I have a theory that most processes, services and ‘customer journeys’ have been defined with virtually zero input from actual users and customers. This becomes immediately obvious when you actually are a customer of just about any large corporation. Things jump out that make precisely zero sense, and often these are things that would have been flagged up if there’d been any form of actual customer or user testing. Typically, these are things which would have been fixed long ago if they had any mechanism to even hear and respond to customer feedback.
One of the challenges that exists is that people within businesses are not usually typical customers. An underwriter in an insurance company is nothing like a typical customer. They have all sorts of knowledge and insight that a typical customer doesn’t. A compliance manager at a bank is nothing like a typical customer who is trying to read the 10,000 words of text that went through 27 rounds of sign off, getting longer and longer each time (and yes, yes, I know some people’s perspective is that ‘regulation means we have to have it that way’.)
Also, as uncomfortable as it is: you or I are likely nothing like most of the customers or service users of whatever product or service your organisation offers. We might be like some of them, but we probably know more industry lingo and ‘insider information’ than the majority of them. And it’s hard to shake that knowledge off.
The Danger of Precision
As anyone who has worked with me knows, I’m a stickler for precision. Communication can be crisp, clear and concise when it’s precise. Yet, to be effective, precision requires a shared repertoire of knowledge.
Take this real screenshot from a real chat system offered by a UK-based telecoms company. Reflect on the fact that this probably went through several rounds of sign off. It presumably went through several rounds of system and ‘user’ testing. Someone deliberately put this into production.
So, presumably, multiple people thought “Which MSISDN would you like to chat about?” was a sensible thing to ask.
Now, for the uninitiated, the Internet informs me that MSISDN stands for Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number. And presumably, this telecoms company genuinely thinks that’s what its customers (or “subscribers”) refer to their phone number as.
Imagine the scene. A crowded train station, there are delays. Two people strike up a conversation, there’s a real connection. The trains start to run again, they have to part ways. Yet there’s a weird sense of mourning. There was such a connection. Before departing, one plucks up the courage, runs back and says to the other:
“Hey, I’ve really loved this conversation. Would you like to go out for coffee sometime? Here’s my Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Number. Why not send me a Short Messaging Service (SMS) message and we’ll set a time”
Yeah, pretty sure it doesn’t happen that way. Pretty sure ‘phone number’ is what most people would say. (Well, they’d probably actually share their social media account of choice. But I digress.)
Precision without Knowledge is Chaos
Here’s the thing: MSISDN probably is the correct term for what us lay-people refer to as ‘phone number’. Yet, insiders might say that ‘phone number’ is somewhat imprecise. For a start, the number doesn’t actually belong to the phone, it belongs to the subscriber. Plus there are other ‘numbers’ that actually do belong to the phone: the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) for example, plus there’s probably a serial number etc.
So, perhaps (and I stress I’m guessing here), internally using the term ‘phone number’ is not useful as it’s ambiguous. And because there’s a shared repertoire of knowledge, it’s fine to use terms like MSISDN within the organisation.
But when that ‘precision’ bleeds out into customer-facing systems, services and journeys, it causes chaos. Or, at the very least, it causes confusion and failure demand. (I wonder how many people misinterpret that question, or just choose another communication channel instead).
It’s Not (Usually) About “Educating the Customer”
Another pattern I see is when organisations expect their customers to understand their internal lingo. “We need to educate our customers”.
I’m sorry—what? Just say that out loud once more for me: you want to educate your customers.
Now maybe I’m leaning into my Elton John-esque diva persona a little too hard, but as a customer I want to feel empathised with, not educated. “Oh, we’re not the blood clinic, we’re the phlebotemy clinic sir. Clearly I need to educate you. Phlebotomy, with a P. Shall I write it down for you so you don’t get it wrong next time”. Clearly no empathetic clinician or administrator would ever say that.
OK, OK, there are times when providing customers with appropriate information to help them make a decision is right and proper. And there will be times when certain terms have to be used for very good regulatory or governance reasons. But where possible, meeting them where they are will be better.
Conclusion: Build for Variety, Embrace Customer Insight
So, how do we avoid stuff like this happening? Unsurprisingly, it’s about injecting the voice of the customer (along with other key stakeholders) throughout discovery, definition and design. It’s about building feedback mechanisms into processes, journeys and services. The irony is that often customers tell companies a lot where they are getting it wrong, but the people undertaking customer services roles are given little autonomy to change or challenge things.
Building opportunities to absorb feedback, consider it and action it is key. After all, if an organisation can’t adapt, it’ll likely go the way of the dinosaurs.
Acknowledgements:
This article has been inspired by reading many works of others, including Nick de Voil’s work on Group Construct Analysis (GCA), Sarah McGuiness’s article on personas. See the BA Digest archives for those articles. This also draws tangentially on random conversations over the years with Ron Ross, whose work you should definitely check out, and many more besides.
What are your views? Please add a comment below, and let’s keep the conversation flowing!
If you’ve enjoyed this article don’t forget to follow me on LinkedIn and check out BA Digest, the quarterly BA magazine.
About the author:
Adrian Reed is Principal Consultant at Blackmetric Business Solutions, an organisation that offers Business Analysis consulting and training solutions. Adrian is a keen advocate of the analysis profession, and is constantly looking for ways of promoting the value that good analysis can bring.
To find out more about the training and consulting services offered at Blackmetric, please visit www.blackmetric.com
© Blackmetric Business Solutions, published exclusively on www.adrianreed.co.uk. May not be republished on any other site without permission.