Table of Contents
One reason for Centrelink’s creation was to improve the quality of service for the unemployed and those on income support. This chapter examines how Centrelink sought to achieve this, considers how its services changed from the customer’s point of view and identifies some of the successes and difficulties. The focus is on the customer’s perspective of Centrelink and its services.
The rationale for a service delivery agency can be found in how it conceives of and handles its core responsibility. This involves how it engages the customer through its conception of the customer relationship and the design of service delivery structures. Customer-oriented service design includes the service concept and the service delivery system covering physical aspects, staff and access processes (Flynn 2007). Recognition is necessary of the policy context of service delivery on the one hand and of management support for it on the other—in particular, service culture. Important issues arise from balancing the conflicting demands of cost efficiency against responsiveness and, importantly, service quality for the customer.
Centrelink’s role and priorities were defined in terms of service delivery and evolved with time. The political executive had clear views, with the Prime Minister observing that Centrelink would achieve ‘a balance between compassion and responsibility’, be ‘a more human face’ yet ‘more efficient’ and ‘lead to far less public dissatisfaction’ (Howard 1997). The Minister for Family and Community Services, Jocelyn Newman, agreed: the change ‘was the result of long term public dissatisfaction with the existing arrangements…Centrelink was set up not only to maintain, but [to] improve, services to the Australian people’ (Newman 2000a).
Centrelink’s own conception became ‘service delivery as the right services provided to the right customer through the right channels’ (Vardon 2002c:9, 1998d). It was expected that by 2005 ‘the key elements of service…for Centrelink customers will be access, choice, value, integration, connecting and brokering’ (Vardon 2002c:11). According to Paul Hickey (2004:1), deputy CEO with responsibility for service delivery, the arrangements were reviewed to meet several aims: ‘maintenance of quality customer service principles; better access to services for customers; improved quality in decision making; and greater efficiency in operations’.
The policy context of Centrelink’s growth and other external pressures affected its service delivery role with time. The early political climate placed a strong emphasis on the new Centrelink becoming more efficient and effective. Later, Centrelink would redesign its services in response to the government’s agenda for welfare and other reforms. This chapter explores Centrelink’s response to these challenges in moving from the supply of diverse but individual government programs to more holistic, integrated customer service. As the organisation developed, the delivery model evolved through stages, becoming more streamlined as challenges arose with system and customer relationships.
Government support for its new agency gave Centrelink leaders the opportunity to create an organisation able to meet its expectations of being the government’s ‘human face’ and to design delivery structures for programs that would assist customers. Centrelink’s focus on customer satisfaction was clearly supported by the government’s wish for less dissatisfaction, yet there were significant constraints on achieving this goal.
The two fundamental tensions were between efficiency and customer needs—the former a particular focus of the government and departments, the latter a foremost concern of the specialised delivery agency. A subsidiary tension was with the process of administering programs, which had (selective) customer relevance and efficiency implications.
The first major constraint was the equal emphasis of the government on the need for Centrelink to be efficient and effective. The efficiency dividend required by the government as part of the Centrelink solution meant heavy staff reductions early on and a strong emphasis on productivity improvements through staff behaviour and technology. Furthermore, almost all the staff of the new organisation had come from two public service departments with attitudes based on an older, more regulatory culture. Their willingness and ability to change were unknown and untested.
A third constraint was that departments previously responsible for delivery of the services were now paying Centrelink for its services. They continued to design the policies, and the programs that flowed from them, and could specify how and at what level the services were to be delivered. In the early days, they tended to micromanage Centrelink activities. While Centrelink could decide the environment and the culture of how each service was delivered, at times it had a limited role in designing the service itself.
Fourth, there was a need to find a balance between improving customer services and meeting the expectations of client departments to deliver the programs for which they were accountable, with accuracy and assurance. When the Audit Office questioned the accuracy of payments to some customers and a study of errors two years later attributed most of them to Centrelink, what were the repercussions?
Fifth, a frequently changing policy agenda required constant changes to processes in Centrelink, requiring staff to develop new skills and knowledge and adopt new ways of working. Training and development became high priorities for the organisation. The capacity of Centrelink’s IT managers to implement new policy programs quickly, to make the needed changes to meet government expectations and legislative requirements and to develop staff capability in the changed arrangements became a major issue.
Finally, there were issues of contestability and seeking new business. How much energy should be expended on tendering for new business and what impact would it have on existing customers? Most crucially, finding a workable balance between the costs of spending time with customers to ensure their needs were understood and met and developing and encouraging cheaper forms of customer service became a key determinant of Centrelink’s redesign of its services.
Customer satisfaction survey results provide one indication of Centrelink’s relative success in managing these opportunities and constraints.
Despite considerable effort, Centrelink experienced difficulty for much of its early life in improving its customer satisfaction ratings much above those of the DSS in 1996. Apart from November 1997, when the results could have reflected the promotion of the organisation as well as the quality of its services,[1] it was three years before the overall customer satisfaction levels reached the level recorded in November 1996 (69 per cent). In November 2000, they rose significantly to 76 per cent and remained close to that level for the next two years with a new high of 81 per cent reached in 2003 (customer satisfaction surveys data).[2]
|
Nov. 1996 |
May 1997 |
Nov. 1997 |
May 1998 |
Nov. 1998 |
May 1999 |
Nov. 1999 |
May 2000 |
Nov. 2000 |
Nov. 2001 |
Nov. 2002 |
Nov. 2003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
69** |
67** |
72 |
67 |
65 |
65 |
70 |
66 |
76 |
75 |
76 |
81 |
* percentage rating good and very good
** Department of Social Security
An independent evaluation in 2002 by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) of Centrelink’s cost efficiency found that customer satisfaction dipped as efficiency gains were sought between 1997 and 1998, largely through staff reductions and technology-driven productivity gains. Satisfaction rebounded to better levels as costs per unit of workload stabilised in 2000–01 (BCG 2002:24). The BCG also reported that ‘[b]eneficiary representatives interviewed over the course of the project support the view that service levels have increased over time and that, relative to other agencies, Centrelink’s customer service is good’. It concluded that ‘almost all stakeholders acknowledge Centrelink’s achievements in merging two service delivery networks, creating a new, customer focused organisation, achieving “huge cultural change”’ (BCG 2002:26).
Overall satisfaction with CSCs reached 85.5 per cent in 2002 and 83 per cent in 2003, and, for call centres, the level rose to 87 per cent in 2002 and 88 per cent in 2003 (Centrelink 2003a:46; CSS November 2003:38).
The government wanted an agency ‘focussed on, and specialising in customer service’ (Ruddock 1996) and Vardon, who came to Centrelink with a reputation for a customer-focused approach—even when, as head of Corrective Services in South Australia, her customers were reluctant ones (Australian Financial Review, 19 June 1995, p. 12)—was determined to create one. The immediate emphasis was on creating a stronger customer ethic in the agency’s staff: ‘they were shocking…the cultures of the organisations that they’d come from were so terrible’ (Vardon interview 2001). Before developing a good customer service ethos, the staff had to feel that the organisation supported them. A study was undertaken using a series of focus groups of the culture of the staff’s previous organisations. The data were analysed as a basis for determining the kind of culture for the new organisation (see Chapter 4).[3]
The former DSS had begun a trial of a fresh approach to its office layout and design to support a customer-friendly environment. This approach was adopted throughout Centrelink and played a large part in changing staff attitudes to customers and changing customer attitudes to Centrelink. Vardon stressed the importance of the environment as symbolic of change to staff and customers alike. It was crucial to establishing a team atmosphere and culture, she argued (Vardon interview 2001). A program of office refurbishment began to produce cheerful, open-plan offices, in which staff were required to wear name tags and many more were brought forward to work at the front desk instead of processing in back rooms. A focus on queue management attempted to reduce waiting times for customers and those seeking information rather than an interview were able to obtain it without queuing. Service by appointment started.
Developing a common approach to customers took time. Staffers who had previously worked with the employment services were used to finding innovative solutions to maximise the help they could provide; those with a social security background were more concerned that the applicant was really eligible, met all the criteria and complied with the legislation being administered. ‘So at every level we had cultural changes, cultural differences between the two’ (Vardon interview).
Negotiations with the CPSU in relation to staff employment conditions focused on customer service issues and gradually extended the hours that Centrelink offices were open.
Before the formal launching of Centrelink, Divett, the deputy CEO-in-waiting, indicated in Senate Estimate Committee hearings that the one-stop shop was headed towards a concept of more personalised service. Minister Newman said of the shift (already taking place in some 60 combined DSS–CES locations in June 1997): ‘It’s almost like a meeter and greeter in a hotel.’ The secretary of the DSS, Tony Blunn, balanced this image with a reference to the savings made possible by amalgamation and the placing of Centrelink on a business model to achieve efficiencies and effectiveness (Senate CALC 1997b:214).
The impact of staff on customer perceptions was, however, highly significant. Surveys consistently showed that ‘while other aspects of Centrelink performance were found to influence customer perceptions of Centrelink, the impact of staff [42 per cent] was found to be four times greater than the next most significant predictor’ (CSS May 2000:4). The impact of staff remained almost constant in the surveys. Other service aspects that had a significant impact on customer perceptions of Centrelink overall (in order of priority) were identified in 2000 as: the payment process (14 per cent), ease of making a complaint (12 per cent), Centrelink forms (11 per cent), Centrelink letters (10 per cent) and ease of accessing Centrelink services (7 per cent) (CSS May 2000:4). While the order of these other aspects changed with time, the contents of the list remained almost constant.
The quality of Centrelink staff was also rated and showed a general improvement, particularly after mid-2000 (Table 5.2).
|
Nov. 1996 |
May 1997 |
Nov. 1997 |
May 1998 |
Nov. 1998 |
May 1999 |
Nov. 1999 |
May 2000 |
Nov. 2000 |
Nov. 2001 |
Nov. 2002 |
Nov. 2003 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
74* |
73* |
79 |
76 |
76 |
76 |
78 |
77 |
81 |
82 |
* |
** |
* not seen
** no overall figure
Nevertheless, not everyone was keen on the direction Centrelink was going and many considered the use of the term ‘customer’, which had just begun to be used in the DSS and was adopted by Centrelink, to be inappropriate given that the recipient had no other place to go. The response was that if Centrelink did not perform adequately the government was likely to seek other administrative options.
The national and local surveys of customer satisfaction begun by the DSS were continued and were supplemented by a program of ‘value-creation workshops’ to identify what customers valued. These workshops were attended by office staff and their customers and involved groups of customers ranking what they considered to be the 10 most important components of good service and rating their Centrelink office on how it performed on each, while employees listened and watched and rated themselves. Major customer irritants were also identified and, together with the list of what customers valued, formed the basis of a customer service improvement plan for that office. The workshops were regarded as having ‘a powerful impact on the people of Centrelink and generated an impetus for change’ (Vardon 1998d:2).
Programs to make listening to customers a continuing part of the culture beyond Centrelink’s early days were continued. Almost 10 000 customers were engaged in the value-creation workshops with Centrelink staff during its first two years, with more than 20 sessions run in non-English languages. In 2002–03, 165 workshops were held. What became clear was that few customers knew or cared about governmental structures, but they did care about being able to relate their problems once rather than many times, prompt and efficient service and being dealt with accurately by friendly, caring and knowledgeable staff. They also appreciated choice of access and a welcoming and comfortable office environment. Much of Centrelink’s service delivery redesign and many service improvements, locally and nationally, were based on the messages from these workshops and the national and regional satisfaction surveys.
Centrelink customers were also given a service charter. The government reached the view that the Public Service needed to be more accessible to the community. Drawing on the newly introduced service charters in the United Kingdom, the government introduced Client Service Charter Principles for Commonwealth agencies in 1997 (Department of Industry, Science and Tourism 1997). By late September 1997, Centrelink’s Customer Service Charter was in place and displayed in all its offices. The charter established a range of agreed service standards for staff and customers. A broad range of customer surveys assessed the effectiveness of the charter. As in earlier charters, these principles were broadly expressed and lacked specificity about service effectiveness. Nevertheless, they reflected a new notion of reciprocity and mutual responsibility between citizen and public servant. This notion was to become a key theme in the development of Centrelink.
[1] The authors of the customer satisfaction surveys pointed out that the very positive attitude to Centrelink in the November 1997 survey, shortly after its launch, which was not matched before or until November 2000, was the result of a halo effect generated by a campaign that ‘cultivated a positive impression of the new organisation, which transcended…Centrelink’s ratings of service and process areas, as well as corporate image dimensions. In other words, it is possible that the high level of performance in November 1997 may have resulted from a positive halo effect generated by the promotional campaign’ (CSS November 2001:23).
[2] There were 12 national customer satisfaction surveys (CSS) that focused on overall perceptions of Centrelink. The first two related to the DSS (November 1996 and May 1997), the next 10 to Centrelink. Until the end of 2000, they were undertaken every six months and then annually until November 2003. The consultants running them varied, as did the titles of the reports, hence the use of CSS and dates to identify each. Many questions also varied, either a lot or a little. Some questions disappeared after a while. Most surveys focused on customers who had had contact with Centrelink in the previous three or six months, but the later surveys expanded the coverage to include all customers, whether they had had contact or not. As a result, the figures should be used carefully to indicate trends and the extent of change rather than treated as directly comparable.
[3] The responses were so strong about the way staff felt unsupported that the written account was modified for fear of offending too many people.