Interpreting the results.
A reasoned analysis: comparisons between groups of locations, trends over time, an analysis of observations, critical issues and best practices. It concludes with useful recommendations for management.
View report extractsThe report: analysis, interpretation, priorities.
From comparisons between outlets and time periods to the analysis of customer behaviour: an analysis designed to assist management in making decisions.
Report extracts · fictitious figures
All figures, locations, time periods, comments and scenarios on these pages have been created from scratch for demonstration purposes. They are neither disguised real data nor transcriptions of project documents. The images are generated illustrative scenes, not photographs of actual surveys. The extracts demonstrate the method of analysis, not client results.
View the data.
Overviews and comparisons by category, location and area; detailed indicators and the ability to view individual visits. Filters and content are project- and authorisation-specific.
View examples of the dashboardsInside the reportFrom the big picture
From the big picture
to analysing behaviour.
Six extracts illustrate different levels of analysis. The full report is structured around the project objectives, the characteristics of the network and the survey scenarios.
MYSTERYMAN · Service analysisNetwork and cluster · 01 / 06
The network average conceals
different service profiles.
Cluster P stands out in terms of spaces and the environment, whilst Cluster Q excels in customer service. The total score must be broken down to identify the area requiring improvement.
9 fictitious locations432 simulated visits3 cluster8 cycles
The overall profile of the network
65.3/100
Demonstration score
Demonstration score
Each area includes four indicators. The overall score assigns equal weighting to the three areas.
Comparison with conventional groups
| Cluster | Image | Support | Checkout | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cluster P3 locations · 144 visits | 80.0 | 55.4 | 62.0 | 65.8 |
| Cluster Q3 locations · 144 visits | 62.5 | 72.0 | 53.6 | 62.7 |
| Cluster R3 locations · 144 visits | 75.7 | 67.2 | 58.9 | 67.2 |
| Network | 72.7 | 64.9 | 58.2 | 65.3 |
What emerges from the comparison
Cluster Q offers more robust support than the other groups, but receives a lower rating for the final stage. Cluster P shows the opposite pattern: the environment alone does not guarantee good customer care.
Sample constructed solely for illustrative purposes: 6 visits per location in each of the 8 cycles, with identical cluster bases. It does not reflect the scale, volume or results of Mystery Man’s operations.
Sample extract · simulated data · no identifiable customers01 / 06
MYSTERYMAN · Service analysisDevelopment over time · 02 / 06
The total figure changes very little.
The individual sections follow different paths.
In the demonstration sample, a comparison between the first and last periods shows an improvement in customer service and a decline in checkout performance. These two trends offset each other in the overall result.
ImageSupportCheckoutOverview
Values per cycle and survey criteria
| Cycle | Image | Support | Checkout | Overview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C01 | 74.5 | 56.0 | 72.2 | 67.6 |
| C02 | 75.0 | 58.3 | 63.4 | 65.6 |
| C03 | 72.2 | 57.4 | 56.5 | 62.0 |
| C04 | 73.6 | 57.4 | 64.8 | 65.3 |
| C05 | 71.8 | 67.6 | 56.9 | 65.4 |
| C06 | 72.7 | 65.3 | 55.6 | 64.5 |
| C07 | 70.4 | 78.2 | 48.6 | 65.7 |
| C08 | 71.8 | 78.7 | 47.2 | 65.9 |
Comparison of the first and last periods
Image and environment-3.7 points
74.8 → 71.1
Support+21.3 points
57.2 → 78.5
Invoice and final report-19.9 points
67.8 → 47.9
Overview-0.8 points
66.6 → 65.8
How to interpret a variation
We check which indicators are changing, the composition of the sample and the consistency of the criteria. If a checklist changes, the comparison must be limited to comparable items: a difference in score, on its own, does not prove the effect of an intervention.
C01–C08 denote standard cycles, without actual dates. Each period comprises two cycles. 108 visits per period; the same criteria and locations are used in the example. Variations are calculated based on unrounded values.
Sample extract · simulated data · no identifiable customers02 / 06
MYSTERYMAN · Service analysisDetails of indicators · 03 / 06
Being polite and prompt is not the only measure of
the quality of the relationship.
Individual behaviours help to clarify the score for each area: helpfulness, initiative, listening skills and proactive suggestions are distinct categories.
Behaviour observedNot observed
Image and environment
Q01 Overview of the sections85.2%
368 yes · 64 no · total 432
Q02 Order and tidiness75.7%
327 yes · 105 no · total 432
Q03 Clear focus62.5%
270 yes · 162 no · total 432
Q04 Easy self-guided tour67.6%
292 yes · 140 no · total 432
Support
Q05 Courtesy during customer service88.4%
382 yes · 50 no · base 432
Q06 Unsolicited assistance53.7%
232 yes · 200 no · total 432
Q07 In-depth requirements74.3%
321 yes · 111 no · total 432
Q08 Proposed alternative43.1%
93 yes · 123 no · total 216 · First solution not feasible
Invoice and final report
Q09 Conclusion without further delay86.1%
372 yes · 60 no · total 432
Q10 Terms and conditions clearly explained71.5%
309 yes · 123 no · total 432
Q11 Complete concluding information36.1%
78 yes · 138 no · base 216 · In-depth analysis planned
Q12 Final comprehension check38.9%
168 yes · 264 no · total 432
Positive response rates, with explicit numerators and denominators. These do not constitute a conversion funnel and do not quantify lost sales. The area scores are simple averages of the four relevant percentages.
Sample extract · simulated data · no identifiable customers03 / 06
MYSTERYMAN · Service analysisQualitative analysis · scenario SC-41 · 04 / 06
Information provided.
The next steps remain to be clarified.
The visit report shifts the focus from the mere presence of signage to its ability to guide visitors. For management, the question is which uncertainties to address before investing in new signage.
What to focus on during the assessment
Visibility of signage from the point of entry, recognisability of the first step and consistency across the various signage elements. A photograph alone does not allow for an assessment of how well the route is understood.
The orientation session requires you to get in touch.
In this scenario, customer support resolves the uncertainty. The key point to assess is the independence of the initial enquiry, distinct from the courtesy of the response.
A hierarchy to be verified.
The hypothesis is that the instructions do not make the sequence clear. Other explanations are possible, such as the entry point or a specific difficulty: these must be checked before extending the conclusion to the wider network.
Test before rolling out.
Test an initial, clear message within a limited scope. Compare the ability to start the process independently and categorise requests for clarification, whilst keeping the scenario the same.
Proposed decision for management
Authorise a review of the access path with Operations and Communications. Only roll out the solution once it has been verified that it reduces uncertainty without introducing new ambiguities.
The comment is fictitious; it is not a quote from the original report. It is an example of qualitative analysis: it is not used to calculate the KPIs of the preceding pages and does not indicate a frequency of occurrence on the web.
Sample extract · simulated data · no identifiable customers04 / 06
MYSTERYMAN · Service analysisQualitative reading · scenarios SC-43 / SC-44 · 05 / 06
Offering a choice is a gesture.
Justifying that choice is a service.
Two illustrative comments highlight the comprehensiveness of the dialogue. It is not enough simply to count the options: one must understand whether they are relevant to the customer’s needs and whether the customer understands how to proceed.
The sequence to follow
- Clarify the priority constraint
- Justify the proposal
- Agree on the next step
Comparison of fictitious comments
- SC-43 · In-depth analysis of the need
- ‘I explain that the first option does not meet my needs. I am presented with another option, but I am not asked which aspect of my request is essential.’
- SC-43 · Rationale for the proposal
- ‘I’ve been given a description of the alternative. Ultimately, it’s not clear to me how this resolves the issue I had raised.’
- SC-44 · Effective Behaviour
- ‘The person rephrases my request, compares two options in relation to my need and asks me if the difference is clear before continuing.’
- SC-44 · Conclusion of the interaction
- ‘The next step is explained to me, along with who will be handling it. I can confirm that I have understood before the interview ends.’
Availability and quality of the offering.
In both scenarios, an alternative is presented. Only the second comment explicitly states the link between the need, the selection criterion and the next step. A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ does not fully capture this difference.
A sequence, not a script.
The best practice to follow is to verify the need, provide motivation and confirm the findings. Training should use examples of dialogue and observable criteria, without imposing identical formulas on different people and contexts.
Assess the relevance.
In the following comparable scenarios, check separately the rewording, reasoning and clarity of the follow-up. Assess the notes alongside the scores, distinguishing between failure to observe and non-applicability.
Proposed decision for management
Agree on a test of the dialogue sequence with the training team and service managers. Check its applicability in different contexts before updating the network standards.
These two scenarios are designed to illustrate a qualitative difference. They do not indicate how often this occurs online and do not allow for the estimation of satisfaction, conversions or revenue. Comments, interpretations and actions are entirely for illustrative purposes.
Sample extract · simulated data · no identifiable customers05 / 06
MYSTERYMAN · Service analysisManagement Agenda · 06 / 06
An agenda for management.
Justified priorities, accountability and monitoring.
The analysis combines numerical data with an interpretation of behaviour: it highlights critical issues, distinguishes between different situations and identifies best practices to be shared.
Priority: support
Initial contact
Numerical example: 53.7% spontaneous assistanceFictitious observation
The person stops in the reception area. The staff greet them, but the conversation regarding their needs only begins after an explicit question is asked.
Interpretation
Customer recognition is in place; case handling is not automatic. This incident alone does not allow the cause to be attributed to carelessness or operational workload.
Implementation and verification
Define how to recognise an implicit request and how to indicate that the matter has been taken on, even whilst carrying out another task.
Identify again who initiates contact and distinguish between staff who are busy and those who are available.
Priority: proposal
Handling unavailability
Numerical example: 43.1 per cent of proposed alternativesFictitious observation
The first option does not meet an explicit requirement. Another possibility is presented, without asking which aspect is essential to the person.
Interpretation
The existence of an alternative does not prove its relevance. A distinction must be made between the number of proposals and the ability to justify them in relation to the need.
Implementation and verification
Please provide a question regarding the priority constraint and an explanation of the differences between the options.
Compare the scenarios with the first unworkable solution, whilst keeping the basis of the relevant cases explicit.
Priority: clarity
Clarity in the conclusion
Numerical example: 36.1% of conclusive information is completeFictitious observation
The response addresses the immediate enquiry. At the end, a next step is indicated, without clarifying who will take charge of it or how to receive confirmation.
Interpretation
The formal closure of the service and its continuity are two distinct matters. The note suggests uncertainty regarding the future of the service; it does not indicate any abandonment or dissatisfaction.
Implementation and verification
Summarise the action, responsibilities and confirmation procedures; verify these elements separately from the speed of response.
Assess the completion times, clarity of the terms and conditions, and completeness of the instructions separately.
A best practice worth promoting
Listen first, then advise.
Before comparing two options, staff rephrase the request. They explain a difference that is relevant to the choice and ask the person to confirm the next step.
The report can turn this behaviour into a training reference: questions about needs, a comparison of options and the rationale behind the proposal.
Decisions to be discussed · example agenda
| Priorities and rationale | Decision requested | Roles involved | Check before extending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity of the follow-up Avoid sections where no explicit liability is stated. | Define the minimum requirements for completion and test them in a limited scope. | Operations Management and Service Managers. | Action, point of contact and confirmation are noted; applicable indicators are compared. |
| Taking on the case A greeting does not constitute the start of customer service. | Agree on how to identify the need and how to communicate expectations. | Network managers and training. | Distinguish between spontaneous initiatives, committed staff and explicit requests. |
| Relevance of the proposal An alternative may not resolve the constraint. | Test the ‘need–motivation–confirmation’ sequence illustrated in scenario SC-44. | Training and service managers. | Comments are assessed using consistent criteria; ratings are calibrated before comparison. |
The order is a qualitative proposal based on the relevance of the steps described, not an estimate of financial return. Timelines, resources and success thresholds must be defined in consultation with management; the subsequent comparison does not, in itself, demonstrate a causal relationship.
The notes are entirely fictional examples and do not describe real events. The figures are also simulated. Priorities and actions are examples of interpretation, to be discussed with management in line with the objectives.
Sample extract · simulated data · no identifiable customers06 / 06
The calculation method is explained in the text.
In these illustrations, each indicator represents the proportion of positive responses among applicable cases only. Each area is the average of four indicators; the total is the average of the three areas. Comparisons, time series and summaries are derived from the same simulated sample. In real-world projects, weights, bases and comparison rules are defined prior to the survey.
Let’s discuss your project.
Which aspects of the service would you like to understand better? Let’s start with your objectives to define an assessment programme that will benefit your organisation.
Comment fields · fictitious entries