Transcript Simple TV Advertising Monitor

ElectraLink Customer
Survey
DCUSA Presentation
R
18th November 2009
Research Method
Quantitative
Qualitative
71 x CATI Telephone
Interviews:
6 x 45 Minute Face-to-face Depth
Interviews:
27 SPAA
3 SPAA
44 DCUSA
3 DCUSA
R
Combined Approach
Quantitative
Governance Services – Key Headlines (1/2)
•
•
•
Qualitative
Overall, DCUSA users continue to be extremely positive about the service
provided by ElectraLink. This is built on two key areas of strength:
–
Effective management of Finance, auditing & other managerial roles
–
The efficient, professional & prompt service delivered
With a score of 8.3 out of 10. Comparisons with other organisations
remain favourable (Elexon, on 7.3, is the closest).
This Overall rating has increased slightly through improved perceptions of
clear communication & being easy to deal with. There is also some
feedback that greater flexibility has been shown for big consultations.
Value for money perceptions show no change, remaining very positive.
R
•
+
Quantitative
Governance Services – Key Headlines (2/2)
The average taken across 26 different service ratings reveals no change
overall, but this conceals some encouraging improvements in certain
areas:
–
–
•
•
Qualitative
All 5 Helpdesk ratings improved – particularly helpfulness, consistent
service & consistent info & advice.
The only notable (but slight) decline being for the Management of the
Year End Audit Process & AGM.
Most find it hard to suggest any improvements.
There was a general sense that ElectraLink delivers its core role extremely
well, but that more proactive involvement at industry level would be
welcomed; come forward with ideas to make the industry work more
efficiently/ effectively.
R
•
+
Rating Versus Other Organisations
Summary
Overall Satisfaction
Mean Score out of 10
Quantitative
Governance
Services
Mean
Score
Change
vs 2008
ElectraLink
8.32
+0.22
GEMSERV / MRASCO
ELEXON
6.76
7.33
-0.13
+0.63
*JOINT GAS OFFICE
7.13
+0.30
OFGEM
5.80
-0.01
xoserve
5.79
+0.24
Gas Forum
6.25
N/A
iGT UNC
6.50
N/A
R
Base: All Who Use Each Company (Various)
* Asked of OFGAS in 2007
Satisfaction With ElectraLink Service
Summary
Mean Score out of 10
Quantitative
Governance
Services
Mean
Score
Change
vs 2008
Overall Rating
8.32
+0.22
Overall Professionalism
8.59
+0.13
Being Responsive
8.17
+0.16
Being Easy To Deal With
8.58
+0.17
Being Highly Efficient
8.08
+0.17
Communicating Clearly
8.11
+0.24
7.79
+0.10
*Understanding The Service
Support Requirements Of…
Base: Total Sample
(71)
R
* Wording changed in 2009
Satisfaction With ElectraLink Service
DCUSA Sample
1 = Not at all satisfied
10 = Extremely Satisfied
Overall Rating
2009
Change
2009
Change
% Score 8 - 10
vs. 2008
Mean Score
vs. 2008
80
+3
8.41
+0.33
+6
8.68
+0.35
+6
8.14
+0.24
+15
8.52
+0.21
Overall Professionalism
Being Responsive
Quantitative
91
73
Being Easy To Deal With
89
Being Highly Efficient
75
+16
8.11
+0.39
Communicating Clearly
77
+21
8.14
+0.47
+14
8.05
+0.36
*Understanding The
Service Support
Requirements Of ….
68
* Wording changed from ‘Understanding The Business Needs Of …’ in 2009
R
Base: Total DCUSA Sample (44)
Quantitative
Summary Versus Previous Years
Comparisons are made only across those ratings present in all years shown:
Governance
Services
Survey
Year
Base
Average
(Mean Score)
2008
2009
68
71
4.30
4.33
No Of Ratings
Compared
26
26
R
The above is like for like comparison on statements scored as follows:
Rating
Score
Very Good
5
Good
4
Adequate
3
Poor
2
Very Poor
1
Those with no experience or not using services / features rated are excluded from the mean
scores.
Average Rating Of Main Service Areas
Governance Services Sample
Quantitative
No. of
Attributes
Rated
Mean
Score
2009
Attributes
Compared*
Change
Since
2008*
All Ratings
27
4.35
26
+0.03
Finance & Auditing
7
4.61
6
-0.08
Management Of …..
9
4.27
9
+0.09
Helpdesk For SPAA/DCUSA
5
4.51
5
+0.22
SPAA/DCUSA Website
6
4.03
6
-0.08
Service
Area
R
Base: All rating each attribute
* Change compared only on ratings in both 2008 and 2009
Governance Services
Key Service Changes Since 2008
Quantitative
Change in mean score since 2008
Up
Overall helpfulness (of the DCUSA/
SPAA Helpdesk)
Down
+0.32
*How well ElectraLink manage the
year end audit process and AGM
-0.26
Receiving a consistent level of
+0.32
service regardless how get in touch
Getting consistent info & advice
regardless how get in touch
+0.28
Quality of monthly Service
Performance reporting
+0.24
ElectraLink’s efficiency in
operating the annual voting
system
+0.22
Provision of meeting facilities
+0.22
R
*Caution: Low Base Size, Active Board members only (11)
NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20
Quantitative
DCUSA - Key Service Changes Since 2008
Change in mean score since 2008
Up
Down
Receiving a consistent level of
regardless how get in touch
+0.52
Getting consistent info & advice
regardless how get in touch
+0.47
The quality of response
you receive (Helpdesk)
+0.38
Overall Helpfulness
(Helpdesk)
+0.35
ElectraLink’s efficiency in
operating the annual voting
system
+0.20
All < +/- 0.20
R
NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20
Governance Services: Perceived
Improvement Over Past 12 Months
Improved
(A little/ A lot)
ElectraLink Service
Value For Money
Quantitative
Got Worse
(A little/ A lot)
14
1
6
1
Staff
30%
Quicker
20%
Website
20%
Base: All saying services improved
(10)
R
Main reason given for perceived improvement in ElectraLink Service:
What Would Most Like ElectraLink To Improve On
Governance Services Sample
No Improvements Necessary
/ Just Stay The Same
Quantitative
41
24
Improve Website / Non-User
Friendly
Improve Documentation
4
3
More Named Contacts
3
Base: Total SPAA/ DCUSA Sample
Quality and timeliness of issuing
papers and documentation could be
improved.
(71)
There is nothing to improve on. The
service has been first class
We want more alternative contacts in
case our named contact is not
around.
R
Increase Knowledge
Qualitative
Governance Services: Some want ElectraLink to
be more proactive
“ElectraLink should & are playing a part in the Code
Review ... they have the experience in how it works”
•
Most respondents were happy with its level of involvement with the
industry, and proactivity, a couple less so
Proactivity: they want ElectraLink to be proactive in coming forward with
ideas that make the industry work more efficiently / effectively
“Smart metering – (ElectraLink
needs to be involved now, don’t
miss the boat”
•
•
•
“Anything ... any good idea that makes the industry work
better should be put on the table. Would be interested to
hear what they have to say. Smart is the obvious one where
they have an expertise”
There is a lot of valuable expertise and knowledge within ElectraLink, that
could & should be brought to bear on big industry issues
One respondent strongly felt that ElectraLink's service is delivered in a
rather unengaged way - he wanted ElectraLink to be more dynamic and
proactive. He was a more senior manager than some we spoke to, looking
strategically at his business & ElectraLink & similar bodies – also
frustrated with the supplier/distributor power balance in DCUSA
He wanted ElectraLink to bring its expertise and knowledge to bear in the
wider arena
R
•
Qualitative
DCUSA: Suggested Improvements (1)
“The job is admin & change control, and they do that very well, can’t think of how it
could be better”
➨
A heads up for new / smaller players on the big industry issues, to
alert them to potential impacts and issues – perhaps in a
newsletter?
“St Clements ... when the change proposals come out they do an impact on MPRS system ... they
know something is going to have to change .. that kind of thing would be helpful ... And things that
are being discussed in the industry, like the offshore system. Very high level – offshore
transmission, how is it going to affect your company ... I know xxxx’s got a lot of knowledge .. Bullet
point high level these are things you should be considering – especially for small companies,
because we don’t have the breadth of knowledge of the big boys”
➨
Training
“we get a lot of help with training from Elexon .... a training brochure, .... they come to you or you can go there,
and they don’t charge for it ... we get the value that way .... experts, that’s really good
R
I wonder if ElectraLink could do a training guide on DCUSA, for new people coming into the market, and new
people in post. It’s such a stale document the DCUSA, .... how it works, the details ... maybe a brief summary
of each section, outlining what it is, who it matters to. ... I’d go on a webtools course, we use it, but I’m sure we
don’t use it to its full extent, I’d go to that ... And the DTN works, what happens if it doesn’t get through”
Qualitative
DCUSA: Suggested Improvements (2)
➨
➨
Possibly within consultations – introduce a summary précis at the outset
– to highlight key issues, and shortcut need to trawl through loads of
info
An independent chairman (ElectraLink?) in DCUSA Working Group
meetings? But is current practice specified in the “agreement”?
Is now the time to review DCUSA? In how it is structured, and serviced
“DCUSA is very much developing . .. it’s started to add on various schedules, and
we’re thinking should we be developing a product set like MRASCo has a product set
... is DCUSA too big, should we be looking to hive it off into other areas. Needs a
review – should it be one big document, or should it be separated into different
procedures. ... should be considering: ‘... are we doing it in the correct manner,
should we be looking at what Elexon & MRASCo are doing in administering those
products. But it will depend on cost
... they outsource their legal development of DCUSA – is this the best way to do it? ...
not sure if that’s part of ElectraLink’s business model, or if it would be more cost
efficient? ... Benefits would be cost efficiency & speed of turnaround”
R
➨
ElectraLink Customer
Survey
DCUSA Presentation
R
18th November 2009