TCL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Turning the wheel once again

1. TCL QUALITY MANAGEMENTTurning the wheel once again EMTA – October 2007

2. A brief history of quality management in Lyon 1986 : TCL first operations contract – No quality incentive 1993 : 2nd contract awarded after competitive tendering : • Items measured by PTA : • Passenger Information • Hardware availability • Cleanliness • Penalties 1999 : 3nd contract awarded after competitive tendering : • Items measured by PTA : • Hardware availability • Cleanliness • Passenger information (static) • Items measured by « Test-Customers » • Customer greeting in sales offices • Driving • Staff availability underground

3. A brief history of quality management in Lyon (ctd.) • Internal Quality measurements: • Regularity • Mileage • Fare evasion • Higher quality levels – higher penalties • NF Mark Certification process incentivized 2005 : 3nd contract awarded after competitive tendering : • External Quality measurements: • Same as 1999 + • Regularity • Fare evasion • One-shot penalties • Failure to assist a disabled customer • Failure to inform on forecasted changes to service • Real time disruption customer information system • Bonuses as well as penalties • Higher quality levels • Quality Charter

4. A brief history of quality management in Lyon 2006 : Contractual crisis on quality issues : • PTA’s position : • High level of discrepancy between measures and customer perception. • Bureaucratic energy focused on the « measures » and explaining failures • Proposed Charter non committal • Contractor’s position : • PTA aims to penalize contractor financially • Expectations are too high • Quality system can’t be used as internal management tool 2007 : Joint decision by CEOs to work together on quality to renew the system.

5. 2005 – 2010 Quality System Aims NF Marking confirmed Focus improvement on • Bus driving • Real time traffic disruption management Raise quality level dramatically through new services aimed at individual clients Customer fidelity through improved customer knowledge of network and attained quality targets Reasonable service during traffic disruption : • Real time information • Alternative transport offer • Compensation Former car users to become new customers on high quality routes

6. 2005 – 2010 Quality Quantified Items Cleanliness • Established standard photographic reference Information • Maps, timetable, stop name, fares, helpline etc. Hardware availability • Lifts, escalators, gates, ATMs, sound Reference manual + external measures in contractor’s presence Weighted average mark Customer Greeting : • On board bus and trolleybus driver greeting • Sales offices • “Allô TCL” telephone service Bus driving Reference manual + Test – Customer measures

7. 2005 – 2010 Quality Quantified Items Regularity • GPS measurements • % on-time services at stops per line • % satisfactory interval between services • Effective travel time / Scheduled time • Passenger weighted average Environmental protection • Bus exhaust fumes opacity • Battery recycling • Lawn height • Engine stop at terminus Fare evasion : • External survey 3 times per year

8. 2003 – 2006 Quality Results

9. 2003 – 2006 Quality Results

10. 2005 – 2006 Quantified Quality issues Cleanliness • Average high performance level  • Unacceptable occurrences not accounted for  Information • High performance for ‘classic’ information  • Low performance with modern information media • Low performance on real time/disruption info Hardware availability • Performance does not reflect customer perception • Lifts unavailable more than 1hr per day but are said to be available according to measures Customer greeting • Mix different operational tasks (eg sales & driving) • Individual score 100% if 4 out of 5 items conform • Waiting time in queues is not taken into account during critical moments (end/beginning of month) Driving • Number of measurements too low (Law of great #)

11. 2005 – 2006 Quantified Quality issues Regularity • Performance indicator too complex • Difficult link between management & performance Environmental protection • Is grass height relevant ? • What about Carbon emissions ? More Generally • What is the link between quality items and customer expectations ?

12. 2005 – 2006 Quality Charter KEOLIS proposition Durée du voyage Durée du voyage Vous voulez : Optimiser la durée de votre voyage Nous voulons : Mieux maîtriser les temps de transport et réduire vos temps d’attente Notre engagement : Respecter les horaires et fréquences de passage Pour aider nos conducteurs à respecter les horaires de passage a affichés aux arrêts, n une information actualisée leur est communiquée sur l’avance ou le retard qu’ils enregistrent. Ils peuvent ainsi si possible, adapter leur conduite. Des mesures constantes de la ponctualité et de la régularité des lignes sont réalisées. n Aidez nous dans cet engagement : En achetant votre titre à l ’avance ou en préparant votre monnaie. En avançant vers l’arrière du véhicule et en ne gênant pas la fe rmeture des portes. 6 2 – - - -

13. 2005 – 2006 Quality Charter - SYTRAL proposition Déplacements conformes à l’horaire prévu Déplacements conformes à l’horaire prévu Vous voulez : Optimiser la durée de votre voyage Respecter les horaires et fréquences de passage Des mesures constantes de la ponctualité et de la régularité des lignes sont réalisées : n au moins 80% des bus, 90% des tramways et 98% de métros doivent être à l’heure (pour les bus, entre – 30’’ et + 2’30’’ par rapport à heure de passage indiquée). Ces mesures permettent des adaptations des horaires pour un plus grand respect de la ponctualité. Augmentation du taux de présence des conducteurs [objectif restant à définir] n Augmentation du taux de fiabilité du matériel roulant ; nous vous garantissons un taux n minimum de X%[objectif restant à définir]. Aidez nous dans cet engagement : En achetant votre titre à l ’avance ou en préparant votre monnaie. En avançant vers l’arrière du véhicule et en ne gênant pas la fe rmeture des portes. 6 1

14. From crisis to a trust based relationship Back to basics • Customer expectation survey • Complaints monitoring Third party audit • Ex RATP Quality Director • SYTRAL and KEOLIS interviews • Collective audit results feedback High level quality system steering committee • Elected board members • CEOs • Management involved in quality A long process with short term deliverables • Several years are necessary to implement change • Some changes will come into effect immediately

15. Customer expectation survey Qualitative phase • Survey, understand and explain customer and non-customer expectations • Survey public transport use motivations and hindrances Quantitative phase • Measure and relative scale customer expectations • Measure and relative scale non-customer motivations and hindrances

16. Key Basic Global Satisfaction Global Satisfaction Item Evaluation Item Evaluation negative positive negative positive Extra Neutral Global Satisfaction Global Satisfaction Item Evaluation Item Evaluation negative positive negative positive Contribution to global satisfaction

17. 4 contribution types to global satisfaction

18. Key items

19. Neutral Items

20. Basic items

21. Extra items

22. Overview En bleu : Items bien évalués En rouge : Items mal évalués

23. Third Party Audit results A good general level of quality Lack of enthusiasm and high energy in ‘Quality system’ Hostile Authority/Contractor relationship • Lack of trust • Defense mechanisms “1 country 2 systems” : • NF Mark Certification • Authority Quality Item measures NF Mark Certification: • Well accepted by the grassroots • Achieving certification is positive but • Maintaining certification less • “Measuring” has become a major issue • Audit preparation requires resources • The process is bureaucratized • People are proud of achieving the Mark

24. Third Party Audit results SYTRAL Quality Item measures • Legitimate • Item “Customer Value” contested • Perceived as penalty tool by KEOLIS • SYTRAL perceived as not independent • Identification of operator responsibility and service conformity • Global levels don’t have a local meaning • A “bosses’ business” Quality Management has become a routine • People are proud of achieving the Mark

25. Third Party Audit : What to Do? Work on customer oriented “desired quality” • Quality level should reflect customer perception • Responsibility allocation on a 2nd level Set up a system to deal with “Non Contracted” issues that are essential to customer satisfaction • Crowding, congestion issues • Third party responsibility e.g. Bus stop cleanliness Quality System needs to be managed at all levels Introduce more positive feedback on good quality Work on Customer – Grassroots relationship Build on NF Mark positive image and make the two systems converge progressively into a unique system Build new system around line