TBR TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC. Corporate IT Service & Support Customer Satisfaction Study First Calendar Quarter 2010.

Transcription

1 TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS RESEARCH, INC. Corporate IT Study SUPPORT PROVIDER OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES x86 SERVER SUPPORT DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT 1Q10 Strength/ 1Q10 Strength/ 1Q10 Strength/ 1Q10 1Q10 WSI Weakness 1Q10 1Q10 Weakness 1Q10 1Q10 Weakness RANK SCORE Points RANK SCORE Points RANK SCORE Points Dell Services IBM Global/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations HP Services Publication Date: June 16, 2010 Author: Julie Perron

2 Table of Contents 1Q10 COMPETITIVE PLACEMENT SUMMARY & INSIGHTS 3 Foreword 4 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance 6 The Score in 1Q10 12 Most Noteworthy Events Performance Differentiation 18 Server Support Segment Analysis 23 Desktop/Notebook Support Segment Analysis 27 Services Differentiation 31 Warranty Coverage Influences 32 Critical Metrics Summary 36 s Watch List 39 Historical Record 47 APPENDICES Appendix A: Analytical Graphs & Tables 49 Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores 4Q06 Through 1Q10 83 Appendix C: Historical Strength/Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes 86 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Satisfaction Attributes 88 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs 99 Appendix F: Categorical Responses 110 Appendix G: Server/Storage vs. Desktop/Notebook Support by Support Provider 120 Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology 125 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures 131 Appendix J: Survey Instrument 139 This report is based on information made available to the public by the vendor and other public sources. No representation is made that this information is accurate or complete. Technology Business Research will not be held liable or responsible for any decisions that are made based on this information. This report is not a recommendation to purchase securities. This report is copyright protected and supplied for the sole use of the recipient. Contact Technology Business Research, Inc. for permission to reproduce: 11 Merrill Drive, Hampton, NH 03842, P: , F: , Web: 2

3 1Q10 Competitive Placement Summary & Insights 3

4 Foreword s Corporate IT Study is based on the views of those who manage in-house support services and/or work with OEM-provided support Companies interviewed for s Corporate IT Satisfaction Study are required to have a minimum of 200 PCs (combined total servers, desktops and notebooks) installed. In contrast, s product-related satisfaction studies require a minimum of 500 PCs for most covered brands. This makes the 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 own internal support staff. With this in mind, study subscribers should not expect the results of this study to mirror those of s product-related satisfaction studies, including the x86-based Server, Corporate Notebook and Corporate Desktop studies. Throughout this report, 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 ). 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/IBM as the primary contractor, 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? 4

5 Foreword Reporting Structure Defined generally reports on the combined results of server, notebook and desktop support Report sections break out the study results by segment wherever referenced (server versus desktop/notebook) Combined Study Results Sample size = Approximately 200 interviews per group Covers satisfaction with x86-based server, as well as the desktop and notebook support delivered by: 1. Dell Services 2. HP Services (includes both ISS and PSG groups) 3. IGS (includes both IBM server support and Lenovo desktop/notebook support) 4. Internal Support Organizations x86-based Server Support, wherever referenced Sample size = Approximately 100 interviews per group Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by: 1. Dell Services (Enterprise Support) 2. HP Services (TSS) 3. IBM/IGS Services 4. Internal Support Organizations Desktop/Notebook Support, wherever referenced Sample size = Approximately 100 interviews per group Covers satisfaction with x86-based server support delivered by: 1. Dell Services (Client Support) 2. HP Services (PSG) 3. Lenovo Services 4. Internal Support Organizations 5

6 OVERALL RESULTS: Dell Services takes its fifth consecutive No. 1 ranking, its second singular No. 1 ranking, in s 1Q10 Corporate Study Q05 1Q06 SOURCE:. SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION INDICES, EXTENDED TO 2Q10* 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 HP Services Internal Support Organizations * 2Q10 reporting period based on partial data interviews taken between January and March 2010, or the first half of the upcoming 2Q10 reporting period. ranked Dell Services in the sole No. 1 position in 1Q10, followed by a shared No. 2 ranking between IGS/Lenovo Services and the internal support groups. HP was placed in the No. 3 ranking position. It is possible the internal support group will fully recover in 2Q10 and retake its role as the model of success against which we measure OEM-provided support. We are also observing a potential collision between the WSI positions of Dell Services and IGS. 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance 2Q10* THE CONTEXT Overall, 2009 was a challenging year for IT industry hardware vendors, and this certainly leaked over into technical support requirements and projects. The Great Recession forced customers to delay hardware purchases, in turn creating a decidedly more negative atmosphere where systems were maintained within the infrastructure longer than they might have been otherwise. This created a greater strain on support service requirements, where observed fewer cases of customer delight and an increase in dissatisfaction. During 2H09, satisfaction with support services from Dell Services, HP Services, IGS and Lenovo Services all declined precipitously. The growing sense of discontent commenced earlier among the internal support organizations, where this group s challenges signaled the events that would accelerate during In 1Q10, however, it appears that the worst of the challenges with technical support are ending. Satisfaction positions either stabilized or improved, and the 2Q10 outlook is even more encouraging. The uptick within the internal group may suggest companies are beginning to renew hiring of IT staff resources. 6

7 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance In 1Q10, WSI positions of Dell Services, IGS and HPS form a straddled alignment, driven by a growing list of performance differentiators Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time/ Commitment SERVICE & SUPPORT SATISFACTION MEANS ANALYSIS Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Hardware Deployment/Installation Overall Satisfaction Internal Support Organizations Dell Svcs HP Svcs IGS/Lenovo Svcs SOURCE:. = Competitive Strength issued by = Competitive Weakness/Warning issued by Factors Driving Ranking Determinations: Dell Services, No. 1 due to competitive advantages for on-site expertise & response time, phone support. Internal Support, No. 2 due to mix of competitive advantages (on-site expertise, response time, remotely managed support & hardware deployment) against weakness for basic (routine/mundane) break/fix and parts availability. IGS, No. 2 due to competitive advantages for basic break/fix and online support. HPS, No. 3 due to below average scores for on-site expertise and response time, phone and online support. 7

8 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance x86 SERVER SUPPORT RESULTS: Dell Services may take its tenth consecutive No. 1 ranking, yet WSI ratings collide into a three-way No. 2 ranking in 1Q SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH SERVER SUPPORT, 4Q07 to 1Q10 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Internal Support ranked the internal support teams a sole No. 1, narrowly outpacing the clump of three No. 2 ranked players Dell Services, HP Services and IGS/IBM Services. THE CONTEXT Customer satisfaction with x86-based server support services took a hit in 2009, with WSI ratings progressively declining throughout the year, leaving no competitor (not even the in-house teams) immune to this condition. During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction with support services from Dell Services, HP Services, IGS and Lenovo Services all declined precipitously. As a leading indicator for the industry, the internal support group s scores began to decline at least one calendar quarter earlier. This is a clear example of the challenges faced by organizations affected by reduced spending on new server solutions with robust warranties, as well as a lack of IT staffing due to cutbacks. By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction score slides halted, and improved for IBM. In the end, the internal support teams only marginally outperformed the three OEMprovided support competitors. 8

9 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance In 1Q10, the internal support groups return to the model position by setting industry standards for response times, hardware deployment and some new remote support mechanisms Break/Fix SOURCE:. On-site Response Time MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Overall Value Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Internal Support Overall Satisfaction = Competitive Strength issued by = Competitive Weakness/Warning issued by While the OEM-provided support organizations shared the No. 2 ranking position, IBM was the only competitor with a dearth of competitive challenges. While IBM s overall satisfaction rating ran substantially higher than the industry average, it was not sufficiently higher than the competition as to warrant a superior ranking position. Factors Driving Ranking Determinations: Internal Support, No. 1 due to a variety of competitive advantages, including singular wins for on-site response time, online support, and hardware deployment services. Dell Services, No. 2 with competitive advantage for phone support, offset by a challenge relative to basic break/fix support. IGS/IBM Services, No. 2 with a competitive advantage for basic break/fix services. HP Services, No. 2 with a competitive advantage for break/fix services, though in receipt of warnings for response time and technical expertise. 9

10 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT RESULTS: Performance differentiation is evident, with Dell Services regaining a singular No. 1 ranking (its first since 2Q08) SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT, 4Q07 to 1Q10 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP Services Internal Support ranked the Dell Services at No. 1 in the 1Q10 reporting period, followed by a shared No. 2 ranking between the internal support group and Lenovo Services. HP PSG was placed at the No. 3 ranking position, a sizable distance from the competition. THE CONTEXT Customer satisfaction with desktop and notebook systems support began to decline as far back as mid-2008, yet accelerated during the economic recession of During 2H09 in particular, satisfaction with support services from Dell Services, HP Services and Lenovo Services declined precipitously. The internal support group took the greatest cumulative hit, however, as its WSI ratings lost a substantial proportion of their value between 4Q08 and 4Q09. By 1Q10, however, customer satisfaction scores for all competitors either stabilized or improved. Dell Services improvement was substantial enough to deliver a sole No. 1 ranking. 10

11 1Q10 Corporate Satisfaction at a Glance In 1Q10, Dell Services establishes industry standards for on-site expertise, on-site response time and phone support Break/Fix SOURCE:. On-site Response Time MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Overall Value Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support Overall Satisfaction = Competitive Strength issued by = Competitive Weakness/Warning issued by Factors Driving Ranking Determinations: Dell Services, No. 1, delivered via competitive advantages for on-site expertise and response time, as well as phone support. Internal Support, No. 2, due to competitive advantage for response time against a continuing challenge for parts availability. Lenovo Services, No. 2, with competitive strengths (marginal) for phone and online support and parts availability. HP Services (PSG), No. 3, with a number of competitive challenges. Dell Services singular No. 1 ranking was the result of some definitive and fullvalue competitive strengths within high-importance areas. Lenovo Services, while also performing well, earned marginal competitive strengths occurring within areas of less importance, hence less value that would contribute to the WSI rating. 11

12 The Score in 1Q10 Ranking positions remain constant in 1Q10 - Dell Services retains sole ownership of No. 1 ranking position Dell Services WSI advances by 1% Satisfaction with basic break/fix services, phone support and remotely managed support increased significantly. HPS WSI remains constant One substantially declining position (on-site response time) was offset by improving parts availability and hardware deployment positions. IGS WSI increases by 1% Satisfaction gains were led by phone and online support. Internal support WSI move up by nearly 1% Satisfaction levels increased significantly for hardware deployment and online support SOURCE:. 1Q10 VERSUS 4Q09 WEIGHTED SATISFACTION RATINGS AND RANKS Q Internal Support Organizations HP & Partners Q IGS/Lenovo Services & Partners Dell & Partners 1 12

13 13 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Ranking positions vary between server-related and desktop/notebook-related support Performance differentiation decidedly pronounced for desktop/notebook support services The internal support groups narrowly outpaced OEM-provided support competitors, driven by some competitive advantages across on-site response time, hardware deployment, and online and remotely managed support. The three OEM-provided support competitors shared a close No. 2 position, yet with variable performances in some key areas. Dell Services led the competition for phone support satisfaction, yet was challenged relative to basic break/fix services. HPS and IBM both led Dell Services for break/fix/maintenance services, while HPS was somewhat more challenged relative to on-site response time, expertise and phone support SOURCE: Q10 WEIGHTED SCORES AND RANKING BY SUPPORT SEGMENT Server Support Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services The Score in 1Q Desktop/Notebook Support Internal Support Organizations HP Services 3 The desktop/notebook support competition was led by Dell Services, driven by substantial competitive advantages for both on-site and phone support, as well as parts availability. Lenovo Services was ranked a strong No. 2, with some marginal competitive advantages for phone and online support, as well as parts availability. The internal organizations also ranked No. 2, driven primarily by the on-site support response time rating, but held back by continuing challenges with parts supplies. HPS was ranked No. 3 due to considerable challenges across many areas; its phone support satisfaction rating was most decidedly below the industry average.

14 The Score in 1Q10 Dell Services, IGS and the internal group all improve at comparable magnitudes in 1Q10; HPS WSI rating remains constant Declining ratings were a rarity in 1Q10 with only one example of a meaningful shift HPS mean score for on-site response time, which declined by nearly 5% between 4Q09 and 1Q10. Dell Services ratings improved at statistically significant levels across basic break/fix maintenance, phone support, and remotely managed support. IGS saw significantly improving scores in phone and online support, parts availability and remotely managed support. HPS scores for parts availability and hardware deployment advanced by substantial magnitudes. The in-house support groups saw significant improvements in online support and hardware deployment. 4% PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q10 VS. 4Q09 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% The overarching trend in 1Q10 was improving customer satisfaction in some cases by considerable magnitudes. This likely marks the end of the discontent we observed during the recession of % -5% Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Phone Support Online Support Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Overall Satisfaction SOURCE:. Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations 14

15 The Score in 1Q10 Shifting satisfaction positions affect competitive advantages/disadvantages within a competitively stressed field Several new competitive strengths & warnings issued in 1Q10 1Q10 Satisfaction Shifts of Particular Consequence: On-site Response Time: Performance differentiation expanded with Dell Services marginal competitive strength advancing to a full strength and HPS warning accelerating into a weakness. This was due to HPS substantially weakening rating. Phone Support: HPS earned a new competitive warning, the result of a static score against significantly improved scores from Dell Services and IGS. Online Support: Emerged as a new performance differentiator, with IGS gaining a new competitive strength and HPS gaining a new warning, as a result of a significantly improved score for IGS. 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% Break/Fix Services PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, 1Q10 VS. 4Q09 On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Phone Support Online Support Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Internal Support Organizations Overall Satisfaction Dell Services, however, was unable to sustain its competitive strength from 4Q09 for parts availability; its score remained constant against a largely improving competitive field. Dell Services did recover from its 4Q09 competitive warning for basic break/fix services its score increased significantly against a static competitive field. SOURCE:. 15

16 The Score in 1Q10 s Competitive Strength & Weakness determinations support the 1Q10 ranking position placement decisions These determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analyses (two tests) Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary VENDOR DELL SVCS HP SVCS IGS/LENOVO SVCS INTERNAL SUPPORT Break/Fix Services CONTRACTED On-site Technical Expertise * * NEW EXPANDED On-site Response Time/Commitment EXPANDED Telephone/Helpdesk Support * NEW EXPANDED Online Support NEW NEW NEW Remotely Managed Support * NO CHANGE Replacement Parts Availability CONTRACTED Support Services Pricing/Value NO CHANGE Hardware Installation/Configuration * NEW SHIFTED Numeric Value CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE DIFFERENTIATION SINCE 4Q09 YELLOW boxes indicate areas where Strength/Weakness determinations have been downgraded from the previous reporting period. BLUE boxes indicate determinations that mark an upgrade. Weighted Satisfaction Score Ranking Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only) Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. SOURCE:. Dell Services sole No. 1 ranking in 1Q10 was delivered by three competitive strengths, one of which (on-site response time) represents a move up from marginal (4Q09) to full (1Q10) competitive strength. Its positioning was also enhanced by a recovery from a previous competitive warning for basic break/fix services. Dell Services, however, did not retain previous competitive strengths for parts availability or hardware deployment services. The internal support teams, at No. 2, earned four competitive strengths, including two new issues on-site expertise and hardware deployment services; however, the group s previous warning for break/fix services was downgraded to a full weakness. IGS, sharing the No. 2 ranking position with the in-house group, earned one full competitive strength for break/fix services and a new strength for online support. HP Services, at No. 3, was cited with two new competitive warnings (phone and online support) and a continuing warning for expertise, along with a downgraded full weakness for on-site response time. 16

17 The Score in 1Q10 Customer groups varying expectations drive different outcomes for expectation fulfillment 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% -10% -12% -14% SOURCE:. SUPPORT PROVIDER GAP ANALYSIS - SUPPORT PROVIDERS AGAINST THEIR CUSTOMERS' EXPECTATIONS/REQUIREMENTS 1Q10 Break/Fix Expertise On-site Response Dell & Partners IGS/Lenovo Services & Partners Phone/Helpdesk Online Support Replacement Parts Availability Acceptable GAP Range (in white) Value/Pricing HP & Partners Internal Support Organizations Remotely Managed The GAP positions were positively influenced by lower stated importance ratings scores, a function of s shift to an online data collection methodology. Nevertheless, HPS GAP ratings trended below average, several positioned near the borderline to falling below expectations on-site response time, online support and parts availability. IGS customers had the lowest stated expectations, hence the higher-thanaverage GAP ratings. Dell Services fared well due to high satisfaction ratings, with the exception of basic break/fix services, where its GAP was close to falling below expectation. The in-house group expressed the highest expectations, and, combined with some satisfaction challenges, often came out with the lowest GAP ratings, including basic break/fix services, parts availability and support services value. 17

18 Most Noteworthy Events Performance Differentiation Performance differentiation relative to overall break/fix services contracts 95% CI Break/Fix Svcs N = SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SERVICES 195 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 197 HPS 4Q IGS 235 In House In 4Q09, Dell Services and the in-house group were cited with competitive warnings, while IGS earned a full competitive strength. With Dell Services score improving, removed the warning in 1Q10. This left the in-house group s score significantly below the industry average, resulting in issuing a full competitive weakness. IGS retained its full competitive strength. 95% CI Break/Fix Svcs N = SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SERVICES 186 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 192 HPS 1Q IGS/Lenov o 240 In House 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HPS In House IGS continues to benefit from securing most of its scores at the top two levels of the satisfaction scale. Dell Services improved position partially resulted from a significant reduction in dissatisfaction (scores at lower than 5 on the scale). 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HPS In House 18

19 Most Noteworthy Events Performance Differentiation Scoring differences for on-site response time expand in 1Q10 95% CI On-site Response Time 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% N = SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 194 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 196 HPS 4Q09 4Q IGS 235 In House SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services SOURCE:. HPS In House In 4Q09, Dell Services and the in-house group earned competitive strengths, to HPS competitive warning. With HPS rating having declined substantially in 1Q10, downgraded it to a full weakness. Dell Services and the in-house group retained their competitive strength status into 1Q10. HPS mean score declined significantly due to a shift from previously level-6 ratings down to level 5. The number of purely dissatisfied customers increased. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 95% CI On-site Response Time N = SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 184 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 192 HPS 1Q10 1Q IGS/Lenov o 240 In House SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services SOURCE:. HPS In House 19

20 Most Noteworthy Events Performance Differentiation Phone support performance differentiation expands in 1Q10 95% CI Phone Support N = SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean Dell Svcs HPS IGS In House In 4Q09, Dell Services held a marginal competitive strength for phone support. While IGS score increased significantly in 1Q10, Dell Services retained the competitive strength. The movement of Dell Services and IGS in 1Q10, however, forced HPS into a competitive warning. 95% CI Phone Support N = SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean Dell Svcs HPS IGS/Lenov o In House 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SOURCE:. 20 Support Provider 4Q09 4Q09 SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HPS In House Dell Services and IGS earned an increasing number of scores at the highest level of the scale in 1Q10, hence their significantly improved mean scores. HPS had the largest number of dissatisfied ratings and the fewest perfect 7 ratings. 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SOURCE:. Support Provider 1Q10 SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HPS In House

21 95% CI Parts Availability N = 199 Dell Svcs Support Provider IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Performance differentiation relative to parts availability satisfaction contracts in 1Q10 SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 201 HPS 4Q IGS 231 In House In 4Q09, Dell Services earned a marginal competitive strength to HPS competitive warning. The in-house group was cited its customary full competitive weakness. In 1Q10, mean scores for HPS and IGS increased significantly, resulting in lifting HPS warning and Dell Services strength. Only the in-house group retained its previous designation, a full competitive weakness. Most Noteworthy Events Performance Differentiation 95% CI Parts Availability N = SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY 185 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 197 HPS 1Q IGS/Lenov o 226 In House 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE:. Scores for HPS and IGS saw a reduction in dissatisfaction between 4Q09 and 1Q10. 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HPS In House 21

22 Most Noteworthy Events Performance Differentiation Online support emerges as a new 1Q10 performance differentiator 95% CI On-line Support 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% N = SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT 198 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 200 HPS 4Q09 4Q IGS 234 In House SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HPS In House In 4Q09, scores across the competitive field were relatively equal with respect to online support. By 1Q10, significantly improving IGS and inhouse support scores resulted in awarding a new competitive strength to IGS and a competitive warning to HPS, which was left behind. IGS mean rating for online support benefited from a considerable reduction in dissatisfaction and a small increase in perfect 7 ratings. HPS was the outlier, with a substantial proportion of scores at the lowest end of the scale. 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 95% CI On-line Support SOURCE: N = SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT 179 Dell Svcs Support Provider 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 192 HPS 1Q IGS/Lenov o 237 In House SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 22

23 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Server Support Segment Analysis s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations support the 1Q10 server support ranking position placement decisions These determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analyses (two tests) The internal support Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - x86 Server VENDOR DELL SVCS HP SVCS IGS/IBM SVCS INTERNAL SUPPORT 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 * Numeric Value organizations narrowly earned a singular No. 1 ranking in the x86 server support competition. Its WSI rating of 80.2 was only marginally higher than IBM s However, the group earned a total of four competitive strengths, though they were offset by two competitive warnings which both occurred within high-importance areas. Weighted Satisfaction Score 79,7 79, Ranking Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only) Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. SOURCE:. The performances of the three OEM-provided support organizations were generally close across the categories. Dell Services and HPS, however, were presented with some marginal challenges that IBM avoided. 23

24 Server Support Segment Analysis Satisfaction performances for server support were largely comparable across Dell Services, HP Services, and IBM Break/Fix On-site Response Time SOURCE:. MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - SERVERS/STORAGE ONLY On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G. SERVER SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS WSI Score Rank IBM Services Dell Services HP Services Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Overall Value Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Overall Satisfaction splits responses based on the 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. Some differences were observed relative to satisfaction with basic break/fix services, where Dell Services scored below the industry average. HPS scored below industry averages for on-site response time and expertise. Dell Services performed above the industry average for phone support satisfaction. The remaining categories exhibited little to no differences in satisfaction across the three competitive groups. 24

25 Server Support Segment Analysis Dell Services server support performances weaken against an improving IBM and a constant HPS, resulting in converging WSI scores and rankings 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% SOURCE:. 4Q09 to1q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT Break/Fix On-site Response Time On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) Services Parts Availability Support Service Pricing/Value Dell Services mean scores for server support declined by an average of 1.8% and were most affected by weakening response time and expertise ratings. HPS scores remained largely constant between 4Q09 and 1Q10; however, this resulted from the offsetting effects of declining on-site response time and expertise ratings against a substantially improved hardware deployment score. IBM s scores increased by 1.8%, on average, driven by noteworthy improvements across the areas of on-site expertise, phone support, and remotely managed support. 25

26 Server Support Segment Analysis IBM Services and Dell Services most effectively meet their server customers expectations in 1Q10 STANDARD GAP SCORES - SERVER/STORAGE SUPPORT Support Services Value Parts Availability Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Online Support Phone Support On-site Expertise On-site Response Time Break/Fix Services -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% Dell Services HP Services IGS (IBM) A few categories emerged with negative GAP ratings, most notably relative to HP Services, whose scores for parts availability and online support were considerably wider than average and well into negative territory. While on-site response time was among the areas of warning for HPS, its negative GAP rating was marginally so, nonetheless its competitors earned scores in the positive territory of the chart. Dell Services challenge area, basic break/fix services, also exhibited an inordinately wide negative GAP. IBM was arguably the most successful competitor, in that the company had no negative GAP ratings of consequence. 26

27 27 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Desktop/Notebook Support Segment Analysis s Competitive Strength and Weakness determinations support the 1Q10 desktop/notebook support ranking position placement decisions These determinations are based on two-pronged results: statistical significance tests (three tests) and GAP analyses (two tests) Service Provider Strengths and Weaknesses Summary - Desktop/Notebook VENDOR DELL SVCS HP SVCS IGS/LENOVO SVCS Examples of performance differentiation were plentiful at the desktop/notebook support level an area where customers have been particularly challenged due to diminished resources during an economic recession. believes resources may have been diverted to the more mission-critical requirements of server support during this time. INTERNAL SUPPORT 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 Numeric Value Weighted Satisfaction Score Ranking Adjusted Ranking (Third-Party Providers Only) Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. Warning area for weakness, but insufficient data to substantiate at this time. * The determination was marginal. SOURCE:. Dell Services singular No. 1 ranking for desktop/notebook technical support satisfaction was driven by four competitive strengths, all within the highimportance areas of on-site expertise and response time, phone support, and parts availability. Lenovo Services, at No. 2, earned three marginal strengths, including one (online support) within an area of lesser relative importance. At the shared No. 2 rank with Lenovo Services, the in-house group earned one full competitive strength in the highimportance area of on-site response time; however, this was somewhat diminished by its continuing full competitive weakness for parts availability. HPS was placed at the No. 3 ranking position, the result of an assortment of competitive warnings and a full competitive weakness for phone support.

28 Desktop/Notebook Support Segment Analysis Dell Services jumps to the top of the rankings for desktop/notebook support, displacing Lenovo Services from the previous period Break/Fix On-site Response Time SOURCE:. MEAN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT OFFERING - DESKTOPS/NOTEBOOKS ONLY On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Overall Value For details on server/storage versus desktop/notebook support by support provider, please refer to Appendix G. DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT SATISFACTION & RANKINGS WSI Score Rank Dell Services Lenovo Services HP Services Overall Satisfaction Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Internal Support Dell Services benefited from exemplary performances across some critical areas, most notably with respect to on-site response times where its mean scores was substantially higher than the industry average. Lenovo Services performances actually matched those of Dell Services across several areas. It was Dell Services on-site response time performance that made all the difference. HP Services lagged industry averages across multiple categories. 28

29 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% Break/Fix SOURCE:. IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. HP Services satisfaction performances weaken substantially in the desktop/notebook support segment On-site Response Time 4Q09 to1q10 SATISFACTION SHIFTS, DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Dell Services HP Services Lenovo Services Desktop/Notebook Support Segment Analysis Parts Availability Support Service Pricing/Value Dell Services mean satisfaction scores increased by an average of nearly 4% between 4Q09 and 1Q10. Nearly every category, with the exception of online support (up <1%), saw a substantial improvement. Lenovo Services scores improved by an average of 1.3%, largely the result of improvement in the areas of phone and online support. HPS (PSG) scores remained flat overall, the result of the mixed results of improving on-site expertise against weakening onsite response time and phone support scores. These findings generally mirror those of s 1Q10 notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. 29

30 Desktop/Notebook Support Segment Analysis HP Services is most challenged to more effectively meet customer expectations for desktop/notebook support services STANDARD GAP SCORES - DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT Support Services Value Parts Availability Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Online Support Phone Support On-site Expertise On-site Response Time Break/Fix Services -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% SOURCE:. Dell Services HP Services IGS (Lenovo) HP Services PSG group was cited with wider-than-average negative GAP ratings for parts availability, on-site response time and basic break/fix services. Dell Services and Lenovo Services generally exceeded their customers expectations, only a few exceptions Lenovo falling marginally behind expectation for on-site expertise, and Dell Services for parts availability and break/fix services. 30

31 Services Differentiation Support services differentiation is most often perceived in the server support segment; HPS is perceived as most differentiated for server support, less so than competitors for desktop/notebook support PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICES DIFFERENTIATION % of Respondents Indicating That Support Services Are Differentiated 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 64% 55% 52% 54% 45% 38% Server Support Desktop/Notebook Support Study respondents were asked if the support services offerings of their primary support provider are differentiated to the extent that they influence hardware purchasing decisions. SOURCE:. Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Drivers of Support Services Differentiation Perceptions: Most Frequent Associations: Hardware knowledge, broad-based knowledge, specialized knowledge Less Frequent Associations: Pricing, flexibility of services options, training, software knowledge 31

32 Warranty Coverage Influences Customers with premium or critical level warranty coverage obviously have higher expectations for support services than those with basic warranties, particularly with respect to on-site response, expertise and phone support access Basic Break/Fix Maintenance RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORT SERVICES BY WARRANTY CONTRACT TYPE On-site Response Time On-site Technical Expertise Phone Support On-line Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Deployment Replacement Parts Availability Overall Services Value The more robust premium or criticallevel warranty contracts generally include specified on-site response times, access to technical experts, direct access to level-2 or designated technicians and more options within their parts replacement programs. Critical/Premium Level Warranty Contracts Basic/Core Level Warranty Contracts SOURCE:. 32

33 Warranty Coverage Influences Satisfaction levels are marginally higher among the critical/premium warranty customers where expected, yet these customers do not necessarily see a better value than basic warranty customers Basic Break/Fix Maintenance SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES BY WARRANTY CONTRACT TYPE On-site Response Time On-site Technical Expertise Phone Support On-line Support Critical/Premium Level Warranty Contracts Remotely Managed Support Hardware Deployment Replacement Parts Availability Basic/Core Level Warranty Contracts Overall Services Value Overall Satisfaction Critical/premium level warranty customers were significantly more satisfied than basic customers with technical expertise and phone support, but did not view on-site response times as significantly more effective. Basic warranty customers were obviously more satisfied with the basic maintenance services, but were also more satisfied with online support and marginally more satisfied with the value of the support services they receive. 33

34 Warranty Coverage Influences Among premium/critical warranty holders in the study sample, Dell Services and IGS in particular performed significantly better than HPS 6.30 SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES AMONG PREMIUM CONTRACT HOLDERS Basic Break/Fix Maintenance On-site Response Time On-site Technical Expertise Phone Support On-line Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Deployment Replacement Parts Availability Overall Services Value Overall Satisfaction SOURCE:. Dell Services HP Services IGS Services 34

35 Warranty Coverage Influences HPS performances were far more competitive among customers with basic or core warranty coverage SOURCE:. Basic Break/Fix Maintenance SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES AMONG BASIC CONTRACT HOLDERS On-site Response Time On-site Technical Expertise Phone Support On-line Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Deployment Dell Services HP Services IGS Services Replacement Parts Availability Overall Services Value Overall Satisfaction 35

36 Critical Metrics Summary Vital Statistics 1Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support 1Q10 Ranking Q10 Ranking, OEM support Providers Only N/A Rank change versus 4Q Q10 WSI WSI Change versus 4Q % +1.1% +0.1% +0.9% Rationale for Ranking Positions Competitive Strengths Competitive Weaknesses Significant Movement, 1Q10 vs. 4Q09 Strong WSI placement; three competitive strengths, no warnings Existing & Marginal onsite expertise, phone support; Existing & Full on-site response time Recovered from previous break/fix services warning Significantly improved break/fix services, phone support, and remotely managed support positions WSI distance from Dell Services; two competitive strengths, no warnings Existing and Full break/fix services; New and Full online support None Satisfaction with phone and online support, parts availability improved significantly WSI distance from IGS and in-house; three competitive warnings, one weakness None Existing Warnings onsite expertise; New Warnings phone & online support; accelerated from warning to weakness on-site response time Satisfaction with parts availability and hardware deployment improved significantly; on-site response time satisfaction declined substantially WSI distance from Dell Services; three competitive strengths against two weaknesses Existing & Full on-site response time; New & Marginal Hardware deployment, on-site expertise Existing Weakness parts availability; accelerated from warning to weakness break/fix services Satisfaction with hardware deployment and online support improved significantly 36

37 Critical Metrics Summary Vital Statistics 1Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Server Support WSI & Ranking Desktop/Notebook Support WSI & Ranking Server Support Competitive Profile Desktop/Notebook Competitive Profile Significant Movement, Server Segment, 1Q10 vs. 4Q09 Significant Movement, Desktop/Notebook Segment, 1Q10 vs. 4Q09 Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support 79.7 No No No No No No No No. 2 Competitive strength for phone support; warning for break/fix services Competitive strengths across on-site expertise and response time, phone support, and parts availability [WSI -1.3%] On-site expertise and response time ratings declined significantly, though not by magnitudes as great as HPS [WSI +3.5%] Substantially improved on-site, phone support, & remotely managed support positions Competitive strength for break/fix services Competitive strengths across phone and online support, parts availability [WSI +1.5%] Satisfaction with on-site expertise and phone support increased significantly [WSI +0.6%] Phone and online support positions up significantly Competitive strength for break/fix services, warnings for on-site expertise and response time Multiple challenges: warnings for on-site expertise and response time, online and remotely managed support, and parts availability; weakness for phone support [WSI +0.2%] Satisfaction positions for on-site expertise and response time declined significantly; hardware deployment satisfaction improved significantly [WSI +0.2%] No substantial changes Competitive strengths across on-site response time, online and remotely managed support, and hardware deployment; warnings for break/fix services and parts availability Competitive strength for on-site response time; weakness for parts availability [WSI -0.4%] On-site expertise and response time, and phone support positions declined significantly [WSI +2.5%] On-site response time, phone support, hardware deployment and support services value ratings up significantly 37

38 Critical Metrics Summary Vital Statistics 1Q10 Technology Services Satisfaction Competition Summary Statement Bottom Line Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services HP/PSG Services Internal Support Dell Services claimed its fifth consecutive No. 1 ranking position, maintaining competitive advantages for satisfaction across three critical areas on-site expertise, on-site response time and phone support. While the competitive environment has become tighter in the server support segment, Dell s performances improved substantially in the desktop/notebook segment, lifting Dell Services to its first No. 1 ranking and displacing the previous long-standing leader, Lenovo Services. Going forward, believes Dell Services principal challenge will be to reinstate its leadership status relative to customer satisfaction with services value an area where there are currently no leaders or laggards. IBM satisfaction performances were reasonably strong in 1Q10, where IBM joined Dell Services in a shared No. 1 ranking position, due to a competitive advantage within the area of basic break/fix services. IBM was the most improved competitor in the server support competition in 1Q10. Lenovo Services satisfaction remained solid, yet was overshadowed by a stronger set of performances by Dell Services. Whereas Lenovo earned competitive strengths in the areas of online support, phone support and parts availability (the latter two shared by Dell), it lacked the advantages of Dell Services in the key areas of on-site response time and technical expertise. believes this mostly results from Lenovo customers opting for basic support vs. premium. HPS positioning in 1Q10 was again brought down by satisfaction positions in the desktop/notebook segment. HPS WSI rating remained flat, against improving competitors (particularly Dell), suggesting recently declining ratings (throughout 2009) are now beginning to stabilize. Yet, the competition moved ahead to set new industry standards, leaving HPS with considerable challenges. In the server support segment, HPS held a shared No. 1 ranking with its competitors; however, satisfaction with onsite support continued to weaken. believes HPS primary challenge will be to explore and address customer issues with response times. Increasing challenges relative to IT support organizations abilities to deal with dwindling budgets and/or staffing remains the case in 1Q10, although there are now signs that the mood is lightening, perhaps with the prospect of renewed hiring. The group s scores stabilized in the server support segment, while improving significantly in the desktop/notebook segment. In-house support has apparently placed a greater priority on managing server systems, where the group held a sole No. 1 ranking position. In the desktop/notebook support segment, the group was outperformed by Dell Services. In line with all of s customer satisfaction reports for 1Q10, customers are beginning to feel much more positive about their experiences with technical support, as companies begin to emerge from under the considerable economic burdens of the recession. Competition has become tighter in the server support segment, with IBM the most improved performer, thus removing Dell Services from the singular No. 1 ranking and forcing a three-way tie. In the desktop/notebook segment, where we observed the most significant stresses on support infrastructures during 2009, we have observed considerable improvement from Dell Services and the in-house group in particular. 38

39 Differences s Watch List differs from the Competitive Strength and Weakness Analysis The analysis looks backward and forward. s Watch List 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. 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 meter proportions of dissatisfied customers. Items are removed from the Watch List when a vendor has recovered its competitive position from past recent reporting periods. 39

40 s Watch List: Dell Services Dell Services principal challenge will be to communicate value propositions around basic maintenance services as internal support organizations continue to struggle with diminished resources Citation Placement Improvements GAP % Change versus 4Q09 Long-term Trends Segments Affected, 1Q10 Strength/ Weakness Status Disappointment Meter Notes Break/Fix Significantly lower than IGS and inhouse; behind the field exclusively in server segment Excels +2% vs. flat competition; +6% in desktop/note book segment; - 1.5% in server segment Down substantially in 2H09 with partial rebound in 1Q10; competitive patterns stable & consistent Server 4Q09 competitive warning rescinded, yet remains intact in server segment Dissatisfaction dropped from 12% in 4Q09 to just 5% in 1Q10; slightly greater than IGS 3.5% Server customers and premium level warranty contract holders are the groups where basic break/fix services are not meeting their expectations However, Dell Services fared much better where expectations are the highest (among base warranty customers). Support Services Value Comparable to industry average Above average +1.4%, comparable to IGS and in-house. +4% in desktop/note book segment, - 1% in server segment Vacillating pattern, lacking consistency No competitive advantage in either segment Remaining neutral; no competitive strength since 2Q09 Dissatisfaction declined from 12% to 9% and is currently on par with IGS Competitive field remaining equalized; Dell Services success depends on value perceptions, where Dell no longer enjoys competitive advantages on either the server or desktop/notebook support sides. 40

41 Dell Services principal challenge will be to communicate value propositions around basic maintenance services as internal support organizations continue to struggle with diminished resources Additional Considerations s Watch List: Dell Services Dell Services strong performances in the desktop/notebook support arena echo the findings of the productrelated studies in the 1Q10 series of customer satisfaction reports. Dell has improved its competitive positioning overall within both the corporate notebook and desktop segments. In the server support arena, however, Dell Services is currently facing greater challenges for achieving differentiation among customers who have placed priorities on mission-critical support during stressed economic times. Summary Dell s strategy for nurturing the customer experience with technical support services is to provide several levels of flexibility, allowing the customer to choose the method that best meets their needs at any given time. Dell customers choose from self-maintenance, third-party support, Dell-provided support and between using their own diagnostics (for self-dispatch) or those offered by Dell. While some customers opt for a base warranty support offering, has noted in these study results that Dell has done a excellent job of upselling customers to its ProSupport offerings. Those selecting ProSupport have the flexibility to select options like the four-hour on-site response, Dell labor that performs the diagnostics and allows customers to take over afterward, or resident on-site support from Dell in mission-critical incidents. The Online Self Dispatch program enables customers to perform diagnostics online, and then schedule an on-site visit or order parts for self-replacement without using a telephone. This program has recently been enhanced with international support, online training and certification. Dell ProSupport with Proactive Systems Management provides monitoring capability of warranty status through a secure portal and automated diagnostics, as well as proactive communication between the customers and account manager through Auto-Support case. With the value proposition a primary area with room for improvement, Dell Services positions its ProSupport as a pay-as-you-need service with tiered pricing to provide flexible options for customers with limited IT budgets. Dell customers in the 1Q10 study continued to cite Dell Services as more differentiated in its flexibility of service options than competitors customers an essential ingredient of the Dell value proposition. Dell Services performances were greatly enhanced by the views of ProSupport customers, while basic hardware support customers were less satisfied with support services, particularly with basic break/fix maintenance services. Going forward, Dell will likely need to determine ways to upsell more customers if the tiered pricing can be made attractive enough, particularly as the recession eases. SOURCES: Dell analyst briefings and press releases; Computer Business Quarterly reports. 41

42 s Watch List: HPS HP Services Watch List continues to focus predominantly on desktop/notebook support challenges Citation Placement Improvements GAP % Change versus 4Q09 Long-term Trends Segments Affected, 1Q10 Strength/ Weakness Status Disappointment Meter Notes On-site Response Time Significantly below all groups at high confidence. Well Below Average -4.6% vs. flat competitive field; -7% in server segment, -2.2% in desktop/notebo ok segment. Down substantially in past three periods; competitors positions stabilized in 1Q10, not those of HPS. Desktop/ Notebook 4Q09 competitive warning accelerated to weakness; warnings issued in both segments. Dissatisfaction increased from 17% in 4Q09 to 22% in 1Q10, compared to a competitors average of 15%. While HPS server support segment score declined most significantly in 1Q10, its competitive positioning was reasonable. This was in contrast to the desktop/notebook segment where HPS score was substantially lower than all competitors. Technical Expertise Significantly lower than Dell and inhouse support at high confidence. Below Average -1% based on a 5% decline in the server segment; a 3.5% increase in desktop/notebo ok segment. Down substantially in past four periods; Dell has fared much better. Desktop/ Notebook Warnings issued in past two periods issued in both segments. Dissatisfaction increased from 20% in 4Q09 to 27% in 1Q10, compared to Dell s 13%. HPS technical expertise rating in the server support segment was below average, yet the performance gap was substantially wider in the desktop/notebook segment. 42

43 s Watch List: HPS HP Services Watch List continues to focus predominantly on desktop/notebook support challenges Citation Placement Improvements GAP % Change versus 4Q09 Long-term Trends Segments Affected, 4Q09 Strength/ Weakness Status Disappointment Meter Notes Phone Support Significantly lower than each competitive group. Just Below Average -0.5% overall, against 3% improvement among competitors; +1.2% in server segment; - 2.2% in desktop/note book segment. Down past two periods, but accelerating in 4Q09. Desktop/ Notebook New warning issued in 1Q10 neutral in server segment; weakness in desktop/notebook segment. Dissatisfaction crept up from 20% in 4Q09 to 24% in 1Q10, vs. competitors average 17%. Recurring challenge, unable to sustain improvement cycles when they occur. Position in server segment was overshadowed by that of Dell, while HPS scored substantially lower than both competitors in the desktop/notebook segment. NEW Online Support Significantly lower than IGS and inhouse at high confidence. Below Average No change, vs. IGS +2.3% shift % in server segment; - 1.5% in desktop/note book segment. Stable following three periods of steadily declining positions, yet IGS set a new industry standard in 1Q10. Desktop/ Notebook New warning issued in 1Q10 placed in the desktop/notebook segment only. Dissatisfaction increased from 21% in 4Q09 to 26% in 1Q10, against a competitors average of 14%. HPS placed well below both competitors in the desktop/notebook segment, while its server rating was on par with the industry average. 43

44 Additional Considerations Summary IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. s Watch List: HPS HP Services Watch List continues to focus predominantly on desktop/notebook support challenges Removed from Watch List Replacement Parts Availability. HPS mean score advanced by 2.5%, the most improved performer in this category in 1Q10. Consequently, rescinded its 4Q09 warning, however it remained in place in the desktop/notebook segment, where HPS score was significantly lower than Dell and IGS. HPS/ISS: HPS Proactive select menu has been refreshed three times since the February launch, with 14 new items added, demonstrating how HPS applies continuous improvement strategies to enhance the customer experience. HPS is focused on gaining and maintaining greater control and visibility to the overall customer experience by completing the transition to a New Mexico call center, supplemented by a lab environment for added expertise. HP s Insight Remote Support strategy continues to grow in number of adherents in both the end-user customers and channel partner environments. These tools were designed to address customer issues around limited staff and lack of 24x7 coverage and lack of funds for additional investments (a pain point clearly uncovered in s study results) by automating support processes and gaining greater insight into customer environments. In recognition of its customers stressed resources for support tools, these tools are available to customers at no additional cost as part of HP warranty, HP Care Pack Service or contractual support agreements with HP. HP shares these tools with channel partners so that the solution is tightly integrated. While this program remains in its infancy, HP supplements its offerings to provide customers with the flexibility to maintain systems in-house, to rely on HP-badged field technicians (a growing movement), or authorized HP service partners. HP continues to enhance its Mission Critical Support offerings, including its most recent SAP enhancement service, which includes designated account support managers and proactive services. HPS/PSG: HPS is most challenged in meeting the requirements of its desktop and notebook customers. HP s PSG group has been steadily working on the following enhancements to better meet its goals for improving the technical support experience: realignment of resources in the call center environment to meet spikes and growth in global centers; providing refresher courses for soft skill and professionalism among field resources where there has been a significant increase in HP badged support; automated callback tool implementation to ensure timely follow-up after repair (no more phone tag); working with suppliers to improve parts availability and implementing a program to give customers credit for returned parts; and adding flexibility and labor reimbursement to its growing program for self-maintainers. SOURCES: HP analyst briefings and press releases; Computer Business Quarterly reports. 44

45 s Watch List: IGS Lenovo faces some challenges from an energized Dell Services; IBM fares well within a tightly contested server support segment Citation Placement Improvements GAP % Change versus 4Q09 Long-term Trends Segments Affected, 1Q10 Strength/ Weakness Status Disappointment Meter Notes Technical Expertise Trending lower than Dell and inhouse. Well Below Average +0.7% overall; +3.5% in server segment, -2% in desktop/notebook segment. Down substantially previous 4 periods; beginning to recover in 1Q10. Desktop/ Notebook 4Q09 competitive warning rescinded in 1Q10, yet Dell continues to hold competitive strength in desktop/note book segment. Dissatisfaction crept up from 22% in 4Q09 to 25% in 1Q10, vs. Dell s 14%. One in four IGS customers are dissatisfied with technical expertise, and their expectations are extremely high. This is being driven predominantly by the Lenovo customers where Dell Services performed substantially better. On-site Response Time Significantly lower than in-house at highest confidence; below Dell at 90% confidence level. Just Below Average No change, comparable to Dell and a wash between a -1% shift in server segment, against a +1% shift in desktop/notebook segment. Down substantially in previous 2 reporting periods, but stable in 1Q10. Desktop/ Notebook Remaining neutral; last strength issued in 4Q07; Dell continues to hold the strength in desktop/note book segment. Dissatisfaction holding steady at 16%, close to Dell s 15%. IBM scored marginally higher than Dell in the server segment, while Lenovo scored significantly lower than Dell in the desktop/notebook segment. 45

46 Additional Considerations Summary IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. s Watch List: IGS Lenovo faces some challenges from an energized Dell Services; IBM fares well within a tightly contested server support segment Removed from Watch List Phone Support. IBM placed only marginally behind Dell in the server support segment, while Lenovo earned a competitive strength in the desktop/notebook support segment. IGS 3.5% improvement within its 1Q10 mean score made it the most improved competitor for this category. IBM Support: During 2009, IBM has been focused on providing customizable, flexible and easy-to-use support options. IBM s ServicePac family of specialized support services includes a new warranty upgrade option where customers can make Customer Replaceable Parts (CRU) an option. This provides the flexibility to utilize Field Replaceable Parts (FRU) whenever deemed necessary. A Remote Technical Support Services option provides unlimited hardware, as well as software phone support. A new service uses advanced analytics to match callers with an optimal call center customer service representative through a partnership with Assurant Solutions. In December 2009, IBM added ServicePac for Essential Support that provides customers with services beyond traditional break/fix maintenance with staff software experts. ServiceElite provides simplified account management, and IBM Electronic Service Agent provides proactive support tools that can be accessed online. Each of these options can be purchased at the time of sale or a la carte after the product has been installed. These are all attractive offerings in that they provide customers with a more flexible menu. It will be critical for IBM to effectively explain these options to customers to ensure that confusion does not develop around customer contractual agreements with IBM. Lenovo Services: continues to note a consistency within Lenovo s satisfaction ratings for support, suggesting that the company has maintained stability in its delivery of services. This has likely been the result of a stable U.S.-based support operation. The company recently refocused its go-to-market efforts on the customer rather than the geography and, from here, Lenovo support processes have helped to deliver this level of success. While our study results suggest most Lenovo customers opt for a base warranty, the relatively new Think Plus Priority Support offering, for a nominal fee, builds upon Lenovo s strength delivering services by meeting the needs of enterprise customers requiring a higher level of support. Among some of the enhancements of Think Plus Priority Support are direct access to 24x7 technical support, priority call routing to advanced technical expertise, and web-based service call tracking tools. An additional service, Think Plus Priority 4, includes fourhour on-site response time for parts and field technicians. While ThinkPlus Priority Support represents a more mission-critical type offering for enterprises who prefer it, Lenovo s standard warranty service, ThinkPad Protection, offers coverage not ordinarily seen in a base warranty, including accidental damage protection. SOURCES: IBM and Lenovo analyst briefings and press releases; Computer Business Quarterly reports. 46

47 Historical Record Dell Services continues to hold the record for number of wins in the long term, though IGS/Lenovo led for 15 of the past 18 periods Since the study s inception in 4Q00, Dell Services has been ranked a No. 1 support provider for 30 of the 49 reporting periods.* Dell Services No. 1 ranking in 2Q08 was its first since 4Q07 and did not hold over into 2H08. Dell Services regained its No. 1 status three reporting periods later, in 1Q09, and has held this distinction for five straight periods. * 4Q00 and 4Q00 iterations were experimental; methodology differed from that established with the 1Q01 study. 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services SOURCE:. Ranking Determinations Among Third-party Support Providers, Past 12 Reporting Periods 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 15 wins during the last 18 reporting periods up to the current reporting period. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% SUPPORT PROVIDER RANKING HISTORY (Based on 39-reporting-period History Beginning 3Q00) SOURCE:. Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services No. 1 No. 2 No. 3+ Half of HPS 12 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, which was repeated in 4Q09 and 1Q10. Of the 19 incidences in which IGS has been a No. 1- ranked player, 14 were consecutive wins (4Q05 to 1Q09). 47

48 Historical Record Cases of differentiation were most plentiful during 2007, and re-emerged in 2H09 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SERVICES PRICING/VALUE Dell Services * * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY Dell Services * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services BREAK/FIX SERVICES Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * ON-SITE SUPPORT RESPONSE Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * TECHNICAL EXPERTISE Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * PHONE SUPPORT Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * ONLINE SUPPORT Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT Dell Services * * HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services * * 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. SOURCE:. Incidents of performance differentiation expanded in 4Q09, largely resulting from competitive differences observed within the desktop/notebook support segment. Many of the designations were new issues involving Dell Services, HPS and the in-house groups. IGS (involving both IBM and Lenovo Services) continued earning a competitive strength for break/fix services. This pattern continued to accelerate into 1Q Strength & Weakness Performance History - 3Q05 to 1Q10 Prior to 2007, performance differences were rare among OEM support providers. A shift began in 4Q06, when a competitive warning in break/fix services dropped Dell Services to No. 2. Performance differences increased substantially in 1Q07 due to competitive strength wins for IGS in break/fix services, on-site response time, technical expertise and phone support. HP Services was also cited with competitive warnings across parts availability, on-site response time, phone support and services value during Dell Services received warnings for break/fix services and phone support. An unusual situation occurred in 1Q08: performance differences that had propelled IGS to a solid No. 1 disappeared its position held by a number of near-misses. By 2Q08, IGS emerged with some definitive competitive strengths, including phone support; in 4Q08 and 4Q09, it also achieved strengths for online support. IGS domination came to an abrupt end in 1Q09. In 2Q09, Dell Services regained two long-lost competitive advantages, while HPS was reissued a weakness last observed in mid In 3Q09, Dell Services failed to maintain its value competitive strength; IGS regained its break/fix advantage (last observed throughout 2007); and HPS recovered from its response time weakness.

49 Appendix A: Analytical Graph & Tables 49

50 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -2% -4% -6% -8% Break/Fix SOURCE:. IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Dell Services satisfaction positions strengthen against those of HP Services in some key areas DELL TO HP MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q10 VS.4Q09 On-site Response Time/Commitment On-site Technical Expertise Telephone/Helpdesk Support Dell to HP Distance 4Q09 Online Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Installation/Configuration Replacement Parts Availability Dell to HP Distance 1Q10 The most significant development in 1Q10 involved a substantial decline within HPS on-site response time rating against a constant score for Dell Services. Dell Services strengthening phone support satisfaction rating (against a flat HPS) contributed to a widening performance gap. Support Services Pricing/Value Overall Satisfaction Understanding the 1Q10 Ranking Positions Dell Advantage Areas HP Advantage Areas 4% 3% 2% 1% -1% 0% -2% -3% -4% -5% Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise SOURCE: TB R. HP Services WSI rating remained constant in 1Q10 against a modestly improved Dell Services score. Factors contributing to the widening performance gap included on-site response time and phone support, where Dell s previous competitive advantages over HPS increased. However, Dell Services previous advantages for hardware deployment and parts availability were diminished. PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS, FOR DELL & HP SERVICES 1Q10 VS. 4Q09 On-site Response Time Phone Support Online Support Dell Services Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Overall Satisfaction HP Services 50

51 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% -1% 0% -2% -3% -4% -5% -6% IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. DELL TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q10 VS.4Q09 Break/Fix SOURCE:. On-site Response Time/Commitment Few changes are evident relative to paired comparisons between Dell Services and IGS On-site Technical Expertise Telephone/Helpdesk Support Dell to IGS Distance 4Q09 Online Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Installation/Configuration Dell to IGS Distance 1Q10 Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Overall Satisfaction Understanding the 1Q10 Ranking Positions Dell Advantage Areas IGS Advantage Areas Dell continued outperforming IGS across on-site response time, expertise and phone support in 1Q10. While the shifts were modest, there were some changes relative to statistical significance testing response time differences became significant, and expertise and phone support fell out of significance. Meanwhile, IGS continued to outperform Dell Services for basic break/fix services. PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR DELL & IGS SERVICES, 1Q10 VS. 4Q09 4% 3% 2% Dell Services and IGS scores shifted by similar levels (no change for the on-site categories; significant improvement for phone support) across the areas of on-site response time, expertise and phone support. While Dell Services break/fix rating increased against a flat IGS, the competitive advantage for IGS remained statistically significant. 1% 0% -1% Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Phone Support Online Support Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Overall Satisfaction SOURCE:. Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services 51

52 Understanding the 1Q10 Ranking Positions IGS gains several new competitive advantages over HPS -1% 0% 1% -2% -3% -4% -5% -6% -7% -8% Break/Fix On-site Response Time/Commitment HP TO IGS MEAN SATISFACTION DISTANCES, 1Q10 VS.4Q09 On-site Technical Expertise Telephone/Helpdes k Support Online Support Remotely Managed Support Hardware Installation/Configur ation Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Pricing/Value Overall Satisfaction HPS Advantage Areas IGS Advantage Areas In 1Q10, IGS gained competitive advantages over HPS across the categories of on-site response time, phone and online support, along with a smaller one for support services value. SOURCE:. HP to IGS Distance 4Q09 HP to IGS Distance 1Q10 The significant decline within HPS score for on-site response time had considerable repercussions for the paired comparison in 1Q10. Other meaningful developments involved IGS significantly improved phone and online support satisfaction ratings, against flat HPS scores. PERCENT CHANGES IN MEAN SATISFACTION POSITIONS FOR HP & IGS SERVICES 1Q10 VS. 4Q09 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% -1% -2% -3% -4% -5% Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Phone Support Online Support Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Deployment Remotely Managed Support Overall Satisfaction SOURCE:. HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services 52

53 Tracking the Satisfaction Indices IGS consistently dominates the competition over the longer term; Dell Services ranks No. 1 for the past five reporting periods IGS WSI pattern had been one of general stability, while its competitors positions were relatively volatile until Since then, Dell Services has posed as a worthy competitor, earning five straight No. 1 ranking positions from 1Q09 through to the present. Dell Services WSI ratings have run an irregular course, where No. 1 ranking positions were sporadic until 1Q09. HP Services satisfaction performances have generally been more challenged than competitors, falling behind those of either competitor more often than not SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES 2Q07 THROUGH 1Q10 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Internal Support Organizations HP Services Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services Through the end of 2008, observed generally predictable outcomes, with the in-house support group earning its reputation as the yardstick against which we would measure the OEM support providers. During these time periods, IGS was most consistent at earning top scores in the competition. In 2009, steadily declining satisfaction scores have been the rule to which no competitor has been immune, defined by a close competition between IGS and Dell Services, with HPS having been considerably more challenged. 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. 53

54 Tracking the Satisfaction Indices The long-term trend line shows a diminution of performance differences over time Q04 SOURCE:. 4Q04 1Q05 SOURCE:. 1Q05 2Q05 SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM 4Q04 THROUGH 1Q10 SERVICE & SUPPORT WEIGHTED SATISFACTION SCORES LONG TERM 4Q04 THROUGH 1Q10, WITH MOVING AVERAGES 3Q05 4Q05 2Q05 3Q05 4Q05 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 1Q07 2Q07 2Q07 3Q07 3Q07 4Q07 4Q07 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) 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Internal Support Organizations Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 The principal contributor to narrowing performance gaps involves the perspective of the internal support organizations, where stressed resources have led to significantly declining satisfaction scores. The group no longer represents the utopia of support capability against which compares the OEM-provided support groups. Customer satisfaction with support services declined sharply throughout 2009 for all groups. Positions appear to be stabilizing with the 1Q10 study results, driven in particular by recovering positions during the first calendar quarter of 2010, our most recent interviewing wave. 54

55 SOURCE:. 55 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Dell Services is the only competitor to consistently meet customer expectations for services value SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 SOURCE:. 4Q06 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment Satisfaction vs. Importance data points have remained interlocked throughout the timeline for Dell Services. Competitors, particularly HPS, have been unable to close and sustain gaps SUPPORT SERVICES PRICING/VALUE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 SOURCE:. 4Q06 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) 1Q10 Developments: Satisfaction exceeded expectation levels within the IGS group, due to an understatement of the importance of services value. We continue to observe a greater consistency of stated importance scores within the Dell Services group; competitors scores appear highly reactive to external and internal influences.

56 SOURCE: IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. Relaxing expectations for on-site response enable support providers to narrow gaps SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 Importance 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Poly. (Importance) SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 SOURCE:. Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment SOURCE:. SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 1Q10 Developments: While stated importance for on-site response time continued to drop into 1Q10, HPS satisfaction scores followed a similar trend line. HPS was the only competitor unable to effectively meet expectations. 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance)

57 57 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment Customer expectations for technical expertise drop precipitously in 2009, enabling all three support providers to effectively meet them DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE SOURCE: Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) SOURCE:. 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) SOURCE:. 1Q10 Developments: Customer expectations began to flatten out in 1Q10, following an extended period of relaxing requirements. Dell Services exceeded expectations, while competitors fully met them. IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance)

58 GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment Customer expectations for break/fix services suddenly rise in 1Q SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 SOURCE: Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 Importance 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Poly. (Importance) SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 SOURCE:. 4Q06 1Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 Importance 4Q09 1Q10 Poly. (Importance) While gaps had closed by late 2009 due to relaxing expectations, 1Q10 saw a sudden increase in customer requirements. The break/fix category refers to customer experiences with basic hardware maintenance services and not with premium-level contracts Q06 2Q06 SUPPORT SERVICES BREAK/FIX ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 3Q06 4Q06 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 Importance 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Poly. (Importance) SOURCE:. 1Q10 Developments: While Dell Services satisfaction ratings have remained largely constant over time, the rise in importance resulted in a gap between satisfaction in importance not exhibited by the competition. The overall increase in stated importance of basic break/fix services (hardware maintenance) suggests customers have been focusing on basic over premium-level warranties this was possibly a result of constrained budgets during the recession.

59 GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment IGS most consistently meets customer expectations for phone support Q06 2Q06 SOURCE:. PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 SOURCE:. 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Importance) 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR HP SERVICES 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Importance) 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) Q06 SOURCE:. PHONE SUPPORT ANALYSIS FOR IGS/LENOVO SERVICES 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Importance) 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 1Q10 Developments: Despite rising expectations for phone support, IGS continued to fully meet expectations, part of a pattern of consistency competitors have been unable to replicate. Dell Services satisfaction ratings remain in recovery mode, following substantial declines from mid-2008 to late 2009; expectations have been fully met for the past four reporting periods. HPS satisfaction ratings have declined steadily since mid-2008, yet expectations have relaxed at a similar pace; consequently, HPS has met expectations for phone support for the past four periods. 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) 59

60 60 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment Expectations for online support tend to vacillate, yet the pattern is one of increasing importance over time Q06 SOURCE:. SOURCE:. HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Importance) 1Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Satisfaction) 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) SOURCE:. IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 1Q10 Developments: Dell Services has continued to maintain a pattern where satisfaction exceeds expectations for online support. While expectations for online support increased for IGS during 2008 and 2009, satisfaction levels were kept in line. Expectations have been steadily rising within the HPS group over time; satisfaction fell below expectations during the past two reporting periods. 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance)

61 61 IBM Market Technology Intelligence Business Research, Inc. GAP Analyses: Tracking Expectation Fulfillment Replacement parts availability is consistently a critical element of the support experience and a considerable challenge for support providers Q Q06 3Q06 SOURCE:. SOURCE:. DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 Importance Poly. (Importance) HP SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 1Q06 2Q06 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 4Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance) 1Q Q06 2Q06 1Q10 Developments: Dell Services and IGS have recently been successful at closing gaps between expectation and satisfaction for parts availability. HPS has thus far been unable to entirely close the gap. IGS/LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION VERSUS IMPORTANCE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY SOURCE:. 3Q06 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 Satisfaction Poly. (Satisfaction) 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Importance Poly. (Importance)

62 Trends of the Reporting Period Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods Dell Services slowly begins to improve during 1Q Break/Fix Services SOURCE:. DELL SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS 2Q09 TO 1Q10 On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability WSI Rating Shift, 4Q09 to 1Q10: +1% Led by significantly improving break/fix and phone support satisfaction, and further assisted by improving remotely managed support and support services value improvements. Remaining positions were stable. There were no examples of declining satisfaction. Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Overall Satisfaction In most cases, Dell Services scores were at their strongest during the 2Q09 reporting period, followed by substantial weakening during the two succeeding periods. By the 1Q10 reporting period, scores either stabilized or approached those of the 3Q09 period. The most noteworthy achievement involves perceptions of support services value. Here, Dell Services 1Q10 score is currently approaching its 2Q09 high point. The area with the greatest ground to recover for the past year is on-site response time. 62

63 Trends of the Reporting Period Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods HPS performances show small recoveries within some secondary areas, yet continued weakening within key support areas Break/Fix Services SOURCE:. HP SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS 2Q09 TO 1Q10 On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability WSI Rating Shift, 4Q09 to 1Q10: +0.1% (essentially constant). Due to offsetting effects of some areas of improvement (parts availability, hardware deployment), against further weakening within the on-site response time rating. Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Overall Satisfaction HPS mean satisfaction positions generally exhibited a pattern of progressive weakening during the first three reporting periods. In 1Q10, some positions returned to their levels of the 3Q09 period, including support services value, hardware deployment services and remotely managed support. Phone and online support positions, as well as on-site expertise, remained at their low levels registered during the 4Q09 period, while satisfaction with on-site support response weakened further. Satisfaction with basic break/fix services has remained constant throughout the year, suggesting it is the premium level contracts where satisfaction needs to see improvement. 63

64 Trends of the Reporting Period Analysis of the Past Four Reporting Periods IGS scores begin to improve in 1Q10 within some areas, while other areas stabilize IGS/LENOVO SERVICE & SUPPORT CUSTOMER SATISFACTION TREND ANALYSIS 2Q09 TO 1Q10 Break/Fix Services SOURCE:. On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability WSI Rating Shift, 4Q09 to 1Q10: +1.1% Led by significantly improved phone and online support and parts availability, further assisted by moderately improving support services value and remotely managed support services. Most of the remaining positions stayed constant. There were no areas of declining satisfaction. Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Overall Satisfaction IGS satisfaction performances were at their strongest during the 2Q09 reporting period, followed by progressive declines during the succeeding two. In 1Q10, some positions returned to their 3Q09 levels, including phone and online support, parts availability and remotely managed support. Other areas stabilized in 1Q10, including on-site expertise and response time and hardware deployment services. Two new high points were registered in 1Q10 for support services value and overall satisfaction. Satisfaction with basic break/fix maintenance services has remained constant throughout the year. 64

65 Improvements GAP Analyses Improving performances of Dell Services leads to general consistency of expectation fulfillment across the categories Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: None. Areas of Competency: Break/fix services. SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR DELL SERVICES 1Q Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Recommended Actions Hold Back/ Exploit Maintain Target Improvements When this analysis produces a set of scores neatly aligned across the 100-pt. border, it suggests the support provider is providing support services that customers perceive as consistent. SOURCE:. 65

66 Improvements GAP Analyses HP Services analysis points to suggested improvements across remote support methods and hardware deployment services Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site response time. Areas of Competency: Break/fix services. SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR HP SERVICES 1Q Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Recommended Actions Hold Back/ Exploit Maintain HPS GAP rating for on-site support response time was substantially wider than the average gaps across the categories Target Improvements SOURCE:. 66

67 Improvements GAP Analyses IGS must focus on perceptions of expertise as well as deployment services, due to high customer expectations Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: On-site technical expertise, hardware deployment projects. Areas of Competency: Break/fix services. SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR LENOVO SERVICES 1Q Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Recommended Actions Hold Back/ Exploit IGS customers have higher expectations for expertise, including hardware deployment projects Maintain SOURCE:. Target Improvements 67

68 Improvements GAP Analyses The in-house teams consistently perform well across most areas, yet one historical challenge remains in play Areas Requiring Improvement Efforts: Replacement parts availability Areas of Competency: On-site response time SUGGESTED AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT FOR INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS 1Q Break/Fix Services On-site Technical Expertise On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Value Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Recommended Actions Hold Back/ Exploit Maintain Target Improvements The in-house teams continue to benefit from the home team advantage in terms of responding to support requirements on site. As always, the groups find it difficult to maintain consistent supplies of spare parts. 160 SOURCE:. 68

69 Selection Criteria Stated On-site break/fix maintenance, parts availability and support services value continue to drive support experience evaluations Remote support methods (phone, web and automated support) are gaining in utilization SERVICE & SUPPORT IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY CUSTOMER GROUP Break/Fix Services Support Services Value Replacement Parts Availability Online/Web Support Telephone/Helpdesk Support On-site Response Time On-site Technical Expertise Remotely Managed Support Hardware Installation/Configuration SOURCE:. Dell HP IBM InHouse Critical: Basic break/fix services, services value, parts availability. Also Important: Phone and online support, on-site response time & expertise. Somewhat Important: Remotely managed support, hardware deployment services. The in-house teams typically have higher expectations of themselves than they do of contracted support providers. As always, Dell Services customers are more focused on phone support than competitors customers. 69

70 Scoring Summary Significance Tests Statistical significance test No. 1 points to growing list of performance differentiators in 1Q10 Compares each player s performances against the sum of competitors using the standard test DELL SVCS HP SVCS IGS/LENOVO SVCS INTERNAL 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 Average score; t-test is null; 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:. Results of the Standard t-test 1Q10 Findings Consistent with those of 4Q09 On-site Technical Expertise Favoring Dell Services, with HPS placing well below the industry average. On-site Response Time Favoring Dell Services, with HPS placing well below the industry average. New or Evolving Performance Differentiators Emerging in 1Q10 Break/fix Services Favoring IGS/Lenovo Services over in-house support, but no longer over Dell Services. Phone Support Dell Services was favored, HPS performed well below the industry average. Online Support IGS was favored, HPS placed well below the average. Parts Availability In-house support placed well below the industry average, while HPS no longer placed below average nor did Dell Services perform above average. Hardware Deployment Favoring the in-house group. 70

71 Scoring Summary Significance Tests Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1 These are paired comparisons using the standard test PAIR-WISE T-TESTS Results of the Pair-wise t-tests, Vendor Comparisons DELL SVCS VS. HPS IGS/ LENOVO HP SVCS VS. DELL SVCS IGS/ LENOVO DELL SVCS 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:. IGS/LENOVO SVCS VS. HPS Performance differentiation involving the OEM support providers: Break/fix Services IGS outperformed Dell Services and HPS. On-site Expertise Dell Services outperformed HPS only. On-site Response Time Dell Services outperformed both competitors, and HPS was also outperformed by both competitors. Phone Support Dell Services outperformed HPS; HPS was outperformed by both competitors. Online Support IGS outperformed HPS. 71

72 Scoring Summary Significance Tests Statistical significance test No. 2 elaborates on the findings of test No. 1 These are paired comparisons using the standard test Results of the Pair-wise t-tests, Internal Support vs. Vendor-provided Support PAIR-WISE T-TESTS INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS VS. 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:. The in-house groups primarily outperformed HPS. Incidences of outperforming IGS and Dell Services were rare in 1Q10; in fact, the group did not outperform Dell Services in any area. The internal support organizations were outperformed, however, by all three OEM groups for basic break/fix maintenance. This implies that the more mundane tasks are not being handled as well as in the past with internal support groups, whose limited resources may be focusing on more urgent support requirements. 72

73 Statistical Significance Tests In spite of the tough test, several performance differentiators are corroborated by statistical test No. 4 The Bonferroni correction is the most stringent of s applied tests Differences Between the Vendors According to Bonferroni Correction Significant Differences Cited by Bonferroni Correction In-house Dell HPS IGS/Lenovo Confirmation Attribute Basic Break/Fix Services IGS over Internal IGS did not significantly outperform Dell On-site Technical Expertise Dell, Internal over HP Yes On-site Response Time/Commitment ALL over HP; Internal over IGS Yes Telephone/Helpdesk Support Dell over HP Yes Online Support IGS and Internal maginally over HP Yes Remotely Managed Support Internal over HP Yes Replacement Parts Availability ALL over Internal Yes Support Services Pricing/Value None at the 0.05 significance level Yes Hardware Installation/Configuration None at the 0.05 significance level Internal outperformed HP Overall Satisfaction IGS over HP and Internal IGS did not significantly outperform Dell Total Points SOURCE:. The Bonferroni correction, the most stringent statistical significance test used by, confirmed most of the results of the standard tests, including several involving comparisons across the OEM support providers. The test substantiated that IGS outperformed internal support for break/fix services and that Dell outperformed HPS for on-site expertise and phone support. The test also supported the finding that HPS was outperformed by all competitors for on-site response time. 73

74 Competitive GAP Analysis The Competitive GAP Analysis confirms the performance difference premises set by the statistical significance tests Break/Fix Services SOURCE:. On-site Technical Expertise SERVICE & SUPPORT COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS 1Q10 On-site Response Time Telephone/Helpdesk Support Internal Support Organizations HP Services Online/Web Support Replacement Parts Availability Support Services Value Dell Services IGS/Lenovo Services Hardware Installation/Configuration Remotely Managed Support Expectation Fulfillment Exceeds Fully Meets Short of Performance differentiation focuses on basic break/fix services and parts availability (with in-house support falling short of expectation). With respect to the OEM support providers, HPS GAP scores were generally within the lower ranges of meeting expectation, yet its on-site response time score hovered dangerously close to the area of failing to meet expectations. 74

75 Buying Behavior HP Services customers were the most likely to perceive service differentiation in their server support offerings 100% 80% 60% SERVER SUPPORT PROVIDER INFLUENCES HARDWARE BUYING DECISIONS BASED ON DIFFERENTIATION OF SERVICES 45% 36% 48% 40% 20% 55% 64% 52% 0% Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Yes No SOURCE:. Server support customers were asked if their primary support provider has differentiated its services to an extent that influences their hardware buying decisions. Approximately two-thirds of HP Services customers indicated they do, compared to just over 50% among Dell Services and IGS customer groups. Within the server support competition, HPS scores as well as competitors across all but the on-site response time category. It would seem that the responsiveness perception has little influence over perceptions of differentiation, which likely have to do with how customers view the innovativeness of support offerings. 75

76 Buying Behavior Server support services differentiation is most frequently associated with expertise MANNER IN WHICH SERVER SUPPORT PROVIDERS SERVICES ARE DIFFERENTIATED (Among Respondents Perceiving Differentiation) Flexibility of Services/Options Provided Pricing of Services Training services provided to your staff Software Applications Knowledge Hardware Knowledge Specialized Knowledge Broad-based Knowledge 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% SOURCE:. Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Hardware, broad-based and specialized knowledge were all associated with support services differentiation in the x86 server space. Training, flexibility of services options and pricing were named less often, but when they were named, they were more often associated with Dell or HP Services, and not IBM. 76

77 Buying Behavior HP Services was the least associated with differentiated notebook and desktop support services 100% DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT PROVIDER INFLUENCES HARDWARE BUYING DECISIONS BASED ON DIFFERENTIATION OF SERVICES 80% 60% 40% 20% 46% 54% 62% 55% 38% 45% 0% Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services SOURCE:. Yes No Desktop/notebook support customers were asked if their primary support provider has differentiated its services to the extent that it influences their hardware buying decisions. Over half of Dell and Lenovo Services customers cited their respective support providers, in contrast to about one-third of HP Services customers perceiving services differentiation. 77

78 Buying Behavior Expertise is most strongly associated with notebook/desktop support services differentiation; however, flexibility, pricing and training are also part of the perception MANNER IN WHICH DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT PROVIDERS SERVICES ARE DIFFERENTIATED (Among Respondents Perceiving Differentiation) Flexibility of Services/Options Provided Pricing of Services Training services provided to your staff Software Applications Knowledge Hardware Knowledge Specialized Knowledge Broad-based Knowledge 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services SOURCE:. Dell Services was perceived as particularly strong versus the competition for flexibility of services and for providing training services to customers. Services pricing was cited as part of the perception of differentiated services more often than it was among server support customers. 78

79 Buying Behavior There appears to be a 70/30 split between basic (standard) and premium level warranties among x86 server customers Dell notebook/desktop customers are most likely to purchase premium support contracts vs. competitors customers 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% TYPES OF x86 SERVER SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services Critical/Premium Level Acquired at Time of Hardware Purchase SOURCE:. Standard Level Extended Warranty 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% TYPES OF DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT CONTRACTS PURCHASED Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Critical/Premium Level Acquired at Time of Hardware Purchase SOURCE:. Standard Level Extended Warranty 79

80 Buying Behavior The majority of server support customers do not expect any changes in their support-related budgets during the next 12 months 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% EXPECTED SERVER SUPPORT BUDGET CHANGES IN NEXT 12 MONTHS 65% 62% 8% 11% 70% 5% 27% 27% 24% Dell Services HP Services IGS/IBM Services A sizeable minority (25%, on average), however, expect support-related budgets to increase during the next 12 months. This represents a significant change over the findings in the 4Q09 reporting period, where relatively few (<10%) expected increased budgets for support services. SOURCE:. Increase Decrease No Change Nearly half of the customers expecting to increase their support-related spending during the next year may increase spending by as much as 40% or more. This shift is likely associated with new hardware spending, where new and perhaps enhanced support contracts will be a significant part of the acquisition cost. SOURCE:. EXPECTED SERVER SUPPORT BUDGET INCREASES IN NEXT 12 MONTHS (Among Those Expecting Shrinking Budgets) 25-49%, 47% 50-74%, 3% 75%+, 0% Up to 10%, 19% 10-24%, 32% 80

81 Buying Behavior The majority of desktop/notebook support customers do not expect a change in support-related budgets during the next 12 months 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% SOURCE:. EXPECTED DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT BUDGET CHANGES IN NEXT 12 MONTHS 78% 68% 73% 13% 3% 7% 14% 19% 23% Dell Services HP Services IGS/Lenovo Services Increase Decrease No Change Nearly half of customers expecting to increase their support-related spending during the next year may increase spending by as much as 40% or more. This shift is likely associated with new hardware spending, where new and perhaps enhanced support contracts will be a significant part of the acquisition cost. A sizeable minority (20%, on average), however, expect support-related budgets to increase during the next 12 months. This represents a significant change over the findings in the 4Q09 reporting period, where relatively few (<5%) expected increased budgets for support services. Yet it would appear that server-related services spending will outpace that of desktop and notebook systems in the next year. SOURCE:. EXPECTED DESKTOP/NOTEBOOK SUPPORT BUDGET INCREASES IN NEXT 12 MONTHS (Among Those Expecting Shrinking Budgets) 25-49%, 46% 75%+, 2% 50-74%, 4% Up to 10%, 28% 10-24%, 20% 81

82 A Word About the Internal Support Teams The sample distribution of internal support by brand has remained largely constant over time INTERNAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION SAMPLE MAKEUP BY MAJOR PC BRANDS 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Dell HP IBM/Lenovo 82

83 Appendix B: Support Provider Satisfaction Scores 4Q06 Through 1Q10 83

84 4Q06 Through 1Q10 Support Provider Scores BREAK/FIX SERVICES 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations TELEPHONE / HELPDESK SUPPORT 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations ONLINE / WEB SUPPORT 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations

85 Support Provider Scores 4Q06 Through 1Q10 SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations HARDWARE INSTALLATION / CONFIGURATION 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations AUTOMATION / INSTANT SUPPORT 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations OVERALL SATISFACTION 4Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations

86 Appendix C: Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis for Selected Attributes 86

87 Historical Strength & Weakness Analysis Historical Accumulation of Strength & Weakness Determinations VENDOR 1Q01 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 SERVICES PRICING/VALUE Dell * * * HP IGS PARTS AVAILABILITY Dell * HP IGS BREAK/FIX SERVICES Dell HP IGS * ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME Dell * * HP IGS * PHONE SUPPORT Dell * * HP IGS * * ONLINE SUPPORT Dell HP IGS * * TECHNICAL EXPERTISE Dell * * HP IGS * * HARDWARE INSTALL/CONFIGURE Dell * * HP IGS * * Key: Weakness; Strength; Neutral. SOURCE:. Warning; not cited as a competitive weakness this quarter due to lack of corroborating evidence. * Means that the strength is borderline. 87

88 Appendix D: Satisfaction Trends for Key Satisfaction Attributes 88

89 Satisfaction Trends On-site Break/Fix Services 6.3 HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR BREAK/FIX SERVICES Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations 89

90 Satisfaction Trends On-site Technical Expertise 6.2 HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE EXPERTISE Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE:. 90

91 Satisfaction Trends On-site Response Time 6.6 HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE:. 91

92 Phone Support Satisfaction Trends 6.4 HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR PHONE SUPPORT Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations 92

93 Online Support Satisfaction Trends HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR ONLINE SUPPORT Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE:. 93

94 Satisfaction Trends Replacement Parts Availability HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR REPLACEMENT PARTS AVAILABILITY Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE:. 94

95 Satisfaction Trends Support Services Pricing/Value 6.4 HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations 95

96 Satisfaction Trends Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations SOURCE:. 96

97 Satisfaction Trends Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) 6.00 HISTORICAL SATISFACTION TRENDLINE FOR AUTOMATED SUPPORT TOOLS/DIAGNOSTICS Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations 97

98 Satisfaction Trends Overall Satisfaction 6.4 OVERALL SATISFACTION Q06 1Q07 2Q07 3Q07 4Q07 1Q08 2Q08 3Q08 4Q08 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 SOURCE:. Dell Services & Partners HP Services & Partners IGS & Partners Internal Support Organizations 98

99 Appendix E: Confidence Interval Graphs 99

100 Confidence Interval Graphs Break/Fix Services SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SERVICES SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX SERVICES % Confidence Interval Around the Mean % Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI Break/Fix Svcs N = 195 Dell Svcs 197 HPS 200 IGS 235 In House 95% CI Break/Fix Svcs N = 186 Dell Svcs 192 HPS 196 IGS/Lenov o 240 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 100

101 Confidence Interval Graphs On-site Technical Expertise SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE EXPERTISE SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE EXPERTISE 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% CI On-site Expertise N = 193 Dell Svcs 194 HPS 197 IGS 235 In House 95% CI On-site Expertise N = 183 Dell Svcs 192 HPS 192 IGS/Lenov o 241 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 101

102 Confidence Interval Graphs On-site Response Time SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI On-site Response Time N = 194 Dell Svcs 196 HPS 199 IGS 235 In House 95% CI On-site Response Time N = 184 Dell Svcs 192 HPS 194 IGS/Lenov o 240 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 102

103 Phone Support Confidence Interval Graphs SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT % Confidence Interval Around the Mean % Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI Phone Support N = 199 Dell Svcs 200 HPS 197 IGS 235 In House 95% CI Phone Support N = 184 Dell Svcs 196 HPS 193 IGS/Lenov o 239 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 103

104 Online Support Confidence Interval Graphs SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT SATISFACTION WITH ON-LINE SUPPORT 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI On-line Support N = 198 Dell Svcs 200 HPS 198 IGS 234 In House 95% CI On-line Support N = 179 Dell Svcs 192 HPS 185 IGS/Lenov o 237 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 104

105 Confidence Interval Graphs Replacement Parts Availability SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI Parts Availability N = 199 Dell Svcs 201 HPS 197 IGS 231 In House 95% CI Parts Availability N = 185 Dell Svcs 197 HPS 189 IGS/Lenov o 226 In House Support Provider 4Q09 Support Provider 1Q10 105

106 Confidence Interval Graphs Support Services Value SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT VALUE SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT VALUE 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI Overall Value % CI Overall Value N = 199 Dell Svcs 199 HPS 200 IGS 235 In House N = 186 Dell Svcs 196 HPS 196 IGS/Lenov o 239 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 106

107 Confidence Interval Graphs Hardware Deployment/Installation/Configuration Services SATISFACTION WITH H/W DEPLOYMENT SATISFACTION WITH H/W DEPLOYMENT 95% CI H/W Deployment N = 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean Dell Svcs HPS IGS In House 95% CI H/W Deployment N = 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean Dell Svcs HPS IGS/Lenov o In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 107

108 Confidence Interval Graphs Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) SATISFACTION WITH AUTOMATED SUPPORT SATISFACTION WITH AUTOMATED SUPPORT 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean % CI Remotely Managed N = 186 Dell Svcs 194 HPS 192 IGS 232 In House 95% CI Remotely Managed N = 166 Dell Svcs 186 HPS 182 IGS/Lenov o 231 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 108

109 Confidence Interval Graphs Overall Satisfaction with Technical Support Services 95% CI Overall Satisfaction N = OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES SATISFACTION 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean Dell Svcs HPS IGS In House 95% CI Overall Satisfaction OVERALL SUPPORT SERVICES SATISFACTION 95% Confidence Interval Around the Mean N = 186 Dell Svcs 198 HPS 199 IGS/Lenov o 241 In House Support Provider Support Provider 4Q09 1Q10 109

110 Appendix F: Categorical Responses 110

111 Category Graphs Break/Fix Services 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY < % 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% SATISFACTION WITH BREAK/FIX BY RATINGS CATEGORY < SOURCE:. Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE:. Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 1Q10 111

112 Category Graphs On-site Technical Expertise 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 1Q10 112

113 Category Graphs On-site Response Time 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH ON-SITE RESPONSE TIME BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 1Q10 113

114 Phone Support Category Graphs 50% SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY 50% SATISFACTION WITH PHONE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE:. 10% 0% < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE:. 4Q09 1Q10 114

115 Online Support Category Graphs 40% SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY 40% SATISFACTION WITH ONLINE SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 0% < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE:. 10% 0% < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House SOURCE:. 4Q09 1Q10 115

116 Category Graphs Replacement Parts Availability 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH PARTS AVAILABILITY BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 1Q10 116

117 Category Graphs Support Services Pricing/Value 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH SUPPORT SERVICES VALUE BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 1Q10 117

118 Category Graphs Hardware Deployment 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% SOURCE:. SATISFACTION WITH HARDWARE DEPLOYMENT SERVICES BY RATINGS CATEGORY < Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 1Q10 118

119 Category Graphs Automated Support (Remotely Managed by Support Provider) 40% SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY 40% SATISFACTION WITH REMOTELY MANAGED SUPPORT BY RATINGS CATEGORY 35% 35% 30% 30% 25% 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% < % < SOURCE:. Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 4Q09 SOURCE:. Dell Services HPS IGS/Lenovo Services In House 1Q10 119

120 Appendix G: Server/Storage Versus Desktop/Notebook Support by Support Provider 120

121 Satisfaction Trends Dell Services 1Q10 DELL SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP Break/Fix On-site Response Time On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Overall Value Overall Satisfaction SOURCE:. Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Client (Desktops/Notebooks) 121

122 Satisfaction Trends HP Services 1Q Break/Fix On-site Response Time SOURCE:. HP SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP On-site Expertise Phone Support Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Client (Desktops/Notebooks) Overall Value Overall Satisfaction 122

123 Satisfaction Trends IBM Global Services 1Q IGS /LENOVO SERVICES SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP Break/Fix On-site Response Time SOURCE:. On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability IGS for IBM Servers Lenovo Services for Desktops/Notebooks Overall Value Overall Satisfaction 123

124 Satisfaction Trends Internal Support Organizations 1Q10 IN-HOUSE SUPPORT SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT GROUP Break/Fix On-site Response Time SOURCE:. On-site Expertise Phone Support Web Support Enterprise (Servers/Storage) Remotely Managed Hardware Deployment Parts Availability Client (Desktops/Notebooks) Overall Value Overall Satisfaction 124

125 Appendix H: Study Design & Methodology 125

126 1Q10 Sample Overview Study Design & Methodology s 1Q10 Corporate IT Satisfaction Study is based on interviews with qualified respondents at 526 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, 809 interviews were completed for the reporting period. This number has increased over previous reporting periods because intentionally boosted the number of required interviews in order to better represent the stated experiences of customers receiving server-related vs. 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 those of s x86-based server, notebook and desktop satisfaction studies. The minimum requirement is an installed base of 200 systems for the study (versus 500 for the standard studies). Respondents are screened to include only those individuals 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: 186 Dell Services customer interviews, 199 HP Services customer interviews, 199 IBM Global Services customer interviews and 225 internal support organization interviews. Interviews were conducted between October 1, 2009 and March 31, Methodology & Sample Standard Error at 95% Confidence Level per Segment Average Measurements Across All Attributes Sample Size Standard Error All Providers % Dell & Partners % HP & Partners % IGS & Partners % Internal Support Organizations % SOURCE:. 126

127 Study Design & Methodology Number of Employees Average Number of Employees at the Companies Surveyed Number of Employees Percentage of Respondents < % 500 1, % 1,000 4, % 5,000 9, % 10,000 14, % 15,000 19, % 20,000 49, % 50,000 74, % 75,000 99, % 100, % Average Number of Employees 11,743 SOURCE:. 127

128 Study Design & Methodology Type of Business Types of Businesses Represented in the Study Type of Business Percentage of Respondents Manufacturing - Discrete (products, machinery, computers, furniture, etc.) 13% Healthcare 9% Education 9% Information Service (including software development) 9% Government 9% Professional, Scientific, Technical 7% Manufacturing - Process (materials) 6% Finance, Insurance, real estate 6% Public Utilities 6% Retail Trade 5% Wholesale Trade 5% Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 4% Transportation Service 4% Other Services 3% Pharmaceuticals 3% SOURCE:. 128

129 Study Design & Methodology Job Titles/Responsibilities Respondent Job Functions/Responsibilities Systems Customer Level MIS/IT Networking Management Purchasing Service/Support Other Grand Total CXO (CIO,CTO) 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% Vice President 3.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% Director 16.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 17.1% Manager 46.2% 1.0% 2.1% 1.0% 0.2% 0.4% 50.8% Cordinator/Administration 17.7% 2.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 20.9% Other 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 7.0% Grand Total 90.5% 4.2% 3.0% 1.3% 0.4% 0.6% 100.0% *Computer operations, technical support, infrastructure, help desk, finance, R&D, etc. SOURCE:. 129

130 Study Design & Methodology Purchasing Past, Present & Future Units Installed and Planned for Purchase by Form Factor Installed Base Purchase Intent x86-based x86-based Desktops Servers Notebooks Desktops Servers Notebooks Enterprise Sum 1,548, , , , , ,029 Mean 3, , Division Sum 31,723 5,192 17,619 3, ,685 Mean 2, , Percent of Installed Base Replaced Enterprise 20.61% 28.43% 27.99% Division 10.81% 4.93% 9.56% SOURCE:. The 1Q10 study sample represents 2.9 million units (servers, desktops, notebooks) installed and a purchase intent for an additional 686,000 units during the next 12 months. 130

131 Appendix I: Analytical Procedures 131

132 Analytical Model Satisfaction Ratings 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. Totally Dissatisfied (Failure) Mediocre Totally Satisfied Failure Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent 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. 132

133 Analytical Model Measured Attributes Customer satisfaction and relative importance were measured for each of the following attributes: 133