This is the aerial, that is the car…

… how stupidity can be justify by processes, and fail

My friend did a small mistake: she didn’t open the garage door completely and she broke the antenna of her pretty new car.

“Damn,” she thought “ok, let’s check how fix it.”

Calling the Mercedes service they told she has to book for a computerised diagnostic check and only after that they could give her the price for repair…

If you have a car and you probably already experienced the service. Either if you know or not, you can read this as a metaphor for any service you can experience as a client!

My friend laughed but it didn’t work to make the counterpart understand the problem, hence she went to the dealer. In person they told her exactly the same:

“You must book a computerised diagnosis…”

Then my friend tried:

“ Look, here is the Aerial, that is the car, this aerial belongs to that car, right now this aerial is not on that car. The problem is clear. I’d like you to fix it: make this aerial be again part of that car…”

Do you think is madness? You are right, that dialogue shouldn’t ever take place. But it happened, I also experienced it. Even if my problem was less obvious, the solution I found was outside Mercedes service: a small, independent service with a less procedural approach fixed my car’s problem that wasn’t shown by the computer.

Can you imagine if you have the antenna in your hand and you simply ask them to fix it? Not only you feel they do not listen you, but you will have clear they do not even care about you: Blinded by procedure.

Why that happens?

It is absolutely stupidity to stick with a process against the evidence of its lack of effectiveness. But people do it.

This happens too often with services when efficient-seeking processes are in place to keep cost and quality under control. The idea is to detach the employee skills by the job: anyone is virtually capable to accomplish that procedure, avoid to take on board the risk to be dependant from employees’ mood.

Deploy a service is just receiving a client request, filling in a form. Reducing any complexity.

As Jay Baer says “ You remember great customer service because is rare to experience!”

The procedure before people!

Like if the Agile manifesto never existed.

The problem probably relies on the organisational culture:

• when it is well designed by valuing people as the most important asset of the company, people are empowered to use their own ability to discern what should be done when the situation differs from the normal.
• when the organisational culture is not so good (probably they never heard about Agile, and even less about Management 3.0), in that case managers probably do not trust people and require them to stick with procedure and if not, people can pay consequences.

We support organisations in exploit the CRM in full: enhancing the way they relate with clients: we make it easier to success with their digital journey.

This is why we stretch the topic of CRM, beyond the tool, the strategy.

Because managing the relationship with the customer is not a problem of tool, but it is first and foremost a strategic challenge.

Read my last article on sustainability (ok, is not much about CRM). Smaller businesses, happier lives.