Sunday, January 21, 2007

Measuring Performance in Services

In the McKinsey Quarterly a good article was published about how to measue performance in service-oriented organisations. Services are more difficult to measure and monitor than manufacturing processes, but executives can rein in variance and boost productivity if they implement rigorous metrics.
Faced with stiffening competition, increasingly demanding customers, high labor costs, and, in some markets, slowing growth, service businesses around the world are trying to boost their productivity. But whereas manufacturing businesses can raise it by monitoring and reducing waste and variance in their relatively homogeneous production and distribution processes, service businesses find that improving performance is trickier: their customers, activities, and deals vary too widely. Moreover, services are highly customizable, and people — the basic unit of productivity in services — bring unpredictable differences in experience, skills, and motivation to the job.
Such seemingly uncontrollable factors cause many executives to accept a high level of variance — and a great deal of waste and inefficiency — in service costs. Executives may be hiring more staff than they need to support the widest degree of variance and also forgoing opportunities to write and price service contracts more effectively and to deliver services more productively.
As with any task or operation, to improve the productivity of services, you must apply the lessons of experience. Consequently, measuring and monitoring performance (and its variance) is a fundamental prerequisite for identifying efficiencies and best practices and for spreading them throughout the organization. Although some variance in services is inescapable, much of what executives consider unmanageable can be controlled if companies properly account for differences in the size and type of customers they serve and in the service agreements they reach with those customers and then define and collect data uniformly across different service environments. To do so, it is necessary to bear in mind a few essential principles of service measurement.

  • First, service companies need to compare themselves against their own performance rather than against poorly defined external measures. Using external benchmarks only compounds the difficulties that service companies face in getting comparable measurements from different parts of the organization.
  • Service companies must look deeper than their financial costs in order to discover and monitor the root causes of those expenses. This point may seem self-evident, yet many companies fail to understand these causes fully.
  • Finally, service companies must set up broad cost-measurement systems to report and compare all expenses across the functional silos common to service delivery organizations. The goal is to improve the service companies' grasp of the cross-functional trade-offs that must be made to rein in total costs.

None of these principles is easy to implement. Top executives are likely to face resistance from managers and frontline personnel who insist that services are inherently random and that service situations are unique. Managers who have grown used to the protection that lax measurement affords may be reluctant to view their operations through a more powerful lens. But only by adopting these principles and implementing rigorous measurement systems throughout the organization can service executives begin to identify reducible variance and take the first steps toward bringing down costs and improving the pricing and delivery of services.

After this seriuos content I would like to show you life ain't all bad. At YouTube I found an hilarious clip which was based on the movie Office Space.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Paul,

Even for an uninitiated one in the business of consultancy the article is a pleasure to read!
It makes me think and wonder about the service-oriented organizations I’ve been involved with in the past…
Isn’t it true that one of the most important factors that distinguish service-oriented organizations is to offer flexibility, customizable services and therefore variance to its customers? Why are both McKinsey and you disapproving variance in the business process and only (seems to) consider it as ‘waste and inefficiency’…?
It makes me curious how you can find a balance between ‘highly customizable services’ and ‘almost homogeneous services’…?? Or am I chatting nonsense?
I would also love to hear about your own experience with ‘Measuring Performance in Services’. Logically (almost) uneducated people like me are often more interested in the practical use:-)

Chau!
Sofia

P.S. Zie ik net dat Rutger gewoon makkelijk in het Nederlands een comment geeft...

Paul van Erk said...

Dear Sofia,

First of all thanks for leaving a comment on my article. It's being appreciated because I love to discuss all kind of issues related to Performance Management.
So, let's get back to your comment. I am not disapproving a variance in business processes and espcially regarding service-oriented organizations. I am convinced service-related processes should be higly customizable, because a company can have several types of clients. The main challenge is how to deal with this variances and how to report and benchmark financial results delivered by these services.

The employee is one of the biggest assets in a service-oriented company. However it is far more difficult to measure (and manage)the performance of a person than for except a machine.
The environment an employee is working in, is liable to great changes (actually that's why the activities are excuted by a person and not a machine). Is it possible to compare (benchmark) the performance of one service-oriented Business Unit to another Business Unit? How can you decide the process is done in an efficient manner? These questions are difficult to answer. The main question however should be: Why is Variance so Difficult to Measure.

From my experience I know that executives who launch variance-measurement programs in a service business are often surprised at the level of difference they discover among similar sites and groups within their own organization, let alone when they compare one company with another.

Main reasin is that a company's metrics are not uniform across its business units, so that, for example, one group in a call center may regard all calls on a given issue as a single case, while another logs every call separately.

At one of our clients a new top executive entered the company with a background in manufacturing (the former company he worked produced kitchen machinery, items were quite similar and benchmarking was quite easily). He became head of a financial service department and was shocked to find that the variance of key metrics among similar sites ranged from a factor of 2 to 30.

I hope I have enlighted you a little bit more in the area of service measurement. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.