Pitfalls of CRM – the Case of Honda (Cars)

This weekend I found myself at the thin – receiving – end of a CRM customer satisfaction programme for Honda Motor Co. Now, that was not exactly surprising since I acquired a new ‘Honda Civic 1.8 Sport I-Shift’ some two months ago. On such an occasion, however, as a BI consultant I cannot help taking a professional stance and consider whether the questionnaire adequately measures what [I think] it should be designed to measure.

First, let me sketch the situation. My wife’s car suddenly quit in mid-May, and then she wanted to take over my VW Golf Tiptronic 6-12 months before planned and anticipated. For that to be possible, I would need to find another car at short notice. Now, being led by events and acting reactively rather than proactively, I did not want to commit myself for a very long time to some new car, I could not be sure would be just right for me. We like to buy new, or virtually new, cars and keep them for 10+ years, plus I enjoy a youngtimer 1995 Mercedes E220 (W124C) cabrio for sunshine driving. As it happened, the problem solved itself as quickly as it had appeared. I really, really like the design of the current Honda Civic, and just at the time Honda Denmark advertised a batch of leftover 2008 Hondas available for two-year leasing [hire-purchase] at very reasonable cost, manual and I-Shift automatics even being offered at the same price. In an MC accident in 1994, I lost almost half my left leg and now cannot operate a normal [in Europe] clutch for a stick shift. To lease a Civic I-Shift was a solution which was at the same time cautious and affordable and experimental and fashionable, considering how I-Shift can [optionally] be operated by hand from the steering wheel, and how car leasing is being discussed in [Danish] media as both modern and – in the right circumstances – economical. Furthermore, it is so fortunate and practical that although Honda dealerships are quite sparse, one small Honda dealer is situated just a little over 1 km from where we live. All in all, I had to go elsewhere to locate and try out a Civic I-Shift, but having done that, the acquisition of the car was really a formality associated with only minimal contact with the actual local dealer.

Now for the subject matter: How did I experience Honda’s CRM questionnaire?
On one hand, the questionnaire was brief, just 4 pages not very densely printed. It could easily be completed within 5 minutes. Credits to Honda for that! Working professionally with CRM and statistics, I also tend to oblige and answer more questionnaires than an average citizen, I think. Still, it is far from rare for me to decline, or simply break off, not being polite at any cost. I do that whenever I feel some company is transgressing either what is their reasonable interest in the subject matter, or my patience. And by experience, what is more often the critical point is clearly my patience rather than my privacy!
On the other hand, questionnaire focus was obviously the dealership rather than the car. The local Honda dealer being small and anything but sophisticated, there were few points I could reasonably award it. Now I feel just a little bad and sad about the whole thing. Perhaps my situation is a little special, but the questionnaire did nothing to disclose that. I required little, expected little, and got little from the dealer in connection with the deal.
But what I needed, I got, including a local point-of-service in the time to come. And location and distance was not even the subject of a CRM question, I had to make a separate note of it! – I just hope, Honda’s questionnaire is not “designed with a purpose” to provide a rationale for consolidating dealerships into a select few distant “temples of motoring” the way certain other makes have already done.

And the Civic is great, by the way. It is no Super car, of course, but a superb value for money proposition with a highly distinctive design plus some interesting features. I just hope, probably in vain, that when another Civic is released in a couple of years, it will not be a totally different design but retain a certain familiarity with its predecessor, as is usual by European car manufacturers.

Applied Microsoft Analysis Services 2005, by Teo Lachev

There are BI books - and then there are BI Books. In this posting I will name one from the latter category: ‘Applied Microsoft Analysis Services 2005, and the Microsoft Business Intelligence Platform’, by Teo Lachev. It is no easy read, and it is hardly possible to read cover to cover, - but it is the type of book which provides background and understanding rather than “only” quick fixes to immediate problems. It is the type of book one can always delve into and find a section to broaden ones understanding of some topic. Let me give just two examples:
(1) I used to wonder, now and then, whether plain dimensions or parent-child dimensions should be preferred when both was an option. I could not really get it right, since different cases flipped the coin to either side and neither choice was always quite satisfactory. Given the desire for conformity and parsimony in model formulation, it did not occur to me that both might be required for an optimal solution. Then I chanced upon part of a sentence in TL’s book (p.77) explaining that a [single] Parent-Child dimension may not be enough for every need. If that is fine with TL then it is fine with me! Now I no longer worry about that question. If I can satisfy myself that different needs are best served with different – but not duplicate – views of the same dimension, then I do not hesitate long to produce them.
(2) As a newcomer to MDX, I stumbled upon a problem where results consistently appeared to be twice what I knew them to be. Somehow I solved the problem without really understanding what had happened. My various MDX sources at the time did not seem to provide an explanation. Only later did I read TL (p.309) detailing a case where [Reseller].[Reseller].Members is twice that of [Reseller].[Reseller].[Reseller].Members, because the former includes the [All] member for a doubling of the actual value! - Quite simple really, once you think of it, but nowhere else have I found such an explanation of the most likely reason for spurious double-counting in MDX.
I’m sorry for a few days delay with this posting. Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog for the August mid-month posting!

What’s in a Word – the Catch ?!

If you try to google the phrase “Putting the I back in IT” you’ll get quite a few hits. In Denmark it has been employed extensively by major BI consultancy firm Platon A/S, and in 2005 they applied to have it as a trademark. Today, however, I do not see it on Platon’s homepage.
How can that be? Well, the I means, of course, Info[rmation], and that definitely should be part of IT. If it went missing, it would certainly need to be put back! But is that really where we want mission critical information to be? No, it is not! And should it be the goal for IT and BI to put it there? In all likelihood not!
Mission critical information derives from Business and should be collected and kept by IT, but that is not all. It should also be managed, made available and returned to Business as it is needed again later.
Can that mission for IT and BI be summed up as succinctly in a catchy phrase? I think it can! Try:
“IT - Serving the I back to Business to a T”!
(The phrase is absolutely open source, un-patented and un-trademarked. See also www.designedtoaT.com/.)
Stay tuned here at morlin’s BI blog for a longer and more technical posting tomorrow!