Resolved
2 votes
A question Max Pucher raises on this blog, in terms of processes, do you think it is possible to design a great customer experience?
Tuesday, June 03 2014, 09:48 AM
Share this post:
Responses (16)
  • Accepted Answer

    Ian Gotts
    Ian Gotts
    Offline
    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 10:07 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    5 votes
    Max answers his own question with an emphatic "No!" I could agree with him, but then we would both be wrong. I agree that EVERY customer experience cannot be designed, but what customers want is an experience that is, at a minimum, consistent, fair and responsive no matter who they contact in the company or what medium they use. At the heart of this is a "designed" process which is then followed by every member of staff. Behind every truly great customer experience are a set of motivated employees following well understood processes supported by great technology; people, process, technology. But to deliver that great experience requires the back office to support the frontline staff as a true end to end customer experience reaches deep into the organisation. It doesn't stop at the help desk or call center. More and more companies are reorienting themselves around their customers, often driven by a refresh of their CRM software. And we are seeing an increase in the number of clients who now have a VP Customer Experience. This is the time to define and implement some customer-centric processes to get all staff aligned and working consistently. Without them, customer experience that is delivered is reliant on the super-human efforts of a few staff.
    Like
    1
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      Agreed in many points, but customer experience is not about design but about execution. It is certainly not about process, but about objectives, goals, authority, context and actions. CRM and BPM and their design processes do not support that.

      Not using BPM does not mean there must be chaos. Staff must not work consistently in terms of processes, but they must have the authority to consistently make decisions that make customers happy, meaning to fulfill their expectations. That has nothing to do with BPM.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 11:06 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    5 votes
    Quote, "That is one of the grand fallacies of people who never go out and try to do these things themselves! While BPM has benefits for some simple processes, it turns sensible people into ‘fools with tools’." When Max generalizes about BPM practitioners in an Ivory Tower, I wonder if Max gets BPM? (said tongue-in-cheek, but I'll take the shots) In other words, what is the maturity curve for "doing BPM" well? And, today, is Great Design an attribute on that curve? Well, yes, turns out it is. See Hammer's Maturity Model and all its derivatives and emulators. And, see all our customers. They are doing it, albeit at various points along that Great Design spectrum. More and more are asking for help on just this, Design Thinking. By the way, to define "Customer" and define "Design" in the context of BPM, is that not a twisted perspective? Is it backwards? Design has an entire school of thought around it - many folks today are talking about Design Thinking. Work is just one application. They are doing it in a context with BPM, but only to the extent that BPM helps them discover, design and implement good process. For a great experience as an outcome... So, my short answer is: have the people who do it, design it. Methodologies go deeper. But, do not define "Customers," *Segment* Customers. How many *segments* can participate in their design to make it great for each? (George's rule: Never, Never, Never talk about "The Customer" -- there are too many segments for that conversation to be valid!) As the social aspects of our society, our technology and Design merge and become accepted, more and more segments can do this. So, can a great customer experience be designed? My answer: -- Yes, for segments of that customer population at a time. -- With an appropriate approach including methodologies, analytics and deep customer participation. That is what is so great about Process & Decision Management! With an extremely high-level of involvement throughout the entire life-cycle including discovery, design, operation and continuously changing how it works, Users/Customers can get that great experience. But, not if you put the folks who help them in an Ivory Tower. (Not sure if Max & I agree or disagree here...) Quote: "Design ... starts with developing a real empathy for real users." Phil Gilbert Get it? ;)
    Like
    1
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      George, you are right because I 'DO NOT GET' BPM. I think it is utterly useless in customer service organizations because it disowns the staff of doing what they could do to make the customer happy. To believe that customer segements can be treated the same way in terms of rigid processes is another 'the data is the customer' fallacy. All customers are individuals.

      In the end we seem to agree that the people who service the customer must be in charge, so why would you want to use an outdated BPM design appraoch that takes away that authority. BPM makes fools with tools. I propose a process approach (with ACM) that focuses on goals and outcomes and lets the performers in business create, modify and imrpove the process while they do them. It needs a business terminology UI so that they can do this. Certainly not a flow design tool which is meant for analysis.

      The methodologies are no more than a crutch and the anaytics replace human intelligence and common sense. We know when we do something to make a person happy. No analytics can figure that out.

      So lets use the empathy not during design but during execution and empower the people to act accordingly.
    • George Chast
      more than a month ago
      Thanks, Max. I get the important distinction you are drawing on the outcomes. I believe you are not stating a key distinction you want to support where there is a gray area, the continuum from prescribed process flows to ad hoc tasks with ad hoc use of process snippets in-between. This was not explicit. Some do see it like you, as BPM or ACM with nothing in-between. Others see that it depends. And, driving either with decisions adds a completely separate, but very relevant dimension -- can still get a bad outcome based on policies without individual expert control. The other dimension is the pareto analysis of just how many first string, second string or third string players there typically are in a call center? Also, missing is a clear definition of which customer experience we are talking about, there is a spectrum of situations there too. A lot left to interpretation, but a good discussion. Thank you again.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 11:19 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    2 votes
    Yes, you can use BPM to design a great customer experience. You need three essential ingredients: time (budget), collaboration, and skill. Let's take skill first. I know many gifted BPM developers. However, I know few truly gifted UI/UX professionals. Design is both science and art. The average BPM developer may know about to create a process map, add rules, tie-in forms, and integrate systems via web service calls, but they don't necessarily know how to design a great user experience (UX). With the rights skillsets present, teams can collaborate to create clean, friendly, and really polished user interfaces/forms. I've seen it. So with the right skills and collaboration all you need is time/money. The biggest question is how much more work is needed to go from good UX to great UX? Probably somewhere between 5%-15% of budget.
    Like
    1
    • Emiel Kelly
      more than a month ago
      Garth,

      Am I right that, in your case, you see a customer as the user of a BPM system?
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      Garth, if you need a developer - gifted or not - you are missing the point of customer experience completely. We need an approach where we can create and modify processes on the fly to meet customer expectations. And yes, Emiel, why not let customers participate in their goal-oriented processes directly?
    • Garth Knudson
      more than a month ago
      Emiel - In the context of my post, the customer is the organization creating the solution.

      Max - I've seen BPM products that enable a user to create their own workflow on the fly and start using it 15 minutes later. The next logical step for this functionality is to allow the user to add/change form fields, add/change list values, add/change style sheets, add/change reports, and add/change SLAs to create robust and snazzy end solutions. The issue here is not whether users can do, it is what/who are users creating solutions for? For themselves? For the company of 2, 20, 200, 2000, 20,000 or more? Once you get beyond a certain number for users, then it makes sense to have greater collaboration, standardization, testing, etc. involved.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 11:29 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    5 votes
    The answer is “yes” – we can all think of examples of wonderfully designed customer experiences – but we also have to be mindful that these are more the exception than the rule. While the digital revolution has brought customers the convenience of 24x7 service, too often this “service” comes at the cost of quality. Nobody likes clumsy interactive voice response systems, long waits for a live agent, or service that in the end is impersonal and ineffective. Yet these are commonplace. Your customers will only ever really trust and respect you if they feel that you know them, that you have their best interests at heart, and that you can answer their questions and resolve their problems quickly and completely. More and more, the integration of big data and advanced analytics into BPM is making it easier to systematically “know” the customer. BPM systems can give customer-facing agents the information they need to about customers and their situations make smart decisions, and they can guide them to the most suitable offer or solution to a problem. Still, blind application of corporate policy and procedure isn’t enough. Consider this: a bank’s customer calls in to dispute a $50 credit card charge she doesn’t recognize. Despite the small amount in question, a customer history free of prior disputes, and a spotless record of timely payment, she has to speak with four different representatives and fill out a form to get this simple work done. It’s infuriating when people refuse to apply some common sense and won’t think about the bigger picture. In this example, neither the customer’s nor the bank’s interests were served by blindly “following rules.” Because so many customer situations require some exercise of human judgment, rigid systems and mechanical responses won’t do. Within the bounds that you set up, a good BPM system gives participants the flexibility to use common sense, do the right thing, and take the ad hoc action that leads to the desired outcome. And, a good BPM system will ensure that any required follow-up action is taken in a timely way, and that nothing falls between the cracks. Listening and understanding, doing what’s right, and keeping promises—things we all learned in kindergarten—are the keys to developing genuine customer trust and lasting loyalty.
    Like
    1
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      Ken, I agree with your first two paragraphs completely. But then you jump into the big data and predictive analytics illusion as if that would improve the emotional connection to the customer.

      I do agree with the following paragraphs utterly again, except that a BPM system does not ensure outcomes. It ensures process and not customer satisfaction. BPM is rigid by design. Therefore ad-hoc actions as well as adapting processes for future use are essential features found today in ACM solutions.
    • Ken Schwarz
      more than a month ago
      Max, I take a more optimistic view--BPM systems certainly do not have to be rigid by design. Quite the opposite! The key is to drive work to outcomes, and blend human judgment with process and rules to reach them. Give people the information they need to make good decisions, automate what can and should be automated, and ensure that promises are kept. Perfection is the enemy of the good, but you can get very, very good indeed. Work we've done with Amex, TD, RBC, OCBC, BoA, United Healthcare, and many others to apply BPM in customer service show how this can be done.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 11:33 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    2 votes
    "Design" has 2 key aspects - the "look and feel" where the marketing input is strong then there is the "functionality" with ease of data input decision making and desired outcome where it is about the supporting technology. I would suggest getting the functionality right is the key driving experience for the customer which should make “marketing design” of the working web form "nice to have"? So I will focus on functionality Suggest knowledge of capabilities starts the journey for functionality. Like all products there is a need looking at requirements from the customer perspective and how to “engage”. The overall objective is they can enjoy the experience yet feel they are gaining either knowledge or achieving their optimised outcome. The attributes of “Adaptive” are fundamentals then intelligence in the process all well designed to work together should create a great customer experience.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 12:09 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    3 votes
    Let me paraphrase Max's post: good customer experience is in the eye of the beholder. So the same is true with art. Can good art be designed? I can show you thousands of cases were people attempted to design good art, and failed. I would not then conclude that the answer is to remove all attempt at design from the process of making art. I always think back to Don Norman's book: "User Centered System Design" (UCSD) something which even Steve Jobs was probably a devotee. Design the is the process you use to create something, and if you do it right, the results are good. There are people who have a broken idea of what design is -- just as there are people that art should be as easy as a paint-by-number kit. Good customer experience does not happen by random chance. If you have good customer experience, it is because a good design process was used. If it is poor, it is probably because a poor design process was used. http://social-biz.org/2010/07/05/adaptive-designed-for-change/
    Like
    1
    • John Morris
      more than a month ago
      Nice comparison to the creation of art.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 12:36 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    4 votes
    The "fools with tools" sentiment inspired a little story (apologies to anyone with easily bruised religious convictions)... The famed process improvement systems were designed BC, not in the Current Era. BC, of course stands for Before Computers. Way back then we had gurus and false prophets, who claimed all sorts of miracles and because of lack of information, no-one could check. The first commandment for every manager said "Find a Guru and do what he says". In the school for gurus they taught wizardry and magic. "Never tell them how it is done, but wrap it up in Greek and Japanese symbols, talk of black belts and lots of lists of "seven things you must do". That way you'll get paid and be out of there before the smoke clears to reveal the mirrors." Computers were like the little boy at the emperor's parade - they blew a chill wind around a lot of exposed private parts. But the gurus didn't know how to use them, so they just shouted "BPM means management, not computers" loudly until the little boy went away. So BPM grew up as a BC discipline too. The guru in IT (GIT) elbowed aside all the people who knew their process, saying "I'm a guru, let me pass". Managers still relied on the guru making a guess as to what process would work. They made one change - they moved from Japanese symbols to 3 Chinamen, one called Business Analyst, another called Systems Architect and a third - the little shy one - called Developer. Often he would be so shy he wouldn't even be in the same country. Between them they whispered and turned whatever the guru had professed into great knowledge, which they then bestowed upon the company to great wonderment, hearing cries of "this isn't what we wanted" and "this will never work" and "why didn't you do what we asked". Since English wasn't Developer's first language he would smile and put it in anyway. Within a couple of years he had it up and working, long enough for the GIT and his henchmen to have made their escape. Then, when the memories had receded and the manager taken to the nursing home, they started all over again. But there were those who worshipped a different god, the great god Data. They said "let the people come, and collaborate, and outline their existing process". And the BPMS will deliver data upon data - data on how much, how often, how long, how many people and even how many pizzas did they consume. From this data, the people themselves will see a great light and they will know how to go forth and reduce their transaction times, remove their bottlenecks, create resilience and have the data they need when they need it. And they will continue to heal the system, taking the biggest problem and reducing it until it seems like it is way in the distance. And the service will improve so much that the customers will beget other customers and begetting will continue until the company is profitable again and the shareholders can buy golden chariots with the proceeds. But the GITs worked their magic and bewitched the managers so that the managers employed GITs and only GITs. They thought Data a false god and missed all the opportunities to improve until the great day of reckoning. Then the Great God Data looked at those companies and sent a plague of apps upon them until they were no more.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 12:50 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    5 votes
    The alternative to designing great customer experience is, what... stumbling upon one by accident? For the One True Answer, may I humbly recommend you attend my session at the upcoming BPM and Case Management Global Summit, Improving Customer Experience with BPM. My talk follows (and, I sincerely hope, builds upon) a keynote by Forrester's Clay Richardson on Reinventing BPM for the Age of the Customer, so that's a good couple of hours of pure BPM customer experience conversations right there. Don't miss it! In short: BPM software can be used to drive great customer experiences, but in order to so, we need to update both features and thinking in some areas.
    Like
    1
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      Scott, you seem to think that if there is no BPM then there must be chaos. That is not so. I make it very clear that was is missing (also in BPM) is the goal definition for a particular context at the leverage (or touch-) point that is usually triggered by a particular event. Then define the possible actions that can be taken at this leverage point and allow the performer to add his own. A flow diagram can't have these dynamics and it can't be used to learn new actions from the performer where necessary.

      SO if 'reinventing BPM' means to make it work like ACM then we are on the same page. But then there is no need to reinvent now because we already did that in 2009!
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Amy Barth
    Amy Barth
    Offline
    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 03:19 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    I think it depends on what "great" means and what kind of customer experience you are trying to deliver. Of course you can't make everyone happy all the time, but if you want a pleasing interface, intuitive process, no hassles to get to the end of the process (I'm thinking of a simple online purchase, for example) and all the information I might worry about confirmed at the end of the interaction, I'd be a happy customer. That's not hard to design, really, right? Because we are people and we can figure out what people want. Most of the time. A "great" customer experience might not be in the cards for the customer who is never satisfied, who is upset about a bill or lost items or other factors outside of a designable realm, who would rather deal with a human in all cases, who liked "the old way" better, etc. That's just human nature. And some of these same customers might be happy the next time they interact with the product/interface/process, because people can adapt if they want to. Sometimes that's a big "if." So, you do what you can to support your end user. You must give them all the tools they need to do their jobs as efficiently as possible. You can ask them what they want and build to that. Yes, you must sometimes hold their hands and show them every step along the way, and sometimes you have to tell them "no, we cannot make a dancing frog appear when you click on that button." That will have to be in a future release.
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      Amy, a great customer experience is easily defined, because it ends with a satisfied customer whose expectations were fulfilled. It is also the business strategy that creates these expectations with marketing. There is no kind of process that will guarantee that a person is satisfied, and there is no rule set or workflow that ensure that. Only humans interacting with the customer at the leverage point can ensure customer satisfaction and with it loyalty and retention. Miles programs don't.

      Clearly it is important to align the digital and the human interaction in a manner that it is the customer's choice which one to use. I do no know of any orthodox BPM or CRM systems who offer that kind of integration.

      And in the end it is not about efficiency as you propose but it is about EFFECTIVENESS! Doing the wrong thing efficient is still inefficient. Do the right thing right the first time, because you allow customer care to interact with the customer freely and not restricted by BPM.

      Human interaction does not have to be syncronously in real-time. But it makes a huge difference if we know that somewhere in the customer journey there is a responsible human being when needed.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 04:09 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    2 votes
    RE “good customer experience is in the eye of the beholder.” It is actually wrong. For example, in Vienna airport I was allowed to board a plane WITHOUT showing my passport and my boarding card. Is it is a great UX? Maybe for somebody, but not for others in that plane. Because of the security consideration. Certainly their (Vienna airport) BPM is broken and I wish they hire Max to correct it. A European airline has cancelled my ticket WITHOUT informing me although I provided my mobile number, e-mail and frequent flyer number. Sure they mentioned this opportunity in an agreement which is several pages long and to be consulted on-line. This is just basic BPM without any fancy UX. I am sure that this airline headquarters and Max are in the same city. A Swiss bank lost my 500 CHF between their front-end and their back-end systems. This money were somewhere for 15 days WITHOUT informing me. Again, it is just plain and primitive BPM without fancy UX. I was able to pass a security control in an European airport by show a boarding card for a flight from ANOTHER airport. Again, just a primitive BPM. And I have more such examples….. Shall we, together, make first things working first instead of blaming BPM? I think, my answer to "Great customer experience..." is obvious. Thanks, AS
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      Alexander, you talk about transactions and how BPM would improve these transactions. Not the subject. You are living in a BPM illusion. In the real world these things you describe happen and they can't be avoided by BPM. They happen more so today because so much is already automated at airports. In Paris you can enter through security by simply making a copy of a boarding card. They do not check duplicates. When I tried to tell that to the airline agent she was not interested because it is not in her process. BPM does not solve these problems, but people who care do. Not BPM but people would have caught you inside the airplane by doing the headcount.

      It is BPM that is considering people to be too stupid or desinterested to the good thing for the customer. It is however the disconnection through BPM enforcement that causes bad customer service.

      I truly wish that you get nothing else than perfect BPM-driven service in the future with NO HUMAN interaction and we would see how happy you end up.
    • Dr Alexander Samarin
      more than a month ago
      Max, BPM combines both AUTOMATIC and HUMAN activities (although it may be not acceptable in your BPM). My “anecdotal” cases are examples of how customer experience may be destroyed by easily avoidable design errors. And, I don’t think that we should talk about "statistical significance” in the case of the security implications.

      Thanks,
      AS
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Tuesday, June 03 2014, 04:45 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Pretty good consensus here. 1. clearly great customer experiences don't happen (often) by accident. and certainly not repeatedly and predictably by accident 2. clearly there's more to it than process, when designing customer experience. people, culture, tools, authority, autonomy, etc. 3. you can always find examples of failure. anecdotal data is risky because it isn't statistically significant. great rebuttals in this discussion of the idea that better experiences can't be designed. If it was your business, wouldn't you design it?
    • Max J. Pucher
      more than a month ago
      The consenus I see a broad misunderstanding of the term design. Not planing changes the future but action. If you think you can consider all possible actions necessary and consider all contexts in which they might be reqiured then that is the illusion. Customer experience is not in the design but in the execution.

      Yes, anectodal eveidence does not prove anything, but neither do statistical observations.

      Customer experience is a mindset from the top down to customer care. People must be able to act to achieve the well defined goals in the customer interaction leverage points.

      If it is my business I do not process design it, but I do empower my people to do what is right. And the key to that is to define the outcomes but not the process that is supposed to lead to it. As you say it needs more than that. And there are no BPM solutions that have a definition of process goals or outcomes and allow or guide performers to perform customer service actions at the touchpoint.

      Just doing the design does nothing. What is missing in BPM is the support of the real-time execution.
    • Scott Francis
      more than a month ago
      I'm sorry your response sounds like you're disagreeing but there's nothing of substance to refute what I've said. If you are empowering, is that by design or by accident? And if the process doesn't support the outcome, but you empower people to act to get the outcome, then you're designing a broader process that allows for overriding the happy path to do what needs to be done.

      Of course the design by itself is nothing, just like the mission statements and vision statements do nothing. What does something is making it real. But the question is whether you can design great customer experience. And if you reverse that - can you accidentally produce great customer experience? no. you have to have intent. So. What is missing in your definition of BPM is the support of real time execution, but that sounds like a personal problem.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Wednesday, June 04 2014, 03:35 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    At least I think many companies TRY to design a fantastic customer experience, but it’s the execution of this design that really proves it. As some of you might know, before I started working in this exciting BPM business I owned a restaurant, together with my sister. And we indeed tried to design a great customer experience: - We made a menu with delicious meals - We grew our own ingredients - We had a ‘process’ to prepare the dishes - We had a system for ordering - We trained our staff well - We designed the restaurant itself (colors, tables etc) So, with all this, the basics for customer experience were designed. At least we thought. Talking about customer experience; A restaurant is a great place to talk about this subject, because you get real time feed back (and sometimes a few minutes later on review sites or twitter). And that happened, because in execution of our design, 'undesigned (or undesignable)'things happened: - When the chef had a bad day, food might not be that nice as designed - When the waitresses had a bad day, people might not feel that welcome as designed - Taste was discussed above: sometimes people just didn’t like the food. And that’s the point Max is trying to make I think; how capable are you to cope with these issues that weren’t designed. Because if you don’t act, a bad customer experience is born. You cannot say 'dear customer it is not the way it is designed, but normally it goes well. So during execution of the process we allowed staff to be flexible. Offer guests other food or drinks, offer them a coupon for the next time etc. And on the long term we had to adapt our design, because some issues kept on being bad for customer experience. So we had to change our ‘design’, based on what we learned during execution. So some dishes went off the menu, we had a different table set up, we bought other meat, etc. You can imagine I couldn’t cope with this stressful business and went into BPM. But still I use this experience in my workshops and training. Designing your business is OK, but it’s the execution, flexibility and adaptability that really make the customer experience. At least in a real customer facing business like a restaurant. Enjoy your meal! What? You don’t’ like it, you food barbarian? It’s the best in the world! You don’t have taste! Please, leave my restaurant and never come back!
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Wednesday, June 04 2014, 06:09 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Thanks for discussing the subject so extensively. Disagreement is the prerequsite of progress. I think Emiel said it the best: Customer Experience is not about design but it is about execution. It is the mindset of the people during execution that makes or breaks the customer eperience. I propose that too often the focus on the design and the enforcement of the design breaks what would be left to make the customer experience a good one. Businesses must be aware that the much-famed 'touchpoints' are not just that, but they are actually LEVERAGE POINTS. These are the only times when people inside the organization can make decisions that make this a good or a bad experience. They are the waypoints on the customer journey. And like with boating (an example I have used before) you can define your goals, but your decisions have to be focused on the real-world context at the time of execution. You cannot take these decisions beforehand and encode them into a rule set and one cannot use predictive analytics to train these decisions. A great customer experience is built upon the 'experience' (meaning knowledge) of the staff who performs it. And that includes the digital interaction via Web or Mobile that has to be fully integrated with the human interaction. Lets focus on real-time for real-people (performers and customers) and define what goals/outcomes we promised the customer at the leverage points.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Thursday, June 05 2014, 06:49 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    2 votes
    I am reading now a book that is slowly shaking my understanding of the business world (yes, I know - I catch up slowly): Herbert Simon's "The Sciences of the Artificial". So, inspired by what I am reading, I am going to be taking the broadest sense possible: if something is man-made (i.e. art), then it has been designed. So unless a customer experience happens to a customer who walks completely naked in the woods, enjoing berries and wild boar raw meat, then it has been designed. I would also broaden a bit the quote from Steve Jobs, because I believe the understanding about design has deepened ever since he's been quoted. And I think it is Tim Cook who deserves most credit for the new understanding of design, one that I fully adhered to int he meanwhile: "Design is about how it looks, is about how it works, but ultimately is about how it gets manufactured" Apple is hugely profitable not because the iOS interface gives you the impression of a quick system, but because all components of the iPhone, including software and services, are manufactured, tested, shipped and sold to seamlessly work together to the benefit of the user experience. That reveals an obsession with design. So I fully believe in an intelligent business design that ultimately drives an amazing customer experience. And by business design I mean not only the customer-facing processes, but also the data layers (is this info relevant to the customer experience? if not then I do not CRUD it), the supporting processes (how do I recruit, train, motivate, transition out all those warm-hearted human beings that listen to the customers on the phone? how do I create the right culture that drives only warm-hearted customer service talent into my organization? etc), the goals and strategies that are congruent with a customer experience etc. So, yeah, it can only work by design.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Thursday, July 31 2014, 12:10 AM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    0 votes
    As the relationship between customers and the enterprise continues to evolve in organizations must innovate through their customer service programs to stay competitive in the market. Outbound communications, being a critical part of customer services, need to be managed strategically to make every customer touch point count. Relevant communications can be a way to maximize sales opportunities. They are also a key compliance imperative with clear rules and guidelines laid down. Multi-channel delivery, intelligent action-driven messaging and speed of processing information are a few essentials of a successful Customer Communications strategy in the financial world. Forward looking organizations are therefore adopting smart and effective Customer Communications Management (CCM) systems for a better customer experience.
    The reply is currently minimized Show
  • Accepted Answer

    Thursday, July 31 2014, 09:58 PM - #Permalink
    Resolved
    1 votes
    Max - your article meandered quite a bit so I'm not sure what the exact what point you were trying to make. The part that misses the mark the most is your condemnation of using data and analytics to guide decision making. If you look at the companies with great customer experiences like Nordstrom, Ritz Carlton, or Zappos - they each employ a comprehensive CEM program based on data. Nordstrom for example, the #1 high-end retailer in terms of CX happens to be a Medallia customer. You should look Medallia up - they are everything that you rail against in your article yet part of the very fabric of Nordstrom's CX program. maybe Nordstrom is a bad example. You seem to like Apple in your article - another Medallia customer. Look at the bottom of the survey you get from the Apple Store - who do you think is sending in? CEM / CX is about a lot more than process and data but make no mistake process and data are a very large part of it.
    Like
    1
    The reply is currently minimized Show
Your Reply

Join the Discussion

Want to join the discussion?

Login, or create an account to participate in the forum.

Top Participants

Dr Alexander Samarin
276 Replies
26/09/2016
David Chassels
269 Replies
23/09/2016
Emiel Kelly
221 Replies
26/09/2016
Bogdan Nafornita
209 Replies
26/09/2016
E Scott Menter
182 Replies
26/09/2016