Is security policy an excuse for bad customer experiences?

During the CommunicAsia 2014 we hosted meetings in hospitality suites for VIP visitors at the Marina Bay Sands, one of the best hotels in Singapore. However the experience was not all great. The restaurants, yes they were very accommodating and even opened the kitchen for us for lunch (very late indeed). However security policy of going from one tower to another is a let down. To be able to cross the Marina Bay Sands famed infinity pool area you should be a hotel guest. Which we were, and had one VIP guest registered and all… Having said that after lunch the area security denied us to pass through the pool area due to security reasons, out registered VIP guest is not staying in the hotel… what a bummer. This is very sad for Marina Bay Sands known for accommodating their customers to the best possible way.

Reminds me the same excuse is being made by Air France, even in first class like the horror stories my well known friends told me…. They will never fly Air France again… As for Marina Bay Sands does it warrant we stop hiring suites in the hotel?

Compared to Mandarin Marina, where they went through all the lengths to ensure that our VIP guest is treated as VIP, I think Marina Bay Sands still have a lot to learn in providing excellent customer service to its staff. As for me personally I won’t be staying at Marina Bay Sands anytime soon…. BTW Mandarin Marina was awarded best hotel in Singapore last year.

Efficiency vs. Security

It is a common belief that efficiency and security contradicts each other. Let's take a few examples:
* Airports - when the security is tight the flow of passengers is slow
* Networks - the more security check there is the slower is the transfer of information
* Services - when more verification is needed the provisioning of services is slower

There are multitudes of examples and real life situations where efficiency and security are always two items that does not go very well with each other. The compromise is of course finding the right balance between efficiency and security. This balance is often dictated by availability of infrastructure to process the security requirements, most especially in transport and logistics. Some goes to the extent of recommending that the cost of additional infrastructure should be passed to those who require the extensive security check. However such solution would create a wider repercussion to the local economy both good and bad.

There are of course more acceptable solutions such as using RFID. It seems that any solution requires additional infrastructure. Let's look on the human side and on how we deal with efficiency and security. In airports for example more advance detectors are being deployed to make the flow of people faster through security checks. This also goes hand in hand with the introduction of electronic and biometric measurements. For example in some European airports you no longer need a paper passport but can use a plastic "National ID Card" where a machines scans your card and compares your physical biometric info. Others are more advance where they use iris scan. This is both to increase efficiency and decrease the cost of human resources.

With advancement of technology the efficiency gains grow even though the security threat remains high. But is there a much better way? How about using well trained canines to sniff our potential threats and contrabands? How about a more advance technology to ensure a fluid flow of people and merchandize while maintaining the best possible security. It is a need since every now and then humans try to get around security if they can for whatever purpose they have.

How come real m-commerce is not widespread in the developed world?

It's the time of the year again when everyone in telecoms gather in the sunny part of Europe to witness the advancement within the sector. I am observing what is happening in Barcelona this year at the mobile world congress, where announcement for faster data rates, new corporate strategies, open source based handset OS, more new handsets and improvement in technology (4G) is making big waves. All of this are good and promising especially for the developed western world where despite the financial crisis mobile vendors and operators encourage more spending.

There is a sector of course that was once promising back in the turn of the century but is now stagnated, m-commerce. When the first m-commerce applications came about the service received numerous citations from the GSMA. But now it seems that at least in the developed world m-commerce has been relegated to media downloads (ringtone, pics, etc) but not the real financial application. In less developed economies m-commerce has a different meaning, it means real-world financial transactions. In certain parts of the world the service is money mover for the unbanked, in other parts it is the means of payment. But why not in the developed economies?

My observations resulted to one main conclusion. The financial sector in the developed countries are so stable that there is hardly a need for real-world m-commerce such as m-banking and m-payments. However I have not seen any operator in the developed world that have good m-commerce service to offer. Is it because they have not even bother to try? Is it too difficult? Is regulation to blame?

Consider this, would you as a user be better off for having a single device that can do multiple things than have 10 devices do 10 things? The easy answer is of course you prefer to have a single device, which is the direction where all handsets have taken. A modern mobile phone today is also a camera, is also an MP3 player, is also an FM radio, is also an identification mechanism (airline boarding card, etc), is also mobile computer, is also a personal assistant, and the list goes on and on.... So why not explore the benefits of m-commerce in the developed world?

Would you as a user be happier if you know you can render financial transactions with your mobile phone which you carry all the time? Say go to buy a burger and pay with your mobile phone or even to the extreme of buying a car and paying with your mobile phone? Issues of security arises of course, but take into consideration your credit card, how secure is it? The requirement in the credit card business for security is possession and knowledge. In that sense a mobile phone is much more secure with multiple levels of authentication and protection. Would you as a user be more satisfied if the level of security is higher than what your credit card can give but provide the same flexibility and ease of use?

The biggest problem I think is the lack of innovative thinking in the developed world to make real m-commerce a viable service. Now what if and what if one day you wake up and suddenly you have a single device that can truly do everything for you... Welcome to the future!