169
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 124:
Line 124: − + Line 219:
Line 219: − |} − − === 1.1.1 Customer Response: Rating of Laboratory Services === − The customer rating of laboratory services is accounted in Table 3. This table shows that 77% of the respondents rated the services provided as Excellent, and other 23% as Good. There were no negative ratings (i.e.: less than a Fair rating) received or noted during the survey. This trend is consistent with those in calendar years 2015 and 2016 when there were no ratings below Good. − − '''''Table 3: Rating of services''''' − {| class="wikitable" − |'''Rating''' − |'''Number of Responses''' − |'''Percentage of Responses''' − |- − |Fair − |0/43 − |0% − |- − |Good − |10/43 − |23% − |- − |Excellent − |33/43 − |77% − |} − − === 1.1.2 Customer Response: Usage of Laboratory Services === − To gain better insight into the nature of the services customers have used during the calendar year 2018, Laboratory service records as those maintained in a dedicated Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet ([[Pcdocs://E-DOCS/5451342/R|F500.4.LABREQ]]) under the management system was used to extract this information about the category of service which includes calibration, field instrument loan, or any other service customers requested during the calendar year. − − Table 4 illustrates the proportion of respondents who utilized various services under the instrument management and calibration services. Within the category of the “Field Instrument Loan” service type, customers were also provided with calibration services in order to meet the regulatory requirements. This indicates that out of the total number of customers who responded to the survey, 95% of the respondents either utilized calibration or loan services or a combination of these services. − − '''''Table 4: Usage ̶ type of laboratory services''''' − {| class="wikitable" − |'''Type of services''' − |'''Number of Responses''' − |'''Percentage of Responses''' − |- − |Calibration − |12 − |28% − |- − |Field Instrument Loan − |25 − |58% − |- − |Both Calibration and Instrument Loan − |4 − |9% − |- − |Other − |2 − |5% − |} − − === 1.1.3 Customer Response: Comments Regarding Laboratory Services === − Any additional customer comments sought to qualify information in addition to the customers’ singular rating of laboratory services, are considered to belong in one of three groups: improvement or preventive / constructive comments, complimentary comments, and no comment. Thirty nine out of forty three customers did not provide any comments other than rating the services as Fair, Good or Excellent. Two customers (2 out of 4) who responded to the survey with additional comments elaborated further on the rating and provided complimentary comments in addition to some additional suggestions for improvement. − − The customer comments on laboratory services are accounted in Table 5. A brief summary of the comments is provided in the appendix Table A.1 at the end of this report. Detailed comments are available in another document ([[Pcdocs://E-DOCS/5763601/R|E-DOCS-#5763601]]) − − '''''Table 5: Types of comments regarding laboratory services''''' − {| class="wikitable" − |'''Type of comments''' − |'''Number of Comments''' − |'''Number of Respondents''' − |- − |Complimentary − |3 − |3 − |- − |Preventive or Improvement − |2 − |2 − |- − |No Comments − |39 − |39 − |} − − ==== 1.1.3.1 Customer Response: Suggestions for Improvements ==== − Each category of comments from respondents, as summarized in Table 5 and Table A.1 of the appendix, generated a number of feedback suggestions which are summarized in Table 6. − − '''''Table 6: Broad categories of comments''''' − {| class="wikitable" − |'''Category''' − |'''Number of Comments''' − |- − |Easy accessibility – upgrading Laboratory webpage − |1 − |} − − == '''1.2''' '''Laboratory Response: Implementation of suggestions for improvement''' == − Note this survey constitutes the fifth survey CNSC Laboratory has conducted starting 2014 and serves as a milestone in terms of continuing excellence in customer support with products and services that meets the universally accepted global standards. − − Though it is a small pool of customers, it is not difficult to establish trends from these surveys over the period of last five years. The information available from customer feedback is very important to plan for the continual improvement of the services. − − The Laboratory is committed to customer service excellence and has taken steps in response to customer suggestions for service improvements as outlined in this section. − − === 1.2.1 Easy Accessibility === − One suggestion pertains to easy accessibility to information including list of readily available artefacts and other resources which could be used in outreach activities. Though this comment is not directly related to calibration services, CNSC Laboratory will follow up further to accommodate this suggestion for improvement. − − In previous customer satisfaction surveys in 2014, CNSC received similar comments regarding informing customers about any change in Laboratory processes which involves customers directly, providing links on BORIS to technical manuals and specifications for the equipment maintained in the inventory, as well as using web-based applications rather than emails for submission of service requests. This could be addressed by updating the information available on Laboratory webpage on BORIS. − − In response to the customers’ satisfaction survey from 2014, CNSC Laboratory already provided online library of instruments, with specifications (CNSC Laboratory Services). The link opens an e-access directory and the customer might have difficulties scrolling through the directory to select the instrument. − − === 1.2.2 Sharing information regarding instrument response === − Although CNSC Laboratory encouraged customers to report malfunctions of the instruments, problems related to the quality of calibration of survey meters or any other observation with impact on the quality of measurements, one customer chose to comment on the under-response of an instrument due to excessive dead time through the customer survey. This customer also suggested information sharing when an instrument tended to under-respond or over-respond in particular radiation fields. Same customer also chose to comment on limitations of a particular model of survey meter in strong magnetic fields and also comments on performance of a particular model not within the tolerance of the model. − − Particular model which customer commented about performed as per requirement under manufacturer’s specification. This particular model is very sensitive due to large a 2″×2″(5.1 cm×5.1 cm) NaI(Tl) crystal and is meant to be used as radioisotope identification device rather than a gamma survey meter to identify the radioisotope even in extremely small quantities. There are other gamma survey meters available upon request which can operate within the range from 0.1 µSv/h to 10 mSv/h. There are ion chamber based gamma survey meters available to operate within higher ranges of ambient dose equivalent rates as 50 mSv/h or 500 mSv/h. Laboratory can also provide gamma survey meters with accredited calibration under ISO/IEC 17025 which are equipped with a smaller NaI(Tl) crystal and a miniature PMT which still offers close to two order of magnitude higher sensitivity compared to a similar dimension GM Tube but can operate within 100 mSv/h. − − The CNSC Laboratory also realizes that the customer, who noticed the survey meter under-response at the licensee site, did not know how to properly report this kind of situation (incident) to the CNSC Laboratory. An enhanced webpage will enable customers to raise such issues and get them addressed immediately, rather than wait for a customer survey. CNSC Laboratory − − = '''2''' '''SUMMARY''' = − The intention of the customer survey was to seek meaningful customer feedback which could be analyzed and incorporated to improve the core instrument calibration services and the future perceived rating of laboratory customer services. The objectives of the customer survey were successfully achieved. − − In general, respondents have expressed a positive view of the services rendered and the staff delivering the services, as concluded from the high level of satisfaction of those customers who rated services as Excellent or Good, and recognized a positive impact of the provision of high quality Laboratory services. The Laboratory will strive to maintain this high level of satisfaction in the way it operates and delivers its services. − − A comparison of the customer’s rating of the Laboratory services from calendar years 2014 through 2018 surveys is presented in Table 7. In 2015, 2016, there were no customers who rated the services as Fair, however in 2014 and in 2017 surveys a small fraction of the respondents (8% and 3% respectively) gave such rating, mainly due to a long turnaround time or not meeting customers’ expectations in regards to schedule agreed upon with the customer. More than 50% of customers consistently rated services as Excellent throughout 2014 to 2018 indicating service standards and commitments were maintained at the highest level as a result of steps taken after the 2014 survey. There is a growing trend for improvement and maintaining excellence of services to the high level of satisfaction of customers over last several years. CNSC Laboratory will continue to strive for the next level of excellence in serving the customers and meeting their needs under its mandate. − − '''''Table 7: Comparison of customers’ rating of services''''' − {| class="wikitable" − | − | colspan="4" |'''Percentage of Responses''' − | − |- − |'''Rating''' − |'''2014''' − |'''2015''' − |'''2016''' − |'''2017''' − |'''2018''' − |- − |Fair − |8% − |0% − |0% − |3% − |0% − |- − |Good − |42% − |24% − |21% − |35% − |23% − |- − |Excellent − |50% − |76% − |79% − |62% − |77% − |} − The survey also provided customers with the opportunity to raise comments. As a result, the customers provided suggestions for improvements which can be broadly categorized into two group. The Laboratory has already implemented some of the suggested improvements and is in the process of implementing other improvements as suggested by the customers in a timely manner. − − = '''3''' '''RECOMMENDATIONs''' = − Customer feedback is very important since it provides the Laboratory with valuable information about the services the Laboratory offers, insight into customer perceptions and expectations, and specific indicators of areas where the Laboratory needs to improve to satisfy customers’ perceived desires. − − The response rate of the customer survey conducted in 2019, based on the customers who utilized the services in the calendar year of 2018, was calculated by dividing the number of respondents by the number of customers who were invited for participation in the survey. The response rate of the survey is 84%, which can be considered good for our purposes and an indication of an increasing trend of participation in the survey compared to previous years between 2014 and 2017. Increased participation of the staff this year in the customer satisfaction survey could be attributed to the approach adopted in last survey and this survey which includes − − · Microsoft® Outlook email Voting button in place of a fillable Microsoft® Word form − − · Telephone calls/voice message as a reminder − − · Simplified email reminder − − CNSC will continue to use the Microsoft® Outlook email with Voting button for annual customer satisfaction surveys. However, some customers prefer to provide feedback through emails upon completion of the services, rather than in an annual survey. Communication with customers is essential and every feedback should be maintained and taken into account with the analysis of the results from the annual survey. In order to capture such feedback, MSO will design a form based on Microsoft® Outlook email which will be sent to customer after the completion of each service request. Feedback received from customer in response to these frequent surveys will be maintained and analyzed along with the annual customer satisfaction survey. − − It is important to introduce efficiencies in the implementation of the management system. CNSC Laboratory will develop a template which can be used for the analysis of the feedback received from customers in a consistent way and is to be used for compilation of the report for customer satisfaction survey which is presented at the annual management review conducted every year in the month of February. − − '''APPENDIX ''' − − '''''Table A.1: A summary of the detailed customer comments''''' − {| class="wikitable" − |'''Constructive Comments''' − |'''Complimentary''' − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |Over the past year, I’ve submitted a few instrumentation requests. The process is easy, the requested instruments were delivered on time and well packed for travel, and the return process is smooth. − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |I think DERPA as a whole needs to better coordinate outreach. I’ve raised this several time to several different managers, and I believe this will be focused on in the future. In the meantime, I think it would be helpful to have a list readily available of things we could request form the lab. How many Fiestaware plates do you have? How many radium dial watches? An inventory list might even be available, but if I don’t know where to find it, then others likely do not know where to find it either. − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |With regard to radiation survey instruments I find that in general, the service is very good and the staff often go the extra mile to ensure our success I feel that it would be valuable if more information on the operating limitations for each instrument was available. − − For example a recent loan instrument (Thermo Scientific RIIDEye X-G) was found to suffer from excessive dead-time above a dose rate of 50 uSv/h.Other instruments do not work well in the presence of magnetic fields (e.g. the Bicron which has an analog meter) or do not work as the manufacturer claims − − (e.g. threshold sensitive bubble detectors) − − Perhaps the instrument request form could incorporate such information? − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − | − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Good − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |This was my first time using the Lab Services and everyone was really helpful in walking me through the steps/process. I really appreciated it. − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent − |- − |<nowiki>- </nowiki> − |'''Rating:''' Excellent
no edit summary
== '''1.1''' '''Customer Feedback''' ==
== '''1.1''' '''Customer Feedback''' ==
The CNSC Laboratory solicits customer feedback on an annual basis as one of the measurements of performance of the Laboratory Management System (LMS) ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4412335/R e-Docs-#4412335]) in regards to instrument management and calibration services. Customers can provide feedback to the Laboratory to address any issues which require immediate attention any time as needed, however, the annual survey provides an opportunity for customers to feedback on any aspect of the laboratory’s services including data quality and turnaround times. Any immediate problems as reported by the customers are to be documented and corrected through the non-conformance and corrective action processes following the Laboratory procedure P409 ''Corrective Action and Preventive Action'' in a timely manner by the Management System Officer (MSO).
The CNSC Laboratory solicits [[CNSC Laboratory ISO Accrediation|customer feedback]] on an annual basis as one of the measurements of performance of the Laboratory Management System (LMS) ([Pcdocs://E-DOCS/4412335/R e-Docs-#4412335]) in regards to instrument management and calibration services. Customers can provide feedback to the Laboratory to address any issues which require immediate attention any time as needed, however, the annual survey provides an opportunity for customers to feedback on any aspect of the laboratory’s services including data quality and turnaround times. Any immediate problems as reported by the customers are to be documented and corrected through the non-conformance and corrective action processes following the Laboratory procedure P409 ''Corrective Action and Preventive Action'' in a timely manner by the Management System Officer (MSO).
Customer feedback is solicited to conform with the requirements of standards ISO/IEC 17025:2017, “General Requirements for the Competence and Testing of Calibration Laboratories”, and “SCC Requirements and Guidance for the Accreditation of Testing Laboratories – April 2018.”
Customer feedback is solicited to conform with the requirements of standards ISO/IEC 17025:2017, “General Requirements for the Competence and Testing of Calibration Laboratories”, and “SCC Requirements and Guidance for the Accreditation of Testing Laboratories – April 2018.”
|'''2018'''
|'''2018'''
|84%
|84%
|}
|}
