Conference 7.286::digital

    Beautiful, and I agree that if we don't get serious about real customer
    service, we're gonna stay in the growth doldrums.  We offer a massive
    service bureacracy, hundreds of service products, thousands of part
    numbers, and a system so complicated that sales can't sell it, and even
    the people who create it can hardly understand it.
    
    I'd almost like to see us go to the point where we abandon the entire
    service infrastructure, and simply service what we sell, period.  If
    the customer has a problem, fix it, and worry about the cost later.
    
    Some people are learning.  I misused my Cuisinart the other day, and
    really screwed it up.  I took it back to Jordan's in a bag, and was
    fully prepared with a cock-and-bull story.  The salesman didn't even
    want to see it.  He just reached behind back to the shelf and gave me a
    new one!!  I asked him, "aren't you at least going to argue with me a
    little bit?"  They have my appliance business from now on.
    
    Another place I used to go to was pleasant enough in handling returns,
    but I had to go stand in line for 20-30 minutes, explain the problem
    to a disinterested person, get a slip from same, then go to the sales
    area and try to find someone to give me a replacement product, ad
    infinitum.  I'm sure they thought they had good service too, but not
    good enough.  A little too much like Digital.
    
    Let's go fer it!!
    
                               Service Product Manager

    I apologize for only skimming through .0, it's very long, but I
    think I get the picture.  If I've missed something, again, I apologize.
    
    Isn't the current "NUMBERS" system that we are operating under today
    (if in fact we are operating under such a system) merely a derivative
    of the proposed "CUSTOMER SATISFACTION" model?  I can't help but
    think that the metrics being monitored can all equate to customer
    satisfaction in some way...
    
     Did you get your work done on time 
      (late deliveries = unhappy customers)
    
     Did you run over budget
      (customer doesn't like to spend more that agreed upon)
    
     etc....  you get my drift.
    
    
    
    Haven't these metrics been established as a more tangible means
    of quantifying various qualities of one's work that can directly
    equate to customer satisfaction?  And what about fairness?
    
    What if one customer is very difficult to satisfy?  Perhaps they
    keep changing system requirements and/or abuse/misuse systems
    installed, yet blame DEC for the problems.  The employees sevicing
    this customer will get "low grades", which is not necessarily fair
    in this case.  Evaluating the metrics might be the fairer thing
    to do.
    
    If there is a disconnect between the metrics and customer satisfaction,
    maybe the metrics should be readjusted to keep Digital competitive.
    I mean isn't that what it all boils down to, competition?  
    
    .0 mentioned grades in school and how, despite the grades, we still
    have problems in education.  Problem solved in the grad school I
    am currently attending.  The average grade in all courses is mandated
    to be normalized to a "B".  You must have a "B" average to
    graduate.  This means that approximately 50% of the class will fail
    to graduate.  The metrics (grades) reflect how well you successfully
    compete against other students.  They also force you to work very
    hard to stay afloat.  Good preparation for the real world I'd say.
    
    Might the metrics naturally get tighter/looser with the changing
    climate in the market place?  Aren't we seeing that right now, within
    DEC as a result of the pressures imposed on Digital from the market?
                                          
    
    
    Maybe it shouldn't be a choice of philosophies:    
    
         CUSTOMER SATISFACTION   vs   METRICS 
    
    but rather
    
        CUSTOMER SATISFACTION working with METRICS  
        (to evaluate work, stay competitive and make DEC more profitable) 
    
    
    
    
    Dave
    
    

    re: .2  Numbers vs. Customer Satisfaction
    
    I have two main problems with your argument:  First, customer
    satisfaction helps us make the numbers, not the other way around.
    If you want to measure your success with customers, then you need
    to measure the primary factor, not a secondary one.  The numbers
    (profitability, volume, etc.) help us measure our success at being
    efficient internally, and they are important, but not (IMO) at the
    expense of damaging customer satisfaction.
    
    The other problem is one of time-lag.  When customer satisfaction
    (and your reputation) finally causes your "number" metrics to go
    down, the damage is done.  Digital excerbates the problem by playing
    a game called "musical account managers", but that's another note!
    
    Geoff

Right now, there is an enormous gap between what "The Numbers" measure, and
what makes for truly satisfied customers.

The Numbers, as currently constituted, tend to reflect on how much revenue
an organization/unit/individual has brought into Digital.

That as some relationship to how happy the customer was when he placed the
order, but has nothing whatsoever to do with how happy he will be with us
in the long run.

The argument will probably be made that "If we weren't maintaining customer
satisfaction, we'd be losing long-term customers, and The Numbers would
reflect that." Well, just ask Wall St....

The problem is that the current system encourages short-term thinking. A
customer is sold a solution that doesn't really fit, and ends up unhappy. In
the meantime, the salesman made his Numbers as a result of the sale, and has
rotated onto other accounts, the SW unit which delivered the services made
their Numbers, and the customer will never do business with us again.

So, all of the Digital pieces up the line have been successful as measured,
but Digital has failed.  This is all too often the sort of thing which happens.
noone along the line can afford to talk the customer out of the proposed
solution (into a different, longer-term solution) because that would trash
their Numbers.

If we don't start seriously setting metrics which accurately reflect customer
satisfaction (and that doesn't mean taking your best customer out to an
expensive lunch while they fill out the survey) then we are in for more
rough times. 

    re .0
    
    Great! Down here in Singapore, and the Far East in general, we have an
    unproportionately high number of top10 airlines and hotels. In
    Singapore alone, we have the Singapore Airline, Changi International
    Airport, the Singapore Shangri-La, the Oriental, the Marina
    Mandarin,... And so is true for Hong Kong, Thailand,... And the success
    of these service companies have been attributed to SERVICE first and
    foremost! What you have said EXACTLY match the business philosophy of
    these companies I have mentioned.
    
    re the last few
    
    sure we will need a numeric measure, BUT, .0 says that we must change
    the corporate business PHILOSOPHY, how we treat the customer and
    respond to his needs and problems, and listening to him. How we measure
    our performance internally is a somewhat different issue (although
    related).
    
    Heng-Wah

    
    re .3
    
    I agree that the numbers should be the slave to the customer
    satisfaction level.  I thought that's what I said ?
    (how could anything BUT that possibly work?)  
    
    We may be talking about different "numbers" here.  I'm a mere
    engineer who knows next to nothing about sales or the metrics they
    used.  The "numbers" that I'm measured by are probably very different.
    I whole heartedly agree that customer satisfaction should outweigh
    sales quotas.  I would be appauled to find out that we are a quota
    driven company.  Are we?
    
    Answer me this....
     Do some of these so called metrics include:
    
       "number of service calls" 
       "mean time to repair"
       "mean time to respond"
       "mean time to deliver"   
       "% cost overruns"
       "delivered system effectiveness vs other customer buy options"
       etc...
                             
    If not, should they? Is there a way to make metrics work FOR you?
    Have metrics become disconnected from customer satisfaction?
    I mean without them, what do you base evaluating work on, a phone
    conversation with a customer?  
    
    It seems that the metrics are being shot down here but the alternative
    is still very vague.  As I said in .1, what if you were working
    with 1 client for the past year and they were real negative about
    truely good work?  Sometimes that happens you know.  The phone
    conversation might not be enough to measure someone's performance.
    
    
    
    If, as I have suggested, metrics are very different for different
    employees, (engineers vs sales vs assy line worker etc...), how
    does customer satisfaction drive us?  Do I get no raise because
    the VAX9000 has to be serviced a lot?  Thousands of employees
    contributed to the development of that system and not all might
    be to "blame" for hypothetical reliability problems.  How can you
    track something like that internally?  
    
    Metrics in Sales and Marketing only apply to a small percentage
    of DEC employees (if these are in fact the "metrics" referred to
    in .0).  Whereas it may be possible to establish a method for
    tracing customer satisfaction back to each and every employee, that's
    not what's in place now (at least not directly). Instead, if there
    are problems in the field, and a customer is dissatisfied, I hope
    that the nature of the problem is discovered and the system development
    groups responsible for the problem are made aware etc... the "metrics" 
    used here being "did your design or work hold up in long
    term testing" or "did the testing method effectively emulate long-term
    system usage in the field" as opposed to "was the customer satisfied
    with the way I solder dipped that PC board" or "was the customer
    satisfied with the device computer simulation run results".
    
    It's a complicated issue, and, in case you hadn't noticed, I like
    to play devil's advocate.  Had .0 been cheering the metrics side,
    I'd probably be pudhing customer satisfaction.  In fact, I think
    both are needed to work in concert.  If there is a problem, then
    it is probably due to a disconnect between the two.
    
    
    Dave
    
    

>    I whole heartedly agree that customer satisfaction should outweigh
>    sales quotas.  I would be appauled to find out that we are a quota
>    driven company.  Are we?

Yes, Dave.  Welcome to the real world.  Call ANY (I mean ANY) person you
know in ANY DEC field office and ask them.  Especially a SWS or Sales person.


The alternative is to MEASURE customer satisfaction and BE GOALED by it.
Not by the dollars we currently live by.  On paper we give lip-service to
the idea of customer satisfaction, but the fact of the matter is that it
is measured once per annum, using a questionable format, with skewed results
that are propogated from year to year.

We measure dollars WEEKLY.  We forecast "Certs" (orders) monthly.  We get
comparisons of forecast vs actual AT LEAST quarterly.

How 'bout it, Dave?  Which is more important to management?  Do they care
as much about something they measure every day or something they measure
once a year? [Stolen from Tom Peters in "A Passion for Excellence"]

We'll make plenty of money if we are goaled PRIMARILY by customer satisfaction.
Lots of very big and famous companies do.  That's why they are big and famous.

But that is NOT reality at DEC and there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL
BE ANYTIME SOON.  The changes required go to very-high management mindsets
and until they change their views, people down the line will not change either.
[cf, the "salary continuation plan"]

Karl B.

    If I may, another example;
    
    In my career at DEC I have noticed on numerous occasions that some
    "dissatisfied customers" have called Digital and _demanded_ (not asked)
    to speak to a Vice President about their problem. In one such
    situation, the VP was a level or two above me, but my location was
    conventient to his. So he tapped me on the shoulder and said, "return
    this call for me will you?"
    
    So I did.
    
    The customer (who was a Chancellor at a BIGTIME University) was VERY
    polite to me. He asked me if I reported to "VP Y". I said, no, I report
    to "Mr. A" who reports to "VP X" who reports to "VP Y".
    
    He thanked me for returning his call so promptly, indicated he was
    CERTAIN that I was a very nice young man, but that his initial call was
    to "VP Y". He was not particularly pleased that his call was being
    pushed down in the organization.
    
    Not wanting to disappoint my management (who didn't want to "be
    bothered"), I told the Chancellor, "You know Chancellor Smith, I'm sure
    you would get some degree of satisfaction out of talking to VP X or VP
    Y, but in the end sir, it's me that is probably going to be asked to
    fix your problem. It makes a great deal of sense to me to have you
    explain your problem to me directly. My reason for saying this, sir, is
    because in my experience when a customer explains their problem to a VP
    who then bounces it down to another VP and then to my manager and then
    to me .... well sir, I'm sure you can see how a lot of what you wanted
    to convey could easily be lost in the translation. So, given that this
    is probably the reality of what might occur, would you be willing to
    discuss your problem with me directly?"
    
    He said, (and I quote, because I'll never forget it) "Mr. Early, I'd be
    delighted to spend as much time on the phone with you as necessary ...
    just as soon as VP Y returns my call."
    
    I relayed this to VP X (who reported to VP Y) and tried to convince him
    that this call REALLY needed to be returned by a Vice President. He
    refused. I asked him what he wanted me to do. He said, "Let's wait and
    see if he calls back." 
    
    At about that time, the VP's secretary picked up his phone. "Good
    afternoon, firstname lastname's office ... may I help you?"  
    
    (secretary) "Firstname, it's 'big important Digital person' on the phone".
    
    (VP) "Oh ... forward it into my office right away."
    
    (secretary)"Mr Bigshot? He's right here ... one moment please."
    
    Our VP picked up his phone in a MOST professional tone of voice, "XYZ
    Organization, firstname lastname speaking ... may I help you"? Much to
    the VP's dismay (and disappointment), my friend The Chancellor decided
    to ring his line one more time as his secretary was trying to forward
    Mr. Bigshot's call to his office. 
    
    In contrast to this situation, I am acquainted with a former 15+ year
    IBM sales executive (who now works for DEC) who is constantly amazed at
    the lack of responsivenes by many managers at DEC to customer
    issues/problems. His comment to these situations is:
    
    "At IBM, everybody drops everything they're doing, regardless of how
    important, to handle any 'marketing issue'" (Marketing issue = customer
    complaint, problem, call, suggestion, you name it .... anything
    associated with customer). 
    
    Although the call may get delegated down for others to fix, "others"
    don't call the customer back. They fix it, tell the recipient of the
    call (like VP Y) what they did to resolve it, and VP Y returns the
    customer's call.
    
    We're a ways off the curve, I think.
    
    /se
    

Customer Satisfaction and what it means to me!

Although I do not work for the sales or service organization I would like
to offer some thoughts on this "Metric".  I agree that in most instances
it isn't used accurately as the customer has little or no input into
the metric!  But, I believe that it is a philosphy that we as a company
need to address in a big way, this is not new... we have never been very
good at what it really implies - satisfaction (fulfillment of a want or
need).  What we are good at is telling the customer what his wants or needs
are - which might be defined as arrogance.  By practicing this we can then 
meet the "metrics" (certs, orders, etc....) is the customer really satisfied, 
I doubt it.

In order to be in a postion to really understand what will satisfy the
customers wants/needs requires time, which metrics don't allow.  The time
to build a relationship, develop an understanding of the customer's
world, gain insight, this can't be done by "order taking".  Taking orders
may be fine for McDonald's but is hardly appropriate in our 'business',
we are touting solutions, by definition an action or process to solve
a problem - requiring understanding and time.

Changing the way we measure customer satisfaction could possibly
lead us to greater opportunities as we now have the ability
to spend the time to understand the total customer environment and
their long range plans.  Instead of onesy-twosey repeat orders which
occur over time and have no continuity we get to bring together a
a total solution which can be a one time order, or scheduled over time 
in a way that takes advantage of the rapidly changing technologies 
instead of negating all that went before.  We would not only satisfy
the customer's needs (which I see as current) but their wants as
well, by showing we are willing to invest time in them we are positioning
ourselves for the long haul.


As I stated in the first sentence, these are only my opinions as I
look at this from both a customer and supplier perspective.  


    

    RE .7
    
    Hi Karl, thanks for welcomming me to the *real* world.  I like
    to think that I've always been here, a different world than yours,
    but real none-the-less  :-)
    
    Good idea to measure customer satisfaction and be goaled by that.
    But HOW do you do that?  As .8 suggested, surveys are not necessarily
    accurate.  If all your customers are telling you that you are doing
    a great job, but your sales are still falling, I'd tend to think
    that either the survey results are lousy or the competitors service
    is *greater*.  Stockholders will tell you that DEC exists to make
    them money, not satisfy customers.  If satisfying customers is a
    means to that end, then do that, but keep the metrics ($ in) up there.
    I tend to believe an old adage once taught to me as a boy which
    advises not to worry about the money, do the best job you can and the 
    money come on it's own.  But then again, I'm simply an engineer,
    doing the best job I can and not a corporate executive designing
    metrics or work philosophies.
    
    Which would I measure, metrics taken every day or once a year? 
    If I thought that the daily metrics successfully reflect things
    like customer satisfaction (indirectly at least) and things like
    happy stock-holders (which is some measure of success) then sure,
    I'd look at them. I mean how can you consistently have high metrics
    with a dissatisfied customer base?  Maybe for the short term, but
    sooner or later the metrics will drop off as customers start buying
    from competitors.  Is this reacting to a problem "after the fact"?
    You're right, it is.  But if I missed something up front, and didn't
    forecast a problem, then it's better to react after the fact than
    not at all.                         
    
    Big and Famous?  Well, maybe DEC isn't the biggest, or the most
    famous, but we must have done something right to become #2 in only
    32 years.  If I were in a position to make these decisions, I'd tend 
    not to be quick to tear down a system that has brought so much success,
    but rather see if it can be brought back on line, in a more competative
    way if, in-fact, that is possible at all.  Should the *metrics*
    system be discarded altogether?
    
    
    Dave

    re .12
    
    Dave, let us be blunt. The Digital salesman today is measured and
    goaled by *ONE* thing; Sales Quota. This is more generally known as
    numbers or certs. When the salesman achieves 100% of his target quota,
    he is rewarded with the DEC100 (a holiday trip). If he is very good,
    say, 20% beyond his quota, he may then win the DECathalon (an even more
    pleasurable holiday trip). Let's refer to this as NUMBERS and not
    metric to prevent confusion with how other functions measure
    themselves. This NUMBERS is usually expressed as a percentage of target
    quota.
    
    The SWS function measures itself also on NUMBERS. However this number
    comprises of software licenses and services delivered (ie DECstart,
    PSS, consultancies...). In addition, we carry out an annual survey
    among the customers *and* the sales force whom we directly support.
    This survey result would be what I refer to as METRICS. Usually based
    on a scale of 1 to 10, this is an attempt to express in numeric form
    (you would call it DIGITIZE) the satisfaction of the customer in regard
    to the services we have rendered through the last year.
    
    
    What I want to see, and I think is expressed in .0 and a few others, is
    that our PHILOSOPHY must change. There is nothing wrong is trying to
    measure satisfaction level. It is however wrong to be goaled towards
    achieving 10s in a survey.
    
    The PHILOSOPHY today is:
    
    Well, the survey last year is 8.5. Gentlemen, this year we must achieve
    8.9. If you can pull this off, we *may* be able to win x seats to the
    execellence award.
    
    Tell me, does it necessary mean that 8.9 this year indicates more
    customer satisfaction than the 8.5 of last year? What does 8.5 *mean*
    anyway? Is the passing mark 5.0? 6.0? 9.0? Or it changes every year?
    
    The PHILOSOPHY I want to see:
    
    OK guys, this are the customer comments for this year. They have been
    analyzed and categorized. X number of customers complimented us for
    doing such and such. Y customers complained about such and such. And
    last but not least, these are the customer suggestions.
    
    
    It is hard to think and type, and I begin to ramble, and its way past
    my bedtime. But very clearly, we must not allow ourselves to be goaled
    by a quantitative measure of our service. Quantity can only serve as an
    indication, not the ultimate goal.
    
    HW

Tom Peters once compared product problems at two companies.  At the first there 
were meetings on cost implications, legal risks and implications, company image
damage control, and how to mask and work around the problem.  This company was
not doing well financially.  At the second company there was an old man who had
run the company for many years.  When he heard about the product problem he 
said, "What?  We have delivered a defective product to a customer?  I want you
to go out there and get all of those defective products and replace them with
known good products and I want a report on the status of this next week".  There
was no talk of cost or other implications - just an attitude of delivering a
quality product and satifying the customer.  Peters went on to note that 
regardless of industry, the companies who ranked in the upper third in customer 
satisfaction were _eleven_times_  more profitable than the companies that were
rated in the lower third on customer satisfaction.

With all of this talk of our salesforce being driven by the numbers and customer
satisfaction being a once yearly exercise to qualify for some vacation trip, I
wonder when (or if) some old man within Digital is going to come forward and 
say that customer satisfaction is our primary objective.  I suspect this will 
come when enough customers make it clear that they are not buying our products
and services because their needs are not being satisfied.

I think that .14 pretty much says it.

We don't need to trash the metrics system.  We need to fix it.

We need to move customer sat into one of the top spots for at least
EVERYONE in the field, and try to find a way to move engineering &
manufacturing in that direction as well (I have no idea what goals are set
in those organizations)

We also need to come up with a more valid mechanism for measuring customer
sat.  AT THE LEAST, we need to take the measurement process away from those
being measured.  It should probably be an entirely separate organization,
at least far enough removed to be fairly disinterested.  If surveys were
sent out at random times, to random samples of an organization's customers,
without notice to the organization, we would eliminate engineering of the
survey results.  We would get more valid results.  The numbers would probably
be considerably lower.  The organizations would now have incentive to KEEP
ALL of their customers happy (as opposed to making the known survey recipients
happy only at survey time).  I know of one SW district where the DM (who
was goaled on customer sat) which did this on their own.  I believe they
had much greater real satisfaction in their customers as a result.

Kevin

    re: .13
    
    What you so elegantly described has been cited in other papers as
   managing by results instead of cause.   It is a particularly American
    managerial trait but may also exist elsewhere.  I think in some
    measure it stems from two things; laziness and lack of detailed
    knowledge.
    
    It's much easier to consolidate a complex issue through some magic
    formula down to a single digit than it is to deal with the myriad
    details that are the independent variables to the equation.  If,
    as a manager, you don't understand the details (or don't want to)
    these little formulas become very important.  Very often their
    importance is inversely proportional to their value. 
    
    A bizarre analogy would be a diving coach that coached by using
    the judges score.   No coach in their right mind looks at the score
    as something to analyze a dive with.   Yet, managers [coaches]
    do this all the time.  
    
    

RE: < Note 967.16 by ISLNDS::BAHLIN >

Boy you've hit it right on.  There are so many managers in this  company
who don't have a clue about the business we are in. All they know how to
do is to move their resources around to get the best results on the
numbers.  As long as business is good these managers can say "I don't
want to hear about it!" when someone points out problems. As soon as
business gets bad, it really gets bad.

When a customer has a problem the first response in DEC is
"Who is going to pay for it? Sales? Field Server? Area? PSS isn't
eating it!"

A while ago I was sent out to a customer site to sovle fix a problem
they were having.  The customer has already payed for about a month of
PSS and they were getting pretty mad.  I went in and found out what
the problem was in one day.  The customer was very happy.  I
go back to the office and hear "We have an order for two weeks of
PSS.  Can't you stretch it out a little longer?"

You can't blame the low level managers for this response.  Fixing
customer problems is an intangeble that doesn't make their numbers
and a field manager who does not make his number this quarter is out
on his ass.  That kind of behavioral training comes from the very top.

John

    
    REF: 967.12
    
    >><Good idea to measure customer satisfaction and be goaled by that.
       But HOW do you do that?  As .8 suggested, surveys are not necessarily
       accurate.>
    
    There are better ways to qualitatively and quantitatively measure
    customer satisfaction, at least "directly" the customer, that will
    provide Digital with up-to-the-minute intelligence, direct from the
    mind of the customer, and that can allow Digital to perfectly align its
    actions with customer wants and expectations.
    
    Here, briefly highlighted, are three ideas.  We could:
    
    1.  Establish toll-free telephone suggestion boxes.  We'd give every
    customer a little sticker to place on his terminal or desk: "Got an
    idea or suggestion for Digital to improve your satisfaction?  Call NOW
    (###) ###-####".  Within seconds, any customer could immediately reach
    Digital's electronic suggestion box via their phone and place their
    idea or suggestion in a voice mail computer.  Then, the customer's idea
    or suggestion, verbatim as recorded, is transcribed into an electronic
    document for review by the same teams reviewing all Digital employee
    ideas being submitted directly to the Employee Involvement suggestion
    box.
    
    2.  Every time a Digital meets anyone within a customer account, he or
    she would leave each and every person a one sheet special form designed
    to solicit a given contact's immediate WRITTEN feedback that would
    enable Digital to consider making proactive changes that would increase
    how Digital satisfies their wants.  The form would ask: What are your
    likes?  What are your dislikes?  What are your wants?  What are your
    suggestions?  Nice open-ended questions.  The customer contact could
    complete and mail back at his convenience.  Information would flow back
    to both the Digital person leaving the form and higher levels within
    Digital.
    
    3.  To ensure optimum customer satisfaction in formal surveys, the
    obvious answer to ensuring "real meaning" of quantitative scores is to
    let each customer determine the questions he or she will be asked. 
    When the customer decides the questions, obviously there will be real
    meaning since the customer has defined what is important to him as it
    relates to Digital satifying his wants and expectations.  To manage so
    many custom-tailored questions, every customer, account, location and
    question would be assigned a unique bar-code.  For both survey form
    generation and database management, one need only use existing bar-code
    and LN03 technology.
    
    I've sent these ideas to a variety of Corporate managers before, and
    since I've not "formally" placed them in the new EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT
    suggestion box, I will do so via this note, which will include the
    earlier LONG version that details these ideas better.
    
    If anyone wants the longer version, just send me a mail message.
    

>    anyway? Is the passing mark 5.0? 6.0? 9.0? Or it changes every year?
    
    The 'pass mark' is 8.  Yes, 8 out of 10 equals average, 9 above
    average, 10 excellent.  You only need one three to blow yourself out of
    the water.  The end result is that the results look good on paper, but
    I do wonder what they are going to do when we are all scoring 10s.

    re: .0 and others
    
    And if you don't think the sheer volume of reporting requirements
    is getting outrageous...
    
    My manager, (of a unit of 12 SWS delivery people) has just received
    approval for a *second* secretary / administrative person, primarily
    to help address thisreporting load.

    re .20
    
    Don't worry about the report. We are becoming very good at that, and
    can quantify any amount of reports down to a single digit.
    
    HW (I didn't know I'm that cynical!)

    re: .14 and your Tom Peters example
    
    And then there was the American firm who placed their first order with
    a Japanese supplier of computer chips. Since they had always done
    business within the US previous to this, they made sure to put their
    standard purchasing demands on the purchase order.
    
    One of the demands they made was that in order for the Japanese firm to
    get paid, they would have to "provide 100,000 chips with a defect rate
    of 2%". When the order arrived, the person in charge of the project
    began to unpack the shipment and was somewhat dismayed to find the
    following note:
    
    "We are most puzzled by your demand to receive 2% of your order as
    defective parts. Ordinarily, this would be most unnaceptable to us
    since we normally do not ship any defective parts.
    
    However, we are most anxious to have your business in the future, and
    accept your terms. We have supplied 2,000 defective components with
    your order as specified. They are packed separately for your
    convenience in locating them."
    
    Sure enough, inside the shipment was a separate box labeled "2,000
    Defective Units".
    
    I like the attitude!
    
    /se
    
    
    

    re .17
    
    Agree with your first paragraphs *completely*. And do you know that
    there is a simple way to identify such persons? They're those who
    always use "Customer satisfaction", "Do the Right Thing",...
    
    re .18
    
    David (carnell), the customer comments we're already collecting but
    they just simply ignored. The important task IMHO is to change people's
    mindset and goals. And there is no better way than to sever the
    relationship between rewards and numerical metric (ie 1 to 10). Also we
    must *not* ask the customer to give a numerical rating since it is not
    possible to normalize the results. Also it is simple for the customer
    to tick 8, 9 or 10. But it will be pure lying if he must write down in
    words that he is satisfied, has no complains, grievances,...
    
    BTW, I love your proposal for employee voting. The will be the most
    effective way to removing the vast layer of dead wood between us and
    the top.
    
    
    re .19
    
    David (simpson), getting 10s would be the last thing we have to worry
    about. What makes you think we'll survive until then? Anyway, if you
    get a 3, don't worry. We have plenty of expertise who can apply
    statistical contortions.
    
    
    HW

    I contend that in a competetive market, there is no better measure 
    of customer satisfaction than a company's financial performance
    as measured through repeat orders.  You won't get repeat orders
    unless you keep your customers satisfied - they'll just take their 
    business elsewhere.
    
    Here is a little story of just one customer. This is a relatively
    small division of a Fortune 50 manufacturer.  They have spent about 3 
    million dollars on professional services alone over the last 5 years 
    out of our office.
    
    Last year, Gary (the customer) gave us a combined score of about 7.3
    (our district target was around 8.3),  with a specific hit on how we 
    are doing poorly on keeping him informed on the status of the
    projects.  So we developed a get well plan which consisted of weekly 
    status meetings and an extremely detailed report showing where every 
    dollar was spent.  He was very pleased with the change, and said
    so. 
    
    This year, we did not "manage" the survey process.  The district
    target was about 8.5.  Gary gave us a combined score of about 7.3.
    The specific score which measures how well we do at keeping him
    informed on project status remained unchanged from last year.  When we 
    did a follow up and confronted him, Gary got a little defensive.  To 
    paraphrase:  "I don't look at last years survey when filling out this 
    years.  I just mark down the numbers which feel about right."  Of 
    course, WE care very much about the change from last year.  The 
    customer, on the other hand, changes the meaning of the scale from 
    year to year.
    
    So what?  This year, Gary will probably purchase another $700K or
    so in professional services, as well as a 6000 CPU and random assortments
    of workstations, uVAXes, and upgrades.  What is the real measure of his
    satisfaction: the survey or his business?
    
    Al
    

    re .22   - 2% defective.

    The Japanese work on the two rule premise where rule number 1 states:

    THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT.!!!!!

    rule number 2 states:

    WHEN IN DOUBT SEE RULE NUMBER 1.!!!

    re.24 - Gary is working on the customer corollary to business rule 
    number 1 which states:

    I PAID FOR IT - IT BETTER WORK THE FIRST TIME EVERY TIME!

    If you could answer Gary's calls one the first ring of the phone with
    an HONEST answer to his question or deliver his product and have it 
    running with him never knowing you were there until it came time to 
    sign the invoice and he never had to hear from you except for a memo
    stating that his operational time was 100% then you would be
    guaranteed to get the 10 on the survey. Anything less should be
    unacceptable from either side.

    A sales person should not try to sell Gary a 9000 when all he NEEDS is
    a laptop. On the other hand they should not sell him the pocket
    calculator he wants when he NEEDS a laptop. Sales should also not
    promise delivery dates they cannot possibly meet or applications that
    don't exist yet. If real dates and applications are promised and there
    are problems, give Gary a prompt and honest reason - not excuse - for
    the delays. He will buy more goods from you and will give you the ten
    on the survey. Anything less should be unacceptable from either side.

    re .24
    
    > I contend that in a competetive market, there is no better measure 
    > of customer satisfaction than a company's financial performance
    > as measured through repeat orders.  You won't get repeat orders
    > unless you keep your customers satisfied - they'll just take their 
    > business elsewhere.
    
    If I may say so, I strongly believe that this is a case of putting the
    horse before the cart. A SATISFIED customer will *probably* buy but a
    BUYING customer may not necessarily be satisfied. You may not believe
    it but dissatisfied customer *still* buys. Having invested enough $ to
    find that he is not satisfied with us, he's probably not in a position
    to take his business elsewhere.
    
    Your story however strikes home. A numerical metric is not suitable for
    gauging performance, and does not help us to improve by pinpointing the
    shortcomings (whether real or otherwise). We certainly should still
    take sales numbers into account, however, it should not be the sole
    yardstick as that will push *satisfying customers* to 2nd place. When
    this is done, sales people will be forced into doing those things
    described in .25. This is what we want to eradicate, and bring back
    KO's axioms of honesty, integrity,...
    
    HW

As far as measuring customer satisfaction, I see the internal measurement
as the number of problems reported vs number resolved, this would allow us
to monitor ourselves.  Any other feedback should come directly from the
customer to us and be used in it's pure form.  Just as we monitor our
supplier delivery performance - the supplier has their internal measurement
to monitor themselves, and we have ours. These measurements are used in
supplier contract negotiations and discrepancies or areas for improvement
are clearly defined which enable the supplier to see what/how or if they
need to improve. 

If we currently take the data from the customer and massage the numbers to 
meet our performance metrics this is not a measure of customer satisfaction 
it is more a measure of self-satisfaction.

 




    

    How much attention is paid to the customers in DECUS?  Does Digital
    management attend DECUS functions, mingle with the customers, and
    really listen to what they have to say?  Or do they avoid the
    "lapel-grabbing" sessions for fear they'll have to defend the
    indefensible? 
    
    These are perfectly serious questions.  I'm not baiting, but looking
    for information.  Part of my checkered past was spent as a
    company-contact for a competitor's users group.  I know from that
    experience that top management of that company avoided one-on-one
    contact with the customers (in the users group) like the plague.
    Sure, they were always present to press the flesh during the glamorous
    phases of the sales situation, but once the system was sold, "don't
    call me; I'll call you" was their attitude.  That comany is not
    doing well today, and I firmly believe that treatment of customers
    has a lot to do with their problems.
    
    How do we rate in this regard?
    
    Karen

    
    
    	One can't help but wonder that if WANG had paid more attention to 
    
    customer satisfaction might they be in a more positive situation today?
    
        I think there is something that we can learn from WANG'S current
    
    misfortunes aside from arguments based on WANG'S seeming inability to
    
    generate products that would be commercially successful.
    
    
    /rp.

    
    The problem with numbers as a measurement, is you start to believe
    they tell the real story...  and then you have real trouble.  One
    of my favorite stories is about the famous meeting in the Board
    room of a famous big auto company, where the Chief Financial Officer
    got up and did a 2 hr. presentation to show how much money they
    could save if they just closed 4 more plants.  The President sat
    and fumed silently and then let him have it.  "Hell, Charlie", he
    said, why don't we close ALL the plants and we'll save a LOT of
    money!!!"
    
    Anyway...
    
    There are things we could do better if we focused first on service
    and let the rest take care of itself.  I used to work in the Finance
    Dept, now I'm a salesrep  ....  interesting from both sides.  A
    great example is returns.  In my 3 years in Finance, we saw customers
    return a lot of equipment, some for valid reasons, some not so valid.
    The process is that the customer lets Digital know he wants to return
    something, and then we go through an internal approval cycle, which
    takes 1-2 weeks at best, sometimes much longer.  After approval
    is received, we contact the customer, give him an authorization
    number, and THEN arrange to get a truck out to his site to pick
    up the equipment.  Meanwhile of course he's been kicking it around
    the warehouse and having to trip over it every day.  Here's the
    real kicker:  NEVER, EVER, EVER, did a return request get refused!
    100% of them were approved!  Which means we put the customer through
    2 weeks of hassle for absolutely NO reason!  When I raised this
    issue repeatedly, the response was always the same  --"it gives
    us visibility to the problem."  Well, why not use reports?  Once
    a month  "-we had X returns for X reasons..."   -and let the customers
    enjoy hassle-free returns!  I mean this isn't Macy's...  I really
    don't think we're in danger of being taken advantage of by customers
    who buy a computer for the holidays and will try to return it later..."
    
    Hmmmmm....  Somewhere, somehow it makes sense to somebody....
    

    Customer Satisfaction Survey numbers as presently used have one and
    only one benefit to the company.  They sometimes identify customer
    problems - very important information.  I attach no credibility to any
    statistical derivations from them.  The 1987 summary was a farce - self
    serving at best.
    
    Fred

    A company can adopt one of two viewpoints - the customer's viewpoint or
    the manufacturer's viewpoint.  The former tries to organize the
    marketplace so as to make it easy for the customer to do business.  The
    latter seeks to make it easy for himself to do business.  We tend to
    fall into the latter paradigm.  I mean, somebody proposes that we make
    customer satisfaction our highest goal -- and somebody else complains
    that giving up quantitative metrics would make it harder to manage our 
    people.

    There's this about metrics: they replace reality.  A metric is always a
    distortion or reality, emphasizing some aspects of the situation and
    suppressing others.  There are always behaviors that maximize the
    metric.  The simpler the metric, the more likely it is that this
    behavior has anything to do with the reality the metric is trying to
    quantify.

    "Go out there and do what's right for the customer.  Oh, by the way,
    we're going to be using your order volume to measure whether you're
    doing the right thing."

    Guess what kind of behavior you get?

    Maybe if we abandoned our obsession with "objective" metrics and let
    managers form their own judgments about their subordinates'
    performance (i.e., manage their organizations) we could start to
    understand what a customer-oriented company might look like.

    -dave

    There are a lot of ways we could improve our service as a corporation,
    but they cost money.  Unless the LOBs are willing to invest, we cannot
    develop new services, and investment money is VERY hard to come by
    these days.
    
    Prior version support?  24 X 7 support?  They're doable.  They cost
    human and capital resources...not just a willingness to provide the
    service.  You have to have people who are willing to maintain code
    that's three years out of rev...not something most people consider in
    their own best interests.  You have to have people willing to work
    standby, balancing that against their other life's needs.  The capital
    is the "easy" part...you just have to have someone put up the money.
    
    I worked for a company that gave away service, bundled it with the sale
    of the equipment...open-ended service.  They went belly up.  Service is
    a business, or else it is a profit-sink.  If we provide service, the
    customer has to be willing to pay for it. There is no "free lunch";
    free lunches are eaten on the breadline.  It is a real eye-opener for
    customers to visit our Customer Service Centers.  I'd encourage more
    such visits, rather than spending money on "corporate visits".
    
    my .02,
    Marge
    
    

    This is a wonderful topic, and I honestly feel that the subject is the
    central crisis facing our corporation.  Having spent much of my time,
    but not all of it, in the field (SWS), it is perfectly obvious that we
    do not care about customer satisfaction until there is a problem -- and
    too often the damage is done before the problem is detected.  More than
    simply by metrics, the corporation must engender in all employees a
    genuine desire to SATISFY our customers needs.  We simply don't do
    that.  We don't even know how to do it, and we almost never try.  For
    example, to my knowledge we offer absolutely no internal training on
    the subject, when in fact it should be mandatory.
    
    Incidentally, customer satisfaction is not merely a field issue.  It
    applies to everyone in the company -- Steve's story about 'VP Y' is a
    perfect example of that -- many of our major disasters, if not all of
    them, are directly impacted by the attitudes and performance of
    non-field employees.  Customer satisfaction is everbody's business, and
    it's about time we really accepted that, and did something about it.
    
    Like I said, this is a terrific topic.  I hope somebody way up there is
    listening.
    

When there is a serious customer problem (that is, let's say, entirely
Digital's fault) is the first question the Digital asks itself

1) How are we going to fix the problem?

or

2) Who (which group) is going to pay for it?

John

re: .34

Our district had an excellent course on customer satisfaction that was produced
by Xerox Corp.  I took it and I also took the, "New, official Digital" customer
satisfaction course and was very disappointed.  I liked the Xerox one so much
that when our district offered it again, I took it again as a refresher course.
Unfortunately, this has been replaced by the, "New, official Digital" course.

Bob

:    For
:    example, to my knowledge we offer absolutely no internal training on
:    [customer satisfaction] when in fact it should be mandatory.
    
    The Software Supply Business (SSB) offers excellent training in
    the form of a course called "Who Is the Customer?"
    
    I believe that Salem Mfg. used to do some very good training on
    customer satisfaction and such things as continuous improvement
    principles.
    
    The Satellite Network training has included some seminars on customer
    satisfaction.
    
    Still, even with some "islands" of this type of training, your point
    is well taken:   "More than
    simply by metrics, the corporation must engender in all employees a
    genuine desire to SATISFY our customers needs. "
    
    Knowing and satisfying the Customer must become an ATTITUDE, not
    just something learned in a course.
    
    Don
    

    re .35:
    
    Neither.  The first question Digital asks itself is, "Is this a
    remedial or consulting problem?"  If remedial, it goes to the CSCs and
    up the line from there; if consulting, it's the responsibility of
    SWS/SWAS/pick current acronym.
    
    We don't look at problems the way customers do; we look at them from
    our own functional stovepipes and funding sources.
    
    Marge

    
    "Quality, we seem to have forgotten, is not a matter of complexity. 
    Instead of fancy engineering or complicated management strategies,
    quality actually boils down to something quite simple -- serving
    customers, serving them in such a way that they keep coming back and
    that they tell their friends...
    
    "Nor are business ethics all that complex.  Customer service is a moral
    concept whose roots go back as far as the Golden Rule: Serve Others As
    You Yourself Would Wish To Be Served.  What the scandals of Boesky,
    HUD, the Pentagon, Milken boil down to is the simple fact that a lot of
    people were serving only themselves."
    
    Quotes from LEARNING FROM MILLIE by Ralph Brauer, Newsweek Nov 20, 1989
    

    I've been away from notes for quite a while with trips to Japan and
    DECUS which have bearing on this excellent topic.  Sorry to be late to
    it but I hope that we are going to take action more toward the old
    Digital value of listening to our customers AND taking direct action on
    what we learn.  As several replies have indicated, Japan has done a
    great job of excelling while providing service to the customer as THE
    goal.  Every time I have the pleasure of visiting Japan I see this more
    and more.  No number of stories can reinforce the incredible level of
    service that is expected there.  If we could raise the level of REAL
    service inside of Digital to half that of what is common in Japan we
    would be assured of success.

    Someone asked about DECUS many replies back.  DECUS is indeed an
    excellent place for providing service to our customers.  A lot of us do
    that as much as we can.  Before seeing the reply asking about DECUS I
    was thinking that those people who want to help our customers should do
    so via DECUS.  This doesn't require going to the symposia which are
    more work than they appear.  There are Local User Group meetings in
    most places.  More importantly and even easier is DECUServe which is
    where DECUS meets daily, electronically.  It is a VAX containing a
    large number of VAX Notes conferences on a wide range of topics. 
    Membership is $40 a year.  In my opinion, DECUServe is the best ROI
    possible for Digital.  It is a way for us to LISTEN and DIALOGUE with
    our customers.  Anyone who really cares about customers should be on
    DECUServe.

    Unfortunately, DECUS attendees are not typical of all customers.  Many
    customers do not participate in DECUS for a lot of reasons; some good
    and some not so good.  Some marketing people dismiss DECUS as
    irrelevant propeller heads (they did sell such hats at Anaheim).  Some 
    marketing people who have given SIG keynote addresses the last two
    symposia have spent almost three hours on site.  The only question they
    asked the customers was directions for the airport.  This seems to be
    yet another example of the 'new' Digital where they had to go get the
    latest numbers from the industry consultants rather than learn what
    current customers might think.  My view is that this sort of 'thinking'
    will lead Digital right out of this market area.  SOME company out
    there will listen to OUR customers and provide a solution.  I hope that
    Digital does it.

    Keeping the faith,
    don