BPM.com
  1. Peter Schooff
  2. Sherlock Holmes
  3. BPM Discussions
  4. Tuesday, 09 May 2017
  5.  Subscribe via email
As the customer experience is so central to business success today, what do you think are the key mistakes to avoid with the customer journey map?
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Customers have their own workflows, manufacturers/service organizations have their own workflows.

There are advantages in some situations to setting up a zone where a process belonging to either can be accessed by both (selected steps only, or rarely, all steps).

The sharing can be read-only or read/write.

Too much sharing increases operating costs, too little and one or both parties are in the dark.
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Customer Journey maps should achieve three things:
1. Help everyone in the organization understand the customer viewpoint. Work with personas and customer emotions, include all relevant moments of truth for the customer, ... Tell the complete story.
2. Get people excited. No one wants to see yet another flowchart. Tell a compelling story that gets people out of bed!
3. Connect the dots: Show which processes, decision, KPIs, applications, etc contribute where along the journey.
Co-founder & CEO of Signavio
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Make sure that your sample set of customers is large enough to determine what's truly representative of the customers you really want to reach.
Founder at John Reynolds' Venture LLC - Creator of ¿?Trules™ for drama free decisions
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
3 primary uses of CJMs :
1) Diagnose problems (how bad really is it)
2) Design a new way (cocreation)
3) Communicate that way more widely (as in this is the way we have decided to deliver this experience).

Real problem is that most firms start of mapping the customer's journey through their crap ... rather than the customer's journey within the context of the "Job to be done"
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Not asking "Who gets it next?"

On a side note, didn't we used to call "customer journey mapping" "process discovery," or is that just me?

I'm probably not supposed to say "results" either, but the more in vogue "outcomes."

Same shite, different day, different words. :p
Comment
  1. Emiel Kelly
  2. 1 year ago
  3. #3911
Agree. Customer Journey is all the things a customer has to go through to make you execute your "internal" process. So It's definitely part of (real) process discovery.

But I have to admit, Customer Journey sounds more hipster than Process.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Just a small addition to @Karl’s “
Customers have their own workflows, manufacturers/service organizations have their own workflows.”
- each customer may have his/her own process or a set of processes
- typical coordination pattern between a customer and an organisation is co-processes thus learn how to implement it
- anticipation is the key!
- because you work with a distributed system (customer and organisation) then the error-processing is getting difficult
- think about your terms and conditions document or sale contract as a process.

Thanks,
AS
Comment
The usual scenario is each has its own separate processes but, over time, touchpoints are identified. e.g. manufacturer ships out a prototype; customer has 15 days to comment.

What we have here is out-reach by the manufacturer (shipment notice -> shipment -> start 15 day countdown) and then, prior to the end of the 15 day period we have a customer in-reach (submit comments).

A problem occurs when the customer responds in more than 15 days. Here, the coordination remedy for the supplier is to lengthen the comment period or for the customer to compress their comment reaction time.

A need for arbitrary reachout (supplier has a problem interpreting spec) or arbitrary reachin (customer has a problem running a prototype) will always occur.

Here various channels of communication may be needed:

a) pick up the phone (the receiving party needs to insert a record-of-phone-call into the case, then engage some processing) [easy for the initiating party, cumbersome for the receiving party.]

b) e-mail goes out/e-mail comes in [works best when the sending party can compose an e-mail at the sending party case and the receiving party's software can auto-import incoming e-mails to the receiving party's case]

c) planned or arbitrary portal out-reach/auto in-reach [works very well when the out-reach can take place at a process step along the sending party's workflow and when a simple "submit' by the receiving party ensures a response is both received in a timely manner and that the response precisely goes back to the sending party/' process step].

Reason - the origin of the outreach is a process step, not a person, and the target of the in-reach uniquely resolves to that process step. A "you have messages" e-mail may be required for out-reach recipients who do not go to portals on a regular basis.

d) formal at-arms-length sending party out-reach/in-reach followed by receiving party response/sending party response receipt works [weil for tightly-coupled trading partners as the traffic can be posted to a generic data exchanger and picked up at the data exchanger (both directions)].

For d) "learning how to implement it" is indeed important.

Various possible approaches, I suppose, but one we found to work well is data flows into the case where a gatekeeper step that has been waiting for a response is now able to fire OR, if the incoming message is not anticipated, the data exchanger launches a process that either simply executes in the case of a totally automated process, or posts a "request for action" step to the attention of some human.

The beauty of a generic data exchanger is each party can use their own data element naming conventions and each can use its own formatters/parsers to post data to the data exchanger or pick up data at the data exchanger.

Rule sets can always interrupt any "Look ma, no hands" processing when something going out or coming in does not look/feel right.

We could spend an entire week discussing data exchange- it's one of the keys to preventing cases from becoming islands, the other being cross-case analysis via analytics or via humans connecting the dots at free-form search knowledge bases.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Thinking that it is something you can do separately from your "internal" processes.

http://procesje.blogspot.nl/2016/10/i-love-it-when-customers-do-all-our-work.html
Sharing my adventures in Process World via Procesje.nl
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
For us that we often end up automating mission critical, highly transactional processes (especially in banks and retail), one of the key things to avoid is to lump every possible product and process ramification into a single "super" process from the get-go.
In banks for instance, we very often see the tendency of the user wanting to create 1 single on-boarding process that covers all possible retail products, like mortgages, credit cards, personal loans and car loans. While this may seem like a good idea from very, very far away, it becomes a nightmare once one gets down to the level of the thousand different rules and variables each one of these product bears on its own. In that sense, it's a good practice to avoid creating "super processes" while making sure there are standards, SOA and methodologies in place that allow to create many different, smaller processes that then are as uniform and harmonic among each other as possible.
NSI Soluciones - ABPMP PTY
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Having tried before some CJM exercises for digital products, there's a few mistakes I have gone through:
1/ take CJM as a dogmatic exercise just because I ran into some cool templates on the 'net;
2/ especially in enterprise setups, CJM, in its currently popular incarnations, ignores the team dynamics (hard to model, indeed) and of course, in the context of a Customer, the concept of buying center is ignored;
3/ ignore to reflect action items in internal processes just because it's cool to think interface flows fix customer issues better than internal action and data flows.
CEO, Co-founder, Profluo
Comment
Call me old school, but I still really like JAD for points 1 and 2; everybody in the same room at the same time heads down for a few days. Bang out more stuff by consensus in a week than weeks or months of filling out templates and interviewing. Just sayin'.
what I was objecting in 1/ and 2. was the fact the some of the CJM templates out there focus -for example- on "emotion" as a key customer attribute. That is... overrated in certain enterprise environments :-)
And yes, we do JAD right now in Profluo. It works - it gets the customer to "own" the solution and reduces the typical org resistance battle cry to a whimper.
  1. John Morris
  2. 1 year ago
  3. #3912
+1 @Bogdan "cool to think interface flows fix customer issues better than internal action and data flows" . . . I could add "also better than internal data" . . . heaven forfend we should model and govern our data well.
data is the new oil: dark, slippery and dirty - avoid touching it at all costs :-))
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 9
Jim Sinur
Blog Writer
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The fundamental mistake companies make is where the center of gravity is in a customer interaction. Organizations tend to have a "Let them eat Cake" attitude. It comes out of an attitude of "its my business model, so we will do it my way optimizing my outcomes" Customer touch points and desired outcomes need to be coordinated in a dynamic fashion instead of pushing everyone down a "happy cheap path". This is usually followed by a survey that pushes high scores for the business without any real feedback. This is why customers walk when something better comes along. It's too late then. The most expensive event is getting a customer, it's pretty cheap to keep them happy.
References
  1. http://jimsinur.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-dangerous-disconnect-between.html
  2. http://jimsinur.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-digital-organization-is-obsessed.html
  3. http://jimsinur.blogspot.com/2015/05/dangers-in-first-steps-of-digital.html
  4. http://jimsinur.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-dramatic-shift-in-customer-experience.html
  5. http://jimsinur.blogspot.com/2015/04/swarming-to-better-customer-service.html
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Perhaps the failure to recognise a customer wants to feel engaged in making a decision...very much as Jim suggests. Assuming we are focusing on the digital interactions allowing customer to manage the feel of all options available in a dynamic way should gain that engagement for successful relationship as opposed to the take it or leave it sell...?
Comment
A good way to get a customer feeling engaged is you contact them before they have a problem and have to contact you.

Our support desk routinely phones to ask "How are things going?" if we have not heard from a customer for a while.

Some of our competitors feel customer support is all about answering incoming phone calls and raising "support tickets"
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Customer journey maps can be created for many purposes as it has been shown in the previous posts.... so the most common mistake is not to think about and write down why are we mapping the customer journey. For different purposes we construct the customer journey map in different way. In my practical work ask my clients to describe the customer journey in different issues/levels 1) Business model such as value creating network/system, 2) Buying logic vs earning logic such as key process map 3) Business processes such as getting attention, purchasing, using service, asking for help 4) Products and services such as how to use specific product or acquire specific service 5) Specific instance for problem solving in the case of reclamation.

In my thinking each level has it's specific purpose and also the way how to map customer journey and what additional information is needed deal with the issue/level. Touch point analysis is one example of this.

My last point here is, that the value is created in customer process. If you don't know the customer process, it is not very easy to create value for the customer.... so the second most common mistake is not to map the customer journey at all....may be this is even more common, than the first mistake not clarifying the purpose of mapping.

br. Kai
Comment
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Every now and again a relative gives our daughter a Lego kit where you can build "a country store" or "a beautiful town house" etc. Boys get "medieval castles" or "Star Wars Droids" etc., regardless of the modern intentions of parents. Generations ago, Legos were just "lots of bricks". Now "country stores" are first-class citizens of the Lego system.

Same thing with function-specific technology, such as BPM software. It's very exciting that "customer journeys" are now first-class citizens of the business process world -- even if a lot of that "first-classness" exists only as methodology, it's a huge step forward in efficiency and effectiveness that a powerful business idea can the subject of discussion and development, and that customer journey-specific methodologies (and even some technical patterns) are readily available on top of traditional software foundations.

What's a risk with higher-order Lego kits? Or BPM patterns? That you lose the narrative and forget that you're working at a higher level. It's always tempting and easy to just build in the old way. That might be satisfying in the world of play. In the world of business one isn't paid to play, but to deliver the higher-order deliverable. Disorder awaits every morning. So, think and focus and speak customer journey constantly. Do you have the governance and leadership to maintain that edge?
Comment
@John.. Good points..

I don't altogether understand how corporations who used to value customer relationships and had a culture of promoting/maintaining customer relationships could lose that focus in becoming "process minded".

I feel that manufacturer/supplier outreach at key process points plus customer inreach ("outreach" from the customer's perspective) plus ad hoc contact (in either direction) covers all of the bases.

Governance is indeed needed to "maintain that edge" and one manifestation of that are rule sets that identify special requests and divert the processing from automated to manual and rule sets that escalate any dialog (e.g. the customer rep may be doing all of the right things but the solution to a problem is taking too long for reasons outside of the script the rep is following).

As for leadership, pep talks from time to time are "great" but the way to sustain any culture is to make it routine and part of day-to-day operations. i.e. you log into a customer record at 0800 hrs and are greeted by a flashing "incoming e-mail" as opposed to having to discover the incoming message from the customer embedded in your morning avalanche of 100 Outlook messages.

I probably don't need to point out that "customer journeys" are really no different from "sub-contractor journeys" - same three modes of communication are needed except that chances are it is easier to formalize the in/out communication (i.e. the contract states that there will be a contract review every 2nd Friday and that the agenda has to be finalized 24 hours in advance of each review).

I see a lot of effort across my customer base on "solving problems" - eliminating problems in some situations seems to be no more difficult
  1. John Morris
  2. 1 year ago
  3. #3917
+1 @Karl -- " the way to sustain any culture is to make it routine and part of day-to-day operations".
  1. more than a month ago
  2. BPM Discussions
  3. # 13
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this post yet.
However, you are not allowed to reply to this post.