Author: tom lauren

Posted on by

Building customer trust? Start by trusting your customer.

I have spent many years working in the financial services sector; a heavily regulated industry where fraud is a constant and real presence. The fact is that people do steal from their insurance company and our head office had a zero tolerance approach. Which is completely understandable.

But on occasion it felt as if the customer as a result of this was starting from a position of having to demonstrate that they were honest and truthful as opposed to that being the natural assumption until proven otherwise.

I once asked a rehabilitation nurse what the worse thing about her job was; “people faking injuries” was the immediate response. “And not because they are trying to get money, I don’t care about that. What I do care about is that I have a maximum case load I can take and that cheat meant I didn’t help someone else who genuinely needed me“. So it is entirely understandable how there can sometimes be a sense of distrust upfront – not because frontline staff don’t care, but actually because they do.

Looking outside of the sector I have known so well for so long, I went looking for other companies in other industries to see if anyone had made a conscious choice to

  1. Accept the customers word at face value, no questions asked
  2. Created a customer service ethos around this

Quite a few companies started to stand out who had done just that.

Nordstrom

Once you start looking a few names keep cropping up and one of those is the fashion retailer, Nordstrom. There are hundreds of examples of what they have done, all under the single instruction of “Use good judgement in all situations” 

Proving that world class customer service is not an invention of the modern age, the story that is often relayed is from the 1970’s when a customer returned a set of Winter tyres to their Nordic store and requested a refund of $145. This was dutifully given, no questions asked, despite the fact that Nordstrom have never sold tyres.

There is a bit of further context to this story which is not always elaborated on; Nordstrom had only a few weeks earlier bought the site where the store was now situated from a tyre company where the returning customer had originally purchased the tyres.  They had no legal responsibility for the tyre store, but could understand the customer coming to them.

Zappos

Like Nordstrom, there are countless examples of the customer service ethos and face value trust that this shoe retailer installs in its staff. They also hold a record for the longest customer service call, taken in December 2012 which came in at 10 hours, 29 minutes because each call takes as long as it needs to.

Away from stories of flowers sent, hand delivered items in emergencies and so on is a simple one where a customer reported her sons shoes had broken and Zappos simply apologised and sent a new pair – no photographs of the shoe as evidence, no having to return the defective item, just taking the customers word for it.

Amazon

Over the years Amazon have also gained a world class customer reputation, and like Zappos a lot is down to the trust element.

One customer reported a coffee machine to be an unwanted gift after some 3 months of purchase, returned the item and waited for the $189 refund. When it didn’t arrive she called Amazon who had never received the returned item. They took her word and made the refund immediately.

Barclaycard

It’s not for insurance so I have counted it as another sector!

Over the years their customer service ethos has really grown. A recent example was where cash was withdrawn from an ATM using the credit card in error (it had the same PIN as the debit card which was intended to be used). Knowing that the charges associated with this would be just shy of the national debt the customer contacted Barclaycard to explain it had been done in error – all charges associated with the transaction were waived because the customer service agent didn’t think it was fair for the customer to pay out for a mistake.

Folk Clothing

It’s not just the larger companies that follow this ethos; a small retailer based in Lambs Conduit St, London has the same sense of trust.

A customer bought two items online but on arrival it was found that one of the items was a slightly different version to the one ordered. On contacting the store, apologies were offered, the correct item was located from the stock room and a cab ordered to dispatch it immediately. The customer explained that they might not be in due to a prior meeting so the cabbie was instructed to leave the item in a safe location. At no stage were any arrangements made for the return of the wrongly sent item and this was only done when the customer phoned the following day.

Putting your money where your mouth is

When we formed Business Documents UK LTD we were determined that we would have the same customer ethos running through our business; i.e. we would take our customer at face value. When it’s a small business and alarm bells start going off that’s sometimes a little harder to do than we first thought, but we’ve stuck to it.

Last week a customer in Oman was having trouble using the payment system on our site to buy our biggest item. His credit card wasn’t working so after trying a couple of options with him, he told us he’d transferred the money into our account. Our bank shows no money transfer and when we call them, they have no record at all. The customer then contacts us and says he’d like the templates delivered today please.

So we send them.

The money arrived the next day.

We’ve issued refunds on requests despite there being nothing wrong with the product (customers words not ours), send alternative versions if people change their minds and even re-written a couple of templates just for that individual.

Have people taken advantage of us? We’d say possibly, cynics would say definitely.

So will we change?

Not a chance.

What we have seen is that the customers we have been privileged to have bought from us have been disarmingly honest, decent folk and the bottom line is that we accept that a few might try it on so that we can trust the majority who won’t.

Posted on by

“It’s not us, it’s them” – how to blame your supply chain.

We flew Ryan Air recently and it was “interesting”, but what really stood out was at every stage the supply chain was held up to blame as the villain who was responsible for every small problem.

Our experience was actually not too bad; two flights, two delays, a grand total of about 3 hours delays over both legs which could be best described as irritating. There were no hoards of passengers beating down the pilots door or flooding the customer desk with compensation requests yet a scape goat was presented to accompany every update once delays set in.

  1. The flight is delayed because the incoming flight is late
  2. The take-off is delayed because airport provided ground staff are not available
  3. The take-off is further delayed because a third party hasn’t got the paperwork to air control on time
  4. The take-off is further delayed because air-control are being slow
  5. We’ve landed but this airports ground crew didn’t sort out a landing gate
  6. We’ve got a gate but Swiss Air staff haven’t arrived to open the doors yet

Talking amongst the passengers (we had a fair bit of time on our hands) the reaction to this was universal;

We don’t know how an airline works, we don’t care how an airline works, we paid ONE company so we expect that company to look after us.

The Supply Chain Shield

Blaming your own companies failings is way more common that people right realise; “it’s the other planes fault”, “our sales department let you down” etc. But over the years we have seen that whilst the blame might be readily allocated, the responsibility on behalf of the wider company is more often than not taken on board so in the eyes of the customer someone is owning the problem.

Not so when it comes to supply chain; there are still many interactions where the supply chain is held up like a defensive shield against all manner of complaints, the implication being that “We are good; THEY are not and are letting YOU down. NOT US”

Customers Perception

Has any customer ever, on hearing that it was a supplier not the main company they bought the service from, felt any different about the service they have received? We would say that at best no, and at worst it makes the situation even worse.

Ryan Air have chosen to outsource a large part of their operational service to reduce costs and increase efficiencies. Good for them. But don’t start blaming these companies when they don’t deliver. MANAGE the supply chain internally, don’t insult the customer by thinking we will forgive bad service or focus our frustrations on another company. We won’t; we paid YOU, not your suppliers, it’s your job to make them perform.

After all, should the experience on landing be world class thanks to the supplier, we wonder how many subsequent announcements are made saying “actually, its not us, that’s our supplier”?

Posted on by

Substance without Style

 “All style and no substance” is something that we have all heard before; uttered by way of a critique, not implying but forthrightly stating that a product, idea or even a person looks the part but this hides an absence of anything to back it up.

In our time we have seen our fair share of this; C.V.’s that are too good to be true and interviews that go so well you cannot believe you’ve found the right candidate (you haven’t). Our particular bug bear is gloriously presented power points which go swish and woosh and fly in and out of focus at the right time. And tell you precisely nothing except that you are really good at powerpoint and animations.

But what of the other way around?

If style over substance is annoying (and it is) what of substance without style?

All modern thoughts in the business world revolve now around the concept of brand, not just the company you work for or the product you sell, but of you, an individual. What do you represent when you walk into a room or stand on stage or present to the board for the first time? All sets of eyes are on you, its your moment to show them (delete as appropriate) why you are worth hiring / not firing / giving a pay rise / about to give a pay rise / promotion etc.

Even at a more mundane level, the first time you are asked to send detailed information to a board member or senior manager is often in the format of an attached document. Which at the end of the day represents you.

So a company selling templates is going to recommend buying good templates?

Yes. But not always.

We have genuinely witnessed many average people promoted, having presented their average work in a brilliant way over brilliant people presenting their work in an average way. Right or wrong, its just what we’ve seen.

Consider the audience, the requirement and the message you are trying to get across.

1. Don’t over do it

If you have been asked for a no-frill 5 line overview to be sent on an e-mail, we would recommend you produced exactly that.

After all, sometimes less really is more; you wouldn’t over engineer packaging for a single banana now would you?

2. Be clear

Use our templates, create your own, develop your unique style, use graphics and buttons or anything else you can think of.

BUT if they are there because they are pretty and don’t tell you anything, take them out. Anything that does not add information in an easy to comprehend way that makes immediate sense is a huge distraction will subtract hugely from the rest of your hard work.

3. Be Consistent

Define what and how you report and show this in the same way with the same criteria each time.

e.g. If you use Red Amber Green ratings on a dial and Amber is always 70% for instance, don’t have another report out there with a different dial and Green at 70%.

4. Take a step back and check it works

Sometimes we get too close to a project and struggle to convey information to those who do not know the ins and outs. Validate it with others to make sure that what you are trying to get across is actually what you are getting across.

It’s easy to get it wrong sometimes!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by

Remember to tell your supply chain that you are engaged with them.

Read any paper or article on supply chain management and one key factor returns time after time :

How engaged you are with your supply chain?

Let’s look at Best Practise

This is our summary of best practise in the industry: The idea is a very simple one; in order to get the best out of your supplier to move as close to the bottom right on this matrix; green and green!

Supplier engagement matrix. Get to the bottom right!

We have not read an academic study that disagrees with the concept and research bodies such as Gallup Supplier Engagement concludes that there are real benefits to be had where engagement is proactively driven, including;

  • Higher quality
  • Improved forecasting and planning
  • Improved product development
  • Greater supplier support
  • Lower costs – both transactional and price per piece overall

We are all agreed then – we follow best practise!

Seeing as we have this unanimously agreed, clearly every supply chain function follows these engagement guidelines!

Well, not quite.

Here are 3 factors that stand in our way:

1.Resource

It takes considerable effort and time to proactively drive engagement and dependant on the size of the supply chain function it will certainly never be practical to adopt this for all suppliers. The hard bit is to identify which one(s) are “worth” the effort – either through volume of orders, strategic importance, or quite frankly how well you get on with the supplier. So engagement happens in pockets with isolated suppliers.

2.Too few gains

As with all theoretical models, real life will always throw in a few curve-balls that break the consensus. In the past we have worked with suppliers who deliver a great product at a great price which completely fitted our business. Processes were automated, human intervention rare and issues numbers were through the floor. Simply put, it just didn’t seem we could do much more to drive performance and certainly the effort we would put in was never going to materialise in corresponding benefits.

3.Convinced they are already doing it

Someone from a supply chain function might look at the top left tangent and immediately think along the lines of “we may not be world class but at least we are better than that”. We’ve worked with supply chain managers and consultants from different sectors who on the question of engagement are all convinced that whilst there is always room for improvement, they ARE engaged with their supply chain.

But we do measure engagement!

The biggest challenge we would have to this is to understand how this engagement is measured; nine times out of ten it is by the criteria of the buyer, NOT the supplier. In other words it’s a one dimensional assessment which does nothing to further any engagement or relationship.

…and we do communicate!

Supply teams have argued that there is frequent exchanging of information, Management Information and service levels met, but these feel more of a contractual requirement and any meeting to discuss these WILL progress the relationship but by increments not leaps and bounds.

An easy first step to enlightenment

Tell your suppliers you want to engage better with them.

You might be trying, but they won’t notice unless you talk to them.

Discuss, together, how you might do this to best effect for both parties.

In an ideal world – bake it in from the start:

We’ve seen first hand companies and their strategic supplier launch joint ventures in a new territory with a board member from either side join the others board. This ensures that strategy, ambition and delivery was jointly conceived and the benefits (and profits) gained were shared equally.

Aspirational? Certainly. Always achievable? Certainly not.

But getting as close to this ideal as suits your company in terms of outlook, structure and resource is well worth the effort.

Don’t necessarily ask yourself what the cost benefits will be for this effort, rather what the price of not engaging might be.

Posted on by

Supplier Management; A change of perspective

Supplier Management is a tricky business; you often have a complex array of commodities or services being provided by an selection of different companies.

And just to make life just that little bit more difficult, it’s rare that each supplier acts in isolation. More often than not a part of what one supplier delivers (or not!) will directly impact a part of what another supplier delivers and the knock-on goes down the chain.

In a service delivery environment these impacts or difficulties can be exaggerated because any process in place won’t follow a nice linear manufacturer line but has the variable of a customer and choice to accommodate.

What works well – managing by commodity

What we have seen in a diverse service related supply chain is that Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) control the suppliers and therefore the commodity in isolation. There is a lot of sense behind this as the SME understands;

  • The market place
  • The commodity
  • What good looks like

The end result is often that each supplier or commodity is generally well managed and the three key pillars of measurement (cost, time and quality) are where they need to be or within an acceptable tolerance. The “horizontal” management which is most common place certainly has merit.

What about the vertical?

What does not work quite so well – the wider view

However, the business in which the supply chain fits is rarely run on commodity lines; there is a wider strategy, vision and set of goals which the supply chain will contribute towards.

Let’s take a theoretical example. The board of your company has received consistent feedback that whilst their offering is considered to be at a good price point, customer complaints are escalating and the service rating has never been lower. Strategic change has been required therefore to improve quality across all areas and it is accepted that this might have a small cost increase. Because the business has been slow to effect change in the past, there is now a big pressure push from the top to see action.

As Head of Supplier Management you gather your team to explain the revised focus.

  • You review the complete supply chain metrics looking specifically at the service performance
  • Each supplier has been consistently outside target, but only by a relatively small margin
  • In isolation and viewed in a silo of single supplier activity this service drift was noted but not deemed worthy of a bigger set of actions
  • As a combination though, the service failure looms a lot larger

Next actions look something like this

  • Each SME is now tasked on service over cost
  • Each will pull a set of meetings to relay this to each supplier they deal with
  • Each will tell you why something can be done but maybe not as you outlined because of “unique conditions to my commodity”
  • Some will increase prices and ask for a service improvement with very marginal improvements

And so on, and so on.

How to include a wider and future focussed perspective

So in addition to managing by commodity it is as important to view the complete supply chain output through the same measures and lens as that of the wider business.

Also it’s worth thinking more about HOW the supply chain is measured.

Performance targets and Management Information (MI) are vital barometers of how the supply chain is or was fairing; with as long as a month’s delay in receiving MI it is often a snapshot of the past. By reviewing the supply chain output as a future focussed risk assessment proactive measures or at least plans of actions can be formed at a far earlier stage.

Any templates that could do this for me?

Are there any templates that can do this for me?

This Supplier Dashboard and Log does a great job – it is tried and tested!

Supplier Risk and Performance Dashboard Template (POCCET)
Posted on by

PESTLE Analysis

What? Do you mean Pestle and Mortar?

No we don’t. PESTLE stands for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental. It’s a well established way of  a business or enterprise to track the wider environment in which they are operating in.

Is it still relevant?

Yes. Well mostly – there has been some debate about that. The problem is that if you undertake the analysis work once you tend to not review it for awhile so it feels static despite the world changing fast. Other methods have been suggested; STEEPLE being one (Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, Legal and Ethical)

I get confused between what falls into what category.

Us too!

The main challenge is keeping your PESTLE Analysis current!

As long as you cover all factors in your project, AND KEEP IT CURRENT then you are doing very well. Some points can be argued into different areas of the PESTLE, and if this is the kind of discussion going on over your PESTLE document, then you have covered all the important points.

Some examples might help.

Of course. Here we go:

Example PESTLE Analysis items

Political – If an election is due and there is public pressure to reduce spending in an area where traditionally there are government subsidies this is a factor!

Economic – Oil prices hit a low; if your business has heavy transportation costs this will start to help.

Social – The rise of E-cigarettes is seen as a healthier and more socially acceptable alternative to traditional cigarettes

Technological – Back to E-cigarettes – the technology behind them (essentially a delivery system) allowed the industry to explode.

Legal – Unless the above were to be made illegal

Environmental – European short-fall of snow affecting ski resorts the most obvious example

Anything else we should know about PESTLE?

Yes.

PESTLE Analysis documents and guides for further use can be found here