Hi

Has anyone implemented Queuebuster in their call centre and have you seen the improvement that is claimed in the speil??

Graham
Carnival UK

Queuebuster is in use in a number of our contact centres and is a definite improvement:
1. No manual transfer of messages to agents to dial out
2. No manual outbound dialling - reduced wasted attempts.
3. Calls offered to agents at appropriate queuing levels so SLA not compromised

If offered a trial, take it.

Hi,

I am very interested in this. Can anyone advise how this works? Would really appreciate it.

Trev.

We have recently implemented Queuebuster - Its a fantastic application, and the MI available from it is very good.

The onmly downside is the cost - depending on your call volume and the amoun t of spikes you have, it can be costly - e.g we deployed it and 219 people took advantage of it, calling them back at 20p per minute can be expensive. Especially if there isnt a sale at the end of it..but can you put a price on good customer service!?!?!

Hi Johnathan,

Didn't know about the billing charges - are there setup costs for the service as well?

Seb

When you export the MI, it shows the cost it would have incurred..These call backs come at a cost. Setup charges I m not too sure, as our telecomms departments setup the trial.

I dont think it improves SLA, but definitely adds to customer experience when you are experiencing high call volumes, as we are presently.

I was responsible for the roll out and initial analysis of the the improvements QueueBuster could have brought to our company.

We find it extremely effective.

Will happily answer any questions.

dan.parker@cfs.co.uk

I'm a Solutions Architect at Netcall, developers of QueueBuster, and I’m posting some clarifications about usage charges and set-up costs.

I'm also sharing some feedback received from our customers on improvements to Service Level.

Our customers have built solid business cases to prove that by using QueueBuster they have been able to handle more calls with the same number of agents or handle the same calls with a reduction in headcount while maintaining their SLA through busy periods.

Exceptional customer and agent satisfaction has been repeatedly demonstrated.

Improvements to SLA following a QueueBuster implementation at one of the UK’s leading direct financial services companies has seen an improvement in service level rate by a minimum of 10% and a minimum 20% reduction in abandoned calls, both without any extra staff. A number of case studies are available at http://www.netcall.com/customers_testimonials.asp

QueueBuster can be purchased either with on-site licences or as a hosted 'on-demand' solution.

Licence implementations have up-front charges for licences but then no per-use charge other than standard outbound telephony rates when connected to the customer.

QueueBuster ‘on demand’ has low up-front set-up and monthly charges with variable charges based on usage.

Charges are based on factors such as capacity of system required, queue-times, talk-times, and location of customer. Our customers have the ability to configure when QueueBuster is enabled 'in-life' to meet the business demand and therefore only pay call charges when it is used.

These options provide a flexible approach to charging that can accommodate any size of call centre and any mix of capital and operating expense.

I’m very happy to answer any further questions.

Daniel Muddiman, Solutions Architect – daniel.muddiman@netcall.com.

QueueBuster should only be used tactically, I have seen too many instances of over use and dependancy which leads almost to an outbound operation, increased telephony costs and dissatisifed customers.

Hi Steve

I'll be honest as a partner of Queuebuster my opinion is obviously one sided.

I don't really understand your point on over use. If a business invests in Queuebuster to save their customer from hanging on the phone then that's great.

I remember the first time I used it, I thought it was brilliant. I would now highly recommend it to anyone who is trying to add value to there customer base.

Jason

I agree it's a good tool, nowhere have I said anything different. My point is that customers want contact when it suits them and not when it suits the organisation they are calling. Whether or not a customer is in a queue, or waiting for a call back, they are still waiting.

This improves the corporate perception view of customer service rather than that of the customer.

We recently went through the process of evaluating callback systems for our customers' Nortel based Contact Centre. Based on its integration with Nortel Contact Centre and better value, we went with Q4U from CT-Solutions.

The real benefit for the customer is allowing the agents to not get stressed when the proverbial hits the fan. Agents can work away, confident the callback system will smooth out the traffic peak.

Every little helps !

Polly

We recently did a study for a large UK bank/financial services organisation offering customers various technologies to improve the customer experience. Of all the offerings callback was the clear No1 preference across all customer segments. If you can't answer the call immediately, this seems to be the next best thing. And there are some things that you don't want to do eg marketing

Lots of times companies don't call back whether they promise it in person or the promise is made by a machine. And the other thing is that I have made the call when it is convenient to me and having a call back means it may no longer be convenient and we start playing call back/voicemail tennis.

Guy, I would be interested for you to expand on your last comment which was "some things that you don't want to do eg marketing".

Best,

Rob

Rob, I have to agree that this technology will not be a solution if you don't have enough agents to start with. The technology means you can manage the peaks.

One interesting feature in Q4U, which we have not tried, is what they call Priority Callback. The idea is you get a "Priority Routing Code" left on your voicemail if you are not ready for the callback. You can use this at a later time and get to the top of the queue. It will take me a bit more thinking about how the queue is going to work in practice, but it would certainly be a tool in the armory that would help.

Polly

There is the issue of not having enough agents but there is also the issue of not having robust processes to ensure that the call back is made. I can't tell you the number of times I have been promised that someone will call me back...

Also, would adding a call back mechanism encourage managers to think, "Well, if we get more calls than our agents can handle, we'll just call them back."? So could this encourage them to hire fewer agents than they would without the call back system?

Best,

Rob

Rob,

You sceptical, I'm shocked :-)

I'm actually going to agree with your point and have actually
seen... "Well, if we get more calls than our agents can handle,
we'll just call them back." in the real world.

However, solutions like this are designed for a function and the fact
that that function is abused, does not detract from the intent, or
usefullness of the function.

So could this encourage them to hire fewer agents than
they would without the call back system?

Actually I don't think so, the total volume is the same regardless, all
you've done is spread the loading, a couple of years ago I did something
along these lines in order to intelligently blend IB and OB.

LINK TO PREVIOUS THREAD (post6)

All you need to do is factor the peaks to the troughs...

But then, grandmothers + eggs... I know...

Regards

DaveA

Rob: picking up on my comment about there being some things you don't want to do to callers who are queuing, and one of them being marketing....

Our study, and I think it is supported by other research, showed that if someone is in a queue then they react very negatively to being told how wonderful the organisation's (other) products or services are. If you can't meet their original request for service, don't make this an opportunity to tell them how wonderful it would be if they asked for something else.

Similarly, we found that telling people in the queue about other channels e.g. the web also generated negativity. Partly because most customers already know that there are other channels and their muttered response will be along the lines of "if I thought that channel was appropriate I'd already be using it..", partly because they are often calling precisely because they have had a problem with trying to use that other channel.

Our conclusion was that you could remind them of other channels, but only as part of a more general offer of choices: continue to wait, book a call-back, or try another channel

Hope this clarifies
Guy

Thanks Guy. Very useful.

Rob

I completely agree,

Having spent 20 minutes on hold with Thomsons the other day
listening to the Mantra, "Why not check our FAQ online to see if the answer
to your question is there." I was ready to pull my hair out.

If I'd found the **** answer to the **** question I
wouldn't be **** calling, would I? Aarghh.....

Coupled with one very helpful but, ultimately incorrect, agent
and another who could have given Mike Tyson aggression (and elocution)
lessons, it wasn't the most pleasant experience.

Ah well...

Didn't think I'd find an excuse to rant on that one!

Regards, and a belated Happy new year to all.

DaveA