OB17 Paper 6 KPI Report

Transcription

1 OB17 Paper 6 KPI Report KPI and SLA regime: July 2014 performance summary Reference Outcome Result Target Description KPI A Pass 100% 100% Service Restoration within 10 working days where household is a primary DTT user KPI A1 Pass 96.33% 95% Installer visits completed as scheduled with viewer KPI A2 Pass 92.59% 50% Installer visits completed within 3 working days KPI A3 Pass 99.07% 85% Installer visits completed within 7 working days KPI A4 Pass 96.43% 50% Vulnerable visits completed within 3 working days KPI A5 Pass 99.60% 99% Vulnerable visits completed within 7 working days KPI A6 Pass 98.65% 95% Communal installer visits completed as scheduled with landlord where access and liability is confirmed KPI A7 Pass 100% 86% Reactive filters issued in 2 working days KPI A8 Pass 100% 94% Reactive filters issued in 4 working days KPI A9 Pass 100% 99% Reactive filters issued in 5 working days [KPI A10] N/A N/A 100% [SUSPENDED FOR REACTIVE-ONLY TRIAL] Addresses in very high pixels mailed filters SLA B1 Pass 100% 100% All identifiable addresses within forecast medium, high and very high risk pixels (high risk only for London) to be mailed at least once between 3 and 12 weeks ahead of scheduled mast activation SLA B2 Report on households mailed and not mailed within forecast pixels (i.e. number of low risk households) SLA B3 Report on households reporting interference within un-mailed forecast pixels. SLA B4 Awareness to be maintained (reminder mailings) with those viewers at continued risk of experiencing interference from masts that were not activated as scheduled. Qualitative and quantitative SLA B5 Awareness to be maintained (reminder mailings) with reports provided. No specific those viewers at renewed risk of experiencing targets. interference from infill masts where the addition of the mast increases the risk of interference in that pixel to very high SLA B6 Report on households mailed and not mailed reminders within forecast pixels (i.e. number of low risk households) SLA B7 Report on above the line comms and research outcomes, including awareness in rollout areas SLA C1 Pass 0% 0.5% Complaint about quality of interaction SLA C2 Pass 0.13% 0.5% Complaint about quality of problem resolution SLA C3 Pass 0.11% 0.5% Complaint about timeliness of problem resolution SLA C4 Report on total number and categories of complaints SLA D1 Measure of the numbers of mailings per report of / SLA D2 SLA D3 Qualitative and quantitative reports provided. No specific targets. case of interference Measure of the number of reported cases that occur outside of mailed area Measure of number of cases of interference per mast remaining between 0.17 and 1.66 (5k to 50k cases of interference for rollout)

2 KPI A Service Restoration KPI A: Service Restoration: 100% within 10 working days where household is a primary DTT user (communal households and households where cable or satellite services are received are excluded) All of the 366 confirmed 4G cases in July 2014 were resolved within 10 working days Pass. Page 2 of 8

3 KPI A1: Installer visits completed as scheduled with viewer: 95% Result: 96.33% Of the 1,173 installer visits originally scheduled in July 2014: o 1,036 were undertaken and closed on schedule o 43 visits were cancelled or missed by the installer o 94 visits were cancelled by the viewer Total scheduled visits not missed by installer / total visits scheduled (1, ) / (1, ) = 1,130 / 1,173 Result: 96.33% KPI A2: Installer visits completed within 3 working days: 50% Result: 92.59% Of the 1,173 scheduled installer visits detailed above, there were 1,079 visits scheduled where the viewer did not cancel Of these 1,079, 999 (92.59%) were completed within three working days KPI A3: Installer visits completed within 7 working days: 85% Result: 99.07% Of the 1,079 visits, 1,069 (99.07%) were completed within seven working days KPI A4: Vulnerable visits completed within 3 working days: 50% Result: 96.43% In July 2014, there were 252 scheduled installer visits to people marked as vulnerable, where the viewer did not cancel Of the 252 visits to be measured, 243 (96.43%) were completed within three working days KPI A5: Vulnerable visits completed within 7 working days: 99% Result: 99.60% Of the 252 visits to be measured, 251 (99.60%) were completed within seven working days KPI A6: Communal installer visits completed as scheduled with landlord where access and liability is confirmed: 95% Result: 98.65% Page 3 of 8

4 Of the 74 communal jobs in the month of July 2014: o 1 was cancelled by the installer o 5 were cancelled by the viewer o 68 were completed as agreed with the customer Therefore 73 of the 74 jobs were completed as scheduled with the viewer (or cancelled by the viewer) giving a success rate of 98.65% KPI A7: Reactive filters issued in 2 working days: 86% There were 1,582 filter requests in July All of these were issued within one working day, thus passing the two-day measure KPI A8: Reactive filters issued in 4 working days: 94% See KPI A7 KPI A9: Reactive filters issued in 5 working days: 99% See KPI A7 KPI A10 [SUSPENDED]: 100% of identifiable addresses in very high pixels mailed proactive filter. Not applicable. Page 4 of 8

5 SLA B Awareness SLA B1: 100% of identifiable addresses within forecast medium and high risk pixels (high risk only for London) to be mailed at least once between 3 and 12 weeks ahead of scheduled mast activation A total of 64,130 households were identified within very high, high or medium risk pixels in the August 2014 rollout data and all were mailed on 3 July 2014 SLA B2: Report on households mailed and not mailed within forecast pixels (i.e. number of low risk households) The following table shows the breakdown of households by risk category and those confirmed as mailed. Mailing Date V_HIGH HIGH MED LON_MED LOW Grand Total 3 July ,413 21,517 41,200 64,130 Not mailed 4,044 60,548 64,592 SLA B3: Report on households reporting interference within un-mailed forecast pixels. More than 40% of total reports of interference DMSL to address through operational adjustments (e.g. mailing low risk pixels in a certain area or adjusting the risk score for pixels), however, a de minimis threshold to apply. In July 2014, we were contacted by a total of 2,306 households reporting interference that we believed may be caused by 4G Of these, 249 households (10.79%) were suppressed through the risk-based mailing. SLA B4: Awareness to be maintained (reminder mailings) with those viewers at continued risk of experiencing interference from masts that were not activated as scheduled. Report on reminder mailing numbers to be provided. A reminder mailing was undertaken on 16 July 2014 to 30,786 households forecast to be affected by masts originally expected to activate in February SLA B5 Awareness to be maintained (reminder mailings) with those viewers at renewed risk of experiencing interference from infill masts where the addition of the mast increases the risk of interference in that pixel low to medium, new mail; medium to high, reminder mail This activity is not distinguished from that detailed in the summary of SLA B4. SLA B6: Report on households mailed and not mailed reminders within forecast pixels (i.e. number of low risk households) Page 5 of 8

6 The following table shows the breakdown of households by risk category and those confirmed as mailed. Mailing Date V_HIGH HIGH MED LON_MED LOW Grand Total 16 July ,404 23,278 30,786 Not mailed 0 20,894 20,894 SLA B7: Report on above the line communications and research outcomes, including awareness in rollout areas To support the September mast activation mailings, we issued a local press release targeting areas that were mailed at the beginning of July and from where we've received calls (Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth and Poole); and those areas where higher volumes of postcards landed at the end of July (Lymington, Newport (PO30), Shanklin, Christchurch and Salisbury). The resulted in coverage as follows: Bournemouth Echo. Headline: 4G: great for phones but it may be ruining your Freeview signal We also secured hourly broadcast coverage on Isle of Wight Radio from to Notifications were sent to RDI (Registered Digital Installers), CAI (Confederation of Aerial Industries), local authorities, social housing landlords, MOD, prisons, the Home Office and other interested parties advising of the possibility of mast activations in the following areas: Ashfield, Bath & North East Somerset, Bedford, Bolsover, Braintree, Cambridge, Cherwell, Chesterfield, City of Peterborough, Stoke-on-Trent, Doncaster, Flintshire, Hartlepool, Hinckley and Bosworth, Luton, North Hertfordshire, North Kesteven, North West Leicestershire, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Rochford, South Derbyshire, Southend-on-Sea, Stevenage, Teignbridge, Telford and Wrekin and Torbay. The table below details the specific advertising that DMSL placed in July. Area Advertising Media Dates Notes Dudley Express and Star Print 3 & 10 July Half page landscape York York Press Print 3 & 10 July Half page landscape Swindon Swindon Evening Advertiser Print 3 & 10 July Half page landscape Sunderland Sunderland Echo Print 3 & 10 July Half page landscape Washington Newcastle Evening Chronicle Print 3 & 10 July Half page landscape Oldham Oldham Evening Chronicle Print 3 & 10 July Half page landscape Sunderland & Washington Sun FM Radio 1 14 July Oldham 96.2 The Revolution Radio 1 14 July Swindon Jack FM Radio 1 14 July York Minster FM Radio 1 14 July Background: DMSL runs above-the-line, PR or digital advertising communication when masts are activated/the operators begin offering 4G services (at 800 MHz), and not necessarily in line with when DMSL mails viewers. Prior to mast activations/4g at 800 MHz launch, our primary means of communication with viewers is direct mail postcards. Page 6 of 8

7 SLA C Quality of Service SLA C1: No more than 0.5% of households interacting with DMSL make a formal complaint about quality of interaction Result: 0% We interacted with a total of 5,521 household interactions in July 2014 None of these interactions resulted in this type of complaint SLA C2: No more than 0.5% of households interacting with DMSL make a formal complaint about quality of problem resolution Result: 0.13% There were a total of 7 interactions that could constitute this type of complaint in July 2014, out of interactions with a total of 5,521 households. This amounts to a complaint rate of 0.13% SLA C3: No more than 0.5% of households interacting with DMSL make a formal complaint about timeliness of problem resolution Result: 0.11% There were a total of 6 interactions that could constitute this type of complaint in July 2014, out of interactions with a total of 5,521 interactions. This amounts to a total complaint rate of 0.11% SLA C4: Report on total number and categories of complaints Below is a breakdown of the 24 complaints received in July 2014: Compensation: 9 Diagnostics over the phone: 5 Installer-related: 4 Non-4G issue that we cannot help with: 2 Rollout in general: 2 Communal process: 1 Commercial process: 1. [SLA C5:] Vulnerable viewer complaints Out of 485 households flagged as being vulnerable with which we interacted in July 2014, four (0.8%) complained. Two of these related to the installer; the other two related to compensation. Page 7 of 8

8 SLA D Scale SLA D1: Measure of the numbers of mailings per report of / case of interference The following table shows the number of mailings per reported case and confirmed case of interference to date for July 2014 rollout households that relate to masts planned to be activated in July Number of mailings per report of interference Number of mailings per confirmed case of interference 320, ,204 SLA D2: Measure of the number of reported cases that occur outside of mailed area Of the 366 households identified as experiencing 4G interference in July 2014: July cases not mailed due to risk profile or low pop in pixel 90 (24.59%) July cases never identified in modelling 13 (3.55%) Total July cases outside mailed area 103 (28.14%) Total July cases caught by mailing 263 (71.85%) SLA D3: Measure of number of cases of interference per mast remaining between 0.17 and 1.66 (5k to 50k cases of interference for rollout) exceeding or trending towards exceeding the range will be raised to the OB for review/action. Page 8 of 8