What if a customer expects more than a security system can deliver?

Disappointment. Embarrassment. Possibly anger. Pointing the finger of blame. Maybe even litigation if contractual obligations can be argued. If a customer’s expectations are failed during testing prior to handover, then timely rework may quell their wrath. The installer may refuse demands for such remedies, especially playing any contractual looseness as a get-out. After all, it will erode their expected profit. If the installer foresees tipping into a loss they may simply walk away before completion. The customer is then over a barrel. More so if “testing” was after they had accepted the installation. Every prospective fixer’s price will be inflated accordingly. That’s why a good, tight Specification and Contract are so valuable to the customer at the beginning. There are many reasons why such foundations are often absent. Customer’s inexperience (and believing the “CSI effect”), poor sales behaviour, shoddy installers, no/poor test procedures, etc. Get competent, impartial advisers first.

This happens quite regularly and partly because consumers expect the technology can do more than is realistic. They think it’s possible to enhance the clarity of a recorded image because of how video surveillance technology is portrayed on a television show. Those expectations are not realistic. Sometimes the performance of a system comes down to price. A customer might want to buy a system with all the bells and whistles, but is not prepared to pay for those quality features. The quality of a product, and cost associated with the product, is often related to the performance of the product.

In all the years I’ve been involved with manufacturing security equipment this has occurred numerous times, but I have yet to take the equipment back because of it. Nearly always there is a different way to do what the end user is trying to accomplish than what they have tried. Here’s a good example: The biggest issue in DVR sales is recorders not saving as many days of recorded video online as the customer would like. This is because recording space is generally configured based on expected activity in an area under surveillance. Let’s take an office building where you would expect people there nine hours a day, and we have cameras looking at scenes that have motion 24 hours a day (like a highway in the background). Masking out that part of the view from causing video to record on motion generally resolves the issue. Through good communication between the integrator, customer and manufacturer, we can resolve these issues or, if done early in the process, avoid them altogether.

Depending on the customer and the system provider, any number of things could happen, none of them pleasant. If a system doesn't deliver on the customer's expectations, the problem may not be with the system but with how well the system provider communicated with the customer. Managing expectations is a huge component of customer satisfaction, and if expectations were unrealistic (i.e., not well managed or communicated), then an unhappy customer is a given. Will the customer continue to harass the system supplier to deliver on his or her expectations? Are those expectations specified somewhere in a paperwork document? If so, the customer has options and could even call in the dreaded lawyers. In some cases, the paperwork says one thing, but the salesman said something else. More than likely, what’s left is a disillusioned customer, who is looking for another provider.