|
Articles
Received in:
April 2000
(Printed
Issue: May 2000)
Meeting
or Exceeding Customer Expectations...
by John Larson
Wastewater operation and maintenance agencies have many places
where their employees come into contact with their customers. Some
examples of daily interactions with customers are: source control
inspections, construction inspections, collection system O&M,
design of new facilities, right of way acquisition, connection
permits, purchasing, recruiting, council/board meetings and public
education. With each contact, the agency has an opportunity to
create a favorable opinion. When I put myself into the shoes of my
customers my expectations are:
I want to be treated with courtesy,
I want the service to be timely,
I want the value to be greater than the cost,
I want to be notified in the event of any changes (e.g. running late
for appointment),
I want any agreements we reach to be honored without further effort
on my part, and
I want the agency to be responsive when I am dissatisfied.
From my perspective, I am the customer and the customer defines
quality.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District has been measuring the
quality of the customer service provided by its collection system
O&M crews for five years. To do this we have used a customer
feedback questionnaire that is mailed to all customers requesting
service within two weeks of their request. The questionnaires ask
that the customer rate us in four general categories and then give
us an overall score. The rating system is an A to F scale with A
being excellent service and F being “unacceptable service.” The
questionnaires are coded so that we can identify the crew providing
the service. About 50% of the questionnaires are returned. Our
average overall grade for the past twelve months is 3.88 or A+ on a
4.00 scale. Our grades weren’t always this high. Here are some of
the lessons we’ve learned.
1. Customer service is important. We have trained all of our
field crews in customer service skills. Dealing with angry customers
effectively has been the best received of our customer service skill
training.
2. We are professional in dealing with our customers when they
call on the phone. We have developed questions that help diagnose
the problem without upsetting the customer. We give them suggestions
on how they can mitigate any problems prior to our arrival.
3. Response time is important. Our goals of being on-site within
25 minutes during normal working hours and 45 minutes after hours
are considered high quality service by our customers.
4. We notify the customer via cell phone if we are delayed en
route.
5. We make personal contact with our customers to tell them when
we arrive at the job and we tell them when we complete the work and
what we found. If they are not available, we leave a note with a
name and number to call for further information.
6. If we make a commitment to do additional work or to get back
with information, we make sure we follow through.
7. We take immediate action on customers with unresolved issues.
This is our second chance to provide high quality service and our
goal is to turn complaints into compliments.
8. We present positive feedback on individuals and teams in front
of their peers each month. I has had the effect of supporting the
importance of providing “heroic” customer service. We use the
negative feedback to coach teams with recurring complaints and we
involve them in being part of the solution.
9. We track customer service feedback over time. The trends are
important. The results of the investigations into unfavorable trends
have provided clear direction for continuous improvement.
While the customer service “lessons learned” are focused on
collection system field crews, the basic principles are applicable
to all customer service situations. Implementing a system that seeks
customer feedback takes courage. Our fear was that we would find
that our customers hate us. We found the exact opposite.
Handling subsequent complaints
Goal - second chance to provide high quality service
Turn complaints into compliments
Don’t forget internal customers interviews
Feedback questionnaires
Tracking data over time - question trends
Back
to Top
SBSA Press Release
The South Bayside System Authority (SBSA) Commission has adopted
a policy to impose fines against chronic violators of regulations
and specific conditions of their wastewater discharge permits.
The SBSA regulates businesses on their discharge into the sewer
system. Manager Jim Bewley said he wanted the financial teeth as a
tool to force businesses that chronically violate their conditions
to take swifter actions. The alternative, he said, would be for SBSA
to close them down, which the wastewater agency is empowered but
reluctant to do.
A business that consistently violates its permit by discharging
chemicals that could be harmful in the Bay jeopardizes the overall
SBSA permit to operate its wastewater discharge, Bewley explained.
Bewley said the purpose of the new fines is to assess civil
penalties against a sewer user who has received a compliance
schedule but continues to violate provisions of the SBSA regulations
and/or provisions of their discharge permit.
The fines can range from $2,000 to $5,000 per day in these
categories:
- $2,000 for each day for failing or refusing to furnish
technical or monitoring reports.
- $3,000 for each day for failing or refusing to timely comply
with any compliance schedule established by SBSA.
- $5,000 per violation for each day for discharges in violation
of any waste discharge limitation, permit condition, or
requirement issued by SBSA.
- A fine of up to $10 per gallon for discharges in violation of
any suspension, cease and desist order or other orders, or
prohibition issued, reissued or adopted by SBSA.
The Commission approved procedures whereby an offending business
would receive an administrative complaint and be entitled to a
hearing with the manager serving as the hearing officer. The manager
would be empowered to impose the new fines, but the accused business
could appeal to the Commission. Businesses that refused to pay could
have a lien against their property for unpaid penalties.
"There have been about five chronic violators over the last
10 years, " Bewley said. "In one case, a court-ordered
injunction was obtained. The other cases went to hearings to revoke
discharge permits, but the permits have not been revoked when
business owners promised to bring their wastewater discharge into
compliance. Many of these dischargers are in-and-out of compliance,
which is why staff recommended a well-defined method of fining
businesses who cannot or will not achieve consistent compliance.
Those firms that repeatedly do not comply have an unfair business
advantage compared to businesses that spend the money to achieve
consistent compliance."
South Bayside System Authority
1400 Radio Road
Redwood City, CA 94065
Phone: 650-594-8428
Contact: Jim Bewley, ext. 124, or jbewley@sbsa.org
Or Ken Kaufman, ext. 128, or kkaufman@sbsa.org
Back
to Top
QA
Committee Update
by Bill Ray
The Laboratory QA Committee held its first luncheon meeting of
the year on February 10th with Ann Rosecrans as guest speaker. Ms.
Rosecran’s spoke about lab fraud, conditions that incubate
fraudulent behavior and ways to significantly reduce the potential
for fraud. One of the more telling reasons given by those caught in
fraudulent activities is that they were under a great deal of
pressure to complete the work regardless of the situation. In some
cases, pressure was brought to bear by equipment breakdowns and the
need to complete work within given time frames. In other cases,
frequent quality assurance failures and time pressures were the
cause. Although there were many different reasons given, they were
fundamentally the same. Management had not communicated its desire
for ethical work habits, but created a work environment which
promoted the potential for fraudulent activities.
Some may think this a commercial laboratory experience and that
in-house POTW laboratories do not breed such conditions. However,
there have been POTW laboratories cited and convicted of fraud,
including one Dalton, Georgia and reported in WEF’s Water
Environment Laboratory Solutions. Closer to home, there was a POTW
laboratory in Southern California where the operator/analyst
confessed to Regional Board staff about fraudulent laboratory
activities committed by the operator and his superior. Fraud could
be occurring right here in the Bay Area, but as has, as yet, been
detected.
One of the greatest deterrents to fraudulent behavior is an
ethics-based working environment. When laboratory personnel know
that they must operate under a system of ethics, they are less
likely to consider hiding improper actions. However, creating
ethical behavior is more than eliciting a promise of good behavior
from laboratory persons, it also includes the same promise from
others, including management. It does no good for laboratory
personnel to play by ethical rules when the pressures and
temptations are provided by other staff. Management needs to
consider ways in which laboratory persons can come forward with
issues and problems without fear of blame or retribution. Management
may feel that such a climate already exists, however, such practices
as insisting on full and complete analysis of each and every sample
in as quick a time frame as possible continues a climate suitable
for fraud.
Since the QA Committee has responsibility for the November dinner
speaker, we are considering inviting Ms. Rosecrans for a return
engagement. This is not a lab-oriented talk so do consider
attending.
Back
to Top
|
