Have you taken a look at the “Consumer Bill of Rights” lately? I read this when I joined the Alliance years ago and while I thought it made a strong statement I really did not spend too much time thinking about it. I had a conversation with an MSP at the last conference that led me to print out the statement and spend some time thinking about its content.
As I read it through a couple times a realized that it really defined what I think our ultimate goal is as a Managed Services Provider. That is to become the “Trusted Advisor” to our customers. This is what truly differentiates us from our competitors and other business models. We are not there to sell them a product, rather at the foundation we are there to provide security and stability to their network. As that stability is reached, rather than work ourselves out of a job as many people in the T&M business model fear, we work to become the customers most valued partner, their Trusted Advisor.
This is an area that I believe many MSPs struggle with, so if you are looking at your solutions and your customer base and thinking how can I better serve them, how can I grow past just providing support, I suggest you take a hard look at the “Consumer Bill of Rights” and perhaps make it your “Trusted Advisor Mission Statement”. You could learn a lot from those 9 consumer rights.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
which NYT article are you referring to?
This is a very pertinent issue Lane. The code of ethics and bill of rights are both good guiding documents - compasses when you run across channel conflicts with vendors and multiple parties managing services for a single client. As these documents strees, we stay focused on the customer's concerns first and foremost.
We just had a VPN support ticket today where we were on the phone with the customer and had quickly isolated an issue to one of their servers that we do not manage.
We particiapted on serveral calls with the provider that manages their internal servers and another that manages their firewall (both giants).
We stayed through to resolution. We were the first one's they called and the last ones documenting, monitoring and helping them understand what happened after everyone else had closed out their tickets once they knew it was not their issue or that it seemed resolved.
We feel that the "Trusted Advisor" role is very important to maintaining strong relationships with our customers. This particular customer is going on five years with us now and they tell us many times that we are a life line for them. You can't get a better compliment.
Agreed Mike. I think these conflicts of interest will eventually show the MSP as the only party that is truly looking out for the client's best interests.
Great post Lane.
Sorry about that NYT comment ... Blogger got confused and posted a comment that I had made to a completely different blog months ago.
My question was: Can you provide a link to the specific consumer bill of rights you're referring to? There are several documents out there with that name.
Blogger is forgiven ;)
Here is a link to the Code of Ethics http://www.mspalliance.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=872&Itemid=139)
And to the Consumer Bill of Rights
http://www.mspalliance.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1132&Itemid=138
Until today I had not read the Consumer Bill of Rights. (Does that mean I lied on my application to the MSPA? If so, I apologize!) I am glad to see that the MSPA is thinking of the consumer, but I have some problems with the specific wording of the Bill of Rights. I believe that if the language is strictly interpreted, then every single member of the MSPA -- including myself -- is violating it. There are three sections that I find particularly problematic.
1) I have the right to expect impartial advice from my MSP. Moreover, I have the right to expect my MSP to propose solutions and products that are not unduly influenced by any one vendor.
The days of vendor agnosticism in IT consulting are gone. Every MSP has a small set of technologies that it recommends to its customers. Some technologies are actually bundles of products and procedures that the MSP has put together in a unique way; these constitute the MSP's "special sauce." So the MSP cannot help being unduly influenced by any one vendor -- the MSP **is** the vendor! (I expand on this point at great length on my own blog. See reference below.)
6) I expect that my MSP will avoid any situation that may create a conflict of interest.
This goes hand-in-hand with the previous point. An MSP who is also acting as a "trusted advisor" has an inherent conflict of interest. This conflict can be disclosed, discussed, and mutually accepted, but it cannot be avoided.
8) I have the right to expect that my MSP will not take advantage of the lack of knowledge or inexperience of others.
But that is what we do for a living! If our clients had all the knowledge and experience that we do, they wouldn't pay us any more than they pay for janitorial or delivery services. I'm sure the author of this point had a different meaning in mind when he or she wrote it, but a literal interpretation of this clause is impossible to live up to.
These critiques aside, I am happy to see a discussion of this topic. As I said, it is one that I have also blogged about: http://tinyurl.com/2ug76c. I look forward to a continued conversation.
There are a lot of very good concepts being discussed here but I will attempt to clarify the few you raised:
This bill of rights is nothing new or radical that doesn't already exist in other professional fields. In fact, it was modeled very closely after what other "clients" or "patients" enjoy from other professionals.
Being unduly influenced means you are not an agent for a company. I mean, if all you do is sell brand x, tell me at the outset so I know that is the only option you will be giving me. It may in fact be the best choice for a client but they should know that you are only giving them one choice. I can point you to thousands of MSPs who are "agnostic" when it comes to the vendors they support.
If you are doing business knowing you have a conflict of interest but feel that disclosing it is sufficient I would say your clients may feel different. Disclosing to someone that you don't have their best interests at heart does not relieve you of responsbility.
I would submit that "taking advantage" of your client's lack of knowledge in a particular area is not the professional obligation of a MSP. Instead, you should be doing as much as you can for your clients in areas where you are knowledgeable. For example, if your doctor decided to operate on you even though they didn't have any experience would you feel the same way?
MSPAlliance members do, by and large, conduct themselves according to this code of conduct. Those who cannot live by this code should probably find another line of work. After all, the world needs break/fix companies too.
Charles thanks for the clarification. I do want to comment on the statement that taking advantage of a customers lack of knowledge is "what we do for a living". I most definately disagree with this statement.
To take advantage of someones lack of knowledge is to decieve them. So as an example a customer buys a new computer from you, you have a fairly new one that you used for a while but decided you did not like, so you go ahead and box it up and sell it to them as new.
In this case you have absolutely taken advantage of their lack of knowledge. I can tell you though this is NOT an example of "what we do for a living".
Post a Comment