“Issues become problems that equal time wasted.” Everyone likely can cite cases when a small customer service issue mushroomed because it couldn’t be promptly resolved. Agents list “resolves issues quickly” among the very top criteria they use in judging an insurance company.

The 2009 PIA Company Performance Survey let agents score their companies on speedy resolution, plus two other service-related items (out of 20 items total). Companies scored highest for accuracy, lowest for speed. On a 10-point scale, companies’ overall average is 7.8 for “highly accurate—few errors,” 7.6 for “customer service oriented” and 7.4 for “resolves issues quickly.”

These scores reflect the average rating for all 77 companies included in the survey. The overall average performance score was 7.38 (for all companies, on all performance items combined).

Importance of speed. The PIA Benchmark Survey, administered prior to the 2009 PIA Company Performance Survey, asked agents how “important” they rate a performance item (on a 10-point scale) when they evaluate a specific company relationship. The overall average Benchmark importance rating (for all 35 items) was 8.4.

Several service-related performance items were tested. Of these, “Resolves issues quickly” rated highest in “importance,” at 9.31. In fact, out of all 35 items tested, speedy resolution ranks No. 3 in importance to agents.

Wherever an item’s importance scores higher, relative to carriers’ overall performance, companies may see an opportunity to better align their behavior with their agents’ expectations. In the service area, opportunity exists to effect speedier resolution of issues, an extremely high priority from agents’ standpoint.

Agent comments. Agents were asked on the Company Performance Survey to provide comments naming a company’s main strength and something they’d like the company to improve. Topics relating to the service category accounted for 8 percent of all comments. Overall, companies get more positive comments about service, by a 3-to-2 margin, than improvement suggestions.

Agent satisfaction, as measured by comment feedback, is significantly greater for personal-lines units’ service (62/38 positive) than commercial-lines units (40/60).

Although billing was not included as a separate performance item, enough members brought up billing and payment issues to form a separate comment topic. These comments trend negative by almost 4-to-1.

What agents say. Service comments tend to focus on company processes, accuracy, customer service staff, timeliness and problem-solving. We’ll also look at comments about company service centers and billing.

Agents who see customer service as a company’s chief strength sometime describe the total package: "Strong procedures. Intellect when answering questions. Speed to resolve a problem.” “Customer service—very efficient, very friendly and very knowledgeable.”

Business issues agents cite include retention and the overall value proposition they sell: “Retains good customers, excellent customer service, very responsive staff.” “Customer care, customer value.

”Service drives business decisions. A company’s service level definitely affects where business gets placed: “I have not worked with (company name) that much because of terrible agent service.”

At a minimum, agents need strong processes and consistent accuracy: “Few to no errors in quoting and issuing, great customer service.” “(Improve) Servicing and correct issuance of policies and endorsements.” Because agents experience a range of service levels from multiple companies, they form definite ideas about acceptability: “(Improve) Processing changes on time and accurately—this is the worst company I have ever dealt with in this area.”

Need for speed. Timeliness is required in every area of customer service, starting with processing: “(Strength) Efficiency in getting policies and endorsements out.” “Business is processed very quickly” “Mistakes take six months to fix.”

Speedy personal response also is a major issue. It sometimes is valued by an agent as a carrier’s main strength: “Gets back to you quickly.” “Quick response time.” “Customer service slow in responding.”

Agents’ perception of customer service often rests partly or wholly on a company’s service to the agency itself: “Ability to answer agents’ needs and questions quickly and accurately.” “(Strength) Agent phone support.” “(Improve) Agency customer service, no one gets back to you."

Human factors, moral quotient. Beyond simple accessibility and prompt responses, agents value human factors that include cooperation (working with the agent), a friendly, helpful manner and (especially) good problem-solving: “Can talk to customer service with hardly any waiting and they will work with you.” “You can talk to them about a problem and they will try to reach an agreement with all parties involved.” “(Improve) Customer service being more willing to help.

”Sometimes, agents imply a quasi-moral component to company service: “Excellent customer service. Fair and honest.” “True service. They always try to do the right thing.”

No clear directions. A few agents cite lack of clear, consistent procedures, preventing quick, decisive solutions when service problems arise: “Very confusing to understand who to go to for what: siloed structure.” “Improve: consistency with customer service rep responses. An agent will receive a different response from customer service with each phone call.”

Service centers—boon or bane? Agents’ comments on service centers are mainly negative: “(Improve) Customer service in the service center. Many times endorsements are processed incorrectly and I have to call to get them corrected.” “Service center staff—lots of turnover and slow to respond.” (Improve) “More agent alerts regarding what service center is doing with our clients.”

Billing, payment issues. A number of service issues involve billing and payments. Agents like customer-friendly payment options: “Strength—low down payment, monthly pay.” “Multitude of payment options.”When it comes to the actual billings, confusion sometimes reigns: (Improve) “Billing—theirs is difficult for the client to understand, invoices make little sense.” “Needs tremendous improvement on their billing, payments; totally confusing.”

As a result, both agents and clients need strong company processes and support: “Billing issues must be resolved on the technology side.” “Better access to billing and payment information (for both agents and clients) and less confusing bills.”

Conclusion. A major takeaway for insurance companies is the gap between the value agents place on speedy service and what they actually experience from the average company. The smart company will look at its own procedures and determine whether it can significantly improve its service profile by boosting response time. Other potential areas for examination: clear direction to agents on how to address problems; training for service staff; and whether the average company executive can interpret one of its bills.—Kiehl