Re: REQUEST: Measuring service quality in social service

[Bob Adsett <bob.adsett@lineone.net>]

On 08/03/2001 22:03, "Thomas, Doug" <THOMASD@gt-corp.com> wrote:
Doug

> I'm not sure that I would support some of the assertions that you make in
> your post.


I have commented below, sorry some of them go on a bit

bob

>> 
>> Well, I will take a stab at it, since I come from the customer-supplier
>> community.
>> 
>> I cannot imagine that measuring customer service in a non-profit organization
>> would be that different from measuring it anywhere else.
 
I would agree, a customer is a customer whoever provides the service.

>> After all, the organization exists to support or serve the community to which
>> it is oriented.  That community would be the group from which complaints or
>> compliments come.
>> 
>> A good place to start would be any or all of the following:

I would advise care when we start to list what should be measured, it is not
to rule out the list that you made, but to measure those things that are of
importance to your customers (both internally and externally). The customer
is the only true evaluator who can determine if you are delivering a quality
service. 
To steal a quote loosely from (I believe it was ) M Hart "we are what we
measure, it's about time we started to measure what we want to be".

Therefore, start with 'study' and listen to the feedback, what does
this tell you about what are the important issues - these are where you need
to start.

>> 1. Average time to answer a ringing phone.

I have a real problem with this one, especially with automated switchboards.
I object strongly to having the phone 'answered' in 20 seconds only to be
told (at my expense) that my enquiry will be dealt with went the next
operator becomes free. I personally would prefer to have three minutes of
ringing rather than the annoyance of listening to a recording apologising
for the companies lack of adequate staffing and systems.

>> 2. Average time spent on hold.

What does this actually tell you? Does it matter in the eyes of the
customer?

>> 3. Average time to respond, initially, to a written inquiry after receipt.
>> (All forms of incoming communication must be analyzed.)

"Thank you for your enquiry, it is being passed to our XXX Department and
will be dealt with by Ms. YYY. "

If this was received by return of post - what would be the customers
perception? - maybe similar to point 1 above. Are there more useful measures
that we could use here? Using targets will classically result in the
development of cynical approaches that will deliver the outputs, but at what
cost to the organisation (and the customer)?

To be meaningful, valuable and useful measurements need to be imbedded
within a understanding of the system. If this is lacking then all the best
meaning measures in the world will not be able to improve the actual quality
of the service delivered. To quote Goldratt "Tell me how you will measure
me, and I will tell you how I will behave". If people's performance in a
system is  measured, it will not take long before they find a way to account
for the targets that they will be measured against. Staff will focus on
those issues that are of importance to management - namely meeting targets
or specifications and not working upon the processes of the system to
deliver transformational change through continuous improvement.

>> 
>> 4. Average time to resolve issues or concerns of the served community.  How
>> long does the process take to close, i.e. completely closing any one concern
>> of a member or group for a single issue?

This is a tough one, I live in an area where the development of a new trunk
road through my town is still under debate after 30 years!!! Should the
organisation measure those activities it has some chance of controlling. In
the UK the government issue Audit Commission targets for local authority
performance. One of these is the number of street lights that are out in the
district. Now although the council might be responsible for the quality of
the bulbs it purchases for the lights, it is a little unfair to be held
accountable for the number of youths taking pot-shots at the bulbs with air
rifles. If however, the measure was how quickly the authority repaired a
light following a report of it not working ...... I think you will get the
drift.

>> 5. Number of repeat communications due to non-response or slow response to
>> initial inquiries?
 
These need to be explored with the use of the 5 Whys - seek to understand
the cause and do not become preoccupied with the effect. Why is there a
repeat communication? Stratify the data, look for patterns - Pareto
analysis, seek to discover the common causes of the poor performance.

>> 6. Relative thickness of complimentary communications on the service provided
>> v.s. the file of complaints?

We have a saying in the UK "Get a life" :0)
I would not expect complements to have a relationship with complaints and I
cannot see how it can be a meaningful comparator. The motivation that drives
us to complain is far more well defined that our propensity to complement
(in the UK anyway).  I could ask you when was the last time you wrote a
letter to a colleague thanking them for the service that they delivered to
you? (and before you throw the question back to me, coincidentally the
answer is yesterday, (but don't ask when it happened before that!!) but
measuring how thick a stack of recycled electrons would be ...... I think we
are into angels dancing on the head of a pin!) :0)

This is clearly in the realms of the most important things are unknown and
unknowable. To suggest this one is to compare apples with potatoes.

>> 7. Actual responses to organization-initiated requests for comment, for
>> example a service survey.
>> 
How do you know that the method of survey given to your customers was in a
format that they were happy using, did they understand the context of why
they are being asked the questions? do they see/appreciate that the survey
is part of an improvement process? I have had considerable debates on this
very issue as part of the Best Value programme in the UK. Oftern very well
meaning but sadly used to any effect in actually forming part of an
improvement process. Too often it is more likely to increase dissatisfaction
and consultation fatigue.