Join the movement and participate in the discussion to create a new framework and metrics for customer support. You’ve probably heard about the initiative to create a new framework fro customer support, led by Klever and a broad group of leaders, in Phil’s preview of the upcoming report, Creating an Executive Dashboard for Customer Support.” We met on Friday, December 18, to share ideas about the six high-level metrics. The discussion was extremely productive, and we wanted to share the highlights of that discussion. Feel free to listen to the meeting recording to get the full context.
Hiren Dalal and David Babb asked questions to clarify the ultimate goal that helped focus the conversation. Are we using the concept of the balanced scorecard or is this a different framework (Hiren)? We may track 60% of these but not 40%. Is the recommendation that if we don’t measure this today, this is how we can measure it going forward (David)?
Phil Verghis explained that these are emergent measures, a workable proxy, that is far better than what enterprises are doing today. The value we can deliver is in the relevancy (so what) and actionability (what do we do with it). He emphasized that this framework doesn’t have to be perfect; we need to get beyond just the executive view, so we can change behaviors. That means that the front line manages own their work and managers think about how to grow and improve, not just react.
- The group reached consensus that customer engagement, employee engagement, and knowledge/collaboration belonged on this list.
- Acceleration was also accepted in the context of new initiatives to drive businesses forward, not small improvements in every area, but transformative projects such as beginning knowledge management.
- The proposed Revenue/Profitability metric generated considerable discussion, with the group agreeing that a financial metric was relevant to this list, but revenue/profitability did not reflect the broad scope of implications (internal support, non-profit organizations, perhaps not accountable/relevant directly to the front line). John Custy suggested that mission/vision may be more relevant and inclusive. Cinda Daly recommend Financial Accountability or Financial Health.
Open discussion item: What word do we use, and what is the one-liner definition?
- The Efficiency metric also generated considerable discussion as it suggested different things around the group. Karen Lim thought of efficiency more in terms of delivering value to the organization. John Custy viewed efficiency as an operational term that focuses on transactions, and that it should be more about effectiveness and outcomes. Adam Krob suggested that we look at capacity effectiveness; how well are we using our team to scale and grow as the business scales. Paul Esch thought of efficiency as a cost factor; are we properly staffed, for example.
Open discussion item: General support for “Value,” but this is still open. What word do we use, and what is the one-liner definition?
- The chart below reflects the consensus the group reached regarding the six high-level metrics, weighting, and one-line definition
- In subsequent meetings we will outline the key drivers for each metric through three lens: executive, manager, and front line.
You are welcome to use, copy, and/or modify this content under this Creative Commons license, provided you display this entire paragraph. Developed by Klever,www.getklever.com
John Ragsdale reinforced that we are not looking to build an exhaustive deep dive that covers every metric everyone uses. He went on to say that depending on the organization, and the more esoteric we get, the more difficult it will to be to gain consensus on a framework. John Custy suggested that we should perhaps be talking more in terms of analytics, more predictive measures to drive transformations, than metrics, which are traditionally after the fact, descriptive measures of activity.
Phil suggested that we focus on how we guide people to go forward, focus on the ‘so what’ and what do we do (the actionability).