For a number of years I have found the titles "customer" and "supplier" to
be misleading. They imply a linear, bi-directional relationship that
seldom models reality. The typical definitions are that the customer
receives a product or service; the supplier receives payment. Further the
one with the product or service works hard to satisfy the one with money.
Let's dispel that notion.
What happens when we are bartering wheat for oats... you need some of my
wheat and I need your oats. Most people say each of us is simultaneously a
customer and a supplier. Suppose further that only one person, Farmer
John, has wheat and you need some. In addition, suppose lots of people
have oats besides you. What will happen as you sit down with Farmer John
to negotiate? Which party will be most desperate to conclude the deal?
Who will work harder? Unless John is very altruistic, you can expect your
negotiating team to put in more hours than his. In my view, your team
will act more "supplier-like"...working harder to satisfy John. What else
can you offer John to "sweeten the pot"? How can you gain a competitive
edge over all the other oat suppliers?
Let's take that to a real-world situation...my relationship with the local
phone company. I am the customer, right? Not so fast! When I contract
with the phone company for service, we are bartering. We trade money for
service; in my view exactly the same as wheat for oats. We are both
simultaneously customer and supplier. I am the customer of service and
supplier of money. They are the customer of money and supplier of
service. We need each other to be successful. However, my local phone
company has all the "wheat"; I cannot get local phone service from anyone
else. My need to successfully consummate the deal is greater than theirs.
They can do without my money more easily than I can do without their
service. In the deal, I am more supplier-like and they are more
customer-like. While they physically hooked up the line, I spent more
hours making it possible than they did. I scheduled the service... I took
the day off to be home whenever they arrived... I had to call to report
problems... then I had to be home again when they came to fix them.
How hard I work to successfully consummate a relationship is more a matter
of need (i.e., reward systems) than titles. Simply calling me a supplier
does little, to change my behavior.
In virtually every discussion of customer and supplier, I find it more
useful to talk about successful relationships. Which party is working
harder to "complete the deal"? If one half is acting more "customer-like"
(i.e., waiting for the supplier to meet their needs), the appropriate
question is how can the reward system (intrinsic or extrinsic) be altered
to get them acting more "supplier-like". This is a very meaningful
discussion between departments that must work together in the typical
organization.
Thoughts??
-- Roger E. Breisch The Webber Group, Inc. Wheaton, Illinois REBreisch@aol.com