TBR 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
-
Upload
tbr -
Category
Technology
-
view
550 -
download
1
description
Transcript of TBR 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study
TBR
TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.
Technology Business ResearchAccelerating Customer Success Through Business Research
TBR
TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.
Customer Satisfaction Study –
Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010
Corporate IT Service & Support
Internal Support Organizations 1 88.0 +16 1 87.6 +16 1 88.5 +14
IBM Global/Lenovo Services 2 84.0 +5 2 84.0 +3 3 83.9 -2
Dell Services 2 83.5 +2 3 82.3 -2 2 84.7 +3
HP Services 3 82.6 -6 3 81.8 -3 3 83.3 0
OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
SUPPORT PROVIDER4Q10 TBR
RANK4Q10 WSI
SCORE
4Q10 Strength/
Weakness Points
4Q10 TBR RANK
4Q10 TBR SCORE
4Q10 Strength/
Weakness Points
Author: Julie Perron
4Q10 TBR RANK
4Q10 TBR SCORE
4Q10 Strength/
Weakness Points
Publication Date: March 21, 2011
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.3
Content
Slides and Modules
3 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support
Satisfaction At A Glance
10 4Q10 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights
11 Key Findings
16 The Score in 4Q10
19 Most Noteworthy Events - Performance
Differentiation Shifts
23 Server Support - Segment Analysis
27 Desktop/Notebook Support - Segment Analysis
31 Critical Metrics Summary
34 TBR’s Watch List
41 Historical Record
Appendices
43 Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables
76 Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores
3Q07 through 4Q10
79 Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis
for Selected Attributes
81 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends and Key Service & Support Satisfaction
Attributes
92 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs
103 Appendix F: Categorical Responses
113 Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Desktop/Notebook
by Support Provider
118 Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology
126 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures
134 Appendix J: Survey Instrument
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Corporate
Service & Support Satisfaction
At A Glance
4
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
82.3
84.7
87.688.5
84.0 83.9
81.8
83.3
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support
4Q10 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING BY SUPPORT SEGMENT
Dell Services Internal Support Organizations
IGS/Lenovo Services HP Services
3
1
3 3
1
2
3
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
2
Ranking positions vary between server-related and desktop/notebook-related supportOnly the in-house support teams earn a double No. 1 ranking in 4Q10
Dell Services reclaims the advantage for desktop/
notebook support
•Dell Services advanced to the top OEM ranking,
with competitive strengths for response time and
hardware deployment services.
•Lenovo Services dropped to No. 3 due to the
absence of any competitive strengths, against
Dell Services’ greater performance
differentiation.
•HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking with
Lenovo due to a lack of performance
differentiation.
•The internal support teams substantially outperformed OEM support providers across nearly every category.
IBM holds leadership position for server
support
•IBM outpaced its OEM competitors by
excelling across the areas of break/fix, on-
site expertise and support services value.
•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking was the result
of competitive warnings for phone support
and support services value.
•HPS, at a shared No. 3 ranking with Dell,
was cited with competitive warnings
across the three areas of on-site support.
5
4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Internal support organizations extend their lead; Dell Services returns to top ranking position alongside three-time winner IGS
4Q10 Key Takeaways:
•The internal support group returned to its traditional place as the
ideal against which we measure OEM support providers.
•Resumed IT hiring ensured internally managed (self) support
reclaimed its title as the best source for supporting IT
infrastructures.
•IGS’ continuing leadership among the OEM providers was enhanced
through positive customer perceptions of technical expertise and
phone support center quality. The group recorded its first win for
support services value, a key metric in the support experience.
•Dell Services advanced to a top ranking primarily due to its
substantial lead in on-site support response, yet phone support
emerges as a continuing challenge.
•HPS continued to trail competitors as a result of underperforming
across the top three areas of on-site support.
6
4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
The Overall Results combine both the server and desktop/notebook results into one, with sample sizes of 250 or more
per group.
SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT
IGS/LENOVO SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS
Break/Fix Services On-s i te Technica l Expertise * On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration * Numeric Value 16 5 2 -4
Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.0 84.0 83.5 82.6
Ranking 1 2 2 3
Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 1 2
Key: Weakness; Strength; ¡ Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
OVERALL RESULTS
Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM Support continues to outshine OEM competitors for x86 server- related support services
4Q10 Key Takeaways:
•The internal support group extended its lead, substantially
outperforming OEM support providers across all but the parts
availability category.
•Obviously, in-house support teams are dependent on the efficiencies of
OEMs to deliver spare and replacement parts.
•IBM Support earned its third straight top ranking, enhanced through
competitive advantages for break/fix services, technical expertise and a
new win for support services value.
•Dell Services remained in a subordinate ranking position to IBM,
partially as a result of performing significantly behind IBM for phone
support and support services value satisfaction.
•HPS remained in the No. 3 position (alongside Dell) as a result of
continuing challenges across the areas of break/fix, on-site response and
on-site expertise.
7
4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
The Server Support Results are based on views of IT managers/directors who primarily support x86-based servers, with a
sample size of 125 or more per group.
SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS
Break/Fix Services * On-s i te Technica l Expertise * On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Value 16 3 -2 -3
Weighted Satisfaction Score 87.6 84.0 82.3 81.8
Ranking 1 2 3 3
Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 2 2
x86 Server Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard
SERVER SUPPORT
Key: Weakness; Strength; ¡ Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services nudges out competition in desktop/notebook support
4Q10 Key Takeaways:
•The internal support group extended its lead, substantially
outperforming OEM support providers across all but the parts
availability category.
•Obviously, in-house support teams are dependent on the efficiencies of
OEMs to deliver spare and replacement parts.
•Dell Services returned to a top ranking after a brief (3Q10) hiatus largely
due to its exceptional on-site support response time rating.
•Lenovo Services gave up its 3Q10 top ranking and returned to its place
behind Dell, which it held during the first two periods of 2010.
•Lenovo Services and HPS lacked differentiation, ranking behind Dell
Services largely due to Dell’s substantial competitive advantage for on-
site support response.
8
4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of IT managers/directors who primarily support desktop and laptop
PCs, with a sample size of 125 or more per group.
SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS
Break/Fix Services On-s i te Technica l Expertise On-s i te Response Time/Commitment * Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration * Numeric Value 14 3 0 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.5 84.7 83.9 83.3
Ranking 1 2 3 3
Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 2 2
Key: Weakness; Strength; ¡ Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The unbridled enthusiasm of mid-2010 settles back to the real world in 4Q10 •
Satisfaction with support services spiked
during the second quarter of 2010 and, in
many cases, shifted only modestly to the
downside in the following quarter.
•The full correction occurred during the fourth
quarter, when most satisfaction positions
returned to their first-quarter levels.
•This suggests we have witnessed an
unsustainable burst of enthusiasm around
support services provided by OEMs.
•This was driven by a combination of new
product purchases with fresh warranties and
resumed IT staff hiring, where enthusiasm with
new hardware spilled over into perceptions of
services.
The mean satisfaction ratings in the graph are based on discrete calendar quarters and not the “reporting periods” (comprising two calendar
quarters) TBR generally reports on with these study results. The graph exemplifies average ratings across the three OEM support providers –
Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/Lenovo Services.
4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
9
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
On-
site
Tech
nica
lEx
perti
se
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Rem
otel
y M
anag
edSu
ppor
t
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Avai
labi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces
Pric
ing/
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
OEM SUPPORT PROVIDER SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS
Jan-Mar 10 Apr-Jun 10 Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
A shift from previously perfect scores to moderately satisfied ratings drives the results of 4Q10
•Examples of customer delight (Perfect 7 ratings)
with support services were in abundance during
the second and third quarters of 2010.
•The 4Q10 reporting period scores showed an
average 40% reduction in Perfect 7 ratings
among OEM support providers’ customers.
•Some categories, e.g., support services value,
showed a nearly 60% reduction in Perfect 7
scores.
•The in-house support groups were resistant to
this trend, primarily due to resumed IT staff
hiring during the second half of 2010. This
continued to ease the burden of previously
stretched resources.
4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
10
Where did the 7’s go? In most cases, we observed scores shifting to the left of the Perfect 7 rating – some filling in at Level-6 (very
satisfied). Yet, surprisingly, we observed many of the scores shifting all the way back to Level-5 (good). TBR did not observe an
increase in customer disappointment – this has consistently remained a non-concern throughout 2010.
-80%
-70%
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
Brea
k/Fi
x Sv
cs
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
/Pric
ing
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
CHANGE IN PROPORTIONS OF DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS, 3Q10 to 4Q10Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Competitive Placement
Summary & Insights
11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
OVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations extend their exemplary stance; IGS and Dell Services now share No. 2 rank
Factors Driving Rankings:
•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was delivered by an
inspiring set of performances, all but one
substantially outpacing the OEM support providers.
•IGS remained in the No. 2 position behind in-house
support, outperforming OEM competitors across the
areas of break/fix, on-site expertise, phone support
and support services value.
•Dell Services moved up to share the No. 2 position
with IGS, outperforming OEM competitors in the
areas of on-site response time and hardware
deployment.
•HPS remained in the No. 3 position as a result of
underperforming OEM competitors across the top
three on-site support categories.
= TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10
= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10
Key Findings: Overall Study
12
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.80
Brea
k/Fix
Serv
ices
On-s
ite T
echn
ical E
xper
tise
On-s
ite R
espo
nse
Tim
e/Co
mm
itmen
t
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk S
uppo
rt
Onlin
e Su
ppor
t
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces P
ricin
g/Va
lue
Hard
ware
Depl
oym
ent/
Inst
allati
on
Over
all Sa
tisfa
ction
SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS
Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support reiterates its top ranking; IBM continues to rank higher than Dell and HP Services
The Context
•Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in 2009,
with WSI ratings progressively declining throughout the year, leaving no
competitor (not even the
in-house teams) immune to the trend.
•Scores for the OEM support providers weakened primarily during 2H09. As a
leading indicator for the industry, the internal support group’s scores began to
decline at least one quarter earlier. This is a clear example of the challenges
faced by organizations affected by reduced spending on new server solutions
with robust warranties, an increase in out-of-warranty systems, and a shortage
of IT staff resources due to cutbacks.
•By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score slides halted, and improved in
IBM’s case. In 2Q10, the real excitement started; customer satisfaction ratings
surged, resulting in a split between No. 1 ranked Internal Support and IBM over
No. 2 ranked Dell and HP Services.
•In 3Q10, the internal support organizations resumed their place alone at the
top; OEM support providers’ positions held constant.
4Q10 Developments
•Satisfaction score corrections in 4Q10 predominantly affected the OEM support providers, enabling
the in-house group to enhance its already substantial competitive advantage.
•IBM again retained its No. 2 status over No. 3 ranked Dell Services and HPS.
Key Findings: x86 Server Support
13
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 3Q08 to 4Q10
Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation examples are plentiful, favoring internal support and IBM
= TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10
= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10
14
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY
Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Factors Driving Rankings:
•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was the result
of consistently outperforming OEM
competitors across all but the parts availability
category.
•IBM’s sole No. 2 ranking was delivered through
solid performances across the areas of
break/fix, technical expertise and support
services value.
•Dell Services maintained the No. 3 ranking, this
time underperforming OEM competitors in the
areas of phone support and support services
value.
•HPS remained in the No. 3 position as well,
underperforming OEM competitors across the
top three on-site support categories.
Key Findings: x86 Server Support
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support reclaims sole No. 1 ranking; Lenovo and Dell Services trade places
The Context
•Customer satisfaction with desktop and notebook systems support
began to decline as far back as mid-2008 but accelerated during the
recession of 2009.
•During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction with support services from Dell
Services, HP Services and Lenovo Services declined precipitously. The
internal support group took the greatest cumulative hit, however, as its
WSI ratings lost a substantial proportion of their value between 4Q08
and 4Q09.
•By 1Q10, customer satisfaction scores for all competitors either
stabilized or improved. Dell Services’ improvement was substantial
enough to deliver a sole No. 1 ranking.
•In 2Q10, ranking positions held steady, with Dell Services as the
singular No. 1 ranked player, internal support and Lenovo Services
sharing No. 2, and HPS ranked No. 3.
•The pattern shifted in 3Q10, with Lenovo Services and Dell Services
exchanging positions.
15
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 3Q08 to 4Q10
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
4Q10 Developments
•Satisfaction score corrections in 4Q10 predominantly affected the OEM support providers, enabling the in-
house group to rise to its first singular No. 1 ranking since 1Q09.
•Lenovo Services’ WSI score corrected by a greater magnitude than that of Dell Services, resulting in Dell
narrowly overtaking the lead. Nonetheless, the OEM support provider competition in the desktop/notebook
support segment was extremely tight.
Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges out competition by virtue of its on-site response time rating
= TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10
= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10
16
Factors Driving Rankings:
•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was the result of
consistently outperforming OEM competitors
across all but the parts availability category.
•Dell Services No. 2 ranking, behind the in-house
group, was largely the result of one key win:
substantially outperforming OEM competitors for
on-site response time.
•No. 3 ranked Lenovo Services and HPS lacked
performance differentiation; they ranked behind
Dell Services essentially due to their significantly
lower on-site support response time ratings.5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.80
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY
Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Internal organizations reassert themselves as the ideal support experience Dell Services moves up to share the top OEM provider ranking with IGS; IGS brings in its third straight top ranking
Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 4% correction• A substantial drop in support services value
satisfaction was a leading factor.HPS’ WSI shifted back by 4.7%• Declining positions were led by support
services value and on-site response time.IGS’ WSI corrected by 5%• On-site response time was the leading
factor.Internal support was most resistant to downward trends – WSI adjusted by just 1.5%• None of the group’s individual satisfaction
metrics declined significantly.
•The exuberance of the previous two reporting periods ultimately maxed out for the OEM support providers in
4Q10.
•The varying levels of correction dictated ranking position assignments as follows:
•In-house support teams were the lone exception to broadly correcting satisfaction positions – No. 1 status
enhanced.
•Dell Services was the least compromised of the OEM support providers, rising to a No. 2 ranking.
•IGS’ WSI gave up the largest proportion of its value; while its ranking position remained constant, it was
forced to share with Dell Services.
•HPS, in the middle, remained in the No. 3 ranking position.
The Score in 4Q10
17
89.388.088.4
84.0
86.7
82.6
86.9
83.5
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
3Q10 4Q10
4Q10 VERSUS 3Q10 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION RATINGS AND RANKS
Internal Support Organizations IGS/Lenovo Services & PartnersHP & Partners Dell & Partners
3 3
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
1
33
21
22
3
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Varying levels of correcting scores in 4Q10 defines the competitive line-upDell Services’ scores declined by the smallest magnitude of the OEM support providers, with an average 3.7% decline against an average 4.6% between HPS and IGS. This helped Dell Services recover from a
previous competitive warning for online support and a weakness for remotely managed support.
•The most noteworthy development with respect to Dell Services was its comparatively more stable on-site response time rating, leading TBR to award Dell with a competitive strength.
HPS’ score shifts were often between the magnitudes of Dell Services and IGS; there were no developments that affected HPS’ areas of competitive warning (break/fix, on-site expertise) and weakness (on-
site support).
IGS’ scores declined most notably relative to on-site response time, resulting in TBR lifting its previous competitive strength and handing it over to Dell Services.
•Two new competitive strengths emerged for IGS (support services value and phone support) as the result of its scores declining by lesser magnitudes than competitors.
The Score in 4Q10
• The in-house support groups were most resistant to the
trend of broadly declining satisfaction positions that
affected the OEM support providers.
• Scores declined an average of just 1.3% against the OEM
provider average of 4.3%.
• With the easing of the recession and increased IT staff
hiring, the group has returned to its traditional place in
TBR’s study as the yardstick against which we measure
all else.
18
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforce the 4Q10 ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)
•The singular No. 1 ranking position held by the internal
support group was enhanced by its receiving competitive
strengths in eight of the nine categories.
•At No. 2, IGS earned competitive strengths across four
categories, two of which were new – phone support and
support services value. IGS’ position weakened from that of
the previous reporting period, having lost possession of
strengths for on-site response time and online support.
•Dell Services, also at No. 2, earned two new competitive
strengths and one competitive warning for phone support.
Dell also recovered from two previous challenges – for online
and remotely managed support.
•HPS’ No. 3 ranking was substantiated by the continuation of
its three challenges in the areas of on-site support.
The Score in 4Q10
YELLOW boxes indicate areas where Strength/Weakness determinations have been
downgraded from the previous reporting period.
BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade.
19
VENDORINTERNAL SUPPORT
IGS/LENOVO SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS
Break/Fix Services CONSTANT
On-site Technical Expertise * CONSTANT
On-site Response Time/Commitment CONTRACTING
Telephone/Helpdesk Support * EXPANDING
Online Support CONTRACTING
Remotely Managed Support CONTRACTING
Replacement Parts Availability CONSTANT
Support Services Pricing/Value * EXPANDING
Hardware Installation/Configuration * CONSTANT
Numeric Value 16 5 2 -4
Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.0 84.0 83.5 82.6
Ranking 1 2 2 3
Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only)
1 1 2
SOURCE: TBR
Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary
Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 3Q10
TBR
TBR
TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site response time remains a leading performance differentiator, shifting to favor Dell Services in lieu of IGS
In 3Q10, mean ratings for IGS and the in-house group were significantly
higher than average, with HPS significantly lower. By 4Q10, the in-house
group’s continued possession of a competitive strength was assured.
IGS’ score declined by the greatest magnitude, resulting in its loss of the
competitive strength. Dell Services, whose score declined by the lowest
magnitude, landed in a position significantly higher than HPS and IGS,
and a competitive strength was issued. HPS continued to score lower
than average, with a competitive weakness assigned.
Dell Services earned a competitive strength by receiving fewer
Level-5 ratings than competitors in 4Q10, while the in-house
group earned the fewest Level-5 ratings and substantially more
Perfect 7 ratings against the competition. HPS’ scores were
more spread out, with more <5 ratings and fewer 7 scores than
competitors. Note that, with the exception of internal support,
satisfaction positions shifted away from the top levels of the
scale and filled in with an increase in Level-5 ratings between
3Q10 and 4Q10.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
20
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
3Q10 4Q10
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone support differentiation expands, now favoring IGS over Dell Services
In 3Q10, the in-house group scored significantly higher than a
fairly comparable group of OEM support providers for phone
support. Scores collectively declined in 4Q10, by modestly
varying degrees – Dell Services by 3.2%, HPS by 3%, IGS by 2.6%.
These modest differences in rate of decline were enough to cause
profound changes, with Dell Services scoring significantly lower
and IGS significantly higher than average. TBR awarded both the
in-house group and IGS with strengths and Dell Services with a
warning.
Between 3Q10 and 4Q10, the OEM support
providers’ scores gained Level-5 ratings at the
expense of previous 6 and 7 ratings. Dell
Services, in particular, had a higher number of
scores below 6 in 4Q10. The in-house group
continued to rack up the largest proportion of
Perfect 7 ratings.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
21
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
3Q10 4Q10
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support services value differentiation expands with IGS earning its first competitive strength
In 3Q10, all four support providers’ services value
satisfaction ratings were comparable. Scores for the three
OEM support providers declined by between 4.7% (IGS)
and 5.7% (Dell Services) in 4Q10. These small differences
were enough for IGS to score significantly higher than HPS
and Dell Services. IGS’ scores were also less spread out,
enabling it to grab its first competitive strength.
Distributions of scores broke apart in 4Q10
relative to the OEM support providers. IGS
earned a greater number of Level-6 and fewer
Level-5 ratings than competitors.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
3Q10 4Q10
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online support performances merge for the OEM support providers in 4Q10
In 3Q10, IGS’ mean online support satisfaction rating was
higher than average, and Dell Services’ lower than average.
The in-house group’s scores were significantly higher than
all three OEMs. By 4Q10, Dell Services’ mean score
declined by the smallest magnitude, and IGS’ by the
greatest. As a result, TBR removed both IGS’ competitive
strength and Dell Services’ warning.
IGS’ and HPS’ scores shifted to the left in 4Q10 by
giving up a fair number of previous Levels 6 and 7
ratings, filled in by an increase in Level-5 ratings.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
23
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
3Q10 4Q10
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 4Q10 server support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)
•The foundation for the internal support group’s continued No. 1 ranking
was fortified by adding two new competitive strengths.
•IBM repeated its No. 2 ranking behind the in-house group and ahead of its
OEM support provider competition. This was enhanced through three
competitive strengths, including a new one for support services value.
•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM Support was partially due to two
new competitive warnings, in the areas of phone support and support
services value.
•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking with Dell Services, with two
continuing and one new (technical expertise) competitive warnings.
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
What Changed in 4Q10:
•The internal support organizations’ performances continued to improve, outperforming competitors across all but one category (parts availability).
•While IBM retained its No. 2 ranking over OEM support provider competitors, it did not carry over two strengths from the previous period – response time and online support.
•Both IBM and Dell Services brought in a mixture of improving competitive positions (blue boxes) and weakening ones (yellow boxes). In the end, this changed nothing in terms of ranking position alignment.
24
VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS
Break/Fix Services * On-site Technical Expertise * On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Installation/Configuration Numeric Value 16 3 -2 -3
Weighted Satisfaction Score 87.6 84.0 82.3 81.8
Ranking 1 2 3 3
Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only)
1 2 2
SOURCE: TBR
Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server
Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM earns a solid No. 1 ranking over Dell and HP Services due to
the contributions of several key competitive advantages
•Server support customers attribute relatively high
importance to most categories, the exceptions being
remotely managed and online support and hardware
deployment services.
•IBM Support outperformed competitors across most
categories, and notably within the single most critical
category, break/fix services.
•Dell Services and HPS had challenges within their own
respective areas, resulting in a draw reflected by the
closeness of their WSI ratings.
For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G.
SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS WSI Score Rank
IBM Services 84.0 1
Dell Services 82.3 2HP Services 81.8 2
TBR splits responses based on the respondents’ primary
responsibilities. Each study participant is asked to identify the
support area with which they are most involved (servers/storage
or desktop/notebook) and are then asked to rate those
experiences exclusively.
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
25
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
eDe
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY
Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
In 4Q10, server support satisfaction ratings collectively decline by modestly variable magnitudes; ranking positions remain
constant
•In many cases, degrees by which mean scores corrected were
fairly comparable across the three OEM support providers.
•IBM Support satisfaction positions held up modestly better
than those of the competition. This condition helped IBM add
a key competitive strength in 4Q10 – for support services
value.
•As IBM Support was already a No. 1 ranked support provider
in 3Q10, there were no changes in ranking position
assignments in 4Q10.
•Dell Services added two new competitive warnings in 4Q10 as
a result of score corrections that outpaced those of the
competition.
•HPS gained a new competitive warning for technical expertise
as a result of a score declining by a greater magnitude than
those of the competition.
LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, 3Q10 to 4Q10
% Change, WSI Score
Dell Services -4.8%
HP Services -5.0%
IBM Services -4.2%
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
26
-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Supp
ort S
ervi
ce P
ricin
g/Va
lue
3Q10 to 4Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT
Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Some negative GAP positions re-emerge in 4Q10 as a result of declining satisfaction scores
As of 4Q10, server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than they had in the previous three quarters of
2010. In particular, GAP scores for parts availability, phone support and on-site response time show ample room for improvement for all three OEM support providers. While we might expect IBM
Support to have met customer expectations more effectively than competitors, in that it was ranked No. 1, IBM customers in the study wave expressed inordinately high expectations that prevented
IBM from earning more solid GAP scores.
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
27
-15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%
Break/Fix Services
On-site Response Time
On-site Expertise
Phone Support
Online Support
Remotely Managed Support
Hardware Deployment
Parts Availability
Support Services Value
STANDARD GAP SCORES - SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT
IGS (IBM) HP Services Dell Services
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 4Q10 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
28
•The internal support group’s No. 1 ranking was substantially enhanced by the
addition of five new competitive strengths. In 4Q10, the group earned competitive
strengths across all but the parts availability category.
•Dell Services advanced to the No. 2 ranking, assisted by both the addition of new
competitive strengths and recovery from previous warnings.
•Lenovo Services dropped from No. 2 to No. 3 as a result of its inability to carry over
four specific competitive strengths from the previous period.
•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking, this time with Lenovo Services in lieu of Dell
Services. HPS was largely improved, recovering from two competitive warnings
issued in 3Q10.
What Changed in 4Q10:
•The internal support organizations’ performances continued to improve, outperforming competitors across all but one category (parts availability).
•Lenovo Services and Dell Services switched ranking positions due to weakening performances of the former against strengthening performances of the latter.
•HPS was mildly improved yet remained in a subordinate ranking position.
VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS
Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment * Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration * Numeric Value 14 3 0 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.5 84.7 83.9 83.3
Ranking 1 2 3 3
Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only)
1 2 2
SOURCE: TBR
Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking over competitors is driven largely by
its on-site support response time rating
For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please
refer to Appendix G.
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS
WSI Score RankDell Services 84.7 1Lenovo Services 83.9 2HP Services 83.3 2
TBR splits responses based on respondents’ primary
responsibilities. Each study participant is asked to identify the
support area with which they are most involved
(servers/storage or desktop/notebook) and are then asked to
rate those experiences exclusively.
•Desktop/notebook support customers attribute
relatively high importance to on-site support response
time.
•Dell Services’ score for on-site support response
satisfaction was substantially higher than average. The
combination of high importance with high satisfaction
provided for a higher-than-average WSI rating for Dell
Services in 4Q10.
•Both Lenovo Services and HPS came up neutral in 4Q10
– no particular challenges outside of a similar one in that
Dell Services outperformed them with respect to on-site
response time.
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
29
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60
6.80
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
eDe
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY
Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
In 4Q10, desktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings collectively decline by varying magnitudes; Dell Services benefits by
being
the least affected
LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SATISFACTION, 3Q10 to 4Q10
% Change, WSI Score
Dell Services -2.9%
HP Services -4.5%
Lenovo Services -5.6%
•Because previously No. 1 ranked Lenovo Services’ scores declined
by the greatest magnitude, and Dell Services by the least, the two
traded ranking positions in 4Q10.
•Lenovo Services gave up several previous competitive strengths
due to the larger magnitude of its declining scores against industry
averages. Most noteworthy among these was its on-site support
response rating.
•Dell Services added new competitive strengths, most notably on-
site response time, by maintaining more consistent ratings against
the previous quarter than competitors. In a similar fashion, Dell
Services recovered from previous warnings for online and
remotely managed support.
•HPS recovered from previous warnings for break/fix services and
technical expertise as a result of Lenovo Services’ more
significantly declining ratings.
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
30
-12%-10%
-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Supp
ort S
ervi
ce P
ricin
g/Va
lue
3Q10 to 4Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Some negative GAP positions re-emerge in 4Q10 as a result of declining satisfaction scores
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
31
As of 4Q10, desktop/notebook support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than they had in the previous three
quarters of 2010. Some wide GAP scores that affected various competitors more than others included phone support for HPS, on-site support response time for HPS and Lenovo Services, and parts
availability for Lenovo Services. Note that Dell Services, the No. 1 ranked competitor, was more capable of effectively meeting customer expectations than competitors.
-10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%
Break/Fix Services
On-site Response Time
On-site Expertise
Phone Support
Online Support
Remotely Managed Support
Hardware Deployment
Parts Availability
Support Services Value
STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Vital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction CompetitionDell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support
4Q10 Ranking 2 2 3 1
4Q10 Ranking, OEM support providers 1 1 2 N/A
Rank change vs. 3Q10 +1 0 0 0
4Q10 WSI 83.5 84.0 82.6 88.0
WSI change vs. 3Q10 -4% -5% -4.7% -1.5%
Rationale for Ranking Positions
WSI placement; proximity to IGS WSI;
fewer warnings/no weaknesses vs. HPS
WSI placement; proximity to Dell Services WSI;
competitive strengths
WSI placement vs. Dell Services & IGS; two
warnings and one full competitive weakness
WSI placement
Competitive StrengthsOn-site response time (New; Full); Hardware
deployment (New; Marginal)
Break/fix (Continuing; Full); Expertise
(Continuing; Marginal); Phone support (New;
Marginal); Value (New; Marginal). On-site
response time and online support strengths from
3Q10 rescinded
None
All except for parts availability; New competitive strengths in 4Q10 included
expertise and support services value
Competitive Weaknesses
New warning for phone support None
Break/fix and expertise (Continuing; Warnings); On-site response time
(Accelerated to Full Weakness)
None
Significant Movement, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10
Exceptions to significantly declining
positions include parts availability, hardware deployment, remotely
managed
Exceptions to rule include phone support, parts
availability
Exceptions to rule include phone support,
parts availabilityNo positions declined by 3%
or greater
Critical Metrics Summary
32
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support
Server Support WSI & Ranking 82.3 No. 3 84.0 No. 2 81.8 No. 3 87.6 No. 1
Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking 84.7 No. 2 83.9 No. 3 83.3 No. 3 88.5 No. 1
Server Support Competitive Profile
Two warnings – phone support, value
Three strengths – break/fix, expertise, &
value
Three warnings – break/fix, on-site response time, on-
site expertise
Strengths across all categories except for
parts availability
Desktop/Notebook Competitive Profile
Two strengths – on-site response time,
hardware deployment (marginal)
All neutral ratings All neutral ratingsStrengths across all
categories except for parts availability
Significant Movement, Server Segment, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10
[WSI -4.8%] All but remotely managed and hardware deployment
down significantly
[WSI -4.2%] Break/fix, on-site expertise & response time, and
online support down significantly
[WSI -5%] All but remotely managed support down
significantly
[WSI -2.7%] Parts availability was the only category having declined
significantly
Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10
[WSI -2.9%] Break/fix and overall value
declined significantly
[WSI -5.6%] All but phone support and
parts availability declined significantly
[WSI -4.5%] All but phone support and parts availability
declined significantly[WSI -0.2%] All positions
remained constant
Critical Metrics Summary
Vital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition
33
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support
Summary Statement
Dell Services reclaimed its No. 1 ranking status over OEM competitors in the desktop/notebook segment after a brief hiatus. TBR sees Dell’s on-site support response time performances as noteworthy, earning competitive strengths in five of the past seven reporting periods. It has been this key dynamic that has historically been behind Dell’s wins in the desktop/notebook support segment. Greater challenges are clear in the server support segment, particularly with respect to phone support, a finding reflected in TBR’s 4Q10 x86-based Server Customer Satisfaction Study as well.
IBM Support continues to demonstrate services excellence in the server support segment, winning its third straight No. 1 ranking over OEM competitors. Concepts including technical expertise tend to flesh out IBM’s status in this competition. In 4Q10, IBM earned its first competitive strength for support services value, a key dynamic in this competition. Lenovo Services faced some challenges in 4Q10, directly from Dell Services and exclusively associated with on-site response time. Outside of this one category, however, it was a very close competition for desktop/notebook support.
While HPS has made some progress during the past year, particularly with respect to phone, online and remotely managed support, it continues to be overshadowed by more energized competitors in on-site support. HPS continues to be outperformed across all three areas of on-site support, though primarily on the server support side of the study. The key challenge area for HPS remains on-site support response time, where a previous warning was downgraded to a full weakness in 4Q10.
The internal support group reclaimed its traditional position as the ideal against which we measure the OEM support providers in this study. 4Q10 scores remained constant in an environment where the OEM support groups’ scores collectively declined by substantial magnitudes. The singular area where in-house support does not dominate the competition is one in which the group is dependent on OEMs – replacement parts availability.
Bottom Line
With respect to this competition, it would appear we have travelled full circle, back to a more realistic representation of normal operations. The mood in 2009 was dictated by reduced spending on new hardware and IT staff, and probably lapsed warranties that were not renewed, placing a great strain on infrastructure support services. The temperament throughout most of 2010 was quite the contrary – new hardware with fresh warranties flooding into the corporation drove a level of enthusiasm never before seen in this study. In most cases, these antithetical moods cancelled one another out and by 4Q10, satisfaction levels returned to where we would expect to see them. Among the most intriguing developments is the return of the in-house support group as the model for support excellence. The OEM support providers are now tasked with finding a place to contribute and differentiate within companies that are currently quite self sufficient.
Vital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition
Critical Metrics Summary
34
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Watch List differs from the Competitive Strength and
Weakness Analysis
TBR’s Watch List
TBR takes the following factors into consideration in determining items on the Watch List:
•Results of the Improvements GAP Analysis are based on a vendor’s expectation fulfillment for a category against its overall expectation fulfillment across all measured attributes.
•Competitive positioning based on results of statistical significance tests.
•Results of the Standard GAP Analysis for the vendor against its competitors’ positions.
•Decline in satisfaction in the past two reporting periods.
•Segments (server support versus desktop/notebook support) influencing declines in satisfaction during past two reporting periods.
•Loss of competitive strength or addition of competitive weakness.
•Disappointment/Delight meter – proportions of dissatisfied versus delighted customers.
•Items are removed from the Watch List when a vendor has recovered its competitive position from past recent reporting periods.
Differences:
•The analysis looks backward and forward.
•Items placed on the Watch List are often not areas where the vendor has underperformed the marketplace or a specific competitor.
•Included are areas in which a vendor may have recently excelled; however, the competitive field has shifted during the current reporting period.
35
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; phone support remains a recurring concern
TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services
Citation Placement
Improve-ments GAP
% Change versus 3Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 4Q10
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
Phone Support
Significantly lower than industry average in server segment, 95% confidence; below IBM 90% confidence
Well Below Average
-5% against competitors’ average -4% in server segment
Scores remain volatile, lacking consistency, currently on downward path
Server Support
New competitive warning issued in server segment
27% reduction in customer delight; disappointment creeping up from 3.5% in 3Q10 to 7% in 4Q10
While disappointment remains a minor concern in 4Q10, in the context of the competitive field, 7% dissatisfaction for Dell Services’ phone support is considerable as competitors are at 3% to 4%. The more significant issue is a greater proportion of middling Level-5 ratings for Dell Services, against competitors more likely to have received 6’s.
Support Services Value
Significantly below industry average in server segment at 90%; below IBM at 99% confidence
Average -6.8% in server segment vs. competitors’ average -4%
Completely erased gains of first three periods of 2010
Server Support
New competitive warning issued in server segment
Customer delight reduced by 52%; disappointment up slightly from 1% to 3% yet essentially a non-issue
With IBM grabbing its very first competitive strength for support services value, Dell Services has a significant challenge on its hands to regain what has been historically its territory.
36
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; phone support remains a recurring concern
TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services
Removed from Watch List
Progress has been made with respect to both online and remotely managed support, where Dell Services recovered from competitive warnings issued in the 3Q10 study wave. These challenges affected Dell in both the server and desktop/notebook support segments. In 4Q10, Dell Services’ scores were resistant to downward trends that more commonly affected competitors. However, TBR cautions that Dell must take into account that these concerns may not have entirely disappeared from the radar screen. We continued to observe a relatively high number of scores in the disappointed range – 9% for online support and 8% for remotely managed support. Self support remains an area that is difficult for any support provider to monitor, particularly when they do not gain access to customer feedback, perhaps, as readily as they do with respect to phone support.
Behind the Scenes
A recent reorganization of Dell Services, designed to improve efficiencies and enhance the customer relationship focus, includes the designation of new president of Dell Services, Steve Schuckenbrock. This new leadership, along with an associated reorganization of Dell’s Public and Large Enterprise units into a single one focused on the similar needs of these customers, is expected to bring Dell closer to its customers. This should aid in setting customer expectations and better managing Dell’s response while increasing customer awareness of Dell’s support contract features and encouraging utilization.
Dell’s ProSupport portfolio was simplified in late 2010, combining what were previously two separate offerings – one designed for IT managers and the other for end users. From there, customers can select from a menu of customized solutions that assist with specific customer requirements, such as enterprisewide support, multivendor support, medical archiving, etc. Dell’s ability to communicate to customers the benefits of both its ProSupport and Basic Hardware warranty service offerings will be critical in this competition where technical support is becoming a potential brand differentiator.
37
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services continues to face challenges regarding on-site supportTBR’s Watch List: HPS
Citation Placement
Improve-ments GAP
% Change versus 3Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 4Q10
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
On-site Response Time
Significantly below industry average and IBM at 95% confidence in server segment; below Dell at 98% confidence in desktop notebook segment
Well Below Average
-4.6% vs. competitors’ average -6% in server segment; -6.4% vs. Dell’s -2.8% in desktop notebook segment
Fully corrected for gains of first three periods of 2010; remaining outlier for past four periods
Both segments
New competitive warning issued in server segment
Delight reduced by 55%; disappointment also down, from 5% to 3%
This is a challenge area for HPS within both segments of the study – against IBM in the server support segment and against Dell in the desktop/ notebook segment. It has been a fairly consistent challenge throughout 2010.
Technical Expertise
Significantly lower than IBM at 99% in server segment; trending behind Dell in desktop notebook segment
Just Above Average
-7.1% in server segment against competitors’ average -6%; -3% in desktop notebook segment, comparable to that of Dell
Following similar pattern to competitors yet remaining the outlier for the past four periods
Both segments
Continued competitive warning in server segment
Customer delight down by 52%; disappointment remains a non- issue
While it was not an issue of customer disappointment, HPS was outperformed by IBM, in particular, in terms of higher level (generally 6) scores.
38
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services is challenged with creating greater customer enthusiasm in both segments, predominantly with its on-site support services
TBR’s Watch List: HPS
Citation Placement
Improve-ments GAP
% Change versus 3Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 4Q10
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
Break/Fix Significantly behind IBM at 99% confidence in server segment; trending behind Dell in desktop notebook segment
Excels -5.4%, comparable to competitors in server segment; -4% in desktop notebook segment against competitors’ average -5%
4Q10 score corrected from gains of previous three periods
Both segments, but server segment most significantly
Continued warning in server segment
Customer delight reduced by 55%, a considerably greater magnitude than that among competitors
A lack of customer enthusiasm remains the issue.
Behind the Scenes
In December 2010, HP announced its Next Generation Customer Support Experience for its server customers, a set of enhanced support services built around advanced automation and mobility technology for proactive support. Some of the features include advanced, 24/7 remote monitoring with automated diagnostics, a direct link to top HP services professionals, a new support portal, entitlement-based access to HP system updates, and guaranteed use of exclusively HP genuine replacement parts. With these enhancements, HP has endeavored to make the support experience more personalized and proactive.
HP PSG has been investing in higher-level support options for its premium (Elite) line of commercial laptops and desktops. By recognizing the need for a higher services value proposition for customers of the Elite brand, HP has taken an important step in this competition where Dell and Lenovo have already offered such premium services in the desktop/notebook support space.
39
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Services must focus on regaining past competitive advantages
TBR’s Watch List: IGS
40
Citation Placement
Improve-ments GAP
% Change versus 3Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 4Q10
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
On-site Response Time
Comparable to Dell in server segment; significantly behind Dell at 99% confidence in desktop notebook segment
Well Below Average
-6.3%, comparable to Dell in server segment; -10% and worst-in-class against competitors’ average -4.5% in desktop notebook segment
Gains of first three periods of 2010 erased; Dell fared much better
Mainly desktop notebook (Lenovo)
Lost 3Q10 competitive strength in server segment; Lenovo’s loss was Dell’s gain in desktop notebook segment
55% reduction in customer delight, yet disappointment is down to 0%
IBM was able to maintain No. 1 status in the server segment by replacing this competitive advantage with others. Lenovo allowed Dell to wrest its previous advantage in the desktop notebook segment away. It is a concern worth monitoring, considering its high level of importance.
Online Support
Trending lower than industry average in server segment; comparable to Dell in desktop notebook segment
Well Below Average
-4.8%, comparable to competitors’ average, in server segment; -5.6% vs. Dell’s -2.7% in desktop notebook segment
Same as above; lost competitive advantages of previous three reporting periods
Mainly desktop notebook (Lenovo)
Lost previous competitive strengths in both segments
67% reduction in customer delight; while disappointment crept up from 1.8% to 2.8%, it was impressive against competitors’ averages of 7% to 9%
A lapse in customer enthusiasm was the culprit here. Online support, in conjunction with phone support, are the trademarks of both IBM and Lenovo Services. Both need to be aware of Dell’s improving positions.
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Services must focus on regaining past competitive advantages
TBR’s Watch List: IGS
41
Behind the Scenes
While IBM’s support services have consistently been received positively, Lenovo has begun a program that may change its current challenges and perhaps lead to shifts in customer perception. Lenovo’s new Partner Services Program was developed to encourage resellers to understand how to sell Lenovo Priority Support and gives them the ability to bundle an on-site upgrade with the products they sell. The Lenovo Services Sales Support Center was designed as a single point of contact where resellers can learn more about the benefits of Lenovo support services. This serves as a key requirement for sales teams to understand what they are selling and how they can present the value proposition effectively to customers so they can utilize the benefits.
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services continues to hold the record for number of wins since the study’s inception, though IGS/Lenovo holds the record for wins during the past three years•
Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Dell Services has been ranked a
No. 1 support provider for 32 of 42 reporting periods.
•Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was its first since 4Q07 and did
not hold over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three
reporting periods later in 1Q09 and held that distinction for the next
five periods.
Historical Record
•Half of HPS’ 12 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive
No. 1 rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win being the company’s first after an absence of
nearly two years. Competitive pressures contributed to HPS’ drop to the No. 3 spot in 2Q09, followed by a
series of second and third place rankings up to the present.
•Of the 22 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1- ranked player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to
1Q09). During the past three years, IGS has earned a total of 10 No. 1 rankings, outnumbering Dell
Services’ 7 wins.
3Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; methodology differed from that
established with the 1Q01 study.
Until 2Q09, IGS held the record for number of successive wins in the previous 14 reporting periods. IGS regained its No. 1 status in 3Q09,
making for 18 wins during the last 21 reporting periods up to the current reporting period.
42
32
1222
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 42-reporting-period History Beginning
3Q00)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Total # Wins
Dell Services 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 7HP Services 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 10SOURCE: TBR
Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past Three Years
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Cases of differentiation dwindled in 2008, reasserting themselves in 2009 and 2010
Historical Record
•The years 2007, 2009 and 2010 were marked by a substantial
number of performance differentiators, compared to tighter
competitive fields during the remaining years since 2005.
•Some noteworthy patterns of consistency since 2009 include:
•Six consecutive strengths for break/fix services for IGS
•Three straight competitive strengths for online support
for IGS
•Four straight strengths for on-site response time for
Dell Services from 2Q09 through 1Q10, returning in
4Q10
•Warnings or weaknesses in six of the past seven periods
for HPS for on-site support response time
•A recurring pattern of scattered wins for phone support
for IGS
43
3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Dell Services * * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services *
Dell Services *HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *
Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *
Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * *
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * *
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * * *
Dell Services * * *HP Services
IGS/Lenovo Services * *
SOURCE: TBR
Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.
Strength & Weakness Performance History - 3Q05 to 4Q10
SERVICES PRICING/VALUE
REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
BREAK/FIX SERVICES
ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
PHONE SUPPORT
ONLINE SUPPORT
HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables
44
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services extends advantages over HPSUnderstanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions
With Dell Services’ WSI losing less of its value than did HPS, competitive
comparisons fell increasingly into Dell’s favor in 4Q10. In particular, Dell
Services closed the performance gap favoring HPS in 3Q10 for remotely
managed support.
Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of declining mean ratings between Dell
Services and HPS. The exceptions included hardware deployment and remotely
managed support, where Dell Services’ scores held up far better than did those of
HPS.
45
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS,FOR DELL & HP SERVICES 4Q10 VS. 3Q10
Dell Services HP Services
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
-7%
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e/Co
mm
itmen
t
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Hard
war
e In
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces P
ricin
g/Va
lue
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 4Q10 VS.3Q10
Dell to HP Distance 3Q10 Dell to HP Distance 4Q10
DellAdvantage Areas
HP Advantage Areas
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services makes some progress in evening the score against IGS
The most noteworthy development in 4Q10 involved a new competitive
advantage for Dell Services over IGS for on-site response time where IGS had
previously been favored. Additionally, Dell Services’ scores began to bridge
the gaps against IGS for on-site expertise and online support. It is an
interesting development, however, that IGS strengthened its advantage over
Dell Services for the manner in which its customers perceive services value.
IGS’ mean ratings for on-site response time and expertise declined by greater
magnitude than did those of Dell Services, accounting for the shifting
comparisons described above.
Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions
46
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS SERVICES, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10
Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e/Co
mm
itmen
t
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Hard
war
e In
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces P
ricin
g/Va
lue
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 4Q10 VS.3Q10
Dell to IGS Distance 3Q10 Dell to IGS Distance 4Q10DellAdvantage Areas
IGSAdvantageAreas
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS continues to generally outperform HPS, while HPS manages to narrow some performance gaps
IGS continued to outperform HPS by significant margins across
the areas of break/fix services and on-site expertise, while
moving significantly ahead for support services value. IGS,
however, did not continue to outperform HPS with respect to on-
site response time.
IGS’ mean satisfaction rating for on-site response time declined by a
significantly greater magnitude than did that of HPS, hence the
eradication of a previously compelling performance gap.
Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions
47
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
Hard
war
e De
ploy
men
t
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10
HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e/Co
mm
itmen
t
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Hard
war
e In
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces P
ricin
g/Va
lue
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 4Q10 VS.3Q10
HP to IGS Distance 3Q10 HP to IGS Distance 4Q10
HPSAdvantage Areas
IGSAdvantageAreas
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
77.0
79.0
81.0
83.0
85.0
87.0
89.0
91.0
1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, 1Q08 through 4Q10
Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Service and support satisfaction positions improve substantially in 2010, followed by an expected fourth quarter correction
Tracking the Satisfaction Indices
Note: The ranking positions in the table have been adjusted to represent the placement of OEM support
providers, excluding the presence of the internal support organizations.
•Through the end of 2008, TBR observed generally predictable outcomes,
with the in-house support group earning its reputation as the yardstick
against which we measure the OEM support providers. During these
periods, IGS was most consistent at earning top scores in the competition.
•In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction scores were the rule to which no
competitor was immune, defined by a close competition between IGS and
Dell Services, with HPS considerably more challenged.
•Satisfaction positions hit rock bottom in 4Q09, exhibiting hints of a recovery
in 1Q10 that transitioned into a full recovery for all players in 2Q10.
•Scores collectively improved by substantial magnitudes in 2Q10 and 3Q10,
resulting in new record high points being established by all four
competitors by 3Q10.
•As expected, and following the patterns of TBR’s product-related studies,
satisfaction scores corrected in 4Q10, primarily affecting the OEM support
providers.
48
1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1SOURCE: TBR
Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences•
The principal contributor to narrowing performance gaps involved
the perspective of the internal support organizations, where
stressed resources led to significantly declining satisfaction
scores. Throughout most of the recessionary year of 2009, the
group no longer represented the utopia of support capability
against which TBR compares the OEM-provided support groups.
Customer satisfaction with support services declined sharply
throughout 2009 for all groups.
•Positions began to stabilize by 1Q10, setting the stage for the
broad-based and substantial recovery of the 2Q10 reporting
period. In 3Q10, the internal support organizations returned to
the top ranking position for the first time since 1Q09.
•In 4Q10, the in-house group moved substantially ahead of the
OEM support providers, harking back to the patterns we were
accustomed to seeing before the unusual shifts observed in 2009
and most of 2010.
Tracking the Satisfaction Indices
49
76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0
SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM3Q05 THROUGH 4Q10
Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0
SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM3Q05 THROUGH 4Q10, WITH MOVING AVERAGES
2 per. Mov. Avg. (Internal Support Organizations) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dell Services)2 per. Mov. Avg. (HP Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (IGS/Lenovo Services)
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customer expectations for services value, yet the picture is clearly changing
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
4Q10 Developments:
•Historically speaking, Dell Services has been the only competitor to consistently keep pace with customer expectations for
services value, but the past four to five reporting periods suggest this trend may be changing; both IGS and HPS have closed
and consistently maintained the gap between expectation and satisfaction during these periods.
•In 4Q10, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs corrected and dropped back to align closely with expectations following one
to two previous periods where satisfaction exceeded expectation.
•IGS earned its first competitive strength in 4Q10; note how its satisfaction score has exceeded expectations since late 2009.
Satisfaction versus
Importance data points
have remained
interlocked throughout
the timeline for Dell
Services. Competitors,
particularly HPS, have
historically been unable
to sustain closed GAPs.
50
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES
Satisfaction Importance
Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES
Satisfaction Importance
Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Relaxing expectations for on-site response enable support providers to narrow gaps; however, HPS has been the least successful over time
4Q10 Developments:
•Satisfaction scores declined by greater magnitudes than relaxing expectations, leaving gaps that
were not evident in the previous reporting period.
•Dell Services fared the best, its GAP rating within the acceptable range while both competitors’
scores fell well outside.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
51
5.30
5.50
5.70
5.90
6.10
6.30
6.50
SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.005.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60
SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Support providers continue to effectively meet customer expectations for expertise
4Q10 Developments:
•While satisfaction scores corrected in 4Q10, all three OEM support providers were able to keep the gaps against
customer expectation under control.
Satisfaction around
perceived technical
expertise was the hardest
hit of all categories during
2009. Satisfaction levels in
2010, however, represented
a full recovery.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
52
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.005.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60
IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL
EXPERTISE
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Customer expectations for break/fix services rise in 1H10, then stabilize
4Q10 Developments:•
Customer expectations for basic break/fix services continued to relax
(Dell Services, HPS) or stabilize (IGS).
•The small corrections within the satisfaction scores, subsequently, had
no particular consequences with respect to GAP scores.
While GAPs had closed by
late 2009 due to relaxing
expectations, 1Q10 saw a
sudden increase in
customer requirements,
which continued to build
into 2Q10, then taper off.
The break/fix category
refers to customer
experiences with basic
hardware maintenance
services, not with
premium-level contracts.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
53
5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.70
SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR DELL SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.70
SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR HP SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.505.705.906.106.306.506.706.907.10
SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS most consistently meets customer expectations for phone support
4Q10 Developments:•
Customer expectations for phone support continued to rise by varying
degrees while satisfaction positions corrected.•
Subsequently, all three OEM support providers’ GAP scores were only
marginally within the acceptable range.•
Should this new trend of steadily rising expectations continue, the
support providers will be challenged to keep pace.
Historically, Dell Services
and HPS have struggled
to meet customer
expectations for phone
support, predominantly
falling far short of that
goal. Meanwhile, IGS has
consistently maintained
very small GAP positions.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
54
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Expectations and satisfaction for online support continue to vacillate; trend lines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell performances
4Q10 Developments:•
Satisfaction positions collectively corrected, resulting in modestly negative GAP positions (though well
within acceptable ranges) not ordinarily observed in this competition.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
55
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement parts availability is consistently a critical element of the support experience, where substantial progress in meeting high expectations has been achieved
4Q10 Developments:•
Correcting satisfaction positions resulted in a return to negative GAP scores after they had been
temporarily closed in previous reporting periods.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
56
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ positions correct in 4Q10, yet remain well above past-year starting positions
Trends of the Reporting Period
•Dell Services’ satisfaction positions were generally
at their highest levels in 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10.
•4Q10 positions corrected from their record high
points of the previous period, yet generally stayed
above 1Q10 positions.
•Exceptions included phone and online support,
where 4Q10 positions relapsed to 1Q10 positions.
•WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –4%
•Led by significantly declining support services value and break/fix services satisfaction
•Comparatively stable positions included parts availability, hardware deployment and remotely managed support
57
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine/
Web
Sup
port
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
Hard
war
e In
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS1Q10 TO 4Q10
1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS performances adjust back to 2Q10 levels, substantially higher than those at the start of 2010
•HPS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their highest
levels in 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10.
•4Q10 positions corrected from their record high points of
the previous period, yet stayed well above 1Q10 positions.
•There were no exceptions.
Trends of the Reporting Period
58
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine/
Web
Sup
port
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
Hard
war
e In
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS1Q10 TO 4Q10
1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10SOURCE: TBR
TBR
•WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –4.7%
•Led by significantly declining support services value, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction
•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and parts availability
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ scores generally correct back to 2Q10 levels
•IGS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their
highest levels in 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10.
•4Q10 positions corrected from their record high
points of the previous period, yet stayed above 1Q10
positions.
•Exceptions included online and remotely managed
support, where 4Q10 scores lapsed all the way back
to 1Q10 levels.
Trends of the Reporting Period
59
•WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –5%
•Led by significantly declining on-site response time and technical expertise satisfaction
•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and parts availability
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tec
hnic
al E
xper
tise
On-
site
Res
pons
e Ti
me
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine/
Web
Sup
port
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces
Valu
e
Har
dwar
e In
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS1Q10 TO 4Q10
1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Recommended areas for targeted improvements for Dell Services include all aspects of initial contact
•Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support, Online Support
•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Remotely Managed Support
•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services
Improvements GAP Analyses
60
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 4Q10
Recommended Actions
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services’ analysis points to strongly recommended improvement programs around on-site response time, phone and web support•
Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site Response Time, Online Support
•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support
•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services (HPS’ highest score comparatively, despite a significantly lower-than-average rating against competitors)
Improvements GAP Analyses
61
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 4Q10
Recommended Actions
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS must focus on perceptions of on-site response time and online support•
Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site Response Time, Online Support
•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support (driven by high expectations, as IGS earned a competitive strength in 4Q10 due to significantly higher-than-average satisfaction rating)
•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services
Improvements GAP Analyses
62
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 4Q10
Recommended Actions
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The in-house group, like its competition, must increase its focus on phone and online support
•Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support, Online Support
•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services
Improvements GAP Analyses
63
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORTORGANIZATIONS 4Q10
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
Recommended Actions
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site break/fix maintenance, parts availability and on-site support drive support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization
Selection Criteria – Stated
•Critical: Parts availability, break/fix services
•Also Important: On-site expertise and response
time
•Somewhat Important: Phone support, support
services value, online support
•Less Important: Hardware deployment, remotely
managed support
64
3.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.44.64.8
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed S
uppo
rt
Hard
war
eIn
stal
latio
n/Co
nfigu
ratio
n
Onl
ine/
Web
Sup
port
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces V
alue
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
Brea
k/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
Repl
acem
ent P
arts
Ava
ilabi
lity
SERVICE & SUPPORT IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY CUSTOMER GROUP
Dell HP IBM InHouse
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Customer expectations within the IGS group were significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation where IGS was forced to perform that much better
in the satisfaction ratings to rank No. 1 in this reporting wave. While this was largely driven by the IBM Support (server) side of the equation, Lenovo Services customers
were also more focused than competitors’ customers on break/fix services and technical expertise.
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Statistical significance test No. 1 points to performance differentiation generally favoring IGS and Internal SupportTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
4Q10 Developments:
•The internal support groups returned to their historical position as the
standard-setter, outperforming industry averages across most categories –
parts availability being the single exception.
•Dell Services’ results were a mixture of positives and negatives, though only
one was at the 95% confidence level – a substantially higher-than-average on-
site response time rating.
65
DELL SVCS HP SVCSIGS/LENOVO
SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT
Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability
Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean
Results of the Standard t-Test
SOURCE :TBR
Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Performance differentiation in the segments points to IBM as favored for server support; Dell Services for desktop/notebook supportTests compare each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test
The key performance differentiators in the server support segment were break/fix services, on-
site expertise and support services value – all favoring IGS over HPS and Dell Services.
The key performance differentiator in the desktop/notebook support space was on-site
response time, where Dell Services outperformed the industry average while Lenovo
underperformed.
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
66
DELL SVCS HP SVCS IBM SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT
Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean
Results of the Standard t-Test - x86 SERVER SUPPORT
Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels. SOURCE: TBR
TBR
DELL SVCS HP SVCS LENOVO SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT
Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean
SOURCE: TBR
Results of the Standard t-Test - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test
Highlighted performance differentiation involving the OEM support
providers:
•IGS significantly outperformed both competitors for support
services value.
•IGS significantly outperformed HPS for break/fix services and
technical expertise; Dell Services for phone support.
•Dell Services outperformed both competitors for on-site
response time, though the confidence was higher against HPS.
•HPS’ grand mean satisfaction rating was significantly lower than
those of both competitors at high levels of statistical confidence.
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
67
HPSIGS/
LENOVODELL SVCS
IGS/LENOVO
DELL SVCS HPS
Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support
Remotely Managed Support
Replacement Parts Availability
Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction
Grand Mean
Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Vendor Comparisons
t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.
SOURCE: TBR
PAIR-WISE T-TESTS
DELL SVCS VS. HP SVCS VS.IGS/LENOVO
SVCS VS.
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
•The in-house groups outperformed all three OEM support providers across every
category with the single exception of parts availability.
•These performance differences were confirmed at very high levels of statistical
confidence.
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test
68
DELL SVCS HPS
IGS/ LNV
Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability
Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors.
Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.
SOURCE: TBR
PAIR-WISE T-TESTS
INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS VS.
Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Despite the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests
The Bonferroni correction, the most stringent statistical significance test used by TBR, confirmed many of the tests cited by the standard test.
Most of the confirmed differences were in comparisons of in-house support against the OEM support providers. Additional confirmed performance differences included basic break/fix (IGS > HPS),
support services value (IGS > Dell) and on-site response time (Dell over HPS).
Statistical Significance Tests
69
AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo
Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over ALL; IGS over HP 3 -1 -2 0On-site Technical Expertise Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0
On-site Response Time/CommitmentInternal over ALL; Dell over HP 3 0 -2 -1
Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1
Replacement Parts AvailabilityNone at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0
Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL; IGS over Dell 3 -2 -1 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0
25 -9 -11 -5SOURCE: TBR
Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction
Total Points
TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
In the server/storage support segment, the internal
support organizations were confirmed as having
outperformed various competitors across all categories
designated by the previous tests. In addition, IBM
outperformed HPS for break/fix services. IBM also
benefited by not placing significantly lower than in-house
support in several categories while competitors were not
so fortunate.
In the desktop/notebook support segment, the internal
support organizations outperformed competitors in all
but the phone support and parts availability categories, as
designated in the previous tests. In addition, Dell Services
outperformed both competitors for on-site response time.
Despite the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests
Statistical Significance Tests
70
AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IBM
Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; IGS over HP 3 -1 -2 1On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0
22 -8 -10 -3
SOURCE: TBR
Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - x86 SERVER SUPPORT
Total Points
TBR
AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS Lenovo
Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, Lenovo 3 1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Online Support Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1
19 -5 -5 -7
SOURCE: TBR
Total Points
Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the in-house support performance difference premises set by the statistical significance tests
Competitive GAP Analysis
The competitive GAP scores support TBR’s
decisions regarding internal support on the
competitive strength and weakness citations
for the 4Q10 reporting period.
The internal support group’s scores were so
high that they skewed the remainder of the
analysis, making it difficult for OEM support
providers to earn scores above the 100-point
marker.
The test does, however, corroborate warnings
and weaknesses assigned to HPS, for the top
three categories of break/fix services, on-site
expertise and on-site response time.
71
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 4Q10
Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
Exceeds
Fully Meets
Short of
Exp
ecta
tion
Fulfi
llmen
t
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Buying Behavior
Most customers utilize a mix of self-replacement and on-site support for replacing/repairing failed parts
•The majority of customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and on-site support by an OEM or partner.
•TBR observed a fair number of customers who primarily self replace, using third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.
•This pattern largely has remained constant during the past year, with an average of 75% of respondent indicating so.
•Note: TBR observed a higher-than-average proportion of those primarily self-replacing within both the IBM Support and Lenovo Services customer groups.
72
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
100% self replacement
Primarily self replacement/on-sitefor some parts
About 50/50 self replacement/on-site
Primarily on-site;self replace someparts
100% on-site
METHODS OF REPLACING/REPAIRING FAILED PARTS
Desktops/Notebooks Servers
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Customers are most satisfied with a mixture of self-replacement and
on-site support
•While one-third or more of customers indicate they are
most satisfied with self-replacement of failed parts, the
majority prefer a mixture of CRU (Customer
Replaceable Units) and on-site (Field Replaceable
Units). The proper mix by part type clearly yields the
highest satisfaction levels.
•Customers are least satisfied with on-site support
provided by an OEM, authorized or third-party
provider.
•This finding strongly suggests OEM support providers
must find the optimum balance of self-replaceable
versus on-site repair parts. To complicate matters, this
balance may vary greatly by customer.
Buying Behavior
73
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Self replacement On-site repair visit from systemsmanufacturer/authorized
partner
On-site repair visit from thirdparty
Mix of self replacement and on-site
PARTS REPAIR METHOD WITH HIGHEST SATISFACTION (Respondents Select One)
Servers Desktops/Notebooks
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
•Note: HPS customers (both server and desktop/notebook) were less satisfied than competitors’ customers with on-site repair
provided by their OEM.
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Customers face many challenges in replacing failed parts in-house, led by availability of parts and the challenge of replacing
more difficult parts
•The variety of challenges organizations face in replacing failed parts themselves could be at the root of an increase in requirements for on-site support. This premise is supported by the finding that
at least 50% of respondents indicated they face issues with the difficulty of replacing some parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. For the OEMs, this could entail product design issues and/or
the need for improved documentation, but also it strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support.
•Note: In-house support customers indicated they are less challenged than OEM support customers with difficulty of replacing parts, suggesting their staffs are currently up to the task levels.
•On the server support side, IBM Support customers indicated they are more challenged with parts availability and less so with staff resources than competitors’ customers.
Buying Behavior
74
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Limited staff resources
Replacement parts availability
Issues with difficulty of replacingparts
Lack of training/in-house expertise
Forced to self replace due tocontract terms/cost
PRINCIPAL CHALLENGES IN REPLACING FAILED PARTS IN HOUSE
Desktops/Notebooks Servers
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Premium support contracts and extended warranties are more common for server support than desktop/notebook
On the server side, Dell continues to demonstrate a somewhat larger proportion of
customers indicating they have premium support contracts vs. the competition.
HPS appears to be somewhat behind the competition with respect to premium-level
support contracts for desktop/notebook customers. Dell appears to be trailing with
respect to the sales of extended warranties.
Buying Behavior
75
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services In House
TYPES OF x86 SERVER SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED
Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TYPES OF DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED
Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The sample distribution of internal support by brand has remained largely constant over time
Internal Support Teams
76
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP BY MAJOR PC BRANDS
Dell HP IBM/Lenovo
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores –
3Q07 Through 4Q10
77
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores
3Q07 Through 4Q10
78
BREAK/FIX SERVICES3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Dell Services & Partners 5.88 5.86 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92 6.25 6.47 6.14HP Services & Partners 5.86 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94 6.24 6.34 6.04IGS & Partners 6.13 6.09 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09 6.35 6.58 6.23Internal Support Organizations 6.07 6.18 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75 6.12 6.57 6.47ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.80 5.84 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52 5.95 6.31 6.00HP Services & Partners 5.86 5.93 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24 5.86 6.20 5.88IGS & Partners 5.97 6.06 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38 6.02 6.45 6.04Internal Support Organizations 6.06 6.13 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47 5.88 6.27 6.20ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.90 5.70 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63 5.84 6.12 5.85HP Services & Partners 5.65 5.69 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15 5.56 5.96 5.63IGS & Partners 5.92 5.94 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45 5.85 6.22 5.71Internal Support Organizations 6.22 6.27 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76 6.12 6.37 6.30TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.58 5.44 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64 5.84 5.81 5.62HP Services & Partners 5.43 5.55 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28 5.64 5.89 5.72IGS & Partners 5.65 5.68 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48 5.83 5.92 5.77Internal Support Organizations 6.01 6.00 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48 5.92 6.10 5.98ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.66 5.59 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50 5.77 5.76 5.54HP Services & Partners 5.44 5.50 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34 5.74 5.86 5.57IGS & Partners 5.74 5.55 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60 5.98 5.94 5.63Internal Support Organizations 5.71 5.64 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58 5.93 6.01 5.91REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 6.06 6.04 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63 5.92 6.24 6.07HP Services & Partners 5.85 5.83 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53 5.91 6.19 6.00IGS & Partners 6.01 6.04 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69 5.95 6.28 6.10Internal Support Organizations 5.66 5.61 5.41 5.32 5.48 5.41 5.50 5.51 5.41 5.25 5.23 5.71 6.29 6.15
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores
3Q07 Through 4Q10
79
SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Dell Services & Partners 5.80 5.73 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77 6.17 6.20 5.85HP Services & Partners 5.56 5.50 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63 6.06 6.24 5.90IGS & Partners 5.71 5.74 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79 6.20 6.32 6.02Internal Support Organizations 5.86 5.96 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65 6.04 6.30 6.24HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.90 5.67 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40 5.67 5.85 5.71HP Services & Partners 5.64 5.56 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30 5.73 5.84 5.54IGS & Partners 5.69 5.79 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35 5.62 5.84 5.63Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.18 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52 5.97 6.15 6.09AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.50 5.42 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43 5.54 5.46 5.43HP Services & Partners 5.30 5.31 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26 5.53 5.68 5.45IGS & Partners 5.52 5.62 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39 5.64 5.59 5.37Internal Support Organizations 5.56 5.50 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56 5.85 5.87 5.85OVERALL SATISFACTION
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.87 5.76 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77 6.09 6.26 5.96HP Services & Partners 5.73 5.76 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70 5.97 6.25 5.96IGS & Partners 5.84 5.89 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92 6.17 6.28 6.04Internal Support Organizations 6.02 6.10 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70 6.02 6.25 6.19Survey Counts
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 161 160 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252HP Services & Partners 162 160 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252IGS & Partners 160 160 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254Internal Support Organizations 165 160 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 404
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected
Attributes
80
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis
Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations
81
VENDOR 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04 1Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Dell * * * HP
IGS *
Dell *
HP
IGS
Dell
HP
IGS * *
Dell * *
HP
IGS * *
Dell * *
HP
IGS * * *
Dell
HP
IGS * * * *
Dell * *
HP
IGS * * *
Dell * * *
HP
IGS * *
SERVICES PRICING/VALUE
PHONE SUPPORT
ONLINE SUPPORT
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME
PARTS AVAILABILITY
BREAK/FIX SERVICES
Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.
SOURCE: TBR
HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction
Attributes
82
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Break/Fix ServicesSatisfaction Trends
83
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR BREAK/FIX SERVICES
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Technical ExpertiseSatisfaction Trends
84
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE EXPERTISE
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR.SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Response TimeSatisfaction Trends
85
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone SupportSatisfaction Trends
86
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online SupportSatisfaction Trends
87
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement Parts AvailabilitySatisfaction Trends
88
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Services Pricing/ValueSatisfaction Trends
89
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Hardware Deployment/Installation/ConfigurationSatisfaction Trends
90
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Satisfaction Trends
91
4.80
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Overall SatisfactionSatisfaction Trends
92
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR.
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs
93
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Break/Fix ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
94
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Technical ExpertiseConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
95
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Response TimeConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
96
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone SupportConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
97
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online SupportConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
98
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement Parts AvailabilityConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
99
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Services ValueConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
100
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
101
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Confidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
102
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
103
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix F: Categorical Responses
104
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Break/Fix ServicesCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
105
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS
IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS
IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Technical ExpertiseCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
106
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Response TimeCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
107
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone SupportCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
108
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online SupportCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
109
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement Parts AvailabilityCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
110
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Services Pricing/ValueCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
111
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Hardware DeploymentCategory Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
112
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Category Graphs
3Q10 4Q10
113
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix G: Server/Storage versus Desktop/Notebook Support
by Support Provider
114
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services 4Q10Satisfaction Trends
115
4.80
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
eDe
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services 4Q10Satisfaction Trends
116
4.60
4.80
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60Br
eak/
Fix
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
eDe
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM Global Services 4Q10Satisfaction Trends
117
4.60
5.10
5.60
6.10
6.60
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
eDe
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
IGS /LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
IGS for IBM Servers Lenovo Services for Desktops/Notebooks
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Internal Support Organizations 4Q10Satisfaction Trends
118
4.80
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
6.40
6.60Br
eak/
Fix
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e
On-
site
Expe
rtise
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Web
Sup
port
Rem
otel
y M
anag
ed
Hard
war
eDe
ploy
men
t
Part
s Av
aila
bilit
y
Ove
rall
Valu
e
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology
119
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Study Design & Methodology
TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study is based on the views of those who manage in-
house support services and/or work with OEM-provided support Companies interviewed for TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study are required to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers,
desktops and notebooks) installed. In contrast, TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 PCs for most covered brands. This makes
the Service & Support study a tool best suited for evaluating the experiences of midsized corporations, whereas the product-related studies extend to the
experiences of enterprise customers. The reason for the differing criteria is that larger organizations tend to rely more fully (sometimes entirely) on their
internal support staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this study to mirror TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies,
including the x86-based Server, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop Customer Satisfaction studies.
Throughout this report, TBR refers to two types of support providers:
INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS: Companies with in-house technical support staff (systems manufacturers often refer to these customers as “self-
maintainers”); TBR’s study focuses primarily on internal support organizations that perform a number of support functions with their own staff,
supplemented by OEM-provided support as needed.
OEM SUPPORT PROVIDERS: Dell Services, HP Services, IBM Global Services and Lenovo Services perform repairs and basic maintenance for customers
based on support service portfolio offerings.
•Dell Services and its authorized service partners provide technical support to Dell customer sites for servers, notebooks and/or desktop PCs.
•HP Services encompasses services for the Industry Standard Server group as well as for the Personal Systems Group (desktops and notebooks).
•IGS comprises support services for IBM server customers as well as for Lenovo desktop and notebook PC customers. Lenovo customers are serviced by
IGS and Lenovo Services, in addition to a network of third-party service delivery partners.
Additional Screening Criteria for the Corporate IT Service
& Support Satisfaction Study:
1. Has your company utilized any on-site, phone or
web support for Dell, HP, IBM or Lenovo for
desktops, servers or notebooks in the past three
months?
2. Is your company utilizing
in-house technical support?
3. Are you personally involved in evaluating,
recommending or purchasing support services for
desktops, servers and notebooks at your company
or site? Or, if your site uses internal support teams
only, are you involved with the supervision of these
teams?
120
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Reporting Structure Defined
TBR generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support; report sections break up
the study results by segment wherever referenced (server/storage support, desktop/notebook support)
Combined Study Results
Sample size = Approximately 250 interviews per group
Covers satisfaction with x86-based server as well as desktop/notebook
support delivered by:
1. Dell Services
2. HP Services (includes both TSS and PSG groups)
3. IGS (includes both IBM server support and Lenovo desktop/notebook
support)
4. Internal Support Organizations
x86 Server/Storage Support, wherever referenced
Sample size = Approximately 125 interviews per group
Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by:
1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support)
2. HP Services (TSS)
3. IBM/IGS Services
4. Internal Support Organizations
Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referenced
Sample size = Approximately 125 interviews per group
Covers satisfaction with desktop/notebook support delivered by:
1. Dell Services (Client Support)
2. HP Services (PSG)
3. Lenovo Services
4. Internal Support Organizations
Study Design & Methodology
121
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Sample Overview •
TBR’s 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 576 medium and large U.S. and Canadian establishments, primarily MIS/IT, systems management
and purchasing managers.
•A number of the respondents are responsible for purchasing services from multiple support providers for their company or site, and thus were interviewed twice (once for each brand). Most respondents rated, at
the very least, their internal support organization and one third-party provider.
•Consequently, 1,028 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR intentionally boosted the number of required interviews to better
represent the stated experiences of customers receiving server-related versus desktop/notebook-related support events.
•Because many of the larger companies rely exclusively on their internal support teams, the requirements for this study differ from TBR’s x86-based server, notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. The minimum
requirement is an installed base of 200 systems for the Service & Support Study (versus 500 for the standard studies). Respondents are screened to include only those who recommend or evaluate OEM support
services for their organization and also manage an internal support staff.
•The service and support interviews for the reporting period were distributed as follows: 252 Dell Services customer interviews; 252 HP Services customer interviews; 254 IBM Global Services customer interviews;
and 270 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2010.
Study Design & Methodology
Methodology & Sample
122
Sample Size Standard ErrorAll Providers 1028 1.00%
Dell & Partners 252 1.91%
HP & Partners 252 1.67%
IGS & Partners 254 1.48%
Internal Support Organizations 270 1.66%
SOURCE: TBR
Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes
Service & Support
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Number of Employees Study Design & Methodology
123
Number of EmployeesPercentage of Respondents
<500 21.7%
500–1,000 14.8%
1,000–4,999 29.2%
5,000–9,999 13.5%
10,000–14,999 7.6%
15,000–19,999 5.0%
20,000–49,999 3.6%
50,000–74,999 1.9%
75,000–99,999 0.7%
100,000+ 1.9%
Average Number of Employees 8,787
SOURCE: TBR
Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Type of Business Study Design & Methodology
124
Type of Business Percentage of Respondents
Public Utilities 3%
Mining, Construction 3%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 4%
Other Services 4%
Pharmaceuticals 4%
Transportation Service 4%
Wholesale Trade 5%
Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 6%
Manufacturing - Process (materials) 6%
Professional, Scientific, Technical 7%
Retail Trade 7%
Information Service (including software development) 9%
Finance, Insurance, real estate 9%
Government 10%
Healthcare 10%
SOURCE: TBR
Types of Businesses Represented in the Study
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Job Titles/Responsibilities Study Design & Methodology
125
CXO (CIO,CTO) 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%Vice Pres ident 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%Director 9.4% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1%Manager 54.9% 7.1% 3.6% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0% 67.2%Coordinator/Adminis tration 11.1% 1.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 15.2%Other 2.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 3.6%Grand Tota l 80.8% 10.0% 6.3% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR
Respondent Job Functions/Responsibilities
Systems Management PurchasingLevel MIS/IT Grand TotalNetworking Customer Service/Support Other
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Purchasing – Past, Present & Future
The 4Q10 study sample represents 2.8 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional
630,000 units during the next 12 months.
Study Design & Methodology
126
x86-Based x86-BasedServers Servers
Sum 1,610,186 321,559 875,992 345,994 79,829 202,544
Mean 2,850 569 1,550 612 141 358
Sum 7,728 559 1,405 928 404 649
Mean 703 51 128 84 37 59
Enterprise 21.49% 24.83% 23.12%
Division 12.01% 72.27% 46.19%
SOURCE: TBR
Enterprise
Division
Percent of Installed Base Replaced
Units Installed and Planned for Purchase by Form Factor
Installed Base Purchase Intent
Desktops Notebooks Desktops Notebooks
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix I: Analytical Procedures
127
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Satisfaction Ratings
Totally Dissatisfied
(Failure) Mediocre Totally
Satisfied
Failure Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
•The customer satisfaction analysis was based on several lines of questioning. Respondents were asked to grade their vendor across a series of attributes (listed below) for
each brand the surveyed corporations purchased in the most recent buying cycle. At the conclusion of the attribute testing, respondents were asked to provide a rating
based on a 7-point Likert scale.
•Respondents were also asked to indicate the relative importance of each of the attributes in choosing their brand. These responses were given on a 1- to 5-point scale, with
1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important. These ratings determined the gap between vendor satisfaction and importance, or how well the vendor
manages expectations.
•Respondents were then asked to indicate on a 1- to 5-point scale the degree of their loyalty toward their primary vendor(s). Finally, respondents were asked whether their
corporation switched from one vendor to another during the past 12 months, and if so, which vendors were involved and why a change was made.
Analytical Model
128
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Measured Attributes
Customer satisfaction and relative importance were measured for each of the following attributes. Proportions of customers utilizing each service (based
on percentage responding) are also indicated in the table.
Analytical Model
129
Service % RespondingOn-Site Break/Fix Services 91.71%
On Site Technical Expertise 90.85%
On Site Response Time/Commitment 91.51%
Telephone/Help Desk Support 91.61%
Online Support 90.92%
Replacement Parts Availability 91.26%
Support Services Pricing/Value 91.61%
Hardware Installation/Configuration 80.72%
Automated Diagnostics 76.49%
Overall Satisfaction 91.71%
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Satisfaction Statistics •
A table of satisfaction statistics (including mean, standard deviation, standard error, range around the mean representing 95% confidence interval and standard t-Test) describes customer
satisfaction for each vendor in each attribute area, with special emphasis on overall satisfaction. A series of t-Tests were performed on each vendor against the sum of its competitors, and the
attribute areas where significant differences in score were indicated are marked. The t-Test compares two means to determine if one mean is significantly different than the other, taking variability
of response into consideration. The purpose of these tests is to determine if any of the group’s mean differences observed (e.g., a group being a set of customers of one vendor) cannot be entirely
explained by random or natural variation within sampled groups of customers. In other words, the observed differences are real. TBR uses an independent sample t Test assuming unequal variances, ‑
or the standard student’s t-Test. Those attributes with an level of 0.05 or less are cited as indicating there is a 95% chance that concluding the two means are different is correct. A t-Test of the
grand mean (the mean of all scores for all attributes combined) serves to determine whether any of the vendors’ overall scores tend to run higher or lower than competitors’ scores.
•As a backup to the above tests, an alternate test (the Bonferroni correction) is used for confirmation purposes (e.g., one-way analysis of variation). The variation within a group of customers is first
determined in these one-way ANOVA tests. These variations are then compared to the variability between the groups (e.g., between Dell, HP and IBM customers). The between-group variation is
measured by the sum of the squared differences between the sample mean of each group and the grand mean, which is then weighted by the sample size in each group. The between-group
variation will be larger than the within-group variation (variation within each specific customer group) if there are meaningful differences between the means. The attributes that pass this additional
test are also cited in the report. While the one-way ANOVA identifies which attributes are affected by differing means according to customer group, further tests, such as the Bonferroni correction,
identify exactly which means differ from one another.
Analytical Procedures
130
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
•The competitive GAP analysis measures the gap between a vendor’s customer satisfaction for each attribute area against the expectations (importance ratings) of the market (all respondents). The
standard against which each vendor is measured is the average size of that gap for all server vendors. The GAP analysis compares vendor satisfaction per attribute against importance per attribute
among the vendor’s customer base, relative to overall satisfaction for all vendors per attribute against overall importance for all vendors per attribute. The formula for each attribute area
independently is as follows:
GAP = ____(Vendor Importance * (7-Vendor Satisfaction)____ * 100
(Grand Mean Importance * (7-Grand Mean Satisfaction)
•The product for the above is graphed on a scale where values between 40 and 80 indicate where the vendor exceeds customer expectation; values between 81 and 120 show where the vendor fully
meets expectation; values greater than 120 indicate where the vendor falls short of expectation.
•A second GAP analysis (the standard GAP analysis) considers how each systems vendor manages the expectations of its own customer base. For each vendor independently and for each attribute area,
the mean satisfaction rating is graphed next to the mean importance rating (adjusted from a 5-point scale to the 12-point scale used for customer satisfaction). There are three possible outcomes:
satisfaction meets customer expectation (bar graphs are equal or within a range where the gap is not significant); satisfaction falls short of expectation (indicating areas where the systems vendor may
want to consider focusing greater efforts on raising satisfaction); and satisfaction exceeds expectation (indicating attribute areas where the systems vendor may be focusing more than is necessary).
•Yet another GAP analysis (the Improvements GAP analysis) is focused on determining the areas where the vendors need to set up improvement programs and areas where vendors may be able to pull
back resources. It uses a similar formula to the competitive GAP analysis, however, the denominator becomes the grand mean importance and satisfaction for the vendor across all of the attributes. In
this test, TBR compares the gaps for each of the individual attributes against the average gap for the vendor. Areas where the gaps measure wider than the average are areas where the vendor most
urgently needs to focus its improvement efforts.
GAP AnalysisAnalytical Procedures
131
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
A trend analysis compares each vendor’s customer satisfaction scores for the current reporting period separately against those from both the preceding reporting period
and the reporting period prior to that. By comparing against both reporting periods, TBR is able to determine if any changes are indicative of a real change in historical
pattern. This graph uses a 95% confidence-interval technique; the scores for each vendor are represented with the mean indicated in the middle from which the lines
extend (in both directions) the distance of the standard error around the mean. This analysis is used to determine the reasons a vendor may move up or down in the
rankings from previous reporting periods: is it because the vendor improved or because the competition declined in customer satisfaction? The analysis also is used to
pinpoint potential problem areas or areas where marked improvement is evident.
Trend Analysis Analytical Procedures
132
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1. A numeric weighting model is applied in order to provide a ranking of the vendors and a means for tracking overall change in customer perception over time. Where N represents the total number of attributes, AI the importance score for each attribute and AS the satisfaction score for each attribute, the formula applied for calculating the weighted satisfaction index, on an individual respondent basis is:
Weighted Satisfaction Index = 100*7/
1
1
N
ii
N
iii
AI
AIAS
Note: The total number of attributes for the x86-based server segment = 10 The above has been calculated for each respondent, with missing values (Don’t Know or Not Applicable responses) having been replaced with the mean value for the attribute for the vendor group. The weighted satisfaction index for each vendor is the mean of the respondents’ weighted scores. The calculation for the individual satisfaction index is as follows. Where S = the sum of the satisfaction rating times the corresponding importance rating across the total attributes; and where I = the sum of the importance ratings across the attributes:
Weighted Satisfaction Index = 1007IS
Numeric Weighting Model Analytical Procedures
133
support provider segment = 10
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Provider Ranking Positions
•Vendor ranking positions are determined primarily by the average weighted satisfaction index positions, with a minimum distance of 1.0% generally required for TBR to assign separate ranking
positions to any two vendors. The determination of ranking positions does not end here, however; additional factors, such as number of competitive strengths versus weaknesses, also play into the
final decision, which is a team effort by TBR principals. Consequently, less than a 1.0% distance can occur between two vendors’ weighted satisfaction index positions, yet, they may be assigned
separate ranking positions based on the additional factors stated above.
•A competitive strength and weakness table is the final result of all the above analysis. The table points to the attribute areas that are definite strengths or weaknesses for each vendor. Areas of
neutrality are those attributes where the vendor’s customer satisfaction performance is about average. The formula utilized for the determinations is: each attribute receives a score of 0 for neutrality,
+1 for a positive and –1 for a negative. Three analysis are reviewed: the t-Test analysis (0 for null, +1 for significantly higher scores and –1 for significantly lower scores); the competitive GAP analysis (0
for meeting expectation, +1 for exceeding and –1 for falling short); and the vendor GAP analysis. The standard t-Test results are compared to those of the more stringent Bonferroni analysis and those
passing both tests are given an extra point. The three scores for each attribute are then summed up. Any attribute with a total score of +2 or –2 is cited as a strength or weakness; total scores between
these ranges are cited as neutral areas. Those with scores of +4 or –4 are areas of particularly strong strength or weakness. Marginal determinations (warnings or marginal strengths) come about
when the determination is borderline (i.e., only the first t-Test was passed, or the t-Test was passed as a potential area of strength but a poor GAP rating negated it).
Competitive Strength & Weakness Table
Analytical Procedures
134
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix J: Survey Instrument
135
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
SCREENERS
136
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
137
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
138
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
139
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
140
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
141
TBR
©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.
Technology Business ResearchTechnology Business Research is a different kind of research company. Our bottoms-up approach provides a look at the technology industry unlike anything you’ve seen before. We analyze
company performance in professional services, networking and mobility, computing and hardware, and software on a quarterly basis, leveraging our data to create industry benchmarks and
landscapes that provide a business perspective on leaders and laggards and their business plans. We are experts in the business of technology.
“I never go into a negotiation with a vendor until I have reviewed TBR’s
quarterly reports. Understanding a vendor’s profit margin by business unit
gives me an information edge in formulating my negotiation strategy and
has saved my organization countless dollars!”
– Telecom End User
“We are using Technology Business Research’s operational metrics and
management consulting taxonomy to drive our growth strategy and
resources for our management consulting business…”
- Top 5 Global Technology Company
TBR
©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.
For more information on accessing new TBR reports please contact James McIlroy at [email protected] or at 603-758-1813
Follow our analysts on @TBRinc
Read out analysts’ commentaries at @TBRincNewsroom
Watch our recorded webinars at http://www.youtube.com/user/TBRIChannel?feature=mhee