tbr 4q10 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 –

Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010

Corporate IT Service & Support

Internal Support Organizations 1 88.0 +16 1 87.6 +16 1 88.5 +14

IBM Global/Lenovo Services 2 84.0 +5 2 84.0 +3 3 83.9 -2

Dell Services 2 83.5 +2 3 82.3 -2 2 84.7 +3

HP Services 3 82.6 -6 3 81.8 -3 3 83.3 0

OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

SUPPORT PROVIDER4Q10 TBR

RANK4Q10 WSI

SCORE

4Q10 Strength/

Weakness Points

4Q10 TBR RANK

4Q10 TBR SCORE

4Q10 Strength/

Weakness Points

Author: Julie Perron

4Q10 TBR RANK

4Q10 TBR SCORE

4Q10 Strength/

Weakness Points

Publication Date: March 21, 2011

TBR

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.3

Content

Slides and Modules

3 4Q10 Corporate Service & Support

Satisfaction At A Glance

10 4Q10 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights

11 Key Findings

16 The Score in 4Q10

19 Most Noteworthy Events - Performance

Differentiation Shifts

23 Server Support - Segment Analysis

27 Desktop/Notebook Support - Segment Analysis

31 Critical Metrics Summary

34 TBR’s Watch List

41 Historical Record

Appendices

43 Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables

76 Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores

3Q07 through 4Q10

79 Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis

for Selected Attributes

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

Attributes

92 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs

103 Appendix F: Categorical Responses

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

by Support Provider

118 Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology

126 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures

134 Appendix J: Survey Instrument

TBR

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Fourth Calendar Quarter 2010 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.

4Q10 Corporate

Service & Support Satisfaction

At A Glance

4

TBR


82.3

84.7

87.688.5

84.0 83.9

81.8

83.3

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support

4Q10 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

Ranking positions vary between server-related and desktop/notebook-related supportOnly the in-house support teams earn a double No. 1 ranking in 4Q10

Dell Services reclaims the advantage for desktop/

notebook support

•Dell Services advanced to the top OEM ranking,

with competitive strengths for response time and

hardware deployment services.

•Lenovo Services dropped to No. 3 due to the

absence of any competitive strengths, against

Dell Services’ greater performance

differentiation.

•HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking with

Lenovo due to a lack of performance

differentiation.

•The internal support teams substantially outperformed OEM support providers across nearly every category.

IBM holds leadership position for server

support

•IBM outpaced its OEM competitors by

excelling across the areas of break/fix, on-

site expertise and support services value.

•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking was the result

of competitive warnings for phone support

and support services value.

•HPS, at a shared No. 3 ranking with Dell,

was cited with competitive warnings

across the three areas of on-site support.

5

4Q10 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance

TBR


Internal support organizations extend their lead; Dell Services returns to top ranking position alongside three-time winner IGS

4Q10 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group returned to its traditional place as the

ideal against which we measure OEM support providers.

•Resumed IT hiring ensured internally managed (self) support

reclaimed its title as the best source for supporting IT

infrastructures.

•IGS’ continuing leadership among the OEM providers was enhanced

through positive customer perceptions of technical expertise and

phone support center quality. The group recorded its first win for

support services value, a key metric in the support experience.

•Dell Services advanced to a top ranking primarily due to its

substantial lead in on-site support response, yet phone support

emerges as a continuing challenge.

•HPS continued to trail competitors as a result of underperforming

across the top three areas of on-site support.

6


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

per group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT

IGS/LENOVO 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 2 -4

Weighted Satisfaction Score 88.0 84.0 83.5 82.6

Ranking 1 2 2 3

Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 1 2

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

OVERALL RESULTS

Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard TBR

TBR


IBM Support continues to outshine OEM competitors for x86 server- related support services

4Q10 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group extended its lead, substantially

outperforming OEM support providers across all but the parts

availability category.

•Obviously, in-house support teams are dependent on the efficiencies of

OEMs to deliver spare and replacement parts.

•IBM Support earned its third straight top ranking, enhanced through

competitive advantages for break/fix services, technical expertise and a

new win for support services value.

•Dell Services remained in a subordinate ranking position to IBM,

partially as a result of performing significantly behind IBM for phone

support and support services value satisfaction.

•HPS remained in the No. 3 position (alongside Dell) as a result of

continuing challenges across the areas of break/fix, on-site response and

on-site expertise.

7


The Server Support Results are based on views of IT managers/directors who 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 3 -2 -3


Ranking 1 2 3 3


x86 Server Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard

SERVER SUPPORT


TBR

TBR


Dell Services nudges out competition in desktop/notebook support

4Q10 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group extended its lead, substantially

outperforming OEM support providers across all but the parts

availability category.

•Obviously, in-house support teams are dependent on the efficiencies of

OEMs to deliver spare and replacement parts.

•Dell Services returned to a top ranking after a brief (3Q10) hiatus largely

due to its exceptional on-site support response time rating.

•Lenovo Services gave up its 3Q10 top ranking and returned to its place

behind Dell, which it held during the first two periods of 2010.

•Lenovo Services and HPS lacked differentiation, ranking behind Dell

Services largely due to Dell’s substantial competitive advantage for on-

site support response.

8


The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of IT managers/directors who 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 Avai labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration * Numeric Value 14 3 0 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3



Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 4Q10 Scorecard

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

TBR

TBR


The unbridled enthusiasm of mid-2010 settles back to the real world in 4Q10 •

Satisfaction with support services spiked

during the second quarter of 2010 and, in

many cases, shifted only modestly to the

downside in the following quarter.

•The full correction occurred during the fourth

quarter, when most satisfaction positions

returned to their first-quarter levels.

•This suggests we have witnessed an

unsustainable burst of enthusiasm around

support services provided by OEMs.

•This 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 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.


9

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

On-

site

Tech

nica

lEx

perti

se

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

edSu

ppor

t

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

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 FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS

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

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


A shift from previously perfect scores to moderately satisfied ratings drives the results of 4Q10

•Examples of customer delight (Perfect 7 ratings)

with support services were in abundance during

the second and third quarters of 2010.

•The 4Q10 reporting period scores showed an

average 40% reduction in Perfect 7 ratings

among OEM support providers’ customers.

•Some categories, e.g., support services value,

showed a nearly 60% reduction in Perfect 7

scores.

•The in-house support groups were resistant to

this trend, primarily due to resumed IT staff

hiring during the second half of 2010. This

continued to ease the burden of previously

stretched resources.


10

Where did the 7’s go? In most cases, we observed scores shifting to the left of the Perfect 7 rating – some filling in at Level-6 (very

satisfied). Yet, surprisingly, we observed many of the scores shifting all the way back to Level-5 (good). TBR did not observe an

increase in customer disappointment – this has consistently remained a non-concern throughout 2010.

-80%

-70%

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

Brea

k/Fi

x Sv

cs

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

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 V

alue

/Pric

ing

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

CHANGE IN PROPORTIONS OF DELIGHTED CUSTOMERS, 3Q10 to 4Q10Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


4Q10 Competitive Placement

Summary & Insights

11

TBR


OVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations extend their exemplary stance; IGS and Dell Services now share No. 2 rank

Factors Driving Rankings:

•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was delivered by an

inspiring set of performances, all but one

substantially outpacing the OEM support providers.

•IGS remained in the No. 2 position behind in-house

support, outperforming OEM competitors across the

areas of break/fix, on-site expertise, phone support

and support services value.

•Dell Services moved up to share the No. 2 position

with IGS, outperforming OEM competitors in the

areas of on-site response time and hardware

deployment.

•HPS remained in the No. 3 position as a result of

underperforming OEM competitors across the top

three on-site support categories.

= TBR issued competitive strength in 4Q10

= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 4Q10

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/Fix

Serv

ices

On-s

ite T

echn

ical E

xper

tise

On-s

ite R

espo

nse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk S

uppo

rt

Onlin

e Su

ppor

t

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

ware

Depl

oym

ent/

Inst

allati

on

Over

all Sa

tisfa

ction

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 reiterates its top ranking; IBM continues to rank higher than Dell and HP Services

The Context

•Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in 2009,

with WSI ratings progressively declining throughout the year, leaving no

competitor (not even the

in-house teams) immune to the trend.

•Scores for the OEM support providers weakened primarily during 2H09. As a

leading indicator for the industry, the internal support group’s scores began to

decline at least one quarter earlier. This is a clear example of the challenges

faced by organizations affected by reduced spending on new server solutions

with robust warranties, an increase in out-of-warranty systems, and a shortage

of IT staff resources due to cutbacks.

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

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

surged, 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.

4Q10 Developments

•Satisfaction score corrections in 4Q10 predominantly affected the OEM support providers, enabling

the in-house group to enhance its already substantial competitive advantage.

•IBM again retained its No. 2 status over No. 3 ranked Dell Services and HPS.

Key Findings: x86 Server Support

13

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

92.0

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

SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 3Q08 to 4Q10

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


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



14

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


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

of consistently outperforming OEM

competitors across all but the parts availability

category.

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

solid performances across the areas of

break/fix, technical expertise and support

services value.

•Dell Services maintained the No. 3 ranking, this

time underperforming OEM competitors in the

areas of phone support and support services

value.

•HPS remained in the No. 3 position as well,

underperforming OEM competitors across the

top three on-site support categories.

Key Findings: x86 Server Support

TBR


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support reclaims sole No. 1 ranking; Lenovo and Dell Services trade places

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.

•During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction with support services from Dell

Services, HP Services and Lenovo Services declined precipitously. The

internal support group took the greatest cumulative hit, however, as its

WSI ratings lost a substantial proportion of their value between 4Q08

and 4Q09.

•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.

•The pattern shifted in 3Q10, with Lenovo Services and Dell Services

exchanging positions.

15

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

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

SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 3Q08 to 4Q10

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

4Q10 Developments

•Satisfaction score corrections in 4Q10 predominantly affected the OEM support providers, enabling the in-

house group to rise to its first singular No. 1 ranking since 1Q09.

•Lenovo Services’ WSI score corrected by a greater magnitude than that of Dell Services, resulting in Dell

narrowly overtaking the lead. Nonetheless, the OEM support provider competition in the desktop/notebook

support segment was extremely tight.

Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support

TBR


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges out competition by virtue of its on-site response time rating



16


•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 largely the result of one key win:

substantially outperforming OEM competitors for

on-site response time.

•No. 3 ranked Lenovo Services and HPS lacked

performance differentiation; they ranked behind

Dell Services essentially due to their significantly

lower on-site support response time ratings.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

Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support

TBR


Internal organizations reassert themselves as the ideal support experience Dell Services moves up to share the top OEM provider ranking with IGS; IGS brings in its third straight top ranking

Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 4% correction• A substantial drop in support services value

satisfaction was a leading factor.HPS’ WSI shifted back by 4.7%• Declining positions were led by support

services value and on-site response time.IGS’ WSI corrected by 5%• On-site response time was the leading

factor.Internal support was most resistant to downward trends – WSI adjusted by just 1.5%• None of the group’s individual satisfaction

metrics declined significantly.

•The exuberance of the previous two reporting periods ultimately maxed out for the OEM support providers in

4Q10.

•The varying levels of correction dictated ranking position assignments as follows:

•In-house support teams were the lone exception to broadly correcting satisfaction positions – No. 1 status

enhanced.

•Dell Services was the least compromised of the OEM support providers, rising to a No. 2 ranking.

•IGS’ WSI gave up the largest proportion of its value; while its ranking position remained constant, it was

forced to share with Dell Services.

•HPS, in the middle, remained in the No. 3 ranking position.

The Score in 4Q10

17

89.388.088.4

84.0

86.7

82.6

86.9

83.5

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

92.0

3Q10 4Q10

4Q10 VERSUS 3Q10 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION RATINGS AND RANKS

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

3 3

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

1

33

21

22

3

TBR


Varying levels of correcting scores in 4Q10 defines the competitive line-upDell Services’ scores declined by the smallest magnitude of the OEM support providers, with an average 3.7% decline against an average 4.6% between HPS and IGS. This helped Dell Services recover from a

previous competitive warning for online support and a weakness for remotely managed support.

•The most noteworthy development with respect to Dell Services was its comparatively more stable on-site response time rating, leading TBR to award Dell with a competitive strength.

HPS’ score shifts were often between the magnitudes of Dell Services and IGS; there were no developments that affected HPS’ areas of competitive warning (break/fix, on-site expertise) and weakness (on-

site support).

IGS’ scores declined most notably relative to on-site response time, resulting in TBR lifting its previous competitive strength and handing it over to Dell Services.

•Two new competitive strengths emerged for IGS (support services value and phone support) as the result of its scores declining by lesser magnitudes than competitors.

The Score in 4Q10

• The in-house support groups were most resistant to the

trend of broadly declining satisfaction positions that

affected the OEM support providers.

• Scores declined an average of just 1.3% against the OEM

provider average of 4.3%.

• With the easing of the recession and increased IT staff

hiring, the group has returned to its traditional place in

TBR’s study as the yardstick against which we measure

all else.

18

-9%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforce the 4Q10 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.

•At No. 2, IGS earned competitive strengths across four

categories, two of which were new – phone support and

support services value. IGS’ position weakened from that of

the previous reporting period, having lost possession of

strengths for on-site response time and online support.

•Dell Services, also at No. 2, earned two new competitive

strengths and one competitive warning for phone support.

Dell also recovered from two previous challenges – for online

and remotely managed support.

•HPS’ No. 3 ranking was substantiated by the continuation of

its three challenges in the areas of on-site support.

The Score in 4Q10

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 CONSTANT

On-site Technical Expertise * CONSTANT

On-site Response Time/Commitment CONTRACTING

Telephone/Helpdesk Support * EXPANDING

Online Support CONTRACTING

Remotely Managed Support CONTRACTING

Replacement Parts Availability CONSTANT

Support Services Pricing/Value * EXPANDING

Hardware Installation/Configuration * CONSTANT

Numeric Value 16 5 2 -4


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. * The determination was marginal.

CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 3Q10

TBR

TBR

TBR

TBR

TBR


On-site response time remains a leading performance differentiator, shifting to favor Dell Services in lieu of IGS

In 3Q10, mean ratings for IGS and the in-house group were significantly

higher than average, with HPS significantly lower. By 4Q10, the in-house

group’s continued possession of a competitive strength was assured.

IGS’ score declined by the greatest magnitude, resulting in its loss of the

competitive strength. Dell Services, whose score declined by the lowest

magnitude, landed in a position significantly higher than HPS and IGS,

and a competitive strength was issued. HPS continued to score lower

than average, with a competitive weakness assigned.

Dell Services earned a competitive strength by receiving fewer

Level-5 ratings than competitors in 4Q10, while the in-house

group earned the fewest Level-5 ratings and substantially more

Perfect 7 ratings against the competition. HPS’ scores were

more spread out, with more <5 ratings and fewer 7 scores than

competitors. Note that, with the exception of internal support,

satisfaction positions shifted away from the top levels of the

scale and filled in with an increase in Level-5 ratings between

3Q10 and 4Q10.

Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts

20

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%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

3Q10 4Q10

TBR


Phone support differentiation expands, now favoring IGS over Dell Services

In 3Q10, the in-house group scored significantly higher than a

fairly comparable group of OEM support providers for phone

support. Scores collectively declined in 4Q10, by modestly

varying degrees – Dell Services by 3.2%, HPS by 3%, IGS by 2.6%.

These modest differences in rate of decline were enough to cause

profound changes, with Dell Services scoring significantly lower

and IGS significantly higher than average. TBR awarded both the

in-house group and IGS with strengths and Dell Services with a

warning.

Between 3Q10 and 4Q10, the OEM support

providers’ scores gained Level-5 ratings at the

expense of previous 6 and 7 ratings. Dell

Services, in particular, had a higher number of

scores below 6 in 4Q10. The in-house group

continued to rack up the largest proportion of

Perfect 7 ratings.


21

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORTBY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

3Q10 4Q10

TBR


Support services value differentiation expands with IGS earning its first competitive strength

In 3Q10, all four support providers’ services value

satisfaction ratings were comparable. Scores for the three

OEM support providers declined by between 4.7% (IGS)

and 5.7% (Dell Services) in 4Q10. These small differences

were enough for IGS to score significantly higher than HPS

and Dell Services. IGS’ scores were also less spread out,

enabling it to grab its first competitive strength.

Distributions of scores broke apart in 4Q10

relative to the OEM support providers. IGS

earned a greater number of Level-6 and fewer

Level-5 ratings than competitors.


22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

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

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

3Q10 4Q10

TBR


Online support performances merge for the OEM support providers in 4Q10

In 3Q10, IGS’ mean online support satisfaction rating was

higher than average, and Dell Services’ lower than average.

The in-house group’s scores were significantly higher than

all three OEMs. By 4Q10, Dell Services’ mean score

declined by the smallest magnitude, and IGS’ by the

greatest. As a result, TBR removed both IGS’ competitive

strength and Dell Services’ warning.

IGS’ and HPS’ scores shifted to the left in 4Q10 by

giving up a fair number of previous Levels 6 and 7

ratings, filled in by an increase in Level-5 ratings.


23

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



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

3Q10 4Q10

TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 4Q10 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 fortified by adding two new competitive strengths.

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

OEM support provider competition. This was enhanced through three

competitive strengths, including a new one for support services value.

•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM Support was partially due to two

new competitive warnings, in the areas of phone support and support

services value.

•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking with Dell Services, with two

continuing and one new (technical expertise) competitive warnings.

Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis

What Changed in 4Q10:

•The internal support organizations’ performances continued to improve, outperforming competitors across all but one category (parts availability).

•While IBM retained its No. 2 ranking over OEM support provider competitors, it did not carry over two strengths from the previous period – response time and online support.

•Both IBM and Dell Services brought in a mixture of improving competitive positions (blue boxes) and weakening ones (yellow boxes). In the end, this changed nothing in terms of ranking position alignment.

24

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 3 -2 -3


Ranking 1 2 3 3


1 2 2

SOURCE: TBR

Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server


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, the exceptions being

remotely managed and online support and hardware

deployment services.

•IBM Support outperformed competitors across most

categories, and notably within the single most critical

category, break/fix services.

•Dell Services and HPS had challenges within their own

respective areas, resulting in a draw reflected by the

closeness of their WSI ratings.

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 84.0 1

Dell Services 82.3 2HP Services 81.8 2

TBR splits responses based on the 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.


25

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

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


In 4Q10, server support satisfaction ratings collectively decline by modestly variable magnitudes; ranking positions remain

constant

•In many cases, degrees by which mean scores corrected were

fairly comparable across the three OEM support providers.

•IBM Support satisfaction positions held up modestly better

than those of the competition. This condition helped IBM add

a key competitive strength in 4Q10 – for support services

value.

•As IBM Support was already a No. 1 ranked support provider

in 3Q10, there were no changes in ranking position

assignments in 4Q10.

•Dell Services added two new competitive warnings in 4Q10 as

a result of score corrections that outpaced those of the

competition.

•HPS gained a new competitive warning for technical expertise

as a result of a score declining by a greater magnitude than

those of the competition.

LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, 3Q10 to 4Q10

% Change, WSI Score

Dell Services -4.8%

HP Services -5.0%

IBM Services -4.2%


26

-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%

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

3Q10 to 4Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Some negative GAP positions re-emerge in 4Q10 as a result of declining satisfaction scores

As of 4Q10, server support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than they had 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.


27

-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 4Q10 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

28

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

addition of five new competitive strengths. In 4Q10, the group earned competitive

strengths across all but the parts availability category.

•Dell Services advanced to the No. 2 ranking, assisted by both the addition of new

competitive strengths and recovery from previous warnings.

•Lenovo Services dropped from No. 2 to No. 3 as a result of its inability to carry over

four specific competitive strengths from the previous period.

•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking, this time with Lenovo Services in lieu of Dell

Services. HPS was largely improved, recovering from two competitive warnings

issued in 3Q10.

What Changed in 4Q10:

•The internal support organizations’ performances continued to improve, outperforming competitors across all but one category (parts availability).

•Lenovo Services and Dell Services switched ranking positions due to weakening performances of the former against strengthening performances of the latter.

•HPS was mildly improved yet remained in a subordinate ranking position.

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 14 3 0 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3


1 2 2

SOURCE: TBR


Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook TBR

TBR


Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking over competitors is driven largely by

its on-site support response time rating

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 84.7 1Lenovo Services 83.9 2HP Services 83.3 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.

•Desktop/notebook support customers attribute

relatively high importance to on-site support response

time.

•Dell Services’ score for on-site support response

satisfaction was substantially higher than average. The

combination of high importance with high satisfaction

provided for a higher-than-average WSI rating for Dell

Services in 4Q10.

•Both Lenovo Services and HPS came up neutral in 4Q10

– no particular challenges outside of a similar one in that

Dell Services outperformed them with respect to on-site

response time.


29

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

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


In 4Q10, desktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings collectively decline by varying magnitudes; Dell Services benefits by

being

the least affected

LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SATISFACTION, 3Q10 to 4Q10

% Change, WSI Score

Dell Services -2.9%

HP Services -4.5%

Lenovo Services -5.6%

•Because previously No. 1 ranked Lenovo Services’ scores declined

by the greatest magnitude, and Dell Services by the least, the two

traded ranking positions in 4Q10.

•Lenovo Services gave up several previous competitive strengths

due to the larger magnitude of its declining scores against industry

averages. Most noteworthy among these was its on-site support

response rating.

•Dell Services added new competitive strengths, most notably on-

site response time, by maintaining more consistent ratings against

the previous quarter than competitors. In a similar fashion, Dell

Services recovered from previous warnings for online and

remotely managed support.

•HPS recovered from previous warnings for break/fix services and

technical expertise as a result of Lenovo Services’ more

significantly declining ratings.


30

-12%-10%

-8%-6%-4%-2%0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%

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

3Q10 to 4Q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Some negative GAP positions re-emerge in 4Q10 as a result of declining satisfaction scores


31

As of 4Q10, desktop/notebook support providers must improve their abilities to meet customer expectations, as customers are scrutinizing support services more than they had in the previous three

quarters of 2010. Some wide GAP scores that affected various competitors more than others included phone support for HPS, on-site support response time for HPS and Lenovo Services, and parts

availability for Lenovo Services. Note that Dell Services, the No. 1 ranked competitor, was more capable of effectively meeting customer expectations than competitors.

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

Break/Fix Services


On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support


Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability


STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Vital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction CompetitionDell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

4Q10 Ranking 2 2 3 1

4Q10 Ranking, OEM support providers 1 1 2 N/A

Rank change vs. 3Q10 +1 0 0 0

4Q10 WSI 83.5 84.0 82.6 88.0

WSI change vs. 3Q10 -4% -5% -4.7% -1.5%

Rationale for Ranking Positions

WSI placement; proximity to IGS WSI;

fewer warnings/no weaknesses vs. HPS

WSI placement; proximity to Dell Services WSI;

competitive strengths

WSI placement vs. Dell Services & IGS; two

warnings and one full competitive weakness

WSI placement

Competitive StrengthsOn-site response time (New; Full); Hardware

deployment (New; Marginal)

Break/fix (Continuing; Full); Expertise

(Continuing; Marginal); Phone support (New;

Marginal); Value (New; Marginal). On-site

response time and online support strengths from

3Q10 rescinded

None

All except for parts availability; New competitive strengths in 4Q10 included

expertise and support services value

Competitive Weaknesses

New warning for phone support None

Break/fix and expertise (Continuing; Warnings); On-site response time

(Accelerated to Full Weakness)

None

Significant Movement, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10

Exceptions to significantly declining

positions include parts availability, hardware deployment, remotely

managed

Exceptions to rule include phone support, parts

availability

Exceptions to rule include phone support,

parts availabilityNo positions declined by 3%

or greater

Critical Metrics Summary

32

TBR


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

Server Support WSI & Ranking 82.3 No. 3 84.0 No. 2 81.8 No. 3 87.6 No. 1

Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking 84.7 No. 2 83.9 No. 3 83.3 No. 3 88.5 No. 1

Server Support Competitive Profile

Two warnings – phone support, value

Three strengths – break/fix, expertise, &

value

Three 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,

hardware deployment (marginal)

All neutral ratings All neutral ratingsStrengths across all

categories except for parts availability

Significant Movement, Server Segment, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10

[WSI -4.8%] All but remotely managed and hardware deployment

down significantly

[WSI -4.2%] Break/fix, on-site expertise & response time, and

online support down significantly

[WSI -5%] All but remotely managed support down

significantly

[WSI -2.7%] Parts availability was the only category having declined

significantly

Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 4Q10 vs. 3Q10

[WSI -2.9%] Break/fix and overall value

declined significantly

[WSI -5.6%] All but phone support and

parts availability declined significantly

[WSI -4.5%] All but phone support and parts availability

declined significantly[WSI -0.2%] All positions

remained constant


Vital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition

33

TBR


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

Summary Statement

Dell Services reclaimed its No. 1 ranking status over OEM competitors in the desktop/notebook segment after a brief hiatus. TBR sees Dell’s on-site support response time performances as noteworthy, earning competitive strengths in five of the past seven reporting periods. It has been this key dynamic that has historically been behind Dell’s wins in the desktop/notebook support segment. Greater challenges are clear in the server support segment, particularly with respect to phone support, a finding reflected in TBR’s 4Q10 x86-based Server Customer Satisfaction Study as well.

IBM Support continues to demonstrate services excellence in the server support segment, winning its third straight No. 1 ranking over OEM competitors. Concepts including technical expertise tend to flesh out IBM’s status in this competition. In 4Q10, IBM earned its first competitive strength for support services value, a key dynamic in this competition. Lenovo Services faced some challenges in 4Q10, directly from Dell Services and exclusively associated with on-site response time. Outside of this one category, however, it was a very close competition for desktop/notebook support.

While HPS has made some progress during the past year, particularly with respect to phone, online and remotely managed support, it continues to be overshadowed by more energized competitors in on-site support. HPS continues to be outperformed across all three areas of on-site support, though primarily on the server support side of the study. The key challenge area for HPS remains on-site support response time, where a previous warning was downgraded to a full weakness in 4Q10.

The internal support group reclaimed its traditional position as the ideal against which we measure the OEM support providers in this study. 4Q10 scores remained constant in an environment where the OEM support groups’ scores collectively declined by substantial magnitudes. The singular area where in-house support does not dominate the competition is one in which the group is dependent on OEMs – replacement parts availability.

Bottom Line

With respect to this competition, it would appear we have travelled full circle, back to a more realistic representation of normal operations. The mood in 2009 was dictated by reduced spending on new hardware and IT staff, and probably lapsed warranties that were not renewed, placing a great strain on infrastructure support services. The temperament throughout most of 2010 was quite the contrary – new hardware with fresh warranties flooding into the corporation drove a level of enthusiasm never before seen in this study. In most cases, these antithetical moods cancelled one another out and by 4Q10, satisfaction levels returned to where we would expect to see them. Among the most intriguing developments is the return of the in-house support group as the model for support excellence. The OEM support providers are now tasked with finding a place to contribute and differentiate within companies that are currently quite self sufficient.

Vital Statistics – 4Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition


34

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.

35

TBR


Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; phone support remains a recurring concern

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Citation Placement

Improve-ments GAP

% Change versus 3Q10

Long-term Trends

Segments Affected, 4Q10

Strength/ Weakness Status

Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes

Phone Support

Significantly lower than industry average in server segment, 95% confidence; below IBM 90% confidence

Well Below Average

-5% against competitors’ average -4% in server segment

Scores remain volatile, lacking consistency, currently on downward path

Server Support

New competitive warning issued in server segment

27% reduction in customer delight; disappointment creeping up from 3.5% in 3Q10 to 7% in 4Q10

While disappointment remains a minor concern in 4Q10, in the context of the competitive field, 7% dissatisfaction for Dell Services’ phone support is considerable as competitors are at 3% to 4%. The more significant issue is a greater proportion of middling Level-5 ratings for Dell Services, against competitors more likely to have received 6’s.


Significantly below industry average in server segment at 90%; below IBM at 99% confidence

Average -6.8% in server segment vs. competitors’ average -4%

Completely erased gains of first three periods of 2010

Server Support


Customer delight reduced by 52%; disappointment up slightly from 1% to 3% yet essentially a non-issue

With IBM grabbing its very first competitive strength for support services value, Dell Services has a significant challenge on its hands to regain what has been historically its territory.

36

TBR


Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; phone support remains a recurring concern

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Removed from Watch List

Progress has been made with respect to both online and remotely managed support, where Dell Services recovered from competitive warnings issued in the 3Q10 study wave. These challenges affected Dell in both the server and desktop/notebook support segments. In 4Q10, Dell Services’ scores were resistant to downward trends that more commonly affected competitors. However, TBR cautions that Dell must take into account that these concerns may not have entirely disappeared from the radar screen. We continued to observe a relatively high number of scores in the disappointed range – 9% for online support and 8% for remotely managed support. Self support remains an area that is difficult for any support provider to monitor, particularly when they do not gain access to customer feedback, perhaps, as readily as they do with respect to phone support.

Behind the Scenes

A recent reorganization of Dell Services, designed to improve efficiencies and enhance the customer relationship focus, includes the designation of new president of Dell Services, Steve Schuckenbrock. This new leadership, along with an associated reorganization of Dell’s Public and Large Enterprise units into a single one focused on the similar needs of these customers, is expected to bring Dell closer to its customers. This should aid in setting customer expectations and better managing Dell’s response while increasing customer awareness of Dell’s support contract features and encouraging utilization.

Dell’s ProSupport portfolio was simplified in late 2010, combining what were previously two separate offerings – one designed for IT managers and the other for end users. From there, customers can select from a menu of customized solutions that assist with specific customer requirements, such as enterprisewide support, multivendor support, medical archiving, etc. Dell’s ability to communicate to customers the benefits of both its ProSupport and Basic Hardware warranty service offerings will be critical in this competition where technical support is becoming a potential brand differentiator.

37

TBR


HP Services continues to face challenges regarding on-site supportTBR’s Watch List: HPS

Citation Placement

Improve-ments GAP


Long-term Trends





Significantly below industry average and IBM at 95% confidence in server segment; below Dell at 98% confidence in desktop notebook segment

Well Below Average

-4.6% vs. competitors’ average -6% in server segment; -6.4% vs. Dell’s -2.8% in desktop notebook segment

Fully corrected for gains of first three periods of 2010; remaining outlier for past four periods

Both segments


Delight reduced by 55%; disappointment also down, from 5% to 3%

This is a challenge area for HPS within both segments of the study – against IBM in the server support segment and against Dell in the desktop/ notebook segment. It has been a fairly consistent challenge throughout 2010.

Technical Expertise

Significantly lower than IBM at 99% in server segment; trending behind Dell in desktop notebook segment

Just Above Average

-7.1% in server segment against competitors’ average -6%; -3% in desktop notebook segment, comparable to that of Dell

Following similar pattern to competitors yet remaining the outlier for the past four periods

Both segments

Continued competitive warning in server segment

Customer delight down by 52%; disappointment remains a non- issue

While it was not an issue of customer disappointment, HPS was outperformed by IBM, in particular, in terms of higher level (generally 6) scores.

38

TBR


HP Services is challenged with creating greater customer enthusiasm in both segments, predominantly with its on-site support services

TBR’s Watch List: HPS

Citation Placement

Improve-ments GAP


Long-term Trends




Break/Fix Significantly behind IBM at 99% confidence in server segment; trending behind Dell in desktop notebook segment

Excels -5.4%, comparable to competitors in server segment; -4% in desktop notebook segment against competitors’ average -5%

4Q10 score corrected from gains of previous three periods

Both segments, but server segment most significantly

Continued warning in server segment

Customer delight reduced by 55%, a considerably greater magnitude than that among competitors

A lack of customer enthusiasm remains the issue.

Behind the Scenes

In December 2010, HP announced its Next Generation Customer Support Experience for its server customers, a set of enhanced support services built around advanced automation and mobility technology for proactive support. Some of the features include advanced, 24/7 remote monitoring with automated diagnostics, a direct link to top HP services professionals, a new support portal, entitlement-based access to HP system updates, and guaranteed use of exclusively HP genuine replacement parts. With these enhancements, HP has endeavored to make the support experience more personalized and proactive.

HP PSG has been investing in higher-level support options for its premium (Elite) line of commercial laptops and desktops. By recognizing the need for a higher services value proposition for customers of the Elite brand, HP has taken an important step in this competition where Dell and Lenovo have already offered such premium services in the desktop/notebook support space.

39

TBR


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

TBR’s Watch List: IGS

40

Citation Placement

Improve-ments GAP


Long-term Trends





Comparable to Dell in server segment; significantly behind Dell at 99% confidence in desktop notebook segment

Well Below Average

-6.3%, comparable to Dell in server segment; -10% and worst-in-class against competitors’ average -4.5% in desktop notebook segment

Gains of first three periods of 2010 erased; Dell fared much better

Mainly desktop notebook (Lenovo)

Lost 3Q10 competitive strength in server segment; Lenovo’s loss was Dell’s gain in desktop notebook segment

55% reduction in customer delight, yet disappointment is down to 0%

IBM was able to maintain No. 1 status in the server segment by replacing this competitive advantage with others. Lenovo allowed Dell to wrest its previous advantage in the desktop notebook segment away. It is a concern worth monitoring, considering its high level of importance.

Online Support

Trending lower than industry average in server segment; comparable to Dell in desktop notebook segment

Well Below Average

-4.8%, comparable to competitors’ average, in server segment; -5.6% vs. Dell’s -2.7% in desktop notebook segment

Same as above; lost competitive advantages of previous three reporting periods

Mainly desktop notebook (Lenovo)

Lost previous competitive strengths in both segments

67% reduction in customer delight; while disappointment crept up from 1.8% to 2.8%, it was impressive against competitors’ averages of 7% to 9%

A lapse in customer enthusiasm was the culprit here. Online support, in conjunction with phone support, are the trademarks of both IBM and Lenovo Services. Both need to be aware of Dell’s improving positions.

TBR


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

TBR’s Watch List: IGS

41

Behind the Scenes

While IBM’s support services have consistently been received positively, Lenovo has begun a program that may change its current challenges and perhaps lead to shifts in customer perception. Lenovo’s new Partner Services Program was developed to encourage resellers to understand how to sell Lenovo Priority Support and gives them the ability to bundle an on-site upgrade with the products they sell. The Lenovo Services Sales Support Center was designed as a single point of contact where resellers can learn more about the benefits of Lenovo support services. This serves as a key requirement for sales teams to understand what they are selling and how they can present the value proposition effectively to customers so they can utilize the benefits.

TBR


Dell Services continues to hold the record for number of wins since the study’s inception, though IGS/Lenovo holds the record for wins during the past three years•

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

No. 1 support provider for 32 of 42 reporting periods.

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

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

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

five periods.

Historical Record

•Half of HPS’ 12 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive

No. 1 rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win being 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 to the present.

•Of the 22 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’ 7 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.

42

32

1222

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 42-reporting-period History Beginning

3Q00)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 Total # Wins

Dell Services 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 7HP Services 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 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

Historical Record

•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:

•Six consecutive strengths for break/fix services for IGS

•Three straight competitive strengths for online support

for IGS

•Four straight strengths for on-site response time for

Dell Services from 2Q09 through 1Q10, returning in

4Q10

•Warnings or weaknesses in six of the past seven periods

for HPS for on-site support response time

•A recurring pattern of scattered wins for phone support

for IGS

43

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

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 4Q10

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

PHONE SUPPORT

ONLINE SUPPORT

HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

TBR

TBR


Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables

44

TBR


Dell Services extends advantages over HPSUnderstanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions

With Dell Services’ WSI losing less of its value than did HPS, competitive

comparisons fell increasingly into Dell’s favor in 4Q10. In particular, Dell

Services closed the performance gap favoring HPS in 3Q10 for remotely

managed support.

Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of declining mean ratings between Dell

Services and HPS. The exceptions included hardware deployment and remotely

managed support, where Dell Services’ scores held up far better than did those of

HPS.

45

-9%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

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 4Q10 VS. 3Q10

Dell Services HP Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-7%

-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, 4Q10 VS.3Q10

Dell to HP Distance 3Q10 Dell to HP Distance 4Q10

DellAdvantage Areas

HP Advantage Areas

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Dell Services makes some progress in evening the score against IGS

The most noteworthy development in 4Q10 involved a new competitive

advantage for Dell Services over IGS for on-site response time where IGS had

previously been favored. Additionally, Dell Services’ scores began to bridge

the gaps against IGS for on-site expertise and online support. It is an

interesting development, however, that IGS strengthened its advantage over

Dell Services for the manner in which its customers perceive services value.

IGS’ mean ratings for on-site response time and expertise declined by greater

magnitude than did those of Dell Services, accounting for the shifting

comparisons described above.

Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions

46

-9%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

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, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10

Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

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, 4Q10 VS.3Q10

Dell to IGS Distance 3Q10 Dell to IGS Distance 4Q10DellAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


IGS continues to generally outperform HPS, while HPS manages to narrow some performance gaps

IGS continued to outperform HPS by significant margins across

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

moving significantly ahead for support services value. IGS,

however, did not continue to outperform HPS with respect to on-

site response time.

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

significantly greater magnitude than did that of HPS, hence the

eradication of a previously compelling performance gap.

Understanding the 4Q10 Ranking Positions

47

-9%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

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, 4Q10 VS. 3Q10

HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

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

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, 4Q10 VS.3Q10

HP to IGS Distance 3Q10 HP to IGS Distance 4Q10

HPSAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

89.0

91.0

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

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, 1Q08 through 4Q10

Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

Service and support satisfaction positions improve substantially in 2010, followed by an expected fourth quarter correction

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.

•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 high points being established by all four

competitors by 3Q10.

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

satisfaction scores corrected in 4Q10, primarily affecting the OEM support

providers.

48

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

Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 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, the in-house group moved substantially ahead of the

OEM support providers, harking back to the patterns we were

accustomed to seeing before the unusual shifts observed in 2009

and most of 2010.

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

49

76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM3Q05 THROUGH 4Q10


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

76.078.080.082.084.086.088.090.0

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM3Q05 THROUGH 4Q10, 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

4Q10 Developments:

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

services value, but the past four to five reporting periods suggest this trend may be changing; both IGS and HPS have closed

and consistently maintained the gap between expectation and satisfaction during these periods.

•In 4Q10, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs corrected and dropped back to align closely with expectations following one

to two previous periods where satisfaction exceeded expectation.

•IGS earned its first competitive strength in 4Q10; note how its satisfaction score has exceeded expectations since late 2009.

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.

50

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


Relaxing expectations for on-site response enable support providers to narrow gaps; however, HPS has been the least successful over time

4Q10 Developments:

•Satisfaction scores declined by greater magnitudes than relaxing expectations, leaving gaps that

were not evident in the previous reporting period.

•Dell Services fared the best, its GAP rating within the acceptable range while both competitors’

scores fell well outside.


51

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


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

Support providers continue to effectively meet customer expectations for expertise

4Q10 Developments:

•While satisfaction scores corrected in 4Q10, all three OEM support providers were able to keep the gaps against

customer expectation under control.

Satisfaction around

perceived technical

expertise was the hardest

hit of all categories during

2009. Satisfaction levels in

2010, however, represented

a full recovery.


52

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 stabilize

4Q10 Developments:•

Customer expectations for basic break/fix services continued to relax

(Dell Services, HPS) or stabilize (IGS).

•The small corrections within the satisfaction scores, subsequently, had

no particular consequences with respect to GAP scores.

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.


53

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


IGS most consistently meets customer expectations for phone support


Customer expectations for phone support continued to rise by varying

degrees while satisfaction positions corrected.•

Subsequently, all three OEM support providers’ GAP scores were only

marginally within the acceptable range.•

Should this new trend of steadily rising expectations continue, the

support providers will be challenged to keep pace.

Historically, 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.


54

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 vacillate; trend lines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell performances


Satisfaction positions collectively corrected, resulting in modestly negative GAP positions (though well

within acceptable ranges) not ordinarily observed in this competition.


55

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

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Replacement parts availability is consistently a critical element of the support experience, where substantial progress in meeting high expectations has been achieved


Correcting satisfaction positions resulted in a return to negative GAP scores after they had been

temporarily closed in previous reporting periods.


56

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

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

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ positions correct in 4Q10, yet remain well above past-year starting positions

Trends of the Reporting Period

•Dell Services’ satisfaction positions were generally

at their highest levels in 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10.

•4Q10 positions corrected from their record high

points of the previous period, yet generally stayed

above 1Q10 positions.

•Exceptions included phone and online support,

where 4Q10 positions relapsed to 1Q10 positions.

•WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –4%

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

•Comparatively stable positions included parts availability, hardware deployment and remotely managed support

57

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 ANALYSIS1Q10 TO 4Q10

1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS performances adjust back to 2Q10 levels, substantially higher than those at the start of 2010

•HPS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their highest

levels in 3Q10, their lowest in 1Q10.

•4Q10 positions corrected from their record high points of

the previous period, yet stayed well above 1Q10 positions.

•There were no exceptions.


58

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 ANALYSIS1Q10 TO 4Q10


TBR

•WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –4.7%

•Led by significantly declining support services value, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction

•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and parts availability

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ scores generally correct back to 2Q10 levels

•IGS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their

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

•4Q10 positions corrected from their record high

points of the previous period, yet stayed above 1Q10

positions.

•Exceptions included online and remotely managed

support, where 4Q10 scores lapsed all the way back

to 1Q10 levels.


59

•WSI Rating Shift, 3Q10 to 4Q10: –5%

•Led by significantly declining on-site response time and technical expertise satisfaction

•Comparatively stable positions included phone support and parts availability

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

Tec

hnic

al E

xper

tise

On-

site

Res

pons

e Ti

me

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

Valu

e

Har

dwar

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 ANALYSIS1Q10 TO 4Q10


TBR

TBR


Recommended areas for targeted improvements for Dell Services include all aspects of initial contact

•Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support, Online Support

•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Remotely Managed Support

•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services

Improvements GAP Analyses

60

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 4Q10

Recommended Actions

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


HP Services’ analysis points to strongly recommended improvement programs around on-site response time, phone and web support•

Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site Response Time, Online Support

•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support

•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services (HPS’ highest score comparatively, despite a significantly lower-than-average rating against competitors)


61

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 4Q10

Recommended Actions

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


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

Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site Response Time, Online Support

•Secondary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support (driven by high expectations, as IGS earned a competitive strength in 4Q10 due to significantly higher-than-average satisfaction rating)



62

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 4Q10

Recommended Actions

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


The in-house group, like its competition, must increase its focus on phone and online support

•Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone Support, Online Support



63

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORTORGANIZATIONS 4Q10

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

Recommended Actions

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site break/fix maintenance, parts availability and on-site support drive support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization

Selection Criteria – Stated

•Critical: Parts availability, break/fix services

•Also Important: On-site expertise and response

time

•Somewhat Important: Phone support, support

services value, online support

•Less Important: Hardware deployment, remotely

managed support

64

3.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.44.64.8

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

eIn

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

SERVICE & SUPPORT IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY CUSTOMER GROUP

Dell HP IBM InHouse

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

Customer expectations within the IGS group were significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation where 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 generally favoring IGS and Internal SupportTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test

Scoring Summary – Significance Tests

4Q10 Developments:

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

standard-setter, outperforming industry averages across most categories –

parts availability being the single exception.

•Dell Services’ results were a mixture of positives and negatives, though only

one was at the 95% confidence level – a substantially higher-than-average on-

site response time rating.

65

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 and support services value – all favoring IGS over HPS and Dell Services.

The key performance differentiator in the desktop/notebook support space was on-site

response time, where Dell Services outperformed the industry average while Lenovo

underperformed.


66

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

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 support

services value.

•IGS significantly outperformed HPS for break/fix services and

technical expertise; Dell Services for phone support.

•Dell Services outperformed both competitors for on-site

response time, though the confidence was higher against HPS.

•HPS’ grand mean satisfaction rating was significantly lower than

those of both competitors at high levels of statistical confidence.


67

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


Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction

Grand Mean

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

68

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 basic break/fix (IGS > HPS),

support services value (IGS > Dell) and on-site response time (Dell over HPS).

Statistical Significance Tests

69

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

Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over ALL; IGS over HP 3 -1 -2 0On-site Technical Expertise Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0

On-site Response Time/CommitmentInternal over ALL; Dell over HP 3 0 -2 -1

Telephone/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 -1

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

Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over ALL; IGS over Dell 3 -2 -1 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0

25 -9 -11 -5SOURCE: TBR

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction

Total Points

TBR

TBR

TBR


In the server/storage support segment, the internal

support organizations were confirmed as having

outperformed various competitors across all categories

designated by the previous tests. In addition, IBM

outperformed HPS 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 phone support 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

70

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

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

22 -8 -10 -3

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 Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, Lenovo 3 1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Online Support Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -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 Dell, Lenovo 2 -1 0 -1

19 -5 -5 -7

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 internal support on the

competitive strength and weakness citations

for the 4Q10 reporting period.

The internal support group’s scores were so

high that they skewed the remainder of the

analysis, making it difficult for OEM support

providers to earn scores above the 100-point

marker.

The test does, however, corroborate warnings

and weaknesses assigned to HPS, for the top

three categories of break/fix services, on-site

expertise and on-site response time.

71

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 4Q10


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 customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and on-site support by an OEM or partner.

•TBR observed a fair number of customers who primarily self replace, using third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.

•This pattern largely has remained constant during the past year, with an average of 75% of respondent indicating so.

•Note: TBR observed a higher-than-average proportion of those primarily self-replacing within both the IBM Support and Lenovo Services customer groups.

72

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

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 a mixture of self-replacement and

on-site support

•While one-third or more of customers indicate they are

most satisfied with self-replacement of failed parts, the

majority prefer a mixture of CRU (Customer

Replaceable Units) and on-site (Field Replaceable

Units). The proper mix by part type clearly yields the

highest satisfaction levels.

•Customers are least satisfied with on-site support

provided by an OEM, authorized or third-party

provider.

•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

73

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

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

•Note: HPS customers (both server and desktop/notebook) were less satisfied than competitors’ customers with on-site repair

provided by their OEM.

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 indicated they face issues with the difficulty of replacing some parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. For the OEMs, this could entail product design issues and/or

the need for improved documentation, but also it strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support.

•Note: In-house support customers indicated they are less challenged than OEM support customers with difficulty of replacing parts, suggesting their staffs are currently up to the task levels.

•On the server support side, IBM Support customers indicated they are more challenged with parts availability and less so with staff resources than competitors’ customers.

Buying Behavior

74

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

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, Dell continues to demonstrate a somewhat larger proportion of

customers indicating they have premium support contracts vs. the competition.

HPS appears to be somewhat behind the competition with respect to premium-level

support contracts for desktop/notebook customers. Dell appears to be trailing with

respect to the sales of extended warranties.

Buying Behavior

75

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

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services In House

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 In House

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

76

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP BY MAJOR PC BRANDS

Dell HP IBM/Lenovo

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores –

3Q07 Through 4Q10

77

TBR


Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

3Q07 Through 4Q10

78

BREAK/FIX SERVICES3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10

Dell Services & Partners 5.88 5.86 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92 6.25 6.47 6.14HP Services & Partners 5.86 5.88 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94 6.24 6.34 6.04IGS & Partners 6.13 6.09 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09 6.35 6.58 6.23Internal Support Organizations 6.07 6.18 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75 6.12 6.57 6.47ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.80 5.84 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52 5.95 6.31 6.00HP Services & Partners 5.86 5.93 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24 5.86 6.20 5.88IGS & Partners 5.97 6.06 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38 6.02 6.45 6.04Internal Support Organizations 6.06 6.13 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47 5.88 6.27 6.20ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.90 5.70 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63 5.84 6.12 5.85HP Services & Partners 5.65 5.69 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15 5.56 5.96 5.63IGS & Partners 5.92 5.94 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45 5.85 6.22 5.71Internal Support Organizations 6.22 6.27 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76 6.12 6.37 6.30TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.58 5.44 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64 5.84 5.81 5.62HP Services & Partners 5.43 5.55 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28 5.64 5.89 5.72IGS & Partners 5.65 5.68 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48 5.83 5.92 5.77Internal Support Organizations 6.01 6.00 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48 5.92 6.10 5.98ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.66 5.59 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50 5.77 5.76 5.54HP Services & Partners 5.44 5.50 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34 5.74 5.86 5.57IGS & Partners 5.74 5.55 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60 5.98 5.94 5.63Internal Support Organizations 5.71 5.64 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58 5.93 6.01 5.91REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 6.06 6.04 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63 5.92 6.24 6.07HP Services & Partners 5.85 5.83 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53 5.91 6.19 6.00IGS & Partners 6.01 6.04 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69 5.95 6.28 6.10Internal Support Organizations 5.66 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

TBR


Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

3Q07 Through 4Q10

79

SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10

Dell Services & Partners 5.80 5.73 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77 6.17 6.20 5.85HP Services & Partners 5.56 5.50 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63 6.06 6.24 5.90IGS & Partners 5.71 5.74 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79 6.20 6.32 6.02Internal Support Organizations 5.86 5.96 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65 6.04 6.30 6.24HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.90 5.67 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40 5.67 5.85 5.71HP Services & Partners 5.64 5.56 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30 5.73 5.84 5.54IGS & Partners 5.69 5.79 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35 5.62 5.84 5.63Internal Support Organizations 6.18 6.18 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52 5.97 6.15 6.09AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.50 5.42 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43 5.54 5.46 5.43HP Services & Partners 5.30 5.31 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26 5.53 5.68 5.45IGS & Partners 5.52 5.62 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39 5.64 5.59 5.37Internal Support Organizations 5.56 5.50 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56 5.85 5.87 5.85OVERALL SATISFACTION

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 5.87 5.76 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77 6.09 6.26 5.96HP Services & Partners 5.73 5.76 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70 5.97 6.25 5.96IGS & Partners 5.84 5.89 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92 6.17 6.28 6.04Internal Support Organizations 6.02 6.10 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70 6.02 6.25 6.19Survey Counts

3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10Dell Services & Partners 161 160 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252HP Services & Partners 162 160 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252IGS & Partners 160 160 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254Internal Support Organizations 165 160 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 404

TBR


Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected

Attributes

80

TBR


Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis

Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations

81

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

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

ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

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

HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE

TBR


Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction

Attributes

82

TBR


On-site Break/Fix ServicesSatisfaction Trends

83

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

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

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

84

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

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

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

85

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Phone SupportSatisfaction Trends

86

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Online SupportSatisfaction Trends

87

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilitySatisfaction Trends

88

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Support Services Pricing/ValueSatisfaction Trends

89

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Hardware Deployment/Installation/ConfigurationSatisfaction Trends

90

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Satisfaction Trends

91

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

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT

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

TBR

TBR


Overall SatisfactionSatisfaction Trends

92

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.0

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

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

OVERALL SATISFACTION


SOURCE: TBR.

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs

93

TBR


Break/Fix ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

94

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

95

TBR


On-site Response TimeConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

96

TBR


Phone SupportConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

97

TBR


Online SupportConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

98

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilityConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

99

TBR


Support Services ValueConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

100

TBR


Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

101

TBR


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

3Q10 4Q10

102

TBR


Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

103

TBR


Appendix F: Categorical Responses

104

TBR


Break/Fix ServicesCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

105

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

<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

SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPS

IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

106

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<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

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site Response TimeCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

107

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%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Phone SupportCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

108

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Online SupportCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

109

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilityCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

110

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%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Support Services Pricing/ValueCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

111

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

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Hardware DeploymentCategory Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

112

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%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Category Graphs

3Q10 4Q10

113

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

114

TBR


Dell Services 4Q10Satisfaction Trends

115

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

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP

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

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


HP Services 4Q10Satisfaction Trends

116

4.60

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60Br

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

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


IBM Global Services 4Q10Satisfaction Trends

117

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 4Q10Satisfaction Trends

118

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60Br

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

IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology

119

TBR


Study Design & Methodology

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 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?

120

TBR


Reporting Structure Defined

TBR 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)

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



121

TBR


4Q10 Sample Overview •

TBR’s 4Q10 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 576 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, 1,028 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR intentionally 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: 252 Dell Services customer interviews; 252 HP Services customer interviews; 254 IBM Global Services customer interviews;

and 270 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2010.


Methodology & Sample

122

Sample Size Standard ErrorAll Providers 1028 1.00%

Dell & Partners 252 1.91%

HP & Partners 252 1.67%

IGS & Partners 254 1.48%

Internal Support Organizations 270 1.66%

SOURCE: TBR

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

Service & Support

TBR

TBR


Number of Employees Study Design & Methodology

123

Number of EmployeesPercentage of Respondents

<500 21.7%

500–1,000 14.8%

1,000–4,999 29.2%

5,000–9,999 13.5%

10,000–14,999 7.6%

15,000–19,999 5.0%

20,000–49,999 3.6%

50,000–74,999 1.9%

75,000–99,999 0.7%

100,000+ 1.9%

Average Number of Employees 8,787

SOURCE: TBR

Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed

TBR

TBR


Type of Business Study Design & Methodology

124

Type of Business Percentage of Respondents

Public Utilities 3%

Mining, Construction 3%

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 4%

Other Services 4%

Pharmaceuticals 4%

Transportation Service 4%

Wholesale Trade 5%

Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 6%

Manufacturing - Process (materials) 6%

Professional, Scientific, Technical 7%

Retail Trade 7%

Information Service (including software development) 9%

Finance, Insurance, real estate 9%

Government 10%

Healthcare 10%

SOURCE: TBR

Types of Businesses Represented in the Study

TBR

TBR


Job Titles/Responsibilities Study Design & Methodology

125

CXO (CIO,CTO) 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%Vice Pres ident 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%Director 9.4% 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 11.1%Manager 54.9% 7.1% 3.6% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0% 67.2%Coordinator/Adminis tration 11.1% 1.9% 1.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 15.2%Other 2.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 3.6%Grand Tota l 80.8% 10.0% 6.3% 1.7% 0.8% 0.4% 100.0%*Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc.SOURCE: TBR

Respondent Job Functions/Responsibilities

Systems Management PurchasingLevel MIS/IT Grand TotalNetworking Customer Service/Support Other

TBR

TBR


Purchasing – Past, Present & Future

The 4Q10 study sample represents 2.8 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional

630,000 units during the next 12 months.


126

x86-Based x86-BasedServers Servers

Sum 1,610,186 321,559 875,992 345,994 79,829 202,544

Mean 2,850 569 1,550 612 141 358

Sum 7,728 559 1,405 928 404 649

Mean 703 51 128 84 37 59

Enterprise 21.49% 24.83% 23.12%

Division 12.01% 72.27% 46.19%

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

127

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

128

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

129

Service % RespondingOn-Site Break/Fix Services 91.71%

On Site Technical Expertise 90.85%

On Site Response Time/Commitment 91.51%

Telephone/Help Desk Support 91.61%

Online Support 90.92%

Replacement Parts Availability 91.26%

Support Services Pricing/Value 91.61%

Hardware Installation/Configuration 80.72%

Automated Diagnostics 76.49%

Overall Satisfaction 91.71%

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

130

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

131

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

132

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

133

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

134

TBR


Appendix J: Survey Instrument

135

TBR


4Q10 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument

SCREENERS

136

TBR



137

TBR



138

TBR



139

TBR



140

TBR



141

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

tbr 4q10 corporate it service & support customer satisfaction study

Technology

te res pons

te techni

site technical

support customer

warning area

satisfaction

site response

oem support