I am not a meek person.

I am demanding, exacting and have high expectations. I have a low tolerance for ineptitude and intellectual laziness.

And I’ve experienced a few customer service failures recently that have particularly frustrated me.

It’s not that I don’t accept that things can deviate from plan; I’m actually a firm believer that it is not so much what goes wrong, but more how a situation is dealt with, by organisations demonstrating positive reaction and resolution, that influences customers’ loyalty and shapes their impression of that company.

People are human, and will make mistakes, however robust your recruitment, training and ongoing development may be. And unanticipated (and unanticipatable!) things will also happen from time to time, often way outside an organisation’s sphere of control or influence, to throw things awry.

Neither of these things is the issue. It’s when things go wrong despite or particularly as a result of everything being done right that I seethe. Processes that are planned in isolation, that don’t drill down further than the most superficial of customer needs and wants, and that are even sometimes designed purely for the convenience of the organisation itself.

For example, I recently needed to request a standard form from my bank. Everyone I spoke to was polite, friendly and helpful, and would rightly have scored very highly on whatever quality metrics were applied, but yet I was not satisfied with the experience*. If I complained, I’m sure it wouldn’t be referenced as such, as nothing actually went wrong.

Isn’t there a case for organisations examining these non-compliant complaints further as indicators for process or procedural conflict? The assumption that all customer service failures are as a result of people or circumstances would be staggering organisational arrogance. Progressive organisations listen to customers, speak to staff and adapt and grow.

This isn’t to say that everything customers want will ever be deliverable, and there is perhaps a case that customers are becoming more difficult to satisfy; what delights them today, they expect as standard tomorrow. We just need to ensure we are looking in the right places for problems.

Zoe

*I called the number listed against my branch in the phone book and was told I had come through to the national call centre, I needed to call my branch on the number they would give me as they were unable to send out the form. But because it was (just) after 4.30pm on Friday they would not be available until 10am Monday. On Monday I called and my branch staff were unavailable, so I was routed to the cluster support team, who were also unable to send me the form, but took my details to pass a message to the branch to put one in the post. 10 days later, the form arrived. Grrrrrrrrrrr. And don’t get me started on everything else!

Hi everyone. It’s been a while since last I wrote, and I’ve been pretty busy what with work, rest and play. But mainly work. Lots of it. We’ve also collectively been devoting our efforts into moving this and our other sites onto a new server and setting up a new framework with which to move everything forward.

However, I’ve been feeling a bit guilty, having neglected the ‘Gurus log for quite some time. And I’m here to do something about it.

Today, I’m going to put my thoughts down about Oftel and ask: Is this feeble beast ever going to learn how to bite?

Time and again, I see examples of companies abusing their positions, and being let off by Oftel with little more than a mild frown and a “ooh, naughty boy, don’t do it again". We have the potential for a world-class telecommunications infrastructure, if only we could shift the dead wood and anti-competitive practises from our industry and encourage innovation and competition. However, with the limping, toothless mutt that is Oftel, our industry ‘watch-dog’ is no deterrent to anyone.

I used to think that the biggest problem was the fact that our communications infrastructure was borne of a state-run monopoly. Privatising this monopoly was in principle a great idea, but it has certainly had more than its fare share of critics. The resultant public company, who shall remain unnamed though I imagine you all know exactly who I mean, has always skirted on the edges of ‘the rules’. Regardless, it’s a publicly traded organisation and as such we can almost excuse its dirty tricks; in a nutshell, its goals are like any other of its ilk - to maximise revenue and add shareholder value - and it is obliged to do this under the terms of its public listing.

As an industry, we need to be protected from the abuses of giant telecoms concerns such as the one in question. Its stifling, anti-competitive operations can be considered as resistance to the threat of alternative choices. However, with the power that big business has, it is vital that someone referees. We all know in our hearts that big business does bend and often break the rules, and will always do this unless kept in check.

So, there is a clear need to provide both an effective ‘watch-dog’ and a ‘referee’ for our industry.

This is where Oftel comes in. It is meant to regulate against all manner of bad industry practises, and provide an independent body to act as industry arbitrator. It should be an example of a highly trained, fair-but-capable ‘watch-dog’, keeping everyone in check.

It fails miserably.

I have a feeling that it is doomed to continue to fail unless it is reformed into a many-toothed beast with real power. I’d like to see it operating with the ‘no bullshit’ force of HM Customs & Excise (a veritable Doberman Pinscher amongst ‘watch-dogs’) or some other such body. It needs the power to act, and needs to actually see its threats through.

However, again and again we see little bark and almost no bite. I ask: is it now time to disband Oftel and create an industry regulator that actually regulates? To turn our toothless “Mutley” into a “Sabre” or “Cerebus"?

OK,

Your starter for 10.

How many of you have somewhere your school reports? Maybe the piece of paper you wrote when you were 10 years old that starts with something along the lines of…

“When I grow up I want to be…”

I’ll take odds that 90% of you remember doing this at some point.

So what was top of the list? Train Driver, Pilot, Astronaut, Soldier, Income Tax Inspector, Mergers and Acquisitions Lawyer? I’ll also take the bet that no-one has:

1) Resource Analyst

2) Customer Care Trainer.

3) CSR / CSP / Agent / TBR (Delete as appropriate)

4) Dialler Controller

On their list.

I was right wasn’t I.

I know we have a reputation in this trade for having a very ephemeral workforce and that high churn rates are considered the norm (regardless of what we all say). I also appreciate the ‘Job for life’ culture that prevailed up until about 10 years ago has now gone and the idea of having (gasp) two careers in your life is no longer thought of as ‘shiftless’ rather the norm, we no longer do collage course / apprentice to a trade / degree in the subject we *will * work in for the rest of our lives.

When I was eighteen Degree courses tended to be either a pure subject (English, Math, Physics, French etc…) or you could do Law, Business Studies, Medical (Vet / Doctor / Dentist). There was very little scope for other choices. This year a friend of mine is going back as a mature student and is interested in property, she has a choice of six (Count em!) courses and only has to decide the final degree choice in her last year. Humm if I’d had that amount of choice I might have stayed on.

Which leads me back top the original question above. From observation we (in the UK I know offshore is VERY different) have two sorts of staff. Type A are the short term student, need a job in a hurry whilst looking for something in their field, people who seem to stay between 0 and 18 months. These probably represent 85% of the current staffing levels. Type B are the people like me who come from diverse sources (in my case being a chef) and for want of a better word, find a home.

So why do we stay? What have we found that makes this different to other trades?

Well in my case I get to be a geek {GRIN} and get paid for it.

That’s obviously not the case for most people, the trade is still ‘something new’ still
something fresh and still working out HOW to do the job properly.

We have best practices, accepted methods and ‘Industry Standard’ KPI’s SLA’s etc..

We also still have the opportunity for innovation, personal opinion (Well you WILL listen to my opinion), weird ideas and experimentation.

This is what I think attracts the ‘outsiders’. As far as I’m aware there is only the one
associate course and several “Certificate in…” NVQ’s along with the planning courses the Professional Planning Forum run. These have only been available for the last couple of years anyway.

The nice side of this is we have had chance to come in and do well in an industry because we CAN’T be judged on prior qualifications. There aren’t any! Whoopee for us.

The drawback is we’ve just about hit the time that we’ll need to grow up, the industry will need to formalise the qualifications and requirements for a post meaning we’re probably the last to have all the fun. At some point we’ll need a BSc (BA?) in Contact Centre Operations, a BSc in Statistics with Planning. A rationalisation of the myriad of NVQ’s available and possibly the establishment of a BTEC track as well

I just hope when they get round to it the industry is consulted. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors have tied in with the property and planning courses at universities
so much that they no longer run their own internal qualification exams.

I just hope at the time I can get a Dip(Ed), can you imagine me in a lecture hall?

This could be fun.

DaveA