Let’s briefly recall the data from the previous case study
In part 6 of this series on customer experience, we presented a study of a practical case, a numerical example of which I briefly recall here the data and context. I invite you to read the entire series and to particularly consult the last part in order to understand the origin of the figures and analyses.
We concluded that part on the fact that we face different levels of analysis, the simplest of which is that of calculating a global CX index. The latter represents its overall performance (all departments combined) in terms of customer experience.
In our example, as we are in the presence of 16 criteria, at 5 points each at maximum, and therefore a maximum overall score of 80 points. the evaluation of the company on these 16 criteria resulted in 58 points.
| CX index = | ( Number of points obtained / Maximum number of points possible ) x 100% |
| Overall CX Index | (58 / 80) x 100 % = 72.5 % |
We concluded that this organization's CX performance (including all dimensions of the customer journey) is deficient since the CX score obtained (72.5%) is 7.5 percentage points below expectations and CX quality standards set by this company (80%).
And that what's usually wrong with an overall index. It gives an overall idea and constitutes an aggregated KPI that can be monitored over time, but it does not allow identifying the sources (and structure) of problems, when they exist.
A CX index can hide many others!
Unfortunately, the first reflex, quite natural it must be said, when the overall CX result is disappointing, is to act on the lowest rated criteria, where we believe the problem lies. In our case, for example, these are criteria which have a score less than 3 out of 5 (S4, I1, and I5).
These are very short-term solutions which consist more of putting out fires in an isolated manner and thus giving the impression to superiors that we are undertaking something. Of course, it is better than doing nothing, but there is a way to consider things other than in their entirety.
Now let's look at the different levels of analysis and the strategic implications of each. We have a variety of levels of analysis, and therefore an unsuspected richness of information.
2nd level of analysis: vertical analysis (CX by activity)
This involves comparing the overall CX indices of each of the activities under study. And already a comparison enriches the analysis since it sheds light on disparities compared to one or more established standards.
Using the same formula for calculating CX indices:
| Indice CX - Sales Department |
(13 / 20) x 100 % | 65% |
| Indice CX - Installation Service |
(20 / 30) x 100 % | 66,7% |
| Indice CX - Repair Service |
(25 / 30) x 100 % | 88,3% |
Hey, one activity clearly stands out from the others! The maintenance and repair exceeds the set standard of 80%, but the other two activities really do pale face compared!
While this is an eye-opening result, we are far from the wealth of information desired and above all, we do not yet have the basis for a clear decision-making process. Let's move up a gear!
3rd level of analysis: transversal CX indices
It is this advanced level of analysis that will undeniably allow an organization to go at the heart of things and to clearly distinguish itself from its competition by offering a customer experience in line with the expectations of its customers.
In horizontal analysis, we put the focus on rows, which correspond to spots or similar criteria shared by at least two activities in the company (these are shared skills). This analysis will concretely allow us:
- to identify sources of excellence and distinctive elements in terms of CX
- to identify and locate the sources of imperfections and performance gaps
- to identify problematic customer touchpoints
- to assess the scope of the situation across each component of the organization
- to quickly make informed decisions based on the nature of the problems identified. It could be, for example, an emergency training plan for the staff involved or spread over time (initial and continuing training) or a customer communication plan based on improvements made to the service and the customer journey
- Finally, a significant strategic element: to monitor the progress of each action over time!
Let's take a closer look at the potential cross-sectional levels in the first table of this article. We notice that:
- Three (3) criteria are shared by the 3 departments. These are quality of reception and customer interaction (S1, I3 and R3), waiting or processing times (S2, I4 and R4) and staff uniform and appearance (S3, I6 and R6)
- Three (3) criteria are shared by at least 2 departments. These are appointment confirmation (I1 and R1), compliance with these appointments (I2, R2), and the technical quality of the intervention (I5 and R5).
- One (1) criterion is specific to a single department (S4).
We therefore notice that seven (7) other CXs are added to the analysis possibilities (in addition to the overall CX and the CX of each activity). This is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote about the potential richness of the additional analysis, the reduction of silos in the organization, and the accuracy of decision making. I invite you to take a closer look at the figures in the table below. All the organization's strengths and weaknesses are yours to analyse.
Isn’t it much easier to take action now?
| SALES (S) | INSTALLATION (I) | REPAIR (R) | Cross-sectional CX indices |
| --- | I1. Appointment confirmation (2) | R1. Appointment confirmation (3) | 50 % |
| --- | I2. Respect of appointments (4) | R2. Respect of appointments (4) | 80 % |
| S1. Reception quality(4) | I3. Interaction quality (4) | R3. Interaction quality (5) | 87 % |
| S2. Waiting time(3) | I4. Intervention duration (4) | R4. Intervention duration (5) | 80 % |
| --- | I5. Installation quality (2) | R5. Repair quality (5) | 70 % |
| S3. Appearance (4) | I6. Appearence (4) | R6. Appearence (3) | 73 % |
| S4. Call quality (2) | --- | --- | 40 % |
ostafa El Adraoui
October 2023