← Selected work
Work
Customer Operations

Customer Health Framework

Health as a routing system: different signals lead to different interventions.

RetentionCustomer HealthReporting

Sanitized for publication. Company names, customer identities, and proprietary figures have been removed.

01

Purpose

Cancellations were processed accurately and studied rarely. The model existed to make the difference between a customer who is gone and a customer who is still deciding visible on a page, every week, to the same set of people.

02

The problem

Health was being inferred from whoever complained loudest. Quiet risk was invisible, intervention attempts lived in individual notes, and recurring drivers were described anecdotally instead of counted. Without a shared read, effort went to the noisiest case rather than the most recoverable one.

03

The thinking

  • A health signal is only useful if it points at a specific next action. A score with no route attached is decoration.
  • Reason categories should describe the cause, not the outcome. Wait time, space, product fit, cost, and relocation each call for a different response.
  • Record what was tried and what happened. Otherwise the team repeats strategies out of habit rather than evidence.
  • The same signals that identify risk also identify engagement. That was the opening that later became the proposed engagement and advocacy extension.
04

What was created

  1. 01

    A health state model

    Customer states from at risk through healthy, engaged, and advocating, each with an owner and a defined action rather than a label alone.

  2. 02

    A reason taxonomy

    A consistent set of cancellation and return reasons, applied the same way every week, so patterns could be counted instead of remembered.

  3. 03

    Intervention and outcome tracking

    Each at-risk customer carried the intervention attempted and the result: retained, still negotiating, declined, or proceeding.

  4. 04

    A recurring operating view

    One regular update read by operations and leadership together, separating finalized loss from active recovery.

05

Selected artifacts

Figure 01 — Signal to state
SIGNALSUsage and activityService historyOrder and deliverySentimentStateSTATESAt riskHealthyEngagedAdvocating
Behavioral, service, and lifecycle signals resolving into a state. The state is what determines who acts and how quickly.
Figure 02 — State to intervention
STATEINTERVENTIONSTATUSAt riskRecoveryOPERATIONALIZEDHealthyEngagementPROPOSEDHighly engagedRewardsPROPOSEDPromoterReferralPROPOSEDAdvocateCommunityPROPOSEDSOLID LINE RAN IN PRODUCTION. DASHED LINE WAS DESIGNED, NOT LAUNCHED.
Each state routes to a different intervention. Recovery is one branch. Engagement, rewards, and referral are the branches that were proposed rather than run.
06

What it informed

  • Became the operating view behind the customer health and retention work.
  • Routed recurring drivers to the teams that owned the underlying cause.
  • Provided the structure that the proposed engagement and advocacy extension was built on.
07

Reflection

The model earned its keep because it was small enough to maintain weekly. Every attempt I have seen to make health scoring more sophisticated before it was habitual has collapsed under its own upkeep. Get the cadence first. Add the math later.

See this model applied
Creating Customer Health & Retention Visibility →
08

Related work