VOC for CRM - ASQ Baltimoreasqbaltimore.org/dt/present/Present201010_VOCforCRM_Weisz.pdf · VOC for...

VOC for CRM :How “Voice of the Customer” can Enhance Customer Relationship Management

A TutorialA TutorialPrepared for ASQ Section 050912 October 2010

8/8/2010 VOC for CRM Tutorial_oct2010.ppt 1 of 23

Obj tiObjectives

D it b t ff t t k C t th f l Despite our best efforts to make Customers the focal point of our QMS, our efforts are usually reactive, not collaborative

It is imperative that we:Identify easy-to-use, practical & economic tools to:

All C t f i l t id b tt iAllow Customer-facing employees to provide better serviceCollect data efficiently and unobtrusively for other teams to analyze

Also, employ the tools in order to …communicate complex ideas or programs to Customershelp customers to arrive at ideal solutionsOffer Customers the means to appreciate how well Motorola is


serving them.

Riding the Curves: 3 Phases of CRM Life CycleRiding the Curves: 3 Phases of CRM Life Cycle

Process FMEA

Customer Loyalty,

Transactional Outcome Analysis

Process FMEA

y yCommit-ment & Partnering

Where the tools can be appliedHOQ

Delivering reliable, high quality Determining Dedicating resources, anticipating

KANO


g , g q ysolutions

Stabilizing and Optimizing Processes Break-thru Performance & Success Customer Wants

g , p gneeds, delivery flawlessly

“Discovery”Lif C l PhLife Cycle Phase

Determining what the Customer REALLY wantsg


Di t C t F db kDirect Customer FeedbackCurrent Sources of FeedbackCurrent Sources of Feedback

Written Surveys [Annual perception, SI transaction, Service renewal]Executive ScorecardsExecutive ScorecardsRepair/depot feedback cards

What do we need [in the future]?What do we need [in the future]?Validation: before and after surveys

Before [are we assessing a need or dis-satisfier correctly?]After [did we hit a “home run” with the solution?]

Leading indicators of threats and opportunitiesTimely responses


Timely responses

Content Analysis [CA] / KJ Imaging [KJI]y [ ] g g [ ]How to Use:• To covertly collect real needs through many diverse contributors

When to Use:• Collect all e-mails, notes from Customer

facing meetings & use CA programs to evaluate common verbiage hinting at

sources of content attribute groups

Customer Needs, W t & m

ail P, sp

ecs

erna

l se

natio

ns

tem

secu

rity

cus o

n M

ission

ety o

f Offic

er

Customer Needs, W t &

Customer Needs, W t & evaluate common verbiage hinting at

Customer real needs • Do for customers identified as “Trusted

partner” from annual perception surveyB fit f CRM

Wants & Desires

e-m

aRF

Pint

erpr

es

syste

Focu

safeWants &

Desires <--weight?TotalSecure Networking 42 34 62 138 9 3 3Ease of Operation 51 13 45 109 1 9 9

Wants & Desires <--weight?

Benefits for CRM• anticipating concerns and opportunities• complimenting conventional feedback

[surveys]

pInformation Assurance 12 45 51 108 3 3OTAR 25 22 42 89 9 9 3Internet-working 23 30 31 84 3 5 3Simple [surveys] pProgram-ming 41 24 12 77 1 1 1KMF 12 34 24 70 3 3Examples/Success Stories

• Pursuing with CBP/DHS• Still investigating opportunities to use costs to implement & benefits


• Still investigating opportunities to use, costs to implement & benefits

KJ MappingHow to Use: Taking those attributes or needs from CA/KJI

& putting them in the context of clusters of opportunitiesWhen to Use: Before major proposals to identify Customer When to Use: Before major proposals, to identify Customer

“delighters” and things MOTO does extremely well

Benefits for CRM

Information Assurance Internet-working

Benefits for CRM•Reinforces feeling of “partnership with Motorola”

ff / SYSTEM SECURITYSecure

Networking MISSION

SYSTEM SECURITY

AOTAR

E

C

F

F• More efficient communication/ delivery of solutions (because we know what Customers REALLY want)

SAFETY

Ease of Operation

B

F

KMF

)

Examples/Success Stories• None currently; need a “beta”


SAFETY

F = Simple Program-ming

• None currently; need a beta

KanoKano

Marketers product developers & CustomerMarketers, product developers & Customer support staff have long been challenged by the following questions:

Wh d d t / i hi d tiWhy do some products/services achieve dramatic success based on one or two exciting characteristics while others fail because the Customers' basic requirements aren't met?Can we predict which features will delight or ‘bore’ Customers?

For which features would we get the most "bang for For which features would we get the most bang for our design, development & marketing buck?“Upon which service features should we focus our advertising, promotion, sales and after-sales efforts?


Considerations with Kano

“Delighting Customers” means:Consistently and efficiently delivering basicConsistently and efficiently delivering basicquality Listening to & delivering current needs [ “performance” quality]Anticipating the excitement opportunities... …& exploiting them!exploiting them!

As time passes, excitement devolves (sometimes quickly) to basic needKANO requires a continuous, consistent process to gather analyze & interpret process to gather, analyze & interpret excitement offeringsDiscover “Customer-driven opportunities” by:

Observing CustomersObserving CustomersUsing technology & process engineering to improve performanceReplacing or improving on key product features.Improving on where all competitors are doing


Improving on where all competitors are doing poorlyLateral benchmarking

What Can Kano Tell Us?Focus R&D/product improvement $ on excitement features Pick out features from the performance curve where we outperform competitors & ADVERTISE these! outperform competitors & ADVERTISE these!

KANO Model (Customer XYZ)5

Delight

Understand Customer's

•For Basic features, prove that our

4

Satis

fact

ion

Business

Availability Guarentee

Solutions Aligned

with Customer's

Effective

Executive Scorecards

company outperforms competitors [give to sales, marketing…to

3

ee o

f Cus

tom

er S

Value-Driven Solutions

Low Life-Cycle Costs

Prompt response to tech issues

Issue Resolution

Meets CustomerExpectations

EXCITEMENT

BASIC

constantly remind prospects & existing Customers]

1

2Degr

e

Easy to Do Business

Lowest Price

PERFORMANCE

[model is notional]


11 2 3 4 5

Level of ExecutionPerfectUnacceptable

“Delivery”Lif C l PhLife Cycle Phase

Making sure our Customers GET what they really wanty


“House of Quality” Topography “How’s” Correlation

Matrix

7

TopographyHOW’s

•Product Characteristics

•Measurable

3

at

8 Direction of Improvement [for “how’s”]

VOC VOP

1

•Measurable

•Satisfy WANT’s

Want’s Vs How’sCorrelates Customer’s

42b

rket

2a

Correlates Customer s ‘Needs’ with HOW the Standard can met the

Standard

mpe

titiv

e M

arA

naly

sis

Absolute Importance Ratings5

Co

Technical Competitive Analysis6


Performance Targets [for “how’s”]9p y

H f Q litHouse of Quality (example*)

Direction of Improvement > - - - - -

Customer Require-ments

(Wh t)

Design Requirements (How)

-Impo

rtan

ce (1

-5)

dent

ify &

adhe

re to

pr

oces

s

ock-

in re

quire

men

ts

AT o

n iss

ue cl

osur

e

omm

unica

tions

Plan

rese

nt M

igra

tion

Plan

esen

t List

of O

ptio

ns

ose 9

5% o

f Sev

1's in

<

ose 9

0% o

f Sev

2's in

<

Boun

ce R

ate a

t FTC

Spee

d of

Ans

wer

Direction of Improvement -->

(What) <-- i Lo TA Co Pr Pre

Cl Cl B

5 3 1 9

4 1 3

4 3 3 1

Softw

are

Faster closure on software development issues

Don't pushback on requirements

Processes need to clear and communicated to USPS to faciliate

ti

* - The actual HOQ must be jointly developed

3 3 3 3

3 3 3 3

4 9 9 3

ice

of

stom

er

VOC

]

Mig

ratio

n

Resolve Technical Issues quickly & premanently

ality

of

rvic

e

Answer the phone at the Help Desk

cooperationMigration plans for products and enhancements are neededMOTO needs to be proactive in recommending system upgrades

3 9

Min S

tds at

SI-

Gate

revie

ws

100%

by C

DR90

% in

<=

15

days

> =3

0 day

s be

fore m

ajor

> =9

0 day

s be

fore m

ajor

> =9

0 day

s befo

re

USPS

decis

ions

< 4h

rs

<24 h

rs

< 1%

of a

ll call

s in

< 60

sec

Absolute Importance 31 17 57 22 18 18 36 36 12 27

Voi

Cus [V

Qua Se

Answer the phone at the Help Desk quickly

Targets -->


Absolute Importance 31 17 57 22 18 18 36 36 12 27

Done for USPS in 2007

QFD Flow of Activities until Final Deployment”

How’sVSM

FMEAOperations/ Financial Analysis

Analyze

HOQFlow Charts

Pugh Concept Selection

VOCCritical Success Analyze

Critical Processes

How’s

H ’Process

Factors

s How’s

Wha

t’s

Quality Assurance

Matrix

Process Planning

Matrix[PPM]

[QAM]

Wha

t’sQA Tools

Check Sheets

SPC Charts

Scripts;

[ ]

Inspection points, audits


FMECAp

mistake-proofing

Tests

Allocating How’s from HOQ to PPM(example*)(example*)

Extract from HOQ

Customer Require-ments

Design Requirements (How)

mpo

rtan

ce (1

-5)

e 95%

of S

ev1's

in

e 90%

of S

ev2's

in

nce R

ate a

t FTC

ed o

f Ans

wer

Direction of Improvement --> Take "How's" from HOQ & Transpose to "What's" of PPM

(What) <--Im

Clos

< Clos

< Bou n

Spee

4 9 9 3

3 9

alls i

n c

Voic

e of

C

usto

mer

[V

OC

] Resolve Technical Issues quickly & premanently

Qua

lity

of

Serv

ice

Answer the phone at the Help Desk quickly

Targets >

Process Characteristics

(How)

ce (1

-5)

crip

ts

ngag

emen

t of

clo

se _

_% a

t s st

ruct

ions

to

dire

cts'

m

ore

ve IV

Rfa

ulty

"

Cus

tom

er &

St

aff:

Pro

cess

fo

r clo

sing

a

Process Planning Matrix [PPM]

< 4h

rs

<24 h

rs

< 1%

of a

ll ca

< 60

sec

Absolute Importance 36 36 12 27

Targets -->Design Requirements

(What) Impo

rtan

Bet

ter S

c

Fast

er e

nTi

er 3

CC

B c

anfir

st p

ass

Bet

ter i

nsth

e Fi

eld

Mor

e "r

edth

roug

h m

resp

onsi

vR

educ

e"f

redi

rect

sE

duca

te

Mot

orol

a [c

riter

ia] f

ticke

t

Close 95% of Sev1's in < 4hrs 3.6 1 3 9 1 6

Close 90% of Sev2's in <24 hrs 3.6 1 3 1 1 3

Speed of AnswerAll calls in < 60

sec 2.7 3 1 3 1

Focus on these 3 "how's" since they have the highest Absolute Importance #'s.Continue analysis to Process Planning Matrix.

Resolution of Tier 2 [90% in <

4min

75% within 24 hours >= 90%

reduce "documented fix" calls from 10%

to 5% of all calls

>5% of baseline

total

NTE 5%

Approved and implemented NLT 31 Dec

15 24 36 15 3 0 32

Targets---->

Absolute Importance -->

* The actual HOQ & PPM must be jointly developed


- The actual HOQ & PPM must be jointly developed

Transactional Outcome Analysis [TOA]

How to Use: • To support strategic planning • At a tactical level, determine bottlenecks in processes and possible outcomes of

Customers at decision points in the process When to Use: • When extreme, out of the box thinking is needed

When concrete data for forecasting is not available but• When concrete data for forecasting is not available, but…• …the impacts of not acting can be predicted with some degree of accuracy Benefits for CRM• A tailor-able model to show product team & strategic planners the effect of proper A tailor able model to show product team & strategic planners, the effect of proper

timing of release , upgrades and new products• Provides concrete examples of how Motorola wishes to partner Examples/Success Stories

2011 USFGMD t t i l i


• 2011 USFGMD strategic planning

Example of TOAp[for USFGMD ‘practical sales forecasting model’]

increased (decreased) funding levels Weighted Outcome [$Mil]

5% 10%

IA Mandate 15% 20% 10% $ 25.50

Out years ---> 2011increased (decreased) funding levelsWeighted Outcome

[$Mil]

2012

25% $ 47.00

2013

25% $ 43.50

10% $ 25.50

80% 60%

10%

Sales/ Marketing

Objectives

Increase (decrease) in DoD Acquis. Funding

Weighted Outcome [$Mil]

$ 12.50 -2%

All key & many seconday features $ 47.00

-2% $ 12.50

[PRIMARY]

YES

Cost of Options not

NOTE:

30%

60%

YES

Develop Marketing/ Sales campaign

Define Key product features

NO


few key, but many seconday features $ 12.50

Weighted Outcome


1/2 key, but more secondary features $ 25.50

Cost of Options not shown for sake of

simplicity

Product Teams

Get on the product road

map

[SECONDARY]

"A"

10% 10%10%

30% 30%30%

60% 60%60%

$ 25.50

$ 12.50

$ 47.00

$ 25.50 1/2 key, but

more secondary features

1/2 key, but more secondary features $ 25.50

$ 12.50 few key, but many seconday featuresfew key, but many $ 12 50

few key, but many seconday features

1/2 key, but more secondary features

Outcome [$Mil] All key & many seconday

features $ 47.00 All key & many

seconday features $ 47.00 If$ available, spend here

[SECONDARY]

All key & many seconday features

Commit on features?


60% seconday features $ 12.50

“Dedication”Lif C l PhLife Cycle Phase

Anticipating & delivering on what the Customer REALLY wants


Failure Modes & Effects A l i [FMEA]Analysis [FMEA]

How to Use:How to Use:• Determine failure modes & effects; • Prioritize risks and determine how to mitigate them.• Communicate unique use cases to the product developersWhen to Use: When true SMEs are available…• …to communicate our understanding of Customer’s operating profile, hazards

and severity and probability related to each.• to put unique Customer required functionalities in the context of missions & …to put unique Customer required functionalities in the context of missions &

risks involved; and how good communications can mitigate theseBenefits for CRM• Foster true partnering; free flow of communications with the Customer • Assure proper priority is put on product features & support requirements Examples/Success Stories• Customs and Border Protection


P-FMEA (1 of 2) [“As Is” view]P-FMEA (1 of 2) [ As-Is view]Use Case R

ef #

Seve

rity Potential Cause(s) / Mechanism(s) of Failure

ccur

ance Current Design Controls [or controls in place

before the shortcoming was resolved]

etec

-tion

RPN

Oc De

2 9 Individual KMF capacity is limited 6 Increased capacity is roadmapped, but needs to be validated; see corresponding design controls for causes 16 & 17

5 270

4 9 Too many redundant data transactions from the KMF 6 nothing to date 8 432OTAR

pe

rform

ance

9 10 Loss of base station connectivity - during mission-critical data transmission such as GPS location when officer is in trouble & to inhibit a compromised radio

7 RNC does not send SNMP traps; indicating datalink failure to NLECC NMS

8 560

7nt o

n Pa

trol

10 10

p

NLECC operators don't know if the agent's radio has 6 Only a limited # of radios be displayed on KMF 4207

12 Bad I/O ports on interface cards Supply chain quality assurance

13 Connectors on cable Supply chain quality assurance

Agen

10 10 NLECC operators don t know if the agent s radio has been inhibited

6 Only a limited # of radios be displayed on KMF display. No audible or visual signal identifying possible compromise of radio

420

8 8 9 576

cPCI

RNC


14 sensitivity of RNC to external noise; generating too many error messages

M-Gates

P-FMEA (2 of 2) [“To Be” view]P-FMEA (2 of 2) [ To Be view]

Failure Recommended Action(s) change if the action below does not meet the "potential cause" in Col "C"

Responsibility & Target Completion Date

Completed Action What when? ve

rity

ranc

e

ectio

n

RPN De-

crease Failure Mode

action below does not meet the potential cause in Col C What, when? Sev

Occu

r

Dete [after]

Ltd KMF capacity

Currently investigating a "scheduled OTAR" feature in the KMF. This would allow distribution of OTAR activity and possibly enhance data capacity.

9 3 3 81 70%

redun-dant Employ P25 Scheme for key inventory management. 9 1 1 9 98%

in Risk

Secure Design Center [SDC] "Scheduled OTAR" will be released on Q4 2010

data X-actions

Enhance the overall group message processing to optimize use of KMM's, Enhance ROP operations and overall improve user experience with a number of enhancements.

Loss-base station connec-

Enable 3d party SNMP integration to assure mission-critical data delivery. Audible and visual alarm that persists until action taken Addressed by 'managers' in 7 9 release

Astro Engineering; In A7.9, this is not an issue as we use SNMPv3 from site subsystem: For 3 1 system: this will

10 1 2 20 96%

connec-tivity

action taken. Addressed by managers in 7.9 release subsystem: For 3.1 system: this will be covered in a deep dive at the

Agent's radio inhibited?

More subscribers/groups displayed on monitor; SDC has be-gun the process to gather requirements to address this customers need and balance it with other customer operations

Bad 88%

40 90%

3 72Replaced Faulty 8 3

22

FRB, root cause analysis, replacement hardware, staging at Infrastrcuture engineering quality

Astro Engineering; This is targetted to be part of the A7.9 release.

10

interface cards

88%

bad cable connectors

88%

RNC iti t

More Robust engineering analysis and test; to configure i th hh ld

Infrastrcuture engineering quality M i l G l

Installed and tested d d b t

88%

3 72p yTransition Modules, Installed new design of interface cables.Performed customer testing, data collection

d it i

8 3, y , p , g gMOTO CIT labe under noise conditons; delivery to Customer & installation

g g q ymanager; Marcial Gonzalez


sensitive to ext. noise

noise threshholds manager; Marcial Gonzalez upgraded, more robust RNC software.

September 2008

Concl sionsConclusionsWe may get feedback but do we know how to use it?We may get feedback, but do we know how to use it?Are we reactive? If so how does that effect CRM?CRM is a life time commitment

Actually, it’s a life cycle commitmentRemember the “3 D’s”

‘determining’‘determining‘delivering’‘dedicating’dedicating

Recognize that LSS tools have value outside of continuous process improvement…

b i i i !8/8/2010 VOC for CRM Tutorial_oct2010.ppt 22 of 23

… but you must use imagination!

For Additional information, t tcontact:

John Weisz, SSBB, CQE, CRE

443-472-1709443 472 1709


VOC for CRM - ASQ Baltimoreasqbaltimore.org/dt/present/Present201010_VOCforCRM_Weisz.pdf · VOC for...

Documents

Transcript of VOC for CRM - ASQ Baltimoreasqbaltimore.org/dt/present/Present201010_VOCforCRM_Weisz.pdf · VOC for...