Customer Satisfaction Survey

Comparison Between
2005 and 2007
Facilities Maintenance 2005 2007 Change
Respondents 160 308 + 148
% Satisfied
% Neutral
% Dissatisfied
49.4% 50.2% + .8%
39.4% 43.0% + 8.6%
16.3% 6.8% - 9.5%

3.
4.
8.
9.
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
Facilities Maintenance
Change in % Satisfied
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Facilities Maintenance
Change in % Neutral
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Facilities Maintenance
Change in % Dissatisfied
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

3.
4.
8.
9.
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
Facilities Maintenance
Mean Scores
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

Most Improved Service Attributes
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
52.6%
57.7%
39.2%
44.3%
0.00%
Functional/Technical Expertise
4
5.1%
Communication of Service
Changes
5
5.1%
38.7%
2005
2007
44.4%
Implementation of Service
Changes
6
5.7%

Steps to Improvement
 Customer survey results shared with all FM staff
 Comprehensive FM plan developed


Hosted three (3) in-depth customer focus groups led by Deb Nystrom
Developed “Customer First” training class
 Informed FUN customers of FM efforts w/ our staff customer service training initiative
 Developed mutual empathy/understandings

Customer First!





Tailored sessions for the
FM audience
 Included real U of M specific FM examples
Sought trainer w/ audience credibility (former trades experience)
 “Job shadowed”
Foreman,Trades/MM’s,POCC staff
20 - 4-hour sessions, all FM required
AD addressed 18 of 20 sessions personally
Transfer of developed program to Plant Academy

Communication Expectations

Customer First Pledge
I pledge to do my best no matter the circumstance to ensure that the customer is always first by:
 Remaining professional at all times in my dress, speech and tone


Having empathy not apathy
Valuing my relationship with the customer



Making sure the customer is aware of major progress
Respecting the process
Speaking positively about my colleagues




Taking pride in my work
Looking for continuous improvement opportunities
Keeping an open mind to constructive criticism
Setting and achieving personal goals

Grounds Services
Customer Satisfaction Survey

3.
4.
8.
9.
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
Grounds Services
Change in % Satisfied
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Grounds Services
Change in % Neutral
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Grounds Services
Change in % Dissatisfied
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
9.00%
8.00%
7.00%
6.00%
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.00%
1.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2005
2007

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Grounds Services
Mean Scores
Understanding Business
Needs
Explanation of Policies and
Procedures
Communication of Standards
Functional/Technical
Expertise
Communication of Service
Changes
Implementation of Service
Changes
Accessibility of Service or
Provider
Level of Courtesy
Overall Customer Satisfaction
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2007
2005

Customer Initiatives from 2005
 Expand service level agreements
 Communicate the Grounds work plan
 Combine all general maintenance crews under one manager.
 Expand stakeholder meetings with front line staff
 Leverage technology to communicate standards and service levels.

Customer Initiatives from 2005
Non General Fund
 Expand service level agreements
 Mutually agreed upon standards
 Not to exceed price for service
 Regular reporting
 Timely explanation of variances between estimates and actuals

Customer Initiatives from 2005
General Fund
 Communicate the Grounds work plan
 Available on the Grounds Services website
 All staff trained on plan
 Educate FM through IFM classes
 What it does
 Identifies priorities and standard service levels
 Tracks actual vs. estimated labor and costs for any given task

Customer Initiatives from 2005
All Customers
 Combine all general maintenance crews under one manager.
 Part of continuing effort to flatten organization
 What this does
 Reduction of overhead/billing rates
 Add more front line staff
 Increased efficiencies, shared equipment, improved coordination

Customer Initiatives from 2005
All Customers
 Expand stakeholder meetings with front line staff
 Creation of working lead positions
 First point of contact with customers/facility managers
 Can communicate work plan components
 Receive regular reports
 Flexibility, accountability, empowerment

Customer Initiatives from 2005
All Customers
 Leverage technology to communicate standards and service levels.
 Grounds work plan on website
 Crews receive electronic reports on performance
 Customers receive same reports as requested

Thank you.
 Questions?