CRM and ERP News

I’ve updated the article “ACT! vs GoldMine: What You Need To Know To Choose The Best One“. This article is useful even if you’re looking at comparing any other software such as Maximizer, Sugar CRM, MS CRM and the likes.

The premise of the article is that in order to do a side-by-side comparison of any CRM or Sales Force Automation software, you need to know how to see past the marketing hype and get to the truth of what functions the software delivers and which ones are important to your small business.

Technorati Tags: CRM, sales force automation, small business, sales

Like other customer service operations, virtual call centers require supervisors to be engaged with their agents.  However, the management style and processes involved in overseeing a virtual workforce is not necessarily the same as that used for more traditional call centers.  Whether agents are in close physical proximity or hundreds of miles away, supervisors should be trained on how to manage their people effectively.

Most customer service organizations have successfully built layer upon layer of supervisors and managers to handle customer service exceptions. For the most part, barring extreme exceptions, they are ready to handle problems and reach resolutions. However, once in a while, a problem is so extreme, has such dire consequences to the customer or has caused irreparable damage. The answer to these problems (which are less than 0.5 percent of interactions) is what sets world-class customer service organizations apart from common customer service organizations.

Traditional customer service organizations escalate problems up to supervisors, usually through two to three layers of supervisors, until the customer gives up or customer service is no longer empowered to help. These organizations expect the customer to eventually give up and move on (that is, put up with the problem or go to the competition). Yet, some customers just won't go away. They demand that the company take corrective action beyond what the supervisors and, potentially, even a manager can approve — they demand to get to the president or CEO of the company.

At this point, ordinary customer service organizations will tell the customer the address where they can write to the office of the CEO to complain — again, hoping the customer just moves on. In rare cases, where the customer writes a letter, a form letter is usually sent back with explanations as to why the customer's demands are not possible. A few world-class customer service organizations do allow customers to reach the executive level (either a chief corporate officer or another executive), so they can hear first hand, from the customer, what happened. These executives can also help customers and bring relief to a complex situation. Their most-important contribution is the ability to regain the customer — if he or she ended up satisfied (which usually happens 95 percent of the time) — and to create a hard loyalty base by letting customers know that the executive team in the organization is not only aware of problems, but also working hard to resolve them. The simple act of talking to a customer on the phone has the capability to defuse the worse situations — and convert almost-gone customers to loyal ones.

Is your CEO ready to talk? Let me know how you handle those top-level escalations.

Most customer service organizations have successfully built layer upon layer of supervisors and managers to handle customer service exceptions. For the most part, barring extreme exceptions, they are ready to handle problems and reach resolutions. However, once in a while, a problem is so extreme, has such dire consequences to the customer or has caused irreparable damage. The answer to these problems (which are less than 0.5 percent of interactions) is what sets world-class customer service organizations apart from common customer service organizations.

Traditional customer service organizations escalate problems up to supervisors, usually through two to three layers of supervisors, until the customer gives up or customer service is no longer empowered to help. These organizations expect the customer to eventually give up and move on (that is, put up with the problem or go to the competition). Yet, some customers just won't go away. They demand that the company take corrective action beyond what the supervisors and, potentially, even a manager can approve — they demand to get to the president or CEO of the company.

At this point, ordinary customer service organizations will tell the customer the address where they can write to the office of the CEO to complain — again, hoping the customer just moves on. In rare cases, where the customer writes a letter, a form letter is usually sent back with explanations as to why the customer's demands are not possible. A few world-class customer service organizations do allow customers to reach the executive level (either a chief corporate officer or another executive), so they can hear first hand, from the customer, what happened. These executives can also help customers and bring relief to a complex situation. Their most-important contribution is the ability to regain the customer — if he or she ended up satisfied (which usually happens 95 percent of the time) — and to create a hard loyalty base by letting customers know that the executive team in the organization is not only aware of problems, but also working hard to resolve them. The simple act of talking to a customer on the phone has the capability to defuse the worse situations — and convert almost-gone customers to loyal ones.

Is your CEO ready to talk? Let me know how you handle those top-level escalations.

Most companies like to analyze data. It gives them a sense of security: "We understand our business and our customers because the metrics on the reports says so." The reality is somewhat different, however. The analysis of operational customer data alone explores only one of several dimensions and can lead to incorrect conclusions. Other data sources need to be included, such as informal interaction data (that is, what was said and how it was said during customer-agent conversations) and more-formal survey data, both of which collate data directly from the customer (with or without their knowledge) for analysis.

I am currently writing a case study on an organization that embraced this broader concept of data analytics with startling results. It identified several areas for process improvement and highlighted discrepancies between what its traditional operational analysis was telling it compared with the reality of the situation. One example is highlighted below:

Survey analysis revealed that customer dissatisfaction in specific locations fluctuated at different times of the year. The question the company asked was: "Was this due to those customers genuinely receiving a poorer level of field service and, if so, which aspects of the service need to be delivered differently, or were they just more difficult to please?" The company mined the associated operational service data for insight and found an interesting correlation: customers became more tolerant of a lower level of service during extreme weather conditions. For example, if there was flooding or heavy snow, customers were much more tolerant of engineers being late and service levels slipping.

From an operational insight perspective, the company could see a reduction in service efficiency in those areas at the same time and would normally have diverted extra resources to those regions to fund field engineer overtime to bring the service levels back up. Instead, with this insight, it increased the number of call center agents and got them to proactively confirm adjusted engineer arrival times (via call, SMS and so forth). This reduced inbound calls and the need for engineer overtime to meet slipping operational service levels. It also improved customer satisfaction. The proverbial win-win. Nice.

So, is this company alone or have you found some interesting insights since taking a more holistic approach to data? I'd love to know.

Most companies like to analyze data. It gives them a sense of security: "We understand our business and our customers because the metrics on the reports says so." The reality is somewhat different, however. The analysis of operational customer data alone explores only one of several dimensions and can lead to incorrect conclusions. Other data sources need to be included, such as informal interaction data (that is, what was said and how it was said during customer-agent conversations) and more-formal survey data, both of which collate data directly from the customer (with or without their knowledge) for analysis.

I am currently writing a case study on an organization that embraced this broader concept of data analytics with startling results. It identified several areas for process improvement and highlighted discrepancies between what its traditional operational analysis was telling it compared with the reality of the situation. One example is highlighted below:

Survey analysis revealed that customer dissatisfaction in specific locations fluctuated at different times of the year. The question the company asked was: "Was this due to those customers genuinely receiving a poorer level of field service and, if so, which aspects of the service need to be delivered differently, or were they just more difficult to please?" The company mined the associated operational service data for insight and found an interesting correlation: customers became more tolerant of a lower level of service during extreme weather conditions. For example, if there was flooding or heavy snow, customers were much more tolerant of engineers being late and service levels slipping.

From an operational insight perspective, the company could see a reduction in service efficiency in those areas at the same time and would normally have diverted extra resources to those regions to fund field engineer overtime to bring the service levels back up. Instead, with this insight, it increased the number of call center agents and got them to proactively confirm adjusted engineer arrival times (via call, SMS and so forth). This reduced inbound calls and the need for engineer overtime to meet slipping operational service levels. It also improved customer satisfaction. The proverbial win-win. Nice.

So, is this company alone or have you found some interesting insights since taking a more holistic approach to data? I'd love to know.

As CRM analysts, we are always finding flaws in processes and the overall customer experience given by the companies we have relationships with (or, should I say, "undergo transactions with," because few companies have embraced the true concept of a relationship). Many of these stories have been documented as blogs, with associated "call to action"-type pleas at the end.

In my rotating role as CRM blog manager, I began to wonder if, as CRM analysts, we were setting our expectations too high. Do our standards reflect what the average consumer is actually looking for?

Interestingly, I was at a friend's 30th birthday (I hang around with her in the vain hope of holding onto my own youth) when someone started telling a story about credit cards. On a trip to Norway, his credit card stopped working after a few hours. When he got back from his vacation, he called the bank to ask why. He was told that it was due to the fact that the bank thought his card details had been stolen and someone was using it fraudulently in Norway (because it was not being used in his usual spending location or pattern). What seriously annoyed him, but amused me, was that he had pre-ordered some Norwegian currency from his bank, which he had picked up before setting off. Therefore, the bank knew he was travelling to Norway. When he inquired about this to the fraud department, they told him, "We didn't have access to that information, sorry."

This restored my faith somewhat in what we preach. Consumers do care and so should you! So, we may huff and puff about CRM, CEM, CDI and a multitude of other acronyms, but the bottom line is that it's for a good reason.

As CRM analysts, we are always finding flaws in processes and the overall customer experience given by the companies we have relationships with (or, should I say, "undergo transactions with," because few companies have embraced the true concept of a relationship). Many of these stories have been documented as blogs, with associated "call to action"-type pleas at the end.

In my rotating role as CRM blog manager, I began to wonder if, as CRM analysts, we were setting our expectations too high. Do our standards reflect what the average consumer is actually looking for?

Interestingly, I was at a friend's 30th birthday (I hang around with her in the vain hope of holding onto my own youth) when someone started telling a story about credit cards. On a trip to Norway, his credit card stopped working after a few hours. When he got back from his vacation, he called the bank to ask why. He was told that it was due to the fact that the bank thought his card details had been stolen and someone was using it fraudulently in Norway (because it was not being used in his usual spending location or pattern). What seriously annoyed him, but amused me, was that he had pre-ordered some Norwegian currency from his bank, which he had picked up before setting off. Therefore, the bank knew he was travelling to Norway. When he inquired about this to the fraud department, they told him, "We didn't have access to that information, sorry."

This restored my faith somewhat in what we preach. Consumers do care and so should you! So, we may huff and puff about CRM, CEM, CDI and a multitude of other acronyms, but the bottom line is that it's for a good reason.

Workforce management is a key component of running an efficient call center operation.  The job is certainly not easy, and it’s usually characterized by a lot of analysis, and number crunching.  However, even on particularly difficult days, WFM employees can be glad about their job.

Networks are powerful things. It doesn't matter if you reject Metcalfe's Law (that says the value of a network is in proportion to the square of its size) as inflated, or Sarnoff's Law, or Reed's Law, or any other law — as Galileo supposedly whispered before his death, "Eppur si muove!" (and yet it moves!). The Internet, and especially formal and informal social networks (such as YouTube, Bebo, Facebook, MySpace or Gawker), ensure that any mistake a company makes, at any time and in any place, will become fodder for the daily regiment of trivia, pique and vented spleen.

What does this mean for customers? Well, it means cable technicians can't fall asleep on the couch. It means customer service representatives cannot berate the customer for dropping service. It means that when a customer calls a bank in the U.S. to drop a credit card, the bank doesn't scare him or her (for example, "Life's circumstances can change in an instant, and although you have not used the card in seven years, there may come a time when it is the only protection you have").

Customers are recording you, videotaping you, uploading and downloading you, and scrutinizing and berating you - in front of millions of people, at zero cost to them. It is no longer one to one to one: one letter of complaint in, one letter of "sorry and tough luck" back. Customers will no longer bother with the complaint letter. They will simply pass the experience on to a friend.

Until now, we have been firing the "bad" employee. Why fire the employee? Who hired them, trained them and coached them? Are we firing them because they followed protocol or got frustrated at the company's awful policies and practices? If you really want change to happen - and you should - begin scrutinizing how the processes were created that got you into this position in the first place. Although it is much simpler to blame the agent, they are likely the symptom, not the cause of the problem.

We don't see this situation getting better; we do see it becoming more severe. What is your strategy?