Customer research call guide

Crate churn calls: interview guide

Purpose: Decide between Bet A (robotics integrations) and Bet B (faster implementation) by learning why customers actually leave. Neither theory is proven yet.

Why we're not already sure

• Exit survey: "Missing features or integrations" bundles two things, isn't robotics-specific, was listed first, and has only 41 responses. People also tend to name the most recent or most socially easy reason rather than the first cause.
• Robotics: 3 of roughly 60 churned accounts went to a robotics competitor. The 9 lost deals are real but are new-logo losses, not churn.
• Implementation: The 2.4× churn gap after 90+ days is a correlation. Complex sites may be both slow to launch and likely to leave. We also don't know when customers decided to leave.
• Ana's and Marcus's evidence: Each is anecdotal and selected. Ana hears from customers who will talk to the CEO.
• The two theories may be linked. Robotics-heavy sites may be the slow implementations.

Learning goals

1. When and why each account first considered leaving, relative to go-live.
2. Whether automation was a cause, a rationalization, or irrelevant. The test is whether they took action (bought robots, evaluated replacements), not whether they mention it.
3. Whether slow go-live caused the exit, and whether the delay was Crate's doing or the customer's (their data, staffing, customizations).
4. What else drives exits: price, support, core product gaps, or events outside our control, such as a 3PL losing a shipper contract or being acquired.
5. Whether the two causes overlap.

Changes to the plan

• Call math. Two roles per account means 12 calls covers only 6 accounts. I'd use 8 accounts: 4 churned accounts with both roles (8 calls), and 4 at-risk accounts with the operations manager only (4 calls). At-risk executives are the people in renewal negotiations, which is where contamination risk is highest. Comparing what the signer and the daily user each say is itself valuable.
• Recruit on criteria, not convenience. Among churned accounts, aim for 2 that left within 12 months of signing and 2 that left later. Include go-lives both over and under 90 days, at least 2 sites with robots or carts, and at least 1 that chose "price" in the survey. Pull this from CRM and Customer Success notes this week.
• Ana doesn't run calls. Customers who know the CEO will be polite, and she has a stated hypothesis. Her relationships are valuable for introductions, and at most 1–2 of her contacts should be in the churned set. Someone with no stake in either bet runs the calls, with a second person taking notes. Ana and Marcus get recordings and summaries afterward.
• At-risk accounts need Customer Success coordination. CS confirms no discount conversation is happening that week. The invitation states that this is research, separate from renewal. If a customer tries to negotiate, redirect and tell CS afterward. Weight at-risk answers less, since they describe intentions, not decisions.
• Pre-register. Before call one, Ana and Marcus each read the last section and write what would change their mind.
• Run a parallel data pull. Get tenure at churn, go-live days, and robotics on site for all roughly 60 churned accounts. If the calls and the data disagree, the data wins.

Guidance for whoever runs the calls

• Consent first. The first thing you say after your name is a request to record. If they decline, take notes only and continue.
• Off-limits: pricing, discounts, and roadmap. If they raise price, listen and ask what they compared us with and what they got, but no numbers or offers. If asked "will you build X?", say: "I can't speak to plans. I'm here to understand your experience." If they ask for a commercial conversation, point them to their account manager.
• Do not say "robotics" or "implementation" until the prompted section. Record whether each topic came up unprompted or only when asked. These carry very different weight.
• Alternate the order of the two prompted topics from call to call.
• Ask for stories and dates, not opinions: "Tell me about the last time," "What happened next?" Favor actions ("Who did you call? What did you buy?") over stated reasons.
• Don't defend Crate or fix problems. Answer criticism with "Say more about that."
• Use silence. Wait a few seconds after an answer; the real reason often comes next.
• Debrief within 24 hours on a one-page sheet: decision date, tenure, go-live days, robots on site, trigger event, unprompted causes, prompted causes, strongest quote, and anything that contradicts our hypotheses.

Guide: Operations manager (daily user), 45 min

Guide: VP Operations / COO (signer), 45 min

What we'd need to hear

Eight accounts can't produce percentages. We're looking for a pattern strong enough to act on.

Back Bet A (robotics) if, in at least 3 of the 4 churned accounts: - Automation comes up unprompted, or with only light prompting, as a reason. - They acted on it: robots bought, piloted, or contracted before they decided to leave. - They were live and broadly content with Crate beforehand. - They evaluated or moved to something that connects to their robots, and say they'd likely have stayed if we had. - The same story appears in at least 2 of the 4 at-risk accounts.

Back Bet B (implementation) if, in at least 3 of the 4 churned accounts: - Their first serious doubt came during or shortly after a late go-live, typically within the first year. - They describe never reaching value, or losing their internal champion during the delay. - The delay was mainly Crate's doing (process, handoffs, configuration), not their own data or staffing. - They would say faster go-live would probably have kept them.

Neither bet if: - Exits are mainly driven by events such as a lost shipper contract, site closure, acquisition, or price. - Robotics is mentioned but no one acted on it. - Go-live was slow but they were happy afterward. - Reasons scatter with no pattern. - Core product gaps, such as reporting or inventory accuracy, show up repeatedly. That would point to a third bet we haven't framed.

Both: If the same accounts show robotics-heavy sites with long go-lives because integrations took months, that is a third reading. It favors Bet A if the cause is missing integrations, and Bet B if it's our process. Decide by asking what the customer says was the blocker.

Split results: If churned accounts split evenly, or contradict the data pull, say so. Recommend a targeted follow-up, such as segmenting churn by tenure, rather than forcing a choice.

Research Guide: Root Cause Analysis for H2 Squad Allocation

Prepared by: Staff Product Manager Target Audience: Executive Team (CEO, CPO, VP CS, Head of Product) Timeline: 3 weeks of interviews; executive decision in Week 4 Scope: 12 calls (45 minutes each)

---

1. Executive Summary & Recommended Changes to the Call Plan

Before executing this sprint, we must adjust three structural flaws in the proposed plan to protect data integrity:

1. Resolve the Account-to-Call Ratio: 12 calls cannot cover two separate stakeholders across 12 accounts. We will target 6 accounts total (3 churned, 3 at-risk) and conduct 2 distinct calls per account: one with the Warehouse Operations Manager (day-to-day user) and one with the VP of Operations/COO (economic buyer). Evaluating both perspectives within the same operational context is essential to determine whether operational failure or strategic misalignment triggered the exit.
2. Quarantine Active Renewals: 5 of the proposed 6 at-risk accounts are actively negotiating renewals and receiving discounts. Interviewing these buyers creates an immediate incentive for them to exaggerate product flaws to gain commercial leverage. We will swap 3 of these with at-risk accounts that are not currently negotiating pricing.
3. CEO Interview Protocol: Executive presence introduces severe confirmation and deference bias—especially with personal contacts who already know Ana's passion for robotics. Recommendation: Ana should join her 4 target calls as an executive sponsor for the first 3 minutes, then hand off lead facilitation to a Product Manager, remaining on mute as an observer. If Ana leads, she must strictly follow the non-leading script provided.

---

2. Core Learning Goals

1. Pinpoint the Churn Decision Window: Did the customer mentally churn during the onboarding/implementation phase (Bet B), or did they leave after reaching steady-state due to technological ceilings (Bet A)?
2. Assess Real Robotics Demand vs. Narrative: Are customers actively deploying autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) and pick-assist hardware, or is "missing robotics" a convenient, forward-looking justification for leaving an underperforming platform?
3. Quantify the Cost of Onboarding Drag: Does exceeding the 45-day SLA directly burn operational credibility and destroy ROI, or is delay merely a symptom of customer-side disorganization?
4. Identify False Dichotomies (Bet Neither): Determine whether churn is driven by factors neither bet solves—such as baseline software unreliability, missing core 3PL billing/EDI features, or macro 3PL volume contraction.

---

3. Interviewer Guidance & Rules of Engagement

• Recording Consent (Mandatory): State verbatim: "Before we begin, do you mind if I record this session purely for internal note-taking? None of this will be shared externally." If declined, proceed with manual notes.
• The "No Roadmap, No Pricing" Wall: Customers will attempt to trade feedback for commitments. If asked about features or discounting, respond: "I'm on the product research side and have no visibility into commercials or delivery timelines. My sole focus today is understanding how your operations actually run."
• Past Behavior Over Speculation: Never ask: "Would you use a robotics integration?" (Answer is always yes). Always ask: "What automation equipment do you have physically deployed on the floor today, and how does your team interact with it?"
• Root-Cause Probing (The "Five Whys"): When a customer says "missing integrations," do not accept the label. Ask: "What specific warehouse task were you trying to execute that stalled? What was the manual workaround?"

---

4. Interview Scripts & Timings (45 Minutes Each)

Track 1: VP of Operations / COO (Economic Buyer)

#### Part 1: Context & Operational Profile (7 mins) * How has your facility footprint and throughput profile shifted over the last 18 months? * When you initially signed with Crate, what core business metric were you held accountable for improving?

#### Part 2: Implementation & Time-to-Value (12 mins) * Walk me back to your onboarding. What was the internal sentiment between signing the contract and processing your first live pallet? * Our contract targets a 45-day go-live; our median across customers is closer to 90. Where did the process stall, and what internal operational cost did that delay create? * At what point did your leadership team feel Crate was fully operational? Did you ever reach that state?

#### Part 3: Strategic Priorities, Automation, & Feature Gaps (16 mins) * Over the past year, what capital investments have you made on your warehouse floor (e.g., conveyor belts, automated guided vehicles, pick-assist carts, manual racking)? * If automation is present: Who manufactures it, what software controls it today, and what specific data must pass between it and your WMS? * If automation is absent: What is on your signed capital expenditure plan for the next 12 months? * When you evaluated the market (or competitors), what specific capability made it clear Crate was no longer the right long-term partner? * Think back to the moment you realized this contract wouldn't renew. When did that conversation happen, and who initiated it?

#### Part 4: Decision Trace & Wrap-up (10 mins) * If Crate had delivered on every promise made during the sales cycle within 45 days, would you still be with us today? Why or why not? * What is the single biggest operational bottleneck your business faces this quarter?

---

Track 2: Warehouse Operations Manager (Daily User)

#### Part 1: Floor Reality & Daily Routine (8 mins) * Walk me through the first two hours of your shift on the floor. Where do supervisors and pickers spend the majority of their time inside Crate? * What daily tasks force your team to leave Crate and use spreadsheets, paper, or secondary systems?

#### Part 2: Go-Live Experience & Transition (12 mins) * How disruptive was the transition to Crate for your floor staff? How long did it take for pick/pack rates to recover to baseline? * During the first three months, how often did you have to escalate systemic issues to leadership? What were those issues? * Did you feel the system was configured correctly for your physical warehouse layout, or did you have to mold your workflows to fit the software?

#### Part 3: Floor Automation & Daily Bottlenecks (15 mins) * How do orders physically move through your facility today? * If pickers are assisted by any mechanical or automated equipment, where does software failure slow them down? * Have you piloted or evaluated autonomous carts or robotics on your floor? * If yes: What was the hardest operational part of that pilot? * If no: What prevents you from automating (e.g., client SKU variability, facility constraints, budget)? * If you could fix one workflow in Crate that causes your floor workers the most frustration, what would it be?

#### Part 4: The Tipping Point (10 mins) * When did your team start discussing alternative systems or workarounds? Was there a specific breaking point or system failure? * If you had a magic wand to improve your team’s pick/pack speed by 20%, what would you change about your physical setup or your software?

---

5. Decision Rubric: What We Need to Hear

At the end of Week 3, interview findings will be mapped against this falsification framework:

---

6. Next Steps

1. Day 1-2: Approve adjusted account roster (3 non-renewing at-risk, 3 churned). CS to send intro emails.
2. Day 3-17: Conduct 12 recorded interviews. Maintain a shared executive synthesis doc updated within 24 hours of each call.
3. Day 21: Final Decision Meeting. Present thematic evidence and allocation recommendation to Ana and Marcus.

Crate churn research: executive pre-read and interview guide

Decision: Allocate two squads next half to robotics integrations (A), implementation rebuild (B), or neither if the evidence does not justify either.

Research stance: Test both explanations, not confirm either executive’s account. These interviews can reveal mechanisms and decision timelines; they cannot estimate their prevalence across 340 customers or prove causality.

1. Learning goals

1. Reconstruct the departure process: When did concerns emerge, when did leaving become likely, and when was the decision effectively made?
2. Identify consequential problems: Separate reasons volunteered after leaving from problems that materially changed warehouse outcomes and the buying decision.
3. Test Bet A: Was a specific robotics incompatibility a binding obstacle? Would addressing it have plausibly retained the account?
4. Test Bet B: Did implementation delay prevent value, damage trust, or trigger departure? What caused the delay, and could Crate control it?
5. Find alternatives and interactions: Price, service, reliability, business changes, or other missing capabilities may dominate. Robotics work may itself complicate implementation.
6. Connect learning to an investable scope: What could two squads deliver next half that would address the demonstrated retention mechanism?

What the existing evidence does—and does not—say

• The exit survey’s broad integration category, single-choice format, first-position placement, and sparse free text do not establish robotics as the cause.
• The 2.4× churn association makes implementation worth investigating, but complexity, customer readiness, or other factors could drive both delay and churn.
• Three competitor moves and nine lost deals indicate a robotics opportunity; acquisition losses are not evidence of a retention mechanism.
• Unknown decision dates make chronology essential.

2. Changes to the call plan

Resolve the arithmetic: Twelve separate interviews cannot cover twelve accounts with two roles each. Use six accounts × two separate role interviews = twelve 45-minute calls.

Recommended mix: Four churned accounts and two at-risk accounts. This reduces reliance on renewal negotiations while retaining a prospective view. Findings will be depth-oriented, not representative.

Select accounts from the full CRM population, not executive contacts or survey answers alone:

• Across churned accounts, include slow and faster implementations, first-year and later departures, and robotics-exposed and non-exposed customers.
• Include at least one confirmed move to a robotics-enabled competitor and one slow implementation without an apparent robotics need.
• For at-risk accounts, prefer one with active automation plans and one with implementation/value-realization problems. Include the non-renewal account if suitable.
• Seek contrasting retained accounts through existing operational data, even though the call budget does not cover them.

Recruit both the daily warehouse operations manager and the contract-signing VP Operations/COO. If the original signer has left, recruit someone directly involved in the departure or renewal decision and document that substitution.

Ana should not lead calls with her personal contacts. Use a neutral interviewer without renewal responsibility. Ana can help recruit; observing requires explicit customer consent. Her existing conversations are useful leads, not independently verified findings.

CS should introduce research as separate from renewal discussions, then step out. Participation must not affect commercial treatment.

3. Interview guides: 45 minutes each

Use the relevant role column. In every section, distinguish direct experience from hearsay. Ask broad questions before naming either bet.

Status-specific wording

• Churned: Ask what the replacement actually delivered, whether it went live, and whether the cited problem improved—not merely what the competitor promised.
• At-risk: Ask what has already happened, current unresolved consequences, and what would cause escalation or departure. Do not imply a departure decision exists. Distinguish funded plans from aspirations.

4. Guidance for interviewers

• Begin with recording permission; record only after consent. Explain that this is research, not a support, roadmap, or renewal discussion.
• Do not discuss prices, discounts, or roadmap commitments. If raised, acknowledge without probing commercial terms: “I can’t discuss that here; your account team handles commercial conversations.” Record volunteered price concerns as an alternative explanation.
• Avoid “Did missing robotics make you leave?” and “Would faster onboarding have saved you?” Start with events; use counterfactuals only afterward.
• Ask for concrete examples, dates, artifacts, and consequences. “It was painful” is not yet a mechanism.
• Do not defend Crate, disclose executive hypotheses, or offer fixes.
• Interview roles separately before reconciling accounts. Treat disagreement as evidence, not an error to erase.
• Use a note-taker and common template: timeline, problem, consequence, decision link, alternative explanation, evidence source, and confidence. Count accounts, not two interviewees as independent votes.

5. Evidence required for the decision

Back A: robotics integrations

Look for a repeated chain across independent accounts:

Committed robotics deployment → specific missing connection → material operational/business constraint → documented role in departure or credible near-term risk.

Stronger evidence includes decision-maker confirmation, pre-decision correspondence, and a replacement that solved the problem. Match the implicated vendors/workflows to current customer exposure. Before funding, establish that a feasible integration scope could address meaningful retention risk next half.

Mentions of “automation,” hypothetical plans, or competitor marketing are insufficient.

Back B: implementation rebuild

Look for:

Crate-controllable implementation bottleneck → delayed usable value or broken operational commitments → loss of confidence/avoidable cost → departure decision before value realization.

Seek repeated bottlenecks, role-level corroboration, and contrasts with faster implementations. Validate the mechanism against the full cohort, accounting where possible for complexity and customer readiness. Identify changes two squads could deliver; do not assume a wholesale rebuild is necessary.

Back neither—or declare the result inconclusive

Neither is justified if dominant causes lie elsewhere, robotics demand is narrow or speculative, delays are largely outside Crate’s control, or either intervention arrives too late to affect retention. If interviews remain contradictory or unsupported, report insufficient evidence, not “neither causes churn.”

Compare both bets on reachable ARR at risk, evidence strength, controllability, delivery feasibility, and time to impact—not mention counts.

6. Three-week execution

• Week 1: Audit cohorts and timelines, recruit, pilot one role pair.
• Week 2: Complete remaining interviews; synthesize after each pair without changing standards to favor an emerging winner.
• Week 3: Verify discrepancies, triangulate with records, assess engineering scope, and prepare the decision memo with supporting evidence, counterexamples, uncertainties, and a recommendation.

Do not commit two squads merely because one story sounds more persuasive.