tbr 1q11 corporate it service & support customer satisfaction study
DESCRIPTION
Technology 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. The TBR Computing research team compiled information from the First Quarter 2011 into this Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study. These supporting slides include information regarding internal support organizations, Dell Services, IGS/Lenovo Services, and HP Services. TBR provides insight on hot topics such as competitive placement, performance differentiation shifts, server support, desktop/notebook support, critical metrics, historical record, and their own Watch List.TRANSCRIPT
TBR
TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.
Technology Business ResearchAccelerating Customer Success Through Business Research
TBR
TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.
Customer Satisfaction Study –
First Calendar Quarter 2011
Corporate IT Service & Support
OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
SUPPORT PROVIDER1Q11 TBR
RANK1Q11 WSI
SCORE1Q11 Strength/
Weakness Points1Q11 TBR
RANK1Q11 TBR
SCORE
1Q11 Strength/Weakness
Points1Q11 TBR
RANK1Q11 TBR
SCORE
1Q11 Strength/Weakness
Points
Internal Support Organizations 1 86.3 +16 1 85.6 +16 1 87.2 +15
Dell Services 2 82.2 +2 3 80.9 0 2 83.6 +3
IGS/Lenovo Services 2 81.8 +2 2 82.5 +5 3 80.8 -1
HP Services 2 81.2 0 3 81.0 0 3 81.2 0
Publication Date: June 23, 2011
Author: Julie Perron
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.3
Content
Slides and Modules
3 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support
Satisfaction At A Glance
10 1Q11 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights
11 Key Findings
16 The Score in 1Q11
19 Most Noteworthy Events - Performance
Differentiation Shifts
24 Server Support - Segment Analysis
28 Desktop/Notebook Support - Segment Analysis
32 Critical Metrics Summary
35 TBR’s Watch List
42 Historical Record
Appendices
44 Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables
77 Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores
4Q07 through 1Q11
80 Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis
for Selected Attributes
82 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends and Key Service & Support Satisfaction
Attributes
93 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs
104 Appendix F: Categorical Responses
114 Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Desktop/Notebook
by Support Provider
119 Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology
127 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures
135 Appendix J: Survey Instrument
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Corporate
Service & Support Satisfaction
At A Glance
4
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM takes top position for server support satisfaction, while Dell Services leads in desktop/notebookIn-house support continues to assert itself as the overall model of maintenance efficiency
Dell Services maintains the advantage for desktop/
notebook support for its second straight period
•Dell Services defended its top ranking position by
outperforming competitors for both on-site
response time and technical expertise.
•At a substantial distance from Dell, Lenovo Services
and
HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking position, with
generally neutral ratings. The exception was a newly
issued competitive warning for Lenovo for on-site
response time.
•The internal support teams continued to substantially outperform OEM support providers
across nine of the 10 categories in both study segments.
IBM holds leadership position for server support
for the fourth straight reporting period
•IBM outpaced its OEM competitors by
excelling across five key areas: break/fix
services, on-site expertise, phone support,
parts availability and services value.
•Dell and HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking
position and did not encounter any of the
competitive warnings they held last period.
Both contenders lacked the differentiation
exhibited by IBM across the areas identified
above.
5
1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
80.9
83.6
85.687.2
82.5
80.881.0 81.2
75.0
77.0
79.0
81.0
83.0
85.0
87.0
89.0
Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support
1Q11 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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
In-house support was again cited as the ideal experience, with a growing performance gap in place against OEM-provided support
1Q11 Key Takeaways:
•The internal support group defended its traditional position as the
model against which we measure OEM support providers.
•Resumed IT hiring ensured the continued standing of internally
managed (self) support as the best source for supporting IT
infrastructures.
•The three OEM support providers shared the No. 2 ranking position,
with their WSI ratings at a considerable distance from that of internal
support.
oDell Services’ position strengthened, recovering from its
previous phone support warning.
oIGS’ position weakened, yielding two previous strengths while
gaining a new warning for on-site response time.
oHPS’ performances gained ground, recovering from three
longstanding challenges across break/fix services, on-site
response time and on-site expertise.
6
1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
The Overall Results combine the server and desktop/notebook results into one, with sample sizes of 250 or more per
group.
SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS
IGS/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 16 2 2 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 86.3 82.2 81.8 81.2
Ranking 1 2 2 2
Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 1 1
Key: Weakness; Strength; ¡ Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.
OVERALL RESULTS
Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM Support outshines OEM competitors for x86 server-related support services for the fourth straight reporting period
1Q11 Key Takeaways:
•The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM
support providers across all but the parts availability category.
•IBM Support earned its fourth consecutive top ranking, which was at least
partially driven by competitive advantages for break/fix services, technical
expertise, support services value and two new wins – phone support and
parts availability.
•Dell Services’ ranking remained subordinate to IBM, despite having
recovered from previous competitive warnings in phone support and
support services value.
•HPS recovered from its previous challenges but remained at the shared
No. 3 ranking position with Dell Services.
•With a full slate of neutral performances, there were no significant
differences between the scores of Dell and HP Services. In comparison to
IBM, both lacked the perception of services differentiation that has helped
keep IBM at the top ranking spot for over a year.
7
1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
The Server Support Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that 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 5 0 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 85.6 82.5 80.9 81.0
Ranking 1 2 3 3
Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 2 2
x86 Server Service Provider 1Q11 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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services extends its leadership status in desktop/notebook support
1Q11 Key Takeaways:
•The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM
support providers across all but the parts availability category.
•Dell Services maintained its top ranking position as a result of continued
performance differentiation through its on-site response time rating. A
new on-site competitive advantage for technical expertise was added to
the roster in this period.
•HP Services continued to present a full slate of neutral performances –
its No. 3 ranking position the result of a lack of differentiation
perceptions.
•Lenovo Services shared the No. 3 ranking position with HPS due to the
proximity of its WSI rating. Nevertheless, Lenovo was cited with a new
competitive warning for on-site response time.
8
1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that 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 Ava i labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Va lue 15 3 -1 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 87.2 83.6 80.8 81.2
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 1Q11 Scorecard
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site support and available replacement parts supersede phone/web/remote management as top concerns in recent quarters
•Between the past two reporting periods, TBR has
observed significantly declining satisfaction with
on-site support and parts availability.
•This is evidenced by the significant reduction in the
coveted Perfect 7 satisfaction ratings.
•Meanwhile, satisfaction with phone, web and
remotely managed support has held up, with some
scores registering increases in customer delight.
•These findings suggest customers are more
comfortable with resolutions that preclude the
need for desk-side visitations by a third party, such
as cases where information is gathered via phone or
email, then handled by one’s own internal support
staff.
1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
9
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Brea
k/Fi
x Sv
cs
On-
site
Tec
hnic
al E
xper
tise
On-
site
Res
pons
e Ti
me
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
Valu
e/Pr
icin
g
Har
dwar
e D
eplo
ymen
t
CHANGE IN PROPORTIONS OF DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS, 4Q10 to 1Q11Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The score corrections of late 2010 appear to have been short-lived; satisfaction begins to find its upward momentum in 1Q11
•Satisfaction with support services spiked in 2Q10, and in
many cases shifted only modestly downward in the
following quarter.
•This unsustainable burst of enthusiasm 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 full correction occurred during 4Q10, when most
satisfaction positions returned to their first-quarter
levels.
•The results from 1Q11 show customer satisfaction
beginning to rebuild, and in most cases establishing
sustainable patterns indicative of normalized purchasing
behavior.
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.
1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance
10
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
7.00
Brea
k/Fi
x
On-
site
Res
pons
e
On-
site
Tec
hnic
alEx
perti
se
Phon
e Su
ppor
t
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
Rem
otel
y M
anag
edSu
ppor
t
Har
dwar
e D
eplo
ymen
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 FIVE CALENDAR QUARTERS
Jan-Mar 10 Apr-Jun 10 Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 Jan-Mar 11
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Competitive Placement
Summary & Insights
11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
OVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations continue their exemplary performance; HPS rises to share the No. 2 ranking with Dell and IGS Factors Driving Rankings:
•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was driven by an inspiring set of
performances, substantially outpacing the OEM support providers
across all but one category.
•TBR noted insufficient performance differences across the three OEM
support providers to assign separate ranking positions.
oIGS’ traditional position of strength was mitigated by the
presence of a newly issued warning for on-site response
time in 1Q11.
oDell Services’ position strengthened by virtue of a
recovery from last period’s phone support warning.
oHPS’ position was strengthened through its recovery from
two warnings (break/fix, on-site expertise) and one
weakness (response time) from the previous period.
= TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11
= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11
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/Fi
x Se
rvic
es
On-
site
Tech
nica
l Exp
ertis
e
On-
site
Resp
onse
Tim
e/Co
mm
itmen
t
Tele
phon
e/H
elpd
esk
Supp
ort
Onl
ine
Supp
ort
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
war
eDe
ploy
men
t/In
stal
latio
n
Ove
rall
Satis
facti
on
SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS
Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1; IBM outperforms Dell and HP Services for the fourth straight period
The Context
•Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in
2009 as a result of the spending cuts caused by the Great Recession. WSI
ratings progressively declined throughout the year, leaving no competitor
(not even the in-house teams) immune to the trend.
•By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score slides halted, and improved
in IBM’s case. In 2Q10, the real excitement started; customer satisfaction
ratings surged across all groups, 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.
•In 4Q10 and into 1Q11, satisfaction scores corrected, returning to positions
held prior to the ebullience of the previous several periods.
1Q11 Developments
•Continuing corrections suggest IT organizations are returning to a state where business-as-usual takes over as
fresh warranties on systems purchased in 1H10 are replaced by systems more susceptible to the effects of time.
•IBM maintained its status as the top-ranked OEM support provider, while Dell and HP Services’ scores remained
interlocked. 1Q11 was the fourth consecutive reporting period in which the companies were so aligned.
Key Findings: x86 Server Support
13
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 4Q08 to 1Q11
Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation examples remain plentiful, favoring internal support and IBM
= TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11
= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11
14
Factors Driving Rankings:
•Internal support’s
No. 1 ranking was the result of consistently
outperforming OEM competitors across all but
parts availability.
•IBM’s sole No. 2 ranking was delivered through
solid performances across break/fix, technical
expertise, phone support, parts availability and
support services value.
•While Dell and HP Services remained in a
shared
No. 3 ranking, it was not the result of specific
warnings or weaknesses, as all were lifted in
1Q11. Dell and HP Services simply lacked the
competitive strength of several of IBM’s
performances.
Key Findings: x86 Server Support
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1; Dell Services enhances performance edge over Lenovo and HP Services
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.
•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.
•In the succeeding periods, Dell and Lenovo Services switched
positions, with Lenovo taking No. 1 in 3Q10, and Dell retaking the
lead in 4Q10.
15
1Q11 Developments
•Satisfaction scores continued to correct and had the greatest negative effects on Lenovo Services and HP.
•After Dell and Lenovo Services alternately traded positions during the past three reporting periods, Dell earned
its second consecutive win. Dell has placed at the top of the OEM provider rankings in four of the past five
reporting periods.
•Lenovo Services and HP collectively took the bottom ranking position behind Dell Services.
Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 4Q08 to 1Q11
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges the competition with its on-site response time and technical expertise ratings
= TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11
= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11
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 the
result of two key performance differentiators, where Dell
earned competitive strengths: on-site response time and
expertise.
•Dell’s scores also trended higher than its competitors’ average
across the areas of online and remotely managed support,
hardware deployment and parts availability.
•No. 3 ranked Lenovo Services and HPS were positioned below
Dell Services largely as a result of their on-site response time
and technical expertise ratings, which were substantially below
those of Dell. Lenovo was cited with a competitive warning for
response time.
Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Internal organizations validate themselves as the ideal support experience Performance differentiation across the OEM support providers is diminished
Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 1.5% declineSatisfaction scores for break/fix services and parts availability declined significantly, while phone, online and remotely managed support scores began to recover.HPS’ WSI shifted back by 1.7%Declining positions were led by break/fix services and parts availability, while phone, online and remotely managed support scores stabilized.IGS’ WSI declined by the greatest magnitude: –2.7%Satisfaction positions across break/fix services, on-site response & expertise, and parts availability led the declines.Internal support’s WSI dipped by 1.9%Satisfaction with parts availability and break/fix services were the leading factors.
The significant score corrections TBR observed in 4Q10 (which followed several previous periods of
exuberance with support services) continued, in a more tempered form, into 1Q11.
•The unifying trends included significantly weakening satisfaction, affecting all four players across
break/fix services and replacement parts availability.
•Satisfaction with on-site response time and technical expertise also declined but primarily
affected Dell Services and IGS.
•In contrast, phone, online and remotely managed support services saw marginally improving
scores across all four competitive groups.
The Score in 1Q11
17
88.0
86.3
84.0
81.882.681.2
83.582.2
76.0
78.0
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
4Q10 1Q11
1Q11 VERSUS 4Q10 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION RATINGS AND RANKS
Internal Support Organizations IGS/Lenovo Services & PartnersHP & Partners Dell & Partners
3 3
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
1
23
2
1
22
2
Replacement parts availability and basic break/fix services’ satisfaction lead
the trend toward continually correcting satisfaction scores in 1Q11.
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Varying levels of correcting scores in 1Q11 define the competitive line-upThe scores of Dell and HP Services fell by considerably lesser magnitudes than that incurred by IGS. This enabled HPS to move up to share the No. 2 ranking position that had previously been a two-way
affair between IGS and Dell Services.
•As a result of the tightening up of the competitive line-up, IGS dropped two previous competitive strengths (technical expertise and overall services value) as a result of its mean ratings having
declined by greater magnitudes than Dell and HP Services.
•IGS’ on-site response time rating dropped substantially, and HPS’ fell the least. Consequently, IGS was cited with a warning (its mean score significantly below the industry average), while HPS
recovered from its 4Q10 competitive weakness, placing even with the industry average in 1Q11.
•HPS also recovered from two previous warnings, for break/fix services and on-site expertise; in both cases, HPS’ scores fell by smaller magnitudes than the competition, its mean scores now
comparable to industry averages.
•Dell Services’ phone support satisfaction score
increased modestly in 1Q11 but by enough that it was
no longer significantly below the industry average; TBR
lifted its previous competitive warning.
•The in-house support group’s ratings shifted by no
greater magnitudes than OEM support providers in
1Q11, hence each of its competitive advantages
remained intact for another reporting period.
18
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
The Score in 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforce the 1Q11 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.
•In addition to the close proximity of their WSI scores, the three
OEM support providers shared the No. 2 ranking in 1Q11 as a
result of a mixture of developments.
•IGS’ positioning weakened, failing to repeat 4Q10 strengths in on-
site expertise and support services value, as well as being cited
with a new warning for on-site support that offset the effects of
other areas of strength.
•Dell Services earned two marginal strengths, while recovering from
a phone support warning.
•HP came up entirely neutral, its strengthening performances in
evidence as TBR lifted two previous warnings and one full
competitive weakness from the previous period.
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 CONTRACTING
On-site Technical Expertise CONTRACTING
On-site Response Time/Commitment * SHIFTING
Telephone/Helpdesk Support * CONTRACTING
Online Support CONSTANT
Remotely Managed Support CONSTANT
Replacement Parts Availability CONSTANT
Support Services Pricing/Value CONTRACTING
Hardware Installation/Configuration * CONSTANT
Numeric Value 16 2 2 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 86.3 81.8 82.2 81.2
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.
CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 4Q10
TBR
TBR
TBR
TBR
The Score in 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site response time remains a leading performance differentiator, favoring Dell Services over HPS and IGS
In 4Q10, Dell Services’ score registered significantly above the
industry average, resulting in a competitive strength, while HPS
continued to be cited with a weakness, its score significantly
lower than average. In 1Q11, IGS’ score declined by the greatest
magnitude, resulting in TBR issuing the competitive warning to
IGS and not HPS. Dell Services retained its lead, but the
competitive strength was marginal due to a wide spread of
opinion, predominantly in evidence within the desktop/notebook
support segment.
The main shift in 1Q11 involved the distribution of scores for IGS,
where a considerable number of Levels 6 and 7 scores shifted to
fill in the Level-5 at a greater rate. Dell Services continued to earn
more Perfect 7 ratings and fewer Level-5 ratings than
competitors, though the spread of opinion remained wide, as
evidenced by the flatter distribution curve, where competitors’
scores exhibited peaks at the fifth level of the scale.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
20
4Q10 1Q11
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%60%65%
<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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site technical expertise perceptions shift to show no favorites* among the OEM support providers
In 4Q10, HPS’ mean satisfaction score for on-site technical expertise
was significantly lower than average, hence its competitive warning,
while IGS earned a marginal competitive strength due to a tighter
spread of customer opinion vs. Dell Services. The in-house group
earned the competitive strength. In 1Q11, all scores declined, but
the magnitude was greatest within the IGS group. Consequently, IGS’
strength was rescinded while HPS recovered from its warning of the
previous period. In-house support continued to hold the full
competitive strength.
The most noteworthy shift in 1Q11 involved the distribution of
IGS’ ratings, where a fair number of previously perfect scores
shifted back one level on the scale. While IGS earned fewer
Level-5 and more Level-6 ratings than Dell and HP Services, it
also earned the smallest number of Perfect 7’s. Consequently,
its mean rating was not significantly different from the industry
average.
21
4Q10 1Q11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
<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
*These overall results may be misleading. IBM led the competition in the server support segment for technical expertise satisfaction; Dell Services in the desktop/notebook segment.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Basic break/fix service satisfaction continues to favor IGS, while HPS recovers from previous competitive warnings
In 4Q10, HPS trailed the industry average by a significant
margin, while IGS held the advantage due to a narrow spread
of customer opinion. In 1Q11, TBR observed a collective
collapse of scores, with all trending downward by substantial
margins. There were some variances, in that HPS’ score
declined by 3%, against 4% for IGS and 4.3% for Dell Services.
Subsequently, HPS recovered from its previous warning.
Meanwhile, IGS’ score held up enough for it to carry over its
competitive strength standing for another reporting period,
primarily due to its IBM server support results.
For all concerned, there was a decided shift away from the
Perfect 7 rating back one level on the satisfaction scale. IGS
remained the leader among OEM support providers with a
larger proportion of Level-6 ratings and fewer lower-level
scores. Dell and HP services’ score distributions were
comparable to one another.
22
4Q10 1Q11
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
<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
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
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
While IGS continues to dominate the phone support category, Dell Services recovers from its previous warning
Dell Services was cited with a competitive warning in 4Q10, with its mean
phone support satisfaction rating significantly below the industry average
and more widely spread in distribution. The in-house support group,
alone, took the competitive strength. Shifts were modest in 1Q11, with
Dell Services’ score up slightly and HPS’ down slightly, by about one
percentage point each. HPS’ shift was enough to push IGS’ score to a
significant advantage, prompting TBR to issue a marginal competitive
strength to IGS as well as to IBM in the server support segment. While its
ratings remained spread out, Dell Services shifted enough that its rating
was no longer below average. TBR rescinded its competitive warning in
the server segment.
In 1Q11, IGS’ pattern of distribution differed from the pack in a
manner not evident in the previous period, earning a
substantially greater number of Level-6 ratings than
competitors. Dell Services’ distribution of scores came into
closer alignment with those of HPS than in the previous
period.
23
4Q10 1Q11
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
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support services value differentiation dissipates* in 1Q11In 4Q10, IGS earned a competitive strength for support
services value due to a relatively uniform set of scores
that placed significantly above average. TBR issued IGS
a competitive strength. With IGS’ scores declining by
greater magnitudes than its competitors in 1Q11, its
score was only marginally above average and not
enough for a repeat strength; only the in-house group
carried the competitive strength distinction. There was
a widening spread of opinion, as customers more fully
scrutinize warranty costs today than in previous
periods.
The decline within IGS’ mean rating was primarily due
to fewer Perfect-7 ratings and more Level-5 ratings in
1Q11 that IGS failed to carry over its competitive
strength into 1Q11.
24
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
4Q10 1Q11
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
*Note these overall results may be misleading. IBM continued to significantly outperform competitors in the server segment for overall support services value satisfaction.
Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 1Q11 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
substantiated by its continued earning of strengths across all but one category (parts
availability).
•IBM repeated its No. 2 ranking behind the in-house group and ahead of its OEM support
provider competition. This was enhanced through three continuing and two newly
issued competitive strengths.
•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM Support was the result of failing to narrow
performance gaps across five categories. Nonetheless, Dell Services’ finish was improved
over 4Q10 through its recovery from two previous warnings.
•HPS’ situation was similar to Dell Services – allowing IBM to take a total of five
competitive strength categories. HPS’ position was improved through its rebound from
three previous warning areas.
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
What Changed in 1Q11:
•IBM Services gained new competitive strengths for phone support and parts availability.
•While Dell Services and HPS remained in subordinate ranking positions to IBM, they were no longer due to any competitive warnings but rather to more substantial IBM performances across a total of five
categories.
•Dell Services recovered from previous warnings for phone support and support services value. Its scores were significantly below industry averages again but only by 90% confidence levels and not the 95%
observed in 4Q10.
•HPS recovered from warnings across break/fix services, on-site response time and on-site expertise. Its scores, previously significantly below average, came in as comparable to industry averages in 1Q11.
25
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 5 0 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 85.6 82.5 80.9 81.0
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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, with the exceptions being
remotely managed and online support as well as hardware
deployment services.
•IBM Support established substantial performance
advantages over competitors across five categories. As
high-importance areas, each of these categories carry
significant weight toward the WSI score.
•Across most highly weighted categories, the performances
of Dell and HP Services were comparable, yet HP held a
narrow advantage over Dell for support services value and
phone support.
•In the on-site response time category, where IBM
previously dominated (in 3Q10), the performance gap was
entirely eradicated by 1Q11.
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 82.5 1
HP Services 81.0 2
Dell Services 80.9 2
TBR splits responses based on the respondents’ primary
responsibilities. In each study a 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.
26
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
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
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
In 1Q11, server support satisfaction ratings continue to correct across
key areas; ranking positions remain constant
•Overall, HPS’ scores held firmer than competitors’, enabling HPS to
improve its positioning foundation for future study waves.
•The areas of greatest influence were break/fix services, on-site
response time and expertise. In each of the three aforementioned
areas, HPS’ scores held up far better than competitors’, resulting in TBR
lifting previous competitive warnings across all three areas.
•IBM and Dell Services’ scores declined by similar magnitudes to one
another overall, but there were some individual performance
differences.
oIBM’s mean scores held up better than Dell Services in
break/fix services, on-site expertise, parts availability and
services value – all areas where IBM commanded competitive
strength status.
oDell Services’ previous phone support warning was lifted as a
result of a reasonably constant rating, against a declining HPS
that shifted the competitive field.LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, 4Q10 to 1Q11
% Change, WSI Score
Dell Services –1.7%
HP Services –1.2%
IBM Services –1.7%
27
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
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
4Q10 to 1Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT
Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Some negative GAP positions continue to present in 1Q11 as a result of continually declining satisfaction scores in the past two periods
For the past two reporting periods it has become evident server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more
than 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.
28
-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
Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 1Q11 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
29
•The internal support group’s No. 1 ranking was substantially enhanced by its continuing
domination across all but the parts availability category.
•Dell Services maintained its No. 2 ranking for the second reporting period by carrying over its
on-site response time competitive strength and adding a new one for technical expertise.
•Lenovo Services remained in the No. 3 ranking behind Dell but in a weakened state. While
presenting a full slate of neutral performances in 4Q10, Lenovo Services’ on-site response time
rating dropped substantially below the industry average, resulting in a newly issued competitive
warning.
•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking with Lenovo despite a higher WSI rating and the lack of
a competitive warning. TBR’s decision resulted from the significance tests, which exhibited no
significant performance differences between the two.
What Changed in 1Q11:
•Dell Services’ second consecutive No. 2 ranking over Lenovo Services and HPS was strengthened through the addition of a new competitive strength, for on-site support technical expertise.
•Lenovo Services’ performance was weakened through its on-site support response competitive warning, the result of both a significantly below average satisfaction rating and wider GAP score (the distance between
expectation and satisfaction).
•HPS remained in a secondary position to Dell Services, lacking the performance differentiation that might have carried it into a shared ranking with Dell.
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 15 3 -1 0
Weighted Satisfaction Score 87.2 83.6 80.8 81.2
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking is driven by on-site response and
expertise advantages
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 83.6 1HP Services 81.2 2Lenovo Services 80.8 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.
•Dell Services’ win was primarily the result of its substantial
performance advantages in the relatively high-importance areas
of on-site support response and expertise.
•Dell’s WSI rating benefited from above-average parts availability
and online support scores. Additional strengths were not awarded
in these categories due to lack of sufficient statistical supporting
evidence, as TBR uses several tests to determine strengths and
weaknesses.
•Nonetheless, the cumulative effects of Dell’s performances across
all of the categories clearly benefited its WSI rating, the essential
reason for its top ranking.
•Lenovo Services’ on-site response time rating was lower than HPS,
yet other high-importance categories washed the slate clean for
Lenovo, including break/fix services and phone support.
30
5.00
5.20
5.40
5.60
5.80
6.00
6.20
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
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Desktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings collectively fall by varying magnitudes in 1Q11; Dell Services benefits through
comparative stability
LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SATISFACTION, 4Q10 to 1Q11
% Change, WSI Score
Dell Services –0.8%
HP Services –2.4%
Lenovo Services –2.9%
•Overall, Dell Services’ mean satisfaction scores held up far better
than competitors during the past two periods.
•In particular, Dell Services’ phone, online and remotely managed
support scores advanced, against constant or receding competitors’
ratings.
•Dell earned its new competitive strength for on-site support
expertise as a result of a rating that was comparatively stable
against more significantly receding competitors’ ratings.
•Lenovo Services’ new competitive warning for on-site support
response time was clearly the result of a rating decline of over 4%
against an average 2.5% decline for its competitors.
•While HPS’ scores fell by a significantly greater magnitude than Dell
Services, against Lenovo several of its score declines were
comparatively more tempered.
31
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
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
4Q10 to 1Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Some negative GAP positions continue in 1Q11 as a result of steadily declining satisfaction scores in the past two reporting periods
32
For the past two reporting periods it has become evident server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than
in the previous three quarters of 2010. The GAP score results in 1Q11, however, were variable, with Dell Services making it through with no scores outside of the acceptable (–5%) GAP range. Many of
HPS’ ratings were –5% or wider, most notably with respect to phone support and parts availability, where expectations were high. Lenovo was most affected by its
–12% GAP score for on-site response time, where TBR issued a competitive warning in 1Q11. This wide Lenovo Services GAP was the result of both low satisfaction and high expectations.
-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 - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Vital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction CompetitionDell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support
1Q11 Ranking 2 2 2 1
1Q11 Ranking, OEM support providers 1 1 1 N/A
Rank change vs. 4Q10 0 0 +1 0
1Q11 WSI 82.2 81.8 81.2 86.3
WSI change vs. 4Q10 –1.5% –2.7% –1.7% –1.9%
Rationale for Ranking Positions
WSI placement & proximity to OEM
competitors
WSI placement & proximity to OEM
competitors
WSI placement & proximity to OEM
competitorsWSI placement & proximity
to OEM competitors
Competitive Strengths
On-site response time (Continuing;
Marginal); Hardware deployment (Continuing; Marginal);
Break/fix Services (Continuing; Full); Phone
support (Continuing; Marginal); On-site
technical expertise and support services value
discontinued
NoneAll except for parts availability – all full
competitive strengths, consistent with 4Q10 results
Competitive Weaknesses/Warnings
Recovery from 4Q10 phone support
warningOn-site response time
(New; Warning)
Recovery from 4Q10 on-site response time
weakness and break/fix services & on-site technical expertise
warnings
None
Significant Movement, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10 (3% or greater shifts)
Break/fix services and parts availability
positions declined significantly
Break/fix services, on-site response time &
expertise, and parts availability positions all
declined significantly
Break/fix services and parts availability
declined significantly
Break/fix services and parts availability scores declined
significantly
Critical Metrics Summary
33
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support
Server Support WSI & Ranking 80.9 No. 3 82.5 No. 2 81.0 No. 3 85.6 No. 1
Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking 83.6 No. 2 80.8 No. 3 81.2 No. 3 87.2 No. 1
Server Support Competitive Profile
Neutral across the board – recovered from 4Q10 phone
support and support services value warnings
Five strengths – break/fix, on-site expertise, phone
support, parts availability, support
services value
Neutral across the board – recovered from three 4Q10 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, on-site
expertiseOne warning – on-site
response time All neutral ratingsStrengths across all
categories except for parts availability
Significant Movement, Server Segment, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10
[WSI – 1.7%] Significant declines across
break/fix, on-site response time, on-site
expertise, & parts availability
[WSI – 1.8%] Significant decline focused on the on-site response time
rating
[WSI – 1.0%] Only one area experienced significant
decline – parts availability
[WSI – 2.3%] Break/fix, phone support, and parts
availability scores declined significantly
Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10
[WSI – 0.9%] Break/fix and parts availability
scores declined significantly
[WSI – 2.9%] Significant declines were observed
across the areas of break/fix, on-site
response time, on-site expertise, and parts
availability
[WSI – 2.4%] Break/fix, on-site expertise and parts
availability scores all declined significantly
[WSI – 0.7%] Break/fix services and parts
availability declined significantly
Vital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition
34
Critical Metrics Summary
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support
Summary
While in the past TBR has observed a pattern of alternating wins between Dell and Lenovo in the desktop/notebook segment from quarter to quarter, Dell took its second consecutive win in 1Q11. The dynamic that most greatly separates Dell Services’ performances from competitors in the desktop/notebook space is on-site support. In addition to winning strengths in these categories, Dell customers were more likely than competitors’ to specifically attribute their high satisfaction to on-site support provided by Dell Services. Greater challenges remain intact in the server support segment, where Dell was significantly outperformed by IBM across a broad spectrum of support service categories.
IBM Support continues to demonstrate services excellence in the server support segment, winning its fourth straight No. 1 ranking over OEM competitors. IBM’s success continues to extend across a wide range of performance advantages, including on-site support, phone support, parts availability, and the perception of services value. By holding such an array of competitive advantages, IBM continues to be a force difficult to beat. Lenovo Services encountered some continuing difficulties in 1Q11, remaining at a ranking position below Dell Services for the second straight period, driven by substantially weakening on-site support scores, particularly with respect to on-site response time.
While HPS remained in subordinate ranking positions to competitors (IBM in the server segment; Dell in the desktop/notebook segment), there were some strong signs of improving competitiveness. In the server support segment, HP’s scores were the most resistant to downward trends of the past six months, particularly with respect to on-site response time, where competitors’ scores receded by substantial magnitudes. TBR lifted three competitive challenges (two warnings and a weakness) across the three on-site support categories, that had persisted throughout the previous three to five periods. In the desktop/notebook segment, HPS was outperformed again by Dell, and again due to on-site support performances. HPS’ phone and online support scores remain competitive.
The internal support group remained in the position to which it was ascribed at the start of TBR’s study design more than a decade ago – the ideal against which we measure the OEM support providers. The group carried competitive strengths against all categories except parts availability in 1Q11 (where internal support organizations are dependent on OEMs to effectively meet delivery and availability commitments) in the server and desktop/notebook segments of the study. Yet, internal support is not resistant to strains dictated by the need to balance internal costs against expertise. Satisfaction scores fell across the on-site support categories at magnitudes as great as those indicated by the OEM support provider customers in 1Q11.
Bottom Line
During the past year, TBR has observed everything in these study results, beginning with the exuberance of large corporate refreshes with fresh systems warranties that introduce minimal fuss in the support department. This was followed by what occurs with respect to the natural order of time, where some systems develop issues that need to be dealt with either internally, through OEM support contacts, or both. The results of these changes were the extreme ups and downs TBR observed in the satisfaction numbers. Today, we appear to be on a return course to business as usual, with 1Q11 satisfaction scores gently rising, leaving 4Q10 as the end of the satisfaction score corrections. Assuming we do not see a return to the unusual conditions set forth by the 2009 economic recession, or some other force with equal impact on support operations, we should begin to see more normalized expressions of satisfaction with support services.
Vital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition
35
Critical Metrics Summary
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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.
36
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; divided customer perceptions need to be addressed
TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services
Citation Placement Improvements GAP
% Change versus 4Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 1Q11
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
Phone Support
Significantly below IBM at 95% confidence in server segment; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment
Well Below Average
–0.6% and comparable to competitors’ average in server segment; +2.3%, vs. competitors’ average –1.5% in desktop/notebook segment
Scores remain volatile, lacking consistency, significantly below IGS for the past three periods
Server Support
Competitive warning lifted due to proximity to HPS score, but continues to trail IBM by substantial margin; IBM gains the competitive strength
9% disappointed and worst-in-class, yet also best-in-class for customer delight
Dell’s phone support satisfaction scores continue to exhibit volatile patterns and wide opinion spread, with an unacceptably high number of disappointed scores. Today, the issue remains largely on the server support side, where IBM continues to defend its exceptional record.
Support Services Value
Significantly below both HPS and IBM on server side, 90% confidence level; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment
Average –2% vs. competitors’ –1.2% average, server segment; NC in desktop/notebook segment vs. competitors’ average –2.2%
Achieving stability after significant decline in 4Q10
Server Support
Competitive warning in server segment lifted due to significance test results at 90% confidence; IBM successfully defends its competitive strength status
30% increase in customer delight, against 100% increase in dissatisfaction; worst-in-class for disappointment yet best-in-class for delight
Again, an issue of diverging views among Dell customers sampled; Dell is most challenged in the server segment, where both competitors fared better. Dell has not earned a competitive strength for services value since mid-2009.
37
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; divided customer perceptions must be addressed (cont.)
Citation Placement Improvements GAP
% Change versus 4Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 1Q11
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
NEW – Break/Fix Services
Significantly below IBM in server segment, 95% confidence; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment
Above Average –3.7% against competitors’ –2% average in server segment; –4.8% vs. –5% competitors’ average in desktop/notebook segment
Down significantly during the past two periods; correction cycle seems to be complete as of 1Q11 with current positions back to 2Q10 positions
Server Support
Remaining neutral
44% reduction in customer delight, against 90% increase in dissatisfaction; worst-in-class customer disappointment vs. best-in-class delight
IBM continues to dominate the break/fix satisfaction category, bringing in its seventh straight competitive strength win in 1Q11. Dell customer opinions remain very divided, suggesting variability of experience, perhaps drawing a dividing line between server and desktop/notebook customers, and possibly between premium-level and basic support contract holders.
38
TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services improves its on-site support positioning, yet challenges remain in effect due to competitive pressures
TBR’s Watch List: HPS
Citation Placement Improvements GAP
% Change versus 4Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 1Q11
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
On-site Response Time
Comparable to industry average in server segment; behind Dell at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment
Well Below Average
NC in server segment, against competitors’ –3.5% average; –2% against –3.5% in desktop/notebook segment
Stable following previous quarter’s decline, while competitors’ scores continued to drop
Desktop/Notebook
Competitive warning in server segment rescinded; remaining neutral in desktop/notebook segment
90% increase in customer disappointment, while delight increased by 18%; placed between IGS and Dell in both segments
HPS recovered from its previous competitive warning in the 4Q10 server segment by remaining stable while competitors’ scores declined. In the desktop/notebook segment, however, HPS placed between Lenovo and Dell, escaping a warning but clearly outperformed by Dell Services.
Technical Expertise
Significantly below IBM at 95% confidence; trending lower than Dell in desktop/notebook segment
Just Above Average
–1.8% in server segment vs. Dell’s –3.3%; –3.3% in desktop/notebook segment vs. competitors’ average –4%
Same pattern (correction completed in 1Q11) as competitors but consistently on the bottom for the past five periods
Both segments
Competitive warning in server segment rescinded; remaining neutral in desktop/notebook segment
Customer delight stable; disappointment up to 6% and worst-in-class
While previous warnings have been lifted, HPS continues to trail IBM by a substantial margin; increasing customer disappointment. HPS is faced with significant competition in both study segments: IBM in the server segment; Dell in the desktop/notebook segment.
39
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services improves its on-site support positioning, yet challenges remain in effect due to competitive pressures (cont.)Citation Placement Improvements
GAP% Change versus 4Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 1Q11
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
Break/Fix Services
Significantly below IBM in server segment, 95% confidence; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment
Above Average –1.7% in server segment against competitors’ –3% average; –4.5% in desktop/notebook segment, vs. competitors’ –5% average
Down significantly during the past two periods; correction cycle seems to be complete as of 1Q11 with current positions back to 2Q10 positions
Server segment
Competitive warning in server segment lifted
30% decline in customer delight, against 100% increase in disappointment; placement between Dell and IGS
HPS has improved its positioning by keeping its scores more stable than competitors, whose ratings declined by greater magnitudes, particularly in the server segment. Yet, continuing improvement will be required, particularly against IBM in the server support segment.
NEW- Online Support
Comparable to server segment average; below Dell Services at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment
Below Average +1.2% in server segment; –1.3% vs. competitors’ –2% average in desktop/notebook segment
Stabilized after significant decline of 4Q10, HPS’ scores have remained even with the competition for the past three periods, but falling behind Dell in desktop/notebook segment
Desktop/Notebook
Last competitive warning issued in 1Q10
Customer disappointment increased from 6% in 4Q10 to nearly 9% by 1Q11
HPS was not issued a warning in that its mean score was comparable to Lenovo Services; however, Dell Services’ score was significantly above average and HPS held an inordinately high number of disappointed scores.
40
TBR’s Watch List: HPS
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
Citation Placement Improvements GAP
% Change versus 4Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 1Q11
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
On-site Response Time
Comparable to server segment average; significantly below Dell at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment
Well Below Average
–3.7% and comparable to Dell’s decline in server segment; –4.3% vs. competitors’ –2.2% average in desktop/notebook segment
Down for past two periods and continuing to decline, falling well below Dell Services
Desktop/Notebook
New competitive warning issued to Lenovo Services
Disappointment was actually best-in-class; customer delight was worst-in-class
Lenovo Services was issued a competitive warning against Dell Services’ second straight competitive strength for the category. This development prevented Lenovo from retaking the lead in the desktop/notebook segment, which has been an alternating arrangement (between Lenovo & Dell).
NEW – Technical Expertise
Excelled over competition in server segment; significantly below Dell Services at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment
Just Above Average
–1.8% vs. Dell’s –3.3% in server segment; –5.5% against competitors’ –3% average in desktop/notebook segment
Declines of past two reporting periods have been steeper than those incurred by Dell
Desktop/Notebook
Remaining neutral
Same condition as described above
Lenovo Services was outperformed by Dell Services, which earned a new competitive strength in 1Q11; Lenovo’s 3Q10 leadership position was a short-lived victory.
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Services must focus on regaining past competitive advantages (cont.)
42
Citation PlacementImprovements GAP
% Change versus 4Q10
Long-term Trends
Segments Affected, 1Q11
Strength/ Weakness Status
Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes
Phone Support
Excelled over competition in server segment; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment
Just Above Average
NC in server segment; NC in desktop/notebook segment against Dell’s 2.2% increase
Most stable of the competitive field, which tends to exhibit greater volatility
Desktop/Notebook
Remaining neutral
Incidences of customer delight substantially trail competition
In the past, phone support has been a predictable strength for Lenovo Services, in this and TBR’s product-related customer satisfaction studies. During the past few quarters, competitors have completely closed performance gaps through various improvement efforts. This should be a repeatable strength for Lenovo.
TBR’s Watch List: IGS
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services holds the record for wins since the study’s inception, though IGS/Lenovo holds the record for wins in the past three years
•Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Dell Services has been ranked as
a No. 1 support provider for 33 of 43 reporting periods.
•Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was its first since 4Q07 and did
not carry over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three
reporting periods later, in 1Q09, and held that distinction for the next
four periods.
•Dell’s wins have reappeared in the past two reporting periods.
Historical Record
•Half of HPS’ 13 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive No. 1
rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win 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 until the current reporting period, in which it returned to No. 1.
•Of the 23 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’ eight 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.
43
33
1323
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 43-reporting-period History Beginning
3Q00)
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Total # Wins
Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 8HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 10SOURCE: TBR
Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past Three Years
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Cases of differentiation dwindled in 2008, reasserting themselves in 2009 and 2010
•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:
oSeven consecutive strengths for break/fix services for
IGS
oThree straight competitive strengths for online support
for IGS
oFour straight strengths for on-site response time for Dell
Services from 2Q09 through 1Q10, returning in 4Q10 &
1Q11
oWarnings or weaknesses in five of the past six periods
for HPS for on-site support response time
oA recurring pattern of scattered wins for phone support
for IGS
44
3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 1Q11
SERVICES PRICING/VALUE
REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
BREAK/FIX SERVICES
ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
PHONE SUPPORT
ONLINE SUPPORT
HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT
TBR
Historical Record
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables
45
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services outperforms HPS in the area of hardware installationUnderstanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions
While Dell Services continued to outperform HPS in the area of hardware
installation, HPS closed the performance gap that favored Dell in 4Q10 for
on-site response time.
Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of declining mean ratings between Dell
Services and HPS. The exceptions included hardware deployment, where Dell
Services continued to outperform HPS.
46
-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, 1Q11 VS.4Q10
Dell to HP Distance 4Q10 Dell to HP Distance 1Q11
DellAdvantage Areas
HP Advantage Areas
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
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 1Q11 VS. 4Q10
Dell Services HP Services
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services gains competitive advantages over IGS, while IGS' two advantages over Dell services in 4Q10 were diminished
Dell Services significantly outperformed IGS in the areas of on-site response
time and remotely managed support. IGS gained a slight competitive
advantage over Dell Services in 1Q11 in overall satisfaction, but lost its
significant advantages in the previous period in the areas of phone support
and support services value. Also in 1Q11, Dell Services gained a competitive
advantage over IGS for hardware installation/ configuration.
IGS’ mean rating shifts for hardware installation and online support were
small, but enough to change many of the performance differences indicated
above.
Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions
47
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
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 IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10Dell to IGS Distance 4Q10 Dell to IGS Distance 1Q11
DellAdvantage Areas
IGSAdvantageAreas
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
-9%-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%
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, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10
Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS continues to generally outperform HPS, while HPS manages to narrow the performance gap in support value
IGS continued to outperform HPS by significant margins across
the areas of break/fix services and on-site expertise, while
moving significantly ahead for overall value. IGS, however, did
not continue to outperform HPS with respect to support services
value.
IGS’ mean satisfaction rating for on-site response time declined by a
significantly greater magnitude than HPS – hence the compelling
performance gap.
Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions
48
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
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, 1Q11 VS.4Q10
HP to IGS Distance 4Q10 HP to IGS Distance 1Q11
HPSAdvantage Areas
IGSAdvantageAreas
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
-9%-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%
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, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10
HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
•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 highs being established by all four
competitors by 3Q10.
•As expected, and following the patterns of TBR’s product-related studies,
satisfaction scores continued to correct in 1Q11, primarily affecting the
OEM support providers.
Service and support satisfaction positions continue an expected correction, after improving in 2010, to pre-recession levels
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.
49
77.0
79.0
81.0
83.0
85.0
87.0
89.0
91.0
2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, 2Q08 through 1Q11
Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
Dell Services 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1HP Services 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1SOURCE: TBR
Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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 and 1Q11, the in-house group moved substantially ahead
of the OEM support providers, harking back to patterns we were
accustomed to before the unusual shifts observed in 2009 and
most of 2010.
Tracking the Satisfaction Indices
50
76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0
SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM4Q05 THROUGH 1Q11
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 TERM4Q05 THROUGH 1Q11, 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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
1Q11 Developments:
•Historically speaking, Dell Services has been the only competitor to consistently keep pace with customer expectations for
services value; the satisfaction trend line continues to steadily increase over time.
•In 1Q11, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs corrected and dropped back to levels similar to or below importance levels.
•IGS’ 4Q10 competitive strength in the area was eradicated in 1Q11, bringing all competitors onto a level playing field.
•Importance ratings for Dell Services and HPS increased in 1Q11, against declining satisfaction, while IGS' scores remained in
closer proximity, leading to a 0% GAP while competitors failed to close their gaps.
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.
51
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS/Lenovo Services and HPS satisfaction ratings for support services response continue to decline while Dell Services' levels off
1Q11 Developments:
•Satisfaction scores declined by greater magnitudes than relaxing expectations, creating larger gaps
between importance and satisfaction after a period of gap consolidation through 2008 and 2009.
•Dell Services fared the best of the three competitors, with its satisfaction leveling off while the
satisfaction for HPS and IGS/Lenovo’s support services response declined.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
52
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS/Lenovo Services and HPS fail to meet customer expectations for on-site technical expertise
1Q11 Developments:
Dell Services was the only vendor able to meet customer expectations in 1Q11 due to relaxed customer expectations
over the last two periods, enabling Dell to more effectively meet customer expectations than competitors.
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
53
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
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Customer expectations for break/fix services rise in 1H10, then correct
1Q11 Developments:
•Customer expectations for basic break/fix services continued to relax
most significantly for Dell Services while remaining more stable for HPS
and IGS.
•Consequently, GAP scores were wider for IGS and HPS, while Dell was the
only competitor to fully meet expectations.
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
54
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Rising customer expectations for phone support create new challenges for OEMs in 4Q10 and 1Q11
1Q11 Developments:•
Customer expectations for phone support continued to rise by varying
degrees while satisfaction positions decreased (HPS), leveled off
(IGS/Lenovo Services) or slightly increased (Dell Services), creating larger
gaps between importance and satisfaction.
•Should this new trend of steadily rising expectations continue, the
support providers will be challenged to keep pace.
Historically, particularly
throughout 2007 and 2008,
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
55
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Expectations and satisfaction for online support continue to fluctuate; trend lines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell
1Q11 Developments:
•Importance ratings for online support exceeded satisfaction ratings across the board in 1Q11.
•Dell Services’ satisfaction and importance ratings reached a similar level in 1Q11, with both increasing.
•HPS’ importance rating increased significantly, while satisfaction stayed stagnant over the same sequential
compare, leading to a widening gap.
•IGS/Lenovo Services’ satisfaction decreased at a greater magnitude in 1Q11 than its importance rating,
leading to unmet customer expectations.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
56
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
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement parts availability is a critical element of the support experience across the board for customers
1Q11 Developments:
Importance and satisfaction ratings for parts availability declined for all three vendors in 1Q11, with
satisfaction ratings continuing to fall to levels below those of importance, indicating unmet customer
expectations by the three vendors.
GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment
57
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
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ positions correct in 1Q11, trending similar to, but lower than previous reporting periods
Trends of the Reporting Period
•Dell Services’ satisfaction positions were generally
at their highest levels in 3Q10, and their lowest in
1Q11.
•Dell Services’ remotely managed support position
has remained stagnant for the past four reporting
periods, indicating a level of homeostasis between
satisfaction and importance.
WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –1.27%
•Led by significantly declining support services value and break/fix services satisfaction
•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and hardware deployment
58
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 ANALYSIS2Q10 TO 1Q11
2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS performances remain at similar levels over a sequential compare
•HPS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their
highest levels in 3Q10, and their lowest in 1Q11.
•1Q11 positions remained very similar to 4Q10
positions, with the exception of decreases in the
areas of parts availability, break/fix services and
overall satisfaction.
•Across the board, satisfaction positions remained
at the same level or fell below positions of 4Q10,
showing no sign of improvement.
Trends of the Reporting Period
59
WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –1.79%
•Led by significantly declining levels of satisfaction for parts availability and break/fix services
•Comparatively stable positions included remotely managed support, online support and on-site response time
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 ANALYSIS2Q10 TO 1Q11
2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ scores progressively decline over in 4Q10 and 1Q11
•IGS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their
highest levels in 3Q10, and their lowest in 1Q11.
•Most of IGS’ 1Q11 positions fell below the levels
observed in 4Q10.
•IGS’ phone support position has remained relatively
stagnant over the past four reporting periods.
Trends of the Reporting Period
60
WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –2.35%
•Led by declining break/fix services, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction levels
•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and remotely managed support
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
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
IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS2Q10 TO 1Q11
2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Recommended areas for improvements for Dell Services include the initial contact areas of phone and online support
•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: None
•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, phone support and online support
•Area of Competency: Hardware installation
Improvements GAP Analyses
61
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q11
Rec
om
men
ded
A
ctio
ns
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services’ analysis points to target improvement programs around on-site response time, phone and online support
•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time
•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone and online support
•Areas of Competency: Break/fix services and support services value
Improvements GAP Analyses
62
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 1Q11
Rec
om
men
ded
A
ctio
ns
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IGS must focus on perceptions of on-site response time and online support
•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, support services value
•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Online support
•Area of Competency: Break/fix Services
Improvements GAP Analyses
63
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 1Q11
Rec
om
men
ded
A
ctio
ns
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The in-house group must focus on improving the availability of replacement parts
•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Replacement parts availability
•Areas of Competency: On-site response time, hardware installation and remotely managed support
Improvements GAP Analyses
64
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORTORGANIZATIONS 1Q11
Hold Back/Exploit
Maintain
Target Improvements
Rec
om
men
ded
A
ctio
ns
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Break/fix services, parts availability and phone support drive service and support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization
Selection Criteria – Stated
•Critical: Break/fix services, parts availability
•Also Important: Phone support, on-site expertise
and response time
•Somewhat Important: Support services value,
online support
•Less Important: Hardware deployment, remotely
managed support
65
Customer expectations within the IGS group were significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation in which 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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Statistical significance test No. 1 points to performance differentiation largely favoring Internal Support, somewhat favoring IGS and Dell ServicesTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
1Q11 Developments:
•The internal support groups returned to their historical position as the standard-
setter, outperforming industry averages across most categories – with parts
availability the single exception.
•IGS/Lenovo Services’ results were a mixture of positives and negatives,
outperforming competitors in break/fix services, phone support and overall
support satisfaction, while underperforming in on-site response time.
•HPS' scores were generally comparable to industry averages, with the exception
of the grand mean rating, the summation of all categories.
•Dell Services outperformed the competition in on-site response time and
hardware installation.
66
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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, phone support, parts availability, support services value and overall services
value – with all favoring IGS over HPS and Dell Services.
The key performance differentiators in the desktop/notebook support space were on-site
response time and hardware installation, where Dell Services outperformed the industry
average while Lenovo underperformed.
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
67
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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 break/fix
services.
•Dell Services outperformed both competitors for hardware
installation and outperformed IGS for on-site response time – all at
significant levels.
•HPS’ underperformed IGS in break/fix services and overall
satisfaction, while underperforming Dell Services in hardware
installation.
Scoring Summary – Significance Tests
68
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
69
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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 on-site response time (Dell
over IGS) and hardware installation (Dell over HPS and IGS).
Statistical Significance Tests
70
AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo
Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; marginally over IGS 2.5 -1 -1 -0.5On-site Technical Expertise Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1
On-site Response Time/CommitmentInternal over ALL; Dell marginally over IGS 3 -0.5 -1 -1.5
Telephone/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 -1
Replacement Parts AvailabilityNone at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0
Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, IGS 3 1 -2 -2Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1
25.5 -6.5 -10 -9SOURCE: TBR
Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction
Total Points
TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
In the x86 server support segment, the internal support
organizations were confirmed as having outperformed
various competitors across all but one category (parts
availability) designated by the previous tests. In addition,
IBM outperformed Dell 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 break/fix 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
71
AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IBM
Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell 2 -2 -1 1On-site Technical Expertise Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell 1 -1 0 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 1 -1 0 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell, HP 2 -2 -2 2
20 -11 -8 -1
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 None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP, Lenovo 2 0 -1 -1On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, Lenovo 3 1 -1 -1Telephone/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 -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 ALL 3 -1 -1 -1
23 -5 -8 -8
SOURCE: TBR
Total Points
Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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 on-site response time
on the competitive strength and weakness
citations for the 1Q11 reporting period.
•The internal support group’s scores were so
high, with the exception of parts availability,
that they skewed the remainder of the
analysis, making it difficult for OEM support
providers to earn scores above the 100-
point marker and leading scores to trail
toward the lower end of the meeting
expectations range.
72
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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 desktop/notebook customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and
on-site support by an OEM or partner.
•TBR found that the majority of server customers preferred primarily self-replacing the parts while utilizing third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.
•This pattern has largely remained constant in the past year, with an average of 25% of respondents indicating either 100% on-site support or 100% self-replacement, while the rest leverage a mix of
the two.
•TBR observed an above-average proportion of those primarily self-replacing within the IBM Support customer group.
73
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Customers are most satisfied with self-replacement or a mixture of
self-replacement and on-site support
•Server customers are most satisfied with a mixture of
self-replacement and on-site support, whereas
desktop/notebook customers are most satisfied
replacing the parts in-house.
•Customers are least satisfied with on-site support
provided by a third party, at or under 5% satisfaction.
•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
74
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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 reported issues with the availability of some parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. This strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support.
•IBM customers are less challenged than Dell and HP customers with staff resource issues, but are more challenged when facing parts availability.
•In terms of having issues replacing difficult parts, desktop/notebook customers found this as more of an issue than server customers.
Buying Behavior
75
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Premium support contracts and extended warranties are more common for server support than desktop/notebook
On the server side, across the board, customers were most likely to purchase support
contracts at the time of the hardware sale.
IGS/Lenovo Services’ customers were the most likely to purchase critical/premium and
extended warranty contracts. Dell Services’ customers were the most likely of the vendors
to purchase support contracts at the time of the desktop or notebook sale.
Buying Behavior
76
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services
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
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
The sample distribution of internal support by brand has remained largely constant over time
Internal Support Teams
77
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP BY MAJOR PC BRANDS
Dell HP IBM/Lenovo
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores –
4Q07 Through 1Q11
78
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores
4Q07 Through 1Q11
79
BREAK/FIX SERVICES4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
Dell Services & Partners 5.86 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92 6.25 6.47 6.14 5.88HP Services & Partners 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94 6.24 6.34 6.04 5.85IGS & Partners 6.09 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09 6.35 6.58 6.23 5.99Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75 6.12 6.57 6.47 6.16ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.84 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52 5.95 6.31 6.00 5.84HP Services & Partners 5.93 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24 5.86 6.20 5.88 5.74IGS & Partners 6.06 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38 6.02 6.45 6.04 5.82Internal Support Organizations 6.13 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47 5.88 6.27 6.20 6.05ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.70 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63 5.84 6.12 5.85 5.68HP Services & Partners 5.69 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15 5.56 5.96 5.63 5.57IGS & Partners 5.94 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45 5.85 6.22 5.71 5.48Internal Support Organizations 6.27 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76 6.12 6.37 6.30 6.21TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.44 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64 5.84 5.81 5.62 5.67HP Services & Partners 5.55 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28 5.64 5.89 5.72 5.67IGS & Partners 5.68 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48 5.83 5.92 5.77 5.80Internal Support Organizations 6.00 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48 5.92 6.10 5.98 5.98ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.59 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50 5.77 5.76 5.54 5.63HP Services & Partners 5.50 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34 5.74 5.86 5.57 5.57IGS & Partners 5.55 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60 5.98 5.94 5.63 5.51Internal Support Organizations 5.64 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58 5.93 6.01 5.91 5.94REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 6.04 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63 5.92 6.24 6.07 5.85HP Services & Partners 5.83 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53 5.91 6.19 6.00 5.76IGS & Partners 6.04 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69 5.95 6.28 6.10 5.86Internal Support Organizations 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 5.84
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores
4Q07 Through 1Q11
80
SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
Dell Services & Partners 5.73 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77 6.17 6.20 5.85 5.79HP Services & Partners 5.50 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63 6.06 6.24 5.90 5.82IGS & Partners 5.74 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79 6.20 6.32 6.02 5.90Internal Support Organizations 5.96 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65 6.04 6.30 6.24 6.12HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.67 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40 5.67 5.85 5.71 5.69HP Services & Partners 5.56 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30 5.73 5.84 5.54 5.46IGS & Partners 5.79 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35 5.62 5.84 5.63 5.46Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52 5.97 6.15 6.09 6.04AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.42 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43 5.54 5.46 5.43 5.55HP Services & Partners 5.31 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26 5.53 5.68 5.45 5.44IGS & Partners 5.62 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39 5.64 5.59 5.37 5.39Internal Support Organizations 5.50 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56 5.85 5.87 5.85 5.98OVERALL SATISFACTION
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.76 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77 6.09 6.26 5.96 5.81HP Services & Partners 5.76 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70 5.97 6.25 5.96 5.76IGS & Partners 5.89 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92 6.17 6.28 6.04 5.92Internal Support Organizations 6.10 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70 6.02 6.25 6.19 6.16Survey Counts
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 160 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252 253HP Services & Partners 160 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252 254IGS & Partners 160 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254 263Internal Support Organizations 160 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 404 510
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected
Attributes
81
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis
Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations
82
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 1Q11
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
PARTS AVAILABILITY
BREAK/FIX SERVICES
ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME
HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction
Attributes
83
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Break/Fix ServicesSatisfaction Trends
84
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Technical ExpertiseSatisfaction Trends
85
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Response TimeSatisfaction Trends
86
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
6.6
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone SupportSatisfaction Trends
87
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online SupportSatisfaction Trends
88
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement Parts AvailabilitySatisfaction Trends
89
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Services Pricing/ValueSatisfaction Trends
90
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Hardware Deployment/Installation/ConfigurationSatisfaction Trends
91
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
6.2
6.4
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Satisfaction Trends
92
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 1Q11
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Overall SatisfactionSatisfaction Trends
93
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11
OVERALL SATISFACTION
Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs
94
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Break/Fix ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
95
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Technical ExpertiseConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
96
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Response TimeConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
97
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone SupportConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
98
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online SupportConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
99
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement Parts AvailabilityConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
100
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Services ValueConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
101
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
102
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Confidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
103
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
104
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix F: Categorical Responses
105
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Break/Fix ServicesCategory Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
106
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
<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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Technical ExpertiseCategory Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
107
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%
70%
<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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
On-site Response TimeCategory Graphs
108
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%60%65%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
4Q10 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Phone SupportCategory Graphs
109
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%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
4Q10 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Online SupportCategory Graphs
110
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
4Q10 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Replacement Parts AvailabilityCategory Graphs
111
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%
70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
4Q10 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Support Services Pricing/ValueCategory Graphs
112
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%70%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
4Q10 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Hardware DeploymentCategory Graphs
113
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%
<5 5 6 7
SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY
Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
4Q10 1Q11
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Category Graphs
4Q10 1Q11
114
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix G: Server/Storage versus Desktop/Notebook Support
by Support Provider
115
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Dell Services 1Q11Satisfaction Trends
116
5.20
5.30
5.40
5.50
5.60
5.70
5.80
5.90
6.00
6.10Br
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
DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)
TBR
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
HP Services 1Q11Satisfaction Trends
117
4.60
4.80
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
HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
IBM Global Services 1Q11Satisfaction Trends
118
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 | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Internal Support Organizations 1Q11Satisfaction Trends
119
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
IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP
Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)
SOURCE: TBR
TBR
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology
120
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
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
121
Study Design & Methodology
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?
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Reporting Structure DefinedTBR 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)
122
Study Design & Methodology
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
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Sample Overview •
TBR’s 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 524 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, 1,030 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR 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: 253 Dell Services customer interviews; 254 HP Services customer interviews; 263 IBM Global Services customer interviews;
and 260 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between October 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011.
Methodology & Sample
123
Sample Size Standard ErrorAll Providers 1030 1.00%
Dell & Partners 253 2.10%
HP & Partners 254 1.94%
IGS & Partners 263 1.52%
Internal Support Organizations 260 1.83%
SOURCE: TBR
Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes
Service & Support
TBR
Study Design & Methodology
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Number of Employees
124
Number of Employees Percentage of Respondents<500 28.9%
500–1,000 17.8%
1,000–4,999 22.6%
5,000–9,999 11.3%
10,000–14,999 6.9%
15,000–19,999 3.6%
20,000–49,999 4.8%
50,000–74,999 2.1%
75,000–99,999 0.6%
100,000+ 1.3%
Average Number of Employees 8,027
SOURCE: TBR
Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed
TBR
Study Design & Methodology
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Type of Business
125
Type of Business Percentage of Respondents
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 2%
Pharmaceuticals 3%
Public Utilities 3%
Transportation Service 5%
Mining, Construction 5%
Wholesale Trade 5%
Information Service (including software development) 6%
Finance, Insurance, real estate 7%
Healthcare 7%
Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 7%
Other Services 8%
Education 8%
Government 8%
Manufacturing - Process (materials) 9%
Professional, Scientific, Technical 9%
SOURCE: TBR
Types of Businesses Represented in the Study
TBR
Study Design & Methodology
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Job Titles/Responsibilities
126
CXO (CIO,CTO) 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%Vice Pres ident 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%Director 13.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9%Manager 61.3% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 63.0%Coordinator/Adminis trati on 13.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%Other 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 3.4%Grand Tota l 95.4% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR
Respondent Job Functions/Responsibilities
Networking OtherLevel MIS/IT Grand TotalSystems Management Purchasing Customer Service/Support
TBR
Study Design & Methodology
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Purchasing – Past, Present & Future
The 1Q11 study sample represents 1.8 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional
355,000 units during the next 12 months.
127
x86-Based x86-BasedServers Servers
Sum 1,013,272 186,567 563,009 202,161 41,733 109,468
Mean 1,968 362 1,093 393 81 213
Sum 6,780 480 1,326 580 172 520
Mean 753 53 147 64 19 58
Enterprise 19.95% 22.37% 19.44%
Division 8.55% 35.83% 39.22%
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
Study Design & Methodology
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix I: Analytical Procedures
128
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
129
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
130
Service % RespondingOn-Site Break/Fix Services 87.75%
On Site Technical Expertise 86.03%
On Site Response Time/Commitment 86.23%
Telephone/Help Desk Support 87.20%
Online Support 85.99%
Replacement Parts Availability 86.71%
Support Services Pricing/Value 87.36%
Hardware Installation/Configuration 72.64%
Automated Diagnostics 68.53%
Overall Satisfaction 87.75%
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
131
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
132
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
133
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
134
support provider segment = 10
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©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
135
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
Appendix J: Survey Instrument
136
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
SCREENERS
137
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
138
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
139
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
140
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
141
TBR
Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.
1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument
142
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