Feedback: Plentiful but mixed

Different customer service elements gave rise to a considerable amount of highly rich and versatile feedback. Based on their experiences, the participating customers gave a lot of feedback from various customer service elements during the interviews, and all customers had at least some comments or remarks to share. In contrast, the issues were not intensely addressed by the focal firms. In general, the service providers were not aware of how well they succeeded in customer service elements, and they were not actively gathering feedback from them either. The focal firm of SCALE had some customer-survey-based feedback at their disposal, DEVICE gathered feedback particularly through NPS questionnaires, and FLOW asked and followed generic feedback at a regular basis. Nevertheless, none of the focal firms especially focused on customer service matters when gathering feedback. The findings also demonstrated that customers provide both positive and negative feedback on customer service and that this feedback can sometimes be rather controversial.

In line with the previous sub-chapter, cooperation and contacts emerged as the two main themes in terms of feedback from customer service elements. In addition, customer service in the tender and purchasing stage emerged as a category of its own. Cooperation covered issues, such as feedback from day-to-day collaboration, cooperation on both employee and management levels, and communication between the parties. In general, all case companies received quite positive feedback from the majority of the customers in terms of cooperation.

That [cooperation] is working good (...) [for example] after a meeting we have a conclusion from them (…) these are the points that we have discussed. This communication itself is really, really good (production manager, AC4, SCALE). We have been working [with the persons in charge] for a long time, so the contact interface is quite easy (…) most of the staff is there nearby (…) they do know each other (group manager, BC1, DEVICE).

The cooperation arrangement is outstandingly good in my opinion, and they clearly invest in [cooperation] too. Even their CEO is participating every now and then (…) the dialogical connection is excellent (procurement director, CC5, FLOW).

Different key issues were emphasized in the cases studied. For example, a majority of the customers highlighted the operative communication with the focal firm of

111

SCALE as easy and working well; long-term customer relationships and mutual acquaintance with the focal firm were stressed by several customers in the case of DEVICE; and the regular meeting practices were complimented by all customers of the focal firm of FLOW.

However, a clear majority of the customers also gave negative feedback regarding some customer service elements. Customers made critical remarks about particular issues and incidents that they had faced. In the case of SCALE, these included lack of keeping the customer informed, language and cultural difficulties in working with a foreign company, complacency among employees, and availability of customer support on weekends. Customers of DEVICE made some critical remarks about the wrong customer service attitudes of some newly employed service technicians, informing the customers in advance when schedules change, and that invoices were running late. For example, when customers were not adequately informed about changes in service schedule, it provoked critical remarks.

Surprisingly many [maintenance operations] had to be shifted anyway. It doesn’t bother when it comes to our knowledge enough in advance, but even this time it wasn’t informed(maintenance manager, BC2, DEVICE).

The focal firm of FLOW received negative feedback from the lack of professionalism of some managers and from the lack of good customer service attitude. A particular issue that had resulted in negative feedback was the customer service attitude of the focal firm employees who had previously worked for the customer company. As the focal firm of FLOW had taken over some internal logistics functions, they had also taken over the former customer employees of the functions. According to some participating customers, this has caused resentment and resulted in problems in customer service.

They have made it work, the question is not about that (…) [we] haven’t achieved the goal that this would have become a fluent partnership like that (…) although the guys there should be in the service provider’s employ, they tend to struggle against us (production technology manager, CC6, FLOW).

The participating customers said they understand that some resentment can take place. However, they felt that the situation had continued too long and that the focal firm had not adequately solved the issue.

Contacts emerged as the other main theme in giving feedback in the context of customer service elements. Reachability of the contact persons and clarity of the

112

customer interface (i.e., who to contact in which situation) were issues that produced a lot of feedback across cases. In the cases of SCALE and DEVICE, the feedback from the contact persons was mixed. Around half of the participating customers stressed that focal firms’ customer interface was obscure or too splintered. Within DEVICE, the issue was especially related to the size of the organization and its wide

service portfolio.

As their organization is that large, you don’t know (…) who handles what. There have been problems(maintenance manager, BC2, DEVICE).

In the case of SCALE, some customers criticized the focal firm’s splintered contacts and mentioned that they need to contact several departments of the focal firm to deal with some issues. The focal firm of SCALE also went through organizational changes that influenced the customer interface, causing a lot of confusion for some participating customers.

That [organizational change] has caused quite a lot of confusion (…) we didn’t know who sells what (…) [and because of that] we bought from the competitors (development manager, AC6, SCALE).

Moreover, the issue of high employee turnover was brought up in the case of DEVICE. Consequently, some customers remarked that changes in the contact persons had caused problems in customer service. However, customers mainly criticized the lack of keeping them informed as it was understandable that organizational changes take place and people change jobs.

Both SCALE and DEVICE received positive feedback from contacts and reachability from the other half of the participating customers.

Not only with the manager, I [also] have a contact with Sales Director (…) I have a contact with many different suppliers and I think they are one of the best [in terms of contacts and reachability] (process planning manager, AC2, SCALE).

According to these customers, contacts were at least sufficiently clear or even at a good level, thus demonstrating that focal firms can get rather mixed feedback and that customer experiences from customer service can vary considerably between customers.

In the case of FLOW, the feedback from the contacting and contact persons was mainly positive. A majority of the customers emphasized that they have many

113

contacts within the focal firm at different organizational levels. Moreover, the role of individual contact persons was highlighted by some customers in getting good customer service and knowing the customer needs. Nevertheless, there were also variations in how well the focal firm succeeded in keeping contact at the upper management level. Half of the customers said that they are very satisfied with the more strategic cooperation at the management-level.

I’m satisfied with the communication [between their management] and with the attitude of the persons I work with and their willingness to serve and understand [our needs] (vice president, CC2, FLOW).

However, the focal firm of FLOW was lacking this kind of contacts with other participating customers.

Furthermore, the personification of contacts was a matter that was highlighted in all cases to some extent. Within the cases of SCALE and DEVICE, some customers pointed out that they know their contact persons very well and are used to doing business with them successfully.

I always call that one same person who is not necessarily responsible for maintenance in any way. But, on the other hand, that too is flexibility from them that the one same guy takes care of that matter as well (manager, production development, AC5, SCALE). These customers emphasized that when they have the right contacts, it is easy to contact the focal firm, and their contact can help them with whatever matters they have. In contrast, the personification was occasionally found to be a disadvantage. A few customers said that they could be too dependent on the individual contact persons.

It has personified quite a lot (…) there’s our contact person (…) and it has been very good cooperation (…) [but with others] we haven’t got a contact like that (development manager, AC6, SCALE).

At worst, the participating customers expressed that they do not get good enough customer service from others or they were afraid that if the contact person leaves the focal company, she or he cannot even be replaced.

Finally, customer service in the tender and purchasing stage emerged as a theme, which a majority of the customers commented on besides the service delivery stage. A majority of the customers in the case of SCALE found the tender stage thoroughly

114

managed and documented by the focal firm, even though some of the interviewees also raised critical voices. Depending on the viewpoint of the interviewee, the tender stage was either professionally managed and documented or too rigid and bureaucratic in comparison with some more agile competitors. The focal firm of DEVICE received a feedback that buying from them is generally easy and matches the expectations of the customers, and only one negative experience came up in the interviews. In the case of FLOW, the tender stage and buying services from FLOW were not addressed by the customer companies at length. Possibly, this was because the focal firms and customers typically made longer and more comprehensive contracts and customers usually did not purchase any additional services during the contract period.