Shouldn’t internal service delivery and internal customer experience be equal to external service delivery and external customer experience? Yes, would be the resounding response to this question. However, we don’t need to conduct a poll to know that this is not the reality in many businesses.
An inescapable reality is that often, the state of internal service delivery foretells the state of external service delivery. Uninspired internal customers are likely to deliver service that lacks lustre. Conversely, the same individuals, when energized and motivated, are apt to move mountains to ensure that their external customers leave happy.
Whilst external customer experience is not always superlative, its often far better than the service experience that internal customers mete out to each other. Getting the two to become one requires these parallel universes to not compete, but to complete one another.
Uninspired internal customers are likely to deliver service that lacks lustre.
One way of equalizing the two domains is by establishing service standards…..both ways. Many businesses do have standards that govern delivery on the external customer end, but fail to establish equally robust measures that hold internal customers accountable for efficient internal delivery as well. This lack of internal robustness shows up either in standards not being enforced fully, or being enforced haphazardly.
When internal and external standards operate in tandem, they become a gateway for creating certainty regarding output quality and quantity on the business side and on the customer side, they assure a level of predictability that promotes customer confidence in expecting a positive upcoming experience. While rigid adherence to established standards can suffocate customer pleasing decisions, consistency with a minimum level of compliance, supports constancy of outcomes.
Whilst external customer experience is not always superlative, its often far better than the service experience that internal customers mete out to each other.
At a minimum, responding to customers’ requests, queries and enquiries should be guided by set standards that govern response times. Compliance with these standards should be unvarying and consistent in execution. Nothing pleases a customer more than being able to predict timeframes for service delivery. Let me mention again for emphasis, that this principle holds for both internal and external customers.
When leaders and internal customers want to hold themselves accountable for keeping their promises to external customers, they bake mechanisms for doing so into the delivery cycle, like clockwork.
One mechanism that they use is the creation of a service delivery charter. This charter proclaims service delivery promises, as well as the standards and timelines that will define the delivery milestones for stated transactions and interactions. Of course, the charter should be placed in a prominent location, such as a lobby or reception area, in full view of all customers.
One way of equalizing the two domains is by establishing service standards…..both ways.
While the service delivery charter is a bold step that holds the business up to real scrutiny, there’s a counterpart mechanism that will need to be created operationally to drive compliance with the charter. I’m referring to service level agreements here.
These agreements create a value chain comprising standards, times and quality expectations that drive internal departmental collaboration, so that the external service delivery charter can meet its commitment to keeping promises to customers, as advertised. A major benefit of having service level agreements is that they create a parallel universe within the business that conjoins and maps internal workflows to external service delivery standards.
While rigid adherence to established standards can suffocate customer pleasing decisions, consistency with a minimum level of compliance, supports constancy of outcomes.
It’s a huge win to achieve efficacy with the blended service delivery charter and service level agreements. But, as with many initiatives, getting to the finish line means overcoming some obstacles to success.
On the charter end, one obstacle would be leaders overcoming their fear of not meeting published service delivery standards consistently, underpinned to the belief that this initiative has the potential to create opportunities for public criticism, if and when the business fails to meet its own standards.
On the service level agreements end, one obstacle would be the significant time and effort required to build consensus on multiple cross-departmental standards. Depending on the size of the business, it can take considerable time and energy to create service level agreements that stitch the operations of multiple departments seamlessly.
At a minimum, responding to customers’ requests, queries and enquiries should be guided by set standards that govern response times.
It would be a shame for a business to press ahead with its charter and agreements program, without imbedding a surveillance system that tracks each department’s overall standing as a good customer to its internal counterparts. Of course, compliance with internal standards would have to be an area of assessment.
Businesses that are serious about holding themselves accountable for superlative customer experience, are emboldened by the elevated level of certainty offered by a standards-compliant structure.
The challenge I believe, is to be emboldened enough to overcome the associated challenges to standards-compliance.