1. Adele Uprichard Improving the Customer Feedback Process at SERC

2. Project Aim Aim Scope Objectives
To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the customer feedback process at SERC
Determine staff knowledge of process
Analyse customer feedback received in 2012/13
Benchmark against other FE Colleges
Create an automated system
Introduce customer feedback response times as ‘dashboard’ KPI
Increase reporting of positive feedback by staff
Create an ‘App’
Eliminate overdue responses
Aim - transparent
Scope - identify knowledge gaps, identify trends in schools/units in relation to feedback received and response times
Objectives - reduce manual processing with automatic triggers for feedback responses
Rationale behind the project and justify the project need.

3. Rationale Operational Strategic Hierarchy – operational to strategic
SharePoint – register is a list, no visual aids, too much
SERC Strategic Theme 4 of SERC Development Plan – Listening and Influencing Rationale
‘Secure a customer satisfaction rate of 90%’
‘Establish a benchmark to measure reputation’
‘A range of ‘dashboard’ key performance indicators will be created and measured on a rolling basis’
DEL Strategic Objective
Key research and findings to support the need

4. Research & Findings
Primary research to support ‘lack of staff awareness’
Electronic survey open to all staff with 100% response rate. Sample of 100 staff - 56 ac, 44 corp
Have your say Your voice your opinion matters 2.
3. Over half surveyed do not know where to locate the customer feedback Policy and SOP
4. 82 from 100 want to be able to view statistics. Show staff interest in the process.
5. 87 would be encouraged. Of these 87, 51 received positive comments in the past but didn’t pass on to mgr. 33 of these 51 weren’t aware of the register
GIS map to show the breakdown of negative and positive feedback received in academic year 12/13, by campus

5. GIS Map
12/13 -
288 negative, 782 positive (250 of which from external source)
Letters to students - non campus specific feedback
This map details the number of comments received about each of the College campuses and out centres. The number of comments per campus is relative to level of activity on that campus is. E.g. Lisburn, Bangor, Downpatrick then Ards.
Positive feedback figures v high as we log comments received from external customers, but also recognise excellence internally e.g. student or staff achievements/awards. Going forward we may wish to categorise internal and external on the feedback register so that reports can be ran detailing both categories
Future GIS mapping – linking origin of feedback i.e. Postcodes to type of feedback received. This would allow common themes in negative comments to be explored. E.g.. Is feedback re course costs linked to areas of deprivation?
Next area of research was analysis of response times to negative feedback

6. Analysis of Customer Feedback Register
53 overdue responses in 2012/13 = potential loss of custom and income “56%-70% of the customers who complain to you will do business with you again if you resolve their problem. If they feel you acted quickly and to their satisfaction, up to 96% will do business with you again, and they will probably refer other people to you”. Source: The White House Office of Consumer Affairs, Washington DC
There is a need to respond within 20 working days.
However we should strive to respond much sooner, as this will retain customers.
I would also add that small complaints can escalate as time goes on
Turn the negative into a positive.

7. More Detailed analysis of Feedback register
8 of 9 schools overdue at least once in 12/13. Access only school on time
17 corp areas – 52.9% overdue at least once.
Reasons - overlooked s, or the SCSO not sending reminders in a timely manner.
ROs more accountable and proactive in responding to neg feedback.
The final piece of research was an FOI request

8. Personal FOI Request Do you record Positive Feedback?
Do you record Positive Feedback?
Do you record Negative Feedback?
Do you advertise Feedback statistics internally (to staff)?
Number of Positive
comments received in 2012/13?
Number of Negative comments (complaints)
received in 2012/13?
What % of Negative Feedback (complaints)
were responded to within timeframe in 2012/13?
BMC
No 
Only those complaints which reach stage 2 or 3 i.e. Appeal or investigation 
Presentations to staff on College feedback
Not recorded  64
69%
NRC
Yes 
Reports to mgt only 11
103
74%
NWRC
Staff suggestion scheme only 
Functional areas keep record of own complaints  1 39
No record held
SRC 27 50
42%
SWC 3 51
Not specified
SERC
782 in total, 250 external 
288
80% 
Personal FOI request
Surprising results – not all record, some not centrally
SERC performing very well in terms of recording and retaining information
SERC is the only College to refer to feedback rather than Complaints
Neg stats are high compared to others, however it is relative. We record all written negative, BMC only record complaint Appeals
Positive feedback is considerably higher – as previously mentioned I suggest that going forward we categorise internal and externally sourced positive feedback separately, and that externally sourced are used
All College response times range from 15 to 20 working days response time frame

9. Option 2 – Develop and modify current Feedback register on SharePoint
Options
1. BEST System
2. SharePoint
Key Success Factors
Weight
Rating
Weighted Score
Cost 45 2 90 5
225
Functionality 30
150 4
120
Resources 25 50
125
Total Score
100
290
470
Weighted Scoring Model
Option 1 – New system Designed to spec such as BEST ,Fully automated ,Costly 2 weeks work e author(£ ).
Option 2 – Developed and improved register accessible via an App. RO summary of o/s feedback. Dashboard KPI in relation to response times.
user friendly/easy to navigate – accessible via App, visually appealing, added workflows (auto triggers)
Useful tool for all staff to view up to date feedback statistics - need that has been established from the secondary research (staff questionnaire).
‘Front page’ of App, then separate view for ROs.
2 days work - low cost quick solution
Key
Rating Meaning
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Average
Poor
Option 2 – Develop and modify current Feedback register on SharePoint

10. Project Mock Up

Mock up of what RO view of App might look like. (There would be a front page view for all staff)
This second page view would be accessible by ROs and Senior Mgt.
Visual aids to summarise at a glance how many complaints are outstanding and by how days.
All feedback to come via the SCSO: Support Services as usual to ensure maintenance and upkeep up the register, however ROs will now received auto s of negative comments received, . to upload
Then link to specific feedback details – RO able to add comments on the status of the feedback. E.g. action taken to date. Upload copy of response and response date

11. Impact and Benefits of Implementing Project
Impact & Risk
Resources Required
Impact and Benefits of Implementing Project
Risks if we Do Nothing
Time of E Author to redesign, modify and publish developed SharePoint system (2 days)
Training of ROs on the new system
IQRS
Meeting strategic objectives
RO accountability for feedback responses
Time and cost savings – SCSO has more scope for strategic planning
Streamlined process that ALL staff are aware of and involved in
Enhancing customer experience
Sector benchmark
Loss of time and money (10 hours pw / £ pa)
Lose customers
Damage reputation
Not meet strategic / org objectives
Lose competitive edge
Resources – SCSO brief ROs at HOS meeting
Impact – ROs accountable and more proactive – KPI to measure performance
Sector benchmark - Best practice – contribution towards 2020 vision
Risk – Lose competitive edge

12. Any Questions?