Service user / congregant satisfaction
Measures the effectiveness of fulfilling the community trust (Amānah) through active oversight (ḥisbah), consultation (shūrā), and sincere counsel (naṣīḥah). It assesses satisfaction across programs, services, and facilities using statistically valid methods. Consistently high scores reflect a dedication to service excellence (iḥsān) and inform continuous improvement, ensuring the rights of people (ḥuqūq al-‘ibād) are upheld with dignity and justice.
| Metric | Congregant satisfaction rating |
|---|---|
| Target | ≥ 4 / 5 |
| Frequency | Annual deep-dive plus quarterly pulse checks for high-traffic services. |
| Method | Weighted mean of domain scores using a defined instrument (v1.0+). Must meet sampling validity (MOE ≤±5% or n≥200/20%). |
| Unit | Score (1-5 scale) |
Level 1: Initial/Ad-hoc
Congregant feedback is collected informally and reactively (e.g., through verbal comments). There is no structured process, privacy notice, or triage for complaints/safeguarding.
Level 2: Developing
A basic formal mechanism exists (e.g., suggestion box), but lacks a defined sampling plan, consistent promotion, or integration with safeguarding/complaints procedures.
Level 3: Established
A formal annual survey is established with a basic sampling plan. Data is collected with a privacy notice and reviewed by leadership. Red flag issues are identified but triage may lack strict SLAs.
Level 4: Advanced
Congregant feedback is analyzed using the defined sampling/weighting protocol. Action plans with owners/timelines are documented. Results, including response rates and limitations, are reported to the community ('You said, we did'). Triage protocols for complaints/safeguarding are fully operational.
Level 5: Optimizing
Congregant satisfaction is a strategic KPI with statistically valid continuous monitoring (annual + pulse). Public reporting includes MOE, segment analysis, and benchmarking. An independent ḥisbah/ombudsperson channel exists. The process undergoes annual review (DPIA/after-action) to drive Iḥsān.
Organisation Types
By Organisation Size
| Size | Applicability | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Micro | exempt | Highly disproportionate for volunteer-run groups; impossible to meet n>=200 sampling requirement. |
| Small | exempt | Formal technical packs, quarterly pulses, and strict sampling quotas are too burdensome; simple informal feedback suffices. |
| Medium | partial | Can implement a basic policy and annual surveys, but quarterly pulses and complex data dictionaries may be too resource-intensive. |
| Large | full | |
| Major | full |
Applicable When
- The organization provides any service that its stakeholders can rate
- The organization interacts with a group of individuals or a community
- The organization seeks to achieve its mission effectively and ethically
Not Applicable When
- The organization has no external stakeholders or beneficiaries (highly unlikely)
- The organization does not value feedback from those they serve
Discussion (1)
📋 **Version updated: 1.0.0 → 2.9.7** **Changes:** Updated islamic_references from mizan-297.json
Sign in to post a comment.