Questionnaire Analysis of Derby Zoo
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire provided in appendix 1 of the case study in its objective of providing a priority agenda for improvement to operations at Derby Zoo by:
• Reviewing the available literature (e.g. academic text books and articles) on how to design a questionnaire to establish what is ‘best practice’ in questionnaire design.
• Comparing the Derby Zoo questionnaire to ‘best practice’ in questionnaire design (e.g. how should the questions be phrased, the use of open / closed questions, and how should a questionnaire be laid out etc)
• Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the Derby Zoo questionnaire
• Considering how else Derby Zoo could have collected the required information - analysing the strengths and weaknesses of interview, focus group, or questionnaire for obtaining the required customer data by reviewing the available literature
• Recommending the ‘best’ method (eg interview, focus group or questionnaire) for Derby Zoo - should they use a questionnaire / focus group / interview or a mixed approach?
2 What do the various figures in appendices 2 and 3 in the case tell you about Derby Zoo's performance from the visitors perspective? Use the Importance / Performance matrix to determine where Derby Zoo is performing well, and where is it performing badly, by:
• Describing how the standard 9x9 IP Matrix works
• Identifying and justifying all changes you need to make to the standard 9x9 IP matrix methodology to use the Derby Zoo data
• Identifying and justifying all changes you need to make to the standard (9x9) IP matrix to use the Derby Zoo data
• Plotting the IP Matrix using Microsoft Excel using the ‘Overall’ figures
• Which factors are in the ‘Urgent Action’ zone, and which are in the ‘Improve’ zone?
• Which sequence would you do the required changes in? - justify your sequence
• Critically evaluating the use of the IP Matrix:
- is the information it provides useful in determining improvement priorities?
- what other analytical models could be used?
- what are the advantages and disadvantages of each model that you found?
- what improvements would you make to the IP Matrix, and why would you make them?
3 Using the 18 determinants of service quality as stated in Appendix 2, devise your own questionnaire for Derby Zoo, explaining how the ‘best practice’ design criteria from question 1 have been incorporated into your proposed questionnaire.
Each question is equally weighted.
The format is academic report.
The hand in date is Thursday 5th May 2011.
You are expected to provide a front cover containing the assignment details, your name and student number, and the word count. Each page is to be numbered, each question is to be answered on a separate page, and you are to use Harvard referencing.
In order to fulfil the requirements of your Personnel Development Plan (PDP) you may include a personal reflection on the process of managing your learning on this module. If you would like to include this as an appendix to your assignment then you can receive feedback on your reflection. This will not count towards your overall mark or towards your word count.
Word limit of 2,000 to 2,500. If you exceed 2,800 words you will be deducted a grade, if you exceed 3,100 words you will fail. Everything apart from the front cover page, any personal reflection you may have included as an appendix, and the list of references counts towards your word count limit.
In addition to the hard copy of your assignment you are to submit an electronic copy as one document either on CD-ROM, DVD or memory stick.
Credit will be given for the application of relevant models to the case. You will not pass if you are purely descriptive!
Good luck!
DERBY ZOO
INTRODUCTION
Dr Joe Dimbelby, the Director of Derby Zoo turned away from his window:
'I have quite a good view of Markeaton Park and the zoo from here. You get quite a good feel for the attendance numbers just from watching the stream of people walking along the pavement. We have a huge fluctuation in daily numbers. Our busiest times are obviously weekends and the summer holidays when we regularly get attendance levels of between 4,000 and 6,000. On the Easter and August Bank Holidays we can easily reach 10,000.
We certainly need to increase our visitor numbers, but it is vital that we still provide a high quality of service; and there lies our problem. We have had all the usual market research done for us: we know the age range, group size, average length of visit, where the visitors come from, and even which newspapers they read. We also know which animals they like best: the monkeys, big cats, elephants and penguins are always popular, but we do not really know what the public thinks of the quality of the service we provide throughout their visit. Apart from providing the animals, what are we doing right and when? If we do not know that, how can we improve and build on our successes? Marketing is all very well at getting people here, but once they are here we have to keep them and organise our operations to give them a good day out.’
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON DERBY ZOO
Ever since it opened in 1888, Derby Zoo has played a major part in the country's interest in natural history both as a scientific and recreational activity, and has one of the most prestigious animal collections in the world. From the start the zoo had a wide range of exotic species including Indian elephants, llamas, leopards, kangaroos, bears and numerous birds. The collection grew rapidly with the addition of an orang-utan, an Indian rhinoceros, giraffes, and chimpanzees all arriving over the first 10 years.
Visitor attendance levels have always fluctuated as fashion and public interest have increased and waned with the introduction of new exhibits and developments, or as investment declined. In the 1890s annual attendance levels exceeded 250,000, but fluctuated considerably during the early half of the 20th century. After the Second World War, attendance figures leapt to 3 million, but by the mid-50s the visitor numbers had settled back down towards their pre-war 2 million level and remained stable for some time. In the late 1960s and early 1970s a new decline began and by 1975 attendance levels started to fall rapidly. By the early 1980s visitor levels were just over 1 million, and the budgeted 2007/8 attendance level was just 600,000.
The proportional decrease in the attendance of animal attractions was coupled with the change in the public's perception of the rights of animals, the care of animals in captivity and the effect of caging animals on their health, behaviour, and psychology. The morality, function and need of zoos was also questioned with an emphasis being placed on the requirement for conservation to occur in the wild.
THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
With the support of the zoo's staff, Dr Dimbelby- development plan was published and adopted, in June 2006. The aim was summarised in the statement that 'there will be less emphasis on the zoo as a good day out. We are going to appeal to people's intelligence. Zoos have no right to exist in the early 21st century unless they can show they are good for animals'. An emphasis was placed on cost-cutting and the evaluation of the species in the collection; with particular consideration to those for which the captive breeding programmes were an integral part of their conservation, and in line with the zoo's mission statement.
THE SERVICE QUALITY RESEARCH PROJECT
In June 2007, Joe Dimbelby was addressing a meeting of the monthly management committee:
'For us to manage the budget and to break even we must maintain an attendance level of at least 600,000 visitors a year. . . but even then there will be very little money available to carry out the much needed modification of the infrastructure, and the addition of new exhibits. A secure financial future would enable us to carry out our development and expansion plans, and to adapt further as views and perceptions of the public and of society as a whole change. It is therefore essential that we accurately define our target market segments, identify what our customers expect when they come to the zoo, and then provide them with their needs and requirements at a consistently high quality of service. Of course, we must target and attract these customers using accurate and effective marketing, promotions and Public Relations(PR), but to build and maintain a reputation we must be able to deliver what the customers want, or they will not come back. If we fail to do that, the customer will be disgruntled and dissatisfied, and when they return home they will spread their dissatisfaction or disappointment by 'word-of-mouth'. The consequence will be that visitors will not return, and new visitors will not be attracted. If, however, the service is as wanted and expected, or even exceeds expectations, the visitors will leave satisfied and delighted. They will spread the zoo's positive reputation, returning themselves and helping to increase the level of new visitors.'
'In order to ensure that we achieve our aim of providing the visitors with an excellent day out and so attract them back again in even greater numbers, it is essential that we find out how they rate their visit. This involves two basic issues: the first is to discover how the zoo performs with respect to the service it provides, and the second is to ensure that it is delivering the services that the customers want. It is only after we have some measure of these things that we can hope to fine tune our operating procedures, and develop a plan of action to tackle problem areas in some order of priority.’
The questionnaire contained a comprehensive list of questions that could be asked about the zoo and the visitors' experience. It was worded so that people could make a judgement of their perceptions of the quality of the service they have experienced, on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 is very bad and 5 is very good, and hence 3 is average. The second part of the questionnaire was designed to discover what customers expected from the zoo during their visit. This was achieved by providing a list of short statements derived from each of the questions asked in the first section of the questionnaire, and asked to consider their expectations of the zoo, and to select and rank the top ten statements.
It was necessary for visitors to have experienced a large proportion of the zoo's facilities and service process, as a result all respondents had to have been at the zoo for at least two hours prior to the interview (half the average visit duration) in order to be allowed to complete a questionnaire, assisted by a member of staff. As a result the areas used to select potential respondents were predominately those in which people were likely to be resting and eating, namely seating areas, and near to the restaurant and cafe facilities. The interviews were conducted on a group basis with all members of the group taking part and the questions answered with respect to the group as a whole. A consensus group view was also obtained for the second part of the questionnaire to obtain a top ten priority ranking of those aspects of the visit that they felt the zoo should provide.
QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
Over the three-month period of the survey (July, August and September 2007), a total of 755 questionnaires were completed on 38 separate days. The attendance levels varied between 846 on 18th September and 7,554 on the August Bank Holiday Monday.
The results were analysed and the performance scores scaled onto a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 representing the poorest performance or of very low priority, and 5 representing an excellent performance or the highest priority to be provided by the zoo. The scaling of the priorities assigned to each aspect of a visit was more complex. The priorities were given as rankings and were therefore relative. Each priority ranking was assigned a score with the highest priority (1) receiving the highest score, the lowest priority (10) receiving the lowest score, and all those not included in the top ten list were given a score of zero. All the scores assigned to any given aspect were added together for any given day or attendance band, and these were then ranked in order of scores, with the highest overall score representing the highest overall priority. To scale these scores onto a 1-5 scale, the highest score achieved by any aspect in any attendance band was awarded a score of 5, and then all the other scores were scaled by the same factor to achieve a score between 0-5. As only the highest score achieved in any set of attendance bands was awarded a 5 it enabled a true comparison to be made between attendance bands, to see how priorities changed under different conditions.
The results were collected and presented in four categories:
1 The overall results averaged for all the data sets obtained
2 The data divided into three groups of daily visitor attendance levels:
(a) (b1) 0 to 2,999 visitors per day;
(b) (b2) 3,000 to 5,999 visitors per day;
(c) (b3) over 6,000 visitors per day.
The performance and priority results are tabulated in Appendix 2 and 3 respectively. At first sight the data appeared to show that the zoo was performing well overall, although there was significant variation between different attributes of quality. The Zoo now needs to use these figures to determine a prioritised plan of action to improve its service delivery system.
APPENDIX 1
DERBY ZOO CUSTOMER QUESTIONNAIRE
The first page of the questionnaire recorded details of the respondents' group size ages times of arrival and of anticipated departure the time and date of the interview and the weather conditions
These questions are intended to be answered relatively quickly to reflect your general perceptions of your visit. If you are completing the questionnaire as part of a group, please feel free to discuss your answers briefly within your group.
Questions 1-29 are scored on a 1-5 scale, where 1 reflects the lowest degree of satisfaction and 5 the highest, or you can leave it blank (a separate card as below was provided for reference).
1 = Very bad / very disappointing / unacceptably poor / never or rarely.
2 = Bad / disappointing / poor / not frequently enough.
3 = Average / usually / could be improved.
4 = Good / above average / most of the time.
5 =Very good indeed /very satisfactory / delighted / always
Or leave blank
Please answer questions 1-28 on the separate answer sheet (not included in this case) by ringing the appropriate number (1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4 ... 5 )
1 How do you rate the parking facilities (being able to find a parking space)?
2 How do you rate being able to find your way around the zoo?
3 How do you rate the access and being able to move freely around the zoo?
4 How do you rate the visibility of the animals?
5 How do you rate the happiness of the animals with their environment?
6 How do you rate your overall impression of the appearance of the zoo?
7 How do you rate the attentiveness and helpfulness of:
(a) The staff?
(b) The volunteers (Information etc.)?
8 How did you rate the level and usefulness of the contact with staff?
9 For your needs:
(a) How do you rate the number of animals available to see?
(b) How do you rate the number of events and presentations?
10 How would you rate how Derby Zoo looks after its animals?
11 How do you rate Derby Zoo as a conservation organisation?
12 How would you rate how Derby Zoo looks after you, its visitors?
13 How would you rate your visit to Derby Zoo as an educational experience?
14 How do you rate the cleanliness and tidiness of Derby Zoo?
15 How do you rate the smartness and tidiness of the staff at Derby Zoo?
16 How do you rate the comfort of the animals at Derby Zoo?
17 How do you rate the quality and provision of toilet facilities throughout the zoo?
18 How do you rate the quality and provision of catering facilities throughout the zoo?
19 How do you rate the commitment of Derby Zoo to:
(a) The animals?
(b) You, its visitors?
(c) Conservation and Education?
20 How do you rate the degree to which the information available around the zoo answered any questions or interests you had?
21 How do you rate the professionalism of Derby Zoo at:
(a) Caring for their animals?
(b) Customer care?
22 How do you rate Derby Zoo as a friendly place to be?
23 Overall how do you rate your day out at Derby Zoo?
24 Having been to Derby Zoo, how do you rate the honesty of Derby Zoo in its aim of Conservation in Action?
25 How do you rate the quality of the events and presentations?
26 How do you rate the time you spent queuing at Derby Zoo?
27 How do you rate your safety and that of your group, during your day at Derby Zoo?
28 How do you rate Derby Zoo for value for money?
29 When thinking about today's visit to Derby Zoo, which 10 of the factors listed below would you consider that a zoo should provide generally or during your visit when you are deciding whether to come again and/or recommending Derby Zoo to friends or family? Please number these in order of priority (1= highest priority).
For example; If you think being able to see the animals is the factor of highest priority when you consider visiting Derby Zoo again, or recommending it to friends and family, put a '1' in the priority box in row 4. Then put a '2' in the priority box of the next most important factor, and so on until '10',
No. Factor Priority
1 It is easy to find a parking space.
2 It is easy to find your way around the zoo.
3 There is good access and it is easy to move freely around the zoo.
4 It is easy to see the animals
5 The animals are happy with their environment.
6 The zoo is in a good condition.
7a The staff are attentive and helpful.
7b The volunteers are attentive and helpful.
8 There is plentiful contact with the staff.
9a There are enough animals to see.
9b There are enough events and presentations to see.
10 The animals are looked after well.
11 The zoo is an important conservation organisation.
12 The visitors are looked after well.
13 A visit to the zoo is a good educational experience.
14 The zoo is clean and tidy.
15 The staff are clean and tidy.
16 The animals are comfortable.
17 There are enough high quality toilet facilities.
18 There are enough high quality catering facilities.
19a The zoo is committed to its animals.
19b The zoo is committed to its visitors.
19c The zoo is committed to conservation and education.
20 There is sufficient information available to answer your questions and interests
21a The zoo is a professional organisation with respect to the care of its animals
21b The zoo is a professional organisation with respect to the care of its visitors
22 It is a friendly place to be.
23 Overall a visit to the zoo is an enjoyable day out.
24 The zoo is honest in its aim of Conservation in Action.
25 The events and presentations are of high quality.
26 There is minimal queuing.
27 It is a safe place to spend the day.
28 It is good value for money.
Any Other Comments:
APPENDIX 2
PERFORMANCE SCORES
This table shows the mean performance scores achieved by each attribute investigated. The mean scores are calculated overall, and for three bands of attendance levels.
Adjusted mean performance score (1-5 scale)
Question Aspect of visit Overall 0-2999 3000-6000 over 6000
number visitors visitors visitors
1 Parking 3.36 4.31 3.53 1.82
2 Find way around zoo 2.41 2.38 2.66 1.99
3 Access, free movement 3.49 4.46 3.57 2.45
4 Visibility of animals 2.18 2.18 2.17 1.96
5 Happiness of animals 1.96 2.23 2.13 1.78
6 Appearance of zoo 2.08 2.28 2.65 1.32
7(a) Attentative & helpfulness: staff 2.45 2.70 3.03 1.76
7(b) Attentative & helpfulness: volunteers 3.69 3.58 4.27 3.80
8 Contact with staff 1.10 0.60 1.62 1.07
9(a) Number of animals to see 2.88 2.79 3.08 2.64
9(b) Number of events and presentations 2.01 1.77 2.53 2.19
10 Care of animals 3.77 4.07 3.88 3.46
11 Conservation organisation 4.01 4.90 3.91 3.44
12 Care of visitors 2.31 2.08 2.69 1.86
13 Educational experience 3.58 4.12 3.57 3.01
14 Cleanliness and tidiness 2.76 4.46 2.99 1.73
15 Smartness and tidiness of staff 2.54 3.13 2.79 2.03
16 Comfort of animals 1.73 2.43 1.87 1.51
17 Quality and provision of toilets 2.46 3.51 2.56 1.49
18 Quality and provision of catering 1.72 1.67 2.29 1.18
19(a) Commitment to animals 4.37 4.47 4.47 3.99
19(b) Commitment to visitors 2.86 2.11 3.24 1.97
19(c) Commitment to conservation/educn. 3.37 3.93 3.56 3.13
20 Availability of information 2.66 2.38 2.89 2.31
21(a) Professionalism: care for animals 4.37 3.77 4.58 4.01
21(b) Professionalism: customer care 2.29 1.87 2.64 1.72
22 Friendliness 3.36 2.29 4.02 2.33
23 Overall as day out 3.58 3.10 4.35 3.32
24 Honesty of aims of Derby Zoo 3.09 3.34 3.22 2.66
25 Quality of events and presentations 3.42 3.02 3.99 2.67
26 Time queuing 3.43 4.81 3.33 2.19
27 Safety of you/group 3.46 3.33 3.43 3.43
28 Value for money 2.68 2.27 2.99 2.45
APPENDIX 3
PRIORITY SCORES
This table shows the mean priority scores achieved by each attribute investigated. The mean scores are calculated overall, and for three bands of attendance levels
Adjusted mean performance score (1-5 scale)
Question Aspect of visit Overall 0-2999 3000-6000 over 6000
number visitors visitors visitors
1 Parking 2.48 1.29 2.66 3.28
2 Find way around zoo 3.29 3.17 3.39 3.47
3 Access, free movement 3.27 3.21 3.05 3.40
4 Visibility of animals 4.78 4.72 4.94 4.69
5 Happiness of animals 4.79 4.89 4.52 5.00
6 Appearance of zoo 2.60 2.86 3.04 2.03
7(a) Attentative & helpfulness: staff 3.01 2.63 2.89 3.46
7(b) Attentative & helpfulness: volunteers 2.83 1.92 2.86 3.50
8 Contact with staff 3.07 2.88 3.09 3.36
9(a) Number of animals to see 3.78 3.57 3.83 4.01
9(b) Number of events and presentations 3.30 3.08 3.17 3.74
10 Care of animals 4.65 4.78 4.31 4.76
11 Conservation organisation 3.07 3.30 3.22 2.88
12 Care of visitors 2.38 2.37 2.12 2.87
13 Educational experience 3.67 3.51 3.29 3.75
14 Cleanliness and tidiness 3.54 3.44 3.19 3.79
15 Smartness and tidiness of staff 2.19 1.88 2.43 2.05
16 Comfort of animals 3.43 3.47 3.70 3.44
17 Quality and provision of toilets 2.73 2.87 2.60 2.73
18 Quality and provision of catering 2.37 2.52 2.14 2.54
19(a) Commitment to animals 3.82 3.84 3.58 3.87
19(b) Commitment to visitors 3.39 3.52 3.22 3.77
19(c) Commitment to conservation/educn. 3.71 3.62 3.41 3.48
20 Availability of information 2.99 2.99 2.68 3.27
21 (a) Professionalism: care for animals 3.08 3.52 2.86 2.87
21 (b) Professionalism: customer care 2.68 2.54 2.32 3.08
22 Friendliness 3.00 2.73 2.92 3.01
23 Overall, as day out 4.10 3.96 4.16 4.42
24 Honesty of aims of Derby Zoo 2.89 2.85 2.51 3.17
25 Quality of events and presentations 2.31 2.88 1.87 2.73
26 Time queuing 3.23 3.17 2.88 3.06
27 Safety of you/group 2.81 3.08 2.33 3.16
28 Value for money 3.18 3.26 2.66 3.66
APPENDIX 4
18 DETERMINANTS OF SERVICE QUALITY
Determinant Definition
Access The physical approachability of service location, including the ease of finding one's way around the service environment and clarity of route.
Aesthetics Extent to which the components of the service package are agreeable or pleasing to the customer, including both the appearance and the ambience of the service environment, the appearance and presentation of service facilities, goods and staff.
Attentiveness The extent to which the service, particularly contact staff, either provide and helpfulness help to the customer or give the impression of being interested in the customer and show a willingness to serve.
Availability The availability of service facilities, staff and goods to the customer. In the case of contact staff this means both the staff/customer ratio and the amount of time each staff member has available to spend with each customer. In the case of service goods availability, includes both the quantity and range of products made available to the customer.
Care The concern, consideration, sympathy and patience shown to the customer. This includes the extent to which the customer is put at ease by the service and made to feel emotionally (rather than physically) comfortable.
Cleanliness and tidiness The cleanliness, neat and tidy appearance of the tangible components of the service package, including the service environment, facilities, goods and contact staff.
Comfort The physical comfort of the service environment and facilities.
Commitment Staff's apparent commitment to their work, including the pride and satisfaction they apparently take in their job, their diligence and thoroughness.
Communication Ability of the service to communicate in an understandable way with the customer. The clarity, completeness and accuracy of both verbal and written information, and the ability to listen to and understand the customer.
Competence The skill, expertise and professionalism with which the service is executed. This includes the carrying out of correct procedures, correct execution of customer instructions, degree of product or service knowledge exhibited by contact staff, the rendering of good advice, and the general ability to do a good job.
Courtesy The politeness, respect and propriety shown by the service, usually contact staff, in dealing with the customer and his or her property. This includes the ability of staff to be unobtrusive and uninterfering when appropriate
Flexibility A willingness and ability on the part of the service worker to amend or alter the nature of the service or product to meet the needs of the customer.
Friendliness The warmth and personal approachability (rather than physical approachability) of the service, particularly of contact staff, including cheerful attitude, the ability to make the customer feel welcome.
Functionality The serviceability and fitness for purpose or 'product quality' of service facilities and goods.
Integrity The honesty, justice, fairness and trustworthiness with which customers are treated by the service organisation.
Reliability The reliability and consistency of performance of service facilities, goods and staff. This includes punctual service delivery and ability to keep to agreements made with the customer.
Responsiveness Speed and timeliness of service delivery. This includes the speed of throughput and the ability of the service to respond promptly to customer service requests, with minimal waiting and queuing time.
Security Personal safety of the customer and his or her possessions while participating in or benefiting from the service process. This includes the maintenance of confidentiality.
Source: Johnston, R. 'The determinants of service quality, satisfiers and dissatisfiers', International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vo16, No 5,1995, pp. 53-71.
This case is based on the London Zoo case from: Cases in Operations Management (Second edition) Johnston, Chambers, Harland, Harrison, Slack, FT Prentice Hall 1997
USA 
India