Regarding your experience, I initially saw this as an employee competency issue as evidenced by your exchange: The statement “Sir, I’ve not had a question like this before” and that $20,000 didn’t seem to be cause for concern or even unreasonable was more than concerning. If this is a common question, then the employee’s responses and inaction cannot be justified or substantiated.

From a company perspective, systems should be seamless but they aren’t. This is not a unique problem to ATT. I have discovered the same problem with my own carrier where it seems that any task beyond paying your bill is a major undertaking.

One of the reasons for this disconnect is that some of the franchise / store fronts are “affiliated” to the carrier, not wholly owned, and as such, have limited or restricted access to data that would otherwise be available on the parent system (this is true at least in Canada).

Although the data needed was available, albeit the process was slow, the question you were seeking to have answered should not have been a complex task. Our local store front actually has a direct line that allows customers to immediately connect with a company representative at the corporate office to resolve concerns that cannot be handled at the local level.

Herein lies the opportunity. Do the local customer service centers document the requests that they are asked to deal with but could not answer? Does the corporate office track referrals from the local stores? Does the company maintain a lessons learned database where information is shared locally and across the corporation?

Although it may not be possible to anticipate every question that a customer may have, feedback and documented referrals could serve a starting point for creating a lessons learned database. From what I can gather, these service companies do not have the infrastructure in place to support this effort.

Detailed procedures should exist for commonly asked questions that would allow a customer service representative to resolve the concern. Without the feedback referred to above, the process to create this documentation will never be initiated.

Every system is comprised of Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Controls where each aspect reflects Voice of the Customer. From a lean perspective, the learning happens on two fronts: 1) resolving the immediate customer concerns and 2) understanding why the need for this functionality was not predicted.

As I have learned through my experience with Toyota, anticipating concerns and predicting outcomes are critical aspects of effective system design. Where the system is already released and working, an effective feedback / reporting mechanism is required that extends to the original system engineers / designers to continually upgrade it’s performance.

I’ll look forward to discussing this further.

1.their systems (not being able to access the info I needed despite it being a fairly common question)
2. The attempt to push me to a self service process, before the process was able to effect it successfully
3. the response of the rep himself ( to say something as idiotic as he did as the process was failing both of us)
4. the pricing model itself (overage fees being thousands of times the cost of a bundled fee)- a premium is one thing, but could you imagine a utility selling a fixed amount of energy for 5 cents per kwh, but if you went over charging you $2.00 per kwh? I know the cell companies are managing capacity issues but there are many ways to do that other than via these methods.

The reason I thought Lean tools would be effective here, was based on my premise that a clear understanding of the process and root causes (the real route causes, not the symptoms that look like causes),was the main issue here….i.e.by living in the problem a little longer. Instead, I think we tend to jump to the solution based on what we “think” the customer needs.

Re: exceeding expectations and delighting a customer, I’ve got some specific views on that which may appear a bit counterintuitive. I plan on writing a little on that in the week ahead. I’ll link to your post when I do that and we can continue the dialogue then.

Thanks again!

The primary objective of lean is to continually improve throughput where the benefits of implementation are the progressive elimination of impediments to achieve this objective. In this context, eliminating waste and reducing costs are inherent benefits (not necessarily the objective) of implementing lean.

Customer service is one realm of doing business that should be a concern for every company. Indeed, some companies actually “monitor the web” using tools similar to Google Alerts or Twitter @Mentions to keep a pulse on the public’s perception of their company and customer service experiences.

Companies are keenly aware that negative experiences are discussed and shared more so than positive ones – your post is a prime example. It is always in their best interests to attempt to resolve these issues quickly and expunge any negative experiences before they go viral – Remember Domino’s Pizza?

Unfortunately, service providers are not subject to the same level of public scrutiny and degree of accountability as are product oriented companies. Products are backed by warranties and accountability for performance is assured to avoid the most dreaded event of all, the RECALL campaign.

Could you imagine a “Customer Service Representative” recall. The sale and support of all products will cease until all customer Customer Service Representatives have been recertified to serve you. Who knows, maybe that’s the new marketing ploy – “All of our representatives are certified to tackle any of your concerns – Guaranteed!”

The following are just a few examples of companies that quickly became the subject of news worthy recall campaigns: Toyota (Sudden Acceleration), Maple Leaf Foods – Listeriosis Outbreak, Ford Motor Company (Firestone Tires), and Dorel Distribution Canada (Drop Side Cribs). Even small products may be subject to recall if they pose a choking hazard to infants or small children.

The best we can do to express our dissatisfaction with a service provider is “rant” or “vent” our frustrations as we consider alternative (future) service providers.  We could also file a complaint with the company itself.  The company should be aware that we are definitely sharing our experiences with our family, friends, and co-workers.

To complicate matters, some service providers have a contractually “captured / locked-In” customer base. As such, many of us are bound by contractual terms of service regardless of the company’s ability to provide satisfactory service.

To dissuade you from parting ways, mobile service providers will charge a hefty penalty if you decide to cancel your contract before it expires. Perhaps, the contracts should contain a clause that exempts the customer from paying any early termination fees where the provider has demonstrated a failure to provide competent service and / or support.

Regarding the “Sign In – Take a Number” process, this has become a common practice for many government and company service centers. The question is why was this system implemented? To avoid long lines? Reduce wait times? Or both?

As a customer, it matters not whether I’m standing in line or seated comfortably in a chair waiting for my number to be called. Although I’m concerned with the wait time, I am as concerned whether my “request for service” can be resolved efficiently and effectively.

For customer service we have a clearly defined input (customer + service request), a process (company service representative + service request process / mechanism) and an output (satisfied customer + service request resolved / completed). The objective of lean in this case is to satisfactorily resolve customer service requests in an efficient, effective, and timely manner.

A company that purposes to be a service provider must provide competent, trained, and fully qualified staff and they owe it to their customers to ensure this is always the case. Effective resolution of a service request depends on competent staff. This point should not require any further explanation.

Efficiency on the other hand is a different story. At the “store front” level, line ups are probably the greatest annoyance for most customers and is definitely an area that deserves more focus.

There are a number of models that have varying degrees of effectiveness:

1. Drive Through – Single Queue – “First Come – First Served” – Wait time is dependent on the number of cars ahead of you and the infinitely variable size and complexity of each order.
2. Retail / Grocery Stores – Multi Queue – “First Come – First Served” – Wait time is reduced but still dependent on the number of people in line ahead of you and the number of items purchased.
3. Variations of Retail Multi Queue – Express Lane for 8 items or less. Open more registers if where a line exceeds 5 or more customers.
4. Single Queue – Multi Station Services – “First Come – First Served” – Next Available Window – Wait time is reduced but is based on the number of available or open stations.

The “Sign In – Take a Number Process” follows the premise stated in point 4 above. While this may appear to be more effective than the other methods, the companies that use this strategy may still fail to provide efficient service.

I note that Tim Horton’s (one of our most popular coffee shops) measures / monitors the time it takes to process every drive through order. Although they have a Single Queue process, resources are likely managed to accommodate and minimize the time required to process even the most complex orders to maintain or improve throughput.  Drive through services are typically subject to peak demand times and require flexing of resources to accommodate demand during these peak periods.

What is not transparent to us, “the customer”, is whether the “sign in” systems are tracking when the number was taken, how many are already in queue, and what the current average wait time is.  If a number tracking system is being used, does a mechanism exist to trigger the deployment of more staff to open more stations to accommodate demand above a certain threshold?

A few weeks ago I had first hand experience where a “sign in” number system was being used. I somehow knew that I would be waiting for a while so I decided to record the time whenever a new number was called. I noted that on average, the time between calls was approximately 10 – 12 minutes.  I noted minimum and maximum service times as well.

Based on the duration of each “request for service”, I correctly calculated the approximate time that I could expect to be served (over an hour of wait time). I also noticed a sign on the wall stating that all service windows close promptly at 5:00 pm. In other words, even though you had a number, depending on what time you arrived, it may not be even be called.

What was unclear to me is why numbers continued to be dispensed at the Kiosk when even I as a first time visitor knew the chance of being served was highly unlikely. I should mention that through casual conversation people became aware of what I was doing. It didn’t take long for them to start asking me what time they should expect to be served.

I would like to think that someone should be able to determine patterns in demand for services and when peak demand occurs. In short, the companies that want to get this right will learn to flex their resources to meet the demand for services and thereby sustain a relatively balanced and predictable throughput.

I published “10 Ways to Enhance Customer Satisfaction” in November of 2009 that was inspired by continued negative drive through experiences. Strangely, just over a year later, I have noticed positive changes. Welcome to “X”, my name is “Y”, how may I help you today? In my post “1 Way to Exceed Expectations” I share a recent positive experience – a radical change to customer service.

But in the end, you’re absolutely spot on- once they’re in the store it’s “game on”. Off the practice field and into to the “real game”.

I meant to (but forgot to) mention, that crazy ATT “sign in process” you mention. Thanks for reminding me of that! (urgh!). You’d think with all this technology, they would have come up with a better solution, as I’m sure the intent was a noble one. You almost wonder whether they do any market research on this stuff (which I’m sure they do), or if the research they do is halfway credible. Actually, I say that rhetorically, because I have some strong views on that.

I believe that Market research (in general) these day is so freakin’ flawed, its painful to watch. That profession probably has more high end graduates, from more high end schools, and have more graduate degrees than many others I can think of. Yet we still see even dumber and less effective survey practices than we did years ago when they clearly didn’t work. I remember the “fishing for a grade” experience that I got from my BMW dealership in New Orleans in 1990. So hearing your ATT experience sadly reinforces the fact that the same old dumb-ass practices are still alive and well in the research arena.

While repairing all of these deficiencies is in large measure a process fix (much more so than it is a technology one- I discussed this a few weeks back on my “Process before technology” post) it almost feels like the whole CS environment needs to go back to the very beginning (before even thinking about fixing the process!). In fact, ( I’ll throw a “bone” out to my LEAN friends here), I think the whole thing needs to start with some very basic thinking about the drivers and core requirements of the customer problem (not just what the customer WANTS, or what WE THINK they need, but a deep understanding of the often simple problems THEY are trying to solve in THEIR world). Someone once told me that ” we should try and see things through THE CUSTOMER’s CUSTOMER’s eyes, and only then will we be able to understand the primary customer’s real needs”. Things like VOC, 5 Why’s, and many other LEAN tools that have been successfully deployed in the manufacturing sector would probably be of great value here. The conventional practices of going straight from transactional surveys to solutions is no longer working. We need to start spending A LOT more time in the PROBLEM before we can even think about designing a solution.

As for a GOOD example of a company that “gets it”. look no further than Apple. I happen to be a proponent of closing local offices, but not before all of the above is done and the processes and systems are in place to replace it. Then, I think the strategy should be to REDEPLOY SELECTIVELY under a model similar to the one APPLE deploys. Anyone who wants to see this in action should go stop by one stores today, even if they don’t own, or plan to own, one of their products. Look at how customer’s set up their appointments at the “genius bar” remotely, look at how they treat you when you’re in the store, watch how they conduct the check out process (process and tools they use), and most importantly watch how they respond if you either didn’t (or don’t want to) work within THEIR process. I won’t give it away here, because it’s worth seeing for yourself.

And believe it or not, there are some Utilities I work with who are doing some great work in this space. And they are not the big “mega utilities” that you’d probably think of. I’ll try and get some of them to comment here as well.

My company onVector is actually facilitating 2 CS IC’s (Innovation Collaboratives) as we speak, (one in the Utility Sector, and one in the Municipal Services sector) because their is a strong need and appetite for this type of dramatic change in both of those sectors. But all sectors seem to have these issues now. CS is an age old discipline that has somehow blown past some of the basic “front end” practices that are so crucial to their success. And yes, it still blows my mind that a company like ATT, a company who is one of the top companies in the wireless and communications game, is missing some of these basic principles and practices.

A few of the LEAN guys I am working with on this collaborative, may also have some additional ideas to share. I’ll ask them to join in as well.

Thanks again Brian for your feedback. Look forward to the continued dialogue.

-b