Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

TBR 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study

599

Published on

Technology Business Research is a different kind of research company. Our bottoms-up approach provides a look at the technology industry unlike anything you’ve seen before. We analyze company …

Technology Business Research is a different kind of research company. Our bottoms-up approach provides a look at the technology industry unlike anything you’ve seen before. We analyze company performance in professional services, networking and mobility, computing and hardware, and software on a quarterly basis, leveraging our data to create industry benchmarks and landscapes that provide a business perspective on leaders and laggards and their business plans. We are experts in the business of technology.

The TBR Computing research team compiled information from the First Quarter 2011 into this Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study. These supporting slides include information regarding internal support organizations, Dell Services, IGS/Lenovo Services, and HP Services. TBR provides insight on hot topics such as competitive placement, performance differentiation shifts, server support, desktop/notebook support, critical metrics, historical record, and their own Watch List.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
599
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Technology Business ResearchAccelerating Customer Success Through Business Research TBR T E C H N O L O G Y B U S I N E S S R ES E AR C H , I N C .
  • 2. Corporate IT Service & SupportCustomer Satisfaction Study –First Calendar Quarter 2011 OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT 1Q11 Strength/ 1Q11 Strength/ 1Q11 TBR 1Q11 WSI 1Q11 Strength/ 1Q11 TBR 1Q11 TBR Weakness 1Q11 TBR 1Q11 TBR Weakness SUPPORT PROVIDER RANK SCORE Weakness Points RANK SCORE Points RANK SCORE Points Internal Support Organizations 1 86.3 +16 1 85.6 +16 1 87.2 +15 Dell Services 2 82.2 +2 3 80.9 0 2 83.6 +3 IGS/Lenovo Services 2 81.8 +2 2 82.5 +5 3 80.8 -1 HP Services 2 81.2 0 3 81.0 0 3 81.2 0 Publication Date: June 23, 2011 Author: Julie Perron TBR T E C H N O L O G Y B U S I N E S S R ES E AR C H , I N C .
  • 3. Content TBR Slides and Modules Appendices 3 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support 44 Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables Satisfaction At A Glance 77 Appendix B: Support Provider 10 1Q11 Competitive Placement Summary Satisfaction Scores 4Q07 through 1Q11 & Insights 80 Appendix C: Historical Strength & 11 Key Findings Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes 16 The Score in 1Q11 82 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends and Key 19 Most Noteworthy Events - Service & Support Satisfaction Attributes Performance Differentiation Shifts 93 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs 24 Server Support - Segment Analysis 104 Appendix F: Categorical Responses 28 Desktop/Notebook Support - 114 Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Segment Analysis Desktop/Notebook by Support Provider 32 Critical Metrics Summary 119 Appendix H: Study Design & 35 TBR’s Watch List Methodology 42 Historical Record 127 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures 135 Appendix J: Survey Instrument 3 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4. TBR 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction At A Glance4 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 5. 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRIBM takes top position for server support satisfaction, while Dell Servicesleads in desktop/notebookIn-house support continues to assert itself as the overall model of maintenance efficiencyIBM holds leadership Dell Services maintains theposition for server support advantage for desktop/for the fourth straight 1Q11 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING notebook support for its TBRreporting period BY SUPPORT SEGMENT second straight period 89.0• IBM outpaced its OEM 87.0 87.2 • Dell Services defended its top 85.6 competitors by excelling 85.0 1 ranking position by 83.6 across five key areas: 83.0 1 82.5 81.2 outperforming competitors for 80.9 81.0 80.8 break/fix services, on-site 81.0 2 2 both on-site response time expertise, phone 79.0 3 3 3 and technical expertise. 3 support, parts availability 77.0 75.0 • At a substantial distance from and services value. Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support Dell, Lenovo Services and• Dell and HP Services Dell Services Internal Support Organizations HP Services shared the No. 3 shared the No. 3 ranking IGS/Lenovo Services HP Services ranking position, with position and did not SOURCE: TBR generally neutral ratings. The encounter any of the exception was a newly issued competitive warnings they competitive warning for held last period. Both Lenovo for on-site response contenders lacked the time. differentiation exhibited by IBM across the areas • The internal support teams continued to substantially identified above. outperform OEM support providers across nine of the 10 categories in both study segments.5 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 6. 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRIn-house support was again cited as the ideal experience, with a growingperformance gap in place against OEM-provided support 1Q11 Key Takeaways:TBR Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard • The internal support group defended its traditional position as the model against OVERALL RESULTS which we measure OEM support INTERNAL IGS/LENOVO providers.SUPPORT PROVIDER SUPPORT DELL SVCS SVCS HP SVCS • Resumed IT hiring ensured the continuedBrea k/Fi x Servi ces     standing of internally managed (self)On-s i te Techni ca l Expertis e     support as the best source for supportingOn-s i te Res pons e Ti me/Commi tment  *   IT infrastructures.Tel ephone/Hel pdes k Support   *  • The three OEM support providers sharedOnl i ne Support     the No. 2 ranking position, with their WSIRemotel y Ma na ged Support     ratings at a considerable distance from that of internal support.Repl a cement Pa rts Ava i l a bi l i ty     o Dell Services’ position strengthened,Support Servi ces Pri ci ng/Va l ue     recovering from its previous phoneHa rdwa re Ins tal l a tion/Confi gura tion  *   support warning.Numeri c Va l ue 16 2 2 0 o IGS’ position weakened, yieldingWei ghted Sa tis fa ction Score 86.3 82.2 81.8 81.2 two previous strengths whileRa nki ng 1 2 2 2 gaining a new warning for on-siteRa nki ng, OEM Support Provi ders Onl y 1 1 1 response time.Key: Weakness;  Strength; ¡ Ne utra l. Warning area fo r weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. o HPS’ performances gained ground, * The de te rm ina tio n wa s m a rgina l. recovering from three longstanding challenges across break/fix services, The Overall Results combine the server and desktop/notebook on-site response time and on-site results into one, with sample sizes of 250 or more per group. expertise.6 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 7. 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRIBM Support outshines OEM competitors for x86 server-related supportservices for the fourth straight reporting period 1Q11 Key Takeaways:TBR x86 Server Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard • The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM support SERVER SUPPORT providers across all but the parts INTERNAL availability category. SUPPORT PROVIDER SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS • IBM Support earned its fourth consecutive Brea k/Fi x Servi ces  *   top ranking, which was at least partially On-s i te Techni ca l Expertis e  *   driven by competitive advantages for On-s i te Res pons e Ti me/Commi tment     break/fix services, technical expertise, Tel ephone/Hel pdes k Support  *   support services value and two new wins – Onl i ne Support     phone support and parts availability. • Dell Services’ ranking remained Remotel y Ma na ged Support     subordinate to IBM, despite having Repl a cement Pa rts Ava i l a bi l i ty  *   recovered from previous competitive Support Servi ces Pri ci ng/Va l ue  *   warnings in phone support and support Ha rdwa re Ins tal l a tion/Confi gura tion     services value. Numeri c Va l ue 16 5 0 0 • HPS recovered from its previous challenges Wei ghted Sa tis fa ction Score 85.6 82.5 80.9 81.0 but remained at the shared No. 3 ranking Ra nki ng 1 2 3 3 position with Dell Services. Ra nki ng, OEM Support Provi ders Onl y 1 2 2 • With a full slate of neutral performances, there were no significant differences Key: Weakness;  Strength; ¡ Ne utra l. Warning area fo r weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The de te rm ina tio n wa s m a rgina l. between the scores of Dell and HP Services. In comparison to IBM, both The Server Support Results are based on views of IT lacked the perception of services managers/directors that primarily support x86-based servers, with differentiation that has helped keep IBM at a sample size of 125 or more per group. the top ranking spot for over a year.7 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 8. 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRDell Services extends its leadership status in desktop/notebook support 1Q11 Key Takeaways: TBR Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard • The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT support providers across all but the parts INTERNAL availability category. SUPPORT PROVIDER SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS • Dell Services maintained its top ranking Brea k/Fi x Servi ces *    position as a result of continued On-s i te Techni ca l Expertis e  *   performance differentiation through its On-s i te Res pons e Ti me/Commi tment     on-site response time rating. A new on- Tel ephone/Hel pdes k Support     site competitive advantage for technical Onl i ne Support     expertise was added to the roster in this period. Remotel y Ma na ged Support     • HP Services continued to present a full Repl a cement Pa rts Ava i l a bi l i ty     slate of neutral performances – its No. 3 Support Servi ces Pri ci ng/Va l ue     ranking position the result of a lack of Ha rdwa re Ins tal l a tion/Confi gura tion     differentiation perceptions. Numeri c Va l ue 15 3 -1 0 • Lenovo Services shared the No. 3 ranking Wei ghted Sa tis fa ction Score 87.2 83.6 80.8 81.2 position with HPS due to the proximity of Ra nki ng 1 2 3 3 its WSI rating. Nevertheless, Lenovo was Ra nki ng, OEM Support Provi ders Onl y 1 2 2 cited with a new competitive warning for on-site response time. Key: Weakness;  Strength; ¡ Ne utra l. Warning area fo r weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The de te rm ina tio n wa s m a rgina l. The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that primarily support desktop and laptop PCs, with a sample size of 125 or more per group.8 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 9. 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBROn-site support and available replacement parts supersedephone/web/remote management as top concerns in recent quarters • Between the past two reporting periods, TBR has observed significantly TBR CHANGE IN PROPORTIONS OF DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS, 4Q10 to 1Q11 declining satisfaction with Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House on-site support and parts 60% availability. 40% • This is evidenced by the 20% significant reduction in the 0% coveted Perfect 7 satisfaction -20% ratings. -40% • Meanwhile, satisfaction with -60% phone, web and remotely -80% managed support has held up, Parts Availability Break/Fix Svcs Phone Support Online Support Remotely Managed On-site Response Time Support Services Value/Pricing Hardware Deployment On-site Technical Expertise with some scores registering increases in customer delight. • These findings suggest customers are more SOURCE: TBR comfortable with resolutions that preclude the need for desk-side visitations by a third party, such as cases where information is gathered via phone or email, then handled by one’s own internal support staff.9 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 10. 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRThe score corrections of late 2010 appear to have been short-lived;satisfaction begins to find its upward momentum in 1Q11 • Satisfaction with support TBR OEM SUPPORT PROVIDER SATISFACTION, PAST FIVE CALENDAR QUARTERS 7.00 services spiked in 2Q10, and in Jan-Mar 10 Apr-Jun 10 Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 Jan-Mar 11 many cases shifted only 6.50 modestly downward in the following quarter. 6.00 • This unsustainable burst of 5.50 enthusiasm was driven by a 5.00 combination of new product purchases with fresh warranties 4.50 and resumed IT staff hiring, 4.00 where enthusiasm with new hardware spilled over into Overall Satisfaction Hardware Deployment Replacement Parts Support Services On-site Technical Remotely Managed Online Support Phone Support Break/Fix On-site Response Pricing/Value perceptions of services. Availability Expertise Support • The full correction occurred during 4Q10, when most SOURCE: TBR satisfaction positions returned to their first-quarter levels. • The results from 1Q11 show customer satisfaction beginning to rebuild, and in most cases The mean satisfaction ratings in the graph are based on discrete calendar establishing sustainable patterns quarters and not the “reporting periods” (comprising two calendar quarters) indicative of normalized TBR generally reports on with these study results. The graph exemplifies purchasing behavior. average ratings across the three OEM support providers – Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/Lenovo Services.10 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 11. TBR 1Q11 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights11 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 12. Key Findings: Overall Study TBROVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations continue theirexemplary performance; HPS rises to share the No. 2 ranking with Delland IGS Factors Driving Rankings: • Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was TBR SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS driven by an inspiring set of 6.80 performances, substantially outpacing 6.60 Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs the OEM support providers across all but 6.40 6.20 one category. 6.00 • TBR noted insufficient performance 5.80 differences across the three OEM 5.60 5.40 support providers to assign separate 5.20 ranking positions. 5.00 o IGS’ traditional position of On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/ Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Telephone/Helpdesk Support Break/Fix Services Deployment/Installation Remotely Managed Support Online Support Overall Satisfaction strength was mitigated by the Commitment presence of a newly issued Hardware warning for on-site response time in 1Q11. o Dell Services’ position SOURCE: TBR strengthened by virtue of a recovery from last period’s phone support warning. = TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11 o HPS’ position was strengthened = TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11 through its recovery from two warnings (break/fix, on-site expertise) and one weakness (response time) from the previous period.12 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 13. Key Findings: x86 Server Support TBRx86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1;IBM outperforms Dell and HP Services for the fourth straight period SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 4Q08 to 1Q11 The Context TBR 92.0 • Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in 2009 as 90.0 a result of the spending cuts caused by the 88.0 Great Recession. WSI ratings progressively 86.0 declined throughout the year, leaving no 84.0 competitor (not even the in-house teams) immune to the trend. 82.0 • By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction 80.0 score slides halted, and improved in IBM’s 78.0 case. In 2Q10, the real excitement started; 76.0 customer satisfaction ratings surged across 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 all groups, resulting in a split between Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support No. 1 ranked Internal Support and IBM over SOURCE: TBR No. 2 ranked Dell and HP Services. • In 3Q10, the internal support organizations resumed their place alone at the top; OEM1Q11 Developments support providers’ positions held constant.• Continuing corrections suggest IT organizations are returning to • In 4Q10 and into 1Q11, satisfaction scores a state where business-as-usual takes over as fresh warranties corrected, returning to positions held prior on systems purchased in 1H10 are replaced by systems more to the ebullience of the previous several susceptible to the effects of time. periods.• IBM maintained its status as the top-ranked OEM support provider, while Dell and HP Services’ scores remained interlocked. 1Q11 was the fourth consecutive reporting period in which the companies were so aligned.13 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 14. Key Findings: x86 Server Support TBRx86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation examplesremain plentiful, favoring internal support and IBM TBR Factors Driving Rankings: MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY • Internal support’s 6.60 Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support No. 1 ranking was the 6.40 result of consistently 6.20 outperforming OEM 6.00 competitors across all but 5.80 parts availability. 5.60 • IBM’s sole No. 2 ranking 5.40 was delivered through 5.20 solid performances across 5.00 break/fix, technical expertise, phone Phone Support Break/Fix Web Support Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Overall Value On-site Response Time Remotely Managed On-site Expertise Hardware Deployment support, parts availability and support services value. • While Dell and HP Services SOURCE: TBR remained in a shared No. 3 ranking, it was not the result of specific warnings or weaknesses, as all were lifted in 1Q11. Dell and HP Services simply lacked the = TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11 competitive strength of = TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11 several of IBM’s performances.14 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 15. Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support TBRDESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1;Dell Services enhances performance edge over Lenovo and HP Services The Context TBR SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 4Q08 to 1Q11 • Customer satisfaction with desktop and 90.0 notebook systems support began to 88.0 decline as far back as mid-2008 but 86.0 accelerated during the recession of 2009. 84.0 • By 1Q10, customer satisfaction scores 82.0 for all competitors either stabilized or 80.0 improved. Dell Services’ improvement 78.0 was substantial enough to deliver a sole No. 1 ranking. 76.0 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 • In 2Q10, ranking positions held steady, Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support with Dell Services as the singular No. 1 ranked player, internal support SOURCE: TBR and Lenovo Services sharing No. 2 and HPS ranked No. 3. • In the succeeding periods, Dell and1Q11 Developments Lenovo Services switched positions,• Satisfaction scores continued to correct and had the greatest with Lenovo taking No. 1 in 3Q10, and negative effects on Lenovo Services and HP. Dell retaking the lead in 4Q10.• After Dell and Lenovo Services alternately traded positions during the past three reporting periods, Dell earned its second consecutive win. Dell has placed at the top of the OEM provider rankings in four of the past five reporting periods.• Lenovo Services and HP collectively took the bottom ranking position behind Dell Services.15 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 16. Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support TBRDESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges thecompetition with its on-site response time and technical expertise ratings TBR MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - Factors Driving Rankings: 6.80 DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY • Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was 6.60 Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support the result of consistently 6.40 outperforming OEM competitors 6.20 across all but the parts availability 6.00 category. 5.80 • Dell Services’ No. 2 ranking, behind 5.60 the in-house group, was the result of 5.40 two key performance 5.20 differentiators, where Dell earned 5.00 competitive strengths: on-site Parts Availability On-site Response Time Web Support Remotely Managed Break/Fix On-site Expertise Phone Support Overall Value Overall Satisfaction Hardware Deployment response time and expertise. • Dell’s scores also trended higher than its competitors’ average across SOURCE: TBR the areas of online and remotely managed support, hardware deployment and parts availability. • No. 3 ranked Lenovo Services and HPS were positioned below Dell Services largely as a result of their on-site response time and technical expertise ratings, which were = TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11 substantially below those of Dell. = TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11 Lenovo was cited with a competitive warning for response time.16 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 17. The Score in 1Q11 TBRInternal organizations validate themselves as the ideal support experiencePerformance differentiation across the OEM support providers is diminishedReplacement parts availability and basic 1Q11 VERSUS 4Q10 WEIGHTED SATISFACTIONbreak/fix services’ satisfaction lead the trend TBR RATINGS AND RANKStoward continually correcting satisfaction 90.0 88.0scores in 1Q11. 88.0 86.3 86.0 1 84.0 83.5 84.0 Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 1.5% decline 82.0 82.6 1 81.8 81.2 82.2 2 2 Satisfaction scores for break/fix services and parts 80.0 3 2 2 2 availability declined significantly, while phone, online 78.0 and remotely managed support scores began to 76.0 4Q10 1Q11 recover. Internal Support Organizations HP & Partners IGS/Lenovo Services & Partners Dell & Partners HPS’ WSI shifted back by 1.7% SOURCE: TBR 3 3 Declining positions were led by break/fix services and parts availability, while phone, online and remotely The significant score corrections TBR observed in 4Q10 managed support scores stabilized. (which followed several previous periods of exuberance IGS’ WSI declined by the greatest magnitude: –2.7% with support services) continued, in a more tempered form, into 1Q11. Satisfaction positions across break/fix services, • The unifying trends included significantly weakening on-site response & expertise, and parts availability led the declines. satisfaction, affecting all four players across break/fix services and replacement parts availability. Internal support’s WSI dipped by 1.9% • Satisfaction with on-site response time and technical Satisfaction with parts availability and break/fix expertise also declined but primarily affected Dell services were the leading factors. Services and IGS. • In contrast, phone, online and remotely managed support services saw marginally improving scores across all four competitive groups.17 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 18. The Score in 1Q11 TBRVarying levels of correcting scores in 1Q11 define the competitive line-upThe scores of Dell and HP Services fell by considerably lesser magnitudes than that incurred by IGS. This enabled HPSto move up to share the No. 2 ranking position that had previously been a two-way affair between IGS and DellServices. • As a result of the tightening up of the competitive line-up, IGS dropped two previous competitive strengths (technical expertise and overall services value) as a result of its mean ratings having declined by greater magnitudes than Dell and HP Services. • IGS’ on-site response time rating dropped substantially, and HPS’ fell the least. Consequently, IGS was cited with a warning (its mean score significantly below the industry average), while HPS recovered from its 4Q10 competitive weakness, placing even with the industry average in 1Q11. • HPS also recovered from two previous warnings, for break/fix services and on-site expertise; in both cases, HPS’ scores fell by smaller magnitudes than the competition, its mean scores now comparable to industry averages. • Dell Services’ phone support PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10 TBR Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations satisfaction score increased 3% modestly in 1Q11 but by 2% enough that it was no longer 1% significantly below the industry 0% average; TBR lifted its previous -1% competitive warning. -2% • The in-house support group’s -3% ratings shifted by no greater -4% magnitudes than OEM support -5% providers in 1Q11, hence each -6% of its competitive advantages remained intact for another reporting period. SOURCE: TBR18 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 19. The Score in 1Q11 TBRTBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforcethe 1Q11 ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis(two tests) • The singular No. 1 ranking positionTBR Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary TBR held by the internal support group CHANGES IN PERFORMANCEVENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT IGS/LENOVO SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 4Q10 was enhanced by its receivingBreak/Fix Services     competitive strengths in eight of the CONTRACTING nine categories.On-site Technical Expertise     CONTRACTINGOn-site Response Time/Commitment   *  SHIFTING • In addition to the close proximity ofTelephone/Helpdesk Support  *   CONTRACTING their WSI scores, the three OEMOnline Support     CONSTANT support providers shared the No. 2Remotely Managed Support     CONSTANT ranking in 1Q11 as a result of aReplacement Parts Availability     CONSTANT mixture of developments.Support Services Pricing/Value     CONTRACTING • IGS’ positioning weakened, failing toHardware Installation/Configuration   *  CONSTANT repeat 4Q10 strengths in on-siteNumeric Value 16 2 2 0 expertise and support services value,Weighted Satisfaction Score 86.3 81.8 82.2 81.2 as well as being cited with a newRanking 1 2 2 3 warning for on-site support that offsetAdjusted Ranking 1 1 2 the effects of other areas of strength.(Third-Party Providers Only)Key: Weakness;  Strength; Neutral.  Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to • Dell Services earned two marginalsubstantiate at this time. strengths, while recovering from aSOURCE: TBR phone support warning. • HP came up entirely neutral, its YELLOW boxes indicate areas where Strength/Weakness strengthening performances in determinations have been downgraded from the previous reporting evidence as TBR lifted two previous period. warnings and one full competitive weakness from the previous period. BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade.19 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 20. Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBROn-site response time remains a leading performance differentiator,favoring Dell Services over HPS and IGS In 4Q10, Dell Services’ score registered significantly above the industry average, resulting in a competitive strength, while HPS continued to be cited with a weakness, its score significantly lower than average. In 1Q11, IGS’ score declined by the greatest magnitude, resulting in TBR issuing the competitive warning to IGS and not HPS. Dell Services retained its lead, but the competitive strength was marginal due to a wide spread of opinion, predominantly in evidence within the desktop/notebook support segment. 4Q10 1Q11 The main shift in 1Q11 involved the distribution of scores for IGS, where a SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME considerable number of Levels 6 and TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 55% 7 scores shifted to fill in the Level-5 at TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 50% 45% a greater rate. Dell Services continued 65% 60% 40% 35% to earn more Perfect 7 ratings and 55% 50% 30% 45% 25% fewer Level-5 ratings than 40% 35% 20% 15% 10% competitors, though the spread of 30% 25% 20% 5% 0% opinion remained wide, as evidenced 15% 10% <5 5 6 7 by the flatter distribution 5% 0% Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House curve, where competitors’ scores <5 5 6 7SOURCE: TBR exhibited peaks at the fifth level of Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House the scale. SOURCE: TBR 20 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 21. Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBROn-site technical expertise perceptions shift to show no favorites*among the OEM support providers In 4Q10, HPS’ mean satisfaction score for on-site technical expertise was significantly lower than average, hence its competitive warning, while IGS earned a marginal competitive strength due to a tighter spread of customer opinion vs. Dell Services. The in-house group earned the competitive strength. In 1Q11, all scores declined, but the magnitude was greatest within the IGS group. Consequently, IGS’ strength was rescinded while HPS recovered from its warning of the previous period. In- house support continued to hold the full competitive strength. 4Q10 The most noteworthy shift in 1Q11 1Q11 involved the distribution of IGS’TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY ratings, where a fair number of TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS previously perfect scores shifted CATEGORY 60% back one level on the scale. While 50% 70% 40% IGS earned fewer Level-5 and more 60% 30% Level-6 ratings than Dell and HP 50% 20% Services, it also earned the smallest 40% 10% number of Perfect 7’s. Consequently, 30% 0% its mean rating was not significantly 20% 10% <5 5 6 7 different from the industry average. 0% Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House <5 5 6 7SOURCE: TBR Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR *These overall results may be misleading. IBM led the competition in the server support segment for technical expertise satisfaction; Dell Services in the desktop/notebook segment. 21 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 22. Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBRBasic break/fix service satisfaction continues to favor IGS, while HPSrecovers from previous competitive warnings In 4Q10, HPS trailed the industry average by a significant margin, while IGS held the advantage due to a narrow spread of customer opinion. In 1Q11, TBR observed a collective collapse of scores, with all trending downward by substantial margins. There were some variances, in that HPS’ score declined by 3%, against 4% for IGS and 4.3% for Dell Services. Subsequently, HPS recovered from its previous warning. Meanwhile, IGS’ score held up enough for it to carry over its competitive strength standing for another reporting 4Q10 1Q11 period, primarily due to its IBM server support results. SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX TBR For all concerned, there was a TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY BY RATINGS CATEGORY 70% decided shift away from the 80% 60% Perfect 7 rating back one level on 70% 60% 50% the satisfaction scale. IGS remained 50% 40% 30% the leader among OEM support 40% 30% 20% providers with a larger proportion 20% 10% of Level-6 ratings and fewer lower- 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 level scores. Dell and HP services’ <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS score distributions were Dell Services HPS SOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House comparable to one another. SOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House22 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 23. Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBRWhile IGS continues to dominate the phone support category,Dell Services recovers from its previous warning Dell Services was cited with a competitive warning in 4Q10, with its mean phone support satisfaction rating significantly below the industry average and more widely spread in distribution. The in-house support group, alone, took the competitive strength. Shifts were modest in 1Q11, with Dell Services’ score up slightly and HPS’ down slightly, by about one percentage point each. HPS’ shift was enough to push IGS’ score to a significant advantage, prompting TBR to issue a marginal competitive strength to IGS as well as to IBM in the server support 4Q10 segment. While its ratings remained 1Q11 spread out, Dell Services shifted enough that its rating was no longer below average. TBR rescinded its competitive SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT warning in the server segment. SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 70% 70% 60% 50% In 1Q11, IGS’ pattern of distribution 60% 50% 40% differed from the pack in a manner 40% 30% 20% not evident in the previous period, 30% 20% 10% 0% earning a substantially greater 10% <5 5 6 7 number of Level-6 ratings than 0% <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House competitors. Dell Services’ Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In HouseSOURCE: TBR distribution of scores came into SOURCE: TBR closer alignment with those of HPS than in the previous period.23 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 24. Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBRSupport services value differentiation dissipates* in 1Q11 In 4Q10, IGS earned a competitive strength for support services value due to a relatively uniform set of scores that placed significantly above average. TBR issued IGS a competitive strength. With IGS’ scores declining by greater magnitudes than its competitors in 1Q11, its score was only marginally above average and not enough for a repeat strength; only the in- house group carried the competitive strength distinction. There was a 4Q10 widening spread of opinion, as 1Q11 customers more fully scrutinizeTBR SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS warranty costs today than in TBR SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY previous periods. CATEGORY 80% 70% 70% The decline within IGS’ mean 60% 60% 50% 50% rating was primarily due to 40% 40% 30% fewer Perfect-7 ratings and 30% 20% 20% 10% more Level-5 ratings in 1Q11 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 that IGS failed to carry over its <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House competitive strength into 1Q11. Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBRSOURCE: TBR *Note these overall results may be misleading. IBM continued to significantly outperform competitors in the server segment for overall support services value satisfaction.24 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 25. Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRTBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhancethe 1Q11 server support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests)and GAP analysis (two tests) • The foundation for the internal support group’sTBR Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server continued No. 1 ranking was substantiated by its continued earning of strengths across all but oneVENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCSBreak/Fix Services  *   category (parts availability).On-site Technical Expertise  *   • IBM repeated its No. 2 ranking behind the in-On-site Response Time/Commitment     house group and ahead of its OEM supportTelephone/Helpdesk Support  *   provider competition. This was enhanced throughOnline Support     three continuing and two newly issuedRemotely Managed Support     competitive strengths.Replacement Parts Availability  *   • Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM SupportSupport Services Pricing/Value  *   was the result of failing to narrow performanceHardware Installation/Configuration     gaps across five categories. Nonetheless, DellNumeric Value 16 5 0 0 Services’ finish was improved over 4Q10 throughWeighted Satisfaction Score 85.6 82.5 80.9 81.0 its recovery from two previous warnings.Ranking 1 2 3 3 • HPS’ situation was similar to Dell Services –Adjusted Ranking(Third-Party Providers Only) 1 2 2 allowing IBM to take a total of five competitiveKey: Weakness;  Strength;  Neutral.  Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. strength categories. HPS’ position was improvedSOURCE: TBR through its rebound from three previous warning areas. What Changed in 1Q11: • IBM Services gained new competitive strengths for phone support and parts availability. • While Dell Services and HPS remained in subordinate ranking positions to IBM, they were no longer due to any competitive warnings but rather to more substantial IBM performances across a total of five categories. • Dell Services recovered from previous warnings for phone support and support services value. Its scores were significantly below industry averages again but only by 90% confidence levels and not the 95% observed in 4Q10. • HPS recovered from warnings across break/fix services, on-site response time and on-site expertise. Its scores, previously significantly below average, came in as comparable to industry averages in 1Q11.25 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 26. Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRIBM earns a solid No. 1 ranking over Dell and HP Services due tothe contributions of several key competitive advantagesTBR MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - • Server support customers SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY 6.20 attribute relatively high Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services importance to most categories, 6.00 with the exceptions being 5.80 remotely managed and online 5.60 support as well as hardware deployment services. 5.40 • IBM Support established 5.20 substantial performance 5.00 advantages over competitors Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction On-site Expertise Web Support Remotely Managed On-site Response Break/Fix Phone Support Overall Value Deployment across five categories. As high- Hardware importance areas, each of these Time SOURCE: TBR categories carry significant weight toward the WSI score. • Across most highly weightedFor details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer categories, the performances ofto Appendix G. Dell and HP Services were TBR splits responses based on the comparable, yet HP held a narrow respondents’ primary advantage over Dell for support SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS responsibilities. In each study a services value and phone support. WSI Score Rank participant is asked to identify the support area with which they are • In the on-site response time IBM Services 82.5 1 category, where IBM previously most involved (servers/storage or HP Services 81.0 2 desktop/notebook) and are then dominated (in 3Q10), the Dell Services 80.9 2 asked to rate those experiences performance gap was entirely exclusively. eradicated by 1Q11. 26 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 27. Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRIn 1Q11, server support satisfaction ratings continue to correct acrosskey areas; ranking positions remain constantTBR 4Q10 to 1Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT 3% • Overall, HPS’ scores held firmer than 2% Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services competitors’, enabling HPS to improve its 1% positioning foundation for future study 0% waves. -1% • The areas of greatest influence were -2% break/fix services, on-site response time -3% -4% and expertise. In each of the three -5% aforementioned areas, HPS’ scores held up far better than competitors’, resulting On-site Response Time Support Service Pricing/Value Hardware Deployment Parts Availability On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Web Support Phone Support Break/Fix in TBR lifting previous competitive warnings across all three areas. • IBM and Dell Services’ scores declined by similar magnitudes to one anotherSOURCE: TBR overall, but there were some individual performance differences. o IBM’s mean scores held up better than Dell Services in break/fix services, on-site expertise, parts LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, availability and services value – all 4Q10 to 1Q11 areas where IBM commanded % Change, WSI Score competitive strength status. Dell Services –1.7% o Dell Services’ previous phone HP Services –1.2% support warning was lifted as a IBM Services –1.7% result of a reasonably constant rating, against a declining HPS that shifted the competitive field.27 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 28. Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRSome negative GAP positions continue to present in 1Q11 as a result ofcontinually declining satisfaction scores in the past two periods TBR STANDARD GAP SCORES - SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT Support Services Value Parts Availability Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Online Support Phone Support On-site Expertise On-site Response Time Break/Fix Services -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% IGS (IBM) HP Services Dell Services For the past two reporting periods it has become evident server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than in the previous three quarters of 2010. In particular, GAP scores for parts availability, phone support and on-site response time show ample room for improvement for all three OEM support providers. While we might expect IBM Support to have met customer expectations more effectively than competitors, in that it was ranked No. 1, IBM customers in the study wave expressed inordinately high expectations that prevented IBM from earning more solid GAP scores.28 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 29. Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRTBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the1Q11 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests)and GAP analysis (two tests)TBR Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook • The internal support group’s No. 1 ranking wasVENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS substantially enhanced by its continuing dominationBreak/Fix Services *    across all but the parts availability category.On-site Technical Expertise  *   • Dell Services maintained its No. 2 ranking for theOn-site Response Time/Commitment     second reporting period by carrying over its on-siteTelephone/Helpdesk Support     response time competitive strength and adding a newOnline Support     one for technical expertise.Remotely Managed Support     • Lenovo Services remained in the No. 3 ranking behindReplacement Parts Availability     Dell but in a weakened state. While presenting a fullSupport Services Pricing/Value     slate of neutral performances in 4Q10, LenovoHardware Installation/Configuration     Services’ on-site response time rating droppedNumeric Value 15 3 -1 0 substantially below the industry average, resulting in aWeighted Satisfaction Score 87.2 83.6 80.8 81.2 newly issued competitive warning.Ranking 1 2 3 3 • HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking with LenovoAdjusted Ranking 1 2 2 despite a higher WSI rating and the lack of a(Third-Party Providers Only)Key: Weakness;  Strength;  Neutral.  Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. competitive warning. TBR’s decision resulted from the * The determination was marginal. significance tests, which exhibited no significantSOURCE: TBR performance differences between the two. What Changed in 1Q11: • Dell Services’ second consecutive No. 2 ranking over Lenovo Services and HPS was strengthened through the addition of a new competitive strength, for on-site support technical expertise. • Lenovo Services’ performance was weakened through its on-site support response competitive warning, the result of both a significantly below average satisfaction rating and wider GAP score (the distance between expectation and satisfaction). • HPS remained in a secondary position to Dell Services, lacking the performance differentiation that might have carried it into a shared ranking with Dell.29 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 30. Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRDell Services’ No. 1 ranking is driven by on-site response andexpertise advantages MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - • Dell Services’ win was primarily theTBR DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY result of its substantial performance 6.20 Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services advantages in the relatively high- 6.00 importance areas of on-site support 5.80 response and expertise. 5.60 • Dell’s WSI rating benefited from above-average parts availability and 5.40 online support scores. Additional 5.20 strengths were not awarded in these 5.00 categories due to lack of sufficient statistical supporting evidence, as TBR Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Phone Support On-site Response Web Support Remotely Managed Break/Fix On-site Expertise Overall Value Deployment Hardware uses several tests to determine Time strengths and weaknesses.SOURCE: TBR • Nonetheless, the cumulative effects of Dell’s performances across all of the categories clearly benefited its WSI For details on server/storage versus rating, the essential reason for its top desktop/notebook support by support provider, TBR splits responses based ranking. please refer to Appendix G. on respondents’ primary • Lenovo Services’ on-site response responsibilities. Each study time rating was lower than HPS, yet DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & participant is asked to RANKINGS identify the support area other high-importance categories WSI Score Rank with which they are most washed the slate clean for Lenovo, Dell Services 83.6 1 involved (servers/storage including break/fix services and phone HP Services 81.2 2 or desktop/notebook) and support. Lenovo Services 80.8 2 are then asked to rate those experiences exclusively.30 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 31. Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRDesktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings collectively fall by varyingmagnitudes in 1Q11; Dell Services benefits through comparative stability • Overall, Dell Services’ meanTBR 4Q10 to 1Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT satisfaction scores held up far better 4% Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services than competitors during the past two 2% periods. 0% • In particular, Dell Services’ phone, -2% online and remotely managed support -4% scores advanced, against constant or receding competitors’ ratings. -6% • Dell earned its new competitive -8% strength for on-site support expertise Parts Availability On-site Response Time Hardware Deployment Phone Support Support Service Pricing/Value Remotely Managed On-site Expertise Web Support Break/Fix as a result of a rating that was comparatively stable against more significantly receding competitors’ ratings. SOURCE: TBR • Lenovo Services’ new competitive warning for on-site support response time was clearly the result of a rating decline of over 4% against an average LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SATISFACTION, 4Q10 to 1Q11 2.5% decline for its competitors. • While HPS’ scores fell by a significantly % Change, WSI Score greater magnitude than Dell Services, Dell Services –0.8% against Lenovo several of its score HP Services –2.4% declines were comparatively more Lenovo Services –2.9% tempered.31 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 32. Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRSome negative GAP positions continue in 1Q11 as a result of steadilydeclining satisfaction scores in the past two reporting periods TBR STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT Support Services Value Parts Availability Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Online Support Phone Support On-site Expertise On-site Response Time Break/Fix Services -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services SOURCE: TBR For the past two reporting periods it has become evident server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than in the previous three quarters of 2010. The GAP score results in 1Q11, however, were variable, with Dell Services making it through with no scores outside of the acceptable (–5%) GAP range. Many of HPS’ ratings were –5% or wider, most notably with respect to phone support and parts availability, where expectations were high. Lenovo was most affected by its –12% GAP score for on-site response time, where TBR issued a competitive warning in 1Q11. This wide Lenovo Services GAP was the result of both low satisfaction and high expectations.32 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 33. Critical Metrics Summary TBRVital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support 1Q11 Ranking 2 2 2 1 1Q11 Ranking, OEM 1 1 1 N/A support providers Rank change vs. 4Q10 0 0 +1 0 1Q11 WSI 82.2 81.8 81.2 86.3 WSI change vs. 4Q10 –1.5% –2.7% –1.7% –1.9% Rationale for WSI placement & WSI placement & WSI placement & WSI placement & proximity proximity to OEM proximity to OEM proximity to OEM Ranking Positions to OEM competitors competitors competitors competitors Break/fix Services On-site response time (Continuing; Full); Phone (Continuing; All except for parts support (Continuing; Marginal); Hardware availability – all full Competitive Strengths deployment Marginal); On-site None competitive strengths, technical expertise and (Continuing; consistent with 4Q10 results support services value Marginal); discontinued Recovery from 4Q10 on-site response time Competitive Recovery from 4Q10 On-site response time weakness and break/fix phone support None Weaknesses/Warnings (New; Warning) services & on-site warning technical expertise warnings Break/fix services, on-site Significant Movement, Break/fix services and response time & Break/fix services and Break/fix services and parts parts availability 1Q11 vs. 4Q10 positions declined expertise, and parts parts availability availability scores declined (3% or greater shifts) availability positions all declined significantly significantly significantly declined significantly33 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 34. Critical Metrics Summary TBRVital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support Server Support WSI & 80.9 No. 3 82.5 No. 2 81.0 No. 3 85.6 No. 1 Ranking Desktop/Notebook 83.6 No. 2 80.8 No. 3 81.2 No. 3 87.2 No. 1 Support WSI & Ranking Five strengths – Neutral across the Neutral across the board – break/fix, on-site board – recovered recovered from three 4Q10 Strengths across all Server Support expertise, phone from 4Q10 phone warnings – break/fix, on-site categories except for Competitive Profile support, parts support and support response time, on-site parts availability availability, support services value warnings expertise services value Two strengths – on-site Strengths across all Desktop/Notebook One warning – on-site response time, on-site All neutral ratings categories except for Competitive Profile response time expertise parts availability [WSI – 1.7%] Significant declines across [WSI – 1.8%] Significant [WSI – 2.3%] Break/fix, Significant Movement, [WSI – 1.0%] Only one area break/fix, on-site decline focused on the phone support, and parts Server Segment, experienced significant response time, on-site on-site response time availability scores 1Q11 vs. 4Q10 decline – parts availability expertise, & parts rating declined significantly availability [WSI – 2.9%] Significant declines were observed [WSI – 0.9%] Break/fix [WSI – 2.4%] Break/fix, on- [WSI – 0.7%] Break/fix Significant Movement, across the areas of and parts availability site expertise and parts services and parts Desktop/Notebook break/fix, on-site scores declined availability scores all declined availability declined Segment, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10 response time, on-site significantly significantly significantly expertise, and parts availability34 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 35. Critical Metrics Summary TBRVital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support While in the past TBR has While HPS remained in The internal support group IBM Support continues to observed a pattern of subordinate ranking positions to remained in the position to demonstrate services alternating wins between competitors (IBM in the server which it was ascribed at the excellence in the server Dell and Lenovo in the segment; Dell in the start of TBR’s study design support segment, winning its desktop/notebook segment desktop/notebook segment), more than a decade ago – the fourth straight No. 1 ranking from quarter to quarter, Dell there were some strong signs of ideal against which we over OEM competitors. IBM’s took its second consecutive improving competitiveness. In measure the OEM support success continues to extend win in 1Q11. The dynamic the server support segment, providers. The group carried across a wide range of that most greatly separates HP’s scores were the most competitive strengths against performance advantages, Dell Services’ performances resistant to downward trends of all categories except parts including on-site support, from competitors in the the past six months, particularly availability in 1Q11 (where phone support, parts desktop/notebook space is with respect to on-site response internal support organizations availability, and the perception on-site support. In addition time, where competitors’ scores are dependent on OEMs to of services value. By holding Summary to winning strengths in receded by substantial effectively meet delivery and such an array of competitive these categories, Dell magnitudes. TBR lifted three availability commitments) in advantages, IBM continues to customers were more likely competitive challenges (two the server and be a force difficult to beat. than competitors’ to warnings and a weakness) across desktop/notebook segments Lenovo Services encountered specifically attribute their the three on-site support of the study. Yet, internal some continuing difficulties in high satisfaction to on-site categories, that had persisted support is not resistant to 1Q11, remaining at a ranking support provided by Dell throughout the previous three strains dictated by the need to position below Dell Services Services. Greater challenges to five periods. In the balance internal costs against for the second straight period, remain intact in the server desktop/notebook segment, HPS expertise. Satisfaction scores driven by substantially support segment, where was outperformed again by Dell, fell across the on-site support weakening on-site support Dell was significantly and again due to on-site support categories at magnitudes as scores, particularly with outperformed by IBM across performances. HPS’ phone and great as those indicated by the respect to on-site response a broad spectrum of support online support scores remain OEM support provider time. service categories. competitive. customers in 1Q11. During the past year, TBR has observed everything in these study results, beginning with the exuberance of large corporate refreshes with fresh systems warranties that introduce minimal fuss in the support department. This was followed by what occurs with respect to the natural order of time, where some systems develop issues that need to be dealt with either internally, through OEM support Bottom contacts, or both. The results of these changes were the extreme ups and downs TBR observed in the satisfaction numbers. Today, Line we appear to be on a return course to business as usual, with 1Q11 satisfaction scores gently rising, leaving 4Q10 as the end of the satisfaction score corrections. Assuming we do not see a return to the unusual conditions set forth by the 2009 economic recession, or some other force with equal impact on support operations, we should begin to see more normalized expressions of satisfaction with support services.35 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 36. TBR’s Watch List TBRTBR’s Watch List differs from the Competitive Strength andWeakness AnalysisDifferences:• The analysis looks backward and forward.• Items placed on the Watch List are often not areas where the vendor has underperformed the marketplace or a specific competitor.• Included are areas in which a vendor may have recently excelled; however, the competitive field has shifted during the current reporting period.TBR takes the following factors into consideration in determining items on the Watch List:• Results of the Improvements GAP Analysis are based on a vendor’s expectation fulfillment for a category against its overall expectation fulfillment across all measured attributes.• Competitive positioning based on results of statistical significance tests• Results of the Standard GAP Analysis for the vendor against its competitors’ positions• Decline in satisfaction in the past two reporting periods• Segments (server support versus desktop/notebook support) influencing declines in satisfaction during past two reporting periods• Loss of competitive strength or addition of competitive weakness• Disappointment/Delight meter – proportions of dissatisfied versus delighted customers• Items are removed from the Watch List when a vendor has recovered its competitive position from past recent reporting periods. 36 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 37. TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services TBRDell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations forserver support; divided customer perceptions need to be addressed Segments Strength/ Disappointment/ Improvements % Change Long-termCitation Placement Affected, Weakness Notes GAP versus 4Q10 Trends Delight Meter 1Q11 StatusPhone Significantly Well Below –0.6% and Scores Server Competitive 9% disappointed Dell’s phone supportSupport below IBM at 95% Average comparable remain Support warning and worst-in-class, satisfaction scores confidence in to volatile, lifted due to yet also best-in- continue to exhibit server segment; competitors’ lacking proximity to class for customer volatile patterns and comparable to average in consistency, HPS score, delight wide opinion spread, industry average server significantly but with an unacceptably in desktop/ segment; below IGS continues to high number of notebook +2.3%, vs. for the past trail IBM by disappointed scores. segment competitors’ three substantial Today, the issue average periods margin; IBM remains largely on –1.5% in gains the the server support desktop/ competitive side, where IBM notebook strength continues to defend segment its exceptional record.Support Significantly Average –2% vs. Achieving Server Competitive 30% increase in Again, an issue ofServices below both HPS competitors’ stability after Support warning in customer delight, diverging viewsValue and IBM on server –1.2% significant server against 100% among Dell side, 90% average, decline in segment increase in customers sampled; confidence level; server 4Q10 lifted due to dissatisfaction; Dell is most comparable to segment; NC significance worst-in-class for challenged in the industry average in desktop/ test results disappointment server segment, in notebook at 90% yet best-in-class where both desktop/notebook segment vs. confidence; for delight competitors fared segment competitors’ IBM better. Dell has not average successfully earned a competitive –2.2% defends its strength for services competitive value since strength mid-2009. status37 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 38. TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services TBRDell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations forserver support; divided customer perceptions must be addressed (cont.) Segments Strength/ Disappointment/ Improvements % Change Long-termCitation Placement Affected, Weakness Notes GAP versus 4Q10 Trends Delight Meter 1Q11 StatusNEW – Significantly Above Average –3.7% Down Server Remaining 44% reduction in IBM continues toBreak/Fix below IBM against significantly Support neutral customer delight, dominate theServices in server competitors’ during the past against 90% break/fix segment, –2% average two periods; increase in satisfaction 95% in server correction dissatisfaction; category, bringing confidence; segment; cycle seems to worst-in-class in its seventh comparable –4.8% vs. be complete as customer straight competitive to industry –5% of 1Q11 with disappointment vs. strength win in average in competitors’ current best-in-class delight 1Q11. Dell desktop/ average in positions back customer opinions notebook desktop/ to 2Q10 remain very segment notebook positions divided, suggesting segment variability of experience, perhaps drawing a dividing line between server and desktop/notebook customers, and possibly between premium-level and basic support contract holders.38 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 39. TBR’s Watch List: HPS TBRHP Services improves its on-site support positioning, yet challengesremain in effect due to competitive pressures % Change Segments Strength/ Disappointment/ Improvements Long-termCitation Placement versus Affected, Weakness Notes GAP Trends Delight Meter 4Q10 1Q11 StatusOn-site Comparable Well Below NC in server Stable Desktop/ Competitive 90% increase in HPS recovered from itsResponse to industry Average segment, following Notebook warning in customer previous competitiveTime average in against previous server segment disappointment, warning in the 4Q10 server competitors’ quarter’s rescinded; while delight server segment by segment; –3.5% decline, while remaining increased by 18%; remaining stable while behind Dell average; competitors’ neutral in placed between competitors’ scores at 95% –2% against scores desktop/ IGS and Dell in declined. In the confidence –3.5% in continued to notebook both segments desktop/notebook in desktop/ desktop/ drop segment segment, however, notebook notebook HPS placed between segment segment Lenovo and Dell, escaping a warning but clearly outperformed by Dell Services.Technical Significantly Just Above –1.8% in Same pattern Both Competitive Customer delight While previousExpertise below IBM Average server (correction segments warning in stable; warnings have been at 95% segment vs. completed in server segment disappointment up lifted, HPS continues confidence; Dell’s –3.3%; 1Q11) as rescinded; to 6% and worst- to trail IBM by a trending –3.3% in competitors remaining in-class substantial margin; lower than desktop/ but neutral in increasing customer Dell in notebook consistently on desktop/ disappointment. HPS is desktop/ segment vs. the bottom for notebook faced with significant notebook competitors’ the past five segment competition in both segment average –4% periods study segments: IBM in the server segment; Dell in the desktop/notebook segment.39 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 40. TBR’s Watch List: HPS TBRHP Services improves its on-site support positioning, yet challengesremain in effect due to competitive pressures (cont.) Segments Strength/ Disappointment/ Improvements % Change Long-termCitation Placement Affected, Weakness Notes GAP versus 4Q10 Trends Delight Meter 1Q11 StatusBreak/Fix Significantly Above Average –1.7% in server Down Server Competitive 30% decline in HPS has improved itsServices below IBM segment significantly segment warning in customer delight, positioning by in server against during the past server against 100% keeping its scores segment, competitors’ two periods; segment increase in more stable than 95% –3% average; correction cycle lifted disappointment; competitors, whose confidence; –4.5% in seems to be placement ratings declined by comparable desktop/ complete as of between Dell and greater magnitudes, to industry notebook 1Q11 with IGS particularly in the average in segment, vs. current server segment. Yet, desktop/ competitors’ positions back continuing notebook –5% average to 2Q10 improvement will be segment positions required, particularly against IBM in the server support segment.NEW- Comparable Below Average +1.2% in server Stabilized after Desktop/ Last Customer HPS was not issued aOnline to server segment; significant Notebook competitive disappointment warning in that itsSupport segment –1.3% vs. decline of warning increased from 6% mean score was average; competitors’ 4Q10, HPS’ issued in in 4Q10 to nearly comparable to below Dell –2% average in scores have 1Q10 9% by 1Q11 Lenovo Services; Services at desktop/ remained even however, Dell 95% notebook with the Services’ score was confidence segment competition for significantly above in desktop/ the past three average and HPS notebook periods, but held an inordinately segment falling behind high number of Dell in desktop/ disappointed scores. notebook segment40 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 41. TBR’s Watch List: IGS TBRIBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Servicesmust focus on regaining past competitive advantages Segments Strength/ Disappointment/ Improvements % Change Long-termCitation Placement Affected, Weakness Notes GAP versus 4Q10 Trends Delight Meter 1Q11 StatusOn-site Comparable Well Below –3.7% and Down for Desktop/ New Disappointment Lenovo Services wasResponse to server Average comparable to past two Notebook competitive was actually best- issued a competitiveTime segment Dell’s decline periods and warning in-class; customer warning against Dell average; in server continuing to issued to delight was worst- Services’ second significantly segment; decline, Lenovo in-class straight competitive below Dell at –4.3% vs. falling well Services strength for the 95% competitors’ below Dell category. This confidence in –2.2% average Services development desktop/ in desktop/ prevented Lenovo notebook notebook from retaking the segment segment lead in the desktop/notebook segment, which has been an alternating arrangement (between Lenovo & Dell).NEW – Excelled over Just Above –1.8% vs. Declines of Desktop/ Remaining Same condition as Lenovo Services wasTechnical competition in Average Dell’s –3.3% in past two Notebook neutral described above outperformed by DellExpertise server server reporting Services, which segment; segment; periods have earned a new significantly –5.5% against been steeper competitive strength below Dell competitors’ than those in 1Q11; Lenovo’s Services at –3% average incurred by 3Q10 leadership 95% in desktop/ Dell position was a short- confidence in notebook lived victory. desktop/ segment notebook segment41 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 42. TBR’s Watch List: IGS TBRIBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Servicesmust focus on regaining past competitive advantages (cont.) % Change Segments Strength/ Improvements versus Long-term Affected, Weakness Disappointment/ Citation Placement GAP 4Q10 Trends 1Q11 Status Delight Meter Notes Phone Excelled Just Above NC in Most stable of Desktop/ Remaining Incidences of In the past, phone Support over Average server the competitive Notebook neutral customer delight support has been a competition segment; field, which tends substantially trail predictable strength in server NC in to exhibit greater competition for Lenovo Services, segment; desktop/ volatility in this and TBR’s comparable notebook product-related to industry segment customer average in against satisfaction studies. desktop/ Dell’s 2.2% During the past few notebook increase quarters, segment competitors have completely closed performance gaps through various improvement efforts. This should be a repeatable strength for Lenovo.42 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 43. Historical Record TBRDell Services holds the record for wins since the study’s inception, thoughIGS/Lenovo holds the record for wins in the past three years• Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Dell Services has been ranked as a No. 1 TBR Support Providers, Past Three Years support provider for 33 of 43 reporting 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Total # Wins Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 8 periods. HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2• Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 10 its first since 4Q07 and did not carry SOURCE: TBR over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three reporting periods Until 2Q09, IGS held the record for number of successive wins in the later, in 1Q09, and held that distinction previous 14 reporting periods. IGS regained its No. 1 status in 3Q09, for the next four periods. making for 18 wins during the last 21 reporting periods up to the current• Dell’s wins have reappeared in the past reporting period. two reporting periods. 3Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; • Half of HPS’ 13 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred methodology differed from that established with since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive No. 1 rankings from the 1Q01 study. 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win the company’s first after SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY an absence of nearly two years. Competitive pressures TBR (Based on 43-reporting-period History Beginning contributed to HPS’ drop to the No. 3 spot in 2Q09, followed by 3Q00) 100% a series of second and third place rankings up until the current reporting period, in which it returned to No. 1. 80% • Of the 23 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1-ranked 60% player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to 1Q09). During the 40% 33 past three years, IGS has earned a total of 10 No. 1 rankings, 23 20% 13 outnumbering Dell Services’ eight wins. 0% Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+ SOURCE: TBR43 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 44. Historical Record TBRCases of differentiation dwindled in 2008, reasserting themselvesin 2009 and 2010TBR Strength & Weakness Performance History - 3Q05 to 1Q11 • The years 2007, 2009 and 2010 were 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SERVICES PRICING/VALUE marked by a substantial number ofDell ServicesHP Services   *   *   * performance differentiators,IGS/Lenovo Services  REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY *  compared to tighter competitiveDell Services         * fields during the remaining yearsHP Services   IGS/Lenovo Services since 2005.BREAK/FIX SERVICESDell Services       • Some noteworthy patterns ofHP Services   IGS/Lenovo Services *       *    consistency since 2009 include:ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSEDell Services  * *     * o Seven consecutive strengths forHP Services          IGS/Lenovo Services * *   break/fix services for IGSTECHNICAL EXPERTISEDell Services    * *     o Three straight competitiveHP Services      IGS/Lenovo Services *   *   *  strengths for online support forPHONE SUPPORTDell Services    IGSHP Services           IGS/Lenovo Services *   *       * * o Four straight strengths for on-ONLINE SUPPORTDell Services    site response time for Dell HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services * *      * *   Services from 2Q09 throughHARDWARE DEPLOYMENTDell Services *   * *  1Q10, returning in 4Q10 & 1Q11HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services * *       o Warnings or weaknesses in fiveKe y: We a kne s s ;  S tre ngth; Ne utra l. Wa rning; no t c ite d a s a c o m pe titive we a kne s s this qua rte r due to la c k o f c o rro bo ra ting e vide nc e .* M e a ns tha t the s tre ngth is bo rde rline . of the past six periods for HPSSOURCE: TBR for on-site support response time o A recurring pattern of scattered wins for phone support for IGS44 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 45. TBR Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables45 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 46. Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions TBRDell Services outperforms HPS in the area of hardware installation DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10TBR 5% While Dell Services continued to outperform Dell Advantage HPS in the area of hardware installation, 3% Areas HPS closed the performance gap that 1% HP Advantage favored Dell in 4Q10 for on-site response -1% Areas time. -3% Dell to HP Distance 4Q10 Dell to HP Distance 1Q11 -5% Support Services Pricing/Value Telephone/Helpdesk Support On-site Response Time/Commitment On-site Technical Expertise Remotely Managed Support Hardware Installation/Configuration Replacement Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Online Support Break/Fix PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, TBR FOR DELL & HP SERVICES 1Q11 VS. 4Q10 3% 2% 1%SOURCE: TBR 0% -1% -2% Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of -3% declining mean ratings between Dell Services -4% -5% and HPS. The exceptions included hardware -6% deployment, where Dell Services continued to -7% Dell Services HP Services outperform HPS. -8% -9% On-site Technical Expertise Parts Availability On-site Response Time Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Break/Fix Services Overall Satisfaction Online Support Phone Support SOURCE: TBR46 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 47. Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions TBRDell Services gains competitive advantages over IGS, while IGS twoadvantages over Dell services in 4Q10 were diminished DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10 Dell Services significantly outperformed IGSTBR 5% Dell to IGS Distance 4Q10 Dell to IGS Distance 1Q11 in the areas of on-site response time and 4% Dell Advantage remotely managed support. IGS gained a 3% 2% Areas slight competitive advantage over Dell 1% IGS Advantage Services in 1Q11 in overall satisfaction, but 0% -1% Areas lost its significant advantages in the previous -2% period in the areas of phone support and -3% -4% support services value. Also in 1Q11, Dell Services gained a competitive advantage On-site Technical Expertise Support Services Pricing/Value Replacement Parts Availability On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Overall Satisfaction Online Support Break/Fix over IGS for hardware installation/ configuration.SOURCE: TBR TBR PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS SERVICES, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10 3% 2% IGS’ mean rating shifts for hardware 1% 0% installation and online support were -1% small, but enough to change many of the -2% -3% performance differences indicated above. -4% -5% -6% -7% Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services -8% -9% On-site Technical Expertise Remotely Managed Support Support Services Value Parts Availability Break/Fix Services On-site Response Time Overall Satisfaction Online Support Hardware Deployment Phone Support SOURCE: TBR 47 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 48. Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions TBRIGS continues to generally outperform HPS, while HPS manages to narrowthe performance gap in support value HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10 TBR 4% IGS continued to outperform HPS by HPS 2% Advantage Areas significant margins across the areas of 0% break/fix services and on-site -2% IGS -4% Advantage Areas expertise, while moving significantly -6% HP to IGS Distance 4Q10 HP to IGS Distance 1Q11 ahead for overall value. -8% IGS, however, did not continue to On-site Response Time/Commitment Hardware Installation/Configuration On-site Technical Expertise Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Telephone/Helpdesk Support Remotely Managed Support Overall Satisfaction Online Support Break/Fix outperform HPS with respect to support services value. SOURCE: TBR PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES, TBR 1Q11 VS. 4Q10 3% 2% IGS’ mean satisfaction rating for on-site 1% 0% response time declined by a significantly -1% -2% greater magnitude than HPS – hence the -3% compelling performance gap. -4% -5% -6% -7% HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services -8% -9% On-site Technical Expertise Support Services Value Overall Satisfaction Break/Fix Services On-site Response Time Parts Availability Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Online Support Phone Support SOURCE: TBR48 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 49. Tracking the Satisfaction Indices TBRService and support satisfaction positions continue an expectedcorrection, after improving in 2010, to pre-recession levels• Through the end of 2008, TBR observed generally predictable outcomes, with the SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, in-house support group earning its TBR 2Q08 through 1Q11 reputation as the yardstick against which 91.0 we measure the OEM support providers. 89.0 87.0 During these periods, IGS was most 85.0 consistent at earning top scores in the 83.0 competition. 81.0• In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction 79.0 scores were the rule to which no 77.0 competitor was immune, defined by a 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 close competition between IGS and Dell Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Services, with HPS considerably more SOURCE: TBR challenged.• Satisfaction positions hit rock bottom in 4Q09, exhibiting hints of a recovery in TBR Ranking Determinations Among Third-party 1Q10 that transitioned into a full recovery Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods for all players in 2Q10. 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11• Scores collectively improved by substantial Dell Services 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 magnitudes in 2Q10 and 3Q10, resulting in HP Services 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 new record highs being established by all IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 four competitors by 3Q10. SOURCE: TBR• As expected, and following the patterns of TBR’s product-related studies, satisfaction Note: The ranking positions in the table have been adjusted to scores continued to correct in 1Q11, represent the placement of OEM support providers, excluding the primarily affecting the OEM support presence of the internal support organizations. providers. 49 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 50. Tracking the Satisfaction Indices TBRThe long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences • The principal contributor to narrowing performance gaps involved the TBR SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM perspective of the internal support 4Q05 THROUGH 1Q11 organizations, where stressed 90.0 resources led to significantly declining 88.0 86.0 satisfaction scores. Throughout most 84.0 of the recessionary year of 2009, the 82.0 80.0 group no longer represented the 78.0 utopia of support capability against 76.0 which TBR compares the OEM- provided support groups. Customer Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services satisfaction with support services SOURCE: TBR declined sharply throughout 2009 for all groups. • Positions began to stabilize by 1Q10, TBR SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM setting the stage for the broad-based 4Q05 THROUGH 1Q11, WITH MOVING AVERAGES 90.0 and substantial recovery of the 2Q10 88.0 86.0 reporting period. In 3Q10, the internal 84.0 support organizations returned to the 82.0 80.0 top ranking position for the first time 78.0 since 1Q09. 76.0 • In 4Q10 and 1Q11, the in-house group 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Internal Support Organizations) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dell Services) moved substantially ahead of the SOURCE: TBR 2 per. Mov. Avg. (HP Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (IGS/Lenovo Services) OEM support providers, harking back to patterns we were accustomed to before the unusual shifts observed in 2009 and most of 2010.50 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 51. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRDell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customerexpectations for services value, yet the picture is clearly changing Satisfaction TBR SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS versus FOR DELL SERVICES Importance 6.40 data points SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS 6.20 TBR have FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 6.00 remained 6.40 5.80 interlocked 6.20 5.60 throughout 6.00 5.40 the timeline 5.20 for Dell 5.80 Services. 5.60 Satisfaction Importance Competitors, 5.40 Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) particularly SOURCE: TBR HPS, have historically Satisfaction Importance been unable Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS to sustain SOURCE: TBR TBR FOR HP SERVICES closed GAPs. 6.40 6.20 1Q11 Developments: 6.00 • Historically speaking, Dell Services has been the only competitor to 5.80 consistently keep pace with customer expectations for services value; 5.60 the satisfaction trend line continues to steadily increase over time. 5.40 • In 1Q11, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs corrected and dropped back to levels similar to or below importance levels. • IGS’ 4Q10 competitive strength in the area was eradicated in 1Q11, Satisfaction Importance bringing all competitors onto a level playing field. Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) • Importance ratings for Dell Services and HPS increased in 1Q11, against SOURCE: TBR declining satisfaction, while IGS scores remained in closer proximity, leading to a 0% GAP while competitors failed to close their gaps.51 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 52. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRIGS/Lenovo Services and HPS satisfaction ratings for support servicesresponse continue to decline while Dell Services levels off SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS TBR TBR FOR DELL SERVICES FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 6.40 6.50 6.30 6.20 6.10 6.00 5.90 5.80 5.70 5.60 5.50 5.40 5.30 5.20 Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS TBR 6.60 FOR HP SERVICES 1Q11 Developments: 6.40 • Satisfaction scores declined by greater magnitudes than 6.20 6.00 relaxing expectations, creating larger gaps between 5.80 importance and satisfaction after a period of gap 5.60 consolidation through 2008 and 2009. 5.40 5.20 • Dell Services fared the best of the three competitors, 5.00 with its satisfaction leveling off while the satisfaction for HPS and IGS/Lenovo’s support services response declined. Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR52 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 53. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBR IGS/Lenovo Services and HPS fail to meet customer expectations for on-site technical expertise DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUSTBR IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL TBR IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE Satisfaction 6.60 EXPERTISE6.40 around 6.406.20 6.206.00 perceived 6.005.80 technical 5.805.60 expertise was 5.60 5.405.40 the hardest hit 5.205.20 of all categories 5.005.00 during 2009. Satisfaction Satisfaction Importance levels in 2010, Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) Satisfaction Importance however, SOURCE: TBR Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)SOURCE: TBR represented a full recovery. HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS TBR IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 6.40 6.20 1Q11 Developments: 6.00 5.80 Dell Services was the only vendor able to meet customer 5.60 expectations in 1Q11 due to relaxed customer expectations over the 5.40 last two periods, enabling Dell to more effectively meet customer 5.20 expectations than competitors. 5.00 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)SOURCE: TBR 53 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 54. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBR Customer expectations for break/fix services rise in 1H10, then correct SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISTBR TBR FOR DELL SERVICES FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES6.70 While GAPs 7.106.50 had closed by 6.906.30 6.706.10 late 2009 due 6.505.90 to relaxing 6.305.70 expectations, 6.105.50 1Q10 saw a 5.905.30 5.705.10 sudden 5.50 increase in customer Satisfaction Importance requirements, Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) which Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)SOURCE: TBR continued to SOURCE: TBR build into SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS 2Q10, thenTBR taper off. The FOR HP SERVICES 1Q11 Developments:6.70 break/fix6.50 category refers • Customer expectations for basic break/fix6.306.10 to customer services continued to relax most5.90 experiences significantly for Dell Services while5.705.50 with basic remaining more stable for HPS and IGS.5.30 hardware • Consequently, GAP scores were wider for5.10 maintenance IGS and HPS, while Dell was the only services, not with premium- competitor to fully meet expectations. Satisfaction Importance level Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) contracts.SOURCE: TBR 54 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 55. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBR Rising customer expectations for phone support create new challenges for OEMs in 4Q10 and 1Q11TBR PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES TBR PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR6.20 IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 6.206.00 6.00 5.805.80 5.605.60 Historically, 5.405.40 particularly 5.20 throughout5.20 5.00 2007 and 2008, Dell Services Satisfaction Importance and HPS have Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR struggled to meet customer SOURCE: TBR expectations for phone support,TBR PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES predominantly6.20 1Q11 Developments:6.00 falling far short of that goal. • Customer expectations for phone support5.80 Meanwhile, IGS continued to rise by varying degrees while5.60 has consistently satisfaction positions decreased (HPS),5.40 leveled off (IGS/Lenovo Services) or5.20 maintained slightly increased (Dell Services), creating5.00 very small GAP larger gaps between importance and positions. satisfaction. Satisfaction Importance • Should this new trend of steadily rising Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) expectations continue, the support SOURCE: TBR providers will be challenged to keep pace. 55 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 56. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRExpectations and satisfaction for online support continue to fluctuate;trend lines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS TBR TBR IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.0 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) Satisfaction Importance SOURCE: TBR Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR TBR HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 5.8 1Q11 Developments: 5.6 • Importance ratings for online support exceeded satisfaction ratings across the board in 1Q11. 5.4 • Dell Services’ satisfaction and importance ratings reached a 5.2 similar level in 1Q11, with both increasing. 5.0 • HPS’ importance rating increased significantly, while satisfaction stayed stagnant over the same sequential compare, leading to a widening gap. Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) • IGS/Lenovo Services’ satisfaction decreased at a greater SOURCE: TBR magnitude in 1Q11 than its importance rating, leading to unmet customer expectations.56 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 57. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRReplacement parts availability is a critical element of the supportexperience across the board for customers DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS TBR TBR FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.2 6.2 6.0 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.2 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) Satisfaction Importance SOURCE: TBR Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR TBR HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 6.6 6.4 1Q11 Developments: 6.2 Importance and satisfaction ratings for parts availability 6.0 declined for all three vendors in 1Q11, with satisfaction ratings 5.8 continuing to fall to levels below those of importance, 5.6 indicating unmet customer expectations by the three vendors. 5.4 5.2 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR57 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 58. Trends of the Reporting Period TBRAnalysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ positions correct in 1Q11, trending similar to, but lower thanprevious reporting periods TBR DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS • Dell Services’ satisfaction 2Q10 TO 1Q11 positions were generally at 6.6 6.4 their highest levels in 3Q10, 6.2 and their lowest in 1Q11. 6.0 • Dell Services’ remotely 5.8 managed support position 5.6 5.4 has remained stagnant for 5.2 the past four reporting 5.0 periods, indicating a level of Hardware Installation/Configuration Support Services Value On-site Technical Expertise Break/Fix Services Overall Satisfaction On-site Response Time Replacement Parts Availability Telephone/Helpdesk Support Remotely Managed Support Online/Web Support homeostasis between satisfaction and importance. SOURCE: TBR 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –1.27% • Led by significantly declining support services value and break/fix services satisfaction • Comparatively stable positions included phone support and hardware deployment58 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 59. Trends of the Reporting Period TBRAnalysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsHPS performances remain at similar levels over a sequential compareTBR HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS 2Q10 TO 1Q11 6.4 • HPS’ satisfaction positions 6.2 were generally at their 6.0 highest levels in 3Q10, and 5.8 their lowest in 1Q11. 5.6 • 1Q11 positions remained 5.4 very similar to 4Q10 5.2 positions, with the 5.0 exception of decreases in Support Services Value Break/Fix Services Overall Satisfaction On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability the areas of parts availability, break/fix services and overall satisfaction. • Across the board, satisfaction positions remained at the same level SOURCE: TBR 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 or fell below positions of 4Q10, showing no sign of improvement. WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –1.79% • Led by significantly declining levels of satisfaction for parts availability and break/fix services • Comparatively stable positions included remotely managed support, online support and on-site response time59 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 60. Trends of the Reporting Period TBRAnalysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ scores progressively decline over in 4Q10 and 1Q11TBR IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS • IGS’ satisfaction positions 2Q10 TO 1Q11 6.8 were generally at their highest 6.6 levels in 3Q10, and their 6.4 lowest in 1Q11. 6.2 6.0 • Most of IGS’ 1Q11 positions 5.8 fell below the levels observed 5.6 in 4Q10. 5.4 • IGS’ phone support position 5.2 has remained relatively Support Services Value On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Break/Fix Services Overall Satisfaction Online/Web Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Telephone/Helpdesk Support Hardware Installation/Configuration stagnant over the past four reporting periods. 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SOURCE: TBR WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –2.35% • Led by declining break/fix services, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction levels • Comparatively stable positions included phone support and remotely managed support60 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 61. Improvements GAP Analyses TBRRecommended areas for improvements for Dell Services include theinitial contact areas of phone and online support• Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: None• Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, phone support and online support• Area of Competency: Hardware installation TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q11 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 Maintain 100 120 Target Improvements Recommended 140 Actions 160 SOURCE: TBR 61 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 62. Improvements GAP Analyses TBRHP Services’ analysis points to target improvement programs aroundon-site response time, phone and online support• Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time• Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone and online support• Areas of Competency: Break/fix services and support services value TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 1Q11 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 Maintain 100 120 Target Improvements Recommended 140 Actions 160 SOURCE: TBR 62 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 63. Improvements GAP Analyses TBRIGS must focus on perceptions of on-site response time andonline support• Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, support services value• Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Online support• Area of Competency: Break/fix Services SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 1Q11 TBR 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 Maintain 100 120 Target Improvements 140 Recommended Actions 160 SOURCE: TBR 63 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 64. Improvements GAP Analyses TBRThe in-house group must focus on improving the availability ofreplacement parts • Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Replacement parts availability • Areas of Competency: On-site response time, hardware installation and remotely managed support TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS 1Q11 40 Hold Back/ Exploit 60 80 M aintain 100 Target 120 Improvements Recommended 140 Actions 160 SOURCE: TBR64 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 65. Selection Criteria – Stated TBRBreak/fix services, parts availability and phone support drive serviceand support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gainingin utilization • Critical: Break/fix services, parts availability • Also Important: Phone support, on-site expertise and response time • Somewhat Important: Support services value, online support • Less Important: Hardware deployment, remotely managed support Customer expectations within the IGS group were significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation in which IGS was forced to perform that much better in the satisfaction ratings to rank No. 1 in this reporting wave. While this was largely driven by the IBM Support (server) side of the equation, Lenovo Services customers were also more focused than competitors’ customers on break/fix services and technical expertise.65 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 66. Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRStatistical significance test No. 1 points to performance differentiationlargely favoring Internal Support, somewhat favoring IGS and Dell ServicesTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’using the standard test Results of the Standard t-Test 1Q11 Developments:TBR IGS/LENOVO INTERNAL • The internal support groups returned to their DELL SVCS HP SVCS SVCS SUPPORT historical position as the standard-setter,Basic Break/Fix Services   outperforming industry averages across mostOn-site Technical Expertise  categories – with parts availability the singleOn-site Response Time/Commitment    exception.Telephone/Helpdesk Support   • IGS/Lenovo Services’ results were a mixture ofOnline Support Remotely Managed Support   positives and negatives, outperformingReplacement Parts Availability competitors in break/fix services, phoneSupport Services Pricing/Value   support and overall support satisfaction, whileHardware Installation/Configuration    underperforming in on-site response time.Overall Satisfaction    • HPS scores were generally comparable toGrand Mean    industry averages, with the exception of the A verage sco re; t-test is null;ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average o f co mpetito rs;  t-test issignificantly lo wer than average o f co mpetito rs. Smaller arro ws represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 grand mean rating, the summation of allco nfidence levels. categories.SOURCE :TBR • Dell Services outperformed the competition in on-site response time and hardware installation. 66 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 67. Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRPerformance differentiation in the segments points to IBM as favoredfor server support; Dell Services for desktop/notebook supportTests compare each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’using the standard testTBR Results of the Standard t-Test - x86 SERVER SUPPORT TBR Results of the Standard t-Test - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT INTERNAL INTERNAL DELL SVCS HP SVCS IBM SVCS SUPPORT DELL SVCS HP SVCS LENOVO SVCS SUPPORT Basic Break/Fix Services   Basic Break/Fix Services  On-site Technical Expertise   On-site Technical Expertise   On-site Response Time/Commitment  On-site Response Time/Commitment    Telephone/Helpdesk Support    Telephone/Helpdesk Support  Online Support  Online Support   Remotely Managed Support  Remotely Managed Support     Replacement Parts Availability  Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value   Support Services Pricing/Value  Hardware Installation/Configuration   Hardware Installation/Configuration    Overall Satisfaction    Overall Satisfaction  Grand Mean     Grand Mean      A verage sco re; t-test is null;ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average o f co mpetito rs;  t-test is  A verage sco re; t-test is null;ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average o f co mpetito rs;  t-test is significantly lo wer than average o f co mpetito rs. Smaller arro ws represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 significantly lo wer than average o f co mpetito rs. Smaller arro ws represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 co nfidence levels. co nfidence levels. SOURCE: TB R SOURCE: TB R The key performance differentiators in the server The key performance differentiators in the support segment were break/fix services, on-site desktop/notebook support space were on-site expertise, phone support, parts availability, support response time and hardware installation, where Dell services value and overall services value – with all Services outperformed the industry average while favoring IGS over HPS and Dell Services. Lenovo underperformed.67 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 68. Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRStatistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard testTBR Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Vendor Comparisons Highlighted performance differentiation IGS/LENOVO involving the OEM support providers: DELL SVCS VS. HP SVCS VS. SVCS VS. • IGS significantly outperformed both IGS/ DELL IGS/ DELL competitors for break/fix services. PAIR-WISE T-TESTS HPS LENOVO SVCS LENOVO SVCS HPS • Dell Services outperformed both Break/Fix Services     On-site Technical Expertise competitors for hardware installation On-site Response Time/Commitment   and outperformed IGS for on-site Telephone/Helpdesk Support   response time – all at significant levels. Online Support Remotely Managed Support   • HPS’ underperformed IGS in break/fix Replacement Parts Availability services and overall satisfaction, while Support Services Pricing/Value   underperforming Dell Services in Hardware Installation/Configuration     hardware installation. Overall Satisfaction     Grand Mean      t-Test is significantly higher than the average o f co mpetito rs; t-Test is significantly lo wer than average o f co mpetito rs. Smaller arro ws represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.1 co nfidence levels. 0 SOURCE: TBR68 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 69. Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRStatistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard testTBR Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support • The in-house groups outperformed all three INTERNAL SUPPORT OEM support providers across every category ORGANIZATIONS VS. with the single exception of parts availability. DELL IGS/PAIR-WISE T-TESTS SVCS HPS LNV • These performance differences were confirmedBreak/Fix Services    at very high levels of statistical confidence.On-site Technical Expertise   On-site Response Time/Commitment   Telephone/Helpdesk Support   Online Support   Remotely Managed Support   Replacement Parts AvailabilitySupport Services Pricing/Value   Hardware Installation/Configuration   Overall Satisfaction   Grand Mean    t-Test is significantly higher than the average o f co mpetito rs; t-Test is significantly lo werthan average o f co mpetito rs.Smaller arro ws represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.1 co nfidence levels. 0SOURCE: TB R69 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 70. Statistical Significance Tests TBRDespite the tough test, several performance differentiatorsare corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction TBR Significant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Attribute Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; marginally over IGS 2.5 -1 -1 -0.5 On-site Technical Expertise Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell marginally over IGS 3 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0 Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, IGS 3 1 -2 -2 Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Total Points 25.5 -6.5 -10 -9 SOURCE: TB R The Bonferroni correction, the most stringent statistical significance test used by TBR, confirmed many of the tests cited by the standard test. Most of the confirmed differences were in comparisons of in-house support against the OEM support providers. Additional confirmed performance differences included on-site response time (Dell over IGS) and hardware installation (Dell over HPS and IGS).70 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 71. Statistical Significance Tests TBRDespite the tough test, several performance differentiatorsare corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests In the x86 server support TBR Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - x86 SERVER SUPPORT segment, the internal support organizations were confirmed as Significant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Attribute Correction In-house Dell HPS IBM having outperformed various Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell 2 -2 -1 1 competitors across all but one On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over Dell, HP Internal over ALL 2 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 category (parts availability) Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell 1 -1 0 0 designated by the previous tests. Online Support Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL Internal over ALL 3 3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 In addition, IBM outperformed Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 Dell for break/fix services. IBM Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over Dell Internal over ALL 1 3 -1 -1 0 -1 0 -1 also benefited by not placing Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell, HP 2 -2 -2 2 significantly lower than in-house Total Points 20 -11 -8 -1 support in several categories, SOURCE: TB R while competitors were not so Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - fortunate. TBR DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT In the desktop/notebook support Significant Differences Cited by Bonferroni segment, the internal support Attribute Correction In-house Dell HPS Lenovo Basic Break/Fix Services None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 organizations outperformed On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP, Lenovo 2 0 -1 -1 competitors in all but the On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, Lenovo 3 1 -1 -1 Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 break/fix and parts availability Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 categories, as designated in the Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 previous tests. In addition, Dell Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Services outperformed both Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 competitors for on-site response Total Points 23 -5 -8 -8 time. SOURCE: TB R71 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 72. Competitive GAP Analysis TBR The Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the in-house support performance difference premises set by the statistical significance tests • The competitive GAPTBR SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 1Q11 scores support TBR’s decisions regarding on- site response time on the competitive strength and weakness citations for the 1Q11 reporting 40 period. 60 Exceeds • The internal support 80 group’s scores were so Fully 100 Meets high, with the exception 120 of parts availability, that Short of they skewed the 140 remainder of the Expectation 160 analysis, making it Fulfillment Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services difficult for OEM supportSOURCE: TBR providers to earn scores above the 100-point marker and leading scores to trail toward the lower end of the meeting expectations range. 72 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 73. Buying Behavior TBRMost customers utilize a mix of self-replacement and on-site supportfor replacing/repairing failed parts METHODS OF REPLACING/REPAIRING FAILED PARTS TBR 100% on-site Primarily on-site;self replace some parts About 50/50 self replacement/on- site Primarily self replacement/on-site for some parts 100% self replacement 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% SOURCE: TBR Desktops/Notebooks Servers• The majority of desktop/notebook customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and on-site support by an OEM or partner.• TBR found that the majority of server customers preferred primarily self-replacing the parts while utilizing third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.• This pattern has largely remained constant in the past year, with an average of 25% of respondents indicating either 100% on-site support or 100% self-replacement, while the rest leverage a mix of the two.• TBR observed an above-average proportion of those primarily self-replacing within the IBM Support customer group. 73 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 74. Buying Behavior TBRCustomers are most satisfied with self-replacement or a mixture ofself-replacement and on-site support • Server customers are most PARTS REPAIR METHOD WITH HIGHEST SATISFACTION (Respondents Select One)TBR satisfied with a mixture of self-45.00% replacement and on-site40.00% support, whereas desktop/notebook customers35.00% are most satisfied replacing the30.00% parts in-house.25.00% • Customers are least satisfied20.00% with on-site support provided15.00% by a third party, at or under 5%10.00% satisfaction. 5.00% • This finding strongly suggests 0.00% OEM support providers must Self replacement On-site repair visit from systems On-site repair visit from third Mix of self replacement and on- find the optimum balance of manufacturer/authorized party site partner self-replaceable versus on-siteSOURCE: TBR repair parts. To complicate Servers Desktops/Notebooks matters, this balance may vary greatly by customer. 74 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 75. Buying Behavior TBRCustomers face many challenges in replacing failed parts in-house, led byavailability of parts and the challenge of replacing more difficult parts PRINCIPAL CHALLENGES IN REPLACING FAILED PARTS IN HOUSE TBR Forced to self replace due to contract terms/cost Lack of training/in-house expertise Issues with difficulty of replacing parts Replacement parts availability Limited staff resources 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% SOURCE: TBR Desktops/Notebooks Servers• The variety of challenges organizations face in replacing failed parts themselves could be at the root of an increase in requirements for on-site support. This premise is supported by the finding that at least 50% of respondents reported issues with the availability of some parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. This strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support.• IBM customers are less challenged than Dell and HP customers with staff resource issues, but are more challenged when facing parts availability.• In terms of having issues replacing difficult parts, desktop/notebook customers found this as more of an issue than server customers.75 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 76. Buying Behavior TBRPremium support contracts and extended warranties are more commonfor server support than desktop/notebookTBR TYPES OF x86 SERVER SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED TBR TYPES OF DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED 80% 70% 80% 60% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Critical/Premium Level Standard Level Critical/Premium Level Standard Level Acquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty Acquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended WarrantySOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR On the server side, across the board, customers IGS/Lenovo Services’ customers were the most likely were most likely to purchase support contracts at to purchase critical/premium and extended warranty the time of the hardware sale. contracts. Dell Services’ customers were the most likely of the vendors to purchase support contracts at the time of the desktop or notebook sale.76 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 77. Internal Support Teams TBRThe sample distribution of internal support by brand has remainedlargely constant over time INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP TBR BY MAJOR PC BRANDS 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell HP IBM/Lenovo SOURCE: TBR77 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 78. TBR Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores – 4Q07 Through 1Q1178 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 79. Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores TBR4Q07 Through 1Q11 BREAK/FIX SERVICES 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.86 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92 6.25 6.47 6.14 5.88 HP Services & Partners 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94 6.24 6.34 6.04 5.85 IGS & Partners 6.09 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09 6.35 6.58 6.23 5.99 Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75 6.12 6.57 6.47 6.16 ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.84 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52 5.95 6.31 6.00 5.84 HP Services & Partners 5.93 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24 5.86 6.20 5.88 5.74 IGS & Partners 6.06 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38 6.02 6.45 6.04 5.82 Internal Support Organizations 6.13 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47 5.88 6.27 6.20 6.05 ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.70 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63 5.84 6.12 5.85 5.68 HP Services & Partners 5.69 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15 5.56 5.96 5.63 5.57 IGS & Partners 5.94 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45 5.85 6.22 5.71 5.48 Internal Support Organizations 6.27 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76 6.12 6.37 6.30 6.21 TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.44 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64 5.84 5.81 5.62 5.67 HP Services & Partners 5.55 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28 5.64 5.89 5.72 5.67 IGS & Partners 5.68 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48 5.83 5.92 5.77 5.80 Internal Support Organizations 6.00 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48 5.92 6.10 5.98 5.98 ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.59 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50 5.77 5.76 5.54 5.63 HP Services & Partners 5.50 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34 5.74 5.86 5.57 5.57 IGS & Partners 5.55 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60 5.98 5.94 5.63 5.51 Internal Support Organizations 5.64 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58 5.93 6.01 5.91 5.94 REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 6.04 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63 5.92 6.24 6.07 5.85 HP Services & Partners 5.83 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53 5.91 6.19 6.00 5.76 IGS & Partners 6.04 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69 5.95 6.28 6.10 5.86 Internal Support Organizations 5.61 5.41 5.32 5.48 5.41 5.50 5.51 5.41 5.25 5.23 5.71 6.29 6.15 5.8479 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 80. Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores TBR4Q07 Through 1Q11 SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.73 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77 6.17 6.20 5.85 5.79 HP Services & Partners 5.50 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63 6.06 6.24 5.90 5.82 IGS & Partners 5.74 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79 6.20 6.32 6.02 5.90 Internal Support Organizations 5.96 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65 6.04 6.30 6.24 6.12 HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.67 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40 5.67 5.85 5.71 5.69 HP Services & Partners 5.56 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30 5.73 5.84 5.54 5.46 IGS & Partners 5.79 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35 5.62 5.84 5.63 5.46 Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52 5.97 6.15 6.09 6.04 AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.42 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43 5.54 5.46 5.43 5.55 HP Services & Partners 5.31 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26 5.53 5.68 5.45 5.44 IGS & Partners 5.62 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39 5.64 5.59 5.37 5.39 Internal Support Organizations 5.50 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56 5.85 5.87 5.85 5.98 OVERALL SATISFACTION 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 5.76 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77 6.09 6.26 5.96 5.81 HP Services & Partners 5.76 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70 5.97 6.25 5.96 5.76 IGS & Partners 5.89 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92 6.17 6.28 6.04 5.92 Internal Support Organizations 6.10 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70 6.02 6.25 6.19 6.16 Survey Counts 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners 160 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252 253 HP Services & Partners 160 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252 254 IGS & Partners 160 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254 263 Internal Support Organizations 160 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 404 51080 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 81. TBR Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes81 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 82. Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis TBRHistorical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness DeterminationsVENDOR 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04 1Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SERVICES PRICING/VALUEDell                * *  *HP                IGS                * *PARTS AVAILABILITYDell                *HP      IGS     BREAK/FIX SERVICESDell       HP       IGS   *       *   ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEDell      * *   *HP               IGS       * *  PHONE SUPPORTDell       * *  HP             IGS *   *     * *ONLINE SUPPORTDell       HP IGS * *      * *  TECHNICAL EXPERTISEDell         * *HP       IGS  *   *  * HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGUREDell        *   * * HP IGS   *  *   Ke y: We a kne s s ;  S tre ngth; Ne utra l. Wa rning; no t c ite d a s a c o m pe titive we a kne s s this qua rte r due to la c k o f c o rro bo ra ting e vide nc e . * M e a ns tha t the s tre ngth is bo rde rline .SOURCE: TBR82 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 83. TBR Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction Attributes83 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 84. Satisfaction Trends TBROn-site Break/Fix Services TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR BREAK/FIX SERVICES 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR84 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 85. Satisfaction Trends TBROn-site Technical Expertise TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE EXPERTISE 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR.85 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 86. Satisfaction Trends TBROn-site Response Time TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 6.6 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR86 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 87. Satisfaction Trends TBRPhone Support TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR87 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 88. Satisfaction Trends TBROnline Support TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR88 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 89. Satisfaction Trends TBRReplacement Parts Availability TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR89 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 90. Satisfaction Trends TBRSupport Services Pricing/Value TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR90 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 91. Satisfaction Trends TBRHardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration TBR HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT 6.4 6.2 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.0 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR91 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 92. Satisfaction Trends TBRAutomated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR TBR REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.00 4.80 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR92 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 93. Satisfaction Trends TBROverall Satisfaction TBR OVERALL SATISFACTION 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR93 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 94. TBR Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs94 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 95. Confidence Interval Graphs TBRBreak/Fix Services 4Q10 1Q1195 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 96. Confidence Interval Graphs TBROn-site Technical Expertise 4Q10 1Q1196 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 97. Confidence Interval Graphs TBROn-site Response Time 4Q10 1Q1197 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 98. Confidence Interval Graphs TBRPhone Support 4Q10 1Q1198 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 99. Confidence Interval Graphs TBROnline Support 4Q10 1Q1199 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 100. Confidence Interval Graphs TBRReplacement Parts Availability 4Q10 1Q11100 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 101. Confidence Interval Graphs TBRSupport Services Value 4Q10 1Q11101 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 102. Confidence Interval Graphs TBRHardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration Services 4Q10 1Q11102 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 103. Confidence Interval Graphs TBRAutomated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) 4Q10 1Q11103 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 104. Confidence Interval Graphs TBROverall Satisfaction with Technical Support Services 4Q10 1Q11104 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 105. TBR Appendix F: Categorical Responses105 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 106. Category Graphs TBRBreak/Fix Services SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 70% 80% 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS Dell Services HPS SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q10 1Q11106 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 107. Category Graphs TBROn-site Technical Expertise TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY CATEGORY 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 4Q10 1Q11107 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 108. Category Graphs TBROn-site Response Time SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 55% 65% 50% 60% 45% 55% 40% 50% 45% 35% 40% 30% 35% 25% 30% 20% 25% 15% 20% 10% 15% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 4Q10 1Q11108 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 109. Category Graphs TBRPhone Support SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 4Q10 1Q11109 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 110. Category Graphs TBROnline Support TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY CATEGORY 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS Dell Services HPS SOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q10 1Q11110 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 111. Category Graphs TBRReplacement Parts Availability TBR SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS TBR SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY CATEGORY 60% 70% 50% 60% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 SOURCE: TBR Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q10 1Q11111 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 112. Category Graphs TBRSupport Services Pricing/Value TBR SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS TBR SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY CATEGORY 80% 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 4Q10 1Q11112 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 113. Category Graphs TBRHardware Deployment SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY TBR SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY TBR RATINGS CATEGORY RATINGS CATEGORY 60% 70% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 4Q10 1Q11113 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 114. Category Graphs TBRAutomated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) TBR SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY TBR SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY RATINGS CATEGORY 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 4Q10 1Q11114 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 115. TBR Appendix G: Server/Storage versus Desktop/Notebook Support by Support Provider115 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 116. Satisfaction Trends TBRDell Services 1Q11 TBR DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks) 6.10 6.00 5.90 5.80 5.70 5.60 5.50 5.40 5.30 5.20 Parts Availability On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Overall Satisfaction Web Support On-site Response Phone Support Break/Fix Overall Value Deployment Hardware Time SOURCE: TBR116 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 117. Satisfaction Trends TBRHP Services 1Q11 TBR HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP 6.60 Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks) 6.40 6.20 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.00 4.80 4.60 Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction On-site Response Remotely Managed On-site Expertise Web Support Phone Support Break/Fix Overall Value Deployment Hardware Time SOURCE: TBR117 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 118. Satisfaction Trends TBRIBM Global Services 1Q11 IGS /LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP TBR IGS for IBM Servers Lenovo Services for Desktops/Notebooks 6.60 6.10 5.60 5.10 4.60 Parts Availability On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Overall Satisfaction Web Support On-site Response Phone Support Break/Fix Overall Value Deployment Hardware Time SOURCE: TBR118 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 119. Satisfaction Trends TBRInternal Support Organizations 1Q11 TBR IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP 6.40 Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks) 6.20 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.00 4.80 Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Web Support Phone Support On-site Response Break/Fix Remotely Managed On-site Expertise Overall Value Deployment Hardware Time SOURCE: TBR119 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 120. TBR Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology120 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 121. Study Design & Methodology TBRTBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study isbased on the views of those who manage in-house support servicesand/or work with OEM-provided supportCompanies interviewed for TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study are Additional Screening Criteria forrequired to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers, desktops and notebooks) the Corporate IT Service &installed. In contrast, TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 Support Satisfaction Study:PCs for most covered brands. This makes the Service & Support study a tool best suited forevaluating the experiences of midsized corporations, whereas the product-related studies 1. Has your company utilized any on-site, phone or webextend to the experiences of enterprise customers. The reason for the differing criteria is support for Dell, HP, IBM orthat larger organizations tend to rely more fully (sometimes entirely) on their internal Lenovo for desktops, serverssupport staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this or notebooks in the paststudy to mirror TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies, including the x86-based three months?Server, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop Customer Satisfaction studies. 2. Is your company utilizingThroughout this report, TBR refers to two types of support providers: in-house technical support?INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS: Companies with in-house technical support staff(systems manufacturers often refer to these customers as “self-maintainers”); TBR’s study 3. Are you personally involved in evaluating, recommendingfocuses primarily on internal support organizations that perform a number of support or purchasing supportfunctions with their own staff, supplemented by OEM-provided support as needed. services for desktops, serversOEM SUPPORT PROVIDERS: Dell Services, HP Services, IBM Global Services and Lenovo and notebooks at yourServices perform repairs and basic maintenance for customers based on support service company or site? Or, if yourportfolio offerings. site uses internal support• Dell Services and its authorized service partners provide technical support to Dell teams only, are you involved with the supervision of these customer sites for servers, notebooks and/or desktop PCs. teams?• HP Services encompasses services for the Industry Standard Server group as well as for the Personal Systems Group (desktops and notebooks).• IGS comprises support services for IBM server customers as well as for Lenovo desktop and notebook PC customers. Lenovo customers are serviced by IGS and Lenovo Services, in addition to a network of third-party service delivery partners.121 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 122. Study Design & Methodology TBRReporting Structure DefinedTBR generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support;report sections break up the study results by segment wherever referenced (server/storagesupport, desktop/notebook support) x86 Server/Storage Support, wherever referenced Sample size = Approximately 125 interviews per group Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support Combined Study Results delivered by: Sample size = Approximately 250 interviews 1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support) per group 2. HP Services (TSS) Covers satisfaction with x86-based server as 3. IBM/IGS Services well as desktop/notebook support delivered by: 4. Internal Support Organizations 1. Dell Services 2. HP Services (includes both TSS and PSG Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referenced groups) Sample size = Approximately 125 interviews per 3. IGS (includes both IBM server support group and Lenovo desktop/notebook support) Covers satisfaction with desktop/notebook support 4. Internal Support Organizations delivered by: 1. Dell Services (Client Support) 2. HP Services (PSG) 3. Lenovo Services 4. Internal Support Organizations122 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 123. Study Design & Methodology TBR1Q11 Sample Overview• TBR’s 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 524 medium and large U.S. and Canadian establishments, primarily MIS/IT, systems management and purchasing managers.• A number of the respondents are responsible for purchasing services from multiple support providers for their company or site, and thus were interviewed twice (once for each brand). Most respondents rated, at the very least, their internal support organization and one third-party provider.• Consequently, 1,030 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR boosted the number of required interviews to better represent the stated experiences of customers receiving server-related versus desktop/notebook-related support events.• Because many of the larger companies rely exclusively on their internal support teams, the requirements for this study differ from TBR’s x86-based server, notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. The minimum requirement is an installed base of 200 systems for the Service & Support Study (versus 500 for the standard studies). Respondents are screened to include only those who recommend or evaluate OEM support services for their organization and also manage an internal support staff.• The service and support interviews for the reporting period were distributed as follows: 253 Dell Services customer interviews; 254 HP Services customer interviews; 263 IBM Global Services customer interviews; and 260 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between October 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011. Methodology & Sample TBR Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes Service & Support Sample Size Standard Error All Providers 1030 1.00% Dell & Partners 253 2.10% HP & Partners 254 1.94% IGS & Partners 263 1.52% Internal Support Organizations 260 1.83% SOURCE: TBR123 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 124. Study Design & Methodology TBRNumber of Employees TBR Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed Number of Employees Percentage of Respondents <500 28.9% 500–1,000 17.8% 1,000–4,999 22.6% 5,000–9,999 11.3% 10,000–14,999 6.9% 15,000–19,999 3.6% 20,000–49,999 4.8% 50,000–74,999 2.1% 75,000–99,999 0.6% 100,000+ 1.3% Average Number of Employees 8,027 SOURCE: TBR124 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 125. Study Design & Methodology TBRType of Business TBR Types of Businesses Represented in the Study Type of Business Percentage of Respondents Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 2% Pharmaceuticals 3% Public Utilities 3% Transportation Service 5% Mining, Construction 5% Wholesale Trade 5% Information Service (including software development) 6% Finance, Insurance, real estate 7% Healthcare 7% Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 7% Other Services 8% Education 8% Government 8% Manufacturing - Process (materials) 9% Professional, Scientific, Technical 9% SOURCE: TBR125 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 126. Study Design & Methodology TBRJob Titles/Responsibilities Respondent Job Functions/ResponsibilitiesTBRLevel MIS/IT Systems Management Networking Other Purchasing Customer Service/Support Grand TotalCXO (CIO,CTO) 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%Vi ce Pres i dent 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%Di rector 13.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9%Ma na ger 61.3% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 63.0%Coordi na tor/Admi ni s tra ti on 13.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%Other 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 3.4%Gra nd Tota l 95.4% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR 126 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 127. Study Design & Methodology TBRPurchasing – Past, Present & Future Units Installed and Planned for Purchase by Form Factor TBR Installed Base Purchase Intent x86-Based x86-Based Desktops Servers Notebooks Desktops Servers Notebooks Enterprise Sum 1,013,272 186,567 563,009 202,161 41,733 109,468 Mean 1,968 362 1,093 393 81 213 Division Sum 6,780 480 1,326 580 172 520 Mean 753 53 147 64 19 58 Percent of Installed Base Replaced Enterprise 19.95% 22.37% 19.44% Division 8.55% 35.83% 39.22% SOURCE: TB R The 1Q11 study sample represents 1.8 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional 355,000 units during the next 12 months.127 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 128. TBR Appendix I: Analytical Procedures128 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 129. Analytical Model TBRSatisfaction Ratings • The customer satisfaction analysis was based on several lines of questioning. Respondents were asked to grade their vendor across a series of attributes (listed below) for each brand the surveyed corporations purchased in the most recent buying cycle. At the conclusion of the attribute testing, respondents were asked to provide a rating based on a 7-point Likert scale. Totally Dissatisfied Totally (Failure) Mediocre Satisfied Failure Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Respondents were also asked to indicate the relative importance of each of the attributes in choosing their brand. These responses were given on a 1- to 5-point scale, with 1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important. These ratings determined the gap between vendor satisfaction and importance, or how well the vendor manages expectations. • Respondents were then asked to indicate on a 1- to 5-point scale the degree of their loyalty toward their primary vendor(s). Finally, respondents were asked whether their corporation switched from one vendor to another during the past 12 months, and if so, which vendors were involved and why a change was made.129 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 130. Analytical Model TBRMeasured Attributes Customer satisfaction and relative importance were measured for each of the following attributes. Proportions of customers utilizing each service (based on percentage responding) are also indicated in the table. Service % Responding On-Site Break/Fix Services 87.75% On Site Technical Expertise 86.03% On Site Response Time/Commitment 86.23% Telephone/Help Desk Support 87.20% Online Support 85.99% Replacement Parts Availability 86.71% Support Services Pricing/Value 87.36% Hardware Installation/Configuration 72.64% Automated Diagnostics 68.53% Overall Satisfaction 87.75%130 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 131. Analytical Procedures TBRSatisfaction Statistics • A table of satisfaction statistics (including mean, standard deviation, standard error, range around the mean representing 95% confidence interval and standard t-Test) describes customer satisfaction for each vendor in each attribute area, with special emphasis on overall satisfaction. A series of t-Tests were performed on each vendor against the sum of its competitors, and the attribute areas where significant differences in score were indicated are marked. The t-Test compares two means to determine if one mean is significantly different than the other, taking variability of response into consideration. The purpose of these tests is to determine if any of the group’s mean differences observed (e.g., a group being a set of customers of one vendor) cannot be entirely explained by random or natural variation within sampled groups of customers. In other words, the observed differences are real. TBR uses an independent sample t-Test assuming unequal variances, or the standard student’s t-Test. Those attributes with an  level of 0.05 or less are cited as indicating there is a 95% chance that concluding the two means are different is correct. A t-Test of the grand mean (the mean of all scores for all attributes combined) serves to determine whether any of the vendors’ overall scores tend to run higher or lower than competitors’ scores. • As a backup to the above tests, an alternate test (the Bonferroni correction) is used for confirmation purposes (e.g., one-way analysis of variation). The variation within a group of customers is first determined in these one-way ANOVA tests. These variations are then compared to the variability between the groups (e.g., between Dell, HP and IBM customers). The between-group variation is measured by the sum of the squared differences between the sample mean of each group and the grand mean, which is then weighted by the sample size in each group. The between-group variation will be larger than the within-group variation (variation within each specific customer group) if there are meaningful differences between the means. The attributes that pass this additional test are also cited in the report. While the one-way ANOVA identifies which attributes are affected by differing means according to customer group, further tests, such as the Bonferroni correction, identify exactly which means differ from one another.131 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 132. Analytical Procedures TBRGAP Analysis • The competitive GAP analysis measures the gap between a vendor’s customer satisfaction for each attribute area against the expectations (importance ratings) of the market (all respondents). The standard against which each vendor is measured is the average size of that gap for all server vendors. The GAP analysis compares vendor satisfaction per attribute against importance per attribute among the vendor’s customer base, relative to overall satisfaction for all vendors per attribute against overall importance for all vendors per attribute. The formula for each attribute area independently is as follows: GAP = ____(Vendor Importance * (7-Vendor Satisfaction)____ * 100 (Grand Mean Importance * (7-Grand Mean Satisfaction) • The product for the above is graphed on a scale where values between 40 and 80 indicate where the vendor exceeds customer expectation; values between 81 and 120 show where the vendor fully meets expectation; values greater than 120 indicate where the vendor falls short of expectation. • A second GAP analysis (the standard GAP analysis) considers how each systems vendor manages the expectations of its own customer base. For each vendor independently and for each attribute area, the mean satisfaction rating is graphed next to the mean importance rating (adjusted from a 5-point scale to the 12-point scale used for customer satisfaction). There are three possible outcomes: satisfaction meets customer expectation (bar graphs are equal or within a range where the gap is not significant); satisfaction falls short of expectation (indicating areas where the systems vendor may want to consider focusing greater efforts on raising satisfaction); and satisfaction exceeds expectation (indicating attribute areas where the systems vendor may be focusing more than is necessary). • Yet another GAP analysis (the Improvements GAP analysis) is focused on determining the areas where the vendors need to set up improvement programs and areas where vendors may be able to pull back resources. It uses a similar formula to the competitive GAP analysis, however, the denominator becomes the grand mean importance and satisfaction for the vendor across all of the attributes. In this test, TBR compares the gaps for each of the individual attributes against the average gap for the vendor. Areas where the gaps measure wider than the average are areas where the vendor most urgently needs to focus its improvement efforts.132 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 133. Analytical Procedures TBRTrend Analysis A trend analysis compares each vendor’s customer satisfaction scores for the current reporting period separately against those from both the preceding reporting period and the reporting period prior to that. By comparing against both reporting periods, TBR is able to determine if any changes are indicative of a real change in historical pattern. This graph uses a 95% confidence-interval technique; the scores for each vendor are represented with the mean indicated in the middle from which the lines extend (in both directions) the distance of the standard error around the mean. This analysis is used to determine the reasons a vendor may move up or down in the rankings from previous reporting periods: is it because the vendor improved or because the competition declined in customer satisfaction? The analysis also is used to pinpoint potential problem areas or areas where marked improvement is evident.133 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 134. Analytical Procedures TBRNumeric Weighting Model 1. A numeric weighting model is applied in order to provide a ranking of the vendors and a means for tracking overall change in customer perception over time. Where N represents the total number of attributes, AI the importance score for each attribute and AS the satisfaction score for each attribute, the formula applied for calculating the weighted satisfaction index, on an individual respondent basis is:   ASi AIi  N  Weighted Satisfaction Index = i 1N   AI  / 7 * 100   i   i 1  support provider segment = 10 Note: The total number of attributes for the x86-based server segment = 10 The above has been calculated for each respondent, with missing values (Don’t Know or Not Applicable responses) having been replaced with the mean value for the attribute for the vendor group. The weighted satisfaction index for each vendor is the mean of the respondents’ weighted scores. The calculation for the individual satisfaction index is as follows. Where S = the sum of the satisfaction rating times the corresponding importance rating across the total attributes; and where I = the sum of the importance ratings across the attributes:  SI  Weighted Satisfaction Index = 7100134 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 135. Analytical Procedures TBRSupport Provider Ranking Positions Vendor ranking positions are determined primarily by the average weighted satisfaction index positions, with a minimum distance of 1.0% generally required for TBR to assign separate ranking positions to any two vendors. The determination of ranking positions does not end here, however; additional factors, such as number of competitive strengths versus weaknesses, also play into the final decision, which is a team effort by TBR principals. Consequently, less than a 1.0% distance can occur between two vendors’ weighted satisfaction index positions, yet, they may be assigned separate ranking positions based on the additional factors stated above.Competitive Strength & Weakness Table A competitive strength and weakness table is the final result of all the above analysis. The table points to the attribute areas that are definite strengths or weaknesses for each vendor. Areas of neutrality are those attributes where the vendor’s customer satisfaction performance is about average. The formula utilized for the determinations is: each attribute receives a score of 0 for neutrality, +1 for a positive and –1 for a negative. Three analysis are reviewed: the t-Test analysis (0 for null, +1 for significantly higher scores and –1 for significantly lower scores); the competitive GAP analysis (0 for meeting expectation, +1 for exceeding and –1 for falling short); and the vendor GAP analysis. The standard t-Test results are compared to those of the more stringent Bonferroni analysis and those passing both tests are given an extra point. The three scores for each attribute are then summed up. Any attribute with a total score of +2 or –2 is cited as a strength or weakness; total scores between these ranges are cited as neutral areas. Those with scores of +4 or –4 are areas of particularly strong strength or weakness. Marginal determinations (warnings or marginal strengths) come about when the determination is borderline (i.e., only the first t-Test was passed, or the t-Test was passed as a potential area of strength but a poor GAP rating negated it).135 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 136. TBR Appendix J: Survey Instrument136 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 137. Survey Instrument TBR1Q11 Survey Instrument SCREENERS137 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 138. Survey Instrument TBR1Q11 Survey Instrument138 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 139. Survey Instrument TBR1Q11 Survey Instrument139 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 140. Survey Instrument TBR1Q11 Survey Instrument140 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 141. Survey Instrument TBR1Q11 Survey Instrument141 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 142. Survey Instrument TBR1Q11 Survey Instrument142 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 143. TBRTechnology Business ResearchTechnology Business Research is a different kind of research company. Our bottoms-up approach provides a lookat the technology industry unlike anything you’ve seen before. We analyze company performance in professionalservices, networking and mobility, computing and hardware, and software on a quarterly basis, leveraging ourdata to create industry benchmarks and landscapes that provide a business perspective on leaders and laggardsand their business plans. We are experts in the business of technology. “I never go into a negotiation with a vendor until I have reviewed TBR’s quarterly reports. Understanding a vendor’s profit margin by business unit gives me an information edge in formulating my negotiation strategy and has saved my organization countless dollars!” – Telecom End User “We are using Technology Business Research’s operational metrics and management consulting taxonomy to drive our growth strategy and resources for our management consulting business…” - Top 5 Global Technology Company ©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 144. TBRFor more information on accessing new TBR reports please contact James McIlroy at mcilroy@tbri.com or at 603-758-1813 Follow our analysts on @TBRinc Read out analysts’ commentaries at @TBRincNewsroom Watch our recorded webinars at http://www.youtube.com/user/TBRIChannel?feature=mhee ©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.

×