Dear Critical Path:

The concept of the internal customer must die! 

You will only get support from me.  In the automotive industry, current relationships between most North American OEMs and suppliers are confrontational, at best.  I believe this high level relationship has set a poor example for some internal relationships within supplier organizations  I have seen far too many internal relationships based on the attitude "Your my internal customer, so you have to do what I tell you to satisfy my needs, or I will be an unhappy customer." 

In many of these cases I have witnessed, internal customers do not understand internal supplier requirements to satisfy needs.  For example, an IT project did not receive funding because it did not meet the financial requirements of the accounting department.  The project team did not understand concepts like internal rate of return and cost of capital hurdles, and the Accounting Department did not recognise customer requirements to implement the project for future programs.  Who is the customer in this situation?  After all, the Accounting Department is looking after the profitability of the company, and, in a time where suppliers are pressured to keep down prices, this function is important. 

The Engineering Department wants to fund a program that is going to help communications with the OEMs with the expectations of getting more business.   In closing this thought, I believe the concept of internal customer, if not managed properly, can be a detriment to an organisation by fortifying the towers that separate the divisions.

I attended a seminar yesterday where Charlotte Roberts talked about sustaining profound change.  At one point in her lecture, she talked about the history of relationships within the business world.  This history included explanations about boss <-> subordinate, teams, and partners.  She included some of the flaws in the thinking relationships.  Ms. Roberts' finished with a new school of thought - community type relationships.  If you think about it, this concept really makes more sense.   Anyway, you may want to look up her books.  I think it will be interesting reading.

Don Smith
CAD/CAE Manager
The Standard Products Company

TCP: Relationships are what it's all about, and although we can surround teams with metrics and policy guidelines to exact aligned behavior, something fundamental always seems to be missing.  You're right, the sense of "community" rather than the series of one-to-one relationships of the internal customer approach is a better perspective.  Your specific examples seem typical of the average multi-functional corporation, that has multiple internal objectives.  Rarely is there a person with high-level authority that sees the big picture and can prioritize around the many tradeoffs in a well-informed manner for the good of the "community".  Too often, placation of egos is also involved.   MRT has some white papers available for download that discuss the role of relationships as concluded from surveys done on NPD practices.   I will try to look up Ms. Robert's work as well.  Thanks.  -- Gregg

Dear Critical Path:

Alfred Webb
CPE Global Marketing Coordinator
Halliburton

Dear Critical Path:

Our company Quality Policy states that we are "To exceed all internal and
external customer expectations..." The word 'exceed' has come under fire a lot but the words 'internal' and 'external' have increased the focus of some of our internal departments.

We all understand that our external (ultimate) customer is King (America's
Best - Industry Week's Guide to World Class Manufacturing Plants).

I lead the Industrial Engineering group and because of our Quality Policy
Statement we have defined our internal customers as Sales (Sales quotes
priority #1) and the Shop Floor (Cost Improvements goal #1).  To this
end I have tested, encouraged, and designed department goals around these  top priorities and goals.  This more clearly defined why we exist, increasing our focus for why we do what we do...

A short coming has been that upper management has not been diligent in
establishing an internal customer focus plant wide.  But for those
departments that have taken the time to realize exactly who their internal
customers are the focus of their mission has been increased.  And in the
chaotic business world FOCUS is the difference between unproductive chaos and productive chaos (Tom Peters - Thriving on Chaos).

Yes, there are a lot of games.  But, great ideas only become games when they don't make sense.  And many times the difference between games making sense and not making sense is the way upper management designs and implements a strategy, i.e. the use of Internal and Ultimate Customers phrases in a company's culture.

Bob Schroer
Wizard of WOW
Hi-Stat Manufacturing

TCP: Thanks, Bob, for you and your company's perspective on this issue.  I feel that I should clarify my statements about internal customer "games".  Of course, programs and initiatives that are effective are not disputable.  I guess my negativity comes from the "change for change sake" programs that are quite obviously designed with 'ideal' rather than 'realistic' mindsets, and are consequently rejected by the culture.  These types of things are usually imposed and mandated rather than implemented, and are difficult to change when challenged.  I think it's frustrating when behaviour that is so clearly beneficial to the system requires programs intended to "fake out" the minds of an otherwise intelligent workforce.  Of course, it is not the company's responsibility to instill the type of personal responsibility that results in good "internal customer service", but it is their job to define and clarify the strategic goals that can help guide policy deployment, such as what you employ.      -- Gregg