File: 35a96602-b15d-4c07-abe3-d384cb2c60d1.xls Sheet: Council
Evaluation of New Street Name Sign
Analysis of Stakeholder Survey (Sydney Metro Councils)
Question
1 - Position 2 - Familiarity 3 - Info Sufficiency 4 - Wedge Symbol 5 - Major St Name at I'sect 6 - Suburb Name 7 - Effectiveness 8 - Hse No./Location on St
Team Leader
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
No Indication
Very Unclear
Branch Man/
Quite Useful
Very Useful
Div Manger
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
/Dept Head
Quite Clear
Necessary
Necessary
Somewhat
Very Clear
Not Useful
Not Assist
Confusing
Indication
Indication
GM/CEO
Excellent
Option C
Option A
Option B
Organisation
Unclear
Greatly
Slightly
Puzzle
Assist
Assist
Some
Other
Quite
Quite
Very
Very
Yes
No
Leichhardt 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
Penrith 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Rockdale 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
Sutherland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1
Hornsby 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
Marrickville 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Drummoyne 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Concord 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Strathfield 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Hurstville 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Holroyd 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
South Sydney 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
Ashfield 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
Parramatta 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Woolahra 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Bankstown 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
Waringah 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
City of Sydney 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1
Fairfield City 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Kogarah 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1
Hunters Hill Municipal 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
North Sydney 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Ryde 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Burwood 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1
Willoughby 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
City of Botany Bay 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Total Number of Responses 0 4 13 10 16 11 3 0 0 15 9 2 10 0 12 3 3 5 4 12 3 8 12 0 3 4 Ranking 10 14 0 2 1
Percentage of Responses 0% 15% 48% 37% 59% 41% 11% 0% 0% 56% 33% 7% 37% 0% 44% 11% 11% 19% 15% 44% 11% 30% 44% 0% 11% 15% 3 1 2 37% 52% 0% 7% 4%
Number of 1's 3 14 11
Percentage of 1's 11% 52% 41%
Number of 2's 13 11 9
Percentage of 2's 48% 41% 33%
Number of 3's 11 2 7
Percentage of 3's 41% 7% 26%
Pt Score 62 42 50
%LPS 230% 156% 185%
3 - Info Sufficiency 4 - Wedge Symbol 5 - Major St Name at I'sect
Quite Unnecessary 6 - Suburb Name 8 - Hse No./Location on St
Very Unnecessary
Somewhat Assist
Quite Necessary
Some Indication
Very Necessary
Slightly Unclear
Greatly Assist
Unnecessary
No Indication
Very Unclear
Quite Useful
Very Useful
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Quite Clear
Very Clear
Not Useful
Not Assist
Confusing
Indication
Excellent
Puzzle
3 0 0 15 9 2 10 0 12 3 3 5 4 12 3 8 12 0 3 4 10 14 0 2 1
Percent of Responses, R 11% 0% 0% 56% 33% 7% 37% 0% 44% 11% 11% 19% 15% 44% 11% 30% 44% 0% 11% 15% 37% 52% 0% 7% 4%
Feeling of Intensity Points, P -2 -1 0 1 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 2 1 0 -1 -2
Importance Weighting, W 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Score, R*P*W -4.4 0.0 0.0 11.1 13.3 3.0 7.4 0.0 -8.9 -4.4 -4.4 -3.7 0.0 8.9 4.4 11.9 8.9 0.0 -2.2 -5.9 14.8 10.4 0.0 -1.5 -1.5
Score for Question 20.0 -3.0 5.2 12.6 22.2
Total Score, T 57.0
Max Possible Score, M 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
T/M 29%
Q +ve/-ve 800% 80% 188% 286% 800%
Q Score/Max Score 50% -7% 13% 31% 56%
12/2/2011 Page 1 of 3 11:20 AM
File: 35a96602-b15d-4c07-abe3-d384cb2c60d1.xls Sheet: Other
Evaluation of New Street Name Sign
Analysis of Stakeholder Survey (Emergency Service Providers)
Question
1 - Position 2 - Familiarity 3 - Info Sufficiency 4 - Wedge Symbol 5 - Major St Name at I'sect 6 - Suburb Name 7 - Effectiveness 8 - Hse No./Location on St
Team Leader
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
No Indication
Very Unclear
Branch Man/
Quite Useful
Very Useful
Div Manger
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Quite Clear
/Dept Head
Somewhat
Very Clear
Necessary
Necessary
Not Useful
Confusing
Not Assist
Indication
Indication
Excellent
GM/CEO
Option C
Option A
Option B
Unclear
Organisation
Slightly
Greatly
Puzzle
Assist
Assist
Some
Other
Quite
Quite
Very
Very
Yes
No
Hornsby SES - Operations 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
St John Ambulance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1
Hornsby Rural Fire Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
NSW Police-Distr. Emerg. Operations 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
State Rail Authority 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1
Sydney Water 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Sydney Ports Corporation 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1
NSW Fire Brigades 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1
Dept of Community Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Hornsby SES - Controller 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1
State Rail Authority 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
SES Department Controller 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
NSW Police 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Ku-ring-gai Police 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
Ambulance Service NSW 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
Hby/K'gai LEMC 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
Ambulance Service of NSW 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1
Hornsby Shire 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1
SES Sydney Northern Div 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2
1
Total Number of Responses 1 6 6 4 13 7 1 2 0 10 7 6 5 0 9 0 0 5 0 10 5 12 7 0 0 1 Ranking 10 9 0 0 1
Percentage of Responses 6% 35% 35% 24% 65% 35% 5% 10% 0% 50% 35% 30% 25% 0% 45% 0% 0% 25% 0% 50% 25% 60% 35% 0% 0% 5% 2 1 2 50% 45% 0% 0% 5%
Number of 1's 5 12 3
Percentage of 1's 25% 60% 15%
Number of 2's 9 5 13
Percentage of 2's 45% 25% 65%
Number of 3's 6 3 4
Percentage of 3's 30% 15% 20%
Pt Score 41 31 41
%LPS 205% 155% 205%
3 - Info Sufficiency 4 - Wedge Symbol 5 - Major St Name at I'sect 6 - Suburb Name 8 - Hse No./Location on St
Quite Unnecessary
Very Unnecessary
Somewhat Assist
Quite Necessary
Some Indication
Very Necessary
Slightly Unclear
Greatly Assist
Unnecessary
No Indication
Very Unclear
Quite Useful
Very Useful
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Quite Clear
Very Clear
Not Useful
Confusing
Not Assist
Indication
Excellent
Puzzle
1 2 0 10 7 6 5 0 9 0 0 5 0 10 5 12 7 0 0 1 10 9 0 0 1
Percent of Responses, R 5% 10% 0% 50% 35% 30% 25% 0% 45% 0% 0% 25% 0% 50% 25% 60% 35% 0% 0% 5% 50% 45% 0% 0% 5%
Feeling of Intensity Points, P -2 -1 0 1 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 2 1 0 -1 -2
Importance Weighting, W 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Score, R*P*W -2.0 -2.0 0.0 10.0 14.0 12.0 5.0 0.0 -9.0 0.0 0.0 -5.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 24.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0 20.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0
Score for Question 20.0 8.0 15.0 29.0 27.0
Total Score, T 99.0
Max Possible Score, M 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
T/M 50%
Q +ve/-ve 567% 122% 300% 1900% 1900%
Q Score/Max Score 50% 20% 38% 73% 68%
12/2/2011 Page 2 of 3 11:20 AM
H:\ASSETS\EXCEL\LE\35a96602-b15d-4c07-abe3-d384cb2c60d1.xls Sheet: Combined
Evaluation of New Street Name Sign
Analysis of Stakeholder Survey
Question
1 - Position 2 - Familiarity 3 - Info Sufficiency 4 - Wedge Symbol 5 - Major St Name at I'sect 6 - Suburb Name 7 - Effectiveness 8 - Hse No./Location on St
No Indication
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
Very Unclear
Branch Man/
Quite Useful
Very Useful
Div Manger
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Quite Clear
/Dept Head
Necessary
Necessary
Very Clear
Somewhat
Not Useful
Not Assist
Confusing
Indication
Indication
Excellent
GM/CEO
Option C
Option A
Option B
Organisation
Unclear
Slightly
Greatly
Puzzle
Assist
Assist
Some
Team
Other
Quite
Quite
Very
Very
Yes
No
Council 4 13 10 16 11 3 15 9 2 10 12 3 3 5 4 12 3 8 12 3 4 3 1 2 10 14 2 1
Other 1 6 6 4 13 7 1 2 10 7 6 5 9 5 10 5 12 7 1 2 1 2 10 9 1
Total Number of Responses 1 10 19 14 29 18 4 2 0 25 16 8 15 0 21 3 3 10 4 22 8 20 19 0 3 5 Ranking 20 23 0 2 2
Working row to be hidden 5 2 4
Percentage of Responses 2% 23% 43% 32% 62% 38% 9% 4% 0% 53% 34% 17% 32% 0% 45% 6% 6% 21% 9% 47% 17% 48% 45% 0% 7% 12% 3 1 2 43% 49% 0% 4% 4%
Number of 1's 8 26 14
Percentage of 1's 17% 55% 30%
Total Resp Sydney Metro 27 69% 27 69% 27 69% 27 69% 27 69% 27 69% Number of 2's 22 16 22 27 69%
Total Others 17 37% 20 43% 20 43% 20 43% 20 43% 20 43% Percent of 2's 47% 34% 47% 20 43%
Total Stakeholders 44 52% 47 55% 47 55% 47 55% 47 55% 47 55% Number of 3's 17 5 11 47 55%
Percentage of 3's 36% 11% 23%
Pt Score 103 73 91
%LPS 219% 155% 194%
Council
2 - Familiarity 3 - Info Sufficiency 4 - Wedge Symbol 5 - Major St Name at I'sect 6 - Suburb Name 8 - Hse No./Location on St 7 - Effectivene
Very Unnecessary
Somewhat Assist
Quite Necessary
Some Indication
Very Necessary
Slightly Unclear
Greatly Assist
No Indication
Unnecessary
Unnecessary
Very Unclear
Quite Useful
Very Useful
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Don't Know
Quite Clear
Very Clear
Not Useful
Not Assist
Confusing
Indication
Excellent
Puzzle
Quite
Yes
No
Council 59% 41% 11% 0% 0% 56% 33% 7% 37% 0% 44% 11% 11% 19% 15% 44% 11% 30% 44% 0% 11% 15% 37% 52% 0% 7% 4%Percentage of 1's
Other 65% 35% 5% 10% 0% 50% 35% 30% 25% 0% 45% 0% 0% 25% 0% 50% 25% 60% 35% 0% 0% 5% 50% 45% 0% 0% 5% Percent of 2's
Combined 62% 38% 9% 4% 0% 53% 34% 17% 32% 0% 45% 6% 6% 21% 9% 47% 17% 43% 40% 0% 6% 11% 43% 49% 0% 4% 4%Percentage of 3's
Residents 12% 88% 7% 2% 2% 33% 56% 36% 40% 0% 15% 8% 2% 8% 3% 38% 50% 71% 26% 0% 3% 4% 86% 8% 1% 1% 3% Number of 1's
4 2 0 25 16 8 15 0 21 3 3 10 4 22 8 20 19 0 3 5 20 23 0 2 2 Number of 2's
Percent of Responses, R 9% 4% 0% 53% 34% 17% 32% 0% 45% 6% 6% 21% 9% 47% 17% 43% 40% 0% 6% 11% 43% 49% 0% 4% 4% Number of 3's
Feeling of Intensity Points, P -2 -1 0 1 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2 2 1 0 -1 -2 2 1 0 -1 -2
Importance Weighting, W 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Score, R*P*W -3.4 -0.9 0.0 10.6 13.6 6.8 6.4 0.0 -8.9 -2.6 -2.6 -4.3 0.0 9.4 6.8 17.0 8.1 0.0 -1.3 -4.3 17.0 9.8 0.0 -0.9 -1.7
Score for Question 20.0 1.7 9.4 19.6 24.3
Total Score, T 74.9
Max Possible Score, M 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0
T/M 37%
Q +ve/-ve 683% 96% 231% 488% 1075%
Q Score/Max Score 50% 4% 23% 49% 61%
12/2/2011 Page 3 of 3 11:20 AM