# Customer Satisfaction Programme: [Organization or product]

> A programme plan for monitoring and measuring customer satisfaction:
> purpose and scope, which measures to use (CSAT, NPS, CES), survey
> design, sampling and margin of error, analysis, reporting and how to
> close the loop with customers and with improvement actions. Structure
> aligned with ISO 10004:2018, Quality management, Customer
> satisfaction, Guidelines for monitoring and measuring (current
> edition, confirmed in 2023, as checked in October 2026). Replace every
> `[bracketed]` value and every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Decide first what decisions the results will drive (section 1). A
  survey nobody acts on teaches customers that answering is pointless.
- Use one main measure per touchpoint. Mixing CSAT, NPS and CES in
  every survey makes surveys long and results hard to compare.
- Compute the sample in section 4 before launch, so that nobody reads
  meaning into a two-point move that is inside the margin of error.
- Common pitfall: reporting the score and stopping there. Section 6
  (closing the loop) is where value is created.
- Survey answers are personal data when linked to a person. Check your
  privacy notice, lawful basis and consent rules for survey email and
  follow-up calls before launch. This is not legal advice.
- Related: complaints handling (`compliance/iso-10002-complaints`),
  support escalation policy (`customer-success/support-escalation-policy`),
  health score model (`customer-success/health-score-model`),
  journey map (`product/journey-map`).
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Change the version when a question, scale or sampling rule changes, because results before and after are not directly comparable. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [CX-PRG-001] |
| Version | [1.0] |
| Status | [Draft / Approved] |
| Owner | [@customer-experience-lead] |
| Reviewers | [@head-of-support], [@product-analytics], [@data-protection-officer] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Next review | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Internal] |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 *(Example)* | 2026-10-30 | Customer experience lead | First programme design |

## 1. Purpose, objectives and scope

<!-- Guidance: ISO 10004 clause 6 starts the planning with purpose, objectives, scope and frequency. Write objectives as decisions or improvements, not as "measure satisfaction". -->

| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Purpose | [*Example:* find and fix the touchpoints that most reduce customer satisfaction and loyalty] |
| Objectives | [*Example:* raise support CSAT from 84% to 88% by 2027-06-30; cut repeat contacts by a quarter] |
| Customers in scope | [*Example:* paying business customers, all regions] |
| Out of scope | [*Example:* trial users, internal users] |
| Frequency | [Transactional: after each event; relationship: twice a year] |
| Decision owners | [Who acts on the results] |

## 2. Measures

<!-- Guidance: Choose the measure that fits the question. Keep the wording fixed once chosen. -->

| Measure | Question it answers | Typical use | Scale and score *(Example)* |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSAT (customer satisfaction) | How satisfied was the customer with this interaction or product? | After a support case, delivery or onboarding | 1 to 5; score = share of 4 and 5 answers |
| NPS (Net Promoter Score) | How likely is the customer to recommend us? | Relationship survey, twice a year | 0 to 10; promoters 9 to 10, passives 7 to 8, detractors 0 to 6; score = % promoters minus % detractors |
| CES (customer effort) | How easy was it to get what the customer needed? | After support or self-service tasks | 1 to 7 agreement; score = share of 5 to 7 answers |
| Open comment | Why did the customer answer that way? | Every survey | Free text, coded into themes |

Notes on the measures:

- NPS uses the standard recommendation question on a 0 to 10 scale as
  published by its owners; Net Promoter, NPS and Net Promoter System
  are registered trademarks and Net Promoter Score is a service mark of
  Bain & Company, Inc., NICE Systems, Inc. and Fred Reichheld.
- Customer effort measures were popularised by Dixon, Freeman and
  Toman, "Stop Trying to Delight Your Customers", Harvard Business
  Review, July to August 2010. Write your own statement wording and
  keep it fixed.
- Indirect indicators (repeat contacts, complaints, returns, renewal
  rate) complement surveys and need no extra questions.

## 3. Survey design

<!-- Guidance: Short surveys get more and better answers. One score question, one "why" question and at most two optional ones. Test the survey with five customers before launch. -->

| ID | Survey | Trigger | Channel | Questions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVY-01 *(Example)* | Support CSAT | Case closed | Email link, in-app | CSAT score, "What is the main reason for your score?" |
| SVY-02 *(Example)* | Relationship NPS | Every 6 months per contact | Email | NPS, reason, "What one thing should we improve?" |
| SVY-03 *(Example)* | Self-service CES | Help article or task completed | In-app | CES statement, optional comment |
| SVY-[NN] | [Survey] | [Trigger] | [Channel] | [Questions] |

Design rules:

- Neutral wording; no leading phrases such as "How great was our service?".
- Label every scale point or both ends; keep scale direction the same
  in all surveys.
- Do not ask the same person more than [once every 90 days] across all
  surveys (survey fatigue rule).
- Offer the survey in the customer's language and in an accessible
  format.
- Staff must not ask customers for a particular score.

## 4. Sampling and margin of error

<!-- Guidance: For a proportion such as CSAT, the sample needed for a margin of error E at 95% confidence is about n0 = 1.96 squared x p x (1 minus p) / E squared, with p = 0.5 as the cautious case. For a finite population N, use n = n0 / (1 + (n0 minus 1) / N). Invitations needed = n / expected response rate. -->

*Example:* relationship survey for N = 2,000 customer contacts, target
margin of error 5 percentage points at 95% confidence, p = 0.5.

| Step | Value |
|---|---|
| n0 for an unlimited population | 385 responses |
| Adjusted for N = 2,000 | 323 responses |
| Expected response rate | 20% |
| Invitations needed | 1,615 (most of the population, so invite everyone) |

With the 400 responses actually received in the *Example* below, the
margin of error for a proportion is about 4.9 points (4.4 points with
the finite population correction for N = 2,000). NPS has a wider margin
than a single proportion: for 45% promoters and 20% detractors with 400
responses it is about 7.5 points (6.7 with the correction), so the move
from +22 to +25 in section 5 is not evidence of change.

Bias checks: compare responders with non-responders by segment, size
and region; weight or report separately if one group is badly
under-represented.

## 5. Analysis and reporting

<!-- Guidance: Report the score with its sample size and margin, the trend, the top themes from comments and the actions taken. Segment by touchpoint and customer type. -->

*Example* results for 2026-H2 (fictional):

| Measure | Responses | Result | Previous | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support CSAT | 520 | 84.0% (437 of 520 scored 4 or 5) | 82.5% | Within margin, no clear change |
| Relationship NPS | 400 | +25 (45% promoters, 35% passives, 20% detractors) | +22 | Within margin |
| Self-service CES | 300 | 77.0% (231 of 300 agreed 5 to 7) | n/a | First measurement |

Top comment themes *(Example)*: slow handover between support tiers
(31% of negative comments), unclear invoices (18%), praise for named
agents (24% of positive comments).

| Report | Audience | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Dashboard by touchpoint | Team leads | Weekly |
| Programme report with themes and actions | Leadership, management review (`compliance/management-review`) | Quarterly |
| Customer-facing "you said, we did" | Customers | Twice a year |

## 6. Closing the loop

<!-- Guidance: Inner loop: follow up with the individual customer. Outer loop: fix the cause for all customers. Both need owners and time limits. -->

### 6.1 Inner loop (individual customers)

| Trigger | Action | Owner | Within |
|---|---|---|---|
| CSAT 1 or 2, or NPS 0 to 6 with a comment | Contact the customer, listen, agree a fix | Team lead or CSM | 2 business days |
| Comment describes a complaint | Log it in the complaints process | Team lead | 1 business day |
| Promoter who agrees to be contacted | Thank them; ask about a reference only with consent | CSM | 10 business days |

### 6.2 Outer loop (causes)

| ID | Theme | Evidence | Action | Owner | Due | Result measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACT-01 *(Example)* | Slow tier handover | 31% of negative comments | Add warm handover for P2 cases in the escalation policy | Head of support | 2027-01-31 | CSAT for escalated cases |
| ACT-02 *(Example)* | Unclear invoices | 18% of negative comments | Redesign invoice layout | Finance operations | 2027-03-31 | Billing contacts per 100 invoices |
| ACT-[NN] | [Theme] | [Evidence] | [Action] | [Owner] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Measure] |

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  A["Survey response"] --> B{"Low score?"}
  B -->|"Yes"| C["Inner loop: contact customer"]
  B -->|"No"| D["Store and code comment"]
  C --> D
  D --> E["Quarterly theme analysis"]
  E --> F["Outer loop: improvement action"]
  F --> G["Measure again next cycle"]
  G --> A
```

## 7. Governance, ethics and data protection

<!-- Guidance: Agree these rules before the first survey goes out. -->

| Topic | Rule |
|---|---|
| Consent and lawful basis | [Confirmed by data protection officer; record the basis per survey] |
| Anonymity | [State in each invitation whether answers are anonymous, confidential or linked to the account] |
| Retention | [Raw responses kept for N months; aggregated results kept longer] |
| Incentives | [None, or a small charity donation per response; never tied to the score] |
| Use in targets | Scores may be team goals, never a reason to pressure customers |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with ISO 10004:2018, Quality management, Customer
satisfaction, Guidelines for monitoring and measuring (planning,
design and development of the process in clause 6). Clause numbers
other than clause 6 are not cited because the public table of contents
could not be checked in full. All explanations, tables, formulas and
examples are original wording and reproduce no text from the standard.
As of October 2026 the 2018 edition is current (confirmed in 2023);
check for a newer edition before use. Net Promoter, NPS and Net
Promoter System are registered trademarks and Net Promoter Score is a
service mark of Bain & Company, Inc., NICE Systems, Inc. and Fred
Reichheld; this template is not endorsed by them.

Official text: ISO, purchase or licensed access:
https://www.iso.org/standard/71582.html (also available from national
standards bodies).

Template licence: MIT.