Member Since: 9th May 2016
Steven Walden is Managing Director (UK and EMEA) for world leading customer experience and culture agency Strativity, now part of Lieberman Research Worldwide. Author of Customer Experience Management rebooted and speaker in CX, he specialises in outside-in approaches (co-creation, voice of customer using unstructured data).
Managing Director (UK and EMEA) Strativity Group, LLC
10th Nov 2020
10th Nov 2020
The biggest problem with Journey Maps is the Map itself.
You start by asking, what is this for? A nice picture that sits on the wall perhaps? If so, forget it.
For me a Journey Map is a design tool and should be seen as such. Hence, one of the biggest problems is the concept of 'a map' itself. Far better to use the approach of a guide.
For instance, in digital transformation, I combine each component of a process map with a screenshot of the experience received (i.e., the visual look and feel). So your process maps says 'click password' above which you can see the view of what that means in terms of experience quality. Overlay that with comments from UX research (UX and CX are the same), and you have a Journey Management Guide. This can then be used for ideation and training. As you can see this visual extension can be applied to earlier and later parts of the journey.
The utility is ideation and redesign, its useful when build teams are considering process maps and training teams need to see where they are in the journey,
No need for over-abstracted nonsense, just use what already is there.
Oh I forgot. No need for quant nonsense that sells software. Sure define key moments through hard data and soft data, but a map should be releasing our own innovation and understanding of 'where we are'.
11th Jun 2020
From my side there are a few challenges:
1. CX is not the same as CSAT, NPS, CES. The return on the experience the customer has is akin to asking the question what is the return on innovation. It depends on what you do and how you do it. So generalised measures are wrong.
2. Linear relationships are incorrect (ref CAS). Sure they may work ok at lower ends not well beyond that: (see my book)
(1) the line itself can move, generating different values - 'what any number means in terms of quality' is not a stable function - an 8 out of 10 can in Aldi can mean something different to an 8 out 10 in waitrose - same number different relationship to value.
(2) emotion theory shows us that emotions are for learning, once learnt things tend to fall to a norm for the good or service in question (ref: Baumeister, Lazarus).
3. Scale psychology. For instance, gifting and gaming comes in to play with scaled data
1st May 2020
Its what you do on the ground with your team that counts. And frequently happiness is not required. But sensitivity to the context is.
1st May 2020
On governance: CX should be part of CI process, not a US based cult designed to sell software and make the C-suite feel good. The desire to get the business to think customer would then be closer to the ground and more engaged with the politics of any business.
Unfortunately, the current, focus on metrics before action is understandable. It means you can game data rather than do something. But I would argue this is highly damaging.
It is politicising CX to the point of worthlessness.
For me, then, the problem is:
CX itself needs to be de-siloed. It should be one strong voice (not one true voice) in your continuous improvement process.
It needs to be better defined: after all to assume the customer is always right is a falsehood. and in of itself CX just means the 'experience the customer has'.
It must stop gaming data by focusing on attitudinal metrics first (as if subjective experience is the same as objective physics) - to do so puts the cart before the horse, a focus on corporate tricks before 'doing something'
So I would argue quite the opposite of you.
CX does need executive support, but it needs to clearly clarify itself to gain that support in the first place, not wrap itself around snakeoil metrics.
1. Clearly define what the function does in a company, its parameters
2. Focus on where it fits in the business language of continuous improvement
3. Deliver budget
4. Engage subject matter expertise - not snakeoil process
6. focus on do as much as predictive analytics
7. Understand what CX is and isn't
9th Apr 2020
For me: the ROI of CX is mostly 'a posteriori' not 'a priori.'
20th Feb 2020
Assist is a good word. AI while no doubt 'of value' in linear bulk data feeds, is not a replicate for subjective understanding. An adjunct yes. highlighting and emphasising where to look yes but no more. I can see that if we take 1000 voice records and churn them through a process to identify hot spots of anger etc.
But we go too far by assuming an AI only focus. Not least because:
'its not the emotion that matters, but its meaning and context'
I suggest you review Cynefin .
Where we need to interpret human 'emotion', we need to ingest and understand subjectivity. Multiple human judgers are best for this.
After all. would you seriously ask a complex court case to be determined by AI? The capability to interpret data, bootstrap yourself into the context of the defendant and apply subjective and objective tests can only be done by a trained legal representative : and note I deliberately use the word complex.
Millions of years of evolution has trained humans to understand the antecedents of emotion.
To be honest, most of 'the AI can measure emotion statement' in my experience is an overhyped sales pitch. And a dangerous one at that.
This way will lead to catastrophic failure, simply because you strip out context.
And why empathetic conversation?
So I am a contact centre rep being tasked to ignore my own capability in favour of a machine algorithm? If so I would warn against this.
In short, AI helps in certain instances: define those instances. Once again we are indeed left with 'context is king'. Thank you for your comments,and I look forward to reading your counter blog.
10th Feb 2020
CX is merely a point of view within a continuous improvement process.
Tie 'customer value creation' to triaged engagement within the firm and you can't fail.
Talk about happy clappy fantasy lands created by snakeoil salesmen then you deserve all you get. IMHO.
10th Dec 2019
No. Underperformance, new opportunities to innovate do not sit well with the above.
We engage with a brand not because it's easy to engage, but because we get value from it. If you ignore the value you ignore the reason for the experience.
A focus on loss aversion gains traction because of systems thinking bias. I recommend reviewing Cynefin as an antidote to this myopic approach.
9th Dec 2019
3 points of contention to do with this article:
1. The article assume Forrester's CX Index measures 'the experience the customer has' i.e., customer experience. I refute that. It is no different to satisfaction rebranded.
2. The so called flatlining of Forrester's Index is no different to the American CSI which was interpreted in the same way yonks ago, missing the basic point of the Hedonic treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
3. Logical rational vs emotional irrational has long ago been skewered by cognitive psychology (ref: Oatley). It is incorrect to assume emotions are somehow seperate from cognition or that they alone drive behaviour.