HOME

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

SECRETARY'S REVIEW

DEPARTMENTAL OVERVIEW

REPORT ON PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

APPENDICES

> Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

GLOSSARY

APPENDIX A DPRS Client Survey 2003
Shaping Parliamentary Communication and Technology
Services for the Future

Final Report of the 2003 DPRS Client Survey

Table of contents

Introduction

Client satisfaction with DPRS services

Transcription Services

Broadcasting Services

Computing Services

Client liaison and support

Communication services

1.1 DPRS Client Survey 2003

DPRS is a parliamentary service organisation supporting the Parliament, Senators and Members and many sections of the Australian community. The departments vision is to give all Australians the opportunity to see, hear and read the work of their national Parliament, through providing the Australian Parliament with world class, value for money services and support.

A key part of the departments approach is to work with clients to find the best way of meeting their needs. (DPRS Corporate Plan 1999-2002). To ensure this happens, DPRS is committed to ongoing monitoring and evaluation of clients expectations and perceptions. In April 2003, ARTD Management and Research Consultants was engaged by the department to conduct the DPRS Client Survey 2003. Key requirements of the survey were:

• collecting quantifiable measures of client satisfaction for reporting against performance indicators in the Portfolio Budget Statement;
  
  
• obtaining feedback from clients on key strategic issues impacting on client satisfaction;
  
  
• validating formal and informal sources of client feedback data collected internally by DPRS.

1.2 Methodology

The consultancy was undertaken in three stages:

• Self-completion questionnaire (stage 1)
  
  
• Follow-up client interviews (stage 2)
  
  
• Data analysis and reporting (stage 3).

Stage 1: Self-completion questionnaire

In May 2003, a self-completion questionnaire was delivered to all 226 Senators and Members, and a sample of senior managers and officers in the other four parliamentary departments.

The survey contained around 50 closed response questions and 6 open-ended questions.

Overall, 145 questionnaires were returned from clients, including 109 from Senators and Members (with a 43% response rate from Members and 60% from Senators) and 36 from managers in Parliamentary Departments (78% response rate) (Table 1.1). In the context of the busy Parliamentary environment, this response rate provides a credible basis for assessing client satisfaction with DPRS services.

Questionnaires distributed to Senators and Members offices were intended to be completed by the person in the office best placed to provide feedback on the range of DPRS services.

A cut-down electronic version of the survey was sent by email to a sample of 250 Parliamentary Department users of x2020. In total, 50 completed surveys were returned (20% response rate).

Table 1.1 Survey response rate

Stage 2: Follow-up interviews

DPRS clients were invited to participate in a series of follow-up interviews to elaborate on their views and to contribute their ideas about service improvements. Follow-up interviews were held with 31 Senators and Members or their staff, and 14 senior managers in Parliamentary Departments.

The purpose of these follow up interviews was to explore in more depth issues arising from the survey and suggestions for future priorities and directions for DPRS.

Stage 3: Data analysis and reporting

A comprehensive analysis was undertaken of the quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaire and follow-up interviews.

The frequency tables for the client survey are presented as cross-tabulations across three respondent categories:

• Senators and Members and their staff (n=108);
  
  
• Senior managers in Parliamentary Departments (n=36); and
  
  
• 2020 Users (n=50).

Client satisfaction was measured in the survey on a four-point scale:

• Very good indicating that you are very satisfied with the way the service meets your needs and expectations
  
  
• Good indicating that you are satisfied with the way the service meets your needs and expectations
  
  
• Adequate indicating that the service generally meets your needs although not necessarily your expectations
  
  
• Poor indicating that you are dissatisfied with the service.

DPRS measures client satisfaction in terms of proportion of clients who rate services as very good or good. This definition reflects the departments focus on services that fully meet the needs and expectations of clients, and was adopted because of the historically high levels of client satisfaction. On this scale, a rating of adequate is interpreted as an area for improvements and poor is interpreted as a sign of serious problems.

A small number of survey respondents commented that they would prefer to have responded on a five-point very good; good; neither good nor poor; poor; very poor. These views will need to be considered prior to the design of the next client survey.

2 Client satisfaction with DPRS services

2.1 Key findings

The results of the 2003 DPRS client survey highlighted the following key points:

• improvements on already high levels of client satisfaction
  DPRS continues to be perceived as a highly professional, client-focussed organisation. The results of the 2003 survey demonstrate high levels of client satisfaction and increases in satisfaction compared to 2000 (see Section 2.2).
  
  
• bedding down of new systems
  A number of recent service enhancements where 'teething' problems were identified in the 2000 client survey and subsequent client feedback reviews, appear to be now operating effectively with high levels of client satisfaction - in particular:
  • Timeliness of pinks and green - relatively lower levels of satisfaction (79% satisfaction in the 2000 survey) associated with instances of delays in the delivery of pinks and green following the introduction of the Hansard Production System in 2000, have now been replaced with high levels of client satisfaction (90% in the 2003 survey)
    
    
  • Telephones -concerns about the functionality and support for the new telephone system (identified in the 2002 client feedback report) have diminished with 89% of clients reporting satisfaction with the current telecommunication facilities
    
    
  • x2020 Help Desk - regular usage by Senators and Members of the x2020 help desk as the gateway for DPRS services has increased significantly since the 2000 survey. In 2000 just over half (53%) of all Senators and Members indicated they regularly used x2020. In 2003, that figure has increased to 85%.
    
    
• independent validation of data from internal DPRS monitoring of client satisfaction
  The results of the 2003 survey are highly consistent with the client satisfaction data collected internally by DPRS, through rolling client mini-surveys and interviews conducted by the DPRS Client Consultancy Unit.
  
  This independent validation should provide the DPRS Service Development Strategy Steering Committee with confidence to continue to use this internal data for ongoing service planning.
  
  
• From platforms to people
  Clients referred to continuing improvements in DPRS services in terms of the capacity of the department to tailor services to their individual business requirements. Several clients identified the need for DPRS to expand its consultative approach both in terms of the introduction of new technology and systems and more broadly in terms of supporting individual clients to improve their 'business' functions and systems.
  
  In line with the current approach adopted by the DPRS Client Consultancy Unit, ongoing consultation with clients needs to be negotiated with recognition that for some clients it could be perceived as intrusive while others would welcome increased assistance and support with their business solutions. To assist this process, clients could be segmented by levels and type of need to enable cost-effective business solutions to be developed. Such an approach could include:
  
  
  • Assisting Senators and Members to utilise the DPRS-supported platform and systems to their best advantage, building business solutions with them, in particular moving from technical to user-defined issues (eg confidence with the use of various technologies)
    
    
  • Building ongoing conversations about the possible futures of the business of Parliament on which to base service / product development and assess available solutions, not just through existing formal mechanisms such as POITAG, but at the level of individuals or groups of Senators and Members
    
    
• Timeliness and seamlessness
  Timeliness and seamlessness remain the two key drivers of client satisfaction - something that has remained unchanged from the 1998 and 2002 Client Surveys.
  
  Clients spoke about the continuing time pressures they face and the need to remain 'connected' wherever they are. Timeliness was discussed in terms of issues such as the:
  
  
  • timeliness of Committee transcripts
    
    
  • time taken to resolve computer problems
    
    
  • ease of finding information in the electronic version of Hansard

  Seamlessness was raised in terms of:

  • use of remote and mobile access to the Parliament House computer network
    
    
  • consistency of platforms and user support between Parliament House and electorate offices
    
    
  • enhanced wireless solutions
    
    
  • comparable access to transcription and broadcasting services for committee within and outside Parliament House
    
    
  • consistent, integrated approaches to service delivery by the different Parliamentary Departments with overlapping responsibilities (eg IT). Managers across the other Parliamentary Departments also recognised the need for better coordination and cooperation with DPRS to ensure seamless services to Senators and Members.

2.2 Client Satisfaction KPIs

Client satisfaction was high against all seven client satisfaction performance indicators used in the DPRS Portfolio Budget Statement 2002-2003. Overall 89% of clients were satisfied with the services of the Client Services Group (compared to 83% in 2000) and 79% were satisfied with the Technical Services Group (compared to 82% in 2000) [Table 2.1]. A detailed breakdown of all indicators is presented in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1: Summary client satisfaction performance indicators
Source: DPRS Client Survey 2003

1: Average rating across 14 questions - Q1.1-Q1.5, Q1.7, Q2.1-Q2.5, Q5.2-Q5.4
2: Average rating across 6 questions - Q1.1-Q1.5, Q1.7
3: Average rating across 3 questions - Q2.1-Q2.5
4: Average rating across 3 questions Q5.2-Q5.4
5: Average rating across 4 questions - Q3.1, Q3.2, Q3.5 and Q3.10
6: Average rating across 2 questions - Q3.1 and Q3.2
7: Average rating across 2 questions - Q3.5 and Q3.10
PIs calculated on ratings weighted as 60% (Senators and Members); 25% (senior managers in Parliamentary Departments); and
15% (Parliamentary Officers)

In terms of the services provided by the Client Services Group, there has been an increase in the proportion of clients expressing satisfaction compared to the 2000 survey. In addition, almost half (46%) of all clients rated the services as very good and only 1% indicated that the services were poor. The improvement in perceptions of transcription services was particularly notable, with satisfaction levels increasing from 79% in 2000 to 90% in 2003 (see Section 3).

There was little change in the proportion of clients satisfied with Infrastructure and Technology services, although satisfaction was slightly lower for the availability and reliability of computer systems and the ability to resolve problems. In each case, the changes reflect a slightly higher number of clients rating the services as adequate, rather than good or very good. Issues related to computer services are explored in detail in Section 5 and 6.

2.3 Client Service Standards

Client feedback against the client service standards confirms that DPRS continues to be perceived as a highly professional, client-focussed organisation. The results of the 2003 survey compare favourably to the results of the 2000 client survey, with increased satisfaction across all standards (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Responses against the client service standards

Among survey respondents the majority agreed that:

DPRS provides professional and helpful service

93% of clients [97% of Senators and Members] agreed that DPRS provides professional and helpful service at a good or very good standard. All remaining clients were satisfied that the professionalism and helpfulness of DPRS services was adequate [Client Survey Q7.1]. This is similar to the 2000 survey results, where 92% of clients were fully satisfied.

DPRS responds promptly and courteously to client requests

93% of clients [96% of Senators and Members] agreed that DPRS responds promptly and courteously to client requests. All remaining clients were satisfied that the promptness and courteousness of service delivery was adequate [Client Survey Q7.2]. This compares favourably to 2000 results, where 87% of clients [89% of Senators and Members] were fully satisfied.

DPRS remains innovative in finding more cost-effective ways of meeting clients needs 81% of clients agreed that DPRS was innovative in finding more cost-effective ways of meeting clients needs, which is a considerable increase in the proportion of satisfied clients compared to the 2000 survey when 66% were satisfied. Moreover, the proportion of senior managers of Parliamentary Departments satisfied that DPRS is innovative in finding more cost-effective ways of meeting clients needs has more than doubled (69% compared to 31% in 2000).

DPRS services are generally easily accessible

80% of clients [89% of Senators and Members] agreed that DPRS services were easily accessible, including the provision of appropriate after hour support for critical business systems. This is an increase on the 2000 results, when 75% of clients [79% of Senators and Members] were fully satisfied [Client Survey Q7.3].

DPRS generally appreciates the time-constraints that clients are subject to

78% of clients [86% of Senators and Members] agreed that DPRS appreciates the time-constraints that clients are subject to. This is an improvement on the 2000 results, where 73% of clients [81% of Senators and Members] were fully satisfied. [Client Survey Q7.4].

DPRS is proactive in anticipating the needs of Senators and Members and the Parliament.

76% of clients [84% of Senators and Members] agreed that DPRS was proactive in anticipating the needs of Senators and Members and the Parliament (with a further 14% viewing that the response of DPRS was adequate) - an increase on the 2000 survey, when 67% were satisfied. However, as in 2000, only around half (53%) of senior managers of Parliamentary Departments, were fully satisfied with this area [Client Survey Q7.5].

3 Transcription Services

Clients were generally satisfied with the transcription services provided by DPRS including pink and green drafts, accuracy of transcripts and the ease of getting help relating to transcription services. Most aspects of these transcription services had client satisfaction of 90% or more, although the proportion who rated the services as very good or good was lower in regard to the timeliness of the Committee transcripts (74%) and the user-friendliness of electronic Hansard (82%).

Compared to the 2000 survey, the proportion of clients satisfied with transcription services has increased across all facets of the service (Figure 3.1, Table 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Transcription services client feedback 2000 and 2003

Table 3.1 Client satisfaction with transcription services

3.1 Issues related to transcription services

The two key issues raised by client remain the same as the issues raised in 2000 survey - the timeliness of committee transcripts and the utility of the user interface of electronic Hansard. Other issues identified by a small number of clients include the timeliness of the pinks and greens and the electronic proof and the accuracy of transcripts.

• Hansard as a service rather than a product
  The majority of client (82%) were satisfied with the user-friendliness of the electronic version of Hansard, with a further 14% of clients indicating that the interface was adequate, and 4% dissatisfied [Client Survey Q1.6]. This is considerably higher than the 2000 survey when 67% were satisfied and 11% dissatisfied. This change most likely reflects improvements to the interface and increased technical proficiency amongst its users.
  
  However, the issue for some clients remains the perceived cumbersome user interface. In practical terms, these clients indicated they experienced considerable difficulties in:
  
  
  • quickly locating extracts for which they were searching and the different search capabilities on the ParlInfo and web versions,
    
    
  • difficulty in cutting and pasting and obtaining the correct formatting when printing and exporting text
    
    
  • the need for paragraph numbers rather than page numbers which are more relevant for referencing electronic Hansard text.
    
    
  Client feedback highlights the increasing reliance on electronic Hansard as the primary mode of access and points to the value that can be gained through enhancing the utility of the electronic interface.
  
  Clients recognised that the production of Hansard is in a transitional phase from the historic model of book/paper production to the potential of digitalisation eg instant availability and potential diversity of 'products' from the one digital source. This characteristic may offer potential value and cost-effectiveness in progressively recasting Hansard as a service (timely, searchable, format-friendly) rather than a product - the 'book' that is the record of Parliament.
  
  This 'service' aspect manifests for example in issues of timeliness of pinks and greens and interest in comparable levels of service for committee and chamber proceedings.
  
  
• timeliness of the Committee transcripts
  The proportion of Senators fully satisfied with the timeliness of the Committee transcripts was 59%, although a further 32% of Senators who responded to the survey indicated that the timeliness was adequate, with 9% dissatisfied [Client Survey Q1.3].
  
  The issue for Senators is that committee transcripts are now more sought after by the media and the public as a source of news and their timeliness has become more critical. Some Senators, their staff and Committee secretaries suggested DPRS review the priority given to the production of Committee transcripts, in light of the increasing demand. A few clients also seek more accurate estimates of when committee transcripts will be available, to better inform constituents.
  
  
• the timeliness of the electronic proof of Hansard
  While the majority of Senators and Members are satisfied and with the timeliness of the electronic proof of Hansard (90%), several clients requested a quicker service, with one suggestion that there be a progressive load - perhaps twice a day.
  
  
• accuracy of Chamber and Committee transcripts
  97% of clients were fully satisfied with the accuracy of Chamber transcripts and 94% with the accuracy of Committee transcripts.While no clients rated the accuracy of transcripts as poor, instances of inaccuracies do impact on satisfaction levels and several clients cited examples, often in relation to misspelt names of committee witnesses and institutions, which in one committee hearing recurred for several days of transcript.
  
  
• Other points raised
  
  • A few Senators and Members noted that they receive different sections of Pink and Green drafts out-of-order and at different times, making it more difficult to review speeches;
    
    
  • A few Senators and Members reiterated the timeliness of Pinks and Greens as a high priority
    
    
  • two Members requested extending the capture of Hansard electronically back to 1901
    
    
  • extending the period for return of Pink and Green drafts of later night speeches to the following morning as sometimes Senators and Members have left Parliament House before they receive the draft. It was suggested by one Member that the draft be faxed to an alternative venue if they have left Parliament House for the evening
    
    
  • one client suggested a relocation of Hansard staff in the chamber -to behind speakers chair to decrease activity on the floor.

3.2 Summary

Transcription services are highly respected with improvements in timeliness since the last survey. However there are two risk areas for DPRS - the lower satisfaction rate for timeliness of committee transcripts and the gap between the potential and actual added value of electronic Hansard (timing, formatting, functionality or utility, search-ability).

The first is a short-to-medium term issue but may have high operational cost implications. The second is a longer term issue, although more current for high-end users ('early adopters'). Inflation of expectations is common in the provision of electronic services, and it can be anticipated that the transition to electronic Hansard will need continuing attention, not just in terms of technical improvement, but also fundamental understandings of the 'value' in the service.

4 Broadcasting Services

Clients indicated a high level of satisfaction with most of the broadcasting services provided by DPRS including radio and television coverage of parliamentary proceedings and customised broadcasting services (eg press conferences, pieces-to-air, tapes of proceedings). All aspects of these broadcasting services had a base of client satisfaction close to 100%, except the quality of audio coverage of remote Committee proceedings. (Figure 4.1, Table 4.1)

Figure 4.1 Client Satisfaction with broadcasting services

Table 4.1 Client satisfaction with broadcasting services

4.1 Issues relating to broadcasting services

The key issue identified by clients who responded to the survey was the quality of audio coverage of remote Committee proceedings (outside of Parliament House), with only 79% of respondents satisfied with this service. Senior departmental staff were even less satisfied (50%) (the question was not asked in the 2000 survey). In terms of the coverage, a few clients noted that some remote hearings are better suited to television than radio.

In other cases, specific incidents had undermined client confidence in the service. A small number of clients cited examples of delays in commencing hearings due to the late arrival of DPRS staff, and in another case, where broadcasting equipment was left on during a break in committee hearing. These incidents had led a small number of clients to question the reliability of the service and to express concern that some DPRS staff may not sufficiently understand their crucial role to the parliament.

Senators and Members and senior managers made several suggestions regarding broadcasting services. Several requested a permanent broadcasting facility in at least one of the small committee rooms in Parliament House and others suggested that the names of witnesses at committee hearing appear on screen more frequently, and in the chambers, the speakers name and electorate appear for the duration of the speech and the name of the Bill being discussed also appear.

Two clients requested improved access for people who are deaf or hearing impaired by including captions/teletext on broadcasts and hearing loops for remote all Committee hearings.

Other suggestions include:

• improve the radio reception in Parliament House which is subject to interruptions/interference
• improve the quality of broadcasting from committee rooms
• a wider range of background music to be broadcast when the Houses are not sitting
• the TV channel guide needs to be updated
• ensure the quality and availability of Members and Senators speeches on DVD and video
• tapes of mainstream media to be available for Senators and Members
• improved camera angles for television coverage of parliamentary proceedings - cameras 35 and 36 block each other out and sometimes the Whips camera channels are obscured by adjacent camera angles.

4.2 Summary

With the possible exception of the issue of cost-effective coverage of committee hearings, either remote or from committee rooms without fixed facilities, broadcasting is an area of high satisfaction, with little room to improve services. As such it should not be seen as an area of high risk to DPRS, but one where the continuing importance of committees to Senators and Members is likely to maintain pressure for a seamless service. However, isolated examples of problems demonstrated how quickly client confidence can be undermined.

5 Computing Services

Clients were generally satisfied with most of the computing and information services provided by DPRS in Parliament House, expressing similar levels of satisfaction to 2002. The ease of remote and mobile access to the Parliament House computer network remained an area of lower satisfaction, and slightly lower proportions of clients rated the reliability of computer facilities and the ease of getting help or resolving computer as good or very good (Figure 5.1 and Table 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Client satisfaction with computing and information services in Parliament House

Table 5.1 Client satisfaction with computing and information services in Parliament House

5.1 Issues related to computing services in Parliament House

• Ease of remote and mobile access to the Parliament House computer network
  Only a little more than half the clients (57%) who responded to the survey were fully satisfied with the ease of remote and mobile access to the Parliament House computer network. A further 29% of clients indicated that remote and mobile access was adequate, with 14% identifying the service as poor. These were similar to the satisfaction levels found in the 2000 client survey (54% satisfied, 33% acceptable, 13% dissatisfied). A few clients noted that they no longer attempt remote and mobile access outside of their Electorate Office due to the ongoing difficulties they have experienced. The key issue for clients remains the intermittent and poor speed of connections and the complexity involved in remote and mobile access.
  
  
• Quality and reliability of computer facilities
  The majority of clients were satisfied with the range and quality (83%) and to a lesser extent reliability (74%) of computer facilities in their Parliament House offices. Overall, 79% of clients rated the extent to which the current computer-related facilitates and services met their needs as good or very good.
  
  Clients who raised concerns about the quality and reliability of computing facilities cited:
  • a lack of speed for the computers they use in Parliament House, compared to other computers they have access to
  • timeliness in attending to printer and palm pilot problems
  • difficulties with laptop computers compatibility with printers between Parliament House and the Electorate Offices
  • the perceived instability of the Report templates
  • the multiple clicks now required in the one office environment to open and save documents
  • access to Frontpage in Parliament House to update websites more easily.
  • support for non-approved software.
    
    
  As noted in the previous survey report, ongoing attention is needed to ensure seamless connections between computing facilities provided by the different agencies. Senators and Members have little interest in the different administrative arrangements covering the provision of computing services and highlighted an important ongoing role for DPRS as a broker of services to ensure available computer facilities are tailored to meet individual needs.
  
  
• Management of upgrades
  Several clients were concerned about the processes used by DPRS and other departments in upgrading computers and other technology in their offices. The key points made by clients were:
  
  
  • the need to consult with the users early and comprehensively about new software or systems, with better strategies for targeting less experienced computer users
  • A number of clients saw updates as an opportunity for DPRS to provide tailored consultancy services to individual clients. One Member suggested that DPRS could shadow users in his office to get a better understanding of common problems, prior to the introduction of any major upgrades
  • greater flexiblility and choice in upgrades to computer equipment and peripherals with a liaison officer consulting about offices needs prior to choices being made
  • some clients perceived that DPRS is overly focussed on hardware / software solutions at the expenses of broader business solutions. Greater consultation with clients might lead to upgrades that do not involve hardware or software changes
  • greater consultation about ongoing training needs and the people issues. A number of clients highlighted the high turnover of staff which meant that issues around upgrades were often more about people than technical issues.
    
    
• Critical support to the Parliamentary Departments
  Not all senior managers in Parliamentary Departments were fully satisfied that adequate DPRS resources were available for supporting the critical business systems of the Parliament. For example, only a little over a half (58%) of these clients rated the accessibility of DPRS services as good or very good, including the provision of after-hours support for critical business systems. Similarly, only 53% were satisfied that DPRS are being proactive in anticipating the needs of Senators and Members and the Parliament. These results are similar to those from the 2000 survey and indicate that some senior Managers do not perceive that their issues have been addressed.
  
  While these managers indicated reasonable satisfaction with the overall reliability of DPRS computer facilities (68%) and the ease of getting help to resolve computer problems (78%), they highlighted the need for strong inter-Departmental partnerships to maintain support for the critical business systems of the Parliament. Examples included assisting Parliamentary Departments in developing their Committee Inquiry Management System and the specialist knowledge required to understand the work of particular departments.
  
  Several senior managers also suggested that, in addition to the existing forums, there be more informal contact between staff from the different Parliamentary Departments, including morning teas and visits to different work areas to become familiar with each others work and priorities.
  
  
• ParlInfo information services
  Senior managers in Parliamentary Departments and, to a lesser extent, Senators and Members raised a number of issues about improving the user-friendliness of the ParlInfo information service.While, 91% of Senators and Members and 73% of senior managers were very satisfied or satisfied with the usefulness of DPRS information services such as ParlInfo, 12% of senior managers thought it poor. A number of these clients commented that the ParlInfo interface was difficult to use and cumbersome. Some noted that accessing information is slow and time consuming and others that it is was cumbersome to search Hansard. Suggestions made by clients to improve the information services include:
  
  
  • Search engines to be more flexible eg one client noted that it is hard to find particular legislation if they didnt have the exact name.
  • The need for a common search engine for the different information systems.
  • One Member also suggested an expansion of the Parliamentary website to include more information about each Senator and Member eg links to all speeches, questions and other events for the public to access.
    
    
• scheduling and relevance of computer training courses
  While the majority of clients rated the scheduling (75%) and relevance (83%) of computer training courses as good or very good, issues concerning both areas were raised by clients. In terms of scheduling, the key issue related to the ability to attend training due to competing priorities when Senators and Members and their staff were in the House. Clients also recognised the need for greater tailoring of training to meet the specific needs of different client groups, including more experienced and specialised users and new users. Specific suggestions for improving the responsiveness and relevance of computer training courses included:
  
  
  • scheduling training courses on the Monday and Friday mornings of sitting weeks;
  • consider shorter more focussed training opportunities. Possibly one-on-one training to provide quick refreshers on relevant topics to Senators and Members staff
  • more customised/tailoring of training for specific user groups eg Department of the Senate Committee staff;
  • help-desk support for a wider range of applications
  • regularly offer basic courses such as Excel, Parlinfo

5.2 Issues related to DPRS providing new computer services in Electorate Offices from July 2003

When the 2003 client survey was undertaken, computer services in Electorate Offices were provided by CSC under contract to the Department of Finance and Administration. However from July 2003, DPRS will take over responsibility for front-line computer support in Electorate Offices.

Given this change, the 2003 Client Survey included a number of questions on Senators and Members satisfaction with current services. While this satisfaction data relates solely to the services provided by CSC, it was collected so as to provide a baseline from which DPRS can monitor their performance in the future.

Data from the survey highlighted that while Senators and Members were generally satisfied with the range and quality of computer facilities in Electorate Offices and the ease of access to the Internet and the Parliament House network, there was significant dissatisfaction with current front-line computer support services in Electorate Offices.

Less than half the respondents rated as good or very good the ease of getting help to resolve Electorate Office computing problems (37%), the ability of CSC staff to resolve their problems over the phone (45%) and the timeliness of CSC help provided (34%). Slightly more than half (55%) of Senators and Members were satisfied with the ability of staff attending electorate offices to resolve computing problems. Around one-quarter of Senators and Members rated these services are poor (Table 5.2)

Senators and Members highlighted the significant delays experienced in having computer problems resolved and equipment repaired or replaced, the poor communication and multiple handling of the problems and the lack of direct and immediate contact with specialists. There was also frustration with visiting technicians arriving without a familiarity of the particular office equipment layout, the history of support requests and a sufficient understanding of the business of electorate offices and the urgency of the support required. A key concern of Senators and Members was the seamlessness of the service to Electorate Offices and Parliament House offices, to avoid the need for multiple phone calls and arguments about support responsibilities.

While the shift to DPRS as the provider from July 2003 was widely welcomed, front-line support to electorate offices presents a reasonably high risk to DPRSs reputation because of the expectation of an Senators and Members that the service delivered in Electorate Offices will match that provided by in Parliament House. As with CSC, DPRS will also not have direct control over visiting technicians. Senators and Members indicated that they expected assistance from x2020 within 2 hours of request being made and where a site visit was required, this should occur within 24 hours.

Senators and Members identified a number of priorities for DPRS in taking on responsibility for service support in Electorate Offices, these include:

• Promoting the change amongst staff in Electorate Offices especially staff who may not be familiar with the x2020 services provided in Parliament House and those who have stopped using CSC due to the poor service quality
  
  
• Ensuring x2020 staff are aware that the work of Electorate Offices is very different from that performed by Senators and Members and their staff in Parliament House. Several Senators and Members suggested that x2020 staff will need orientation training about the business of Electorate Offices, which focuses on involves constituent issues and files. It is also important for x2020 staff to have knowledge of issues specific to each Electorate Office. This could involve consulting with Electorate Office staff to identify their issues/difficulties
  
  
• Ensuring the needs of Senators and Members in remote areas are a priority including after hours services.

5.3 Summary

There is strong recognition of the quality of computer services provided by DPRS and relief that DPRS is taking over front-line support in Electoral Offices.

Clients are still highly sensitive to any delays in service provisions or barriers to seamlessness as evidenced by views on remote and mobile computing. More broadly, clients spoke about continuing improvements in DPRS services in terms of the capacity of the department to tailor services to their individual business requirements. Several clients identified the need for DPRS to expand its consultative approach both in terms of the introduction of new technology and systems and more broadly in terms of supporting individual clients to improve their business functions and systems. Nonetheless, the degree and style of consultation needs to continue to be increasingly tailored to the differing needs and expectations amongst clients.

The new role of DPRS in Electoral Offices is relatively high-risk as clients expectations are high. Senators and Members saw their Electoral Office as of no less importance to their business than Parliament House, and seek similar levels of understanding of their business, and similar responses to their business needs in terms of timeliness, seamlessness, and equipment functionality.

6 Client liaison and support

Over three-quarters (81%) of clients who responded to the survey indicated that they always or usually used the x 2020 service to get information, help or resolve problems with DPRS services with higher regular usage reported by Senators and Members (85%). The proportion of Senators and Members using the x2020 service has increased considerably since the 2000 survey when 53% indicated they used x2020 on a regular basis.

Overall, satisfaction levels were high and similar to the results in the 2000 survey. (Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1)

Figure 6.1 Client satisfaction with the x2020 service

Table 6.1 Client satisfaction with the x2020 service

In particular 89% of respondents (92% of Senators and Members) rated the professionalism and helpfulness of x2020 support officers as good or very good. In addition 83% of respondents (91% of Senators and Members) were satisfied that the outcome of their call to x2020 resolved their problem or meet their need in the best possible way.

However, a lower proportion (76%) rated DPRS as good or very good at keeping them informed about the progress of their x2020 support request, compared to 82% in 2000. In fact the proportion of respondents who rated this aspect of the x 2020 service as poor increased from 2% in 2000 to 5% in 2003. Moreover while these criticisms were only expressed by a very small number of clients, they highlight the importance placed on consistency in service delivery and tailoring services to clients specific needs.

While satisfaction with the ease of getting information and help regarding transcription and broadcasting services has increased since the 2000 survey (84% in 2000 to about 92% in 2003), satisfaction with getting information and help regarding computer services has decreased (85% in 2000 to about 80% in 2003). No issues were widely raised to explain these changes although a small number of Senators and Members cited examples where they experienced considerable frustration in attempting to get computing support via x2020 or perceived inconsistencies in the performance of x2020 in handling and resolving their problems.

Particular issues raised including the:

• lack of experience and specialist knowledge of client liaison officers to understand and resolve the problem. It was suggested that DPRS consider specialist teams to provide the in-depth knowledge required to address complex problems and possibly an urgent response team to triage and address problems.
  
  
• multiple handling of the problem and the frustration of needing to repeat the problem several times and the need to improve procedures for ensuring appropriate referrals of complex queries
  
  
• lack of customisation of the service to individual client needs
  
  
• lack of understanding the different corporate contexts that users are operating in
  
  
• perceived limited appreciation of the urgency of requests on sitting days.
  
  
• difficulties getting after-hours support (which was defined as after 5pm in Canberra and after 2pm in Western Australia). Some client indicated that x2020 should be available for at least one hour after the Houses have risen.

While these examples were isolated, they highlighted the high standard of service that clients are accustomed to, and the potential impact on client satisfaction if any problems arise.

7 Communication services

There was a strong base of satisfaction with the other communication services provided by DPRS, including telecommunication facilities (89%), division lights and bells (98%), sound reinforcement in chambers and committee rooms (87%) and webcasting of parliamentary proceedings (85%). In each case, the proportion of clients satisfied with these services is greater than in 2000 (Figure 7.1, Table 7.1).

Figure 7.1 Client satisfaction with DPRS communication services

Table 7.1 Client satisfaction with other DPRS services

While no major issues were raised in relation to communication services, individual clients cited a number of minor concerns:

• difficulties with using the telephones in Senators and Members office suites particularly capacity to simultaneously hold more than two calls, the necessity to transfer calls rather than use a hold function, the need for a more flexible transfer capacity, the very loud hold tone and losing calls
  
  
• difficulty hearing / seeing Division lights and bells in specific locations eg Members Hall and some Committee Rooms with a suggestion for a set of Division lights above the lift near the Members Hall
  
  
• frustration regarding the perceived delayed introduction of new pagers
  
  
• the current requirement to seek the permission of a DPRS senior officer for a page over the loud speaker system can cause unnecessary delays.

It is important to note that concerns about the functionality and support for the new telephone system identified in the 2002 client feedback report have substantially reduced with 89% of clients reporting satisfaction with the current telecommunication facilities.