Abdool Kara 27 March 2008

Plugged In

Recent experiences suggest that ‘satisfaction’ is seen as top of the performance tree, a position I personally cannot understand. 
For a start we know that satisfaction scores vary according to methodology – eg postal vs face-to-face surveys – although the latter option no longer exists for the new Place Survey.
Secondly, we have barely started to understand how/why satisfaction varies according to such factors as ethnic mix and population churn, which prevent secure comparisons across councils, although I’m sure that my companion columnist Ben Page from Ipsos-MORI will be able to shed much light about these issues.
Thirdly, satisfaction varies according to the investment made in communications. On the one hand, communicating with residents and service users is undeniably a good thing. But the resulting outcomes are then in part a reflection of spend on communications activities, rather than quality of services per se. So we have to ask how to best achieve a reasonable balance between spending more on communications to drive increases in satisfaction, and spending money on direct service improvement?
Lastly, we also know that satisfaction is directly related to expectations – punters who have low aspirations of services return higher satisfaction levels. This begs an interesting question about whether our job is to drive expectations up or down. And this will become more complicated as we move into the world of choice and voice - commissioning personalised social and other services. A major aspect of this new role will be supporting service users to be clear on their expectations, and as a result make informed judgements about their choice of providers.
This is a different paradigm – its not about driving up satisfaction with our own services, but about supporting informed decision-making by users. The concept of ‘Net promoter score’ fits nicely here – the idea that the only question worth asking is ‘Would you recommend this service to a friend?’ It also drives a new kind of client-provider split, with the Council firmly on the side of the client, even if the provider is ‘in-house’.
Once upon a time the Rolling Stones couldn’t get (no) satisfaction. Now it is our job to help those of that generation to understand what service quality they should expect, help them to voice that choice, and then drive the market to provide it. Then maybe Mick and his cohort will, finally, be able to get what they want.
 Abdool Kara is deputy chief executive at Merton LBC
SIGN UP
For your free daily news bulletin
Highways jobs

Adoption Panel Member

Durham County Council
Being reviewed
Do you have experience, either professionally or personally or both, of children being cared for away from their birth family?   Are you passionate ab Seaham
Recuriter: Durham County Council

Housing Officer

Durham County Council
Grade 7 £30,024 - £33,699
We currently have three opportunities for Housing Officers to join the team within Homeless Prevention. One vacancy is Temporary until 31st May 2027 a Seaham
Recuriter: Durham County Council

Attendance and Safeguarding Officer

Durham County Council
£28,142 - £31,022 pro rata (term time only plus two weeks)
Attendance and Safeguarding Officer Grade 6- £28,142 - £31,022 pro rata (term time only plus two weeks) Temporary- Full Time- Term Time Required from Durham
Recuriter: Durham County Council

Senior Pracitioner - Family Centre, Colchester

Essex County Council
Up to £0.0000 per annum
Senior Pracitioner - Mulberry Tree Family Centre, ColchesterPermanent, Part Time (29.6 hours per week) £48,205 to £57,988 per annum (FTE)£38,564 to £4 England, Essex, Colchester
Recuriter: Essex County Council

Social Worker, Young People with Disabilities

Essex County Council
Up to £0.0000 per annum
Social Worker, Young People with Disabilities, North EssexPermanent, Full Time£36,124 to £51,834 per annumLocation
Recuriter: Essex County Council
Linkedin Banner