How a Deep Dive into NPS Transformed Customer Retention for a Leading Bank

Mhm. And this is within the context of being customer obsessed and, and nothing else.

OK. This would actually have to be when I was still working with the bank and the fact was, uh, this was for the NPS implementation plan that we had for our banking entity in Germany. And our banking entity actually catered to B2B and B2C business clients. Our B2C business line was actually having issues with retaining customers, with demographics, and the number of customers that we catered to. And at that point in time, we realized that a way for us to match customer expectations was actually To get information from them, to elicit feedback from our customers. And a way, a methodology to do that, to get customer feedback and integrate that within business processes was NPS, net net, Net Promoter Score. And during the implementation of NPS, uh, There were, there were several independent processes which worked together. The first was TNPS, which meant transactional NPS, which was feedback from customers on how we executed their trades, super specific to, to that service only. The second was RNPS, which is relational NPS, which Gave an overall feedback on how the bank was performing, if the customer's experience was in line with what they expected at a very general level when interacting with a bank or a representative of the bank. The third was HRL. HRL or hot reactive loop, is how we responded to that feedback. We would potentially do it within 72 hours. We would reach out to the customer within 48 hours, and within 72 hours, actually close that customer ticket to get a way of moving forward with the feedback. And the 4th was actually to have an advisory board or a, a, a, a customer champion within the bank. And as for the NPS's plan, we needed to have a certain amount of customer champions inside the bank to meet with Uh, the, the expectations set out by the management committee within the bank. And the, the issue here was Uh, when interacting with a project management officer with in Konos. He mentioned that the implementation index was actually 78. Versus what we were expecting at at HQ at corporate, we were expecting it to be just 74. There was a clear variance here, 78 versus 74, and

the implementation index. Yeah. What is that?

Yeah, the implementation index just showed us, uh, how far along are we along the plan. For example, if we, uh, implemented module submodule A, we would get 10 points. If we implemented another, we would get 5 points. So for 100% implementation, it's 100 points. And at that point in time, we were 74, but the project management officer mentioned it to be 74, uh, 78 instead of 74. Sure. So, uh, although that number was pretty impressive, it just did not align with what our expectations were. And to find out the reason for this variance, I actually reached out to those specific teams, uh, instead of just Confronting with, uh, confronting the project management officer and saying that this isn't aligning with the corporate team, with, with what our expectations are, I decided to dive deep and get information from those individual teams who handled the TNPS aspect. I got in touch with teams who handle the RNPS aspect, the teams who actually nominated customer advocates and customer champions. I reached out to assess and find out. How we are doing on, on that specific part. And by diving deep, I found out that, that the actual index on the ground is actually 74 and not 78. So that's a situation when I had to dive down and dive deep. Multiple layers to find out the issue, to find out a root cause, to See a variance between expectations and what we've delivered. At the bank

Uh, I reached out to, uh, There are teams. Who managed operations at the contact center, who gathered information on TNPS and RNPS. There are members of, of, uh, the HR who handled the fact that there was supposed to be a huddle training for NPS like all members of the organization was supposed to be trained on NPS, but at that point in time, only. Uh, members of the team were trained, were, who were exposed to final customers and not everybody within the organization. So, these were key members, these were key personnel and, and stakeholders who proved to be really important in assessing the variants. People who manage the contact center, and people who actually manage the training aspect of NPS, they proved to be super critical in, in, Proving

The root of the problem was that we actually did not finish the required training program. Instead of training all members of the align organization on, on the NPS methodology, we only ended up training the members of the team who were exposed to customer contacts. So, at that point in time, by, by understanding that there's a clear variance here, we trained, we tried to train all members of staff. And at that point in time, by analyzing the root cause, we were able to nominate an additional customer champion as per the expectations of the initial plan. Instead of 4, we now have 5 champions as per the plan proposed by the Comics Management Committee.

Uh, but within this context here, success was Realignment between the project management officer in Germany and corporate. In that in that regard, in that context, I believe that this dive deep was successful in resolving that professional conflict.