Tag Archives: VoC

What is In-Store Customer Journey Data?

Analytics professionals love data and technology. So it’s easy for us (and I use “us” because I completely self-identify in both the category of analytics professional and someone who loves data and technology) to get excited about new data sources and new measurement systems – sometimes without thinking too carefully about what they are for or whether they are really useful. When I first got interested in the technologies to track in-store customer journeys, I’ll admit that its newness was a big part of its appeal. But while newness can get you through a “first date”, it can’t – by its very nature – sustain a relationship. In the last few months, as I’ve worked on designing and building our initial product, I’ve had to put a lot of thought into how in-store measurement technology can be used, what will drive real value, and what’s just “for show”. In my last post, I described using the “PoS Test” (asking whether, for any given business question, in-store customer journey data worked better or differently than PoS data) to help choose the reports and analysis that fit this new technology. But I can see that in that post I put the cart somewhat before the horse, since I didn’t really describe in-store customer journey data and it’s likely applications. I’m going to rectify that now.

To measure the in-store customer journey you track customers as they move through your physical environment. The underlying data is really a set of way-points. Each point defines a moment in time when the customer was at a specific location. This is the core journey measurement data.

By aggregating those points and then mapping them to the actual store layout, you have data about how many people entered your store, where they went, and how long they spent near or around any store section. This mapping to the store is the point where concerns about accuracy crop up. After all, the waypoints themselves don’t have any meaning. It’s only when they are overlaid on top of the store that they become interesting. The more precisely you an place the customer with respect to the store, the more you can do with the data.

By tracking key waypoints along the journey (such as dressing rooms or registers), the basic journey data can be used to help build an in-store conversion funnel. Add Point-of-Sale data (and you’d be crazy not to) and you have the full conversion funnel at a product level and all the experience that went with it. For those coming from a digital world, this may feel like the complete journey. It has everything we measure in the digital world and can support all of the same analytic techniques – from funnel analysis to functional and real-estate optimization to behavioral segmentation. But in physical retail, there’s an additional, critical component: measuring staff interactions. It’s hard to overstate the importance of human interactions in physical retail; so if you want to really map the in-store customer journey you have to add in associate interactions. For any given customer journey, you’ll want to know whether, when, how long and with whom a customer interacted.

For most stores, this combination of journey waypoint data, store mapping, PoS data, and staff interaction data is the whole of customer journey data and it’s powerful. At Digital Mortar, though, we’re trying to build a comprehensive measurement backbone for the store that includes detailed digital experiences in store (mobile, digital signage, and specialized in-store experiences) AND a set of variables that encompass the background environment for a customer visit.

In-store digital experiences are a key part of a modern retail customer journey and if you can’t integrate them into your omni-channel picture of a customer you don’t have key ingredients of the experience. I also happen to believe that custom digital experiences will be a crucial differentiator in the evolution of retail experience.

What about the background environment – what does that mean? There’s a lot more environment in physical retail than there is in digital. Weather, for example, is a critical part of the background environment – impacting store traffic but also dramatically changing in-store journeys and purchase patterns. Other important environment variables include store promotions (local and national), advertising campaigns, mall traffic and promotions, road traffic, events, what digital signage was showing and even what music was playing during a customer visit. The more environment data you have, the better chance you have of understanding individual customer journeys and figuring out what shapes them in meaningful ways.

 

Summing Up

The in-store customer journey data begins with the waypoint data. That’s the core data that describes the actual customer experience in the store. To be useful, that data has to be mapped accurately to the store layout and the merchandise. You have to know what’s THERE! Integrating PoS data provides the key success metrics you need to understand what parts of the experience worked and to build full in-store funnels. Associate interactions data adds the human part of the experience and opens the door to meaningful staffing optimization. And the picture is completed by adding in digital interaction data and as much background data as you can get – particularly key facts about weather and promotions. Taken together, this data provides remarkable insight into the in-store funnel and customer experience. And to prove it, my next post will tackle the actual uses of this data and the business questions it can (and should) answer!

Join me for what I hope will be a really challenging webinar (hosted by the 4A’s) on improving customer experience with analytics. Feb. 15th at 1pm EST.

What You Will Learn

  • How behavioral segmentation creates a framework for continuous improvement
  • How you can most effectively use VoC to enhance a segmentation framework
  • How you can get around the common limitations of in-line VoC, such as sample bias and survey fatigue
  • What changes in the organization are required to really operationalize this type of process

A Guided Tour through Digital Analytics (Circa 2016)

I’ve been planning my schedule for the DA Hub in late September and while I find it frustrating (so much interesting stuff!), it’s also enlightening about where digital analytics is right now and where it’s headed. Every conference is a kind of mirror to its industry, of course, but that reflection is often distorted by the needs of the conference – to focus on the cutting-edge, to sell sponsorships, to encourage product adoption, etc.  With DA Hub, the Conference agenda is set by the enterprise practitioners who are leading groups – and it’s what they want to talk about. That makes the conference agenda unusually broad and, it seems to me, uniquely reflective of the state of our industry (at least at the big enterprise level).

So here’s a guided tour of my DA Hub – including what I thought was most interesting, what I choose, and why. At the end I hope that, like Indiana Jones picking the Holy Grail from a murderers row of drinking vessels, I chose wisely.

Session 1 features conversations on Video Tracking, Data Lakes, the Lifecycle of an Analyst, Building Analytics Community, Sexy Dashboards (surely an oxymoron), Innovation, the Agile Enterprise and Personalization. Fortunately, while I’d love to join both Twitch’s June Dershewitz to talk about Data Lakes and Data Swamps or Intuit’s Dylan Lewis for When Harry (Personalization) met Sally (Experimentation), I didn’t have to agonize at all, since I’m scheduled to lead a conversation on Machine Learning in Digital Analtyics. Still, it’s an incredible set of choices and represents just how much breadth there is to digital analytics practice these days.

Session 2 doesn’t make things easier. With topics ranging across Women in Analytics, Personalization, Data Science, IoT, Data Governance, Digital Product Management, Campaign Measurement, Rolling Your Own Technology, and Voice of Customer…Dang. Women in Analytics gets knocked off my list. I’ll eliminate Campaign Measurement even though I’d love to chat with Chip Strieff from Adidas about campaign optimization. I did Tom Bett’s (Financial Times) conversation on rolling your own technology in Europe this year – so I guess I can sacrifice that. Normally I’d cross the data governance session off my list. But not only am I managing some aspects of a data governance process for a client right now, I’ve known Verizon’s Rene Villa for a long time and had some truly fantastic conversations with him. So I’m tempted. On the other hand, retail personalization is of huge interest to me. So talking over personalization with Gautam Madiman from Lowe’s would be a real treat. And did I mention that I’ve become very, very interested in certain forms of IoT tracking? Getting a chance to talk with Vivint’s Brandon Bunker around that would be pretty cool. And, of course, I’ve spent years trying to do more with VoC and hearing Abercrombie & Fitch’s story with Sasha Verbitsky would be sweet. Provisionally, I’m picking IoT. I just don’t get a chance to talk IoT very much and I can’t pass up the opportunity. But personalization might drag me back in.

In the next session I have to choose between Dashboarding (the wretched state of as opposed to the sexiness of), Data Mining Methods, Martech, Next Generation Analytics, Analytics Coaching, Measuring Content Success, Leveraging Tag Management and Using Marketing Couds for Personalization. The choice is a little easier because I did Kyle Keller’s (Vox) conversation on Dashboarding two years ago in Europe. And while that session was probably the most contentious DA Hub group I’ve ever been in (and yes, it was my fault but it was also pretty productive and interesting), I can probably move on. I’m not that involved with tag management these days – a sign that it must be mature – so that’s off my list too. I’m very intrigued by Akhil Anumolu’s (Delta Airlines) session on Can Developers be Marketers? The Emerging Role of MarTech. As a washed-up developer, I still find myself believing that developers are extraordinarily useful people and vastly under-utilized in today’s enterprise. I’m also tempted by my friend David McBride’s session on Next Generation Analytics. Not only because David is one of the most enjoyable people that I’ve ever met to talk with, but because driving analytics forward is, really, my job. But I’m probably going to go with David William’s session on Marketing Clouds. David is brilliant and ASOS is truly cutting edge (they are a giant in the UK and global in reach but not as well known here), and this also happens to be an area where I’m personally involved in steering some client projects. David’s topical focus on single-vendor stacks to deliver personalization is incredibly timely for me.

Next up we have Millennials in the Analytics Workforce, Streaming Video Metrics, Breaking the Analytics Glass Ceiling, Experimentation on Steroids, Data Journalism, Distributed Social Media Platforms, Customer Experience Management, Ethics in Analytics(!), and Customer Segmentation. There are several choices in here that I’d be pretty thrilled with: Dylan’s session on Experimentation, Chip’s session on CEM and, of course, Shari Cleary’s (Viacom) session on Segmentation. After all, segmentation is, like, my favorite thing in the world. But I’m probably going to go with Lynn Lanphier’s (Best Buy) session on Data Journalism. I have more to learn in that space, and it’s an area of analytics I’ve never felt that my practice has delivered on as well as we should.

In the last session, I could choose from more on Customer Experience Management, Driving Analytics to the C-Suite, Optimizing Analytics Career-Oaths, Creating High-Impact Analytics Programs, Building Analytics Teams, Delivering Digital Products, Calculating Analytics Impact, and Moving from Report Monkey to Analytics Advisor. But I don’t get to choose. Because this is where my second session (on driving Enterprise Digital Transformation) resides. I wrote about doing this session in the EU early this summer – it was one of the best conversations around analytics I’ve had the pleasure of being part of. I’m just hoping this session can capture some of that magic. If I didn’t have hosting duties, I think I might gravitate toward Theresa Locklear’s (NFL) conversation on Return on Analytics. When we help our clients create new analytics and digital transformation strategies, we have to help them justify what always amount to significant new expenditures. So much of analytics is exploratory and foundational, however, that we don’t always have great answers about the real return. I’d love to be able to share thoughts on how to think (and talk) about analytics ROI in a more compelling fashion.

All great stuff.

We work in such a fascinating field with so many components to it. We can specialize in data science and analytics method, take care of the fundamental challenges around building data foundations, drive customer communications and personalization, help the enterprise understand and measure it’s performance, optimize relentlessly in and across channels, or try to put all these pieces together and manage the teams and people that come with that. I love that at a Conference like the Hub I get a chance to share knowledge with (very) like-minded folks and participate in conversations where I know I’m truly expert (like segmentation or analytics transformation), areas where I’d like to do better (like Data Journalism), and areas where we’re all pushing the outside of the envelope (IoT and Machine Learning) together. Seems like a wonderful trade-off all the way around.

See you there!
See you there!

https://www.digitalanalyticshub.com/dahub16-us/

 

Digital Transformation in the Enterprise – Creating Continuous Improvement

I’m writing this post as I fly to London for the Digital Analytics Hub. The Hub is in its fourth year now (two in Berlin and two in London) and I’ve managed to make it every time. Of course, doing these Conference/Vacations is a bit of a mixed blessing. I really enjoyed my time in Italy but that was more vacation than Conference. The Hub is more Conference than vacation – it’s filled with Europe’s top analytics practitioners in deep conversation on analytics. In fact, it’s my favorite analytics conference going right now. And here’s the good news, it’s coming to the States in September! So I have one more of these analytics vacations on my calendar and that should be the best one of all. If you’re looking for the ultimate analytics experience – an immersion in deep conversation with the some of the best analytics practitioners around – you should check it out.

I’ve got three topics I’m bringing to the Hub. Machine Learning for digital analytics, digital analytics forecasting and, of course, the topic at hand today, enterprise digital transformation.

In my last post, I described five initiatives that lay the foundation for analytics driven digital transformation. Those projects focus on data collection, journey mapping, behavioral segmentation, enterprise Voice of Customer (VoC) and unified marketing measurement. Together, these five initiatives provide a way to think about digital from a customer perspective. The data piece is focused on making sure that data collection to support personalization and segmentation is in place. The Journey mapping and the behavioral segmentation provide the customer context for every digital touchpoint – why it exists and what it’s supposed to do. The VoC system provides a window into who customers want and need and how they make decisions at every touchpoint. Finally, the marketing framework ensures that digital spend is optimized on an apples-to-apples basis and is focused on the right customers and actions to drive the business.

In a way, these projects are all designed to help the enterprise think and talk intelligently about the digital business. The data collection piece is designed to get organizations thinking about personalization cues in the digital experience. Journey mapping is designed to expand and frame customer experience and place customer thinking at the center of the digital strategy. Two-tiered segmentation serves to get people talking about digital success in terms of customer’s and their intent. Instead of asking questions like whether a Website is successful, it gets people thinking about whether the Website is successful for a certain type of customer with a specific journey intent. That’s a much better way to think. Similarly, the VoC system is all about getting people to focus on customer and to realize that analytics can serve decision-making on an ongoing basis. The marketing framework is all about making sure that campaigns and creative are measured to real business goals – set within the customer journey and the behavioral segmentation.

The foundational elements are also designed to help integrate analytics into different parts of the digital business. The data collection piece is targeted toward direct response optimization. Journey mapping is designed to help weld strategic decisions to line manager responsibilities. Behavioral segmentation is focused on line and product managers needing tactical experience optimization. VoC is targeted toward strategic thinking and decision-making, and, of course, the marketing framework is designed to support the campaign and creative teams.

If a way to think and talk intelligently about the digital enterprise and its operations is the first step, what comes next?

All five of the initiatives that I’ve slated into the next phase are about one thing – creating a discipline of continuous improvement in the enterprise. That discipline can’t be built on top of thin air – it only works if your foundation (data, metrics, framework) supports optimization. Once it does, however, the focus should be on taking advantage of that to create continuous improvement.

The first step is massive experimentation via an analytics driven testing plan. This is partly about doing lots of experiments, yes. But even more important is that the experimentation be done as part of an overall optimization plan with tests targeted by behavioral and VoC analytics to specific experiences where the opportunity for improvement is highest. If all you’re thinking about is how many experiments you run, you’re not doing it right. Every type of customer and every part of their journey should have tests targeted toward its improvement.

Similarly on the marketing side, phase II is about optimizing against the unified measurement framework with both mix and control group testing. Mix is a top-down approach that works against your overall spending – regardless of channel type or individual measurement. Control group testing is nothing more than experimentation in the marketing world. Control groups have been a key part of marketing since the early direct response days. They’re easier to implement and more accurate in establishing true lift and incrementality than mathematical attribution solutions.

The drive toward continuous improvement doesn’t end there, however. I’m a big fan for tool-based reporting as a key part of the second phase of analytics driven transformation. The idea behind tool-based reporting is simple but profound. Instead of reports as static, historical tools to describe what happened, the idea is that reports contain embedded predictive models that transform them into tools that can be used to understand the levers of the business and test what might happen based on different business strategies. Building tool-based reports for marketing, for product launch, for conversion funnels and for other key digital systems is deeply transformative. I describe this as shift in the organization from democratizing data to democratizing knowledge. Knowledge is better. But the advantages to tool-based reporting run even deeper. The models embedded in these reports are your best analytic thinking about how the business works. And guess what? They’ll be wrong a lot of the time and that’s a good thing. It’s a good thing because by making analytically thinking about how the business works explicit, you’ve created feedback mechanisms in the organization. When things don’t work out the way the model predicts, your analysts will hear about it and have to figure out why and how to do better. That drives continuous improvement in analytics.

A fourth key part of creating the agile enterprise – at least for sites without direct ecommerce – is value-based optimization. One of the great sins in digital measurement is leaving gaps in your ability to measure customers across their journey. I call this “closing measurement loops”. If you’re digital properties are lead generating or brand focused or informational or designed to drive off-channel or off-property (to Amazon or to a Call-Center), it’s much harder to measure whether or not they’re successful. You can measure proxies like content consumption or site satisfaction, but unless these proxies actually track to real outcomes, you’re just fooling yourself. This is important. To be good at digital and to use measurement effectively, every important measurement gap needs to be closed. There’s no one tool or method for closing measurement gaps, instead, a whole lot of different techniques with a bunch of sweat is required. Some of the most common methods for closing measurement gaps include re-survey, panels, device binding and dynamic 800 numbers.

Lastly, a key part of this whole phase is training the organization to think in terms of continuous improvement. That doesn’t happen magically and while all of the initiatives described here support that transformation, they aren’t, by themselves, enough. In my two posts on building analytics culture, I laid out a fairly straightforward vision of culture. The basic idea is that you build analytics culture my using data and analytics. Not by talking about how important data is or how people should behave. In the beginning was the deed.

Creating a constant cadence of analytics-based briefings and discussions forces the organization to think analytically. It forces analysts to understand the questions that are meaningful to the business. It forces decision-makers to reckon with data and lets them experience the power of being able to ask questions and get real answers. Just the imperative of having to say something interesting is good discipline for driving continuous improvement.

foundational transformation Step 2

That’s phase two of enterprise digital transformation. It’s all about baking continuous improvement into the organization and building on top of each element of the foundation the never ending process of getting better.

 

You might think that’s pretty much all there is to the analytics side of the digital transformation equation. Not so. In my next post, I’ll cover the next phase of analytics transformation – driving big analytics wins. So far, most of what I’ve covered is valid for any enterprise in any industry. But in the next phase, initiatives tend to be quite different depending on your industry and business model.

See you after the Hub!

Getting Started with Digital Transformation

For most of this year I’ve been writing an extended series on digital transformation in the enterprise. Along the way, I’ve described why organizations (particularly large ones) struggle with digital, the core capabilities necessary to do digital well, and ways in which organizations can build a better, more analytic culture. I’ve even put together a series of videos that describe how enterprises are currently driving digital and how they can do better.

I think both the current-state (what we do wrong) and the end-state (doing digital right) are compelling. In the next few posts, I’m going to wrap this series up with a discussion around how you get from here to there.

I don’t suppose anyone thinks the journey from here to there is trivial. Doing digital the way I’ve described it (see the Agile Organization) involves some pretty fundamental change: change to the way enterprises budget, change to the way they organize, and change to the way they do digital at almost every level. It also involves, and this is totally unsurprising, investments in people and technology and more than a dollop of patience. It would actually be much easier to build a good digital organization from scratch than to adapt the pieces that exist in the typical enterprise.

Change is harder than creation. It has more friction and more fail points. But change is the reality for most enterprise.

So where do you start and how do you go about building a great digital organization?

I’m going to answer that question here from an analytics perspective. That’s the easy part. Once I’ve worked through the steps in building analytics maturity and digital decisioning, I’ll tackle the organizational component, wherein I expect to hazard a series of guesses, speculation and unlikely theory to paper over the fact that almost no one has done this transformation successfully and every organization has fundamentally unique structures and people that make its dynamics deeply specific.

The foundation of any analytics program is, of course, data. One of the most satisfying developments in digital analytics in the past 3-5 years has been the dramatic improvement in the state of data collection. It used to be that EVERY engagement we undertook began with a plodding slog through data auditing and clean-up. These days, that’s more the exception than the rule. Still, there are plenty of exceptions. So the first step in just about any analytics effort is to make sure the data foundation is solid. There’s a second aspect to this that’s worth pointing out. For a lot of my clients, basic data collection is no longer much of an issue. But even where that’s true, there are often significant gaps in digital analytics data collection for personalization. So many Adobe designs are predicated on meeting reporting requirements that it’s not at all unusual for key personalization elements like filtering selections, image expansions, sorting behaviors and DHTML exposures to go largely untracked. That’s true on both the Web and Mobile sides. Part of auditing your data collection should be a careful look at whether your capturing all the personalization cues you could – and that’s often a critical foundational element for the steps to follow.

Right along with auditing your data collection comes building a comprehensive customer journey framework. I’ve added the word “framework” here not to be all “consulty” but to emphasize that a customer journey isn’t built once as a static map. That’s the old way – and it’s wrong in every respect (so be careful what you buy). It’s wrong because it’s not segmented. It’s wrong because it’s too high-level. And most of all it’s wrong because it’s too static. So while a customer journey framework is more a capability and a process than a “thing”, it’s also true that you have to start somewhere. Getting that initial segmented journey map in place provides the high-level strategic framework for your digital strategy and for your analytics and testing. It’s the key strategic piece welding your operational capabilities to your strategic vision.

My third foundational building block is (Chorus sings refrain) “2-Tiered segmentation”. I’ve written voluminously on digital segmentation and how it works, so I won’t add much more here. But if journey mapping is the piece linking your strategic vision to your operational capabilities, 2-tiered segmentation is the equivalent piece linking at the tactical level. At every touchpoint in a customer journey there is the need to understand who somebody is and where in their journey they are. That’s what 2-tiered segmentation provides.

Auditing your data, creating a journey mapping and tying that to a digital segmentation are truly foundational. They are all “you can’t get there from here without going through these” kind of activities. Almost every significant report, analysis and decision that you make will rely on these three activities.

That’s not really true for my next two foundational activities. I chose building an integrated voice of customer (VoC) capability as my fourth key building block. If you’ve read my book, you know that one of the main uses for a VoC program is to refine and tune your journey map and segmentation. So in one sense, this capability may be prior to either of those. But you can do enough VoC to support those two activities without really building a full VoC program. And what I have in mind here is a full program. What do I mean by a full program? I mean an enterprise feedback management system that makes it easy to deploy surveys at any point in the journey across any device. I mean a set of organizational processes that ideate, design, deploy, interpret and socialize VoC information constantly. I mean an enterprise-wide reporting capability that integrates different VoC sources, classifies them, tracks them, and provides drill-down (and that’s important because VoC data is virtually useless without cross-tabulation) access to them across the organization. I also mean a culture where one of the natural and immediate parts of making a decision is looking at what customer’s think and – if that isn’t available – launching a survey to figure it out. I put VoC as part of this foundational set because I think it’s one of the easiest ways to deliver real wins to the organization. I also like the idea of driving a combination of tactical (data, segmentation) and strategic (journey, VoC) initiatives in your early phases. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, we analytics folks tend to over-focus on the tactical.

Finally, I’ve included building a campaign measurement framework into the initial set of foundational activities. This might not be the right choice for every organization, but if you spend a significant amount of money on marketing, it’s a critical element in evolving your maturity. Like data audits, a lot of my clients are already pretty good at this. For many folks, campaigns are already measured using a pretty rich and well-thought out framework and the pain point tends to be deeper – around attribution and mix. But I also see organizations jumping right to questions of attribution before they’ve really done the work necessary to pick the right KPIs to optimize against. That’s a prescription for disaster. If you don’t put in the intellectual sweat equity to understand how campaigns should be measured (and it’s often surprisingly complicated in real-world businesses where conversion rate is rarely the be-all-and-end-all of optimization), then your attribution modelling is doomed to fail.

So here’s the first five things to tackle in building out the analytics part of a digital transformation effort:

foundational Transformation Step 1Small

These five activities provide a rich foundation for analytics driven transformation along with some core strategic analytic capabilities. I’ll cover what comes after this in my next post.

The Agile Organization

I’ve been meandering through an extended series on digital transformation: why it’s hard, where things go wrong, and what you need to be able to do to be successful. In this post, I intend to summarize some of that thinking and describe how the large enterprise should organize itself to be good at digital.

Throughout this series, I’ve emphasized the importance of being able to make good decisions in the digital realm. That is, of course, the function of analytics and its my own special concerns when it comes to digital. But there are people who will point out  that decision-making is not the be all and end all of digital excellence. They might suggest that being able to execute is important too.

If you’re a football fan, it’s easy to see the dramatic difference between Peyton Manning – possibly the finest on-field decision-maker in the history of the game – with a good arm and without. It’s one thing to know where to throw the ball on any given play, quite another to be able to get it there accurately. If that wasn’t the case, it’s probably true that many of my readers would be making millions in the NFL!

On the other hand, this divide between decision-making and execution tends to break down if you extend your view to the entire organization. If the GM is doing the job properly, then the decision about which quarterbacks to draft or sign will appropriately balance their physical and decision-making skills. That’s part of what’s involved in good GM decisioning. Meanwhile, the coach has an identical responsibility on a day-to-day basis. A foot injury may limit Peyton to the point where his backup becomes a better option. Then it may heal and the pendulum swings back. The organization makes a series of decisions and if it can make all of those decisions well, then it’s hard to see how execution doesn’t follow along.

If, as an organization, I can make good decisions about the strategy for digital, the technology to run it on, the agencies to build it, the people to optimize it, the way to organize it, and the tactics to drive it, then everything is likely to be pretty good.

Unfortunately, it’s simply not the case that the analytics, organization and capabilities necessary to make good decisions across all these areas are remotely similar. To return to my football analogy, it’s clear that very few organizations are setup to make good decisions in every aspect of their operations. Some organizations excel at particular functions (like game-planning) but are very poor at drafting. Indeed, sometimes success in one-area breeds disaster in another. When a coach like Chip Kelly becomes very successful in his role, there is a tendency for the organization to expand that role so that the coach has increasing control over personnel. This almost always works badly in practice. Even knowing it will work badly doesn’t prevent the problem. Since the coach is so important, it may be that an organization will cede much control over personnel to a successful coach even when everyone (except the coach) believes it’s a bad idea.

If you don’t think similar situations arise constantly in corporate America, you aren’t paying attention.

In my posts in this series, I’ve mapped out the capabilities necessary to give decision-makers the information and capabilities they need to make good decisions about digital experiences. I haven’t touched on (and don’t really intend to touch on) broader themes like deciding who the right people to hire are or what kind of measurement, analysis or knowledge is necessary to make those sorts of meta-decisions.

There are two respects, however, in which I have tried to address at least some of these meta-concerns about execution. First, I’ve described why it is and how it comes to pass that most enterprises don’t use analytics to support strategic decision-making. This seems like a clear miss and a place where thoughtful implementation of good measurement, particularly voice-of-customer measurement of the type I’ve described, should yield high returns.

Second, I took a stab at describing how organizations can think about and work toward building an analytics culture. In these two posts, I argue that most attempts at culture-building approach the problem backwards. The most common culture-building activities in the enterprise are all about “talk”. We talk about diversity. We talk about ethics. We talk about being data-driven in our decision-making. I don’t think this talk adds up to much. I suggest that culture is formed far more through habit than talk; that if an organization wants to build an analytics culture, it needs to find ways to “do” analytics. The word may proceed the deed, but it is only through the force of the deed (good habits) that the word becomes character/culture. This may seem somewhat obvious – no, it is obvious – but people somehow manage to miss the obvious far too often. Those posts don’t just formulate the obvious, they also suggest a set of activities that are particularly efficacious in creating good enterprise habits of decision-making. If you care about enterprise culture and you haven’t already done so, give them a read.

For some folks, however, all these analytics actions miss the key questions. They don’t want to know what the organization should do. They want to know how the organization should work. Who owns digital? Who owns analytics? What lives in a central organization? What lives in a business unit? Is digital a capability or a department?

In the context of the small company, most of these questions aren’t terribly important. In the large enterprise, they mean a lot. But acknowledging that they mean a lot isn’t to suggest that I can answer them – or at least most of them.

I’m skeptical that there is an answer for most of these questions. At least in the abstract, I doubt there is one right organization for digital or one right degree of centralization. I’ve had many conversations with wise folks who recognize that their organizations seem to be in constant motion – swinging like an enormous pendulum between extremes of centralization followed by extremes of decentralization.

Even this peripatetic motion – which can look so irrational from the inside – may make sense. If we assume that centralization and decentralization have distinct advantages, then not only might it be true that changing circumstances might drive a change in the optimal configuration, but it might even be true that swinging the organization from one pole to the other might help capture the benefits of each.

That seems unlikely, but you never know. There is sometimes more logic in the seemingly irrational movements of the crowd than we might first imagine.

Most questions about digital organization are deeply historical. They depend on what type of company you are, in what of market, with what culture and what strategic imperatives. All of which is, of course, Management 101. Obvious stuff that hardly needs to be stated.

However, there are some aspects of digital about which I am willing to be more directive. First, that some balance between centralization and decentralization is essential in analytics. The imperative for centralization is driven by these factors: the need for comparative metrics of success around digital, the need for consistent data collection, the imperatives of the latest generation of highly-complex IT systems, and the need/desire to address customers across the full spectrum of their engagement with the enterprise. Of these, the first and the last are primary. If you don’t need those two, then you may not care about consistent data collection or centralized data systems (this last is debatable).

On the other hand, there are powerful reasons for decentralization of which the biggest is simply that analytics is best done as close to the decision-making as possible. Before the advent of Hadoop, I would have suggested that the vast majority of analytics resources in the digital space be decentralized. Hadoop makes that much harder. The skills are much rarer, the demands for control and governance much higher, and the need for cross-domain expertise much greater in this new world.

That will change. As the open-source analytics stack matures and the market over-rewards skilled practitioners – drawing in more folks, it will become much easier to decentralize again. This isn’t the first time we’ve been down the IT path that goes from centralization to gradual diffusion as technologies become cheaper, easier, and better supported.

At an even more fundamental level than the question of centralization lives the location and nature of digital. Is digital treated as a thing? Is it part of Marketing? Or Operations? Or does each thing have a digital component?

I know I should have more of an opinion about this, but I’m afraid that the right answers seem to me, once again, to be local and historical. In a digital pure-play, to even speak of digital as a thing seems absurd. It’s the core of the company. In a gas company, on the other hand, digital might best be viewed as a customer service channel. In a manufacturer, digital might be a sub-function of brand marketing or, depending on the nature of the digital investment and its importance to the company, a unit unto-itself.

Obviously, one of the huge disadvantages to thinking of digital as a unit unto-itself is how it can then interact correctly with the non-digital functions that share the same purpose. If you have digital customer servicing and non-digital customer servicing, does it really make sense to have one in a digital department and the other as a customer-service department?

There is a case, however, for incubating digital capabilities within a small compact, standalone entity that can protect and nourish the digital investment with a distinct culture and resourcing model. I get that. Ultimately, though, it seems to me that unless digital OWNS an entire function, separating that function across digital and non-digital lines is arbitrary and likely to be ineffective in an omni-channel world.

But here’s the flip side. If you have a single digital property and it shares marketing and customer support functions, how do you allocate real-estate and who gets to determine key things like site structure? I’ve seen organizations where everything but the homepage is owned by somebody and the home page is like Oliver Twist. “Home page for sale, does anybody want one?”

That’s not optimal.

So the more overlap there needs to be between the functions and your digital properties, the more incentive you have to build a purely digital organization.

No matter what structure you pick, there are some trade-offs you’re going to have to live with. That’s part of why there is no magic answer to the right organization.

But far more important than the precise balance you strike around centralization or even where you put digital is the way you organize the core capabilities that belong to digital. Here, the vast majority of enterprises organize along the same general lines. Digital comprises some rough set of capabilities including:

  • IT
  • Creative
  • Marketing
  • Customer
  • UX
  • Analytics
  • Testing
  • VoC

In almost every company I work with, each of these capabilities is instantiated as a separate team. In most organizations, the IT folks are in a completely different reporting structure all the way up. There is no unification till you hit the C-Suite. Often, Marketing and Creative are unified. In some organizations, all of the research functions are unified (VoC, analytics) – sometimes under Customer, sometimes not. UX and Testing can wind up almost anywhere. They typically live under the Marketing department, but they can also live under a Research or Customer function.

None of this, to me, makes any sense.

To do digital well requires a deep integration of these capabilities. What’s more, it requires that these teams work together on a consistent basis. That’s not the way it’s mostly done.

Almost every enterprise I see not only siloes these capabilities, but puts in place budgetary processes that fund each digital asset as a one-time investment and which requires pass-offs between teams.

That’s probably not entirely clear so let me give some concrete examples.

You want to launch a new website. You hire an agency to design the Website. Then your internal IT team builds it. Now the agency goes away. The folks who designed the website no longer have anything to do with it. What’s more, the folks who built it get rotated onto the next project. Sometimes, that’s all that happens. The website just sits there – unimproved. Sometimes the measurement team will now pick it up. Keep in mind that the measurement team almost never had anything to do with the design of the site in the first place. They are just there to report on it. Still, they measure it and if they find some problem, who do they give it to?

Well, maybe they pass it on to the UX team or the testing team. Those teams, neither of which have ever worked with the website or had anything to do with its design are now responsible for implementing changes on it. And, of course, they will be working with developers who had nothing to do with building it.

Meanwhile, on an entirely separate track, the customer team may be designing a broader experience that involves that website. They enlist the VoC team to survey the site’s users and find out what they don’t like about it. Neither team (of course) had anything to do with designing or building the site.

If they come to some conclusion about what they want the site to do, they work with another(!) team of developers to implement their changes. That these changes may be at cross-purposes to the UX team’s changes or the original design intent is neither here nor there.

Does any of this make sense?

If you take continuous improvement to heart (and you should because it is the key to digital excellence), you need to realize that almost everything about the way your digital organization functions is wrong. You budget wrong and you organize wrong.

[Check out my relatively short (20 min) video on digital transformation and analytics organization – it’s the perfect medium for distributing this message through your enterprise!]

Here’s my simple rule about building digital assets. If it’s worth doing, it’s worth improving. Nothing you build will ever be right the first time. Accept that. Embrace it. That means you budget digital teams to build AND improve something. Those teams don’t go away. They don’t rotate. And they include ALL of the capabilities you need to successfully deliver digital experiences. Your developers don’t rotate off, your designers don’t go away, your VoC folks aren’t living in a parallel universe.

When you do things this way, you embody a commitment to continuous improvement deeply into your core organizational processes. It almost forces you to do it right. All those folks in IT and creative will demand analytics and tests to run or they won’t have anything to do.

That’s a good thing.

This type of vertical integration of digital capabilities is far, far more important than the balance around centralization or even the home for digital. Yet it gets far less attention in most enterprise strategic discussions.

The existence or lack of this vertical integration is the single most important factor in driving analytics into digital. Do it right, and you’ll do it well. Do what everyone else does and…well…it won’t be so good.