Management Templates
Hello. This is the next issue about customer experience management. (R) - Roman Nokhrin - Asks questions, (A) - Arsen Dallakyan, managing partner of the consulting company Russian Behavioral Unit - answers.
(P) In recent years, the most popular words are agile, CJM, a framework . I heard: âeveryone is introducing agileâ - I donât know what it is, but I also need it. Everyone hangs on the CJM walls - probably, I also need to draw something on the board. What are these trends and what should I do and do with it?
(A) A novel, right to the point, in a sore spot.
Reflecting once again on this topic, I thought - why do I have a dislike for the new generation of Product Owner? I am 35 years old, I began my career at 19, so I am already an old school for many. I donât find fault with the appearance, itâs not important, just to get a picture formed: with tucked up jeans, bare ankles, bearded tattooed guys on skateboards in the office. The important thing is that they have a new approach that is not peculiar to me. Namely -
(P) Presence or lack?
(A) Availability! There is a framework for everything, there is a template for everything, there is a clear methodology for everything: how should we make a product, how should we stand up, how many minutes should we spend, every week or not, and so on. It all started originally from agile and itâs understandable, itâs great, itâs right in itself. We do not sit at meetings for a long time and other sound ideas. But at some point there were too many of them [patterns]. And when I talk with a young guy on a product and he says: âthat's it, we kept this hypothesis [uncoupled], went into the fieldsâ - they all say the same words. I say - [where] an element of creativity of some kind? I donât even know what to oppose them - some kind of rejection is ripening inside me.
And now the whole reflection is a misunderstanding - why is it ripening in me?
(R) Found a reason?
(A) Just groping. Firstly, it seems to me that all this leads to uniform solutions. Yes, the number of non-working ideas may be reduced, but all the working people work the same way - for the three. I donât see these guys inside the companies giving birth to breakthrough big ideas. The maximum that they gave birth to is improvement or an obvious project that the client needs. The second - under these patterns, approaches, hides a lack of market knowledge. Lack of business sense, entrepreneurial spirit.
But take CJM. CJM is the most overrated tool.
First, what is it? Correctly speak customer experience card. Who says the customerâs travel card is simply not possible. And this is not just a literal translation, it is just a framework approach, when you see and do what you do, without critical reflection. And no way! It is experience.
What it is? This is a visualization of a research report . This is the infographic of a classic research report: an in-depth interview or ethnography, then some polls as a validation of the received insights.
How old is the in-depth interview? Probably a hundred years old.
How old is ethnography? There are probably two hundred.
How old are polls? Probably a thousand.
Absolutely nothing new. What's new? Picture on the wall. Visualization. CJM made hype visualization. No one else says, âlet's do some research to visualize his report in infographics and hang it on the wall.â What research can we say so? We donât even do NPS because it is ugly. But CJM has been acting as an independent, independent project within the company for 4 years already. Expensive - up to 5-7 million leaves.
(R) For development?
(A) For development, yes. Not for correction, but for the development and obvious moments of truth. The teams work, they build [CJM] for a year and a half and hang on the wall.
I am not against CJM - this is a great tool for measuring behavior. Question for what? Once in [one] bank I had a conversation with people who there wanted to launch a culture of building CJM and were looking for who could implement it. I suggested two approaches.
The first - we conducted CJM, identified the jambs - we fix the jambs.
The second - we conducted CJM, placed posts that should be responsible for improving the quality of interaction with customers, gave them tools and every day, preferably life time, but at least once a week with dashboards we measure how experience changes. And this gives the advantage that people who have never thought about clients before, that is, financiers, logisticians, begin to compare their work with the quality of customer interaction that it brings. And this is wow!
And the first is boring. I can do the first, I can and the second. They say - ok, let's think about the first one (and then ordered it in London anyway).
But the story is that everyone is doing only the first now. And many were disappointed. Now CJM is a swear word (thank God, finally). Why, because the tool is good?
And this is born again because the word CJM (research) is more important than a business task.
(R) That is, work for the sake of work is obtained?
(A) Well, yes. âIs there a CJM? There is! Well done! So you're a good service designer, you're doing the right thing. â
The second - not only are CJM th well fed. Now [there is] a big wave, essentially correct - human centered - customer orientation. We do not start any action until we go to the client and ask him. All in all a good topic. But when you donât know where to look, when you donât know how to ask, when you donât know how to decompile the answers and peel them off - it turns out useless, empty work, going to the fields and returning with a rotten crop.
Because you canât walk and just ask customers. Need the right methodology. A correct methodology requires immersion and study. The products do not have this, the products have the understanding that if I come to my client and ask: âwill you buy such a feature or not?â And he will say âyesâ - that means he will buy, if he says ânoâ - it means not will buy. He comes back with answers.
(R) Makes such a product, but do not buy.
(A) Of course! It's one thing to say, another thing to get married.
And what happens? Now that the wave âwe run to the client and test everything on the clientâ as CJM before, hear my words, a wave of disappointment will cover the renaissance of customer-oriented design of products and services.
We are people, we are irrational, we do not know what lies in the motives of our behavior. This is the topic of another issue.
If we talk about template management, by the way, I donât know what to call it, I want someone smarter than me to write an article about this.
How does all management, which used to be based on in-depth study of processes, knowledge of management, people, etc., the classic MBA (as far as I do not like MBA), do deep knowledge turn into a set of templates?
And that is scary.
For example: the team develops customer value - the main proposal for the client. There is an Osterwalder pattern. Itâs pretty sensible, simplistic, but it shows what kind of work your product does, what barriers, what incentives the client seeks. In principle, you can use. But when the groceries develop the product according to this template, they forget that the same Osterwalder formed the entire business model and he did not mean that the customer value should be produced exclusively for the product, not taking into account either sales channels, communication with customers, or other stages of the entire business -models.
And they are: "let's first create a proposal, let the BMW be controllable, and then we will think how to communicate it, where and how to distribute it, and so on."
(R) And at the exit, it may turn out that the accustomed CA does not want it, the plant is not adapted to build.
(A) The most popular is that distribution cannot swallow and convey this value. And it turns out that maybe you are developing a product in isolation that is not bad, but customer value is not only design, but also proposition and development of this value.
This is a time-spaced process and different chains must be created at a time. Otherwise, the unfinished bridge without the last mile is constantly obtained. And a customer value is created and begins to cram into any distribution channels, into any communications, just to start working.
(R) But doesn't start?
(A) Does not start, as a rule.
If itâs more convenient for you to watch the video version of the conversation, follow the link and subscribe to the channel .
(P) In recent years, the most popular words are agile, CJM, a framework . I heard: âeveryone is introducing agileâ - I donât know what it is, but I also need it. Everyone hangs on the CJM walls - probably, I also need to draw something on the board. What are these trends and what should I do and do with it?
(A) A novel, right to the point, in a sore spot.
Reflecting once again on this topic, I thought - why do I have a dislike for the new generation of Product Owner? I am 35 years old, I began my career at 19, so I am already an old school for many. I donât find fault with the appearance, itâs not important, just to get a picture formed: with tucked up jeans, bare ankles, bearded tattooed guys on skateboards in the office. The important thing is that they have a new approach that is not peculiar to me. Namely -
regulated and scheduled methodology for the production of products and generally any actions within the company.
(P) Presence or lack?
(A) Availability! There is a framework for everything, there is a template for everything, there is a clear methodology for everything: how should we make a product, how should we stand up, how many minutes should we spend, every week or not, and so on. It all started originally from agile and itâs understandable, itâs great, itâs right in itself. We do not sit at meetings for a long time and other sound ideas. But at some point there were too many of them [patterns]. And when I talk with a young guy on a product and he says: âthat's it, we kept this hypothesis [uncoupled], went into the fieldsâ - they all say the same words. I say - [where] an element of creativity of some kind? I donât even know what to oppose them - some kind of rejection is ripening inside me.
And now the whole reflection is a misunderstanding - why is it ripening in me?
Everything seems to be correct, everything is as it should, great, everything works like clockwork.
(R) Found a reason?
(A) Just groping. Firstly, it seems to me that all this leads to uniform solutions. Yes, the number of non-working ideas may be reduced, but all the working people work the same way - for the three. I donât see these guys inside the companies giving birth to breakthrough big ideas. The maximum that they gave birth to is improvement or an obvious project that the client needs. The second - under these patterns, approaches, hides a lack of market knowledge. Lack of business sense, entrepreneurial spirit.
The gamification of the business process has become so powerful that the business has disappeared. There is a game left.And for them it is a game. I canât prove it, I canât catch them by the hand and say âyou are not an entrepreneur, you are a playerâ. But it smells. Maybe I'm a retrograde?
But take CJM. CJM is the most overrated tool.
First, what is it? Correctly speak customer experience card. Who says the customerâs travel card is simply not possible. And this is not just a literal translation, it is just a framework approach, when you see and do what you do, without critical reflection. And no way! It is experience.
What it is? This is a visualization of a research report . This is the infographic of a classic research report: an in-depth interview or ethnography, then some polls as a validation of the received insights.
How old is the in-depth interview? Probably a hundred years old.
How old is ethnography? There are probably two hundred.
How old are polls? Probably a thousand.
Absolutely nothing new. What's new? Picture on the wall. Visualization. CJM made hype visualization. No one else says, âlet's do some research to visualize his report in infographics and hang it on the wall.â What research can we say so? We donât even do NPS because it is ugly. But CJM has been acting as an independent, independent project within the company for 4 years already. Expensive - up to 5-7 million leaves.
(R) For development?
(A) For development, yes. Not for correction, but for the development and obvious moments of truth. The teams work, they build [CJM] for a year and a half and hang on the wall.
I am not against CJM - this is a great tool for measuring behavior. Question for what? Once in [one] bank I had a conversation with people who there wanted to launch a culture of building CJM and were looking for who could implement it. I suggested two approaches.
The first - we conducted CJM, identified the jambs - we fix the jambs.
The second - we conducted CJM, placed posts that should be responsible for improving the quality of interaction with customers, gave them tools and every day, preferably life time, but at least once a week with dashboards we measure how experience changes. And this gives the advantage that people who have never thought about clients before, that is, financiers, logisticians, begin to compare their work with the quality of customer interaction that it brings. And this is wow!
And the first is boring. I can do the first, I can and the second. They say - ok, let's think about the first one (and then ordered it in London anyway).
But the story is that everyone is doing only the first now. And many were disappointed. Now CJM is a swear word (thank God, finally). Why, because the tool is good?
Because to conduct research in order to find out something is the most stupid and wrong exercise
And this is born again because the word CJM (research) is more important than a business task.
When you solve business problems, you conduct research to make a decision: what to do, confirm or refute your hypothesis.
(R) That is, work for the sake of work is obtained?
(A) Well, yes. âIs there a CJM? There is! Well done! So you're a good service designer, you're doing the right thing. â
The second - not only are CJM th well fed. Now [there is] a big wave, essentially correct - human centered - customer orientation. We do not start any action until we go to the client and ask him. All in all a good topic. But when you donât know where to look, when you donât know how to ask, when you donât know how to decompile the answers and peel them off - it turns out useless, empty work, going to the fields and returning with a rotten crop.
Because you canât walk and just ask customers. Need the right methodology. A correct methodology requires immersion and study. The products do not have this, the products have the understanding that if I come to my client and ask: âwill you buy such a feature or not?â And he will say âyesâ - that means he will buy, if he says ânoâ - it means not will buy. He comes back with answers.
(R) Makes such a product, but do not buy.
(A) Of course! It's one thing to say, another thing to get married.
And what happens? Now that the wave âwe run to the client and test everything on the clientâ as CJM before, hear my words, a wave of disappointment will cover the renaissance of customer-oriented design of products and services.
Because customers lie either to themselves or to you. But they constantly lie.
We are people, we are irrational, we do not know what lies in the motives of our behavior. This is the topic of another issue.
If we talk about template management, by the way, I donât know what to call it, I want someone smarter than me to write an article about this.
How does all management, which used to be based on in-depth study of processes, knowledge of management, people, etc., the classic MBA (as far as I do not like MBA), do deep knowledge turn into a set of templates?
A set of [templates] is good when you know the basics, then you just save time. But when you donât know the basis and use only templates - this is a game in its pure form, a board game.
And that is scary.
For example: the team develops customer value - the main proposal for the client. There is an Osterwalder pattern. Itâs pretty sensible, simplistic, but it shows what kind of work your product does, what barriers, what incentives the client seeks. In principle, you can use. But when the groceries develop the product according to this template, they forget that the same Osterwalder formed the entire business model and he did not mean that the customer value should be produced exclusively for the product, not taking into account either sales channels, communication with customers, or other stages of the entire business -models.
Customer Value does not exist without a business model.
And they are: "let's first create a proposal, let the BMW be controllable, and then we will think how to communicate it, where and how to distribute it, and so on."
(R) And at the exit, it may turn out that the accustomed CA does not want it, the plant is not adapted to build.
(A) The most popular is that distribution cannot swallow and convey this value. And it turns out that maybe you are developing a product in isolation that is not bad, but customer value is not only design, but also proposition and development of this value.
This is a time-spaced process and different chains must be created at a time. Otherwise, the unfinished bridge without the last mile is constantly obtained. And a customer value is created and begins to cram into any distribution channels, into any communications, just to start working.
(R) But doesn't start?
(A) Does not start, as a rule.
If itâs more convenient for you to watch the video version of the conversation, follow the link and subscribe to the channel .
All Articles