Wednesday, July 26, 2006

The Customer Should Have Known Better

In last month’s column I ran a quiz with some fairly typical everyday quality scenarios. I presented 10 situations and asked if the experience was a “quality” one. I received some interesting feedback.

A number of readers disagreed with my answers to the quiz, believing that it was unfair of me to expect a different outcome because I hadn’t communicated my requirements to the supplier or that I had unrealistic expectations. Several people told me that I had misinterpreted Phil Crosby’s definition of quality: conformance to requirements. One reader told me that I really should have used “conformance to stated requirements” as my definition.

This kind of thinking—what I call “the customer should have known better” thinking or CSHKB—is responsible for a great deal of customer dissatisfaction these days. It’s not my responsibility to communicate my requirements; it is the supplier’s responsibility to determine them. In most cases (especially in the 10 scenarios I presented), it’s not difficult to determine basic customer requirements. For example, in my quiz I stated that I had to wait 15 minutes for an elevator each time I wanted to go to my room in a four star hotel I stayed at in New York City. I think most people would agree that a 15-minute wait for an elevator in a hotel is far too long. It doesn’t matter if the hotel is in New York City or Mayberry.

CSHKB thinking is responsible for a whole host of quality problems in a range of industries. The airline industry has been beset with huge losses during the last decade. However, in my quiz when I said that I expected my luggage to arrive at my destination at the same time I did regardless of the price of the ticket, one reader told me that for the price ($198), I was lucky that my luggage didn’t end up in Kazakhstan. Talk about low expectations! I hope this guy isn’t responsible for any bridges that I’ll be driving over anytime soon. It’s this kind of thinking that has driven nearly every major airline into bankruptcy in the last 10 years. It may be cliché to mention Southwest Airlines, but it somehow manages to get people to their destinations—with their luggage—for pretty low prices. They understand their customers’ requirements and meet or exceed them. They also manage to consistently make a profit.

The issues I presented in my quiz aren’t so much conformance-to-requirements problems as they are a total disregard for the customer. An organization that cares about its customers (and therefore its own survival) takes the time to determine what the customers’ requirements are and then makes sure they are met, every time. It doesn’t matter if the organization is producing $1 toy guns or $45,000 SUVs.

One reader says I am naïve to expect much from a $1 toy gun. Let’s examine that more closely. I was dissatisfied with the toy because it broke within a few days of purchasing it. The failure was not as a result of my son being too rough with the toy. The trigger simply fell off. Because I was dissatisfied, I won’t buy one of those toys again. I imagine that most people who experience the same problem won’t buy the toy again. If enough people have the problem, the toy manufacturer goes out of business. The same is true with automobiles. If enough people have enough problems with the cars they buy, the automaker will be in trouble.

In most cases determining customers’ requirements is simply a matter of asking them. Countless books, articles and seminars exist to show you how. In other cases, requirements can be gleaned from research or other data.

Sometimes quality professionals focus so much on customer specifications that they forget customer requirements, in all their forms. Crosby’s definition of quality as conformance to requirements goes beyond stated customer requirements or specifications; it applies to the implied or unstated requirements as well.

When I purchase a plane ticket, I don’t send my requirements to the airline. I assume that part of the deal will be that my luggage will arrive at my destination the same time that I do. As a consumer, I also understand that different vendors will provide me with different service levels. For example, when I buy a ticket on American Airlines, I understand that I will have an assigned seat and will have a decent shot at upgrading because of my frequent flier status. When I choose to travel on Southwest Airlines, I understand that I need to check in online as early as possible and get to the airport early to avoid getting stuck in a middle seat. But in either case, I expect both airlines to depart on time and get me and my luggage safely to my destination.

CSHKB thinking is deadly to business. It’s the organization’s responsibility to determine its customers’ requirements in all their forms.

12 Comments:

At 4:05 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I disagree with your conclusion, although it is a good "ideal approach". The problem is that often the marginal profit made on products often prohibits anything beyond meeting the customers specifications. For example, I work in a metal manufacturing facility which often fabricates items for nuclear facilities. We primarily fabricate one-of-a-kind, custom products. As a fabricator, we have little to no knowledge of the end use of the product - all we have is the specification. We can and do offer feedback to our clients based on potential fabricability issues. But there is no way we can know the unstated requirements and/or assumptions built into the design. In our case, the customer should have known better, if what we fabricate doesn't work, based on their specification!

 
At 6:06 AM , Blogger Aimee Siegler said...

I just ran into an issue with expectations and actually found myself speechless with frustration. My first non-retail job once I graduated from college with a liberal arts degree was with Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation, a guarantor and servicer of student loans. I was a Borrower Contact Specialist, which means I took incoming calls with questions, and made outgoing calls on deliquent loans. This meant being polite to people who asked the question "How long is my six month grace period?".

We had a strong focus on customer satisfaction and making sure the customer understand what they needed to in order to successfully pay off their loans. A lot went into both initial training and ongoing training, both on the regulations and on customer service, to ensure that each of us had the tools we needed to provide great service to each person we spoke with.

I recently went back to school for a third round and applied for a new consolidation loan through the Government's Direct Loan program. I must say that if I had know the type of customer service I would receive from this organization, I would not have touched it with a ten foot pole.

When I filled out my application, I indicated that I did not want my previous consolidation loan included. When I got my summary statement it was there, so I called and requested that it be removed, and asked them to include a loan that they missed, that I had included in my original consolidation request. Two months later, I received another statement, and found that this had not been done. When I called back, I finally gave up on them including the other loan, but again asked them to fix the other loan. Finally, I asked that a supervisor send me a letter explaining why my request had not been completed the first time, even though I was assured that it had been.

The supervisor told me that she could ask the first person why she didn't do what she said that she was going to, but there was no letter she could send me. In other words, if it wasn't a form letter, it did not exist. Ultimately, I couldn't think of anything else to say to her that was nice, and told her so, told her I was looking forward to receiving the updated statement and hung up.

Should I have known better? No, I don't think so in this situation. To expect consistently good service across the board in a service industry? Shouldn't that be the standard? Needless to say, I would recommend that anyone with a choice avoid the Direct Loan program for a consolidation.

On the other hand, I do agree with Kevin on custom products. As a Material Quality Engineer, I work with customers to help them understand that they must document what is critical on prints, but also select tolerances that are manufacturable, so that our suppliers have a fighting chance of making parts that are to print. It is the customer's responsibility to make the design work; it is the supplier's responsibility to make the parts to print. Given the availability of CAD packages that will do the tolerance stack analysis, poor engineering work is not a good excuse anymore.

Sorry for venting - I just got off the phone with the student loan people.

 
At 9:21 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

As with the first post on this subject, I've posted a response here

 
At 6:16 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

You need to make a distinction between contract manufacturers and companies that sell directly to the consumers. Contract manufacturers are often far down the chain from the end user and the only way to define quality is, "conformance to stated requirements."

 
At 8:11 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Kevin Hooper, and Joel, with respect to contractors.

What's even worse, is if the reason a "requirement" is unstated is because it is actually "unknown" to the customer! This can easily happen when switching from a long-time vendor (who always supplied satisfactory material or service), in search of a lower-cost one. What may be SOP for the long-time vendor may be uniquely appropriate for the customer; if the customer is not aware of this situation, then it will eventually learn about the consequences.

VSHKB: Does the customer really bear NO responsibility, because the vendor did not perform an sufficient interrogation of the customer's UNstated "requirements"?

 
At 11:42 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm going to side with with Scott. There are definitely some organizations with poor service reputations, that the Customer really Should Have Known Better. But on the whole, I think every customer expects that they will receive delivered value greater than, or equal to, the cost paid (costs include financial + emotional).

Remember that old adage, "The customer's always right, even when they are wrong?" Hmmm. That's a tough one isn't it? Obviously the customer isn't always right, but here is an absolute truth (and you have heard this one before too): "The customer's perception is the customer's reality".

Bottom line - if the customer doesn't get what he really wants - we stand to lose the business, suffer negative word-of-mouth, or both.

If we want to excel in creating customer loyalty and providing an exceptional customer experience, we need to make more effort to learn customer requirements.

This is an imperfect science / art because we are talking about perceptions (hard to quantify); customer doesn't always know requirements; or, they can't articulate requirements. We can't let these obstacles get in our way. We have to go beyond specs, especially with our core customers (those that grant our license to live) if we want to cultivate loyal customers - or better - Raving Fans!

 
At 2:38 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeff Israel said, "...I think every customer expects that they will receive delivered value greater than, or equal to, the cost paid..."

In a former life, I worked in retail for 20 years. Because of my experiences there (and attending seminars such as those given by the late Peter Glen), I came to the conclusion that there is, indeed, such a thing as a "Pyrrhic" customer. It's not that they are demanding (there is no excuse for rude or BAD service), it's that they are unreasonably demanding; keeping enough customers like that can put you out of business. The CSHKB if he expects that the same level of service from a from a Wal-Mart clerk as from an obsequious Nordstrom-commissed-salesperson.

Scott, do you want to re-consider your "It doesn’t matter if the organization is producing $1 toy guns or $45,000 SUVs" position?

 
At 1:12 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Curmudgeon Quiz was interesting enough, but should have focused on two important issues.
1. The real definition of “quality” is “that which meets, or exceeds, the expectations of the customer.” Forget Crosby’s definition. Conformance to requirements is meaningless as the requirements can be wrong and customer’s requirements can vary. Your last statement in the second paragraph essentially confirms this.
2. You fail to address the “value proposition” in most of these scenarios.
a. The $1 water gun apparently met the expectation of the user. The son is entertained and it only cost you a buck. Mission accomplished!
b. For most people, the SUV is a very different value proposition and impacts the quality expectations. It’s a vehicle and costs $45K. Quality expectations are much higher and defects have ramifications that are more significant.
c. For the $20K Camry, the dealer repaired the scratch and it has no effect on you. Processes aren’t perfect and accidents happen. No point in being idealistic about the situation. Maybe you caused the small scratch on the hood unknowingly when you bent over to look at the windshield wipers.
In summary, for all of your various scenarios, if values and expectations are met, you’ve had a quality experience as evidenced by you comments regarding the stay at Motel 6.

In effect, the answers to the problems are strictly your answers. Other people may see things differently based on their value assessments and expectations. This again reinforces the importance of knowing the customer’s requirements and, of course, meeting them.

Thanks,

Ray J

 
At 6:58 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I side with Scott and Jeff Israel. The article hit the nail on the head. Two quick stories. In the 1980s, I had the chance to share a cab ride to the airport with Phil Crosby. As a brash unknown in the quality field, I asked Phil how he reconciled his definition of quality as "conformance to specifications" with Joe Juran's definition as "fitness for use". Phil didn't bat an eyelash and came right back with "Of course the specification has to be right!" Nuff said. Second real life story: As a quality systems consultant and auditor, I do contract internal auditing for a large corporation's industrial pump service division. I always review each customer complaint and corrective action on the yearly audit of each service shop. When one showed up that said "No corrective action needed", I asked why. Answer: CSHKB. I asked for more detail. A repaired pump had failed within a week of servicing. Burned up. A field technician dispatched to the scene determined that the customer had failed to add oil to the journal box before starting the pump. the technician's comment in the report: CSHKB. I asked what the customer said. "Oh, he gave us a story that we had told him NOT to add oil. He took the tech to the pump and showed him our cautionary sign." "What did it say", I asked. Answer: "No Oil! See, CSHKB". I suggested that they might have looked at it from the customer's side. Did the sign mean "There is no oil" or "Don't add any oil!!!" The customer obviously interpreted the latter. I suggested they might help their dumb customer become delightfully smart by changing their sign to read "Please add oil before starting." The repair service routinely does not add oil to avoid spillage in shipment, a wise practice. The manager's comment: "Never thought about it that way. Good idea." They changed the sign. Moral: Be sure the customer understands what you think you told him as you go about anticipating his needs !!!

Bob Abbott

 
At 6:29 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert Abbott said:
I asked what the customer said. "Oh, he gave us a story that we had told him NOT to add oil. He took the tech to the pump and showed him our cautionary sign." "What did it say", I asked. Answer: "No Oil! See, CSHKB". I suggested that they might have looked at it from the customer's side. Did the sign mean "There is no oil" or "Don't add any oil!!!" The customer obviously interpreted the latter. I suggested they might help their dumb customer become delightfully smart by changing their sign to read "Please add oil before starting."

This is essentially a story of a stupid customer being serviced by a stupid supplier; something bad was bound to happen. I agree that CSHKB was not a good response, but only because there wasn't necessarily any reason for the customer to know better. There are lots of instances where the customer should indeed know better, however, and has only himself to blame for the messes he finds himself in. Ascribing responsibility to the supplier in such cases is, well, irresponsible. Stupid people will keep doing stupid things so long as they're not held accountable for them.

 
At 12:09 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Wynne comments: "This is essentially a story of a stupid customer being serviced by a stupid supplier; something bad was bound to happen...stupid people will keep doing stupid things so long as they're not held accountable for them."

Reminds me of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "Every day, man is making bigger and better fool-proof things, and every day, nature is making bigger and better fools. So far, I think nature is winning."

Just as the FTC mandates that wristwatch manufacturers cannot claim their watches to be "water proof" (although they may use the term "water resistant"), the best that one can ever hope for is to make something fool-resistant.

 
At 5:26 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Making the assumption that the customer knows everything you know about your product is down right ignorant. Going the extra mile to ensure that your customers understand your product from the experts who use them to the novice who has never seen it before, is what customer service is all about. Don’t expect people to read your mind or know you processes. Effective communication is the key and without it we continue to slide backwards. Look out China here we come.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home