Most businesses have already put in place very effective mechanisms for measuring their customers’ satisfaction.  Usually what is measured is about an event, an action or a visit, and questions the experience, and how the staff handled the customer.  Many businesses will also proudly boast to their customers that their staff rewards are based on satisfaction scores. 

Think back to the last time you filled in a satisfaction survey for good service, and reflect on what was going through your mind as you completed it.  From our research, it would appear that most people become very personal about their responses; they picture the person or individuals delivering the service and not the company.  This endorses empirical research that the bottom line of service is almost all about personal relationships.  CRM (customer relationship management) philosophy above all, preaches nothing else.

The completed satisfaction survey comments about the quality and calibre of the person who assisted the customer through their requirement and/or problem, but what if that individual's ability to serve has been compromised or constrained by their business processes?  They may still deliver by overcoming all the hurdles and the satisfaction comments about the individual service agent become more glowing but the company has let down their service agent and thus let the customer down by association. 

The satisfaction survey should accommodate possible variations of experience; in many instances there will be a section to cover just such a situation.  This is becoming critical because a customer's loyalty to the business will not be increased just because of good service by one individual - on the contrary, it might suggest to the employee that they go to work for another company.

How should a business create loyalty, and how might it measure this subjective and ephemeral quality effectively, as satisfaction surveys appear more and more limited in this regard?

Satisfaction surveys effectively measure the practice employed by the service agent and not the effectiveness of the process.  Research with a number of leading service provider brands has identified a number of points which are often neglected, possibly because they are so obvious.

Everyone will nod sagely when presented with the figure that 68% of customers who stop doing business with a supplier do so because they are upset with the treatment they received and another 14% do so because they are dissatisfied with the product or service.

But how many businesses have investigated what makes up that 68%?  Many businesses are beginning to realise that the number of customers they lose because they have poor processes is much greater than those caused by individual poor performance of staff, and that not only are customers lost, but valuable staff also.  The reality is much more accurately represented when the number is broken down further to reveal 25% are dissatisfied with the treatment they received from an individual but 43% are upset at the process the business has put them through.

Research shows the top four reasons why customers move away from a supplier: poor communicator; delayed responses, over promises and they are difficult to business with.   These are the same reasons cited by engineers as to why they leave a company. They are also the reason why an engineer may have said something to a customer, out of turn, through frustration or disappointment over an inability to deliver service, despite their best endeavours.

Some businesses have effectively got round this problem by giving the service agent the autonomy to resolve an issue under their own initiative, and there are many high profile stories about these.  Robust processes must be put into place to effectively support the service agent to deliver because it is not good enough to merely rely on good staff throughout the organisation, to save the day. 

The way in which the customer deals with the business will be subject to change and the skill sets required are changing.  As a result, effective processes must be put in place as although research indicates that businesses are investing time and money on measuring the number of satisfied customers, they are in danger of creating both customers and service agents with little loyalty towards them.  As outlined above, customer satisfaction is focused around the customer's perception of the individual performance of the service agent. 

Whenever there is a problem on site, the engineer may be tempted to look for reasons of failure other than his own, his excuses can cause damning issues to come to light about the business.  Successful businesses recognise this and focus on supporting the engineer through skills training and coaching.  However the solution often requires more rigorous analysis and as a result many service operations are completely revising the structure in which the engineer works and the way the engineer relates to the customer.  The intention is to keep the engineer more within the business - able to work as part of a team.  This desire has also been encouraged by customer complaints about the low skill presented when interfacing with help desks or call centres, and the amount of money expended in engineers visiting sites only to find that the problem is beyond them or beneath them - creating dissatisfaction and frustration as well as being wasteful of time and resources.

Companies are beginning to review the infrastructure around response and to integrate their call centres and engineers where possible; increasingly reversing the roles.  This new way of working can be so much more valuable when the process is considered from the customer perspective.  From the outset, the customer gains the impression that the business he is dealing with is eager for his call and is making sure they can deal with the problem in the most efficient and effective manner.  Call centres were originally established on the assumption that low cost could be provided through volume.  The target now for most businesses is to reduce volume and create capacity - a different mind set.  Success in this regard has seen (in many instances) a 20 to 30% increases in calls cleared effectively over the phone.  The perception of the customer is that the business has solved the problem, as the contact between the assistant and the customer has been relatively remote.

If the call cannot be resolved over the phone the response is escalated rapidly and effectively, possibly through the same call agent to an engineer or dispatcher. Costs have already been saved and the level of skill required to fix the problem can be more accurately assessed and provided, producing the most cost-effective result.  The service remains with the business but not associated with a specific individual.  Satisfaction will be expressed through loyalty to the brand demonstrating an effective service solution for the customer. 

The best example of such a system is the breakdown service organisation: a driver will probably have spoken to three or four people, all extremely good at their part of the job.  The engineer might be at the coal face, but getting the engineer there quickly is how the business looks after each caller.

In most businesses, the role of the engineer has changed dramatically from only a few years ago, though businesses are using the same engineers.  Integrating the engineer into the other parts of the business is being effectively achieved by integrating the service and call centre operations, however there is still the issue of the changing role of the engineer and the need for recognition from the business of the importance and value of this new role.  Establishing the type of operation outlined above, has the result of fostering self-respect for the role of engineer and respect for the whole support operation, as a valued part of the whole business.  Generating respect for the engineers from the business, and providing them with status within the business is essential to create the atmosphere for change, and required in order to get engineers to recognise their changing role within the business; and work closely with colleagues who will support them, to deliver a better result for the customer.

The underlying aim is for the customer to have faith in a trusted advisor who is fully supported by a caring business; this will generate loyalty within the customer towards the supplier.  Although the whole work-force needs to buy into the new ways of working for a full and lasting effect, placing the initial focus upon the best engineers will generate a wave of positive influence through the whole team, which can then be built upon.  Bringing the engineers closer to the business, and encompassing engineers within the business with an improved career path, is a very successful way of raising the performance bar for engineers.