The Vision Pioneers Blog

by Miriam Garvi

With so many quasi-ideas out there being endorsed by the big money, it is funny how difficult it can be for people with real commitment to find the resources they need to do something good. Quasi-ideas have a remarkable way of ending up in fancy packages, and they are never on display without their wrapping.

So when the dean of a business school I happen to know very well becomes involved with a company for mobile learning, proposing to supply teaching programs for the people of Africa or for hundreds of millions of farmers in China, I am intrigued. Being “of the world, by the world, and for the world” is deluxe wrapping indeed, but what benefit is intended for the citizens of African countries or the farmers in China, and how does it relate to their true needs?

When hearing this, I wonder whether teaching the world through a mobile interface is in fact a superior pedagogical idea, or if it is simply an easy way of re-churning pre-recorded messages to the greatest possible audience.

During the Internet boom almost ten years ago, e-learning was hot, and any business adding an e- prefix to its idea could retain astonishing amounts of venture capital. Today it appears that by changing the prefix to m- (mobile learning or m-learning) and dreaming of conquering the world, pockets will be filled once again. Only this time instead of JP Morgan and others we have government institutions such as the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) willing to endorse any dreamer of a «mobile academy» that will target the Third World. But to what purpose?

So many ideas are brought about not because we believe they will be good for the world, but because they might be an opportunity to make more money, enhance careers, or make better connections. And with the right packaging, the client becomes the excuse that legitimizes us making ourselves the beneficiary of it all.

Every once in a while, I have this wish that we would do away with the glossy paper and the fancy bows and see things for what they actually are. And in that light, we might come to recognize those treasures that are truly worth their weight in gold. The ones that impress without the wrapping.

Those are the ideas worth fighting for.

by Miriam Garvi

The other day my landlord company sent me and every other tenant the annual 10-page survey on customer satisfaction. I sighed as I opened the thick envelope, thinking about how readily companies will make use of the customer’s time and how seldom this seems to lead to any improvements.

Well, besides your typical customer satisfaction survey, this company wanted to know our housing wish list…

«How do you want to live?» This question should really be rephrased into «What are you willing to pay for?» to reflect its true meaning. A display of quasi-concern that is used like a thermometer in order to determine which future course of action is chargeable on the customer’s account.

When business is reduced to sterile transactions, then ‘customer care’ has little to do with taking pride in providing a product or service that is good, useful, purposeful for the client. Instead it takes on the meaning of effectuating what will directly impact bottom line.

So many qualities are lost in a visionless, penny-counting world. Is this a price we are willing to pay?

by Miriam Garvi

I spent part of this morning on the phone, taking care of some simple business. It turned out to be quite the interesting study of customer relations.

Call 1: I dial the number to my local bank.

Bank manager: - Elisabeth speaking.

Me: - Oh, is this not the … Bank?

Bm: - Yes, it is.

Me: - Aha. I am trying to figure out how to wire some money abroad over the Internet. Perhaps you could help me?

Bm: - I’m busy with a client right now. Can you call back later?

Me: - I thought I dialed your general number?

Bm: - Ehh… You did. But the call came to me nevertheless. Hm… let me see what I can do. Hold on, I’ll put you through to the cashier’s desk.

Question: Customer relations is about the client helping the service provider help the client?

Call 2: I call the swimming hall to book a massage.

- Welcome to … swimming hall.

Me: - Yes hello, I would like to book a massage for Friday morning if possible.

- Ehh, I don’t know if our masseur is in on Friday.

Me: - Perhaps you could find that out for me?

- Well the problem is that our binders with the scheduling information have gone missing. I’ll need to go look for them. Let me have your number and I’ll call you back.

(an hour later, an impatient customer tries again).

Me: I’m calling about a massage.

- Oh yes! That’s right! I’m very sorry about not calling you back, you see I haven’t been free to leave the cash-desk yet…

(massage eventually scheduled later in the afternoon).
…

Call 3: I need to reschedule a dental appointment…

Me: …I’d like to reschedule my dental appointment on the 25th.

Dental secretary: - Hold on a moment, please… Oh, that’s weird!

Me: - How’s that?

Ds: - You’re scheduled on both the 23rd and the 25th!

Me: - The notice I’ve received is for the 25th.

Ds: - Yes, but I have you in my computer twice! How can that be?

Me: - In any case, I need to reschedule for September.

Ds: - But twice the same week? Do you want to cancel both?

Me: - Eh yes, that would be good since I need to reschedule for September.

Ds: - Hm… I’ve never seen this before! What have they done here?

(customer still waiting…)

Ds: - Yes, so you need to cancel both? Ah! Now I know - we have training on the 23rd so they probably rescheduled everyone and forgot to cancel the initial date. [with a sigh of relief] OK! September, you said?

Question: if time is money, then how much should the customer be charging for lost time?

For some time now I have been wondering whether customer relations and customer service is in fact about clients coming to the rescue of bewildered service providers, as they offer suggestions out of sheer frustration on how to actually provide the service these organizations profess to offer.

Are we here for the customer or is it the other way around?

Philosopher Ayn Rand once said: “I don’t build in order to have clients. I have clients in order to build.” Well, if this is the dominant perspective in business, then perspectives have indeed been reversed so that we need think little about whether and to what extent the customer actually benefits from our ’service’ as long as we’ve gained a client - as long as clients add to our building.