With the core processing system being among a credit union'sbiggest IT expense, satisfaction with service is a toppriority.

To gauge just how providers fared, the 2014 Core Data ProcessingSatisfaction Survey Report sent questionnaires to 3,832 creditunions. Some 309 executives at 298 credit unions sent in theirresponses.

The report was compiled by Samuel Brownell, founder ofCUCollaborate LLC, a Washington-based credit union advisorycompany. The former associate vice president at Callahan &Associates left the firm earlier this year to launchCUCollaborate.

Through the survey's findings, Brownell said he had what hebelieved to be useful data on 42 platforms found at credit unionswith a range of asset sizes.

Participants were asked to describe the strengths and weaknessesof their core system. Additionally, they were queried on topicssuch as general functionality, system openness and also quality ofsupport, Brownell said.

While there were some big winners and losers in the data, someindustry experts raised questions about the survey's methodologyand validity.

According to the survey, the Brookfield, Wis.-based Fiserv hadfour of the lowest scores for its Cleartouch, Advantage, CUBE andCharlotte cores. The other “below average” core was for INTECH inOmaha, Neb. Electronic Recordkeeping Services in Fishers, Ind.,received the only “poor” rating, the data showed.

In a written statement, Fiserv said, “Based on the platformscited, it doesn't appear to be representative of the satisfactionof our overall client base. For instance, the CUBE platform isslated for end-of-life in 2015, an announcement made over fouryears ago to the small number of clients on that platform. Overall,there are less than 100 customers on all the platforms mentioned inthat category, representing 5% of our install base.”

Fiserv said one-third of all financial institutions use thecompany for account processing, including more than 2,000 creditunions.

“We conduct monthly client 'pulse' surveys for our productlines, including those mentioned, and feel this survey is notrepresentative of the satisfaction of our overall client base,”Fiserv wrote.

Other Fiserv cores systems, including DNA, Portico and XP2,scored “above average” in the rankings, according to theCUCollaborate survey.

“I'm not surprised to see the frustration of some Fiservcustomers that are using core systems that aren't currentlyreceiving the development or marketing attention that Fiserv DNA isenjoying now,” Scott Hodgins, senior director with CornerstoneAdvisors, a research firm in Scottsdale, Ariz., said.

Fiserv's rival, the Monett, Mo.-based Symitar, by contrast,received a “good” rating for its flagship Episys core, the surveyrevealed. Fiserv's CUnify core system also earned a “good” rankingfrom the survey's participants.

In a statement, Symitar President Ted Bilke wrote, “Symitarunderstands customer support is a key factor in client satisfactionand retention. We request feedback from our customers viaindividual cases as they close and annual surveys. Our corporategoal is to always score between 'exceeds expectations' and 'farexceeds expectations.' I'm happy to share that we consistently meetand surpass our goal. This focus on providing consistent qualitycustomer service across all our products and services is reflectedin our survey scores.”

Read more: Some question the survey's statisticvalidity …

CUProdigy was another winner, according to thesurvey's participants. The Layton, Utah-based core developernotched a “great” rating, making it one of six core systems toreceive that accolade.

Participants also gave a “great” ranking to Systronics, anOlathe, Kan., firm that primarily serves small credit unions;Corelation's Keystone in San Diego; Commercial Business Systems inGoldsboro, N.C.; FedComp in Fairfax, Va., and Cu Centric inColumbus, Ohio.

“We felt it was necessary for our member/owners to participatein the survey,” Craig Peterson, CUProdigy director of clientservices, said. “As a CUSO, we are focused on the requirements ofour user group and the feedback from the survey wasinsightful.”

Still, some experts raised concerns about the survey includingPreston Packer, director of sales and marketing at ComputerMarketing Corp.'s FLEX in Sandy, Utah. The firm earned a “good”rating among participants.

“I believe that reports such as what CUCollaborate is providinghold a great deal of potential for credit unions when reviewingcore systems. However, it is imperative that Sam Brownell andCUCollaborate remain transparent in their reporting and work toimprove their sample size,” Packer said. “Otherwise, these reportswill fall by the wayside, just as others have done in thepast.”

David Gibbard, formerly a SVP at the Birmingham, Ala.-based coredeveloper EPL, and now an independent consultant in Atlanta,offered a more broadly critical assessment of the survey.Participants gave EPL a “good” rating.

“I don't think this survey is statistically valid. It's peoplewho are very happy or very unhappy,” he said.

Gibbard claimed most credit union executives would not take thetime to fill out the questionnaire. Only raving fans and those whoare grievously unhappy would bother. He believed the survey hadvalue for what he called “its trending information.” For instance,many credit unions on legacy Fiserv cores are dissatisfied, whichis a trend, he said. However, Gibbard did not think validquantitative conclusions could be drawn from the data.

He may have a point. With Fiserv's maligned CUBE, just onerespondent filled out a survey. With its Charlotte core, four outof 98 on the platform, responded. The sole “poor” score forElectronic Recordkeeping Services came from one response out ofsome 68 core installations at credit unions.

On the other end, Systronics, which had the highest rating inthe survey, snared it on the basis of two responses out of 73clients.

Do those low response rates invalidate the CUCollaborate effort?Brownell claimed an overall survey response rate of 4.5%.

“While we make no claims about that response rate providing astatistical significance, we are very proud of the highparticipation rate that we have received as a new company,” hesaid.

Brownell said CUCollaborate believes the response rate willincrease over the next few years.

“Our goal is to achieve over a 10% participation rate bothindustry-wide and for each platform,” he added. “We also veryclearly show the response rate that we received for each platformin our report so readers can decide for themselves how much weightthey feel like they should give the ratings we gathered through oursurvey.”

Can the results still be trusted?

Thad Moore, vice president at the $546 million Self-Help CreditUnion in Durham N.C., chose his words carefully when asked for hisopinion of the report.

“I like the promise of it and I got nuggets of information outof it. There's not enough data points, however,” he said.

Moore indicated he would have more confidence if the responsenumbers increased.

“It's a good first effort,” he pointed out.