tbr 1q11 corporate it service & support customer satisfaction study

TBR

TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.

Technology Business ResearchAccelerating Customer Success Through Business Research

TBR

TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.

Customer Satisfaction Study –

First Calendar Quarter 2011

Corporate IT Service & Support

OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

SUPPORT PROVIDER1Q11 TBR

RANK1Q11 WSI

SCORE1Q11 Strength/

Weakness Points1Q11 TBR

RANK1Q11 TBR

SCORE

1Q11 Strength/Weakness

Points1Q11 TBR

RANK1Q11 TBR

SCORE

1Q11 Strength/Weakness

Points

Internal Support Organizations 1 86.3 +16 1 85.6 +16 1 87.2 +15

Dell Services 2 82.2 +2 3 80.9 0 2 83.6 +3

IGS/Lenovo Services 2 81.8 +2 2 82.5 +5 3 80.8 -1

HP Services 2 81.2 0 3 81.0 0 3 81.2 0

Publication Date: June 23, 2011

Author: Julie Perron

TBR

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.3

Content

Slides and Modules

3 1Q11 Corporate Service & Support

Satisfaction At A Glance

10 1Q11 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights

11 Key Findings

16 The Score in 1Q11

19 Most Noteworthy Events - Performance

Differentiation Shifts

24 Server Support - Segment Analysis

28 Desktop/Notebook Support - Segment Analysis

32 Critical Metrics Summary

35 TBR’s Watch List

42 Historical Record

Appendices

44 Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables

77 Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores

4Q07 through 1Q11

80 Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis

for Selected Attributes

82 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends and Key Service & Support Satisfaction

Attributes

93 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs

104 Appendix F: Categorical Responses

114 Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Desktop/Notebook

by Support Provider

119 Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology

127 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures

135 Appendix J: Survey Instrument

TBR

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | First Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.

1Q11 Corporate

Service & Support Satisfaction

At A Glance

4

TBR


IBM takes top position for server support satisfaction, while Dell Services leads in desktop/notebookIn-house support continues to assert itself as the overall model of maintenance efficiency

Dell Services maintains the advantage for desktop/

notebook support for its second straight period

•Dell Services defended its top ranking position by

outperforming competitors for both on-site

response time and technical expertise.

•At a substantial distance from Dell, Lenovo Services

and

HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking position, with

generally neutral ratings. The exception was a newly

issued competitive warning for Lenovo for on-site

response time.

•The internal support teams continued to substantially outperform OEM support providers

across nine of the 10 categories in both study segments.

IBM holds leadership position for server support

for the fourth straight reporting period

•IBM outpaced its OEM competitors by

excelling across five key areas: break/fix

services, on-site expertise, phone support,

parts availability and services value.

•Dell and HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking

position and did not encounter any of the

competitive warnings they held last period.

Both contenders lacked the differentiation

exhibited by IBM across the areas identified

above.

5

1Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance

80.9

83.6

85.687.2

82.5

80.881.0 81.2

75.0

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

89.0

Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support

1Q11 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING BY SUPPORT SEGMENT

Dell Services Internal Support Organizations

IGS/Lenovo Services HP Services

3

1

3 3

1

2

3

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

2

TBR


In-house support was again cited as the ideal experience, with a growing performance gap in place against OEM-provided support

1Q11 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group defended its traditional position as the

model against which we measure OEM support providers.

•Resumed IT hiring ensured the continued standing of internally

managed (self) support as the best source for supporting IT

infrastructures.

•The three OEM support providers shared the No. 2 ranking position,

with their WSI ratings at a considerable distance from that of internal

support.

oDell Services’ position strengthened, recovering from its

previous phone support warning.

oIGS’ position weakened, yielding two previous strengths while

gaining a new warning for on-site response time.

oHPS’ performances gained ground, recovering from three

longstanding challenges across break/fix services, on-site

response time and on-site expertise.

6


The Overall Results combine the server and desktop/notebook results into one, with sample sizes of 250 or more per

group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS

IGS/LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services On-s i te Technica l Expertise On-s i te Response Time/Commitment * Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration * Numeric Value 16 2 2 0

Weighted Satisfaction Score 86.3 82.2 81.8 81.2

Ranking 1 2 2 2

Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 1 1

Key: Weakness; Strength; ¡ Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.

OVERALL RESULTS

Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard TBR

TBR


IBM Support outshines OEM competitors for x86 server-related support services for the fourth straight reporting period

1Q11 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM

support providers across all but the parts availability category.

•IBM Support earned its fourth consecutive top ranking, which was at least

partially driven by competitive advantages for break/fix services, technical

expertise, support services value and two new wins – phone support and

parts availability.

•Dell Services’ ranking remained subordinate to IBM, despite having

recovered from previous competitive warnings in phone support and

support services value.

•HPS recovered from its previous challenges but remained at the shared

No. 3 ranking position with Dell Services.

•With a full slate of neutral performances, there were no significant

differences between the scores of Dell and HP Services. In comparison to

IBM, both lacked the perception of services differentiation that has helped

keep IBM at the top ranking spot for over a year.

7


The Server Support Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that primarily support x86-based servers,

with a sample size of 125 or more per group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-s i te Technica l Expertise * On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty * Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Value 16 5 0 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3


x86 Server Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard

SERVER SUPPORT


TBR

TBR


Dell Services extends its leadership status in desktop/notebook support

1Q11 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM

support providers across all but the parts availability category.

•Dell Services maintained its top ranking position as a result of continued

performance differentiation through its on-site response time rating. A

new on-site competitive advantage for technical expertise was added to

the roster in this period.

•HP Services continued to present a full slate of neutral performances –

its No. 3 ranking position the result of a lack of differentiation

perceptions.

•Lenovo Services shared the No. 3 ranking position with HPS due to the

proximity of its WSI rating. Nevertheless, Lenovo was cited with a new

competitive warning for on-site response time.

8


The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that primarily support desktop and laptop

PCs, with a sample size of 125 or more per group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-s i te Technica l Expertise * On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Ava i labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Va lue 15 3 -1 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3



Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 1Q11 Scorecard

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

TBR

TBR


On-site support and available replacement parts supersede phone/web/remote management as top concerns in recent quarters

•Between the past two reporting periods, TBR has

observed significantly declining satisfaction with

on-site support and parts availability.

•This is evidenced by the significant reduction in the

coveted Perfect 7 satisfaction ratings.

•Meanwhile, satisfaction with phone, web and

remotely managed support has held up, with some

scores registering increases in customer delight.

•These findings suggest customers are more

comfortable with resolutions that preclude the

need for desk-side visitations by a third party, such

as cases where information is gathered via phone or

email, then handled by one’s own internal support

staff.


9

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Brea

k/Fi

x Sv

cs

On-

site

Tec

hnic

al E

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces

Valu

e/Pr

icin

g

Har

dwar

e D

eplo

ymen

t

CHANGE IN PROPORTIONS OF DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS, 4Q10 to 1Q11Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


The score corrections of late 2010 appear to have been short-lived; satisfaction begins to find its upward momentum in 1Q11

•Satisfaction with support services spiked in 2Q10, and in

many cases shifted only modestly downward in the

following quarter.

•This unsustainable burst of enthusiasm was driven by a

combination of new product purchases with fresh

warranties and resumed IT staff hiring, where

enthusiasm with new hardware spilled over into

perceptions of services.

•The full correction occurred during 4Q10, when most

satisfaction positions returned to their first-quarter

levels.

•The results from 1Q11 show customer satisfaction

beginning to rebuild, and in most cases establishing

sustainable patterns indicative of normalized purchasing

behavior.

The mean satisfaction ratings in the graph are based on discrete calendar quarters and not the “reporting periods” (comprising two

calendar quarters) TBR generally reports on with these study results. The graph exemplifies average ratings across the three OEM

support providers – Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/Lenovo Services.


10

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Res

pons

e

On-

site

Tec

hnic

alEx

perti

se

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edSu

ppor

t

Har

dwar

e D

eplo

ymen

t

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Avai

labi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces

Pric

ing/

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

OEM SUPPORT PROVIDER SATISFACTION, PAST FIVE CALENDAR QUARTERS

Jan-Mar 10 Apr-Jun 10 Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 Jan-Mar 11

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


1Q11 Competitive Placement

Summary & Insights

11

TBR


OVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations continue their exemplary performance; HPS rises to share the No. 2 ranking with Dell and IGS Factors Driving Rankings:

•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was driven by an inspiring set of

performances, substantially outpacing the OEM support providers

across all but one category.

•TBR noted insufficient performance differences across the three OEM

support providers to assign separate ranking positions.

oIGS’ traditional position of strength was mitigated by the

presence of a newly issued warning for on-site response

time in 1Q11.

oDell Services’ position strengthened by virtue of a

recovery from last period’s phone support warning.

oHPS’ position was strengthened through its recovery from

two warnings (break/fix, on-site expertise) and one

weakness (response time) from the previous period.

= TBR issued competitive strength in 1Q11

= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 1Q11

Key Findings: Overall Study

12

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t/In

stal

latio

n

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS

Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1; IBM outperforms Dell and HP Services for the fourth straight period

The Context

•Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in

2009 as a result of the spending cuts caused by the Great Recession. WSI

ratings progressively declined throughout the year, leaving no competitor

(not even the in-house teams) immune to the trend.

•By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score slides halted, and improved

in IBM’s case. In 2Q10, the real excitement started; customer satisfaction

ratings surged across all groups, resulting in a split between

No. 1 ranked Internal Support and IBM over No. 2 ranked Dell and HP

Services.

•In 3Q10, the internal support organizations resumed their place alone at

the top; OEM support providers’ positions held constant.

•In 4Q10 and into 1Q11, satisfaction scores corrected, returning to positions

held prior to the ebullience of the previous several periods.

1Q11 Developments

•Continuing corrections suggest IT organizations are returning to a state where business-as-usual takes over as

fresh warranties on systems purchased in 1H10 are replaced by systems more susceptible to the effects of time.

•IBM maintained its status as the top-ranked OEM support provider, while Dell and HP Services’ scores remained

interlocked. 1Q11 was the fourth consecutive reporting period in which the companies were so aligned.

Key Findings: x86 Server Support

13

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

92.0

4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 4Q08 to 1Q11

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation examples remain plentiful, favoring internal support and IBM



14

Factors Driving Rankings:

•Internal support’s

No. 1 ranking was the result of consistently

outperforming OEM competitors across all but

parts availability.

•IBM’s sole No. 2 ranking was delivered through

solid performances across break/fix, technical

expertise, phone support, parts availability and

support services value.

•While Dell and HP Services remained in a

shared

No. 3 ranking, it was not the result of specific

warnings or weaknesses, as all were lifted in

1Q11. Dell and HP Services simply lacked the

competitive strength of several of IBM’s

performances.

Key Findings: x86 Server Support

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1; Dell Services enhances performance edge over Lenovo and HP Services

The Context

•Customer satisfaction with desktop and notebook systems support

began to decline as far back as mid-2008 but accelerated during the

recession of 2009.

•By 1Q10, customer satisfaction scores for all competitors either

stabilized or improved. Dell Services’ improvement was substantial

enough to deliver a sole No. 1 ranking.

•In 2Q10, ranking positions held steady, with Dell Services as the

singular

No. 1 ranked player, internal support and Lenovo Services sharing

No. 2 and HPS ranked No. 3.

•In the succeeding periods, Dell and Lenovo Services switched

positions, with Lenovo taking No. 1 in 3Q10, and Dell retaking the

lead in 4Q10.

15

1Q11 Developments

•Satisfaction scores continued to correct and had the greatest negative effects on Lenovo Services and HP.

•After Dell and Lenovo Services alternately traded positions during the past three reporting periods, Dell earned

its second consecutive win. Dell has placed at the top of the OEM provider rankings in four of the past five

reporting periods.

•Lenovo Services and HP collectively took the bottom ranking position behind Dell Services.

Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 4Q08 to 1Q11

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges the competition with its on-site response time and technical expertise ratings



16

Factors Driving Rankings:

•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was the result of consistently

outperforming OEM competitors across all but the parts

availability category.

•Dell Services’ No. 2 ranking, behind the in-house group, was the

result of two key performance differentiators, where Dell

earned competitive strengths: on-site response time and

expertise.

•Dell’s scores also trended higher than its competitors’ average

across the areas of online and remotely managed support,

hardware deployment and parts availability.

•No. 3 ranked Lenovo Services and HPS were positioned below

Dell Services largely as a result of their on-site response time

and technical expertise ratings, which were substantially below

those of Dell. Lenovo was cited with a competitive warning for

response time.

Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Internal organizations validate themselves as the ideal support experience Performance differentiation across the OEM support providers is diminished

Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 1.5% declineSatisfaction scores for break/fix services and parts availability declined significantly, while phone, online and remotely managed support scores began to recover.HPS’ WSI shifted back by 1.7%Declining positions were led by break/fix services and parts availability, while phone, online and remotely managed support scores stabilized.IGS’ WSI declined by the greatest magnitude: –2.7%Satisfaction positions across break/fix services, on-site response & expertise, and parts availability led the declines.Internal support’s WSI dipped by 1.9%Satisfaction with parts availability and break/fix services were the leading factors.

The significant score corrections TBR observed in 4Q10 (which followed several previous periods of

exuberance with support services) continued, in a more tempered form, into 1Q11.

•The unifying trends included significantly weakening satisfaction, affecting all four players across

break/fix services and replacement parts availability.

•Satisfaction with on-site response time and technical expertise also declined but primarily

affected Dell Services and IGS.

•In contrast, phone, online and remotely managed support services saw marginally improving

scores across all four competitive groups.

The Score in 1Q11

17

88.0

86.3

84.0

81.882.681.2

83.582.2

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

4Q10 1Q11

1Q11 VERSUS 4Q10 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION RATINGS AND RANKS

Internal Support Organizations IGS/Lenovo Services & PartnersHP & Partners Dell & Partners

3 3

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

1

23

2

1

22

2

Replacement parts availability and basic break/fix services’ satisfaction lead

the trend toward continually correcting satisfaction scores in 1Q11.

TBR


Varying levels of correcting scores in 1Q11 define the competitive line-upThe scores of Dell and HP Services fell by considerably lesser magnitudes than that incurred by IGS. This enabled HPS to move up to share the No. 2 ranking position that had previously been a two-way

affair between IGS and Dell Services.

•As a result of the tightening up of the competitive line-up, IGS dropped two previous competitive strengths (technical expertise and overall services value) as a result of its mean ratings having

declined by greater magnitudes than Dell and HP Services.

•IGS’ on-site response time rating dropped substantially, and HPS’ fell the least. Consequently, IGS was cited with a warning (its mean score significantly below the industry average), while HPS

recovered from its 4Q10 competitive weakness, placing even with the industry average in 1Q11.

•HPS also recovered from two previous warnings, for break/fix services and on-site expertise; in both cases, HPS’ scores fell by smaller magnitudes than the competition, its mean scores now

comparable to industry averages.

•Dell Services’ phone support satisfaction score

increased modestly in 1Q11 but by enough that it was

no longer significantly below the industry average; TBR

lifted its previous competitive warning.

•The in-house support group’s ratings shifted by no

greater magnitudes than OEM support providers in

1Q11, hence each of its competitive advantages

remained intact for another reporting period.

18

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

The Score in 1Q11

TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforce the 1Q11 ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)

•The singular No. 1 ranking position held by the internal support

group was enhanced by its receiving competitive strengths in eight

of the nine categories.

•In addition to the close proximity of their WSI scores, the three

OEM support providers shared the No. 2 ranking in 1Q11 as a

result of a mixture of developments.

•IGS’ positioning weakened, failing to repeat 4Q10 strengths in on-

site expertise and support services value, as well as being cited

with a new warning for on-site support that offset the effects of

other areas of strength.

•Dell Services earned two marginal strengths, while recovering from

a phone support warning.

•HP came up entirely neutral, its strengthening performances in

evidence as TBR lifted two previous warnings and one full

competitive weakness from the previous period.

YELLOW boxes indicate areas where Strength/Weakness determinations have been downgraded from the previous

reporting period.

BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade.

19

VENDORINTERNAL SUPPORT

IGS/LENOVO SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services CONTRACTING

On-site Technical Expertise CONTRACTING

On-site Response Time/Commitment * SHIFTING

Telephone/Helpdesk Support * CONTRACTING

Online Support CONSTANT

Remotely Managed Support CONSTANT

Replacement Parts Availability CONSTANT

Support Services Pricing/Value CONTRACTING

Hardware Installation/Configuration * CONSTANT

Numeric Value 16 2 2 0


Ranking 1 2 2 3

Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only)

1 1 2

SOURCE: TBR

Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time.

CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 4Q10

TBR

TBR

TBR

TBR

The Score in 1Q11

TBR


On-site response time remains a leading performance differentiator, favoring Dell Services over HPS and IGS

In 4Q10, Dell Services’ score registered significantly above the

industry average, resulting in a competitive strength, while HPS

continued to be cited with a weakness, its score significantly

lower than average. In 1Q11, IGS’ score declined by the greatest

magnitude, resulting in TBR issuing the competitive warning to

IGS and not HPS. Dell Services retained its lead, but the

competitive strength was marginal due to a wide spread of

opinion, predominantly in evidence within the desktop/notebook

support segment.

The main shift in 1Q11 involved the distribution of scores for IGS,

where a considerable number of Levels 6 and 7 scores shifted to

fill in the Level-5 at a greater rate. Dell Services continued to earn

more Perfect 7 ratings and fewer Level-5 ratings than

competitors, though the spread of opinion remained wide, as

evidenced by the flatter distribution curve, where competitors’

scores exhibited peaks at the fifth level of the scale.

Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts

20

4Q10 1Q11

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site technical expertise perceptions shift to show no favorites* among the OEM support providers

In 4Q10, HPS’ mean satisfaction score for on-site technical expertise

was significantly lower than average, hence its competitive warning,

while IGS earned a marginal competitive strength due to a tighter

spread of customer opinion vs. Dell Services. The in-house group

earned the competitive strength. In 1Q11, all scores declined, but

the magnitude was greatest within the IGS group. Consequently, IGS’

strength was rescinded while HPS recovered from its warning of the

previous period. In-house support continued to hold the full

competitive strength.

The most noteworthy shift in 1Q11 involved the distribution of

IGS’ ratings, where a fair number of previously perfect scores

shifted back one level on the scale. While IGS earned fewer

Level-5 and more Level-6 ratings than Dell and HP Services, it

also earned the smallest number of Perfect 7’s. Consequently,

its mean rating was not significantly different from the industry

average.

21

4Q10 1Q11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

*These overall results may be misleading. IBM led the competition in the server support segment for technical expertise satisfaction; Dell Services in the desktop/notebook segment.


TBR


Basic break/fix service satisfaction continues to favor IGS, while HPS recovers from previous competitive warnings

In 4Q10, HPS trailed the industry average by a significant

margin, while IGS held the advantage due to a narrow spread

of customer opinion. In 1Q11, TBR observed a collective

collapse of scores, with all trending downward by substantial

margins. There were some variances, in that HPS’ score

declined by 3%, against 4% for IGS and 4.3% for Dell Services.

Subsequently, HPS recovered from its previous warning.

Meanwhile, IGS’ score held up enough for it to carry over its

competitive strength standing for another reporting period,

primarily due to its IBM server support results.

For all concerned, there was a decided shift away from the

Perfect 7 rating back one level on the satisfaction scale. IGS

remained the leader among OEM support providers with a

larger proportion of Level-6 ratings and fewer lower-level

scores. Dell and HP services’ score distributions were

comparable to one another.

22

4Q10 1Q11

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPS

IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

<5 5 6 7


Dell Services HPS


TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

While IGS continues to dominate the phone support category, Dell Services recovers from its previous warning

Dell Services was cited with a competitive warning in 4Q10, with its mean

phone support satisfaction rating significantly below the industry average

and more widely spread in distribution. The in-house support group,

alone, took the competitive strength. Shifts were modest in 1Q11, with

Dell Services’ score up slightly and HPS’ down slightly, by about one

percentage point each. HPS’ shift was enough to push IGS’ score to a

significant advantage, prompting TBR to issue a marginal competitive

strength to IGS as well as to IBM in the server support segment. While its

ratings remained spread out, Dell Services shifted enough that its rating

was no longer below average. TBR rescinded its competitive warning in

the server segment.

In 1Q11, IGS’ pattern of distribution differed from the pack in a

manner not evident in the previous period, earning a

substantially greater number of Level-6 ratings than

competitors. Dell Services’ distribution of scores came into

closer alignment with those of HPS than in the previous

period.

23

4Q10 1Q11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


Support services value differentiation dissipates* in 1Q11In 4Q10, IGS earned a competitive strength for support

services value due to a relatively uniform set of scores

that placed significantly above average. TBR issued IGS

a competitive strength. With IGS’ scores declining by

greater magnitudes than its competitors in 1Q11, its

score was only marginally above average and not

enough for a repeat strength; only the in-house group

carried the competitive strength distinction. There was

a widening spread of opinion, as customers more fully

scrutinize warranty costs today than in previous

periods.

The decline within IGS’ mean rating was primarily due

to fewer Perfect-7 ratings and more Level-5 ratings in

1Q11 that IGS failed to carry over its competitive

strength into 1Q11.

24

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

*Note these overall results may be misleading. IBM continued to significantly outperform competitors in the server segment for overall support services value satisfaction.


TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 1Q11 server support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)

•The foundation for the internal support group’s continued No. 1 ranking was

substantiated by its continued earning of strengths across all but one category (parts

availability).

•IBM repeated its No. 2 ranking behind the in-house group and ahead of its OEM support

provider competition. This was enhanced through three continuing and two newly

issued competitive strengths.

•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM Support was the result of failing to narrow

performance gaps across five categories. Nonetheless, Dell Services’ finish was improved

over 4Q10 through its recovery from two previous warnings.

•HPS’ situation was similar to Dell Services – allowing IBM to take a total of five

competitive strength categories. HPS’ position was improved through its rebound from

three previous warning areas.

Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis

What Changed in 1Q11:

•IBM Services gained new competitive strengths for phone support and parts availability.

•While Dell Services and HPS remained in subordinate ranking positions to IBM, they were no longer due to any competitive warnings but rather to more substantial IBM performances across a total of five

categories.

•Dell Services recovered from previous warnings for phone support and support services value. Its scores were significantly below industry averages again but only by 90% confidence levels and not the 95%

observed in 4Q10.

•HPS recovered from warnings across break/fix services, on-site response time and on-site expertise. Its scores, previously significantly below average, came in as comparable to industry averages in 1Q11.

25

VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-site Technical Expertise * On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability * Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Installation/Configuration Numeric Value 16 5 0 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3


1 2 2

SOURCE: TBR

Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.

TBR

TBR

TBR


IBM earns a solid No. 1 ranking over Dell and HP Services due to

the contributions of several key competitive advantages

•Server support customers attribute relatively high

importance to most categories, with the exceptions being

remotely managed and online support as well as hardware

deployment services.

•IBM Support established substantial performance

advantages over competitors across five categories. As

high-importance areas, each of these categories carry

significant weight toward the WSI score.

•Across most highly weighted categories, the performances

of Dell and HP Services were comparable, yet HP held a

narrow advantage over Dell for support services value and

phone support.

•In the on-site response time category, where IBM

previously dominated (in 3Q10), the performance gap was

entirely eradicated by 1Q11.

For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G.

SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS

WSI Score Rank

IBM Services 82.5 1

HP Services 81.0 2

Dell Services 80.9 2

TBR splits responses based on the respondents’ primary

responsibilities. In each study a participant is asked to

identify the support area with which they are most involved

(servers/storage or desktop/notebook) and are then asked to

rate those experiences exclusively.

26

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


In 1Q11, server support satisfaction ratings continue to correct across

key areas; ranking positions remain constant

•Overall, HPS’ scores held firmer than competitors’, enabling HPS to

improve its positioning foundation for future study waves.

•The areas of greatest influence were break/fix services, on-site

response time and expertise. In each of the three aforementioned

areas, HPS’ scores held up far better than competitors’, resulting in TBR

lifting previous competitive warnings across all three areas.

•IBM and Dell Services’ scores declined by similar magnitudes to one

another overall, but there were some individual performance

differences.

oIBM’s mean scores held up better than Dell Services in

break/fix services, on-site expertise, parts availability and

services value – all areas where IBM commanded competitive

strength status.

oDell Services’ previous phone support warning was lifted as a

result of a reasonably constant rating, against a declining HPS

that shifted the competitive field.LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, 4Q10 to 1Q11

% Change, WSI Score

Dell Services –1.7%

HP Services –1.2%

IBM Services –1.7%

27

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ce P

ricin

g/Va

lue

4Q10 to 1Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


Some negative GAP positions continue to present in 1Q11 as a result of continually declining satisfaction scores in the past two periods

For the past two reporting periods it has become evident server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more

than in the previous three quarters of 2010. In particular, GAP scores for parts availability, phone support and on-site response time show ample room for improvement for all three OEM support

providers. While we might expect IBM Support to have met customer expectations more effectively than competitors, in that it was ranked No. 1, IBM customers in the study wave expressed

inordinately high expectations that prevented IBM from earning more solid GAP scores.

28

-15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Break/Fix Services

On-site Response Time

On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support

Remotely Managed Support

Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability

Support Services Value

STANDARD GAP SCORES - SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

IGS (IBM) HP Services Dell Services

TBR


TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 1Q11 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)

Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis

29

•The internal support group’s No. 1 ranking was substantially enhanced by its continuing

domination across all but the parts availability category.

•Dell Services maintained its No. 2 ranking for the second reporting period by carrying over its

on-site response time competitive strength and adding a new one for technical expertise.

•Lenovo Services remained in the No. 3 ranking behind Dell but in a weakened state. While

presenting a full slate of neutral performances in 4Q10, Lenovo Services’ on-site response time

rating dropped substantially below the industry average, resulting in a newly issued competitive

warning.

•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking with Lenovo despite a higher WSI rating and the lack of

a competitive warning. TBR’s decision resulted from the significance tests, which exhibited no

significant performance differences between the two.

What Changed in 1Q11:

•Dell Services’ second consecutive No. 2 ranking over Lenovo Services and HPS was strengthened through the addition of a new competitive strength, for on-site support technical expertise.

•Lenovo Services’ performance was weakened through its on-site support response competitive warning, the result of both a significantly below average satisfaction rating and wider GAP score (the distance between

expectation and satisfaction).

•HPS remained in a secondary position to Dell Services, lacking the performance differentiation that might have carried it into a shared ranking with Dell.

VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-site Technical Expertise * On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Numeric Value 15 3 -1 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3


1 2 2

SOURCE: TBR

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.

Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook TBR

TBR


Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking is driven by on-site response and

expertise advantages

For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please

refer to Appendix G.

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS

WSI Score RankDell Services 83.6 1HP Services 81.2 2Lenovo Services 80.8 2

TBR splits responses based on respondents’

primary responsibilities. Each study participant

is asked to identify the support area with which

they are most involved (servers/storage or

desktop/notebook) and are then asked to rate

those experiences exclusively.

•Dell Services’ win was primarily the result of its substantial

performance advantages in the relatively high-importance areas

of on-site support response and expertise.

•Dell’s WSI rating benefited from above-average parts availability

and online support scores. Additional strengths were not awarded

in these categories due to lack of sufficient statistical supporting

evidence, as TBR uses several tests to determine strengths and

weaknesses.

•Nonetheless, the cumulative effects of Dell’s performances across

all of the categories clearly benefited its WSI rating, the essential

reason for its top ranking.

•Lenovo Services’ on-site response time rating was lower than HPS,

yet other high-importance categories washed the slate clean for

Lenovo, including break/fix services and phone support.

30

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


Desktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings collectively fall by varying magnitudes in 1Q11; Dell Services benefits through

comparative stability

LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SATISFACTION, 4Q10 to 1Q11

% Change, WSI Score

Dell Services –0.8%

HP Services –2.4%

Lenovo Services –2.9%

•Overall, Dell Services’ mean satisfaction scores held up far better

than competitors during the past two periods.

•In particular, Dell Services’ phone, online and remotely managed

support scores advanced, against constant or receding competitors’

ratings.

•Dell earned its new competitive strength for on-site support

expertise as a result of a rating that was comparatively stable

against more significantly receding competitors’ ratings.

•Lenovo Services’ new competitive warning for on-site support

response time was clearly the result of a rating decline of over 4%

against an average 2.5% decline for its competitors.

•While HPS’ scores fell by a significantly greater magnitude than Dell

Services, against Lenovo several of its score declines were

comparatively more tempered.

31

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ce P

ricin

g/Va

lue

4Q10 to 1Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


Some negative GAP positions continue in 1Q11 as a result of steadily declining satisfaction scores in the past two reporting periods

32

For the past two reporting periods it has become evident server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than

in the previous three quarters of 2010. The GAP score results in 1Q11, however, were variable, with Dell Services making it through with no scores outside of the acceptable (–5%) GAP range. Many of

HPS’ ratings were –5% or wider, most notably with respect to phone support and parts availability, where expectations were high. Lenovo was most affected by its

–12% GAP score for on-site response time, where TBR issued a competitive warning in 1Q11. This wide Lenovo Services GAP was the result of both low satisfaction and high expectations.

-15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Break/Fix Services


On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support

Remotely Managed Support

Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability


STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR


TBR


Vital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction CompetitionDell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

1Q11 Ranking 2 2 2 1

1Q11 Ranking, OEM support providers 1 1 1 N/A

Rank change vs. 4Q10 0 0 +1 0

1Q11 WSI 82.2 81.8 81.2 86.3

WSI change vs. 4Q10 –1.5% –2.7% –1.7% –1.9%

Rationale for Ranking Positions

WSI placement & proximity to OEM

competitors


competitors


competitorsWSI placement & proximity

to OEM competitors

Competitive Strengths

On-site response time (Continuing;

Marginal); Hardware deployment (Continuing; Marginal);

Break/fix Services (Continuing; Full); Phone

support (Continuing; Marginal); On-site

technical expertise and support services value

discontinued

NoneAll except for parts availability – all full

competitive strengths, consistent with 4Q10 results

Competitive Weaknesses/Warnings

Recovery from 4Q10 phone support

warningOn-site response time

(New; Warning)

Recovery from 4Q10 on-site response time

weakness and break/fix services & on-site technical expertise

warnings

None

Significant Movement, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10 (3% or greater shifts)

Break/fix services and parts availability

positions declined significantly

Break/fix services, on-site response time &

expertise, and parts availability positions all

declined significantly

Break/fix services and parts availability

declined significantly

Break/fix services and parts availability scores declined

significantly

Critical Metrics Summary

33

TBR


Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

Server Support WSI & Ranking 80.9 No. 3 82.5 No. 2 81.0 No. 3 85.6 No. 1

Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking 83.6 No. 2 80.8 No. 3 81.2 No. 3 87.2 No. 1

Server Support Competitive Profile

Neutral across the board – recovered from 4Q10 phone

support and support services value warnings

Five strengths – break/fix, on-site expertise, phone

support, parts availability, support

services value

Neutral across the board – recovered from three 4Q10 warnings – break/fix, on-site

response time, on-site expertise

Strengths across all categories except for

parts availability

Desktop/Notebook Competitive Profile

Two strengths – on-site response time, on-site

expertiseOne warning – on-site

response time All neutral ratingsStrengths across all

categories except for parts availability

Significant Movement, Server Segment, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10

[WSI – 1.7%] Significant declines across

break/fix, on-site response time, on-site

expertise, & parts availability

[WSI – 1.8%] Significant decline focused on the on-site response time

rating

[WSI – 1.0%] Only one area experienced significant

decline – parts availability

[WSI – 2.3%] Break/fix, phone support, and parts

availability scores declined significantly

Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 1Q11 vs. 4Q10

[WSI – 0.9%] Break/fix and parts availability

scores declined significantly

[WSI – 2.9%] Significant declines were observed

across the areas of break/fix, on-site

response time, on-site expertise, and parts

availability

[WSI – 2.4%] Break/fix, on-site expertise and parts

availability scores all declined significantly

[WSI – 0.7%] Break/fix services and parts

availability declined significantly

Vital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition

34


TBR


Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

Summary

While in the past TBR has observed a pattern of alternating wins between Dell and Lenovo in the desktop/notebook segment from quarter to quarter, Dell took its second consecutive win in 1Q11. The dynamic that most greatly separates Dell Services’ performances from competitors in the desktop/notebook space is on-site support. In addition to winning strengths in these categories, Dell customers were more likely than competitors’ to specifically attribute their high satisfaction to on-site support provided by Dell Services. Greater challenges remain intact in the server support segment, where Dell was significantly outperformed by IBM across a broad spectrum of support service categories.

IBM Support continues to demonstrate services excellence in the server support segment, winning its fourth straight No. 1 ranking over OEM competitors. IBM’s success continues to extend across a wide range of performance advantages, including on-site support, phone support, parts availability, and the perception of services value. By holding such an array of competitive advantages, IBM continues to be a force difficult to beat. Lenovo Services encountered some continuing difficulties in 1Q11, remaining at a ranking position below Dell Services for the second straight period, driven by substantially weakening on-site support scores, particularly with respect to on-site response time.

While HPS remained in subordinate ranking positions to competitors (IBM in the server segment; Dell in the desktop/notebook segment), there were some strong signs of improving competitiveness. In the server support segment, HP’s scores were the most resistant to downward trends of the past six months, particularly with respect to on-site response time, where competitors’ scores receded by substantial magnitudes. TBR lifted three competitive challenges (two warnings and a weakness) across the three on-site support categories, that had persisted throughout the previous three to five periods. In the desktop/notebook segment, HPS was outperformed again by Dell, and again due to on-site support performances. HPS’ phone and online support scores remain competitive.

The internal support group remained in the position to which it was ascribed at the start of TBR’s study design more than a decade ago – the ideal against which we measure the OEM support providers. The group carried competitive strengths against all categories except parts availability in 1Q11 (where internal support organizations are dependent on OEMs to effectively meet delivery and availability commitments) in the server and desktop/notebook segments of the study. Yet, internal support is not resistant to strains dictated by the need to balance internal costs against expertise. Satisfaction scores fell across the on-site support categories at magnitudes as great as those indicated by the OEM support provider customers in 1Q11.

Bottom Line

During the past year, TBR has observed everything in these study results, beginning with the exuberance of large corporate refreshes with fresh systems warranties that introduce minimal fuss in the support department. This was followed by what occurs with respect to the natural order of time, where some systems develop issues that need to be dealt with either internally, through OEM support contacts, or both. The results of these changes were the extreme ups and downs TBR observed in the satisfaction numbers. Today, we appear to be on a return course to business as usual, with 1Q11 satisfaction scores gently rising, leaving 4Q10 as the end of the satisfaction score corrections. Assuming we do not see a return to the unusual conditions set forth by the 2009 economic recession, or some other force with equal impact on support operations, we should begin to see more normalized expressions of satisfaction with support services.

Vital Statistics – 1Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition

35


TBR


TBR’s Watch List differs from the Competitive Strength and

Weakness Analysis

TBR’s Watch List

TBR takes the following factors into consideration in determining items on the Watch List:

•Results of the Improvements GAP Analysis are based on a vendor’s expectation fulfillment for a category against its overall expectation fulfillment across all measured attributes.

•Competitive positioning based on results of statistical significance tests

•Results of the Standard GAP Analysis for the vendor against its competitors’ positions

•Decline in satisfaction in the past two reporting periods

•Segments (server support versus desktop/notebook support) influencing declines in satisfaction during past two reporting periods

•Loss of competitive strength or addition of competitive weakness

•Disappointment/Delight meter – proportions of dissatisfied versus delighted customers

•Items are removed from the Watch List when a vendor has recovered its competitive position from past recent reporting periods.

Differences:

•The analysis looks backward and forward.

•Items placed on the Watch List are often not areas where the vendor has underperformed the marketplace or a specific competitor.

•Included are areas in which a vendor may have recently excelled; however, the competitive field has shifted during the current reporting period.

36

TBR


Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; divided customer perceptions need to be addressed

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Citation Placement Improvements GAP

% Change versus 4Q10

Long-term Trends

Segments Affected, 1Q11

Strength/ Weakness Status

Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes

Phone Support

Significantly below IBM at 95% confidence in server segment; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment

Well Below Average

–0.6% and comparable to competitors’ average in server segment; +2.3%, vs. competitors’ average –1.5% in desktop/notebook segment

Scores remain volatile, lacking consistency, significantly below IGS for the past three periods

Server Support

Competitive warning lifted due to proximity to HPS score, but continues to trail IBM by substantial margin; IBM gains the competitive strength

9% disappointed and worst-in-class, yet also best-in-class for customer delight

Dell’s phone support satisfaction scores continue to exhibit volatile patterns and wide opinion spread, with an unacceptably high number of disappointed scores. Today, the issue remains largely on the server support side, where IBM continues to defend its exceptional record.


Significantly below both HPS and IBM on server side, 90% confidence level; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment

Average –2% vs. competitors’ –1.2% average, server segment; NC in desktop/notebook segment vs. competitors’ average –2.2%

Achieving stability after significant decline in 4Q10

Server Support

Competitive warning in server segment lifted due to significance test results at 90% confidence; IBM successfully defends its competitive strength status

30% increase in customer delight, against 100% increase in dissatisfaction; worst-in-class for disappointment yet best-in-class for delight

Again, an issue of diverging views among Dell customers sampled; Dell is most challenged in the server segment, where both competitors fared better. Dell has not earned a competitive strength for services value since mid-2009.

37

TBR


Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; divided customer perceptions must be addressed (cont.)



Long-term Trends




NEW – Break/Fix Services

Significantly below IBM in server segment, 95% confidence; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment

Above Average –3.7% against competitors’ –2% average in server segment; –4.8% vs. –5% competitors’ average in desktop/notebook segment

Down significantly during the past two periods; correction cycle seems to be complete as of 1Q11 with current positions back to 2Q10 positions

Server Support

Remaining neutral

44% reduction in customer delight, against 90% increase in dissatisfaction; worst-in-class customer disappointment vs. best-in-class delight

IBM continues to dominate the break/fix satisfaction category, bringing in its seventh straight competitive strength win in 1Q11. Dell customer opinions remain very divided, suggesting variability of experience, perhaps drawing a dividing line between server and desktop/notebook customers, and possibly between premium-level and basic support contract holders.

38

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

TBR


HP Services improves its on-site support positioning, yet challenges remain in effect due to competitive pressures

TBR’s Watch List: HPS



Long-term Trends





Comparable to industry average in server segment; behind Dell at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment

Well Below Average

NC in server segment, against competitors’ –3.5% average; –2% against –3.5% in desktop/notebook segment

Stable following previous quarter’s decline, while competitors’ scores continued to drop

Desktop/Notebook

Competitive warning in server segment rescinded; remaining neutral in desktop/notebook segment

90% increase in customer disappointment, while delight increased by 18%; placed between IGS and Dell in both segments

HPS recovered from its previous competitive warning in the 4Q10 server segment by remaining stable while competitors’ scores declined. In the desktop/notebook segment, however, HPS placed between Lenovo and Dell, escaping a warning but clearly outperformed by Dell Services.

Technical Expertise

Significantly below IBM at 95% confidence; trending lower than Dell in desktop/notebook segment

Just Above Average

–1.8% in server segment vs. Dell’s –3.3%; –3.3% in desktop/notebook segment vs. competitors’ average –4%

Same pattern (correction completed in 1Q11) as competitors but consistently on the bottom for the past five periods

Both segments

Competitive warning in server segment rescinded; remaining neutral in desktop/notebook segment

Customer delight stable; disappointment up to 6% and worst-in-class

While previous warnings have been lifted, HPS continues to trail IBM by a substantial margin; increasing customer disappointment. HPS is faced with significant competition in both study segments: IBM in the server segment; Dell in the desktop/notebook segment.

39

TBR


HP Services improves its on-site support positioning, yet challenges remain in effect due to competitive pressures (cont.)Citation Placement Improvements

GAP% Change versus 4Q10

Long-term Trends




Break/Fix Services

Significantly below IBM in server segment, 95% confidence; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment

Above Average –1.7% in server segment against competitors’ –3% average; –4.5% in desktop/notebook segment, vs. competitors’ –5% average

Down significantly during the past two periods; correction cycle seems to be complete as of 1Q11 with current positions back to 2Q10 positions

Server segment

Competitive warning in server segment lifted

30% decline in customer delight, against 100% increase in disappointment; placement between Dell and IGS

HPS has improved its positioning by keeping its scores more stable than competitors, whose ratings declined by greater magnitudes, particularly in the server segment. Yet, continuing improvement will be required, particularly against IBM in the server support segment.

NEW- Online Support

Comparable to server segment average; below Dell Services at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment

Below Average +1.2% in server segment; –1.3% vs. competitors’ –2% average in desktop/notebook segment

Stabilized after significant decline of 4Q10, HPS’ scores have remained even with the competition for the past three periods, but falling behind Dell in desktop/notebook segment

Desktop/Notebook

Last competitive warning issued in 1Q10

Customer disappointment increased from 6% in 4Q10 to nearly 9% by 1Q11

HPS was not issued a warning in that its mean score was comparable to Lenovo Services; however, Dell Services’ score was significantly above average and HPS held an inordinately high number of disappointed scores.

40

TBR’s Watch List: HPS

TBR


IBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Services must focus on regaining past competitive advantages

TBR’s Watch List: IGS

41



Long-term Trends





Comparable to server segment average; significantly below Dell at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment

Well Below Average

–3.7% and comparable to Dell’s decline in server segment; –4.3% vs. competitors’ –2.2% average in desktop/notebook segment

Down for past two periods and continuing to decline, falling well below Dell Services

Desktop/Notebook

New competitive warning issued to Lenovo Services

Disappointment was actually best-in-class; customer delight was worst-in-class

Lenovo Services was issued a competitive warning against Dell Services’ second straight competitive strength for the category. This development prevented Lenovo from retaking the lead in the desktop/notebook segment, which has been an alternating arrangement (between Lenovo & Dell).

NEW – Technical Expertise

Excelled over competition in server segment; significantly below Dell Services at 95% confidence in desktop/notebook segment

Just Above Average

–1.8% vs. Dell’s –3.3% in server segment; –5.5% against competitors’ –3% average in desktop/notebook segment

Declines of past two reporting periods have been steeper than those incurred by Dell

Desktop/Notebook

Remaining neutral

Same condition as described above

Lenovo Services was outperformed by Dell Services, which earned a new competitive strength in 1Q11; Lenovo’s 3Q10 leadership position was a short-lived victory.

TBR


IBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Services must focus on regaining past competitive advantages (cont.)

42

Citation PlacementImprovements GAP


Long-term Trends




Phone Support

Excelled over competition in server segment; comparable to industry average in desktop/notebook segment

Just Above Average

NC in server segment; NC in desktop/notebook segment against Dell’s 2.2% increase

Most stable of the competitive field, which tends to exhibit greater volatility

Desktop/Notebook

Remaining neutral

Incidences of customer delight substantially trail competition

In the past, phone support has been a predictable strength for Lenovo Services, in this and TBR’s product-related customer satisfaction studies. During the past few quarters, competitors have completely closed performance gaps through various improvement efforts. This should be a repeatable strength for Lenovo.

TBR’s Watch List: IGS

TBR


Dell Services holds the record for wins since the study’s inception, though IGS/Lenovo holds the record for wins in the past three years

•Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Dell Services has been ranked as

a No. 1 support provider for 33 of 43 reporting periods.

•Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was its first since 4Q07 and did

not carry over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three

reporting periods later, in 1Q09, and held that distinction for the next

four periods.

•Dell’s wins have reappeared in the past two reporting periods.

Historical Record

•Half of HPS’ 13 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive No. 1

rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win the company’s first after an absence of nearly two years.

Competitive pressures contributed to HPS’ drop to the No. 3 spot in 2Q09, followed by a series of second and

third place rankings up until the current reporting period, in which it returned to No. 1.

•Of the 23 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1-ranked player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to 1Q09).

During the past three years, IGS has earned a total of 10 No. 1 rankings, outnumbering Dell Services’ eight wins.

3Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; methodology differed from that

established with the 1Q01 study.

Until 2Q09, IGS held the record for number of successive wins in the previous 14 reporting periods. IGS regained its No. 1 status in

3Q09, making for 18 wins during the last 21 reporting periods up to the current reporting period.

43

33

1323

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 43-reporting-period History Beginning

3Q00)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 Total # Wins

Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 8HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 2IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 10SOURCE: TBR

Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past Three Years

TBR

TBR


Cases of differentiation dwindled in 2008, reasserting themselves in 2009 and 2010

•The years 2007, 2009 and 2010 were marked by a substantial

number of performance differentiators, compared to tighter

competitive fields during the remaining years since 2005.

•Some noteworthy patterns of consistency since 2009 include:

oSeven consecutive strengths for break/fix services for

IGS

oThree straight competitive strengths for online support

for IGS

oFour straight strengths for on-site response time for Dell

Services from 2Q09 through 1Q10, returning in 4Q10 &

1Q11

oWarnings or weaknesses in five of the past six periods

for HPS for on-site support response time

oA recurring pattern of scattered wins for phone support

for IGS

44

3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

Dell Services * * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services *

Dell Services *HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *

Dell Services * * *HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *

Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * *

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * * *

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * * *

Dell Services * * * HP Services

IGS/Lenovo Services * *

SOURCE: TBR

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.

Strength & Weakness Performance History - 3Q05 to 1Q11

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

PHONE SUPPORT

ONLINE SUPPORT

HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

TBR

Historical Record

TBR


Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables

45

TBR


Dell Services outperforms HPS in the area of hardware installationUnderstanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions

While Dell Services continued to outperform HPS in the area of hardware

installation, HPS closed the performance gap that favored Dell in 4Q10 for

on-site response time.

Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of declining mean ratings between Dell

Services and HPS. The exceptions included hardware deployment, where Dell

Services continued to outperform HPS.

46

-5%

-3%

-1%

1%

3%

5%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10

Dell to HP Distance 4Q10 Dell to HP Distance 1Q11

DellAdvantage Areas

HP Advantage Areas

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-9%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS,FOR DELL & HP SERVICES 1Q11 VS. 4Q10

Dell Services HP Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Dell Services gains competitive advantages over IGS, while IGS' two advantages over Dell services in 4Q10 were diminished

Dell Services significantly outperformed IGS in the areas of on-site response

time and remotely managed support. IGS gained a slight competitive

advantage over Dell Services in 1Q11 in overall satisfaction, but lost its

significant advantages in the previous period in the areas of phone support

and support services value. Also in 1Q11, Dell Services gained a competitive

advantage over IGS for hardware installation/ configuration.

IGS’ mean rating shifts for hardware installation and online support were

small, but enough to change many of the performance differences indicated

above.

Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions

47

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10Dell to IGS Distance 4Q10 Dell to IGS Distance 1Q11

DellAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-9%-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS SERVICES, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10

Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


IGS continues to generally outperform HPS, while HPS manages to narrow the performance gap in support value

IGS continued to outperform HPS by significant margins across

the areas of break/fix services and on-site expertise, while

moving significantly ahead for overall value. IGS, however, did

not continue to outperform HPS with respect to support services

value.

IGS’ mean satisfaction rating for on-site response time declined by a

significantly greater magnitude than HPS – hence the compelling

performance gap.

Understanding the 1Q11 Ranking Positions

48

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q11 VS.4Q10

HP to IGS Distance 4Q10 HP to IGS Distance 1Q11

HPSAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

-9%-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES, 1Q11 VS. 4Q10

HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


•Through the end of 2008, TBR observed generally predictable outcomes,

with the in-house support group earning its reputation as the yardstick

against which we measure the OEM support providers. During these

periods, IGS was most consistent at earning top scores in the competition.

•In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction scores were the rule to which no

competitor was immune, defined by a close competition between IGS and

Dell Services, with HPS considerably more challenged.

•Satisfaction positions hit rock bottom in 4Q09, exhibiting hints of a

recovery in 1Q10 that transitioned into a full recovery for all players in

2Q10.

•Scores collectively improved by substantial magnitudes in 2Q10 and

3Q10, resulting in new record highs being established by all four

competitors by 3Q10.

•As expected, and following the patterns of TBR’s product-related studies,

satisfaction scores continued to correct in 1Q11, primarily affecting the

OEM support providers.

Service and support satisfaction positions continue an expected correction, after improving in 2010, to pre-recession levels

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

Note: The ranking positions in the table have been adjusted to represent the placement of OEM support providers,

excluding the presence of the internal support organizations.

49

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

89.0

91.0

2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, 2Q08 through 1Q11

Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

Dell Services 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1HP Services 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1SOURCE: TBR

Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods

TBR

TBR


The long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences•

The principal contributor to narrowing performance gaps involved

the perspective of the internal support organizations, where

stressed resources led to significantly declining satisfaction

scores. Throughout most of the recessionary year of 2009, the

group no longer represented the utopia of support capability

against which TBR compares the OEM-provided support groups.

Customer satisfaction with support services declined sharply

throughout 2009 for all groups.

•Positions began to stabilize by 1Q10, setting the stage for the

broad-based and substantial recovery of the 2Q10 reporting

period. In 3Q10, the internal support organizations returned to

the top ranking position for the first time since 1Q09.

•In 4Q10 and 1Q11, the in-house group moved substantially ahead

of the OEM support providers, harking back to patterns we were

accustomed to before the unusual shifts observed in 2009 and

most of 2010.

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

50

76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM4Q05 THROUGH 1Q11


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM4Q05 THROUGH 1Q11, WITH MOVING AVERAGES

2 per. Mov. Avg. (Internal Support Organizations) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dell Services)2 per. Mov. Avg. (HP Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (IGS/Lenovo Services)

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Dell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customer expectations for services value, yet the picture is clearly changing

GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment

1Q11 Developments:

•Historically speaking, Dell Services has been the only competitor to consistently keep pace with customer expectations for

services value; the satisfaction trend line continues to steadily increase over time.

•In 1Q11, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs corrected and dropped back to levels similar to or below importance levels.

•IGS’ 4Q10 competitive strength in the area was eradicated in 1Q11, bringing all competitors onto a level playing field.

•Importance ratings for Dell Services and HPS increased in 1Q11, against declining satisfaction, while IGS' scores remained in

closer proximity, leading to a 0% GAP while competitors failed to close their gaps.

Satisfaction versus

Importance data points

have remained

interlocked throughout

the timeline for Dell

Services. Competitors,

particularly HPS, have

historically been unable

to sustain closed GAPs.

51

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES

Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES

Satisfaction Importance

Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES

Satisfaction Importance

Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


IGS/Lenovo Services and HPS satisfaction ratings for support services response continue to decline while Dell Services' levels off

1Q11 Developments:

•Satisfaction scores declined by greater magnitudes than relaxing expectations, creating larger gaps

between importance and satisfaction after a period of gap consolidation through 2008 and 2009.

•Dell Services fared the best of the three competitors, with its satisfaction leveling off while the

satisfaction for HPS and IGS/Lenovo’s support services response declined.


52

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.005.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60

SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


IGS/Lenovo Services and HPS fail to meet customer expectations for on-site technical expertise

1Q11 Developments:

Dell Services was the only vendor able to meet customer expectations in 1Q11 due to relaxed customer expectations

over the last two periods, enabling Dell to more effectively meet customer expectations than competitors.

Satisfaction around

perceived technical

expertise was the hardest

hit of all categories during

2009. Satisfaction levels in

2010, however, represented

a full recovery.


53

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL

EXPERTISE


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL

EXPERTISE


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.005.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL

EXPERTISE


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Customer expectations for break/fix services rise in 1H10, then correct

1Q11 Developments:

•Customer expectations for basic break/fix services continued to relax

most significantly for Dell Services while remaining more stable for HPS

and IGS.

•Consequently, GAP scores were wider for IGS and HPS, while Dell was the

only competitor to fully meet expectations.

While GAPs had closed by

late 2009 due to relaxing

expectations, 1Q10 saw a

sudden increase in

customer requirements,

which continued to build

into 2Q10, then taper off.

The break/fix category

refers to customer

experiences with basic

hardware maintenance

services, not with

premium-level contracts.


54

5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.70

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR DELL SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.70

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.505.705.906.106.306.506.706.907.10

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Rising customer expectations for phone support create new challenges for OEMs in 4Q10 and 1Q11

1Q11 Developments:•

Customer expectations for phone support continued to rise by varying

degrees while satisfaction positions decreased (HPS), leveled off

(IGS/Lenovo Services) or slightly increased (Dell Services), creating larger

gaps between importance and satisfaction.

•Should this new trend of steadily rising expectations continue, the

support providers will be challenged to keep pace.

Historically, particularly

throughout 2007 and 2008,

Dell Services and HPS have

struggled to meet customer

expectations for phone

support, predominantly

falling far short of that goal.

Meanwhile, IGS has

consistently maintained

very small GAP positions.


55

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Expectations and satisfaction for online support continue to fluctuate; trend lines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell

1Q11 Developments:

•Importance ratings for online support exceeded satisfaction ratings across the board in 1Q11.

•Dell Services’ satisfaction and importance ratings reached a similar level in 1Q11, with both increasing.

•HPS’ importance rating increased significantly, while satisfaction stayed stagnant over the same sequential

compare, leading to a widening gap.

•IGS/Lenovo Services’ satisfaction decreased at a greater magnitude in 1Q11 than its importance rating,

leading to unmet customer expectations.


56

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Replacement parts availability is a critical element of the support experience across the board for customers

1Q11 Developments:

Importance and satisfaction ratings for parts availability declined for all three vendors in 1Q11, with

satisfaction ratings continuing to fall to levels below those of importance, indicating unmet customer

expectations by the three vendors.


57

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ positions correct in 1Q11, trending similar to, but lower than previous reporting periods

Trends of the Reporting Period

•Dell Services’ satisfaction positions were generally

at their highest levels in 3Q10, and their lowest in

1Q11.

•Dell Services’ remotely managed support position

has remained stagnant for the past four reporting

periods, indicating a level of homeostasis between

satisfaction and importance.

WSI Rating Shift, 4Q10 to 1Q11: –1.27%

•Led by significantly declining support services value and break/fix services satisfaction

•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and hardware deployment

58

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS2Q10 TO 1Q11

2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS performances remain at similar levels over a sequential compare

•HPS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their

highest levels in 3Q10, and their lowest in 1Q11.

•1Q11 positions remained very similar to 4Q10

positions, with the exception of decreases in the

areas of parts availability, break/fix services and

overall satisfaction.

•Across the board, satisfaction positions remained

at the same level or fell below positions of 4Q10,

showing no sign of improvement.


59


•Led by significantly declining levels of satisfaction for parts availability and break/fix services

•Comparatively stable positions included remotely managed support, online support and on-site response time

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS2Q10 TO 1Q11


TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ scores progressively decline over in 4Q10 and 1Q11

•IGS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their

highest levels in 3Q10, and their lowest in 1Q11.

•Most of IGS’ 1Q11 positions fell below the levels

observed in 4Q10.

•IGS’ phone support position has remained relatively

stagnant over the past four reporting periods.


60


•Led by declining break/fix services, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction levels

•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and remotely managed support

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS2Q10 TO 1Q11


TBR

TBR


Recommended areas for improvements for Dell Services include the initial contact areas of phone and online support

•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: None

•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, phone support and online support

•Area of Competency: Hardware installation

Improvements GAP Analyses

61

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q11

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


HP Services’ analysis points to target improvement programs around on-site response time, phone and online support

•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time

•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone and online support

•Areas of Competency: Break/fix services and support services value


62

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 1Q11

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


IGS must focus on perceptions of on-site response time and online support

•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, support services value

•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Online support

•Area of Competency: Break/fix Services


63

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 1Q11

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


The in-house group must focus on improving the availability of replacement parts

•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Replacement parts availability

•Areas of Competency: On-site response time, hardware installation and remotely managed support


64

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORTORGANIZATIONS 1Q11

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Break/fix services, parts availability and phone support drive service and support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization

Selection Criteria – Stated

•Critical: Break/fix services, parts availability

•Also Important: Phone support, on-site expertise

and response time

•Somewhat Important: Support services value,

online support

•Less Important: Hardware deployment, remotely

managed support

65

Customer expectations within the IGS group were significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation in which IGS was forced to perform that much better in the satisfaction

ratings to rank No. 1 in this reporting wave. While this was largely driven by the IBM Support (server) side of the equation, Lenovo Services customers were also more focused than competitors’

customers on break/fix services and technical expertise.

TBR


Statistical significance test No. 1 points to performance differentiation largely favoring Internal Support, somewhat favoring IGS and Dell ServicesTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test

Scoring Summary – Significance Tests

1Q11 Developments:

•The internal support groups returned to their historical position as the standard-

setter, outperforming industry averages across most categories – with parts

availability the single exception.

•IGS/Lenovo Services’ results were a mixture of positives and negatives,

outperforming competitors in break/fix services, phone support and overall

support satisfaction, while underperforming in on-site response time.

•HPS' scores were generally comparable to industry averages, with the exception

of the grand mean rating, the summation of all categories.

•Dell Services outperformed the competition in on-site response time and

hardware installation.

66

DELL SVCS HP SVCSIGS/LENOVO

SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

Results of the Standard t-Test

SOURCE :TBR

Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

TBR

TBR


Performance differentiation in the segments points to IBM as favored for server support; Dell Services for desktop/notebook supportTests compare each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test

The key performance differentiators in the server support segment were break/fix services, on-

site expertise, phone support, parts availability, support services value and overall services

value – with all favoring IGS over HPS and Dell Services.

The key performance differentiators in the desktop/notebook support space were on-site

response time and hardware installation, where Dell Services outperformed the industry

average while Lenovo underperformed.


67

DELL SVCS HP SVCS IBM SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

Results of the Standard t-Test - x86 SERVER SUPPORT

Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels. SOURCE: TBR

TBR

DELL SVCS HP SVCS LENOVO SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability


SOURCE: TBR

Results of the Standard t-Test - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

TBR

TBR


Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test

Highlighted performance differentiation involving the OEM support

providers:

•IGS significantly outperformed both competitors for break/fix

services.

•Dell Services outperformed both competitors for hardware

installation and outperformed IGS for on-site response time – all at

significant levels.

•HPS’ underperformed IGS in break/fix services and overall

satisfaction, while underperforming Dell Services in hardware

installation.


68

HPSIGS/

LENOVODELL SVCS

IGS/LENOVO

DELL SVCS HPS

Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise

On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support

Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability


Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Vendor Comparisons

t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

SOURCE: TBR

PAIR-WISE T-TESTS

DELL SVCS VS. HP SVCS VS.IGS/LENOVO

SVCS VS.

TBR

TBR


• The in-house groups outperformed all three OEM support providers across every

category with the single exception of parts availability.

• These performance differences were confirmed at very high levels of statistical

confidence.


Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test

69

DELL SVCS HPS

IGS/ LNV

Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors.

Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

SOURCE: TBR

PAIR-WISE T-TESTS

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS VS.

Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support

TBR

TBR


Despite the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests

The Bonferroni correction, the most stringent statistical significance test used by TBR, confirmed many of the tests cited by the standard test.

Most of the confirmed differences were in comparisons of in-house support against the OEM support providers. Additional confirmed performance differences included on-site response time (Dell

over IGS) and hardware installation (Dell over HPS and IGS).

Statistical Significance Tests

70

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo

Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; marginally over IGS 2.5 -1 -1 -0.5On-site Technical Expertise Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

On-site Response Time/CommitmentInternal over ALL; Dell marginally over IGS 3 -0.5 -1 -1.5

Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

Replacement Parts AvailabilityNone at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0

Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, IGS 3 1 -2 -2Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

25.5 -6.5 -10 -9SOURCE: TBR

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction

Total Points

TBR

TBR

TBR


In the x86 server support segment, the internal support

organizations were confirmed as having outperformed

various competitors across all but one category (parts

availability) designated by the previous tests. In addition,

IBM outperformed Dell for break/fix services. IBM also

benefited by not placing significantly lower than in-house

support in several categories, while competitors were not

so fortunate.

In the desktop/notebook support segment, the internal

support organizations outperformed competitors in all

but the break/fix and parts availability categories, as

designated in the previous tests. In addition, Dell Services

outperformed both competitors for on-site response time.

Despite the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests

Statistical Significance Tests

71

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IBM

Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell 2 -2 -1 1On-site Technical Expertise Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over Dell 1 -1 0 0Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over Dell 1 -1 0 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell, HP 2 -2 -2 2

20 -11 -8 -1

SOURCE: TBR

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - x86 SERVER SUPPORT

Total Points

TBR

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS Lenovo

Basic Break/Fix Services None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP, Lenovo 2 0 -1 -1On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, Lenovo 3 1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Online Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

23 -5 -8 -8

SOURCE: TBR

Total Points

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

TBR

TBR


The Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the in-house support performance difference premises set by the statistical significance tests

Competitive GAP Analysis

•The competitive GAP scores support TBR’s

decisions regarding on-site response time

on the competitive strength and weakness

citations for the 1Q11 reporting period.

•The internal support group’s scores were so

high, with the exception of parts availability,

that they skewed the remainder of the

analysis, making it difficult for OEM support

providers to earn scores above the 100-

point marker and leading scores to trail

toward the lower end of the meeting

expectations range.

72

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 1Q11


Exceeds

Fully Meets

Short of

Exp

ecta

tion

Fulfi

llmen

t

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Buying Behavior

Most customers utilize a mix of self-replacement and on-site support for replacing/repairing failed parts

•The majority of desktop/notebook customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and

on-site support by an OEM or partner.

•TBR found that the majority of server customers preferred primarily self-replacing the parts while utilizing third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.

•This pattern has largely remained constant in the past year, with an average of 25% of respondents indicating either 100% on-site support or 100% self-replacement, while the rest leverage a mix of

the two.

•TBR observed an above-average proportion of those primarily self-replacing within the IBM Support customer group.

73

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%

100% self replacement

Primarily self replacement/on-sitefor some parts

About 50/50 self replacement/on-site

Primarily on-site;self replace someparts

100% on-site

METHODS OF REPLACING/REPAIRING FAILED PARTS

Desktops/Notebooks Servers

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Customers are most satisfied with self-replacement or a mixture of

self-replacement and on-site support

•Server customers are most satisfied with a mixture of

self-replacement and on-site support, whereas

desktop/notebook customers are most satisfied

replacing the parts in-house.

•Customers are least satisfied with on-site support

provided by a third party, at or under 5% satisfaction.

•This finding strongly suggests OEM support providers

must find the optimum balance of self-replaceable

versus on-site repair parts. To complicate matters, this

balance may vary greatly by customer.

Buying Behavior

74

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

Self replacement On-site repair visit from systemsmanufacturer/authorized

partner

On-site repair visit from thirdparty

Mix of self replacement and on-site

PARTS REPAIR METHOD WITH HIGHEST SATISFACTION (Respondents Select One)

Servers Desktops/Notebooks

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Customers face many challenges in replacing failed parts in-house, led by availability of parts and the challenge of replacing

more difficult parts

•The variety of challenges organizations face in replacing failed parts themselves could be at the root of an increase in requirements for on-site support. This premise is supported by the finding that

at least 50% of respondents reported issues with the availability of some parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. This strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support.

•IBM customers are less challenged than Dell and HP customers with staff resource issues, but are more challenged when facing parts availability.

•In terms of having issues replacing difficult parts, desktop/notebook customers found this as more of an issue than server customers.

Buying Behavior

75

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%

Limited staff resources

Replacement parts availability

Issues with difficulty of replacingparts

Lack of training/in-house expertise

Forced to self replace due tocontract terms/cost

PRINCIPAL CHALLENGES IN REPLACING FAILED PARTS IN HOUSE

Desktops/Notebooks Servers

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Premium support contracts and extended warranties are more common for server support than desktop/notebook

On the server side, across the board, customers were most likely to purchase support

contracts at the time of the hardware sale.

IGS/Lenovo Services’ customers were the most likely to purchase critical/premium and

extended warranty contracts. Dell Services’ customers were the most likely of the vendors

to purchase support contracts at the time of the desktop or notebook sale.

Buying Behavior

76

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services

TYPES OF x86 SERVER SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED

Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

TYPES OF DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED

Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


The sample distribution of internal support by brand has remained largely constant over time

Internal Support Teams

77

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP BY MAJOR PC BRANDS

Dell HP IBM/Lenovo

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores –

4Q07 Through 1Q11

78

TBR


Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

4Q07 Through 1Q11

79

BREAK/FIX SERVICES4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

Dell Services & Partners 5.86 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92 6.25 6.47 6.14 5.88HP Services & Partners 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94 6.24 6.34 6.04 5.85IGS & Partners 6.09 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09 6.35 6.58 6.23 5.99Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75 6.12 6.57 6.47 6.16ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.84 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52 5.95 6.31 6.00 5.84HP Services & Partners 5.93 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24 5.86 6.20 5.88 5.74IGS & Partners 6.06 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38 6.02 6.45 6.04 5.82Internal Support Organizations 6.13 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47 5.88 6.27 6.20 6.05ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.70 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63 5.84 6.12 5.85 5.68HP Services & Partners 5.69 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15 5.56 5.96 5.63 5.57IGS & Partners 5.94 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45 5.85 6.22 5.71 5.48Internal Support Organizations 6.27 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76 6.12 6.37 6.30 6.21TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.44 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64 5.84 5.81 5.62 5.67HP Services & Partners 5.55 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28 5.64 5.89 5.72 5.67IGS & Partners 5.68 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48 5.83 5.92 5.77 5.80Internal Support Organizations 6.00 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48 5.92 6.10 5.98 5.98ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.59 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50 5.77 5.76 5.54 5.63HP Services & Partners 5.50 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34 5.74 5.86 5.57 5.57IGS & Partners 5.55 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60 5.98 5.94 5.63 5.51Internal Support Organizations 5.64 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58 5.93 6.01 5.91 5.94REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 6.04 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63 5.92 6.24 6.07 5.85HP Services & Partners 5.83 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53 5.91 6.19 6.00 5.76IGS & Partners 6.04 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69 5.95 6.28 6.10 5.86Internal Support Organizations 5.61 5.41 5.32 5.48 5.41 5.50 5.51 5.41 5.25 5.23 5.71 6.29 6.15 5.84

TBR


Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

4Q07 Through 1Q11

80

SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

Dell Services & Partners 5.73 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77 6.17 6.20 5.85 5.79HP Services & Partners 5.50 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63 6.06 6.24 5.90 5.82IGS & Partners 5.74 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79 6.20 6.32 6.02 5.90Internal Support Organizations 5.96 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65 6.04 6.30 6.24 6.12HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.67 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40 5.67 5.85 5.71 5.69HP Services & Partners 5.56 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30 5.73 5.84 5.54 5.46IGS & Partners 5.79 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35 5.62 5.84 5.63 5.46Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52 5.97 6.15 6.09 6.04AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.42 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43 5.54 5.46 5.43 5.55HP Services & Partners 5.31 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26 5.53 5.68 5.45 5.44IGS & Partners 5.62 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39 5.64 5.59 5.37 5.39Internal Support Organizations 5.50 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56 5.85 5.87 5.85 5.98OVERALL SATISFACTION

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.76 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77 6.09 6.26 5.96 5.81HP Services & Partners 5.76 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70 5.97 6.25 5.96 5.76IGS & Partners 5.89 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92 6.17 6.28 6.04 5.92Internal Support Organizations 6.10 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70 6.02 6.25 6.19 6.16Survey Counts

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11Dell Services & Partners 160 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252 253HP Services & Partners 160 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252 254IGS & Partners 160 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254 263Internal Support Organizations 160 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 404 510

TBR


Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected

Attributes

81

TBR


Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis

Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations

82

VENDOR 1Q01 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04 1Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

Dell * * * HP

IGS * *

Dell *

HP

IGS

Dell

HP

IGS * *

Dell * * *

HP

IGS * *

Dell * *

HP

IGS * * * *

Dell

HP

IGS * * * *

Dell * *

HP

IGS * * *

Dell * * *

HP

IGS * *

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

PHONE SUPPORT

ONLINE SUPPORT

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction

Attributes

83

TBR


On-site Break/Fix ServicesSatisfaction Trends

84

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR BREAK/FIX SERVICES

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseSatisfaction Trends

85

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE EXPERTISE

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR.SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


On-site Response TimeSatisfaction Trends

86

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Phone SupportSatisfaction Trends

87

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Online SupportSatisfaction Trends

88

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilitySatisfaction Trends

89

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Support Services Pricing/ValueSatisfaction Trends

90

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Hardware Deployment/Installation/ConfigurationSatisfaction Trends

91

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Satisfaction Trends

92

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Overall SatisfactionSatisfaction Trends

93

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11

OVERALL SATISFACTION


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs

94

TBR


Break/Fix ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

95

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

96

TBR


On-site Response TimeConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

97

TBR


Phone SupportConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

98

TBR


Online SupportConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

99

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilityConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

100

TBR


Support Services ValueConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

101

TBR


Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

102

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Confidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

103

TBR


Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

104

TBR


Appendix F: Categorical Responses

105

TBR


Break/Fix ServicesCategory Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

106

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

<5 5 6 7


Dell Services HPS


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

<5 5 6 7


Dell Services HPS


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseCategory Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

107

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site Response TimeCategory Graphs

108

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

TBR


Phone SupportCategory Graphs

109

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

TBR


Online SupportCategory Graphs

110

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPSIGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilityCategory Graphs

111

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

TBR


Support Services Pricing/ValueCategory Graphs

112

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

TBR


Hardware DeploymentCategory Graphs

113

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q10 1Q11

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Category Graphs

4Q10 1Q11

114

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix G: Server/Storage versus Desktop/Notebook Support

by Support Provider

115

TBR


Dell Services 1Q11Satisfaction Trends

116

5.20

5.30

5.40

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10Br

eak/

Fix

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


HP Services 1Q11Satisfaction Trends

117

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


IBM Global Services 1Q11Satisfaction Trends

118

4.60

5.10

5.60

6.10

6.60

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

IGS /LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

IGS for IBM Servers Lenovo Services for Desktops/Notebooks

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Internal Support Organizations 1Q11Satisfaction Trends

119

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology

120

TBR


TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study is based on the views of those who manage in-house support services and/or work with OEM-provided support

121

Study Design & Methodology

Companies interviewed for TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study are required to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers,

desktops and notebooks) installed. In contrast, TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 PCs for most covered brands. This makes

the Service & Support study a tool best suited for evaluating the experiences of midsized corporations, whereas the product-related studies extend to the

experiences of enterprise customers. The reason for the differing criteria is that larger organizations tend to rely more fully (sometimes entirely) on their

internal support staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this study to mirror TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies,

including the x86-based Server, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop Customer Satisfaction studies.

Throughout this report, TBR refers to two types of support providers:

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS: Companies with in-house technical support staff (systems manufacturers often refer to these customers as “self-

maintainers”); TBR’s study focuses primarily on internal support organizations that perform a number of support functions with their own staff,

supplemented by OEM-provided support as needed.

OEM SUPPORT PROVIDERS: Dell Services, HP Services, IBM Global Services and Lenovo Services perform repairs and basic maintenance for customers

based on support service portfolio offerings.

•Dell Services and its authorized service partners provide technical support to Dell customer sites for servers, notebooks and/or desktop PCs.

•HP Services encompasses services for the Industry Standard Server group as well as for the Personal Systems Group (desktops and notebooks).

•IGS comprises support services for IBM server customers as well as for Lenovo desktop and notebook PC customers. Lenovo customers are serviced by

IGS and Lenovo Services, in addition to a network of third-party service delivery partners.

Additional Screening Criteria for the Corporate IT Service

& Support Satisfaction Study:

1. Has your company utilized any on-site, phone or

web support for Dell, HP, IBM or Lenovo for

desktops, servers or notebooks in the past three

months?

2. Is your company utilizing

in-house technical support?

3. Are you personally involved in evaluating,

recommending or purchasing support services for

desktops, servers and notebooks at your company

or site? Or, if your site uses internal support teams

only, are you involved with the supervision of these

teams?

TBR


Reporting Structure DefinedTBR generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support; report sections break up the study results by segment wherever referenced (server/storage support, desktop/notebook support)

122


Combined Study Results

Sample size = Approximately 250 interviews per group

Covers satisfaction with x86-based server as well as desktop/notebook

support delivered by:

1. Dell Services

2. HP Services (includes both TSS and PSG groups)

3. IGS (includes both IBM server support and Lenovo desktop/notebook

support)

4. Internal Support Organizations

x86 Server/Storage Support, wherever referenced


Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by:

1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support)

2. HP Services (TSS)

3. IBM/IGS Services


Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referenced


Covers satisfaction with desktop/notebook support delivered by:

1. Dell Services (Client Support)

2. HP Services (PSG)

3. Lenovo Services


TBR


1Q11 Sample Overview •

TBR’s 1Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 524 medium and large U.S. and Canadian establishments, primarily MIS/IT, systems management

and purchasing managers.

•A number of the respondents are responsible for purchasing services from multiple support providers for their company or site, and thus were interviewed twice (once for each brand). Most respondents rated, at

the very least, their internal support organization and one third-party provider.

•Consequently, 1,030 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR boosted the number of required interviews to better represent the

stated experiences of customers receiving server-related versus desktop/notebook-related support events.

•Because many of the larger companies rely exclusively on their internal support teams, the requirements for this study differ from TBR’s x86-based server, notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. The minimum

requirement is an installed base of 200 systems for the Service & Support Study (versus 500 for the standard studies). Respondents are screened to include only those who recommend or evaluate OEM support

services for their organization and also manage an internal support staff.

•The service and support interviews for the reporting period were distributed as follows: 253 Dell Services customer interviews; 254 HP Services customer interviews; 263 IBM Global Services customer interviews;

and 260 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between October 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011.

Methodology & Sample

123

Sample Size Standard ErrorAll Providers 1030 1.00%

Dell & Partners 253 2.10%

HP & Partners 254 1.94%

IGS & Partners 263 1.52%

Internal Support Organizations 260 1.83%

SOURCE: TBR

Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes

Service & Support

TBR


TBR


Number of Employees

124

Number of Employees Percentage of Respondents<500 28.9%

500–1,000 17.8%

1,000–4,999 22.6%

5,000–9,999 11.3%

10,000–14,999 6.9%

15,000–19,999 3.6%

20,000–49,999 4.8%

50,000–74,999 2.1%

75,000–99,999 0.6%

100,000+ 1.3%

Average Number of Employees 8,027

SOURCE: TBR

Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed

TBR


TBR


Type of Business

125

Type of Business Percentage of Respondents

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 2%

Pharmaceuticals 3%

Public Utilities 3%

Transportation Service 5%

Mining, Construction 5%

Wholesale Trade 5%

Information Service (including software development) 6%

Finance, Insurance, real estate 7%

Healthcare 7%

Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 7%

Other Services 8%

Education 8%

Government 8%

Manufacturing - Process (materials) 9%

Professional, Scientific, Technical 9%

SOURCE: TBR

Types of Businesses Represented in the Study

TBR


TBR


Job Titles/Responsibilities

126

CXO (CIO,CTO) 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%Vice Pres ident 2.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%Director 13.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.9%Manager 61.3% 1.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 63.0%Coordinator/Adminis trati on 13.7% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 15.3%Other 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 3.4%Grand Tota l 95.4% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.4% 0.2% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR

Respondent Job Functions/Responsibilities

Networking OtherLevel MIS/IT Grand TotalSystems Management Purchasing Customer Service/Support

TBR


TBR


Purchasing – Past, Present & Future

The 1Q11 study sample represents 1.8 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional

355,000 units during the next 12 months.

127

x86-Based x86-BasedServers Servers

Sum 1,013,272 186,567 563,009 202,161 41,733 109,468

Mean 1,968 362 1,093 393 81 213

Sum 6,780 480 1,326 580 172 520

Mean 753 53 147 64 19 58

Enterprise 19.95% 22.37% 19.44%

Division 8.55% 35.83% 39.22%

SOURCE: TBR

Enterprise

Division

Percent of Installed Base Replaced

Units Installed and Planned for Purchase by Form Factor

Installed Base Purchase Intent

Desktops Notebooks Desktops Notebooks

TBR


TBR


Appendix I: Analytical Procedures

128

TBR


Satisfaction Ratings

Totally Dissatisfied

(Failure) Mediocre Totally

Satisfied

Failure Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• The customer satisfaction analysis was based on several lines of questioning. Respondents were asked to grade their vendor across a series of attributes (listed below) for

each brand the surveyed corporations purchased in the most recent buying cycle. At the conclusion of the attribute testing, respondents were asked to provide a rating

based on a 7-point Likert scale.

• Respondents were also asked to indicate the relative importance of each of the attributes in choosing their brand. These responses were given on a 1- to 5-point scale, with

1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important. These ratings determined the gap between vendor satisfaction and importance, or how well the vendor

manages expectations.

• Respondents were then asked to indicate on a 1- to 5-point scale the degree of their loyalty toward their primary vendor(s). Finally, respondents were asked whether their

corporation switched from one vendor to another during the past 12 months, and if so, which vendors were involved and why a change was made.

Analytical Model

129

TBR


Measured Attributes

Customer satisfaction and relative importance were measured for each of the following attributes. Proportions of customers utilizing each service (based

on percentage responding) are also indicated in the table.

Analytical Model

130

Service % RespondingOn-Site Break/Fix Services 87.75%

On Site Technical Expertise 86.03%

On Site Response Time/Commitment 86.23%

Telephone/Help Desk Support 87.20%

Online Support 85.99%

Replacement Parts Availability 86.71%

Support Services Pricing/Value 87.36%

Hardware Installation/Configuration 72.64%

Automated Diagnostics 68.53%

Overall Satisfaction 87.75%

TBR


Satisfaction Statistics

• A table of satisfaction statistics (including mean, standard deviation, standard error, range around the mean representing 95% confidence interval and standard t-Test) describes

customer satisfaction for each vendor in each attribute area, with special emphasis on overall satisfaction. A series of t-Tests were performed on each vendor against the sum of its

competitors, and the attribute areas where significant differences in score were indicated are marked. The t-Test compares two means to determine if one mean is significantly

different than the other, taking variability of response into consideration. The purpose of these tests is to determine if any of the group’s mean differences observed (e.g., a group

being a set of customers of one vendor) cannot be entirely explained by random or natural variation within sampled groups of customers. In other words, the observed differences

are real. TBR uses an independent sample t Test assuming unequal variances, or the standard student’s t-Test. Those attributes with an ‑ level of 0.05 or less are cited as indicating

there is a 95% chance that concluding the two means are different is correct. A t-Test of the grand mean (the mean of all scores for all attributes combined) serves to determine

whether any of the vendors’ overall scores tend to run higher or lower than competitors’ scores.

• As a backup to the above tests, an alternate test (the Bonferroni correction) is used for confirmation purposes (e.g., one-way analysis of variation). The variation within a group of

customers is first determined in these one-way ANOVA tests. These variations are then compared to the variability between the groups (e.g., between Dell, HP and IBM customers).

The between-group variation is measured by the sum of the squared differences between the sample mean of each group and the grand mean, which is then weighted by the sample

size in each group. The between-group variation will be larger than the within-group variation (variation within each specific customer group) if there are meaningful differences

between the means. The attributes that pass this additional test are also cited in the report. While the one-way ANOVA identifies which attributes are affected by differing means

according to customer group, further tests, such as the Bonferroni correction, identify exactly which means differ from one another.

Analytical Procedures

131

TBR


• The competitive GAP analysis measures the gap between a vendor’s customer satisfaction for each attribute area against the expectations (importance ratings) of the market (all respondents). The

standard against which each vendor is measured is the average size of that gap for all server vendors. The GAP analysis compares vendor satisfaction per attribute against importance per attribute

among the vendor’s customer base, relative to overall satisfaction for all vendors per attribute against overall importance for all vendors per attribute. The formula for each attribute area

independently is as follows:

GAP = ____(Vendor Importance * (7-Vendor Satisfaction)____ * 100

(Grand Mean Importance * (7-Grand Mean Satisfaction)

• The product for the above is graphed on a scale where values between 40 and 80 indicate where the vendor exceeds customer expectation; values between 81 and 120 show where the vendor fully

meets expectation; values greater than 120 indicate where the vendor falls short of expectation.

• A second GAP analysis (the standard GAP analysis) considers how each systems vendor manages the expectations of its own customer base. For each vendor independently and for each attribute area,

the mean satisfaction rating is graphed next to the mean importance rating (adjusted from a 5-point scale to the 12-point scale used for customer satisfaction). There are three possible outcomes:

satisfaction meets customer expectation (bar graphs are equal or within a range where the gap is not significant); satisfaction falls short of expectation (indicating areas where the systems vendor may

want to consider focusing greater efforts on raising satisfaction); and satisfaction exceeds expectation (indicating attribute areas where the systems vendor may be focusing more than is necessary).

• Yet another GAP analysis (the Improvements GAP analysis) is focused on determining the areas where the vendors need to set up improvement programs and areas where vendors may be able to pull

back resources. It uses a similar formula to the competitive GAP analysis, however, the denominator becomes the grand mean importance and satisfaction for the vendor across all of the attributes. In

this test, TBR compares the gaps for each of the individual attributes against the average gap for the vendor. Areas where the gaps measure wider than the average are areas where the vendor most

urgently needs to focus its improvement efforts.

GAP AnalysisAnalytical Procedures

132

TBR


A trend analysis compares each vendor’s customer satisfaction scores for the current reporting period separately against those from both the preceding reporting period

and the reporting period prior to that. By comparing against both reporting periods, TBR is able to determine if any changes are indicative of a real change in historical

pattern. This graph uses a 95% confidence-interval technique; the scores for each vendor are represented with the mean indicated in the middle from which the lines

extend (in both directions) the distance of the standard error around the mean. This analysis is used to determine the reasons a vendor may move up or down in the

rankings from previous reporting periods: is it because the vendor improved or because the competition declined in customer satisfaction? The analysis also is used to

pinpoint potential problem areas or areas where marked improvement is evident.

Trend Analysis Analytical Procedures

133

TBR


1. A numeric weighting model is applied in order to provide a ranking of the vendors and a means for tracking overall change in customer perception over time. Where N represents the total number of attributes, AI the importance score for each attribute and AS the satisfaction score for each attribute, the formula applied for calculating the weighted satisfaction index, on an individual respondent basis is:

Weighted Satisfaction Index = 100*7/

1

1

N

ii

N

iii

AI

AIAS

Note: The total number of attributes for the x86-based server segment = 10 The above has been calculated for each respondent, with missing values (Don’t Know or Not Applicable responses) having been replaced with the mean value for the attribute for the vendor group. The weighted satisfaction index for each vendor is the mean of the respondents’ weighted scores. The calculation for the individual satisfaction index is as follows. Where S = the sum of the satisfaction rating times the corresponding importance rating across the total attributes; and where I = the sum of the importance ratings across the attributes:

Weighted Satisfaction Index = 1007IS

Numeric Weighting Model Analytical Procedures

134

support provider segment = 10

TBR


Support Provider Ranking Positions

Vendor ranking positions are determined primarily by the average weighted satisfaction index positions, with a minimum distance of 1.0% generally required for TBR to assign separate ranking

positions to any two vendors. The determination of ranking positions does not end here, however; additional factors, such as number of competitive strengths versus weaknesses, also play into the

final decision, which is a team effort by TBR principals. Consequently, less than a 1.0% distance can occur between two vendors’ weighted satisfaction index positions, yet, they may be assigned

separate ranking positions based on the additional factors stated above.

A competitive strength and weakness table is the final result of all the above analysis. The table points to the attribute areas that are definite strengths or weaknesses for each vendor. Areas of

neutrality are those attributes where the vendor’s customer satisfaction performance is about average. The formula utilized for the determinations is: each attribute receives a score of 0 for neutrality,

+1 for a positive and –1 for a negative. Three analysis are reviewed: the t-Test analysis (0 for null, +1 for significantly higher scores and –1 for significantly lower scores); the competitive GAP analysis (0

for meeting expectation, +1 for exceeding and –1 for falling short); and the vendor GAP analysis. The standard t-Test results are compared to those of the more stringent Bonferroni analysis and those

passing both tests are given an extra point. The three scores for each attribute are then summed up. Any attribute with a total score of +2 or –2 is cited as a strength or weakness; total scores between

these ranges are cited as neutral areas. Those with scores of +4 or –4 are areas of particularly strong strength or weakness. Marginal determinations (warnings or marginal strengths) come about

when the determination is borderline (i.e., only the first t-Test was passed, or the t-Test was passed as a potential area of strength but a poor GAP rating negated it).

Competitive Strength & Weakness Table

Analytical Procedures

135

TBR


Appendix J: Survey Instrument

136

TBR


1Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument

SCREENERS

137

TBR



138

TBR



139

TBR



140

TBR



141

TBR



142

TBR

©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.

Technology Business ResearchTechnology Business Research is a different kind of research company. Our bottoms-up approach provides a look at the technology industry unlike anything you’ve seen before. We analyze

company performance in professional services, networking and mobility, computing and hardware, and software on a quarterly basis, leveraging our data to create industry benchmarks and

landscapes that provide a business perspective on leaders and laggards and their business plans. We are experts in the business of technology.

“I never go into a negotiation with a vendor until I have reviewed TBR’s

quarterly reports. Understanding a vendor’s profit margin by business unit

gives me an information edge in formulating my negotiation strategy and

has saved my organization countless dollars!”

– Telecom End User

“We are using Technology Business Research’s operational metrics and

management consulting taxonomy to drive our growth strategy and

resources for our management consulting business…”

- Top 5 Global Technology Company

TBR

©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.

For more information on accessing new TBR reports please contact James McIlroy at [email protected] or at 603-758-1813

Follow our analysts on @TBRinc

Read out analysts’ commentaries at @TBRincNewsroom

Watch our recorded webinars at http://www.youtube.com/user/TBRIChannel?feature=mhee

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TBRIChannel?feature=mhee