eVergance Blog

Latest Updates RSS

• 

  Esteban Kolsky 6:57 am on July 10, 2008 | 2 | # |
  Tags: customer service, CRM, customer satisfaction, satisfaction, Customer Experience, service, automation, cost savings, cost control

  Customer demand more - more features, more service, more representatives.  You look at what you can do within your budgeting constraints and probably want to start crying.  Not much more you can do, or afford to do; least of all, bring in more people.  Certainly, other corporations are doing better than you - right?

  Well, No. Everyone is asking the same question: how can we grow the number of customers without increasing the number of representatives or the cost for customer maintenance.  Alas, leading corporations began to realize in the last 12 months what it takes to achieve this difficult balance.  Hire more customer service representatives.  Lots more,,, like millions of them.

  That’s right.  You can get as many more customer service representatives as you want - for free.  Yes, FREE.  Impossible you say?  Unlikely you express? (OK, I ran out of synonyms without checking the thesaurus).  Nay.  Easier than you think.  The answer is simple: empower your customers to become customer service representatives.  There are three steps to get there:

  First, find the right interactions.  Comb your logs, ask your agents.  What is the largest number of interactions that your customers could solve on their own? Changing an address? Establishing new service? Getting a refund?  In the early days of web self-service, AT&T Wireless (the old one, not this one) leaped ahead of their competitors by offering the ability to claim credits for dropped calls automatically through a web interface.  The saved lots of time and money and (more important) lots of CSRs time to take on other tasks.  No interaction is too complex or too simple if you can figure out how to automate it.

  Which brings us to step two. Automate, entirely and completely, the chosen interactions.  That means there is no human check at the end of the process to ensure it is correct.  You write all the business rules and exceptions for processing, feed them into a rules server, test them.  Then flip the switch.  The computer will now handle those interactions for you - and kick out the exceptions you want or need.  Your only job is to monitor the results periodically and tighten the rules and exceptions as you go along.  Can you imagine the savings if you deflect all those interactions from the phone?

  Right about now your question is - will people use it?  Well, here is where it depends on you - our third step. Advertise, advertise, advertise.  “Force” customers to use the system (that means make it simple, available, and advertise it all over).  Make it a service differentiator.  Make it part of your brand.  Let them know the benefits, incentivize them to use it.  Make sure it performs flawlessly each time - and that necessary handling of exceptions is above average for speed and satisfaction (i.r. err on the side of the customer).

  Guess what?  You just hired millions of new CSRs towork for FREE.  What do you think?

   
• 

  jchmaj 8:00 am on July 8, 2008 | 0 | # |
  Tags: CRM, Customer, Customer Experience, customer experience management, customer service, Customer Support, Experience, KM, knowledge, Knowledge Management, support

  Most support organizations have resources related to knowledge management: webmaster, KB administrator, and content manager among others.  They are the ingredients of a well managed program, not the recipe for success.  Ask yourself a few simple questions to expose where you may need to improve:

  • Who OWNS all the content on internal and external knowledge bases?
  • Who UPDATES all that content? (Not necessarily the same!)
  • What is the process for communicating new product information forward to support, both prior to major launches and during the ongoing support life cycle?
  • Who owns the schema (metadata, keywords, etc.) for all content? Is there someone responsible that it all fits together when it hits the search and browse websites?
  • Who ensures all the content available is relevant, up to date, and consumable?
  • What is the agreed-upon mechanism for resolving conflicts between new and old content?

  If the answer to any of these is “no”, “I’m not sure” or “we figure that out on a case by case basis” then you’re probably spending too much time managing your KM initiative without really managing your program!  Count up the number of meetings, disconnects, customization and one-off projects you need to keep things in line.  You will see that coordinating content, schema and tools REQUIRES time even if your organization chooses to manage these areas as separate functions.  The results of not managing your program are at best incremental, time-consuming improvements, at worst a continual stream of errors, adjustments and just plain bad user experience for your sites.

  Developing an effective KM Program starts by thinking about the WHOLE objective: a great user experience, driven by an intuitive UI, effective user interactions, and quality content.  With that as your guiding goal, consider organizing around the core processes, including:

  • Identifying, prioritizing and normalizing content from across the organization to a common, high-quality user experience
  • Managing policies and communications from the ‘front’ (websites & tools) to the ‘back’ (product and content groups), and all constituents in between, to achieve a common set of rules and standards around how information is developed and organized.
  • Establishing a Steering Committee or Center of Excellence that can serve as a clearinghouse for all ongoing questions and issues around content ownership, commitments, policy and deadlines
  • Developing a ‘product life cycle’ view of information, that engages everyone from products, support, and IT to commit to a common process for evolving KM tools and capabilities

  A KM Program is not a ‘nice to have’ - you have one already, the question is:  do you know it?  And if you don’t, what is it costing your business in time, effort, money and customers?  There IS a better way, just commit to KM as a critical business process and the approach becomes clear.

  Are you committed?

   
• 

  Keith Holt 8:00 am on July 1, 2008 | 0 | # |
  Tags: content, content management, knowledge, Knowledge Management, recognition, relevancy, search

  And what’s the difference, anyway, between Content Management and Knowledge Management?

  A little theory and some practical examples are needed to help define and distinguish between Content Management (CM) and Knowledge Management (KM).

  First consider how CM and KM are similar.  Both types of technology . . .

  • Support the creation and maintenance of content of virtually any size
  • Provide some means of controlling who may create or edit content
  • Support routing new and changed content through an approval cycle
  • Provide an interface to search for and find content based on some form of full-text index. (Some or all of various search methodologies may be supported – natural language, keyword, Boolean, etc.)
  • Provide means of controlling who may view content

  Other similarities may exist but those are enough to work with for now.  So what differences are there?

  • CM systems tend to provide more control over not just the content itself but the style of the content – style guides that streamline the creation of standard documents with business rules to enforce adherence to established styles over large quantities of documents and large groups of authors.
  • CM systems typically include the capability to publish content in portable formats, such as PDF, and/or print in professional layouts.  Content in and of itself is something of a product of the system and the content, once produced, can exist and be used apart from the system in which it was created and maintained.

  While perhaps not obvious at first, this last difference holds a clue to the key argument for needing a Knowledge Management system.  Once created, content can be used apart from a Content Management system because the system offers little or no assistance in using that content.  In fact, we expect so little (and are offered so little in this respect) that we don’t even miss it.  When’s the last time you read an owners manual or the safety placard in the seat-back pouch of an airliner and wondered, “What Content Management system was used to produce this document?”

  So what’s missing?  What is needed when “using” content that is not provided by the Content Management system that did such a good job in producing the content in the first place?  One word sums it up – relevancy.  Which document, and which part of that document, is relevant to my situation – and under what circumstances?

  It’s time to take a closer look at some terms that we’ve been using without asking whether we have a good – or at least a full – understanding of their meaning.  Words like “search”, “find” and even “knowledge” get used freely, especially in our industry, but what do we really mean and what expectations do we have when we speak, hear or read them?  Now entire doctoral theses have been written on the meaning of knowledge, technical white papers weighing several pounds have been produced on various search methods.

  There’s no intention to go to that level here.  But all we need do to start is to develop an understanding of some key concepts that explains how a Knowledge Management system offers assistance not provided by Content Management in determining the relevancy of content.  For our purposes, let’s start to think of these key concepts in a certain light and frame their definitions in such a way to draw out the importance of relevance.

  • Search – to look for a piece of content with the intention of answering a specific question or solving a specific problem.
  • Find – what happens when a search engine matches a piece of content to a user’s search and when that user recognizes that piece of content as relevant to their intent or need.
  • Knowledge – what content becomes when it is able to be found when searched given the provided definitions of the terms “search” and “find”.

  The importance of the highlighted terms in these definitions must be understood if we’re to build a compelling case for Knowledge Management providing relevancy and that relevancy being of value.  Of particular importance is the term “specific”.  The need for specificity is where Content Management starts to fall short.  If the user wants to read everything available on the history of credit in commerce, or some similarly general topic, then a Content Management system with a basic search engine will supply the need quite well.  But if that person needs to know what, if any, benefit or penalty there is if they payoff their credit balance early they had better be ready for a research project if all they have is the Content Management system that produced their Cardholder Agreement and a search engine.

  In conclusion (for now) Content Management systems can serve as excellent sources of content for Knowledge Management but they can never deliver the same results and value - the turning of that content into usable knowledge - without the addition of a good Knowledge Management tool and methodology.  They should never be considered as one versus the other but rather as different tools with different needs serving an organization in complimentary ways.

   
• 

  Kate Leggett 7:00 am on June 26, 2008 | 4 | # |
  Tags: KCS, Knowledge Management, Web 2.0

  Many customer service organizations make irrelevant knowledge-base entries available to their customers because authoring is done by someone who is not on the front lines, interacting with customers. The content is written without an understanding of the language that the customer uses in explaining their problems.

  Adopting a “just-in-time knowledge management” strategy or a KCS (knowledge centered support) approach can help bridge this relevancy gap. If a customer service agent is unable to find the right solution to a customer’s question within a knowledge-base, he or she is able to author a new solution on the fly, right after having helped a customer; the solution is captured with the customer’s point of view in mind, and in his exact words. In this same model, agents can modify existing solutions to make them more in-line with their customer’s words and phrases. The end result is that the knowledge-base entries are easier to find by customers in future searches.

  Solutions are not subjected to an arduous review process, but are reviewed as they are reused by other agents. This ultimately focuses the agent’s energy in perfecting only the solutions that are the most frequently used and ensuring that they use the language and expressions that are best aligned with customer’s needs, while maintaining the knowledge-base constantly updated.

  Another benefit to using your customer’s voice and words is to augment the company-generated taxonomy with an organically developed folksonomy – or collection of tags (think of the flickr tag clouds, for example). Users can tag useful content and the user community can browse these tag clouds. These folksonomies do not preserve the intrinsic relationship between objects, but they echo more closely how users interact with knowledge that they come into contact with. And, these tags help in making relevant content easier to find.

  Are you using just-in-time knowledge? Folksonomies? Is it working for you?

   
• 

  Andrew Cohen 7:00 am on June 23, 2008 | 2 | # |
  Tags: Collaboration, Communities, forums, support, Web 2.0

  With lots of interest I’ve been watching the web 2.0 worlds evolve and gradually replace our notion of collaboration. It’s been even more curious to watch this evolution in support. We are infatuated with forums and communities – how to establish them, what to do with them, how to leverage their content, and that this is where and how collaboration happens. For sure, forums and discussion groups are places where great things happen:

  • Where questions are asked and (maybe) answered
  • Where extended discussions happen
  • Where members use the collective knowledge to make purchasing decisions
  • Where participants can become part of the social fabric and extensions of the company
  • Where the community collectively grow the extended a body of knowledge

  But this is a specific kind of collaboration. If you have to produce work … If you have a software system down, a prospectus to deliver, if you have a significant insurance payment to approve or challenge, you need tools that help you get the work done — and collaboration is a supporting activity in that endeavor. If you go into support centers that are anything but ultra high frequency centers, most of the time is spent producing resolutions to questions or problems. Communities, IM, email are not the best tools for this. We need collaboration environments that allow us to work on our problems, but support awareness and presence information, and interaction tied to the work product so we can more easily collaborate ON the work and perhaps maintain a history. The point is that while communities are empowering in many situations, the biggest chunk of time in support is spent on creating new answers and solutions. Here, collaboration is intended to support the work, not the thing we are doing.

  In the right configuration, wiki’s might be a solution. Most are text based, but a few, Socialtext and Jive are beginning to support more forms of work — spreadsheets, presentations, and code and with presence information, groups, reputation and discussions tied to the work build into the wiki. We have a long way to go, but by looking at the main activities inside support organizations, we can see what activities need to be supported and that we need to broaden our notion of collaboration.

  What is your experience? Are you using these new tools in an innovative way? Let me know…

   
• 

  Kate Leggett 9:50 am on June 19, 2008 | 6 | # |
  Tags: Communities, content management, CRM, customer service, users, voice of the customer, Web 2.0

  Customers today pull information they need to make purchase decisions and for customer support from web sites, expecting higher quality of information. Unfortunately, support organizations have been caught unprepared. Researching how to better adapt to this new world led me to try to understand what has worked for other companies:

  • Wikipedia’s success rests with its user community taking collective responsibility for the accuracy of the content
  • eBay realized that users trust the collective voice when rating suppliers
  • Amazon understood that purchase decisions where based on customer reviews and their reputations
  • Facebook, saw their success tied to an ease for forming communities

  
  We can use these principles to help shape successful customer service interactions.

  • Think about loosening the strings around your content. Let your agent community take collective responsibility for the accuracy of knowledgebase information. Let agents flag inaccurate content or author new content
  • Reach out to your user community and integrate your knowledgebase with discussion boards. Let users recommend information to be added to the knowledgebase, ensuring that it organically grows with customers changing demands
  • Expert users who know the product as well as their customer service agents exist. Let these experts post content directly to your knowledgebase, and use ratings and reputation for author ranking
  • Let users rate solutions, vote on important content, append comments and use their feedback to optimize the information delivered during the service experience
  • Let users subscribe to content and receive it in the format they prefer
  • Be proactive with communication to your users. Push knowledge and alerts out, even before customers experience a problem

  
  All these strategies help you engage in a two-way conversation with your customer base and your agents. Which ones do you think work best for you? Can you tell us why? Do you use other strategies?

   
• 

  Esteban Kolsky 9:41 am on June 16, 2008 | 1 | # |
  Tags: CRM, customer service, strategy, Web 2.0

  Back in the old days of the Internet, when money was free and ideas plentiful, a few friends asked me if there was something new and different that I thought was ready to be discovered, transformed into a product, created into an IPO, and worth millions of dollars. I said I was not sure about the millions, but there had been something bouncing around in my head for a while. I called it, at that time, “point-of-need customer service” (Yes, seven years at Gartner improved - but not perfected - my naming skills). We created a pilot product, deployed it - and amazingly enough people wanted it and it worked. Of course, this was about the time the air was let out of the bubble, so the lack of funding made it impossible to continue the endeavor, which coupled with my wife’s insistence that I get a “real job” took me to Gartner.

  The concept behind “point-of-need customer service” was that the browser is a clunky, stateless, session-driven interface that, to keep constantly providing service and support to customers required lengthy and complex programming, integration, and adaptation to many, many operating systems and computers. The concept I had was a unique, non-browser type application that was constantly in contact with service providers, proactively providing customer service and support to clients. The money-making portion was to sell to providers the infrastructure to service those devices, and “viral distribution” for free of the devices or applets would take care of the rest. As I said, it did not go far due to lack of funding.

  Fast forward some time, and while at Gartner I proposed the idea of the Customer Interaction Hub (yes, this was the best name we could agree on - I told you it was better but not perfect). This basically became the infrastructure component that each organization could deploy to use browsers as “point-of-need” service applets. I sorta gave up on the idea of replacing the browser, as it had become as ubiquitous as operating systems in computers. I still, for the record, believe that the browser is a lousy interface… but my Don Quixote days are over, so let’s embrace it!

  So, on to the concept of where we started: Service 2.0. If you are wondering where the next “thing” (or the new, new thing as Michael Lewis put it) is start to look into how to expand your Web 2.0 investments into Service 2.0. Think about the characteristics of Web 2.0: proactive, effective, low cost, high-volume, point-of-need… doesn’t it sound like that Customer Service strategy you have been working on? Some of these things already exist and are implemented (one of our clients, Symantec, does first-level troubleshooting of problems in the computer itself - without using the browser), others are infrastructure components (like device relationship management components embedded in medical and industrial machines that alert to service needs, troubleshoot, and even scheduled service calls automatically) already in place… but the whole idea revolves around three core concepts of both Web 2.0 - and your service strategy: automation, decentralization, and proactivity.

  All the elements of a winning Service 2.0 strategy.

  What do you think? Ready to embrace the future? Are you planning your Service 2.0 infrastructure?
  

   
• 

  Kate Leggett 7:55 pm on June 12, 2008 | 0 | # |
  Tags: Communities, Web 2.0

  I think of relationship content as the content generated in discussion boards or blogs which bring like minded users together to exchange ideas. Typically, these users can be categorized as 70% lurkers (those that read posts but never contribute) and 20% joiners; 9% are regular contributors and only 1% can be classified in the elite category. These are your MVPs – your user group leaders, your super-contributors.

  Knowing what your distribution looks like is key to knowing how to use them. You want to see whether your elite users represent the voice of your entire community, or whether their contributions apply only to their line of business or specific situation.

  If your elite are a good overall representative sample, working with this elite set is easy – you can listen to them for feature requests, you can bounce ideas off them and you can monitor their posts to ensure that their goals are aligned with your business.

  However, if your elite contributors do not represent the opinions of the community you need to identify which ones are your advocates and which ones are severely dissatisfied. In all cases, you need to reach out to them, and cultivate a relationship with them of openness and transparency. Your greatest contributors can be your best advocates and your dissatisfied elite can give you insight on what processes may be broken in your organization and give you an opportunity to turn around these individuals.

  With over 60% of our customers having plans to offer discussion boards, the question is figuring out how you want to work with your elite contributors. Perhaps you want to create a sub-discussion group of only your elites to explore topics that are not suitable for general consumption – like finding out the specifics of how they want to see a capability implemented, or delving into the real problems that they experience when they interact with your company.

  How do you, or what are your plans on leveraging your elite community? Do you have tips that you can share? Do you need help in figuring this all out? Let me know…

   
• 

  Esteban Kolsky 3:08 pm on June 10, 2008 | 2 | # |
  Tags: contact center, CRM, customer satisfaction, customer service, email, erms, satisfaction

  I would like to add some wood to the “email use in customer service” fire. If you have been following the blogs last week, we have a little of a controversy going on about whether email should be used for support - or sent to sleep with the fishes. Personally, I believe that email is an essential support tool in certain situations, and when done properly. For medium-complexity scenarios, with lots of data necessary to exchange hands, and where accuracy is paramount (like something you can cut and paste from a screen or log), email cannot be beat. The process of reading an error message via telephone is usually cumbersome at best. I know that organizations that implement email for support situations such as the above, when they answer promptly (read before 2 hours for 80% of emails, 4 hours for 100%) and they get good results.

  Of course, these “good results” don’t usually translate into easily quantifiable cost savings, or return-on-investment models. That would be too easy, now wouldn’t it? I have been working lately with some clients that are trying to come up with Justification models for their ERMS (email response management system) deployments, and we are struggling. I will be very honest, each case is different and we can only use tested-and-proven ROI models as a basis to start the discussion, then we deviate into the different variables that affect each business. At the end, we can always justify implementing an ERMS on financial terms — as long as we are willing to make certain assumptions about growth and support, very often the largest unknown components. Worse, when we create TCO models, over three years, it is hard to find cost savings over using the telephone, and little over a chat implementation. Most of the benefits come from two areas:

  Experience Management and Customer Loyalty

  Reduction in manual process when automation is implemented

  So - what should you use to justify your ERMS implementation? Glad you asked…

  This is where your Customer Experience Management, or a similar initiative, comes into place. Use your customer’s demands to justify your ERMS initiative. Yep, use them to service them… corny, huh? Let me explain.

  1) Prepare a survey for the purpose of understanding your customer’s needs and demands, if you have not already done it (even if you did it already, read on… chances are it was not the best survey you ever done). The survey should have just 3-4 questions related to your planning of customer service for the next 2-3 years, and what customers would like to see in it. Don’t sneak questions on satisfaction, loyalty, or anything like that in there. Simply planning questions.

  2) Ask the following : “We are considering implementing one more technology for service and support. Please rank from 1 through 5 your choice of the following technologies to submit service and support requests”. Then, it would feature three, four, or five technologies like chat, SMS, email, etc. Pick the ones you would seriously consider implementing.

  3) Your customers will then tell you, if they want email, that you should implement email for support. Depending on the ranking and your plans, you can justify your ERMS on Customer Experience Management reasons: customers want it, we will give it to them. You will find that the costs of implementing ERMS, or virtually any other technology you can imagine, will not drastically reduce the existing costs… but, customers want to have it.

  Would you willing to take the chance to have your customers say “no, please don’t implement that”? What would you do then? Let me know…

   
• 

  Kate Leggett 7:20 am on June 4, 2008 | 0 | # |
  Tags: Communities, feedback, Feedback Management, user generated content, Web 2.0

  Emotional content on websites is all the rage these days as customers want to have a voice – they want a venue to easily express an opinion, critique an answer, rate a vendor or a product, or append a comment to an article. They also want to be able to story-tell, like for example, to share their insider information on how to best utilize a capability of your product.

  This emotional content is very valuable as customers of today trust information from peers more than information from companies. By allowing this content on your site, customers can pull information that they need, on their own terms, in order to make purchase decisions and for customer support. By being vocal, customers can also impact the type and quality of information being delivered. This, in essence, puts them in the driver’s seat, allowing them to influence the relationships that they have with the companies with which they do business.

  You need to let go of control and allow emotional content and you should unobtrusively monitor these posts. This will help you engage in a two-way healthy conversation with them, and will also allow you to pinpoint the ardent supporters of your brand. It will also help you validate product roadmaps and strategies making sure that your offering stays in line with customer demand.

  Emotional content allows customers to influence the relationship that they have with companies. Yet companies will have a greater success in creating a loyal customer base if they listen, respect and use the voice of their customers.

  What type of emotional content are you allowing on your site? How do you monitor it? How do you use it- do you use it for improving service or for product development or for something else? Share your best practices with us! Or ask me for advice.

   

•  

  August 2008

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Jul
  				1	2	3
  4	5	6	7	8	9	10
  11	12	13	14	15	16	17
  18	19	20	21	22	23	24
  25	26	27	28	29	30	31

• Search for:

• Pages

  • About

• Blogroll

  • Church of the Customer
  • CRM Mastery
  • Customer Experience Crossroads
  • Customers Are Always
  • Customers Rock!
  • First Coffee
  • Jive talks
  • Ragsdale’s Eye on Service
  • The Invisible Crowd
  • Think Customers
  • WordPress.com

• eVergance

  • Contact info
  • Home page

• Industry resources

  • CIO.com
  • CRM Magazine
  • CSI
  • SearchCRM.com

• Tags

  best practices Collaboration Communities contact center content content management CRM Customer customer centric Customer Experience customer experience management customer satisfaction customer service Customer Support efm email enteprise feedback management enterprise feedback management erms eService Experience feedback Feedback Management forums IBM Jive Kana KCS KM knowledge Knowledge Management loyalty recognition relevancy satisfaction search service SSPA strategy support surveys user generated content users voice of the customer Web 2.0

• Categories

  • Communities
  • CRM
  • Feedback Management
  • Industry News
  • Knowledge Management
  • Self-Service
  • Uncategorized

• Recent Comments

  • Esteban Kolsky on Loyalty? We Don’t Need No Customer Loyalty
  • Roger Brooks on Loyalty? We Don’t Need No Customer Loyalty
  • Jack on Not my job
  • Bookmarks about Folksonomy on Using the voice of your customers — and their exact words
  • Lars Gustavsson on Not my job

• Blog at WordPress.com
  Prologue theme by Automattic