Fourth participant survey results & actions 16 August 2016

Overview The fourth participant opinion tracking survey was issued on 29 July 2016, following the third survey on 28 April 2016 This survey included changes, such as additional categories on which to rate our communications and adjustments to questions relating to meetings and conferences The survey was completed by 26 respondents. This is 13% more than completed the third survey but remains a relatively small sample size, the results of which therefore should be treated with caution It is a comparative survey, tracking perceptions of our communication and engagement against previous survey(s) This document includes the responses received to each question, comments from participants and an update on how we will be responding to participant requests The next survey is scheduled for November 2016.

Executive summary The results from this fourth survey show positive improvements on issues identified previously: 85% of respondents said the support they receive is satisfactory or better. Increasing by 15% from the third survey. The corresponding percentage of respondents recognising this as an area for improvement fell from 30% to 15% Participants’ perceptions of our ‘capability’, ‘knowledge’, ‘support’ and ‘responsiveness’ have all increased. Although ‘accessibility’ fell slightly Participants’ perceptions of our communications as ‘relevant’, ‘accurate’ and ‘professional’ remained broadly unchanged, while ‘timeliness’ decreased ‘Accessible’ and ‘clear’ were new additions and yielded positive results consistent with the other categories Participants rating the face-to-face meeting experience highlighted the pre/post meeting information as requiring improvement Participants’ overall rating of conference calls was higher than that of face-to-face meetings. Administration of calls was highlighted as the area needing the most improvement

How would you rate MOSL's… Compared to the third survey, ratings of capability, knowledge, support and responsiveness have all increased slightly The number of participants highlighting responsiveness as an area requiring improvement has reduced from 35% to 28%. We are pleased with this positive change in perception, but will still aim to reduce this number further The number of participants rating accessibility as needing improvement has increased significantly from 9% to 16%.

To what extent do you believe communications are: Respondents continue to agree that our communications are relevant, accurate and professional with rankings increasing marginally Perception of our service as timely has decreased slightly by 2% (agree/disagree) and this remains the area ranked as most needing improvement Accessible and clear were new additions to the survey. Both ranking highly and consistently with the other categories measured.

If you attend any face-to-face meetings, please rate: This question was adapted from previous surveys to include all face-to-face meetings, not just the WRG, and therefore can not be used to draw comparisons The highest ranking aspect of face-to-face meeting experience was their frequency The element most requiring improvement was pre/post meeting information, as ranked by 15% of respondents

If you take part in any conference calls, please rate: This question was a new addition to the survey The overall satisfaction with the conference call experience was ranked higher than the face-to-face meeting experience The element requiring the most improvement was identified as administration.

How satisfied are you with the support you receive? 85% of respondents said the support they received is satisfactory or better This is a 15% increase from the third survey (70%) and a 22% increase from the second survey (63%) 15% of respondents think improvement is required in the support we provide to our members. This is a significant reduction when compared to 30% and 37% in the third and second surveys respectively.

A range of views expressed “We would welcome a forward look on requests we will be asked to respond to over the coming weeks/months.” “Significant improvement has been made in receiving responses to queries. Speed of response could be improved.” “I mainly work with the MEAC team, they are very supportive and collaborative, but have limited time and resources.” “Ensure all slide packs and agendas are published 48 hours ahead of meetings. Recently this has slipped on a couple of occasions and it could result in the wrong people attending meetings\dialling into calls.” “Whilst certain areas are very good, it can be hard to get substantive responses to queries the first time.” “MOSL needs to be very transparent in disclosing the facts.”

Feedback theme 1 – timeliness and responsiveness You say: MOSL needs to…. Respond to every email Meet a greater proportion of SLAs MOSL needs to act with more timeliness in…. Responding to questions and actions raised at meetings, issues raised via help desk, participant queries, and CMOS defects Providing feedback on data upload results We say: We recognise that there is an ongoing challenge to remain responsive at this very busy time. We aim to answer all queries within 48 hours, however, more difficult questions sometimes require more time to investigation We are aware that we are not always able to meet our SLAs due to other workload peaks and moving forward we are focusing on adapting our internal procedures and timetable for collecting and distributing information

Feedback theme 2 – knowledge You say: MOSL needs to improve… Knowledge distribution within MOSL, including codes, trade effluent, and system build We say: We have recently added ‘expertise’ to our core company values and subsequently are working to facilitate the transfer of individual expertise throughout the organisation. For example, employees attend regular out-of-hours ‘master classes’ hosted by internal experts, which provide an opportunity for our team members to learn about specific areas and broaden their industry knowledge.

Miscellaneous You say We say MOSL needs to ensure consistent messages are given whether via Portfolio Managers or the team in London. The Portfolio Managers are the main contact point between us and our members. We would like to address any inconsistencies that participants have received and ask our members to raise any current or future discrepancies with their Portfolio Manager or Director of Market Engagement, Tom Notman. MOSL needs to give more notice, where possible, of requests that will be made to participants. Given the fast-paced nature of the programme, there are times when we are unable to provide advance notice. However, when making requests of participants we aim to provide a minimum of one week’s notice. MOSL could provide foresight of communications being sent to CEOs via WRG for discussion and engagement purposes. A wide range of issues and topics are discussed at the WRG, however, it is not always possible to get input on communications before they are issued. When certain potentially sensitive messages are sent to CEOs, we ensure that they are also circulated to the wider teams shortly after. MOSL needs to facilitate a simpler way for participants to arrange calls with specialist teams within MOSL. Portfolio Managers are the main contact point between us and our members and the most efficient way to reach specialist teams within MOSL is through this channel. Participants can also ask questions on Podio which will be directed to the relevant team or individual. MOSL should be more transparent, particularly in regards to delays caused by defects. We aim to be transparent in everything we do. However, due to the pace we’re working at, we may not always be able to provide a long-term view of any delays.

Next survey: November 2016 Questions about these results? Please contact Adrian Smith, Communications Lead: adrian.smith@mosl.co.uk or 07702 089713