Watch that Service Window!

This is an article that I wrote when I was the CEO of Learning Solutions at Knowledge Platform. It was published in the KP blog, and later in Learning Circuits. I am reproducing it here with the company’s permission. The concept of Service Window is closely related to another article I wrote recently, about ensuring high margins in custom content development.

Introduction

When I wrote this article, three of our Project Managers were dealing with “difficult” clients. One was dealing with uncontrollable incremental scope creep that was pushing her project towards loss. Another was faced with a client who was uncooperative and sometimes downright rude. The third had a client who would not respond for months and then suddenly demand deliverables in a major hurry. Always a proponent of superlative customer service for all our customers, I couldn’t help but feel partly responsible for the situation the Project Managers were in. So, I wrote this article in our corporate blog to share my belief that it is possible to be customer oriented while ensuring the financial health of projects.

What is a Service Window?

Yesterday, I went to the Turkish embassy to apply for a visa. After checking my documents, which I passed through a very small and narrow opening at the bottom of the glass window, the lady at the counter asked me to pay $60 as fees. I took out my credit card. She shook her head. I showed her my debit card. She again shook her head. Then she pointed to the opening in the window and said “Look at the space. I can only accept cash”. It took me a few seconds to understand what she was saying. The opening was so narrow that there was no way she could pass me a debit or credit card processor for any transaction. What she was saying was that her service window was defining the flexibility (or lack of it) of the payment mode she could offer. I had no choice. I walked half a mile to an ATM and brought back cash! And I even managed a smile when the lady gave me the receipt.

There is a message in this story- it is not just me rambling about my visa woes. The message here is about the concept of Service Window in relation to our business. As service providers, we also have a service window for our clients. How open is this window? And is it visible to our clients? How clearly?

How Open is Your Service Window?

When we started KP, this window was wide open because we wanted all and any business. Customers, frustrated by closed windows all around, liked our open window and appreciated the flexibility it offered them. But a wide open window has its own problems. Staying with the visa application analogy, what if the customer wants to pay the visa fee in Uzbekistan’s currency Som? Do we accept it? What if a customer wants to submit the application at midnight? Do we wait up for him? What if the client demands his visa be processed even if the payment is not made? Do we continue to smile? Or do we rush to close the window in a hurry?

Is there a middle ground possible? In the context of a service provider, I think the solution lies in the following:

1. Defining the service window as clearly as possible

The invisible window needs to be made visible. Based on our experience, we should be able to define specific limits and boundaries. In our context, this means clearly stating number of screens and visual style to be used, setting a limit on review cycles, stating the monetary consequences of changes after sign-offs, clearly defining the extent of audio narration-related services etc. We are getting better at this, but there is still a lot to do.

2. Defining the service window as early as possible

The window definition is most effective if it is made available at the earliest possible stage, which is the proposal stage. Sometimes, things do get missed at proposal stage. Then we should use the kick-off meeting to define the window. If even this opportunity is missed, define the window with the first deliverable. Anything is better than not defining the window because it was too late. The earliest is the best, but it is never too late.  

3. Enforcing the service window on first violation

Not enforcing the window when faced with the first violation is the most common mistakes we all make. I am the queen of it. Suddenly I have such empathy and sympathy for the customer that I use all my strength to open the window to its full extent. This is a big mistake. Even if the customer has been very responsive and flexible, we need to hold on to the window we have defined because once opened, it is nearly impossible to pull it back down.

  

4. Dealing objectively with requests

Very connected to the above point is how to respond to a request or action that violates your service window definition. Of course, as first step, we should restate the boundaries politely. Sometimes, customers are not aware that they are asking for something additional. Many of them sign contracts without understanding the meaning of the assumptions we state. They need to be reminded and corrected. If they understand and still demand, be more assertive and explain your reasons. In any situation, it is important to deal with request and compare it with the service window definition objectively and state facts.

5. Escalating

When things get a little sticky and out of your hands, escalate the matter. It is difficult to keep smiling when faced with a seemingly unfair situation. That’s the time to escalate.

In conclusion

Having a clearly defined Service Window sends a clear message to your customers- that we are a professional company serving the best interests of the customer. After all, a project that is handled well within the specified development budget, positively impacts the customer as much as it does the service provider. Only a successful and profitable service provider will be able to retain the best talent and invest in infrastructure, training and tools, all of which will in turn help us build better solutions for our customers.

Acknowledgement

http://www.knowledgeplatform.com

Cartoon drawn by Kaushik Basak, Knowledge Platform.

Innocent until Proven Guilty...and Vice Versa!

Into my third or fourth year dealing extensively with Asian clients, with a few American/UK clients thrown in, I had formed most of the ideas written here. However, I shied away from this topic because it is a form of stereotyping, and being an Indian expat living in Singapore, I have seen enough of stereotyping applied to me to be wary of it. I decided to write it down only when I was able to present my perspective constructively.

Let me start with my experience with Western clients. As an Asian service provider working with Western clients, you start at an even keel. They choose you after careful evaluation and once you have passed that test, you are their equal, unless you prove them wrong. Innocent until proven guilty…

The work that you execute is considered to be of equal value to both parties and its success likewise equally important. This trust at the starting point of the relationship lasts a long time, through the usual ups and downs of project DLC, provided you are professional and competent. You operate mostly in an environment of trust and partnership.  

Coming to Asian customers, I have come across two types of relationships between them and Asian service providers. The first and the more common type of relationship is hierarchical. There is some kind of unseen but powerful driver that forces Asian customers to be aloof and somewhat distrustful of their vendors, as they refer to their service providers. Actions and decisions are often scrutinized for hidden agendas. You have to work much harder to build trust. Guilty until proven innocent!  But it’s not all bad. The good thing is that once you have built this trust, it will last a long time. Customers are not likely to go to a competing vendor as easily because the barrier to entry is too high. Great thing for repeat business!

The other type of relationship between Asian customers and vendors is quite the opposite and seen in situations when the vendor’s expertise is well known and well demonstrated, usually in consultant roles. There you see a kind of respect for you as an individual that borders on adulation. Great for business but the downside is that this respect is reserved for only one individual, making it difficult to scale up such a relationship.  

As in any generalization, there are exceptions. And just like any generalization, this knowledge can be useful if used effectively. Had I known about these differences at the start of my career in Singapore, I would have made fewer errors with customers and been less perplexed by some incidents. I would also have known how to overcome the barriers that seemed out of place and context at that time.

Clients from hell...and Heaven!

I am reproducing an article I wrote a few months back. I find it as relevant now as I did then.

Recently, I saw a website titled Clients from Hell that had funny anecdotes from web designers about unreasonable or uninformed clients with strange requirements. It got me thinking about the clients I have interacted with in the last 10-12 years. Who among them would qualify as clients from hell?

Are they the clients who ask us to reduce our prices, even as the expenses go up? Are they the ones who expect work to be delivered two weeks earlier than our proposed tight schedules? Are they the ones who ask us to change features that they approved in earlier deliverables?

It may sound hard to believe but the answer to all three questions is No. Of course, we all wish for customers who would pay us more, or do their part in the development process on time, or have sanctity for prior approvals, but we recognize that these are reflections of the environment our clients are in and of the nature of the beast called e-learning development. More importantly, these demands for lower prices, faster timelines and flexible processes have a hidden potential for creating value in the long run.

Value is the real differentiator. So, it makes sense to look for client engagements where no or little value was created for anyone involved. When I looked at all clients from this lens of value, three types of clients stood out.

The Window Dresser

This type of client gets into e-learning to impress someone else or to appear to be someone they aren’t. It sounds hard to believe that such clients would exist, especially since a significant cost is involved in developing e-learning solutions. But I have come across such clients in some government departments or large traditional firms.

The problem with such clients is that there is no real commitment to the e-learning initiative and therefore, there is no champion for it in the organization. As a result, the carefully crafted content, a product of myriads of reviews and rework, sits on the specially chosen highly-secure servers for years without being used by anyone. So much effort and value lost! Another consequence is more long lasting and damaging: A failed attempt at e-learning results in negative perceptions about the effectiveness of e-learning that persist for very long.

The Pedant

These clients are sticklers for all kinds of rules and take great pride in their attention to detail. All deliverables are scrutinized for minute issues (e.g. line alignment down to a pixel) and a lot of energy and goodwill is used up in fixing them. Sometimes, this takes a different turn- a lot of time and energy is used up in adding bells and whistles to every page (e.g. this button should blink twice and stop, these bullet points should be accompanied by sound effects, this page should have an animated transition etc).

So what is wrong with such clients, you may ask. After all, don’t they help improve the quality of the output and therefore create value? Not really. The increased focus on small and insignificant details often means that deeper issues are overlooked, such as completeness of the content and its relevance to the audience. Once the training is launched, it falls short and doesn’t provide any real benefit to the users. Once again, so much wasted effort and so little value!

The Commitment Phobe

 This type of client delays making decisions on every step in the development process. Often, the person in charge is either not empowered to make decisions and/or the company’s culture is blame-oriented and hierarchical. The decision makers want to limit their role to seeing the final product and pronouncing it passed or failed, and junior staff is too inexperienced or scared to deal with any design- or content-related issues confidently. Sometimes, the situation is compounded by lack of support for the e-learning initiative by the SMEs.

The problem with such clients is that projects can take inordinately long time to be completed. E-learning launch, typically tied to an impending training cycle, is delayed and loses its momentum and support of several stakeholders. Sometimes, content is outdated by the time the course is developed. Colossal loss of effort and value for everyone involved.

As I pondered over the above three types of clients, I couldn’t help thinking of the clients who are at the other end of the spectrum, clients we love to work with. What attributes of these clients propels us to create great content that adds tremendous value to the end users of the training? This is what I think makes these clients special.

Total Commitment to Results

These clients have a single focus- the results that the training will help achieve. This means that they have a clear idea of both the learner and business needs and understand what will meet these needs most effectively.

Focus on the Big Picture

Another attribute that these customers demonstrate is a hold on the big picture. When the big picture is to change the mindset of employees, or to equip them with certain skills, it becomes easier to make decisions about where to expend most effort and energies.

Work as Partners

Finally, this set of clients always works with the development team as partners with common goals and approach the relationship from a position of trust and respect. E-learning development is a two-way street. When the development team and the client work as partners, magic can and does happen.

______________________________________________________________________

Credits: Illustrations by Irene Wan. Cartoon from http://sinkorschwim.wordpress.com/far-from-home/