 1

Facility had sufficient amentities 2 8 3 2

Facility was equipped to handle customers

1 1 6 1
with a disability

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 22: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

3. Factors to Improve Process

Fifteen (15) respondents provided information on the factors they believed the entity should
review in order to increase efficiency of its business processes. Approximately 53% (8) of the
respondents thought the entity can improve their response time and communicative interaction
with its customers; 20% (3) reported that the entity needed more staff that was informed or
knowledgeable about the services. There was an even distribution of respondents that thought
the entity needed to: review or decrease fees, provide more variation of products, conduct
customer service training for staff; as well as, provide more assistance for farmers and small
businesses (Figure 23).

9 Factors to improve Process:

8 8
7 Review Fees 1 (6.6%)
No. of Respondents

6
5
4 Train staff in customer service 1 (6.6%)
3 3
2 Increase assistance 1 (6.6%)
1 1 1 1 1
0 Response time & 8 (53.6%)
Communication

More informed Staff 3 (20.0%)

Product Variation 1 (6.6%)

Total 15(100.0%)
Factors

F IGURE 23: FACTORS TO IMPROVE EF FICIENCY OF PROCESS

37

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility
The entity received an average satisfaction rating of 70% for process and facility. This was due
to 59% (10) of the respondents that indicated that process and facility was fair; while 23% (4)
said that it was good (Figure 24).

10
10
8
No. of Responses

6
4
4
2 2
1
0
Very Poor Fair Good Excellent
Rating

F IGURE 24: O VERALL SATISFACTION – PROCESS & FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
Ninety-three (93) responses were ascertained on the agreement scale for the level of
communication. Up to 67% (63) of the responses were in agreement that the entity’s level of
communication was somewhat efficient. The respondents largely agreed with the statements
that the staff communicated effectively and that information was available at all touch points.
The respondents mostly disagree with statements on the entity’s level of engagement to invite
customers to participate in the development or design of the products and service and that there
were adequate advertisement in the media (Figure 25). As such, the average score recorded
for communication was two (2) along the agreement scale.

38

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 There were adequate advertisment in the media 2 6 2 5

Dcouments were written in a manner that waseasily… 3 9 3 1

Touch points to access info about product/service… 1 10 3 2

Staff communicated effectively about… 2 13 1 1

Entity invited you to participate in the design of… 6 6 1

Entity had adequate updates on existing and new… 3 8 2 1 2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 25: AGREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

2. Areas to Improve Communication

Exactly 10 of the 17 respondents expressed their views on ways to improve level of
communication. Forty (40) per cent would like to see increases in staff interaction with
customers; followed by an even spread of 20% (2), that felt that the entity should advertise more
on traditional media; as well as, train staff to practice active listening (Figure 26).

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Frequency
Advertise more in traditonal
2
media- tv radio/ new letter
Train Staff to communicate
2
clear/Active listening
Make online system user
1
friendly
Increase site visits by reps 1
Improve staff's responsiveness 4

F IGURE 26: A REAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION

39

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Level of Communication
Communication obtained an average satisfaction rating of 70 per cent. Between 47% (8) and
29% (5) of the respondents, the rating for level of communication ranged from fair to good,
respectively (Figure 27).

8
No. of Respondents

5
2
1

1
VERY POOR AVERAGE FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

Rating

F IGURE 27: OVERALL RATING - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

Reliability of Service
A sum of 42 responses was collected on the statements to measure reliability of service. Based
on the results, the mean score recoded was two (2) on the scale; this was supported by the
largest proportion of the respondents that chiefly agreed that the services of the entity were
reliable. Only a marginal number of the respondents disclosed that they disagreed that the
online platform was functional and up-to-date, or felt confident that they would always get the
best quality of service (Figure 28).

Found the online platform to be

1 7 1 3
functional and up-to-date
Service can be reliably accessed during
2 15
regular work hours
Generally you feel confident that you will
1 8 2 2
always get the best quality of service

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 28: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

40

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 1. Perceived Customer Loyalty
Sixteen (16) respondents expressed their views on whether they would switch from the entity, if
there were other entities that provided the same products and services. Exactly one half (50%
8) of the distribution reportedly would not switched, in comparison to 25% (4) that believed they
would switch (Figure 29).

Perceived Customer Loyalty

Yes, 4,
25%
No, 8,
50%

Unsure, 4,
25%

F IGURE 29: ASSESSMENT OF PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY

Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Among the 17 respondents, it was found that 76% (13) were satisfied with the customer service,
while 18% (3) expressed extreme satisfaction (Figure 30).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

Based on their satisfaction with the service quality, 70% (12) reported that they were satisfied
with their overall customer experience and 12% (2) were extremely satisfied (Figure 30).

41

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 1, Satisfaction with Customer Service Satisfaction with Customer
6% Experience
3, 18%
Extremely Extremely 1, 6% 2, 12%
2, 12%
Satisfied Satisfied

Satisfied Satisfied

Dissatisfied Neutral

13, 76% Dissatisfied 12, 70%

F IGURE 30: AREAS OF SATISFACTIO N AND DISSATISFACTION

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the respondents’ experience, the entity received an average satisfaction rating of 70
per cent. This indicated that customers mainly rated their satisfaction as being fair. The entity
therefore had a ten (10) percentage gap from meeting the target service standard.

42

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 JAMAICA DAIRY
DEVELOPMENT BOARD

43

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for the 26 respondents that were
surveyed for the agency Jamaica Dairy Development Board. The frequency output either
reflects the full percentages or the largest proportion percentage of the distribution. The scale
type responses are presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 26
 Males 23 (88.5%)
 Females 3 (11.5%)
Main Methods to access Products Number of Respondents 26
& Services:
 Visit from Agent 14 (53.8%)
 Telephone 6 (23.1%)
Preferred Methods to access Number of Respondents 25
Products &Services:
 Visit from Agent 11 (44.0%)
 Telephone 8 (32.0%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Responsiveness 2- Agreed that the entity was responsive with
delivery of products and services
Process & Facility 2- Agreed that the process and facility was
efficient
Communication 2- Agreed that the level of communication
was efficient
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Efficiency of Responsiveness 80%- Met target service standard
Efficiency of Process and Facility 70% - Did not meet target service standard
Efficiency of Communication 80%- Met target service standard
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Score
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2-Satisfied with Customer Experience
Customer Satisfaction Rate 77% - Did not meet target service standard

44

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and sex

A total of 26 respondents were surveyed; roughly 88% (23) were males. The age group 60
years and over represented 50% (13) of the distribution, while 31% (8) were within the age
cohort 51 to 60 years (Figure 31).

OVER 60 YRS 1
12
51 - 60 YRS 1
Age Group

7
41 - 50 YRS 0
3
31 - 40 YRS 1
0
21 - 30 YRS 0
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
21 - 30 yrs 31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs
Female 0 1 0 1 1
Male 1 0 3 7 12

FIGURE 31: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
Among the respondents, roughly 54% (14) accessed the service through direct visits from an
agent or representative of the entity, followed by 23% (6) that said they used the telephone
(Table 6).

45

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 T ABLE 6: CROSS TABULATION -M AINM ETHODS BY AGE GROUP
Main Methods

Age Group
Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%) 1 (3.8%)

21-30
0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.8%)
31 - 40
41 - 50 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 3 (11.5%)
51 - 60 1(12.5%) 1 (12.5%) 1(12.5%) 5 (62.5%) 8 (30.8%)

Over 60 1 (7.7%) 4 (30.8%) 1 (7.7%) 7 (53.8%) 13 (50.0%)

Column
2 (7.7%) 6(23.1%) 4 (15.4%) 14 (53.8%) 26 (100.0%)
Total (%)

3. Preferred Method to Access Products and Services

Of 25 respondents that disclosed how they would prefer to access the products and services,
44% (11) said they would rather to continue receiving visits from an agent; access by telephone
accounted for the second largest proportion with 32% (8) of the distribution (Table 7).

T ABLE 7: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

21-30 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.0%)

31 - 40 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (4.0%)

41 - 50 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 2 (8.0%)

51 - 60 0 (0.0%) 2 (25.0%) 2 (25.0%) 4 (50.0%) 8 (32.0%)

Over 60 3 (23.1%) 4 (30.8%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (46.2%) 13 (52.0%)

Column
3 (12.0%) 8 (32.0%) 3 (12.0%) 11 (44.0%) 25 (100.0%)
Total (%)

46

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products/Services
On average, it was revealed that majority of the respondents agreed that the entity delivered
products and services within the standard time-frame and that the quality of the delivery met
their expectation (Figure 32).

Quality of Product & Service Delivery met

2 15 5 2 1
your expectation

Entity delivered products & services in

12 6 4 1
standard time

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 32: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY OF PRODUCT & SERVICES

2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Delivery

of Products and Services
Areas of satisfaction were expressed by 18 respondents; 50% (9) said they were pleased with
the level of support offered to small businesses; while 33% (6) thought the products and service
offered were generally good.
Areas of dissatisfaction were obtained from 11 respondents; 46% (5) was dissatisfied with the
turn-around time of service delivery and 27% (3) thought the entity had strict policies and
regulations (Figure 33).

47

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Areas of Satisfaction Areas of Dissatisfaction

Turn around time

Interact/follow- slow
up with
customer Strict policy,
1, 6% restrictions
Provide support regulations
for small
2, 11% 1, 9%
Limited assistance 1, 9%
business from
1, 9% 5, 46%
staff/inresponsive
Product/Service 6, 33% 9, 50% Lack product
was good 3, 27%
variation

Accessiblity to Poor Service/ Poor

Information/pr communication
ocess

F IGURE 33 AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION

3. Staff Responsiveness
A sum of 22 respondents provided 86 responses on their agreement with the statements to
measure staff responsiveness. The mean score was two (2), as 93% (80) of the responses
inclined towards an agreement that the entity’s staff was responsive. Marginal disagreement
was noted with the statements: ‘frontline staff was professional, agent returned call if a promise
to do so was made and frontline staff was able to resolve concerns’ (Figure 34).

Frontline staff was empathic & able to

1 18 11
resolve concerns
Staff was readily accessible 5 13 1

Agent returned call if promised 4 12 11

Frontline staff approachable &
7 12
knowledgeable
Walk-in appoints staff was professional 8 1

0 5 10 15 20 25

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree

F IGURE 34: AGREEMENT SCALE - S TAFF RESPONSIVENESS

48

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness
The average satisfaction rating for this service dimension was 80%; this resulted from 84% (21)
of the respondents that gave a rating between fair and good, while 12% (93) said
responsiveness of service delivery was excellent (Figure 35).

12

10
No. of Respondents

6
11
10
4

2
3
1
0
Average Fair Good Excellent

Rating
F IGURE 35: OVERALL RATING – RESPONSIVENESS

Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

Twenty-four (24) respondents produced 110 responses on their agreement with the statements
to measure ease of doing business. The mean score recorded was two (2), as 71% (78) of the
responses mainly indicated an agreement that there was some form of ease when conducting
business with the entity. The areas of significant agreement were that the process to access
products and service was easy to use; and that the delivery time was efficient. Areas with the
largest amount of disagreement were also with efficiency of service delivery (Figure 36).

49

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Telephone operator was efficient and transferred calls… 1 4
Calls were answered within five (5) rings 20 1
Queries sent by e-mail were addressed in a reasonable… 8 11
E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 9
Delivery time satisfactory and efficient 14 3 4 3
Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 2 5 10 1
Step/process to access products/service was easy to use 2 18 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strong Disagree

F IGURE 36: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
Comfort of the facility was measured by the three (3) variables listed in the figure below. Only 10
responses were received for only two (2) of the three (3) statements. The low responses were
as a result of the fact that majority of the respondents accessed the service by an agent and did
not visit the facility.

However, among the responses the largest proportion mainly agreed that the facility had
sufficient amenities to provide comfort while conducting business at the entity (Figure 37).

Facility had adequate security

Facility had sufficient amenities 1 7

Facility was equipped to handle
1 1
customers with a disability
0 2 4 6 8 10

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strong Disagree

F IGURE 37: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

50

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Factors to Improve Process
A total of 12 respondents provided factors which they believe could improve the efficiency of the
business process. Thirty-three (33) per cent would like to see faster turn-around time; while 17%
(2), each, would like to see a decrease in bureaucracy and increased assistance for farmers
and small businesses (Appendix 3).

4. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

A sum of 24 respondents rated their satisfaction with process and facility; the average score
was 70 per cent. This was due to, 38% (9) of the respondents that rated process and facility has
fair, while 33% (8) said it was good (Figure 38).

Excellent 4
Good 8
Fair 9
Rating

Average 1
Poor 1
Very Poor 1

0 2 4 6 8 10
No. of Respondents

F IGURE 38: O VERALL RATING - PROCESS & FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
Twenty-three (23) respondents gave 104 responses on their agreement with level of
communication. The mean score was two (2); approximately 75% (78) of the responses were of
the agreement that the entity’s level of communication was efficient.

The area with the highest level of agreement was with documents being written in a clear
manner for customers to easily understand, and staff being able to communicate effectively

51

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
about the products and services. The areas with the largest amount of disagreement were with
customers being invited to participate in the design and development of the services, along with
adequate advertisement being made public in the media (Figure 39).

There were adequate advertisement in the media 6 1 3

Dcouments were written in a manner that was easily

1 20
understood

Touch points to access info was available 9

Staff communicated effectively 3 19

Entity invited you to participate in the design of the

1 6 1 14
service
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new
1 12 3 4
products

0 5 10 15 20 25

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 39: A GREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

2. Areas to Improve Communication

Only eight (8) respondents provided feedback on ways they believe the entity could improve its
level of communication. Exactly 50% (4) would like to see an increase in staff interaction by
providing follow-up calls and e-mails to update customers. Twenty-five (25) per cent (2) thought
that implementing a mobile app or live chat could improve communication (Figure 40).

Improve staff's
responsiveness/interacti
1, 13% on
create an app/ live
1, 12% chat/whatsapp to
4, 50% update customers
Train Staff to
2, 25% communicate
clear/Active listening
Advertise in traditonal
media- tv radio/ news
letter

F IGURE 40: AREAS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION

52

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Communication
Twenty-three (23) respondents expressed their satisfaction with the level of communication; the
average score obtained was 80 per cent. Approximately 44% (10) of the respondents rated the
service dimension as being good, while another 22% (5) said it was excellent (Figure 41).

12
10 10
No. of Respondents

8
6 5
4 4
3
2
0 1
Poor Average Fair Good Excellent
Rating

F IGURE 41: SATISFACTION RATING - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

Reliability of Service
Twenty-three (23) respondents provided a sum of 46 replies to express their agreement with the
entity’s effort to provide reliable service. The mean score was two (2), which resulted from 89%
(41) of the responses that were mainly agreement that the service was reliable. The
respondents largely felt they could access the services within the regular works hours and that
they generally felt confident in the entity to provide reliable service (Figure 42).

Found online platform to be functional and

5 1
up-to-date

Service can be reliably accessed during regular

7 11
work hours

Generally you feel confident that will always

2 16 2 2
get the best quality of service

0 5 10 15 20 25

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

F IGURE 42: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

53

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Overall Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Twenty-three (23) respondents expressed satisfaction with the customer service. A little over
one half (52%,12) of the distribution said they were just satisfied, in contrast to 31% (7) that
expressed that they were extremely satisfied (Figure 43 ).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

For customer experience, 48% (11) of the respondents indicated that they were satisfied and
35% (8) were extremely satisfied. Only marginal amount of the respondents expressed
dissatisfaction with their overall experience (Figure 43).

Satisfaction with Customer Service Satisfaction with Customer

Experience
Extremely
Extremely
Satisfied
Satisfied 2, 9%
1, 4% Satisfied Satisfied
3, 13% 2, 8% 8, 35%
7, 31%
Neutral Neutral
11, 48%
12, 52% Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied

F IGURE 43: SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE AND CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the assessment of the focus areas and the overall experience of the respondents, the
average customer satisfaction rate obtained was 77 per cent. This represented a three (3) per
cent gap in service quality to meet the target service standard.

54

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 JAMAICA AGRICULTURAL
COMMODITIES REGULATORY
AUTHORITY

55

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for 27 respondents that were
surveyed for the agency Jamaica Agricultural Commodities Regulatory Authority. The frequency
output either reflects the full percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale
type responses are presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 27
 Males 23 (85.2%)
 Females 4 (14.8%)
Main Methods to access Products &
Services:
 Telephone 14 (51.9%)
 Walk-in 7 (25.9%)
Preferred Methods to access Products
&Services:
 Telephone 13 (48.1%)
 Visit from Agent 11 (40.7%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Responsiveness 2 – Agreed that the entity was responsive
with service delivery
Process & Facility 3- Neutral on the efficiency of process and
facility
Communication 3- Neutral on the level of communication
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Efficiency of Responsiveness 70% - Did not meet target service standard
Efficiency of Process and Facility 70% - Did not meet target service standard
Efficiency of Communication 70%- Did not meet target service standard
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Customer Satisfaction Rate 70% did not meet target service standard

56

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

A sum of 27 individuals were surveyed, 85% (23) were males and were mainly within the age
groups of 51 to 60 years and 60 years and over. Only two (2) male respondents were with the
age groups of 31 to 40 years and 41 to 50 years (Figure 44).

Over 60 yrs 3
11
AGE GROUP

51 - 60 yrs 1
10
41 - 50 yrs 0
1
31 - 40 yrs 0
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs

Female 0 0 1 3
Male 1 1 10 11

F IGURE 44: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
The respondents provided information on the methods they used to access the products and
services. Just a little over one half of the distribution (52%, 14) disclosed that they gained
access by telephone; 26% (7) did direct visits, while 22% (6) indicated that an intermediary
agent provided the products and services. There were no respondents that used the online
platform (Table 8).

57

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 T ABLE 8: CROSS TABULATION - MAIN METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Main Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

31 - 40 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 1 (100.0%) 1 (3.7%)

41 - 50 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.7%)

51 - 60 2 (18.2%) 8 (72.7%) - 1 (9.1%) 11 (40.7%)

Over 60 4 (28.6%) 6 (42.9%) - 4 (28.6%) 14 (51.9%)

Column
7 (25.9%) 14 (51.9%) - 6 (22.2%) 27 (100.0%)
Total (%)

3. Preferred Method to Access Products and Services

The largest proportion (48%, 13) of the respondents expressed that they would rather to
continue telephonic access to products and services. However, there was almost a double in
the numbers of respondents that indicated that they would prefer to gain access by an
intermediary agent, when compare to the numbers that actually accessed the service by the
same method (Table 8). Direct visit to the entity obtained the least preference (Table 9).

T ABLE 9: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHOD BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

31 - 40 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 1 (100.0%) 1 (3.7%)

41 - 50 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.7%)

51 - 60 1 (9.1%) 8 (72.7%) - 2 (18.2%) 11 (40.7%)

Over 60 1 (7.1%) 5 (35.7%) - 8 (57.1%) 14 (51.9%)

Column
Total (%) 3 (11.1%) 13 (48.1%) - 11 (40.7%) 27 (100.0%)

58

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Service

Fifty-one (51) agreement scores were obtained to mean responsiveness to delivery products
and services. Nearly 75% (38) of the scores were agreement that the entity delivered the
products and service within the stipulated service standard; as such, the mean score was two
(2) on the scale (Figure 45).

Quality of product and service delivery met

3 15 2 5
your expectation

Entity delivered products & services in

4 16 2 4
standard time-frame

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 45: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS & SERVICES

2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Products

and Services
Twenty-two (220) respondents stated factors of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The respondents
mainly liked that the products and services they received were generally good; as well as, they
had access to information about the products and services. Each factor accounted for 36% (8)
of the distribution (Figure 46).

59

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Turn around time
Interact/follow-up Areas of Dissatisfaction slow
Ares of Satsisfaction with customer
Does not fulfil
Provide support for promise to customer
small business 1, 7% 1, 7%
2, 9% High prices
1, 5% Rapid reponse
time/delivery time 1, 7% 3, 22%
1, 5% Limited assistance
8, 36% 2, 9% Trustyworthy & 1, 7% from
Integrity staff/inresponsive
5, 36% Lack product
Product/Service was
8, 36% good
2, 14% variation

Service
Accessiblity to
outdated/inefficient
Information/process

F IGURE 46: AREAS OF SATISFACTIO N AND DISSATISFACTION

Only 14 respondents reported on the areas of dissatisfaction; 36% (5) thought the entity did not
provide enough assistance for its customers, while 22% (3) disclosed that the entity did not fulfil
promises. The third factor was dissatisfaction with high fees; this represents 14% (2) of the
distribution (Figure 46).

3. Staff Responsiveness
On the agreement scale, 99 responses were ascertained for staff responsive. The mean score
recorded was two (2), as 87% (86) of the responses were skewed towards agreement that the
staff were responsive in delivering the products and services.

The areas with the highest level of agreement was that staff wad readily accessible to serve
customers and that they were capable to resolve concerns. Also, the respondents expressed no
disagreement with the staff being professional and that they were approachable and knowledge.
The area with the highest disagreement was with staff returning calls to the customers, if a
promise to do so was offered (Figure 47).

60

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Frontline staff was empathic & able to resolve concerns 6 12 11

Staff was readily accessible 7 14 2

Agent returned call if promised 8 10 8

Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 7 9

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 6 7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4)

F IGURE 47: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

4. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

A sum of 26 respondents provided a satisfaction rating on the entity’s efficiency with
responsiveness. The average rating obtained was 70 per cent; this explains, that overall, the
respondents perceived the level of responsiveness to service customers was fair. Collectively,
among the respondents, 61% (16) rated responsiveness from average to good. Additionally,
another 31% (8) of the distribution thought the responsiveness was excellent (Figure 48). This
service dimension recorded a ten (10) per cent gap from meeting the target service standard.
No. of Respondents

8
7
5
4
1 1

Very Poor Poor Average Fair Good Excellent

Rating

F IGURE 48: SATISFACTION RATING – RESPONSIVENESS

61

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

On the agreement scale the average score for ease of doing business was three (3), indicating
that the respondents were largely neutral on their perception about the entity’s ease of the doing
business. The areas that respondents expressed the highest level of disagreement were with
the entity acknowledging and addressing e-mails. However, the respondents largely agree with
statements that the process to access products and services was easy to use, telephone calls
were answered within reasonable time-frame and that the telephone operators were efficient
and transferred calls correctly (Figure 49).

Telephone operator was efficient and transferred calls… 1 15 11

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 3 14 1 3
Queries sent by e-mail were addressed in a… 1 1 3
E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 1 3
Delivery time satisfactory and efficient 4 14 1
Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 4 10 3
Step/process to access products/service was easy to… 4 18 1 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 49: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
Seven (7) respondents gave 17 agreement scores to measure comfort of the facility. The mean
score was four (4); this was contributed by 82% (14) of the responses being disagreements that
the entity provided adequate comfort for customers (Figure 50).

62

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Facility had adequate security 2 2 1

Facility had sufficient amenities 1 3 3

Facility was equipped to handle customers with a disability 2 3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 50: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

Based on the average scores for ease of doing business and comfort of facility, it was found that
along the agreement scale the respondents were, overall, neutral on their views on the
efficiency of the entity’s processes and facility.

3. Factors to Improve Process

Ten (10) respondents stated factors they perceived could help improve efficiency of the entity’s
process. One half (50%, 5) of the distribution said the entity should increase its effort to provide
more assistance and meetings with the farmers and small businesses (Figure 51).

Factors to Improve Process

Faster turn-around time
1, 10%

Improve communication
3, 30%
Increase
5, 50% assistance/meetings

1, 10% Improve response time

/Interaction with
customers

F IGURE 51: FACTORS TO IMPROVE PROCESS

4. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

A sum of 24 respondents provided their satisfaction rating with the process and facility; the
average score obtained 70 per cent. As, collectively, 65% (18) of the respondents rated process
63

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
and facility from average to good (Figure 52). This was a 10% gap in service quality to meet the
target score of 80 per cent.

Excellent 5
Good 7

Rating
Fair 6
Average 5
Very Poor 1

0 2 4 6 8
No. of Respondents

F IGURE 52: SATISFACTION RATING - PROCESS AND FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
Among 133 agreement scores that were obtained for level of communication, approximately
44% (58) were mainly disagreement and neutral scores; while 43% (57) were agreement
scores. As a result of this, the mean score recoded was three (3); this indicated that the
responses were mainly neutral about entity’s efficiency with communication. Main areas of
disagreement were with the entity inviting customers to participate in the design of the products
and service and adequate advertisements in the media (Figure 53).

There were adequate advertisement in the media 2 4 3 2 7

Dcouments were written in a manner that was easily… 5 8 1 4 2
Touch points to access info was available 9 3 5
Staff communicated effectively 4 22 1
Entity invited you to participate in the design of the… 2 6 1 16 1
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new… 5 8 1 10 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 53: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMMUNICATION

64

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Areas to Improve Communication
Of the 12 respondents that provided insights on factors that could improve communication, 50%
(6) thought the entity could increase its efforts to improve follow-up with customers through e-
mails and text messages (Figure 54).

Areas to Improve Communication Increase site visits by reps

Advertise in traditonal
4, 34%
media- tv radio/ new letter
6, 50% Need more extension to
communicate to all farmers

1, 8% Provide return calls/emails/

1, 8% text messages

F IGURE 54: A REA TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION

3. Overall Satisfaction with Communication

The respondents gave an average satisfaction rating of 70% for communication. Those that
rated communication as either average or excellent, each, represented 28% (7) of the
respondents (Figure 55). Communication recorded a ten (10) per cent gap in service quality
from meeting the target service standard.

8 Average, 7 Excellent, 7
Good, 6
No. of Respondents

6
Fair, 4
4

2 Poor, 1

Rating

F IGURE 55: SATISFACTION RATING - COMMUNICATION

65

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Reliability of Service
Forty-seven (47) responses were collected on the agreement scale to ascertain reliability of
service. The mean score was two (2), as 87% (41) of the responses were agreement that the
entity provided reliable service (Figure 56). This was mainly attributed to customers being able
to access the services within the allotted business hours.

Services of the entity can be reliably accessed

4 17 1
during the regular work hours
Generally feel confident that you will always get
4 16 3 2
the best quality of service

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 56: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABLY OF SERVICE

1. Perceived of Customer Loyalty

Twenty-four (24) respondents disclosed their perceived level of customer loyalty. Just about
42% (10) stated that they would not switch if there was another entity that provided the same
products and services, while 21% (5) said they believed they would switch to another entity
(Figure 57). Of these five (5) respondents, only three (3) provided a reason; approximately 67%
(2) felt that the entity lacked consideration for its customers.

Perceived Customer Loyalty

Yes, 5, 21%
No, 10, 42%

Unsure, 9,
37%

F IGURE 57: P ERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY

66

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Of the 27 respondents, 59% (16) said expressed satisfaction with customer service, while
33% (9) were extremely satisfied (Figure 58).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

Exactly 55% (15) stated that they were mainly satisfied with their overall experience and 26%
(7) were extremely satisfied (Figure 58).

Satisfaction with Customer Satisfaction with Customer

Service Experience
Extremely Extremely
1, 4% 1, 4% Satisfied
1, 4%
Satisfied 4, 15%
Satisfied 7, 26%
Satisfied
9, 33%
Neutral Neutral
16, 59%
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
15, 55%

F IGURE 58: SATISFACTION WITH CUSTOMER SERVICE & EXPERIENCE

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the overall findings and experiences of the respondents, the entity obtained a
customer satisfaction rate of 70 per cent. This fell ten (10) per cent short from meeting the target
service standard of 80 per cent. Nonetheless, the respondents rated their overall satisfaction
rate as fair.

67

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 NATIONAL IRRIGATION
COMMISSION

68

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for the survey conducted for the
agency National Irrigation Commission. The frequency output either reflects the full percentages
or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale type responses are presented in averages
and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 67
 Males 52 (77.6%)
 Females 15 (22.4%)
Main Methods to access Products &
Services:
 Telephone 14 (51.9%)
 Walk-in 7 (25.9%)
Preferred Methods to access Products
&Services:
 Telephone 13 (48.1%)
 Visit from Agent 11 (40.7%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Responsiveness 2 – Agreed that the entity was responsive
Process & Facility 3- Neutral that the process and facility was
efficient
Communication 3- Neutral that level of communication
was efficient
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Efficiency of Responsiveness 70% -Did not meet target service standard
Efficiency of Process and Facility 70% - Did not meet target service
standard
Efficiency of Communication 70%- Did not meet target service standard
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Customer Satisfaction Rate 70% Did not meet target service standard
69

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

Sixty-seven (67) respondents were captured in the survey; of this total, 78% (52) were males.
The largest proportion of the distribution was within the age group 41 to 50 years (Figure 59).

Over 60 yrs
51 - 60 yrs
41 - 50 yrs
Age Group

31 - 40 yrs

0 5 10 15 20 25

31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs

Female 7 5 1 2
Male 13 22 9 8

F IGURE 59: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
Around 81% (54) of the respondents said they mainly accessed the service by walk-in
appointments, compared to 15% (10) that said they used the telephone (Table 10).

T ABLE 10: CROSS TABULATION MAIN METHODS BY AGE GRO UP

Main Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

31 - 40 15 (75.0%) 4 (20.0%) 1 (5.0%) - 20 (29.9%)

41 - 50 23 (85.3%) 3 (11.1%) 1 (3.7%) - 27 (40.3%)

51 - 60 8 (80.0%) 1 (10.0%) 1 (10.0%) - 10 (14.9%)

Over 60 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%) - 10 (14.9%)

Column
54 (80.6%) 10 (14.9%) 3 (4.5%) - 67 (100.0%)
Total (%)

70

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Preferred Method to Access Products and Services
When compared to the main methods, the data revealed that preference for online service had
significantly increased, this accounted for 33% (22) of the respondents. As a result, preference
for walk-in appointments was 58% (39); which reflected a decrease over the main method
(Table 11).

T ABLE 11: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHOD BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

31 - 40 8 (40.0%) 3 (15.0%) 9 (45.0%) - 20 (%)

41 - 50 21 (77.8%) 1 (3.7%) 5 (18.5%) - 27 (%)

51 - 60 4 (40.0%) 1 (10.0%) 5 (50.0%) - 10 (%)

Over 60 6 (60.0%) 1 (10.0%) 3 (30.0%) - 10 (%)

Column 67
Total (%0 39 (58.2%) 6 (9.0%) 22 (32.8%) - (100.0%)

Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

A total of 167 responses were collected on the agreement scale to measure delivery of products
and services. The mean score computed was two (2), as the majority of the responses were in
agreement that the products and services were delivery within the standard time-frame (Figure
60).

71

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Quality of product and service delivery met your
10 34 12 9 2
expectation

Entity delivered products & services in standard

9 43 5 7 3
time-frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 60: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS & SERVICE

2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Products

and Services
For satisfaction with products and service delivery, 32% (18) of the respondents stated they
were pleased with the professionalism of the staff; while 24% (14) said that they were satisfied
with the water pressure (Figure 61).

Contrary to areas of satisfaction, 32% (11) of the respondents disclosed that they were
dissatisfied with low water pressure and 23% (8) indicated that the price for services were
unaffordable (Figure 61).

Areas of Satisfaction Staff Professional Areas of Dissatisfaction

Slow turnaround
Follow-up with
time
customer Low water 1, 3%
13, 23% Good loan repayment 4, 12%
18, 32% pressure/shortage
/availability High prices
1, 3% 7, 21%
Rapid reponse time
1, 2% Staff Unprofessional
2, 6%
Good water pressure Service outdated
14, 24%
3, 5%
Convenience of facility Poor Service/ Poor 8, 23% 11, 32%
7, 12% communication
1, 2%
Product/Service was Limited Financial
good assitance /Loan
F IGURE 61: AREAS OF SATISFACTION & DISSATISFACTION

72

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Staff Responsiveness
Exactly 300 responses were obtained on the agreement scale for staff responsiveness. The
mean score was two (2), which explains that the average responses mainly agreed that the staff
were responsive with service delivery. However, the statements with the most disagreement
were that an agent returned a call if a promise to do was made, or that a staff was readily
accessible to assist customers (Figure 62).

Frontline staff was empathic & able to resolve

10 48 6 2
concerns

Staff was readily accessible 5 26 10 10 6

Agent returned call if promised 30 7 11 7

Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 12 40 9 1

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 9 43 6 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 62: AGREEMENT SCALE : STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

4. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

The average satisfaction rating for responsiveness was 70%; this resulted from a little over one
half (53% (36) of the distribution that rated responsiveness from fair to very poor; while the
remaining distribution rated from good to excellent (Figure 63).

73

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 30

No. of Respondents
20
10 27
1 28
0 4
4
Very Poor Poor
Average 3
Fair
Good
Excellent
Rating

F IGURE 63: SATISFACTION RATING - RESPONSIVENESS

Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

Sixty-six (66) respondents gave a sum of 324 replies to the statements used to measure ease of
doing business. Collectively, the mean score on the scale was three (3), indicating that the
average responses were neutral that the entity provided ease of doing business. Respondents
were particularly neutral or disagreed with the statement that calls were answered within five (5)
rings or standard time-frame (Figure 64).

Telephone operator was efficient and transferred… 3 33 9 22

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 22 13 12 5

Queries sent by e-mail were addressed in a… 1 8 2 5 4

E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 1 9 2 5 3

Delivery time satisfactory and efficient 3 40 8 12 2

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 5 1 24 23

Step/process to access products/service was easy… 11 53 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 64: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

74

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Comfort of Facility
A sum of 157 responses was collected to measure comfort of the facility. Across the statements
the mean agreement score was three (3); this was as a result of the large number of the
responses being neutral that the facility had adequate security and amenities coupled with the
large number of disagreement that the entity was equipped to handle customers living with a
disability (Figure 65).

Facility had adequate security 29 15 12 1

Facility had sufficient amenities 1 40 13
Facility was equipped to handle customers… 1 19 4 18 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 65: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

3. Factors to Improve Process

Only thirty (30) respondents gave a feedback on factors they believed could improve process
and facility. The popular factors were customer service training for staff, improvement in the
knowledge and presence of security workers, and increase payment options; each, represented
for 23% (7), 16% (5) and 13% (4) of the distribution, respectively (Appendix 4).

4. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

The average satisfaction rate for process and facility was 70 per cent. Approximately 44% (29)
and 36% (24) rated process and facility as fair or good, respectively (Figure 66).

75

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 NO. OF RESPONDENTS 29
24

7 5
1
POOR AVERAGE FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT
RATING

F IGURE 66: SATISFACTION RATING - PROCESS & FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
A total of 368 responses were collect on the statements to measure agreement with level of
communication. Based on the results, the mean score recorded was three (3); the responses
were largely neutral that the touch points to access information were available and strongly
disagreed that the entity provided adequate updates to customers (Figure 67).

There were adequate advertisement in the media 28 14 6 2

Dcouments were written in a manner that was
4 55 41
easily understood
Touch points to access info was available 20 35 23

Staff communicated effectively 51 15

Entity invited you to participate in the design of
3 16 45
the service
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new
1 24 2 9 28
products

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 67: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMMUNICATION

76

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Areas to Improve Communication
Thirty-five (35) respondents reported on areas the entity could improve in order to facility
efficiency with communication. Approximately 31% (11) of the respondents thought staff should
be more responsive and provide frequent follow-up with customers. The second largest
proportion (23%, 8) believed the entity should increase its presence on traditional and social
media (Appendix 5).

3. Overall Satisfaction with Communication

The satisfaction rate with communication was 70%, which was a ten (10) percentage gap in
service quality from meeting the target rating of 80 per cent. The vast majority of the distribution
rated communication from fair to good (Figure 68).

35
30
No. of Respondents

25
20
15
Good, 31
Fair, 23
10
5
Average, 5 Excellent, 3
Poor, 2
0
Rating

F IGURE 68: SATISFACTION RATING - COMMUNICATION

Reliability of Service
Of 175 responses, on the agreement that the entity had reliable service, the mean score
obtained two (2); this was reflective of nearly 65% (113) of the responses mainly agreeing that
the service was reliable. The highest number of agreement was with the statement that service
could be reliably accessed during the regular business hours (Figure 69).

77

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Found online platform to be functional and
13 25 52
up-to-date
Service can be reliably accessed during
5 58 2
regular work hours
Generally you feel confident that will always
4 42 15 4
get the best quality of service

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 69: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

1. Perceived Customer Loyalty

Among 65 respondents, 71% (46) indicated that they would not switch if there was another
entity that provided the same products and services; while 11% (7) said they would switch and
18% (12) were unsure (Figure 70).

Perceived Customer Loyalty

Yes, 7, 11%

Unsure, 12,
18%
No, 46, 71%

F IGURE 70: PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY

78

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Exactly 60% (39) of the respondents said they were satisfied with the entity’s customer service,
compared to 19% (13) that were neutral (Figure 71).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

For entire customer experience, 60% (39) of the respondents, also, were reportedly satisfied
when compared to those that were either neutral or dissatisfied (Figure 71).

Satisfaction with Customer Experience 9 39 13 4

Satisfaction with Customer Service 11 39 12 3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Satisfaction Scale
Extremely Satisfied (1) Satisfied (2) Neutral (3)Dissatisfied (4) Extremely Dissatisfied (5)

F IGURE 71: SATISFACTION SCALE : CUSTOMER SERVICE & EXPERIENCE

3. Over Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the results, the overall customer satisfaction rate was 70%; this recorded a ten (10)
percentage gap from meeting the target service standard score of 80 per cent.

79

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 RURAL AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

80

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for 50 respondents that were
surveyed for the agency Rural Agricultural Development Authority. The frequency output either
reflects the full percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale type
responses are presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 50
 Males 34 (68.0%)
 Females 16 (32.0%)
Main Methods to access Products Number of Respondents 49
& Services:
 Walk-in 21 (42.9%)
 Visit from Agent 15 (30.6%)
Preferred Methods to access Number of Respondents 50
Products &Services:
 Walk-in 19 (38.0%)
 Visit from Agent 18 (36.0%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Efficiency of Responsiveness 2- Agreed that the entity was responsive
Efficiency of Process & Facility 2- Agreed on entity’s process and facility was
efficient
Efficiency of Communication 2- Agreed that level of communication was
efficient
Reliability of Service 2-Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Responsiveness 80%- Met Target
Process and Facility 80%- Met Target
Communication 80%- Met Target
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Score
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2-Satisfied with Customer Experience
Customer Satisfaction Rate 80%- Met Target

81

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

A total of respondents were surveyed; 68% (34) were males. The largest proportion of the
distribution (40%, 20) was within the age group 31 to 40 years; while 22% (11) was represented
by those within the 51 to 60 age group (Figure 72).

OVER 60 YRS 1
7
51 - 60 YRS 1
Age Group

10
41 - 50 YRS 3
5
31 - 40 YRS 9
11
21 - 30 YRS 2
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
21 - 30 yrs 31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs
Female 2 9 3 1 1
Male 1 11 5 10 7

F IGURE 72: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services

Forty-nine (49) respondents provided information on the main methods they used to access
products and services. Roughly 43% (21) visited the entity, compared to 31% (15) that received
a visit from an agent. Across the age groups, those within the 21 to 30 and 31 to 40 cohort
mainly accessed the service by actual visits; while those 41 to 50 years mainly received a visit
from an agent. Access by telephone was predominately used by those 51 to 60 years and 60
years and over (Table 12).

82

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 T ABLE 12: CROSS TABULATION MAIN METHODS BY AGE GRO UP
Main Methods

Age Group
Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online Visit from Agent
(%)

21-30 2 (66.7%) 0 (0.0%) - 1 (33.3%) 3 (6.1%)

31 - 40 11 (57.9%) 4 (21.1%) - 4 (21.1%) 19 (38.8%)
41 - 50 3 (37.5%) 1 (15.5%) - 4 (50.0%) 8 (16.3%)
5 (45.5%) -
51 - 60 3 (27.3%) 3 (27.3%) 11 (22.5%)
Over 60 2 (25.0%) 3 (37.5%) - 3 (37.5%) 8 (16.3%)
Column
Total (%) 21 (42.9%) 13 (26.5%) - 15 (30.6%) 49 (100.0%)

1. Preferred Method to Access Products and Services

Of 50 respondents, 38% (19) indicated that would prefer to continue visiting the entity. This
represented a decrease when compared to the main methods. Visit from an agent was
expressed by 36% (18) of the distribution, which reflected an increase in the preference for this
method (Table 13).

T ABLE 13 CROSS TABULATION PRE FERRED METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

21-30 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (6.0%)

31 - 40 8 (40.0%) 6 (30.0%) - 6 (30.0%) 20 (40.0%)

41 - 50 2 (25.0%) 2 (25.0%) - 4 (50.0%) 8 (16.0%)

51 - 60 5 (45.5%) 1 (9.1%) - 5 (45.5%) 11 (22.0%)

Over 60 3 (37.5%) 2 (25.0%) - 3 (37.5%) 8 (16.0%)

Column
19 (38.0%) 12 (24.0%) 1 (2.0%) 18 (36.0%) 50 (100.0%)
Total (%)

83

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

A total of 49 respondents provided 98 responses on the agreement scale to assess
responsiveness to deliver products and services. The mean score received was two (2); as 47%
(46) and 37% (36) of the responses either agreed or strongly agreed that the entity was
responsive in the delivery of its products and service, respectively (Figure 73).

Quality of product and service delivery met your

20 25 22
expectation

Entity delivered products & services in standard

16 21 4 6 2
time-frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 73: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY PRODUCTS & SERVICES

2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Products

and Services

Forty-seven (47) respondents expressed the areas that they experience satisfaction with the
delivery of the products and service; more than one half of the distribution (53%, 25) stated that
the quality of the products and service delivery were satisfactory.

Areas of dissatisfaction were disclosed by only 17 respondents; just about 29% (5) said they
were displeased with the limited assistance received from the staff (Figure 74).

84

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Staff Slow turn aroundtime
Areas of Satisfaction helpful/Pleasant/Profess
Areas of Dissatisfaction
ional Does not fulfil promise
Interactive/follow-up to customer
2, 4%
2, 12% 1, 6% 2, 11%
with customer Received Inaccurate/
5, 11% inadequate nformation
Availibity of High Prices
1, 2% 2, 12%
Workshops/Training
1, 6% 1, 6% Poor quality products
25, 53% 7, 15% Provide support for
Small Business 1, 6% Limited assistance from
3, 7% 2, 12% staff/inresponsive
5, 29% Lack product variation
Rapid Reponse
2, 4% time/Delivery time Limted staff/resources
2, 4%
Trustyworthy & Integrity Limited payment
options

F IGURE 74: AREAS OF SATISFACTIO N & DISSATISFACTION

3. Staff Responsiveness
Forty-nine (49) respondents provided a total of 217 responses on the agreement scale to
measure their views on staff responsiveness, across the five (5) statements illustrated below.
The mean score obtained for the statements were one (1), as 59% (127) of the responses
strongly agreed that staff was responsive (Figure 75).

25 15 1
Staff was readily accessible 26 17 22
Agent returned call if promised 22 19 3
Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 24 16 21
Walk-in appoints staff was professional 30 7 4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 75: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

Therefore, responsiveness of products and service delivery and staff, recorded a combined
mean score of two (2) on the agreement scale.

85

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness
A sum 49 respondents rated their satisfaction with responsiveness. The average rating obtained
was 80%, this resulted from 37% (18) and 35 (17%) of the distribution that either rated
responsiveness as good or excellent, respectively (Figure 76).

20
18
17
15

10
6 7
No. of Respondents

5
1
0
POOR
AVERAGE FAIR
GOOD
EXCELLENT
Rating

F IGURE 76: SATISFACTION RATING - RESPONSIVENESS

Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

A total of 235 responses were obtained on the agreement scale for the ease of doing business.
The means score was two (2), as 75% (174) of the responses mainly showed agreement that
the entity provided ease of doing business (Figure 77).

86

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Telephone operator was efficient and transferred calls… 13 18 2

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 24 17 22

Queries sent by e-mail were addressed in a reasonable… 11

E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 1 2 2

Delivery time satisfactory and efficient 17 21 6 2 3

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 1 2 24 4

Step/process to access products/service was easy to use 24 20 4 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 77: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
Thirty-three (33) respondents produced a total of 79 responses on their agreement with comfort
of the facility. The mean score was two (2), which indicated that the majority of the respondent
felt that the facility provided adequate comfort when conducting business (Figure 78).

Facility had adequate security 6 20 1 3 1

Facility had sufficient amenities 7 19 5
Facility was equipped to handle customers with a disability 2 11 11 3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 78: A GREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

3. Factors to Improve Process

Ways to improve process was reported by 24 respondents. Approximately 21% (5), each,
accounted for respondents that would like to see faster turn-around time, better monitoring of
field officers and increased provision of farm products, such as animals and equipment
(Appendix 6).

87

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility
Process and facility achieved an average satisfaction rating of 80%. Roughly 94% (46) of the 49
respondents rated the efficiency of the process and facility from fair to excellent (Figure 79).

20
No. of Respondents 19
10 16
11
0 1 1 1
Very Poor
Poor Average Fair
Good
Excellent

Rating

F IGURE 79: SATISFACTION RATE - PROCESS & FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
The mean agreement score for level of communication was two (2) on the agreement scale.
This highlighted that majority of the responses were in agreement that the entity provided
adequate level of communication. However, the respondents mainly disagree that the entity had
invited customers to participate in the development and designs of the products and services
(Figure 80).

88

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 There were adequate advertisement in the media 9 26 7 4 1

Dcouments were written in a manner that was easily

26 21 21
understood

Touch points to access info was available 12 19 10 2

Staff communicated effectively 29 17 2 2

Entity invited you to participate in the design of the

9 12 19 7
service
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new
27 11 4 6 2
products

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 80: AGREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

2. Areas to Improve Communication

Eight-teen (18) respondents disclosed factors in which they believed could improve
communication. Just around 33% (5) were of the perception that increases in advertisement in
traditional and social media could boost communication efforts. Respondents further felt that
increase of staff responsiveness to update customers by email or text messages would provide
greater engagement between service provider and its customers; this accounted for 20% (3) of
the distribution (Figure 81).

Improve internal
communicate

1, 6% Improve staff's
3, 20%
responsiveness
3, 20%
Increase site visits by
1, 7%
agents
1, 7% 1, 7%
Advertise in traditonal &
social media- tv radio/
5, 33% new letter
Increase extension officer
to communicate to all
farmers

F IGURE 81: AREAS TO IMPROVE COM MUNICATION

89

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Communication
Level of Communication received a satisfaction rating of 80 per cent. Almost one half of the
respondents (49%, 24) indicated that the communication level of the entity was good, while 29%
(14) felt that it was excellent (Figure 80).

Good, 24
NO. OF RESPONDENTS

Excellent, 14

Fair, 7

Poor, 1 Average, 3

RATING

F IGURE 82: SATISFACTION RATE - COMMUNICATION

Reliability of Service
The respondents provided 107 responses on their agreement with the statements to measure
reliability of service. The mean score obtained on the scale was two (2), as 82% (88) of
responses showed agreement that the service was reliable (Figure 83).

90

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Found online platform to be functional and up-
3 4 2
to-date

Service can be reliably accessed during regular

25 22 2
work hours

Generally you feel confident that will always

24 14 10 1
get the best quality of service

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 83: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

1. Perceived Customer Loyalty

Forty-eight (48) respondents expressed their perceived level of customer loyalty. A little more
than one half (52%, 25) of the distribution stated that they would not switch, if there was another
entity that provided the same products and services. However, 21% (10) admitted that they
would switch, while 27% (13) was unsure (Figure 84).

Perceived Customer Loyalty

Yes, 10,
21%
No, 25, 52%
Unsure, 13,
27%

F IGURE 84: PERCEIVED CUSTOMER LOYALTY

Of the 25 respondents that said they would switch, only seven (7) stated the reasons that would
influence their decision to switch to another entity. The popular responses was that the service
quality was poor, this accounted for 43% (3) of the distribution, when compared to 29% (2) that
felt that the fees for the services were unaffordable (Figure 85).

91

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3
2.5
2 3

No. of Respondents
1.5
1 2
0.5 1 1
0

Switch Factors

F IGURE 85: S WITCH F ACTORS

Overall Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Among the 50 respondents, 56% (28) said that they were satisfied with the customer service,
while 34% (17) were extremely satisfied (Figure 86).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

Similarly to satisfaction with customer service, 52% (26) of the respondents disclosed that they
were satisfied with their overall customer experience and 36% indicated that they were
extremely satisfied (Figure 86).

92

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Satisfaction with Customer Satisfaction with Customer
Service Experience
Extremely
Extremely
Satisfied 5, 10% 1, 2%
4, 8% 1, 2% Satisfied
Satisfied Satisfied
26, 52%
17, 34% 18,
28, 56%
Neutral Neutral 36%

Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

F IGURE 86: SATISFACTION SCALE - CUSTOMER SERVICE & EXPERIENCE

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the overall service experience of the respondents, the entity received an average
customer satisfaction rate of 80 per cent. The entity therefore met the target service standard for
providing quality service to the customers that were surveyed.

93

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 AGRICULTURAL LAND
MANAGEMENT DIVISION

94

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for 31 respondents that were
surveyed for the Agricultural Land Management Division. The frequency output either reflects
the full percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale type responses are
presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 31
 Males 24 (77.4%)
 Females 7 (22.6%)
Main Methods to access Products Number of Respondents 31
& Services:
 Walk-in 15 (48.4%)
 Telephone 7 (22.6%)
Preferred Methods to access Number of Respondents 31
Products &Services:
 Online 12 (38.7%)
 Walk-in 8 (25.8%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Efficiency of Responsiveness 2- Agreed that the division was responsive
with service delivery
Efficiency of Process & Facility 2- Agreed that the process and facility was
efficient
Efficiency of Communication 3- Neutral that level of communication was
efficient
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that service was reliable
Satisfaction Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Responsiveness 80%- Met target service standard
Process and Facility 80%- Met target service standard
Communication 80%- Met target service standard
Overall Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate 80%- Met target service standard

95

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition
1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex
Thirty-one (31) respondents participated in the survey; of this sum, 77% (24) were males. Just
about 32% (10) were within the age category of 41 to 50 years; 29% (9) were 21 to 30 years,
while 23% (7) were 31 to 40 years (Figure 87).

Over 60 yrs
Age Group

41 - 50 yrs
21 - 30 yrs
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
21 - 30 yrs 31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs
Female 3 0 4 0 0
Male 6 7 6 2 3

Female Male
F IGURE 87: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
Almost one half of the respondents (48% 15) reportedly visited the entity to gain access to the
products and services; 23% (7) used the telephone, while 16% (5) gained access online (Table
14).

T ABLE 14: CROSS TABULATION – MAIN METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Main Methods

Age Group Visit from Row Total

Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)
21-30 4 (44.4%) 4 (44.4%) 1 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (29.0%)
31 - 40 4 (57.1%) 2 (28.6%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (14.3%) 7 (22.6%)
41 - 50 4 (40.0%) 1 (10.0%) 3 (30.0%) 2 (20.0%) 10 (32.3%)
51 - 60 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.4%)
Over 60 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 3 (9.7%)
Column
15 (48.4%) 7 (22.6%) 5 (16.1%) 4 (12.9%) 31 (100.0%)
Total (%)

96

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Preferred Method to Access Product and Service
When compared to the respondents’ main method of access, there was a decrease in
preference for walk-in appointments, when compared to an increase in preference for online
options. Preference to access the services online was represented mainly by the age group 21
to 30 years and 41 to 50 years (Table15).

T ABLE 15: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods
Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)
21-30 2 (22.2%) 3 (33.3%) 4 (44.4%) 0 (0.0%) 9 (29.0%)

31 - 40 1 (14.3%) 3 (42.9% 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.3%) 7 (22.6%)

41 - 50 2 (20.0%) 2 (20.0%) 5 (50.0%) 1 (10.0%) 10 (32.3%)

51 - 60 2 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (6.4%)

Over 60 1 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 3 (9.7%)

Column
8 (25.8%) 8 (25.8%) 12 (38.7%) 3 (9.7%) 31 (100.0%)
Total (%)

Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

A sum of 62 responses was received on the agreement that the entity was responsiveness with
delivery of products and services. The mean score was two (2) on the scale; this was so, as
90% (57) of the responses showed agreement that the entity was responsiveness (Figure 88).

Quality of product and service delivery met your

14 17
expectation

Entity delivered products and services in standard

8 18 3 2
time-frame

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Strong Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 88: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY PRODUCTS & SERVICES

.

97

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Products
and Services
There was an even spread in the distribution of 27% (7), each, that said they were satisfied
with the quality of the products and services and the response time for the delivery of same.
Another 23% (6) said they were satisfied with the professionalism of the staff (Figure 89).

For areas of dissatisfaction, 25% (3) of the respondents were displeased with lack of
product variation and the cost for products and services (Figure 89).

Areas of Satisfaction Staff Areas of Dissatisfaction

Pleasant/Professional

Interact/follow-up
Slow turn-around
with customer
time
Provide support for
High prices 2, 17%
6, 23% small business
7, 27% 3, 25%
Rapid reponse
3, 11% Lack product 3, 25%
time/delivery time
1, 4% variation 3, 25%
7, 27% Trustyworthy &
Integrity Limited payment
1, 8%
2, 8% options
Product/Service was
good

F IGURE 89: AREAS OF SATISFACTIO N & DISSATISFACTION

3. Staff Responsiveness
Twenty-nine (29) respondents provided a total of 137 responses on the agreement scale to
measure staff responsiveness. The mean score recorded was two (2); as 52% (71) of the
responses mainly agreed that the staff were responsive with delivery of products and services.
There was no disagreement with staff being professional or staff being readily accessible
(Figure 90).

98

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Frontline staff was empathic & able to resolve
11 17 1
concerns

Staff was readily accessible 13 13

Agent returned called if promised 10 13 12

Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 4 13 1

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 13 15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 90: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

4. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

The overall satisfaction rate for responsiveness was 80 per cent. Approximately 77% (24) said
the responsiveness of the entity to delivery products and services was good. Only a marginal
proportion either gave a rating of average, fair or excellent (Figure 91).

24
25
No. of Respondents

20
15
10 3 3
1
5
0
Average Fair Good Excellent

Rating
F IGURE 91: SATISFACTION RATE - RESPONSIVENESS

Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

A total of 152 responses were obtained to measure ease of doing business. Based on the
responses, captured for the statements below, the mean score recorded was two (2) on the
99

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
scale. This indicated that the respondents mainly agreed that there was some form of ease
when conducting business with the entity (Figure 92).

Telephone operate was efficient and… 4 14 1

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 4 15 2
Queries sent by e-mail were addressed… 4 11
E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 5 8 2
Delivery time satisfactory and Efficient 6 18 2 4 1
Had to wait a long time in line to get the… 3 3 14
Steps/process to access service was easy to… 11 19 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 92: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
Thirty (30) respondents provided 73 responses on their level of agreement with the comfort of
the facility. The mean score was two (2) on the scale. This resulted from more than one half
(57%, 42) of the responses being agreements; where the majority agreed that the facility had
adequate security. The largest number of disagreement was with the facility having sufficient
amenities (Figure 93).

Facility had adequate security 2 12 2 1

Facility had sufficient amentities 2 7 2 6
Facility was equipped to handle… 5 2

0 5 10 15 20

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4)

F IGURE 93: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

3. Factors to Improve Process

Twenty-one (21) respondents voiced their opinion on factors they believed could improve
efficiency of process. Roughly 29% (6) of the respondents thought implementing online payment

100

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
would increase efficiency of the process; while 19% (4) explained that providing adequate
information would improve the process (Appendix 7).

4. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

Thirty (30) respondents provided their overall satisfaction rating for process and facility. The
average rating obtained was 80%, as 53% (16) and 13% (4) rated their satisfaction as good or
excellent, respectively (Figure 94).

16
14
12
No. of Respondents

10 16
8
6
4 7
2 3 4
0
Average Fair Good Excellent
Rating

F IGURE 94: SATISFACTION - PROCESS & FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
A total of 176 responses were received for agreement on level of communication. The mean
score on the scale was three (3); this was an indication that the responses were mainly neutral
and had no strong agreement or disagreement on the efficiency of communication. Highest
number of disagreement was found with the statements of entity providing adequate
advertisement in the media and adequate updates on services (Figure 95).

101

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 There were adequate advertisment in the media 1 6 29 4

Dcouments were written in a manner that… 9 27 12

Touch points to access info about product/service… 8 25 6 3 2

Staff communicated effectively about… 16 24 2 5

Entity invited you to participate in the design of… 2 7 1 29 7

Entity had adequate updates on existing and new… 8 13 2 21 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 95: AGREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

2. Factors to Improve Communication

A sum of only 18 respondents stated factors they perceived was necessary to improve
communication. Of this sum, 55% (10) thought that the entity should increase advertisement on
traditional and social media. Thirty- nine (39) per cent (7) of the respondents further stated that
the entity should provide regular updates on services through e-mail, text messages and
telephone calls (Figure 96).

10
10 7
No. of Responses

8
6
1
4
2
0
Provide info on Advertise on Provide frequent
serval medium traditonal & updates about
social media services
Factors

F IGURE 96: FACTORS TO IMPROVE C OMMUNICATION

102

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Communication
The average rating for satisfaction with communication was 80 per cent. In combination, 80%
(24) of the respondents rated communication from fair to good (Figure 97).

14
12
10 12 12
No. of Respondents

8
6
4
2 4
2
0
Average Fair Good Excellent
Rating
F IGURE 97: SATISFACTION RATE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

Reliability of Service
A total of 73 responses were obtained from 30 respondents on the agreement that the entity’s
service was reliable. The mean score on the agreement scale was two (2), as 57% (42) of the
responses mainly agreed on the service being reliable. There was no disagreement that the
service was accessible within the regular business hours (Figure 98).

Found the online platforms to be functional and up-to-

1 2 8 4
date

Service can be reliably accessed during regular work hours 7 21

Generally feel confident that you will always get the best
5 19 4 11
quality of service

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 98: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

103

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 1. Perceived Customer Loyalty
Just 28 respondents expressed their perceived customer loyalty to the entity. When asked if
they would switch if there was another entity that provided the same services, 71% (20) said
they would not switch.

Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Among 30 respondents that stated their level of satisfaction with customer service, 50% (15)
was satisfied, while the other half was extremely satisfied.

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

For satisfaction with entire customer experience, of 30 respondents 73% (22) was satisfied
while the remaining 27% (8) expressed extreme satisfaction.

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the overall service experience of the respondents, the overall customer satisfaction
rate was 80 per cent. As such, the entity met the target service standard of providing quality
service to the customers that were surveyed.

104

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Research and Development Division

105

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for 48 respondents that were
surveyed for the Research and Development Division. The frequency output either reflects the
full percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale type responses are
presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 48
 Males 32 (66.7%)
 Females 16 (33.3%)
Main Methods to Access Products Number of Respondents 46
& Services:
 Walk-in 26 (56.5%)
 Telephone 17 (37.0%)
Preferred Methods to Access Number of Respondents 48
Products &Services:
 Walk-in 23 (47.9%)
 Telephone 13 (27.1%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Efficiency of Responsiveness 2- Agreed that the division was responsive
with service delivery
Efficiency of Process & Facility 2- Agreed that the division’s process and
facility was efficient
Efficiency of Communication 3- Neutral on the level of communication
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Responsiveness 80%- Met target service standard
Process and Facility 70%- Did not meet target service standard
Communication 60%- Did not meet target service standard
Overall Customer Satisfaction
Focus Area Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate 70% -Did not meet target service standard

106

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

Forty-eight (48) respondents were surveyed, where nearly 67% (32) were males. The majority
of the respondents where within the age groups that ranged from 41 to 50 up to 60 years and
over (Figure 99).

Over 60 yrs
51 - 60 yrs
Age Group

41 - 50 yrs
31 - 40 yrs
21 - 30 yrs

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
21 - 30 yrs 31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs
Female 3 1 7 2 3
Male 2 8 4 10 8

Female Male

F IGURE 99: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
Exactly 46 respondents stated the main methods used to access products and service. Of this
sum, 57% (26) visited the entity, while 37% (17) used the telephone. Only four (4) per cent (2) of
the distribution indicated that they used online platform; those respondents were within the age
group 21 to 30 years (Table 16).

107

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 T ABLE 16: CROSS TABULATION - MAIN METHODS BY AGE GROUP
Main Methods

Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

21-30 2 (40.00%) 1 (20.0%) 2 (40.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (10.9%)

31 - 40 4 (50.0%) 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (17.4%)

41 - 50 7 (70.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (10.0%) 10 (21.7%)
51 - 60 7 (58.3%) 5 (41.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 12 (26.1%)

Over 60 6 (54.5%) 5 (45.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 11 (23.9%)

Column
26 (56.5%) 17 (37.0%) 2 (4.3%) 1 (2.2%) 46 (100.0%)
Total (%)

3. Preferred Method to Access Products and Services

A sum of 48 respondents expressed their preferred methods to access products and services
there was a noticeable increase of respondents that would prefer to gain access online (Table
17).

T ABLE 17: CROSS TABULATION - PREFERRED METHODS BY AGE GROUP

Preferred Methods

Age
Group Visit from Row Total
Walk-in Telephone Online
Agent (%)

21-30 3 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (40.0%) - 5 (%)

31 - 40 4 (44.4%) 5 (55.6%) 0 (0.0%) - 9 (%)

41 - 50 3 (27.3%) 2 (18.2%) 6 (54.5%) - 11 (%)

51 - 60 8 (66.7%) 1 (8.3%) 3 (25.0%) - 12 (%)

Over 60 5 (45.5%) 5 (45.5%) 1 (9.1%) - 11 (%)

Column
23 (47.9%) 13 (27.1%) 12 (25.0%) - 48 (100.0%)
Total (%)

108

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

Forty-eight (48) respondents gave 98 responses to measure responsiveness to deliver products
and services. The mean score obtained was two (2); as 43% (41) of the responses accounted
for those that strongly agreed, and another 38% (36) agreed that the entity delivered the
products in standard time-frame and that the quality of the service delivery met their
expectations (Figure 100).

Quality of product and service delivery met

23 18 3 22
your expectation
Entity delivered products and services in
18 18 4 5 2
standard time-frame
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Strong Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 100: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS & SERVICES

2. Areas of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Products

and Services
Forty-six (46) respondents stated the areas they experienced satisfaction; the largest proportion
(48%, 22) inferred that the product and services offered were satisfactory, while 33% (15) said
they were satisfied with the professionalism of the staff (Figure 101).

Areas of dissatisfaction were reported by 33 respondents. Just about one half of the
respondents were dissatisfied with the lack of product variation and the inefficiency of the
service, as they thought it was outdated (Figure 101).

109

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Staff
Areas of Satisfaction Professional/Responsive Slow turn-around Areas of Dissatisfaction
Online Paymenet Option time

3, 7% Availibity of Limited assistance

Workshops/Training from staff
Provide support for
small business 6, 18%
15, 33% Cost Effective
Location 8, 24%
inconvenient
3, 9%
Service was personalized 2, 6%
22, 48% Lack product
1, 2% variation and 2, 6% 4, 12%
Product/Service was
2, 4% good quality 8, 25%
1, 2% Limted staff
1, 2% Accessiblity to
1, 2% Information

F IGURE 101: AREAS OF SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION

3. Staff Responsiveness
A total of 213 responses were obtained to measure agreement with staff responsiveness. The
mean score recorded was two (2), as more than 80% (187) of the responses showed
agreement that the entity’s staff were responsiveness. The data revealed that there was no
disagreement with staff being professional. The areas with disagreement were staff being able
to resolve concerns, accessibility of staff and staff returning calls if a promise to do so was
requested (Figure 102).

Frontline staff was empathic & able to resolve

16 21 6 1
concerns
Staff was readily accessible 14 21 1 3 3

Agent returned called if promised 16 17 3 4 4

Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 21 21 1

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 20 20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 102: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

110

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 4. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness
The 48 respondents gave an overall satisfaction rating of 80% for responsiveness to service
customers. Approximately 38% (18) rated responsiveness as being good; while 29% (14) and
23% (11) said it was either fair or excellent, respectively ( Figure 103).

20 18
No. of Respondents

14
15
11
10
5
5

0
Average Fair Good Excellent
Frequency 5 14 18 11
F IGURE 103: SATISFACTION RATE - RESPONSIVENESS

Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

Agreement with ease of doing business had 258 responses. The mean score along the scale
was two (2); this was due to 71% (183) of the responses showing agreement that there was
ease of doing business. The statement with the highest amount of agreement was that the steps
or process to access the products and services were easy to use and understand. Statement
with the highest disagreement was that delivery time was efficient (Figure 104).

111

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Telephone operator was efficient and correctly
7 21 11
transferred calls
Calls were answered within five(5) rings 4 26 4 6 1
Queries sent by e-mails was addressed within a
11 9 1 2
seaonable timeframe
E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 6 9 5 5

Delivery time satisfactory and Efficient 15 22 1 5 5

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 5 5 1 23 9

Steps/process to access service was easy to
15 28 131
understand

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 104: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
A sum of 95 responses was provided to express agreement with comfort of the facility.
Approximately 55% (52) of the responses agreed that there was some form of comfort at the
facility while conducting business. However, 21% (20) disagreed; this was due mainly to
disagreement that the entity was equipped to handle customers with a disability. As a result, the
average score on the scale was three (3) for this category (Figure 105).

Facility had adequate secuirty 13 25 11

Facility had sufficient amenities 4 21 4 8 1

Facility was equipped to handle customers

6 1 10
with a disability

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 105: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

112

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Factors to Improve Process
Thirty-five (35) respondents reported the factors they thought could improve the process. Just
around 20% (7) said they entity needed more staff and resources such as farm animals and
other farm related equipment. In combination 34% (12) said faster turn-around time and an
increase in amenities, to provide comfort, could improve the process.

4. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

the average satisfaction rating obtained for process and facility was 70 per cent. This was due
to 48% (23) of the respondents that rated process and facility as good, compared to 27% (13)
that said it was fair (Figure 106).

25
No. of Respondents

20
23
15
10 13
5 5
2 5
0
Poor Average Fair Good Excellent
Rating

F IGURE 106: SATISFACTION RATE - PROCESS & FACILITY

Communication

1. Level of Communication
There was a collected sum of 264 responses on the agreement to measure level of
communication. The average score was three (3), indicating that the respondents were neutral
in their purview about the communication efforts of the entity. The respondents largely
disagreed that there was adequate advertisement in the media to keep them informed or that

113

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
the entity had invited them to participate in the design of the products and services (Figure
107).

There were adequate advertisment in the media 1 6 29 4

Dcouments were written in a manner that waseasily… 9 27 12
Touch points to access info about product/service… 8 25 6 3 2
Staff communicated effectively about… 16 24 2 5
Entity invited you to participate in the design of… 2 7 1 29 7
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new… 8 13 2 21 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 107: AGREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

2. Factors to Improve Communication

Thirty-nine (39) respondents reported factors they thought could improve communication.
Nearly 54% (21) suggested that the entity provide frequent updates about the service through
text messages and e-mails. Approximately 31% (12) thought increased advertisement in
traditional and social media could bolster communication efforts (Figure 108).

25
20
No. of Respondents

15
21
10 12
5 4
2
0
Create an app/ Provide Advertise on Provide frequent
live adequate Traditonal & updates about
chat/whatsapp information on Social Media services
to update serval medium
customers
F IGURE 108: FACTORS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION

114

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Communication
Forty-seven (47) respondents disclosed their satisfaction rating with the level of communication.
The average rating was 60%; collectively, 62% (29) of the respondents’ satisfaction ranged from
fair to very poor (Figure 109).

Average, 12
Good, 11
12
10 Fair, 8
No. of Respondents

Excellent, 7
8
Poor, 5
6 Very Poor, 4
4
2
0
Rating

F IGURE 109: SATISFACTION - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

Reliability of Service
Forty-six (46) respondents provided a total of 110 responses on the agreement scale to
measure reliability of service. Just about 60% (57) of the response primarily suggested that the
entity’s service was reliable. As such, the mean score was two (2); this was reflected by
agreement that the service can be reliably accessed during the regular business hour and that
they generally felt confident that they would always get the best quality of service (Figure 110).

115

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Found the online platform to be functional
2 10 2 3 2
and up-to-date

Service can be reliably accessed during

12 28 1 4 1
regular work hours

Generally you feel confident that you will

14 19 3 9
always get the best quality of service

0 10 20 30 40 50

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 110: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF S ERVICE

1. Perceived Customer Loyalty

Forty-five (45) respondents revealed whether they believed they would switch, if there was
another entity that provided the same products and services. Among this distribution, 47% (21)
said they would not switch, while 36% (16) said they would.

Among the respondents that said they would switch, 33% (5) said the quality of the products
and services was poor, and 27% (4) said the location of the entity was inconvenient (Figure
111).

0
Frequency
Distance of Facility 4
Outdated System 3
Poor Quality Service
5
&Products
High prices/ fees 1
Poor communication 2

F IGURE 111: S WITCH FACTORS

116

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customer Satisfaction

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Of 45 respondents, 42% (19) said they were satisfied with the customer service; and 33% (15)
of the distribution were extremely satisfied (Figure 112).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

For entire customer experience, 51% (23) of the respondents said they were satisfied, while
33% (15) were extremely satisfied (Figure 112).

Satisfaction with Customer Satisfaction with Customer

Service Experience
Extremely Extremely
Satisfied (1) Satisfied (1)
2, 5% 2, 5%
9, 20% 15, 33% Satisfied (2) Satisfied (2) 5, 11%
15, 33%
Neutral (3) Neutral (3)
19, 42%
Dissatisfied (4) Dissatisfied (4) 23, 51%

F IGURE 112: SATISFACTION SCALE - CUSTOMER SERVICE & EXPERIENCE

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the results of the focus areas and the overall service experience of the respondents, it
was found that the average customer satisfaction was 70%; this represented a ten (10) per cent
gap in service quality from meeting the target score of 80 per cent.

117

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 PLANT QUARANTINE PRODUCE
INSPECTION

118

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for 37 respondents that were
surveyed for the division, Plant Quarantine Produce Inspection. The frequency output either
reflects the full percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale type
responses are presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 37
 Males 18 (48.6%)
 Females 19 (51.4%)
Main Methods to Access Products Number of Respondents 46
& Services:
 Walk-in 26 (56.5%)
 Telephone 17 (37.0%)
Preferred Methods to Access Number of Respondents 48
Products &Services:
 Walk-in 23 (47.9%)
 Telephone 13 (27.1%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Efficiency of Responsiveness 2- Agreed that the division was responsive
with delivery of service
Efficiency of Process & Facility 2- Agreed that the process and facility was
efficient
Efficiency of Communication 3- Neutral that the level of communication
was efficient
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service of the division was
reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Responsiveness 80%- Met service standard
Process and Facility 80%- Met service standard
Communication 70%- Did not meet service standard
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate 77% - Did not meet service standard
119

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

Thirty-seven (37) respondents were surveyed. A little over one half (51%, 19) of the distribution
were females. The age group 31 to 40 years represented 27% (10) of the distribution, while
24% (9) and 22% (8) accounted for those within the cohort of 51 to years and 60 years and
over, respectively (Figure 113).

Over 60 yrs
Age Group

51 - 60 yrs

31 - 40 yrs

21 - 30 yrs

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21 - 30 yrs 31 - 40 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs

Female 1 6 4 4
Male 2 4 4 5

F IGURE 113: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
Seventy (70) per cent (26) of the respondents said they mainly accessed the products and
services by visiting the entity, while 22% (8) said they gained access online (Figure 114).

3. Preferred Method to Access Products and Services

Just around 68% (25) of the distribution said they would rather to gain access to products and
service online, in comparison to 24% (9) that indicated that they would prefer to continue visiting
the entity (Figure 114).

120

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Main Methods Preferred Methods
Walk-in
Walk-in

8, 22% 9, 24%
Telephone Telephone
3, 8% 3, 8%
26, 70% 25, 68%
Online/Website Online/Website

F IGURE 114: MAIN AND PREFERRED METHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

Seventy-three (73) responses were collected on the agreement with responsiveness to delivery
products and services. The mean score was two (2) on the scale. This signified that the
respondents mainly agreed with the statements below; this was represented by 59% (43) of the
responses (Figure 115).

Quality of product and service met your

10 23 3 1
expectation

Entity delivered products and services in

11 20 4 1
standard-time frame

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 115: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS & SERVICES

121

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Staff Responsiveness
A total of 163 responses were obtained on the agreement scale about staff responsiveness. The
mean score was two (2); 49% (79) represented the largest proportion of the responses that
agreed that the staff was responsive (Figure 116).

11 19 4 11

Staff was readily accessible 12 12 6 2

Agent returned called if promised 5 13 1 3 1

Frontline staff approachable & knowledgeable 14 17 4 1

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 15 18 21

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 116: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

3. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

Overall satisfaction with responsiveness obtained an average score of 80 per cent. This was
mainly due to 62% (23) of the respondents that rated the overall responsiveness as good
(Figure 117).
NO. OF RESPONDENTS

23

8
5
1

AVERAGE FAIR GOOD EXCELLENT

RATING

F IGURE 117: SATISFACTION - RESPONSIVENESS

122

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

The respondents gave, in total, 239 response scores on the agreement scale to measure ease
of doing business. The mean score for the statements, below, was two (2); this resulted from
majority of the respondents that agreed that the entity provided ease when doing business. The
area with highest number of agreement was that delivery time was satisfactory and efficient
(Figure 118).

Telephone operator was efficient and transferred calls

6 19 3 1
correctly

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 2 20 3 5

Queries sent by e-mail were addressed in a reasonable

3 9 1
timeframe

E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 5 16 111

Delivery time satisfactory and efficient 14 18 3 11

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 1 2 1 19 13

Step/process to access products/service was easy to use 7 21 2 5 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 118: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINE SS

2. Comfort of Facility
Thirty-four (34) respondents gave 89 responses on their agreement with the comfort of the
facility. The mean score was three (3), which explained that the responses were neutral about
comfort of the facility. This was mainly attributed to respondents’ disagreement that the entity
was equipped to handle customers with a disability (Figure 119).

123

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Facility had adequate security 7 19 4 1

Facility had sufficient amenities 4 20 5 4 1

Facility was equipped to handle customers with a disability 1 4 1 9 9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 119: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

3. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility

The satisfaction rate for process and facility was 80%, which met the target for service standard.
Among the 37 respondents, 46% (17) rated the efficiency of process and facility as good, while
41% (15) said it was fair.

Communication

1. Level of Communication
Exactly 187 scores were obtained on the agreement scale to measure level of communication.
The mean score across the statements was three (3); the respondents, on average, were
neutral about the efficiency of communication. The score was impacted by the large number of
disagreement that the entity invited customers to participate in the design of the services, along
with adequate advertisements in the media (Figure 120).

124

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 There were adequate advertisement in the media 1 9 1 11 6
Dcouments were written in a manner that was easily… 8 25 2
Touch points to access info was available 6 21 2 3
Staff communicated effectively 8 26 2 1
Entity invited you to participate in the design of the service 1 22 8
Entity had adequate updates on existing and new products 3 5 5 9 2

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 120: AGREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

2. Overall Satisfaction with Communication

Satisfaction with communication received an average rating of 70 per cent, which explained that
the average number of respondent felt that the communication efforts were fair. This reflected a
ten (10) percentage gap in service quality to meet the target service standard score of 80 per
cent.

Reliability of Service
Ninety-eight (98) responses were received to measure agreement on reliability of service.
Across the statements the mean score recorded was two (2); the responses largely showed
agreement that the services could be accessed within the stipulated business hours and that the
respondents generally felt confident that they would always receive the best quality of service
(Figure 121).

125

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Found online platform to be functional and
1 12 3 8 3
up-to-date
Service can be reliably accessed during
6 26 3 1
regular work hours
Generally you feel confident that will always
9 21 2 3
get the best quality of service
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 121: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVICE

Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Among the respondents, roughly 60% (22) indicated that they were satisfied with the customer
service and 30% (11) were extremely satisfied (Figure 122).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

Only a marginal amount of respondents admitted that they were dissatisfied with their overall
customer experience, as over 60% (25) were satisfied and 22% (8) expressed extreme
satisfaction (Figure 122).

Satisfaction with Customer Experience 8 25 2 2

Satisfaction with Customer Service 11 22 3 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Satisfaction Scale

Extremely Satisfied (1) Satisfied (2) Neutral (3)Dissatisfied (4) Extremely Dissatisfied (5)

F IGURE 122: SATISFACTION SCALE : CUSTOMER SERVICE & EXPERIENCE

126

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate
The overall customer satisfaction rate for the entity was 77%; this represented a marginal gap in
service quality by three (3) per cent from meeting the target service standard of 80 per cent.

127

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 VETERINARY SERVICES DIVISION

128

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Summary of Main Findings
The table below provides a summary of the main findings for 28 respondents that were
surveyed for the Veterinary Services Division. The frequency output either reflects the full
percentages or the largest proportion of the distribution. The scale type responses are
presented in averages and overall rating.

Summary of Main Findings

Customers’ Composition Frequency (%)
Number of Respondents Surveyed: 28
 Males 9 (32.1%)
 Females 19 (67.9%)
Main Methods to Access Products Number of Respondents 26
& Services:
 Online 26 (53.8%)
 Walk-in 7 (26.9%)
Preferred Methods to Access Number of Respondents 27
Products & Services:
 Online 20 (74.1%)
 Walk-in 4 (14.8%)
Five Point Agreement Scale
Focus Area Average Score
Efficiency of Responsiveness 2- Agreed that the division was responsive to
delivery service
Efficiency of Process & Facility 2- Agreed that the process and facility was
efficient
Efficiency of Communication 2- Agreed that the level of communication
was efficient
Reliability of Service 2- Agreed that the service was reliable
Ten Point Rating Scale
Focus Area Average Rating
Responsiveness 90%- Met target service standard
Process and Facility 80%-Met target service standard
Communication 80%-Met target service standard
Customer Satisfaction
Variable Average Rating
Customer Service 2- Satisfied with Customer Service
Customer Experience 2- Satisfied with Customer Experience
Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate 83% -Met target service standard

129

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Customers’ Composition

1. Number of Respondents Surveyed by Age and Sex

Twenty-eight (28) respondents were accounted for in the survey. Females represented the
largest proportion, which represented nearly 68% (19) of the distribution. Collectively, more than
one half of the distribution (57%, 16) was with the age groups of 41 to 50 years and 51 to 60
years (Figure 123).

Over 60 yrs
51 - 60 yrs
41 - 50 yrs
Age Group

31 - 40 yrs
21 - 30 yrs

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

21 - 30 yrs 31 - 40 yrs 41 - 50 yrs 51 - 60 yrs Over 60 yrs

Female 3 3 5 5 3
Male 2 1 2 4 0

F IGURE 123: AGE / SEX COMPOSITION

2. Customers’ Main Methods to Access Products and

Services
Of 26 respondents, 54% (14) mainly accessed products and services online; while 27% (7) said
they visited the entity (Figure 124).

3. Preferred Methods to Access Products and Services

In comparison to the main methods, there was a significant increase in the number of
respondents that indicated that they would prefer to gain access online; this accounted for 74%
(20) of the distribution (Figure 124).

130

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Main Methods Preferred Methods
Walk-in
Walk-in
Telephone
1, 4%
4, 15%
7, 27% Telephone
Online/Website 2, 7%
14, 54%
5, 19% Online/Website
Visit from 20, 74%
Extension
officer/Agent

F IGURE 124: M AIN & P REFERRED M ETHODS TO ACCESS PRODUCTS & SERVICES

Responsiveness

1. Delivery of Products and Services

Twenty-seven (27) respondents provided 53 responses on their agreement with responsiveness
to delivery products and services. The mean score obtained was two (2), as 53% (28) of the
responses mainly agreed that the entity delivered products and services within the standard
time-frame and that the quality of the delivery met the respondents expectation (Figure 125).

Quality of product and service met your

11 14 11
expectation

Entity delivered products and services in

9 43 5 7 3
standard-time frame

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 125: AGREEMENT SCALE - DELIVERY OF PRODUCTS & SERVICES

131

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Staff Responsiveness
.Among 25 respondents, a total of 90 responses were collected. The mean score recorded was
two (2); as such, 72% (65) of the responses chiefly showed agreement that the staff was
responsive. The respondents largely agreed that the staff was professional and that staff was
readily accessible to deliver services (Figure 126).

2 17 11

Staff was readily accessible 5 16 2

Agent returned called if promised 1 9 1

Frontline staff approachable &… 7 9 11

Walk-in appoints staff was professional 3 14

0 5 10 15 20 25

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 126: AGREEMENT SCALE - STAFF RESPONSIVENESS

3. Overall Satisfaction with Responsiveness

The overall satisfaction rating for responsiveness was 90 per cent. This represented a ten (10)
percentage score above the target service standard score of 80 per cent.

Process and Facility

1. Ease of Doing Business

A total of 150 responses were obtained, from 27 respondents, on the agreement scale to
measure ease of doing business. Approximately 66% (99) of the responses agreed that the
entity provided ease when doing business. The largest number of agreement was found with
statements on efficiency with delivery time and that the steps or process to obtain services was
easy to understand (Figure 127).
132

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 Telephone operator was efficient and transferred calls… 10 2 1

Calls were answered within five (5) rings 1 15 3

Queries sent by e-mail were addressed in a reasonable… 1 17 1

E-mails sent were acknowledged within 24-hrs 1 16 2

Delivery time satisfactory and efficient 3 19 2 11

Had to wait a long time in line to get the service 1 3 4 15 4

Step/process to access products/service was easy to use 2 19 4 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 127: AGREEMENT SCALE - EASE OF DOING BUSINESS

2. Comfort of Facility
Thirty-four (34) responses were received, from only 15 respondents, to measure comfort of the
facility. Nearly 68% (23) of the responses primarily agreed that the entity proved comfort while
doing business. The respondents largely agreed that there was adequate security and
amenities. The largest proportion indicated that the facility was equipped to handle customers
with a disability when compared to those that disagreed (Figure 128).Based on these results,
the average score obtained for comfort was two (2) on the scale.

Facility had adequate security 10 3

Facility had sufficient amenities 2 8 3

Facility was equipped to handle customers with a

5 3
disability

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strong Disagree (5)

F IGURE 128: AGREEMENT SCALE - COMFORT OF FACILITY

133

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 3. Overall Satisfaction with Process and Facility
Exactly 25 respondents stated their satisfaction with process and facility. The average rating
received was 80%, as 52% (13) respondents rated process and facility as being good, while
another 24% (6) said it was excellent. Based on the results, the entity met the target service
standard score.

Communication

1. Level of Communication
The agreement scale to measure level of communication had a sum of 120 scores. The average
score was three (3), as there was an almost even spread for those that agreed or disagreed that
the entity’s communication efforts were efficient. The largest number of agreement was with
documents being written in a clear manner that was easy to understand. The statements with
the highest number of disagreement was with the entity inviting customers to participate in the
design of the products and services and entity providing adequate updates on services (Figure
129).

There were adequate advertisement in the… 3 3 6

Dcouments were written in a manner that… 3 22 2

Touch points to access info was available 1 11 2 1

Staff communicated effectively 6 17 11

Entity invited you to participate in the… 3 3 16

Entity had adequate updates on existing and… 2 2 2 13

Agreement Scale
Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 129: AGREEMENT SCALE - LEVEL OF COMMUNICATI ON

134

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 2. Overall Satisfaction with Communication
A total of 23 respondents stated their satisfaction with level of communication. The average
rating was 80%, this resulted from 39% (9) and 26% (6) of the respondents that rated
communication as being either good or excellent, respectively.

Reliability of Service
Statements to measure reliability of service obtained 72 responses on the agreement scale. The
mean score was two (2); this resulted from 63% (45) of the responses was in agreement that
the service can be reliably accessed during the regular business hour or the respondents
generally felt confident that they would always get the best quality of service (Figure 130).

Found online platform to be functional and up-to-

13 9 2
date
Service can be reliably accessed during regular
2 18 4 1
work hours
Generally you feel confident that will always get
5 14 3 1
the best quality of service
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Agreement Scale

Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (4) Strongly Disagree (5)

F IGURE 130: AGREEMENT SCALE - RELIABILITY OF SERVI CE

1. Perceived Customer Loyalty

Twenty-three (23) respondents reported on their perceived level of customer loyalty.
Approximately 48% (11) proclaimed that they would not switch, if there was another entity that
provide the same products and services. Just about 30% (7) said they were unsure, while the
remaining proportion of the distribution said they would switch.

135

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

1. Satisfaction with Customer Service

Of 27 respondents, 51% (14) said that they were satisfied with customer service; while 41% (11)
expressed that they were extremely satisfied (Figure 131).

2. Satisfaction with Customer Experience

Among 26 respondents, exactly one half (50%, 13) stated that they were extremely satisfied;
while 42% (11) said that they were satisfied (Figure 131).

Satisfaction with Customer Experience 13 11 2

Satisfaction with Customer Service 11 14 1 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Satisfaction Scale

Extremely Satisfied (1) Satisfied (2) Neutral (3)Dissatisfied (4) Extremely Dissatisfied (5)

F IGURE 131: SATISFACTION SCALE - CUSTOMER SERVICE & EXPERIENCE

3. Overall Customer Satisfaction Rate

Based on the results of the respondents’ entire experience with the entity, the average customer
satisfaction rate was 83%; this represented a three (3) percentage score above the target
service standard of 80 per cent.

136

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries would like to express gratitude to the all staff
members, agencies and other relevant stakeholders that facilitated the administering of our
Customer Satisfaction Assessment. The Assessment was managed by the Ministry’s Customer
Service Branch. Enthusiasm of all the staff members to complete the required tasks in an
efficient and professional manner is appreciated.

Acknowledgement is also being given to the Agricultural Land Management and Plant
Quarantine Produce Inspection Divisions, within the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, for
allocating staff to expedite the data collection exercise

Special acknowledgement is also being given to the Information Communication Technology

(ICT) team, of the Ministry, for creating an enabling environment for the data collection and data
entry exercise. The unit provided the technical expertise of software support and data
processing, which was a critical component for the successful completion of the final report of
the survey.

We commend the following Agencies and Divisions that facilitated the assessment with
provision of customers’ information; these included:

 Agro Investment Co-operation (AIC)

 Agricultural Land Management Division (ALMD)
 Jamaica Agricultural Commodities Regulatory Authority (JACRA)
 Jamaica Dairy Development Board (JDDB)
 National Irrigation Commission (NIC)
 Plant Quarantine Produce Inspection Division (PQ/PI)
 Rural Agricultural Development Agency (RADA)
 Research and Development Division (Bodles)
 Veterinary Services Division (VSD)

137

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term Definition Page
Arithmetic Mean This is the simplest and most widely
used measure of a mean or average.
4
Bivariate This is includes data for two 5
variables (usually two types of
related data)
Central Tendency A summary of statistic that
represents the center point or typical
value of a dataset. 4

Cross-Tabulation These are data tables that present the

results of the entire group of
respondents and also from sub- 5
groups of survey respondents
Customer Experience This is the impression your 8
customers have of your brand as a
whole throughout all aspects of the
buyer’s journey.
Descriptive Statistic These are brief descriptive
coefficients that summarize a given
data set, which can either be a 1
representation of the entire or a
sample of population.
Distribution The act of sharing something out
among a number of recipients.
7
Frequency Output The number of occurrences of a 7
repeating event per unit of time that
is produced by a person or machine.
Likert Scale This is a type of rating scale used to 3
measure attitudes or opinions.
Primary Data This is data collected by a researcher
from first hand sources like: surveys
or interviews.
3
Quantitative Study The process of collecting and 3
analyzing numerical data
Survey A research method used for
collecting data from a predefined
138

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 group of respondents to gain
information and insight.
3
Systematic Random Sampling This is a method used to select 3
Method samples at a particular preset
interval.
Telephone Interview A type of data collection method in
which the interviewer communicates
with the respondent via telephone 3
using a prepared questionnaire.
Touch Point A place or situation in which a 19
business has contact with its
customers.
Variable A quantity that may assume any one 4
of a set of values.

139

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 APPENDICES

140

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
vi.1 Appendix: Questionnaire

141

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 142

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 143

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 144

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 145

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
 146

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
vi.2 Appendix: Switching Factors

14 13
12 10
10 8
8 7
No. of Responses

6 4 4 4
4 3
2
2 1 1
0

Type of S Factors

vi.3 Appendix: Factors to Improve Process & Facility

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Frequency
Faster turn around time 4
Simplify business process/More
1
efficiency
Decrease bureaucracy/review policies 2
Liason with MDA to improve process 1
Provide more farm
2
products/animals/equipment
Increase assistance to
1
farmers/businesses
More informed and professional staff 1

147

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
vi.4 Appendix: Factors to Improve Process and Facility
8
No. of Responses

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
Faster turnaround time 3
Provide adequate information to
1
customers
Provide service online/Improve
2
technology
Need more staff/resources 1
Decrease Fees 1
Simplify business process 1
Increase payment options/online payment 4
Improve knowledge/presence of security
5
staff
Make provision for disabled persons 2
Train staff in customer service 7
Improve response time /Interaction with
3
customers

148

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
vi.5 Appendix: Factors to Improve Communication
12
10
No. of Responses

8
6
4
2
0
1
Improve staff responsiveness/follow-ups 11
Increase accessiblity to information 4
Train Staff to communicate clear/Active
2
listening
Increase Ads On traditonal and SocIal
8
Media
Implement automated system/live chat 2
Make written documents comprehensive 1
Provide frequent updates about services 6
Provide feed back boxes 1

149

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
vi.6 Appendix: Factors to improve Process and Facility
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Frequency
Faster turn-around time 5
Provide service online/Improve
1
technology
Need more staff/resources 2
Improve communication 1
Develop better monitoring /field
5
officers
Increase meetings/ workshops with
2
farmers
Make provision for disabled persons 1
Provide more farm
5
products/animals/equipment
Increase assistance to
1
farmers/businesses
More informed and professional staff 1

150

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
vi.7 Appendix: Factors to Improve Process & Facility
7

0
Provide Simplify Provide
Faster turn- Onlive Need more Online
adequate Review Fees business amentities(c
around time Service staff payment
information process offee)
Frequency 2 4 3 1 1 2 6 2

151

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries
Version and Document Control:
Version/Draft No. Date of Issue Description Author
v1 December, 2020 Submitted to Principal Manager, Customer Service M&E
Director, Corporate /Customer Service Branch
Services

DOCUMENT APPROVAL AND SIGN OFF

This document is approved by the Permanent Secretary and the Principal Director, Corporate Services.

152

Customer Satisfaction Assessment

November 2020
Customer Service Branch
Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries