Trading off service experience and service efficiency

I have just been at the QUIS2013 conference in Karlstad, Sweden. The final session was a panel discussion with the title "Small Details: What They Are and Why They Matter". The panels, which included a mix of academics and managers, started by providing a few examples of small details and why they matter is services. Janet McColl Kennedy, a Professor from the University of Queensland, told a story about an elderly person in  a care home, who when asked "what could we do to make your life better", replied "let me have a real cup of coffee in the morning". The chair of the panel (Professor Ruth Bolton from Arizona State University) countered, by saying "I'm Canadian, so for me it would have to be tea". This short exchange illustrated the importance of small details. To get the service right you have to deliver services which are personalised, contextualised and time dependent. Manfred Dasselaar, a service manager at Ericsson, built of this theme, describing the challenge of getting customers to understand how hard Finnish engineers were working on solving their queries when the customers and engineers were not co-located. He gave the example of a conference call involving Finnish engineers and their external customers. The customers were getting frustrated that they were not getting much from the engineers (they weren't communicating much, but then they were Finnish). Because the customers were not in the room they could not see that although they were not talking much, the Finnish engineers were sharing images and data on their computer screens - screens that the customers could not see. Once the customers understood how the engineers were communicating and how hard they were working on solving the problems, they became much happier. Again an illustration of how small details can influence the service experience.

So who delivers these small details and how do they make sure they are time, person and context dependent? Often the staff at the front line - often the least trained and least well paid people in the organisation, but those closest to the customers. Should we give these staff more autonomy? Should we train them and seek to create an organisational culture which allows service providers to personalise the service experience? At first blush the obvious answer is yes - this might provide a new and sustainable way of competing. But there are three issues with this first blush response. First, by personalising the service we can increase the cost and complexity of the service - we lose the efficiency gains that can be driven by standardisation and commoditisation. Second, by personalising the service we can create inconsistencies in customer experiences. If every time you are served by a different server and you get a slightly different personalised version of the service then how frustrated do you become when one server fails to do that special thing for you that the previous server did. Third, the more we use technology in services, the more we end up standardising the service. This drives efficiency, but does it deliver the best customer experience? Are automated voice systems better than talking to real people?

It seems to me there's a careful service design and delivery tradeoff to be understood here. Clearly personalising services and tailoring them to individuals in time and context can enhance the service experience, but at what cost in terms of efficiency and consistency? In designing and delivery services we need to be clear about the boundaries - where the scope for personalisation lies and where we should standardise and control. Going too far in either direction is going to result in disaster.

Professor Andy Neely is Director of Cambridge Service Alliance at the University of Cambridge, and a world authority on performance management and complex services.

www.cambridgeservicealliance.org

Why service innovation is different, and why that matters

Service companies comprise 75 percent of economic activity in developed countries.  But companies are often seen as less innovative with service provision than with product design, manufacture and sales. But is this really the case or we are just misunderstanding the process of innovation in services?  We recently did some research to find out.

The focus was put on four providers of complex relational services, such as performance-based contracts that guarantee product availability. The research has shown that the conception of the product orientated innovation process  (company innovates- company sells – customer uses) doesn’t hold in the relational services, where the customer’s involvement in co-creating the service is accentuated. That means that the new services development is simultaneous to their production and use, thus making the customer a co-creator of the service. Firms that prepare properly for these two characteristics – simultaneity and co-creation – before engaging in relational service provision are likely to be more successful.

The service contract is designed, contracted for and then delivered by the service provider on the basis of the outcome that the customer wants. The service is innovative when the service provider offers a new outcome- an outcome he never provided before. The innovation actually takes place through interaction of the service provider and the client, making them co-creators of the service through the delivery.

Risk and reward in service innovation have a different nature as well. Although the service provider may invest in the infrastructure necessary to provide the new service, through payment of service fees the client effectively co-finances the innovation process.  As customer signs a long-term contract, the service provider avoids the market risk. But the service provider must address the risks inherent in delivering a novel service, whether these are higher service costs, contract penalties, loss of profits, or a dented reputation.

Problems with initial service delivery might cause the company to withdraw from the innovation. This actually disables it to understand the lessons from the initial innovation and reap the benefits that accrue over time through additional services to existing and new clients. The potential benefits for the service provider include: first-mover advantage, enabling the firm to leverage its learning by using it to secure further contracts with existing or new clients; cross leveraging innovation infrastructure investments and learning across other service contracts; and using the initial service innovation as a catalyst for other types of innovation –both services and products.

Firms that wish to be good service innovators need to have cross-functional teams and company-wide incentives to innovate, in other words an organizational-wide entrepreneurial culture should be encouraged throughout the company. This stresses how crucial adopting a long-term approach to innovative services is. The client and the service provider have to have a long-lasting, mutually trusting relationship in order to capture the full benefits of the innovation. They have to be well acquainted with one another in order to overcome the initial problems.

Ivanka Visnjic,
Research Lead, Cambridge Service Alliance

The research reported in this blog can be found in this report 'When Innovation Follows Promise - Why service innovation is different, and why that matters' Executive Briefing, Ivanka Visnjic, Taija Turunen, Andy Neely

Five predictions for the future of services

What does the future hold for services? I was recently invited to give a talk on this topic and gazing into a crystal ball produced five predictions...

1. Services will become more automated, but automation will brings risk...
Clearly technology will play an increasingly important role in services. RFID tags and barcodes on installed products will store service and parts histories - no need to search for those old service records anymore. Social media and unstructured data will be used to guide service interventions. The city of Chicago, for example, is seeking to harvest Twitter data to identify potential problems with public infrastructure. Weblogs, loyalty cards, smart phones - coupled with position location trackers - provide valuable data that can be used to tailor and customise services.

Yet this increasingly interconnected world also brings new risks, particularly as organisation join data up across domains. Think of your local convenience store and the loyalty card data they collect. How happy would you be if they started selling data on your shopping habits to your health insurance providers? The automation of services will increase their efficiency, but firms will have to consider very carefully the ethical and morale implications of how they use data they can access.

2. Services will become more localised and personalised...
Technology is already enabling the localisation and personalisation of services. Couple these developments with environmental drivers, such as the cost of carbon, and we'll see an even great shift towards localisation and personalisation. Take 3-D printing – in the future we’ll have printers in our homes that can create incredibly complex products (things that can’t currently be manufactured). 3-D printing will revolutionise manufacturing, but it will also revolutionise the spares market – what will you do do when customers can 3-D print their own spares to order?

3. Health services will be massive...
The demographic changes that are afoot will have profound implications for healthcare – already pharmaceutical firms are redefining themselves as healthcare businesses. As their drugs come off patent, they are realising that they have to change their business model, reinventing themselves as healthcare solutions providers. A much more customer focussed approach - most of us don't want to take medicines, we want to be healthy in the first place. So if you can be the healthcare solutions provider that stops people getting ill you are in a powerful position. In healthcare, its not just the changing nature of the economic environment that matters. The ageing population will also stress the medical system – many countries won’t have enough capacity (beds) in hospitals for the potential demand and it is too costly to keep people in hospitals anyway. So Governments will look for alternative forms of healthcare provision, e.g. assisted living, where people remain at home and are remotely monitored, perhaps using biometric monitoring devices built into their clothing.

Then there’s the question of healthcare diagnostics – IBM's Watson, the software solution that won Jeopardy, is now being put to use in healthcare, supporting doctors in patient diagnosis. And the potential for new healthcare services does not end their. Will we see organ farms – farms where people grow replacement body organs that are sold on the open market?

4. Everything that can be digitised will be...
Digitisation is already a significant trend in some sectors - take books, music, films… When will we stop producing physical version of products that can be made available as electronic services? Will we stop producing cash – we can use electronic credits on our mobile phones – indeed M-Pesa already does! When will virtual holidays become the norm – augmented reality means we can take a Carribean cruise without leaving our house – we certainly won’t need to fly miles in an aeroplane…

5. We'll stop being consumers...
The growing pressure on the earth’s resources will make “consumers” outlaws… We won’t be pleased to be called a consumer – instead we’ll look for ways of sharing resources and physical assets. We won’t all own our car, our own washing machine, our own lawn mower… Instead we’ll share resources across neighbourhoods. Do we really need watches? Our digital devices (whatever comes after the iPhone) can tell the time, double as a TV, etc, etc.

How good are your choice architects?

Service design seems to be getting more topical - especially the behavioural consequences of service design. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein wrote a fascinating book a few years ago called "Nudge". The core thesis of the book was that during design "choice architects" make design choices that "nudge" people in particular directions. Take a trivial example - handles on doors. When a door has a handle on it rather than a flat plat the subtle signal is pull to open the door. Ask yourself, how often do you walk up to a door with a handle on it and try to push it open? More controversially, nudges can be included in some ethically challenging decisions. In the UK we still have an opt in system for organ donation. People have to choose to donate their organs after death. Recent debates have focussed on whether we should have an opt out system - assuming that people will donate organs after death unless they have explicitly stated otherwise. This simple system design choice would have a profound impact on the levels of organ donations.

How many organisations actively think about the nudges they are introducing when designing services? How many organisations train their service designers as choice architects - encouraging them to think about the behavioural implications of seemingly trivial design choices? My guess is not many. Test it yourself. When you next experience a service, look for those nudges and see how many really nudge you in the right direction.

Andy Neely

Innovation Festivals: A Source of Ideas

Last weekend was the global service jam - billed as 48 hours to change the world. Teams from 40 countries created 350 new service ideas across the course of a weekend - all themed on Hidden Treasure. Its an interesting concept - 48 hours to form - first a team (bear in mind participants have not necessarily met before and therefore can hardly be called a team at the start) - and second a new service idea. And the idea has to be documented and demonstrated. What a great way of engaging people in innovation.


I saw a linked piece in the UK's Guardian travel supplement recently. This time focusing on the innovation festivals that are sprouting up all over the world. Clearly the best known innovation event is TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design), but TED has sprouted a load of local TEDx events (independently organised TED events). I liked the Guardian article because it introduced a range of other innovation festivals, including Wisdom 2.0 in California, South by South West in Austin Texas, The Do lectures in Wales, 99% Conference in New York, Future Everything in Manchester, Likeminds in Devon, Vivid Sydney in Australia, North by North East in Toronto Canada and the unsubtly named World Domination Summit in Portland.


Its fascinating that social media, coupled with networking events are bringing people together simply to enjoy one another's company as they create new service ideas. Where does that leave service deign in organisations? If you have armies of volunteers offering their time and thoughts freely to one another, how do organisations compete with the collective wisdom of the crowd? In fact one could ask whether organisations should compete - maybe the time for open service innovation is upon us.

Andy Neely