How Fast Does Fast Have to Be? “Goodsoft,” a financial software firm, found itself in the middle of a Support crisis. The overwhelming majority of its Support cases came in via phone, and the on-hold wait times were causing immense customer and staff dissatisfaction. The team was only able to respond to approximately 60% of their incoming case load after about 4-5 minutes and dealing with the remaining 40% could take up to 10-12 minutes. Clearly, something had to be done before there were mass defections from the customers and significant resignations from the staff. After some internal efforts proved insufficient, the decision was made to retain a consultant to do an independent Review of the operation, and then to re-engineer the process of the group for much faster responsiveness.
The Process
The comprehensive Review revealed three key factors. First, the bulk of the incoming requests concerned issues that had relatively quick solutions. The challenge was in the number of these known-answer problems (also known as “Read The Manual” or RTFM issues) and in how they were received and processed by the staff. Goodsoft had a number of products being supported, and the staff was organized into teams by products. The agents were generally competent, and the knowledge resources made available to them were reasonably good. The incoming case volume levels, however, were highly variable, with the result that some product teams at times were able to cope very well — and at other times were drowning in floods of cases. Second, there was no attempt to properly set the customers’ expectations as to wait times, and little in the way of resources to divert or deflect some portion of the requests. Third, the data produced by the cases, such as identifying bugs in the products, was not tracked or properly transmitted to the development team for action.
The Report presented to Senior Management by the consultant at the conclusion of the Review offered solutions to all three major problems. The wait times would be reduced by re-structuring the process and the organization. Marketing would produce materials for the customers to explain how the company was moving to address their concerns and to properly set expectations. Third, a bug-tracking system would be implemented to ensure proper communication between Support and Development, with a specified service level agreement, so that data would be available and fixes could be done in a timely manner.
The existing structure of the staff into product queues needed to be altered to establish a single queue for all incoming support requests, regardless of product. Staff members serving in this First Level queue would be given additional resources to enable them to diagnose and to handle the known answer issues within a specified time. Agents receiving a case would make an initial decision: “Can I resolve this one within the time limit?” If the agent decided that they personally could not effectively deal with the case, it would be immediately escalated to the 2nd Level product team. If the agent knew that they could handle the issue themselves, but not within the specified time frame for the 1st level group, they would escalate the case and themselves into the 2nd level where more time would be available for working it. At the same time, another agent would be called in to substitute so that the staff level of the 1st queue would always be maintained. The consultant was able to prove to Management by application of basic queueing theory technology that A) under the new process flow, the team would be able to handle 99.9% of all incoming calls in less than 60 seconds, with the balance in less than 120 seconds, and B) would do so with no increase in headcount, and C) the bulk of the incoming cases could be resolved quickly, freeing up resources that could then deal with the difficult issues. The consultant cautioned the Management team that although the solution to the process problem was proven and readily apparent, a careful change management program would be required in order to get buy in from the Support staff. Otherwise, it was very likely to fail in implementation.
The re-engineering program was initiated. The Support staff were invited to join teams to work on several aspects of the challenge, and the consultant advised the teams and provided content on the application of queueing theory principles and technology. At the end of the project, the teams did their own presentations to Senior Management as to the necessary changes in the process of the Support department.
Lessons Learned
Time management is a challenge that every Success and Support organization faces. On the one side, there are customers with questions and needs. On the other, there is the company staff charged with responding to those incoming requests and needs. Success groups especially struggle with trying to manage staffing levels due to lack of data about their interactions. Support groups, with their case management and other interaction handling technologies, generally have the data to use in workforce management analyses and decisions. Companies need to look into workforce management solutions.
Every company should develop an overall communications strategy for its customers, identifying which conversations and issues should be handled by particular teams or automated, and periodically review it to be sure it’s still appropriate.
Organizations often get stuck in structures and processes because of “we’ve always done it that way” thinking, even though the original factors behind such decisions may no longer be applicable. This is why bringing in an outside voice can be especially effective. Since the consultant goes away at the end of the project, they have more freedom to surface sensitive issues for both the team and Senior Management.
The Company: A financial software company
The Challenge: Re-engineer the Customer Support process for optimum responsiveness
The Consultant: Mikael Blaisdell – MBAI
The Outcome: Crisis Resolved with a substantial increase in Support efficiency
.
Mikael Blaisdell and Associates, Inc.
For over forty years, we’ve been following the changes in the field of customer lifecycle management. We offer a sharp focus on customer retention and increasing per-customer profitability — built upon a solid foundation of industry-wide experience and hands on expertise. Analysts. Advisors. Product-as-a-Relationship Advocates. That’s who we are. What we’d really like to talk about, however, is what we can do for you.
Now more than ever, in the face of looming concerns about the economy and its possible effects on staffing levels, technology company senior management teams need to look beyond the corporation itself to focus on fully developing and leveraging their company/product ecosystems.
