Aggravating Transactions? Why Didn't We Ask the Customer First?

ComputerWorld's September 3 issue carried an opinion piece that demonstrates, so vividly, just how backward many organizations can be when it comes to process. The article describes a bank, which was determined to be "customer focused." Apparently they turned to technology to "make it happen" by implementing a CRM system. The design was to ensure that the branch bankers could offer, "the right products every time they interacted with customers" (ComputerWorld, Sept. 3, 2007, p. 30). As I might have predicted, the technology failed to do anything but upset the customers. This is a perfect example that I have seen over and over-technology is implemented with no insight, understanding or even the slightest consideration of the customer needs: only those of the business. The business knew what they wanted. But they didn't take the time (didn't budget for) to understand the customer. Somehow industry today seems to think that every problem has a technology solution and just by putting code in place, the problem will be resolved. The article goes on to describe just what a mess this b-ass a-kward approach created.

Unfortunately, the author of the opinion missed the point of the whole case. As I read this piece, he claims that "...process design works against this kind of re-vamp. IT needed to step back from technology and envision the future...". OK, I agree that IT needed to step back. But it needed to step back further than he suggests. Process design DOES NOT work against such an effort if, in fact, the process design is executed by a professional with an understanding of how to capture the "voice of the customer." THAT, not technology, is where you start such an undertaking. I am regularly amazed at the number of organizations that refuse to talk to the customer first: to establish the criteria that will become the specifications for the solution. Is it fear? Are they afraid to talk to the customer? Or do they just not know any better?

I find it amazing, and a wee bit amusing, that many organizations never have the money to understand the customer before setting criteria that will dictate code that will ultimately impact the customer. Yet they find the money for a "do-over" once the initial effort fails. This, however, costs them in terms of Good Will. On the surface it's an intangible. But it's a real cost. Put a price on that will ya!