Most organizations are designed from the top down: determining the management structure first, typically using traditional silo roles; divvying up among silos responsibility for classes of activities next; then letting silos determine specific activities (processes). Things have worked this way seemingly forever.

Today, however, competitive pressures are driving more and more companies towards more customer-centered business models. And the most successful approach to implementing the change from “inside-out” (company-centric) to “outside-in” (customer-centric) has been redesigning processes around customer needs and preferences. Sounds innocuous from an O.D. standpoint, except outside-in process redesign relies on determining who best should do what activities from the customer perspective, which usually clashes with current-state organizational structures and responsibilities. Plus, implementing outside-in process requires heavy and unaccustomed collaboration among functions – and potentially placing an enterprise-wide customer advocate above the silo tops. Two more conflict points.

These clashes are only starting to occur, but will grow in number and intensity as pressures to conduct business “the customer’s way” mount. Do you think your organization, for example, or your clients’, are willing to reorganize to better support customer-driven process? Or are we about to see “irresistible force meets immovable object?”

Based both on a macro view of today’s markets plus lots of ground-level observations, I’d estimate 95% of companies say they put customer interests first; 10% understand what that means; and perhaps 3% actually do so. With potential competitive gain in migrating from company interests first (inside-out) to customer interests first (Outside-In) dangling like a carrot in front of business, why is there so little movement?

Putting it plainly, migrating from I-O to O-I is much harder than it looks. It’s change. Lots of change. And to answer the title question, disruptive change, especially at the organizational level. Yes, line employees do struggle with having to learn new skills or working with different people in different roles. But when making the I-O to O-I migration, resistance at this level usually pales in comparison with the fights going on overhead―struggles to protect silos, gain new turf, rule over the largest number of employees and even have the largest office (or largest sunroof on the company car).  

So we have irresistible force (customers) versus immovable object (corporate silos). And buyers are at worst in a punishing mood, or at best quick to leave when seller operations start going south. Just ask GM, Ford, Chrysler, the ghosts of Circuit City & CompUSA, Sprint, Nortel, Bearingpoint, etc.―all of which lost ground or went under because they ignored customer needs and preferences, not because of the recession.

Does anyone see any give on the corporate side? Or will fear of change and change avoidance create lots more casualties?

Giving customers what they want the way they want it often does them no favors. In particular, providing customers immediate gratification often comes at a cost to actual value delivered.  Customer empowerment complicates this issue. Not that I would ever say a bad word about customers (or clients), but they can be incredibly short-sighted at their own expense. Nonetheless, they’re really feeling their oats, and many take an “our way or the highway” stance.

Should we strike a balance between placating/satisfying and delivery maximum value―or go all one way or the other?

The latest McKinsey Quarterly reports new data that should upset those designing organizations and managing operations in O/S (office/service) settings. While manufacturing managed to reduce its expense-to-sales ratio by 2.7% over the past year, despite 90& 0f cost-cutting initiatives failing to last beyond 3 years, the SG&A (sales, general % administration – which is basically front and back offices) remained flat.  And these outcomes defy reason, because office “bloat” is virtually endemic to business and is rarely addressed, while most manufacturing operations had already been streamlined to some degree by year 2000, the starting line for data aggregating.

A quick and spurious retort might be, “Hey, we’re just taking better care of customers.” Wrong. When redesigning office organizations and process Outside-In (starting with customer needs), we routinely find clients can – and should – reduce overall office FTE count by 20%, and often more. All these extra people are standing in the way of delivering what customers want most, second only to quality products backed by quality service – dealing with well-trained, empowered employees. Also, the more hands touching work without adding value the greater the number of “fumbles.”

But those are just the facts (and the McKinsey data is corroborated by heaps of empirical evidence). Whose responsibility is it to streamline O/S workplaces? And considering at least some efforts are underway, why aren’t they improving the overall numbers, which empirical evidence also supports?

Lior Arussy from the Customer Experience side of business just relayed an interesting observation in a Customer Experience Group (Linkedin) post―that executives frequently claim only new organizations can go customer-centric because you can’t change the DNA of more mature companies. He was asking for contrary examples, and I fed him a bunch (Best Buy, UPS, USAA, most upscale hospitality chains). And I actually forgot among the toughest environments for migrating to customer-centricity―retail car dealers―where multiple regional networks have now successfully crossed the threshold from inside-out to Outside-In.

 But Lior’s question started me thinking about commonalities among companies adopting O-I versus starting that way. And after cogitating more than a bit on this question, including revisiting many years’ worth of clients―some who crossed the threshold, others that got part-way before flinching, I believe I did find the “secret sauce:”

The recipe is: one part steely-eyed recognition that customers now hold the upper hand in buyer-seller relationships; one part shrewd assessment of how to take advantage of this customer empowerment; and one part dispassionate willingness to redesign their organizations from top to bottom―and from the customer in―regardless of where the bodies fall (or fly). And BTW, not one ounce of goody-two-shoes empathy for customers. O-I is a cold, calculated business choice for companies that successfully migrate from inside-out to Outside-In.

Companies that try to go O-I because “it’s the right thing to do” don’t get far. While leaders are empathizing with customers, they’re also empathizing with employees and dithering over decisions about which people and what silos have to be moved around, aside or out to make way for a customer-in designed organization―which needs fewer employees, supervisors, managers and executives than an inside-out company, not to mention greatly shrunk silo walls.  

Other views?

Companies that achieve a significant measure of Outside-In, customer-centricity are at constant risk of “organizational memory” snapping them back or pulling them back to bad-old company-centric operations. And it’s not just internal organizational memory, but new management only familiar with inside-out settings pulling their function or new companies back inside their individual comfort zone. We just saw that happen with Continental Airline and their new CEO. 

Best Buy is another example. After all their efforts to become customer-centric, they’ve now set draconian (to customers) customer service policies that reek of inside-out. The combination of these “customers-last” policies―plus the Geek Squad, which is becoming a parody of itself―has the potential to eventually unravel all the company’s good O-I work, and if service isn’t turned around it might not take long.

When business conditions and contexts change in ways that require significant professional adaptation, most managers go in one of two directions, with a small minority taking a third path:

1.  DISPUTE:  They acknowledge change but claim their training & skill sets are immutable. What worked before will work in the future (with enhancements). We’re already there” is a common line of defense.
2. DENY:  They ignore change, believing their environment is immutable. “Process works by a fundamental set of rules and always will” is a catch phrase.
3. ACCEPT:  In early stages of change, a minority comprehend that neither their skill sets nor their work environments are immutable, and they can’t be married to anything but success.

 Why is this question relevant? Fundamental economic changes, demographic changes, technology advancements and globalization together have radically changed our business environment―with buyers big winners and sellers both short- and long-term losers. Consequently, business is fast losing its ability to act independently of customers, and customers are more and more proactive in demanding business be done “their way.”

Process: 

 Process, which creates perhaps 80% of customer experience, must respond. Not by being nice to customers. Not by trying to give them most of what they’re asking for. But more fundamentally by letting customers drive the “what,” “who,” and “how” of process design, just as they’re already starting to drive business strategies. Outside-In Process is the first significant process response to change. Others may come along. But regardless of where process people go, they need to go “somewhere else,” and soon.

Marketing:

The new emphasis on customer experience discounts the importance of  creativity, promotional communication (including promotional branding), customer analytics (including databases) and lots of other traditional marketing stuff. Hence, lots of marketrs will have to leave their comfort zones before their comfort zones leave them. Outside-In overall, which fuses customer-centric planning with process design, is one escape route. There may be others. But marketers too need to act fast to avoid being very dis-comforted.

Which path will you take? 

Will you dispute? Deny? Or adapt?

 I’ll be uncharacteristically direct expressing my opinion.

Here’s an example of why you can’t. A new financial services client had invested lots of effort improving process one function at a time. But the whole place was running out of sync with high defect quotients they wanted us to fix…one function at a time. So we had to explain to them “one function at a time” was actually causing the problems. Here’s the gist of what we said.

O/S flows are highly interdependent. Change one and you readily create unintended consequences affecting downstream flows – plus often you can’t change what needs changing without going upstream. Manufacturing process does experience some of the same issues, but nowhere nearly as many as in the O/S.

They got that part, so we went to work. However, despite our pleadings to not “fix” anything until we’d redesigned the entire flow structure, after every meeting they insisted on going out and “taking care of” issues we’d just unearthed in cross-functional team meetings. When we’d finished and prepared our comprehensive recommendation, complete with comprehensive change management approach, the devil in me made me ask our sponsor, “How many of those ‘quick fixes’ you folks made right after meetings stuck?” She admitted, “Less than half.”

Tons of wasted time and effort, not to mention pointless burning of “change capital,” resulting from their irrepressible impatience.

Do you agree?

Please, no comments like “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.” That’s bunk. Always has been. Always will be. And to support my harsh stance on this ridiculous statement, I’ll cite none other than Albert Einstein, who kept a sign on his Princeton office wall saying:

“Not everything that matters can be measured. But not everything that can be measured matters.”

In many cases, trying to measure growth in share of customer stemming from improved customer experience triggered by introduction of Outside-In process quickly becomes a fool’s errand. We can get halfway there by measuring improvement in customer experience (although doing so requires a very high level of research expertise, beyond simple NPS scores). But even these measures are subject to influence from contextual changes. And freeing changes in share of wallet from contextual changes defies research. Hell, we can rarely measure the thickness of the wallet, so how do we calculate the share?

So what are the alternatives to direct measurement? Or does anyone want to argue with Einstein?

Based on our experience, the most effective way in most situations is establishing intuitive “cause & effect” relationships where certain actions well-performed will enhance customer experience in ways that should broaden relationships – or directly trigger additional business from customers, as should be the case for new products/services. While research can’t statistically measure the effects in most cases, they can validate the connections using Kano studies (not VOC, C-Sat or especially not NPS).

Not precise enough for you? Then you don’t belong measuring anything to do with people, customers included.

So what should O-I implementers do instead?

We’re all schooled to think of culture as something instituted top-down – just as we’re schooled to think that our inner psyche drives our behavior. But some psychologists are now using a “what if behavior” model that doesn’t start with the psyche, but first changes behavior as a means of rewiring the brain. And the approach is considered mainstream rather than exotic or experimental. So what about changing work behavior in order to back-feed new values into business culture? 

Although we’ve only realized the implications of what we’ve been doing for many years over the past several, we’ve experienced instance after instance where instituting customer-centric work behaviors at primary and secondary points of contact changes culture far faster than using the top down approach. 

Of course, C-level management first has to make and back a business decision to migrate from inside-out to Outside-In, but good intent, great leadership, all that don’t get companies to Outside-In unless without redesigning work early in the transition and letting the cultural impact percolate up.

 Have you had similar experiences?