technology business research, inc....customer satisfaction technology business research, inc....

TBRT EC H N O LO G Y B U S I N ES S R ES EAR C H , I N C .

Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study –

First Calendar Quarter 2010

Dell Services 1 80.6 +4 2 79.7 0 1 81.8 +5

IBM Global/Lenovo Services 2 79.9 +4 2 79.9 +2 2 80.2 +3Internal Support Organizations 2 79.6 +1 1 80.2 +3 2 79.5 +1HP Services 3 77.7 -5 2 79.4 -1 3 76.4 -7

OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

1Q10 TBR SCORE

1Q10 Strength/

Weakness Points

Publication Date: June 16, 2010Author: Julie Perron

1Q10 Strength/

Weakness Points

1Q10 TBR RANK

1Q10 TBR SCORE

1Q10 Strength/

Weakness PointsSUPPORT PROVIDER

1Q10 TBR RANK

1Q10 WSI SCORE

1Q10 TBR RANK

IBM Market Intelligence

© 2010 Technology Business Research, Inc.2

First Calendar Quarter 2010Service & Support Customer Satisfaction

TBRTechnology Business Research, Inc.

Table of Contents1Q10 COMPETITIVE PLACEMENT SUMMARY & INSIGHTS 3Foreword 41Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance 6The Score in 1Q10 12Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation 18Server Support – Segment Analysis 23Desktop/Notebook Support – Segment Analysis 27Services Differentiation 31Warranty Coverage Influences 32Critical Metrics Summary 36TBR’s Watch List 39Historical Record 47

APPENDICESAppendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables 49Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores 4Q06 Through 1Q10 83Appendix C: Historical Strength/Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes 86Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction Attributes 88Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs 99Appendix F: Categorical Responses 110Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Desktop/Notebook Support by Support Provider 120Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology 125Appendix I: Analytical Procedures 131Appendix J: Survey Instrument 139

This report is based on information made available to the public by the vendor and other public sources. No representation is made that this information is accurate or complete. Technology Business Research will not be held liable or responsible for any decisions that are made based on this information. This report is not a recommendation to purchase securities. This report is copyright protected and supplied for the sole use of the recipient. Contact Technology Business Research, Inc. for permission to reproduce: 11 Merrill Drive, Hampton, NH 03842, P: 603.929.1166, F:603.926.9801, Web: www.tbri.com





1Q10 Competitive Placement

Summary & Insights




TBRTechnology Business Research, Inc. Foreword

TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study is based on the views of those who manage in-house support services

and/or work with OEM-provided support Companies interviewed for TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study are required to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers, desktops and notebooks) installed. In contrast, TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 PCs for most covered brands. This makes the Service & Support study a tool best-suited for evaluating the experiences of midsized corporations, whereas the product-related studies extend to the experiences of enterprise customers. The reason for the differing criteria is that larger organizations tend to rely more fully (sometimes entirely) on their own internal support staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this study to mirror those of TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies, including the x86-based Server, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop Customer Satisfaction studies.Throughout this report, TBR refers to two types of support providers:INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS: Companies with in-house technical support staff (systems manufacturers often refer to these customers as “self-maintainers”). TBR’s study focuses primarily on internal support organizations that perform a number of support functions with their own staff, supplemented by OEM-provided support as needed.OEM SUPPORT PROVIDERS: Dell Services, HP Services, IBM Global Services and Lenovo Services perform repairs and basic maintenance for customers based on support service portfolio offerings.

• Dell Services and its authorized service partners provide technical support to Dell customer sites for servers, notebooks and/or desktop PCs.

• HP Services encompasses services for the Industry Standard Server group, as well as for the Personal Systems Group (desktops and notebooks).

• IGS comprises support services for IBM server customers, as well as for Lenovo desktop and notebook PC customers. Lenovo customers are serviced by IGS/IBM as the primary contractor, in addition to a network of third-party service delivery partners.

Additional Screening Criteria for the Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study:

1. Has your company utilized any on-site, phone or web support for Dell, HP, IBM or Lenovo for desktops, servers or notebooks in the past three months?

2. Is your company utilizing in-house technical support?

3. Are you personally involved in evaluating, recommending or purchasing support services for desktops, servers and notebooks at your company or site? Or, if your site uses internal support teams only, are you involved with the supervision of these teams?




TBRTechnology Business Research, Inc. Foreword

Reporting Structure DefinedTBR generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support

Report sections break out the study results by segment wherever referenced (server versus desktop/notebook)

Combined Study Results

Sample size = Approximately 200 interviews per group

Covers satisfaction with x86-based server, as well as the desktop and notebook support delivered by:

1. Dell Services

2. HP Services (includes both ISS and PSG groups)

3. IGS (includes both IBM server support and Lenovo desktop/notebook support)

4. Internal Support Organizations

x86-based Server Support, wherever referencedSample size = Approximately 100 interviews per groupCovers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by:

1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support)2. HP Services (TSS)3. IBM/IGS Services4. Internal Support Organizations

Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referencedSample size = Approximately 100 interviews per groupCovers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by:

1. Dell Services (Client Support)2. HP Services (PSG)3. Lenovo Services4. Internal Support Organizations





SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION INDICES,

EXTENDED TO 2Q10*

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

4Q05

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

2Q10

*

Dell Services HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

THE CONTEXT• Overall, 2009 was a challenging year for IT

industry hardware vendors, and this certainly leaked over into technical support requirements and projects. The Great Recession forced customers to delay hardware purchases, in turn creating a decidedly more negative atmosphere where systems were maintained within the infrastructure longer than they might have been otherwise. This created a greater strain on support service requirements, where TBR observed fewer cases of customer delight and an increase in dissatisfaction.

• During 2H09, satisfaction with support services from Dell Services, HP Services, IGS and Lenovo Services all declined precipitously. The growing sense of discontent commenced earlier among the internal support organizations, where this group’s challenges signaled the events that would accelerate during 2009.

• In 1Q10, however, it appears that the worst of the challenges with technical support are ending. Satisfaction positions either stabilized or improved, and the 2Q10 outlook is even more encouraging. The uptick within the internal group may suggest companies are beginning to renew hiring of IT staff resources.

OVERALL RESULTS: Dell Services takes its fifth consecutive No. 1ranking, its second singular No. 1 ranking, in TBR’s 1Q10 Corporate

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study

1Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance

* 2Q10 reporting period based on partial data – interviews taken between January and March 2010, or the first half of the upcoming 2Q10 reporting period.

TBR ranked Dell Services in the sole No. 1 position in 1Q10, followed by a shared No. 2 ranking between IGS/Lenovo Services and the internal support groups. HP was placed in the No. 3 ranking position.It is possible the internal support group will fully recover in 2Q10 and retake its role as the model of success against which we measure OEM-provided support. We are also observing a potential collision between the WSI positions of Dell Services and IGS.





SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Break

/Fix S

ervic

es

On-site

Tech

nical E

xper

tise

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

e/ Com

mitm

ent

Telep

hone

/Helpd

esk S

upport

Online

Sup

port

Remot

ely M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Replac

emen

t Part

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Suppo

rt Se

rvice

s Pric

ing/V

alue

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

t/Ins

tallat

ionOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo SvcsSOURCE: TBR.

TBR

= Competitive Strength issued by TBR = Competitive Weakness/Warning issued by TBR

Factors Driving Ranking Determinations:Dell Services, No. 1 due to competitive advantages for on-site expertise & response time, phone support.Internal Support, No. 2 due to mix of competitive advantages (on-site expertise, response time, remotely managed support & hardware deployment) against weakness for basic (routine/mundane) break/fix and parts availability.IGS, No. 2 due to competitive advantages for basic break/fix and online support.HPS, No. 3 due to below average scores for on-site expertise and response time, phone and online support.

In 1Q10, WSI positions of Dell Services, IGS and HPS form a straddled alignment, driven by a growing list of performance differentiators






SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 4Q07 to 1Q10

74.0

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services may take its tenth consecutive No. 1 ranking, yet WSI ratings collide into a three-way No. 2

ranking in 1Q10 THE CONTEXT

• Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in 2009, with WSI ratings progressively declining throughout the year, leaving no competitor (not even the in-house teams) immune to this condition.

• During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction with support services from Dell Services, HP Services, IGS and Lenovo Services all declined precipitously. As a leading indicator for the industry, the internal support group’s scores began to decline at least one calendar quarter earlier. This is a clear example of the challenges faced by organizations affected by reduced spending on new server solutions with robust warranties, as well as a lack of IT staffing due to cutbacks.

• By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score slides halted, and improved for IBM. In the end, the internal support teams only marginally outperformed the three OEM-provided support competitors.

TBR ranked the internal support teams a sole No. 1, narrowly outpacing the clump of three No. 2 ranked players – Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/IBM Services.






In 1Q10, the internal support groups return to the model position by setting industry standards for response times, hardware deployment and

some new remote support mechanisms


Factors Driving Ranking Determinations:Internal Support, No. 1 due to a variety of competitive advantages, including singular wins for on-site response time, online support, and hardware deployment services.

Dell Services, No. 2 with competitive advantage for phone support, offset by a challenge relative to basic break/fix support.

IGS/IBM Services, No. 2 with a competitive advantage for basic break/fix services.

HP Services, No. 2 with a competitive advantage for break/fix services, though in receipt of warnings for response time and technical expertise.


MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -

SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rtW

eb S

uppo

rtRem

otely

Man

aged

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

tPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Overal

l Valu

eOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

While the OEM-provided support organizations shared the No. 2 ranking position, IBM was the only competitor with a dearth of competitive challenges. While IBM’s overall satisfaction rating ran substantially higher than the industry average, it was not sufficiently higher than the competition as to warrant a superior ranking position.





SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT,

4Q07 to 1Q10

75.0

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

THE CONTEXT

• Customer satisfaction with desktop and notebook systems support began to decline as far back as mid-2008, yet accelerated during the economic recession of 2009.

• During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction with support services from Dell Services, HP Services and Lenovo Services declined precipitously. The internal support group took the greatest cumulative hit, however, as its WSI ratings lost a substantial proportion of their value between 4Q08 and 4Q09.

• By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction scores for all competitors either stabilized or improved. Dell Services’ improvement was substantial enough to deliver a sole No. 1 ranking.

TBR ranked the Dell Services at No. 1 in the 1Q10 reporting period, followed by a shared No. 2 ranking between the internal support group and Lenovo Services. HP PSG was placed at the No. 3 ranking position, a sizable distance from the competition.

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation is evident, with Dell Services regaining a singular No. 1 ranking

(its first since 2Q08)






In 1Q10, Dell Services establishes industry standards for on-site expertise, on-site response time and phone support


Factors Driving Ranking Determinations:Dell Services, No. 1, delivered via competitive advantages for on-site expertise and response time, as well as phone support.

Internal Support, No. 2, due to competitive advantage for response time against a continuing challenge for parts availability.

Lenovo Services, No. 2, with competitive strengths (marginal) for phone and online support and parts availability.

HP Services (PSG), No. 3, with a number of competitive challenges.

Dell Services’ singular No. 1 ranking was the result of some definitive and full-value competitive strengths within high-importance areas. Lenovo Services, while also performing well, earned marginal competitive strengths occurring within areas of less importance, hence less value that would contribute to the WSI rating.



DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rtW

eb S

uppo

rtRem

otely

Man

aged

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

tPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Overal

l Valu

eOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Ranking positions remain constant in 1Q10 - Dell Services retains sole ownership of No. 1 ranking position

Dell Services’ WSI advances by 1%

• Satisfaction with basic break/fix services, phone support and remotely managed support increased significantly.

HPS’ WSI remains constant

• One substantially declining position (on-site response time) was offset by improving parts availability and hardware deployment positions.

IGS’ WSI increases by 1%

• Satisfaction gains were led by phone and online support.

Internal support WSI move up by nearly 1%

• Satisfaction levels increased significantly for hardware deployment and online support.

The Score in 1Q10

1Q10 VERSUS 4Q09 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION

RATINGS AND RANKS

78.979.6

79.0

79.9

77.6 77.7

80.679.8

76.0

77.0

78.0

79.0

80.0

81.0

82.0

83.0

4Q09 1Q10

Internal Support Organizations IGS/Lenovo Services & PartnersHP & Partners Dell & Partners

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

1

3

22

1

3

22





Ranking positions vary between server-related and desktop/notebook-related support

Performance differentiation decidedly pronounced for desktop/notebook support services

• The internal support groups narrowly outpaced OEM-provided support competitors, driven by some competitive advantages across on-site response time, hardware deployment, and online and remotely managed support.

• The three OEM-provided support competitors shared a close No. 2 position, yet with variable performances in some key areas.

• Dell Services led the competition for phone support satisfaction, yet was challenged relative to basic break/fix services.

• HPS and IBM both led Dell Services for break/fix/maintenance services, while HPS was somewhat more challenged relative to on-site response time, expertise and phone support.

• The desktop/notebook support competition was led by Dell Services, driven by substantial competitive advantages for both on-site and phone support, as well as parts availability.

• Lenovo Services was ranked a strong No. 2, with some marginal competitive advantages for phone and online support, as well as parts availability.

• The internal organizations also ranked No. 2, driven primarily by the on-site support response time rating, but held back by continuing challenges with parts supplies.

• HPS was ranked No. 3 due to considerable challenges across many areas; its phone support satisfaction rating was most decidedly below the industry average.

The Score in 1Q10

1Q10 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING

BY SUPPORT SEGMENT

79.579.781.8

80.2 80.279.9 79.4

76.4

72.0

74.0

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support

Dell Services Internal Support OrganizationsIGS/Lenovo Services HP Services

22 2

3

1

2 2

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

1





Dell Services, IGS and the internal group all improve at comparable magnitudes in 1Q10; HPS’ WSI rating remains constant

Declining ratings were a rarity in 1Q10 with only one example of a meaningful shift – HPS’ mean score for on-site response time, which declined by nearly 5% between 4Q09 and 1Q10.Dell Services’ ratings improved at statistically significant levels across basic break/fix maintenance, phone support, and remotely managed support.IGS saw significantly improving scores in phone and online support, parts availability and remotely managed support.HPS’ scores for parts availability and hardware deployment advanced by substantial magnitudes.The in-house support groups saw significant improvements in online support and hardware deployment.

The Score in 1Q10

The overarching trend in 1Q10 was improving customer

satisfaction – in some cases by considerable magnitudes. This

likely marks the end of the discontent we observed during

the recession of 2009.

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q10 VS. 4Q09

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

Break/FixServices

On-siteTechnicalExpertise

On-siteResponse

Time

PhoneSupport

OnlineSupport

PartsAvailability

SupportServices

Value

HardwareDeployment

RemotelyManagedSupport

OverallSatisfaction

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Shifting satisfaction positions affect competitive advantages/disadvantages within a competitively stressed field

Several new competitive strengths & warnings issued in 1Q101Q10 Satisfaction Shifts of Particular Consequence:

On-site Response Time: Performance differentiation expanded with Dell Services marginal competitive strength advancing to a full strength and HPS’ warning accelerating into a weakness. This was due to HPS’ substantially weakening rating.Phone Support: HPS earned a new competitive warning, the result of a static score against significantly improved scores from Dell Services and IGS.Online Support: Emerged as a new performance differentiator, with IGS gaining a new competitive strength and HPS gaining a new warning, as a result of a significantly improved score for IGS.

• Dell Services, however, was unable to sustain its competitive strength from 4Q09 for parts availability; its score remained constant against a largely improving competitive field.

• Dell Services did recover from its 4Q09 competitive warning for basic break/fix services – its score increased significantly against a static competitive field.

The Score in 1Q10

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q10 VS. 4Q09

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

Break/FixServices


On-siteResponse

Time

PhoneSupport

OnlineSupport

PartsAvailability

SupportServices

Value

HardwareDeployment


OverallSatisfaction

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





TBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations support the 1Q10 ranking position placement decisions

These determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analyses (two tests)

• Dell Services’ sole No. 1 ranking in 1Q10 was delivered by three competitive strengths, one of which (on-site response time) represents a move up from marginal (4Q09) to full (1Q10) competitive strength. Its positioning was also enhanced by a recovery from a previous competitive warning for basic break/fix services. Dell Services, however, did not retain previous competitive strengths for parts availability or hardware deployment services.

• The internal support teams, at No. 2, earned four competitive strengths, including two new issues – on-site expertise and hardware deployment services; however, the group’s previous warning for break/fix services was downgraded to a full weakness.

• IGS, sharing the No. 2 ranking position with the in-house group, earned one full competitive strength for break/fix services and a new strength for online support.

• HP Services, at No. 3, was cited with two new competitive warnings (phone and online support) and a continuing warning for expertise, along with a downgraded full weakness for on-site response time.

The Score in 1Q10

YELLOW boxes indicate areas where Strength/Weakness determinations have been downgraded from the previous reporting period.

BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade.

VENDOR DELL SVCS HP SVCSIGS/LENOVO

SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Break/Fix Services CONTRACTEDOn-site Technical Expertise * *NEW EXPANDEDOn-site Response Time/Commitment EXPANDEDTelephone/Helpdesk Support * NEW EXPANDEDOnline Support NEW NEW NEWRemotely Managed Support * NO CHANGEReplacement Parts Availability CONTRACTEDSupport Services Pricing/Value NO CHANGEHardware Installation/Configuration *NEW SHIFTEDNumeric Value 4 -5 4 1

Weighted Satisfaction Score 80.6 77.7 79.9 79.6

Ranking 1 3 2 2

Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only) 1 3 2

SOURCE: TBR.

Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.

CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 4Q09

TBR TBR





The GAP positions were positively influenced by lower stated importance ratings scores, a function of TBR’s shift to an online data collection methodology.

Nevertheless, HPS’ GAP ratings trended below average, several positioned near the borderline to falling below expectations – on-site response time, online support and parts availability.

IGS customers had the lowest stated expectations, hence the higher-than-average GAP ratings.

Dell Services fared well due to high satisfaction ratings, with the exception of basic break/fix services, where its GAP was close to falling below expectation.

The in-house group expressed the highest expectations, and, combined with some satisfaction challenges, often came out with the lowest GAP ratings, including basic break/fix services, parts availability and support services value.

Customer groups’ varying expectations drive different outcomes for expectation fulfillment

The Score in 1Q10

SUPPORT PROVIDER GAP ANALYSIS -

SUPPORT PROVIDERS AGAINST THEIR CUSTOMERS' EXPECTATIONS/REQUIREMENTS 1Q10

-14%

-12%-10%

-8%

-6%-4%

-2%0%

2%

4%6%

8%

Break/Fix Expertise On-siteResponse

Phone/Helpdesk Online Support

ReplacementParts

Availability

Value/Pricing RemotelyManaged

Dell & Partners HP & PartnersIGS/Lenovo Services & Partners Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

Acceptable GAP Range (in white)





235200197195N =

SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SERVICES

95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean

Support Provider

In HouseIGSHPSDell Svcs

95%

CI B

reak

/Fix

Svc

s

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

Performance differentiation relative to overall break/fix services contracts Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation

In 4Q09, Dell Services and the in-house group were

cited with competitive warnings, while IGS earned a full competitive strength. With Dell Services’ score improving, TBR removed

the warning in 1Q10. This left the in-house group’s

score significantly below the industry average, resulting

in TBR issuing a full competitive weakness. IGS retained its full competitive

strength.

IGS continues to benefit from securing most of its scores at the top two levels of

the satisfaction scale. Dell Services’

improved position partially resulted from a significant reduction

in dissatisfaction (scores at lower than 5

on the scale).

SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX

BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

Dell Services HPS

IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<5 5 6 7

Dell Services HPS


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

4Q09 1Q10

240196192186N =



Support Provider

In HouseIGS/Lenov oHPSDell Svcs

95%

CI B

reak

/Fix

Svc

s

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5





Scoring differences for on-site response time expand in 1Q10

In 4Q09, Dell Services and the in-house group

earned competitive strengths, to HPS’

competitive warning. With HPS’ rating having

declined substantially in 1Q10, TBR downgraded it to a full weakness. Dell

Services and the in-house group retained their competitive strength

status into 1Q10.

HPS’ mean score declined significantly

due to a shift from previously level-6

ratings down to level 5. The number of purely dissatisfied

customers increased.

235199196194N =

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-sit

e R

espo

nse

Tim

e

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.35.2

240194192184N =



1Q10

Support Provider

In HouseIGS/LenovoHPSDell Svcs

95%

CI O

n-si

te R

espo

nse

Tim

e

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8

Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation

4Q09 1Q10SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7

Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Phone support performance differentiation expands in 1Q10

In 4Q09, Dell Services held a marginal competitive

strength for phone support. While IGS’ score increased significantly in 1Q10, Dell

Services retained the competitive strength. The movement of Dell Services and IGS in 1Q10, however,

forced HPS into a competitive warning.

Dell Services and IGS earned an

increasing number of scores at the

highest level of the scale in 1Q10,

hence their significantly

improved mean scores. HPS had

the largest number of dissatisfied

ratings and the fewest perfect 7

ratings.

235197200199N =

SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI P

hone

Sup

port

6.2

6.16.0

5.9

5.8

5.75.6

5.5

5.4

5.35.25.1


239193196184N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI P

hone

Sup

port

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4Q09 1Q10SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT

BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Performance differentiation relative to parts availability satisfaction contracts in 1Q10

In 4Q09, Dell Services earned a marginal competitive

strength to HPS’ competitive warning. The in-house group

was cited its customary full competitive weakness. In

1Q10, mean scores for HPS and IGS increased

significantly, resulting in TBR lifting HPS’ warning and Dell Services’ strength. Only the in-house group retained its previous designation, a full

competitive weakness.

Scores for HPS and IGS saw a

reduction in dissatisfaction between 4Q09

and 1Q10.

231197201199N =

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0


226189197185N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4Q09 1Q10

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY

RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





234198200198N =

SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-lin

e Su

ppor

t

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.25.1

Online support emerges as a new 1Q10 performance differentiator

In 4Q09, scores across the competitive field were

relatively equal with respect to online support.

By 1Q10, significantly improving IGS and in-house support scores

resulted in TBR awarding a new competitive

strength to IGS and a competitive warning to

HPS, which was left behind.

IGS’ mean rating for online support

benefited from a considerable reduction in

dissatisfaction and a small increase in perfect 7 ratings.

HPS was the outlier, with a substantial

proportion of scores at the lowest end of

the scale.


237185192179N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-lin

e Su

ppor

t

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.25.1

4Q09 1Q10

SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY

RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

<5 5 6 7Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY

RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

<5 5 6 7

Dell Services HPS


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations support the 1Q10 server support ranking position placement decisions

These determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analyses (two tests)

• The internal support organizations narrowly earned a singular No. 1 ranking in the x86 server support competition. Its WSI rating of 80.2 was only marginally higher than IBM’s 79.9. However, the group earned a total of four competitive strengths, though they were offset by two competitive warnings which both occurred within high-importance areas.

• The performances of the three OEM-provided support organizations were generally close across the categories. Dell Services and HPS, however, were presented with some marginal challenges that IBM avoided.

Server Support – Segment Analysis

VENDOR DELL SVCS HP SVCS IGS/IBM SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Break/Fix Services * On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Online Support * Remotely Managed Support * Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value

Hardware Installation/Configuration * Numeric Value 0 -1 2 3

Weighted Satisfaction Score 79,7 79,4 79.9 80.2

Ranking 2 2 2 1


SOURCE: TBR.

Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server


TBR TBR





Satisfaction performances for server support were largely comparable across Dell Services, HP Services, and IBM

• Some differences were observed relative to satisfaction with basic break/fix services, where Dell Services scored below the industry average.

• HPS scored below industry averages for on-site response time and expertise.

• Dell Services performed above the industry average for phone support satisfaction.

• The remaining categories exhibited little to no differences in satisfaction across the three competitive groups.

For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G.

SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS

WSI Score Rank

IBM Services 79.9 1

Dell Services 79.7 1

HP Services 79.4 1

TBR splits responses based on the respondents’ primary responsibilities. Each study participant is asked to identify the support area with which they are most involved (servers/storage or desktop/notebook), and are then asked to rate those experiences exclusively.



SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rtW

eb S

uppo

rtRem

otely

Man

aged

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

tPart

s Ava

ilabil

ityOve

rall V

alue

Overal

l Sati

sfact

ionDell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Dell Services’ server support performances weaken against an improving IBM and a constant HPS, resulting in converging WSI scores and rankings

• Dell Services’ mean scores for server support declined by an average of 1.8% and were most affected by weakening response time and expertise ratings.

• HPS’ scores remained largely constant between 4Q09 and 1Q10; however, this resulted from the offsetting effects of declining on-site response time and expertise ratings against a substantially improved hardware deployment score.

• IBM’s scores increased by 1.8%, on average, driven by noteworthy improvements across the areas of on-site expertise, phone support, and remotely managed support.


4Q09 to1Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

se

Phone

Sup

port

Web

Sup

port

Remot

ely M

anag

edHard

ware D

eploym

ent

Parts A

vaila

bility

Suppo

rt Se

rvice

Pric

ing/V

alue

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





IBM Services and Dell Services most effectively meet theirserver customers’ expectations in 1Q10

A few categories emerged with negative GAP ratings, most notably relative to HP Services, whose scores for parts availability and online support were considerably wider than average and well into negative territory. While on-site response time was among the areas of warning for HPS, its negative GAP rating was marginally so, nonetheless its competitors earned scores in the positive territory of the chart. Dell Services’ challenge area, basic break/fix services, also exhibited an inordinately wide negative GAP. IBM was arguably the most successful competitor, in that the company had no negative GAP ratings of consequence.


STANDARD GAP SCORES - SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

-6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00%

Break/Fix Services

On-site Response Time

On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support

Remotely Managed Support

Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability

Support Services Value

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM)

TBR





TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations support the 1Q10 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analyses (two tests)

• Dell Services’ singular No. 1 ranking for desktop/notebook technical support satisfaction was driven by four competitive strengths, all within the high-importance areas of on-site expertise and response time, phone support, and parts availability.

• Lenovo Services, at No. 2, earned three marginal strengths, including one (online support) within an area of lesser relative importance.

• At the shared No. 2 rank with Lenovo Services, the in-house group earned one full competitive strength in the high-importance area of on-site response time; however, this was somewhat diminished by its continuing full competitive weakness for parts availability.

• HPS was placed at the No. 3 ranking position, the result of an assortment of competitive warnings and a full competitive weakness for phone support.

Examples of performance differentiation were plentiful at the desktop/notebook support level – an area where customers have been particularly challenged due to diminished resources during an economic recession. TBR believes resources may have been diverted to the more mission-critical requirements of server support during this time.

Desktop/Notebook Support – Segment Analysis

VENDOR DELL SVCS HP SVCS IGS/LENOVO SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Break/Fix Services

On-site Technical Expertise * On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Online Support * Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability * * Support Services Pricing/Value

Hardware Installation/Configuration

Numeric Value 6 -7 3 0

Weighted Satisfaction Score 81.8 76.4 80.2 79.5

Ranking 1 3 2 2


SOURCE: TBR.


Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook TBR





Dell Services jumps to the top of the rankings for desktop/notebook support, displacing Lenovo Services from the previous period

• Dell Services benefited from exemplary performances across some critical areas, most notably with respect to on-site response times where its mean scores was substantially higher than the industry average.

• Lenovo Services’performances actually matched those of Dell Services across several areas. It was Dell Services’on-site response time performance that made all the difference.

• HP Services lagged industry averages across multiple categories.

For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G.


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGSWSI Score Rank

Dell Services 81.8 1Lenovo Services 80.2 2HP Services 76.4 3


DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rtW

eb S

uppo

rtRem

otely

Man

aged

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

tPart

s Ava

ilabil

ityOve

rall V

alue

Overal

l Sati

sfact

ion

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





HP Services’ satisfaction performances weaken substantially in the desktop/notebook support segment

• Dell Services’ mean satisfaction scores increased by an average of nearly 4% between 4Q09 and 1Q10. Nearly every category, with the exception of online support (up <1%), saw a substantial improvement.

• Lenovo Services’ scores improved by an average of 1.3%, largely the result of improvement in the areas of phone and online support.

• HPS’ (PSG) scores remained flat overall, the result of the mixed results of improving on-site expertise against weakening on-site response time and phone support scores.

• These findings generally mirror those of TBR’s 1Q10 notebook and desktop satisfaction studies.


4Q09 to1Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

se

Phone

Sup

port

Web

Sup

port

Remot

ely M

anag

edHard

ware D

eploym

ent

Parts A

vaila

bility

Suppo

rt Se

rvice

Pric

ing/V

alue

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





HP Services is most challenged to more effectively meet customerexpectations for desktop/notebook support services


HP Services’ PSG group was cited with wider-than-average negative GAP ratings for parts availability, on-site response time and basic break/fix services. Dell Services and Lenovo Services generally exceeded their customers’ expectations, only a few exceptions – Lenovo falling marginally behind expectation for on-site expertise, and Dell Services for parts availability and break/fix services.

STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

-6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00%

Break/Fix Services


On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support

Remotely Managed Support

Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability


Dell Services HP Services IGS (Lenovo)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Support services differentiation is most often perceived in the server support segment; HPS is perceived as most differentiated for server

support, less so than competitors for desktop/notebook support

Services Differentiation

Drivers of Support Services Differentiation Perceptions:• Most Frequent Associations: Hardware knowledge, broad-based

knowledge, specialized knowledge

• Less Frequent Associations: Pricing, flexibility of services options, training, software knowledge

Study respondents were asked if the support services offerings of their primary support provider are differentiated to the extent that they influence hardware purchasing decisions.

PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES DIFFERENTIATION

52% 54%55%

38%

64%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support% o

f R

espo

nden

ts In

dica

ting

That

S

uppo

rt S

ervi

ces

Are

Diff

eren

tiate

d

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORT SERVICES BY WARRANTY CONTRACT TYPE

3.00

3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

BasicBreak/Fix

Maintenance

On-siteResponse

Time


PhoneSupport

On-lineSupport


HardwareDeployment

ReplacementParts

Availability

OverallServices

Value

Critical/Premium Level Warranty Contracts Basic/Core Level Warranty Contracts

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

The more robust premium or critical-level warranty contracts generally include specified on-site response times, access to technical experts, direct access to level-2 or designated technicians and more options within their parts replacement programs.

Customers with premium or critical level warranty coverage obviously have higher expectations for support services than those with basic

warranties, particularly with respect to on-site response, expertise and phone support access

Warranty Coverage Influences





Satisfaction levels are marginally higher among the critical/premium warranty customers where expected, yet these customers do not

necessarily see a better value than basic warranty customers


Critical/premium level warranty customers were significantly more satisfied than basic customers with technical expertise and phone support, but did not view on-site response times as significantly more effective.

Basic warranty customers were obviously more satisfied with the basic maintenance services, but were also more satisfied with online support and marginally more satisfied with the value of the support services they receive.

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES BY WARRANTY CONTRACT TYPE

4.50

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.305.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

BasicBreak/Fix

Maintenance

On-siteResponse

Time


PhoneSupport

On-lineSupport


HardwareDeployment

ReplacementParts

Availability

OverallServices

Value

OverallSatisfaction

Critical/Premium Level Warranty Contracts Basic/Core Level Warranty Contracts

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Among premium/critical warranty holders in the study sample, Dell Services and IGS in particular performed significantly better than HPS


SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES AMONG PREMIUM CONTRACT HOLDERS

4.50

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

BasicBreak/Fix

Maintenance

On-siteResponse

Time


PhoneSupport

On-lineSupport


HardwareDeployment

ReplacementParts

Availability

OverallServices

Value

OverallSatisfaction

Dell Services HP Services IGS Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





HPS’ performances were far more competitive among customers with basic or core warranty coverage


SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES AMONG BASIC CONTRACT HOLDERS

4.50

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

BasicBreak/Fix

Maintenance

On-siteResponse

Time


PhoneSupport

On-lineSupport


HardwareDeployment

ReplacementParts

Availability

OverallServices

Value

OverallSatisfaction

Dell Services HP Services IGS ServicesSOURCE: TBR.

TBR




TBRTechnology Business Research, Inc. Critical Metrics Summary

Vital Statistics – 1Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction CompetitionDell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

1Q10 Ranking 1 2 3 21Q10 Ranking, OEM support Providers Only 1 2 3 N/A

Rank change versus 4Q09 0 0 0 0

1Q10 WSI 80.6 79.9 77.7 79.6WSI Change versus 4Q09 +1.0% +1.1% +0.1% +0.9%

Competitive WeaknessesRecovered from previous

break/fix services warning

None

Existing Warnings – on-site expertise; New

Warnings – phone & on-line support; accelerated

from warning to weakness – on-site

response time

Existing Weakness –parts availability;

accelerated from warning to weakness – break/fix

services

Significant Movement, 1Q10 vs. 4Q09

Significantly improved break/fix services, phone

support, and remotely managed support

positions

Satisfaction with phone and online support, parts

availability improved significantly

Satisfaction with parts availability and hardware

deployment improved significantly; on-site

response time satisfaction declined

substantially

Satisfaction with hardware deployment

and online support improved significantly

Rationale for Ranking Positions

Strong WSI placement; three competitive

strengths, no warnings

WSI distance from Dell Services; two competitive

strengths, no warnings

WSI distance from IGS and in-house; three

competitive warnings, one weakness

WSI distance from Dell Services; three

competitive strengths against two weaknesses

Competitive StrengthsExisting & Marginal – on-

site expertise, phone support; Existing & Full –

on-site response time

Existing and Full –break/fix services; New

and Full – online supportNone

Existing & Full – on-site response time; New & Marginal – Hardware deployment, on-site

expertise






Server Support WSI & Ranking 79.7 No. 2 79.9 No. 2 79.4 No. 2 80.2 No. 1

Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking 81.8 No. 1 80.2 No. 2 76.4 No. 3 79.5 No. 2

Server Support Competitive Profile

Competitive strength for phone support;

warning for break/fix services

Competitive strength for break/fix services

Competitive strength for break/fix services, warnings

for on-site expertise and response time

Competitive strengths across on-site response

time, online and remotely managed support, and hardware deployment; warnings for break/fix

services and parts availability

Desktop/Notebook Competitive Profile

Competitive strengths across on-site

expertise and response time, phone support, and parts availability

Competitive strengths across phone and online

support, parts availability

Multiple challenges: warnings for on-site expertise

and response time, online and remotely managed

support, and parts availability; weakness for

phone support

Competitive strength for on-site response time;

weakness for parts availability

Significant Movement, Server Segment, 1Q10 vs. 4Q09

[WSI -1.3%] On-site expertise and response

time ratings declined significantly, though not by magnitudes as great

as HPS

[WSI +1.5%] Satisfaction with on-site

expertise and phone support increased

significantly

[WSI +0.2%] Satisfaction positions for on-site expertise and response time declined

significantly; hardware deployment satisfaction improved significantly

[WSI -0.4%] On-site expertise and response time, and phone support

positions declined significantly

Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 1Q10 vs. 4Q09

[WSI +3.5%] Substantially improved on-site, phone support, & remotely managed

support positions

[WSI +0.6%] Phone and online support positions

up significantly[WSI +0.2%] No substantial

changes

[WSI +2.5%] On-site response time, phone

support, hardware deployment and support services value ratings up

significantly






Summary Statement

Dell Services claimed its fifth consecutive No. 1 ranking

position, maintaining competitive advantages for

satisfaction across three critical areas – on-site

expertise, on-site response time and phone support.

While the competitive environment has become

tighter in the server support segment, Dell’s performances improved substantially in the desktop/notebook segment, lifting Dell Services to its first No. 1 ranking and displacing the previous long-standing leader, Lenovo Services.

Going forward, TBR believes Dell Services’ principal

challenge will be to reinstate its leadership status relative to

customer satisfaction with services value – an area

where there are currently no leaders or laggards.

IBM satisfaction performances were reasonably strong in

1Q10, where IBM joined Dell Services in a shared No. 1 ranking position, due to a

competitive advantage within the area of basic break/fix

services. IBM was the most improved competitor in the

server support competition in 1Q10. Lenovo Services’

satisfaction remained solid, yet was overshadowed by a

stronger set of performances by Dell Services. Whereas Lenovo earned competitive

strengths in the areas of online support, phone support and

parts availability (the latter two shared by Dell), it lacked the

advantages of Dell Services in the key areas of on-site

response time and technical expertise. TBR believes this mostly results from Lenovo customers opting for basic

support vs. premium.

HPS’ positioning in 1Q10 was again brought down by satisfaction positions in the desktop/notebook segment. HPS’ WSI rating remained

flat, against improving competitors (particularly

Dell), suggesting recently declining ratings (throughout 2009) are now beginning to

stabilize. Yet, the competition moved ahead to set new industry standards,

leaving HPS with considerable challenges. In the server support segment,

HPS held a shared No. 1 ranking with its competitors;

however, satisfaction with on-site support continued to

weaken. TBR believes HPS’primary challenge will be to

explore and address customer issues with

response times.

Increasing challenges relative to IT support

organizations’ abilities to deal with dwindling budgets and/or staffing remains the

case in 1Q10, although there are now signs that the mood is lightening, perhaps

with the prospect of renewed hiring. The

group’s scores stabilized in the server support segment, while improving significantly

in the desktop/notebook segment. In-house support

has apparently placed a greater priority on managing server systems, where the

group held a sole No. 1 ranking position. In the

desktop/notebook support segment, the group was

outperformed by Dell Services.

Bottom Line

In line with all of TBR’s customer satisfaction reports for 1Q10, customers are beginning to feel much more positive about their experiences with technical support, as companies begin to emerge from under the considerable economic burdens of the

recession. Competition has become tighter in the server support segment, with IBM the most improved performer, thus removing Dell Services from the singular No. 1 ranking and forcing a three-way tie. In the desktop/notebook segment, where we observed

the most significant stresses on support infrastructures during 2009, we have observed considerable improvement from Dell Services and the in-house group in particular.





TBR’s Watch List differs from the Competitive Strength and Weakness Analysis

TBR’s Watch List

TBR takes the following factors into consideration in determining items on the Watch List:

• Results of the Improvements GAP Analysis are based on a vendor’s expectation fulfillment for a category against its overall expectation fulfillment across all measured attributes.

• Competitive positioning based on results of statistical significance tests.

• Results of the Standard GAP Analysis for the vendor against its competitors’ positions.

• Decline in satisfaction in the past two reporting periods.

• Segments (server support versus desktop/notebook support) influencing declines in satisfaction during past two reporting periods.

• Loss of competitive strength or addition of competitive weakness.

• Disappointment meter – proportions of dissatisfied customers.

• Items are removed from the Watch List when a vendor has recovered its competitive position from past recent reporting periods.

Differences• The analysis looks backward and forward.

• Items placed on the Watch List are often not areas where the vendor has underperformed the marketplace or a specific competitor.

• Included are areas in which a vendor may have recently excelled; however, the competitive field has shifted during the current reporting period.





Dell Services’ principal challenge will be to communicate value propositions around basic maintenance services as internal support

organizations continue to struggle with diminished resources

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Citation PlacementImprovements GAP

% Change versus 4Q09

Long-term Trends

Segments Affected, 1Q10

Strength/ Weakness Status

Disappointment Meter Notes

Break/Fix Significantly lower than IGS and in-house; behind the field exclusively in server segment

Excels +2% vs. flat competition; +6% in desktop/notebook segment; -1.5% in server segment

Down substantially in 2H09 with partial rebound in 1Q10; competitive patterns stable & consistent

Server 4Q09 competitive warning rescinded, yet remains intact in server segment

Dissatisfaction dropped from 12% in 4Q09 to just 5% in 1Q10; slightly greater than IGS’ 3.5%

Server customers and premium level warranty contract holders are the groups where basic break/fix services are not meeting their expectations However, Dell Services fared much better where expectations are the highest (among base warranty customers).

Dissatisfaction declined from 12% to 9% and is currently on par with IGS


Comparable to industry average

Above average

+1.4%, comparable to IGS and in-house. +4% in desktop/notebook segment, -1% in server segment

Vacillating pattern, lacking consistency

No competitive advantage in either segment

Remaining neutral; no competitive strength since 2Q09

Competitive field remaining equalized; Dell Services’success depends on value perceptions, where Dell no longer enjoys competitive advantages on either the server or desktop/notebook support sides.





Dell Services’ principal challenge will be to communicate value propositions around basic maintenance services as internal support

organizations continue to struggle with diminished resources

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Additional Considerations

Dell Services’ strong performances in the desktop/notebook support arena echo the findings of the product-related studies in the 1Q10 series of customer satisfaction reports. Dell has improved its competitive positioning overall within both the corporate notebook and desktop segments. In the server support arena, however, Dell Services is currently facing greater challenges for achieving differentiation among customers who have placed priorities on mission-critical support during stressed economic times.

Summary Dell’s strategy for nurturing the customer experience with technical support services is to provide several levels of flexibility, allowing the customer to choose the method that best meets their needs at any given time. Dell customers choose from self-maintenance, third-party support, Dell-provided support and between using their own diagnostics (for self-dispatch) or those offered by Dell. While some customers opt for a base warranty support offering, TBR has noted in these study results that Dell has done a excellent job of upselling customers to its ProSupport offerings. Those selecting ProSupport have the flexibility to select options like the four-hour on-site response, Dell labor that performs the diagnostics and allows customers to take over afterward, or resident on-site support from Dell in mission-critical incidents. The Online Self Dispatch program enables customers to perform diagnostics online, and then schedule an on-site visit or order parts for self-replacement without using a telephone. This program has recently been enhanced with international support, online training and certification. Dell ProSupport with Proactive Systems Management provides monitoring capability of warranty status through a secure portal and automated diagnostics, as well as proactive communication between the customers and account manager through Auto-Support case.With the value proposition a primary area with room for improvement, Dell Services positions its ProSupport as a “pay-as-you-need” service with tiered pricing to provide flexible options for customers with limited IT budgets. Dell customers in the 1Q10 study continued to cite Dell Services as more differentiated in its flexibility of service options than competitors’ customers – an essential ingredient of the Dell value proposition. Dell Services’performances were greatly enhanced by the views of ProSupport customers, while basic hardware support customers were less satisfied with support services, particularly with basic break/fix maintenance services. Going forward, Dell will likely need to determine ways to upsell more customers if the tiered pricing can be made attractive enough, particularly as the recession eases.SOURCES: Dell analyst briefings and press releases; TBR Computer Business Quarterly reports.





HP Services’ Watch List continues to focus predominantly on desktop/notebook support challenges

TBR’s Watch List: HPS



Long-term Trends





Significantly below all groups at high confidence.

Well Below Average

-4.6% vs. flat competitive field; -7% in server segment, -2.2% in desktop/notebook segment.

Down substantially in past three periods; competitors’positions stabilized in 1Q10, not those of HPS.

Desktop/Notebook

4Q09 competitive warning accelerated to weakness; warnings issued in both segments.

Dissatisfaction increased from 17% in 4Q09 to 22% in 1Q10, compared to a competitors’average of 15%.

Dissatisfaction increased from 20% in 4Q09 to 27% in 1Q10, compared to Dell’s 13%.

While HPS’ server support segment score declined most significantly in 1Q10, its competitive positioning was reasonable. This was in contrast to the desktop/notebook segment where HPS’score was substantially lower than all competitors.

Technical Expertise

Significantly lower than Dell and in-house support at high confidence.

Below Average

-1% based on a 5% decline in the server segment; a 3.5% increase in desktop/notebook segment.

Down substantially in past four periods; Dell has fared much better.

Desktop/Notebook

Warnings issued in past two periods –issued in both segments.

HPS’ technical expertise rating in the server support segment was below average, yet the performance gap was substantially wider in the desktop/notebook segment.









Long-term Trends




Phone Support

Significantly lower than each competitive group.

Just Below Average

-0.5% overall, against 3% improvement among competitors; +1.2% in server segment; -2.2% in desktop/notebook segment.

Down past two periods, but accelerating in 4Q09.

Desktop/Notebook

New warning issued in 1Q10 –neutral in server segment; weakness in desktop/notebook segment.

Dissatisfaction crept up from 20% in 4Q09 to 24% in 1Q10, vs. competitors’average 17%.

Recurring challenge, unable to sustain improvement cycles when they occur. Position in server segment was overshadowed by that of Dell, while HPS scored substantially lower than both competitors in the desktop/notebook segment.

NEW –Online Support

Significantly lower than IGS and in-house at high confidence.

Below Average

No change, vs. IGS’+2.3% shift. +1.25% in server segment; -1.5% in desktop/notebook segment.

Stable following three periods of steadily declining positions, yet IGS set a new industry standard in 1Q10.

Desktop/Notebook

New warning issued in 1Q10 –placed in the desktop/notebook segment only.

Dissatisfaction increased from 21% in 4Q09 to 26% in 1Q10, against a competitors’average of 14%.

HPS placed well below both competitors in the desktop/notebook segment, while its server rating was on par with the industry average.








Removed from Watch List – Replacement Parts Availability. HPS’ mean score advanced by 2.5%, the most improved performer in this category in 1Q10. Consequently, TBR rescinded its 4Q09 warning, however it remained in place in the desktop/notebook segment, where HPS’ score was significantly lower than Dell and IGS.

Summary HPS/ISS:HPS’ Proactive select menu has been refreshed three times since the February launch, with 14 new items added, demonstrating how HPS applies continuous improvement strategies to enhance the customer experience. HPS is focused on gaining and maintaining greater control and visibility to the overall customer experience by completing the transition to a New Mexico call center, supplemented by a lab environment for added expertise. HP’s Insight Remote Support strategy continues to grow in number of adherents in both the end-user customers and channel partner environments. These tools were designed to address customer issues around limited staff and lack of 24x7 coverage and lack of funds for additional investments (a pain point clearly uncovered in TBR’s study results) by automating support processes and gaining greater insight into customer environments. In recognition of its customers’ stressed resources for support tools, these tools are available to customers at no additional cost as part of HP warranty, HP Care Pack Service or contractual support agreements with HP. HP shares these tools with channel partners so that the solution is tightly integrated. While this program remains in its infancy, HP supplements its offerings to provide customers with the flexibility to maintain systems in-house, to rely on HP-badged field technicians (a growing movement), or authorized HP service partners. HP continues to enhance its Mission Critical Support offerings, including its most recent SAP enhancement service, which includes designated account support managers and proactive services.

HPS/PSG:HPS is most challenged in meeting the requirements of its desktop and notebook customers. HP’s PSG group has been steadily working on the following enhancements to better meet its goals for improving the technical support experience: realignment of resources in the call center environment to meet spikes and growth in global centers; providing refresher courses for soft skill and professionalism among field resources where there has been a significant increase in HP badged support; automated callback tool implementation to ensure timely follow-up after repair (no more phone tag); working with suppliers to improve parts availability and implementing a program to give customers credit for returned parts; and adding flexibility and labor reimbursement to its growing program for self-maintainers.SOURCES: HP analyst briefings and press releases; TBR Computer Business Quarterly reports.





Lenovo faces some challenges from an energized Dell Services; IBM fares well within a tightly contested server support segment

TBR’s Watch List: IGS

Citation PlacementImprovements GAP % Change versus 4Q09

Long-term Trends




Technical Expertise

Trending lower than Dell and in-house.

Well Below Average

+0.7% overall; +3.5% in server segment, -2% in desktop/notebook segment.

Down substantially previous 4 periods; beginning to recover in 1Q10.

Desktop/Notebook

4Q09 competitive warning rescinded in 1Q10, yet Dell continues to hold competitive strength in desktop/notebook segment.

Dissatisfaction crept up from 22% in 4Q09 to 25% in 1Q10, vs. Dell’s 14%.


Significantly lower than in-house at highest confidence; below Dell at 90% confidence level.

Just Below Average

No change, comparable to Dell and a wash between a -1% shift in server segment, against a +1% shift in desktop/notebook segment.

Down substantially in previous 2 reporting periods, but stable in 1Q10.

Desktop/Notebook

Remaining neutral; last strength issued in 4Q07; Dell continues to hold the strength in desktop/notebook segment.

Dissatisfaction holding steady at 16%, close to Dell’s 15%.

IBM scored marginally higher than Dell in the server segment, while Lenovo scored significantly lower than Dell in the desktop/notebook segment.

One in four IGS customers are dissatisfied with technical expertise, and their expectations are extremely high. This is being driven predominantly by the Lenovo customers where Dell Services performed substantially better.





Lenovo faces some challenges from an energized Dell Services; IBM fares well within a tightly contested server support segment

TBR’s Watch List: IGS


Removed from Watch List – Phone Support. IBM placed only marginally behind Dell in the server support segment, while Lenovo earned a competitive strength in the desktop/notebook support segment. IGS’ 3.5% improvement within its 1Q10 mean score made it the most improved competitor for this category.

Summary IBM Support:During 2009, IBM has been focused on providing customizable, flexible and easy-to-use support options. IBM’s ServicePac family of specialized support services includes a new warranty upgrade option where customers can make Customer Replaceable Parts (CRU) an option. This provides the flexibility to utilize Field Replaceable Parts (FRU) whenever deemed necessary. A Remote Technical Support Services option provides unlimited hardware, as well as software phone support. A new service uses advanced analytics to match callers with an optimal call center customer service representative through a partnership with Assurant Solutions. In December 2009, IBM added ServicePac for Essential Support that provides customers with services beyond traditional break/fix maintenance with staff software experts. ServiceElite provides simplified account management, and IBM Electronic Service Agent provides proactive support tools that can be accessed online. Each of these options can be purchased at the time of sale or a la carte after the product has been installed. These are all attractive offerings in that they provide customers with a more flexible menu. It will be critical for IBM to effectively explain these options to customers to ensure that confusion does not develop around customer contractual agreements with IBM.

Lenovo Services:TBR continues to note a consistency within Lenovo’s satisfaction ratings for support, suggesting that the company has maintained stability in its delivery of services. This has likely been the result of a stable U.S.-based support operation. The company recently refocused its go-to-market efforts on the customer rather than the geography and, from here, Lenovo support processes have helped to deliver this level of success. While our study results suggest most Lenovo customers opt for a base warranty, the relatively new Think Plus Priority Support offering, for a nominal fee, builds upon Lenovo’s strength delivering services by meeting the needs of enterprise customers requiring a higher level of support. Among some of the enhancements of Think Plus Priority Support are direct access to 24x7 technical support, priority call routing to advanced technical expertise, and web-based service call tracking tools. An additional service, Think Plus Priority 4, includes four-hour on-site response time for parts and field technicians. While ThinkPlus Priority Support represents a more mission-critical type offering for enterprises who prefer it, Lenovo’s standard warranty service, ThinkPad Protection, offers coverage not ordinarily seen in a base warranty, including accidental damage protection.SOURCES: IBM and Lenovo analyst briefings and press releases; TBR Computer Business Quarterly reports.





Dell Services continues to hold the record for number of wins in the long term, though IGS/Lenovo led for 15 of the past 18 periods

• Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Dell Services has been ranked a No. 1 support provider for 30 of the 49 reporting periods.*

• Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was its first since 4Q07 and did not hold over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three reporting periods later, in 1Q09, and has held this distinction for five straight periods.

Historical Record

• Half of HPS’ 12 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive No. 1 rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win the company’s first after an absence of nearly two years. Competitive pressures contributed to HPS’ drop to the No. 3 spot in 2Q09, which was repeated in 4Q09 and 1Q10.

• Of the 19 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1-ranked player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to 1Q09).

* 4Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; methodology differed from that established with the 1Q01 study.

Until 2Q09, IGS held the record for number of successive wins in the previous 14 reporting periods. IGS regained its No. 1 status in 3Q09, making for 15 wins during the last 18 reporting periods up to the current reporting period.

SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY

(Based on 39-reporting-period History Beginning 3Q00)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1HP Services 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2SOURCE: TBR.

Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods

TBR





Cases of differentiation were most plentiful during 2007, and re-emerged in 2H09

Historical Record

• Prior to 2007, performance differences were rare among OEM support providers. A shift began in 4Q06, when a competitive warning in break/fix services dropped Dell Services to No. 2.

• Performance differences increased substantially in 1Q07 due to competitive strength wins for IGS in break/fix services, on-site response time, technical expertise and phone support. HP Services was also cited with competitive warnings across parts availability, on-site response time, phone support and services value during 2007. Dell Services received warnings for break/fix services and phone support.

• An unusual situation occurred in 1Q08: performance differences that had propelled IGS to a solid No. 1 disappeared – its position held by a number of near-misses. By 2Q08, IGS emerged with some definitive competitive strengths, including phone support; in 4Q08 and 4Q09, it also achieved strengths for online support.

• IGS’ domination came to an abrupt end in 1Q09. In 2Q09, Dell Services regained two long-lost competitive advantages, while HPS was reissued a weakness last observed in mid-2007. In 3Q09, Dell Services failed to maintain its value competitive strength; IGS regained its break/fix advantage (last observed throughout 2007); and HPS recovered from its response time weakness.

• Incidents of performance differentiation expanded in 4Q09, largely resulting from competitive differences observed within the desktop/notebook support segment. Many of the designations were new issues involving Dell Services, HPS and the in-house groups. IGS (involving both IBM and Lenovo Services) continued earning a competitive strength for break/fix services. This pattern continued to accelerate into 1Q10.

3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services * * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

Dell Services *HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services

Dell Services HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services *

Dell Services * *HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services *

Dell Services * *HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *

Dell ServicesHP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *

Dell Services * *HP ServicesIGS/Lenovo Services * *

Dell Services * *HP Services

IGS/Lenovo Services * *

SOURCE: TBR.

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

PHONE SUPPORT

ONLINE SUPPORT

HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.

Strength & Weakness Performance History - 3Q05 to 1Q10 TBR





Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables





DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q10 VS.4Q09

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Bre

ak/F

ix

On-

site

Res

pons

eTi

me/

Com

mitm

ent

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

sP

ricin

g/V

alue

Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

Dell to HP Distance 4Q09 Dell to HP Distance 1Q10

DellAdvantage Areas

HP Advantage Areas

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

Dell Services’ satisfaction positions strengthen against those of HP Services in some key areas

HP Services’ WSI rating remained constant in 1Q10 against a modestly improved Dell Services score. Factors contributing to the widening performance gap included on-site response time and phone support, where Dell’s previous competitive advantages over HPS increased. However, Dell Services’ previous advantages for hardware deployment and parts availability were diminished.

Understanding the 1Q10 Ranking Positions

The most significant development in 1Q10 involved a substantial decline within HPS’on-site response time rating against a constant score for Dell Services. Dell Services’ strengthening phone support satisfaction rating (against a flat HPS) contributed to a widening performance gap.

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, FOR

DELL & HP SERVICES 1Q10 VS. 4Q09

-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%

Break

/Fix S

ervic

es

On-site

Tech

nical E

xper

tise

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

ePho

ne S

uppo

rtOnli

ne S

uppo

rtPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Suppo

rt Se

rvice

s Valu

e

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

t

Remot

ely M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Overal

l Sati

sfact

ion

Dell Services HP ServicesSOURCE: TBR.

TBR





DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q10 VS.4Q09

-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%5%

Bre

ak/F

ix

On-

site

Res

pons

eTi

me/

Com

mitm

ent

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alEx

pert

ise

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edSu

ppor

t

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rep

lace

men

t Par

tsA

vaila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces

Pric

ing/

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

fact

ion

Dell to IGS Distance 4Q09 Dell to IGS Distance 1Q10

DellAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

Few changes are evident relative to paired comparisons between Dell Services and IGS

Dell continued outperforming IGS across on-site response time, expertise and phone support in 1Q10. While the shifts were modest, there were some changes relative to statistical significance testing –response time differences became significant, and expertise and phone support fell out of significance. Meanwhile, IGS continued to outperform Dell Services for basic break/fix services.


Dell Services and IGS scores shifted by similar levels (no change for the on-site categories; significant improvement for phone support) across the areas of on-site response time, expertise and phone support. While Dell Services’ break/fix rating increased against a flat IGS, the competitive advantage for IGS remained statistically significant.

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS

SERVICES, 1Q10 VS. 4Q09

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

Break

/Fix S

ervic

es

On-site

Tech

nical E

xper

tise

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

ePho

ne S

uppo

rtOnli

ne S

uppo

rtPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Suppo

rt Se

rvice

s Valu

e

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

t

Remot

ely M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Overal

l Sati

sfact

ion

Dell Services IGS/Lenovo ServicesSOURCE: TBR.





IGS gains several new competitive advantages over HPS


In 1Q10, IGS gained competitive advantages over HPS across the categories of on-site response time, phone and online support, along with a smaller one for support services value.

The significant decline within HPS’ score for on-site response time had considerable repercussions for the paired comparison in 1Q10. Other meaningful developments involved IGS’ significantly improved phone and online support satisfaction ratings, against flat HPS scores.

HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q10 VS.4Q09

-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%

Bre

ak/F

ix

On-

site

Res

pons

eTi

me/

Com

mitm

ent

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

sP

ricin

g/V

alue

Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

HP to IGS Distance 4Q09 HP to IGS Distance 1Q10

HPSAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES

1Q10 VS. 4Q09

-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%

Break

/Fix S

ervic

es

On-site

Tech

nical E

xper

tise

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

ePho

ne S

uppo

rtOnli

ne S

uppo

rtPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Suppo

rt Se

rvice

s Valu

e

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

t

Remot

ely M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Overal

l Sati

sfact

ion

HP Services IGS/Lenovo ServicesSOURCE: TBR.

TBR





IGS consistently dominates the competition over the longer term; Dell Services ranks No. 1 for the past five reporting periods

• IGS’ WSI pattern had been one of general stability, while its competitors’ positions were relatively volatile until 2009. Since then, Dell Services has posed as a worthy competitor, earning five straight No. 1 ranking positions from 1Q09 through to the present.

• Dell Services’ WSI ratings have run an irregular course, where No. 1 ranking positions were sporadic until 1Q09.

• HP Services’ satisfaction performances have generally been more challenged than competitors’, falling behind those of either competitor more often than not.

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

Note: The ranking positions in the table have been adjusted to represent the placement of OEM support providers, excluding the presence of the internal support organizations.

Through the end of 2008, TBR observed generally predictable outcomes, with the in-house support group earning its reputation as the yardstick against which we would measure the OEM support providers. During these time periods, IGS was most consistent at earning top scores in the competition. In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction scores have been the rule to which no competitor has been immune, defined by a close competition between IGS and DellServices, with HPS having been considerably more challenged.

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES

2Q07 THROUGH 1Q10

77787980818283848586

2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Internal Support Organizations Dell ServicesHP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





The long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences over time

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

The principal contributor to narrowing performance gaps involves the perspective of the internal support organizations, where stressed resources have led to significantly declining satisfaction scores. The group no longer represents the utopia of support capability against which TBR compares the OEM-provided support groups.

Customer satisfaction with support services declined sharply throughout 2009 for all groups. Positions appear to be stabilizing with the 1Q10 study results, driven in particular by recovering positions during the first calendar quarter of 2010, our most recent interviewing wave.

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM

4Q04 THROUGH 1Q10, WITH MOVING AVERAGES

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

4Q04

1Q05

2Q05

3Q05

4Q05

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

2 per. Mov. Avg. (Internal Support Organizations) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dell Services)2 per. Mov. Avg. (HP Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (IGS/Lenovo Services)SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM

4Q04 THROUGH 1Q10

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

4Q04

1Q05

2Q05

3Q05

4Q05

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Dell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customer expectations for services value

1Q10 Developments:• Satisfaction exceeded expectation levels

within the IGS group, due to an understatement of the importance of services value.

• We continue to observe a greater consistency of stated importance scores within the Dell Services group; competitors’ scores appear highly reactive to external and internal influences.

GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR

HP SERVICES

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

Satisfaction vs.

Importance data points

have remained

interlocked throughout the timeline

for Dell Services.

Competitors, particularly HPS, have

been unable to close and sustain gaps.

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS

FOR DELL SERVICES

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS

FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES

5.40

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Relaxing expectations for on-site response enable support providers to narrow gaps

1Q10 Developments:• While stated importance for on-site response time

continued to drop into 1Q10, HPS’ satisfaction scores followed a similar trend line.

• HPS was the only competitor unable to effectively meet expectations.


SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS

FOR DELL SERVICES

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

Satisfaction Importance

Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


FOR HP SERVICES

5.005.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.



5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Customer expectations for technical expertise drop precipitously in 2009, enabling all three support providers to effectively meet them


1Q10 Developments:• Customer expectations began to flatten out in 1Q10,

following an extended period of relaxing requirements.• Dell Services exceeded expectations, while

competitors fully met them.

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS

IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE

FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS

IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Customer expectations for break/fix services suddenly rise in 1Q10GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment

1Q10 Developments:• While Dell Services’ satisfaction ratings

have remained largely constant over time, the rise in importance resulted in a gap between satisfaction in importance not exhibited by the competition.

• The overall increase in stated importance of basic break/fix services (hardware maintenance) suggests customers have been focusing on basic over premium-level warranties – this was possibly a result of constrained budgets during the recession.

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS

FOR DELL SERVICES

5.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.706.90

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10



TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


FOR HP SERVICES

5.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.706.90

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10



TBR

SOURCE: TBR.



5.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.706.90

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10



TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

While gaps had closed by late 2009 due

to relaxing expectations, 1Q10 saw a

sudden increase in customer

requirements. The break/fix

category refers to customer

experiences with basic hardware

maintenance services and

not with premium-level

contracts.





IGS most consistently meets customer expectations for phone support

1Q10 Developments:• Despite rising expectations for phone support, IGS

continued to fully meet expectations, part of a pattern of consistency competitors have been unable to replicate.

• Dell Services’ satisfaction ratings remain in recovery mode, following substantial declines from mid-2008 to late 2009; expectations have been fully met for the past four reporting periods.

• HPS’ satisfaction ratings have declined steadily since mid-2008, yet expectations have relaxed at a similar pace; consequently, HPS has met expectations for phone support for the past four periods.


PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10

Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Importance) Poly. (Satisfaction)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Expectations for online support tend to vacillate, yet the pattern is one of increasing importance over time

1Q10 Developments:• Dell Services has continued to maintain a pattern

where satisfaction exceeds expectations for online support.

• While expectations for online support increased for IGS during 2008 and 2009, satisfaction levels were kept in line.

• Expectations have been steadily rising within the HPS group over time; satisfaction fell below expectations during the past two reporting periods.


HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE

FOR ONLINE SUPPORT

5.05.1

5.25.35.45.5

5.65.75.8

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS

IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT

5.05.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.85.96.0

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Replacement parts availability is consistently a critical element of the support experience and a considerable challenge for support providers


1Q10 Developments:• Dell Services and IGS have recently been successful at

closing gaps between expectation and satisfaction for parts availability.

• HPS has thus far been unable to entirely close the gap.

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE

FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR

REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

1Q06

2Q06

3Q06

4Q06

1Q07

2Q07

3Q07

4Q07

1Q08

2Q08

3Q08

4Q08

1Q09

2Q09

3Q09

4Q09

1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services slowly begins to improve during 1Q10

Trends of the Reporting Period

• In most cases, Dell Services’scores were at their strongest during the 2Q09 reporting period, followed by substantial weakening during the two succeeding periods.

• By the 1Q10 reporting period, scores either stabilized or approached those of the 3Q09 period.

• The most noteworthy achievement involves perceptions of support services value. Here, Dell Services’1Q10 score is currently approaching its 2Q09 high point.

• The area with the greatest ground to recover for the past year is on-site response time.

WSI Rating Shift, 4Q09 to 1Q10: +1%Led by significantly improving break/fix and phone support satisfaction, and further assisted by improving remotely managedsupport and support services value improvements.Remaining positions were stable. There were no examples of declining satisfaction.

DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS

2Q09 TO 1Q10

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n

2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsHPS performances show small recoveries within some secondary areas, yet continued weakening

within key support areas• HPS’ mean satisfaction

positions generally exhibited a pattern of progressive weakening during the first three reporting periods.

• In 1Q10, some positions returned to their levels of the 3Q09 period, including support services value, hardware deployment services and remotely managed support.

• Phone and online support positions, as well as on-site expertise, remained at their low levels registered during the 4Q09 period, while satisfaction with on-site support response weakened further.

• Satisfaction with basic break/fix services has remained constant throughout the year, suggesting it is the premium level contracts where satisfaction needs to see improvement.

WSI Rating Shift, 4Q09 to 1Q10: +0.1% (essentially constant).Due to offsetting effects of some areas of improvement (parts availability, hardware deployment), against further weakening within the on-site response time rating.


HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS

2Q09 TO 1Q10

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n


TBR





Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS scores begin to improve in 1Q10 within some areas, while other areas stabilize


WSI Rating Shift, 4Q09 to 1Q10: +1.1%Led by significantly improved phone and online support and partsavailability, further assisted by moderately improving support services value and remotely managed support services.Most of the remaining positions stayed constant.There were no areas of declining satisfaction.

• IGS’ satisfaction performances were at their strongest during the 2Q09 reporting period, followed by progressive declines during the succeeding two.

• In 1Q10, some positions returned to their 3Q09 levels, including phone and online support, parts availability and remotely managed support.

• Other areas stabilized in 1Q10, including on-site expertise and response time and hardware deployment services.

• Two new high points were registered in 1Q10 – for support services value and overall satisfaction.

• Satisfaction with basic break/fix maintenance services has remained constant throughout the year.

IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS

2Q09 TO 1Q10

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Sat

isfa

ctio

n


TBR





Improving performances of Dell Services leads to general consistency of expectation fulfillment across the categories

• Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: None.• Areas of Competency: Break/fix services.

Improvements GAP Analyses

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q10

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Reco

mm

en

ded

Acti

on

s

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

When this analysis produces a set of scores neatly aligned across the 100-pt. border, it suggests the support provider is providing support services that customers perceive as consistent.





HP Services’ analysis points to suggested improvements across remote support methods and hardware deployment services

• Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time.• Areas of Competency: Break/fix services.


SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 1Q10

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Reco

mm

en

ded

Acti

on

s

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

HPS’ GAP rating for on-site support response time was substantially wider than the average gaps across the categories.





IGS must focus on perceptions of expertise as well as deploymentservices, due to high customer expectations

• Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site technical expertise, hardware deployment projects.• Areas of Competency: Break/fix services.


SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR LENOVO SERVICES 1Q10

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Reco

mm

en

ded

Acti

on

s

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

IGS customers have higher expectations for expertise, including hardware deployment projects.





The in-house teams consistently perform well across most areas, yet onehistorical challenge remains in play

• Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Replacement parts availability • Areas of Competency: On-site response time


SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORT

ORGANIZATIONS 1Q10

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

Reco

mm

en

ded

Acti

on

s

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

The in-house teams continue to benefit from the home team advantage in terms of responding to support requirements on site. As always, the groups find it difficult to maintain consistent supplies of spare parts.





On-site break/fix maintenance, parts availability and support services value continue to drive support experience evaluations

Remote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization

Selection Criteria – Stated

• Critical: Basic break/fix services, services value, parts availability.

• Also Important: Phone and online support, on-site response time & expertise.

• Somewhat Important:Remotely managed support, hardware deployment services.

• The in-house teams typically have higher expectations of themselves than they do of contracted support providers.

• As always, Dell Services’ customers are more focused on phone support than competitors’customers.

SERVICE & SUPPORT IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY CUSTOMER GROUP

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

Break

/Fix S

ervic

esSup

port

Servi

ces V

alue

Replac

emen

t Part

s Ava

ilabil

ityOnli

ne/W

eb S

uppo

rt

Telep

hone

/Helpd

esk S

upport

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

e

On-site

Tech

nical E

xper

tise

Remot

ely M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hardwar

e Ins

tallat

ion/C

onfig

urati

on

Dell HP IBM InHouseSOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Statistical significance test No. 1 points to growing list ofperformance differentiators in 1Q10

Compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test

Scoring Summary – Significance Tests

New or Evolving Performance Differentiators Emerging in 1Q10

• Break/fix Services – Favoring IGS/Lenovo Services over in-house support, but no longer over Dell Services.

• Phone Support – Dell Services was favored, HPS performed well below the industry average.

• Online Support – IGS was favored, HPS placed well below the average.

• Parts Availability – In-house support placed well below the industry average, while HPS no longer placed below average nor did Dell Services perform above average.

• Hardware Deployment – Favoring the in-house group.

1Q10 Findings Consistent with those of 4Q09• On-site Technical Expertise – Favoring Dell Services,

with HPS placing well below the industry average.• On-site Response Time – Favoring Dell Services, with

HPS placing well below the industry average.

DELL SVCS HP SVCSIGS/LENOVO

SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support

Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value

Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction

Grand Mean ⇔ Average score; t-test is null; t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

Results of the Standard t-Test

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test


Performance differentiation involving the OEM support providers:

• Break/fix Services – IGS outperformed Dell Services and HPS.

• On-site Expertise – Dell Services outperformed HPS only.

• On-site Response Time – Dell Services outperformed both competitors, and HPS was also outperformed by both competitors.

• Phone Support – Dell Services outperformed HPS; HPS was outperformed by both competitors.

• Online Support – IGS outperformed HPS.

HPSIGS/

LENOVODELL SVCS

IGS/LENOVO

DELL SVCS HPS

Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/CommitmentTelephone/Helpdesk SupportOnline Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction

Grand Mean

Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Vendor Comparisons

t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.SOURCE: TBR.

PAIR-WISE T-TESTS

DELL SVCS VS. HP SVCS VS.IGS/LENOVO

SVCS VS.

TBR





Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test

• The in-house groups primarily outperformed HPS.

• Incidences of outperforming IGS and Dell Services were rare in 1Q10; in fact, the group did not outperform Dell Services in any area.

• The internal support organizations were outperformed, however, by all three OEM groups for basic break/fix maintenance. This implies that the more mundane tasks are not being handled as well as in the past with internal support groups, whose limited resources may be focusing on more urgent support requirements.


DELL SVCS HPS IGS/LNV

Break/Fix ServicesOn-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts AvailabilitySupport Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support

t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors.

Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

SOURCE: TBR.

PAIR-WISE T-TESTS

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS VS.

TBR





In spite of the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 4

The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests

The Bonferroni correction, the most stringent statistical significance test used by TBR, confirmed most of the results of the standard tests, including several involving comparisons across the OEM support providers. The test substantiated that IGS outperformed internal support for break/fix services and that Dell outperformed HPS for on-site expertise and phone support. The test also supported the finding that HPS was outperformed by all competitors for on-site response time.

Statistical Significance Tests

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo Confirmation

Basic Break/Fix Services IGS over Internal -1 0 0 1 IGS did not significantly outperform DellOn-site Technical Expertise Dell, Internal over HP 1 1 -2 0 YesOn-site Response Time/Commitment ALL over HP; Internal over IGS 2 1 -4 0 YesTelephone/Helpdesk Support Dell over HP 0 1 -1 0 YesOnline Support IGS and Internal maginally over HP 0.5 0 -1 0.5 YesRemotely Managed Support Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0 YesReplacement Parts Availability ALL over Internal -3 1 1 1 YesSupport Services Pricing/Value None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 YesHardware Installation/Configuration None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0 Internal outperformed HPOverall Satisfaction IGS over HP and Internal -1 0 -1 1 IGS did not significantly outperform Dell

-0.5 4 -9 3.5SOURCE: TBR.

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction

Total Points

TBR TBR





The Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the performance differencepremises set by the statistical significance tests

Competitive GAP Analysis

SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 1Q10

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Bre

ak/F

ix S

ervi

ces

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alE

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Sup

port

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Rep

lace

men

t P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Sup

port

Ser

vice

s V

alue

Har

dwar

eIn

stal

latio

n/C

onfig

urat

ion

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edS

uppo

rt

Internal Support Organizations Dell Services

HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

Exceeds

Fully Meets

Short of

Exp

ecta

tio

n

Fu

lfillm

en

t

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR Performance differentiation focuses on basic break/fix services and parts availability (with in-house support falling short of expectation).

With respect to the OEM support providers, HPS’GAP scores were generally within the lower ranges of meeting expectation, yet its on-site response time score hovered dangerously close to the area of failing to meet expectations.





HP Services customers were the most likely to perceive service differentiation in their server support offerings

Buying Behavior

Server support customers were asked if their primary support provider has differentiated its services to an extent that influences their hardware buying decisions. Approximately two-thirds of HP Services customers indicated they do, compared to just over 50% among Dell Services and IGS customer groups.Within the server support competition, HPS scores as well as competitors across all but the on-site response time category. It would seem that the responsiveness perception has little influence over perceptions of differentiation, which likely have to do with how customers view the innovativeness of support offerings.

SERVER SUPPORT PROVIDER INFLUENCES HARDWARE

BUYING DECISIONS BASED ON DIFFERENTIATION OF

SERVICES

55% 64%52%

45% 36%48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services

Yes No

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Server support services differentiation is most frequently associated with expertise

• Hardware, broad-based and specialized knowledge were all associated with support services differentiation in the x86 server space.

• Training, flexibility of services options and pricing were named less often, but when they were named, they were more often associated with Dell or HP Services, and not IBM.

Buying Behavior

MANNER IN WHICH SERVER SUPPORT PROVIDERS SERVICES ARE DIFFERENTIATED

(Among Respondents Perceiving Differentiation)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Broad-based Knowledge

Specialized Knowledge

Hardware Knowledge

Software Applications Knowledge

Training services provided to your staff

Pricing of Services

Flexibility of Services/Options Provided


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





HP Services was the least associated with differentiated notebook and desktop support services

Buying Behavior

Desktop/notebook support customers were asked if their primary support provider has differentiated its services to the extent that it influences their hardware buying decisions. Over half of Dell and Lenovo Services customers cited their respective support providers, in contrast to about one-third of HP Services customers perceiving services differentiation.

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT PROVIDER INFLUENCES

HARDWARE BUYING DECISIONS BASED ON

DIFFERENTIATION OF SERVICES

54%38% 45%

46%62% 55%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Yes No

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Expertise is most strongly associated with notebook/desktop support services differentiation; however, flexibility, pricing and training are also

part of the perception

• Dell Services was perceived as particularly strong versus the competition for flexibility of services and for providing training services to customers.

• Services pricing was cited as part of the perception of differentiated services more often than it was among server support customers.

Buying Behavior

MANNER IN WHICH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT PROVIDERS SERVICES ARE DIFFERENTIATED

(Among Respondents Perceiving Differentiation)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Broad-based Knowledge

Specialized Knowledge

Hardware Knowledge

Software Applications Knowledge

Training services provided to your staff

Pricing of Services

Flexibility of Services/Options Provided


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





There appears to be a 70/30 split between basic (standard) and premium

level warranties among x86 server customers

Buying Behavior

Dell notebook/desktop customers are most likely to purchase

premium support contracts vs. competitors’ customers

TYPES OF x86 SERVER SUPPORT

CONTRACTS PURCHASED

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%


Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

TYPES OF DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

CONTRACTS PURCHASED

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





The majority of server support customers do not expect any changes in their support-related budgets during the next 12 months

Buying Behavior

• A sizeable minority (25%, on average), however, expect support-related budgets to increase during the next 12 months.

• This represents a significant change over the findings in the 4Q09 reporting period, where relatively few (<10%) expected increased budgets for support services.

• Nearly half of the customers expecting to increase their support-related spending during the next year may increase spending by as much as 40% or more.

• This shift is likely associated with new hardware spending, where new – and perhaps enhanced – support contracts will be a significant part of the acquisition cost.

EXPECTED SERVER SUPPORT BUDGET INCREASES

IN NEXT 12 MONTHS

(Among Those Expecting Shrinking Budgets)

Up to 10%, 19%

10-24%, 32%

25-49%, 47%

50-74%, 3%

75%+, 0%

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

EXPECTED SERVER SUPPORT BUDGET CHANGES

IN NEXT 12 MONTHS

27% 27% 24%

8% 11%5%

65% 62% 70%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Increase Decrease No Change

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





The majority of desktop/notebook support customers do not expect a change in support-related budgets during the next 12 months

Buying Behavior

• A sizeable minority (20%, on average), however, expect support-related budgets to increase during the next 12 months.

• This represents a significant change over the findings in the 4Q09 reporting period, where relatively few (<5%) expected increased budgets for support services.

• Yet it would appear that server-related services spending will outpace that of desktop and notebook systems in the next year.

• Nearly half of customers expecting to increase their support-related spending during the next year may increase spending by as much as 40% or more.

• This shift is likely associated with new hardware spending, where new – and perhaps enhanced – support contracts will be a significant part of the acquisition cost.

EXPECTED DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT BUDGET

CHANGES IN NEXT 12 MONTHS

14% 19% 23%7%

13% 3%

78%68% 73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Increase Decrease No Change

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

EXPECTED DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT BUDGET

INCREASES IN NEXT 12 MONTHS

(Among Those Expecting Shrinking Budgets)

Up to 10%, 28%

10-24%, 20%

25-49%, 46%

50-74%, 4%

75%+, 2%

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





The sample distribution of internal support by brand has remained largely constant over time

A Word About the Internal Support Teams

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP

BY MAJOR PC BRANDS

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell HP IBM/Lenovo

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores – 4Q06 Through

1Q10





4Q06 Through 1Q10

Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

BREAK/FIX SERVICES4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services & Partners 5.82 5.79 5.82 5.88 5.86 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92HP Services & Partners 6.06 5.91 5.87 5.86 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94IGS & Partners 6.02 6.04 6.09 6.13 6.09 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09Internal Support Organizations 6.14 6.07 6.03 6.07 6.18 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.71 5.65 5.71 5.80 5.84 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52HP Services & Partners 5.97 5.84 5.83 5.86 5.93 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24IGS & Partners 5.86 6.01 6.01 5.97 6.06 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38Internal Support Organizations 6.10 6.11 6.09 6.06 6.13 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.79 5.70 5.85 5.90 5.70 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63HP Services & Partners 5.85 5.76 5.72 5.65 5.69 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15IGS & Partners 5.85 5.83 5.93 5.92 5.94 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45Internal Support Organizations 6.26 6.22 6.20 6.22 6.27 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.50 5.54 5.57 5.58 5.44 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64HP Services & Partners 5.62 5.59 5.45 5.43 5.55 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28IGS & Partners 5.79 5.69 5.61 5.65 5.68 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48Internal Support Organizations 6.04 5.94 5.97 6.01 6.00 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.59 5.57 5.63 5.66 5.59 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50HP Services & Partners 5.61 5.52 5.49 5.44 5.50 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34IGS & Partners 5.68 5.50 5.58 5.74 5.55 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60Internal Support Organizations 5.63 5.54 5.72 5.71 5.64 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.93 5.89 5.96 6.06 6.04 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63HP Services & Partners 5.85 5.88 5.90 5.85 5.83 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53IGS & Partners 5.76 5.81 5.91 6.01 6.04 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69Internal Support Organizations 5.47 5.30 5.52 5.66 5.61 5.41 5.32 5.48 5.41 5.50 5.51 5.41 5.25 5.23





4Q06 Through 1Q10

Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services & Partners 5.72 5.68 5.70 5.80 5.73 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77HP Services & Partners 5.72 5.64 5.58 5.56 5.50 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63IGS & Partners 5.81 5.65 5.58 5.71 5.74 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79Internal Support Organizations 5.98 5.89 5.82 5.86 5.96 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.79 5.51 5.61 5.90 5.67 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40HP Services & Partners 5.60 5.78 5.83 5.64 5.56 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30IGS & Partners 5.85 5.77 5.73 5.69 5.79 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35Internal Support Organizations 6.03 6.05 6.12 6.18 6.18 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.49 5.43 5.40 5.50 5.42 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43HP Services & Partners 5.46 5.51 5.51 5.30 5.31 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26IGS & Partners 5.56 5.43 5.43 5.52 5.62 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39Internal Support Organizations 5.47 5.37 5.43 5.56 5.50 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56OVERALL SATISFACTION

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.76 5.82 5.85 5.87 5.76 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77HP Services & Partners 6.06 5.91 5.78 5.73 5.76 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70IGS & Partners 6.01 5.87 5.81 5.84 5.89 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92Internal Support Organizations 6.11 5.95 5.91 6.02 6.10 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70





Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected

Attributes




TBRTechnology Business Research, Inc. Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis

Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations

VENDOR 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04 1Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell * * * HP

IGS

Dell *HPIGS

Dell

HPIGS *

Dell * *HP

IGS *

Dell * *HP

IGS * *

DellHPIGS * *

Dell * *HPIGS * *

Dell * *HPIGS * *

ONLINE SUPPORT

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE

PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

PHONE SUPPORT

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

SOURCE: TBR.





Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction

Attributes





On-site Break/Fix Services

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR BREAK/FIX SERVICES

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR.

TBR





On-site Technical Expertise

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE EXPERTISE

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


TBR






Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


TBR





Phone Support

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Online Support

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT

5.0

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Replacement Parts Availability

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE

FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


SOURCE: TBR.

TBR






Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)

Satisfaction Trends

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR

AUTOMATED SUPPORT TOOLS/DIAGNOSTICS

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


TBR





Overall Satisfaction

Satisfaction Trends

OVERALL SATISFACTION

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs





Break/Fix Services

Confidence Interval Graphs

235200197195N =



4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI B

reak

/Fix

Svc

s

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5240196192186N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI B

reak

/Fix

Svc

s

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5







235197194193N =

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE EXPERTISE


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-sit

e Ex

perti

se

6.05.95.95.85.85.75.75.65.65.55.55.45.45.35.35.25.25.15.1

241192192183N =

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE EXPERTISE


1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-si

te E

xper

tise

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.15.0







235199196194N =



4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-sit

e R

espo

nse

Tim

e

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.35.2

240194192184N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-si

te R

espo

nse

Tim

e

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8





Phone Support


235197200199N =



4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI P

hone

Sup

port

6.2

6.16.0

5.9

5.8

5.75.6

5.5

5.4

5.35.25.1

239193196184N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI P

hone

Sup

port

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0





Online Support


234198200198N =



4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-lin

e Su

ppor

t

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.25.1

237185192179N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI O

n-lin

e Su

ppor

t

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.25.1







231197201199N =



4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

226189197185N =



1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

6.4

6.2

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0







235200199199N =

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT VALUE


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

vera

ll Va

lue

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.55.4

239196196186N =

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT VALUE


1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI O

vera

ll Va

lue

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.55.4





Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration Services


231194191182N =

SATISFACTION WITH H/W DEPLOYMENT


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI H

/W D

eplo

ymen

t

6.0

5.95.8

5.7

5.6

5.55.4

5.3

5.2

5.15.04.9

233182181168N =

SATISFACTION WITH H/W DEPLOYMENT


1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI H

/W D

eplo

ymen

t

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.55.4

5.3

5.2

5.1

5.04.9







232192194186N =

SATISFACTION WITH AUTOMATED SUPPORT


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI R

emot

ely

Man

aged

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0231182186166N =

SATISFACTION WITH AUTOMATED SUPPORT


1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI R

emot

ely

Man

aged

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.15.0





Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support Services


235202201199N =

OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES SATISFACTION


4Q09

Support Provider


95%

CI O

vera

ll Sa

tisfa

ctio

n

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.55.4

241199198186N =

OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES SATISFACTION


1Q10

Support Provider


95%

CI O

vera

ll Sa

tisfa

ctio

n

6.4

6.3

6.2

6.1

6.0

5.9

5.8

5.7

5.6

5.55.4





Appendix F: Categorical Responses





Break/Fix Services

Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<5 5 6 7

Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.






Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

5%10%

15%20%

25%30%

35%40%

45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNI

EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGOR

0%

5%10%

15%20%

25%30%

35%40%

45%

<5 5 6 7

CAL

Y


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.






Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Phone Support

4Q09 1Q10

Category Graphs


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Online Support

Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10

SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS

CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS

CATEGORY

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.






Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10


RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.


RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.






Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY

RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY

RATINGS CATEGORY

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Hardware Deployment

Category Graphs

4Q09 1Q10

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

<5 5 6 7Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

<5 5 6 7Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.






4Q09 1Q10

Category Graphs

SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED

SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.

SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED

SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

<5 5 6 7


TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





Appendix G: Server/Storage Versus Desktop/Notebook Support

by Support Provider





Dell Services 1Q10

Satisfaction Trends

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

5.005.105.205.305.405.505.605.705.805.906.006.10

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rt

Web

Sup

port

Remot

ely M

anag

edHard

ware D

eploym

ent

Parts A

vaila

bility

Overal

l Valu

eOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.





HP Services 1Q10

Satisfaction Trends

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rtW

eb S

uppo

rtRem

otely

Man

aged

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

tPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Overal

l Valu

eOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





IBM Global Services 1Q10

Satisfaction Trends

IGS /LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rtW

eb S

uppo

rtRem

otely

Man

aged

Hardwar

e Dep

loymen

tPart

s Ava

ilabil

ity

Overal

l Valu

eOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

IGS for IBM Servers Lenovo Services for Desktops/NotebooksSOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Internal Support Organizations 1Q10

Satisfaction Trends

IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

Break

/Fix

On-site

Res

pons

e Tim

eOn-s

ite Ex

perti

sePho

ne S

uppo

rt

Web

Sup

port

Remot

ely M

anag

edHard

ware D

eploym

ent

Parts A

vaila

bility

Overal

l Valu

eOve

rall S

atisfa

ction

Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)SOURCE: TBR.

TBR





Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology





1Q10 Sample Overview • TBR’s 1Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 526

medium and large U.S. and Canadian establishments, primarily MIS/IT, systems management and purchasing managers.

• A number of the respondents are responsible for purchasing services from multiple support providers for their company or site, and thus were interviewed twice (once for each brand). Most respondents rated, at the very least, their internal support organization and one third-party provider.

• Consequently, 809 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR intentionally boosted the number of required interviews in order to better represent the stated experiences of customers receiving server-related vs. desktop/notebook-related support events.

• Because many of the larger companies rely exclusively on their internal support teams, the requirements for this study differ from those of TBR’s x86-based server, notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. The minimum requirement is an installed base of 200 systems for the Service & Support study (versus 500 for the standard studies). Respondents are screened to include only those individuals who recommend or evaluate OEM support services for their organization and also manage an internal support staff.

• The service and support interviews for the reporting period were distributed as follows: 186 Dell Services customer interviews, 199 HP Services customer interviews, 199 IBM Global Services customer interviews and 225 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010.

Study Design & Methodology

Methodology & Sample

Sample Size Standard ErrorAll Providers 809 1.00%Dell & Partners 186 2.47%HP & Partners 199 2.70%IGS & Partners 199 2.43%Internal Support Organizations 225 2.40%SOURCE: TBR.

Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes

Service & Support

TBR





Number of Employees


Number of Employees Percentage of Respondents<500 14.3%500–1,000 18.3%1,000–4,999 29.1%5,000–9,999 12.5%10,000–14,999 7.0%15,000–19,999 5.9%20,000–49,999 4.9%50,000–74,999 3.8%75,000–99,999 2.7%100,000+ 1.5%Average Number of Employees 11,743SOURCE: TBR.

Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed

TBR





Type of Business


Type of Business Percentage of Respondents

Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 13%Healthcare 9%Education 9%Information Service (including software development) 9%Government 9%Professional, Scientific, Technical 7%Manufacturing - Process (materials) 6%Finance, Insurance, real estate 6%Public Utilities 6%Retail Trade 5%Wholesale Trade 5%Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 4%Transportation Service 4%Other Services 3%Pharmaceuticals 3%SOURCE: TBR.

Types of Businesses Represented in the Study

TBR





Job Titles/Responsibilities


CXO (CIO,CTO) 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%Vice President 3.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4%Director 16.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1%Manager 46.2% 1.0% 2.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 50.8%Cordinator/Administration 17.7% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 20.9%Other 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 7.0%Grand Total 90.5% 4.2% 3.0% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR.

Respondent Job Functions/ResponsibilitiesSystems

Management PurchasingLevel MIS/IT Grand TotalNetworking OtherCustomer

Service/Support

TBR





Purchasing – Past, Present & Future


The 1Q10 study sample represents 2.9 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional 686,000 units during the next 12 months.

Sum 1,548,342 373,387 914,654 319,080 106,148 256,029Mean 3,030 731 1,790 624 208 501

Sum 31,723 5,192 17,619 3,428 256 1,685Mean 2,115 346 1,175 229 17 112

Enterprise 20.61% 28.43% 27.99%Division 10.81% 4.93% 9.56%SOURCE: TBR.

Enterprise

Division

Percent of Installed Base Replaced

Units Installed and Planned for Purchase by Form FactorInstalled Base Purchase Intent

Desktops Notebooks Desktops Notebooksx86-Based Servers

x86-Based Servers

TBR





Appendix I: Analytical Procedures





Satisfaction Ratings

Totally Dissatisfied

(Failure) Mediocre Totally

Satisfied Failure Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• Respondents were also asked to indicate the relative importance of each of the attributes in choosing their brand. These responses were given on a 1- to 5-point scale, with 1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important. These ratings determined the gap between vendor satisfaction and importance, or how well the vendor manages expectations.

• Respondents were then asked to indicate on a 1- to 5-point scale the degree of their loyalty toward their primary vendor(s). Finally, respondents were asked whether their corporation switched from one vendor to another during the past 12 months, and if so, which vendors were involved and why a change was made.

• The customer satisfaction analysis was based on several lines of questioning. Respondents were asked to grade their vendor across a series of attributes (listed below) for each brand the surveyed corporations purchased in the most recent buying cycle. At the conclusion of the attribute testing, respondents were asked to provide a rating based on a 7-point Likert scale.

Analytical Model





Measured Attributes

Customer satisfaction and relative importance were measured for each of the following attributes:

Analytical Model





Satisfaction Statistics• A table of satisfaction statistics (including mean, standard deviation, standard error, range around

the mean representing 95% confidence interval and standard t-test) describes customer satisfaction for each vendor in each attribute area, with special emphasis on overall satisfaction. A series of t-tests was performed on each vendor against the sum of its competitors, and the attribute areas where significant differences in score were indicated are marked. The t-test compares two means in order to determine if one mean is significantly different than the other, taking variability of response into consideration. The purpose of these tests is to determine if any of the group’s mean differences observed (e.g., a group being a set of customers of one vendor) cannot be entirely explained by random or natural variation within sampled groups of customers. In other words, the observed differences are real. TBR uses an independent sample t-test assuming unequal variances, or the standard student’s t-test. Those attributes with an α level of 0.05 or less are cited as indicating there is a 95% chance that concluding the two means are different is correct. A t-test of the grand mean (the mean of all scores for all attributes combined) serves to determine whether any of the vendors’overall scores tend to run higher or lower than competitors’ scores.

• As a backup to the above tests, an alternate test (the Bonferroni correction) is used for confirmation purposes (e.g., one-way analysis of variation). The variation within a group of customers is first determined in these one-way ANOVA tests. These variations are then compared to the variability between the groups (e.g., between Dell, HP and IBM customers). The between-group variation is measured by the sum of the squared differences between the sample mean of each group and the grand mean, which is then weighted by the sample size in each group. The between-group variation will be larger than the within-group variation (variation within each specific customer group) if there are meaningful differences between the means. The attributes that pass this additional test are also cited in the report. While the one-way ANOVA identifies which attributes are affected by differing means according to customer group, further tests such as the Bonferroni correction identify exactly which means differ from one another.

Analytical Procedures





• The competitive GAP analysis measures the gap between a vendor’s customer satisfaction for each attribute area against the expectations (importance ratings) of the market (all respondents). The standard against which each vendor is measured is the average size of that gap for all server vendors. The GAP analysis compares vendor satisfaction per attribute against importance per attribute among the vendor’s customer base, relative to overall satisfaction for all vendors per attribute against overall importance for all vendors per attribute. The formula for each attribute area independently is as follows:

GAP = ____(Vendor Importance * (7-Vendor Satisfaction)____ * 100(Grand Mean Importance * (7-Grand Mean Satisfaction)

• The product for the above is graphed on a scale where values between 40 and 80 indicate where the vendor exceeds customer expectation; values between 81 and 120 show where the vendor fully meets expectation; and values greater than 120 indicate where the vendor falls short of expectation.

• A second GAP analysis (the standard GAP analysis) considers how each systems vendor manages the expectations of its own customer base. For each vendor independently and for each attribute area, the mean satisfaction rating is graphed next to the mean importance rating (adjusted from a 5-point scale to the 12-point scale used for customer satisfaction). There are three possible outcomes: satisfaction meets customer expectation (bar graphs are equal or within a range where the gap is not significant); satisfaction falls short of expectation (indicating areas where the systems vendor may want to consider focusing greater efforts on raising satisfaction); and satisfaction exceeds expectation (indicating attribute areas where the systems vendor may be focusing more than is necessary).

• Yet another GAP analysis (the Improvements GAP analysis) is focused on determining the areas where the vendors need to set up improvement programs and areas where vendors may be able to pull back resources. It uses a similar formula to the competitive GAP analysis; however, the denominator becomes the grand mean importance and satisfaction for the vendor across all of the attributes. In this test, TBR compares the gaps for each of the individual attributes against the average gap for the vendor. Areas where the gaps measure wider than the average are areas where the vendor most urgently needs to focus its improvement efforts.


GAP Analyses





A trend analysis compares each vendor’s customer satisfaction scores for the current reporting period separately against those from both the preceding reporting period and the reporting period prior to that. By comparing against both reporting periods, TBR is able to determine if any changes are indicative of a real change in historical pattern. This graph uses a 95% confidence-interval technique; the scores for each vendor are represented with the mean indicated in the middle from which the lines extend (in both directions) the distance of the standard error around the mean. This analysis is used to determine the reasons a vendor may move up or down in the rankings from previous reporting periods: is it because the vendor improved or because the competition declined in customer satisfaction? The analysis also is used to pinpoint potential problem areas or areas where marked improvement is evident.


Trend Analysis





Numeric Weighting Model

1. A numeric weighting model is applied in order to provide a ranking of the vendors and a meansfor tracking overall change in customer perception over time. Where N represents the total number of attributes, AI the importance score for each attribute and AS the satisfaction scorefor each attribute, the formula applied for calculating the weighted satisfaction index, on anindividual respondent basis is:

Weighted Satisfaction Index = 100*7/1

1

⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

∑

∑

=

=N

ii

N

iii

AI

AIAS

Note: The total number of attributes for the x86-based server segment = 10 The above has been calculated for each respondent, with missing values (Don’t Know or NotApplicable responses) having been replaced with the mean value for the attribute for the vendorgroup. The weighted satisfaction index for each vendor is the mean of the respondents’weighted scores. The calculation for the individual satisfaction index is as follows. Where S = the sum of the satisfaction rating times the corresponding importance rating acrossthe total attributes; and where I = the sum of the importance ratings across the attributes:

Weighted Satisfaction Index = ( )1007∗IS


support provider segment = 10





Support Provider Ranking Positions

• Vendor ranking positions are determined primarily by the average weighted satisfaction index positions, with a minimum distance of 1.0% generally required in order for TBR to assign separate ranking positions to any two vendors. The determination of ranking positions does not end here, however; additional factors such as number of competitive strengths versus weaknesses also play into the final decision, which is a team effort by TBR principals. Consequently, less than a 1% distance can occur between two vendors’ weighted satisfaction index positions; yet, they may be assigned separate ranking positions based on the additional factors stated above.


• A competitive strength and weakness table is the final result of all the above analyses. The table points to the attribute areas that are definite strengths or weaknesses for each vendor. Areas of neutrality are those attributes where the vendor’s customer satisfaction performance is about average. The formula utilized for the determinations is: each attribute receives a score of 0 for neutrality, +1 for a positive and –1 for a negative. Three analyses are reviewed: the t-test analysis (0 for null, +1 for significantly higher scores and –1 for significantly lower scores); the competitive GAP analysis (0 for meeting expectation, +1 for exceeding and –1 for falling short); and the vendor GAP analysis (same as above). The standard t-test results are compared to those of the more stringent “Bonferroni analysis” and those passing both tests are noted with an extra point. The three scores for each attribute are summed up. Any attribute with a total score of +2 or –2 is cited as a strength or weakness; total scores between these ranges are cited as neutral areas. Those with scores of +4 or –4 are areas of particularly strong strength or weakness. Marginal determinations (warnings or marginal strengths) come about when the determination is borderline, e.g., only the first t-test was passed, or the t-test was passed as a potential area of strength but a poor GAP rating negated it.

Competitive Strength & Weakness Table





Appendix J: Survey Instrument





1Q10 Survey Instrument

Survey Instrument

SCREENERS






Survey Instrument

technology business research, inc....customer satisfaction technology business research, inc....

Documents