Hello all,

This is my first discussion topic and I'm really hoping you can help.

I'm currently consulting for a large UK bank and looking at the IVR strategy for their inbound sales call centre.

I need to understand whether the best route to deliver a great customer experience is to not have IVR at all, or whether it is to use it sensibly without it becoming an obstacle to sales.

Does anyone out their have any research on this subject?

Many thanks

Juliet

Sorry I can't offer any citable research but here's a comment or two. Here in the states, you can't reach a live person anymore without first going through an IVR screener. That's great for the bank, because they can identify the customer's need before routing a call to an agent. Not so great if you're the type of customer that demands immediate attention and shuns having to punch codes into the telephone =) And of course, during peak times, getting an agent on the line can be frustrating. But like I said, that's the status quo here in the U.S.

I have been working at my company now for a while and have recently reviewed all the menu systems in place, the general consensus is that a menu, should only have 2 levels and no more than 4 options on each level.

A certain internet bank provides me with excellent first hand service without menu's and I am impressed with their customer service.

Also a certian mobile phone company uses the menu's in an in-depth manner and also manages to offer excellent service.

However a well done telecoms company in the UK has one of the countries worst menu systems around and I find myself randomly pressing keys down into the depths of the menu, only to then hold for hours.

That however is not an answer, so in my opinion the menu set-up for a centre depends on the set-up at the end of the menu, if you have seperate specially skilled teams then a menu would make sense, however if you have a single team that can do almost everything, then there is no sense in having a menu.

Besides if you group everyone together in a large staffing element, you get some noticeable economies of scale which reduces staffing costs.

On the other hand, if you have an IVR you will need to ensure you have more than adequate staffing at the end of the menu's. Mainly because if you have to travel through 3 options on a menu and you know it will answer quickly then you are more likely to put up with the menu.

And the final point, don't do voice activated IVR's have you tried booking cinema tickets lately???

Juliet,
Simon and Paul have provided some great comments on this topic. The purpose of an IVR is fundamentally to reduce the cost of call centre operation. This is done through better identification/classification of the call type- thereby reducing the need for universal training as well as by resolving some issues without live intervention (self-service). Many organizations have designed and implemented never-ending IVR menus with no live agent options, while these do reduce net call volume they also tend to 'tick-off' callers who only needs to ask a question that never seems to be featured in the menu. Those this impact tends to slight on loyalty and churn.

I agree with Simon;, keep the menu and levels shallow. As an outside limit I would suggest not more then 3 levels and not more than 6 options on each ( you will need to add a repeat option if you go to 6 menu options).

A key turning point for the decision of using or not using an IVR is what level of service can delivered with and without one. If an organization can resolve 30% of their calls in an IVR, then they can provide a higher service level to their customers who do get to a live agent. Can they afford to provide the same level of service without an IVR?

You can employ CTI and CRM to flag your best cutomers in the IVR and automatically deliver them to live agents (and conversely leave your worst customers in the IVR) or provide seperate #'s to, for example, your 'private banking' clients that bypass the IVR.

It is important to note that generally speaking customers have come to expect to deal with an IVR, further the IVR experience has a negligable impact on customer satisfaction...however in the area of poor live agent service levels (ASA, Blockage etc.) they are much less forgiving.

I hope that I have added some value to this discussion. I would be happy to discuss this further with you. I can be reached at ctaylor@thetaylorreachgroup.com .

Colin

As an outside limit I would suggest not more then 3 levels and not more than 6 options on each ( you will need to add a repeat option if you go to 6 menu options).

My turn to be smug.

Use more DTN's on diferent Linklines you get.

1 level 2 options :-)

However IMHO the maximum should be 2 levels 5 choices at each and repeat option.

Consider this still gives 25 routing options off a single DTN

Like an *England* fan with 1/2/ a bottle of cheap Portugese larger inside him this is going to kick off.



DaveA

Thanks everyone, all of these responses are really useful.

The call centre in question has around 2000 agents, split by product skill set. In addition, as this is a financial organisation, some products are split further by those who are able to advise etc.

I too know of the financial institution without IVR's (and only one telephone number I believe), and they do seem to back it up with "OK" customer service too.

Also hate voice activated IVR's - but trying not to assume I know what customers want - which is difficult when there doesnt seem to be any customer research out there. Think I may well instigate some research to help fill this gap unless anyone knows of any out there?

Juliet

PS cool penguin :-)

Although there seems to be a fair amount of research, the ones I have found have been quite old and others are based on personal opinion.

Generally I have been discounting CRM from the equasion, as the company I'm currently working for doesnt have this level of system integration. Also, CRM can be focussed on the organisation managing the relationship with the customer, whereas I'd like to look at the customer being more in control.

From the point of view of "Great Customer Experience" I am reviewing the end to end experience, from how the telephone number is found, through to IVR, agent interaction and follow up. The interactions are being moment mapped to understand customer expectations and emotions at each stage of a conversation, but the missing link for me is that I dont currently know what the customer expectations or emotions are around IVR - the rest I am able to obtain through other means.

Juliet

As a professional from the IVR industry, can I add my bit and try and avoid advertising.

The fundamental problem with most IVR out there is that
a) most are installed by the ACD supplier as an "add-on" and they don't always have great IVR skills and
b) litte or NO call flow or customer experience research is done in the call centre BEFORE a putting finger to developer keyboard.

There is some great technology out there that can make the customer experience more pleasurable (speech recognition, recording skills, CRM integration, CTI, etc) but THE most important area for focus should be on the human inteface and how you can get the caller to where they want to go, in 2 or maybe 3 steps. This needs good, basic research to discover what is happening in the call centre and why callers are calling.

Work with a company that specialises in IVR and wants to discover first, sell later.

There are some very bad and lazy IVR systems out there (why does my mobile operator ask me if I want to top-up when they have my CLI and KNOW I have a contract) but if you create a pleasant, easy caller experience, callers will use the IVR RATHER than go to an agent, and THAT's where the real ROI is.

Alan

Juliet,
You asked about research I the recently released Australian Call Centre Survey: IVR was rated as the #1 complaint about calling call centres, though almost no one said they would move their business because of it.

As before this is a business issue, to have no IVR will be deemed (if you can back it up) as superior service. But it will cost you more per call and per customer.
So if there is little impact on Customer Satisfaction which route do you take?
I would suggest that unless Superior service is a point of differentiation between you and your competitors then most companies will (and do) take the low cost low risk approach.

I hope I have added value to this discussion. If you would like to discuss this directly please email me at ctaylor@thetaylorreachgroup.com

Colin

Before you all shoot me:

I GENUINELY BELIEVE IVR IS ONE OF THE BEST PIECES OF TECH AVAILABLE TO CONTACT CENTRES FOR BOTH THE CUSTOMER & THE OPERATOR!

I do... I really do!

What is so often appaling is the way in which it is used.

I love it when I phone my bank. I input my security and press an option and BINGO... "Good (fill in the blank) Dylan (recognised "preferred name" data) I believe you are calling regarding your (fill in the chosen option) ? I have that in front of me, how can I help?"
This is beautiful... this works... I know... I designed the process when I worked there!

What objection could people have to this? It takes me a lot longer to get through to the right person at my other bank (wife's legacy accounts) and I end up going through security 3 times, my issue 4 times, and then always end up at the complaints department due to my low tolerance threshold!

Like any piece of technology, it will only be welcome when the percieved benefits (efficiency, accurate call placing, secure automated transactions & enquiry, etc) out weigh the percieved constraints (can't talk about your holidays, doesn't call you "dear", never says "I'm sorr to hear that").

As industry professionals don't complain about the tools or the public perceptions - embrace, share, and enjoy....

"share and enjoy.... share and enjoy..." Dave? anyone?

I refer my honorable collegue to the reply I gave in

This Thread

However 90% of the time it tends to be Gin & Tonic anyone :-)
(Sorry In joke, Radio4 6:30 Tuesday Evenings)

DaveA

>>>percieved benefits out weigh the percieved constraints

Rather than perceived constraints arent there an ACTUAL constraints ie. inflexibility - only able to cope with pre-recognised queries, unable to adapt, spot trends and patterns or assume cognitive responibility and prioritise accordingly.

All these are actual constraints of IVR yes, but also actual constraints of many real live agents (contact centre or switchboard) who are often trained in just 2 weeks not only to use a phone other than to make a date but also to understand the servicing aspects of a company wide range of products and services to recognise.

The difference is that with a restrictive IVR there is usually an option to speak to a real person - with a restrictive person the supervisor is always "in a meeting"

Dylan,

No These are actual constraints of ALL IVR's and only some agents, the sentence is a generalisation on agents responses and their training.

>>>The difference is that with a restrictive IVR there is usually an option to speak to a real person - with a restrictive person the supervisor is always "in a meeting

But you ARE already speaking to a human being. Speaking to a supervisor is NOT the only way of resolving a call query.

Interesting debate but I'll always value humans and their achievements more than machines and many company values and missions state the need to VALUE staff - shouldnt we echo this?

Lets be honest - the reason IVR is most commonly used is that the cost benefit significantly outweighs any unmanageable constraints (i.e. those where no effective work around is available).

There is a company imperative to value the staff that the business requires. Sentimental / ethical decisions based on human interest are not always for the greater good. You neetly side step issues of responsibility to the shareholders, responsibility to the employees as a whole, and responsibility to the customer, all of who benifit directly from the company running at its optimum efficiency and profitability.

Any of us that has had to implement redundancies knows that while it is a painful process it is a necessary one, and that ultimately the loss of a few jobs can secure the future for many. So I will continue to recommend replacing people with process where I believe it is the right move, and will not loose any sleep doing so.

>>>>the sentence is a generalisation on agents responses and their training
yes it is, but no more so than >>>>These are actual constraints of ALL IVR's

I make a living in part by spotting trends by analysing the MI produced from systems. I also talk to the people for "feel" but this is biased, subjective, and circumstantial.
As for "unable to prioritise" - that's what the ACD is for. It appears as a technophobe you have some gaps to fill in you understanding of that which you fear.

Dylan,

Many shareholders are actively challenging the position of boards and their decisions based on purely profit based motives, this movement is growing and sharehoders and consumers have a wider understanding of the implications of their actions - eg. consumer - my bank has its call centre in Bangalore - do I still want to be with this bank? Shareholders want corporate responsibility in the 21 century -its in the news all the time - please update your thinking.

I deliberately said prioritise together with the word cognitive - ie. have understanding and awareness of what to do with calls and why.

I wont comment on your last sentence that would be rude.

>>>Lets be honest - the reason IVR is most commonly used is that the cost benefit significantly outweighs any unmanageable constraints (i.e. those where no effective work around is available

Agreed but that doesnt mean that ALL technology is good and approved by the board just beacuse it may or may not be cheap we both agree its more complaex than that.