Much emphasis can be placed on the design stage of the service, taking into account customer expectations and establishing specifications for its provision. But quality of service will not be achieved if the process fails to put these requirements into action. That is, when the orchestra begins to perform the score.
You can put a lot of emphasis on the service design stage, taking into account the needs and expectations of customers, which have been carefully evaluated, and establishing specifications for the provision of the service that meet those expectations.
However, you will not get quality service if the process fails to put these requirements into action. That is, when the orchestra begins to perform the score.
Here I present to you the 7 key factors that researchers Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry have detected as the main causes of this deficiency in performance.
The question would be, why, if everything is designed for "excellent service", is it not possible to do it that way?
I invite you to make your own diagnosis based on the following factors:
1. Ambiguity in functions.
It refers to the security of employees with respect to what managers expect of them. It is important that each employee has been clearly communicated about their duties and how they are expected to implement them. It is not uncommon to find confusion in this area. The supervisor expects the employee to perform such a task or fulfill such a role, but the employee does not do so because he is unaware that he is within the responsibilities of his position. At other times, functions of different employees overlap, generating internal conflicts due to not being clear to whom they really correspond.
2. Functional conflicts.
It is very common to find the employee "overworked". You do not have enough time to attend to all the clients, internal or external, that you owe. In turn, many times another employee is seen at the next desk with idle times, since his function requires much less workload.
It is necessary to level this workload and ensure that employees have adequate resources to serve all customers on time and in the manner intended to satisfy them. And it is important to do this not only on paper, theoretically, but to verify it in reality and contrast it with the employee, since many times the extra work comes from other interferences and unforeseen events that are not taken into account in "standard" time. of homework.
3. Mismatch between employees and their functions.
This mismatch can come from the moment the employee joins the organization, or later, when a new position or tasks are assigned. It is about making sure that the employee is trained for the tasks that must be performed. Often the deficiency arises because you do not have the sufficient budget to pay a salary according to the training of the required people, so you end up hiring someone who is under-qualified for the position.
It may also happen that, due to internal reorganization needs, an employee who is not prepared for the new position is prematurely promoted.
Adequate work should be done on career plans and the training required to implement them.
4. Mismatch between technology and functions.
Here we emphasize the resources employees need to complete tasks. The typical cause of customer dissatisfaction when they are told, "The system is down," and this implies that the service cannot be processed in any way.
The systems and resources that are available, are they sufficient? Are they adequate? Are they up-to-date? Are they well maintained?
5. Inadequate supervision and control systems.
The reality is that employees will do those things by which they are evaluated and ultimately determine their progress on the job. For this reason, there needs to be coherence between what is requested and how it is evaluated.
Employees are asked to work with quality, to serve customers well, but are they specifically measured by these factors? Are achievements in this regard recognized? Or is the number of clients served and the speed with which they continue to be measured?
6. Lack of perceived control.
It is about the autonomy with which employees can face problematic situations and resolve them with their own properly developed criteria. Are employees trained to deal with these situations? Are they clear which decisions they are allowed to make and which are not?
Many times the premise is to always consult your superior. This goes against the quality of the service they provide, since it hinders and slows down the provision.
It is also not recommended to give unlimited freedom, as there are situations that require higher level approvals.
The appropriate balance will be presented when the employee is clear about his level of autonomy, and is trained to act at that level.
7. Lack of sense of teamwork.
Teamwork is often the key to ensuring that a service is delivered with excellence. Not depend on a single employee, but on the coordination and collaboration of the rest of the organization.
But this decision must be made from the management levels, and it also requires training. We come from an individual work culture, where everyone is responsible for their results, and they are evaluated for it.
You must learn to work as a team. This change must be promoted. And here the middle managers are protagonists, those who deal daily with the work team.
If management promotes teamwork, but middle managers block it, their efforts are in vain.
Each of these points could be developed in a separate chapter, so I invite you to delve into the specific aspects that you have detected, through this general analysis, as your main opportunities for improvement.
