Slashdot Mirror
Why Your Call Center is Only Getting Noisier (mckinsey.com)
From a report by research firm McKinsey & Company: Organizations have been investing in all manner of customer-facing technology solutions to replace live calls. Of all operational call-center technologies, digital solutions were ranked as one of the most important over the next five years by four out of five executives. Only agent desktop tools ranked higher. These technologies begin with websites, chat bots, and apps and extend to artificial-intelligence robots that simulate human conversations -- redefining the way organizations interact with customers -- as well as more tried-and-tested functionalities such as improved web, app, or self-service capabilities in interactive voice-response (IVR) systems. And yet, despite this plethora of technology solutions, we see that calls are not going away and instead are catching call-center executives off guard in their efforts to reduce volumes. It's not that a spike in call volumes is necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, the proliferation of digital tools can awaken previously dormant customers, sparking new inquiries from an engaged customer base. But in many instances, we've also observed that the volumes of unwanted calls exceed what would be expected during a learning period, or remain constant or rise over time, defeating strategic goals and leaving managers bewildered and unable to tie tech investments to improved operational outcomes. Why are so many organizations struggling with reaping the full benefits from these investments? In our experience, the answer often lies in two core areas. First, as companies turn to technology to address call-center volumes, they allow customer experience to take a back seat to digital technology in their operations, creating dissonance in direct customer interaction, where the objective is harmony and efficiency. Second, by counting on technology to solve their call-center issues, executives lose focus on core operations and upset the balance between human interaction and automation in an era of evolved customer service.
I'm not sure I understand what the problem / issue is.
Seriously... WTF is this. More slashvertising?
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I don't talk to "bots", AI, script-reading Indians or automated telephone systems. All of this shit is 100% useless in solving anything.
If I'm calling you it's because I couldn't solve my problem via your web interface. If I couldn't solve my problem via your web interface, then a chatbot is not going to solve my problem.
That's good because chat bots aren't there to solve your problem either.
They're all there to make you go away; you gave them your money, and they want to keep as much as possible. That's only possible if you piss off.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Then evolution [of customer service] just took two steps back.
Somebody said that technology can cut costs, so executives used it too much. Hey look, I made your whole report fit into a tweet!
Don't worry, their live human won't be able to help you either, as they're really just reading off a script at this point with no ability to deviate from it.
If you're lucky, the 3rd or 4th tier above them will be able to actually deviate from the script and provide actual support. You know, the kind you used to get from the first person who answered the phone.
Hello? My broom just broke after a dozen sweeps.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
#DeleteFacebook
ISP jerked me around for weeks reseting my modem which showed noisy / lossy line. Then they made me drive to an office of theirs to switch modems, new modem had same problem as old modem of course. Finally I posted on newly created twitter account with just the right hashtag to put my tweet in stream with their marketing spew, and presto, tech came and ran a new line (old one chewed up by squirrels) within 48 hours.
So now you know what to do.....
This is something middle management is really concerned about. /. is mostly middle managers by now since most of us where forced out of tech by the influx of cheap Visas forced us to move on from the nuts and bolts of tech and into management. Automating work done by call centers is the new hotness right now for tech managers.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How about when you direct people to your web page to try and solve their issue, you give them useful information.
One can use Microsoft as a prime example of the hoops one has to jump through to find a simple solution. If the question is, "How do I add a mailbox to Outlook?", the page should not start with:
A shared mailbox can be a practical solution for any business with groups of people working from different locations. With the right permissions, any person in a group can access a shared mailbox that appears in their address book. The shared mailbox is automatically available in the Folder pane in Outlook. (taken directly from the Microsoft page)
No one cares about a "practical solution". They want to know how to add a mailbox to Outlook. Nor do they care about why one should use a shared mailbox. They asked how to add a mailbox. In fact, nowhere on the page does it tell you how to add a mailbox. It does everything but that.
If you want your call center volume to go down, provide useful information, information which is not buried ten menus deep or stuck in some corner with an obscure name.
You know why people keep calling you? Because your information pages technology sucks. That's why.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I read that painfully bloated article, and it is very simple.
Either are buying tech to solve the wrong problems, or they are not updating processes across the enterprise when new tech is deployed.
This is not news. People have been doing this before I entered the workforce, and they will probably continue to do it long after I am dust.
And then there is this gem:
"It is no surprise, then, that more than 60 percent of customer-care leaders we surveyed are skeptical about eliminating inbound voice calls in the next ten years."
I would be skeptical about eliminating voice calls in my lifetime. Who seriously thinks this is within arms' reach?
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
CEO: "People are complaining about our product. Some say it doesn't work well. Some say it is too complicated. Some say, whatever! Our call center is swamped. Do something, CIO!"
CIO: "We want to improve our product. My budget requests for automation, training and improving the architecture are all about making the customer experience better. We will have less call volume by solving the problems that trigger the calls."
CMO: "We can't waste money on that stuff. We have to have feature parity and shinny newness. You should have built everything right the first time."
CEO: "CMO is right. We need features, not tech stuff no one can see. Here is budget for creating knowledge base and self-help and improved documentation."
CIO spends lots of money on knowledge base and self-help and improved documentation.
CEO: "After all that money we spent, calls are not going down. What do you have to say for yourself, CIO?"
CIO: "Spending money on failure demand doesn't decrease failure."
CEO: "Whatever. You are fired."
(Don't they teach failure demand at MBA schools? I guess not.)
Well zippity zaw haw yay! I too have recently concluded a session of sexual intercourse with a recently born canine!
pics or gtfo
Was his name BeauHD or EditorDavid?
Headline: Why Your Call Center is Only Getting Noisier
Summary: It's not that a spike in call volumes is necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, the proliferation of digital tools can awaken previously dormant customers, sparking new inquiries from an engaged customer base. ... [I]n many instances, we've also observed that the volumes of unwanted calls exceed what would be expected during a learning period, or remain constant or rise over time...
msmash, you _do_ know that there are _three_ definitions for "volume", right?
I just ate the puppy you fucked. Then I shat it out in a public pool.
Books used to use them to divide the text into section. It made things easier to read and understand. I quite liked them.
Whatever happened to paragraphs?
Thanks to those modern cost saving measures, most now know to try solving the problem themselves first, with web searches and trial by error. As a result, by the time they call, they are desperate and no automated chatbot or menu will help them. In fact they increase frustration because the goal at that point is to talk to a more knowledgeable human.
On the contrary, the proliferation of digital tools can awaken previously dormant customers, sparking new inquiries from an enRaged customer base.
FTFY
TFA poses the problem as, "Call Center Volumes Are Too High!"
The management and cost control bias this imposes is as clear as a bell. They might as well call out from the city walls, "Why Are The Users Such a Burden?!"
Here's a clue these people could use. Maybe your products are too buggy, or too hard to use, or are being marketed to the tech unsavvy, when really the product is only suitable for the tech savvy? Posing the problem as being at the Call Center not only misses the real issue, it implicitly blames the user. You know, the people who ultimately pay your salary.
There's a better way. Work on your Out of Box Experience. Make your interfaces discoverable. Create setup charts and Quick Hits materials. Design so that the first thing the user is likely to try, will not only work but be the optimal product use pathway.
And after having done all that, accept that some users want to talk to a human being. They will overlook the interactive onramp. They will ignore the FAQ. They will manage to misinterpret instructions or use a word differently than you have ever used it. Just remember, the customer is always right!
Yeah. First you get customer service, then support help level 1 and then they transfer you to level 2 whose calls are routed to what I firmly believe is the level 1 guys again but with the hope that the next level 1 guy is a bit more knowledgeable through outside skills. Then you get told it will cost you 100 to send someone out to your house as they no longer have level 3 help. At this point, I have usually found the answer via google or one of those youtube videos (which I used to swear against but now appreciate.)
I used to work on an ISP help desk many, many years ago. If you asked to escalate to a manager or a higher level of support we would quite literally put you on hold, look around the room and ask our co-workers who felt like being a "manager" today, we'd then transfer the person to our co-worker who was at the same level as we were.
Of course this was back in a time when we didn't work off scripts, and were hired for our extensive knowledge of the systems and software we were supporting. If we couldn't figure it out, there simply wasn't anyone higher up to send you to.
Things are very different today, I don't think there are any call centres left where the first level people do anything other than follow a script, and it's highly unlikely any of them were hired for their in depth technical knowledge.
We do the same once they reach a high enough level where I work.
It's pretty much if there is nothing we can do, then there really is nothing we can do.
The problem is that so many companies put people that are not empowered on the front lines that customers expect to be able to hear a yes after being told no if they climb high enough. If there weren't so many fake no's being told, this wouldn't happen but I imagine it does weed out probably 8-90 percent of complainers.
Some businesses aren't trying: When my phone doesn't work, my provider demands I phone them to complain: They don't offer a in-store help-line anymore.
I thought this was about background sounds from call center calls. :/
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I cut my teeth doing ISP support for the ricochet wireless modem in the 90's, and I saw first hand how support was regarded by the C level execs.
We all started out with normal, 10x10 cubicles. Then they wanted to pack more people into the space, so they reduced us to 2 per cube. Then they wanted to reduce that even further, and put us all in individual wall stations that were about 1' deep by 2' wide. After that job, I started seeing this become the norm for most support departments.
So in short, they increased the floor density of call centers, which made the noise worse.
Was that summary even in English? EXAMPLE:
The example clause has absolutely no actual meaning. None, whatsoever.
"If you aren't on Hold...
We're overstaffed"
This must be that "fake news" that I keep hearing about.
I take some of the unwanted calls I get and force the AVR to get me a human, just to waste their time like they wasted mine. I wonder if enough people took more time to talk to these useless people if it would become financially burdensome for them to keep calling me.
Thing is. This wasn't "high enough level" this was the front line. We were the first, last, and only level of support.
Call center volume is in direct proportion to incompetence in product quality, documentation, service, and call center competence. Because of siloing in cost accounting, if you save money by firing documentation writers, you win. Then the call center gets more calls. Duh. But the guy who got rid of the documentation gets a promotion. Now, he's in charge of getting rid of the QA people...