DCX/CRM: Avoiding Failure (3)

This is the third of a series of ‘conversations’ centered on avoiding failure when it comes to Digital Customer Experience and/or CRM.  The first ‘conversation’ dealt with articulation-understanding-ownership of requirements.  The second ‘conversation’ dealt with the challenge of integration.  This third conversation deals with the matter of thinking/collaboration that necessarily comes with a transformation programme.

Thinking & Collaboration: Christmas Day

Yesterday was Christmas Day and we (our household) celebrated it.  The day turned out great and it didn’t just happen. For the day to turn out as it did (workable, enjoyable) required thinking/collaboration: the five members of the family had to think, make decisions, and collaborate in making happen that which we decided upon.

Let’s start with thinking/decision making.  We had to decide (as a family of five) where we wanted to spend Christmas. With the children’s grandparents in France in their main home in the country?  With the children’s grandparents with their winter home in the Alps? With the children’s uncle Ralf (and his family) in France? With my sister in the New Forest?  At home?

Where did these series of conversations centered on this question/decision take place?  Around our dining table – as that is the place where we sit, eat, talk things through ever since the children were toddlers.  After listening to one another and thinking things through we came to a mutual decision: we will do Christmas at home!

Next decision: Do we do Christmas as a family or do we invite guests?  Once we had made the decision that we wanted guests for Christmas, we had to agree upon who and how many people to invite given the demands on shopping-cooking-seating-sleeping that necessarily comes with inviting guests.  How did these decisions get made? Through a series of conversations. Where did these decisions get made? Around the dining table.

Did the thinking and decision-making stop here? No. Next, we had to decide (as a group) what it is that we wanted to eat/drink and the dietary requirements of our Christmas guests.  The challenge? To come up with the minimum number of dishes as some wanted to eat meat, others fish, others had vegetarian/vegan requirements.  And ensure that these dishes are the ones that folks want to eat.  Where did this thinking through (as a family) and decision making occur? Around the dining table.

Once the thinking through/decision making) had happened it was time to formulate a plan of action: Who would do the food shopping and by when? Who would go and buy the wine/drinks and by when? Who would prepare the food? Who would do the cooking? Where did these matters get thought through and decisions get made? Around the dining table.  Then on the day itself, we collaborated with one another to make happen that which needed to happen: setting the table up, clearing up the table, doing the washing up etc.

Thinking & Collaboration: DCX/CRM Transformation Programmes

Now think of your transformation programme (DCX/CRM): the elements, the actors, the interplay between the various elements/actors, the sequencing of work, the design of the end-to-end solution, orchestrating dependencies, dealing with the arrival of the unexpected – challenges, opportunities… Ask yourself these questions:

1-Is thinking (and decision-making) required?

2-Is this thinking (and decision-making) a one-off event or an ongoing series (a process)?

3-Is the thinking (and decision-making) that is called for, simple/easy – as in here is a round block of wood, here is a round hole, insert that block of wood into that hole?

4-Is the thinking deep, intricate, multi-dimensional – the kind of thinking that comes up with options, thinks through these options, considers the advantages/disadvantages of promising options, and identifies the impact of an option on the wider transformation programme?

5-Is the thinking (and decision making) an exercise for one omnipotent person? Or does the ‘nature’ of the thinking, decision-making, action planning, and execution necessarily require the active participation/contribution of a group of people?

6-If the thinking is not superficial/simple and cannot be done (or should not be done) by a single person then ask yourself this: Have we created a suitable context & space for the kind of thinking/collaboration that needs to occur in order for this programme to deliver on the promise?

Of What Do I Speak When I Speak ‘Context’?

What is it that I mean by ‘context’?  Imagine that you open your mail and find a wedding invitation for someone who matters to you.  What happens? You automatically know the context by having attended (or seen if it is via the movies) the context that goes with a wedding: the mood, the music, the place (most likely a church for the wedding service), the actors, clothing, the sequence of events, what actions are expected etc.  Now imagine you open your mail and learn that a friend has died and you are invited to his/her funeral.  Again, you know (almost immediately) the context that goes with a funeral – for example, the mood (and setting) will be dramatically different to that of a wedding and the expected behaviour/clothing will also be radically different.

Of What Do I Speak When I Speak ‘Space’?

Imagine that you are charged with staging a soccer game, in a foreign country,  between two well-known soccer teams. On the day of the match, you, the soccer teams, and the fans turn up to the venue What do you find?  The pitch, the space, is set-up for cricket! There are no goal posts. There are none of the markings that a game of soccer requires e.g. half-way line. Instead, the space has been set-up and thus calls forth (supports) a game of cricket as there are wickets. And there are the markings that go with a game of cricket e.g. the crease.

Avoid Failure By Cultivating a Context-Space That Calls Forth Deep Thinking and Collaboration

Time after time I come across transformation programmes where the space in which the actors show up and operate is that of a large call-centre.  Have you spent time in a large call-centre?  If you have, it cannot have escaped your notice that the environment is like that of a large warehouse. What is warehoused?  The people who answer calls!

The kind of space that one finds in a large call-centre operation is suited to the context of almost all call-centres. Why?  Because the context is one where ZERO original thinking is required. And ZERO collaboration is required.  Everything of significance has been thought through and turned into a script: for call type X follow script X, for call type Y follow script Y.

If you wish to avoid failure in your transformation programmes then it is essential that you create a context that signals, to all actors, that here we have to think (deeply) and collaborate – this is the default.  And, you have to create the space to support this signaling and enable this deep thinking/collaboration to occur.  Specifically, this means:

1-Plenty of meeting rooms – where the availability of these meeting rooms is kept up to date and made visible (electronically) to all working on the programme;

2-Range of meeting room sizes – from four people working on a challenge through to 20 people working on a challenge;

3-Each of these meeting rooms equipped with the equipment that goes with the kind of thinking/collaboration that the meeting room is designed for e.g. whiteboard/s, pens, ‘erasers’, sticky notes, audio-visual equipment…

Heed My Warning For The Transformation ‘Game’ Is An Unforgiving One!

I consider this to be a MINIMUM requirement.  Since 2016, I have worked on (and or witnessed) four transformation programmes.  Of these, only one company (global Oil & Gas operator) has provided the context and space I have set out here.  The rest, in my view, failed – the degree of failure varied from one company to another.   Allow me to end by saying this:

1-If you fail to provide a context-space for deep thinking to occur then I guaranteed you that your transformation programme will end up with superficial thinking;

2-If you fail to provide a context-space for collaboration to occur then I guarantee you that you will get silo-based thinking (and actions) and you will end up with requirements that do not gel across the elements of the programme, solution components that will not fit/integrate with another, and dependencies that are not identified early enough nor orchestrated effectively;

3-Where there is lack of context-space for deep thinking and collaboration there you will find a lack of effective leadership and programme management; and

4-The transformation ‘game’ is unforgiving as in failures in effective leadership and programme management will be punished through missed milestones, rework, escalating costs, demotivated actors, finger-pointing, scapegoating, and a sub-optimal ‘solution’ from the perspective of end users – your prospects/customers, your distribution partners, and the people on the front line of your organisation dealing with prospects, customers, and distribution partners.

Enough for today. I thank you for your listening and wish you the very best for 2019.  Until the next time….

What Does It Take To Generate “Total Customer Satisfaction”?

Let’s assume that you are a member of the leadership team for your organisation. Circumstances are such that you decide that your organisation needs to focus on customers and generate “total customer satisfaction” on the assumption that satisfied customers buy more of your stuff at higher prices thus generating higher profits.  How would you go about it?  What approach would you take?

The Default Organisational Change Approach: “Analyse-Think-Change”

The default, dominant – almost exclusive, approach has been labelled as “analyse-think-change” by John Kotter.  What kind of results does this generate?  Let’s explore this through the experience of David K. Hurst as recounted in his book The New Ecology of Leadership:

For the pilot program we decided to measure “on time delivery” as a proxy for customer satisfaction; that is, did the customer get the steel on the day we promised it? ….

We didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when the first measurement showed that ….. 53% of the step was delivered on time.  Shocked, we decided to feature on-time delivery as a significant part of a new bonus system, allowing branch managers and their people to earn up to 25% of their bonus for on-time delivery.

What kind of results showed up?  Did treating human beings as purely economic beings yield a step change in one-time delivery?

To our delight the results started to improve immediately, climbing quickly to 75% across the system, and some branches even headed into the 80-90% range.

It works, it is as simple as that! Sit in the executive suite, decide to become customer oriented, find a lever that represents customer orientation, measure it, bonus people on improving that measure, and soon you find that your organisation is customer oriented.   If that is what you are finding in your organisational change / customer-centricity efforts then take a break from celebrating and listen some more:

We had hardly finished congratulating ourselves … when one of the senior team had a disturbing experience. While walking through a branch, he overheard a salesman on the phone to a customer. “We can’t get it to you on Tuesday,” said the salesman. “How about Friday?”……. The executive saw the salesman go back to the on-time delivery screen and record the new promised date as Friday ….….

Was this salesman just an isolated ‘rotten apple’?  I say that where there is a so called ‘rotten apple’ there is a structure that generates rotten apples.  Think back to the last post where I shared Robert Fritz’s insight: structure determines behaviour. Let’s listen to David K. Hurst again:

Further investigations revealed that the improvement in on-time delivery that had earned bonus for all was largely an illusion created by our people, who gamed the quirks in the measurement system. The actual delivery processes in the organisation remained unchanged, and the customers were seeing no difference in our performance. Our analyse-think-change approach had rendered the organisation mindless by focusing exclusively on outcomes and ignoring processes….

“See-Feel-Change”: A More Effective Approach to Organisational Change and “Total Customer Satisfaction”?

So what did David and his colleagues do? How did they go about orchestrating “total customer satisfaction” through “on-time delivery”? Let’s listen once more:

We realised that we had to dig deeper to get into the “habit systems,” the processes our people were using, by repeatedly asking why. The top seven reason for the late deliveries were instructive:

1. Salespeople promised the steel early so that they could get the order.

2. The credit department could not approve the credit in time.

3. The processing department couldn’t make the schedule.

4. The quality of the product was not up to standard.

5. We were unable to locate the product in our inventory.

6. The trucks were unable to deliver on schedule.

7. A third party (usually a steel mill) let us down.

Take a look, a deep look, at these reasons. What do you see? I see issues in the product, in the manufacturing of the product, in the management of the inventory, in sales, in finance, in logistics….. In short, just about every function in the organisation is involved  in the work that has to come together in order to generate “total customer satisfaction”.

David and colleagues tackled the challenge because they had to – the survival of their employer was at stake:

We formed teams to look at each of these reasons and to search for the systemic causes behind them, drilling down into the bowels of the system. Reason 1 was no surprise ….. the disconnection between sales incentive schemes and factory production systems is a major obstacle to effective performance.

Reason 2 (credit delay) did surprise us -surely credit approval was a mechanical, by the numbers job,. How could it be a major source of delay?  ….. investigation revealed that the problem lay with the large number of smaller orders. Now small orders were part of our overall strategy, and for years we had encouraged the taking of smaller orders…   Margins on small orders were high, so, as far as we were concerned, the more we had the better.

…. another team working in the warehouse on reason 3 (production delay) found that the primary cause of production delay was the time spent waiting for cranes. After another investigation a team of warehouse people found that the main reason was …. small orders……..   Management was stunned – our small order strategy had been an article of faith throughout the corporation. Yet here it was creating a fundamentally unprofitable operation for systemic reasons that we had never understood. 

There is a profound insight and truth here. And it is one that is neglected. It is this: organisational policies and leadership-management practices are the real source of most organisational dysfunction including a lack of attunement-responsiveness to customer needs.  I say this as a statement of fact, not as blame.  What does David K. Hurst say on the matter:

Now, the reader may feel that management must have been asleep at the switch to miss something as obvious as this. However, the logic of complex systems is neither obvious nor intuitive, and it becomes clear to us only in hindsight. Even then it was the people who worked in operations every day who had to point to us that the real cost drivers on the warehouse floor are finding and handling the product. It’s a common problem in large organisations. The people on the front lines have all the answers, but senior managers seldom ask them the questions, at least in a form … that they can understand.

Conclusion

How does David K.Hurst end his story? What does he conclude?

We had experienced the benefits of drilling deep down into operations, into the processes that produced the outcomes that we were trying to change. John Kotter calls this kind of change “see-feel-change”. That phrase neatly captures a sensual aspect of change – you see a truth and it changes how you feel – it is timely, specific, visceral feedback. Also, it’s compelling for other operators to see it because they can study the action required at the fine grained levels at which they are going to have to implant the changes in their own operations……. First, you go deep on a narrow front, and only after that do you go horizontally, rolling out a program in depth from unit to unit….. This perspective also suggest that huge benefit of pilot programs that develop working prototypes of how a proposed change will actually function….

What is my take? David is sharing and advocating the road less traveled. It is less travelled because it is not quick. It is not cheap. And it is not painless. Yet, it occurs to me that this is the road that has to be travelled to generate the insight-motivation-action that is needed to effect deep change in the behaviour of the organisation. And shift it towards generating-delivering “total customer satisfaction”.

 

 

 

Most Important Post I Have Written This Year: What Does It Really Take To Know Your Customers?

This is long conversation and likely to be of interest to those of you who have experienced the limitations of knowledge as it is commonly understood. It may also be of interest to you if you glimpsed the radical difference between knowing and knowing about. If this is not you, then please go do something else.

How Useful Is The Knowledge Gained Through Market Research?

There is a huge industry that caters to the needs of business folks (often those in the marketing function) to know their customers or their target audience/market. I am speaking of the market research industry: qualitative (focus groups etc), quantitative (surveys), and a mix of each. In recent years, a new breed of player has entered this industry: the Voice of the Customer industry with its many technology solutions providers focussed almost exclusively on feedback through surveys. How useful is this research? What are its limits? What can you really know about your customer/s through this kind of knowing?

What Does It Take To Know Your Customer? The Short Answer

There is one well know market research organisation that sells and ‘supplies’ market research to many big brands who are keen to know their customers. This organisation knows it stuff: market research. Given this one would assume that the folks in this organisation would know all they need to know about their customers – those who commission the research (on their customers and target markets). What is actually the case?

One of the growth challenges, of this marketing research organisation, is a lack of understanding, knowledge, of its customers. How can this be?  This organisation has an army of professional market researchers, an array of market research technologies, a broad range of tools that it uses every day; and history/track record of conducting all kinds of research.

Clearly, market research, that this organisations does and sells, does not provide the kind of knowing that it is seeking of its own customers. So the short answer is it takes more than market research whether through focus groups or surveys. Whilst this kind of knowledge may be interesting, even somewhat useful, it is not sufficient.

What Does It Take To Know Your Customer? The Long Answer

To answer this question it is necessary to clearly understand-distinguish between ‘knowing’ and ‘knowing about’.  Once you get this distinction you get why it is that the market research companies has no real understanding of its customers. You will also get why it is that most advice given by sales gurus to sales reps is useless.

Should you use your valuable time to master this distinction?  Let me put it this way, I say, mastering this distinction is one of the most important distinctions, if not the most important, distinction to master for effective living.  Once you master this distinction you can focus on what really generates knowledge. And you will no longer need to be bewitched and misled by the many academic articles, business books, guru, advisors and consultant. You may even see that this stuff is worse than useless, it is dangerous!

What distinguishes ‘knowing’ from ‘knowing about’?

I invite you to read the following passage with someone who has grappled with this question not theoretically but through lived experience:

When I was working on the Meaning of Anxiety, I spent a year and a half in bed in a tuberculosis sanatorium. I had a great deal of time to ponder the meaning of anxiety – and plenty of first hand data on myself and my fellow anxious patients. In the course of time I studied two books ….: one by Freud, The Problem of Anxiety, and the other by Kierkegaard, TheConcept of Anxiety.

I valued highly Freud’s formulations …… But these were still theories.  Kierkegaard, on the other hand, described anxiety as the struggle as the living being with nonbeing which I could immediately experience in my struggle with death or the prospect of being a lifelong invalid……

What powerfully struck me then was that Kierkegaard was writing about exactly what my fellow patients and I were going through. Freud was not..… Kierkegaard was portraying what is immediately experienced by human beings in crisis….. Freud was writing on the technical level, where his genius was supreme ….. he knew about anxiety. Kierkegaard, a genius of a different order, was writing on the existential, ontological level; he knew anxiety.

– Rollo May, The Discovery Of Being

Have you gotten the distinction? Kierkegaard knew anxiety in the only way that generates knowing: through experiencing it, living it, being anxious.  Freud, knew about anxiety.

Failing to distinguish ‘knowing about’ from ‘knowing’ compromises effective action and generates unintended outcomes

Let’s do a thought experiment. Imagine that I can get a bunch of data about you: name, address, age, marital status, number of children, job, income, what you spend your money on, where you spend your time, your height, your weight, colour of your eyes……  Clearly I know about you. And I might get to thinking that I know you. Do I? Do I really know you as a living-breathing human being?

Before you answer that question, I ask you read and truly get present to the profound insight that is being communicated in the following passage:

The Mexican sierra has 17 plus 15 plus 9 spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted. But if the sierra strikes hard on the line so that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over the rail, his colors pulsing and his tail beating the air, a whole new relational externality has come into being – an entity which is more than the sum of the fish plus the fisherman.

The only way to count the spines of the sierra unaffected by this second relational reality is to sit in a laboratory, open an evil smelling jar, remove a still colourless fish from the formalin solution, count the spines, and write the truth…… There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed – probably the least important reality concerning the fish or yourself.

It is good to know what you are doing. The man with his pickled fish has set down one truth and recorded in his experience many lies. The fish is not that colour, that texture, that dead, nor does he smell that way

– Steinbeck and Ricketts, 1971, pp 3-3

Summing Up

Life occurs in the arena, is dynamic, is ALWAYS relational, and every observation and ‘lesson’ is context specific.  Knowing occurs in the arenaGenuine, deep, insightful knowing occurs in and amongst those who spend sufficient time playing full out in the arena to transcend discrete objects-events and experience-see relationships, patterns and the deeper structures that generate the patterns and thus the events.

Most of what is spoken, written about and passes for knowledge in Western society is that which can be observed, relatively painlessly, by sitting in the stands observing what appears to be going on (as viewed by the observer with his particular ‘line of sight’) in the arena: knowing about. It is ok for non-relational objects. It is ok for abstract concepts. It is ok for that which is static. It is totally insufficient when it comes to the living: the individual, the social system, life in its fullest expression.

You can never know a human being (customer, employee) through focus groups or surveys. To know a human being you/i must walk in the shoes of that human being and experience situations, people, encounters as s/he experiences them. And this is not as easy as it sounds. Even when you walk in someone’s shoes it is useful to be aware that it is your feet doing the walking. Which means that to get an appreciation for how the other experiences ‘walking in his/her shoes’ you need to have the genuine openness-willingness-curiousity-patience to walk with the other for long enough to get a feel for the others feet such that you arrive at a place where you can walk in the others shoes.

I leave you with the following quotes:

There are certain things you can only know by creating them for yourself

– Werner Erhard

That which really matters in human life can only be known through lived experience; this knowing can rarely be communicated to those who have not created this knowing for themselves through lived experience.

– maz iqbal

Make it a great week. For my part, I find it a joy to be sharing that which I share with you especially after a wonderful experiential vacation in beautiful Dubrovnik.