Assessing the Impact of Chokepoints in a Customer Onboarding Process

Rodriguez, A.E. and Rosen, John (2023): Assessing the Impact of Chokepoints in a Customer Onboarding Process.

Abstract

Customer onboarding processes have become dysfunctional, especially with regards to the increasing number, complexity, and often, competing demands, of regulatory and law enforcement bodies with oversight over a firm’s practices. Prospective customers are screened across any number of considerations ranging from conventional ones such as financial considerations (i. e., “Does this customer have an acceptable balance sheet?”) to the more recent socio-cultural ones (i. e. “does this customer have an effective diversity program?” “Has this customer expressed a commitment to environmentally sustainable business practices?”). An impaired sales pipeline resulting from an impaired customer vetting process may lead to lowered economic returns, reduced profitability, erosion of market share. A firm intent on repairing their customer intake processes could examine whether rescinding or reducing extant customer acceptance thresholds will enhance their performance. However, many firms are beset by a peculiar outcome that complicates auditing the onboarding process. Customer portfolios are routinely culled of non-performing customers or costly-to-serve customers, leaving a selection of seemingly successful customers – a data artifact known as a one-class problem. In this paper we simulate the onboarding process to isolate the effect of changes in established acceptance thresholds on customer’s likelihood of success. However, to do so we first address the One-Class problem. When only One Class (“Successful” or “Performing”) customers are available, allows for the deployment of two well-known One-Class algorithms: Support Vector Machines and Isolated Random Forests. This study shows their use in reconstructing a representative sample of the customer pool. Aside from showing how to treat the One Class artifact, our objective is to establish a platform for discussion. For plausible initial conditions this study highlights a tradeoff between reductions in customer thresholds and the firm’s commitment to ensuring customer success.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Customer onboarding; Model-shift; Data-shift; One�Class; Isolation Forests; Support Vector Machines
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L22 - Firm Organization and Market Structure; L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L23 - Organization of Production; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M14 - Corporate Culture ; Diversity ; Social Responsibility

References

Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (1994, March). Measuring User Participation, User Involvement, and User Attitude. MIS Quarterly, 18(1), 59-82. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/249610

Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2006, January). Decisions Without Blinders. Harvard Business Review.

Blair, M. M. (1995). Ownership and Control: Rethinking Corporate Governance for the Twenty-First Century. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Insitution.

Brudney, V. (1985). Corporate Governance, Agency Costs, and the Rhetoric of Contract. Columbia Law Review, 1403-1444. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/1122518

Chen, L., & Lee, H. L. (2022). Supply Chain Fairness. Production and Operations Management, 31(12), 4304-4318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13849

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989, Jan). Agency Theory: An Assesment and Review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279003

Halvorsrud, R., Kvale, K., & Folstad, A. (2016). Improving Service Quality Through Customer Journey Analysis. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(6), 840-867. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-05-2015-0111

Hiatt, S. R., Grandy, J. B., & Lee, B. H. (2015). Organizational Responses to Public and Private Politics: An Analysis of Climate Change Activists and US Oil and Gas Firms. Organization Science, 26(6), 1769-1786. doi:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1008

Hilton, B., Hajihashemi, B., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2020). Customer Success Management: the next evolution in customer management practice? Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 360-369. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.08.001

Khan, S. S., & Madden, M. G. (2004). One Class Classification: Taxonomy of Study and Review of Techniques. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 1-24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S026988891300043X

Khan, S. S., & Madden, M. G. (2014). One-Class Classification: Taxonomy of Study and Review of Techniques. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 29(3), 345-374. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S026988891300043X

Kozhikode, R. K. (2016). Dormancy as a Strategic Response to Detrimental Public Policy. Organization Science, 27(1), 189-206.

Lee, H. L., & Tang, C. S. (2017). Socially and Environmentally Responsible Value Chain Innovations: New Operations Management Research Opportunities. Management Science, 64(3).

Leite, W. (2017). Practical Propensity Score Methods Using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Molnar, C. (2022). Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide for Making Black Box Models Explainable (2nd ed). Creative Commons. Retrieved from cristophm.github.io/interpretable�ml-book

Tett, G. (2015). The Silo Effect: The Peril of Expertise and the Promise of Breaking Down Barriers. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Zhou, Z.-H. (2018). A Brief Introduction to Weakly Supervised Learning. National Science Review, 44-53