Corporate IT Buying Behavior & Customer Satisfaction Study x86-based Servers Third Quarter 2013 Publish date: Oct. 25, 2013 Contributors: Greg Richardson (greg.richardson@tbri.com), Senior Analyst Angela Lambert, Analyst Matt Parker, Data Analyst Matt Bowden, Research Analyst John Spooner, Director, Computing Practice T EC H N O LO G Y B U S I N ES S R ES EAR C H, I N C. T EC H N O LO G Y B U S I N ES S R ES EAR C H, I N C.
Contents Table of Contents 3 Executive Summary 17 x86-based Server Attribute Analysis 22 Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction 41 Appendix B: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction 63 Appendix C: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Service and Support Satisfaction 91 Appendix D: Firmographics 98 Appendix E: Analytical Procedures and Survey Instrument 107 Coverage 109 About 2 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary 3 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary Dell took the No. 1 weighted satisfaction index position this quarter after a tie-breaker with HP builds its index from four key attribute areas composed of 22 total factors Rolling 6 Month Mean Satisfaction Attribute Sales Mean Satisfaction Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.2 5.0 5.1 One-time Services and Setup 4.9 4.9 5.1 Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 5.1 5.2 Sales Responsiveness 5.0 4.9 5.0 Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 4.9 5.0 Online Product Information 5.0 5.0 5.0 Product Mean Satisfaction Initial Hardware Quality 5.4 5.3 5.3 Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 5.3 5.3 Performance 5.4 5.4 5.4 Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 5.4 5.3 Total Cost of Ownership 5.2 5.1 5.1 Management Capabilities 5.2 5.2 5.1 Product Design/Features 5.3 5.2 5.2 Service Mean Satisfaction Phone Support Availability 5.2 5.1 5.1 Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.2 5.0 5.1 On-site Response Time 5.2 5.1 5.2 On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 5.1 5.3 Online Technical Support 5.2 5.0 5.0 Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.2 5.1 5.3 Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 5.3 5.2 Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 5.0 5.0 Social Media Support 4.6 4.5 4.6 Loyalty Index Will buy again 86.9 88.2 84.6 Would recommend 86.2 85.9 83.3 SOURCE: 3Q13 *Detailed explanation of methodology and calculations can be found in the technical appendix (slide 98). Sales Satisfaction Index 72.1 70.9 72.2 Product Satisfaction Index 75.9 75.3 75.1 Service Satisfaction Index 72.9 71.6 72.6 Loyalty Index 86.6 87.1 84.0 Importance Multiplier 99.3% 100.7% 99.9% Weighted Satisfaction Index 74.5 74.5 74.3 SOURCE: 3Q13 Rolling 6 Month Satisfaction Index The tie between Dell s and HP s scores was broken by a count of the total number of delighted (7s) scores awarded by customers across all attributes. 4 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary Customers focus on what they are getting for their dollar high value is key when making long-term server hardware investments Server customers place high emphasis on long-term value Reliability Value TCO remains one of the most important attribute areas for customers when making a purchase decision. Along with TCO, attributes such as initial hardware quality, ongoing hardware reliability, performance and virtualization continue to be key attributes that affect customers purchase decisions. believes customers place higher importance on these attributes, as they wish to prolong the life of their servers to minimize disruptions in their environments. Seasonality impacts customer satisfaction throughout the year Mean satisfaction scores trended mostly upward across vendors in 3Q13, with the exception of a slight decline in some attributes the majority of which came from IBM customers. With this mix of scores, IBM lost its hold of the No. 1 position, allowing Dell to take its place this quarter, followed very closely by HP. believes that overall satisfaction scores are likely to fall slightly this quarter as they are generally higher in the first half of the year often dictated by consumer budget availability and new product offerings. Services and support continue to be the key areas for differentiation Compared to sales and services attributes, hardware attributes tend to be most competitive across vendors for satisfaction, giving very little room for differentiation. As a result, customers increasingly view services and support as the determining decision factor between vendors. Dell was able to use this fact to its advantage and pulled its scores past its competitors, earning the No. 1 position for support services and the No. 1 position overall. 5 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary Dell continued to drive high satisfaction through sales-, product- and support-related attributes earning the top spot followed closely by HP Rolling 6 Month Mean Satisfaction Attribute Sales Mean Satisfaction Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.2 5.0 5.1 One-time Services and Setup 4.9 4.9 5.1 Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 5.1 5.2 Sales Responsiveness 5.0 4.9 5.0 Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 4.9 5.0 Online Product Information 5.0 5.0 5.0 Product Mean Satisfaction Initial Hardware Quality 5.4 5.3 5.3 Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 5.3 5.3 Performance 5.4 5.4 5.4 Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 5.4 5.3 Total Cost of Ownership 5.2 5.1 5.1 Management Capabilities 5.2 5.2 5.1 Product Design/Features 5.3 5.2 5.2 Service Mean Satisfaction Phone Support Availability 5.2 5.1 5.1 Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.2 5.0 5.1 On-site Response Time 5.2 5.1 5.2 On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 5.1 5.3 Online Technical Support 5.2 5.0 5.0 Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.2 5.1 5.3 Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 5.3 5.2 Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 5.0 5.0 Social Media Support 4.6 4.5 4.6 Loyalty Index Will buy again 86.9 88.2 84.6 Would recommend 86.2 85.9 83.3 SOURCE: 3Q13 Dell Dell competed with HP and IBM across all attributes, particularly in product-related attributes. 3Q13 loyalty scores fell across all vendors compared to the prior quarter, earning Dell the No. 1 position for recommending loyalty. After s tie-breaker, Dell won the No. 1 position. HP HP customers were most likely to continue to buy from the vendor in the future, and HP was the only vendor to increase in satisfaction scores across all attributes this quarter. Despite some lower-thanaverage scores, HP came very close to taking the overall No. 1 position from Dell this quarter, aided greatly by its high loyalty scores. IBM IBM performed competitively across all metrics this quarter, tying or surpassing the competition in many of the attributes. Declining scores from the prior quarter and lower-than-average loyalty scores pulled down IBM s overall position, landing it in the No. 3 spot for the quarter. 6 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary Customer feedback commends reliability of servers and knowledgeable services, increasing each vendors overall customer satisfaction Dell server customers focused on the reliability of the servers, stating that Dell s products rarely fail and typically remain functional for the entirety of their server life cycle. HP customers place high value on reliability as well, stating that the uptime on servers is critical to their business needs. Customers also considered management capabilities as high-quality. IBM customers praised the vendor s performance, but price continues to be mentioned as a barrier to decision makers purchases. We have always had excellent reliability with our Dell equipment, and it is very much the exception, rather than the rule, that we experience hardware issues. Dell customer We are a 24/7/365 company that relies on dependability, and Dell delivers. Dell customer 7 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study Ongoing hardware reliability has always been good with HP rack servers. Performance is excellent. HP customer Reliable servers and fantastic management capabilities make this an obvious choice for running our enterprise workloads. HP customer Best-in-class combined features of management, reliability and performance. IBM customer We haven t had any issues that weren t easily resolved. The performance has always met our expectations, and we have continually been able to optimize our servers. IBM customer
Executive Summary Dependable hardware qualifies a vendor in a deal, but perceived high value and a strong set of services drive differentiation Assessment Meeting the demand for essential elements is necessary to attract enterprise customers; value-added elements serve as differentiators and result in customer advocacy and loyalty. In 3Q13, server customers emphasized the reliability, performance and value of servers with a secondary focus on on-site and ongoing services. Value-added Elements: Post-purchase Care One-time Services and Setup Online Technical Support Online Product Information Sales Responsiveness Self-support/Automated Social Media Support Customers Perceived Importance of Server Attributes Essential Elements Important Elements Value-added Elements Essential Elements: Initial Hardware Quality Ongoing Hardware Reliability Performance Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability TCO Product Design Purchase Price Replacement Parts Availability Important Elements: On-site Expertise On-site Response Time Ongoing Services Management Capabilities Phone Support Expertise Phone Support Availability Delivery Time and Availability 8 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
85.7% 81.9% 79.5% 83.2% 91.6% 86.5% 87.7% 87.6% 88.2% 88.4% 88.9% 87.0% 86.9% 88.2% 84.6% Executive Summary Customers aim to maximize server value through management costs, reliability and longevity 100% 6 Mo. VENDOR HISTORICAL SERVER LIKELINESS TO BUY AGAIN 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 SOURCE: 3Q13 Customers Who Will Buy Again Although customer loyalty dipped slightly for all vendors this quarter, believes it was not due to customer expectations not being met. Rather, customer loyalty fell mostly due to economic influences and seasonality the lack of new products in the second half of the year causes customers to delay purchases. Customers who stated they would not or may not buy again noted an imbalance in the value they receive from their servers in reliability, price and/or TCO. 9 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary Of Dell customers, 87% said they would buy again, citing solid reliability and performance as key factors of purchase Top criteria for customers buying again and considering switching 6 Mo. DELL LOYALTY: WILL BUY AGAIN 11% 2% 87% Yes Maybe No Yes Will buy again % of Yes Servers are reliable 77.9% Server performance meets our expectations 62.7% Servers integrate well with our IT environment 41.3% Maybe/Will not buy again % of Maybe/No Dissatisfied with TCO 29.3% SOURCE: 3Q13 Dissatisfied with phone support 22.0% Servers have inadequate online technical support 19.5% Sales staff is not responsive enough 19.5% Server efficiency did not meet our expectations 19.5% 10 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary HP continued to have the highest percentage of customers who said they would buy again, but energy and efficiency have become concern areas Top criteria for customers buying again and considering switching 6 Mo. HP LOYALTY: WILL BUY AGAIN 11% 1% 88% Yes Maybe No Yes Will buy again % of Yes Servers are reliable 79.3% Server performance meets our expectations 67.0% Servers integrate well with our IT environment 46.7% Maybe/Will not buy again % of Maybe/No We are buying another brand of servers instead 24.3% SOURCE: 3Q13 Servers use too much energy 21.6% Server efficiency did not meet our expectations 18.9% Servers did not integrate well with our IT environment 18.9% Servers are too expensive 18.9% 11 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary IBM customers are most willing to purchase the vendor s servers again due to their high reliability, performance and integration Top criteria for customers buying again and considering switching 6 Mo. IBM LOYALTY: WILL BUY AGAIN 14% 1% Yes Yes Will buy again % of Yes Servers are reliable 76.4% Server performance meets our expectations 58.6% Servers integrate well with our IT environment 39.5% 85% Maybe No Maybe/Will not buy again % of Maybe/No Servers are too expensive 22.9% SOURCE: 3Q13 Dissatisfied with TCO 20.8% Servers are a poor value 20.8% 12 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
81.3% 78.8% 87.7% 82.9% 89.6% 85.9% 83.1% 87.3% 84.6% 87.1% 89.2% 85.3% 86.2% 85.9% 83.3% Executive Summary Although server value meets customers expectations, loyalty scores declined across all vendors compared to the prior quarter 100% 6 Mo. VENDOR HISTORICAL SERVER LIKELINESS TO RECOMMEND 90% 80% 70% 60% 13 Top customer recommendations Recommendation by a customer is directly linked to perceived value and high satisfaction among attributes customers deem critical. believes the declines in the vendors recommendation scores were not caused by lack of satisfaction, but influenced by seasonality and economic influences. Dell customer HP customer 50% IBM customer SOURCE: 3Q13 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Through the years, Dell servers have been highly reliable and a good return on investment. Very well-designed servers that perform admirably and for a very long time. We ve never had a problem they couldn t resolve, and they re always here when we need them to be. 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Executive Summary Although customer loyalty scores fell slightly, Dell s satisfaction scores increased overall, earning the vendor the No. 1 position for the quarter Attribute 3Q13 Satisfaction Industry Rank Satisfaction vs. 2Q13 Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.2 1 1.6% One-time Services and Setup 4.9 2-1.2% Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 2 0.0% Sales Responsiveness 5.0 1 0.2% Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 1 0.4% Online Product Information 5.0 1 0.8% Initial Hardware Quality 5.4 1 1.1% Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 1 0.8% Performance 5.4 1 0.6% Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 2 0.2% Total Cost of Ownership 5.2 1 0.6% Management Capabilities 5.2 1 0.6% Product Design/Features 5.3 1-0.6% Phone Support Availability 5.2 1 2.2% Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.2 1 1.2% On-site Response Time 5.2 1 1.0% On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 2 0.4% Online Technical Support 5.2 1 1.2% Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.2 2 2.0% Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 1 1.7% Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 1 0.0% Social Media Support 4.6 1 0.2% Loyalty 3Q13 Loyalty Metric Industry Rank Loyalty vs. 2Q13 Will buy again 86.9 2-1.7% Would recommend 86.2 1-1.0% SOURCE: 3Q13 14 Dell: 6 Mo. Server Performance Dashboard 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study Dell continues to be a leader in server value, earning it the No. 1 position this quarter Similar to 2Q13, Dell customer satisfaction scores indicated high satisfaction among attributes that relate to value this quarter. Dell was able to take hold of the No. 1 overall satisfaction position this quarter despite the slight decline in customers loyalty. Across all other satisfaction attributes Dell performed competitively, with satisfaction scores rising or remaining at the No. 1 and No. 2 positions. Delivery time and product availability was the only attribute to see a decline in position, falling from No. 1 to No. 2 this quarter. Loyalty scores declined, but not enough to affect Dell s overall positioning Although Dell s loyalty scores fell slightly compared to the prior quarter, all vendors experienced this decline, causing Dell to rise in position for vendor recommendation and take the No. 1 spot. Industry rank indicates position of an attribute s mean satisfaction score compared to industry peers. Arrows represent positive, negative or neutral change in industry rank from the previous quarter. For mean satisfaction, positive or negative changes of +/- 5% are highlighted green and red, respectively.
Executive Summary HP earned the No. 2 position, despite a decline in server customer loyalty, as all attributes increased in satisfaction scores Attribute 3Q13 Satisfaction Industry Rank Satisfaction vs. 2Q13 Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.0 3 1.8% One-time Services and Setup 4.9 2 2.1% Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.1 2 1.4% Sales Responsiveness 4.9 3 1.5% Post-purchase Customer Care 4.9 3 2.7% Online Product Information 5.0 1 2.0% Initial Hardware Quality 5.3 2 2.1% Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 1 2.1% Performance 5.4 1 1.3% Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.4 1 2.9% Total Cost of Ownership 5.1 2 2.6% Management Capabilities 5.2 1 1.6% Product Design/Features 5.2 2 2.7% Phone Support Availability 5.1 2 1.4% Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.0 3 0.2% On-site Response Time 5.1 3 1.6% On-site Technical Expertise 5.1 2 1.4% Online Technical Support 5.0 2 0.8% Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.1 3 0.6% Replacement Parts Availability 5.3 1 1.5% Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 1 1.8% Social Media Support 4.5 3 1.1% Loyalty 3Q13 Loyalty Metric Industry Rank Loyalty vs. 2Q13 Will buy again 88.2 1-0.8% Would recommend 85.9 2-3.7% SOURCE: 3Q13 Industry rank indicates position of an attribute s mean satisfaction score compared to industry peers. Arrows represent positive, negative or neutral change in industry rank from the previous quarter. For mean satisfaction, positive or negative changes of +/- 5% are highlighted green and red, respectively. 15 HP: 6 Mo. Server Performance Dashboard 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study HP s satisfaction scores increased across the board, rising or staying the same in most vendor positioning HP s satisfaction scores, primarily in product and sales attributes, rose marginally from the prior quarter, aiding the vendor in earning the No. 2 position overall and becoming the only vendor to increase satisfaction scores across all attributes. This increase in satisfaction pushed all HP s attributes to a higher position or kept them in a similar positioning to the prior quarter (except for the ongoing services and maintenance attribute). HP s customer loyalty fell slightly from the prior quarter for the second consecutive quarter, but remained strong compared to the competition HP customer loyalty scores saw a decline this quarter, falling mostly in the recommendation category. However, this was not enough to derail HP in taking the No. 1 position for the loyalty index for the second consecutive quarter. believes customer expectations are having little impact on customer loyalty; instead, the growing economic stresses are causing customers to rethink purchases.
Executive Summary IBM s customer satisfaction and loyalty scores fell overall this quarter, sacrificing the vendor's No 1 position for the first time since 3Q12 Attribute 3Q13 Satisfaction Industry Rank Satisfaction vs. 2Q13 Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 5.1 2 0.4% One-time Services and Setup 5.1 1 0.0% Delivery Time and Product Availability 5.2 1 1.2% Sales Responsiveness 5.0 1-0.6% Post-purchase Customer Care 5.0 1-1.4% Online Product Information 5.0 1-1.0% Initial Hardware Quality 5.3 2 0.2% Ongoing Hardware Reliability 5.3 1 0.8% Performance 5.4 1 0.2% Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 5.3 2-1.3% Total Cost of Ownership 5.1 2-2.3% Management Capabilities 5.1 3 0.2% Product Design/Features 5.2 2 0.0% Phone Support Availability 5.1 2-2.3% Phone Support Technical Expertise 5.1 2-1.0% On-site Response Time 5.2 1 0.8% On-site Technical Expertise 5.3 1-0.8% Online Technical Support 5.0 2-1.6% Ongoing Services and Maintenance 5.3 1-0.4% Replacement Parts Availability 5.2 3 0.6% Self-support/Automated Support 5.0 1-0.2% Social Media Support 4.6 1 0.2% Loyalty 3Q13 Loyalty Metric Industry Rank Loyalty vs. 2Q13 Will buy again 84.6 3-2.8% Would recommend 83.3 3-2.3% SOURCE: 3Q13 Industry rank indicates position of an attribute s mean satisfaction score compared to industry peers. Arrows represent positive, negative or neutral change in industry rank from the previous quarter. For mean satisfaction, positive or negative changes of +/- 5% are highlighted green and red, respectively. 16 IBM: 6 Mo. Server Performance Dashboard 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study IBM fell to the No. 3 position overall for the first time since 3Q12 IBM experienced an overall decline from the prior quarter, falling in satisfaction across all indexes. However, IBM continues to drive high levels of customer satisfaction across blade and rack server customers in product-related attributes, ranking No. 1 in all but purchase price. While the greatest declines in satisfaction were observed in the phone support availability and TCO attributes, management capabilities and replacement parts were the only attributes to fall to the No. 3 position. Loyalty continued to decline for the second consecutive quarter IBM remains the lowest-positioned vendor for customers who would recommend the company and buy again. Although believes this is a result of customer expectations not being met, we also believe seasonality and economic stress influence decision makers. IBM customers tend to have a higher standard of satisfaction even if the server is near perfect, one small issue may cause the customer to view the experience as negative.
x86-based Server Attribute Analysis 17 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
3Q13 Results by Vendor Report attributes and statistical significance key Sales and Setup Attributes 1. Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost 2. One-time Services and Setup 3. Delivery Time and Product Availability 4. Sales Responsiveness 5. Post-purchase Customer Care 6. Online Product Information Server Hardware Attributes 7. Initial Hardware Quality 8. Ongoing Hardware Reliability 9. Performance 10. Virtualization, Efficiency, Scalability 11. TCO 12. Management Capabilities 13. Product Design/Features Service and Support Attributes 14. Phone Support Availability 15. Phone Support Technical Expertise 16. On-site Response Time 17. On-site Technical Expertise 18. Online Technical Support 19. Replacement Parts Availability 20. Ongoing Services and Maintenance 21. Self-support/Automated Support 22. Social Media Support Statistical Significance Key Higher Mean than Dell 99% confidence level Higher Mean than Dell 95% confidence level Higher Mean than Dell 90% confidence level Higher Mean than HP 99% confidence level Higher Mean than HP 95% confidence level Higher Mean than HP 90% confidence level Higher Mean than IBM 99% confidence level Higher Mean than IBM 95% confidence level Higher Mean than IBM 90% confidence level *Statistical Significance Key applies to slides 19, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60, 64, 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85 and 88 18 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
3Q13 Results by Vendor On average, customers indicated lower satisfaction across all sales attributes compared to product and services satisfaction 5.18 4.99 OVERALL SERVER CUSTOMERS' AVERAGE SATISFACTION BY SALES ATTRIBUTE (6 MONTHS) 5.12 5.10 4.94 4.90 5.10 5.07 5.16 5.01 4.97 5.02 5.03 5.04 4.87 4.93 4.95 SOURCE: 3Q13 Sales Satisfaction Drivers Customer expectations were highest for the delivery time and product availability, and purchase price attributes this quarter, scoring slightly lower than the product and services attributes. believes the amount of time spent on product and service attributes pushes customers to focus more on those attributes rather than sales, driving overall importance and satisfaction scores down. Customer Comments Flawless implementations; they exceeded our delivery commitments. IBM customer 19 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
3Q13 Results by Vendor Hardware reliability, performance and virtualization remained the most satisfying attributes; TCO and management capabilities scored lowest 5.36 5.31 5.31 5.34 5.31 5.34 OVERALL SERVER CUSTOMERS' AVERAGE SATISFACTION BY PRODUCT ATTRIBUTE (6 MONTHS) 5.43 5.37 5.41 5.31 5.35 5.33 5.23 5.23 5.27 5.13 5.18 5.08 5.11 5.24 5.20 Server Hardware Satisfaction Drivers Initial hardware quality, ongoing hardware reliability, performance and virtualization satisfaction were the highestscored attributes across the industry. TCO and management capabilities did not score as well in the product-related attributes, ranked respectively as critically important and important among customers. Total cost of ownership continues to be one of the lowest-ranked server hardware attributes, implying that customers are more likely to switch brands if the price is right. Customer Comments 20 SOURCE: 3Q13 We spend way too much on support-related issues, driving the total cost of ownership up. Dell customer 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
3Q13 Results by Vendor Customers continue to be most satisfied with replacement parts availability while social media remains the least satisfying and important OVERALL SERVER CUSTOMERS' AVERAGE SATISFACTION BY SUPPORT ATTRIBUTE (6 MONTHS) 5.21 5.24 5.26 5.28 5.16 5.15 5.12 5.16 5.20 5.07 5.08 5.08 5.13 5.01 5.05 5.07 5.04 5.02 5.29 5.28 5.23 4.99 4.99 4.61 4.61 4.45 SOURCE: 3Q13 Service and Support Satisfaction Similar to the prior quarter, customers were most satisfied with replacement parts availability, closely followed by ongoing services and maintenance, and least satisfied with social media support. Customer responses were generally positive for all support attributes but social media support, where it was stated that the support it offered was not substantial or relevant enough for organizations to be of use. Customer Comments Online technical support is great. We never use social media support. Dell customer HP goes above and beyond to quickly get parts on site and do work after hours. HP customer We ve never had a problem that they couldn t resolve; they re always here when needed. IBM customer 21 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction 22 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
4.89 4.88 5.06 5.01 4.92 4.87 4.89 5.07 4.99 5.14 5.11 5.04 5.09 5.05 5.24 5.17 5.12 5.10 5.07 5.14 5.13 5.18 5.12 Appendix A: Purchase Price/Acquisition Cost: Trends Satisfaction scores generally increased or remained the same Dell surpassed HP and IBM, earning it the No. 1 position 23 SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell s six-month satisfaction score for purchase price experienced a slight increase compared to last quarter enough to distance it from IBM and land it in first place. Dell s high satisfaction score was primarily due to its leading level of satisfaction among small and medium IT departments. HP s six-month purchase price satisfaction score increased from last quarter, but continued to remain behind the competition for the third consecutive quarter. HP took the second-highest position in satisfaction in small IT departments. However, low scores in medium and large IT departments dragged the vendor s score downward. 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study SOURCE: 3Q13 6 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 IBM customers satisfaction with purchase price over the six month period remained close to its 2Q13 score, but was not enough to surpass Dell for the No. 1 position. IBM had the highest level of satisfaction in large IT departments, but lagged behind Dell in small and medium IT departments.
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Purchase Price: Analysis by IT Department Size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. PURCHASE PRICE SATISFACTION 5.21 SOURCE: 3Q13 5.13 5.04 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. PURCHASE PRICE SATISFACTION 5.16 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.96 5.05 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION 5.02 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.89 5.21 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers HP: They have competitive prices, and their servers are very reliable. Dell: Dell has the best total cost of ownership on the market. Dell: Price is great for the value you receive. HP: Prices are competitive. IBM: The price and value is much better than we see from competitors. HP: HP meets our budget. Dell: The price and value are right where we need them to be. IBM: Fair price and a great value. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 24 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Purchase Price: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings Customer Comments We appreciate the value that Dell delivers. Dell blade customer The cost of ownership is reasonable. HP rack customer The price beats competitive market prices hands down due to the excellent overall TCO. IBM blade customer IBM is very competitive and offers good value for features and quality. IBM rack customer 6 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack 6 Mo. PURCHASE PRICE/ACQUISITION COST IMPORTANCE Server Critical Critical Important Blade Critical Critical Critical Rack Critical Critical Important SOURCE: 3Q13 25 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
4.82 4.79 4.95 4.92 4.82 4.97 4.98 4.84 5.03 4.89 5.07 5.08 4.96 4.94 4.81 4.95 4.83 4.94 4.90 5.12 5.05 5.08 5.10 5.29 Appendix A: One-time Services and Setup: Trends HP customers reported marginal increases in one-time services and setup satisfaction compared to Dell and IBM this quarter SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Similar to last quarter, Dell was unable to catch IBM in one-time services and setup satisfaction, falling significantly behind the vendor s score and earning it the No. 2 position. Dell s top satisfaction score in medium IT departments was able to slightly offset its lower-than-average score among small IT department customers. SOURCE: 3Q13 Although HP s six-month one-time services and setup satisfaction score experienced an increase from 2Q13, HP s score remained below its competitors. HP s scores in medium and large IT departments were lower-thanaverage this quarter, pulling the vendor s score down. 6 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 IBM remained in the No. 1 position for one time services and setup customer satisfaction, slightly increasing from its 2Q13 score. IBM s high scores in large IT departments aided the vendor in finishing above Dell s and HP s scores for the quarter. 26 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction One-time Services and Setup: Analysis by IT Department Size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION 4.79 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.97 5.06 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION 5.01 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.87 4.95 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION 5.02 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.89 5.21 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers HP: The servers were delivered and set up in a very satisfactory manner. IBM: Flawless implementation, in committed time frames. DELL: We had more than one [poorly performing] on-site engineer. HP: Once we cut a PO they give us a date and they are usually on time. IBM: We get on-time delivery and reliable, competent installation services. DELL: Delivery is quick, setup is easy! IBM: The IBM team is always on time and there when we require assistance. HP: On-site support is always available within 24 hours. DELL: Quick delivery and easy setup. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 27 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction One-time Services and Setup: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings Customer Comments The product was received on time and Dell services did a quality installation and setup. Dell blade customer Too much time spent for setup. Dell rack customer Simple to set up. HP blade customer They are the best. IBM rack customer 6 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack 6 Mo. ONE-TIME SERVICES AND SETUP IMPORTANCE Server Less Less Less Blade Less Less Less Rack Less Less Less SOURCE: 3Q13 28 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
5.12 5.03 4.99 4.97 4.99 4.95 5.01 5.16 5.04 5.24 5.12 5.11 5.13 5.13 4.99 4.96 5.19 5.11 5.08 4.98 5.12 5.10 5.07 5.16 Appendix A: Delivery Time and Product Availability: Trends Delivery time satisfaction scores for HP and IBM declined this quarter while Dell s increased, but not enough to push it into the No. 1 position SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell slightly improved its six-month delivery time and product availability satisfaction score from 2Q13, but was unable to catch IBM for first place. While Dell s blade customers reported higher satisfaction scores than its rack customers, satisfaction across all IT departments were similar in score. SOURCE: 3Q13 HP experienced a solid improvement in its six-month delivery time and product availability satisfaction score, tying with Dell for the No. 2 position. HP s satisfaction scores were balanced as a result of higher-than-average scores in small IT departments and lower-than-average scores in large IT departments. 6 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 IBM s six-month delivery time and product availability score increased in 3Q13, maintaining its No. 1 position. IBM s score in large IT departments was higher than competitors, aiding the vendor in taking the No. 1 position. 29 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Delivery Time and Availability: Analysis by IT Department Size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. DELIVERY TIME SATISFACTION 5.09 SOURCE: 3Q13 5.17 5.07 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. DELIVERY TIME SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 5.11 5.09 5.03 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. DELIVERY TIME SATISFACTION 5.09 SOURCE: 3Q13 5.01 5.27 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers IBM: Exceeded delivery commitments. HP: Very fast and efficient. Dell: Parts usually arrive on schedule. HP: The machines are delivered very quickly and only need software installed. IBM: They have the most reliable delivery and setup schedules in the industry. DELL: The product was delivered as scheduled in our purchase order. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 30 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Delivery Time and Availability: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings On time and no issues. Dell blade customer Customer Comments Setup is easy. Delivery takes too long. Dell rack customer Delivery time is almost always good. HP rack customer 6 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack Seamless delivery and installation. IBM blade customer 6 Mo. DELIVERY TIME AND PRODUCT AVAILABILITY IMPORTANCE Server Important Important Important Blade Important Important Important Rack Important Important Important SOURCE: 3Q13 31 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
4.87 4.95 4.83 4.77 4.77 4.80 4.77 4.96 5.02 4.97 5.19 5.07 5.07 4.96 4.98 4.95 4.99 5.01 4.87 5.07 5.01 4.97 Appendix A: Sales Responsiveness: Trends Dell s and HP s sales responsiveness satisfaction scores increased from the prior quarter while IBM s fell slightly SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell capitalized on its slight 3Q13 improvement in sales responsiveness satisfaction, barely earning sole possession of the No. 1 spot. Dell scored higher with blade customers than any other vendor while collecting the highest satisfaction scores among small and medium IT departments. SOURCE: 3Q13 HP improved its six-month sales responsiveness satisfaction score from 2Q13, but was unable to emerge from the No. 3 position. HP scored similarly across all IT departments this quarter, tying with IBM for second place in small and medium IT department satisfaction scores. 6 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 IBM s six-month sales responsiveness satisfaction score slightly declined from the previous quarter, allowing Dell to move up into the No. 1 position. IBM s higher-than-average scores in large IT departments were countered by lower-than-average scores in small and medium IT departments, dragging the vendor to No. 2. 32 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Sales Responsiveness: Analysis by IT Department Size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION 5.04 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.86 4.85 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION 4.97 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.86 4.84 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION 5.02 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.88 5.10 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers Dell: We receive excellent sales response. IBM: The account team is proactive. Dell: Our technical sales team is the best. IBM: Sales responsiveness is the weakest link. HP: Sales response is good. IBM: An IBM representative stays on top of our issues. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 33 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Sales Responsiveness: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings Customer Comments Sales reps do not contact us or follow up after purchase. Dell rack customer We have a good relationship with our sales rep. Dell blade customer We are well taken care of. HP blade customer Our IBM rep meets with us weekly to make sure any issues or concerns are addressed. IBM rack customer 6 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack 6 Mo. SALES RESPONSIVENESS IMPORTANCE Server Less Less Less Blade Less Less Less Rack Less Less Less SOURCE: 3Q13 34 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
4.96 4.97 4.93 4.88 4.97 4.84 4.84 5.05 4.99 5.02 5.24 5.10 5.13 5.01 5.04 4.95 4.86 4.84 5.01 5.02 4.93 5.11 5.07 5.03 Appendix A: Post-purchase Customer Care: Trends Dell pushed to the top, tying IBM for the No. 1 position in 6-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 SOURCE: 3Q13 6 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell s six-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction score remained relatively flat compared to the prior quarter, helping secure a tie with IBM for the No 1. position. Low satisfaction in small IT departments negatively affected Dell s overall score. HP improved its six-month, postpurchase customer care satisfaction score sequentially; however, the firm remains in last place for the third consecutive quarter. Customers in large IT departments indicated much lower satisfaction with HP than with Dell and IBM. IBM s six-month, post-purchase customer care satisfaction score fell compared to 2Q13, allowing Dell to gain a share of the No. 1 position. Dell received the highest satisfaction scores in small IT departments, but its low score in medium IT departments prevented the vendor from remaining in sole possession of first place. 35 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Post-purchase Customer Care: Analysis by IT Department Size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION 4.88 SOURCE: 3Q13 5.03 5.10 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION 5.03 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.90 4.87 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION 5.20 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.91 5.09 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers Dell: I have to beg or threaten to get support on new blades. IBM: [There is] proactive postimplementation follow up and issues resolution. Dell: We can call real people that are knowledgeable about the product. HP: We have a great HP team that we feel we can call anytime we need to. HP: Good product information and immediate support after purchase. IBM: Always available and knowledgeable. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 36 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Post-purchase Customer Care: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings Customer Comments They ve provided high-quality service. Dell blade customer Customer care agents are very helpful in providing solutions. HP rack customer Sales and customer service do not seem that knowledgeable. IBM blade customer The post-purchase care has been outstanding (although we do pay through the nose for it). IBM rack customer 6 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack 6 Mo. POST-PURCHASE CUSTOMER CARE IMPORTANCE Server Less Less Less Blade Less Less Less Rack Less Less Less SOURCE: 3Q13 37 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
5.01 5.05 5.03 4.98 4.95 4.86 4.87 5.10 4.99 5.14 5.08 5.03 4.99 4.90 5.13 4.99 4.92 4.86 5.06 5.03 5.01 5.04 4.95 Appendix A: Online Product Information: Trends IBM, Dell and HP reached a 3-way tie for the No.1 spot in 6-month online product information scores SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell s six-month online product information satisfaction score rose sequentially as the vendor tied HP and IBM for the No. 1 spot in 3Q13. Customers in medium and large IT departments reported the most satisfaction with Dell. SOURCE: 3Q13 HP moved from last place to a threeway tie for first as it increased its sixmonth online product information satisfaction score sequentially. Large IT departments were least satisfied with HP, negatively affecting the vendor s overall score. 6 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 IBM remains tied for the No. 1 position despite its six-month online product information satisfaction score falling compared to the previous reporting period. Satisfaction with IBM was much lower than with the other vendors in medium IT departments. 38 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Online Product Information: Analysis by IT Department Size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 5.04 5.09 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 5.04 5.01 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION 5.05 SOURCE: 3Q13 4.95 5.04 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers HP: I can get most questions answered by reviewing the HP site. Dell: It is easy to find information online. HP: We always have the info we need to manage our servers and/or view other product offerings. IBM: Inadequate online product information. DELL: Effective support and online material to answer and setup servers for what we need. IBM: IBM s web information source is complete and up to date. HP: Online product information is good but could have been a bit better. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 39 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix A: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Sales and Setup Satisfaction Online Product Information: Blade vs. Rack Server Rankings Customer Comments Dell s online site provides the information I need to know about selecting new systems. Dell rack customer Online product info is always up-to-date and accurate. HP rack customer The online info is not complete or detailed enough for our needs. Dell blade customer Technical documentation is difficult to search for. IBM rack customer 6 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack 6 Mo. ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION IMPORTANCE Server Less Less Less Blade Less Less Less Rack Less Less Less SOURCE: 3Q13 40 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix B x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction 41 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
5.18 5.20 5.32 5.19 5.28 5.24 5.18 5.48 5.43 5.34 5.20 5.32 5.33 5.19 5.30 5.36 5.31 5.31 Appendix B: Initial Hardware Quality: Trends Dell took over sole possession of the top spot while HP s and IBM s 6- month initial hardware quality satisfaction scores tied for second place SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell continued to increase six-month initial hardware quality satisfaction scores, allowing the vendor to remain ahead of the pack and keep the No. 1 position. Customers in medium IT departments reported the highest satisfaction with Dell. HP charged toward the lead, improving its six-month initial hardware quality satisfaction score sequentially to go from last place in 2Q13 to a second-place tie in 3Q13. HP was the only vendor whose blade customers reported higher satisfaction than its rack customers. IBM tied with HP for the No. 2 position as a result of its six-month initial hardware quality satisfaction score remaining relatively unchanged sequentially. IBM received the lowest satisfaction scores in small and medium IT departments, offsetting its high score in large departments. 1Q13 Initial Hardware Quality satisfaction scores for the 3 and 6 month view are the same due to the attribute only having one quarter of data at that time. SOURCE: 3Q13 6 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 42 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix B: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction Initial hardware quality: Analysis by IT department size 6 Mo. SMALL IT DEPT. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION 5.35 SOURCE: 3Q13 5.55 5.26 6 Mo. MEDIUM IT DEPT. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION 5.43 SOURCE: 3Q13 5.20 6 Mo. LARGE IT DEPT. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 5.27 5.23 5.39 Customer Comments Small IT Customers Medium IT Customers Large IT Customers IBM: The hardware is well built, uses the best components, rarely needs support and will run for years without issue. Dell: They provided the performance and management features we needed. IBM: Hardware is very reliable and performance features exceed our needs. HP: HP earned a reputation for providing quality products. Technicians in my organization swear by the brand. Dell: Very few issues with our blade servers. Performance is what we expected. HP: HP rack servers perform up to the standards we expect. IBM: Great performance and reliable, consistent service. For this study, defines IT department size in the following brackets: Small IT, 50 or fewer employees; Medium IT, 51 to 300 employees; Large IT, more than 300 employees. 43 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
Appendix B: x86-based Server Attribute Analysis: Server Hardware Satisfaction Initial hardware quality: Blade vs. Rack server rankings Customer Comments Ours have been extremely stable since implementation with very few issues or problems. Dell rack customer These servers are rock-solid and last forever. HP rack customer IBM does a good job making the blades to a standard that allows us to rely on them. IBM blade customer We very rarely, or never, have issues with our Dell blade hardware. It s very reliable. Dell blade customer 6 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY SATISFACTION SOURCE: 3Q13 Blade Rack 6 Mo. INITIAL HARDWARE QUALITY IMPORTANCE Server Critical Critical Critical Blade Critical Critical Critical Rack Critical Critical Critical SOURCE: 3Q13 44 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study
5.38 5.26 5.19 5.14 5.40 5.28 5.45 5.32 5.23 5.35 5.24 5.31 5.20 5.21 5.39 5.36 5.33 5.27 5.23 5.33 5.34 5.31 5.34 Appendix B: Ongoing Hardware Quality and Reliability: Trends All 3 vendors improved their 6-month ongoing hardware reliability satisfaction scores, resulting in a 3-way tie for the No. 1 position SOURCE: 3Q13 3 Mo. ONGOING HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 SOURCE: 3Q13 6 Mo. ONGOING HARDWARE RELIABILITY SATISFACTION TRENDS 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 Dell continued to improve its sixmonth ongoing hardware reliability satisfaction score; however, it was unable to separate itself from the other vendors and finished 3Q13 in a three-way tie for the No. 1 spot. Dell was the only vendor whose blade customers reported higher satisfaction than rack customers. HP moved into a tie for first place with a sequential improvement to its six-month ongoing hardware reliability satisfaction after finishing last in 2Q13. Customers in small IT departments reported high satisfaction with HP, helping to offset lower scores in medium and large departments. IBM s six-month ongoing hardware satisfaction score remained at a similar level to the last two quarters, allowing HP and IBM to tie the vendor for the No. 1 position. IBM s low score in medium IT departments negatively affected its overall score. 45 3Q13 x86-based Servers Customer Satisfaction Study