BT were testing spoken Voice Web Access software some time ago where anyone could ring a number and access a web page using their voice to navigate and receiving back the web content in a synthesised voice. The intonation used was perfect making it sound like you were listening to a recorded sentence rather than individual words being chained together.

It was very good and displayed the power of voice recognition and automated responses. To any IT/IS department the obvious result would be that this could be stuck on the front end of a contact centre and allow customers to self satisfy with an apparently human voice. But another more powerful application would have been to harness the voice recognition part to assist CSRs when dealing with the customer. What if the voice recognition software was used to interpret the caller requirements and then using CTI navigate the CSRs PC to the correct screen and complete some data entry fields. This would leave the CSR free to concentrate on the actual call handling and relationship building side of the call. Harness technology to improve the quality of contact and improve processes rather than divert a potential cross sell opportunity.

Which CC operation have asked individual customers how much or how little technology they want in the process then gone on to give individuals real choice?

Alan ...........

Alan whatever next... That may involve actually listening...

Hi
Well I would say "Yes and No". If the customer wishes to speak directly with a person then he/she should be allowed to. If they are happy with a computer/selection process then they can have the choice.

We are about to start a service were our customers can phone for a taxi and make a booking without having to talk to any member of staff. Places like hotels and restaurants are very interested in taking part in the trails for this product as it will save time etc.

For the hotels it allows the staff to enter the hotel room number and for the resturants it allows them to enter the table number.

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the customers after the first few weeks of trails.

Next, we will consider live on-line booking via the web but the development company want around £15k for the product so we have to see if anyone would use it.

Anyway, at the end of the day no matter how much technology you have, you still need people.

regards
John Dundas
IT Manager
Glasgow Private Hire Ltd
http://gph.org.uk

No, the problems expressed are almost all to do with limitations of the technology rather than it's benefits. Sooner or later (rather sooner, if what I see on the speech rec and artificial intelligence front really gets going) the problems are going to be associated with having PEOPLE in there to mess things up!

Seriously, as a consultant heavily involved in automation of call centres, I always advocate appropriate use of automatic systems and people - the key skill is to measure what is appropriate and useful and what is just plain annoying. Sometimes my client dictates more automation than the ideal, but until we are in the situation of having more intelligence and recognition ability in there than a human then there should, IMHO, always be a reasonably easy escape route to a real person.

Just my 10p.

Duncan

duncan.henry@tangent-telecom.com

Wouldn't technology work much better without people getting in the way? Good question (which I've extracted from what Duncan wrote in the last reply, over 18 months ago*).

The same could be applied in so many areas - wouldn't computer systems work much better without users, wouldn't customer service be easier without customers, etc., etc.

It's an interesting question, and one that I offer somewhat tongue-in-cheekly without apology. People usually are the reasons why technology doesn't achieve its aims, whether by dint of bad decisions by the designers at the design stages, or by the people who realise that technology, or by the people who use that technology. Like language is merely an vehicle of communication, technology is merely a vehicle which facilitates a solution to some identified problem. If we as designers don't identify the problem properly in the first place, technology can't help. That, in a nutshell, is a large part of why technology may well have gone too far.

Anyone care to add anything?

John

John

* Gratuitous 'waking up' of a personal favourite topic, no apology offered!

I'm not so sure technology has gone too far.

As previously stated technology is just a tool. What has happened recently is a complete misunderstanding of what technology can achieve for people/organisations.

Technology has assumed a mystique of its own. This has been pushed by the product vendors themselves.

Consequently we have a situation where there are rapid advances in technology, but the expectations of the decision makers is in the realm of science fiction.

In my experience it seems that the assumption is that to purchase a technology is to solve the problem. Often little thought goes into the problem and what "people" want to happen.

So the premise that people are getting in the way of technology has some validity in a sense. In actual fact its not so much the technology that is the problem, its actually decided what is required in the first place ( a step often overlooked in the rush to get the latest and greatest).

I guess that's my "pennyworth" for the moment.

DaveC

Following on from Pauls post Here
I thought it was about time to 'wake up' this post.

Are we going too far? In our attempts to streamline the customers route to an agent OR the service they require.

Are

a) We losing the Human element that makes the caller feel like a customer

or

b) De-personalising the whole call to the point that all the customer is is an
account number.[1]

I know we strive (in most cases! NTL is one of the exceptions)[2] to provide a seamless service with the customer routed as fast as possible to the correct person first time but. Would it be better for the customer [3] experience to get the odd, "Sorry I'll transfer you to the correct department," and actually feel they are human.[4]

In my opinion ACD routing is there to suit both the needs of the customer as well as ours and whilst we set and publish service levels are these really any more than lip service to the customer? Do we really mean them as a boon to the customer or are they just there so we can pat ourselves on the back and say 'Well done'?

The whole debate is 'Cannons to the left of them, cannons to the right but I think given the current economic climate, the offshoring of jobs and the predisposition of the press to go into a feeding frenzy everytime the words 'Call Center' appear in a press release it's about time we looked at the whole situation again.

Light blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance.

Have at it folks.

DaveA



[1] I'm not a number I am a free man :-)

[2] I still want the job of sorting that lot out. Challenge of a lifetime [5]

[3] Buzzword warning

[4] Not ideal but at least they know they matter, again see Pauls notes.

[5] I'm not joking. I'd love a crack at it.