1 / 72

2010 Customer Survey Main Quantitative Report Prepared For: 11 th October 2010

R. 2010 Customer Survey Main Quantitative Report Prepared For: 11 th October 2010. Presentation Coverage. Slide Introduction 2 Overview 5 Focus On DTS 9 Focus On DCUSA/ SPAA 42 Considerations For Qualitative Phase 69 Appendix (sample profiles, background data) 72. Background.

willa
Download Presentation

2010 Customer Survey Main Quantitative Report Prepared For: 11 th October 2010

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 2010 Customer Survey Main Quantitative Report Prepared For: 11thOctober 2010

  2. Presentation Coverage • Slide • Introduction 2 • Overview5 • Focus On DTS9 • Focus On DCUSA/ SPAA 42 • Considerations For Qualitative Phase 69 • Appendix (sample profiles, background data) 72

  3. Background • Electralink provides a range of services to companies operating in the utilities market, including the Data Transfer Service, and management of SPAA Ltd and DCUSA Ltd. • This research is concerned with surveying the opinions of users of each of these services. Since 2007 the survey has been managed using Researchcraft. • Previous internally managed quantitative surveys provide comparative data from previous years. • DTS Survey - Carried out online from 1997 to 2006 • SPAA Survey - Carried out via telephone since 2006 • DCUSA Survey - Introduced for the first time in 2007

  4. Method Quantitative Survey A quantitative survey using a c.15 minute CATI telephone interview. What? Amongst a total of 120 named contacts at companies using Electralink services for: DTS - 48 interviews (28 Contract Managers, 31 Gateway Operations Managers) SPAA/DCUSA - 72 interviews (33SPAA, 44 DCUSA) Who? All interviews conducted between Thursday 9th and Friday 24th September 2010. When?

  5. Presentation Coverage • Slide • Introduction 2 • Overview5 • Focus On DTS9 • Focus On DCUSA/ SPAA 42 • Considerations For Qualitative Phase 69 • Appendix (sample profiles, background data) 72

  6. Rating Versus Other OrganisationsSummary Overall Satisfaction Mean Score out of 10 DTS SPAA/ DCUSA Mean Change Mean Change Score vs2009 Score vs2009 Electralink8.60+0.548.28-0.04 GEMSERV / MRASCO 7.07+0.286.88+0.12 Elexon7.76+0.677.32-0.01 National Grid 6.00-0.26 N/A N/A JOINT GAS OFFICE 6.50 +0.507.14 +0.01 OFGEM 5.68 -0.275.58 -0.22 Xoserv6.15-0.106.21 +0.42 Gas Forum N/A N/A6.61+0.36 iGT UNC N/A N/A6.57+0.07 Base: All Who Use Each Company (Various)

  7. Satisfaction With Electralink ServiceSummary DTS SPAA/ DCUSA Mean Change Mean Change Score vs2009 Score vs2009 Overall Rating 8.60+0.548.28-0.04 Overall Professionalism 8.85+0.618.72 +0.13 Being Responsive 8.56+0.808.43 +0.26 *Being Easy To Work With 8.60+0.628.78 +0.20 Being Highly Efficient 8.00+0.278.19 +0.11 Communicating Clearly 8.42+0.488.26 +0.15 Understanding The Service Support Requirements Of… 7.98 +0.318.03 +0.24 Providing Valuable Expertise Resource 8.27 +0.56 N/A N/A Base: Total Sample (48) (72) * Wording changed in 2010 for SPAA/ DCUSA Mean Score out of 10

  8. 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 DTS Survey 2007 41 4.01 29 2008 46 4.13 29 2009 49 4.22 29 2010 48 4.26 42 SPAA/DCUSA 2008 68 4.30 26 Survey 2009 71 4.33 26 2010 72 4.44 27 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. Presentation Coverage • Slide • Introduction 2 • Overview5 • Focus On DTS9 • Focus On DCUSA/ SPAA 42 • Considerations For Qualitative Phase 69 • Appendix (sample profiles, background data) 72

  10. The DTS – Key Headlines (1/2) • Overall, satisfaction with Electralink’s service has improved in 2010 and is close to the peak levels reached 2 years ago: • 8-10 scores are up 14% on 2009 • 26% ahead of the nearest competitive benchmark • At least 1 in 3 say Electralink is better than others overall and in terms of value for money • This sense of improvement comes from a number of specific areas. Electralink is now seen as even more professional, responsive, easy to deal with and expert, particularly amongst Contract Managers. All of these attributes are now at their highest levels recorded. • Of the specific services delivered, the strongest areas are the Helpdesk, Reporting tools, DTS service and Gateway connections, all of which average scores of good or better (4+ out of 5).

  11. The DTS – Key Headlines (2/2) • Several specific service areas are perceived to have strengthened further: • Some web tools – D-FLOWMASTER & RECOLLECTION tools, & The REPORTS • The website • Quality of service • Notification of scheduled downtime • Feedback from user groups (both Electralink & User Group Reps) • Criticisms and reduced ratings are isolated, but include: • Some other web tools – Statistical graphs. • Reducing costs • Providing more communication • Gateway upgrades & hardware • On a handful of the 42 areas rated, there are still some customers rating service as poor, highlighting that there is always room for improvement. • Awareness remains a barrier to uptake of many of Electralink’s new initiatives, despite being substantially reduced over the past year.

  12. DTS % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  13. DTS % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  14. How DTS Compares With Other Services % Slightly/ Much Better Total DTS DTSDTSSample CM’sGOM’s How Facilities Compare With Others How Compares For Value For Money* * Excludes don’t knows (58% for total sample, 61% for CM’s and 55% for GOM’s).

  15. Main Reasons For Satisfaction / DissatisfactionDTS Sample Total Give Score Give Score Sample of 1 - 7 of 8 – 10 14 41 0 32 0 20 0 15 43 7 0 12 29 5 0 5 Base: Total DTS Sample (48)(7)(41) NB: Mentions by 1 person (2%) not shown Generally Happy With Service Quick Service / Prompt Turnaround Of Problems Approachable / Helpful Service Efficient / Professional / Accurate Any Miscellaneous Negative Comments Knowledgeable/ Provide Necessary Info / Expert Issues with gateway upgrades/ hardware Communication not so good/ clear

  16. DTS: Perceived Improvement Over Past 12 Months % Improved a little/ a lot Total DTS DTS DTSSample CM’s GOM’s Electralink Service Value For Money

  17. Main Reasons Electralink Has Improved / Stayed SameDTS Sample Total Improved A Stayed The Sample Lot / Little Same 0 53 0 32 30 0 30 0 20 0 0 5 0 8 Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (10) (38) NB: Mentions by 1 person (2%) not shown Have Not Noticed Any Changes Service Is Consistent / Always Good Communication positive Better response/ more proactive Technology improved Have Little Contact With Them / New To Post Don’t Know/ No Reason

  18. What Would Most Like Electralink To Improve OnDTS Sample I think it is a very expensive service overall for the industry and unnecessary because of the public internet Costs – generally to bring them down. I do not know how they can do this realistically, but obviously the cheaper the better. No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The Same There is nothing I could say that they can improve upon. Any improvement that we can come across, they are always willing to listen and take it onboard and pass on to the user group for discussion and possible agreement. Reduce Costs More Communication / Information Base: Total DTS Sample (48) Proactive communication – telling us about things in advance. The first time I hear about anything is when I receive an invitation to a meeting – it would be nice to know about things before it reaches this stage

  19. Satisfaction With Electralink Service Mean Score CM’sGOM’s 2010 Change 2010 Change 2010 Change Overall Rating 8.60+0.548.46+0.508.65 +0.35 Overall Professionalism 8.85+0.618.86 +0.608.77+0.40 Being Responsive 8.56+0.808.50+0.878.58+0.58 Being Easy To Deal With 8.60+0.628.64+0.608.52+0.39 Being Highly Efficient 8.00+0.277.96+0.227.94+0.04 Communicating Clearly 8.42+0.488.36+0.628.39 +0.22 Understanding Your 7.98 +0.317.71+0.308.19 +0.12 Business Needs Providing Valuable 8.27 +0.568.39+1.068.16-0.04 Expertise Resource Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (28) (31)

  20. DTS % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  21. DTS % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  22. DTS % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  23. How Facilities Provided Compare With Others 20102009 Slightly Better Much BetterSlightly Better Much Better Total DTS Sample DTS CM’s DTS GOM’s Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (49)

  24. Average Rating Of Main Service AreasDTS Sample No. of Mean Change Service Attributes Score Attributes Since Area Rated 2010 Compared* 2009* All Ratings 42 4.2642 +0.04 DTS Web Tools 9 4.179+0.25 Electralink Helpdesk 5 4.49 5 +0.06 The DTS Itself 5 4.32 5 +0.08 Electralink Reporting Tools 4 4.39 4 +0.06 Electralink Services 6 4.18 6 +0.13 Gateway Connection 5 4.20 5 +0.07 EDS Helpdesk 3 4.31 3 -0.17 Electralink Website 5 4.115 +0.10 Base: All rating each attribute * Change compared only on ratings in both 2009 and 2010

  25. DTS - Key Service Changes Since 2009 Change in mean score since 2009 *Web tools – The REPORTS +1.29 *Web tools – D-FLOWMASTER +0.63 *Web tools – The RECOLLECTION tool +0.60 Ease of use of the Electralink website +0.30 The overall quality of service provided +0.30 The content of the daily gateway reports +0.27 Using terminology (on the website) that is easy to understand +0.26 *Web tools – MPAN Search Facility +0.26 Administering change requests efficiently +0.24 The quality of response you receive from the HP helpdesk -0.21 *Web tools – Statistical Graphs -0.67 * CAUTION: Low base size NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20

  26. Rating Of Electralink Helpdesk 201020092008 Mean Score 4.514.414.31 4.434.444.22 4.644.534.33 4.524.424.21 4.364.354.15 Average for DTS 4.494.434.24 Base: All Electralink’s DTS Helpdesk users (DTS) (43) (32) (37) The Quality Of Response You Receive The Speed Of Response Overall Helpfulness Receiving a consistent level of service regardless of how you get in touch Getting Consistent information and advice regardless of how you get in touch

  27. Rating Of HP Helpdesk* 201020092008 Mean Score 4.234.444.04 4.334.504.08 4.364.503.92 Average For DTS 4.334.484.01 *Prior to 2010 was the EDS Helpdesk Base: All HP/ EDS Helpdesk users (DTS) (17)(18) (27) The Quality Of Response You Receive The Quality Of Service Provided The Way HP Manages Fault Situations

  28. Rating Of Electralink WebsiteDTS Sample 201020092008 Mean Score 3.864.003.86 4.223.923.76 3.963.954.00 4.183.924.05 4.334.243.95 Average For DTS 4.114.013.92 Base: All Website users (28) (25)(21) Overall Usefulness ^Ease Of Use Being Kept Up To Date Using Terminology That Is Easy To Understand Being Clear And Easy To Login As A User

  29. Website Features UsedDTS Sample Rating of Feature % Used 201020092008 Feature Mean Score The MPAN Search Facility 424.35 4.09 4.09 The RESUBMISSION Tool 21 4.50 4.504.67 The ACMT 354.063.924.27 The Web Tools User Guide & 423.854.003.92 Context Sensitive Help The AUDIT Facility 544.274.144.15 The RECOLLECTION Tool 214.604.005.00 D-FLOWMASTER 17**3.633.004.00 THE REPORTS 15**4.293.004.00 Statistical Graphs 15**4.004.67 N/A Average For DTS 4.173.924.26 Base: Total DTS Sample (48) Features Users (Various) ** Caution: Low base size

  30. Training Sessions For Users Of The Web Tools Applications • 25% of all DTS users claim to have attended a Web Tools training session • 60% would be interested in attending similar workshops in the future.

  31. Rating Of Electralink Services 201020092008 Mean Score 4.324.084.17 4.304.214.34 4.13 4.19 4.19 4.053.903.75 3.843.803.75 4.444.144.18 Average For DTS 4.184.054.06 Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (49) (46) Administering Change Requests Efficiently Managing DTS Fault Situations The Quality Of Written Communications The Content & Format Of Newsletters Being Proactive In Suggesting Improvements Overall Quality Of Service Provided

  32. Rating Of DTS Itself 201020092008 Mean Score 4.284.154.05 4.464.454.33 4.23 4.19 4.19 4.454.354.36 4.204.074.03 Average For DTS 4.324.24 4.19 Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (49) (46) Quality Of Info In The DT Handbook Being Able To Meet Needs Of Current Business Being Able To Cope With Needs Of Future Business DTS Overall Value For Money Provided By The DTS

  33. Rating Of Gateway Connection 201020092008 Mean Score 4.474.374.21 4.093.933.83 4.394.234.38 3.933.984.00 4.114.123.83 Average For DTS 4.204.134.12 Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (49) (46) Quality Of Service From Gateway Connection Providing A Data Transfer And Management Service That will Keep Pace With Technology Overall Capacity Of The Gateway Connection Providing The Latest, Up To Date Software Having Flexibility To Integrate Gateway With Existing Systems

  34. How Effective Find Notifications And Notification Period For Scheduled Service Downtime 20102009 2008 Quite Very QuiteVery Quite VeryEffectiveEffectiveEffectiveEffectiveEffectiveEffective Total DTS Sample DTS CM’s DTS GOM’s Base: Total DTS Sample

  35. Rating Of Electralink Reporting Tools Rating Mean % Use Score 20092008 Content Of Monthly Service 564.114.14 4.08 Reports *Quality Of Electralink Billing Info 21** 4.50 4.504.17 Content Of Daily Gateway 154.574.30 4.15 Reports The Audit Tool 504.384.36 4.16 None Used 21** Average For DTS 4.394.33 4.14 Base: Total DTS Sample (48) Reporting Tool Users (Various) * Asked of CM’sOnly (28) ** CAUTION: Low Base

  36. How Well Electralink Provides Feedback On Topics Discussed And Issues Raised At The DTS User Group 25% are elected members of the DTS user group in 2010 compared to 10% in 2009 and 15% in 2008. 2010 2009 2008 Very Well Quite Well Not Very Well Not At All Well Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (49) (46)

  37. How Well User Group Representative Provides Feedback On Topics Discussed And Issues Raised At The DTS User Group 20102009 2008 Very Well Quite Well Not Very Well Not At All Well Base: Total DTS Sample (48) (49) (46)

  38. Awareness & Claimed Uptake Of Initiatives Introduced In The Past Two Years Already Aware & Aware But Unaware Using Planning To Not Planning Use To Use Bulletin Board On Web Tools Ability To Restore Routing Data Through ACMT Ability To Extract Routing Info. In CSV Format From ACMT Tool Flexible Filenaming Ability To Display List Of All MPANs In Single Data File Ability To Deliver Acknowledgement Files To Different Directory Introduction Of ‘Admin’ Accounts On Web Tools New ‘STATS’ Graphs On Web Tools

  39. Claimed Uptake Of Initiatives Introduced In The Past Two Years 20102009 Bulletin Board On Web Tools Ability To Restore Routing Data Through ACMT Ability To Extract Routing Info. In CSV Format From ACMT Tool Flexible Filenaming Ability To Display List Of All MPANs In Single Data File Ability To Deliver Acknowledgement Files To Different Directory Introduction Of ‘Admin’ Accounts On Web Tools New ‘STATS’ Graphs On Web Tools

  40. Awareness Of Initiatives Introduced In The Past Two Years 20102009 Bulletin Board On Web Tools Ability To Restore Routing Data Through ACMT Ability To Extract Routing Info. In CSV Format From ACMT Tool Flexible Filenaming Ability To Display List Of All MPANs In Single Data File Ability To Deliver Acknowledgement Files To Different Directory Introduction Of ‘Admin’ Accounts On Web Tools New ‘STATS’ Graphs On Web Tools

  41. DTS – Suggested Improvements / Changes • A number of areas have either been directly raised as criticisms, or have seen lower ratings than last year: • Some of the web tools – Statistical graphs • The need to reduce costs further • Providing more communication • Gateway upgrades & hardware • There is still room to extend awareness and uptake of all of the recent new initiatives. • For several areas where 4% or more rate the service as poor: • Keeping the website up to date • Using terminology on the website that is easy to understand • Being proactive in suggesting improvements • Quality of written communications • Being able to cope with the business needs of the future • Having the latest, up to date software for Gateway connections • Having the flexibility to integrate the Gateway with existing systems

  42. Presentation Coverage • Slide • Introduction 2 • Overview5 • Focus On DTS9 • Focus On DCUSA/ SPAA 42 • Considerations For Qualitative Phase 69 • Appendix (sample profiles, background data) 72

  43. DCUSA/ SPAA – Key Headlines (1/2) • The high satisfaction levels already reached have been maintained again this year, with a strong sense that service is improving – particularly the staff, website and communications. • Electralink’s 8+ score is still 29% ahead of the nearest benchmark (Elexon) • Value for money score is up to 47% (but still below the 2007 peak of 61%) • Customers see your strengths as the helpful, efficient and prompt service from staff. Rating of responsiveness and understanding service support have improved further. • These are well aligned with what they see as the necessary qualities of a code adminstrator: • Quality of service • Knowledge • Quality of written work • Demonstrating industry influence and being easy to work with matter much less.

  44. DCUSA/ SPAA – Key Headlines (2/2) • At an average rating of 4.4 out of 5, customers already rate Electralink highly on the 29 specific service areas covered. This is most strongly supported by the helpdesk and finance & auditing activities. • There are no major changes in the these 29 ratings since 2009. • Of these, only two (both related to the website) receive more than 3% rating the service poor: • Ease of using the website (6%) • Overall usefulness of the website (4%)

  45. SPAA/ DCUSA % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  46. SPAA/ DCUSA % Scoring 8-10 out of 10

  47. Main Reasons For Satisfaction / DissatisfactionSPAA / DCUSA Sample Total Give Score Give Score Sample of 1 - 7 of 8 - 10 13 50 60 35 12 26 13 26 0 10 13 6 20 3 0 6 Base: Total SPAA/ DCUSA Sample (72) (16)(62) NB: Mentions by 1 person (1%) not shown Service Efficient / Professional / Accurate Generally Happy With Service Quick Service / Prompt Turnaround Of Problems Approachable / Helpful Knowledgeable / Expert Negative Website Comments Lack Of Knowledge/ Some Staff Not Qualified Communication Good/ Clear

  48. SPAA / DCUSA: Perceived Improvement Over Past 12 Months Improved Got Worse(A little/ A lot) (A little/ A lot) Electralink Service Value For Money No single reason given for improvement by more than 1-2 people

  49. Main Reasons Electralink Has Improved / Stayed SameSPAA / DCUSA Sample Total Improved A Stayed Same Sample Lot / Little / Got Worse 0 39 6 30 0 21 31 2 25 0 13 0 6 2 0 2 0 2 Base: Total SPAA / DCUSA Sample (72) (16) (61) NB: Mentions by 1 person (1%) not shown Have Not Noticed Any Changes Service Is Consistent / Always Good Have Little Contact With Them / New To Post Staff - Positive Website Improved Communications - positive Easy to work with Staff - Negative Don’t Know

  50. What Would Most Like Electralink To Improve OnSPAA / DCUSA Sample Nothing, just to maintain their standards and not lower them at all. The website. I believe everything is there, but it is just trying to find it. So to improve on the navigation. Try to help parties develop better variations – better documentation. No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The Same Improve Website / Non-User Friendly Improve Documentation Knowledge within individuals – when something has to be dealt with quickly & effectively you want someone with knowledge. This is regarding SPAA & the meetings. Sometimes you leave uncertain about something, and feel that you have got to go and find out more about it. Increase Knowledge Be spokesman for industry/ improve influence Increase speed of putting things through/ updating change documents Base: Total SPAA/ DCUSA Sample (72) They need to blow their own trumpet a bit louder and get out there a bit more – maybe a spokesman.

More Related