Hi! readers...

I am surprised to see similar questions like this being asked time and again in all forums related to technology. In my opinion the best way to answer this question is to ask oneself whether technology should drive him or he should drive technology.Technology is only an enabler but not the end. We may have a technology to convert sand into gold but does that benefit humanity ? If it does is it affordable ? Is it commercially viable? If these three questions are answered by the technocrats in affirmative then technology can be adopted.

Today CRM implementations fail not becuase the initiative is wrong but it is because it is wrongly perceived to be some piece of software integrated with other softwares which can turn out tonnes and tonnes of data. Instead if all initiatives were to be directed in only making the customer feel comfortable then we can implement CRM without technology. Yes it is possible only if we feel the way the customer has felt it and the way customer has experienced. But not by analysing and paralysing what others derive or perceive from such experiences.

Hi Vedula.

Welcome. You will have no doubt noticed that real debate goes on here. These people are endowed with many brain cells unlike some so called forums...

Thats a compliment everyone!

David

...will get you everywhere!

David, I'm touched! Really! So, where do I send the cheque???? :-)

Seriously, though, I (and the rest of us involved with CCV) am delighted that it's proving to be useful to its members. When we setup the site, we wanted to be different and to offer so much more than the other sites, and whilst this site is still young, I feel we've done some things right, judging by some of the emails I've received.

Of course, we're always aiming to keep improving the site, but our 'content is king' philosophy is our main priority, and so all credit must always go to the members - after all, this site is nothing without the contributions of its members, and I've been personally impressed by the enthusiasm and intelligence of what I've read so far...!!!

So, thanks everyone, keep up the good work!

John

Ok then. Do you know of any companies who would be interested in seriously improving their customers' experience?

I could always do with more work as I'm really no salesman...

David

Has technology gone 'too' far.....or has business gone to far...
Technology is only a tool to serve the human race.Its depends on the how we are using that technology.The purpose, the aim, the goal behind that use.
With regards to the situation of call centres...well i can only speak for myself but....guys i do hate it after dialing a number to be "welcomed" by a call centre voice....knowing that very moment my next question will be..'oh God can i please for once be helped by a human being of flesh and bloodwho's job and responsibility it is to give answers to my questions'.
You see, an automated call centre voice has no responsibility, she cant even be forced by an angry customer to take up responsibility.....and thats what its all about in some businessbranches...no enoying customers...no angry emotions of customers...everything clean,smooth and without subjective human touch....it saves money and energy for the company. And the customer, well, he gets frustrated and walks away.
So, tell me has technology gone to far or the businessmentality?

Ann Higuet

Good points. Business definitely drives technology forward, with alliances between technology companies and big business 'pushing the envelope' all of the time. Sometimes this 'push' is unnecessary and can result in the adoption of technology in areas which really don't need it.

It's all about efficiency, reducing costs, business-centric things; the balance sheet is king, and as David would probably say, the customer is left to fend for him or herself on the edges of the equation (instead of at the centre, in the utopian customer-centric model). Therefore, with accountants at the helm, is it any wonder that often there are problems with unhappy customers.

I do sympathise, however; business has to toe a fine line between profitabilityand service; whether the two go hand in hand is debatable - good service requires more effort upstream but can reap rewards in repeat and recommendation business further downstream. Nevertheless, it is all too easy in business to think about the 'upstream' costs in monetary terms without thinking about how this translates to longer-term benefits.

This impacts the call centre industry because the emphasis is then on maximising the throughput (hence the early adoption of somewhat impersonal technology) rather than on the customer experience...

Not necessarily a good thing, eh?

To add my tuppence worth.

The drive for increased technology in business comes fundamentally from the following reasons.

Human beings are seen as ‘finicky’ and unpredictable so business tries to remove them from the equation by dehumanising where possible the process.

Unfortunately, business has forgotten that it is ONLY people that do business together. So, by focussing on process only, it leads to an even higher frustration factor at interactions which in turn to even more people walking away.

This action of people walking away reinforces the ‘finicky human beings’ paradigm and seemingly validates the appropriateness of the businesses model. The consequences are the business results spiralling ever downwards into oblivion. I can name at least 20 companies who are but shadows of their former selves foe exactly these reasons.

I agree with John that it is indeed a very fine line between being empathetic when dealing with customers and going all 'touchy feely'or 'fluffy' which can both be extremely counter productive.

However, by understanding just what your customers' experience is, you can find out the most important areas upon which to focus – leading to an improved experience that has DIRECT and SIGNIFICANT impact on the bottom line.

I was taught many years ago that the way to make money is to increase your sell price NOT cut costs. Meeting your customers’ needs does NOT mean spending more money. Once you understand your customers’ experience you simply redirect already allocated funds to target specific profit generating actions.

By focussing on people and NOT process, call efficiency will either stay the same or IMPROVES by approx 10%. Moreover, the complaints department will reduce - freeing resource even further.

David

Hi David and John,

Nice that you have talked a lot about the differentiation between business and service.The business and service both have objectives; one is tangible and the other intangible, I mean satisfaction. Quality of service can be encashed thereby creating a new avenue for bottomline increase.

When we talk about technology, there is only automation but not the feeling.Therefore automation can save time and accuracy but not the customer attrition. Retention of customer is dependent more on business philosophy and and the way the business is conducted by the enterprise. True relationships are built on two attributes - trust and commitment.Breach of either will break the relationship. It is true of all relationships.The strengthof a relationship is derived from positive interactions the persons involved in relationship have.

The relationship will continue as long as the give and takes in relationship exceed expectations( a true WIN-WIN situation).Profitability is looked at by accountants as the ONLY METRIC AVAILABLE for measuring business growth ( can't blame accountants for that).However we all know that the success of an enterprise lies in not only making profits but also create value and image in the eyes of its customers and investors.

Vedula

When the touch tone IVR was inrtroduced , call center employees didn't like losing the personal touch with their customers, and customers complained. But, companies could not ignore the significant cost savings they recongnized so they contined to march on and implement. After awhile, we all became used to this type of service, however, I don't believe the masses "enjoy" the expierence.

The next step in the progress and growth of the IVR self-service, will be speech. People have learned to enjoy self-service by use of the internet--but the expierence of a good, natural, speech solution where the customer does not have to contiually press buttons, but just tells the system what it is they want will make everyone much happier. I believe you will enjoy a far greater level of customer satisfaction, and much fewer "zero outs". One important thing to remember when implementing this, speech is a maturing technolgy and is finally able to deliver a product that is "natural" in sound, so more acceptable to customers. However, it will continue to improve dramatically over the next few years as we learn more from growing applications, and implementations, therefor the ASP model from a company that specializes in speech technology/front end call center solutions is the best move to make.

Jeannie.

What I so hope you are alluding to here is a system that can genuinely recognise everyones version or interprtation of what it is they want. WHat I mean by this is that when people are properly employed and hear a request they relate it to an answer even though the answer may not have been specifically mention - they make connections if you like.

Are you saying that there exists a system that can genuinely interpret a person's needs and deliver them where they wish to go?

If not what exactly are you saying here?

David

"Are you saying that there exists a system that can genuinely interpret a person's needs and deliver them where they wish to go?"

If there is such a system (and it's difficult to comprehend how such a system could be devised) then why is no-one using it?

One of the difficult things about call centres (IMHO) is definitely directing those callers whose needs do not fit precisely into those options set up by the menu designer; a bit 'square peg into round hole', if you like. A system which could deliver based upon a degree of (if you will) artificial intelligence would be very useful indeed (if implemented intelligently).

Expanding upon that concept, implementing some kind of neural network which could perhaps weight menu options based upon the success rate of the mapping between caller needs to 'best destination' (with some kind of feedback from either the caller or operator) could work, but I suspect we would be entering an area with massive pitfalls if not designed and tested extremely carefully...

John

Hi.

We've been looking into menu design and usability quite carefully recently, as our activities have been moving into this area for some time now. Something that occurs to me is we are playing with fire when we use technology at the expenseof human contact. As David Newton Dines said somehwre above we run the risk of spoiling the caller's experience and possibly losing a customer.

We want to really think carefully about how we apply technology and *thoroughly test it in advance* of rollout. We can't afford to take risks with our customers as we may loose them to a competitor. That wouldn't be good at all!!

How do we go about testing menu systems ? Rhetoric question really, but we don't have all the answers. Paper based structured walkthroughs have proved to be useful in "visualising" the path from start to finish of a call. The designer can "see" loops and overly long chains. However this is not the only method we would use : getting real customers to come in and try out alternatives, providing feedback at each stage, is a good method. There are many more, perhaps we can all share ideas ?

WW

(Excuse me while I climb up on my soap box...)

I believe that a good technology, used in the right environment will soon take off and be of great value to everyone involved. A few years ago, many people did not have touchtone access to their bank account information. And many people swore they would never use one. Now, no one can live without it.

The problems with technology start when people develop applications without putting themselves in the customers shoes. You must say to yourself...'If I was the customer, how would I feel now, where would I find this information they are looking for...How much of a hurry am I in?' If you build applications with the customer in mind, be it IVR, Web, etc... the customers will begin to rely onit and most will use it. (There will always be customers who are in too much of a hurry, or are too confused to use an application, and that is why you should always provide a path to get to a live person.)

Applications built only with the company goals in mind, with no thought to what the customer wants, are going to fail, and turn some customers off of your company.

To summarize, it is not the technology has gone too far, but that the programmers are not envisioning their applications as a customer service but just as a utility for the benefit of the company.

(Marianne gets down from her favorite soap-box)
G'night!

"The problems with technology start when people develop applications without putting themselves in the customers shoes"

You're right Marianne, thats a very big part of the problem I would argue. I also agree that it is important to have a path to the real operator as there are still a lot of people who simply neither want nor are able to get their heads round the technology. I'm thinking about our senior citizens mainly but there will always be a proportion of callers who don't get on with the applications. Designers have to cater for these people too.

I dont know that I would blame the programmers though, as they are not always the designers and often, management gets in the way - committees and so on, tearing good design up for the sake of compromise. Agree about the benefits of the company stuff though, too many things are done at the expense of good service in order to make a company more profitable. Not always the best plan.

Bob

Peeps

Seems to me we are of a single mind here – PHEW! William, the answer is measure it from the customers perspective. Marianne, the poor programmers just do as they are told. They need to pay the mortgage too so they don’t rock the boat. Bob,by understanding the complete customer experience you cover all avenues and some.

Technology is indeed great IF (a little word I know but SOOO important) it is used to support the best interface on the planet – the human mind.

Technology can indeed do so much we cannot – however the human mind can do so much technology cannot. What we have here is the perfect opportunity to work together instead of trying to replace the best available with a pale ineffective and unreliable imitation. This harmony will happen. However, it will only happen when, as Marianne so rightly points out, companies are forced by consumer power to finally realise just what kind of experience they are delivering their customers. Currently companies think they knowbut the unfortunate reality is that they are shocked to the core when their illusions are shattered by an experience of the truthful experience.

For me, the sad thing about all of this is that is that NONE of it is rocket science. Across the globe millions upon millions of companies exist and only a handful (relatively speaking) understand this oh so simple message. It’s not programmers or the people at the sharp end at all. For some unfathomable reason when the perfectly normal human beings that make up boards of directors enter their place of business they seem to leave the understanding of humanity they use for their own lives on a hook outside the board room. Instead they plug in something that bears no resemblance to anything anyone elsehas ever come across and expect it to work – despite KNOWING they would not even contemplate applying the same philosophies themselves in their ‘real’ lives!!

As sure as night follows day, profits will up if companies take the time and trouble to put themselves in the shoes of their customers, understand the impact of the experience and do something positive to improve it. By understanding the customer experience in its entirety, who, what, when, where and how companies will finally be armed with the real ‘insight’ they need to make that crucial difference and drive up their customer loyalty. All these people need do is to take down the hooks from outside the boardroom where they hang ‘reality’, take it inside and apply it – hey presto a genuine miracle…both loyalty and proitability maximised

David

Just need to clarify...When I say the programmers, I should have said the designers of the applications. If the programmer is given a design and told 'I sayeth unto thee to program this exactly as it has been writ', then no blame should fall on the programmer. I don't want anyone to think I am down on programmers!!!!!

I have always acted as programmer/analyst/manager, but tend to think of myself just as a programmer. That is why I was referring to the programmers, rather than the application designers. Occassionally a client forces me to design things their way, but in most instances I am able to persuade them to do it my way....or to convince them that they have a great idea (mine). ;)

Marianne

Just need to clarify...When I say the programmers, I should have said the designers of the applications. If the programmer is given a design and told 'I sayeth unto thee to program this exactly as it has been writ', then no blame should fall on the programmer. I don't want anyone to think I am down on programmers!!!!!

The interesting thing about this is that what generally seems to happen is that management start off with all of the best intentions, but then there's always a period of creeping featuritis as they realise that they might get away with tweaking this, that and the other.

As a developer by trade, I've seen it happen in almost every role I've ever had!

The thing is that management doesn't appreciate the distinction between design and development, and doesn't understand the value of effective feedback and prototyping in all stages of the creative process. It's important to have a two-way communication going because quite often management get the wrong end of the stick where requirements are concerned, or they obsess over the minutae, whilst missing the real issues. Conversely, developers may not be best equipped to analyse a problem effectively with regard to creating and maintaining distance between the what and the how of a systems' development.

One luminary in the field, and someone I have in the past done work with on this regard, is Nimal Jayaratna. Methodologies for Developing and Managing Emerging Technology Based Information Systems is a great place to start, and a candidate for the 'Voice recommendation list, if a little heavy going for non-systems-theory types.

Let's resurrect this topic, a long-time favourite of mine!

John

...everyone in the call center was measured on the same success factors, specifically in reference to new technologies. Hmm...

Key problems, IMHO, some of which have already been mentioned:

1. Executives/Board Members. What do they want? Profits. Decisions are made based on the 'return on investment' models that the slick technology vendor's salespeople provide to them (see below). In the US in particular, I believe, the publicly traded company's depth and breadth of decision-making is tied to the very short-term pulse of the company, also known as the 'quarterly earnings statement'. The internal political ramifications of NOT meeting quarterly earnings projections often leads to executives making decisions on the fly, without proper IT input, or making decisions too slowly, or (bless their hearts) frantically searching for the 'sacrificial lamb' to offer up to the Gods of the Board as the 'person responsible' for the problem.

A little over the top? Is anyone laughing?

2. IT/IS/etc. Please don't throw rocks at me, but when I meet an IT person under the age of 30 who cares more about providing a quality product than they do about the dress code, long weekends and Beer Fridays, I quickly get their business card for future reference. The sheer arrogance of many IT people is astounding, and I agree that they will do 'exactly as they are asked', even if they know in advance that doing so will not provide a quality product. Hey, not my fault, I did what you told me to. Said with a smug grin on an unshaven face, covered partially by unwashed hair falling from beneath their backward-worn baseball cap. If executives are the captains of the ship, the IT group is at the helm, and literally can steer you straight for the rocks.

Not all, not all - but you know what I'm talking about.

3. Technology Salespeople. Um, where to start. I've written an article on the topic of CRM technology, and how to avoid certain pitfalls that I'll gladly share with anyone that is interested. Just e-mail me. To summarize the role of SOME tech salespeople, however, let me ask you to close your eyes and picture the movie Bambi. In this version, however, Bambi's mother (played by a call center manager) isn't killed - she's simply wounded and limping around the burning forest, calling for help. Coming to her aid are a pack of wolves (played by tech salespeople). You can take it from there.

But what if....no one got paid (including the tech salesperson) until a)the right product was selected, b)the right metrics were addressed by the product, c)implementation went off smoothly and on schedule, and d)the technology worked as planned? Sound like a bus ride thru Wishland? I think it's possible.

Looking forward to reading this string (thanks for the resurrection, John!).
Brent

"Are you saying that there exists a system that can genuinely interpret a person's needs and deliver them where they wish to go?"

I have recently experienced a system like this...

It was a reception area in a hotel, where the concierge was behind the desk...

No Truthfully I have called my local Cable operator a few times and a human operator answers my call.
I do not know if this is because they are having telephony problems or their Q time is too ling, but each time it has happened it has thrown me as I was expecting the IVR system.

It was much quicker and I did not have to navigate any system.

i know this is labour intensive and costly, but hey It worked.

Further up this topic I wrote: 'time was when an operator would always answer your call...people like that.'

And I think that Charlie likes this too!

The thing is that we are getting so used to automated this that and the other that when we do get a chance to talk to somebody we think it's unusual and in some way special. I suppose we may eventually come full circle!

Bob