Performance Lawn Equipment
By: Damon Roberts
Tags: Data Science, Excel, Statistics

Dealer and End-User Satisfaction

Figure 1: Average Dealer Satisfaction with PLE by Region

Figure 1 (above) shows the average dealer satisfaction across a 5-year period in each region where PLE operates. The ratings were collected via a survey which allowed respondents to rate their satisfaction with PLE on a scale of 1–5, where 5 was the highest satisfaction. The collected data were weighted and averaged to create the figure above. We can see South American dealers consistently rate PLE the highest, while dealers in China tend to rate it the lowest. The South America and Europe markets historically rate the company around 3.75–4.00 with little change. The Pacific Rim has seen the greatest improvement over the last 5 years, bringing the average rating from just under 3.25 in 2010 to over 4.00 in 2013. While there was a slight drop in average rating for 2014, all other markets maintained or improved ratings from 2013.

Table 1: Average Satisfaction from Dealers by Region and Year

Table 1 shows the mean value and standard deviation for satisfaction ratings as collected from dealers on a scale of 1–5. We can see the ratings have improved each year in all regions except Europe. North America, for example, averaged a rating of 3.78 in 2010, which increased to 4.11 by 2014. Although China entered the market with an initially low mean rating, the ratings still improved from 3.00 in 2012 to 3.69 in 2014. Europe increased its mean rating from 3.93 to 4.12, but then saw a slight drop to 4.07 in 2013. The standard deviation also increased each year for most regions, indicating a wider range of response values to the survey. This suggests there was more variability in the responses, but the increased mean indicates values trended towards higher ratings.

Figure 2: Average End-User Satisfaction with PLE by Region

Figure 2 (above) shows data collected from a similar survey sent to end-users of PLE products. The data from this survey were also collected and weighted to create averages by year and region, again where 5 is considered the highest level of satisfaction. Overall, end-users rated their satisfaction higher than dealer surveys indicated. In this data set, the North American market ranked higher almost every year. South America was typically rated 3rd or 4th in end-user satisfaction, and in 2014 it had the lowest rating of all markets at an average of 4.11. Similar to the average dealer satisfaction, the Chinese end-user market tended to rate satisfaction the lowest. South America and the Pacific Rim trended closely to one another each year, with differences of less than 0.05 from 2011 to 2013. Europe had possibly the largest change across years, increasing from a low of 3.90 in 2012 to a high of 4.07 in 2013.

Table 2: Average Satisfaction from End-users by Region and Year

Table 2 provides similar information, although collected from end-user surveys instead. Each region saw an increase overall across the 5-year period, although the South American market experienced a slight drop from 2010–2011. Beginning with a mean rating of 4.0, South America’s rating dropped to 3.95 in 2011 before climbing back to 3.99 in 2012, followed by a steady increase in later years. After 2010, the North America region was rated highest among the regions PLE services, ending 2014 with a mean of 4.22.

Figure 3: Total Complaints Filed Quarterly by Region

Above, figure 3 details the number of complaints fielded quarterly by each region. The North American market consistently accounted for at least 50% of all complaints filed to PLE, sometimes accounting for 60%. The North American market is also the largest, which would likely explain why the largest volume of complaints are from that market. The ratio of complaints coming from the South American market increased gradually beginning in 2011, while the volume coming from the European market has stayed relatively steady. We can also pinpoint when China entered the market in 2012, as complaints began appearing from the new market during Quarter 1.

Figure 4: Customer Service Call Response Times by Quarter

Table 3: Response Times to Customer Service Calls by Quarter

Finally, figure 4 and table 3 highlight average call response times by the customer service department. 2 years of data are available for this metric, which are broken down by quarter. On first glance, we can see that the median response time decreased from Q1 2013 (3.829) to Q4 2014 (2.477). The interquartile range has also improved over two years; in 2013, 75% of response times fell between 2.988 and 5.042. By Q4 2014, 75% of response times fell between 1.62 and 3.476. The maximum time recorded in Q4 2014 was 4.872, while Q1 2013 had a maximum of almost twice as long at 8.019. While times declined across the board, there was a single outlier in Q3 2014 of 7.419, well outside the 3rd quartile range of 4.075.