Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010 Results

Space Database Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010

Eight managers of significant customers were contacted by phone and interviewed by an independent consultant: Lee St. James.
749 people were identified as active customers. These people were invited to complete an on-line series of questionnaires.
104 people responded.
10 people abandoned the survey without entering any data.
The effective representation was 12.5%
Our results the previous year (2009) were very good. Our goal for 2010 was to maintain the overall scores while improving three target areas.
Our annual satisfaction survey was conducted at the end of 2010. Overview

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 2010 we set several goals. Goals 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.

How did we do? Our overall score was 87% in 2010 (89% in 2009; 89% in 2008; 86% in 2007)‏ Overall Score 87% Overview

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 are developing problems
Green arrows for areas where we have improved
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

Number of negative responses Results for 2010 : The distribution of results was very positive. Overview Number of positive responses

Response Charts: How to read the results. 780 Responses were “ Strongly Agree” 49% We have graphed multiple choice responses on horizontal bar charts. 651 Responses were “ Agree” 40% 172 Responses were “ Neutral” 11% 21 Responses were “ Disagree” 1% 8 Responses were “ Strongly Disagree” 0.5% Overview

Where we were in 2009 : Last year customer service score was 89% Service

Results for 2010 : Our score has decline slightly to 88% Service Satisfaction with timeliness has declined somewhat On average, scores are almost the same.

Our scores on specific questions are similar to previous years.
There has not been dramatic change in any one area.
Average scores have remained consistent over time
Steady average score: 2006: 88%, 2007: 88%, 2008: 91%, 2009:89%, 2010:88%
We are seeing some criticism for turn around times.
Scores for ‘prompt follow up’ and ‘turn around’ have declined.
We have experienced increases in volume of update work.
Insight: The focus for 2011 must be on improving our speed of delivery and reducing turn around times.
Service Results for 2010 : Out score is almost the same as last year.

Results for 2009 : Last year our online application score was 87% Applications

Results for 2010 : The overall score is slightly lower at 85% There is room for improvement in service delivery. Applications There is an overall reduction in negative responses.

Results for 2010 : Our applications and services are generally well liked.
The percentage of negative responses has declined:
From 3.06% of all responses in 2009 to 1.35% in 2010.
There is a decline in satisfaction with our service speed.
Clients are asking for faster turn-around times.
We have seen the average ticket completion times increase over the year.
Insight: The key focus for 2011 must be to increase the speed of service delivery.
Applications

Results for 2009 : Last year our score on surveys was 89% Accuracy

Results for 2010 : The overall score has declined slightly to 87% Scores on accuracy and reliability have improved ...but two people had concerns about the ‘first draft’ of our work. Accuracy There are some concerns about timelines.

Our scores on accuracy and reliability have improved:
This has been a key goal over the last several years.
We have a consistent trend of improvement in this area.
Our efforts are paying off!
A few clients are dissatisfied with completion times.
80% are satisfied. Only two individuals were dissatisfied.
Trend is negative: no dissatisfaction in 2007, 2008
Insight: We are making progress in quality improvements.
Insight: We must address timing issues before they become a bigger problem.
Results for 2010 : Our reputation as trusted consultants is strong Accuracy

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 2011: Our long term objectives remain the same. We will put a special emphasis on service delivery timelines. Goals We will develop and present a plan in Jan 2010 Maintain scores. Focus on service delivery and turn-around times. Maintain Scores. Develop improved training and help resources. Improve Scores. Continue quality initiatives. Develop plan to reduce timelines.

http://www.spacedatabase.com	525
http://mikaelblog.spacedatabase.com	233
http://127.0.0.1:8080	77
http://loc.spacedatabase.com	35
http://www.slideshare.net	2
http://www.aerocentreoffices.com	2

Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010 Results

by Mikael Sandblom on Dec 22, 2010

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

6 Embeds 874

Statistics

Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010 Results — Presentation Transcript