Whether you’re talking about a consumer or a corporation, a hassle map defines all of the actual steps that characterize the negative experiences of the customer. Think about these questions: Where are the emotional hot spots, the irritations, the frustrations, the time wasted, the delay? Where are the economic hot spots? And then think about this: What are the ways that businesses can radically improve the hassle map for both the customer and themselves?
They sound very similar to customer journey maps and possibly frame the “problem” differently in a way that may work better for different types of people who see and think differently.
Creating a hassle map view of the customer experience would help some question every step of the process as if it was a negative and not fall into the trap of brushing it aside because “that’s the way its always been done”.
Each extra step, wasted moment, avoidable risk, needless complication, less-than-optimal solution, awkward compromise, and disappointing outcome is a friction point on the hassle map. And each represents an opportunity for a creative organization to create new demand by eliminating the friction or even reversing it, turning hassle into delight.
Read Annette’s full blog post here.
Read the original Adrian Slywotzky inerview on Inc. here.
I’d like to highlight a recent post by Kimberley Crofts of Meld Studios which captures one of the core problems with legacy corporates and their adoption of a Customer Centric mindset. It’s “the problem with product-led thinking in a service-dominant world”.
Crofts references Lynn Shostack from 1984…
…these procedures (Gantt charts etc) provide managers with a way to visualise a process and to define and manipulate it at arm’s length. What they miss is the consumer’s relationship to, and interaction with, services. They make no provision for people-rendered services that require judgement and a less mechanical approach. They don’t account for the service’s products that must be managed simultaneously with the process” (Shostack, 1984).
Croft then goes on to contrast an Artisans way of thinking and working versus an industrialist or production line.
Where the artisan is guided by stories of past use to guide their making, the industrial worker is “bound to the execution of step-by-step sequences of determinate motions”
Croft continues to question how organisations might take an approach more like an Artisan.
You can read the full post here.
People with skills in service design, human-centered design, design thinking, experience design, as well as innovationists and customer engagement specialists are all in high demand. Everyone wants them but suitable candidates are a rare find. This is largely due to the explosion of organisations now seeking to use the toolset of design to produce human- centred strategies, business models, brands, organisational cultures, products and services. The relatively few tertiary courses focused specifically on this type of design in Australia compounds the scarcity issue.
Franklin suggests looking for individuals from nearby domains such as “ndustrial design, user experience, market research, organisational psychology, graphic design, and business consulting”.
And then “selecting individuals who think and behave in ‘designerly ways’”.
- True empathy matched with a passion to improve the way people interact with the world
- The ability to understand and shape other’s needs and behaviours
- A curious, open mind
- The ability to see patterns and make inferences based on these (known as abductive reasoning)
- Enough resilience to sit with not knowing the answer right now, but persevering regardless
- A desire to experiment, reflect and iterate
- The ability to paint a picture that allows others to digest what needs to be communicated
- Integrity and the strength to hold an informed point of view
- The skill and will to bring others on the journey.
- Upon finding individuals with a mix of these attributes, the program you put together to expose these individuals to immersive design projects – supported by formal learning and development activities – is a critical next step to meeting your recruiting needs.
You can read the full post here.
A recent opinion piece, “Why ‘Design Thinking’ is becoming a game changer for many enterprises” by Dmitri Khanine on cio.com, articulates how Design Thinking can be leveraged to improve, if not transform, the typical legacy IT Software/Solution Delivery Lifecycle (i.e. the SDLC process).
“Design Companies” have learned to appreciate what is now called the Human Factors — facts like that business requirements are created by humans and often given out in form of solutions, which may or may not be ideal and represent just one of all possible options… facts like asking business users what they want may lead a project going in a wrong direction… facts like that different types of users, different roles and personalities may have completely different ways of interacting with your systems and very different requirements.
On Requirements Management
Recent PMI study quotes that 47 percent of projects that are in trouble today are there because of a slip in requirements management.
Think about it. Out of all projects that failed to hit the mark — across all industries — virtually every second one is in trouble because of requirement management. Business users are called upon to do something that they have never signed up to do — design solutions. Business Analysts just come and ask them what would they like to see in a finished product…
Placing business users on development teams helps to better translate their vision to code but offers no protection against ineffective solutions and occasionally, going after completely wrong business goals.
Wrong solutions are being procured, implemented and developed. Years of effort are spent creating customizations, just to realize that they don’t fit very well with the way users are interacting with the system or that they’re solving the non-critical issue, while the most critical ones are left unaddressed. And that also creates confusion about scope and direction…
On Scope Creep
If you hang out with PMs, you hear a lot of complaints about the Scope Creep common phenomena – when new requirements are coming out of the woodwork long after a project is initiated and wrecking havoc in schedules and budgets. There’s also another related project risk – stakeholder management. That one is about managing expectations and dealing with ‘difficult’ people who cause Scope Creep by coming up with all of these ‘unforeseen’ requirements.
But why are they doing this?
You see, when business requirements or an RFP is created based on a ‘download’ from one stakeholder, there’s a very good chance that they will later realize that they’ve forgotten something. Other stakeholders and other business units will also pick up on missing pieces. And you have little control over when these insights can occur and whether or not this process based on spontaneous realizations will lead you to a complete and effective solution in the end.
Now what if we take most of this volatility out of user requirements? What if you could ‘magically’ extract the knowledge out of your key stakeholders and flesh out complete requirements in just a few days? What if you could also include the end users in the process to further insure against missing things – without stretching the process a lot longer?
If we do that – wouldn’t that just slash this 47 percent project failure rate down to low 5s for you? What would that mean for your current projects in terms of dollars saved and improved user productivity?
Now what if I could show you the processes your BAs can follow to get all of this done in just a few days, often before a project is started? Wouldn’t that be something you’d like to learn?
You can read the full article here.
A recent article on Marketing, was an interview with Telstra’s head of design practice, Cecilia Hill, discussing how she is integrating Design Thinking into Telstra.
Following is a slightly abridged version of the article. You can read the full article here.
- has been in place for three years
- is charged with energising the business around the concept of design thinking
- built upon existing UI and UX teams
- expanded its ability to respond to requests from the business to use design by reaching into product innovation and service design
How did the design practice get started at Telstra?
Three years ago, the product group in Telstra was headed by Kate McKenzie, who’s our COO now. She and I were talking about what design thinking could do, and how it could help product innovation and design.
On a trip to the US, she met with IDEO and a few other key players in the space. She came back and said, ‘Cecilia, is this what you’re talking about?’ I said, ‘Yes, it is,’ and she gave me the opportunity to run a project, to look at some innovative new solutions for our customers.
We came up with an idea where we allow our customers to take their home broadband allowance with them on the go, and use it on a mobile with a Wi-Fi network – that was essentially the idea behind Telstra Air.
Kate became the executive sponsor. Her and I then took it to [then-CEO] David Thodie, and three months after that project said, ‘Hey, this is what we should be doing more of… this is how design thinking can help in innovation and product design,’ and we recommended that we set up a practice to do it.
Does your work reach into internal processes and structures and things like that?
Absolutely. To be able to deliver great customer experience, which is the outcome of doing design properly, we have to make sure that our processes are right: that our front-line staff can sell what we produce, they have the right systems they can use and our call centres know how to support our staff.
We work in a very hybrid approach, so when we design a new idea, we make sure we have people from strategy, product, channels and marketing all in the same room. We go through a really rapid exercise of prototyping and testing, both with internal processes and people, as well as with customers.
Has your design thinking model or the methodology evolved?
Yes, we are learning how to best embed it into the business. We know that a pure design approach would not work. It would take too long. You have to take people on the journey, essentially, and you have to meet business outcomes.
If every single time [you have an idea], you have to go and spend four weeks in customers’ homes to really understand their needs, problems and behaviours, then we will only be doing four projects a year. We still do that, but sometimes we actually go into prototyping and testing rather than ethnographic research.
When you started the practice three years ago, it must have seemed like a humongous task?
And it still is. We have just scratched the surface.
What are the key challenges?
The key challenges are how we message internally and the speed that we need to get things to market in a competitive landscape.
Change is constant and having the right capability internally is very, very hard. It’s very difficult to attract the right people, to keep them and to say to senior leaders, ‘We need to double the size of the team.’
Is the type of staff very different compared to who would have been working at Telstra 10 years ago?
Absolutely, definitely. I employ not just pure designers, I employ industrial designers, visual designers, interaction designers, experience designers, service designers. But I also employ people who come from a strategy background, for example, who understand the concept of design and think that way but can’t necessarily put pen to paper and do drawings.
For us it’s about the right mindset, and that mindset is what’s different. Asking questions like the ‘what if?’ and ‘how might we?’ and not accepting the status quo – that’s what we’re looking for.
What key takeaways from your experience can you give to others who might be considering or conducting a similar project in terms of trying to change how things work within a business?
My biggest learning is just don’t give up. Essentially, you need to change the culture of the organisation: that’s what you’re trying to do. That is not something you can do in six months. That is probably a five-year journey.
A recent Harvard Business Review article, Revolutionising Customer Service, has articulated four recommendations aimed at doing things differently, or in other words, doing the opposite to “conventional wisdom”. The summary is as follows:
Don’t start with customer facing employees…
After all, customer service reps usually understand the importance of satisfied customers; often the real problem lies with logistics, IT, or some other back-end function that isn’t meeting frontline colleagues’ needs…So include everyone in service training, and focus special attention on internal service providers.
Don’t focus training on specific skills or scripts…
Educate employees more generally about what “service excellence” means…highly scripted employees are often less able to be imaginative or empathetic about a customer’s true needs. A better approach is to persuade employees to commit to a holistic definition of service: creating value for others, outside and within the organization. Teach them to first appreciate customers’ concerns and only then to take action.
Don’t pilot changes…
Conventional wisdom calls for limited experiments that, if successful, are later rolled out more broadly. That can work for small tweaks, but for more-sweeping reforms, firms must create momentum fast and set their sights high.
Don’t track traditional metrics…
Instead of worrying about typical customer satisfaction measures such as share of wallet and net promoter scores, organizations should look at the number of new value-adding service ideas put into practice.
Read the full article here.
Check out how IAG are embedding Design Thinking within their organisation.
A recent article on CMO, recently articulated what one big Australian Corporate, AMP, is doing to become customer centric.
he company kicked off the journey in 2013, appointing its first chief customer officer, Paul Sainsbury, as well as a dedicated customer relations team.
On AMP’s list of ongoing strategic priorities is building a customer goals-oriented enterprise.
The initiatives completed or underway include:
- Building a next-generation, face-to-face advice model based on customer goals.
- Automating several back-end processes.
- New infrastructure has also been put in place for better omni-channel experience, including a new customer and data analytics systems, and customer interactions engine.
- These are tied into a new-look digital portal, which includes and integrated banking and wealth platform, mobile and tablet apps, new website and content management systems.
- Deploying a customer feedback and measurement system across 122 teams.
- Establishing organisational capabilities in human-centred design and behavioural economics.
The last one is or particular interest. Organisations that understand that the customer experience is indeed a human centred experience – i.e. to be customer centric is to be human centric – are starting to build internal capabilities in human-centred design.
You can read the full post here.
Martin uses the example of LEGO, and the numerous ‘big data’ studies LEGO commissioned that saw the company veer off course.
Every big data study LEGO commissioned drew the exact same conclusions: future generations would lose interest in LEGO. LEGOs would go the way of jackstraws, stickball, blindman’s bluff. So-called Digital Natives – men and women born after 1980, who’d come of age in the Information Era – lacked the time, and the patience, for LEGOs, and would quickly run out of ideas and storylines to build around.
And the ethnographic study which helped bring LEGO back.
At that moment, it all came together for the LEGO team. Those theories about time compression and instant gratification? They seemed to be off base. Inspired by what an 11-year-old German boy had told them about an old pair of Adidas sneakers, the team realized that children attain social currency among their peers by playing and achieving a high level of mastery at their chosen skill, whatever that skill happens to be.
Martin sights many other examples, including this one regarding Google’s self driving cars.
According to the New York Times, last year as one of Google’s new cars approached a crosswalk, it did as it was supposed to and came to a complete stop. The pedestrian in front crossed the street safely, at which point the Google car was rammed from behind by a second non-Google automobile. Later, another self-driving Google car found that it wasn’t able to advance through a four-way stop, as its sensors were calibrated to wait for other drivers to make a complete stop, as opposed to inching continuously forward, which most did. Noted theTimes, “Researchers in the fledgling field of autonomous vehicles say that one of the biggest challenges facing automated cars is blending them into a world in which humans don’t behave by the book.”
As accurate, then, as big data can be while connecting millions of data points to generate correlations, big data is often compromised whenever humans act like, well, humans.
You can read the full post here.