A birthday present for our soon to be 6 year old son was being delivered by UPS. Initially their site said (according to my mother-in-law) that it had been delivered on our porch on Thursday. When my wife called UPS on Friday to say that it was not delivered she was told, “Mack Brady called and requested it be returned to sender.” My wife pointed out that Mack Brady was 5 years old and expecting that box to contain lots of LEGOs from his grandparents. He was unlikely to make the call much less request that the package be returned to sender.

It was delivered 5 days (3 business days) later.

I find this experience very interesting as we seek to learn valuable service delivery,  supply chain, and life lessons.

SHIPPER-CARRIER RELATIONSHIPS

First, as a logistician and Supply Chain professional, I am reminded that shippers (the company in this case selling the LEGOs) are often at the mercy of the carrier (in this case UPS.)  They enter into a contract, expecting in good faith that UPS will deliver the package to the customer.  In fact, there is an expectation on the part of the shipper that the carrier will, if necessary, make several attempts before requesting that the customer come to them. ¹  In this case, UPS not only failed to deliver the product on the behalf of the shipper, they then created a rather interesting backstory for why they failed to deliver.

IN TRANSIT VISIBILITY (ITV)

In addition, this story speaks to the importance of accurate tracking of packages.  There are two parts to the tracking issue that confuse me.  First, the fact that the website tracking initially reported delivery to the porch is interesting, since the package was not actually delivered.  ²  Initially, we believe the online tracking to be accurate.  Our whole business operation is based on accuracy in reporting.  The shipper expects the carrier to deliver the package and provide updated information along the way as necessary.  The carriers themselves rely on accurate ITV to know where their drivers and trucks are at any given time, and provide assurance to customers and shippers that they are providing appropriate care for their items.  And finally, ITV provides receivers (in this case my 5 y.o. nephew) a sense of security knowing that, even if a package has not yet arrived, it is safely on it’s way and that the carrier know exactly where it is.

Given the importance of ITV, the systems are designed to ensure and  enhance accuracy through barcode readers and digital signatures.  When these systems fail, and they will, carriers should not respond with finger pointing, or cover-ups, but rather work to understand the cause of the failure and attempt to once again poka-yoke the process.

HONESTY IN SERVICE RECOVERY

The failure of in-transit visibility unfortunately led to the next, and perhaps more disturbing to anyone in this profession, reaction by the carrier’s representative.   As I am sure you are all thinking by now (and as my sister-in-law pointed out to the Customer Service Representative (CSR) from UPS) 5 y.o.s generally don’t ask for their much anticipated birthday presents to be “returned to sender.”  So this strikes me as a serious “CYA” ³ moment.  I suspect that, more often than not, this line works on their customers. ⁴   Now, we can’t know where the decision was made to “adjust” the record like this (or is it “falsify?”)  It could be that the driver mistakenly marked “left on porch” when delivering another package and that, upon arriving back at the distribution center realized he/she still had a package on the truck–and thus covered the tracks.  Or it could be that the CSR, in an effort to deflect blame away from UPS, confabulated on her own?  (I highly doubt this one is the case, but it’s possible.)

Just as “in transit visibility” relies on accurate reporting of information to enhance decision making, so does customer service, and service recovery.  One does not help the business by covering one’s tracks.⁵  Admittedly not every bad experience will result in a blog post such as this one–and that is all the more reason for carriers to be ever vigilant.  If given a choice between carriers, and you have had an experience where a carrier (or anyone, really) has been dishonest in their dealings with you, are you more, or less, likely to choose that carrier?  Decisions are often made on trust–trust that items will be delivered, and trust that firms will make every effort to make good when they don’t.  When one has a negative experience such as this, then one is more likely to perhaps go with a less reliable, or more costly, provider that they can trust.

When faced with our own failures, I learned a valuable lesson from my earliest military mentor, Dave Morris (@nicheguy on twitter.)  You step up, admit your failure, and work to make it right.⁶  I have generally found that at a personal level people respond almost in shock that someone is willing to take responsibility for the own actions, and more often than not, you are provided that second chance.  Firms would do well to create a culture that rewards stepping up, and taking responsibility, rather than making things worse by fostering cover-ups.

When people are honest with you about their failures and their successes, you are more likely to trust them.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

I am not calling for a boycott of UPS or any carrier.  I am simply pointing out that future decisions are based on past experiences, and negative experiences carry more weight that positive ones. An old military aphorism seems appropriate here: “One oh, Sh*t wipes out a thousand ‘atta-boys’!”  Being able to “blame” people only goes so far, but being willing to take the blame certainly is better than attempting to blame the customers themselves.

We will never know the true genesis of the tale delivered in lieu of the package, but what we can know is this–UPS as an entity ends up taking the hit.

Share your thoughts–am I too harsh on UPS for this?

They do use a very timely approach, expressing the perfect order in terms that would satsify Ralphie, from the Christmas movie classic “A Christmas Story.” The article is well worth your read.

So-go to the comments, and let us know your story!

Academics of all people should remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

I find this to be a humorous, and in some way, interesting quote. I also find myself “engaging” with the quote in ways that I didn’t expect. This statement challenges really two fundamental concepts–that of anecdote, and of data. When does a collection of anecdotes step out of a collection of “stories” and actually add up to real, actionable data?

Data is, at the most broad, a collection of anecdotal evidence that builds a case over time. In fact, case-study analysis is simply a rigorous approach to gathering anecdotal evidence. Yes, you are limited in the amount of pure statistical analysis that can be accomplished through the gathering of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes bring a richness to the data that one cannot get through simple “number crunching.”

In addition, an anecdote could be considered a data point of one. And sometimes “one” is all you need. How many times should a car not start before you suspect a problem? How many space shuttles do we need to blow up before we learn about O-rings? If one is seeking to improve service, enhance quality, or improve a reputation, then every negative “anecdote” is a story of failure–failure that must be controlled, corrected, and eliminated.

On the other hand, anecdotes of success should be plentiful, and instructive, if they help one overcome the failures in the other negative anecdotes. Anecdotes about repeated success help in that they demonstrate that success can be achieved, and perhaps can be “replicated” with appropriate processes.

Let’s look at one example. In a blog written by one of my students, he struggles with poor customer service from (stand by for stereotype) “the cable guy.” At the end of the day, the cable guy dragged mud over the carpets, cut two holes in the wall (only needing one) and then had to leave so couldn’t repair the damage to the wall.

The best part about the entire story was, the installer had to be at another appointment and couldn’t fix the hole in my wall. I asked what he was going to do about the wall and he gave me some putty and a sponge and explained how to fix it. He then gave me my $80 installation bill and was on his merry way.

Is it any wonder this customer was upset?

Comcast (as Wesley points out) “wants to be perceived as the leader in cable services.” If one seeks to deliver a high quality service, error free, on-time, every time, then a single story of failure is a failure. In fact, what the Comcast blog posting points out is that a service provider, Comcast, is failing in key aspects of the delivery of that service.

The Fitzsimmons’ write, in their book Service Management that reputation is often a key dimension to the provision of a service. They write:

The uncertainty that is associated with the selection of a service provider often is resolved by talking with others about their experiences before a decision is made. Unlike a product, a poor service experience cannot be exchanged or returned for a different model.

So the “take away” here is that for an individual about to make a decision an anecdote is “data.” And as negative experiences begin to collect, the weight of these anecdotes can tarnish (perhaps irretrievably) the reputation of an organization, or a person.

So, does the simple statement “the plural of anecdote is not data” hold true? I think not. Cute, but alas, wrong.

I suppose most, if not all of you dear readers are not old enough to remember the Magic Pan restaurant.  While reading the textbook “Service Management” by Fitzsimmons, I was taken back to the restaurant of my youth, and reminded once again of those wafer-thin crepes, and the delightful fillings that so often filled our Sunday afternoons.

The text book, in discussing quality control in delivering a service, mentions the “foolproof machine” that the Magic Pan designed to cook their crepes.  (For that same upside down pan, perfect crepe experience, try the VillaWare V5225 Crepe Maker) I remember it like it was yesterday, and yes–it was a great example of standardizing a service delivery process. It was one of the “coolest” cooking devices I have ever seen.  The device was a carousel that would hold the crepe pans upside down, while a circle of gas flames heated them from below.  Rather than the traditional approach of pouring the “right amount” of batter into the pan, and then rocking the pan to cover the surface evenly, they literally flipped the idea on its head.

The “chef” would first place a pan, upside down, on the carousel, allowing it to make a few slow revolutions, and thus get up to temperature.  After that, they would remove a pan, wiping the bottom of the pan on a towel that had been embedded with some form of “lubricant” (either butter or vegetable oil).  They would then dip the underside of the pan (yes, the outside!) in the batter.  Once coated, they would place the pan (again face down) on the carousel, where it would cook the crepe evenly.  As a kid, I would love standing there and just watching, watching, watching…

This approach did a few things that guaranteed consistency of delivery:

• The batter on the bottom of the pan meant that they always had the “right” amount of batter for each crepe
• The constant rate of the carousel meant they were always cooked correctly, never over or under cooked.
• By having many slots around the carousel, they were able to “manufacture” a large number of crepes with only one chef.

All pretty doggoned innovative!

So, of course, thinking about the Magic Pan again after so many years set me off on a Google search for the demise of the ‘Pan, and perhaps to find some recipes.  Well I found that, and more!

Let’s start with the “and more.” It turns out that the Magic Pan is back!  Now the Magic Pan of my memories was a rather nice, upscale, yet casual, dining room with great food.  The new Magic Pan is actually a “food court” provider of the same recipes.  According to “Cathy2″ at LTHForum the Magic Pan has as the culinary roots to heart of the original, but appears to be an all new restaurant.  As she writes:

I talked to the manager who advised they had the original chef-trainer from the old Magic Pan fly in from San Franciso to reproduce and train their people for several original Magic Pan dishes: Original Spinach Souffle Crepe; Original Chicken Divan Crepe; Original Crepe Suzette; Original Strawberries and Sour Cream Crepe; Original Chantilly Crepe and Original Cherry Royale Crepe. I remember vaguely the old Magic Pan closed abruptly I believe due to bankruptcy. The manager didn’t remember the circumstances, though he knew all 240+ Magic Pan restaurants closed in one day across the country.

Now, I find that to be quite interesting.  All closed–in one day! Wow.

I am somewhat disappointed to learn that they are not using the same innovative cooking machine that I loved watching as a kid.  According to Cathy2:

Magic Pan 2005 is no longer a sit down restaurant, it is a fast food crepe stall. There is no large ring of gas with upside down smooth bottom frying pans with dipped crepe batter cooking as it rotates over the circuit. Instead there are three large flat iron plates to cook the crepe batter. The cook selects from buckwheat, cornmeal or wheat flour crepe batter and pours a measured quantity on the pan. Using a t-stick paddle he smoothes and spreads the batter to the outer edges. Once cooked, the crepe is filled and presented to the customer.

I hope to someday learn more about the reasons for the demise of the Magic Pan, and perhaps even how widespread the “ROMP” (return of Magic Pan) may be.   Until then, I will be trying out some of the recipes I found online, and seeking to take a trip down that culinary memory lane.

UPDATE: 30 Dec 2009. In the meantime, I will tell you that I have found a great machine (the VillaWare V5225 Crepe Maker) for making my own crepes at home.  It uses the same “upside down” approach in an all-in-one griddle.  It works great, and I highly recommend it to any of you.