Should complaining be easier?

Draft for review

The primary goal of most organizations is to add value by providing a service. However, few things are more frustrating for a user than experiencing a service failure—only to find that complaining about it leads to even greater disappointment. Unfortunately, this is a common scenario. As a user, your ideal experience is to avoid problems altogether, and most of the time, you might. But if an issue arises, your hope is for a quick, straightforward resolution. In reality, the process of formally raising or escalating a grievance is often needlessly complex.

“Ninety percent of complaints should be handled in face-to-face meetings.”

- Regional Director for Environment and Social Responsibility of a multinational corporation

In many systems, the user interface focuses primarily on delivering the service, while grievance management is an afterthought. Resolutions are typically limited to financial compensation or refunds, which may not apply in every situation. For instance, if the issue is a pothole on the road, a monetary reward is hardly a useful remedy.

Services are increasingly delivered by multiple providers working together. Take food delivery, for example: the restaurant, delivery agent, and platform aggregator are all involved. If your meal arrives cold, who bears the responsibility? Similarly, resolving issues like a broken water pipe across the road may require coordination between the water utility, municipal road authorities, and possibly other entities like electricity or gas providers. It often falls on the user to navigate this web of stakeholders.

The burden of coordinating between these service providers typically shifts to the user. Users must make their case, seek approvals, and manage communication across multiple entities to achieve a solution. While some service aggregators might absorb this responsibility as part of their business model—issuing quick refunds or fronting the coordination effort—this convenience often comes at a higher cost, which is ultimately borne by the user. If the issue escalates, the process can become even more convoluted. This is why many people turn to social media to voice their complaints, a trend that benefits neither users nor service providers.

Unlike short-term services like food delivery, many grievances arise after a considerable amount of time. A car may overheat after several years, an apartment may start leaking after two years, or a sewage pipe may clog 15 years post-installation. In such cases, the responsibility often falls on the user to provide proof of warranty or service history—a frustrating and inefficient process.

What is needed is a more user-centric approach to grievance resolution, as opposed to the current provider-centric model.

1. Service Context for Grievances:
Grievances are often linked to specific assets or services. While it’s relatively easy to establish this context for a recently delivered service, it becomes more challenging for long-term or public services. Simplifying this process—perhaps through the use of digital IDs for assets—would make grievances easier to register and manage.

2. Transparency in Tracking:
Currently, the responsibility of tracking a grievance falls solely on the user, and the internal handling of complaints is largely opaque. Creating a system where users can easily access relevant information, such as the assets involved and the history of their interactions, would improve transparency. A shared context between the user and the provider would help resolve issues more efficiently and transparently.  This sharing could be backed by standards, which can form the foundation of more possibilities below.

3. Possibility for additional information:

It is important to recognise that that information provided in the first instance may not be sufficient.  Additional queries may need to be addressed back to the user.  There should be provisions to handle this efficiently.

4. Streamlined Escalation:
If a grievance is not resolved in a timely or satisfactory manner, the escalation process—whether within the service provider’s hierarchy, to an external authority like an ombudsman, or even through legal channels—should be straightforward. Today, users are required to provide extensive context for escalation, which could be simplified by standardizing this process and making necessary information easily accessible.  This could even be programatic.  If the issue is not resolved in a pre-established time line, it could be escalated automatically to the appropriate authority.  This can aid the user in timely and transparent escalation, without having to go through the complex process of determining this process.  It can also avoid premature escalation and provide better transparency and opportunity to the providers.

5. Ensuring Data Integrity:
Service providers have a vested interest in ensuring that the data presented is authentic and untampered with. Implementing easy-to-use methods to verify the authenticity of submitted data is crucial to maintaining trust and protecting the interests of all parties involved.

6. User-Friendly Interfaces:
Many grievance systems require users to repeatedly prove their identity through registrations and captchas. While ensuring genuine interactions is important, there should be more seamless ways to interact with the system without constantly sharing personally identifiable information. Once a user raises a trackable request, escalating it should be a simple, automated process, with clear timelines and designated authorities.

It is important to understand that different users may have different expectations and there may be value in having different mechanisms for grievance registration and tracking.  Some may prefer more informal interactions, some may benefit from phone conversations, yet others may prefer web interfaces or applications, others may need significant support.  There may also be a need to factor in accommodations such as languages or abilities.  It may be possible to have different interfaces supported by a common open system backing it.

7. Coordination Across Multiple Providers:
For grievances involving multiple service providers, forwarding the complaint to the relevant entities and tracking the issue holistically is crucial. Open networks and standardized grievance data can help facilitate this coordination. AI and human agents could also assist in smoothing out this process.

8. Continuous improvement:

Grievances may provide insights into possible improvements in the system.  There should be mechanisms to look for systematic issues and possible improvements.  This is a key element of any good grievance management sustem.

A standardized complaint record to provide interoperability

An open service network based on standards allows user centric value

In Summary:
Effective grievance management is crucial when services fail. A user-centric approach, supported by standardized systems that track grievances, provide context, and log interaction history, can greatly benefit both users and service providers. When multiple providers are involved, open networks and shared data can enhance coordination. Furthermore, streamlined escalation pathways should ensure that issues are resolved promptly and fairly.

By focusing on user satisfaction and simplifying grievance processes, organizations can strengthen customer relationships, improve their reputations, and enhance business performance. Making the process of filing and resolving legitimate complaints easy should be a priority, and both technology and policy can play a significant role in achieving this goal.

References:

• A Guide to Designing and Implementing Grievance Mechanisms for Development Projects - World Bank, 2008
• CPGRAMS - Centralized Public Grievance Redress And Monitoring System - Government of India
• https://www.open311.org/ an open standard for civic issue tracking.