The X-Interviews | CX & UX Merge

Interview #13 - Kim Flaherty on Customer Journey Management

Kim Flaherty on Customer Journey Management

Today on The X-Mentor we’re talking with Kim Flaherty on the original meaning of User Experience, how CX and UX are merging, and how that is impacting Journey Management and user-centered design operations.

Kim is a Senior User Experience Specialist at Nielsen Norman Group (aka NN/g) where she focuses on omnichannel customer experience and customer journey management. She works as a dedicated analyst studying the space between traditional CX and UX practices.

Nielsen Norman Group was founded in 1998 by two UX pioneers, Don Norman and Jakob Nielsen. In 2023, Kara Pernice, who envisioned and built NN/g’s popular UX Certification program, became President and CEO to lead NN/g into the future.

Read more about the origins of UX (User Experience) and the founding story of Nielsen Norman Group in my X-Interview with Jakob Nielsen.

The X-Mentor: Welcome to The X-Mentor, Kim. Good to have you with us today!

Kim: Thank you. Glad to be here.

The X-Mentor: I'm excited that we're getting this conversation started and I’m looking forward to continuing a discussion on this topic for some time to come because it’s important. Today we’re talking about the transformation of UX and CX.

Kim, you started your career at Principal Financial Group where you were designing and developing web-based solutions for accounting, is that right?

Kim: Yes. Interestingly enough, I started my career at Principal as a mainframe developer. I was coding in Cobal.

The X-Mentor: Ohh my gosh. Cobal!? I haven’t heard that word in a very long time.

Kim: I did that job for about 5 years and then I moved into doing front end stuff with Java and things like that.

The X-Mentor: Well, I didn't realize you were such a Hard-Core Software tech head. Cobal. That’s some old school stuff!

Kim: You know what's funny? I miss that time in my life. Cobal was so simple. You know, it didn't have all the integrations and all the libraries and that “Stack” part of it. It was at the bottom of the stack, so you just have to sit in the code and problem solve all day. I kind of miss that about it.

The X-Mentor: I noticed from your LinkedIn profile that you were also overlapping that Cobal coding job with another job as a “cheerleader and brand ambassador” for the Super Bowl Champions, Kansas City Chiefs.

Kim: Yes.

The X-Mentor: And then after a couple of more stops at different UX depots, you started your current career path at Nielsen Norman Group.

Kim: Yep, that sounds right.

The X-Mentor: What is it about UX that drew you into pursuing that as a career?

Kim: I remember back when I was programming, I enjoyed the problem-solving aspect of that, but I just felt like I wanted to be more creative and more impactful. I wanted to work on things that people feel and see, versus what I was doing with the back-end programming. These mainframe code jobs didn't feel like I was really doing anything meaningful. So, I started looking around and was intrigued by the cognitive psychology aspect of HCI and started studying HCI at Iowa State at their graduate program. I just fell into this world and the intrigue of understanding how people perceive the world, how they perceive an interface and how we can learn from that and improve experiences. There are always opportunities to learn more and apply expertise in a certain way of thinking.

UX is People

The X-Mentor: Nielsen Norman Group, as many around the globe are aware, is a legendary agency that was founded by Don Norman and Jakob Nielsen. Don Norman is the person who coined the phrase User Experience (UX) while he was defining user experience at Apple Computer. And one of Jakob’s most fundamental ideologies is, “UX is People.” So, there’s an implication of UX as being something more fundamentally human.

What was Don Norman intending to say when he first used the phrase “User Experience” at Apple Computer?

Kim: I've been thinking about this, that phrase. User Experience (UX), when Don coined that he was summing up this complex idea of how our products are serving people's needs.

We can't just think about building a product that functions, technically. We must figure out how to make it function for people because the people are the ones supporting our business by purchasing and utilizing our products. So, I think that was the impetus behind why he coined that phrase.

At the time, he didn't intend for it to manifest the way it has in interface over the years. When he was originally thinking about user experience and that title or that practice, he was thinking of it as more of an all-encompassing concept that applies to general engagement or relationship with a brand. It was very easily applied with interface and tech, and since then it has really come to be synonymous with Interface and product design. But when Don coined User Experience, it was meant to be an overarching label.

The X-Mentor: Reflecting on my conversation with Jakob, he was saying that “UX is People” to him has a “dual meaning,” or two different ways of approaching the term.

1. UX is People means we're designing for humans. In that context we must accept people for how they are. To design for where our users are today without trying to get too far ahead of where we as designers would like users to be.

2. UX is People means that we in the UX discipline are also people. We're making design decisions. And we're trying to articulate those design decisions to our stakeholders with the intent to convince them of what is the right thing to do for people.

In the context of NN/g, how do you live that in your day-to-day work?

Kim: When anybody works in UX, you learn the discipline and the processes behind designing for people and it always starts with understanding people. So, I think everybody in the UX field knows that “UX is People” is really a short way to communicate with others that this work is about people.

In some ways, that's kind of a double-edged sword, because yes, we're designing for users, and we must understand them. But on the flip side, being people ourselves creates a lot of cognitive biases that we take everywhere with us and look through the lens of the products and services we're creating from our point of view.

So, you're right, UX is for people. It's done by people to try to convince people, and there's just a lot of factors that complicate the communication around why this practice is important and valued. Just like our users have their ways of thinking that we must understand and design for. Stakeholders and people within organizations have their ingrained perception from the opposite direction. They're thinking about what it could be and they're so familiar with their business and products that it's hard for them to put themselves into another person’s worldview or headspace.

The X-Mentor: In The X-Interview with Jakob, he said, “People, they don't change.” He was basically saying that the same people that are using computers and interacting with technology today are, for the most part, going to be the same users that will be using the technology that is out and available in the market five years from now. And the people themselves, in other words, our cognitive abilities really haven't changed over 1000 years. Jakob said, if you go back 100,000 years, there's some evolutionary elements that have changed. But fundamentally, we're still the same humans (cognitively speaking) as we are today.

I've recently read some things in public posts where outspoken (UX) people say, we should just forget all about what we learned from the UX Pioneers of the 1990s.

To Jakob's point, even when something new comes out, we shouldn't forget what we've learned from the old because it's still relevant, right?

Kim:

Yeah, right. We're working on some research around usable iconography in digital interface. One of my colleagues is writing a lot about this, and I'm helping her edit the book.

One of the things that she talks about is “standard icons.” By this point, these icons meant nothing to people when they were first starting to be utilized in interface, but because they worked so well, they hit all the marks in terms of triggering the right thought patterns and perceptions with people that they have become standard. Think about the “Home” icon and the “Search” icon, and that evolution is slow. It's not as fast as we would want it to be. But it goes back to proving the case that these standards and fundamentals are there because we've unlocked a certain understanding about how to make them work and we can depend on them.

So as much as it's very tempting to be more creative and maybe try to ignore some of the fundamentals and standards for the sake of innovation. If we're doing that, we're ignoring all the history of the research that has created these fundamentals. It's for the purpose of working with how the human brain works. And why would we walk away from that? Why would we throw out all that learning and understanding we've built on? We should take advantage of these standards and try to create more of them.

The X-Mentor: Agreed. Why would anyone with an understanding of the cognitive benefits of proven UX standards walk away just because it comes from a certain source that was discovered in the 1990s?

Kim: The argument is that it will homogenize the Internet. But I think there's still ways to be creative while also serving your customer to be able to act and feel comfortable interacting with your product.

The X-Mentor: From the beginning, Jakob and Don were looking at usability to address the gap between humans and computers at the time, which today we can generalize as any new technology. They saw that the gap between humans and technology was vast. The goal of all of this in the first place is to make technology better. I think that is where Jakob and Don’s heads were back then, and I believe that’s where they still are today. Correct?

Kim: Yeah. That’s right.

The X-Mentor: It's essential not to get hung up on the terminology of UX or CX. Fundamentally, we're all still human, regardless of whether we’re acting in the role of a customer or a user.

Kim: Exactly. Yeah, there's such a chasm between technology and humans.

I think all this language, all these terms and vocabulary inflation is our attempts at trying to make sense of the space between how technology is created and how humans consume it. We use that to try to help others understand the importance of investing in this to create an experience to drive your brand and your business value.

CX & UX Merge

The X-Mentor: How does Nielsen Norman Group think about the differences between CX and UX?

Kim: As somebody who’s been teaching courses about Omni Channel Experience Design, this question always comes up because they see the label CX. Our audience is primarily UX practitioners working on product teams. And they're trying to understand, well, why is that different? To communicate the difference, I point to how these terms or ideas are typically practiced and applied in business.

We think of it as different levels of experience.

The time factor that it takes because UX has evolved to be so focused on interface and product, that's where most practitioners mental model sits. But obviously journeys have become more and more part of the conversation over the years. People do understand, OK, yes, that is another type of experience and we're not really focusing on that. We're still down here on these individual interaction experiences. But maybe we should be thinking about the end-to-end journey and how these things come together to ultimately help drive users to complete their goals with us. But even beyond that, a brand experience like we were talking about here, that happens over months and years sometimes, and that's at an even higher level above journeys.

Think of CX as being more focused on that comprehensive brand experience. Of course, through optimizing and thinking about the long-term goals that make up that brand experience. Interaction-level is where UX is really focused right now. CX has long been thinking more globally. And journeys are in the middle. The CX World and the UX World are both scaling toward each other with journeys being that unit of change. I'm starting to see our common ground by the longitudinal aspect that connects them.

The X-Mentor: Just 10-years ago, the common practice of shipping a software product was on a CD media that was packaged in a box and sold off the shelf. Now the dominant Go-To-Market vehicle for software is in the form of a digital service, acquired and used over the web. When you're starting customers on their digital journey into your service, they’re usually someone who needs to get some job done. However, they're also wearing the buyer’s hat, right?

Kim: Yeah. That’s right.

The X-Mentor: At the end of the day, if they still have that buyer’s hat on, that’s how I make the distinction whether they're a “Customer” or “User.” If a user is researching a product on behalf of someone else, and they are not the decision maker, they're not the buyer. However, they may have a role in influencing a purchase. So, they're potentially not the buyer. But they’re still a potential user and influencer.

Kim: That's a good point. We're much more immersed in journeys now, and I think that is what has also brought UX and CX together. It's not like it used to be.

For example, 15 years ago if I wanted to buy insurance, I could either walk into an agency or pick up the phone. It was much more fragmented in terms of interacting with businesses. They controlled the journey much more, and now the tables have turned. People are immersed in their experiences more today, and we have more control over how we do that. To your point, this is something that I talked about in my journey management course, with the mobile smartphone and the Internet and people always having their phone within arm’s length.

We are living in our experiences now.

I don't walk away from my experience with my cell phone provider anymore. I'm managing my account online. I'm paying my bill online, I'm getting emails, I'm getting notifications. I'm living in it. Whereas before, it was much more separated from us. And this new dynamic applies to every industry. Now every product you buy in your home has a smart component to it. We are a lot more immersed in managing the world around us through the Internet and the channels that we use to interact with the companies that service these things. I think that has helped a lot of people understand the value of this because they can relate. They can relate to feeling, Ohh, you know this should be easier. Don't they know me by now? Or you know I like the product, but the experience of managing the product in my home doesn't work for me and I'm the buyer, so that emotion impacts my buying decisions. Subscription services are so ubiquitous now, the user is always deciding whether to continue to buy or not to buy. So, once we sell them once, we’ve got to keep selling them.

The X-Mentor: It's a non-stop process. It reminds me of what's going on in these three different layers of experience that you were describing.

1. The Interaction layer – the lowest level.

2. The Journey layer – the middle level.

3. The Relationship layer – the highest level (or the brand level).

People are starting to become increasingly familiar with these 3 layers of experience.  

However, what's actually happening in those layers may not be as clear. So, let's dive in and talk about what goes on in each of these layers, starting with the Interaction layer of the experience.

For example, what kinds of things would pertain to the Interaction layer?

Kim: The way I usually try to characterize these Interaction-level Experiences is The Single Session:

• It may be to go check my bank account balance online.

• It may be to log-in to my cell phone provider and make a payment.

• I'm "logging in” to my relationship with my cell phone provider to do 1 thing.

As UX and Product people, we've traditionally been focused on those little things. E.g., “OK, we need to redesign our bill pay page or our account management portal.” Thinking about those small discrete tasks that people are doing. And that's been great. We've seen a lot of growth in maturity in that space through design thinking, cognitive psychology and all the things that are wrapped up in our practice.

What they do is contribute to the larger relationship as a comprehensive unit.

However, if these interactions don’t come together in a way that’s comprehensively good, then the value of the single experiences gets watered down over time.

The X-Mentor: I recently wrote an X-Mentor piece about “Effort” and published this out on LinkedIn. To my surprise, a leader of one of these LinkedIn Groups came back to me with a message to essentially say that “Effort is not CX-focused.” So, I'm thinking, “Effort is not CX-focus? On what planet?” Most professional Experience Designers I know would consider “Effort” to be the dead center of both CX & UX. The design’s intent is to reduce it. Perhaps their comments were really around this idea of giving and receiving support, which is ostensibly where they seemed to be myopically focused. So, at the Interaction-level they're thinking about CX as being synonymous with customer support.

However, most professional Experience Designers consider CX to be much broader than any single channel, journey, or type of interaction. And “Effort” is a concern for every designer because it’s a key contributor to customer and user friction. Why would any designer want to make their experience more effortful? They wouldn’t. The point is to design out the friction. Right?

Kim: Yeah. Yeah, I totally agree with your perspective there. That's something that I have come across a lot. I've been investigating this space between UX and CX for 6 years almost full time. It's been through reading and seeking out literature and trying to figure out what is CX in business. What can we learn from them? How can we come together and combine our forces?

What I’ve found is there's still a lot of CX literature and conversation that really is grounded in customer support. I think early on, that’s where CX seemed to have a lot of its application.

In practice, because of customer experience, if you think about that term, we were thinking about it more granularly. E.g., “Well, if the customer's having a bad experience, they call support, and we remedy their bad experience through support interactions.”

I still find a huge segment of conversation about CX still rooted in that world. But you know, it has also expanded quite a lot too. I see a larger chunk of people who are discussing CX topics talking broader and talking about the experience that they feel over time. They’re being proactive and trying to understand and optimize and make an impact before the customer is on the phone.

The X-Mentor: Let’s talk about the Journey-level Interactions and how they relate to goal completion. If you are having trouble with the product, and you’re not able to figure out how it works, then it has a certain level of “Effort” associated with it, right? If you call customer support and get a resolution to your problem within a few minutes on your first call, then that’s great. Very likely, the customer is satisfied, and they continue toward achieving their goal. Ultimately, they are getting the value promised by the product with relative ease (I.e., not Effortful).

Conversely, if you call support and spend the next hour going through a phone carousel, only to be handed off to somebody who then hands you off to somebody else who's in the “right department” to manage your issue, then you’re handed-off to yet another “expert” who can open a ticket so that somebody else can get back to you in 24 or 48 hours. That’s not a great experience. Plus, you still haven’t realized the “First Value” promised by using the product. Never mind the chatbot adding yet another layer of frustration to the customer experience and blocking them from their goal.

Kim: Yeah, yeah. That's a lot of effort.

The X-Mentor: Both the customer, and the company, would be far better served to design out the “Effort” of using the product and getting to “First Value” more quickly in the first place.

 So, let's drill down on the Journey-level.

What are some of the series of related interactions that are associated with aiming to complete a specific goal at that journey level?

How should we distinguish Journey-level from the Interaction, or single interaction, level?

Kim: In any context, in any domain, in any business, you must think about what your business is providing these people. What are you there for? What are they buying from you?

The example I like to use is insurance. Yes, they're buying your policy, and then they're your customer when they have their policy. But they have to continue to maintain and utilize their insurance policy. So, what are those goals that they have throughout their relationship with you? There's got to be some sort of introspection and research on both sides of our services and what our customers see as their intentions with us to identify those larger goals.

For example, Let’s say a person has gotten into a car accident and now they have damage to their fender. Their goal is not to fill out a form to file a claim. Their goal is to have resolution and ultimately get compensation. Or get something fixed. So that goal takes a series of actions on their part. It might start with figuring out, “oh gosh, I've never had an accident before. What does my insurance cover? I've never used it. What's my deductible?” So, there's this information gathering phase, and understanding how to act. Maybe they fill out a form and send in information, that's an interaction. They're getting communications back about that interaction they're hearing from an auditor that’s following up about what's covered and what's not. And then it might end with them receiving a reimbursement check and resolving the problem. That all happens over time.

It's made-up of all these individual product engagements. If we're not thinking about how to get the person to their resolution, their broader intent, and we're only thinking about the individual single interactions, we're forgetting the customer’s goal. The choreography of it, from beginning to end, is not being thought about. It's just being left up to chance, and that's where a lot of the challenges happen that end up with people on a phone call with support.

The X-Mentor: Exactly. That's where the design challenges show up that you don't find at the single interaction level, right? So, you've got those challenges of consistent messaging across channels, transitioning people from one channel to another, and having some cohesion in the brand voice and tone.

Kim: Exactly. Helping people understand what's the next best step to take.

The X-Mentor: Often, some of that friction is introduced by poor back-end integration that’s not being seamlessly integrated into a cohesive experience. Bolting one product capability onto another product capability on the back end can feel like you’re switching to a completely different place. This lack of attention to detail in a journey can cause users to completely lose their orientation, to the point where they don’t know how to get started on the next task, right?

Kim: Exactly. Yeah.

The X-Mentor: The last layer is the Relationship-layer. You said this is more commonly thought of as CX.

Can you share with us how this higher-level layer relates to Journey and Interaction layers?

Kim: That again is just another layer where if we're adding interactions together that make up a journey and thinking about the fragmentation, things that could go wrong there, the same applies to the broader relationship layer. Journeys are made-up of these times that somebody was trying to do something with you. Whether it's to use their insurance premium or try to upgrade their plan or try to pay their bill. Those things stack up on top of each other, and there's an analysis that has to be done to orchestrate and choreograph how it all works.

How are we engaging with these people over time? Understanding your customer, knowing your customer, I think that that's where knowing your customer really shows up to customers when they've been your customer for five years. But still every time they call, they must give you the back story of where they were the last time they interacted with you.

We have the capability to know our customers.

What customers are figuring out for themselves is they've had great customer experiences with some of these newer, I would say disruptor companies, the companies that had the luxury of coming to age with modern technology. E.g., The Ubers and Airbnb’s. Their back-end stack is very versatile. These companies can deliver more personalized experiences and they know their users.

So now these customers are turning to their bank and their insurance company and saying, “Why aren't you doing this? You should know me! You should know that I don't want this message!” Over time, you're feeling like you're being talked to incorrectly or they're not valuing you, because if they value you, they will know you. So, it adds just another dimension to that feeling, that perception, and what that brand represents in their mind.

Journey Management

The X-Mentor: It's that old saying, “your UX is only as good as your customer's last best experience.”

The glue that holds all this together is the fact that we know human experience is something that only happens in the heads of human beings. It’s not something that can be “delivered” or “shipped” or even “designed.” User-centered design starts with user empathy and understanding needs.

Here’s what Don Norman said in his book, The Design of Everyday Things.

“Designers don’t try to search for a solution until they have determined the real problem, and even then, instead of solving that problem, they stop to consider a wide range of potential solutions. Only then will they finally converge upon their proposal. This process is called DESIGN THINKING.”

So, we’re focusing on satisfying human needs and considering desired human outcomes.

Kim, you mentioned “choreography” in the context of Journey-level Interactions.

How can we help steer people toward their goals and better satisfy their needs in their journeys?

Kim: You know the principles of UX really apply to every level, so that's good. We have the foundational capabilities and design processes that can be applied there. This is a question that I've been digging into for a while to try to understand how we attack this problem.

The underlying problem is two-dimensional:

1. HORIZONTAL: There's a problem at the horizontal dimension when you're thinking about somebody going through a journey and all the stops they take along their way. Those stops on the journey are owned by different parts of the organization. We started putting responsibility on all these individual pieces. But now, that has created the fragmentation that we're talking about. Things aren't choreographed, things aren't orchestrated and that creates effort, which impacts the buyer’s perception. So, there's a focus that needs to be happening on connecting the touch points in a strategic way and really thinking about designing that. First, understanding the user's needs from the beginning to end and then enabling the individual touchpoint owners to collaborate around a longitudinal strategy across these journeys to streamline them and reduce effort.

2. VERTICAL: The vertical dimension doesn't get talked about enough. It is the top to bottom dimension where the CX and UX parts of the machine are disjointed as well. Without having a top-level strategy that sits at that relationship level, that global level, where the business can really inform strategy in a way that it cascades down through the business, through product management, product ownership and then down onto the individual product teams to work together. I think of it as a network of aligned vision and strategy. Collaboration must go in both directions because if we don't connect the top to bottom, the CX strategy then determines the priorities of what journeys need which optimizations. We need journey level facilitation, determining where optimizations get done at the product level.

We understand the research and we know how to find the problems. However, the challenge comes in when there's no infrastructure or processes in the company to get decision makers to listen to these types of problems.  Because the people who own various parts of the experience are so disjointed that they have no influence over cross-organizational decisions.  They’re also disconnected from the top level CX strategy. So, those things need to come together and form design strategy and processes for end-to-end collaboration across these underlying teams.

The X-Mentor: What are the implications for organizational and operational change management?

In your view, does a top-down approach require getting executive buy-in? Or is bottom-up better?

Kim: I think there needs to be top to bottom connectivity, but I don't think that it must be fully top down. I think that if we could ensure that there's communication and connection between what CX's goals are and what UX's goals are, that's the first step.  And just understanding that they must be aligned to make the right product optimizations to eliminate effort for users moving across these products, and to work toward the goals of the brand. But in practice, it can be a groundswell from the bottom where individual contributors are asking for this connectivity and enablement.

Business Impact

The X-Mentor: This brings up the question, “How can we connect Experience Outcomes to Business Outcomes?”

You and I have previously talked about connecting strategies with journey centric operations. However, beneath that is this notion of solving more design issues across more journeys.

How can we show that solving more design issues is driving business results?

Kim: Absolutely, yeah. This is always one of the key conversations we have in almost every UX class we teach at NN/g. We're thinking of designing for users, but on the flip side, we're also working on behalf of the business. And in order to sell our ideas, we need to be able to do some storytelling that creates an understanding in our stakeholders and the people that are investing in our ideas as to how this is going to create an impact.

How is this going to either reduce operational costs or increase revenue?

That's hard to do. There are ways to do it, but the problem is that there haven’t always been resources put into thinking about measuring journeys and measuring journey outcomes.

I think that's maybe the starting place, without even thinking about technology. E.g., platforms and capabilities that can look across all our data for us.

But even now, if we can create some analytical capabilities around individual journeys, benchmark them with more indicator metrics throughout the journey, and show where we’re creating value and reducing friction, that would be an improvement. We can consider how these new leading journey experience metrics might be combined with the lagging CX metrics that have been used traditionally, E.g., NPS, Customer Effort Score, Customer Satisfaction. We do want to measure customer perception. But we must have something to compare that to. It shouldn’t stand alone.

“People want to look at one number because they’re used to having single metrics for other types of measurement, but customer experience is more nuanced, we can't look at one number alone and know how to improve the experience. We must look at the whole casserole and ask, how are these metrics related to each other?”

And that's not really being done well right now because we just haven't invested or put resources in this journey layer to be able to look across our data this way.

The X-Mentor: Kim, you have some related publications through Nielsen Norman Group that you're going to be publishing soon. Meanwhile, you and I will pick up on this X-Interview for a more in-depth discussion on how to drive measurable business outcomes. We’ll talk about two intriguing topics we didn’t have time to cover in this interview. Metrics and Measurement.

Organizations today are very much relying on lagging metrics (e.g., NPS data collected via surveys) that are looking at what has happened in the rearview mirror. So, we’re going talk about how we can shift to leading experience metrics so that we can know what's happening right in front of us, in any given Journey, and at any given moment. Then act on any friction we might find immediately!

EDITOR’S NOTES: If you are interested Kim’s upcoming publications you can watch NN/g News to get the Newsletter and stay in the loop.

Be sure to watch for The X-Mentor and NN/g in an upcoming NN/g podcast where Kim and I will discuss new approaches to Experience Metrics and Measurement.

Kim, any parting thoughts?

Kim: I'm just excited that this conversation is picking up steam. I've noticed a change in the discussion, even in the last couple of years, people are taking note of this and engaging in conversation. So, I'm excited for these publications to come out. Practical case studies showing how organizations are making operational changes to create that layer of connectivity. So, I’m excited to see that and to have this conversation with you again soon.

The X-Mentor: Absolutely, Kim. Thank you so much for being on The X-Mentor. It’s been an absolute pleasure. We really appreciate you sharing your perspective with us. Looking forward to our next chat soon!

Kim: Thanks, Greg!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

Kim Flaherty is a Senior User Experience Specialist at Nielsen Norman Group where she focuses on omnichannel customer experience and customer journey management.

Greg Parrott is The X-Mentor and publisher of The X-Interviews.