In my last post, Do You Have the Communications Glue For SMBs? I ended with another observation that I didn't make lightly. It's a repeated demand from SMBs that seek more than just an appliance or tool but something that solves a specific business problem or fills a need. The sought-after value may differ from business to business, but the demand for value is what's crucial to understand from the start.
Social Media sites entertain members asking questions, and when the subject is what's the best communications solution, the surge of answers is often entertaining. Many direct their argument towards their product/solution instead of exploring the customer needs, business problems and best fit.
A common oversight is intercom (station-to-station) traffic. How does your vendor's solution handle station-to-station dialing? On many hosted platforms, bandwidth can choke and firewalls get a little weird when traffic routes out and back in again. Some hosted solutions have an on-premises appliance to act as a gateway, but some of those solutions really lack disconnect supervision, meaning that the MAC-to-MAC address connection doesn't always get torn down at the end of the call. Usually, we find gear that is unprotected and without a UPS, and rebooting the appliance clears the issue.
Then, intercom call quality can suffer from flaky firewalls. Intercom traffic can account for as much as 50% of all voice traffic in a firm. Some carry a little higher percentage while some firms have virtually no internal station calling. Understanding the traffic and the traffic flow (using statistics, not opinions) is often a key driver in maintaining the overall customer experience. The often cited, "Let the user decide which medium (IM, Email, Voice call, Conference, Video, Desktop sharing) to use" still doesn't negate the impact of station-to-station traffic for those who do prefer voice. Understand how the traffic will route and flow for each option and then determine whether bandwidth and resources are adequate.
Another killer of "deals gone bad" is a lack of understanding about the users' and key decision makers' attitudes and needs. In a multisite health care firm, I've seen where physicians refuse to use any collaboration tool (UC) and firmly refuse anything but a desk telephone. Now, with the younger physicians the attitudes seem to be different. Of course this is limited to my observation and experiences.
This brings us back to the value that customers seek. First, vendors often forget that the customer usually has some learned experience and expectation as to their communications system, how it works and what it will do for them currently.
I remember in the 1980s we had a run on hardware chains that wanted paging: zone paging, all paging, answer page, etc. Then, they went silent and replaced paging with digital handheld radios to quiet the busy stores down.
The schools have maintained paging and are catching on to using answer page--the Principal or Vice-Principal is paged and uses the nearest telephone to answer the page. This is a simple telephony tried-and-true feature, no big deal, but it remains key to those that adopt it in schools to solve a need. Of course, a client app on their smartphone can really accomplish the same thing much easier.
How do you determine the value-adds that customers seek? It helps being there onsite, though of course some will dispute that and say we just need to have better conversations with the customer. Okay, maybe, but chances are you will miss key "values" or applications, features and needs of that customer. Learning their business and business processes that involve communications is a better approach. Discovering what pain points create dysfunction, low productivity and poor communications internally or with customers and vendors/suppliers is even better.
Observation can't be replaced with a video chat. One of our favorite add-ons is providing door boxes, door openers and network cameras. Why? We've observed plenty of customers wasting time answering a door phone call and not knowing who it is and leaving their desk, office or cubicle to grant or deny the visitor access.
That old rule still applies today, that one size doesn't fit all. These examples are not atypical, complicated or earth-shattering revelations. There are plenty of other examples to discuss, and unless you have a presence on that customer site and an understanding of what's important to them, what solves their business problems and how, and what they value in a communications solution, then you may not have the best or even right fit. Then, observation comes from putting skin into the game and this is where you will beat competitors and predators looking for an easy kill.
Now, end user companies themselves are usually bigger obstacles, and I've stated this before. Until companies remove barriers to communications flow in and out of the company, then UC will be much less effective. I've only seen a few examples and not very often. Long ago, I cited Apple for the resolution of a really peculiar problem we had with the client replicating email accounts. Our issue was resolved not because Apple has removed all internal obstacles, but because they have in place the ability of employees to go up and down that chain of command. At least that's my perception.
The other examples are the tools themselves, notably UC clients such as CounterPath's Bria, Microsoft's Lync and Zultys's MXIE. These tools are collaborative and allow users to move up and down that choice of medium--this impression really struck me when using these tools. The problem is, will companies adopting these tools allow that same freedom in their ranks for employees to communicate and even make decisions that improve efficiencies, services and customer relations?
Why is this important? It's more than value and I think it will be key to survival. Collaboration, whether you are providing it in a solution or giving it to your customers in the way of service, offers value and great potential.
Perception is everything, and if you believe this and make the effort to understand the customers, then your value add should come closer in aligning with that business, addressing their core needs and preserving or emulating what they hold important. Your solution must stand up to the test of time, overcome customer objections and provide value.
Follow Matt Brunk on Twitter and Google+!
@telecomworx
Matt Brunk on Google+
