Validation of Customer Survey

4,337 views

Published on

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

Published in: Business, Technology

Validation of Customer Survey

  1. 1. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Validation of COMPANY Customer Satisfaction Survey Business growth through customer insight Business Over Broadway
  2. 2. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Overview
  3. 3. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Executive Summary
  4. 4. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • Adoption of best practices in each area ensures program success1 Components of Customer Feedback Programs 1 In 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
  5. 5. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Employee, Partner and Customer Loyalty Drive Business Results Based on the book, The Service Profit Chain: How leading Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction and Value (Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997) Employee Survey Customer Survey Partner Survey Business Strategy Business Programs Company PerformanceInternal System Employee Satisfaction Employee Productivity Perceived Value Customer Satisfaction Revenue Profits Employee Loyalty Customer Loyalty Partner Advocacy Purchasing Retention Market Share
  6. 6. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Company Surveys
  7. 7. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 delivers reliable results – Reliability varies from 0 (no reliability) to 1 (perfect reliability) • Validity reflects the degree to which scores are measuring what they 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 Reliability and Validity ValidNot Valid ReliableNotReliable
  8. 8. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • Four general forms of reliability 1. Inter-rater reliability1 – Degree of agreement between two or more raters who are rating same attribute 2. Test-retest reliability1 – Degree of agreement between same measure/rater over two time periods 3. Parallel-forms reliability – Degree of agreement between two measures (A vs. B) that measure same thing 4. Internal consistency reliability1 – Degree of consistency of ratings across items within a measure Reliability = Rater 1 Rater 2 = Rater n Rater n Attribute 1 Determination 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. Time 1 Time 2 = Rater n Survey Vers. A Attribute 2 Attribute m= Survey Vers. B= Attribute 1 Rater n
  9. 9. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Validity
  10. 10. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Evidence of Reliability
  11. 11. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Internal Consistency Reliability
  12. 12. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Surveys Contact 1 Contact 2 Contact n Business Attribute 1 Business Attribute 2 Reliability Analysis Internal Consistency Reliability • Item-Total Correlation is the correlation of specific attribute with aggregate of remaining attributes • Split-half reliability is the correlation between average of the two halves of the survey • Cronbach’s alpha () estimate used to determine internal consistency of ratings (satisfaction) within a survey • Calculated for any type of survey that contains multiple questions • Reliability varies from 0 (no internal consistency) to 1 (perfect internal consistency) Business Attribute m Business Attribute 1 Business Attribute 2 Business Attribute m Business Attribute 1 Business Attribute 2 Business Attribute m . . . = Rater n Attribute 2 Attribute m=Attribute 1 Data Model for Internal Consistency Reliability Analysis
  13. 13. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Index (Measure) Definition Survey Questions Customer Loyalty Index (4 questions) Extent to which customers feel positively toward COMPANY Overall Satisfaction, Quality, Value, Recommend Perceived Value of External Information1 (7 questions) Extent to which customers value external sources of information regarding security products Security vendor websites, Whitepapers, Industry analysts, Blogs / online communities, Security publications, Peers, Webcasts / podcasts Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting (3 questions) Stated importance of Documentation, Management, Reporting Reporting, Management / Administration, Documentation Perceived Importance of Ease of Use (3 questions) Stated importance of user experience Ease of installation, End user experience, Ease of upgrade Quality of Security Product (8 questions) Rating of quality of security product Security effectiveness, Reporting, Management / Administration, Documentation, Ease of installation, End user experience, Ease of upgrade, Price Quality of Technical Support (3 questions) Rating of quality of technical support Technical support, Telephone, Email Indices (Summated Scales)* 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. Factor analyses of survey items exposed several indices, each measuring a general content area (e.g. loyalty, tech support).
  14. 14. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Internal Consistency Reliability by Decision Influence Decision-Making Role INDEX Entire Sample Final Decision Influencer Purchasing 2009 Indices 1 Customer Loyalty Index* .89 .89 .89 .88 2 Perceived Value of External Information .85 .85 .83 .87 3 Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting .80 .78 .79 .78 4 Perceived Importance of Ease of Use .79 .76 .80 .80 5 Quality of Security Products .91 .92 .91 .92 6 Quality of Tech Support .91 .91 .90 .91 2010 Indices 1 Customer Loyalty Index .82 .81 .83 .81 2 Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting .70 .69 .66 .78 3 Perceived Importance of Ease of Use .66 .68 .64 .58 4 Perceived Quality of Security Products .89 .89 .88 .91 5 Perceived Quality of Tech Support .92 .93 .92 .95 Internal Consistency Reliability1 Major Points • Factor analyses of survey items exposed several indices, each measuring a general content area (e.g. loyalty, tech support). • Definition of index is based on the aggregated items • Internal consistency reliabilities are acceptable and similar across all decision- making categories. • Each index would be useful for executive dashboards since each provides reliable, useful information. 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.
  15. 15. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Inter-Rater Reliability
  16. 16. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Data Model for Inter-Rater Reliability Analysis Type of Contact Account 1 Account 2 Account 3 Account m Contact 1 Contact 2 Contact 3 Contact 4 Contact 5 Contact 6 Contact n-1 Contact n Reliability Analysis Inter-Contact Reliability • Correlation of satisfaction ratings between different Contacts within Accounts • Calculated for each type of customer survey • Reliability could vary from 0 (no agreement between Contacts) to 1.0 (complete agreement between Contacts) . . . ... = Rater 2 Attribute Rater 1
  17. 17. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Inter-Contact Reliability (Decision- makers vs. Influencers) INDICES1 Decision maker/ Influencer 1 Customer Loyalty Index* .19 2 Security Effectiveness -.12 3 Reporting .05 4 Management / Administration .15 5 Documentation -.04 6 Ease of Installation .16 7 End User Experience .02 8 Ease of Upgrade .22 9 Technical Support .05 10 Price .22 Major Points • There is low agreement between Contacts from different decision-making standpoint. • Contacts from different decision-making standpoints (e.g., Decision maker vs. Influencer) show low agreement in their ratings of COMPANY • The degree of disagreement across different survey respondents within an Account could reflect: •Poor communication within an Account •Different expectations of different functions •Different usage of COMPANY products 1 Survey 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 and Recommend. Functional job function includes Finance, Not enough sample to examine “Purchasing” role.
  18. 18. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Test-Retest Reliability
  19. 19. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Data Model for Test-Retest Reliability Analysis Time 1 Survey Time 2 Survey Contact 1 Contact 2 Contact 3 Contact 4 Contact 5 Contact 6 Contact n-1 Contact n Account 1 Account 2 Account 3 Account m Contact 1 Contact 2 Contact 3 Contact 4 Contact 5 Contact 6 Contact n-1 Contact n Reliability Analysis Test-Retest Reliability • Correlation of satisfaction ratings between same Contacts across two time periods • Correlation of satisfaction ratings (averaged over Contacts) between same Accounts across two time periods • Calculated only for Surveys that are repeated • 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 Contact n Time 1 Time 2
  20. 20. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Test-Retest Reliability INDICES/MEASURES 1 Customer Loyalty Index .69 2 Overall Satisfaction .32 3 Quality .58 4 Value .52 5 Recommend .70 6 Security Effectiveness .43 7 Reporting .53 8 Management / Administration .54 9 Documentation .44 10 Ease of Installation .50 11 End User Experience .49 12 Ease of Upgrade .45 13 Technical Support .51 14 Price .54 Test-Retest Reliability1 1 Survey 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 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. = Contact n Contact n Time 1 Time 2 Major Points • Test-retest reliability is high • Customers tend to respond in a similar way over two time periods. • Those who are satisfied (dissatisfied) at time 1 tend to be satisfied (dissatisfied) at time 2.
  21. 21. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway Evidence of Validity
  22. 22. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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) Content-related Approach
  23. 23. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 analysis Content-related Approach 1 Customer comments from those who rated Recommend question low.
  24. 24. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Criterion-related Approach
  25. 25. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Construct-related Approach
  26. 26. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway 2009 Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Customer Loyalty Index 4.84 0.94 2941 0.89 2. Quality of Security Product 4.59 0.86 2917 0.77 0.91 3. Quality of Technical Support 4.81 1.09 2880 0.68 0.69 0.91 4. Perceived Value of External Information 4.34 0.97 2787 0.31 0.37 0.29 0.85 5. Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting 4.77 0.87 2914 0.29 0.43 0.31 0.34 0.80 6. Perceived Importance of Ease of Use 5.05 0.87 2919 0.33 0.48 0.33 0.28 0.54 0.79 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) 2010 Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5 1. Customer Loyalty Index 5.54 1.27 3449 0.82 2. Quality of Security Product 4.72 0.75 3417 0.78 0.89 3. Quality of Technical Support 4.95 1.04 3387 0.67 0.65 0.92 4. Perceived Importance of Doc/Mgmt/Reporting 5.01 0.66 3434 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.70 5. Perceived Importance of Ease of Use 5.17 0.69 3437 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.41 0.66 1 Cronbach’s alpha (internal consistency estimates) are located in the diagonal.
  27. 27. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • Driver analysis shows that customers who are more satisfied also report higher levels of customer loyalty Construct-related Approach (2009) Mean Rating N Impact on 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 1 No 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.
  28. 28. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • Driver analysis shows that customers who are more satisfied also report higher levels of customer loyalty Construct-related Approach (2010) Mean Rating N Impact on 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 1 No 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.
  29. 29. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • Use previous validity approaches (content and criterion) to support a theoretical model of customer satisfaction • Various theoretical models state that customer loyalty is impacted by satisfaction with product and satisfaction with service • Need to examine the pattern of relationships among these constructs • Pattern of correlations should support this model Construct-related Approach Service Satisfaction Product Satisfaction Customer Loyalty Basic Theory of Customer Satisfaction
  30. 30. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • Test the model by examining correlations among three variables: – Product Quality (Quality of Security Eff.) – Tech Support Quality – Customer Loyalty (CLI) • Path analysis1 applied to observed correlations – Isolates degree of impact a given variable has on other variables • Analysis supports theory that both product quality and tech tech support quality impact customer loyalty independently Construct-related Approach CORRELATIONS CLI Tech Qual Product Quality .70 .53 Customer Loyalty (CLI) - .68 1 For detailed description of path analysis methodology, please see: Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd Ed.) Holt, Rinehart and Winston. New York, NY. Tech Support Product Effectiveness Customer Loyalty Path Analysis .11 .54 .51
  31. 31. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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. Support Level
  32. 32. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Segmentation By Region 1 Based on survey results from 2010.
  33. 33. 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.
  34. 34. 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.
  35. 35. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Summary of Reliability of Survey Ratings
  36. 36. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Summary of Validity
  37. 37. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Customer Feedback Programs Best Practices Survey 1 Survey 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.
  38. 38. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Conclusions
  39. 39. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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? Conclusions
  40. 40. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Recommendations on Method
  41. 41. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Recommendations on Method
  42. 42. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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. Recommendations on Strategy, Integration and Research 1 Based on Customer Feedback Programs Self-Assessment Survey Results.
  43. 43. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway • 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 Recommendations for Future Research
  44. 44. Copyright © 2010 Business Over Broadway For More Information Business growth through customer insight Business Over Broadway Bob E. Hayes, Ph.D. Email: bob@businessoverbroadway.com Web: www.businessoverbroadway.com Blog: www.businessoverbroadway.blogspot.com Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobehayes

×