1 / 17

ElectraLink Customer Survey DCUSA Presentation 18 th November 2009

R. ElectraLink Customer Survey DCUSA Presentation 18 th November 2009. Research Method. Combined Approach. Quantitative. Qualitative. 71 x CATI Telephone Interviews: 27 SPAA 44 DCUSA. 6 x 45 Minute Face-to-face Depth Interviews: 3 SPAA 3 DCUSA. Quantitative. Qualitative. +.

leo-fox
Download Presentation

ElectraLink Customer Survey DCUSA Presentation 18 th November 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. R ElectraLink Customer Survey DCUSA Presentation 18th November 2009

  2. Research Method Combined Approach Quantitative Qualitative 71 x CATI Telephone Interviews: 27 SPAA 44 DCUSA 6 x 45 Minute Face-to-face Depth Interviews: 3 SPAA 3 DCUSA

  3. Quantitative Qualitative + Governance Services – Key Headlines (1/2) • Overall, DCUSA users continue to be extremely positive about the service provided by ElectraLink. This is built on two key areas of strength: • Effective management of Finance, auditing & other managerial roles • The efficient, professional & prompt service delivered • With a score of 8.3 out of 10. Comparisons with other organisations remain favourable (Elexon, on 7.3, is the closest). • This Overall rating has increased slightly through improved perceptions of clear communication & being easy to deal with. There is also some feedback that greater flexibility has been shown for big consultations. • Value for money perceptions show no change, remaining very positive.

  4. Quantitative Qualitative + Governance Services – Key Headlines (2/2) • The average taken across 26 different service ratings reveals no change overall, but this conceals some encouraging improvements in certain areas: • All 5 Helpdesk ratings improved – particularly helpfulness, consistent service & consistent info & advice. • The only notable (but slight) decline being for the Management of the Year End Audit Process & AGM. • Most find it hard to suggest any improvements. • There was a general sense that ElectraLink delivers its core role extremely well, but that more proactive involvement at industry level would be welcomed; come forward with ideas to make the industry work more efficiently/ effectively.

  5. Quantitative Rating Versus Other OrganisationsSummary Overall Satisfaction Mean Score out of 10 Governance Services Mean Change Score vs 2008 ElectraLink 8.32 +0.22 GEMSERV / MRASCO 6.76 -0.13 ELEXON 7.33 +0.63 *JOINT GAS OFFICE 7.13 +0.30 OFGEM 5.80 -0.01 xoserve 5.79 +0.24 Gas Forum 6.25 N/A iGT UNC 6.50 N/A Base: All Who Use Each Company (Various) * Asked of OFGAS in 2007

  6. Quantitative Satisfaction With ElectraLink ServiceSummary Governance Services Mean Change Score vs 2008 Overall Rating 8.32 +0.22 Overall Professionalism 8.59 +0.13 Being Responsive 8.17 +0.16 Being Easy To Deal With 8.58 +0.17 Being Highly Efficient 8.08 +0.17 Communicating Clearly 8.11 +0.24 *Understanding The Service Support Requirements Of… 7.79 +0.10 Base: Total Sample (71) * Wording changed in 2009 Mean Score out of 10

  7. Quantitative Satisfaction With ElectraLink ServiceDCUSA Sample 2009 Change 2009 Change % Score 8 - 10 vs. 2008 Mean Score vs. 2008 +3 8.41 +0.33 +6 8.68 +0.35 +6 8.14 +0.24 +15 8.52 +0.21 +16 8.11 +0.39 +21 8.14 +0.47 +14 8.05 +0.36 Base: Total DCUSA Sample (44) * Wording changed from ‘Understanding The Business Needs Of …’ in 2009 1 = Not at all satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied Overall Rating Overall Professionalism Being Responsive Being Easy To Deal With Being Highly Efficient Communicating Clearly *Understanding The Service Support Requirements Of ….

  8. Quantitative Summary Versus Previous Years Comparisons are made only across those ratings present in all years shown: Average No Of Ratings Year Base (Mean Score) Compared Governance 2008 68 4.30 26 Services2009 71 4.33 26 Survey The above is like for like comparison on statements scored as follows: Rating Score Very Good 5 Good 4 Adequate 3 Poor 2 Very Poor 1 Those with no experience or not using services / features rated are excluded from the mean scores.

  9. Quantitative Average Rating Of Main Service AreasGovernance Services Sample No. of Mean Change Service Attributes Score Attributes Since Area Rated 2009 Compared* 2008* All Ratings 27 4.35 26 +0.03 Finance & Auditing 7 4.61 6 -0.08 Management Of ….. 9 4.27 9 +0.09 Helpdesk For SPAA/DCUSA 5 4.51 5 +0.22 SPAA/DCUSA Website 6 4.03 6 -0.08 Base: All rating each attribute * Change compared only on ratings in both 2008 and 2009

  10. Quantitative Governance ServicesKey Service Changes Since 2008 Change in mean score since 2008 UpDown Overall helpfulness (of the DCUSA/ *How well ElectraLink manage the -0.26 SPAAHelpdesk)+0.32 year end audit process and AGM Receiving a consistent level of +0.32 service regardless how get in touch Getting consistent info & advice regardless how get in touch +0.28 Quality of monthly Service Performance reporting +0.24 ElectraLink’s efficiency in operating the annual voting system +0.22 Provision of meeting facilities +0.22 *Caution: Low Base Size, Active Board members only (11) NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20

  11. Quantitative DCUSA - Key Service Changes Since 2008 Change in mean score since 2008 UpDown Receiving a consistent level of +0.52 All < +/- 0.20 regardless how get in touch Getting consistent info & advice +0.47 regardless how get in touch The quality of response +0.38 you receive (Helpdesk) Overall Helpfulness (Helpdesk) +0.35 ElectraLink’s efficiency in operating the annual voting system +0.20 NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20

  12. Quantitative Governance Services: Perceived Improvement Over Past 12 Months Improved Got Worse(A little/ A lot) (A little/ A lot) ElectraLink Service Value For Money Main reason given for perceived improvement in ElectraLink Service: Staff 30% Quicker 20% Website 20% Base: All saying services improved (10)

  13. Quantitative What Would Most Like ElectraLink To Improve OnGovernance Services Sample No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The Same Improve Website / Non-User Friendly Improve Documentation Quality and timeliness of issuing papers and documentation could be improved. Increase Knowledge More Named Contacts Base: Total SPAA/ DCUSA Sample (71) We want more alternative contacts in case our named contact is not around. There is nothing to improve on. The service has been first class

  14. Governance Services: Some want ElectraLink to be more proactive Most respondents were happy with its level of involvement with the industry, and proactivity, a couple less so Proactivity: they want ElectraLink to be proactive in coming forward with ideas that make the industry work more efficiently / effectively There is a lot of valuable expertise and knowledge within ElectraLink, that could & should be brought to bear on big industry issues One respondent strongly felt that ElectraLink's service is delivered in a rather unengaged way - he wanted ElectraLink to be more dynamic and proactive. He was a more senior manager than some we spoke to, looking strategically at his business & ElectraLink & similar bodies – also frustrated with the supplier/distributor power balance in DCUSA He wanted ElectraLink to bring its expertise and knowledge to bear in the wider arena Qualitative “ElectraLink should & are playing a part in the Code Review ... they have the experience in how it works” “Anything ... any good idea that makes the industry work better should be put on the table. Would be interested to hear what they have to say. Smart is the obvious one where they have an expertise” “Smart metering – (ElectraLink needs to be involved now, don’t miss the boat”

  15. DCUSA: Suggested Improvements (1) A heads up for new / smaller players on the big industry issues, to alert them to potential impacts and issues – perhaps in a newsletter? Training Qualitative “The job is admin & change control, and they do that very well, can’t think of how it could be better” “St Clements ... when the change proposals come out they do an impact on MPRS system ... they know something is going to have to change .. that kind of thing would be helpful ... And things that are being discussed in the industry, like the offshore system. Very high level – offshore transmission, how is it going to affect your company ... I know xxxx’s got a lot of knowledge .. Bullet point high level these are things you should be considering – especially for small companies, because we don’t have the breadth of knowledge of the big boys” “we get a lot of help with training from Elexon .... a training brochure, .... they come to you or you can go there, and they don’t charge for it ... we get the value that way .... experts, that’s really good I wonder if ElectraLink could do a training guide on DCUSA, for new people coming into the market, and new people in post. It’s such a stale document the DCUSA, .... how it works, the details ... maybe a brief summary of each section, outlining what it is, who it matters to. ... I’d go on a webtools course, we use it, but I’m sure we don’t use it to its full extent, I’d go to that ... And the DTN works, what happens if it doesn’t get through”

  16. DCUSA: Suggested Improvements (2) Possibly within consultations – introduce a summary précis at the outset – to highlight key issues, and shortcut need to trawl through loads of info An independent chairman (ElectraLink?) in DCUSA Working Group meetings? But is current practice specified in the “agreement”? Is now the time to review DCUSA? In how it is structured, and serviced Qualitative “DCUSA is very much developing . .. it’s started to add on various schedules, and we’re thinking should we be developing a product set like MRASCo has a product set ... is DCUSA too big, should we be looking to hive it off into other areas. Needs a review – should it be one big document, or should it be separated into different procedures. ... should be considering: ‘... are we doing it in the correct manner, should we be looking at what Elexon & MRASCo are doing in administering those products. But it will depend on cost ... they outsource their legal development of DCUSA – is this the best way to do it? ... not sure if that’s part of ElectraLink’s business model, or if it would be more cost efficient? ... Benefits would be cost efficiency & speed of turnaround”

  17. R ElectraLink Customer Survey DCUSA Presentation 18th November 2009

More Related