ARCHIVE FOR THE ‘blumberg-advisory’ CATEGORY

Michael Blumberg, President, Blumberg Advisory Group and founder of Field Service Insights outlines how service organisations are overlooking the fundamental difference between a customer not seeing value in a service offering and a customer objecting to price and explains why understanding these are two very different things can open up a world of increased revenue streams...

Field Service Executives often face challenges when it comes to generating additional service revenue for their companies.

They often face resistance from customers as evidenced by low contract attachment rates. The natural tendency is to blame the price as the reasons why customers aren’t purchasing more services contracts.

After all, this is the feedback they received from their sales teams and from the customers.

Being logical and rational business people, field service executives try to solve the problem by lowering the price, after all, if the customer says that the price is too high, it must be the reason why they are not buying, right?

To quote, the popular song by George and Ira Gershwin, “It ain’t necessarily so!”. While price may be a factor in the purchase decision, seldom is price the only reason why customers don’t purchase service contracts.

In market research studies that I have conducted for clients in a wide array of technology service markets, I have found that price is often low on the list of criteria that end-users consider when selecting and evaluating service providers. Criteria such as quality of service, knowledge and skill of service personnel, breadth of service offering, and vendor’s knowledge of their business are perceived by customers to have higher importance than price alone.

The truth is “your price is too high” will always be an objection that customers provide when they cannot justify the value of a service contract. The truth is “your price is too high” will always be an objection that customers provide when they cannot justify the value of a service contract.

This is because they have no way of logically defending the value of the service being purchased. Stated another way; they are not able to differentiate the benefits of service contracts from time and materials service. The problem is that Field Service Organizations (FSOs) often attempt to sell service contracts without providing justification about why a service contract is better than simply paying for service on a time and materials basis.

A common saying among sales professionals is that customers buy emotionally and then defend their purchases logically. All too often, FSOs provide little emotional reason why a customer should purchase as service contract as opposed to T & M and even less logical supporting evidence about why a service contract is more valuable.

To achieve high attachment rates, FSOs must be able to articulate the value of their service offerings to customers as well as to their own salespeople. The value proposition must impact customers’ emotionally by addressing their fears, worries, doubts, and concerns about the impact of service or the lack thereof on their operations.

For example, fear of excessive equipment downtime, lost revenue, low machine utilization levels, or the possibility of quality defects. Of course, the FSO needs to provide logical supporting evidence why their service offering will eliminate these issues.

FSOs achieve this results by articulating, either through a sales conversation or marketing collateral, what’s included in a service contract that is not included in time & materials. This requires they do an effective job in defining the coverage, entitlements and resources available to the customer through a service contract.

Ultimately, FSOs must be able to help customers defend their purchase of service contracts. They must be able to answer the customer primary question “What’s in it for me?”. If the only difference between a service contract and time & materials is that the customer can prepay for service, then there is no emotional value or logical contrast. However, if the service contract provides a preferred level of service (e.g., 4-hour response time, 99.9% uptime guarantee, 7 by 24-hour coverage, parts, etc.) or preferred price structure then the customer is presented with some real value and contrast.

Ultimately, FSOs must be able to help customers defend their purchase of service contracts. They do this by offering more value in a service contract than the customer could possibly receive through time and materials services.

Of course, the best way win over customers is by being honest and letting them know exactly how service contracts enable you, the service provider, to provide a better level of service.

Fundamentally, FSOs can deliver better service to customers under contract.

This is because the contacts provide data about the installed base and service demand requirements. As a result, FSOS can anticipate service events and be more effective at planning and allocating service resources. This, in turn, makes it possible for FSOs to provide a guaranteed level of service to their customers.

Honesty is always the best policy especially when it is supported by a guaranty and exceptional service!

Be social and share

Michael Blumberg, President Blumberg Advisory Group gives us some insight into his recent conversations at Field Service Fall in Florida last month, where Augmented Reality was once again one of the hot topics of the conference...

I recently attended WBR’s Field Service Fall 2017 conference in Amelia Island, Florida where there was a lot of buzz among participants about Augmented Reality and Virtual Telepresence. Many industry experts, observers, and practitioners believe that these technologies will have a dramatic impact on field service delivery in terms of shortening resolution times, improving first time fix rate, and reducing travel costs.

In my discussions with conference attendees, I concluded that Field service leaders face several challenges when it comes to making investments in modern technologies like Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR). One obvious challenge lies in determining whether the investment is currently a priority.

To answer this question, they need to have a clear understanding about what problems they are trying to solve and what results they are trying to achieve through it.

The best way to answer these questions is to develop a use-case justification based on the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are improved through the deployment of these technologies.

The second biggest challenge has to with the confusion that exists among field service leaders with regard to alternative and/or competing platforms, for example, AR versus VR. . By definition, VR offers a digital recreation of a real life (or fantasy world) setting, while AR delivers virtual elements as an overlay to the real world. There is also Mixed Reality (MR) where we see a merging of real and virtual worlds to produce a new environment and visual image where physical and digital objects co-exist and interact in real time.

These platforms involve different levels of investment, time, and complexity to implement. AR is typically the least expensive and fastest platform to implement.

Many AR solutions that are available on the market today can be developed, implemented and rolled out rapidly. In contrast, VR and MR platforms often require extensive programming, development, and integration before they can be rolled out to the field.

 

On the other hand, VR and MR provide a more feature-rich environment and visual experience than AR. For example, AR/MR can overlay 3-D digital twins of a sub-assembly and generate animated repair procedures as well as virtual dashboards of machine performance.

A significant investment is required to implement this type of platform and these investments often require input from various internal stakeholders including engineering, sales, marketing, manufacturing, and finance. For some OEMs or other service providers it may be cost-prohibitive to retro-fit their existing installed base with this type of technology.

A common misconception is that wearable glasses must be incorporated into an AR or VR solution. These devices may not be practical or ergonomically suited for the task at hand. However, this is just one component of the platform so all hardware and software needs must be considered with each solution. Other viewing devices, such as a smart phone or tablet, can be used to generate a remote, collaborative experience.

Many field service leaders are taking a wait-and-see attitude to implementing AR/VR/MR in hopes that costs will decrease and better versions will be available in the future. So why not wait? Field service leaders must remember that time-to-market is everything. FSOs that wait too long to take advantage of this technology may lose their competitive advantage and market share.

Once field service leaders decide on a course of action here is how to get started: The optimal approach, one that will guarantee early success, is to select a mature AR solution that can be rolled out with minimum upfront programming, software development, and systems integration.

FSOs are also advised not be overly concerned with developing an exhaustive list of feature functionality that can be included in their AR solution.

This is because AR features are continuously evolving, and too much planning into an unknown future will slow down the evaluation and selection process. Most AR solutions are available through an On-Demand model, which means new enhancements will be available as part of the subscription.

 

Lastly, FSOs are urged to demo and pilot, yes, pilot products from multiple vendors. Unlike enterprise software or mobility applications, an FSO can run multiple pilot projects with limited upfront investment in time or capital.

When it comes to selecting an AR vendor, remember that AR is a part of a broader digital transformation impacting the company.

Choose an AR partner who will work with existing IT platforms and overall strategy and can provide guidance in how to best integrate their solution. FSOs are advised to consider the following criteria:

• Sensitivity to customer’s needs – In other words, select a vendor that understands that AR is still a relatively new technology and that education and some amount of “hand-holding” is required to ensure a successful pilot and/or implementation.
• Flexibility – Vendors create win/win situations by providing their customers with flexibility. The two most critical areas where flexibility wins are business-model and software requirements. Flexible vendors offer alternative pricing methods and flexible software-feature options.
• Knowledge of best practices – This refers more specifically to best practices around change management and adoption and usage.
• Ability to integrate AR platform with ERP solutions – This will enable FSOs to store and retrieve remote sessions with dispatch work orders.
• Products that can operate in a low-bandwidth communication environment – This will facilitate the ability of FSOs to use AR in remote geographic areas.

Selecting an AR solution based on these criteria will help ensure successful results.

 

---

 

Be social and share

Within the last twelve months we have seen a sudden rush of Merger and Acquisition activities within the field service sector with many major brands including ServiceMax, ClickSoftware and most recently ServicePower all being acquired. So why has the field service sector suddenly become such a hotbed for investment and what does it mean for the innovation in our industry?

Kris Oldland, Editor-in-Chief, Field Service News reports...

I’ve referred to field service as a sector at times as a ghost sector because despite field service impacting almost everyone, and it crossing across almost all verticals outside those who work within our horizontal sector the role of field service management and certainly the tools that those in this field use are relatively unknown.

Yet, it seems that over the last few years someone, somewhere has certainly started paying attention.

Of course, the growing trend within global manufacturing circles towards embracing servitization has put service front and centre whilst various projected estimates of the value of the Global FSM market ranging from $5BN to $25BN will of course be flagged up on the radars of money men, and it certainly seems that the field service sector has come under more of a spot light than it has in its recent past.

“This is occurring for several reasons,” explains Michael Blumberg, President of the Blumberg Advisory Group, when I asked him why it seemed Field Service Management providers had recently become hot targets for prospective investment.”

“First, field service businesses tend to be less susceptible to changes in the economy. During an economic down turn, new equipment sales decline but customers still purchase field services to extend the life of their equipment. In an upturn, companies continue to require field services to support investments in new technology.”

 

“Second, field service businesses often generate a recurring revenue stream (e.g., service contracts) which is also something that is very attractive to investors and also field service providers often hold a defensible market position because of their long-term relationship with customers and unique capabilities.”

“When a company acquires a field service provider they also acquire its customer base which provides a captive market for cross-selling and up-selling additional products and services.”

“Finally and most importantly, field service is usually a basic offering and building block in delivering a subscription based, product-service model (think Servitization) to customers.”

With so many key reasons why field service solution providers are an attractive proposition isn’t the recent run of acquisitions somewhat overdue?

Bill Pollock, President of Strategies for GrowthSM, certainly thinks so.

“It should have happened years ago!” He proclaims when I put this question to him.

“However, the acquiring organisations seemed to have other priorities in mind with respect to broadening and strengthening their existing offerings, and tailoring them to a more narrowing-defined market space.”

“For example, CRM vendors tended to focus more on expanding the functionality of their respective CRM platforms, while ERP vendors tended to do the same with theirs. Remember, there were days, way back when – when a Field Service Management (FSM) solution provided only the functionality required to run a services operation – but not a services business (i.e., no accounts payable/billable or accounting functionality; no reverse logistics; no human resources; etc.). In those days past, a services business would also need to acquire ancillary software packages (e.g., anyone remember Peachtree Software?) in order to manage the entire services business.”

 

“It’s a bit different today. As more and more software providers expand their offerings to run the entire business, they now market themselves as offering a “new” type of platform for doing so.”

“In general, it will be those organisations that move into (or buy into) the field services arena – for all the right reasons – that are most likely to be successful. That is, if a field service functionality makes sense as a logical extension of their existing offerings, then they will be more likely to succeed.

However, those that attempt to “ram their way” into what is already a fast growing and vibrant market sector, some without even having a complete FSM offering, will find themselves “busted” in the eyes of their targeted market base.”

Meanwhile, Sara Mueller, Field Service Portfolio Director, Worldwide Business Research believes that the fact that service has increasingly become a key battleground for competing companies is another key reason why the FSM sector as a whole is gaining more and more attention.

“Since many products have become largely commoditised, service is the competitive differentiator for organisations.” She begins.

“Therefore they are willing to invest in making service better. Technology is dramatically shifting the performance of service organisations, allowing them to grow exponentially, provide a more seamless experience that results in higher customer satisfaction, and even generate much higher profitability.”

 

“While technicians are an integral part of field service, technology solutions are necessary to minimise human error, capture the knowledge of and account for the retiring baby boomer generation of head technicians, even to keep technicians safer on the job.”

Mueller’s point however does perhaps reveal a potential double-edged sword.

Innovation in technology and service delivery have become wonderfully entangled within the last decade - which is why many companies have been able to move towards outcome based contracts, and why service is beginning to outgrow the ‘aftermarket’ tag and become a key revenue stream now being discussed much more seriously amongst the C-Suite.

This is of course a fundamental reason why our FSM solution providers have become such attractive investment options. However, could the very innovation that put the sector on the map dry up when independent, entrepreneurial tech companies get swallowed up by larger organisations?

Pollock certainly doesn’t think that we need to worry about the level of technology available to field service organisations failing to meet requirements at any point in the near future however.

“The currently available technology, coupled with newer technology that always seems to be lurking “just around the corner”, is already sufficient to meet (and exceed) all of the FSO’s requirements for managing their field service operations – and then some! It’s already here!” He comments.

“As such, the global services market is not likely to experience a plateau in terms of recognition, adoption and/or deployment of these new technological advances anytime soon. In fact, as the proliferation of technology appears to be eclipsing adoption by the marketplace, there is no plateau in sight. There is still a “mountain of growth” ready to be conquered!”

 

“This accelerating growth is likely to bring more FSM provider suitors to the forefront rather than less. For example, three or four years ago, how many field service managers thought that Microsoft would acquire itself into the fray? Many industry analysts missed the signs that Oracle was about to acquire TOA Technologies. However, with several major players already having acquired, licensed and/or organically entered the field services market, the question arises: Who will be next?

On the demand side, where has Apple been? What about SAP? What about any of the large, global, systems integrators? On the supply side, what, if anything, will ultimately happen with ClickSoftware? What about the “tried and true” historical vendors, like Astea? And what about all of those Venture Capital and investment firms that seem to be gobbling up one FSM vendor after another?”

Indeed, Mueller’s view also supports the assertion that the current technology is certainly sufficient to meet the growing needs of service delivery.

“The field service management technology today can accomplish remarkable results and drive business transformation. But service organisations are at widely varying degrees of adoption and sophistication, and are looking for more diversity in solution offerings in order to find the right choice for their priorities and budgets.”

However, she also sees the innovation at the heart of our industry as a key driver for continued technological innovation as well adding, “Just as customer needs keep evolving, FSM solutions will need to do so as well.”

And this latter point is also echoed by Blumberg.

“Sure, it is possible that innovation may become less of a priority as FSM vendors become part of larger software companies. However, there will always be lean, nimble, start-up companies focused on FSM that drive innovation and fill any void created by M & A.” He asserts.

 

“I’ve been a consultant to the Field Service Industry for over 25 year and have experienced several M & A cycles, and this is exactly what has happened. It is also very unlikely that innovation will plateau even within larger software companies who have acquired FSM solutions. To quote management guru Peter Drucker, business has only two functions… innovation and marketing.

This a basic tenant of business. Without innovation, companies lose their relevancy and competitive edge.”

So whilst the consensus is that the current M&A cycle won’t lead to any halt in the ongoing development of technology to support field service, one message does seem to be coming out of each of the field service providers acquired and that is reference to the future of FSM solutions being part of wider platforms.

But how far will the FSM platform go? Will we ultimately see FSM become as integral to business systems as ERP and CRM?

Mueller for one believes that this is where the future lies.

“It can be as integral to business as ERP and CRM systems.” She comments

“Given that service is a competitive differentiator for these organisations, FSM platforms are essential to provide the level of service now being expected from customers. The experience a customer receives through field service is often how they will shape their opinion of the product and whether they will buy again. Field service is the front line of the organisation and FSM ensures the experience with field service is ideal.”

Pollock, however, disagrees.

“For the time being, FSM will likely remain subservient, in most cases, to CRM and ERP,” he comments.

 

“The difference between an FSM solution and an FSM platform is that the former is essentially used to run the services operations, while the latter is used to run the entire business. As far as marketing and market positioning go, doesn’t “platform” sound more important than “solution”, anyway?”

“CRM-based solution providers have long touted their products as full “platforms” that may be used to run an entire business; ERP-based solution providers have essentially marketed their offerings in the same manner. By incorporating an FSM solution into their respective offerings, they can now all claim (and, probably, rightfully so) that their offerings represent a complete (or near-complete) platform upon which future services functionalities can be built – whether strictly in support of field service operations, or any other business activity.”

“However, it is not necessarily a “slam-dunk” that FSM will become as integral to business systems as ERP and CRM, as not all businesses have field service offerings – while all have (or should have) an ERP and/or ERP capability.

Further, as remote and predictive diagnostics, powered by the Internet of Things (IoT) and Augmented Reality (AR), make further footholds in the general services arena, running a field service operation may become more important, while become less cumbersome to run (and, as such, more likely to be outsourced, possibly, to a third party).” Pollock concludes.

“FSM software is already an integral part of business systems among those companies that operate Field Service as either a strategic line of business or a profit centre. And there’s the rub, many companies that service products do not have requirements for FSM functionality.” comments Blumberg.

“For example, some provide only depot repair or outsource their service requirements to 3rd parties. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that there are no fully integrated, end to end FSM platforms on the market today that include the complete array of functionality for managing a Field Service Organisations (FSO).”

 

“If an FSO wants to implement such as solution, they often must deploy multiple enterprise systems and point solutions from different vendors. In addition, FSM functionality usually needs to interface with other enterprise system platforms such as CRM, ERP, and most recently IoT to obtain critical data to complete the service transactions,” he adds before summarising.

“On the other hand, I certainly see a need in the market for standalone, functional robust FSM platforms. In fact, I have been advising both private equity groups (PE) and software developers for the last 20 years to make investments that achieve this outcome. Unfortunately, given market dynamics, capital requirements, and technology considerations, it unlikely that PE or software developers will invest the necessary resources to create such a platform.”

“Therefore, it is likely that FSM functionality will continue to remain an add -on purchase to existing enterprise systems.”

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature

Michael Blumberg, President of Blumberg Advisory Group gives us an insiders view of how to ensure our customers understand the true value of extended warranties and service contracts...

Warranty Attachment and Renewal rates are Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that measure how successful a company is in marketing and selling extended warranties and extended service programs. Ideally, a company would want to achieve attachment rate of 50% or higher and renewal rates of 75% or better. This is considered best in class performance.

Only a small percentage of companies have been able to achieve these targets.

Key findings from Blumberg Advisory Group’s recent survey on extended warranty benchmarks and best practices indicate that only 30% of companies have achieved attachment rates of 50% or more. In fact, 16.7% have achieved attachment rates of 70% or better. While the majority (59.5%) of companies experience renewal rates of 75% or more, only 22.5% have achieved renewal rates greater than 90%.

There are several best practices that companies can pursue to achieve best in class performance on KPIs related to marketing and selling extended warranties and extended service program. Most significantly, service portfolio design plays a critical role in influencing attachment and renewal rates. The truth is that customers will purchase these programs if they feel that they will effectively meet their needs. That’s’ why it is important to specify what’s included in the program from the perspective of features, resources, and coverage.

 

It important to include both basic and value-added services as part of the program. The more extensive and focused the services, the more likely the customers will be to buy. Nearly all the companies surveyed (93.2%) provide basic corrective failure as part of their program. Only 50.4% include preventative maintenance. Less than 40% offer a broader array of value added services such as calibration, inspection, recalls, and disaster recovery as part of the portfolio.

Indicating the level of service commitment, the customer can expect to receive is also important when it comes to selling extended warranty and extended service programs. Only 58.1% of companies have defined onsite response times as part of their programs, 39.3% specify parts delivery times, 29.9% and 31.6% respectively commit to the repair time and remote resolution times, and 15.0% will provide a loaner unit if repair time target is not met.

The way in which these programs are promoted can also impacts KPIs. Most companies surveyed rely on direct mail (74.8%) and brochures (68.0%) to sell extended warranty and extended service programs. Most respondents (58.5%) indicate that direct sales have been very effective when it comes to impacting attachment rates while only 26.6% believe that brochures are as effective. Interestingly, survey respondents agree that other tactics are just as effective. For example, 50% of respondents indicate that endorsements and testimonials are very effective as is reputation management (49.1%), telemarketing (32.0%) and public relations (28.9%).

 

Frequency of communication is also a critical driver when it comes to influencing attachment and renewal rates. Almost half (49%) of respondents indicate that they sell extended warranty and extended service programs any time after the original product sale which means the capture revenue at any point in time during the product’s lifecycle.

Only 28.0% notify customers 90 days or more in advance of when their programs are up for renewal and 36.0% provide more than 3 notifications that there contracts are about to expire. More importantly, most (60%) respondents upsell their programs during the warranty entitlement process.

As result, they experience incremental improvements in attachment rates; 36.5% indicate they have experienced a 10% to 25% improvement and 20.1% have experienced a 26% to 50% improvement from pursuing this tactic. In summary, the survey findings suggest that best in class companies follow a structure and disciplined approach to marketing and selling extended warranties and service programs. They do not view sales of these programs as a one-time even to be made only at the product point of sale. Indeed, they sell beyond the original point of purchase and align attachment and renewals with the customer entitlement process.

 

Furthermore, they promote their programs through a wide array of marketing communications tactics and rely on frequent and timely communication to get their message across. Most importantly, they ensure their programs are designed to meet the needs of their customer and are very specific about what the customer can expect to receive in terms of service feature, resources, and coverage.

 

---

 

Be social and share this feature