There is big data, deep data and rich data. Covering all three is important in CX. The term Unified only refers to skating over the surface of big data.
Dean - I worked with Strativity and the Zen team on a starting piece of CX work. Good to see you are keeping to the great customer service theme and not being diverted to price competition.
To be honest, I think the problem lies with IT controlling CX budgets. A colleague of mine once explained that people took jobs in IT to get away from people. So don't be surprised with a mindset that focuses on scale without empathy; root-cause thinking without consideration.
Rip budgets for CX away from IT and you might have more success. IMHO.
Thanks. I think another aspect is that firms are focusing so much on the immediacy of the here and now they have forgotten the impact of long-term loyalty. The approach is often build a data lake, mine the data lake, get immediate ROI by sending out offers. Loyalty as offer as immediate return. For me that's not loyalty. That's sales only. And it's set to get worse, a 'loyalty club' strategy will become de rigeur as cookie data is blocked i.e., as a customer sign-in to 'the club' so we can protect your privacy (not) - in reality so we can get around the blockage in cookies and fire offers to you.
This will undermine loyalty clubs.
The problem for me is cultural. Companies want your cash now and don't understand leading indicators. Over-engineered approaches are killing loyalty.
In many instances, the experience the customer (think-feel, do) is not equivalent to an aggregated dataset. Why? because aggregation assumes a mechanical engineering view of the customer that is at odds with reality (see Cynefin for the umpteenth time).
Think about it, scraping any old data on my experience of shopping is a partial truth; ask me, discuss with me and you'll get a lot better information - trial and test your thoughts, and you'll get my honest reply. Sure, view what I do, no problem there, but its not the final truth.
Far better then for CX heads to act transversally and focus on qualitative data not just quantitative. In other words, be design led - which might also help you gain traction with other departments by actually doing something rather than reporting on data?
Identify the pain... Resolve it, Measure the result (not vice versa)... in many cases but not all of course.
Trust a box seller? When did they ever put methodology above a fast buck?
But the problem is far deeper, as Ed identifies. When customer experience is understood as anything that touches the customer, anything goes! So the term becomes meaningless - Proof: you can have a 'bad' customer experience that generates cross-sale revenue, yet it's still a customer experience.
Personally I prefer the term Customer Centric Transformation.
ps..
Ed - I blame Gartner, stop calling it CX technology. Where is the magic quadrant for best customer experience measurement 'methodology'? I can send you one if you like.
I suggest a review of More Stories Like this. Fewer Stories Like that (SenseMaker) and the Cynefin view.
Not everything is about root cause and attitudinal data is not the same as mechanical
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'.
My answers
There is big data, deep data and rich data. Covering all three is important in CX. The term Unified only refers to skating over the surface of big data.
Dean - I worked with Strativity and the Zen team on a starting piece of CX work. Good to see you are keeping to the great customer service theme and not being diverted to price competition.
To be honest, I think the problem lies with IT controlling CX budgets. A colleague of mine once explained that people took jobs in IT to get away from people. So don't be surprised with a mindset that focuses on scale without empathy; root-cause thinking without consideration.
Rip budgets for CX away from IT and you might have more success. IMHO.
Thanks. I think another aspect is that firms are focusing so much on the immediacy of the here and now they have forgotten the impact of long-term loyalty. The approach is often build a data lake, mine the data lake, get immediate ROI by sending out offers. Loyalty as offer as immediate return. For me that's not loyalty. That's sales only. And it's set to get worse, a 'loyalty club' strategy will become de rigeur as cookie data is blocked i.e., as a customer sign-in to 'the club' so we can protect your privacy (not) - in reality so we can get around the blockage in cookies and fire offers to you.
This will undermine loyalty clubs.
The problem for me is cultural. Companies want your cash now and don't understand leading indicators. Over-engineered approaches are killing loyalty.
Buyers need to think more about methodology.
Example:
In many instances, the experience the customer (think-feel, do) is not equivalent to an aggregated dataset. Why? because aggregation assumes a mechanical engineering view of the customer that is at odds with reality (see Cynefin for the umpteenth time).
Think about it, scraping any old data on my experience of shopping is a partial truth; ask me, discuss with me and you'll get a lot better information - trial and test your thoughts, and you'll get my honest reply. Sure, view what I do, no problem there, but its not the final truth.
Far better then for CX heads to act transversally and focus on qualitative data not just quantitative. In other words, be design led - which might also help you gain traction with other departments by actually doing something rather than reporting on data?
Identify the pain... Resolve it, Measure the result (not vice versa)... in many cases but not all of course.
Trust a box seller? When did they ever put methodology above a fast buck?
But the problem is far deeper, as Ed identifies. When customer experience is understood as anything that touches the customer, anything goes! So the term becomes meaningless - Proof: you can have a 'bad' customer experience that generates cross-sale revenue, yet it's still a customer experience.
Personally I prefer the term Customer Centric Transformation.
ps..
Ed - I blame Gartner, stop calling it CX technology. Where is the magic quadrant for best customer experience measurement 'methodology'? I can send you one if you like.
Interesting article. I would also extend to better consideration of how we embed cognitive science in understanding customers.
So generic all the time.
Sometime effortlessness adds value. sometimes it doesn't
Why doesn't the profession learn to stop following hype or broad generalities designed to sell vendors wares.
I suggest a review of More Stories Like this. Fewer Stories Like that (SenseMaker) and the Cynefin view.
Not everything is about root cause and attitudinal data is not the same as mechanical
Thanks
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'.