Complaint Management - Defence or Brand Building

The psychology of venting one's spleen can be turned into an opportunity and that's the whole point of allowing clients the time and place to complain and hopefully receive a satisfactory resolution. Problems resolved and customers converted to a state of satisfaction produce many rewards. The first being a satisfied client who will boast of the excellent service and result provided by the company to others, not just because of the complaint made. This avoids the industry statistic of one unhappy client telling at least 6 others not to do business with you!

In order to handle complaints a company must train CSRs to be resilient to and automatically tolerant of rude and obnoxious behavior. Make it like a game with rehearsed and obvious moves. Indeed, to listen whilst remaining calm and measured is the first way a CSR can command respect and attention. Saying very little, except to ask more of the client to extract as much of the pain and frustration as possible, will invariably diffuse the situation. Once the client is all out of wind, the CSR can address the problem by taking details and providing, where possible, an instant solution, or at least one that will provide a satisfactory conclusion, albeit may not be the ideal or perfect ending. Where such a solution is not forthcoming or impossible to deliver, there must be an automatic facility to resolve at another time and the facts available so the CSR can inform the client of the expected date and time of the resolution. This is critical as once you begin to manage the client, not managing them provides a worse scenario of loss of loyalty than the first encounter.

Automated email/web based complaints and service requests are another annoyance. In my case I rarely have had satisfaction from automated responses usually accompanied with long or overdue delays. Invaribaly, I don't get responses to my requests, or when I do, they're usually inappropriate, implying that what I have written has not been understood, or it's been interpreted and processed by either a moron or a computer! CS teams ought to be set up to call back users of web based service requests when they have not been satisfactorily answered within a couple of days or when promised, or if the client sends a second, often more terse request.

There should also be a method and means to record all complaints and the associated reasons. These should be correlated against data such as age range, sex, product/service, reason, campaign, media, etc., in order that a clear understanding of trends and likely expectations going forward. Customer service isn't just about always "making people happy" all the time. The real test is making them happy when they start out being unhappy. CSRs must be trained and or hired where they can in fact undertake the latter more often than the former. An organisation needs this quality within its CS teams to act as not only a defence barrier, but also as a forward post for brand building.

Bloody Metrics

Why bother with them?

Why do you have eyesight? Why do you get grades at school and university? Why does an engineer or chemist measure ingredients and impacts? The big difference between regular trained scientists and engineers and I include my jovial oncologist and haematologist in this little bunch, is that without numbers, metrics, they'd be lost and wouldn't be able to do their job.

Now I am not known for being as grumpy about CRM as much as I ought to be, so this is my first full on grumpiness displayed in public.

Metrics are what support intelligent decision making by providing some insights and reality to outcomes and causes. Metrics lower risks if applied effectively. Metrics help explore new investment. They help minimise unwanted communication to your customers, whilst acting as a luminous ray onto those things, channels, products, offers, processes, services and people that do well and not so well. Often it's the simple metrics which most people (organisations) fail to have at hand.

An exmaple of blindness is to only review revenue without associated costs. Even worse, to inaccurately record costs and or ignore the opportunity to create multiple views of metrics, so that you can discover margins and productivity amongst the myriad of combinations you may never have considered plausible, or just didn't have enough time to consider.

I am a great believer in designing all CRM and business systems in general to be as integrated as is possible, to ensure consistent and continuous measurement. Further, relationships can be viewed using the same structured truth, whether in a sales ledger, a customer history table or the general ledger. Indeed, one of the last bastions of CRM influence, yet the most obvious place to start, is the GL. I reckon more than 80% of the companies I have visited over the years has structured its chart of accounts into strict P&L and BS format to suit the accountants, not the senior management and certainly not sales. WIth PeopleSoft, SAP and a myriad of other GLs enabling multi-level account codes, there's no excuse not to automate the journals exploding from individual transactions. All it takes is some imagination and an understanding of metrics.

The real challenge of CRM experts and the market in general, isn't just getting strategy and customer centric thinking adopted, it's getting those self same people educated and disciplined just like the engineers and scientists I mentioned earlier, to interpret and act upon a wide range of metrics.

What's makes me even grumpier, is knowing that maths and metrics will be considered boring and "like too hard man". I know I can make the numbers interesting, especially when the R.O.K. is considerably more valuable than adding some more glitz to the web site or another option on the IVR.

R.O.K. is my new acronymn: "Return On Knowledge"

Quality Design Part 3

Genesis Design Method

‘A method for technology selection and process design using quality as the premise for success.’

© Clyde Lennon, United Kingdom, 2002-2003

10. The Organisation, Design & Quality Considerations

An organisation is a combination of resources like money, people, offices and facilities. Its primary purpose is to supply products or services to a market. Whether or not it is a profit or non-profit organisation, or a government institution, the Genesis Design & Development method will be just as important and as effective.

A lot of what we normally associate with technology, is typically within the facilities of an organisation, i.e. networks, telephone systems, computers, etc. Over the last decade or so, management professionals and academics have also attempted to understand the effects technology has on resources and people. As a result, approaches such as change management (CM) and business process re-engineering (BPR) have evolved and proliferated throughout management consultancies. Not all methods are the same and most work with standard practices able to be implemented time and time again, regardless of the uniqueness of the organisation.

CM or BPR processes are often highly structured activities limited to the way it does its business. That is to say, these projects often ignore dynamics of quality and normally rely upon proven and known answers to questions. But what is truly a good answer for any given circumstance, may not necessarily be the same as that which is already known or proven elsewhere. Indeed, it is important to place the proven and known solution under the same rigorous examination for quality as if it were unknown. There is nothing wrong with CM or BPR and many organisations can gain much through regular reviews. Simply going through the process can remind you of what is and isn’t important. However, without a basis of change founded on principles of quality, the solution, no matter how functionally correct may not yield the quality of performance expected. In essence, potential may not be reached although the solution looks the same as every other one being considered. In these cases an examination comparing quality requirements with those being produced by the solution, will need to be undertaken.

When making a wooden boat for example, you may have several types of wood from which to choose. Each type will have characteristics which will either make it easier to build, or make the boat more stable, or stronger, or lighter. When choosing the wood, you may end up making the wrong choice, because you ignored the desired end result, or the way you needed to build it. If you want to build it quickly and easily with little time at hand, then obviously the wood which enables those results will be the best choice. It may not be the cheapest, or the strongest, or the lightest, but you may build it quickly and without great effort or difficulty. This is a quality decision process. If your design criteria are different, then you will try and build the best boat that fulfils your intended purpose. E.g. It might need to be a river boat, easily loaded onto and off a trailer by two people, able to handle small chop of say two feet and take up to an eight horsepower outboard without vibrating itself into separate parts. You may also want it to last for decades and be a low maintenance proposition. You may want the look and feel of a traditional wood and lacquered river craft. They are all issues that affect the level and type of quality being set in order to determine the best solution from available choices.

There is no simple formula for good design however a balance of quality and purpose will be behind most things you think are ‘spot on’ or ‘cool’. We must also look at the quality of an organisation’s structure, its staff’s level of loyalty, as well as the overall pride of belonging and sense of purpose. You may think that this does not have much to do with choosing an IT solution, however I believe it does. To make the best choices for the company, suggests that the staff must themselves be of sufficient quality in loyalty and experience. It requires open minded and caring consideration for knowing the difference between what is and isn’t good by the staff.

Materially, quality is not necessarily the most expensive, nor the most difficult to produce. Often quality can be from minimalism and lightweight. The phrase form follows function springs to mind as an alternative to fit for purpose. An example, from the late Colin Chapman, founder and designer of Lotus sports cars, is that he always endeavoured to add lightness, by reducing weight without sacrificing strength and structural integrity. His design objectives enabled a higher quality of road holding, handling and ride that a heavier chassis would have compromised, or at worst, cost more in material and taken a more complex design. We can also examine how quality varies depending upon application of the solution and or by those who determine the solution in the first place. It is critical to ensure best experience is employed in the process of setting standards of quality, as well as analysing quality outcomes from potential solutions.

Quality need only be good enough to be fit for purpose, achieving what the market demands and no more. Quality comes before form and can be defined outside of physical objects and logical constructs. E.g. A wing of a plane must give maximum lift at the lowest speed in the coldest conditions possible. This could be the quality criterion for a plane that is needed for short length take off and landings in severe arctic conditions. Indeed, quality and the pursuit of excellence is what drive improvements in all areas of nature and mankind. This is why it must be the basis of choosing solutions for technology, as well as all other aspects of the organisation, such as strategy, structure, branding, positioning, etc.

The reason you should be concerned about quality, is because you seek the best solution. You must also seek to restrict what you expect in order to obtain the quality you can afford, or what is appropriate. Obviously, attainment of the highest possible quality in a specific area may be a goal and is always limited on what can be produced at that moment. Assuming at that moment as the driving limitation, then at some time in the future, what is possible may change. Just look at processor speeds and reduction in microprocessor sizes. All too often, technologists spend more than is required in order to satisfy the business need. The more lights and bigger the processor does not always stand the test of quality for the whole solution. Be careful when making value judgements about what will achieve the quality standards you require. Understand the motives of people involved.

Another issue about quality is that although you and your colleagues are most certainly the arbiters of what’s best for doing your business, you may not have sufficient resources to consider alternatives, competition, emerging markets or even be able to create an objective unbiased view. It is often highly advantageous to have at least one or two people experienced with the process of selection, BPR and CM, so that you and your team can be guided and facilitated throughout the steps towards completion. The independent third party can bring external ideas, criticisms and experience without fear or favour, so that the essence of what matters and what doesn’t, is extracted for the benefit of the organisation and the people concerned. These persons may or may not include the Project Director I mentioned earlier.

Money is a finite resource and as such, you are always limited in what can be invested by what you are prepared to risk in the first place. Secondly, money can be used as a way of measuring quality, through rates of return on investment, or minimisation of risk. There are other ways of measuring quality in financial terms, most of which are understood by accountants and financial analysts. These methods are well known and not included in this document. Whatever the financial criteria, it is an ingredient that makes up quality objectives.

11. Levels of Complexity & Einstein

As stated earlier, it is easy to choose a solution where there are specific requirements with little or no quality requirements. The more complex a problem, the more difficult it becomes to design a solution. Within the realms of software solutions, typical large scale business problems magnify many thousand-fold because of the levels of choices and the choices at each level of the puzzle.

The most difficult problem to solve is one where there is no absolute answer. For example, address and data cleansing are some of the most complex and sophisticated areas of software application requirement. I have been involved in the list management area for more than a decade and a half. Apart from creating automated, user defined workflows, data cleansing is a spiral of ever more complex and discrete work, with a ‘never ending story’. In dealing with personal names and addresses, which are not as precise, or as exact as the computer would prefer, the problems arising from the source data could be infinite. Making a system which can correct spelling errors, correct formatting and layout of words is not a straightforward task. The nature of this problem is that there are an infinite number of problems and ways to resolve them. This is why you must first define what quality you expect and why, because to pursue the development of solutions to infinite problems is to eventually be defeated by the law of diminishing returns. That is to say that the more we solve the problems, the more problems we find. Within companies who have dedicated technologists and management, pursuit of perfection will exact a high price and may never actually be appreciated, let alone increase any of the desired business goals. So in seeking solutions to the problem and choosing technology wisely, the first thing that must happen is to define the outcomes and the levels of quality required.

Einstein wrote that the problem with addressing problems with infinite causes is that no matter how close you think you get solving the problem, you are infinitely distant away from actually doing so. He coined a law intended to have the humour of Parkinson’s law, that ‘The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite’. This is a serious consideration when addressing aspects of technology whereby, as in the address cleansing example above, no matter how hard you try, there is always a new or another problem yet to be solved. Unfortunately, these circumstances mean that there is rarely a set of general rules for solving such issues and therein lay the conundrum requiring a quality specification.

In the case where even a complex set of standardised rules can solve most of the logic needs for cleansing data, all other issues may require either one-off, or specialist processes in order to be resolved. Consequently, over time the department responsible ends up with a truck-load of tools and processes covering every up to date known problem. Associated with added processes will include specialist data accumulated to match and correct the myriad of possible permutations. The cost and complexity to cover all these possible issues are beyond reasonable justification, let alone replication. The madness of this situation is that it can only get worse! Herein lies the root cause of most technology solutions failing or costing too much, separating that which does 80-99% of the puzzle simply and adequately, from that which directly supports the one-offs or vagaries of data, unable to be processed by the basic software. I question the need to undertake more than is necessary in order to satisfy the client within the realms of what is competitively reasonable. Or to put it more succinctly, only do what the market is prepared to pay for and you are prepared to spend to deliver the end result.

This last point is also part of the quality issue, in as much as you must only do what you can afford, not necessarily what you can do. You have limited resources and the market will already have points of reference for expectations. To go beyond these expectations, is wasting resources that may not add any material value to client satisfaction, loyalty or brand awareness and only create a higher cost of sale.

There is another way to solve ‘chasing the end of the rainbow’ problems, which can never be guaranteed 100%. Within technology services it is normal to provide the market with a sliding scale of services, based upon the percentage of result, just like a service level agreement. No one will offer a 100% service level agreement, if it is not possible. We all know that acts of God, War, etc., preclude a 100% guarantee. The same applies to problems like address cleansing and data management. Considerations like these must be tackled in order to determine what level of quality and service is to be delivered in order to achieve goals and competitive positioning.

12. Conflict Management

When choosing a solution, often there will be conflicts in opinions between members of the organisation about what is and what isn’t necessary and more so, about perceptions of quality. Invariably, if the tests I propose above are undertaken by all concerned, it should provide a better platform for consensus.

The Genesis Design & Development method will enable you to question your motives for doing processes, or acquiring technology, so that a thorough and reasonable justification can be reached. The most important aspect of applying this method is to ensure that you define firstly what is important and required. That is, define what is CORE to achieving the goals and objectives of the organisation. Break the core items down into smaller parts that are in themselves ‘objects’ of work or processes. Make sure that ‘intentions’ and ‘reasons’ are clear and generic. E.g. A fast database engine, to support rapid selection and complex analysis. This example defines the higher objective, not necessarily pre-disposing a solution based upon a specific product or supplier. Certainly, there is a need to define what fast, rapid and complex means in the context of the market at the time of the statement being made. That can come later when choosing solutions against the needs of quality based analysis.

13. Fresh Start

Part of the technique for applying quality for choosing technology, is to define the needs of the organisation without reference to the way it is (was). That is, assume a clean sheet of paper. Define the core components necessary to engineer a capable organisation and infrastructure, to achieve the vision and goals expected. Next, compare the way it is to the way it needs to be and decide what must change. This is where most companies lack courage to initiate change. In order to implement change, many aspects of management and business skills must be brought to good effect. This document does not cover such effort, except to state that the rules of checking for and including quality in decision making should be applied in the same way.

14. Quality Steps for Choosing Solutions

My recommendations for undertaking a review of systems, processes and technology, are to:

Firstly ensure that the participants are aware of what quality is and how to judge and determine what matters, where, when, how and why. Ultimately, you decide upon quality relative to the market. Initial sessions should focus on broad business issues starting with vision and positioning and where they are today in the market. Separate the business issues and market objectives from the ‘how’. Map out all services and processes with least effort and steps – streamline the work. Review best practices and methods of competition or other market leading organisations within your geography or others similar in nature. Review all relevant technologies employed within the same industry vertical and review advanced and emerging technologies, which may impact methods and processes. Define all data required and how that data is to be acquired, maintained and stored (static, dynamic, singular, multiple, over time, etc.). Define points of connection and sharing of data between processes and services. Define all logic and reason for doing anything at any point (why/how/when). Create a business definition document stating what the business should look like and how it should operate based upon analysis and application of quality. Create a requirements document for change and solutions, both technology and processes, to address the business definition document. Ensure all participants agree with both documents. Issue both documents (under Non Disclosure Agreement) to potential suppliers (after researching and short listing). Review and choose a short list for due diligence and bench marking of solutions and rank in order of closeness of fit, cost of change and modification as well as other traditional criteria.

Once a choice is made and suitable contracts have been ratified, the implementation should be undertaken so that maximum benefit is yielded as soon as possible with minimal disruption. Quality should be judged alongside original expectations to ensure that the delivery yields the expected results.

Finally, do not be afraid of changing expectations of quality. As the market changes you may have to alter your quality in different ways and this may have minor to serious impact on systems and processes. Assuming this from the outset means that one of the requirements of technology is flexibility and ease of change. Again, this is a subject in its own right however it is also a very important aspect of choosing technology.

In conclusion, quality is about appropriateness and rightness of fit for purpose. It is a level of comfort and benefit above alternatives at a cost you are prepared to pay. It is about considerate design enabling flexibility not only in technology, but also operational processes and methods of delivery. Quality is about inherent design strengths and excellence of execution. Ultimately, the market determines quality requirements and your task is to understand either what you need to achieve to be superior, or look at ways to move the goal post to a new pitch.

Whatever you do, do not assume you can always judge alone what superior quality is or is not. You must involve everyone and get external advice and research to help produce the end result to the level you are prepared to risk and ultimately invest. Quality is something that will create other intangibles within your organisation. Pride, loyalty and commitment will come from being part of the process that seeks to drive the company towards quality based decisions and levels of service. The ultimate reward is having the market respond the same way as your staff.

Genesis Design Method – Part II

‘A method for technology selection and process design using quality as the premise for success.’

© Clyde Lennon, United Kingdom, 2002-2005

Here is Part II of my Methodology for design (of anything). I call it Genesis as that's the point where the design should start, that is, when you first consider what you want and why you want it. Quality based definitions with constraints only being limited by the nature of the required quality, rather than specific known or predetermined “technical” solutions is the intention of following my methodology. As is usual, any questions please email me directly for a free consultation.

5. Quality Check List

Is it necessary?
Must we do this or have this to achieve our expectations and goals?
Can we do with a simpler alternative, or do we need something more robust?

Is it easy to understand?
Is the purpose and intention of the process or technology understood by all and can it be justified?

Is the result within our expectations (define expectations)?
This is the most important aspect for defining the limits of what is achieved, as well as the minimum standards required. All too often the engineering and production departments over engineer or over produce a result that is only slightly better than that which is expected, but at a much higher cost and often adding little or nothing to client satisfaction. Are our expectations of material and financial quality for competitiveness being met? Do we need to raise our expectations from time to time within the market?

Does it operate smoothly and simply?
Does the process and or technology require minimal effort and is that effort natural or ergonomic? Is there a high degree of automation? Is it adequately documented and does it all make sense?

Is it easy to integrate?
Can it work with various technologies with little or no change? Can it be database independent? Can it operate on more than one operating system? Is it client server or thin client? Is the process independent of all others? Is it Object Oriented

Is it fast enough?
Are the best techniques and methods being employed for maximum speed? Are there any obstacles by way of processes or technology?

Is it safe?
Is there data integrity and role/back role/forward control of changes? Is it easy to correct errors? Is it a stable environment?

Does it have the ‘X’ factor?
Does it present opportunities or new possibilities? Does it look good or will it make you look good – give the desired perception. Will it be perceived as ‘cool’ by the market?

6. Quality – a definition

Quality is an intangible asset transcending material, quantifiable and logical specifics. A phrase I will borrow to help get to the basis of any choice is ‘fit for purpose’. Quality is often a result of applied craftsmanship and having an ‘eye for detail’. But when we examine quality, we must also ask ourselves not just what or how, but also why. The why often explains quality objectives and that is when the genesis of the idea must be considered before making the leap to a solution. Being Machiavellian may aid implementation however it does not guarantee the best solution.

Quality is knowing what is necessary for any given thing, or circumstance, so that maximum ‘rightness’ is achieved. Rightness is not being more than necessary, or less than required and able to deliver the results within acceptable levels of investment. Choices must also be attached to the intangible benefits of satisfaction, acceptance, loyalty, appreciation and competitiveness for a total view of what constitutes quality.

Quality may vary from time to time and from place to place, simply because of the way processes or technologies are applied. Excellence is a form of quality and is attained through caring about the end result and how it works within the whole environment. Caring comes through pride, enthusiasm and commitment to learning and studying ways to improve and enhance whatever we do or create. These are states of mind and qualitative terms experienced by the individual. Generating these qualities in clients, staff and others associated with the organisation will bring great rewards.

7. Intangibles & Project Control

During the past few decades, defining intangibles has been a much maligned process, often left with bare bone statements like ‘being more competitive’, ‘being more flexible’, ‘providing a better service’, etc. Quite often, no one actually is held accountable for defining in specific terms the quality of these intangibles and that is one of the main purposes of this document. I want you to take stock of the way you go about choosing new technological solutions, by increasing your awareness and enabling you to question motives and purpose, regardless of who is involved.

‘Long after the price is paid, the quality remains’ is an old rule of commerce. We may relate to this old adage with a knowing, without asking the question, what is quality? Being pragmatic for a moment and repeating the same mantra as I have above and again later in different forms, quality is in the eye of the beholder. As with all people, not all of us select the same quality, care abut the same quality or even wish to pay for the same quality.

The most difficult thing about design when a lot of people are involved, is keeping oneness and completeness present throughout the process, so that the end result is not of a committee of disparate views, with no synergy of purpose or method. The way to avoid such outcomes is to employ a Project Director, who is primarily a systems designer and analyst, with people management skills. He must be able to deal with visionary as well as pragmatic issues. His primary goal should be, to ensure that a comprehensive set of quality objectives are defined and that the Specification of Requirements support the objectives. If the Project Director does their job well, they will ensure that there are no conflicts or duplication of functions throughout the total solution, especially if there are lower levels or component requirements. The Project Director should make sure that there is synergy and harmony within the design recommendations and specifications of requirements.

8. Confusion & Management

What can happen within any organisation, especially large ones, is that very few people actually know what matters, or understand how the place works. By this I mean that lots of stuff happens within the organisation, without knowing why it happens, or whether or not it is necessary, or unnecessary. Confusion usually reigns supreme during a study to find out how things work, as it might be difficult to know why something is in place, because there is no documentation or old staff left to explain.

You could argue that management should control each of their areas well enough, so that inefficiencies and unnecessary processes are not proliferated. However, in the ‘real’ world, departments and sections do not always take the time, or have the time, to review what each other is doing, how they do it or why they do it, in order to ask the ultimate question, whether or not they should continue to do it. Often in isolation, a process can be justified, without realising it is duplicated somewhere else. Further, no one actually sits down and asks the question - are there other ways to do this same thing? Will there be improvements or other benefits? Unless the staff and management care about what they do and how they do it, then quality will suffer sooner or later. That is why enthusiastic and loyal staff is worth considerably more than those that are not. An enthusiastic team will tackle quality issues with deft and speed. An enthusiastic and motivated staff will provide the organisation with a foundation for evolution and dynamism. Lesson here is to look at motivation of staff as well as management to care and take responsibility for their functions. Make them important, because they are.

9. Caution

As a caution, two of the worst mistakes when reviewing all practices and procedures within an organisation, are ending up with a critical process being dropped, or having the wrong people judge quality issues. It may turn out later that either the process was needed for something else, or that some of what was done during the process, was in fact needed, but should have been part of another process, but wasn’t because time and changes prevented it ever being adopted. Keep a clear eye on content and sub-processes within any given process. You may end up redesigning processes, merging or splitting actions, depending upon the preferred outcome and convenience. Do so with quality of purpose in mind at all times and with the best and most appropriate people.

(Final instalment in 2 week’s time)

NOTE: Anyone wanting a full copy (WORD) please email me and I will send it directly.

Genesis Design Part I - Based on Quality

‘A method for technology selection and process design using quality as the premise for success.’

© Clyde Lennon, United Kingdom, 2002-2005

1. Real Life Example

During the eighties I was asked to design a solution for a large foundry, which had more than a dozen departments, across ten sites. To process client orders, each department had its own set of original drawings, specifications and paperwork and except in a few cases, did not pass on or receive any form of communication from/to other departments. Batches of requests and accompanying part finished components simply turned up at the next stage after completion by the former department. Based on a manual system more than 50 years old, it was entrenched with backing from very strong trade unions. My task was to evolve to a new method, minimising waste and improving throughput within the foundry. Obviously, my prime method would be to address the solution through creative use of technology. However, that was just part of the problem and the solution.

It was fairly obvious to me what could and should be done, as the technology available was easily understood. That is to say, the steps, the logic and data requirements were all fairly straightforward and easily documented. I saw two problems confronting me. Firstly, there was the attitude and relationship between each department to each other and secondly, the way the processes were completed being difficult to document. This was because the work required experience and judgement like a master chef with years of knowing what ingredients did and how they affected one another.

Cooking is the nearest I could come to comparing what the guys in the foundry did. The foundry process of making steel can look like magic and witchcraft with the huge cauldrons of molten metal and various concoctions thrown in for good measure. Good cooks always say the excellence of the meal has a lot to do with quality of ingredients, not just the recipe and process. Few of us understand food quality and what makes the difference, so thank goodness our taste buds and sense of smell tell us instinctively what tastes good and what doesn’t. Indeed, we are fortunate enough to be equipped with natural quality testers assisting us make choices every moment of our lives, sometimes for quite serious reasons.

The way steel is made is a lot like cooking, except with different ingredients. Each ingredient has its own specific qualities and methods of processing and handling, all of which may vary from day to day, depending upon criteria understood and controlled by the foundry expert. If the wrong quantity of carbon or ash is shovelled into the molten metal, or the wrong temperature is met, plus many other factors, the end result may not yield required metallurgical specifications. When I watched the process, every single new batch of the same specification of metal was prepared slightly differently. Of course there is a set process, but this is merely a basic recipe and method, which must change depending upon the unique characteristics of the ingredients within each new batch. It took great care and attention to detail, some of which was extremely difficult to quantify empirically, to judge and decide what to do, when and by what quantity. Apart from temperature checks and a sample or two examined for metallurgical specifications, what was done to adjust the mixture was down to the experts.

The primary problem was getting management, some of whom had had more than 30 years of employment, to realise that the magic of what they did, needed to be systematised and catalogued for future generations. They needed to see that employment would and could continue in a more competitive company. My approach was to involve all managers one by one then as a group, in the task of building a new organisation for the future and that anything else, was a recipe for failure. Significantly, I had evidence in falling sales, increased returns and wastage to demonstrate the grave danger they were facing for their future. The message was loud and clear and was an imperative for change in order to survive.

Each manager had managed their respective departments oblivious to each other, except when things went wrong. When there were problems they spent a lot of time fire fighting or apportioning blame, rather than seeking a solution. I had analysed a large number of problems over a long period and found that they were mainly caused through a lack of sharing of information and passing on critical data. Further, the duplication of separate documentation on each order meant that a high degree of separation occurred during the several steps each job had to undergo. However, they were all loyal enthusiasts and they took great pride in what they did and what they knew.

Once all managers realised the situation and were able to voice their opinions freely and unequivocally, the quality emanated from them, not from me. I merely facilitated the process and produced the design in which they had had significant input. It also enabled new senior management in this case a young CEO promoted from the ranks, to lead a cohesive and committed management team with trade union support throughout the change process. Needless to say, the end solution was a simple and easily installed one, which enabled the company to lower its costs, increase quality of production and client satisfaction.

2. Proposition

This document proposes quality as the basis for defining needs, rather than predispose a technical or operational solution. Without quality set as the prime objective, technical choice may not achieve requirements, increase the risk of failure or increase the cost of business, decrease competitiveness and/or decrease business flexibility. Here is an example without prejudice or technical predisposition. ‘We must get documents from one place to another, securely and quickly’. Here, security and speed are stated as qualitative requirements, with no indication of how they are to be achieved, or any specific limitations expressed. The possibilities and answers are left up to the solution designers who should research alternatives, understand limitations and develop technical specifications.

An example that lacks qualitative premises will look something like this: ‘We need a 128 bit encrypted security email system and document handling solution with full MS support and Linux integration’. This approach, although ‘technically’ valid, limits potential alternatives, restricts opportunities and has no quality objectives. It only contains technical ‘hard’ requirements, which will restrict creativity and other opportunities. I use the term Genesis for the method I describe within this document, because it is critical to approach the creation of an idea and define its intent and objectives without reference to a specific solution. Winston Churchill defined the requirements for the man-made ‘Mulberry’ harbour able to support the D-day landings in two sentences!

Whatever the idea, or requirement, express it in terms not specific to a technology or quantifiable restriction, unless absolutely necessary. Subsequent qualitative issues may further expand and express the ultimate goal however these should be done before specifying or limiting the solution to a predetermined outcome or method. A design objective should contain only the purpose and quality standards for specifying a request for proposal from prospective suppliers.

The Genesis Design & Development method is a guarantee that options and opportunities will be unlocked for consideration for the benefit of the organisation. It will also provide openness to innovation and commercial alternatives, thereby revealing undiscovered competitive advantage.

3. What’s Important

Let’s move onto explaining what we mean by quality and how to harness the power of ideas into qualitative specifications.

I have summarised in order of importance, what I see as the steps to defining a set of criteria for choosing a technology solution.

1. What is the vision of the organisation, its positioning & ambition?
2. How does the organisation want to be perceived within the market?
3. What are its goals?
1. Financial, market, geography and other quantifiable factors
4. What are its competitors doing and how do they operate?
5. What does the organisation do today (services and processes)?
6. How do the organisation’s systems work today?
7. What do the people (staff) do today?
8. What knowledge and skills exist within the organisation and what form?
9. What will be core requirements to meet 1 to 3 above?
10. What are we missing from 4 to 7 above?
11. What have we in 4 to 7 that we can discard or re-deploy?

This first list develops the basic CORE / NON CORE components of what is needed from a high level. It can also be carried through to the lowest process level if and when required. But this still doesn’t include quality. I have attempted to give both objective and subjective terms below, as a checklist for questioning whether or not adequate quality exists within the technology or process being examined or chosen.

4. Why Base Requirements on Quality?

Quality is what drives us to create what we want. In nature, evolution as defined by Charles Darwin could be paraphrased as being driven by quality. The word ‘fittest’ in Darwin’s ‘the survival of the fittest’ statement, is a qualitative term and can be associated with anything from speed to material strength. In one simple phrase, Darwin described the fundamentals of evolution in qualitative terms. By adopting the Genesis Design & Development method, you should seek to acquire technology flexible enough, so that over time it can evolve, thereby taking advantage of potential changes in quality, without major impact on resources. Being aware of this is what will separate you and your success from your competitors.

Whether you have limited technology, or don’t have any, choosing the best solutions for your environment requires more than knowledge of the business or technology. The Genesis Design & Development method will bring together all involved parties, ensuring a shared understanding of what matters in qualitative terms.

The key factor to any organisation’s success is the quality of the satisfaction it delivers to the market and further, how the market reacts through demand upon the organisation’s products and services. i.e. organisations who provide what the market wants, at a price the market will be prepared to pay, in ways that the market prefers, will invariably become market leaders. I will also explore how over specification is not necessarily an increase in quality and can be as damaging as under specification.

An example of when a composer’s music becomes quality music is when it is played by competent musicians, or through a decent sound system. I will ignore composition quality here and focus on sound only. I used two words that are qualitative, competent and decent. These are terms and can vary from the perspective of one person to another, dependent upon each person’s particular experiences, economic circumstances and knowledge. It is this perspective, which can be the reason for, or failure of success. Judging what is and what isn’t quality is going to be the most important part of the process of design.

At any time and under any set of circumstances, quality will be limited to what is possible, as well as what is known as possible. That is, what is possible within the laws of nature and what is possible in the mind of a man may be at odds with one another. Invariably man underestimates what is possible in nature because of his own limited knowledge and experience. It is therefore critical, when defining requirements for quality in any given area, that experienced individuals be involved capable of selecting or judging quality for that area. This implies domain experience as a necessary pre-requisite across each area of the requirement being addressed. e.g. Help Desk Co-ordinator, is a domain expert able to judge quality and expectations within the help desk area.

(another instalment in 2 week’s time)

NOTE: Anyone wanting a full copy (WORD) please email me and I will send it directly.

Attributes of a CRM Specialist

I have been looking at obtaining some new work of late. One thing that strikes me is the fact that our (UK) government is forging ahead in large bounds to implement “citizen centric” “joined up government” services. Indeed the number of project manager, business analyst and work flow specialist jobs out there for the public sector probably account for more than half of all jobs available. This is worrying.

I happen to know that they were all meant to have their Citizen Relationship Management systems in play by now, but most are only now expecting to start implementation. Almost all job adverts request similar experience for a local authority (county council) or other public enterprise. It seems highly unlikely that the Government will ever get the few really good people out there to deploy across so many installations, especially if there are so many of them. Needless to say they expect to pay relatively low rates for relatively high experience.

This leads me to explaining what a really good CRM expert ought to have in their kit bag of experience and background. Firstly a formal understanding of commerce, accounting, inventory, services and or any specific vertical such as financial or insurance industry. This means a degree in business or similar, plus the person should also have a high degree of knowledge and understanding of marketing, direct (below the line) especially, as well as indirect (above the line). Understanding the mathematics of marketing is essential, as is business strategy and multi-channel routes to market assessments. A solid grounding in data analysis and all manner of data related aspects for cleansing, structure and high level database design is also useful. Transaction processing and a rigorous exposure to business processes are vital for analysing an organisation and its components for weaknesses as well as connections. Thorough knowledge of work flow and process automation both operationally and technically is essential for driving efficiency and productivity. A good empathy for the human condition, motivation and facilitation of work parcels is critical for the adoption of new ideas and methods. Psychology is useful for not only the organisation side but also appreciating the segmentation and targeting of the market. The CRM person must be able to speak intelligently and with authority at all levels whether the board, senior / middle management or contact-centre agents. All have something to contribute and the CRM specialist is the conduit as well as “nano-technican” who will put all the small bits together into a coherent and workable form. It also helps if they can design/develop and install solutions, not just talk about them. They should be creative, pragmatic and rigorous, as well as open to new ideas. They should have good ears.

I guess the description above is not complete however one could easily calculate that it takes a life-time or more to get part of the way there, let alone all of it and more. You also have to zoom out for a “view from the moon” perspective or zoom right back in to look at “intercellular” activity to appreciate the totality of the organism which CRM tries to create. Not everyone can do this and remain objective. Some call this the holistic approach, however looking back at job specs I have been reading, it is apparent that neither the advertisers, nor the agencies, truly appreciate what they really need to take on the mammoth task of being client centric. At least they move the posts a little in the right direction.

Which brings me back to rates: A serious top class CRM Consultant, with the necessary 15-30 years experience to do the job justice, probably has as much knowledge as any aged professional. (self justification!). Therefore they should be paid a premium to ensure a cost effective and successful installation. People like this rarely stay for the long term after passing on their knowledge except for reviews and audits. In the UK the public sector offers from £300 to £450 per day (inclusive) for such people. I am not sure who actually gets these jobs, but a decent 5 year experienced JAVA programmer gets as much. The guy who services my old Porsche charges £50 per hour and a main dealer nearly £70. There seems to be some disparity making me consider if I ought to be either a plumber or house calling washing machine technician. Too late now but the market is a little wonky at present. The private sector downgraded CRM to being nothing more complex than installing accounting software or a simple database of names and addresses. This is an ill-informed attitude suffering from the lack of understanding proper CRM approach has on the whole organisation including its customers. My view is that over time, quality CRM installations that have achieved great change and great success will root out the reasons for all the failures to see clearly and concisely. Less than two years ago the latest Gartner and expert reviews indicated less than 40% of CRM installations achieved a break even and very few an adequate ROI. Either the calculation excluded potential advantages or as I suspect, most failed to deliver the promises someone sold or someone dreamed. CRM takes diligence and discipline, as well as commitment from all concerned.

In the meantime, if you or someone you know is about to do CRM suggest to them that it is wise to get at least one authority to assist in the process to avoid ghastly and costly mistakes. The upshot of which could be failure of the business or a loss of market share and reputation. It makes a decent day rate for the right person a real bargain.

Predictive Diallers & Scam Callers

After reading Ian Dewar's (GrumpyDM - see link on side bar) latest tirade about predictive diallers, I must confess to having exactly the same response. I have been barraged by callers with 2-4 second delays after the phone is placed to my ear this past month or two. Usually the caller comes from India, probably exacerbating the time delay having to go through a convoluted switching mechanism. This entry is not to discuss the technology, nor the practice, but to state categorically that it doesn't have to be the way Ian describes or the way I have experienced PD calls myself.

What I can attest to, having designed and implemented a pretty sophisticated soft-dialler including the algorithms for predictive dialling and intelligent routing, is that as long as you are dealing directly with the switch that actually holds the line to which you are to be connected, then switching to an available agent should be within a half to one second at most. The software should be set up to be efficient and fast taking no more tan a CPU cycle or two to decide if someone can take the call or take evasive action. That action could be to hang up (possibly rude) or pass the call to an IVR script stating the nature and source of the call and asking the called party to wait a few seconds more until an agent is free, or offer other options, including a call back function with preferred date and time. It's all about having manners and being confident that the called party (the client) is treated with respect and dignity.

Another complaint I wish to make is the barrage of calls I get from USA based operators trying to tell me I have won a cruise or other prize via pre-recorded voice (generic outbound IVR!). I think that these types of cold direct marketing ought to be illegal (IMHO). Worst of all are the scams that are preceded by direct mail enticing you to dial a premium rate number at say £1.50 per minute to listen to your prize which might be £20,000, but invariably ends up being some derisory little watch made in a third world factory with recycled rubbish bags. This is one use of call centre technology and CRM practices that borders on the indecent. It would be interesting if Ian could comment on the industry watchdog view of this type of operator. Already BT seem to do the right thing and automatically BAR such numbers from being used by the poor unsuspecting receiver of such rubbish. Well done BT!

The FeedBurner Button on the side bar

To the right of these words you will see a little orange button marked XML. This is a link to an RSS feed. RSS (Really Simple Syndication) is a format for syndicating news. It allows you to receive automatic updates about my blog and any other news you would like to be kept up-to-date with, without having to regularly revisit a web site. The BBC provides an RSS service, as do many other news organisations.

To view an RSS feeds on your computer, you will first need to acquire an RSS Reader – they’re usually free. Click on the FeedBurner button and find out all about them.

Then to add my blog to your newsfeed, copy and paste

http://feeds.feedburner.com/GrumpyCRM.com

into your RSS application. It's that simple and when I update my blog you’ll know right away.