Lecture-Capture Complaints at Westfield University
Westfield University's IT department has a relationship manager for each of its six faculties. Over 12 months, overall student satisfaction with IT fell from 78% to 61%, and complaints about the lecture-capture service rose 240%. A student petition with 1,800 signatures demands 'reliable recordings and someone who listens'. The IT director's response is to commission another satisfaction survey and send service desk staff on a two-day customer service course. The relationship managers have data the director has not seen: average complaint response time is six days; 40% of tickets are closed without confirming resolution with the user; only 12% of faculty have met their relationship manager in the past year; and the lecture-capture vendor has missed its availability target in five of the last six months, though no service credits have been claimed. The relationship managers are invited to propose a 90-day improvement plan with a modest budget.
1. Critique the IT director's proposed response (another survey and customer service training). What diagnostic evidence should the relationship managers gather instead, and why?
Read the worked answer
The director's response treats symptoms. Another survey may repeat the same measurement bias, and generic customer service training will not fix a six-day complaint response or unconfirmed ticket closure. The relationship managers already hold better evidence. Complaint themes show what is failing; a 240% rise in lecture-capture complaints points to a service and vendor performance issue. The 40% of tickets closed without confirmation is a process and relationship failure, because users do not feel heard. The 12% meeting coverage shows the relationship model is not operating. The vendor's five misses in six months without claiming credits shows service level management is not enforcing the agreement. Instead of another survey, triangulate quantitative data with qualitative evidence: student focus groups, faculty interviews, staff shadowing, and journey mapping of the lecture-capture experience. Segment by faculty and course. The question is not 'are students satisfied?' but 'where and why does the relationship break down?' That diagnosis should precede any training or survey spend.
2. Design a 90-day improvement plan with prioritised actions and measures that show relationship improvement, not just satisfaction scores.
Read the worked answer
Use 90 days to fix visible failures and build a feedback loop. Weeks 1–2: acknowledge the petition publicly, set a complaint response standard of two working days, and require closure confirmation for all tickets. Weeks 2–6: review the lecture-capture vendor against its SLA, claim service credits, and agree a remediation plan; run student and faculty forums in each faculty; fix the top three complaint themes. Weeks 6–12: introduce a monthly relationship review between each faculty and its relationship manager, map the student journey for lecture capture, and deliver targeted listening and empathy training for service desk and relationship staff, not generic customer service. Measures should include leading indicators - complaint response time, closure confirmation rate, meetings held, vendor availability, backlog - and lagging indicators such as CSAT, NPS, complaint volume, and petition follow-up. Report weekly to the director. The aim is to show that the relationship is being repaired, not just that a survey score moved.
3. How should complaints be handled as a relationship activity, and what should the relationship manager do versus the service desk?
Read the worked answer
Treat complaints as moments of truth and opportunities to repair trust. The service desk should own intake, logging, triage, resolution, and closure confirmation, with a standard that the user confirms resolution. The relationship manager should own escalated or repeated complaints, relationship recovery, and root-cause advocacy across services. In this case, the RM should meet student representatives and faculty leads, close the loop on the petition, and ensure complaint themes feed service design and vendor management. The RM should not take over every ticket; that would undermine the service desk and hide systemic issues. Instead, the RM should ensure complaint data flows into relationship reviews and that the service desk has the authority and skills to resolve front-line issues. A complaint that is closed without confirmation is not resolved; it is suppressed. Relationship management uses complaints as voice-of-the-customer input, while service level management and continual improvement use them to change the service.