A Few Minutes with AppleCare

email

A survey request I didn’t mind receiving

This was originally published on my other blog, but I think it works here, too. I know from comments I’ve received on previous posts that some of you are not fans of Apple. I’m not so much a fan of Apple, as I am a developer who has to work with Apple as we create iPhone/iPad Apps for our employees.

I’m not trying to convince you to buy an iPhone, an iPad or a Mac. I don’t care what you use to do your job, pay your bills, process your photos or write your blog. If you’re happy, I’m happy. I use my iPhone for nearly everything one can do with a phone these days. I use my iPad in support of business, especially while traveling. I write my blog, process my pictures and do the bulk of my job on Windows laptops. My wife pays the bills.

Regardless of what technology, platform (if my boss is reading this, his eyes just rolled) or operating system you’re using, occasionally, you need help. Sometimes, you have to deal with a large vendor’s myriad-level-deep-voice-mail-to-nowhere. Sometimes, your request is routed “off-shore.” Sometimes, you’re relegated to a web-based process, be it a chat or an email exchange. Quite often, you’re left on your own to google your way out of a deep hole.

When I began my call with Apple’s Developer Support Group, I wasn’t optimistic. Mine wasn’t a technical issue, it was an account governance issue, and our two development accounts with Apple are governed (on their end) by over 2,000 pages of terms. I can’t share the details of my issue (try to hide that smile), but I want to share six things that AppleCare did well. So well that I would recommend that any organization, technical or otherwise, steal these ideas. Seriously, steal them! This is one case where you want to be like Apple.

Survey-3

The questions speak to the things Apple is trying to achieve.

1) Four simple options – There was no guesswork involved in the simple voice mail prescreening message. Choices 1-3 were binary. They wanted to know if I was involved with three very specific things. I wasn’t, so I pressed 4 as instructed.

2) Hold Music Options – This is one thing that could make all tech-support / customer service so much better. I had the option to: hold with pop/rock, hold with classical music, hold with jazz or hold in silence. Please, steal this idea, even if you only add “hold in silence” as an option.

3) Fast & Accurate – I was expecting my ‘4 – other’ key press to lead me to a long wait. Instead, in under 3 minutes, a cheerful human being picked-up. Matt asked me several questions. He repeated back the important information, use phonetic “N as in Nancy” spelling to verify details like my email address, and he summarized my problem and stated his understanding of my objective. Oh my word, this guy actually wanted to make sure that he knew what I wanted as an outcome!

Unfortunately, after all the gathering, spell-checking and objective understanding, Matt couldn’t actually help me. But, he said that he knew the group who should be able to help me. Now you know as well as I do, that this is where customer service sinks into a frustrating, seemingly endless, often circular journey of despair. My experience was different:

4) Information gathered and provided – Matt asked for a callback number, in case his attempts to transfer me failed. He also gave me the direct number of the group that he was transferring me to. He put me on hold (previous options, still in effect) for what initially seemed like a long time. Then Matt came back on the line and introduced me to Ashley.

5) Amazing – Number five is now known as “The Amazing Number 5!” I’m talking five golden rings amazing. When Ashley picked up she said: “Matt briefed me on your issue.” What? What tech support school did you guys go to? I was expecting Ashley to start at the beginning, run me through all the questions and then punt me to some no-nothing-schlep who would repeat the process. I didn’t have to repeat anything. She began with a summary of my problem and my expectations, as she understood them. She was correct.

Ashley couldn’t help me achieve the objective I wanted, because Apple doesn’t permit the type of account management I wanted to establish. She did, however, offer an acceptable alternative. She carefully explained the alternative and I agreed that, while different than what I had hoped for, it would work just as well.

6) Insure success – Before hanging up, she asked me if I knew all the steps I had to complete and if I knew how to complete them. She listened while I explained my next steps, she confirmed that my understanding was correct, and she offered to stay on the line while I completed those tasks.

Except for maybe giving Ashley a sweet southern accent, I can’t imagine anything that could have improved my experience. Again, I’m not shilling for Apple, but I do think there are some lessons to be learned from this experience.

The Cost Benefit of User Experience

UI-o-Meter

What are people saying about the last thing you built for them?

I’m doing you a favor today. I’ve written about this subject before, but I’m going to spare you the trouble of searching my blog and I’m going to spare you the accidental navigation (if you’re reading this on a mobile device and trying to scroll) caused by me inserting a bunch of links to previous posts. I’m looking back over my 35-plus years doing systems development and I’m going to summarize the whole thing for you:

The people who use the systems you build deserve the best experience you can give them.

There. That’s it. That’s really all you have to read. If you are wondering how I came to that conclusion or why I’m bringing it up, feel free to continue reading but if you’re content to nod your head and even grudgingly agree with me, well then, off you go.

OK, you stuck around. You know what that means. You’re going to have to read a story.

In 1988, I was in a meeting with my boss, a representative of our underwriting department and one of my better programmers. We were discussing a feature the underwriters wanted in the system we were developing for them. First, a little background (hey, you had your chance to leave):

Nuclear reactors get shut down for stuff like refueling and when they are shut down we charge them less for insurance. The way we do this is by dividing the year into a series of consecutive time intervals, each with its own set of state variables and its own pro-rata premium. Creating a new time interval was a big deal and a difficult process prior to the system we were writing. The designer wanted to make it easy. He wanted the system to show a list of time intervals and let the user highlight one and press the “+” key to insert a new time interval after the highlighted one.

This seemed like a simple request and I agreed to it. The designer wanted more. Since we had never had such an interactive feature in a screen before (this was running under DOS), he wanted us to build a prototype. I told him that wasn’t necessary. I told him that he could see the working element as soon as it was done. He argued that a prototype was necessary because this was a “radical departure from any previous approach.” He also added that he wasn’t sure we could make this. I slammed my hand on the table and said:

If the feature you want can be programmed on a DOS PC, she can build it. We don’t have to prove that to you up front, just let her do her (expletive) job!

After the meeting, the woman came into my office and said:

I appreciate your confidence in me and I like the way you stood up for me, but I don’t actually know how to do that.”

I knew that, but as far as I was concerned, that fact was irrelevant. She could learn. The feature was going to make someone’s job easier and that was worth learning how to do.

Today, as we are in the early days of a new wave of development, I am more convinced than ever that the effort required to build a better user experience is a price worth paying. The math is simple. You build a system once every three to five to seven years but people use that system every single day. Where do you want them to register on the UI-O-Meter?

As an added benefit for those of you who stuck around, I am giving you the answers to a few common problems. Note: I have tested all of these:

We don’t have time to do this” – Give them a choice of waiting a little longer or accepting a second phase to the project.

We can’t do that in SharePoint” – Buy an add-on feature or hire one of those SharePoint whiz-kid consultants who can.

This can’t be done in SharePoint” – Move the process to a different platform.

This would take too many development hours” – Do the math. Development hours vs. hours spent using a crappy system.

If all of those fail, slap your hand on the table and sprinkle in a few bad words.

If you have your own favorite excuse and an alternate way of looking at it, please add your thoughts to the comments.

Liking Nintex

imageSummer is a funny time in most small shops. Projects start and stop as people take time off and attentions get diverted to the periodic crisis or to fill-in for an absent coworker. The downside for someone trying to craft a blog entry at the end of each week is that there isn’t much to work with. Those of you that come here don’t come to hear about the meetings I attended or the fires I put out. The upside is that this post will be short.

One of the interesting things I did this week was to build a SharePoint Workflow using Nintex Workflow. I’ve used Nintex before, but this time, I was teaching someone else how to build a “proper” workflow. The workflow is another part of our Payables process and it allows our accountants to delete a payable that has been submitted and approved for payment. Yeah, sometimes people make mistakes. To prevent someone from making those mistakes worse, this workflow needs to verify that a series of conditions are true. The payable hasimage to be at a specific status. The person running the workflow has to be a member of accounting. A bunch of people have to be notified, the activity has to be logged and we also have to let people know if any of those conditions aren’t met and the workflow has to be stopped.

All of those things can be done using a SharePoint Designer workflow. So, why does the title point out that I like Nintex Workflows? Well, that’s the point of this post. Here is my list of the things I like about Nintex Workflows:

I can add multiple logical conditions into the kick-off point of a single “Run if” block. You can see that illustrated in the image at the top.

I can act against multiple list items in one step. For example, I can say “go find all the allocations that have the same payment_request_ID as this imageitem and delete them.” You can’t do that in SharePoint Designer in SharePoint 2010

I can give an intelligent name to each workflow step. So, the above example step can be called “Delete Allocations” – I like that.

I can copy steps. We need to create a log entry regardless of the imageend-state of the process. Since some of those states cause the workflow to stop, I need to have the “Create Log Entry” step in multiple places which is very easy to do. Copy. Paste. Configure. Done.

I can drag and drop steps in and out of Condition blocks and Impersonation blocks which is very helpful when you realize that you have the right action but that it’s happening in the wrong place.

I can export and import entire workflows. In fairness, I think I can do this in SharePoint Designer, but I have had problems with that process and this worked like magic. I built the basic structure of this workflow from an earlier workflow that lets the person who submitted the payable to delete it before it’s approved.

And, my favorite thing – you work in a browser as opposed to a somewhat finicky, somewhat unpredictable and somewhat predictably bad stand-alone product.

That’s it for today. Not much of a product review, but I think you can understand why I like Nintex. And, I said it in fewer than 600 words.

Episode II

imageShortly after I posted the first episode in this little mini-series on leaving SharePoint, Christophe a.k.a. @PathToSharePoint suggested that Office 365 might be the answer to the problems we are having. I responded, telling him SharePoint 365, sorry SharePoint Online will have a role in our future, just not this role. It is as if SharePoint Online had shown up for an audition, missed the lead role but got picked up as an extra on a different film. Hey, that’s show-biz.

The reason we looked at SharePoint Online was because we thought it would be easy. In some ways, it would be easy. Unfortunately, the ways in which it would be easy are the ways it would be easy for us. We already know SharePoint, so working with SharePoint in the cloud would be a snap. We already have the content organized in SharePoint so moving it to the cloud would be a snap. We already own MetaVis, so moving our on-premises SharePoint stuff into the cloud would be…what’s the word for a snappier snap…let’s say easy-peasy. The problem is that we’re supposed to be making life easier for our customers. How does that work for me?

Once when I was discussing two options with my boss, he summarized my arguments by saying:

“Let’s see, the business benefits are the same. Option one is expensive but it would be easy for you. Option two is cheap but it will be harder for you to work with. I’m going to go with option two.”

That’s the thing with business problems, the solutions are spread across a spectrum of benefit. If we can’t have the whole rainbow, we have to focus on our members and our customers first.

The big reason SharePoint Online would be easy is because we are going to use it for a part of our normal business process. We have some stuff in SharePoint on premises that requires high availability. Specifically, it needs to be available when our office is without power. We don’t have any redundant power options, so we have to create redundant content. The content is in SharePoint, the redundant content will be in SharePoint online, done. That works really well, but again, it works for us. There are ways to make it easy for our domain users to log into SharePoint in the cloud, but our customers aren’t in our domain. In order to get them to login, they would have to have some sort of Microsoft account.

As far as Microsoft is concerned, this isn’t an issue because everybody either has or can have a Microsoft account. Yeah, but that’s not really the case. Some people don’t have an account. Some of those people don’t want one. Some people have a Microsoft account, but it isn’t associated with their job.

I had to create a Microsoft account in order to work with an association I belong to. As an old boss used to say: “the process was 1, 2, 6;” in other words, a snap. I don’t use this account very often, but whenever I do, my first task is to delete about 100 pieces of junk mail. This is the last thing I want our customers to have to do in order to work with us.

In addition, for security reasons, some of our customers are prevented from using personal credentials to access content while at work and others are prevented from creating such an account that is linked to their domain email address. In our on premises implementation, we had a separate domain and we issued credentials when necessary. Moving to the cloud seemed like a step backward as far as user experience goes.

Finally, in addition to all of the above, if we did go with SharePoint Online as a solution, our content would be in SharePoint, duh. I you remember the original post in this series, the problem with that is that most of our customers, I’d say 95% of them; simply want to download files from our repository. They don’t want calendars, tasks, blogs, wikis, custom lists, metadata and workflows – just the files. When that’s all they want, you either have to spend time to make SharePoint look less capable than it is, or you are going to make your customers wade through a process that seems overly complex.

If you are a lover of suspense, stop reading. I’m going to spoil the ending of this saga. We have decided to use Citrix ShareFile for this application. I’ll explain why we selected it and how we use/plan to use that service in the final installment of this series. Until then, I can say that we are very excited about it, our employees are very excited about it and the customers we’ve spoken to are very excited about it.

It’s Alive

iPad Screen shotWell I guess the phrase is actually “it’s now gone live” but that just doesn’t invoke the same emotional response. We have a business process that is now partially running in SharePoint. Even better, the right portion is running in SharePoint and the stuff that shouldn’t be in SharePoint is running somewhere else.

The business process is “payables” – something everybody has to do but something most people do differently than we do. See, we’re small, we don’t have a lot of vendors, we don’t have a complicated (no you can’t have that) procurement process and we don’t have a receiving dock. We buy things. We hire contractors. We incur professional fees. We refund premium on occasion and we reimburse people for things. We do this a bunch of ways. We have Concur (shudder and cue the foreboding music) which I actually kinda like. We do ACH transactions. We do wire transfers and we write checks. We also periodically reimburse people for small purchases with something called cash. I’m sure some of the younger readers are Googling that term.

The payables process, in addition to resulting in many financial outcomes, begins with a variety of financial transactions. Eventually, we will lasso all of these transactions and pull them into the same ring, but we decided to start with Check-Requests and checks. The process is pretty simple. We buy something from a vendor. They send us an invoice. We send them a check. In between step 2 and 3, someone studies the invoice, makes sure it’s legitimate, prepares a check request and then somebody else approves that request. That whole process, the stuff between step 2 and 3, is now done in SharePoint. Below are some of the cool things we (remember ‘we’ now means ‘they’ and stands for the shy people on my team) were able to include:

  • Maintaining a list of vendors that are automatically checked to make sure they aren’t on the US Treasury’s list of bad guys, and then approved by someone in authority in accounting.
  • Create a check request for an invoice(s) from an approved vendor.
  • Attach the image(s) of the receipt(s) to that check request.
  • Allocate the amount of that/those invoice(s) across multiple departments or multiple accounts within a department. For example, I buy a server, but some portion of the invoice is for the warranty.
  • Route the check request to one or more people for approval.
  • Do all the little checks and balances like making sure that the total of the allocations equal the total of the request.
  • Approve individual check requests for payment.
  • Allow the approvers to send the request back to the previous person to correct an error.

The tools used to make this happen include:

  • SharePoint external lists and the ability to impersonate users when working with them
  • InfoPath forms
  • Custom lists and views
  • Data View Web Parts to put the forms, lists and view on a single interactive page.
  • SharePoint Designer workflows to respond to the various activities a user did and to validate the transaction while it is in process
  • HarePoint’s Workflow Extensions to do some of the tricky stuff that SharePoint Designer doesn’t seem to do, like execute SQL Statements or use Regular Expressions to evaluate a sting.
  • Nintex Workflow’s “for each” capability to cycle through each Paid request in an external list to update our detailed custom list with the payment details.
  • All the various widget to widget connections you can establish in SharePoint Designer to get web parts to respond to other web parts.

We decided to use InfoPath instead of other techniques because we wanted a more functional form with less code buried behind it. I’m not sure that we saved on the coding effort, but I like the mix we are left with. We are trying to stay very close to the level where we can establish the action we want by “configuring” parts instead of writing code. It’s a fine-line kind of balancing act, but it works for us.

This just in, yes I know that Microsoft has put InfoPath on the short-line track to obscurity, but it will be around for a while and I feel that we risk very little by using it the way we do.

The reason I said that the right stuff is and isn’t running in SharePoint is central to our use case for having SharePoint and it is something that I think people often overlook – SharePoint runs in a browser. By building the front-end of this application in SharePoint, I can let people who are traveling submit invoices to be paid, approve payment requests and manage their budgets without having to write any web stuff. Also, since we have that Mass360 browser I talked about, I can approve payments on my iPad without a VPN connection.

The stuff that’s not running in SharePoint are those back-room accounting processes that nobody sees and everyone is content just knowing that they get done. Nothing to see here, move along.

Platform Jacking

I first heard the term Newsjacking used by David Meerman Scott. In fact he may have invented the term. That doesn’t surprise me. I have heard David speak several times, and he has been so far ahead of the curve that the future appeared to be a straight line.

I hope that’s enough homage to @dmscott for him to look the other way as I borrow his term and mangle it. I simply couldn’t think of a better way to describe what happens when a company moves in to exploit a hole in what should be another product’s / company’s domain. Think about the way Google stepped into fill the void Apple left when they decided to stop using Google Maps (in favor of their not nearly as accurate maps). Now, instead of Google being passed by, this may have evolved into a normal competition, but that’s a subject for someone else’s blog.

Microsoft, in my opinion has been jacked on at least two (maybe 3) occasions. OK, here’s the difference between me and David Meerman Scott and my blog and a blog written by an analyst – ‘my opinion’ is based on my experience and that’s all. Here are my three candidates:

MaaS360 – Back in the days when we were eagerly awaiting the first beta of SharePoint 2010, I was listening to a presentation by a Microsoft employee who suggested that one of the features of SP2010 would be a way to tunnel into SharePoint without VPN – Something Microsoft does with both Exchange and Lync via an edge Server. Those two features were a tremendous boon to our operation, and left most of our employees not even needing VPN connections on their laptops. If we had that ability for SharePoint, I could forget how to spell VPN, but we don’t. Once again, if we actually do, please explain it to me in a comment and I’ll buy you a beer if we ever meet in person.

Anyway, what I don’t think Microsoft does for my laptop, they clearly don’t do for my iPhone or my iPad – but MaaS360 does. If you’re not familiar with MaaS360, it’s a mobile device management app which allows companies to control mobile access at a very granular level. In addition, there is the MaaS360 Browser that talks to its counterpart server and provides seamless access to SharePoint from my iPhone. We are now planning to build out a collection of nice mobile pages so our employees will have access to SharePoint from their iPhone/iPads without VPN.

Harmon.ie – By far the best example of filling a void is Harmon.ie, the product that fills the chasm between Exchange and SharePoint so brilliantly that I no longer want Microsoft to build the feature into either server. Harmon.ie’s product is so cool, and so robust that I needed a term like Platform Jacking to describe it – some of our employees literally work out of Outlook and the Harmon.ie sidebar as if SharePoint doesn’t even exist. SharePoint, in these cases has simply become the invisible conduit to the even more invisible SQL Server.

I’ve written about Harmon.ie before, but a reader recently asked me to review Harmon.ie’s iPad app. OK, so we have to go back to that whole “not an analyst” thing. Giving a review sort of implies that I know something about Harmon.ie’s competitors – I don’t. Someone on my staff used to, but then we purchased Harmon.ie and we stopped caring about alternatives. Here are a couple of reasons why we still don’t care:

Harmon.ie works – You might be surprised to hear “it works” used as a differentiating statement for products, but it can be. Some products don’t work, or they don’t work as advertised. Harmon.ie works, and if you every find and area where it doesn’t, they will fix it fast.

Harmon.ie fills many holes – Harmon.ie started by filling the hole between Exchange and SharePoint and Lotus Notes and SharePoint. Then, they released Harmon.ie for the iPad and I had a way to connect my Exchange email with SharePoint on my iPad that looked and felt very similar to the way I connect these two essential products on my desktop. Now, I see that Harmon.ie has been released for the OWA client for Office 365. These guys are always one step ahead of demand.

WebEx – I recently received a new laptop at work. Somewhere during the lifespan of my old laptop, we switched to WebEx for hosting public meetings. Check out the picture at the top – That’s from my desktop, and WebEx has attached itself to my Lync client as if to remind me that Lync doesn’t work so well for public meetings. WebEx is jacking Lync right on Microsoft’s front lawn.