Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey – 2013, Study notes of Finance

Download Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey – 2013 and more Study notes Finance in PDF only on Docsity!

CountyStat

Montgomery County:

Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey – 2013

January 8, 2014

CountyStat Office

CountyStat

CountyStat Principles

 Require Data Driven Performance

 Promote Strategic Governance

 Increase Government Transparency

 Foster a Culture of Accountability

2013 Internal Customer 2 01/08/

CountyStat

Meeting Goal

 Deliver CountyStat analysis of results of the 2013 Internal Customer

Satisfaction Survey, and identify trends in order to help departments better

serve their internal customers

2013 Internal Customer 4 01/08/

Desired Outcome

 Ensure quality service to County’s internal customers and identify

targeted areas for improvements

CountyStat

Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions

 Meeting Goals

 Follow-up Items from 2012 Survey

 Survey Methodology & Survey Questions

 Summary of Findings & Survey Response Rates

 Overview of Scores

 Quantitative Data Analysis by Question

– Quality of Service; Level of Effort; Success Rate; Communication;

Professional Knowledge; Availability; Responsiveness; Initiative;

Process; Guidance & Assistance; Timeliness; Information; Innovation

 Quantitative & Qualitative Analysis & Discussion by Department

– County Attorney; Finance; Management and Budget; Public

Information; Technology Services; Human Resources; General

Services

 Wrap up

2013 Internal Customer 5 01/08/

CountyStat

Status of 2012 Internal Survey Follow-Up Items (2/2)

Department / Action Item Status

OHR / Conduct quarterly briefings to address workforce issues to improve service delivery Complete

OHR / Implement communications with internal and external customers to attract, recruit, retain, and develop a well-qualified diverse workforce

Complete/ Ongoing

OHR / Develop a cadre of division staff capable of accessing and using the County Oracle systems Ongoing

DTS / Undertake a more inclusive enterprise technology strategic planning process which will hopefully give DTS more insight into departments' systems and support needs Complete

DTS / Undertake a more inclusive enterprise technology strategic planning process which will hopefully allow DTS to better align its services to support the departments In Process

DTS / Strengthen customer feedback channels by conducting a mid-year customer survey Complete

DTS / Document, publish, and publicize Service Request service levels In Process

OCA / Having division chiefs meet with their counterparts to get a more ground level view of how the process is working Incomplete

2013 Internal Customer 7 01/08/

CountyStat

Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions

 Meeting Goals

 Follow-up Items from 2012 Survey

 Survey Methodology & Survey Questions

 Summary of Findings & Survey Response Rates

 Overview of Scores

 Quantitative Data Analysis by Question

– Quality of Service; Level of Effort; Success Rate; Communication;

Professional Knowledge; Availability; Responsiveness; Initiative;

Process; Guidance & Assistance; Timeliness; Information; Innovation

 Quantitative & Qualitative Analysis & Discussion by Department

– County Attorney; Finance; Management and Budget; Public

Information; Technology Services; Human Resources; General

Services

 Wrap up

2013 Internal Customer 8 01/08/

CountyStat

Internal Survey Questions

2. Quality of Service: Rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of service received by the following Departments.
3. Level of Effort: Rate the level of effort your Department must invest to successfully utilize the Department's service(s).
4. Success Rate: Rate how often the following Departments successfully meet the needs and requirements of your Department.
5. Communication: Rate how often Department staff were able to explain and answer questions to your satisfaction.
6. Professional Knowledge: Rate how often you were satisfied with the professional knowledge exhibited by the Department staff.
7. Availability: Rate how often your first attempt to reach Department staff was successful.
8. Responsiveness: Rate how often you were satisfied with the responsiveness of the Department staff.
9. Initiative: Rate how often you were satisfied with the amount of initiative taken by Department staff in addressing your needs and requirements.
10. Process: Rate your overall satisfaction with the process(es) the Department uses to address your needs or requirements.
11. Guidance & Assistance: Rate your satisfaction with the guidance and assistance provided for the process(es).
12. Timeliness: Rate your satisfaction with the timeliness of the process(es) to satisfy your needs and requirements.
13. Information: Rate your satisfaction with the amount of information provided to you about the status of your request.
14. Innovation: Rate your satisfaction with the Department’s ability to innovate in order to satisfy your needs.

Overall

ratings

Personnel

ratings

Process

ratings

2013 Internal Customer 10 01/08/

CountyStat

Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions

 Meeting Goals

 Follow-up Items from 2012 Survey

 Survey Methodology & Survey Questions

 Summary of Findings & Survey Response Rates

 Overview of Scores

 Quantitative Data Analysis by Question

– Quality of Service; Level of Effort; Success Rate; Communication;

Professional Knowledge; Availability; Responsiveness; Initiative;

Process; Guidance & Assistance; Timeliness; Information; Innovation

 Quantitative & Qualitative Analysis & Discussion by Department

– County Attorney; Finance; Management and Budget; Public

Information; Technology Services; Human Resources; General

Services

 Wrap up

2013 Internal Customer 11 01/08/

CountyStat

Survey Response Rates

2013 Internal Customer 13 01/08/

Department Percent

*OEMHS 150.0% DHCA 100.0% MCERP (BIT) 100.0% OCA 100.0% OCP 100.0% OHR 100.0% REC 100.0% DGS 84.0% FIN 84.0% MCPL 80.0% CUPF 75.0% DLC 71.4% MCPD 71.4% DPS 68.8% IGR 66.7% DEP 62.5% OMB 60.0% PIO 60.0% DTS 58.3% CEC 57.1% DOT 53.5% CEX 53.3% DOCR 52.9% BOE 50.0% HHS 50.0% HRC 50.0% MCFRS 40.9% DED 28.6% CCL 25.0%

• Surveys were sent to two OEMHS Managers. Three survey respondents identified OEMHS as their home Department/Office. Therefore, the survey may have been forwarded to a third recipient.

26 out of the 29 Departments/

Offices had at least 50% of

survey recipients respond to

the survey.

CountyStat

Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions

 Meeting Goals

 Follow-up Items from 2012 Survey

 Survey Methodology & Survey Questions

 Summary of Findings & Survey Response Rates

 Overview of Scores

 Quantitative Data Analysis by Question

– Quality of Service; Level of Effort; Success Rate; Communication;

Professional Knowledge; Availability; Responsiveness; Initiative;

Process; Guidance & Assistance; Timeliness; Information; Innovation

 Quantitative & Qualitative Analysis & Discussion by Department with

Departments’ self -ratings removed

– County Attorney; Finance; Management and Budget; Public

Information; Technology Services; Human Resources; General

Services

 Wrap up

2013 Internal Customer 14 01/08/

CountyStat

All Scores (1/2):

2013 Survey County

Attorney Finance

DGS-Bldg Services

DGS-Capital^ Dev Needs DGS

-Fleet Services

DGS

-Leased Space

Needs

DGS-Print/Mail/

Archives

DGS- Procurement Human Resources-

Benefits

Human Resources-

Records Management

Q2: Quality of service 3.47 3.27 2.71 2.79 3.13 3.05 3.22 2.76 3.06 3.

Q3: Level of effort 3.18 2.98 2.50 2.47 3.00 2.93 3.19 2.31 3.02 3.

Q4: Success rate 3.31 3.12 2.49 2.56 2.98 2.84 3.16 2.66 2.99 3.

Q5: Communication 3.35 3.19 2.56 2.72 3.05 2.97 3.16 2.76 2.97 3.

Q6: Professional knowledge 3.47 3.29 2.75 2.88 3.14 3.02 3.20 2.87 3.03 3.

Q7: Availability 3.17 3.01 2.50 2.86 3.07 2.92 2.97 2.69 2.69 2.

Q8: Responsiveness 3.35 3.18 2.45 2.72 3.00 2.86 3.07 2.68 2.92 3.

Q9: Initiative 3.19 2.98 2.35 2.67 2.91 2.72 2.91 2.53 2.83 3.

Q10: Process 3.44 3.20 2.56 2.81 3.09 2.98 3.18 2.73 3.04 3.

Q11: Guidance & Assistance 3.43 3.22 2.64 2.82 3.09 2.98 3.18 2.76 3.06 3.

Q12: Timeliness 3.33 3.16 2.59 2.78 3.05 2.93 3.10 2.61 3.08 3.

Q13: Information 3.30 3.18 2.60 2.80 3.09 2.99 3.05 2.81 3.05 3.

Q14: Innovation 3.09 2.98 2.48 2.67 2.92 2.83 3.01 2.55 2.98 3.

Overall Average Rating 3.31 3.14 2.55 2.74 3.04 2.93 3.11 2.67 2.98 3.

2013 Internal Customer 16 01/08/

Department showed statistically significant increase from 2012

Department showed statistically significant decline from 2012

CountyStat

All Scores (2/2):

2013 Survey

Human Resources

EEO & Diversity Human Resources-

Labor/Employee

Relations

Human Resources-

Occupational Medical Services Human Resources

Recruitment &

Selection

Human Resources-

Classification &^ Compensation Human Resources

Change Management &Organizational^ Development Management &

Budget^ Public Information TechnologyServices^ Average

Rating

Q2: Quality of service 3.11 3.06 3.11 3.03 2.87 3.00 2.93 3.19 3.17 3.

Q3: Level of effort 3.24 3.00 3.11 2.81 2.68 2.99 2.65 3.27 2.98 2.

Q4: Success rate 3.03 2.95 3.03 2.96 2.78 2.93 2.81 3.12 3.02 2.

Q5: Communication 3.01 2.96 3.09 3.02 2.84 3.02 2.91 3.20 3.11 3.

Q6: Professional

knowledge

Q7: Availability 2.91 2.87 2.88 2.85 2.81 2.90 2.98 3.12 3.16 2.

Q8: Responsiveness 2.97 2.99 3.04 2.99 2.81 2.99 2.96 3.16 3.12 2.

Q9: Initiative 2.94 2.83 2.92 2.88 2.72 2.92 2.77 3.08 3.07 2.

Q10: Process 3.06 2.95 3.09 2.99 2.83 3.03 2.91 3.20 3.13 3.

Q11: Guidance &

Assistance

Q12: Timeliness 3.03 3.01 3.03 2.91 2.83 3.03 2.92 3.14 3.15 2.

Q13: Information 3.07 3.06 3.01 2.99 2.84 3.04 2.96 3.17 3.16 3.

Q14: Innovation 2.94 2.87 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.95 2.76 3.06 3.08 2.

Overall Average Rating 3.04 2.97 3.03 2.95 2.81 2.99 2.89 3.16 3.12 2.

2013 Internal Customer 17 01/08/

Department showed statistically significant increase from 2012

Department showed statistically significant decline from 2012

CountyStat

County-wide Overall

County Attorney

Finance

DGS-Bldg Services

DGS-Capital Dev Needs

DGS-Fleet Services

DGS-Leased Space Needs

DGS-Print/Mail/Archives

DGS-Procurement

Management & Budget

Public Information

Technology Services

Quantitative Data Analysis: Quality of Service (1/2)

3.07*

*2009 baseline overall average

Very dissatisfied (1.0)

Dissatisfied (2.0)

Satisfied (3.0)

Very satisfied (4.0)

2013 Internal Customer 19 01/08/

Rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of service received by the following Departments.

County-wide Overall Avg.

2010 3.

2011 2.

2012 3.

2013 3.

CountyStat

County-wide Overall

Human Resources (2010-2012)

**HR-Benefits

**HR-Records Management

**HR-EEO & Diversity

**HR-Labor/Employee Relations

**HR-Occupational Medical Services

**HR-Recruitment & Selection

**HR-Classification & Compensation

**HR-Change Mgmt & Org Dev

Quantitative Data Analysis: Quality of Service (2/2)

3.07*

*2009 baseline overall average

Very dissatisfied (1.0)

Dissatisfied (2.0)

Satisfied (3.0)

Very satisfied (4.0)

2013 Internal Customer 20 01/08/

Rate your satisfaction with the overall quality of service received by the following Departments.

County-wide Overall Avg.

2010 3.

2011 2.

2012 3.

2013 3.