POL00089802
POL00089802
ICL Audit of Customer Service Support Refi IA/REP/037
Pathwoy
Version: 1.0
Processes Date: 01/11/01
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
© 2000 ICL Pathway Ltd
S. Muchow P. Jeram
M. Riddell P. Westfield
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 1 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
A : Ref: IA/REP/037
ICL Audit of Customer Service Support Version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
O Dotwment control
O.14 Document history
Version Date Reason
ol 24/10/01 First internal draft for comments
Lo 05/1/01 __I Raised to Approved and Issued
0.2 Approvel authoriticey
Name Position Signature Date
S. Muchow Managing Director
P. Jeram Programme Director
0.3 Associated documenty
Reference Vers I Date Title Source
GHQ/LPD/PATH 15/08/01 _ I ICL Assessment Report ICLGp
11508
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 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
O.5 Table of content
1 Introduction...
2 Scope & Conduct........
3 Management Summary
3.1 Overall Opinion .
3.2 ICL Group ISO Assessment ........c000e0e
Auwaas
4 Detailed Observations
a
41 Incident & Problem Management
4.1.1 Definitions and Criteria...
4.1.2 Problem Root Cause Analysis .......
4.1.3 Problem Manager
4.2 Customer Complaints............
wows a
4.2.1 Sources of Complaints...........000
4.2.2 Measures and ReviewS.........0s0
4.2.3. Complaints Database ....
4.2.4 Corporate Customer Satisfaction Policy...
4.4 Documentation, Process and Procedure...........
4.5 Review of ICL Assessment Observations
4.5. Excessive Manual Intervention. un
4.5.2 Problems Not Reviewed for >1 Month
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 3 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
1 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.
2 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 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
3B Management Summary
3.1L Overall Opinion
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 4.4).
3.2 ICL Group ISO Avessment
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
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 5 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
report data. That work was to have formed a major part of this audit. However,
a Problem Manager has 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.
4 Detoiled Observations
4.1 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/o21 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).
It is not easy to identify what constitutes a ‘problem’ and when an ‘incident’
becomes a ‘problem’ within these process. CS/PRD/o21 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.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 6 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
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 recommended that CS/PRD/o21 is updated to provide definition
criteria and, if considered useful, examples.
4.1.2 Problem Root Cause Analysiy
CS/PRD/o21 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/o21 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 15
ICL
Pothwoy
Audit of Customer Service Support
Processey
Ref:
Version:
Date:
POL00089802
POL00089802
IA/REP/037
1.0
o1/ui/or
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Page 8 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
4.2 Customer Complainty
4.2.1 Sources of Complaimty
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 9 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes 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 Satisfaction 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 complaints as
defined by the new Policy. If they are appropriate steps to enter them onto the
CSSS should be taken.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page 10 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support 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 rules around escalating a Problem to the state of being an Alert is
by no means clear and should be reviewed for clarification.
4.4 Documentation, 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 :
ers Date
CS/PRD/o74 I Incident Management Process 1.0 13/11/00 Yes
CS/PRD/o21_ I Problem Management Process 3.0 I 13/1/00 Yes
CS/PRO/063 I Problem Management Procedure 10 30/o1/o1 Yes
CS/PRD/o81 I Customer Complaints Process 10 05/09/00 Yes
CS/PRO/u6 I Customer Complaints Procedure 2.0 I 31/01/01 No
PA/PRO/o13_ I ICL Pathway Complaints Process 1.0 I 10/o1/or__I Yes
CS/PRD/093_ I ICL Pathway Divisional Alert Procedure On 15/02/01 No
CS/IFS/oo8 I ICLP/POCL Interface for Problem Management 0.3 I 04/09/00 No
CS/IFS/oog I ICLP/OSD Interface for Problem Management 0.3. I 04/09/00 No
CS/QMS/oo2 I ICL Pathway CS Process Manual 1.0 16/08/01 Yes
CS/QMS/oos I ICL Pathway CS Operations Manual 2.0 I 24/o1/o1 I Yes
CS/PRD/032_ I Cross Domain Problem Prioritisation 0.6 I Withdrawn I No
CS/FSP/oo5 I HSH Incident Prioritisation 10 07/11/00 No
It 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.
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE Page n1 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
CS/PRD/032, marked as Withdrawn in PVCS is referenced within ?
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.
4.5 Review of ICL Auesment Observations
The August assessment by ICL Group identified 1 Observation and 1 Non-
conformance against Problem Management.
4.5.1 Excessive Manuel 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 12 of 15,
ICL
Pothwoy
Audit of Customer Service Support
Processey
Ref:
Version:
Date:
POL00089802
POL00089802
IA/REP/037
1.0
o1/ui/or
COMMERCIAL IN CONFIDENCE
Page 13 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
I Lit of Custome ice sport Ref: IA/REP/o37
ca A of Ser’ s Version: 1.0
Pothwoy Processes 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 : AUD/3/4/33
Date : 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 ISOgoo0 : 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 :
¢ Incident Management
¢ Problem Management
e Customer Complaints
¢ Alerts
2. Within each of those processes to take a closer look at key management aspects :
° Linkage
¢ Escalation
e Reporting
e Root Cause Analysis
* Service Improvement
Dates
The audit will commence w/c October 15"" with completion and draft 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 14 of 15
POL00089802
POL00089802
dit of Customer : Ref: IA/REP/o37
(Ct A of Service Support version: 1.0
Pathway Processes Date: 01/11/01
Reporting
The report reference is IA/REP/o37. The CAP reference (if one is required) is IA/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 15 of 15,