Customer Satisfaction Survey Design and Analysis Study

Introduction and NPL Questionnaire Overview

The questionnaire examined in this section is operated by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL). The online nature of the questionnaire means that all customers may access and complete it without requiring a specific invitation. This questionnaire was accessed by one of the group members after receiving an email invitation shortly after using NPL's services; the email served as a thank-you for using those services and directed the recipient to the survey.

The purpose of the questionnaire is to collect information from the company's clients specifically relating to the quality of service provided. This is evident in the style of the questions asked and is also outlined in the introductory information that precedes the questionnaire. The questionnaire aims to collect information from all clients who have used the company, although one section is directed specifically at customers who used a particular service — a distinction that is clearly detailed in the appropriate section of the survey. It would appear from information on the NPL website that this questionnaire is the only element of the company's sampling strategy for gaining information on service quality, which may also explain why the company is eager to obtain the opinions of all customers through this survey.

Because the questionnaire is accessible to all customers, it would indicate that NPL wishes to target its entire customer base as the survey population. This is further supported by the fact that all customers appear to be directed to the survey by email immediately after receiving their order. This approach is important as it should enable the company to receive an accurate representation of customer opinion by encouraging broader participation (Kaye & Johnson, 1999). Because the survey is automated, the large number of responses generated should not present the same logistical problems that high volumes of paper questionnaires might create. Automation also allows for automatic analysis of results rather than manual data entry and coding in a statistical package. It should also help eliminate bias associated with customer selection — for example, if only a select number of customers were randomly chosen to participate, repeat customers might have a higher probability of selection, and their satisfaction with the company could positively skew the results.

Critical Evaluation of the NPL Survey Design

Overall, the questionnaire is well designed. The online format is likely to encourage greater participation than a paper-based survey that requires postage (Kaplowitz, Hadlock & Levine, 2004). The language used throughout is clear and accessible, and respondents are always guided clearly on which sections apply to them. This matters because question style has been shown to influence participation rates in internet-based surveys (Dillman & Christian, 2005). The length of the questionnaire is also appropriate: enough questions are included to allow detailed analysis without inconveniencing respondents (Trouteaud, 2004).

Information collected at the beginning of the questionnaire establishes whether the respondent is a regular customer, helping to determine whether their responses reflect multiple experiences or a single occasion. The questionnaire also collects details about the specific services purchased, which may allow subsequent analysis to determine whether any reported problems are isolated to one area of the business. This is particularly useful when planning and implementing improvements. For example, a respondent who used NPL for training or consultancy is likely to have regular contact with the company, making customer service responsiveness especially important. By contrast, a respondent who used NPL for testing purposes may prioritise timeliness of project completion. Collecting this information enables segment-level analysis and more targeted business improvements.

The largest section of the questionnaire focuses on service quality and uses a predominantly five-point scale, where 5 represents excellent and 1 represents poor. The use of a numerical scale is valuable because it enables quantitative analysis and facilitates comparison of data collected across different periods, such as annual survey comparisons (Miller & Salkind, 2002). For each specific element of service, a "not applicable" option is also provided. Without this option, respondents might leave questions blank, creating ambiguity as to whether the omission reflects dissatisfaction or irrelevance, and possibly leading researchers to discard otherwise useful questionnaires.

Another strength of the survey is its structure: it first asks for a general overview of service quality, value for money, and range of services before probing specific elements. This broad-to-specific approach allows NPL to gauge overall opinion before identifying particular areas for improvement. The questionnaire also asks respondents to identify the elements they consider most important, enabling prioritisation of service improvements.

There are, however, some elements that could be improved. The survey requires respondents to provide identifying details, including company name, reference number, individual name, and job title. Providing such information may deter some respondents from completing the questionnaire (Joinson & Reips, 2007). This is particularly likely when respondents wish to give negative feedback, especially if they are regular customers who fear repercussions. Individuals may either decline to participate or provide artificially positive responses, introducing a positive bias into the results. While the respondent's job title may help researchers assess the authority of the answers given, knowing the individual's name or employer is not strictly necessary. Response quality could instead be judged from information about frequency of service use and the nature of the activities undertaken.

Additionally, some questions appear to serve purposes other than measuring service quality. For example, Question 6 asks respondents why they chose NPL, which may provide some indication of whether business arose from recommendation, but does not address this directly. This question may be more useful for understanding the company's major business channels than for evaluating service quality specifically.

References

Dillman, D.A. & Christian, L.M. (2005) Survey mode as a source of instability in responses across surveys. Field Methods, 17(1), 30–52.

Joinson, A.N. & Reips, U.-D. (2007) Personalised salutation, power of sender and response rates to Web-based surveys. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1372–1383.

Kaplowitz, M.D., Hadlock, T.D. & Levine, R. (2004) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101.

Kaye, B.K. & Johnson, T.J. (1999) Research methodology: Taming the cyber frontier — techniques for improving online surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 17(3), 323–337.

McQuarrie, E.F. (2005) The Market Research Toolbox: A Concise Guide for Beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, D.C. & Salkind, N.J. (2002) Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

National Physical Laboratory (no date). Customer Satisfaction — Questionnaire. Available at: [Accessed 17 July 2008].

Shim, J.K. & Siegel, J.G. (2006) Handbook of Financial Analysis, Forecasting and Modeling. Chicago, IL: CCH.

Trouteaud, A.R. (2004) How you ask counts. Social Science Computer Review, 22(3), 385–392.

Appendices

Appendix 1: National Physical Laboratory Online Quality of Service Questionnaire

Your Details

1. Your name and your position

2. Business sector: Public or private

3. Business activity (multiple choice)

4. Product or service provided (multiple choice)

5. How many times a year does your department or company use NPL?

6. Why did you choose NPL? (multiple choice)

About Our Service

7. On a scale of 1–5, please indicate your views on the overall service provided (5 = excellent):
a. Quality of service   b. Value for money   c. Range of services offered

8. Please also indicate your views as above on specific aspects of service:
a. Speed of response to your initial enquiry
b. Ease of getting through to the right person
c. Understanding your needs
d. Attitude of NPL staff
e. Timeliness of quotation/proposal
f. Quality of documentation/presentations
g. Keeping you informed of progress
h. Ability to meet your technical needs
i. Completion of the service on time and to contract
j. Access to technical services
k. Opening hours/access
l. Timeliness of invoicing
m. Ease of payment

9. From the list above, please identify the three elements you consider most important.

10. To be answered by customers who sent in equipment for testing/calibration services only:
a. If the certificate or report was not received with the returned equipment, when was it sent? (multiple choice)
b. Please indicate how satisfied you are on a scale of 1–5 (5 = excellent) with the turnaround of your job: (i) from order placed to job start and (ii) from job start to completion.

Complaints
If anything has gone wrong — and we sincerely hope it has not — how satisfied were you with:
A. Ease of contacting NPL to complain
B. The attention given to your complaint
C. The speed with which NPL dealt with it
D. The final resolution/outcome

12. Please use this space if you would like to comment further or make suggestions for improvements.

Appendix 2: First Draft of Quality of Service Questionnaire for Photographic Studio

We are very grateful for your custom. In order to constantly improve the service we offer to our clients, we would be very grateful if you could complete the questions below. The answers you provide are completely confidential and you do not need to provide your name. Thank you for your time.

About You

1. Please place a tick next to each of the statements below which applies to you:
— I bought the studio package for myself to use
— Someone else bought the studio package for me to use
— I bought the studio package for someone else to use
— I attended a photo session at the studio
— I came into the studio to place an order for photos
— I spoke to members of the studio team over the telephone before attending the studio
— Since coming into the studio I have spoken to members of the studio team over the telephone
— I have had email contact with members of the studio staff

2. Overall, please rate the following elements of our customer service from 1 to 5, where 1 represents very poor and 5 represents excellent:
a. Speed of response to email or telephone messages — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
b. Ease of getting through to the right person — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
c. Understanding your needs — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
d. Attitude of studio staff — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
e. Ability to find an appropriate appointment slot — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
f. Timeliness of product delivery — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
g. Presentation of the results of your session — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable
h. Keeping you informed of progress — 1 / 2 / 3 / 4–5 / Not applicable

3. If anything went wrong with any stage of your contact with our company, how satisfied were you on a scale of 1 to 5 with:
a. Ease of contacting us to complain
b. The attention given to your complaint
c. The speed with which your complaint was addressed
d. The final resolution or outcome of the complaint

4. Would you be likely to recommend our company to your friends and colleagues?
Yes / Possibly / No

5. Do you have any other suggestions which may improve the quality of the service you or others may receive from us in the future?

Appendix 3: Calculations for the Forecasts of the Customer Quality Satisfaction Index

The table below provides the coded month values (x), the calculated term 1.487x, the forecasted index value derived from the equation 1.487x + 62.163, and the corresponding forecasted value for each of the six months following the period covered by the time series analysis.