Ben Stiegler, CEO and Founder, Synertel

It’s often said that a new employee never appears more competent and qualified than they do on their first interview. Sadly, that is how far too many carrier-to-end-user relationships develop.

As an agent and a national converged communications solution provider, our role is to seamlessly bring together best of breed, 100 percent compatible products and services to create a system solution that will work right the very first time the switch is flipped. We achieve that (most of the time!) through careful planning, proactive project management, customer education, and a rigorous quality assurance process for each and every install.

Some carrier partners understand the value of starting out on the right foot, having competent and experienced internal project managers, and frequent and accurate communication during the provisioning and porting process. But there are enough who still don't seem to get that. They are:

• missing deadlines (for meetings, order reviews, raw circuit delivery, PRI tests, or porting), which can have large, real-world consequences for the end user, who often is locked into a move date by real estate constraints;
• running out of equipment (shelf space in a switch, IADs or routers for customer end) six weeks after accepting an order, which is amateurish and unprofessional;
• or subbing out circuit installs to VARs or interconnects (instead of performing them with dedicated in house staff), which loses an often-needed degree of accountability.

Best efforts just aren’t good enough when a customer has submitted a credit-worthy order in advance of the stated minimum service delivery interval; they have every right to expect their new service on time and working.

Our team has spent countless hours every year dealing with what I call C3 ─ Carrier-created crises.

Sometimes, with enough coaxing, coddling, crying and calling [C4 ─ the kind without a fuse!], we have saved the customer from an unacceptable "no service yet" situation. But efforts like this should be rare ─ and they aren't rare enough. They also seem to happen more frequently when they involve carriers that are working through another master agent or that are within six months prior to a merger and 24 months post-merger.

I've often thought that we (the agent world) should create an online ratings system ─ sort of a cross between Consumer Reports and Angie's List ─ to rate carriers. I'd gladly pay an annual membership fee, use a secure login, and submit per-order ratings linked to a circuit order or service address (to limit ballot box stuffing). It would be invaluable to run or view simple reports to learn:

• TortoiseCom seems to be missing due dates on 50 percent of their orders in New York this month;
• HorridTel improved its agent satisfaction rating from 2 to 4 last quarter;
• and AmazingTel has maintained a 95 percent on-time delivery and satisfaction rating for eight of nine months

Such information could help agents guide customers in making choices:

"Yes, AmazingTel does cost more than TortoiseCom, but you have a 50/50 chance of moving into your new office and being without connectivity on June 1st with TortoiseCom. What would it cost you to delay the move for a week? Sit there with cell phones and cell modems instead of a WAN for a week?"

While we all share anecdotal information, having a more accurate, analyzable picture of how our carrier partners are doing ─ in real time ─ would be very valuable, perhaps even valuable enough that the carriers would subscribe (read-only, of course) to see how they are stacking up!

Ben Stiegler is CEO and founder of SYNERTEL, a provider of converged telephony services and equipment. He is a 2008-’09 member of the PHONE+/Channel Partners Conference & Expo Advisory Board.

User Comments !

Ben you are absolutely correct.

We do need a rating system.  In particular, I think the LECs need to see what the outside world really thinks.

You hit the nail on the head with the lowest price mentality.  I have no desire to be the cheapest on the block.  There is absolutely no way I can provide the service and effort it takes to make a seamless transition without time and people.  If I have to sacrifice those to be comeptitive then I do not need that customer because they will probably end up being a disaster anyhow.

It is more than time for those of us in this industry to stop driving prices down.  You can't be a Ferrari at Yugo pricing.

Posted by: Dave Ingler | October 09 2008 06:16:00

Ben,

That might be something that you could develop for us as a member of the TCA (TCAsite.org). The Technology Channel Association is looking for agents and ways to improve the channel. An Angie's List type service might be a great idea (and an easy one to launch).

- Peter

Posted by: Peter Radizeski | October 09 2008 06:22:57

Well said Ben.  I have always advocated having some type of accountability clause in my supplier agreements.  Perhaps the rating system would also allow us to negotiate a little better with the suppliers when it comes time to renew our agreements.  As you stated, an online, visible-to-everyone, rating system would be a fantastic way to back up our sales efforts as we recommend suppliers who are not necessarily the cheapest.

Posted by: Robert Hayes | October 09 2008 08:28:30

great article.. i have learned a lot from what you said. It wouldn't matter for some how much a product would cost as long as it is reliable and of course it should fit to its price.

Posted by: kaycee725 | October 14 2008 04:44:51