“Customer focus”, and “customer centricity” are certainly very desirable traits for pretty much any business these days. With their growing popularity, the idea of “internal customers” has become mainstream. However, I have come to the conclusion that the “internal customer” concept self-deceptive. It avoids questioning some fundamental organizational beliefs. And in turn it avoids fundamental changes that are required for true customer centricity.
The Oxford Dictionary defines a customer as “a person who buys goods or services from a shop or business.” The opposite of the customer is the seller. A key aspect of the relationship with a customer, then, is the exchange of money. This definition alone debunks most of the “internal customers” I have ever seen, because none of them transfer money. They just consume work results for a downstream activity in a larger workflow.
The customer is someone outside your company that transfers money to the company in exchange for services or products. It’s the money your company needs to sustain its business. It’s the money your company needs to pay your wage. If that money comes from within, the business is not self-sustainable, and hence you cannot be customer focused (or centered, or oriented, …) on an internal customer. Some use the opportunity to change their focus from themselves (as in “We created this new request form to optimize our internal processes and reduce load on the team”) to those who use their work (as in “We created this new request form to make it easier for you to order what you need”). That’s a great first step. It is far from customer focus, though, as it is still internally focused.
One might argue that in an organization with strict internal service charges, we have internal customers, as those customers transfer money in exchange for services consumed. I have thought so myself for quite some time, at least on the condition that the internal customer is free to buy the same service elsewhere if he wishes (essentially, customer-centricity on forced customers is a joke). I have changed my view on that, though. As the money transferred in internal service charges is money that has been in the company before – it’s a game of left-pocket to right-pocket. From an economic perspective, it’s a zero-sum game for the company.
The German language has an interesting term to describe the actual role of an ‘internal customer’: “Abnehmer”. It has no direct translation in English. It means ‘those who take on your work results’. It might be translated as “consumer” or “receiver”. I dislike the passivity of ‘receiving’; I find it does not adequately describe the relationship. On the other hand, I’m uneasy with ‘consuming’ as it has the connotation of using something up. Lacking a better term (ideas welcome) I will use “consumer” in the remainder of this text, and I advocate to mentally as well as verbally separate the consumer of our work from the customer. In many cases, they are not the same people.
It is important because teams or departments that are not directly connected to the actual customer (and especially in larger organizations, this might be most of the organization) will behave differently, depending on whom (they think) they serve. The ‘internal customer’ is an important yet dangerous concept here. The point is that focusing on the customer does not diminish the service to consumers in any way. Instead, it sets a frame and context for that service, turning it into a contribution to the customer’s needs. Often, the difference is subtle, but meaningful.
- While a process engineer focused on consumers might design processes to avoid quality issues in from engineering or manufacturing teams, a process engineer focused on customers will seek to design processes to help his consumers deliver high-quality products to customers.
- While an agile coach focused on the consumers might seek to implement Scrum (or whatever framework) with a team, an agile coach focused on customers will seek to enable the team to deliver to customers with improved service quality (might imply speed, volume, product quality, …) and reap business opportunities as they emerge.
- While a QA responsible focused on the consumer might aim to avoid audit findings by rigorously checking all the formalities, a QA responsible focused on customers will seek to help teams bring products to customers quickly in a safe, reliable, and compliant way.
- …
What sounds like a nuance can make a significant difference.
So, what is to be done? First and foremost, I think it is important to get clarity around who your customer vs consumer is, and maybe you have a bunch of other stakeholders that you want to differentiate clearly. Reflect on your current thinking and behavior: Who do you currently serve? Who do you have in mind when you define and deliver your services? This is especially important for internal services. Reflect: What would you do differently when you take the customer into the picture? How would that affect the consumers of your work? How would it affect your collaboration with them? And finally, whenever you hear someone talk about their ‘internal customer’: Flinch!
Title photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
Marc's Thought Nuggets 