GBA 300- Communication Audit Chancellor Final Revision

Chancellor Funeral Home2576 Hwy 49 SouthFlorence, MS 39073

(601)[email protected]

Amanda EarnhardtJessica Knight

November 29, 2016

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary………………………………………………………. 1

Introduction………………………………………………………………..1

Audit Methods……....……………………………………………………..2

Audit Findings……………………………………………………………..3

Audit Recommandations…………………………………………………..6

Analysis of Recommendations…………………………………………….6

Conclusion………………………………………………………………....7

Appendix A: Original Document……………………………….………….8

Appendix B: Revised Document…………………………………………..10

Appendix C: Writer Interview……………………………………………..12

Appendix D: Reader Interviews…………………………………………...13

Appendix E: Reader Demographics……...……..…………………………49

Executive Summary

An audit of two documents for Chancellor Funeral Home was conducted. The documents examined and revised were a price list overview and a things to remember sheet. These items are used frequently by the funeral home to inform their customers of how the pricing structure is laid out and important information regarding the service and final arrangements for their loved one. Our objective was to enhance both documents to reflect not only the caring atmosphere that Chancellor provides but to ensure that the information they wanted to convey was easy to understand for their customer. To begin the audit, a member of the team spoke with Freddye Horton, a point of contact from Chancellor to discuss which documents they felt needed revision. Once the group obtained the documents, we analyzed them and determined improvements needed to be made in the following areas.

Grammar Spelling Content reorganization Phrasing revision

Our next step was to compile a group of twelve volunteers to review the documents and then rate them on five different categories using a numbering scale ranging from 0 being very poorly done to 5 being very well executed. The readers were also asked to rate the document using a plus and minus which was used to determine how the document made them feel. A plus (+) sign indicated that the reader liked the content and felt no revision was necessary. A minus (-) sign indicated that the reader felt changes needed to be made. Once the feedback and ratings were received, confirming our original thoughts on changes that needed to be made to the document, revisions were performed.

Introduction

Background

Chancellor Funeral Home is a family owned and operated funeral home and perpetual care cemetery. They have locations in Byram and Florence, Mississippi. Bill and Sandra Chancellor opened their doors in 2002 and have been providing funeral and perpetual care needs for local citizens ever since. The Chancellors’ live by the principle that ‘Family Comes First’ and strive to provide exemplary customer service to those during their time of need.

Beginning

To start the auditing process, one of our group members spoke with Freddye Horton, a funeral director at Chancellor Funeral home. After gaining an understanding of which documents would be the most beneficial to review, we were given a price list explanation document and a document entitled; ‘Things to Remember’ which entailed important information regarding what family members needed to provide and do for the funeral service. The main objective of both of

1

the documents is to give a clear and concise understanding of the protocols and what to expect at Chancellor while being sensitive to family member during such a difficult time.

A group evaluation and discussion was conducted and we determined what needed to be improved upon. It was important for our group to maintain the integrity and overall messaging of the original document but felt we could enhance on what Chancellor had already done in the following ways;

Spelling Grammar Content reorganization Phrasing revision

Our group felt that making these adjustments to the documents would not only improve the overall reader experience but further support the creditability and thoughtfulness that the Chancellor family has for their customers.

Audit MethodsDocument Selection

Our group is comprised of two students from The University of Alabama during fall semester 2016. We were assigned to perform a communication audit of the business of our choosing with approval from our professor. After discussing factors that would determine the business we would partner with we approached Chancellor Funeral Home in Florence, MS. One of the group members felt Chancellor would be a good match and was familiar with the organization. A meeting with Freddye Horton, a funeral director for Chancellor, confirmed her agreement to participate. Mrs. Horton felt it was a great opportunity to get a different perspective on some of the documents that she uses frequently. It was important to her that the customer felt confident in what Chancellor Funeral Home has to offer and that they communicate in a kind and effective way.

Writer Interview

Once decisions were made by the group as to what need to be changed in our minds on the document, a list of questions were drafted. There were questions that were specifically generated for the writer of the document with a goal of gaining a comprehensive understanding as to what the organization is trying to communicate and the thought process behind creating the documents. After the questions were formed, a local group member then conducted the interview with Freddye Horton and recorded her feedback.

Reader Interviews

Our group carefully selected twelve volunteers to look over our documents, rated them on a zero to five scale in selected categories, and provided feedback via interview. The readers were from various backgrounds with diverse work experience and differing experience with funeral services (See Appendix E-Reader Demographics). The reader questions were created for our targeted

2

group of readers to obtain feedback on both documents. Additionally, we sought feedback of an unbiased first-time reader to align with our initial team analysis. Once the reader read through the document, they were instructed to rate the following categories on a scale of 0 to 5; quality, effectiveness, organization, comprehension and essential information. A score of zero would infer a poorly written document and five inferring that it was executed well. The interview questions further supported the categories scored by asking questions pertaining to content, organization and overall impression of the documents. The reader interviews provided excellent information for our group and contributed greatly to the individual analysis we had already conducted.

Audit Findings

Our audit team found several improvements that could be made for each document. The overall consensus of what needed to be altered were; spelling, grammar, flow reorganization, reformat layout and more concise wording. The two documents are used by Chancellor funeral home frequently and need to be able to communicate to the customer what they should prepare for regarding the financial and service arrangements for their loved one.

In the “Things to Remember” document the readers felt that the overall information was good and covered essential information needed but that it was rather wordy and was not reader friendly. Several readers commented that bullet points and using more concise wording would improve the document. The tone in this document was not a main concern to readers per review of interview comments and ratings.

In the “Price List” document, readers seemed to be concerned with the tone and wording. The organization seemed to be effective and essential information was covered. Some readers made comments wanting explanation of certain terms used such as “clergy” and “DD-214”. The grammatical and spelling errors were more apparent in this document than the ‘Things to Remember’ document. There were also not many comments regarding the flow, the placement of information was appropriate. The improvement of tone, wording, grammatical and spelling errors will allow this document to be better received by future readers. Figure 1 illustrates the readers’ feelings concerning improvement of the document in 5 areas: quality, effectiveness, organization, comprehension, and essential information. It uses a 0-5rating scale (0= needs most improvement and 5= needs the least improvement) for importance and understanding of the document.

3

Quality

Effectiveness

Organization

Comprehension

Essential Info

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Rating Areas of Improvement-General Price List

Figure 1a. Readers’ rating areas needing improvement based on importance.

Figure 1a illustrates areas that readers felt needed improvement within the parameters of our five areas that were grading on a 0-5 scale. A score of zero meant that drastic revision was needed and a score of five meant that no revision was necessary. This bar chart is in reference to the ‘General Price List’ document. The readers felt confident in the level of comprehension therefore, that area needed the least amount of revision. Whereas the area in which the readers felt least confident and a large amount of revision was necessary was in quality and organization.

Quality

Effectiveness

Organization

Comprehension

Essential Info

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Rating Areas of Improvement-Things to Remember

Figure 1b. Readers rating areas needing improvement based on importance

4

Figure 1b illustrates areas that readers felt needed improvement in reference to the ‘Things to Remember’ document. These areas were determined using our parameters for categories of improvement as well as using a predetermined 0-5 rating scale. A score of zero means that the document needed drastic improvement in that specific category. A score of five would determine that the readers felt no improvement was needed in that area. The readers felt confident in the category of comprehension with an average score of four. The areas that readers felt needed the most improvement was quality with a score of two.

Figure 2. Reader suggestions for document improvement.

Add Bulled List More Concise More Consistent Change Tone0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Reader Suggestions for Document Improvement

Number of Readers

Num

ber o

f Rea

ders

As seen in figure 2, readers noticed similar inconsistencies and suggested changes similar to those of the group. Changes that the readers felt needed to be made were; adding bullet points, add concise wording, add consistency and change tone. Yet, they differed from the team in the fact that they overwhelmingly believed the wording was too much and needed to be stated differently.

5

Audit Recommendations

Our group believes a more organized and reader friendly list would be less complicated when communicating with the customer, resulting in greater percentage of customer satisfaction. By sectioning off the fields and adding bulleted lists, the Funeral Director would provide fresh clarity for the readers, as well as adding a warmer introduction and a lighter tone to the text. Additionally, the text should be arranged for easier access to the information.

The following is a complete list of out group’s suggestions for improvements:

Add bulleted lists in sections for the ‘Things to Remember’ document. Move the first two sentences above the General Price List sign. Provide better wording for communication in both documents Fix grammatical and spelling errors in both documents

Furthermore, the reader was asked to offer solutions for improvement of the document or areas they felt could be omitted completely. Figure 2 identifies our readers’ suggestions for improving the two documents.

Analysis of Recommendations

The suggestions and revised document will give the writer a fresh look into the construction and readability of the current documents, as well as facilitate changes which could improve its current effectiveness.We described how our suggestions could improve the lists:

Reduce the possibility for miscommunication Ensure the letter is concise without being too harsh Increase sales Better guide customers though the funeral process

Conclusion6

The purpose of this report is to present suggestions and revisions to Mrs. Horton that would help improve the effectiveness of communication through the lists. It is the group’s belief that by revising these lists, per our suggestions, sales will increase and confusion will be reduced. Furthermore, it should diminish the need for secondary communication with grieving families, as the document is intended to help the family gain a better understanding of how to prepare for a funeral service.

After interviewing Mrs. Horton and having twelve readers review the document, it became clear there was a need to revise the document in such a way that would allow a grieving family to have a clearer understanding of how to complete the funeral process. Although most readers felt the information was complete, they did not believe the document was consistent or organized effectively. Most of the readers felt the Things to Remember part of the document was confusing and/or inappropriate and should be combined with another section or eliminated altogether. Furthermore, they believed adding a list to clearly define the process was needed to improve the effectiveness of the letter.

Using the readers’ suggestions and the group’s own recommendations, the goal was made to revise the document in such a way as to make the steps in the process clearer and improve the overall consistency of the document. After compiling the data, the group came to the conclusion that adding three bulleted lists, as well as combining and shortening the document, was the best way to improve the effectiveness of the letter.

Our audit group would like to thank Chancellor Funeral Home and specifically Mrs. Horton, for participating in this communication audit. The hope is that the recommendations will benefit and strengthen the Funeral Home’s communication and sales process. Also, it is the group’s belief that by revising the lists, sales will increase and the need for further communication regarding clarification with grieving families will decrease.

7

Appendix A- Original Documents

8

Appendix A- Original Documents

9

Appendix B- Revised Documents

10

Appendix B- Revised Documents

11

Appendix C- Writer Interview

1. What is the purpose of this document?

The purpose of this document is to inform the customer of sensitive payment information. Also, to help our customers remember important information regarding their loved one's arrangements.

2. Who is this document intended for?

The document is primarily intended for customers with a loved one who has recently passed away.

3. Why is this document being reviewed?

This document is being reviewed for the purpose of bettering our communication with the customer. Funeral arrangements can be a sensitive topic for many individuals, and we want to be certain that we are communicating in the best way possible.

4. What, in a single sentence, is the writer’s bottom-line?

To inform the customer of Chancellor’s funeral services

5. What would you like from this audit?

I would like to know how to improve our communication with our customers. Our customers are important to me and their view of our company is important to me

12

Appendix D- Reader InterviewsReader A

13

Reader A

14

Reader A Questionnaire

1. Does the reader comprehend the information in document?

Yes, but was hard to follow.

2. Does the reader feel the layout of the document is acceptable? If not, why?

The layout could be split up for easier reading on the Things to Remember document.

3. Does the reader feel that the document is visually appealing?

No, it is bland with hardly any visuals.

4. Does the reader feel that the document conveys creditability of the Chancellor Funeral Home?

Yes, because it gives detailed information, but there were many errors in the documents that discredit the business competence.

5. Is the document sensitive to the needs of the customer reading it?

Yes

Numerical Rating System- Please rate the document on a scale of 0-5 (0 being very poorly done and 5 being exceptional) regarding the following categories.

Document 1 (‘General Price List’)-

Quality- 1 Effectiveness- 3 Organization- 2 Comprehension- 4 Essential information- 3

Document 2 (‘Things to Remember’)-

Quality- 2 Effectiveness- 4 Organization- 2 Comprehension- 5 Essential Information- 3

15

Reader B

16

Reader B

17

Reader B Questionnaire


Yes, the information given was fairly clear.


The layout felt squished together and crammed with endless information.


No, but the reader was not sure if that was the purpose.


Yes, they clearly know what they are talking about, but the information is overwhelming.


No






18

Reader C

19

Reader C

20

Reader C Questionnaire


Yes, plenty of information.


The General Price List was okay, but the Things to Remember Document was not.


No, it is just a bunch of black words on white paper.


No, because the documents look rushed and not very well thought out.


Yes






21

Reader D

22

Reader D

23

Reader D Questionnaire


24

Yes, the information could be very helpful.


The layout was okay, it just needed some separation.


No


Yes, the detailed information shows credibility.


Yes






Reader E

25

26

Reader E

27

Reader E Questionnaire


28

Yes, it is put simply so anyone can understand.


The layout seems not very well thought out.


No, it is simple.


Yes, but the wording was off and distracted from the message.


Yes






29

Reader F

30

Reader F

31

Reader F Questionnaire1. Does the reader comprehend the information in document?

Most of it yes, but some of it was not explained well.


The layout was unacceptable; it shows a lack of professionalism.


No


No, the writing is not very professional and has a harsh undertone.


Yes






Reader G32

33

Reader G

34

Reader G Questionnaire


Yes, but it was very brief.


The general price list was titled incorrectly and therefore was misleading. The layout was also very choppy.


No, since it is black and white and very wordy it is not easy to focus on the information displayed.


Yes, it seems to cover many of the items that the family needs to do for the deceased.


Yes






35

Reader H

36

Reader H

37

Reader H Questionnaire1. Does the reader comprehend the information in document?

Yes, lots of great info presented

2. Does the reader feel the layout of the document is acceptable?

Things to Remember could be less cluttered.


Very plain and dull


Yes, although not clear on first doc and relevance


Yes






38

Reader I

39

Reader I

40

Reader I Questionnaire


Yes, easy to understand


Very jumbled wording, perhaps try bullet points on ‘Things to Remember’ document.


Yes, for the type of document


Yes


Yes






41

Reader J

42

Reader J

43

Reader J Questionnaire1. Does the reader comprehend the information in document?

Yes, wordy but not hard to understand


It could be improved upon


It is somewhat bland but typical for this type of document


Yes


Yes






44

Reader K

45

Reader K

46

Reader K Questionnaire1. Does the reader comprehend the information in document?

Yes, except not clear on location of price list.


Yes


The reader feels it is dull, but that may be what funeral home wants.


Yes, they are well organized and seem to care as they use the word “loved one” frequently


Yes, very much so.






47

Reader L

48

Reader L

49

Reader L Questionnaire


Yes, but some of the phrasing is a bit rough.


Things to Remember was too jumbled but the General Price List had a nice layout.


It is alright, could be improved.


Yes, they seem thoughtful and prepared.


Yes, some of the phrasing could be improved, but overall it is ok.






Appendix E- Reader Demographics50

Reader Sex Age Education Level# of

Funeral Experience

Occupation

A Male 30 Bachelor’s Degree 0 Marketing AssistantB Female 56 Some College 2 Special Needs CaretakerC Female 65 Some College 3 RetiredD Male 53 Doctorate Degree 2 Executive DirectorE Female 25 Bachelor’s Degree 0 TeacherF Female 27 Associate’s Degree 1 Sales AssociateG Male 33 Bachelor’s Degree 0 ConsultantH Male 27 Master’s Degree 0 Athletic TrainerI Female 26 Bachelor’s Degree 1 Sales AssociateJ Female 54 Some College 15 DirectorK Male 68 Bachelor’s Degree 2 RetiredL Female 35 Bachelor’s Degree 3 Police Officer

51