Merger Review Benchmarking Report - Chapter 8

Table of Content

This chapter, which complements Chapter 7 - Interviews with the Private Bar, is a compilation of data and comments received from outside clients and stakeholders since the implementation of fees for merger related services on November 3, 1997.⁷⁰ The Bureau regularly receives this information on the feedback leaflets that stakeholders complete and return. The chapter also summarizes letters received over the same period addressed to various members of the Mergers Branch about specific cases.

When developing the fee and service standards policy in 1997, the Bureau also included feedback mechanisms to ensure that those who sought services or were bound by regulatory processes for which a fee applied had timely and systematic opportunities to provide ongoing input regarding service levels and quality. These mechanisms include feedback leaflets, a complaint mechanism ⁷¹ and periodic fora with stakeholders.

Feedback leaflets (with self-addressed stamped envelopes) are sent to stakeholders along with the service requested (advance ruling certificate, prenotification response, advisory opinions). These cards enable the Bureau to gauge the level of satisfaction of its clients, and to ensure that the Bureau provides the best service possible in the most efficient and professional manner. Analysis of feedback leaflets is one of several methods the Bureau uses to assess stakeholder satisfaction.

Feedback Leaflet

Below are tables that include complete details about all of the feedback leaflets the Bureau received between November 1997 and March 31, 2000 that relate to merger review. During this period, the Bureau received 835 requests for merger review services. Stakeholders returned 206 feedback leaflets, which represent comments on 25 percent of the services requested.

The following table indicates the type of service requested, whether the client received the service within the specified time (service standards) and the quality of service.

 

Table 1. Feedback leaflets Received from November 1997 to March 2000

Service	Total	Service Rendered Within Specified Time		Quality of Service
		Yes	No	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Advance ruling certificate	120	108	11	86	28	4	1
Pre-merger notification filing	48	43	5	28	16	2	2
Pre-merger notification filing and advance ruling certificate	35	34	1	29	3	0	1
Advisory opinion	3	2	1	1	2	0	0
Total	20672	187	18	144	49	6	4
Percentage	100%	91%	9%	70%	24%	3%	2%

(Note: one card had no indication of the service standard and two had no indication of the quality of work received. A number of these feedback leaflets apply to more than one service, as more than one service can be involved in the same request. For example, one request can involve an advance ruling certificate and a prenotification.)

Table 1 indicates that service standards were met in 91 percent of the cases in which a feedback leaflets was returned, which is in line with the Bureau’s overall performance as reported in previous Annual Reports. The quality of service was considered to be "excellent" in 70 percent of cases and "good" in a further 24 percent, again when a card was returned. The information does not indicate whether the cases were non-complex, complex or very complex.

The question⁷³ on the feedback leaflets about quality of service is intended to measure stakeholder satisfaction with the Bureau’s service (e.g. accessibility and timeliness) and level of analysis. It is apparent, however, that the majority of comments on the feedback leaflets related to timing and not the other components of quality service. (This is an indication that the Bureau should modify the feedback leaflets to focus on specific aspects of quality, such as accessibility, client service, etc.)

The study also uncovered the differences in response between those cases where standards were met and those where they were not.

Table 2 indicates the quality of service associated with each of the services when service standards were met. The quality of service can be rated as excellent, good, fair or poor.

Table 2. Service Standards Met, 1997 to March 2000<

Service	Total	Quality of Service
		Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Advance ruling certificate	108	82	23	2	1
Pre-merger notification filing	43	27	15	1	0
Pre-merger notification filing and advance ruling certificate	34	29	3	0	0
Advisory opinion	2	1	1	0	0
Total	187	139	42	3	1
Percentage	100%	73%	23%	1.5%	.5%

Stakeholders rated the service as excellent in 73 percent of cases and as good in 23 percent of cases. Only four cards indicated that the service was fair or poor despite the fact that, in their opinion, service standards had been met.

Table 3 indicates the quality of service associated with each of the services when the service standards were not met.

Table 3. Service Standards Not Met, 1997 to March 2000

Service	Total	Quality of Service
		Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Advance ruling certificate	11	4	5	2	0
Pre-merger notification filing	5	1	1	1	2
Pre-merger notification filing and advance ruling certificate	1	0	0	0	1
Advisory opinion	1	0	1	0	0
Totals	18	5	7	3	3
Percentage	100%	27%	39%	17%	17%

Out of a total of 206 feedback leaflets, only 18 indicated that the service standards were not met. It is important to note that even in these 18 cases, the quality of service was rated as excellent or good in two thirds of the cases.

It would, therefore, appear that meeting or not meeting the service standard for time of reply is not the only determinant of quality of service and that other factors associated with quality of service, such as quality of analysis, accessibility and client service are also important.

In addition, timeliness for the purposes of the feedback leaflets means meeting the service standard, and in this regard the performance is excellent. However, this definition of timeliness should not be confused with the actual time it takes to complete the review about which, as noted in Chapter 7 - Interviews with the Private Bar, lawyers have expressed some concerns.

Comments from Stakeholders

The last field of the feedback leaflets is the comments field. This field was created so stakeholders could provide any additional comments to the Bureau related to the specific service for which the card was completed. It is assumed that parties who do not provide their name and telephone number wish to remain anonymous.

The comments field was completed on 123 cards, or 59.7 percent of the 206 cards received. Of these, 93 cards, or 76percent, contained positive comments, 25 cards, or 20 percent, contained negative comments, and 5 cards contained general comments (see Table 4).

Table 4. Feedback leaflets with Comments

	Total Cards with Comments	PositiveComments	Negative Comments	General Comments
Comments when service standards met	111	89 (80%)	17 (15%)	5 (5%)
Comments when service standards not met	12	4 (33%)	8 (67%)	---
Total	123 (100%)	93 (76%)	25 (20%)	5 (5%)

The comments included on the cards fall into the same two themes that emerged in the interviews with the private bar: timeliness and consistency/predictability.

In addition to feedback leaflets, employees of the Mergers Branch occasionally receive letters from stakeholders related to specific files. In fiscal year 1999–2000, the Branch received 16 such letters, all directed to an individual or a group of individuals who worked on a specific transaction and all containing positive feedback.

Timeliness

Most of the written comments refer mainly to issues of timeliness rather than the level of analysis of the case. Most stakeholders were quite pleased with the responsiveness of officers, as evidenced by the following comments: "terrific turnaround time and truly superior service," "very quick delivery," "excellent turnaround," "the Bureau was sensitive to our contractual timing issues and responded promptly," and "constantly impressed by the responsiveness of the Bureau to the timely demands that certain commercial transactions impose."

Only 25 (20 percent) cards included negative comments, grouped as with the positive comments, in familiar themes. More specifically, several cards indicated that there were delays, the "reviewing took far too long," "the file seemed to disappear into a black hole for a while" and "inappropriate advice resulting in delays occurred."

Consistency and Predictability

Of the 20 percent of the leaflets that included negative comments, some referred to the information required by the Bureau and the predictability of the process:

---

• "Seems to be some confusion in what info they want;"
• "We were very concerned with the level and quality of analysis and questions from his immediate supervisor;"
• "Did not hear from the Bureau for a week after filing as to who was handling matter and if time frame would be met. Led to uncertainty;" and
• "Confirmation letter sent out on expiry of waiting period, letter indicated assessment not complete when in fact it was"

Conclusions

The responses on the feedback leaflets mirror Bureau statistics in that more than 90 percent of reviews are conducted within the service standard time frame. The positive comments are primarily related to success in meeting these standards and the commercial requirements of the parties. The negative comments mirror the concerns raised in the interviews with lawyers, namely timeliness, consistency and accessibility.

It is important to note that, as evidenced by comments on feedback leaflets and in interviews, members of the Mergers Branch are very highly regarded by stakeholders. They are seen as professional, dedicated and conscientious of business deadlines.

Recommendations

The feedback leaflet should be reviewed to ensure that it is indeed capturing the type of information the Merger Branch needs in order to continue to improve various aspects of the merger review process. The Branch might consider adding a field in which stakeholders would indicate the complexity of the file. This would enable to Branch to identify more specifically the area or process that requires attention. The card should also request stakeholder feedback about specific quality criteria, such as timeliness and accessibility.

Compliance and Coordination Directorate should receive the cards and provide a summary to the Mergers Branch. Photocopies of feedback leaflets should no longer be sent to the Mergers Branch. Adopting this new approach might encourage more individuals to complete and return the cards.

Chapter 7  Chapter 9