Biomet, Inc. is one of the world leading medical device manufacturer located in the Warsaw, Indiana business cluster.[1] The company specializes in reconstructive products for hips, knees and shoulders, fixation devices, orthopedic support devices, dental implants, spinal implants and operating room supplies.

he Global Airline Performance (GAP) study is a joint venture between P. Robert and Partners (PRP), a Swiss research firm, and the London-based Aviation Information and Research unit of IATA, the International Air Transport Association.

The syndicated study uses a two-part survey to measure the opinions of air travelers on 22 airlines departing from 30 airports in North America, Europe, and Asia. Each year, 240,000 passengers are interviewed. Depending on the airline routes being researched, the survey can be conducted in seven languages: English, French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Chinese, or Japanese.

GAP Transatlantic (operating since July 1999) covers 16 airlines, 15 airports in North America and 10 in Europe. GAP Transpacific (October 1999) covers 12 airlines, 15 North American and four Asian airports. GAP Europe to Asia (April 2000) encompasses 12 airlines, six European airports and four Asian airports.

No airline or airport personnel are involved in the survey distribution process, which eliminates any potential for airline employee-introduced bias and also frees cabin crews from an extra burden. Instead, GAP interviewers in each airport approach air travelers at their gate or in the departure lounge to engage them in the survey process, which entails completing a four-page questionnaire prior to departing and a second, shorter form at the conclusion of their flight.

“We interview them when they are the most available: before the flight,” says David Perroud, GAP manager, P. Robert and Partners. “Many people at that time are just waiting for the flight to board so anything that can distract them from waiting is welcome. We have very few refusals.”

The respondent gives the completed first part to the GAP representative, who then instructs him or her on how to return the second part, either by the postage-paid mailer, by fax or by telephone.

In 20-some questions, part one of the survey examines the performance of airline staff during reservation and check-in, the respondent’s impression of the airport facilities, and gathers other information about flying habits, frequent flyer program membership, and demographic data.

Part two looks at the boarding process, the airplane’s cabin comfort and features, the cabin crew, food and beverage service, onboard amenities, and post-flight impressions in addition to overall assessment of the airline and the flight in question.

Rather than contacting respondents after their flight by phone or mail, the GAP study reaches the passengers while the experience is still fresh in their minds. “We want to capture their opinions very close to the moment of truth,” says Paul Lai, general manager - marketing research, Delta Air Lines, Atlanta, a GAP subscriber.

The survey boasts a response rate of better than 50 percent, that is, about 50 percent of respondents who complete part one also follow through and submit part two.

“That response rate is a far cry from the less than 10 percent response rate from previous studies,” Lai says. “When the response rate is so low, results could be inconsistent and unreliable. We would see results going up or down without any reasonable explanation. That’s when internal customers may question the validity of your research, and rightly so.”

While Lai does not want to cite specific examples of issues uncovered by the research, he does offer that the GAP research gives Delta opportunities to benchmark industry leaders in any service area and then act accordingly. “If we see that airline X is doing very well in the area of food and beverage, for example, we may want to find out what is going on there. So then we put our product people on the case and have them do some competitive flying to find out what they are doing to make their rating so high.”

As is typical with syndicated studies, participants receive data on their own performance as well as that of competitors. “The first and most important thing with GAP is that it is a benchmark,” Perroud says. “Airlines used to have a lot of information about their own passengers. Now they can measure their own performance and compare it to the competitors.

“The other important thing is that it’s an ongoing survey, so they can track their passenger satisfaction over time. So if they change something in their in-flight service, the food perhaps, they can see how their rating is affected. They can track quarter-by-quarter.”

Study subscribers receive results quarterly, in the form of data tables, raw data in SPSS or Quanvert, etc., and an Excel macro that allows them to produce charts from the data. Every six months a full report is issued.

Active in development
The airlines have been active participants in the development of the GAP study. “The design process has been a long one, involving around 15 airlines,” says Perroud. “We have done two different pilot studies and also have analyzed the study to see what is the most effective way of asking the questions. All of these airlines were already asking those kinds of questions so we had a good starting point.”

Dissatisfaction with syndicated transatlantic route research brought various airlines together two years ago to discuss development of a new study, Lai says. “Since a lot of airlines felt that need, it was easy to get people together to talk about possible solutions. So taking the first step was not that bad.”

While the first step was easy, those that followed were considerably more difficult. The biggest problem was crafting a consensus among the participating airlines during the survey development process, Lai says. “Everything from how a question is worded to how we use the results, even the look of the graphics, has been a bit challenging. There are so many airlines involved, and each has its own quirky preferences. Now, with the survey in full bloom, it is almost a miracle that we were able to pull it off.”

Help from the airlines was also instrumental in translating/back-translating the questionnaires into the various languages. Cathay Pacific helped with the translation of the Chinese questionnaire, for example. No matter the language, the survey forms use the same scales and are structured the same way.

Airline involvement in the study is ongoing. For example, Lai and other airline representative members of the GAP Technical Committee met in London in January and in Miami in October to discuss a host of issues pertaining to the survey, from adding new routes to data weighting options.

RESEARCH APPROACHES

Observational research is the gathering of primary data by observing relevant people, actions, and situations. Observational research can be used to obtain information that people are unwilling or unable to provide. In some cases, observation may be the only way to obtain the needed information.

Survey research is the approach best suited for gathering descriptive information. A company that wants to know about people's knowledge, attitudes, preferences, or buying behavior can often find out by asking them directly. Survey research is the most widely used method for primary data collection, and it is often the only method used in a research study. The major advantage of survey research is its flexibility. It can be used to obtain many different kinds of information in many different marketing situations. In the early and mid-1980s, some cola companies created a taste test against their competitors. This is an example of survey research. Participants were allowed to taste different cola brands without knowing which was which. The participant then decided which brand was preferred.

Whereas observation is best suited for exploratory research and surveys for descriptive research, experimental research is best suited for gathering causal information. Experiments involve selecting matched groups of subjects, giving them different treatments, controlling unrelated factors, and checking for differences in group responses. Thus, experimental research tries to explain cause-and-effect relationships.

RESEARCH CONTACT METHODS

Research may be collected by mail, telephone, e-mail, fax, or personal interview. Mail questionnaires can be used to collect large amounts of information at a low cost per respondent. Respondents may give more honest answers to more personal questions on a mail questionnaire than to an unknown interviewer in person or over the phone. However, mail questionnaires lack flexibility in that they require simply worded questions. They can also take a long time to complete, and the response rate—the number of people returning completed questionnaires—is often very low.

Telephone interviewing is the best method for gathering information quickly, and it provides greater flexibility than mail questionnaires. Interviewers can explain questions that are not understood. Telephone interviewing also allows greater sample control. Response rates tend to be higher than with mail questionnaires. But telephone interviewing also has its drawbacks. The cost per respondent is higher than with mail questionnaires, people may regard a phone call as more of an inconvenience or an intrusion, and they may not want to discuss personal questions with an interviewer. In the latter part of the 1990s, laws were also passed to guard against the invasion of privacy. If a person wishes to be taken off a solicitation or interview list, companies can be sued if they persist in calling.

Personal interviewing consists of inviting several people to talk with a trained interviewer about a company's products or services. The interviewer needs objectivity, knowledge of the subject and industry, and some understanding of group and consumer behavior. Personal interviewing is quite flexible and can be used to collect large amounts of information. Trained interviewers can hold a respondent's attention for a long time and can explain difficult questions. They can guide interviews, explore issues, and probe as the situation requires. The main drawbacks of personal interviewing are costs and sampling problems. Personal interviews may cost three to four times as much as telephone interviews.
 
Biomet, Inc. is one of the world leading medical device manufacturer located in the Warsaw, Indiana business cluster.[1] The company specializes in reconstructive products for hips, knees and shoulders, fixation devices, orthopedic support devices, dental implants, spinal implants and operating room supplies.

he Global Airline Performance (GAP) study is a joint venture between P. Robert and Partners (PRP), a Swiss research firm, and the London-based Aviation Information and Research unit of IATA, the International Air Transport Association.

The syndicated study uses a two-part survey to measure the opinions of air travelers on 22 airlines departing from 30 airports in North America, Europe, and Asia. Each year, 240,000 passengers are interviewed. Depending on the airline routes being researched, the survey can be conducted in seven languages: English, French, Dutch, German, Swedish, Chinese, or Japanese.

GAP Transatlantic (operating since July 1999) covers 16 airlines, 15 airports in North America and 10 in Europe. GAP Transpacific (October 1999) covers 12 airlines, 15 North American and four Asian airports. GAP Europe to Asia (April 2000) encompasses 12 airlines, six European airports and four Asian airports.

No airline or airport personnel are involved in the survey distribution process, which eliminates any potential for airline employee-introduced bias and also frees cabin crews from an extra burden. Instead, GAP interviewers in each airport approach air travelers at their gate or in the departure lounge to engage them in the survey process, which entails completing a four-page questionnaire prior to departing and a second, shorter form at the conclusion of their flight.

“We interview them when they are the most available: before the flight,” says David Perroud, GAP manager, P. Robert and Partners. “Many people at that time are just waiting for the flight to board so anything that can distract them from waiting is welcome. We have very few refusals.”

The respondent gives the completed first part to the GAP representative, who then instructs him or her on how to return the second part, either by the postage-paid mailer, by fax or by telephone.

In 20-some questions, part one of the survey examines the performance of airline staff during reservation and check-in, the respondent’s impression of the airport facilities, and gathers other information about flying habits, frequent flyer program membership, and demographic data.

Part two looks at the boarding process, the airplane’s cabin comfort and features, the cabin crew, food and beverage service, onboard amenities, and post-flight impressions in addition to overall assessment of the airline and the flight in question.

Rather than contacting respondents after their flight by phone or mail, the GAP study reaches the passengers while the experience is still fresh in their minds. “We want to capture their opinions very close to the moment of truth,” says Paul Lai, general manager - marketing research, Delta Air Lines, Atlanta, a GAP subscriber.

The survey boasts a response rate of better than 50 percent, that is, about 50 percent of respondents who complete part one also follow through and submit part two.

“That response rate is a far cry from the less than 10 percent response rate from previous studies,” Lai says. “When the response rate is so low, results could be inconsistent and unreliable. We would see results going up or down without any reasonable explanation. That’s when internal customers may question the validity of your research, and rightly so.”

While Lai does not want to cite specific examples of issues uncovered by the research, he does offer that the GAP research gives Delta opportunities to benchmark industry leaders in any service area and then act accordingly. “If we see that airline X is doing very well in the area of food and beverage, for example, we may want to find out what is going on there. So then we put our product people on the case and have them do some competitive flying to find out what they are doing to make their rating so high.”

As is typical with syndicated studies, participants receive data on their own performance as well as that of competitors. “The first and most important thing with GAP is that it is a benchmark,” Perroud says. “Airlines used to have a lot of information about their own passengers. Now they can measure their own performance and compare it to the competitors.

“The other important thing is that it’s an ongoing survey, so they can track their passenger satisfaction over time. So if they change something in their in-flight service, the food perhaps, they can see how their rating is affected. They can track quarter-by-quarter.”

Study subscribers receive results quarterly, in the form of data tables, raw data in SPSS or Quanvert, etc., and an Excel macro that allows them to produce charts from the data. Every six months a full report is issued.

Active in development
The airlines have been active participants in the development of the GAP study. “The design process has been a long one, involving around 15 airlines,” says Perroud. “We have done two different pilot studies and also have analyzed the study to see what is the most effective way of asking the questions. All of these airlines were already asking those kinds of questions so we had a good starting point.”

Dissatisfaction with syndicated transatlantic route research brought various airlines together two years ago to discuss development of a new study, Lai says. “Since a lot of airlines felt that need, it was easy to get people together to talk about possible solutions. So taking the first step was not that bad.”

While the first step was easy, those that followed were considerably more difficult. The biggest problem was crafting a consensus among the participating airlines during the survey development process, Lai says. “Everything from how a question is worded to how we use the results, even the look of the graphics, has been a bit challenging. There are so many airlines involved, and each has its own quirky preferences. Now, with the survey in full bloom, it is almost a miracle that we were able to pull it off.”

Help from the airlines was also instrumental in translating/back-translating the questionnaires into the various languages. Cathay Pacific helped with the translation of the Chinese questionnaire, for example. No matter the language, the survey forms use the same scales and are structured the same way.

Airline involvement in the study is ongoing. For example, Lai and other airline representative members of the GAP Technical Committee met in London in January and in Miami in October to discuss a host of issues pertaining to the survey, from adding new routes to data weighting options.

RESEARCH APPROACHES

Observational research is the gathering of primary data by observing relevant people, actions, and situations. Observational research can be used to obtain information that people are unwilling or unable to provide. In some cases, observation may be the only way to obtain the needed information.

Survey research is the approach best suited for gathering descriptive information. A company that wants to know about people's knowledge, attitudes, preferences, or buying behavior can often find out by asking them directly. Survey research is the most widely used method for primary data collection, and it is often the only method used in a research study. The major advantage of survey research is its flexibility. It can be used to obtain many different kinds of information in many different marketing situations. In the early and mid-1980s, some cola companies created a taste test against their competitors. This is an example of survey research. Participants were allowed to taste different cola brands without knowing which was which. The participant then decided which brand was preferred.

Whereas observation is best suited for exploratory research and surveys for descriptive research, experimental research is best suited for gathering causal information. Experiments involve selecting matched groups of subjects, giving them different treatments, controlling unrelated factors, and checking for differences in group responses. Thus, experimental research tries to explain cause-and-effect relationships.

RESEARCH CONTACT METHODS

Research may be collected by mail, telephone, e-mail, fax, or personal interview. Mail questionnaires can be used to collect large amounts of information at a low cost per respondent. Respondents may give more honest answers to more personal questions on a mail questionnaire than to an unknown interviewer in person or over the phone. However, mail questionnaires lack flexibility in that they require simply worded questions. They can also take a long time to complete, and the response rate—the number of people returning completed questionnaires—is often very low.

Telephone interviewing is the best method for gathering information quickly, and it provides greater flexibility than mail questionnaires. Interviewers can explain questions that are not understood. Telephone interviewing also allows greater sample control. Response rates tend to be higher than with mail questionnaires. But telephone interviewing also has its drawbacks. The cost per respondent is higher than with mail questionnaires, people may regard a phone call as more of an inconvenience or an intrusion, and they may not want to discuss personal questions with an interviewer. In the latter part of the 1990s, laws were also passed to guard against the invasion of privacy. If a person wishes to be taken off a solicitation or interview list, companies can be sued if they persist in calling.

Personal interviewing consists of inviting several people to talk with a trained interviewer about a company's products or services. The interviewer needs objectivity, knowledge of the subject and industry, and some understanding of group and consumer behavior. Personal interviewing is quite flexible and can be used to collect large amounts of information. Trained interviewers can hold a respondent's attention for a long time and can explain difficult questions. They can guide interviews, explore issues, and probe as the situation requires. The main drawbacks of personal interviewing are costs and sampling problems. Personal interviews may cost three to four times as much as telephone interviews.

Hey netra, i am really impressed after reading all your article or report on Biomet and must say that it is going to be useful for many people. Well, if you do not mind then i have also got some information and would like to share it with you. So please download and check my presentation on Biomet.
 

Attachments

  • Biomet.pdf
    2 MB · Views: 0
Top