WOW! I didn’t see this one coming, but it’s been too long in coming ” … there are too many technologists in technology”. I found this in the article ‘Memo to Vendors: Here’s How to Build a Winner‘ by Mike Elgan of Computerworld writing for PCWorld. It’s the case not only for software systems, it’s also a problem for Customer Facing Systems (CFS’s) in general.

Elgan lists the following important points:

• Consistency
• Simplicity
• Performance
• Stability

In his words, all of these boil down to the issue of Control. Who is in control of the application? He goes on to discuss the flaws in usability testing ad the sort of issues that concern the people running them, but his point, and mine as well here, is that it’s more about how the person FEELS than the goal they’re trying to achieve.

When your customer faces your CFS, what do they see in their minds eye and what do they feel? Do they seem to see a technologist staring back at them explaining things in arcane language and getting upset when they do something wrong? Or do they see a friendly, helpful interface that gives them control over their destiny?

My contention is that too many CFS systems are built by technologists without any understanding of the customer’s point of view. Not just what they’re goal is, but how they FEEL about your company as they’re dealing with you.

Categories: Human Activity Systems, System Development
No Comments »

Was your system implemented by one of the major consulting firms? Never having been part of one, I can’t speak to their policies or procedures and I can only judge by the projects I’ve come into AFTER a major consulting company has left. Maybe the perception is biased because I often see poor implementations or failed projects, but I’ve seen some that are considered successful as well and frankly I’m not impressed.

In talking with people involved in projects, it seems to be the pattern that very senior consultants deal with executives at the company and sell them on the project. They’re followed by more junior people who come in and actually do the work. Like anything else, the quality varies. Unfortunately, in some cases I’ve come into, it’s been clear that the understanding of the underlying problems was lacking.

Thick reports and polished presentations don’t mean that they understand you. Look carefully to see if what you’re getting is a solution looking for twist your problem into the right form to fit it. If you start to get the feeling that you’re being overwhelmed with high level talk and it isn’t being made clear to you in your own terms what the problem really is, then maybe you’re not getting what you need.

1. Are the presentations clear and understandable, phrased in terms you would use?
2. Are you and your people involved in gathering data and the follow up analysis?
3. Are the people doing the analysis going to be there for the implementation?

If ANY of these answers are NO, you need to think carefully before you sign on the dotted line.

Let me point out, sometimes it happens that you’ll get just the right thing and everything will work as it’s supposed to. Often enough to be of concern though, it doesn’t. Slick presentations and executive presence doesn’t make for a good customer facing system. Only a systemic understanding will provide a basis for that.

Categories: System Development
No Comments »

I was reviewing some old magazines today, and was struck by two with implications for CFS construction. The first, in the July 2006 issue of Communications of the ACM (Avison, et. al, “Managerial IT Unconsciousness”, Comm ACM 49:7, July 2006, pp89-93) was in a special issue about Service Systems. It reviewed three studies done in Australia about service system implementations, all of which were failures. Because failures are a great way to learn, I always find them fascinating.

The whole point of the article was that these projects effectively ran with at best limited managerial involvement. Some of the work was outsourced and there were regular project meetings, but everything was actually in the hands of people with little or no experience and no insight into the actual requirements of the business. The working relationship with upper management was minimal at best with upper management not really understanding or paying attention. It wasn’t just because they were stodgy old companies either since one was a large scale telcom front-runner ramping up with lots of highly committed, educated people involved. The essential problem was lack of management understanding and an inability of the people directly involved to have an impact with decision makers.

This is where the other article comes in because it considers optimizing innovation (Robert L. Glass, “Practical Programmer: Managing for Innovation”, Comm ACM 51:3 Mar 2008 pp17-19). Glass is looking at the work of Watts Humphreys who started the Software Engineering Institute and considering two of his lesser known books on Managing Technical people. His point is that People Matter. How a manager gets the optimum out of his people depends on his understanding and involvement. Managers who don’t know and don’t attempt to understand, as in the first article, are doomed to failure. So are those who are too tight and work in a ‘My Way or the Highway’ mode all the time. Optimum is when management becomes involved directly, reviewing and inputting to plans and development, bringing the business perspective to major projects to make sure they serve the needs of the company.

I’ve seen this kind of thing over and over again, and to combat it, for major projects, I’ve insisted on having representatives on the team that range from the front-line to the highest levels within the company. If more senior managers can’t participate directly, then we work out some way to involve them as much as possible.

Why all this emphasis? Because Customer Facing Systems are critical and can make or break a company. Of the three companies studied in the first article, all three WOULD have been out of business, but two of them had public funding and could write it off. The third did fail completely. A successful customer facing system can mean a significant improvement in working with customers and lead to enhanced long-term profits. A poorly developed one can lead to company failure.

It’s not enough to commit to a system, you need to commit your time and energy to the implementation, to making it work and work right.

Categories: Call/Contact Centers, System Development, Systems Analysis & Design
2 Comments »