Technology vs The Human Factor

Several times over the past month I have been reminded that the pursuit of technology for its own sake can give rise to misguided innovation; so-called solutions that are divorced from real world problems cannot justify the effort or resources. It feels like we are entering a new phase of the post-industrial revolution era, where a lack of “the human touch” will render many new inventions as worthless, irrelevant or redundant.

Street scultpure, Nagoya. Photo © Rory Manchee (all rights reserved)

Street sculpture, Nagoya. Photo © Rory Manchee (all rights reserved)

In no particular order:

  • At the second Above All Human conference in Melbourne, there was a consistent theme: how do we make sure there is a real connection between human needs and bleeding edge technology?
  • A Slow School of Business excursion to an eco-friendly homestead in rural Victoria offered a practical lesson on how to create harmony between technology and nature, and still achieve a modern (but modest), highly personal and comfortable home.
  • The economic debate about whether technology is improving our standard of living (as reported in the latest CPA magazine), which also echoes a recent CEDA report on automation and the implications for job losses.
  • A Q&A with Shayne Elliott, the new CEO of ANZ Bank, which prompted the observation that big data analytics, process automation and digital disruption are all very well, but will prove meaningless unless they can improve the customer experience. (But Elliott also conceded that the likes of Uber and Airbnb have succeeded because of complacency among industry incumbents.)

Advances in technology don’t have to lead us to the dystopian worlds of “Modern Times” or “Metropolis” (or any of the other post-apocalyptic visions that cinema and literature like to give us). However, the understandable focus on innovation must take the “human factor” into greater account when making design decisions, undertaking cost-benefit analysis and opting for one technology format over another.

Conclusion? It’s not totally clear whether we are entering another dot.com market correction, but there is a case to be made for whether or not we are seeing enough of a “technology dividend” from the current digital disruption and economic displacement centred on the use of cloud, social and mobile platforms; and whether we need a new methodology to measure the impact of the Internet of Things, robotics, AI, nano-technology, AR/VR, cognitive apps, wearables, 3-D printing, etc.

Next week: It’s never too late to change….

Why The Service Sector Lacks Self-Awareness

If you did a root cause analysis of companies that rate poorly for customer service, I predict it would reveal one or more of the following:

  • Outdated processes
  • Inadequate staff training
  • Poor product knowledge
  • Operational silos

What it usually comes down to is a chronic lack of self-awareness. (This is not helped if there is a failure of leadership, or a toxic culture within the organisation.) Despite all the customer feedback forms, platitudes such as “your call is important to us”, and the regular customer advocacy reports, unless service providers can truly put themselves in the shoes of their customers, they will never have sufficient knowledge or self-awareness with which to fully evaluate the “customer experience”.

Image: Customer Feedback Device (Source: Smarte Carte)

Image: Customer Feedback Device (Source: Smarte Carte)

Today’s customers are more knowledgable (because they have access to more information, they can shop around, and in some cases, they have more choice). Today’s customers are also actively encouraged to engage with corporate social media (by following, liking and sharing, and by becoming surrogate brand advocates). However, the increased levels of expectation that this “engagement” creates are not always matched by the post-sales customer experience.

I have written before about how companies can improve their customer service, using a practical 7-point scheme. I would challenge any organisation that rates itself highly for customer service, to assess its performance against those criteria, as well using the ubiquitous customer satisfaction scores (CSAT, NPS®, CES, etc.).

Nearly every time I have an interaction with a telco, utility, bank or other service provider, I receive an immediate follow-up customer feedback request. Once upon a time, I would have been quite willing to provide constructive feedback, as I used to believe that it was important for the voice of the customer to be heard. Nowadays, I am more hesitant, because I don’t believe this feedback is ever properly acknowledged, analyzed or acted upon.

So many of these feedback request forms are self-serving, because the person you dealt with is in effect soliciting personal feedback on their individual performance. And while that is important, it is rarely done in the specific context of the customer’s own experience, and is more concerned with the company’s internal policies and procedures.

I am also increasingly sceptical about feedback processes that are ostensibly used for staff training. First, time is valuable, so it would be nice if companies could reward their customers for making the effort to engage. Second, on the rare occasions where a company has contacted me in response to a complaint submitted online or via a feedback form, I never learn what specific steps the company is taking to rectify problems caused by operational or policy failings. Thirdly, why should I be responsible for telling you how to train your staff or improve your service – surely that’s your job!

In many cases, it is not the performance of an individual customer service representative that is the problem. More likely, it’s poor customer service training, inadequate product knowledge or a myopic perspective, reinforced by silo operations. When even the most pleasant and competent service rep tells me, “I’m sorry, but it’s the way the system is designed…”, they probably don’t realize what a disservice they are doing: a “system” is only as good as the people who design it, and the people who implement it. So, they are in effect criticising their own colleagues, and the organisation they work for.

This lack of self-awareness by customer service staff is reinforced by the limited discretion in trying to resolve customer problems. Along with the use of internal jargon and bewildering acronyms, there is nothing worse than having to complain long or loud enough in order to escalate a problem. It would be wonderful if companies could empower their staff by giving them (well-defined) individual discretion on problem solving, and incentivize them for taking responsibility for the end-to-end resolution process.

In addition, it’s really infuriating being handed from one specialist, team or department to another, especially due to labyrinthine help line service menus. Telco on-boarding processes are particularly notorious for having complex operational procedures, multiple hand-offs and ring-fenced communications. I recall one large service provider who told me that in-bound call-centre staff were unable to speak directly to their own web support teams, and even if they communicated via internal e-mail, they could not guarantee a response.

If I am beginning to sound a bit like a broken record, it’s because recent experiences only reinforce my belief that many companies still don’t understand what it’s like to be one of their customers. But there’s a huge paradox here: on the one hand, companies are trying to reduce customer churn, increase “stickiness”, and improve the share of wallet or lifetime customer value; on the other, the cost of new customer acquisition appears to be cheaper (thanks to social media tools and web analytics), so it doesn’t matter if they lose a few customers, because it’s not that difficult or expensive to find new ones.

If it’s no longer true that “the customer is always right”, because profit margins are being squeezed and companies are being told to “stop delighting your customers”, then service providers have to do a much better job of managing customer expectations. They also need to demonstrate genuine empathy and concern if things go wrong (which is difficult if they don’t have sufficient self-awareness). And if things do go wrong, they need to ask the customer “what could we have done differently to provide you with better customer service?”.

In my professional experience of product management and business development, understanding customer needs and identifying ways to improve service delivery (along with customer-centric perspectives rather than product-led processes), are genuine sources of competitive advantage. But it takes considerable self-awareness to engage customers beyond the level of a single transaction, to develop genuine rapport, and to build sustainable long-term relationships. If your organisation is challenged by poor customer service, and if you recognise this is in part due to a lack of self-awareness, please get in touch – I’d be very interested to understand your problem.

Next week: Idea over Form – Gehry vs Ando

Another weekend, another hackathon….

Last month, I competed in my second hackathon of the year, the #HSCodeFest sponsored by the Herald Sun and News Corp, and hosted by Melbourne University’s Carlton Connect. I’m pleased to say that our team of four, which was only formed on the first night, came 3rd in the pitch competition – with an idea for a news quiz app.

Screen Shot 2015-12-18 at 3.44.56 PMThat particular weekend was quite an eventful one for local startups – not only were there at least two other hackathons being held in Melbourne at the same time, but the State Government also announced its LaunchVic initiative. Small Business Minister, Philip Dalidakis found time in his busy schedule to address the #HSCodeFest participants, which was a great incentive. The previous weekend saw another Startup Weekend event, and last weekend Carlton Connect hosted yet another industry hackathon sponsored by the GE Industrial Challenge. And of course, since then we have had the Prime Minister announce the National Innovation and Science Agenda. To paraphrase Mr Turnbull, there’s never been a more interesting time to be a startup….

Having participated in Startup Weekend’s first #FinTech hackathon back in March this year, I was a lot more prepared, and had a much better idea of what to expect. Even though I didn’t pitch a specific idea on the opening night, I used my previous team-building experience to make sure we had a balanced mix of skills and expertise. I was also clear to make sure that once we had agreed on the project idea, everyone had specific roles, and we constantly checked in on progress and next steps.

As usual, the team generated far more content, data and ideas than we actually used in the pitch presentation. We also kept it very simple, by focusing on the key concept, demoing an MVP, outlining the commercial strategy, describing the business plan, and establishing just enough knowledge and awareness about the market opportunities, even though it had not been possible to fully scope them. For an insider’s view, check out my team-member Nathan’s blog.

We have seen over the past 12-18 months that the hackathon model is being deployed in many different ways to try to stimulate innovation and generate new business ideas. Even government departments and public utilities are getting in on the act, by enabling participants to access data sets, software, technology and APIs to see what they can come up with. Large corporates, who struggle to embed innovation into their organisations, are also holding internal competitions drawing on the experience of meetups, hackathons and pitch nights.

I only see this as a positive development, as long as the energy, enthusiasm and experience can be channelled into meaningful outcomes, which enable in-house talent and external expertise to combine to build great products and services that customers want, and/or identify and deliver significant process improvements and efficiency gains.

However, part of me is sceptical – as someone who is probably much older than the average age of a hackathon participant, I’m still amazed how many of my contemporaries either have no idea or simply don’t “get” the hackathon or meetup concept. They seem astonished that anyone would want to get together with total strangers, and spend their evenings let alone a whole weekend working with them, for “free”. To those of my peers who may see it that way, I would point out that participating in these events is a cheap and effective way of accessing new ideas and skills, meeting talented people, and acquiring new skills and knowledge.

Finally, if your organisation is thinking about running a hackathon or similar event for the first time, I’m more than happy to share my insights – contact me via this blog.

Since the holidays will soon be upon us, Content in Context is taking a short break. Normal service will be resumed on January 5. To my many regular readers and followers, I wish you all a safe and peaceful New Year.

Next: Surrealism, Manifestos and the Art of Juxtaposition

A big year in #FinTech

Looking back over the past year, it’s easy to see that 2015 has seen a giant leap forward for #FinTech in the Melbourne #startup scene. Much of this progress can be attributed to the efforts of the FinTech Melbourne Meetup Group, which, in little over a year, has established itself as one of the leading local startup groups, culminating in its first pitch night last month.
logo

Backdrop

There have been some significant business developments this year, including the launch and expansion of new P2P lending providers, payment platforms, digital currency solutions and robo-advice services. And while Melbourne does not yet have an equivalent to Sydney’s Stone & Chalk (a dedicated FinTech hub), there is enough momentum across the network of co-working spaces and the startup ecosystem of founders, advisors, incubators and accelerator programs to ensure that the city is building on its status as a financial centre.

For myself, the year in FinTech really got going with the inaugural FinTech Startup Weekend, which for me was a steep learning curve. I not only learned how to survive a hackathon, but I also gained a much deeper understanding of FinTech itself. I had become increasingly aware of the topic, via other meetup events, business networking and through reading (and writing for) specialist trade publications.* But until you actually see some of the innovative and practical ideas on new technical solutions for financial services, FinTech can seem like a lot of vaporware.

Emerging Winners

At the recent FinTech Melbourne Pitch Night, five local startups presented to a panel of distinguished judges in front of a packed audience at Melbourne Town Hall. Representing core fintech sectors (and the key messages from their pitches) were:

  • Fuzo – mobile payments platform: “2.5bn people don’t have a bank account”
  • CoinJar – a Bitcoin exchange: “targeting digital nomads”
  • StockLight – investment research: “24% of investors want help with analysis”
  • Moula – SME lending: “not a lender of last resort”
  • Timelio – cashflow finance: “factoring has missed the internet generation”

In what is traditionally a bank-dominated area of trade finance, Timelio is challenging the usual models for invoice discounting, while offering a new asset class for selected investors. I’ve featured Moula in this blog before, but this time around, I felt the presentation was quite low-key, and rather coy about the business model and the financials – maybe that’s because things are moving very quickly, and Moula is in the process of building significant traction via key commercial partnerships. The Fuzo pitch was quite complex (and probably too much technical information to present given the format), but the SIM card-based technology looks very interesting. StockLight‘s proposition is quite simple, and with access to quality content and a range of commercial models, could be one to watch as every financial institution is having to rethink wealth management and personal advice. However, on the night, CoinJar took out the first prize, and not for the first time, demonstrated how a simple concept can actually make the complex more straightforward: if nothing else, it proves that “Bitcoin can be done”.

Backlash

Some comments in the specialist trade publications have been quite scathing about FinTech, in particular those few startups that have embarked on public listings and IPOs. Much of this backlash relates to governance, disclosure and transparency; fair enough, they are important issues. But these criticisms should not be used to undermine the innovative technology, new business models and strategic partnerships that FinTech startups are bringing to the market.

Going mainstream

When otherwise conservative institutions such as industry superannuation funds start to embrace FinTech (e.g., Equip’s tie-up with Clover), or if the ASX decides to deploy blockchain technology to replace the CHESS clearing and settlement platform, it means that FinTech is definitely on the map, and can’t be written off or even ignored as some sort of irritating, disruptive upstart.

Next Steps?

In the wake of announcing the Victorian Government’s $60m LaunchVic startup initiative, the minister for small business, innovation and trade, Philip Dalidakis has been on a flurry of highly visible public speaking engagements, networking events and social media posts. Keen to get the message out there that his government intends to make Victoria a startup success, the minister is certainly generating considerable goodwill in the community.

I’m yet to understand fully the actual remit and stated goals of this new Quango. For example, what does “investing in core infrastructure” mean? Do we really need another bureaucratic body? Couldn’t the initiative have been better structured as a peak body to represent and support the private sector activities already underway?

If the minister is going to be true to his introductory remarks at the recent #hscodefest hackathon, the government needs to create the right environment for startups to flourish, not try to pick winners – leave that to the investors, entrepreneurs and industry experts. As an example, run a FinTech-themed hackathon to improve the Myki system…..

The Last Word…

Finally, for anyone needing an overview on crypto-currency and the future of money, I highly recommend Torsten Hoffmann‘s award-winning 2015 documentary, “Bitcoin: The End of Money as We Know It”, which received its Melbourne premiere last week at Collective Campus.

FOOTNOTE:

* I can’t claim any credit, but a few months after my Trade Finance blog, ICICI and Alibaba announced a new partnership – in part proving my theory that collaboration soon follows in the wake of disruption

Next week: Crate-digging in Japan