The Parkway Hotel invited its customers to do a questionnaire in order to investigate their appreciation of the customer service. The same survey was given twice, once in 2005 and again in 2010, with a sample of 100 people.
The questionnaire relative to the year 2005 doesn't show outstanding results. In fact, the percentages regarding the Excellent and Good categories are quite low, respectively 5% and 14%; on the contrary the slices on the piechart which represent the ratings of Poor and Very Poor customer service are bigger, with a 21% for Poor and a 15% for Very Poor. However, the most common answer in 2005 was Satisfactory, with a 45%. This means that the overall performance of the hotel in terms of customer service was neither excellent nor disastrous.
The second survey was given in 2010, five years later. By comparing the two charts, it's possible to witness a significant improvement in the hotel's customer service and thus in customers' appreciation. In fact, in the second chart the most common ratings are Excellent, that almost increased six times if compared to 2005, and Good, whose percentage is over two times big. The negative responses reduced in quantities: the Satisfactory category appears much smaller and the slices relative to Poor and Very Poor ratings also show to be narrower.
In conlusion, we can say that the questionnaire served well its purpose. The hotel invited its customer to fill the survey in order to have a clearer insight on its performances in terms of customer service. After obtaining disappointing results, the hotel most likely tried to improve and its efforts and thei result are clearly visible from the responses to the questionnaire in 2010.
The Parkway
Hotel
invited its
customers
to do a
questionnaire
in order to investigate their appreciation of the
customer
service
. The same survey was
given
twice, once in 2005 and again in 2010, with a sample of 100
people
.
The
questionnaire
relative to the year 2005 doesn't
show
outstanding results. In fact, the percentages regarding the Excellent and
Good
categories are quite low,
respectively
5% and 14%;
on the contrary
the slices on the
piechart
which represent the ratings of
Poor
and
Very
Poor
customer
service
are bigger, with a 21% for
Poor
and a 15% for
Very
Poor
.
However
, the most common answer in 2005 was Satisfactory, with a 45%. This means that the
overall
performance of the
hotel
in terms of
customer
service
was neither excellent nor disastrous.
The second survey was
given
in 2010, five years later. By comparing the two charts, it's possible to witness a significant improvement in the hotel's
customer
service
and
thus
in customers' appreciation. In fact, in the second chart the most common ratings are Excellent, that almost increased six times if compared to 2005, and
Good
, whose percentage is over two times
big
. The
negative
responses
reduced
in quantities: the Satisfactory category appears much smaller and the slices relative to
Poor
and
Very
Poor
ratings
also
show
to be narrower.
In
conlusion
, we can say that the
questionnaire
served well its purpose. The
hotel
invited its
customer
to fill the survey in order to have a clearer insight on its performances in terms of
customer
service
. After obtaining disappointing results, the
hotel
most likely tried to
improve
and its efforts and
thei
result are
clearly
visible from the responses to the
questionnaire
in 2010.