After Sales

I was pleasantly surprised by a recent Harvard Business Review article entitled “Winning in the Aftermarket.” The authors made a case for the large potential ROI on after-sales services and support.

Everybody has experienced poor after-sales service and support. I see this as an opportunity to establish a competitive advantage. The poorer the after-sales service and support in your industry or field, the bigger the opportunity.

This opportunity is not restricted to multi-national manufacturers, such as Caterpillar or John Deere. Small businesses and independent consultants can also use after-sales service and support as a competitive advantage.

The authors of the article correctly pointed out, “it’s cheaper for businesses to increase sales of parts and service-related products than to find new customers.” Are there opportunities here for your organization or your clients?

The HBR article goes on to say, you can “gain unique insight into your customers’ businesses” when you provide aftermarket support. Can you see competitive advantages here? In a highly competitive market, you want intimate knowledge of your customers’ needs.

As you know, many companies outsource after-sales service and support. That’s not necessarily bad. But, every organization should think about the outsourcing decision strategically. The organization should identify, based on its strategic plan, which products it will support in-house and which it will outsource. Cost should not be the sole criterion here.

The article offers “Six Steps for Managing Service Networks” and several other practice tools. To read more pick up a copy of the May 2006 edition of the Harvard Business Review.

For more strategies and tools to enhance organizational and individual effectiveness, visit my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Training, Learning, or Performance

Training in most organizations is better than it was when I began my career 30 years ago. But, most training still lacks the clear focus that it needs to deliver significant value.

In a recent article in “Chief Learning Officer” magazine, the author spoke about leading the transformation from training to learning. That is a step in the right direction, but it still fails to see the final destination.

Yes, learning is important. I have always been fascinated with how adults learn. (I have published many articles on the subject.)

But, if I may be blunt, senior executives do not care about training or learning. Senior executives only care about performance.

There are four distinct phases in training:

∙ needs assessment
∙ training design
∙ training implementation (conducting)
∙ training evaluation

It is important to keep in mind those senior management expectations about performance. Failure to understand those expectations is the reason for the low levels of perceived value of trainers.

So what’s a trainer to do?

First, during the needs assessment phase, the trainer must clearly define the strategic value of the training. The trainer must know how the training will help the organization implement its strategic plan. Clearly written training objectives should be determined. The following questions must be answered:

∙ What specific performance issues will be improved as a result of the training?
∙ What problem are we trying to fix?
∙ What opportunity are we trying to take advantage of?
∙ How do we answer the trainees’ question, “What’s in it for me?”

Second, during the training design phase, extensive discussions with line managers must determine how the new skills will be applied on the job. Opportunities to apply what has been learned should be available immediately after the training. (This work with the line supervisors is in addition to the designing on the training workshop itself.)

Third, during the conducting of the training, each training technique used must clearly demonstrate the relevance and importance of the new skills.

Fourth, during the evaluation phase, training results (actual on-the-job performance) must be compared to the written objectives.

As you can see, value-added training is a collaborative process. No matter how much the trainer knows about training, it’s not a one-man (or woman) job. Input from line managers (the subject matter experts) is critical.

All training and organizational learning must have strategic value. Does your training add strategic value?

For more tools and strategies about strategic training and organizational learning read my book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” which is available on my website www.mikebeitler.com. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions.