A. Inventory of Customers
Goal A:  Instruction/Operations
Strategies
A.1.1.  Operations Support Customers:  Visitors to University facilities, students as re: housing, food, financial aid, and health center.	Services Provided:   1. Instruction   2. Libraries   3. Research Facilities   4. Artistic exhibitions and performances   5. Extended education programs   6. Public broadcasting   7. Housing   8. Food   9. Entertainment events 10. Financial aid 11. Health center 12. Athletic events – not state funded
A.1.2.  Teaching Experience Customers:  No external customers.	Services Provided:
A.1.3.  Growth Supplement Customers:  No external customers.	Services Provided:
A.1.4.  Staff Group Insurance Premiums Customers: No external customers.	Services Provided:
A.1.5.  Workers’ Compensation Insurance Customers:  No external customers.	Services Provided:
A.1.6.  Unemployment Compensation Insurance Customers: No external customers.	Services Provided:
A.1.7.  Texas Public Education Grants Customers:  Eligible students.	Services Provided:  Financial aid.
A.1.8.  Indirect Cost Recovery Customers: No external customers.	Services Provided:
Goal B:  Infrastructure Support
B.1.1. E & G Space Support Customers:  Visitors to University facilities, students as re: housing, food, financial aid, and health center.	Services Provided:   1. Instruction   2. Libraries   3. Research Facilities   4. Artistic exhibitions and performances   5. Extended education programs   6. Public broadcasting   7. Housing   8. Food   9. Entertainment events 10. Financial aid 11. Health center 12. Athletic events – not state funded.
B.1.2.  Tuition Revenue Bond Retirement. Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions.	Services Provided:
B.1.3.  Skiles Act Revenue Bond Retirement. Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions.	Services Provided:
Goal C:  Special Item Support
C.1.1.  TX-Pharm Program Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions or special item customers not easily identified per page 88, Instructions.	Services Provided:
C.2.1.  Marine Science Institute Customers: Visitors to facility.	Services Provided:  Scientific information and interaction.
C.2.2.  Institute for Geophysics Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions or special item customers not easily identified per page 88, Instructions.	Services Provided:
C.2.3.  Bureau-Economic Geology Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions or special item customers not easily identified per page 88, Instructions.	Services Provided:
C.2.4.  Bureau – Business Research Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions or special item customers not easily identified per page 88, Instructions.	Services Provided:
C.2.5.  McDonald Observatory Customers:  Visitors to McDonald Observatory.	Services Provided: Scientific information and interaction.
C.2.6.  Studies in Astronomy Customers: Visitors to McDonald Observatory.	Services Provided: Scientific information and interaction.
C.3.1.  Texas Memorial Museum Customers:  Visitors  to Texas Memorial Museum.	Services Provided: Historic/anthropological exhibits and lectures.
C.3.2.  Public Policy Institute Customers: No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions or special item customers not easily identified per page 88, Instructions.	Services Provided:
C.3.3.  Center for Policy Dispute Resolution Customers:  No group of “direct recipients of state services” per page 19, Instructions or special item customers not easily identified per page 88, Instructions.	Services Provided:
C.4.1.  Institutional Enhancement Customers: 1. Scholarships: Students receiving culturally/economically disadvantaged scholarships 2. Faculty Enhancement:  No external customers.	Services Provided: 1. Financial aid.

B.  Information Gathering Process

During the winter of 1999-2000, pursuant to administrative and legislative interest per SB.1563 in University-wide assessment, the senior administration identified numerous groups of “customers” of the University who could inform the administration as to the effectiveness of the University’s programs and services other than as regards the instructional enterprise itself.  Significant attention and discussion was given to the question of whether students fall under the nomenclature of “customer.”  It was concluded that, while The University of Texas at Austin recognizes that students are the beneficiaries of the investment of funds made by the legislature of the State of Texas in its academic enterprise, and that the University has a duty to the students to provide an educational opportunity “of the first class,” and further that the students should be participants in academic exercise with the faculty, the current administration of the University does not subscribe to the proposal that they are “customers” of the academic enterprise as that term has been used traditionally.

“Customer” is a term of commerce and is appears in dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary or Black’s Law Dictionary as meaning “One who frequents a place of sale for the purpose of purchasing or having business dealings with a tradesman or business person.”  The Random House Dictionary of the English Language narrows it further to  “one who purchases goods from another.” The word implies an arm’s length transaction where a good or service is sold without further relationship, interaction or control of one person upon the other.  Therefore, the University considers that students are customers with regard to the purchase of housing and food services, entertainment, financial aid, health-related services and athletics events, but not with regard to the academic exercise.

In the view of senior administration of the University, students in their role as students are more akin to a “client,” who is defined in the referenced dictionaries as “one under the protection or patronage of another”, “a dependant, adherent or follower of a master.”  The differentiating quality in this relationship is that of judgment upon the lesser by the greater in knowledge, understanding or power.

Nevertheless, the administration of the University has, and continues to have, great interest in the opinions of students regarding the quality of the educational experience it provides.  The University will continue to do course/instructor surveys, as it has for many years, at the end of each course.  Many pages on its website offer suggestion boxes, answers to the most frequently asked questions, fill-in forms and other avenues of customer service and communication.  Payment of bills and admission applications can be done online.  The student services page receives 2000 hits per week.  The University will continue to survey students as they use various facilities on the campus, such as the libraries, housing, food service and health services.  It will increase its efforts to acquire valid information and input from students with regard to many areas in which the University functions, not because the University is mandated to do so, but because its administration from President Faulkner on down desires to improve the quality of all its endeavors.

The University also is interested in the opinions of those outside the University community regarding its services to them.  This would include attendees at cultural and entertainment events or sporting events, as well as users of its libraries, either in person or on line.  Some would call these persons the University’s “constituents,” although that term is more frequently used in the sense of an elected official or one empowered to act on behalf of another.  Various facilities across the University campus have conducted surveys of customer satisfaction for years, inquiring on issues relevant to that facility alone and not in the manner of questions put forth in SB 1563.  Discussion of some of those recent surveys follows.  Those units which already have a survey structure in place and which were not selected to administer the new format of survey including questions required by SB 1563, will continue to administer their existing surveys on their existing schedules until that unit appears in the rotation.  It is the goal of The University of Texas at Austin to serve well all those who use its myriad of services and facilities, regardless of whether they are called “customers,” “students,” “visitors,” “constituents,” “donors,” or anything else.

The University of Texas System intends to participate in a national project entitled National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), being conducted by Indiana University, and to request that students from all UT System campuses be surveyed regarding the quality of their educational experience.  The first sampling process by the NSSE is expected to occur in the spring and summer fall of 2000, with the data being analyzed shortly thereafter and available sometime in the fall of 2000.  That instrument includes an opportunity for 20 institutionally specific questions to be included at the end of the NSSE as it is administered.

The University will continue to operate and encourage its faculty to use the well-established and very successful Center for Teaching Effectiveness, as well as the instructor/course evaluations administered at the end of the great majority of for-credit courses taught at the University (See discussion at Section IX A and Strategy A.a.2.8.).

The groups of “customers” or “constituents” identified by the senior administration as being able to inform the University regarding the effectiveness if its programs and services will be surveyed on a rotating schedule.  Dr. Noel Landuyt, of the Survey of Organizational Excellence, assisted in drafting the survey instruments and analyzing the data.  The first sampling was done from March to May 2000 and was administered to customers of the following units of the University:  General Libraries, Performing Arts Center and Frank C. Erwin, Jr. Special Events Center.  Its questions were based upon the requirements of SB 1563, although the University included additional questions more specific to the operations of the units for which the surveys were conducted.

Introduction

Customer service surveys were administered in the Spring of 2000 by the Survey of Organizational Excellence Group (SOE) at The University of Texas at Austin’s School of Social Work for the individual units (General Libraries, Frank C. Erwin, Jr. Special Events Center, and the Performing Arts Center) within The University of Texas at Austin (UT).  The intent of the survey was to measure the perceptions of customer satisfaction from the direct recipients of each individual unit services.  Currently, the SOE group directs several survey projects for state government with the largest effort being the statewide Survey of Organizational Excellence (human resource and leadership assessment tool administered each biennium).  In addition, the SOE group maintains a website pertaining to the Customer Service Standards Act (Senate Bill 1563) at www.survey.utexas.edu/customer.

Survey Methodology

Design

The design process incorporated three objectives.  First, the survey was created to provide meaningful customer service survey data for strategic planning and organizational initiatives.  Second, the survey was designed to accurately portray and represent (through use of standard and tested surveying techniques) the perceptions of UT Austin customers.  Lastly, implementing the survey established an open forum in which both the citizens of Texas and those directly receiving services from the UT Austin units could evaluate the University, recognize outstanding service, or offer insights into how the unit delivered service and where the unit needed to improve.

To accomplish these objectives nine survey areas were created.  The purpose of the areas was to categorize the various perceptions of the customer into distinct and concrete units.  This distinctiveness allows for an organization to more thoroughly assess whether they are successfully meeting customer expectations on a given area of operation.  Both the quantitative and qualitative data provided through the survey process reaffirms areas of strength and draws attention to potential areas of concern.

The nine survey areas or dimensions were facilities, staff, communications, internet sites, complaint-handling processes, service timeliness, printed information, overall perceptions, and unit specific service or programmatic items.   For each dimension, the survey participants were asked to review items and mark how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the item.  These perceptions are measured on a Likert-type scale with 5 possible responses (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree).  Point values ranging from 5 for strongly agree to 1 for strongly disagree were assigned upon processing the data.  If the respondent had no knowledge or the item did not apply to their situation, they were asked to leave the item blank.  The higher the response the more strongly respondents agreed with the items.  All items are positively worded so that higher values are representative of higher levels of agreement or more positive perceptions of customer service.

Two additional survey areas were demographics and open-ended responses.  The possible responses for the demographic items were defined in descriptive list.  Participants were asked to select from a descriptive list such as their ethnicity, gender or age.   The open-ended item, provided at the end of the survey, asked respondents to offer any additional comments and/or to identify employees who provided outstanding services.  The open-ended section was designed to allow for sources of input not directly addressed in the printed survey items.  Moreover, asking customers to identify individuals who provided outstanding service assists in identifying employees who excel in providing exemplary service to customers.

Two types of survey instruments were used.  The first was a hard copy, paper and pencil, optical mark recognition (OMR) version of the survey.  Samples of each unit’s survey are attached to this report.  An OMR survey is one in which respondents are asked to bubble in their responses on the sheet.  OMR surveys are then optically scanned with participant’s responses recorded and compiled directly into electronic databases.  The use of OMR instruments is efficient, cost effective and highly accurate.  The front of the instrument contained the survey items.  The back had an area for comments and also served as a business reply address so that respondents could complete the instrument and drop it into any U.S. postal box.  Each survey included a control number and instruction on how to take the survey via the internet.  Each control number was unique and not related or assigned to any particular survey respondent.  Given the option to complete the survey either online or by hardcopy, the control number was issued to assure that only one survey from an individual was validated.

The second type of survey was an online version.  Utilizing both HyperText Markup Language (html coding) and Common Gateway Interface (cgi scripting), the survey was made available via the world wide web at this internet address (http://www.survey.utexas.edu/utgl).  The equipment used to serve the website and the corresponding database of responses (a Unix based system) handles thousands of simultaneous requests and performs routine data backups both incrementally and daily.  Respondents receiving the OMR version of the survey could take the survey online by entering in the website address and by entering their survey’s control number (both printed on the survey instrument).   In the event that a control number entered online was in conflict (the two numbers were the same) with a control number received from a hardcopy survey, the online survey data would be removed from the possible responses.  For this dataset, there were no conflicting control numbers.

The survey was designed to be succinct for several reasons.  First, the survey served as a general customer service diagnostic that assessed customer perceptions in broad topical areas.  While many inferences can be made from the survey data, low scoring areas may require additional assessment to determine underlying causes.  Conversely, further examination of high scoring dimensions may produce examples of an organization’s “best practices” that can be shared among other parts of the University.  Furthermore, the general nature of the survey enables the University to use the instrument in different settings and therefore, allows for comparison of dimensional areas across the organization.  Second, instruments such as these (voluntary questionnaires of customers) are concise so that the respondent can complete the survey in only a few minutes.  Typically, long questionnaires (due to the specificity of items and considerable length of time to complete the survey) discourage participation.  Our experience is that response rates for these types of surveys range from 15 % to 30%.  Third, providing survey participants the opportunity to comment in an open-ended section shapes the preparation of follow-up surveys.  Customers’ suggestions are often used to modify the content of future customer service survey items.

Distribution and Rates of Response

Each unit within UT Austin had different methods of distribution.  The survey for the General Libraries was mailed directly to 1000 randomly selected courtesy borrowers, members of the community holding UT Austin library cards.  An additional 100 surveys were made available at the main desk at the PCL Library and distributed to walk-in courtesy borrowers.  The surveys for the Performing Arts Center were randomly distributed to 1000 patrons by ushers at two different events.  Patrons could then return to the survey to a drop box in the lobby, to an usher, or return the survey via U.S. mail.  At the Frank C. Erwin, Jr. Special Events Center, ushers randomly distributed 500 surveys to patrons.  Patrons were asked to turn completed survey instruments to an usher.

Analysis

Survey responses were compiled and analyzed.  For the demographic items, frequency counts and percentage of respondents are tabulated.  Open-ended responses were returned, in their entirety by photocopying the written responses from the back of the survey instrument, directly to the units and are attached to this report.  The scaled items, average scores, number of respondents, standard deviations, and frequency counts of response type were calculated.  Once item averages were calculated, dimensional averages were computed by taking an average of all the average responses of items comprising the dimension.

Additional analysis of the survey instrument was conducted.  Confidence intervals (set at the 95% level) were calculated for all scaled items.  Reliability (a consistency measure of the survey instrument) was calculated and had an internal consistency coefficient exceeding the generally accepted value.  Face validity and factor analysis were used to assure general validity, or in other terms, the survey was measuring what it was intended to measure.

Cost

The costing structures varied depending on the method of administrating the customer service survey.  The highest fix cost per survey was for an instrument sent and returned via the U.S. Mail.

Cost Per Survey
.33  Outgoing postage
.44   Business Reply Mail
.22  Survey, duplication and folding of survey materials
.10  Envelope, mailing preparation cost
.28    Scanning cost
$1.37

Overview of Results

The overall results from the customer surveys for the three UT Austin units are positive and represent no overall general dissatisfaction in any area.  For comparison and summary purposes the following table provides customer satisfaction scores presented in each of the nine survey areas and is further aggregated for each unit. From the unit dimension scores an overall average is calculated.  Individual unit scores with the corresponding item responses are found in the following section.

The highest scoring average dimension was facilities.  The facilities dimension captures the customers’ perception of the organization’s physical location.  Issues of cleanliness, orderliness and accessibility were addressed.  All three units scored greater than a 4 with an average score of 4.30.  This indicated that the majority of the survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the facilities were clean, orderly and accessible.   The staff dimension, which looks at the staff’s ability to answer questions, general helpfulness, and staff displaying both personal and professional behavior, also had a high score of 4.27.  Again, this illustrates that most customers were pleased with the performance of UT Austin staff.  For this dimension, the General Libraries had a score of 3.88.  Upon further examination of the three items comprising this dimension for General Libraries, one question “Staff members identified themselves or wore a nametag.” had a neutral response of 3.27.  This item significantly decreased the staff dimension for General Libraries.

The items for the overall dimension asked respondents to rate their overall satisfaction with the unit and to compare their interactions with the unit to similar experiences. Once more, respondents agreed that they were satisfied with the overall experience and that their experiences with the unit were more positive compared with similar organizations. For printed materials, the majority of survey participants responded positively regarding the quality of the information provided in printed form.

While the score for the complaint handling dimension dropped below 4.0, the 3.91 average score still represents approximately 75% of the respondents stating that they are satisfied that their complaint would be dealt with in a reasonable manner.  Moreover, approximately 95% of the respondents expressed a neutral to positive response on the complaint handling items.

The dimensions of timeliness and communications had similar scores (3.80 and 3.78 respectively).  This is due in large part because one item “My telephone, letter, or email inquiry was answered in a reasonable amount of time.” is asked in both dimensions.  This item is included in both because it addresses both dimensions.  The communications dimension is further defined by asking respondents if their inquiry was routed to the proper person.  Fewer than 10% of the survey respondents felt as though the time they waited or the routing of their inquiry was unsatisfactory.

The overall Internet dimension score was 3.76.  For this dimension, customers were asked both about the clarity and accuracy of information on the web, and the ease of use of the unit’s web site.  Fewer individuals answered these items.   About one out of four respondents did not reply to these items.  The internet dimension score does illustrate a satisfactory score, but it is not as pronounced as other dimensional areas.

The final dimension was more specific in nature.  The General Libraries asked if patrons felt as though the library was appropriately utilizing technology and providing resources to meet the needs of customers.  The General Libraries received a high score from respondents of 4.14.  For the Performing Arts Center and the Frank C. Erwin, Jr. Special Events Center, the items addressed issues of quality and service with the food and beverage venues.  These items received neutral to satisfactory scores.

Rate of response is calculated by taking the total number of surveys returned and dividing them by the total number of surveys distributed.

Surveys Returned:   211
Surveys Distributed 1100

Rate of Response: 19.2%

Gender
I am a
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
Male	113	54	4.25
Female	96	46	4.06
TOTAL	209

Age
My age (in years)
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
Under 18	0	0	-
18 - 30	40	19%	4.25
31 - 45	76	36%	4.11
46 - 59	69	33%	4.06
60 and older	24	11%	4.59
TOTAL	209

Residence
I have lived in Texas
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1 year or less	5	2%	4.40
2 – 5 years	22	11%	4.00
6 years or more	174	86%	4.19
I do not live in Texas	-	-	-
TOTAL	201

Ethnicity
My race/ethnicity
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
African-American	5	2%	3.80
Hispanic-American	13	6%	4.08
Anglo-American	164	80%	4.19
Asian-American	8	4%	4.00
Other	14	7%	4.36
TOTAL	204

Number of Contacts
Over the past 12 months, the number of times I have visited a UT Library.
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1	13	6%	4.23
2 - 5	71	34%	4.09
5  +	124	60%	4.21
TOTAL	208

Number of Years
Indicate (in years) how long you have using UT Libraries.
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1 or less	24	12%	3.96
2 - 5	40	20%	4.03
5  +	134	68%	4.27
TOTAL	198

Dimension Areas and Related Items

The survey was designed to encompass nine dimensional areas.   These areas were specifically addressed in the Customer Service Standards Act.  Dimension scores are calculated by taking an average of the average responses for the items related to the dimension.  Below is a summary table of the dimension scores in rank order from highest to lowest.  Following the table are summaries and description for each dimension and the related items.  After the table, the results for the overall items are listed.
 

1. The facility was clean.
 

Average: 4.28

Standard Deviation: 0.751

Number of 210

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	83	113	5	7	7
%	39.52%	53.81%	2.38%	3.33%	0.95

2. This facility was orderly and easy to find your way around in.
 

Average:  4.05

Standard Deviation: 0.905

Number of 204

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	67	100	21	13	3
%	32.84%	49.02%	10.29%	6.37%	1.47%

3. The facility was accessible.
 

Average:3.93

Standard Deviation: 0.914

Number of 208

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	56	103	31	15	3
%	26.92%	49.52%	14.90%	7.21%	1.44%

4. Staff members were knowledgeable and demonstrated a willingness to
 assist patrons.
 

Average: 4.23

Standard Deviation: 0.809

Number of 206

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	84	94	22	3	3
%	40.78%	45.63%	10.68%	1.46%	1.46%

5. Staff members interacted in a personal and professional manner.
 

Average: 4.15

Standard Deviation: 0.897

Number of  208

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	79	98	19	7	5
%	37.98%	47.12%	9.13%	3.37%	2.40%

6. Staff members identified themselves or wore a nametag.
 

Average: 3.27

Standard Deviation: 1.045

Number of 189

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	27	46	75	33	8
%	14.29%	24.34%	39.68%	17.46%	4.23%

7. The quality of service I received is superior to comparable services.
 

Average: 3.62

Standard Deviation: 0.967

Number of 199

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	36	76	70	9	8
%	18.09%	38.19%	35.18%	4.52%	4.02%

8. Overall, I am satisfied with my experience.
 

Average: 4.17

Standard Deviation: 0.816

Number of  207

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	70	116	12	4	5
%	33.82%	56.04%	5.80%	1.93%	2.42%

9. The web site was easy to use and well organized.
 

Average: 3.81

Standard Deviation: 0.868

Number of 171

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	36	80	44	9	2
%	21.05%	46.78%	25.73%	5.25%	1.17%

10. The web site contained clear and accurate information on events, services,
and contact information.
 

Average: 3.72

Standard Deviation: 0.826

Number of  163

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	30	66	60	6	1
%	18.40%	40.49%	36.81	3.68%	0.61%

11. My telephone call, e-mail, or letter was routed to the proper person.
 

Average: 3.54

Standard Deviation: 0.893

Number of 147

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	26	39	74	5	3
%	17.69%	26.53%	50.34%	3.40%	2.04%

12. My telephone, letter or e-mail inquiry was answered in a reasonable amount
of time.
 

Average: 3.58

Standard Deviation: 0.960

Number of 141

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	30	34	67	5	4
%	21.28%	24.11%	47.52%	3.55%	2.84%

13. Printed brochures or written material provided thorough and accurate
information.
 

Average: 3.92

Standard Deviation: 0.807

Number of 182

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	37	104	34	3	4
%	20.33%	57.14%	18.68%	1.65%	2.20%

14. If I complained, I believe it would be addressed in reasonable manner.
 

Average: 3.75

Standard Deviation: 0.950

Number of  173

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	36	72	53	9	3
%	20.81%	41.62%	30.64%	5.20%	1.73%

15. This organization makes it easy to give suggestions or to make a complaint.
 

Average: 3.49

Standard Deviation: 0.952

Number of 175

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	27	57	69	18	4
%	15.42%	32.57%	39.43%	10.29%	2.29%

16. The facility is open during reasonable hours.
 

Average: 4.05

Standard Deviation: 0.956

Number of 204

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	67	105	13	13	6
%	32.84%	51.47%	6.37%	6.37%	2.94%

17. The organization is making appropriate use of new technology.
 

Average:  4.05

Standard Deviation: 0.843

Number of 199

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	59	104	24	10	2
%	29.65%	52.26%	12.06%	5.03%	1.01%

18. The organization provides excellent resources that meet my needs.
 

Average: 4.23

Standard Deviation: 0.825

Number of 203

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	82	97	15	6	3
%	40.39%	47.78%	7.39%	2.96%	1.48%

Response Rate
Rate of response is calculated by taking the total number of surveys returned and dividing them by the total number of surveys distributed.
 

Surveys Returned:   252
Surveys Distributed: 1000

Rate of Response: 25.2%

Gender
I am a
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
Male	82	33%	4.55
Female	167	67%	4.45
TOTAL	249

Age
My age (in years)
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
Under 18	8	3%	4.63
18 - 30	70	28%	4.47
31 - 45	61	25%	4.40
46 - 59	62	25%	4.56
60 and older	47	19%	4.47
TOTAL	248

Residence
I have lived in Texas
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1 year or less	7	3%	4.67
2 – 5 years	37	15%	4.46
6 years or more	200	81%	4.47
I do not live in Texas	2	1%	5.00
TOTAL	246

Ethnicity
My race/ethnicity
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
African-American	21	9%	4.58
Hispanic-American	4	2%	4.67
Anglo-American	185	77%	4.47
Asian-American	3	1%	4.33
Other	28	12%	4.44
TOTAL	241

Number of Contacts
Over the past 12 months, the number of events I have attended here.
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1	56	23%	4.54
2-5	111	45%	4.50
5+	73	30%	4.44
TOTAL	243

Number of Years
Indicate (in years) how long you have been attending events here.
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1 or less	39	19%	4.41
2 - 5	64	32%	4.57
5  +	99	49%	4.47
TOTAL	202

Customer Type
Which category or categories best describes you?
 

Response	Count	%	Overall I am satisfied . . . .
UT Student	28	16%	4.43
Circle of Friends Members	13	7%	4.58
UT Staff or Faculty	24	14%	4.39
UT Pac Subscriber	29	16%	4.59
Austin Broadway Series Subscriber	27	16%	4.78
Non-Pac/Other Arts Organization Subscriber	55	31%	4.43
TOTAL	176

Dimension Areas and Related Items

The survey was designed to encompass nine dimensional areas.   These areas were specifically addressed in the Customer Service Standards Act.  Dimension scores are calculated by taking an average of the average responses for the items related to the dimension.  Below is a summary table of the dimension scores in rank order from highest to lowest.  Following the table are summaries and description for each dimension and the related items.  After the table, the results for the overall items are listed.
 

1. The facility was clean.
 

Average: 4.60

Standard Deviation: 0.613

Number of  242

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	153	81	4	0	2
%	63.22%	33.47%	1.65%	0.00%	0.83%

2. This facility was orderly and easy to find your way around in.
 

Average: 4.44

Standard Deviation: 0.730

Number of  234

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	128	87	12	5	1
%	54.70%	37.18%	5.13%	2.14%	0.43%

3. The facility was accessible.
 

Average: 4.29

Standard Deviation: 0.809

Number of  241

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	111	98	24	6	2
%	46.06%	40.66%	9.96%	2.49%	0.83%

4. Staff members were knowledgeable and demonstrated a willingness to
assist patrons.
 

Average: 4.58

Standard Deviation: 0.591

Number of 232

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	143	81	6	0	1
%	61.64%	34.91%	2.59%	0.00%	0.43%

5. Staff members interacted in a personal and professional manner.
 

Average: 4.53

Standard Deviation: 0.648

Number of  237

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	142	81	11	1	1
%	59.92%	34.18%	4.64%	0.42%	0.42%

6. Staff members identified themselves or wore a nametag.
 

Average: 4.39

Standard Deviation:  0.760

Number of  226

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	120	80	23	1	2
%	53.10%	35.40%	10.18%	0.44%	0.88%

7. The quality of service I received is superior to comparable services.
 

Average: 4.13

Standard Deviation:  0.819

Number of  232

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	89	91	46	6	0
%	38.36%	39.22%	19.83%	2.59%	0.00%

8. Overall, I am satisfied with my experience.
 

Average: 4.48

Standard Deviation: 0.594

Number of  235

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	124	101	9	1	0
%	52.77%	42.98%	3.83%	0.43%	0.00%

9. The web site was easy to use and well organized.
 

Average: 3.57

Standard Deviation: 0.868

Number of  156

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	34	26	90	5	0
%	21.79%	16.67%	57.69%	3.21%	0.00%

10. The web site contained clear and accurate information on events, services,
and contact information.
 

Average: 3.57

Standard Deviation: 0.898

Number of 144

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	32	24	84	2	2
%	22.22%	16.67%	58.33%	1.39%	1.39%

11. My telephone call, e-mail, or letter was routed to the proper person.
 

Average: 3.80

Standard Deviation: 0.939

Number of  158

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	48	36	67	5	1
%	30.38%	22.78%	42.41%	3.16%	0.63%

12. My telephone, letter or e-mail inquiry was answered in a reasonable amount
of time.
 

Average: 3.75

Standard Deviation: 0.992

Number of 154

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	46	36	63	6	3
%	29.87%	23.38%	40.91%	3.90%	1.95%

13.  Printed brochures or written material provided thorough and accurate
information.
 

Average: 4.14

Standard Deviation: 0.837

Number of 208

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	78	91	30	8	1
%	37.50%	43.75%	14.42%	3.85%	0.48%

14.  If I complained, I believe it would be addressed in reasonable manner.
 

Average: 4.07

Standard Deviation: 0.820

Number of  194

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	67	77	46	2	1
%	34.54%	39.69%	23.71%	1.03%	0.52%

15.  This organization makes it easy to give suggestions or to make a complaint.
 

Average: 3.93

Standard Deviation: 0.947

Number of 189

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	58	49	71	9	1
%	30.69%	25.93%	37.57%	4.76%	0.53%

16.  The quality of the beverage and food.
 

Average: 3.18

Standard Deviation: 1.077

Number of 120

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	16	26	50	20	8
%	13.33%	21.67%	41.67%	16.67%	6.67%

17.  The quality of service at the beverage and food stations.
 

Average: 3.31

Standard Deviation: 1.046

Number of 117

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	16	33	45	17	6
%	13.68%	28.21%	38.46%	14.53%	5.13%

18.  The quality of the printed program (playbill).
 

Average: 3.52

Standard Deviation: 1.187

Number of  177

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	37	69	34	23	14
%	20.90%	38.98%	19.21%	12.99%	7.91%

Response Rate
Rate of response is calculated by taking the total number of surveys returned and dividing them by the total number of surveys distributed.
 

Surveys Returned: 165
Surveys Distributed: 500

Rate of Response: 33.3%

Gender
I am a
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
Male	74	51%	4.29
Female	70	49%	4.38
TOTAL	144

Age
My age (in years)
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
Under 18	23	16%	4.65
18-30	93	64%	4.28
31-45	23	16%	4.27
46-59	4	3%	3.33
60 and older	3	2%	4.50
TOTAL	146

Residence
I have lived in Texas
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1 year of less	10	7%	4.40
2-5 years	26	18%	4.76
6 years or more	102	72%	4.24
I do not live in Texas	4	3%	3.67
TOTAL	142

Ethnicity
My race/ethnicity
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
African-American	6	4%	2.50
Hispanic-American	39	28%	4.32
Anglo-American	77	55%	4.27
Asian-American	4	3%	4.67
Other	14	10%	4.67
TOTAL	140

Number of Contacts
Over the past 12 months, the number of events I have attended here.
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1	66	51%	4.45
2-5	46	36%	4.43
5+	17	13%	3.64
TOTAL	129

Number of Years
Indicate (in years) how long you have been attending events here.
 

Response	Count	%	Overall, I am satisfied with my experience
1 or less	62	53%	4.44
2-5	28	24%	4.20
5+	27	23%	4.18
TOTAL	117

Dimension Areas and Related Items

The survey was designed to encompass nine dimensional areas.   These areas were specifically addressed in the Customer Service Standards Act.  Dimension scores are calculated by taking an average of the average responses for the items related to the dimension.  Below is a summary table of the dimension scores in rank order from highest to lowest.  Following the table are summaries and description for each dimension and the related items.  After the table, the results for the overall items are listed.
 
 

1. The facility was clean.
 

Average: 4.45

Standard Deviation: 0.849

Number of 148

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	87	45	7	3	3
%	58.78%	30.41%	4.73%	2.03%	2.03%

2. This facility was orderly and easy to find your way around in.
 

Average: 4.43

Standard Deviation: 0.792

Number of 144

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	81	48	9	4	1
%	56.25%	33.33%	6.25%	2.78%	0.69%

3.  The facility was accessible.
 

Average: 4.24

Standard Deviation: 1.106

Number of 151

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	85	39	12	8	7
%	56.29%	25.83%	7.95%	5.30%	4.64

4.  Staff members were knowledgeable and demonstrated a willingness to
assist patrons.
 

Average: 4.48

Standard Deviation: 0.875

Number of 149

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	98	34	11	3	3
%	65.77%	22.82%	7.38%	2.01%	2.01%

5.  Staff members interacted in a personal and professional manner.
 

Average: 4.50

Standard Deviation: 0.853

Number of 149

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	96	40	5	4	3
%	64.43%	26.85%	3.36%	2.68%	2.01%

6.  Staff members identified themselves or wore a nametag.
 

Average: 4.26

Standard Deviation: 0.962

Number of 132

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	67	44	12	6	3
%	50.76%	33.33%	9.09%	4.55%	2.27%

7.  The quality of service I received is superior to comparable services.
 

Average: 4.12

Standard Deviation: 0.949

Number of 132

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	53	54	16	6	3
%	40.15%	40.91%	12.12%	4.55%	2.27%

8.  Overall, I am satisfied with my experience.
 

Average: 4.36

Standard Deviation: 0.847

Number of 133

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	71	46	11	3	2
%	53.38%	34.59%	8.27%	2.26%	1.50%

9.  The web site was easy to use and well organized.
 

Average: 3.92

Standard Deviation: 1.046

Number of 122

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	47	28	38	5	3
%	38.52%	22.95%	31.15%	4.10%	2.46%

10.  The web site contained clear and accurate information on events, services,
and contact information.
 

Average: 4.00

Standard Deviation: 1.004

Number of 118

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	50	26	35	6	1
%	42.37%	22.03%	29.66%	5.08%	0.85%

11.  My telephone call, e-mail, or letter was routed to the proper person.
 

Average: 3.96

Standard Deviation: 1.003

Number of 120

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	46	31	35	5	2
%	38.33%	25.83%	29.17%	4.17%	1.67%

12.  My telephone, letter or e-mail inquiry was answered in a reasonable amount
 of time.
 

Average:  4.00

Standard Deviation:  1.026

Number of 116

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	50	23	36	4	2
%	43.48%	20.00%	31.30%	3.48%	1.74%

13.  Printed brochures or written material provided thorough and accurate
 information.
 

Average: 4.03

Standard Deviation: 1.033

Number of 118

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	50	31	31	2	4
%	42.37%	26.27%	26.27%	1.69%	3.39%

14. If I complained, I believe it would be addressed in reasonable manner.
 

Average: 4.13

Standard Deviation: 1.009

Number of 116

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	53	36	19	5	3
%	45.69%	31.03%	16.38%	4.31%	2.59%

15 . This organization makes it easy to give suggestions or to make a complaint.
 

Average: 4.12

Standard Deviation: 1.011

Number of 112

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	51	33	21	4	3
%	45.54%	29.46%	18.75%	3.57%	2.68%

16. The quality of the beverage and food.
 

Average: 3.27

Standard Deviation: 1.116

Number of 64

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	12	11	26	12	3
%	18.75%	17.19%	40.63%	18.75%	4.69%

17. The quality of service at the beverage and food stations.
 

Average: 3.45

Standard Deviation: 1.016

Number of  65

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
#	12	17	25	10	1
%	18.46%	26.15%	38.46%	15.38%	1.54%

 

       Description of services offered:

  1. Instruction
  2. Libraries
  3. Research Facilities
  4. Artistic exhibitions and performances
  5. Extended education programs
  6. Public broadcasting
  7. Housing
  8. Food
  9. Entertainment events
10. Financial aid
11. Health center
12. Athletic events – not state funded

We want to make it easy for you to reach us for information or with concerns.  Here are some contacts.
 

The University of Texas at Austin is a university of the first class through excellence in teaching, research, and public service.  Over 425,000 individuals have been graduated from the University throughout its 117 year history of service to the citizens of the State of Texas.

The University’s goals, as expressed in its Strategic Plan, are to educate individuals to their highest potential, advance the frontiers of rese