Area Benchmarked | Results of Benchmarking | Action Required | Action Taken |
Attendance Management | Management of sickness absence equal to or superior to benchmark comparators | Could benefit from introduction of reward scheme for good attendance | Under review |
Automated Processes | Fewer automated processes than comparator organisations | Introduction of more automated processes could increase operational efficiency and reduce error rates and rectification costs | Being incorporated into operational strategy review. Leading-edge desk top openers have subsequently been purchased to increase productivity |
Business Continuity Planning | SBS and NS&I account at the leading edge of comparator organisations and better than most account within SBS as a whole | No action required. Benchmarking undertaken to provide stakeholder assurance | To be subject of regular review in order to ensure maintenance of high standards |
Call Centres | SBS/NS&I Call centre compared favourably with benchmarking partners in terms of having been developed in a professional manner | Some improvements in resource monitoring software and call quality monitoring were required | Action plan produced with many recommendations implemented. Some actions outstanding and due for review |
Customer Complaints | Generally compared favourably with BS8600 for internal complaints. For external complaint handling, the findings were favourable compared to benchmark partners | Development of a complaints database and increased support for staff involved in grievance procedures would improve internal performance overall. Staff guidance notes and improved training would improve overall external performance | Action plan produced with many recommendations implemented. Some actions outstanding |
Customer Satisfaction | Identified that Customer Satisfaction measures linked directly to KPI measures was not industry standard and was not providing a good overall indication of satisfaction levels | Recommended that overall approach to customer satisfaction measurement be reviewed | KPI regime has since been reviewed as part of the contract realignment in September 2002 |
Death Claims Handling | The financial level at which NS&I call for Grant of Probate is lower than other financial organisations | Recommended that the financial level is brought in line with other organisations - this will yield process cost savings with no negative impact on customers | Under review |
The facilities offered by SBS/NS&I to disadvantaged customers compare well with those of other leading financial organisations, but they are not widely advertised | For information and stakeholder assurance | Regular review required | |
E-mail Management | Benchmark indicated that comparator organisations have seen benefit in staff morale and productivity in developing and implementing e-mail guidelines | Outline guidelines have been produced and sent to SBS UK and NS&I for review | Under review |
Internal Communications | Internal communications compare favourably with benchmark organisations | Improvements could be made through the development of an intranet site, more two-way communication and personnel satisfaction survey | Action plan produced with many recommendations implemented. Some actions outstanding |
Published Service Standards | Published service standards of NS&I were equal or superior to those of other financial organisations | No action required - undertaken to provide stakeholder assurance | Regular review required |
Postage Standards | High level research and not a full study. No industry standards identified with regards to the usage of first and second class postage. NS&I compared equally or favourably to the comparator organisations | Some opportunities for cost saving identified where customer impacts were negligible | Some areas already implemented and cost savings being delivered - some recommendations still under review with respect to customer impact |
Same Day Banking | Internal benchmark only as no comparable partner organisations prepared to share the level of detail required. The internal benchmark indicated that in the main, the KPI targets were being met | Areas of weakness in minor workstreams were identified as contributory factors to KPI failure. Recommendation was that work was undertaken to address these areas | Under review |