Support Basics: Case Lifecycle Measurement

Total Lunar Eclipse

A few days ago I had a very interesting conversation with an executive in the enterprise technology industry. We spoke about identifying the root cause for case delays in particular and ways to analyze case traffic in general. I was very surprised to learn that the concept of case lifecycle and the ability to track that for time as well as failed attempts was completely new to him. In this light, here’s a case lifecycle primer and a some metric guidelines associated with it.

If we think about a typical case, in most companies it would transition between multiple entities handling it for multiple reasons. Those may be the customer, the support team, an escalation team and possibly the engineering team. The case will spend some time waiting for a person or a technology resource to become available, be worked on and then transition to the next phase. As we well know, the case may spend varying amount of time in each phase and can transition between those phases repeatedly. For example, a case is opened, assigned to a support engineer, who analyzes it, proposes a resolution to the customer. The resolution does not work, the customer returns the case to the support engineer, who researches some more, requests additional information, etc.

The discussion we had concerned support managers’ ability to analyze information from case life cycle and associate the phases with improvement opportunities on one hand and impact on customer satisfaction on the other. To give us the level of detail needed, we must know, for every case, what state it is in. This state needs to include the entity that owns the next action (customer, support, engineering, etc) and details of that action. For example, a case status may be “Customer – Installing Fix”, “Customer – Collecting Information” or “Engineering – Fixing Bug”. Now, in order for this information to have any value beyond the immediate case status, we need to be able to map the entire case journey along a timeline, and do it for our entire caseload.

So, how do we do that? Enter the audit trail.

Most case management systems keep an audit trail, some will log all changes to the case, others only specific ones. In any case, recording status changes and their timestamp is the first step we need to take if we want to analyze our case load. Once we do that, we can begin to understand where our cases spend their time which will enable us to investigate the reasons for the delays. More adventurous managers will want to attempt regression analysis of various case parameters to determine the operational drivers of customer satisfaction, from case life to repeated requests for additional documentation.

Have you ever attempted to analyze your caseload this way? Have you been able to come to any meaningful insights and drive improvements?

Customer Support or Customer Success?

Man Woman face people problem puzzle

I recently read an interesting discussion on the ASPI linkedin group about the role of customer success manager and the differences between this role and others in the customer support world.

A number of people have written about customer success management in the past. For example, Mikael Blaisdell, here, yet the more I read about the customer success manager role, the clearer it has become that there is neither a broadly accepted definition of the role nor any agreement on how people in this role accomplish their task. But, thinking about it in the context of the direction the technology world is taking may have the key to understanding the progression from Customer Support to Customer Success.

Historically and until early in the previous decade, vendors’ engagements with their customer were very structured. Customers made large, long-term investments in technology upfront. The deployment plan was then developed jointly between the customers’ IT and business teams and the vendors’ sales and professional services groups (or a third party implementation partner). The role customer support played in this context was mostly reactive and was focused on rapid break-fix problem resolution

The growing adoption of SaaS delivery brought a very different approach to adopting new enterprise applications. There was no need for a project plan developed together with the IT team, server provisioning or storage space. All you needed was a credit card and you were in business. With BYOD you did not even have to install anything on your company’s laptop. All that’s required are a credit card, a need to accomplish something and sufficient amount of curiosity to go look for an app or tool that will address that need

This change introduced a new and very different challenge that SaaS vendors had to address and which traditional enterprise IT vendors never faced. In their world every small purchase (or download of a free application) could eventually develop into a large deployment. The conditions faced by those vendors were relatively challenging:

  • The initial investment made by customers is small and usually without minimal term commitment
  • The purchasing individual may not have complete view of the needs and the product’s abilities to fulfill them
  • Products were installed to experiment with rather than to achieve a clear goal

These lead to reduced level of commitment on the customers’ behalf and therefore made it easy to walk away from the product when even the smallest difficulty or challenge are encountered. Obviously these conditions are much more common with small, tool-like services rather than major enterprise products. An individual at an organization may, for example, experiment with dropbox, but a salesforce.com implementation would still be done using the traditional enterprise technology model

Taking all these into account, we can begin to see the difference between the engagement model in traditional enterprise deals and that for SaaS delivery. It is safe to assume that while large, enterprise implementations are driven by sheer momentum, visibility and active management, small, ad hoc purchases are made and often neglected as discussed earlier. The role of the customer success manager would then be identifying installations that are not progressing according to certain pre-dtermined success criteria (see this post on the totango blog for a very good discussion ) and helping those customers overcome challenges, understand the capabilities of what they have just bought and make the most out of it, hopefully expanding the product’s use and stickiness

Obviously, as the terminology around customer success proliferates, we see increased creep into areas traditionally covered by other roles, for example, support account managers or technical account managers, engagement managers and others. But, I still believe the clear distinction between customer support and customer success is in the latter being more proactive and focused on the implementation and usage expansion while the former is more reactive and break-fix focused.

What is your opinion around this topic? Have you implemented customer success management in your organization? How have you defined the role and goals?

The Only Question You’ll Ever Need, or NPS, But Carefully.

Question mark

David Kay has an excellent post discussing Net Promoter Score surveys. While I agree with David on many of the points he makes I also have a few reservations about NPS and especially its usability in enterprise technology environments and I’d like to share both in this post

To those unfamiliar with NPS, it is a methodology developed by Frederick Reichheld to measure customer loyalty using the single question: “How likely are you to recommend [product or company] to a friend or a colleague?” It was introduced in the December 2003 issue of Harvard Business Review, in an article titled “The One Number You Need to Grow” (subscription required). According to the article, it is the single best predictor of future revenue growth

Over the years I had multiple exposures to NPS surveys in enterprise technology environments and found a number of things I like about it. Unsurprisingly, those are similar to what David lists in his post:

  • NPS offers companies a single point of focus to present to the different interested parties with a simple story
  • Separation of the respondents population into promoters, detractors and neutrals, and the single index created to represent progress across the spectrum
  • A clear and concise methodology that is easily understandable and relatively easy to follow

However, there is a number of things I do not like about many NPS deployments. First is the confusion between “the only number you need to grow” and “the only question you need to ask”. Second is the inability to derive actionable data from the would recommend question even in the simplest of customer experiences, let alone in a complex, multi-faceted environment such as enterprise technology. Namely, NPS maybe a leading indicator to corporate performance, but it certainly is a trailing indicator to many decisions and actions which need to be monitored and tweaked to produce the desired results

To demonstrate the actionable data point let’s imagine a simple consumer product where the expectations are clear and the likelihood of failure very low. I am sure every one of us, with a little effort can imagine half a dozen points which would cause them to not recommend the product (price, availability, functionality come to mind immediately). Each of those would require a different action from the vendor, except there is no way to determine the reason and subsequent action from the response to the NPS question without additional data and analysis. Now how many more different interaction types and touchpoints does an enterprise technology provider have with its customers?

Thinking about the suitability of NPS to the enterprise technology environment, we add to the complexity of assessing which segment of the performance spectrum of the product we encounter additional complexities. Interestingly, one of them was made in the the original HBR article: “The ‘would recommend’ question wasn’t the best predictor of growth in every case. In a few situations, it was simply irrelevant. In database software or computer systems, for instance, senior executives select vendors, and top managers typically didn’t appear on the public e-mail lists we used to sample customers. Asking users of the system whether they would recommend the system to a friend or colleague seemed a little abstract, as they had no choice in the matter.” The extension to this argument is that growing the NPS number for all respondents regardless of role maybe a futile, unfocused effort that discounts the opinions of the decision makers due to sheer scale. After all, most companies have only one CIO and very few decision makers overall at a strategic level. Also, from a support executive perspective, our ability to control all those touchpoints is limited. How many of you have ever tried to change the structure of an invoice your company sends to its customers? How successful were you?

So, should you implement NPS?

My recommendation is that you should, but you should do it very carefully. There are several things to keep in mind when doing that, and the bigger and more complex your engagements are, the more critical these points become. First, ensure every stakeholder understands that way individual actions and decisions drive NPS and it is not a number you can grow per se. Second, understand the critical touchpoints, their influence on the individuals within your customer organizations and their influence the overall desired business outcome. Third, understand your respondent population and the impact they would have on your company. Last, but not least, use NPS as a banner number to rally the troops, but be aware of the complexities behind it and be ready to tell a more nuanced story than The Only Number You Need to Grow

Thank you for reading through this long post. I’d love to hear some opinions about this very loaded subject. If you have experiences to share having implemented NPS successfully, or those implementations that did not achieve the desired results.

What Can Enterprise Support Learn From Auto Rental? (Part 3 of 3)

How to choose correct education?

So, what did we have in our car rental story (part 1 and part 2)?

  • Lack of familiarity with regular customers
  • Redundant requests for information
  • Confusion of onstage and backstage activities
  • Asking questions that the company has no intention to act on

How many similar failures are built into each of our processes? Let’s think about possible situations we are all familiar with:

  • Transitioning cases between individuals in different tiers (here’s something I wrote in the past)
  • Incomplete record of customer entitlements, support levels and preferences. These may have multiple reasons ranging from poor maintenance of records all the way to legacy of acquisitions with different offerings and practices
  • Being unprepared for a meeting or conversation with the customer. How many of us have employees going on a phone call with a customer without reviewing the case record or possible resolutions?

Many of these habits were discussed in the Harvard Business Review article, Stop Trying to Delight Your Customers. What can we do to correct them?

What Can Enterprise Support Learn From Auto Rental? (Part 2 of 3)

Barrier Gate

In the previous post we looked at the service experience of a car rental company. We can identify four interactions between the customer and the rental company:

  • Registration
  • Reservation
  • Collecting the car
  • Returning the car

Keeping in mind that the customer’s main objective is to be on their way, let’s now examine the experience through its various stages, and whether each of those adds any value to the customer:

Stage
Interaction Details
Platform
Value?
RegistrationPersonal Details
Driving License
Credit Card
Insurance Needs
Car Type
Other Details
WebYes
ReservationPick-up Time and Place
Duration
Deviation and changes from saved information
WebYes
CounterReview personal details and credit card information
Upselling (GPS, child seats, refueling)
PersonalNo
Parking GarageReview insurance options
Inspect car for damage and gas level
Sign paperwork
PersonalNo

We can see that the two face to face encounters add little value to the customer.

Many car rental companies have eliminated those steps, at least for regular customers who can walk directly to their cars and drive away immediately. Looking at the content of those two interactions we can see several patterns we all recognize:

  • Repetitive requests for information
  • Confusion of onstage and backstage activities as well as with supporting processes causing delays and extra expenditures

In the next and final post – learnings from this experience we can implement in the enterprise technology business

What Can Enterprise Support Learn From Auto Rental? (Part 1 of 3)

Illustration of Car

Over the last few months I was engaged in a heavy travel schedule which had me renting cars from the same company repeatedly. The company’s process calls for travelers to register at the counter, either with an employee or at an automated kiosk, walk to the parking lot and wait in line for another employee to take them to the car, perform several ceremonial duties such as checking the fuel level, checking for dings, and verifying the insurance while attempting to make small talk.

Here is what my typical Sunday experience would look like:

  • Walk from airplane to counter
  • Register in kiosk, usually 2 or 3 minute wait, if kiosk is down wait in line for agent, some times up to 20 minutes, provide driving license and credit card
  • Walk to parking lot, wait in line again for agent number two, some times up to 15 or 20 minutes again
  • Walk with agent to the car while they attempt to make small talk (so, what brings you to town?)
  • Wait while they:
    • Circle the car to verify there are no dings and the windshield is not cracked
    • Start the car to ensure the gas tank is full
    • Complete the paperwork, verify insurance sign in multiple places on a busy form in the dark parking lot
    • Drive

Surprisingly, returning the car is straightforward and easy. Invariably, the agents would ask “So, how was our service?”

How would be your response to this question? Mine was usually “Your service sucks” and an attempt to explain. In the next few posts, we’ll see the many reasons behind this response, the improvement opportunities and lessons we can learn.

Post 2

We Are Back!

Start again.

Apologies for the long absence. The blog now celebrates its return and will resume semi-regular posting. We will be reviewing learnings from the last year as well as observations from the enterprise support industry as we did in the past.

As always, any suggestions, questions or requests are welcome!

Expanding Internationally? Here’s Your New World Order

Many companies struggle with expanding their support operation internationally. Many choose to expand their international operations one country at a time, and the support organization usually ends up reporting to the country manager as part of the overall sales organization. As business grows, the likelihood increases that those teams will grow without much planning, coordination or guidance, resulting in under-utilization of some individuals while others are over-extended, leading to employee frustration and attrition. This distributed model is generally viewed as overly expensive and poorly delivering. Certainly it delivers inconsistently across country borders and greatly depends on the support, good will and understanding of the local managers to succeed.

Companies planning global expansion should consider this situation early on and evaluate the benefits and risks of having multiple local organizations vs. having a single centralized operation:

  • Consistent customer experience world-wide can be achieved fairly easily through central management.
  • Focus on local market requirements should be built into the organization by taking the time to understand the needs of individual market and developing ways to address them
  • Flexible deployment of skills – a central organization can shift people to address urgent problems between customers in multiple countries or regions without extensive coordination and turf wars
  • Efficient utilization of resources – reduce the need for multiple facilities, labs, training schedules to address every single need, and focus on a centralized operation to
  • Redundancy of skills – local organizations tend to acquire critical skills without giving much thought to their ability to utilize them fully. This leads to situations where highly experienced engineers utilize their skills for only a small fraction of the time and are otherwise kept busy doing other work
  • Ability to deploy best practices rapidly – local organizations will tend to shy away from investing in best practices or joining initiatives that do not carry immediate benefits, counting on ‘corporate’ or other resources to deliver tools, information and knowledge

The main exposure in a centralized support organization is the need for local variation in delivery. Having a centralized organization that coordinates closely with the local country teams, focuses on understanding their needs and delivering to it can solve the majority of those problems.

Keys to the success of a centralized support organization are on-going executive support and the ability of the the support reporting chain to gain and maintain it through collaboration and execution.

What Can Enterprise Support Learn From The NBA?



My sincerest apologies to the blog’s loyal readers for the long hiatus. I have been occupied with several other projects that took way more time and involvement than initially planned.

There’s an excellent post on Mark Cuban’s blog, discussing why he does not support using smartphone applications as part of the spectators’ experience in Dallas Mavericks’ games. The post is especially emphatic about owning the customer experience from start to end and focusing on the main deliverable – a memorable experience with other people.

Reading this post got me thinking about the differences between the totality of user experience focus expressed in this post and the inconsistent, heavily segregated experience we encounter in our own industry way too frequently. For the Dallas Mavericks, the ownership and objectives for the customer experience are clear, and I can imagine every employee knows their role in it. Can we say the same about our industry?

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all readers a healthy, happy and prosperous new year.

Still Measuring Call Time?

I came across (via a comment on Wim Rampen’s excellent blog by Arie Goldshlager) a very interesting interview with American Express’ EVP of Service reviewing changes to the company’s contact center practices. In the interview Mr. Bush makes several interesting statements such as “We also strongly believe that great service doesn’t come down to what we think about our performance internally. It’s all about what the customer thinks after every interaction. So we’re not measuring our performance by internal measures.”

Later in the interview the discussion continues to review some of the benefits and guiding principles behind the change. Most importantly, however, is the focus on the long-term relationship between the customer and the company. If this kind of thinking works for a high volume operation like American Express it should work for the Enterprise Software market as well.