Time to Hit Refresh on Customer and Employee Experience Design Efforts?

What Matters And Is Missing In Those Who Are Working On Improving The Customer/Employee Experience?

I’ve worked with folks working on improving/transforming the Customer Experience.  I’ve also worked with folks working on improving/transforming the Employee Experience. In the process, I have come across personas, customer journeys, voice of the customer surveys, design thinking, service design, process mapping…. Yes, I have come across plenty of stuff.  Yet, I say that I have not come across that which gives life to the work of designing/orchestrating experiences that touch human lives as lived.

What is it that I am pointing at?  Let’s listen to Satya Nadella talk in his book Hit Refresh:

iu

Richard didn’t give me an engineering problem to solve on the whiteboard or a complex coding scenario to talk through. He didn’t grill me on my prior experiences or educational pedigree. He had one simple question.

“Imagine you see a baby laying in the street, and the baby is crying. What do you do?” he asked.

“You call 911,” I replied without much forethought.

Richard walked me out of his office, put his arm around me and said, “You need some empathy, man. If a baby is laying on the street crying, pick up the baby.”

Yes, that sums it up well.  Most of the folks that I have encountered are intelligent like Nadella and have about the same emotional intelligence (empathy) as he had when this event occurred many years ago.

How Important Is Empathy in Experience Design?

Great design necessarily has to be human centred as only human beings can appreciate the presence/absence of great design.  Is any kind of empathy sufficient?  Or is a particular kind of empathy necessary?  Lets listen to the folks at IDEO:

Human-centered design is all about building a deep empathy with the people you’re designing for…..

In the Inspiration Phase you’ll learn directly from the people you’re designing for as you immerse yourself in their lives and come to deeply understand their needs..

Notice, that IDEO folks speak of “deep empathy” – the kind of empathy that arises only after one has spent enough time immersed in their lives.  It is that immersion (living in the arena in which life occurs) that leads to the deep understanding of their needs.

Yet, time after time I see folks ‘study’ their target (customer, employee) from a safe distance (sitting in the stands) through a variety of means – surveys, focus groups, interviews. Then use their intellect to come up with personas, journeys etc.  All intellect, zero empathy.

Can you just take these ‘intellectuals’ and turn them into empaths with some classroom training?  Or maybe an empathy app.  Is it this simple?

The Right Kind of Life Experiences Are Essential To The Presence of Empathy

I say that suffering is essential to empathy.  It is my own (personal) suffering in the arena of cancer that has led me to accept a request from a friend to reach out and talk with her friends father who is dying of liver cancer.  How about Satya Nadella?

I discovered Buddha did not set out to found a world religion. He set out to understand why one suffers. I learned that only through living life’s ups and downs you can develop empathy….

It’s just that life’s experience has helped me build a growing sense of empathy for an ever widening circle of people. I have empathy for people with disabilities. I have empathy for people trying to make a living from the inner cities and the Rust Belt to the developing countries …. I have empathy for small business owners working to succeed. I have empathy for any person targeted with violence and hate because of the color of his or hers skin, what they believe, or who they love.

My passion is to put empathy at the centre of everything I pursue – from products we launch, to the new markets we enter, to the employees, customers, and partners we work with.

So how did an ‘intellectual’ like Nadella turn into such an empath.  The clue is in the line “It’s just that life’s experiences …”  Is there a particular life experience that was the turning point?

Little did I know then how profoundly our lives would change. Over the course of the next couple of years we learned more about the damage caused by utero-asphyxiation, and how Zain would require a wheelchair and be reliant on us because of sever cerebral palsy. I was devastated.

Something awful like this happens. It brings your world to a halt and suddenly you ooze with empathy.  Right?  Not necessarily. Let’s listen to Nadella:

I was devastated. But mostly I was sad for how things turned out for me and Anu.  Thankfully, Anu helped me understand that it was not about what happened to me. it was about deeply understanding what had happened to Zain, and developing empathy for his pain and his circumstances while accepting our responsibility as his parents.

What Are The Implications For Your Customer/Employee Experience Efforts?

Empathy is central.

Yet, time after time, I come across Experience ‘teams’ full of Nadella’s – intelligent, hardworking, and self-centred.  Folks who treated everything an engineering (process, technology) problem. These folks even when they think/speak ‘walking in the shoes of the customer/employee’ are doing nothing of the kind. Mostly they are projecting themselves (their mindset) into the shoes of their customers/employees.  Worse, these folks are blind to this – so blind that when someone like me points this out it simply does not show up on their radar.

What’s missing is the Anu’s of this world – people who naturally feel/think and show up/operate in terms of the needs/suffering of the other – fellow human being.

Until the Nadella’s are teamed up with the Anu’s of this world, and listen – really listen, most of the experience design/improvement efforts will yield little of value.

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

Maz Signature

Experience Engineering: How Do You Engineer Authentic Humanity Into The Customer Experience?

I have been working in Cheltenham for a few weeks now. I like, really like, the folks (at the client) that I find myself working with. It has something to do with their kind of accueil- a word that my French family often use.

Let’s just consider accueil. How is it translated?  It is translated as: welcome, reception, acceptance, hospitality. It is also used to refer to the home page of a website.

Many years ago I chose not to specialise – going against the dominant trend and advice. I chose to do what comes naturally to me: be a generalist. Today, that means I get involved primarily in some combination of digital transformation, customer experience, CRM, marketing automation, change leadership, programme management. And I get involved in one of many levels – from helping devise strategy through to drawing out the systems architecture.

Why did I share that with you? To set the context. Why?  Because the more I see of what organisations are doing under the CX umbrella and the way they are going about it, the more I find myself falling out with the whole CX thing. I also find myself disagreeing with many CX gurus – many of whom are self-appointed. It is not a domain where one can criticise and remain in the CX club – as I have learnt. That is ok by me.  I can criticise CX because I do not depend on it to make my living, build a reputation, or safeguard one.

Call it Customer Experience design, call it Service Design, call it Experience Engineering. Whatever you call it, here is my question: How do you engineer accueil – authentic, spontaneous, warm accueil?  How do the BPR/six-sigma folks (I always find plenty of them working under CX umbrella) engineer/standardise processes for generating authentic warm accueil?  Or let’s turn to the business change or HR folks, how do they train the frontline staff (who are often on minimum wage, or some of the lowest wages in the organisation, in the economy) to generate authentic warm accueil?  Let’s not leave out metrics – according to conventional dogma only what gets measured gets done. What metrics does one use to assess if authentic warm accueil is experienced by the experiencer: the customer, the guest, the employee, the partner, the supplier?

In my first week in Cheltenham, I found myself staying in the Holiday Inn Express.  I checked in late on a Sunday. Lady on check-in was polite, helpful (gave me ‘map’ of Cheltenham centre), and quick. The lifts were plentiful, clean, quick. Room was easy to find through the signposting. The room was clean and spacious. And as promised it was on the quiet side. The breakfast was in line with expectations for that kind of hotel.  The right folks ‘faked’ the right kind of smiles. And behaved in the appropriate scripted manner. In short, all was in line with a well run hotel in that class of hotel.

If I had to put it into words, I’d say that the experience engineers (through design or accident) had engineered a professional competent experience.  Did this experience evoke any kind of emotional bond to this hotel, or anyone in the hotel? No. Why?  The whole experience felt corporate – efficient yet inhuman.

One evening I returned to the hotel after a busy (full) day of consulting work.  I found myself keen to get changed and go walkabout around Cheltenham: walk, look around, check out potential dining choices, pick a restaurant. Problem: it was raining heavily and I had no umbrella. Further, the situation did not afford the purchase of an umbrella as it was about 7:30 in the evening.

Remembering that some hotels (of the expensive kind) stock umbrellas for use by guests, I approached the lady staffing the reception desk. “You don’t happen to have an umbrella I can borrow do you?”  Her polite answer? “Sorry, we don’t have any umbrellas.” Hope dashed. Mild disappointed – mild because I did not expect this kind of hotel to offer customers umbrellas.  Then the most amazing-delightful thing happened.

One of the employees working at the bar (which happened to be adjacent to the Reception desk) said “I have an umbrella, you are welcome to borrow it. Mind you, it’s girly. Are you ok with that?”  Then she went into a back room and handed me her own (private) girly umbrella. Surprise. Delight. Gratitude. I accepted her gift, thanked her, and promised to return her umbrella to her by the end of the evening.

Here’s the thing, I was so deeply touched (and continue to be touched) by this young lady’s humanity (kindness, generosity) and her placing her trust in me (without me having earned it first) that some deeply human dimension of me wanted to both to hug her. And to cry. Why cry? Cry of joy. Joy of what?  Joy that fellow feeling – genuine human compassion – is still alive in some people.  She did not know me. She did not owe me anything. She had no script to follow. In fact, if there was a script to follow I suspect it would advise employees not to lend their or the hotels private property to guests (customers).

It is the accueil – the acceptance, the welcome, the warmth, the hospitality of this young lady’s humanity in action that I remember and carry with me. I am moved by how she showed up. Her way of being makes me feel good about being a member of the human race. Gives me hope for the human race despite the savage/violent aspects of human existence.

Which brings me back to experience engineering and the question I posed: How do you build authentic humanity into the customer experience?  What I can tell you is this: you cannot do it by the means that most folks are using to design/engineer customer experiences: putting lots of channels in play, collecting lots of data (small and big) and using this to do ‘personalise content’ to do targeted marketing/selling, engaging a bunch of BPR/Six Sigma to redesign processes, handing out vision/value cards to employees, sending employees on training courses, using VoC measures (NPS) to reward/punish employees…..

If the quality of the accueil matters (and I say it matters a lot in service environments) then you have to deliberately attract and welcome folks who embody warm accueil in their way of being. And then you have to continually cultivate an environment/climate where 1) those in management roles generate that kind of acceuil for the folks working in the organisation; and 2) folks working in the organisation can agree or disagree with one another – passionately against a background of warm accueil for their fellow colleagues despite challenging their ideas, proposals, and behaviours.

Do this and you dispose your organisation to spontaneously and appropriately generate the kind of humanity/accueil that build genuine affinity with your organisation / brand.  And yes, the right tools, and behind the scenes processes can make it easier for your folks to deliver outstanding accueil.

Notice, the technology (tools) and process – are there in the background to serve your people.  Your people become real-time, flexible, experience engineers – treating different customers differently and even the same customer differently depending on the context.

Enough for today, I thank you for your listening.  Until the next time, I wish you the very best – may you receive and grant the kind of accueil that makes you proud to be a member of the human race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does a promising future await Service Design and Customer Experience?

Are Service Design and Customer Experience in the same boat?

This week I was talking to a fellow professional who is passionate about service design.  What showed up in our conversation was his recognition and disappointment between the talk and the reality of service design. Yes, there is a small community of theorists, ‘gurus’, and practitioners in service design. And in the bigger world of business the landscape is not friendly to service design. First, most business folks do not understand what service design is.  Actually, it is worse than this. Most business folks do not accurately what makes up a ‘service’.  As such, the world of business is mostly a barren place when it comes to opportunities for service design. And yes, there are a small number of small organisations doing great work on service design.  Why are these organisations small?  Could it be due to the lack of listening for, receptivity towards, service design?

In the course of our conversation I shared my experience. And it occurred to me that the same applies to the field of Customer Experience.  First, it is not well understood.  Second, where business folks do talk about customer experience they are pointing at that which occurs in the Customer Services function.  Third, the majority of talk on customer experience takes place via a relatively small community of people who are passionate about customer-centric business and the critical role of customer experience.  Where, perhaps, there is a difference it is that the IT vendors are looking to make hay in the customer experience space.  They are not doing the same in the service design space.

What does the Michael Lowenstein say?

Sitting in this place I came across this recent post by Michael Lowenstein. In this piece Michael is reflecting upon the findings of the recent Oracle study.  I want to draw your attention to the following paragraphs:

… over 90% of executives said that improving customer experience is a top priority over the next two years …. and a similar percent said that their companies want to be customer experience leaders. However, just over one third were only now beginning with formal customer experience initiatives, and only one-fifth considered their customer experience program advanced.

In the Oracle study, fewer than half of all executives surveyed thought that customers would defect due to negative experiences, nor did they think that customers would pay for great experiences. That finding is yet another huge divide between ‘conventional wisdom’ of executives and the realities of customer behavior.

Reasons identified for not moving forward on these initiatives include inflexible technology, siloed organizational structures and systems, low investment, and inability to measure initiative results. This slow adoption, or non-adoption, seems to be not so much a reflection of stagnant international economy as it is of significant, historic corporate conservatism and risk aversion.

Is there hope for Service Design and Customer Experience?

It occurs to me that Service Design fits under the umbrella of Customer Experience. And as such it is not a surprise that they are facing similar issues. By now you should also know that I am passionate about the need for and value of taking a customer-centric orientation in doing business. And customer experience has a huge role to play in a customer-centric orientation.  So how am I left being?  Yes, a part of me does from time to time become downhearted with what is so in the business world.  And there is another part of me that gets me present to the wise words of Werner Erhard:

Life never needs to turn out predictably. Human beings have the capacity to intervene in the orderly unfolding of circumstances, to produce an outcome which is basically unpredictable given those circumstances. Most of us don’t know that…..

Clearly,  Vernon Hill, the Chairman of Metro Bank in London, and the retail-oriented entrepreneurial executive who made Commerce Bank a regional marketing force in U.S. banking for several decades get this.  Why do I say that?  This is what Michael Lowenstein writes in his post:

In his recent book, “Fans! Not Customers” (Profile Books, London, 2012), Hill stated: “We want our customers to be passionate about doing business with Metro Bank, to become Metro fans. Our philosophy is more than just a corporate mission statement: it’s a way of life. Our corporate spirit – something we’ve made a unique part of our social fabric – enables us to succeed. We are fanatically focused on delivering a unique customer experience. Over-investment in facilities, training and people, a focused geographic management, and countless mystery shops a year ensure that we always exceed our customer’s expectations”.

As Hill observed, “You don’t have to be 100 percent better than the competition in order to beat them. You have to be 15 percent better, and you have to get better all the time. It’s all about standing out from the competition…..”

Are we asking too much of marketers and the Marketing function?

The implications for Marketing when the company|customer ‘relationship’ is viewed through SD Logic

I have been reading this deck that has been posted on Slideshare by Wim Rampen.  In this presentation Wim is making the case for looking at the business|customer ‘relationship’ through Service Dominant Logic.  In a nutshell SD logic states that service is the fundamental basis of exchange between the company and the customer; products are services in disguise – you go and buy a drill to get access to the service of drilling a hole/s, there is no intrinsic value in the drill itself.

Looking at the business|customer relationship Wim makes the following point (I have modified his language to make certain concepts clearer):

If value for the Customer is dominantly created after the value exchange (buy/sell when goods are transferred from producer to the consumer), ie. IN USE, both the scope and content of MARKETING STRATEGIES SHOULD SHIFT from dominantly focused on creating momentum for value exchange (promotion /selling) to a continuum of interactions aimed at supporting the customer’s value creation process.

Do you get it?  Wim is asking marketers and the Marketing function to shift from doing what they current do to designing and orchestrating the Customer Experience – across all interactions and touchpoints along the customer’s journey from research through to ownership and usage.    This is how Wim puts it:

Marketing  has to shift “from campaign and communication design to service experience design, end to end..”

Accepting this as the ground, the context, out of which Marketing operates, Wim goes on to spell out the key jobs that marketers and the Marketing function should be doing.

Wim Rampen: The 7 jobs that fall to the Marketing function

1. Understand customers’ value creation process (= jobs & desired outcomes) and where in the process customers fail to meet their desired outcomes;

2. Build relationships in communities of people with similar desired outcomes and behaviour;

3. Support customer’s value creation process;

4. Design experiences that stimulate engagement through interactions in networks of relationships;

5. Engage employees and partners in supporting customers in their process of value creation;

6. Extract actionable insights from 360-degree feedback to foster innovations and to turn them into value propositions that attract new customers; and

7. Redesign metrics to capture the engagement value for the firm and ensure there is high correlations between these metrics and customers value created.

Is Wim is asking too much of marketers and the Marketing function?

Lets assume that these are the jobs that need to be performed when it comes to the customer|customer relationship.  Now the question is do marketers (and the Marketing function) have the required skills to do these jobs?  Many of us would say that they do not.  Yet, that is not an issue because people who do have the skills can be brought into the Marketing function.  Do marketers have the required mindset and attitude?  That is debatable – people, as groups, are loathe to let go of their mindset, values and attitudes.  Yet, it is doable so let’s assume that marketers and the Marketing function can make that shift.

Now we come up with the more interesting question: does the Marketing function have the influence, the clout, to design and orchestrate end to end Customer Experience / “service experience design”?  Before you answer this question get present to what is being asked of the Marketing function.  The Marketing function is being asked to orchestrate the mindset, metrics and behaviour of all the functions and people in the enterprise: product development, sales, customer services, logistics, finance, human resources, information technology….  Is that realistic?  And if that task falls to the Marketing function then why have a CEO or the Board of Directors?

Look into what is so (reality) and you are likely to find that the Marketing function is simply one piece on the corporate chessboard and its mandate / role is limited to using advertising and spin to stimulate demand for the products that the corporation makes and needs to sell.   That is all that is expected of the Marketing function.  Sit with marketers and you are likely to find that they feel boxed in, limited, by the space that they are given to play in.  Only a few Marketing functions control the 4Ps – most only control one P, Promotion.  What I am pointing at is the gulf between marketing theory and the reality on the ground.

We are looking at organisational transformation and Marketing cannot lead that

Continue looking into reality and you are likely to find that the Marketing function that has little respect in the Boardroom or within the organisation in many if not the majority of companies.  If that is so then how is the Marketing function going to take the lead an, in effect, transform the organisation: product development, sales, customer services, logistics, finance, human resources, IT etc – they all have to play together to provide the kind of end to end service experience that Wim is talking about.

The role of organisational renewal and transformation belongs to the Tops (the CEO and the senior leadership team) and not the Marketing function.  Collectively the Tops need to: buy into the services dominant logic way of looking at the business; articulate an inspiring vision of the future and convert this into a blueprint; have the guts to requisition and deploy the right resources to convert that blueprint into reality; roll their sleeves up and help in turning the blueprint into reality; see it through to the end – be committed to the end goal; and be flexible and patient in going around obstacles on the path – there will be many obstacles.

If you are still in doubt over the point that I am making then ponder this: how likely is it that one of the States in the United States is in a position to influence and orchestrate the agenda / priorities / behaviour or all of the States in the United States so as to create harmony across all?  Then ask yourself if you did want that kind of harmony – say in the laws that apply – across the States then who is best placed to lead that task?  Is it really one of the States?  And if it is, which one is best placed, has the most credibility, the most influence, to bring about that kind of change?  Then ask yourself how long this process is likely to take?

Customer Experience: how are ‘robots’ going to cultivate feelings that generate memorable customer experiences?

So much talk about Customer Experience – seems like everyone gets the importance of Customer Experience and many businesses are busy designing, improving, orchestrating experiences that reflect the brand, make an impact on the customer and generate customer loyalty.

What constitutes a Customer Experience?  In my experience a ‘customer experience’ is an integrated combination of physical sensations, thoughts and feelings.  Again, tapping into my lived experience it occurs to me that the customer experiences that I have access to right now are the ones that have a strong emotion (my emotion) associated with them.  Put differently, if an interaction with an organisation left me with a strong feeling – surprise, delight, happiness, disappointment, frustration, anger, boredom..- then I can access it because it stands out in my memory bank.   From that I’d argue that feelings are the key lever to work on when it comes to being a master of Customer Experience.

Now walk into the business world – especially the world of big business – and you will encounter a desert: a landscape where feelings are absent.  There is no agreement for feelings to be present in this landscape.  Where feelings do flower the flowers are sprayed with such criticism that the flowers wither almost instantly.  And if the plant/s insist on producing these flowers one too many times then the plants are uprooted and tossed out.  The only plants that survive and prosper in this landscape are the ones that delight in their ability not to have feelings.  Some of the younger plants do have feelings and start out by keeping them hidden in the darkness where no-one can see them.  As these plants get used to playing this game – it becomes second nature – they also lose sight of their feelings.  One day these plants wake up and find that no feelings are present and because they have lost their capacity to feel they do not feel anything about not having any feelings.  Some of the plants actually take delight in not having any feelings: how great to be totally rational.  The paradox of it is a wonder to me:  such a strong feeling about being a plant that does not have feelings!

Which brings me to my central question: how are a bunch of people who long ago lost connection to their feelings and gave up expressing and sharing feelings (at least in the workplace) going to orchestrate stuff so as to cultivate strong feelings in customers and the people on the front line who are serving these customers?  And how are they going to design products that evoke feelings of wonder, delight, affection and love?  Or design processes / introduce technology that creates feelings of being validated, treated as a worthwhile human being, a part of the community, someone that matters….?  If you have the answer then please comment and share your perspective.

A final word:  or me the beauty of plants occurs in their flowering – the variety of colours, shapes, sizes – what a joy to behold and to experience.  What about you?

7 lessons in service design

Category practice and company policies matter yet they are not enough

More than once I have advocated that companies must change category practices and company policies so that these take into account the needs/wants of customers.  Put differently, each category practice and company policies should be listed and then examined in terms of impact on the customer.  Does this practice / policy create benefits or costs for the customer?  How can we increase the benefit and reduce costs?  By ‘costs’ I mean costs in terms of effort, convenience, price, cost of ownership etc.  However that is not enough: you have to purposefully design processes that support these practices and policies by delivering the right customer experience

Right policy, poor process, customer experience

Is it possible to put in place a policy that is designed to protect your customers and yet have a process that ends up irritating your customers?  Yes, it is common – allow me to share my story with you.

Recently I wrote about how hard it was for me to move money from one account to another.  If you read that post then you will know that by thumbing through my file I was able to find my e-banking ID and thus transfer a large sum of money (around £50k) from a savings account to my current account.  Once this money ended up in my current account I needed to move it to its end destination: my sister’s account.  So I logged into my e-banking account and attempted the transfer.  I was not expecting any problem yet I met one.  The system would not let me: I simply got a message on the screen telling me that I had exceeded the withdrawal limit.  No other information was provided e.g. what the withdrawal limit is or who exactly to call and which number to call.

So I called Customer Services number and ended up talking to a customer services agent.  He took me through all the usual security checks.  When I told him of my issue he started asking me all kinds of questions – questions that only someone who is the account holder and has access to the bank statements can answer.  Once he was confident that I was the person who I was claiming, he told me that he could not help me.  He was powerless: he had to get  hold of the specialist team and get them to authorise the transfer.  So he took the details of my sister’s account and verified those with me, patiently, to make sure that he had the correct details.  Then he got on the line to the specialist team.  After waiting some 10+ minutes he told me that he could not help me because this specialist team had clocked off at 9pm and were not available.  He apologised and told me that he had entered all my details into the system and asked me to ring in the next day. On hanging up I noticed that I had been on the phone for 30+ minutes.

The next day I rang Customer Services and went through exactly the same drill.  I had to replay almost word for word the conversation that I had the previous day – this CSA claimed that the previous CSA had not left any record of the previous conversation.  Finally, he hit the phone to speak to the specialist team.  After about 5 – 10 minutes he came back and told me that the specialist team had declined to do the transfer and that  should go to the local branch.  When I asked why he simply told me that the specialist team had told him that it looked suspicious.  I was not at all happy yet the rational part of me understood that the bank was indirectly acting in my interest.  Looking at my watch I noticed that I had been on the phone for 20+ minutes.

Then I headed to the local branch and made my request for the fourth time. The cashier was polite and helpful.  She took copies of various personal documents and told me that it was going to take some time. In total I had spent another 30+minutes in the branch.  And when I left I resolved to move to another bank which I fully intend to do.

So whilst I totally get that Santander’s policy of being prudent and preventing fraud is commendable I cannot help but think and feel that their process is a poor one. I’d go further and say that Santander does not have a process for the kind of scenario that I faced:  I cannot believe that any sane person would have designed the process to be this wasteful.

7 lessons in service design

Communicate the need for / benefits of the policy to the customer.  At no time did anyone at Santander explain why I was not able to withdraw money via e-banking or via telephone.  No-one told me that they were doing this to ensure that a fraud was not taking place.  Or that this policy was necessary to comply with money laundering legislation.   If Santander had done this then I would have been more understanding: most of us are reasonable human beings and allow organisations leeway when we know they are acting in our interest or having to comply with the law.

Take ownership of the customer problem.  No-one at Santander took ownership of my problem: the e-banking folks did not; the Customer Service folks did not; the ‘specialist team’ did not – they did not even speak to me.  The cashier had to take ownership of my problem because I was there right in front of her and the rest of the Santander system had ‘let me down’.    All the way through the process I felt that I was ‘battling my way through Santander’ to get something done that mattered to me and Santander were simply indifferent to my plight.

Take the opportunity to educate the customer.  When I headed to the local branch I assumed that I would need several identity papers, bank statements etc.  No-one at Santander took the time to tell me what exactly I would need.  Nor did anyone educate me for the next time e.g. “Next time you decide to move a large sum of money then it is best to do …….. and avoid ………”

Strive to solve the problem where it starts.  At the e-banking stage (when my transfer was declined) Santander could have provided me with a chat facility and directed to the specialist team.  Or Santander could have simply told me to go the branch.  Either of these approached would have cut out wasted time and effort on the phone to Customer Services who simply are not in a position to help.

Put the right people in touch with the customer.  What value did the Customer Services agents add?  None.  When it comes to complex processes that require specialists these agents are simply non-value added relays.  Furthermore they are likely to make mistakes.   The implication is that once you have identified that the case is complex then the call should be routed directly to the specialist team to take care of.  First line, second line and third line thinking is deeply flawed especially as customers are taking care of the easy stuff themselves via self-service and so the demand that falls on contact centres tends to be the more complex stuff which requires specialists.

Design your process to minimise cycle-time.  If you want to compete on the customer experience then you should design your processes to minimise the customer’s cycle time – from need to resolution.  A focus on cycle time will force you to deal with activities and hand-offs that eat the customer’s time.

In complex organisation x-functional co-ordination is required.  When you let various teams within the organisation do their stuff then they will do what is in their best interests.  The result is that the end to end process is likely to be wasteful for the organisation and for the customer.  Furthermore, the waste will typically end up downstream usually in Customer Services or the retail branches.  The only way to get around this issue is to look at processes from end to end (customer perspective) and that means cross functional co-ordination.  If no-one else is playing that role then the Customer Experience team should take on that role.

And finally

CRM systems constituting the ‘organisational memory’ sound excellent.  In practice they are pretty much useless as organisational memory. Why?  Because of the way the real world works. What do I mean?

First, the CSA’s have only so much time to handle and wrap up calls.  That means they end up inputting the bare minimum into the systems.  And usually that bare minimum is not that useful.  If you don’t believe me then go and work in call centres for a little while and see with your own eyes how things work.  Second, the more complex the call the more useless the CRM system is.  Why?  Because it simply takes too long for a CSA to read through the history.  In that situation it is much quicker for both parties if the customer spells out the situation.  So that is another bit of the ‘sales story’ around CRM systems that does not hold up in the real world.