Montgomery County Customer Satisfaction Survey For .
Montgomery County Customer SatisfactionSurvey for Internal Customers2008CountyStat OfficeCountyStat
CountyStat Principles Require Data Driven PerformancePromote Strategic GovernanceIncrease Government TransparencyFoster a Culture of AccountabilityCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey212/19/2008
Agenda Introduction Results for each survey question Department analysis–––––––County AttorneyFinanceGeneral ServicesHuman ResourcesManagement and BudgetPublic InformationTechnology Services Wrap upCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey312/19/2008
Introduction: Purpose In 2007, the first Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey was deliveredas part of the County Executive’s priority of a “Responsive andAccountable County Government.” The survey was designed to provide insight into how well the needsof internal County government customers were being met by theCounty government departments and programs designed to servethem.– Several departments have incorporated the results of the internal survey intotheir performance plans The internal survey will be issued annually.– The original twelve questions are unchanged to allow year-to-year comparisons– One-time additional questions have been added at the end of the survey togather further information about other departmentsCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey412/19/2008
Introduction: Survey Methodology The Executive Office identified twelve internal service areas that focusexclusively or to a large degree on serving County government customers. A survey was developed consisting of twelve questions designed to provideratings of three overarching categories: overall satisfaction, Departmentpersonnel, and Department processes The Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey was delivered to 350 members ofthe County management team.–326 surveys were returned resulting in a response rate of 96% A four point scale was used and an optional “not applicable” was included forthose who did not have enough experience with a department or issue toanswer the question. Respondents were also given an opportunity to expand upon their ratings forall twelve departments and programs in an open response section provided atthe end of the survey.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey512/19/2008
Internal Survey .7.8.Quality of Service: Rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of servicereceived by the following Departments.Level of Effort: Rate the level of effort your Department must invest tosuccessfully utilize the Department's service(s).Success Rate: Rate how often the following Departments successfully meetthe needs and requirements of your Department.Communication: Rate how often Department staff were able to explain andanswer questions to your satisfaction.Professional Knowledge: Rate how often you were satisfied with theprofessional knowledge exhibited by the Department staff.Availability: Rate how often your first attempt to reach Department staff wassuccessful.Responsiveness: Rate how often you were satisfied with the responsivenessof the Department staff.Innovation & Initiative: Rate how often Department staff showed innovationand initiative in addressing your needs and requirements.9.ProcessratingsProcess: Rate your overall satisfaction with the process(es) the Departmentuses to address your needs or requirements.10. Guidance & Assistance: Rate your satisfaction with the guidance andassistance provided for the process(es).11. Timeliness: Rate your satisfaction with the timeliness of the process(es) tosatisfy your needs and requirements.12. Information: Rate your satisfaction with the amount of information provided toyou about the status of your request.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey612/19/2008
Quantitative Rating Scales Explained The quantitative data presented on the following slides is organizedinto three distinct sections: Overall ratings, Personnel ratings, andProcess ratings.– Data is organized in a format that provides all department and program scoresfor each question together.– The question being analyzed is presented in the exact form it was asked in thesurvey. Averages were derived by giving each of the four possible responsesa corresponding numeric value.– The most negative response was given a value of 1, the most positiveresponse a value of 4.– “Not applicable” responses were given a value of zero and were not includedwhen calculating average ratings.– Responses to each question for each service area were summed and thendivided by the number of respondents to that question resulting in an averagescore that falls somewhere between 1 and 4.– The vertical axis on all graphs is positioned at 2007’s average value.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey712/19/2008
Summary of Findings All twelve Departments and service areas showedimprovement in their overall level of customer satisfaction On average, satisfaction ratings improved by 0.12––––Highest Department/division increase was 0.24Lowest Department/division increase was 0.02Survey question with the highest increase: Level of Effort, up 0.22Survey question with the lowest increase: Availability, up 0.07 For all Departments but one, Innovation and Initiative receivedthe lowest rating.– This area received consistently lower ratings in the 2007 survey aswell.– 2008 ratings for Innovation and Initiative were higher than 2007 ratingsby 0.14CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey812/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Overall Ratings – Quality of Service2.95OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Quality of Service: Rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of servicereceived by the following Departments.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings9CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Overall Ratings – Level of Effort2.66OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesConsiderableeffort1A fair amount2 of effort2007Some3effortLittle 4effort2008Level of Effort: Rate the level of effort your Department must invest tosuccessfully utilize the Department's service(s).Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings10CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Overall Ratings – Success Rate2.88OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesRarely1Some of2the time2007Most of 3the timeAll of the4 time2008Success Rate: Rate how often the following Departments successfully meetthe needs and requirements of your Department.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings11CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Personnel Ratings – Communication2.89OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesRarely1Some of2the time2007Most of 3the timeAll of the4 time2008Communication: Rate how often Department staff were able to explain andanswer questions to your satisfaction.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings12CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Personnel Ratings – Professional Knowledge2.99OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesRarely1Some of2the time2007Most of 3the timeAll of the4 time2008Professional Knowledge: Rate how often you were satisfied with theprofessional knowledge exhibited by the Department staff.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings13CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Personnel Ratings – Availability2.8OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesRarely1Some of2the time2007Most of 3the timeAll of the4 time2008Availability: Rate how often your first attempt to reach Department staff wassuccessful.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings14CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Personnel Ratings – Responsiveness2.89OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesRarely1Some of2the time2007Most of 3the timeAll of the4 time2008Responsiveness: Rate how often you were satisfied with the responsivenessof the Department staff.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings15CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Personnel Ratings – Innovation and Initiative2.41OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesRarely1Some of2the time2007Most of 3the timeAll of the4 time2008Innovation & Initiative: Rate how often Department staff showed innovationand initiative in addressing your needs and requirements.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings16CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Process Ratings – Process2.87OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Process: Rate your overall satisfaction with the process(es) the Departmentuses to address your needs or requirements.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings17CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Process Ratings – Guidance and Assistance2.91OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Guidance and Assistance: Rate your satisfaction with the guidance andassistance provided for the process(es).Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings18CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Process Ratings – Timeliness2.85OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Timeliness: Rate your satisfaction with the timeliness of the process(es) tosatisfy your needs and requirements.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings19CountyStat12/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Process Ratings – Information2.9OverallCounty AttorneyFinanceDGS-Bldg ServicesDGS-Capital Dev NeedsDGS-Fleet ServicesDGS-Leased Space NeedsDGS-Print/Mail/ArchivesDGS-ProcurementHuman ResourcesManagement & BudgetPublic InformationTechnology ServicesVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Information: Rate your satisfaction with the amount of information provided toyou about the status of your request.Departments showing largestimprovements from 2007 ratings2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction SurveyDepartments showing declinesfrom 2007 ratings20CountyStat12/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis In addition to the twelve rating questions, all respondents were giventhe opportunity to provide qualitative feedback in an open responsearea on every department.While not all respondents offered feedback, many did. A briefanalysis of this feedback is provided on the following slides. Thedata is organized as follows:– All feedback left for an individual department was categorized into majorthemes. A single response might fit several themes.– The number of themes varied widely depending on the department.– For all departments a category called “Positive feedback” was created. Anypositive remark about the department or about particular personnel was placedhere.– For all departments a category called “Other” was created. This categoryincludes all responses that did not otherwise fit neatly with the other responsesreceived for that department.– For all departments a category called “None or no contact” was created. Incases where an individual indicated either that they had no remarks or that theyhad not had contact with the department, the response was place here.– Note that the themes identified here are subjective. All text comments(redacted if necessary) were provided to departments for their own analysis.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2112/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis: Department Ratings The quantitative data presented on the following slides is organizedin a format that provides all service area scores for each questiontogether.– The overall average score for the service area across all twelve questions isshown first followed by average scores for each of the twelve questions.– The twelve questions are listed by their general topic and grouped by category:overall ratings, personnel ratings, or process ratings. The exact wording ofeach question is contained on slide 6. The averages for all questions areshown against a satisfaction scale. Averages were derived by giving each of the four possible responsesa corresponding numeric value.– The most negative response was given a value of 1, the most positiveresponse a value of 4.– Responses to each question for each department were summed and thendivided by the number of respondents to that question resulting in an averagescore that falls somewhere between 1 and 4.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2212/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: County Attorney# ofResponses% of Lack ThemeNeeds morestaff24%Other59%None orNo contact35%All textresponses36 20.7% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007– Slow responses– Inconsistent responses– Needing more staff New themes in 2008– Lack of creativity and innovation Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Don’t understand DepartmentsCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2312/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: County Attorney3.1OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increases were in Q2:Level of Effort and Q11:Timeliness.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2412/19/2008
Discussion: County Attorney1.What changes did you implement to positively impact your County employeecustomer service?––2.Where did you have the most success?–3.Management involvement in customer serviceWhich of these best practices do you think could be adopted by otherDepartments to improve their performance?–4.Increased involvement by all management levels in customer serviceIncreased emphasis on one-to-one lawyer/client relationships – every agency viewed ashaving a single go-to lawyer, in addition to all others that provide serviceSingle and known point of contact for all services received from internal departmentWhere will you focus your attention over the next year?–Further developing one-to-one relationship between lawyer and clientCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2512/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: Finance# ofResponses% of Processsuggestions311%Lack ofcoordination27%Other415%ThemeNone orNo contact5All textresponses2719% 10.7% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007– Process suggestions New themes in 2008– Slow response– Lack of coordination Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Understaffed– Arrogance or unfriendliness– Poor communicationCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2612/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: Finance2.99OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increase was in Q10:Guidance and Assistance.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2712/19/2008
Discussion: Finance1. What changes did you implement to positively impact your County employeecustomer service?–––––Worked towards filling positionsStressed customer service in meetings, communication, issue discussions and resolutionsEstablished recognition and “Kudos” processAcknowledged customer service accomplishmentsSupported staff in their efforts to provide good customer service2. Where did you have the most success?–Direct service as reflected in multiple results3. Which of these best practices do you think could be adopted by otherDepartments to improve their performance?––Kudos processDialogue and taking the time to explain (we will utilize this strategy to improve ratings forInnovation & Initiative)4. Where will you focus your attention over the next year?–––Improved responsivenessInnovation and InitiativeBridges with other departments, especially ProcurementCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2812/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: DGS – Building Services# ofResponses% of TextResponsesPositivefeedback926%Slow response926%Limitedresources721%Poor customerservice618%Needs processimprovements412%Other618%None orNo contact515%All textresponses34Theme 13.3% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007–––– Slow responseLimited resourcesPoor customer serviceNeeds process improvementsNew themes in 2008– none Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Understaffed or overworkedCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey2912/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: DGS - Building Services2.67OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increases were in Q1:Quality of Service and Q2:Level of Effort.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3012/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: DGS – Capital Development# ofResponses% of 317%Morecooperationwith Depts.211%Slow response/long process211%ThemeImprove serviceto customer211%Other422%None orNo contact528%All textresponses18 12.9% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007– More cooperation with Depts.– Slow response / long process– Improve customer service New themes in 2008– Improve management Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Too expensiveCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3112/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: DGS – Capital Development Needs2.69OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increase was in Q2:Level of Effort. This group saw the largest overallincrease in ratings over last year.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3212/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: DGS – Fleet Services # ofResponses% of chedulingcomments211%Other316% None orNo contact421% All textresponses19Theme 11.0% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007– Slow responseNew themes in 2008– Scheduling commentsThemes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– noneCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3312/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: DGS – Fleet Services2.88OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increase was in Q2:Level of Effort.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3412/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: DGS – Leased Space Needs# ofResponses% of ack ofcreativity213%Lack ofresults213%Other16%ThemeNone orNo contact6All textresponses1638% 10.8% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007– Slow response New themes in 2008– Lack of creativity– Lack of results Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Hard to find right person– Don’t know what they doCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3512/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: DGS – Leased Space Needs2.66OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increase was in Q2:Level of Effort.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3612/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: DGS – Print/Mail/Archives# ofResponses% of TextResponses1456%Slow responseor process toolong416%Poor customerservice312%Other3ThemePositivefeedbackNone orNo contact3All textresponses25 – Slow response or process to long New themes in 2008– Poor customer service12%12%9.9% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007 Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Orders forgotten or no responseCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3712/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: DGS – Print / Mail / Archives3.05OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increase was in Q2:Level of Effort.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3812/19/2008
Qualitative Data Analysis: DGS – Procurement# ofResponses% of TextResponsesPositivefeedback1116%Process isslow orcomplex3247%Poor eme – Process is slow or complex– Understaffed or overworked– Poor customer service Lack ofconsistency57%Other710%None orNo contact46%All textresponses6826.8% of those who provided anumeric rating for this servicearea also provided qualitativefeedback.Themes in 2008 that were alsoseen in 2007New themes in 2008– Lack of consistency Themes from 2007 that werenot major themes in 2008– Need assistance or helpunderstandingCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey3912/19/2008
Quantitative Data Analysis:Department Ratings: DGS – Procurement2.4OverallOverall ratingQ1: Quality of serviceQ2: Level of effortQ3: Success ratePersonnelQ4: CommunicationQ5: Professional knowledgeQ6: AvailabilityQ7: ResponsivenessQ8: Innovation & InitiativeProcessQ9: ProcessQ10: Guidance & AssistanceQ11: TimelinessQ12: InformationVery dissatisfied1Dissatisfied2Satisfied32007Very satisfied42008Largest increase was in Q2:Level of Effort. Q7:Responsiveness showed adecline from last year.CountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey4012/19/2008
Discussion: Department of General Services1. What changes did you implement to positively impact yourCounty employee customer service? Increased communications – process understanding, managingexpectationsCustomer service orientation––––––Building Design & Construction: team structure with Customer assignmentsOffice of Real Estate: document tracking allows for improved responsivenessCentral Duplicating: scanning printing requisitions results in timely response tocustomer inquiriesFacilities Management: increased/improved customer contact, improvedcommunication with customers on schedule and project statusProcurement: fuller staff compliment allowed for more timely response,advanced agreement on solicitation schedule, satisfaction survey uponcompletionFleet Management – streamlined processes, consolidation of Police cruiserpreparation by assuming responsibility for inventory and delivery commitmentsCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey4112/19/2008
Discussion: Department of General Services2. Where did you have the most success? Greatest improvement came from units deeply imbedded with taskfocus–– We did a better job of letting the customers know they wereimportant to us and are working to provide them service in a realistictime frame and manner.– Focus on customer service and improved communications were most evidentin Real Estate/Leasing, Building Design and Construction (CapitalDevelopment), and Fleet Management.Fleet and Building Design and Construction showed marked improvement inprocessReorganized Building Design and Construction resulted in improved availabilityAdopting the philosophy that understanding and listening to ourcustomer’s needs is pivotal to our mission.–Real Estate/Leasing, Building Design and Construction and Fleet Managementall showed marked improvement in timeliness, assistance and informationprovided to customersCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey4212/19/2008
Discussion: Department of General Services3. Which of these best practices do you think could be adoptedby other Departments to improve their performance? The use of a single point-of-contact has proved useful.–– Set a goal to exceed customers’ expectations rather than create anexpectation of failure– Providing a customer-centric approach has improved responsiveness, clarityand consistency of informationDepartments have a primary contact with back-upImproved scheduling and goal-setting create realistic expectationsImplement practices that place improvement on the individual level.––Users have to go through too many steps and speak to too many peoplebefore their needs are addressed. This is usually because we don’t use theservices we provide.Encouraging every employee to look for opportunity to streamline processes,make services more accessible and create realistic expectations, promotesownership, responsibility and accountability while ensuring the change issustainableCountyStat2008 Internal CustomerSatisfaction Survey4312/19/2008
Discussion: Department of General Services4. Where will you focus your attention over the next year? Procurement process improvement–––– Cultural change–– Identify duplicative steps and work with process partners (County Attorney, RiskManagement) to streamline review, turn-around and timeliness.Increased training of new staff to improve knowledge and responsivenessExpanded use of template and document management systems that reduce process time,provide accountability, and improve communicationContract Administrato
2008 Internal Customer 8 Satisfaction Survey 12/19/2008 Summary of Findings All twelve Departments and service areas showed improvement in their overall level of customer satisfaction On average, satisfaction ratings improved by 0.12 –Highest Department/division increase was 0.24 –Lowest Department/division increase was 0.02
Customer satisfaction has identified as an important influencer on customer loyalty. Further, customer trust impacted by customer satisfaction which proved that customer satisfaction is an antecedent of customer trust. Moreover, an indirect relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty through customer trust was observed.
of satisfaction and quality, i.e. if one perceives quality and customer satisfaction as a process (cf. Deming, 1982). Consequently, technical and moral quality affect customer satisfaction, while the manufacturer can determine the level of customer satisfaction and respond via product innovations to ensure even greater customer satisfaction. By .
2009 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey 7 Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs at Ohio University How the Survey Was Conducted Survey Instrument The 2009 survey was the same as the 2008 Ohio E-Check Customer Satisfaction Survey. For 2008, several changes were made to the survey instrument. These changes included;
Oct 01, 2013 · Claudia Simmons, Montgomery County Public Schools Felicia Turner, Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services Carol Walsh, Montgomery County Collaboration Council for Children, Youth, and Families, Inc. Vacant, Maryland Municipal League Staff Mary Gies, Program Manager, Early Childhood Services, Montgomery County
The Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey was delivered to 368 members of the County management team. CountyStat 2011 Internal Customer 5 Satisfaction Survey 01/06/2012 - 256 surveys were returned, with a response rate of 69% - This is up from 2010 and 2009 where the response rates were 59% and 61%
strategies and customer satisfaction. ii. Ho 3b - There is no statistical significant relationship between honest complaint resolution strategies and customer satisfaction. LITERATURE REVIEW Concept of Customer Satisfaction Customer satisfaction refers to a person's satisfaction with a product, a service, or a supplier (Terpstra
Louisville Barbour County Intermediate School Marion Judson College Chapel Mobile . Montgomery Cleveland Avenue YMCA Montgomery Dalraida Elementary Montgomery E. L. Lowder Library Montgomery E.D. Nixon Elementary Montgomery Garrett Elementary Montgomery Halcyon Elementary . Shepherdsville Bullit
The Korean language is relatively homogeneous and the dialects from different areas can be mutually intelligible to a great extent. Nevertheless, the dialects of Korean exhibit considerable variety in phonology, morphology, and vocabulary. They are finely differentiated into a number of areas based on regional differences. There is no obvious correlation between the modern dialects and the .
