Posts Tagged ‘customer service’

The tyranny of the dashboard

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009

722346_speedingI frankly am beginning to feel that I’m shouting into a void here. Companies are spending more time and money equipping the CEO and team with information, while starving the thousands of ground-level employees who, frankly, can have more impact on the company’s success simply through their day-to-day actions.

One ray of hope: an article in the December Harvard Business Review (co-authored by Fred Reichheld, the creator of the Net Promoter Score – a simple metric that somehow captures the complexity of customer perception) entitled, “Closing The Customer Feedback Loop.”

As opposed to the conventional wisdom of gathering masses of data and trying to detect high-level patterns in them, Reichheld and his coauthors talk about getting more granular – gathering information at the customer transaction level, creating small rollups of the data, and sharing them where they can do the most good – with the front-line employees and first-level management who directly impact the customer experience.

I agree with their prescriptions, but it still leaves the problem of what to tell upper management. Is there anything wrong with high-level management dashboards? Well, yes. Something of the danger in this is described in today’s WSJ article on Simpson’s Paradox (”When Combined Data Reveal the Flaw of Averages“). The first example cited: while today’s overall unemployment rate is lower than the 1982 level, unemployment at each educational level is higher. (The overall rate is lower because there are more people at higher educational levels, which have lower unemployment, than there were in 1982.) The article states: “Compared with a similarly educated worker in 1983, ‘the worker today has higher unemployment at every educational level.’”

There’s always something lost in summarization. In the case of Simpson’s Paradox, the result of the loss is a flawed conclusion, or at minimum missing a greater point of the story. Overall unemployment today is lower than 1982, but people today have been hit harder than their 1982 counterparts.

Dashboards distort reality as well. Executives rely on machines crunching millions or billions of numbers to present them an easily readable story of what is happening in their businesses. Yet the farther the statistics are distanced from the on-the-ground reality, the more likely they are to lie.

What can be done? Let’s get back to “Closing the Customer Feedback Loop.” On-the-ground data gathering and interpretation by those close to it makes all the sense in the world. But in communicating with upper management, there needs to be less sharing of numbers, and more sharing of individual stories. You can’t get any more granular than that. You can read a vibrant story in a minute or two. And stories fall into patterns–something more subtle and nuanced than statistics–that help senior management understand what’s going on. And human experiences are more understandable than the simplest dashboard.

There are tools to do help you gather and use stories. Rakontu, an open-source story-sharing platform, is one. Enterprise 2.0 tools such as blogs would also work for this purpose. So what’s stopping us? Or am I still shouting into the void?

(Photo by awegedebe via stock.xchng)

Related posts:
GE uses “net promoter score” – one of my earliest posts!
On Rakontu
Time to listen to front-line employees
How B2B customers talk
“Enterprise 2.0″ review
Technology is great, and so is avoiding the acorns

Front-line nurses discover small process innovations can cure medication mistakes

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Bob Sutton posted on this San Francisco Chronicle article today, but it had so much good stuff relating to areas I’m passionate about that I need to write about it too.

The article concerns an effort by Bay Area nurses to reduce the occurrence of medication errors, which, according to the Chronicle, cause 400,000 preventable injuries and cost an extra $3.5 billion in medical costs each year. The results of the effort: a 88% reduction in medication errors in the participating hospitals.

Here are a few quotes that talk about areas I’m interested in – listening to and empowering customer-facing (patient-facing?) personnel, and the value of simple, low-tech solutions to business problems:

Striving to reduce interruptions that lead to mistakes, teams of nurses at the different hospitals came up with a variety of methods – often surprisingly low tech – to alert others they were administering medications….

The solutions “have to be low tech because we, as staff nurses, don’t have the money or ability to make high-tech changes,” said Celeste Arbis, a registered nurse in the medical-surgical unit there. “Something as simple as changing the process just a little bit can make a big difference.”…

Nurses attributed much of the program’s success to allowing those on the front lines to develop and tailor their own solutions.

I’ve seen both these situations in action: the ability of front-line personnel to understand and fix problems with the processes they use, and the effectiveness of often-overlooked simple and low-tech solutions. Sutton wrote something very profound in his post on this subject: “I think that people — especially managers — often use spending money as a substitute for thinking, when inexpensive and low-tech solutions work just fine.”

Related posts:
Low tech and on the ground
Don’t just thank front-line personnel, use their insights

Customers Are Talking: In Praise of “Customer-Oriented Defiance”

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Behind many great customer-service stories is a front-line person who went outside standard operating procedure to solve a customer problem. Now this practice has its own name: Customer-Oriented Defiance.

In “Customer-Oriented Defiance [COD]: Exploring Righteous, Sacrficing and Sneaky Behaviours,” co-authors Cheryl Leo and Rebekah Bennett of the Queensland (Australia) University of Technology comb existing sources and do first-hand research of their own to flesh out the phenomenon. Leo and Bennett show that it is not a completely altruistic practice, nor always (or even primarily) beneficial to the companies involved.

Yet it’s clear from reading this paper, and backed up by my experience, that exceptional customer service doesn’t happen without front-liners (the most vulnerable staff in the company, the least paid, often the least respected) stepping out and taking some personal risk by addressing a customer problem in a non-standard way.

In the past, management has been able to avert its eyes and allow this to happen without explicitly sanctioning it (a pretty shameful practice when you get right down to it). But, with auditing/control technology on the rise, it will be harder for COD to occur without a paper trail, increasing the risk that stepping outside the lines, even “righteously,” will be caught and punished. (See this post on the benefits of lighter access-control policies.)

Which means that exceptional customer service will become even rarer than it now is – unless leaders recognize that some processes are art rather than science, including customer-service processes, and provide lighter constraints that reflect the values of the business, the worth of the customer and a respect for the judgment of the front-line employee.

After all, just because you can audit and control something, doesn’t mean you should.

Related posts:
Processes as art & science
Carnival of Trust (the benefits of lighter access-control policies)

(Thanks to Arie Goldshlager for pointing out this research.)

Offshoring telesales reduces close rates – why?

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

I’ve heard from several friends in call center operations that outsourcing inbound telesales to the Philippines has resulted in close rates below expectations. In at least one case that I know of, a company is re-establishing an internal sales center to try to get to the root of why telesales is harder to offshore than customer care.

After listening to hundreds of sales calls and care calls and helping companies find actionable patterns in them, I’ve got some opinions on the subject.

1) Sales is harder to script than care
– a care call is bounded by the product or service the customer has bought. There’s only so much that can go wrong, and most/all those scenarios are documented and can be scripted into the CRM system. Sales calls are open-ended; they can go anywhere, and can veer off track at any moment. Will the prospect complain about the price? Will they bring up a competitor you’ve never heard from? Any left turn a prospect makes can cause an offshored rep, already managing language complexity and reduced empathy, to panic or lose his place (see “confusion kills sales,” below).

2) It’s easier for a prospect to give up than a customer - anyone who has made a call through an offshored center knows that it’s more difficult to communicate with someone who’s from a different culture, with a different accent and familiar with different figures of speech. That difficulty can breed frustration. A current customer with a problem is more inclined to persevere through the frustration, in order to solve her problem, than a prospect, who can hang up the phone or say, “No thanks” and be no worse off than she was before.

3) Confusion kills sales -
if your sales process has a number of steps, and/or it has options a customer has to understand and select, the rep or the customer is prone to become confused. And if the rep gets confused, the prospect is soon to follow. My experience listening to and finding patterns in sales calls tells me that confusion is a sales-killer. There are enough negative emotions swirling around the buying process that adding confusion into the mix can tip a sale from Yes to No.

What have your experiences been with offshored telesales? Are there other reasons sales is difficult to outsource?

(If you’re interested in getting a deeper read as to why your telesales operation is undershooting its objectives, we can help.)

(Photo by vlima.com via Flickr Creative Commons)

Related posts:
Complex sales: it’s all about the negatives

From Mobile Ecosystem’s Mark Lowenstein – the evolution of device-based self-service

Monday, September 28th, 2009

My friend Mark Lowenstein, a longtime wireless industry analyst for Yankee Group and now for his own firm Mobile Ecosystem, wrote a great piece in his recent newsletter on how wireless is changing self-service. He has graciously allowed me to repost it here.

The Evolution of Device-Based Self-Service

With a challenging economy and continued high cost of handset subsidies, advertising, and network capex, wireless operators are continuing to search for ways to save on operational expenditures. Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to do some research in the area of customer service, and particularly the implementation of device-based solutions, as one of the ways in which operators are saving cost without compromising the customer experience. This column presents a summary of the key findings of this research. If you would like a complimentary copy of the full White Paper, please email me and we will send it to you.

Self-service – defined as the ability of the customer to activate, manage, and troubleshoot their service without human intervention, is now being used across three broad categories of functions:

  • Service enrollment and activation
  • Account management and maintenance
  • Customer care

More recently, the mobile device – with its ubiquity, improved functionality, and usability – has emerged as an important, and complementary tool in the self-service arsenal.

In addition to successful implementations of Web-based self-service solutions, operators are deploying device-based service solutions as well. Properly implemented, these solutions reduce the number of calls or length of call to customer care, while also reducing fulfillment costs, and optimizing service/feature plan selection. Business cases presented in the report demonstrate cost savings of 40-70% for device-based activation and service enrollment functions, with more than 90% of activations/programming now automated in some implementations. For self-care functions, cost savings of 20-50% have been realized, and we are seeing 50% reduction in calls to care centers.

Positive customer experience and demonstrated ROI with initial self-service implementations, combined with improvements in device interface, memory, and speed are leading to an aggressive roadmap for implementation of new capabilities in the account management area, such as viewing data usage consumption, changing price plans, and replenishing minutes for pre-paid accounts. We also see some potential revenue-enhancing opportunities, such as promotion/up selling of services and the creation of loyalty programs and greater tie-ins to advertising. Device-based self-service will also play a critical role in helping operators work with the growing number of third-party retailers selling wireless devices and services.

We also spend some time in the report discussing a successful go-to-market approach. A good user experience, which includes ease of navigation, simple presentation of information, and completion/confirmation of transactions, is one important element. I have also found that many go-to-market solutions fall apart without proper training in the channel, including retail sales and customer support representatives. We have also found cross-promotion with Web-based account management solutions to be effective.

Over the years, I have written about how wireless is unique in providing free customer care across a breadth of issues, many of which have little to do with the core service operators are providing. As devices and services become more complex, I believe one of the more effective ways to “resource” for high-touch interactions on complex issues is to implement a flexible, and user-friendly suite of self-service solutions for the more commonplace elements of activation, account management, and entry-level care, across the Web and device channels.

Why companies need to be more proactive with subscription customers

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

Yesterday I wrote that companies need to be more proactive with customers–helping them understand what they’ve bought and, particularly in the case of subscription products, helping them reconfirm on a regular basis that their package is appropriate.

This almost never happens. And it’s a time bomb for providers. People’s needs change over time, and the longer they are a customer (a delightful situation for providers), the more likely their needs have evolved while their subscription has stayed the same. Then, if an event occurs where needs and offer collide–say an insurance claim scenario–it’s very likely the customer will be surprised, at a very sensitive and emotional moment.

But isn’t it the customer’s responsibility to make sure what he’s paying for fits the bill? As long as I disclose everything, haven’t I done my job as a supplier? That is a valid way of looking at the issue.

Yet the world has changed. People are busier. Two-worker households are the norm. Customers are buying more exotic products and lack the expertise to check them for fit–especially if it’s something rarely put to use. And customers will blame their supplier if things work out poorly. They will consider canceling their service, and will tell their friends.

Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried situation to me. Take care of your customers by helping them buy subscriptions that fit their needs, or take your chances.

Proactive dialogue and diagnosis – the future of customer care

Tuesday, August 18th, 2009

I have several commercial insurance policies that I renew regularly and pretty much automatically. I do think, from time to time, that I should review those policies with my agent to see if I am properly insured. But I don’t—because I don’t have time, and auditing my insurance coverage is something that takes a back seat to, for example, marketing, client work and collections (never mind family time!).

Customer service used to mean responding promptly to customers’ requests and resolving the issues they brought up quickly and effectively. No more. In today’s time-constrained, overcommitted world, customer service means reaching out to customers, diagnosing their unstated anxieties and proactively putting measures in place to deal with the problems they worry about.

Let me continue with my own example. Say I had an incident that caused me to file a claim, and I learned through that process that I was underinsured in that area, and my insurance, contrary to my expectation, would not cover all the loss. What would that mean for me, my agent and my insurance provider?

For me, it would be costly and perhaps painful. I would likely get pretty angry—with myself, for one, but also with my agent. She has been sending me renewal notices for years and dutifully cashing my checks, but has not sought me out to review my needs and update the policies so I am adequately covered.

And my response, very likely, would be to change agents and insurance carriers.

This is reality in the insurance industry and many industries today. We have become distanced from our customers. We don’t understand them the way we used to. At the same time, customers have more demands on their time, so they need our guidance more than ever.

As a result, our customer relationships are fragile and prone to break with any misstep. What to do?

The first step is to realize that silence is not the basis of a productive, long-term customer relationship. A signed renewal and a check do not signify a satisfied, well-cared-for customer.

Next, seek out opportunities to ask customers what they think—about your service, about the industry, about their futures. This can be done through interviews, when customers call, or scheduled as part of the renewal process. Company blogs and Twitter are another source to gather customer stories. Don’t only ask for good things; seek out the negative thoughts customers have as well. (If you know something is wrong, you have the possibility of fixing it.)

Collect the stories, put a team together and immerse yourselves in them. You’ll see patterns. I guarantee you’ll be surprised by some of the things you find out. A group of customers may be unhappy with one aspect of your service. New business areas may be emerging that require different insurance products. Competitive awareness may be on the rise.

Finally, take action. Use the insight you learned from the stories to make meaningful changes in your business. (Focus on experimentation rather than “grand planning and initiatives.”) Your marketing department will be delighted to talk about these changes, which respond to things customers actually want and need!

Imagine that the following happened: My insurance agent called me and said, “Before we renew, let’s review your policy and make sure you have the right coverage.” We looked through all my policies, and made some adjustments. When the incident happened, I was completely covered, thanks to the review.

Not only did I not cancel my policy, I actually recommended my agent to several friends.

How much is that worth?

When reps are discourteous, is it them… or their environment?

Thursday, August 13th, 2009

I had the silliest dust-up with a teller at my bank yesterday. I brought in some rolls of coins I had measured using a small electronic coin counter, as I do every few months. I placed them on the counter in front of the teller and said, “Could I change these for bills, please?”

From her steely glare and folded arms, I knew something was wrong. “Did you count them by hand or with a machine?”

“Machine.”

“We don’t take machine-counted coins anymore. They’re always coming up short.”

“Is this new? I always take my coins here and never had a problem.”

“We don’t take them.” She kept glaring at me.

“Is this a policy?” I said. “When was this put in place?” Silence. Arms folded.

Eventually a manager came over, discussed the situation, and helped me count the coins by hand. I was 22 cents short over $28 worth of coins. (A surprise to me–I had assumed the machines were accurate.)

The manager told me that when I drop coins off in the future, I should put my number on the rolls, so they could call me if they came up short.

I am fine with that. I am not trying to swindle the bank out of 22 cents. And now that I know my machine counts a little short on nickels and pennies, I can fix that, too. But I was upset with the teller’s behavior. She refused to make eye contact with me as I left and I’m sure had a lot to say about me after I was gone.

As I thought about it, and the teller’s heightened emotional state, I knew there must have been more to the story. There may be people systematically shortchanging the bank. Tellers have to balance their drawers at the end of the day (my mom was a teller). They may have to make up the difference if their drawer is short. All of which could lead one to be a bit hostile when the next person comes in with a pile of machine-wrapped rolls of small change.

A teller shouldn’t be put into a position to unilaterally implement a customer policy, like whether to accept or reject machine-rolled coins. If there’s a problem, it should first be communicated to customers and then, if needed, a policy created and communicated (like writing the phone number on the rolls). Any side effects on reps must be removed (like them being financially responsible for shortchanging).

The bank failed on several accounts here, but first and foremost was putting a teller in a position to be hostile to a customer.

Another thing on customer service vs. network at wireless companies

Friday, August 7th, 2009

This was a million years ago in tech terms, but during the mid 1990’s my friend Amy told me that she had given up AT&T long distance for Working Assets, a reseller. Why? I asked her. Cheaper? Its social mission?

Amy told me this: “Working Assets was nice to me on the phone.”

Related post:
Wireless companies are no longer in the network business