This is a guest post
Quantum mechanics poses an interesting problem.
Measuring a system tells us it’s current state, but the act of measurement also changes it.
This isn’t just a problem for scientists
This problem was going through my mind as I collected my Ford family wagon from it’s trip to my local dealership. It was in for an annual service and some snagging from the previous warranty work I’d had done.
The cheerful Ford employee made it very clear that anything less than a ‘completely satisfied’ on the customer survey would land them in hot water with Ford UK. Using some carefully practised words he explained that they would rather that I contacted them directly to sort the problem out – rather than flagging it in the post-service customer satisfaction survey.
You can see the thought process that got them to this situation.
Independently administered satisfaction measures had been implemented by Ford HQ. These measures were being used to spot problems in the dealer network. The feedback was clearly being acted on.
It was obviously in the dealers best interest to make sure their results met expectations – by any means necessary. This type of behaviour normally happens when:
- The dealer is financially rewarded/punished depending on the survey.
- There is an adversarial rather than collaborative relationship between the dealer and the central body.
- There is an unrealistic target that can only be met by ‘managing the customer response’.
It isn’t just Ford, here are a couple more examples of counterproductive outcomes from a well intentioned measure.
So what did I learn?
The key lessons I picked up from my car servicing experience were:
- Measuring something will almost always influence the behaviour you are trying to measure.
- Before you impose a measure, reverse-brainstorm it to find out how it will be gamed.
- Be extremely careful about assigning rewards/punishments to activity results.
- Try to design passive, longer-term measures instead, perhaps ‘repeat servicing at the dealership’
KPI Trees are another tool that can help you understand how measures interact. This can give you a good idea of the ‘package’ of measures that will give you the whole picture, rather than relying on a small number of heavily targeted metrics.
As for my ‘fixed’ car?
It was covered with greasy fingerprints. I couldn’t be bothered to send it back again and I’m in a dilemma on what to say in the satisfaction survey. I know this trivial issue will rain pain down on the genuinely helpful local dealership.
Bernie Smith writes about KPI’s and Measurement at www.madetomeasurekpis.com
If you enjoyed this post click here for updates delivered to your inbox.
Image by Wendell
Read another opinion
As a person that worked with FoMoCo, Ford Division and the Lincoln Mercury Division for 35 years, you are absolutely correct. FoMoCo had/has an incentive program based on performance, all the way from your satisfaction with your Sales Experience to your Service Experience. Some literally impossible to meet. Sales would lie just to get a sale then blindside the service department to handle what the sales dept had promised the customer. Most of this was implemented by Jacques A. Nasser (The Blue Oval Program)(January 1, 1999 – 2001) who was aspiring to head up “GE”— “John F. Welch Jr.” (2001), which eventually failed. In regards to the surveys sent out to customers with regards to their satisfaction–it all varied to their true opinion, from if they woke upon the wrong side of the bed that morning or was having personal problems at home or work. Certainly not the most accurate way to get an honest viewpoint of how you were handled at your local dealer.
So, in regards to Mr. Bernie Smiths comment….you are correct is so many ways, however it is unfair to put blame on the dealerships, but more so on the Dealer Principles for not standing up to the Automotive Companies or the Automotive Co’s alone !!
Thanks for your perspective, I guess it depends on who has the power.
Bernie,
I’m not reassured to hear that this phenomenon isn’t just occurring in the US.
When we focus on the score and their ranking in the industry, rather than on the experience, this is what we get. It’s dreadful that dealerships still engage in this type of behavior today.
Annette :-)
I have much to say on this topic. As a current Customer Service Rep. and former Call Center Manger, I am all to familiar with surveys and measurements. I believe measurements/surveys are great ways to get feedback from customers about their experience with a company. However, when a company relies solely on the information in the survey to gauge customer interaction with employee, this information can become all but skewed. For example: Currently the wireless provided I work for uses a random generated auto-call back system. With this system customers are asked two questions: 1) How was the overall experience with the last agent you spoke with? 2) Did the agent resolve your call? Where this fails is that agents are coached to pre-survey the customer toward the end of the call by including in the closing “Is there anything else I can do to provide you with a perfect 10 experience today?” The purpose is to subliminally put in the customers minds “10” and furthermore if the customer states “no” then the customer will be more inclined to answer with a 10 on the survey. Much like the Ford experience. No only is this wrong, its unethical!! How are we to get true surveys if we are making our customers feel guilty our customers into giving out agents a perfect 10 score?
With the last company I worked for as a Call Center Manager, we used multiple measurement systems to get a good picture of how our agents were performing on the floor. While we used a similar survey call back system we also have a Quality Assurance Dept. actively listening to live calls all day and providing real-time feedback to our agents and their supervisor. We also had supervisors listening to calls and coaching agents on how to better handle the call. All these various measurements were brought together to get a better picture on agent performance.
While I believe measurements are great tools, we have to be willing to use just more than just one system f measurement to dictate how a company will operate.
Every where I go Tony, I see the same thing. A truly dreadful story
Is is just me, or does anyone else see a parallel to this example and what is going on in the VA hospitals in the US? At the VA, bonuses were tied to “service numbers.” The Numbers were not based on recorded Feed-back, but on self-reported success in the form of timed-service. We know how that turned out!
If you are going to evaluate actual service, based on customer feedback cards. Then the Third-Party doing the survey (in this case the “central body”) needs to control and be responsible for distribution and collection of the surveys, independently of the dealership. By having the dealership pass out the cards, or solicit the feedback, you set up the situation that actually occurred. Namely, the customer is being cajoled and bribed into giving the best rating allowed.
This does two thing (among others): First, the dealership (or agent being evaluated) will attempt to affect he outcome; and Second, it puts the customer in a seat of power to ‘blackmail’ the dealership for the customer service that was actually promised…. Yikes! you have to actually provide service to get a happy customer!! – Yes that is sarcasm.
Seems like the simple fact that such surveys are being implemented, is evidence enough that there is already a problem. So if the goal if the survey is to enact change, then they work regardless of the feedback collected. Unfortunately the outcome, as in the VA, may not be what you wanted, and in the case of the dealership the changes will be limited to the term of the survey.
We all know what good customer service is, what we would expect, what we should be doing. If that is not what is actually happening, then the change has to be effected at the top. When the Management demonstrates by its actions, that service is primary, the climate of the organization will likewise provide exemplary service. Unfortunately, the contrary holds true and no survey card will help.
Hello Bernie,
Context is decisive. In the context of fear, greed, adversarial relating between parties deception, gaming, lying and misrepresentation will be the norm. To expect otherwise is to be naive or stupid. Which is why my favourite saying, one I coined myself for business-management as usual is “Whatever gets measured gets gamed!” I notice that here in the UK, this gaming occurring at all levels: the schools, local government, the national health service, the government, the financial service industry (e.g. LIBOR), the central government.
The only way out of this trap is to make a shift to a different context. Which few are willing to do.
All the best
maz