Most equipment manufacturers invariably want to benchmark themselves against peers within every aspect of their business and remote service is no exception. They often are not trying to determine how much catching up they have to make but really want to confirm a suspicion that they are no further along than anyone else even after one to three years of trying. It is an unfortunate but comforting feeling when they report amongst the managers that everyone else is struggling too and no is really living up to what they have led the world to believe.
This implies a couple of important things. First of all, most are having difficulty implementing remote service. And, industries are getting to the point where companies see the need to benchmark themselves on their remote service capabilities and extent of deployment. This is a good sign as it indicates a maturity turning point.
Buy why do so many struggle?
One might be first inclined to scrutinize the technology. The remote technology vendors are relatively young as far as industry goes. Those manufacturers who choose to build their own systems usually don’t have enterprise software systems as part of their core competency.
I don’t believe technology is major contributor to the struggles with deployment. I have been witness to too many manufacturers attempting to implement remote service with very simple and straightforward technical requirements only to struggle in the same manner as their peers.
What about those end-customers? Are they rejecting remote service offerings and causing slow deployment? Since the extent of deployment by the manufacturer is directly dependent on the acceptance by the end-customer, they could certainly be the culprit to these troubles.
Not so. In fact, in almost every case, the end-customer was more than enthusiastic about anything the vendor could do to improve equipment uptime. I need to qualify this however. I said “almost” because there are some instances of end-user rejection across segments but they are the exception and not the norm.
It turns out, when you look at these organizations implementing remote services as a whole, the real cause of the struggle is self-inflicted.
They throw the project over wall to the product support group and expect them to succeed at a global deployment of a new service offering. After all, it is a support tool, right?
Well…implementing remote service from within a manufacturer is very much like launching a new product. What skills and experience does a support group have with new product introduction?
Most service and support groups within product OEM’s have very little experience introducing a service the customer has not asked for. Luckily, customers are beginning to ask for it. In fact, in several industries, we are seeing remote support listed as a requirement when customers are purchasing new equipment.
Nevertheless, creating and launching a new service program is still foreign to most service groups. To set them up for success really requires the support of marketing, product management, product engineering, and the head honcho.
There is so much “gravity” associated with launching remote service; it really takes the person at the top to understand the opportunity the business has. Once that happens, then real transformation can occur and all this talk about “becoming solutions focused” will actually mean something to customers.
7 Responses
Brennan
01|Apr|2008 1I was recently discussing this same issue with a colleague. It seems
like years now we’ve been saying that the tidal wave of remote device
enablement and service delivery is “right around the corner.” And
today, that is exactly where it remains.
Yet in my view, the obstacles have changed - or rather, my view of the
obstacles has changed. It used to be that we would say, “the
technology exists - it just needs to come down in price to be widely
adopted.” Now, the technology is imminently capable, price points are
rather reasonable, and as you pointed out, customers are willing and
eager to begin receiving a wide range of new services and capabilities.
In this discussion, my friend asked when I thought the “tipping point”
would occur and remote services would surge into the mainstream. 1-2
years? 3-5…. 5-10? I used to think it was 2-3 years out, but that
was 2-3 years ago. Now I’ve come to believe that the limiting factor
is not technology, nor customer demand - it is, as you said, the
companies that would provide remote services.
These remote services, by definition, require companies to work
together. Whether it is sourcing technology, sharing user information,
or hardest of all, allocating new revenue streams - this is what takes
the most time. When you think of it this way - that widespread
adoption of remote services is contingent on the abilities of large
companies to cooperate and form new symbiotic relationships - the
question of timing is seen in a new light. Suddenly, 5-10 years seems
optimistic. Inertia, among Fortune 500 corporations, is a very
powerful force.
Yet for the companies considering adoption, this outlook is not an
excuse to delay further. Rather, it is an opportunity - an expanded
window in which they can become leaders in a field that, sooner or
later, will surely see its metaphorical tidal wave.
Jack Levin
01|Apr|2008 2This is very insightful. I like your reference to “tipping point”. You are so right about inertia in these companies. Few will overcome it on their own accord. I think you hinted at the catalyst in your last paragraph - fast movers will take advantage of the opportunity and the laggards will have no choice but to follow.
Tom Ellwood
02|Apr|2008 3The internal struggles you mention are not just related to launching a remote services product, these struggles also exist when attempting to add new features or functions to an existing platform. This is due to a few factors: 1) remote service, while it may be core to the product support group, is not viewed as a strategic imperative by other facets of the organization and 2) Product Support executives have not articulated the benefits of remote service beyond reducing support costs. This implies the need for improved internal marketing before moving to the external market. Lastly, I agree with your position that support organizations are not equipped to bring a new service product to market.
Customer adoption is improving and many are asking for some remote service capability. The major caveat here is the technology deployed must align with their internal security requirements. The service provider must understand that they become an extension of the customer’s regulated environment when they are delivering a remote service.
Overcoming the security objections is difficult but not impossible. It must start with a thorough understanding of what those objections could be through extensive customer research and feedback. Once understood, the appropriate measures can be taken to mitigate most perceived risks. You will never arrive at a perfect security solution but you can come close if you spend the time to listen to your customers. Many security issues today are more process than technology based.
Tim Gee
15|Apr|2008 4Medical device vendors face a number of challenges with remote service. First off, if their products incorporate network connectivity, they likely have limited experience and are still struggling to catch up with customer requirements for connectivity and workflow automation.
Tightly coupled with this is that any remote service system (both the code on the embedded system and the host system at the factory) have to go through a product development cycle as part of a regulated medical device. Given the tight R&D budgets and never ending connectivity product requirements, remote service rarely makes it above the threshold to get budgeted.
Finally, while providers want the benefits of remote service, they’re very particular about providing vendors with remote access to their products. This can - and has been - overcome, but not without hand wringing and additional costs.
Randy Thompson
16|Apr|2008 5I am with Jack on this one. Too often we see support groups trying to deploy remote services technology without the support of the rest of the company. It needs to be defined, marketed, and promoted as a “product”. It may only be a bullet in the overall service/support story, but the business value needs to be explained.
Let’s say they do that. Why is remote services still so hard? Because of end customer IT security concerns. If companies don’t promote the business value of their solution, and the trust value of their existing relationship, it is too easy for IT to just say no.
Yet it can be overcome. Look at Microsoft Windows updates or any of the anti-virus vendors. They deliver remote services to millions of computers every day. Why? Because people want the value that these services provide.
John Canosa
16|Apr|2008 6Several good points here all around. A few things I would add:
- Security is a convenient excuse both for an end user who doesn’t see the value and an OEM who hasn’t really figured out that this is a product that must benefit the end user, not just the OEM’s service department. That isn’t to say that security concerns aren’t real. They are real and legitimate, but given the right value proposition it is extremely rare that they can’t be overcome.
- While I wouldn’t say things are plug and play since there are always integration issues with the device software (and any technology vendor that says there isn’t is either dreaming or lying), the technology works and next generation connectivity models will make it even better. The biggest problem is in applying technology for technology’s sake and not understanding what the users (both internal and external) of the system really want/need. Or even worse, being locked in to a vendor’s view of what applications your end users and customers want/need.
- Finally, the biggest single hurdle is OEMs lack of understanding that delivering value added services (not just customer support) through the device is one of the best paths to revenue growth. As one reinforcing example, take a look at Michael Treacy’s book on Double Digit Growth(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591840058). He lists 5 strategies for growth:
Maintain Your Base
Gain Market Share
Find Market Growth Areas
Attack Adjacent Markets
Enter New Businesses
I’d submit that a good connected device strategy can be used to address 4 out of those 5. I think the task for all of us in this space is to get the folks in the executive suite to make that mind/body connection between revenue growth and value added services enabled by the device connection.
Tom Ellwood
30|Apr|2008 7John,
I like the Seeing Stones blog and your comments on customer engagement. I am completely aligned with the proposition that a fully engaged customer ( I refer to it as an empowered customer) will be less likely to ‘jump ship’
This is a position I have maintained when developing e-service solutions. While most support organizations veiw e-service as a mechanism to deflect calls and lower operational costs, I see e-service as a vehicle to empower the customer and make their use of your respective product critical to their business. Cost avoidance is an outcome of an effective e-service strategy and should not be the objective.
I realize this may be a bit off the remote service topic but the ojective of both is customer retention and the path to retention is though customer engagement/empoerment.
Leave a reply
Search
Subscribe by Email
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Links
A design creation of Design Disease
Copyright © 2008 - The Remote Service Insider - is proudly powered by WordPress