How UBC Students See
The Alma Mater Society
DRAFT
Management Summary
Prepared for:
The Alma Mater Society
&
UBC’s Facilities Management Group
Customer Relationship Index™ Inc.
June 2006
Guide to CRi Findings
Guide to CRi Findings
A.
Executive Summary
A.1
Key Observations and Recommendations for Action
A.2
Survey Response Rates
A.3
Overview of AMS’s Relations with Applicants
A.3.1
The Alma Mater Society “Best Practices”
A.3.2
The Drivers of Student Satisfaction
B.
The Alma Mater Society’s Relationship with Students
B.1
Overall Ratings
C.
What Has the Greatest Impact on Satisfaction with The Alma Mater Society?
C.1
The Impact Index: Relationship Channels
C.2
The Impact Index: Drivers of Satisfaction
D.
What Are the Alma Mater Society’s Action Priorities?
D.1
The Initiative Matrix
D.2
Best Practices
D.3
Priority Action Items
D.4
Secondary Action Items
D.5
Re-evaluation
E.
Demographic Details
E.1
Proximity to Campus
E.2
Usual Mode of Transportation
E.3
Working Hours
E.4
Involvement In Extracurricular Activities
F.
Student Union Building
F.1
Student Union Building: Frequency of Visiting
F.2
Awareness and Use of Space in the Student Union Building
F.3
Payment Options
G.
Alma Mater Society Services
G.1 Importance of AMS Service
G.2 Individual Student Ratings of AMS Services
H.
Food Services
H.1 Rating of Individual Food Services
I.
Voting in the AMS Election
I.1
Recent Voting, Motivation and Incentives
J.
Communications Channels and Preferences
J.1
Receiving Information, Channel Preferences and Interests
K.
Supplementary Questions
K.1
Opinions on Various AMS Initiatives
Appendix A What is the Customer Relationship Index?
Introduction
Appendix B Survey Design & Administration
Survey Administration
Appendix C Statistical Significance
CRi Sample Size and Reliability Criteria
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
7
7
9
9
10
14
14
15
15
18
19
20
20
20
21
21
22
22
22
23
24
24
24
28
28
33
33
34
34
35
35
38
38
40
40
41
41
2
A.
Executive Summary
This report presents the findings of the Customer Relationship Index (CRi™), a survey-based
management tool developed by Customer Relationship Index. The results will help The Alma Mater
Society identify and prioritize actions that will strengthen relationships with UBC students.
A.1
Key Observations and Recommendations for Action
The key observations and recommendations based on the CRi analysis and supported by
students’ verbatim comments are as follows:

In most priority action areas, there are high proportions of “neutral” responses which
diminish overall satisfaction levels. While “neutral” ratings may reflect some degree
of perceived mediocre performance, it is more likely that some students lack
awareness of AMS activities or exhibit some degree of indifference around certain
issues. This finding is born out by the generally lower satisfaction correlation levels
compared to other CRi research such as the admissions and recruitment studies.
- Up to 35% of students report that they are unaware of some AMS services.
- While it may be difficult for AMS to stimulate interest where cannot exist, there are
clearly opportunities for broadening awareness of AMS’s extensive activities.
- Furthermore, there are many indications in this report that those who are more
active and involved are more likely to be supporters. Involvement generates
endorsement. Consequently AMS should explore methods to encourage involvement in
their initiatives and programs.

The “neutral” ratings affect the two most important Service Delivery dimensions.
- (1) There are lower perceptions around the overall quality of AMS services.
- (2) Students also have lower ratings for AMS’ ability to meet the resource needs of
diverse student groups.
- AMS should take steps to promote awareness of their services (and service delivery)
as well as examining more closely expectations around addressing the specific
needs of different special interest groups.

Five dimensions of AMS’s Student Advocacy have high importance to students but
are low in perceived performance.
- (1) The promotion of education issues, (2) tactical lobbying, (3) minority
representation, (4) media visibility and (5) influencing issues around educational
affordability, all emerge as “priority actions.”
- Depending on the area, these advocacy activities are rated “neutrally” by 40% 50% of students, again opening the question of awareness and/or participation.

Over 50% of students are either neutral or negative about the ease of finding out
about AMS business services.
- This finding likely goes some way to explain some of the neutral response to AMS,
since lack of awareness is clearly an impediment to recognition, let alone
involvement.
- Given the high frequency of regular visits to the Student Union Building, general
engagement with students does not appear to be an issue. Consequently, service
promotion needs to be proactive and employ marketing “push” tactics, using the
information channel preferences identified in this survey by UBC students.
3

A.2
AMS has eight “Best Practices” including a high level of service to students and
providing important services that promote academic success
- Furthermore, students find that AMS plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of
students and the implementation of social clubs.
- AMS best practices also include three “personal” elements associated with the
Student Union Building: friendliness, welcoming and being knowledgeable about
activities
Survey Response Rates

The invitation to complete the Internet-based survey was fielded to 40,000?
students by UBC. Invitations were sent out May 10, 2006 with reminders sent out to
everyone who had not answered on May 23rd. The survey was closed May 29th.
Table A1: Survey Completions and Response rates
All Students
Total e-mail invitations
40,000
Completions
7,568
Response rate

A.3
%
This overall sample is statistically significant and produces an error range of
+/-1.04% at a 95% confidence level.
Overview of AMS’s Relations with Applicants

Overall the relationship with student applicants is average to good. 40% of those
who experienced the Alma Mater Society rated it “good” or “excellent.” Ratings
were generally consistent across undergraduate years, but were slightly lower for
graduate students.
Table A2: Overall Satisfaction with AMS
All
Students
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Grad
(n=918)
(n=1120
(n=1531)
(2170)
(1503)
Poor
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
Fair
11%
11%
11%
10%
11%
12%
Average
43%
42%
44%
44%
42%
46%
Good
34%
35%
36%
34%
36%
30%
Excellent
Top-2
5%
7%
4%
6%
5%
6%
40%
42%
40%
41%
41%
36%
17%
N=7,568
16%
17%
16%
17%
19%
Overall
Ratings
Bottom-2
4
A.3.1
The Alma Mater Society “Best Practices”

AMS had 8 “best practices,” that is, those interactions with both high importance
and high satisfaction.
Table A3: Best Practices
Best Practice Touch Points
Impact
Index
7 e) AMS provides a very high level of service to students.
42
7 c) AMS provides important services that promote academic success.
37
9 a) AMS plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of students.
36
7 a) The Alma Mater Society is the principal centre for student activity at UBC.
36
7 g) AMS does a great job facilitating the implementation of social clubs.
35
10 d) The AMS staff is very knowledgeable about the activities taking place there.
35
10 b) The staff and volunteers at the Student Union Building are very friendly and helpful.
35
10 a) The Student Union Building is a place where I feel welcome.
34
A.3.2
The Drivers of Student Satisfaction


The service delivery dimensions were the most significant drivers of satisfaction
with six being in the top seven.
The Student Union Building and AMS’s advocacy activities were also frequent and
important satisfaction drivers.
(Note: Satisfaction drivers indicate level of importance, but do not measure actual
performance.)
Table A.4: Top 20 Drivers of Satisfaction
Student Touch Points
Impact
Index
7 b) The overall quality of services provided by AMS is excellent.
44
7 e) AMS provides a very high level of service to students.
42
7 f) AMS' ability to meet the resource needs of diverse student groups is very impressive.
40
7 c) AMS provides important services that promote academic success.
37
9 a) AMS plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of students.
36
7 a) The Alma Mater Society is the principal centre for student activity at UBC.
36
7 g) AMS does a great job facilitating the implementation of social clubs.
35
5
8 g) AMS businesses operate with high efficiency.
35
10 d) The AMS staff is very knowledgeable about the activities taking place there.
35
10 b) The staff and volunteers at the Student Union Building are very friendly and helpful.
35
10 a) The Student Union Building is a place where I feel welcome.
34
9 c) AMS is very effective at promoting issues concerned with the quality of education.
34
9 f) AMS is highly effective at small scale tactical lobbying for student issues with
government and university officials.
9 e) AMS does an excellent job representing the issues of minorities and special interest
groups.
34
34
8 h) It is easy to find out about the various businesses that are run by AMS.
33
9 b) AMS gets high visibility in the media in support of student issues.
33
8 j) I am very impressed by the exceptional value for money offered by AMS businesses.
32
9 g) AMS has done a great job influencing student issues around rising educational costs
and affordability.
32
10 g) The Student Union Building has a pleasant atmosphere.
32
8 c) Business run by AMS are able to optimize fair and ethical trade practices better than
any other operators.
31
6
B.
The Alma Mater Society’s Relationship with Students





B.1
Overall, the relationship with students is average to good. 40% of those who
experienced the Alma Mater Society rated it “good” or “excellent.”
Overall ratings are consistent across undergraduate years; however, grad students
give lower ratings with only 36% giving ratings of “good” or “excellent.”
Students who have less involvement with AMS, either due to campus proximity or
their general level of extracurricular participation, tend to have lower levels of
satisfaction. The closer students are to campus, the higher the ratings, with 45% of
those who live in residence giving top ratings compared to 37% who live furthest
away.
More highly involved students are generally more satisfied, with those who
participated in two or more campus activities giving positive ratings of 49%.
Students who voted in the most recent AMS elections gave the highest overall rating
of 51%.
Overall Ratings
Student applicants were asked “How would you rate your relationship with AMS overall?”
40% of students rated the overall process as either good or excellent. 43% gave average
ratings overall and 17% rated AMS as “fair” or “poor.” These rating were generally
consistent with all undergraduate levels, but graduate students gave slightly lower ratings.
Table B1: Overall Ratings
All
Students
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Grad
(n=918)
(n=1120
(n=1531)
(2170)
(1503)
Poor
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
7%
Fair
11%
11%
11%
10%
11%
12%
Average
43%
42%
44%
44%
42%
46%
Good
34%
35%
36%
34%
36%
30%
Excellent
Top-2
5%
7%
4%
6%
5%
6%
40%
42%
40%
41%
41%
36%
Bottom-2
17%
16%
17%
16%
17%
19%
Overall
Ratings
N=7,568
7
Students were also segmented by proximity to the university, the number of hours per
week worked and their level of engagement with activities, as well as whether they voted
in the recent AMS election. Those closer to the university had more satisfaction. Those in
residence gave top ratings at 45%, which decreased to 37% among who students lived
further away. Students with higher involvement levels, as measured by hours worked per
week and the number of activities they were engaged in, also gave higher ratings. Students
who were involved in two or more campus activities gave overall positive ratings of 49% and
those who voted in the most recent AMS elections gave the highest overall rating of 51%
(good + excellent).
Ratings
Table B3: Overall Ratings by Proximity and “Involvement”
Proximity to campus
Hours worked/week
Number of Activities
Away
7%
0-6
6%
7+
7%
None
12%
1
6%
2+
4%
Voted
Poor
5%
Near
5%
Fair
11%
11%
11%
11%
11%
14%
11%
9%
9%
Average
39%
43%
45%
45%
42%
49%
45%
38%
37%
Good
37%
35%
32%
33%
35%
23%
34%
41%
42%
Excellent
Top-2
8%
5%
5%
5%
6%
3%
5%
8%
9%
45%
40%
37%
39%
41%
26%
39%
49%
51%
Bottom-2
5%
5%
7%
6%
7%
12%
6%
4%
3%
Residence
3%
8
C.
What Has the Greatest Impact on Satisfaction with The
Alma Mater Society?


C.1
The relationship category that has the greatest impact on student satisfaction is
AMS interactions with students as a service provider, followed by AMS as a business
owner and operator, and then by AMS as an agent for student advocacy.
Food facilities, as an overall relationship channel, has the lowest impact on the
overall relationship with AMS, but students are highly satisfied.
The Impact Index: Relationship Channels
A CRi Impact Index score is developed for each relationship channel that represents a
general area of interaction between students and AMS. The Impact Index provides a rating
based on the correlation of the students’ overall ratings for a specific channel with their
overall ratings of satisfaction with AMS. This provides a macro picture of how a general
category of interaction impacts overall satisfaction.
As another point of reference in Table C1, students’ overall satisfaction with particular
channels (agreement plus strong agreement with channel excellence) is also provided. As
the chart demonstrates, AMS’s general interactions with students as a service provider are
most important, followed by AMS as a business owner and operato,r and then by AMS as an
agent for student advocacy.
It should also be noted that high or low satisfaction ratings need to be considered along
with the impact/importance of a relationship dimension. For instance, while Food Facilities
have a relatively high “excellence” score (70% of students agree or strongly agree that food
facilities are excellent), it rates lowest in terms of impact than all the other factors
measured.
Table C1: Relationship Channels Ranked by Impact on Satisfaction
Impact Index
All “Agree” to
Excellence1
Q7 Service Provider
47
54%
Q8 Business Owner & Operator
40
44%
Q9 Agency for Student Advocacy
40
48%
Q10 Student Union Building
37
57%
Q17a Food Facility
30
70%
AMS Relationship Channels
11
*For each relationship channel, students were asked if “overall” they agreed or disagreed with the excellence of the
channel (e.g. “My overall perceptions of AMS as a service provider are excellent.”). The results of Table C1 compile the
responses of those who either agreed or strongly agreed.
9
C.2
The Impact Index: Drivers of Satisfaction
The Impact Index ranks satisfaction drivers, that is, those factors (touch points) which are
most important to the relationship, such as “the food tastes great”, “the Student Union
Building has a pleasant atmosphere,” etc. (N.B.: the Impact Index rates “importance” not
“performance.”)
The Index is derived from a statistic called the correlation coefficient, which is calculated
by performing a regression analysis on the scores of all student touch points. The
correlation coefficient and the Impact Index show how much each factor contributes to
your student’s overall impression of The Alma Mater Society and its activities. A high
correlation coefficient results in a high Impact Index, which means that a factor is highly
important to their impression of AMS. (It should be noted that while a theoretical
maximum of 100 is achievable, typical impact results are in the 30-40 range and high
results in the 40-60 range.)
We have applied the detailed CRi analysis to the entire pool of student respondents. As
Table C2 below demonstrates, among the top 20 drivers, six pertain to AMS as a service
provider (Q7) and are all at the top of the list. This does not mean that other elements of
AMS activities are unimportant to satisfaction. Also emerging as important are perceptions
of AMS as a student advocate (Q9), which also has six touch points in the top twenty.
Table C2: Top 20 Drivers of Satisfaction
Student Touch Points
Impact
Index
7 b) The overall quality of services provided by AMS is excellent.
44
7 e) AMS provides a very high level of service to students.
42
7 f) AMS' ability to meet the resource needs of diverse student groups is very impressive.
40
7 c) AMS provides important services that promote academic success.
37
9 a) AMS plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of students.
36
7 a) The Alma Mater Society is the principal centre for student activity at UBC.
36
7 g) AMS does a great job facilitating the implementation of social clubs.
35
8 g) AMS businesses operate with high efficiency.
35
10 d) The AMS staff is very knowledgeable about the activities taking place there.
35
10 b) The staff and volunteers at the Student Union Building are very friendly and helpful.
35
10 a) The Student Union Building is a place where I feel welcome.
34
9 c) AMS is very effective at promoting issues concerned with the quality of education.
34
9 f) AMS is highly effective at small scale tactical lobbying for student issues with
government and university officials.
34
10
9 e) AMS does an excellent job representing the issues of minorities and special interest
groups.
34
8 h) It is easy to find out about the various businesses that are run by AMS.
33
9 b) AMS gets high visibility in the media in support of student issues.
33
8 j) I am very impressed by the exceptional value for money offered by AMS businesses.
32
9 g) AMS has done a great job influencing student issues around rising educational costs
and affordability.
32
10 g) The Student Union Building has a pleasant atmosphere.
32
8 c) Business run by AMS are able to optimize fair and ethical trade practices better than
any other operators.
31
Table C3 below ranks the importance of all the touch points within each relationship
channel. For example, for “Service delivery” the most important factor is, “The overall
quality of services provided by AMS is excellent.” In this same category, “Everyone, no
matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or social origin, is welcome in all the
activities, facilities and businesses associated with AMS” has the lowest impact on
satisfaction. Those drivers that appear among the top twenty are highlighted. Service
delivery and advocacy (see below) are clearly important since most of their touch points
are top-twenty satisfaction drivers. It should be noted again that impact measures
importance and not satisfaction level.
Table C3: Drivers of Satisfaction (By Relationship Channel)
Denotes top 20 driver
Student Touch Point
Impact
Index
Service Delivery
7 b) The overall quality of services provided by AMS is excellent.
44
7 e) AMS provides a very high level of service to students.
42
7 f) AMS' ability to meet the resource needs of diverse student groups is very impressive.
40
7 c) AMS provides important services that promote academic success.
37
7 a) The Alma Mater Society is the principal centre for student activity at UBC.
36
7 g) AMS does a great job facilitating the implementation of social clubs.
35
7 d) Everyone, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or social origin, is welcome
in all the activities, facilities and businesses associated with AMS.
26
Business Owner and Operator
8 g) AMS businesses operate with high efficiency.
35
8 h) It is easy to find out about the various businesses that are run by AMS.
33
11
8 j) I am very impressed by the exceptional value for money offered by AMS businesses.
32
8 c) Business run by AMS are able to optimize fair and ethical trade practices better than
any other operators.
31
8 i) AMS businesses are highly proactive around environmental issues.
31
8 a) A key asset of AMS is that its businesses are run by students.
30
8 e) AMS businesses offer better delivery of products and services than other operators
and providers.
30
8 f) A key element of AMS is that the business profits go back into student services.
30
8 b) AMS makes every effort to ensure that students with physical disabilities are able to
participate in its businesses.
28
8 d) AMS businesses provide a range of payment methods that meet my needs.
20
Student Advocacy
9 a) AMS plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of students.
36
9 c) AMS is very effective at promoting issues concerned with the quality of education.
34
9 e) AMS does an excellent job representing the issues of minorities and special interest
groups.
9 f) AMS is highly effective at small scale tactical lobbying for student issues with
government and university officials.
34
34
9 b) AMS gets high visibility in the media in support of student issues.
33
9 g) AMS has done a great job influencing student issues around rising educational costs
and affordability.
32
9 d) AMS provides a strong leadership role in organizing large scale protests.
29
Student Union Building
10 b) The staff and volunteers at the Student Union Building are very friendly and helpful.
35
10 d) The AMS staff is very knowledgeable about the activities taking place there.
35
10 a) The Student Union Building is a place where I feel welcome.
34
10 g) The Student Union Building has a pleasant atmosphere.
32
10 e) The Student Union Building facilities are very well maintained.
29
10 c) There is ample space for social activities in the Student Union Building
28
10 f) The SUB is an excellent place to study.
25
10 h) The hours that the Student Union Building is open are convenient for me.
25
12
Food Services
17a g) The environment is enjoyable.
28
17a d) The service is friendly and courteous.
25
17a b) There are enough menu options to suit a wide variety of tastes.
24
17a a) The food served tastes good.
23
17a e) The food is fairly priced.
23
17a i) The hours are convenient.
23
17a c) Special dietary restrictions and allergies are easily accommodated.
22
17a f) I get served quickly.
21
17a h) There are enough seats and tables for all the people who want to eat here.
18
13
D.
What Are the Alma Mater Society’s Action Priorities?






D.1
In most priority action areas, there are notably high proportions of “neutral”
responses which tend to undercut positive ratings and lower overall satisfaction
levels.
This finding may reflect some degree of perceived mediocre performance, but more
likely the pattern is fuelled by either by lack of awareness of AMS activities or some
degree of indifference or apathy among certain segments.
The “neutral” ratings affect two service delivery attributes, where (1) there are
lower perceptions around the overall quality of services and (2) AMS’s ability to meet
the resource needs of diverse student groups.
In AMS’s advocacy activities this trend continues, with high neutral responses (40% 50%) that lower overall performance ratings for the promotion of education issues,
tactical lobbying, minority representation, media visibility and influencing issues
around educational affordability.
While “neutrality” of support continues in AMS’s business operations, there is some
evidence of greater dissatisfaction, where over half the students do not support the
notion that finding out about AMS business is easy—this finding also verifies general
lack of awareness.
Finally, while the Student Union Building is the subject of much strong support, there
are lower ratings for “The Student Union Building has a pleasant atmosphere.”
The Initiative Matrix
The Initiative Matrix is provided as an effective way of interpreting by touch-point the
combination of satisfaction and importance (Impact Index Score). The matrix places each
touch point into one of four initiative-oriented categories depending on their scores on
these dimensions (satisfaction and importance).
A. Priority Action:
B. Secondary Action:
C. Re-Evaluation:
D. Best Practices:
High importance, low satisfaction contact points or service
attributes that should be addressed first.
Moderately important, low satisfaction contact points or service
attributes that should be addressed second.
Low importance, high satisfaction contact points or service
attributes where investment should be re-evaluated.
High importance, high satisfaction contact points or service
attributes from which best practice lessons might be learned.
Impact Index
(Importance)
CRi Score
(Satisfaction)
Below-Average
Importance
Above-Average
Importance
Above-Average Satisfaction
Re-Evaluate
Best Practice
Secondary Action
Priority Action
Below-Average Satisfaction
It should be noted that the low satisfaction of Priority Actions emerges by comparison to higher
satisfaction in other areas. If overall performance levels are positive as they are with AMS,
comparatively “low” satisfaction is not necessarily cause for alarm, but it does identify those areas
14
that fall behind average satisfaction elsewhere. It also bears emphasizing that respondent “ratings”
are perceptions and can reflect both actual and perceived performance.
D.2
Best Practices
Best Practices are those areas to which students give high importance and for which there is high
satisfaction. Table D1 below lists the 8 best practices as identified by the students. Among the best
practices are “provides a very high level of service to students” and “provides important services
that promote academic success,” followed by “plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of students.”
AMS best practices include four important service delivery attributes, as well as three “personal”
elements associated with the Student Union Building: friendliness, welcoming and being
knowledgeable about activities.
Table D1: Best Practices
Best Practice Touch Points
Impact
Index
7 e) AMS provides a very high level of service to students.
42
7 c) AMS provides important services that promote academic success.
37
9 a) AMS plays a vital role in lobbying on behalf of students.
36
7 a) The Alma Mater Society is the principal centre for student activity at UBC.
36
7 g) AMS does a great job facilitating the implementation of social clubs.
35
10 d) The AMS staff is very knowledgeable about the activities taking place there.
35
10 b) The staff and volunteers at the Student Union Building are very friendly and helpful.
35
10 a) The Student Union Building is a place where I feel welcome.
34
D.3
Priority Action Items
There are a number of areas identified for Priority Action (above-average importance,
below-average satisfaction), as follows:
Table D2: Priority Actions
Priority Action Touch Points
Service
Delivery
Student
Advocacy
The overall quality of services provided by AMS is excellent.
AMS’ ability to meet the resource needs of diverse student groups is very
impressive.
AMS is very effective at promoting issues concerned with the quality of
education.
AMS is highly effective at small scale tactical lobbying for student issues
with government and university officials.
AMS does an excellent job representing the issues of minorities and special
interest groups.
AMS gets high visibility in the media in support of student issues.
Impact
Index
44
40
34
34
34
33
15
AMS has done a great job influencing student issues around rising
educational costs and affordability.
AMS businesses operate with high efficiency.
Business
Owner &
Operator
Student
Union Bldg.
32
35
It is easy to find out about the various businesses that are run by AMS.
I am very impressed by the exceptional value for money offered by AMS
businesses.
Business run by AMS are able to optimize fair and ethical trade practices
better than any other operators.
33
The Student Union Building has a pleasant atmosphere.
32
32
31
As is indicated in Table D2, the top two priority actions are the same top two impact areas
for students, namely, the overall quality of services provided by AMS and AMS' ability to
meet the resource needs of diverse student groups. Examining the detailed tables
(accompanying this report under separate cover) reveals that while 45% and 47%
respectively either agreed or strongly agree that AMS performs these functions well, 41%
and 45% are neutral. Dissatisfaction is low (8% and 7%). This “neutral” response mirrors the
same level of “neutrality” exhibited in the overall assessment of AMS, where 43% of
student felt neutral about AMS performance.
This result may reflect a large percentage of students who feel that AMS’s performance is
mediocre. However, we have also seen (Table B3) that there is a prevailing pattern
suggesting that the more students are involved and active, the more they endorse AMS.
AMS’s “lower” performance therefore may stem more from student neutrality (due to
indifference, apathy, or students with other interests), rather than outright mediocre
performance. This is supported by the relatively low satisfaction correlations in this survey
where no correlations are higher than the low 40’s, compared to other student relationship
surveys, (e.g. admissions and recruitment) where high satisfaction correlations are often in
the 50s and 60s. One could generalize by saying that those who are “involved” are
advocates and those who are not involved remain indifferent or on the sidelines. It should
also be noted that these “neutral” perceptions may also be a function of a lack of
awareness of AMS’s broad range of services.
This theme continues in AMS’s advocacy activities, where five attributes have high
importance and low satisfaction and are therefore action priorities. Again, the majority of
respondents rate AMS neutrally on these attributes. Thus 40%- 50% of students either feel
that performance is mediocre or they simply don’t know or don’t care about these AMS
activities. (To put this in context, in the Food Service area—see Section H below—neutral
responses are generally under 10%).
16
Table D3: Student Advocacy Ratings for Action Priorities
Strongly
Disagree Neutral
Disagree
9_3 c) AMS is very effective at promoting
issues concerned with the quality of
2%
11%
41%
education.
9_7 g) AMS has done a great job influencing
student issues around rising educational
5%
13%
40%
costs and affordability.
9_5 e) AMS does an excellent job
representing the issues of minorities and
2%
8%
49%
special interest groups.
9_6 f) AMS is highly effective at small scale
tactical lobbying for student issues with
2%
7%
50%
government and university officials.
9_2 b) AMS gets high visibility in the media
3%
15%
43%
in support of student issues.
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
38%
7%
45%
35%
7%
42%
34%
7%
41%
35%
6%
41%
33%
6%
39%
However, while still “problematic” due to neutral response, there is clearly stronger
support around perceptions of AMS’s educational advocacy due promotion of “issues
concerned with the quality of education” (45%) and doing “a great job influencing student
issues around rising educational costs and affordability” (42%). Regarding the other
priorities in the advocacy area—representing minorities and special interests, small scale
tactical lobbying and getting high visibility media—close to 60% of students are either
neutral or negative regarding AMS’s performance.
Regarding AMS as business owner and operator, there is again the weight of neutral
response which pulls down AMS performance. However, the strongest support is for
“Business run by AMS are able to optimize fair and ethical trade practices better than any
other operators” where 48% give positive ratings. There is similar support for how easy it is
“to find out about the various businesses that are run by AMS” (47%); however, some of the
usual neutral response moves into disagreement, where 15% do not agree that finding
about AMB businesses out is easy. The lowest support for AMS’s business profile is around
value for money. Support shrinks to 34% and overall dissatisfaction increases to 18%.
Table D4: AMB Business Ratings for Action Priorities
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
8_3 c) Business run by AMS are able to
optimize fair and ethical trade practices
1%
6%
better than any other operators.
8_8 h) It is easy to find out about the
2%
13%
various businesses that are run by AMS.
8_7 g) AMS businesses operate with high
2%
7%
efficiency.
8_10 j) I am very impressed by the
exceptional value for money offered by AMS
4%
14%
businesses.
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
45%
37%
11%
48%
37%
38%
9%
47%
47%
37%
7%
44%
49%
28%
6%
34%
17
While the Student Union Building and its operations have a number of best practices (see
Table D1 above), the pleasantness of the atmosphere of the building emerged as a priority
action.
Table D5: AMS Student Union Building Action Priority
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
10_7 g) The Student Union Building has a
4%
14%
pleasant atmosphere.
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
28%
45%
10%
55%
Most students (55%) agree that the building has a pleasant atmosphere; however, 45% are
neutral or negative, which compares unfavourably with some much of the strong support
for the building.
D.4
Secondary Action Items
A number of touch points falling within the category of Secondary Action. These have a
combination of below-average importance and low satisfaction. When these touch points
are examined in order of impact (importance) on the relationship with students, they rank
as follows:
Table D3: Secondary Actions
Student Touch Point
Impact
Index
8 i) AMS businesses are highly proactive around environmental issues.
8 e) AMS businesses offer better delivery of products and services than other operators
and providers.
10 e) The Student Union Building facilities are very well maintained.
31
9 d) AMS provides a strong leadership role in organizing large scale protests.
29
10 c) There is ample space for social activities in the Student Union Building
28
10 f) The SUB is an excellent place to study.
25
17a c) Special dietary restrictions and allergies are easily accommodated.
22
8 d) AMS businesses provide a range of payment methods that meet my needs.
20
17a h) There are enough seats and tables for all the people who want to eat here.
18
30
29
Touch points at this lower end of the impact ranking have a lower priority in terms of
remedial actions since, according to the survey, they have a low impact on overall
satisfaction with AMS. However, at the top of the list there are a number of items that may
merit closer examination. While they are not “Priority Action” items, they still carry some
weight and are below-average performance levels.
In particular we draw your attention to reactions to AMS business practices, highlighted in
yellow in the table above. These Secondary Actions lead the list and extend the finding
identified in Priority Actions. There are lower ratings for AMS businesses and environmental
issues, better delivery of services and range of payment methods.
Several areas relating to the Student Union Building also get lower satisfaction: facilities
being very well maintained, adequate space for social activities and the building being an
excellent place to study.
18
D.5
Re-evaluation
“Re-evaluation” items reflect a combination of above-average satisfaction with belowaverage importance. There are number of items in this category:
Table D4: Re-evaluation
Re-Evaluation Touch Points
Impact
Index
8 a) A key asset of AMS is that its businesses are run by students.
30
8 f) A key element of AMS is that the business profits go back into student services.
8 b) AMS makes every effort to ensure that students with physical disabilities are
able to participate in its businesses.
17a g) The environment is enjoyable.
7 d) Everyone, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation or social origin, is
welcome in all the activities, facilities and businesses associated with AMS.
17a d) The service is friendly and courteous.
30
10 h) The hours that the Student Union Building is open are convenient for me.
25
17a b) There are enough menu options to suit a wide variety of tastes.
24
17a e) The food is fairly priced.
23
17a i) The hours are convenient.
23
17a a) The food served tastes good.
23
17a f) I get served quickly.
21
28
28
26
25
The “re-evaluation” items reflect areas where there may be an “over-investment” since
higher satisfaction combined with low importance suggests it is unnecessary to commit
more resources. For instance, “A key asset of AMS is that its businesses are run by
students” is agreed to by 77% of the students. Despite the endorsement, this element of
reputation does not have as much impact on students as, say, the delivery of certain
services or certain advocacy initiatives.
However, it should be noted that some of AMS’s relationship dimensions can be assumed or
taken for granted and do not therefore generate significant perceived importance, even
though removing such aspects or strengths might precipitate extreme reaction. For
instance, the fact that the electrical lights work would not be considered a critical factor
in a home purchase, but if they didn’t work this perception would change. In this regard,
the lower impact of many food services such as environment, options, price, taste and
service (which are rated very high in terms of satisfaction!) likely reflects an assumption of
high calibre which because of its consistency goes unnoticed. The message here is that
little additional investment is required—although reducing support would not be
recommended given high satisfaction ratings.
19
E.
E.1
Demographic Details
Proximity to Campus
Students were asked, “Where do you live in relation to the UBC Campus?” Table E1 gives
the breakdown of responses.
Table E1: Proximity to Campus
Distance to Campus
E.2
%
In residence
18%
With family near campus, <30 min bus/drive
11%
With family away from campus, >30 min bus/drive
32%
On my own away from campus, >30 min bus/drive
19%
On my own near campus, <30 min bus/drive
N= 7,568
20%
Usual Mode of Transportation
Table E2 provides the breakdown of students’ usual mode of transportation.
Table E2: Mode of Transportation
Mode
%
Public transit
68%
Car
15%
Carpool
2%
Bike
4%
Walk
10%
Other
N= 7,568
1%
20
E.3
Working Hours
Students were asked how many hours they worked per week. Table E3 provides the results
Table E3: Hours Worked Per Week
Hour per week
E.4
%
0
37%
1-6
16%
7 - 12
20%
13 - 18
9%
19 - 25
6%
over 25 hours
N=7,568
12%
Involvement In Extracurricular Activities
Table E4: Extracurricular Activities
Activities
%*
No/Not involved/None
45%
Campus clubs
45%
Athletics
21%
Working for university
18%
Other
16%
Residence activities
11%
Community service learning
10%
Residence activities
7%
Student government
6%
Resource groups
4%
Greek system
3%
Working for AMS
N=7,568
2%
*Note: The column total does add up to 100% because students were asked to identify multiple
activities.
21
F.
F.1
Student Union Building
Student Union Building: Frequency of Visiting
Students were asked to select the frequency that best describes how frequently they
visited the Student Union building. Table F1 provides the results.
Table F1: Visiting the Student Union Building
Frequency of visiting
F.2
%
Daily
22%
4 - 5 times per week
22%
2 - 3 times per week
28%
Once per week
11%
Several times per month
6%
Monthly
4%
Rarely
6%
Never
N=7,568
1%
Awareness and Use of Space in the Student Union Building
Students were asked about their awareness of various spaces in the Student Union Building.
Table F2: Awareness of spaces
Concourse of the SUB
15%
Know the
space, but
don't use it
17%
Conversation pit
17%
36%
36%
9%
Upper level room
17%
50%
27%
5%
SUB: South alcove
32%
36%
25%
5%
SUB: Courtyard
13%
39%
38%
9%
Pacific Spirit Place Cafeteria
N=7,460
2%
24%
49%
25%
Don't know
this space
Sometimes
use this space
Frequently
use this space
42%
26%
22
F.3
Payment Options
Students were asked how various payment options would affect their purchasing habits at
the Student Union Building. See Table F3.
Table F3: Effect of Purchasing Options
Did Not
respond
Debit card
2%
Would not affect
my purchasing
37%
Would increase
my purchasing
61%
Credit card
3%
50%
48%
Meal card or equivalent
N=7,460
4%
70%
26%
23
G.
G.1
Alma Mater Society Services
Importance of AMS Service
Students were asked to rate the importance of various AMS services. Joblink was the
service most valued, followed by Safewalk and Volunteer Connections. It is important to
note that up to 35% of students are unaware of some AMS services.
Table G1: Importance of Services
Unaware
No
Service
of
interest
service
/need
9%
7%
Joblink
Valuable
/Don’t
Use
40%
Little
value
Some
value
Essential
Top 2
3%
11%
30%
42%
Safewalk
3%
11%
58%
2%
7%
19%
26%
Volunteer Connections
17%
10%
45%
3%
10%
15%
25%
Tutoring
4%
13%
57%
3%
9%
14%
22%
Sexual Assault Support Centre
6%
11%
63%
2%
5%
13%
18%
Minischool
34%
15%
33%
3%
8%
6%
14%
Advocacy services
21%
17%
45%
3%
7%
7%
14%
Speakeasy
20%
19%
45%
3%
7%
6%
12%
Ombudsman’s office
N= 7,659
35%
17%
35%
3%
5%
4%
10%
G.2
Individual Student Ratings of AMS Services
Students were asked to select at least one service for individual rating. Table G2 provides
the breakdown of the first choice services that 3,652 students rated. In the tables that
follow (Tables G3-G11) the individual service ratings are provided.
Table G2: Breakdown of services that were rated by students
Rated Services
# of
Students
Joblink
1,219
Tutoring
782
Safewalk
758
Volunteer Connections
254
Advocacy Office
161
Speakeasy
161
Minischool
156
Ombudsman’s Office
95
Sexual Assault Support Centre
66
Number of students who chose not to rate
3,917
24
Table G3: Advocacy Office
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
5%
8%
36%
27%
24%
51%
I would highly recommend this service.
9%
10%
28%
30%
23%
53%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
5%
11%
40%
24%
20%
44%
This service addressed all my needs.
14%
9%
31%
28%
18%
46%
4%
10%
32%
22%
31%
53%
9%
10%
33%
29%
19%
48%
8%
12%
28%
30%
22%
52%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
7%
11%
25%
40%
17%
57%
I would highly recommend this service.
8%
13%
29%
28%
21%
49%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
9%
8%
38%
33%
12%
44%
This service addressed all my needs.
8%
19%
34%
27%
12%
39%
7%
9%
26%
31%
26%
57%
13%
20%
29%
22%
16%
38%
11%
18%
26%
31%
15%
45%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
1%
3%
18%
33%
45%
78%
I would highly recommend this service.
5%
10%
22%
27%
35%
63%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
2%
11%
22%
30%
35%
65%
This service addressed all my needs.
5%
14%
25%
25%
30%
56%
3%
9%
24%
26%
39%
65%
5%
11%
25%
28%
32%
60%
4%
8%
19%
34%
34%
68%
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 161
Table G4: Ombudsman’s Office
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 95
Table G5: Speakeasy
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 161
25
Table G6: Tutoring
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
2%
5%
21%
34%
38%
73%
I would highly recommend this service.
2%
6%
21%
34%
37%
71%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
2%
8%
25%
39%
26%
64%
This service addressed all my needs.
5%
13%
31%
33%
17%
50%
1%
5%
18%
35%
41%
76%
3%
8%
29%
36%
24%
60%
3%
5%
23%
42%
27%
69%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
1%
2%
10%
25%
63%
88%
I would highly recommend this service.
1%
2%
7%
21%
69%
90%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
1%
2%
15%
23%
59%
82%
This service addressed all my needs.
3%
4%
15%
26%
53%
78%
2%
2%
7%
19%
70%
89%
2%
2%
16%
26%
55%
81%
1%
3%
8%
26%
62%
88%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
1%
1%
13%
41%
44%
85%
I would highly recommend this service.
0%
2%
11%
31%
56%
87%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
1%
1%
17%
39%
41%
80%
This service addressed all my needs.
2%
5%
22%
40%
30%
71%
1%
3%
25%
35%
36%
71%
3%
4%
34%
36%
24%
60%
1%
1%
17%
42%
40%
82%
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 782
Table G7: Safewalk
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 758
Table G8: Minischool
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 156
26
Table G9: Volunteer Connections
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
3%
5%
17%
39%
36%
75%
I would highly recommend this service.
1%
4%
20%
36%
40%
76%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
1%
3%
29%
35%
31%
67%
This service addressed all my needs.
2%
9%
32%
38%
19%
57%
2%
4%
21%
30%
44%
73%
2%
6%
36%
39%
18%
57%
3%
3%
22%
44%
29%
73%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
1%
3%
11%
35%
50%
85%
I would highly recommend this service.
1%
3%
12%
32%
52%
84%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
1%
3%
22%
32%
42%
75%
This service addressed all my needs.
2%
9%
27%
35%
26%
62%
1%
4%
15%
34%
45%
79%
2%
5%
34%
32%
26%
58%
1%
4%
18%
40%
36%
77%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The service is very easy to access.
6%
5%
33%
26%
30%
56%
I would highly recommend this service.
8%
5%
11%
17%
61%
77%
I felt very comfortable in the space
provided for this service.
3%
6%
27%
21%
42%
64%
This service addressed all my needs.
9%
5%
33%
17%
36%
53%
3%
3%
9%
23%
62%
85%
8%
8%
33%
27%
24%
52%
6%
3%
20%
21%
50%
71%
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 254
Table G10: Joblink
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 1219
Table G11: Sexual Assault Support centre
This service is highly important to
student life on campus.
I was very impressed with the AMS's
responsiveness with this service.
Overall, this service is excellent.
N= 66
27
H.
H.1
Food Services
Rating of Individual Food Services
Students were asked to select and rate a food facility with which they had experience.
Table H1 provides the breakdown of the facility choice the students rated. In the tables
that follow (Tables H2-H12) the individual food facility ratings are provided.
Table H1: Breakdown of food facilities that were rated by students
# of
Students
Rated Food Services
Bernoulli's Bagels
626
AMS Outdoor BBQ
347
Blue Chip Cookies
1530
The Pit Burger Bar
636
The Gallery Lounge
287
The Honour Roll
1115
The Moon
271
The Pendulum
791
Pie R Squared
933
The Pit Club
728
Snack Attack
304
N=7,568
Table H2: Bernoulli's Bagels
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The food served tastes good.
1%
1%
9%
44%
46%
89%
Enough menu options
1%
5%
19%
46%
29%
75%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
1%
5%
55%
25%
13%
38%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
2%
17%
47%
33%
80%
The food is fairly priced.
2%
12%
21%
42%
23%
65%
I get served quickly.
5%
12%
23%
41%
20%
61%
The environment is enjoyable.
1%
5%
33%
41%
20%
61%
Enough seats and tables
13%
24%
41%
15%
6%
21%
The hours are convenient.
3%
14%
26%
43%
15%
58%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
1%
3%
23%
49%
24%
73%
N= 626
28
Table H3: AMS Outdoor BBQ
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The food served tastes good.
1%
2%
22%
49%
27%
75%
Enough menu options
1%
14%
40%
33%
11%
45%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
3%
10%
49%
30%
9%
38%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
1%
23%
49%
26%
75%
The food is fairly priced.
3%
13%
26%
43%
15%
58%
I get served quickly.
2%
5%
27%
49%
17%
66%
The environment is enjoyable.
2%
3%
24%
45%
27%
71%
Enough seats and tables
4%
13%
37%
33%
13%
45%
The hours are convenient.
2%
7%
32%
45%
14%
59%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N=347
Table H4: Blue Chip Cookies
2%
3%
32%
44%
20%
64%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
2%
7%
43%
Strongly
Agree
48%
The food served tastes good.
Strongly
Disagree
0%
Top 2
91%
Enough menu options
1%
8%
24%
46%
21%
67%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
1%
8%
55%
25%
10%
35%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
3%
11%
52%
33%
85%
The food is fairly priced.
3%
11%
18%
44%
24%
68%
I get served quickly.
1%
3%
12%
50%
34%
83%
The environment is enjoyable.
1%
5%
21%
46%
28%
74%
Enough seats and tables
13%
25%
46%
11%
6%
16%
The hours are convenient.
2%
8%
22%
50%
19%
69%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N= 1,530
Table H5: The Pit Burger Bar
1%
2%
17%
52%
27%
80%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The food served tastes good.
0%
3%
10%
56%
31%
87%
Enough menu options
1%
8%
22%
49%
19%
69%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
2%
11%
53%
23%
12%
35%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
5%
20%
54%
20%
74%
The food is fairly priced.
3%
13%
25%
42%
18%
60%
I get served quickly.
6%
20%
28%
34%
13%
47%
The environment is enjoyable.
2%
12%
31%
39%
15%
54%
Enough seats and tables
6%
18%
27%
35%
13%
49%
The hours are convenient.
1%
7%
21%
52%
18%
70%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N= 636
1%
5%
27%
51%
16%
67%
29
Table H6: The Gallery Lounge
The food served tastes good.
Strongly
Disagree
2%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
6%
22%
56%
Strongly
Agree
14%
Top 2
70%
Enough menu options
3%
21%
30%
38%
8%
46%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
2%
14%
61%
19%
4%
23%
The service is friendly and courteous.
2%
6%
17%
48%
26%
75%
The food is fairly priced.
2%
15%
22%
45%
16%
61%
I get served quickly.
2%
11%
24%
48%
14%
62%
The environment is enjoyable.
1%
6%
14%
46%
34%
80%
Enough seats and tables
5%
26%
21%
40%
8%
48%
The hours are convenient.
4%
11%
18%
50%
18%
68%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N=287
Table H7: The Honour Roll
2%
9%
30%
45%
14%
59%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
3%
16%
54%
Strongly
Agree
26%
The food served tastes good.
Strongly
Disagree
1%
Top 2
80%
Enough menu options
1%
10%
23%
48%
18%
66%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
2%
6%
56%
28%
8%
36%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
4%
19%
59%
18%
76%
The food is fairly priced.
4%
13%
19%
45%
19%
64%
I get served quickly.
1%
6%
16%
49%
28%
77%
The environment is enjoyable.
2%
9%
33%
42%
14%
56%
Enough seats and tables
15%
35%
25%
21%
5%
26%
The hours are convenient.
3%
14%
25%
47%
11%
58%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N= 1,115
Table H8: The Moon
1%
5%
26%
53%
16%
68%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The food served tastes good.
8%
10%
20%
46%
15%
62%
Enough menu options
7%
15%
25%
42%
10%
52%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
5%
13%
57%
21%
4%
25%
The service is friendly and courteous.
3%
8%
30%
46%
14%
60%
The food is fairly priced.
8%
15%
22%
38%
16%
55%
I get served quickly.
2%
3%
14%
53%
28%
81%
The environment is enjoyable.
4%
12%
41%
35%
8%
43%
Enough seats and tables
14%
27%
33%
20%
6%
26%
The hours are convenient.
3%
11%
28%
48%
10%
58%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N= 271
6%
13%
31%
40%
11%
51%
30
Table H9: The Pendulum
The food served tastes good.
Strongly
Disagree
1%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
3%
8%
51%
Strongly
Agree
37%
Top 2
89%
Enough menu options
0%
6%
9%
46%
38%
85%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
1%
4%
36%
30%
29%
60%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
1%
10%
52%
35%
87%
The food is fairly priced.
1%
10%
18%
45%
26%
71%
I get served quickly.
4%
13%
24%
42%
17%
59%
The environment is enjoyable.
0%
3%
11%
50%
36%
86%
Enough seats and tables
6%
29%
20%
33%
13%
46%
The hours are convenient.
1%
8%
21%
54%
17%
71%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N=791
Table H10: Pie R Squared
1%
4%
17%
50%
29%
79%
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
2%
7%
45%
Strongly
Agree
45%
The food served tastes good.
Strongly
Disagree
1%
Top 2
90%
Enough menu options
1%
12%
20%
43%
23%
67%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
2%
13%
49%
23%
12%
35%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
3%
15%
54%
27%
81%
The food is fairly priced.
8%
17%
21%
35%
19%
54%
I get served quickly.
0%
3%
8%
49%
41%
90%
The environment is enjoyable.
3%
10%
26%
38%
22%
61%
Enough seats and tables
14%
41%
21%
18%
6%
24%
The hours are convenient.
1%
4%
14%
48%
33%
81%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N=933
Table H11: The Pit Club
1%
4%
20%
50%
24%
74%
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The food served tastes good.
1%
4%
26%
57%
12%
69%
Enough menu options
2%
15%
32%
43%
8%
51%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
2%
17%
60%
17%
4%
21%
The service is friendly and courteous.
2%
5%
22%
54%
16%
70%
The food is fairly priced.
1%
12%
26%
49%
11%
61%
I get served quickly.
4%
11%
31%
46%
8%
54%
The environment is enjoyable.
3%
6%
17%
52%
21%
74%
Enough seats and tables
2%
12%
22%
48%
16%
64%
The hours are convenient.
0%
3%
19%
58%
19%
77%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N= 728
2%
8%
32%
48%
10%
58%
31
Table H12: Snack Attack
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
The food served tastes good.
0%
1%
26%
43%
29%
72%
Enough menu options
1%
4%
33%
45%
18%
63%
Diets/allergies easily accommodated.
1%
6%
51%
30%
13%
43%
The service is friendly and courteous.
1%
5%
36%
42%
16%
59%
The food is fairly priced.
3%
12%
33%
40%
11%
51%
I get served quickly.
3%
11%
35%
37%
15%
52%
The environment is enjoyable.
1%
7%
37%
42%
13%
55%
Enough seats and tables
7%
18%
48%
21%
6%
27%
The hours are convenient.
1%
9%
33%
46%
11%
57%
Overall, this food facility is excellent
N= 304
1%
2%
38%
43%
17%
60%
32
I.
I.1
Voting in the AMS Election
Recent Voting, Motivation and Incentives
The breakdown of the response to whether students votes in the last AMS election is
provided in Table I1.
Table I1: Recent Voting in AMS Election
All
Students
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
Grad
(n=918)
(n=1120
(n=1531)
(2170)
(1503)
No
63%
64%
58%
57%
58%
73%
Yes
37%
36%
42%
43%
42%
27%
When asked to rate the reasons that would motivate them to vote, students provided the
following responses (see Table I2).
Table I2: Reasons that would motivate voting
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Top 2
Issue(s) related to AMS businesses
1%
7%
31%
45%
15%
60%
Issue(s) related to an AMS Service
An issue related to AMS Student
representation
Issue(s) related to AMS facilities, club
resources or events
Prizes or incentives would induce me to vote
1%
6%
30%
46%
15%
62%
2%
8%
36%
39%
16%
55%
2%
8%
36%
41%
13%
54%
6%
12%
29%
35%
19%
53%
I always vote in elections regardless of focus
There is nothing that will motivate me to
vote in an AMS election
N= 7,568
9%
29%
36%
17%
8%
25%
24%
34%
29%
10%
3%
13%
Table I3: Reasons for not voting
Reasons
%
Didn't know enough about candidates
31%
Not interesting
Didn't know about election
11%
11%
Felt no affinity to candidates or their campaigns
11%
Didn't know about issues
I wasn't enrolled at election time
8%
7%
Felt no affinity to AMS
Don't feel like it's worth it
7%
3%
My vote doesn't make a difference
1%
Did not respond
N=7,568
11%
33
J.
J.1
Communications Channels and Preferences
Receiving Information, Channel Preferences and Interests
Table J1: Ways students currently receive information
Methods
%
E-mail
66%
Word of mouth
UBC website
62%
53%
Flyers/posters
Campus newspapers
46%
38%
AMS website
17%
Direct mail
Attending meetings
7%
4%
Campus radio (CITR)
UBC TV
N=7,568
2%
1%
Table J2: Preferred channels
Channels
Flyers/posters
52%
Word of mouth
Monthly e-mail
52%
48%
Weekly e-mail
Printed newsletter
33%
24%
Newspaper ads/announcements
24%
Blogs
Direct mail
11%
10%
Closed circuit TVs
Attending meetings
N=7,568
4%
3%
%
Table J3: Information that students want to learn more about
Kinds of information
%
Social Events
Academic Events
59%
55%
University services
UBC campus news
42%
36%
AMS services
31%
Campus planning
How university policies and decisions are made
29%
27%
Lobbying initiatives
Business promotions
20%
15%
I am not interested in receiving any information
13%
34
K.
K.1
Supplementary Questions
Opinions on Various AMS Initiatives
Students were given the option of continuing with a further series of questions on various
AMS initiatives. 2,805 students elected to provide their opinion on a number of issues. The
results are compiled in Tables K1 – K8 (n = 2,805).
Table K1: How likely would you be to support AMS in the following initiatives?
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Disagree
Agree
Developing services supporting academic
1%
2%
11%
41%
46%
success
Developing services supporting student social
1%
4%
17%
42%
35%
life & recreation
Developing businesses responding to the
2%
5%
16%
48%
28%
consumer needs of students
Raising money to expand student facilities
2%
5%
20%
41%
32%
Providing space, resources, and supports for
diverse & self-determined student
2%
5%
21%
43%
29%
groups/clubs to provide benefits to their
members
Conducting small scale lobbying with
government and university officials to push
3%
7%
22%
42%
26%
for favourable policy changes
Organizing large scale "protests" to confront
Government/ University Admin and gain
10%
15%
26%
29%
20%
media coverage
Top 2
87%
77%
76%
73%
72%
67%
49%
Table K2: If the AMS were to create one (or more) of the following feedback mechanisms for
the purposes of finding out how to better use student money to benefit students, how willing
would you be to participate and share your ideas?
Somewhat
Unwilling
Willing
willing
Student Assembly (diverse student body
assembled once or twice per term to discuss
32.4%
44.8%
22.8%
large social, academic & environmental
issues)
Town Hall Gatherings
43.0%
43.4%
13.6%
Small Focus groups
30.1%
45.3%
24.6%
Individual interviews/surveys
16.6%
43.3%
40.0%
Web-based feedback mechanisms
4.2%
32.0%
63.8%
Table K3: Do you have concerns about the quality of education that should be addressed by
AMS?
No
48%
Yes
52%
35
Table K4: What do you believe is the most effective way for the AMS to address student
concerns around the quality of Education?
1: Very
Ineffective
2
3
4
5: Very
Effective
Top 2
Lobby the University.
2%
2%
11%
35%
50%
85%
Lobby the government.
Invest in independent research on
education policy.
Stage large protests, sit ins, etc.
The AMS should not be spending their
time/our money on this.
6%
9%
24%
34%
26%
61%
7%
14%
26%
32%
21%
53%
13%
18%
27%
23%
18%
42%
43%
16%
29%
8%
4%
12%
Table K5: What do you believe is the most effective way for the AMS to address student
concerns around the cost/affordability of education?
Lobby the government to freeze/reduce
tuition.
Lobby the university to freeze/reduce
tuition.
Lobby the government to increase financial
assistance/grant monies.
Lobby the university to increase financial
assistance/grant monies.
Lobby government to make changes to
student loan policies.
Lobby government to increase core funding
to universities.
Create services/businesses to
increase/improve student employment
opportunities.
The AMS should not be spending their
time/our money on this.
1: Very
Ineffective
2
3
4
5: Very
Effective
Top 2
5%
7%
13%
30%
46%
76%
5%
7%
14%
30%
45%
74%
2%
5%
14%
31%
49%
79%
2%
5%
14%
31%
47%
78%
3%
6%
20%
30%
41%
71%
1%
5%
14%
31%
48%
80%
4%
10%
19%
31%
36%
67%
55%
15%
19%
6%
5%
11%
Table K6: Do you approach education as leading to personal growth or to qualification for
employment?
Approach to education
%
Half personal/Half employment qualification
46%
Mainly personal, but some degree of employment
qualification
24%
Mainly for employment qualification, but some personal
growt
Completely for personal growth
21%
Completely as an employment qualification
2%
Did not respond
2%
5%
36
Table K7: The government share of post-secondary education funding has decreased and is not
expected to increase. How important are the following as strategies to replace this lost
funding?
Strategies
Seeking donors.
Gradual, predictable tuition increases that
protect students with comparatively lower
financial resources.
Partnerships with the private sector.
Generating endowment revenues through
development of market housing on
University-owned land.
Unimportant
Not very
important
Somewhat
important
Very
important
Top 2
2%
9%
43%
46%
89%
4%
11%
43%
42%
85%
11%
20%
45%
25%
69%
15%
22%
40%
24%
63%
Table K8: Please rate the importance of the following areas where the university can direct
funding and resources.
Unimportant
Would like
to see, but
not
essential
Important
but other
areas come
first
Needs to be
addressed
urgently
4%
18%
36%
42%
9%
22%
32%
37%
Faculty recruitment and development
2%
13%
50%
34%
Repairing and maintaining facilities
3%
18%
48%
30%
Student services
2%
17%
52%
29%
Improving communications mechanisms
7%
32%
44%
16%
Orientation for new students
18%
38%
34%
10%
Funding Initiatives
Post-graduate transitions (career
development)
Reducing class sizes
37
Appendix A
What is the Customer Relationship Index?
Introduction
The Customer Relationship Index provides a powerful suite of tools that can help an organization
understand how to strengthen relationships with one or more of its clients, members or segments.
In a CRi survey, respondents are asked to rate their level of agreement (Strongly Agree to Strongly
Disagree) with a series of statements. Each statement describes a factor or touch point that might
influence the respondent’s satisfaction (e.g., “Graduating from the university will help me find a
job”).
The score for each touch point reflects perceptions of how well the organization is satisfying
expectations around that particular factor. The responses for all the touch points are analyzed
statistically to determine which touch points are directly tied or correlated to overall student
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The higher the correlation, the higher the impact on satisfaction. We
refer to the correlation as The Impact Index.
The overall CRi score is derived from the individual Impact Indices of all the different touch points.
Un iver sit y Rep u t at io n
TOUCH POINT #1
TOUCH POINT #2
TOUCH POINT #3
TOUCH POINT #4
TOUCH POINT #5
Acad em ic Pr o g r am s
TOUCH POINT #6
TOUCH POINT #7
TOUCH POINT #8
CRi
TOUCH POINT #9
Web Sit e
TOUCH POINT #10
TOUCH POINT #11
TOUCH POINT #12
TOUCH POINT #13
TOUCH POINT #14
38
By evaluating the individual touch point correlations CRi can reveal where an organization
needs to direct its attention and identify an Action Agenda. CRi identifies the factors that
“drive” customer satisfaction around an operational process (e.g. delivery of services,
etc.). Students’ perceptions of their satisfaction with your performance on each of the
identified drivers are revealed by their answers on the CRi study.
A factor that has a high Impact on overall satisfaction but where your performance is
perceived as poor is a top priority for action. Conversely, a factor with a low Impact on
overall satisfaction where your performance is perceived as high is a low priority for
action.
BUILDING THE ACTION AGENDA
Perceived
Sa tisfa ction
University Rep uta tion
Hig h Im p a c t Touc h Point #2
Hig h Sa tisfa c tion
Hig h Im p a c t Touc h Point #3
Hig h Sa tisfa c tion
Hig h Im p a c t Touc h Point #5
Low Sa tisfa c tion
Hig h Im p a c t Touc h Point #8
Hig h Sa tisfa c tion
BEST
PRACTICES
Ac a d em ic Prog ra m s
PRIORITY
ACTION
Web Site
Hig h Im p a c t Touc h Point #12
Low Sa tisfa c tion
Hig h Im p a c t Touc h Point #14
Low Sa tisfa c tion
Most organizations are aware that they can improve their operational processes. CRi is
structured to help an organization get beyond the debate on where to begin to improve a
process. CRi shows the organization the prioritized concrete remedial actions based on
input from the affected customers that could have significant impact on customer
satisfaction.
39
Appendix B
Survey Design & Administration
Survey Administration
Survey Name
The Alma Mater Society Survey of Students 2006
Data Collection
Invitations were sent out May 10, 2006
Reminders sent on May 23, 2006.
Survey was closed May 29, 2006
Target Population Description
All UBC students
Target Population Size
Total:
Total Number of Reponses Collected
Total: 7,568





The invitation to the complete survey was conducted via e-mail by UBC and was
sent to all students.
Responses were provided by completing an online survey. The Web survey was
protected by a unique password provided to survey participants.
Response rates were monitored to ensure that statistically adequate sample sizes
were achieved.
The invitation to complete the Internet-based survey was fielded to the _____ UBC
students with e-mail addresses. Invitations were sent out May 10, 2006 with
reminders sent out May 23rd.
This overall sample is statistically significant and produces an error range of +/1.04% at a 95% confidence level.
40
Appendix C
Statistical Significance
CRi Sample Size and Reliability Criteria
Standard reliability is generally acceptable with a “confidence level” of 95%, meaning that 19
times out of 20 the results will hold true (within the degree of error determined by the sample size
and the population).
CRi sample size and error ranges are designed to address results that are split 50/50 (i.e. half say
white, half say black). This is the level at which there is the most probability variation in the
population, versus a sample where opinion is more clearly distributed, (e.g. 80% say white and 20%
say black).
Optimal sample sizes depend on the size of the population. However, for small surveys, it is usually
a minimum of 100 responses with a preferred size of 400. Larger surveys or public polling require
responses in the thousands in order to narrow the range of error and raise the confidence level.
41