ICL
Pothwoy
Audit of Customer Service Support Vern
Processes Date:
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
TA/REP/037
1.0
O1/L1/01
Document Title:
Document Type:
Release:
Abstract:
Document Status:
Originator & Dept:
Contributors:
Reviewed By:
Comments By:
Comments To:
Distribution:
Audit of Customer Service Support Processes
Report
N/A
This document presents the results of a planned audit into the
processes used to capture, manage and resolve Horizon
incidents, problem, complaints and alerts.
APPROVED
J. Holmes (Quality & Audit)
P. Jeram M. Riddell
P. Westfield E. Hillier
J. Welsh R. Brunskill
Originator (& Pathway Document Controller)
ICL Pathway Document Management
S. Muchow P. Jeram
M. Riddell P. Westfield
© 2000 ICL Pathway Ltd
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Page I of 13
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
I Audit of Customer Service Support Ref: TA/REP/037
CL of Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
O Document control
0.1 Document history
Version Date Reason
0.1 24/10/01 First internal draft for comments
1.0 05/11/01 Raised to Approved and Issued
0.2 Approvel avthoriticy
Name Position Signature Date
S. Muchow Managing Director
P. Jeram Programme Director
0.3 Ayociated documenty
Reference Vers I Date Title Source
GHQ/LPD/PATH/ 15/08/01 ICL Assessment Report ICL Gp
1508
0.4 Abbreviationy
Acronym — I Meaning
RCA Root Cause Analysis
HSH Horizon System Helpdesk
NBSC National Business Support Centre
BSI British Standards Institute
PON Post Office Network
UKSS. United Kingdom Support Services
cs ICL Pathway Customer Service
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 2 of 13
ICL Audit of Customer Service Support
Pathway Processes
Ref:
Version:
Date:
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
TA/REP/037
1.0
O1/L1/01
0.5 Table of content
1 Introduction... eeccecseesseesecseesseesnessnseveseessstesseeseeesesseessessnesseenecsessseeeneennensees
iS)
3 Management Summary ..............:.eccecsesseseeseeseeseeseeeeseeeeeseeseeesnseneeeeneeeneneeeeetense
BL Overall Opinion ooo... eee eeeeeeeece ee eeeeceeeeeseeeeeaneneeuesneesesuenteeesnsenesneeeeees
3.2 ICL Group ISO Assessment. .......0..0.00:0cceeeees
Scope & Comduct ........eccececceeeecsessesseesesneseeseseesesneeeesesseesesneeeesesreesesneeeeaneneeeeeneee
4 Detailed Observations .............cceccseesceeess esse eeeesseesseeersneesnenseieersneessanersneesniesennsess 6
4.1 Incident & Problem Management .................ccceccssseess tess eeseeseteeeseesseeeneeneeeees 6
4.1.1 Definitions and Criteria... cece esceecsees tess eeceeeseesneeseeeeenneeeneese
4.1.2 Problem Root Cause Analysis..............ccccececescesseseeseeseetesreeeesnseeeseeneeees
4.1.3 Problem Manager ...........c.sccecsecsesseseesessessesseseeseereesesneseeseereceeseseeaneneeeees 7
4.2 Customer Complaints 0.2.0.2... ccc ceecesees cece eeeseeeeeseeseeesnceeesneneeesnseneaneeeeeees
4.2.1 Sources of Complaint occ. cececececessesees cesses eeseseeeeseeeeeeesneseseneeeenees
4.2.2 Measures and Reviews.
4.2.3. Complaints Database
4.2.4 Corporate Customer Satisfaction Policy.
43 Alerts
44 Documentation, Process and Procedure.
4.5 Review of ICL Assessment Observations.
4.5.1 Excessive Manual Interventio
4.5.2 Problems Not Reviewed for >1 Month ..........c.ccecceceeseeeseecseesseeseeee ll
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Page 3 of 13
ICL
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
Audit of Customer Service Support Ref: IA/REP/037
Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 1/11/01
Introductiow
The capture of Incidents, their potential progress as Problems, handling of Customer
Complaints, raising of Divisional and/or Corporate Alerts and the subsequent
disposition of the original event are vital Customer Service activities. Failure in part
or in whole to manage these activities can result in reduced levels of customer
satisfaction and wasted effort through handling repeated events and not dealing with
the root causes of the original event.
Scope & Conduct
The scope of the audit was defined in formal Terms of Reference, issued by Pathway
IA in October 2001 and presented at Annex A to this report.
The audit was included in the 2001 Internal Audit plan and agreed during QI.
However, this area of Customer Service had been subject to assessment by BSI in
February, ICL Group in August and was to be re-visited by BSI in November. Under
the circumstances it was decided to limit the audit to a review of current activity and
how the observations and non-conformance raised during the ICL Group assessment
was being handled.
The audit was conducted during May and June 2001 by Jan Holmes, Quality and
Audit Manager, ICL Pathway. The help and co-operation of all members of staff
interviewed is appreciated.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 4 of 13
ICL
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
Audit of Customer Service Support Ref: IA/REP/037
Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 1/11/01
3.1
3.2
Management Summary
Overall Opiniow
The overall opinion formed is that the management of Incidents, Problems,
Complaints and Alerts by Customer Service has reached a level of maturity where
consistency is now the norm, levels of customer satisfaction are good, but there is a
risk that complacency could begin to creep into the work. It is pleasing to report that
the audit did not find any evidence of this and initiatives and appointments are in
place to provide improvements to the processes to the benefit of Pathway and the
customer.
There are a number of relatively minor issues that, while not impairing the current
management of incidents and problems could, if accepted and addressed, improve the
performance of this part of CS. They are :
1. Provide a definition and guidance for when an incident should be escalated to
become a problem (Para 4.1.1).
2. Introduce formal Root Cause Analysis into Problem and Complaints management
as a matter of course. This is already being addressed within CS. (Para 4.1.2 and
4.2.3).
3. Increase the scope of the Problem Manager’s review remit to include Complaints
(Para 4.1.3).
4. Consider benchmarking the complaints received about the Horizon System
Helpdesk against similar operations either run by ICL for other customers or
externally (Para 4.2.2).
5. Upgrade the current freestanding Complaints database to be more than just a
recording mechanism for complaints received (Para 4.2.3).
6. Ensure that complaints handling in CS meets the criteria announced in the revised
Customer Satisfaction Corporate Policy and the need to record all complaints on a
central database (Para 4.2.4).
7. Undertake a major review of the considerable wealth of documented policy,
process, procedure and other items that exists for these areas of CS’s work (Para
44).
ICL Groupe ISO Avuessment
One of the recommendations in the August ISO Assessment report was that a detailed
review of the related (Incident, Problem, Complaints & Alerts) processes was
undertaken to seek efficiencies in their operation and handling of report data. That
work was to have formed a major part of this audit. However, a Problem Manager has
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 5 of 13
ICL
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
Audit of Customer Service Support Ref: IA/REP/037
Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 1/11/01
4.1
been newly appointed and has a key objective of undertaking a full review of the
Problem Management process, making recommendations for improvements and
implementing the changes to the benefit of both Pathway and PON.
A copy of the review report was obtained and the results indicate that it was
thorough, had uncovered all of the issues identified in the ICL Assessment report and
others besides, and had a comprehensive approach to dealing with them. This included
the development of a dedicated Problem Management database that would remove
completely the manual interventions and data handling that was the cause of the
Observation.
During August, ICL Group Quality conducted an ISO Assessment and identified a
number of issues within Problem Management, raising 1 Observation and 1 Non-
conformance. The final report can be found on the Assessment Database at Content
Viewer —_/scripts/custom/assessors/index.asp using the Report reference
GHQ/LPD/PATH/1508 as the search criteria. The opportunity was taken to consider
each of these during the audit and both have now been closed on the formal
assessment report as a result.
Detailed Observations
Incident & Problem Management
The underlying organisation for managing Incidents and Problems was explained as
was the escalation route whereby an Incident, as reported to the Horizon System
Helpdesk, becomes a problem following a decision by the Duty Manager. Both
Incident Management (CS/PRD/074 V1.0 dated 13/11/00) and Problem Management
(CS/PRD/021 v3.0 dated 13/11/00) processes are published on the Pathway BMS
although the relative ages of the documents suggests that a review may be appropriate
to take into account any operational changes made or identified shortcomings (See
Section 4.4).
4.1.1 Definitions and Criteria
It is not easy to identify what constitutes a ‘problem’ and when an ‘incident’ becomes
a ‘problem’ within these process. CS/PRD/021 does not provide any clear definition
nor are examples offered for guidance. The audit has identified that guidance on what
constitutes a problem does exists although it is not easily associated with the Problem
Management Process which is where initial guidance would be sought.
Although relatively trivial the lack of guidance or definition can introduce uncertainty
and the opportunity for ‘problems’ to be missed or unnecessarily escalated. It is
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 6 of 13
FU.
dit of Customer ice eport Ref: IA/REP/037
Ic A of Ser s Version: 1.0
Pathway Processey Date: 01/11/01
FUJ00080696
IJ00080696
recommended that CS/PRD/021 is updated to provide definition criteria and, if
considered useful, examples.
4.1.2 Problem Root Cause Analysiy
CS/PRD/021 also introduces the concept of Root Cause Analysis for problems
although again, no guidance or examples are provided. No evidence of completed
RCAs could be identified.
It is recommended that RCA guidance is provided, either in CS/PRD/021 or in a stand
alone procedure.
4.1.3 Problem Manager
CS have recently appointed a Problem Manager whose primary objective is to
consider the current approach to problem management, including the problem
database, and make recommendations for improvements. He is also responsible for
the problem management service. His initial review work resulted in a report that
identified a number of areas for improvement, including the development of a
replacement Database more appropriate to problem management. He also identified
that Pathway lacked a formal problem management method and root cause analysis
was weak or non-existent. It is anticipated that most, if not all, of the observations
raised in this report will eventually be addressed by the work being undertaken by this
role.
His remit is currently limited to problem management and he does not anticipate
incorporating complaints in the short term. The difference between problems and
complaints is not significant and the methods of dealing with both are essentially the
same; receive, analyse, investigate, resolve, report and review.
The audit has identified shortcomings with the current complaints database and given
the similarities between the two considers that there is benefit by increasing the scope
of the new Problem Database project to include Complaints. Given that the Problem
Manager is currently preparing the User Requirements now would be an ideal time to
bring Complaints into scope.
It is recommended that the scope of the Problem Manager responsibilities is
increased to consider complaints handling and the complaints database.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 7 of 13
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
Udit Customer rice py ovt Ref: IA/REP/037
(Ct A of Ser s Version: 1.0
Pothwoy Processes Date: 1/11/01
4.2 Customer Complaimnty
4.2.1 Sources of Complainty
These are complaints raised against ICL Pathway or the Horizon system by PON, Post
Masters or members of the public.
Complaints can be received from a number of sources, NBSC may email complaints,
generally about the HSH, that they have received from Post Masters. The HSH may
them selves generate a complaint where it is clear that a complaint is being made,
UKSS engineer visit cards may also contain feedback that is deemed to form a
complaint and finally complaints may arrive via letter to ICL or via icl.com.
Each complaint receives a standard acknowledgement letter within 24hours of receipt
although it is recognised that each complaint is potentially unique and investigation
and resolution is case based.
The largest proportion of complaints are initiated by the NBSC and are usually
complaints about the HSH, either quality of advice provided or attitude, and these
have to be investigated and reported on within 5 working days. NBSC generate a
response letter to the complainant based on the resolution information provided by
Pathway.
Where HSH field a complaint call they attempt to deal with it as part of their 1“ line
support responsibilities. If they cannot do this they are referred to CS for action. HSH
provided resolutions are reviewed by CS and a monthly report produced and placed on
the CS Website.
4.2.2 Measurey and Reviews
Procedure CS/PRO/116 v2.0 dated 31/01/01 identifies a number of measures that are
used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Complaints process and the main one of
these, the weekly trend report is posted on the CS Intranet as a rolling 13 week report.
There is a hierarchy of review meetings between HSH and the NBSC, HSH and ICL
Pathway and finally ICL Pathway and PON where complaints and their resolution are
regular agenda items. Meetings are minute and actions taken and progress reviewed.
The August 2001 Report from NBSC indicated that the number of HSH complaints
had reduced to 59 from July’s figure. While this may be a good result in terms of the
number of calls overall that the HSH receives but there does not appear to be any
comparisons being made to similar organisation or to industry norms.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 8 of 13
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
dit of Customer ice eport Ref: IA/REP/037
Ic A of Ser s Version: 1.0
Pathway Processey Date: 01/11/01
It is recommended that external benchmarking is considered to test the effectiveness
of the HSH, with particular regard to complaints raised about it, and for an
improvement plan to be put in place if the comparison is unfavourable.
4.2.3 Complointy Databose
All complaints are logged onto a Complaints Database. There is no auto-prompting
when complaints are overdue and it is not possible to search for complaint by anything
other than FAD code or Outlet name.
There is little evidence of any Root Cause Analysis of complaint resolution being
conducted and this may be due in part to the difficulty in analysing the Complaints
database, for example to provide lists of particular complaints type, or Outlets that
might be making more than the expected number of complaints.
It is recommended that consideration be given to upgrading and improving the
Complaints Database, either independently or as part of the broader Problem
Database currently under development, to allow for overdue prompting and more
effective search and analysis of complaints data.
It is recommend that effective Root Cause Analysis is undertaken where it is clear that
trends of complaints, either by type or Outlet frequency (or other criteria) suggest that
this is required.
4.2.4 Corporate Customer Satisfoctiow Policy
During the audit Group Quality announced a revision to the Corporate Customer
Satisfaction Policy. One of the changes was to introduce the mandatory registering of
all customer complaints onto the Customer Satisfaction Support System (CSSS) via
Café VIK.
The policy now states that “Every qualified customer complaint, verbal or written, must be
logged on the Customer Satisfaction Support System (CSSS).”
It is recommended that CS Complaints Management confirm whether the ‘complaints’
handled as such by Customer Service are deemed to be complai defined by the
new Policy. If they are appropriate steps to enter them onto the CSSS should be taken.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 9 of 13
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
dit of Customer ice Support Ref: IA/REP/037
(cL A of Ser s Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
4.3 Alerty
There are no Alerts currently in force either initiated by Pathway or initiated by others
against Pathway. However, the audit has identified elsewhere that the criteria and
tules around escalating a Problem to the state of being an Alert is by no means clear
and should be reviewed for clarification.
4.4 Docuwmentation, Process and Procedure
The audit identified that there is a significant amount of documentation that describes
roles and responsibilities, process, procedure and organisational interfaces around the
areas of Incident, Problem, Complaints and Alerts. Those identified were :
CS/PRD/074 I Incident Management Process 1.0 13/11/00 Yes
CS/PRD/021 Problem Management Process 3.0 13/11/00 Yes
CS/PRO/063 I Problem Management Procedure 1.0 30/01/01 Yes
CS/PRD/081 Customer Complaints Process 1.0 05/09/00 Yes
CS/PRO/116 I Customer Complaints Procedure 2.0 31/01/01 No
PA/PRO/O13 I ICL Pathway Complaints Process 1.0 10/01/01 Yes
CS/PRD/093__I ICL Pathway Divisional Alert Procedure 0.1 15/02/01 No
CS/IFS/008 ICLP/POCL Interface for Problem Management 0.3 04/09/00 No
CS/IFS/009 ICLP/OSD Interface for Problem Management 0.3 04/09/00 No
CS/QMS/002_ I ICL Pathway CS Process Manual 1.0 16/08/01 Yes
CS/QMS/005_ I ICL Pathway CS Operations Manual 2.0 24/01/01 Yes
CS/PRD/032 I Cross Domain Problem Prioritisation 0.6 Withdrawn I No
CS/FSP/005 HSH Incident Prioritisation 1.0 07/11/00 No
Tt was not possible to conduct an exhaustive review of all of these documents in the
allotted time but some key points that have been identified are :
The criteria for raising a Corporate or LPD Alert are not defined nor is there a
procedure that describes how to raise one. CS/PRD/093 refers to ICL Pathway in a
Divisional sense and is out of date.
Information that is important at one level is hidden at another. For example, there is
little in the way of guidance as to what constitutes a Problem in the Problem
Management Process or Procedure yet CS Operations Manual Para 4.1.5 is entitled
Deciding Whether a Problem Exists.
CS/PRD/032, marked as Withdrawn in PVCS is referenced within ?
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 10 of 13
ICL
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
Audit of Customer Service Support Ref: IA/REP/037
Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 1/11/01
4.5
The 2 interface documents, both referenced in a number of other documents, are not
Approved and date back to September 2000.
The hierarchical approach to the documentation with manuals leading to processes
leading to procedures results in duplication of information that has to be kept aligned
as processes and procedures mature. The relative age of all of these documents
suggests that their end-to-end integrity may not be intact. It is recommended that this
entire ‘family’ of documents be reviewed and, where possible, the structure simplified.
Review of ICL Auesment Observotiony
The August assessment by ICL Group identified 1 Observation and 1 Non-
conformance against Problem Management.
4.5.1 Excessive Manuol Intervention
This observation criticised the complexity of the process for sharing problem progress
data with the customer. This is due to the use of PinICL for the problem database and
the need to manually strip PinICL admin details and edit content before making it
available to the customer on a completely separate database. This will be removed
once the new PM Database is in place. The assignment of resource to this activity,
confirmed during the audit, and the appointment of the Problem Manager, is sufficient
evidence to allow this item to be closed.
4.5.2 Problewy Not Reviewed for >1 Monthy
This non-conformance was against a documented requirement to review, and by
implication update, open problems on a weekly basis. The audit found that the
limitations of the Problem Database means that problems that are in a monitoring state
cannot be marked as such and appear to be open and active, thus inviting a weekly
update. This is nugatory work and will not be required once the replacement PM
Database is installed and appropriate codes are available. A short-term response
suggested by the Problem Manager would be to insert a message into this type of
problem to have the effect of suspending the weekly review for that problem until a
specified future date. The combination of the short-term suggestion and the long term
PM Database replacement is sufficient to allow this item to be closed.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 11 of 13
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
I dit Custome ice eport Ref: IA/REP/037
CL A of Ser s Version: 1.0
Pathway Processey Date: 01/11/01
Annex A — Audit Terms of Reference
ICL PATHWAY : Internal Audit: Terms of Reference
AUDIT TITLE : Audit of CS Customer Support Processes
File Reference H AUD/3/4/33
Date H 3" October 2001
Aim
In 1999 a major audit of Customer Service and its readiness for the increased workload and
responsibilities placed upon it by National Roll Out was conducted. In 2000 a further audit was
conducted into the management processes utilised by CS. The August 2001 assessment by ICL group,
while praising CS customer satisfaction processes and measures, was critical in the area of problem
management and the interface to complaints.
The Internal Audit Plan for 2001 has identified a need to conduct an audit of the customer support
processes in place in Customer Service paying particular regard to process linkage, escalation to
Divisional and Group alert processes, analysing and reporting, root cause analysis and service
improvement
Technical aspects of support, the SMC, SSC and 4" Line will not be included in this audit but will be
covered in a separate review to be carried out during November.
The quality requirements expressed in ISO9000 : 2000 will be used as a basis for the work.
Objectives
1. To review the activities and operation of ICL Pathway Customer Service with particular regard
to their key customer support processes :
e Incident Management
e Problem Management
¢ Customer Complaints
e = Alerts
vv
Within each of those processes to take a closer look at key management aspects :
e Linkage
¢ Escalation
e Reporting
¢ Root Cause Analysis
¢ — Service Improvement
Dates
The audit will commence w/c October 15'" with completion and drafi report production and circulation
targeted for end October. A final report will be issued by Friday 2"! November.
Audit Resources
The audit will be conducted by Jan Holmes, Pathway Audit Manager on behalf of the Internal Audit
Committee, ICL Pathway.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 12 of 13
FUJ00080696
FUJ00080696
ICL Audit of Customer Service Support Vern TVREP(O37
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
Reporting
The report reference is [A/REP/037. The CAP reference (if one is required) is [A/CAP/037.
At the conclusion of the audit a draft report will be produced and discussed with the auditees. A final
report will be produced and distributed to the Director and Senior Managers of Customer Service, as
well as the Managing and Programme Directors.
Further distribution will be at the discretion of the Customer Service Director.
Based on the report content a series of Corrective Actions will be agreed and documented in a
Corrective Action Plan. This will be issued and the agreed actions monitored on a regular basis.
TOR Distribution
Stephen Muchow : Managing Director
Peter Jeram : Programme Director
Martin Riddell : Customer Service Director
Alec Nicholson : CS DQR (for further distribution within CS as appropriate)
Paul Westfield : Infrastructure Services (Problem & Incident)
Dave Law : Strategic Services (Complaints, Incident & Alerts)
Julie Welsh : SS (Complaints)
Eric Hillier : IS (Problem Management)
Peter Burden : Operational & Support Services (Problem)
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 13 of 13