Customer Survey Analysis

7/27/2019 Customer Survey Analysis

1/39

EXPORT CONTROL

ORGANISATION

Customer SatisfactionSurvey 2010 AnalysisReport

OCTOBER 2010


2/39

Contents

CONTENTS.......................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................3

1. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................5

2. RESPONSES.................................................................................................5

3. RESULTS .....................................................................................................6

3.1 Overall Satisfaction ...........................................................................................................................6

3.2 Customer Overview ..........................................................................................................................6

3.2.1 Types of customers.......................................................................................................................6

3.2.2 Size of organisation .....................................................................................................................7

3.2.3 Job Roles .....................................................................................................................................7

3.2.4 Knowledge and Level of Interaction with ECO...........................................................................8

3.2.4.1 Further analysis and comparison of customer knowledge depending on size and nature of

business.................................................................................................................................... ......... ....8

3.2.4.2 Analysis of how customers determine need for a licence ........................................................9

3.3 Customer opinion and expectations of our service delivery performance...................................9

3.3.1 Satisfaction with service provided by ECO Staff.........................................................................93.3.2 Opinion of response to delay in licence processing in case of significant delay.......................10

3.3.3 Customer Expectations of Licence Processing Timescales and Communication......................11

3.3.4 Customer Expectations depending on type of customer............................................................12

3.3.5 Satisfaction with ECO communications ....................................................................................13

3.3.6 Satisfaction with the SPIRE system ..........................................................................................14

3.3.7 Satisfaction with ECO services and information ......................................................... .......... ..14

3.3.8 Opinion on ECOs handling of customer complaints................................................................15

3.4 Suggested Service Improvements...................................................................................................16

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS................................17

4.1 Immediate Service Improvements..................................................................................................17

4.2 Action Plan for further service developments...............................................................................17

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2010 ACTION PLAN...................18

APPENDICES..................................................................................................26

Appendix A Charts ............................................................................................................................26

Appendix B Sample cross-section of comments ..............................................................................34

Appendix C Customer Survey Questions.........................................................................................36

ECO Customer Satisfaction Page 2 of 39 October 2010Report URN 10/1198


3/39

Executive Summary

Background context

The Export Control Organisation (ECO), part of the Department for BusinessInnovation and Skills (BIS), provides the UKs statutory strategic exportlicensing service. This is a requirement for the export or trade in military anddual-use items, in line with the UKs international commitments.

The ECO is responsible for processing licence applications balancing theneed for a fast and efficient service for exporters with the need to conductappropriate checks and assessments.

One of the similarities between government and the private sector is thatneither can survive without customers. Most successful businesses have

learned that their survival depends on knowing what their customers need andthe level of service that they expect. The same holds true for the public sector.Customers of public sector organisations, such as the ECO are coming toexpect a high level of service and professionalism for their taxes.

The ECO works hard to provide the best possible licensing service, within thelegal constraints that the service operates. Within this context, it is recognisedthat excellent customer service is about learning from customers. TheCustomer Satisfaction Survey is one of the main mechanisms of gettingfeedback from users of the service.

Main feedback

Results from the 2010 Survey show that:

Overall satisfaction with the ECO is high with 67% of surveyrespondents expressing satisfaction with the ECOs services.

Other key insights gained from the survey include:

Staff are appreciated and valued for delivering a professional service.

Respondents rated staff as courteous (84% satisfaction), helpful (73%

satisfaction) and knowledgeable (63% satisfaction) SPIRE (ECOs licensing database) is judged to be easy to use (75%

satisfaction)

The licensing process in general is communicated well (64%

satisfaction)

The final licensing decision is communicated clearly (87% satisfaction)

Customers are informed and aware of licensing terms and conditions

and their responsibilities as licence holders (87% satisfaction)

Dissatisfaction is often linked to experiences and perceptions of

processing specific licence applications. Only 4% of respondents are

strongly dissatisfied with ECOs services, but this rises to 21% of thosewho have not had a satisfactory response to a significant licensing



4/39

delay. These dissatisfaction levels are less marked in the case of moreexperienced ECO customers, but it is an issue for all categories ofcustomers.

The survey also provided customers with the opportunity to raise comments.As a result, a number of suggested service improvements have been provided

which can be broadly grouped into the following categories: Speed of Licence Processing Timescales and Targets

Communication about the progress/delay in licence processing

Relationship Management of companies

Consistency of Licensing Advice

Open Licensing

Charging

Guidance issues and customer training needs

Improving the ECO Helpline

Improving the ECO Website

Improving the Checker Tools Improving the usability of SPIRE

Tone and attitude of customer communications

Staff Knowledge

Staffing Levels

ECO Response

In response to this feedback the ECO is now actively taking a number of stepsincluding:

Immediate Service Improvements

Some ongoing changes that we have implemented since the 2010 CustomerSurvey was issued, in order to improve the ECOs service are:

Issued update guidance about End-User Undertakings including

providing an EUU Checklist form

Reviewing with industry the content and usefulness of information

available on the ECO pages of the Businesslink website.

Highlighting average time frames for licence processing of specific

destinations (such as embargoed countries) in the Awareness Bulletin). Development of additional open licences for less sensitive goods and

destinations.

Action Plan for further service improvements

We have devised an Action Plan to address other areas where either specificaction is already planned or in progress and also recognising areas wherethere is scope for further investigation.



5/39

1. Background

This is a results summary of the 2010 Customer Satisfaction Surveyconducted by the Export Control Organisation (ECO), part of the Department

for Business, Innovation and Skills. The summary is for internal ECO use only.Once the internal version has been agreed, a sanitised version will beproduced, in consultation with LCG and Policy Unit, for publication on theECO website.

As the UKs licensing authority for strategic export controls, the ECO has tobalance regulatory requirements with the needs of a diverse range ofcustomers whose products are controlled and therefore require a licence forexport purposes.

As a service delivery organisation, the ECO is conscious of its remit to

customers and continuously looks to improve, where possible, within theregulatory constraints of the export licensing system.

In this context, the ECO Customer Satisfaction Survey forms a vital aspect ofECOs engagement and efforts to understand our customer needs and how toimprove as a service, providing excellent value to both exporters and to thewider general public.

The 2010 survey was run from the end of January to April 2010.

Its launch introduced a number of changes to the way previous surveys hadbeen conducted making it difficult to make direct correlations with previousoutcomes. First, the questions have been extensively revamped since the lasttime the survey was conducted in Spring 2007. Second, the survey was alsoconducted for the first time via ECOs export licensing database called SPIRE,which is the system used by customers to make licence applications. Thismeant that the survey was directly targeted at ECOs customer base oflicence applicants

2. ResponsesThe survey was issued directly via the SPIRE database into exporter applicantworkbaskets. Details of the survey questions are atAppendix C.

Distributing the survey via SPIRE meant that a questionnaire was issuedautomatically to a licence applicant, triggered by the final licensing decisionwhen applying for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs). Additionally,the survey was also forwarded on request to individual exporters whichpotentially enabled ECO to issue the survey to our wider customer base ofOpen General Licence (OGEL) applicants.



6/39

As a result the survey was issued directly into 1618 individual workbasketsduring the survey period (January to April 2010). A total of 657 individualsresponded (with an additional 44 people declining to participate).

This meant that the survey resulted in a return rate of 41%, which werecognise is extremely high for these types of surveys. For instance, it

compares to a return rate of 33% for the 2007 ECO Customer SatisfactionSurvey. This could be due to a number of reasons, such as the high levels ofengagement that we endeavour to have with industry and other stakeholders,because respondents want to provide more feedback or as a result of the newsurvey distribution method via the SPIRE system.

The method of distributing the survey means that there is an element of self-selection in the responses received, which mean that the responses are notfully representative. However, given the large response rate the responsesprovide a very good indication of areas for improvement.

3. Results3.1 Overall Satisfaction

Respondents have a broadly positive opinion of the ECO. 54% (agree) and13% (strongly agree) with the statement I am satisfied with the overall servicelevel ECO provides. This corresponds to a large majority (67%) of

respondents who have a positive attitude to the ECOs service provision. (SeeQuestion 8).

This high satisfaction level is testament to the way ECO operates in a highlycomplex service delivery area balancing the needs of exporters in sellingand delivering products quickly and efficiently while meeting the UKsinternational obligations and EU and national legislation surrounding sensitiveand strategic goods exports.

3.2 Customer Overview

In order to gain a better insight into the nature of our customers, the surveyasked all respondents about their business, size of organisation theirorganisational role and their knowledge and level of interaction with ECO.

3.2.1 Types of customers

ECOs customers operate across a wide range of sectors and industries.Given the wide range of items that are subject to controls as listed on the UK

Strategic Export Control Lists, this is unsurprising.



7/39

The survey indicates that a large proportion of our respondents are from thedefence (19%) and aerospace (15%) industries and 19% of respondents aremanufacturers.

Beyond these sectors that are perhaps most associated with the need forexport controls, the survey confirms the diversity of ECOs customer base.

ECOs customers include a large proportion of so called dual-use companies(in other words companies making products for both civilian and militarymarkets). For instance, ECO customers operate in a range of industries, suchas:

Electrical/Electronic Equipment and Components

Oil and Gas

Chemical

Telecommunications, Computers, IT Services

Transportation Services

Additionally the other category includes exporters from an even broaderrange of sectors as well as individuals (such as military vehicle and firearmsowners and a non-governmental organisation). (See Question 1).

ACTION POINTIn the light of this feedback, the ECO is building on our existingrelationships with trade organisations and also planning to increase ourawareness raising activities in targeted sectors, in co-ordination withrelevant sector organisations.See: AP4b

3.2.2 Size of organisation

This is the first time we have examined the size of companies in our customerbase and the responses to this survey indicate that the vast majority ofrespondents applying for licences are Small and Medium sized Enterprises(SMEs).

40% of ECOs respondents are small companies (with 1 to 49 employees),42% are medium sized enterprises (50 to 499 employees) with only theremaining third working in larger companies of 500 employees. Only 7% ofrespondents have over 2500 employees. (See Question 2)

3.2.3 Job Roles

We also wanted an understanding of who completed the questionnaire. Of allsurvey respondents, 27% were executives or senior managers, 43% were in asupervisory, export control level function and 30% were administrators.

While this is not a scientifically based question, the results indicate that

responsibility for export controls cuts across organisations and in the majority



8/39


9/39

Looking at the results in more detail, 21% of the respondents from thedefence and aerospace sector indicated that their company employed over2500 people. In comparison, the broader results show that only 7% ofrespondents employ over 2500 people.

The results indicate that respondents in these larger companies in the

defence, aerospace and marine sectors were generally either satisfied orhighly satisfied with ECOs service.

3.2.4.2 Analysis of how customers determine need for a licence

The survey also captured customer opinion about how exporters across allsectors decided that a particular transaction needed a licence (See Question7). The responses were suitably diverse, with:

24% saying it was a standard company procedure (indicating that their

company had applied before and was aware of the procedures).

8% sought advice from the ECO Helpline compared to 15% whoaccessed guidance via the ECOs webpages.

20% used the Rating Enquiry Service compared to 19% who self-rated

their goods and 10% who used the Checker Tools databases.

4% said that they obtained information from other sources. This

included advice from ECOs Compliance or Enforcement Teams,advice from shippers, manufactures or suppliers, external exportcompliance consultants or as result of previous experience.

ACTION POINT

We recognise that given our broad customer base, knowledge of ourservice delivery options and offerings will vary widely. We are alsoaware that our customers often have limited resources, time andpressure to deliver to their customers. For these reasons we recognisethat there is scope for the ECO to continue to develop our servicesfurther, such as increasing awareness to companies about the benefitsof self rating their goods using available resources, or to provide bestpractice advice on good company export control practices.See: AP1a

3.3 Customer opinion and expectations of our servicedelivery performance

The core questions (Questions 9 to 14) identified customers attitudes towardsECO in terms of different elements of our service provision.

3.3.1 Satisfaction with service provided by ECO Staff

Customers were asked to rate their opinion of ECO customer service levels interms of defined aspects of customer service including courteousness,

helpfulness, knowledgeableness and promptness of service (See Question 9).The responses indicate:



10/39

23% strongly agreed and 61% agreed that staff were courteous. (87%

satisfaction)

20% strongly agreed and 53% agreed that staff were helpful. (73%

satisfaction)

15% strongly agreed and 48% agreed that staff were knowledgeable.

(63% satisfaction)

11% strongly agreed and 37% agreed that staff delivered a promptservice. (48% satisfaction)

The dip in satisfaction levels for promptness of service is reflected in thegeneral customer comments received about the SPIRE service and keyconcerns about a fast timescale for processing licences.

Due to the nature of the checks and balances required in processing a licenceboth through ECO and in consultation with Other Government Departmentswho are integral to the licensing process, there is always a tension in terms ofcustomer expectations of what constitutes prompt service and the ECOsability to deliver. Faster turnaround times in the past have also increasedcustomer expectations. (See also Section 3.3.3 below)

ACTION POINTWe recognise that we need to continue to build on this range ofcustomer satisfaction feedback. For instance we plan to introduce anupdated Customer Service and Performance Code and to continue toreview our staff training including in customer care and business andexport awareness.See: AP1d, AP1h andAP4e

3.3.2 Opinion of response to delay in licence processing in case ofsignificant delay

Licence processing is probably the most central aspect of service delivery forboth ECO and its customers.

Between 2007 (when SPIRE was launched) and 2010, licence applicationnumbers have continually risen. In 2007, applications for Standard IndividualExport Licences (SIELs) were almost 10,000 per year. In 2010, applications

(as of September 2010) are at over15,000 and rising.

Within this context of increasing licence application numbers, we wanted tobetter understand current customer expectations about licence processing. Inparticular, we asked respondents about their perception of delays in licenceprocessing and a final licensing decision. Respondents were asked if they feltthat they had received a satisfactory explanation with regard to any licenceprocessing delay. (See Question )

A high proportion of respondents indicated that they felt they had not receiveda satisfactory explanation about a licence delay. 17% strongly disagreed and24% disagreed that ECOs response was satisfactory.



11/39

While it should be noted that a satisfactory response is subjective anddepends on individual perceptions, this response does, nevertheless,demonstrate a gap in customer expectations. Indeed, dissatisfaction aboutsignificant delays in licence processing was also reflected in surveycomments received about SPIRE. These were chiefly concerned with thetimescale for processing licences and communication surrounding any delays.

In other aspects, however, respondents considered ECO to be responsive tospecific licensing aspects. For instance, 57% of respondents agreed that ECOstaff responded promptly to concerns from exporters and over 81% ofrespondents were happy with the clarification requests for additionalinformation in support of the licence application.

The ECO acknowledges that the speed of issuing licences is a major factor forapplicants who are seeking to fulfil orders. However exporters should beaware of the procedures for processing an application. Export controlapplications are each assessed against published criteria on a case by case

basis (the published EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria1

).Depending on each specific case, an application may require furtherconsideration beyond existing targets - which are a guide and not an absolutedeadline.

ACTION POINTWe acknowledge that there is a high degree of dissatisfaction with thisaspect of the licensing process and we need to look at further ways toimprove our communications in this specific area. Some of the areas wewill look at will include additional progress information on SPIRE oradditional information about sensitive goods and sensitive destinations

on the website.See: AP1b, AP1c,AP1fand AP4b

3.3.3 Customer Expectations of Licence Processing Timescales andCommunication

Looking at the survey results in more detail, there would seem to be acorrelation between respondent satisfaction levels with explanations fordelays in licence processing and overall satisfaction levels with the

organisation. (Comparison of Questions 8 and 10a).

Customer expectations and perceptions about delays appear to have animpact on customer perceptions and opinions.

Those who felt they did not receive a satisfactory explanation to a significantdelay were more likely to be dissatisfied with ECOs services. Only 35% ofthese respondents were satisfied with the overall service provided (comparedto 53% generally) and 21% expressed strong dissatisfaction (compared toonly 4% generally).

1 See: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.s=tl&r.l1=1079717544&r.lc=en&r.l2=1084228483&topicId=1084563487

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.s=tl&r.l1=1079717544&r.lc=en&r.l2=1084228483&topicId=1084563487http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.s=tl&r.l1=1079717544&r.lc=en&r.l2=1084228483&topicId=1084563487http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.s=tl&r.l1=1079717544&r.lc=en&r.l2=1084228483&topicId=1084563487http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.s=tl&r.l1=1079717544&r.lc=en&r.l2=1084228483&topicId=1084563487http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/layer?r.s=tl&r.l1=1079717544&r.lc=en&r.l2=1084228483&topicId=1084563487


12/39

These same respondents are also less likely to agree that communicationabout the licensing process meets exporter needs. They also:

think that the licensing process is less well communicated (35% agree

compared to 54% generally) and

believe that they are kept less well informed on the progress of specific

applications (5% agree compared to 29% generally).

do not agree that ECO staff respond promptly to queries raised (28%agree compared to 45% generally)

This group is also less likely to judge ECO staff as helpful or knowledgeable.

However on the positive side, they continue to find staff courteous and alsoagree that the final licence decision is communicated clearly with almost thesame level of satisfaction as other respondents who have not experienceddelays. (62% agree compared to 64% generally).

ACTION POINTThere is scope here for improving the ways in which we communicatewith exporters and in some cases our approaches to requestingadditional information. Having said that some of this could be tackled byimproved management of companies expectations including improvededucation about realistic response times in relation to the types ofgoods involved; the destinations of the goods, and end-user issues.See: AP1b, AP1c and AP4b

3.3.4 Customer Expectations depending on type of customer

As outlined in Section 3.1 above, overall satisfaction levels indicate that 54%(agreed) and 13% (strongly agreed) with the statement I am satisfied with theoverall service level ECO provides. (See Question 8).

In comparison, more experienced ECO respondents generally expressedslightly greater overall satisfaction with ECOs customer service (55% agreedand 20% strongly agreed) and also with other specific aspects of our serviceprovision. On the other hand, novice respondents expressed slightly loweroverall satisfaction levels with ECO services (44% agreed and 16% stronglyagreed that they were satisfied with ECOs service).

The differences in opinion and expectation are also reflected in respondentattitudes to communications about the licensing process. 63% of veryexperienced respondents agreed that the licence process in general was wellcommunicated. In comparison, novice respondents were less likely to indicatethat the licence process in general was well communicated (43% agree). Thisdifference in attitudes might stem from lack of knowledge and increasedexpectations about the licensing process from respondents who are lessaware of the licensing process generally.



13/39

ACTION POINTWe recognise that we need to continually find ways to communicate andtarget information to different customer groupings, including novicecustomers.See: AP4a andAP4b

During the past year, our guidance material is now published via theBusinesslink website (http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/exportcontrol) which ismore accessible to small and medium sized businesses. We are alsocontinually working to find fresh avenues to alert new customers to the needto be aware of export controls.

ACTION POINTWe will also look at ways at closer working across units in ECO toidentify those companies who are in need of assistance with a greaterunderstanding of export control processes picked up by ComplianceOfficers; Technical Officers and Licensing Unit.

See: AP4a andAP4b

3.3.5 Satisfaction with ECO communications

The survey also asked customers to assess how well the licensing processwas communicated both in general and specifically. (See Question ). Theresponses indicate:

A majority of respondents judged the ECO to communicate the general

licensing process well - 54% (agree) and 10% (strongly agree) or a

64% satisfaction level. 45% of respondents agreed and 12% strongly agreed that the ECO

provided a prompt response to queries raised by the exporter. (57%satisfaction)

66% agreed and 15% strongly agreed that the communication of

additional information required as part of the licensing process wasclearly communicated (81% satisfaction)

65% agreed and 23% strongly agreed that the final licensing decision

is communicated clearly. (87% satisfaction)

63% agreed and 24% strongly agreed that they were made aware of

the terms and conditions of licences and the responsibilities of holdingan export licence. (87% satisfaction)

Conversely, there were more mixed views in terms of information receivedabout the progress of specific applications with only 29% agreeing (asreferred to in the paragraph on Customer Expectations above).

ACTION POINTThese results relating to satisfaction with communications are veryencouraging, particularly in terms of the final licensing decision andlicence terms and conditions. We acknowledge however, that we have

room for improvement in terms of communications about the progress

http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/exportcontrolhttp://www.businesslink.gov.uk/exportcontrol


14/39

of specific applications, providing a prompt response to queries and thetone of our communications.See: AP1b, AP1d andAP1g

3.3.6 Satisfaction with the SPIRE system

SPIRE is ECOs licence application database and has been in place since2007, replacing the previous paper based and disc based applicationprocesses. SPIRE has the benefit of interfacing with the HMRC CHIEFsystem and is a one-stop-shop approach to automatic decrementation andvalidation of export licences at the UK border.

Most respondents indicated that they find SPIRE is easy to use - 54% agreeand 21% strongly agree (75% satisfaction level). This figure dips only slightlyfor respondents who categorised themselves as novices in terms of dealingwith ECO. (See Question )

In conjunction with this question, the survey also asked customers if theythought that there was adequate guidance and support available for SPIREusers (See Question 12). The responses indicate that 58% agreed and 13%strongly agreed that there was sufficient guidance and support available. Thisfeedback mirrors the fact that the SPIRE system is generally judged to be ausable and straightforward IT system.

Customers were also invited to provide comments and suggestionsspecifically about the SPIRE system. On the whole these comments supportthe view that SPIRE is a good, workable system for exporters to use. Forinstance comments include The SPIRE process is generally very good andeasy to use and SPIRE is a good tool to use. Most comments focused onsuggestions for further improving the system by added functionality, such asproviding greater progress updates, more template options and amending theuser interface and input screens.

ACTION POINTIt is encouraging to see SPIRE is considered to be a good, workablesystem by most exporters and a definite improvement on previousapplication methods. We will continue to review and assess SPIREs

functionality in conjunction with industry and where funding permits, tocontinue to upgrade the system.See: AP1f

3.3.7 Satisfaction with ECO services and information

Responses were also sought on other services provided by the ECO includingthe website, helpline, training and seminar programme, Checker Tools,Notices to Exporters and the Businesslink website. (See Question )

63% agreed and 10% strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the

ECO website. (73% satisfaction)



15/39


16/39

respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that their complaint washandled well. In comparison 8% indicated that they were less satisfied.

ACTION POINTWe value all feedback including complaints and we plan to issue revisedguidance so that all customers are clear about our complaints handling

procedure.See: AP4e

3.4 Suggested Service Improvements

Respondents were also invited to include comments on improving both theSPIRE export licensing system and ECOs services more generally. Bothquestions generated a large amount of feedback suggestions, which can begrouped as follows:

Speed of Licence Processing Timescales and Targets

Communication about the progress/delay in licence processing

Relationship Management of companies

Consistency of Licensing Advice

Open Licensing

Charging

Guidance issues and customer training needs

Improving the ECO Helpline

Improving the ECO Website

Improving the Checker Tools

Improving the usability of SPIRE Tone and attitude of customer communications

Staff Knowledge

Staffing Levels

Most feedback comments were centred on two aspects in particular - thespeed of licence processing and communications about the progress or delayof specific licence applications.

There were also a large number of suggestions for SPIRE improvements.

(See Section 3.3.6 above)

For a flavour of some of the comments received, seeAppendix B belowtogether with a brief response.

We are committed within ECO to Customer Service Excellence and arelooking into whether we can build these requirements for improved serviceinto our systems and processes (as outlined in the Action Plan below).



17/39

4. Conclusions and Responseto Comments

We greatly welcome all customers taking the time to give feedback since itprovides us with valuable information about our service, insight into customerperceptions and expectations and what we can do to continue to develop theECO as a service delivery organisation.

The results are used by us in a number of ways:

By informing and training staff about our customers.

By identifying areas of our service which still need to be improved.

As explained above, this is the first survey that the ECO has conducted since2007, during which time the survey has been extensively amended and

external factors such as a large increase in licence applications may have hadan impact on the results too. It is therefore difficult to directly compare andprovide a benchmark with levels of satisfaction with previous surveys. Despitethis, it is useful to summarise just a few of the improvements made inresponse to the 2007 survey, including:

Reintroduction of the ECO helpline

Providing contact details of Licensing Case Officers on SPIRE

More use of voicemail and email systems

Customer service training for staff

These previous service changes demonstrate that we are continually lookingto improve and develop our services, where possible. This continues with ourresponse to the 2010 survey as follows:

4.1 Immediate Service Improvements

Since the 2010 Customer Survey was issued, we have taken or are taking anumber of actions to improve the ECOs service including:

Issued updated guidance about End-User Undertakings including

providing an EUU Checklist form

Reviewing with industry the content and usefulness of information

available on the ECO pages of the Businesslink website.

Highlighting average timeframes for licence processing of specific

destinations (such as embargoed countries) in the Awareness Bulletin).

Development of additional open licences for less sensitive goods and

destinations.

4.2 Action Plan for further service developments

We have devised an Action Plan to address other areas where either specificaction is already planned or in progress and also recognising areas wherethere is scope for further investigation. For more information see the attachedAction Plan:



18/39

Customer Satisfaction Survey 2010 ACTION PLAN

ActionPointNumber

Area ofDissatisfaction orSuggestedService

Improvement

Specific Issue Action Taken/Planned Lead Date(Review /Deadline)

AP1a

(Sections:3.2.4.2,3.3.2,3.3.3)

Speed of LicenceProcessing Timescales andTargets

Perception andexpectation thatapplications could beprocessed morequickly

We recognise that customers expect a response toapplications and enquiries within the targets set out inour Performance Code. Our immediate focus will be onreviewing the delivery of the Rating Enquiry Serviceincluding provision of assistance to self rate goods.

LicensingUnit / PolicyTeam /

AwarenessUnit

January March2011

AP1b

(Sections:3.3.2,3.3.3,3.3.5)

Communicationaboutprogress/delay inlicence processing

Perception aboutlack ofcommunicationreceived byexporters aboutdelays to specificlicences

We recognise that dissatisfaction with ECOs service isoften linked to experiences and perceptions of theprocessing of specific licence applications. While ourrole is to make a careful, considered assessment ofeach application, we recognise some frustration canresult from the processing and communication involvedin dealing with the application. As a result we will be

investigating ways to improve the progress trackingmessages on the SPIRE system.

LicensingUnit

Ongoing

AP1c RelationshipManagement of

Suggestion forlicensing process to

We have previously considered introducing greaterrelationship management of companies in the licensing

LicensingUnit/

March2011



19/39

(Sections:3.3.2,3.3.3)

companies be managed ongreater companybasis

process. Indeed this is one of the reasons why we haveOpen Individual Export Licences (OIELs) which aredesigned for companies with a track record in licensing.

Introducing further relationship management ofcompanies could potentially be counter productive andactually risk slowing down the application process as aresult of increased querying of applications. It would

also be difficult to introduce relationship managementbased on size of company or geographic location in theUK since this is not a factor in the final licensingdecision.

Nevertheless, we do recognise that there may beopportunities to widen the role of the existingCompliance Officers and this issue will be reviewed bythe ECOs internal Change Group.

ComplianceUnit / ECOChangeGroup

AP1d

(Sections:3.3.1,3.3.5)

Consistency ofLicensing Advice

Perception that thereis a lack ofconsistency in termsof advice ordocumentation

requests

All export licensing decisions are made on a case bycase basis in relation to the EU and National ArmsExport Licensing Criteria.

We are reviewing our internal training and

communications with staff to ensure that all staff remainfully informed of current licensing procedures.

LicensingUnit

EarlyJanuary2011

AP1e

(Sections:

Improving the ECOHelpline

Perception that theHelpline is underresourced and that

We plan to improve the Helpline by introducing a calloptions function and reviewing our provision of ourtraining and advice provided. We will review the new

LicenceReceptionTeam

November2010



20/39

3.3.7) advice lacks depth service after six months of operation.

AP1f

(Sections:3.3.2,3.3.3,3.3.6)

Improving theusability of SPIRE

SPIRE is generallyseen as a good andeasy to use systembut there areconcerns about thelack of sufficient

progress trackinginformation, inabilityto copy details ofprevious applicationsandrecommendations forimproving thesystems overallfunctionality such aserror notificationsand including theproduct rating on aSIEL.

SPIRE caters for a wide range of applicants rangingfrom novice system users to more expert applicants.SPIREs functionality is continuously being assessedand reviewed.

Further changes are planned to upgrade the system by

issuing details of ratings on the final licence document.

We plan to review how SPIRE reports on the progressof specific licence applications.

LicensingUnit /

AwarenessTeam

Ongoing

AP1g

(Sections:3.3.5)

Tone and attitude

of customercommunications

Some of our

customercommunications areconsidered to comeacross as too heavyhanded in tone

We are very conscious of our communications with

customers which range from our guidance material,Notices to Exporter notifications, communications aboutspecific licences and the final licensing decision.

We will issue revised guidance to staff on best practicein dealing with customers and review our training

Licensing

Unit/AwarenessTeam

October

2010



21/39

procedures.

Sometimes, however, it is necessary to use a more firmtone to encourage companies to take swift action as aresult.

AP1h

(Sections:3.3.1)

Staff Knowledge Perception of lack ofconsistency in the

advice given by caseofficers

We are reviewing our internal procedures about how wetrain and update staff.

LicensingUnit

October2010

AP2

(Sections:3.2.4)

Open Licensing Recommendation tohave more platformbased OGELs thatare based on namedend-users anddestinations

We have recently introduced a new OGEL which mightbe suitable for companies to use for the export of theirgoods in relation to the Typhoon Project (subject tomeeting the terms and conditions). We are currentlyreviewing the introduction of further OGELs wherepossible, depending on the nature of the goods anddestinations.

In conjunction with the issuing of new OGELs, we willreview our communications and training about OGELsto ensure that exporters understand as clearly aspossible how they can be beneficial and aid their

exporting potential.

We will also explore the possibility of promoting the useof OIELs more widely and looking at the track record ofcompanies that might be able to consider this licensingoption.

Complianceand

AwarenessTeams

Ongoing asnewOGELs arepublished



22/39

AP3 ChargingGiven that this iscurrently underdiscussion it maybe better to leavethe planned actionin this format

Suggestion that weshould introduce afast track service fora fee.

Licensing is a statutory service. Any potential changessuch as the introduction of a charging policy wouldhave to be considered carefully in terms of allimplications and impact and consulted on extensively.

Policy Team To bereviewedseparately

AP4a

(Sections:3.3.4)

Guidance issuesand customertraining needs

Request for clearer,updated End-UserUndertaking formand for clearerguidance on plainerEnglish

We have recently introduced an End-User UndertakingForm and associated Checklist with additional guidanceon the difference between an end-user and aconsignee.

We have also taken action to improve the drafting of allour communications. For instance, our Notices toExporters are now drafted, as far as possible, to includefurther background explanation which puts the updateinto context and aims to guide companies in the actionsthat they need to take.

LicensingUnit/

AwarenessUnit

Actioncomplete

Ongoing

AP4b

(Sections:3.3.2,

3.3.4,3.3.7)

Guidance issuesand customertraining needs

More training andseminars in theregions and forspecific sectors

We already provide a good range of training coursesincluding on-site training. This includes information onusing tools such as the Goods Checker and OGELChecker.

All our courses are now fully advertised via both theBusinesslink and UK Trade & Investment websites andtheir respective Events databases. We will monitor thisawareness advertising to ensure that as manyexporters as possible continue to be informed in good

AwarenessTeam

Ongoing



23/39

time of our continuing training programme both inLondon and across the UK. For those companies whohave requested additional information about theseminar programme, our external feedback should askthe question about how companies want to receive/ bealerted to the information

AP4c

(Sections:3.3.7)

Improving the ECO

Website

Perception that the

ECO is website isdifficult to useespecially since thetransfer of mostguidance to theBusinesslink site.

Having export control guidance on the Businesslink

pages is beneficial in enabling information to reach apotentially wider audience of small and medium sizedcompanies and to identify greater linkages with otherrelated export and trade issues.

At a recent website review meeting held with industryrepresentatives in September 2010, it was agreed thatthe new export control pages on the Businesslinkwebsite were fit for purpose.

The Committee on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) hasalso endorsed the move to Businesslink and thecontent of the new website.

Awareness

Team

Ongoing

AP4d

(Sections:3.3.7)

Improving the

Checker Tools

Perception that the

Checker Tools arenot user friendlyapplications

The Checker Tools are recognised as valuable tools by

a wide range of exporters and also overseas exportcontrol organisations and trade bodies.

We aim to explore new ways of funding furtherdevelopment of the Checker Tools to ensure that thetools can continue to develop. However, it should be

Awareness

Team

Late 2012



24/39

recognised in the current budgetary climate that this isnot a top priority.

With a continued interest in self-rating, we are alsoinvestigating the development of a Ratings Search Toolto complement the existing Goods Checker database.We are also reviewing our exporter training courses inthis area.

AP4e

(Sections:3.3.1)

Getting BasicsRight

We plan to issue an updated and more comprehensiveService Code and Complaints Procedure to ourcustomers and issuing corresponding guidelines to ourstaff

We plan to publish more information showing trends incomplaints, both formal and informal, and the action wehave taken as a result; providing a mechanism forreceiving customer and staff feedback on theeffectiveness of the complaints procedure

We will consider introducing new measures (such as aCustomer Satisfaction Index and mystery shopping) tomonitor our performance in all customer contact areas

in relation to standards for timeliness and quality ofcustomer service.

AwarenessTeam

January2011

AP5 Staffing Levels Perception of needfor increased staffingresources.

As with other organisations, we need to work within ourallocated resource budget. We are however constantlyreviewing the way we work and are currently looking at

ECODirector

Ongoing



25/39

options for improving the efficiency and effectiveness ofour licence processing operation in the light ofincreasing licence application volumes.



26/39

Appendices

Appendix A Charts

Question 1

Question 2



27/39

Question 3

Question 4



28/39

Question 5

Question 6



29/39

Question 7

Question 8



30/39

Question 9

Question 10a



31/39

Question 10b

Question 11



32/39

Question 112

Question 123



33/39

Question 14



34/39

Appendix B Sample cross-section of comments



35/39


Customer FeedbackCategory

Specific Customer Comment ECO Response

Praise A job well done to very high and exactingstandards. Please continue

We acknowledge this feedback, with thanks. No further comments.

Speed of Licence Processing Timescales and Targets

Inconsistent approaches by licensingofficers and a lack of deadline for BIS tocomplete its process creates a situation thatwe are dealing with what feels like a blackhole information goes in and we dontknow what (or when) anything may comeback. Compare this with the 10 working daydeadline for businesses to respond to BISqueries (with the threat that if the informationis not received the application will beregarded as withdrawn and holdingrequests are not acceptable) and thesystem/process places an unequal burdenon business to feed information to BIS underspecific conditions, without any similarcondition being applicable to BIS

The ECO has published targets and objects. This includes the aim of issuing70% of SIELs in 20 working days and 90% of SIELs in 60 working days.Our progress against targets is published in the UKs Strategic Annual Reportpublished by the Foreign Office (FCO) and on the ECOs Reports andStatistics website (Searchable Database) of quarterly reports.The published targets are a guide and customers are advised that cases areassessed on a case by case basis in relation to the Consolidated EU andNational Arms Export Licensing Criteria.Cases which take longer than our target processing times are most commonlyapplications to sensitive destinations and exporters are advised to use theircommon sense and check the latest quarterly figures.

The tardiness in this service is and willcontinue to cost UK manufacturing loss ofbusiness. US and German controls appearto be simpler and quicker

In comparison to overseas export control organisations, the ECO is judged toprovide an excellent service. The ECO is frequently seen as a benchmark forother governments. However it is very difficult to directly compare actuallicensing systems due to different staffing levels, legislation and workingpractices. Other licensing authorities might not necessarily be faster. In termsof being simpler, export controls are derived from international treatyobligations which most developed countries are signed up to.

Communication about theprogress/delay in licenceprocessing

Would be useful if more detail given onprogress of application. Currently onECO/OGD and final assessment might beuseful if expected completion date wasgiven and updated weekly/automatically asa guide even if caveats apply.

We will investigate the feasibility of providing more information on theprogress/state of licences.

Improved communication on licence statuswhere 20 days is exceeded I can see onSPIRE that its with OGD but that meansnothing to me. If there is likely to be a delayor a problem I need to know about itbecause long unexplained delays aredetrimental to our business.

Same response as above.

Relationship Management ofcompanies

Consistency would be good. Havingdedicated teams would help perhaps oneteam looking after companies A-D or apublished list of teams looking after certainmarkets so if your allotted case officer isunavailable and your SIEL application is for

ECO has reviewed the possibility of relationship management of companies.This is not considered to be beneficial to the overall licensing process andmight in fact lead to greater accusations of inconsistency.The size of a company does not affect the licensing process, since licensabilityis determined by items being listed on the Control Lists (type of goodscontrolled), end-use factors and the nature of the export activity.


36/39


37/39

OGTL

SITL

GPL

OGL

7. How do you usually determine that a particular export requires a licence?

Standard company procedure Advice from ECO Helpline

Guidance available on ECO website

Rating request

Self rating (using Control List)

Checker Tools (Goods Checker or OGEL Checker)

Other Source (Please specify)

8. Please indicate your overall opinion of the service ECO provides. I am satisfied withthe overall service ECO provides to exporters.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Dont Know/Not applicable

Your experience of dealing with ECO Licensing and Rating Performance andProcessing

9. Please rate your experience of dealing with the ECO Licensing Unit (and TechnicalAssessment Unit) staff in terms of customer focus and service. Please indicate youropinions by marking the box that most closely relates to your view of each aspect of theservice identified. - Option responses for each question are as follows:

Strongly Agree Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


9a. ECO staff were courteous9b. ECO staff were friendly and helpful9c. ECO staff were knowledgeable9d. My application/query was dealt with promptly

10a Was your licence processed within the standard timeframe of 20 working days?

Yes No

10b. If you have applied for a SIEL and it took significantly longer than 20 working days toprocess, did you receive a satisfactory explanation? I received a satisfactory explanationto the delay in processing my licence application.

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree




38/39

11. This question looks more broadly at the licence process in general. Please rate thefollowing aspects of how the ECO communicates with you specifically in terms of itslicensing work. - Option responses for each question are as follows:

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree Strongly Disagree


11a. The licensing process in general is well communicated11b. I am kept well informed of the progress of specific licence applications11c. ECO staff respond to any concerns or queries I have raised11d. Any requests for additional information/documentation requested by ECO are clearlycommunicated.11e. The final licence decision is communicated clearly11f. I am aware of the terms and conditions of the licences I hold and my responsibilitiesin holding an export licence

12a. Please indicate your opinion of the SPIRE licensing system. SPIRE is easy to use.

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


12b. I am satisfied with the guidance and support available for SPIRE users

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree Dont Know/Not applicable

12c. Please comment on any aspects of SPIRE that you think could be improved.

Your experience of dealing with ECO General Issues

13. If you have used any of the following, are you satisfied with the quality of our services, interms of their effectiveness and quality as a source of advice and information? - Optionresponses for each question are as follows:

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree Strongly Disagree


I am satisfied with the quality of service and information provided by the:a. ECO websiteb. ECO helplinec. ECO training and seminar programmed. ECO online checker tools (OGEL Checker and Goods Checker)d. ECO Notice to Exportersf. Business Linkg. Please add any additional comments

14. If you have had cause to complain, what is your opinion of the speed and manner in

which your complaint was dealt with? Please move directly to question if this question isnot applicable. My complaint was dealt with promptly and efficiently by ECO.



39/39

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree


15. Please comment on areas where we could improve ECOs service.

Customer Survey Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Customer Survey Analysis