Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and Transparency Practices (2018)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

17 As discussed, in the context of this synthesis, a service guarantee is defined as any explicit transit agency commitment to a quality customer experience, regardless of whether the agency compensates or responds directly to individual customers in the event the commitment is not met. This chapter presents the results of the service guarantee section of the transit agency survey and is broken into the following sections: • Types of service guarantees; • Prevalence of service guarantees; • Details of actions promised under service guarantees with action; • Limitations placed on service guarantees; • Service guarantee claims processing; • Details of nonaction guarantees; • Implementation of service guarantees; and • Benefits, challenges, and lessons learned. In this report, service guarantees are classified in two ways: by whether the guarantee promised an action and by type of guarantee. Types of Service Guarantees For the purposes of this synthesis, and also based on Neugebauer’s (2009) categories of service guarantees, transit agency service guarantees were categorized into five types: • Punctuality: a promise that service will arrive or depart within a particular window (usually expressed in minutes). For example, “We promise that all trains will arrive no later than 15 minutes of their scheduled time.” • Capacity: a promise that transit vehicles will have room for customers. For example, “We promise that you will always get a seat on our buses.” • Cleanliness: a promise that transit vehicles or facilities will be clean and free of trash and other debris. For example, “We promise that our trains, buses, stops, and stations will be clean.” • Connections: a promise that customers will not miss connections because of train delays or operational issues. For example, “To help you make your transfer, we will hold connecting trains up to 5 minutes in the event of a delay on another train.” • Customer experience: a general promise that customers will have a positive overall experience riding transit. For example, “Our staff will be friendly and courteous, every step of your trip.” In the survey, transit agencies self-reported whether they had service guarantees and the type of those guarantees. After the survey was completed, it was found that transit agencies C h a p t e r 3 Service Guarantees

18 Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and transparency practices often reported having a service guarantee even when that guarantee was a general commitment in a mission or vision statement. Transit agencies also could write in service guarantees they had that did not fit into the five types listed. Many tran- sit agencies reported having some form of safety guarantee, promising security (absence of crime or malfeasance) or safety (lack of accidents), or both. Statistics are not presented for safety guarantees because their prevalence was discovered after the survey data were collected. Service guarantees were classified according to whether the guarantee included a promise of transit agency action in the event the guarantee was not met. These actions could include holding trains to help customers make transfers, providing refunds of transit fares or credits toward future fares, and providing refunds or credits for expenses incurred for nontransit transportation. Prevalence of Service Guarantees Of the 22 transit agencies that responded to the survey, 12 (55%) currently have a service guarantee, two previously had a service guarantee (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority [SEPTA] and Metro Transit), and eight did not. Table 3 displays the number of transit agencies in each classification. The synthesis team also classified the types of guarantees each transit agency had (either currently or previously); Table 4 displays the results. The most common forms of guarantees were punctuality guarantees and customer experience guarantees. Only one transit agency (Toronto Transit Commission) had a capacity guarantee, and one transit agency (Metrolink) had a connections guarantee. Transit agencies indicated the year their service guarantee was implemented and, if appli- cable, discontinued. Service guarantees were in place between less than 1 year and up to 42 years Five types of service guarantees: • Punctuality • Capacity • Cleanliness • Connections • Customer experience Customer Service Guarantee Number of Agencies No guarantee 8 No guarantee (discontinued) 2 Has a guarantee 12 Note: Transit agencies self-reported in the survey whether they had a service guarantee. The synthesis team also classified the types of guarantees each transit agency had (either currently or previously); Table 4 displays the results. Table 3. Number of transit agencies with and without service guarantees. Guarantee Type Number of Agencies Punctuality 9 Capacity 1 Cleanliness 5 Connections 1 Customer Experience 8 Note: The 14 transit agencies that had a guarantee may have had more than one type of guarantee. Table 4. Types of transit agency guarantees.

Service Guarantees 19 (as of 2017), with a median duration of 13 years. Figure 4 displays the distribution of the durations of service guarantees. Of the 14 transit agencies that had a customer service guarantee (including the two that discontinued their guarantees), seven promised some sort of action in the event a guarantee was not met. In some cases, transit agencies promised multiple actions, depending on the nature of the guarantee and the various nuances associated with transit service. All of the actions promised were associated with punctuality guarantees or, in the case of Metrolink, a connections guarantee. The most common action was a credit or refund toward transit fares (see Table 5). At one transit agency (Metrolink), customers were also eligible for credits or refunds for expenses paid for other transportation [including third-party transportation providers such as taxis and transportation network companies (TNCs)]. Two transit agencies also included other actions, for example: • Actively arranging for alternative transportation for passengers in the event of an extensive delay (Metrolink). • Reimbursing passengers for late fees related to child care [Virginia Railway Express (VRE)]. Details of Actions Promised This section provides more details about the service guarantees that include some promise of agency action (seven transit agencies included some form of action in their service guarantees). As presented in Table 5, actions fell into one of three categories: • Transit fare credit or refund, • Other transportation expense credit or refund, and • Other action. Of the 14 transit agencies with service guarantees, seven promised an action in the event the guarantee was not met. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Less than 5 years Between 5 and 15 years Between 15 and 25 years 25 or more years Number of Transit Agencies D ur at io n of S er vi ce G ua ra nt ee Figure 4. Duration of service guarantees. Actions Promised Number of Transit Agencies Transit fare credit or refund 7 Other transportation expense credit or refund 1 Other action 2 Note: Included are transit agencies that currently have and previously had a service guarantee. Transit agencies may have more than one type of action. Table 5. Actions promised as a part of a service guarantee.

20 Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and transparency practices Punctuality guarantees were the most common guarantees with promised actions. Metrolink was the only transit agency that had a connections guarantee. Because of its uniqueness, the entire service guarantee is reproduced in Appendix C. Table 6 lists the transit agencies with promised actions associated with punctuality or connec- tions guarantees. No other actions were promised under other guarantee types. All of the transit agencies with punctuality guarantees that promised action provided cus- tomers with a credit toward future transit fares. Metrolink was unique in that it also discounted monthly passes by 25% in the month after a given train line’s on-time performance dropped below 85% for a calendar month. VRE had a distinctive action promised under its punctuality guarantee: reimbursement of late fees associated with child care. Metrolink’s connections guarantee (provided in full in Appendix C and summarized in Table 6) is worth further description. The basics of the guarantee are that Metrolink may hold trains up to 10 min to facilitate scheduled transfers under certain conditions (Metrolink n.d.). In the event a passenger misses his or her train because of a Metrolink operational issue, Metrolink will work to secure alternative transportation to the rider’s destination station. If Metrolink cannot secure alternative transportation within 60 min of the missed train’s scheduled departure time, Transit Agency Delay Triggering Action (in Minutes) Actions Promised Additional Comments Transit Mode1 Transit Fare Credit Other Transportation Credit or Refund Other Action Denver RTD 30 Bus and Rail Free ride coupon. Issues a free ride coupon. Dayton RTA 30 Bus Free fare. Provides a complimentary fare. GO Transit 15 Rail Only Fare credit. Fare credit based on cost of delayed trip. Metrolink 60 Rail Free rides or pass discounts for chronic delays. Reimburse for TNC or taxi (up to $50), for a missed connection (if no alternative available within 60 minutes). Hold trains or work to secure alternative transportation for a missed connection. For delays greater than 60 minutes, monthly pass holders receive 4 free trips, and other fare types receive 2 free trips. Monthly passes are discounted by 25% when monthly on-time performance drops below 85%. If Metrolink cannot provide transportation within 60 minutes of a missed connection, Metrolink will reimburse other transportation expenses. Metro Transit2 11 Rail Only Fare credit. Issued a fare credit based on fare paid. SEPTA2 15 Rail Only Fare credit. Issued a fare credit based on fare paid. VRE 30 Rail Fare ride certificate. Reimburse passengers for late fees related to child care. Train crews issue free ride certificates on-board delayed trains whenever possible. 1 Transit agencies that operate both bus and rail but apply the guarantee only to rail are designated as “rail only.” If the transit agency operates either bus or rail alone, the word “only” is excluded. 2 Metro Transit and SEPTA discontinued their service guarantees, but their data are provided here for additional information. Table 6. List of actions promised for service guarantees.

Service Guarantees 21 Metrolink will reimburse passengers for costs incurred (up to $50.00) for using other transpor- tation options (e.g., taxi or TNC). Examples from transit agencies in Europe provide a similar picture to that seen in the United States, with one notable difference—European punctuality guarantees allowed for cash refunds rather than fare credits. Some refunds could be directly deposited into customer bank accounts, if requested. In addition, two transit agencies in Sweden (Stockholm Public Transport and Vasttrafik) had a sliding scale for refunds: 50% refund for a 20-min delay, 75% refund for a 40-min delay, and 100% refund for a 60-min delay. The two Swedish agencies also provided reimbursement for alternative transportation in the event the customer anticipated a 20-min or more delay. In the case of Vasttrafik, alternative transportation included using a personal vehicle. Limitations on Service Guarantees Most transit agencies placed some limits or exclusions on their punctuality guarantees that promised action (see Table 7). The most common exclusion was causes outside of the transit agency’s direct control (e.g., police investigations and extreme weather). Two transit agencies placed no limitations on their punctuality guarantees: Metro Transit and VRE. In addition, transit agencies usually placed a window of opportunity in which claims had to be filed to be eligible for remuneration. Claim windows varied from as little as 7 days after the incident to as much as 2 months or 60 days. Claims Processing for Action Guarantees Transit agencies with service guarantees promising actions need to have a process in place for providing customer remuneration. This section discusses the processes and information concerning transit agencies’ processing of service guarantee claims and is organized into the following subsections: • Customer claims submission process, • Claim validation and processing effort, • Fraudulent or invalid claims, and • The number and value of claims. Exclusions Claims Must Be Received within No Limits or Exclusions Causes Outside of the Transit Agency’s Direct Control1 Limits on the Day of Week or Time of Day2 Denver RTD Yes 7 days Dayton RTA Yes 10 days GO Transit Yes 7 days Metrolink Yes 60 days Metro Transit Yes N/A SEPTA Yes Yes — VRE Yes — Note: A dash indicates that the transit agency did not answer the question. 1 For example, extreme weather, police investigations, vehicles blocking the railroad tracks. 2 For example, only weekday rush hour trips were eligible for the guarantee. Transit Agency Table 7. Service guarantee limits and exclusions.

22 Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and transparency practices Customer Claims Submission Process At all of the transit agencies except two, customers had to file some form of claim to receive the remuneration under the guarantee. Metro Transit, during its temporary punctuality guar- antee, would automatically issue refunds to customers who were signed up in the Northstar Service Guarantee program. Customers would have to tag their smart card at the rail station to be eligible for the credit. Metro Transit would automatically credit customers’ smart cards the value of the fare between their boarding station and the final station in the event the train was delayed 11 min or more at the final station. VRE avoids a customer claim process by passing out free ride certificates onboard delayed trains. The remaining five of the seven North American transit agencies that promised actions under their punctuality guarantees required customers to file a claim to receive remuneration. Claims were mostly accepted online and by standard mail (see Table 8), but e-mail, phone, and in person were all reported as additional methods for filing claims. Claim Validation and Processing Effort Every transit agency had some process by which to validate claims against the service guarantee’s thresholds and exclusions. Table 9 displays the data sources used by transit agencies to verify claims before issuing customer benefits. In all but one case (GO Transit), transit agencies used personnel to validate claims. The number of personnel varied, but most responses indicated staff requirements of one to four employees. Transit agencies were also asked to estimate the amount of time it takes to validate and process each claim; estimates ranged between 5 and 15 min per claim. GO Transit is noteworthy for the validation and processing of claims. GO Transit built an automatic claims validation and processing system that uses train operational data (including codes that explain the reason Claim Method Number of Transit Agencies Online form 4 E-mail 2 Phone 2 Mail 4 Other 2 Note: Other includes in person and through Facebook or Twitter. It is likely that Facebook or Twitter is used to direct customers to the standard claims process. Table 8. Summary of methods used to accept customer claims. Validation Source Number of Transit Agencies Automated vehicle location (AVL) or similar data 3 Operations reports or records 4 Recorded video 2 Other 2 Note: Other includes fare card and smart card data. Table 9. Summary of data sources used to validate claims. GO Transit built an automatic claims validation and processing system to determine whether a customer’s claim meets eligibility requirements under the agency’s punctuality guarantee.

Service Guarantees 23 a train was delayed) and smart card data to determine whether a customer’s claim meets GO Transit’s eligibility requirements under its punctuality guarantee. Customers initiate the claims process online by indicating which train trip they were on and inputting their smart card iden- tification number. With these pieces of data, the automated system validates the claims and automatically provides the customer with a refund to his or her smart card. This automated sys- tem reduces the claims processing burden and requires no GO Transit staff time. (More details about GO Transit are provided in the GO Transit case example in Chapter 6.) Fraudulent or Invalid Claims Not every claim submitted by customers is valid. For example, the actual delay might not meet the threshold to trigger the action under the guarantee; the delay might have been related to an excluded cause (e.g., extreme weather); or the customer might simply have provided the wrong information. Only two transit agencies responded to the survey question on what percentage of claims were fraudulent or invalid: one agency responded less than 1% and the other responded between 2% and 5%. Number and Value of Claims Last, transit agencies that processed claims were asked to provide the number and value of claims in the most recent completed fiscal year. Four transit agencies provided some estimate; three provided exact numbers. Table 10 displays the results. Although a small sample size is shown in Table 10, the reported values can at least provide transit agencies with some detail on potential costs and denial rates. (Of the transit agencies listed in the table, Metro Transit and SEPTA implemented their punctuality guarantees as a temporary solution for temporary service problems.) The relatively high denial rates may indicate that customers are not provided with adequate information to determine whether their trips meet the requirements of the service guarantee. High claim denial rates may be concerning because customers who take the trouble to file claims after delays or problems are already frustrated. Claim denials may frustrate customers and further reduce satisfaction. Details of Nonaction Guarantees Seven of the 14 transit agencies with service guarantees did not promise an action in the event that the service guarantee was not met. Table 11 summarizes the types of guarantees. The most common type of service guarantee among the nonaction guarantees was one that guaranteed a certain aspect of the customer experience (e.g., up-to-date information, friendly and courteous staff, timely handling of customer concerns). Transit agencies also often had cleanliness guarantees. Transit Agency Number of Claims Filed Number of Valid Claims Monetary Value of Claims Percent of Denied Claims Avg. Value per Claim GO Transit 275,334 202,750 $1,401,500 26.4% $6.91 Metrolink 1,693 880 – 52.0% Not calculable Metro Transit A few hundred A few hundred About $1,000 Not calculable Not calculable SEPTA 15,648 8,279 $37,567.55 47.1% $4.54 Notes: Only three transit agencies provided a meaningful response to this survey question. A dash indicates that the transit agency did not provide these data. GO Transit claims are in Canadian dollars. Table 10. Summary of number and value of service guarantee claims for the most recent fiscal year.

24 Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and transparency practices Most of these guarantees were contained in transit agency vision or mission statements rather than in official passenger charters or service guarantees. The language used to describe the transit agency’s commitments was usually general and did not set specific thresholds or definitions as to what was meant. For example, the word “reliable” was often used in these mission statements, but the transit agency provided no indication of what “reliable” means. On the other hand, some transit agencies had specific commitments. For example, MBTA has a customer bill of rights, which is provided in full in Appendix D of this synthesis. This customer bill of rights has many of the same elements as similar documents (e.g., passenger charters) at other transit agencies. In these documents, more detail is provided about each specific promise, and the document itself is a stand-alone feature of the transit agency’s website. MBTA’s cus- tomer bill of rights makes specific, objective commitments. For example, “If we anticipate delays of more than 15 minutes . . . we will post that information.” Customers are not left guessing what the transit agency means or how the transit agency defines success on any particular promise. Last, customers are often given some action they can take (even if remuneration is not provided); for example, passenger charters often provide the contact information for the transit agency’s customer service department, and passengers are encouraged to contact the transit agency in the event their experience does not live up to the promises in the charter. Implementing Service Guarantees Service guarantees may be implemented for many reasons and in many ways. Service guarantees can be one-time temporary programs to deal with acute service issues or may be part of a long- term strategy to increase customer confidence and satisfaction. Service guarantees also may be legislatively or statutorily required, as is the case for SFMTA (details of SFMTA’s service guarantee are provided in Chapter 6). This section briefly discusses the implementation of service guarantees based on responses from surveyed transit agencies. Rationale for Implementing Service Guarantees In the survey, transit agencies were asked for the main reasons they implemented their service guarantees. They were provided with several options and asked to rank all of the options that applied. The synthe- sis team calculated a weighted score and overall rank for each option based on respondent rankings and the number of times each option was selected (see Table 12). The top reasons for implementing service guarantees were related to improving public or customer attitudes toward the transit agency. Service Guarantee Type Number of Agencies Punctuality 2 Capacity 1 Cleanliness 4 Connections 0 Customer Experience 5 Note: Transit agencies self-reported in the survey whether they had service guarantees. Table 11. Summary of types of service guarantees that did not promise an action. The top reasons for implementing service guarantees were related to improving public or customer attitudes toward the transit agency.

Service Guarantees 25 Seven transit agencies also responded with their own reasons for implementing a service guar- antee, for example: • To set expectations for the organization—both frontline and nonfrontline employees—about what excellent customer service means; • To provide transparency to the public and be accountable for providing excellent service; and • The guarantee was really service standards to which the agency must adhere. Learning from Other Transit Agencies Transit agencies were also asked whether they researched other examples of service guarantees at other transit systems when developing their own service guarantees. Only three of 14 transit agencies knew for sure that other examples were used, six did not know, and five answered that no other transit agencies’ service guarantees were used as an example. Transit agencies that did use other examples mentioned using: • Dayton RTA, • Metro-North Railroad, • Toronto Transit Commission, • SEPTA, and • London Underground. Promoting and Publicizing Service Guarantees For customers to use service guarantees, they must first know that the guarantees are in place. Transit agencies can use many communications tools to promote and publicize their service guarantees (see Figure 5). The most commonly used communications tools were having a link or display on the transit agency home page and using social media. Press releases, e-mail or text message subscription lists, and collateral inside of transit vehicles were also commonly used. (Eleven transit agencies with service guarantees selected at least one answer to this question.) There was also significant variation in how transit agencies publicized their guarantees to different audiences, including transit riders, the general public, public officials, and others. Figure 6 displays the results. Transit agencies most often used home page links or displays, social media, and press releases to address several difference audience types, and publicizing the service guarantee was not limited to transit riders. Reason Guarantee Implemented Overall Rank Number of Rankings To improve public perception 1 11 To increase customer confidence 2 12 The guarantee was part of a strategic plan or quality commitment 3 10 Temporary policy to address service problems 4 4 To increase ridership (more passenger trips) 5 5 Requested by public 6 4 Requested by board (or other oversight body) 7 4 To establish a formalized policy for handling refunds/compensations 8 3 External mandate 9 2 Table 12. Reasons surveyed transit agencies implemented service guarantees.

26 Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and transparency practices Discontinuance of a Service Guarantee Transit agencies could indicate whether they previously had a service guarantee that was discontinued. Two transit agencies, Metro Transit and SEPTA, both previously had service guarantees and provided a mix of reasons for discontinuing their guarantees. In one case, the service guarantee was intended to be temporary. Administrative burden and customers’ and the public’s negative perceptions of the guarantees also contributed to discontinuance. Perceived Challenges and Concerns Causing Agencies Not to Implement a Service Guarantee Transit agencies that took the survey but did not have a service guarantee were asked to identify whether they had considered implementing a service guarantee and, if so, what the perceived challenges or concerns were that caused the agency to not implement a guarantee. Of nine responses, only two agencies responded that they had considered implementing a service guarantee, and the single concern raised by one transit agency was the administrative burden of processing and validating claims (in the event the guarantee included a refund or credit). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Link or display on home page Social media Press release E-mail or text message subscription list On fare media On fare machines or at fare purchasing locations Inside transit vehicles On the outside of transit vehicles Number of Transit Agencies C om m un ic at io ns T oo l Figure 5. Communications tools used to publicize service guarantees. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Link or display on agency home page Social media Press release E-mail or text message subscription lists On fare media On fare purchasing machines / at fare purchasing locations Inside transit vehicles On the outside of transit vehicles Number of Responses C om m un ic at io ns T oo l Transit riders General public Public officials Others Figure 6. Communications tools used to publicize service guarantees to different audiences. Note: Transit agencies were able to select more than one audience for each tool.

Service Guarantees 27 Benefits, Challenges, and Lessons Learned Service guarantees may be providing benefits (and challenges) to transit agencies that are dif- ficult to quantify directly. Transit agencies reported their opinions on the benefits and challenges of service guarantees. Benefits of Service Guarantees The 14 transit agencies that have or had service guarantees were asked, “To the best of your knowledge, how has the customer service guarantee benefited your transit agency?” and were directed to report their level of agreement with a list of possible benefits. Results are shown in Figure 7. Transit agencies reported that: • Service guarantees improved the perceptions of the transit agency— perceptions held by customers, the general public, the media, and elected officials. [All of these items had more than 50% of respon- dents (eight or more of 14) moderately or strongly agreeing with the statement.] • Service guarantees helped to improve employees’ commitment to customer service and even improved service quality. Seventy-one percent of respondents (10 of 14) moderately or strongly agreed that the guarantee helped improve employees’ commitment to customer service. The main benefits of service guarantees were: • Improving customer, public, media, and elected official perceptions of the transit agency. • Improving employee commitment to customer service and service quality. 14% 21% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 7% 7% 7% 21% 29% 36% 14% 7% 21% 7% 14% 43% 21% 14% 14% 14% 43% 21% 43% 36% 14% 7% 43% 21% 36% 29% 29% 7% 21% 21% 21% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 100%0% The guarantee has improved customer satisfaction. The guarantee has brought new customers to the transit agency. The guarantee has increased ridership. The guarantee has increased fare revenue. The guarantee has improved the transit agency’s image with the general public. The guarantee has improved the transit agency’s image with the media. The guarantee has improved the transit agency’s image with elected officials. The guarantee has improved the transit agency’s employees’ commitment to customer service. The guarantee has helped the transit agency improve service quality. Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Moderately agree Strongly agree Not applicable / Don’t know Figure 7. Perceived benefits of a customer service guarantee. Note: Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding.

28 Customer-Focused Service Guarantees and transparency practices Transit agencies also were able to provide their own words to describe the benefits of their service guarantees. Selected responses are paraphrased here: • Brought back previous customers. • Improved employee morale and pride in a job well done. • Further developed a culture of customer first across all operating divisions. • Increased transparency and engagement with the public, resulting in improved relationships with key stakeholders. In GO Transit’s case example (see Chapter 6), GO Transit reported an improvement in cus- tomer satisfaction likely related to the service guarantee. GO Transit customer satisfaction was at 56% before the service guarantee was implemented; as of the latest GO Transit customer satisfaction survey, customer satisfaction is up to about 82%. In Dayton RTA’s case example (see Chapter 6), the agency reported that its customer service initiatives, including its service guarantee, helped to reduce the number of complaints by 23%. Transit agencies were less in agreement with statements concerning increases in ridership, revenue, or increasing the customer base. Sixty-four percent of respondents (nine of 14) were neutral or disagreed (either strongly or slightly) with the statement that service guarantees increased revenue. Challenges of Service Guarantees Transit agencies were asked, “What have been the negative impacts or challenges associated with your transit agency’s customer service guarantee?” Respondents were directed to report their level of agreement with a list of possible challenges. Figure 8 shows the results. Three of the four possible negative impacts or challenges were rated as not a challenge by at least half of the transit agencies (at least seven of 14). The most strongly scored challenges were the administrative burden and lack of employee buy-in and support. Fifty-seven percent said administrative burden was a moderate or significant challenge, and 36% said lack of employee buy-in and support was a moderate challenge. 7% 21% 14% 50% 36% 57% 50% 50% 50% 14% 36% 7% 7% 0% 100% Administrative burden of managing the guarantee Financial expense of the guarantee Lack of employee buy-in and support for the guarantee Difficulty implementing guarantees for transit services provided by transportation contractors/providers Not applicable / Don’t know Not a challenge Moderate challenge Significant challenge Figure 8. Perceived negative impacts or challenges of a customer service guarantee. Note: Totals may not equal 100% because of rounding. The main challenges of service guarantees were • Administrative burden. • Lack of employee buy-in and support.

Service Guarantees 29 The financial expense of the guarantee was rated as not a challenge by over half of the respondents. This is likely because more than half of the survey respondents’ guarantees did not promise any customer remuneration. Case example agencies provided additional information on their challenges. Dayton RTA experienced a lack of uniformity among employees processing service guarantee claims, and SFMTA reported a degree of lack of employee buy-in and support for the guarantee. (See Chapter 6 for details.) Lessons Learned Information from the surveyed and case example transit agencies provided several lessons that transit agencies implementing or considering implementing a service guarantee may find beneficial. • Lessons related to employees – Involving transit agency employees from the beginning—even during the formulation of the service guarantee—can help improve buy-in and program success. – Providing clear expectations for employees on the guarantee (and claims processing in particular) may help improve consistency in enacting service guarantees and validating claims. • Lessons related to managing the guarantee program – Grounding a service guarantee in a long-term strategy may help sustain the guarantee over time and keep employees informed about the transit agency’s vision and goals. – Creating an action plan with achievable deliverables and milestones may enable transit agencies to improve customer service incrementally and celebrate wins when they occur. – Obtaining executive and management buy-in at all levels of the organization is essential. Consistent and strategic communication with managers can help establish and maintain buy-in. – Analyzing the financial and administrative impacts of service guarantees helps transit agen- cies establish appropriate policies. Analyzing current service performance and modeling different guarantee thresholds may help agencies forecast the cost and effort required to adhere to the guarantee. • Lessons related to customers – Engaging customers early in the service guarantee process provides transit agencies with valuable feedback on customer perceptions of language used, thresholds set, and other public-facing factors of the program.