If there is one thing that our government could most usefully learn from Uber, it would not be how to magically connect service providers (drivers) and customers (passengers) via an app, but rather, the use of a built-in rating feature that gives incentives to service providers to always work in customers’ best interests – even when supervision is minimal.
The way Uber’s ratings work is pretty straightforward. Every time a customer completes a trip, the app will ask her to give a candid assessment of the driver, on a scale of one to five – one being the worst and five being the best. Ratings are reported as averages, and drivers cannot see individual ratings left for particular trips.
A passenger whose pick-up request is accepted can see the prospective driver’s rating before she gets in the vehicle, but more importantly, Uber management can easily monitor a driver’s performance. Drivers need to maintain a minimum rating of 4.5 to keep their account in good standing; those whose rating is below that threshold may be warned, or even delisted. It’s no wonder some Uber drivers go the extra mile, offering bottled water or phone chargers, for example, to boost passenger satisfaction.
Now, think of places or activities where the government acts as a service provider: community health centers, markets, passport application process and driver’s license renewal, to name a few. They all entail non-trivial matters for citizens whose interests, however small, are at stake. With close and continuous supervision from the top, public servants are likely to deliver well. Unfortunately, such controls are costly and, therefore, might not always be possible. Maybe it is time for the government to try something different – like Uber-rescue ratings for public services.
Let’s take driver’s license renewal services in Jakarta for example. The authority – the police – has made it easier for people to renew their soon-to-expire driver’s license by opening more police stations that offer the service. To access the service, people simply need to go to the nearest station at their convenience. Once, however, I got my driver’s license settled in a mall, and it was a better experience, at least without the smoky waiting room typical of government buildings. Whether or not public servants at police stations work to the expected level, however, is worth assessing.
To ensure that station officers work in the people’s best interest, their director at the police department needs to carry out close supervision. Exhaustive monitoring might be effective but it would be too expensive. Imagine installing extra CCTV cameras or deploying additional supervisors at every station. Regardless, there would no guarantee that supervisors would not slip up in their own standards and behavior.
Ratings, on the other hand, incur less cost and are potentially more effective. The police force only needs to provide an app or website where people can rate the quality of service they received at a station immediately after accessing the service. The ratings will distinguish between well-performing and under-performing stations. As quality control, a senior director should review the ratings on a regular basis. Station officers would be notified if their rating fell below a pre-determined acceptable level. If a bad performance seemed to be an ongoing issue, corrective action could be taken.
Ratings, as illustrated above, are applicable not only to driver’s license services in Jakarta but also to other government-run services regularly accessed by the public. This approach, however, has limitations. If the upper echelons within the relevant institution do not care about people's satisfaction, then the rating would not be an effective tool for overcoming poor services. Uber’s rating system is only effective because its top management takes it very seriously.
The current administration has in fact taken a similar approach through LAPOR at the national level, or Qlue in Jakarta province. These two systems enable people to file complaints via the system websites or mobile applications. But such mechanisms are prone to biased assessments. People on the margins – who are neither fully satisfied nor extremely disgruntled by a service – are unlikely to take the time to put a rating in. Furthermore, those who are satisfied may not report their positive experience. With this in mind, there is a risk of assessments being based on just on a vocal few, and the rating system ending up similar to what already happens.
The idea is to put transparency and accountability in place by publishing public ratings for particular public services. People would find it super easy to give feedback – it would be just a click away. Public servants would consider it rewarding (or worrying) as their professionalism (or lack of it) would be immediately recognized by customers and subsequently management. With this added information equilibrium, public services could be better taken care of.
Uber provides an opportunity for idle drivers and hopeful passengers to make a mutually beneficial arrangement. At the same time, it also gives our government the chance to learn from its nontraditional approach – in this case, ratings. Maybe it’s time for our government to take (or at least, try) such an approach.
oleh: Aichiro Suryo Prabowo
disadur dari The Jakarta Post, Senin, 16 Mei 2016
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar