9.5.1 Monitoring consumer satisfaction

Monitoring consumer satisfaction can provide valuable and timely information on potential problems that may go unidentified by performance monitoring. Changes from the norm are particularly noticeable to consumers, who are often the first to identify something unusual about the water delivered to their tap. For example, there is evidence from waterborne disease outbreaks that consumer comments and complaints have drawn attention to changes in water quality or quantity that ultimately led to the outbreak (Box 9.6).

In addition, because consumers are located throughout distribution systems, they offer a wide-ranging source of information on potential contamination, compared to limited monitoring in the distribution system.

An effective consumer complaint and response system that is operated by trained personnel and closely linked to the operation of the water supply system is an important component of any preventive strategy for drinking water safety. The types of complaints that could signal potential contamination include off taste, off odour, turbidity, unusual colour, reduced water pressure, water supply interruption, suspicious activity, or illness (see Box 9.7). All complaints need to be investigated and documented, including the associated responses. Complaints of illness warrant particular attention and should be reported to the relevant health authority or drinking water regulator for joint investigation.

Clearly, water suppliers would like to operate in a manner such that consumers will never need to complain. Nevertheless, to maximise the ability to detect contaminated water and respond to problems effectively, a water supplier should ensure that consumers are educated on what to expect in relation to the quality of their water (what is normal) and are encouraged to inform the supplier of any water-related concerns, including symptoms of illness.

Box 9.6

Responding to customer complaints

In 1993, Milwaukee, USA, experienced an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis. Difficulties in treatment operation resulted in the turbidity of treated water reaching levels much higher than normal. Not only did operators fail to respond to the turbidity spike, they also failed to recognise the significance of the accompanying dramatic increase in consumer complaints, which reached nearly 50 one day around the time of the turbidity spikes, against a background of less than 5. This suggested that the quality of water was substantially impaired, but the failure to recognise the problem meant that the chance of effective response and immediate corrective action was lost (Hrudey and Hrudey 2004).

A number of other documented outbreaks have involved some level of consumer detection of problems (Hrudey and Hrudey 2004).