TBR 2Q11 Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study

TBR

TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.

Technology Business ResearchAccelerating Customer Success Through Business Research

TBR

TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC.

Service & Support

Internal Support Organizations 1 85.9 +16 1 85.9 +14 1 85.8 +14

Dell Services 2 82.8 +2 3 82.0 0 2 83.7 +3

IBM Global/Lenovo Services 2 82.4 +1 2 83.0 +5 3 81.7 -1

HP Services 2 81.5 -1 3 81.9 0 3 81.1 -1

Author: Julie Perron

2Q11 TBR RANK

2Q11 TBR SCORE

2Q11 Strength/

Weakness Points

Publication Date: Sept. 23, 2011

2Q11 WSI SCORE

2Q11 Strength/

Weakness Points

2Q11 TBR RANK

2Q11 TBR SCORE

2Q11 Strength/

Weakness Points

OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

SUPPORT PROVIDER2Q11 TBR

RANK

Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study Second Quarter 2011

TBR

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Second Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.3

Content

Slides and Modules

3 2Q11 Corporate Service & Support

Satisfaction At A Glance

10 2Q11 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights

11 Key Findings

16 The Score in 2Q11

18 Most Noteworthy Events - Performance

Differentiation Shifts

21 Server Support - Segment Analysis

25 Desktop/Notebook Support - Segment Analysis

29 Critical Metrics Summary

32 TBR’s Watch List

38 Historical Record

TBR

Service & Support Customer Satisfaction | Second Calendar Quarter 2011 ©2011 Technology Business Research Inc.

2Q11 Corporate

Service & Support Satisfaction

At A Glance

4

TBR


IBM and Dell regain honors in their respective server and desktop/notebook support satisfaction segmentsIn-house support continues to assert itself as the overall model of maintenance efficiency

Dell Services maintains the advantage for desktop/

notebook support for its third straight period

•Dell Services defended its top ranking position by

outperforming competitors across most categories.

•At a considerable distance from Dell, Lenovo

Services and

HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking position. HP

was cited with a competitive warning for technical

expertise, while Lenovo Services was cited with a

warning for online support – both areas in which

Dell excelled and earned competitive strengths.

•The internal support teams continued to substantially outperform OEM support providers

across seven of the nine categories in both segments.

IBM holds server support leadership position for

the sixth straight reporting period

•IBM outpaced its OEM competitors by

excelling across key areas that touch on each

aspect of the support experience – on-site

support, phone support, replacement parts

availability, and the perception of services

value.

•Dell and HP Services shared the No. 3 ranking

position. Both contenders lacked the

differentiation exhibited by IBM across the

areas identified above.

5

2Q11 Corporate Service & Support Satisfaction at a Glance

82.0

83.7

85.9 85.8

83.0

81.781.981.1

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

89.0

Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support

2Q11 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING BY SUPPORT SEGMENT

Dell Services Internal Support Organizations

IGS/Lenovo Services HP Services

3

1

3 32

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

2

1

3

TBR


In-house support is again cited as the ideal experience, over a muddled field of OEM support providers with a few specific strengths & challenges

2Q11 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group defended its historical position as the model against

which we measure OEM support providers.

•Conservative budgeting of internal resources ensured the continued standing of

self support as the best source for managing IT infrastructures.

•The three OEM support providers shared the No. 2 ranking position, with their

WSI ratings at a considerable distance from that of internal support.

oDell Services’ position improved, gaining a new competitive strength for

online support.

oIGS’ position strengthened as well, recovering from its previous warning for

on-site response time.

oThe general strengthening of Dell’s and IGS’ scores were mitigated somewhat

by Dell giving up its previous strength for on-site response and IGS receiving

a new warning for online support.

oHPS’ performance improved modestly, yet a previous challenge – on-site

technical expertise – returned.

6


The Overall Results combine the server and desktop/notebook results into one, with sample sizes of 250 or more per

group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS

IGS/LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-s i te Technica l Expertise On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support * Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Ava i labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Ins ta l lati on/Confi guration * Numeric Va lue 16 2 1 -1

Weighted Satisfacti on Score 85.9 82.8 82.4 81.5

Ranking 1 2 2 2

Ranking, OEM Support Providers Only 1 1 1

Key: Weakness; Strength; ¡ Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.

OVERALL RESULTS

Service Provider 2Q11 Scorecard TBR

TBR


IBM Support outshines competitors for x86 server-related support services for the sixth straight period due to broadly differentiated services

2Q11 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM

support providers in all categories but parts availability and phone support.

•Internal support gave up its previous (and typically repetitive) competitive

advantage for phone support, as its 2Q11 score was no longer significantly

higher than that of IBM.

•IBM Support earned its sixth consecutive top ranking, driven by repeated

competitive strengths across five key categories – break/fix services, on-site

expertise, phone support, parts availability, and support services value.

•Dell Services and HP Services continued to share a subordinate ranking

position to IBM, neither exhibiting the needed differentiation perception that

IBM has continued to own.

•With a full slate of neutral performances, only one category exhibited

significant differences between the scores of Dell and HP Services – hardware

deployment.

7


The Server Support Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that primarily support x86-based servers,

with a sample size of 125 or more per group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-s i te Technica l Expertise * On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Ava i labi l i ty * Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Va lue 14 5 0 0

Weighted Satisfaction Score 85.9 83.0 82.0 81.9

Ranking 1 2 3 3


x86 Server Service Provider 2Q11 Scorecard

SERVER SUPPORT


TBR

TBR


Dell Services continues to exert its leadership status in desktop/notebook support

2Q11 Key Takeaways:

•The internal support group held firm, substantially outperforming OEM support

providers in all but two categories – break/fix services and parts availability.

•Internal support gave up its competitive advantage for break/fix services, an area in

which the group has typically dominated the competition each reporting period.

•Dell Services maintained its top ranking position as a result of continued performance

differentiation through its on-site technical expertise rating. A new online support

strength was added, at the cost of giving up its on-site response time strength that had

been present in the previous two periods. Dell’s substantially higher-than-average WSI

rating was enhanced by marginal advantages over competitors across most of the

remaining categories.

•HP Services was reissued a previously rescinded competitive warning for on-site

expertise.

•Lenovo Services shared the No. 3 ranking position with HPS, being cited with a new

competitive warning for online support. Yet, Lenovo Services was the most improved

performer in this study segment, recovering from its previously issued warning for on-

site response time.

8


The Desktop/Notebook Results are based on views of IT managers/directors that primarily support desktop and

laptop PCs, with a sample size of 125 or more per group.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services On-s i te Technica l Expertise On-s i te Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Onl ine Support * Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Ava i labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Ins ta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Va lue 14 3 -1 -1


Ranking 1 2 3 3



Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 2Q11 Scorecard

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

TBR

TBR


Satisfaction with support services gently rises in 2Q11•

Satisfaction with support services has increased

during the past two reporting periods, at a

modest rate.

•The overall satisfaction rating (group to the far

right) serves as a leading indicator. The more solid

level of improvement within this metric suggests

satisfaction levels across the individual categories

could move more substantially in the near future.

•TBR observed modest weakening on the part of

the internal support teams, affecting perceptions

of phone support, remotely managed support,

hardware deployment and overall services value.

These shifts, however, were inconsequential both

in magnitude and in contrast to the improving

overall satisfaction rating.


9

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 2Q11 VS. 1Q11

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

Shift

s of

3%

or g

reat

er in

dica

te s

igni

fican

t

chan

ge b

etw

een

repo

rting

per

iods

.

TBR


The score corrections of late 2010 appear to have been short-lived; satisfaction levels begin a slow recovery toward 3Q10 high points

•Satisfaction with support services spiked in 3Q10,

followed by a snap-back during the forth quarter of last

year.

•The 3Q10 (also evident in 2Q10) burst of enthusiasm was

driven by a combination of new product purchases with

fresh warranties and resumed IT staff hiring, where

enthusiasm with new hardware spilled over into

perceptions of services.

•The full correction occurred during 4Q10, when most

satisfaction positions returned to their first-quarter

levels.

•The results from 1H11 show customer satisfaction

beginning to slowly rebuild, and in most cases

establishing sustainable patterns indicative of more

stable attitudes. Note the overall satisfaction rating is

currently very close to its 3Q10 position.

The mean satisfaction ratings in the graph are based on the study results of discrete calendar quarters and not the “reporting periods”

(comprising two calendar quarters) TBR generally reports. The graph exemplifies average ratings across the three OEM support

providers – Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/Lenovo Services.


10

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Avai

labi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces

Pric

ing/

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

OEM SUPPORT PROVIDER SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS

Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 Jan-Mar 11 Apr-Jun 11

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


2Q11 Competitive Placement

Summary & Insights

11

TBR


OVERALL RESULTS: Internal support organizations continue their exemplary performances Dell and IGS performances are enhanced by successes within various segments

Factors Driving Rankings:

•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was driven by an inspiring set of

performances, substantially outpacing the OEM support providers in all

but one category (parts availability).

•TBR noted insufficient performance differences across the three OEM

support providers to assign separate ranking positions.

oDell Services outpaced its OEM competition across two areas –

online support and hardware deployment – while failing to deliver

on its previous advantage for on-site response time satisfaction

(present in the two previous periods).

oIGS also earned two strengths (break/fix, phone support), their

effects mitigated somewhat by a warning for online support.

oHPS was cited with one competitive warning, for on-site expertise.

= TBR issued competitive strength in 2Q11

= TBR issued competitive weakness or warning in 2Q11

Key Findings: Overall Study

12

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t/In

stal

latio

n

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS

Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1; IBM outperforms Dell and HP Services for the fifth straight period

The Context

•Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in

2009 as a result of the spending cuts caused by the Great Recession. WSI

ratings progressively declined throughout the year, leaving no competitor

(not even the in-house teams) immune to the trend.

•By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score slides halted, and improved

in IBM’s case. In 2Q10, the real excitement started; customer satisfaction

ratings surged across all groups, resulting in a split between

No. 1 ranked internal support and IBM over No. 2 ranked Dell and HP

Services.

•In 3Q10, the internal support organizations resumed their place alone at

the top, while IBM established a ranking position advantage over Dell and

HPS.

•In 4Q10 and into 1Q11, satisfaction scores corrected, returning to positions

held prior to the ebullience of the previous several periods. Ranking

positions remained constant.

2Q11 Developments

•Satisfaction positions are beginning to slowly improve, suggesting some customers may have undertaken

recent product refreshes, which ordinarily include fresh warranties.

•IBM maintained its status as the top-ranked OEM support provider, while Dell and HP Services’ scores remained

interlocked. 2Q11 was the fifth consecutive reporting period in which the companies were so aligned. IBM’s No.

1 rankings include a sixth period (1Q10) when TBR ranked all three OEM support providers at the No. 1 spot.

Key Findings: x86 Server Support

13

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

92.0

1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 1Q09 to 2Q11

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation examples remain plentiful, favoring internal support and IBM



14


•Internal support’s

No. 1 ranking was the result of consistently outperforming

OEM competitors across all but parts availability and (new

to 2Q11) phone support.

•IBM’s sole No. 2 ranking was delivered through solid

performances across break/fix, technical expertise, phone

support, parts availability and support services value.

These results entirely mirrored those of the previous

reporting period.

•While Dell and HP Services remained in a shared

No. 3 ranking, it was not the result of specific warnings or

weaknesses, as all were lifted in 1Q11 and remained in

check into 2Q11. Dell and HP Services simply lacked the

competitive strength of several of IBM’s performances.

Key Findings: x86 Server Support

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

IBM holds a consistent leadership position, as evidenced by its record of competitive strength wins:.

• Break/fix Services: 6 of the past 7 reporting periods

• On-site Expertise: 5 straight wins

• Phone Support: 2 straight wins

• Replacement Parts Availability: 2 straight wins

• Support Services Value: 3 straight wins

TBR


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: In-house support remains No. 1; Dell Services reiterates performance edge over Lenovo and HP Services

The Context

•Customer satisfaction with desktop and notebook systems support

began to decline as far back as mid-2008 but accelerated during the

recession of 2009.

•By 1Q10, customer satisfaction scores for all competitors either

stabilized or improved. Dell Services’ improvement was substantial

enough to deliver a sole No. 1 ranking.

•In 2Q10, ranking positions held steady, with Dell Services as the

singular

No. 1 ranked player, internal support and Lenovo Services sharing

No. 2 and HPS ranked No. 3.

•In the succeeding periods, Dell and Lenovo Services switched

positions, with Lenovo taking No. 1 in 3Q10 and Dell regaining the

lead in 4Q10. Dell kept its leadership position in 1Q11.

15

2Q11 Developments

•Satisfaction scores began to show signs of recovery for Dell and Lenovo Services, while HPS’ scores held fairly

steady. In-house support scores, however, continued to weaken.

•Dell earned its third consecutive win. Dell has placed at the top of the OEM provider rankings in five of the past

six reporting periods.

•Lenovo Services, while remaining in a subordinate ranking position to Dell, was the most improved performer.

•HP Services remained in a shared ranking position with Lenovo.

Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 1Q09 to 2Q11

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services edges the competition with its online support and technical expertise ratings



16


•Internal support’s No. 1 ranking was the result of consistently

outperforming OEM competitors in all categories but parts availability

and (new in 2Q11) and break/fix.

•Dell Services’ No. 2 ranking, behind the in-house group, was the result

of two key performance differentiators, where Dell earned competitive

strengths: on-site expertise and online support.

•Dell Services has earned competitive strengths for on-site technical

expertise for two consecutive reporting periods. However, its on-site

response time rating did not quite hold up to past successes, with TBR

lifting the competitive strength held during the previous two periods.

•No. 3-ranked Lenovo Services and HPS were positioned below Dell

Services across most categories (overall value excepted), particularly

with respect to two key challenges – online support for Lenovo

Services and on-site expertise for HP Services.

Key Findings: Desktop/Notebook Support

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

6.60

6.80

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Internal organizations validate themselves as the ideal support experience Performance differentiation across the OEM support providers is diminished

Dell Services’ WSI exhibited a 0.8% improvementImproving scores were led by online support (+1.6%); there were no weakening positions.HPS’ WSI increased by 0.5%Satisfaction improvement was led by on-site support response time (+1.7%); there were no weakening positions.IGS’ WSI advanced by 0.8%On-site response time (+2%) led the list of improving positions; there were no examples of score declines.Internal support’s WSI dipped by 0.5%There were no examples of significantly shifting scores.

2Q11 satisfaction score improvement was driven by :

•Server support satisfaction scores increased, particularly within the Dell and HP groups, and

particularly relative to on-site support response time.

•Desktop/notebook support satisfaction scores were less energized and, in some cases,

weakened. Dell and HP scores were basically constant, while those of Lenovo improved.

Internal support scores receded.

The Score in 2Q11

17

The overriding trend in 2Q11 was for gently rising satisfaction following two

previous periods of considerable score weakening.

86.3 85.9

81.8 82.481.2 81.582.2 82.8

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

92.0

1Q11 2Q11

2Q11 VERSUS 1Q11 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION RATINGS AND RANKS

Internal Support Organizations IGS/Lenovo Services & PartnersHP & Partners Dell & Partners

3 3

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

1

22

2

1

22

22

TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations reinforce the 2Q11 ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests) •

The singular No. 1 ranking position held by the internal support group was

enhanced by it receiving competitive strengths in eight of the nine

categories.

•In addition to the close proximity of their WSI scores, the three OEM

support providers shared the No. 2 ranking in 2Q11 as a result of a mixture

of developments, all modest in terms of overall effects.

•Dell Services earned two marginal strengths, yet within relatively low

priority areas (online support and hardware deployment). Dell was unable

to carry forward a previous win in a higher priority category – on-site

response time.

•IGS earned two marginal strengths, one of which was in a top category –

break/fix services. These strengths were offset by a new warning, for online

support.

•HP was cited with one warning, for technical expertise.

•In the end, the weights, calculated against the satisfaction scores, delivered

three WSI ratings that, again, were too close for TBR to separate the

rankings.

YELLOW boxes indicate areas where Strength/Weakness determinations have been downgraded from the previous

reporting period.

BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade.

18

The Score in 2Q11

VENDOR INTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS IGS/LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

CONSTANT Break/Fix Services * EXPANDING On-site Technical Expertise CONTRACTING On-site Response Time/Commitment CONSTANT Telephone/Helpdesk Support * EXPANDING Online Support * CONSTANT Remotely Managed Support CONSTANT Replacement Parts Availability CONSTANT Support Services Pricing/Value CONSTANT Hardware Installation/Configuration *

Numeric Value 16 2 1 -1


Ranking 1 2 2 2

Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only)

1 1 1

SOURCE: TBR

CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 1Q11

2Q11 Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal.

TBR

The principal developments in 2Q11 involved a merging of customer perceptions around on-site response time and

the emergence of online support as a new performance differentiator.

TBR


On-site response time drops off the list of experiences separating OEM support providers

In 1Q11, Dell Services’ on-site support response time satisfaction rating was

significantly higher than those of HPS and IGS, leading TBR to assign Dell its

second consecutive strength. IGS’ score was significantly lower than average,

resulting in a competitive warning. As expected, the in-house support group’s

rating was in a range all its own. By 2Q11, scores for HPS and IGS nudged up by

a two-to-one greater factor than that of Dell, resulting in scores that could not

be differentiated via statistical significance test. The in-house group continued

to dominate the category.

Between 1Q11 and 2Q11, IGS and HPS traded in many of their previously

level-5 scores for level-6 scores. This largely evened the score against Dell. It

should be noted, however, that Dell Services continued to bring in the

greatest number of Perfect 7 ratings and fewer level 5s. The difference from

those of competitors, however, was just not enough for Dell to earn the

competitive strength for the third straight period; scores were too spread out

for the significance test to turn positive. These results were driven by

developments on the desktop/notebook support side, where Lenovo’s mean

score increased by nearly 3% against more static competitors’ ratings. TBR

lifted the competitive warning against Lenovo in that study segment, along

with Dell’s previous competitive strength.

Most Noteworthy Events – Performance Differentiation Shifts

19

1Q11 2Q11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIMEBY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site technical expertise flips to differentiate the OEM support providers

In 1Q11, scores declined from the previous period at varying

magnitudes, essentially evening the score across the three OEM

providers. Perceptions of on-site expertise merged. In 2Q11,

scores shifted again, enough to force a return of the category as a

performance differentiator. Dell Services’ and IGS’ scores

increased modestly, while that of HPS was flat. HPS landed in a

place that was significantly lower than average, and TBR reissued

a competitive warning.

HPS’ distribution curve shifted slightly to the left against its

competitors in 2Q11. What is not clearly shown here is that the

shift was driven entirely by the desktop/notebook satisfaction

results, where HPS’ mean score declined by nearly 2% against

more stable competitors. TBR cited HPS with a competitive

warning for on-site technical expertise in the desktop/notebook

segment.

20

1Q11 2Q11

*These overall results may be misleading. IBM led the competition in the server support segment for technical expertise satisfaction; Dell Services in the desktop/notebook segment.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Online support re-emerges as a performance differentiator, favoring Dell over Lenovo Services

In 1Q11, TBR observed no significant differences across the online support

satisfaction scores for Dell, HPS or IGS. The in-house group continued to

dominate the category on its own. In 2Q11, Dell’s score increased against flat

competitors’ ratings. This resulted in a placement where Dell’s mean score was

significantly higher than average, spurring TBR to award Dell with a competitive

strength. As the developments occurred within the desktop/notebook study

segment, TBR awarded Dell the strength only for desktop/notebook support,

against a new competitive warning for Lenovo in that its score remained static

against improving Dell and HPS ratings. It should be duly noted, however, Dell’s

rating in the server support segment was also higher than average, just not

significantly so.

Dell Services earned the competitive strength as a result of

earning more Perfect 7 ratings and fewer disappointed

ratings than competitors. The difference, however, is more

evident within the desktop/notebook study segment.

Lenovo Services’ warning was the result of a distribution

curve heavily weighted toward the fifth level of the scale

and clearly lacking in Perfect 7 ratings.

21

1Q11 2Q11


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 2Q11 server support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)

•The foundation for the internal support group’s continued No. 1 ranking was substantiated by its

continued earning of strengths in all but two categories – parts availability (standard) and phone

support (new).

•IBM repeated its No. 2 ranking behind the in-house group and ahead of its OEM support provider

competition. This was enhanced by five continuing competitive strengths.

•Dell Services’ No. 3 ranking behind IBM Support was the result of failing to narrow performance

gaps across the five categories in which IBM is differentiated in the minds of its customers.

•HPS’ situation was similar to Dell Services, allowing IBM to take a total of five competitive

strength categories.

Server Support – Detailed Segment Analysis

What Changed in 2Q11:

Only one change occurred between 1Q11 and 2Q11; the general weakening of the in-house group resulted in failure to repeat its competitive strength advantage for phone support. This is an unusual development,

as the group generally dominates this category. Its mean score generally weakened on the desktop/notebook support side and might be indicative of internal stresses around resource availability for handling

internal helpdesk calls as a result of recent cutbacks.

22

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT IBM SVCS DELL SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services * On-s ite Technical Expertise * On-s ite Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support * Onl ine Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty * Support Services Pricing/Value * Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Value 14 5 0 0


Ranking 1 2 3 3


x86 Server Service Provider 2Q11 Scorecard

SERVER SUPPORT


TBR

TBR


IBM earns a solid No. 1 ranking over Dell and HP Services due to

the contributions of several key competitive advantages

•Server support customers attribute relatively high

importance to most categories, with the exceptions

being remotely managed and online support as well as

hardware deployment services.

•IBM Support established substantial performance

advantages over competitors across five categories. As

high-importance areas, each of these categories carry

significant weight toward the WSI score.

•Across most highly weighted categories, the

performances of Dell and HP Services were comparable,

yet HP held a narrow advantage over Dell for support

services value.

For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G.

2Q11 SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS

WSI Score Rank

IBM Services 83.0 1

Dell Services 82.0 2

HP Services 81.9 2

TBR splits responses based on the respondents’ primary

responsibilities. In each study a participant is asked to

identify the support area with which they are most involved

(servers/storage or desktop/notebook) and are then asked to

rate those experiences exclusively.

23


5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


In 2Q11, server support satisfaction ratings began to rebound

•Satisfaction with server support services increased in 2Q11, yet Dell Services’ score for

online support was the only example of an improvement of significant magnitude.

•Overall, Dell and HP had the most to gain in 2Q11, with their scores on average improving

at higher magnitudes than that of IBM and subsequently narrowing IBM’s leadership

margin.

•Regardless of the momentum evidenced within the ratings of Dell and HPS, IBM held firm

its competitive advantages across the five categories where competitive strengths were

awarded in the last reporting period as well.

•Dell Services’ ratings improved across most of the high-importance categories, except

parts availability and support services value excepted. Note that Dell’s online support

rating improved significantly, while competitors’ scores gently receded, offering Dell a

potential opportunity for dominance in this category.

•HPS’ scores improved most notably in the on-site support categories as well as in parts

availability.

•IBM’s momentum was stilted against competitors’ gains, with the exception of phone

support. Regardless, as mentioned above, IBM gave up nothing in terms of dominance

within the five key areas that defined its continued No. 1 ranking.

LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN SERVER SATISFACTION, 1Q11 to 2Q11

% Change, WSI Score

Dell Services +1.3%

HP Services +1.1%

IBM Services +0.7%

24


-1%

-1%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ce P

ricin

g/Va

lue

1Q11 to 2Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


GAP scores point to some specific challenges for OEM support providers

While most GAP positions have shifted to within the acceptable range for the score (up to -5%), examples remain where there is ample room for improvement. These examples include online

support for IBM, on-site response time for IBM and HPS, phone support and parts availability for Dell Services.

25


-10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Break/Fix Services

On-site Response Time

On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support

Remotely Managed Support

Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability

Support Services Value

STANDARD GAP SCORES - SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT

IGS (IBM) HP Services Dell Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

UN

ACCE

PTAB

LE G

AP R

ANG

E

TBR


TBR’s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations enhance the 2Q11 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisionsThese determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analysis (two tests)

Desktop/Notebook Support – Detailed Segment Analysis

26

•The internal support group’s No. 1 ranking was substantially enhanced by its continuing domination across all

but the parts availability (standard) and break/fix (new) categories.

•Dell Services maintained its No. 2 ranking for the third reporting period by carrying over its on-site expertise

competitive strength and adding a new one for online support. Note Dell’s on-site expertise strength (a

relatively high importance category) was a full value strength, while its online support win was marginal. Dell did

not carry over its previous strength for on-site response time.

•Lenovo Services remained in the No. 3 ranking behind Dell, the decision enhanced by its competitive warning in

the online support category, where Dell currently dominates. This new warning was offset by a recovery from

Lenovo’s previous warning for on-site support response time.

•HPS remained in a shared No. 3 ranking with Lenovo, also cited with one competitive warning. This was a newly-

issued warning for on-site technical expertise.

What Changed in 2Q11: • The internal support teams failed to continue to dominate the break/fix services category, primarily as a result of improvements on the part of both Dell and Lenovo.• Dell Services gave up its strength for on-site response time due to significantly improving competitors. Its on-line support strength gain was delivered as a result of steady improvement over the past several reporting

periods.• Lenovo Services recovered from its previous response time warning through a nearly 3% improvement within its mean rating. Its online support warning came about due to a static rating against improving competitors.• HPS’ on-site technical support warning was the result of a weakened rating against static or improving competitors.

SUPPORT PROVIDERINTERNAL SUPPORT DELL SVCS LENOVO SVCS HP SVCS

Break/Fix Services On-s ite Technical Expertise On-s ite Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Onl ine Support * Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Avai labi l i ty Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Insta l lation/Confi guration Numeric Value 14 3 -1 -1


Ranking 1 2 3 3



Desktop/Notebook Service Provider 2Q11 Scorecard

DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

TBR

TBR


Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking is driven by on-site expertise and

online support advantages

For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please

refer to Appendix G.

2Q11 DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS

WSI Score RankDell Services 83.7 1Lenovo Services 81.7 2HP Services 81.1 2

TBR splits responses based on respondents’

primary responsibilities. Each study participant

is asked to identify the support area with which

they are most involved (servers/storage or

desktop/notebook) and are then asked to rate

those experiences exclusively.

•Dell Services’ win was primarily the result of its substantial

performance advantages in the relatively high-importance

area of on-site technical expertise, where a full

competitive strength was awarded. This was

supplemented by a marginal strength within a lower-

importance area – online support.

•The fact that Dell’s wins occurred within areas where

competitors were challenged accentuated the power of its

No. 1 ranking.

27


5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

eDe

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Ove

rall

Valu

e

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING -DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Desktop/notebook support satisfaction ratings shift within a narrow range of modestly changed positions

LEVELS OF IMPROVEMENT IN DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SATISFACTION, 1Q11 to 2Q11

% Change, WSI Score

Dell Services +0.2%

HP Services -0.2%

Lenovo Services +1.0%

•WSI positions were essentially constant for Dell and HP Services,

while Lenovo Services made a modest level of improvement.

•Regardless of Lenovo’s improvement, the magnitude of Dell

Services’ lead was only modestly reduced.

•In the area of on-site technical expertise, HPS’ score receded,

against comparatively flat competitors. This resulted in HPS gaining

a new competitive warning, while Dell held its competitive strength

for a second consecutive win.

•Lenovo’s on-site response time rating improved by nearly 3%,

against a flat Dell rating. Consequently, Dell lost hold of its

competitive strengths of the previous two periods while Lenovo

recovered from its warnings of the same time periods.

28


-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Expe

rtise

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Web

Sup

port

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ce P

ricin

g/Va

lue

1Q11 to 2Q11 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Some borderline GAP positions remain in place, primarily affecting HPS’ performances

29


-10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%

Break/Fix Services


On-site Expertise

Phone Support

Online Support

Remotely Managed Support

Hardware Deployment

Parts Availability


STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

IGS (Lenovo) HP Services Dell Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

UN

ACCE

PTAB

LE G

AP R

ANG

E

While most GAP positions have shifted to within the acceptable range for the score (up to -5%), a few borderline GAP positions remained in place in 2Q11. HPS shows additional room for better

meeting customer expectations in the phone support and on-site expertise categories as well as for replacement parts availability. Lenovo needs to consider its on-site response time

performance. While TBR lifted its previous competitive warning, customers continue to express high expectations.

TBR


Vital Statistics: 2Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction CompetitionDell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

2Q11 Ranking 2 2 2 1

2Q11 Ranking, OEM support providers 1 1 1 N/A

Rank change vs. 1Q11 0 0 0 0

2Q11 WSI 82.8 82.4 81.5 85.9

WSI change vs. 1Q11 +0.8% +0.8% +0.5% -0.5%

Rationale for Ranking Positions

WSI placement & proximity to OEM

competitors


competitors


competitors

WSI placement & proximity to OEM competitors; multiple

competitive strengths

Competitive Strengths

Online support (New; Marginal); hardware

deployment (Continuing;

Marginal); On-site support response

strength rescinded

Break/fix Services (Continuing; Marginal);

Phone support (Continuing; Marginal)

NoneAll except for parts

availability (continuing) – all full competitive strengths,

consistent with 1Q11 results

Competitive Weaknesses/Warnings None

Online support (New; Warning); recovered from on-site support response

time warning

On-site technical expertise (New;

Warning)None

Significant Movement, 2Q11 vs. 1Q11(3% or greater shifts)

No significant movement; online

support advanced by 1.6%

No significant movement; on-site response time

improved by 2%

No significant movement; on-site

response time advanced by 1.7%

No significant movement

Critical Metrics Summary

30

TBR


Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

Server Support WSI & Ranking 82.0 No. 3 83.0 No. 2 81.9 No. 3 85.9 No. 1

Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking 83.7 No. 2 81.7 No. 3 81.1 No. 3 85.8 No. 1

Server Support Competitive Profile

Neutral across the board

Five strengths – break/fix, on-site expertise, phone

support, parts availability, support

services value

Neutral across the board

Strengths across all categories except for

parts availability (continuing) and phone

support (new)

Desktop/Notebook Competitive Profile

Two strengths – on-site technical expertise (Continuing; Full);

online support (New; Marginal); on-site

response time strength rescinded

One warning – online support (New); on-site response time warning

rescinded

One warning – on-site technical expertise (New)

Strengths across all categories except for

parts availability (continuing) and

break/fix services (new)

Significant Movement, Server Segment, 2Q11 vs. 1Q11

[WSI +1.3%] No significant movement; online support +2.5%; on-site response time

+2.1%

[WSI +0.7%] No significant movement; phone support +1.6%

[WSI +1.1%] No significant movement; on-site response

time +2.1%

[WSI +0.4%] No significant movement; on-site expertise +2%

Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 2Q11 vs. 1Q11

[WSI +0.2%%] No major changes

[WSI +1%] On-site response time +2.9%

[WSI -0.2%] No significant movement; remotely

managed support -1.9%; on-site expertise -1.7%

[WSI – 1.6%] Support services value -3.2%; remotely managed

support -3%

Vital Statistics: 2Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition

31


TBR


Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support

Summary

The revolving pattern of Dell and Lenovo Services trading wins in the desktop/notebook support segment has been broken. Dell secured its third straight (and fifth of the past six reporting periods) No. 1 ranking. In 2Q11, Dell differentiated itself through its competitive advantages for on-site expertise and online support specifically, yet its scores trended higher than competitors across all but the support service value category. Dell customers also continued to attribute the highest levels of satisfaction to parts replacement handled by Dell on-site technicians. In the server support segment, Dell continued to be out-differentiated by IBM for the fifth consecutive reporting period.

IBM Support pulled in its sixth straight No. 1 ranking for server support satisfaction, and its fifth straight singular (non-shared) top ranking. Among the records IBM holds are competitive advantages for break/fix support satisfaction in six of the past seven periods, five straight wins for on-site technical expertise, and three straight wins for support services value satisfaction. Neither of its competitors has been able to differentiate their performances through competitive strength wins for these past five reporting periods. Lenovo Services continues to be outpaced by Dell in desktop/notebook satisfaction despite being the most improved competitor in the 2Q11 reporting period. Currently, Lenovo is challenged in meeting customer expectations for online support and was outpaced by Dell in the on-site technical expertise category.

HP Services has established far fewer No. 1 rankings than competitors in either study segment (server support, desktop/notebook support). Its last top ranking in the server support segment was a three-way tie with IBM and Dell in 1Q10. While HPS’ server support satisfaction scores improved to a greater extent than competitors in the categories of parts availability and on-site response time, additional momentum will be required to break the IBM spell of six consecutive wins in the segment. HPS won a string of three No. 1 rankings in the desktop/notebook segment from 4Q08 through 2Q09. Subsequently, however, Lenovo and now Dell have been more likely to secure top rankings. In the 2Q11 competition, HPS’ scores in the desktop/notebook support segment were stagnant amid a renewed challenge in the area of on-site technical expertise.

The internal support group remained in the position to which it was ascribed at the start of TBR’s study design more than a decade ago – the ideal against which we measure the OEM support providers. The group carried competitive strengths against all categories except parts availability in the 2Q11 overall results. TBR did observe some weakening of performances, however, that resulted in the group giving up its competitive strength standing for phone support in the server segment and for break/fix services in the desktop/notebook segment. It is possible internal support organizations may be feeling a bit of the pinch of overextending existing resources in the face of budget cutbacks.

Bottom Line

During the past year, TBR has observed many patterns in these study results, beginning with the exuberance of large corporate refreshes with fresh systems warranties that introduce minimal fuss in the support department. This was followed by what occurs with respect to the natural order of time, where some systems develop issues that need to be dealt with either internally, through OEM support contacts, or both. The results of these changes were the extreme ups and downs TBR observed in the satisfaction numbers. The data appears to be on a return course to business as usual, with 1H11 satisfaction scores gently rising, leaving 4Q10 as the end of the satisfaction score corrections. The rebound appears to be led by server support experiences, where satisfaction levels generally improved in 2Q11, while desktop/notebook support scores were stalled.

Vital Statistics: 2Q11 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition

32


TBR


TBR’s Watch List differs from the Competitive Strength and

Weakness Analysis

TBR’s Watch List

TBR takes the following factors into consideration in determining items on the Watch List:

•Results of the Improvements GAP Analysis are based on a vendor’s expectation fulfillment for a category against its overall expectation fulfillment across all measured attributes.

•Competitive positioning based on results of statistical significance tests

•Results of the Standard GAP Analysis for the vendor against its competitors’ positions

•Decline in satisfaction in the past two reporting periods

•Segments (server support versus desktop/notebook support) influencing declines in satisfaction during past two reporting periods

•Loss of competitive strength or addition of competitive weakness

•Disappointment/Delight meter – proportions of dissatisfied versus delighted customers

•Items are removed from the Watch List when a vendor has recovered its competitive position from past, recent reporting periods.

Differences:

•The analysis looks backward and forward.

•Items placed on the Watch List are often not areas where the vendor has underperformed the marketplace or a specific competitor.

•Included are areas in which a vendor may have recently excelled; however, the competitive field has shifted during the current reporting period.

33

TBR


Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; divided customer perceptions need to be addressed

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Citation Placement Improvements GAP

% Change versus 1Q11

Long-term Trends

Segments Affected, 2Q11

Strength/ Weakness Status

Disappointment/Delight Meter Notes

Phone Support

Significantly below IBM at 95% confidence in server segment

Below Average Up by 1.5%, comparable to competitors’ average in server segment

Trailing IBM by substantial margins for the past four reporting periods

Server Support

Remaining neutral while IBM retains competitive strength for second straight period

Disappointment steady at 8% and remains worst in class, vs. best-in-class performance (20%) for customer delight

Dell’s phone support satisfaction scores continue to exhibit volatile patterns and wide opinion spread, with an unacceptably high number of disappointed scores. Today, the issue remains largely on the server support side, where IBM continues to defend its exceptional record.


Significantly lower than IBM at 95% confidence in server segment; also trending lower than HP server

Just Below Average

Up by a modest 0.7%, comparable to competitors’ average in server segment

Unable to recover from substantial drop in 4Q10; trailing IBM significantly for the past four periods

Server Support

Remaining neutral while IBM successfully defends competitive strength for the third straight period

Disappointment steady at 8% and remaining worst in class; customer delight steady at 22% and best in class

An issue of diverging views among Dell customers sampled again; Dell is most challenged in the server segment, where both competitors fared better. Dell has not earned a competitive strength for services value since mid-2009.

34

TBR


Dell Services faces challenges in meeting customer expectations for server support; divided customer perceptions must be addressed (cont.)



Long-term Trends




Break/Fix Services

Significantly below IBM in server segment, 95% confidence

Above Average Up by 1.4% and comparable to competitors’ average in server segment

Beginning to recover from substantial weakening in previous two periods; consistently trailing IBM since mid-2009

Server Support

IBM continues to win competitive strength, in six of the past seven periods

Disappointment steady at 6% and worst in class; customer delight, at 27%, up slightly and remaining best in class

IBM continues to dominate the break/fix satisfaction category, bringing in its sixth competitive strength during the past seven periods. Dell customer opinions remain very divided, suggesting variability of experience, perhaps drawing a dividing line between server and desktop/notebook customers, and possibly between premium-level and basic-support contract holders.

35

TBR’s Watch List: Dell Services

Additional Observations:

Dell Services’ on-site response time satisfaction ratings continued to trend higher than average, but divided opinions have affected this metric as well, preventing Dell from continuing to significantly outperform competitors in 2Q11. Dell

brought in the worst-in-class performance for customer disappointment, against the strongest record for customer delight. TBR subsequently lifted Dell’s competitive strength standing that had existed during the previous two periods.

Meanwhile, competitors have recovered from their various warnings in this category during the past several reporting periods.

TBR


HP challenges remain due to competitive pressures in both study segmentsTBR’s Watch List: HPS



Long-term Trends




On-site Technical Expertise

Significantly lower than IBM in server segment; significantly lower than competitors’ average in desktop/notebook segment

Average Up by 1.5% in server segment, comparable to competitors’ average; down by 1.7% in desktop/notebook segment, vs. competitors’ average +1%

No signs of recovery; trailing competitors by wide margins for the past four periods

Both segments

Warning reissued in desktop/notebook segment following short reprieve, while Dell earns its second straight competitive strength; remaining neutral in server segment yet IBM continues to dominate the category

Disappointment, at 5%, was worst in class; customer delight, at 19%, within range of competitors

HPS faces tough competition in this category from both sides – Dell earns the strengths in the desktop/notebook segment and IBM in the server segment. HPS subsequently suffers from a lack of perceived differentiation.

Break/Fix Services

Significantly lower than IBM in server segment; trending lower than competitors’ average in desktop/notebook segment

Above Average Up by 1.6% and comparable to competitors’ average in server segment; no change in desktop/notebook segment against competitors’ average +1.5%

Beginning to recover from substantial weakening of previous two periods but consistently trailing both competitors for the past four periods

Both segments

Remaining neutral yet IBM earns competitive strengths in six of the past seven periods in the server segment

Disappointment steady at 4%; customer delight up from 15% in 1Q11 to 22% in 2Q11

HPS has improved its positioning in the server segment, yet clearly lacks the sustainable differentiation established by IBM in the server segment. Competitors’ scores improved in the desktop/notebook segment while those of HPS remained flat.

36

TBR


HP challenges remain due to competitive pressures in both study segments(cont.)Citation Placement Improvements

GAP% Change versus 1Q11

Long-term Trends




Online Support

Significantly lower than Dell in both study segments

Below Average No change in server segment, while Dell improves by 2.5%; up by just 0.6% in desktop/notebook segment, comparable to that of Dell

Remaining flat during the past three periods and dropping significantly below Dell in 2Q11 as Dell has improved during the past two periods

Both Segments

Last competitive warning issued in 1Q10; remaining neutral while Dell picks up the competitive strength in the desktop/notebook segment

Disappointment worst in class at 9%

Dell Services’ score was significantly above average and HPS held an inordinately high number of disappointed scores. Lenovo Services is similarly challenged.

37

TBR’s Watch List: HPS

Additional Observations:

TBR removed on-site support response time from HPS’ Watch List in 2Q11 due to the competitive field converging in the server support segment. In the desktop/notebook segment, HPS scored between Dell Services and Lenovo Services,

trending only slightly (but not significantly) lower than Dell. HPS saw a 50% increase in customer delight and a 50% reduction in customer disappointment for the category between 1Q11 and 2Q11.

TBR


IBM support continues to exhibit few vulnerabilities; Lenovo Services must focus on regaining past competitive advantages

TBR’s Watch List: IGS

38



Long-term Trends





Marginally below competitors’ average (90% confidence) and significantly below Dell (95%) in desktop/notebook segment

Well Below Average

Up by 2.9% in desktop/notebook segment but not enough to close the performance gap against Dell

Trailing Dell for past three reporting periods, HP for past two; had led the field briefly in 3Q10

Desktop/Notebook

1Q11 competitive warning lifted due to improvement in 2Q11

Disappointment held in check at 3%; customer delight worst in class (13%) vs. competition

With Lenovo Services’ score improving against a flat Dell Services, Dell lost its competitive strength standing of the previous two reporting periods and Lenovo recovered from its warnings of the past two. Yet, the category remains on the Watch List, as Lenovo continues to trail Dell, setting up a seemingly unbreakable pattern.

NEW – Online Support

Significantly lower than Dell in server segment; substantially lower than competitors’ average and Dell in desktop/notebook segment

Well Below Average

Down gently, -0.5% in server segment against Dell’s +2.5% improvement; no change in desktop/notebook segment vs. competitors’ average +0.6%

Has been down for the past three periods and trailing competitors’ averages for the past two

Desktop/Notebook

Competitive warning issued in 2Q11 while Dell earns the strength in desktop/notebook segment

Disappointment in check at 5%; customer delight, at 8%, worst in class vs. competitors’ average 16%

IGS earned a paltry number of perfect 7s, half those earned by competitors. IGS had earned three consecutive competitive strengths in this category, from 1Q10 through 3Q10. Perceptions have shifted considerably since then.

TBR


Dell Services holds the record for wins since the study’s inception, though IGS holds the record for wins in the past three years•

Since the study’s inception in 4Q00, Dell Services has been ranked as

a No. 1 support provider for 34 of 44 reporting periods.

•Dell Services’ No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was its first since 4Q07 and did

not carry over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three

reporting periods later, in 1Q09, and held that distinction for the next

four periods.

•Dell’s wins have reappeared in the past three reporting periods.

Historical Record

•Half of HPS’ 14 No. 1-ranking determinations have occurred since 2Q05. HPS achieved five consecutive No. 1

rankings from 1Q06 through 1Q07, with its 1Q09 win the company’s first after an absence of nearly two years.

Competitive pressures contributed to HPS’ drop to the No. 3 spot in 2Q09, followed by a series of second and

third place rankings up until the current reporting periods, in which it returned to No. 1 in both 1Q11 and 2Q11.

•Of the 24 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1-ranked player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to 1Q09).

During the past three years, IGS has earned a total of 11 No. 1 rankings, outnumbering Dell Services’ nine wins.

IGS also holds the record for the number of consecutive wins in recent periods – earning No. 1 ranking status for

the past five straight periods.

3Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; methodology differed from that

established with the 1Q01 study.

Until 2Q09, IGS held the record for number of successive wins in the previous 14 reporting periods. IGS regained its No. 1 status in

3Q09, making for 19 wins during the last 22 reporting periods up to the current reporting period.

39

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 Total #

Dell Services 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 9HP Services 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 3IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 11SOURCE: TBR

Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past Three Years

TBR

34

1424

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 43-reporting-period History Beginning

3Q00)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


The x86 server support satisfaction competition history shows Dell Services yielding its title to IBM

•During the time period in which TBR has separated the

service and support study results by segment, Dell

Services has earned 10 No. 1 rankings to IBM’s 11 in the

x86 server support segment.

•However, one-half of Dell’s wins occurred before 3Q08,

its most recent No. 1 ranking taking place as part of a

string of five wins from 1Q09 through 1Q10.

•IBM has ranked No. 1 steadily for the past six reporting

periods.

•HPS has earned one of its five No. 1 rankings since

3Q08.

Historical Record

40

105

11

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

100%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Support

x86 SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 18-quarter History since TBR separated

results)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Total # Wins

Dell Services 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 5HP Services 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1IBS/IBM Services 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 8SOURCE: TBR

Ranking Determinations Among x86 SERVER Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods

TBR

TBR


While Lenovo Services has stacked up the greatest number of wins in desktop/notebook support, Dell Services’ success has been most current•

Since TBR separated the service and support study results by segment,

Lenovo Services has earned 13 No. 1 rankings to Dell’s eight in the

desktop/notebook support segment.

•Yet, since 3Q08, Dell and Lenovo Services have each earned a total of 7

No. 1 rankings, with Dell taking the leadership position for the past three

straight periods.

•Lenovo Services’ No. 1 rankings were more predictably awarded before

2010.

•HPS has earned its only No. 1 rankings as a string of three wins between

4Q08 and 2Q09.

Historical Record

41

3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Total # Wins

Dell Services 3 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 7HP Services 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 7SOURCE: TBR

Ranking Determinations Among DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods

TBR

83

13

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

100%


DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY

(Based on 18-quarter History since TBR separated results)

No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Cases of differentiation dwindled in 2008, reasserting themselves since 2009

•The years 2007, 2009 and 2010 were marked by a substantial

number of performance differentiators, compared to tighter

competitive fields during the remaining years since 2005.

•Some noteworthy patterns of consistency since 2009 include:

oEight consecutive strengths for break/fix services for IGS

oFour straight strengths for on-site response time for Dell

Services from 2Q09 through 1Q10, returning in 4Q10 &

1Q11

oWarnings or weaknesses in five of the past seven

periods for HPS for on-site support response time

oA recurring pattern of scattered wins for phone support

for IGS

oA lack of predictability with respect to online support;

Dell and IGS trading strengths and warnings on a

rotating basis

42

Historical Record

4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

Dell Services * * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services *

Dell Services * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * *

Dell Services * * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * *

Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * *

Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * * * *

Dell Services *HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * * *

Dell Services * * * HP Services

IGS/Lenovo Services * *

SOURCE: TBR

HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT

ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE

Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

PHONE SUPPORT

ONLINE SUPPORT

Strength & Weakness Performance History - 4Q05 to 2Q11 TBR

Perceptions of support services value point to a distinctive lack of differentiation overall. There have been few incidences where

TBR has determined competitive strengths or warnings to OEM support providers in this category. Clearly, in-house support is

perceived as the most effective means for controlling support costs.

TBR


Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables

43

TBR


Dell Services outperforms HPS in the areas of hardware installation and on-site technical expertise

Understanding the 2Q11 Ranking Positions

Dell Services continued to outperform HPS in the area of hardware

installation as well as gained a significant advantage for on-site technical

expertise and gained a slight advantage in online support in 2Q11.

Many areas exhibited similar magnitudes of rising mean ratings between Dell

Services and HPS. The exceptions included remotely managed support and support

services value, where Dell Services continued to outperform HPS. Dell gained

competitive advantages over HPS in 2Q11 for both online support and on-site

expertise due to its improved scores in both categories against HPS' flat ratings.

44

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS,FOR DELL & HP SERVICES 2Q11 VS. 1Q11

Dell Services HP Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-5%

-3%

-1%

1%

3%

5%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 2Q11 VS.1Q11

Dell to HP Distance 1Q11 Dell to HP Distance 2Q11

DellAdvantage Areas

HP Advantage Areas

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Dell Services gains and loses competitive advantages over IGS

Dell Services marginally outperformed IGS in the areas of on-site response

time, and significantly outperformed IGS in the area of online support and

hardware installation. IGS lost its slight competitive advantage over Dell

Services in 1Q11 in overall satisfaction in 2Q11 but gained a slight

competitive advantage in the break/fix category.

IGS’ mean rating shifted up for on-site response time and remotely managed

support, and down for online support and hardware installation, leading to

many of the performance differences indicated above.


45

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS SERVICES, 2Q11 VS. 1Q11

Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 2Q11 VS.1Q11Dell to IGS Distance 1Q11 Dell to IGS Distance 2Q11

DellAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


IGS continues to generally outperform HPS

IGS continued to outperform HPS by significant margins across

the areas of break/fix services, on-site expertise and phone

support while remaining significantly ahead for overall

satisfaction.

HPS’ mean satisfaction rating for phone support declined by a

significantly greater magnitude than IGS – hence the compelling

performance gap.


46

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Phon

e Su

ppor

t

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Part

s Av

aila

bilit

y

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e De

ploy

men

t

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES, 2Q11 VS. 1Q11

HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%

Brea

k/Fi

x

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e/Co

mm

itmen

t

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine

Supp

ort

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces P

ricin

g/Va

lue

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 2Q11 VS.1Q11

HP to IGS Distance 1Q11 HP to IGS Distance 2Q11

HPSAdvantage Areas

IGSAdvantageAreas

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


•Through the end of 2008, TBR observed generally predictable outcomes,

with the in-house support group earning its reputation as the yardstick

against which we measure the OEM support providers. During these

periods, IGS was most consistent at earning top scores in the competition.

•In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction scores were the rule to which no

competitor was immune, defined by a close competition between IGS and

Dell Services, with HPS considerably more challenged.

•Satisfaction positions hit rock bottom in 4Q09, exhibiting hints of a

recovery in 1Q10 that transitioned into a full recovery for all players in

2Q10.

•Scores collectively improved by substantial magnitudes in 2Q10 and 3Q10,

resulting in new record highs being established by all four competitors by

3Q10.

•As expected, and following the patterns of TBR’s product-related studies,

satisfaction scores have now stabilized due to corrections from 1Q11,

primarily affecting the OEM support providers.

Service and support satisfaction positions continue an expected correction, to pre-recession levels

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

Note: The ranking positions in the table have been adjusted to represent the placement of OEM support providers,

excluding the presence of the internal support organizations.

47

77.0

79.0

81.0

83.0

85.0

87.0

89.0

91.0

3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES, 3Q08 through 2Q11

Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

Dell Services 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1HP Services 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1IGS/Lenovo Services 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1SOURCE: TBR

Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods

TBR

TBR


The long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences

•The principal contributor to narrowing performance gaps involved

the perspective of the internal support organizations, where

stressed resources led to significantly declining satisfaction

scores. Throughout most of the recessionary year of 2009, the

group no longer represented the utopia of support capability

against which TBR compares the OEM-provided support groups.

Customer satisfaction with support services declined sharply

throughout 2009 for all groups.

•Positions began to stabilize by 1Q10, setting the stage for the

broad-based and substantial recovery of the 2Q10 reporting

period. In 3Q10, the internal support organizations returned to

the top ranking position for the first time since 1Q09.

•Since 1Q11, internal support satisfaction has been trending

downward, suggesting a possible return to economically stressed

times that stretch internal resources and budgets.

Tracking the Satisfaction Indices

48

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM1Q06 THROUGH 2Q11


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

76.0

78.0

80.0

82.0

84.0

86.0

88.0

90.0

SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM1Q06 THROUGH 2Q11, WITH MOVING AVERAGES

2 per. Mov. Avg. (Internal Support Organizations) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (Dell Services)

2 per. Mov. Avg. (HP Services) 2 per. Mov. Avg. (IGS/Lenovo Services)SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Dell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customer expectations for services value, yet the picture is clearly changing

GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment

2Q11 Developments:

•Historically speaking, Dell Services has been the only competitor to consistently keep pace with customer expectations for

services value; the satisfaction trend line continues to steadily increase over time.

•In 2Q11, satisfaction scores for all three OEMs remained below importance levels.

•Importance ratings for Dell Services and HPS fell in 1Q11, against a static satisfaction, while IGS’ importance scores rose.

49

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES

Satisfaction ImportancePoly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

Satisfaction versus Importance

data points have remained

interlocked throughout the

timeline for Dell Services.

Competitors, particularly HPS,

have historically been unable to

sustain closed GAPs.

TBR


Satisfaction ratings for support services response rise across the board, yet only Dell Services consistently meets customer expectations

2Q11 Developments:

•Dell satisfaction scores rose in 2Q11, creating a smaller gap between importance and satisfaction.

HPS and IGS’ gap between importance and satisfaction remains wide for the third consecutive

quarter.

•Dell Services fared the best of the three competitors, with its satisfaction and importance at similar

levels while the gap between satisfaction and importance ratings for HPS and IGS/Lenovo’s support

services response remained wide.


50

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.005.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60

SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


IGS/Lenovo Services and HPS fail to meet customer expectations for on-site technical expertise

2Q11 Developments:

Dell Services was the only vendor to meet customer expectations in 2Q11 due to relaxed customer expectations over the

last three periods. HPS and IGS have been unable to close the gap between expectation and satisfaction for the past

three reporting periods.


51

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

Satisfaction Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Poly. (Importance)

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.50

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE


SOURCE: TBR

TBR

5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.50

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

Satisfaction around perceived

technical expertise was the hardest

hit of all categories during 2009.

Satisfaction levels in 2010, however,

represented a full recovery.

TBR


Satisfaction levels declined from 2H10 to 1Q11, but expectations are now beginning to relax

2Q11 Developments:

•Customer expectations for basic break/fix services continued to relax for

all OEMs in 2Q11.

•While IGS has consistently outperformed competitors for satisfaction

with break/fix services, note all three OEMs have successfully met

expectations.


52

5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.70

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR DELL SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.105.305.505.705.906.106.306.506.70

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.505.705.906.106.306.506.706.907.10

SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSISFOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

While GAPs had closed by late 2009

due to relaxing expectations, 1Q10

saw a sudden increase in customer

requirements, which continued to

build into 2Q10, then taper off. The

break/fix category refers to

customer experiences with basic

hardware maintenance services, not

with premium-level contracts.

TBR


Customer expectations for phone support have placed pressure on all OEMs for the past three periods

2Q11 Developments:

Customer expectations for phone support fell by varying degrees, while

satisfaction positions leveled off (HPS) or rose (IGS/Lenovo Services and Dell

Services), creating smaller gaps between importance and satisfaction. IGS

has been unable to maintain closed gaps for the past three periods.


53

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

Historically, particularly throughout

2007 and 2008, Dell Services and

HPS have struggled to meet

customer expectations for phone

support, predominantly falling far

short of that goal. Meanwhile, IGS

has consistently maintained very

small GAP positions.

TBR


Expectations and satisfaction for online support continue to fluctuate; trend lines point to improvement for IGS and HPS against static Dell

2Q11 Developments:

•IGS’ importance rating for online support exceeded its satisfaction ratings in 2Q11 while HPS and Dell

Services fell below.

•Dell Services’ importance rating continued to rise significantly, while satisfaction remained stagnant over the

same sequential compare, leading to a widening gap.

•IGS/Lenovo Services’ satisfaction and importance ratings flattened in 2Q11, leading to continued unmet

customer expectations.


54

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Replacement parts availability is a critical element of the support experience across the board for customers

2Q11 Developments:

Importance and satisfaction ratings for parts availability remained stable for all three vendors in 2Q11, with

satisfaction ratings remaining at levels below those of importance, indicating unmet customer expectations

by the three vendors.


55

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

5.205.405.605.806.006.206.406.60

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsDell Services’ 2Q11 scores are generally very close to those of 1Q11, with some modest evidence of improvement

Trends of the Reporting Period

•Dell Services’ satisfaction positions were generally

at their highest levels in 3Q10 and their lowest in

1Q11.

•Dell Services’ remotely managed support position

has remained stagnant for the past four reporting

periods, indicating a level of homeostasis between

satisfaction and importance.

WSI Rating Shift, 1Q11 to 2Q11: 0.8%

•Led by increasing overall satisfaction

•Comparatively stable positions include replacement parts availability, support services value and hardware deployment.

56

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS3Q10 TO 2Q11

3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS’ performances remain at similar levels over a sequential compare

•HPS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their

highest levels in 3Q10 and their lowest in 1Q11.

•2Q11 positions remained very similar to 1Q11

positions, with the exception of increases in the

area of on-site response time and overall

satisfaction.

•Across the board, satisfaction positions remained

at the same level or slightly rose passed positions

of 1Q11, showing little signs of improvement.


57


Comparatively stable positions included all categories except for on-site response time and overall satisfaction.

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS3Q10 TO 2Q11


TBR

TBR


Analysis of the Past Four Reporting PeriodsIGS’ 2Q11 scores are generally very close to those of 1Q11, with some modest evidence of improvement

•IGS’ satisfaction positions were generally at their

highest levels in 3Q10 and their lowest in 1Q11.

•Scores in 2Q11 rose gently from their 1Q11 positions

but remained mostly below those of 4Q10.

•IGS’ phone support position has remained relatively

stagnant over the past four reporting periods.


58


•Led by rising break/fix services, on-site expertise and response time satisfaction levels

•Comparatively stable positions included phone support, online support, support services value and remotely managed support.

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Hard

war

e In

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Ove

rall

Satis

facti

on

IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS3Q10 TO 2Q11


TBR

TBR


Recommended areas for improvements for Dell Services include the initial contact areas of phone and online support

•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: None

•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, phone support and online support

•Areas of Competency: Hardware installation

Improvements GAP Analyses

59

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 2Q11

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


HP Services’ analysis points to target improvement programs around on-site response time, phone and online support

•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, on-site technical expertise,

phone support

•Areas of Competency: Break/fix services


60

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 2Q11

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


IGS must focus on perceptions of on-site response time and online support

•Primary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time, online support

•Areas of Competency: Break/fix Services


61

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 2Q11

Rec

om

men

ded

A

ctio

ns

Hold Back/Exploit

Maintain

Target Improvements

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


The in-house group must focus on improving the ability to work with OEMs to procure replacement or spare parts

•Primary Area Requiring Improvement Efforts: Replacement parts availability

•Secondary Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Phone support

•Areas of Competency: Competitive strengths in server support was removed in 2Q11


62

TBR


Parts availability, break/fix services, and support services value drive service and support experience evaluationsRemote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization

Selection Criteria – Stated

•Critical: Break/fix services, parts availability

•Also Important: Support services value, on-site

expertise and response time

•Somewhat Important: Phone support, online

support

•Less Important: Hardware deployment, remotely

managed support

63

Customer expectations within the IGS group remain significantly higher than average overall, creating a special situation in which IGS was forced to perform that much better in the satisfaction

ratings to rank No. 1 in this reporting wave. While this was largely driven by the IBM Support (server) side of the equation, Lenovo Services customers were also more focused than competitors’

customers on break/fix services and technical expertise.

3.03.23.43.63.84.04.24.44.64.8

Rem

otel

y M

anag

ed S

uppo

rt

Hard

war

eIn

stal

latio

n/Co

nfigu

ratio

n

Onl

ine/

Web

Sup

port

Tele

phon

e/H

elpd

esk

Supp

ort

On-

site

Resp

onse

Tim

e

On-

site

Tech

nica

l Exp

ertis

e

Supp

ort S

ervi

ces V

alue

Brea

k/Fi

x Se

rvic

es

Repl

acem

ent P

arts

Ava

ilabi

lity

SERVICE & SUPPORT IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY CUSTOMER GROUP

Dell HP IBM InHouse

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Statistical significance test No. 1 points to performance differentiation largely favoring Internal Support, somewhat favoring IGS and Dell ServicesTest compares each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test

Scoring Summary – Significance Tests

2Q11 Developments:

•The internal support groups returned to their historical position as the standard-

setter, outperforming industry averages across most categories – with parts

availability the single exception.

•IGS/Lenovo Services’ results were a mixture of positives and negatives,

outperforming competitors in break/fix services and phone support while

underperforming in online support.

•HPS’ scores were either below or comparable to the industry averages.

•Dell Services outperformed the competition in online support and hardware

installation.

64

DELL SVCS HP SVCSIGS/LENOVO

SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

Results of the Standard t-Test

SOURCE :TBR

Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

TBR

TBR


Performance differentiation in the segments points to IBM as favored for server support; Dell Services for desktop/notebook supportTests compare each player’s performances against the sum of competitors’ using the standard test

The key performance differentiators in the server support segment were break/fix services, on-

site expertise, phone support, and parts availability – with all favoring IGS over HPS and Dell

Services.

The key performance differentiators in the desktop/notebook support space were on-site

technical expertise, on-site response time, online support and hardware installation, where

Dell Services outperformed the industry average while HPs and Lenovo underperformed.


65

DELL SVCS HP SVCS IBM SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

Results of the Standard t-Test - x86 SERVER SUPPORT

Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is

significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

DELL SVCS HP SVCS LENOVO SVCSINTERNAL SUPPORT

Basic Break/Fix Services

On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

SOURCE: TBR

Results of the Standard t-Test - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

Average score; t-test is null; ñ t-Test is significantly higher than average of competitors; t-test is

significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

TBR

TBR


Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test

Highlighted performance differentiation involving the OEM support

providers:

•IGS significantly outperformed both competitors for break/fix

services.

•Dell Services outperformed both competitors for hardware

installation and online support – all at significant levels.

•HPS’ underperformed IGS in break/fix services and overall

satisfaction, underperformed Dell Services in hardware installation,

and underperformed both competitors in on-site technical expertise.


66

HPSIGS/

LENOVODELL SVCS

IGS/LENOVO

DELL SVCS HPS

Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support

Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value

Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean

Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Vendor Comparisons

t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors. Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

SOURCE: TBR

PAIR-WISE T-TESTS

DELL SVCS VS. HP SVCS VS.IGS/LENOVO

SVCS VS.

TBR

TBR


• The in-house groups outperformed all three OEM support providers across every

category with the single exception of parts availability.

• These performance differences were confirmed at very high levels of statistical

confidence.


Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1These are paired comparisons using the standard test

67

DELL SVCS HPS

IGS/ LNV

Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/Commitment Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability

Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Overall Satisfaction Grand Mean t-Test is significantly higher than the average of competitors; t-Test is significantly lower than average of competitors.

Smaller arrows represent significant differences at the 0.06 to 0.10 confidence levels.

SOURCE: TBR

PAIR-WISE T-TESTS

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS VS.

Results of the Pair-wise t-Tests, Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support

TBR

TBR


Despite the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests

The Bonferroni correction, the most stringent statistical significance test used by TBR, confirmed many of the tests cited by the standard test.

Most of the confirmed differences were in comparisons of in-house support against the OEM support providers. Additional confirmed performance differences included break/fix services (IGS over

HPS), online support (Dell over IGS), and hardware installation (Dell over HPS and IGS).

Statistical Significance Tests

68

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo

Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP; IGS over HP 3 -1 -2 1On-site Technical Expertise Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0Online Support Internal over ALL; Dell over IGS 3 1 -1 -2Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over ALL; Dell over HP, IGS 3 1 -2 -2Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

24 -4 -11 -7SOURCE: TBR

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction

Total Points

TBR

TBR

TBR

TBR

TBR


In the x86 server support segment, the internal support

organizations were confirmed as having outperformed

various competitors across all categories but parts availability

and phone support, designated by the previous tests. In

addition, IBM outperformed Dell for phone support and

support services value. IBM also benefited by not placing

significantly lower than in-house support in several

categories, while competitors were not so fortunate.

In the desktop/notebook support segment, the internal

support organizations outperformed competitors in all but

the break/fix and parts availability categories, as designated

in the previous tests. It was also confirmed that Dell

outperformed HP for on-site expertise and Lenovo for online

support.

Despite the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 3The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of TBR’s applied tests

Statistical Significance Tests

69

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IBM

Basic Break/Fix Services Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0On-site Technical Expertise Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over Dell, HP 2 -1 -1 0Telephone/Helpdesk Support IBM over Dell 0 -1 0 1Online Support Internal over HP, IBM 2 0 -1 -1Remotely Managed Support Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value Internal over Dell, HP; IBM over Dell 2 -2 -1 1Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over HP, IBM; Dell over HP 2 1 -2 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

18 -7 -9 -2SOURCE: TBR

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - x86 SERVER SUPPORT

Total Points

TBR

AttributeSignificant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS Lenovo

Basic Break/Fix Services None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0On-site Technical Expertise Internal over HP, Lenovo; Dell over HP 2 1 -2 -1On-site Response Time/Commitment Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal over HP 1 0 -1 0Online Support Internal over HP, Lenovo; Dell over Lenovo 2 1 -1 -2Remotely Managed Support Internal over HP, Lenovo 2 0 -1 -1Replacement Parts Availability None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Support Services Pricing/Value None at the 0.05 significance level 0 0 0 0Hardware Installation/Configuration Internal over HP, Lenovo 2 0 -1 -1Overall Satisfaction Internal over ALL 3 -1 -1 -1

15 0 -8 -7SOURCE: TBR

Total Points

Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT

TBR

TBR


The Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the in-house support performance difference premises set by the statistical significance tests

Competitive GAP Analysis

•The competitive GAP scores support TBR’s

decisions regarding on-site response time

on the competitive strength and weakness

citations for the 2Q11 reporting period.

•The internal support group’s scores were so

high, with the exception of parts availability,

that they skewed the remainder of the

analysis, making it difficult for OEM support

providers to earn scores above the 100-

point marker and leading scores to trail

toward the lower end of the meeting

expectations range.

70

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 2Q11


Exceeds

Fully Meets

Short of

Exp

ecta

tion

Fulfi

llmen

t

SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Buying Behavior

Most customers utilize a mix of self-replacement and on-site support for replacing/repairing failed parts

•The majority of desktop/notebook customers utilize an approximate 50/50 mix between self-replacement and

on-site support by an OEM or partner.

•TBR found that the majority of server customers preferred primarily self-replacing the parts while utilizing third parties for some specific parts that may require more expertise.

•This pattern has largely remained constant in the past year, with an average of 24% of respondents indicating either 100% on-site support or 100% self-replacement, while the rest leverage a mix of

the two.

71

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

100% self replacement

Primarily self replacement/on-sitefor some parts

About 50/50 self replacement/on-site

Primarily on-site;self replace someparts

100% on-site

METHODS OF REPLACING/REPAIRING FAILED PARTS

Desktops/Notebooks Servers

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Customers are most satisfied with self-replacement or a mixture of

self-replacement and on-site support

•Server customers are most satisfied with a mixture of

self-replacement and on-site support, whereas

desktop/notebook customers are most satisfied

replacing the parts in-house.

•Customers are least satisfied with on-site support

provided by a third party, at 7% satisfaction.

•This finding strongly suggests OEM support providers

must find the optimum balance of self-replaceable

versus on-site repair parts. To complicate matters, this

balance may vary greatly by customer.

Buying Behavior

72

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Self replacement On-site repair visit from systemsmanufacturer/authorized

partner

On-site repair visit from thirdparty

Mix of self replacement and on-site

PARTS REPAIR METHOD WITH HIGHEST SATISFACTION (Respondents Select One)

Servers Desktops/Notebooks

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Customers face many challenges in replacing failed parts in-house, led by availability of parts and the challenge of replacing

more difficult parts

•The variety of challenges organizations face in replacing failed parts themselves could be at the root of an increase in requirements for on-site support. This premise is supported by the finding that

between 30% and 45% of respondents reported issues with the difficulty of replacing parts, which was cited as a leading challenge. This strongly suggests a growing requirement for on-site support

expertise from outside the organization.

•IBM customers are less challenged than Dell and HP customers with staff resource issues, but are slightly more challenged when facing parts availability and difficulties with replacing some parts.

•In terms of having issues replacing difficult parts, desktop/notebook customers found this as more of an issue than server customers.

Buying Behavior

73

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Limited staff resources

Replacement parts availability

Issues with difficulty of replacingparts

Lack of training/in-house expertise

Forced to self replace due tocontract terms/cost

PRINCIPAL CHALLENGES IN REPLACING FAILED PARTS IN HOUSE

Desktops/Notebooks Servers

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Premium support contracts and extended warranties are more common for server support than desktop/notebook

On the server side, Dell and HP customers were more likely to purchase support

contracts at the time of the hardware sale, while IBM customers were evenly spread

across the board.

IGS/Lenovo Services’ customers were the most likely to purchase critical/premium and

extended warranty contracts. HP Services’ customers were the most likely of the vendors

to purchase support contracts at the time of the desktop or notebook sale and standard

level support contracts.

Buying Behavior

74

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services

TYPES OF x86 SERVER SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED

Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%


TYPES OF DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED

Critical/Premium Level Standard LevelAcquired at Time of Hardware Purchase Extended Warranty

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores –

1Q08 Through 2Q11

75

TBR


Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

1Q08 Through 2Q11

76

BREAK/FIX SERVICES1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

Dell Services & Partners 5.90 5.94 5.89 5.88 5.96 6.06 5.91 5.80 5.92 6.25 6.47 6.14 5.88 5.94HP Services & Partners 5.93 5.89 5.88 5.94 5.98 5.94 5.91 5.91 5.94 6.24 6.34 6.04 5.85 5.90IGS & Partners 6.06 5.94 5.96 6.03 5.99 6.10 6.09 6.07 6.09 6.35 6.58 6.23 5.99 6.07Internal Support Organizations 6.11 6.06 6.10 6.11 6.08 5.96 5.92 5.74 5.75 6.12 6.57 6.47 6.16 6.14ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.96 6.03 5.84 5.74 5.85 5.81 5.65 5.54 5.52 5.95 6.31 6.00 5.84 5.89HP Services & Partners 5.95 5.88 5.91 5.92 5.99 5.87 5.65 5.29 5.24 5.86 6.20 5.88 5.74 5.73IGS & Partners 6.00 5.91 5.98 5.97 5.89 5.79 5.59 5.34 5.38 6.02 6.45 6.04 5.82 5.88Internal Support Organizations 6.09 6.07 6.10 6.11 6.07 5.96 5.85 5.50 5.47 5.88 6.27 6.20 6.05 6.10ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.79 5.87 5.81 5.73 5.85 6.07 5.81 5.62 5.63 5.84 6.12 5.85 5.68 5.74HP Services & Partners 5.69 5.63 5.76 5.73 5.73 5.78 5.61 5.40 5.15 5.56 5.96 5.63 5.57 5.67IGS & Partners 5.83 5.77 5.88 5.88 5.84 5.90 5.67 5.46 5.45 5.85 6.22 5.71 5.48 5.59Internal Support Organizations 6.21 6.22 6.36 6.29 6.18 6.14 5.98 5.74 5.76 6.12 6.37 6.30 6.21 6.18TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.68 5.77 5.60 5.69 5.83 5.75 5.56 5.51 5.64 5.84 5.81 5.62 5.67 5.74HP Services & Partners 5.58 5.49 5.55 5.68 5.72 5.59 5.45 5.31 5.28 5.64 5.89 5.72 5.67 5.67IGS & Partners 5.81 5.83 5.86 5.83 5.71 5.66 5.46 5.29 5.48 5.83 5.92 5.77 5.80 5.83Internal Support Organizations 5.95 6.06 6.18 6.13 6.00 5.77 5.66 5.44 5.48 5.92 6.10 5.98 5.98 5.90ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.71 5.71 5.56 5.58 5.74 5.69 5.50 5.46 5.50 5.77 5.76 5.54 5.63 5.72HP Services & Partners 5.64 5.51 5.38 5.55 5.62 5.55 5.47 5.35 5.34 5.74 5.86 5.57 5.57 5.58IGS & Partners 5.51 5.59 5.70 5.83 5.77 5.67 5.58 5.47 5.60 5.98 5.94 5.63 5.51 5.49Internal Support Organizations 5.68 5.70 5.69 5.63 5.63 5.57 5.48 5.42 5.58 5.93 6.01 5.91 5.94 5.96REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 6.04 6.08 5.97 5.95 6.04 5.94 5.81 5.65 5.63 5.92 6.24 6.07 5.85 5.86HP Services & Partners 5.87 5.78 5.87 5.89 5.84 5.84 5.67 5.39 5.53 5.91 6.19 6.00 5.76 5.80IGS & Partners 5.94 5.82 5.97 5.99 5.84 5.80 5.68 5.58 5.69 5.95 6.28 6.10 5.86 5.91Internal Support Organizations 5.41 5.32 5.48 5.41 5.50 5.51 5.41 5.25 5.23 5.71 6.29 6.15 5.84 5.87

TBR


Support Provider Customer Satisfaction Scores

1Q08 Through 2Q11

77

SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

Dell Services & Partners 5.72 5.78 5.71 5.76 5.83 5.89 5.80 5.69 5.77 6.17 6.20 5.85 5.79 5.78HP Services & Partners 5.58 5.71 5.66 5.67 5.71 5.73 5.70 5.59 5.63 6.06 6.24 5.90 5.82 5.81IGS & Partners 5.74 5.63 5.65 5.73 5.64 5.68 5.71 5.69 5.79 6.20 6.32 6.02 5.90 5.90Internal Support Organizations 5.89 5.92 6.08 6.09 5.99 5.87 5.77 5.56 5.65 6.04 6.30 6.24 6.12 6.03HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.57 5.56 5.45 5.65 5.79 5.59 5.47 5.42 5.40 5.67 5.85 5.71 5.69 5.74HP Services & Partners 5.80 5.79 5.67 5.73 5.87 5.57 5.31 5.14 5.30 5.73 5.84 5.54 5.46 5.51IGS & Partners 5.92 5.72 5.64 5.60 5.73 5.78 5.52 5.27 5.35 5.62 5.84 5.63 5.46 5.53Internal Support Organizations 6.02 6.05 6.18 6.12 6.12 5.86 5.57 5.36 5.52 5.97 6.15 6.09 6.04 5.95AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.43 5.42 5.21 5.31 5.46 5.51 5.33 5.26 5.43 5.54 5.46 5.43 5.55 5.55HP Services & Partners 5.59 5.57 5.52 5.56 5.58 5.46 5.32 5.21 5.26 5.53 5.68 5.45 5.44 5.42IGS & Partners 5.54 5.40 5.48 5.69 5.65 5.63 5.47 5.28 5.39 5.64 5.59 5.37 5.39 5.47Internal Support Organizations 5.40 5.45 5.62 5.68 5.62 5.64 5.67 5.55 5.56 5.85 5.87 5.85 5.98 5.89OVERALL SATISFACTION

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 5.73 5.82 5.79 5.72 5.81 6.00 5.94 5.78 5.77 6.09 6.26 5.96 5.81 5.98HP Services & Partners 5.86 5.88 5.86 5.94 5.98 5.88 5.79 5.74 5.70 5.97 6.25 5.96 5.76 5.86IGS & Partners 5.98 5.87 5.82 5.93 5.88 5.82 5.82 5.83 5.92 6.17 6.28 6.04 5.92 6.01Internal Support Organizations 5.99 5.99 6.18 6.14 6.02 5.91 5.81 5.66 5.70 6.02 6.25 6.19 6.16 6.29Survey Counts

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11Dell Services & Partners 160 161 161 160 185 239 234 199 186 192 227 252 253 251HP Services & Partners 160 160 160 159 175 235 239 201 199 210 233 252 254 248IGS & Partners 160 159 159 161 186 240 235 201 199 204 227 254 263 253Internal Support Organizations 160 167 169 169 168 219 242 220 225 212 244 404 510 499

TBR


Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected

Attributes

78

TBR


Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis

Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations

79

VENDOR 2Q01 3Q01 4Q01 1Q02 2Q02 3Q02 4Q02 1Q03 2Q03 3Q03 4Q03 1Q04 2Q04 3Q04 4Q04 1Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

Dell * * * HP

IGS * *

Dell *

HP

IGS

Dell

HP

IGS * * *

Dell * * *

HP

IGS * *

Dell * *

HP

IGS * * * * *

Dell *

HP

IGS * * * *

Dell * *

HP

IGS * * *

Dell * * * * *

HP

IGS * *

SOURCE: TBRKey: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline.

HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE

SERVICES PRICING/VALUE

PARTS AVAILABILITY

BREAK/FIX SERVICES

ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

PHONE SUPPORT

ONLINE SUPPORT

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

TBR


Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Service & Support Satisfaction

Attributes

80

TBR


On-site Break/Fix ServicesSatisfaction Trends

81

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

6.50

6.60

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR BREAK/FIX SERVICES

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations

TBR

SOURCE: TBR.SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseSatisfaction Trends

82

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

6.50

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE EXPERTISE

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR.

TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


On-site Response TimeSatisfaction Trends

83

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

5.90

6.10

6.30

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME

Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support OrganizationsSOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


Phone SupportSatisfaction Trends

84

5.20

5.30

5.40

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Online SupportSatisfaction Trends

85

5.20

5.30

5.40

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilitySatisfaction Trends

86

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

6.40

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Support Services Pricing/ValueSatisfaction Trends

87

5.50

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Hardware Deployment/Installation/ConfigurationSatisfaction Trends

88

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

6.20

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Satisfaction Trends

89

4.80

5.00

5.20

5.40

5.60

5.80

6.00

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Overall SatisfactionSatisfaction Trends

90

5.60

5.70

5.80

5.90

6.00

6.10

6.20

6.30

6.40

1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11

OVERALL SATISFACTION


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs

91

TBR


Break/Fix ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

92

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseConfidence Interval Graphs

93

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


On-site Response TimeConfidence Interval Graphs

94

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Phone SupportConfidence Interval Graphs

95

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Online SupportConfidence Interval Graphs

96

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilityConfidence Interval Graphs

97

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Support Services ValueConfidence Interval Graphs

98

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

99

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Confidence Interval Graphs

100

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support ServicesConfidence Interval Graphs

101

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Appendix F: Categorical Responses

102

TBR


Break/Fix ServicesCategory Graphs

103

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY

Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In HouseSOURCE: TBR

TBR

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


On-site Technical ExpertiseCategory Graphs

104

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


On-site Response TimeCategory Graphs

105

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Phone SupportCategory Graphs

106

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Online SupportCategory Graphs

107

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7



TBR

SOURCE: TBR

1Q11 2Q11

TBR


Replacement Parts AvailabilityCategory Graphs

108

1Q11 2Q11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

TBR


Support Services Pricing/ValueCategory Graphs

109

1Q11 2Q11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Hardware DeploymentCategory Graphs

110

1Q11 2Q11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICERS BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider)Category Graphs

1Q11 2Q11

111

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

<5 5 6 7

SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY


TBR

SOURCE: TBR

TBR


Appendix G: Server/Storage versus Desktop/Notebook Support

by Support Provider

112

TBR


Dell Services 2Q11Satisfaction Trends

113

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS

Jul-Sep 10 Oct-Dec 10 Jan-Mar 11 Apr-Jun 11SOURCE: TBR

TBR

TBR


HP Services 2Q11Satisfaction Trends

114

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS


TBR

TBR


IBM Global Services 2Q11Satisfaction Trends

115

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

HP SERVICES SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS


TBR

TBR


Internal Support Organizations 2Q11Satisfaction Trends

116

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

IN-HOUSE SERVICES SATISFACTION, PAST FOUR CALENDAR QUARTERS


TBR

TBR


Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology

117

TBR


TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study is based on the views of those who manage in-house support services and/or work with OEM-provided support

118

Study Design & Methodology

Companies interviewed for TBR’s Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study are required to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers,

desktops and notebooks) installed. In contrast, TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 PCs for most covered brands. This makes

the Service & Support study a tool best suited for evaluating the experiences of midsized corporations, whereas the product-related studies extend to the

experiences of enterprise customers. The reason for the differing criteria is that larger organizations tend to rely more fully (sometimes entirely) on their

internal support staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this study to mirror TBR’s product-related satisfaction studies,

including the x86-based Server, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop Customer Satisfaction studies.

Throughout this report, TBR refers to two types of support providers:

INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS: Companies with in-house technical support staff (systems manufacturers often refer to these customers as “self-

maintainers”); TBR’s study focuses primarily on internal support organizations that perform a number of support functions with their own staff,

supplemented by OEM-provided support as needed.

OEM SUPPORT PROVIDERS: Dell Services, HP Services, IBM Global Services and Lenovo Services perform repairs and basic maintenance for customers

based on support service portfolio offerings.

•Dell Services and its authorized service partners provide technical support to Dell customer sites for servers, notebooks and/or desktop PCs.

•HP Services encompasses services for the Industry Standard Server group as well as for the Personal Systems Group (desktops and notebooks).

•IGS comprises support services for IBM server customers as well as for Lenovo desktop and notebook PC customers. Lenovo customers are serviced by

IGS and Lenovo Services, in addition to a network of third-party service delivery partners.

Additional Screening Criteria for the Corporate IT Service

& Support Satisfaction Study:

1. Has your company utilized any on-site, phone or

web support for Dell, HP, IBM or Lenovo for

desktops, servers or notebooks in the past three

months?

2. Is your company utilizing

in-house technical support?

3. Are you personally involved in evaluating,

recommending or purchasing support services for

desktops, servers and notebooks at your company

or site? Or, if your site uses internal support teams

only, are you involved with the supervision of these

teams?

TBR


Reporting Structure DefinedTBR generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support; report sections break up the study results by segment wherever referenced (server/storage support, desktop/notebook support)

119


Combined Study Results

Sample size = Approximately 250 interviews per group

Covers satisfaction with x86-based server as well as desktop/notebook

support delivered by:

1. Dell Services

2. HP Services (includes both TSS and PSG groups)

3. IGS (includes both IBM server support and Lenovo desktop/notebook

support)

4. Internal Support Organizations

x86 Server/Storage Support, wherever referenced


Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by:

1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support)

2. HP Services (TSS)

3. IBM/IGS Services


Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referenced


Covers satisfaction with desktop/notebook support delivered by:

1. Dell Services (Client Support)

2. HP Services (PSG)

3. Lenovo Services


TBR


2Q11 Sample Overview •

TBR’s 2Q11 Corporate IT Service & Support Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 642 medium and large U.S. and Canadian establishments, primarily MIS/IT, systems management

and purchasing managers.

•A number of the respondents are responsible for purchasing services from multiple support providers for their company or site, and thus were interviewed twice (once for each brand). Most respondents rated, at

the very least, their internal support organization and one third-party provider.

•Consequently, 1,011 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because TBR boosted the number of required interviews to better represent the

stated experiences of customers receiving server-related versus desktop/notebook-related support events.

•Because many of the larger companies rely exclusively on their internal support teams, the requirements for this study differ from TBR’s x86-based server, notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. The minimum

requirement is an installed base of 200 systems for the Service & Support Study (versus 500 for the standard studies). Respondents are screened to include only those who recommend or evaluate OEM support

services for their organization and also manage an internal support staff.

•The service and support interviews for the reporting period were distributed as follows: 251 Dell Services customer interviews; 248 HP Services customer interviews; 253 IBM Global Services customer interviews;

and 259 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011.

Methodology & Sample

120


Sample Size Standard ErrorAll Providers 1011 1.00%

Dell & Partners 251 1.99%

HP & Partners 248 2.01%

IGS & Partners 253 1.57%

Internal Support Organizations 259 1.74%

SOURCE: TBR

Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes

Service & Support

TBR

TBR


Number of Employees

121


Number of EmployeesPercentage of Respondents

<500 31.6%

500–1,000 18.4%

1,000–4,999 22.4%

5,000–9,999 9.9%

10,000–14,999 6.6%

15,000–19,999 4.1%

20,000–49,999 4.1%

50,000–74,999 2.2%

75,000–99,999 0.3%

100,000+ 0.5%

Average Number of Employees 6,685

SOURCE: TBR

Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed

TBR

TBR


Type of Business

122


Type of Business Percentage of Respondents

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 3%

Pharmaceuticals 3%

Transportation Service 4%

Public Utilities 4%

Mining, Construction 5%

Wholesale Trade 5%

Education 7%

Finance, Insurance, real estate 7%

Retail Trade 7%

Information Service (including software development) 7%

Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 7%

Healthcare 7%

Government 8%

Other Services 9%

Manufacturing - Process (materials) 10%

SOURCE: TBR

Types of Businesses Represented in the Study

TBR

TBR


Job Titles/Responsibilities

123


TBR


Purchasing – Past, Present & Future

The 2Q11 study sample represents 1.6 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional

233,000 units during the next 12 months.

124


x86-Based x86-BasedServers Servers

Sum 1,013,259 127,905 433,287 140,078 13,587 77,797

Mean 1,593 201 681 220 21 122

Sum 3,770 595 4,114 508 112 691

Mean 628 99 686 85 19 115

Enterprise 13.82% 10.62% 17.96%

Division 13.47% 18.82% 16.80%

SOURCE: TBR

Enterprise

Division

Percent of Installed Base Replaced

Units Installed and Planned for Purchase by Form Factor

Installed Base Purchase Intent

Desktops Notebooks Desktops Notebooks

TBR

TBR


Appendix I: Analytical Procedures

125

TBR


Satisfaction Ratings

Totally Dissatisfied

(Failure) Mediocre Totally

Satisfied

Failure Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• The customer satisfaction analysis was based on several lines of questioning. Respondents were asked to grade their vendor across a series of attributes (listed below) for

each brand the surveyed corporations purchased in the most recent buying cycle. At the conclusion of the attribute testing, respondents were asked to provide a rating

based on a 7-point Likert scale.

• Respondents were also asked to indicate the relative importance of each of the attributes in choosing their brand. These responses were given on a 1- to 5-point scale, with

1 meaning not at all important and 5 meaning very important. These ratings determined the gap between vendor satisfaction and importance, or how well the vendor

manages expectations.

• Respondents were then asked to indicate on a 1- to 5-point scale the degree of their loyalty toward their primary vendor(s). Finally, respondents were asked whether their

corporation switched from one vendor to another during the past 12 months, and if so, which vendors were involved and why a change was made.

Analytical Model

126

TBR


Measured Attributes

Customer satisfaction and relative importance were measured for each of the following attributes. Proportions of customers utilizing each service (based

on percentage responding) are also indicated in the table.

Analytical Model

127

Service % RespondingOn-Site Break/Fix Services 87.98%

On Site Technical Expertise 86.02%

On Site Response Time/Commitment 86.28%

Telephone/Help Desk Support 87.28%

Online Support 85.63%

Replacement Parts Availability 86.32%

Support Services Pricing/Value 87.33%

Hardware Installation/Configuration 72.81%

Automated Diagnostics 65.08%

Overall Satisfaction 87.98%

TBR


Satisfaction Statistics

• A table of satisfaction statistics (including mean, standard deviation, standard error, range around the mean representing 95% confidence interval and standard t-Test) describes

customer satisfaction for each vendor in each attribute area, with special emphasis on overall satisfaction. A series of t-Tests were performed on each vendor against the sum of its

competitors, and the attribute areas where significant differences in score were indicated are marked. The t-Test compares two means to determine if one mean is significantly

different than the other, taking variability of response into consideration. The purpose of these tests is to determine if any of the group’s mean differences observed (e.g., a group

being a set of customers of one vendor) cannot be entirely explained by random or natural variation within sampled groups of customers. In other words, the observed differences

are real. TBR uses an independent sample t Test assuming unequal variances, or the standard student’s t-Test. Those attributes with an ‑ level of 0.05 or less are cited as indicating

there is a 95% chance that concluding the two means are different is correct. A t-Test of the grand mean (the mean of all scores for all attributes combined) serves to determine

whether any of the vendors’ overall scores tend to run higher or lower than competitors’ scores.

• As a backup to the above tests, an alternate test (the Bonferroni correction) is used for confirmation purposes (e.g., one-way analysis of variation). The variation within a group of

customers is first determined in these one-way ANOVA tests. These variations are then compared to the variability between the groups (e.g., between Dell, HP and IBM customers).

The between-group variation is measured by the sum of the squared differences between the sample mean of each group and the grand mean, which is then weighted by the sample

size in each group. The between-group variation will be larger than the within-group variation (variation within each specific customer group) if there are meaningful differences

between the means. The attributes that pass this additional test are also cited in the report. While the one-way ANOVA identifies which attributes are affected by differing means

according to customer group, further tests, such as the Bonferroni correction, identify exactly which means differ from one another.

Analytical Procedures

128

TBR


• The competitive GAP analysis measures the gap between a vendor’s customer satisfaction for each attribute area against the expectations (importance ratings) of the market (all respondents). The

standard against which each vendor is measured is the average size of that gap for all server vendors. The GAP analysis compares vendor satisfaction per attribute against importance per attribute

among the vendor’s customer base, relative to overall satisfaction for all vendors per attribute against overall importance for all vendors per attribute. The formula for each attribute area

independently is as follows:

GAP = ____(Vendor Importance * (7-Vendor Satisfaction)____ * 100

(Grand Mean Importance * (7-Grand Mean Satisfaction)

• The product for the above is graphed on a scale where values between 40 and 80 indicate where the vendor exceeds customer expectation; values between 81 and 120 show where the vendor fully

meets expectation; values greater than 120 indicate where the vendor falls short of expectation.

• A second GAP analysis (the standard GAP analysis) considers how each systems vendor manages the expectations of its own customer base. For each vendor independently and for each attribute area,

the mean satisfaction rating is graphed next to the mean importance rating (adjusted from a 5-point scale to the 12-point scale used for customer satisfaction). There are three possible outcomes:

satisfaction meets customer expectation (bar graphs are equal or within a range where the gap is not significant); satisfaction falls short of expectation (indicating areas where the systems vendor may

want to consider focusing greater efforts on raising satisfaction); and satisfaction exceeds expectation (indicating attribute areas where the systems vendor may be focusing more than is necessary).

• Another GAP analysis (the Improvements GAP analysis) is focused on determining the areas where the vendors need to set up improvement programs and areas where vendors may be able to pull

back resources. It uses a similar formula to the competitive GAP analysis, however, the denominator becomes the grand mean importance and satisfaction for the vendor across all of the attributes. In

this test, TBR compares the gaps for each of the individual attributes against the average gap for the vendor. Areas where the gaps measure wider than the average are areas where the vendor most

urgently needs to focus its improvement efforts.

GAP AnalysisAnalytical Procedures

129

TBR


A trend analysis compares each vendor’s customer satisfaction scores for the current reporting period separately against those from both the preceding reporting period

and the reporting period prior to that. By comparing against both reporting periods, TBR is able to determine if any changes are indicative of a real change in historical

pattern. This graph uses a 95% confidence-interval technique; the scores for each vendor are represented with the mean indicated in the middle from which the lines

extend (in both directions) the distance of the standard error around the mean. This analysis is used to determine the reasons a vendor may move up or down in the

rankings from previous reporting periods: is it because the vendor improved or because the competition declined in customer satisfaction? The analysis also is used to

pinpoint potential problem areas or areas where marked improvement is evident.

Trend Analysis Analytical Procedures

130

TBR


Numeric Weighting Model Analytical Procedures

131

support provider segment = 10

TBR


Support Provider Ranking Positions

Vendor ranking positions are determined primarily by the average weighted satisfaction index positions, with a minimum distance of 1.0% generally required for TBR to assign separate ranking

positions to any two vendors. The determination of ranking positions does not end here, however; additional factors, such as number of competitive strengths versus weaknesses, also play into the

final decision, which is a team effort by TBR principals. Consequently, less than a 1.0% distance can occur between two vendors’ weighted satisfaction index positions, yet, they may be assigned

separate ranking positions based on the additional factors stated above.

A competitive strength and weakness table is the final result of all the above analysis. The table points to the attribute areas that are definite strengths or weaknesses for each vendor. Areas of

neutrality are those attributes where the vendor’s customer satisfaction performance is about average. The formula utilized for the determinations is: each attribute receives a score of 0 for neutrality,

+1 for a positive and –1 for a negative. Three analysis are reviewed: the t-Test analysis (0 for null, +1 for significantly higher scores and –1 for significantly lower scores); the competitive GAP analysis (0

for meeting expectation, +1 for exceeding and –1 for falling short); and the vendor GAP analysis. The standard t-Test results are compared to those of the more stringent Bonferroni analysis and those

passing both tests are given an extra point. The three scores for each attribute are then summed up. Any attribute with a total score of +2 or –2 is cited as a strength or weakness; total scores between

these ranges are cited as neutral areas. Those with scores of +4 or –4 are areas of particularly strong strength or weakness. Marginal determinations (warnings or marginal strengths) come about

when the determination is borderline (i.e., only the first t-Test was passed, or the t-Test was passed as a potential area of strength but a poor GAP rating negated it).

Competitive Strength & Weakness Table

Analytical Procedures

132

TBR


Appendix J: Survey Instrument

133

TBR


2Q11 Survey Instrument Survey Instrument

SCREENERS

134

TBR



135

TBR



136

TBR

©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.

Technology Business ResearchTechnology Business Research is a different kind of research company. Our bottoms-up approach provides a look at the technology industry unlike anything you’ve seen before. We analyze

company performance in professional services, networking and mobility, computing and hardware, and software on a quarterly basis, leveraging our data to create industry benchmarks and

landscapes that provide a business perspective on leaders and laggards and their business plans. We are experts in the business of technology.

“I never go into a negotiation with a vendor until I have reviewed TBR’s

quarterly reports. Understanding a vendor’s profit margin by business unit

gives me an information edge in formulating my negotiation strategy and

has saved my organization countless dollars!”

– Telecom End User

“We are using Technology Business Research’s operational metrics and

management consulting taxonomy to drive our growth strategy and

resources for our management consulting business…”

- Top 5 Global Technology Company

TBR

©2012 Technology Business Research Inc.

For more information on accessing new TBR reports please contact James McIlroy at [email protected] or at 603-758-1813

Follow our analysts on @TBRinc

Read out analysts’ commentaries at @TBRincNewsroom

Watch our recorded webinars at http://www.youtube.com/user/TBRIChannel?feature=mhee

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TBRIChannel?feature=mhee