This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Author(s):
Mwegerano, A.; Kytösaho, P.; Tuominen, A.
Title:
Opinion survey on the quality of corrective actions and time
provided to customers versus quality of issues description of
issues raised in mobile terminals
Year:
2007
Version:
Final published version
Please cite the original version:
Mwegerano, A., Kytösaho, P., Tuominen, A. 2007. Opinion survey on the quality of
corrective actions and time provided to customers versus quality of issues description of
issues raised in mobile terminals. ICEP 2007 Proceedings, pp. 343 346.
Note:
© International Conference on Electronics Packaging (ICEP) 2007
Reprinted with permission.
This publication is included in the electronic version of the licentiate thesis:
Mwegerano, Andi Mawazo. Handling Customer Complaints during the After-Sales Service: Mobile Terminals.
Aalto University, School of Electrical Engineering. 2014. 60 + app. 50.
All material supplied via Aaltodoc is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and
duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may
be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must
obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or
otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Original publications
ICEP 2007 Proceedings
Opinion Survey on the Quality of Corrective Actions and Time provided to
Customers versus Quality of Issues Description of Issues Raised in Mobile
Terminals
Anderson Mwegerano1, Pekka Kytösaho2, Aulis Tuominen3
1, 2
Nokia Corporation, P.O. BOX 86, 24101 Salo, Finland
3
University of Turku Ylhäistentie 2 24130 Salo, Finland
Abstract
This paper is an extension of the work presented in April at the ICEP 2006 conference [1]* An
opinion survey on the response time and quality of corrective actions provided to the customers
versus quality of the description of the issues raised by customers were conducted. It is important that the technical issues raised by mobile terminals users are resolved in time and that the
corrective actions are of good quality. On the other hand, in order to help speed up the corrective actions, description of the technical issue needs to be as clear as possible from the first
time the issue is raised. A partially or completely poorly described issue will result in a ping
pong situation and leading to a high open time for the issue. Randomly, a batch of issues which
had already been resolved, from the years 2004 to 2006 were collected from an in-built tool
knowledge database known as GENIUS and were sent to customers to give their opinion on
the time spent providing a solution and its quality. At the same time the same batch of issues
had were also sent to the issue resolvers to obtain their opinion on the quality of the description
of the issues raised by the same customers. The survey results has been analysed using suitable statistical methods, that has helped to establish a mathematical correlation and association between perceived quality of corrective action (OUTPUT) and quality of description and
time spent to provide the solution (INPUTS). Based on the test statistic calculation results, conclusion of the survey was made.
1. Introduction
In this work 8 different customers were asked
to evaluate the quality of the corrective actions
to them and also the time spent on providing
the corrective actions by upper levels (see figure 1 for levels). At the same time the same
issues were sent to 8 different corresponding
resolvers to evaluate the quality of the description provided by the customers. It is perceived
that the better the description of the issues,
the better is the quality of the provided corrective. In this paper this it has been shown statistically, that yes indeed good quality description
of the issues corresponds to better quality of
the corrective actions. It has also been established that Quality of the corrective actions can still be good despite of the long
resolution time.
2. Current state analysis
CA L1
CUSTOMER
CA L2
CA L3
CA L4
CA Corrective Actions
L Level 1, 2, 3 & 4
Fig. 1 A simplified issues escalation path
Diagram
343
Original publications
ICEP 2007 Proceedings
Fitted Line Plot
Scatterplot of Solution Qualit vs Solution Time; Quality of Descri
1.0
Solution Time
1.5
2.0
2.5
Solution Qualit = 0.4463 + 0.7006 Quality of Descri
3.0
S
R-Sq
R-Sq(adj)
3.0
Quality of Descri
3.0
0.760219
26.9%
24.8%
Solution Qualit
Solution Qualit
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
3.0
Project: OPINION SURVEY ON THE QUALITY OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND TIME PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS VERSUS QUALITY OF ISSUES DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES RAISED IN M
Fig.2 Scatter of Corrective actions Quality
Time Vs Solution time; quality of description
2.0
Quality of Descri
2.5
3.0
Project: OPINION SURVEY ON THE QUALITY OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND TIME PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS VERSUS QUALITY OF ISSUES DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES RAISED IN M
Fig 3. Regression Analysis: Solution Quality
versus Quality of Description
ANALYSIS:
Fitted Line Plot
Solution Time = 1.977 + 0.2599 Quality of Descri
S
R-Sq
R-Sq(adj)
3.0
0.758468
4.8%
2.0%
Solution Time
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
Quality of Descri
2.5
3.0
Project: OPINION SURVEY ON THE QUALITY OF CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND TIME PROVIDED TO CUSTOMERS VERSUS QUALITY OF ISSUES DESCRIPTION OF ISSUES RAISED IN M
Fig.4 Regression Analysis: Solution Time
versus Quality of Description
344
Original publications
ICEP 2007 Proceedings
In Multiple Correspondence Analysis, first
two components explain 52% of total variation in survey data.
Loading Plot of Solution Qualit; ...; RST
0.75
Quality of Descri
Solution Qualit
Second Component
0.50
0.25
0.00
Times asked for m
Solution Time
-0.25
RST
-0.50
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
First Component
0.4
0.5
Project: Opinion Survey on the Quality of Corrective Actions and Time provided to Customers versus Quality of Issues Description of Issues Raised in Mobile Terminals.MPJ; Worksh
Fig. 5 Principal Component Analysis
RST = Resolution time for issues
In Principal Component Analysis, first two
components explain 66% of total variation in
survey data. Eigenvalue of third component
less than 1, so no additional components calculated.
Conclusion: Quality of Description is associated most with Solution Quality.
Multiple Correspondence Analysis
Multiple Correspondence Analysis
Column Plot
Q uality :
Q 1 = Solv ed the described issue compeletely
Q 2 = Solv ed the issue partially
Q 3 = Did not solv e the issue at A LL
Q uality of Description:
D1 = Described the issue completely
D2 = Described the issue partially
D3 = Did not describe the issue at A LL
Component 2
Resolution Time:
T1 = Excellent
T2 = O K
T3 = Too Slow
Q2
3
Case Description
is associated
2
most with
perceived
Quality
1
04
Q1
0
T1
D1 1 3
D2
T2
T3 2
Q3
7
5
-1
6
D3
Supplementary Data (numbers)
= times L4 had to ask for more
information
Conclusions:
Quality of Description is associated most
with perceived Solution Quality.
Resolution time is associated with perceived
Solution Quality.
1 time of asking more information is tolerated without effecting perceived Solution
Quality.
Final words: In this work different statistical
methods were used, correlation, regression,
Principal Component Analysis and Multiple
Correspondence Analysis. All led to the
same conclusion: Quality of Description is
associated most with perceived Solution
Quality.
All mentioned, good descriptions in issues
provides faster solution times and better solution quality.
-2
-2
-1
0
1
Component 1
2
3
Project: Opinion Survey on the Quality of Corrective Actions and Time provided to Customers versus Quality of Issues Description of Issues Raised in Mobile Terminals.MPJ; Worksh
Figure 6: Multiple Correspondence Analysis
345
Original publications
ICEP 2007 Proceedings
References
1] Mwegerano, A. Kytosaho, P Tuominen, A.
Analysis of Corrective Action’s Quality pro
vided to Customers with Mobile Terminals
Using Self-Organizing Maps ICEP 2007
[2] MINITAB® Release 14.13. Manual (Six
Sigma Academy Module Release 14.13.)
[3] W. Murray, Ed. (1972). Numerical Methods
for Unconstrained Optimization, Academic
Press
[4] Hair, Anderson, Tatham, Black, “Multivari
Ate Data Analysis – 5th edition,” Prentice
Hall International Editions
346