Aw: Re: [projectvrm] Creating Reciprocal Value Through Operational Transparency

["Graham Reginald Hill" < >]

Hi Iain

 

Thanks for the sharing the Trust Index work.

 

There are three challenges in building something like a 'Trust Index'. The first challenge is that the Index should be about the organisation and its behaviour as a whole, not just about data, privacy or anything else in particular come to that. If I trust a company, let's say Marks & Spencer for the sake of argument, I expect it to behave in a trustworthy fashion in all of its activities. Just focusing on data or privacy is missing the much larger and much more insightful picture. It also limits the conversation to people with little power, influence or money, e.g. CIOs and CROs.

 

The second challenge is in identifying the antecedents of trust. There is a great deal of research on trust and its antecedents but the research needs turning into practical, implementable insights about how the experience will be different for customers (and don't for one minute think about adding to their burden), how the business operating model will need to be changed and what underlying enabling capabilities will have to be built out. This is where the Trust Index rubber meets the organisational road.

 

The final challenge is in identifying the consequences of trust. Trust by itself is of little value unless it creates outcomes that are valuable for the organisation. If customer trust increases but e.g. sales, margins, profits and loyalty stay the same, any sane manager would conclude that trust was a waste of the organisations time. And how does trust relate to other much talked about constructs such as involvement, engagement and advocacy? This is where the Trust Index rubber meets the shareholder autobahn.

 

There is clearly a lot of work to be done in this space. The  key to doing it properly is to look at the bigger organisational picture, work together with organisatons and customers to identify what it means for them and recognise the difficult trade-offs inherent in optimising mutual trust. 

 

Best regards from Cologne, Graham

-- 
Dr. Graham Hill

UK +44 7564 122 633
DE +49 170 487 6192
http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill

Partner
Optima Partners
http://www.optimapartners.co.uk

Senior Associate
Nyras Capital
http://www.nyras.co.uk

 

 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2014 um 14:55 Uhr
Von: "Iain Henderson" < >
An: "Graham Reginald Hill" < >
Cc: "Don Marti" < >, "ProjectVRM list" < >
Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] Creating Reciprocal Value Through Operational Transparency

Nice benchmarking tool thanks. I used to run something similar called The Trust Index (example top level output attached), which looked at the extent to which an individual might trust an organisation based on their privacy and data protection practices. That was before privacy became such a hot topic - might need to dust that down!!!!


Cheers

Iain





On 17 Jul 2014, at 14:22, Graham Reginald Hill < > wrote:

> Hi Don
>
> The transparency that the working paper talks about is customers being able to see what is going on. Fast.MAP together with Opt-4 have developed a Data Permission Benchmark (http://www.fastmap.com/data-permissions-benchmark.aspx) that helps companies test permission statements prior to implementing them in their marketing. Permission statements are tested against 14 different factors:
> Clarity
> Trustworthiness
> Honesty
> Flexibility
> Appeal
> Invitation
> Reasurrance
> Gives confidence
> Rewards the customer
> Gives the customer control
> Welcoming
> Vales the customer
> Gives the customer choice, and
> Keeps data safe.
> As these factors have been empirically tested (in terms of whether statements created with them in mind lead to higher degrees of customers giving permission to use their data) they might make a useful starter with which to think about what to do to make data processes more transparent, e.g. what would an 'honest' data operation look like to a customer. This shouldn't be rocket science. But it does require a modicum of design research or ethnography. YouTube might conceivably be part of the implementation of transparent data operations.
>
> Best regards from Cologne, Graham
>
> PS. As Winston Churchill said, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
> --
> Dr. Graham Hill
>
> UK +44 7564 122 633
> DE +49 170 487 6192
> http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
> http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill
>
> Partner
> Optima Partners
> http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
>
> Senior Associate
> Nyras Capital
> http://www.nyras.co.uk
>
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2014 um 13:08 Uhr
> Von: "Don Marti" < >
> An: "Katherine Warman Kern" < >
> Cc: "Graham Reginald Hill" < >, "Doc Searls" < >, "ProjectVRM list" < >
> Betreff: Re: [projectvrm] Creating Reciprocal Value Through Operational Transparency
> So transparency like an "open kitchen" for database
> marketing?
>
> "We're going to discuss our use of customer data at this
> meeting, so it's going on YouTube!"
>
> I might watch that.
>
> (Also, "fanatic" is what the spammers called
> spam-filtering mail server administrators in the
> 1990s. The people on the back cars of the technology
> adoption train might not see the problem up ahead yet,
> but that doesn't mean they're pro-trainwreck.)
>
> Don
>
> begin Katherine Warman Kern quotation of Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 06:55:50AM -0400:
> >
> > Graham, fascinating. Yesterday I heard Airely being interviewed about lying and he spoke to the mental trade-off one makes when making a white lie. "Is it better to hurt someone by telling the truth or telling a white lie" for example is a moral trade-off.
> >
> > He says that rationalizing mental process goes on all the time and proposes that the less transparent or direct the act of lying or cheating the less value one places on the morale consequences.
> >
> > The implications for a surreptitious relationship between business and customer are that a face to face transaction is more honest in both directions. But more distance between them and the rationalizing begins.
> >
> > K-
> >
> > Katherine Warman Kern
> > @comradity
> >
> > > On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:57 AM, "Graham Reginald Hill" < > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Doc
> > >
> > > This Harvard Business School working paper on Creating Reciprocal Value Through Operational Transparency is interesting
> > > http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7549.html
> > >
> > > Although it talks about creating value for customers through transparency in service operations, I wonder whether this is transferable to transparency in data operations too. The challenge is to show that is actuually would or does create reciprocal value for customers, not that it should creeate value (because the privacy fanatics would wish it so).
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best regards from Cologne, Graham
> > > --
> > > Dr. Graham Hill
> > >
> > > UK +44 7564 122 633
> > > DE +49 170 487 6192
> > > http://twitter.com/GrahamHill
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/grahamhill
> > > http://www.customerthink.com/graham_hill
> > >
> > > Partner
> > > Optima Partners
> > > http://www.optimapartners.co.uk
> > >
> > > Senior Associate
> > > Nyras Capital
> > > http://www.nyras.co.uk
>
> --
> Don Marti
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/
>

This email and any attachment contains information which is private and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e-mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.