What Customer-Centric Looks Like

My last post, “Defense Against the Dark Art of Disruption”, went into some detail about notable failures in customer-experience for 2016. This week, however, I ran across a counter-example (h/t to Tim Worstall) showing that a little social media awareness and a customer-centric culture can make magic:

A baby products company is launching a special run of ‘little blue cups’ for a 13-year-old boy with autism following a global appeal by his father.

Ben Carter, from Devon, will only drink from a blue Tommee Tippee cup, prompting father Marc to put out an appeal on social media after becoming concerned the cup was wearing out.

Ben would refuse drinks that were not in the cup and had been to hospital with severe dehydration.
His father, tweeting as @GrumpyCarer, prompted people across the world to look through their cupboards for identical cups or to spread the #cupforben message. His request was retweeted more than 12,000 times.

Tommee Tippee, based in Northumberland, said it was nearly 20 years since it had manufactured that product, but has now rediscovered the design and found the mould used to make the two-handled originals, stored in a usable condition in China.

It has said it will make a run of 500 cups to ensure ‘that Ben has a lifetime supply and that his family won’t ever have to worry about finding another cup’.


While I don’t know what it cost them to find the molds and run a one-off batch of cups, I suspect that the value of the positive global media coverage should substantially offset it. As a father, I know that the gesture was priceless.


Defense Against the Dark Art of Disruption

Woman with Crystal Ball

My first post for 2016 was titled “Is 2016 the Year for Customer-Focused IT?”. The closing line was “If 2016 isn’t the year for customer-focused IT, I wonder just what kind of year it will be for IT?”.

I am so sorry for jinxing so many things for so many people. 🙂

So far, the year has brought us great moments in customer experience like:

  • Google Mic Drop – an automated kiss-off for email (“you meant to hit that button, right?”)
  • Google/Nest and the Resolv home automation hub – retiring a product by bricking it (“it’s just not working; it’s not you, it’s us”)
  • Apple Music – cloud access to your music and freed-up disk space (“nice little music collection you have here, it’d be a shame if you quit paying for access to it”)
  • Evernote’s downsizing – because when the free plan is good enough for too many people, taking away features is the way to get them to pay, right?

Apple, of course, probably won the prize with their “courageous” iPhone 7 rollout:

Using “courage” in such a way was basically a lethal combination of a giant middle finger mixed with a swift kick in the nuts, all wrapped in a seemingly tone-deaf soundbite. This is the kind of stuff critics dream about.

Because Schiller said exactly what he said, he left the company open to not only mockery, but also bolstered a common line of criticism that often gets leveled upon Apple: that they think they know best, and everyone else can hit the road. You can argue that this is a good mentality to have in some cases — the whole “faster horse” thing — but it’s not a savvy move for a company to say this so directly in such a manner.

Apple then continued it’s tradition of “courage” with the new MacBook Pro models.

So, is there a point to all this?

Beyond the obvious, “it’s my site and I’ll snark if I want to”, there’s a very important point. Matt Ballantine captured it perfectly in his post, “Ripe for Disruption”: “You’re less likely to be disrupted if you are in sync with your customers’ view of your value proposition.” His definitive example:

I think that most of the classic cases of organisational extinction through disruption can be framed in this way: Kodak thought their value was in film and cameras. Their customers wanted to capture memories. Kodak missed digital (even though they kind of invented it).

The quote bears repeating with emphasis: “You’re less likely to be disrupted if you are in sync with your customers’ view of your value proposition.” What you think your value proposition is means a whole lot less than your customer’s perception of the value of what you’re delivering. This is a really good way to poison that perception:

Disappointment, betrayal (perception is reality here) are not conducive to a positive customer experience. Customer acquisition is important, but retention is far more important to gaining market share (h/t to Matt Collins). The key to retention is to relate to your customers; understand what they need, then provide that. Having them pay for what’s in your best interest, rather than theirs (hello Kodak), is a much harder sell.

Dealing with Technical Debt Like We Mean it

What’s the biggest problem with technical debt?

In my opinion, the biggest problem is that it works. Just like the electrical outlet pictured above, systems with technical debt get the job done, even when there’s a hidden surprise or two waiting to make life interesting for us at some later date. If it flat-out failed, getting it fixed would be far easier. Making the argument to spend time (money) changing something that “works” can be difficult.

Failing to make the argument, however, is not the answer:

Brenda Michelson‘s observation is half the battle. The argument for paying down technical debt needs to be made in business-relevant terms (cost, risk, customer impact, etc.). We need more focus on the “debt” part and remember “technical” is just a qualifier:

The other half of the battle is communicating, in the same business-relevant manner, the costs and/or risks involved when taking on technical debt is considered:

Tracking what technical debt exists and managing the payoff (or write off, removing failed experiments is a reduction technique) is important. Likewise, managing the assumption of technical debt is critical to avoid being swamped by it.

Of course, one could take the approach that the only acceptable level of technical debt is zero. This is equivalent to saying “if we can’t have a perfect product, we won’t have a product”. That might be a difficult position to sell to those writing the checks.

Even if you could get an agreement for that position, reality will conspire to frustrate you. Entropy emerges. Even if the code is perfected and then left unchanged, the system can rot as its platform ages and the needs of the business change. When a system is actively maintained over time without an eye to maintaining a coherent, intentional architecture, then the situation becomes worse. In his post “Enterprise Modernization – The Next Big Thing!”, David Sprott noted:

The problem with modernization is that it is widely perceived as slow, very expensive and high risk because the core business legacy systems are hugely complex as a result of decades of tactical change projects that inevitably compromise any original architecture. But modernization activity must not be limited to the old, core systems; I observe all enterprises old and new, traditional and internet based delivering what I call “instant legacy” [Note 1] generally as outcomes of Agile projects that prioritize speed of delivery over compliance with a well-defined reference architecture that enables ongoing agility and continuous modernization.

Kellan Elliot-McCrea, in “Towards an understanding of technical debt”, captured the problem:

All code is technical debt. All code is, to varying degrees, an incorrect bet on what the future will look like.

This means that assessing and managing technical debt should be an ongoing activity with a responsible owner rather than a one-off event that “somebody” will take care of. The alternative is a bit like using a credit card at every opportunity and ignoring the statements until the repo-man is at the door.

The Hidden Cost of Cheap – UX and Internal Applications

Sisyphus by Titian

Why would anyone worry about user experience for anything that’s not customer-facing?

This question was the premise of Maurice Roach’s post in the Zühlke blog, “Empathise with your users or you won’t solve their problems”:

Bring up the subject of user empathy with some engineers or product owners and you’ll probably hear comments that fall into one of the following categories:

  • Why do we need to empathise when the requirements tell us all we need to know about the problem at hand?
  • Is this really going to improve anything?
  • Sounds like an expensive waste of time
  • They’ll have to use whatever they’re given

These aren’t unexpected responses, it’s easy to put empathy into the “touchy feely”, “let’s all hug and get along” box of product management.

Roach’s answers:

Empathy does a number of things, but mainly it increases the likelihood that the delivery team will think of a user and their pain points when delivering a feature.

If an engineer, UX designer or product owner will has sat with a user, watched them interact with their current software or device they will have an understanding of their frustrations, concerns and impediments to success. The team will be focused on creating features with the things they have witnessed in mind, they’re thinking about how their software will affect a human being and no amount of requirement documentation will give them that emotional connection.

Empathy can also help to develop a shared trust in the application development process. The users see that the delivery team are interested in helping to solve their problems and the product delivery team see the real users behind the application.

All of these are valid reasons, but the list is incomplete. All of these answer the question from a software development point of view. To his credit, Roach pushes past the purely technical aspects into the world of the user. This expanded exploration of the context is, in my opinion, absolutely essential. What’s presented above is an IT-centric viewpoint that needed to be married with a business-centric viewpoint in order to get a fuller picture.

Nick Shackleton-Jones, in his post “The Future Is… Organisational Usability!”, outlined on the problem:

Here’s how your organisation works: you hire people who are increasingly used to a world where they can do pretty much anything via an app on their iPhone, and you subject them to a blizzard of process, policy, antiquated systems and outdated ways of working which pretty much stop them in their tracks, leaving them unproductive and demoralised. Frankly, it’s a miracle they manage to accomplish anything at all.

As he notes, enterprises are putting a lot of effort into digital initiatives aimed at making it easier for customers to engage with them. However:

…if we are going to be successful in future we need to make it much easier for our people to do their jobs: because they are going to be spending less time with us, and because we want engagement and retention, and because if we require high levels of capability (to work our complex systems) then our resourcing costs will go through the roof. We have to simplify ‘getting stuff done’. To put it another way: in an ideal world, any job in your organisation should be do-able by a 12-yr old.

While I disagree that “any job in your organisation should be do-able by a 12-yr old”, Shackleton-Jones point is well-taken that it is in the interests of the business to make it easier for people to do their jobs. All aspects of the system, whether organizational, procedural or technological, should be facilitating, not hindering, the mission. Self-inflicted, unnecessary impediments are morale-killers and degrade both effectiveness and efficiency. All three of these directly impact customer-experience.

While this linkage between employee user experience and customer experience makes usability important for line of business systems (both technological and social), it has value for peripheral systems as well. Time people spend on ancillary tasks (filling out time sheets, requesting supplies, etc.) is time not spent on their primary duties. You may not be able to eliminate those tasks, but you can minimize their expense by making them quick and easy to complete. The further someone’s knowledge/skill/experience level gets from “do-able by a 12-yr old”, the bigger the savings by paying attention to this.

Rather than asking if you can afford to pay attention to user experience, you might want to ask whether you can afford not to.

Volkswagen and the Cost of Culture

Hand holding a wad of cash

Thanks to Volkswagen, we now have an idea of the cost of failing to maintain an ethical culture, roughly $18 billion US (emphasis added in the quoted text below by me):

Volkswagen’s financial disclosure on Friday, in a preliminary earnings report, came a day after the company agreed on the outlines of a plan to settle some legal claims in the United States, which would include giving owners of about 500,000 affected vehicles the option of selling the cars back to the company or having them repaired.

Volkswagen is still negotiating the size of the fines it will pay to the United States government for violations of clean-air laws, as well as how much additional compensation it will provide to owners. The money set aside by the company on Friday provides an indication of what Volkswagen expects the total global costs of the scandal to be, although the figure could rise further.

Since the scandal broke in September, 2015, the news has steadily worsened. Last December, Volkswagen’s chairman admitted that the cheating found was not an isolated lapse:

…the decision by employees to cheat on emissions tests was made more than a decade ago, after they realized they could not meet United States clean air standards legally.

Hans-Dieter Pötsch, the chairman of Volkswagen’s supervisory board, said the cheating took place in a climate of lax ethical standards.

“There was a tolerance for breaking the rules,” Mr. Pötsch said here on Thursday during his first lengthy news conference since the company admitted in September that 11 million cars with diesel engines were rigged to fool emissions tests.

Volkswagen’s executive leadership explanation at the time:

Mr. Müller and Mr. Pötsch conceded that the deception reflected organizational shortcomings.

For example, the people who developed the software were the same ones who approved it for use in vehicles. At other companies, it is standard practice for one team to develop components and another to check them for quality. Volkswagen said it would correct those procedures.

Mr. Müller also said he wanted to change the company’s culture so that there was better communication among employees and more willingness to discuss problems. His predecessor, Martin Winterkorn, who resigned after the scandal, was criticized for creating a climate of fear that made managers afraid to admit mistakes.

“We don’t need yes men,” Mr. Müller said, “but managers and engineers who make good arguments.”

I would argue that what’s needed more than “good arguments” is a corporate culture where it’s understood that refusing to break the law is not only allowed, but expected. Given that the size of the loss reserve has more than doubled since then, perhaps they’ve realized that now as well.

What is not needed, however, is the traditional response to high-profile issues, layering on additional ad hoc rules and regulations with an eye toward making sure this “never again happens”. For one thing, there’s no indication that anyone was not aware of the fact that this behavior was wrong. Additional compliance theater is unlikely to improve anything in that respect, and may actually cause new problems in addition to exacerbating the root problem, VW’s culture.

A recent study (reported on in The Atlantic) by Simon Gächter and Jonathan Schulz, University of Nottingham, reports that corrupt cultures breeds corruption. In this study, they:

…asked volunteers from 23 countries to play the same simple game. The duo found that participants were more likely to bend the game’s rules for personal gain if they lived in more corrupt societies. “Corruption and fraud are things going on in the social environment all the time, and it’s plausible that it shapes people’s psychology, what they can get away with,” says Gächter. “It’s okay! Everybody does it around here.”

This study also has implications for Volkswagen’s ability to fix the problem:

Causality could eventually flow in the other direction. “If people are dishonest or think it’s okay to violate rules, it would also be harder to fight corruption and install institutions that work,” says Gächter. “In the long run, these things move together. But to show that, you’d need a 20 year project measuring this on an annual basis.”

Volkswagen, however, probably does not have twenty years to fix their problem. In the US alone, VW will have to fix or buy back (at the owner’s option) over 500,000 vehicles. I suspect VW’s reputation is severely impaired with those that opt to have their vehicles repaired and I would be willing to bet that the majority of those who sell their cars back won’t be returning as customers. This loss for Volkwagen is only the beginning of their financial problems, and it could all have been avoided.

Back in November, Matt Balantine floated an interesting (and very plausible) theory:

That may well turn out to be the case, but I also have to agree with what Grady Booch tweeted when the scandal first broke:

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but ultimately I believe only a systemic fix, top to bottom, will have any chance of correcting the problem (not that I’d be willing to give VW very good odds on remaining in business long enough for that to take effect). Their value going forward may be to serve as empiric confirmation of Gächter and Schulz’s work. Their bad example may serve as a wake up call for others to pay attention to the culture they’ve fostered (and are fostering) before their employees, innocent and guilty alike, pay the price.

Nest and Revolv – Smart Devices, Not so Smart Moves

I’ve made another guest appearance on Architecture Corner. In episode 39, “New and Obsolete”, Greger Wikstrand, Casimir Artmann and I discuss product lifetimes and the Internet of Things.

How could Nest have better handled the end of life of the Revolv device?

Google’s Parent Company is Stirring Up a Hornet’s Nest

On May 15th, my house will stop working. My landscape lighting will stop turning on and off, my security lights will stop reacting to motion, and my home made vacation burglar deterrent will stop working. This is a conscious intentional decision by Google/Nest.

To be clear, they are not simply ceasing to support the product, rather they are advising customers that on May 15th a container of hummus will actually be infinitely more useful than the Revolv hub.

Google is intentionally bricking hardware that I own.

Google, even before it morphed into Alphabet, has a long history of killing of products. While this is annoying when the product is a free online service (yes, I still miss Reader), the impending demise of the Revolv home automation hub raises some interesting questions. Arlo Gilbert, CEO of Televera (which produces medical monitoring software), asked in the Medium article referenced above:

Which hardware will Google choose to intentionally brick next? If they stop supporting Android will they decide that the day after the last warranty expires that your phone will go dark? Is your Nexus device safe? What about your Nest fire/smoke alarm? What about your Dropcam? What about your Chromecast device? Will Google/Nest endanger your family at some point?
All of those devices have software and hardware that are inextricably linked. When does an expired warranty become a right to disable core device functionality?

According to an article on Business Insider, Nest bought Revolv a few months after being purchased by Google. Since the purchase was aimed at acquiring Revolv’s talent, Nest quit selling the $300 Revolv devices, but they did continue to support them. That, however, will end on May 15th according to a recent announcement.

Google’s choice “…to intentionally brick…” this product is important for several reasons. There may be some legal ramifications (as reported in Business Insider, the devices were advertised with a “lifetime subscription”). Gilbert’s question about what happens to the devices he listed should make people (consumers and producers) think.

I agree with Christina Warren’s assertion in her post on Mashable that it’s unrealistic to expect companies to support products forever, particularly where the hardware and its supporting software services have become very tightly coupled. However, producers need to consider the cost to their reputation/good will when they take actions like this. One option floated on Vox:

Of course, it might be a waste of resources for Nest to support a product that only a small number of people are using. But if there aren’t many users left, that means it wouldn’t cost Nest very much to compensate the few remaining users — either by refunding the purchase price or offering to send users a similar product. Instead, Nest appears to be simply leaving them out of luck.

Generating fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is an ethically questionable tactic when applied to your competitors’ products. When you generate FUD about your own products, then it’s your judgement that comes into question. One way to throw cold water on the excitement around the Internet of Things (IOT) is to unintentionally or cavalierly create that doubt in the minds of consumers. When you’re working on a really big IOT product, something like an autonomous car, do you really want people questioning your commitment to standing behind your products?