Customer satisfaction made simple
Should an auditor expect to see a measurement system for customer satisfaction? And should this measurement system include metrics relating to customer perceptions? Derek Gravestock tackles these questions about customer satisfaction by examining the typical problems training organization Batalas Ltd has experienced.
Customer focus and customer satisfaction is one of the key requirements of ISO 9001, but clauses which include phrases like: 'customer satisfaction is one of the key measures of the QMS' and 'monitoring of customer perceptions' can cause a very real dilemma for the auditor. So how should it be tackled?
Are surveys necessary?
Surveys like postal questionnaires and telephone research are perfectly valid for some organizations, particularly those with large customer bases. However, a typical ISO 9001-registered organization has few employees and only a relatively small number of customers, the majority of whom place regular or repeat orders. In these circumstances, questionnaires can be seen as impersonal, resulting in poor response rates and valuable customers feeling alienated.
Unfortunately, some organizations use ISO 9001 as an excuse when customers and suppliers question why they have been asked to provide questionnaire-based information. So what should an auditor expect to see when examining an organization's 'monitoring of customer satisfaction'? There should be four elements in place.
1. A method of gathering customer perceptions
This could include postal questionnaires, telephone surveys or internet surveys. Some service-based organizations ask customers to fill out a 'happy sheet' upon completion.
Face-to-face reviews with individual customers or focus groups with a selection of customers are also an acceptable means of gathering customer feedback. Some larger organizations use a combination of methods to compile customer feedback.
2. Procedure for analyzing the data
The analysis should include both quantitative (ie providing a score against a scale) and qualitative feedback. The auditor should expect to see evidence that the data has been collated and analyzed, and this is likely to be in the form of tables and/or graphs.
3. Improvement planning based upon the analysis of data
An auditor would expect to see some prioritization of improvement planning, probably by identifying the worst measures either because they have the lowest scores or because they demonstrate a decline in performance. The root cause of the issue or problem given by customers should be identified. Quantitative data alone can make root cause identification very difficult. The auditor should ask how the organization moved from the data to an improvement suggestion, and request a full explanation of the problem-solving tools and techniques employed.
4. Evidence that improvement has been achieved
Some form of trend analysis will demonstrate that improvements in customer satisfaction have been achieved. The auditor should view this evidence with caution if a systematic approach, similar to that described above, has not been employed.
Should customer feedback be defined as a process? The decision relating to the definition of processes is entirely up to each organization, providing that it can demonstrate that customer satisfaction is addressed within the QMS. However, there can be advantages in defining customer feedback as a process which will be discussed later.
Is it the auditor's job to comment upon the effectiveness of customer feedback mechanisms, or possibly suggest improvements? If customer feedback and satisfaction is defined as a process then an auditor will be able to assess whether the process is effective. Performance measures and targets should have been defined and current performance monitored against these. It should be noted, however, that the measures and targets might only measure the effectiveness of the customer feedback process and not the actual level of customer satisfaction.
Commenting upon opportunities for improvement is an extremely difficult task for the auditor. A good auditor will ask questions that will enable the auditees to see for themselves that the current methods have potential for improvement.
How to be good
What would a good auditee response be?
- 'We conduct frequent account reviews with all major customers. Part of the review asks customers what they like about the products and service we provide, and what they would like to see improved. This information is used to find out what customers value - and to praise some of our staff - and where we need to make improvements. The senior management team reviews the output from account reviews on a tri-monthly basis. The aim is to identify trends which need to be addressed on a company-wide basis. In reality most improvements are specific to individual customers' feedback. A team-based approach is used to identify and implement improvements.'
- 'We conduct an annual postal survey of our 800 customers, with a response rate of around 20 per cent. We analyze this feedback which is then presented to senior management, which then agrees on priorities for improvement for the coming year. A team is formed for each priority area and it reviews customer feedback, both quantitative and qualitative, in order to identify improvements to be made. Team leaders discuss issues and potential solutions with customers before developing an implementation plan which is sanctioned by senior managers.'
Where it goes wrong
What would a poor response be?
- 'Our customer satisfaction is based upon the number of customer complaints received. If the complaint is justified we implement corrective action to prevent the problem from happening again. We have seen a reduction in the number of justified customer complaints over the last two years.'
Unacceptable responses include:
- 'We measure our delivery performance internally as this gives us an accurate measure of whether we have met the specified delivery date.'
- 'Our final inspection procedure ensures that the product we despatch is always up to specification and therefore we are confident that our customer will be satisfied with our product.'
About the author
Derek Gravestock is a director
of Batalas Ltd, which delivers training and implementation support
in 12 countries. Derek has designed CRM systems for companies who
operate in predominately business-to-business environments. These
include defence research and procurement, car distribution, telecommunications
and financial services.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |