Speaking at Qurated Network Directors’ Forum on 14 February 2017

I look forward to speaking at Qurated Network – Director’s Forum on Valentine’s Day in London. It will be interesting to see if we all end up agreeing whether banks’ ever increasing use of customer data is going to get their customers to love them more, or end up in broken relationships! It should be a fascinating debate

PS – and it was indeed fascinating! Great to see the diversity of views from my fellow panellists David Power from Wonga, Matt Rowsell from Worldpay, and Javier Campos from WPP. Personally I think banks should be wary of emulating retailers too slavishly in their use of data to push targeted marketing to their customers.

As Matt pointed out, we tend to give permission to the likes of google and Amazon to target us. We might set the bar higher for banks, and don’t give them implied permission to exploit data about us in the same way. And as Matt and Javier both showed, banks have an almighty challenge to piece together all the different pieces of data they have about us, across their legacy systems, which gives them endless opportunity to draw wrong inferences.

My own conclusion is that there are elements of the data-exploiting online retailer model that banks could usefully follow, but they should carefully aim to set their own standards. I think we all agreed that the overall aim for banks should be to focus on delivering a great customer experience, across services which consumers really need them to get right.

There is a short video of the event at http://bit.ly/2lifrFB

Do You Speak Fintech?

paolozzi-head-of-invention

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Photo: Eduardo Paolozzi’s sculpture “The Head of Invention” in Holland Park, London

In the course of one day in the City of London last week, I was in three different conversations about Fintechs.

What struck me was that the financial services experts that I was talking to all had different examples of what a Fintech is. One mentioned a supplier of banking systems, another mentioned a disruptive network platform provider, and another mentioned a niche consumer lender who has been around in the market for at least a decade. Added together, these cover a very broad range of businesses indeed.

Check out the web and there is no standard definition that seems to have consensus. The UK government (UKTI) definition is as follows: “In its broadest sense, we define FinTechs as high-growth organisations combining innovative business models and technology to enable, enhance and disrupt FS. This definition is not restricted to start-ups or new entrants, but includes scale-ups, maturing companies and even non-FS companies, such as telecommunication providers and e-retailers.” (UK Fintech, On the Cutting Edge, HM Treasury and E+Y, August 2014). There is so much in there, it is hard to detect a couple of keywords.

Perhaps market forces are dictating the use of a very inclusive definition. If Fintechs are currently attracting investment capital, and being championed as the provider of choice for the digital generation, then what Board is going to tell its Chief Executive not to embrace the term wholeheartedly? Especially as the definition brings with it the allure of high growth for potential investors and, for the Chief Executive, the imposition of some ambitious growth targets. Of course market forces will create winners and losers, but you cannot win if you don’t take part.

I believe however that some structured definitions within this very fluid and fast moving market are important. As an interim executive, I get frequent approaches along the lines of “Are you interested in this CXO or NED role with XYZ Fintech”. How can anyone sensibly answer this without some discussion of the nature of the Fintech business and the operating model that it needs to have to be successful. It’s not enough to say that you can thrive in this market if you understand both banking and technology; that particular competency has been around since at least the 1950s.

For simplicity, let’s say a Fintech (in the retail banking market) could be a combination of one or more of the following businesses:

·         A software provider of banking systems

·         A platform provider who uses the software to provide a processing service to multiple banks

·         A bank (or quasi-bank) which is providing technology-enabled services to its end-customers; such a bank could be a pretty much anywhere on the challenger / maturity scale.

The combination point is important – for example a challenger bank might make much of its ability to create new software, or a platform provider might aim to win direct B2C business by putting in place some key “bank-like” services. But, just like the big conglomerate industrials found in the 1980s, the shareholder value of running all three types of business through the same management team may prove be to less than the value that can gained when the different businesses can be run by real specialists. The proviso of course is that, for overall value to be created in the Fintech market, there has to be a willingness for collaboration.

All three types of business need to deliver profits and return on investment. They all need to have a vision for where the sector is heading and the opportunities for disruptive growth. They also need to embrace the spirit of collaboration. But that aside, very different operating models are needed in each of these businesses.

The software provider and the platform provider are both B2B providers, whereas the bank (in this example) is a B2C provider. B2B and B2C entail very different go-to-market strategies.

The software provider is typically focused on innovation, and managing the costs of investment. Service is important, but it is rarely the core competence of the organisation. The platform provider is highly focused on managing service levels and operating costs. The bank is concerned with market share, and the risk/reward profile of its customers, and might be ready to outsource many of its delivery services.

The bank will have a regulator on its back, the platform provider will be trying to design a service which avoids the need for regulation, and the software provider’s only interest in regulation is in making sure its software can produce the numbers that regulators want to see.

In summary, this is definitely not a case of “one size fits all”. The Fintech concept embraces at least three very different types of business, which in turn have their own distinct skills requirements at executive level.

Banks should use data to improve service, and not to erode trust

img_0332

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a world where it is now much easier for consumers and businesses to switch banks, one reason that so few people do switch is that trust in banks still typically outweighs the exasperation that is caused by poor service experience.

Of course, what “good” looks like in terms of service excellence needs to be continuously reappraised in order to keep pace with the expectations of digital consumers. Mapping out the optimal “customer experience” across the range of products and services is a great start-point for this, after which you can map out the processes which deliver these products and services and seek to understand where they deliver a great experience and where they fall short.

Process improvements can then be designed to address the problem areas and information can be gathered and analysed to spot and even predict service delivery shortcomings. When you can predict the problem, you can address it efficiently before it occurs, rather than expensively (both in terms of money and brand) after it has happened. Consistently good service experience will lead to increasing loyalty and a positive reputation in the market, enabling the bank to differentiate itself, retain customers and attract new business.

Naturally, the more complex the web of processes, the more likely they are going to be prone to problems. Simplicity is good. We have all observed how the fintechs and challenger banks have sought to create nimble, cost effective infrastructures which large banks, with a deadweight of complex legacy infrastructure, should in theory find it hard to compete with. To their credit, the challengers appear to have been spending more time than traditional banks, in talking to the market and finding out what customers want in terms of product design and levels of service.

At the moment, the challenger banks are, in many cases, testing the market with simple online products, such as fixed term savings accounts, rather than mirroring the full range of services which the traditional banks offer. Personally, I am not holding my breath for a real breakthrough from these banks – recently the mobile-app-only bank in the UK where I had opened a fixed term savings account managed to make my entire account data invisible to me, after pushing an app update on to my iphone. The process to make this data reappear involved a lengthy re-registration process with their contact centre. If these guys are struggling with technology at this level, it seems to me it will take time for them to develop a robust multi-service capability.

To be honest, I don’t really care about the type of technology – only how it helps support and deliver excellent service at the right price. A bank needs to use technology effectively to connect its data and its processes together and to streamline its service delivery. It should avoid the temptation to use new technology “because it’s there”, without addressing the root cause of service delivery issues.

Clearly this demands that the bank builds a clear view of what sort of service its customers want, and is able to justify the investment either through cost savings or the ability to cross-sell more products. This cross-selling requires a bank to capture information about its consumers, in market segments and ideally also to make it personal at the level of the individual customer.

A couple of ways to do this are to invest in relationship management and to invest in data analytics. Both have real challenges for a bank.

Again from recent personal experience, I have spent at least ten hours in meetings with the local relationship manager from my traditional UK bank, with an eye-watering amount of mundane form filling but also with some really value-adding observations about my potential needs. Trust was built up, and I began to look forward to each interaction. Then, all of a sudden, I got a call from the bank to say that the relationship manager was leaving and that it would be some months before they appointed a replacement. Back to square one, and a sinking feeling that when I do meet the replacement then it will be time to start going through all those forms again.

So, there is a real challenge for banks to invest in a consistent relationship management service, which includes effective two-way communication with customers.

How about removing the “inconvenience” of relying on staff continuity, and trusting in data analytics instead? There is a lot of research and investment going into predictive data. My sense is that this is probably effective at a “segment” level, but that “predictive” can become inaccurately “presumptuous” when such techniques are applied at the level of the single customer. I don’t (thank goodness) have a personal example of this from the banking sector – setting aside all those offers to move to “premium” credit cards which I don’t want or need and which get filed immediately in the recycling bin. But, given that retail banks are inclined to adopt practices from other retailers, I do worry about what might be coming.

Let me take a recent personal example from a well-known travel booking app that I (used to) use. I was recently meeting a new client whose linked-in profile showed that they, like me, had spent a lot of time in the Far East. I was trying to remember the name of a hotel I had stayed in few years ago. Via the history pages on the travel booking app I found my original booking. Great. Until I started getting a daily bombardment of emails from the travel company, offering to help me book my next Far Eastern trip. I have to say that I had seen this as a great app for making bookings and for getting good discounts. But the nuisance effect of those emails outweighed the value of the service, causing me to unsubscribe and to remove the app from my phone.

I give this as an example of what it might take for me to quickly turn off my relationship with a bank.  It is all about the grey area where predictive becomes presumptuous, and where marketing becomes intrusive.

What happens is that the bank would reach a point, where it will start to undermine its core competence of “trust”. Trust is not just about security. It is also about relying on a bank not to waste its customers’ time with presumptuous offers which they don’t need or want. A travel company can get away with such approaches. I don’t believe that a bank can, because its trust premium is a fundamental reason it stays in business.

At the start of this blog I commented on the balance of trust and service experience and its effect on customer retention. I have shown how investment in new services can lead to a requirement to build knowledge which, especially when placing too much reliance on data analytics, can lead to unintended breakdowns of trust. My own recommendation is that banks don’t mess with trust but rather focus on the other side of the equation, and invest in eliminating the exasperation that is caused by weaknesses in service delivery. 

Making lasting connections

Forth bridges

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last weekend I flew into Edinburgh and got this great view of the 3 Forth bridges in the late afternoon sunshine. You have the iconic 19th century rail bridge at the front, the current road bridge from the 1960s in the middle, and, at the back, the new road bridge which is due to open in May 2017.

There is a fascinating video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BrFhrBQGUA which shows how segments of the road deck, each weighing 650 tons, are raised by crane one at a time, from a barge way down below on the river, up to the bridge and then attached by cable to one of the towers. The further from the tower, the more complex the process of attachment. Clearly this requires the immense skill of a large team of engineers and support staff.

No doubt in years to come the new bridge will be admired for its graceful looks and functional effectiveness. I think it also has a message today for the business world. A huge amount of preparation and “heavy lifting” goes into the development of successful, lasting business relationships. The chief executive may be the one who signs the deal, but let’s recognise the critical importance of all the sales and delivery people, without whose expertise, focus on detail, and piece-by-piece hard work, the connection will never get made.

Are you keeping your head above the Cloud?

I was recently walking along Whitehall in London, fresh from a meeting about Cloud strategy. Raising my gaze from the cracks in the pavement, I suddenly caught sight of this dramatic view of Nelson’s Column, head above the Clouds.

IMG_0159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It got me thinking – how many of us are UNDER the Cloud, looking up as untried beginners, trying to make sense of the opportunity, while trying to spot and avoid a shower of economic rain. Or maybe just standing under an umbrella, pretending the cloud is not there at all, or thinking that the benefits of Cloud are so intuitively irrelevant to our organisation that they are not worth even contemplating.

And then, how many people do you talk to who have their heads IN the Cloud? The people who can talk to you for ages about how it all works, and all the great benefits, but who seem so preoccupied with the Cloud being the solution to every business problem, that they somehow seem to lack a bit of perspective around the wider challenges of business and the economy.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is huge economic benefit in being able to access data processing and storage at the lowest possible cost.  Cloud, as part of a wider solution, can provide that.

Cloud itself is a commodity, not a complete business solution, and your “Head IN the Clouds” conversation rapidly gets into the relative merits of cumulus public clouds, cirrus private clouds, and cirrocumulus hybrid clouds, together with concerns over data residency, data protection and cybersecurity.

Effective Cloud-based solutions are certainly achievable, yet I suspect that there are fewer people than you would think, who are in the fortunate position of being ABOVE the Cloud, confident that their IT strategy is in excellent shape, and therefore able to have a clear, unimpeded view of business opportunities on the horizon.  Not least because the business and IT world around us, just like the sky above our heads, is always changing shape. Nelson himself is quoted as saying “I cannot command winds and weather”.

Cloud is typically opaque, and it does not come in a one-size-fits-all package. Context and long term perspective are critical in any adoption of Cloud in your organisation.

What could a 19th century admiral teach us about perspective? After all, long distance data sharing in his line of business was reliant on flags and semaphore!  Well, maybe he offers us a different kind of perspective….let me finish with another quote from the man who famously put his telescope to his blind eye in the heat of battle: “I could not tread these perilous paths in safety, if I did not keep a saving sense of humour”.

Talking Heads

I recently took time off between assignments to join the crowds at the Business Show at the Excel exhibition centre. It was certainly a full house, and yes some of the presenters did live up to the reputation that, for a modest fee, they can provide you with the snake oil recipe to get rich quick. But I enjoyed visiting the Google digital garage, and meeting some of the smaller suppliers. In particular I was pleased to have the opportunity to do a 60 second “talking head” video at the Cincera stand. You can view it on https://youtu.be/mvUEn58rvCw – please tell me what you think of it!

Work has been nicely busy of late. I have recently been consulting at a global standards and certification organisation, helping them to design a business process outsource service for the digital age. Yesterday I started an assignment at a UK regional building society (savings and loans) helping them to ensure that their IT arrangements are compliant with FCA regulatory guidance.

dragon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In looking for a photo opportunity to capture “regulatory challenges” I took this shot of one of the dragons (thank you Wikipedia for telling me it is not a griffin, which is what I always thought it is!) that mark the entrance to the City of London. This one is on the Embankment, just as a storm is about to break…. It seems to me the dragon is not too worried, he has seen it all before!

Data is the real heart of Digital Transformation

What is at the centre of Digital Transformation? The simplistic answer is “the customer”, and indeed the ability to engage with customers – in the ways they want to engage – is pivotal to business success. New technologies keep pushing the boundaries of possible ways of engagement, giving rise to new, disruptive business models and sudden market shifts. Then throw into the mix the increasing expectations and technology adoption of customers, and you have a situation where the supplier-customer balance is tilted very much in favour of the customer.

In Digital Transformation 1.0, the focus has been principally on optimising the front end of the business, building tools such as interactive websites, accessible by both desktop and mobile devices, to enhance the ease at which “I want it NOW” customers can access products and services. The goal became something along the lines of “consistent omni-channel customer experience, anytime, anywhere, anyhow.”

More recently, businesses have turned to Digital Transformation 2.0, with a focus on ensuring that the end-to-end “enterprise” processes within their business are digitally connected. This comes from recognising that it is all very well to make commitments to customers at the front end of the business, but if you do not connect the front-end to your fulfilment and delivery processes, then you risk failure in meeting a customer commitment, a failure which is quite likely to be broadcast on social media. Digital Transformation 2.0 manifests itself in different ways in different industries. Examples include passing information on the specifications that a customer has chosen for their new car, direct to the plant floor; or gathering information from sensors that can be used to predict when the product you have sold to your customer will need maintenance (the “internet of things”); or simply giving the retail staff on your shop floor the maximum information about the products on display, via interactive tablets that they can share with customers.

And now, businesses are creating strategies around Digital Transformation 3.0, which involves planning not just the digital connection of enterprise processes in their own organisations, but ensuring digital connectivity with the enterprise processes of other organisations – partners, suppliers, intermediaries and even regulators. Seamless interaction between a motor insurer and a car repair workshop would be a good example.

In all of this, the customer focus remains vital, but is wholly dependent on tools, processes, networks, and above all “data”. Data which needs to be both secure and accessible to those who need it, and absolutely not left languishing in silos. Data which needs to be digestible and easy to visualise. Data which needs to be real time and reliable. Data which can be separated from the “noise” of big data, and turned into meaningful information and actionable insight. Data which is seen as one of the most critical assets of your business.

If you think about it, data is what is driving your customers too. Consumers are programmed by nature to gather data on what is on offer in the market – on price, on quality, and on what other consumers are buying – before making their buying decision.  They know the value of good data.

So it needs to be for businesses. In taking advantage of all the opportunities that are offered through Digital Transformation, an effective data strategy, across connected processes, is fundamental.

Digital Transformation = DT = DaTa = DATA.

Shared Services or Self Services?

The shared services concept, both in its in-house and outsourced flavours, is driven by a number of business objectives. If we asked a group of people to list these objectives, we would probably see cost reduction coming high on the list. Process efficiency would probably score highly too.

The cost reduction is historically achieved by centralising activities in one place to get economies of scale, and often this is accompanied by a shift to a lower cost location. In more recent times, cost reduction is achieved by a focus on automation, including robotics and machine learning. Continue reading Shared Services or Self Services?