Concol Customer Services: Business Performance Criteria Report

This report analyzes the business performance criteria for Concol Customer Services (CCS), an Internet Service Provider. The analysis compares the costs and performance of the current online support center with a proposed Cape Town proposal, utilizing a total cost analysis to determine the most cost-effective option. Additional criteria, including speed, quality, dependability, and flexibility, are evaluated, with relative weightings assigned to each. The report provides a detailed examination of each criterion, including the cost of personnel, equipment, and variable costs. The report concludes that the Cape Town proposal is more cost-effective and offers a higher overall performance ranking compared to the current online support center. The report includes references to relevant literature supporting the analysis and conclusions.

Running header: Business Performance Criteria 1
Business Performance Criteria
By [Name]
Institution

Business Performance Criteria 2
Introduction
The following analysis evaluates between two options for decision making.
Total cost analysis.
i. Current online support centre
Personnel costs = 50*60,000 + 2*80,000 = $3,160,000
Equipment costs = 3*10,000 + 28*700 = $49,600
Variable costs = 1.13*800,000 = 904,000
Total costs = $4,113,600
ii. Cape town proposal
Fixed cost = $2,400,000
Variable cost = $1.07*800,000 = $856,000
Total costs = $3,256,000
The new Cape town proposal cost is cheaper compared to the current online center cost
thus should be considered.
Additional criteria
Speed – speed is a determinant factor in the progress of an organization. It explains the
time that elapses between when a customer makes an order and when the ordered item finally
reaches the customer. A company that takes minimum time to deliver an item to customers tends
to satisfy its customers, thus having many customers. For instance, online services are known to
be efficient in speed. Concol customer service (CCS) has an online "chat room". Also, they have

Business Performance Criteria 3
an expert in this service who solves technical problems to its customers within 6 minutes.
Customers list this as the top three reasons as to why they stick to the company; thus, its evident
that they are fully satisfied with this service.
Quality – and organization should always focus on providing services which are of high
value to its customers. High value services involve acquiring the service with less costly thus
providing it to customers at a relatively cheaper cost and making a profit. There is another
indicator of customer satisfaction as it increases the chances of a customer to return and buy. The
customer may come along with another customer. The final result is the organization having
many customers, even in a competitive field of business. The cape town proposal explains that
its personnel speak fluent English while a few speak French. Also, some have a college degree,
and others have appropriate technical backgrounds in the field of their service. These qualities
justify that the firm will be t a position to offer quality services to its clients.
Dependability – a company /organization, should be at a position to offer services that
can meet the demand existing in the market. A company like in this case of Concol customers
service is considered to have failed if it cannot offer its services to all its customers. However,
the company can handle up to 1,000,000 requests per year while the current request capacity is
800,000; thus, its functions are dependable. The Cape town firm will use the existing capacity to
handle the company's customers (Wu & Hsieh, 2012; Benlian & Hess, 2011).
Flexibility – this is the organization’s potential to respond to new changes that may occur
in the market. The response is intended to satisfy the customers. Example of changes that may
occur in the market include; volume flexibility whereby the organization’s process may be at a
position produce large/small volumes of services depending on what is required, delivery
flexibility where the organization can change the time range within which a given service is

Business Performance Criteria 4
offered, Service flexibility when a new service is being introduced into the market. The switch
between the two companies is to be made without customers being aware of it.
Cost – the amount spent in the total production process should be considered with the
aim of maximizing profits. Profit-making is always the aim of any business set up. According to
the quantitative analysis done above, the new firm will provide the services cheaper than the
current online support centre. Providing this service at a lower cost will increase the profits made
when compared to that of the current support centre (Altiok, 2012).
Relative weighting for each of the criteria.
Performance
criteria
Performance
capabilities
Current support
centre ranking
Cape town
proposal ranking
cost 0.3 2 4
quality 0.2 4 4
speed 0.2 4 4
dependability 0.2 4 3
flexibility 0.1 3 2
total 1
Performance ranking interpretations = Excellent – 5, very good-4, good – 3, medium – 2,
poor – 1
Relative weighting calculations.
Current support center = 0.3*2 + 0.2*4*3 +0.1*3 = 3.3
Cape town proposal = 0.3*4 +0.2*4*3 +0.1*2 = 3.8

Business Performance Criteria 5
Cape town proposal has a relative weighting of 3.8, which is higher than 3.3 of the
current online support centres. The proposal should, therefore, be implemented to ensure
efficiency in the whole operations of the organization.
Ranking explanation
Cost – the two sources vary in terms of cost. The current online centre has a production cost of
$4,113,600, which is higher than that of Cape town proposal ($3,256,000). The lower production
cost may increase the chances of maximizing the profits by the company thus considered to be
very good. Cost is the most determinant factor the determines whether customers buy from a
business premise or not. A business offering its services at a lower cost will always be the
customer’s choice when they need to buy. This, therefore, makes it have the highest ratio among
the three performance criteria (Lazzolino, Laise, & Marraro, 2012; Ramanathan, 2012).
Quality, speed and dependability – the current online centre provides services at high speed,
making this criterion to be among the three reasons as to why customers stick to the company.
Many customers always prefer to buy in business premises where they can be served faster. This
criterion, however, cannot outdo the cost criteria. Quality is relative to importance as well as
dependability. All the three criteria can be ranked equally as all are determined by customer
choice of interest (Wan, Huynh, Nakamori, & Murai, 2011; Winter & Lasch, 2016).
Flexibility – customers can still stick to a given business set up provided they are satisfied by
either one or all the above criteria. Flexibility to a large extent affects the business owner as they
may ensure this in order to minimize losses and make profits (Dhanisetty, Verhagen, & Curran,
2018).

Business Performance Criteria 6
Conclusion
The company needs to attach weight to each factor depending on how the factors add value to
the business in order to decide correctly.

Business Performance Criteria 7
References
Altiok, T. (2012). Performance analysis of manufacturing systems. Springer Science \& Business
Media.
Benlian, A., & Hess, T. (2011). Comparing the relative importance of evaluation criteria in
proprietary and open-source enterprise application software selection--a conjoint study of
ERP and Office systems. Information Systems Journal, 503-525.
Dhanisetty, V. V., Verhagen, W., & Curran, R. (2018). Multi-criteria weighted decision making
for operational maintenance processes. Journal of Air Transport Management, 152-164.
Lazzolino, G., Laise, D., & Marraro, L. (2012). Business multicriteria performance analysis: a
tutorial. Benchmarking: An International Journal.
Ramanathan, R. (2012). An exploratory study of marketing, physical and people related
performance criteria in hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management.
Wan, H.-B., Huynh, V.-N., Nakamori, Y., & Murai, T. (2011). On prioritized weighted
aggregation in multi-criteria decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 812-
823.
Winter, S., & Lasch, R. (2016). Environmental and social criteria in supplier evaluation--Lessons
from the fashion and apparel industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175-190.
Wu, H.-H., & Hsieh, S.-M. (2012). case study of applying importance-performance analysis in
orthopedic department to evaluate service quality. International Journal of Management
and Decision Making, 50-68.

Business Performance Criteria 8