• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Validation of Customer Survey

on

  • 2,543 views

This presentation reflects the report of a validation study that helps companies understand the reliability, validity and usefulness of their customer feedback survey.

This presentation reflects the report of a validation study that helps companies understand the reliability, validity and usefulness of their customer feedback survey.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,543
Views on SlideShare
2,543
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
0
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

    Validation of Customer Survey Validation of Customer Survey Presentation Transcript

    • Validation of COMPANY CustomerSatisfaction Survey Business Over Broadway Business growth through customer insight Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Overview• Executive Summary• Components of Customer Feedback Programs• Uses of Customer Feedback Data• Company Surveys• Definitions of Reliability and Validity• Evidence of Reliability• Evidence of Validity• Summary• Conclusions• Recommendations Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Executive Summary• The company can feel confident using their customer survey results when making business decisions• Loyalty questions can be used to make reliable, useful decisions to grow business through new and existing customers• Build customer-centricity in COMPANY by using loyalty indices in: – executive dashboards, strategy/governance, decision making, incentive compensation, benchmark against industry standards• Proposed Recommendations – Change Customer Loyalty Measurement – Change Technical Support Measurement – Adopt best practices in Strategy/Governance, Business Integration Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Components of Customer FeedbackPrograms• Adoption of best practices in each area ensures program success1 1In Hayes, B.E. (2009). Beyond the Ultimate Question: A Systematic Approach to Improve Customer Loyalty. Quality Press. Milwaukee, WI. Loyalty Leading companies adopt specific business practices compared to Loyalty Lagging companies Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Employee, Partner and Customer LoyaltyDrive Business Results Employee Survey Customer Survey Business Strategy Business Programs Employee Loyalty Company Internal Employee Customer Performance System Satisfaction Loyalty Perceived Customer Advocacy Revenue Employee Productivity Value Satisfaction Purchasing Profits Retention Market SharePartner Survey Partner Based on the book, The Service Profit Chain: How leading Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value (Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997) Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Company Surveys• Relationship Satisfaction Surveys – Focused on overall relationship with the customer – Delivery is not time-dependent (done at company discretion) – Includes Business Attribute questions and Loyalty-based questions • Typically have ratings of Satisfaction• Transactional Satisfaction Surveys – Focused on specific customer transaction – Delivery is time-dependent on transaction occurrence – Includes Business Attribute questions and Loyalty-based questions • Typically have ratings of Satisfaction• Targeted Surveys – Focused on drilling into specific areas for deeper insight – Delivery is on an as-needed basis – Compliment the Relationship and Transactional surveys• Three survey types can be used in any given Account Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Reliability and Validity • Customer surveys should result in reliable and valid scores of customers’ attitudes – Good measurement processes lead to good business decisions • Reliability reflects the degree to which scores are free from random error – Reliability deals with precision/consistency – Goal is to have a measurement system that Reliable delivers reliable results – Reliability varies from 0 (no reliability) to 1 (perfect reliability) Not Reliable • Validity reflects the degree to which scores are measuring what they Not Valid Valid are designed to measure – Validity deals with the meaning of the scores from the measurement system – Goal is to have a measurement system that delivers valid results Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Reliability • Four general forms of reliability Attribute 1. Inter-rater reliability1 – Degree of agreement between two or more = Rater 1 Rater 2 raters who are rating same attribute 2. Test-retest reliability1 = – Degree of agreement between same Rater n Time 1 Rater n Time 2 measure/rater over two time periods 3. Parallel-forms reliability Rater n – Degree of agreement between two Survey Survey measures (A vs. B) that measure same thing Vers. A = Vers. B 4. Internal consistency reliability1 Rater n – Degree of consistency of ratings across items within a measure Attribute = Attribute = Attribute 1 2 m 1Determination of reliability depends on number of questions in survey and types of surveys. Typically, parallel-forms reliability cannot be studied as only one measure of customer satisfaction is available. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Validity • Three approaches at establishing validity 1. Content-related approach – Examining the questions of the instrument to determine if they are a representative sample of the universe of all possible questions 2. Criterion-related approach – Correlating scores from the instrument with some other criteria • Based on some theory of the customer satisfaction construct • Customer satisfaction scores should be correlated to other criteria (e.g., other measures of Account quality) 3. Construct-related approach – Developing a nomological (lawful) network for the customer satisfaction scores – Framework/Theory/Model for understanding and using customer satisfaction scores should be supported by data Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Evidence of Reliability Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Internal Consistency Reliability • Internal consistency determines extent to which Contacts give similar ratings to items within a scale – Indexed by three indices 1. Item-total correlations - correlation between rating of single item to aggregate of remaining items in the survey 2. Split-half correlation – correlation between two halves of the survey 3. Cronbach’s alpha – formula to calculate internal consistency • Addresses the quality of the items in a scale – If reliability is high, ratings do not tend to vary across items – Expect some degree of internal consistency • Do not expect perfect reliability – Perfect reliability would indicate no variability in ratings and no need to ask multiple questions Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Data Model for Internal ConsistencyReliability Analysis Surveys Business Rater n Attribute 1 Attribute Attribute Attribute Business 1 = 2 = m Contact 1 Attribute 2 Business Reliability Analysis Attribute m Internal Consistency Reliability Business Attribute 1 • Item-Total Correlation is the correlation of specific attribute with aggregate of Business remaining attributes Contact 2 Attribute 2 • Split-half reliability is the correlation between average of the two halves of the Business survey . Attribute m . • Cronbach’s alpha ( ) estimate used to . determine internal consistency of ratings Business Attribute 1 (satisfaction) within a survey • Calculated for any type of survey Business that contains multiple questions Contact n Attribute 2 • Reliability varies from 0 (no internal Business consistency) to 1 (perfect internal Attribute m consistency) Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Indices (Summated Scales)* Factor analyses of survey items exposed several indices, each measuring a general content area (e.g. loyalty, tech support).Index (Measure) Definition Survey QuestionsCustomer Loyalty Index (4 Extent to which customers feel positively Overall Satisfaction, Quality, Value, Recommendquestions) toward COMPANYPerceived Value of External Extent to which customers value external Security vendor websites, Whitepapers, IndustryInformation1 (7 questions) sources of information regarding security analysts, Blogs / online communities, Security products publications, Peers, Webcasts / podcastsPerceived Importance of Stated importance of Documentation, Reporting, Management / Administration,Doc/Mgmt/Reporting (3 questions) Management, Reporting DocumentationPerceived Importance of Ease of Stated importance of user experience Ease of installation, End user experience, Ease ofUse (3 questions) upgradeQuality of Security Product (8 Rating of quality of security product Security effectiveness, Reporting, Management /questions) Administration, Documentation, Ease of installation, End user experience, Ease of upgrade, PriceQuality of Technical Support (3 Rating of quality of technical support Technical support, Telephone, Emailquestions) 1 Items only appear in 2009 survey. *Indices were created based on factor analyses of the survey questions; factor-analytic results show that specific survey items can be combined together into one index. Survey questions that loaded highly on the same factor were combined into a single scale by averaging the responses across items. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Internal Consistency Reliability by Decision Influence Internal Consistency Reliability1 Decision-Making Role Entire Final Major Points INDEX Sample Decision Influencer Purchasing 2009 Indices • Factor analyses of survey1 Customer Loyalty Index* .89 .89 .89 .88 items exposed several indices, each measuring a general2 Perceived Value of External .85 .85 .83 .87 content area (e.g. loyalty, tech Information3 Perceived Importance of support). .80 .78 .79 .78 Doc/Mgmt/Reporting • Definition of index is based on4 Perceived Importance of Ease of Use .79 .76 .80 .80 the aggregated items5 Quality of Security Products .91 .92 .91 .92 • Internal consistency6 Quality of Tech Support .91 .91 .90 .91 reliabilities are acceptable and similar across all decision- 2010 Indices making categories.1 Customer Loyalty Index .82 .81 .83 .81 • Each index would be useful for2 Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting .70 .69 .66 .78 executive dashboards since each provides reliable, useful3 Perceived Importance of Ease of Use .66 .68 .64 .58 information.4 Perceived Quality of Security Products .89 .89 .88 .915 Perceived Quality of Tech Support .92 .93 .92 .95 1 No significance testing possible for Cronbach’s alpha. *See previous slide for description of each index and the survey items that represent each index. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Inter-Rater Reliability • Inter-contact reliability determines extent to which Contacts within an Account give similar customer satisfaction survey ratings – Indexed by a correlation between different Contacts within each Account across all Accounts • Inter-contact reliability addresses the consistency of the implementation of the customer satisfaction survey system across Contacts – Expect some degree of inter-contact reliability because Contacts are rating the same Account • Do not want perfect reliability – Perfect reliability would indicate no utility of surveying different management contacts within an organization • Calculate inter-contact reliability for each survey type across all business attributes Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Data Model for Inter-Rater ReliabilityAnalysis Type of Contact Attribute Contact 1 Account 1 = Contact 2 Rater 1 Rater 2 Reliability Analysis Contact 3 Account 2 Inter-Contact Reliability Contact 4 • Correlation of satisfaction ratings between different Contacts within Accounts • Calculated for each type of customer survey Contact 5 • Reliability could vary from 0 (no agreement Account 3 between Contacts) to 1.0 (complete Contact 6 agreement between Contacts) . . . . . . Contact n-1 Account m Contact n Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Inter-Contact Reliability (Decision- makers vs. Influencers) Decision Major Points maker/ INDICES1 Influencer • There is low agreement 1 Customer Loyalty Index* .19 between Contacts from different decision-making standpoint. 2 Security Effectiveness -.12 3 Reporting .05 • Contacts from different decision-making standpoints 4 Management / Administration .15 (e.g., Decision maker vs. 5 Documentation -.04 Influencer) show low agreement 6 Ease of Installation .16 in their ratings of COMPANY 7 End User Experience .02 • The degree of disagreement 8 Ease of Upgrade .22 across different survey 9 Technical Support .05 respondents within an Account 10 Price .22 could reflect: •Poor communication within an Account1Survey data are from 2010 Survey; N = 47 to 50. No statistically significant correlations.*Customer Loyalty Index is composite of following four questions: Overall Satisfaction, Quality, Value •Different expectations ofand Recommend. Functional job function includes Finance, different functionsNot enough sample to examine “Purchasing” role. •Different usage of COMPANY products Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Test-Retest Reliability • Test-retest reliability determines extent to which Contacts give similar ratings over time – Indexed by a correlation between ratings across two time periods – Higher correlation indicates that Contacts provide similar ratings over time • Addresses the consistency of ratings over time – If reliability is high, relative ordering of ratings do not tend to vary over time across different Accounts – Expect good degree of test-retest reliability because Contacts are rating the same Account over time • Contacts that are satisfied/dissatisfied at time 1 should also be satisfied/dissatisfied at time 2 • Contacts with high/low value ratings at time 1 should also have high/low value ratings at time 2 • Calculate test-retest reliability for satisfaction and value ratings Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Data Model for Test-Retest ReliabilityAnalysis Time 1 Time 2 Survey Survey = Contact n Contact n Contact 1 Contact 1 Time 1 Time 2 Account 1 Contact 2 Contact 2 Reliability Analysis Contact 3 Contact 3 Test-Retest Reliability Account 2 • Correlation of satisfaction ratings between same Contacts across two time periods Contact 4 Contact 4 • Correlation of satisfaction ratings (averaged over Contacts) between same Accounts across two time periods Contact 5 Contact 5 • Calculated only for Surveys that are Account 3 repeated Contact 6 Contact 6 . . . • Reliability varies from 0 (no . . . . . agreement between time 1 and time . 2) to 1.0 (complete agreement between time 1 and time 2)Contact n-1 Contact n-1 Account m Contact n Contact n Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Test-Retest Reliability = Test-Retest Contact n Contact n Reliability1 Time 1 Time 2 INDICES/MEASURES 1 Customer Loyalty Index .69 2 Overall Satisfaction .32 3 Quality .58 Major Points 4 Value .52 • Test-retest reliability is high 5 Recommend .70 6 Security Effectiveness .43 • Customers tend to respond 7 Reporting .53 in a similar way over two 8 Management / Administration .54 time periods. 9 Documentation .44 10 Ease of Installation .50 • Those who are satisfied 11 End User Experience .49 (dissatisfied) at time 1 tend 12 Ease of Upgrade .45 to be satisfied (dissatisfied) 13 Technical Support .51 at time 2. 14 Price .541Survey data are from 2009 (Time 1) and 2010 (Time 2). N = 472 to 478. All correlations significant at p < .01 level. CLI is a composite scoreconsisting of four survey questions (Overall Satisfaction, Quality, Value, Recommend). Items were selected based on a factor analysis of surveyquestions; these four questions loaded highly on the same factor, suggesting that they measure the same construct. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Evidence of Validity Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Content-related Approach• Content validity is established when items in the survey are a representative sample of some defined universe of items• Universe of survey items represents all items that define the important elements of a company’s performance• Does the customer survey comprehensively assess customer requirements?• Must show “link” between set of items (survey) and the universe of items – Link determined by Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Content-related Approach • Disloyal customers provide comments regarding improvements1 • Comments/issues range from product to service issues • All issues/reasons covered by content of customer survey • Issues aligned with results of driver analysis1 Customer comments from those who rated Recommend question low. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Criterion-related Approach• Criterion-related validity relies on statistical analysis rather than judgment• Established when scores on the survey are related to some other variable (criterion) already known to measure similar attributes• Key is developing/selecting right criteria to use in validation study – Measures of Account Quality – by Account Team – Objective Assessment Scores Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Construct-related Approach• Construct-related validity addresses what is being measured by examining relationships between constructs (e.g., customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, other measures of Account quality)• Concerned with theory and the proposed relationships between constructs based on that theory• Understanding the theoretical relationship of constructs to other constructs – To what should customer satisfaction be (convergent validity) and not be related (discriminant validity)?• Need to examine patterns of relationships using the survey and other instruments Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Correlations Among Indices Indices are correlated logically with each other  Higher ratings on key indices (quality, value) correspond to higher customer loyalty ratings compared to other indices (perceived importance) 2009 Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 61. Customer Loyalty Index 4.84 0.94 2941 0.892. Quality of Security Product 4.59 0.86 2917 0.77 0.913. Quality of Technical Support 4.81 1.09 2880 0.68 0.69 0.914. Perceived Value of External Information 4.34 0.97 2787 0.31 0.37 0.29 0.855. Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting 4.77 0.87 2914 0.29 0.43 0.31 0.34 0.806. Perceived Importance of Ease of Use 5.05 0.87 2919 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.28 0.54 0.79 2010 Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 51. Customer Loyalty Index 5.54 1.27 3449 0.822. Quality of Security Product 4.72 0.75 3417 0.78 0.893. Quality of Technical Support 4.95 1.04 3387 0.67 0.65 0.924. Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting 5.01 0.66 3434 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.705. Perceived Importance of Ease of Use 5.17 0.69 3437 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.41 0.661 Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency estimates) are located in the diagonal. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Construct-related Approach (2009)• Driver analysis shows that customers who are more satisfied also report higher levels of customer loyalty Mean Impact on Rating N Loyalty Customer Loyalty Index 4.84 2941 Understands Needs 4.57 2926 0.73 Addresses Needs 4.52 2924 0.78 Understands Better Than Competitors 4.30 2884 0.69 Security Effectiveness 5.18 2911 0.70 Reporting 4.40 2875 0.54 Management / Administration 4.52 2866 0.63 Documentation 4.23 2871 0.55 Ease of Installation 4.61 2884 0.58 End User Experience 4.66 2880 0.66 Ease of Upgrade 4.77 2856 0.61 Technical Support 4.80 2860 0.67 Price 4.35 2877 0.55 Compare COMPANY to Alternatives 4.06 2645 0.69 Tech Support via Telephone 4.96 1815 0.61 Tech Support via Email 4.79 1792 0.62 Tech Support via Web Knowledgebase 4.39 2102 0.49 1No significance testing possible for Cronbach’s alpha. *CLI is a composite score consisting of four survey questions (Overall Satisfaction, Quality, Value, Recommend). Items were selected based on a factor analysis of survey questions; these four questions loaded highly on the same factor, suggesting that they Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway measure the same construct.
    • Construct-related Approach (2010)• Driver analysis shows that customers who are more satisfied also report higher levels of customer loyalty Mean Impact on Rating N Loyalty Customer Loyalty Index 5.54 3449 Understands Needs 4.32 3414 0.44 Addresses Needs 4.31 3408 0.48 Understands Better Than Competitors 4.37 3337 0.52 Security Effectiveness 5.21 3407 0.65 Reporting 4.58 3371 0.54 Management / Administration 4.67 3387 0.67 Documentation 4.48 3372 0.54 Ease of Installation 4.72 3382 0.56 End User Experience 4.73 3371 0.66 Ease of Upgrade 4.78 3356 0.59 Technical Support 4.91 3360 0.66 Price 4.62 3348 0.47 Compare COMPANY to Alternatives 4.01 3020 0.77 Tech Support via Telephone 5.05 2408 0.63 Tech Support via Email 4.91 2337 0.64 Tech Support via Web Knowledgebase 4.47 2585 0.55 1No significance testing possible for Cronbach’s alpha. *CLI is a composite score consisting of four survey questions (Overall Satisfaction, Quality, Value, Recommend). Items were selected based on a factor analysis of survey questions; these four questions loaded highly on the same factor, suggesting that they measure the same construct. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Construct-related Approach• Use previous validity approaches (content and criterion) to support a theoretical model of customer satisfaction• Various theoretical models Basic Theory of state that customer loyalty Customer Satisfaction is impacted by satisfaction with Product Satisfaction product and satisfaction with Customer Loyalty service Service• Need to examine the pattern of Satisfaction relationships among these constructs• Pattern of correlations should support this model Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Construct-related Approach • Test the model by examining correlations among three variables: – Product Quality (Quality of Security Eff.) – Tech Support Quality – Customer Loyalty (CLI) CORRELATIONS CLI Tech Qual • Path analysis1 applied to Product Quality Customer Loyalty (CLI) .70 - .53 .68 observed correlations – Isolates degree of impact a given Path Analysis variable has on other variables Product Effectiveness .54 • Analysis supports theory that Customer .11 Loyalty both product quality and tech Tech Support .51 tech support quality impact customer loyalty independently1 For detailed description of path analysis methodology, please see: Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multipleregression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd Ed.) Holt, Rinehart and Winston.New York, NY. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Support Level• Support Level and Customer Loyalty• Three levels of Support (Standard, Premium, Platinum)• Lower customer loyalty reported by customers with Platinum support – Platinum support customers could have higher expectations than Standard support customers. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Segmentation By Region• Difference found across regions1 – APAC has highest levels of customer loyalty and quality ratings – Southern Europe as lowest levels of customer loyalty and quality ratings 1 Based on survey results from 2010. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Segmentation By Industry Difference found across industries1 HED has the lowest levels of customer loyalty 1 Based on survey results from 2010. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Segmentation By License Tier Difference found across license tiers1 License tiers 3 and 4 have highest levels of customer loyalty and quality ratings 1 Based on survey results from 2010. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Summary of Reliability of Survey Ratings• Internal consistency reliability – Contacts tend to give similar ratings across the different items of the same scale • Non-perfect reliability indicates that different items still provide different information about customers’ attitudes• Reasons for extremely high reliability – High degree of redundancy of items – Rater fatigue due to survey length so respondents rate all questions similarly• Inter-contact reliability – Contacts within Accounts show little agreement in ratings – Different types of Contacts provide different vantage point when rating the company • Poor communication within Account across levels and/job functions • Different Contacts have differing expectations • Contacts are treated differently by Account team depending on their level/function Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Summary of Validity• Content-related approach – Questions in customer survey are representative sample of universe of questions • Items comprehensively cover customer requirements throughout all phases of the customer lifecycle • Dissatisfied customers’ open-ended comments are addressed by questions in the survey• Criterion-related approach – No external criteria are available at this time• Construct-related approach – Pattern of relationships of customer satisfaction data supports theory of customer satisfaction • Customer satisfaction is related to customer loyalty • Product quality impacts loyalty through perceived value Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Customer Feedback Programs BestPractices Survey• Self-assessment survey identified strengths and areas needing improvement1• Overall, low to moderate adoption rates of best practices across all components of customer feedback programs – Customer feedback not as important as financial metrics, customer feedback not integrated with CRM system, problem resolution not integrated into CRM system• Strengths seen in specific areas of COMPANY’S customer feedback program: – Top executive is champion of the program, multiple methods of data collection, Web surveys, various measures of customer loyalty, customer research presented externally, existing customer data used for segmentation 1Survey identifies extent to which company adopts best practices in their customer feedback program. EMPLOYEE JANE DOE completed the online survey (http://www.businessoverbroadway.com/cfpbpi.htm) for COMPANY on June 10, 2010. See survey for questions. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Conclusions • The company’s survey process produces reliable, valid indices of customers’ attitudes • Evidence of reliability – All indices are highly reliable – items within indices can be combined to create summary scores • Evidence of validity – Survey questions comprehensively assess important areas to the customers – Each index measures unique construct apart from the other indices – Relationships among indices supports customer satisfaction models Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Conclusions• The company can feel confident using customer survey results when making business decisions – Identifying drivers of customer loyalty – Using Indexes to manage customer relationships• Understand why different customers within the same Account hold different attitudes toward COMPANY – Do they communicate with each other (through Company-sanctioned User groups or individually)? They could get together and talk about the benefits of COMPANY. Could COMPANY assist in this process? Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Recommendations on Method• Changes in Customer Loyalty Measurement – Put loyalty question at start of survey (to assess top of mind responses) with common rating scale (recommend 0 to 10) scale) – Add questions to measure other components of customer loyalty • Purchasing Loyalty: Example: How likely are you to purchase additional/different types of products from COMPANY? • Retention Loyalty: Example: How likely are you to switch to a different security provider within the next 12 months?• Benefits – Make decisions to grow business through new and existing customers – Loyalty indices can be used to build customer-centricity • Executive dashboards, guide strategy/governance, resource allocation, incentive compensation, benchmark against industry standards Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Recommendations on Method• Changes in Technical Support Measurement – Move all technical support questions into one section • Telephone, Email, and technical support – Consider adding other technical support questions to broaden technical support coverage • Knowledge, professionalism, care• Benefits – Easier for customers to complete survey – Provide more specific feedback to technical support personnel• Consider ways to increase response rates – Email invitation content Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Recommendations on Strategy,Integration and Research• Integrate customer feedback into company’s strategy/governance1 – Company’s strategic vision, mission and goals; executives’ objectives and incentive compensation, front-line employees’ objectives and incentive compensation• Integrate customer feedback into daily business processes1 – CRM system; company/executive dashboards; communicate results regularly to the entire company• Conduct in-depth research using customer survey results1 – Linkage analysis between customer feedback and operational metrics, financial metrics, employee metrics. 1 Based on Customer Feedback Programs Self-Assessment Survey Results. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • Recommendations for Future Research• Consider other “financial” metrics to track and link to customer survey – Consult with CFO to consider other financial metrics that are tracked and consider using those to identify which aspects of customer satisfaction/loyalty relate to financial growth of COMPANY • e.g. Renewals – Track financial metrics over time in conjunction with the customer survey to conduct longitudinal studies • Study impact of attitudes at time 1 on financial metrics at time 2 and beyond• Linkage study between COMPANY’S transactional survey and relationship survey – To what extent do transactions (e.g. in call center) impact long- term customer loyalty Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway
    • For More Information Business Over Broadway Business growth through customer insightBob E. Hayes, Ph.D.Email: bob@businessoverbroadway.comWeb: www.businessoverbroadway.comBlog: www.businessoverbroadway.blogspot.comTwitter: www.twitter.com/bobehayes Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway