The situation
One definition of on-time, a promise date the customer can trust, and a weekly look at the exceptions.
Helped the operation agree what “on-time” means and put promise-date adherence in a weekly review customers can actually feel.
Figures are illustrative; client details anonymized. A 24-hour reply is a target, not a result.
The situation
One definition of on-time, a promise date the customer can trust, and a weekly look at the exceptions.
What I found
The reports disagreed about on-time performance. Daily snapshots could not show how long an order sat between stages.
What was in the way
Each team had a reasonable local definition. None of them was the customer’s definition. Without stage timing, delay and late promise-setting looked the same.
What I did
A single OTD dashboard, a documented reporting requirement, a weekly review, and the same numbers in the CX conversation.
Customers experience a promise date, not an internal report. If four dashboards disagree, the review becomes an argument.
Summary
The operation had several versions of on-time delivery and snapshots that could not show where an order sat between stages. The work was to agree one definition, put it in a dashboard, and give the exception list a weekly home — including in the CX review.
Delivery is a customer-experience number, not only an operations number. The two reviews should not tell different stories.
Figures are illustrative; client details anonymized. A 24-hour reply is a target, not a result.
Illustrative
The teams now use one definition of on-time.
Illustrative
Promise-date exceptions have a weekly review customers can feel.
One definition, with exception visibility.
A standing look at promise-date misses.
Bring a problem
A short note is enough: what is breaking, what you have already tried, and what a good month would look like. If I am the wrong person, I will say so.