The question arose in a discussion forum as to how customer experience practitioners should approach strategy, which immediately veered of in the wrong direction, but which led me to ruminate on the topic a bit. My reaction was that there are existing models for strategy development: Google "problem solving process" or do an image search for diagrams, and there are no shortage of suggestions for the steps to go through to develop a plan (short or long range).
The question implies that a different methodology is in order, but I don't believe that to be so: the existing models are perfectly serviceable, but the manner in which they are undertaken must be tailored to focus on customer experience.
Consider the four basic steps of the problem-solving process:
- Recognize the Problem
- Develop a Plan
- Execute the Plan
- Evaluate the Results
A couple of red herrings are immediately apparent: First, this model is based on the assumption that there is a problem to be solved rather than an opportunity to be seized, and it works equally well in either situation (though pursuing opportunities tends to be more speculative and predictive because it is based on a concept). Second, there are dozens of similar models that have varying number of steps, though most of these additional steps arise from further digesting the existing one ("Develop a Problem" may be broken into sub-steps). I'll avoid those sidetracks to remain focused on the topic of user experience.
If a plan is to be developed to improve customer experience, or if an initiative that seems to have nothing to do with customer experience does not have a negative impact, the same process can be applied - but the inputs and evaluations along the way must be focused on the customer experience. At the very least, the concerns of the customer must be included by someone who is qualified and motivated to speak on their behalf; a middle ground can be achieved by including market research; but the best approach would be to include the customer in the strategic discussions directly.
And so, consider how customer focus can be maintained in each step:
1. Recognize the Problem
Problem recognition is often done because the "problem" represents a barrier to the internal interests of the firm. Instead, consider the problem from the customers' perspective - how is this a problem for them in the course of serving their own interests?
A better approach than speculating what the customer might consider to be a problem would be to leverage traditional market research tools (surveys, interviews, focus groups, and the like) and customer feedback. Once the core problem is identified, follow-up studies can be done to gather more granular information.
2. Develop a Plan
Developing a plan seems to be an internal matter - decide what will the firm do, using resources it already has and process that are comfortable or efficient for itself. However, to be customer-focused, set aside the concerns of the firm and consider instead the concerns of the customer: what will they do, using the resources they have and processes that are comfortable or efficient to them.
Only after that is done should you switch to an internal perspective and consider how you will accommodate the desires and interests of the customer, given your culture and resource constraints. This may also identify areas in which the firm must change its procedures and obtain additional resources to successfully address the problem.
Where a conflict of interest arises, return to the customer's perspective: if the firm does not do what is necessary to serve their interest, or implements a solution that is an imperfect or an inconvenient fix, will they still be willing to do business with the firm? Or would it be an opportunity for them to consider a different supplier?
3. Execute the Plan
I cannot at the moment conceive of how customers would participate in the execution of a plan. This seems to me an entirely internal step, and can't think of an idea that isn't completely bizarre and/or impractical.
4. Evaluate the Results
Evaluating the results means resuming the customer's perspective. Internally, there is likely greater interest in whether the solution achieved its goals for the business (cost savings or increased revenues) that cannot, and should not, be entirely ignored. But the greater question is whether the solution worked for the customer.
To discover this, the same market research tools that were used in the identification phase could be leveraged, to see where the metrics have shifted as a result of the change. Better yet, observe actual behavior - what people do is far more important than what they say they might do. While observing customers in the wild seems difficult, it's likely that reporting and monitoring mechanisms can be built into the solution, particularly if it is a technology solution.
And so, consider how customer focus can be maintained in each step:
1. Recognize the Problem
Problem recognition is often done because the "problem" represents a barrier to the internal interests of the firm. Instead, consider the problem from the customers' perspective - how is this a problem for them in the course of serving their own interests?
A better approach than speculating what the customer might consider to be a problem would be to leverage traditional market research tools (surveys, interviews, focus groups, and the like) and customer feedback. Once the core problem is identified, follow-up studies can be done to gather more granular information.
2. Develop a Plan
Developing a plan seems to be an internal matter - decide what will the firm do, using resources it already has and process that are comfortable or efficient for itself. However, to be customer-focused, set aside the concerns of the firm and consider instead the concerns of the customer: what will they do, using the resources they have and processes that are comfortable or efficient to them.
Only after that is done should you switch to an internal perspective and consider how you will accommodate the desires and interests of the customer, given your culture and resource constraints. This may also identify areas in which the firm must change its procedures and obtain additional resources to successfully address the problem.
Where a conflict of interest arises, return to the customer's perspective: if the firm does not do what is necessary to serve their interest, or implements a solution that is an imperfect or an inconvenient fix, will they still be willing to do business with the firm? Or would it be an opportunity for them to consider a different supplier?
3. Execute the Plan
I cannot at the moment conceive of how customers would participate in the execution of a plan. This seems to me an entirely internal step, and can't think of an idea that isn't completely bizarre and/or impractical.
4. Evaluate the Results
Evaluating the results means resuming the customer's perspective. Internally, there is likely greater interest in whether the solution achieved its goals for the business (cost savings or increased revenues) that cannot, and should not, be entirely ignored. But the greater question is whether the solution worked for the customer.
To discover this, the same market research tools that were used in the identification phase could be leveraged, to see where the metrics have shifted as a result of the change. Better yet, observe actual behavior - what people do is far more important than what they say they might do. While observing customers in the wild seems difficult, it's likely that reporting and monitoring mechanisms can be built into the solution, particularly if it is a technology solution.
***
The running theme to all of this is: if the problem-solving approach does not serve the interests of the customer, it is likely not to do with the process, but with the degree to which the needs of the customer are considered while the steps themselves are undertaken. Or said another way, you tend to hit what you're aiming at - and if your aims are entirely internal, you shouldn't be surprised when customers don't seem to be falling in line with your grand scheme.
As usual, I've rattled on a while and considered the matter at a high level and in general terms. This could use a great deal more consideration, but this should do for a survey/introduction to the idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment