Identifying an issue through resident feedback is an important first step. The next challenge is understanding what is driving it and deciding what, if anything, needs to change.
For Local Authorities, NHT Survey results can provide valuable evidence of how residents perceive highways and transport services, where satisfaction is lower and which issues matter most to the public. Benchmarking adds further context by allowing authorities to examine trends, compare results with other authorities and investigate differences in performance.
But evidence alone does not determine the right course of action. The real value comes from considering resident feedback alongside operational, financial and asset information to help inform decisions about service delivery, investment and improvement.
So, how can Local Authorities put benchmarking insight into practice?
From benchmarking insight to service decisions
Once an authority has identified a priority, the evidence can help inform different types of decision. The appropriate response will depend on the issue, the wider evidence available and the authority’s local circumstances.
Service design
Feedback may indicate that a service does not fully meet residents’ needs, or that aspects of their experience are causing frustration. Further investigation can help authorities understand where processes, service delivery or customer journeys could be improved.
Communication
An authority may be delivering work but residents may not fully understand what is happening, why particular decisions have been made or when work is expected to be completed.
Survey findings can help identify where communication warrants further attention. Authorities can then examine their existing communications and consider whether clearer information, more consistent updates or better signposting would help residents understand the services being delivered.
Investment
Survey and benchmarking evidence can help support an investment case by showing what residents consider important, where satisfaction is lower and how results compare with other authorities.
These findings should be considered alongside asset condition, operational requirements, statutory responsibilities, available funding and other relevant evidence. Together, they can help authorities build a more rounded picture when assessing priorities and investment options.
Policy development
Resident insight can inform the development and review of highways strategies, local transport plans, active-travel programmes and public transport priorities.
Survey results provide a perspective on what residents value and how they perceive existing services. When considered alongside local needs, policy objectives and other evidence, they can help authorities understand where priorities may need further consideration.
Performance management
Authorities can use survey findings to identify customer-focused priorities and monitor changes in public perception over time.
Where authorities also use the NHT Performance Management Framework (PMF), resident insight can be considered alongside operational performance measures to build a broader picture of service delivery. This helps distinguish between how a service is performing operationally and how residents experience it.
A practical example: roadworks communication
Imagine an authority finds that residents are dissatisfied with how they are kept informed about road repairs and planned works. Its wider operational data does not immediately explain the level of dissatisfaction.
The authority could review the relevant NHT Survey results, examine changes over time and compare its results with those of other authorities. This would provide a starting point for investigating what residents are experiencing and whether communication could be improved.
Further investigation might include:
- The timing and clarity of advance notices
- On-site signage and information
- Website information about planned and ongoing works
- Updates when programmes or completion dates change
- Communication with businesses and affected communities
- Coordination and communication around utility works and council schemes
- How enquiries and complaints are handled
The authority could also speak to other councils whose results suggest that residents are more satisfied with this aspect of service delivery, to understand how they approach communication and share good practice.
The resulting improvement plan might focus on clearer communications, more consistent processes or better coordination, rather than requiring a major increase in capital expenditure.
The authority could then review subsequent survey results alongside complaints, operational information and other relevant evidence to assess whether residents’ experience appears to have changed.
This is a hypothetical example, but it illustrates an important principle: a survey result does not automatically provide the answer. It helps identify where questions need to be asked and where further investigation may be worthwhile.
Avoiding common mistakes
Authorities can gain more value from public satisfaction data by avoiding several common pitfalls.
Looking only at the headline score
Overall satisfaction provides a useful summary, but it can conceal differences between individual services and aspects of the customer experience.
Examining more detailed results can help authorities identify specific areas of concern and understand which issues may warrant further investigation.
Treating perception as an operational measure
A satisfaction result provides evidence of customer experience. It does not, on its own, explain the underlying cause or establish how well a service is performing operationally.
Resident feedback should complement, rather than replace, engineering, financial, asset and performance data. Considering these sources together helps authorities investigate differences between operational results and public perception.
Choosing relevant comparisons
National results provide useful context, but comparisons with regional, peer or other relevant groups may offer additional insight.
The most useful comparison depends on the question being investigated and the characteristics of the authorities and services involved. Differences in local circumstances should be considered before drawing conclusions or applying lessons from elsewhere.
Relying on one year’s results
A year-on-year change is worth examining, but it should be considered alongside longer-term trends and other evidence.
This helps authorities avoid drawing firm conclusions from a single result without understanding the wider context. It also provides a better basis for assessing whether an apparent change warrants further investigation.
Reporting without acting
Publishing results is not the same as using them.
To make effective use of the evidence, authorities need to decide which findings require further analysis, who is responsible for taking them forward and how any resulting actions will be reviewed.
Not every finding will lead to an immediate change, but a clear process helps ensure that the evidence is considered rather than simply reported.
Focusing only on poor performance
Areas of low satisfaction deserve attention, but authorities can also learn from services that perform well or have improved over time.
Understanding what appears to be working, and investigating the factors behind positive results, can provide useful lessons for other services and authorities. Benchmarking creates an opportunity to explore these differences and share practical experience.
Closing the feedback loop
Explaining how resident feedback has been considered can help authorities demonstrate that public opinion forms part of their decision-making.
Where possible, they should communicate:
- What residents said
- What the authority learned from the results
- Which issues require further investigation
- What action is being taken, where appropriate
- What cannot be changed immediately, and why
- How progress will be reviewed
Not every concern will lead to an immediate change. Decisions must take account of funding, statutory responsibilities, asset risks and competing priorities. However, explaining how feedback has been considered can support transparency and accountability.
It also gives authorities an opportunity to show how resident insight fits into an ongoing approach to service improvement, rather than treating the survey as a one-off exercise.
Beyond measurement
The NHT Public Satisfaction Survey provides Local Authorities with a nationally consistent source of insight into how residents perceive highways and transport services. Its results can be compared over time and with other authorities to help identify priorities, understand differences and inform service planning.
Where authorities also use NHT’s wider performance benchmarking services, resident insight can be considered alongside operational, asset and efficiency information, providing a broader view of service performance.
The value lies in how the evidence is used: to ask better questions, investigate differences, inform priorities and review progress.
Listen to residents. Compare the evidence. Investigate the differences. Prioritise action. Review the results.
That is the difference between conducting a survey and using resident feedback to inform service improvement.
