BIZ104 Customer Experience Management
| ASSESSMENT BRIEF 2 | |
| Subject Code and Title | BIZ104 Customer Experience Management |
| Assessment | Research Report |
| Individual/Group | Individual |
| Length | 1,500 Words |
| Learning Outcomes | b. Apply the influence of perception to the customer experience of service delivery |
| c. Document a customer journey map | |
| d. Identify tools to monitor and evaluate a customer experience strategy | |
| Due by 11:55pm AEST/AEDT Sunday of Module 4(Week 8) | |
| Submission | |
| Weighting | 35% |
| Total Marks | 100 marks |
Context:
This assessment advances the student’s customer experience research skills. User personas for this assessment are required to be data-driven and quantitatively validated. Students are also required to conceptualize customers interacting with a product across several as touch points such as in-store, website, mobile, social media, and email. This assessment is designed to develop your generative research skills to build qualitative, data driven personas for your chosen company or product. These personas are representatives of the users of your product for whom you are designing an experience for. You will also be assessed on the process you undertake for the identification, analysis and customer research for your product.
Instructions:
You will select one of the following of your own professional or personal interest: product, service, institution or event.
This can either be an existing or even a proposed product (i.e. a business idea, a proposed event or even your college).
You are expected to conduct as much field and desktop research as possible into the inner workings of your chosen organization, its industry and its target customers.
Your aim is to apply research tools and concepts towards identifying the challenges and opportunities for achieving a customer experience that is in line with the organizations strategic objectives.
Students are required to complete generative research (in the form of face-to-face consultations or contextual enquiry sessions) and preference research (large sample survey) to produce data-driven and validated user personas. Students will also use their collected data to complete customer personas and journey maps.
Use the CEM research tools to answer the questions – What is the current state of the service experience of the product or organization? How does it rate or compare with competitor offerings?
The report should:
- Offer a brief introduction to the industry within which the organization competes and a brief background into the company and its service offering.
- Identify and differentiate 3 customer personas to illustrate and communicate their unique customer perspectives.
- Provide evidence of generative research data using at least 2 of the following:
- -At least 5 customer interviews,
- -10 completed customer surveys,
- -observational data from field research
- -existing customer data
These should be placed in the appendix of the report.
- Map the current experience and journey maps for each of the 3 customer profiles showing the customer’s experience before, during and after the service/product experience.
- Competitor analysis that compares at least 2 competitors based on any 3 key customer experience issues as highlighted from the generative research results
- Summarize the results of your research by addressing the current state of the service experience of the product or organization and how the current customer experience rates or compares with competitor offerings?
Part A: Presentation of CEM Strategy – Learning Rubrics
| Pass | Credit | Distinction | High Distinction | ||||
| Assessment | Fail (Unacceptable) | ||||||
| (Functional) | (Proficient) | (Advanced) | (Exceptional) | ||||
| Attributes | 0-49 | 50-64 | 65-74 | 75-84 | 84-100 | ||
| Adherence to | Failed to plan and deliver research | Minimum effort in developing | Research plan and | Well executed research | Exceeded the required | ||
| qualitative user | accordingly. Less than 3 research | research plan, recruiting | recruitment displays | plan and sessions. | planning and research | ||
| research | sessions with minimal insight into | participants, sessions and | student’s effort in | Resulted in clear | activities for this section. | ||
| methodology, quality | audience segments. Inaccuracies of | compilation of data. Personas | wanting to extract | customer personas. | Researched a high | ||
| of research planning, | research, with falsified or missing data.produced with significant | insights from | Iterations of research | number of respondents | |||
| recruitment, | Poor quality personas that have been | inaccuracies. | respondents. Research | confirmed and accurate | with several iterations | ||
| made up. | generated key CEM | personas developed. | and strong research | ||||
| identification of key | |||||||
| issues that were tested | Actively recruited | summary from initial data | |||||
| CEM issues and | |||||||
| in further iterations. | respondents from varied | collated. Demonstrated | |||||
| development of | |||||||
| Fair-Good persona | demographics (not just | commitment to further | |||||
| accurate customer | |||||||
| quality. | fellow students) and | generative research until | |||||
| personas. | |||||||
| committed to extracting | accurate personas were | ||||||
| 30% | research data and | derived. | |||||
| analyzing to arrive at | |||||||
| conclusions. | |||||||
| Difficult to understand for audience, | Information, arguments and evidence | Information, arguments and | Information, arguments | Expertly presented; the | ||
| Effective | no logical/clear structure, poor flow | are presented in a way that is not | evidence are well | and evidence are very | presentation is logical, | |
| of ideas, argument lacks supporting | always clear and logical. | presented, mostly clear flow | well presented, the | persuasive, and well | ||
| communication | evidence. No effort is made to keep | Attempts are made to keep the | of ideas and arguments. | presentation is logical, | supported by evidence, | |
| 10% | audience engaged, audience cannot | audience engaged, but not always | The audience is mostly | clear and well | demonstrating a clear flow | |
| follow the line of reasoning. | successful. Line of reasoning is often | engaged, line of reasoning is | supported by evidence. | of ideas and arguments. | ||
| Little use of presentation aids, or the | difficult to follow. Presentation aids | easy to follow. Effective use | Engages the audience, | Engages and sustains | ||
| presentation aids and material used | are used more for effect than | of presentation aids. | demonstrates cultural | audience’s interest in the | ||
| are irrelevant. | relevance. | sensitivity. | Carefully | topic, demonstrates high | ||
| and well | prepared | levels of cultural sensitivity | ||||
| presentations aids are | Effective use of diverse | |||||
| used. | presentation aids, | |||||
| including graphics and | ||||||
| multi-media. | ||||||
| Correct citation of key | Demonstrates inconsistent use of | Demonstrates use of credible and | Demonstrates use of high | Demonstrates use of | Demonstrates use of high- | |||||
| resources and evidence | good quality, credible and relevant | relevant resources to support and | quality, credible and | good quality, credible | quality, credible and | |||||
| resources to support and develop | develop ideas, but these are not | relevant resources to | and relevant resources | relevant resources to | ||||||
| 10% | ideas. | always explicit or well developed. | support and develop ideas. | to support and develop | support and develop | |||||
| arguments and | arguments and position | |||||||||
| statements. Shows | statements. Shows | |||||||||
| evidence of wide scope | evidence of wide scope | |||||||||
| within the organisation | within and without the | |||||||||
| for sourcing evidence | organisation for sourcing | |||||||||
| evidence | ||||||||||
| Personas are not data-driven, are | Some evidence of segmentation for | Personas are backed by | Personas are data driven | Personas are data driven | ||||||
| Personas | each persona, but too many | research findings, are | with clear segmentation | with clear | ||||||
| made up and assumed. | assumptions made without evidence | mostly qualitative with | and quantitative | segmentation across | ||||||
| 20% | ||||||||||
| of research validation. | some quantitative | validation. | demographics, goals, | |||||||
| validation | attitudes and | |||||||||
| behaviours and are | ||||||||||
| professionally | ||||||||||
| presented. | ||||||||||
| Too brief and not | Some | clear | CEM | issues | Good selection of CEM | Strong CEM | Detailed but | |||
| Competitor | considerate of entire | compared | used | but | lacks the | issues and categories | issues compared, | succinct in its | ||
| journey or strategy. | detail | for | true | comparative | with a clear summary of | very clear | communication. | |||
| analysis | ||||||||||
| analysis | the data collected and | insights and | Excellent choice of | |||||||
| 15% | how it will affect the | provides a clear | CEM issues with | |||||||
| student’s | rationale for the | clearly defined | ||||||||
| product. | student’s | insights attained | ||||||||
| product direction. | from the | |||||||||
| comparative | ||||||||||
| analysis. | ||||||||||
| 10 | ||||||||||
| Customer Journey | Too brief and not | Considerate of pre-engagement, | Research-driven map | Detailed maps of | Excellently presented |
| Maps | considerate of entire | usage as well as post- | with insights derived | journeys with clear | map with important |
| journey. Poorly executed with | engagement. Not clear how the | for optimizing touch- | derivation from the | insights into the | |
| little thought given to key | research has driven the | points. Good selection | compiled customer | customer’s triggers, | |
| 15% | channels of interaction. | creation of the map. Basic | of channels and | research. Well | drivers, influencers and |
| channels for user interaction | journeys adopted for | executed journey | other key empathy | ||
| noted with minimal steps | detailed interactions | maps with high | facets. Is strongly | ||
| identified and outlined in each | along each journey. | level of detail and | research-based. | ||
| journey map. | clearly | Exceeds requirements | |||
| communicated. | for journey maps by | ||||
| use of high quantity | |||||
| and quality of mapping | |||||
| as well as summarized | |||||
| insight into optimizing | |||||
| certain journeys or | |||||
| paths. Professionally | |||||
| presented. | |||||
| COMMENTS: |
