September 30, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
There are a few different reasons a software company would want to improve their product. Some are strategic—a company wants to enter a new market and needs to appeal to a new customer base—and some are reactionary—a company is seeing a slow decrease in sales or even losing customers. It knows it needs to make some changes to stay competitive. Whatever the reason, the customer is at the heart of any decision to change a product, and therefore should be considered throughout the entire process, from ideation to release.
Unfortunately, some companies only scratch the surface when it comes to pre-development customer research. They may leverage internal feedback on a current tool from existing customers, or they may dig through secondary market research on new market segments to understand the new target customer’s demands, but these measures only go so far. The depth and quality of the research are often limited by the software provider’s own experience, internal bias, and customer communication methods.
Without proper tools and forums to communicate dissatisfaction and facilitate improvements, customers eventually get so fed up that they move on to another product.
For example, when it comes to ascertaining existing customers’ satisfaction, providers may have poor visibility into what’s really going on in the product itself. They may not be properly monitoring software usage, such as where common bugs are occurring or when customers stop using parts of the solution altogether. They may lack communication mechanisms that would allow customers to report specific issues regarding the solution or submit feedback on their experience with the provider at a higher level. Without proper tools and forums to communicate dissatisfaction and facilitate improvements, customers eventually get so fed up that they move on to another product.
Some companies think they only need to look at similar products in order to build out their own product roadmap, but they often overestimate their ability to execute on the actual development or whether there is even a suitable use case for their goals. Others don’t prioritize their roadmap correctly, planning to introduce new features that don’t align well with existing functionality or that do not meet their customers’ actual needs. It is a common pitfall to deprioritize strengthening and enhancing foundational technologies in favor of a more ambitious product strategy.
Take a procurement automation provider that aims to expand their solution set and enter a new market by adding a sourcing automation module, which is a natural next technology adoption step for many procurement departments looking to automate processes. However, because the solution provider doesn’t properly gather user feedback from their existing customers, or research the actual functionality needs of their customer segment, the provider overlooks weaknesses in their current catalog and purchase order management tools that should be addressed first.
Often, the solution provider also falls victim to its own siloed environment. It has become so comfortable with a legacy product design, an outdated workflow, or a niche customer type that it excludes other customers in their market. Without realizing it, the provider might feel like an expert on their customers’ needs, and they sit in this echo chamber as their competitors move past them.
Before moving forward with any product re-development, companies should ask themselves two critical questions: Do you really know your customer? Do you know where you stand against your competitors? Market research reveals the answers to these questions. Market research can include:
There are many more types of research methodologies that ultimately help an organization to better target where and how they present their services and offerings, build stronger product roadmaps, and reduce risk in business decisions. Leveraging market research to understand your customer and market truly means acknowledging that there is always room for improvement. Pursuing greater clarity and a broader perspective is an ongoing best practice.
Anna Barnett is a Research Senior Manager for Levvel Research. She manages Levvel's team of analysts and all research content delivery, and helps lead research development strategy for the firm's many technology focus areas. Anna joined Levvel through the acquisition of PayStream Advisors, and for the past several years has served as an expert in several facets of business process automation software. She also covers digital transformation trends and technology, including around DevOps strategy, design systems, application development, and cloud migration. Anna has extensive experience in research-based analytical writing and editing, as well as sales and marketing content creation.
Levvel’s 2021 Payables Insight Report serves as a buyer’s guide to identify, select, and implement such a tool and looks into the trends, challenges, and the current state of AP.
Many organizations struggle to understand how to best innovate and improve. However, doing things the way you’ve always done them will prevent your business from scaling effectively.
Levvel’s 2021 Business Payments Insight Report explores the current state of payments management and how to make organizations’ payments structure less laborious and more efficient.
2020 has been an eventful year for Travel & Expense Management (TEM). Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, travel has declined significantly, which made it seem like TEM automation would take a back seat to more urgent priorities.