This page has been archived.
Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.
2. The Role of Service Standards
4. A Typology for Service Standards
The Government of Canada is committed to modernizing government management and improving citizen/client satisfaction with the services it delivers. To this end, the government is moving forward on a number of important initiatives, including the Service Improvement Initiative. A key feature of this Initiative is the requirement for government departments and agencies to establish and implement service standards and then to monitor their performance against these standards, and to use these standards in managing client expectations as a means to improving client satisfaction.
In turn, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) recognized that the development of service standards requires research to better understand "what clients expect in terms of service" and consultation with managers and employees about "what the organization is able to provide". Ultimately the organization has to design its standards in a way that (a) clients, as well employees, understand and (b) its level of service can be measured against an objective or target by establishing accurate performance measurement mechanisms.
To provide federal departments and agencies with accurate and useful information for the development of service standards, the TBS Service and Innovation Sector has identified the need to:
Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC) was engaged to carry out this work. In doing so, CAC contacted and interviewed a very large number of departmental and private sector managers to identify those who exhibited exemplary practices with respect to service standards and who were willing to let their organizations be included as case studies.
This document is the summary report on service standards. The literature review, the compendium of service standards and the case study write ups were prepared as three stand-alone documents.
Chapter 2 of this summary report discusses the role of service standards. The definition and how to go about developing and implementing service standards are presented in Chapter 3. Then, in Chapter 4, the typology for categorizing service standards, which was used in the Compendium of Service Standards, is presented. This is followed by a summary of the exemplary practices in Chapter 5, which, in turn, is followed by lessons learned in Chapter 6. Conclusions are presented in Chapter 7.
The Government of Canada is committed to modernizing government management in order to respond to Canadians' changing expectations and priorities. To this end in March 2000, the President of the Treasury Board tabled Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada.[3] The Results for Canadians framework describes the government's four core management commitments to achieve excellence in areas critical to a well-performing public sector, namely, citizen focus, results focus, strong public service values, and responsible spending.
With respect to citizen focus, Results for Canadians stated that government services must respond to the needs of citizens, be easy to find, and be available through the mail, by phone, on the Internet or at walk-in centres. One of the government's key means to support the Results for Canadians citizen focus and to modernize government management is the Service Improvement Initiative. This Initiative, which adopts a citizen's 'outside-in' perspective, is intended to achieve significant, quantifiable improvement (of 10%) in citizen/client satisfaction with services over the next five years.[4]
The essence of the Service Improvement Initiative is that the continuous and measurable increase in client satisfaction is the most reliable indicator of improvement in service quality and service performance.
As illustrated in Figure 1, increased client satisfaction is to be achieved by measuring clients' expectations and priorities for improvement, setting service standards and related service targets linked to these expectations and revising service delivery processes accordingly, monitoring performance against these service standards, and then measuring client satisfaction and expectations again. Establishing and monitoring performance against service standards is a key feature of the Initiative and essential for managing client expectations.[5] In turn, by meeting or exceeding client expectations, government departments and agencies can be assured of being able to increase client satisfaction as suggested by the results of the Citizens First 1998 and the Citizens First 2000 surveys. Accordingly, continuous improvement would then take place by continuously repeating this process.
Figure 1 Increasing Client Satisfaction Through the Use of Service Standards
The Service Improvement Initiative also commits government departments to report within their existing annual Reports on Plans and Priorities/Departmental Performance Reports to Parliament the following: service standards for all key public services; performance against service standards; annual improvements in client satisfaction; and progress toward client satisfaction targets.
The Service Improvement Initiative policy framework commits those departments and agencies, which have significant direct service delivery activities for Canadians, to carry out a number of tasks and steps to improve client satisfaction and to continuously improve. In particular, one such step is to:
As indicated in the Citizens First 2000 report, service standards are used in two main ways:
The Citizens First 2000 report indicated that many organizations have seen performance improve dramatically as a result of implementing a program of service standards. The report suggested that governments make their services more accessible across many delivery channels, but especially the telephone. As well, the report suggested that the five drivers of citizen satisfaction (i.e., timeliness; knowledgeable, competent staff; 'the extra mile/the extra smile' or courtesy; fair treatment; and outcome) be incorporated into every line of government business, and that the drivers for specific programs be determined. Finally, the report also suggested that regular measurement of service drivers and service standards be integrated and staff be given feedback on their performance.[8]
Service standards have been incorporated into the management of many government programs in many countries. Although there may be nuanced differences among jurisdictions in how they define or use service standards, the following common themes permeate, although the client focus is clearly paramount:
For the federal government, the Treasury Board Secretariat's How-to Guide says "Service standards are a commitment by the organization to provide a certain level of service to clients. These are usually in areas such as communications, access timeliness, interactions between staff and clients, and costs ... consistency counts ... service standards must incorporate performance objectives ... important tools for managing client expectations and should reflect the available resources."[9]
The How-to Guide then describes the elements of service standards:
Service standards are defined around an interactive process, in the sense that there is a service provider and a service receiver or client. A service deliverer may establish a service standard to better manage client expectations with the intent of increasing client satisfaction with the service. The standard may be, for example, telephones should be answered within three rings or less, or staff to be more courteous to clients. In the former case, the rings can be monitored and action taken to achieve the standard. In the latter case, some form of client comment card or client feedback (e.g., survey, focus group) can be used to determine how courteous the client found the staff.
In each case, a service standard has been initiated and performance measured against the standard. One relies on the client input, the other on independent measure. Even quantifiable standards must be gauged against the client's reaction to the encounter or experience. The client may be satisfied with two rings, or four rings. The standard should reflect the client's views. (See Figure 2)
Figure 2. Client/service deliverer interaction in service standard development
A good Service Standard is sensitive to the
wants and needs of the client, but also mindful that the standards must be
attainable within existing resource, regulatory and policy constraints.
Since client needs and expectations may change, service standards will change to reflect the new priorities of the client. The client's reaction to service encounters or experience with the service deliverer must be monitored to maintain acceptable service levels.
As part of the development of the Compendium of Service Standards, CAC was requested to develop a draft typology for categorizing service standards. In examining ways of categorizing service standards, CAC looked at the relationship between the client and the service provider and identified three broad areas of service which can lend themselves to measurable service standards. First, is the aspect of access or waiting to speak or submit (an inquiry, request, claim or proposal) to a service provider (or receptionist who is in front of a service provider). This would generally be in person or by telephone.
The second aspect is the actual encounter or interaction between the client and service provider (or receptionist). Again, this would generally be in person or by telephone, and may last only a few minutes but occur in real time. Here, the client can feel the service as offered by the service provider (or receptionist) and the drivers of client satisfaction would include, as identified in Citizens First 2000[10] such things as the knowledge or competence of the service provider, "the extra mile/the extra smile" and friendly couteous service, and fairness. In addition, language of choice and confidentiality are other aspects tied into the actual service.
The third aspect is related to the time to respond and the outcome, which can also take place during the encounter, as might be the case in some regulatory, inspection or enforcement (RIE) services. Specific aspects of service include timeliness or speed of srvice, a well reasoned or justifiable (i.e., fair) decision, and the decision or outcome itself. The three aspects are displayed in Figure3.
Figure 3. Aspects of Service
With this model in mind, CAC proposed that the typology be structured around whether a service standard addresses:
The HOW category of service standards tends to cover service standards dealing with the client's experience with the service delivery and how the service provider (or receptionist) actually provides the service. Typical service standards in this category deal with fairness, courteousness, repect and knowledgeable servers and with the professionalism and cultural sensitivity of the servers. In a sense, this category deals with the knowledge, attitude and behaviour of servers. In turn, in many cases, the achievement of the service standard really depends on the client's perception of the experience with the service deliverer.
This category really deals with 'how the client is made to feel' with the service experience. Research indicates that client dissatisfaction has more to do with how the product or service is delivered to the client rather than the quality of the product or service itself. The client's perception emphasizes the 'emotional elements' or 'emotional reactions' of service delivery. The client's perceptions on or emotions about service delivery can be measured or assessed by some form of consultation with the client, such as surveys using the Common Measurements Tool or focus groups or comment cards or some other mechanism.
This category is obviously linked to client satisfaction. And client's perception and satisfaction can be based on or applied to service standards addressing waiting time (including both waiting to access the service provider, e.g., the number of phone rings before the phone is answered and waiting for service in a walk-in or counter or in person service), fair treatment, the knowledge or competence of the server, the server's attitude and behaviour, and outcome.
Two other dimensions of how service is delivered can also be considered within the context of service standards, namely, the language of service service standard (i.e., the client shall be offered the service in the Official Language of the client's choice) and service security and confidentiality (i.e., the client 's information shall be treated in strict confidentiality or security).
Thus, the following three types of service standards can be considered from the HOW category, namely:
Client Perception [CP]
Official Language [OL]
Security and Confidentiality [SC]
The WHEN category of service standards tends to deal with timeliness, responsiveness and how long it takes or should take for the service or an element of the service to take place. In turn, there appears to be two dimensions of the timeliness service standards. First, there is the time required to contact or reach or access the server. For example, how many rings before the telephone is answered, how long one may have to wait on hold or at a counter to speak to someone or make an inquiry, or how many people a client is passed to until a server can address or act on the client's request. This is very much the accessibility issue and is particularly relevant to inquiries in person at the counter or over the phone, especially call centres.
In a sense, this is the front end wait or access time, i.e., the time a client has to wait to reach or access a server. All other accessibility related topics, at least for the time being (e.g., hours of operation, having things ready for clients when they come to look for them, maintaining updated databases, being ready for a request/inquiry, providing services for free or offering financial assistance, offering different delivery channels), have been lumped together.
The second timeliness dimension deals with service standards related to how much time is required or "allowed" by the server to deal with and resolve an inquiry or claim or proposal received from a client.. This type of service standard first requires some form of intervention from a client, who then is concerned with the time required or "allowed" to respond to a request or process a claim or make a decision, or to 'deliver on time'. That is, the reponse time that a client should expect before receiving an acknowledgement or official interim or final response from the server. In effect, this type of service standard is the 'speed of service'. This timeliness dimension or waiting time, of course, only comes into play after the client has established the initial contact with the server.
In a sense, this is the back end wait time, i.e., the time a server is allowed before having to respond to a client.
Thus, the following two types of service standards can be considered from the WHEN category.
Front end waiting times or accessibility [TF]
Back end waiting times or 'speed of service' [TB]
The WHAT category of service standards tends to deal with the accuracy, correctness, comprehensiveness, justifiability and defencibility of the outcome or decision on a request or claim. This category of service standard also deals with the server's commitment for a well-reasoned decision or outcome, whether the client agrees or not. Clients are entitled to and should expect well-reasoned decisions or outcomes, but not necessarily ones with which they agree. Ultimately, the department and clients may need an objective third-party to properly assess the quality of the outcome.
The WHAT category really offers only one type of service standard, namely, outcome [OC].
Using this typology, there are six types of service standards, namely:
Client Perception [CP]
Official Language [OL]
Security and Confidentiality [SC]
Front end waiting times or accessibility [TF]
Back end waiting times [TB]
Outcome [OC]
From the brief case study write ups prepared, the following key exemplary practices were derived.
Key Exemplary Practices |
Government Example |
Private Sector Example |
Service pledge to commit and communicate standard to clients |
CCRA Appeals, CCRA Client Services |
|
Customized initial contact letter to help manage client expectations and improve service |
CCRA Appeals, CIC |
|
Extensive consultation with clients and staff during piloting of service standard and |
CCRA Appeals |
|
Initial letter and sharing of "best practices" |
CCRA Appeals |
|
Service standard implementation kit |
CCRA Appeals |
|
Advice from outside |
CCRA Appeals |
|
Redress mechanism to handle complaints |
CCRA Appeals |
|
Client satisfaction surveys (including electronic) |
CCRA Appeals, CTCS, National Archives, NRCan ESS, RCMP Forensic laboratory services, Stats Can Adviory Services, TC TIMSD |
TD Canada Trust |
Consultations with front-line staff |
CCRA Client Services Directorate |
|
Mix of feedback sources such as ministerial correspondence, invitation, client service rating cards, internal advisory committees, direct staff feedback |
CCRA Client Services Directorate, VAC |
Canada Life Insurance |
Improve quality and range of service interaction in electronic service delivery |
CCRA Client Services Directorate, CTCS, TC TIMSD |
|
Competency Catalogue to identify, recruit and retain employees capable of responding to client needs |
CCRA Client Services Directorate |
|
Agency or departmental business specific guide to service standards |
CCRA's Guide to Service Standards |
|
Common Measurements Tool (CMT) |
CTCS |
|
Posting surveys on Internet Website |
CTCS |
|
Survey responses to establish priorities |
CTCS, TC TIMSD, VAC |
|
Toll-free 1-888 client feedback line |
CTCS, VAC |
|
Share correspondence |
CTCS |
|
Senior management report of client survey to staff |
CTCS |
|
Management performance appraisals and or pay based on client feedback or standards met |
CTCS, HRDC EIB |
AMEX, TD Canada Trust |
Increasing client and employee satisfaction in tandem |
CTCS, NRCan ESS |
|
Consulting with employees or responding to employee survey results |
CTCS, National Archives |
|
Strong support from senior management (i.e., DM, ADM, executive ownership, CEO) |
CTCS, NRCan ESS |
AMEX, Royal Sunalliance |
Appropriately resourced Support Unit |
CTCS |
|
Learning from others or the "best", drawing expertise, in Canada and abroad |
CTCS, HRDCEIB, RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services, TC TIMSD |
Disney consumer products |
Adopting the NQI framework |
CTCS |
|
Establish baseline through a first survey |
HRDC EIB, VAC |
|
Quality Management Policy to define responsibilities |
HRDC EIB, |
|
Posting service commitments widely and clearly for clients to see |
HRDC EIB, |
|
Providing as much assistance as possible at first point of contact |
HRDC EIB |
|
Cross-channel management of expectations |
HRDC |
|
Graphical information on the distribution of the times |
Competition Bureau |
|
Information both on the actual service provided and on the clients' perceptions of the service |
Competition Bureau |
|
Periodic meetings with clients |
Competition Bureau, TC TIMSD |
|
Strong coordination in development and use of service standards, including dedicated team to provide insight and handle complaints |
NRCan ESS |
Canada Life Insurance |
Third-party audit of service standards |
NRCan ESS |
|
ISO 17025 |
RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services |
|
Tracking of length of phone queues and number of abandoned calls |
StatsCan Advisory Services |
|
"Mystery Shopper" Audit system |
StatsCan Advisory Services |
|
Service level agreement or framework |
StatsCan Advisory Services |
|
New administrative infrastructure |
StatsCan Advisory Services |
|
Lessons learned |
TC TIMSD |
|
Contact information in service level agreements |
TC TIMSD |
|
Publish client survey results (i.e., DPR) |
VAC |
|
Schedule for priority one problem resolution |
TC TIMSD |
|
Training (employee or management) |
VAC |
TD Canada Trust, Disney consumer products |
Reward and recognition for employees |
|
AMEX |
Telephone communication |
|
Royal and Sunalliance |
Up-to-date technology |
|
Royal and Sunalliance |
High service standard and client satisfaction targets |
|
TD Canada Trust |
Staff empowerment to resolve issues with client |
|
Disney consumer products |
From the brief case study write ups prepared, the following lessons learned were identified:
Citizens and clients are entitled to know what service quality to expect from government. Well-structured and communicated service standards help ensure that clients and government employees share the same understanding of what to expect when a service is provided. Service standards can be an important component in managing client expectations, and, as long as these expectations can be met or exceeded, it is likely that client satisfaction with the service will improve. Problems and issues encountered in the past when developing service standards and metrics can be overcome.
Canadian government departments and agencies have exhibited many worthwhile exemplary practices in their approach to developing, implementing, monitoring and using their service standards. Although CAC did not assess the service standards or the practices, CAC concludes that the best service standards revolve around three pillars, namely:
Departments and agencies, along with TBS, appear to be on the right track. Service standards are a tool to help manage client expectations, which, in turn, can contribute to improving client satisfaction. The approaches taken by departments and agencies in establishing and implementing service standards are clearly leading to success. Those who have embarked on this journey and are integrating their service standards with the Service Improvement Initiative are creating their own momentum.
For service standards to be effective they must have buy-in from all relevant stakeholders outside the organization and all levels within the organization. Managers must be seen as leaders, employees must continue to be trained and properly equipped to work to satisfy the standards. It is important to ingrain the need for consultation and reporting so that weakness can be identified and adjustments made. Departments and agencies should consider common reporting methods on service standards and other metrics associated with service improvement. There is still room for improving the measuring and benchmarking processes and it is only through a structured form of measurement that the Service Improvement Initiative can develop and grow with the changing needs of Canadian citizens.
[1] Erin Research Inc., Citizens First 1998, (Ottawa, Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD), October 1998). The report can be found at the CCMD website: http://www.myschool-monecole.gc.ca/Research/publications/pdfs/cit-firstf.pdf.
[2] Erin Research Inc., Citizens First 2000, (Toronto, The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, 2001). The study was published by IPAC in 2001. The report can be found at the IPAC website: http://www.ipac.ca/pubs/ipac_publications/citizens_first.html.
[3] Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat, Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada (Ottawa, 2000), /report/res_can/siglist_e.asp.
[4] Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Toward Citizen-Centred Service Delivery: A How-to Guide for the Service Improvement Initiative (Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, December 2000). The How-to Guide can be found at the TBS website: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/si-as/howto-comment/howto-comment-eng.asp.
[5] Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, A Policy Framework for Service Improvement in the Government of Canada (Ottawa, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, June 2000), p.4. The policy can be found at the TBS website: /pubs_pol/sipubs/si_as/pfsi_e.asp.
[6] Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, A Policy Framework for Service Improvement in the Government of Canada, op.cit. p.5.
[7] Erin Research Inc., Citizens First 2000, op.cit.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Toward Citizen-Centred Service Delivery: A How-to Guide for the Service Improvement Initiative, op.cit. p. 27.
[10] Erin Research Inc., Citizens First 2000, op.cit., p.10.