Service Experience Conference 2017 Closing Keynote

I had the pleasure of giving the closing keynote at the Adaptive Path Service Experience Conference 2017. There was a fantastic line-up of speakers and now all of the videos and decks are online on their summary of the conference.

I really recommend taking a look at all the talks, but I’ve embedded mine below (which might not work in the RSS feed):

Andy Polaine // Designing Living Services // The Service Experience Conference 2017 from Adaptive Path on Vimeo.

Service Design. Now in Korean.

Service Design Book Korean Cover

Our book on service design was recently translated into Korean by Dr. Grace Bae from CMU HCII and Dr. Younkyung Lim from KAIST Design, Korea. It’s great to see the final result, even though I can’t read the language of course. Korean readers will have to tell me how it is. You can buy it online here.

Also, thanks to Dr Eunki Chung, a PhD graduate at the Human Computer Interaction Institute of Carnegie Mellon University who was assisting. There’s a nice circle that has been closed, since the book is a textbook for CMU Design’s Designing for Service course. The course was originally designed by Shelley Evenson in 2007, who is now one of my bosses at Fjord and Executive Director of Organisational Evolution.

Services need to manage reverse ID better

Having finally relocated to a permanent address in Sydney and re-docking with government and utilities, I’ve been experiencing the whole gamut of customer services. There are a whole host of things to register for and the way companies go about it is different every time.

The good news is that most of this is much better. I first got to Australia in 1999 and left in 2006 and I have many memories of having to go to government offices in person or being on hold to utility companies for ages. But there is still a lot of work to do.

Several companies have adopted the post-registration follow-up strategy. I can just see it as a sticky note touchpoint moment on some service or CX designer’s customer journey. The problem is many companies still have a view of the power relationship firmly placed in their camp – it’s still inside out. Here is what happened when my energy company, AGL, called me month into my contract with them. At least I assume it really was AGL:

Random caller on my mobile: “Hi, this is X from AGL, am I speaking to Mr Andrew Polaine?”

Me: “Er, yes.”

AGL: “Great. So I just wanted to welcome you to AGL and check that everything was set up on your account the way you want it.”

At this point I’m thinking, it’s a bit late, but one billing cycle in, so I understand why. And it’s a nice touchpoint so far. Then we hit an impasse:

AGL: “Before I go any further, I need to confirm some security details. Can you tell me your street number and name or give me your date of birth?”

Me: “Sure. But you just called me so I need to make sure you are actually from AGL. Can you tell me the last three digits of my account number?”

AGL: “I’m afraid I can’t do that until you confirm your account details.”

Me: “But I don’t know who you are. Do you not have any way to prove you are from AGL?”

AGL: “I’m sorry, I can’t give you any details until I confirm you for security purposes. But I understand if you are uncomfortable with this, so you can just give us a call anytime.”

The call centre contact was perfectly pleasant, but put in an impossible situation by policy and hamstrung by her script. It also turned something meant to be a pleasant, proactive touchpoint into work for me to do having to call them back. It also goes against the mental model of these kinds of interactions that other services, such as banks, have built in our heads – don’t give out your details to random callers.

This approach evidenced inside-out thinking, not customer centricity. The policy is probably “on all calls customers must identify themselves,” but the real world equivalent of my call was someone ringing my doorbell and asking me to prove I lived there when I answered the door.

Thinking through and acting out those kinds of interactions as if they were in-person and personal relationships is a simple way to get them right. In this case, AGL could have come up with a way to do a reverse ID check and even communicated this when I first signed up so I knew what to expect. It’s not a huge transgression, but multiple moments like that add up to a choppy experience. Thankfully AGL have been pretty good so far.

You drive me crazy — considering the brand and human experiences of autonomous cars

1024px Google s Lexus RX 450h Self Driving Car

Photo: Steve Jurvetson

When Google’s self-driving Lexus cut off Delphi Automotive’s self-driving Audi, forcing it to take “appropriate action” by aborting a lane change, the near miss between them was reported in terms of the technology and liability. With the exception of Reid Hoffman’s thoughtful piece, Driving in the Networked Age, the brand and service experience of driving has been largely ignored in the public discourse.

Neville Anthony Stanton’s post on The Conversation led to a Twitter conversation between myself, Dan Hill and Tom Coates questioning Stanton’s rather dry account of man versus machine. Stanton raises the questions of responsibility and insurance and how human’s will never rival a machine’s ability to drive, but that seems to ignore the history of driving and, indeed, other forms of transport before that.

The automative industry has spent decades and a fortune on shaping the brand experience of driving and that’s not going to go away overnight, nor are those manufacturers going to want to lose control of it as we lose control of our cars.

Driving styles are algorithms

The Google-Delphi near-miss was really about a clash of algorithms.

That the Google car was a Lexus and the Delphi car an Audi might be superficially irrelevant, but people drive Audis, BMWs, Porsches, Volvos, Hondas, Toyota Camrys or (the poorly pluralised) Lexuses for a certain kind of driving experience and because they represent a certain kind of personality. As manufacturers evolve their own self-driving cars, can we expect these characteristics to form part of their algorithms? For example, might we expect a Camry to drive perfectly within the speed limit and never cut anyone up? Or a Porsche or Audi TT to have a sports mode, heavy on the acceleration and uncomfortably fast around the corners, since computers don’t lose their nerve and slow down? Might BMWs live up to their reputation and be programmed to tailgate the cars in front while flashing their lights and being sure to cut in at the front of filter lanes?

Clichés for sure, but long-standing brand experience clichés. Witness Toyota desperately trying to change their boring brand with their “bold new” 2015 Super Bowl ad and BMW trying to shed their petrolhead image with their i3 2015 #hellofuture Super Bowl ad, when the honest reality is of BMW is more like their “Adrenaline” ad.

If all self-driving cars are programmed to be the perfect, law-abiding driver, what is the point of owning one brand of car over another? Every car is, functionally, the same – it’s a box on wheels that gets you from A to B carrying more or less people or stuff over smooth or rough terrain depending on its class. The experience is, of course, a key differentiator. Is it sporty or sedate? Can you hear and feel the engine or is the ride smooth and silent? Is it leather luxury or can my kids eat chips in the back?

As we know from smartphones, tablets, computers and operating systems, all of which are functionally very similar, this is where UX, service design, product design and computer science blend together to make the difference for end users.

Navigation algorithms are brand experiences

The battle between in-car navigation systems and smartphones has largely been won by smartphones. The various integrations, such as CarPlay, are the supposed death knell of car manufacturers’ own systems, but self-driving cars might take back much some ground here, unless an open set of self-driving car protocols and APIs allows smartphone manufacturers and developers to hook into those systems.

Self-driving cars need their own navigation by default. Will we see traffic jams of one brand of car, as all their systems re-route to the same roads? Will we see certain brands make gains in the market because their navigation is superior to another?

Audi, BMW and Daimler are buying Nokia’s mapping service, Here, precisely because of this issue, writes William Boston in the WSJ:

The car makers feared that Nokia Here’s technology—the most advanced digital map of the world’s major road networks—could fall into the hands of Google Inc., Uber Technologies Inc. or Apple Inc. That would put auto makers at risk of losing control of information systems inside the car that are vital to self-driving cars and future automotive safety systems.

My experience with Audi’s, for example, has been one of decent cars with entertainment and information systems that are two decades behind. For the most part, in-car information systems are regularly disappointing, if not downright confusing. An argument for cars trailing behind current UX standards used to be that people don’t change their cars as often as their mobile phones. Your 15 year-old Camry is the driving equivalent of a Nokia 8250.

Many people lease cars in a three-year cycle, however, and whenever I rent a new car, it is always shocking how poor the UX of the dashboard is. It feels like the pre-iPhone days where the hardware was produced with zero integration with the shabby software (I’m looking at you, Sony Ericsson).

Self-driving cars even out many hardware differences of the car itself, leaving the service and user experience as the paramount reason for choosing one over another.

Choose life

What will “choosing” a car mean in the future? Right now, manufacturers are still obsessed with selling millions of units. “Service” is something that might happen when you buy your car if you’re lucky and when you take it in to have the oil changed. But the future of cars will be about customers choosing a particular service experience, not owning a chunk of steel and plastic.

Customers will pay to have access to a particular fleet. Will this take the Uber model with limousines and everyday cars? Will I go with a Google car because their routing is better and it’s free, or will I pay extra for a Apple car because of the privacy? Or will this fall along the current brand lines – taking a Volvo for my family trip to be safe, but a Lexus to a business meeting?

If I do own my own self-driving car, can I loan it out to the fleet when I’m at work in return for credit for my own transport elsewhere? Or will owning a car cease to be a positive status symbol and take on a negative connotation, like owning an old mobile phone or a stack of CDs.

For many contemporary services experiences, such as banking, insurance, healthcare, communications and cloud services, trust is paramount to the the service offering. You need to know your insurance company isn’t going to let you down at the worst moment, your bank account isn’t going to get hacked, that your healthcare services will make you better, not kill you, and that your communications and cloud services providers will not sell your data or pass it on to government snoopers.

Now combine all that with the trust you have in your car not failing in some way with life threatening consequences. Trust is fragile. It takes a long time to build up and is easily broken. When a component fails on a car it is more visible and they can be recalled. A software glitch or hack while a whole fleet of cars are currently driving is an invisible horror about to unfold simultaneously.

Privacy, hacking and the social divide

Hoffman argues that self-driving cars have the ability to democratise driving even further:

[A]utonomous vehicles won’t curtail personal freedom – they’ll amplify it. Autonomous vehicles will extend the convenience of individualized driving to people who aren’t currently able to obtain driving licenses –senior citizens, people with various disabilities, young people. They will let everyone pursue a greater range of activities while they’re in transit. They’ll speed up transit times and help people forsake transit altogether. (I.E., your car will run errands for you while you stay at home.) They’ll reduce the need to actually own a car, and thus release people from the economic obligations of that.

This may be true, but they may well serve to create even deeper social divisions. If you’re stuck in a traffic jam in a Mercedes today, you’re in the same position as the person sitting in front of you in their beaten up old Ford. The prospect of paying extra for swifter transit – a kind of non net-neutrality for roads – could turn taking a car journey into one big airport experience. Those with the expensive tickets get to go first, go faster, have less hassle, while the rest of us sweat and swear.

Most likely the divide will be about who is prepared to give up their privacy for the sake of free or near-free travel. You can turn your phone off or enable airplane mode if you want to travel somewhere without being traced by your cellphone signal, but you can’t turn off a self-driving car’s navigation system, unless you can take over driving manually.

We can be sure that tech companies and government agencies are looking forward to the delicious combination of credit card data, realtime audio, camera and navigation data feeds that all of us will be transmitting every day. The wealthy might pay to take an anonymised journey, while the poor have to put up with being tracked and collated. The wealthy will have the evidence to counter a police offer’s version of events, while the poor will be dragged out of their cars and arrested.

Andy Greenberg’s video accompanying his article in WIRED showing the hacks in action

If it is already possible to remotely hack a car on the highway and send it off the road, imagine how much easier it will be once those cars are self-driving. Law enforcement officers can, literally, pull you over and detain you by locking you in your car. Hackers will no doubt come up with ways to own a Google car and tune it to their own tastes. Expect to see a side industry of third-party services and applications, such as car virus protection and journey history deletion or scrambling. What will be the equivalent of using a VPN and Tor browser for cars?

The intersections of different industries and regulations need careful consideration. Hoffman writes:

Even in cases of non-emergency, a high degree of transparency is necessary. Every time a passenger indicates a desired destination, an autonomous vehicle must make choices about the optimal route. Presumably, it will do so based on current traffic conditions, as Waze does now. But it’s also possible that the companies designing these cars could choose routes for other reasons. For example, advertisers might pay companies to route passengers past their businesses. Passengers with preferred status could receive access to faster streets while others are routed to slower, higher-volume streets.

In some cases, passengers may accept these decisions. You might pay less or receive some other perk if you agree to take the slow route home, or pay more to take the fast one. On a similar note, we will probably see the introduction of literal “marketing vehicles,” i.e., cars that take you to your destination for free as long as you complete a survey or watch a promotional video of some kind.

Because the various algorithms that govern car behavior will encompass issues of liability, risk, and morality, no one company should be allowed to simply make up their own rules. Instead, we’ll need to establish uniform rules and standards through public processes. In the same way that we currently have regulations involving emissions standards, safety equipment, and other aspects of car manufacture, we’ll also have regulations that establish the parameters for how the necessary algorithms operate.

Hoffman appears surprisingly optimistic about this, but I am less so. Politicians and manufacturers do not have a great track record of considering the nuances of complicated futures and agreeing on a unified plan of action. Witness everything from USB connectors to tackling climate change.

Usb connectors

Six different USB connectors – Photo: Viljo Viitanen

Too focused on catching up with the present, car manufacturers seem rather complacent about the future. Andy Greenberg’s piece on hacking cars in WIRED this week demonstrated the bland corporate-speak response to Charlie Miller’s and Chris Valasek’s research into hacking and taking control of cars remotely:

When WIRED told Infiniti that at least one of Miller and Valasek’s warnings had been borne out, the company responded in a statement that its engineers “look forward to the findings of this [new] study” and will “continue to integrate security features into our vehicles to protect against cyberattacks.” Cadillac emphasized in a written statement that the company has released a new Escalade since Miller and Valasek’s last study, but that cybersecurity is “an emerging area in which we are devoting more resources and tools,” including the recent hire of a chief product cybersecurity officer.

To my ears, this sounds like the PR departments of car manufacturers who are absolutely behind the curve on this. The good news is that this all provides an opportunity for designers to move beyond car styling and engage in the entire experience of mobility and a service, of which the car is just one component. The opportunities for innovation and developing new and useful experiences and services are tremendous. Let’s hope the car manufacturers see the strategic benefits here and don’t just try and cling on to their current business models, which are sure to go the way of the horse and cart.

From hunch to research direction to design concept

The hand

The most common issue service design students face is project paralysis in the face of infinite possibilities and the synthesis of a mass of research material. Services are often complex and the interconnectedness of problems can soon appear too difficult to tackle. Taking the leap to tentatively develop an idea, and letting go of the need for it to be the best idea possible is often a real challenge, especially when the concept remains an abstract and complex.

I wrote a post over on Medium titled Getting From Here to There about moving from a hunch to research direction to concept. It looks at what the service design equivalent is of an architect’s rough sketches of a large project as opposed to the detail of a single touchpoint. It started as a mail to my service design students, but I thought others might find it useful in teaching, learning or practice too.

I’d love to hear your feedback in the margin comments on Medium.

Service design combined with smart resource usage

My older brother Matt works as Lead Researcher, The Circular Economy at British Telecommunications (yes, he is older than me, although I get the bald head and grey beard). He recently gave a talk at Nesta’s Smart Resources event about his role on a project to redesign and rethink BT’s HomeHub router. Although the initial focus was on reducing resource consumption, you will hear him talk a lot about service design and customer experience benefits too (he is speaking around 2:24). He also talks about how this is also about a cultural change as much as any engineering or design challenges.

Social engineering may just be the most important skill service designers need to learn.

There’s also an interview snippet it with him at 3:00 here, again talking about how important the service design aspect is:

Capital One’s acquisition of Adaptive Path shouldn’t be news

Last week’s announcement by Adaptive Path that they have been acquired by Capital One sent, if not shockwaves, certainly large ripples through the tech press. Wired said it was the “death rattle of the Web 2.0 era”, Techcrunch linked it to Capital One’s launch of their new mobile wallet app. Kerry Bodine wrote that “her head just exploded”, but then went on to write some very smart thoughts about it. Who knew exploding heads could be so thoughtful?

The general gist of the reactions echoed Jesse James Garrett’s own in their announcement post: “I know, weird, right?” But the acquisition is no weirder than Marc Newson joining Apple.

Banks are, of course, in the money business, but their retail sector is the experience business. When was the last time you actually bothered to read, let alone respond to, one of those formal letters from your bank informing you of a change of interest rate or a change to their terms and conditions? I’m guessing it’s probably about as often as you thoroughly read through the iTunes Store terms and conditions the last time you updated. Even if you did read it, your ability to react to a rise in interest rates or higher fees is minimal.

Now think about the last time you were annoyed by poor customer service, a lousy app, a clunky website, unfair fees, a huge queue in your local branch. I’m betting is was more recently and is much more burnt into your soul than the interest rates.

You can’t hold your bank account in your hand and examine its build quality like an iPhone or a suit before you buy it. The quality of the bank’s service to you is made up of all your experiences and interactions with different touchpoints and, crucially, whether they all seamlessly fit together or not. Those experiences form a relationship that builds up over time. Like any relationship, the odd bad experience might be forgiven, but a continuous stream of bad experiences eventually leads to the point where the pain of leaving is less than the pain of staying.

Now imagine if a bank spent as much time crafting the joins between customer experiences as Jony Ive does ensuring the seam between the iPhone touchscreen glass and the milled aluminium housing is as invisible as possible. Isn’t it obvious that this is exactly what all banks should be attempting to do? Acquiring Adaptive Path is only weird in that it has only happened now and not 10 years ago.

The banking press got in on the act with American Banker (rhymes with…) going for the thoughtless headline, “Capital One Seeks Creative Spark with Purchase of Design Firm”. That article quoted Jacob Jegher, a research director at Celent with this:

“When the paint starts to peel on the walls of the branch and the carpet starts to fray and the glass is scratched, what happens? It gets renovated. Same can be said for digital banking.”

True to financial analyst form, this exactly misses the point.

UX & service designers aren’t painters and decorators there to make things look glossy while the money guys get on with the serious business of turning some numbers into bigger numbers. Focusing on the experience, means thinking hard about how best to deliver that experience. If it were easy, customers would love their banks like they love their iPhones. Instead they love their banks like they love multiple root canals. The process of re-thinking the experience will and should lead to re-thinking Capital One’s internal organisation and culture. (Though, by the sound of Jesse’s post, they already have a culture ready for this).

My heartfelt congratulations to Adaptive Path. I don’t begrudge anyone who has spent years building up a successful business selling what they have created and taking on a new direction. As Lou Rosenfeld said, “If you want to risk selling out, run a conventional agency.”

My hope is that with Adaptive Path on board at Capital One, their ambition is to do to the banking sector what Apple did to the mobile phone.

[Update: Russ Unger pointed out to me that this is really big news and everyone should know about it, which it is of course. The title is a little clickbait-esque)]

Customer service experienced in bits

Dr Drang tells two stories of failed customer service. The first one involves him trying to assist his mother getting to the gate at the airport. I use flying a lot as an example of services involving silos that barely communicate with each other and generate terrible customer experiences as a result. Dr Drang’s experience is typical:

You will not be surprised to hear that the people at the ticket desk—both our initial agent and his superior—had no idea how to issue me a gate pass. Curiously, the agent did ask for my photo ID, even though he had no idea what to do with it. Force of habit, I guess. Eventually, the supervisor hit upon the idea of sending us to the Special Services desk, where we would become someone else’s problem.

The agent at the Special Services desk knew everything about gate passes and told me right away that I wouldn’t be able to get one. “They’re being very tight with those.”

When I explained to the agent that I’d been told by the airline that I could get a gate pass, she told me with great confidence that the people manning the airline’s 800 number didn’t know anything. But she took my driver’s license, typed my information into her computer, and my gate pass printed out immediately.

“Do you know which gate you’re going to?” she asked sharply as she handed it over.

“No, I haven’t checked yet. I wasn’t sure until just now that I was going to get in.”

“Well, it’s F6A. It’s right on the pass.” There was a note of triumph in her voice, as it was clear she had bested me.

None of these poor experiential moments is tragic on its own, but the aggregate experience is an awful one—something I often refer to as an experience crevasse that customers fall into. When you are at the bottom of one of those, nobody can hear you screaming for help.

When I work with teams to bring service design methods into their workflow, one of the common responses is, “but to do this properly we really need to change or organisation’s structure.” Culture and cultural change within an organisation is key to changing the end experiences of a service. If staff feel frustrated, bored or under pressure to act in a way detrimental to the customer experience, it should be no surprise that this experience is awful. Yet this is regularly demanded of staff under the guise of efficiency. Companies need to switch their focus from the industrial mode of efficiency to a service mindset of being effective. They’re not mutually exclusive, but the emphasis and process are very different.

Without that, customers end up treating the interaction as a battle. As Dr Drang writes at the end of his post:

Now I see my interactions with customer service as a sort of strategy game: can I plan my way around the obstacles the game will put in my way? Today I came out on top. Tomorrow is another round.