Customer research call guide

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.

Customer Research Guide: H2 Strategic Bets (Robotics vs. Implementation)

To: Executive Team From: Staff Product Manager, Crate Date: Today Subject: 3-Week Customer Research Plan for H2 Resource Allocation (12 Calls)

---

Executive Summary & Plan Adjustments

In four weeks, the executive team will decide where to allocate both engineering squads for the next half. Ana believes we are losing customers because we lack warehouse robotics integrations (Bet A). Marcus believes we are losing them because our implementation cycle is broken and slow (Bet B).

The exit survey heavily favors Ana’s view (46% cite missing features/integrations), but UX research 101 teaches us that exit surveys are structurally flawed. Listing "missing features" first creates primacy bias, and the survey failed to capture temporal dynamics—specifically, when the decision to leave was made. Meanwhile, our internal data tells a damning story: our median time to go-live is 94 days (vs. 45 promised), and customers crossing 90 days churn at $2.4\times$ the rate.

We have 3 weeks to conduct 12 interviews (45 minutes each) to uncover the truth.

Critical Plan Adjustments (Read Before We Start)

1. Split the Interviewees by Persona, Not Account: The original plan called for interviewing both the Ops Manager and the VP/COO on the same accounts. In 45 minutes, splitting time between a daily user and a high-level signer dilutes the insight. Instead, we will interview Warehouse Ops Managers to understand day-to-day friction (Implementation, UI, operational bottlenecks) and VPs of Ops / COOs to understand strategic drivers (ROI, contract expectations, robotics, and when the churn decision was actually made).
2. Revise Ana’s Participation: Ana wants to run 4 calls with former customers she knows personally. We must advise against this. Founder-led interviews with churned customers carry massive politeness bias; customers will pull punches about implementation failures or invent reasons to let Ana down gently. Ana should observe these calls anonymously or listen to the recordings, but an unbiased PM or User Researcher must conduct them.
3. Guardrails for At-Risk Accounts: Five of our six at-risk accounts are in active renewal talks with CS discounts on the table. Interviewers are strictly prohibited from discussing pricing, commercial concessions, or our product roadmap. We are strictly here to diagnose reality.

---

Learning Goals

1. The Churn Timeline: Determine the exact month the customer mentally decided to leave. Did they decide during a painful 90+ day onboarding (supporting Bet B), or later when evaluating modernizing warehouse automation (supporting Bet A)?
2. The "Missing Features" Audit: Deconstruct the 46% exit survey metric. When respondents checked "missing features/integrations," were they missing critical WMS functionality (e.g., wave planning, inventory accuracy) or specifically robotics middleware?
3. Implementation Reality Check: Measure the operational impact of our 94-day median go-live time. Did the delay create cash-flow/trust erosion that doomed the account before day one, regardless of subsequent features?
4. Robotics Urgency: For customers who mention robotics, are they actively deploying autonomous carts today, or is it a 3-year roadmap item they use as a stick to beat us with during negotiations?

---

Interview Guide: Two Personas

Persona 1: The Daily User (Warehouse Operations Manager)

Focus: Implementation friction, daily utility, operational roadblocks.

• 00:00–03:00 | Intro & Permission:
• "Thanks for taking the time. I’m [Name] from Crate. We’re doing research to figure out where we failed our customers and how we can improve. I am strictly here to learn about your experience—we won't be talking about pricing, renewals, or selling you anything today. Do I have your permission to record this call for internal notes?"
• 03:00–12:00 | Day-to-Day Workflow & Reality:
• "Take me back to your first 30 days using Crate. What did the day-to-day onboarding look like?"
• "How long did it actually take for your floor team to feel comfortable using Crate without holding their breath?"
• "What was the most painful workaround your team had to invent during your first three months?"
• 12:00–25:00 | The Implementation Experience (Bet B Probe):
• "Our data shows it takes about 90+ days for most warehouses to go live on Crate. What was your experience? How did those delays affect your team's stress levels and your relationship with our implementation team?"
• "Looking back, did the slow start permanently damage your trust in the software, or did you bounce back once things were running?"
• 25:00–35:00 | Equipment & Floor Integration (Bet A Probe):
• "What automated hardware or mobile carts are running on your floor today? How do they talk to Crate, or do they?"
• "When a pick-assist cart or AGV moves through your warehouse, where does the process break down between the robot and Crate?"
• 35:00–42:00 | The Breaking Point:
• "Think about the moment you realized you wanted to leave Crate (or started looking at alternatives). What happened on the warehouse floor that week?"
• 42:00–45:00 | Wrap-Up:
• "If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about your onboarding or your day-one experience with Crate, what would it be?"

---

Persona 2: The Decision Maker (VP of Operations / COO)

Focus: Strategic expectations, ROI timelines, contract promises, and robotics strategy.

• 00:00–03:00 | Intro & Permission:
• "Thanks for joining. I’m [Name] from Crate. We’re reviewing why customers leave us to make radical changes to our roadmap and processes. I'm not here to pitch you or talk commercial terms—just to understand your true experience. May I record this call for note-taking purposes?"
• 03:00–10:00 | The Purchase & Promise:
• "When you signed with Crate, what was the primary business problem you needed solved in your first 6 months?"
• "What timeline were you given for go-live during the sales cycle, and how did reality compare?"
• 10:00–22:00 | Implementation & Time-to-Value (Bet B Probe):
• "For a mid-size 3PL, cash flow and client onboarding speed are everything. How did Crate's onboarding timeline impact your ability to onboard your own end-clients?"
• "At what point in your first year did you officially consider the implementation 'failed' or deeply troubled?"
• 22:00–34:00 | The Robotics Mandate (Bet A Probe):
• "Let’s talk about warehouse automation. How central are autonomous carts or robotics to your strategy today versus three years from now? Are you actively running them?"
• "When you evaluated staying vs. leaving Crate, how heavy was the absence of robotics integrations in that final calculus? Was it the straw that broke the camel's back, or a nice-to-have?"
• 34:00–42:00 | Uncovering the Timeline:
• "Looking back at the lifecycle of your account, when did you mentally check out and decide you wouldn't renew? Was it during implementation, or months later?"
• 42:00–45:00 | Wrap-Up:
• "If Crate could fix only one thing—either our onboarding speed or our hardware/robotics connectivity—which one would have saved your account?"

---

Decision Criteria: What We Need to Hear

To make our final recommendation to Ana and Marcus, we will evaluate the 12 calls against the following thresholds:

Backing Bet A (Robotics Integrations)

We back Bet A only if: 1. VPs/COOs explicitly state that the lack of robotics was the primary, active catalyst for churning (not just a grievance listed in a post-hoc survey). 2. Churned customers are actively utilizing or piloting autonomous hardware today that could not function with Crate, resulting in operational deadlocks. 3. The exit survey's 46% "missing features" bucket is proven via interviews to be overwhelmingly about hardware/robotics connectivity rather than core WMS gaps (e.g., billing, inventory tracking).

Backing Bet B (Implementation Rebuild)

We back Bet B only if: 1. Interviews reveal that the 90+ day onboarding process created an insurmountable trust deficit; customers felt abandoned and never recovered faith in the product, rendering subsequent features irrelevant. 2. Daily users report that the complexity of setup and configuration was the primary driver of operational frustration, overshadowing missing integrations. 3. Churned customers admit they mentally checked out during or immediately after the botched implementation window, long before robotics ever entered the conversation.

Backing Neither (The Pivot Option)

We back Neither if: * The qualitative data shows a split narrative where both bets are symptoms of a deeper root cause—such as core WMS unreliability, pricing/value misalignment (17% in exit survey), or poor account management—meaning that building robots or speeding up a broken implementation will simply churn customers faster down a different path.