2015 Member Survey Results
Two separate groups of Members were surveyed in 2015 regarding their assessment of the Institute’s performance across a broad range of member service practices and outcomes. The HQ Team were very pleased with the results. The Institute is currently performing well in the top five areas and there are a number of initiatives planned through the Strategic Plan that should see improvements in the five lowest scoring areas of the Survey.
The Member survey, administered by Voice Project, was distributed to 4,362 Members compared to 4,250 Members in 2014. However, not all of these are included in the response rates/analyses because some Members were either on leave for the entire duration of the survey period or their invitation emails were blocked by their employer.
In total, 741 responses were received (giving a response rate of 19.5%) and the margin of error for the overall sample was 2.8%. In 2014, the survey response rate was 19% with a margin of error of 2.9%.
The 2015 results were benchmarked against the overall results from 2014.
Summary of findings
HQ team members were very pleased that the “overall member satisfaction” moved from ‘medium’ satisfaction in 2014 (77%) to ‘high’ satisfaction in 2015 (80.5%) – an increase of 3.5% (outside the margin of error). The specific questions asked in terms of “overall member satisfaction” were:
- “Overall I am satisfied with the services I have received from the Actuaries Institute.”
- “The Actuaries Institute is achieving its goal of generating pride in the profession.”
Top and bottom five scoring areas
The following table sets out the ratings in the five highest scoring areas:
|
Table 1: Five highest scoring areas
|
% favourable
|
% difference |
| Quality The Institute offers services that are of a high quality |
82.5% |
-0.5% |
|
External Communications |
82.5% |
+1.5% |
|
The Institute HQ Team |
81.5% |
-0.5% |
|
Networking |
80% |
+2.0% |
|
Responsiveness |
79% |
-2.0% |
The percentage differences between 2014 and 2015 are well within the margin of error.
The following table shows the five lowest scoring areas – it should be noted that all five scores were at the top end of the ‘medium’ band (50% to 80%).
|
Table 2: Five lowest scoring areas |
% favourable responses |
% difference between 2014 and 2015 |
|
Continuous Improvement |
76.5% |
-0.5% |
|
Public Policy |
75.5% |
+2.5% |
|
Website |
75% |
-2.0% |
|
Governance |
73% |
+2.0% |
|
Professional Development / Events |
71.5% |
+9.5% |
Of the five lowest areas of satisfaction in the Survey, three (Public Policy, Governance, Professional Development/Events) demonstrated an increase in satisfaction compared to 2014. However, whilst Professional Development/Events showed an improvement well outside the margin of error, this is because an adjustment was made to the 2014 survey’s logic to only allow those respondents who said they participated in the Institute’s CPD program to rate their satisfaction level with that program.
The slight decrease in satisfaction for the two remaining areas – Continuous Improvement and Website (-0.5% and -2.-% respectively) – was within the margin of error for the Survey (2.8%).
Gap analysis
Voice Project’s gap analysis (below) for the Survey results compares performance on Institute member service practices with the estimated importance of those practices. Further explanation about the way in which the gap analysis is created, as well as the implications of the analysis, can be accessed via the link at the end of the article.
The areas in the bottom right quadrant are relatively more important to Member satisfaction (based on the correlations) and were lower performing (refer Table 2 above). According to Voice Project, improving performance in these three areas – Public Policy, Continuous Improvement and Professional Development/Events – is therefore likely to bring the highest return on investment for improving overall Member Satisfaction.
Key insights
Overall, the service provided by the Institute in the areas of Quality, Responsiveness and the HQ Team continues to score well, as does the service provided in the areas of external communications and networking. This strongly suggests that these areas should continue as usual (in other words, the return on investment of any additional activity in these areas would likely be minimal) and that the focus should be on improving those areas with less favourable scores.
Looking at each of the areas with less favourable scores (see Table 2):
Continuous Improvement: Due to its intangible quality, and presumably its direct relationship with observed improved scores in tangible areas, this is not an aspect of the survey that lends itself to identifying a specific course of action in response to improving member satisfaction. Improvements in other areas will likely lead to improvements in this score.
Public Policy: Although Public Policy rated second in the five least favourable result areas, when compared with 2014, there was a 2.5% increase in the number of respondents who indicated that the Institute continues to represent the profession’s needs well in its public policy initiatives. As part of Goal 3 of the Institute’s 2015-17 Strategic Plan, a significant number of activities in this area have attracted stakeholder and media attention. As this work continues, it is expected that more and more Members will continue to recognise these efforts as positively improving the profile of the profession. As the gap analysis indicates, improvements in the area of public policy have the greatest potential to increase member satisfaction, positively endorsing our strategic approach.
Website: The usefulness of the information on the Institute’s website rated highly, however responses indicated that the information architecture and navigation could be improved. Implementation of the CPD Business Plan includes reorganisation of website content according to topic rather than business unit, this will affect and improve other parts of the website ( not just CPD).
Governance: The questions in this area relate to awareness of CPD obligations and practice‑specific information. Although relevant information does exist and is made available, there is an ongoing challenge in engaging Members. The upcoming implementation of “My Dashboard” on the Institute’s website (part of the CPD Business Plan) will provide scope to implement previous suggestions that practice‑area specific information be delivered through that tool. Other initiatives through Goal 1 of the Strategic Plan should assist in delivering messages about CPD obligations.
Professional Development/Events: The effective provision of CPD offerings demonstrated an increased score relative to 2014 due to an adjustment in the survey logic (as discussed above). Again, further improvements are expected in the 2016 survey results once the CPD Program Business Plan is rolled out and its impact is felt by Members.
Conclusion
The main conclusion is that the Institute is currently performing consistently well in the top five areas and that there are already a number of initiatives planned through the Strategic Plan that should see improvements in the current five lowest scoring areas.
With so many scores at either the ‘high’ or top end of ‘medium’, the Institute is well on track.
Survey invitations to all Members will be distributed again in Q3 2016.
Detailed information regarding the Survey – including the approach taken and ratings logic – can be found here.
Feedback from Members is always welcome – please contact Katrina McFadyen, Head of Communications and Marketing.
CPD: Actuaries Institute Members can claim two CPD points for every hour of reading articles on Actuaries Digital.
