Branch and Directorate:
The Spectrum Management and Telecommunications (SMT) Branch facilitates access to the radio frequency spectrum by issuing authorities for its use, and ensuring its continued health through resolving complaints of radio interference, sensing the radio environment, and the enforcement of standards. We work to ensure fair and equitable access to the radio frequency spectrum for our clients.
Rationale:
Responding to their 2006/07 operational plan, the Spectrum Management and Telecommunications (SMT) Branch of the Prairies and Northern Region has an established strategic initiative to gain a better understanding of their clients, partners and stakeholders. As part of this initiative, SMT has launched the radio communication interference client satisfaction survey to obtain client feedback.
The feedback received will be used to assist in improving the service provided to clients during the interference determination process, and will be compared against findings from a similar study conducted in 2005.
Anticipated Outcomes/Benefits:
The purpose of the radio communication interference (RCI) client satisfaction survey is to measure the level of client satisfaction and offer clients an opportunity to provide feedback on areas they consider require improvement.
Industry Canada's Prairie and Northern Region has a team established who's mandate it is to investigate ways and means to improve our Radio Communications Interference (RCI) process including analyzing the RCI client survey results and providing recommendations to address key issues identified. While causal analysis on specific survey question results can be quite subjective, recommendations focused on the overall reduction in client satisfaction from the previous survey conducted in 2005. Actions to address these areas revolved around early & improved communication with clients throughout the RCI process. Ensuring that these clients are kept current regarding the investigation status plays a major role in improving client satisfaction.
Research Information:
The 2006 radio communication interference client satisfaction survey was conducted by the Prairie and Northern Region of Industry Canada using a census approach.
In total, there were 62 responses received from a total 74 client records yielding an overall response rate of 62/74 or 84%. Telephone interviews were conducted between the period of October 24 to November 29, 2006 involving clients having received service during the months of April to October, 2006.
Contracting:
This project was designed and delivered using internal departmental resources.
2006 Radio Communication Interference Client Satisfaction Survey — Final Report
2006 Radio Communication Interference Client Satisfaction Survey — Final Report
Final Report
Prepared for
Spectrum Management Committee
Spectrum, Information Technologies and Telecommunications (SITT)
Prairie and Northern Region
Industry Canada
May 9, 2007
Contact:
Barry Kram
Prairie and Northern Region, Industry Canada
Contents
- Executive Summary
- Chapter 1 — Introduction
- Chapter 2 — Client Interaction
- Chapter 3 — Client Service Satisfaction
- Chapter 4 — Importance of Service
- Chapter 5 — Nature of the Interference
- Chapter 6 — Service Expectations and Improvements
- Chapter 7 — Overall Satisfaction
- Appendix A — Questionnaire
Executive Summary
The 2006 Radio Communication Interference (RCI) client satisfaction survey was conducted by the Prairie and Northern Region of Industry Canada. This is the second time the survey was conducted in the region: the benchmark survey was conducted in 2005.
As in 2005, the 2006 survey used a census approach; that is, researchers attempted to contact all listed clients of the service. The client contact list was extracted from Industry Canada's Spectrum Workflow and Electronic Application Management System (GDOC). This report will display the actual 2006 results, as well as comparison results between the benchmark 2005 and 2006 surveys.
Observations on Client Interaction
- The majority (84%) of radio communications interference inquiries were reported directly to Industry Canada staff.
- Nine out of 10 clients (90%) indicated that they had received information or advice from Industry Canada within a week of the initial contact.
Satisfaction Assessments of the Service Provided by Industry Canada
- "Courtesy of staff" received the highest satisfaction rating with a mean score of 91, while "timeliness of service" received the lowest mean score with a rating of 73. In comparing the results posted in 2005 with those of 2006, there was a downward trend with significant declines in fairness and equity of service (-9.5), informed of the process (-10.7), and timeliness of service (-12.3). Accessibility of service and courtesy of staff remained relatively unchanged.
- Satisfaction ratings for waiting time at the office were not considered as all respondents indicated that this was not applicable to their situation. Similar results were posted in the 2005 survey where 97% of clients surveyed indicated this was not applicable.
- Clients rated the competence of staff as the most important aspect of service, giving it a mean score of 94, followed by timeliness of service (93), all information was provided (92), accessibility (91), waiting time over the phone (90), fairness of service (88) and, finally, courtesy of staff (85).
Priorities for Service Improvement
- Looking at the importance vs satisfaction matrix, the top priority areas for service improvement include both timeliness ("time required to deliver the service"), and communications ("you were informed about everything throughout the process").
- The matrix identifies clients perceive the key strengths of the radio communication interference determination process to be the "competence of service staff" and "accessibility of service."
Nature of Interference
- Over 9 in 10 clients (92%) reported that the cure to the interference problem was not within their system. Only 6.5% reported that they had to purchase new or additional technology (tones or filter) to resolve their interference problem.
- Over half (55%) of respondents surveyed considered the interference to their radio system to be disruptive or annoying in nature. A further 42% considered the interference either very disruptive or severe enough to render their system unusable. The remaining 3% of respondents considered the interference to be infrequent in nature.
- The majority (84% of respondents) believe that the source of their interference problem should be identified in one week or less.
Overall Satisfaction
- Half (50%) of the respondents were either satisfied with the service provided or could not offer any suggestions as to how Industry Canada could improve their service.
- Just over 7 in 10 clients (71%) agreed that they received what they needed from Industry Canada by the end of the process.
- Overall, 79% were satisfied or very satisfied with the information and/or services they had received from Industry Canada during the radio communications interference determination process.
Review and Recommendations
The results of this survey will be reviewed by the Spectrum Control Analysis Review Team (SCART) for their analysis and further recommendations regarding future service improvements.
Chapter 1 — Introduction
The purpose of the survey was to gather feedback regarding the quality of service provided during the radio communications interference determination process. The survey was identified as a key priority in our Prairie and Northern Region's business plan under the "fair, efficient and competitive marketplace" strategic outcome. The feedback gained will be used to improve the radio communications interference determination process and will provide us with a greater knowledge and understanding of our clients' needs and expectations.
Methodology
This survey was first conducted in 2005. Only minor refinements were made to the original questionnaire thus ensuring comparable results to those posted in 2005. From a total of 21,669 client accounts in the Prairies and Northern region, this survey concentrated on the 74 clients that requested Industry Canada's assistance regarding the interference received on their radio communication system. Given the relatively small population (74 client records), a census approach was taken to obtain the most accurate results.
Duplicate or repeat client entries were culled from the database. Investigations coded as 'skip' and 'source not identified' were also not considered for the 2006 survey. These records were culled in order to maintain consistency with the criteria used in the 2005 RCI survey (extracted from the old Spectrum Control Operations Management System (SCOMS).) In this system typically 'skip' and 'unidentified sources' were coded 'Written Off' and were not considered in the 2005 survey as the interference was either no longer on, or the supervisor had decided to write off the complaint prior to service being provided by a spectrum management officer.
This research is based on a telephone survey of clients having requested Industry Canada's assistance regarding interference to their radio communication system.
In total, there were 74 in-scope clients, four of whom were non-responsive and eight of whom declined to participate. The overall response rate was therefore 62 out of 74 or 84%.
Telephone interviews were conducted using in-house staff between the period of October 24 to November 29, 2006 involving 62 respondents who had received service during the months of April to October, 2006.
Questions were scored and compared using the Mean Weighted Average (MWA) calculation. Using this method, each response is assigned a value and then the corresponding values are averaged to find one weighted score for each question:
| Very Satisfied/Important | 100 |
| Satisfied/Important | 75 |
| Neutral | 50 |
| Dissatisfied/Unimportant | 25 |
| Very Dissatisfied/Unimportant | 0 |
MWA (simply referred to as 'mean score') allows for better comparison of results over time. Generally, a score of 80 to 100 is considered to be very good to excellent. Lower scores (70) may indicate service delivery issues. Unless otherwise indicated, all analysis and numbers reported reflect the mean score for each question throughout this report.
Responses were recorded online at the time of the interview using Apian SurveyPro software Version 3.0 (a start-to-finish surveying program that includes questionnaire design, data collection, reporting, and data import/export for multimedia surveys). All responses were kept completely anonymous.
Chapter 2 — Client Interaction
In 2006, the majority (84%) of radio communications interference cases were reported directly to Industry Canada staff. Only 11% of respondents advised that they had initially contacted their radio supplier who then instructed them to contact Industry Canada based on the nature of the problem. These figures are similar to those posted in the 2005 survey indicating 83% of clients are classified as "direct clients" and 7%, as "indirect" having contacted Industry Canada via their radio supplier.
Exhibit 2.1 — Method of Contact
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Radio Equipment Supplier only | 2 | 3.2% |
| Initially with Radio Equipment Supplier who referred you to Industry Canada | 7 | 11.3% |
| Directly with Industry Canada | 52 | 83.9% |
| Other | 1 | 1.6% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
Exhibit 2.2 — Regional Distribution
Of the total 62 clients surveyed, the Edmonton office (38%) had the largest percentage of respondents to the survey. A relatively equal distribution of responses among the other district offices.
Exhibit 2.3 — Direction Provided Within One Week
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 56 | 90.3% |
| No | 6 | 9.7% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
Industry Canada's National service standard stipulates that advice or information shall be provided to clients within a one-week time frame. Approximately 9 out of 10 clients indicated that they had received information or advice from Industry Canada within a week of the initial contact. Of those who replied otherwise, the responses varied from a minimum of 7 days to a maximum of 30 days, averaging a two-week time frame.
Chapter 3 — Client Service Satisfaction
As the title of the survey indicates, the majority of the questions asked are directly focussed on client satisfaction. The two main areas of satisfaction investigated include overall satisfaction and satisfaction with seven specific aspects of service provided, namely:
- waiting time over the phone;
- knowledge and competence of staff;
- courtesy of staff;
- time required to deliver service;
- fairness and equity of service provided;
- information provided; and
- accessibility of service.
The satisfaction questions were designed using a five-point scale and respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction when dealing with Industry Canada staff regarding each aspect of service as one of very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied.
This report focuses on two indicators of client service — firstly, the percentage of clients satisfied with the service received (this includes the "satisfied" and "very satisfied" responses) and second, the "mean" of average satisfaction rating. The average rating was coded to a range from zero to 100 using a 50-point corresponding to the neutral category.Footnote 1
Comparisons to the 2005 Radio Communications Interference Client Satisfaction Survey are also presented in the report.
The first aspect of service "Waiting time at the office" was deemed "not applicable" by all respondents, indicating that clients accessed industry Canada services using alternative methods.
Exhibit 3.1 — Waiting Time Over the Phone
The majority of respondents (91.9%) were either satisfied or very satisfied with waiting time over the phone. Only one dissatisfied response was expressed.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 27 | 43.5% |
| Satisfied | 30 | 48.4% |
| Neutral | 3 | 4.8% |
| Dissatisfied | 1 | 1.6% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 0 | 0% |
| Not Applicable | 1 | 1.6% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 84.0 | |
Exhibit 3.2 — Knowledge and Competence of Staff
This aspect of service was ranked the second highest in satisfaction, ranking closely behind the courtesy of staff. Approximately 94% of respondents expressed satisfaction (that is, they responded 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied') in this area.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 37 | 59.7% |
| Satisfied | 21 | 33.9% |
| Neutral | 2 | 3.2% |
| Dissatisfied | 2 | 3.2% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 0 | 0% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 87.5 | |
Exhibit 3.3 — Courtesy of Staff
Scoring the highest satisfaction rating of all aspects of service listed, the courtesy of staff received a 95% satisfaction rating and a mean score of 91.1
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 44 | 71.0% |
| Satisfied | 15 | 24.2% |
| Neutral | 2 | 3.2% |
| Dissatisfied | 1 | 1.6% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 0 | 0% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 91.1 | |
Exhibit 3.4 — Time Required to Deliver the Service
There was a 75% satisfaction rating from all clients served regarding the timeliness of service; however, eight clients expressed their disapproval by ranking this aspect of service with a "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" rating. A mean score of only 73 was achieved in this area.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 22 | 35.5% |
| Satisfied | 25 | 40.3% |
| Neutral | 7 | 11.3% |
| Dissatisfied | 4 | 6.5% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 4 | 6.5% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 73.0 | |
Exhibit 3.5 — Fairness and Equity
This aspect of service earned a 85% satisfaction rating from clients indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied, and a mean score of 79. Four clients (6.4%) expressed dissatisfaction with this aspect of service.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 26 | 41.9% |
| Satisfied | 27 | 43.5% |
| Neutral | 5 | 8.1% |
| Dissatisfied | 1 | 1.6% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 3 | 4.8% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 79.0 | |
Exhibit 3.6 — All Necessary Information was Provided
A 79% satisfaction rating, along with a mean score of 79 was achieved regarding the satisfaction of the information provided by Industry Canada.
The six dissatisfied responses (9.7%) in this area suggests that there may be a degree of unfamiliarity with the radio communication interference determination process.
| Count | Percents | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 30 | 48.4% |
| Satisfied | 19 | 30.6% |
| Neutral | 7 | 11.3% |
| Dissatisfied | 4 | 6.5% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 2 | 3.2% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 78.6 | |
Exhibit 3.7 — Accessibility of the Service
Although accessibility scored a 90% satisfaction rating among clients served, three clients expressed dissatisfaction with this service value.
A mean score of 85.5 was achieved.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 37 | 59.7% |
| Satisfied | 19 | 30.6% |
| Neutral | 3 | 4.8% |
| Dissatisfied | 1 | 1.6% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 2 | 3.2% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 85.5 | |
Exhibit 3.8 — Summary of Expressed Satisfaction with Service Received
| Aspect of Service | 2005 n=61 | 2006 n=62 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (0 to 100) | Mean (0 to 100) | ||
| The courteousness of service staff | 92.2 | 91.1 | 
|
| Knowledge and competence of service staff | 91.4 | 87.5 |
|
| Accessibility to service provided | 85.7 | 85.5 |
|
| Waiting time over the phone | 88.1 | 84.0 |
|
| The extent to which the service was provided in a fair and equitable manner | 88.5 | 79.0 |
|
| The extent to which you were informed about everything throughout the process | 89.3 | 78.6 |
|
| The time required to deliver the service | 85.3 | 73.0 |
|
When we compare the results posted in 2005 with those of 2006, there was a downward trend with significant declines in fairness and equity of service (-9.5), informed of the process (-10.7), and timeliness of service (-12.3). Only accessibility of service and courtesy of staff remained relatively unchanged.
Chapter 4 — Importance of Service
The chart below provides a summary of the importance placed upon each aspect of service (again, please note that waiting time at the office was not considered with all returned surveys indicating this was not applicable to respondents).
Exhibit 4.1 — Perceived Importance of Service Provided
Using the "top box" or "very important" category representation, the three aspects of service considered most important include: 1) knowledge and competence of staff, 2) timeliness of service provided, and 3) all of the necessary information was provided throughout the process.
Table 4.2 — Summary of perceived importance of service received
| Aspect of Service | 2005 n=61 | 2006 n=62 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (0 to 100) | Mean (0 to 100) | ||
| Knowledge and competence of service staff | 94.3 | 94.4 | 
|
| The time required to deliver the service | 89.3 | 92.7 |
|
| The extent to which you were informed about everything throughout the process | 90.2 | 92.3 |
|
| Accessibility to service provided | 89.8 | 91.1 |
|
| Waiting time over the phone | 88.1 | 89.8 |
|
| The extent to which the service was provided in a fair and equitable manner | 87.7 | 88.3 |
|
| The courteousness of service staff | 91.4 | 84.7 |
|
The survey results indicate that all aspects of service tested were of significant importance. In 2006, very much like the case in 2005, clients ranked staff competence as the most important aspect of service. There was a significant jump in the importance placed on the time to deliver the service, as well as the extent to which information was provided throughout the process.
The following three service values, accessibility, waiting time over the phone, and the fairness of service can be grouped at a similar importance level experiencing slightly smaller increases in importance over the past year.
With the exception of staff courtesy, all service categories have seen their importance rating increase in the past year indicating an increased expectation with regard to service delivery.
In brief, clients are expecting quick service (less than one week turnaround timeFootnote 2) delivered by very competent staff. Then, they would like to be informed throughout the process and have this service easily accessible.
Exhibit 4.3 — Satisfaction vs Importance Matrix
Note: The above figures use a weighted average which essentially combines the 5 level choices (from very dissatisfied to very satisfied) to a single "mean" value. The top possible score in these areas is 100. This single value can then be used to make comparisons between past and present surveys (refer to the Methodology section for a more detailed explanation).
Low satisfaction and high importance components (top left quadrant) are targeted as the top priority areas for service improvement. In the case above, both time required to deliver the service, and clients being informed about everything throughout the process are identified as top priority initiatives.
High satisfaction and high importance service components (top right quadrant) are viewed as key strengths. The two key strengths identified in this area are the competence of service staff, and accessibility of service.
High satisfaction and low importance components (bottom right quadrant) are considered areas where an organization over-delivers. As above, courtesy of staff and, to a lesser extent, waiting time over the phone are identified in this area.
Lastly, the bottom left quadrant contains the low importance and low satisfaction service component and are associated with lower priorities for service improvement. The aspect of service listed here is 'service was provided in a fair and equitable manner.'
Chapter 5 — Nature of the Interference
Exhibit 5.1 — Impact of Interference
Over 96% of the responses indicated that the interference they experienced ranged from annoying or disruptive to very disruptive or severe enough to render their system unusable. Only 3% of those surveyed considered the interference to be infrequent in nature.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Disruptive / Unable to Use | 26 | 41.9% |
| Disruptive or Annoying | 34 | 54.8% |
| Infrequent | 2 | 3.2% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
In 2005, the percentage of responses in the "very disruptive/ unable to use" category was 14% lower than the results posted in 2006. This may be a contributing factor for the increased importance on timeliness of service provided.
Exhibit 5.2 — Cause of Interference
The majority of clients reported that the cure to the interference problem was not within their system — indicating either an enforcement issue (unauthorized communications in the area) or an interference situation that is beyond their control. Only five respondents advised that the problem was determined to be in their system.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 5 | 8.1% |
| No | 57 | 91.9% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
Exhibit 5.3 — Additional Technology Required
Only 4 of the 62 clients surveyed were required to purchased additional technology in order to resolve their interference problem.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 4 | 6.5% |
| No | 58 | 93.5% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
Chapter 6 — Service Expectations and Improvements
Exhibit 6.1 — Expected Service Standard
When asked how long should it take to identify the source of the interference received, almost half surveyed indicated that a one-day time frame would be appropriate.
The majority (84% of respondents) believe that it should be identified in one week or less. This is very similar to the results posted in the 2005 survey where 83% of respondents indicated that the source of interference should be found within one week.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 to 2 days | 32 | 51.6% |
| 3 to 7 days | 20 | 32.3% |
| 8 to 14 days | 8 | 12.9% |
| 2 weeks | 1 | 1.6% |
| not specified | 1 | 1.6% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
When asked if there was a product or service that you need from Industry Canada that it is currently not providing, the majority (85%) of responses received indicated that they couldn't make any further suggestions in this regard. Of the suggestions received, only two areas were mentioned by more than one client: the availability of Spectrumdirect website training, and increased enforcement action regarding unauthorized operations in the area.
Exhibit 6.2 — Improvement Recommendations
| Count | Percents | |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfied with service provided or no change | 31 | 50.0% |
| More staff and/or resources required | 7 | 11.3% |
| Problem still occurring - find source of interference | 6 | 9.7% |
| Availability and accessibility of service | 5 | 8.1% |
| More follow-up required | 5 | 8.1% |
| Faster resolution to the problem required | 4 | 6.4% |
| Other | 4 | 6.4% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
Half of respondents to the survey were either satisfied with the current level of service or could not offer any suggestions as to how Industry Canada could improve their service.
Some clients (11%) took this opportunity to suggest that more Industry Canada resources (including, for example, the creation of a Fort McMurray sub-office, hiring additional staff, and additional remote monitoring facilities) should be made available to resolve their interference problem.
Approximately one in ten indicated that their problem is still occurring. A small percentage (8%) also indicated that better communications and more follow-up was required during the interference determination process.
Chapter 7 — Overall Satisfaction
Exhibit 7.1 — Did You Get What You Needed
Almost three-quarters of those surveyed advised that they had received the necessary information and/or services requested; however, a substantial number of clients responded that they did not receive what they required. This number is significantly higher (up 14%) than the results of the 2005 survey where only 2% of clients indicated that they did not receive what they requested.
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | 44 | 71.0% |
| No | 10 | 16.1% |
| I received part of what I needed | 8 | 12.9% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
In the 2006 results, the majority of the clients responding "no" to this question indicated that the interference remains a problem and/or expressed the opinion that proper enforcement action was not taken to completely resolve their situation. When further asked, "how could we ensure that you receive all the information or services that you require?" the majority of responses received indicated that more follow-up was required throughout the process.
Exhibit 7.2 — Overall Satisfaction
| Count | Percent (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Very Satisfied | 36 | 58.1% |
| Satisfied | 13 | 21.0% |
| Neutral | 6 | 9.7% |
| Dissatisfied | 4 | 6.5% |
| Very Dissatisfied | 3 | 4.8% |
| Totals | 62 | 100.0% |
| Mean | 80.2 | |
In general, the majority of clients surveyed have indicated that they are satisfied (79.1% satisfaction rating) with the services that Industry Canada has provided. However, there also appears to be a somewhat polarized view of service received (i.e., a high number of very satisfied clients combined with a significant number of dissatisfied clients).
Appendix A — Questionnaire
Radio Communications Interference Client Satisfaction Survey Questionnaire
(Version 1.4 September 2006)
Interviewer Notes:
If respondent questions validity of the survey, please ask him/her to call Barry Kram at 306-780-6982 for follow-up.
Ensure that respondent is the person that had hands-on experience with the interference investigation process. If necessary, get referral from initial contact.
Please record all open ended question responses as close as possible to the client's actual response, ensuring that sufficient information is captured to accurately determine the intent of the client's comment. All questions should be asked exactly as they appear on the survey template. Please ensure that the available responses are also provided for each question.
If the client requires additional information/services during the course of the survey, please record his name and phone number along with his question and forward it to the appropriate manager for follow-up.
Should the contact person have had multiple contact with Industry Canada during this time period, please request that their survey responses be based on their last contact with Industry Canada.
The satisfaction scale response categories (very satisfied…very dissatisfied) are repetitive. Adjust repetition frequency to ensure clarity but avoid tedium.
Hi, may I speak to ______________ (insert client's name if known)
- if person is available, continue.
- if not available, arrange call-back or get new number where person can be reached. If necessary, explain purpose of phone call (use information from introduction below).
- if asked how we received the person's name, inform the client that it was obtained from our database of individuals and businesses that have experienced radio communication interference in the past 6 months and have reported it to Industry Canada.
My name is _____________. I'm with Industry Canada and I am calling to conduct a survey of individuals or businesses who have experienced interference to their radio communication system within the past six months. The purpose of this survey is to gather feedback regarding the quality of service provided during this investigation process. Your feedback would be extremely valuable and will help us improve our service.
Your participation is completely voluntary and your decision to participate or not will not affect any dealings you may have with the Federal Government. The information is being collected under the authority of the Privacy Act. The names of participants will not be recorded as part of this survey or shared with any other third party.
Note to interviewer: Should anyone request a copy of the Privacy Act it can be accessed at:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-21/
The survey should take about 5 minutes to complete. Do you have time now to take part in this survey?
If no, ask if you can call back later at a more convenient time.
(1) How did you contact Industry Canada regarding the interference on your radio system? Was it via:
- Radio Equipment Supplier only
- Initially with Radio Equipment Supplier who referred you to Industry Canada
- Directly with Industry Canada (Go to Q. 3 When you first…)
- Other (please specify) __________________________
(2) What type of assistance did this company or individual provide before Industry Canada became involved?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(3) When you first reported the interference to Industry Canada, were you provided with advice or direction within one week? (Note to interviewer: this may include advice or direction provided upon initial contact with Industry Canada)
- Yes (Go to Q. 5)
- No
(4) How long was it before you were contacted by Industry Canada regarding your Radio Communication system interference?
______ days
(5) Using the scale of: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied, please indicate your level of satisfaction when dealing with Industry Canada staff regarding these aspects of service:
Firstly, your satisfaction with the waiting time at the office. (if applicable).
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
- Not Applicable
(6) Waiting time over the phone.
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
- Not Applicable
(7) Knowledge and competence of the staff.
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
(8) Courtesy of the staff.
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
(9) Your satisfaction with the time required to deliver the service.
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
(10) The service was provided in a fair and equitable manner.
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
(11) Satisfaction that you were informed of everything you had to do in order to get the service.
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
(12) Lastly, your satisfaction with the accessibility of the service?
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
(13) We are about half done the survey now. Now, using the following scale very important, important, neutral, unimportant, and very unimportant, could you please rate the importance of these aspects of service:
Firstly, the importance of waiting time at the office (if applicable).
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
- Not App
(14) Waiting time over the phone.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
- Not App
(15) Knowledge and competence of staff.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
(16) Courtesy of staff.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
(17) Timeliness of the service provided.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
(18) Fairness of the service provided.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
(19) That all necessary information was provided.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
(20) Lastly, the accessibility of service provided.
- Very Important
- Important
- Neutral
- Unimportant
- Very Unimportant
(21) How would you rate the impact of the interference problem that you experienced to your business operation?
- Infrequent
- Disruptive or Annoying
- Very disruptive / Unable to use system
(22) Was the interference problem caused by your own equipment or its installation?
- Yes
- No
(23) Frequency assignments are evaluated on the basis of using a bandpass filter which is designed to reduce effects of various types of interference. Were you required to purchase additional technology (eg: filters or tones) to resolve the interference?
- Yes
- No
(24) In your opinion, from the time you first reported the interference, how long should it take Industry Canada to identify the source of the interference and advise you of the results of the investigation?
______ days
(25) In general, how could we improve our service to you?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(26) Is there a product or service you need from us that we're currently not providing?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(27) In the end, did you get what you needed from our organization?
- Yes (Go to 32 "Overall, how satisfied were you…)
- No
- I got part of what I needed
(28) What didn't you get from Industry Canada?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(29) In your opinion, how could we ensure that you receive all the information or services that you require?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(30) Would you like someone from Industry Canada to give you a call regarding your concerns?
- Yes
- No (Go to Q. 32)
(31) Confirm and record contact name, phone number, and provide a brief description of concern.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(32) Overall, how satisfied were you with the service you received?
- Very Satisfied
- Satisfied
- Neutral
- Dissatisfied
- Very Dissatisfied
This concludes our survey, thank-you very much for your time!