RR

ElectraLink CustomerSurvey

DTS User Group Presentation

19th January 2010

R

Research Method

Quantitative Qualitative

Combined Approach

49 x CATI Telephone Interviews:

30 GOMs/ 27 CM’s

6 x 45 Minute Face-to-face Depth Interviews:

6 DTS (3 GOMs/ 3 CM’s)

R

The DTS – Key Headlines (1/2)

• Most users see the DTS as a highly efficient service & only have occasion to deal with Electralink if there is a problem (especially smaller users). They find it hard to identify any major needs for improvement and rate the DTS highly for meeting the current & future needs of their businesses.

• Overall, perceived service levels are on a par with 2008, but:

– GOM’s perceive improvement (particularly providing expertise resource)

– CM’s see a slight decline – mainly in responsiveness

• Comparison is still favourable versus other benchmark organisations. At the same time opinion of Gemserv (& Elexon) has declined, but for Xoserv has improved.

• Despite January’s price increases, there is no real concern raised and perceptions of value for money are stable (but up for GOM’s and down slightly for CM’s).

QualitativeQuantitative +

R

The DTS – Key Headlines (2/2)

• Although awareness of last year’s new initiatives is unchanged, uptake has grown across each of them since 2008. Of the more recent initiatives less than 40% are aware of any single one, uptake being highest for the Bulletin Board on Web Tools (61% of those aware, or 24% overall).

• Overall, the average taken across 29 service ratings is up on 2008. The greatest improvements relating to the EDS and the Reporting Tools.

• Changes to the website logon have been received well and increased “flexibility to integrate their gateway with existing” was also a notable improvement.

• In general hardware & service upgrades appear to have passed smoothly.

• For some, continuity of resource remains a concern, but it is not a top of mind issue for most. Is Electralink cutting its cloth too thinly in this area?

• There is a desire to see Electralink more proactively involved in high level discussions about the future of the industry, particularly in terms of the future challenges; Smart Metering, use of new technologies etc.

QualitativeQuantitative +

R

Satisfaction With Electralink ServiceSummary

**Mean Change Score vs 2008

Overall Rating 8.06 -0.05

Overall Professionalism 8.24 -0.11

Being Responsive 7.76 -0.31

Being Easy To Deal With 7.98 -0.24

Being Highly Efficient 7.73 -0.25

Communicating Clearly 7.94 -0.08

*Understanding The Service Support Requirements Of… 7.67 +0.13

Providing Valuable Expertise Resource 7.71 +0.45

Base: Total Sample (49)

* Wording changed in 2009

** Changed wording to “Electralink’s management of the DTS Service”

Mean Score out of 10

Quantitative

R

Rating Versus Other OrganisationsSummary

Mean ChangeScore vs 2008

** Electralink 8.06 -0.05

GEMSERV / MRASCO 6.79 -0.56

Elexon 7.09 -0.36

National Grid 6.26 +0.12

*JOINT GAS OFFICE 6.00 N/A

OFGEM 5.95 -0.41

Xoserv 6.25 +0.92

Base: All Who Use Each Company (Various) * Asked of OFGAS in 2007** Changed to wording to “Electralink for the DTS”

Overall SatisfactionMean Score out of 10

Quantitative

R

Summary Versus Previous YearsComparisons are made only across those ratings present in all years shown:

Average No Of Ratings Year Base (Mean Score) Compared

DTS Survey 2007 41 4.01 292008 46 4.13 292009 49 4.22 29

The above is like for like comparison on statements scored as follows:

Rating Score

Very Good 5Good 4Adequate 3Poor 2Very Poor 1

Those with no experience or not using services / features rated are excluded from the mean scores.

Quantitative

R

Average Rating Of Main Service AreasDTS Sample

No. of Mean ChangeService Attributes Score Attributes Since

Area Rated 2009 Compared* 2008*

All Ratings 42 4.22 29 +0.09

DTS Web Tools 9 3.92 8 -0.43

Electralink Helpdesk 5 4.43 5 +0.19

The DTS Itself 5 4.24 5 +0.05

Electralink Reporting Tools 4 4.33 4 +0.19

Electralink Services 6 4.05 6 -0.01

Gateway Connection 5 4.13 5 +0.08

EDS Helpdesk 3 4.48 3 +0.47

Electralink Website 5 4.01 4 +0.09

Base: All rating each attribute* Change compared only on ratings in both 2008 and 2009

Quantitative

R

The way EDS manages fault situations +0.58

The quality of service provided by the EDS helpdesk +0.42

The quality of response you receive from the EDS helpdesk +0.40

Being clear and easy to log in as a user (website) +0.29

Having the flexibility to integrate the gateway with existing systems +0.29

The speed of response (Electralink Helpdesk) +0.22

Receiving consistent level of service regardless how you get in touch +0.21

Getting consistent info & advice regardless how you get in touch +0.20

Overall helpfulness (Electralink Helpdesk) +0.20

The Audit tool +0.20

The ACMT -0.35

NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20

DTS - Key Service Changes Since 2008

Change in mean score since 2008

Quantitative

R

How Well Electralink Provides Feedback On Topics Discussed And Issues Raised At The DTS User Group

10% are elected members of the DTS user group in 2009*

Base: Total DTS Sample (49) (46)

*New questions added in 2008

Very Well

Quite Well

Not Very Well

Not At All Well

2009 2008

27

63

4

6

35

50

13

2

Quantitative

R

How Well User Group Representative Provides Feedback On Topics Discussed And Issues Raised At The DTS User Group

Base: Total DTS Sample (49) (46)

*New questions added in 2008

Very Well

Quite Well

Not Very Well

Not At All Well

2009 2008

20

53

20

6

26

46

24

4

Quantitative

At least 1 in 4 still feel that User Group Representatives do not give feedback well.

R

Awareness & Claimed Uptake Of Initiatives Introduced In The Past Two Years

Already Aware & Aware But UnawareUsing Planning To Not Planning

Use To Use

12

16

18

10

12

12

22

8

14

10

24

12

8

20

10

8

16

0

8

10

45

65

59

63

63

67

7110

Ability To See No. Of Instances Of A Flow Within A File (Within Audit)

Ability To Identify Files Held In EMS (Audit Tool)

Ability To Re-collect Files Previously Delivered

Enhanced MPAN Search Facility In Audit

Ability To Upload Bulk Search Requests Into Audit

Technology Refresh Programme

New Gateway Summary Screen Within ACMT

Quantitative

R

Awareness & Claimed Uptake Of Newer Initiatives Introduced In The Last Year

Already Aware & Aware But UnawareUsing Planning To Not Planning

Use To Use

24

6

16

4

14

8

8

10

4

4

6

8

4

6

8

4

12

6

16

8

14

6

14

61

78

73

73

69

73

76

69

12

Ability To Extract Routing Info. In CSV Format From ACMT Tool

Ability To Restore Routing Data Through ACMT

Bulletin Board On Web Tools

Ability To Deliver Acknowledgement Files To Different Directory

Flexible Filenaming

Ability To Display List Of All MPANs In Single Data File

Introduction Of ‘Admin’ Accounts On Web Tools

New ‘STATS’ Graphs On Web Tools

Quantitative

R

DTS – Suggested Improvements / Changes (1)

➨ There is a limited but vocal request for more flexibility over the nature of the housing of the gateways

– Feels out of step with Electralink in all other ways – dictatorial, inflexible

– Know this is down to EDS

➨ A heads-up email or maybe a note on the front page of the websites they look at

– For news - newly published papers, meetings that have taken place, to inform / alert non-attendees, (other) things Electralink has been involved in, etc

“(we) found the model very inflexible – (we had a) lovely new data centre, ... the gateway is older technology .... (it was ) “this is the standard approach – we’re not prepared to move on that”. ... I understand the reasons behind

it, but I feel there should be the ability to compromise - at least some. It was an edict – “this is how we do things”. (I worry that) the hardware will break down – so what will happen at that point? ... Inflexible & intolerant

isn’t how (we) think about Electralink”

Qualitative

R

DTS – Suggested Improvements / Changes (2)

➨ How to test backup gateways are ready to function? Don’t want to pass live data through them, but how do you know they’ll be available if the need arises?

➨ A get to know the DTS training session

➨ Perhaps speed and capacity of the service:

➨ A central (i.e. remote) archive of files sent via the gateway, used to resend files if there is problem

“I’m a contract expert, not a technical expert. ... some of the meetings & paperwork (are) quite difficult to follow. ... would like the opportunity to understand it better.

A ‘get to know the DTS’ type session – others would find that useful too”

“One party had a problem – needed us to send their flows again – (I think) this isn’t my

responsibility, .... more appropriate to go back to the central service to help with this – less

embarrassing too”

“(we) don’t have the ability to send as high a volume of files as I would ideally like – flow traffic is relatively high at present – we

may have 10k files waiting to go, would like to see them disappear in half an hour, they’ll go over night at present. It’s fine ,but they

should be able to deal with that volume of files”

“Speed of delivery, acknowledgements ... It’s pretty good, but it can always be better”

Qualitative

R

DTS – Suggested Improvements / Changes (3)

➨ One wanted to know what would happen in disaster recovery scenario. Felt it’s “a bit woolly” - may be there, but he doesn’t know about it

➨ Maybe wider updating of teams beyond the people directly involved if there is a problem, and timescales for resolution, especially if at the end of a working day / week

➨ An update between user-group meetings to keep things moving along

“I think all users are in the same agreement that if have a problem, Electralink will arrive with a box on the back of a lorry. But what would happen if 2 went down together?”

“In between user groups meetings, a between-time update might be useful – meetings are 3 months

apart, it feels like a long time. Maybe one between, or monthly – there’s a monthly DTS report that

comes out – it could come out with that”

“I don’t know what the policy is on updating us about major issues – there was a problem with another gateway, ... You need an update before the end of the day – in good time so can plan & communicate. This is a little issue – I knew it was in hand, I’m sure the team directly involved would have known, but it would have been useful for us to know too”

Qualitative

R

DTS – Suggested Improvements / Changes (4)

➨ Management information may benefit from a review

➨ Consideration of new technology options for the future

– To speed things up

– To interface with anticipated changes in data transfer protocols

– Possibly involving some form of messaging, or real-time over the internet?

➨ Some of the larger businesses know that upgrades that require access to equipment can go awry because of complications due to their own third party arrangements - so their own communication & management could be better sometimes

“Management information is OK, it’s not factually incorrect, but it hasn’t really been reviewed in several years. There’s nothing really wrong with it, but I’d like to see a reconsideration of it. It

would be better done centrally, alternatively that data could be provided to customers to do their own analysis, across the Gateway as opposed to doing internal systems. The problem is

that the service is so quick ... we rely on the speed, I’d quite like to have that information”

Qualitative

R

DTS: The Future Of The DTS & The Role For Electralink….

• Views about just how active Electralink should be vary a little, but there is agreement about the expertise that Electralink has, can & should bring to the table ... Not just in relation to the DTS as it stands, but in thinking ahead

• Everyone wants Electralink on this basis to be involved in top-table discussions about the future of the industry

– About the DTS’s form & relationship to the world around it as it changes – with the introduction of Smart Metering, for example

– And how the DTS may evolve to take advantage of new technologies for data transfer, for instance

“Good to hear from them, because of their expertise – they may have suggestions

for services” I don’t think they should be driving change, the industry has to drive the change. They can be there in support, with new functionality, but in

terms of the changes it’s Electralink as the maintainer of the DTS & the service ... In terms

of changing it, no, they shouldn’t be. Suggesting new things, new tools, ... we shouldn’t be looking

to stand still, and there are new opportunities”

“if there’s anything Electralink can see that would benefit the industry, they should be out there canvassing the industry, then it’s up to

the gateway contract managers to decide”

Qualitative

R

DTS – The Future Of The DTS & The Role For Electralink….

➨ Some respondents knew little about the reality of this at present, others knew a bit; but when those quite close to Electralink felt unsure as to exactly where they were represented

➨ A few (the more strategic in respect of their role / thinking) want Electralink to be much more involved and active

➨ The DTS is just one outsourced service amidst a plethora of others, in a market that is about to enter the first significant period of change since 1998

➨ If there are changes afoot, the best knowledge & expertise in the industry needs to be applied to the process of designing the future … and Electralink should surely be part of this

– In order to save the industry wasted effort, time and money designing new systems that might be better done in other ways

➨ Electralink runs good services delivered very effectively – so is in a good place to offer advice, and to help shape the future in a way that is effective and efficient for industry parties

Qualitative

RR

ElectraLink CustomerSurvey

DTS User Group Presentation

19th January 2010