"Our Take" - BenchMarch 2007

(Past Editions by: Date, Title, Topic)

 
About "Our Take" 
"Our Take" is a collection of daily vignettes covering a wide range of CRM topics. It's an attempt to add our own spin to the world of CRM. We will use the column to share our perspectives, opinions, epiphanies, web nuggets, or quite frankly anything that moves us. Get ready to expect the unexpected. And, don't be shy about sharing your thoughts.
 
 
2/26/07 - Get Ready For "BenchMarch"
Over a year ago, we initiated a discussion about the merits and downside of comparing your CRM and contact center operations with others. Benchmarking proved to be the most popular topic ever covered in this column. Because of the popularity of benchmarking, I thought we would check in to see if this is still a "front burner" issue.
 
It will still be a few days before I actually start writing about CRM benchmarking but I thought I would extend an offer to you. If you have questions, ask them and we will do our best to address them. If you have experiences (good or bad) that you would like to share, please write me. If you are benchmarking expert, feel free to chime in. If you know of benchmarking resources that might be of benefit to others, let us know.
 
I can't wait to hear what is on your mind.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
2/27/07 - BenchMarch 2007
Yesterday, I announced that I would use this column to discuss the latest and greatest as it pertains to CRM benchmarking. As I mentioned, this topic is the most talked about topic this column has ever addressed. Since it has been a while, I thought you might be interested in reviewing what was said last time around.
 
So please take a few minutes to look over the entire group of columns. I encourage you to spend at least a few minutes where you can learn why some people think benchmarking is useless while others contend that it is a necessary business tool.
 
One reader wrote in calling the whole thing an innumeracy crisis while others that make their living providing benchmark data offered a point, counterpoint. If you are making critical business decisions based on benchmarks and other comparisons, this is one discussion you won't want to miss. Don't forget to share your two cents.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/1/07 - Welcome to "BenchMarch"
Back by popular demand, we are going to use this column to talk about benchmarking. I have not defined an end date for the topic. So don't assume that we will talk about this one topic for the entire month. However, if reader demand dictates that amount of time, we are certainly open to using the whole month. It really is up to you to decide how we address the merits and downside of benchmarking your contact center or CRM operations.
 
I have invited industry experts to share more in-depth perspectives on the topic so you will have the opportunity to hear what is on their mind. Also, please contact me if you have a benchmarking story (good or bad). A few real life encounters can go a long way. Let me share one early comment from one reader: "The biggest problem we face is benchmarking against a similar company to our own."
 
Comparing "apples to apples" seems to be a common concern, pitfall or limiting factor to benchmarking. How do you make sure the benchmarks you use are relevant to your operations?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/2/07 - Why We Benchmark
Some of you might remember I once wrote that there are only two reasons why organizations benchmark. Both reasons have to do with a need to report to management but are quite opposite. And both reasons are not reason enough to benchmark.
 
First, people benchmark to report to show management they are doing a good or even stellar job. They compare their operational metrics to boast about their superiority over other operations. While the comparisons make everyone feel good, the benchmarks are often meaningless because the way operational efficiencies may be measured differently from organization to organization. Even with consistency in metric methodology, there is nothing to say that the organizations being benchmarked are operationally or strategically relevant.
 
And even if methodology and relevance are validated, there is nothing to say that the organizations compared are world class. One might be better than other benchmarked organizations but if they are mediocre, being better might still be mediocre. The real danger of comparing metrics is the illusion that everything is great. This feeling that "everything is just fine" creates a sense of complacency and little gets better. I'll share reason number two with you next week.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/5/07 - Why We Benchmark
Last time, I shared the first of two reasons why people benchmark. Today I will share the second reason. In review, the first reason people benchmark is to show management how well they are doing compared to other call centers. In a way, it's like saying, "I know customers might not like our service, but at least we are better than others."
 
The second reason people benchmark is to show management they are operationally below other operations in order to justify to management the need for additional investments. It is a way to say, "We could be as good as others if only we had additional resources." In both cases, the primary objective of benchmarking is to sway management's view of the call center. It seems the focus is on comparisons to others rather than focusing on the expectations of their customers.
 
And that bothers me. Obviously, it bothers many of you. The rest of this week I will begin sharing how your fellow readers feel about this subject. Stay tuned - much more to follow.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/6/07 - BenchMarch - Guest Contributor
I'm trying something a bit different this month with the topic of benchmarking. I'm allowing readers to contribute articles on the subject. If you want to weigh in with your thoughts, I encourage you to submit an article for consideration. Of course, I can't make any promises I will use your article. Feel free to contact me if you are interested but not sure.
 
So today, I turn the column over to Dick Lee, founder and principal of High-Yield Methods. Aside from his extensive consulting history, he’s been a leader in industry education and has written several books and numerous articles on CRM. Please take a few moments to read, Benchmarking - When is it "Breathing Ether?". In the article, he explains the importance of benchmark information placed in the context of workflow.
 
So does benchmarking your operation mean you are comparing apples to apples or apples to kumquats? Read the article to find out. Of course, let me know if you agree or disagree with what Dick writes.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/7/07 - Benchmarks versus Baselines
I want to thank Dick Lee for his contributed column yesterday, Benchmarking - When is it "Breathing Ether?" It seems many of you really enjoyed hearing from a seasoned veteran like Dick. Stay tuned. I hope to have more contributed columns in the next week on this very topic.
 
Let me share one reader's comments about the column: "Dick makes a good case against benchmarking processes against external norms. However, this does not necessarily mean that you should not benchmark. If your benchmarks are intended to establish a baseline for purposes of measuring process improvements after implementing a CRM solution they may still have meaning and value. It sets goals and management yardsticks or metrics. The goals also go a long way toward defining the CRM project itself and help to guard against scope creep.
 
The reader makes an excellent point. Create the metrics that matter to you. Measure them in a way that matters to you. And, if you make meaningful improvements on a continued basis, you will eventually become world class without getting sidetracked by outside numbers that may or may not have anything to do with your business. Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/8/07 - Baselining - Expert Advice
Yesterday, I shared the thoughts from a reader that talk about baselining and its role in the benchmark discussion. I added my own comments that baselining might indeed be the best benchmarking activity you can do.
 
Coincidentally, I had previously asked Ron Muns, founder of the Help Desk Institute (HDI), to weigh in on the subject of benchmarking. Ron is a pro when it comes to support operations and his organization has been involved with providing an annual survey of operational metrics. Little did I know his comments would focus on baselining as well. So this is a perfect day to share "Baselining Your Support Organization with you.
 
Ron explores the judgmental and non-judgmental side of operational metrics as well as words on getting started. If you have always wanted to do more to measure your operations, I encourage you to spend a few minutes to read the article. You may want to bookmark it.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/12/07 - Customer Service Champs
Want to know what 25 companies according to BusinessWeek magazine make up the customer service elite? If so, you can read their article on Customer Service Champs. Make sure you scroll to the bottom to click on a link for a list of the 25 companies.
 
If you are interested to know how you can compare and contrast totally different companies selling products and services to totally different customer segments, you can read more about what it takes to be a winner.
 
I'm interested to hear what you think of this methodology. Is it fair? Is it complete? Does it bias your company favorably or unfavorably? Would you benchmark your company this way?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/13/07 - Is Your Customer Part of Your Benchmark Process?
Today, I turn the column over to Dr. Jodie Monger, President of Customer Relationship Metrics. Dr. Monger was the founding Associate Director of Purdue University's Center for Customer-Driven Quality and has worked with Global 2000 companies to help them quantify the Voice of their Customer.
 
Her article, Is Your Customer Part of Your Benchmark Process addresses the biggest question that results from a benchmarking report: how do metrics align with customer satisfaction?
 
So does your customer have the final say in what your benchmark metrics and comparisons mean? If you are not sure, you will want to read the entire article. Of course, let me know if you agree with Dr. Monger's position.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/14/07 - Benchmarking Customer Satisfaction
A new research report from the Association of Support Professionals (ASP) notes that satisfaction metrics "often raise more questions than they answer." The problem, the report suggests, is that satisfaction metrics usually exist in a vacuum, without meaningful peer-to-peer comparisons or rigorous best-practices response analysis. It seems chief executives view customer satisfaction metrics as "soft data."
 
Why is customer satisfaction data considered soft? Perhaps we should turn that question on its ear. What is required to convince management that customer satisfaction data is not soft? And shouldn't we understand that before we even bother reporting customer satisfaction metrics?
 
Is there an acid test? I think so. Consider this: Customer satisfaction metrics will be viewed with proper importance when they are used to make important business decisions. For instance, is management willing to dole out bonuses based on improvements in customer satisfaction? Are you willing to bet your bonus on those same metrics?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/15/07 - Soft Data
Yesterday's column suggesting that, in general, management considers customer satisfaction metrics 'soft' ignited some pointed comments that I thought I would share with you today.
 
On reader wrote, "As any professional surveying organization will tell you, customer satisfaction measurements are not only soft, they can also be easily manipulated. A perfect CRM example is Siebel. For years they bragged of 97% customer satisfaction. Speaking with over 100 Siebel users from different firms over several years, I found a zero percent satisfaction rating. It turns out that I was asking users and Siebel was surveying IT people."
 
Another wrote, "Survey programs are operated by unskilled employees and vendors alike. People do not know how to properly leverage the data to make it useful. The reports we see typically generated are laughable. And people pay for the junk!" Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/16/07 - What’s The Story Behind Your Numbers?
We continue the discussion of benchmarking today with another guest author. I am pleased to share with you the thoughts of Pete McGarahan of McGarahan and Associates.
 
In his article, What’s The Story Behind Your Numbers?, he shares a dialog from a class he taught as well as his personal experiences running service desk operations at Taco Bell. According to Pete, every business metric has a story behind it. The key is to know how that story explains your value-add.
 
Do your metrics tell management they are getting a good "bang for the buck?"
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/19/07 - BenchMarch Madness
Last week, we talked about the 'soft' nature of many customer satisfaction measurement initiatives. It seems the scales are tipped heavily on the side of measuring customer satisfaction but little weight is given to the results. To put it bluntly, many organizations take the time to measure customer satisfaction but often don't put enough science into the effort to feel comfortable that the measurements mean anything.
 
What happens when no one has confidence in the customer satisfaction metrics? You guessed it - nothing. How maddening! One reader wrote, "Developing a useful customer satisfaction survey is an art and needs to be done to ensure that the right questions are asked of the right audience and the format of data provides actionable information. There is little point is asking if customers are satisfied on a scale of 1-5 if there is no detail that would help identify what it needs to change."
 
The reader goes on to say, "Is it poor quality, slow response, busy signals, unchangeable company policies, bad product instructions, or something else that is causing the problems? Without that detail, no action can take place. If no action takes place, there is no point in asking the questions and annoying the customers." Does your customer satisfaction measurement system do nothing but annoy your customers?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/20/07 - More "BenchMarch" Madness
Yesterday's column ignited quite a bit of feedback on why customer satisfaction metrics tend to be "soft" causing management to often discount or simply ignore the figures. Today, I'll share one cynical retort that I'm sure will hit close to home for many organizations.
 
Here's a portion of the email: "Your column could be a transcription from my workshop training. Customer satisfaction surveys can: 1. Annoy customers with poor design, confusing questions, and an absurdly long survey. 2. Waste customers' time by asking useless questions. 3. Alienate customers by soliciting their feedback and then not acting on it."
 
The reader goes on to say, "Why would a customer complete another survey from you if you haven't done anything with the previous feedback, especially if it was a cry for help? Almost as bad, you might have acted on all the feedback, but never communicated your actions back to the customer base. The survey process does not end with the data analysis and management report. It doesn't end when you implement the findings." Indeed, the process never ends. Often we hear about programs like "Annual Customer Satisfaction Surveys." I often wonder if that means the company doesn't need feedback the other 364 days, 51 weeks, or 11 months of the year. Hmmm.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/21/07 - Active Alerting
We continue to receive great responses from people who are obviously very passionate about measuring customer satisfaction. I take to mean that people are passionate about customer satisfaction. That is a good thing.
 
One reader responded with a list of critical factors. One such factor caught my eye as it relates to measuring customer satisfaction on a regular basis rather than event basis. He said, "There must be an active alert system, in real or near real-time, to facilitate taking action when conditions are met. That is, if a customer's experience merits taking individual action, an alert must be sent immediately so as to void negative actions on the customer's part and gain positive reference from that customer. These alerts must be structured for general trends as well as specific responses."
 
The reader goes on to say, "As this data gets collected, it enables companies to make far more accurate business decisions regarding resource allocation and areas for improvement. It also fundamentally trumps the guess work of many BI processes. It is the Holy Grail of customer intelligence." The Holy Grail of customer intelligence and trumping BI are big claims. Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/22/07 - BenchMarch Madness - Contributed Articles
As I would have guessed, the topic of benchmarking is still a very hot topic. I also find it interesting the discussion thread has leaned toward the good and bad ways to measure customer satisfaction. So I thought I would share two contributed links related to the topic.
 
The first is from Fred Van Bennekom of Great Brook Consulting. He specializes in helping organizations develop effective ways to ask customers what they think. He did a review of his Home Depot experience and talks about the ins and out of the transaction survey. Once you read this you will see why he calls it The Event Survey Run Amuck.
 
The second article extends yesterday's column regarding alerts. This article written by Dr. Jodi Monger of Customer Relationship Metrics talks about Real-Time Survey Alerts: A Voice of the Customer Must Have. Please take a moment to read why it is important to have a service recovery strategy.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/23/07 - How Are You Measuring Customer Satisfaction?
One reader shared an overview of their program. It one short paragraph, this person was able to share many things that you might consider. Here it goes:
 
"Over the past 10 years we have used an Annual Customer Satisfaction Survey that measures 66 attributes of service. Using analytic tools to run correlations of these attributes we are able to identify the most important attributes based upon customer type / segment etc. In sharing the results with internal associates we are able to focus our improvement efforts on specific areas that are impact customer satisfaction/retention/loyalty. The scores can also be bench marked against APICS Customer Satisfaction Index and / or NPS (Net Promoter Scores). The keys are turning your analysis into actionable items."
 
We already discussed the merits of an on-going program over an annual measurement program. Regardless, how does the analysis and resulting "actioning" match or differ what you do in your organization?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/26/07 - Project vs Program Thinking
It appears more companies rely on an annual program for obtaining customer satisfaction metrics than I first thought. If the word "annual" exists in the description of your program, this message is for you. Regardless, anything less than near real time is cause for concern.
 
One person wrote, "It has been scientifically proven that getting feedback other than as close as possible to an interaction with the company has a huge margin of error. And what about the damage that has been done during the 11 months after your last survey? In order for customer feedback to actionable, it has to be as close to real-time as possible. Maybe this explains the Bain & Company survey of 362 companies of which 80% thought they were providing 'exceptional experience' service when in actuality only 8% were providing 'exceptional experience.' This disparity is costing companies millions of dollars."
 
Can you put a price on delayed customer feedback? Is it costing you millions?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/27/07 - Best Practices
One of the reasons many want to benchmark is to discover and compare best practices. So in the context of benchmarking, let's talk a bit about best practices.
 
Some buy software solutions in hopes of embracing and utilizing the best practices built into the product. Conversely, some vendors will sell their products based on the best practices built in the product. However, one reader wrote that best practices "don't exist." Others would say that if everyone is using the same best practices, then by definition they aren't best practices.
 
Do you believe in best practices? Do you believe that embracing the best practices of others should be a corporate goal? Why or why not?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/28/07 - Best Practices Again
Yesterday, I commented that if everyone was using a best practice, it could no longer be considered a best practice. My reasoning was that if everyone was doing it, it was no longer a competitive differentiator.
 
Our wise readers responded in disagreement. One person wrote, "Sometime best practices just make too much sense to ignore. For example: "Press 0 to reach an operator, Press 9 to repeat this menu." Another example, from the financial industry: to activate your card please call this toll free number from your home phone. Best practices don't have to be elaborate processes. In fact, the best of them are simple elements that can be incorporated easily."
 
I guess we could argue if that is a best practice or a de facto standard. I would say that is it both. That brings up another interesting question. Does your company embrace customer service de facto standards? If not, I hope you have a really good reason.
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)
 
3/29/07 - Best Practices - Just Give it Up
"Best practices advocates should just give up." That is the sentiment from one reader that doesn't buy into the idea of best practices. Why?
 
He believes that "benchmarking advocates routinely ignore essential considerations." The first consideration is that "humans, systems and physical environments have a profound effect on which work methods work how well in any given business setting" suggesting that what works best in one company make just not be suited in another. In other words, the same plant might not grow well in a different soil.
 
Extending the idea, the reader goes on to say "best practices are only best if they truly support business strategies and are in relation to dealing with customers." So what works best for one business may not "even resemble what works best for a competing business with a different intent towards customers." Do you agree?
 
Gary Lemke, Publisher
(Share your thoughts)