Differences in customer experience at the citizens’ offices

In the following the author will compare the findings in each citizens office to point out the differences between the offices.

Touchpoint 1: Navigation to the service space

No remarkable differences were discovered on how people were able find the office. As described earlier in the observations in chapter 4.2 the offices are both located beside the libraries and in the premises of shopping centers. The difference is that while Matinkylä is inside the Iso Omena shopping center, Leppävaara office is located in another building

(library) next to the shopping center Sello. Both offices have directions to their office in online sites as well as in info boards of the shopping centres. Customers from both offices seem to be acquainted with the office before and many live near by. Respondents of both offices state that the office is easily accessible. The offices are very similar in this sense.

Touchpoint 2: The service space and functionality

Overall, the customers regard both the offices as clear and simple. Some differences exist between how well the customers understand the queue machine. In Matinkylä the queue machine is directly facing the entrance whereas in Leppävaara the entrance is wide and therefore it’s easier to pass the machine without seeing it. In Leppävaara, customers used a bit more time on “studying “ the machine than in Matinkylä.

The waiting periods in Matinkylä are shorter than in Leppävaara. Based on the observation, the aim “speed up the service” is not met. This can be due to the fact that the

“confidential matters “ counter is not being used in Leppävaara. This leaves only two counters in active use whereas in Matinkylä all three counters are in active service use making the waiting times shorter. The way people wait is also different because Matinkylä does not have a proper waiting area. In Leppävaara, most customers went straight towards the waiting area and yellow chairs, in Matinkylä customers stayed standing in front of the entrance. In Matinkylä, a queue could be observed with only two people waiting in line. In Leppävaara, the service space was described number of times being spacious and most likely therefore one cannot detect the queue so easily although there are people waiting. Leppävaara was complimented several times on the comfortable waiting area. Moreover, fewer respondents spontaneously expressed that they pay attention to how long the queues are in Leppävaara than in Matinkylä. This notion points out how important a designated waiting area and a spacious feel is.

Leppävaara office receives much more delighted and positive responses regarding the look of the office. Looking at the intended aims of the redesign project, Leppävaara is clearly more attractive, fresh and welcoming and cozy than Matinkylä. The responses from Matinkylä receive positive feedback but expressions are usually lowered down with the word “fairly”, Matinkylä is alo described formal, “office” and cold which is not expressed at all in Leppävaara. Leppävaara office gets more spontaneous comments about its appearance whilst more indifferent “no complains” comments are targeted at Matinkylä office. Leppävaara is complimented for its tidiness while customers notice the amount of brochures in Matinkylä.

Table 7. Comparisons between Leppävaara and Matinkylä / touchpoint 2.

Leppävaara: Matinkylä:

PAYS ATTENTION TO PEOPLE + QUEUE

TIME =4 PAYS ATTENTION TO PEOPLE + QUEUE TIMES = 6

NOTICES CHAIRS /WAITING AREA=6 LOTS OF BROCHURES = 2

ONLY TWO COUNTERS=3 SPACIOUS = 2

SPACIOUS=5 OPEN

OPEN =3 COZY

APPROACHABLE =2 BIG AND NICE

COZY=7 FUNCTIONAL

LUMINOUS=2 FORMAL =2

COLOURFUL =2 OFFICE = 2

WELCOMING COLD

Touchpoint 3: Interaction between service personnel and customers

Based on the observations and interviews, the impression is that interaction between service personnel and customers is at a better level in Matinkylä than in Leppävaara.

When asked about how the respondents felt about the encounter with service attendant, the responses were more often positive in Matinkylä. Many respondents spontaneously used expressions that can be seen to relate to friendly, pleasant and joyful attitude of the service attendants in Matinkylä. In Leppävaara, the most common expression relates to the service being at a good level and only a couple positive spontaneous responses are made such as polite, pleasant and energetic and positive. Helpfulness and efficiency are applicable to both offices but, again, more often to Matinkylä than Leppävaara. In Leppävaara, there were a couple of instances when the customers said they were not happy with the service, this is not expressed in the views given about Matinkylä. However, quite a few times, the respondents in Matinkylä regarded the service encounter to be formal.

In both offices customers are rarely proactively acknowledged. The customers are greeted as they approach the counters in both offices. In both offices the service attendants seemed to work in a silent and serious manner. However, differences are again spotted between the offices. In Matinkylä, one service attendant in particular was proactively acknowledging a few customers and smiling more often and the same service attendant was also complimented in many instances for her friendly attitude. In Leppävaara, one service attendant caused a few customers to express unfriendly attitude and report discontent for the service. From these notions it can be said that the way the customers

perceive the service encounter is heavily dependent on the personal style of the service attendant giving the service.

Taking in consideration the aims of the redesign project for Leppävaara, the author makes the conclusion that the project has not succeeded entirely in how customers are encountered. In most occasions the customers are not proactively acknowledged as suggested in the new service concept, they quite rarely speak in an effortless way and they could pay more attention to reaching an easy going and friendly attitude.

Table 8. Comparisons between Leppävaara and Matinkylä/ touchpoint 3.

Leppävaara: Matinkylä:

EFFICIENT=9 HELPFULL = 11

HELPFUL =4 EFFICIENT = 7

GOOD SERVICE=5 FRIENDLY= 7

POLITE PLEASANT = 3

PLEASANT JOYFULL = 3

ENERGETIC AND POSITIVE SERVICE ORIENTED = 3 NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =3 PROACTIVE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT =4

NOT FRIENDLY=2 FORMAL = 5