Interesting table below in relation to the customer satisfaction and costs of delivering various styles of customer assurance activities:
|Proactive Fix||Self-help||L1/2/3 Assurance||Field Operations|
|Customer Satisfaction||Very High||High||Medium||Low|
The ambition for any organisation is to perform a shift to the left on this table. In other words, to introduce assurance mechanisms that increase the likelihood of an event being captured towards the left of the table (ie before becoming a field operations issue to solve). In theory, every shift left results in greater customer satisfaction and reduced cost to the operator.
Of course it’s a generic table (eg some proactive assurance programs can be higher than a “low” cost classification), but it does tell a story.
Our OSS cover the full scope of this table. Our OSS don’t perform L1/2/3 assurance or Field Ops, but they certainly help to coordinate and manage those activities.
If you were to use this table to classify your operational costs, what does the cost profile look like? Is it heavily weighted to the right side of the table? Does your operational cost profile justify further investment in your OSS to shift some of those costs to the left?
This post from sysaid has some further shift-left concepts as they relate to service management within IT.Read the Passionate About OSS Blog for more or Subscribe to the Passionate About OSS Blog by Email