Outsourcing of Support & the Customer Experience- is it truly BETTER, Faster, Cheaper?
By Nora Osman- advocate of a BETTER Customer Experience, always
I’m sure I’m not alone in traversing the seemingly complex world of customer service these days, when what should’ve been a straightforward interaction goes completely sideways and has one pulling their hair out. And it makes you wonder, who’s designing these workflows? And why don’t they build in true understanding of the customer journey, beyond the traditional commentary by an agent to the effect “I apologize for your frustration mam, I am trying to help you, but there’s nothing I can do unfortunately.”
Organizations are mostly trying to do the right thing (mostly being the operating word.) What that is, depends very much on their objective. For most for-profit organizations, it’s to maximize their profits and shareholder value. That’s right, to please Wall Street. That translates to increasing revenue and decreasing cost at every possible junction. Nothing complex in that equation, until we look at the ingredients in the equation here, and specifically how this impacts customers.
There’s been a trend to explore “sourcing” of capacity for activities that support the operation, namely whether services should be “insourced” (provided by internal, full- or part-time resources on the payroll) or “outsourced” (provided by an outside service provider.) And even with outsourcing, there are different types- onshore, nearshore, and offshore. Onshore meaning geographically local (same state, town, or region), nearshore (to a nearby or neighboring country, ex. Canada or Mexico), and lastly offshore (to a location far away, usually a different continent altogether.)
The reasons given.
Often the reason for considering outsourcing has to do with exploring improvements in one of the key areas. 1) Perhaps there’s a sophistication or complexity in skill that isn’t fulfilled with current talent. 2) The quantity of resources needed and a shortage of talent in the region. 3) The cost for offshore or nearshore resources may be significantly lower than current inhouse resources. So arguably, the organization is trying to improve their posture by addressing any one of these, or a combination (or all) at the same time. Still an ok thing (so far.)
The main challenge.
While saying that any of these 3 objectives would fall under operational improvements, the real question becomes how this ultimately affects the customer experience. While a skills gap being closed with advanced skill would constitute better, I would caution about considering things faster and cheaper to always be the goal. Yes, getting serviced faster and with limited cost (to the customer) is better for sure, however, at the end of the day it’s the quality of the service that needs to be better, not just the speed and the cost. I don’t know too many customers that want faster, cheaper terrible service! I certainly don’t. The adage, “you get what you pay for” holds true for very inexpensive service, which leaves you having to plug in the holes yourself, adding much stress and pain to the equation. And fast but incomplete or missing the objective doesn’t help either, as it may end up being much slower when you must spend endless minutes/hours trying to fix issues with the product or service delivery yourself, which in the end becomes more expensive, wasting your personal time.
The quality vs quantity dilemma.
A big part of the problem becomes the need for an organization to get a large quantity of service, and in so doing, this often sacrifices quality. The more time and effort spent on design, quality controls and testing, the higher the cost, which ultimately gets passed on to you the consumer. Unfortunately, the same holds true for service, especially at the direct contact with the consumer level, as in contact centers. It may be an objective to have a highly staffed operation be offshore, minimizing wait times on a hotline, and impressing customers with a quick pick up by a call center agent, but then what? Once through to an agent, on a choppy phone line, with static, multiple requests to be placed on hold (no doubt while the agent checks the knowledge base or asks a colleague for help), and ultimately the dreaded transfer of the call, or worse, the dropped call, it all becomes too clear. The better isn’t there at all.
The challenges organizations face when contemplating which of these options to engage in for sourcing, is how will they deliver quality service at the right scale (quantity.) Considering our most valuable commodity in general is time, no one wants to waste time trying to get a service or product that should’ve been delivered rather seamlessly, no one. Add to that the issue with language barriers, cultural nuances, and basic empathy skills, the gap in service quality becomes bigger over time, if not addressed as part of the fundamental objective for the service provider.
Yes, quality should trump quantity, every time. In ITIL, the focus when developing processes is on effective and efficient. But it puts effective first, always. What good is efficient (faster) service that isn’t effective (helpful)? Imagine going to the most glamourous bank location in your metropolitan city, walking in, no line, getting offered free coffee by the teller, and yet when you ask if you can get a Teller’s check, they tell you, “Sorry, we’re out of checks for today, come back tomorrow.” Can’t imagine the pleasant surroundings, speed to see a person would mask the fact that you walk out empty handed. Not effective at all. Effective must come before efficient, always.
Call to action
There is no doubt that organizations are under tremendous pressure to find ways to increase revenues, to lower costs, and find ways to disrupt competitors to gain some market advantage. This is very clear. What they must be mindful of is that “better, faster, cheaper” must start with the “better.” And the “better” in this case needs to be better for the customer. That means a better customer experience and better overall outcomes. Customer Experience IS the differentiator in business. For those empowered to evaluate sourcing options, remember the “better” part, it makes all the difference in the end.
