Case Study Analysis

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS AND LEISURE CENTRES

GENERAL GUIDANCE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL FACILITY

FULL REPORT

Prepared by the Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University

August 2016

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS AND LEISURE CENTRES - FULL REPORT GUIDANCE

CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE 1

Family types 2

Performance indicators 4

Benchmarks 6

3. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: HIERARCHY & INTERPRETATION 7

Performance indicators 8

Satisfaction and importance attributes 13

4. INTERPRETATION OF THE BENCHMARKING EVIDENCE 14

1

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS AND LEISURE CENTRES - FULL REPORT GUIDANCE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The accompanying centre report has been produced as a result of the facility's

participation in the National Benchmarking Service for Sports and Leisure

Centres (hereafter referred to as ‘NBS’). The information collected from each

facility is used to calculate current scores for a series of performance

indicators, which are then compared with the latest available national

benchmarks, (2016).

1.2 The NBS is a form of data benchmarking, whereby performance is measured

and compared with national statistical benchmarks for each indicator. This

information is useful for strategy development and action planning as well as

immediate management decisions.

1.3 The performance information and benchmarks provided in the accompanying

centre report relate to all users of the centre (including spectators) and to the

operational performance of the whole centre. The only exception is for joint

provision arrangements where, for example, a school pays for and runs the

school time programme - in which case this report would be concerned with

the public use and management.

2. THE STRUCTURE OF THE FULL NATIONAL BENCHMARKING

SERVICE

2.1 The full NBS uses three principal data sources: user survey, financial /

management information, and estimated catchment population profiles, in

order to calculate scores for a standard set of performance indicators, which

are then compared with the latest available national benchmarks. The first two

data sources are produced locally by each facility. The estimated catchment

population data, for a specified population around the facility, is provided by

Sport Industry Research Centre (SIRC), at Sheffield Hallam University. The

catchment area is defined by a national model which uses national statistics

(2011 Census) on usage of facilities (particularly travel modes, distances and

times) to identify the area which the centre should be servicing, taking into

account natural barriers (such as major roads) and competition from other

2

similar facilities. The preparation of the benchmarks and the analysis of

individual facility performance scores are conducted by SIRC staff.

2.2 Different agencies and systems have constructed performance indicators for

sports centres and swimming pools using different data sources. The NBS has

significant strengths compared with other systems. This service offers the

largest national range of performance indicators available for facility

performance management. The service uses local catchment population data

for each facility, so that the user profile for a facility can be compared with the

equivalent local population profile. This comparison provides performance

indicator scores in relation to benchmarks for access to facilities which relate

directly to policies combating social exclusion. The number of user surveys,

on which the 2016 national benchmarks for access performance indicators are

based, is 35,960. The NBS also provides an interpretation section in the

facility report, to summarise the performance of the facility across four

dimensions: access (usage by target groups); efficiency (mainly finance:

subsidy, income and costs; and throughput); utilisation (types of usage and

market penetration); and customer ratings (for the importance of, and their

satisfaction with, a variety of service attributes).

Family types

2.3 A family type is a means of ensuring 'like for like' comparisons of

performance indicator scores between facilities. Each facility can compare its

performance with the benchmarks for other facilities in the same family types.

2.4 Four types of families are used in the NBS, to provide logical and consistent

results: type of facility, type of location, size of facility, and type of

management. The family categories are identified below, along with the

number of centres in each category for the 2016 benchmarks. It is not

statistically feasible to combine these four family types into one composite

family, so an individual facility’s scores have to be compared with each of the

four family types separately. We illustrate below in Section 4 how this can be

done in practice.

Family type 1: type of facility

2.5 There are good reasons to suggest that many aspects of performance vary by

the type of facility, e.g. many costs are known to be higher for swimming

pools than sports halls; specific market segments are known to use some types

of facility more than others. In addition, the presence of other facilities such as

3

outdoor pitches is known to have a distinctive effect on user profiles, finances

and other performance variables. A four-way categorisation is used, as shown

in the table below.

Type of facility Number of centres in family categories for different

performance indicators Access Efficiency Utilisation Satisfaction

dry 14 15 14 14 mixed with outdoor 24 24 24 24 mixed without outdoor 28 25 28 28

wet 39 42 39 39

The only distinguishing characteristic of these family categories is the type of

facility. Each of these categories contains centres with a variety of location

types, a variety of sizes, and a variety of management types.

Family type 2: type of location

2.6 It is highly likely that many aspects of both policy and performance in

facilities will be heavily influenced by the type of neighbourhood in which the

facility is located. Consultations with industry representatives revealed a

strong preference for the type of location family to use the facility's catchment

area socio-economics rather than a broader location such as the local

authority, or the region. The estimated catchment area is defined by a national

model (see 2.1 above) - it is hypothetically the area which the centre should be

serving. The socio-economic characteristics of the catchment population are

important to issues of market segmentation, a key principle underlying policy

and performance in access/social exclusion. A three-way categorisation uses

the percentage of NS-SEC groups 6&7 in the estimated catchment population,

from the eight class version of NS-SEC as shown in the table below. People

from NS-SEC groups 6&7 are some of the most deprived people in society.

Type of location

Number of centres in family categories for different performance indicators

Access Efficienc

y Utilisation Satisfaction

less than 15% of estimated catchment population in NS-SEC groups 6&7

13 14 13 13

15% to less than 20% of estimated catchment population in NS-SEC groups 6&7

32 32 32 32

20%+ of estimated catchment population in NS-SEC groups 6&7

60 60 60 60

The only distinguishing characteristic of these family categories is the type of

location. Each of these categories contains centres with a variety of types of

centres, a variety of sizes, and a variety of management types.

4

Family type 3: size of facility

2.7 Studies have indicated that the size of a facility may have a significant impact

on performance. In particular large facilities may benefit from economies of

scale. A four-way categorisation of internal floor space of facilities is used,

because it is a direct and unambiguous measure of size of facility - see below.

Size of facility

Number of centres in family categories for different performance indicators

Access Efficienc

y Utilisation Satisfaction

small (less than 1500 sq.m.) 9 9 9 9

medium (1500 to less than 3000 sq.m.) 28 31 28 28 large (3000 to less than 5000 sq.m.) 45 44 45 45 very large (5000+ sq.m.) 23 22 23 23

The only distinguishing characteristic of these family categories is the size of

facility. Each of these categories contains centres with a variety of types of

centre, a variety of location types, and a variety of management types.

Family type 4: type of management

2.8 An increasing proportion of sports and leisure centres are being managed by

external partners (operators with three or more separate contracts and no local

origin from within a centre's local authority boundary), rather than by in-house

local authority teams or local trusts. The different types of management

complicate the objectives of the facilities concerned and lead to differences in

performance. A three-way categorisation of management types is used, see

below.

Type of management

Number of centres in family categories for different performance indicators

Access Efficienc

y Utilisation Satisfaction

external partner 88 83 88 88 local authority 12 11 12 12 local trust 5 12 5 5

The only distinguishing characteristic of these family categories is the type of

management. Each of these categories contains centres with a variety of types

of centre, a variety of location types, and a variety of sizes.

Performance indicators

2.9 A performance indicator is a piece of observed data representing the

performance of one or more organisations, which can be compared over time,

5

or with other similar organisations. The performance indicators utilised in the

full NBS service fall into four groups.

 Access: representing the extent to which facilities are used by disadvantaged groups, existing users and new users. These are indicators

of effectiveness, particularly in the context of social inclusion.

 Efficiency: representing financial performance such as subsidy, cost, income and various measures of operational performance.

 Utilisation: representing the nature of usage of facilities and scale of market penetration.

  Satisfaction and importance: representing the extent to which users are satisfied with different attributes of the facility and how important these

attributes are to them.

2.10 The main criteria for selection of performance indicators were:

 it is relatively easy to interpret either changes in them, or differences between the facility's score and the benchmarks for the performance

indicator;

 they are relevant to policy and management of sports facilities generally;  they embrace as wide a variety of performance dimensions as is feasible;

and,

 predominantly, they concern outputs rather than inputs.

2.11 Typically the performance indicators for access, efficiency and utilisation are

expressed as ratios, e.g. subsidy per visit; or visits per square metre of floor

space. Ratios are used rather than absolute numbers because they provide a

reference point for comparisons: e.g. comparing absolute levels of subsidy is

less useful than comparing subsidy per visit, because the latter standardises the

comparison. A common ratio used in the performance indicators is percentage

of visits by a certain type of user divided by the percentage of the facility’s

estimated catchment population who are this type of person, which can be

termed a 'representativeness' ratio. Others include expressing efficiency

performance indicators on the bases of 'per visit' and 'per square metre of

internal floor space'. For satisfaction and importance performance indicators,

respondents are asked to rate each attribute on a five-point scale, the

performance indicator being the mean score for each attribute.

2.12 One type of ratio is used only when a better alternative is not available - this is

what can be termed 'share' ratios. This is the case for certain access

performance, i.e. % of total visits by the unemployed; discount card holders;

6

and first time visitors. Such 'share' ratios’ values can change because of

changes in other contributions to the total. For example, % visits by the

unemployed can fall even if the level of visits by the unemployed stays the

same, if visits by other employment status groups increase. Also, some of

these ratios are influenced by the size of the groups in the catchment

population. For example, the % of visits by the unemployed may be low

because there is a low % of unemployed people in the catchment population.

Therefore, interpretation of these ‘% of visits’ access ratios has to be

conducted with care.

Benchmarks

2.13 A benchmark is a value for a performance indicator which is a reference point

for comparisons. The accompanying centre report provides benchmarks for

centres in the same family categories as the facility being reported. The

current facility scores can also act as benchmarks for future performance.

2.14 For each access, efficiency and utilisation performance indicator, the

benchmarks employed are at the 25%, 50% and 75% points in the distribution

of scores. In other words they represent the individual centres at the quarter,

half and three-quarters marks when all centres are placed in rank order of

performance according to the indicator. These three benchmarks identify the

facility scores which separate four quartiles of performance.

This is represented as shown in the diagram below:

Lowest 25% 50% 75% Highest scoring benchmark benchmark benchmark scoring facility score score score facility

    

First quartile Second quartile Third quartile Fourth quartile

2.15 The 50% benchmark is the median and is an appropriate mid-range score

when, as is often the case, the distribution of scores is skewed or unduly

influenced by unusually high or low scores. A mean (average) score would be

distorted by these influences and would therefore be unreliable.

7

2.16 In the diagram the lowest and highest scores are also identified, so that centres

performing in the first or fourth quartiles have these important reference

points against which to compare their own performance.

3 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS: INTERPRETATION

3.1 The performance indicators used in the NBS are arranged into first, access

indicators; second, efficiency indicators; third, utilisation indicators; and

fourth, customer satisfaction indicators.

3.2 If a centre has actual central establishment charges of £0, managers are asked

to estimate on the financial return what these charges would have been if they

had been charged. These estimated central establishment charges are then

included in the total costs which are used to calculate the total operating costs

indicators and the subsidy indicators in the centre's report. This is done to

ensure like for like comparison with other centres which face such charges.

The central establishment charges include any head office / regional / central

support recharges.

3.4 The NBS report provides the centre's scores for numerous performance

indicators and it would be unwise to treat them all as equally important. Each

local authority and/or management organisation needs to decide on their key

performance indicators, to reflect their local policy priorities.

3.5 The tables which follow identify the performance indicators for access,

efficiency, utilisation and satisfaction/importance. Brief guidelines are

provided for the interpretation of the performance indicators’ numerical

results.

8

Performance indicators

Access Definition and guidelines for interpretation 1. % of visits 14 - 25

years ÷ % of catchment population 14-25 years

1 indicates that the level of visits by the 14 - 25 years group is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent the 14 - 25 years group in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent the 14 - 25 years group in the local population.

2. % of visits from social classes 6 & 7 ÷ % of catchment population in social classes 6 & 7

1 indicates that the level of visits by the NS-SEC 6 & 7 social groups is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent NS- SEC 6 & 7 social groups in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent NS- SEC 6 & 7 social groups in the local population.

3. % of visits from black, Asian & other ethnic groups ÷ % of catchment population in same ethnic groups

1 indicates that the level of visits by these ethnic groups is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent these ethnic groups in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent these ethnic groups in the local population.

4. % of visits from 65+ years ÷ % of catchment population 65+ years

1 indicates that the level of visits by older people is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent older people in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent older people in the local population.

5. % of visits from disabled under 65 years ÷ % of catchment population disabled under 65 years

1 indicates that the level of visits by disabled people under 65 is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent the disabled under 65 in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent the disabled under 65 in the local population.

6. % of visits disabled, 65+ years ÷ % of catchment population disabled, 65+ years

1 indicates that the level of visits by disabled people aged 65+ is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent the disabled, 65+ years in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent the disabled, 65+ years in the local population.

9

7. % of visits 26 - 64 years ÷ % of catchment population 26 - 64 years

1 indicates that the level of visits by the 26 - 64 years group is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent the 26 - 64 years group in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent the 26 - 64 years group in the local population.

8. % of visits which were first visits

Higher % score is better for effectiveness in access for new participants. NB care is needed when interpreting a 'share' ratio such as this.

9. % of visits with discount card

A discount card is part of a leisure card or passport- to-leisure scheme whereby discounts on entrance charges are given to the card holder. Higher % score is better for effectiveness in use of discount card. NB care is needed when interpreting a 'share' ratio such as this.

10. % of visits with discount cards for ‘disadvantage’

Higher % score is better for effectiveness in use of discount cards to target the disadvantaged (i.e. over 50s, students, unemployed, disabled, single parents, those on income support/ family credit, and GP referrals etc). NB care is needed when interpreting a 'share' ratio such as this.

11. % of visits female ÷ % of catchment population female

1 indicates that the level of visits by females is representative of the local population. < (less than) 1 indicates visits underrepresent females in the local population. > (more than) 1 indicates visits overrepresent females in the local population.

12. % of visits unemployed

Higher % score is better for effectiveness in targeting unemployed visitors. NB care is needed when interpreting a 'share' ratio such as this

13. average monthly frequency of visits per user

Higher score is better for effectiveness as a result of achieving higher usage from existing users. This indicator can be viewed as a measure of adherence.

14. estimated number of unique visitors per month

Higher score is better for effectiveness as a result of reaching more users.

10

Efficiency Definition and guidelines for interpretation 15. subsidy per visit (Annual total operating costs – annual total income)

÷ annual visits A positive score indicates a subsidy; a negative score indicates a surplus. Lower score is better for financial performance.

16. cost recovery (Annual total income ÷ annual total operating costs) × 100% < (less than) 100% indicates a subsidy. > (more than) 100% indicates an operating surplus. Higher % score is better for financial performance.

17. subsidy per head of catchment population

(Annual total operating costs – annual total income) ÷ relevant estimated catchment population A positive score indicates a subsidy; a negative score indicates a surplus. Lower score is better for efficiency for local taxpayers.

18. total operating cost per visit

Annual total operating costs ÷ annual visits Lower score is better for economy.

19. maintenance and repair costs per square metre of indoor facility space

Annual maintenance and repair costs ÷ total indoor floor space of the centre Lower score is better for economy in use of space, but there may be adverse effects on quality. This measure needs to be interpreted with care and in relation to a facility's local context.

20. energy costs per square metre of indoor facility space

Annual energy costs ÷ total indoor floor space of the centre Lower score is better for energy efficiency.

21. energy efficiency rating

Lower score is better for energy efficiency.

22. staff costs as % of total income

(Staff costs ÷ total income) × 100% Lower score is better for staff efficiency.

23. total income per visit Annual total income ÷ annual visits Higher score is better for financial effectiveness.

24. central establishment charges as a % of total expenditure

(Central establishment charges (actual or estimates) ÷ total operating costs) × 100% Lower score is better for central establishment efficiency.

11

25. total income per square metre of usable indoor facility space

Annual total income ÷ usable indoor floor space of the centre (i.e. total floor space minus offices, corridors and storage space) Higher score is better for financial effectiveness in the use of space.

26. direct income per visit

Annual direct income ÷ annual visits Higher score is better for financial effectiveness demonstrated by the sale of activities.

27. secondary income per visit

Annual secondary income ÷ annual visits Higher score is better for financial effectiveness demonstrated by sales of catering, vending, merchandise, etc.

28. fitness income per station

Fitness income ÷ number of stations Higher score is better for financial efficiency in generating income from each fitness station.

29. swim income per square metre of water

Income from all pools in the facility ÷ water space for all pools Higher score is better for financial efficiency in generating income from each square metre of water space.

30. swim lesson income per square metre of water space

Total lesson income from the pools (excluding any schools swimming income) ÷ water space for all pools in m2

Higher score is better for financial efficiency in generating income from swimming lessons per square metre of water space. This measure needs to be interpreted with care and in relation to a facility's local context.

31. main hall income per badminton court

Total income from main hall ÷ total number of badminton courts Higher score is better for financial efficiency in generating income from each badminton court-sized space.

32. AGP income per square metre of AGP area

Total income from the AGP(s) ÷ total AGP area in m2 Higher score is better for financial efficiency in generating income from each square metre of AGP space.

33. annual visits per square metre of usable space

Annual visits ÷ usable indoor floor space of the centre (i.e. total floor space minus offices, corridors and storage space) Higher score is better for efficient use of space.

12

34. average number of members per fitness station

Average number of members per month ÷ number of fitness stations Higher score is better for efficient use of fitness stations.

Utilisation Definition and guidelines for interpretation 35. % of visits casual,

instead of organised Casual visits are 'pay and play' customers who are not led in their activity by a member of staff. Organised visits have a coach, instructor or other member of staff leading the activities. This indicator is a measure of programme effectiveness. Whether a higher or lower % score is better depends on policy objectives. NB care is needed when interpreting a 'share' ratio such as this.

36. weekly number of people visiting the facility as % of catchment population, 14+ years

The number of visits in the survey period is converted into number of unique people attending, by applying the frequency of visit results. Number of unique visitors ÷ estimated number of residents in the relevant catchment area. Higher % score is better for effectiveness in market penetration.

3.6 For importance and satisfaction scores, the centre report presents the facility’s

mean satisfaction and importance scores for all the attributes, together with the

rankings of the attributes for satisfaction and importance. This helps managers

to identify quickly the attributes which are most and least important to

customers; and the attributes with which customers are most and least

satisfied. Means scores are between 1 and 5 and do not include ‘not

applicable’ responses (e.g. not all users buy food and drink). Higher

importance scores signify more important attributes for users. Higher

satisfaction scores are better for service effectiveness. The attributes are listed

in the table below.

3.7 The last satisfaction indicator in the list below is measured differently to the

other attributes. The Net Promoter Score®1 for the centre is the percentage of

customers scoring 9 or 10 out of 10 (promoters) when asked if they would

recommend the centre to a colleague or friend, minus the percentage that score

0 to 6 out of 10 (detractors). The higher the Net Promoter Score (NPS) score

the better.

1 Net Promoter, Net Promoter Score, and NPS are trademarks of Satmetrix Systems, Inc., Bain & Company, Inc., and Fred Reichheld

13

Satisfaction and importance attributes

Accessibility

37. Availability of activities at convenient times

38. Ease of booking in advance

39. The range of activities available

Quality of facilities/services

40. Quality of equipment

41. Availability of car parking on site

Cleanliness

42. Cleanliness of changing area

43. Cleanliness of activity spaces

Staff

44. Helpfulness of reception staff

45. Helpfulness of other staff

46. Standard of coaching or instruction

Value for money

47. Value for money of activities

48. Value for money of food and drink

Overall satisfaction

49. Overall swimming experience

50. Overall satisfaction with visit

51. Net Promoter Score

3.8 For the satisfaction and importance service attributes, four tables are presented

in the relevant section of the centre report:

 first with all the mean scores and ranks for both satisfaction and importance;

 second in rank order according to the gaps between the importance and satisfaction mean scores - e.g. mean score for importance 4.35, minus

mean score for satisfaction of 3.93, gives a gap of 0.42;

 third, in rank order according to the gaps between the importance and satisfaction ranks - e.g. importance rank of 5, minus a satisfaction rank of

12, gives a gap of -7;

 fourth, a comparison of the centre's satisfaction scores with industry averages for similar facility types - i.e. wet, dry or mixed centres.

Attributes with the highest gaps are most likely to warrant further

investigation and management action.

14

3.9 In addition to the gap analysis, the centre reports also provide a grid analysis,

whereby each service attribute is positioned in one of four quadrants, each

with different implications for interpretation and action. These are summarised

conceptually in the following figure. The quadrants are separated by lines at

the centre's average importance and satisfaction scores for all attributes

S

A

T

I

S

F

A

C

T

I

O

N

HIGH SATISFACTION AND

LOW IMPORTANCE:

possible over-resourcing? check

for efficiency gains

HIGH SATISFACTION AND

HIGH IMPORTANCE:

good correlation; maintain this

performance

LOW SATISFACTION AND

LOW IMPORTANCE:

no need for action unless

satisfaction is particularly low or

there are other implications (e.g.

financial)

LOW SATISFACTION AND

HIGH IMPORTANCE:

in most urgent need of action to

increase satisfaction

IMPORTANCE

4. INTERPRETATION OF THE NATIONAL BENCHMARKING

SERVICE EVIDENCE

4.1 The benchmarks and the facility performance indicators reported here are

essentially the start of a process, not the end. Interpretation, particularly to

identify possible reasons for differences between individual facility scores and

benchmark scores, is an important task for individual facility managers and

local authority officers. This process of analysis will lead to the preparation of

strategies and action plans, including appropriate targeting. The interpretation

may also involve a more specific search for relevant comparison facilities,

either to illustrate methods under management control whereby performance

may be improved; or to demonstrate factors outside of their control which

account for performance differences. The NBS provides a function for clients

to select appropriate comparison facilities for such process benchmarking (see

NBS website www.questnbs.org).

15

4.2 The accompanying centre report provides the benchmarks for the four

different families: facility type, location type, facility size and management

type. It is appropriate to interpret the facility’s score in relation to its average

position with respect to the benchmarks. For example, in the following case

the centre score of 1.11 is between the 25% and 50% benchmark levels for

two of the four family comparisons, and between 50% and 75% benchmark

levels for the other two comparisons. An ‘average’ positioning for this centre

score is at the median (50%) benchmark level overall.

4.3 Sometimes the judgement of a centre’s score relative to the national

benchmarks using the ‘average’ position is difficult, because of a wide

discrepancy in the relative position across the different family categories. In

such cases a further consideration may help - the strategic priorities of the

centre – which may cause one or two family categories to be more important

than the others. For example, a priority for social inclusion may cause greater

weight to be attached to the second family category – the socio-economics of

the local catchment population.

4.4 When interpreting facility performance against the benchmarks, a ‘general

rule of thumb’ is as follows. Poor facility performance against the benchmarks

offered for one family signals an area for investigation rather than a cause for

concern. This might lead to investigation of reasons but not automatically

trigger remedial action on access policy.

16

4.5 Alternatively, relatively poor facility performance against the benchmarks of

three or four families would probably be a cause for concern and policy

action, as this may indicate a ‘failing’ facility. This depends critically on the

priorities of local policy - the concern will be heightened if the relatively poor

performance indicator scores are in areas of policy priority.

4.6 There are a number of considerations relevant to the interpretation of the

satisfaction and importance performance indicator scores. The scores given to

each service attribute from the respondents are from 5 (very satisfied/very

important) to 1 (very dissatisfied/very unimportant), therefore higher is better

for the satisfaction scores, and more important for the importance scores. The

simplest level of interpretation, therefore, is to examine the average scores

given by users. If any of the average satisfaction scores are lower than 3, the

neutral score (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), this signals an absolute

problem worthy of further investigation and appropriate planning and action.

If the remedy is beyond the short-term resources of the centre, then a longer

term, strategic approach is required. If the average satisfaction scores for all

the attributes are higher than 3, which is typically the case, there are no

absolute problems but the relative strength of performance can be examined

further.

4.7 A useful way of interpreting the satisfaction and importance scores is to

compare the averages and rankings of the satisfaction and importance scores.

Tables for the mean scores and rankings of attributes are presented in the

results, to provide a 'gap analysis'. From the rankings tables, you can identify

the most important and the least satisfactory attributes to customers – two

obvious focuses of attention - and the attributes with the largest gaps between

their importance and satisfaction, either by mean scores or by ranks. For

example, ‘cleanliness of the changing areas’ often has one of the highest

importance scores, but one of the lowest satisfaction scores, therefore one of

the largest gaps. Even if the average satisfaction score is above 3, the gap

between importance and satisfaction may warrant managerial attention.

4.8 It is also important to note that not all the attributes are relevant to all users. If

an attribute is not relevant, then a respondent records ‘not applicable’. The

average scores for attributes do not include the ‘not applicable’ respondents.

The frequency distribution figures for the user survey (provided as an

appendix in the centre report) identify how many respondents gave a

satisfaction score for each attribute.

17

4.9 The appendix showing the frequency distributions for each indicator also

enables you to identify exactly what percentages of your customers, in the

user survey, rated each attribute at each of the five scores for importance and

satisfaction. This provides another important piece of information - the

percentage of customers who are dissatisfied with each attribute. An attribute

may have an average satisfaction score above 3 out of 5, and also low gap

scores, but it may still have a significant minority of customers dissatisfied

with it - sufficient to cause management concern.

4.10 Another comparison for satisfaction scores is with the industry averages as

shown in the last table in the satisfaction part of Section 4. These industry

averages offer simpler benchmarks to show whether satisfaction levels for

individual attributes at the centre are higher or lower than the average

nationally.

4.11 A final consideration in evaluating the importance and satisfaction results is

the grid analysis. The figure after paragraph 3.9 above explains how different

positions of attributes on the grid lead to different interpretations and actions.

The position normally associated with management action is the high

importance/low satisfaction quadrant (bottom right).

4.12 Consideration of local authority policy is important to the interpretation of

performance indicators because local policies will affect the expectations for

and performance of sports and leisure centres. As such, it is necessary to

consider policies when accounting for performance against the benchmarks. It

was not possible to construct a meaningful or valid family representing

different policy types; this is why policy is such an important element in

overall interpretation.

4.13 To represent local policy priorities in the interpretation of the evidence

provided by this service, it is necessary to select an appropriate mix of

performance indicators. Examining one performance indicator in isolation is

inappropriate and is likely to be misleading. Examining all the indicators is

too indiscriminate. You must decide on a relevant and manageable sub-set of

indicators to concentrate on for your facility planning and management.

4.14 An example of the need to take policy into account is as follows. The facility

may be in the lowest quartile for subsidy per visit, below the 25% benchmark

scores, indicating a high subsidy for the facility. If the local authority has a

policy of low pricing in order to encourage access, this may make this

18

apparently poor financial performance explainable and acceptable. This is

likely to be indicated by a good performance against the access performance

indicators' benchmarks. The reverse is also true; a poor performance against

access performance indicators' benchmarks may be explained by a policy of

revenue generation, supported by high scores against the benchmarks for

financial performance.

4.15 Other considerations are important when interpreting the comparisons of

facility scores with the benchmarks, such as the age and quality of the facility.

These are not part of the families used, so they are important to bear in mind

when interpreting the results. For example, if a facility has high energy costs

per square metre in comparison with the benchmarks, it may simply be

because it is an old facility which is in need of refurbishment and more

energy-efficient plant.

4.16 Finally, one of the likely tasks after interpreting the results from the NBS is

the setting of targets for performance. Selecting the performance indicators to

target is typically determined by a combination of policy priorities and the

performance data itself. Priority performance dimensions will be determined

by councils and service organisations. The performance data identifies

particular weaknesses. The national benchmarks help to identify the feasible

range within which targets should fall. As an example, for ‘subsidy per visit’,

if a facility is performing at the bottom quartile benchmark level, then it will

not be realistic to set a short term target that aspires to achieve third quartile

performance. Targets should be challenging but feasible and close

examination of the benchmarks should help managers to identify reasonable

improvement targets.