Archives for category: customer experience management

The emergence of the social customer, business, and partner value chain, alongside the rapid growth of social media channels to enable businesses to extend their customer engagement operations in ways never available before has also caused as many problems as it has generated significant new benefits.

The market has witnessed multiple vendors with various Social CRM solutions without a deep focus on current enterprise CRM investments from prior waves. New social analytics tightly woven to the vendor offering to determine sentiment, influence external to business intelligence enterprise tools, the rise of new social work flows gaps inside the business to link community and content search optimization, category aggregation, tablets, mobility, technology connectors, propriety lock-in platforms for businesses strategically navigate in their customer IT strategy, and so on.

Ironically, all the above new complexity and noise (and there is more) can be boiled down to two simple trends we have witnessed in the last decade:

1. Enterprise CRM operations from earlier waves have remained fairly static or have become fragmented organizationally by channel or unit, leading to the growth of technology, business, and data silos internally and a decrease in enterprise coordination around the end customer needs and channels.

2. The networked customer increasingly influences a larger portion of the business relationship across sales, service, and marketing outside of the current enterprise customer operations and expects the business, in turn, to interact in a unified fashion, without regard to channel or business touch point.

These two mega trends have ignited a firestorm of activity across the vendor landscape, be it in software (legacy and start up), platform exchanges, tablets and smart phones, developer partner communities and collaboration, new SI and vendor alliances, and more.

Unlike the CMO driven Social Media initiatives that are in various stages of deployment, the market for Social CRM and associated enterprise CRM intersections between social and operational is still in its nascent stages. Identification of the most suitable solutions, best-in-class practices, silo avoidance, private and public cloud architectural implications, and the appropriate enterprise hybrid technology mix for organizations remains greenfield (while Gartner pegs this sub-sector in CRM to be 1B in 2011, data on the ground appears to indicate otherwise).

This hesitancy has a solid rationale. Unlike the current initiatives creating Social Media COE’s and such, Social CRM has much higher implications for enterprise front office operations, involving thousands resources, organizational constraints, business and legal implications. Its what happens once an enterprise acts on the social insight.

There are a few pioneering vendors that have been able to prove their capabilities and are pursuing a ‘suite’ position in this market. Yet there is a lot of duplication (and major gaps) in the functionality, and, more important, none can claim to replace existing enterprise CRM with new social CRM solutions for the existing enterprise CRM market (that is without creating yet another Social CRM silo). Rather, an integration, hub-spoke, division based, or combination of the above is the sales model approach witnessed, with low risk POC or assessment types of engagements occurring alongside.

Moreover, there is no one vendor that ‘does it all’, unlike prior ‘feature wars’ from the earlier CRM era. As a result the entire evaluation process is fundamentally different, involving stakeholders from Finance (CAPEX vs. OPEX), Technology (Multi-Tenancy, Off Premise vs. On Premise, and SOA implications), Business (Field Adoption, Mobility, and Time to Benefits Realization), and other units, such as PR, reviewing against a completely new set of parameters.

The above considerations are critical in the Business and IT investment decision (or lack thereof, with often today a preference to postpone given the state of the market). Yet, business leaders navigating their future customer strategies, full due diligence is required now more than ever before to be positioned now for rapid execution. Businesses are completing due diligence efforts as the recognition of the need for change, even with the highest ‘noise to signal’ ratio seen in the CRM sector for years, will not abate in the coming years and competitive attrition is around the corner. Rather, indicators on ‘noise to signal’ are that it will only increase.

Without new customer engagement models envisioned that can be operationalized in the enterprise front office, and a plan to harness the benefits of change, sitting on the sidelines, ‘waiting for the dust to settle’, is not an option.

Traditional CRM tools could previously claim to capture most of the customer interaction channels, whether it was a face to face sales visit or a call center call to the 1-800 number. This data was then used in forecasting and analysis on front office effectiveness analysis.

Today, what was perhaps 80-90% of the customer interaction is rapidly shrinking as customers moved to external customer support blogs and sales insight is derived from the latest networking analytics tools.

What does this mean to business? Most that have not begun to look into closing this gap will increasingly be ‘running with blinders’. Forecasts will inaccurate, and support issues managed in the external support sites will be unseen to the business. From the business’ perspective, this could be seen as a shortening of the sales cycle, or a rapid ‘fire drill’ to a support issue.

This is an incorrect viewpoint. What has really occurred is a transfer to the same activities to other tools, forums, and sites. This transfer has moved to the control of the customer.

To close this current CRM gap, companies will need to how best assess integrating Social CRM into their CRM infrastructure so that they are engaging the customer where the interaction is occurring. While the Social CRM niche vendor landscape has changed, the metrics remain the same. What is critical is how best to navigate the new landscape to realign metrics and regain business benefits.

The unrelenting spread of social networks, with its ability to entice the masses to supply vast amounts of personal data (knowingly or not), has generated a corresponding spike in demand for social software and services to manage an organization’s “social identity”. Not surprisingly, this mandate has landed on the CMO’s desk for the most part. I would argue that positioning Social CRM as a Marketing owned and led initiative has the potential to create more issues, both internal and external, that far outweigh the shiny new SCRM tools and services available.

To put it in context, I can understand the desire to run fast waving the new “Inbound Marketing” flag. The first wave of CRM solutions neglected, to some degree, the marketing functions. First and foremost, it focused on enabling SFA (it’s the pipeline stupid!). Service came next, but usually with another CRM silo bolted on (it’s the ticket stupid!) or web self service. During this phase, Marketing was supported via CRM campaign management, web analytics, etc. but often the critical effectiveness data often came from within the internal CRM Sales and Service systems (or internal marketing tools and external data providers).

That’s not to say customer alignment across front office units was not the most critical enterprise goal from above during this period. It was always the mandate, required for the ever elusive 360 degree view. Various initiatives were kicked off to do just that, with some successes here and there, some failures, and lots of internal cross-unit complexities to manage.

Does anybody think the end customer cared during this phase of business activity? While corporate front office business units and IT were sorting out their differences between tools, data, systems, and business languages – – the customer moved on. The technology cost curve made it possible for individuals to invest their own set of Sales (research), (self) Service, and Marketing (platforms) reaching millions in a nano-second. Many of these customers now aim this newly acquired arsenal directly back at the company (rightly or wrongly).

Or, in other words, inside out processes turned outside in, customer relationship management turned into customer managed relationships.

So where are we today? Even now, most companies are in a reactionary mode. For organizations that exist in markets where there is individual choice, it’s simply matter of time before the new customer arsenal hits their turf (and of course there are always – two – ways to learn).  For others trying to be proactive on the wave, it has been mostly directed as a mandate for “Inbound Marketing” or “Social CRM/Twitter” based initiatives (side note: I have a problem with the “Inbound Marketing” term as its seems just as flawed as “Outbound Marketing” – last time I checked customer conversations and engagement are bi-directional, no?).

This is a start, but will still miss the end goal as we are repeating the past. Creating a truly customer centric operating model that is cross Sales, Service, and Marketing is a bigger imperative now more than ever. If anything, the new drivers should seek to empower Customer Service agents as much as it does Marketing.  And Sales, always looking for the most complete customer profile and activity data, needs to be in sync with Service and Marketing now as well. Revenue generation (or loss) activities on an account can occur at any touch point (so long pipeline and tickets!).

So what’s my point? Unleashing Social CRM initiatives via a Marketing-only silo has the potential to repeat historical failures if not properly planned and synchronized. Deployed in isolation, Social CRM can make the company look even more flat footed and less connected. In the first phase of CRM much of these miss-steps were, for the most part, invisible to the end customer.  Today, it can be blasted with all the world to see.

So really, this should be a mandate for real culture change within the front office first (the change that didn’t happen during the first wave), integrated strategic planning across Sales, Service, and Marketing second, and then deploying and managing the shiny new Social CRM initiatives, tools, and services last. #scrm #crm

Ok, this is an ongoing pet peeve and probably not breaking news, but the trend toward constant micro-updates (you name it, twitter, blogs, google alerts, etc.) without solid foundations to relate various concepts being thrown about simply results in more noise and little signal, damaging market understanding. Moreover, over the long term, has the potential to backfire on proponents getting on the bandwagon with little planning.

I know we live in an 140 char world, but without the means to understand that world, its noise. I recall seeing a similar complaint on how someone thought they were a Twitter expert because of the #s of followers they had generated through various “optimization” tools. You get what you measure, and when you are floating in a sea of noise, you need water to drink not more buzz.

So, I finally got around to powering through Paul Greenberg’s 4th edition (almost 700 pages!) of CRM At The Speed of Light. Its really a re-write from the earlier versions, not an update. So if you have the earlier version I highly recommend the new update. It complements nicely other recent works Enterprise 2.0, Experience Economy, Groundswell, to name few here. And my old time favorite… The Wealth of Networks.

The consulting on this industry shift seems to be taking off lately, likely due to this finally hard hitting the corporate agenda in a very unseemly “caught off guard” manner (Google Buzz, Toyota, United, etc.). The list of missteps can be updated almost everyday now. So, yea… now its finally on the “wide” agenda, but there remains little “wide” understanding on what exactly to do about it.

Perhaps the non-biased expert community needs to start gathering and publishing these cases to dissect exactly where a customer failure happened in the chain. Each case has its own dimensions and most are quick to jump to either a software, consulting solution pitch or blame the entire company as a side agenda. I watched a lot of the Toyota testimony today on CSPAN. Aside from the cross-cultural interplay, what was fascinating was that the CEO announced a series VOC programs, customer advisory board, customer engagement initiatives, etc… was not this in already place given their industry leadership in this area?

Again, without the details in this case, it’s hard for most outsiders to decipher, at a granular level, the true root causes. The public narrative is being written regardless.

Plenty of big software announced Social CRM components last year and many smaller players have been focusing on the sidelines in this area for years. But they too seem to working on a moving target, lots of real? “beta or alpha” initiatives… the sector feels a bit like 1999 again. Hopefully, without the repeats.

The shifts in technology and social media are already disrupting the ways businesses go to market. You can note the impacts by the day in the news (and by the tweet in the blogger world). What you do not see, yet, are indicators of any market-wide business understanding on how to address, although there are plenty of vendors with “solutions” to choose from already. Today, most businesses still seem remain primarily reactive (Toyota, United, Maytag?).

One way to view how this shift impacts business strategies is seeing how they impact the “Touch vs. Scale” matrix.

Current models in place today are either B2B/Enterprise Sales (High Touch, Low Scale, F2F Sales Teams, Med-Long Cycles) or B2C/Consumer Sales (Low Touch, High Scale, Marketing, Call Center, Fast Cycles). And the SME space has been (often awkwardly) in the middle between these points.

Recent shifts in technology are further moving into the High Touch / High Scale “fourth quadrant”, an area often targeted, but rarely reached until recently.

I think most already understand (or “feel”) this, but have a hard time figuring out the ramifications to their current business models. There is already a large number of technology solutions, but many are without a business focused decision-making framework to help align and guide the Business/IT planing  processes.

Most early stage public websites were initially agency-focused as the imperative during this period was to provide information about their respective organizational structure, functions, and services via the online channel. This design approach relied upon the service requester to have effective research skills across many public functions to understand what services were available where, and under what circumstances they applied. In other words, this wave on online public portals were agency-centric and not customer-centric. However, increasingly, public service value is now being seen as best created at a cross-organization level, across agency boundaries, functions, services, and channels.

One important area of focus in intentions based design is on bundling related functions and services by similar areas (the meta-data) to create integrated set of applicable services. In the private sector, this is often the standard sales delivery model for small to medium sized busineses. A public sector example of this, is a grouping of applicable public services by demographic profile (e.g. seniors, students, etc.) whereby, based on your demographic profile, the end user is navigated to the suite of services and/or either provided self service online tools to aggregate these, or is transferred to a specialist trained in this service area (which can either be a follow up call, direct online “immediate call back” transfer similar to that used in Amazon’s Call Center, or via online chat, to name a few).

Another major area of focus in designing an intentions based portal is integrating the various channels to support a single interaction, the recipient of which is recognized and receives the same treatment regardless of which channel he or she uses. The “landing page” of the public portal a critical aspect of this aggregation and integration, and needs to be synchronized with the data stored in various legacy systems and, ideally, also has access to centralized call center to provide human based support (note: this can be now be supported with many new and emerging technologies at a much lower cost structure, should the business case identify this need).

When incorporating an intentions based design, it is critical to have a single point of contact to manage the interaction (either via the web portal, a centralized call center, or ideally a combination of both). The integrated channel contact point aggregates the various agency functions, providing the citizen with the information about the services, eligibility, and offering specialist advice among other things. A robust knowledge base system that links the two channels is a critical component to empowering both web and call center channels in this model.

In addition, it is also imperative to to understand the customer’s needs, behavior, and preferences related to the intention. This understanding of individual’s or organization’s needs allows the public portal to identify subsequent “related services”.  This further allows for public value to be realized from the interaction, as opposed to a “one off” request for information. For example, someone inquiring about food aid in a certain program or region, may also be directed to more information on the micro-lending programs also available in addition to supporting literature, sites, etc. When designed correctly, this is done without the end user having any information about the actual numbers of agencies or programs involved in managing the services, or how they work together across units in the delivery of the integrated services. This is aspect rightly belongs to the organization to manage, not the requester.

Lastly, the ability to continuously sense and respond to intention based portal requests, drives a virtuous cycle of value, a “network effect”, of citizen requests that can be aggregate and analyzed for further improvements in policy design and organizational structure. The more interactions captured, the more insights and feedback gathered, the greater the “network effect” is enabled via the aggregated, intentions based model. Moreover, this further lays the groundwork work future “semantic web” approaches, once the network ecosystem becomes self sustaining.

In consequence, the new design approaches approaches and emerging technologies now available allow for public facing portals allow the ability to ensure that public services are more integrated, accessible, and transparent, in ways that were not addressed in earlier iterations at a much lower cost structure, ultimately achieving a higher social ROI.