Day 2 1135 - 1220 - pearl 1 - avinash kumar

1

Optimizing Client Expectations

in Delivering Certainty

Avinash Kumar

28 September, 2013

2Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

Agenda

Introduction

Expectation, Performance and Outcome

Client Expectation Framework

Client Outlook

Provider’s Positioning

Execution Quality

Applying the Framework

Sample Case Study

3

Introduction

• Client expectations are a critical component of project delivery

• Industry has ad-hoc and inconsistent practices to manage client

expectations

• Expectations are driven by the client’s need, opportunity costs,

choice of technology and provider’s posturing relative to their

ability

This paper presents a framework to measure and manage

client expectations

Optimizing Client Expectation in Delivering Certainty

4

Client Expectation, Performance and Outcome


Scenario Expectation Key Metrics

Implementation of

COTS product

Seek Minimal user

interaction

Customization Effort

No of change requests

Time to Implement

Proven Track

record of the

Provider

Bring Industry

Best Practices and

Lessons Learnt

On-boarding time

Team Size

Compliance

Project

Zero Variance in

outcome

Time to Market

Most Project Management KPIs only measure Performance, Outcome and

Client Satisfaction.

Client Satisfaction = Client Expectation

No of supporters in Client Organization

Degree of Convergence on requirements –

across Users

No of Re-Usable Components and Solution

Accelerators being leveraged

Marginal Cost of Change Requests

No of High Impact components on account of

the Regulation

Most Project KPIs are Post Delivery Metrics.

Client Expectation Metrics are designed prior to Delivery

5

Expectation and Tolerance

1. Client Expectation is a factor of Provider’s Perceived Capability and its Past Performance

2. The actual performance further defines the “Perceived Capability” as also the Zone of Tolerance (Difference between Desirable and Acceptable Service Level - Parasuraman)


Client Need

Minimum

Nice to Have

Delightful

Best of Breed

Current

Requirement

A

B

C

D

Perceived Capability

of Provider

Client Expectation

Minimum Outcome

Desirable Outcome

AC D

B

Zone of Tolerance

Over Performance*

Under Performance*

*: Performance may be in Qualification stage, as

endorsed by a Reference or in prior experienceA has maximum resilience

D has the highest perceived capability

B could be the Provider of Choice

6

Quantifying Client Expectation

Managing Client Expectation requires managing control and tolerance

around variance in performance .(Poiesz and Bloemer)

These can be quantified by developing a Client Expectation Ratio (CE-Ratio)

as a measure of:

Client Perception – measured by Client Outlook Score (COS)

Provider Posturing – measured by Provider Role Ratio (PRR)

Provider Performance – measured by Execution Quality Score (EQ)

That is to say,

CE-Ratio = (COS, PRR, EQ)


7

Client Expectation Framework

The suggested framework uses a combination of Quantitative as well as

Qualitative Analysis, while developing the Client Expectation ratio (CE-Ratio)

A guidance score that measures

the expectation of a client on key dimensions like

Client Outlook Score (COS) Provider Role ratio (PRR)

Execution Quality (EQ)

List of Environmental Attributes that fine tune the findings from the Quantitative analysis such as

Competitive landscape Regulatory Requirements

Opportunity Costs Industry benchmarks Communication

Qualitative AnalysisQuantitative Analysis

The Quantitative Analysis will provide a good guidance towards the Client Expectation

while the Qualitative Analysis will discover its relevance for the client


8

Client Outlook Score (COS)

COS reflects the client’s ability to delegate control to the provider and vest a larger

degree of tolerance to variance in outcome.

Drivers Risks Impact

•Compliance

•Competition

•Efficiency

•Excellence

•Reputation

•Legal

•Financial

•Operational

•User

•End-client

•Public at large

•Regulator

Fig 3: Determinants of Client’s Outlook

Involvement

•Early

•Frequent

•Need Based

•Tardy

Choices

•Technology

• Solution

•Provider

•Deployment

Example

1. The expectation for a project driven by regulation is quite different from the one driven by

efficiency or profitability.

2. Projects that impact the client’s client or public at large influence client expectations altogether

differently than those that impact only internal users.


A Higher COS implies a higher acceptance by the client

for the diversity in project execution

9

Provider Role Ratio (PRR)

Appropriate Provider Positioning

• Instills trust in the client

• Helps in calibrating client

expectation

• Maps the role undertaken by the

provider relative to the current

problem statement and the

provider’s perceived

competence.

• Demonstrates a provider in

control and increases the client’s

acceptance to diversity of

outcome

Provider Capability(relative to Industry)

Cli

en

t’s

Ne

ed

BAU

Niche

Complex

Next Gen

Low Average Strong Thought Leader

Own

and

Drive the Solution

Lead the Solution with

Industry Collaboration

Forge Alliance with

Industry Leaders

Invest for future growth

Augment

Resources

/ Fill the

gapCourse

Correct

Co-Invest

with the

client

Fig 2: Provider Role Ratio (PRR) Matrix


A Higher PRR implies minimal calibration of Client Expectation

prior to receiving the service

PRR reflects the Provider’s Posturing relative to the current need of the client

10


• Actual Performance can

reset client expectations

• The consistency of delivery

can significantly influence

client expectation and can

be measured by the

Execution QualityRamp up Steady State Delivery

Expected Execution

Provider A

Provider B

Project Phases

Ease o

f E

xecu

tio

n


EQ reflects the ability of the Provider to influence Client Expectation – while the

project is in-flight and for successive opportunities

A Higher EQ implies least variance of the actual performance

with the expected execution

11

Environmental Factors

Client Expectations are significantly impacted by environmental factors

such as:

• Competitive Landscape of the Solution

• Awareness about the provider

• Regulatory Requirements

• Information asymmetry

• Opportunity Costs

• Operational Risks associated with the solution

• Industry benchmarks

• Communication with the stakeholders – frequency and channels


12

Sample Determinants of Client Expectation


Weight Determinant Client

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

CE-Ratio 4.37 6.46 5.12 4.23 4.78 4.93 4.28 5.35 5.61 5.92

Client Outlook Score (COS) 60% 2.65 3.07 2.25 2.68 2.63 2.88 3.23 3.45 3.68 3.94

Drivers (40%) 20% Compliance 4 2 5 3 4 8 2 9 5 6

30% Competition 3 6 1 2 1 2 4 4 8 9

40% Efficiency 6 2 6 4 3 2 5 4 6 8

10% Excellence 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 6

Risks (20%) 40% Reputation 5 1 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 6

15% Legal 7 2 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 5

20% Financial 5 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5

25% Operational 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Impact (15%) 10% User 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

30% End-client 6 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

35% Public at large 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

25% Regulator 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5

Involvement (5%) 50% Early 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

20% Frequent 4 1 4 7 7 6 6 6 5 5

20% Need Based 2 2 1 3 9 2 7 6 6 5

10% Tardy 3 7 6 6 10 1 8 7 6 6

Choices (20%) 20% Technology 9 8 7 2 8 1 9 8 7 6

30% Solution 7 4 9 3 2 6 9 9 8 7

10% Provider 7 7 8 9 9 5 10 9 8 8

40% Deployment 5 3 1 8 8 9 9 9 9 8

Provider Role Ratio (PRR) 30% 1.14 1.50 1.40 1.52 1.72 1.04 1.56 1.61 1.86 1.90

Client Need (25%) 10% Next Gen 7 4 6 6 7 1 8 9 9 9

20% Niche 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9

30% Complex 4 3 5 5 6 2 7 7 8 8

40% BAU 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 7 7 8

Provider Capability (15%) 20% Low 4 2 1 5 5 5 6 6 7 7

30% Average 4 4 1 4 6 5 5 6 6 7

30% Strong 5 7 1 5 7 5 5 6 6 6

20% Thought Leader 7 9 6 5 2 5 5 5 6 6

Provider Role (60%) 30% Own 5 2 5 5 3 3 5 6 5 6

15% Lead 3 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5

10% Augment 5 7 5 5 8 5 2 5 7 7

10% Collaborate 5 4 1 5 9 2 7 2 8 5

20% Invest 5 6 1 5 10 3 1 2 5 2

15% Course Correct 8 10 1 6 4 5 8 5 4 9

Execution Quality (EQ) 10% 0.58 0.55 0.59 0.57 0.58 0.37 0.56 0.55 0.38 0.62

Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6 4 6 6 6 6 3 3 2 6

70% Steady State 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 1 8

20% Delivery 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3

Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4 2 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5

70% Steady State 6 8 1 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

20% Delivery 5 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 6


C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

CE-Ratio 4.37 6.46 5.12 4.23 4.78 4.93 4.28 5.35 5.61 5.92



30% Competition 3 6 1 2 1 2 4 4 8 9

40% Efficiency 6 2 6 4 3 2 5 4 6 8

10% Excellence 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 6


15% Legal 7 2 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 5

20% Financial 5 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5

25% Operational 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Impact (15%) 10% User 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

30% End-client 6 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

35% Public at large 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

25% Regulator 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5


20% Frequent 4 1 4 7 7 6 6 6 5 5

20% Need Based 2 2 1 3 9 2 7 6 6 5

10% Tardy 3 7 6 6 10 1 8 7 6 6


30% Solution 7 4 9 3 2 6 9 9 8 7

10% Provider 7 7 8 9 9 5 10 9 8 8

40% Deployment 5 3 1 8 8 9 9 9 9 8



20% Niche 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9

30% Complex 4 3 5 5 6 2 7 7 8 8

40% BAU 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 7 7 8


30% Average 4 4 1 4 6 5 5 6 6 7

30% Strong 5 7 1 5 7 5 5 6 6 6

20% Thought Leader 7 9 6 5 2 5 5 5 6 6


15% Lead 3 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5

10% Augment 5 7 5 5 8 5 2 5 7 7

10% Collaborate 5 4 1 5 9 2 7 2 8 5

20% Invest 5 6 1 5 10 3 1 2 5 2

15% Course Correct 8 10 1 6 4 5 8 5 4 9


Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6 4 6 6 6 6 3 3 2 6

70% Steady State 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 1 8

20% Delivery 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3

Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4 2 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5

70% Steady State 6 8 1 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

20% Delivery 5 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 6


C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

CE-Ratio 4.37 6.46 5.12 4.23 4.78 4.93 4.28 5.35 5.61 5.92



30% Competition 3 6 1 2 1 2 4 4 8 9

40% Efficiency 6 2 6 4 3 2 5 4 6 8

10% Excellence 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 6


15% Legal 7 2 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 5

20% Financial 5 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5

25% Operational 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Impact (15%) 10% User 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

30% End-client 6 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

35% Public at large 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

25% Regulator 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5


20% Frequent 4 1 4 7 7 6 6 6 5 5

20% Need Based 2 2 1 3 9 2 7 6 6 5

10% Tardy 3 7 6 6 10 1 8 7 6 6


30% Solution 7 4 9 3 2 6 9 9 8 7

10% Provider 7 7 8 9 9 5 10 9 8 8

40% Deployment 5 3 1 8 8 9 9 9 9 8



20% Niche 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9

30% Complex 4 3 5 5 6 2 7 7 8 8

40% BAU 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 7 7 8


30% Average 4 4 1 4 6 5 5 6 6 7

30% Strong 5 7 1 5 7 5 5 6 6 6

20% Thought Leader 7 9 6 5 2 5 5 5 6 6


15% Lead 3 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5

10% Augment 5 7 5 5 8 5 2 5 7 7

10% Collaborate 5 4 1 5 9 2 7 2 8 5

20% Invest 5 6 1 5 10 3 1 2 5 2

15% Course Correct 8 10 1 6 4 5 8 5 4 9


Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6 4 6 6 6 6 3 3 2 6

70% Steady State 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 1 8

20% Delivery 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3

Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4 2 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5

70% Steady State 6 8 1 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

20% Delivery 5 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 6

A score between 1 to 10 may be awarded to each determinant

to arrive at the weighted CE Ratio

13

Developing the CE ratio across Clients


C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10

CE-Ratio 4.37 6.46 5.12 4.23 4.78 4.93 4.28 5.35 5.61 5.92



30% Competition 3 6 1 2 1 2 4 4 8 9

40% Efficiency 6 2 6 4 3 2 5 4 6 8

10% Excellence 4 2 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 6


15% Legal 7 2 6 5 5 5 4 4 5 5

20% Financial 5 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5

25% Operational 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Impact (15%) 10% User 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

30% End-client 6 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

35% Public at large 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

25% Regulator 6 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5


20% Frequent 4 1 4 7 7 6 6 6 5 5

20% Need Based 2 2 1 3 9 2 7 6 6 5

10% Tardy 3 7 6 6 10 1 8 7 6 6


30% Solution 7 4 9 3 2 6 9 9 8 7

10% Provider 7 7 8 9 9 5 10 9 8 8

40% Deployment 5 3 1 8 8 9 9 9 9 8



20% Niche 5 4 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9

30% Complex 4 3 5 5 6 2 7 7 8 8

40% BAU 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 7 7 8


30% Average 4 4 1 4 6 5 5 6 6 7

30% Strong 5 7 1 5 7 5 5 6 6 6

20% Thought Leader 7 9 6 5 2 5 5 5 6 6


15% Lead 3 2 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5

10% Augment 5 7 5 5 8 5 2 5 7 7

10% Collaborate 5 4 1 5 9 2 7 2 8 5

20% Invest 5 6 1 5 10 3 1 2 5 2

15% Course Correct 8 10 1 6 4 5 8 5 4 9


Expected (50%) 10% Ramp Up 6 4 6 6 6 6 3 3 2 6

70% Steady State 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 1 8

20% Delivery 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 3

Actual (50%) 10% Ramp Up 4 2 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5

70% Steady State 6 8 1 5 6 6 6 6 6 6

20% Delivery 5 4 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 6


14

Sample CE-Ratios

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

C10 C8 C7 C5 C9 C4 C2 C1 C6 C3


Provider Role Ratio (PRR)

Client Outlook Score (COS)CE

-Rati

o

Clients


Client with maximum

delegation and trustClient with least

tolerance for variance

Client with best

Provider Positioning

Similar analysis

can also be done

across Projects /

SBUs for the

same client

15

Decoding Client Expectations

0

2

4

6

8

10Compliance

Competition

Efficiency

Excellence

Reputation

Financial

Operational

End-client

Public at large

Technology Solution

Next Gen

Thought Leader

Lead

Augment

Collaborate

Invest

Ramp Up

Steady State

Delivery

C1

C2

C3

High

Medium

Low

Fig 8: Sample Determinants of Client Expectation

Client Outlook

Score

Provider

Positioning Ratio

Execution

Quality


16

Applying the Framework

Fig 9: Correlation between Project Types and Success Factors

End–User

commitment

Adequate

funds /

Resources

Communication Clear

Organization

Job

Description

Client Sub-Contractor

Company/Organization size

Project Size

Project Density (no of cross

stakeholder activities /

interfaces)

Organization Type - Matrix or

functional

Project Management Experience

Positive

Correlation

Weak

Correlation

Negative

Correlation

KPIs for Managing Client Expectations

Project

Diversity

The framework could also be applied across projects for the same client

Strong correlation can be discovered between expectations for projects of varying type


17

Case Study – Leading European Airline

The framework helps address diverse Client Segments and the Solutions, by mapping client expectations to

perceived delivery levels – instead of a single CSAT at the Enterprise level, in managing client expectations


Expectation

Pe

rcep

tio

n

of d

eliv

ery

HiLo

Hi

Expectation

Pe

rcep

tio

n

of d

eliv

ery

HiLo

Hi

Tangible Dimensions(Kiosks, Baggage, Cabin)

In-Tangible Dimensions(Safety, Punctuality, Reliability)

Expectation

Pe

rcep

tio

n

of d

eliv

ery

HiLo

Hi

Expectation

Pe

rce

ptio

n

of d

eliv

ery

HiLo

Hi

Seniors / Business TravellersTourists / Family Travellers

Cli

en

tsS

olu

tio

n

18

Benefits from the Framework

The quantification of Client Expectation helps to


Categorize Clients Course Correct

Project Execution

Position the

RIGHT Solution

Manage Risk Expand Client’s

Zone of Tolerance

Improve

Profitability

19

Key References:


20

Thank you..

for further details contact

[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]

Day 2 1135 - 1220 - pearl 1 - avinash kumar

Technology

Transcript of Day 2 1135 - 1220 - pearl 1 - avinash kumar