Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/292560
10 | 11th - 17th April 2014 | UtilitY WEEK Research Improving customer centricity Wipro and Utility Week asked respondents which areas within their companies are most in need of attention if customer centricity is to improve. Two stand-out needs emerged: busi- ness process improvement and technology improvement. This indicates that utilities understand that technology enablers sit at the heart of any plans to upgrade, but that better processes are also important. Information and data improvement was ranked third, with the "soer" issues of corporate culture and staff training ranked fourth and fih. Executive sponsorship needs least attention, respondents said. In line with these findings, respondents said their main priorities for investment were in optimising business processes and IT. Again, the soer side of the industry – staff training and recruitment – was considered in less need of investment. So while utilities clearly appreciate mak- ing customers the focus of their business is a task that goes well beyond the purchase of new IT systems, nevertheless there is a clear message that technology is a vital enabler. And that at present, current systems are sim- ply not up to the job in many instances. We asked respondents to rank 1-5 (5 help- ful) to what extent existing IT systems helped them be responsive to customer needs. There was clear acknowledgement that the situa- tion could be a lot better. Not a single utility ranked their IT at an extremely helpful 5 out of 5; the overall score was a just-above-mid- way 2.8 out of 5. The water sector was least positive about its IT capabilities. Reflecting earlier comment that opera- tional business areas such as field opera- tions and emergency response are more customer centric than retail-orientated areas, respondents said the IT applications that needed most improvement were those that are directly customer facing. Respondents were also asked to rate a number of areas concerning staffing and corporate culture on a scale of 1-5 in terms of how much more attention and invest- ment they required to help boost customer centricity. They said board level leadership needed least attention. The two areas that emerged as needing most attention were recruitment and staff empowerment. Conclusions and messages There are many positive conclusions to draw from this research. Those running the UK's utilities say they are interested in custom- ers and are working towards building busi- nesses with customers in mind. Ninety per cent said the importance of customer cen- tricity had increased over the past five years, and all intended to make their firms more customer centric by 2015. There is evidence of over-optimism about future prospects, but also clear recognition wHErE do you plaN to iNvEst iN ordEr to improvE customEr cENtricity? plEasE raNk tHE followiNg, witH tHE largEst iNvEstmENts towards tHE top. area of investment average water Electricity gas rank Information technology 1.7 2.0 1.5 1.0 Optimising business processes 2.2 1.6 3.0 3.5 Staff training 3.1 3.1 2.5 3.5 People selection 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.6 Restructuring around customer centricity 4.2 4.4 4.0 3.5 wHicH of tHE followiNg busiNEss arEas compEtE most witH customEr cENtricity for priority? plEasE raNk tHE followiNg, witH tHE arEas tHat compEtE tHE most towards tHE top. wHicH of tHE followiNg arEas witHiN your compaNy arE most iN NEEd of attENtioN to improvE customEr cENtricity? plEasE raNk tHE followiNg, witH tHE arEas tHat arE most iN NEEd towards tHE top. Financial constraints eg business plan Business operations Regulatory demands Government demands Investor demands EU policy/directives Business processes Technology Information/data Corporate culture Staff training/contact centres Executive sponsorship 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th average rank 2.2 47% 32% 11% 11% 11% 11% 26% 26% 16% 5% 21% 21% 21% 21% 26% 21% 5% 5% 11% 5% 16% 16% 16% 16% 26% 16% 16% 11% 16% 5% 32% 37% 26% 2.6 3.4 3.9 4.2 4.7 average rank 2.3 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.0 5.3 31% 38% 8% 15% 8% 8% 8% 23% 62% 15% 23% 23% 31% 23% 23% 15% 46% 23% 31% 8% 8% 15% 8% 8% 15% 15% 38% 8% 16% 8%