1

2013 Customer Survey

DTS User GroupPresentation

Prepared for:

14th January 2014

2A two stage research approach, using a mixed mode approach for the first time.

Stage 1: Quantitative15 - 20 minute survey• Sample of ElectraLink stakeholders recruited

from a supplied list.• 43 interviews• A ‘mixed mode’ methodology consisting of both

telephone (13) and online (30) interviews.• Fieldwork took place between 3rd and 25th

September 2013.

Stage 2: Qualitative6 x 45 minute in depth interviews (with 2 further interviews reserved for data services feedback)• Face to face interview conducted at place of work• 6 customers of ElectraLink

• 5 GOMs• 2 CMs

• Fieldwork took place between 15th October & 5th November 2013

33

DTS – Key headlines

• For most the service remains professional & efficient - “ticks over smoothly”. The helpdesks & communication are already seen as near optimal.

• Overall satisfaction scores amongst companies outside the ‘big 6 suppliers’ have declined YOY. This reflects less positive ratings in general amongst these companies rather than increased criticism or dissatisfaction.

- Only 1 person claimed service had become worse, due to an issue with submitting files of a certain size.

• ElectraLink is still seen as striving for improvement, in particular:

- Greater transparency

- Technical improvements – mainly around web tools & reporting tools

- Expertise

- Clear communication

• There is still some desire for enhancements regarding Gateway services & the website, although there has also been evidence of perceived improvement in both of these areas as well.

4

DTS

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

68

87

71

85

7884

67

2730

27

60

4337 35

Overall Rating Value For Money

Base: Total DTS Sample

Phone only

Phone & online

77% Phone

63% Online

38% Phone

33% Online

Although value for money perceptions are unchanged, there has been a decline in the proportion rating ElectraLink 8 or more out of 10 overall.

This decline is mirrored by scores for both ELEXON & Gemserv.

SCORE 8+ (Out of 10)1 = Not At All Satisfied/ 10 = Extremely Satisfied1 = Poor/ 10 = Excellent Value For Money

5

DTS

SCORE 8+ (Out of 10)1 = Poor 10 = Excellent

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

68

87

71

85

7884

67

42

59

41

59 58

65

50

40

48

25

48

4658

48

7

14 16 12

43

24

35

8

2926

19 25

33 40

ElectraLink ELEXON Gemserv OfGem

Base: All dealing with each organisation

Phone only

Phone & online

We have seen a corresponding decline in perceptions of ELEXON & Gemserv amongst ElectraLink’s DTS customers.

6ElectraLink Overall Rating DTS Sample

1 = Poor10 = Excellent

2013 2012 OnlinePhone 2013 2012 2013 2012

7 2 7 8 8 2

26

14

3015

20 2726

11

6784

6377 80 73 66

87

8 to 10

6 to 7

1 to 5

Base: Total Sample(DTS) (43) (57) (30) (13) (5) (11) (38) (46)

Mean Score (out of 10) 8.02 8.51 7.90 8.31 9.00 8.09 7.89 8.61

Total Sample

2013Big 6

suppliersOther

companies

‘Other’ companies have become less positive than a year ago, pulling down overall satisfaction levels. By contrast, Big 6 companies are notably more positive.

7

Reasons for giving overall rating of ElectraLink

Service efficient/ professional

Generally happy with service

Timely/ prompt/ responsive

Positive mentions of staff e.g. helpful

Good/ clear/ appropriate communication

Any positive helpdesk

Knowledgeable/ experts

Negative communication comments

Not enough dealings to comment

26

26

14

12

7

7

5

5

14

The efficient, professional & responsive service are the main qualities supporting higher satisfaction levels. The main negative comments relate to communication.

Base: Total DTS sample (43), Overall rating of 1 to 7 (14)/ Overall rating of 8 to 10 (29)

Total sample Rated 1 to 7 Rated 8 to 10%

0

29

0

0

7

0

0

14

21

38

24

21

17

7

10

7

0

10

8Reasons for level of Overall Satisfaction with ElectraLink – a selection of comments

“At times ElectraLink do not realise that users might have other priorities and as such would prefer to park DTS issues. We have also had some problems in ensuring new contract arrangements are fully understood by both parties and this had given rise to excessive reviews to complete process.”

“I find ElectraLink a little remote from my business as a small supplier compounded because the interface to the DTN is through a third party provider. I think ElectraLink should be visible at industry meetings and engage with industry members more directly. They need to be more proactive and flexible in bringing change to the industry.”

“All questions are answered in a timely and efficient manner and any suggested improvements / changes always receive full consideration and are fully debated.”

“To keep informed: The volume of information that needs to be read and understood keeps increasing and this volume needs to be kept, where possible, to a minimum, but clearly, information is important so should be imparted with clarity.”

9Improvement on ElectraLink services over past 12 months

Base: Total DTS Sample (43/30/19)

Improved a lot

Improved a little

Stayed the same

Got a little worse

Got a lot worse

2

12

84

2

0

Although satisfaction scores are less positive than 2012 only one person interviewed felt that ElectraLink services had got worse in the past year.

“Got worse” “The incident with trying to submit over 5meg. (We have had a number of outages on the gateway in the last 12 months, we could not transmit files over 5meg).”

“Improved” “From my perspective, although the core operational service is perceived to have remained pretty much the same (which is already to a high standard), improvements made to the Webtools e.g. the ability to save audit queries has further enhanced the management of the DTS.”

“Stayed the same” “The management has been excellent now for a number of years providing both a dependable and effective service. Saying it's not improved this year is not a criticism - it's a confirmation of an on-going high level of service.”

10

17

33

17

33

17

22

19

3

11

11

16

24

Service is consistent/ always good

Have not noticed any changes

Transparency

Technical improvements

Gradually improved/ strived to improve

Consistent (no detail)

Any miscellaneous

Have little contact with them/ new to post

Don't know/ not answered

21

16

7

2

5

9

12

14

21

Reasons feel that ElectraLink has improved/ stayed the same/ got worse

The main perceived improvements relate to greater transparency, technical advances and a general willingness to improve.

Base: Total DTS sample (43), Improved (6)/ Stayed the same/ got worse (37)

Total sampleImproved a lot/ a little

Stayed same/ got worse%

11

Overall Rating

Overall Professionalism

Technical Competence

Being Responsive

Providing Valuable Expertise Resource

Being Highly Efficient

Communicating Clearly

Being Easy To Deal With

Understanding Your Business Needs

67

77

77

74

74

74

70

70

58

Satisfaction with ElectraLink service

Base: Total DTS Sample (43)

Change vs. 2012

Change 2012 vs.

2011

-17 +6

-11 -1

-5 N/A

-5 +1

-9 +15

+4 +3

-9 +12

-12 +8

-5 +6

SCORE 8+ (Out of 10)1 = Not At All Satisfied/ 10 = Extremely Satisfied

12

66

74

66

71

74

61

55

68

74

Overall Rating

Overall Professionalism

Being easy to deal with

Being Highly Efficient

Technical competence

Valuable expertise resource

Understanding your business

Communicating Clearly

Being responsive

80

100

100

100

100

100

80

80

80

Satisfaction with ElectraLink service DTS sample

% Change vs. 2012

+7

+18

+18

+55

+27

+36

+16

+7

-11

SCORE 8+ (Out of 10)1 = Not At All Satisfied/ 10 = Extremely Satisfied

‘Big 6’ suppliers*

% Change vs. 2012

-21

-15

-17

-5

-11

-15

-8

-12

-2

Other companies

Base: Total DTS sample (43/ 57), ‘Big 6 suppliers (5/11), Other companies (38/46) *Caution: Low base size

‘Other’ companies are less happy this year with the degree of professionalism, being easy to deal, expertise & communication.

13

Base: All rating each attribute

Average rating of main service areasDTS sample

Service AreaNo. of attributes

ratedMean score

2013No. of attributes

compared*Change vs.2012

All Ratings 42 4.15 40 +0.14

ElectraLink Helpdesk 5 4.53 5 -0.08

HP Helpdesk 3 **2.83 3 -1.72

Gateway Connection 4 4.17 4 -0.23

The DTS Itself 3 4.14 3 -0.25

DTS Web Tools 14 4.32 12 +0.14

ElectraLink Services 4 4.14 4 0.00

ElectraLink Reporting Tools 5 4.31 5 +0.18

ElectraLink Website 4 3.89 4 -0.19

*Change compared only on ratings in both 2012 and 2013 ** Caution: Low Base

The Helpdesk remains the most valued service area, with the DTS itself, Gateway Connection & Web tools all rated highly as well. The web tools &

reporting tools have helped most to support a sense of improvement.

14

DTS – key service delivery changes

Changes of less than +/- 0.25 not shown * Changes based on <10 respondents not shown

Largest declines Change vs 2012

Being Clear And Easy To Login As A User (website)

-0.41

DTS Overall -0.39

Overall capacity of the Gateway Connection

-0.34

Webtools: RESUBMISSION & RECOLLECTION Tools

-0.26

Being Able To Cope With Needs Of Future Business (DTS)

-0.25

Largest improvements Change vs 2012

Webtools: MDD Validation On Sent Files +0.95

Webtools: MDD Validation On Received Files

+0.77

Webtools: Enhanced Validation Reporting +0.30

Reporting Tools: User Performance Reports

+0.29

% RATED POOR:

Ease of use of the website

DTS Overall

Being Able To Cope With Needs Of Future Business (DTS)

Overall Capacity Of The Gateway Connection

Providing A Data Transfer & management Service That Will Keep Pace With Technology

Having Flexibility To Integrate gateway With Existing Systems

Quality Of Service From Gateway Connection

Managing DTS Fault Situations

The Quality Of Written Communications

Being Proactive In Suggesting Improvements

NO LONGER POOR:

Being kept up to date (website)

Using terminology that is easy to understand

8

0

0

0

2

4

0

2

2

2

8

4

6

5

5

5

5

5

2

2

2

2

0

0

2013 2012

Key changes in mean scores Main ‘eyesores’

NB: 1 of the 2 rating the HP Helpdesk also rated all 3 attributes as ‘poor’ in 2013.

15

Gateway connections

• No visibility of who else is using & how much

• Higher volume limits would help – raised with ElectraLink but not heard anything back yet

“The technology refresh last year was managed brilliantly.”

RUG users

• One example, but resolved satisfactorilyFile size

• Existing users say it works well for now

• Some appetite for XML or other enhanced formats from colleagues

• Uncertainty about requirements for Smart

Flat file formats

• Not calling for it yet

• Potentially of value to ‘senior’ influencers (marketing needs)

Real-time data transfer

• InvaluableDaily gateway

report

16

Introduction of new Gateway options

Awareness of the proposal is still growing. Most have no concerns, with cost the only specific issue mentioned by more than 1 in 10.

How much already know:

Know a lot 9%

Know something 47%

Not aware 44%

Base: DTS sample (43)

How found out about proposal:

ElectraLink consultation

DTS Operations Report

User Group

Other

63

21

8

8

Base: Those aware (24)

Concerns about proposal:

None 75%

Cost 17%

Other 8%

Base: Those aware (24)

From a risk perspective, disruption to service, however I have every confidence that the changes would be managed in a professional manner with minimal disruption as was proved during the Hardware upgrade project.

The cost & complexity of the proposal.

17

Social media – evolution, not revolution

Digital generation

Mainstream (dinosaurs)

ElectraLink is not a consumer brand. We need to acknowledge where our customers are and how social media meets the business needs they have.

Some (not all) are here in terms of their personal use.

Most are here in terms of their perceived need within their business lives (even our younger respondents).

“The worst thing ElectraLink could do is to say we’re going to migrate all our communication through Yahoo or Facebook… If they want to duplicate so there’s 3 routes to communication that’s fine. But don’t make me use it.”

18

What are the boundaries?

Recognising that social media is only likely to become more relevant, we should start small, simple & focused, but not move quicker than users can or want to.

What’s appropriate? What’s not?

• For certain notifications• Company profiles

• Business credible/ acceptable• Updates/ news• Company profiles• Networking/ connections

• For friends/ consumers

Avoid:• Doing it for the sake of it• Letting it replace essential

communication channels that work efficiently already

• Alerts• Not strictly social media• But keeps in tune with mobile

digital lifestyles

Bad example:• “The huddle!• Over-complicates

communication, forced, gets in the way of conventional comms channels.NB: No-one really sited good examples

because they simply don’t yet make much use of social media!

1919

DTS – Conclusions & action areas

Across both stages of research a number of action areas or considerations for future development were highlighted. These were largely expressed as ‘fine tuning’ rather than serious problems:

Digital communication

• Can & should the website be re-developed to become a more effective communication tool?

• Potentially including the gradual introduction of optional social media channels e.g. LinkedIn/ Twitter.

Web tools

• Continued desire to see flow content within the Audit tool.

• Expectations of a tool to help with Smart UPRNs.

• Web tools workshops for newcomers, refreshing, & for updates/ enhancements.

Gateways• Appetite for higher volume limits & greater visibility of who

is using at any one time amongst smaller users.

• Continue to roll out new Gateway options.

Communication• Strive to keep minimalist, without losing ability to access

essential detail easily when it is needed.

20

Any questions?

21

Tel: +44 (0) 1926 424 518

Researchcraft Ltd.

62 Brandon Parade

Holly Walk

Leamington Spa

Warwickshire

CV32 4JE

United Kingdom

www.researchcraft.com

Jon Wilkins

Director

jon.wilkins@researchcraft.com