Electric Utility Madhya Pradesh - Report Series 2011 - Snapshot

A report by In Association with

Comprehensively Parameterized, Indicative ReportFor Upcoming Distribution Franchisee Areas in Madhya Pradesh SATISFACTION AND PREFERENCES OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS 2011

August 2011 Series Snapshot

Bhind Gwalior

Datia Satna

Sagar Narsinghpur

http://www.pmanifold.com/

2

Copyright (c) pManifold. Electric U

tility/CSAT/MPSeries

STUDY OVERVIEW Most recent, independent, “indicative, land based, face-to-face” survey providing estimates

of customer’s perspective on local electricity utility performance The study executed in August 2011 provides the most latest customer insights across upcoming Power

Distribution Franchisee areas in Madhya Pradesh, India including Bhind, Satna, Shajapur, Gwalior, Sagar, Dewas, Datia, Narsinghpur & Ujjain

The reports in this series attempts to raise the customers voice to, better able the distribution franchisee & utility stakeholders to monitor the local situation, identify key priority actions and plan investments & roadmaps accordingly.

Most comprehensively parameterized, customer centric “indicator” of the effectiveness of utility performance on 28 well-chosen attributes that appropriately represent key areas like power quality, reliability, metering, billing, payments, information systems, customer services and privatization perception

The study attempts to help the local utilities understand their customer and know whether their performance is effective enough to meet the needs of the current and potential customers. Especially in the case of distribution franchisees where a complete new management will be handed over the operations of the local distribution system, it is imperative to measure the existing effectiveness of performance from all different perspectives - of which the customer perspective is a significant one.

Additional independent primary and secondary research for Local Electricity Utility stakeholders specifically Distribution Franchisee bidders and licensees.

Socio Economic Parameters impacting load growth Distribution Franchisee RFP Data Analysis (Read our blog on

Distribution Franchisee Attractiveness on the 9 districts which compares the districts in detail on multiple parameters)

8/8/2011

http://blog.pmanifold.com/2011/08/electric-utility-customer-satisfaction.html

http://blog.pmanifold.com/2011/07/distribution-franchisee-attractiveness.html


3



CUSTOMER PERCEPTION MEASUREMENT MODEL

CS

Power Quality & Reliability

Customer Service

CommunicationMeter

Billing and Payment

Price

Information Access & Record

Handling

Company Image

1. Unplanned Outages2. Planned Outages3. Voltage Stability4. Safety & Maintenance5. Local Electricity Infrastructure6. Breakdown Restoration

7. Ease of New Meter8. Resolution Meter Complaints9. Resolution Billing Complaints10. Customer Service Response Time11. Staff Behavior12. Access to customer service

13. Advance notice about disruption14. Advance notice about public work15. Awareness- Energy Efficiency16. Awareness- Customer Rights17. Communication Modes

18. Meter Accuracy19. Bill Receipt on Time20. Billing Accuracy21. Easy bill understanding22. Modes of Payment

23. Fairness of Price24. Value for money

25. Complaints Traceability26. Online Accessibility of

Records

27. Capability28. Community Engagement

Consumption Profiling Electricity consumption Profession & Education level Economic status Meter type, backup devices etc.

Satisfaction questions on 7 Factors ‘Forced Choice’ 5 point Likert scale – VS, S, DS, VDS, NA Order of Importance for all Attributes 7 Factors – total 28 Attributes

Opinion Questions 5 point Likert scale – SA, A, N, DA, SDA Validation

8/8/2011




4

KEY FINDINGSGwalior – Datia - Bhind

8/8/2011




5

8/8/2011

• In the overall scheme of things, • Bhind district scored a dismal 26.96• Gwalior district scored 52.41 & • Datia district scored 58.22

• Specifically in Datia, the increased score can be attributed to the respondents in the Commercial category who indicated satisfaction on most major factors under consideration especially their comfort with the current Pricing available to them and also their satisfaction with the Power Quality and Reliability.

• While, long hours of load shedding (6-10 hours), frequent unplanned outages, poor infrastructure and maintenance and poor customer services in Bhind specifically constitute its low score.

REGIONAL TRAITS LIKE URBAN/ RURAL DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENTIATION ARE STRIKINGLY CLEAR; CUSTOMER SATISFACTION LOWEST IN BHIND

Bhind

Datia

Gwalior

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Customer Satisfaction Scores

Best score is 100 computed when all respondent are ‘very satisfied‘, and the worst score is 0 computed when all respondents are ‘very dissatisfied’ on all 28+ questions in the study.




6

8/8/2011

When asked if they agree that “A lot needs to be done to improve the current systems and make me fully satisfied” comparatively least respondents agreed in Datia (55%) than Gwalior (58%) followed by Bhind (91%) where most respondents agreed they are expecting a lot to be done before they get satisfied with the utility services.

Regions where customer’s believed more needs to be done to make them satisfied scored low on customer satisfaction.

SATISFACTION OF CUSTOMERS IS ALSO RELATIVE AND CONSISTENT TO THE LEVEL OF CUSTOMER’S EXPECTATIONS IN DIFFERENT REGIONS

Bhind

Datia

Gwalior

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Customer Agreement level on the statement that

“A lot needs to be done to improve the current sys-tems and make me fully

satisfied”




7

8/8/2011

When asked if ““Service levels will improve if a private company manages electricity distribution” In Gwalior 51% respondents agreed In Datia 36% respondents agreed In Bhind 83% respondents agreed

Over 70% of respondents from Commercial Category in both Datia & Gwalior disagreed that privatization would help improve service levels.

Over 80% of respondents in Bhind, both in Residential and Commercial categories, agreed that Privatization will help improve the current situation.

MIXED REACTIONS TOWARDS PRIVATIZATION OF POWER DISTRIBUTION THROUGH FRANCHISEE MODEL IN GWALIOR, DATIA AND BHIND.

Bhind

Datia

Gwalior

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Customer Agreement level on the statement that “Service levels will im-

prove if a private company manages electricity distri-

bution”




8

ANNOTATED EXCERPTS FROM GWALIOR DISTRICT REPORTTo provide snapshot of report contents

8/8/2011


9

RESIDENTIAL8/8/2011



Sampling: Population size (No. of Commercial

connections): 32433 (as in 2011) Sample size: 55

Consumption:

For Residential category CAGR growth (2006-2011)

Number of consumers 2.51%

Connected Load 9.70%

Electricity Sales (LUs) -3.52%

Revenue Billed 10.12%

Revenue Realized 13.69%

Avg. Billed Tariff rates 14.14%

Collection Efficiency 3.24%

5

5

1

5

Inverter GeneratorOther None

Type of Meter Backup EquipmentOnline AccessSegment Type

46

9

Independent FlatEM ElectronicToD H.P.

11

737

Computer Internet None

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

1000

010

000+

0

10

20

30

40

50

Avg. Monthly Electricity Bill (Rs.)

Freq

uenc

y

Segment wise, profiling of customers on the

following parameters is reported,

Profession

Consumer category (LT or HT)

Avg. electricity consumption

Avg. Bill

Avg. Turnover

Meter type

Backup Equipments

Online access

Segment wise, Customer specified details are

provided

Report contains 5 such slides for each location




10

n= 55 n= 15 n= 15 n= 15

n= 100

Dissatisfied customers across different customer segments for each attribute

Satisfaction level across different attributes of Factor

Relative Order of Importance

HIGH LOW

OVERALL FACTOR I: POWER QUALITY & RELIABILITY8/8/2011

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

27% 31%44%

60%

45%

24%

60%

80%

53%47%

40%

27%

7% 7%

33%

60% 60%

33%27%

33%

100%

80%

33%

67%

Residential Commercial Industrial Agri

Relative more dissatisfaction among ‘Agri’ Customers across Attributes ‘Voltage Stability’, ‘Safety & Maintenance’ & ‘Breakdown Restoration’

Relative less dissatisfaction among ‘Industrial’ Customers across Attributes ‘Unplanned Outages’, ‘Planned Outages’ & ‘Voltage Stability’

‘Safety & Maintenance’ has more dissatisfaction followed by ‘Voltage Stability’ for all responses

‘Unplanned Outages’ has High Order of Importance followed by ‘Planned Outages’ & ‘Breakdown Restoration’

Unplanned Outages

Planned Outgaes

Voltage Stability

Safety & Maintenance

Local Electricity Infrastructure

Breakdown Restoration

0%10%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100%

VS S DS VDS NA

0

00

0

0

0

Segment wise, Customer perception is

aggregated and reported across each of 7

broad factors which comprise of customer

satisfaction (e.g. this slide shows details

reported for “Power Quality and Reliability”

Key Observations per attribute are reported

Visualization of satisfaction on GIS map for

indicating potential localities which need

immediate attention

Segment wise, Customer specified relative

Order of Importance given to each attribute



Satisfaction Level

11



Key Observations

n= 100

Order of Importance

HIGH LOW


FACTOR I: POWER QUALITY & RELIABILITY8/8/2011

A1: Unplanned outages - How satisfied are you with frequency and duration of unplanned outages?

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Agri

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

VS S DS VDS NA

Over 60% respondents from ‘Commercial’ category are dissatisfied with ‘Unplanned Outages’ with high proportion of ‘very dissatisfaction’

Over 70% respondents from ‘Residential’, ‘Industrial’ & ‘Agri’ categories are satisfied with ‘Unplanned Outages’

‘Unplanned Outages’ has High Order of Importance for all categories

Segment wise, Customer perception is

measured and reported across each of the 28

broad factors which roll up into the 7 factors

which comprise of customer satisfaction (e.g.

this slide shows details reported for “How

satisfied are you with frequency and duration

of unplanned outages?”

Key Observations per attribute are reported

Visualization of satisfaction on GIS map for

indicating potential localities which need

immediate attention

Segment wise, Customer specified relative

Order of Importance given to each attribute





12

n= 55 n= 15 n= 15 n= 15

n= 100

Dissatisfied customers across different customer segments for each attribute

Satisfaction level across different attributes of Factor

Relative Order of Importance

HIGH LOW

OVERALL SATISFACTION LEVEL8/8/2011

Customer Service Price Information Access & Rec Handling

Power, Quality & Reliability

Company Image Meter, Billing & Payment

Communication 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

36% 36%40%

45% 45% 47%

29%

73%

60%53%

67%

47% 47%40%

7% 7%13% 13%

60%

73%

33%40%

73%

40%

67%

27%

60%

20%


Relative more dissatisfaction among ‘Commercial’ Customers across all Attributes

Relative more dissatisfaction among ‘Agri’ Customers with Attributes ‘Price’ & ‘Power, Quality & Reliability’

‘Communication’ has less dissatisfaction followed by ‘Information Access & Record Handling’ across all responses

‘Customer Service’ has High Order of Importance followed by ‘Meter, Billing & Payment’ and ‘Communication’

Customer Service

Price

Information Access & Rec Handling

Power, Quality & Reliability

Company Image

Meter, Billing & Payment

Communication

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

VS S DS VDS NA0

0

0 0

00

0

Overall, Customer perception is aggregated

and reported by rolling up customer

responses across each of the 28 broad factors

which roll up into the 7 factors which

comprise of customer satisfaction.

Key Observations per factor are reported

Comparative dissatisfaction levels and overall

distribution of customers by customer

segment on the satisfaction scale is reported.

Overall, Customer specified relative Order of

Importance is aggregated and given to each

broad factor and reported

Report contains 1 such slide for each location


13



By Category: Industrial Customers indicating

better customer services than other Customers

Only Industrial respondents are satisfied with 4 attributes (Green Dots)

Commercial respondents are dissatisfied with most of attributes

Most Dissatisfaction (Factors)

Information Systems Customer Service Communications Power Quality & Reliability Company Image

Most Dissatisfaction (Attributes)

Safety & Maintenance Resolution Meter Complaints Resolution Billing Complaints Online Accessibility to records Voltage Stability Awareness Customer Rights Complaints Records Handling

8/8/2011

CSI ATTRIBUTE SCORES –CUSTOMER SERVICE HAS CRITICAL DISSATISFACTION ACROSS ALMOST ALL CATEGORIES

Factors Attributes Residential Commercial Industrial AgriUnplanned Outages 56.97 35.56 73.33 55.56Planned Outgaes 56.36 31.11 71.11 51.11Voltage Stability 50.30 38.10 60.00 28.89Safety & Maintenance 40.00 38.89 48.89 35.56Local Electricity Infrastructure 49.70 45.45 44.44 51.11Breakdown Restoration 61.82 51.28 62.22 40.00

Average 52.53 40.06 60.00 43.70Ease of New Meter 57.89 55.56 53.33 47.62Resolution Meter Complaints 45.51 40.48 26.67 48.89Resolution Billing Complaints 45.28 42.22 53.33 28.89Service Response Time 35.26 33.33 55.56 35.56Staff Behavior 50.30 44.44 62.22 53.33Access to customer service 55.76 51.28 66.67 60.00

Average 48.33 44.55 52.96 45.71Advance notice about disruption 60.26 47.22 71.43 55.56Advance notice about public work 58.79 60.00 62.22 60.00Awareness- Energy Efficiency 34.59 37.78 64.29 53.33Awareness- Consumer Rights 45.68 41.67 46.67 53.33Communication Modes 52.56 57.58 52.38 60.00

Average 50.38 48.85 59.40 56.44Meter Accuracy 56.86 42.86 60.00 51.11Bill Receipt on Time 58.79 51.11 64.44 53.33Billing Accuracy 51.23 35.71 45.24 53.33Easy bill understanding 46.30 52.78 37.78 42.22Modes of Payment 57.41 66.67 47.62 57.78

Average 54.12 49.83 51.02 51.56Fairness of Price 54.55 46.67 46.67 51.11

Value for money 64.85 37.78 86.67 51.11Average 59.70 42.22 66.67 51.11

Complaints Records handling 38.79 37.78 28.89 51.11Online Accessibility to records 32.08 47.22 26.67 40.48

Average 35.43 42.50 27.78 45.79Capability 41.36 33.33 62.22 55.56Community Engagement 41.21 41.03 55.56 53.33

Average 41.29 37.18 58.89 54.44

Company Image

Communications

Customer Service

Power Quality & Reliability

Information Systems

Price

Meter, Billing & Payments

Overall, Customer perception

is scored with a specially

designed scale and reported

on a simple red, green and

orange dashboard

Scores are reported across

each of the 28 attributes

which roll up into the 7

factors which comprise of

customer satisfaction.

Key comparative

Observations per attribute

are reported


14



30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00

1.39

1.29

1.11

0.81

0.83

1.19

0.46

0.95

0.97

0.82

1.03

1.161.18

Advance notice aboutpublic work

0.80

0.85 0.87

1.19

1.25

1.05

0.99

1.10

1.21

1.34

1.08

Online Accessibility to records

1.16

0.92

KEY OVERALL PRIORITIES (ATTRIBUTE LEVEL) – SATISFACTION ON ALL ATTRIBUTES LIES IN THE RED-ORANGE ZONE. NO ATTRIBUTE IN GREEN ZONE.

Satisfaction scores range between 1 to 100. Some parts of the scale may not be shown in the view above for better visualization. Refer detailed Attribute level information in the detailed supplementary report.

8/8/2011

Importance HIGHSatisfaction LOW

Satisfaction HIGH

Importance LOW

Attributes are mapped on a matrix of satisfaction and

importance so as to identify key areas which customers

expect attention from the utility.

These are indicative of the key actions that are/will be

needed by the utility operator to improve customer

satisfaction and hence performance. Potentially useful for

planning and modeling capex and opex requirements.

Report contains 5 such slide for each location


15



INFORMATION COVERAGE FOR EACH SITE LOCATION(OVER 100+ SLIDES FOR EACH SITE LOCATION)

Top level Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Satisfaction Ranking across consumer categories Satisfaction matrix

7 Factors x 4 consumer categories 28 Attributes x 4 consumer categories

Overall Priority matrix – Satisfaction vs. Order of Importance Factor wise (7) Attribute wise (28) Identification of top priority factors/attributes for quick customer satisfaction win Identification of consumer category which needs priority intervention Identification of factors and attributes with most dissatisfaction

Consumer category wise Priority Matrix - Satisfaction vs. Order of Importance Residential Priority Factor Matrix Commercial Priority Factor Matrix Industrial Priority Factor Matrix Agri Priority Factor Matrix

Customer Opinion and Expectations Customer’s preferred payment modes Customer’s preferred Communication modes Customer’s perception on Distribution Privatization Customer’s Expectation from Utility

Key Recommendations Radar plot – Customer Expectation vs. Perception

Top priority areas identification which has high weightage in overall ECSI and big gap between Expectation and measured perception

Executive summary of top actionable items across consumer categories

8/8/2011




16

REPORT DETAILS

8/8/2011




17

8/8/2011

The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Customer Satisfaction Study Reports for the 9 districts are available as PDF documents with findings presented as tables / graphs / charts

Separate Reports in this series for Locations (districts) with delivery dates:

Bhind (10th Aug) Gwalior (10th Aug) Datia (10th Aug) Satna (15th Aug) Sagar (15th Aug) Narsinghpur (15th Aug) Shajapur (20th Aug) Dewas (20th Aug) Ujjain (20th Aug)

For each site location, there are two overall level documents: Customer Satisfaction – Top Results (30+ slides)

includes top level findings with attribute and factor level comparisons and recommendations.

Customer Satisfaction – Detailed Results (65+ slides) includes findings with GIS visualizations and individual

factor level aggregated responses at overall level and for each customer segments – residential, commercial, industrial and agriculture.

For each location the following additional supplements are also provided, Socio Economic Parameters impacting load growth Distribution Franchisee RFP Data Analysis

REPORTING


18



PRICING8/8/2011

* Each report is accompanied with, 2 additional location-wise supplements –

• Socio Economic Parameters impacting load growth• Distribution Franchisee RFP Data Analysis

Product Price (inc. taxes) BenefitsSingle Site Report (Detailed) Rs. 25,000 Individual Site Report of each location includes, (95+ slides)

Survey Design & Framework Survey Plan and Demographics Customer Priority Matrix for 28 different attributes Customer Opinion & Expectations Segment and Attribute-wise Customer Satisfaction

Results Key Recommendations+Free Expert Assistance: Buyers get additional research support from the pManifold Team at no additional cost

Pack of 3 Site Reports (Detailed) Rs. 60,000

Pack of all 9 Site Reports (Detailed) Rs. 1,57,500

Consolidated Top Level Report forGwalior-Sagar-Ujjain

Rs. 25,000 Consolidated Report includes, (30+ slides) Survey Plan – Survey Areas and Consumer

Segmentation Customer Expectations v/s Utility Performance Satisfaction v/s Order of Importance Matrix Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Customer Opinions and Expectations+Free Expert Assistance: Buyers get additional research support from the pManifold Team at no additional cost

Consolidated Top Level Report for all 9 districts

Rs. 75,000


19



PAYMENT TERMS AND DELIVERY8/8/2011

Payment Terms 50% advance, 50% after delivery of all reports

Delivery Timeline For Site Locations Gwalior-Dhatia-BhindAvailable immediately

For Site Locations Satna-Sagar-NarsinghpurAvailable immediately

For Site Locations Shajapur-Dewas-UjjainAvailable immediately

Key Findings Comparative Report for 9 districtsDelivered 1 week from placement of order

Reporting Format Portable Document Format (PDF)


20



OUR MOTIVATION – WHY THIS STUDY IS NEEDED? WHY NOW? The Forum of Regulators Report on Standardization of the Distribution Franchisee model(September 2010)

mentions that the objectives of appointing a distribution franchisee, inter alia,are:i. To minimise Aggregate Distribution and Commercial lossesii. To bring improvement in Metering, Billing and Revenue Collectioniii. To minimise Current Assets on account of arrearsiv. To enhance customer satisfaction level by improving quality of service

Placing focus on the fourth point, we find that while much information is shared in the Distribution Franchisee RFPs, they hardly provide any information on the current customer satisfaction levels nor the customer's perspective of the network infrastructure, current quality of services etc. This is a stark thing to miss considering all CERC, CEA, State ERCs and State Discom's mandate Improving Customer Satisfaction as one of the 4 objectives of a Power Distribution Franchisee.

However, while all utilities, licensees and potential or current distribution franchisee operators try to improve quality of service; could efforts to understand the customer's perception and expectations from the utility help the utility make more quality decisions to improve the services and have a happy, paying customer?

The answer probably is a big "Yes". Measuring customer satisfaction - using a structured methodology that relates the customer responses with consumer demographics and key factors/attributes affecting business performance - is probably the only way of independently & periodically benchmarking effectiveness of utilities operating in same or different zones. No doubt a number of such mechanisms have evolved and established themselves in the western countries where multiple state / private companies operate in the same locality. The reports in this series attempts to raise the customers voice to, better able the distribution franchisee & utility stakeholders to monitor the local situation, identify key priority actions and plan investments accordingly.

But how really could measuring customer satisfaction or proactively identifying customer preferences help? Read more here to learn how we think it does.

8/8/2011

http://www.blogger.com/www.forumofregulators.gov.in/Data/study/REPORT_ON_STANDARDISATION_OF_DISTRIBUTION_FRANCHISE_MODEL.pdf

http://blog.pmanifold.com/2011/08/electric-utility-customer-satisfaction.html


21

8/8/2011Copyright (c) pM

anifold. Electric Utility/CSAT/M

PSeries

Bidders participating in the Distribution Franchisee tenders to raise/address relevant issues with the licensee and also to better estimate investments in appropriate areas.

Distribution Franchisee operating in the region to establish a comprehensive model and identify drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty in order to establish long/short term marketing plans, investment priorities & satisfied customers.

Policy makers to improve RFP Design, policies and benchmarks for distribution franchisee performance based on stakeholder engagement and perception.

State Distribution Licensee Companies to monitor Distribution Franchisee performance and establish sound vendor management

Distribution Franchisees operating in other regions to benchmark their performance.

Consultants, Professionals, Public Panels and NGOs advising, tracking, monitoring and interfacing with distribution utilities.

Generally, the report helps to , Get an independent, customer centric view on the local electricity distribution situation Validate and add to information provided in RFP for improved Capex roll out plan Prioritize system investments and account customer expectations earlier in the game – managing

both PERFORMANCE and PERCEPTION, very critical to success of Distribution Franchisees Understand site’s ethnography – socio-economic etc.

WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THESE REPORTS?


22

METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW A 9 district “indicative, land survey” was conducted to profile and measure satisfaction & key

preferences of the electricity customers through “face-to-face” personal interviews. The survey covered urban and rural areas of all population strata in the 9 districts of Madhya Pradesh – Gwalior, Bhind, Datia, Sagar, Satna, Narsinghpur, Ujjain, Dewas and Shajapur. The key objective of the survey was to capture and present, fairly and timely, perception and opinion of customers about the local utility on well-chosen performance indicators so as to reliably identify which areas do customers give higher importance to, which would be of help to the utilities, and distribution franchisee stakeholders.

The selection of “survey regions” was “Purposive” based upon the coverage of allotted Divisions to Distribution Franchisee in those districts. The sampling was done on “Stratified Random” basis with 4 different electricity consumer types – Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Agri. Regional clusters/grids with dominant or high density of one of these consumer categories was chosen. Then a random selection of survey respondent was done in defined clusters.

More clusters/grids were allocated in urban areas compared to rural based upon connected load. However attempt was to spread grids across the district to cover all electrical divisions. The grids and random samples chosen within were kept distant to allow capture of different localities responses to their local power infrastructure. A comprehensive GIS model was used for survey planning and visualization of the sample grids to avoid any sampling mistakes during data collection. The approximate locations of sample respondent was coded in GIS to add additional layer of validation to tie digitized data to the location.

Secondary research and local intelligence was employed to identify clusters. Previous experience in electoral surveys, census surveys and NREGA in same regions was leveraged.



PSeries


23



METHODOLOGY ADDENDUM The decision to do an “indicative-land-based-face-to-face” survey with a fair sample of total 900

sample points across 9 districts, instead of deploying a larger sampling online or offline, was chosen to capture customer’s perspective on current performance of local utility in a timely and fair manner.

A target confidence level of 95% with ±10% confidence interval was identified good (based on existing literature survey) to make the findings fairly representative of all electricity customer segments in that district (and not just of those surveyed). Segment wise figures may also be fairly representative of the independent population based on the stratified distribution considered in the survey plan.

The fair sample size has confidence for existing number of electrical connections. The total 100 samples were divided between 4 consumer categories almost proportional to the number of connections in that category.

The survey plan, methodology and design were drawn from recent study done at Nagpur with 1200 sample point land-survey for the same.

A more pragmatic way of looking at the survey results would be to use the results as an indicator of the customers perspective of the local utility and its performance on different business areas.

8/8/2011


24

QUICK CONTACT

Rahul Bagdia

+91 95610-94490

[email protected]

Blog

http://blog.pmanifold.com/

Global Group connecting Power Distribution Franchisee Stakeholders

http://tinyurl.com/PowerDFgroup



PSeries

mailto:[email protected]

http://blog.pmanifold.com/

http://tinyurl.com/PowerDFgroup




25

GET IN TOUCH WITH US….

CleanTech PracticeRahul Bagdia+91 [email protected]

Faiz Wahid+91 [email protected]

India (Main office)Crystal Plaza, Level 2276 Central Bazaar Road,RamdaspethNagpur - 440010Maharashtra, INDIA http://www.pmanifold.com

USA (Liaison Office)2020 Calamos Ct.,Suite 209 Naperville,IL 60653, USA

Mr. Dinesh Jain+1 630-853-3520 [email protected]

DISCLAIMER pManifold Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (“pManifold”) and its

partners prepared this report. All rights reserved. All copyright in this presentation and related

works is solely and exclusively owned by pManifold. The same may not be reproduced, wholly or in part in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this presentation), modified or in any manner communicated to any third party except with the written approval of pManifold.

This presentation is for information purposes only. While due care has been taken during the compilation of this presentation to ensure that the information is accurate to the best of pManifold and its partner’s knowledge and belief, the content is not to be construed in any manner whatsoever as a substitute for professional advice.

pManifold and its partner’s neither recommend nor endorse any specific products or services that may have been mentioned in this presentation and nor do they assume any liability or responsibility for the outcome of decisions taken as a result of any reliance placed on this presentation.

Neither pManifold nor its partners shall be liable for any direct or indirect damages that may arise due to any act or omission on the part of the user due to any reliance placed or guidance taken from any portion of this presentation.

Logo’s and pictures are properties of their respective owners. With no existing benchmarks, the information presented may not

be comprehensive, but is a first attempt to create a baseline and provide real customer perspective to other electricity distribution stakeholders.

8/8/2011




