1. Fifth participant survey results & actions 6 January 2017

2. Overview
The fifth participant opinion tracking survey was issued on 24 October 2016, following the fourth survey on 29 July 2016
This survey was completed by 19 respondents. This is 27% less than completed the fourth survey. This is a very 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 responses to key issues raised by participants
The next survey is scheduled for February 2017.

3. Executive summary
The results from this fifth survey show that positive improvements made from the third to fourth survey have been maintained over the last three months:
84% of respondents said the support they receive is satisfactory or better, a very marginal increase compared to the fourth survey
Participants’ perceptions of our capability, knowledge, accessibility and responsiveness have increased by a marginal amount
Perception of MOSL’s support has decreased however the level of satisfaction quoted in the first bullet indicates that while the quantity of support has decreased its quality has remained consistent
This survey included a new question about the self-service portal. Quantitative feedback was mixed and qualitative feedback highlighted a greater degree of dissatisfaction
Participants overall satisfaction with conference calls increased by 30%
Overall satisfaction with face-to-face meetings increased compared to the results of the fourth survey
Participants continued to prefer conference calls to face-to-face meetings
Qualitative feedback identified the self service portal and the service desk as key themes.

4. How would you rate MOSL's…
Knowledge was the highest ranking criterion (satisfactory or higher). The proportion of respondents identifying knowledge as an area requiring improvement decreased from 12% (July survey) to 0%
The number of participants rating capability and support as requiring improvement has reduced by a third and a half respectively
Ratings of accessibility and responsiveness have increased slightly
Perceived levels of support decreased from 87% to 74% (satisfactory or above). It is possible that this change in opinion relates to the implementation of MOSL’s self service approach.

5. Rate the self-serve portal on the following criteria:
This question is a new addition to the participant survey meaning we have no past results against which to track a change in opinion
Overall satisfaction with the self-serve portal is reasonable. Every criterion was rated as satisfactory or better by >70% of respondents (excluding N/A), although a significant proportion said that further improvement is required
The portal was felt to be accurate and useful – the two areas of highest satisfaction – however respondents felt it needed to be much more comprehensive.

6. To what extent do you believe communications are:
Ratings of MOSL’s communications as timely, accurate, professional, accessible and clear have all remained high and increased marginally
100% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that MOSL’s communications are professional and accessible
Participants believe that the timeliness of MOSL’s communications has increased, however they continue to consider this the element that needs the most improvement.

7. If you attend any face-to-face meetings, please rate:
Overall satisfaction with face-to-face meetings has improved with the weighted average of every criterion increasing from the July survey
Frequency remains the highest ranking aspect of face-to-face meetings while pre/post meeting information remains the area most requiring improvement.

8. If you take part in any conference calls, please rate:
Overall satisfaction with conference calls increased significantly from 54% (July survey) to 84% (good and above, excluding N/A) and remained higher than satisfaction with face-to-face meetings
The percentage of participants rating administration, previously identified as the area requiring the most improvement, as good or above increased significantly from 44% to 89% (excluding N/A)
Pre/post- meeting information was the only area identified as requiring improvement.

9. How satisfied are you with the support you receive?
84% of respondents said that the support they receive from MOSL is satisfactory or better
This is a 1% decrease from the fourth survey and a 14% increase from the third survey
16% of respondents think improvement is required in the support we provide to our members. This is a slight increase from 15% in the fourth survey.

10. Qualitative Feedback theme 1 – Self-serve portal
You say:
“Ok as a general information point but completely unsuitable as the primary source of information for complex shadow market queries. Need to maintain the direct contact availability to MOSL staff”
We say:
The portal is not designed to answer complex company-specific queries. It is to help members get answers to commonly asked questions and frequently used documents.
Complex queries can be raised using the statutory forms online. Participant specific issues should be raised with Portfolio Managers who will gather key themes.
These key themes will then be translated into agenda items for conferences and calls or responded to with new guidance documents.

11. Qualitative Feedback theme 1 – Self-serve portal
You say:
“Cannot search the whole site for keywords”
“Pop ups saying go straight to the self serve portal are constant each session and waste time”
We say:
Documents are named with logical titles and collected in the ‘Documents’ section of the MOSL website. They should therefore be be easy to locate using search. If you believe that website content is not accurately titled please let us know.
We have responded to this feedback by disabling the pop up window.

12. Qualitative Feedback theme 2 – Service Desk
You say:
•      “Service Desk tickets have been lost”
•       “Service Desk tickets not processed for a month”
•      “Service desk process should result in many more posts of questions asked by participants multiple times”
We say:
All tickets submitted to the Service Desk are recorded in the Remedy system and cannot be “lost”.
The progression of tickets is tracked daily by the leadership team.
If the response time breaches service level targets, participants are encouraged to escalate this by phoning the service desk or through their portfolio manager.
The Communications Team and Service Desk are working together to establish a process which will facilitate more frequent publication of participant FAQs.

13. Miscellaneous You say We say
WRG slides do not come out in advance of the session so (participants) can not fully prepare
We are aware that we need to improve our timeliness when sharing pre meeting information. We are working on refining internal processes to allow us to deliver material in line with SLAs. Moving forward we will begin creating content further in advance allowing us more time to collect and distribute it.
MOSL observation log should be published weekly but rarely manages to be out with this frequency
MOSL can not commit to publishing the observation log weekly. The log is updated on a timely basis which should nonetheless deliver value to Market Participants.
Where there are one-off or off-programme meetings it would be good to have something in the appointment that explains what the session is about so we can send the right people
Moving forward MOSL will provide greater detail of one-off events in their invitations as well as indicating the ‘type’ of employee to whom the content will be most relevant and valuable.
I find it difficult to find documents on the website because of an illogical filing system
We acknowledge that there have been problems with the self service portal and that functionality has not been of a high enough standard. We are in the process of making improvements before go-live and therefore ask you to raise any specific issues with so that we can attempt to rectify them.
CMOS is the major concern around sticking to timescales for releases. Transactions need to be given priority and more relevant feedback for when the schedules are to be missed
As we move into service mode we have the same requirement as our participants for a reliable release schedule. High level scope and dates for 2.26 and 2.3 have been shared. MOSL is also looking into ways to provide participants with real-time access to our live release schedule meaning at any given time MOSL and participants have access to the same information.

14. Next survey: February 2016
Questions about these results? Please contact Adrian Smith, Communications Lead: or