Category Archives: Customer Service

Customer Experience vs Process Design

Posted on by
Reply

Why is customer experience so poor when it comes to process design? Regardless of the product or service, it can be so frustrating when having to deal with on-boarding, product upgrades, billing, payment, account updates and customer service. Banks, telcos, utilities and government services are particularly bad, but I am seeing more and more examples in on-line market places and payment solutions.

Often, it feels like the process design is built entirely according to the providers’ internal operating structures, and not around the customer. The classic example is when customers have to talk to separate sales, product, technical support and finance teams – and none of them talk to each other, and none of them know the full customer or product journey end to end.

Even when you do manage to talk to human beings on the phone, rather than a chat bot, as a customer you have to repeat yourself at every stage in the conversation, and you can end up having to train front line staff on how their products actually work or what the process should be to upgrade a service, pay a bill or trouble-shoot a technical problem.

You get the impression that many customer-facing team members never use their own services, or haven’t been given sufficient training or information to handle customer enquiries, and don’t have adequate authority to resolve customer problems.

On many occasions, I get the customer experience equivalent of “computer says ‘no’…” when it appears impossible to navigate a particular problem. The usual refrain is the “system” means things can only be done a certain way, regardless of the inconvenience to the customer, or the lack of thought that has gone into the “process”.

As I always remind these companies, a “process” is only as good as the people who design, build and operate it – and in blaming the “system” for a particular failing or inadequacy they are in effect criticising their own organisations and their own colleagues.

Next week: App Overload

 

 

Trust in Digital IDs

Posted on by
Reply

Or: “Whose identity is it anyway?”

Over the past few years, there have been a significant number of serious data breaches among among banks, utilities, telcos, insurers and public bodies. As a result, hackers are able to access the confidential data and financial records of millions of customers, leading to ransomware demands, wide dissemination of private information, identity theft, and multiple phishing attempts and similar scams.

What most of these hacks reveal is the vulnerability of centralised systems as well as the unnecessary storage of personal data – making these single points of failure a target for such exploits. Worse, the banks and others seem to think they “own” this personal data once they have obtained it, as evidenced by the way they (mis)manage it.

I fully understand the need for KYC/AML, and the requirement to verify customers under the 100 Points of Identification system. However, once I have been verified, why does each bank, telco and utility company need to keep copies or records of my personal data on their systems? Under a common 100 Points verification process, shouldn’t we have a more efficient and less vulnerable system? If I have been verified by one bank in Australia, why can’t I be automatically verified by every other bank in Australia (e.g., if I wanted to open an account with them), or indeed any other company using the same 100 Points system?

Which is where the concept of Self-Sovereign Identity comes into play. This approach should mean that with the 100 Points system, even if initially I need to submit evidence of my driver’s license, passport or birth certificate, once I have been verified by the network I can “retrieve” my personal data (revoke the access permission), or specify with each party on the network how long they can hold my personal data, and for what specific purpose.

This way, each party on the network does not need to retain a copy of the original documents. Instead, my profile is captured as a digital ID that confirms who I am, and confirms that I have been verified by the network; it does not require me to keep disclosing my personal data to each party on the network. (There are providers of Digital ID solutions, but because they are centralised, and unilateral, we end up with multiple and inconsistent Digital ID systems, which are just as vulnerable to the risk of a single point of failure…)

But of course, banks etc. insist that not only do they have to ask for 100 Points of ID each and every time I open an account, they are required to retain copies or digital versions of my personal data. Hence, we should not be surprised by the number of data hacks we keep experiencing.

The current approach to identity in banking, telcos and utilities is baffling. Just a few examples I can think of:

1. In trying to upgrade my current mobile phone plan with my existing provider, I had to re-submit personal information via a mobile app (and this is a telco that experienced a major hack last year, resulting in me having to apply for a new driver’s license). If I have already been verified, why the need to ask for my personal data again, and via a mobile app?

2. I’ve lived at my current address for more than 5 years. I still receive bank statements intended for the previous occupant. I have tried on numerous occasions to inform the bank that this person is no longer living here. I’ve used the standard “Return to Sender” method, and tried to contact the bank direct, but because I am not the named account addressee or authorised representative, they won’t talk to me. Fair enough. But, the addressee is actually a self-managed superannuation fund. Given the fallout from the Banking Royal Commission, and the additional layers of verification, supervision and audit that apply to such funds, I’m surprised that this issue has not been picked up the bank concerned. It’s very easy to look up the current registered address of an SMSF via the APRA website, if only the bank could be bothered to investigate why the statements keep getting returned.

3. I have been trying to remove the name of a former director as a signatory to a company bank account. The bank kept asking for various forms and “proof” that this signatory was no longer a director and no longer authorised to access the account. Even though I have done this (and had to pay for an accountant to sign a letter confirming the director has resigned their position), if the bank had bothered to look up the ASIC company register, they would see that this person was no longer a company officer. Meanwhile, the bank statements keep arriving addressed to the ex-director. Apparently, the bank’s own “systems” don’t talk to one another (a common refrain when trying to navigate legacy corporate behemoths).

In each of the above, the use of a Digital ID system would streamline the process for updating customer records, and reduce the risk of data vulnerabilities. But that requires effort on the part of the entities concerned – clearly, the current fines for data breaches and for misconduct in financial services are not enough.

Next week: AI vs IP  

 

The Last Half-Mile

Posted on by
Reply

One evening last week, I came home to find two separate deliveries waiting on my doorstep. Both had been delivered in error. The first was a bunch of flowers, but the named recipient, the street address and the suburb were all incorrect – it was for someone else in another postcode. The second was a packet of coffee beans (part of my monthly subscription), but I had already received the same delivery the day before – so this was clearly a duplicate. Welcome to the perennial logistics challenge of the “last half-mile”.

Delivery-on-Demand: 5 years ago, Auspost was experimenting with drone deliveries (image sourced from IT News)

It seems that despite the increased demand for on-line shopping and home deliveries during lock-down, supply chain logistics are still struggling to find a consistent and reliable solution. Coincidentally, in recent weeks I have been pitched two different start-up ideas that aim to address the last half-mile challenge for e-commerce. Although they are each taking slightly different approaches, both start-ups are trying to address the “recipient not at home” dilemma – what to do with parcels and deliveries when there is no-one at home? Their respective solutions revolve around a “localised point of collection/delivery” – either using a more convenient network of click & collect facilities, or a network of trusted neighbours to receive deliveries on your behalf. I have previously covered another Melbourne start-up called Passel based on a network of trusted local couriers – but it doesn’t seem to have progressed very far.*

So if this is a recurring theme, why can’t it be fixed – or are the solutions out of step with the actual problem? Or is the problem not that big of an issue to warrant over-engineered answers? In attempting to provide constructive feedback to both the recent pitches, I gave similar responses in each case, which can be summarised as follows:

Using a proxy recipient still does not solve the problem of items being delivered to the wrong address (or wrong items delivered to the correct address). In particular, it doesn’t address the issue of Australia Post personnel carding an item as “not at home” when in fact they simply can’t be bothered to attempt delivery and prefer drop it off at the local Post Office for collection – believe me, I have had more than my fair share of those.

Localised click & collect services already exist – usually in convenient locations, and often accessible outside Australia Post’s normal hours. Plus more parcel locker and similar services are appearing – so is the demand really there for another delivery solution?

Who is responsible for insurance claims on lost or damaged packages, where the named recipient (who has the sales contract with the seller) does not match some of the relevant transaction details associated with the proxy recipient?

Likewise, if you are using proxy delivery or collection services, who is responsible for managing returns and/or unclaimed items? Some retailers will take items back and offer refunds as a matter of policy – but others won’t or can’t process returned stock, and end up re-selling into secondary supply chains at a discount.

How do you recruit and screen proxy recipients and deliverers, and build trust into the network? How do you avoid an under/over-supply of proxy providers – too few and the system gets choked; too many and it’s not worth their time and effort to sign up.

How do you recruit and service multiple retailers and/or their point of sale and fulfillment providers to make it a viable service for customers who wish to shop from multiple shops and brands?

Who (and how) do you charge for the additional convenience you are trying to offer – retailer, customer, or both? Suggested options include a per transaction fee and/or an annual subscription fee, or a check-out fee which can be rebated based on loyalty or other frequent buyer rewards. But the “convenience premium” cannot be disproportionate to the value of the transaction.

Even with more customised delivery options such as trusted neighbours, the issue of having to be at home during quite wide delivery hours (e..g, 8am to 1pm, or 9am to 5pm) still applies.

Confirming proof of delivery is still a pre-requisite – even more so if using proxy delivery addresses – and potentially adds another layer of complexity.

Finally, the need for immediate “Delivery-on-demand” may be overstated, at least on non-perishable goods, so a constant stream of delivery drones down every suburban street is probably some way off….. but maybe don’t rule it out if we have further pandemic-related lock-downs or continuing challenges in the COVID vaccine rollout.

* Similarly, I also blogged about other customer experience with the final step in fulfillment across a number of sectors, including e-commerce.

Next week: Notes from Blockchain Week

Open Banking and the Consumer Data Right

Posted on by
Reply

While most of Australia has been preoccupied by things such as Covid-19 lock-downs, border closures, which contestant got eliminated from Big Brother/Masterchef, and which federal politician went to an NRL game (and depending on which State you live in), the ACCC has implemented the first phase of the Consumer Data Right regime (aka Open Banking).

The TLDR on this new regulation, which has been several years in the making, can be distilled as follows:

Banks can no longer deny customers the right to share their own customer data with third parties.

So, in essence, if I am a customer of Bank A, and I want to transfer my business to Bank B, I have the right to request Bank A to share relevant information about my account to Bank B – Bank A can no longer hold on to or refuse to share that information.

Why does this matter? Well, a major obstacle to competition, customer choice and product innovation has been the past refusal by banks to allow customers to share their own account information with third party providers – i.e., it has been an impediment to  customer switching (and therefore anti-competitive), and a barrier to entry for new market entrants (and therefore a drag on innovation).

Of course, there are some caveats. Data can only be shared with an accredited data recipient, as a means to protect banking security and preserve data privacy. And at first, the CDR will only apply to debit and credit cards, transaction accounts and deposit accounts. But personal loans and mortgages will follow in a few months. (And the CDR is due to be extended to utilities, telcos and insurance in coming years – going further than even the similar UK Open Banking scheme.)

Although I welcome this new provision, it still feels very limited in application and scope. Even one of the Four Pillar banks couldn’t really articulate what it will actually mean for consumers. They also revealed something of a self-serving and defensive tone in a recent opinion piece:

“Based on experience in other markets, initial take up by consumers is likely to be low due to limited awareness and broader sensitivities around data use.”

Despite our fondness for bank-bashing (and the revelations from the recent Royal Commission), Australians are generally seen as being reluctant to switch providers. Either because it’s too hard (something that the CDR is designed to address), or customers are lazy/complacent. In fact, recent evidence suggests existing customers of the big four banks are even more likely to recommend them.

For FinTechs and challenger brands, the costs of complying with some aspects of the CDR are seen as too onerous, and as such, act as another impediment to competition and innovation. Therefore, we will likely see a number of “trusted” intermediaries who will receive customer data on behalf of third party providers – which will no doubt incur other (hidden?) costs for the consumer.

Full competition will come when consumers can simply instruct their existing bank to plug their data into a product or price comparison service, to identify the best offers out there for similar products. (Better still, why not mandate incumbents to notify their existing customers when they have a better or cheaper product available? A number of times I have queried the rate on an existing product, only to be offered a better deal when I suggested I might take my business elsewhere.)

Recently, my bank unilaterally decided to change the brand of my credit card. Instead of showing initiative by offering to transfer my existing subscriptions and direct debits to the new card, the bank simply told me to notify vendors and service providers myself. If I didn’t request the change of card, why am I being put to the inconvenience of updating all my standing orders?

For real innovation, we need banks and other providers to maintain a unified and single view of customer (not a profile organised by individual products or accounts). Moreover, we need a fully self-sovereign digital ID solution, that truly puts the customer in charge and in control of their own data – by enabling customers to decide who, what, when, why and for how long they share data with third parties. For example, why do I still need 100 points of identity with Bank B if I’m already a client of Bank A?

Finally, rather than simply trying to make money from managing our financial assets, banks and others have an opportunity to ensure we are managing our financial data in a more efficient and customer-centric way.

Next week: Counting the cost of Covid19