The Market Feedback is a fairly new initiative that was introduced under PIC Campus Amenities by Dr. Samrat Mondal. The purpose of the Market Feedback system is to get regular feedback from the students, faculty, and campus residents regarding the performance of the vendors inside the campus.
To those who are not aware of how to access it, it is available through the Dot6 server - http://172.16.1.6/index.php/online-services?id=124, one can find feedback forms for every shop/service provider on campus and give their feedback.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE FEEDBACK IS RECORDED?
PIC Dr. Mondal explains himself: “The feedback form is open throughout the year and to everyone on campus. The feedback and performance are reviewed by a team on a time to-time basis. Also, Adean Admin monitors and provides the necessary instructions on how to deal with such complaints. The review team is responsible for verifying the claims and investigating the complaint.
Dr. Mondal explains “Once we receive negative feedback, we cross-check the validity and issue an official order to that vendor. It could be a warning message or an order letter. All these records are important in calculating the performance evaluation score of the shopkeeper. A satisfactory performance score is needed for extension or contract renewal.
If the feedback is from the Gymkhana, it is sent to the team that checks the feedback and takes action. We inform them about the feedback and conduct our own investigation, later issue an official notice or warning to the vendors.”
He also added that “We expect that they (the shopkeepers) improve their service after realizing that there are certain issues in their services and behaviors. Some of them are consistent with quality & service, but some of them are not serious enough. We send multiple notices to such vendors and note such incidents. This definitely adds some negative scores to their performance evaluation affecting their selection in the future renewal process.
This does have a role in selecting new vendors, and that actually is the plan. If they do not perform well when they apply for the next term, they’ll automatically not be given preference and the new bidders would get the chance. During the selection process, it shall also be clearly mentioned that this is the way to act otherwise they won’t be able to continue. So if they know that there is a system of checks and repercussions, they would perform well.”
PIC Dr. Mondal mentions that the smooth functioning of this system is a work in progress and the limitations at hand are due to a lack of members in the verification team.
“We may need a hand from students or faculty members per se, who could volunteer for taking the job of verifying some of the complaints. After the verification, in some cases where the explanation for the problem raised is genuine e.g. if the vendor is on leave due to emergency reasons, complaints on such matters can be withheld as long as the shopkeeper is sincere enough to improve their service. This requires another level of checks from our side and sometimes it's a bit difficult to follow that up but if we get a dedicated staff, it would make things easy.”
It is tough to say whether the feedback co-relates with the actions on the ground. We can only see and hear what the students tell us, therefore our perception is limited.”
LIMITED INVOLVEMENT, COMPLAINS GYMKHANA.
Meanwhile, the student representatives are not pleased with the level of transparency and cooperation of the administration regarding this feedback module. Hostel Affairs General Secretary Ankit Anurag stated this to Forthright: “The Gymkhana does not have access to the feedback nor does it have authority over the market. The administration is very supportive but we don't have any direct say in the selection, and negotiation with the vendors although it would be very beneficial if the management of the vendor affairs falls directly under the Gymkhana. It is tough to say whether the feedback co-relates with the actions on the ground. We can only see and hear what the students tell us, therefore our perception is limited.”
The administration was also clear in its response to this - It does make it a practice to consult and take opinions of student representatives, generally the VP has been part of the committees that took decisions on signing contracts with various vendors. However, they contend that the kind of transparency that they (Gymkhana) expect - making the feedback responses public, then it’s a debatable topic as sometimes a person may feel to let it stay confidential as in some cases the complaints are suspected of bias. There comes two groups of people, one who are in support of a shopkeeper and the others who are not satisfied with the shopkeeper’s service. Hence there’s a chance of disputes that can arise among the people, which is why the feedback response is not revealed.
Alternatively, if the students wish to follow up on what action has been taken for any feedback/complaint they had submitted on the form, then the follow-up shall be provided.”
The Gymkhana believes that introducing the feedback is a great step but there is a lot that can be done to improve the system. Ultimately, the Gymkhana is vying for greater control over vendors on campus and access to the feedback given. Ankit tells us, “The items in the market are often unfairly priced and the students aren't aware of the actual price of the items. This could be much easier if the Gymkhana had control over the market and could regulate the pricing of the goods.”
Both the administration and Gymkhana agree that it is also up to the students how keenly they provide the feedback. Only if timely feedback is given for a vendor’s poor service or quality, can action be taken on them, hence every student must be vigilant and support the system in place.
Move on to Part Three: Mess Feedback to read about Mess Feedback and how it works.