Mar 27, 2011 | Customers, Lean, Marketing
Last week I had a problem with my mobile internet connection when changing plans. Usually a simple process, something went array in the supplier, and I could not connect and as the “new improved” plan rolled into service, I had nothing, at a most inconvenient time.
I got onto the carrier, and their technical help desk fixed it quickly by stepping me through a process on my computer. All that is OK, but it seemed that the problem should never have been occurred, so fixing it quickly was good, but it was just bolting the stable door.
The following day I got a call from a researcher setting out to get my feedback on my experience with their techos. A very polite young lady, whose first language was not English took me though a series of 1-10 options ranging from outstanding to poor along a number of parameters, each sought measures of my experience with the technician. He scored very well. However, she did not have any questions about the cause of the problem, or how I felt about the fact that it happened, and when I tried to explain that my high marks for the tech assistance should not be confused with the dismay at having had the problem, it all got too much for her.
Customer service is all about preventing problems in the first place, when you cause them your customers are grateful that they were fixed, but will not necessarily forgive you for causing them. To be effective at improving service, they should have investigated the cause of the problem, so they could take steps to prevent it happening again, not check that an empty stable had been well cleaned.
Mar 3, 2011 | Customers, Lean, Operations
Articulating a Customer Value Proposition, understanding which activities add value to the customer, and which do not, is core to any successful marketing activity. However, so many CVP’s I see are a bunch of words dreamt up over a beer, and have little to do with how a customer interacts with, uses, and values a product 0r service.
There is a relatively simple way to measure a CVP, a ratio of the Money spent that adds customer value, divided by total money spent, a CVP ratio! I am indebted to Bill Waddell for the idea, and like most great ideas, it is simple.
The notion of waste is a foundation to Lean thinking but can get tangled up in the definition of what activities are necessary to run an enterprise, but do not add value to the customer, and those that are just waste. However, having made the distinction, and done a bit of customer research, you can now put a number on the value added, and track it over time.
Should keep the accountants and MBA holders happy, and unlike many measures those numerator driven types grasp, will add value.
Feb 21, 2011 | Branding, Customers, Operations
The world-wide recall in 2009 of 10 million vehicles across Toyota’s range must have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but is dwarfed by the long term cost to their brand.
Now, the software blamed by pundits, politicians, sensationalist media, and the generally uninformed, for the accident that killed a family in California sparking the recall, has been cleared. Toyota comes out blameless, driver and dealer error in supplying the wrong floor mats, and not securing them caused the deaths.
The TPS disciplines which spawned the “Lean manufacturing” movement that has transformed manufacturing worldwide took over when the furor broke, and Toyota went looking for facts, seeking a “root cause” of the so called “Sudden Unintended Acceleration” problem, and finding nothing, commissioned unimpeachable outside engineers (NASA) to have a look, and predictably, they found nothing either. Meanwhile, the public was blasted by messages undoing 30 years of effort that positioned Toyota as a safe, finely engineered vehicle that would deliver performance and reliability for many years.
Toyota forgot that perception becomes reality, and by allowing the perception of their failure to remain in the market while they exercised TPS disciplines to seek a root cause error, consumers turned away. It will take a very long time, and a lot of effort to undo the damage not of their making.
There is a lesson for all marketers in all this, perception becomes reality, and it is hard to undo, even when the perception is wrong.
Feb 2, 2011 | Communication, Customers, Management, Marketing, Sales
Opportunity cost is a concept well understood, and often used in a theoretical sense, but not often is it translated into something easily understood.
In a store just before Christmas, I was tossing up between two brands of domestic coffee machine, that appeared pretty similar in all but price, the better known brand being substantially more expensive. The sales assistant sensing my indecision, and perhaps thinking I might do more ‘research” and he would lose a sale solved the dilemma by asking, “would you rather have” X” brand, or “Y” brand and 20kg of coffee beans?”
That turned the theoretical “opportunity cost” although I had not considered it in these terms at the time, into something tangible that had a value relevant to the purchase, and made all the difference…… I took the “Y” brand machine and with the saving, bought some exotic coffee beans.
Feb 2, 2011 | Customers, Marketing, Social Media
Yes, another alphabetically numerated generation for us to get our heads around, the F of “Facebook” generation.
These kids, born in the mid eighties, have grown up connected. To them, Facebook is more than a tool, it is a part of their social fabric, fundamental to the way they see the world, act, communicate and engage with their environment.
Their “behavorial DNA” is different to their parents, often even to their older siblings, and they way that plays out as these F generation people make it into the executive suite will be fascinating, challenging, and inevitably speed up the pace of change, already too hectic for many.
Jan 27, 2011 | Change, Collaboration, Customers, Lean, OE, Operations
Lean is at its core a management system, a holistic way of looking at the way an enterprise manages itself through a culture tuned to improvement, group and personal responsability, while six sigma is a quantitative process of managing in quality by getting it right first time.
Six sigma quality requires 99.997% perfect, or 3.4 defects/million. When you are manufacturing and supplying to customers even simple products, this is a very high bar indeed.
Motorola was the first US company to recognise and articulate the challenge in the face of Japanese competition in the 80’s, and they boomed, becoming the gold standard for western manufacturing, and inspiring thousands of others to lift their performance, from which we have all benefited. The article that first bought Motorola to public attention is this Fortune article from 1989, and it started a revolution.
Now the revolution appears to be over as Motorola is broken up into two separate listed companies after almost 2 decades of failing to build on the foundations built in the eighties. The leadership that followed those that built the foundation did not recognise the importance of the management systems necessary to support the continued improvement and Motorola fell back into the trap of conventional management accounting where inventory is an asset, cycle time and flow ignored as core metrics, functional management over-rides bottom up innovation, and all the other stuff that makes a lean environment work, got squeezed out.
As I work with clients on improvement initiatives that usually start with marketing and strategy, my patch, the necessity to improve operational processes to support those that engage with the customer is always a major driver, and the failure of Motorola after being the icon it was simply drives home the difficulty of not just improving current performance, but in the process, building the management and leadership processes that make the performance improvement process self sustaining.
