Best practices in achieving a customer-focused culture (Article Critique) Essay

This paper seeks to prep atomic number 18 a pass judgment of the article authorize Best class periods in achieving a guest- cogitateed farming by Bartley, B. et al. (2007). The nature of the critique to be applied is literature critique and an evaluation on the authors ideas, methods and matters. The textile to make the evaluation is to whether the conclusions atomic number 18 stick uped by evidence, whether the methodologies and assumptions single- note valued functiond ex asseverate background, whether statements do are consistent with premises laid down by the authors and whether the authors could accomplish their purposes in making the paper.2. Analysis and Discussion 2. 1 On aims, methodology and approach of the research article The aims of Bartley, et al (2007) in pen the article Best practices in achieving a customer- localiseed culture, include the chase to provide practical insights into how organizations can become more customer-foc apply and to share with the researchers and organizations a frame decease that can be officed to research customer counseling culture. These two aims can be assessed to depend in like manner on the rigourousness of the results or conclusions of their paper.They too aimed to assess an organizations level of customer way to describe how New Zealands first consortium approach to benchmarking was managed so that others interested in planning a consortioun study can win from experience. To assess the level of customer commission in an organization requires the physical exertion of a framework or hence the success and validity of such(prenominal) assessment will depend on the validity of the model. Describing the the approach to benchmarking could be assessed whether it has provided sufficient information to convinve readers that the researcher give way applied the necessary doer to accomplish their purpose.Bartley, B. et al (2007) explained that the study involved the wasting disease of the benchmar king body which was conducted by member organizations from the New Zealand Benchmarking Club (NZBC) and facilitated by a doctoral disciple from Massey Universitys Centre for Organizational Excellence inquiry. Their methodology involved the consume to conduct an extensive literature revue to function them in identifying field and international best practices in customer focus. They also developed a survey that was completed by 32 potential best practice organizations, and selecting seven of these organizations for best practice list.Conducting such a literature palingenesis for the purpose used places logical because the whole caboodle of previous researchers were considered and analyzed to possess the common characteristic of those that were successful with customer focus. It appears that researchers indeed nonplus used sufficient number of researchers whose whole shebang appear mainly in academic journals signifying previous publication and this observation must lend so me class of confirmation of the literature review conducted by the authors. 2. 2 On literature review made by authorsThe authors asserted to befool found a framework for the examination of customer-focused culture via the literature review made. It may be noted that the study include only a survey of 32 potential best organizations as identified by the reseachers and they may not necessarily re pledge the broader characteristics of other organizations in New Zealand and even in the world. They have indeed accepted a limitation of their study that benefits would have been gained if the study has extended to a larger international group.The limitation of the samples use is material into the validity of the survey on whether they consist the real value of customer focus culture to the organizations. In discussing the background of the study, Bartley, et al (2007) cited the the satisfying link between an organizations culture and its performance which they claimed to have been widel y recognised by practitioners where they cited the work of Basch (2002) and academics where they cited the work of Kotter and Heskett (1992).If organizations desire to have enduring relationship and loyal customers, they must be equipped with an effective customer-focused culture which will make it easier for these companies to have successful product and portion delivery. To support their statements they cited the works of Macaukay Clark (1998) and Martin (1992). For the authors customer-focused culture was al nigh as straightforward as survival in the long-term. These findings from literature review prompted the authors and the the 18 organization-members of the NZBC to asks for the componets and charateristics of a good customer-focused culture.For which reason, NZBC was formed by the Massey Universitys Centre for Organizational Excellence Research (COER) in partnership witht the New Zealand Business Excellence Foundation to hand the ambitious vision of becoming world-class p erformers of its members and to adopt excellent seam practices within New Zealand. To measure the improvements by club members, they have hold on a criteria for excellent performance on one-year basis. visit get into 1 of their report and is made part of Appendix 1 of this paper. It appears that their agreement on criteria of performance honor was just not a result of a tests or even a previous study. By tho agreeing and not conducting any test which are the factors there is basis the criteria may be just based on opinions. The results of their literature review resulted to their having identified six characteristics of organizations having performance of good to best practices. Bartley, B. et al.(2007) made use of same six characteristics as an analytical framework. They found the importance of leaders and used the works of Brooks, 1997 Whitely, 1991, Galreath and Rogers, 1999 which found that customers drive organizational direction and actions, to support the characteristic . They also included listening as characteristic where the views of customers are actively sought to have ease of contact/conduct of business where they cited the works of Scheuing (1999) and Plymie (1991). Bartley, B.et al (2007) also included analysis and understanding using the works of Brooks (1997) and Wikstrom (1996) which found that need to understand customer expectations. Further included is integration and deployment where the authors cited the work of Martin (1992) which could the need to act upon customers expectations. Still include is is pile after citing the work of Kennedy, et al, (2002) which determined that customer-focused culture is understood and integrated in the whole the organization. They also included the need to review and improve where they cite the work of Alam and Perry (2002).The fact their literature review is supported by promulgated works of other researchers on the basis of being mainly interpreted from academic journals and other published works, will lends some degree of validity of the summary of characteristics made as part of their analytical framework. 2. 3. On submitted figures as support to analysis Based on literature review made by the authors, they asserted the requirement for organizations to have customer focus culture must be made. Since the purpose is better performance for the organization whether fiscal or otherwisel, customer focused culture must be present in the whole organization.Bartley, B. et al (2007), did argue about the proven confederation between customer focus and performance of organizations in individual and in operation(p) areas as in terms of service quality, customer and employee satisfaction and healthy as profitability citing the work of Appiah-Adu and Singh (1998) and Agarwal et al. (2003). The researchers had set six categories from which its decided which is the some effective way for its members organizations to improve and they stated to have voted to which customer focus issues w ere roughly important. Bartley, B.et al (2007) detailed which were the most important customer issues save they did not show what were the other choices of the respondents in the survey aside from those listed in Table I in the their presentation, which is not part of Appendix 4 of this paper. In the absence of the list of other choices, an inference of a preset result of survey may asserted and which will cast dount at to validity of the surbvey. Moreover, the nature of questions asked were neither presented nor discussed and it could be that the questions asked from respondents are leading and which over again which cast doubt to result of the survey.Bartley, B. et al (2007) also argued that the decision to work on the study was supported by the results of clubs annual assessment against criteria for performance excellence. They stated that the resulst are shown in Figures 2 and 3 which are considered as Appendices 1 and 2 in this paper. Upon deeper investigation, it may be fou nd that Figure 2 had it horizontal axis for customer focus results while the horizontal axis has fiscal and merchandise results. This graph in Figure 2 would mean that independent varying was customer focus results while the dependent variable was the financial and commercialise results.Since Figure 2 shows a signifant relationship of two variable as shown by graph, the researchers are saying the the high customer focused results the higher would be the financial and merchandise results. Since they did not show how they metameric each variable it would appear that the had measured the degrees of customer focus results in the tumid axis and that every increased in the same would give higher results of financial and marketplace results which are not also explained in detail.In other words, in terms of the segmenting the degree of customer focused results the following question die hard answered How much additional degree of customer focused result would pull in additional hig her financial and market result? The graphs as shown in Figure 2 may seem to answer by merely viewing the same but from the minds of this reseacher , the results could in questionable because of the failture to define the content of degrees of customer focused resutls. Would it mean more time given to the customer?Moreover the financial and market resutls in the vertical axis or what may be called as dependent variable in Figure are not also explained. How come that financial and market resutls are combined? If it is financial it may be referring to profitability. Since profitability of the respondents may be best measure by the amount of dollars earned per amount or quantityf of customer focused results, it is difficutl to contemplate how the researchers have mixed financial and market resutls together. Does market resutls imply increased revenues in dollars and increase in market share?In the absence of a clear explanation the result of the researchers work could remain questiona ble and may lack the validity and use for decision making purposes. Figure 3, which is considered Appendix 3 in this paper, also uses confusing variables in the graph by making this time, horizonal axis to represent the Customer and market focus as independent results and making the vertical axis to represent the customer focused results. If Figure 3 is colligate to Figure 2, it would appear what was previously come acrossd as independent variable has now become a dependent variable.Since the researchers did not explain the graph, the most logical inference to find consistency with the what they have concluded is to assume that the more that respondents would have to increase customer and market focus, to have higher of the degree of customer focused results, which as explained earlier were not explained how were they segmented into degrees to afford appreciation of change in the degree. In other words, the muddiness is not clarified by redundantly using a variable without explai ning the man and significant of each degree or level of focused results.As in Figure 2, the use of Figure 3 did not help to support the claim of the researchers and that their conclusion could utmost be considered as surmises or conjectures without sufficient evidence. In addition, the use by researchers again of the customer and market focus as the independent variable appears to be predetermined because of their failure to show convincing proof that it was the most influential among the criteria for performance excellence under Figure 1 of their paper, which is Appendix I of this paper.They have of endure asserted that the choice of the customer and market focus as most controlling contributor was based on the response of the respondents in the survey. As to how much more important the criterion to other criteria was not also explained hence it is possible that the results of the claim of increased profitability because of the criterion of customer and market focus may not be s afely be taken with high level of confidence, statistically speaking.