Customer Experience Assessment Task

Introduction of Customer Experiences and Discussion of Touch Points

This assessment task is designed for you to demonstrate your understanding of the overall customer experience, relative to business strategy and success. You will consider and apply concepts surrounding what generates good customer experience and the importance of understanding the customer perspective gained from modules 1 and 2.

This assessment task provides you with an insight of an entire customer journey (before, during and after). Instructions In week 2, reflect on two customer experiences you have encountered with two different products or services from two different organisations. One experience is to be a positive experience and the second a negative experience.

You must reflect on the entire customer journey (before, during and after), appliance concepts to compare the two experiences. To complete this task, you are required for each experience:

a. Briefly introduce your experience and discuss at least 2 “touch points”. Refer to content covered in modules 1 and 2.

b. Discuss the thoughts/actions you took during your customer journey (before, during and after). Apply at least 2 CEM concepts in your customer journey discussion. Refer to content covered in modules 1 and 2.

c. Use Proto-persona profiles to illustrate yourself relative to your customer experiences. Identify pain points and needs and goals.

Refer to content covered in modules 1 and 2. e. Compare and contrast the two customer experiences and reflect, by providing examples, on what makes a good customer experience.

d. Proto-persona diagram (positive experience organisation):

Use Proto-persona profiles to illustrate yourself relative to the component with positive experience. Try to be as specific as possible, use brief examples from your experience to illustrate your points and try to select examples that enable you to demonstrate learning against the attributes in the rubric.

Assessment t Attributes Fail (Unacceptable) (0-49) Pass (Functional) (50-64) Credit (Proficient) (65-74) Distinction (Advanced) (75-84) High Distinction (Exceptional) (85-100) Introduction of customer experiences and discussion of “touch points” 20% Customer experiences have not been introduced, neither is there evidence of an attempt to identify their most significant “pain” points. There is no/limited evidence of an attempt to discuss “touch-points” in the customer experience process.

Customer experiences have been introduced basically, and there is some evidence of an attempt to identify their most significant “pain” points, although it may omit key elements. There is evidence of a basic attempt to discuss “touchpoints” in the customer experience process. Customer experiences have been satisfactorily introduced, and their most significant “pain” points have been clearly identified. At least 2 “touch points” have been identified and discussed appropriately. Customer experiences have been thoroughly introduced, and their most significant “pain” points have been clearly and thoroughly identified. 2 relevant “touch points” have been clearly identified and discussed in detail. Customer experiences have been expertly introduced, and their most significant “pain” points have been clearly and diligently identified. 2 relevant “touch points” have been clearly identified and expertly discussed.

Reflection and Application of CEM Concepts and Proto-persona Profiles to Personal Customer Journeys

Reflection and application of CEM concepts and proto-persona profiles to personal customer journeys 30% Text demonstrates a limited attempt to reflect on the personal customer journeys, with no/limited attempt to apply CEM concepts and propyperone profiles to support ideas in reflection. Text demonstrates a basic attempt to reflect on the personal customer journeys, with a basic attempt to apply CEM concepts and protopersona profiles to support ideas in reflection. Text demonstrates an adequate reflection of the personal customer journeys, with a critical application of CEM concepts and protopersona profiles to support ideas in reflection. Text demonstrates a thorough reflection of the personal customer journeys, with a critical and in-depth application of CEM concepts and protopersona profiles to support ideas in reflection. Text demonstrates an expert reflection of the personal customer journeys, with an in-depth, critical and meticulous application of CEM concepts and protopersona profiles to support ideas in reflection Comparison of personal customer experiences and reflection on good customer experience. 30% Personal customer experiences have not been compared nor an explanation has been proposed to define what makes a good customer experience. Personal customer experiences have been compared basically.

There is evidence of an attempt to explain what makes a good customer experience, albeit cursory and with a limited use of examples from personal experience to support ideas. Personal customer experiences have been compared adequately. There is also evidence of an adequate explanation of what makes a good customer experience, which is supported by examples from personal experience. Personal customer experiences have been compared critically. A relevant and substantial explanation of what makes a good customer experience has been provided, which is supported critically by examples from personal experience. Personal customer experiences have been compared critically and thoroughly.

A relevant, substantial and detailed explanation of what makes a good customer experience has been provided, which is supported expertly by examples from personal experience. Structure and flow of ideas 15% Text does not present enough information, ideas or evidence. Text lacks logical/clear structure and flow of ideas, making it difficult to understand. Line of reasoning is unclear and difficult to follow. Text presents information, ideas and evidence sufficiently, however these require further logic and clarity. Text has an enough structure; however, flow of ideas is a challenge and can be difficult to understand. Line of reasoning is passable, however, can sometimes be difficult to follow and requires clarity. Text presents information, ideas and evidence clearly and logically. Text has a good structure, with a good flow of ideas. Line of reasoning is of a good standard and easy to follow. Text presents information and arguments in a logical and clear way, which is well supported by evidence. Text has a very good structure, with a strong flow of ideas; opinions and ideas are expressed in a clear and concise manner with obvious connection to topic. Line of reasoning is clear, logical and easy to follow. Text is expertly presented; descriptive, concise and informative, exceptionally developed and well supported by evidence. Text has an excellent structure, with a strong, clear flow of ideas; engages and sustains the audience’s interest in the topic and the reader can immediately grasp the relevancy. Line of reasoning is excellent; demonstrating a clear, logical flow of ideas and arguments that are easy to follow.  

Correct citation of key resources 5% Does not include correct references in reference list or in-text citations; does not use APA 6th endostyle. Attempts to include references in reference list or in-text citations, however these are sometimes insufficient for research purposes, or incorrect; uses APA 6th ed. style, however, may contain some citation or referencing errors. Includes in-text citations and references in reference list from suitable sources; uses APA 6th ed. style, however, may contain minor citation or referencing errors. Includes in-text citations and references in reference list from suitable sources; uses APA 6th ed. style, containing minimal and or no errors. Includes in-text citations and references in reference list from suitable sources; uses APA 6th ed. style, containing no errors.