Search...

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

August 24, 2020 | 5 Mins Read

Is Your Business Structured to Seize the Service Opportunity?

August 24, 2020 | 5 Mins Read

Is Your Business Structured to Seize the Service Opportunity?

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

Companies have realized the strategic and monetary value of service as a (or the) key differentiator and most are at some stage of the journey to equip their businesses to seize the service opportunity. You read (I write) a lot of articles on Servitization and the journey to outcomes-based service, and the reason you hear so much about these topics is twofold: first, the opportunity they present is immense and, second, the undertaking of these journeys is no small feat. It isn’t just about an intimate understanding of customer needs and pains or an examination of business strategies and processes. It can’t be accomplished simply by investing in technology or conquering employee engagement. It isn’t possible for just one function of the business to progress this agenda on its own. It’s a puzzle with many pieces and takes a cohesive vision and multifaceted plan.

This is why it’s a topic I’m so passionate about discussing – because there are many aspects, and multiple layers, that a company needs to consider and address to achieve success. It’s powerful for service leaders to share where they are on this journey, because inevitably there’s something to be learned from each and every experience. As I talk with business leaders about how they are transforming their businesses to seize the service opportunity, one of the root issues that often arises is how a company’s structure needs to evolve – particularly as it relates to the sales function and how that intersects with service. In traditional product-based businesses, sales has historically been tasked with and compensated on selling product – with service bolted on after (and often as an afterthought). As these companies look to prioritize service offerings, it begs an examination of what needs to change in how the sales function is structured. There’s no singular way to tackle this challenge and companies’ approaches span from improving collaboration between sales and service functions to completely restructuring the organizations.

I held a Focus Group recently with a handful of business leaders across industries, born out of a request from one in particular that is working through how the businesses needs to change in order to deliver on its mission to become more service-centric. Listening to these folks discuss how their organizations have addressed this topic was really quite interesting – there was a lot of commiseration and some significant similarities. While each businesses approach proved unique, there do seem to be some common important points to consider and work through:

  • Service can’t stay siloed. This may sound like an “of course” statement – but believe it or not, it’s a common misstep. Companies that are moving toward Servitization often try to do so by putting the onus of that progress on the service function alone, and as the group participants shared – this is recipe for failure. Servitization is a journey that requires the strategic vision of the company to be supported and socialized from the top and throughout the business. Progress in seizing the service opportunity needs to be a company-wide priority; not a service group’s responsibility.
  • Ownership needs to be clearly defined. As such, ownership when it comes to service sales and the service P&L needs to be clear. It seemed to be commonly agreed upon that keeping separate product and service P&Ls promotes division and prevents companies from realizing the true potential. Rather than keeping product and service sales separate, most companies seem to be working toward a more cohesive sales strategy so that the sale becomes about the outcome or deliverable versus about the product and service. However you choose to tackle this within your business, the ownership and responsibility for how the sale should be handled needs to be clearly defined and articulated.
  • Clear expectations need to be set. Building upon the last point, not only does ownership need to be understood, but expectations need to be set – both from a sales and service perspective. If you are restructuring the sales function to sell the deliverable (product + service), not only does this change need to be managed, but they need to be incentivized to achieve the goals you’ve set forth. From a service perspective, some companies are expecting field service workers to be directly involved in the sales process and others are promoting more of an advisory or consultative role. Again, there’s no single right answer – but your expectations for how the service technician’s role will evolve beyond the actual service work needs to be clear.
  • The data loop needs to be robust. However you structure sales and service, you need robust data. Whether a service technician is directly selling or acting in a consultative role, the data loop with sales needs to be in place. You need accurate, digestible, real-time data in order to hold both the sales and service functions accountable for the expectations you’ve set. For many companies the shift in responsibilities is a significant one, and there’s no way to measure compliance, performance, and progress without solid data.
  • Best practices need to be examined and built upon. The folks in my Focus Group were all from global companies, which adds complexity in not only determining a desired approach but then standardizing the approach to the appropriate degree among business units and regions. Knowing that complete uniformity is unlikely, another important point these folks shared is creating a system to ensure the sharing and formalizing of best practices. Most of the participants have a central function that is responsible for strategy and the aggregation and communication of best practices while execution is done at a regional level. Since much of the innovation and learnings happen at the regional level, it’s important to put measures in place (business reviews, forums, etc.) to keep a bidirectional information flow in place between central, business units, and regions.

How do you “sell” service within your business – and is that process changing? I’d love to hear from you and discuss!

August 21, 2020 | 3 Mins Read

Back to Basics: The Attributes of Best-in-Class Service Delivery Software

August 21, 2020 | 3 Mins Read

Back to Basics: The Attributes of Best-in-Class Service Delivery Software

Share

By Tom Paquin

This is part of an ongoing series on the state and standards of service management software in 2020. Here are the previous articles in the series:

Last time in our series, we took a look at the broad capability categories of service management and broke them into three subsections: Service delivery, operations, and customer experience. Today we’re going to start breaking down the first of these three subsections, service delivery.

This should, on its surface, not be rocket science to people. Here are what are typically defined as some of the key features in a “big tent” sort of way:

It’s not unusual for a service vendor B to produce a list like this and say, “See? We have all the same capabilities as vendor A!” but looking at this list it’s pretty obvious that having a broad scope of capabilities has virtually no relationship to having the capabilities necessary to actually manage service processes effectively.

Let’s start at the top of the list. In the olden days, service ticket management meant that a dispatcher initiated an appointment that was often manually routed to a technician. Then CRM systems allowed those appointments to include customer history and SLA requirements. Then mobile devices allowed technicians to initiate appointments. Then online portals allowed for a diversity of channels for appointment booking. Then IoT-enabled devices allowed for zero-touch appointment booking.

And all that’s just at the first step of ticket management. Think about appointment initiation, notation, close out, and everything in between and you can see the layers of complexity that separate a true service capability from a check list box.

And that’s really the major thing to keep in mind with all of this. Service capabilities are worthless if all they do is replace a piece of paper in a file cabinet. Truly best-in-class systems and processes automate repetitive processes to free up backoffice time, provide a constant vector between the backoffice and the field workers, and use available technology to enhance and provide new solutions.

Looking at the “Knowledge management” capability is a great way to consider how businesses can use available technologies to improve capabilities. Five years ago, knowledge management may have consisted of guidebooks and instructional videos on mobile devices. Today, augmented reality is changing the world of knowledge management permanently, allowing less tenured technicians or even end-users the guidance to mitigate issues without a truck roll.

This makes each capability much more than it appears on paper. Service capabilities should rise to meet your service expectations. Otherwise the technology is simple overcomplicated shovelware that technicians will marginalize or completely ignore.

You may be wondering why we’re leaving out some key service capabilities here that are components of service delivery, like parts management, and we’ll talk more about that and others next time, when we discuss optimization. Until then, if you’re considering a new FSM implementation, or upgrading your current systems, remember to focus on your list of service needs, and find the technology that elevates itself to the level of service execution you aspire to.

Most Recent

August 17, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

3 Keys to Delivering a First-Class Field Service Experience

August 17, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

3 Keys to Delivering a First-Class Field Service Experience

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

Next week we’ll release a podcast episode with Jamie Beck, VP of Field Operations at Peloton discussing how the world’s largest interactive fitness platform has decided to invest in field operations as a strategic differentiator. The conversation is an excellent illustration of a trend I’ve witnessed – the recognition by companies of how the face-to-face interaction that field workers provide can be an opportunity not just to “get the job done” but to deliver an experience that sets your company apart from the competition. I urge you to stay tuned for the podcast, coming August 26th, to hear the Peloton story firsthand – but today I wanted to share some insight on a topic that came up during that discussion: what are the keys to delivering a field service experience that provides a premium customer experience?

As Jamie talks through how Peloton views the opportunity to differentiation through its delivery and service functions, he describes three key points that enable the company to use field operations to provide a customer experience that Peloton members expect from the top-tier brand. An experience that leaves them feeling not only satisfied but also appreciated, valued, and part of the Peloton world. Even for companies not selling such well-known household brands, I believe these three keys are worth considering in the context of how you’re evolving your field operations to align with the type of customer experiences desired today. If you want to “wow” versus simply work, you have to think about how to create a field team that can deliver that premium experience. Here’s how Jamie of Peloton says the company is doing this:

#1: Hire on Personality; Train on Skills

“Delivering a strong customer experience starts with hiring the right people,” says Jamie. “We look for people that you would feel comfortable coming into your own home. There's a whole wide range of experience among our employees – we don’t have a prototypical field specialist for Peloton. We have former division one athletes. We have people that have worked retail. So, it spans a lot, but it's generally just good people. It starts there.”

Peloton has adopted this philosophy of focusing more on personality because the company knows it can train on the necessary skills. “For the scale that we have been growing at, we could not hire enough people if we just looked at technical skills,” explains Jamie. “We can teach the technical skills, and so as we've grown, we have built in what we call our master technician courses that allow that field specialist to promote into a role where now they can go into the home and they're not delivering anymore. We've looked for more personality, knowing that we can train the skills in order to do the service.”

#2: Don’t Be Prescriptive – Promote Creativity

“The training we provide obviously is knowledge about the product, but the thing that we don't do is we don't give our team a script,” says Jamie. “We don’t want to be prescriptive in how they treat the member or what the experience should consist of, because each member is different, and we want them to tailor the experience. A key word that we've learned in the experience is they're going to be patient with a member, to make sure they focus on that member’s questions and areas of interest.”

The idea is to provide a unique, white-glove experience – and Peloton knows you can’t do this by being prescriptive. I’d also suggest you’d have trouble hiring the caliber of people you want to provide that experience if you think you can do so by feeding them a script. Peloton, instead, hires good people and then promotes creativity. “When I started four years ago, my team was maybe 20 people to 2,000 people today,” says Jamie. “So even though my title's the same, my roles and responsibilities have changed a lot. But one of our value statements as a company that has remained along the way is to hire smart creatives and get out of the way.”

#3: Relinquish Control and Focus on Empowerment

Finally, Peloton is big on empowering its field workforce rather than controlling every aspect of what happens onsite. “We talk a lot about empowerment at Peloton, especially within the field operations team, and it goes down to if you're a field specialist delivering a product and maybe you don't have the answer, but you know it's a good decision for the member, it's a good decision for the company, and it's a good decision for you, then make a decision. I think the worst thing that a member customer wants to hear is, ‘Let me check with my manager,’” explains Jamie.

Empowered employees are engaged employees, and this fuels the cycle of those employees providing the type of experiences Peloton wants its customers to have. “When you empower teams, they are so much more engaged and they are doing what you want them to do and more,” says Jamie. “I think that's the biggest thing I've learned is, as we've grown in scale, putting people in positions that can do that and just continuing to step back and let them lead at their level has been the biggest contributor to success.”

Most Recent

August 14, 2020 | 2 Mins Read

What Aren’t You “Getting” About Servitization?

August 14, 2020 | 2 Mins Read

What Aren’t You “Getting” About Servitization?

Share

By Bill Pollock

There’s plenty to “get” about Servitization! So, why have so many field service managers not yet taken steps to adopt Servitization within their own organizations? Break/fix was decades ago; and so was Network Services Management (NSM). Self-support and customer portals? Yesterday’s news, as well. However, Servitization is here – and here to stay – at least for a long while.

But, what is there left to “get”?

I suppose it makes sense that you will need to “get” a full understanding of what Servitization is before you’re actually able to acquire a Servitization-based Field Service Management (FSM) solution for your services organization. OK – I “get” it!

So …, here’s your path forward:

  • First, learn as much as you can from trade associations, virtual Webcasts and conferences, industry experts, peers and online case studies and testimonials. Word of mouth testimonials are also good. And, oh yeah – you may also want to schedule some time with an actual Field Service Management (FSM) vendor that bases its solution on a foundation of Servitization.
  • Next, review the material you have collected for consistencies/inconsistencies, soundness, delivery, maintenance, practicality, scalability, user ratings – and price. Don’t just look at the suggested list price – those days are long gone (i.e., another traditional software acquisition mechanism that has bitten the dust). You will need to look at pricing in a completely different way, in terms of monthly fees based on things such as system uptime; system capacity, bandwidth, usage and throughput; results/outcomes and, ultimately, the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) (i.e., which, by and large, has replaced Value-in-Use, or ViU).
  • Look for prospective matches between what your “new” FSM solution offers and what your services organization delivers to see where there may be gaps that may need to be filled. Making the transition from the traditional on-site support and Preventive Maintenance service delivery model to an outcomes-based model will not necessarily be easy. Management has to buy into Servitization from the outset – and that may not be easy to achieve. In fact, you may run into a great deal of resistance from the top – especially if you have not communicated the anticipated Return-on-Investment (ROI) that can be realized through the transition.
  • Prepare to be “shot down” once or twice – or more. To avoid this, take steps to really know your material before making any presentations – to anyone. Enlist the help of your peers and support teams elsewhere in the organization. There will be strength in numbers that you will be able to leverage.
  • Set a realistic bar for your expectations – and be careful not to set it too low, or too high. Too low, and there will likely not be a groundswell of support for your path forward. Too high, and you will probably never reach your goals. Either case is bad: the former because you may not get the chance to move forward; and the latter, because you may be told “I told you so” following the transition.

Most Recent

August 10, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

Is AI Delivering On its Promise?

August 10, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

Is AI Delivering On its Promise?

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

Perusing tech news headlines or looking at conference agendas, you see AI everywhere. While you innately know better, with the messages being delivered, it can be easy to be persuaded into thinking, “I bet AI would solve all of my problems.” We had Seth Earley, author of The Artificial Intelligence Powered Enterprise, on the podcast not long ago to discuss why he feels AI has failed to deliver on its promise to businesses everywhere and his advice for how derive value from the technology.

The AI Conundrum

Seth points to a few reasons he feels AI is failing to deliver on its promise. The first is what I eluded to in the intro – the hype surrounding the technology. “One of the biggest challenges we have with AI and machine learning is the tremendous amount of hype in the marketplace. AI is an umbrella term and the technologies we're seeing today have a history of components and underlying algorithms that have really been around for decades,” he says. “We see anything with an algorithm being called AI and what that does is it creates the wrong expectations.”

According to Seth, this hype leads organizations to look at AI as something that is brand new which feeds unrealistic expectations. “I think the big problem is that organizations are looking at AI as something that's brand new, and that it is going to solve problems that they haven't been able to solve,” he says. “In some cases that may be true, but it also creates unrealistic expectations. That's partly because whenever there's a big shift in technology it creates uncertainty about what this means to the business. This leads people to start making investments without really understanding the capabilities of the technology, or what processes they needed to really address.”

Seth isn’t saying AI isn’t valuable, but rather that companies need to look beyond the hype into the realities of not only the capabilities of the technology but, more importantly, what the business case is for their company for AI. We see a lot of money being wasted on AI projects that are trying to boil the ocean or solve very intractable problems,” he says. “I think the biggest challenge is that many organizations don't have the basic foundational elements in place. Foundational processes, or the quality data that they need, and they're not necessarily understanding the nature of the problem they're trying to solve before going down this path.”

Advice for AI Success

To derive value from AI, Seth offers some advice to help organizations avoid the hype and unrealistic expectations and look at the technology through the lens of how it can solve business pain points. The first step is to know what those paint points are – to know what problem you are trying to solve. “The foundational piece is understanding what problem you're working on solving. And then, looking very carefully at the technology and saying, "What can this technology do, realistically?" he says. “There's a lot of successes out there, but there's a lot of failures. The reason for those failures really has to do with a lack of understanding of the true capabilities of the tools, and the processes that people are trying to enhance, and the business outcome that they're looking for. And, of course, not having the data.”

With the hype surrounding it, AI can be portrayed as a superpower-like technology – but the reality is, it isn’t magic. Like all technologies, for it to work for your business requires a strong foundation.  “You can’t automate something you don't understand, and you can't automate a mess,” says Seth. “While AI is powerful, you still have to teach the technology about your business – your product, your services, your solutions, your customers. You have to give it the terminology that you're using, and the concepts that are important to the business. An ontology is basically a framework for that. I think the key piece for leaders to understand is that this is not magic, and there's a lot of foundational work that needs to be in place to make AI work. It's not sexy, it's really the basic blocking and tackling. You still have hard work to do; governance is important, and metrics.”

Part of this important foundational work is knowing the needs of your customers. “A lot of organizations fall down by not necessarily understanding the needs of their customers,” says Seth. For instance, we worked with a company that wanted to do personalization for their customers. So, we built the architecture, had some algorithms. And then, at the end of the day, they couldn't define what the personalized content should be. They couldn't say, well, how is this audience different than this audience? What do they need? They didn't know. They didn't know enough about the customer in order to use the technology to personalize that experience.”

Seth suggests starting small and building upon success. “Starting off with big, ambitious goals that stretch the organization and stretch the technology is inherently risky,” Seth explains. “That doesn't mean you can't have a big vision of what AI can do for the organization but going through the process of planning and doing small experiments will yield a lot of value. These experiments deliver learning and maturity that needs to be built up in order to be successful.”

Most Recent

August 7, 2020 | 3 Mins Read

Back to Basics: The Key Capabilities of Service Management Software

August 7, 2020 | 3 Mins Read

Back to Basics: The Key Capabilities of Service Management Software

Share

By Tom Paquin

This is part of an ongoing series on the state and standards of service management software in 2020. For the first article in this series, click here.

When defining service management software, it’s typical to measure the worth of software by the breadth of capabilities that are offered, but that can be very misleading. In 2007, an Apple iPhone and Motorola Sidekick both had web browsers, but there’s no comparison between the depth of execution between the two, so everything here should be taken with a grain of salt.

So where do you even begin when defining the capabilities of service software? What is one expected feature that is so mature it’s a lifeline for service businesses? What is the latest killer app poised to shake up customer expectations or save a ton of money? To cover all of this, I will massively oversimplify the nuances of service software by putting them into three broad categories: Service delivery, operations, and customer experience.

In the coming weeks I’ll break down each, but today, let’s take a look at them holistically.

Service Delivery Capabilities
We’ll start with the most basic set of capabilities, and usually where people start (and many end) when considering field service management software. This is about as boring as it gets on its surface: Contract management, appointment management, Service-level agreement management, and so on. These are the bread-and-butter service utilities, usually with a direct paper counterpart that they’ve been implemented to replace.

More interesting capabilities typically go beyond the act of cataloging service and serve to enhance service delivery. To borrow a phrase from Forrester Research, these would be “Business Technology” utilities rather than simple IT: tools to help win, service and retain customers. The most prevalent of these tools are things like knowledge management and on-the-job training utilities, which take many forms. We’ve spoken a lot about Augmented Reality recently and with good reason: it’s a quick way to upskill technicians without having to over-encumber a business with a bunch of technological overhead.

Operational Capabilities
For the purposes of this massive oversimplification, I’m going to limit this to the movement of people, tools, and parts through a system but here we’re basically talking about one of my favorite topics: Optimization. Generally we speak about planning and scheduling optimization purely through the spectrum of technicians and appointments. Good systems allow appointments to be scheduled through multiple channels and optimize appointment delivery. The best tools can dot that optimization quickly, and with the power of AI, and provide real-time updates as the nature of job delivery continues.

Further than that, parts and reverse logistics management also become necessary (and frequently overlooked!) pillars of optimization. Within that there are a wide varity of considerations, as well. Getting a full operational picture, end to end, is functionally the key to service success, and it’s where a lot of companies fall flat.

Customer Experience Capabilities
The orthodoxy police will lose their mind when they hear this from me, but I would argue this is the most overrated capability set within service. Yes—customer experience is important, but customer experience is not piloted exclusively from customer management utilities. The truth of the matter is that customer attrition doesn’t come from customer relationship management in some sort of automated system, it comes from your technicians working efficiently and delighting customers.

I’m by no means implying that customer experience is not important, and there are certainly transformative experiences to have within CX. Good customer experience utilities enable frictionless handoffs that guide the customer through the service lifecycle, but their main purpose is to automate redundant tasks and reduce the load for the back-office staff, which has its clear benefits and drawbacks. Engaging and forward-thinking systems build chatbots to resolve common issues and routine maintenance without tying up a line or forcing a customer to wait on the phone for a human. CX exists as a steward through the various service systems that you have, not as the centerpiece of service delivery.

That pretty much does it for our high-level capability overview. There are naturally several glossed-over capabilities here and we’ll dig into greater detail about what makes those capabilities integral to service in the coming weeks. Next time, we’ll dig into the meat of service delivery. See you then!

Most Recent

August 3, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

Is Reskilling Your Best Source of Field Service Talent?

August 3, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

Is Reskilling Your Best Source of Field Service Talent?

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

I came across an article from HBR recently that got me thinking about the opportunity that may currently exist for service organizations to put a major dent in the much-discussed talent gap. We talk a lot about the seismic shift that’s happening within businesses to become more service-centric, and what that shift means in terms of the skills required from frontline workers. We’ve also discussed at length the challenge companies are faced with in recruiting and hiring talent.

The article from HBR about reskilling points out that “the past few months have seen a rapid acceleration of three major forces: deglobalization, digitization, and corporate consolidation.” The article discusses the uniqueness of our current situation as not only an opportunity, but an imperative. The article states, “This is a unique scenario — millions unemployed on the one hand, and rapidly evolving and growing skills needs on the other. There is an opportunity for the former to solve the latter’s problem. With it, comes an urgency for companies, governments, and workers’ organizations to join forces and offer the global workforce clear reskilling pathways. In 2019, the ILO Global Commission on the Future of Work stated, ‘Today’s skills will not match the jobs of tomorrow, and newly acquired skills may quickly become obsolete.’ The commission strongly recommended that governments, employers, and workers invest in education and training. Today, we believe this need is no longer just a recommendation, but a necessary step to economic recovery.”

Perhaps this necessary step to economic recovery is also the service industry’s answer, at least in part, to the major talent problem? It will require companies to think outside of the box and become more creative and flexible in both their hiring and training processes. But if we’re being honest, companies need to evolve in these ways regardless. The HBR article gives a couple of examples of companies that are investing heavily in reskilling. One example, Orange – the French telecommunications company, stood out to me as being particularly relevant to our audience.

Orange Embraces the Opportunity of Skills Development

Orange recently published a press release about its commitment to this endeavor, sharing that it will invest over €1.5 billion. The press release states, “Major technological disruptions and their effects on the world of work require us to continuously adapt. With 148,000 employees, Orange is directly affected by these changes. This is especially true given that by 2025 the Group will look nothing like it does now. It will be more international, more focused on B2B and younger, while remaining multi-generational and at the forefront of new technologies. To support these evolutions and meet its ambitions, Orange has decided to make the ‘skills challenge’ a central component of its new ‘Engage 2025’ strategic plan.”

Orange highlights three main priorities of its plan: to strengthen its “tech” expertise over the next five years; to develop in all business lines the use and understanding of data, AI, and cybersecurity – in particular with marketing and network management teams; and to offer every employee the opportunity to develop soft skills with the goal of training 100% of employees in these key skills by 2025.

Considerations for Realistic Reskilling

Whether you look to reskill from the inside, like Orange is doing, or from the outside-in, you need to consider setting realistic expectations for your reskilling initiative. A few important points that come to my mind when I think about how companies struggling to hire talent could incorporate reskilling are:

  • Define what skills, not experience, you need to hire. All too often companies seek to hire based on experience alone and that experience is getting harder and harder to come by. To be able to view the idea of reskilling as an opportunity for augmenting your workforce, you need to think about what you should look for outside of what you may be used to looking for (experience)
  • Another way to do this is to separate out what aspects of the jobs you’re looking to hire for are trainable. Yes, that training may take more effort that you’re accustomed to putting in – and that leads to another conversation around how to effectively reskill – but if you can teach good talent how to do some aspects of the job, it is well worth doing so
  • With the skills necessary for today’s increasingly demanding definition of service rapidly evolving, use this as an opportunity to examine what skills gaps you have and how you may use reskilling to fill them. We know that the field technicians of today need to be more polished and have better soft skills, oftentimes be an active participant is consultative selling, need to be more tech-savvy, could benefit from better understanding customer centricity, and so on. Think about what roles you may be able to reskill in that would, with training, nicely compliment the more traditional skill sets your workforce has
  • Be realistic about what reskilling will entail – you need to consider how you’ll bring potential talent in from roles/industries/backgrounds that you may not have been pulling from historically, the time it will take to effectively reskill for the roles you’re looking to fill, how you can use some of your more experienced workers to assist in this process, and much more

I’m not saying this is a magic solution to the talent problem, but I do think it is a piece of the puzzle that is well worth some serious exploration.

Most Recent

July 31, 2020 | 6 Mins Read

Jurassic Park as a Cautionary Tale for Service Automation

July 31, 2020 | 6 Mins Read

Jurassic Park as a Cautionary Tale for Service Automation

Share

By Tom Paquin

Back in December, in honor of the holidays, I was compelled to write about service through the lens of a popular movie series. It now being the end of July, when the sun-bleached late afternoons carry a certain sense of ennui not present at other times of the year, I feel compelled to again go to the well of movies as analogies for service delivery. This was inspired in part by the fact that, due to COVID, a 27-year-old movie was the #1 film in America last month. It just so happens that the film in question was one of my favorites: Jurassic Park.

Jurassic Park is remembered for a variety of reasons. It was a return to top form for Steven Spielberg, who would close out 1993 with another instant-classic, Schindler’s List, two dramatically different films that exemplified his incredible range and talents for visual storytelling. It represented the start of a revolution in visual effects as one of the first films to render realistic-looking creatures using computer animation. And it had dinosaurs, which are inherently cool. No movie since has quite captured the awe, nor the terror, of dinosaurs in the same way. I was just old enough to convince my parents to let me see Jurassic Park in theaters when it came out and not be traumatized, and it ignited my imagination like nothing ever had.

For those of you who don’t remember, Jurassic Park is about a lot more than running away from dinosaurs. The inciting incident that initiates the action, oddly enough, is corporate espionage. In the film, Jurassic Park’s lead programmer, Dennis Nedry (played by the incredibly underrated Wayne Knight) strikes a deal with a rival genetic engineering firm to steal live dinosaur embryos. In order to access the cold storage and flee the island, he needs to deactivate a series of automated systems that he developed, so he creates a piece of malware that tramples through the subsystems, deactivates dozens of automated systems, and ultimately releases several dinosaurs from their enclosures to destroy the park and threaten the guests.

Watching the film recently, it was impossible not to draw some parallels to the increasingly automated world of service management systems. Jurassic Park’s automation existed on a closed system, but was, just like in service, a series of interlocking systems. There were internal assets, there were the dinosaurs themselves, there were both electric and gas-powered vehicles. These all existed on a singular platform, just like service systems strive for today. So what went wrong, and how can we prevent the same mistakes from manifesting themselves in service?

The truth is that the management of Jurassic Park made a series of mistakes that are just as repeatable—or avoidable today. Below are a few of them worth considering, both within the context of the film, as well as the context of your business.

Having One Subject Matter Expert
It’s easy to lay the blame for Jurassic Park’s failure at the feet of Nedry, but we need to take a look at his bosses. In this instance, we’re talking about Lead Engineer Ray Arnold (Samuel L. Jackson), and the owner of Jurassic Park and its parent company InGen, John Hammond (Richard Attenborough). When Nedry executes his “white rabbit” program, which goes on to deactivate the door locks, allowing him to steal the embryos, as well as certain sections of fencing, allowing the T-Rex to escape, he attempts to cover his tracks by saying that he’s running a debug program, and that some systems will go off and on as a result. When attempting to fix the problem, this is the result:

Now we can’t assume that every company will carry with it a bad actor that will sabotage systems and sell off intellectual property (I genuinely hope that is a rare prospect), but for service firms, it’s an obvious mistake to put the entirety of your mindshare in the hand of a single individual. This stresses the importance of choosing technology and automation tools that are adopted widely across the organization, and teaching employees not just the how, but the why behind the decision-making process. We actually talk about this quite a bit, and it’s imperative to developing a system, especially an automated system, that you have stakeholders from across the business. The days of IT existing in a vacuum are over. IT touches every area of the business, and business leaders need to develop systems to meet that.

Let’s take this out of the realm of IT for a minute as well as talk about mindshare in general. What do you do when a technician retires or quits? What about within the context of COVID-19, when travel restrictions and public health issues make travel impossible? It’s important to have a solid plan for knowledge management to meet those moments as well. Perhaps it’s as simple as employing augmented reality, or perhaps you need to look and different ways of passing on information to your technicians in the moment.  

A Lack of Redundancies
In Jurassic Park, even the door locks in the office are automated, so when the system is deactivated, the characters are unable to barricade themselves safely anywhere within the facility. This becomes a particularly dangerous problem when the velociraptors figure out how to open doors.

I never quite understood why the security doors were networked to begin with, it seems like a terrible idea, but a three-dollar latch really could have solved that problem for them in that moment. In fact, we see one being employed expertly three minutes earlier in the film.

I’m not saying every single automated process needs to be backed up with a manual one. For complex automation systems like planning and scheduling optimization, that would be nearly impossible to manage at the same scale. Nevertheless, continuity plans are the key to successful business operation.

Depending on your business, this could be extremely low-fi. If, for instance, you can’t manage inventory virtually via field service software, are you in a position to bypass that, pick up the phone, and get inventory levels quickly from a warehouse or depot? Or, on the technical side, could you offer service parts visibility through, for instance, your ERP software? And in either example, how do you ensure that if one system goes down, it corrects itself when it’s back up and running?

Over-customization
We know that in the context of the film that Nedry built the automation systems from the ground-up himself. The “build or buy” discussion has more or less flown out the window in the world of service, and for good reason. Organizations who want reliable systems trust companies with the domain expertise to build those systems to their specifications. By doing so, you create a secure framework that can easily be managed and serviced internally or externally. Configuration is now the name of the game with any software implementation. That way you can avoid issues like this:

You never want to be in a situation where you say, “I cannot get this system back online without one individual.” You always need to have a support system available. This starts with a diverse and powerful technology partner, through to integration. And it all needs to be predicated on the fact that you do not over-encumber your systems with complex customizations.

Velociraptors

Cloning velociraptors was a terrible idea. In the film they’re six-foot tall super-predators that are bred to kill (we’ll ignore the fact that the velociraptors in the film are ostensibly a fiction. In real life, actual velociraptors were closer to the size of a turkey). They are way too scary for a zoo attraction. Kids will not like them. They exist only to maim and horrify.

Ok, that last point is a bit of a joke, but for the others, it’s surprising how much modern service systems can learn from the mistakes of Jurassic Park. I can’t promise that any of these lessons will help you successfully launch a theme park full of cloned dinosaurs, but they certainly offer some food for thought when it comes to service.

Most Recent

July 27, 2020 | 6 Mins Read

Understanding the Forces Behind Service Transformation (So That You Can Chart Your Path to Success)

July 27, 2020 | 6 Mins Read

Understanding the Forces Behind Service Transformation (So That You Can Chart Your Path to Success)

Share

By Sarah Nicastro, Creator, Future of Field Service

We share a lot of stories of companies on the path to servitization or outcomes-based service – companies looking to leverage service more strategically by moving beyond their traditional product or break/fix models. I’ve recognized within the leaders I speak to a now common understanding that advancing service within their businesses is the way forward, but I do wonder how they’ve gained that recognition. Is it an active, true understanding of what’s driving this evolution? Or is it more of a passive acceptance that this seems to be the journey everyone is on (and therefore we should be too)? The fact of the matter is that this is a journey everyone is on, so the latter mindset isn’t wrong, but do I think that digging in to understand the forces that are driving this evolution can really help in avoiding some common pitfalls along the way. Click to enlarge the image.

I had a conversation recently with The Advanced Services Group at Aston Business School and they shared with me the image you see here. I want to dig into some of what’s illustrated in this image and discuss, in my own words, what it means when it comes to what’s being demanded of companies undergoing service transformation today.

What’s Driving this Service Evolution?

First, let’s talk about the text you see around the perimeter of this photo – this is defining four forces that impact need for and progression toward what Aston refers to as advanced services. I believe that understanding these forces before you begin this journey is helpful in helping you chart a successful path. I’ll discuss each and try to summarize what’s important to consider.

  • Market-centric forces. I put this force first because I believe it is the most important. The market-centric forces are really what should drive your desire to evolve and what should dictate what the evolution needs to look like. The market-centric forces are what your customers need or want from you – they are the opportunity that exists for your company to do service in new and different ways to create revenue growth and drive profitability. But all too often, companies start with the desire to create that growth rather than starting with the market-centric forces that will ultimately provide it – this results in offerings created that “miss the mark” because you started without first understanding what your market wants from you. Market-centric forces are being shaped by companies like Amazon, Google, and Netflix that are leading in providing a stellar customer experience with the utmost ease. To really drive service success, you must begin with determining what your customers need and want from you. This entails both asking them directly, but also understanding that they may have unmet needs or desires they can’t articulate – so also do some research on what unsolved problems they have, what else they are purchasing, and so on.
  • Technology-centric forces. In many ways, technology-centric forces are tied in with market-centric forces as the world’s digitalization has completely transformed the customer experience across industries and brands. The market demands of things like guaranteed uptime, peace of mind, pay-per-X, real-time data flow, and super simple customer experience are made possible by how companies have transformed digitally. Just think about how experiences have evolved from even a few years ago – why would a customer call to schedule an appointment when they can easily self-book online or through an app? Why should a customer accept an eight-hour service window when technology exists to get the right person there at a specified time? Why would a customer accept a technician needing to return to complete a job because they don’t have the necessary information/parts/skills to do so the first time? Why would a customer want to wait for downtime to ask for service when they could be guaranteed peace of mind? The technology that is driving these expectations is also what is enabling them. Look at the technology-centric forces as your catalyst to meet the market-centric demands that present the greatest opportunities for your business. You cannot achieve advanced service success without fully embracing digital transformation.
  • Organization-centric forces. This is where you begin to examine what within your company’s current structure and processes will either spur you to or hold you back from success. Most often, we see the latter. The reality is that the change needed to evolve in the ways being demanded of companies on this journey is immense and far-reaching. This evolution can’t be done in a silo, it needs to be a company-wide strategic initiative. What’s required of companies to meet these market-centric needs reaches into every facet of the business – your value proposition is changing, how you market and sell needs to change, how you deliver service will change, how you develop products and take them to market will change, how you use technology will change. That’s why this is a journey, not a sprint. There’s no way to circumvent these organization-centric forces but knowing how important they are to consider, realizing how often they stand in the way of progress, and being prepared to tackle them head on is an important first step.
  • Value network-centric forces. When you begin to work through the last phase of the advanced services journey, you will realize that you could meet more customer needs and demands by working with others, or perhaps acquiring other parts of, the value chain. While this is good to be aware of, it’s important to work through the other forces and steps of the journey before really needing to dig in to this aspect and I think, for the most part, the majority of companies we speak with are not quite here yet.

Charting Your Path to Advanced Services Success

As you look at the main part of the image, you see that The Advanced Services Group has defined four phases on the roadmap to advanced services: exploration, engagement, expansion, and exploitation. I would say that most of the companies I interview are in the engagement or expansion phases, although some are certainly still exploring, and few are in the exploitation phase. Taking a detailed look at this roadmap, and The Advanced Services Group’s research in general, is well worth your time. But I’ll comment here on what I’d pick out as the most critical step in each phase of the roadmap based on my observations of where companies most commonly veer off course.

  • Exploration. Okay, I lied – here I have two points to note. First is understanding the business landscape. This goes back to all that I said above about digging into the market-centric forces. You must start this journey from a place of understanding your customers’ wants and needs, what the competitive landscape is for those, and how you are able to meet those needs. Beginning this journey from an uninformed perspective to “grow revenue” is a recipe for failure. Secondly, secure senior management buy-in. As I said before, this evolution is a company-wide strategic play – it can’t be done in a silo and the willingness to do the work must be shared.
  • Engagement. I think the idea of hiring a senior leadership role dedicated to advanced services is important. Achieving success in this transformation while also trying to “keep up with your day job” is a tough proposition. Someone dedicated to researching, planning, testing, and implementing specifically on this is a good investment (and I’d note that this could also be a promotion from within or a dual role as long as the person is given the time to dedicate to this).
  • Expansion. What stands out here is the importance of building a service culture. Recognizing the need to manage this change at the company-wide level and considering how the culture will need to evolve is really important, because this can be a sticking point for many organizations even after significant progress in the first two phases has been made.
  • Exploitation. Thinking about what the integration of products and services will look like is important. The marrying of these two things is really what most customers are after – it provides a more seamless experience and is what helps you achieve the trusted advisor or solutions provider (versus product or service provider) status in their minds.

Being able to hear about and witness so many companies’ journeys to advanced services is really neat – I love the conversations I get to have and the collective perspective they bring. The Advanced Services Group is putting on a virtual World Servitization Convention September 14-16 which I’ll be speaking at. If you’re interested, check out the agenda and join us.

Most Recent

July 24, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

Back to Basics: What is Service Management Software?

July 24, 2020 | 4 Mins Read

Back to Basics: What is Service Management Software?

Share

By Tom Paquin

We spend quite a lot of time around here discussing what defines exceptional service delivery, whether it be the strategies for managing customer retention, transitioning to new business models, or navigating an unprecedented crisis. Through our often lofty discussions about these topics, it’s easy to forget that each organization is at a different point in their service journey, and for some, investing in field service software might not even be on their radar.

I was reminded of this recently when I was asked to answer the question in the title of this article. What an incredibly refreshing question! Putting aside all the bluster, all the acronyms, and all the business goals, actually defining the tool for its purpose was a great reminder of what it is that we are actually talking about here every day. So let’s try to answer the question:What is service management software?

I used to be a high school teacher, so would like to think that I’m pretty good at synthesizing definitions into as close to a singular idea as possible, then using that as the foundation to explore and connect more complex theories and practical applications, so let’s try that. Here’s what I came up with:

Service Management Software is a tool, or series of tools, that allow businesses to track, record, and optimize their field operations and service processes.

That doesn’t actually say much about what makes service management software important, or what makes for good service management software, or even what sort of things are tracked, recorded, and optimized, though. The truth of the matter is that answering those questions requires more than the software itself allows. It requires an intimate understanding of not just service operations, but business operations on the whole.

And that’s part of the challenge with defining service management software. Service functions for businesses are so complex, so diverse, so tribalistic, and so disconnected that getting a piece of software that fits around all the flailing tendrils of your business is not as easy as installing a new piece of project management software.

Don’t tell that to some vendors, though, who build their service software based on a binary checklist of service needs. Many companies, especially those new to the service game who are seeing the revenue potential of service management, build products with feature sets as basic as their other applications. This requires businesses to shove their service processes into a pre-built mold, which always means that you have to saw off elements of your service delivery plan (sometimes entrenched with years of experience) to compromise to software limitations, or invest in even more products to get back to square one.

Because of this, service management vendors that simply have a long list of capabilities, even if those capabilities look particularly flashy in a demo environment, need to be held up to greater scrutiny. Will this parts management system work for the multiple tiers of service appointments that I deal with? Does this crew management system allow me to manage my workers the way that they actually work, or does it just throw names into a list? Does this optimization software manage the scope of global appointments that my company much have oversight for?

So does that mean that depth of execution always trumps breadth of capabilities? Obviously not, but it’s important to understand how the two areas compliment each other. Then you’ll need to take it a step further, and look at what embedded systems exist today, and how they can be integrated or deemed redundant. Then you need to look at your one, five, and ten-year plans for implementation and ensure that there’s a development roadmap that matches up. Then you need to look at implementation, onboarding, the list goes on.

Each of these steps could take months or longer, of course, and there are often hundreds of considerations, stakeholders, and use cases. This new “Back to Basics” series hopes to tackle those issues one by one, and explore all those elements of service delivery, starting with the capabilities that set service apart. Whether you’re looking to invest in a whole new system, or pare down and streamline the systems you have, or just focusing on perfecting service delivery, these will service as an opportunity to revisit, dissect, and perhaps reimagine what actually defines service management software.

There are obviously a dense web of contradictions in even writing about this topic depending on the industry that you are in, and I’d like to flip over as many stones as possible. If you want to share a story or have a question with respect to this series, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Most Recent