dancingmango

The journey doesn’t end with the buy button

Take a look at this and tell me what information it conveys to you.  Look at the order status…

Dispatched.

So five days later when I ring up Laskys to find out what has happened to my product I’m told “we’re sorry, the product is out of stock.  Would you like another similar product?”  I’m not exactly a happy chappy to find this out five days after the order has been placed. I’ve been to ‘my account’ to track my order and it tells me that the order has (click on the help icon) “been processed and either has a delivery date or has been delivered”.  Well no actually, it is out of stock and your eCommerce system hasn’t accommodated that scenario in the customer experience.  Sorry Laskys, you lied to me.

“We did actually send you an email on the 8th of March to let you know this”.  So I went back through my mailbox and indeed they had sent me a mail.  I use gmail.  The mail was unread, but I get so many mails I don’t always open them, especially as gmail gives you the title and the first line of the mail.  The mail in question from Customer Service was titled “Your Order” and the following first line; “Thank you for placing an order with Laskys. TheSEBO X4 EXTRA  on order 025″.  nothing there to suggest that it was out of stock.  Just a generic subject and first line of copy.  They had taken my phone number as part of the process; no-one thought to ring me.  Overall a poor experience.  I won’t be buying from Laskys again and I suggest you don’t either.

There’s a lesson here.  It is easy to focus upon the shiny stuff, to get customers converting, clicking on that buy button.  But if the post-buy button experience is lacking; if you haven’t factored in operational excellence into your process, in the long run it is likely to cost you.

We didn’t build it because the business didn’t prioritise it

Agile software development is inherently democratic.  Choice over Prescription could be included in the Agile manifesto.  We give the customer the choice, the choice to decide what is most important to them, what will deliver the greatest value and build that first.  We do not prescribe that they must build a complex framework first- the software will evolve, You ain’t gonna need it (Yagni) until you need it.

The problem with this democracy, with this unleashed choice is that, if you don’t have the right mix of stakeholders, the (agile project) customer doesn’t always know what is best.  They are not always the best people to choose.

There is a difference between domain knowledge and what I’ll call ‘experience’ knowledge.  A banker may know the banking domain inside and out, they can tell you the difference between all the different types of balance and how (and where) they are calculated; closing balance, running balance, etc.  But unless they have done any research with customers, unless they have ‘experience knowledge’, when it comes to  a question such as which balance to provide as an SMS alert, their ‘domain’ knowledge is as good as your common-sense.

Imagine software were a supermarket store.  IT are responsible for the construction of the store, the basic layout, the signage, the checkout, the peripherals.  The business are responsible for what goes into the store, the merchanising, the planogram.  The business imperative is to fill the shelves and shift the product.  They want to spend their money to this goal, anything that does not directly support this will be of lower priority.  That is their domain and they will prioritise that over anything else.  If they could fill the store with nothing but shelves they’d probably be happy.

Now imagine visiting the store.  There’s no carpark, there are no shopping trolleys, there’s no emergency exits.  There’s no ramp for disabled customers.  The shelves rise to eight foot high (with no steps to reach the heights), the aisles are difficult to negotiate because of promotional displays between the shelves.  The business is happy, but what about the customer?

In the agile world, nobody is going to pay attention to this stuff unless it is prioritised.  “Sorry, we didn’t build any shopping trolleys because you prioritised building more shelf space over them”.

This sort of thing happens all the time; functional domain requirements trump experience requirements. Why? Because no-one brings experience knowledge into prioritization and planning sessions.

When stating their choice, your stakeholder wears a commercial hat, they are thinking about their targets and those are based upon shifting product.  They are living in thier operational business domain.  But cold commercials are not what shifts product.  It is the experience that does.  Now go back to the democracy of choice on an agile project.  Who is the ‘business’ specifiying requirements? Is it a balanced team? Is their an experience champion with an equal voice?  Is the voice of the customer recgognised?  If not, isn’t about time you got an customer experience champion onto the team.

Pillars of a compelling experience

This is a model I often see in organisations when it comes to their web presence.  A product owner comes up with a commercial proposition, marketing work up the content, IT build the functionality and it is goes live.  With this model, no-one actually owns the customer experience.

Worse, this little temple model is repeated across different commercial propositions so you end up with something that is not very joined up.  I’ve blogged about this lack of joined up thinking before.

Now let’s construct a model where the roof of the temple is a compelling customer experience.

What are the ingredients of this new temple model?  It is still going to be founded upon commercial propositions, but they are going to be overlaid by a culture of test and learn.  That is a willingness and ability to experiment; to realise that what you have developed is never final and is always evolving.  It is about taking the learnings of experiments to inform and improve the experience, or to rapidly refine or kill propositions that just do not work.

Then we have the five pillars.  I describe these in a paper I wrote ages back (pdf here, google books here).

Unfortunately these pillars tend to sit within organisational silos; content and personality are ‘owned’ by  marketing, functionality by IT, and operational excellence (that’s all about fulfilling on the customer promise and beyond) is a mixture of IT and operations.  Usability is a ‘funny one’ in that might sit alone, sit in marketing or sit in IT.  But ultimately it is best placed to direct the horizonal filter of Quality Control.  Quality control is not an additional layer of bureaucracy, rather a cultural component that all the pillars feed into.  It is about ensuring consistency and meaningfulness of the experience.  It is about balancing the commercial needs of the product, with the marketing needs of the message and the delivery capability of IT.

Just ignore what they say

What customers say they like and how they behave are not the same thing. Don’t always trust what you are told, use data and real insights to drive decisions that have major commercial implications.

So there was a skyscraper, banner and numerous MPUs across the website.  A survey panel was set up and the results came back.  The agency briefed the team, “Your customers really don’t like all the ads you have on the page”.  The message was reiterated in focus groups.  Ditch the ads.  This would be a painful decision, despite customer’s not liking them they were still delivering reasonable revenue.

The organisation was striving to be more customer-centric; if the advertisements were degrading the customer experience then removing them would be a price worth paying.  And so they were switched off.

The result?  Nothing.  Except lost revenue.  Analysing the data, customer volumes remained the same.  There was no difference in the successful completion of customer goals.  Switching the ads off had no impact on customer behaviour on the site; when asked customers said they didn’t like them, but what they said and what they did were different things.

The moral: if you are going to use emotion and what customers say to make commercial decisions, consider A/B testing with real data before making wholesale changes.

Why it pays to think about the whole system, not just your local function

Ability to do bulk price mark-downs? Nice to have.

Today we are looking at a large UK supermarket stock control system.  At the end of the day the staff mark down prices on the short-life items (sandwiches etc).  They have a hand held scanner with a belt printer.  Scan item – print label – stick label on item.  Well that’s what the process is supposed to be, only this takes time (20 seconds per item) and when you have a whole shelf to do is a chore (12 items takes four minutes).  Far easier to just write down the new price on a ‘discount label’ with a sharpie and stick it over the barcode (do the whole shelf in less than a minute).

Where’s the problem in that?  In fact three minutes of waste (waiting time) has been eliminated.  Only it is a problem…

The customer takes the item to checkout and the mark-down label is covering the barcode.  The checkout colleague tries to peel it off to scan, but it doesn’t peel cleanly.  So she manually enters in the SKU. And the mark-down price.  And this has taken 2 minutes for one item and the queue has grown and because of the ‘one in front’ policy they have to open a new checkout and suddenly that small problem at one end of the value chain is replaced by a bigger costlier one at the front end.

But had we not observed this we would never know that bulk price mark-downs on the hand-held device is not a nice to have, it is million dollar requirement.

I just want to talk to someone

I’ve got a query about an Account I opened with Alliance and Leicester.  I’ve got a letter that provides me with an account number and a phone number, it reads  “…if you have any further question [sp] please contact a member of the team on 0844 5619737“. So I ring the number.

“Please enter your eight digit ID number.  This is on your welcome letter, monthly statements, or internet banking ID.  It is NOT your account number.”

Hmmm. I don’t have any of those things to hand, they are not on the letter.  I’ve got my debit card, but that’s obviously on a different system.  I put the phone down and return to the letter, near the bottom, in bold it gives another number “if you would like us to send you information in the future in larger print…” I ring this number.  It doesn’t work.

So I go to the website and look for a telephone number.  I’m an existing customer.  I select my product and ring the number on the page.

“Please enter your eight digit ID number.  This is on your welcome letter, monthly statements, or internet banking ID.  It is NOT your account number.”

I don’t have that information to hand.  I choose another product.  Same message.  I’m getting frustrated.  There’s a page titled “Other enquiries“.  Lots of words, but no number.  I navigate to the complaints page, it has a number.  Hey! Kill two birds with the same stone, speak to someone in their complaints department, make a complaint about how my time is being wasted trying to find a number and get transferred to the relevant department.

I dial the complaints number, more IVR and the prerecorded message.

“Please enter your eight digit ID number.  This is on your welcome letter, monthly statements, or internet banking ID.  It is NOT your account number.”

Frustration turns to anger.  I find a number for new customers.  I get through the IVR and finally talk to someone.  “I need to transfer you to the relevent department” she says.  OK.  The line goes silent.  And then goes dead.  Lovely.  Stress.  I give up and start the motions of closing the account.

There’s nothing unique about Alliance and Leicester.  I hate to pick on them.  But this seems like a case of a lack of joined up thinking.  When you are designing processes or procedures, don’t just think about them from the business perspective, take a persona and test them with real people in roll plays.  What if someone doesn’t have what you expect them to have?  Customers do not always behave according to the expected happy path.  What are you doing about that?

Put some fun back into your business

Litter bins on the street aren’t the most interesting of objects.  The design is pretty standard, with variations on a couple of themes – cylindrical or rectangle and colour being the primary tool of differentiation.

“To throw rubbish in the bin instead of onto the floor shouldn’t really be so hard. Many people still fail to do so. Can we get more people to throw rubbish into the bin, rather than onto the ground”

One answer is to make it more fun.  Check out The FunTheory for other ways of improving mundane products by making them fun.

Now think about that mundane product of yours.  Maybe it is your on-line retail bank.  It is getting tired and it is time for a technology refresh.  You’re going through a process of capturing requirements.  How about playing an innovation game, but base it on the concept of fun.  What could you introduce to your product that would make people smile?  What would make people laugh?  OK, so after a while the bin would no longer be fun.  What makes it fun is the element of surprise.  Again, what could you drop into the product that would surprise people.  What would a ‘fun’ internet bank look like?  Focus on fun and surprise and you might uncover a nugget of inspiration that will make the final product.

Do customers want to customise your site?

Have you ever added a custom tool bar on your office set up?  Have your non-techy friends and family changed the background image on their desktop or changed their screen saver.  Is there a demand for customisation?

So here’s the question.  Do people really want to make your homepage look the way they want it to?  Is there a demand for iGoogle and netvibes customisation?  They look cool and are attractive to the geeks in us, but do they have mass market appeal? Is there any research out there on the take up of user customisation?

“…back when Windows 95 was released, users could easily change My computer to something more personal. Apple users had been able to do this for many years, and many of them did name their computers. But few Windows users took the opportunity to do this, suggesting that they saw the computer as more of a tool than something with which they wanted to have a personalized relationship.” (David Malouf)

Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should.  When you log into your bank account it could look like netvibes, complete with BBC news feeds and YouTube videos (you decide what you want).  But should it?

Why should your customers see your website as something to have a personalized relationship with, especially if you don’t engage them with a personal relationship throguh your other channels?

How do you answer the phone?

IVR, (that’s the automated routing of phone calls) is an unpleasant reality of multi-channel service.  Let’s assume that you are committed to using it, how much time have you spent in creating the messaging.  Two examples of trying to put a more human touch to something that is inherently not human and machine driven.

Firstly the Halifax.  Listen carefully to what happens after you key in an option.  You here a key click.  You are then prompted to enter your account number.  “thanks” the voice says, “I’ll just enter that”.  And you hear a clackerty clack of data being entered into a keyboard.  BUT YOU ARE A MACHINE!!!  It is a nice touch, but it is trying to make an interaction that is clearly not human more personable.

Second example is the Financial Obudsman.  “Thank you for calling” says the voice.  Not a stock, model voice, but a real voice, “I hope we’ll be able to help you. My name is Walter Merricks and I am the Chief Ombudsman…”   The message is clearly a recording.  There is no attempt to be anything but a recording, but giving the voice a name and explaining the nature of IVR is a real human touch.  Even better, the narrative about recording the call- it is not scripted from the IVR manual.  It talks to the customer in language they understand.

If you must be mechanical in your communications with customers, be human, be transparent, but don’t try and pretend to be what you are not.

Links
Halifax | Financial Obudsman

It’s bad said the doc, case of business locked in, customer locked out.

The customer is the oxygen that keeps a business alive.  No. The customer is more than just the oxygen that keeps the business alive, (my mother was recently on a life support machine with Guillian Barre Syndrome; she was getting oxygen but paralysed, unable to move.  With that condition you see that life is more than just about breathing oxygen).  The customer is more than just corporate oxygen, it is the reason a business lives for.

Shareholder value means nothing if the organisation doesn’t provide value to the customer.  Yet  I see far too many organisations who fail to grasp  the importance of their customers.  They prioritise their internal processes and policies to the detriment of customer satisfaction.  They focus upon narrow propositions that represent organisational silos rather than meeting the broad needs of the customer.  Innovation is morphed into ‘requirements’ that are performed by ‘actors’ in multiple volumes of ‘use cases’.  To my mind, too many organisations are struck down by corporate Guillian Barre Syndrome.  The brain knows what is going on but is powerless to act.  It feels pain, it senses something is wrong but is paralysed, it cannot move.  Prisoner in its own body.

If that is the diagnosis, what is the cure?  There are many, but a starting point would be to place the customer at the heart of your design.  Don’t start any proposition without the customer experience at the core.  Create personas and walk through customer journeys.  Use scenarios to develop your thinking.  Broaden the scenarios to introduce what-if models.  If it is an internet offering, sketch out the screens, if it is a service, sketch out the touch-points with your people, processes and technology.  Don’t allow the proposition to be talked of in the abstract, work with the concrete.  Would a persona accept the experience your proposing? Would she accept that pricing model? Does that journey make sense? You do not need to spend weeks and months documenting the exercise.  A couple of days with the right people in the right room with white boards, post-it notes and business-speak banished from the proceedings should deliver far more fruitful insights than playing document-tennis with revision after revision after revision. You may even kill the proposition before you invest too much time on it. Or better still identify a better, customer-centric proposition waiting in the wings.