How To Head Off Dead-On-Arrival Software Implementations
Two types of people stand in the way of oncoming trains: the totally insane and software implementers. The primary difference between them is that the first group has an excuse.
The very fact that software implementers have been making the same error leading to the same deadly outcomes over and over again for decades now speaks to something, and I believe I’ve finally figured out what. Software implementers have an overwhelming aversion to defining workflow/information flow and individual work process in sufficient specificity to determine what the software actually should do—so they flat out refuse to go there. And as a result, they don’t know what the software should do before they implement—and they thereby default to attempting to run the application either “as-is,” with limited configuration or with misaligned configuration. Both cases are described by a three-letter acronym: DOA. The software arrives out of alignment with business process, and all hell breaks loose, typically in user acceptance training.
Before trying to identify the source of the aversion, let’s first define “sufficient specificity.” Process definition occurs at two levels. The higher level is workflow that connects employee with employee; function with function; company with customer; and company with supplier. Workflow includes information flow, because the two are joined at the hip everywhere except in manufacturing. The second and lower level is individual work process that describes how individuals do their own work. Individual work process is a dependent variable driven by workflow and should never be reengineered before workflow redesign.
Within the context of a software implementation, workflow redesign has to encompass every movement of work and information involving the new software, including source and destination flows. Further, workflow definitions should n-e-v-e-r represent the “as-is state.” If that happens, you’ll either minimize the value of the new system—or, worse yet, damage your company by doing the wrong stuff faster.
Individual work process design should follow the “to-be” workflow and drill all the way down to the user keystroke level to capture not only the data needs but navigation needs as well. Just don’t make the mistake of dissecting your as-is individual work process, because changing workflow requires reengineering work process – and why spend gads of time dissecting something that’s about to go away.
Okay, so why won’t most companies and individuals responsible for software implementations take these steps before deploying new software that immediately disrupts the business and takes a year or two to straighten out—if it ever can be straightened out? At first blush I can offer a host of reasons: lack of internal process skills; trying to apply Lean or six sigma to develop technology requirements; IT trying to define business process instead of business-side people doing the work; silo management interfering with process redesign; no budget; no one with time to execute process design; and “no time.” Of course, fixing things later takes exponentially more time and expense than doing things right, but I suppose that having new software arrive DOA is one way to get time and budget for process work, although the process design phase has almost surely been fatally compromised by putting technology ahead of process.
These are all contributors, but I suspect not the main driver. Over time, I’ve come to believe that most train wrecks that pass for software implementations stem from one, simple fact—we’ve made redesigning business process too damn hard. And indeed, if you don’t know how to streamline and automate the process of designing process, it becomes ugly quickly.
For example, we’ve just witnessed a company courageously attempt to redesign their enormously complex process for global service delivery before implementing SAP. Why “courageously?” Because without understanding how to streamline and automate the process design process, they did all their work slowly and manually—stretching an initiative they could have accomplished expeditiously in two months into a year’s work, and countless extra resource hours. And they still couldn’t get past identifying individual work processes by name and on to actually engineering them step-by-step, task-by-task—the level that provides the majority of application software requirements.
I had an epiphany over this. Seeing what it took to accomplish process design across this company by brute force hit me like a blinding flash of the obvious. Very few people or companies have the will power and resources to subject themselves to an exercise like this. But since skipping business process design shouldn’t even be on the table as an option, the only rational alternative is to learn how to streamline and automate process design.
Interested in learning how? If so, download a free Visual Workflow white paper from our site. Using the VW framework will save you untold hours and effort—and most importantly, could save your new software implementation.
What Messages Are Your Employees Unconsciously Telegraphing To Customers?
Too bad most employers believe their directions to employees regarding how to treat customers stay within the company. They don’t. In fact employees telegraph their feelings about the company they work for in myriad ways. Unfortunately, many of us look past these signs that would give us valuable insight into companies—and give us valuable guidance as to where we can expect a positive experience, and where we can’t.
Consider these employee behaviors and what they telegraph.
Bad signs: If you want to experience negative messages sent by employees to customers, visit Circuit City (I wish you could still visit CompUSA, which was worse), or Macy’s, or almost any first-tier bank, or Home Depot, or Hertz, or fly Northwest Airlines. But rather than just getting irritated, think about the bad vibes you’re receiving from employees and how they predict your likely experience. Then ask yourself if you really want to do business with these outfits and so many others where you pick up on employees’ negative energy.
Disinterest: When employers underpay employees, or ask them to work unpaid overtime or on breaks, employees respond with listlessness and reluctance to do anything “extra” for a customer. Wal-Mart has been a classic example for years (although the company has taken initial steps towards cleaning up its act). Macy’s is another. I’ve actually had a sales associate say she couldn’t help me because “no one’s covering that department today.” Do you want to give these companies your business? Not if you buy Fair Trade coffee, you don’t.
Sales pressure: Many people believe that sales people are naturally pushy. In fact, much of this behavior is generated either by: compensation plans over-weighted towards commission (and without sufficient fixed compensation); or by “produce or perish” management pressure, including unrealistic sales goals. Retarded companies still believe commission-heavy compensation plans and creating employee insecurity generate more sales. But they’re a customer turn-off and relatively easy to spot, Car dealers have long been the classic example of employers that overemphasize variable compensation (although a minority, including mine, has now become wonderfully service oriented). But go shop for a major appliance and you’ll likely see the same behavior. Recently I was out shopping for new kitchen appliances at several large regional stores. The minute I mentioned I was still selecting and not yet ready to buy, salespeople would mysteriously melt away. So we bought at a smaller store where we received excellent pre-sale attention—and we could trust the recommendations.
Won’t follow you to the accessories rack: Sales people who attend to you if you’re looking at high-priced items but leave you to your own devices if you need low-cost accessories is another tip-off to excessive pressure to achieve sales volume. Employees at most department stores, consumer electronics stores and furniture stores exhibit this “me first,” rather than customer-first, behavior. How well I remember foolishly trying to buy network cables about which I had several questions at CompUSA. I wound up down the block at Best Buy, having learned my lesson for the umpteenth time.
Cross-selling before determining need: Sales and service people trying to sell you a new product category without knowing whether it fits usually points to customer-unfriendly sales contests and spiffs. It can also be another indicator of putting sales goals ahead of customer satisfaction. Wells Fargo pressures employees to cross-sell, and it shows. Our former “private banker” was impossible to find unless we were ready to give her more business. We gave Wells Fargo the heave-ho instead. Why buy products from sellers that will sell you anything?
Selling inappropriate product: Some sellers who know what you need and want deliberately sell you the wrong stuff anyway. These deceptive practices are an almost sure tip-off that the company as a whole is unethical. Ameriprise did this to us, and we rewarded them by pulling our retirement account and all our insurance. Prudential Insurance’s annuity sales people were caught selling inappropriate annuities to seniors and paid a gazillion dollars in fines. Allianz is now under investigation for pulling the same stunt. Do you really want to do business with companies you can’t trust?
Employee hostility: Hard to believe in today’s day and age, but many companies take the position that customers are trying to screw them and impart that to employees. Hertz is my un-favorite example. Also, labor problems often lead to hostility towards customers. No company and its employees portray this better than Northwest Airlines. I was in first cabin on a Northwest flight a while back when a flight attendant started harassing a couple for being too short to stow their bags overhead. She kept hounding them to “get it up there” so they could clear the aisle until a nearby passenger helped them. But when we landed, the attendant didn’t get to her jump seat fast enough and crashed into the bulkhead. The passengers laughed and gave her a round of applause. Why subject yourself to this type behavior unless you have to, as is the case with Minneapolis-based fliers who lack options.
Good signs:
Fortunately, lots of companies are realizing that how they treat their employees affects their bottom line. And not to sound Pollyannaish or unsophisticated, well-treated, happy employees usually lead to well-treated, happy and loyal customers. While many of the “good signs” are the converse of the bad ones, here are several more ways to read employees to spot a company that cares about you.
Bending the rules (or at least broadening them): My son is death on cell phones. They don’t live through half the contract. But a helpful Verizon rep encouraged me to consolidate all our phones on one plan, and between my broadband and PDA, etc., collectively we have a few. We did save a bit of money. But more importantly, that means we have contracts expiring more often. This last time my son sent his phone through the washing machine, we replaced it cheap because my broadband contract was fulfilled, and I was eligible for a new phone at the discounted rate. For this type assistance, I absolutely don’t shop monthly rates. All Verizon need do is be reasonably competitive.
Creative thinking: In an article running this month on CustomerThink, I described chapter and verse how a Continental Airlines flight attendant thought outside the box to get me home in one piece. I’ve been a loyal Continental customer since, not only for that deed but because Continental employees are as positively motivated as Northwest’s aren’t.
Warning good customers off bad product: My favorite wine-seller has a neat routine. I’ll arrive at the counter with a basket full of stuff and organize it on the counter for ease of check-out. Occasionally, without saying a word he’ll pick up a set of bottles and walk back and re-shelf them. Then he’ll come back, smile, and ask me, “What were you really after?” Do I want to shop there? You betcha.
Trust your instincts. Trust what you “read” from employees. It’s typically the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Especially when the behaviors are repeated.
Getting Through Layoffs Without Losing Customers
Layoffs and bad economies usually go hand in hand. Fortunately, we’ve been light on the layoffs so far, considering how badly our economy has tanked (although there’s no “fortunately” for employees already let go). But the likelihood of major employment cuts occurring continues rising, and some companies should start planning now how to minimize impact on customers should cuts come.
Time was when layoffs affected manufacturing workers first, followed by some pruning of “office” positions, if necessary. But with less than 10% of U.S. employees remaining in manufacturing jobs, the order has reversed. Office positions—including all customer contact and customer impact roles—have become the primary target. And to make matters worse, most companies use the “meat ax” approach to layoffs, meeting a set number or percentage employees to go regardless of impact on customers, thereby putting customer relationships at risk.
Frankly, given C-level executive mindsets, attempts to prevent layoffs in customer-sensitive positions usually go nowhere. However, by thinking ahead and working ahead most down-sizing companies can reduce or even eliminate negative effects on customers. And as counter-intuitive as this seems, some companies can strengthen customer relationships while cutting staff.
What’s the secret? There is no secret, other than having the smarts to reduce the amount of work required in order to reduce the number of people required. In other words, if companies eliminate all the kinks, bends, duplication and drops in office process before they cut staff, they can mitigate or even eliminate the risk to customer relationships.
When we apply our Visual Workflow office process analysis and design tool, we typically find somewhere in the range of 10% overstaffing, and we’ve seen instances where overstaffing tops 20%. But this over-staffing is invisible to companies, because, these excess employees are hardly standing around. They’re working as hard as everyone else. Deficient processes require more people doing more work, while effective office process design reduces the amount of work required, thereby reducing the number of workers required. It’s that simple.
In contrast, when companies break out the meat ax to sever employee relationships, they don’t consider cutting the amount of work, and workers, required. They just assume staffing exceeds workload. Or they decide remaining employees will just have to work harder. And they naively believe everything will sort itself out. But that rarely happens. Instead, when employees go away without work going away, work performance suffers. And when the work is customer work, customer relationships take a hit. Consequently, very often customers closely follow employees out the exit door.
So here’s a question for you. “Why do the vast majority of companies use the meat ax approach rather than the process approach?” In the new book I’m writing, “Process to the People,” I’ve dedicated several chapters to explaining the genesis of all this bad decision-making. But suffice it to say now that despite 90% of workers having non-manufacturing jobs, the preponderance of them office jobs, business continues applying 90%+ of their process efforts against the less than 10% of the workforce in manufacturing. The notion that process redesign can permanently shrink the office workforce has never crossed most CEO’s minds—or has crossed their minds only to be crossed off, sometimes for fear of cutting people they know, rather than “just” anonymous manufacturing workers. The only thing keeping their companies from being at a competitive disadvantage despite such deficient decision-making is the scarcity of office process-smart companies.
Back in the beginning, I mentioned opportunities to actually better customer relationships post-layoffs. Two “truths” about office process redesign create this opportunity. First, good process design simplifies work. And simplifying work increases work-quality, reduces errors and speeds up cycle times—all big positives for customers. Second, among the principles of office process redesign is training and empowering employees to make context-sensitive decisions. Doing so usually shrinks or eliminates supervisory levels across a range of functions, the contact center being a good example. Research shows that training and empowering customer-facing employees finishes behind only product/service quality in triggering supplier selection.
Oh, and a quick aside. If you’re good buds with the HR folks, eliminating roles instead of eliminating people mitigates the risk of EEOC actions and legal claims.
All this notwithstanding, layoffs are ugly and hurtful. But by redesigning work to require fewer people before cutting, you’ll mitigate the potential damage to customers and company both. You’ll also take away at least a bit of the sting employees feel when they believe they’ve been targeted personally to leave, rather than their departure stemming from job elimination. And you’ll potentially ease “survivor’s guilt” as well.
Not a happy topic. But something many of us will have to deal with until the economy rebounds.