In an earlier entry, I discussed a thesis that metrics must encourage desirable behaviors. While attending undergraduate engineering school, I worked in a call center that handled credit card replacement for lost, stolen or worn out cards. A foundational metric was that all calls would be answered within three minutes of entering the queue, with abandoned calls (hang-ups and disconnects) not included in reporting. Supervisors understood exactly how to assure all calls were answered within three minutes; answering calls was halted and the entire queue “re-booted” at or before 2 minutes 59 seconds, disconnecting every customer and assuring the metric met. Obviously, and undesirable behavior.
Guidance at all levels of service management must also lead to positive, appropriate results. Policies that are too rigid, or perceived by customers as inappropriate to or misapplied to their unique situation will create adverse impacts. Many retail outlets impose strict time limitations on returns of technology related items; fifteen days or less. Customers that purchase technology items, including cell phones, cameras, printers and fax machines want the output or outcome of the item, communications, photos, printed reports or the ability to receive documents; the features of the product are of no value if the core functionality does not work.
A manager that insists that a defective camera, for example, be repaired by the manufacturer within days following the end of a policy dictated return period is not providing effective customer service to a customer that wants to take photos of a special event and will be unable to do so if the camera is being repaired when the event occurs (and not in the customer’s possession). While the manager may believe they are serving the best interest of their company, they will sour the relationship with the customer over the long run. It is also unlikely the intent of the policy was achieved.
That very intent, the purpose of the policy, the metric, the guideline or the practice must be understood and communicated. Management did not want phone calls disconnected, nor do they want dissatisfied customers; they wanted phone calls answered rapidly and to curtail abuse of a return policy, respectively. There are uncountable case studies where the results of well-meaning, sensible mandates have harmed or destroyed businesses; including bonus programs based upon reducing costs, which were accomplished when production managers reduced the number of peanuts, raisins, marshmallows and quantities of other expensive ingredients in the manufacture of food products.
If implemented improperly, any rule can have unwanted outcomes and in effect, back-fire rather than fostering productive and profitable business practices. Line-manager must be informed of purpose, intent and desired results, and leaders must monitor impacts. Otherwise customers may become dissatisfied and seek alternate suppliers or substitutes.
