I had the pleasure of being invited by Hinchcliffe & Company to attend their Web 2.0 Executive Bootcamp as a guest VIP blogger. The session was a day-long interactive session all about Web 2.0 - including education on all of the aspects of Web 2.0, as well as examples of innovators and discussions about implications and applications for personal and business use.
The day was organized around Hinchcliffe’s Seven Principles of Web 2.0. I could, and probably will, write an entire blog post on my interpretation of each of these Principles. For now, I will focus on making this a synthesis of the event and highly recommend that anyone interested in Web 2.0 attend one of these bootcamps. If you find this post interesting and useful, the bootcamp should be worth your time … of course, the constant changing nature of Web 2.0 will ensure everything is fresh and new, so this is pre-reading.
I think the course can actually appeal to both those that are Web 2.0 neophytes as well as to those that are in the early adopter camp, which is where I’d put myself. The Seven Principles are a good organizing framework for Web 2.0, and each explodes out into a web of interesting implications and opportunities for enterprises looking to leverage Web 2.0. For heavy Web 2.0 adopters, there will be some very familiar territory covered (e.g. what is a wiki, blog, etc. and how to set up), however, the content was delivered in such a way that if you were already at a high level of understanding, the content allows you to think at the next level for each of the Seven Principles.
Below is a list of the Seven Principles and some of the salient points that I thought came out of our discussion on each:
This one seems to speak for itself. The premise is that the Web is becoming the primary location for our applications and data. The difference this time is the network effects are far stronger than on the PC or Client/Server platform. With a global audience of over 1 Billion people using the Web, and the application of Reid’s Law - each new human node in the network increases the network’s value exponentially, this new platform is immensely more valuable for all users. We had a fairly deep discussion of the impact of these network effects and the opportunities. Case example - with services such as Amazon’s S3 in the cloud, what is the impact on M&A for new startups? If a startup can get reliable storage services for $0.15 or less per Gigabyte and the service scales, then the need to sell to a larger company to support its growth diminishes. Now extrapolate that to a series of viable services that scale, are reliable, and are cost-effective … the potential to innovate up the stack appears to grow massively.
The core argument here is the combination of the sheer number of mobile devices and their ability to connect to the Web at high speeds. With over 2 Billion handsets about to be sold this year, and a growing number with robust web browsers and flash in the browser, the ability to leverage the web while mobile will increase substantially. Add on to that the use of SMS and RSS integrated with web services, and the mobile device is now intricately tied to the web. Outside the US in fact, the mobile phone is becoming (or may be) the preferred (or most frequently used) way to access the web. Services that appeal to younger web users seems to be leading the charge here … Facebook and its use of SMS is a prime example … Google also has great mobile services for Gmail and Reader. The Blogging Contribution Chain [hmm ... the notion of a 'Contribution Chain' is interesting in the context of Web 2.0 services - this should be studied, though I'm sure it has been ... if not, I'd like credit for the term please!] was highlighted as an example in the bootcamp. Bloggers can post from multiple places, including Mobile phones. Also, with RSS, the blog posts can be read while mobile (mobile RSS reader or Google’s mobile Reader).
This is the topic of data as the new “Intel inside”. As people come to a web service and participate, they are contributing data - intention data (clicks), personal data, new content, ratings, etc. Web services that are the first to aggregate interesting and useful data establish a clear leadership position and a high barrier to entry for competition. Witness Google and its search index capability due to page rank data, Amazon and product reviews, Craigslist and classifieds. We discussed opportunity areas where new companies can be formed around this notion of data as the competitive advantage.
A core part of Web 2.0 is being agile, nimble, quick, and collaborative. This is all achieved with a lightweight programming and business model. Gone are the days of long software development lifecycle. Web 2.0 work is done with speed to market and speed to adoption in mind. This requires more agile methodologies, a perpetual beta product, shorter release cycles. It also involves a shift in design patterns. Hinchcliffe and Company highlights a number of Web 2.0 mantras, and at least one came out in this section, namely “Web 2.0 is not about push, it’s about pull.” A fundamental tenet of Web 2.0 from a design perspective is putting the person at the center of your service - they’re in charge. As such, we discussed the Architecture of Participation extensively, including how to create one and some components that are required in order to create one - being open in design and using the simplest standards to get the job done. The information in this area was quite rich
Staying on the topic of ‘rich’, we transitioned into the principle of creating rich user experiences and how to do that. This discussion included an overview of the main Rich Internet Application tools available today - Ajax, Flash/Flex, and now SilverLight from Microsoft. Despite my initial read on SilverLight, it actually sounds more powerful than I originally believed. We reviewed the basic positives and negatives of each, and the notion of the proprietary plug-ins required to run Flash and SilverLight applications vs. the openness of Ajax. Also discussed was the current complexity of Ajax due to the myriad toolsets available and thus lack of productivity. We closed with a good discussion on Widgets - the notion of being able to create functional chunks of application capability that can be distributed across the web and embedded in remote websites - examples include Google AdSense, and YouTube. In fact, it was interesting that a lot of YouTube’s early viral success was because it was easy to embed video clips in MySpace pages to share with that powerful social network. For a good look at widgetization of the web, check out WidgetBox.
Hinchcliffe states that this principle is tied tightly to the third principle, “Data is the competitive advantage”. We returned to a core principle of Web 2.0, namely that “it is about the people”. A paradigm shift is required to truly understand this and create a valuable Web 2.0 service - need to recognize that the people that come to use your service are “partners”, and their use and contributions make the service more valuable. These partners increase the value of the service through their contributions and their intention data that is contributed through their usage, not to mention their referrals and word of mouth that enable exponential growth. Services need to be sure to empower the users to improve the service. Some interesting and some now familiar examples were discussed (the Chevy Tahoe design your own ad campaign). An interesting one was XM Radio’s 20 on 20 campaign, which allowed users to design the programming for Channel 20. In a Digg-like rating fashion, users were responsible for the top 20 songs for Channel 20. Ratings for Channel 20 on XM rocketed up from the basement to being consistently among the Top 3 XM channels. We also discussed collective intelligence as a core enabler and component of social networks, blogs and Wikipedia.
I had to leave at this stage to catch a flight and get back to work on the Next Generation Enterprise revolution. Information on this Principle can be found on the Web from Dion Hinchcliffe’s writing, as well as their corporate site, and other bloggers who have written about Hinchcliffe’s work.
Overall, this bootcamp was a rich discussion of Web 2.0 and the core principles discussion was also followed by other items such as a discussion of Enterprise 2.0. Very thought provoking information, and a good framework for thinking about the complexity and overall opportunity of Web 2.0.
I’m now going to think a bit about this notion of a “Contribution Chain” as part of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 services. If people are at the core of Web 2.0 services, data is the core competitive advantage, and harnessing collective intelligence is key, then knowing how the Contribution Chain works is vital to Web 2.0 service design, growth and scalability. Though, Chain may be too rigid … may need to think about “Contribution Webs” or “Contribution Ecosystems” or “Contribution Networks”.
^ brian
Technorati Tags: e2.0, enterprise20, hinchcliffe, web20
I had the pleasure of being invited by Hinchcliffe & Company to attend their Web 2.0 Executive Bootcamp as a guest VIP blogger. The session was a day-long interactive session all about Web 2.0 - including education on all of the aspects of Web 2.0, as well as examples of innovators and discussions about implications and applications for personal and business use.
The day was organized around Hinchcliffe’s Seven Principles of Web 2.0. I could, and probably will, write an entire blog post on my interpretation of each of these Principles. For now, I will focus on making this a synthesis of the event and highly recommend that anyone interested in Web 2.0 attend one of these bootcamps. If you find this post interesting and useful, the bootcamp should be worth your time … of course, the constant changing nature of Web 2.0 will ensure everything is fresh and new, so this is pre-reading.
I think the course can actually appeal to both those that are Web 2.0 neophytes as well as to those that are in the early adopter camp, which is where I’d put myself. The Seven Principles are a good organizing framework for Web 2.0, and each explodes out into a web of interesting implications and opportunities for enterprises looking to leverage Web 2.0. For heavy Web 2.0 adopters, there will be some very familiar territory covered (e.g. what is a wiki, blog, etc. and how to set up), however, the content was delivered in such a way that if you were already at a high level of understanding, the content allows you to think at the next level for each of the Seven Principles.
Below is a list of the Seven Principles and some of the salient points that I thought came out of our discussion on each:
This one seems to speak for itself. The premise is that the Web is becoming the primary location for our applications and data. The difference this time is the network effects are far stronger than on the PC or Client/Server platform. With a global audience of over 1 Billion people using the Web, and the application of Reid’s Law - each new human node in the network increases the network’s value exponentially, this new platform is immensely more valuable for all users. We had a fairly deep discussion of the impact of these network effects and the opportunities. Case example - with services such as Amazon’s S3 in the cloud, what is the impact on M&A for new startups? If a startup can get reliable storage services for $0.15 or less per Gigabyte and the service scales, then the need to sell to a larger company to support its growth diminishes. Now extrapolate that to a series of viable services that scale, are reliable, and are cost-effective … the potential to innovate up the stack appears to grow massively.
The core argument here is the combination of the sheer number of mobile devices and their ability to connect to the Web at high speeds. With over 2 Billion handsets about to be sold this year, and a growing number with robust web browsers and flash in the browser, the ability to leverage the web while mobile will increase substantially. Add on to that the use of SMS and RSS integrated with web services, and the mobile device is now intricately tied to the web. Outside the US in fact, the mobile phone is becoming (or may be) the preferred (or most frequently used) way to access the web. Services that appeal to younger web users seems to be leading the charge here … Facebook and its use of SMS is a prime example … Google also has great mobile services for Gmail and Reader. The Blogging Contribution Chain [hmm … the notion of a “Contribution Chain” is interesting in the context of Web 2.0 services - this should be studied, though I’m sure it has been … if not, I’d like credit for the term please!] was highlighted as an example in the bootcamp. Bloggers can post from multiple places, including Mobile phones. Also, with RSS, the blog posts can be read while mobile (mobile RSS reader or Google’s mobile Reader).
This is the topic of data as the new “Intel inside”. As people come to a web service and participate, they are contributing data - intention data (clicks), personal data, new content, ratings, etc. Web services that are the first to aggregate interesting and useful data establish a clear leadership position and a high barrier to entry for competition. Witness Google and its search index capability due to page rank data, Amazon and product reviews, Craigslist and classifieds. We discussed opportunity areas where new companies can be formed around this notion of data as the competitive advantage.
A core part of Web 2.0 is being agile, nimble, quick, and collaborative. This is all achieved with a lightweight programming and business model. Gone are the days of long software development lifecycle. Web 2.0 work is done with speed to market and speed to adoption in mind. This requires more agile methodologies, a perpetual beta product, shorter release cycles. It also involves a shift in design patterns. Hinchcliffe and Company highlights a number of Web 2.0 mantras, and at least one came out in this section, namely “Web 2.0 is not about push, it’s about pull.” A fundamental tenet of Web 2.0 from a design perspective is putting the person at the center of your service - they’re in charge. As such, we discussed the Architecture of Participation extensively, including how to create one and some components that are required in order to create one - being open in design and using the simplest standards to get the job done. The information in this area was quite rich
Staying on the topic of ‘rich’, we transitioned into the principle of creating rich user experiences and how to do that. This discussion included an overview of the main Rich Internet Application tools available today - Ajax, Flash/Flex, and now SilverLight from Microsoft. Despite my initial read on SilverLight, it actually sounds more powerful than I originally believed. We reviewed the basic positives and negatives of each, and the notion of the proprietary plug-ins required to run Flash and SilverLight applications vs. the openness of Ajax. Also discussed was the current complexity of Ajax due to the myriad toolsets available and thus lack of productivity. We closed with a good discussion on Widgets - the notion of being able to create functional chunks of application capability that can be distributed across the web and embedded in remote websites - examples include Google AdSense, and YouTube. In fact, it was interesting that a lot of YouTube’s early viral success was because it was easy to embed video clips in MySpace pages to share with that powerful social network. For a good look at widgetization of the web, check out WidgetBox.
Hinchcliffe states that this principle is tied tightly to the third principle, “Data is the competitive advantage”. We returned to a core principle of Web 2.0, namely that “it is about the people”. A paradigm shift is required to truly understand this and create a valuable Web 2.0 service - need to recognize that the people that come to use your service are “partners”, and their use and contributions make the service more valuable. These partners increase the value of the service through their contributions and their intention data that is contributed through their usage, not to mention their referrals and word of mouth that enable exponential growth. Services need to be sure to empower the users to improve the service. Some interesting and some now familiar examples were discussed (the Chevy Tahoe design your own ad campaign). An interesting one was XM Radio’s 20 on 20 campaign, which allowed users to design the programming for Channel 20. In a Digg-like rating fashion, users were responsible for the top 20 songs for Channel 20. Ratings for Channel 20 on XM rocketed up from the basement to being consistently among the Top 3 XM channels. We also discussed collective intelligence as a core enabler and component of social networks, blogs and Wikipedia.
I had to leave at this stage to catch a flight and get back to work on the Next Generation Enterprise revolution. Information on this Principle can be found on the Web from Dion Hinchcliffe’s writing, as well as their corporate site, and other bloggers who have written about Hinchcliffe’s work.
Overall, this bootcamp was a rich discussion of Web 2.0 and the core principles discussion was also followed by other items such as a discussion of Enterprise 2.0. Very thought provoking information, and a good framework for thinking about the complexity and overall opportunity of Web 2.0.
I’m now going to think a bit about this notion of a “Contribution Chain” as part of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 services. If people are at the core of Web 2.0 services, data is the core competitive advantage, and harnessing collective intelligence is key, then knowing how the Contribution Chain works is vital to Web 2.0 service design, growth and scalability. Though, Chain may be too rigid … may need to think about “Contribution Webs” or “Contribution Ecosystems” or “Contribution Networks”.
^ brian
Technorati Tags: e2.0, enterprise20, hinchcliffe, web20
Forrester Research has been taking the lead recently in defining the potential for companies to leverage the Web and new Web 2.0 technologies and processes to enhance their marketing and significantly improve their ability to engage directly with their customers. The latest report addressing this topic comes from Laura Ramos and is titled B2B Marketing Needs A Makeover - Now. You can read a summary of the report by clicking here.
One point of interest from this report is that B2B marketers are still relying primarily on trade shows as a way to directly reach their customers. Even if the right people are at the trade shows, the venue is hardly conducive for engaging in constructive dialog about customer needs or for relationship building. Moreover, once the show is over, the direct connection ends.
This is where Web2.0, or Enterprise2.0 if you prefer, can shine.
What seems to be lacking in the Forrester summaries and in the online dialog about the Forrester reports is a clearer definition of how corporate marketers can leverage Web2.0 technologies to successfully drive their marketing programs and generate increased leads and loyalty. In fact, this seems to be a general problem not specifically related to Forrester. A lot of buzz exists about corporate blogging and Enterprise2.0, yet very little in the way of offering advice on what specifically to do, or even how to do it in a way that generates meaningful results.
Kalivo is finding in its sales efforts that many to most companies are highly interested in leveraging innovative online social technologies to drive their marketing processes. Yet, nearly all of those that have an interest are unsure of what their needs are in this area, and what types of solutions they need to implement. It turns out that these prospects are willing to experiment with solutions, such as Kalivo and others, in an effort to learn more about what will work to engage more directly with customers and drive increased leads to their business.
Part of Kalivo’s role is coaching our prospects through the process, and highlighting the benefits of our approach to the solving the problem. However, as a service provider with a solution to sell, our perspective by definition will not always be viewed as impartial. In fact, we have done our research and believe our approach is best; yet only time and results will ultimately tell the truth. In the meantime, Kalivo and all other service providers that aspire to provide solutions in this emerging market will benefit if an independent company such as Forrester would go beyond defining the opportunity for companies, and take the lead in recommending how to seize the opportunity and which technologies and service providers will best serve companies looking to be marketing innovators on the Web. With all of the experimenting going on among companies in this area, the opportunity for valuable synthesis should exist.
I intend for this blog, and the Kalivo Customer Hub to be a source of research, thought-leadership, and conversation for our customers, prospects, and independent firms such as Forrester in the area of corporate Web marketing and customer engagement. I would also be highly interested in contributing to a broad research effort, by Forrester or any other qualified firm, that begins to define and synthesize tangible “best practices” as to how companies can begin to successfully drive leads and loyalty through effective Web customer engagement strategies.
– brian
|
|
Are You Falling Into the Customer Satisfaction Trap?
by Vaughan Merlyn on 2010-01-25 12:02 PM read 570 times Source: http://vaughanmerlyn.com/?p=1856 |
|
Customer Satisfaction is a slippery and potentially dangerously misleading concept! I was reminded of this when reading an article entitled “Satisfaction vs. Loyalty” by William J. Cusick in the excellent publication, The Conference Board Review. Cusick argues that customers who complete satisfaction surveys typically respond “satisfied” or “mostly satisfied” regardless of how they really feel. He goes on to cite a study of people who had recently changed their banks. In this study, 80% said they had been “satisfied” with their former institution, and yet they still chose to leave!
According to Cusick, “because it’s easier!” How many times, in a restaurant, for example, when the server asks, “Was everything alright?” we respond in the affirmative when, in reality it was not ok, and we intend to never return? Of course, there is a threshold of service below which we will complain – for some this threshold is lower than for others – but the reality is that we often don’t have the energy or motivation to provide honest feedback.
How many times have you chosen to fill in a customer feedback form only to abandon it in mid-flight because it’s design does not permit you to give the feedback you’d like to give? I know that happens to me from time to time – the instrument design is totally inadequate and sometimes actually exacerbates my negative feelings towards the organization.
I think it is a well-worn and proven fact that a proper response to a customer complaint can help not only recover from a service or product problem, but can actually help build loyalty. And yet so many companies and organizations fail to acknowledge, let alone respond to customer feedback. (I will post in a couple of days on my experience with Get Satisfaction and a complaint I made about Bose Quiet Comfort headphones a couple of years ago – a very sad but fascinating story!)
Providing feedback is subject to an interesting set of dynamics. Many years ago I read a fascinating book on this called Exit, Voice and Loyalty, by Albert O. Hirschman. In this book, Hirschman argues that members of an organization have two possible responses when they perceive that the organization is not performing – they can exit (withdraw from the relationship); or, they can voice (attempt to improve the relationship through communication, grievance or proposal for change). Exit is associated with Adam Smith’s invisible hand of the market. Voice, on the other hand, is political and can be confrontational. Hirschman explores the dynamics and characteristics of “exit” and “voice,” and the interplay of these choices with “loyalty.”
The book has helped me recognize my responsibility in “voicing” any concerns I have with an organization. It also reminds me when and why to “exit” a relationship, taking into account my concern for loyalty to that organization. In the case of flawed customer feedback, the loyalty factor is so low that people can’t be bothered to provide real and useful feedback. They may, in fact, deliberately withhold feedback feeling that the organization doesn’t even deserve it!
Another problem with Customer Satisfaction is that even if feedback is provided, it may not tell you what you really need to know. A couple of years back I had to make a service call to a software provider. They used remote access to figure out what was wrong and correct it. I was asked to complete a follow-up survey that wanted to know if the call had resolved the problem. It had, but my “Customer Experience” was far less than positive, but they could not have known that from my response to their survey. The reasons were:
I’m sure they recorded me as a satisfied customer, and rewarded their support desk for a job well done. But in reality, I had a poor customer experience, and would never do business with them again, nor recommend them to my friends.
How well are you really surfacing your customer’s satisfaction with your product or service? How do they feel about their customer experience?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2851335d-316e-4a0d-90b0-bd063a8f2cfe)
5 Replies
|
Login to Reply
| Options 
Trackback URL: http://ww.cim.ngenera.com/trackback/17920-are-you-falling-into-the-customer-satisfaction-trap
Steve, I like your “Fix and Close” quip! In fact, many metrics and reward systems for help desk workers actively encourage “Fix and Close” behavior.
When I was writing this post, I looked for a link to the article I reference here, but unfortunately, the electronic version of the publication only includes the major articles. It does not cover minor pieces (this was a one-pager). Perhaps if you contact The Conference Board Review, they can send you a copy of the Winter issue – better yet, they may offer you a subscription. As I noted, it’s an excellent publication.
Great article worthy of probing. From a CIO perspective, what does customer satisfaction mean? Likely something different to each customer and/or stakeholder. If we take a perspective of 100% opt-in for use of IT, are there specific minimum spec to be met for customers to be satisfied to the point of deliberately choosing to use IT. As mention in your post customer satisfaction always leads to an option of exit. While exiting IT is not easy to pull off, growth off Shadow IT and IT avoidance had very low barriers.
On a different note, Customer Satisfaction is nearly impossible at a personal level for a CIO. As a friend of mine astutely noted, it half of your executive peers are not mad at you for something you’re not doing your job.
Good article.. “things that make you go hmmm.”
Great comments, as ever, Russ. I agree with your points.
Your point about Customer Sat for the CIO at a personal level (or for any business-IT relationship manager) reinforces why I believe cust sat is a dangerous metric. If the CIO (as “uber relationship manager) and the business-IT relationship managers are doing their job, cust sat ratings may be low, but customer experience ratings should be high. That’s the equivalent of a customer saying, “I don’t like the way you keep pushing back on me, but you are working with me to increase the business value realized through IT – and I respect and need that!”
[...] Vaughan Merlyn states in this post titled; Are You Falling Into The Customer Satisfaction Trap In finding and fixing the problem, they made no attempt to help me become self-sufficient in fixing [...]
icon
Log in to Tell a Friend
Log in to Copy
Report Abuse
RSS
Secure RSS
Login to Reply
Vaughan, I too have felt that poor Customer Experience pain many times (mentioned at the end of the post) of companies that just assume they know what the “last” problem was and follow Fix and Close mentality, but do not go the extra mile and dig back to the “first” problem, i.e. a missing self-service FAQ. Do you have a link to the first article mentioned?