Help Your Team Measure Customer Experience Data More Accurately

Customer experience (CX) goes beyond measuring the relationship between customers and companies; it is also about quantifying the hundreds of regular interactions and residual memories that influence future behavior. Specific tools like journey mapping and touchpoint management are keys that employees can use to unlock the code for many in-store and in-person experiences. But it’s important for your team to understand the context in which data is being used to make company-wide decisions.

The balanced scorecard was initially popularized in the early 1990s as a way for companies to look at varying aspects of the business, from customer satisfaction, to financial well-being to operational outcomes, all in one simple read-out. It looks like this:

A shortcoming with the balanced scorecard is that it gives companies a “false sense of data.” When leaders have even small amounts of data, it can be easy to assume they know enough to make aggressive decisions, all based on information with sources they don’t control or fully understand. In some cases, a little data can be worse than having no data at all; it can invite hubris.

For example, customer satisfaction scores are influenced by population density — a factor which does not translate into balanced scorecards. Urban environments have peak-time “rushes” when higher volumes of people are all trying to do the same things. Someone entering a pharmacy in the heart of New York City during rush hour will unquestionably have longer-than-desired wait times. This increases both the “perceived wait time” and the likelihood of a negative experience.

Customer scores for stores like this could indicate that the locations need more attention, but they are also typically among the best performing, financially. The long lines frustrate customers, but also indicate that there is a lot of business happening.

A similar store in a part of the country where interactions have less time pressure may have higher scores, despite not performing as well for the company as its New York City counterpart. The reality is that balanced scorecards, as they were originally published, have the potential to punish some of the most economically-valuable businesses.

An “equitable scorecard” (sometimes called a “weighted scorecard”) is an established mathematical process which accounts for environmental and uncontrollable factors in customer experience scores. It can create a relative “pound for pound” benchmark for each individual location of a business, anywhere in the world.

When your team understands how to use equitable scorecard techniques, they’ll be able to calculate a more accurate score for any given location by accounting for variables like clientele composition, location, environment and other localized factors.

For example, a fast food restaurant might serve customers in five different ways:

A customer walks in, orders, waits, and takes their order out.
A customer walks in, orders, waits, and sits down at a table with their order.
A customer orders through the drive-through. The customer drives off and eats elsewhere.
A customer orders through the drive-through. The customer eats in their car in the parking lot.
A customer orders through an app or by phone, then picks up their order.

The needs of the customer and the job to be done by the restaurant in each of these instances are very different. Some value speed above all else. Others require good ambiance to enjoy their meal. Some want a clear and efficient layout of the location. These needs can vary widely from location to location and a single customer can have different needs at different times during the same visit.

So, when the exact same team serves the exact same food in the exact same three minutes, each customer segment will have different reactions. Those identical efforts may yield five very different customer satisfaction scores because expectation is a key determinant of experience.

Companies routinely find that locations rated low-performing by balanced scorecards are actually outperforming reasonable expectations after accounting for uncontrollable operating conditions. The reverse is sometimes also true, where high-scoring stores should, statistically, be performing at an even higher level. The result of equitable scorecarding is a true reflection of staff effort, engagement, efficiency, and efficacy.

When good store managers and employees come under increased scrutiny because of incomplete scorecard data, it can quickly decrease the overall sense of employee appreciation. This tends to increase turnover rates, compound unnecessary replacement costs, impacts business efforts because of additional ramp times and, ultimately, slows revenue growth.

Equitable scorecards measure performance based on expectations, eliminating the engagement-killing notion that people are quantified by decontextualized, inhumane numbers. By establishing reasonable benchmarks for each individual location, companies will also improve the allocations of time and money needed to help a business grow.

Creating a level playing field within a company establishes trust and motivates teams to drive for higher success. By measuring and accounting for uncontrollable factors, companies can promise management and staff that their work will be judged individually based on the cards they are dealt. Fair CX measurements lead to improved experiences, financial growth, and greater engagement, keeping both the customers and the company happy.