杏吧原创

Toronto, Canada

HOW do research laboratories measure clients鈥� satisfaction with their work?
As corporate downsizing and government cutbacks put labs of all sorts and sizes
under pressure to earn their keep, it鈥檚 a matter of growing concern. Many are
finding that to attract and retain paying clients they must change their modus
operandi. Primarily, the labs must attend to their clients鈥� technical needs and
not just their own research interests.

My company was recently asked to survey international best practices in
client satisfaction. This we did for 54 leading government and industrial labs
in Canada, the US and Europe. Amazingly, 40 per cent of them said they had no
formal system whatsoever for measuring their client satisfaction. Interestingly,
those that have adopted total quality management and similar practices are twice
as likely as others to treat the issue seriously and use formal measurement
techniques.

It was clear that many labs claiming to have formal systems were stretching
the meaning of formal. Many relied on informal techniques, such as 鈥渕eetings
with clients鈥� and 鈥済roups of clients鈥� or 鈥渦nsolicited feedback鈥� to gauge
customers鈥� satisfaction.

And what of the labs that were using tried-and-tested techniques such as
telephone or mail surveys to measure satisfaction? After reviewing 20 of these,
we were left baffled. Often the surveys were based on unclear and badly written
questions. And the sort of satisfaction that was being tested was too narrow and
idiosyncratic: 鈥渞esearcher courteousness鈥�, for example.

Here, then, lies a paradox. Research organisations that would be horrified at
the smallest transgression of research protocol throw sound practice out the
window when measuring client satisfaction. It鈥檚 not that research managers are
not trying to do the right thing. It鈥檚 just that often they set about it the
wrong way. Many of them, trained in science, engineering or mathematics, seem
unaware that the social sciences can offer them valuable tools and know-how in
conducting surveys.

Our survey suggests that many lab managers believe it no more difficult to
design an effective client survey than it is to analyse, say, the X-ray
diffraction pattern of a crystal. But what is straightforward for a
crystallographer may not be so clear to someone designing a survey, and vice
versa.

One has the impression that many a lab director said to 鈥淕eorge鈥�, his
scientist-turned-business development officer, 鈥淕eorge, you have the afternoon
free. Why not try designing our client satisfaction survey?鈥�

George, who more than likely gave up active research before researchers were
encouraged to interact with the lab鈥檚 clients, is game. After all, he has filled
out scores of surveys in his time. He quickly identifies what he believes to be
the obvious issues to be tested: price, delivery, report length and clarity,
researcher courteousness and so forth. Translate the issues into a small number
of clipped questions, add a measurement scale and we have an instant survey of
client satisfaction.

Six months later, with the response rate hovering around 10 per cent and
little useful information to be gleaned, George is dismayed. The rest of the
lab, sceptical to start with, are throwing him uncomfortable glances. By
overlooking the tools and know-how of the social sciences, such as standard
survey design and sampling strategies, George has landed in the soup.

First, many of the issues he addressed measured the satisfaction issues that
were important to the lab and not to the client. Most clients are interested in
research results and not in lab processes. Secondly, the questions were so
poorly phrased that clients could not understand what George wanted to know, let
alone what they themselves thought. Finally, he had not considered the need to
offer confidentiality. Rarely do clients want their comments to get back to the
researcher, and this is particularly so if the are dissatisfied. Yet, it is
often this kind of information that can help a lab to improve.

The lesson is, to improve business practices and to expand their research
front, labs need to forge partnerships with the social sciences and to respect
their tools and know-how.