R R ElectraLink Customer Survey DCUSA Presentation 18 th November 2009.

RR

ElectraLink CustomerSurvey

DCUSA Presentation

18th November 2009

R

Research Method

Quantitative Qualitative

Combined Approach

71 x CATI Telephone Interviews:

27 SPAA

44 DCUSA

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

3 SPAA

3 DCUSA

R

Governance Services – Key Headlines (1/2)

• Overall, DCUSA users continue to be extremely positive about the service provided by ElectraLink. This is built on two key areas of strength:

– Effective management of Finance, auditing & other managerial roles

– The efficient, professional & prompt service delivered

• With a score of 8.3 out of 10. Comparisons with other organisations remain favourable (Elexon, on 7.3, is the closest).

• This Overall rating has increased slightly through improved perceptions of clear communication & being easy to deal with. There is also some feedback that greater flexibility has been shown for big consultations.

• Value for money perceptions show no change, remaining very positive.

QualitativeQuantitative +

R

Governance Services – Key Headlines (2/2)

• The average taken across 26 different service ratings reveals no change overall, but this conceals some encouraging improvements in certain areas:

– All 5 Helpdesk ratings improved – particularly helpfulness, consistent service & consistent info & advice.

– The only notable (but slight) decline being for the Management of the Year End Audit Process & AGM.

• Most find it hard to suggest any improvements.

• There was a general sense that ElectraLink delivers its core role extremely well, but that more proactive involvement at industry level would be welcomed; come forward with ideas to make the industry work more efficiently/ effectively.

QualitativeQuantitative +

R

Rating Versus Other OrganisationsSummary

Governance Services

Mean ChangeScore vs 2008

ElectraLink 8.32 +0.22

GEMSERV / MRASCO 6.76 -0.13

ELEXON 7.33 +0.63

*JOINT GAS OFFICE 7.13 +0.30

OFGEM 5.80 -0.01

xoserve 5.79 +0.24

Gas Forum 6.25 N/A

iGT UNC 6.50 N/A

Base: All Who Use Each Company (Various) * Asked of OFGAS in 2007

Overall SatisfactionMean Score out of 10

Quantitative

R

Satisfaction With ElectraLink ServiceSummary

GovernanceServices

Mean Change Score vs 2008

Overall Rating 8.32 +0.22

Overall Professionalism 8.59 +0.13

Being Responsive 8.17 +0.16

Being Easy To Deal With 8.58 +0.17

Being Highly Efficient 8.08 +0.17

Communicating Clearly 8.11 +0.24

*Understanding The Service

Support Requirements Of… 7.79 +0.10

Base: Total Sample (71)

* Wording changed in 2009

Mean Score out of 10

Quantitative

R

2009 Change 2009 Change

% Score 8 - 10 vs. 2008 Mean Score vs. 2008

+3 8.41 +0.33

+6 8.68 +0.35

+6 8.14 +0.24

+15 8.52 +0.21

+16 8.11 +0.39

+21 8.14 +0.47

+14 8.05 +0.36

Base: Total DCUSA Sample (44)

* Wording changed from ‘Understanding The Business Needs Of …’ in 2009

Satisfaction With ElectraLink ServiceDCUSA Sample

Overall Rating

Overall Professionalism

Being Responsive

Being Easy To Deal With

Being Highly Efficient

Communicating Clearly

*Understanding The Service Support Requirements Of ….

1 = Not at all satisfied10 = Extremely Satisfied

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

Governance 2008 68 4.30 26Services 2009 71 4.33 26Survey

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 AreasGovernance Services Sample

No. of Mean ChangeService Attributes Score Attributes Since

Area Rated 2009 Compared* 2008*

All Ratings 27 4.35 26 +0.03

Finance & Auditing 7 4.61 6 -0.08

Management Of ….. 9 4.27 9 +0.09

Helpdesk For SPAA/DCUSA 5 4.51 5 +0.22

SPAA/DCUSA Website 6 4.03 6 -0.08

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

Quantitative

R

Up Down

Overall helpfulness (of the DCUSA/ *How well ElectraLink manage the -0.26

SPAA Helpdesk) +0.32 year end audit process and AGM

Receiving a consistent level of +0.32service regardless how get in touch

Getting consistent info & advice regardless how get in touch +0.28

Quality of monthly Service Performance reporting +0.24

ElectraLink’s efficiency in operating the annual voting system +0.22

Provision of meeting facilities +0.22

*Caution: Low Base Size, Active Board members only (11)NB: All other changes were less than +/- 0.20

Governance ServicesKey Service Changes Since 2008

Change in mean score since 2008

Quantitative

R

Up Down

Receiving a consistent level of +0.52 All < +/- 0.20regardless how get in touch

Getting consistent info & advice +0.47regardless how get in touch

The quality of response +0.38you receive (Helpdesk)

Overall Helpfulness (Helpdesk) +0.35

ElectraLink’s efficiency in operating the annual voting system +0.20

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

DCUSA - Key Service Changes Since 2008

Change in mean score since 2008

Quantitative

R

Governance Services: Perceived Improvement Over Past 12 Months

Improved Got Worse(A little/ A lot) (A little/ A lot)

ElectraLink Service

Value For Money

Main reason given for perceived improvement in ElectraLink Service:

Staff 30%

Quicker 20%

Website 20%

Base: All saying services improved (10)

Quantitative

R

What Would Most Like ElectraLink To Improve OnGovernance Services Sample

41

24

4

3

3

No Improvements Necessary / Just Stay The SameImprove Website / Non-User Friendly

Base: Total SPAA/ DCUSA Sample (71)

There is nothing to improve on. The service has been first class

Quality and timeliness of issuing papers and documentation could be improved.

Improve Documentation

Increase Knowledge

More Named Contacts

We want more alternative contacts in case our named contact is not around.

Quantitative

R

Governance Services: Some want ElectraLink to be more proactive

• Most respondents were happy with its level of involvement with the industry, and proactivity, a couple less so

• Proactivity: they want ElectraLink to be proactive in coming forward with ideas that make the industry work more efficiently / effectively

• There is a lot of valuable expertise and knowledge within ElectraLink, that could & should be brought to bear on big industry issues

• One respondent strongly felt that ElectraLink's service is delivered in a rather unengaged way - he wanted ElectraLink to be more dynamic and proactive. He was a more senior manager than some we spoke to, looking strategically at his business & ElectraLink & similar bodies – also frustrated with the supplier/distributor power balance in DCUSA

• He wanted ElectraLink to bring its expertise and knowledge to bear in the wider arena

“ElectraLink should & are playing a part in the Code Review ... they have the experience in how it works”

“Anything ... any good idea that makes the industry work better should be put on the table. Would be interested to

hear what they have to say. Smart is the obvious one where they have an expertise”

“Smart metering – (ElectraLink needs to be

involved now, don’t miss the boat”

Qualitative

R

DCUSA: Suggested Improvements (1)

➨ A heads up for new / smaller players on the big industry issues, to alert them to potential impacts and issues – perhaps in a newsletter?

➨ Training

“St Clements ... when the change proposals come out they do an impact on MPRS system ... they know something is going to have to change .. that kind of thing would be helpful ... And things that are being discussed in the industry, like the offshore system. Very high level – offshore transmission, how is it going to affect your company ... I know xxxx’s got a lot of

knowledge .. Bullet point high level these are things you should be considering – especially for small companies, because we don’t have the breadth of knowledge of the big boys”

“we get a lot of help with training from Elexon .... a training brochure, .... they come to you or you can go there, and they don’t charge for it ... we get the value that way .... experts, that’s really good

I wonder if ElectraLink could do a training guide on DCUSA, for new people coming into the market, and new people in post. It’s such a stale document the DCUSA, .... how it works, the details ... maybe a brief summary of each section, outlining what it is, who it matters to. ... I’d go on a webtools course, we use it, but I’m sure we don’t use it to its full extent, I’d go to that ... And the DTN works, what happens if it

doesn’t get through”

“The job is admin & change control, and they do that very well, can’t think of how it could be better”

Qualitative

R

DCUSA: Suggested Improvements (2)

➨ Possibly within consultations – introduce a summary précis at the outset – to highlight key issues, and shortcut need to trawl through loads of info

➨ An independent chairman (ElectraLink?) in DCUSA Working Group meetings? But is current practice specified in the “agreement”?

➨ Is now the time to review DCUSA? In how it is structured, and serviced

“DCUSA is very much developing . .. it’s started to add on various schedules, and we’re thinking should we be developing a product set like MRASCo has a product

set ... is DCUSA too big, should we be looking to hive it off into other areas. Needs a review – should it be one big document, or should it be separated into

different procedures. ... should be considering: ‘... are we doing it in the correct manner, should we be looking at what Elexon & MRASCo are doing in

administering those products. But it will depend on cost

... they outsource their legal development of DCUSA – is this the best way to do it? ... not sure if that’s part of ElectraLink’s business model, or if it would be more

cost efficient? ... Benefits would be cost efficiency & speed of turnaround”

Qualitative

RR

ElectraLink CustomerSurvey

DCUSA Presentation

18th November 2009