1. Customer Satisfaction Measurement Work
Update and next steps
CSM Expert Group Meeting
Berlin 27 March 2007
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi

2. We have agreed before To work on: sharing good examples of CSM,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FINLAND
We have agreed before
To work on:
placing the CSM into a wider perspective of customer oriented service delivery,
sharing good examples of CSM,
the use of measurement results for service improvements,
the topics to be covered in possible common guidelines for CSM.
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi

3. Customer oriented service delivery
Important aspects to consider:
Adoption of TQM approach,
Managing the cultural change needed,
Empowering the stakeholders.
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi

4. We have collected cases
Examples of large scale approaches commissioned by a central department.
Examples of common tools providing for benchmarking.
Examples of measuring single services functions.
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi

5. The use of measurement results for service improvements
What do we intend to do with the information gathered? (Improve the service delivery process of a certain unit, compare units to find benchmarks, use it as an image builder for the public sector etc.)
What do we want to know? (Their satisfaction towards the existing services in general, their ideas for designing new services, their opinions about a certain part of a service delivery etc.).
Who do we ask? (The general public, the people who have actually used the services in question, people representing a certain segment of the customers etc.)
How do we involve the stakeholders? (The role of the management and staff in using the information, the commitment of the decision makers, the role of the partner organisations and the motivation of the customers etc.).
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi

6. Factors to consider when establishing the use of CSM tools
Do we need a new tool for getting the information we want? (Is it possible to get the same knowledge by using the existing information – e.g. by interviewing the front line staff, analysing media coverage etc.?)
Which is more important; to compare results with others or to have specified information for own unique development purposes? (The pros and cons of standardized and tailored approaches need to be considered).
Who is the commissioner of the tool measurement and who owns the results? (It is important that the commissioner has full rights to the results of the survey and shares them with the relevant stakeholders).
Is the method used for measurement transparent? (The tool needs to be transparent enough for the commissioner and the users of the results to see how the measures are formed).
Is the service in question transparent? (To be able to use the results of CSM for improvements, the content of the service needs to be visible; black boxes cannot be improved).
Is the measurement worth it? (Input-output-outcome analysis in advance to the measurement. Are the benefits gained from these measurements worth the time and money spent on it?)
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi

7. Conclusions and next steps
IPSG decided in its meeting on February 2007 that for the DG meeting ( June 2007) and the Ministerial meeting (22. June 2007):
That the aim is to present a policy paper on CSM according to the content described in this paper.
CSM Expert group should further develop the policy paper and good practice cases should be modified according to the 5 D format.
Expert group will be invited to meet on 27. March 2007 in Berlin. Additional participants from the Member States and EIPA are welcomed to join the group.
Status of the work and the draft policy paper is to be presented and discussed at the next IPSG meeting to be held in Bonn in May 2007 after which it can be finalized and approved to be delivered to the DG meeting and to the Ministerial meeting.
Public Management Department / Johanna Nurmi