Customer’s Experience vs Customer’s confidence

Leave a comment

Some things in life are better understood by the historical gap they reveal. For example, when a vendor talks about how its latest version of software delivers on the integration challenges of its customers, this probably means that the previous version did a pretty poor job. And similarly, the fact that so many organisations today are saying that customer experience — snappily shortened to CX — has become of paramount importance. How could it ever not have been, you might well ask.

The game has changed, of course, making direct connections to people much simpler to achieve. Digital technologies, in the form of online tools, apps and smart gadgets, have brought organisations far closer to their user base than historically. The lowly automobile, whose previous ‘interface’ consisted of a rubber-coated wheel and a few levers or pedals, has been upgraded to enable interactions between manufacturer (itself hastily wondering how to become a service company) and traveler.

While CX is important in terms of helping people interact with services, it should not be seen as the whole story. From a CX perspective, measures of success might, for example, be the number of times an app is used, or the transactions through a given web site. Such results are interesting and valuable, but they are only one part of a relationship between a person and an organisation. Like an iceberg they represent the part above the surface, while much more potential exists underneath.

As the automobile example suggests, simple interactions can only take a relationship so far. Existing rhetoric from companies such as BMW suggests that companies are relying on existing brand loyalty — in BMW’s case this relationship may be stronger, but not every manufacturer can depend on people buying a make of car simply because they always have.

So-called stickiness — the propensity for someone to return to a given supplier next time around — applies just as much for large-ticket items. We see this with travel sites, which rely on a user’s previous experience not only in terms of lowest cost but ease of use and potential bonus features. As a result, we can see CX as a means to a deeper end, namely customer engagement, retention and ultimately propensity towards a given brand.

This may appear a broad point but it has some quite specific ramifications, notably in terms of how much customers trust how suppliers collate and use the data surrounding each transaction. As a recent example shows, where Facebook blocked a UK insurer from scanning posts to determine a potential customer’s risk profile, not all use of customer data is going to result in their increased desire to work with a company (in this case, one could expect the opposite).

In other words, CX is just one facet of overall customer confidence in a transaction, in its supplier and in the brand it represents. While customer may choose not to use an app because it is awkward, equally they are not going to trust a brand that seeks to exploit them. As we become increasingly transparent in our doings, the trust we have in our suppliers needs to increase commensurately. So, by all means focus on CX but retain focus on the longer-term strategy to ensure customers want to keep coming back.

Point vs. overall performance reporting

Leave a comment

One of the ironic things about building a corporate performance management (CPM) system is that the frequency of the report provides different decision aspects; for example; daily reports provide mainly point performance vs. monthly reports which offers overall performance.

Very often, we find that management loses their focuses on key performance measurement due to the frequency of the reports he manages e.g. instead of looking at overall performance, one tends to look at point performance. Enabling company growth isn’t possible if the strategic goals are not given and repetitively clarified, a daily report is history once the day has past, but performance counts and provides a tracked record of achievements.

Also, weather it’s a multi-national company, or a simply a spin-off establishment, the complexity and effort put into establishing concrete DW/BI foundations are pretty much the same, the differences are the resources and clarity of where small businesses can’t afford to loose, hence running a 12 man-months project with 1 man would require 12 months vs. 4 men within 3 months excluding business changes, economic pressure and opportunity lost.

2014-01-28 16.26.52

If you’re not willing to work hard, let someone else do it. I’d rather be with someone who does a horrible job, but gives 110% than with someone who does a good job and gives 60%. – Will Smith

ขอประนามการทำหน้าที่สื่อผ่าน Sky Report CH3 fanpage

Leave a comment

คำก็สื่อถูกคุกคาม สองคำก็คุกคามสื่อ เอาเข้าจริงถ้าสื่อไม่ทำตัวเอียงเละเทะแบบที่เป็นอยู่ ใครจะไปกล้าว่า

ดูเอาเถอะครับ ข่าวชุมนุมมีแทบทุกวันในช่วงระยะเวลา 1 เดือนที่ผ่านมาแต่ Sky Report CH3 กลับนำเสนอข่าว เปิดตัวสายการบิน กับ โรงงานไฟใหม้ ซึ่งแทบไม่ประโยชน์ต่่อสังคมในวงกว้างเลย

การกระทำมันชัดเจนครับว่าสื่อแบบนี้ เลือกข้างและเสนอข่าวไม่รอบด้านจริง ๆ ดังนั้นอย่ามาตีหน้าซื่อแล้วอ้างว่า สื่อถูกคุกคาม ในเมื่อคุณมีหน้าที่ แต่คุณกลับเลือกที่จะไม่ทำมัน ก็สมควรถูกเค้าประนาม

ขอประนามการทำหน้าที่สื่อผ่าน Sky Report CH3 fanpage

Lessons learnt from social marketing of Dunkin’ Donuts (Thailand)

1 Comment

On Aug 15, 2013, Dunkin’ Donuts Thailand held a campaign on their facebook fan page offering free charcoal donuts. In order to receive free donut, one must follow the link provided seems to be a third party provider named zocialup.com that uses your facebook account to generate scores based on the activities or events set.

SNAG-0001

Several problem  were found later with this campaign as follows;

1. Customer must have a facebook account.

2. Customer must like the https://www.facebook.com/DunkinDonutsThai page to generate scores.

3. Customer must redeem coupon first, 10,000 coupons limited.

4. Customer must claim coupon at shop using smartphones, tablets with internet connection – erm? why can’t you accept prints?

5. Shops will have to key-in valid store number on the pop-up page to have successful transaction ? What happens if?

  • The clerk just happens to be new, or doesn’t know the store number?
  • What if the pop-up doesn’t pop-up?
  • The internet suddenly disconnects?
  • Zocialup.com server suddenly shuts down?

My personal experience as an average tech geek, spent around 30 minutes trying to figure all the above 4 points by following up on their facebook, which was slow and fraction, When trying to reclaim the coupon at the shop during the weekend, the zocialup.com server decided to stop working and gave no response,  a terrible disappointment from Dunkin’ Donuts (Thailand) and Zocialup.com. Considered this as a Social and Internet marketing lessons learnt here.

  1. Dunkin’ Donuts (Thailand)’s first social marketing campaign completely failed, my feeling towards the brand went down the drain, when compared to Mister Donut and Daddy dough, whom chooses to join forces with Samsung’s Galaxy Gift application offering better and efficient social marketing campaign.
  2. Zocialup.com’s hasn’t educated the market with it’s campaign workflow.  Zocialup’s application engineer should understand that social market should be kept simple and easy enough to be viral, unlike business processes.
  3. Even the website of http://www.dunkindonuts.co.th/ isn’t even up allow customers to view this campaign’s detail, leaving it all to third party provider like Zocialup.com, shows how incompetent the CIO of Dunkin’ Donuts (Thailand) is.

2013-08-24 14.03.33.png

5 points learnt from failed projects

2 Comments

Although most of the projects we’ve done are successful, there are a couple that failed and yes, we’ve learned from them. Summarized here are 5 points we learnt from failed projects.

1. Lack of executive support – either lack or none, the outcomes are still the same, no sponsorship to decide and drive when needed. We often find that team members, especially in the Asian culture, don’t take ownership or responsibilities of these projects. Working on their normal routine task is their comfort zone and they don’t want to come out of it. Without encouragement and challenges from executives, things never get done.

2. Overlook business process – either with the charisma of the word “automation”, customers gets lost and skips the fundamental activities of acquiring data, hence business processes of which either never was there or is thee but changes from time to time depending on the understanding of the person working with the process. Project that aims for automation quickly and sloppy won’t last long.

3. Data governance – thing like terminology and taxonomies, data stewardship, decision rights, accountability, corporate policies and standards if often overlooked and skipped as they believe it’s straight forward.

4. Try doing too much – Big bang approach with an “I have a dream” mindset, not only does this consumes too much resources, but the focus is lost and success, even a milestone meet is not appreciated.

5. Part-time contribution – Main project staffs often have their main job to take care with no replacement, when month-end comes, the project room is vacant. Assigning someone to take care of his/her duties during the entire project is a must, as these staffs will engage in the design, develop and deliver/rollout of the project internally.

2012 in review

Leave a comment

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 1,900 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 3 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Offshore Safety and Environmental Management Systems

Leave a comment

Description

TRB Special Report 309: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Offshore Safety and Environmental Management Systems recommends that the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) take a holistic approach to evaluating the effectiveness offshore oil and gas industry operators’ Safety and Environmental Management Systems (SEMS) programs. According to the report, this approach should, at a minimum, include inspections, audits by the operator and BSEE, key performance indicators, and a whistleblower program.

SEMS is a safety management system(SMS) aimed at shifting from a completely prescriptive regulatory approach to one that is proactive, risk based, and goal oriented in an attempt to improve safety and reduce the likelihood that events similar to the April 2010 Macondo incident will reoccur.

According to the committee that produced the report, it is not possible for a regulator to create a culture of safety in an organization by inspection or audit; that culture needs to come from within the organization. To be successful, the tenets of SEMS must be fully acknowledged and accepted by workers, motivated from the top, and supported throughout the organization and must drive workers’ actions.

The report also notes that BSEE can encourage and aid industry in development of a culture of safety by the way it measures and enforces SEMS. The Committee believes BSEE should seize this opportunity to make a step change in safety culture by adopting a goal based holistic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of SEMS programs.

In recommending a holistic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of SEMS programs, the report explores in detail SEMS’ role in helping to develop a culture of safety, highlights the pros and cons of various methods of assessing the effectiveness of a SEMS program, and investigates existing approaches for assessing the SMS programs of various U.S. and international regulatory agencies whose safety mandates are similar to that of BSEE.

The culture of safety cannot be built or sustained through publishing statements from the chief executive officer and human resources department, posting notices in company internal and external communications, punishing individuals for incidents of noncompliance (INCs), rewarding individuals for a lack of INCs, or reading perfunctory safety minutes prior to meetings.

Older Entries