1. KVI Supporting Slide
CoMC
1st May 2019

2. March 2019 Period KVI Measure Reporting Frequency Commentary
Issue Resolution
90% rated as ‘Exceeded Expectations’ or ‘Met Expectations’
Monthly
94.6% achieved. Still seeing low levels of responses, feedback is regularly reviewed to build on successful practices and implement corrective action plans for areas of failure and negative feedback.
Change Management
90% rated as ‘Always’ or ‘Usually’
Quarterly
Due at May meeting for April period
Relationship Management
95% stated they ‘Trust’ Xoserve
Due at June meeting for May period
Data Services
As Required
Feedback requested in March relating to resolution of issues (defects) affecting AQ. Sent to 200 customers, 12 responses received (6%). 25% ‘Met Expectations, 55% ‘Met Some’ & 27% ‘Did Not Meet Expectations’.
Customer Data Security
Number of data breaches
Three incidents raised, 2 categorised as ‘low’, 1 categorised as ‘medium’ for March Covered under agenda item 4.5
Service Delivery
98% of P1 & P2 KPIs met
One P2 KPI missed relating to daily reads issued late to Shippers. Reads were processed in UKLink & Gemini but stuck in AMT Marketflow. Files were issued at 3.30 pm. A Service Improvement has been raised to enable call outs in such scenarios. The SI is still in progress, pending testing from IS Ops. There is no definitive date for implementation however, the team are manually monitoring..
Financial Reporting
Provision of quarterly reports
Due at May meeting for January - March period

3. Data Services KVI

4. Data Services KVI
Survey issued in March to customers we have been communicating with regarding the AQ defects
Sent to approx. 200 customers, only 12 responses received (6% response rate)
Achieved 25% (KVI failure)
25% ‘Met Expectations,
55% ‘Met Some Expectation’
27% ‘Did Not Meet Expectations’.
Feedback received has provided us a benchmark for future surveys under the ‘Customer Issue Resolution’ KVI
Commentary has provided us with valuable information that we have used to refine the process and to make improvements in the future
From 1st April the KVI will measure the resolution of customer issues which we will use to continue to make improvements using any feedback received
We will also be implementing our own measures on performance that we will report on

5. Data Services KVI Feedback Received
Most of the updates we receive on rolling AQ calculation updates are not helpful. Many of them merely give an estimated number of affected MPRNs, it isn't clear if the MPRNs are affecting the whole industry or just the shipper portfolio. If there is a list of MPRNs affected then there is often no indication of what the correct AQ should be or what the incorrect AQ should be so it is impossible to even act on the information. I appreciate the early communication on issues but I feel without the more granular information it is not possible to analyze on our end what the impact is.
Data, or lack of, was the main reason I completed the survey in the way I have. It was difficult to obtain the data relating to the defects which we needed to understand the scale of the problem. This was particularly apparent around XRN4740 which had a significant impact on a particular segment of our portfolio.
The s were extremely frequent and some times there was no update. They were also unclear as to what action was needed on our part so we had to keep checking.
The updates were regular but not necessarily very meaningful - I am not sure a weekly update when nothing has been achieved is helpful. Can you also please make sure the descriptions are not too technical? If we understand what each defect means, we are more likely to recognize and link it to our situation which would mean less queries raised to you. Another thing that was missing was updated lists of MPR impacted. We received a list in December for the majority of defects at the time and we never received another list after that. Also, using the example of XRN4740, the defect was classified as completed because the AQs calculated after that day were correct but you did not communicate on the impact of this fix for the static AQ.

6. Data Services KVI Feedback Received
The following is not aimed at any individual, as the individuals I deal with, generally speaking, try to be as helpful as possible.
The data provided is not usually in a format that makes any sense unless you have an extensive knowledge of the issues.
In some instances the impacts are not communicated in advance of the resolution and the financial impact to interested parties does not seem to be at the forefront of Xoserve thoughts; there is a lot of talk of the 'net effect' to defects. The 'net effect' could be minimal when viewed holistically but the effect on a specific DN or Shipper could be material.
Furthermore there appears to be no acceptance of responsibility for the poor implementation and maintenance of the systems since Nexus went live. It was implemented in June 2017 and there is still numerous issues unresolved and will likely be more unearthed. These issues have a financial impact on the industry and the unfortunate by-product of the volume of issues is that it leaves concerns as to the accuracy of data provided and in some cases whether it has been properly sense checked prior to release.
As a whole Xoserve seem to be more stakeholder focused over the past few months and is hopefully moving in the right direction.

7. Data Services KVI Feedback Received
There have been further issues during this process that have been found by us and raised back to Xoserve. Where there has been a mass update required to data this had to be managed internally, there should have been support from Xoserve for this i.e. replacement files (this I don't believe is currently possible) or, at the very least, corrected data in record format to allow an update and replace to the original files received
It has taken a very long time to identify these issues and get them corrected, this includes the period of time prior to the separate work stream picking up and addressing. On the positive side of this, there was a dedicated team/piece of work to address and correct.
Weekly updates have been good but feel they lost some meaning i.e. looked the same each week so not really looked at. Maybe a summary on these to indicate what had happened in the reporting period.
Xoserve did listen and adjust to shipper requirements in correcting what they could upfront, the rest for March nrl and individual monthly manual update to support processes
Query resolutions need to be answered in a timely manner. If we can have a direct contact (telephone number) with the teams at Xoserve for emergency questions it would be much appreciated so we don't have to go down the query route

8. Action Plan Category Action Date to be Completed Communication: Data
Data (e.g. affected MPRNs) provided to customer will provide more meaningful information including any action the customer needs to take
05/04/2019
Communication: Updates
Customer Issue Register amended to make it clearer the impact on customers.
Register published on the Xoserve website
notifications will only be issued for any high impacting issues
notifications will provide clear customer impacts and the resolution steps and any actions required by the customer
Financial impacts on the customer will be assessed and communicated
12/04/2019
Resolution of Issues
Service Management incidents (tickets) are being monitored daily for any potential customer issues and tracked.
Prioritisation of incidents & defects checked to ensure correct
Performance Measures
Define SLAs and measures on resolution of customer issues
Report o performance
June 2019