Electralink Customer Survey Presentation 3

rd

December 2007

Presentation Coverage

• • • • • •

Introduction Overview Quantitative Survey Results

–

Focus On DTS

–

Focus On SPAA

–

Focus On DCUSA Qualitative Research Summary & Conclusions Recommendations For 2008 Research

Introduction

Background

•

Electralink provides a range of services to companies operating in the utilities market, including the Data Transfer Service, and management of SPAA Ltd and DCUSA Ltd.

•

This research is concerned with surveying the opinions of users of each of these services. For 2007 the survey has been managed using Researchcraft, the first time an independent research company has undertaken the research.

•

Previous internally managed quantitative surveys provide comparative data from previous years.

–

DTS Survey

–

SPAA Survey

–

DCUSA Survey - Carried out online since 1997 - Carried out via telephone since 2006 - Introduced for the first time this year (2007)

•

In addition to the quantitative research a qualitative survey has been undertaken for the first time in 2007.

Method

Quantitative Survey What?

A quantitative survey using a c.15 minute CATI telephone interview.

Who?

Amongst a total of 72 named contacts at companies using Electralink services for: When?

DTS SPAA DCUSA 41 interviews (17 Contract Managers, 24 Gateway Operations Managers) 15 interviews 16 interviews All interviews conducted between Monday 29 th October and Friday 23 rd November 2007.

Method

Qualitative Survey What?

C.45 minute qualitative depth interview conducted at the respondent’s place of work.

Who?

When?

A total of 12 contacts pre-recruited from the main sample list used for the quantitative study. Selected at random within 4 quotas: DTS CM’s DTS GOM’s SPAA DCUSA 3 interviews 3 interviews 3 interviews 3 interviews All were not interviewed on the quantitative survey unless they volunteered to do so (1 contact).

All interviews conducted between Thursday 1 st 2007.

and Friday 16 th November

Achieved Sample

Overall, a 67% response rate was achieved amongst unique contacts with an obtainable telephone number.

2007 Survey Total Contacts Supplied Major Reasons For Sample Ineligibility Total Sample 219 126 SPAA 36 DCUSA 52 19 No Phone No.

31 29 DTS 131 15 Duplicated Names 12 Also SPAA/DCUSA 16 CM/GOM Duplicates 10 Same Contact For 2+ Companies 66 Total Unique Contacts With Obtainable Number Total Interviews Achieved - Quantitative - Qualitative 84 72 12 18 15 3 19 16 3 47 41 6 Previous Years Sample Size 2006 2005 2004 53 21 33 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 38 21 33

Overview

Overview

• • • • •

Across all three samples Electralink performs consistently well, with the overwhelming majority of customers giving positive feedback.

Electralink is also rated more positively than other industry organisations.

There is a sense that, overall, Electralink has maintained or improved its service and value for money over the past year. Whilst the research has identified some areas for potential action, these are specific improvements that are suggested by only a minority of customers in each case.

Since 2006 the rating of Electralink and its provision of the DTS has maintained the high standards already set.

By contrast, there has been a general downward shift in ratings for SPAA. However, the data suggests that this is more likely to be a consequence of the change to independent interviewers than to a genuine shift in opinions, with no indication of service deterioration from our more direct questioning.

Quantitative Survey Results

Important Notes On Yearly Comparisons

Comparisons with previous years should be interpreted with caution throughout:

•

Pre 2007 results for DTS used an online survey. Changes in scores may be partly attributed to switching to a telephone interview.

•

For both SPAA and DTS the questionnaire underwent a major review, resulting in:

–

changes to the ordering of some key ratings

–

changes to the wording of some key ratings both of which may potentially have influenced the scores achieved.

Summary Versus Previous Years

Comparisons are made only across those ratings present in all years shown: Year Base Average (Mean Score) No Of Ratings Compared DTS Survey 2005 2006 2007 21 38 41 3.99

4.05

4.01

22 22 22 SPAA Survey 2006 2007 15 15 4.54

4.22

15 15 DCUSA Survey 2007 16 4.21

27 The above is like for like comparison on statements scored as follows: Rating Score Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor 5 4 3 2 1 Those with no experience or not using services / features rated are excluded from the mean scores.

How Many Have Contact With Electralink?

1 2 3 4 / 5 6+ Total DTS 10 20 32 15 24 DTS CM’s 6 24 29 18 24 DTS GOM’s 13 17 33 13 25 SPAA 20 13 13 7 47 DCUSA 13 6 6 31 44 Average No.

4.1

Base: Total Sample (41) 4.1

(17) 4.0

(24) 4.9

(15) 5.3

(16)

Length Of Involvement With Electralink

Average Number of Years Company’s Involvement Personally Involved Total DTS 4.3

3.7

DTS CM’s DTS GOM’s SPAA DCUSA 4.5

3.9

4.1

3.5

4.0

3.1

4.3

2.9

Base: Total Sample (41) (17) (24) (15) (16)

Satisfaction With Electralink Service Summary

Mean Score out of 10 Overall Rating DTS 8.05

SPAA 8.40

Overall Professionalism Being Responsive Being Easy To Deal With Being Highly Efficient Communicating Clearly Understanding Your Business Needs Providing Valuable Expertise Resource Base: Total Sample 7.95

7.49

7.63

7.39

7.63

6.95

7.17

(41) 8.87

8.47

8.53

8.33

8.20

7.67

8.00

(15) DCUSA 8.38

8.81

8.25

8.50

8.25

8.31

7.56

7.75

(16)

Rating Versus Other Organisations Summary

Overall Satisfaction Mean Score out of 10 Average (All Samples) DTS Electralink 8.28

8.05

SPAA DCUSA 8.40

8.38

GEMSERV / MRASCO Elexon National Grid OFGAS OFGEM Xoserv 7.23

6.72

6.53

6.33

6.11

5.81

Base: All Who Use Each Company (Various) 7.00

6.60

5.67

7.00

6.00

5.25

7.20

6.25

7.42

6.00

6.08

6.67

7.50

7.30

6.50

6.00

6.25

5.50

Focus On The DTS

Summary - DTS Sample

• • • •

Overall, perceptions of Electralink’s service are positive, especially amongst GOM’s and have maintained the strong levels seen in previous years.

Two thirds give Electralink a score of 8 or more out of 10 for overall satisfaction. This compares favourably with other industry organisations measured.

Electralink is rated most highly for its helpdesk and website features, whilst the website in general and EDS helpdesk are the areas rated least well.

The main gains this year relate to the website, with ratings of the features, reporting tools, and website in general all improving since 2006.

Summary - DTS Sample (2)

• • •

Electralink’s level of service is also rated well, seen as strongest for professionalism, being easy to deal with and communicating clearly. It is less successful at understanding the business needs of customers.

CM’s appear to be the heavier users of Electralink’s services and have formed a more polarised view of the DTS service itself. Overall, GOM’s are more positive about Electralink’s service and are more likely to have perceived improvements.

•

Electralink is rated rather less well for value for money. However, this is an area that CM’s rated more highly than GOM’s also with a greater sense that VFM has improved in the last 12 months.

Only 1 in 2 cite areas for improvement, with most suggestions scattered and very specific. Cost reduction is the most widely mentioned, but only by 7%.

Average Rating Of Main Service Areas DTS Sample

Service Area No. of Attributes Rated Mean Score 2007 Attributes Compared* Change Since 2006* All Ratings 29 4.01

23 -0.02

Electralink Helpdesk Website Features Used The DTS Itself Electralink Reporting Tools Electralink Services EDS Helpdesk Electralink Website Overall 3 4 6 4 5 3 4 Base: All rating each attribute * Change compared only on ratings in both 2006 and 2007 4.20

4.15

4.05

4.04

3.94

3.87

3.86

1 3 6 4 5 3 1 -0.18

+0.27

-0.08

+0.08

-0.17

-0.14

+0.10

How Well Understand DTS Facilities Provided

Very Well Quite Well Not Very Well Not At All Well 2 5 Total DTS Sample 37 56 DTS CM’s 41 59 0 0 DTS GOM’s 33 54 8 4 Base: Total DTS Sample (41) (17) (24)

Rating Of DTS Itself

Poor/Very Poor Good Quality Of Service From Gateway Connection 2 17 Quality Of Info In The DT Handbook 7 Being Able To Meet Needs Of Current Business 5 Being Able To Cope With Needs Of Future Business 5 20 20 41 46 37 44 22 Adequate Very Good 34 37 27 12 46 41 DTS Overall Value For Money Provided By The DTS Average For DTS 2 32 34 12 Mean Score 2006 2005 4.12

4.21

4.47

3.94

4.29

3.90

4.08

3.95

4.29

3.67

4.05

4.06

4.14

4.09

4.05

4.39

4.24

3.81

3.38

4.13

4.00 Base: Total DTS Sample (41) (38) (21)

How Facilities Provided Compare With Others

DTS Is: Much Better Slightly Better About The Same Slightly / Much Worse 0 Total DTS Sample 15 15 63 DTS CM’s 29 6 59 0 DTS GOM’s 4 21 67 0 Base: Total DTS Sample (41) (17) (24)

How DTS Compares With Others For Value For Money

DTS Is: Much Better VFM Slightly Better VFM About The Same Slightly Worse VFM Much Worse VFM 5 7 Total DTS Sample 0 5 73 DTS CM’s 18 6 53 12 0 DTS GOM’s 0 4 68 0 0 Base: Total DTS Sample (41) (17) (24)

How Well Electralink Provides Feedback On Issues Raised At The DTS User Group

Involvement in DTS User Group Yes = 10% (All were CM’s) How Well Provides Feedback Very Well Quite Well (No. Of Responses, Not %) 2 1 Not Very Well Not At All Well 1 0 Base (4) No = 90% Base: Total DTS Sample (41)

Use Of Helpdesks

Use Electralink Helpdesk Use EDS Helpdesk Use Neither Base: Total DTS Sample Total DTS Sample 20 54 73 DTS CM’s 88 41 12 (41) (17) DTS GOM’s 63 63 25 (24)

Frequency Of Use Of Helpdesks

Once A Week Or More Once Every 2 Weeks Once Every 3-4 Weeks Less Than Once Every 4 Weeks Hardly Ever Electralink Helpdesk 0 3 13 30 53 Base: All Helpdesk Users (DTS) (30) EDS Helpdesk 0 5 18 18 59 (22)

Rating Of Electralink Helpdesk

The Quality Of Response You Receive The Speed Of Response 3 7 23 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 60 27 40 30 Overall Helpfulness 3 7 37 50 Mean Score 2006 2005 4.14

4.07

4.38

4.32

4.40

N/A N/A N/A N/A Base: All Electralink Helpdesk users (DTS) (30)

Rating Of EDS Helpdesk

The Quality Of Response You Receive The Quality Of Service Provided The Way EDS Manages Fault Situations 5 5 18 5 32 23 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 50 36 45 23 23 18 Base: All EDS Helpdesk users (DTS) Mean Score 2006 2005 3.81

3.95

3.85

4.10

4.03

3.91

3.79

3.68

3.63

(22)

Use Of Electralink Website DTS Sample

Total DTS Sample Use Website?

Yes No Base: Total Sample 46 54 (41) Frequency Of Use?

Once A Week Or More Once Every 2 Weeks Once Every 3-4 Weeks Less Than Once Every 4 Weeks Hardly Ever Base: All Website Users 16 5 26 21 32 (19) DTS CM’s 35 65 (17) 0 17 33 33 17 (6) DTS GOM’s 54 46 (24) 23 0 23 15 38 (13)

Rating Of Electralink Website DTS Sample

Overall Usefulness Ease Of Navigation Being Kept Up To Date Using Terminology That Is Easy To Understand 16 21 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 68 5 32 37 63 47 42 21 16 11 Base: All Website users * 2007 survey wording changed to ‘Overall Usefulness’ Mean Score 2006 2005 3.83

3.89

3.78

3.94

3.73* N/A N/A N/A 3.74* N/A N/A N/A (19)

Website Features Used DTS Sample

The MPAN Search Facilities The Resubmission Tool Within The Web Tools Suite The ACMT Part Of The Web Tools Suite The Web Tools User Guide & Context Sensitive Help Within Web Tools % Used Feature 21 21 47 32 Base: All Website Users Rating of Feature Mean Score 2006 4.25

3.91

4.00

N/A 4.33

4.00

4.19

3.67

(19) Features Users (Various)

Rating Of Electralink Services

Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good Administering Change Requests Efficiently Managing Fault Situations The Quality Of Written Communications 2 2 15 20 20 The Content & Format Of Newsletters 2 Overall Quality Of Service 2 Provided 12 41 41 51 51 61 37 22 24 7 34 17 Base: Total DTS Sample Mean Score 2006 2005 4.03

4.05

3.93

3.53

4.17

4.23

4.28

3.95

3.89

4.18

4.22

3.95

4.05

3.95

4.14

(41)

Rating Of Electralink Reporting Tools

Content Of Monthly Service Reports % Use 32 *Quality Of Electralink Billing Info 10 20 Content Of Daily Gateway Reports The Audit Tool None Used 29 37 Mean Score 3.92

4.25

3.75

4.25

Rating 2006 4.07

2005 4.17

4.00

3.85

3.93

3.50

3.80

4.50

Base: Total DTS Sample * Asked of CM’s Only (41) Reporting Tool Users (Various) (17)

How Effective Find Notifications And Notification Period For Scheduled Service Downtime

Total DTS Sample DTS CM’s DTS GOM’s Very Effective Quite Effective Not Very Effective Not At All Effective 0 2 32 66 76 24 0 0 58 38 4 0 Base: Total DTS Sample (41) (17) (24)

Satisfaction With Electralink Service

1 = Not at all satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied Overall Rating Overall Professionalism Being Responsive Being Easy To Deal With Being Highly Efficient Communicating Clearly Understanding Your Business Needs Providing Valuable Expertise Resource Base: Total DTS Sample % Score 8 - 10 34 68 71 56 66 59 63 56 Mean Score CM’s GOM’s 8.05

7.95

7.49

7.63

7.39

7.63

6.95

7.17

(41) 7.59

8.38

8.06

7.88

7.24

7.67

7.41

7.79

7.41

7.38

7.59

7.67

6.76

7.08

7.06

7.25

(17) (24)

Main Reasons For Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction DTS Sample

Total Sample Give Score of 1 - 7 Service Efficient / Professional / Accurate Quick Service / Prompt Turnaround Of Problems Generally Happy With Service 15 Customers’ Needs Are Met Good Communications / Positive Interaction 10 10 Approachable / Helpful 7 Other Miscellaneous Positive Comments Maintenance Notification Is Very Good The Service Is Expensive / Excessive Charges Responsibility Is Not Taken Centrally For Problems 5 5 5 7 Base: Total DTS Sample NB: Mentions by 1 person (2%) not shown (41) 24 44 8 0 0 8 15 0 23 0 8 8 (13) Give Score of 8 - 10 7 11 0 7 4 4 (28) 61 36 21 11

Improvement On Electralink Services Over Past 12 Months

Improved A Lot Improved A Little Stayed The Same Got A Little Worse Got A Lot Worse 0 Total DTS Sample 24 0 0 76 DTS CM’s 0 6 94 0 0 Base: Total DTS Sample (41) (17) DTS GOM’s 0 38 63 0 0 (24)

Main Reasons Electralink Has Improved / Stayed Same DTS Sample

Service Is Consistent / Always Good Have Not Noticed Any Changes Have Little Contact With Them / New To Post Additional Functioning / Performance Has Improved Quality Of Paperwork / Formats Has Improved 5 5 Total Sample 22 27 37 Improved A Lot / Little 50 30 30 0 0 Stayed The Same 32 26 19 6 6 Base: Total DTS Sample NB: Mentions by 1 person (2%) not shown (41) (10) (31)

Electralink Value For Money DTS Sample

1 = Poor 10 = Excellent Mean Score Rating For VFM 6.24

6.65

27 35 8-10 24 6-7 35 1-5 49 29 Base: Total DTS Sample Total DTS Sample (41) CM’s (17) 5.96

21 17 63 GOM’s (24)

Improvement In Value For Money Over Past 12 Months DTS Sample

Improved A Lot Improved A Little Stayed The Same Got A Little Worse Got A Lot Worse 0 0 2 5 Total DTS Sample Don’t Know Base: Total DTS Sample 5 (41) CM’s GOM’s 88 0 12 88 0 0 0 (17) 4 0 88 0 0 8 (24)

Satisfaction Rating Versus Other Organisations DTS Sample

1 = Not At All Satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied % Deal With % Score 8 - 10 Mean Score CM’s Electralink 100 68 8.05

7.59

Elexon GEMSERV / MRASCO OFGEM National Grid OFGAS Xoserv None Of These 61 46 34 29 10 10 32 0 7 8 25 40 42 6.60

7.00

6.00

5.67

7.00

5.25

6.73

7.27

5.63

5.17

6.00

6.00

Base: Total DTS Sample (41) Base: All Who Deal With (Various) GOM’s 8.38

6.50

6.63

6.50

6.17

7.33

4.50

What Would Most Like Electralink To Improve On DTS Sample

“I cannot think of anything they could improve on. I would have to really think about it. The way I use them they have exceeded my expectations.” “They do a good job as it is.” No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The Same Reduce Costs / They Are Expensive Quicker Fault Resolution Base: Total DTS Sample 7 5 (41) 46 “The service is good, but they are more expensive than their peers. I do not think that is any one person’s fault though. They charge what they have to. I would also like to say the staff are very friendly, efficient and helpful…” “I would like to know more about their reporting tools and how to influence or more cost effective pricing, with respect to the amount of data that we send through the gateway.” “From our experience quicker fault resolution. We don’t like to be passed on to another party when there are problems.”

Focus On SPAA

• • • •

Summary - SPAA Sample

Overall, ratings of Electralink’s service are positive with mean scores reaching 4 out of 5 or better for most areas rated. Most scores have shifted downwards (by 0.32 on average) since 2006, but the data suggests this is a function of the change to independent interviewers rather then a genuine fall in opinions.

Electralink is rated especially well for the helpdesk and for its overall management of SPAA with no major areas of weakness to report.

The helpdesk has been used by half of customers, typically at least once a month. Speed of service is rated particularly well.

Almost all (85%) use the SPAA website, usually weekly or more often. User account privileges, and the timeliness of papers are the strongest aspects of the website and are amongst the minority of ratings that did not fall this year. Ease of navigation is the weakest area and also the improvement most likely to be suggested.

• • • •

Summary - SPAA Sample (2)

Most aspects of the financial management of SPAA are rated well, particularly the monthly management accounts, year end audit and overall financial control. Filing of VAT returns was rated less well.

Customers are positive across all areas of Electralink’s management of SPAA Ltd with no obvious areas of weakness.

SPAA users are more satisfied with Electralink than the other industry organisations they use, with a slight perceived improvement over the past 12 months. Service is strongest for professionalism, being easy to deal with, being efficient and communicating clearly. As with other users it is perceived as being less good at understanding business needs.

Rating of value for money is also less strong, but again with a minority perceiving an improvement over the past 12 months.

Average Rating Of Main Service Areas SPAA Sample

Service Area No. of Attributes Rated Mean Score 2007 Attributes Compared* Change Since 2006* All Ratings 25 4.21

15 -0.32

Helpdesk For SPAA Management Of SPAA Ltd 3 8 SPAA Website 8 Financial Management Services 6 Base: All rating each attribute * Change compared only on ratings in both 2006 and 2007 4.45

4.28

4.13

4.13

1 7 4 3 -0.50

-0.33

-0.17

-0.44

Use Of Electralink Helpdesks For SPAA

Use Helpdesks?

Yes No 47 53 Base: Total SPAA Sample (15) Frequency Of Use Every 2 Weeks Or More Once Every 3 - 4 Weeks Less Often Than Every 4 Weeks Hardly Ever Base: All Helpdesk Users (8) 13 13 13 63

Rating Of Helpdesk for SPAA

The Quality Of Response You Receive The Speed Of The Response Overall Helpfulness 13 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 50 38 13 25 38 63 50 Mean Score 2006 4.25

4.75

4.38

4.71

N/A N/A Base: All Helpdesk users (8)

Use Of The SPAA Website

Use Website?

Yes No 13 Base: Total SPAA Sample (15) Frequency Of Use Every Day 2 - 4 Days A Week Once A Week Once Every 2 - 4 Weeks Base: Website Users (13) 87 15 15 31 38

Rating Of SPAA Website

Overall Usefulness Ease Of Navigation 8 38 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 69 23 46 15 Being Kept Up To Date Using Terminology That Is Easy To Understand Timeliness Of Papers Posted By Electralink Management Of User Access Privileges The Accuracy Of Content 8 8 15 8 15 15 15 46 62 54 54 54 38 31 23 31 The Accuracy Of Membership Details On The Website 15 46 15 Base: All SPAA Website users Mean Score 2006 4.15

3.77

4.23

3.92

4.33

4.45

4.15

4.00

(13) N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.33

4.55

4.40

4.33

Rating Of SPAA Financial Management Services

Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good Quality Of Monthly Management Accounts Ensuring Financial Controls & Insurance Cover Are In Place Efficiency In Filing Monthly VAT Returns Management Of Year End Audit Process & AGM 7 7 13 7 Managing Overall Financial Control 7 How Well Support The Financial & Audit Committee 7 13 20 7 33 27 27 20 13 20 13 20 Mean Score 4.33

4.17

3.67

4.22

4.25

4.14

2006 4.33

4.67

4.50

N/A N/A N/A Base: Total SPAA Sample (15)

Rating Of Electralink’s Management Of SPAA

Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good Efficiency With Which Agrees & Confirms Meetings Quality Of SPAA Meeting Agendas & Minutes Support Of Production & Circulation Of Meeting Papers Efficiency In Managing Changes To SPAA Agreement 7 13 Handling Of Company Secretarial Matters 13 Overall Quality Of Service In Managing SPAA Efficiency In Performing Change Control Admin Role 7 20 Efficiency In Operating Annual Voting System 13 47 47 60 27 40 60 40 47 27 20 33 47 53 40 33 33 Base: Total SPAA Sample Mean Score 4.40

4.53

4.40

4.23

4.20

4.27

4.13

4.09

(15) 2006 4.73

4.80

4.53

4.53

4.67

N/A 4.60

4.43

Satisfaction With Electralink Service SPAA Sample

1 = Not at all satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied Overall Rating Overall Professionalism Being Responsive Being Easy To Deal With Being Highly Efficient Communicating Clearly Understanding Your Business Needs Providing Valuable Expertise Resource % Score 8 - 10 Mean Score 87 87 80 8.40

8.87

8.47

87 87 8.53

8.33

60 73 87 8.20

7.67

Base: Total SPAA Sample 8.00

(15)

Main Reasons For Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction SPAA Sample

Total Sample Service Efficient / Professional / Accurate Good Communications / Positive Interaction Customers’ Needs Are Met Approachable / Helpful Generally Happy With Service Quick Service / Prompt Turnaround Of Problems 13 13 20 20 27 Base: Total SPAA Sample NB: Mentions by 1 person (7%) not shown (15) Give Score of 1 - 7 47 50 0 0 0 50 0 Give Score of 8 - 10 46 31 23 23 8 15 (2) (13)

Improvement On Electralink Services Over Past 12 Months - SPAA Sample

Improved A Lot Improved A Little Stayed The Same Got A Little Worse Got A Lot Worse 0 0 7 13 Base: Total SPAA Sample (15) 80

Main Reasons Electralink Has Improved / Stayed Same SPAA Sample

Total Sample Have Not Noticed Any Changes Service Is Consistent / Always Good Have Little Contact With Them / New To Post Have Not Encountered Any Problems Communications / Feedback / Queries And Responses Have Got Quicker 13 13 20 Base: Total SPAA Sample NB: Mentions by 1 person (7%) not shown (15) 33 40 Improved A Lot / Little Stayed Same / Got Worse 50 100 0 0 0 38 23 23 15 15 (2) (13)

Electralink Value For Money SPAA Sample

Rating For VFM 1 = Poor 10 = Excellent Mean Score 7.27

8-10 53 Improvement In VFM Over Past 12 Months Improved A Lot Improved A Little Stayed The Same Got A Little Worse Got A Lot Worse 0 0 0 7 6-7 27 Don’t Know 13 1-5 20 80 Base: Total SPAA Sample (15)

Satisfaction Rating Versus Other Organisations SPAA Sample

1 = Not At All Satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied % Deal With % Score 8 - 10 Mean Score Electralink 100 87 8.40

OFGEM National Grid Xoserv GEMSERV / MRASCO Elexon OFGAS 87 80 80 67 53 20 Base: Total SPAA Sample (15) 0 15 25 42 40 50 Base: All Who Deal With (Various) 6.08

7.42

6.67

7.20

6.25

6.00

What Would Most Like Electralink To Improve On SPAA Sample

“There is nothing really, they fit in very well with the process.” “The website - I don’t think it is as slick as it could be i.e. we make do as it is not the best.” No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The Same Improve Website Which Can Be Limited / Slow / Non-User Friendly Base: Total SPAA Sample (15) 20 “I am very happy with my level of involvement with Electralink at the moment.” 53 “I don’t have a view on that, I think they are fine.” “Make the website more user friendly when it comes to finding specific information.”

Focus On DCUSA

• • • •

Summary - DCUSA Sample

Customers give positive feedback about Electralink and its overall management of DCUSA. There is also some sense that service and value for money have been improving over the past year.

The areas of greatest strength are the helpdesk and the overall management of DCUSA Ltd, although other areas are also rated above 4 out of 5 on average.

Of the half who use the helpdesk they tend to do so infrequently, with 2/3 getting in touch less than once a month. The helpdesk is rated well across the board but more so for speed of service.

All of those surveyed use the DCUSA website, with 2 out of 3 visiting it at least once a month. There was particularly positive feedback on the accuracy of membership details, the accuracy of content, being kept up to date and the timeliness of papers. The website is rated least well for using terminology that was easy to understand. The website is also the area of Electralink’s service most likely to be suggested for improvements (by 13% of all users).

• • •

Summary - DCUSA Sample

Perceptions of Electralink’s management of DCUSA Ltd are high across all areas rated, especially production & circulation of meeting papers and performance of the secretariat role.

Financial management rated less well overall, with the filing of VAT returns scoring less well than other areas.

Electralink’s service scores above other organisations they use and in line with ratings by SPAA users. DCUSA users rate Electralink particularly strongly for professionalism. Electralink rates less well for providing a valuable expertise resource, understanding business needs and for value for money. However, there is a belief amongst a minority (1 in 5) that value for money has improved over the past year.

Average Rating Of Main Service Areas DCUSA Sample

Service Area All Ratings Helpdesk for DCUSA Management of DCUSA Ltd.

DCUSA Website Financial Management Services Base: All rating each attribute No. of Attributes Rated 27 3 8 8 8 Mean Score 2007 4.21

4.48

4.31

4.19

4.02

Use Of Electralink Helpdesks For DCUSA

Use Helpdesks?

Yes No 44 56 Base: Total DCUSA Sample (16) Frequency Of Use 3+ Days A Week Twice A Week Once Every 2 Weeks Less Often Than Every 4 Weeks Hardly Ever Base: All Helpdesk Users (7) 14 14 14 29 29

Rating Of Helpdesk for DCUSA

The Quality Of Response You Receive The Speed Of The Response Overall Helpfulness 43 43 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 71 29 57 57 Mean Score 4.29

4.57

4.57

Base: All Helpdesk users (7)

Use Of The DCUSA Website

Use Website?

Yes No 0 Base: Total DCUSA Sample (16) Frequency Of Use Every Day 3 - 4 Days A Week Once A Week Once Every 2 Weeks Once Every 3 - 4 Weeks Less Than Every 4 Weeks Hardly Ever Base: Website Users (16) 6 100 13 13 13 13 19 25

Rating Of DCUSA Website

Overall Usefulness 19 Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good 56 25 Ease Of Navigation 25 50 25 Mean Score 4.06

4.00

Being Kept Up To Date Using Terminology That Is Easy To Understand Timeliness Of Papers Posted By Electralink Management Of User Access Privileges 6 25 44 50 38 The Accuracy Of Content 6 6 38 50 The Accuracy Of Membership Details On The Website 38 38 38 44 31 44 31 19 Base: All DCUSA Website users 4.38

3.75

4.29

4.07

4.43

4.50

(16)

Rating Of DCUSA Financial Management Services

Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good Quality Of Monthly Management Accounts Ensuring Financial Controls & Insurance Cover Are In Place Efficiency In Filing Monthly VAT Returns Management Of Year End Audit Process & AGM 6 6 6 6 25 31 44 13 13 13 13 Managing Overall Financial Control How Well Support The Finance & Audit Committee Quality Of The Co. Secretarial Reports 6 13 6 19 How Efficiently Support The Panel Assessment Of Insurance 13 44 38 25 44 19 6 Base: Total DCUSA Sample Mean Score 4.14

3.67

3.50

4.10

4.30

3.88

4.70

3.89

(16)

Rating Of Electralink’s Management Of DCUSA

Poor/Very Poor Good Adequate Very Good Efficiency With Which Agrees & Confirms Meetings Quality Of DCUSA Meeting Agendas & Minutes Support Of Production & Circulation Of Meeting Papers Efficiency In Managing Changes To DCUSA Agreement Handling Of Company Secretarial Matters 13 Overall Quality Of Service In Managing DCUSA Efficiency In Performing Secretariat Role 6 6 Efficiency In Operating Annual Voting System 6 6 13 13 25 38 25 44 50 44 50 56 31 38 56 38 44 31 44 38 38 Base: Total DCUSA Sample Mean Score 4.31

4.25

4.50

4.33

4.33

4.31

4.40

4.07

(16)

Satisfaction With Electralink Service DCUSA Sample

1 = Not at all satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied Overall Rating Overall Professionalism Being Responsive Being Easy To Deal With Being Highly Efficient Communicating Clearly Understanding Your Business Needs Providing Valuable Expertise Resource Base: Total DCUSA Sample % Score 8 - 10 63 56 81 94 81 81 81 81 Mean Score 8.38

8.81

8.25

8.50

8.25

8.31

7.56

7.75

(16)

Main Reasons For Satisfaction / Dissatisfaction DCUSA Sample

Total Sample Service Efficient / Professional / Accurate Generally Happy With Service Quick Service / Prompt Turnaround Of Problems Good Communications / Positive Interaction Have Little Contact With Them / New To Post 13 19 19 19 Base: Total DCUSA Sample NB: Mentions by 1 person (6%) not shown (16) 63 Give Score of 1 - 7 33 0 0 0 33 Give Score of 8 - 10 69 23 23 23 8 (3) (13)

Improvement In Electralink Service Over Past 12 Months - DCUSA Sample

Improved A Lot Improved A Little Stayed The Same Got A Little Worse Got A Lot Worse 0 0 0 Base: Total DCUSA Sample 19 (16) 81

Main Reasons Electralink Has Improved / Stayed Same DCUSA Sample

Have Not Noticed Any Changes Service Is Consistent / Always Good Have Little Contact With Them / New To Post Experienced People Have Gone / Changes In Staff / New Staff Need Training Total Sample 13 Base: Total DCUSA Sample NB: Mentions by 1 person (6%) not shown (16) 19 25 25 Improved A Lot / Little 0 33 33 0 (3) Stayed The Same 31 23 15 15 (13)

Electralink Value For Money DCUSA Sample

Rating For VFM 1 = Poor 10 = Excellent Mean Score 7.63

8-10 69 Improvement In VFM Over Past 12 Months Improved A Lot Improved A Little Stayed The Same Got A Little Worse Got A Lot Worse 0 0 0 19 75 6-7 Don’t Know 6 1-5 19 13 Base: Total DCUSA Sample (16)

Satisfaction Rating Versus Other Organisations DCUSA Sample

1 = Not At All Satisfied 10 = Extremely Satisfied % Deal With % Score 8 - 10 Mean Score Electralink 100 81 8.38

OFGEM GEMSERV / MRASCO Elexon National Grid OFGAS Xoserv 75 63 63 38 13 13 Base: Total DCUSA Sample (16) 8 33 50 60 0 0 Base: All Who Deal With (Various) 6.25

7.50

7.30

6.50

6.00

5.50

What Would Most Like Electralink To Improve On DCUSA Sample

“I think they’re fine. I don’t use all their services but the ones I do use are good.” No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The Same Improve Website Which Can Be Limited / Slow / Non-User Friendly Base: Total DCUSA Sample 13 (16) 63 “The only thing I can think of is the website can be a bit difficult to use. I am not sure if it is at our end or not. We do sometimes have problems getting on and getting through the site as it is a bit slow.” “That is difficult to answer as they are so good, all our dealings with them can’t be faulted.” “More expertise, and a greater depth of knowledge with the staff.”

Qualitative Research

Sample Profile

•

Respondents had a range of length of experience of Electralink, from people who had been in role / known Electralink for some years, to those who had become involved within the last few months

•

Some had been or are involved in the forum and working groups

•

Included distributors & suppliers, small businesses and larger ones

Overall Impressions & Observations

“I find the service pretty good … I’m a very satisfied customer ... the service is well above average”

“Electralink do a pretty good job, and always have”

•

All respondents had a very favourable view of Electralink

(in response to flooding this past summer) “Electralink’s service on that occasion was brilliant … we spoke to them, went in to emergency messaging, it was textbook ... they very quickly communicated to the rest of the industry, gave them a good heads up” “They do everything well”

• •

Many found it difficult to think of things that Electralink could do better The core elements of the Electralink service are:

– – –

to administer the meetings in relation to each element of their remit – the DTN, DCUSA & SPAA And to control the change process The website is a very important feature in support of this

Comparison To Other Similar Industry Bodies

“Elexon have a big turnover in staff … the website is not as good … Elexon could learn a lot from Electralink!” “SPAA is the best of the lot (vs. IGTUNC)... information is available earlier and there are the papers there for you”

• •

They felt that Electralink was at least as good as and in most cases better There was little Electralink can learn from Elexon, Gemserv etc

“I need more than I get from Elexon … I’m always having to prod them … they don’t always deliver, … Electralink do … their website isn’t quite as good” “They’re better than XOserve ... the XOserve service isn’t commercially focused”

Strengths

•

The quality and attitude of its people e.g.

“Elizabeth and Helena – both very willing to help, approachable” “Neil ... Paul … very well respected”

•

Open and co-operative attitude, working in support of the industry, in partnership with it

–

Very approachable

“They are very good … let me dial in to teleconferences”

–

Flexible in many areas “They are creative, proactive, listening … they

welcome any issues being debated, helpful, will work with you to resolve things” “When they know you’re new, they’re very good with you, hold your hand, tell you what to do”

•

Good communication and administration skills – in respect of meetings & events, outages / downtime, etc

Weaknesses (1)

•

There were only a few negatives raised

“There aren’t any negatives … they don’t throw barriers up, they respond when they are asked to … an email comes through warning us about the outages, which works well … it’s timely …. I cannot really fault them”

•

Most were relatively minor & often transient issues –

“If we have a criticism it’s that everything’s project managed down to the nth degree .. over engineered” “We had a problem last year, but we’re back on track now

“

“There was a changeover from one member of the team to another – that’s fine now, but it wasn’t quite as good for a while”

Weaknesses (2)

“facilitating of meetings is quite weak … so work doesn’t move through as fast as it might ... It’s not specifically a criticism of Electralink, they are just the administrators, but I would like to see this improve”

• •

SPAA suggested that Electralink’s chairing of meetings could be better One suggested that Electralink are in a difficult position in new initiatives e.g. EDI in respect of timing / driving ahead on change:

“It (EDI) was a pretty smooth operation from start to finish … started in October 2003, when Andrew knocked on the door, … from there it took about 2 years .. there was a lot involved … but we were left to our own devices in respect of timing … not a typical project manger’s timetable … they wouldn’t – maybe couldn’t push the timing, because it was costing us (the industry) money”

•

Could the profile (of Electralink) be raised a little?

“I only really know Andrew … I talk to the helpdesk … more of a face would be good … but they are doing well, so is it really necessary? I think it would be a good thing to do … maybe a bulletin or newsletter about staff changes, a ‘who’s who’”

Size/ Staffing

• • • • •

Respondents want Electralink staff to be knowledgeable Knowledge focused on their role – so how to administer meetings, etc But most also want them to be knowledgeable about the industry They cannot be the ultimate expert – they recognised that this was difficult as they don’t work in the industry

•

But they should have a good enough knowledge to understand issues, context and implications Electralink is a very lean organisation, with good knowledge of the industry concentrated into a very few people

“They don’t have many staff – 6 or 7?”

➨

Suggests value for money

Size/ Staffing - Concerns

“I’m aware of their need to maintain their expertise and knowledge, and the challenge this must be when you have so few staff – what happens if one of the key people decides to move?” “xxxx is off … to Gemserv …. If Paul Gath leaves, I think that would leave them very vulnerable”

•

But whilst this is a positive, there are related concerns:

“There was a period last year when it wasn’t so good … they had someone new who didn’t know the ropes ... its fine again now” “This person didn't give me any confidence … knew less than me, … had to ask what the acronyms stood for”

Helpdesk

•

Most respondents were unaware that there was a helpdesk

“I don’t think I knew there was a helpdesk? Not a formal one as such.” “A helpdesk? (calls) just go straight to Elizabeth or Helena … It’s not like Gemserv, they don’t have a helpdesk yet” “It’s quite obvious there are so few people there”

•

This was not an issue – users didn’t feel the need for one in such a small organisation

•

They knew how to get hold of people – typically emailed direct or knew their email would be directed to their contact

“I’ll call Elizabeth or Helena … email first usually, and then … I’ll call … I email first usually … not to her name, but she picks it up … they’re very good, respond within minutes usually”

Websites In General

•

Generally felt to be user friendly, and easy to use – as good as others in the electricity & gas industries

•

Users like personal logins, “auto recognition”, ability to have as many logins as they like for individuals in their companies …more detail on specific sites later in the presentation….

Newsletter

• •

Some respondents got it, a few didn’t Most valued it, a few would be happy to not to have it, but don’t mind getting it

“Can be quite generic, so maybe not always that useful for me” “It’s more a vehicle for them (Electralink) to say what they do”

• •

Happy to receive it electronically One new to their role who had yet to receive one spontaneously suggested they would like one – to know more about Electralink – who is there, what does it do, maybe a topline of current WIP

Value For Money

• •

Never raised spontaneously as an issue, not felt to be exercising their organisations greatly All businesses continually look to drive improvement in VFM

“The rental for the gateways has come down over the years” “Traffic charges are very moderate .. reasonable” (re DTS)

•

Generally felt not to be a problem

“It’s in control” “The cost is irrelevant really when you consider it in relation to the turnover” “Overall, I would say costs are very reasonable for long term players .. if you’re a new entrant, I’m not sure I’d say the same”

• •

Lean staffing levels supports perceptions of VFM A supplier suggested they overpay vs. distributors (re DTN), and that this is a disincentive to distributors to ensure a high standard of management of their flows

Moving Into New Areas

Most are happy to see Electralink doing this

“I’m very happy with them … looking at industry problems that face us, solving problems .. they’re in a good place to do that…” “They said we know you have this huge paper trail, can we do something to help that – we very much welcome that. They went round the DNOs … it was very relevant to the business” “I may or may not to pay for it, I have to do a cost benefit analysis like anyone would, but they should be proactive”

The Data Transfer Service

•

The DTS is a robust and long-standing system

“We trust it … in fact, we rely on it … if we have a problem, we don’t look to see if we have a problem with Electralink, … we say ‘we must have a problem’”

• • •

Deal with Electralink only if want a change, or if something’s gone wrong – so only rarely Flows are dealt with well – resends unnecessary Speed of transmission is now very fast – “down from 4 hours to 10 minutes”

“I always thought that the idea of setting up a company just to look after the DTS was a bit of overkill to me” “Everything in our business depends on information sent through the gateway, we can have problems caused by other suppliers, but I can’t remember an outage that has caused us a problem – I can’t fault them” “I’m a very satisfied customer, the less I have to do with it, the happier I am”

EDS

• • •

EDS are well received generally, with Christine Brown & Al (?) mentioned specifically. Not all client organisations had welcomed the change to EDS.

The start was :

“difficult, there was a very ragged edge in the handover”

•

But now the service is :

“Absolutely fantastic”

• •

Their helpdesk is good There is some thought that the process may be more visible to users than is necessary?

•

Compared to XO network & NETA, the service is quite similar, said those who had had experience of this. One was unhappy at the involvement of Logica with NETA – saw them as particularly expensive

DTS Website

Felt this was easy to do, and works well. Not all had used the user guide (hadn’t needed to).

• • •

Used a lot for looking up contacts. Generally well rated. Those who had used the web tools were very pleased with being able to manage their own gateway configuration.

“The web service is easier to use, gives us much more information .. and it’s quicker … one thing about Electralink, they are always looking at ways to improve the service … asking ‘what would you like from this?’”

DTS – Suggested Improvements (1)

➨ ➨

A central (i.e. remote) archive of files sent via the gateway Consideration of even faster file transmission speeds for the future – possibly involving some form of messaging, or real-time over the internet?

➨ ➨

Could invoicing be per business, rather then per licence identity?

Ability to transmit files with the ‘@’ symbol in them (there is awareness that the character set is being revised currently)

➨

The service provider at the ‘connection’ end can cause confusion sometimes – what is the responsibility of BT, Cable & Wireless, Celtec (?) etc? Who is taking ownership of the chain of providers, & managing it?

“It’s simple, we need to know who is coming, to what site, and when ... it doesn’t seem that complicated, but someone needs to manage it”

DTS – Suggested Improvements (2)

➨

More flexibility over the nature of the housing of the gateways – to fit with client’s corporate wishes (they know this may not be simple, to achieve, but feel it is out of step with Electralink in other arenas – feels dictatorial, inflexible)

➨

Would like to be able to go further back than last 6 months on an MPAN search

Thoughts About The Future Of The DTS….

➨

Although perceptions of EDS & the service they bring are positive, there are some questions about the quality of the service as it moves towards the current end date of 2012 used in client businesses?

– will it have become old-fashioned and behind the times, out of step with the technology that might by then be

➨

Maybe in unison with this will come other opportunities – some may want to move beyond half hourly billing.

SPAA - Staffing

•

Helena & Elizabeth do a very good job – respond quickly and appropriately to queries.

•

Are helpful & approachable.

SPAA Website

•

Two felt the website was “not the best”, but another disagreed

“I’m OK with it now, but it wasn’t the easiest when I was new to it” “It’s very intuitive, easy to navigate around”

•

Navigation around the contacts area could be better, and one said the contacts were out of date

•

Can time-out whilst loading pages, and sometimes links don’t open up as they should? (only 1 said this)

•

Completeness of the information on Gemserv website is better – the end-to-end diagrams are cited as a key strength

SPAA – Suggested Improvements (1)

➨

A heads-up email or similar (maybe a note on the front page of SPAA website) with newly published papers, meetings that have taken place, to inform / alert non-attendees

“X group met last week, the papers are now published on the website here – with a link maybe – that would be useful to me” “… it’s not necessary for the expert group, but most people don’t have this benefit”

➨

A separate gas-only monthly summary of current work in progress. Could be an email doc with hyperlinks – suggested by larger and smaller businesses. May be on the website already, but there was an appetite to have it emailed to them.

➨

A topline summary of content of changes for each change pack – to help smaller business prioritize their input / help them to take part to best effect

SPAA – Suggested Improvements (2)

➨

Improve website navigation – comment made in respect of change packs – SPAA & MDD *

“They come out every month, it’s hard to remember which month a change pack is that you want … the names don’t tell you anything”

➨ ➨ ➨ ➨ ➨ ➨

A hyperlink to papers in an email about an upcoming meeting (see * above) A contents page on the website – or sitemap Bring website contacts up to date

“That would be useful, I don’t know if they’ve got one, but I haven’t found it”

A calendar of Electralink (and wider?) events & key dates Links to related useful websites – Elexon, DTI, OfGEM One would like Electralink to provide an update from proceedings / results of other meetings they attend it – this is currently done by the chair (not Electralink), but it would make more sense if Electralink did

➨

Maybe add a little more interpretation to minutes – move them on from “just storytelling”.

SPAA – Possible Future Developments

➨

There have been discussions about migrating parts of the UNC into SPAA, from XOServe to governance under SPAA

➨

So SPAA may gain more yet processes, continuing its growth into IGTs, for instance

DCUSA – Specific Feedback (1)

“Elizabeth & Helena are excellent, … they call you back straight away, explain things, get papers out on time”

•

Staffing was often mentioned as a particular strength

“It’s fine …. I can find everything on it” “Very easy and accessible”

•

Website is crucial to satisfaction with DCUSA, with Electralink as the secretariat

“The website is the best – easy to navigate, looks orderly – easy … it’s easy to get a login per person for anyone who wants one” “If I had any issues with the data, I would go the Elexon route ... a problem with the website, would talk to Electralink”

•

Still relatively new to many they are still getting used to it & feel it is still evolving

“There are huge gulfs still in the data ... between distributors & suppliers, but it’s getting better ... it’s very open and honest” “I use it for DCUSA to pick up contract information … data storage for contacts … to find documents”

DCUSA – Specific Feedback (2)

•

DUoS was often mentioned - an interesting & useful development. Some seemed less aware than others about exactly how this had developed most recently (smaller business)

•

Most found it hard to comment specifically on how DCUSA might develop for the future, because it was still in its early stages, and still to some extent in its development phase in terms of how it is being used

Summary & Conclusions

Summary & Conclusions

• • •

Overall opinion of Electralink and the services it provides is rated highly by customers of the DTS, SPAA and DCUSA alike.

The data indicates that the high standards already set have been maintained, and in the opinion of a minority, even improved this year. This sets Electralink ahead of other industry organisations used by its customers.

There are no major areas in need of attention, but rather some relatively weaker areas to improve on:

–

Demonstrating a better understanding of the business needs of customers.

– –

Continuing to improve perceptions of value for money.

Some specific improvements on website and delivery of information generally.

–

Keeping pace with technology to provide faster, better data transfer.

Summary & Conclusions

•

In addition to these general points there are some specific areas highlighted by each customer group: DTS SPAA

– – – –

Quicker / better fault resolution Investigate decline in opinion of EDS Helpdesk Maintain standards of Electralink Helpdesk Improvements to speed & flexibility of gateway connections

– – –

Website - Make more user friendly / improve navigability - Ensure accurate and up to date content and membership details Efficiency in filing of VAT returns Actively updating on new papers, control changes, meetings etc.

DCUSA

– – – –

Website - Improving navigability in general - Terminology that is easier to understand Efficiency in filing of VAT returns Providing better expertise resource Growing awareness of DUoS

Recommendations For 2008 Research

•

Steps to maximise response:

–

Identify phone numbers / replace unobtainable numbers (especially DCUSA contacts)

–

Invite customers of both DTS and SPAA / DCUSA to complete both interviews

–

Bring timing forward e.g. October - Avoid end of year availability issues

–

Extend fieldwork period

•

Survey coverage

– – –

More website feedback Otherwise maintain for comparability Review for 2008 to measure impact of new action areas / plans

Electralink Customer Survey Presentation 3

rd

December 2007

Appendix

DTS Sample: Like For Like Comparison Of Ratings (1)

2007 2006 2005 Diff 2007 2006 Quality Of Service From Gateway Connection Quality Of Info In The DT Handbook Being Able To Meet Needs Of Current Business Being Able To Cope With Needs Of Future Business DTS Overall Value For Money Provided By The DTS The Quality Of Helpdesk Response You Receive Administering Change Requests Efficiently Managing Fault Situations The Content & Format Of Newsletters The Quality Of Written Communications Overall Usefulness Of Website Overall Quality Of Service Provided 4.12

4.21

4.08

3.95

4.29

3.67

4.14

4.03

4.05

3.53

3.93

3.83

4.17

4.47

3.94

4.06

4.09

4.39

3.81

4.32

4.23

4.28

3.89

3.95

3.73

4.18

4.29

3.90

4.14

4.05

4.24

3.38

4.40

4.22

3.95

3.95

4.05

3.74

4.14

-0.35

0.27

0.02

-0.14

-0.10

-0.14

-0.18

-0.20

-0.23

-0.36

-0.02

0.10

-0.01

DTS Sample: Like For Like Comparison Of Ratings (2)

2007 2006 2005 Diff 2007 2006 The Quality Of Response You Receive From EDS The Way EDS Manages Fault Situations The Quality Of Service Provided By EDS Content Of Monthly Service Reports Quality Of Electralink Billing Info Content Of Daily Gateway Reports Audit Tools ACMT Part Of Web Tools Suite Web Tools Use Guide & Context Sensitive Help 3.81

3.85

3.95

3.92

4.25

3.75

4.25

4.33

4.00

4.10

3.91

4.03

4.07

4.00

3.85

3.93

4.19

3.67

3.79

3.63

3.68

4.17

3.50

3.80

4.50

4.38

3.80

-0.29

-0.06

-0.08

-0.15

0.25

-0.10

0.32

0.14

0.33

Number Of Ratings 22 22 22 Average Rating 4.01

4.05

3.99

-0.04

SPAA Sample: Like For Like Comparison Of Ratings

2007 Efficiency With Which Agrees & Confirms Meetings Quality Of SPAA Meeting Agendas & Minutes Support Of Production & Circulation Of Meeting Papers Efficiency In Managing Changes To SPAA Agreement Efficiency In Performing Change Control Admin Role The Quality Of Response You Receive At SPAA Helpdesk Timeliness Of Papers Posted By Electralink Management Of User Access Privileges The Accuracy Of Content On SPAA Website The Accuracy Of Membership Details On The Website Efficiency In Operating Annual Voting System Handling Of Company Secretarial Matters Quality Of Monthly Management Accounts Ensuring Financial Controls & Insurance Cover Are In Place Efficiency In Filing Monthly VAT Returns 4.40

4.53

4.40

4.23

4.13

4.25

4.33

4.45

4.15

4.00

4.09

4.20

4.33

4.17

3.67

Number Of Ratings Average Rating 15 4.22

2006 4.73

4.80

4.53

4.53

4.60

4.75

4.33

4.55

4.40

4.33

4.43

4.67

4.33

4.67

4.50

15 4.54

Diff 2007 2006 -0.33

-0.27

-0.13

-0.30

-0.47

-0.50

0.00

-0.10

-0.25

-0.33

-0.34

-0.47

0.00

-0.50

-0.83

-0.32

DCUSA: Summary Of Key Ratings

Efficiency With Which Agrees & Confirms Meetings Quality Of SPAA Meeting Agendas & Minutes Support Of Production & Circulation Of Meeting Papers Efficiency In Managing Changes To SPAA Agreement Efficiency In Performing Secretariat Role The Quality Of Response You Receive At DCUSA Helpdesk Timeliness Of Papers Posted By Electralink Management Of User Access Privileges The Accuracy Of Content On SPAA Website The Accuracy Of Membership Details On The Website Efficiency In Operating Annual Voting System Handling Of Company Secretarial Matters Quality Of Monthly Management Accounts Ensuring Financial Controls & Insurance Cover Are In Place Efficiency In Filing Monthly VAT Returns Overall Quality Of Service In Managing DCUSA Management Of Year End Audit Process & AGM Managing Overall Financial Control How Well Support The Finance & Audit Committee Quality Of The Co. Secretarial Reports How Efficiently Support The Panel Assessment of Insurance Number Of Ratings Average Rating 2007 4.31

4.25

4.50

4.33

4.40

4.29

4.29

4.07

4.43

4.50

4.07

4.33

4.14

3.67

3.50

4.31

4.10

4.30

3.88

4.70

3.89

22 4.20