Quality Digest      
  HomeSearchSubscribeGuestbookAdvertise November 15, 2019
This Month
Home
Articles
ISO 9000 Database
Columnists
Departments
Software
Contact Us
Web Links
Web Links
Web Links
Web Links
Web Links
Need Help?
Web Links
Web Links
Web Links
Web Links
ISO 9000 Database
ISO 9000 Database



Scott M. Paton

The Customer Should Have Known Better

This type of thinking leads to customer dissatisfaction.

 

 

In last month's column I ran a quiz with some fairly typical everyday quality scenarios. I presented 10 situations and asked if each experience qualified as a "quality" one. I received some interesting feedback, which you can read on my blog at www.qualitycurmudgeon.blogspot.com.

A number of readers disagreed with my answers to the quiz, believing that it was unfair of me to expect a different outcome because I hadn't communicated my requirements to the supplier or that I had unrealistic expectations. Several people told me that I had misinterpreted Phil Crosby's definition of quality: conformance to requirements. One reader told me that I really should have used "conformance to stated requirements" as my definition.

This kind of thinking--what I call "the customer should have known better" (CSHKB) thinking--is responsible for a great deal of customer dissatisfaction these days. It's not my responsibility to communicate my requirements; it's the supplier's responsibility to determine them. In most cases (especially in the 10 scenarios I presented), it's not difficult to determine basic customer requirements. For example, in my quiz I stated that I had to wait 15 minutes for an elevator each time I wanted to go to my room in a four-star hotel that I stayed at in New York City. Most people would agree that a 15 minute wait for an elevator in a hotel is far too long. It doesn't matter if the hotel is in New York or Mayberry.

CSHKB thinking is responsible for a whole host of quality problems in a range of industries. The airline industry has been beset with huge losses throughout the last decade. However, when I wrote in my quiz that I expected my luggage to arrive at my destination at the same time I did regardless of the price of the ticket, one reader told me that for the price ($198), I was lucky that my luggage didn't end up in Kazakhstan. Talk about low expectations! I hope that this guy isn't responsible for any bridges that I'll be driving over anytime soon. It's this kind of thinking that has driven nearly every major airline into bankruptcy in the last 10 years. It may be a cliché to mention Southwest Airlines, but it somehow manages to get people to their destinations--with their luggage--for pretty low prices. It understands its customers' requirements and meets or exceeds them. It also manages to consistently make a profit.

The issues I presented in my quiz aren't so much conformance-to-requirements problems as they are a total disregard for the customer. An organization that cares about its customers (and therefore its own survival) takes the time to determine what the customers' requirements are and then makes sure that they're met every time. It doesn't matter if the organization is producing $1 toy guns or $45,000 SUVs.

One reader says that I'm naïve to expect much from a $1 toy gun. Let's examine that more closely. I was dissatisfied with the toy because it broke within a few hours of purchase. The failure was not a result of my son being too rough with the toy. The trigger simply fell off. Because I was dissatisfied, I won't buy one of those toys again. I imagine that most people who experience the same problem won't buy the toy again either. If enough people have the problem, the toy manufacturer goes out of business. The same is true with automobiles. If enough people have enough problems with the cars that they buy, the automaker will be in trouble.

In most cases determining a customer's requirements is simply a matter of asking. Countless books, articles and seminars exist to show you how. In other cases, requirements can be gleaned from research or other data.

Sometimes quality professionals focus so much on customer specifications that they forget customer requirements. Crosby's definition of quality as conformance to requirements goes beyond stated customer requirements or specifications; it applies to the implied or unstated requirements as well.

When I purchase a plane ticket, I don't send my requirements to the airline. I assume that part of the deal will be that my luggage will arrive at my destination the same time that I do. As a consumer, I also understand that different vendors will provide me with different service levels. For example, when I buy a ticket on American Airlines, I understand that I will have an assigned seat and will have a decent shot at upgrading because of my frequent flier status. When I choose to travel on Southwest Airlines, I understand that I need to check in online as early as possible and get to the airport early to avoid getting stuck in a middle seat. But in either case, I expect both airlines to depart on time and get me and my luggage safely to my destination.

CSHKB thinking is deadly to business. It's the organization's responsibility to determine its customers' requirements in all their forms.

Share your thoughts on CSHKB thinking on my blog at www.qualitycurmudgeon.blogspot.com.

About the author
Scott M. Paton is Quality Digest's editor at large.