TBR 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
 

TBR 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study

on

  • 504 views

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
504
Views on SlideShare
504
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

TBR 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study TBR 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study Presentation Transcript

  • 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 .
  • Corporate IT Service & SupportCustomer Satisfaction Study –Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT 4Q10 4Q10 4Q10 Strength/ Strength/ Strength/ 4Q10 TBR 4Q10 WSI Weakness 4Q10 TBR 4Q10 TBR Weakness 4Q10 TBR 4Q10 TBR Weakness SUPPORT PROVIDER RANK SCORE Points RANK SCORE Points RANK SCORE Points Internal Support Organizations 1 88.0 +16 1 87.6 +16 1 88.5 +14 IBM Global/Lenovo Services 2 84.0 +5 2 84.0 +3 3 83.9 -2 Dell Services 2 83.5 +2 3 82.3 -2 2 84.7 +3 HP Services 3 82.6 -6 3 81.8 -3 3 83.3 0 Publication Date: March 21, 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 .
  • Content TBR Slides and Modules Appendices 3 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support 43 Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables Satisfaction At A Glance 76 Appendix B: Support Provider 10 4Q10 Competitive Placement Summary Satisfaction Scores 3Q07 through 4Q10 & Insights 79 Appendix C: Historical Strength & 11 Key Findings Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes 16 The Score in 4Q10 81 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends and Key 19 Most Noteworthy Events - Service & Support Satisfaction Attributes Performance Differentiation Shifts 92 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs 23 Server Support - Segment Analysis 103 Appendix F: Categorical Responses 27 Desktop/Notebook Support - 113 Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Segment Analysis Desktop/Notebook by Support Provider 31 Critical Metrics Summary 118 Appendix H: Study Design & 34 TBR’s Watch List Methodology 41 Historical Record 126 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures 134 Appendix J: Survey Instrument 3 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction At A Glance4 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRRanking positions vary between server-related and desktop/notebook-related supportOnly the in-house support teams earn a double No. 1 ranking in 4Q10IBM holds leadership Dell Services reclaims theposition for server advantage for desktop/support notebook support TBR 4Q10 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING• IBM outpaced its OEM BY SUPPORT SEGMENT • Dell Services advanced to competitors by excelling 90.0 88.5 the top OEM ranking, with 87.6 across the areas of 88.0 1 competitive strengths for break/fix, on-site 86.0 1 response time and hardware 84.0 84.7 expertise and support 84.0 83.9 83.3 deployment services. 2 services value. 82.3 2 81.8 82.0 3 • Lenovo Services dropped to 3• Dell Services’ No. 3 80.0 3 3 No. 3 due to the absence of ranking was the result of 78.0 any competitive strengths, competitive warnings for Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support against Dell Services’ greater phone support and Dell Services Internal Support Organizations performance differentiation. support services value. IGS/Lenovo Services HP Services • HP Services shared the No. 3• HPS, at a shared No. 3 SOURCE: TBR ranking with Lenovo due to ranking with Dell, was a lack of performance cited with competitive differentiation. warnings across the three areas of on-site support. • The internal support teams substantially outperformed OEM support providers across nearly every category.5 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRInternal support organizations extend their lead; Dell Services returnsto top ranking position alongside three-time winner IGS 4Q10 Key Takeaways: TBR Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard • The internal support group returned to its traditional place as the ideal against OVERALL RESULTS which we measure OEM support INTERNAL IGS/LENOVO providers. SUPPORT PROVIDER SUPPORT SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS • Resumed IT hiring ensured internally Brea k/Fi x Servi ces     managed (self) support reclaimed its On-s i te Techni ca l Expertis e  *   title as the best source for supporting IT On-s i te Res pons e Ti me/Commi tment     infrastructures. • IGS’ continuing leadership among the Tel ephone/Hel pdes k Support  *   OEM providers was enhanced through Onl i ne Support     positive customer perceptions of Remotel y Ma na ged Support     technical expertise and phone support Repl a cement Pa rts Ava i l a bi l i ty     center quality. The group recorded its Support Servi ces Pri ci ng/Va l ue  *   first win for support services value, a Ha rdwa re Ins tal l a tion/Confi gura tion   *  key metric in the support experience. Numeri c Va l ue 16 5 2 -4 • Dell Services advanced to a top ranking Wei ghted Sa tis fa ction Score 88.0 84.0 83.5 82.6 primarily due to its substantial lead in on-site support response, yet phone Ra nki ng 1 2 2 3 support emerges as a continuing Ra nki ng, OEM Support Provi ders Onl y 1 1 2 challenge. Key: Weakness;  Strength; ¡ Ne utra l. Warning area fo r weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. • HPS continued to trail competitors as a * The de te rm ina tio n wa s m a rgina l. result of underperforming across theThe Overall Results combine both the server and desktop/notebook top three areas of on-site support.results into one, with sample sizes of 250 or more per group. 6 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRIBM Support continues to outshine OEM competitors for x86 server-related support services 4Q10 Key Takeaways:TBR x86 Server Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard • The internal support group extended its lead, substantially outperforming OEM SERVER SUPPORT support providers across all but the parts INTERNAL availability category.SUPPORT PROVIDER SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS • Obviously, in-house support teams areBrea k/Fi x Servi ces  *   dependent on the efficiencies of OEMs toOn-s i te Techni ca l Expertis e  *   deliver spare and replacement parts.On-s i te Res pons e Ti me/Commi tment     • IBM Support earned its third straight topTel ephone/Hel pdes k Support     ranking, enhanced through competitiveOnl i ne Support     advantages for break/fix services,Remotel y Ma na ged Support     technical expertise and a new win for support services value.Repl a cement Pa rts Ava i l a bi l i ty     • Dell Services remained in a subordinateSupport Servi ces Pri ci ng/Va l ue  *   ranking position to IBM, partially as aHa rdwa re Ins tal l a tion/Confi gura tion     result of performing significantly behindNumeri c Va l ue 16 3 -2 -3 IBM for phone support and supportWei ghted Sa tis fa ction Score 87.6 84.0 82.3 81.8 services value satisfaction.Ra nki ng 1 2 3 3 • HPS remained in the No. 3 positionRa nki ng, OEM Support Provi ders Onl y 1 2 2 (alongside Dell) as a result of continuing challenges across the areas of break/fix,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. on-site response and on-site expertise.The Server Support Results are based on views of ITmanagers/directors who primarily support x86-based servers, with asample size of 125 or more per group.7 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRDell Services nudges out competition in desktop/notebook supportTBR Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard 4Q10 Key Takeaways: • The internal support group extended its DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT lead, substantially outperforming OEM support providers across all but the parts INTERNALSUPPORT PROVIDER SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS availability category.Brea k/Fi x Servi ces     • Obviously, in-house support teams areOn-s i te Techni ca l Expertis e     dependent on the efficiencies of OEMs to deliver spare and replacement parts.On-s i te Res pons e Ti me/Commi tment *    • Dell Services returned to a top rankingTel ephone/Hel pdes k Support *    after a brief (3Q10) hiatus largely due toOnl i ne Support     its exceptional on-site support responseRemotel y Ma na ged Support     time rating.Repl a cement Pa rts Ava i l a bi l i ty     • Lenovo Services gave up its 3Q10 topSupport Servi ces Pri ci ng/Va l ue     ranking and returned to its place behindHa rdwa re Ins tal l a tion/Confi gura tion  *   Dell, which it held during the first twoNumeri c Va l ue 14 3 0 0 periods of 2010. • Lenovo Services and HPS lackedWei ghted Sa tis fa ction Score 88.5 84.7 83.9 83.3 differentiation, ranking behind DellRa nki ng 1 2 3 3 Services largely due to Dell’s substantialRa nki ng, OEM Support Provi ders Onl y 1 2 2 competitive advantage for on-site supportKey: Weakness;  Strength; ¡ Ne utra l. Warning area fo r weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. response. * The de te rm ina tio n wa s m a rgina l.The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of ITmanagers/directors who primarily support desktop and laptop PCs,with a sample size of 125 or more per group.8 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBRThe unbridled enthusiasm of mid-2010 settles back to the real worldin 4Q10 • Satisfaction with support services spiked during theTBR OEM SUPPORT PROVIDER SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS second quarter of 2010 7.00 and, in many cases, shifted Jan-Mar 10 Apr-Jun 10 Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 only modestly to the 6.50 downside in the following quarter. 6.00 • The full correction 5.50 occurred during the fourth quarter, when most 5.00 satisfaction positions 4.50 returned to their first- quarter levels. 4.00 • This suggests we have Overall Satisfaction Phone Support Hardware Deployment Support Services Break/Fix Online Support Remotely Managed Replacement Parts On-site Technical On-site Response witnessed an Pricing/Value Availability Expertise Support unsustainable burst of enthusiasm around support services providedSOURCE: TBR by OEMs. • This was driven by a combination of new The mean satisfaction ratings in the graph are based on discrete calendar quarters product purchases with and not the “reporting periods” (comprising two calendar quarters) TBR generally fresh warranties and reports on with these study results. The graph exemplifies average ratings across resumed IT staff hiring, the three OEM support providers – Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/Lenovo where enthusiasm with Services. new hardware spilled over into perceptions of services. 9 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance TBR A shift from previously perfect scores to moderately satisfied ratings drives the results of 4Q10 • Examples of customer CHANGE IN PROPORTIONS OF DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS, 3Q10 to 4Q10 delight (Perfect 7 ratings)TBR Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House with support services were 10% in abundance during the 0% second and third quarters of -10% 2010. -20% • The 4Q10 reporting period -30% scores showed an average -40% 40% reduction in Perfect 7 -50% -60% ratings among OEM support -70% providers’ customers. -80% • Some categories, e.g., support services value, Parts Availability On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Remotely Managed Break/Fix Svcs Online Support Phone Support Support Services Value/Pricing Overall Satisfaction Hardware Deployment showed a nearly 60% reduction in Perfect 7 scores. • The in-house supportSOURCE: TBR groups were resistant to this trend, primarily due to resumed IT staff hiring Where did the 7’s go? In most cases, we observed scores shifting to the left during the second half of of the Perfect 7 rating – some filling in at Level-6 (very satisfied). Yet, 2010. This continued to surprisingly, we observed many of the scores shifting all the way back to ease the burden of Level-5 (good). TBR did not observe an increase in customer disappointment previously stretched – this has consistently remained a non-concern throughout 2010. resources. 10 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR 4Q10 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights11 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Key Findings: Overall Study TBROVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations extend their exemplarystance; IGS and Dell Services now share No. 2 rank Factors Driving Rankings:TBR SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS • Internal support’s No. 1 6.80 ranking was delivered by an 6.60 Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs inspiring set of performances, 6.40 all but one substantially 6.20 outpacing the OEM support 6.00 providers. 5.80 • IGS remained in the No. 2 5.60 position behind in-house 5.40 support, outperforming OEM 5.20 competitors across the areas 5.00 of break/fix, on-site expertise, 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 phone support and support services value. Commitment Hardware • Dell Services moved up to share the No. 2 position with IGS, outperforming OEM competitors in the areas of on-SOURCE: TBR site response time and hardware deployment. • HPS remained in the No. 3 = TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10 position as a result of = TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10 underperforming OEM competitors across the top three on-site support categories. 12 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Key Findings: x86 Server Support TBRx86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support reiterates its topranking; IBM continues to rank higher than Dell and HP Services The Context • Customer satisfaction with x86-based serverTBR SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 3Q08 to 4Q10 support services took a hit in 2009, with WSI 92.0 ratings progressively declining throughout the 90.0 year, leaving no competitor (not even the 88.0 in-house teams) immune to the trend. 86.0 • Scores for the OEM support providers 84.0 weakened primarily during 2H09. As a leading 82.0 indicator for the industry, the internal support group’s scores began to decline at least one 80.0 quarter earlier. This is a clear example of the 78.0 challenges faced by organizations affected by 76.0 reduced spending on new server solutions 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 with robust warranties, an increase in out-of- Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support warranty systems, and a shortage of IT staff SOURCE: TBR resources due to cutbacks. • By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score4Q10 Developments slides halted, and improved in IBM’s case. In • Satisfaction score corrections in 4Q10 predominantly 2Q10, the real excitement started; customer affected the OEM support providers, enabling the in-house satisfaction ratings surged, resulting in a split group to enhance its already substantial competitive between No. 1 ranked Internal Support and advantage. IBM over No. 2 ranked Dell and HP Services. • IBM again retained its No. 2 status over No. 3 ranked Dell • In 3Q10, the internal support organizations Services and HPS. resumed their place alone at the top; OEM support providers’ positions held constant.13 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Key Findings: x86 Server Support TBR x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation examples are plentiful, favoring internal support and IBMTBR Factors Driving Rankings: MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING- SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY • Internal support’s No. 16.60 ranking was the result of Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support6.40 consistently outperforming6.20 OEM competitors across all but the parts availability6.00 category.5.80 • IBM’s sole No. 2 ranking5.60 was delivered through solid performances across5.40 the areas of break/fix,5.20 technical expertise and5.00 support services value. • Dell Services maintained Parts Availability On-site Response Time Overall Satisfaction Phone Support Hardware Deployment Web Support Break/Fix On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Overall Value the No. 3 ranking, this time underperforming OEM competitors in the areas of phone support and supportSOURCE: TBR services value. • HPS remained in the No. 3 position as well, underperforming OEM = TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10 competitors across the top = TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10 three on-site support categories. 14 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support TBRDESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support reclaimssole No. 1 ranking; Lenovo and Dell Services trade places The Context TBR SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 3Q08 to 4Q10 • Customer satisfaction with desktop and 90.0 notebook systems support began to decline as far back as mid-2008 but 88.0 accelerated during the recession of 2009. 86.0 • During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction 84.0 with support services from Dell Services, HP Services and Lenovo Services declined 82.0 precipitously. The internal support group 80.0 took the greatest cumulative hit, 78.0 however, as its WSI ratings lost a substantial proportion of their value 76.0 between 4Q08 and 4Q09. 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 • By 1Q10, customer satisfaction scores for Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support all competitors either stabilized or SOURCE: TBR improved. Dell Services’ improvement was substantial enough to deliver a sole 4Q10 Developments No. 1 ranking. • Satisfaction score corrections in 4Q10 predominantly affected • In 2Q10, ranking positions held steady, the OEM support providers, enabling the in-house group to rise with Dell Services as the singular No. 1 to its first singular No. 1 ranking since 1Q09. ranked player, internal support and • Lenovo Services’ WSI score corrected by a greater magnitude Lenovo Services sharing No. 2, and HPS than that of Dell Services, resulting in Dell narrowly overtaking ranked No. 3. the lead. Nonetheless, the OEM support provider competition in • The pattern shifted in 3Q10, with Lenovo the desktop/notebook support segment was extremely tight. Services and Dell Services exchanging positions.15 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support TBRDESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges outcompetition by virtue of its on-site response time ratingTBR MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - Factors Driving Rankings: DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY • Internal support’s No. 1 6.80 ranking was the result of 6.60 Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support consistently outperforming 6.40 OEM competitors across all but the parts availability 6.20 category. 6.00 • Dell Services No. 2 ranking, 5.80 behind the in-house group, was largely the result of one 5.60 key win: substantially 5.40 outperforming OEM 5.20 competitors for on-site response time. 5.00 • No. 3 ranked Lenovo Web Support Parts Availability On-site Expertise Break/Fix Phone Support On-site Response Time Overall Satisfaction Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Overall Value Services and HPS lacked performance differentiation; they ranked behind Dell Services essentially due to their significantly lower on-SOURCE: TBR site support response time ratings. = TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10 = TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10 16 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • The Score in 4Q10 TBRInternal organizations reassert themselves as the ideal support experienceDell Services moves up to share the top OEM provider ranking with IGS;IGS brings in its third straight top ranking 4Q10 VERSUS 3Q10 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION TBR RATINGS AND RANKS 92.0 89.3 90.0Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 4% correction 88.0 88.4 86.7 86.9 88.0 1• A substantial drop in support services value 86.0 2 1 84.0 83.5 satisfaction was a leading factor. 84.0 2 82.6 82.0HPS’ WSI shifted back by 4.7% 3 3 2 80.0 3• Declining positions were led by support 78.0 services value and on-site response time. 76.0 3Q10 4Q10IGS’ WSI corrected by 5% Internal Support Organizations IGS/Lenovo Services & Partners• On-site response time was the leading HP & Partners Dell & Partners factor. SOURCE: TBRInternal support was most resistant to • The exuberance of the previous3two reporting periods ultimately 3downward trends – WSI adjusted by just maxed out for the OEM support providers in 4Q10.1.5% • The varying levels of correction dictated ranking position• None of the group’s individual satisfaction assignments as follows: metrics declined significantly. • In-house support teams were the lone exception to broadly correcting satisfaction positions – No. 1 status enhanced. • Dell Services was the least compromised of the OEM support providers, rising to a No. 2 ranking. • IGS’ WSI gave up the largest proportion of its value; while its ranking position remained constant, it was forced to share with Dell Services. • HPS, in the middle, remained in the No. 3 ranking position.17 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • The Score in 4Q10 TBRVarying levels of correcting scores in 4Q10 defines the competitive line-upDell Services’ scores declined by the smallest magnitude of the OEM support providers, with an average 3.7% declineagainst an average 4.6% between HPS and IGS. This helped Dell Services recover from a previous competitive warningfor online support and a weakness for remotely managed support. • The most noteworthy development with respect to Dell Services was its comparatively more stable on-site response time rating, leading TBR to award Dell with a competitive strength.HPS’ score shifts were often between the magnitudes of Dell Services and IGS; there were no developments thataffected HPS’ areas of competitive warning (break/fix, on-site expertise) and weakness (on-site support).IGS’ scores declined most notably relative to on-site response time, resulting in TBR lifting its previous competitivestrength and handing it over to Dell Services. • Two new competitive strengths emerged for IGS (support services value and phone support) as the result of its scores declining by lesser magnitudes than competitors. PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10 • The in-house support groupsTBR Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations were most resistant to the trend 0% of broadly declining satisfaction -1% positions that affected the OEM -2% support providers. -3% • Scores declined an average of -4% just 1.3% against the OEM -5% provider average of 4.3%. -6% • With the easing of the recession -7% and increased IT staff hiring, the -8% group has returned to its -9% traditional place in TBR’s study as the yardstick against which we measure all else.SOURCE: TBR 18 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • The Score in 4Q10 TBRTBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforcethe 4Q10 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 INTERNAL IGS/LENOVO CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE was enhanced by its receivingVENDOR SUPPORT SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 3Q10 competitive strengths in eight ofBreak/Fix Services    CONSTANT the nine categories.On-site Technical Expertise  *  CONSTANT • At No. 2, IGS earned competitiveOn-site Response Time/Commitment     CONTRACTING strengths across four categories,Telephone/Helpdesk Support  *   EXPANDING two of which were new – phoneOnline Support     CONTRACTING support and support servicesRemotely Managed Support     CONTRACTING value. IGS’ position weakened fromReplacement Parts Availability     CONSTANT that of the previous reportingSupport Services Pricing/Value  *   EXPANDING period, having lost possession ofHardware Installation/Configuration   *  CONSTANT strengths for on-site response timeNumeric Value 16 5 2 -4 and online support.Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.0 84.0 83.5 82.6 • Dell Services, also at No. 2, earnedRanking 1 2 2 3 two new competitive strengths andAdjusted Ranking one competitive warning for phone 1 1 2(Third-Party Providers Only) support. Dell also recovered fromKey: Weakness;  Strength; Neutral.  Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to two previous challenges – forsubstantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. online and remotely managedSOURCE: TBR support. YELLOW boxes indicate areas where • HPS’ No. 3 ranking was Strength/Weakness determinations have been substantiated by the continuation downgraded from the previous reporting period. of its three challenges in the areas of on-site support. BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade.19 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBR On-site response time remains a leading performance differentiator, shifting to favor Dell Services in lieu of IGS In 3Q10, mean ratings for IGS and the in- house group were significantly higher than average, with HPS significantly lower. By 4Q10, the in-house group’s continued possession of a competitive strength was assured. IGS’ score declined by the greatest magnitude, resulting in its loss of the competitive strength. Dell Services, whose score declined by the lowest magnitude, landed in a position significantly higher than HPS and IGS, and a competitive strength was issued. HPS continued to score lower than average, with a competitive weakness assigned. Dell Services earned a competitive 3Q10 strength by receiving fewer Level-5 4Q10 ratings than competitors in 4Q10, SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME while the in-house group earned the TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME BY RATINGS CATEGORY 55% fewest Level-5 ratings and TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 50% 55% 45% substantially more Perfect 7 ratings 50% 45% 40% 35% against the competition. HPS’ scores 40% 35% 30% 25% were more spread out, with more <5 30% 25% 20% 15% ratings and fewer 7 scores than 20% 15% 10% 5% competitors. Note that, with the 10% 5% 0% exception of internal support, 0% <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House satisfaction positions shifted away <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House from the top levels of the scale andSOURCE: TBR filled in with an increase in Level-5 SOURCE: TBR ratings between 3Q10 and 4Q10. 20 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBR Phone support differentiation expands, now favoring IGS over Dell Services In 3Q10, the in-house group scored significantly higher than a fairly comparable group of OEM support providers for phone support. Scores collectively declined in 4Q10, by modestly varying degrees – Dell Services by 3.2%, HPS by 3%, IGS by 2.6%. These modest differences in rate of decline were enough to cause profound changes, with Dell Services scoring significantly lower and IGS significantly higher than average. TBR awarded both the in-house group and IGS with strengths and Dell Services with a warning. 3Q10 4Q10 Between 3Q10 and 4Q10, the OEM support SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT TBR TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY providers’ scores gained 70% BY RATINGS CATEGORY 60% Level-5 ratings at the 60% 50% expense of previous 6 and 50% 40% 7 ratings. Dell Services, in 40% 30% 30% 20% particular, had a higher 20% 10% number of scores below 6 10% 0% in 4Q10. The in-house 0% <5 5 6 7 <5 5 6 7 group continued to rack Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House up the largest proportion SOURCE: TBRSOURCE: TBR of Perfect 7 ratings. 21 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBRSupport services value differentiation expands with IGS earningits first competitive strength In 3Q10, all four support providers’ services value satisfaction ratings were comparable. Scores for the three OEM support providers declined by between 4.7% (IGS) and 5.7% (Dell Services) in 4Q10. These small differences were enough for IGS to score significantly higher than HPS and Dell Services. IGS’ scores were also less spread out, enabling it to grab its first competitive strength. 3Q10 4Q10 SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS Distributions of scores SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGSTBR TBR CATEGORY broke apart in 4Q10 CATEGORY 60% relative to the OEM 80% 50% support providers. IGS 70% 60% 40% 30% earned a greater number 50% 40% 20% of Level-6 and fewer Level- 30% 10% 0% 5 ratings than 20% 10% <5 5 6 7 competitors. 0% <5 5 6 7 Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In HouseSOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR 22 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts TBR Online support performances merge for the OEM support providers in 4Q10 In 3Q10, IGS’ mean online support satisfaction rating was higher than average, and Dell Services’ lower than average. The in-house group’s scores were significantly higher than all three OEMs. By 4Q10, Dell Services’ mean score declined by the smallest magnitude, and IGS’ by the greatest. As a result, TBR removed both IGS’ competitive strength and Dell Services’ warning. 3Q10 4Q10TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS IGS’ and HPS’ scores shifted to TBR SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY CATEGORY 60% the left in 4Q10 by giving up a 60% 50% fair number of previous Levels 50% 40% 6 and 7 ratings, filled in by an 40% 30% increase in Level-5 ratings. 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 HouseSOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House 23 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRTBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhancethe 4Q10 server support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) andGAP analysis (two tests) Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server • The foundation for the internal support TBR group’s continued No. 1 ranking was VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS fortified by adding two new competitive Break/Fix Services  *   strengths. On-site Technical Expertise  *   • IBM repeated its No. 2 ranking behind the On-site Response Time/Commitment     in-house group and ahead of its OEM Telephone/Helpdesk Support     support provider competition. This was Online Support     enhanced through three competitive Remotely Managed Support     strengths, including a new one for support Replacement Parts Availability     services value. Support Services Pricing/Value  *   • Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM Hardware Installation/Configuration     Support was partially due to two new Numeric Value 16 3 -2 -3 competitive warnings, in the areas of Weighted Satisfaction Score 87.6 84.0 82.3 81.8 phone support and support services value. Ranking 1 2 3 3 • HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking Adjusted Ranking with Dell Services, with two continuing and 1 2 2 (Third-Party Providers Only) one new (technical expertise) competitive Key: Weakness;  Strength;  Neutral.  Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. warnings. SOURCE: TBR What Changed in 4Q10: • The internal support organizations’ performances continued to improve, outperforming competitors across all but one category (parts availability). • While IBM retained its No. 2 ranking over OEM support provider competitors, it did not carry over two strengths from the previous period – response time and online support. • Both IBM and Dell Services brought in a mixture of improving competitive positions (blue boxes) and weakening ones (yellow boxes). In the end, this changed nothing in terms of ranking position alignment.24 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY6.60 Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services • Server support customers6.40 attribute relatively high6.20 importance to most categories,6.00 the exceptions being remotely5.80 managed and online support and5.60 hardware deployment services.5.40 • IBM Support outperformed5.20 competitors across most5.00 categories, and notably within the Parts Availability On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Overall Satisfaction Web Support Phone Support On-site Response Break/Fix Deployment Overall Value Hardware single most critical category, Time break/fix services.SOURCE: TBR • Dell Services and HPS had challenges within their ownFor details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please respective areas, resulting in arefer to Appendix G. draw reflected by the closeness of TBR splits responses based on the their WSI ratings. respondents’ primary responsibilities. SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS Each study participant is asked to WSI Score Rank identify the support area with which IBM Services 84.0 1 they are most involved (servers/storage or Dell Services 82.3 2 desktop/notebook) and are then HP Services 81.8 2 asked to rate those experiences exclusively. 25 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRIn 4Q10, server support satisfaction ratings collectively decline bymodestly variable magnitudes; ranking positions remain constantTBR 3Q10 to 4Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT • In many cases, degrees by which12% mean scores corrected were fairly10% 8% Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services comparable across the three OEM 6% support providers. 4% • IBM Support satisfaction positions 2% 0% held up modestly better than those-2% of the competition. This condition-4% helped IBM add a key competitive-6% strength in 4Q10 – for support-8% services value. Parts Availability On-site Response Time Hardware Deployment On-site Expertise Web Support Remotely Managed Support Service Pricing/Value Phone Support Break/Fix • As IBM Support was already a No. 1 ranked support provider in 3Q10, there were no changes in ranking position assignments in 4Q10. • Dell Services added two newSOURCE: TBR competitive warnings in 4Q10 as a result of score corrections that outpaced those of the competition. LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, 3Q10 to 4Q10 • HPS gained a new competitive % Change, WSI Score warning for technical expertise as a Dell Services -4.8% result of a score declining by a greater magnitude than those of HP Services -5.0% the competition. IBM Services -4.2%26 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRSome negative GAP positions re-emerge in 4Q10 as a result of decliningsatisfaction scores 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 ServicesAs of 4Q10, server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers arescrutinizing support services more than they had in the previous three quarters of 2010. In particular, GAP scores forparts availability, phone support and on-site response time show ample room for improvement for all three OEMsupport providers. While we might expect IBM Support to have met customer expectations more effectively thancompetitors, in that it was ranked No. 1, IBM customers in the study wave expressed inordinately high expectationsthat prevented IBM from earning more solid GAP scores.27 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRTBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the4Q10 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) andGAP analysis (two tests) TBR Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook • The internal support group’s No. 1 ranking was substantially enhanced by the addition of five VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS new competitive strengths. In 4Q10, the group Break/Fix Services     earned competitive strengths across all but the On-site Technical Expertise     parts availability category. On-site Response Time/Commitment *    • Dell Services advanced to the No. 2 ranking, Telephone/Helpdesk Support *    assisted by both the addition of new Online Support     competitive strengths and recovery from Remotely Managed Support     previous warnings. Replacement Parts Availability     • Lenovo Services dropped from No. 2 to No. 3 as Support Services Pricing/Value     a result of its inability to carry over four specific Hardware Installation/Configuration  *   competitive strengths from the previous period. Numeric Value 14 3 0 0 • HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking, this Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.5 84.7 83.9 83.3 time with Lenovo Services in lieu of Dell Services. HPS was largely improved, recovering Ranking 1 2 3 3 Adjusted Ranking from two competitive warnings issued in 3Q10. 1 2 2 (Third-Party Providers Only) Key: Weakness;  Strength;  Neutral.  Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. SOURCE: TBR What Changed in 4Q10: • The internal support organizations’ performances continued to improve, outperforming competitors across all but one category (parts availability). • Lenovo Services and Dell Services switched ranking positions due to weakening performances of the former against strengthening performances of the latter. • HPS was mildly improved yet remained in a subordinate ranking position.28 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRDell Services’ No. 1 ranking over competitors is driven largely byits on-site support response time rating TBR MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - • Desktop/notebook support DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY 6.80 customers attribute relatively 6.60 Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services high importance to on-site 6.40 support response time. 6.20 • Dell Services’ score for on-site 6.00 support response satisfaction 5.80 was substantially higher than 5.60 average. The combination of 5.40 high importance with high 5.20 satisfaction provided for a 5.00 higher-than-average WSI rating Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Phone Support On-site Response Web Support Break/Fix On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Overall Value Deployment for Dell Services in 4Q10. Hardware • Both Lenovo Services and HPS Time came up neutral in 4Q10 – no SOURCE: TBR particular challenges outside of a similar one in that Dell Services For details on server/storage versus outperformed them with respect desktop/notebook support by support provider, TBR splits responses based on respondents’ primary to on-site response time. please refer to Appendix G. responsibilities. Each study DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & participant is asked to identify the RANKINGS support area with which they are WSI Score Rank most involved (servers/storage or Dell Services 84.7 1 desktop/notebook) and are then Lenovo Services 83.9 2 asked to rate those experiences HP Services 83.3 2 exclusively.29 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRIn 4Q10, desktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings collectivelydecline by varying magnitudes; Dell Services benefits by beingthe least affectedTBR 3Q10 to 4Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT • Because previously No. 1 ranked 12% Lenovo Services’ scores declined by 10% 8% Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services the greatest magnitude, and Dell 6% Services by the least, the two traded 4% 2% ranking positions in 4Q10. 0% -2% • Lenovo Services gave up several -4% previous competitive strengths due to -6% -8% the larger magnitude of its declining-10%-12% scores against industry averages. Most noteworthy among these was its on- Parts Availability On-site Response Time Phone Support Support Service Pricing/Value Hardware Deployment Web Support Remotely Managed On-site Expertise Break/Fix site support response rating. • Dell Services added new competitive strengths, most notably on-site response time, by maintaining moreSOURCE: TBR consistent ratings against the previous quarter than competitors. In a similar fashion, Dell Services recovered from LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK previous warnings for online and SATISFACTION, 3Q10 to 4Q10 remotely managed support. % Change, WSI Score • HPS recovered from previous warnings Dell Services -2.9% for break/fix services and technical HP Services -4.5% expertise as a result of Lenovo Lenovo Services -5.6% Services’ more significantly declining ratings.30 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis TBRSome negative GAP positions re-emerge in 4Q10 as a result of decliningsatisfaction scores 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 -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services SOURCE: TBR As of 4Q10, desktop/notebook support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than they had in the previous three quarters of 2010. Some wide GAP scores that affected various competitors more than others included phone support for HPS, on-site support response time for HPS and Lenovo Services, and parts availability for Lenovo Services. Note that Dell Services, the No. 1 ranked competitor, was more capable of effectively meeting customer expectations than competitors.31 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Critical Metrics Summary TBRVital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support 4Q10 Ranking 2 2 3 1 4Q10 Ranking, OEM 1 1 2 N/A support providers Rank change vs. 3Q10 +1 0 0 0 4Q10 WSI 83.5 84.0 82.6 88.0 WSI change vs. 3Q10 -4% -5% -4.7% -1.5% WSI placement; WSI placement vs. Dell Rationale for Ranking WSI placement; proximity proximity to IGS WSI; Services & IGS; two to Dell Services WSI; WSI placement Positions fewer warnings/no warnings and one full competitive strengths weaknesses vs. HPS competitive weakness Break/fix (Continuing; Full); Expertise (Continuing; Marginal); All except for parts On-site response time Phone support (New; availability; New competitive (New; Full); Hardware Competitive Strengths deployment (New; Marginal); Value (New; None strengths in 4Q10 included Marginal). On-site expertise and support Marginal) response time and online services value support strengths from 3Q10 rescinded Break/fix and expertise Competitive (Continuing; Warnings); New warning for None On-site response time None Weaknesses phone support (Accelerated to Full Weakness) Exceptions to significantly declining Significant Movement, Exceptions to rule include Exceptions to rule positions include parts No positions declined by 3% phone support, parts include phone support, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10 availability, hardware or greater availability parts availability deployment, remotely managed32 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Critical Metrics Summary TBRVital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support Server Support WSI & 82.3 No. 3 84.0 No. 2 81.8 No. 3 87.6 No. 1 Ranking Desktop/Notebook 84.7 No. 2 83.9 No. 3 83.3 No. 3 88.5 No. 1 Support WSI & Ranking Three strengths – Three warnings – break/fix, Strengths across all Server Support Two warnings – phone break/fix, expertise, & on-site response time, on- categories except for Competitive Profile support, value value site expertise parts availability Two strengths – on-site Strengths across all Desktop/Notebook response time, All neutral ratings All neutral ratings categories except for Competitive Profile hardware deployment parts availability (marginal) [WSI -4.2%] Break/fix, [WSI -4.8%] All but [WSI -2.7%] Parts Significant Movement, on-site expertise & [WSI -5%] All but remotely remotely managed and availability was the only Server Segment, 4Q10 response time, and managed support down hardware deployment category having declined vs. 3Q10 online support down significantly down significantly significantly significantly [WSI -5.6%] All but Significant Movement, [WSI -2.9%] Break/fix [WSI -4.5%] All but phone phone support and parts [WSI -0.2%] All positions Desktop/Notebook and overall value support and parts availability availability declined remained constant Segment, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10 declined significantly declined significantly significantly33 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Critical Metrics Summary TBRVital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support IBM Support continues to Dell Services reclaimed its No. demonstrate services 1 ranking status over OEM excellence in the server While HPS has made some The internal support group competitors in the support segment, winning its progress during the past year, reclaimed its traditional desktop/notebook segment third straight No. 1 ranking particularly with respect to position as the ideal against after a brief hiatus. TBR sees over OEM competitors. phone, online and remotely which we measure the OEM Dell’s on-site support response Concepts including technical managed support, it continues support providers in this time performances as expertise tend to flesh out to be overshadowed by more study. 4Q10 scores noteworthy, earning IBM’s status in this energized competitors in on- remained constant in an competitive strengths in five competition. In 4Q10, IBM site support. HPS continues to environment where the of the past seven reporting Summary earned its first competitive be outperformed across all OEM support groups’ scores periods. It has been this key Statement strength for support services three areas of on-site support, collectively declined by dynamic that has historically value, a key dynamic in this though primarily on the server substantial magnitudes. The been behind Dell’s wins in the competition. Lenovo Services support side of the study. The singular area where in- desktop/notebook support faced some challenges in key challenge area for HPS house support does not segment. Greater challenges 4Q10, directly from Dell remains on-site support dominate the competition is are clear in the server support Services and exclusively response time, where a one in which the group is segment, particularly with associated with on-site previous warning was dependent on OEMs – respect to phone support, a response time. Outside of this downgraded to a full weakness replacement parts finding reflected in TBR’s 4Q10 one category, however, it was in 4Q10. availability. x86-based Server Customer a very close competition for Satisfaction Study as well. desktop/notebook support. With respect to this competition, it would appear we have travelled full circle, back to a more realistic representation of normal operations. The mood in 2009 was dictated by reduced spending on new hardware and IT staff, and probably lapsed warranties that were not renewed, placing a great strain on infrastructure support services. The temperament throughout most of 2010 was Bottom quite the contrary – new hardware with fresh warranties flooding into the corporation drove a level of enthusiasm never before Line seen in this study. In most cases, these antithetical moods cancelled one another out and by 4Q10, satisfaction levels returned to where we would expect to see them. Among the most intriguing developments is the return of the in-house support group as the model for support excellence. The OEM support providers are now tasked with finding a place to contribute and differentiate within companies that are currently quite self sufficient.34 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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.35 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services TBRDell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations forserver support; phone support remains a recurring concern Improve- Segments Strength/ ments % Change Long-term Affected, Weakness Disappointment/Citation Placement GAP versus 3Q10 Trends 4Q10 Status Delight Meter NotesPhone Significantly Well -5% against Scores remain Server New 27% reduction in While disappointmentSupport lower than Below competitors’ volatile, Support competitive customer delight; remains a minor concern industry Average average -4% lacking warning disappointment in 4Q10, in the context of average in in server consistency, issued in creeping up from the competitive field, 7% server segment currently on server 3.5% in 3Q10 to 7% dissatisfaction for Dell segment, downward segment in 4Q10 Services’ phone support 95% path is considerable as confidence; competitors are at 3% to below IBM 4%. The more significant 90% issue is a greater confidence proportion of middling Level-5 ratings for Dell Services, against competitors more likely to have received 6’s.Support Significantly Average -6.8% in Completely Server New Customer delight With IBM grabbing itsServices below server erased gains of Support competitive reduced by 52%; very first competitiveValue industry segment vs. first three warning disappointment up strength for support average in competitors’ periods of issued in slightly from 1% to services value, Dell server average -4% 2010 server 3% yet essentially a Services has a significant segment at segment non-issue challenge on its hands to 90%; below regain what has been IBM at 99% historically its territory. confidence36 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services TBRDell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectationsfor server support; phone support remains a recurring concernRemoved Progress has been made with respect to both online and remotely managed support, where Dellfrom Services recovered from competitive warnings issued in the 3Q10 study wave. These challengesWatch List affected Dell in both the server and desktop/notebook support segments. In 4Q10, Dell Services’ scores were resistant to downward trends that more commonly affected competitors. However, TBR cautions that Dell must take into account that these concerns may not have entirely disappeared from the radar screen. We continued to observe a relatively high number of scores in the disappointed range – 9% for online support and 8% for remotely managed support. Self support remains an area that is difficult for any support provider to monitor, particularly when they do not gain access to customer feedback, perhaps, as readily as they do with respect to phone support.Behind the A recent reorganization of Dell Services, designed to improve efficiencies and enhance the customerScenes relationship focus, includes the designation of new president of Dell Services, Steve Schuckenbrock. This new leadership, along with an associated reorganization of Dell’s Public and Large Enterprise units into a single one focused on the similar needs of these customers, is expected to bring Dell closer to its customers. This should aid in setting customer expectations and better managing Dell’s response while increasing customer awareness of Dell’s support contract features and encouraging utilization. Dell’s ProSupport portfolio was simplified in late 2010, combining what were previously two separate offerings – one designed for IT managers and the other for end users. From there, customers can select from a menu of customized solutions that assist with specific customer requirements, such as enterprisewide support, multivendor support, medical archiving, etc. Dell’s ability to communicate to customers the benefits of both its ProSupport and Basic Hardware warranty service offerings will be critical in this competition where technical support is becoming a potential brand differentiator.37 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR’s Watch List: HPS TBRHP Services continues to face challenges regarding on-site support Improve- Segments Strength/ ments % Change Long-term Affected, Weakness Disappointment/ Citation Placement GAP versus 3Q10 Trends 4Q10 Status Delight Meter Notes On-site Significantly Well -4.6% vs. Fully Both New Delight reduced by This is a challenge Response below Below competitors’ corrected for segments competitive 55%; area for HPS within Time industry Average average -6% in gains of first warning issued disappointment both segments of average and server segment; three periods in server also down, from the study – against IBM at 95% -6.4% vs. Dell’s of 2010; segment 5% to 3% IBM in the server confidence -2.8% in desktop remaining support segment in server notebook outlier for and against Dell in segment; segment past four the desktop/ below Dell periods notebook segment. at 98% It has been a fairly confidence consistent challenge in desktop throughout 2010. notebook segment Technical Significantly Just Above -7.1% in server Following Both Continued Customer delight While it was not an Expertise lower than Average segment against similar segments competitive down by 52%; issue of customer IBM at 99% competitors’ pattern to warning in disappointment disappointment, HPS in server average -6%; competitors server segment remains a non- was outperformed segment; -3% in desktop yet remaining issue by IBM, in particular, trending notebook the outlier in terms of higher behind Dell segment, for the past level (generally 6) in desktop comparable to four periods scores. notebook that of Dell segment38 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR’s Watch List: HPS TBRHP Services is challenged with creating greater customer enthusiasmin both segments, predominantly with its on-site support services Improve- Segments ments % Change Long-term Affected, Strength/ Disappointment/Citation Placement GAP versus 3Q10 Trends 4Q10 Weakness Status Delight Meter NotesBreak/Fix Significantly Excels -5.4%, 4Q10 score Both Continued Customer delight A lack of behind IBM comparable to corrected segments, warning in server reduced by 55%, customer at 99% competitors in from gains but server segment a considerably enthusiasm confidence server of previous segment greater remains the in server segment; -4% three most magnitude than issue. segment; in desktop periods significantly that among trending notebook competitors behind Dell segment in desktop against notebook competitors’ segment average -5%Behind In December 2010, HP announced its Next Generation Customer Support Experience for its serverthe customers, a set of enhanced support services built around advanced automation and mobility technologyScenes for proactive support. Some of the features include advanced, 24/7 remote monitoring with automated diagnostics, a direct link to top HP services professionals, a new support portal, entitlement-based access to HP system updates, and guaranteed use of exclusively HP genuine replacement parts. With these enhancements, HP has endeavored to make the support experience more personalized and proactive. HP PSG has been investing in higher-level support options for its premium (Elite) line of commercial laptops and desktops. By recognizing the need for a higher services value proposition for customers of the Elite brand, HP has taken an important step in this competition where Dell and Lenovo have already offered such premium services in the desktop/notebook support space.39 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR’s Watch List: IGS TBRIBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Servicesmust focus on regaining past competitive advantages Improve- Segments Strength/ ments % Change Long-term Affected, Weakness Disappointment/ Citation Placement GAP versus 3Q10 Trends 4Q10 Status Delight Meter Notes On-site Comparable Well -6.3%, Gains of first Mainly Lost 3Q10 55% reduction in IBM was able to Response to Dell in Below comparable to three periods desktop competitive customer delight, maintain No. 1 Time server Average Dell in server of 2010 notebook strength in yet status in the server segment; segment; -10% erased; Dell (Lenovo) server segment; disappointment is segment by significantly and worst-in- fared much Lenovo’s loss down to 0% replacing this behind Dell class against better was Dell’s gain competitive at 99% competitors’ in desktop advantage with confidence average -4.5% in notebook others. Lenovo in desktop desktop segment allowed Dell to wrest notebook notebook its previous segment segment advantage in the desktop notebook segment away. It is a concern worth monitoring, considering its high level of importance. Online Trending Well -4.8%, Same as Mainly Lost previous 67% reduction in A lapse in customer Support lower than Below comparable to above; lost desktop competitive customer delight; enthusiasm was the industry Average competitors’ competitive notebook strengths in while culprit here. Online average in average, in advantages (Lenovo) both segments disappointment support, in server server segment; of previous crept up from 1.8% conjunction with segment; -5.6% vs. Dell’s three to 2.8%, it was phone support, are comparable -2.7% in desktop reporting impressive against the trademarks of to Dell in notebook periods competitors’ both IBM and desktop segment averages of 7% to Lenovo Services. notebook 9% Both need to be segment aware of Dell’s improving positions.40 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR’s Watch List: IGS TBRIBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Servicesmust focus on regaining past competitive advantages Behind While IBM’s support services have consistently been received positively, Lenovo has begun a program the that may change its current challenges and perhaps lead to shifts in customer perception. Lenovo’s new Scenes Partner Services Program was developed to encourage resellers to understand how to sell Lenovo Priority Support and gives them the ability to bundle an on-site upgrade with the products they sell. The Lenovo Services Sales Support Center was designed as a single point of contact where resellers can learn more about the benefits of Lenovo support services. This serves as a key requirement for sales teams to understand what they are selling and how they can present the value proposition effectively to customers so they can utilize the benefits.41 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Historical Record TBRDell Services continues to hold the record for number of wins since thestudy’s inception, though IGS/Lenovo holds the record for wins duringthe past three years• Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Dell Services has been ranked a No. 1 TBR Support Providers, Past Three Years 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Total # Wins support provider for 32 of 42 reporting Dell Services 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 7 periods. HP Services 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1• Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 10 SOURCE: TBR its first since 4Q07 and did not hold 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 previous 14 later in 1Q09 and held that distinction reporting periods. IGS regained its No. 1 status in 3Q09, making for 18 wins during for the next five periods. the last 21 reporting periods up to the current reporting period. 3Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; methodology differed from that established with • Half of HPS’ 12 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred the 1Q01 study. since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive No. 1 rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win being the SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY company’s first after an absence of nearly two years. (Based on 42-reporting-period History Beginning Competitive pressures contributed to HPS’ drop to the No. 3 TBR 3Q00) 100% spot in 2Q09, followed by a series of second and third place 80% rankings up to the present. 60% • Of the 22 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1- ranked 40% player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to 1Q09). During the 32 22 past three years, IGS has earned a total of 10 No. 1 rankings, 20% 12 outnumbering Dell Services’ 7 wins. 0% Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+ SOURCE: TBR42 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Historical Record TBR Cases of differentiation dwindled in 2008, reasserting themselves in 2009 and 2010 • The years 2007, 2009 and 2010 Strength & Weakness Performance History - 3Q05 to 4Q10TBR 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 were marked by a substantialSERVICES PRICING/VALUE number of performanceDell Services  *  *  *HP Services    differentiators, compared to tighterIGS/Lenovo Services  REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY * competitive fields during theDell Services         * remaining years since 2005.HP Services   IGS/Lenovo Services • Some noteworthy patterns ofBREAK/FIX SERVICESDell Services       consistency since 2009 include:HP Services   • Six consecutive strengths forIGS/Lenovo Services *       *  ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE break/fix services for IGSDell Services  * *    HP Services          • Three straight competitive * * IGS/Lenovo ServicesTECHNICAL EXPERTISE strengths for online support forDell Services    * *    IGSHP Services     IGS/Lenovo Services *   *   * • Four straight strengths for on-PHONE SUPPORTDell Services   site response time for DellHP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services  *      *             * Services from 2Q09 throughONLINE SUPPORT 1Q10, returning in 4Q10Dell Services  HP Services  • Warnings or weaknesses in sixIGS/Lenovo ServicesHARDWARE DEPLOYMENT * *      * *  of the past seven periods forDell Services *   * * HPS for on-site supportHP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services * *      response timeKe 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 . • A recurring pattern of scatteredSOURCE: TBR wins for phone support for IGS 43 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables44 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions TBRDell Services extends advantages over HPS DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 4Q10 VS.3Q10TBR 5% With Dell Services’ WSI losing less of its 3% Dell Advantage value than did HPS, competitive Areas 1% comparisons fell increasingly into Dell’s -1% HP Advantage favor in 4Q10. In particular, Dell Services Areas -3% closed the performance gap favoring HPS in -5% Dell to HP Distance 3Q10 Dell to HP Distance 4Q10 3Q10 for remotely managed support. -7% On-site Technical Expertise Support Services Pricing/Value Replacement Parts Availability On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Online Support Break/Fix PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS,SOURCE: TBR TBR FOR DELL & HP SERVICES 4Q10 VS. 3Q10 0% -1% -2% Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of -3% declining mean ratings between Dell Services -4% and HPS. The exceptions included hardware -5% deployment and remotely managed support, -6% where Dell Services’ scores held up far better -7% Dell Services HP Services than did those of HPS. -8% -9% On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Break/Fix Services Overall Satisfaction Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Online Support Phone Support SOURCE: TBR 45 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions TBR Dell Services makes some progress in evening the score against IGS DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 4Q10 VS.3Q10TBR 3% The most noteworthy development in 4Q10 2% Dell to IGS Distance 3Q10 Dell to IGS Distance 4Q10 Dell Advantage involved a new competitive advantage for 1% Areas Dell Services over IGS for on-site response 0% IGS time where IGS had previously been favored. Advantage -1% Areas Additionally, Dell Services’ scores began to -2% bridge the gaps against IGS for on-site -3% expertise and online support. It is an -4% interesting development, however, that IGS 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 strengthened its advantage over Dell Services for the manner in which its customers perceive services value.SOURCE: TBR TBR PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS SERVICES, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10 0% -1% IGS’ mean ratings for on-site response time -2% and expertise declined by greater magnitude -3% than did those of Dell Services, accounting for -4% the shifting comparisons described above. -5% -6% -7% Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services -8% -9% On-site Technical Expertise Parts Availability Break/Fix Services Support Services Value Remotely Managed Support Phone Support Online Support Overall Satisfaction On-site Response Time Hardware Deployment SOURCE: TBR 46 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions TBRIGS continues to generally outperform HPS, while HPS manages to narrowsome performance gaps IGS continued to outperform HPS byTBR HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 4Q10 VS.3Q10 significant margins across the areas of 2% 1% HPS Advantage break/fix services and on-site 0%-1% Areas expertise, while moving significantly-2%-3%-4% IGS Advantage ahead for support services value. IGS,-5%-6% Areas however, did not continue to-7%-8% HP to IGS Distance 3Q10 HP to IGS Distance 4Q10 outperform HPS with respect to on- site response time. 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 PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES, 4Q10 VS. SOURCE: TBR TBR 3Q10 0% -1% -2% -3% IGS’ mean satisfaction rating for on-site response time declined by a significantly -4% greater magnitude than did that of HPS, -5% hence the eradication of a previously -6% compelling performance gap. -7% HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services -8% -9% Parts Availability Remotely Managed Support Phone Support Break/Fix Services Online Support Support Services Value On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Overall Satisfaction Hardware Deployment SOURCE: TBR47 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Tracking the Satisfaction Indices TBRService and support satisfaction positions improve substantially in 2010,followed by an expected fourth quarter correction• Through the end of 2008, TBR observed SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, generally predictable outcomes, with the TBR 1Q08 through 4Q10 in-house support group earning its 91.0 reputation as the yardstick against which 89.0 we measure the OEM support providers. 87.0 During these periods, IGS was most 85.0 consistent at earning top scores in the 83.0 competition. 81.0 79.0• In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction 77.0 scores were the rule to which no 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 competitor was immune, defined by a close Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services competition between IGS and Dell Services, with HPS considerably more challenged. SOURCE: TBR• Satisfaction positions hit rock bottom in 4Q09, exhibiting hints of a recovery in 1Q10 TBR Ranking Determinations Among Third-party that transitioned into a full recovery for all Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods players in 2Q10. 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10• Scores collectively improved by substantial Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 magnitudes in 2Q10 and 3Q10, resulting in HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 new record high points being established by IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 all 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 corrected in 4Q10, primarily represent the placement of OEM support providers, excluding affecting the OEM support providers. the presence of the internal support organizations.48 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Tracking the Satisfaction Indices TBRThe long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences • The principal contributor to narrowing SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM performance gaps involved theTBR 3Q05 THROUGH 4Q10 perspective of the internal support 90.0 organizations, where stressed 88.0 resources led to significantly declining 86.0 satisfaction scores. Throughout most 84.0 82.0 of the recessionary year of 2009, the 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 3Q05 THROUGH 4Q10, WITH MOVING AVERAGES and substantial recovery of the 2Q10 90.0 88.0 reporting period. In 3Q10, the internal 86.0 84.0 support organizations returned to the 82.0 top ranking position for the first time 80.0 78.0 since 1Q09. 76.0 • In 4Q10, the in-house group moved substantially ahead of the OEM 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Internal Support Organizations) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (HP Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dell Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (IGS/Lenovo Services) support providers, harking back to the SOURCE: TBR patterns we were accustomed to seeing before the unusual shifts observed in 2009 and most of 2010. 49 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRDell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customerexpectations for services value, yet the picture is clearly changing SatisfactionTBR SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS versus FOR DELL SERVICES TBR SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS6.40 Importance FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES6.20 data points 6.406.00 have 6.205.80 remained 6.005.60 interlocked5.40 throughout 5.805.20 the timeline 5.60 for Dell 5.40 Services. Satisfaction Importance Competitors, Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) particularly Satisfaction ImportanceSOURCE: TBR HPS, have Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) historically SOURCE: TBR been unable SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSISTBR FOR HP SERVICES to sustain6.40 closed GAPs.6.20 4Q10 Developments:6.00 • Historically speaking, Dell Services has been the only competitor to5.80 consistently keep pace with customer expectations for services value,5.60 but the past four to five reporting periods suggest this trend may be5.40 changing; both IGS and HPS have closed and consistently maintained the gap between expectation and satisfaction during these periods. • In 4Q10, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs corrected and dropped Satisfaction Importance back to align closely with expectations following one to two previous Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)SOURCE: TBR periods where satisfaction exceeded expectation. • IGS earned its first competitive strength in 4Q10; note how its satisfaction score has exceeded expectations since late 2009. 50 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRRelaxing expectations for on-site response enable support providersto narrow gaps; however, HPS has been the least successful over time SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS TBR TBR FOR DELL SERVICES FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 6.50 6.40 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 4Q10 Developments: 6.40 • Satisfaction scores declined by greater magnitudes than 6.20 6.00 relaxing expectations, leaving gaps that were not evident 5.80 in the previous reporting period. 5.60 • Dell Services fared the best, its GAP rating within the 5.40 5.20 acceptable range while both competitors’ scores fell well 5.00 outside. Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR51 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBR Support providers continue to effectively meet customer expectations for expertise DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS TBR IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS EXPERTISE Satisfaction TBR IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL 6.40 around 6.60 EXPERTISE 6.20 perceived 6.40 6.00 technical 6.20 5.80 6.00 expertise was 5.60 5.80 5.40 the hardest hit 5.60 5.20 of all categories 5.40 5.00 during 2009. 5.20 5.00 Satisfaction levels in 2010, Satisfaction Importance however, Satisfaction Importance SOURCE: TBR Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) represented a Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) full recovery. SOURCE: TBR HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS TBR IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 6.40 6.20 4Q10 Developments: 6.00 5.80 • While satisfaction scores corrected in 4Q10, all three OEM support 5.60 providers were able to keep the gaps against customer expectation 5.40 under control. 5.20 5.00 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)SOURCE: TBR 52 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBR Customer expectations for break/fix services rise in 1H10, then stabilize SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISTBR TBR FOR DELL SERVICES FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES6.70 While GAPs 7.106.50 6.906.30 had closed by 6.706.10 late 2009 due 6.505.90 to relaxing 6.305.70 expectations, 6.105.505.30 1Q10 saw a 5.90 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 2Q10, then SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS taper off. The 4Q10 Developments: TBR break/fix FOR HP SERVICES6.70 category refers • Customer expectations for basic break/fix6.50 to customer services continued to relax (Dell Services,6.306.10 experiences HPS) or stabilize (IGS).5.90 with basic • The small corrections within the5.70 hardware satisfaction scores, subsequently, had no5.50 maintenance particular consequences with respect to5.30 services, not5.10 with premium- GAP scores. level contracts. Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR 53 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRIGS most consistently meets customer expectations for phone support TBR PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES TBR PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR6.20 IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 6.206.00 6.005.80 Historically, 5.805.60 Dell Services 5.60 5.40 and HPS have5.40 5.20 struggled to 5.005.20 meet customer Satisfaction Importance Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) Importance Poly. (Importance) expectations Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR for phone SOURCE: TBR support, predominantlyTBR PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES falling far6.20 short of that 4Q10 Developments:6.00 goal. • Customer expectations for phone support5.80 Meanwhile, continued to rise by varying degrees while5.60 IGS has satisfaction positions corrected.5.40 consistently • Subsequently, all three OEM support5.20 maintained providers’ GAP scores were only5.00 marginally within the acceptable range. very small GAP • Should this new trend of steadily rising positions. Satisfaction Importance expectations continue, the support Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) providers will be challenged to keep pace.SOURCE: TBR 54 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRExpectations and satisfaction for online support continue to vacillate; trendlines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell performances TBR DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS TBR 6.0 IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.0 5.2 5.0 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR TBR HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 5.8 4Q10 Developments: • Satisfaction positions collectively corrected, resulting in 5.6 modestly negative GAP positions (though well within 5.4 acceptable ranges) not ordinarily observed in this 5.2 competition. 5.0 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR55 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment TBRReplacement parts availability is consistently a critical element of thesupport experience, where substantial progress in meeting highexpectations has been achieved 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 Satisfaction Importance SOURCE: TBR Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR TBR HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 6.6 6.4 4Q10 Developments: 6.2 • Correcting satisfaction positions resulted in a return to 6.0 negative GAP scores after they had been temporarily closed 5.8 in previous reporting periods. 5.6 5.4 5.2 Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance) SOURCE: TBR56 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Trends of the Reporting Period TBRAnalysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ positions correct in 4Q10, yet remain well above past-yearstarting positions • Dell Services’ satisfaction TBR DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS positions were generally at 1Q10 TO 4Q10 6.6 their highest levels in 3Q10, 6.4 their lowest in 1Q10. 6.2 • 4Q10 positions corrected 6.0 5.8 from their record high points 5.6 of the previous period, yet 5.4 generally stayed above 1Q10 5.2 positions. 5.0 • Exceptions included phone 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 and online support, where 4Q10 positions relapsed to 1Q10 positions. SOURCE: TBR 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 • WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –4% • Led by significantly declining support services value and break/fix services satisfaction • Comparatively stable positions included parts availability, hardware deployment and remotely managed support57 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Trends of the Reporting Period TBR Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS performances adjust back to 2Q10 levels, substantially higher than those at the start of 2010TBR HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS 1Q10 TO 4Q10 • HPS’ satisfaction positions were 6.4 6.2 generally at their highest levels in 6.0 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10. 5.8 • 4Q10 positions corrected from 5.6 their record high points of the 5.4 previous period, yet stayed well 5.2 above 1Q10 positions. 5.0 • There were no exceptions. 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 SupportSOURCE: TBR 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 • WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –4.7% • Led by significantly declining support services value, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction • Comparatively stable positions included phone support and parts availability 58 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Trends of the Reporting Period TBRAnalysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ scores generally correct back to 2Q10 levelsTBR IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS • IGS’ satisfaction positions were 6.8 1Q10 TO 4Q10 generally at their highest levels 6.6 in 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10. 6.4 • 4Q10 positions corrected from 6.2 their record high points of the 6.0 previous period, yet stayed 5.8 above 1Q10 positions. 5.6 • Exceptions included online and 5.4 remotely managed support, 5.2 where 4Q10 scores lapsed all On-site Response Time Replacement Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Break/Fix Services Support Services Value Remotely Managed Support On-site Technical Expertise Hardware Installation/Configuration the way back to 1Q10 levels. 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 SOURCE: TBR • WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –5% • Led by significantly declining on-site response time and technical expertise satisfaction • Comparatively stable positions included phone support and parts availability59 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Improvements GAP Analyses TBRRecommended areas for targeted improvements for Dell Servicesinclude all aspects of initial contact• Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support, Online Support• Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Remotely Managed Support• Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 4Q10 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 100 Maintain 120 Target 140 Improvements 160 Recommended SOURCE: TBR Actions60 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Improvements GAP Analyses TBRHP Services’ analysis points to strongly recommended improvementprograms around on-site response time, phone and web support• Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site Response Time, Online Support• Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support• Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services (HPS’ highest score comparatively, despite a significantly lower-than- average rating against competitors) TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 4Q10 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 Maintain 100 120 Target 140 Improvements 160 Recommended SOURCE: TBR Actions61 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Improvements GAP Analyses TBRIGS must focus on perceptions of on-site response time andonline support• Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site Response Time, Online Support• Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support (driven by high expectations, as IGS earned a competitive strength in 4Q10 due to significantly higher-than-average satisfaction rating)• Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 4Q10 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 100 Maintain 120 140 Target Improvements 160 Recommended SOURCE: TBR Actions62 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Improvements GAP Analyses TBRThe in-house group, like its competition, must increase its focuson phone and online support • Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support, Online Support • Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services TBR SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS 4Q10 40 Hold Back/ 60 Exploit 80 100 Maintain 120 140 Target Improvements 160 Recommended SOURCE: TBR Actions63 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Selection Criteria – Stated TBROn-site break/fix maintenance, parts availability and on-site supportdrive support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gainingin utilizationTBR SERVICE & SUPPORT IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY CUSTOMER GROUP • Critical: Parts availability,4.84.6 Dell HP IBM InHouse break/fix services4.4 • Also Important: On-site4.24.0 expertise and response time3.8 • Somewhat Important: Phone3.6 support, support services3.43.2 value, online support3.0 • Less Important: Hardware On-site Technical Expertise Replacement Parts Availability Installation/Configuration Break/Fix Services Support Services Value Remotely Managed Support Telephone/Helpdesk Support On-site Response Time Online/Web Support deployment, remotely managed support HardwareSOURCE: TBR Customer expectations within the IGS group were significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation where 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.64 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRStatistical significance test No. 1 points to performance differentiationgenerally favoring IGS and Internal SupportTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’using the standard test 4Q10 Developments: Results of the Standard t-Test • The internal support groups returned to their TBR IGS/LENOVO INTERNAL historical position as the standard-setter, DELL SVCS HP SVCS SVCS SUPPORT outperforming industry averages across most Basic Break/Fix Services    categories – parts availability being the single On-site Technical Expertise    exception. On-site Response Time/Commitment    Telephone/Helpdesk Support    • Dell Services’ results were a mixture of Online Support  positives and negatives, though only one was Remotely Managed Support  at the 95% confidence level – a substantially Replacement Parts Availability higher-than-average on-site response time Support Services Pricing/Value    rating. Hardware Installation/Configuration    Overall Satisfaction   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 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. SOURCE :TBR65 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 test TBR Results of the Standard t-Test - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT TBR Results of the Standard t-Test - x86 SERVER SUPPORT INTERNAL INTERNAL DELL SVCS HP SVCS LENOVO SVCS SUPPORT DELL SVCS HP SVCS IBM 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 differentiator in the support segment were break/fix services, on-site desktop/notebook support space was on-site expertise and support services value – all favoring IGS response time, where Dell Services outperformed over HPS and Dell Services. the industry average while Lenovo underperformed.66 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRStatistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Vendor Comparisons Highlighted performance differentiationTBR involving the OEM support providers: IGS/LENOVO DELL SVCS VS. HP SVCS VS. SVCS VS. • IGS significantly outperformed both IGS/ DELL IGS/ DELL competitors for support servicesPAIR-WISE T-TESTS HPS LENOVO SVCS LENOVO SVCS HPS value.Break/Fix Services   • IGS significantly outperformed HPSOn-site Technical Expertise   for break/fix services and technicalOn-site Response Time/Commitment    Telephone/Helpdesk Support   expertise; Dell Services for phoneOnline Support support.Remotely Managed Support • Dell Services outperformed bothReplacement Parts AvailabilitySupport Services Pricing/Value     competitors for on-site responseHardware Installation/Configuration   time, though the confidence wasOverall Satisfaction higher against HPS.Grand Mean       • HPS’ grand mean satisfaction rating 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 was significantly lower than those ofSOURCE: TBR both competitors at high levels of statistical confidence. 67 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Scoring Summary – Significance Tests TBRStatistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test TBR Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, • The in-house groups outperformed all three Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support OEM support providers across every category INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS VS. with the single exception of parts availability. DELL IGS/ PAIR-WISE T-TESTS SVCS HPS LNV • These performance differences were confirmed Break/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 Availability  Support 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 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: TB R68 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 ALL; IGS over HP 3 -1 -2 0 On-site Technical Expertise Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0 On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP 3 0 -2 -1 Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 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; IGS over Dell 3 -2 -1 0 Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0 Total Points 25 -9 -11 -5 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 basic break/fix (IGS > HPS), support services value (IGS > Dell) and on-site response time (Dell over HPS).69 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 TBR Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - x86 SERVER SUPPORT In the server/storage support segment, the internal support Significant Differences Cited by Bonferroni organizations were confirmed as Attribute Correction In-house Dell HPS IBM having outperformed various Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; IGS over HP 3 -1 -2 1 On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0 competitors across all categories On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 designated by the previous tests. Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0 Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 In addition, IBM outperformed Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 HPS for break/fix services. IBM Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0 also benefited by not placing Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 significantly lower than in-house Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0 Total Points 22 -8 -10 -3 support in several categories SOURCE: TB R while competitors were not so fortunate. Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - 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 organizations outperformed Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0 competitors in all but the phone On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, Lenovo 3 1 -1 -1 support and parts availability Telephone/Helpdesk Support None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 Online Support Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1 categories, as designated in the Remotely Managed Support Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1 previous tests. In addition, Dell 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 Services outperformed both Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1 competitors for on-site response Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1 Total Points 19 -5 -5 -7 time. SOURCE: TB R70 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Competitive GAP Analysis TBRThe Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the in-house support performancedifference premises set by the statistical significance tests The competitive GAP TBR SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 4Q10 scores support TBR’s decisions regarding internal support on the competitive strength and weakness citations for the 4Q10 reporting period. 40 The internal support 60 Exceeds group’s scores were so 80 Fully high that they skewed the 100 Meets remainder of the analysis, 120 making it difficult for OEM 140 Short of support providers to earn scores above the 100-point Expectation 160 marker. Fulfillment Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services SOURCE: TBR The test does, however, corroborate warnings and weaknesses assigned to HPS, for the top three categories of break/fix services, on-site expertise and on-site response time. 71 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% SOURCE: TBR Desktops/Notebooks Servers• The majority of customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and on-site support by an OEM or partner.• TBR observed a fair number of customers who primarily self replace, using third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.• This pattern largely has remained constant during the past year, with an average of 75% of respondent indicating so.• Note: TBR observed a higher-than-average proportion of those primarily self-replacing within both the IBM Support and Lenovo Services customer groups.72 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Buying Behavior TBRCustomers are most satisfied with a mixture of self-replacement andon-site support • While one-third or more of customers indicate they are PARTS REPAIR METHOD WITH HIGHEST SATISFACTION (Respondents Select One) most satisfied with self-TBR replacement of failed parts, the 45% majority prefer a mixture of 40% CRU (Customer Replaceable 35% Units) and on-site (Field 30% Replaceable Units). The proper mix by part type clearly yields 25% the highest satisfaction levels. 20% 15% • Customers are least satisfied with on-site support provided 10% by an OEM, authorized or third- 5% party provider. 0% Self replacement On-site repair visit from systems On-site repair visit from third Mix of self replacement and on- • This finding strongly suggests manufacturer/authorized party site partner OEM support providers must find the optimum balance ofSOURCE: TBR Servers Desktops/Notebooks self-replaceable versus on-site repair parts. To complicate matters, this balance may vary • Note: HPS customers (both server and desktop/notebook) were less greatly by customer. satisfied than competitors’ customers with on-site repair provided by their OEM.73 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 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 indicated they face issues with the difficulty of replacing some parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. For the OEMs, this could entail product design issues and/or the need for improved documentation, but also it strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support.• Note: In-house support customers indicated they are less challenged than OEM support customers with difficulty of replacing parts, suggesting their staffs are currently up to the task levels.• On the server support side, IBM Support customers indicated they are more challenged with parts availability and less so with staff resources than competitors’ customers.74 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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% 50% 60% 40% 40% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% 0% Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services In House Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House 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, Dell continues to demonstrate HPS appears to be somewhat behind the a somewhat larger proportion of customers competition with respect to premium-level support indicating they have premium support contracts vs. contracts for desktop/notebook customers. Dell the competition. appears to be trailing with respect to the sales of extended warranties. 75 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Internal Support Teams TBRThe sample distribution of internal support by brand has remainedlargely constant over time TBR INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP BY MAJOR PC BRANDS 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell HP IBM/Lenovo SOURCE: TBR76 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores – 3Q07 Through 4Q1077 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores TBR3Q07 Through 4Q10 BREAK/FIX SERVICES 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.88 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 HP Services & Partners 5.86 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 IGS & Partners 6.13 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 Internal Support Organizations 6.07 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 ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.80 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 HP Services & Partners 5.86 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 IGS & Partners 5.97 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 Internal Support Organizations 6.06 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 ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.90 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 HP Services & Partners 5.65 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 IGS & Partners 5.92 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 Internal Support Organizations 6.22 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 TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.58 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 HP Services & Partners 5.43 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 IGS & Partners 5.65 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 Internal Support Organizations 6.01 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 ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.66 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 HP Services & Partners 5.44 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 IGS & Partners 5.74 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 Internal Support Organizations 5.71 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 REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 6.06 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 HP Services & Partners 5.85 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 IGS & Partners 6.01 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 Internal Support Organizations 5.66 5.61 5.41 5.32 5.48 5.41 5.50 5.51 5.41 5.25 5.23 5.71 6.29 6.1578 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores TBR3Q07 Through 4Q10 SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.80 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 HP Services & Partners 5.56 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 IGS & Partners 5.71 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 Internal Support Organizations 5.86 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 HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.90 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 HP Services & Partners 5.64 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 IGS & Partners 5.69 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 Internal Support Organizations 6.18 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 AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.50 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 HP Services & Partners 5.30 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 IGS & Partners 5.52 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 Internal Support Organizations 5.56 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 OVERALL SATISFACTION 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 5.87 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 HP Services & Partners 5.73 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 IGS & Partners 5.84 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 Internal Support Organizations 6.02 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 Survey Counts 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners 161 160 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252 HP Services & Partners 162 160 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252 IGS & Partners 160 160 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254 Internal Support Organizations 165 160 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 40479 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes80 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 4Q10SERVICES 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: TBR 81 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction Attributes82 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR83 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR.84 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR85 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR86 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR87 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR88 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR89 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR90 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR91 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR.92 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs93 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBRBreak/Fix Services 3Q10 4Q1094 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBROn-site Technical Expertise 3Q10 4Q1095 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBROn-site Response Time 3Q10 4Q1096 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBRPhone Support 3Q10 4Q1097 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBROnline Support 3Q10 4Q1098 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBRReplacement Parts Availability 3Q10 4Q1099 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBRSupport Services Value 3Q10 4Q10100 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBRHardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration Services 3Q10 4Q10101 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBRAutomated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) 3Q10 4Q10102 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Confidence Interval Graphs TBROverall Satisfaction with Technical Support Services 3Q10 4Q10103 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix F: Categorical Responses104 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Category Graphs TBRBreak/Fix Services SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX TBR TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY 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 Dell Services HPS SOURCE: TBR SOURCE: TBR IGS/Lenovo Services In House IGS/Lenovo Services In House 3Q10 4Q10105 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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% 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 3Q10 4Q10106 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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% 55% 50% 50% 45% 45% 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% 20% 15% 20% 10% 15% 5% 10% 0% 5% 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 3Q10 4Q10107 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Category Graphs TBRPhone Support SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT TBR TBR BY RATINGS CATEGORY BY 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 3Q10 4Q10108 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 3Q10 4Q10109 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Category Graphs TBRReplacement Parts Availability TBR SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS TBR SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY 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 SOURCE: TBR Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE: TBR 3Q10 4 Q10110 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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% 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 3Q10 4 Q10111 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Category Graphs TBRHardware Deployment TBR SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY TBR SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY 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 3Q10 4Q10112 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Category Graphs TBRAutomated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) TBR SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY TBR RATINGS CATEGORY RATINGS 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 3Q10 4Q10113 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix G: Server/Storage versus Desktop/Notebook Support by Support Provider114 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Satisfaction Trends TBRDell Services 4Q10 TBR DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks) 6.40 6.20 6.00 5.80 5.60 5.40 5.20 5.00 4.80 Parts Availability On-site Expertise Remotely Managed Overall Satisfaction Web Support On-site Response Phone Support Break/Fix Overall Value Deployment Hardware Time SOURCE: TBR115 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Satisfaction Trends TBRHP Services 4Q10 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: TBR116 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Satisfaction Trends TBRIBM Global Services 4Q10 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: TBR117 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Satisfaction Trends TBRInternal Support Organizations 4Q10 TBR IN-HOUSE SUPPORT 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 Parts Availability Overall Satisfaction Web Support Phone Support On-site Response Break/Fix Remotely Managed On-site Expertise Overall Value Deployment Hardware Time SOURCE: TBR118 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology119 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Study Design & Methodology TBRTBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study is based on the views of thosewho manage in-house support services and/or work with OEM-provided supportCompanies interviewed for TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study arerequired to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers, desktops and notebooks)installed. In contrast, TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 Additional Screening Criteria forPCs for most covered brands. This makes the Service & Support study a tool best suited for the Corporate IT Service &evaluating the experiences of midsized corporations, whereas the product-related studies Support Satisfaction Study:extend to the experiences of enterprise customers. The reason for the differing criteria is 1. Has your company utilizedthat larger organizations tend to rely more fully (sometimes entirely) on their internal any on-site, phone or websupport staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this support for Dell, HP, IBM orstudy to mirror TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies, including the x86-based Lenovo for desktops, serversServer, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop Customer Satisfaction studies. or notebooks in the pastThroughout this report, TBR refers to two types of support providers: three months?INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS: Companies with in-house technical support staff 2. Is your company utilizing (systems manufacturers often refer to these customers as “self-maintainers”); TBR’s in-house technical support? study focuses primarily on internal support organizations that perform a number of 3. Are you personally involved support functions with their own staff, supplemented by OEM-provided support as in evaluating, recommending needed. or purchasing supportOEM SUPPORT PROVIDERS: Dell Services, HP Services, IBM Global Services and Lenovo services for desktops, servers Services perform repairs and basic maintenance for customers based on support and notebooks at your company or site? Or, if your service portfolio offerings. site uses internal support• Dell Services and its authorized service partners provide technical support to Dell teams only, are you involved customer sites for servers, notebooks and/or desktop PCs. with the supervision of these• HP Services encompasses services for the Industry Standard Server group as well as for teams? 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.120 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Study Design & Methodology TBRReporting Structure DefinedTBR generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support; reportsections break up the study results by segment wherever referenced (server/storage support,desktop/notebook support) x86 Server/Storage Support, wherever referenced Sample size = Approximately 125 interviews per group Combined Study Results Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support Sample size = Approximately 250 interviews delivered by: per group 1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support) Covers satisfaction with x86-based server as 2. HP Services (TSS) well as desktop/notebook support delivered by: 3. IBM/IGS Services 1. Dell Services 4. Internal Support Organizations 2. HP Services (includes both TSS and PSG groups) Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referenced 3. IGS (includes both IBM server support Sample size = Approximately 125 interviews per and Lenovo desktop/notebook support) group 4. Internal Support Organizations Covers satisfaction with desktop/notebook support delivered by: 1. Dell Services (Client Support) 2. HP Services (PSG) 3. Lenovo Services 4. Internal Support Organizations121 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Study Design & Methodology TBR4Q10 Sample Overview• TBR’s 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 576 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, 1,028 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR intentionally 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: 252 Dell Services customer interviews; 252 HP Services customer interviews; 254 IBM Global Services customer interviews; and 270 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2010. Methodology & Sample TBR Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes Service & Support Sample Size Standard Error All Providers 1028 1.00% Dell & Partners 252 1.91% HP & Partners 252 1.67% IGS & Partners 254 1.48% Internal Support Organizations 270 1.66% SOURCE: TBR122 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Study Design & Methodology TBRNumber of Employees TBR Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed Percentage of Number of Employees Respondents <500 21.7% 500–1,000 14.8% 1,000–4,999 29.2% 5,000–9,999 13.5% 10,000–14,999 7.6% 15,000–19,999 5.0% 20,000–49,999 3.6% 50,000–74,999 1.9% 75,000–99,999 0.7% 100,000+ 1.9% Average Number of Employees 8,787 SOURCE: TBR123 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Study Design & Methodology TBRType of Business TBR Types of Businesses Represented in the Study Type of Business Percentage of Respondents Public Utilities 3% Mining, Construction 3% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 4% Other Services 4% Pharmaceuticals 4% Transportation Service 4% Wholesale Trade 5% Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 6% Manufacturing - Process (materials) 6% Professional, Scientific, Technical 7% Retail Trade 7% Information Service (including software development) 9% Finance, Insurance, real estate 9% Government 10% Healthcare 10% SOURCE: TBR124 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Study Design & Methodology TBRJob Titles/Responsibilities Respondent Job Functions/ResponsibilitiesTBRLevel MIS/IT Networking Systems Management Purchasing Customer Service/Support Other Grand TotalCXO (CIO,CTO) 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%Vi ce Pres i dent 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%Di rector 9.4% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1%Ma na ger 54.9% 7.1% 3.6% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0% 67.2%Coordi na tor/Admi ni s tra ti on 11.1% 1.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 15.2%Other 2.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 3.6%Gra nd Tota l 80.8% 10.0% 6.3% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR 125 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 1,610,186 321,559 875,992 345,994 79,829 202,544 Mean 2,850 569 1,550 612 141 358 Division Sum 7,728 559 1,405 928 404 649 Mean 703 51 128 84 37 59 Percent of Installed Base Replaced Enterprise 21.49% 24.83% 23.12% Division 12.01% 72.27% 46.19% SOURCE: TB R The 4Q10 study sample represents 2.8 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional 630,000 units during the next 12 months.126 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix I: Analytical Procedures127 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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.128 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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 91.71% On Site Technical Expertise 90.85% On Site Response Time/Commitment 91.51% Telephone/Help Desk Support 91.61% Online Support 90.92% Replacement Parts Availability 91.26% Support Services Pricing/Value 91.61% Hardware Installation/Configuration 80.72% Automated Diagnostics 76.49% Overall Satisfaction 91.71%129 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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.130 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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.131 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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.132 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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100133 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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).134 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • TBR Appendix J: Survey Instrument135 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Survey Instrument TBR4Q10 Survey Instrument SCREENERS136 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Survey Instrument TBR4Q10 Survey Instrument137 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Survey Instrument TBR4Q10 Survey Instrument138 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Survey Instrument TBR4Q10 Survey Instrument139 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Survey Instrument TBR4Q10 Survey Instrument140 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • Survey Instrument TBR4Q10 Survey Instrument141 Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
  • 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.
  • 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.