Post on 09-Jul-2018
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY
October 2012
Report
SF Smart Frontiers
Prepared and submitted by Smart Frontiers P.O. Box 6169 – 00100, Nairobi, Kenya
smart@africaresearchinfo.net
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers ii
Acknowledgements
This study was undertaken by Smart Frontiers. We would like to thank everyone who contributed the
various aspects towards the realization of this survey. We wish to convey thanks to the staff of KFS for
their enthusiastic help in conducting this assessment: Abraham Wafula and Eric Wainaina greatly
appreciative to the persons of the invaluable advice in relation to the consultative discussion that provided
critical support and direction during the course of data collection. Special thanks are also extended to the
data collection and data entry teams for their due dedication and commitment throughout the data
collection and data entry process.
Finally, and most important, appreciation is extended to the KFS stakeholder group who willingly
participated in the survey and for providing the valuable information that is the outcome of this report.
Smart Frontiers however solely remain responsible for any of the errors that may remain.
Consultancy team
June 2012
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
DK Don‟t Know
GoK Government of Kenya
CSI Customer Satisfaction Index
CSS Customer Satisfaction Survey
FGD Focus Group Discussion
KMO Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
KFC Kenya Forest College
KFC Kenya Forest Service
NGO Non Government Organizations
NR No Response
PC Performance Contracts
RBM Result Based Management
SPSS Statistical Products and Services Solutions
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ vii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Section 1: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Background 4
1.2 This survey 4
1.3 Research Strategy 5
1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample ......................................................................... 7 Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya ................................................................................. 11
2.1 The Kenya Forest Service 11
2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector 12
2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030 .................................. 13 2.2.2 Challenges ..................................................................................................... 14 Section 3: Results of the Quantitative Survey ........................................................................ 15
3.1 Overall Performance 15
3.1.1 Customer Satisfaction Index ......................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Customer satisfaction gaps .......................................................................... 16 3.2 Perceptions of KFS Service Delivery Dimensions 18
3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate ........................... 18 3.2.2 KFS commitment to its core values ............................................................. 18 3.2.3 Customer focus and continued improvement ............................................. 19 3.2.4 Service delivery standards............................................................................ 20 3.3 Service delivery measure of access 21
3.3.1 Affordability ratings of the services provided by KFS ................................ 21 3.3.2 Accessibility ratings of the services provided by KFS ............................... 22 3.4 Communication and Engagement 23
3.4.1 Services sought through facility visit .......................................................... 24 3.4.2 Outcomes of the services sought through telephone ................................. 25 3.4.3 Outcomes of the services sought through email ........................................ 26 3.4.4 Outcomes of the services sought through website visit ............................ 28 3.4.5 Outcomes of the services sought through a letter ...................................... 29 3.5 Assessment of procurement procedures 30
3.6 Factors driving customer satisfaction 31
3.6.1 Factors underlying customer satisfaction ................................................... 31 Section 4: Results of the Qualitative Assessment ....................................................................... 35
4.1 Forest Activities and Motivation ................................................................... 35 4.2 Challenges and Opportunities ...................................................................... 37 4.3 Management of Forests ................................................................................. 39 Section 5: Results of the Mystery Shopping Assessment ............................................................ 41
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers v
5.1 Ambience ....................................................................................................... 41 5.2 Facilities ......................................................................................................... 41 5.3 Customer service ........................................................................................... 42 5.4 Service delivery standards............................................................................ 43 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 44
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers vi
List of Figures
Fig 3.1: Customer satisfaction index by overall and customer segments 13
Fig 3.2: Affordability ratings of the services 20
Fig 3.3: Accessibility ratings of services 21
Fig 3.4: Proportion that visited KFS facility to seek service 22
Fig 3.5: Proportion that used telephone to seek service 23
Fig 3.6: Proportion that used email to seek service 25
Fig 3.7: Proportion that visited KFS website 26
Fig 3.8: Proportion that used a letter to seek service 27
Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with procurement procedures 29
Fig 3.10: Proportion that used a letter to seek service 32
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy 5
Table 1.2: Sample characteristics 6
Table 1.3: Distribution of the focus groups 7
Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010 12
Table 3.1: Customer Satisfaction Index by service delivery dimension 14
Table 3.2: Customer satisfaction gaps with aspects of facility level services 15
Table 3.3: Satisfaction with regard to KFS communication and address of its
mandate 16
Table 3.4: Satisfaction with regard to KFS commitment to its core values 17
Table 3.5: Satisfaction with regard to customer focus and continued improvement 18
Table 3.6: Satisfaction with services delivery standards 19
Table 3.7: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through facility visit 23
Table 3.8: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through phone 24
Table 3.9: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email 25
Table 3.10: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through website 27
Table 3.11: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email 28
Table 3.12: Factors that underline customer satisfaction with service delivery 31
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 1
Executive Summary
This survey was conducted during the month of June, 2012 by Smart Frontiers in the framework of
Performance Contracts to assess the quality of service delivery to the customers of Kenya Forest Service
and its constituent college, Kenya Forest College. In this way, the survey sought to establish whether
KFS is meeting its service expectations. The findings presented in this report highlight the key issues
emerging, and ultimately, the actions required to enhance employee satisfaction levels.
Key highlights of the survey findings are as follows:
Customer satisfaction index
An aggregate CSI of 71.72 points was observed. Comparison across the customer segments show that
the index scores are in the range between 67 to about 85 points. With the index points around 85.29
points, the suppliers segment ranked the highest, and conversely, the lowest CSI figures observed
among the forest adjacent communities (67.64). Analysis by the criterion of KFS service delivery
dimensions show that KFS generally performed better in direct customer service, through services
delivered in person (i.e. facility visit by the customers), phone or email – 74.05. This is followed by the
dimension on „communication and delivery of organizational mandate (72.77).
Satisfaction gaps
The overall satisfaction gaps, in order of importance, are highest in respect to „Access to felling plan‟ (-
0.4), „Time it takes to be served‟ (-0.4), „Providing timber license‟ (-0.5), „Providing nature based
enterprises licenses‟ (-0.5), „Access to timber import/export permit‟ (-0.5) and „Authorization to sale
minor forest produce‟ (-0.5). Conversely, on the lower end, the gaps observed suggest that customer
levels of expectation against satisfaction levels are least in respect to „Conducting awareness
programme‟ (-0.9), „Field demonstration services‟, both depicting -0.9; and „Providing maps showing
way leave‟ (-0.8), „Developing and maintaining essential infrastructure for effective forest protection &
management‟ (-0.8), „Providing forest extension information‟, „Providing ecotourism licenses‟,
„Enhancing productivity of industrial forest plantations‟ and „Promoting farm forestry‟, all depicting -
0.8.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 2
Satisfaction drivers
On the basis of PCA, the data does indicate employee satisfaction is based on three platforms: The
leading factor, interpreted as Service Assurance accounted for 26.28% of the variance. This factor
constituted eight attributes that are essentially related to quality of the services. The second factor,
Responsiveness to customer needs and accounted for 25.61% of the variance. This comprised eight
attributes that are primarily related to value accorded clients. This last factor is named Competency and
Accountability, and represented 25.21% of the variance. The factor constitutes eight items, primarily
oriented on staff professionalism and integrity issues.
Recommendations
On the basis of these findings, the following strategies are suggested as a way of enhancing the level
and quality of output of KFS:
1. Customer service: Address service delivery deficiencies, including waiting time. There is need
to strengthen the ability of the departments to deal with these deficiencies.
2. Reviewing regulations: The importance of reviewing regulation pertaining to licenses and
permits is underlined. Here, we take note that this remains one of the issues where disquiet is
notable.
3. Communication: This relates to „customer engagement‟. It appears that there are hurdles that
prevent access to information by certain segments of the general public. The concern expressed
here was that information seems to focus on the market players rather than investors. Different
customer segments are in need of different information features, and mainstreaming information
along these segments would be useful in terms of enhancing engagement.
4. Complaints management: There is need to enhance complaints handling process. This would
entail putting into place complaints mechanisms and letting the public have knowledge of the
same, and also to recognize and take appropriate action on the complaints lodged
5. Public education: Results from the FGDs show that information gaps remain in public
knowledge regarding the range of investment opportunities in forest related activities. There
should be energetic move to improve access to investment information to that regard
6. Accessibility: Given the challenges of accessing a number of stations, KFS should consider
establishing liaison offices to bring the services nearer in those areas where the forest stations
are not easy to access
7. Sanitation facilities: This is critical in terms of improving the satisfaction of customers that visit
the facilities
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 3
8. Internet services: Improvements in the quality of service delivered through email is an area in
need of improvement. Additionally, KFS should consider enriching its website by uploading
more and upto date information and providing relevant useful URL links on the forest sector.
This will make the website an information resource.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 4
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
The Government of Kenya (GoK) has embraced the Result Based Management (RBM) as a tool to
improving public service delivery. The essence of RBM is to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the
delivery of public services, and that citizens can hold public servants accountable for the levels of
service they receive from public institutions. This is in line with Kenya‟s public service accountability
initiative known as Performance Contracts (PC), which was introduced in 2003, and which is expected
to support the goals and objectives outlined in Kenya‟s Vision 2030 strategy.1 The PC initiative forms
the basis of improvement in the public service delivery, which seeks to progressively work towards
increasing quality of output within public institutions.
Under these broader public sector reforms, the Kenya Forest Service (KFS) aims to ensure that services
are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers and excellence is attained in its operations. In
complement to this Reform Agenda, one pillar in this move is to monitor the level of satisfaction of both
the internal and external stakeholders.
Thus, in pursuit of ensuring that services are enhanced to the satisfaction of its customers, KFS
commissioned a survey with a view to gain insights into the satisfaction with and perceptions of its
services. The outcomes are intended to assist the KFS to align management and directorial processes
with employee and customer expectations in order to facilitate greater performance. This survey
generally focuses on the KFS Service Delivery Charters on the key performance indicators.
1.2 This survey
In accordance with the brief set by the KSF, the broader motivation underpinning the proposed survey is
to enable the assessment of customer satisfaction. In this way, the survey sought to establish whether
KFS is meeting its service expectations. The specific objectives of the survey comprised:
1 Muthaura, F., (2003), Head of Public Service
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 5
1. Develop a composite measure index of customer satisfaction (CSI) and use it to determine
the overall rating of the current level of staff satisfaction;
2. Find out staff perception of the job dimensions;
3. Identify gaps in the workplace;
4. Identify specific areas that require improvement.
1.3 Research Strategy
Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) is an exercise in which service delivery systems are examined by
reflecting on organization‟s customers‟ and stakeholders perceptions, preferences and service delivery
constraints. Given the scope of objectives to be addressed, this survey leveraged five techniques of
enquiry; namely:
1) Secondary data review,
2) Quantitative survey
3) Focus group discussions (FGDs),
4) Mystery shopping, and
5) Key informant interviews.
1.3.1 Geographical Scope
For addressing the objectives of the survey, it was recognized that in order to obtain breadth of
perspectives, the data collected should represent a range of locations across the country. Working with
three zones per conservancy (exception being Nairobi, Ewaso North and North Eastern), the survey
covered a total coverage of 24 zones. While it would be of interest to include more zones, the cost of so
doing and the logistical requirements involved would outweigh its potential value. These zones are
nonetheless selected to reflect differences in terms of in terms of geographical location, socio-economic
diversities and size of conservancies, and can thus reflect representativeness to that regard. Table xxx
displays the sample distribution by the conservancies covered.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 6
Secondary data review
The preliminary tasks involved a review of existing data and literature. One important goal was to
evaluate how KFS has performed in terms of service delivery over the past years. The previous survey
approach and findings will be partly fed into the primary research in order to allow for tracking and
comparison on a number of aspects. The sources to be reviewed will also include the following:
1) Previous customer and employee satisfaction survey reports
2) KFS Service Charter
3) Strategic Plan
4) Other documents
1.3.2 Approach to the primary data investigation
Quantitative survey
A fundamental consideration and one that informs the entire research strategy is the necessity to draw
inferences at the individual, community and institutional levels. The quantitative survey was thus
conducted using purposive sample of respondents drawn from KFS‟ delineated range of stakeholders
(customers). Accordingly, the following are considered the important stakeholders that were
interviewed at various points during the data collection sessions:
i) Civil Society Organizations
ii) Forest dependent/adjacent communities
iii) Community Based Organizations
iv) Women Groups
v) Youth Groups
vi) Private Sector (saw millers, timber loggers, charcoal dealers, commercial tree growers,
ecotourism based enterprises)
vii) Agro-based Industry (coffee, tea, wheat farmers)
viii) Public Institutions (government and local authorities)
ix) Research/Academic Institutions
x) Suppliers
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 7
As shown in Table 1.1, the customer sample was spread across the ten KFS conservancies in addition to
the KFC. The highest percentages were drawn from Nairobi (23%), and the lowest drawn from North
Eastern (3%) and Ewaso North (4%).
Table 1.1: Sample distribution by conservancy
Conservancy Number Percent
Central Highlands 30 7
Coast 56 13
Eastern 38 9
Ewaso North 15 4
Mau 54 13
Nairobi 100 23
North Eastern 14 3
North Rift 33 8
Nyanza 33 8
Western 54 13
Central Highlands 30 7
Coast 56 13
1.2.6 Characteristics of the sample
Table 1.2 displays the sample characteristics in terms of years of interaction with KFS and customer
category. In terms of category, 44% represented community segment (comprising forest adjacent
communities, youth and women‟s groups). Agro and forest based businesses constituted 37% of the
sample, while the institutional segment (comprising public institutions and NGOs) and suppliers
constituted 10 and 8% respectively.
Regarding number of years of interaction with KFS, half the sample (50%) have interacted with KFS,
slightly less than one-fifth (18%) have done so for 2 to 3 years, while one-tenth has done so for 1 year or
less. Another one-tenth (9%) did not comment on this.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 8
Table 1.2: Sample characteristics
Period of interaction with KFS
1 year or less 41 10
2 to 3 yrs 76 18
4 to 6 yrs 212 50
7 to 10 yrs 36 8
10+ yrs 22 5
NR 40 9
Customer category
Community segment 188 44
Agro and forest based businesses 159 37
Institutional segment (Public institutions
and NGOs) 36 8
Suppliers 44 10
1.1.1 Focus Group Discussions
FGDs are necessary due to the depth of information required. This approach will provide opportunity to
extract a multiplicity of views within a group context, and would be useful for shared understandings of
the participants‟ practices, attitudes, beliefs and feelings regarding the issues under investigation. One
advantage is that they can be used to confirm the responses received from the participants. Another
advantage is that the technique enables a larger number of individuals to be interviewed in a shorter
period.
For this study, the FGDs were used to explore the dynamics and complexities of forest related issues at
the individual and community levels. More specifically, FGDs were used to elicit participants‟
underlying motivations, benefits – i.e. socio-economic influences for investment in forest sector, and
forest management issues. A total of 7 focus groups were conducted, along individual and community
groups domains. This distribution is intended to reflect various profiles of the customer. The distribution
of the FGDs is reflected in Table 1.3.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 9
Table 1.3: Distribution of the focus groups
Zone Sub-branch Level of assessment
Nairobi Ngong Individual
Baringo Kabartonjo Individual
Kajiado Kajiado Community group
Mombasa Likoni Individual
Kerugoya Kangaita Community group
Busia Port Victoria Community group
Machakos Mutituni Community group
1.1.2 Key Informant Interviews
The study will canvass representatives from relevant institutions public and private institutions. Here,
the study leverages the concept of specialization and devolution of roles and areas of specialization of
different actors and will provide the basis to examine the phenomenon through the perspective of the
key "actors". The key informant interviews were thus intended to facilitate assessment of the forest
related business and organizations. The reference target group for this survey constituted individuals
with experiences and at appropriate levels of authority, and therefore better placed to provide
information relevant to the survey objectives. Thus, considering the distinctiveness of the target
population, the sample was drawn on purposive sampling technique in order to capture a diverse range
of perspectives and ensure variability in terms of institution. A total of 6 key informant interviews were
conducted, along sector domains. The sample is reflected in Table 1.4
Table 1.4: Sample characteristics of the key informants
Zone Sub-branch Title Sector
Baringo Kabartonjo Village Elder Timber sowing
Busia Port Victoria Group Chairperson Forest related community group
Kerugoya Kangaita Group Chairperson Forest related community group
Nairobi Ngong Proprietor Forest related business
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 10
1.1.3 Simulated Client (Mystery Shopping)
Simulated client were undertaken in the context of mystery-client techniques. This entailed data
collection through disguised trial-shopper assessment, and was intended to provide first-hand experience
on how service is being provided at the KFS points of service.
For the assessment, a total of 16 mystery shopping were conducted across 8 zones. These covered both
main and sub-branch zonal offices. The distribution of the sample is displayed in Table 1.5
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 11
Section 2: The Forest Sector in Kenya
2.1 The Kenya Forest Service
The oversight institution responsible for management of the forest sector in Kenya is the KFS. The KFS
was established by an act of Parliament as a body corporate under the Forest Act, 2005, to provide for
the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and rational
utilization of forest resources for the socio-economic development of the country. Under the existing
legislation, the broader mandate of KFS extends to all forests.
Mandate
To provide for the establishment, development and sustainable management, including conservation and
rational utilization of forest resources for environmental protection and socio-economic development of
the country
Core Functions
On this account, the specific functions of KFS include the following:
1. To sustainably manage natural forests for social, economic and environmental benefits
2. Increase productivity of industrial forest plantations and enhance efficiency in wood utilization
3. Promote farm forestry and commercial tree farming
4. Promote efficient utilization and marketing of forest products
5. To promote sustainable management of forests in the drylands
6. To protect forestry resources and KFS property
7. To develop and maintain essential infrastructure for effective forest management and protection
Vision
“To be the leading organization of excellence in sustainable forest management and conservation”
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 12
Mission
“To enhance conservation and sustainable management of forests and allied resources for environmental
stability and socio-economic development”
Stakeholders
In undertaking it functions, KFS works with a broad range of stakeholders (customers). The key
customers include but not limited to:
1. Communities and land owners e.g. community forest associations, organized community
groups, farmers, pastoralists and commercial tree growers.
2. Private Sector e.g. licensees, concessionaires, saw miller, ecotourism based enterprises, Small
and Medium Enterprises and Suppliers
3. Non Government Organizations (NGO)
4. Development partners (governmental and non-governmental)
5. Government agencies: these include local authorities and parastatals
6. The General public
7. Service providers
2.2 Situation analysis of the forest sector
Forests are among the Kenya‟s important natural resources as they supply goods and services for socio
economic and cultural development. The gazetted forestland is estimated to be 1.7 million hectares. This
is just about 2.5 % per cent of the country‟s land area. Recent estimates, based on remote sensing,
indicate that Kenya has a critical 1.7 per cent of closed canopy forest cover (UNEP, 2001).
The gazetted forests constitute 0.12 million hectares of plantation forest, 1.21 million hectares of
indigenous forest, and 0.5 million hectares of protective bush and grassland. A total of 36.7 million
hectares of other forest associations exist under other legal frame works that include National Parks,
Ranches, Trustlands and forests private ownership. As Water Catchment, forests in Kenya play a vital
role as home to the nation‟s “Water towers”, i.e. the five main water catchments (Mt Kenya,
Cherangani, Aberdare‟s, Mau and Mt Elgon) constituting the bulk of Kenya‟s high forests.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 13
2.2.1 Economic importance and role towards Vision 2030
Kenya‟s Vision 2030 notes that, globally, deforestation and forest degradation accounts for 20% of
green house gases (GHG) emissions and that forest conservation can provide 20% of the solution to
global warming. It therefore calls for the urgent need to conserve, protect and rejuvenate Kenya‟s
forests. The Vision 2030 recognizes the importance of forest industries to the national economy -
accounting for more than 2% of the GDP.
Forestry business in many African countries is mainly transacted in the informal sector. This is a sector
that operates at the interface of the monetized and traditional economies. The types of activities that
characterize the sector include subsistence collection of forest products, processing and trade in
firewood, charcoal, forest foods and handicrafts. It is assumed that in some countries, business
conducted in the informal forestry sector may contribute more to rural livelihoods than that in the formal
forestry sector. They provide employment opportunities in various industries, thereby contributing to
improved income and livelihoods of many Kenyans. These include: sawmills, pulp and paper industry,
woodfuel industry, basketry, charcoal production, marketing and transportation industry, wood curving
industry, and non-timber forest products industries.
The Forest Act 2005 and the KFS strategic plan (2006 to 2011) stipulate that Kenya‟s forests will be
broadly managed for the following purposes:
1) Biodiversity, soil and water conservation and provision of other environmental services;
2) Wood production (timber, pulp, woodfuel and poles) and employment – current and potential;
3) Conservation of wildlife habitats; and,
4) Production of non-wood forest products and ecotourism development. More specifically, the
Act clearly states that plantation forests will be managed primarily for the production of wood
and other forest products and services for commercial purposes.
The ban on forest timber harvesting which has now been reviewed was for a long time a major
constraint to forest management and in particular, it affects the level of royalty collection, the quality of
timber products (including exposing plantations to risk of fires and disease/insect infestation),
insufficient or lack of raw materials supply, and increased cost of forest commodities.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 14
2.2.2 Challenges
One of the main challenges currently facing the sector is deforestation and degradation. Loss of forest
resources, general land degradation and desertification are serious environmental as well as socio-
economic problems globally and in Kenya.2 Three key drivers have been identified as having immensely
contributed to this problem in Kenya. These include: Clearing for agriculture, unsustainable utilization
and poor governance and institutional failures. Thus, the past two decade has seen decline in the
coverage of the sub-total forest land by about 12,050 ha annually.
Table 2.1: Level of forest coverage between 1990 and 2010
Category of forest resource
(using FAO definitions) Area (‘000 Ha)
Annual Change
(‘000 Ha)
1990 2000 2005 2010 1990 - 2010
1. Indigenous closed Canopy Forest 1,240 1,190 1,165 1,140 -5
2. Indigenous Mangroves 80 80 80 80 0
3. Open woodlands 2,150 2,100 2,075 2,050 -5
4. Public Plantation Forests 170 134 119 107 -3.15
5. Private Plantation forests 68 78 83 90 +1.1
Sub - total Forest land
(total of above categories) 3,708 3,582 2,357 3,467 -12.05
6. Bush-land 24,800 24,635 24,570 24,510 -14.5
7. Farms with Trees 9,420 10,020 10,320 10,385 +48.25
Total Area of Kenya 58,037 58,037 58,037 58,037 0
2 Mr Aeneas Chuma, Resident Representative, UNDP, Kenya
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 15
Section 3: Results of the Quantitative Survey
3.1 Overall Performance
3.1.1 Customer Satisfaction Index
Calculation of the CSI incorporated 57 service delivery variables. An aggregate CSI of 71.72 points was
observed. Comparison across the customer segments show that the index scores are in the range
between 67 to about 85 points. With the index points around 85.29 points, the suppliers segment ranked
the highest, and conversely, the lowest CSI figures observed among the forest adjacent communities
(67.64). The results are presented in Figure 3.1.
Fig 3.1: Customer satisfaction index by overall and customer segments
The CSI findings are further analyzed using the criterion of KFS service delivery dimensions. As shown
in Table 3.1, the results show that KFS generally performed better in direct customer service, through
services delivered in person (i.e. facility visit by the customers), phone or email – 74.05. This is
followed by the dimension on „communication and delivery of organizational mandate (72.77).
0
100
Overall Communities segment
Agro & Forest based
businesses
Institutional segment
Suppliers
71.72 69.19 70.18 73.71
85.29
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 16
Table 3.1: Customer Satisfaction Index by service delivery dimension
Satisfaction Index
Direct customer service (Facility visit, phone, email) 74.05
Communication and delivery of organizational mandate 72.77
Specific services (refer to Table 3.1) 71.51
Commitment to core values 70.78
Service delivery and cost of services 70.41
Customer focus and continued improvement 69.34
3.1.2 Customer satisfaction gaps
Relative to customer levels of expectation, satisfaction levels are decidedly negative. As observed in
Table 3.2, the overall satisfaction gaps, in order of importance, are highest in respect to „Access to
felling plan‟ (-0.4), „Time it takes to be served‟ (-0.4), „Providing timber license‟ (-0.5), „Providing
nature based enterprises licenses‟ (-0.5), „Access to timber import/export permit‟ (-0.5) and
„Authorization to sale minor forest produce‟ (-0.5).
Conversely, on the lower end, the gaps observed suggest that customer levels of expectation against
satisfaction levels are least in respect to „Conducting awareness programme‟ (-0.9), „Field
demonstration services‟, both depicting -0.9; and „Providing maps showing way leave‟ (-0.8),
„Developing and maintaining essential infrastructure for effective forest protection & management‟ (-
0.8), „Providing forest extension information‟, „Providing ecotourism licenses‟, „Enhancing productivity
of industrial forest plantations‟ and „Promoting farm forestry‟, all depicting -0.8.
In comparison, satisfaction gaps, almost without exception, remain higher on most attributes for among
the Communities segment and Forest and Afro-based industry segments. Among the former, the figures
suggest that disquiet with performance occurs most in respect to the following aspects: „Conducting
awareness programme‟, „Field demonstration services‟, „Developing and maintaining essential
infrastructure for effective forest protection & management‟. In respect to Forest and Afro-based
industry, the figures suggest that disquiet performance occurs most in respect to the following:
„Conducting awareness programme‟, „Providing maps showing way leave‟ and „Providing ecotourism
licenses‟.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 17
Table 3.2: Customer satisfaction gaps with aspects of facility level services
Overall
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based
businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
Conducting awareness programme -0.9 -0.95 -1.1 -0.5 -0.3
Field demonstration services -0.9 -0.95 -0.9 -0.5 -0.4
Providing maps showing way leave -0.8 -0.80 -1.1 -0.6 -0.1
Developing and maintaining infrastructure for
effective forest protection & management
-0.8
-1.00
-0.9
-0.5
-0.2
Providing forest extension information -0.8 -0.85 -0.9 -0.7 -0.2
Providing ecotourism licenses -0.8 -0.90 -1.0 0.0 0.1
Enhancing productivity of industrial forest
plantations
-0.8
-0.60
-1.0
-0.7
-0.4
Promoting farm forestry -0.8 -0.80 -0.9 -0.5 0.1
Enhancing efficiency in wood utilization -0.7 -0.70 -0.9 -0.5 0.1
Promoting commercial tree planting -0.7 -0.80 -0.8 -0.5 0.2
Providing license for base transmission/receiver
station
-0.7
-0.70
-1.0
0.8
-0.3
Protecting forestry resources -0.7 -0.55 -0.9 -0.7 -0.5
Authorization for mining prospecting in forest
areas -0.7 -0.60 -0.9 -0.4 0.1
Price of the KFS forest products -0.6 -0.70 -0.7 -0.7 -0.1
Water easement authority -0.6 -0.70 -0.7 -0.4 -0.1
Providing annual operation license -0.6 -0.55 -0.9 -0.4 0.2
Efficient utilization and marketing of forest
products
-0.6
-0.65
-0.7
-0.2
-0.3
Sale of Seedlings -0.6 -0.50 -0.8 -0.4 -0.5
Providing certification of origin -0.6 -0.60 -0.8 0.2 0.0
Providing certification of origin -0.6 -0.60 -0.8 0.2 0.0
Authorization for forest areas camping -0.6 -0.50 -1.0 0.5 -0.2
Authorization to sale minor forest produce -0.5 -0.65 -0.5 -0.5 0.1
Providing nature based enterprises licenses -0.5 -0.50 -0.8 0.2 0.1
Providing timber license -0.5 -0.35 -0.8 -0.3 -0.2
Access to timber import/export permit -0.4 -0.30 -0.7 -0.1 0.2
Access to felling plan -0.4 -0.25 -0.8 0.7 0.4
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 18
3.2 Perceptions of KFS Service Delivery Dimensions
3.2.1 Communication and delivery of organizational mandate
The dimension related to communication and address of mandate looks at five key service variables
(depicted in Table 3.3). The percentage of respondents providing a positive response was fairly high,
ranging from 55% to 63%. Respondents reported the highest levels of satisfaction with regard to „The
way KFS is addressing its mandate to improve tree cover‟ (63%) and „The core value of the KFS‟
(61%).
For the four customer segments, a higher proportion of the suppliers segments showed satisfaction
across all the four aspects examined, exception being the communities segment, which depicts a lower
satisfaction score in respect to „The way KFS is communicating its Service Delivery Charter‟
Table 3.3: Satisfaction with regard to KFS communication and address of its mandate
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
The way KFS is addressing its
mandate to improve tree cover
63
57
62
74
82
The core value of the KFS 61 57 60 61 82
The way KFS is communicating its
vision and mission
58
54
56
56
84
The way KFS is communicating its
Service Delivery Charter
55
53
46
68
83
3.2.2 KFS commitment to its core values
This dimension encompassed eight service variables (displayed in Table 3.4). As shown, overall
satisfaction ranged from 51% to 63%, with the aspects related to „Professional competence
demonstrated by staff‟ (63%), „Excellence in service delivery‟, (62%) and „Adhere to best scientific
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 19
practices‟ (60%) receiving the highest rating. Conversely, the aspect related to „Zero tolerance to
corruption at KFS‟ (51%) got the lowest.
In terms of customer segments, there are clear contrasts between these five categories on a number of
aspects, with the largest margins of “very/somewhat satisfied” being similarly observed among
suppliers and institutional segments.
Table 3.4: Satisfaction with regard to KFS commitment to its core values
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
Professional competence
demonstrated by staff
63
59
61
73
77
Excellence in service delivery 62 59 61 66 76
Adhere to best scientific practices 60 57 57 63 79
Transparency in dealings with
customers
59
58
55
59
83
Sharing knowledge on forestry
information
58
51
57
69
84
The level of honesty and truthfulness
of staff
57
50
57
59
78
Extent KFS scientific findings are
applied
56
51
57
53
82
Zero tolerance to corruption at KFS 51 39 55 53 80
3.2.3 Customer focus and continued improvement
The dimension on customer service covered twelve service variables (shown in Table 3.5). As observed,
overall satisfaction scores fall within fairly low to fairly high range (53% to 59%). Respondents reported
the highest levels of satisfaction with regard to „Cooperation between KFS and its customers‟,
„Promptness of service delivery‟ and „Demonstrates a clear understanding of customers needs‟, all
depicting 59%, and conversely lowest in respect to „Seeks opinion of its customers in its decisions‟
(47%).
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 20
For a comparison by customer sub-groups in this regard, it is apparent that the suppliers segment record
the highest satisfaction levels across virtually all the twelve service aspects. Conversely, the
communities segment emerges at the lower end in virtually all the aspects. Most striking, however, is
the rather lower satisfaction apparent among the Institutional segment on two aspects: „The extent KFS
is a team player‟ (47%) and „Adjusts operations in response to customer feedback‟ (39%).
Table 3.5: Satisfaction with regard to customer focus and continued improvement
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
Extent of cooperation between KFS
and its customers
59
51
61
69
86
Promptness of service delivery 59 55 56 70 84
Demonstrating a clear understanding
of customers needs
59
52
59
73
82
Efficiency of KFs operations 58 51 60 68 82
Level of customer focus 58 49 61 61 82
Extent KFS customer care impacts
positively its image
56
47
60
65
84
The extent KFS is a team player 55 47 60 47 81
Resolving customers‟ complaints
promptly & satisfactorily
55
52
50
71
79
Making the customers aware of
services
55
48
54
76
74
Open to complaints, suggestions,
compliments
53
48
49
68
78
Adjusting operations in response to
customer feedback
52
48
53
39
77
Seeking opinion of its customers in
its decisions
47
45
43
53
76
3.2.4 Service delivery standards
Looking at satisfaction with service delivery standards, the proportion of those showing satisfaction
ranged from 55% to 61%. The results, as shown in Table 3.6, show that satisfaction with performance is
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 21
higher in respect to: „Environmental friendliness of technologies‟, „Quality of information on products
received‟ and „Quality of services provided to customers‟, all depicting 61%. On the other hand,
satisfaction with performance is higher in respect to: „Timeliness of delivery of services‟ and „The way
complaints are addressed‟, both depicting 55%.
For a comparison by customer categories in this regard, the suppliers segment lead across all the
aspects. Notably, slightly lower scores are evident among communities segment in respect to „The way
complaints are addressed‟ and „Timeliness of delivery of services‟.
Table 3.6: Satisfaction with services delivery standards
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
Environmental friendliness of
technologies 61 56 63 63 81
Quality of information on products
received 61 58 62 67 74
Quality of services provided to
customers 61 54 61 73 74
Timeliness of delivery of services 55 52 55 50 74
The way complaints are addressed 55 51 54 55 81
3.3 Service delivery measure of access
3.3.1 Affordability ratings of the services provided by KFS
To examine opinions on the affordability of services, participants were asked to rate their satisfaction
with the affordability of services, on a 5-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”.
To evaluate participants‟ perceptions to that regard, responses are grouped into three categories as
illustrated:
Scale 4 & 5: Affordable
Scale 3: Fairly affordable
Scale 1 & 2: Not affordable
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 22
As displayed in Figure 3.2, it is observed that, overall, just above half (56%) of participants thought the
services were affordable, with another one-third (31%) rating the charges as „fair‟. Fairly less than one-
tenth (13%) were unequivocally negative about the charges.
Looking at the results by customer segment, a rather wide range is observed. Among those who rated
the services as affordable, the highest percentage emerged among the suppliers segment (81%),
followed by the institutional segment (63%).
Fig 3.2: Affordability ratings of the services
3.3.2 Accessibility ratings of the services provided by KFS
Another measure of access is “accessibility”. Participants again rated their satisfaction with the services
in these terms, on a 5-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied”. Similarly, to
evaluate participants‟ perceptions to that regard, responses are grouped into three categories as
illustrated:
Scale 4 & 5: Accessible
Scale 3: Fairly accessible
Scale 1 & 2: Not accessible
Customer segment
Community segment 51% 33% 16%Agro and Forest based businesses 54% 34% 12%
Institutional segment 63% 29% 8%
Suppliers 81% 13% 6%
56%
31%
13%
0%
100%
Affordable Fairly affordable Not affordable
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 23
As observed in Figure 3.3, just below one-fifth (17%) of the participants rated the services as accessible,
while another one-fifth (20%) though the level of accessibility was fair. Notably, with the majority
(65%) were unequivocally negative.
Across the four customer segments, communities segment fared the best, with 21% rating the services
as accessible. Conversely, institutional segment seem to fare least positively, with [0%] rating the
services as „accessible‟.
Fig 3.3: Accessibility ratings of services
3.4 Communication and Engagement
The dimension related to communication looks at both the functional 3 outcomes of customer
engagement with KFS, focusing the five modes of engagement, namely: Facility visit, telephone, email,
letter and website. Analyses under this section are based on the proportion of participants who reported
that they ever engaged with KFS using these modes.
3 Relates to the process of service delivery
Customer segment
Community segment 21% 23% 56%Agro and Forest based businesses 17% 17% 66%
Institutional segment 0% 35% 65%
Suppliers 17% 6% 77%
17% 20%
63%
0%
100%
Accessible Fairly accessible Not accessible
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 24
3.4.1 Services sought through facility visit
As observed in Figure 3.4, overall, considerable majority (80%) reported ever visiting KFS office or
station. Making a comparison, this proportion varied from 93% (suppliers segment) to 72%
(institutional segment).
Looking at the outcomes of services sought through facility visit, results show that the proportion of
those showing satisfaction ranged from 73% to 35%. The results, as shown in Table 3.7, show that,
across the four aspects, satisfaction with performance is higher in respect to: „general standards of
cleanliness of the environment‟. Most striking is the rather lower satisfaction in respect to „use of
modern technology‟ and „conduciveness of sanitation facilities.‟
For a comparison by customer categories in this regard, what stands out is the relatively lower
satisfaction levels among the institutional segment with the „general conditions of service facilities (e.g.
waiting rooms, chairs, desks, etc)‟, „conduciveness of the sanitation facilities‟ and „use of modern
technology.
0%
100%
Total Community segment
Agro and Forest based
businesses
Institutional segment
Suppliers
80% 75%83%
72%
93%% - Visited KFS facility to seek service
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 25
Table 3.7: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through facility visit
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
General standard of cleanliness of
the environment 73 68 75 63 92
Time taken to be served 69 66 66 67 87
Organization of KFS offices and
stores 67 67 62 65 86
General conditions of service
facilities (e.g. waiting rooms, chairs,
desks, etc)
62
61
62
41
85
Conduciveness of sanitation facilities 36 41 27 16 65
Use of modern technology for service
delivery
35
42
25
11
62
3.4.2 Outcomes of the services sought through telephone
With regard to services sought through telephone, it is observed (in Figure 3.5), that overall, just below
half (47%) ever used telephone to seek service. Comparatively, the highest proportion of this category is
found among the suppliers segment.
Fig 3.5: Proportion that used telephone to seek service
0%
100%
Total Community segment
Agro and Forest based
businesses
Institutional segment
Suppliers
47% 45% 44% 46%
69%
% - Used telephone to seek service
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 26
In respect to the outcomes of services sought through phone, results show that the proportion of those
showing satisfaction ranged from 73% to 63%. As observed in Table 3.8, satisfaction with performance
is higher in respect to: „Ability of the receptionist help you to get assistance‟ and‟ Language/etiquette of
the person who received you call‟.
In comparison, relatively higher levels of satisfaction are observed, across all the customer segments,
perhaps, with minimal concerns among the communities segment with regard to: „timeliness of
feedback when they promise to call back‟ and „how easy it is for the numbers to go through‟.
Table 3.8: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through phone
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
Ability of the receptionist help you to
get assistance 73 73 66 79 85
Language/etiquette of the person who
received you call 70 66 68 79 79
Time taken for your call to be
received 69 63 72 64 82
How easy it is to get to connected to
the person you want to speak to 68 65 67 64 81
How easy it is to call the stations in
other zones (other than Head office) 66 60 68 67 75
Timeliness of feedback when they
promise to call back 64 59 63 71 76
How easy it is for the numbers to go
through 63 57 63 64 75
3.4.3 Outcomes of the services sought through email
With regard to services sought through email, it is observed (in Figure 3.6), that roughly one-tenth
(11%) ever used email to seek service. Making a comparison, the highest proportion of this category
emerged among the suppliers segment (38%), distantly followed by institutional segment (12%).
Conversely, the lowest proportion was found among the communities segment (7%).
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 27
Fig 3.6: Proportion that used email to seek service
Looking at the outcomes of services sought through email, results show that the proportion of those
showing satisfaction ranged from 63% to 57%. As observed in Table 3.9, satisfaction with performance
is higher in respect to: „how welcoming and keen the initial response was‟ and „the extent the reply
considered inquiry carefully‟.
In comparison, notable contrasts emerged; the results showed relatively lower levels of satisfaction are
observed among the communities segment, with all the four aspects recording satisfaction scores below
40%.
Table 3.9: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
How welcoming and keen the initial
response was 63 38 63 75 88
The extent the reply considered your
inquiry carefully 60 33 56 75 87
How easy it is for your email get
through (i.e. not bounce-back) 58 31 53 75 88
Immediate acknowledgement of your
email 57 33 63 50 75
0%
30%
Total Community segment
Agro and Forest based
businesses
Institutional segment
Suppliers
11%
7%9%
12%
38%% - Used email to seek service
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 28
3.4.4 Outcomes of the services sought through website visit
Turning to services sought through website, it is observed (in Figure 3.7), that just above one-tenth
(14%) visited the KFS website. Making a comparison, the highest proportion of this category emerged
among the institutional segment (37%), distantly followed by suppliers segment (20%).
Fig 3.7: Proportion that visited KFS website
Looking at the outcomes of website visit (Table 3.10), the results show that the proportion of those
showing satisfaction ranged from 67% to 55%. Satisfaction with performance was highest in respect to:
„the level of professionalism in design of website‟ and „the ease with which the website opens‟.
In comparison, the results showed relatively lower levels of satisfaction among the communities
segment Agro and Forest based businesses on the four aspects.
0%
60%
Total Community segment
Agro and Forest based
businesses
Institutional segment
Suppliers
14% 12% 10%
37%
20%
% - Visited website
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 29
Table 3.10: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through website
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
The level of professionalism in
design of website 67 58 50 92 88
The ease with which the website
opens 65 57 40 100 88
Extent information is up to date 56 46 40 75 88
Usefulness of website in terms of
your information needs 55 46 38 92 67
3.4.5 Outcomes of the services sought through a letter
Looking at engagement through letter, it is again observed (in Figure 3.8) that, overall, roughly one-fifth
(19%) used this mode. Making a comparison, the highest proportion of this category emerged among
the suppliers segment (53%).
Fig 3.8: Proportion that used a letter to seek service
In terms of outcomes (Table 3.11), the results show that the proportion of those showing satisfaction
ranged from 58% to 49%. Satisfaction with performance was highest in respect to: „how welcoming and
keen the initial response was‟ and „the extent the reply considered inquiry carefully‟.
0%
100%
Total Community segment
Agro and Forest based
businesses
Institutional segment
Suppliers
19% 17% 14% 18%
53%
% - Used letter to seek service
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 30
In comparison, the results similarly showed relatively lower levels of satisfaction among the
communities segment Agro and Forest based businesses on the four aspects.
Table 3.11: Satisfaction with outcomes for services sought through email
% “Very/Somewhat Satisfied”
Total
Communities
segment
Agro & Forest
based businesses
Institutional
segment
Suppliers
segment
How welcoming and keen the initial
response was 58 48 53 57 76
The extent the reply considered your
inquiry carefully 54 48 40 57 76
Immediate acknowledgement of your
letter 49 45 38 43 67
3.5 Assessment of procurement procedures
The dimension on procurement entirely focused on the Suppliers segment, and included seven
statements relating to procurement procedures. Results, as shown in Figure 3.9, suggest reasonably high
satisfaction on most of the aspects.
The aspects on which KFS received the highest ratings were: „time taken to process the necessary
document‟, both depicting positive scores of 80%. The aspect on which KFS receives the lowest ratings
was „compliance with the government public procurement regulations‟ – 30%. It is however observed
that relatively high proportion offered the response DK/NR.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 31
Fig 3.9: Satisfaction with procurement procedures
3.6 Factors driving customer satisfaction
3.6.1 Factors underlying customer satisfaction
To explore the factors driving employee satisfaction with the services provided by KFS, Exploratory
Factor Analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to identify service constituents at
which satisfaction levels are highest. The purpose of PCA is to reduce the data by identifying the
patterns of correlation between different attributes.
The analysis extracted three factors, with the measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) against all
attributes was found at 0.957, with significance level (BC) found at p = 0.00. The three factors extracted
collectively covered 24 attributes, which cumulatively explained 77.10% of the variance in the data. The
estimates of the variance in each item were < 0.70.
30
50
55
60
70
80
80
30
50
20
25
10
10
10
20 20
25
15
20
0% 100%
The extent KFS complies with the government public procurement regulations
The compliancy to the contract agreements, in regards to payment of services offered
The extent KFS provides enabling environment to facilitate fair competition
The extent tendering process is transparent and fair
The support provided to KFS staff to follow up on payment
The feedback to service providers and merchants
The time taken to processes the necessary documents (e.g. contracts)
Satisfied Neither Dissatisfied DK/NR
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 32
Accordingly, the pattern of correlation (displayed in Table 3.12) shows that the three factors, in order of
importance, can be interpreted as:
Factor 1: The leading factor, interpreted as Service Assurance accounted for 26.28% of the
variance. This factor constituted eight attributes that are essentially related to quality of the
services.
Factor 2: The second factor, Responsiveness to customer needs and accounted for 25.61% of the
variance. This comprised eight attributes that are primarily related to value accorded clients.
Factor 3: This last factor is named Competency and Accountability, and represented 25.21% of
the variance. The factor constitutes eight items, primarily oriented on staff professionalism and
integrity issues.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 33
Table 3.12: Factors that underline customer satisfaction with service delivery
Factor (% of variance)
The quality of services provided by KFS to
stakeholders 0.77
Service Assurance (26.28%)
The accessibility of services 0.77
Timeliness of delivery of services by KFS 0.77
Environmental friendliness of technologies used at
KFS 0.80
Improvement in service delivery over time 0.74
Cost of the products and/ or services 0.74
The quality of information on products and services
you receive from KFS 0.80
The way complaints are addressed 0.77
The extent KFS is a customer focused organization 0.80
Responsiveness to customer needs
(25.61%)
The extent KFS demonstrates a clear understanding of
customers needs
0.80
Promptness of service delivery at KFS 0.77
The extent KFS customer care impacts positively its image
0.72
The effort put by KFS to make its customers aware of its
services
0.77
The extent KFS adjusts its operations in response to
feedbacks from customers 0.77
The level of cooperation between KFS and its customers /
stakeholders 0.76
The extent KFS seeks opinion of its customers in
its decisions
0.69
The level of professional competence demonstrated by staff 0.73
The extent KFS‟s staffs are committed to excellence in service delivery 0.71
The extent KFS staffs are transparent in its dealings with customers 0.78
The level of honesty and truthfulness of KFS‟s staff 0.78 Competency and Accountability
The extent KFS adhere to best scientific practices 0.82 25.21%
The extent to which the KFS scientific findings are applied 0.80
The extent KFS shares general knowledge on forestry information 0.74
The extent of zero tolerance to corruption at KFS 0.68
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 34
Fig. 3.10 looks at the relative contribution of factors to overall satisfaction. It is seen that across the
three factors account for relatively the same share in terms of customer satisfaction.
Fig 3.10: Proportion that used a letter to seek service
Service Assurance
, 34%
Responsiveness to customer
needs, 33%
Staff comptenecy
and
Integrity, 33%
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 35
Section 4: Results of the Qualitative Assessment
This section of this report presents the views and opinions captured from the key informants and FGD
participants. These are presented as summarized opinions and direct statements from respondents. The
consultancy accepted respondents‟ answers as given.
4.1 Forest Activities and Motivation
The survey revealed that the activities of the forest adjacent communities had strong link to the forest. In
response to the question: “What forest or environment related activities are you involved in”,
participants mentioned an array of activities. These revolve around small scale informal businesses,
including timber selling, and charcoal business, firewood selling, tree nurseries, herbal medicine
practices, and other forest supported activities such as beekeeping. The levels at which these activities
are undertaken are individually, household or through community groups. Drawing from the experience
of the Port Victoria Community Forest Association, the study established that the participants work in
group effort with members of their households in a range of income generating such as agro-forestry
and commercial tree farming, as well as forest conservation activities. The other groups of interest was
the Crown Land Group of Kangaita Kerugoya, which is involved in beekeeping, rabit keeping, dairy
goat keeping, banana plantation and tree nurseries; and the Meta Meta group of Kajiado. This is
involved in tree nurseries and beekeeping.
4.1.1 Motivation for engaging in forest activities
Responses to the question: “What factors motivate you to undertake forest or environment activities?”
elicited two main responses from the FGD participants, with the responses obtained from the various
groups of respondents being all very similar, these mainly motivations mainly linking forest activities to
either economic or environmental benefits.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 36
Economic benefits
In terms of economic benefits, financial benefits featured heavily in participants responses, with the
income generating activities corresponded to the forest and environment related activities already cited.
It is worth noting that the different initiatives to generate income and employment by various groups
have had notable impact. In all circumstances, it was apparent that the communities did not directly earn
from the gazette forests since these are not accessible, mostly they sourced the products from bush-lands
and farms with trees.
In terms of income, although a number of participants could not indicate the approximate income on
monthly basis, since they earned incomes after certain duration (say 6 moths), it was apparent that the
level of income obtained varied by the activity and season, with the monthly values ranging from Ksh.
2,000 to 20,000. For example, for the Crown Land Group of Kangaita Kerugoya, they sell a seedling at
Ksh. 25, and honey at not less than Ksh. 400 per kg. For one participant, the average income he raised
from beekeeping was Ksh. 5,000 to 10, 000 per month. For seedlings and firewood, the approximately
income per month is Ksh. 10,000. For timber business, the monthly income range from Ksh. 10,000
to 15,000. The highest income levels are apparent in charcoal business, with average monthly
income ranging from Ksh. 30,000 to 60,000. In other circumstances, the income generated
contributed to supporting the community at large. A female FGD participant in Machakos
stated that, “the income I get after selling seedlings supports me in taking care of the orphans
and some members of the community that are disadvantaged”.
Environmental benefits
On the other hand, illustrating environmental benefits, participants responses showed that there is wide
knowledge if these benefits. These benefits include clean atmosphere and water catchment. Of interest
was to assess the views of the Port Victoria Community Forest Association with regard to
environmental conservation. From the discussions with the members, the main reasons that motivated
their engagement in forest related activities is the realization that, trees had numerous benefits that could
be tapped these include: firewood, building materials, provision of shade, they can thrive hand in hand
with other crops they produce fruits, they produce non timber products like castor and gum resin. They
also attended forums that sensitized them and made them understand how significant trees are. Trees
prevent soil erosion and minimize the effects of floods which have been prevalent in Bunyala area. They
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 37
also realized that as trees were diminishing, the rainfall was also diminishing in the area. These
activities have also been generating income either when one sells a tree or even subsidizing the family
budget.
4.2 Challenges and Opportunities
The perception of the participants on current forest coverage and the use of forest resources spanned a
spectrum of positive to negative opinions. Largely, the views emerging were in support of expansion of
current forest coverage; as noted by a participant in Machakos, “because the forest benefits them a lot
as in providing rain, fresh air, timber, charcoal, grass, firewood, water and beatifies the environment
naturally.” In terms of use of forest resources, a large number of views did not favour exploitation of the
resources or the gazetted forests; rather, they expressed preference for opportunity to plan their own
trees to curb too much usage of forest resources from the gazetted forests. To this end, the participants
felt that KFS needs to promote aforestation initiatives by:
a. Educating the local communities on how to plant trees in their homes and what kind of
trees
b. Providing the community with necessary seedlings for planting in their homes and
forest
c. Let the community give a hand in planting the trees in the forest and watering them as
well to see them grow well
d. The foresters should visit the community members‟ homes and see the trees they have
planted
e. Enlighten them on the policy they have put in place about the use of the forest resources
Current challenges
Forest conservation has however, been plagued with a number of challenges. According to the Port
Victoria Community Forest Association, the members feel that KFS officials in a way contribute to
destruction of the forest. This is because they issue permits to people to get into the forest and cut trees
unnecessarily. Charcoal burners and timber dealers have cleared the forest of indigenous and medicinal
trees. The forest has been heavily depleted and what remains are a couple of bushes scattered all over.
Besides, the Kenya-Uganda border is very porous. Uninspected timber which is infected gets smuggled
into the country and infects forests with aphids and other timber defects. Another challenge has been
lack of funding. Forests that are normally funded are the heavily canopied ones. The members felt that
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 38
there should be equity in forest funding even though some have a more significant role. The funds
would go a long way in reforestation of Port Victoria Forest. The government also needs to invest in
tools like fire extinguishers. The CFA members have had to use twigs and sand to put out forest fires
which has proven cumbersome and in efficient.
Opportunities
In terms of opportunities, participants‟ views consistently focused reduced reliance on forest for
livelihood activities. For example, in Kabartonjo, the participants advocated, not only for planting of
more trees, but also for reduce dependence, as noted in the following comment: “The community should
stop depending too much on forest and plant their own trees especially indigenous trees.” Additionally,
the community should use the right channels to acquire trees from the forests instead of stealing and this
will help to protect our forests, while KFS should educate the community on how to prevent destruction
of trees. For the Port Victoria Community Forest Association, this came out more explicitly, with the
view that, “the government and the community should advocate for use of alternative energy sources
like solar energy and biogas in place of firewood and charcoal. This will result in less trees being cut
and this makes for a more dense forest.”
On the other hand, Nonetheless, it as noted that increased forest resources utilization need not mean
destruction of the environment because once a tree is felled at least two trees should be planted in
return. Utilization of forest resources would be in order because it will mean that members of the
community have enough resources to educate their children. For the he Port Victoria Community Forest
Association participants, there should be criteria however that should govern tree harvesting such that
members get rewarded for their efforts to conserve forests because there has been a tendency for KFS to
reward people with big companies at the expense of the community which dampens their morale. This
ensures continuity of the forest. In essence, what good is a tree if it can‟t serve mankind?
Other direct utilization of the forest resources, it was noted that forests can also create alternative
income opportunities such as in tourism. This was well captured in the following illustration by the Port
Victoria Community Forest Association participants:
“There are opportunities however, that need exploiting in order to increase forest coverage and
utilization for instance, letting people plant medicinal trees in the forest. This will help fill up
the gaping spaces in the forests. When the forest is adequately canopied, they can then introduce
wildlife into the forest which will attract tourists into the area. There is also an interesting well
atop Busia (Mumbaka) Hill. The well mysteriously connects to Lake Victoria somehow such
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 39
that when water gets polluted In the lake, the well emits “smoke” It is also claimed that once
you drop something into the well, it ends up in Lake Victoria. This could make for a lucrative
ecotourism venture. Once a sizeable number of tourists are attracted to the area, a hotel can then
be built to accommodate them.”
4.3 Management of Forests
On responsibility for the management of forests, participants‟ indicated that, although KFS currently has
oversight responsibility for management of forests in the country, the general consensus was that both
the government and the community have a responsibility. According to most of the participants, the
communities can do this if they are facilitated and supported by KFS. For example, the Port Victoria
Community Forest Association participants felt that this can be achieved if they were provided with
quality seedlings to make the forest denser. Exotic and indigenous seedlings need to be sourced for
planting. On this, they noted that carbon trading is a concept that can be introduced to boost the incomes
of the forest adjacent communities.
The second way would be to provide support to forest supported projects, such a beekeeping. Currently,
Port Victoria Community Forest Association practice small time bee farming because they cannot afford
to buy modern hives whose cost ranges from 4000-7000 Kenyan shillings a piece. They therefore, don‟t
earn much from bee keeping because with their traditional hives and harvesting methods, they only get
about 20 liters of honey in a season. If they are financially offset, bee keeping could be a lucrative
activity in Budalangi.
Cross-cutting issues
Asked to reflect on issues that affect the forest sector, the responses advanced showed a relatively
high level of knowledge of the management and administrative gaps in the sector. The crosscutting
issues included, lack of transparency, mismanagement (in terms of fraudulent issuing of permits) and
illegal logging, some of which is associated with the staff of KSF. The combination of these factors has
been a bad precedence for the management of the country‟s forest resources. For the business people,
the challenges they experience stem from the current approach for managing government forest. As
noted by the participants in Machakos, these administrative bottlenecks include:
Unreasonable timeline in issuing of permits for ferrying and cutting of trees (often 3 days). The
permit expires before one finishes cutting and carrying out the timbers. This lead to corruption.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 40
Challenges related to transporting of timber, charcoal and firewood. On this, it was noted that
the Kenya police on the road do not recognize the permit issued on the carriage by the Kenya
forest. They stop and heavily impose a fine on transporters often without issuing of receipt
Kenya forest does not recognize the permit issued by foresters from other locations you bought
the forest resources. They thus levy heavy fines on the resources carried with no receipt
Too many permits are issued for cutting and for ferrying – this is time wasting and costly
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 41
Section 5: Results of the Mystery Shopping Assessment
This section presents the findings from the mystery shopping survey. The results are presented by the
mean scores of the different spheres of assessment. The mystery shoppers posed as potential customers,
using scenarios of service seeking. The key objective was to assess both the technical and functional
dimensions of service delivery. For the 19 mystery shopping, 4 constituted scenarios for purchase of
seedlings, 2 constituted scenarios of tender enquiries, 3 constituted scenarios of permits for charcoal
business, 6 constituted scenarios of permits for timber business, and 2 constituted scenarios for logging
permits.
5.1 Ambience
In terms of ambience (Table 5.1), overall, a mean score of 3.6 was recorded for ambience, with the
scores ranging from 4.7 in respect to temperature to 3.6 in respect to arrangement of the reception area.
Notable contrasts are observed across main zone offices and sub-branch offices, depicting overall mean
score difference of 1.1 in favour of the former.
Table 5.1: Mean score on office ambience
Ambience
Main zone
office
Sub-branch
office Mean score
The station clean and tidy 4.1 3.9 4.0
The building well lit 4.4 4.0 4.2
The reception was well arranged 4.1 3.0 3.6
The temperature was comfortable 4.4 5.0 4.7
Overall satisfaction 4.1 3.0 3.6
5.2 Facilities
With regard to facilities (Table 5.2), the results depict overall a mean score of 2.7, with the scores
ranging from 1.0 in respect to toilets to 2.8 in respect to cleanliness of the desks and ability to move
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 42
through the compound with ease. Notable contrasts are observed across main zone offices and sub-
branch offices, with overall mean score difference of 1.4 being observed in favour of the former.
Table 5.2: Mean score on facilities
Facilities
Main zone
office
Sub-branch
office Mean score
Ability to move through the compound with ease 3.6 2.0 2.8
Signage were useful 3.0 2.0 2.5
Desks were clean and tidy 3.5 2.0 2.8
Toilet was clean 2.7 1.0 1.9
Overall satisfaction 3.4 2.0 2.7
5.3 Customer service
Looking at customer service (Table 5.3), the results depict overall a mean score of 4.9. The range of
scores is relatively high across all the 8 aspects, ranging from range from 4.2 to 4.9. The lower scores
are evident in respect to aspect on „the extent customer care staff made it clear how enquiry would be
handled‟ and „the extent staff were presentable.‟ Similarly, two aspects tie with a mean score of 4.9: „service was
provided in a timely manner‟, „staff were able to communicate satisfactorily.‟ Minimal contrasts are observed
across main zone offices and sub-branch offices, with overall mean score difference of 0.3 being
observed in favour of the latter.
Table 5.3: Mean score on customer service
Customer service
Main zone
office
Sub-branch
office Mean score
Staff were friendly and welcoming 4.7 4.6 4.6
Service was provided in a timely manner 4.7 5.0 4.9
Staff were presentable 4.4 4.0 4.2
Staff were able to communicate satisfactorily 4.8 5.0 4.9
Customer care staff made it clear how enquiry
would be handled 4.3 4.0 4.2
Staff probed for further understanding where
appropriate 4.6 4.7 4.6
It was easy t be referred to the appropriate person 4.7 5.0 4.9
Overall satisfaction 4.7 5.0 4.9
Staff were friendly and welcoming 4.7 4.6 4.6
Service was provided in a timely manner 4.7 5.0 4.9
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 43
5.4 Service delivery standards
Lastly, looking at service delivery standards (technical dimension – Table 5.4), the results depict overall
a mean score of 4.9. The range of scores is relatively high across all the 4 aspects, ranging from range
from 4.1 in respect to „quality of the service delivery‟ to 5.0, in respect to „Level of understanding the
advisor had of the needs‟ and „Usefulness of the information provided‟. In comparison, no contrasts are
observed across main zone offices and sub-branch offices to that regard.
Table 5.4: Mean score on service delivery standards
Service delivery standards
Main zone
office
Sub-branch
office Mean score
Level of understanding the advisor had of the
needs 5.0 5.0 5.0
Usefulness of the information provided 4.9 5.0 5.0
Quality of the service delivery 4.9 4.3 4.6
Overall satisfaction with visit 4.8 4.8 4.8
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 44
Conclusion
This Section is concerned with reporting on Forest Sector performance with regard to the specific
mandates of KFS. One key point may be derived from these findings: In terms of customer category, the
suppliers segment appears to score higher levels of satisfaction on a number of aspects, and conversely,
the community segment scoring the lowest. Given that the community segment, being the only group
that is non-institutional, these differences may reflect service delivery disparities, in terms of the quality
of service provided to different segments of customers.
Looking at the areas that are most responsible for satisfaction among customers, the findings of this
survey reveal that customer contentment cluster on three main platforms, namely: Service Assurance,
Responsiveness to customer needs, and Competency and Accountability. On the other hand, with regard
to performance, it is found that, relative to customer expectations, satisfaction gaps (decidedly negative)
occur in five areas: i) Access to felling plan, ii) Time it takes to be served, iii) Providing timber license,
iv) Providing nature based enterprises licenses, v) Access to timber import/export permit, and vi)
Authorization to sale minor forest produce. We take note that these issues in one way or another were
also acknowledged as shortfalls in the responses provided by the focus group discussants. These
Constraints seem to dampen the impact of the Service on the sector. Particularly, responsiveness to
customer needs is viewed to constrain delivery of quality services to the stakeholders, underlining the
need to address the shortfalls to that regard.
Looking at the two measures of access, i.e. affordability and access, it is notable that a higher proportion
of the participants considered the services to be affordable, overall reflected in 86% positive ratings for
those who felt that the services were either affordable or fairly affordable. On the other hand, regarding
accessibility, this aspect remains an area of relative concern, to the institutional and non-institutional
customer segments. This was reflected in a combined positive score of 37% who mentioned that the
services were access or fairly accessible. These issues have implications on the overall costs of access to
the services, and it is possible that they contribute a great deal to customer disaffection.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 45
Assessment of customers‟ direct experiences of services sought using various modes of engagement; the
results show fairly high satisfaction levels on various service delivery aspects obtained using these
modes. Nonetheless, the results reveal that the overarching concerns on „Conduciveness of sanitation
facilities‟ and „Use of modern technology for service delivery‟. These aspects, being predominantly
associated with facility visit, the survey results showed that less than 40% of those who used this mode
of engagement were satisfied with the experience. Consistent with the above viewpoint on sanitation
facilities, it is noted that this aspect similarly received quit low scores from the mystery shopping
assessment.
The other aspects depicted modest levels of satisfaction were those relating to the services accessed
through email and website. On the former, aspects of email bounce – „i.e. how easy it is for the email
get through‟ (i.e. not bounce-back) and „immediate acknowledgement of email‟ recorded satisfaction
levels below 60%. On the other hand with regard to the service sought through website, the survey
depicts lower scores with regard to the „extent information is up to date‟ and „usefulness of website in
terms of information needs.‟ Similarly, both of these aspects depict satisfaction levels below 60%. On
this note, even though both aspects record satisfaction levels above 50%, ensuring that these aspects of
service delivery are responsive is critical in terms of improving the satisfaction of customers that use
these modes to seek service.
Lastly, one aspect that similarly emerged as an area of concern was the management system with regard
to issuance of permits. Reporting a range of concerns such as expiry timelines of the permits and the
requirement for multiple licenses for cutting and ferrying, the combination of these factors has been a
bad precedence for the management of the country‟s forest resources. In particularly, for the business
people, most of the challenges they currently experience stem from this approach to management of the
country‟s forests.
Recommendations
On the basis of these findings, the following strategies are suggested as a way of enhancing the level
and quality of output of KFS:
9. Customer service: Address service delivery deficiencies, including waiting time. There is need
to strengthen the ability of the departments to deal with these deficiencies.
10. Reviewing regulations: The importance of reviewing regulation pertaining to licenses and
permits is underlined. Here, we take note that this remains one of the issues where disquiet is
notable.
KFS Customer Satisfaction Survey - 2012
Smart Frontiers 46
11. Communication: This relates to „customer engagement‟. It appears that there are hurdles that
prevent access to information by certain segments of the general public. The concern expressed
here was that information seems to focus on the market players rather than investors. Different
customer segments are in need of different information features, and mainstreaming information
along these segments would be useful in terms of enhancing engagement.
12. Complaints management: There is need to enhance complaints handling process. This would
entail putting into place complaints mechanisms and letting the public have knowledge of the
same, and also to recognize and take appropriate action on the complaints lodged
13. Public education: Results from the FGDs show that information gaps remain in public
knowledge regarding the range of investment opportunities in forest related activities. There
should be energetic move to improve access to investment information to that regard
14. Accessibility: Given the challenges of accessing a number of stations, KFS should consider
establishing liaison offices to bring the services nearer in those areas where the forest stations
are not easy to access
15. Sanitation facilities: This is critical in terms of improving the satisfaction of customers that visit
the facilities
16. Internet services: Improvements in the quality of service delivered through email is an area in
need of improvement. Additionally, KFS should consider enriching its website by uploading
more and upto date information and providing relevant useful URL links on the forest sector.
This will make the website an information resource.