Can grant making learn from airport security screening?

Photo Credit: Wayan Vota via Compfight cc

Last October, I found myself staring at a customer satisfaction screen while standing in a very long airport security queue in Glasgow. Rather annoyed by the line, I found myself nodding my head in agreement with the 18% of customers having a good experience — meaning the remaining 82%, myself included, were not.

Bored and frustrated, I started looking around at how people were moving through the maze the airport had set up — how effectively or efficiently their system was at moving people through security. In the case of Glasgow that day, the first point of interaction was a technological one — travelers needed to scan their tickets before automatic gates would open allowing them to join the security queues. An immediate queue backup ensued, as travelers finagled which way to hold their tickets, paper or mobile, to make the gates open. Airport personnel added more retractable Tensabarriers to extend the queue.

Once successful, travelers walked down two long lines before a human person directed us to smaller looping lines, like little pods. It almost felt like we were cartoon characters who were on mining carts on a track, all together, and then suddenly a door would open and we’d slide off in a different direction — into a new door or line or adventure. What my old line neighbors were doing in their new pod — or if they were moving faster — was of deep interest to me.

Finally, at the conveyor belt, four sets of stickers, in the shape of feet, told me where to stand and a sign showed me how to deposit my things into the basket. Then, I waited in line to be scanned. After collecting my things, I was able to write a note on a whiteboard about the experience or if inclined, share a friendly greeting for my fellow travelers. A different screen reminded of the customer satisfaction ratings of the day.

Clearly, airport security has gotten the message about customer experience. All of this had me wondering if grant making has ever or would benefit from this type of experiential breakdown?

• Do we know how users benefit from technology implements? Does technology slow down the process? Though once technology is learned, does technology serve to speed up the process?
• Have we considered advertising satisfaction rates? Not in regards to receiving a grant, but in response to the process? Have we asked?
• Do we have specific points in the process where human interaction facilitates movement, clarification, etc? Are we clear on why and where those points are or need to be?
• If we visualized or drew out our grantmaking, what formation would we see? Are there studies on which formations are more effective in certain situations (e.g. there seem to be increasingly different styles of airport security screening intake; are there reasons for different formations?).
• Have we determined, through designing our processes, when responsibility lies on a particular role (e.g. on the passenger to listen, on the airport to offer enough staff, on the technology to work) or in the cases of funders,well, exactly the same things?
• All this has peaked my interest in learning more about the design of airport security screening and has made me wonder whether other customer journey experiences would be ripe for grant making parallels?

These observations have peaked my interest to learn more about the design of airport security screening and have me wondering what other customer journey experiences would be ripe for grant making parallels?