Jayawardhena (Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25/5, 2010) in his study states that from the customer point of view, the most immediate evidence of service quality occurs in the service encounter. Therefore, this customer interaction with the firm is called the “moment of truth”.
Customers base their evaluations on their perceptions of the service encounter. Based on above, value creation of a business-to-business service concept should be defined as customer interaction during the service process. Next to standard services, value adding services should bring additional benefits to the customers´ business. The value is created through the implementation of the service process. Therefore it could be stated that customers´ ”moment of truth” happens during planning and implementation of the service creation process and analyzing its results, leading to improved business efficiency.
The implementation of a new service concept requires analyzing the customers´ business operations, identifying improvement areas and planning a solution that is tailor made for customer needs.
The most successful service organizations understand that the purpose of any business is to create value for customers, employees, and investors, and that the interests of these three groups are inextricably linked. Therefore, sustainable value cannot be created for one group unless it is created for all of them. The first focus should be on creating value for the customer, but this cannot be achieved unless the right employees are selected, developed, and rewarded, and unless investors receive consistently attractive returns (Paul O´Malley, 1998).
What O`Malley is suggesting is extremely relevant for service organizations since customers´ value creation does not take place unless the organization is internally geared towards the correct service level implementation and the correct mindset. An integral part of the value creation is the skills, knowledge and mindset of the personnel.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Services value creation – the moment of truth
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Top service brands in Finland
The Finnish marketing and advertising magazine, Markkinointi & Mainonta published a list of most appreciated brands in Finland. The magazine highlighted the Finns now liking even more Finnish brands than before. The only foreign brand in top 10 was Google.
The respondents evaluated their appreciation, usage and awareness on brands and if they would recommend the brand to their peers. The study did not tell how many people participated in the survey.
Some interesting findings. Anni Helena and Riitan Herkku in top 200. These brands were higher in the list than Helsingin Sanomat and R-Kioski. I guess a national study influences a Helsinki area driven brand. Stockmann, the Finnish shopping flagship, in place 133 after Aino ice cream, Mustapekka cheese and Kivikylän kotipalvaamo? Even if Stockmann is present only in a number of cities, where and how do you actually find and see Kivikylän kotipalvaamo?
But what about service brands? As said, Google was the only foreign brand in top 10 - and the only service brand in top 10. The first Finnish service brand in place 14 is S-Etukortti. Most likely in most Finns´pocket. But that the service benefit is so much appreciated even after S-ryhmä stopped sending the annual bonus coupons, which I personally found the core benefit for my S-shopping behaviour?
The other kinds of service brands in top 100 were bookstores, banks (after all the discussion on banking services, one bank has managed to differentiate from others), radio and tv channels by YLE and travel brands Finnair and Aurinkomatkat.
Compared to the study made 10 years ago, biggest changes in service brands positions were first of all the drop by Finnair - then in position 8. Finnair (and Helsinki airport), having gotten all the prestigiuous service awards, has unfortunately been impacted by continuous problems in package handling and strikes by its own employees and partnering companies. Another loser is Silja Line, whose image worsened within the merger to Tallink and the lively management incidents. The bookstores still score high but Stockmann and Sokos fall behind.
The real big winners in the competition are symbols representing a new era: Finnishness, quality and ecology in general. Brands ranked in Top 30: Joutsenlippu, Joutsenmerkki, Avainlippu, Luomu.
Would this trend indicate that the Finnish consumption behaviour is moving towards specialized goods and services which clearly promote their company values and sustainability? Are service brands able to provide such an experience towards its customers? Matkahuolto, VR, Finnair, travel agencies, media companies, new emerging service brands that provide a unique Finnish, high quality, sustainable experience? Following this, I expect that the number of service brands on the list in 2021 has doubled.
The respondents evaluated their appreciation, usage and awareness on brands and if they would recommend the brand to their peers. The study did not tell how many people participated in the survey.
Some interesting findings. Anni Helena and Riitan Herkku in top 200. These brands were higher in the list than Helsingin Sanomat and R-Kioski. I guess a national study influences a Helsinki area driven brand. Stockmann, the Finnish shopping flagship, in place 133 after Aino ice cream, Mustapekka cheese and Kivikylän kotipalvaamo? Even if Stockmann is present only in a number of cities, where and how do you actually find and see Kivikylän kotipalvaamo?
But what about service brands? As said, Google was the only foreign brand in top 10 - and the only service brand in top 10. The first Finnish service brand in place 14 is S-Etukortti. Most likely in most Finns´pocket. But that the service benefit is so much appreciated even after S-ryhmä stopped sending the annual bonus coupons, which I personally found the core benefit for my S-shopping behaviour?
The other kinds of service brands in top 100 were bookstores, banks (after all the discussion on banking services, one bank has managed to differentiate from others), radio and tv channels by YLE and travel brands Finnair and Aurinkomatkat.
Compared to the study made 10 years ago, biggest changes in service brands positions were first of all the drop by Finnair - then in position 8. Finnair (and Helsinki airport), having gotten all the prestigiuous service awards, has unfortunately been impacted by continuous problems in package handling and strikes by its own employees and partnering companies. Another loser is Silja Line, whose image worsened within the merger to Tallink and the lively management incidents. The bookstores still score high but Stockmann and Sokos fall behind.
The real big winners in the competition are symbols representing a new era: Finnishness, quality and ecology in general. Brands ranked in Top 30: Joutsenlippu, Joutsenmerkki, Avainlippu, Luomu.
Would this trend indicate that the Finnish consumption behaviour is moving towards specialized goods and services which clearly promote their company values and sustainability? Are service brands able to provide such an experience towards its customers? Matkahuolto, VR, Finnair, travel agencies, media companies, new emerging service brands that provide a unique Finnish, high quality, sustainable experience? Following this, I expect that the number of service brands on the list in 2021 has doubled.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Business relationships in service settings
Bo Edvardsson, Maria Holmlund, Tore Strandvik (Initiation of business relationships in service dominant settings, Industrial Marketing Management 37, 2008) have looked into conceptualization of a relationship initiation process in service organizations.
The key question of the authors was what it is about relationships that are crucial for business growth; how can companies initiate new relationships or transform current relationships in a service organization. Or when and why does a relationship end?
The authors were looking into manufacturing companies, operating in highly competitive enviornments, transforming their business from product based offering to a service business. The core success factor in this setting is to understand how to manage and restructure customer relationships and co-creation in order to provide a successful change and transformation.
Edvardsson, Holmlund and Strandvik´s core concept for understanding relationships was explained through a new model on relationship initiation process, which suggests “statuses” with increasing likelihood of leading to a business agreement. The transition from one status to another may lead to a business relationship eg through an agreement. Relationship initiation requires and involves a number of activities and the dynamics of the process may be to move between positions either forward or backward.
What for me was one of the key thoughts was the authors´ view on customers working through projects rather than a process and how similar the way of working is between professional b-to-b companies and transforming manufacturing companies. According to the authors the earlier lifecycle models seem less adequate. If talking about a customer lifecycle and providing lifecycle value, have b-to-b companies created agile enough environments to work with customer from one status to another?
Is lifecycle management too broad term for increased value for customers? If companies split lifecycle process to relevant and detailed entities - from customer perspective - does that differentiate them better from competition? Moving towards a project based service model seems to be the key success factor, after identifying the core service levels and service experience models. The customer moves from one status to another. Service organizations cannot rely on traditional lifecycle process anymore but rather need to integrate services between customer statuses to provide project type services based on customer needs.
The key question of the authors was what it is about relationships that are crucial for business growth; how can companies initiate new relationships or transform current relationships in a service organization. Or when and why does a relationship end?
The authors were looking into manufacturing companies, operating in highly competitive enviornments, transforming their business from product based offering to a service business. The core success factor in this setting is to understand how to manage and restructure customer relationships and co-creation in order to provide a successful change and transformation.
Edvardsson, Holmlund and Strandvik´s core concept for understanding relationships was explained through a new model on relationship initiation process, which suggests “statuses” with increasing likelihood of leading to a business agreement. The transition from one status to another may lead to a business relationship eg through an agreement. Relationship initiation requires and involves a number of activities and the dynamics of the process may be to move between positions either forward or backward.
What for me was one of the key thoughts was the authors´ view on customers working through projects rather than a process and how similar the way of working is between professional b-to-b companies and transforming manufacturing companies. According to the authors the earlier lifecycle models seem less adequate. If talking about a customer lifecycle and providing lifecycle value, have b-to-b companies created agile enough environments to work with customer from one status to another?
Is lifecycle management too broad term for increased value for customers? If companies split lifecycle process to relevant and detailed entities - from customer perspective - does that differentiate them better from competition? Moving towards a project based service model seems to be the key success factor, after identifying the core service levels and service experience models. The customer moves from one status to another. Service organizations cannot rely on traditional lifecycle process anymore but rather need to integrate services between customer statuses to provide project type services based on customer needs.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
How crucial is timing for service launches?
The CEO of the Finnish national railways VR, Mikael Aro, was being interviewed on radio - and TV - for the various problems the company has been facing - and causing - lately. It was discussed how VR has become a joke among its customers using trains for daily transportation.
VR´s problems do not seem to disappear. The past two winters, with record amount of snow, caused a multitude of delays. Problems in manning the trains has been another cause for delays or even cancellations. The problems in the new ticketing logic and system is yet another episode nobody really wanted to face. According to Mikael Aro, customers cannot be blamed for unsatisfaction. Who would like to have an unpredictable service on a daily basis, especially when you depend on the train schedules for getting to work or school. And do you really want to face a problem when trying to purchase a simple thing - ticket.
VR being a service organization made me think of two things: what the right moment is for introducing new services, and if there are any differences in introducing services in a monopoly vs operating in a competitive environment.
Timing. It goes without saying that you need to fix the existing problems. But when and how do you take things forward with new service launches? In order to develop and provide a better service experience, companies need to test alternatives in widening and improving the portfolio. But would you not introduce new services gradually to maintain the core experience, supporting your brand. I heard VR had tested the new ticketing system for 6 months. Maybe it was still not enough. Maybe they did not test different customer groups. Different technical alternatives. Who knows. However, the core problem for VR has been availability of the service ie trains not moving when they should. Would it not make sense to fix the availability problem, improve schedules to the promised service level, have one "good" winter and only then go for a next level of changes ie the new ticketing service? Launching a service concept when the customer base is already unsatisfied must be the most challenging timing.
Monopoly. I don´t see any differences how a service introduction would differ for a monopoly. In case of VR, it may rule the national railways but it does not rule transportation. On TV there was a comparison of a flight vs train ticket from Helsinki to Oulu. A flight ticket was comparably much better choice. If you fail, even a monopoly has to face consequences: increased costs, impact to personnel, customers looking for alternatives or even stopping use of the service.
My question is, could VR learn something from another state owned company, Alko? Alko has successfully provided new service concepts to its customers and has most likely one of the best service experiences in the country. Is there a logic that Alko is using when introducing new service concepts and how do they test them among their customers to ensure success of implementation? It is of course different selling wine than moving people 1200km to another location in a heavy snowstorm. But both companies share something in common: a few million Finnish customers who need them and have few alternatives. And don´t we want both companies to do a good job.
VR´s problems do not seem to disappear. The past two winters, with record amount of snow, caused a multitude of delays. Problems in manning the trains has been another cause for delays or even cancellations. The problems in the new ticketing logic and system is yet another episode nobody really wanted to face. According to Mikael Aro, customers cannot be blamed for unsatisfaction. Who would like to have an unpredictable service on a daily basis, especially when you depend on the train schedules for getting to work or school. And do you really want to face a problem when trying to purchase a simple thing - ticket.
VR being a service organization made me think of two things: what the right moment is for introducing new services, and if there are any differences in introducing services in a monopoly vs operating in a competitive environment.
Timing. It goes without saying that you need to fix the existing problems. But when and how do you take things forward with new service launches? In order to develop and provide a better service experience, companies need to test alternatives in widening and improving the portfolio. But would you not introduce new services gradually to maintain the core experience, supporting your brand. I heard VR had tested the new ticketing system for 6 months. Maybe it was still not enough. Maybe they did not test different customer groups. Different technical alternatives. Who knows. However, the core problem for VR has been availability of the service ie trains not moving when they should. Would it not make sense to fix the availability problem, improve schedules to the promised service level, have one "good" winter and only then go for a next level of changes ie the new ticketing service? Launching a service concept when the customer base is already unsatisfied must be the most challenging timing.
Monopoly. I don´t see any differences how a service introduction would differ for a monopoly. In case of VR, it may rule the national railways but it does not rule transportation. On TV there was a comparison of a flight vs train ticket from Helsinki to Oulu. A flight ticket was comparably much better choice. If you fail, even a monopoly has to face consequences: increased costs, impact to personnel, customers looking for alternatives or even stopping use of the service.
My question is, could VR learn something from another state owned company, Alko? Alko has successfully provided new service concepts to its customers and has most likely one of the best service experiences in the country. Is there a logic that Alko is using when introducing new service concepts and how do they test them among their customers to ensure success of implementation? It is of course different selling wine than moving people 1200km to another location in a heavy snowstorm. But both companies share something in common: a few million Finnish customers who need them and have few alternatives. And don´t we want both companies to do a good job.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Projectizing service quality
"There are no support functions longer."
In a service company - everything is important. I listened to Jesus Belle, our Professor for Service quality management in Haaga-Helia and thought this is bold - and I comply. According to Belle, there are no longer "sales or marketing kingdoms" with everything else as "support functions". In a service organization, everybody and every organization needs to contribute to final customer experience.
Responsibilities must be clear to convert company knowledge into a seamless service experience. Modern budgetting should no longer allocate budgets to functions but rather projects with development objectives across functions. Mr Belle emphasized projectization within any (service) organization. Budgets should be allocated to projects which enforce collaboration internally and strive at (good) customer service.
Such a set-up requires a different service process also internally. Service units require request to deliver.
How is this done in practice? Coverting a support unit to an internal service unit requires converting objectives to projects. For example:
* list your services
* plan them as projects
* evaluate the cost and efficiency
* improve and provide service level
* stick to schedules and budgets allocated
* link budget to projects based on assessment of them.
In a service company - everything is important. I listened to Jesus Belle, our Professor for Service quality management in Haaga-Helia and thought this is bold - and I comply. According to Belle, there are no longer "sales or marketing kingdoms" with everything else as "support functions". In a service organization, everybody and every organization needs to contribute to final customer experience.
Responsibilities must be clear to convert company knowledge into a seamless service experience. Modern budgetting should no longer allocate budgets to functions but rather projects with development objectives across functions. Mr Belle emphasized projectization within any (service) organization. Budgets should be allocated to projects which enforce collaboration internally and strive at (good) customer service.
Such a set-up requires a different service process also internally. Service units require request to deliver.
How is this done in practice? Coverting a support unit to an internal service unit requires converting objectives to projects. For example:
* list your services
* plan them as projects
* evaluate the cost and efficiency
* improve and provide service level
* stick to schedules and budgets allocated
* link budget to projects based on assessment of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)