CEN Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users

24th January 2012

Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users Final report submitted by Technopolis Group

James Stroyan

Neil Brown

Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users i

Table of Contents Summary 1

Introduction to the study 1 Main findings 1 Conclusions and recommendations 2

1. Introduction 3 1.1 Study objectives 3 1.2 This report 3

2. Methodological approach 4 2.1 Inception phase 4 2.2 Desk research 4 2.3 Meeting with CEN /BT/WG 163 4 2.4 Information requests to National Standards Bodies 5 2.5 Questionnaire survey of users 5 2.6 Case studies of the benefits in use of service standards 9 2.7 Reporting and meetings 10

3. Analysis of European service standards 11 3.1 List of service standards by sector 11 3.2 Summary descriptions of the European service standards covered by the study 12 3.3 Overview of the intended uses and benefits of European service standards 12

4. Sales of European service standards 17

4.1 Introduction 17 4.2 Sales by service sector 17 4.3 Average sales by country 19 4.4 Sales of European service standards against expectations 20

5. Results from the questionnaire survey 21 5.1 Awareness of standards and standardisation bodies 21 5.2 Use of standards 21 5.3 Benefits of using service standards 22 5.4 Barriers to the development and use of service standards 25 5.5 Future opportunities to develop service standards in these sectors 27 5.6 Actions to help service providers / users benefit more from standards 30

6. Case Studies 32 6.1 Introduction to the case studies 32 6.2 Public Passenger Transport - STIB 33 6.3 Furniture removal services – Leatherbarrows Removals and Storage Ltd. 37 6.4 Funeral services – Begravelses Service 41 6.5 Translation services – Traducciones Políglota 46 6.6 Maintenance – Stora Enso 49 6.7 Recreational Diving Services – Nederlandse Onderwatersports Bond 54

ii Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users

7. Conclusions and recommendations 59

7.1 Conclusions 59 7.2 Recommendations 62

Appendix A - Summary descriptions of the European service standards covered by the study 65

Appendix B Topic guide for case study interviews 77

Appendix C Questionnaire survey (English version) 79

Table of Figures Figure 1 – Profile of respondents by organisation type (n=461)......................................................... 6

Figure 2 – Profile of respondents by sector – multiple answers allowed (n=497)..............................7

Figure 3 – Respondents within ‘other’ service sectors (n=186)...........................................................7

Figure 4 – Profile of respondents by country (n=466) ....................................................................... 8

Figure 5 – Nominees operating in a focus sector and using a European service standard in scope.. 9

Figure 6 – Service standards in scope for the study........................................................................... 11

Figure 7 – Stated purposes of EN 13269 and our categorisation of intended uses and benefits ...... 13

Figure 8 - Intended ‘uses’ of European service standards - summary............................................... 13

Figure 9 - Intended ‘benefits’ of European service standards - summary.........................................14

Figure 10 - Intended ‘uses’ of European service standards – full analysis ........................................ 15

Figure 11 - Intended ‘benefits’ of European service standards – full analysis...................................16

Figure 12 - Sales of European service standards by sector (based on sales in 17 countries)............. 17

Figure 13 – Total numbers of individual service standards sold (based on sales in 17 countries)....18

Figure 14 - Proportion of sales by sector and country........................................................................19

Figure 15 – Sales of standards as compared to expectations ............................................................ 20

Figure 16 – European service sector standards used by respondents .............................................. 22

Figure 17 – Benefits of using service standards (n=226-242) .......................................................... 23

Figure 18 – Benefits of using service standards, by company size (n=65-106)................................ 24

Figure 19 – Barriers to the development and use of service standards (n=256-262) ...................... 26

Figure 20 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – national level ...... 28

Figure 21 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – European level .... 28

Figure 22 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – international level28

Figure 23 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – geographical level unknown............................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 24 – Where could additional standards be useful to service providers ................................ 30

Figure 25 – Where could additional standards be useful to service providers................................. 32

Figure 26 Percentage of customers benefiting from a certified service ............................................35

Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users 1

Summary

Introduction to the study

This report sets out the findings of a study to explore the implementation of service standards and to assess their impacts on service providers and users. Technopolis Group carried out the study during 2011 on behalf of CEN.

The specific aims of the study were to (i) gather and analyse information on existing European standards in the services field and the way in which they have been used, (ii) collect feedback from relevant stakeholders on their knowledge of the existence of and the use of European service standards, (iii) to develop case studies of organisations that are using European service standards and which document the impact and benefits they have gained, and (iv) to identify any recommendations or highlight any lessons that can be learned.

The study was implemented through:

• Desk research, to prepare an overview of the intended uses and benefits of European service standards in six sectors or areas of services (maintenance, recreational diving, funerals, transportation, removals and translation)

• A EU-wide survey of relevant stakeholders to gather feedback on awareness of service standards and to document (i) the benefits and impacts that service standards generate among service providers and their customers, and (ii) identify barriers to the development and use of service standards

• The development of six case studies, each of which focuses on a different area of services and documents the ‘real-world’ benefits gained by a service company and their customers as a result of implementing one or more European service standards

CEN and the National Standards Bodies (NSBs) have provided extensive support to the study team through the provision of relevant information and by promoting our survey at national and EU levels. We are very grateful for that support, without which the study would not have been possible.

Main findings

The principal intended uses of the European service standards developed to date in the sectors concerned relate to the following:

• Guidance for the development of agreements and other documentation; Supporting cross-border trade in services; Performance benchmarking; Consumer protection; Support to national legislation; Guidance for training and qualifications of service providers; Certification; Supply chain management; Guidance and assistance with the application of other standards; Provision of glossaries of terms / definitions; Public procurement

The principal intended benefits of the European service standards developed to date in the sectors concerned relate to improvements in each of the following areas:

• Service quality; Demonstration of service quality to customers; Use of common definitions / terminology; Confidence in service providers; Transparency of services; Contractual relationships; Use of performance indicators; Ability to export services; Ability to compare and contrast service offers; Customer satisfaction; Environmental protection; Application of other standards; Meeting Health and Safety legislation; Meeting legislative / regulatory requirements; Profitability; Market share

Across the six sectors or areas of services in scope, varying numbers of standards have been developed, partly driven by the scale and breadth of the individual areas and partly due to the level of natural demand for service standards. Sales of standards in each of these sectors are highly skewed, overall, and by country. At an aggregate level the European service standards in the areas of maintenance, transportation and translation have been relatively ‘popular’.

Just over 400 organisations responded to our survey, the vast majority of which are from industry and are current users of national or European service standards. Our survey has found that the

2 Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users

most widespread and important benefits of service standards relate to improvements to service quality and the ability to demonstrate this to customers, which in turn leads to higher levels of customer satisfaction. Service standards are also providing significant benefits in enhancing understanding and communication through common definitions / terminology, improved contractual relationships and improved transparency of service. Service standards are also bringing important benefits by helping service providers to meet legislative or regulatory requirements (including those relating to health and safety). A majority of users indicate that service standards support cross border trade. A majority also indicate that they have seen improvements in their market share and profitability as a result of implementing service standards.

These benefits have been emphasised by the service providers featured in our case studies, each of which have attested to the manifold and substantial benefits that they have gained by implementing quality standards within their own areas of services.

Despite the many positive benefits enjoyed by current users of service standards, a number of significant barriers to their development and use remain. The most significant of these relate to (i) a lack of time on the part of service companies to become involved in the development of service standards, as well as a lack of experience and technical capacity (ii) a lack of awareness of standards, and a lack of understanding of the benefits that they can bring, and (iii) concerns that standards will be costly to develop and implement, and may impose unwelcome restraints on service provision. Additionally, existing regulations, legislation and informal standards may act as a barrier by leaving little ‘space’ within which to develop new service standards.

Conclusions and recommendations

Our principal conclusions are that service standards clearly bring significant and manifold benefits to service providers and their customers, but important barriers remain to their take up and use. We have therefore formulated the following recommendations for CEN, which we believe will help to address the main barriers in this area.

We recommend that CEN:

• Continue to promote the actual ‘benefits in use’ of service standards to service providers and users, focusing its efforts on EU- and national-level industry associations and on the representatives of major service user groups (consumer bodies, public authorities)

• Use targeted campaigns to reach out to specific sectors, highlighting the general and specific benefits that could be realised through development and use of service standards. Where necessary, sectoral analyses should be carried out to ensure that the campaigns are suitably tailored to the audiences concerned and to the prevailing situation (in terms of existing levels of knowledge, technical capabilities, experience of standards, etc.)

• Provide clearer information on the standards development process, including the procedures, timescales and costs involved and highlighting the availability of different types of standards (EN/TS/TR/CWA)

• Continue its efforts to widen participation in the standards development process, ensuring insofar as is possible that all relevant stakeholders are involved, including representatives of service users (consumers, public authorities, etc.)

• Strengthen and accelerate its efforts to ensure that the standards development process and the standards themselves are as clear and user friendly as possible

• Seek out new or enhanced mechanisms for assisting with the standards development process, including enhanced levels of practical advice and support for new entrants. The potential for public financing to be used to offset the costs of standards development should be explored in areas where public interests would be served through more extensive use of service quality standards

In making these recommendations we acknowledge the important work that CEN and other actors are already making in these directions.


1. Introduction

1.1 Study objectives

In December 2010, Technopolis was awarded a contract by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to undertake a study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users. The overall aim of this study was to provide concrete data, with specific examples, on the way in which existing European service standards have been used and to highlight their impact on, and benefits they bring to, providers and users.

Focusing on those European Standards published by CEN before January 2008 (to ensure that standards have been in use for a sufficient period for their benefits and impacts to be revealed)1 the study was charged with the following main tasks:

• To gather and analyse information on existing European standards in the services field and the way in which they have been used (e.g. for public procurement, certification, support to national legislation, etc.)

• To contact European stakeholders – NSBs, companies, services users and other stakeholders – in order to gather feedback on their knowledge of the existence of and the use of European service standards (focusing on six specific service sectors)

• To develop six case studies of specific companies and/or service users across Europe who are using European service standards and the impact and benefits they experienced from using these standards

• To identify any recommendations or highlight any lessons that can be learned

An interim report was produced in August 2011, which presented progress with the study and included outputs that had been generated during the first phase of the work. A draft final report was then submitted in December 2011 for comment, and then subsequently revised. This current final report represents the final deliverable for the study.

1.2 This report

This document is the final report for the study. It includes all of the outputs that have generated during the study and sets out findings, conclusions and recommendations in relation to each of the study objectives (above). The report is organised into six further sections as follows:

• Section 2 presents our methodological approach to the study

• Section 3 presents an analysis of European service standards, including a summary description of the standards covered by this study and an overview of their intended uses and benefits

• Section 4 provides information relating to the sale of European services standards, including data by sector, by country, and sales against expectations

• Section 5 then presents the results from the questionnaire survey of users of European service standards. The questionnaire covered issues of awareness, use, benefits, barriers and future opportunities

• Section 6 presents case studies of six users of European services standards, covering their use of the standard(s) and the benefits and impacts that this has brought them

• Section 7 provides conclusions and recommendations

Further supporting information is presented in a series of appendices.

1 Because of the specificity of postal services standards, these were also excluded from the scope of the study.


2. Methodological approach

In this section we provide an overview of the programme of work and actions carried out during the course of the study.

2.1 Inception phase

A kick-off meeting was held on 13th January 2011 between Technopolis and CEN in order to discuss and reach agreement on the detail of the work to be undertaken. During the meeting the study objectives and proposal were discussed and a number of minor points of clarification were agreed. The sectors and service standards to be considered in scope for the study were finalised, as were the six sectors that would form the focus of case studies later in the study.

In the days following the kick-off meeting Technopolis and CEN undertook a number of actions to notify relevant parties about the study and assemble the information needed for the desk research. Following a request from Technopolis, CEN provided the following documents and information to the study team during the course of January 2011:

• Copies of each of the 27 standards in scope for the study. Technopolis’ desk-based review of these standards is presented in Section 3

• A list of names and contact details for members of CEN/BT/WG 163 - Services

• Various lists of members of the CEN Technical Committees and Working Groups that developed the service standards, including contact details where available, as well as lists of relevant trade and industry associations in the sectors concerned

CEN also notified its Technical Board (BT) and the members of CEN/BT/WG 163 about the study. The message to WG 163 members indicated that Technopolis would attend the next meeting of the Group and would be in touch in relation to the study. The message to CEN BT asked NSBs that do not regularly participate in WG 163 to nominate an official to be contacted in relation to the study and invite them to appoint a representative to the Group.

2.2 Desk research

Technopolis carried out a desk-based review and analysis of the European service standards in scope in order to summarise and classify each according to their main characteristics and the uses to which they could be put and / or the benefits that they might be expected to offer to service providers and users. At the outset of the study a range of possible uses were foreseen, including certification, public procurement, consumer protection, support to national legislation (e.g. health and safety), cross-border trade, supply chain management, performance benchmarking, and so on.

The intended output from this element of the work was a validated list of European service standards presented in the form of a matrix that relates each standard to the various uses and benefits that we believe it should offer to service providers and users. The desk research was carried out as planned and the results of our analyses are presented in Section 3. In addition, summary descriptions of the 27 standards are presented in Appendix A.

2.3 Meeting with CEN /BT/WG 163

Although not formally planned at the outset, a meeting of CEN/BT/WG 163 on 21/22 March 2011 provided an opportunity for Technopolis to present the study to this key group and seek to enlist the assistance of the NSBs in promoting our survey. Due to the timing of the meeting it was agreed that survey design and collecting contact lists of users would be deferred until after the meeting, and this enabled us to have a more open and productive dialogue with the members at the meeting.

Technopolis gave a presentation covering the objectives of the study, the agreed approach and workplan, the overall timetable for the work and the progress made to date. The presentation also focused on the plans for the fieldwork, and set out the support that NSBs were being asked to provide in relation to these parts of the study. A full discussion about the study took place and NSBs confirmed their broad support and willingness to provide the information requested.


2.4 Information requests to National Standards Bodies

Technopolis subsequently developed an information request to be directed to the NSBs, which asked for (i) data on sales of standards and an indication of how this compared to expectations, (ii) the names and contact details for organisations that had purchased the service standards (or agreement to forward a request to these organisations), members of relevant national mirror committees and national trade associations or industry bodies in each of the focus sectors, details of the way in which the NSB promotes service standards, copies of any promotional information, and copies of any case studies relating to service standardisation. This request was approved by CEN and mailed to the appointed NSB representatives, with a deadline for returns set at 6th May.

Technopolis continued to interact with the NSBs and issued a number of reminder emails and follow-up requests during the ensuing period, and sent a full update on progress to CEN on 13th May 2011. At that stage 17 NSBs had replied and had provided some of the information requested and/or had offered some level of assistance in promoting the survey. The remaining 12 NSBs on our list had not responded despite a number of follow-up messages being sent. A full account of the contact information provided and agreed actions taken by NSBs to assist promotion of our questionnaire survey is set out in Section 2.5.2. A full account of the information provided by the NSBs regarding sales of service standards is presented in Section 4.

2.5 Questionnaire survey of users

2.5.1 Questionnaire development

A questionnaire was developed that would be used to survey relevant audiences on their awareness, use and benefits of service standards. It was developed by Technopolis and revised in discussion with CEN. A final version of the questionnaire was ready by 31st May 2011 and Technopolis was then able to press ahead with promoting the survey and asking the NSBs to undertake the agreed actions as regards contacting prospective respondents at national level. A copy of the final questionnaire is shown in Appendix C (a French-language version was also developed).

2.5.2 Actions to promote the survey to potential respondents

NSBs were asked to assist the study team with the promotion of the questionnaire survey to relevant audiences. The original plan was to ask NSBs to provide us with most if not all of the contact information we would need to promote the survey in the various member states. While a small number of contacts were provided directly to Technopolis, data protection rules and other limitations prevented most NSBs from being able to pass such information to Technopolis. In most of these cases, therefore, the NSBs offered instead to forward our information request to potential respondents themselves, or promote the survey through more general means. The actions that Technopolis, CEN and the NSBs undertook to help promote the survey are summarised below.

Actions taken by Technopolis to promote the survey at EU level - CEN provided Technopolis with a list of 29 relevant contacts at the EU level, which comprised a mix of members of CEN Technical Committees & Working Groups and representatives of European Trade Associations in the sectors of interest. Once the contact names and email addresses had been extracted from the documents, we issued a mailout to each of the contacts, introducing the study and asking each to complete a copy of the questionnaire. In cases where the contact was a representative of an EU-level trade association we also asked if they could forward our request on to their member organisations, while in the case of TC/WG contacts we asked recipients to forward the request on to other relevant organisations that might have an interest in service standardisation in the sectors concerned.

Actions taken by NSBs to promote the survey at national level - During the early stages of the study CEN provided contact information for representatives of 29 NSBs, each of which was issued with a request to assist in the promotion of the survey. Only 24 of the NSBs acknowledged the request (despite several reminder messages being sent) and only 21 provided details of the actions they were prepared to take to support promotion of the survey. These included:

• Eight NSBs offering to forward a message on to the purchasers of service standards

• Three NSBs offering to provide contact details for (or forward requests to) some National mirror committee members


• Thirteen NSBs offering to provide contact details for (or forward requests to) national trade/industry associations

• Ten NSBs offering to issue a press release and / or place a notice on their website/newsletter

Following the launch of the survey we wrote again to all of the NSBs in early June 2011 asking them to carry out the agreed actions to promote the survey. Bespoke emails were sent to each NSB reminding them of the actions that they had offered to undertake and providing sample text for the mailouts (to purchasers, NMCs and trade associations) and for the website notices / press releases.

While we asked the NSBs to then notify us of the actions taken to promote the survey, relatively few NSBs provided confirmation of the actions taken. We therefore sent reminder messages in late June 2011 to remind them about the survey and to check whether they had carried out the agreed promotional activities. Several NSBs replied to say that they had done so, while others replied to say that they had not yet had time to promote the survey, but would do so in the coming days.

Actions taken by Technopolis to promote the survey at national level - NSBs provided contact details to Technopolis in a small number of cases. A relatively small number of contact names were provided in each case – usually two or three names – and 24 useable contacts were provided in total. Where useable contact information was given (i.e. a name and email address) we wrote to the individuals to introduce the study and to ask if they could complete a copy of the questionnaire. In the case of national trade or industry associations in the sectors concerned we also asked the contacts if they could forward our request on to any of their members that might either use or would potentially have an interest in service standards.

Actions taken by CEN to promote the survey – CEN also promoted the study and survey on their website and through social media channels.

2.5.3 Profile of responding organisations to the questionnaire survey

In total, 466 responses to the survey were received (although the number of responses varied by question). Due to the ‘open’ way in which the questionnaire was promoted, with a large range of organisations advertising the survey to a large number of potential respondents, it has not been possible to calculate ‘response rates’ in the traditional way. However, it is still possible to profile the respondents in terms of their organisation types, their sector and their country.

Figure 1 shows the profile of respondents by organisation type. Private companies make up 65% of the respondents, with slightly more large companies (39%) responding than SMEs (26%). Public bodies (including national authorities and other public sector organisations) make up the next largest group (19%), followed by trade / industry associations at national (5%) and EU (2%) levels. Universities and research institutes make up 3% of the respondents, while the remainder (5%) classified themselves as belonging to an ‘other’ category. This category includes other types of membership organisation or association (n=8), standardisation, certification and testing bodies (5), not for profit organisations (4) and interest groups (2).

Figure 1 – Profile of respondents by organisation type (n=461)

Organisation type Share of respondents (%)

Private company with 250+ employees 39%

Private company with <250 employees 26%

Public body 19%

National trade / industry association 5%

European trade / industry association 2%

University or research institute 3%

Other 5%

Total 100%

For the purposes of analysis, we have defined two broad classifications of organisation types and investigated whether there are any differences in responses within these:


• The first classification – small / large companies – is used to compare the answers of the 179 respondents from private companies with 250+ employees, with the answers of the 120 respondents from private companies with <250 employees.

• The second classification – industry / public organisation – is used to compare the answers of the 335 respondents from industry organisations (private companies and industry associations), with the answers of the 105 respondents from public organisations (public bodies and universities/research institutes).

Where any significant differences in the responses between the different types of organisation have been identified, these are noted in the text of the analysis.

Figure 2 shows the profile of respondents by sector, and reveals that only half (54%) of the respondents classify themselves as operating within one of the six sectors that form the focus of the study. Within these, transport (20%), maintenance (17%) and translation services (9%) are best represented, with just 9% of the respondents working within one or more of the other three sectors.

Figure 2 – Profile of respondents by sector – multiple answers allowed (n=497)

Sector Share of respondents (%)

Transport 20%

Maintenance 17%

Translation 9%

Tourism 3%

Removals / storage 3%

Funerals 2%

Other 46%

Nearly half of the respondents (46%) classified themselves as operating in another service sector (beyond the six shown above). A review of the description of these ‘other’ sectors (where provided by respondents) indicates that they cover a very broad range of additional service areas, as shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – Respondents within ‘other’ service sectors (n=186)

• Manufacturing, electronics and pharmaceuticals (39)

• Energy services (24)

• Construction and engineering services (16)

• Government services (11)

• Information, advice and support services (11)

• Education and training services (10)

• Healthcare services (10)

• Standardisation, certification and testing (10)

• ICT and communications services (10)

• Financial services (8)

• Water and sewerage services (8)

• Facilities management services (7)

• Sport and leisure services (6)

• Research services (6)

• Security services (3)

• Occupational health and safety services (3)

• Real estate services (2)

• Other services (22)

Due to the small number of respondents in each sector it is not possible to compare responses between these groups. Instead, for the purposes of analysis we have divided respondents into just two groups, based on whether the service is predominantly provided business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C). The B2B group includes respondents from sectors such as facilities management, translation and maintenance services and represents 48% of all respondents, while the B2C group includes respondents from sectors such as tourism, funerals and healthcare services and represents 37% of respondents. A small number (15%) of respondents have been excluded from this sectoral analysis as their sector is unknown or they operate across multiple sectors that include both B2B and B2C services. Where any significant differences in the responses between these two broad groups have been identified, these are noted in the text of the analysis.

Figure 4 shows the profile of responding organisations by country in which they are based. In total, 28 countries are represented, with respondents from France making up 63% of the replies, followed by Bulgaria (6%) and Croatia (4%), while other countries individually make up between


0% and 3% of the responses. Numbers are used due to the fact that while a broad range of countries are represented only a small number of replies have been received for most of these.

The very significant ‘over-representation’ of organisations from France is driven in large measure by AFNOR’s efforts to advertise the survey directly to several thousand organisations covering purchasers of service standards, national committees and national trade associations. There is therefore a significant bias towards France in the final distribution of responses. When analysing the responses to questions in the survey, it has therefore not been possible to compare responses between individual countries or groups of countries. However, when analysing the responses to each question in the survey, we have checked whether there is any significant difference between French and non-French responses and noted this in the text when appropriate.

Figure 4 – Profile of respondents by country (n=466)

Country Number of respondents (n) Country Number of

respondents (n) Austria 2 Estonia 0 Belgium 13 Greece 0 Bulgaria 27 Iceland 0 Croatia 17 Lithuania 0 Cyprus 1 Malta 0 Czech Republic 7 Poland 0 Denmark 4 Slovakia 0 Finland 3 Slovenia 0 France 293 Sweden 0 Germany 12 Hungary 6 Ireland 1 Italy 3 Latvia 1 Luxembourg 2 The Netherlands 13 Norway 3 Portugal 2 Romania 1 Spain 9 Switzerland 1 UK 4

Multiple Countries 6 Non CEN-member countries 10 Unknown 25

2.5.4 Analysis of survey results

Once the survey had been closed we carried out a full analysis of the results, which are presented in Section 5. In addition to the descriptive analysis of results, we have used non-parametric tests to judge whether the differences in answers provided by various groups of respondents were statistically significant. We have indicated in the analysis when any statistically significant differences2 were identified between (a) small companies and large companies, (b) private business and public organisations, and (c) B2B and B2C sectors. In addition, when analysing the responses

2 Two types of methods for identifying statistically significant differences between groups were run and the results obtained are presented in the analysis section of this report. The first test was the Mann-Whitney U test, which is a non-parametric alternative to the independent samples t-test. This statistical method does not require the assumption of normality of distributions or the assumption of homogeneity of variance as it compares medians rather than means of the sample and is therefore more suitable to the type of data obtained. The second method used was the Chi-square test for association, which usefully tests for any group level differences by comparing expected and actual frequency counts for each possible answer. The Chi-square test is a widely accepted statistical method for assessing two groups that yield two independent samples of nominal data. Both of the methods used to test for significant differences between groups were run at a confidence level of 95%. In cases where both tests were run, they had a high tendency to yield identical results.


to each question in the survey, we have checked whether there is any significant difference between French and non-French responses and noted this in the text when appropriate.

2.6 Case studies of the benefits in use of service standards

The study was tasked with developing six case studies of specific companies and/or service users that use European service standards and which describe the impact and benefits gained from using the standards. The case studies were to feature organisations in different countries and between them cover six service sectors: Funeral services, Furniture removal services, Maintenance services, Recreational diving services, Translation services, and (Public Passenger) Transport services.

It was the original intention that the survey would enable us to identify and gather information from a range of service providers and users in the selected sectors, and that we could review this information in order to identify a long-list of nominees with good knowledge of the standardisation that has taken place and the benefits that it has generated, before selecting the best and most appropriate case studies to pursue. The limited response to the survey questionnaire from several of the focus sectors and the dominance of respondents from one country in the results meant that a slightly different approach had to be taken. Our approach is described below.

2.6.1 Selection of case studies

Survey respondents who use standards were asked whether they would be interested in being featured in one of our case studies. Out of the 466 respondents who started to complete our survey (not all answered all of the questions) a total of 63 (14%) indicated that they would be interested in being featured and supplied an email address through which we could contact them. However, of these nominees, only 17 operated in one of the focus sectors and indicated that they used one of the European standards in scope for the study (see figure below). In addition, seven of the nominations came from French organisations, further reducing the potential pool of case study targets.

Figure 5 – Nominees operating in a focus sector and using a European service standard in scope

Service Sector Number of nominations (and countries covered)

Funeral services 3 (France x2, Denmark)

Furniture removal services 1 (France)

Maintenance 1 (Italy)

Recreational diving services 1 (France)

Translation services 7 (Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Netherlands)

Transport services 4 (France x3, Belgium)

While the survey provided some initial possibilities for case studies, the small number of relevant nominations did not leave us in a position where we could exercise much choice over which organisations to feature. We also tried to expand our potential list of case study organisations by (i) reviewing the published standard and CEN website for any details of relevant TC/WG and Chair/Secretary to contact for suggestions of organisations we might case study, and (ii) undertaking a general web search for each standard to see if specific companies / federations are advertising it and its use, and where we might make a speculative approach.

2.6.2 Development of interview guide

Technopolis developed a full interview guide as part of the preparatory work for the case studies, covering the following main areas:

• Information on the case study organisation, its main areas of operations, size, turnover, etc.

• Perceptions of standards / standardisation prior to the uptake of the featured standard(s)

• Role of the organisation in the development of the standard(s) to be featured (where relevant)

• Description of the standard and the benefits expected for service providers and users

• How the organisation has implemented the standard and how it uses it as part of its operations

• The benefits and impacts of the standard, in both quantitative and qualitative terms


• Any known benefits or impacts on other organisations with which the case study organisation interacts (suppliers, customers, subcontractors, etc.)

• Plans for the revision of the standard(s) or for further standardisation work

• Perceptions of standards / standardisation now, following uptake of the featured standard(s)

• Lessons learned as a result of participation in standards development and their application

A full version of the topic guide used for interviews is shown in Appendix B.

2.6.3 Development of case studies

The study team first wrote to each potential case study organisation to express our interest in featuring them in one of our case studies and to ask for their assistance. Where no response was received, the organisation was also called in an effort to secure agreement, discussing how the case study would be developed and their likely level of input. We then proceeded to arrange and carry out the in-depth interviews based on the interview guide set out above.

Once interviews were completed, the study team prepared an initial draft of each case study. These were submitted to the case study organisation for additional input and checking. We asked the case study organisations to validate the information already set out in the draft case study and to provide any additional information that they believed would help to strengthen the text. Each of the case studies was then taken through a number of iterations in order to strengthen them and ensure that they were in an appropriate form.

2.7 Reporting and meetings

2.7.1 Interim report and meeting

The first phase of the study culminated with the preparation and submission of an interim report, which was originally due to be delivered by 30th June 2011, but which was deferred by two weeks in agreement with CEN. The extension was to allow Technopolis to build a more complete account of the actions taken by the NSBs to promote the survey and to allow additional responses to be received, sufficient to permit an initial analysis of the survey results. The interim report described all progress on the study up to the point of its submission, and summarised the findings from the various worksteps carried out to that point. Following delivery of this report, Technopolis met with CEN to discuss progress and the results obtained and to agree subsequent actions.

2.7.2 Final report and meeting

Following the development of the case studies and analysis of all of the information and data collected through the study, we prepared an initial draft of our final report. This draft final report was submitted to CEN on 9th December and discussed at a meeting with CEN on 14th December 2011. The meeting was used to discuss the results and agree on the actions necessary to complete the work to CEN’s satisfaction and to prepare a final report that meets their requirements.

This current final report represents the final deliverable for the study and was submitted in its final form to CEN on 24th January 2012.


3. Analysis of European service standards

This section presents the results of our desk research to review the (22) European service standards that are in scope for the study. The objective of the desk research was to document the basic characteristics of the service standards and compile an account of the uses to which they might be put and the benefits that we could expect them to provide to service providers and users, based on the information contained within the text of the standards.

3.1 List of service standards by sector

Figure 6 below lists the 22 service standards in scope for the study and which have been included in the analysis presented in this section of the report. The reader should note that while 27 separate documents were provided by CEN, in the cases of furniture removal services and recreational diving services several of the standards consisted of two or more parts [EN 12522 (2 parts), EN 14873 (2 parts), EN 14153 (3 parts), and EN 14413 (2 parts)]. In these cases we have combined the separate parts and so 22 standards are listed below and assessed in subsequent sections of this chapter of the report.

Figure 6 – Service standards in scope for the study

Service Sector Service standards (and their parts)

Funeral services • EN 15017:2005 Funeral Services – Requirements

Furniture removal services

• EN 12522:1998 Furniture removal activities - Furniture removal for private individuals − Part 1: Service specification − Part 2: Provision of service

• EN 14873:2005 Furniture removal activities - Storage of furniture and personal effects for private individuals − Part 1: Specification for the storage facility and related storage provision − Part 2: Provision of the service

Maintenance

• CEN/TS 15331:2005 Criteria for design, management and control of maintenance services for buildings (note: standard has recently been revised and published as EN 15331:2011)

• EN 13269:2006 Maintenance - Guideline on preparation of maintenance contracts (note: previously ENV (pre-standard) 13269 published in 2001)

• EN 15341:2007 Maintenance - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators • CEN/TR 15628:2007 Maintenance - Qualification of Maintenance personnel (note: under

revision to become a EN) • EN 13460:2009 Maintenance - Documentation for maintenance (note: first version published

in 2002) • EN 13306:2010 Maintenance - Maintenance terminology (note: first version published in

2001)

Recreational diving services

• EN 14153:2003 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers − Part 1: Level 1 - Supervised Diver − Part 2: Level 2 - Autonomous Diver − Part 3: Level 3 - Dive Leader

• EN 14413:2004 Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors − Part 1: Level 1 − Part 2: Level 2

• EN 14467:2004 Recreational diving services - Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers

Translation services

• EN 15038:2006 Translation services - Service requirements (note: under revision together with the International Organisation for Standardisation [ISO], in order to create a common European and International Standard)

Freight transportation services

• CEN/TR 14310:2002 Freight transportation services - Declaration and reporting of environmental performance in freight transport chains

Public passenger transport

• EN 13816:2002 Transportation - Logistics and services - Public passenger transport - Service quality definition, targeting and measurement

• EN 15140:2006 Public passenger transport - Basic requirements and recommendations for systems that measure delivered service quality


Service Sector Service standards (and their parts)

Transport quality management systems

• EN 12507:2005 Transportation services - Guidance notes on the application of EN ISO 9001:2000 to the road transportation, storage, distribution and railway goods industries

• EN 12798:2007 Transport Quality Management System - Road, Rail and Inland navigation transport - Quality management system requirements to supplement EN ISO 9001 for the transport of dangerous goods with regard to safety

Transport service logistics

• EN 13011:2000 Transportation services - Good transport chains - System for declaration of performance conditions

• EN 13876:2002 Transport - Logistics and Services - Goods transport chains - Code of practice for the provision of cargo transport services

• EN 14892:2005 Transport service - City logistics - Guideline for the definition of limited access to city centres

• EN 14943:2005 Transport services - Logistics - Glossary of terms

3.2 Summary descriptions of the European service standards covered by the study

A summary description of the 22 European service standards that are in scope for the study is provided in Appendix A. Based on the information available within the standard, it provides an overview of the contents of each document, covering (where the information is available) their aims and purpose, what they cover and details of how they are likely to be used. The information set out in the appendix was then used to compile the aggregate picture of uses and benefits presented in the next Section (3.3) below.

3.3 Overview of the intended uses and benefits of European service standards

Having reviewed each of the standards in detail and summarised the main elements of their content, we then attempted to profile each standard according to its intended (or likely) ‘uses’ and ‘benefits’.

In reviewing the text of the standards a range of potential ‘uses’ and ‘benefits’ were identified. In total, 11 ‘uses’ and 16 ‘benefits’ were identified that between them covered the main intended purposes of the service standards covered. These are listed in Figure 8 (uses) and Figure 9 (benefits) later in this section. Inevitably there is some crossover between the two. For example, one might intend a standard to be used to better enable cross-border trade, and for the application of that standard to bring benefits in terms of increased cross-border trade.

Based on our review of the text of each standard, we then identified which of the intended uses and benefits were applicable in each case. In doing this, a distinction was made between: (i) the main intended uses and benefits – i.e. intended uses and benefits that are explicitly stated within the text of the standard, and (ii) other intended uses and benefits – i.e. intended uses and benefits that are not explicitly stated as such, but can be confidently assumed to be important objectives given the content of the standard. Most standards are intended to be put to several uses and are envisaged to bring several benefits.

It is important to note that, given this was a desk-based exercise, we had to rely primarily on the text of the standards in order to identify their intended uses and benefits. The format of the standards varies considerably from case to case and some are very explicit and detailed when it comes to their intended uses and benefits, while others are not. We have relied firstly on what is explicitly stated as an intended use/benefit, and then identified any other areas of use or benefit that are very obviously inferred from the text. Inevitably, those standards that have been more explicit as to their intended uses/benefits tend to have a greater number of intended uses/benefits assigned to them than those that do not include such information.

For example, two of the Maintenance standards provide very different levels and types of information on their intended uses and benefits. EN 13269 explicitly states that it seeks to serve a number of purposes and create a number of benefits, listed in Figure 7 (with our resultant categorisation shown in the right hand column).


Figure 7 – Stated purposes of EN 13269 and our categorisation of intended uses and benefits

Stated uses and benefits Use / benefit categorisation • Promoting cross-border customer-provider

relationships • Main use – Cross-border trade • Main benefit – Improved ability to export services

• Improving the quality of maintenance contracts and minimising disputes / adjustments

• Main benefit – Improved contractual relationships • Other benefit – improved ability to demonstrate service

quality to customers

• Simplifying comparison between maintenance contracts

• Main benefit – improved ability to compare different service offers / providers

• Other use – performance benchmarking • Giving assistance and advice in relation to the

drafting and negotiation of maintenance contracts, and in resolving disputes

• Main use – guidance for developing agreements and other documentation

• Identifying types of maintenance contracts and making recommendations for the attribution of rights and obligations between the parties of the contract, including risks

• Main use – supply chain management

• Producing a clear interface between the customer and provider

• Other benefit – increased transparency of the services provided

• Other benefit – improved service quality

By comparison, EN 15341 sets out a standard that provides KPIs and a system for managing these to measure maintenance performance. It presents formulas, with definitions and comments, and describes a methodology for the selection and use of KPIs. However, it contains little explicit comment on the intended use or benefit of the standard, beyond stating that it is “intended to support management in appraising and improving efficiency and effectiveness in order to achieve maintenance excellence, the utilisation of technical assets in a competitive manner… and ultimately improve performance”. From this limited information, we have therefore inferred the following intended uses/benefits of the standard:

• Main use – Performance benchmarking

• Main benefit – Improved use of performance indicators

• Other benefit – Increased profitability

The reader should also be aware that this analysis is based on the intended uses and benefits of the standards (as far as these can be identified) and not necessarily their realised uses and benefits, although we would hope that the two are closely aligned.

Figure 8 and Figure 9 below provide summaries of the results of our analysis, with a tally count in the final column of each showing the number of standards where each of the given uses/benefits is explicitly foreseen or is implicit in the standard.

The results on intended ‘uses’ suggest, for example, that of the 22 service standards, 10 clearly seek to provide support to the development of agreements and other documentation, nine seek to support cross-border trade, and eight make provision for performance benchmarking.

Figure 8 - Intended ‘uses’ of European service standards - summary

Uses Main Use Other Use Total Guidance for developing agreements and other documentation 6 4 10

Cross-border trade 5 4 9

Performance benchmarking 2 6 8

Consumer protection 5 2 7

Support to national legislation (e.g. Health & safety requirements) 5 2 7

Guidelines for training / qualifications 4 3 7

Certification 1 5 6

Supply chain management 3 2 5

Guidance / assistance with the application of other standards 5 0 5

Glossary of terms / definitions 2 2 4

Public procurement 1 1 2

Total Standards: 22


Similarly, the ‘benefits’ that are most commonly intended include improved service quality (15), improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers (11), improved common definitions / terminology (9), and improved confidence in service providers (9).

Figure 9 - Intended ‘benefits’ of European service standards - summary

Benefits Main Benefit Other Benefit Total Improved service quality 9 6 15 Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers 7 4 11 Improved common definitions / terminology 5 4 9 Increased confidence in service providers 4 5 9 Increased transparency of the services provided 4 4 8 Improved contractual relationships 5 2 7 Improved use of performance indicators 6 1 7 Improved ability to export services (cross border trade) 5 2 7 Improved ability to compare different service offers / providers 4 3 7 Increased customer satisfaction 3 4 7 Improvements to the environment 2 3 5 Improved application of another standard 5 0 5 Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements 3 1 4 Improved ability to meet legislative / regulatory requirements 3 1 4 Increased profitability 0 3 3 Improved market share 2 0 2 Total Standards: 22

The full results of our analysis are presented in Figure 10 (uses) and Figure 11 (benefits) below, with ‘xxx’ signifying a ‘main intended use / benefit’ and ‘x’ signifying an ‘other intended use/benefit’. Each of the 22 standards is listed in the tables, and they are grouped into 9 sectoral areas.


Figure 10 - Intended ‘uses’ of European service standards – full analysis

Sec

tor

Rec

reat

ion

al d

ivin

g se

rvic

es

Fu

rnit

ure

rem

oval

se

rvic

es

Fu

ner

al s

ervi

ces

Tra

nsp

ort

qu

alit

y m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

s

Pu

bli

c p

asse

nge

r tr

ansp

ort

Fre

igh

t tr

ansp

orta

tion

se

rvic

es

Tra

nsp

ort

serv

ice

logi

stic

s

Tra

nsl

atio

n s

ervi

ces

Mai

nte

nan

ce

USES

EN

144

67

EN

1415

3

EN

144

13

EN

1252

2

EN

148

73

EN

150

17

EN

1250

7

EN

1279

8

EN

138

16

EN

1514

0

TR

1431

0

EN

130

11

EN

138

76

EN

148

92

EN

149

43

EN

150

38

EN

1326

9

EN

1330

6

EN

134

60

EN

1534

1

TS

1533

1

TR

156

28

Certification x x x x x x xxx

Public procurement x xxx

Consumer protection x x xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx x

Support to national legislation (e.g. Health and safety requirements) xxx xxx xxx x x xxx xxx xxx

Cross-border trade xxx xxx x x x xxx x xxx xxx

Supply chain management x xxx x xxx xxx

Performance benchmarking x x x x x x xxx xxx

Guidelines for training / qualifications xxx xxx xxx x x xxx x xxx

Guidance / assistance with the application of other standards xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Glossary of terms / definitions x x xxx xxx

Guidance for developing agreements and other documentation x x x xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxx xxx


Figure 11 - Intended ‘benefits’ of European service standards – full analysis

Sec

tor

Rec

reat

ion

al d

ivin

g se

rvic

es

Fu

rnit

ure

rem

oval

se

rvic

es

Fu

ner

al s

ervi

ces

Tra

nsp

ort

qu

alit

y m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

s

Pu

bli

c p

asse

nge

r tr

ansp

ort

Fre

igh

t tr

ansp

orta

tion

se

rvic

es

Tra

nsp

ort

serv

ice

logi

stic

s

Tra

nsl

atio

n s

ervi

ces

Mai

nte

nan

ce

BENEFITS EN

144

67

EN

1415

3

EN

144

13

EN

1252

2

EN

148

73

EN

150

17

EN

1250

7

EN

1279

8

EN

138

16

EN

1514

0

TR

1431

0

EN

130

11

EN

138

76

EN

148

92

EN

149

43

EN

150

38

EN

1326

9

EN

1330

6

EN

134

60

EN

1534

1

TS

1533

1

TR

156

28

Improved service quality xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx x x xxx x x xxx xxx x xxx x

Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers x x x xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxx xxx xxx x

Increased transparency of the services provided xxx xxx xxx x xxx x x x

Improved common definitions / terminology xxx xxx x x xxx xxx xxx x x

Improved contractual relationships xxx xxx xxx xxx x x xxx

Improved use of performance indicators xxx xxx xxx xxx x xxx xxx

Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements xxx xxx xxx x xxx

Improved ability to meet legislative / regulatory requirements x xxx xxx xxx

Improved ability to export services (cross border trade) xxx xxx x xxx x xxx xxx

Improved market share xxx xxx

Increased profitability x x x

Improved ability to compare different service offers / providers x x x xxx xxx x xxx xxx

Increased confidence in service providers x x x xxx xxx xxx x x xxx x

Increased customer satisfaction x x xxx xxx x xxx x

Improvements to the environment x x x xxx xxx

Improved application of another standard xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx


4. Sales of European service standards

4.1 Introduction

We asked each of the 29 NSBs participating in the study for data on the numbers of European service standards sold to date for each of the service standards published between 2000 and 2007. Of the 29 NSBs, 17 (59%) were able to provide this information and the remainder either did not respond to our request or signalled that they were not in a position to provide such data. In addition we asked the NSBs providing data whether the numbers of standards sold in each case was above, below or in-line with expectations, to which nine of the NSBs (31%) provided a response.

The data and information provided by the NSBs is summarised below. It should be noted that several of the NSBs asked that the data not be published in its raw form, so in order to provide confidentiality in relation to the precise number of standards sold in each country no lists of sales by country are presented. Instead we have focused on reporting the numbers of sales by sector and have assessed the extent to which the sales data have similar or different geographical ‘profiles’, as we look across the sectors.

4.2 Sales by service sector

Figure 12 below presents an overview of the numbers of service standards sold per sector – in total, and as a share of all sales across the six sectors. In addition the table shows the average number of standards sold per country in each sector and the number of responding countries that have sold at least one standard in each sector.

Looking across Figure 12, we can see that there is a significant variability in the number of standards sold within each sector. Sales of Maintenance standards far out-strip sales in other sectors, with 3,916 sales of individual maintenance standards representing 48% of total sales across the six sectors. Sales of service standards in the transportation sector have totalled 1,848, which is 23% of all those sold across the six sectors. Sales of the translation standard makes this the third highest selling sector, with 1,724 standards sold, equating to 21% of the total across the six sectors.

Part of the variation in the number of standards sold within each sector clearly relates to the numbers of standards published in each sector. However, this accounts for only part of the variation as can be seen by the case of the single translation standard, which has accounted for 21% of total sales on its own.

Figure 12 - Sales of European service standards by sector (based on sales in 17 countries)

Funeral services

(1 standard)

Furniture removal

(1 standard in 2 parts)

Maintenance (5 standards)

Recreational diving

(3 standards in six parts)

Translation (1 standard)

Transportation (8 standards)

Total

Total number of standards sold to date

210 91 3,916 395 1,724 1,848 8,184

Share of all sales by sector

3% 1% 48% 5% 21% 23% 100%

Average number sold per county

13 5 230 23 101 109 482

No of countries (out of 17) selling at least 1 copy

10 8 17 12 17 16 100%

Figure 13 presents a full list of the 19 standards (in 22 parts) and shows, for each, the number of standards sold across the 17 countries that provided data, and the share of all sales. The data show that the translation standard (EN 15038) is the highest selling, with over 1,700 sales, equating to 21% of the total. Two of the maintenance standards (EN 13269 and EN 13306) are the second and


third highest selling, with over 1,500 sales in each case, and each accounting for 19% of all sales of this body of service standards. One of the transportation standards (EN 13816) is the fourth highest selling standard, with 785 sales equating to 10% of the total. Collectively these four service standards have accounted for over two-thirds (69%) of all sales, confirming that there is a relatively small number of very ‘popular’ standards and a larger number of standards that have achieved only modest sales since their publication.

Looking at the bottom half of the list, 15 standards (including parts of standards) have achieved less than 200 sales each across the 17 countries providing data, so each has accounted for 2% or less of all sales.

Figure 13 – Total numbers of individual service standards sold (based on sales in 17 countries)

Sector Standard Number sold

Share of standards

sold Translation EN 15038:2006 – Translation services: service requirements 1,724 21%

Maintenance EN 13269:2006 - Maintenance - Guideline on preparation of maintenance contracts

1,560 19%

Maintenance EN 13306:2001 - Maintenance terminology 1,554 19%

Transportation EN 13816:2002 - Transportation - Logistics and services - Public passenger transport - Service quality definition, targeting and measurement

785 10%

Maintenance EN 15341:2007 - Maintenance - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators 635 8%

Transportation

EN 12798:2007 - Transport Quality Management System - Road, Rail and Inland navigation transport - Quality management system requirements to supplement EN ISO 9001 for the transport of dangerous goods with regard to safety

418 5%

Funeral services

EN 15017:2005 - Funeral services: requirements 210 3%

Transportation EN 13876:2002 - Transport - Logistics and Services - Goods transport chains - Code of practice for the provision of cargo transport services

197 2%

Transportation EN 12507:2005 - Transportation services - Guidance notes on the application of EN ISO 9001:2000 to the road transportation, storage, distribution and railway goods industries

146 2%

Transportation EN 13011:2000 - Transportation services - Good transport chains - System for declaration of performance conditions

115 1%

Transportation EN 15140:2006 - Public passenger transport - Basic requirements and recommendations for systems that measure delivered service quality

110 1%

Maintenance CEN/TR 15628:2007 - Maintenance - Qualification of Maintenance personnel 101 1%

Furniture removal

EN 14873-2:2005 - Furniture removal activities - Storage of furniture and personal effects for private individuals - Part 2: Provision of the service

91 1%

Recreational diving

EN 14467:2004 - Recreational Diving Services - Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers

75 1%

Recreational diving

EN 14153-2:2003 - Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 2: Level 2 - Autonomous Diver

71 1%

Recreational diving

EN 14153-1:2003 - Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 1: Level 1 - Supervised Diver

70 1%

Maintenance CEN/TS 15331:2005 - Criteria for design, management and control of maintenance services for buildings

66 1%

Recreational diving

EN 14153-3:2003 - Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 3: Level 3 - Dive Leader

61 1%

Recreational diving

EN 14413-1:2004 - Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors - Part 1: Level 1

59 1%

Recreational diving

EN 14413-2:2004 - Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors - Part 2: Level 2

59 1%

Transportation EN 14943:2005 - Transport services - Logistics - Glossary of terms 41 1%

Transportation EN 14892:2005 - Transport service - City logistics - Guideline for the definition of limited access to city centres

36 0%

Total 8,184 100%


4.3 Average sales by country

Figure 14 presents data on the share of each country’s sales of European service standards that are accounted for by each sector. For each country the sector that accounted for the highest share of sales is highlighted.

Figure 14 - Proportion of sales by sector and country

Sector S

pai

n

Nor

way

Net

her

lan

ds

Ital

y

Fra

nce

Fin

lan

d

Slo

vaki

a

Bel

giu

m

Pol

and

Cro

atia

UK

Est

onia

Bu

lgar

ia

Irel

and

Lat

via

Slo

ven

ia

Icel

and

All

co

un

trie

s

Maintenance (M) 61% 70% 32% 57% 45% 21% 39% 35% 18% 38% 15% 23% 4% 19% 33% 61% 57% 48%

Transportation (TP) 30% 19% 7% 13% 33% 47% 26% 18% 49% 7% 4% 4% 2% 7% 25% 13% 0% 23%

Translation (TL) 6% 2% 55% 22% 18% 4% 16% 22% 33% 48% 66% 71% 87% 45% 17% 26% 43% 21%

Recreational diving (RD) 2% 5% 5% 6% 2% 9% 11% 24% 0% 7% 2% 0% 0% 29% 25% 0% 0% 5%

Funeral services (FS) 1% 4% 0% 3% 0% 16% 8% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Furniture removal (FR) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Sector with highest share of sales M M TL M M TP M M TP TL TL TL TL TL M M M M

Taking each sector in turn we can state the following:

• Maintenance is the sector that accounts for the highest share of sales in the largest number of countries. Nine out of the 17 countries providing data sold more standards in the maintenance area than in each of the other five sectors. Overall, maintenance standards account 48% of all sales and on average make up 36% of each individual country’s sales of European service standards. Maintenance standards have been particularly significant as a proportion of all sales in Norway, Spain, Slovenia, Italy and Iceland, where they accounted for over half of all sales across the six sectors

• Translation also features as the most important sector in terms of sales for a significant number of countries. Six countries out of the 17 have sold more copies of the translation standard than in any other of the six service sectors. The countries where the translation standard has proved to be (relatively) the most popular are Bulgaria, Estonia, the Netherlands, Croatia, Ireland and the UK. In each of these cases the translation standard alone accounted for between 45% and 87% of all sales of service standards across the six sectors

• Transportation was found to be the sector with the highest share of sales in only two countries – Poland, where transportation standards accounted for 49% of all sales, and Finland, where it accounted for 47% of all sales of European service standards. However, it has performed reasonably well overall, making up 23% of all sales notified to us

• Sales of the recreational diving standards are lower overall and this ‘sector’ did not feature as the most significant for any country. This is possibly attributable to the fact that recreational diving services are a relatively small part of the much broader tourism sector, and could only be expected to be of high significance in countries where diving is very popular. Despite not being the area of highest sales for any of the 17 countries providing data, sales of diving standards were fairly significant in Belgium, Latvia and Ireland, where they accounted for 24%, 25% and 29% of all sales respectively

• The funeral services standard has also achieved only relatively modest sales in most countries, and only accounted for more than a 10% share in the case of Finland, where it made up 16% of all sales reported


• The furniture removal standard has achieved relatively small sales in most countries, and only stands out as a significant standard in the case of the UK, where it accounted for 12% of the sales reported

The sales of service standards across the countries are highly skewed, with three countries (out of 17) accounting for more than 53% of the total sales of every standard in scope. For some standards three countries (out of 17) account for 90% of the sales.

4.4 Sales of European service standards against expectations

Of the 17 NSBs who were able to provide us with data on the sale of service standards, nine also commented on whether the sales figures for individual standards had been above, below or in-line with expectations. The results are presented in Figure 15 below and show that at an aggregate level, 52% of sale figures for individual standards were in line with expectations, 10% of sales figures were above expectations and 38% were below expectations.

While sales of standards were above expectations in only 10% of all cases, two of the standards attracted sales that were above expectations in a third of the countries providing data. These were (i) the translation standard (EN 15038), which sold above expectations in three cases, in line with expectations in five cases and below expectations in just one case, and (ii) the maintenance terminology standard (EN 13306) which sold above expectations in three cases, in line with expectations in four cases and below expectations in just two cases. The standard that has sold least well against expectations was the technical report on the qualifications of maintenance personnel, which sold below expectations in six of the nine cases.

Figure 15 – Sales of standards as compared to expectations

Below expectations Same as expected Above expectations

Spain 0% 50% 50%

Bulgaria 95% 0% 5%

Estonia 64% 32% 5%

Iceland 18% 82% 0%

Latvia 50% 50% 0%

Finland 0% 100% 0%

Norway 5% 91% 5%

Slovakia 41% 41% 18%

Italy 73% 23% 5%

All countries 38% 52% 10%


5. Results from the questionnaire survey

Findings from the responses to the questionnaire survey are presented below. Where appropriate, any significant differences between groups of respondents have been noted. Also note that not all respondents answered all of the questions, and so the relevant sample sizes for each area of analysis are shown in parenthesis.

5.1 Awareness of standards and standardisation bodies

Respondents were asked a set of questions aimed at determining their general awareness of standards and standardisation bodies. Given that the survey was promoted primarily to organisations that have purchased service standards and / or have participated in the standardisation process, we would naturally expect awareness levels of standards and standardisation bodies amongst respondents to be fairly high. The information reported cannot therefore be used as a proxy for general levels of awareness within these sectors more generally.

We first asked respondents whether they had previously heard of CEN – the European Committee for Standardisation. Here, 86% of the 406 respondents stated that they had heard of CEN, and 14% stated that they had not. However, it is worth noting that the overall level of awareness among French respondents (83%) is significantly below the figure reported by the other respondents (94%), skewing the overall result. We then asked whether respondents knew the name of their National Standardisation Body, the one that develops national standards in their country. Here a higher proportion (94%) of the 407 respondents stated that they know the name of their respective NSB. Again the French response (92%) was slightly lower than that for all other countries (98%).

Respondents were also asked about their awareness of European and national standards that could be used by service providers in their sector. Just over three-quarters (78%) of the respondents (n=397) stated that they were aware of European standards relevant to their sector, while fewer (58%) indicated that they were aware of national standards relevant to their sector. Collectively, nearly all respondents (93%) were aware of either European or national standards of relevance to their sector, and 43% were aware of both national and European standards of relevance. B2B respondents were significantly more likely to be aware of relevant European standards (82%) than B2C respondents (73%), while large firms were significantly more likely to be aware of relevant national standards (64%) than small firms (46%).

We then asked respondents about their awareness of codes of conduct or codes of practice that can be used by service providers in their sector. Just less than a third (64%) of the respondents (n=390) indicated that they are aware of relevant codes of practice / conduct, while just over a third (36%) stated that they are not. However, the French response (56%) brings down the overall level of awareness, which would be 79% without the French respondents included. There are other significant differences between the different groups of respondents. Small firms (73%) were more likely to be aware of such codes than large firms (58%), industry (66%) were more likely to be aware than public organisations (52%), and B2B organisations (68%) were more likely to be aware than B2C organisations (52%).

5.2 Use of standards

Respondents were then asked about their use of service standards and codes of practice / conduct. Of the 385 respondents to this question, 78% stated that they use one or more European service standards, 58% use one or more national service standards, and 37% use one or more codes of conduct / practice. Just 11% of the respondents stated that they do not use any standards or codes of conduct/practice. Reported use of European standards and national standards was higher amongst large firms than small firms (89% to 70% and 71% to 46% respectively), whilst small organisations were significantly more likely than large firms to report that they do not use standards (14% compared to 3%).

Further analysis revealed that just over half (52%) of the respondents use both European and national service standards, while 26% use only European service standards and 7% use only


national service standards. This finding suggests that there is a relatively high incidence of organisations using national and European service standards in combination, and that it is relatively less common for respondents to use only one or other type of standard.

In total, 84% of respondents (or 325) use either European or national service standards, or both. These respondents were asked to name any of the standards that they use, and 300+ were reported by 135 of the respondents. These included:

• 60 mentions of national standards – unsurprisingly dominated by various French standards, but with BS OHSAS 18001 mentioned by nine respondents

• 139 mentions of international standards – including 10+ mentions for ISO 9001 – quality management systems (56), ISO 14001 – environmental management (26) and ISO 17025 – testing and calibration (10)

• 109 mentions of European standards. However, only 42 of these refer to standards that CEN consider to be European service sector standards. These standards are listed in Figure 16 below.

Figure 16 – European service sector standards used by respondents

Responses Reference Title Sector 15 EN 15038 Translation services - Service requirements Translation services

6 EN 13816 Transportation - Logistics and services - Public passenger transport - Service quality definition, targeting and measurement

Transport services

4 EN 13306 Maintenance- Maintenance terminology Maintenance services

4 EN 15341 Maintenance - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators Maintenance services

3 EN 15017 Funeral Services - Requirements Funeral services

3 EN 15140 Public passenger transport - Basic requirements and recommendations for systems that measure delivered service quality

Transport services

EN 15221-1 Facility Management - Part 1: Terms and definitions

EN 15221-2 Facility Management - Part 2: Guidance on how to prepare Facility Management agreements

EN 15221-3 Facility Management - Part 3: Guidance on quality in Facility Management (under development)

EN 15221-5 Facility Management - Part 5: Guidance on Facility Management processes (under development)

2

EN 15221-6 Facility Management - Part 6: Area and Space Measurement in Facility Management (under development)

Facilities management

EN 12522-1 Furniture removal activities - Furniture removal for private individuals - Part 1: Service specification

1 EN 12522-2

Furniture removal activities - Furniture removal for private individuals - Part 2: Provision of service

Removals services

1 EN 13460 Maintenance - Documentation for maintenance Maintenance services

EN 14153-1 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 1: Level 1 - Supervised Diver

EN 14153-2 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 2: Level 2 - Autonomous Diver

1

EN 14153-3 Recreational diving services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers - Part 3: Level 3 - Dive Leader

Diving services

1 EN 14467 Recreational diving services - Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers Diving services

1 EN 15733 Services of real estate agents - Requirements for the provision of services of real estate agents

Real estate services

5.3 Benefits of using service standards

The respondents who indicated that they use European or national service standards were then asked to indicate the extent to which each of a given list of benefits were realised by their own organisation as a result of using service standards. The results are presented in Figure 17 and reveal that all of the given benefits are realised by the majority of the users of service standards,


although some types of benefit are clearly more widespread and viewed as more significant than others. It is worth noting that French respondents were significantly more likely to claim a minor than major benefit, or no benefit than a minor benefit, compared to respondents elsewhere, and therefore reduce the overall level of benefit realised in each case.

The most widespread ‘major’ benefits of using service standards relate to improvements to service quality and an improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers. Here, almost two-thirds of users cited these as major benefits of service standards, and almost all of the remaining respondents cited them as a minor benefit, with only 5% of users indicating that these were not a benefit in their particular case. The next most widespread major benefits of using service standards are improved common definitions or terminology and the ability to meet legislative and / or regulatory requirements. These were cited as major benefits by half of users, and minor benefits by around a third. An improved ability to meet health and safety requirements and improved contractual relationships were also cited as a ‘major’ benefit of service standards by just under half of the respondents and as a minor benefit by around one-third.

The next set of benefits were more likely to be cited as minor benefits than as major ones, and related more to the benefits that the purchasers of services (i.e. service users / clients) might gain from the fact that service standards are being used by their suppliers. These benefits include increased customer satisfaction, increased transparency of the services provided, improved use of performance indicators, increased confidence in service providers and an improved ability to compare different service offers and / or providers.

The final set of benefits shown in Figure 17 relate to the more ‘commercial’ benefits of service standards and include (i) improved ability to export services, (ii) increased market share and (iii) increased profitability. These areas were still cited as benefits of using service standards by just over half of respondents in each case, but in most of these cases the benefits obtained were described as ’minor’ rather than ‘major’.

Figure 17 – Benefits of using service standards (n=226-242)

Not a benefit

A minor benefit

A major benefit

Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers 5% 30% 65%

Improved service quality 5% 33% 62%

Improved common definitions / terminology 13% 36% 50%

Improved ability to meet legislative / regulatory requirements 19% 31% 50%

Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements 24% 30% 46%

Improved contractual relationships 17% 38% 45%

Increased customer satisfaction 11% 45% 44%

Increased transparency of the services provided 14% 43% 43%

Improved use of performance indicators 19% 43% 38%

Increased confidence in service providers 14% 49% 37%

Improved ability to compare different service offers / providers 23% 46% 31%

Improved ability to export services (cross-border trade) 49% 31% 19%

Increased market share 47% 37% 15%

Increased profitability 48% 37% 14%

There were some significant differences in the responses given by small and large companies (see selected results in Figure 18 below). In particular, small companies were more likely to have realised larger benefits in relation to improved service quality, an improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers and increased transparency of services provided, while large companies were more likely to have realised larger benefits in relation to an improved ability to meet both health and safety requirements and legislative / regulatory requirements.


Figure 18 – Benefits of using service standards, by company size (n=65-106)

Small company (n=63-67)

Large company (n=102-106)

Not a benefit 3% 5%

A minor benefit 21% 42% Improved service quality

A major benefit 76% 53%

Not a benefit 2% 4%

A minor benefit 20% 40% Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers


Not a benefit 9% 19%

A minor benefit 38% 45% Increased transparency of the services provided



A minor benefit 33% 29% Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements



A minor benefit 38% 25% Improved ability to meet legislative / regulatory requirements


Respondents were then asked specifically whether any of the service standards they use are employed within procurement processes, meaning do the purchasers of services refer in some way to the standards or give some weighting in their purchasing decisions to suppliers who meet the standards. Half (50%) of the respondents stated that the service standards they use are employed within procurement processes. The remainder were either unsure whether this happens (28%) or stated that it does not (21%).

Respondents were also asked whether any of the standards that they use are referenced in legislation by national authorities. Here, just under two-thirds (61%) stated that the standards they use are referenced in national legislation while 20% stated that they are not, and 19% stated that they were unsure. The proportion of French respondents whose standards are referenced in legislation (67%) was significantly higher than for other respondents (48%).

Respondents were then asked whether their organisation highlights or features its use of standards when advertising its services. Just over two-thirds (69%) of the respondents stated that they do highlight or feature their use of standards as part of their advertising, while 19% do not and 13% were unsure. The proportion of small companies who use their standards when advertising their services (82%) was significantly higher than the proportion of large companies that do so (63%).

Respondents were also asked to identify any other significant benefits that service providers or their customers gain from using service standards. Just 33 suggestions were provided and these mostly related to the benefits already covered in Figure 17 above. They are nevertheless listed below in full (under 11 main headings) as examples of the benefits gained in each area:

• Improved common definitions / terminology − A first advantage is the common language to compare like with like − A common checklist, known to all and undeniable − Commonality across sectors − Common frame of reference in Europe at least − Commonality of reference − International reference − The standards define common requirements and consensus between countries on good

practice

• Improved use of performance indicators − Management and internal mobilisation − Internal management


− Structuring in-house − Monitor and improve productivity, have the same organisational model from one country

to another − Facilitates the description of the organization and working methods

• Improved service quality − A minimum standard − Continuous improvement at all levels − The level of professionalism provided − Opportunity to make audits of applications to the benefit of customer standards for the

quality of service, the service provider to correct the business organisation

• Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers − Image - serious − Media during training and authorisation − Use of supplier standards mandatory in procurement process

• Improved contractual relationships − A significant proportion of contracting the provision is pre-written − Well-defined relationship − Obligation of commitment

• Improved ability to compare different service offers / providers − We stand out from competitors who do anything on the market − Branding of offer and competing with others − Competitive

• Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements − Mandatory safety standards for x-ray − Proof of the safety of our products

• Improved ability to export services (cross-border trade) − Free movement and recognition of certificates of diving

• Increased confidence in service providers − Confidence with respect to external stakeholders

• Other benefits − Working methodology − Provides a "framework" of the requirements to be applied − To legitimise an approach based on a reference frame − Recommendations - guide on which to build a project, the methods

5.4 Barriers to the development and use of service standards

Respondents (irrespective of whether they use service standards or not) were asked to indicate whether and to what extent they believe each of a given list of barriers limits the development and use of standards within their sector. Each of the barriers has been categorised according to ‘type’, as follows:

• R – Resources. These barriers relate to a lack of resources or capabilities to develop and implement standards

• U – Understanding. These barriers relate to a lack of understanding or a lack of information that users might need in order to be motivated to develop and use standards

• C – Context. These barriers relate to the context or environment within which businesses operate, aspects of which might limit or prevent the development and use of standards due to ‘competition’ from other mechanisms

The results obtained are shown in Figure 19 and reveal that the most significant and widespread barriers relate to (i) a lack of resources [R] and (ii) a lack of understanding [U].

The most significant barrier overall – a lack of time to be involved and influence the development of standards - is arguably not one that the standardisation bodies can do much to address, other


than through further streamlining of their processes. However, the next three most significant barriers – concerns over the implementation costs of standards and a lack of understanding of the (a) general and (b) specific benefits that service standards can provide – could be addressed through the provision of relevant information. In fact, this study is intended to go some way towards providing an improved understanding of the benefits that real businesses (and their customers) gain from applying service standards. It is also possible that the fifth barrier listed – concerns that standards will be costly to develop – might also be addressed by the standardisation bodies through this type of study.

The next two most significant barriers - a lack of experience in developing standards and a lack of mechanisms to bring companies together to discuss opportunities for standardisation and to consider the benefits that these might bring – both relate to the (lack of) resources that businesses have at their disposal. It is likely that the trade associations could play a lead role in addressing these barriers, and also another ‘resource’ barrier that falls further down the list (lack of technical capability to be involved).

The next set of barriers includes (i) a lack of awareness of the possibility to develop and use standards, (ii) concerns over the purchase cost of standards. Again these ‘understanding’ [U] barriers would appear to be something that the standardisation bodies can address through improved provision of information.

The last set of barriers were considered to be ‘major’ issues for less than a quarter of the respondents, and it is within this set that the two ‘context’ [C] barriers appear, suggesting that competition from (i) existing legislation / regulations relating to service provision and (ii) pre-existing non-formal standards (e.g. codes of practice) are not among the most significant barriers.

Finally, the results suggest that few respondents see concerns that service standards would be used to normalise service quality as a major barrier, although a majority consider this to be a minor barrier and as such it would be useful for the standardisation bodies to provide confirmatory evidence that this is not the case. This is something that our case studies may help with.

There were a small number of significant differences in responses between different groups:

• Small companies were more likely than large companies to be concerned that standards would be costly to develop

• Public organisations were more likely than industry to see a lack of awareness of the possibility to develop and use standards as a barrier

• B2B organisations were more likely than B2C organisations to see a lack of time to be involved and influence the development of standards as a barrier

Figure 19 – Barriers to the development and use of service standards (n=256-262)

Not a barrier

A minor barrier

A major barrier

R - Lack of time to be involved and influence the development of standards

17% 32% 51%

U - Concerns that standards will be costly to implement / use 13% 41% 46%

U - Lack of understanding of the general benefits of service standards 16% 40% 44% U - Lack of understanding of the specific benefits that standards could bring to your sector

19% 37% 43%

U - Concerns that standards will be costly to develop 24% 38% 38%

R - Lack of experience in developing standards 22% 40% 38% R - Lack of mechanisms to bring companies together to discuss opportunities and the benefits of standardisation

25% 43% 32%

U - Lack of awareness of the possibility to develop and use standards 22% 46% 32%

U - Concerns that standards will be costly to purchase 28% 41% 31% R - Lack of technical capability to be involved and influence the development of standards

32% 44% 24%

U - Concerns that standardisation will be used to ‘normalise’ or fix service quality, forcing companies to compete mainly on price

30% 49% 21%

C - The existence of existing legislation or regulations governing the provision of services

40% 40% 20%

C - The availability of existing non-formal standards (e.g. codes of practice)

46% 41% 13%


Respondents were also asked whether any other significant barriers exist that limit the development and use of service standards beyond those listed in Figure 19 above. Less than 40 respondents provided a response and many of the barriers cited did in fact relate to those already listed in the figure above. Nevertheless, a summary of the responses given is provided below.

Three main barriers were identified to the development of standards. These were:

• An underlying ‘suspicion’ of the standards development system (n=7). Here the comments focus on concerns that certain interests or organisations are able to dominate the standards development process and that there is not in fact a broad-based, market driven, bottom-up approach to standards development, as is claimed. There is also thought to be a lack of transparency in the workings of the system and, as a result, a lack of trust in it from the outside. A clearer statement of the mechanisms and processes followed by NSBs and ESOs when deciding whether and where new standards should be developed may be useful, assuming that the description in some way ‘assures’ industry that they drive the decisions, rather than the standardisation bodies, consultants, certifiers, etc.

• A lack of financial or practical support for participation (n=5). Comments suggest that there is a lack of financial and practical assistance to participate in standards development and that the time, costs and other burdens of participation in TCs can be prohibitive.

• A lack of demand or need for standards (n=4). A small number of comments suggest that in particular sectors, standards are not seen as necessary, feasible, needed or offering sufficient value. A couple of respondents pointed to a lack of a ‘standards culture’ in their sector, or a lack of leadership to drive forward development.

A number of barriers were identified to the use of standards:

• The perceived complexity of existing standards (n=5). Respondents suggested that because of the complexity of standards (both individually and as a whole), the time and expertise needed to identify, understand and implement standards was prohibitive to their use. They pointed to the detailed, technical nature of the text and the complexity of the language and vocabulary used, as particular barriers.

• Financial / time concerns (n=5). Respondents highlighted that the costs of implementing standards was perceived as a barrier, particularly when there are constraints on available budgets and where the benefits are difficult to identify or measure.

• A lack of demand or awareness of standards amongst service customers (n=4). A small number of respondents suggested that a lack of awareness and understanding of the existence and importance of standards amongst those that procure services was a barrier. They suggested that the benefits from implementing a voluntary standard could be increased if the standard was recognised or required by the customer (e.g. through procurement / purchasing decisions).

• Standards do not meet the needs of the sector/business (n=4). Comments from a small number of respondents suggest that another barrier to using standards is that they are perceived as being too generic, or insufficiently tailored to their sector or business to be valuable.

• Perceived low quality of standards (n=1). One respondent highlighted that it is the quality of current standards that is the main issue, rather than the quantity of standards available.

5.5 Future opportunities to develop service standards in these sectors

Respondents were asked whether they are aware of any current (i.e. ongoing) work to develop new standards within their sector. The majority (56%) of respondents stated that they are not aware of any such work (n=267), but in the remaining 44% of cases the respondents were aware of (and were often involved in) ongoing standards development activity at either national, European or international (ISO) level.

When asked to provide a brief description of the standards currently being developed however, just 96 respondents gave a reply, and the level of detail and information provided varied considerably. For example, some respondents provided very specific information about the area of ongoing work (e.g. “ISO/TC 250 -Project committee: Sustainability of event management”), while others provided only a general indication of the area of activity (e.g. “education”), or just a TC reference or standard


number (from which we have tried to identify the area of activity). In addition, some individuals have named existing standards, and it is not clear whether they have misunderstood the question, or whether they are suggesting that there is additional work ongoing in this area, or the standard in question is being revised.

Despite these issues, the four figures below attempt to summarise the information provided by respondents on areas of current / ongoing work at the national, European and international level (plus those where the geography is unclear). We have excluded responses that appeared to relate to non-formal standardisation activity, or activity that was clearly outside the scope of ‘services’.

Figure 20 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – national level

Country Standard (reference / title) or area of standardisation UK BS 8564 - Overseas removal (x3)

UK PAS 55 - Maintenance

Germany DIN 15750 - Entertainment technology - guidelines for technical services

France Urban passenger transport

France Services

France Service commitments for airports

France AFNOR X 50-818 - Guidelines for improvement of your performance - Progressing Quality Management

Bulgaria Tourism services

Bulgaria Societal and citizen security

Figure 21 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – European level

Standard (reference / title) or area of standardisation Management consulting

EN 16001 - Energy management systems

EN 15341 - Maintenance - maintenance key performance indicators

EN 15038 - Translation services - service requirements

EN 13460 - Maintenance - documentation for maintenance

EN 13306 - Maintenance terminology

EN 13269 - Maintenance - guideline on preparation of maintenance contracts

EN 12522-2 - Furniture removal activities - furniture removal for private individuals - provision of services

CEN/TR 15628 - Wear management

Figure 22 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – international level

Standard (reference / title) or area of standardisation

ISO 20121 - Event sustainability management systems -- Requirements with guidance for use (x3)

Translation services (x2)

Sustainability of event management (x2)

ISO 9001 - quality management systems (x2)

ISO 26000 - social responsibility (x2)

ISO 14080 - Assessment of translations (x2)

Tourism services

Quality systems

ISO 31000 - Risk management - principles and guidelines

ISO 17100 - Translation services - Requirements for translation services

ISO 16495 - Packaging - Transport packaging for dangerous goods - test methods

ISO 14069 - GHG - Quantification and reporting of GHG emissions for organizations (Carbon footprint of organization) -- Guidance for the application of ISO 14064-1

ISO 14067 - Carbon footprint of products - Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication

ISO 14064-2 - Greenhouse gases - Part 2: Specification with guidance at the project level for quantification, monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions

ISO 13611 - Interpreting / interpretation processes - community interpreting / interpretation

ISO 13485 - Medical devices - quality management systems - requirements for regulatory purposes

ISO 11669 - Translation projects - general guidance

CO2 calculation


Figure 23 – Indications of current / ongoing work to develop new standards – geographical level unknown

Standard (reference / title) or area of standardisation

Translation

Tests on cosmetics

Supply chain security

Social security

Social and citizen security

Security

Salt storage

Railway track maintenance

Physical asset management

Metrology

Methodology for calculation and declaration on energy consumptions and GHG emissions in transport services (good and passengers transport)

Measurement of velocity in ducts

Maintenance process

Maintenance personnel qualifications

Maintenance in the management of physical assets

Energy audits

Energy

Emissions calculation

Education

Customers

Consumer and commercial removals - quality

Community and user services

Coffins

Chiropractors

Cargo lashing

Biological sampling

Asset management

Similarly, few respondents (27%) were aware of any plans for the future development of new standards within their sectors (n=267), and when asked to provide a brief description of the planned standardisation work, just 50 responses were given. Again, some of the respondents pointed to specific standards or TCs, while the majority just indicated a sector or area of standardisation. The geographical level was not indicated in most cases and some responses were not deemed relevant. The (broad) areas of planned future standardisation mentioned were:

• Quality management systems (x5) • Energy (x4) • Security (x3) • Translation (x3) • Beauty services • Construction • Environment • Event management • Medical laboratories • Metrology • Tourism • Testing

More than one-third (39%) of respondents stated that they have ideas as to where additional standards could be useful to service providers (n=264), and 35% stated that they can identify areas where service users would benefit from the availability of new standards (n=260). When asked to provide a brief description of the areas or aspects that would benefit from standardisation, 81 users provided a response in relation to service providers and 65 in relation to service users (in nearly all cases repeating their response to the first part of the question).


The ideas put forward by respondents as to where additional standards could be useful to service providers mostly fell within 14 broad sectors, as shown in Figure 24 below. The most commonly mentioned sectors were tourism and leisure services, maintenance services, health services and IT services. Where respondents provided more specific details as to the areas where standardisation could be useful within a sector, these are noted in the final column of the table.

Figure 24 – Where could additional standards be useful to service providers

Broad sector Total Specific areas (if known)

Tourism and leisure services 9 Catering, Travel information, Tour operators, Tourism agencies, Tourism accommodation, Diving services, Event management, Heritage

Maintenance services 7 Facilities management

Health services 6 Services for the disabled and elderly, Beauty services, Hospitals, Physiotherapy, Medical diagnostics

IT services 5 Web-based services, IT security

Information services 4 Communications, Documentation and archiving, Customer information, Data exchange

Procurement (generic) 4 Public procurement, Tendering, Contracting Outsourcing

Translation services 4

Transport and logistics services

4 Supply chain services, Vehicle repair services, Water transport, Public passenger transport

Cleaning services 2 Industrial cleaning Construction services 2 Intelligent buildings, Structure design

Financial services 2 Cross-listing of shares, Banking

Funeral services 2 Embalming and body transportation, Funeral insurance

Measurement (generic) 2 Measurement criteria, Measurement equipment

Storage and removal services 2

Other services 9 Ecology, Energy efficiency, Research, Risk, Safety, Sales, Security, Surveys, Training

5.6 Actions to help service providers / users benefit more from standards

Respondents were asked to describe the most important actions that standardisation bodies should take to help service providers and users to benefit more from standards. Over 150 responses were provided, which mainly focused on either (i) the standardisation process or (ii) the uptake and use of standards.

One-fifth of these responses related to the standardisation process, where the main recommendations put forward were:

• Encourage and assist with widening participation in the standardisation process (n=17) - Respondents suggested that standardisation bodies should monitor and seek to ensure that standards are developed with participation from all interested parties, particularly the intended end users, and not just a sub-set of powerful voices. They would like the standardisation system to appear and act less like a closed club, and provide open, direct access for all (e.g. through increased use of web-based solutions). Where necessary, greater assistance and support should be available to encourage individual organisations and associations to participate in standards development, particularly where they represent the smaller or less experienced actors in the system.

• Assist with the cost of participation in standard’s development (n=6) – Respondents suggested that greater account should be taken of the financial impacts of participation, and that money should be available for those wishing to help develop standards and travel to meetings.

• Provide better information on the standardisation process (n=3) – A small number of respondents highlighted that they would like to see more transparent, clear and accessible information provided on the standard’s development process.

• Improve processes for communicating with users (n=3) – Respondents suggested that better devices were needed to feedback on and discuss problems, suggested changes and experiences, both between the users of standards and with the standardisation bodies.

• Simplify the standardisation processes and procedures (n=2)


• Provide better information on current and forthcoming standards development activity (n=2)

More than half of responses related to the uptake and use of standards, where the main recommendations put forward were:

• Promote the potential benefits and advantages of using standards to services providers (n=20) – a relatively large number of respondents felt that better and more extensive information could be made available to service organisations on the benefits and gains from implementing and using standards. This information should seek to help raise awareness and understanding more widely of the need for, applicability and potential value of standards to businesses.

• Promote the potential benefits and advantages of using standards to services users (n=17). In addition to promoting the benefits of standards to service providers, a number of respondents highlighted a need to better promote the benefits of standards to their customers. They would like to see increased awareness of the existence and benefits of standards more widely, amongst consumers, regulators and public procurement bodies. The value of using and implementing standards increases if this is used as criteria in purchasing decisions, and so any efforts to increase awareness of the benefits of using service providers that implement a standard and the distinction between ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ of standards would be seen as positive.

• Improve communication and information on standards that are currently available (n=16) – a significant number of respondents also pointed to the need to better inform service providers of the stock of applicable standards available to them. They feel that there is a need to improve the extent to which service providers are able to know that relevant standards exist, can locate them and can understand the different versions, updates and amendments available. Some suggested that online, easily accessible and navigable sources of information (e.g. electronic catalogues) should be improved, while others pointed to the need for more direct interaction through sector specific events, workshops and information campaigns. Summaries of standards and sectoral classification of information were also mentioned as important.

• Assistance, training and guidance on the implementation of standards (n=15) – A number of respondents reported that they would like some kind of guidance and assistance on implementing specific standards, either through a supporting handbook or direct training and assistance in the workplace. Respondents pointed out that in some cases, particularly in small companies, there is not the expertise to effectively use and implement standards and that training and support would be appreciated.

• Assist with or reduce the costs of purchasing a standard (n=11)

• Encourage better quality and simpler standards (n=6)

• Bear in mind the costs of implementing and maintaining adherence to standards (n=4) – these comments relate to the complexity of standards, as well as to the frequency with which standards are updated and revised

The remaining responses related to other, more general recommendations. These included:

• Provide more and better information (generally) (n=7) • Specific suggestions for new areas of standardisation (n=6) • Move towards more generic and / or international standards (n=6) • Move towards more specific sector specific standards (n=3) • Make standards more demanding in terms of their requirements (n=2) • Allow more organisations to market and sell standards (n=2) • Stop self-certification (n=1)


6. Case Studies

6.1 Introduction to the case studies

This section presents ‘long-version’ case studies of six specific companies across Europe who are using European service standards. Between them, they cover six different service sectors (including B2B and B2C services), six different European countries, and a mixture of public-private organisations. The companies and standards covered are presented below.

Figure 25 – Where could additional standards be useful to service providers

Organisation Country Sector Standard Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (STIB)

Belgium Public passenger transport

EN 13816:2002

Leatherbarrows Removals and Storage Ltd.

United Kingdom Furniture removal services

EN 12522:1998

Begravelses Service Denmark Funeral services EN 15017:2005

Traducciones Políglota Spain Translation services

EN 15038:2006

Stora Enso Sweden/Finland Maintenance EN 13306:2010 & EN 15341:2007

Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond (NOB)

Netherlands Recreational diving services

EN 14153:2003, EN 14413:2004 & EN 14467:2004

The content and focus of each case study varies slightly to reflect the company and standard(s) in question. However, each follows a broadly similar structure, with information presented under a standard set of sub-headings:

• About the company

• Old perceptions of standards and standardisation (before development and use)

• The company’s role in developing the standard

• Implementation of the standard and how it is used

• The benefits and impact of the standard (to the organisation, its customers and wider industry)

• New perceptions of standards and standardisation (after development and use)


6.2 Public Passenger Transport - STIB

EN 13816:2002 – Transportation – Logistics and services – public passenger transport – service quality definition, targeting and measurement

6.2.1 About the company

The Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles (STIB) is Belgium’s largest urban public transport company and is in charge of the operation of the public transport network for the Brussels-Capital region. It is a not-for-profit association that was founded in 1954, and currently employs over 6,000 people. Its strategic objectives are set out within a five-year management contract with the Brussels-Capital Region, alongside details of the subsidies that it will be granted for undertaking activities of a public interest. STIB – though a relatively autonomous body – also acts as an advisor to the Brussels-Capital Region on the regional transportation network.

STIB has a diversified network of multiple modes of transport, including 4 metro, 18 tram, 50 bus and 11 night bus lines. It serves an area of 241 km² in total, including the 19 communes of the Brussels-Capital Region and 11 other outlying communes, and provides transport for a population of over 1,100,000 inhabitants and thousands of commuters. Over the past 10 years, the number of STIB customers has almost doubled and in 2010 the company provided more than 311 million journeys across its network - an increase of 7% (or 21 million trips) on the previous year’s total.3

STIB participates in transport projects all over the world, such as the European Project TramStore21 and the establishment of Athens’ tramway. The company is also part of the International Union of Public Transport (IUPT), where the STIB chief executive was recently appointed Secretary General.

6.2.2 Old perceptions of standards and standardisation

STIB has had some past experience of using and implementing standards, having been certified to the international quality management standard ISO 9001 for many years. It is also regularly evaluated by the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) and has received the “Recognised for Excellence – 4 STAR” label after its last evaluation.

However, despite its past experience, the prospect of a European service quality standard offered something new. Compared to the ISO standard, the EN 13816 standard (published in 2002) offered the possibility to implement a full monitoring system for the operations conducted by STIB. Importantly for STIB, it also offered a measurement system that could be adapted to the specific needs and contexts of individual transport operators within the company.

6.2.3 The company’s role in developing the standard

STIB participated actively throughout the development of the European standard EN 13816. It initially participated in the FP4 European Quattro project (Quality approach in tendering urban public transport operations), which developed a standardised set of quality indicators that would later feed into the standard. The company was then involved in the CEN working group that was drafting the final text of the EN.

It is also worth noting that STIB subsequently went on to participate in a CEN working group developing a complementary European standard on specific measurement methods for quality criteria. This follow-up standard (EN 15140) establishes the systems and reference levels for defining and measuring the quality of services, in order to create a common understanding of the level of quality amongst staff (e.g. visual references relating to bus cleanliness). Whilst the EN 13816 standard helps to develop a set of service quality criteria, the follow-up standard then helps to establish reference levels for the measurement of the fulfilment of these criteria.

3 Website of the STIB: http://www.stib.be/corporate.html?l=en


Several contextual factors contributed to the company’s decision to take part in standardisation activity and to go on to implement the standard. In particular:

• Through its 2001 management contract, STIB was asked to implement a certification system for its activities, with an initial target set of 20% of users benefiting from certified services

• At the same time, the company underwent a major re-organisation, with the set-up of three business units organised around the core activities of STIB (subway, tramway and bus lines). In this context, the implementation of the European standard was seen as a safeguard: the new business units were granted more independence, but implementing a service quality standard would help ensure that all the various units shared the same quality criteria

• Last but not least, there was a strong willingness from the STIB General Directorate for the company to increase the quality of service offered to its users

6.2.4 Implementation of the standard

The standard

The European standard EN 13816 was published in 2002. It is composed of a series of standardised quality criteria that are used to evaluate the performance of transport operators in terms of the quality of the service that they offer. The service elements at STIB that are covered by the standard include information, punctuality and regularity, accessibility, comfort, cleanliness, the fight against fare dodging and reception services.

Implementing the standard

STIB initially introduced the standard to just the subway network, which is fully controlled by the company and was therefore seen as an appropriate place to start. However, it has since implemented the standard fully across all of the different business units and departments of the company, covering a broad range of STIB’s activities, from subway, tramway and bus lines, to commercial agencies, ticket controls and interchange points with other transport operators.

A central Quality Unit - comprising 4 staff attached to the General Directorate – is responsible for steering and coordinating the implementation of the standard, but the implementation has been otherwise decentralised, with a quality manager put in place in individual business units, responsible for the implementation of the standard and the fulfilment of the various criteria in their area. A one-day "attentive service" training programme has also been set up for STIB staff to generalise good practices amongst staff and improve relations with the service users. The training is automatically added to the programme of all new recruits.

The set of quality criteria now used by STIB are not all pre-defined by the standard. A set of mandatory quality criteria linked to the standard are set for every transport mode, but the system also leaves room for specific criteria to be set by each transport operator itself, according to its own activities and needs. A tripartite committee (the Region, STIB and customer representatives) meets once a year in order to evaluate the quality process and to refine these criteria as necessary.

Because the European standard was implemented alongside major structural reforms in STIB, it is difficult to distinguish the implications and impact of the introduction of the standard from the other changes that were taking place. However, the standard has been directly responsible for the creation of a new department in the company - the department for the organisation of the users’ journey - in 2010. This department was established as a consequence of the implementation of the standard across STIB, and acts as a transversal unit in charge of supporting the work of STIB’s three business units in facilitating the journey of the users of the different transport services.

Measurement and certification

Two sets of measuring techniques are used to monitor the quality elements of STIB's services. IT measurement tools are used to assess the factual criteria (e.g. punctuality), whilst mystery customer surveys assess other quality elements. The surveys are conducted by external independent companies and involve several people taking STIB journeys to observe the different quality criteria and record these in an evaluation grid. If they observe an unacceptable ‘non-conform’ situation, they report this immediately to the person responsible for the criteria in STIB. Otherwise a report is drawn up and presented every month, which contains all the observation reports compiled.


The results from both measurement techniques are published every month on the Intranet website of STIB after validation by the quality managers in the business units. STIB also regularly communicates the results internally, as a way of producing incentives for staff to take part in the implementation of the standard.

AFNOR certification is the external body in charge of the certification of the services that STIB provides, and each year issues, renews or withdraws the ‘service’ label of certification. The increase in service quality achieved at STIB is illustrated by certification figures for the past five years. As can be seen from the figure below, the percentage of STIB services that have achieved certification from AFNOR has increased year on year since 2006, and is close to reaching 100%. This is despite the fact that the number of STIB users has almost doubled since the initial implementation of the standard, which could have led to congestion and deterioration in the quality of services.

Figure 26 Percentage of customers benefiting from a certified service

STIB, 2010 Activity Report

The last management contract between STIB and the Brussels-Capital Region sets an ambitious target for 100% of STIB services to achieve certification. Two strong incentives have also been put in place to encourage high achievement against quality criteria. A bonus of €200k is provided to STIB for every percentage point above 90% it achieves in terms of users benefiting from certified services, while STIB’s annual subsidies are cut by €200k for every percentage point below 85% it achieves in terms of STIB users benefiting from a certified service (with a maximum penalty of €1 million). At the level of the individual manager within the specific business units of STIB, the appraisal system now also integrates the implementation of the standard and the fulfilment of criteria.

6.2.5 The benefits and impact of the standard

The implementation of the standard has had strong impacts on the quality of the service provided to STIB users over the last ten years. One representative from the company reported that “had it not invested in the standard, the company would have no quality system in place, and the restructuring and set-up of the three business units would probably have raised significant issues.” Other representatives pointed to specific examples of how the standard has benefited the company through improving the quality of service offered. These include:


• Significant improvement in the punctuality of bus lines (i.e. 47 out of 50 bus lines fulfil the punctuality criteria, while only 9 out of 45 lines did so when the standard was launched)

• Better availability of information at stops / stations (e.g. systematic visuals with network maps)

• Integration of ICT in new equipment (e.g. screens detailing bus stops integrated in new buses)

• Better reception and contact with users (e.g. by bus agents and STIB staff in ticket offices)

The implementation of the European standard within STIB has also contributed to a more general shift towards a quality approach in its operations. The company previously concerned itself mainly with practicality, but there has been a growing focus on customer satisfaction over the past few years. This new phase in the development of STIB combines performance and quality, efficiency and sustainable development.

More specifically, the standard has actively contributed to improving the tools that are in use to assess the quality of STIB services, as well as to monitoring its operations more readily. Thanks to the implementation of the standard, quality management is based on constant feedback on the various quality criteria. If one area of service enters the ‘non-conform’ zone, a report is immediately sent to the responsible person for quality criteria, who takes corrective action.

The standardisation process at STIB has also had an impact on other Belgian transport operators. In order for STIB to ensure the same level of quality for its customers, wherever they choose to travel, it involved the SNCB (National Railway Company of Belgium) in working groups to develop a certification system for the interchange points where both companies are operating. Through this process, STIB has helped to raise awareness of the European standard within those three companies. In addition, STIB has contributed to the White Book on quality in services published by the Union of Public Transport (UPT) in 2011, in order to further diffuse an approach focused on service quality in the domain of transport.

6.2.6 New perceptions of standards and standardisation

Involvement in the standardisation process has required time from STIB staff (e.g. training, monitoring of the quality criteria) and costs (i.e. externalisation costs linked to the measurement provided with the mystery customer surveys). However, the company regards these as necessary investments following the restructuring of the company and its new orientation towards a more “quality-oriented culture”. One representative said that “it brings more money in than it costs, especially thanks to the bonus-penalty system implemented by the Brussels-Capital Region.”

The formal standard was also particularly suited to creating a diffusion of the quality-oriented culture among staff in the different business units and departments. One respondent reported that “the standard particularly suits STIB and has played a key role in increasing the motivation of the staff towards the different criteria and measures”. Another gave a more specific example: “when we had issues with the cleanliness of two out of the three bus depots, the Heads of the three depots were invited together for a discussion (by the Bus Quality manager). This was a way to create an informal internal competition by confronting them with the objective cleanliness criteria.”


6.3 Furniture removal services – Leatherbarrows Removals and Storage Ltd.

EN 12522:1998 – Furniture removal activities – Furniture removal for private individuals, part 1 (service specification) and part 2 (provision of service)


This case study features Leatherbarrows Removals and Storage Ltd. Leatherbarrows is a small family run business that has been trading for almost 100 years and has grown to the point where it now has three branches in the UK, employs 49 full-time staff and has an annual turnover of just over €3 million. It provides the full range of removal and storage services to private households and commercial businesses both in the UK and abroad.

Leatherbarrows is a member of Britannia Movers International, a cooperative network of owner-managed independent removals and storage companies. Through membership with Britannia, small independent removals companies in the UK are able to pool their resources and operate under a well-recognised common brand.

Leatherbarrows is also a member of the British Association of Removers (BAR), the UK trade association for removals and storage companies. BAR sets professional standards for the industry, provides training for service providers and offers advice and dispute resolution services to customers. BAR was established over 100 years ago and has over 500 members, each of which are required to work to BAR’s Code of Practice, which is the only code in the moving industry that is officially recognised and monitored by the UK Office of Fair trading.


David Trenchard, owner and MD of Leatherbarrows, has been a leading figure in the development of quality standards for removals and storage services for the past two decades. Through his positions as past president of BAR and member of Britannia, he has first hand experience of the concerns and objections that other businesses express when faced with the possibility of having to meet new standards. As David explains, many removals companies, particularly the smaller ones, imagine that service standards will lead to large increases in paperwork, will add time and costs, and will not necessarily improve the level of service provided to customers. However, these fears are unfounded based on David’s real experience of developing and applying standards in the removals and storage sectors.

BAR has constantly strived to improve the image and performance of the removals and storage sectors in the UK, and has been centrally involved in the development of national and European service standards over the past decades. It recently sought approval from its own members to make compliance with the European quality standards a mandatory requirement for BAR membership. However, this proposal did not gain the support of the majority of its members, as many of its smaller members were concerned that the costs involved in meeting the standards and gaining third-party certification would outweigh the benefits. However, David believes that such concerns are unfounded, having witnessed the many substantial benefits that implementation of the standards have brought to his own business and its customers (see below).


The initial impetus for the development of EN 12522 came from FEDEMAC (The Federation of European Movers Associations) in the early 1990s, following receipt of a proposal from the French association ‘Chambre Syndicale de Demenagements et Garde Meuble’ (CDS). FEDEMAC asked BAR and other national removals associations whether they would be interested in developing a European removals standard. BAR saw the value of a European standard that would be recognised across borders and could help to ensure quality of service for the customer, as well as helping to enhance clarity of service and avoid confusion and disputes between the service providers and their customers.

A Working Group (WG4) was established to draft the standard at European level, operating under CEN’s TC320 (Transport logistics and services). The original convenor of group was a nominee


from the French association CSD and they provided considerable and important input to the work of the group throughout the development of the standard. David Trenchard from Leatherbarrows (as President of BAR at that time) also took a central role in drafting the standard, alongside experts from other countries, and the National Standards Bodies and CEN provided advice and guidance to the Working Group. This was one of the first service standards to be developed at the European level and, as a result, the process took quite a long time.

The standards for removals services were finally published in 1998, and those involved then moved on to the development of quality standards for the storage of personal effects (EN 14873), which were published in 2005.


The removals standards set minimum requirements for quality control and performance monitoring, and have been designed to improve clarity and communication between the service provider (removals companies) and their customers. David explained that implementing the standard has required a lot of small but important and beneficial changes to how he runs his business.

First, implementation of the standard has required and led to more and clearer communication both internally (between staff) and externally (with customers). The good practice embodied in the standard requires the service provider to be very specific about what is being offered and aims to ensure the avoidance of misunderstandings between the removals company and its customers. The services that are and are not included are made more explicit and clearly worded contracts are drawn up, which set out the services that are (and are not) being provided. The contracts also explain to the customer what their own responsibilities are as regards the move. As David explained, most of the problems that removals companies and their customers face, and which lead to disputes between the parties, are created because the service being offered is too vague. Implementation of the standard involves the setting up of processes and procedures that ensure a very high degree of clarity as to which services are included and who is responsible for each aspect (packing, collection, storage, delivery and unpacking), and this helps to protect not only the customer but also the provider. In short, the standard helps to ensure that all parties are fully informed as to what is involved in the move and who is responsible for each aspect, leading to a much smoother process with far less room for problems and disputes.

Implementation of the standard also requires service providers to ensure a high level of quality control. This is monitored through a series of checks and balances, including customer feedback forms that are analysed to identify any problems or inconsistencies in service delivery. David explained that improved monitoring of customer feedback has identified a range of areas of confusion and disagreement and this has enabled him to identify areas of weakness in the service his company provides, which have then been remedied through improved staff training and the optimisation of certain processes and procedures.

6.3.5 The benefits and impacts of the standard

The benefits and impact of the standard to the company and its customers

David explained that implementation of the standard has led directly to very clear and significant benefits for both his company and its customers, as well as to the removals sector more generally.

Historically most instances of customer dissatisfaction were caused by confusion and disagreement as to which services were and were not included in the move. Clearer contracts and improved communications between his company and its customers have ensured that both staff and customers are aware of who needs to do what and when. This has helped to smooth the moving process and led to much higher levels of customer satisfaction – moving is stressful and what the customer values above all else is a smooth and trouble-free process.

In turn, this has led to a significant fall in the number of disputes and complaints both during and after the move. The standard provides customers with a higher level of protection, with clear complaints procedures in the event of a problem, backed by third-party dispute resolution. While the protection provided to the customer has been enhanced and their rights have been made clearer, David has noticed that implementation of the standard has actually led to fewer complaints and fewer problems. This has resulted in a decrease in the number of insurance claims, which in


turn has led to lower premiums for the company and less ‘wasted time’ in handling complaints and resolving disputes.

Higher levels of customer satisfaction have also enhanced the level of repeat business and increased sales through positive referrals and word of mouth. The provision of an improved service to customers has also impacted positively on job satisfaction among staff, who can feel proud that they work for a company that provides a high quality service. Improved training, clearer roles and responsibilities and improved procedures have also boosted levels of job satisfaction. Over time this has led to lower levels of staff turnover, less sick leave and higher levels of productivity, factors that have an immediate and positive impact on the company’s profitability.

The process of obtaining consistent feedback from customers has also enabled David to make a range of improvements to the company’s operations, addressing areas of dissatisfaction and confusion. By analysing and acting on the feedback obtained, David has been able to identify a range of internal improvements that enable the company to better meet customer expectations.

The standard also sets requirements for health and safety, and a system of annual audits (required as part of the third-party certification to ensure compliance with the standard) allows David to ensure that Leatherbarrows meets its obligations in this regard. This ensures that staff members are properly trained and that clear steps are taken to ensure the safety of employees and customers.

David highlighted that having these third party surveillance visits from a QSS specialist consultant assessor was an excellent service for an owner-managed small business like Leatherbarrows. The assessor provides an audit of the way the business is organised and run, in a similar way that a financial auditor prepares a set of annual reports and accounts, and the knowledge that an independent expert has checked all of the company’s systems and compliances gives him confidence that there is not much wrong with the way the business is being run. Indeed, as David reports, “it helps me sleep at night”.

When asked about the costs of implementing the standard, David was clear that significant efficiency savings have been achieved as a result of using the standard, and that these have largely offset the costs of meeting the requirements of the standard. As such, his customers now receive a much higher quality of service and a much higher level of protection with only very minimal additional costs compared to the situation before the standard was introduced.

The benefits and impact of the standard to the wider industry

Additional benefits have been realised through the consistent use of the standards among members of Britannia. Britannia requires all of its member companies to meet the European standard, and this enables small owner-operators such as Leatherbarrows to collaborate with other Britannia members, safe in the knowledge that they are dealing with quality-led businesses. Through this mechanism, removal companies within the Britannia network can cooperate on individual moves, with one company handling the packing and collection of items and another company handling delivery and unpacking. This can lead to significant cost savings on moves carried out over larger distances, without any compromise on the level of quality that David guarantees his customers.

The involvement of BAR in the development and use of the standard has also led to significant benefits for the sector. For example, BAR established QSS – a not-for-profit certification body that carries out annual audits of removals companies to ensure that they meet the requirements set out in the standard. By creating this body BAR ensured that the costs of certification could be kept to a minimum and that the annual audits are carried out by a dedicated organisation with suitable knowledge of the removals industry. BAR also organises specific training programmes on manual handling (lifting), packing, etc. in compliance with the standard. It also helps to arbitrate over any disputes between its members companies and their customers, ensuring that its own code of conduct and (where relevant) the requirements of the standard are being observed.


David didn’t have strong perceptions about standards or standardisation before they embarked on this work. However, his significant input to the development of the standards was carried out unpaid and he still feels that it was a worthwhile endeavour that has brought significant benefits to his own company and to the sector more generally.


David is aware that there is a perception among other service providers, particularly the very small (micro) firms, that standards involve a lot of paperwork and administrative tasks without adding much value to the quality of service. David’s experience is very different, and he believes that the standard has brought huge benefits in terms of improved quality of service, reductions in disputes and complaints, cheaper insurance premiums, increased customer and staff satisfaction, and more efficient work processes. While the standard does imply the need to increase the amount of information collected, recorded and shared both internally and externally, these records provide the basis for improved communication and concordance with customers and staff, and provide the business with crucial insight into how to operate a more efficient and effective service. Only by implementing recognised quality standards will other companies get to fully appreciate the benefits that these standards can bring.

6.3.7 Lessons learned

The major lessons that David has learned through his involvement in developing and using European quality standards are that they can deliver very significant benefits across many aspects of a business, and that many of these benefits will not necessarily be apparent before the event.

David feels that an important prerequisite is the desire to provide a high quality, consistent and transparent level of service, and if that is what people want to achieve then a standard will help.

As regards the development of standards, David feels that it is important to recognise that it will require investment of time and effort over an extended period, and will require you to work with competitors and accommodate points of view that you may not necessarily agree with. However, if you are prepared to listen and learn from others then the resulting standard can bring huge benefits to both your own businesses and to the sector as a whole. The development of service standards also critically depends on the support and input of industry bodies, which can bring a level of experience and insight that is vital for the development of strong but workable standards, and which can marshal the industry-wide support needed to ensure that they are a success. The development of the removals standards depended critically on the vision and support of EU and national level industry bodies, as well as the expertise provided by standardisation bodies such as CEN and BSI.

As regards the implementation of the standards, David feels that companies need to aspire to work to a high level of professionalism and to deliver a high quality of service. If that is their goal then working to recognised quality standards will undoubtedly help. And, while there will be costs involved in meeting the standards, in David’s experience these costs are not as high as others fear and are more than outweighed by the benefits realised.


6.4 Funeral services – Begravelses Service

EN15017:2005 – Funeral services - requirements


This case study features the company ‘Begravelses Service’ (‘Funeral Service’ in English), which is headquartered in the Frederiksberg Municipality, within the Danish capital of Copenhagen. The company was established in 2003 when it took over a number of struggling funeral homes in the city, and it now consists of a professional team of six employees with many years’ experience in helping families through the difficult times associated with bereavement. The team is led by undertaker, economic/legal advisor and managing director Peter Thomasen, whose objective over the past decade has been to create positive results and increase customer satisfaction with the company.

Begravelses Service (BS) is more than just a funeral provider. It offers a full range of advice, support and assistance in connection with death and the administration of estates, before, during and after the event. It wants to be among the best funeral service providers in Denmark and has a strong emphasis on quality and customer satisfaction as a result. In fact, they chose the name Begravelses Service (Funeral Service) specifically because they wanted to place greater emphasis on the ‘service’ element of the business.


Unlike in many other funeral service providers, none of the BS staff were born into the funeral profession. This active choice, the company suggests, means a lot for the attitude of its staff to the profession. Peter originally trained in a bank and was therefore familiar with the importance and benefits of the written procedures and documentary requirements that are often a feature of formal standards. He has also previously had good experience with achieving certification to the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) from a time when he was the company director of a coffin manufacturer.

EMAS is a management tool for companies and other organisations to evaluate, report on and improve their environmental performance. It is similar to the British Standard BS7750 – Specifications for environmental management systems – and requires participating organisations to produce a public environmental statement, which has enhanced credibility and recognition because an independent environmental officer checks the accuracy and reliability of the information. The scheme aims to recognise and reward organisations that go beyond minimum legal compliance and continuously improve their environmental performance, and Peter used compliance with EMAS to prove that his coffins really were more environmentally friendly than conventional coffins. He said at the time “it may seem daunting for a small business to get to grips with the paperwork required, but it was essential to prove that our coffins really were more environmentally friendly than conventional coffins. It is a very conservative market and funeral service providers require real convincing before switching supplier.”

Although Peter and BS had not previously used a formal national or European standard, his banking experience and his experience of working with EMAS certification meant that he was never in any doubt that the introduction and application of a formal European standard for funeral services would be advantageous for customers, and therefore also for the company.


In order to understand some of issues that are faced by the funeral services industry and the need for a standard and certification system in the sector, Peter points to an article by an ethnography student from Aarhus University5. The article highlights some interesting points about funeral

5 http://www.information.dk/48730


service provision, not least the fact that death and money can be two seemingly incompatible things. It says that money is taboo when it comes to shopping for funerals, and this goes both ways. Just as a special offer in the weekly newspaper for ‘the City’s cheapest funeral’ would be unthinkable, the customer rarely asks for an estimate of funeral costs - when it comes to funerals, it might be considered inappropriate to ‘shop around’ for a good price. However, it is important for the customer to understand both the service that they are being offered and the costs involved.

The Danish Consumer Agency conducted a survey on ‘Life’s End’, which it published as part of its 2006 Consumer Report6 and which highlights similar price/service issues in the funeral industry. The Agency notes that death is an emotional time for a family, but that the individuals involved also face a number of practical challenges. The period immediately following a death makes high demands on the families of the deceased and on those agencies that help the families through the practical tasks surrounding the death. It is important that the individual can access these agencies, that they can get an overview of services available and the pricing of these different services, and that they feel that things are being taken care of in a safe and dignified way. The study found that families are generally satisfied with the service they receive, but it concluded that it is difficult for the bereaved to get an overview of the large price differences that can exist for the cost of a funeral.

The Aarhus article also points to the fact that, when asked to draw a funeral, most people will depict the undertaker with an ill or deathly appearance – an image not dissimilar to the undertaker in the Lucky Luke Belgian comic series – and that the actual perceptions and prejudices of people are closely related to this image of the undertaker as ‘infected’ or ‘polluted’ from working with death. Such prejudices are clearly incorrect, out-dated and incompatible with the high standards of service and hygiene that exist in the modern funeral industry. But, despite these realities, the funeral industry can still be surrounded by such images. Indeed, the article says, research shows that those who have had direct experience of funeral services have had these prejudices replaced and they are left with a more positive impression of an undertaker as someone that has been helpful, or even a source of emotional support, during difficult times.

The media’s negative representation of the individual cases of ‘news’ relating to funeral services that do occasionally pop up (and which are often sensationalised stories with little or no basis) create insecurity, because the subject is shrouded in mystery and prejudice. The funeral industry has undertaken various studies in recent years on customer experiences, which have shown that the industry achieves great results that do not match the image established by the press. There are in fact very few complaints about funeral providers. For example, the Danish Association of Funeral Directors received only four complaints from over 40,000 funerals undertaken by its members.

In an effort to professionalise the funeral services industry and address public concerns, a number of standards and other similar documents (e.g. codes of conduct) have been developed in different countries across Europe, covering different elements of funeral service provision. In particular a national standard for funeral services was published in Germany (DIN 77 300) in 2000 and, at the same time, the French funeral service profession was undertaking a similar standardisation project. Then in 2002 a working group, consisting of members of the European Federation of Funeral Services (EFFS) and the national organisations for standardisation, agreed that there was a need to have a common basis for professional service provision across Europe, and decided to develop a European standard. The main arguments in favour of a European standard were:

• To harmonise funeral services in Europe

• To develop common quality assurance in the funeral trade across Europe

• To serve as a common basis for developing standardised training and education in the trade

• To create the foundation for a Europe-wide, standardised assessment of the “state of the art“ in funeral services in relation to consumer protection

• To provide the basis for the phrasing of tender documents to public authorities and other organisations which tender funeral services

6 http://dokumenter.forbrug.dk/forbrugerredegoerelsen_2006/kap00.htm


A CEN task force (CEN/BT/TF 139 - Funeral services) was established to develop the funeral services standard and a team of over 30 representatives contributed directly, including active participation from representatives of the funeral profession from 15 European countries. BS was not involved directly in the preparatory work for the standard. However the Danish Church Ministry, together with the Danish Funeral Association, the Consumer Council and the Danish Funeral industry were represented through the Danish National Standards Body (DS), in the formulation of a European standard.


The results of this process - the European Standard ‘EN15017: Funeral Services Requirements’ - was published in 2005, establishing state of the art requirements for funeral personnel, complaint handling procedures, monitoring systems, care of the deceased and hygienic measures, removal and transport, funeral home facilities, funerals, advisory services and funeral pre-arrangement.

BS first purchased the standard in 2008, and in order to implement the standard, made a number of changes within the business. Most importantly they automated processes, introduced fixed written procedures and checklists and required all agreements reached to be documented. The company has developed a transparent and open pricing policy that is displayed on the website, and it provides a price estimate to customers at their first meeting. The company also concentrated on improving its quality and expanding its service to include the offer of legal assistance (a family lawyer) to the administration of estates. The standard is incorporated into the company’s internal IT system for reference and a regularly updated quality manual is available online to ensure that the standard is visible and accessible for all employees in their daily operations.

BS has also taken the extra step and been externally certified to EN 15017. The certification scheme – operated by the Danish National Standards Body’s certification arm, DS Certificering – accredits organisations that respect the principles set out within the standard. In particular certified companies have to demonstrate that they:

• Respect principles of good practice

• Provide clear and accurate information

• Have quality reception and family management procedures

• Provide a high quality service

• Evaluate customer satisfaction

All procedures in BS’ quality management system are now reviewed and checked once a year by an independent auditor from DS Certificering, and it undertook its 3rd audit in November 2011.

BS likes the fact that an independent third party assures its conformity to the standard and it has deliberately chosen to become certified, rather than being a member of an association with its own attitudes and rules. Danish Standards has long been a guarantor of quality in many other industries and BS was very pleased that they could now guarantee standards in the funeral industry. “Professionalism is a cornerstone for BS and certification is totally consistent with this position”, reported Peter. “The company delivers quality and we will be known for this high standard.” At present, BS is the only organisation in Denmark that is certified to the standard, but Peter expects interest to grow. “The modern consumer wants safety and security when making decisions about funerals, and it is our impression that many in the industry want to be able to demonstrate that they can deliver quality.”


The benefits and impact of the standard to the company and its customers

The initial decision to purchase and implement the standard was taken because BS takes customer satisfaction very seriously and sees this as a priority. The company had a desire to convey to its customers, through the standard, that it wants to be recognised as one of the best funeral services in the country and to create satisfied customers.

Implementing the standard has made a positive improvement to the service that BS provides to its customers. It has helped to improve business operations through the introduction of standard procedures, the continuous control of performed tasks and ongoing action to remedy any identified


deviations, resulting in continuous improvements to quality. The company is now much better able to learn from its mistakes and to adapt its procedures on an ongoing basis so that errors are not repeated. It has also improved company efficiency and its ability to meet legislative requirements. Finally, the implementation of the standard has helped to improve transparency and communication of the company’s service, and ultimately to improve service quality and increase customer confidence in the business.

The company actively uses the standard - and certification to it - for marketing purposes as part of all on- and off-line campaigns. The DS logo and the standard reference are used deliberately to distinguish BS and its service concept from other funeral parlours in Denmark. The home page of the company’s website7, for instance, clearly displays the DS Certificering seal for DS EN 15017 (‘the guarantee of quality”), while the same appears on email signatures and other correspondence. The BS website also says that “with us, you will receive a service that complies with rules and laws, and is adapted to you and your family’s needs and desires, with a guarantee from Danish Standards”. The official ‘hard-copy’ certificates (past and present) are also displayed strategically in-store, so as to be visible to all customers during meetings.

Peter reports that while it is not clear that customers know about or understand the detail of the standard itself, his customers do mention that they chose the company because it is certified by DS Certificering. Danish consumers know the DS brand and associate the certification mark with the guarantee of good quality. It is his general impression that many customers feel good because of the certification, because of the high quality of service that they now experience and because of the time that it has been possible to set aside for the customer as a result of more efficient processes.

The company highlights to its customers that the achievement of certification to the standard is the company’s guarantee of a qualified, efficient and consistent handling of paperwork, processes and workflows, both internally and externally, that are needed for planning and implementing an individual and dignified farewell ceremony. For the customer this means that the company always documents all stages of the process and all communications relating to its services. In addition, the very fact that it has established and efficient processes means that it can concentrate on adapting the farewell ceremony to the individual needs of its customers. Moreover, the certification shows that staff are properly trained and keep abreast of the cultural trends that characterise today’s diverse farewell ceremonies.

The benefits and impact of the standard to the wider industry

The European standard has also gained wider recognition in Denmark. The Danish Church Minister, Bertel Harder, made it clear to the Danish funeral industry in 20068 that there is a political desire for the sector to become certified to the European funeral services standard. He said that the European standard, in his opinion, precisely meets the desire for funeral providers to be accredited, ensuring quality standards in the industry and ethical treatment of the deceased and their relatives. Further, he said, the standard gives funeral directors the opportunity to apply for certification through DS Certificering, to demonstrate that they meet the standard’s requirements and have the personal and professional skills that are necessary.

BS have more recently been participating in a Danish Government working group that was established to identify the challenges faced by the industry and consider the various options available, including whether there was a need to regulate and control the funeral market in Denmark. The final report of the group was published in August 2011 and, in a press release9 responding to the report, the Danish Economic and Business Minister stated that it shows that there is no need for further regulation of the industry because there is already an existing certification scheme in place, which he would urge the industry to join.

Following on from these clear and positive statements, Peter would now like to see the Danish government and industry bodies taking further initiatives to actively promote or encourage greater use of the European standard in Denmark.

7 http://www.begravelsesservice.dk/ 8 http://www.ft.dk/samling/20051/almdel/udu/spm/112/svar/234693/256503/index.htm 9 http://evm.dk/aktuelt/pressemeddelelser/2011/22-08-11-brian-mikkelsen-forbrugerne-skal-kunne-gennemskue-hvad



BS has never had any concerns about the time and effort that the company has invested in implementing the standard and achieving certification. The company considers the cost of certification as a marketing expense and as an opportunity to enhance the quality of the business, while allowing it to optimise and automate processes that ultimately gives more time for the customer and thus enables better service provision.

Peter has never been in doubt that the introduction of a European standard for funeral services would be an advantage for the company, but this view has been further strengthened since the company became certified. The process has been a very positive and successful one, he reported, and he would recommend others do the same. In fact, BS have now decided to offer other Danish funeral service providers the company’s own quality manual to encourage and assist them in achieving certification to the European standard.

Peter concluded that “in the long run our use of the standard will create more customers and they will be happy paying for a service where the high level of quality is evident.”


6.5 Translation services – Traducciones Políglota

EN 15038:2006 – Translation services – service requirements

6.5.1 The company

Traducciones Políglota is a translation company based in Madrid. It provides translation services to a wide variety of clients, from large public works companies, to international law offices, and from EU institutions, political parties and think-tanks, to industrial manufacturers. It mainly serves the Spanish market, but 20% of its operations are undertaken for a wider European market, particularly in France, the UK and Belgium. The company has been operating since 1995 and currently employs nine in-house staff, in addition to a large pool of freelancers. Despite the recent economic climate, the company has registered growth of around 10% over the last two years. Its current turnover (2010) is €910,000, of which 95% relates to translation services and 5% to interpreting services.


Traducciones Políglota has always advocated standardisation as a way to regulate professional and trade practices. For a long time it has been certified to the international quality management standard ISO 9001, but the possibility of a new European standard for translation was very attractive and the company saw a number of potential benefits to the development. Compared to the ISO standard, a European translation services standard offered the possibility to focus exclusively on translation services and establish very detailed requirements relating specifically to the provision of these services, including the qualification of staff, client-provider relationships and revisions procedures. They also expected that implementation of the standard would help them to formalise and better monitor internal working procedures.

The sector of translation services had traditionally been lacking a formal structure and a means of recognising good practice. It was therefore prone to a lot of “intruders” and it would sometimes seem that anyone (from bilingual secretaries or clerks, to congress organisers or law firms) who could speak a foreign language was able to provide translation services. There was a need to differentiate the really professional companies from the rest of the market place and Traducciones Políglota saw the European standard as a way to achieve this. They anticipated being able to use adherence to the standard as a ‘business-card’, to support the marketing of the company’s activities and enable a better differentiation in the marketplace between those that had made a clear commitment to quality and good practices, and those that had not.


Traducciones Políglota belongs to the Spanish Association of Translation Companies (ACT) and, through this, the European Union Association of Translation Companies (EUATC). These organisations also recognised the need for a specific European standard and were particular champions in pushing for its development. Paloma joined Traducciones Políglota as a partner when the standards development process was about to begin and she recalls that they and other translation companies were approached by ATC to inform them about the forthcoming standardisation work.

The company was keen to contribute and she joined the Spanish Mirror Committee (CTN 174) before being chosen to participate directly in the CEN Task Force (CEN BT TF 138 – Translation Services) that was drafting the European standard. The company was able to participate actively throughout the development of the standard and have a real influence on its content and focus. Paloma believes that the Spanish contribution was noteworthy, particularly in encouraging a focus within the standard on companies, rather than freelancers, and in stressing the need for a compulsory revision of all material translated.

Through its involvement in the standardisation process, Traducciones Políglota has learnt how the complete procedure of standardisation really works and about the complexities of dealing with very different realities. Establishing contacts with other European colleagues and getting to understand


these various realities of the translation sector across different European countries was an additional, and unexpected benefit.


The final standard, EN15038 ‘Translation service – service requirements’, has been implemented by Traducciones Políglota and fully integrated into the company’s working procedures. All of its operations, including administrative tasks, human resources, IT, sales, marketing and production, now strictly follow the requirements as set out within the standard. The company has been certified by TÜV Rheinland to prove that it adheres to the requirements of the standard and it is regularly audited to maintain this certification.


The standard reflects best practice for the sector and implementing the standard has brought many benefits to Traducciones Políglota and to the industry as a whole. The company highlighted some of the main areas of benefit and impact that have been realised:

• While the company had already applied most of the requirements set out in the standard, it has helped it to establish more formal procedures in a number of areas. For example, the most important benefit the standard has brought to the organisation is the development of capacities to detect non-conformities and deficiencies, and the availability of tools to react quickly when this occurs. Closely monitoring compliance with the requirements of the standard allows the company to continuously adapt to new situations, to improve procedures and to avoid future mistakes.

• The standard has also helped the company to rationalise its operations through establishing clear-cut functions and responsibilities, and thus streamline work-flow. Although they have not evaluated the results of this process in quantitative terms, Paloma believes that staff are now more productive as a result of applying these well-defined procedures in their daily work.

• The standard also serves as a marketing tool, as it allows the company to present itself with a quality-oriented profile and reinforce its position within the market. All of Traducciones Políglota’s marketing material, emails and communications state that it is certified to the European standard, and it stresses this fact within business presentations, explaining what it implies for the client and for the level of service offered. The company has also acquired CDs of the standard from the Spanish NSB, which it distributes to all of its most important clients, so that they know what they can ask of from the company.

• The company is able to interact with other translation service providers throughout Europe with the assurance that they share a common standard of quality.

• The standard has helped the company to establish more formal contractual procedures in relation to its clients and providers.

• The standard also very much facilitates the training and integration of new members of staff, as there is a very clear procedure to follow.

The standard has had an impact beyond the company itself. Its suppliers are now fully aware of the procedures established according to the standard and cooperate with the requirements demanded from them. Some tenders from EU institutions also now include compliance with the standard as part of their selection criteria. More widely, companies within the industry increasingly compete on quality and service level, rather than price. Competition based on price is still there, but it is mainly led by those companies that do not comply with the quality and service levels set by the standard, and there is now a better means of highlighting this difference.


Paloma believes that standards have really helped Traducciones Políglota to structure procedures, follow them, monitor the results and, of particular importance, apply a spirit of continuous improvement within the company. The standard has rationalised much of what were before mere intuitive perceptions, allowing the company to systematise its experience, be aware of areas of


improvement and strive to constantly look for better performance. For the standard to be really effective, the active involvement of the company’s management has been essential. It cannot just be a series of manuals that are read once and reviewed once a year just for the audit. The management needs to convey the importance of complying with the requirements and be open to discussing procedures with the staff.

Involvement in the standardisation process and the ongoing implementation of the standard has required time, money and dedication from the company. However, Traducciones Políglota regard these inputs as a good investment in the future of the industry as a whole and in the company in particular. The returns from implementing the standard justify the costs involved and the company would recommend standards development and use to others. The company says that standards development contributes to establishing good practices in a sector and to differentiating professional services from others. At the same time, it can simplify processes a lot.


6.6 Maintenance – Stora Enso

EN 13306:2010 – Maintenance – Maintenance terminology

EN 15341:2007 – Maintenance – Maintenance key performance indicators


Stora Enso is an integrated forest products company based in Sweden and Finland. It produces newsprint, magazine paper, fine paper, consumer board, industrial packaging and wood products, for publishers, printing houses and paper merchants, as well as the packaging, joinery and construction industries. It is an international company, with nearly 30,000 staff working in 85 production units in 35 countries worldwide, and produces some 13-million tonnes of paper and cardboard and 7-million cubic-metres of sawn and processed wood each year.

It is currently focusing particularly on growth markets in China and Latin America, and is investing heavily in countries such as China, Brazil and Uruguay. However, despite its global reach, the company has its roots in Scandinavia and its head offices are located in Helsinki.

The company has six paper and pulp mills in Sweden and these modern production facilities alone employ some 4,200 employees. Henning Ekström is the Technical Director at one of the company’s biggest mills, Knarnsveden, in central Sweden. This mill was established over a century ago and can now produce close to 1-million tonnes of paper a year on its four paper machines. Its production includes newsprint and uncoated magazine paper, and it focuses on supplying high-quality products tailored to meet the specific requirements of individual customers.

6.6.2 About the company’s maintenance services

All of the company’s mills are heavily reliant on maintenance services, whether these are provided in-house or outsourced to external companies. Maintenance impacts on the condition of a company’s assets and the output of those assets. It has a vital impact on the quality of the products that are produced and good maintenance is therefore of vital importance to the mills’ future survival. Henning has been with the company for 13 years, mainly working in the area of maintenance, and has been centrally involved in the company’s recent efforts to improve maintenance performance across its Swedish mills and beyond.

There is a real need to reduce costs and increase efficiency within the paper and pulp industry. This is particularly true in Stora Enso’s Swedish and Finnish mills, where publication paper for the print media sector is an important part of its sales. The media industry is experiencing difficulties and there is huge pressure on the paper providers to reduce their cost levels rapidly. This is a major issue that the company faces and it is setting ever-tougher targets for productivity, reliability and costs as a result.

The Swedish and Finnish mills within Stora Enso have taken different approaches to maintenance, with the mills in Finland outsourcing their maintenance operations to three different external maintenance contractors, while in Sweden, the maintenance is largely undertaken internally. There has been debate within the company for some time as to the relative benefits of these different approaches, and whether greater use should be made of outsourced maintenance services.

In order for Stora Enso in Sweden to continue to be competitive in an international market, it needed to improve accessibility, reduce costs and take advantage of its scale economies. As a central part of operations, the maintenance services had a key role in determining the future levels of cost and efficiency that would be needed for the company to maintain competitiveness.

Henning and others working in maintenance services in the company’s six Swedish mills also realised that if these mills, including their maintenance, did not seek to continuously improve, there are other independent companies around the world who could take over production and customers. As such, work has been undertaken over the past five years to improve the maintenance operations at the mills in Sweden, and European standards have played a key role.



Stora Enso have had previous experience of a range of standards and have already been certified to ISO 14001 (environmental management), ISO 22000 (product safety) and ISO 9001 (quality management systems), among others. All of the company’s pulp, paper and board capacity and the majority of its sawmilling and further processing capacity is covered by ISO 14001 or EMAS standards, and it has made a commitment that third-party-verified environmental management systems should be adopted by all of its sawmills and wood supply units.

Until recently, however, the company had not employed standards in relation to its maintenance operations, or indeed realised that such standards existed.

Organisations such as Stora Enso, when looking to find the most effective ways of managing and improving maintenance operations discover that in order to manage maintenance effectively, they first need to learn how to define and measure it. And, when a company wants to compare maintenance and availability performance, either internally or externally, they need a common platform in terms of clearly predefined and standardised indicators or metrics, supported by definitions.

The different mills and departments within the company already had significant maintenance operations, but they were creating their own information, using different names for the same things, or the same term for different things. If working across the group they were comparing apples with oranges, whereas they needed to be comparing apples with apples.

6.6.4 The development of European standards for maintenance

Maintenance as a sector has undergone a substantial evolution over the past few decades. It has become a systematic set of actions, characterised by a varying degree of complexity and included in specific environmental contexts, with special emphasis on their extent, efficiency and effectiveness. As part of the development of the industry, a number of national and industry standards and indicators had become well established within various parts of the European maintenance community. However, there was a desire to rationalise these existing efforts and to formalise them through the development of European Standards.

CEN TC 319 – ‘Maintenance’ was formed, with the aim of producing a set of documents to increase and harmonise the European maintenance profession. Its members included UTEK – the Swedish national organisation for operational maintenance and capital value – of which Stora Enso is a member. The early work of the committee included a standard on maintenance terminology (EN 13306:2001), while a further six standards and technical specifications were published up to 2009, including EN 15341:2007 - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators.

EN 15341:2007 – ‘Maintenance: key performance indicators’ provides a list of 71 predefined Maintenance Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and components to measure maintenance and availability performance, in order to “support management in achieving maintenance excellence and utilise technical assets in a competitive manner”. The standard covers maintenance in general, not in relation to a specific machine or industry, and the majority of the indicators within the standard apply to all industrial and supporting facilities (buildings, infrastructure, transport, distribution, networks, etc.).

The KPIs are intended to be simple, synthetic, clear and unambiguous, as well as measurable on an homogenous basis. They are structured in three groups, in order to cover all aspects of maintenance. The main groups of KPIs are as follows:

• Economic Indicators – e.g. Total Maintenance Cost / Output

• Technical Indicators – e.g. Total Operating Time / (Total Operating Time + Maintenance Downtime)

• Organisational Indicators – e.g. Number of Internal Maintenance Personnel / Total Internal Employees

The EN also describes a system for the management of Key Performance Indicators, to measure maintenance performance, and to appraise and to improve efficiency and effectiveness in order to achieve excellence in the maintenance of technical assets. It also provides guidance as to the broad process involved in the selection and use of KPIs.


The European maintenance terminology and KPI standards provide reference documents that can form the basis for the definition and understanding of maintenance operations and the selection and use of key performance indicators to measure activities. The “ultimate goal” of the KPI standard is to improve efficiency, increase status and reduce costs for maintenance services. However, the KPIs cannot do this alone, rather KPIs are a tool that permits individuals to build and handle in an easy and systematic way a specific activity, allowing them to measure and better control areas of work. They can encourage those involved in maintenance services to challenge themselves constantly, to look for improvements and to help those improvements be implemented.

6.6.5 Implementation of the standard and how it is used

The Knarnsveden mill decided to make it clear exactly what maintenance is and what is involved. In 2008 it established a platform called the Six Mills Maintenance Sweden (SMMS) project, which was a collaborative network formed between Stora Enso’s six Swedish pulp and paper mills (Fors, Hylte, Kvarnsveden, Nymölla, Skoghall and Skutskär). They represent a collective maintenance staff of around 900, with turnover in the region of 130 million.

The aim of the project was to coordinate maintenance at the six mills and to streamline maintenance operations. They attempted to find common scale benefits from an availability and cost perspective and to develop maintenance operations at Stora Enso in order to make competitive products and take advantage of being part of a large group. By working as a group they sought to benefit from mutual learning and synergies of coordinated maintenance, to improve and develop maintenance.

Three areas were prioritised in the mill joint cooperation: to find advantageous synergies, to create a systematic approach to internal efficiency and quality, and to enhance the cooperation between production and maintenance. The specific priorities of the group included the creation of common ratios with common definitions and key performance standards, improved stop planning (and thereby increased productivity), improved operator maintenance with increased internal efficiency, and developing talent and skills to maintain and improve maintenance quality.

The group became aware through the national maintenance association (UTEK) that European standards existed that could help with these objectives and priorities, and they decided to make use of the European standards for terminology and key performance indicators as a basis for their work. Using these standards, the group agreed on a number of common definitions of concepts, creating a common understanding across the mills. These included what maintenance costs, factory costs and operating costs actually are, and what is meant by preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and improving maintenance.

The group also used the standards to develop common indicators (KPIs) for internal benchmarking within Stora Enso. When they wanted to find a new indicator, they looked to the European standards first, to see whether this could support their work. They did not want to reinvent the wheel, if a standard method was already in place.

A joint document was created by the group to describe maintenance activities as a whole. This included ratios based on EN 15341 (16 economic, 6 technical and 12 organisational), and terminology based on EN 13306 (i.e. the definition of maintenance costs).


Using standards has brought a number of benefits to Stora Enso, and particularly to the operation of its core maintenance activities across the six Swedish pulp and paper mills.

Firstly, the standards have helped them in defining common definitions and terminology. When the SMMS project started there were six different ways of looking at maintenance costs across the Stora Enso mills in Sweden. Through the project they have agreed on common definitions and terminology, so that they all now speak the same ‘language’ and it is easier to communicate with each other, and with others outside the company. The two standards are now very well known across the industry and are a useful tool for communication more widely.

Related to this, the common definitions have allowed for transparent comparisons to be made across the company. The existence of common definitions and terminology, as well as common ratios, means that there now exists a common and fair approach to maintenance and to measuring


maintenance. The document produced by the SMMS group now forms the basis for analysis undertaken every year across Stora Enso’s Swedish operations. The common ratios allow a transparent comparison of maintenance performance between plants, in order to find synergies, learn from best practice and achieve improvements. A large proportion of the maintenance work is now done in cooperation between the six SMMS mills, including in areas such as planning and scheduling, effective shutdowns and operator maintenance.

Importantly, the work to develop better understanding and measurement tools based on the European standards has led to improvements to the bottom-line for the company, particularly in terms of cost reduction and efficiency improvements.

The European KPI standard itself provides only indicators to measure and better control areas of work, as well as guidance on the broad process for the selection and use of these KPIs. However, using this guidance, the company has been able to: (i) define objectives within the maintenance management process (e.g. improve the cost effectiveness of maintenance, or better control of the reliability of equipment), (ii) select the relevant indicators, (iii) define and collect relevant data, (iv) calculate the indicators, and (v) test, validate and analyse the results. Based on this process, the company has then been able to make informed decisions that have had an impact on objectives, such as improved efficiency.

Finding new ways of working and constantly developing the business to increase competitiveness and improve profitability is a matter of survival for maintenance services at the Stora Enso Swedish mills. The work of the SMMS to develop the system of KPIs for the company has made it easier for the mills to drive productivity and efficiency in maintenance. Changes have been made that have been helped by their new understanding and ability to measure maintenance operations, and in key performance areas such as availability/performance, improved efficiency and reduced costs, there have been significant improvements as a result.

The maintenance managers are now better able to promote the value of maintenance to the wider company and have the tools (and language) to be able to communicate quickly and effectively with top management. When talking about changes to production, the information in the standards provides a strong foothold and it is now easier for Henning to put forward arguments and to discuss maintenance at all levels of the company.

As a result of the improved common understanding across the SMMS mills, maintenance and maintenance costs are also now discussed in a completely different way at all levels within the company and there has been a shift in strategic thinking. Maintenance has now become a matter for the executive management of Stora Enso and the Swedish operations now regularly report to the executive on how maintenance is conducted in Sweden. This shows the growing importance and recognition of maintenance operations within the company, whereby maintenance has gone from being considered solely as an expense to being the basis of strategic discussions at managerial level. The company now has an ambition to be a world leader in maintenance.

Related to this, the standards have also played an important role in moving forward the discussions over outsourcing. Measurement helps to understand whether the maintenance activities are competitive and how internal maintenance compares with outsourced services. Three years ago, when discussions around outsourcing first began, the company was still asking questions such as ‘what is maintenance’ and ‘what are maintenance costs’. The situation is now very different. Stora Enso now have definitions and an understanding and can move the conversation forwards, based on this mutual understanding. The group management now has two good options, where they can compare the maintenance partnership in Sweden, with the Finnish solution.

The organisation is better positioned to undertake maintenance operations, whether these are internally or externally undertaken, and the ability to compare the two options has improved significantly. The standards have played an important role in these discussions and in the ability of the company to be able to deal with either outcome.


Once Stora Enso got hold of the European terminology and KPI standards for maintenance they quickly understood the importance of standards and how they could be used on an ongoing basis as part of the company’s changing processes. The company was already looking to improve


maintenance, but the standards offered the additional help that would be beneficial in progressing quickly and achieving results.

Henning believes that the investment the company has made in purchasing and implementing the standards has certainly been cost effective. The standards have greatly aided his work and that of the maintenance operations in the company’s mills across Sweden, helping to introduce new systems in a quick and organised manner. Having predefined definitions and terminology, as well as a set of basic indicators, meant that he didn’t need to start from scratch, while using the standards also increased the speed with which the organisation could change and achieve results.

The company is now looking for new standards that might be helpful in moving forward. The European standard for maintenance documentation, for instance, may well be something that they will use in the future.

The standards are now already well known throughout the paper and pulp industry and increasingly used in Sweden and abroad. Some of the biggest players in the industry in Sweden have followed Stora Enso’s example and have now implemented the European KPI standard for maintenance, while smaller companies are now also starting to follow this example.

Standards help to professionalise maintenance services. For Henning, they have helped to improve efficiency, reduce costs, increase transparency and improve internal/external communications. He would recommend that others, whether they are undertaking maintenance in the wood or paper industry, or elsewhere, should look at the standards and see what they have to offer.


6.7 Recreational Diving Services – Nederlandse Onderwatersports Bond

Recreational diving services standards:

EN 14153:2003 – Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers (parts 1-3)

EN 14413:2004 – Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors (parts 1-2)

EN 14467:2004 – Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers


Nederlandse Onderwatersport Bond (NOB) – the Dutch Underwater Federation – is the not-for-profit association for divers, dive clubs and diving activities in the Netherlands. It was founded in 1962 by the first five Dutch diving clubs as a means by which to liaise with regulators and to define training programmes and practices. NOB is a small organisation of six paid professionals, but now represents a very large membership base of 280 affiliated diving clubs and diving schools, plus some 16,000 individual divers and instructors.

NOB acts as an advocate for its members and provides a range of assistance and support services to them. Most importantly, NOB is responsible for the implementation and quality management of diver training at its affiliated clubs and schools, and produces the handbooks, guidelines and instruction manuals that form the basis of this training. In addition, NOB offers group insurance policies, a member magazine, workshops and courses, information on Dutch legislation and advice on financial, medical, recruitment and public relations issues. It is also involved in improving dive sites in the Netherlands (particularly in the Zealand ‘delta’) and serves as a contact point for questions and enquiries from affiliated clubs and divers.

The central, dedicated resource provided by NOB prevents duplication of effort between clubs and ensures a high quality and consistent approach across the large number of voluntary organisations that make up its membership base.


Although recreational diving is potentially hazardous, the risks to participants can easily be reduced to acceptable levels by the adoption of appropriate precautions. One route through which this can be achieved is the definition of standards. As such, the use of various standards and certification schemes has long been a part of the diving services industry and a large range of bodies, schemes and standards exist at various geographical levels relating to training and service provision in the diving sector. This makes for a somewhat confused and confusing system, in which individual organisations may be affiliated to a number of different structures and using a range of different standards and certificates in the provision of their services.

From the various options available, NOB has made particular use in the past of the systems offered by the World Underwater Federation (CMAS), which included a framework of standards and certification schemes for diver and instructor qualifications. These CMAS diving standards have been in place for a number of years and are used by many organisations internationally as a basis for diver training requirements. They provided the main source of requirements, guidelines and standards for NOB and its members, and meant that the training provided at NOB affiliated clubs was recognised internationally by other CMAS members.

However, although CMAS standards had served NOB well for a number of years, it was felt that the CMAS system had remained relatively static over time. There were also concerns that insufficient attention was being given to recreational diving within the broader spectrum of underwater activities covered by CMAS. NOB was therefore interested in the possibilities offered by a new system of standards being developed by a new consortium at the European level, that would be specifically designed for recreational diving and would more closely align with NOB activities and interests.


NOB was already looking to update and modernise its hefty one-volume guidelines book, so this was seen as an opportune moment to overhaul the system and to use the opportunity of new standards to support this process. It was also expected that the European standards would make it easier for divers already qualified by other organisations to transfer their qualifications to the new system and become members of NOB diving clubs, helping to attract more people to these organisations and the courses that they provide.

In addition, while NOB had previously only used standards for the training of divers and instructors, the new suite of European standards would also include a standard covering the provision of diving services more generally. This would provide recommendations and guidelines for the operations undertaken by clubs as service providers, covering education and training, but also equipment rental and guided dives. This was a new and important area for standardisation to consider and an area of development that NOB wanted to encourage across its organisation.


A CEN technical committee for tourism (CEN/TC 329) had been established at the European level for the purposes of standardising the terminology and specifications of tourism facilities and services, including recreational activities. Its objectives were to improve consumer information and transparency in the market, to enable businesses to market their services more effectively, and to specify minimum standards for service quality. One of the working groups established (WG3) was to look specifically at requirements for recreational diving schools and recreational diving services.

This working group noted in its business plan that customers frequently find it difficult to make the right choice from the variety of diving service providers, both in the recreational diving and diver training sector, and that critical consumers expect reliable assessments of quality and qualifications, as well as of the scope of services provided. It therefore set out to establish a series of specifications for recreational diving services across Europe, and sought to ensure that the recreational diving sector benefited from better training, better service for customers, more safety and consumer confidence as a result.

The working group drafting the new standards included experts from diving training organisations and companies, consumer representatives and authorities. EUF (NOB’s European association) took a proactive stance in supporting the development of the standards, while individuals from NOB and its member organisations also followed and closely observed the activities at the Working Group. Information was continuously fed back to NOB on the development of the European standards and this formed the basis for various discussions within NOB’s board meetings about future options for training provision.

6.7.4 The European diving standards series

The result of the common effort in WG3 was a series of European standards published in 2004, which dealt with quality and safety aspects in the training of recreational divers and instructors, as well as requirements for diving service providers more generally. Three main standards were developed, as follows:

• EN 14153 (parts 1-3) - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers

• EN 14413 (parts 1-2) - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors

• EN 14467 - Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers

The first two standards relate to training and qualifications and are aimed at training organisations and providers in the diving services sector. Both are published in multiple parts, corresponding to different levels of training and ability (e.g. for EN 14153, level 1 - supervised diver, level 2 - autonomous diver, level 3 - dive leader) and specify the experience and competencies that a scuba diver or scuba instructor has to have achieved in order for a training organisation to award the respective certification. For each level, the standards also establish requirements concerning prerequisites for training, theoretical knowledge, scuba skills and assessment/certification procedures.


The final standard in the list specifies more broadly the safety practices and requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers. It is aimed specifically at service providers (e.g. dive centres) and sets out separate requirements for the provision of three main areas of service (training and education, accompanied dives and equipment rental). A number of common requirements that cut across these service areas are also specified, which include information prior to and during service provision, risk assessment, emergency equipment and procedures, dive equipment and documentation.

The service provider standard has a key role to play, as it covers requirements common to the provision of training and certification of divers as specified in the other standards in the series.

6.7.5 Implementation of the standard and how it is used

There was some considerable discussion within NOB, and at its board about the European standards and whether NOB should adopt the new system. Despite the potential benefits of the European system, it was somewhat different to CMAS, and moving from one to the other would have implications for NOB and its members, not least for those already trained and accredited under the old system.

A particular problem was that under CMAS, experienced divers could act as trainers and were able to volunteer to provide in-water training and instruction to less experienced divers, whereas the European system would require a specific instructor qualification (i.e. according to EN 14413) in order to undertake this activity. As such, the number of ‘qualified’ volunteer trainers would instantly fall when switching to the new system, which would limit the ability of clubs to offer courses. This issue was not insurmountable, but it would take time, money and effort to upgrade qualifications and additional course places would be needed to cope with this.

The final decision taken by NOB and its board was to move to the European system and to implement the European recreational diving standards. Other members of CMAS, including in Germany, Belgium and Denmark took similar decisions.

Implementation of the standard

Much of the scuba diving sector throughout Europe has been working to implement the European standards for recreational scuba diving since their publication, and many now use these as benchmarks for their scuba diving training programmes. Some countries, such as Malta and Greece, have gone so far as to incorporate the standards into national legislation on diving, making adherence compulsory in these countries.

In the Netherlands, NOB - acting as an intermediary for the individual divers and clubs that are its members - has had much of the responsibility for the initial implementation of the European training standards within the broader organisation’s systems. Consequently, a lot of work has been undertaken within NOB to develop new working documents for training provision on the basis of the European standards.

Over the course of several years, the system of NOB training for divers and instructors has been thoroughly renovated and revised, with their old single-volume manual of guidelines being discarded and replaced with three, shorter and more modern books. For NOB dive centres, this is now the framework that forms the basis for all diving and instructor training.

The standard on diving service providers, by comparison, is more directly relevant to the activities of individual dive clubs. NOB still has an important role in aiding understanding of the requirements set out in this standard and encouraging the necessary changes at club level, but much of the role in implementing the standards rests with individual clubs.

As this standard covers a new area of requirements, there is an additional level of complexity involved in its implementation. While NOB believes the standard is important and would like to encourage its implementation amongst its members, it also realises that this implies some considerable additional work for clubs (at least initially). It has taken time to convince the individual organisations and their boards of the need for this additional effort, and then for the various changes necessary to be implemented. Nevertheless, NOB would currently estimate that around half of its affiliated diving clubs have fully implemented the service provider standard, and it is now a priority for NOB that the standard is implemented in the remaining clubs.


Certification against the standard

Having completely redesigned its training guidelines to comply with the European training standards, NOB has subsequently sought third party certification of its adherence from EUF-Certification International. This organisation provides recreational diving training organisations and dive centres with the opportunity to prove their adherence to the European diving standards and therefore also prove their competence and quality of service. Its system of certification seeks to offer the diving community a unified procedure of reliable and recognised proof of the quality of scuba diving training services based on these standards.

NOB was first assessed against the standards in 2008, when two auditors visited the organisation for a three-day assessment. The assessment involved providing information and documentation (e.g. training standards and materials for students), on-site observation of courses for both divers and instructors at appropriate levels, and various other assessment activities. One area was identified that needed improvement, which NOB subsequently rectified, but otherwise the organisation was found to be fully compliant with the requirements of the standards and was certified. Another audit will be undertaken in a couple of years.

Many other similar bodies across Europe are also now certified to the European diving standards. However, the EUF certification process is far from being a rubber stamp, and every training organisation validated so far has had to modify its system in some way in order to achieve certification.

6.7.6 The benefits and impact of the standard to the organisation

Implementation of the standards is still ongoing and some benefits will take longer to fully realise as a result. However, a number of benefits and impacts from the uptake and use of European standards for diving have already become evident, both for NOB as a whole, as well as for individual clubs, divers and instructors.

NOB and its members are now working with an entirely new training system, training programme and guidelines. The European standards provided the impetus for this change and have formed the basis for the development of a more modern and considerably simplified system. NOB’s training documents have been completely re-written based on the minimum requirements set out in the European standards and it is now able to offer its members excellent quality diver and dive instructor training. The overhaul of the training framework did involve some considerable time and effort on the part of NOB (three years in total), but the final results are attractive, modern, well-written documents that better serve their purpose, and which have proved very popular amongst NOB members.

Certification to the European standards provides assurance for consumers and authorities. When a training system has been examined and approved through the certification process (i.e. by EUF certification), the diver or a public authority can be assured that the training has met the state of the art requirements for content support and quality, as set out in the European standards. Achieving certification to the standards has meant that an independent body has confirmed that NOB training has been tested and that their quality is subject to proper control mechanisms. NOB is then able to use the EUF Conformity Mark as credible proof and consumers and authorities can be assured of the quality of the service being provided.

The standards ensure a high level of quality and safety for diving activities, where there is a real need for proper training. Although it has taken time to implement the requirements of the new standards, and they initially reduced the pool of trainers available, the changes to the instructor requirements have meant that all those providing training are fully and properly qualified to provide instruction to other divers. Those providing training can also prove that their services comply with the current state of the art.

The European standards encourage increases to the overall levels of quality offered in the sector by enabling diving instructors and schools to bring their services up to a uniformly high standard. The service providers standard in particular will help to develop the activities at club level and lead to improvements in a large number of areas. Implementation here is still ongoing, but changes will soon start to be evident. More widely, standards are important for comparing the quality of services at an international level and they will improve the level of understanding


between training organisations and help to raise standards and increase the level of credibility within the diving industry.

The new training standards have international applicability and transferability and can be used to aid cross border service provision and the movement of individuals. Through creating internationally recognised diver qualifications, the standards enable the consumer to access services from different countries and organisations more easily. Qualifications based on the standard are widely recognised and accepted internationally and serve as the diver’s assurance of quality diver training. This works both ways. Divers certified through NOB training can use their certification in other parts of the world to dive with other organisations. At the same time, if individuals are in possession of a diving certificate issued by an organisation other than NOB, but would like to join an NOB club or course, then this is no longer an issue; the individual’s license can be scaled according to a classification table, which matches up certificates issued by other bodies with the European system. At present NOB are aware that Belgian, German and Polish Divers in particular are starting to use the Zealand province for diving in increasing numbers, and it is hoped that in future such divers from other countries will join clubs in the Netherlands and attend dives operated by NOB members.

It is still early days, but NOB hope to see increased membership as a result of the standards and the changes that have taken place in implementing them. There is little budget for large-scale advertising or marketing campaigns and NOB have to rely largely on word of mouth. However, it is hoped that improvements to the quality of services offered and the increased transferability of qualifications will help to encourage new individuals to diving and make it easier for existing divers to join and participate in the activities of NOB clubs.


Through its use of CMAS system, NOB and its members were already experienced in using international standards and were positively pre-disposed towards them as a means for setting pre-defined systems and requirements for diver training that could be recognised by other national federations and bodies.

Nevertheless, the implementation of European recreational diving standards has brought additional positive changes and benefits to NOB. The standards have encouraged and helped NOB to update and rejuvenate its entire training system and supporting documents and provided a new set of training certification that has international applicability and transferability. The standards have encouraged higher levels of quality and safety and certification has provided added assurance for consumers and authorities. NOB already believes that the results were worth the effort, and yet expects to see even greater positive impacts in the future as the implementation of the standards is fully completed and the standards are increasingly used across Europe as the main quality system for diving service provision and training.

NOB now much more closely monitors standardisation activity, and has allocated time for its paid staff to be involved in these activities. As a result, they are much better able to be involved in the development of the standards and to monitor changes that take place at the European level.

Following considerable interest in the European standards from countries in other parts of the world, an initiative was also undertaken to advance the European standards to an international level. This process will further ensure that the European standards and the training and qualifications that result from them are internationally recognised.


7. Conclusions and recommendations

This section of the report presents our conclusions concerning the use and benefits of European service standards, based on the information collected through the study.

7.1 Conclusions

7.1.1 The benefits and impacts of European service standards on service providers and users

The study has acquired a useful body of evidence on the positive benefits and impacts of service standards. Most of the described benefits are seen from the perspective of the users of the standards (service providers) and relate to positive internal impacts, but much of the information obtained affirms that the implementation of service standards also bestows substantial benefits on their customers (the users of the service).

The most widespread ‘major’ benefits of using service standards relate to improvements to service quality and a related ability to demonstrate high levels of service quality to customers. Standards provide a clear mechanism through which users can systematically improve their service delivery, across most aspects of their operations, thereby allowing them to provide a demonstrably better service on a consistent basis. Use of recognised standards, particularly when accompanied by certification, has a major impact on service providers’ ability to demonstrate the quality of the services that are being delivered, providing reassurance to customers that the quality of service will be high. Our case studies have demonstrated that the implementation of European standards can lead directly to significant and measurable improvements in service quality, which can lead to higher levels of customer satisfaction, increased levels of ‘repeat business’ and ultimately improved market share.

Another widespread major benefit of using service standards is improved common definitions and terminology relating to the service being provided. While not at first glance the most ‘obvious’ benefit that can be gained from the use of standards, our case studies have again been able to highlight how improved definitions and terminology have helped to improve clarity of service requirements, procedures, processes, systems and so on, which in turn lead to improved service quality and often improved efficiency of service delivery. A lack of clarity about the nature of the services being provided and the various processes involved can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings both within the service providers’ own operations (i.e. between staff) and between the provider and the customer. Such ‘loosely defined’ services can often lead to confusion, dispute and ultimately dissatisfaction on the part of the customer. The standards we have featured have been shown to bring improved clarity of service description, which in turn has raised customer satisfaction and in some cases has helped to minimise internal inefficiencies or what can be costly dispute resolution.

Other closely related benefits of using standards are improved contractual relationships, which can help to enhance the transparency of the services that are to be provided. In many cases service standards address contractual relationships directly, helping to ensure good practice in how both the service and the ‘relationship’ between service provider and user is defined within the contract, and ensuring that the rights and obligations of both parties are made as explicit as possible. Applying European service standards can therefore help to provide improved protection for both parties to the contract, which in turn helps to ensure that problems and disputes are kept to a minimum. Improved transparency of service provision has been shown to add value to both the providers and the users of the service, ensuring that service companies meet all of their responsibilities and ensuring that the user understands clearly the nature and extent of the services they will receive. This has again been shown to enhance levels of customer satisfaction, not necessarily because they are receiving more but because they better understand what to expect. Most service users want to be reassured that they are receiving all of the services that they are paying for, and standards help to provide levels of transparency that customers value and that enhance their level of satisfaction. Ultimately, standards help to increase customers’ confidence in both the services they are receiving and the provider of those services.


Following on from this, another important benefit of standards to both the user and the provider is the ability for purchasers of services to compare different offers / quotes and to make more informed decisions about the level of service they require and how much they are willing to pay. This benefits the customer by reducing confusion and uncertainty, and benefits the provider of (high quality) services by making more explicit the (additional) elements of service that are being offered by those meeting the prescribed quality standards. Our cases studies have demonstrated that an important motivation for companies to develop service standards has been to formally document the high levels of service quality that they and others are providing, so that customers can distinguish between the different levels of service provision and quality on offer within the market place. Through service providers’ development and use of standards, customers can understand why some services cost more than others and can make more informed decisions about whether they are willing to pay a small premium for a higher quality service. In the absence of standards, it is much more difficult for customers to differentiate between different offers or quotes, and they may therefore have little choice but to base their purchasing decisions on a ‘lowest cost’ basis. However, by using service standards and educating prospective customers about these, providers help to ensure that customers can make informed decisions about the level of service they require and understand why ‘enhanced’ services may cost more to provide. This means that rather than ‘fixing’ in some way the level of service, standards actually provide a means to better differentiate between very different levels of service, avoiding a situation where price is the only or main basis of purchasing decisions.

Our survey and case studies have also demonstrated that European service standards can help service providers to meet legislative or regulatory requirements, particularly as regards health and safety. A very significant proportion of users of national, European and International service standards have indicated that use of these standards has helped them to meet their legal responsibilities. Many areas of services are regulated at national and European levels and in some of these areas compliance with formal standards are accepted routes through which operators can meet their obligations. In some cases this can also help to facilitate cross-border trade in services, by providing a recognised way for providers in one country to demonstrate to new markets that their services meet an externally defined set of performance characteristics.

Another way by which some European service standards have been shown to yield significant benefits is through the use of performance indicators. Because standards help to define various (commonly agreed) aspects of service quality it is possible to convert these service elements into performance indicators that can then be used by companies to assess and improve specific elements of their own operations, leading to improvements to service quality and to the efficiency and effectiveness of both internal and external processes. In a small number of cases the use of performance indicators within service standards has been used across individual sectors to ‘benchmark’ service quality, allowing companies to determine their own performance vis-à-vis their counterparts.

The various benefits cited above can ultimately help service providers to enhance their operations and relationships with customers, leading to improvements in market share and profitability. Experiences collected from real businesses that actually apply service standards within their own operations clearly demonstrate that rather than proving to be a drain on resources, service standards in most cases lead directly to more efficient and more effective operations. These benefits are then converted by most users to a stronger presence in the market place, increased market share, and improved levels of profitability. So, while service standards may involve some ‘up front’ costs for developers and users, these costs are ultimately more than recouped through the significant benefits that standards provide.

Analysis of the results of our survey identified a small number of differences between the responses provided by different types of organisations, which may prove of utility to CEN when deciding how best to promote standardisation of services to different audiences in future. Small and medium-sized service companies (SMEs) were significantly more likely than large companies to cite improved service quality, improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers, and improved transparency of the services provided as major benefits realised through their use of service standards. SMEs were also more likely than large companies to highlight or feature their use of standards when advertising their services, confirming the importance to SMEs of demonstrating service quality to customers. This may be because large companies are expected / assumed to deliver high quality services and to have the systems in place to ensure this, whilst


smaller business may be less able to use their ‘brands’ or market presence to provide such assurances.

Conversely, large companies were more likely than SMEs to cite improvements in their ability to meet legislative and regulatory requirements, including health and safety—related obligations, as major benefits of service standards. The reasons for this difference is less clear, but may relate to a greater onus on large business to demonstrate high levels of corporate accountability in relation to health and safety, environmental issues, and social responsibility.

7.1.2 Barriers to the development and use of service standards

This study has also gathered a useful body of information concerning barriers to the development and use of service standards. It should be noted that the results relate mainly to the ‘perceptions’ of existing users, rather than being based on a detailed set of investigations among non-users. Nonetheless, they represent the views of over 250 organisations working in the field of services and should therefore stand as a good indication of the concerns and stumbling blocks that surround standardisation in the field of services.

Our survey results have demonstrated that the major barriers relate to a lack of time and resources to be involved and influence the development of service standards, a lack of understanding of the specific and general benefits that standards bring, and concerns that standards will be costly to develop, purchase, implement and use. These barriers are largely inter-related, with a lack of understanding of the benefits possibly leading to concerns over costs of development / use and a corresponding sense that the time and resources needed could or should not be made available. Our survey of users and the individual case studies have amply demonstrated that the benefits of using service standards do outweigh the costs involved, but the benefits are rather hard to appreciate beforehand. By taking steps to both (i) allay uninitiated users’ concerns about costs and (ii) provide more information about the benefits, it should be possible for CEN to help to begin to address these ‘perception’ barriers.

A number of other barriers relate to ‘resource’ limitations within industry, and contribute significantly to lower levels of service standardisation than might be considered desirable. In most cases companies lack experience in developing standards, do not carry the level of technical capability needed ‘in-house’, and may lack mechanisms to bring companies together to discuss the benefits that standards might bring. It is not easy for CEN to act directly on these limitations, but it is important that efforts are made to educate prospective users about the benefits and to explain how other sectors have taken the necessary steps down the road to standardisation and are now reaping the benefits. Through this and other studies we have identified the critical role that industry representative bodies / trade associations have often played in championing and supporting the development of service standards. Buy-in and support from such organisations appears crucial if standards development work is to be initiated and completed successfully, and so the standardisation bodies should do whatever they can to engage with industry bodies and provide all of the information they need to make informed decisions about the costs and benefits of standards development and use. There is also a role for the public sector in promoting enhanced service quality, as both a major provider and purchaser of services and because of the wider economic and social benefits that service standards can help to generate.

Other cited barriers relate to a lack of awareness of the possibility that standards can be developed and used in the field of services, and a much more specific concern that standards would in some way ‘fix’ the services that are provided, forcing companies to compete only on price. Promotion of the case studies developed through this study should help sectors that have not yet become involved in standardisation to both appreciate the possibility and to realise that standards do not fix or restrict in any way the nature of the services being provided or lead to ‘homogenisation of services’. These real-world examples from among the ‘early adopters’ should help to ensure that other sectors become more aware of what is possible and better informed about the reality of standards development and use. However, creating momentum in sectors that have no history in the use of standards, formal or otherwise, is likely to continue to be a major challenge.

Two further barriers to the development and use of service standards related to the context within which standards might be developed and have to operate. The majority of respondents to our survey indicated that existing legislation or regulations governing the provision of services may


already set or represent ‘quality’ standards in some areas of services, while in other areas existing non-formal standards developed by industry may already have a strong foothold. In both circumstances it will be much harder for formal standards to find its own space and to add value over what is already in existence. Again, it is not entirely clear as to what CEN might do in relation to these barriers, other than perhaps to better understand, sector by sector, the current role of regulation / legislation and the current existence and market presence of informal standards. In so doing CEN might be better able to target its own awareness-raising efforts (i) within areas where formal standards appear to offer the most potential and (ii) away from areas that are already ‘crowded’ with other mechanisms for ensuring service quality.

A small number of participants in our survey identified additional barriers that may help to inform CEN as to corrective actions that could be taken to address such fears:

• There are perceptions that in some cases actors other than industry (e.g. consultants, certifiers, very large companies) are ‘driving’ or ‘dominating’ the standards development process. It may therefore be useful for CEN to state more clearly the basis on which decisions to embark on standards development work are taken

• There are perceptions that standards are filled with complex and highly technical language, which makes it hard for many companies to work with them. We are aware that efforts are underway to help to ensure that standards are written in plain language and this should help, over time, to allay these concerns

• There is a lack of demand from customers for service standards, leading to a situation where many service providers feel that there is no need to develop them. It is therefore important that service users of all types (industry, consumers, public bodies) are also properly educated about standards, so that the demand side can play its proper role in encouraging and supporting the development and use of quality standards in the services field

• There is a lack of financial and practical support for standards development. While it is important that industry bears a sufficient share of the development costs, in order to ensure buy-in and commitment, mechanisms to help offset these costs and in particular to provide practical day-to-day support and guidance is vital to ensure that the development process is both efficient and affordable

7.2 Recommendations

The barriers identified above lead fairly naturally to a set of recommendations that CEN might take in order to enhance service providers’ willingness to develop and use service standards, and to enhance the benefits that they are able to derive. We are conscious that CEN and its individual members have already taken steps to perform many of these actions, and so the existence of a recommendation should not be taken as an implication that nothing is currently being done in relation to it. Instead the recommendations should serve to remind CEN as to the importance of these actions if service standardisation is to continue to develop in the positive and beneficial ways identified through our survey and case studies

We recommend that CEN:

• Continue to promote the actual ‘benefits in use’ of service standards to service providers and users, focusing its efforts on EU- and national-level industry associations and on the representatives of major service user groups (consumer bodies, public authorities)

• Use targeted campaigns to reach out to specific sectors, highlighting the general and specific benefits that could be realised through development and use of service standards. Where necessary, sectoral analyses should be carried out to ensure that the campaigns are suitably tailored to the audiences concerned and to the prevailing situation (in terms of existing levels of knowledge, technical capabilities, experience of standards, etc.)

• Provide clearer information on the standards development process, including the procedures, timescales and costs involved and highlighting the availability of different types of standards (EN/TS/TR/CWA)


• Continue its efforts to widen participation in the standards development process, ensuring insofar as is possible that all relevant stakeholders are involved, including representatives of service users (consumers, public authorities, etc.)

• Strengthen and accelerate its efforts to ensure that the standards development process and the standards themselves are as clear and user friendly as possible

• Seek out new or enhanced mechanisms for assisting with the standards development process, including enhanced levels of practical advice and support for new entrants. The potential for public financing to be used to offset the costs of standards development should be explored in areas where public interests would be served through more extensive use of service quality standards


Appendix A - Summary descriptions of the European service standards covered by the study

A.1 Introduction

This appendix provides a summary of the 22 European service standards that are in scope for the study. Based on the information within the standard, it provides an overview of the contents of each document, their aims and purpose, what they cover and details of how they are likely to be used. The information set out here was used to compile the aggregate picture of uses and benefits presented in Section 3.3 of the main report.

A.2 Funeral services

A.2.1 EN 15017:2005 Funeral services – Requirements

The standard sets out broad requirements for the provision of funeral services and aims to:

• Assure quality in the provision of funeral services

• Ensure funeral-related services, facilities and pricing principles are transparent for the consumer

• Provide consideration for the different provisions of national funeral laws and the traditions of ethical, cultural and regional funeral rites

• Ensure consideration of hygienic and environmental concerns

• Outline the profile of vocational qualifications and further education training appropriate for funeral directors and other personnel

It sets out detailed information for each stage of service provision, from the pre-arrangement of funerals, through care of the deceased, transport and facilities, to post-funeral advice and support, providing suggestions, considerations, options and requirements for the relevant practical procedures, duties and obligations of the service provider at each stage. It also details requirements for facilities and equipment, and for the skills, experience and training of funeral personnel.

A.3 Furniture Removal Services

A.3.1 EN 12522:1998 Furniture removal activities – Furniture removal for private individuals (Parts 1 and 2)

This standard relates to the removal of household furniture and effects and the provision of this service to private individuals by the furniture removal profession. It provides a systematic reference document that aims to help providers (and the industry more broadly) to achieve a number of key objectives, including:

• Creating a dialogue with the customer that is favourable to the profession

• Permitting customers to identify and compare the services offered by different companies

• Protecting consumers against the provision of services not in compliance with the standard

• Allowing service providers to conduct their activity with the aid of technical specifications that are clearly defined and commonly understood

• Allowing providers to position themselves to meet the needs of the European customer in a single European market (e.g. through harmonised conditions of contract)

The standard is split into two separate parts.

The first part of the standard – Part 1: Service specification – covers all of the services agreed upon between the provider and customer within the framework of a contract, including the characteristics that allow this service to be assessed. It specifies the minimum qualitative and


quantitative rules and characteristics for the service specifications of a furniture removal service, as well as the principles that govern the general conditions of contract.

The standard details the minimum necessary steps and processes of the furniture removal service, from initial contact to post-contractual remedy, including the skills, qualities and professionalism of the personnel involved, the suitability of the transport and packaging materials and the information provided to the customer. It also provides recommendations for additional optional services, such as special transportation, that might be considered as part of a service offer. The standard also details the necessary contractual and statutory documents required and what should be covered by each, as well as principles for contractual conditions.

The second part of the standard – Part 2: Provision of service – covers all of the means engaged by the provider in carrying out the service, including the personnel, the equipment, the organisation and the budget. It specifies the minimum qualitative and quantitative rules and characteristics of the provision of a furniture removal service, as well as the requirements for a quality approach.

The standard sets out requirements for human resources, technical skills and means at each of three phases of the provision of usual furniture removal services: preliminary information (covering initial contact and assessment), the carrying-out phase (covering the skills of personnel and the equipment available), and after sales service (covering the ability to monitor customer satisfaction and settle disputes). The standard also provides requirements for the organisation and implementation of a furniture removal quality approach, from the drawing up and in-house communication of a quality policy and manual, to the means for conducting, controlling and reviewing this policy, assessing sub-contractors, eliminating non-standard service, and taking corrective action.

A.3.2 EN 14873:2005 Furniture removal activities – Storage of furniture and personal effects for private individuals (Parts 1 and 2)

This standard relates to the storage of household furniture and personal effects for private individuals and is intended to establish a minimum level of service and performance in the service providers. It provides a systematic reference document that aims to help providers (and the industry more broadly) to achieve a number of key objectives, including:

• Creating a dialogue with the customer that is favourable to the profession

• Permitting customers to identify and compare the services offered by different companies

• Protecting consumers against the provision of services not in compliance with the standard

• Allowing service providers to conduct their activity with the aid of technical specifications that are clearly defined and commonly understood

• Allowing providers to position themselves to meet the needs of the European customer in a single European market (e.g. through harmonised conditions of contract)

The standard is split into two separate parts.

The first part of the standard – Part 1: Specification for the storage facility and related storage provision - specifies minimum requirements for the provision of storage facilities and related services. It establishes that any storage facility – whatever the means of containment employed - should be constructed, configured and administered in order to provide a minimum level of protection, security and access. It then provides details as to requirements for different types of storage facility and the provision of associated services:

• Container storage – including the construction and condition of containers and their loading, closure, handling and stacking, plus protection of stored items and storage of oversize items

• Loose storage – including storage space, identification and protection of stored items

• Self-storage units – including general construction and condition of units, loading and unloading conditions, handling equipment, security and recording of access.

The second part of the standard - Part 2: Provision of the service - specifies service activities designed to ensure the provision of a generally acceptable, customer oriented service for the storage of furniture and personal effects. It sets out requirements for the minimum information to be


provided prior to commencement of service, the necessary action at receipt and release of stored items, necessary elements of after sales service (including monitoring, response to feedback and dispute resolution, and specifications for the development, maintenance and communication of a formal quality policy and manual, including the necessary human resource and technical requirements at each stage.

A.4 Maintenance

A.4.1 CEN/TS 15331:2005 Criteria for design, management and control of maintenance services for buildings

This Technical Specification specifies the criteria and the general methods involved in the planning, management and control of maintenance in buildings and their surrounding areas, according to the objectives of the owners and users and the required quality of maintenance. It is intended to help with the budgeting for maintenance and the scheduling of maintenance activities in order to improve the profitability of buildings.

The specification provides guidelines and recommendations for the design, management and control of maintenance services, covering:

• Basic data requirements, diagnostic tools and the collection of necessary information

• Building and maintenance policies and strategies

• Planning, preparing and budgeting for maintenance

• Information systems required to support the management of building maintenance

• Operational management of maintenance services, including financial and human resources, materials, equipment, programs and schedules,

• Technical, economical and performance-related monitoring plans

This specification for the maintenance of buildings has been produced as a separate document because of the differences to other items subject to maintenance (e.g. the long duration of use and the need to maintain property values, possible changes of use during service life and the fact that there are often various parties responsible for maintenance) and the consequent difficulties for predicting service life, budgeting for maintenance and scheduling of maintenance interventions. It is currently under revision to become a full European Standard.

A.4.2 EN 13269:2006 Maintenance - Guideline on preparation of maintenance contracts

This standard presents a working tool for parties who wish to draw up a maintenance contract in a structured and careful manner. It provides guidance on the preparation of contracts and can be used by companies (customers) in preparing their agreements, covering the whole range of maintenance services (maintenance operations, plus planning, management and control), every type of item (except computer software) and both domestic and cross-border agreements.

The standard provides a structured overview of possible maintenance services offered or required. Its purpose is to give advice on activities that may be required in preparing a contract and prior to signing of agreements and also those activities that may be required during the period of any contract. It also covers the proposed contract structure and content, providing a standard checklist for use when drafting maintenance contracts, together with important elements for content.

The standard does not however provide standard forms for maintenance contracts, or determine the rights and obligations between buyer and supplier. It offers headings that are not exhaustive and that parties may or may not wish to exclude, modify or adapt to their own contractual relationships, and not all of the clauses it discusses may be applicable to every contract.

The standard explicitly seeks to serve a number of purposes and create a number of benefits, including:

• Drawing attention to the scope of maintenance services and identifying options for their provision

• Giving assistance and advice in relation to the drafting and negotiation of maintenance contracts, and in resolving disputes


• Improving the quality of maintenance contracts and minimising disputes/adjustments

• Identifying types of maintenance contracts and making recommendations for the attribution of rights and obligations between the parties of the contract, including risks

• Producing a clear interface between the customer and provider

• Promoting cross-border customer-provider relationships

• Simplifying comparison between maintenance contracts.

A.4.3 EN 15341:2007 Maintenance - Maintenance Key Performance Indicators

This standard provides maintenance-related Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and a system for managing KPIs to measure maintenance performance. The majority of these indicators apply to all industrialised supporting facilities, including buildings, infrastructure, transport, distribution and networks.

The standard presents economical, technical and organisational indicators as formulas, with detailed definitions and comments for each of the factors involved in calculation. It also describes a methodology for the selection and use of KPIs, covering the definition of objectives, selection of relevant indicators, definition and collection of data and calculation of indicators, as well as testing, validating, analysing and presenting results.

The indicators presented can be used for:

• Measurement of the current status

• Comparison (internal and external benchmarks

• Diagnosis (analysis of strengths and weaknesses)

• Identification of objectives and definition of targets to be achieved

• Planning of improvement actions

• Continuous measurement of changes over time.

They are intended to support management in appraising and improving efficiency and effectiveness in order to achieve maintenance excellence and the utilisation of technical assets in a competitive manner. They can help management to set objectives, plan strategies and actions, and share the results in order inform and motivate people, and ultimately improve performance.

A.4.4 CEN/TR 15628:2007 Maintenance - Qualification of Maintenance personnel

This Technical Report provides information on the current situation with regard to defining the competence levels for personnel operating in maintenance, as well as the knowledge levels required to carry out those competencies.

The document categorises maintenance personnel into three levels – European Maintenance Technician, Supervisor and Manager – and for each provides details of the level of knowledge required in different competency areas, and therefore the requirements to be incorporated within maintenance training.

It states that a structured qualification program, such as that being developed and reported here, offers the potential to achieve:

• Consistency in the development of maintenance personnel on all three levels

• Structured European educational programs

• Common umbrella for competence in maintenance

• Focus on industrial requirements, including safety and environment

• Improved relationships between industry and training/education

The report notes that there exist over 20 maintenance societies in Europe, each active in education and training on a national level. In light of increased European integration, there is a belief that the training and qualification of maintenance personnel should be carried out within a more structured


framework of mutually accepted European guideline. The report is currently under revision to become a full European standard.

A.4.5 EN 13460:2009 Maintenance - Documentation for maintenance

This standard specifies general guidelines for the technical documentation to be supplied with an item (at the latest before it is ready to be put into service) in order to support its maintenance, and is mainly aimed at designers, manufacturers, technical writers and suppliers of documentation. The standard has been divided into a normative part and informative annexes.

The normative part concerns the first part of the life cycle of the item to be maintained (the preparatory phase). When an item is acquired, the acquirer requires certain documentation to maintain and operate the item properly – this has to be provided by the supplier of the item. The standard lists and defines the whole set of documents and information to be considered in the acquisition of any installation, equipment, system or subsystem, in order to provide the information needed to organise its maintenance and to perform the different maintenance function tasks. It both lists the required essential documents for maintenance and gives information on possible contents for each document.

The informative annexes concern the documentation of information to be established within the operational phase of the life cycle of the item to be maintained, placing the maintenance function within the wider quality system of a company. The documentation for maintenance is developed to also cover the information required for accomplishing the quality assurance requirements for maintenance operations.

A.4.6 EN 13306:2010 Maintenance - Maintenance terminology

The purpose of this standard is to specify the generic terms and definitions used for all technical, administrative and managerial areas of maintenance and maintenance management, irrespective of the type of item considered.

It provides a comprehensive, structured, generic maintenance vocabulary that contains the main terms in use and their definitions, and is not confined to technical actions alone. It includes over 120 items arranged in the following sections:

• Fundamental terms

• Item related terms

• Properties of items

• Failures and events

• Faults and states

• Maintenance types

• Maintenance activities

• Time related terms

• Maintenance support tools

• Economic and technical factors.

A number of supporting diagrams are also provided in annexes, along with an alphabetical index.

By providing correct and formal definitions, it is intended that the standard will give the user of associated maintenance standards a fuller understanding of the maintenance terms used. It may also be of particular importance in the formulation and application of maintenance contracts.

A.5 Recreational Diving Services

A.5.1 EN 14153:2003 Recreational diving services – Safety related minimal requirements for the training of recreational scuba divers (Parts 1, 2 and 3)

This standard specifies a series of requirements for safety practices and the provision of recreational diving services, and establishes minimum requirements for the necessary levels of


experience and competency of scuba divers. It has been produced in three separate Parts, corresponding to three different levels of diving capability:

• Part 1: Level 1 – Supervised Diver

• Part 2: Level 2 – Autonomous Diver

• Part 3: Level 3 – Dive Leader

Each Part of the standard has the same format and presents much the same information, although the detailed minimum requirements increase with the level of diver training covered.

For each level, the standard specifies the competencies that a scuba diver has to have achieved and the level to which divers should be trained in order for a service provider to assess and award the scuba diver certification indicating that he/she has met or exceeded scuba diver level 1, 2 or 3 and that they have sufficient knowledge skills and experience to:

• …dive in open water under the supervision of a dive leader (level 1)

• …dive in open water with other scuba divers of at least the same level in open water without supervision of a scuba instructor (level 2)

• …plan, organise and conduct their dives and lead other recreational scuba divers in open water (level 3)

The sections within the standard cover (i) the conditions under which training has to be provided (including prerequisites for training participation, introductory information to be provided to the trainee and practical training parameters, procedures and activities to be included), and (ii) the competencies of scuba divers assessed (including the required theoretical knowledge and scuba skills of students and details of how these should be assessed).

The standard builds on the general requirements for recreational diving service provision set out within EN 14467 and applies to contractual training and certification in recreational scuba diving. The standard specifies that it represents a tool for the comparison of qualifications of scuba instructors, but that it does not represent a course programme, does not preclude the provision of additional training or the assessment of additional competencies, and cannot substitute for (or impose upon) legal requirements.

A.5.2 EN 14413:2004 Recreational Diving Services - Safety related minimum requirements for the training of scuba instructors (Parts 1 and 2)

This standard specifies a series of requirements for safety practices and the provision of recreational scuba diving services, and establishes minimum requirements for the necessary levels of experience and competency of scuba instructors. It has been produced in two separate Parts (1 and 2), corresponding to two different levels (1 and 2) of diving capability. Both Parts of the standard have the same format and present much the same information, although the detailed minimum requirements increase with the level of training covered.

For each level, the standard specifies the competencies that a scuba instructor has to have achieved and the level to which they should be trained in order for a service provider to assess and award the scuba instructor certification indicating that he/she has met or exceeded scuba instructor level 1 or 2 and that they have been trained and qualified to:

• (Level 1) …teach and assess students up to scuba diver Level 1 (EN 14153) on their theoretical knowledge and practical capabilities in confined water, as well as gain supervised progressive experience in teaching, assessing and evaluating scuba divers at any level

• (Level 2) ...plan, organise and conduct dives and lead other recreational scuba divers of all levels, and to teach and assess students up to scuba diver Level 3 (EN 14153), as well as supervise Level 1 instructors and plan, organise and conduct diver training courses and speciality or diving operational activities

The sections within the standard cover (i) the conditions under which training has to be provided (including prerequisites for training participation, introductory information to be provided to the trainee, practical training parameters, procedures and activities to be included and requirements for instructor-trainers), and (ii) the competencies of scuba instructors assessed (including their


required theoretical knowledge, their personal scuba, theoretical teaching, teaching and supervision of scuba and emergency procedure skills, plus details of how these should be assessed).

The standard builds on the general requirements for recreational diving service provision set out within EN 14467 and applies to contractual training and certification in recreational scuba diving. The standard specifies that it represents a tool for the comparison of qualifications of scuba instructors, but that it does not represent a course programme, does not preclude the provision of additional training or the assessment of additional competencies, and cannot substitute for (or impose upon) legal requirements.

A.5.3 EN 14467:2004 Recreational Diving Services – Requirements for recreational scuba diving service providers

This standard specifies a series of requirements for safety practices and the providers of recreational scuba diving services, and establishes minimum requirements for necessary levels of experience and competency. It forms a key part of a series of related recreational diving services standards, focusing as it does on the service provider and specifying requirements that are common to the provision of recreational diving services (including in the areas of training and certification of divers and instructors, which are the focus of EN 14153 and EN 14413).

The standard identifies performance requirements that recreational scuba diving service providers (e.g. “dive centres”) ought to fulfil and specifies the nature and quality of the contractual provision of services to the client. It covers requirements that apply to all services in general, including the provision of information to clients, conducting risk assessments, ensuring the availability of emergency equipment/procedures and necessary diving equipment, and the maintenance of documentation on staff and clients. It also then sets out requirements that apply to each of the three main areas of service provision. Namely:

• Training and education (covering locations and staff qualifications),

• Organised and guided diving for certified divers (covering preparatory activities, locations and staff/client qualifications),

• Rental of diving equipment (covering advice, inspection, staff/client qualifications, knowledge and competency).

The standard notes that standardisation is important for recreational activities such as diving, for which training and experience are essential for participants to be able to carry out the activity safely and where potentially hazardous risks to participants can be easily reduced to acceptable levels by the adoption of appropriate precautions.

A.6 Translation services

A.6.1 EN 15038:2006 Translation services – service requirements

This standard establishes and defines a set of requirements for the provision of quality services by translation service providers. It encompasses the core translation process and all other related aspects involved in providing the service, including quality assurance and traceability.

The standard offers the translation service provider and their clients a description and definition of the entire service, as well as supplying the provider with a set of procedures and requirements to meet market needs. These minimum requirements for the translation service provider are specified across three main areas, as follows:

• Basic requirements for the provider – covering human resources (management, competencies and staff development), technical resources (appropriate equipment), quality management systems (quality monitoring, corrective action, data handling), and project management

• The client- provider relationship – covering requirements for documented and appropriate procedures and processes for handling enquiries, determining feasibility, preparing quotations, entering into agreements, invoicing and payment

• Procedures in translation services – covering compliance with agreements and customer requests, setting minimum requirements for project set-up (management, preparation, registration, assignment and technical resources) and for the translation process itself (translation, checking, revision, reviewing, proof reading and final verification).


The standard also states that conformity assessment and certification based on the document are envisaged.

ISO decided in April 2011 to start the development of an International Standard on translation services on the basis of the current European Standard and taking into account the experience of other countries with their own national standards on this subject. CEN has therefore recently decided to revise EN 15038 in the framework of a parallel ISO/CEN procedure (Vienna agreement) under ISO lead and therefore in the future there will probably be one common International and European Standard on the subject.

A.7 Freight transportation services

A.7.1 CEN/TR 14310:2002 Freight transportation services – declaration and reporting of environmental performance in freight transport chains

This Technical Report (TR) provides a basic guideline for preparing and reporting environmental declarations relating to freight transport services, and specifically for the content and structure of such a declaration.

The guidelines are intended to be used for delivering transport data for the environmental reporting processes that will increasingly become management activities within companies over coming years (e.g. data for green accounting, environmental declarations, certification, life cycle analysis, key performance indicators, environmental benchmarking and environmental labelling). It can be applied to any mode or relevant combination of transport modes within a goods transport chain, and is targeted at information exchange within companies, between companies and from companies to authorities.

The TR guidelines recommend the minimum elements of information that should be included within a declaration of energy consumption and exhaust emissions, including basic generic elements (weight/dimensions, distance, emissions and data sources) and elements relevant to different modes of transport (road, rail, sea and inland navigation). The annexes to the report also provide examples of declarations of fuel and energy consumption and exhaust emissions, based on an application of the TR recommendations, for both road transport and for multimodal transport (including multiple vehicles).

Whilst the TR represents a guideline for the presentation of data and the sources of data used for calculating environmental performance, it does not specify which models or methods should be used. The report notes that in order to properly include transportation within the different declaration and reporting of environmental performance activities of companies, it is necessary for there to be a common international and multimodal harmonised standard or guideline to facilitate easy and foolproof calculations, flows of information and declarations/reports of environmental performance in goods transport. This TR represents a step towards fulfilling this need. However, to make it easier to analyse environmental performance of goods transport in the future, the TR notes that further development of standardised models and methods for simulation of emissions should be made.

A.8 Public passenger transport

A.8.1 EN 13816:2002 Transportation – Logistics and services – public passenger transport – service quality definition, targeting and measurement

This standard specifies requirements in order to be able to define, target and measure quality of service in public passenger transport and provides guidance for the selection of related measurement methods that can be used. Its main purpose is to promote a quality approach to public transport operations and focus interest on customers’ needs and expectations. It does so by specifying procedures that are most likely to:

• Draw the attention of the responsible parties to matters to be considered,

• Promote the translation of customer expectations and perceptions of quality into viable, measurable and manageable parameters,

• Lead to relevant and well-founded decisions, particularly relating to the allocation of responsibilities,


• Enable customers, and others, to reliably compare service quality claims between alternative suppliers, and

• Contribute to the implementation of a process of continuous improvement.

The standard is intended to be adopted and used primarily by public passenger transport service providers in the presentation and monitoring of their services. However, the standard is also recommended for use by authorities and agencies responsible for the procurement of public passenger transport services, both in the preparation of invitations to tender and in contractual situations (e.g. where the service is required to be provided in accordance with this standard).

For service providers, the standard outlines requirements for service quality that will permit full compliance with the standard, including aspects of compliance, quality management and service quality definition. The benefits of complying with the standard include that:

• It will assist service providers in the provision of public passenger transport that will more closely align with the expectations of their customers, and

• It will lead to an improved ability to allocate available resources to the tasks most likely to produce added customer satisfaction and therefore revenue to the service providers.

Where two or more parties share responsibility for quality criteria in accordance with an agreement (rather than a single operator carrying sole responsibility), the standard also includes recommendations for the preferred form and contents of agreements regarding quality between these parties, guidelines for the allocation of responsibilities for the relevant quality parameters and recommendations for the measurement of service quality.

For those organisations procuring public passenger transport services, the application of the standard is intended to bring benefits during tendering, because:

• Providers will be able to understand what is required of them more readily, particularly because of the use of standard terms and definitions for quality criteria, and

• Providers will be certain that all quality criteria not mentioned in the tender document will not be their responsibility and they may therefore do not need to add a contingency allowance to a bid to cover implicit responsibilities that may be a matter of national or local tradition.

A.8.2 EN 15140:2006 Public passenger transport – basic requirements and recommendations for systems that measure delivered service quality

This standard is designed to assist in the application of EN 13816 (service quality definition, targeting and measurement) for the measurement of ‘delivered service quality’ in public passenger transport services.

The measurement of delivered quality is based around a four-step process, consisting of the selection of quality criterion, a process of measurement, the quantitative expression of quality resulting from this process and a resulting level of achievement. The selection of quality criteria and appropriate measures may both reflect and determine targeted quality, while the validity of the measurement is affected both by design and conduct. This standard is therefore intended to help construct the measurement system and to help understand and reduce the causes of bias that any system of measurement may introduce.

The standard provides basic requirements and recommendations for the systems that measure delivered service quality, including:

• The design of a measurement system – how the customer viewpoint is assessed, considering different means and methods, looking at best practice, considering precision versus cost, sampling issues, statistical reliability, transparency, verifiable results

• Conducting the measurement of service quality – organisational arrangements, how data collection is performed, how the number of customers is calculated/estimated, how the data is processed, inspections and audits

It then provides a lengthy annex of examples of the different types of measurement possible to illustrate measurement systems that are in compliance with the basic requirements and recommendations set out above. Each example provides the name of the measured criterion, the


link to quality categories set out in EN 13816, and details of the design and conduct of the measurement method.

A.9 Transport Quality Management Systems

A.9.1 EN 12507:2005 Transportation services – Guidance notes on the application of EN ISO 9001:2000 to the road transportation, storage, distribution and railway goods industries

This European Standard is in fact a guidance note on the application of an ISO standard (EN ISO 9001 – ‘Quality management systems – requirements’) to the provision of freight transportation services by road and rail (including storage and distribution activities). It is designed to provide guidelines and additional information that should assist in the use and application of ISO 9001 in this context, but not to add any further requirements. In addition, where it was felt that no further guidance was required (above and beyond the ISO document), this is stated and no further information given in that sub-section.

The standard explains that the introduction of the broad ISO quality management requirements standard to an organisation providing national or international goods transport services by road or rail can present difficulties, because:

• Those applying the standard in this sector may be unused to applying such systems to a service environment, and

• The common split of responsibility for various elements of the transport process can make it difficult to identify how far quality management systems can be expected to apply

The EN guidance note seeks to resolve these difficulties by highlighting those clauses of the ISO standard where differences of application (i.e. between the more usual production environment and that of transport services) are likely to be found and by indicating what additional actions or precautions should be taken to ensure that the resulting quality management system is effective.

The guidance note covers the same areas as the ISO standard (relating to quality management systems, management responsibility, resource management, product realisation and measurement, analysis and improvement), but focuses much of its guidance on the planning realisation process sections and particularly in explaining what is meant by the term ‘product’ in this context.

A.9.2 EN 12798:2007 Transport quality management system – Road, rail and inland navigation transport – quality management system requirements to supplement EN ISO 9001 for the transport of dangerous good with regard to safety

This standard specifies quality management system requirements for the management of quality and safety in the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and navigation. The standard is supplementary to EN ISO 9001:2000, and throughout provides references to the applicable section of this standard. Many sub-sections of the standard provide a reference to the ISO standard only, while others contain one or more extra requirements, additional to those of the relevant ISO section.

The standard covers five main areas of quality management and sets additional requirements in each of these areas:

• Quality management systems – the standard sets requirements for the production and availability of information and documentation, such as company profiles, organisational charts and proof of insurance

• Management responsibility – the standard requires the company to document its quality and safety documents, ensure the clear allocation of responsibility/authority and maintain internal safety communication

• Resource management – the standard states that ISO requirements relating to competence, awareness and training should also cover refresher training, recruitment and selection of personnel and temporary staff

• Product realisation – the standard sets out requirements for subcontracting, maintenance, operating instructions and procedures, securing loads and operating transport, and for the proper management and use of personal protective equipment


• Measurement, analysis and improvement – the standard sets additional requirements for the monitoring and measurement of product, the control of non-conforming product and corrective action procedures

A.10 Transport service logistics

A.10.1 EN 13011:2000 Transportation services – Goods transport chains – Systems for declaration of performance conditions

This European Standard defines a system and set of requirements for the declaration of (quality) performance conditions within the goods transport services chain. It is intended to be a tool for the definition, declaration and control of services within the chain and establishes a means whereby service providers can set out specific data with regard to performance criteria relevant to the service that they are providing. It can therefore be used by both shippers and providers, within the framework of their contractual relationship, in order to define and declare the relevant performance conditions.

The standard requires that the service provider of transport services define the extent of their responsibility within the transport chain, determine quality criteria applicable to these stages and prepare a written declaration of these processes. A table of quality criteria is provided in the standard from which the service provider can select relevant elements to the transport chain for which the declaration is being prepared. It includes various performance elements (e.g. transportation, delivery times, air pressure, vibration, etc.) and the relevant means of verification applicable to each element (quality control systems, confirmed receipt or conformity to another EN). The standard then defines the equipment and procedures to be used for the verification of different performance elements (e.g. the type of temperature sensors to be used and the method of measuring temperature). The service provider is required by the standard to submit details on the frequency and method of measurement within their declaration, and be able to produce the original verification on request. The annex to the standard then provides an example of a suitable form of performance declaration.

One purpose of this standard is to facilitate the provision of information by the transport industry so as to assist shippers to meet their obligations under the Directive of Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EF). It is therefore intended that the standard will enable shippers/packers to adequately plan their requirements and to meet their obligations under the packaging and packaging waste directive.

A.10.2 EN 13876:2002 Transport - Logistics and Services - Goods transport chains - Code of practice for the provision of cargo transport services

This standard represents a Code of Practice, designed to assist customers, carriers and freight arrangers to identify best operating practices that can minimise errors and reduce claims of loss and/or damage to cargo (while operating in conjunction with existing customs of trade and commerce).

The Code is primarily intended for use by service providers and focuses on defining the principles, best practices and obligations of the provider in the provision of cargo transport services. However, the standard is also intended as a general guidance document for purchasers of transport services (i.e. customers) and provides advice at various points as to the customer’s responsibilities and how they can contribute to facilitating the most effective outcome.

The standard specifies the management controls and key performance indicators necessary for the effective and efficient management of customer’s cargo throughout the transportation process. This covers the responsibilities of providers in terms of their:

• Control of the service – the provider’s responsibilities for understanding and providing appropriate documentation, contracts, storage and transport, plus appropriate systems for loss/damage identification and subcontracting,

• Management of quality – the provider’s responsibilities for appropriate management systems being in place that meet the requirements of an appropriate standard,

• Performance management – the provider’s responsibilities for suitable and appropriate packaging, preparation, dispatch and transport (conditions), with appropriate systems in place for quality planning, subcontractors and proof of delivery.


In addition, the Code of Practice strongly recommends that the service provider carry out regular self-assessment of performance against defined criteria, with the objective of continually improving the quality of services provided. The Code is prepared in a manner that seeks to facilitate independent audit of the service provider’s performance in order to give confidence to customers that the integrity of performance measurement is maintained.

A.10.3 EN 14892:2005 Transport services - City logistics - Guideline for the definition of limited access to city centres

This standard describes possible restrictions on access to city centres, shopping areas and other closed areas within cities, and provides guidelines for the design and definition of such restrictions. It is intended to serve as a code of practice that can be applied if and when efficient transport and protection of the environment creates a need for limiting access.

Several authorities have already implemented restrictions for vehicular access to city centres or are planning to do so in order to tackle concerns over heavy traffic, bottlenecks, pollution and other issues relating to the city environment. This may cause problems for transport service providers, because:

• Different kinds of limitations on freight transportation in different cities and countries can result in problems for road transport companies when organising efficient freight transport in Europe

• As many companies – local and foreign – interact in these system of restriction, it is important that all stakeholders are able to understand and interact within each local system equally

• In order to fully benefit from an open European market for transport, it is necessary to limit restrictions to a certain framework with the same terminology and performance criteria.

The standard sets out a number of recommendations. It states that if limited restrictions are introduced and / or enforced in cities and other closed areas, they should be designed based on a defined list of elements and restrictions. These include the weight and dimensions of vehicles, time windows, the technical construction of vehicles, vehicle performance, payment systems, and advantages for special vehicles (e.g. bus lanes or loading areas).

The document addresses each of these possible elements in turn and provides recommendations and guidance for the content and structure of any restrictions being developed. These include recommending that certain limitations be based on directives or regulations already in place, that specific quantitative measures be used, that restrictions should be clearly defined and that allowances should be in place for specific circumstances and specific vehicles. The standard also provides requirements for providing information on restrictions to the public and provides an example of a declaration of restrictions to defined areas as a guide.

A.10.4 EN 14943:2005 Transport services - Logistics - Glossary of terms

This standard establishes definitions for over 1,200 commonly used terms in logistics, encompassing all aspects of logistics and supply chain management, including transport. Terms are defined with reference to the needs of commercial organisations, although most of the definitions are also appropriate for non-commercial use.

For ease of use, terms are presented in alphabetical order, with no attempt to relate them to any particular function within the logistics concept. However the annex contains a proposed structure for a logistics system, where many of the logistics terms are presented within a framework (e.g. distinguishing between approaches and fields of application).

The standard notes that logistics is a highly important function of every organisation dealing with physical goods (and many of those that do not). In order to make logistics work effectively along the physical and information chains of supply, delivery and planning, it uses a number of terms that, while in frequent use, are rarely fully defined. The wider dissemination of logistics concepts has also brought about the creation of new terms and changes in meaning of older terms. It is also important for terms to be commonly understood throughout Europe. The development of a glossary of terms is therefore an important and needed development.


Appendix B Topic guide for case study interviews

1. Basic information about your company and its operations

• Year established? • Number of employees? • Turnover? • Growth in turnover? • Number of customers? • Part of any larger group? • Main business functions (what do you do)? • Main customer base (who do you provide services to)? • What is your current role within the company? • How long have you been with the company? • Does your organisation belong to any professional / trade bodies? Which ones?

2. Your perceptions of standards / standardisation (prior to development and use)

• How much did you know about standards before you began developing / using them? • What were your main perceptions, good and bad? • What did you expect the business benefits of the standard(s) to be?

− Run through list of benefits (from survey) • What concerns did you have (cost, time, constraints, etc.) about developing or using standards?

− Run through list of barriers / fears (from survey)

3. Your role in developing the standard

• What was the need for a standard? • Where did the demand come from? • Who were the champions? • Were there any previous (formal or informal) standards in place? If so, why were more formal

European standards needed? • How did you first become involved in the development of the standard? • What was your role? • Were you able to influence the standard to ensure it met your needs? • What were the main benefits of participating in the development stage? • What problems did you encounter? • What could the standardisation bodies do to improve business participation in the standards

development process?

4. How your organisation has implemented the standard and how it is used

• When did you first implement the standard in question? • What does the standard cover in terms of your own business operations? • How has it been implemented internally? Who has been involved? What changes have been

involved? • What functions / processes have had to change / improve in order for you to meet the

standard? • Do you meet all the requirements / guidelines of the standard? Have you been audited? • How do your customers know about the standard? • Do you use any other standards? Which ones? Since when?

5. The benefits and impacts of the standard to your organisation (main focus)


• How has implementation of the standard helped to improve your business operations? • How has the fact that you meet the standard improved the service you provide to your

customers? • How has the fact that you meet the standard improved your position in the market place? • Which of the following benefits have you realised (say something about each….)?

− Improved service quality − Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers − Increased transparency of the services provided − Improved common definitions / terminology − Improved contractual relationships − Improved use of performance indicators − Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements − Improved ability to meet legislative / regulatory requirements − Improved ability to export services (cross-border trade) − Increased market share − Increased profitability − Improved ability to compare different service offers / providers − Improved confidence in service providers − Increased customer satisfaction

• Is there any evidence that your customers use compliance with the standard as part of their selection criteria / procurement process?

• Do you advertise that you meet the standard? Do you know whether this influences customers’ purchasing decisions?

• Anything else on benefits?

6. Any known benefits or impacts on other organisations (e.g. your suppliers, customers, etc. - another main focus)

• Have the standards been of benefit to other organisations within your supply chain (e.g. suppliers, subcontractors)? If so, who and how?

• How do other types of organisation benefit? • What about consumers?

7. Your perceptions of standards / standardisation now (after development and use)

• How has your involvement in standards and standardisation influenced your original perceptions? (refer back to Q2)

• Would you recommend standards development / use to others? Under what circumstances? • What should other sectors / companies do to work out whether standards can help them? • What should the standardisation bodies do to work out which sectors / areas would benefit

from service standards? • How can other agents help to promote encourage standards development / use in relation to

services?

8. Any lessons learnt in the development / implementation of the standard

• Are there any lessons you have learned that other companies could benefit from − In relation to the standards you have developed / use? − More generally, as regards European standards and the standards development process?

• What advice would you give to others thinking about whether to develop service standards in their own areas of operations?


Appendix C Questionnaire survey (English version)

CEN ServicesCEN ServicesCEN ServicesCEN Services

This survey forms part of a study commissioned by CEN – the European Committee for Standardisation. The objective of the study is to measure levels of awareness and use of European standards in different service sectors, and to identify the main benefits that service standards create for service providers and their customers. In addition, the study aims to understand the barriers that prevent or limit the use of standards within service sectors. The term 'standards' is used in the questionnaire in relation to documents of a voluntary character developed by recognised standardisation bodies at European and / or national level. There are 22 questions in our survey and we estimate that it should take no more than 1520 minutes for you to complete the questionnaire. If you have any questions about the study or experience any difficulties completing the questionnaire please contact the project manager: James Stroyan Technopolis Ltd Tel +44.1273.204320 Email – james.stroyan@technopolisgroup.com Your input to the study is greatly appreciated.

1. Questionnaire for CEN services study


1. Which type of organisation are you responding on behalf of?

2. Which of the following service areas does your organisation operate in?

3. In which country are you based?

2. About your organisation

Private company with <250 employees

nmlkj

Private company with 250+ employees

nmlkj

National trade / industry association

nmlkj

European trade / industry association

nmlkj

Public body

nmlkj

University or research institute

nmlkj

Other

nmlkj

(please specify)

Funerals

gfedc

Maintenance

gfedc

Removals / storage

gfedc

Tourism

gfedc

Translation

gfedc

Transport

gfedc

Other

gfedc

(please specify)


4. Have you previously heard of CEN – the European Committee for Standardisation?

5. Do you know the name of the National Standardisation Body that develops standards in your country?

6. Are you aware of any European or national standards that can be used by service providers in your sector?

7. Are you aware of any codes of conduct or codes of practice that can be used by service providers in your sector?

8. Does your own organisation use any standards? (please tick all that apply)

3. Awareness of standards

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes, I am aware of European standards relevant to my sector

gfedc

Yes, I am aware of National standards relevant to my sector

gfedc

No, I am not aware of any standards relevant to my sector

gfedc

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes, my organisation uses one or more European standards

gfedc

Yes, my organisation uses one or more national standards

gfedc

Yes, my organisation uses one or more codes of conduct / practice

gfedc

No, my organisation does not use any standards or codes of conduct / practice

gfedc

If you use any European or national standard please name them


9. What are the main benefits to your own organisation from the service standards that you use? Please indicate below the extent to which your organisation obtains each of the listed benefits.

10. Are any of the standards you use employed within procurement processes?

11. Are any of the standards you use referenced by national authorities in legislation?

12. When advertising its services does your own organisation highlight or feature its use of standards?

13. If you know of any other significant benefits that service providers or their customers gain from using service standards please describe these below

4. Benefits obtained from the use of standards

Not a benefitA minor benefit

A major benefit

Improved service quality nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved ability to demonstrate service quality to customers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Increased transparency of the services provided nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved common definitions / terminology nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved contractual relationships nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved use of performance indicators nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved ability to meet health and safety requirements nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved ability to meet legislative / regulatory requirements nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved ability to export services (crossborder trade) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Increased market share nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Increased profitability nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Improved ability to compare different service offers / providers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Increased confidence in service providers nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Increased customer satisfaction nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66

Yes

nmlkj No

nmlkj Unsure

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj No

nmlkj Unsure

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj No

nmlkj Unsure

nmlkj

CEN ServicesCEN ServicesCEN ServicesCEN Services14. If your organisation has benefited from the use of service standards, would you be willing to feature in a case study? If so, please provide us with your contacts details including name, organisation and email address. We will then contact you to discuss what might be involved Your name

Your organisation

Your email address

Your telephone number


15. To what extent do you believe that the following factors act as barriers to the development and use of service standards within your sector?

16. If there are any other significant barriers to the development or use of standards in your sector please describe these below

5. Barriers to the development and use of standards

Not a barrierA minor barrier

A major barrier

Lack of awareness of the possibility to develop and use standards nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of experience in developing standards nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of understanding of the general benefits of service standards nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of understanding of the specific benefits that standards could bring to your sector nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of time to be involved and influence the development of standards nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of technical capability to be involved and influence the development of standards nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Concerns that standards will be costly to develop nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Concerns that standards will be costly to purchase nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Concerns that standards will be costly to implement / use nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Concerns that standardisation will be used to ‘normalise’ or fix service quality, forcing companies to compete mainly on price

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The availability of existing nonformal standards (e.g. codes of practice) nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The existence of existing legislation or regulations governing the provision of services nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Lack of mechanisms to bring companies together to discuss opportunities and the benefits of standardisation

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

55

66


17. Are you aware of any current (i.e. ongoing) work to develop new standards within your sector?

If yes, please provide a brief description of these standards

18. Are you aware of any future plans to develop new standards within your sector?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the planned standardisation work

19. Are you able to identify any areas where you feel standards could be useful to service providers in your sector?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the areas or aspects that would benefit from standardisation

20. Are you able to identify any areas where you feel standards could be useful to service users (i.e. customers) in your sector?

If yes, please provide a brief description of the areas or aspects that would benefit from standardisation

6. Future opportunities for standardisation in your sector

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj

Yes

nmlkj

No

nmlkj


21. What are the most important actions that standardisation bodies should take to help service providers or users to benefit more from standards?

22. Please provide any additional comments you may have concerning service standards that you feel is relevant

7. Conclusions

55

66

55

66

technopolis |group| United Kingdom 3 Pavilion Buildings Brighton BN1 1EE United Kingdom T +44 1273 204320 F +44 1273 747299 E [email protected] www.technopolis-group.com

CEN Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users

Business

Transcript of CEN Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users