Those of us who spend time in and around Customer Service organizations see our fair share of big investments—new IT deployments, reengineering of back-office processes, upgrading our contact centers … the list goes on. With the introduction of each new Customer Experience (Cx) program, the size of the investment portfolio grows even further through projects like enterprise-wide journey mapping, training initiatives, new service channels, and improvements to research and data analytics platforms. Big projects are a reality for CCO’s and their leadership teams, and justifiably so. Maintaining customer support infrastructure is undoubtedly key to our long-term success.

But are we putting too much emphasis on our customer infrastructure at the expense of the smaller and more actionable practices that could generate more immediate results?

When Smaller is Better…

When asked to describe their Customer Experience initiatives, many CCO’s point to the “small stuff” as being key to the results they’ve achieved. In a world where everyone talks about “Big”—big data, big projects, big commitments—it’s these small, seemingly insignificant, practices, with not-so-small impacts, that are becoming the poster children of their efforts.

I’m talking about practices that don’t require an “act of congress” to implement—the ones that are just good common sense and take next to nothing to implement, except a little foresight and follow-through. Simple and easy, yet, still, an overwhelming number of organizations focus on the big solution being implemented and, in doing so, miss the opportunities to make a difference today.

Consider call/contact centers for a moment, where “big stuff” always takes center stage. How often do we hear “When our new CIS is in place,” “As soon as we implement speech analytics,” “Once we get that new IVR,” etc. But the reality is that most of what we need to make incremental—and sometimes big—changes is already there for those with the creative energy to act on it.

Fix-it-Fridays

A past client (We’ll call her Sarah), one I still regard as a brilliant Customer Service manager, was excellent at demonstrating this concept, i.e., using what she had available at her disposal today, combined with a real action bias to catalyze big change. One of my favorites was a practice she called “Fix-it Fridays.”

During the week, she would mine a few recorded calls for good examples of customer interactions that were “less than optimally handled.” This could mean the rep simply misunderstood the customer’s issue and employed an ineffective solution, or that a good solution was just poorly delivered and/or executed.

Each Friday afternoon, she would get small groups of reps together (voluntarily, but usually enticed with a bit of free food or cake) to brainstorm better ways of handling these customer situations. They would listen to a sample call together and discuss how the rep handled the interaction. Then they (not the supervisor, QA manager, or trainer, but the front line reps themselves) would talk about how they would approach the call differently. Challenge and debate were encouraged. But it was also a safe and rewarding experience that left everyone, including the rep in the “case study,” feeling better equipped to deliver on their Cx commitment. As this manager used to say, “it’s a little like looking in the mirror when you apply your own service standards to the responses we deliver day in and day out.”

Many organizations use some variation of this in their centers. Nearly everyone has a QA/monitoring process in place (although many place their focus on procedural and policy compliance rather than emerging Cx values and standards). Most have decent follow-up mechanisms for supervisor coaching when problems occur. And (most of the time) when broad themes emerge, they work them into their ongoing training.  But all of this takes time. And, increasingly, such efforts rely on technology and infrastructure to mine interactions, which often means more time and complexity.

Sarah’s approach was focused on “time to market.” It didn’t discount the value of the existing process or the opportunities new technology can offer. Rather, it simply looked for ways to act more quickly. Perhaps, more importantly, she used her weekly forums as a way to teach staff how their Cx standards really were being applied, by immersing them directly, and by letting the team explore those standards in real time. The focus wasn’t on developing new policies or approving new scripts. It was about learning and applying good Cx.

Your reaction to this may be that you achieve these results through your QA process and ongoing coaching. But before your discount Sarah’s practice as run-of-the-mill, ask yourself:

• How long does it take employees in your organization to act on a solution once it’s identified?
• Do you encourage bad practices to be changed on the spot, sometimes on the basis of good instinct or common sense, or do all changes have to go through your business improvement processes and protocols?
• Once a new approach is identified, how quickly is it shared and institutionalized?
• Do your managers and staff feel empowered to take risks and deploy changes quickly?
• Are small “experiments” allowed, knowing that most can be “unwound” if they prove to be less effective than anticipated?

Examples like this abound throughout our customer service organizations—process fixes,touchpoint improvements, intelligence gathering techniques, and many more. And there is no doubt that the projects and initiatives we have in place to deal with these challenges will lead us to a more consistent and sustainable application of our Cx strategy. But without an equally ambitious focus on the smaller solutions, and a bias from the organization to support them, they simply won’t happen.

Commit today to making the small stuff an equal priority within your company. Ask for it, reward it, and manage to it. The wins may seem small at first, but stack up enough of them and you’ll discover stronger momentum and a faster ROI on your Cx investment.

 To learn more about Cx Solutions available through onVector, including:

• Cx Readiness Assessments
• Cx Program Startups
• Cx Alignment & Standards Development
• Rapid Touchpoint Renewal
• Cx Management & Governance Solutions

visit us at http://onvectorconsulting.com/cxsolutions

Over the past 24 months, Customer Experience Initiatives (Cx programs, as they have come to be called) have climbed to the top of the radar screens of most leadership teams. Organizations are abuzz with projects to identify “touchpoints,” map “customer journeys,” and strengthen their customer-facing business processes. Alongside these initiatives are even larger investments in acquiring the data and analytics required to feed and sustain these service improvement strategies. >>Next>>

Read Full Article

CxTAM Industry View
Copyright 2013, onVector Consulting

At its core, Cx is about all the pursuit of delivering  an exceptional customer experience across every touchpoint, every time.

That’s a pretty ambitious goal, and one that I’ve begun to refer to with my clients as the “Cx Holy Grail”.

EVERY touchpoint, EVERY time? Think about it. Every time we buy a product, activate a product, use a product, get support, renew our service, suspend or terminate our contract…and the list goes on…, we must deliver an exceptional experience. Some would even say that our viewing of advertisements, interactions with social media, and even our passive conversations with others about our experiences qualify as a touch points that need to be “managed”.  And they wouldn’t be far off.

So where do we focus first? Which touch points? Which parts of those touch points ? What can wait? What can’t?

One way to simplify the madness is to have a common set of unifying standards that every part of the organization can identify with, routinely. While statements like “Exceptional Cx: Every Touchpoint, Every Time” make for good mantras and vision statements, our Cx program will be short lived unless those statements can be  translated into a clear set of observable, measurable and actionable factors. Without these, you’re literally flying blind with no way of knowing when something is broken, where improvement is needed, or how to fix it. That’s a core principle in managing any strategy, and one that is glaringly missing from most Cx programs today. Our Touchpoint Assessment Model (TAM), and the 12 attributes that comprise it, was essentially constructed to address that gap and and help our clients better focus and navigate their Cx improvements.

TAM in a Nutshell

While  the model is based on a quite a bit of research, client experiences, and some pretty creative crowdsourcing; its structure and architecture is quite simple: 3 key areas of focus comprised of 12 unique and discernible attributes.

The collapse of a conventional service model, and the rise of a new one…

One of the exciting things about my line of work is that we see lots of new ideas and ways of doing business. Not all of them make sense at the time. Some just have to evolve. But over time, we witness step changes where bleeding edge becomes leading edge. And what causes that to occur is that a brand new “use case” emerges for a solution or technology that has been waiting for its time.

Silence in the dark…

During hurricane Sandy, many of us in the northeast were starved for information. Millions of customers were without power, gas stations were out of service, grocery stores were closed, and just about every part of life as we knew it shut down. For many, it was a “mini Katrina,” making us reflect on what life must have been like in New Orleans in 2005. For others, it was the real thing.

It’s hard to get real upset about things when you look at them through such a lens. In large measure, folks affected by Hurricane Sandy were pretty patient, at least in the early going. But over time, that patience waned and the demand for information escalated—information that never really materialized. For the most part, customers understood they weren’t going to get specifics, but they wanted something. What they got was nothing.

The sum total of the narrative was:

• “This is an unprecedented event”
• “It’s not our fault”
• “We’re all doing the best we can”
• “It will be a minimum of 7-10 days before things return to normal”

On day one, that may have been an appropriate response (or at least somewhat understandable), but with each additional day, that response created more and more frustration.

A core competency becomes irrelevant…

Ironically, Utility companies pride themselves on service excellence, and for the most part do a fairly good job of it. Most have made dramatic strides in terms of customer experience. Sure, there is a lot more they can do, but for the most part, the nature, speed, and quality of service have all improved. Most have invested significantly in upgrading core service and delivery channels (Call Center availability, CRM technology, metering and billing systems), and have expanded the range of service options (web, mobile, kiosks, etc.)

And as you might expect (since it is one of their biggest drivers of satisfaction), most have gotten better in terms of outage notification, communications, and restorations. Most major utilities have online outage maps available that provide location, current status, and restoration times. Infrastructure has gotten better with expanded use of distribution automation and switching technologies. The logistics of managing restoration efforts has improved. And customer communications (both proactive and reactive) have expanded. After all, it is (and should be)a core competency.

But eight weeks ago, none of this really mattered. Sandy was an unprecedented event. The foundation for most of the improvements referenced above was compromised by the storm. You can only provide information you have, and the damage assessments had only just begun. Even if you possess the technical and informational resources required to provide updated outage maps, doing so assumes that customers can get online to view them. Most outage notifications require a phone call. Most phones today are VOIP and require power to function. Ironically, the call centers were generally available and functional (the three times I called, the call was answered in less than twenty seconds), but with none of the other parts of the process working, the reps just became another “talking head” for what we already know (or didn’t know)—The storm was an unprecedented event. It was not their fault. They had no information. And it’s a waste of your (and by inference their) time to contact them for more information before 7-10 days had passed.

Electric power is an interesting kind of product. You don’t think about it much. In fact, studies have shown that the typical customer only thinks about their utility 6-9 minutes a year. You could say it’s like “air”—you only think about it when you can’t get it.  And when it’s unavailable, it certainly occupies a lot more of your mind-space. Most complaints and pockets of significant dissatisfaction can be directly ascribed to extended outage situations. And those impressions last a lifetime.

So while utilities have invested heavily in service improvements, one could argue that their systems have been designed for everything OTHER THAN that which poses the most significant risk to satisfaction and loyalty. But again, it’s a bit of a Catch-22. Designing a system for a low-probability but catastrophic event that most likely will render the system itself useless, seems somewhat circular and, ultimately, futile. Or does it?

Customers take matters in their own hands…

In circumstances like this, some customers intellectually understand the position the utility is in. They may not like it, but the more it becomes clear that they are asking for information the company simply doesn’t have and/or can’t provide, they will come to understand that continued efforts to obtain such information are pointless.

During the storm, many customers turned to online news, discussion boards, online forums, and social media for their information with varying degrees of success. What many wanted to know was whether work had begun in their area, whether the source of the problem had been identified, and a better (if not definitive) sense of restoration time. But

for the most part, they wanted to know that repairs in their area had been initiated. Or in some cases, THAT their power HAD been restored (Many were staying with relatives or friends out of town, and this would be their only way to learn that things were back up and running). Last year during a similar event, my wife learned we were restored via Facebook, two days before the utility reported it on the web.

 A solution staring you in the face?

But here’s where it gets interesting. During any such wide-scale outage, there are hundreds of thousands of eyeballs scouring these channels, many capable of providing information the utility doesn’t have access to—localized damage, poles down, safety issues, and plenty more. But the vast majority of this information goes unharvested.

In fact, with Sandy it was just the opposite. My local utility was literally pumping out messages, at times more than three or four per hour. But the sum total of the content was—yes, you guessed it… that it was an unprecedented event; it was not their fault; that they had no information; and, yes, that unnerving seven-to-ten-day restoration prediction. There was the occasional posting of “ice and water” locations (met with sarcasm since temps were often well below freezing). There were some attempts by customers to engage with whoever was providing these messages, but it was always met with some way of saying “we don’t know”.

Then I noticed something interesting. A few customers began hashtagging tweets with specific information about their location. Soon others were replying in kind—simple things like “we have two trucks on our a street.” Then someone else would chime in with an address that had been restored.

One of the utilities in our area (not ours, mind you) even attempted to “coordinate” some of the dialogue between customers—things like “thanks for your question about such-and-such a town, we don’t know the status, but three customers are reporting activity in your area.” That type of coordination was very rare to see, and was only short lived, but someone began to see an opportunity and was willing to act on it. For the most part, though, the majority of the dialog was between and among customers, and the utilities were largely absent from the conversation, save for the repeated banter of … “7-10 days.”

What if?…

OK—extrapolate with me a bit here…

What if the posts and tweets of customers were slightly more structured—like we saw with customers hash-tagging their locations?

What if utility reps played a role in facilitating the conversations between customers and other information providers and consumers?

What if we had systems that could synthesize large volumes of unstructured data that was already out there and actually add value to it?

What if utility workers and restoration crews could post directly to appropriate forums and boards as the work was being done?

In short, what if the customer was actually a participant in providing customer service?

Emerging Models…

Farfetched? Perhaps.
But there are models that are beginning to look exactly like this.

GifGaf , a UK mobile service provider has migrated almost completely to customer-provided customer service. No call centers, no lobbies, just a portal for customers to report issues and actually play a role in responding to and solving problems. There are reward mechanisms where customers can earn points toward minutes or other merchandise for contributing valuable content and solutions. The model isn’t perfect, and some customers would say it’s just another way to save money and push self-service, but if you look a bit more closely, you’ll see that this is a radically different approach.

There is a variety of services (see-click-fix, and get satisfaction) to name a few , that have begun to apply the concept of “crowdsourcing” (a more formal name for aggregating and extracting value from available streams of social content in the provision of services) to the provision of infrastructure and other utility services. In both cases, these companies provide a structured app for customers to report issues, and companies to respond, while tracking progress along the way—everything from fixing potholes to streetlights. Only these services are not completely tied to the company providing the service. It does, however, behoove the service provider to monitor and participate in the resolution process, since the complaints, issues, and resolution have so much visibility.

Take-aways…

I believe we are at an interesting juncture in customer service—one that can not only improve the process and costs of providing customer solutions, but radically change the delivery model.

To me, the take-aways are threefold:

1. Become a more active participant in your customer communities. Don’t just settle for perfunctory uses of Twitter and Facebook as communication channels. Engage in a value-adding way to the dialogue that is already taking place. Instead of trying to create new followers or get “Liked,” try to join in on active discussions and dialogue.
2. Change how we think about service infrastructure and technologies. I would say 90% of our systems are based on using information collected from customers by our companies FOR our companies. Instead, think about how we might harness information from the broad range of unstructured data already out there (information already provided by our customers FOR our customers) in the provision of better and more relevant customer experiences.
3. Focus on the one or two areas where dissatisfaction and loyalty are most at risk. Most companies design their service infrastructures for the average environment, when the larger risk is posed by the anomalous circumstance (the three-week outage, the blizzard that closes ten airports, etc.). That will likely change the tools, technologies and even the customer portals that are used for providing service, as well as who actually provides it.

Some could argue that engaging in this sort of thinking poses a significant competitive threat (by removing you from the process and giving competitors a window into your customer relationships). I would argue just the opposite—that customer communities exist all around us, and many of us are blind to the value it can provide in terms of better, cheaper, and more relevant service.

Instead of viewing it as a threat, look for ways to engage with it and add value.

-b

Of all the business functions discussed in the arena of performance improvement over the years, Customer Service has certainly gotten its fair share. But lately, with the rapidly growing range of new enabling technologies, and an accelerated adoption rate that shows these technologies are starting to take root, we are now seeing some of the best performance “breakout” stories since the legendary FedEx, Nordstrom, and Toyota (Lexus) case studies of the 90’s.

What’s interesting about today’s success stories is that it’s no longer about what I call the customer “heroics”– the FEDEX guy who hires a plane to deliver a package that just “has to get there overnight”, or the Nordstrom sales clerk who agrees to sell a single shoe to a woman with only one leg. And it’s not about the technologies. It’s now about the little things–the refreshingly responsive, yet consistent, way in which everyday transactions get executed.

I’ve got your number

A few weeks ago I called Apple to check on a repair (self induced). I was in my car and didn’t have time to look up the number of the repair facility or the order number. I figured I could call Apple’s main number (which they apparently pre-program into your phone), and have them look me up via my email or phone number. If I was lucky, they’d transfer me directly to the repair facility.

I called the number, their system recognized mine, and without any IVR menus, speech requests, or human involvement, I heard “We recognize that you have a repair with us. It was completed yesterday and shipped at 5:23PM for Saturday delivery at your home address…If you need anything else, just say what you need.” Everyone these days has voice recognition and ANI capabilities in their call center. But in this experience, everything was placed exactly right, in the precise order required to produce a great experience

I had a similar experience last year with AT&T Mobile, when I received a text that read:

“Your bill is ready for $xxx.xx (which is my average bill amount). You can view it on ATT.com or by clicking here.—–Please respond “full” if you would like to pay in full, or a specific amount ‘XX.XX’ We will process your payment using the credit card on file”

Superman is still there- he's just not as conspicuous!

 These days, nearly every company I work with has a mobile strategy, or at least has one on the drawing board. But this is the best application of mobile service I’ve seen, again, largely because of how the process was designed and sequenced. Sure, I could go visit the website and see my bill, then go home and pay it like nearly every other system. Or I can simply respond “full.”

Of course, there is the Apple Store in your local mall that sells more per square foot than just about any retailer in your state. These stores are always packed, even at 1pm on a slow Wednesday. There are no cash registers. Cards are swiped by sales clerks using hand-held devices, which prompts someone in the back to quickly bring the product to you. They offer to print or email your receipt on the spot, and you’re off. I can remember distinctly the first time I experienced this, actually leaving the store feeling like I had forgotten something.

Truth is, I DID forget something– all the needless paper and annoyance that usually accompanies routine retail transactions!

So here’s the moral of those stories, and others like it—It’s no longer about the heroics. It’s no longer about the technologies. It’s about how well those things are understood in the complete context of customer experience drivers, and then deployed in a mass producible way.

Build in the “small stuff” where it matters most

Next time you are getting ready to deploy one of those myriad of “must have” or “way cool” technologies for the sake of customer satisfaction or productivity improvement, think about the following in terms of HOW and WHERE you will deploy it within your process:

• Will it help me produce a faster TTE (Time to Engagement)? –- That’s the time it takes from the customer’s initial call arriving until they actually feel that the agent or system understands and is engaged in solving the problem (rather than the incessant and often redundant asking/probing/clarifying about why the person is calling). How long does it take to get past all that script-based validation, authentication, menu choices, long-winded greetings, survey requests, transfers, redundant requests, etc.)?
• Will it improve the speed of the transaction? Will it mean more or fewer steps for the customer? This sounds simple, but in most applications of CS technology — IVR, ANI, Voice Recognition -– the pain factor for the customer usually goes up, even though cost for the company may be going down.
• Does it improve customer convenience? What I liked about the AT&T bill text experience is that the entire solution took place in real time, rather than as three separate transactions (viewing text (on the run), viewing bill (at your desk), paying bill (at home).
• Is it respectful of the customer’s time? New technologies like Virtual Hold allow a caller to forego waiting in queue by having the system maintain the caller’s place in line and call them back when an agent becomes available (or at a time agreeable to the caller).
• Will it quietly steer the customer to a better solution if one exists? I like the IVR hold schemes that offer tips or better calls to action, whether or not they actually produce one on the spot. Even better if the solution is unique and “smart” enough to warrant a “wow” reaction. I had this experience where I was attempting a complicated installation, and the hold narrative mentioned a site that there were video tutorials available. That was better than another instrumental version of “Just the Way You Are,” and far better than “you can visit our website”.
• Will it produce a notable distinction between what occurs and what a customer was expecting? I know that sounds trite, but very few actually do. Remember, it’s not only the magnitude of the distinction, but how meaningful the result is as well. Significantly reducing the wait time on-hold isn’t going to buy you much good will if the service the customer receives remains inadequate. I use the term “refreshingly responsive” (implying responsive, but with a useful but unexpected touch — the service equivalent of lagniappe).

One of my clients uses the term “smart value” when describing a product transaction that is reinforcing to the customer (I made a good choice, and I feel smart for having done so). I would argue that the same dynamic is possible with transactions. Admittedly, it’s very challenging to make a customer feel good about making a call to resolve an issue. But I’ve gotta tell you, when it happens, it certainly carries a loyalty premium.

And that’s how we redefine WOW!

-b

Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience with primary emphasis on Customer Operations in the global energy and utilities sector. Bob has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

What 2011 taught us about strategic distractions, and their impact on business value…

A few months back, I remember having a good chuckle while watching a Jon Stewart parody on the Republican candidate field.  The monologue poked fun at the media’s tendency, during its seemingly relentless coverage of the leading candidate on that day, to completely shift direction the moment a new contender entered the picture.In this case, Bachman was the leader du jour, the media was the dog in the Pixar movie “Up”, and the part of the squirrel was played by none other than Rick Perry, who these days appears to be succeeding only at distracting himself.

“Squirrel moments” happen all around us, and with greater frequency than we’d care to admit. As flawed human beings, it’s easy for us to get sidetracked from what we should be doing, by some urgent new distraction that seems terribly critical in the moment. Yet most of us eventually manage to refocus, once we become aware (through our own cognitive skills or because a friend or colleague points it out to us) of how badly the squirrel moment has driven us off-course. Typically it is the speed with which we are able to re-calibrate ourselves that ultimately determines the degree of damage, if any, that is caused by the distraction.

Some “squirrel moments” have far reaching impacts…

But for organizations, the challenge of refocusing after a significant distraction is far greater. Unlike individual distractions, those in organizations often require refocusing entire workgroups, business units, and processes that may have strayed far from the core focus and strategies of the business. It’s a bit like comparing a fighter jet to a large commercial airliner. While both are capable of course correction, larger aircraft don’t react “on a dime” and require a lot more time and space to maneuver.  The magnitude of the corporate distraction, the breadth of areas it touches, and the duration of the distraction, are just a few of the variables that determine the organization’s ability to react and readjust quickly.

2011 offered numerous examples of companies adversely affected by a loss of focus.

• The enormous value that Netflix had created, based on a simple and straightforward product offer embraced by scores of customers, was severely jeopardized by the company’s ill-advised decision to migrate to a more complex, two-tiered pricing model driven largely by a short-term desire to justify an overinflated stock price. The outcome was both predictable and horrific, as customers departed in droves, destroying an enormous amount of company value in very short order.
• Bank of America, arguably one of the better banks in terms of customer satisfaction and experience, watched much of that brand value evaporate following announcement of a pricing move (its now infamous $5 charge for debit card use) that evoked a similar customer outrage. While perhaps necessitated by financial realities (debatable), its positioning, execution, and ultimate response were painful to watch play out.
• Research in Motion, maker of the Blackberry, whose loyal business following was predicated on its operational and reliability advantages, suffered a huge blow to its value on the heels of a long and poorly managed  network outage—a network on which it had based much of its service differentiation.
• Berkshire Hathaway, a company whose entire business is based on the prudent, sober, and wise investing of its founder, ended up the subject of one of 2011’s stories of financial impropriety–an insider trading scandal the likes of which we’ve come to expect from the industry, just not from these guys.
• HP announced another redirection of its product portfolio, and yet another shift in its leadership team–a true “squirrel moment” with a healthy dose of “been there, done that.”

S*** Happens! You just have to manage it…

Sure, one might argue, “bad things happen to good companies”, and in these and a myriad of other examples from 2011 there is certainly some truth to that. Sometimes, these blunders cannot always be attributed to bad strategies or failure to stick with a good one. Sometimes, it’s the tactical decisions that are “far removed” from the C-suite and its strategic decision making. Sometimes these decisions, as we saw above, are undertaken because of a financial necessity that in the short term might trump a marketing strategy.

But, by the same token, those seemingly small disconnects may, in fact, be symptomatic of the problem itself. While management may not be able to control ALL of the drivers that lead to negative consequences, effective development and MANAGEMENT of strategy can not only limit the damage caused by veering off course, but can play a very important role in course correction after the fact. For many companies the words “MANAGEMENT” and “STRATEGY” connote different, and often conflicting, disciplines. But for those successful at avoiding and responding to distractions, these are highly related and often inseparable competencies.

 Great strategy management is about the WHAT and the HOW…

So, how can you ensure that corporate distractions are kept to a minimum, and effectively refocus and re-center the business when they invariably do occur?

1. Define and clarify your business strategy — This sounds like motherhood and apple pie. It always does. But it remains the preeminent cause of breakdowns during times of distraction, because the strategy is either too complex to begin with, or it lacks sufficient clarity to engender the necessary alignment and commitment to continue keeping the firm focused in times of distraction. Your strategy is more than simply a restatement of a vision or broad ambition. It is a specific answer to a specific question: What do we need to do to ensure success within your existing business environment? One of Apple’s most effective demonstrations of strategic clarity was Steve Jobs’ insistence on collapsing their previously expansive product portfolio into four clear product families that would redefine its future. Clear, compelling, with an easily-understood line of sight to renewing the value of the business.
2. Do more than just communicate it — Management 101 preaches “communicate your strategy.” But communication alone is insufficient to create the alignment necessary to avoid distractions. One of the most rewarding aspects of this job is watching clients challenge ideas and recommendations (even from yours truly) based on an automatic and often deeply-felt narrative of how the suggested change(s) might conflict with their core strategy. For them, it’s more than just “talking points.” It’s a compelling narrative they have embodied through words and examples. Sure, these too can be misinterpreted occasionally, but just like a pilot who is expected to react with some degree of muscle memory, we must develop and nurture that level of alignment as a first line of defense against corporate distraction. Vision, values, and strategies. They all need to be seamlessly integrated within a crisp, clear, and compelling narrative.
3. Build and use the right navigation systems — When NASA launches a probe to Mars, it must travel undistracted for about nine months in order to hit a fast-moving and very small target (the red planet). Even the slightest and briefest of external forces can cause the probe to miss the planet by millions of miles. Having the right navigation systems and a network of alerts and course-correction mechanisms is crucial to a mission like this, and it is just as critical to a business like yours. In business, such technologies and processes comprise your integrated performance management system, and they should include the KPI’s of the business, the network of leading and lagging business metrics we must monitor, and a clear understanding of the relationships between them.
4. Scenario and contingency planning — Made popular by companies like Shell years ago, the discipline to do this, and do it well, has fallen out of vogue. Not sure why, other than what I heard from a client a few years back…that it “forced us to admit that we might have the wrong strategy”, or that it “would distract us from adhering to that strategy”. That’s as much hogwash today as it was when I first heard it, and failure to implement a rigorous scenario planning process is, as ever, tantamount to sticking your head in the sand. If subjecting your strategic plans to that level of scrutiny adversely affects your ability to execute the strategy as designed, while being agile enough to react and learn from mistakes, then you either have the wrong strategy, the wrong leadership, or both.
5. The ability and agility to recover from distractions — Unlike the dogs in “UP”, we don’t have masters to yank our collars or order us back into focus. (unless we work in a purely autocratic environment). What we do have is the ability to learn and react. It helps if we have a contingency plan with automatic responses. But we must also have the ability to recognize when something is not working, and the agility to put that learning in motion quickly and effectively.

 History doesn’t have to repeat itself…

2011 wasn’t the first time we’ve seen these types of blunders. And it most certainly won’t be the last.

We all remember the Tylenol scare of many years ago. Drug companies like J&J, who exist largely at the mercy of safety protocols and regulations, can easily be crushed by such events. But J&J’s ability to identify and react to the crisis with agility prevented what could have been an historic business failure. Their “distraction,” which arguably could have been anticipated, was kept fairly well contained.

Others weren’t so fortunate. The Exxon-Valdez and BP-Macondo debacles are two great examples of this. Safety, which should be a core strategic underpinning for any company, but particularly those in this industry, in large measure fell victim to distraction. But, in both cases, it was the lack of a coherent, actionable response strategy that kept business value flowing out of the pipeline/tanker as fast as the oil.

If we have the right blueprint for managing strategy, we can limit the number of distractions, identify and react appropriately when they do occur, and respond with agility and effectiveness to keep adverse consequences to a minimum.

-b/b

Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience with primary emphasis on Customer Operations in the global energy and utilities sector. Bob has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Brian Kenneth Swain is a Principal with onVector Consulting Group.  Brian has over 25 years of experience in Marketing, Product Management, and Customer Operations. He has managed organizations in highly competitive product environments,  and has consulted for numerous companies across the globe. Brian is an alumnus of McKinsey & Company, Bell Laboratories, and Reliant Energy, and is a graduate of Columbia University and the Wharton Business School. He can be contacted at brian.swain@onvectorconsulting.com. 

Improving service — it’s a start…

Most of my posts on this blog are focused on how to improve business processes, especially those that influence customers directly. We  talk extensively here about the importance of tracking the right KPIs, effective measurement and analysis of  performance results, and how these insights can catalyze creative and innovative solutions to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our business and operational activities. Done right, these can lead to dramatic improvements through streamlining workflows and rethinking the very nature of of our operating processes. And the value that derives from this can be enormous.

But without great products, you’re swimming upstream…

Truth be told, most of the time we are focused on improving our existing business processes  (i.e., the way we currently interact and transact with customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders). In fact, the very core of process change — be it the Michael Hammer approach to re-engineering, or the latest in Six Sigma and Lean strategies — is based on understanding the world as it exists today and then systematically reinventing delivery processes to better meet the underlying objectives of the process. That, of course, is an oversimplification of what these disciplines offer, but when you look at the intricacies of concepts like D-M-A-I-C,  which is at the core of many process improvement methodologies, they invariably begin with an assessment of current state and a progression though the systematic steps of business improvement.

But there is another side to business improvement that often gets lost when we explore current operational and delivery processes. As we’ve discussed here before, true customer satisfaction is a function of both product excellence AND delivery excellence. Have a great product and screw up the delivery, and you’ve got a recipe for captive customers itching to defect the moment someone else offers anything close to your innovative solution. Conversely, providing great service in support of a mediocre product only delays the inevitable. Great products and great service, taken together, are the winning recipe for success. Pretty intuitive right? Well, if it’s so intuitive, ask yourself why so many of our improvement efforts focus only on downstream delivery versus upstream innovation?

I am a big fan of systematic business improvement of our delivery processes. And goodness knows, there is no shortage of broken delivery and service processes. There are some pretty good products and solutions out there that are only achieving a fraction of their market potential because of the service environment in which they operate. But at the same time, there are some pretty good service organizations out there that are severely handicapped by their company’s lack of any significant product innovation.

More Jobs anyone?

Myth Busted: Product Innovation DOES NOT start with better research 

There is no better example of a company that has achieved both Product and Service excellence than Apple. In all of the Steve Job’s eulogizing that is occurring out there, there is one characteristic that I find particularly noteworthy and relevant to this discussion. It was mentioned by the Wall Street Journal a few days before his death, discussed in  a number of interviews, and is a theme that has re-emerged in Isaacson’s biography that hit the shelves yesterday.

A bold ‘call-out’ in an article that accompanied the iPhone 4S release stated simply: Apple doesn’t ask customers what they want.” I must admit,  what I heard at first didn’t match what was written. What my ears “heard” was that “Apple doesn’t care what its customers think”. Incidentally, I showed the article to three people and when I heard them share the story with colleagues later in the day, it was evident that they had heard the same thing. Yet clearly the article wasn’t saying anything close to that. The call-out said they don’t  ASK customers what they WANT, not that they don’t care what they need.

What they ARE saying is that the key to innovation is not gobs and gobs of market research and consulting fees to ask customers what they want, but a recognition that customers don’t typically know what they want. I realize this sounds a little condescending, but try this interpretation on for size — “It’s not the customer’s JOB to figure out what the product should be, how it should be designed, and what value it should deliver”. In fact, that’s from Steve Job’s own mouth. When you look at it like that, it shows up as a deep, intense respect for customers and their time, as well as a declaration of what the accountability of innovators should be!

When our companies design products, most of us don’t live in that same universe. Rather, we spend lots of time and money asking customers for opinions about things they have no idea about, and which opinions is it not their responsibility to provide in the fist place. Great product developers, on the other hand, inspire customers by giving them something they didn’t know they wanted but which, once they have it, they can’t imagine having lived without.

Redesigning the product aspect of our offers is critical to providing high levels of sustainable satisfaction, yet improving the product design process is altogether different from what we do on the operational side of things. In operations we must start with the “as is”. In the product space, we must frequently ignore the “as is” insofar as creating new solutions are concerned. In operations, we strive to avoid waste and unnecessary mistakes. On the product side, we want to encourage mistakes and perhaps even encourage failures. In operations, we base our solutions on in-depth analysis of past problems. In the product space, we base our solutions on a vision of an inspired customer at some point in the future.

Getting the Product Right 

If we look at what companies like Apple do right when it comes to product development, is boils down to both WHAT they do, and the ORDER in which they do it. Let’s look at these one by one.

1. Innovate — Most companies start with research that tells them what customers want — focus groups, surveys, etc. That’s essentially a recipe for a better mouse-trap, but not one one that will create visionary leadership and reveal new market opportunities that will inspire and rally your end users. The first step in product development is to push your team to challenge existing market parameters, barriers, and paradigms, rather than passively accepting them as necessary constraints to their thinking. Are we developing around the boundary of our existing offers (yawn!) or are we redefining what the boundaries are?

2. Integrate — As you begin to define new boundaries and push yourself toward innovation, remember that great products not only exist independently, but also demonstrate their innovation through the offer it is positioned within. Great product companies put as much effort into the paradigm and business model in which their products exist as they do the products themselves. For example, Apple once had dozens of products from Printers to a wide variety of peripherals and product models. One of the first things Jobs did was draw the infamous 2 by 2 matrices- Professional/Personal; Laptop/Desktop. The vision was for each quadrant to have one product, effectively driving the product portfolio from 50 down to 4. Sure, there ultimately evolved more than a handful of products, but the final number was a heck of a lot closer to 4 than to 50. And it’s not hard to figure out which product (iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac, etc…) fits where, is it?

3. Assimilate — The third step is assimilating it into the market. If you are bold enough to innovate rather than respond, then it will be necessary to help educate and perhaps even overcome the skepticism of customers. It’s a necessary investment when you aspire to redefine a market. But by the same token, this education and informational value can actually be part of the customer experience, and sometimes even drive further levels of delight. Apple storefronts, for example, are as much of an experience in and of themselves as they are outlets for education and assimilation. And at +$40k of sales per square foot of retail space, it’s a pretty cost-effective sales channel!

4. Evaluate — Earlier, I said Apple doesn’t  focus on Market Research like other organizations. But that doesn’t mean they don’t do it. They spend money just like every other company does on research, but it’s usually after the fact and not designed to tell them what the customer needs but rather if Apple has hit the mark in its innovative journey. And while some would say it helps validate their success, those inside Apple would say it helps accelerate things, both in terms of further successes, and miscues. Great innovators find ways to accelerate and learn from failures.

So where are your strengths today?

Is it the creativity of your product portfolio? Or is it your ability to overcome product weaknesses and failures through stellar customer service?

If we get the product mix right, then service becomes not a means of correcting or recovering, but rather a way of enhancing and augmenting the customer experience so that the total package does not ask the customer to trade off one dimension of the experience versus another, but, rather, allows them to enjoy the rare combination of exemplary performance in both dimensions.

Stuff Happens…

We’ve all been there.  The cancelled flight. The lengthy power outage. The inconvenient disruption in internet communications. Higher than normal dropped cell calls. You’d think that whoever is calling the shots on the weather patterns lately would know the magnitude of  chaos they are creating in our lives. It’s enough to drive you nuts!

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change…

Hurricane Irene, though relatively tame to a gulf coast native like myself, once again forced me to reflect on how storms like this can disrupt life’s little conveniences. On the one hand, it’s quite amazing how stressed and freaked out we (including yours truly) get with what are, in the end, minor inconveniences–many of which would be regarded as luxuries elsewhere on the planet.

Let’s face it, we’re all human, and while we get as frustrated as the next person when inconvenienced, we all are capable of realizing and accepting that certain events simply fall into the category of “S**T HAPPENS”. While nobody likes to wait on hold for two hours to talk to an airline, most of us “bite our tongue” when talking to the agent because we know they are probably as stressed, if not more so, than we are because of what they’ve had to endure during the time we were on hold.

…and the wisdom to identify idiocy!

On the other hand, it is equally amazing, given the advances in service capabilities and technology, that we are unable to avoid, or at least help customers to tolerate, the downstream impact of these events. Consider the following examples from last weekend’s flight mess caused by multiple airport closures in the Northeast.

• Text message informing a passenger of a canceled flight fifteen minutes after the last alternate departure
• Text message instructing the passenger to CALL the airline for additional information, exponentially amplifying an already uncontrollable workload/call volume
• Call-in number with an automatic message that says essentially, “we have too many incoming calls, call back later.” Really? A six-billion-dollar Fortune 100 company in 2011 with a message like THIS?
• Call queues (for airlines who, under normal circumstances, pride themselves on differentiating between “tiers” of frequent fliers”) that suddenly lose all such distinctions in the midst of a crisis–with hold times from two to three hours throughout the weekend
• A website containing little if any useful information on the situation at hand, self-help suggestions for what I could do in the meantime, or anything else that might have alleviated the stress
• Complete absence of any visible “behind the scenes” or back office process to re-book flights automatically (my reservation was essentially cancelled leaving me to re-book myself with no apparent prioritization for my loyalty status
• A workforce that, despite all their effort and hard work, (and I do mean hard work because they had 200 reps working what I estimate to be at least 300,000-500,000 displaced passengers), did what???

Crises are the real MOTs…

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about “Moments of Truth” (“MOTs”) when it comes to service interactions. We often think about MOTs from a transaction standpoint, e.g.,when a customer calls to connect service, ask a billing question, get updated about a service interruption, or simply to complain about an inconvenience. For me, though, the real MOT is what happens in a true moment of chaos or crisis–when the customer’s daily life is truly interrupted, i.e., when they actually expect things to suck. It’s at that moment, when natural optimists become pessimists, that one of three things happens:

• Customers’ bad expectations are realized, either creating or reinforcing a perception that when unforeseen events occur, things will inevitably become hopeless, i.e., a feeling of general resignation.
• Lowered expectations become their worst fears…and you become recognized as the company that falls apart rather than shining in the face of adversity.
• They are completely “WOWED” by the significant, yet counter-intuitive, responses they see from you at a moment when they have every expectation in the book for not doing so.

For most of us, it’s typically the first experience, and we move on with our lives, disappointed but not surprised. We remain only marginally engaged, and perhaps, when the next opportunity presents itself to switch to another supplier, that new supplier may have the proverbial “edge”. But for companies who really understand these dynamics and strive for true loyalty, they know the power of the third outcome above, and the value that small, but memorable, responses can have in these real MOTs.

What if…

…I had received a text message telling me that an adverse weather situation was unfolding and that by responding “helpme” to their text, they would search for available options and contact me to see if I wanted to initiate any of these two or three alternative plans? What if the message I heard when I called (instead of  “We’re busy. Call back later.”) had directed me to a website that contained actual useful information (even if nothing more than “We’re at the mercy of the weather and the airport, and we won’t know anything until tomorrow at 2 p.m.”)? What if instead of my reservation being cancelled, they had proactively re-booked me on another flight? And what if (perhaps for only their million-mile customers) they had actually offered me some REAL solutions, like, for example, flying on a different airline or going through an unconventional (perhaps even inconvenient and uneconomic) routing.

Insanity=

Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result…

We all understand crises and uncontrollable events. We all know that we cannot blame an airline or a power company for things like earthquakes, weather, some mechanical failures, and the like. And we know, as well, how inappropriate it is to blame the people who are doing their best in a bad situation. But I would argue that in a time and era where margins are thin and everyone is looking for new ways to differentiate themselves…and particularly in a time when customers have been conditioned to expect the WORST from us…that is the perfect time to step up and offer creative and inspiring solutions.

Some of these may be BIG things–the kind of heroics you hear about in commercials, performances that border on the uneconomic and, perhaps, unrealistic–solutions that would drive a company to the poorhouse if they were truly institutionalized (Can anyone forget the FEDEX driver who couldn’t get the drop box open, so he lifted the entire multi-hundred-pound box into the back of his truck?). But I would contend that it’s the little things that mean the most–the things that show you’ve had the FORESIGHT to understand how a customer is truly affected in a crisis. ANTICIPATE your customers’ most likely state of mind in these situations, and develop small solutions that can, in fact, be INSTITUTIONALIZED.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

There is not a client I work with who doesn’t have their shelves lined with volumes of benchmarking studies and reports. Nearly every industry group produces some kind of comparative metrics report for its members. And every industry has those companies that we might consider to be “benchmarking addicts” — those who participate in nearly every study they can in the spirit of demonstrating their performance improvement “commitment” and “prowess” around driving change. Ironically though, it is rarely these companies that define the top tier of their respective industries in terms of real performance.

Here are some inherent flaws with benchmarking today:

• Benchmarking is largely “point-in-time” driven and retrospective in nature. While this can be useful in “stress testing” targets and defining high-level gaps (“low-hanging fruit” or “quick wins”), it largely ignores the trends or shifts in metrics that are far more critical to identifying and driving course corrections.
• Comparative studies almost always focus on lagging versus leading indicators. This often leads to a culture of “managing through the rear-view mirror”. It also fixates the organization on measuring things for the sake of comparisons, when some of those metrics may have have  become irrelevant or even obsolete.
• Benchmarking focuses on “common metrics” versus those that may be critical to you, but perhaps not everyone. It’s okay to have a few metrics you routinely measure for the sake of comparison, but when these metrics begin to define your scorecard, it’s time to recognize when the “tail is actually wagging the dog”.
• Comparisons are done for many reasons, not all of which are performance driven. More often than not, benchmarks are used to identify strengths for the sake of communicating to shareholders, regulators, or sometimes even internal Executives. They’re sometimes even a vehicle for rationalizing and justifying poor performance, often confusing the organization and sending all the wrong messages.
• Benchmarking often leads to “group think”. We look for commonalities and like to follow the “herd”. Let’s face it — It lowers our risk to say, “if company x is doing such and such, then we should be doing it too.” But it’s sometimes the anomalies in the data that can show us where real innovation is happening. And in the benchmarking world, anomalies are often dismissed as outliers and suggestive of data problems rather than solutions.