There is an interesting article in the April 2008 Harvard Business Review about how to be a successful services company, and one of the examples they talk about is Progressive Insurance. They talk about the two features of Progressive which are most distinctive and visible - their white vans, and how they list competitor’s rates alongside their own. As the article describes:

When someone insured by Progressive is involved in an auto accident, the company immediately sends out a van to assist that person and to assess the damage on the spot… Customers love this level of responsiveness and give the company high marks for service.

But customers are very price sensitive about auto insurance and so would not pay more for this service in their monthly premiums. So why does Progressive do it? Because it cuts down on fraud. Turns out most insurance fraud happens when people make claims on accidents that never happened or which were staged. This results in expensive legal costs. By dispatching a representative to the scene immediately, Progressive helps prevent this type of fraud, and even discourages it pre-emptively because people will expect a representative to show up and therefore not even attempt fraud.

 

It’s not that Progressive is determined to go one better than rivals to win the business. In fact, Progressive’s is the lowest quote only about half the time. What Progressive does believe is that is quote is the right one given the probability of that person’s getting into an accident - a probability that the insurer is best in class at determining. If indeed its quote is spot-on, then allowing a competitor to insure the customer at a lower rate is doubly effective: It frees Progressive from a money-losing propoition while burdening its competitor with the unprofitable account. Thus a level of service that looks downright altruistic to the customer actually benefits the company.

In other words, potential customers self-select not to use Progressive, but still come away feeling impressed by Progressive’s service and trustworthyness. If at some point in the future when their driving record has improved they may return to Progressive’s site and see that their price has improved, and potentially switch. So it’s a win-win for Progressive and buyers, only Progressive’s competitors lose. The perfect scenario!

In honor of Earth Day, here’s a presentation I did a few weeks ago Design Green Now in Washington. This is the slide deck I used to introduce myself and frog for ten minutes or so before the panel discussion itself. It misses quite a bit without the talk over, but you’ll get the general idea!

If you view it on Slideshare, you can see a full screen version.

I believe we are about to see the birth of a new business organization - one that is optimized for complex systems of problems and solutions, rather than based on silos focused on specific functions, and which treats user experience as a core organizational axis rather than a meddlesome add-on. Call it Org Chart 2.0.

Today’s companies are largely structured with Org Chart 1.0: silos of knowledge and product offerings (segmented by customer type, price point, technology, etc.). We have had this structure for decades, even centuries, and there are good reasons for it: it helps drive efficiency of development and decision-making, focus on customer segments and competitors, it makes the chain of command and (in theory) accountability clear, and so on.

Unfortunately this type of organizational structure is quite poor at dealing with complex systems and systemic-level problems. And this is becoming increasingly untenable for several reasons:

1. User experience design challenges the ability of organizations to cross silos: user experiences run rough-shod over org charts. Why? Because many elements go into making a user experience that from the user’s point of view should all be seamless and to an extent indistinguishable. Users don’t really care if the e-commerce portion of your website is created by a different group than the informational areas of the site, and from a brand point of view you should be ensuring that both areas of your site speak with the same brand voice. Now multiply that across your products (hardware, software), collateral, packaging and out-of-box experience, call-center, point-of-sale displays and materials, sales staff, and so on. That’s how user experience gets created.
2. Companies now need to deliver whole “solutions” rather than old-fashioned products. User experience design is just one example of this. More and more companies must pull together complex networks of partners, acquisitions and vendors in order to create and sell these solutions. No-one today is as vertically integrated as Henry Ford’s River Rouge manufacturing plant, where iron ore came in at one end and finished cars went out the other. Being nimble, global and adaptive in hyper-competitive and dynamic markets has forced dis-aggregation of capabilities and resources.
3. Customers are more complex than they used to be (or more likely it’s simply that our old models of market segments and personas did not allow for human nature and its self-contradictions). This makes understanding them and addressing them with offerings more nuanced and multi-faceted. A one-size-fits-all shrink-wrapped product on the shelf at Best Buy or Walmart is not going to cut it any more.

The strain is showing on the traditional silo’d organizational structure. I believe we will soon see the emergence of new companies formed in this environment and they will look quite different than what we have seen for the last decades. For these companies, thinking systemically and about user experience will be as natural as breathing. They will treat complex systems as inherent to their structure and creators of value, rather than as headaches to be avoided and territories to be fought over by silo’d clans.

What could a Business Organization 2.0 look like?

Instead of business units these companies will have “experience units”, which manage the end to end experience. Instead of focusing on products and technologies, they will be focused on the “invisible” system that connects the various products and customer touchpoints together. They will welcome outside vendors and partners as enablers rather than disdaining them as “not invented here”, and see themselves as being modular entities that can fluidly adapt to chaning market dynamics and customer needs. Customer input will be voraciously sought after and taken in, and customer participation in shaping the company and its offerings will be routine rather than the exception.

I’m sure there are many time-honored and well-established reasons why these things don’t make sense, and why Org Chart 1.0 is better. But the fact is that the world is changing and we need to think about new business organizational structures to adapt.

So what do you think? Are there any companies you see emerging that have these traits?

I’m heading off to Barcelona today for a week, which I’m looking forward to as I’ve never been there. Myself and another frog colleague will be helping run a workshop with IESE, the well-known European business school, for one of their clients. Should be a lot of fun. I’m hoping I’ll have a bit of time to enjoy the city too, and if any of my readers live there, drop me a line through the email box at left, would be great to try and connect. I’m going to hit the Gaudi cathedral, Las Ramblas and the market, and will probably wander in general around the central part of town and the water. Any can’t-miss things I should try to check out?

Isn’t it interesting that in the latest airline quality rankings the top three spots were taken by low-cost carriers? JetBlue, Southwest and AirTran ranked the best while overall the industry had its worst ratings in twenty years.

Just goes to show that providing a leading user experience does not have to mean premium price. All three are relative start-ups compared to the likes of United and American, and they have been able to structure themselves (and therefore their) costs based on lessons learned from the older airlines.

Nevertheless, with issues like number of passengers bumped per flight, amount of baggage lost, and late flights that the survey measured, it’s hard to see how these three airlines would have intrinsic benefits over their older competitors.

There is also a more intangible difference between JetBlue and Southwest compared to most other carriers: the atmosphere on the ground and the plane that emanates from the staff. It is more relaxed, more can-do, more enjoyable. One can always find one-off examples at other airlines, of course, but the widespread nature of it at these two airlines (I have not flown AirTran recently so cannot comment) makes it clear there is systemic approach to managing and encouraging this atmosphere.

(And neither Southwest or JetBlue are perfect: JetBlue had its famed debaucle with passengers stranded for hours on runways in snow conditions, and Southwest is currently not looking so good with questionable maintenance practices. If you raise the user experience bar high, the punishment is extra hard if you fail to meet it consistently.)

People often think of good user experiences as uncontrollable black magic. Nothing could be further from the truth, as JetBlue, Southwest and AirTran show: even in a highly cost-sensitive industry there is room to make it a competitive differentiator. And not just for premium brands.