1. IAF Certification/ Registration Bodies’ Member Satisfaction Program September 19, 2003 Final Report Summary

2. Page 2 www.burke.com Agenda  Research Objectives  Executive Summary  ABs: Interacted and Satisfaction With  Accreditation Bodies’ Performance Analysis  Mutual Recognition (MLA)

3. Page 3 www.burke.com Research Goals  Measure CRBs’ overall satisfaction with Accreditation Bodies.  Identify areas warranting improvement by Accreditation Bodies.  Examine the perceived value of MLA (Mutual Recognition)

4. Page 4 www.burke.com Research Design  Web-based interviewing:  An email invitation is sent to CRBs which contains the URL where the web survey is administered.  Reminder emails are sent to non-respondents.  Respondent names and email addresses are provided by IAF members to Burke.  Survey is conducted in English, French, German, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin and Japanese.

5. Page 5 www.burke.com Executive Summary  This 2003 program is the first comprehensive assessment of CRB perceptions worldwide.  Contact information was provided by over 40 Accreditation Bodies and the survey was conducted by the IAF.  Email invitations were sent by Burke with a message from the IAF asking for their participation.  In addition, two email reminders were sent.

6. Page 6 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings  We sent out 704 invitations. Of these, 99 completed the survey. This yields a response rate of 14%, fairly typical for an online survey.  Those CRBs completing the survey worked with 31 of the 43 Accreditation Bodies listed. On average, CRBs have been accredited by 3.36 ABs.  We asked respondents to name the two primary ABs with whom they work and we then gathered information about these two organizations.  We gave respondents the opportunity to rate other ABs at the end of the survey.

7. Page 7 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings (cont.)  Overall Satisfaction with ABs:  Two-thirds of respondents (64.8%) are at least somewhat satisfied with the Accreditation Bodies with whom they work.  However, only 13.7% were “very” satisfied.  Typically, we would expect 60 - 65% to be very satisfied.  The proportion of CRBs who express dissatisfaction (32.8%) is very high.

8. Page 8 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings (cont.)  How to Improve AB Satisfaction Levels:  We have conducted over 1,500 similar programs.  Historically, organizations would focus on customer complaints to direct improvement efforts.  The problem with this approach is that these issues might not drive customer/ stakeholder satisfaction or purchase.  Organizations then moved (10-15 years ago) to key driver analysis. Identify those issues driving customer satisfaction and focus on those.  The problem with this approach is that an organization might already perform well on several of the key drivers and thus focusing on them is a waste of those resources.

9. Page 9 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings (cont.)  How to Improve AB Satisfaction Levels:  We combine these approaches: we focus on key drivers of satisfaction but only on those where customers rate your performance low. We call these issues “target” issues.  Improvement on target issues represents an organization’s best chance of improving overall satisfaction. The target issues identified include:  Completes accreditation procedure in a timely manner  Responds quickly to requests for extensions of scope  Has open, clear communication with me  Treats me as a valued customer  Provides services that are a good value for the money

10. Page 10 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings (cont.)  How to Improve AB Satisfaction Levels:  Several other issues should be monitored as they are nearly target issues themselves:  Has a witness process that adds value  Allows the CRBs to participate in the governance of the Accreditation Body  Has reasonable office audit fees

11. Page 11 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings (cont.)  Mutual Recognition (MLA):  58.6% of CRBs believe having one accreditation body recognized worldwide is very valuable and 31.3% feel it is somewhat valuable.  This differs across regions:  North (84.6%) and South America (100%) and Australia (78.6%) believe one accreditation body recognized worldwide is very valuable.  In Asia (29.4%), Europe (53.1%) and South Africa (50%), the value is seen by fewer CRBs.  Somewhat fewer (71.7%) saw the value (very or somewhat valuable) of an IAF accreditation mark recognized worldwide.

12. Page 12 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Key Findings (cont.)  Mutual Recognition (MLA):  While 61% see the MLA as at least somewhat valuable, over a third (35%) do not see the value.  More CRBs (45%) are dissatisfied with the progress of the ABs in achieving mutual recognition using MLA than are satisfied (40%).

13. Page 13 www.burke.com Executive Summary  Conclusions  It should be remembered that only 14% responded to our invitation to participate in the survey. They may, or may not, be representative of the entire CRB population.  This survey especially cannot be used to evaluate individual Accreditation Bodies as the base sizes per AB are just too small.  Among those who participated, the levels of dissatisfaction would be a matter of grave concern were this program sponsored by a commercial firm in a competitive market.

14. Page 14 www.burke.com Accreditation Bodies Worked With and Evaluated

15. Page 15 www.burke.com Q.1: Number of Accreditation Bodies By Whom They’ve Been Accredited Mean = 3.36 Base: All Respondents: 99

16. Page 16 www.burke.com Q.3: Overall Satisfaction With Accreditation Bodies Base: Total Accreditation Bodies Rated: 131

17. Page 17 www.burke.com Performance Attribute Analysis 1. What is important to our customers? 3. So what do we do now? 2. How are we doing? Attribute Leverage Attributes that are found to be drivers of satisfaction via correlation Attribute Leverage Attributes that are found to be drivers of satisfaction via correlation Attribute Performance CRBs' attribute ratings evaluating performance. Attribute Performance CRBs' attribute ratings evaluating performance. Issue Prioritization Contrasting attribute leverage with attribute performance to identify improvement opportunities Issue Prioritization Contrasting attribute leverage with attribute performance to identify improvement opportunities Stated Importance Customer importance ratings indicate stated attribute importance Stated Importance Customer importance ratings indicate stated attribute importance

18. Page 18 www.burke.com Attribute Performance Then rate how satisfied you are with each Accreditation Body’s performance on that attribute. Not At All Very Important Important 123456789 Please rate how important you feel each attribute is to you. Very Very Dissatisfied Satisfied 123456789

19. Page 19 www.burke.com Q.4: Attribute Leverage - Most Important Performance Issues - Base: Total Accreditation Bodies Rated: 131

20. Page 20 www.burke.com Attribute Performance Deficiencies 2. How are we doing? Attribute Performance CRB attribute ratings evaluating Accreditation Bodies’ performance. Showing proportion of customers getting less than they would like (dissatisfied). Attribute Performance CRB attribute ratings evaluating Accreditation Bodies’ performance. Showing proportion of customers getting less than they would like (dissatisfied).  Attribute performance ratings show how Accreditation Bodies perform on each attribute in the eyes of its customers.  We provide the mean rating to give an overall assessment of AB performance.  The primary metric, however, is a “Deficiency” score which indicates the percentage of CRBs who give a 1-4 rating (on the 9-point scale) for their Accreditation Body’s performance.

21. Page 21 www.burke.com Q.4: Accreditation Body Performance - Proportion of CRBs Giving a Bottom 4 Box (1 - 4) Rating – Issues With the Highest Levels of Dissatisfaction Base: Total Accreditation Bodies Rated: 131

22. Page 22 www.burke.com Performance Issue Classification & Prioritization -The Targeting Matrix - Work here last; check to see if “over-delivering” or if able to redirect resources ABs are under-performing on these impactful attributes Reduce deficiencies, but lower impact on satisfaction; less “bang for the buck” Must maintain: continuous improvement candidates TARGET ISSUES Less Important Strengths Less Critical Issues Important Strengths AB Performance More Customers Perceiving Deficiency Fewer Customers Perceiving Deficiency Weaker Stronger Attribute Impact on Satisfaction Focus on these issues

23. Page 23 www.burke.com Higher Opportunity Identification Important Strengths Less Important Strengths Less Critical Issues Lower Higher Lower Attribute Impact On CRB Satisfaction Proportion of CRBs Giving a 1-4 Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Completes accreditation procedure in a timely manner 6 7 8 9 10 Responds quickly to requests for extensions of scope 11 12 13 14 15 16 Has a witness process that adds value 17 18 19 Has open, clear communication with me 20 Allows the CRBs to participate in the governance of the Accreditation Body 21 Treats me as a valued customer 22 Provides services that are a good value for the money 23 24 25 26 27 Has reasonable office audit fees 28 29 Target Issues Base: Total Accreditation Bodies Rated: 131

24. Page 24 www.burke.com Mutual Recognition: MLA

25. Page 25 www.burke.com Q.10a: Value of One Accreditation Body That Is Recognized Worldwide Base: All Respondents: 99

26. Page 26 www.burke.com Q.10b: Value of an IAF Accreditation Mark That Is Used Worldwide Base: All Respondents: 99

27. Page 27 www.burke.com Q.11: Value of Current IAF MLA (Mutual Recognition Arrangement) Base: All Respondents: 99

28. Page 28 www.burke.com Q.12: Overall Satisfaction With the Progress of the Accreditation Bodies in Achieving Mutual Recognition Using the MLA Base: All Respondents: 99

29. Page 29 www.burke.com Action steps to move forward

30. Page 30 www.burke.com Communicate the results to the GA Establish team to address issues Communicate the study results to all members Communicate appreciation to the CRBs Communicate the establishment of the team to the CRBs Proactive Communiqué Seek input from members Identify corrective actions Communicate – develop consensus Execute Resurvey Action steps moving forward