Bus Driver Internal Communication Report

o TfL perspective aligned with bus driver experience o Multiple communications routes and touchpoints involved in sending TfL communications to Bus Drivers; lack of consistency and visibility o The communications landscape is changing and evolving; channel availability and multi-channel o Garage Managers are a key touchpoint in shaping communications to Bus Drivers TfL C OMMUNIC ATIONS WITH BUS DR IVE R S : R esearch findings and recommendations

J une 2016 OR C International and MHP C ommunications

Classification: Confidential Background and introduction to the research

The context and objectives surrounding the research Overview and methodology of the research

The TfL Bus Division has recently developed a clear vision and ambition TfL partnered with research specialists OR C International and communications experts MHP for the service, for customers to feel welcomed every day. Customer C ommunications to deliver the research and create strategic recommendations for research has suggested that in order to achieve this, one of the key improvements. OR C International and MHP C ommunications are part of the E ngine Group. actions needed is a shift in the behaviours of Bus Drivers. This represents a need for culture change across the S ervice and has been The research was delivered across 5 phases (see next page), all of which centred around one of the driving factors behind the launch of the TfL Hello London bus qualitative research methodologies. Qualitative research was identified as being the most driver development programme. appropriate way of gathering the rich feedback and ideas required to achieve the project objectives. In the 5th phase, involving Bus Drivers, OR C International utilised a mix of In order to drive and embed any cultural change within the Bus service, qualitative and quantitative questioning to provide some insights into channel usage and TfL recognise there is a need to collaborate closely with Operators and preference, and recognition of existing communications examples. communicate effectively with Bus Drivers. TfL therefore wanted to understand the extent to which their current communications to Bus A selection of 8 Operators provided valuable contributions to the research; Drivers were effective, and gather feedback and ideas about what could be improved to create the kind of transformational communications that are needed to create behaviour change.

Page. 2 R esearch fieldwork and audience summary PHAS E 1. Phase 2. Phase 3. Phase 4. Phase 5.

2 WORKSHOPS 8 TfL STAKEHOLDERS 17 C O MMS MA NA G E R S 21 GARAGE MANAGERS 243 BUS DRIVERS S coping sessions with TfL Depth interviews with TfL Depth interviews with Depth interviews with S emi-s tructured inte rvie ws stakeholders and Operator Bus Directorate Operator C ommunications Garage Managers with B us Drivers C ommunications Managers stakeholders Managers

What we wanted to What we wanted to What we wanted to What we wanted to know… What we wanted to know… know… know… know… . Identify a shared vision . An understanding of their . S imilar yet simplified version . C hannel analysis to between TfL and Operators for . Understanding of the role role and approach to of the discussion with understand what channels how we communicate with Bus they play in communicating communications C ommunications Managers B us Drivers currently receive Drivers to B us Drivers information through, and . C hannel overview by . Understand the role of the channel preferences . W hat ma kes . E xploring different types of O pera tor Garage Manager in tra ns formationa l/effective communications designed communicating with Bus . Gather an overview of their communications? for B us Drivers . E xplore perceptions of Drivers experience of effective communications for communications . C ommunications mapping . Operator engagement and bus driver audience . Explore key exercise relationship challenges/opportunities of . E xplore their reaction to and . Draw out examples of best communicating at a local level feedback on current TfL . Project success factors . Bus driver experience of TfL pra ctis e communications and communications . Identify what they believe . Initial ideas/recommendations . Gather feedback on the works well in communicating . Gather ideas and . Ideas/opportunities relationship and ways of with B us Drivers suggestions for improvement working with T fL

Page. 3

THE TfL PERSPECTIVE: The TfL need in communications with Bus Drivers

Page. 4 The TfL perspective: A summary of stakeholder feedback Key views and feedback from this Opportunities for improvements identified from this audience: audience:

Operational focus Opportunities within the current organisational context

Majority of discussions with TfL stakeholders focussed on . Building a greater connection between TfL and Bus Drivers, and building engagement “operational communications”, with C entreC omm and NoE s seen . C ommunicating what TfL are there to do/not do as the most significant and direct TfL communication channels to B us Drivers. . G reater opportunities for Bus Drivers to meet with TfL, e.g. roadshows, encouraging drivers to vis it C entreC omm Inconsistent approach in distributing communications . Identify/clarify opportunities of working together across TfL to communicate to B us Drivers Through discussions we identified a varied approach to communicating is used by different parts of the Bus Directorate in . S potlight on the role of TfL Bus Operations in communicating with Bus Drivers (B us S ta tion C ontrollers , terms of distribution (i.e. format, channel and audience). Network Traffic Controllers, Revenue Protection Inspectors, Network Operations Managers etc.)

‘Blind spot’ of communications Operational and Environmental Opportunities There was a consistent perceived lack of clarity of how communications these audience send are utilised and cascaded to . Improved communication across TfL directorate stakeholders B us Drivers within O perators/garages. . R eview C ommunications K P Is for O perator contracts . Introduce a business partner model across the TfL/Operator interface Implications of contractual relationship . In collaboration with B us Drivers, pilot communications technology improvements a s pa rt of the development of the new ticketing system (2020) This audience were conscious of implications of the nature of . Develop communications aspect of B us S tation C ontroller role competitive contractual relationships with Operators, and the KPIs that TfL sets as part of this, on the opportunity to engage with Bus . Develop further bus driver training on the use of/confidence in the on-bus PA s ys tem (pa rt of H ello Drivers. London) . E xplore opportunities to align with the MTS process

Page. 5 TfL stakeholder communications to Bus Drivers

Mapping communications from TfL to B us drivers

Through the interviews with TfL stakeholders, we were able to identify the cascade and touchpoints in communicating with Bus Drivers. S ome key observations were apparent;

The role of the Garage Manager

The recipient of many communications from TfL is the garage management team, chiefly the Garage Manager. Many communications e.g. NoE s and Performance communications bypass the C entral C ommunications team at TfL and the Operator C ommunications Managers

L ack of visibility over communications to B us Drivers

This approach means that there may be a lack of visibility/control across the Bus Directorate about what is being sent for Bus Drivers.

Page. 6 o TfL perspective aligned with bus driver experience o Multiple communications routes and touchpoints involved in sending TfL communications to Bus Drivers; lack of consistency and visibility o The communications landscape is changing and evolving; channel availability and multi-channel o Garage Managers are a key touchpoint in shaping communications to Bus Drivers

THE TfL/OPERATOR INTERFACE: Ways of working now and in the future

Page. 7 The C entral C ommunications team at TfL: Key feedback and ideas Key views and feedback from this audience: C urrent TfL channels and methods used to communicate with B us Drivers : Communications implementation and planning The C entral C ommunications team cited a range of TfL channels used to deliver In terms of prioritising communications to send to Bus Drivers, C entral communications to Bus Drivers; C ommunications prioritises based on the following criteria: . Operational significance/importance . Heavy focus on posters as all-driver . E mails other information to O perator . The status of the sender. E .g. the Mayor, Mike Wes ton channel/call to action, with some warm C ommunications Managers; including . Informa tion need up on plasma screens Press Releases and Ticketing There is sometimes input and direction from senior stakeholders in TfL . R oa ds hows ; whils t felt to be effective, updates regarding priority, approach and channel. these are less frequent than they have . B ig R ed Book; is seen as a key piece been previously of communications and reference Visibility of communications within Operators . L ea flets produced for longer-term point reference and to support changes C onsistent with the TfL S takeholder audience, C entral C ommunications felt tha t it ca n be difficult to tell wha t ha s g one into the ga ra g es /to Bus Ideas and opportunities for this project and the future of Drivers, and whether pre-warnings and follow-ups have happened. The communicating with Bus Drivers: C entral C ommunications Manager has an inconsistent level of access to Garage Manager email addresses to enable direct contact/follow-up. Increasing support to Operators/Garages in prioritising

Working with Operators C entral C ommunications felt there could be an opportunity to provide greater support to Operators in ensuring there is a consistent way of prioritising messages and communications There was an acknowledgment that whilst the C ommunications Forum from T fL . (with Operators) had the potential to be used to discuss planning and strategy, this can often be difficult to achieve as there may be overlap with discussions in the Bus Operator Forum. More widely, C entral Explore the use of “new media” with drivers C ommunications has varied contact across the Operators, and will work with individual best practice O perators on sharing ideas and successes Having acknowledged the current reliance on posters as a key channel for communicating to (e.g. R ATP, Metroline, Tower Transit). Bus Drivers, C entral C ommunications were interested in exploring the readiness and resources to utilise more digital channels in reaching this workforce.

Page. 8 Working together: Operator C ommunications Manager feedback Key views and feedback from this audience: An amicable relationship with opportunities to collaborate further

Alignment of messaging across TfL and Operators Many Operators spoke about the relationship they have with TfL having improved, and that they had a good and amicable relationship with the C entral C ommunications team. Whilst

this was seen to be a positive, many Operators felt the relationship was still in the main It emerg ed tha t the org a nis a tiona l priorities and objectives of Operators instructional/transactional in terms of communicating T fL messages to B us Drivers. S ome of were relatively cons is tent, and this directed their own internal the fa ctors tha t contributed to this view wa s tha t when the O pera tors were a s ked for communications initiatives. Despite this there has been a lack of integration feedback on a campaign or piece of communications, often feedback isn’t taken on board of the planning and implementation of Operator internal communications, by TfL due to it being too late in the day to make changes to the direction and content. Many and TfL communications. As a result, there have been examples of where O pera tors cited tha t they therefore felt relucta ntly tha t the ca s ca de of T fL communications to TfL have released a piece of communications that overlaps with/duplicates Bus Drivers often feels like a ‘tick box exercise’, not necessarily reaching the potential that it O perator communications, which was felt to be a duplication of effort and a could do in terms of having an impact on the bus driver audience. mis s ed opportunity to ensure the highest level of impact (e.g. the R ATP stopping campaign – see page 14)

Timing and planning of communications Ideas and opportunities for working together in the future:

TfL give notice of upcoming communications at the C ommunications Mapping of objectives and timescales for communications Manager F orum. However sometimes communications can be sent out with little notice, which means Operators need to react quickly, especially if an S ome of the Operators felt there was an opportunity to have more notice of TfL important message (e.g. new legislation about falling asleep on buses). communications and priorities, so they could integrate them into their own internal Due to va ried C ommunications resource across the O perators, their ability communications planning. Having visibility over the T fL communications in advance was felt to respond quickly to a communications request from T fL differed. to reduce duplication and also increase the impact of the message landing through a more strategic and holistic approach. R eliance on group emails and the C ommunications Manager Forum as a wa y of dis tributing communications mea nt tha t where there wa s little Role and format of the Communications Manager Forum resource/heavy workload in an Operator, important updates could be

missed. The C ommunications Manager Forum is seen to be a format for providing top level updates, but could be adapted to build a more collaborative approach with Operators on how to ensure TfL communications have maximum impact with Bus Drivers.

Page. 9

THE OPERATOR PERSPECTIVE: How communication looks within their world

Page. 10 Operator C ommunications Managers: their world

Key views and themes from the audience Understanding and experience of what creates effective communications for B us Drivers Communications in a changing world

The Operator C ommunications Managers that we spoke to identified a number of success In terms of common challenges identified in communicating with B us Drivers in this changing context, Operators spoke about; factors of effective communications for Bus Drivers, based on their experience and feedback . Drivers spending less time in the Garage and therefore becoming an received; increasingly remote workforce . More KPIs/performance targets and competition amongst Operators, can . Multi-channel methodology is the bes t wa y to rea ch the mos t drivers . F a ce to fa ce s till make the balance of communications messaging a challenge against seen as the most effective (e.g. forums and roadshows), then re-enforced with organisational priorities. lea flets /pocket guides.

As a result, there was a significant desire to move to digital communications . Taking a campaign-based approach is needed to achieve behaviour change, often with a across all Operators. Where there has been the resources this is already long term timeline, e.g. 6 – 12 months being implemented, creating a very different communications environment both compared to the historical context and a variance across Operators. . Incentives and competition work well in creating a ‘buzz’ and encourage positive word of

Common organisational and communications priorities for Operators mouth

All O perators we spoke to have their own organisational priorities (there is a . T he bes t wa y to have impact with bus driver communications (particularly landing a difficult high level of overlap across Operators) and use these to direct their internal message) is to involve them in the design and testing of communications materials and communications plans. Typical Operator priorities included; campaigns . S afety; lower incident rates, less damage to buses, reducing fines . O perational efficiency; raising driving standards, fuel efficiency, . Avoid instructional messaging, drivers don’t respond well to this. Instead make them feel preventative approach to maintenance they have a voice and that you understand their situation – and use an adult tone and . C ustomer service; achieving good MTS results, reducing complaints, humour greeting customers, disability/accessibility . Employee engagement/organisational values; employee voice, employee . People-oriented communications, e.g. S arah Hope video (T fL ), J ean accessibility surveys, leadership behaviours training (Tower Transit), ‘Thank you driver!’ Age UK campaign (Metroline)

. “Tangible” nudges and reminders, e.g. ‘Box J unction’ layout in canteen (S tagecoach), ‘C urbed tyre’ in reception (Tower Transit)

Page. 11 . Simple payslip attachments work well in terms of reaching large numbers of drivers, where there is less digital direct access

Operator C ommunications Managers: working with TfL communications

Key views and feedback from this audience S uggestions and ideas for improving the impact of TfL communications to B us Drivers Distribution of TfL communications

Mirroring the feedback from T fL C entral C ommunications, all . P roviding a stronger TfL story and narrative as part of communicating with Bus C ommunications Managers spoke about receiving T fL communications Drivers would help with ongoing engagement and understanding of TfL priorities in this via group email. Whilst it was understood why this was an efficient audience. It was felt that this could be underpinned by greater involvement of Bus process for TfL, it was felt that the email groups can be sporadic, making Drivers in building key communication campaigns and programmes, by TfL. accountability/follow-up more of a challenge. In some cases posters printed by TfL and sent directly to Garages, the C ommunications . Linked with the TfL story, C ommunications Managers spoke about a real need for TfL to Managers would prefer to give warning to the garages but this isn’t be seen to support their bus driver communications with equivalent and relevant always possible. As mentioned previously, the C ommunications Manager customer communications about the same issue – an opportunity for TfL to play a Forum helps to provide C ommunications Managers with updates as to strong role in shifting customer behaviours and understanding of the Bus service, what is coming up, however if they were unable to attend it can be similar to customer communications on the Underground. difficult to get updates/minutes from these sessions. . Many O perators asked for a more campaign-based approach to be developed by TfL C ommunications Managers are not involved in the cascade of to support a particular message (i.e. long term programme, multi-channel). operational communications from TfL such as NoEs or diversions, these were managed and distributed to Garages by their Operations teams. . Based on experience of success, it’s important to make any communications feel relevant to B us Drivers, not TfL, i.e. getting into the shoes of the bus driver. Integrating TfL communications into wider Operator campaigns . Advanced planning to dovetail with Operator’s own initiatives to provide context and improve impact. Whilst this is the ambition for many Operators, in reality this If felt to be a n importa nt/releva nt mes s a g e, ma ny O pera tors will ta ke the doesn’t always happen due to notice and timescales of other internal communications TfL poster and create further communications around it to help increase being prioritised. impact, e.g. B ig R ed B ook new edition Quiz (Metroline). It wa s felt tha t the format of the communications sent by TfL could better enable this, e.g. more digital formats, and multiple formats of each piece of communications to allow for more flexibility.

Page. 12 Operator communications channel and resource availability: One size does not fit all

Key Operator differences in Summary of key communications channels utilised/in plan with communications Operators

Multi-channel communications in all Operators

When mapping the communications channels cited by C ommunications Managers, the picture reinforces that many Operators have the ability to deliver multi-channel campaigns to Bus Drivers, many with a mix of traditional and digital channels.

Piloting/embedding of digital channels

Many Operators are either in the process of piloting new digital communications, or are working hard to embed them (e.g. Go- Ahead). In essence, all Operators have the aspiration to achieve more digital communications, but their maturity along the journey of achieving that varies widely.

Variability of resource and expertise across Operators

Another key observation was that the level of resource (time, financial investment) varied greatly across the Operators. For example communications in C T Plus and R ATP are managed by one individual where communications is only a part of their wider role. T his compares starkly to O perators such as G o- Ahead who have a dedicated communications team and set of expertise. Page. 13

S potlight on Operator communications best practise examples

RATP Stopping campaign Abellio Ultimate Driving Championship Tower Transit Curbed Tyre campaign pilot K ey theme: Overlap of objectives and K ey theme: a simple yet impactful method of messaging of Operator and TfL communications K ey theme: a multi-channel campaign designed communicating to Bus Drivers R AT P delivered a communications campaign to improve driving standards through behaviour Tower Transit were reporting a high volume of designed to educate and influence drivers behaviour change curbed tyres on their buses, the cost of which was around the stopping policy. This was rolled out One of the main organisational objectives at Abellio proving to be high. As a result, the communications approx. 6 months prior to the TfL campaign that was is to improve efficiency and performance. The team launched a campaign there they put physical designed to meet the same objectives. Ultimate Driving C hampionship was being piloted at curbed tyres in the Allocation/communal areas for R ATP produced a simple and visual poster and one of their main garages. It is based around a a Bus Drivers in garages. On the tyre they left a leaflet with clear guidance for Bus Drivers, and points system based on lots of things including simple message about the impact of curbed tyres received positive feedback about the campaign. operational, customer, personal performance. At the and how to avoid getting one. The simplicity and end of the year drivers received £10/every point visual impact of this campaign received good earned and retained that year. The communications feedback from Bus Drivers and many acknowledged team used a range of channels including letters to the message. home addresses, email banners, banners in garages, league table visuals, thank you cards for good points and reminder cards/leaflets.

Page. 14 S potlight on Operator communications best practise examples

Abellio Ultimate Driving RATP Stopping Tower Transit Curbed Tyre campaign Championship pilot campaign

Page. 15 o TfL perspective aligned with bus driver experience o Multiple communications routes and touchpoints involved in sending TfL communications to Bus Drivers; lack of consistency and visibility o The communications landscape is changing and evolving; channel availability and multi-channel o Garage Managers are a key touchpoint in shaping communications to Bus Drivers

COMMUNICATIONS AT LOCAL LEVEL: The bus garage environment

Page. 16 C ommunications in the Garage environment; observations

Noticeboards still dominate the communications within Evidence of digital and multi-channel Garages approaches

One of the most immediate and perhaps unsurprising observations at all Insights gathered from interviewing the C ommunications garages that were visited was the large number of noticeboards. This is Managers around introducing digital/electronic reflected in the conversations with Garage Managers and Bus Drivers communications for Bus Drivers were reflected in the about communication channels. garage environment. Key observations; Key observations; . Location of noticeboard could affect the impact . Plasma screens in every garage, but not always . Varying levels of categorisation of notices working . T fL bus driver communications were visible in all G arages (on . Access to digital communications noticeboards) . A multi-channel approach

High volume of notic es /pos ters

Implementation of digital S tairwell/corridor location technology of noticeboards Categorisation of noticeboards

Page. 17 Multi-channel communications in Allocation The Garage Manager: a key role in communications with Bus Drivers Key views and feedback from this audience: Boosting the impact of TfL communications

Half of Garage Managers we spoke to said that they often create their own local The local management of communications to Bus Drivers communications to support what they see as the key objectives and messaging in the TfL Garage Managers are the distribution point for many of the communications that communications they receive, e.g. posters or the Big Red Book. This can range from them come via the Operator communications teams, and directly from the TfL Bus creating their own simple printed notices to communicate content from the Big R ed Book, C ommunications team (via email or printed posters). In terms of prioritisation, through to creating leaflets or handouts for drivers, e.g. around how to achieve good MTS unless an operational director or the communications team have identified the scores (MT S leaflet example – see page appendix). prioritisation of a piece of communications, it is down to the Garage Manager to prioritise what they distribute within the garage. There wasn’t a formal or standardised approach to prioritising messages, but typically Garage Managers R eflections and considerations in the role of a Garage spoke about the below being key messages that they would prioritise; Manager in communications . Operational, e.g. large scale diversions or events . S afety related messages Greater involvement/support for this group to achieve consistency and . C hanges to policy . Problems with performance bes t practis e . Diversity and accessibility The findings identify that this audience are responsible for the local prioritisation and Interaction with TfL Communications management of communications to Bus Drivers. However currently, neither Operator C ommunications Managers or TfL C entral C ommunications have a responsibility or reach Garage Managers will distribute TfL communications in terms of putting the in providing support and guidance to this group in how to ensure key messages are posters on noticeboards in the Garage. A notable proportion also spoke about how communicated effectively and consistently to B us Drivers. they tried to either adapt or create alternatives to the T fL materials to try and ensure Bus Drivers see/understand them. Garage Managers would adapt the communications to; Variability of Garage Manager communications capability . Make the language simpler; to make it easier to understand, particularly for those drivers who don’t have E nglish as a first language. Of the Garages that were visited during this research, there was a high variability in . Make the notice more concise; some updates from TfL were felt to be lengthy Garage Manager’s perceptions of their role/responsibility and approach to communicating and not all relevant to drivers. Garage Managers would create a notice with a with Bus Drivers. This was also reflected in variances in bus driver’s feedback in terms of bold headline and a few bullet points to get the key messages to Bus Drivers. the Garage Manager being seen as a communication channel. Other roles in the Garage referenced as being communications touchpoints were: S taff Manager, Union R ep and C ounter s ta ff.

Page. 18

Garage Manager feedback: C ommunications channels and effectiveness

C ommunication channels used in Garages

Noticeboards are used most widely Face to Face is the most effective, but Digital and multi-channel is the way forward can be a challenge

Despite concerns about there being too much F a ce to fa ce wa s felt to be the most valued and When asked for ideas on improving communications information on noticeboards, they were the most impactful channel through allowing for two-way with Bus Drivers, 42% referenced digital channels such widely used communication channel in garages. All discussion and providing clarity for B us Drivers, as email, social media and mobile apps. Garage Managers said this was one of their main particularly around changes in policy, procedure and channels for communicating with drivers. However, performance. There were mixed perceptions about plasma screens; when asked what works well when communicating many Garage Managers were unsure how long drivers with drivers, only 10% of Garage Managers cited Two thirds of the Garage Managers we spoke to spend engaging with them, but this may be a reflection noticeboards. said they run regular G arage forums with drivers. of the nature of the published content. On more than one occasion, word of mouth was Garage Managers are responsible for managing the cited as a powerful way of spreading the word, When needing to share important messages, and content on the noticeboards, and many had ‘refresh’ ma king it more importa nt to inves t in fa ce to fa ce therefore reach as many drivers as possible, Garage processes where they would change the notices communications and clarify messaging to avoid Managers spoke about using a multi-channel approach. every 1-2 weeks. misinterpretation/rumour mill.

“P osters specifically for T fL communications, as “You might only get 20 drivers at a forum out of 500, “R eally important messages are something which will that’s usually how TfL want us to disperse but don’t underestimate word of mouth from those have an impact on ops, we use face to face briefing, information.” who did come.” ask mangers to run out and ask to speak to every Garage Manager Garage Manager driver, put it on post it notes on duty card and ask for a signed copy to show they’ve read it.” Garage Manager

Page. 19 Garage Manager feedback: What works in communicating to Bus Drivers

Key suggestions and ideas from this audience in effective communications with Bus Drivers Building a stronger connection with G etting in the shoes of the bus driver What works well when communicating TfL with drivers G arage Managers are responsible for communicating a large . Keep it simple; concise text, use of images and Garage Managers acknowledged that for many volume of operational messages and updates to Bus Drivers visuals works well B us Drivers, their primary contact or ‘relationship’ every day. Even communications about the simplest everyday . C ompetition works well, e.g. league tables with T fL for most drivers is via C entreC omm, processes and procedures can be a challenge for G arage . Local focus of content, e.g. garage newsletters R evenue and C ontrollers. They are also very Managers to communicate, due to the remote nature of the . If an important message, can we clear any a wa re of the K P Is a nd ta rg ets tha t T fL s ets their bus driver workforce in many O perators a lack of direct space amongst other communications to Operator, which has a big impact on a bus access. Therefore landing difficult or complex messages engage them better driver’s day to day experience. This can make it represents a real challenge at this level. . Two-way discussion and making them feel their difficult in communicating with Bus Drivers about opinion counts the wider role of TfL in the bigger picture of the C onsistently with the Operator C ommunications Managers, . Remove any ambiguity and create clear call to Bus service. Garage Managers raised the need for TfL to appreciate the action; Poem campaign referenced as too impact of customer behaviour on a bus driver, and how there ambiguous Around ¼ of Garage Managers suggested more is a perception that TfL are not addressing this. regular face to face contact with TfL, e.g. via “Poems stopping at stops poster is a good example forums, others suggested a TfL magazine or to its slightly contradictory message. Drivers need intranet where drivers could find out more “the challenges come from specific sensitive issues, for things in black and white, as when they break rules information and have an online discussion/Q&A example on the schoolchildren issue, drivers are unhappy punishments are harsh. Therefore it would be unfair with T fL . that they are unable to chuck disruptive children off school if their judgement was poor due to an incomplete buses. The reasons are explained i.e. they are vulnerable, understanding of the rules, and that poster may “Driver’s perceptions of T fL is predominantly but they are still unhappy with the outcome..” have caused unnecessary confusion.” based on cost, they link everything back to lost Garage Manager Garage Manager routes ” Garage Manager

Page. 20 o TfL perspective aligned with bus driver experience o Multiple communications routes and touchpoints involved in sending TfL communications to Bus Drivers; lack of consistency and visibility o The communications landscape is changing and evolving; channel availability and multi-channel o Garage Managers are a key touchpoint in shaping communications to Bus Drivers

THE BUS DRIVER EXPERIENCE: C ommunications through their eyes

Page. 21 Bus driver sample: overview of this audience Bus driver sample profile

Is English your first language? What is your gender?

A representative view across London 31%

We spoke to 243 Bus Drivers, from 21 garages. The garages were a mix of both inner and outer London garages, and were selected by TfL in partnership with the Operator C ommunications Managers to achieve a balanced sample of good performing/best practise locations and garages 69% where there have been challenges in communicating with and engaging Bus 91% Drivers.

Reflecting the views of Bus Drivers who spend time in garages Yes No Male Female How long have you worked at this company? All Bus Drivers were interviewed in communal areas of the garage. It’s therefore important to emphasise that our sample includes Bus Drivers who spend their time in bus garages (e.g. during breaks, before shifts). The feedback from O perators was that there is a proportion of B us Drivers who do not spend any time in garages, and are often working completely remotely.

Page. 22 Bus driver experience: C hannels for receiving operational communications

Operational communications are cascaded via targeted and tried/tested channels C hannel analysis of operational communications revealed a heavy reliance on ‘in the cab’ communications for unplanned updates and notifications. In terms of NoE s, the majority of Bus Drivers cited noticeboards as a channel for receiving these communications compared with any other channels. T he level of satisfaction with the current cascade of NoE s suggests there is a readiness for a different approach to sharing this information with Bus Drivers.

Unplanned diversions Planned diversions/NoEs S afety alerts

How you receive communications about this currently How you receive communications about this currently How you receive communications about this currently (multi-tick); (multi-tick): (multi-tick):

75% 78% 76%

55% 19% 27%

16% 11% 7%

CentreComm iBUS Noticeboards Noticeboard Counter iBUS CentreComm iBUS Noticeboards How would you prefer to receive communications about How would you prefer to receive communications How would you prefer to receive communications this ? Feedback/suggestions* about this? Feedback/suggestions* about this? Feedback/suggestions*

. 51% said ‘it’s okay as it is/there is no other way’ . 36% said ‘its okay as it is’ . 53% said ‘it’s okay as it is/there is no other way’ . Directions from C entreC omm are difficult to follow/radio . S hould not rely solely on noticeboards, sometimes . Mixed experiences of CentreComm response for quality is poor you can miss this . R equire further support and information in the case of those who have experienced it diversions, such as; . Personalised notice: printed as an attachment to . C oncern around customer reactions; suggested . Text message with directions duty allocation card all radio alerts are coded . More controllers roadside to provide directions . R eminders via other channels including email, . S atnav s ys tem in the cab intranet, text message and iBUS announcements

Page. 23 *Coded qualitative feedback

Bus driver experience: C hannels for receiving non-operational communications

Non-operational communications via noticeboards but there is a high level of readiness for a different approach C hannel analysis of non-operational communications reflects the findings so far and the heavy reliance on noticeboards/posters in delivering these types of communications. Despite this, there are low levels of satisfaction with this approach and Bus Drivers had some constructive ideas and feedback on how they would prefer to receive non-operational communications.

Changes to policy Reminders of policy How my garage is doing

How you receive communications about this currently How you receive communications about this currently How you receive communications about this currently (multi-tick); (multi-tick); (multi-tick);

78% 65%

33% 21% 14%

13% 16%

Noticeboards Leaflets Other drivers Letters to home address Noticeboards Training (CPC) Big Red Book How would you prefer to receive communications about How would you prefer to receive communications about How would you prefer to receive communications about this ? Feedback/suggestions* this ? Feedback/suggestions* this ? Feedback/suggestions* . 31% were satisfied with the current approach . 38% were satisfied with current approach . 20% were satisfied with the current approach . Drivers felt confused by the data and charts, therefore . Forums/face to face communications were suggested . Drivers felt some of the communications in this were keen to get clarity on what they mean via face to to allow B us Drivers to ask questions and have two-way category were patronising and dictatorial face communications, e.g. with Garage Manager discussions about the changes . Drivers also felt these communications could be shared . Feeling that we should share more positive results and . Letters and/or locker drops were felt to be useful in across multiple channels such as face to face, via email feedback, rather than focussing on the negative ensuring everyone gets the message and noticeboard

Page. 24 *Coded qualitative feedback

Impact of introducing digital channels on the bus driver experience

Introducing digital channels reduces Proportion of Bus Drivers citing noticeboards/posters as a channel for the reliance on noticeboards/posters receiving non-operational communications

When mapping the channel analysis with bus driver’s Overall 78% 65% against the feedback gathered from C ommunications Managers about the channels they are utilising and T ower T ransit 100% investing in, there is a difference in B us Drivers citing 100% noticeboards/posters as a channel for receiving non- operational communications (changes and reminders RATP 100% of policy). 51%

This is encouraging feedback in supporting many Arriva 100% O pera tor’s a mbition to move a wa y from the tra ditiona l 78% approach of using noticeboards/posters as the primary 69% channel for communication with Bus Drivers. Metroline 59%

Abellio 69% 50% O perators who are Go-Ahead 66% piloting/embedding digital 67% communications channels the most Stagecoach 54% 54%

C hanges to policy R eminders of policy

Page. 25 Bus driver experience: R eactions and responses to specific TfL communications

Despite the majority of these communications were Of drivers who said they were aware of the example, when asked displayed on noticeboards in the Garages that we about how they responded to that piece of communication*… visited, only 48% of drivers interviewed said they had seen the example that we were testing. 66 drivers said… “I know it/it’s We tested the below 6 examples of recent TfL communications that are common sense” aimed at Bus Drivers;

drivers said… “It’s a useful 47 reminder”

“The look and 40 drivers said… feel/imagery is a ttra ctive”

“It made me

15 drivers said… change my behaviour”

*Coded verbatim responses Page. 26 Bus driver experience: R eactions and responses to specific TfL communications

Do you recognise this Do you recognise Do you recognise pos ter? this pos ter? this pos ter? Yes: 45% Yes: 33% Yes: 62% No: 55% No: 67% No: 38% If ‘yes’, key feedback If ‘yes’, key feedback If ‘yes’, key feedback (coded): (coded): (coded): . Useful reminder: 10 . I know it: 9 . I know it: 18 . I know it: 9 . Useful reminder: 5 . C hanged my . C a n’t change my . Format/imagery behaviour: 5 behaviour: 7 good: 5 . Useful reminder: 4 . C hanged my . C hanged my behaviour: 4 behaviour: 1

Do you recognise this Do you recognise Do you recognise pos ter? this pos ter? this pos ter? Yes: 68% Yes: 41% Yes: 46% No: 32% No: 59% No: 54%

If ‘yes’, key feedback If ‘yes’, key feedback If ‘yes’, key feedback (coded): (coded): (coded): . Useful reminder: 14 . I know it: 23 . I know it: 15 . Format/imagery good: . Useful reminder: 13 . Useful reminder: 6 11 . C hanged my . C hanged my . I know it: 7 behaviour: 5 behaviour: 0 . C hanged my

behaviour: 0 Page. 27 Bus driver ideas and suggestions for more effective communications

Drivers show a readiness for more digital and “more email communication, so you can see it, channel that is “Nobody listens to the driver. If you tell me something, give me two-way communications checked frequently and easy to an opportunity to answer digest. More forum/face to face questions and check.” When we asked Bus Drivers what they believe effective intera ction for clarity” B us Driver communications looks like, and what TfL could do to improve B us Driver communications to them, we received a varied but rich source of feedback. E ncouragingly, aligned with all other audiences involved Two-way in this research, Bus Drivers referenced a readiness and ambition to Email/Intranet/Soci communications/ utilise more digital channels. al Media suggestions Ideas and suggestions by theme* Freq. Email/Intranet/Social Media 38 “Emails on smartphones, could “Feel like we're at the bottom of the Two-way communications/suggestions 34 read this before we come to scale, if they can include us, last to work. Make it more modern!” be told, pos ters is all we have” R elationship with T fL – more contact 34 B us Driver B us Driver Ma p/S a tna v /G P S 31 “More interaction Face to face – Manager, forums 25 “Have more people from TfL between TfL and the coming down to see people, have R adio signal is bad 13 drivers” more group discussions with a B us Driver Relationship Multi-channel needed 12 with TfL member of TfL there to answer C ustomer behaviours/education 12 any questions that come up but allow Bus Drivers to talk policies Too much communications/info 10 and other bits through.” P atronising messaging 10 “Coming into the garage and speaking directly B us Driver with drivers, there is no point going through the S implify things 8 middle man. Also make sure TfL communicate positive news more frequently” N oticeboards /pos ters 8 B us Driver

Page. 28 *Coded qualitative feedback o TfL perspective aligned with bus driver experience o Multiple communications routes and touchpoints involved in sending TfL communications to Bus Drivers; lack of consistency and visibility o The communications landscape is changing and evolving; channel availability and multi-channel o Garage Managers are a key touchpoint in shaping communications to Bus Drivers

PROJECT SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Next steps for TfL

Page. 29 Insights and implications

TfL Role and Resources Ways of working with Operators Content, Channels and Tools

. Develop TfL bus driver narrative and . E volve C ommunications Managers . S upport and encourage the rollout of campaigns F orum Operator intranets

. Map communications across Bus . Develop TfL/Operator Bus Driver . R eview TfL R oadshow programme Directorate communications strategy and planning feasibility process

. Build/utilise digital and planning skills . . Provide full campaign materials and at TfL for communications with Bus Leverage opportunities provided by Operators’ communications plans, ta ilored forma ts to s upport T fL Drivers campaigns and channels communications to Operators

Bus driver communications principles

• Multi-channel • No ‘one size fits all’ • Create two-way engagement • Campaign-based approach • Face to face is most effective • Tailored formats for different • Heightening of TfL context/narrative • Driver voice and tone channels

Page. 30 R ecommendations: TfL role and resources

Develop TfL overarching narrative and prioritised Agree TfL relationship positioning with/for Bus key campaigns and messages Drivers (i.e. role TfL should play and what it “owns”) C rea te a na rra tive for B us D rivers tha t s ets out T fL objectives , and is used as context for its priorities, and the In conjunction with developing a bus driver narrative for TfL, communications campaigns that it sends out – and identify explicitly agree the “relationship” that TfL wants to/needs explicitly a number of campaigns that TfL will be focussing on to/should be having with Bus Drivers – policy deliverer, throughout the year (e.g. use icons on TfL communications behaviour change, motivational and engagement role. tha t link to ea ch T fL objective).

Develop a integrated communications map and Leverage digital and planning skills (seconded) communications plan at the Bus Directorate level into the communications team in the short to medium term Audit and create a detailed map of all “communications” (instructions, communications, engagement) that go from the R eview the opportunity to identify digital communications and whole Bus Directorate into the Operators and garages and to communications planning expertise in the bus directorate and the B us Drivers directly – and critically, to whom in each whether those resources can be used/seconded by the team Operator (based on the TfL C ommunications Map in this (to help to deliver the following recommendations). report).

Page. 31 R ecommendations: Ways of working with Operators

Create a Bus Driver Communications Plan Understand Operator Opportunities

Develop a TfL/Operators bus driver communications strategy Identify the communications roles/map at the Operations and planning process and tool Director level

Agree future communications channel strategy to be digital Leverage opportunities provided by Operator plans, campaigns based and channels

L everage TfL /Operator Forums Collaborate to develop materials

R elaunch the C ommunications Forum based on S tandardise approaches to communications materials and communications planning and consultation principles and ways distribution decisions and approaches of working between TfL and the Operators

C larify and establish the role of the Bus Operators Forum and the relationship with C ommunications Forum

Page. 32 R ecommendations: C ontent, channels and tools

Content Channels Tools

• Develop full campaign materials for • Develop short-term exis ting • Identify and agree formats for each each priority T fL campaign channel improvements based on operator – not “one s iz e fits all” feedback • Leverage the “Hello London” • Develop an “action” code for all TfL training programme • Create TfL bus driver materials (urgent, for action, for communications champions in information) • Leverage the “Mr Men” customer alignment with “Hello London” marketing programme, aligning bus • Test communications and ideas driver and ma rketing • Invest in a Bus Directorate with engaged bus driver groups communications, (based on f2f, roadshow programme, establishing pledge/competitions, personalised engage B us Drivers leaflets) • Review the Big Red Book against • Review the opportunity to support all feedback (no need to undertake • Develop TfL content that can be O pera tors in developing B us Driver any further research) syndicated across Operator intranets, with two-way communications platforms (e.g. “A engagement capability day in the Life of..”), based on

positive reward and recognition

Page. 33 A proposed improvement approach/timeline: assuming existing TfL resources

Q3 2016 Q4 2016 Q1/Q2 2017

TfL R ole and • Develop overarching T fL narrative (12- • S et out T fL B us Driver narrative at C MF • Review and update bus driver Resources 18 months) for B us Driver • S econd digital skills into C entral C ommunications narrative against organisational and C ommunications • R eview D irectora te C ommunications ma p a t C MF O perator priorities • Develop Directorate Communications map for C MF review • S cope Digital skills need for C entral C ommunications

Ways of working • R edesign C ommunications Managers • R elaunch C MF • Launch Bus Driver communications with Operators F orum (C MF )– develop in collaboration • Design Bus Driver C ommunica tions s tra teg y planning tool with the O pera tors 2016/2017 • Develop initial B us Driver • E xplore development of Bus Driver communications plan 2016/Q1 2017 C ommunications planning tool

C ontent, • Agree and implement short-term • Develop brief and commission TfL Bus Drivers • Launch TfL Bus Driver intranet channels and channel use improvements (see next intranet (C MF working group) • Launch new/digital Big R ed Book tools slide) • Launch Bus Driver roadshow programme (with on with new intranet • Audit Operator format needs C MF and bus driver input) • Design Bus Driver roadshow • Identify opportunities for TfL syndicated content programme (with C MF and bus driver use input) • Develop proposals for new Big R ed Book • Design and leverage engagement communications campaign for “Hello London”

Page. 34 Existing TfL resources checklist: short-term/ ‘quick wins’

Channel Example comments/feedback S hort-term improvements P os ters Use as a “call to action” Add expiry da tes Use as part of a multi-cha nnel s tra teg y P lan timing with Operators C le a r, bold messaging Adult tone (e.g. humour) Plasma screens Visual, rather than narrative, content Design for all plasma screen sizes across Use a teaser channel, not information the O pera tors

Leaflets Very useful as ongoing reinforcement Develop a single bus driver leaflet style Newsletters Leverage Operator and garage newsletters by providing syndicated content (S ee recommendations) Events and roadshows Use as far as possible when engagement or behaviour change required (S ee recommendations) Competitions and Use with care and in the context of Operator competitions and award schemes awards Intranet E xplore the development of a TfL Bus Driver intranet (S ee recommendations) Leverage Operator intranets (where exist) by providing syndicated content Emails to drivers These should be Operator use only - Emails to Operators E dit press releases and notices to highlight relevant content, and provide context and recommendations on next steps

Page. 35 o TfL perspective aligned with bus driver experience o Multiple communications routes and touchpoints involved in sending TfL communications to Bus Drivers; lack of consistency and visibility o The communications landscape is changing and evolving; channel availability and multi-channel o Garage Managers are a key touchpoint in shaping communications to Bus Drivers

Appendix

Big R ed Book; summary of feedback

The Big R ed Book (BR B) is one of the major pieces of communication from TfL to Bus Drivers, with every bus driver expected to have a copy of the book. Within this research, we tested the Big Red Book as a specific example of communications within the Operator C ommunications Managers interviews, and it was raised spontaneously in Garage Manager interviews and Bus Driver interviews. This page provides a summary of the feedback gathered to provide TfL with insights into the perceptions of the Big R ed Book from our sample.

A useful point of reference A need for different formats Rethinking the launch of new versions

All audiences spoke about the BR B being The majority of Operator C ommunications Many Operators spoke about how they develop useful as a point of reference, for new drivers Managers spoke about the need for a their own launch campaigns for new versions of and as a resource for existing drivers to check ‘condensed version’ of the BR B with some of the BRB. Metroline have used the ‘Big R ed something if they need to. However there was most commonly used content in there, which Book quiz’ which was referenced by a bus a sense from Operator C ommunications they felt would mean Bus Drivers are more likely driver, and other Operator C ommunications Managers and Garage Managers that Bus to use the book. S everal Garage Managers Managers and Garage Managers spoke about Drivers don’t carry the BR B with them, due to spoke about how they typically condense key launching new versions through a wider multi- it’s size and comprehensive content. This was messages from the BR B into short notices for channel campaign, typically involving face to reinforced by some Bus Drivers; Bus Drivers, which are then put on face methods such as forums. . “Drivers aren't going to have time to read noticeboards. Both Operators C ommunications Managers and the book, only carry it for show” Garage Managers suggested that when new . “The red book is easy to use but very big All audiences spoke about the value of having versions are released, that TfL summarises and has lots of information.” the BR B available in electronic format, including what has changed, to enable them to . “Y ou don't always feel like reading that B us Drivers; communicate this effectively internally and book” . “The red book is helpful - it could be put encourage Bus Drivers to read the new version. online - electronic version.”

Further examples of Operator communications examples; highlighting best practise examples and the ‘no one size fits all’ principle for collaborating with O perators

Metroline involved Bus Drivers and other employees in the design RATP are an example of an Tower Transit developed and communication of their Operator who produce their own laminated card leaflets about new values. T hey trialled NoE s utilising the information drivers hours. T he cards are new formats such as they receive from TfL and pocket-sized to encourage drivers producing videos that were integrating it into a more simple to ca rry them with them on the then distributed on DVDs and visual format. Go-Ahead are bus. for all drivers. another Operator who follow a similar process. Examples of communications created at garage level; highlighting the role of the garage management team and inconsistency of approach at a local level

One of the examples of communications created by G arage Managers or their Garage Managers typically ma na g ement tea ms is this lea flet a bout highlight the important MTS scores. This highlights the role that information in notices to make Garage Managers and their teams play in it feel easier for Bus Drivers to In some cases, Garage Managers communications to Bus Drivers. read and interpret quickly. organise a garage newsletter. Those who did felt it was well received by Bus Drivers because they are predominantly interested in what’s happening at local level, rather than company level.