I have a friend and occasional wise sage of business who says we provide Customer Service that is too good. This got me to thinking, is it possible to provide customer service that is too good?? Can it be that by constantly trying to go "above and beyond" for our customers we are not helping them to help themselves??
I know that for me personally I value customer service very highly. I am one of those people that will not tip if the service in a restaurant has not been as I believe it should be. I get infuriated when left hanging by some outsourced call centre, whatever the location, or I get to talk to some disembodied voice that I can tell does not give a damn about my account. And I get even more annoyed if I think we have let a customer down. But is this going too far?
In our job we get the "privilege" of working with some of the largest names in IT and IT consultancy and it always astounds us that the level of service they provide to their customers is sometimes shockingly bad. But by dint of the fact that they are a "Big Name" they get away with it. Don't get me wrong, we make mistakes occasionally as we are human, but we always have an in depth enquiry afterwards to try to ensure it does not happen again. But these larger organisations don't seem to have the same fear of poor customer service that we do. I can tell you absolute horror stories of call centres and voice-mail systems.
If their server goes down they get round to fixing it, in time. They then tell everybody else to rush to resend the messages they didn't receive or lost. The other day I was called to a meeting by a customer. The meeting was to explain what we were doing about all the server outages that we have experienced in the last two weeks, not our outages but the big expensive consultancy firms outages. This big consultancy firm was offering no explanation or apology, just a warning that our customers messages were delayed and they should stop this happening. But it was the big consultancy firms servers that were the problem!!! They should know how to stop the problem, fix your damn servers. But we are the ones being asked what we are doing to stop the outages. Go figure.
But I still think that you cannot provide customer service that is too good. Yes I try to ensure we over specify servers and back-ups and comms. But I still fret that we have not got enough, that we might let a customer down. We try to ensure we won't, put systems in to try to prevent it, but I still worry.
And I am glad I do, and we do as a company, because I would like to think that if I was a customer I would be happy to, metaphorically, pay that 20% gratuity for good service. Because I would like to think that our customers are treated as I would like to be treated. It cannot be wrong to strive to be the best, to try to do the best for someone paying you to do a job.
Showing posts with label Quality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quality. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The way to profit in EIPP is Systems and Quality
I was reading the postings of another blogger the other day, regarding EIPP. Quick note; For most people EIPP is a re-branding of the most basic of EDI, the supplier sends an invoice. We're great in IT at making up new acronyms or names for old processes in the hope of selling more.
Anyway back to the subject of the post. The blogger in question was bemoaning the fact that whilst there is a lot of interest and "new" players in EIPP, few if any make a profit. One company in question has a turnover of £3.5 Million but loses approximately £7 million per annum. Its P&L account reserve is -£27 million. Another has turnover of £1 Million and loses of £3 million, P&L reserve of -£23 million.
Now here I show my limited knowledge of the practice of Venture Capital and high finance. Both these organisations are backed by VC's and so they are NOT insolvent. But... when are the investors going to get their money back? Or to put it more accurately when are the VC's going to get a return on their investment of other peoples money? I make it that break even is 200% of current turnover, assuming costs do not rise with increased turnover. To get the £27 million pounds back at current growth rate you are looking at a minimum of 10 years. Given that the turnover of the smaller company above went down slightly last year it and that costs increased ahead of turnover at the larger company it could take longer. This is almost "Dot Com" optimism.
So much for high finance.
I think there is a different approach that can lead to a profitably growing company. It may grow slower but note the word profit. That way is to concentrate of quality and systems. Quality because that leads to better systems requiring less resource to manage the processes. Quality because it leads to fewer remedial actions, which always cost more. Get it right first time and it's always cheaper. Quality because any business must concentrate of delighting it's customers. Delighted customers lead to higher retention rates and easier new business sales because of customer referral. My other point is systems. Quality systems. If you can systematise a process rather than having to add more support staff for each new customer then you gain a much bigger return on the investment and, sorry to say, but the fewer humans involved in a process the lower the error rate so the higher quality.
The only downside to the quality and systems approach is that you cannot make a quick "land grab" for a market. But it a lot less stressful for you and your trading partners.
Here's an interesting question for you. If a new customer came to you and asked for 30 days credit, with their company finances in the state described above, would you extend them credit? If not then why would you put important business relationships between you and your business partners in their hands.
Far better to put it in the hands of a company making a profit and dedicated to a quality implementation. Preferably one with a recognised accreditation for quality. Business relationships are hard won and even something as seemingly simple as sending invoices to your customers or receiving invoices from your suppliers deservers to be handled in a quality manor that does not put the relationship at risk.
Anyway back to the subject of the post. The blogger in question was bemoaning the fact that whilst there is a lot of interest and "new" players in EIPP, few if any make a profit. One company in question has a turnover of £3.5 Million but loses approximately £7 million per annum. Its P&L account reserve is -£27 million. Another has turnover of £1 Million and loses of £3 million, P&L reserve of -£23 million.
Now here I show my limited knowledge of the practice of Venture Capital and high finance. Both these organisations are backed by VC's and so they are NOT insolvent. But... when are the investors going to get their money back? Or to put it more accurately when are the VC's going to get a return on their investment of other peoples money? I make it that break even is 200% of current turnover, assuming costs do not rise with increased turnover. To get the £27 million pounds back at current growth rate you are looking at a minimum of 10 years. Given that the turnover of the smaller company above went down slightly last year it and that costs increased ahead of turnover at the larger company it could take longer. This is almost "Dot Com" optimism.
So much for high finance.
I think there is a different approach that can lead to a profitably growing company. It may grow slower but note the word profit. That way is to concentrate of quality and systems. Quality because that leads to better systems requiring less resource to manage the processes. Quality because it leads to fewer remedial actions, which always cost more. Get it right first time and it's always cheaper. Quality because any business must concentrate of delighting it's customers. Delighted customers lead to higher retention rates and easier new business sales because of customer referral. My other point is systems. Quality systems. If you can systematise a process rather than having to add more support staff for each new customer then you gain a much bigger return on the investment and, sorry to say, but the fewer humans involved in a process the lower the error rate so the higher quality.
The only downside to the quality and systems approach is that you cannot make a quick "land grab" for a market. But it a lot less stressful for you and your trading partners.
Here's an interesting question for you. If a new customer came to you and asked for 30 days credit, with their company finances in the state described above, would you extend them credit? If not then why would you put important business relationships between you and your business partners in their hands.
Far better to put it in the hands of a company making a profit and dedicated to a quality implementation. Preferably one with a recognised accreditation for quality. Business relationships are hard won and even something as seemingly simple as sending invoices to your customers or receiving invoices from your suppliers deservers to be handled in a quality manor that does not put the relationship at risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
