Performance Perspectives

Category Archives: Performance Management

When Benchmarking Gets “In the Way” of Good Performance Management…

Posted on by

Nearly three decades after benchmarking came on the scene, companies still claim it to be an integral part of their internal performance improvement processes. But few would argue that its value to the business is now well below where it once was. And sometimes, it actually gets in the way of identifying improvements and driving change.

There is not a client I work with who doesn’t have their shelves lined with volumes of benchmarking studies and reports. Nearly every industry group produces some kind of comparative metrics report for its members. And every industry has those companies that we might consider to be “benchmarking addicts” — those who participate in nearly every study they can in the spirit of demonstrating their performance improvement “commitment” and “prowess” around driving change. Ironically though, it is rarely these companies that define the top tier of their respective industries in terms of real performance.

Here are some inherent flaws with benchmarking today:

  • Benchmarking is largely “point-in-time” driven and retrospective in nature. While this can be useful in “stress testing” targets and defining high-level gaps (“low-hanging fruit” or “quick wins”), it largely ignores the trends or shifts in metrics that are far more critical to identifying and driving course corrections.
  • Comparative studies almost always focus on lagging versus leading indicators. This often leads to a culture of “managing through the rear-view mirror”. It also fixates the organization on measuring things for the sake of comparisons, when some of those metrics may have have  become irrelevant or even obsolete.
  • Benchmarking focuses on “common metrics” versus those that may be critical to you, but perhaps not everyone. It’s okay to have a few metrics you routinely measure for the sake of comparison, but when these metrics begin to define your scorecard, it’s time to recognize when the “tail is actually wagging the dog”.
  • Comparisons are done for many reasons, not all of which are performance driven. More often than not, benchmarks are used to identify strengths for the sake of communicating to shareholders, regulators, or sometimes even internal Executives. They’re sometimes even a vehicle for rationalizing and justifying poor performance, often confusing the organization and sending all the wrong messages.
  • Benchmarking often leads to “group think”. We look for commonalities and like to follow the “herd”. Let’s face it — It lowers our risk to say, “if company x is doing such and such, then we should be doing it too.” But it’s sometimes the anomalies in the data that can show us where real innovation is happening. And in the benchmarking world, anomalies are often dismissed as outliers and suggestive of data problems rather than solutions.
These are just a few of the many ways that benchmarking “gets in the way” of real change, and there are many more where these came from.
As with anything we do long enough, it’s easy to get into a corporate habit of doing something and forget WHY we are doing it in the first place. So if you want benchmarking to be a value-adding component of your performance management process, here are a few things you can do:
  1. Realize that benchmarking is about you, and not about others. It’s fine to use comparisons to help you better understand yourself and your performance weaknesses and perhaps “stress test” your targets, but when you start using benchmarks to rationalize and justify existing performance and actions, it’s time to refocus your thinking on you and your company’s improvement goals and the learning benchmarking can provide.
  2. Determine where benchmarking fits into your overall performance management process, and use it that way. In cases where benchmarking is done for some other reason, like communicating to stakeholders or regulators, call it what it is and keep it at arms length from the game of real performance improvement.
  3. Focus your benchmarking on the measures that matter to YOU rather than a consultant’s peer group or client base. More often than not, it may be better to do a small internal project to gather that competitive intelligence, than it would to consume resources to force-fit yourself into a large peer group.
  4. Orient your benchmarking around learning and innovation, rather than simply “following the herd.” This will sometimes cause you to look at different metrics, and look at them differently. Anomalies will become a source of new innovation rather than simply a data problem to discount.
Benchmarking can be a great tool for defining, catalyzing and inspiring change in your organization. Take a hard look at how your organization uses these comparisons today and be honest with yourself about where this supports or hinders your performance management process. Make benchmarking part of your performance management process rather than an end in and of itself.
Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

The “Low Bar” Mentality- Recognizing and overcoming mediocrity in customer service experience…

Posted on by

  • An appliance repairman or cable television technician shows up with just ten minutes remaining in his four-hour schedule window and we’re relieved.
  • A waitress makes no mistakes in our dinner order and we reward her exemplary service with an above-average tip.
  • We laboriously type our social security number and credit card information into an automated IVR system and then are unsurprised when asked to repeat it all again to the agent who answers the phone.
  • We stand in line at the grocery store, watching as the cashier leaves her station and walks back into the store to check a price.
  • We wait patiently at the hotel registration desk as the clerk takes a phone call even though she’s in the middle of checking us in.

What do all of these mind-numbingly familiar scenarios have in common? Several things actually. First, they are all examples of stunningly poor customer service, so commonplace that we scarcely bother to even remark about them to friends and families. Second, we, for the most part, allow them to happen without comment, recourse, or even recognition. We don’t get upset, switch away from the offending service providers, or even suggest alternatives. More insidiously, though, it has come to be what we expect. We have reached a point where we’ve concluded that nothing better is possible. We have lowered the bar so far on service providers that we frequently find ourselves in the ironic position of rewarding mediocrity.

Exhibit A for these diminished expectations is restaurant service. Our culture is one in which we expect to pay a fifteen-percent gratuity to wait staff who simply show up for work. The server who actually gets our order correct (i.e., who does their job) is thought to be astonishing and expects to receive more than this nominal amount. And we happily pay it.

Companies, almost without exception, will tell you that the reason for diminished customer service is cost containment. You can’t get an agent on the phone quickly because agents are expensive. You have to sit at home all day waiting on the technician because gas and trucks are expensive. Sorry, that’s just how things are these days.

But it isn’t really about cost at all. It’s about managing to the level of service that customers expect, and going no further. As a consequence, our expectations today are so minimal that on those rare occasions when we phone a business and a person answers instead of a machine, we’re momentarily stunned into silence while thinking of what to say. We feel guilty giving only ten percent to the waitress who gave us surly, inaccurate service at lunch.

It is not the purpose of this brief treatise to propose service solutions; these are addressed in plenty of other places. Rather, the point here is to simply acknowledge and make explicit the low (and falling) expectations we’ve all come to accept, the hope being that recognition of this fundamental state of affairs will, as consumers, make us just a little more willing to demand something better from those who provide us with service, or, as service providers, to rise to these heightened expectations. In a society where everyone settles, there is no incentive to improve.

But what are we, as service providers, to do? Most importantly, expect customers to expect more. Rather than benchmark our service performance against what the competition offers, evaluate it against what’s possible. This, in turn, requires an aspirational mindset that is not terribly common in American business.

On the flip side, we are all not only business people but consumers as well. Adopt the mindset that you deserve more than you’re currently getting from your service providers. The worst that can happen is that you get a reputation as someone who doesn’t settle. That certainly can’t be a bad thing.

Ultimately it becomes a virtuous circle. Heightened service expectations beget improved service. This, in turn, makes us expect even more. Heck, before you know it, that technician might show up at your house at exactly the time you want him there!

BKS

Guest Author: Brian Kenneth Swain is a Consultant with onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Brian has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted for numerous companies across a wide range of industries and geographies. Brian can be contacted at bswain2000@yahoo.com.

A “Sticky Situation” -When product/ service “stickiness” is not a good thing!!!

Posted on by

My annual springtime gardening experiment…

This past weekend, I was doing some backyard gardening in North Jersey- my futile attempt to convince myself that winter is over in the Northeast and that we are headed full-steam toward sunny skies and warmer temperatures. Of course, anyone who lives in this part of the country knows how useless this tactic is, as within a few days we’ll be back down into the 40s with rain. That is, until June when the weather will instantaneously switch to the hot and humid days of summer, bypassing spring entirely. But taking advantage of the nice weather, even if just for a day, would be worth it even if it were just for a few hours of sanity and relaxation, right? Not so fast.

Why exactly I choose “gardening” as a way to decompress is about as clear to me as why bad golfers choose to endure hours of hacking at a golf ball as a way to spend a nice Saturday afternoon. But just like the bad golfer who trades off four hours of frustration for what may be a few good shots, such is the case with me and my annual bouts with cleaning up the yard and getting it ready for better days ahead.

It all starts with the “Orange Aprons”…

The trend is usually predictable: The inescapable trip to fight the crowds at Home Depot (which I now rationalize as my contribution to improving HD stock performance), the often painstaking task of unpacking the purchases and unpotting the plants, and the ensuing hours of digging (usually through layers of rock which seem to “grow back” every winter), raking, planting, mulching, and the inevitable cleanup that follows well into the evening hours. But like the bad golfer who slices his first shot of the season into the woods, my annual gardening experience usually starts yielding frustration long before any planting begins, and sometimes even before I leave the Home Depot parking lot.

This year, the frustration took a little longer to materialize. In fact the entire shopping experience was pretty good. I had little difficulty finding what I was looking for, and the staff was both accessible and helpful. The lines moved quickly and I was out before I knew it. In fact, against the many dimensions I typically grade service providers on, I’d have to give the “orange apron guys” an A+. The day appeared to be turning out better than in years past. But I knew better. It was only a matter of time before that glorious Saturday afternoon would begin generating increased blood pressure and the collection of four letter words that accompanies it. Such would be the case upon my arrival home.

The dreaded “unpacking” phase…

After arriving home and convincing my teenage boys to unpack the car (yet another delightful surprise), I began the unpacking process. And, within an instant, the calmness and serenity that had occupied my mood changed to frustration and anxiety. For whatever reason, this year’s unpacking process appeared to me significantly more difficult. It started with the requisite layers of bubble wrap and tape that enveloped each component of new patio furniture we had bought. And when I say each component, I mean down to every individual nut and bolt!!! Then there was the military-grade plastic packaging that encased my new 10-dollar pruning sheers, protecting it from God knows what. (You know, the kind of packaging that requires the “jaws of life” to successfully extract). And then, there were all those damned “sticky” labels that invariably require countless hours of “picking” to effectively remove, lest your new purchase live the remainder of its useful life with its caregiver instructions and warning labels intact.

Now maybe I was just paying more attention this year, but it seemed as if the people responsible for packaging all this stuff were playing a big joke on yours truly. Just why companies feel compelled to spend 30 dollars on packaging to protect a 10-dollar garden tool is more than a bit perplexing. Ironically enough, every single product I bought had some kind of environmental or recycling message on it, which screamed hypocrisy given all of the trees and petroleum used to create (or recycle) these labels and packaging. But I digress.

Those damned “sticky labels”- ARGH!!!

This year, it was those damned “sticky labels” that threw me over the edge, particularly the ones affixed to each of the 10 segments of “garden border” I purchased. Those stickers appear to be everywhere these days, and some are admittedly easier to remove than others. I happened to be the recipient of the latter type. And yes, I KNOW that I can remove them with warm soapy water or Windex. But really…does EVERY 6 inch segment of garden boarder need three sticky labels conspicuously affixed to the visible side of it? To amplify the frustration, the garden border I purchased was sold in a 10 pack! 30 stickers in all, each requiring a few minutes of removal, lest I live with a perpetual banner of warning labels and bar codes around the border of my garden.

I couldn’t help but think how so many good products lose their impact because of such bad packaging decisions. Talk about a moment of truth! I can assure you that most of the products I purchased that day will be remembered by me, not for their uniqueness, robustness, or endurance,but rather for the annoying unpacking experience created by their unfriendly and obstructive packaging.

A bright spot amidst the madness…

There was however one bright spot in the unpacking experience, At the bottom of the bag was an attractive ceramic outdoor oil candle my wife purchased- an inexpensive impulse buy, but still a nice centerpiece at a holiday BBQ or summer dinner party. The candle wasn’t boxed, as it was probably a Home Depot brand or otherwise “generic”. Affixed to the side of it was yet another single “sticky label”. Only this one was small and inconspicuous, and contained nothing but one of those square bar codes (what is known now as a QR code) with a note that suggested I “scan it” with my smart-phone for more info . Intrigued, I scanned it with my iPhone and it took me directly to a Home Depot web site that displayed an array of other outdoor products apparently related to my purchase which caused me to look at a few more products that were kind of neat. I bookmarked the page and removed the sticker (which was of the other, easy-to-peel variety). Overall, a very cool example of less being more.

The rest of the day went pretty well. In fact, I am now wondering just how much of the past year’s angst was created by something as simple as the unpacking process. Did that part of the ordeal set the tone for the entire day? For me, and on this day, it most certainly did. And it got me thinking: How often is our frustration as consumers linked to one simple trigger event like this? Do the manufacturers and distributors of these products have any clue about the emotional chaos created by such simple, yet stupid packaging decisions? And why they would allow this to occur in such an early stage in the product experience?

What’s your “sticky label”?

Most of us have aspects of our product or offers that create the same kind of frustrating experiences. And just like the people who sold me the garden border, we probably don’t have a clue that these emotions are occurring as I write this.

So I ask you: What is your “sticky label”?

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Jump!!!- How to “ignite change” within your organization…

Posted on by

Using the “nightmare scenario” to catalyze change…

Since I started my career 22 years ago, I’ve always been intrigued by the use of the proverbial “burning platform” as a motivational tactic for catalyzing and effecting change within organizations. Originally, the “burning platform” was simply a metaphor used for a looming crisis that required a change in organizational thinking and behavior. More and more, however, these “burning platforms” are becoming more literal, making the consequence of “status quo” even more real and threatening to those who are on it.

There is no shortage of cases in which the threat of REALLY BIG negative consequences turned out to be an effective means of initiating major change within organizations, cultures, and individuals who were otherwise operating myopically, blind to many of the realities around them. We saw it in the 1960’s as MLK used present inequities among races, and what the future would look like if left unattended, to inspire what would become a successful civil rights movement that would change US and global principles, policies,  legislation, and ultimately cultural behaviors themselves. Auto companies used the threat of overseas domination as a way to improve productivity and quality, and continue to use it as a way to sustain performance.

“Burning Platform” examples: Past and present…

We are also seeing it quite literally now, as nuclear companies have used past examples of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now the as-yet-unresolved crisis at Fukushima, as a way to renew the industry’s focus on safety. And of course, all major oil companies are using the consequences of the BP spill of 2010 as a catalyst for driving major improvements in operational safety. The latter is a particularly good example, as on the day of the explosion itself, the company was celebrating a long string of days without a recordable safety event!

Late last year, Nokia’s new CEO Stephan Elop  used the same tactic to catalyze the need for some dramatic new thinking within his organization. To amplify the importance of responding quickly to what appears to be a competitive nightmare scenario, he sent a memo to the organization comparing its circumstances to that of a “burning platform” surrounded by the “icy waters” of the North Sea. In this case, survival meant risking both a fall and survival of icy waters in order to avoid the certain death of being consumed by fire. Talk about a wake up call!!!

Even humanity in general uses the “burning platform” as a way to inspire vigilance and action around things like spirituality and lifestyle. Most are aware of Harold Camping’s prophesies around the projected May 21st “Rapture” of Christians worldwide and the October 21st end of the world as we know it (Sorry if that puts a damper on anyone’s springtime plans :), but hey, I’m just the messenger!). Regardless of your religious background, or whether you “buy into” this or the myriad of other “end of days” proclamations, prophesies like this one certainly get our attention, and remind us of the importance of staying in close touch with our maker–lest we risk the ultimate in “burning platforms.”

Nevertheless, most of the successful uses of the “burning platform” tactic of motivation, particularly those in business, are based in fear–fear of losing customers, fear of losing market share, fear of financial collapse, and the myriad of other risks  associated with not responding fast enough, or with enough magnitude to avert otherwise disastrous consequences. And while most leaders, like myself, would prefer to use more positive oriented motivation and reinforcement to accomplish our vision, the “burning platform” (threat of crisis) often has a more pronounced catalyzing effect, and as a leader, it is highly likely that you will be forced into using it at some point in your career, assuming you haven’t already.

Guidelines for developing your “burning platform”…

If you are going to use the “burning platform” tactic effectively, I believe there are a number of factors that should influence and guide your approach:

  • Make sure the platform you choose is real, credible, and significant. — Focus on specific threats or risks to your business that cannot be dealt with or averted using existing processes, practices, or people (e.g., a specific safety risk that if unmanaged would sink the company, or a productivity gap that is 40% worse than your top competitor, is better than a repeated message that sales are down, costs are up, and profits are hurting).
  • Make sure you offer a “roadmap” or “pathway” for success that is achievable (assuming one exists)— Everyone has heard the adage “accept the things you cannot change…change the things you can …and have the wisdom to know the difference.” There are two implications of this in creating your burning platform. First, there is nothing worse than a dismal scenario that has no way of being averted, as that is a sure path to apathy and hopelessness. Assuming there is one (if there is not, you may want to think about jumping ship), make sure that you help your staff see it.  None of us are capable of changing the “end of days” scenario described above (should it prove out), but we can change our behaviors, approach to relationships, and other facets of our life.
  • The “burning platform” doesn’t always have to be apocalyptic in nature. — You can be just as successful defining a future scenario that might open possibilities for you or your organization to “break out” or leapfrog competitors. Our visit to the moon was a good example of where we used external forces and opportunities to inspire a very positive outcome.
  • A “compelling narrative” is essential. Almost every good example of a “burning platform” tactic being successful begins with the ability of a leader to clearly and compellingly state the case for change. At its basic level, this is the ability to be a good storyteller, in a way that vividly paints the picture of the crisis at hand, shows the vision for success, and clearly identifies what must change, all while respecting the history and past successes of the organization.
  • Track and report progress/establish consequences — If you do a good job of identifying a real and credible threat to the business, and articulating a pathway to averting or navigating the risk, then you should be able to establish some good metrics for reporting success. Think of these as milestones or way-points on your journey. Report these frequently so that they enable critical course corrections. You’ll want to make sure you hold yourself and those on your team accountable. Again, if you’ve done a good job of defining the threats, risks, and path for success, then improvement in the business should allow for ample rewarding of those who contributed the most.
  • Don’t overuse the tactic. — There is nothing worse than a leader who constantly “cries wolf”. All of us have had bosses who live in a constant narrative of “the sky is falling.” They repeatedly send the same message over and over again, and when subordinates stop listening, they ascribe it to their staff “simply “not getting it”, when in fact what has happened is that they have become so “numb” to the message that it has the reverse effect, i.e., of creating complacency.

A “burning platform” can be a very effective strategy for managing change within an organization, regardless of the business type. But doing it incorrectly can create hopelessness and a feeling of apathy across the team and put the organization in worse shape than when it started.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Does Size Really Matter?

Posted on by

A Little “Customer Voyeurism”…

Last week, my family and I took a vacation to visit some of my in-laws in California. For those of you who know me, you’ll appreciate the fact that any trip for me is an opportunity for a little “customer voyeurism.” That is, I very much enjoy watching exchanges between customers and service providers, whether I am engaged in the transaction or not, largely because they provide me with a wealth of perspectives that serve to validate and augment the many years of performance data, benchmarks and trends I’ve collected in my research and client engagements. So, while spending part of my vacation documenting the customer experiences of myself and others may seem a little weird to some of you, I was not about to miss the insights that would undoubtedly be generated by this seven-day excursion into the depths of airline, restaurant, amusement park, golf course, and taxicab servicing processes.

Like most, this trip did not disappoint (as far as the volume of insights and “take-aways” go). While there was no shortage of examples on both the good and bad aspects of the customer experience (too many to share in one post), I decided to zero-in on what I am finding to be an interesting phenomenon, i.e., the apparent implication of company size on customer satisfaction, engagement, and perception.

Here’s what the data from my little informal research gig told me:

  • The vast majority of transactions (experiences) appeared to be “issue neutral”- apparently meeting expectations of the customer (deduced through a lack of a visible change in emotion on either side)…Note that I use the word expectations deliberately since I believe many customer’s expectations are considerably lower than in past years. Hence, delivering against a “bar” that is set very low is not likely to produce a lot of emotion other than resignation or apathy.
  • While they were few and far between, there were failures and successes on “the fringes” of the distribution. I’ve shown a simple example of what I mean, although I believe actual research on a broader set of experiences would probably show that the distribution is anything but “normal” /gaussian (i.e. these days it is likely skewed to the left assuming customers still have some semblance of  expectation (hope) of good service, which of course, is debatable  (I’ll leave that for another post).

That notwithstanding, If we were plotting this data, we’d be talking about a data distribution with some range of values that characterize the majority of observations, and a small number of significant negative (small in number, but “intense” as far as generating negative emotion…and what our lean or six sigma brethren would call “failures”), and significant positive experiences (pure, but perhaps unexpected, delight- or what my friend Stan Phelp’s at “9 Inch Marketing” (no relationship to the title of this post!!!) likes to call “Lagniappe” in his “purple goldfish” project), at the “tails” of the distribution.

In my experience on this trip, the above distribution was more in line with my observations in that there were probably an equal number of positive and negative experiences on each side of the norm, along with a similar proportion of significant negative and positive experiences on the fringes. The following however, was particularly noteworthy.Most

    • (90%+) of the really poor exchanges (generating a fairly clear display of emotion from neutral, to visibly “pissed”) occurred with what I would call larger more established companies
    • Most (60%+) of the really positive exchanges (generating what we might refer to as “delight”, or as Stan Phelps likes to refer to it, “customer lagniappe”) occurred with small companies (“Mom and Pops” and/ or specialty stores in cottage industries)

I’ll say again, that throughout this trip, I was only able to observe several dozen transactions between a variety of customers and service providers, including those encountered by yours truly. And while this hardly qualifies as a statistically relevant sample, and falls well shy of what I would consider a rigorous research approach, it served its purpose of identifying a subject worthy of some debate and dialogue.

Why Size Matters…

Why does the above phenomenon occur? Hard to say exactly, but my hunch would be that it has a lot to do with the history and evolution of these organizations. Clearly the smaller “niche players” have a vital need to differentiate and compete, since many lack the market size and scale to do so “naturally.” And while service is one way to accomplish that differentiation,  you’d expect some real “over-achievement” in this segment. In fact, the brand identity of many of these companies is directly tied to some “exceptional” aspect of their product or service offering (e.g. the special touch in the packaging, the handwritten thank-you note, or similar gestures). It’s a necessity for these companies, and when they realize they’ve stumbled onto a differentiator (deliberately or by accident), it’s relatively easy to clone and replicate.

No so much with the larger players. Sadly, many of the companies causing the above “grief” were once viewed as nimble and leaders in CS space (think  wireless providers, regional airlines, etc.). Not anymore. Sure, they all have their positive exceptions, but with these companies, many of the interactions have been routinized into their operational processes and automated systems, most of which were built on the foundation of operational and technology excellence, rather than on the basis of what differentiated their service to begin with. That leaves the only opportunity for real customer “delight” in the hands of standout employees operating “on the margin”, often operating  outside of the process to either strengthen the exchange or recover from a process-inflicted problem. While scale and size should be an advantage, many of these companies have allowed it to become a disadvantage.

That is not to say that the larger companies did not generate some level of delight, and that the smaller companies didn’t generate some significant failures. For example, I did get a “call back” from a CSR after a “disconnect”  from a rather large company call center,  which was nice to see for a change. I also experienced what I’d call a “super save” from an airport employee to avert what could have been a significant failure. And the small companies, on occasion did generate some negative experiences. Interestingly though, my tendency was to “forget” these failures quicker, giving them the benefit of the doubt for not having all of the CRM tools and technologies that larger companies have at their disposal. But in the end, my observations were my observations, and the trends were notable.

Breaking the Trend…

Given the above reality that size does apparently influence customer experience, and recognizing that “shrinking the company” is not the desired path to breaking that trend, companies that are increasing in size and growth need to be especially vigilant in five key areas:

  • How we measure success – We need to once and for all get beyond the measurement of general perception, because it tells us little about performance against real customer desires, and tells us virtually nothing about what is really happening on the margin.
  • How we view risk and failure – When we think of risk and failure, we normally think of manufacturing or operational processes, not customer processes. We need to get beyond the notion that 95% satisfaction is acceptable, and into the zone of limiting the number and magnitude of breakdowns on the margin (what are now viewed as exceptions or acceptable tolerance. Think: How would a Six Sigma or Lean driven manufacturing process view this challenge?
  • How we build our processes – We can start by changing from a functional to a market-driven approach to building our processes and systems. Most systems today are built to optimize cost and effectiveness at the transaction level, rather than the customer level.
  • How we staff and develop our employees – It is becoming harder and harder to find retainable employees that come “hardwired” with a strong CEM mindset. Finding and retaining them in large numbers is virtually impossible these days given employee demographics and market conditions. We need to look to other industries and functions to learn how to build and clone the human capital skills to support and enable the above processes.
  • How we manage and reinforce performance – In support of all of the above, we need to change what we teach, how we lead, what we observe, how we motivate, and what we elect to reward in terms of its orientation toward CEM excellence.

The old adage…think globally, act locally…seems to have some relevance here. I am firmly of the belief that the notion of large size, scale and growth can effectively co-exist with high levels of service, at the norm and the margin. It just takes work on the front end to design the right foundation to make it all work.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com