Space Database Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015

Applications AccuracyServiceOverview Goals

Space Database Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015


Ten managers of significant customers will be approached by an independent consultant for phone interviews.

1042 people were identified as active customers. These people were invited to complete an on-line series of questionnaires.

73 people responded. 11 people abandoned the survey without entering any data. The effective representation was 6%

Our results the previous year (2014) had been excellent. Our goal for 2015 was to maintain these scores.

Our annual satisfaction survey was conducted at the end of 2015.

Overview 2


Space Database will focus on improving the quality of services in the areas that customers value the most.

Improve the level of consulting services.

Improve the level of training and support.

Improve accuracy and timeliness.

In January 2015 we set several goals.As in previous years, we are continuing the same strategy.

Maintain scores.Focus on service delivery and turn-

around times.

Maintain Scores.Develop improved training and help

resources.

Improve Scores. Invest in technologies

and processes to further improve accuracy.

Goals 3


Service Online App Surveys Billing80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Overall Score by Category 2014

Previously…Our overall had been 91.9% in 2014(89.5% in 2013; 87% in 2012; 89% in 2011; 87% in 2010; 89% in 2009; 89% in 2008; 86% in 2007)

Overall Score91.9%

Overview 4


Service Online App Surveys Billing80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

Overall Score by Category 2015

How did we do?Our overall score was 92.4% in 2015(91.9% in 2014; 89.5% in 2013; 87% in 2012; 89% in 2011; 87% in 201089% in 2009; 89% in 2008; 86% in 2007)

Overall Score92.4%

Overview 5

Applications AccuracyServiceOverview Goals 6

We enjoy positive feedback, but we need to focus on our weaknesses to find opportunities for improvement.

• We analyze our results and look for weakness– We want to find signs of trouble while they are small– We use these results to set our priorities and goals for the year

• We use icons to highlight specific issues– Red arrows for areas where we see problems– Green arrows for areas where results are good– Yellow arrows for where performance has remained the same

• A star indicates an insight that the data reveals – an insight that drives our goals for the next year.

Overview


Agree + Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree +0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500465

190

276 0

Total Responses to Positive Statements about Space Database 2015

Number of negative

responses

Results for 2015:The distribution of results was very positive.

Overview 7

Number of positive

responses


Multiple choice responses to positive statements about Space Database

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Summary of All Responses 2015

Agree + Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree +

Response Charts:How to read the results.

465 Responses were

“Strongly Agree” 68%

We have graphed multiple choice responses on horizontal bar charts.

190 Responses were

“Agree” 28%

27 Responses were

“Neutral” 4%

6 Responses were

“Disagree” 1%

0 Responses were

“Strongly Disagree” 0%

Overview 8


Service is consistent

Service response is timely

Understands our needs

Handles needs efficiently

Follow-up is prompt

Communication is excellent

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Customer Service 2014 ( 81 Respondents)


9

Results for 2014:Last year our score was 91.3%

Service


Service is consistent

Service response is timely

Understands our needs

Handles needs efficiently

Follow-up is prompt

Communication is excellent

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Customer Service 2015 ( 73 Respondents)


10

Results for 2015:This year our score has risen to 92.4%

Service

No complaints about slow service

Consistent high scores in all areas

Applications AccuracyServiceOverview GoalsService

Results for 2015:Our scores for service quality have improved.

• The scores are slightly higher for all questions!• We’ve improved our score for timeliness• Background:

– The volume of update ‘ticket’ work is very variable.– Marketing related work is often urgent.

• Therefore:– We must continue to develop flexibility in responding to update requests:

• More cross training of staff• More shifting of work between offices in other cities

11


Application is easy to use

Application is well organized

Data is well formatted

Training was clear and helpful

I understand the the system

The help system is clear

Ticketing system works well

Ticket manager understands me

The manager is courteous

Staff quickly resolve problems

Work is completed when I expect

Timeframes are met

Update work is accurate

The system helps me be effective

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Online Application 2014 (22 Respondents)


12

Results for 2014:Last year our score was 90.9%

Applications


Application is easy to use

Application is well organized

Data is well formatted

Training was clear and helpful

I understand the the system

The help system is clear

Ticketing system works well

Ticket manager understands me

The manager is courteous

Staff quickly resolve problems

Work is completed when I expect

Timeframes are met

Update work is accurate

The system helps me be effective

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Online Application 2015 (11 Respondents)


13

Results for 2015:The overall score has risen to 93.5%

Solid improvement in quality of work and turn-around times

Applications

We can still improve online help and documentation


Results for 2015:Scores have improved in all areas.

• Scores have improved in all areas. – Improved turn-around satisfaction is consistent with our internal metrics.

• Questions referring to people remained very good

• Some respondents asked for additional training and support.

• Insight: In 2016 we will continue to expand training and support.

Applications

14


Survey completed when expected

I understood the scope

I understood the pricing

I understood my role

Site access was well coordinated

Staff was polite and courteous

Drawings were well formatted

Staff helped me understand the data

Staff were helpful

I understood all the data

The data was accurate

No errors present in first draft

No errors in final version

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Surveys 2014 (17 Respondents)


15

Results for 2014:Last year our score was 94%

Accuracy


Survey completed when expected

I understood the scope

I understood the pricing

I understood my role

Site access was well coordinated

Staff was polite and courteous

Drawings were well formatted

Staff helped me understand the data

Staff were helpful

I understood all the data

The data was accurate

No errors present in first draft

No errors in final version

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Surveys 2015 (11 Respondents)


16

Results for 2014:The overall score has fallen to 92%

Some possible training issues.

Some doubt about confidence in accuracy

Accuracy


• Results have improved for all aspects of survey service. – We currently have a competent and experienced team.

• Don’t be disappointed if scores are lower next year. – These scores are very high; there is not much room to go higher. – Any score close to 90% is still excellent!

• Insight: Process improvements are yielding desired results.

Results for 2015:Overall, satisfaction is the highest it’s ever been.

Accuracy 17


Space Database will focus on improving the quality of services in the areas that customers value the most.

Improve the level of consulting services.

Improve the level of training and support.

Improve accuracy and timeliness.

Goals for 2016:Our long term objectives remain the same. We want to maintain our positive results!

Maintain scores.Focus on service delivery and turn-

around times.

Maintain Scores.Develop improved training and help

resources.

Maintain Scores. Continue quality

initiatives. Develop plan to reduce timelines.

Goals 18

Space Database Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015

Business

Transcript of Space Database Customer Satisfaction Survey 2015