Compart Launches CCM Evidencing Solution
DocBridge Auditrack is a scalable and powerful software solution that monitors and provides real-time feedback on the entire CCM production process.More
In managing customer experience expectations, key performance indicator systems (KPI-Systems) must be strictly oriented to strategic corporate goals in document and output management - otherwise they remain ineffective.
Hardly any other topic is subject to as many misunderstandings as KPI monitoring. Many companies are poking their way into the fog in this respect. The reason: Relevant key figures are often difficult to define and often change. As a result, the KPIs can be defined arbitrarily without knowing exactly which ones are relevant today. Mass instead of class then becomes the order of the day. Another typical feature is the one-to-one adoption of seemingly common KPIs ("That's how the others do it, too") - regardless of whether they really benefit the individual company.
The fact is, however, that key figures only make sense if they are clearly oriented towards strategic objectives/specifications (e.g. cost reduction in output management / increase in customer satisfaction). Otherwise you have a lot of data, but in the end you don't know the degree to which the objectives have been achieved. Then the disappointment is great when no viable decisions for the optimization of processes can be derived from the "data chaos". Instead of "collecting information like wildfire" (based on the principle that you first take everything you get and then look later at what you can do with it), you should first take a close look at your IT infrastructure.
Reading time: 8 min
KPI monitoring is not just a management issue at the C level. Rather, they can represent a benefit for a number of levels of government. However, there is no standard size for KPIs. For example, does a print center manager need detailed information about the response times to customer email requests? It is more likely that he or she wants to achieve the best possible machine utilization. Therefore, they need data in this context.
And: What are the benefits of even the most detailed data if it cannot or cannot be evaluated according to the target? This would be like the doctor sending the patient for an X-ray, but not able to derive a suitable treatment from the findings, or not be able to derive it because the cause of the discomfort cannot be seen on the X-ray. So was x-raying the appropriate diagnostic procedure at all, or should another method perhaps be used (MRT, computed tomography, etc.)?
So the question remains: What is the aim of the query? What do you want to find out? Not everything that an IT system can offer in the form of figures must really be measured. After all, KPIs are often not identical to raw data - they are usually compiled or calculated from it.
It is therefore crucial to first define the KPIs relevant for obtaining the desired information, then measure the correct data from the correct sources and finally prepare them in such a way that concrete instructions for the implementation of the associated strategic guidelines can be derived from them. Creating the "X-ray image" alone is not enough.
The following questions need to be answered in this context:
It is also important to continuously review the defined KPIs and compare them with the current corporate strategy. Are they still relevant or do they need to be redefined? Do other metrics possibly provide more and better information about the degree of fulfillment?
For the KPI monitoring systems, this means that they must be flexible enough to deliver the desired information quickly and decisively and to prepare it in such a way that it can be used to derive concrete instructions for achieving the targets, even if the strategic goals suddenly change.
In addition, there is another important aspect: Before the data is collected, it must be clearly defined where it is collected and stored. In document processing one should focus on the events along the document production (process chain). All processing steps that generate or change information and formats can be of interest to different KPIs. Typical error in this context: You leave the data in the IT system in which they occur - ergo only the department that works with this application has access to the KPI.
The fact is that most companies now see the creation of a central data repository as a feasible solution. It is accessible to everyone, but at the same time "acts" independently of the departments and also of the document-generating and processing applications.
The creation of such a central data instance would lay a technological foundation for complete traceability. Instead of storing data decentrally ("silo architecture"), it is managed and consolidated by a "control center".
But be careful! The idea could arise of also transferring information from resource management or asset management to the same central repository. However, it is crucial to only store the really document-relevant data in the repository. Otherwise, it is very difficult to generate meaningful information from the resulting "data chaos" with the aid of expensive tools.
In addition, the repository must be able to store both data from the entire production chain (e.g. printing/shipping dates, document volumes, postage costs, shipment bundling) and accompanying information (when was the e-mail sent, received and read?). When was a link clicked? When will the letter be delivered? When did you look at the archive copy?).
In order to avoid misunderstandings, it is not necessary to record the data of each individual processing step within the process chain if the resulting information is not relevant at a certain point in time ("one never knows" approach). But it should be possible as soon as it becomes necessary. Therefore, all interfaces of the affected systems must be assessed accordingly.
In addition, the system should have a high degree of flexibility in order to pick up information from "new" media of the future - after all, customer communication is subject to constant change.
The importance of the principles listed here is most evident in companies that operate the entire document processing chain in-house. No partial aspect can now be transferred to the responsibility of another organization. Thus, the process chain to be monitored covers everything - from transactional data generation, document creation, formatting and optimization, to medium selection and associated channel-specific output optimization, to shipment tracking.
Despite all modern technology, the decisive factor is and remains the determination of the right key figures. And they can be very variable, depending on the corporate strategy and market situation. For example, the world of document and output management today is characterized by fundamental and frequent changes. Among the most important are the following two aspects:
Companies today are more and more confronted with information streams resulting from concrete customer inquiries; documents that arrive not only by e-mail and traditional mail (paper), but above all also via new channels such as portals, chats and messenger services (WhatsApp & Co.). This increasing individualization and digitalization of communication (omnichannel/personalization) means that the customer expects fast response times from the company. What is certain is that today the consumer, the insured, the bank customer, etc. determine the communication medium. The companies have to adjust to this.
The second aspect is closely linked to this:
Paper is losing importance in customer communication and is developing into a premium product for less frequently used high-quality documents (haptic and optical effect). Instead - as mentioned under 1.) - standard communication increasingly takes place via electronic channels.
As a result of these two trends, for example, an insurer with a still high proportion of paper documents in its output (e.g. insurance policies) could still regard the optimization of the printing line as an important strategic goal. Accordingly, the relevant key figures must be defined, measured and analyzed (e.g. machine utilization, changeover times, toner/ink consumption).
With the spread of new (electronic) media, however, it is also a question of shortening the response times in digital communication, because the percentage of customers who contact the company electronically ("digital natives") is constantly growing. Ultimately, digitization always means acceleration. Capturing response times is therefore a key task.
It would be conceivable, for example, to stipulate that the insurer's management board requires that every transaction initiated by the customer (contact/communication via digital means) is to be reacted to within a certain period of time (x minutes/hours) - in the form of a confirmation of receipt, for example. ("Thank you for your message. We will contact you as soon as possible."). The challenge now for the clerks is to respond to each transaction as quickly and competently as possible, no matter how complex the communication structures at the insurer are. And if the answer should take place by automated transaction of the existing company-owned systems, then the expectation attitude to the response times will be surely still higher.
So that's the theory. In practice, however, the development of relevant indicators is still a challenge. Most companies are of course aware of the importance of a KPI monitoring in document and output management - but if it is to become concrete, there are still several question marks.
Independent institutes, in addition, specialized ECM providers give in this connection practical assistance (consultation, analysis, software). They help users to obtain the clearest possible information about all process conditions and to precisely identify optimization potentials. The extent to which they are necessary is derived from the control requirements of the respective organization.
"KPI monitoring systems are not an end in themselves, but a pragmatic instrument for quality and cost management of all processes in document and output management," says Ulrich Pantow, Product Manager at Compart AG. "It is important to keep the balance between a reasonable effort for the establishment of a KPI system and the actual gain of knowledge, which must ultimately lead to concrete improvements of the processes.“