Customer research call guide

TO: Crate Executive Team FROM: Staff PM DATE: October 24, 2023 SUBJECT: Research Guide: H1 Bet Allocation & Churn Investigation

---

1. Learning Goals

Our existing data is noisy. The exit survey suffers from primacy bias (“Missing features/integrations” is the first option and bundles robotics with basic APIs/ERPs). Meanwhile, our CRM shows a strong correlation between >90-day implementations and churn, and robotics appears more often in lost new-logo deals (9) than confirmed churn (3).

Over the next three weeks, these calls must uncover: 1. The "Point of No Return": When in the lifecycle did the customer mentally commit to leaving, and what specific operational event triggered it? 2. Implementation Reality: What caused the gap between the 45-day promise and the 94-day reality? Is slow implementation a root cause of churn, or a symptom of a deeper product mismatch? 3. The "Missing Integration" Truth: For those who cited integrations, what specific systems failed to connect? How many actually bought or deployed warehouse robotics? 4. Post-Churn Ground Truth: What did churned customers switch to, how long did the replacement take to go live, and are they using robotics today?

---

2. Recommended Changes to the Call Plan

To get unbiased data within 12 calls, we must adjust the proposed plan:

• Split the persona tracks across 8–10 accounts (Don't double up on 12): If we interview both the VP and the Ops Manager separately on each account, 12 calls only covers 6 accounts (3 churned, 3 at-risk)—too small a sample. Instead, target 8 churned accounts and 4 at-risk accounts, interviewing the VP on 6 and the Ops Manager on 6 (overlapping on 2–3 accounts to cross-verify stories).
• Drop the 5 at-risk accounts in active renewal negotiations: Interviewing customers while CS is actively negotiating discounts with them is high-risk. Economic buyers will use the call as leverage to complain about price or demand roadmap commitments, skewing the data. Replace them with 1st-year customers who took >90 days to go live (regardless of health score) or churned customers from months 9–12.
• Ana should not lead calls with personal contacts: Ana, your relationships are invaluable for securing these interviews, so we’d love your warm intros. However, former customers who like you personally will try to spare your feelings (blaming an external trend like "we needed robotics" rather than saying "your onboarding team failed us"). A neutral PM should lead all calls; execs can join as silent observers or listen to the recordings.
• Sample across implementation times: Ensure the 8 churned accounts include both <60-day and >90-day implementations so we don't pre-validate Bet B.

---

3. Interview Guides (45 Minutes)

#### Track A: Economic Buyer (VP of Ops / COO) — 6 Calls Focus: ROI expectations, contract promises, strategic tech stack, and the switching decision.

• 0–3m | Intro & Legal: Thank them for their time. Emphasize that this is a product research call, not a sales/renewal call. Ask permission to record.
• 3–10m | The Buying Thesis:
• "Take me back to when you signed with Crate. What was broken in your warehouse that you needed us to fix?"
• "What were your expectations for how quickly Crate would be up and running?"
• 10–22m | The Implementation Experience:
• "Our contract promises a 45-day go-live. Walk me through what actually happened during your rollout."
• If delayed: "What was the single biggest bottleneck? How did that delay impact your business and your team’s trust in Crate?"
• 22–35m | The Turning Point & Tech Stack:
• For Churned: "When did you first realize Crate wasn't going to work out long-term? What happened that week?"
• For At-Risk: "As you look at your operations today, where is Crate falling short of what you signed up for?"
• "What other software or hardware did you need Crate to talk to?" (Do not mention robotics first; see if they bring it up).
• 35–42m | The Aftermath & Automation (Probing Bet A):
• For Churned: "What system did you move to, and how was their implementation by comparison?"
• "Where does warehouse automation or robotics—like autonomous carts or pick-assist—fit into your current operations or 12-month plan?" (If they have them: "Did Crate's lack of integration factor into your decision to leave?")
• 42–45m | Wrap-up: "If you were in our shoes and could fix only one thing for mid-size 3PLs over the next six months, what would it be?"

#### Track B: Daily User (Warehouse Operations Manager) — 6 Calls Focus: Day-to-day friction, rollout reality on the floor, and manual workarounds.

• 0–3m | Intro & Legal: Set a candid, blame-free tone. Ask permission to record.
• 3–12m | Go-Live on the Floor:
• "Were you involved in setting up Crate? Walk me through what it took to get your first warehouse workflow live."
• "At what point did you feel your floor staff actually trusted the system?"
• 12–27m | Daily Friction & Workarounds:
• "Walk me through a typical peak day using Crate. Where did the software slow your team down?"
• "What tasks were you forced to do outside of Crate—in spreadsheets or on paper—because the software couldn't handle it?"
• 27–38m | Equipment & Integrations:
• "What other tools, scanners, ERPs, or floor equipment did you use alongside Crate?"
• "Did you have to manually move data between Crate and other systems? Which ones?"
• "Are you using any autonomous carts or robotics on the floor today, or testing them?"
• 38–45m | The Verdict:
• For Churned: "When leadership decided to replace Crate, was your team relieved or frustrated? Why?"
• For At-Risk: "If you could wave a magic wand and fix one bottleneck in how Crate runs your floor tomorrow, what would it be?"

---

4. Guidance for Interviewers

1. Legal & CS Guardrails (Strict): * Always get explicit verbal consent to record at the start. * Never discuss pricing, discounts, or commercial terms. If an at-risk customer brings up their renewal, say: "I’m completely firewalled from commercial discussions so I can focus purely on product feedback. I’ll make sure your CS manager follows up on the renewal side." * Never mention our roadmap or hint that we are debating Robotics vs. Implementation. 2. Don't Lead the Witness: Do not use the words "robotics" or "94-day implementation" until the final 10 minutes of the call. Let them name the pain first. If they say "integrations," ask "Which specific tools?" before assuming they mean hardware. 3. Hunt for Past Behavior, Not Future Wishes: Discount hypothetical statements like "We’d love to look at robotics next year." Focus on concrete actions: "Did you sign a vendor contract for robots?" or "How many hours a week did your team spend fixing data imports during onboarding?" 4. Two People Per Call: One interviewer drives; one silent note-taker logs verbatim quotes and timestamps in our research repository immediately after the call.

---

5. Decision Framework: How We Will Score the Evidence

After the 12 calls, we will map the findings against this rubric to allocate the two squads:

#### What we need to hear to back Bet A (Robotics Integrations): * Active Deployment: At least 4 of the 12 accounts either actively use warehouse robotics today, are in a paid pilot, or migrated to a competitor specifically and demonstrably to connect to robotics hardware. * Retention Blocker: At-risk customers state that robotics integration is a hard requirement for their upcoming 12-month operations, not just a "nice to have" for 3 years from now. * Implementation Was Survivable: Customers who took >90 days to go live tell us that while onboarding was painful, they eventually stabilized and only left because they outgrew our automation capabilities.

#### What we need to hear to back Bet B (Rebuild Implementation): * Early "Point of No Return": Churned customers report that executive trust was broken during a drawn-out onboarding (months 2–4), and they began shopping for replacements before month 6—meaning they never reached full adoption. * Software-Fixable Bottlenecks: The reasons for the 94-day median go-live are things engineering squads can actually solve (e.g., broken data migration tools, rigid warehouse configuration, self-serve setup gaps) rather than pure services/staffing issues. * Misattributed Survey Data: When we unpack "Missing features/integrations" from the exit survey, we find customers were actually frustrated that initial setup of standard integrations took months during onboarding.

#### What we need to hear to back NEITHER (Pivot the Roadmap): * Software vs. Services on Bet B: Implementation takes 94 days because customers have messy data or our Implementation Managers are understaffed—problems solved by hiring or process changes, not two engineering squads. * A Hidden Third Driver: "Missing features/integrations" turns out to be a core software gap unrelated to robotics (e.g., 3PL billing, client portals, or basic ERP/WMS syncs like NetSuite or Shopify), while robotics is exposed as a shiny object mainly affecting a small subset of new-logo sales.

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.

Crate churn research: decision guide

Decision: In four weeks, allocate two squads next half to robotics integrations (A), implementation redesign (B), or conclude that neither retention thesis is sufficiently supported.

Research window: Three weeks; twelve 45-minute interviews. These calls will test explanations and reconstruct decisions—not estimate how common each churn cause is across 340 customers.

1. Learning goals

1. Reconstruct the departure sequence: What happened between signing, implementation, first value, operational problems, searching for alternatives, and deciding to leave?
2. Identify the decisive mechanism: Was robotics incompatibility or implementation friction necessary to the departure, merely contributory, or a justification offered afterward?
3. Find actionable scope: Which integrations or implementation changes could plausibly have prevented the problem? Could two squads address them within a half?
4. Look for competing explanations and counterexamples: Other missing capabilities, service failures, customer-side constraints, or business changes may explain both delays and churn.
5. Separate operational pain from buying decisions: Did daily users and economic buyers experience the same problem and agree on why the relationship failed?

Starting evidence is suggestive, not conclusive. The survey’s broad, first-listed integration option does not establish robotics demand. The 2.4× churn association does not establish that delays caused churn. Competitor destinations do not establish purchase motives; nine lost prospects are acquisition evidence, not retention evidence.

2. Changes to the call plan

Resolve the interview arithmetic. Twelve accounts with two separate interviews each would require 24 calls. Within the limit, recruit six accounts, interviewing both roles separately: twelve calls total.

Use four churned accounts and two at-risk accounts. This prioritizes actual decisions and reduces exposure to active renewal negotiations while retaining prospective evidence.

Select accounts purposively from the eligible pool, not through executive relationships:

• Include late and on-time go-lives, plus a failed/never-live implementation if available.
• Include known robotics signals and accounts without them.
• Include first-year and longer-tenure departures.
• Seek counterexamples: late implementation without abandonment; robotics discussion without an actual deployment or switch.

Do not attempt a fully balanced matrix with six accounts. Document selection, refusals, substitutions, and gaps. Check whether the nine-month churn window excludes relevant cases from the annual churn rise; expand to twelve months if needed.

For at-risk accounts, prioritize the one outside renewal talks. CS must confirm that participation—or refusal—will not affect commercial treatment. If a renewal makes independent research impractical, substitute another eligible account.

Ana should not lead interviews with former customers she knows. Use a neutral researcher or PM who owns neither bet. Ana can help recruit through a standard invitation and review consented recordings afterward. Avoid executive attendance that could suppress criticism.

Before calls, prepare a factual account timeline from CRM, implementation logs, support records, and available usage data. Keep interpretations separate. Examine cohort definitions and potential confounders behind the 2.4× figure.

3. Interview guides

Both guides total 45 minutes. Ask open questions first; introduce the two hypotheses only after the participant’s unaided account.

Guide A: Warehouse operations manager

Guide B: VP Operations or COO

4. Interviewer operating rules

• Be curious, not persuasive. Do not quote Ana, Marcus, survey percentages, or the churn correlation.
• Probe concrete events: “When?” “Who?” “What happened next?” “How do you know?” Distinguish recollection, inference, and observed action.
• Do not discuss pricing, discounts, or roadmap commitments. If raised: “I can’t discuss commercial terms or future plans here; your account team can handle those separately.” Do not promise escalation outcomes.
• Interview roles separately; do not reveal the other person’s answers. Disagreement is evidence to investigate, not average away.
• Use a neutral note-taker. After each call, record chronology, spontaneous versus prompted reasons, supporting evidence, contradictions, and confidence.

5. Evidence required for the decision

Back A if multiple independent accounts—including actual departures—show committed robotics adoption, a specific blocking Crate incompatibility before the departure decision, failed workarounds, and credible evidence that resolving it would have preserved the relationship. Shared, feasible integration needs must emerge. Generic “missing features,” aspirational automation, or competitor capabilities alone do not qualify.

Back B if multiple accounts—including actual departures—show preventable implementation failures preceding loss of confidence, concrete operational consequences, and a credible path from faster successful activation to retention. Identify repeatable Crate-owned bottlenecks. Delays driven mainly by customer readiness, complexity, or already-failing relationships weaken this case.

Back neither if accounts remain contradictory, both theories depend on hypothetical claims, another mechanism dominates, or neither intervention fits the capacity and time available. If both qualify, compare affected retention exposure, intervention feasibility, and remaining uncertainty—not interview vote totals.

Run two pilot calls in week one, finish most interviews in week two, and reserve week three for remaining calls and synthesis. Produce one evidence sheet per account; paired interviews count as one account, not two confirmations. The final readout should combine those cases with cohort data, explicitly separate causality from correlation, and state what remains unproven before recommending either allocation.