meta data for this page
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
|
logging_strategy [2019/08/07 14:54] lisa.illgen_concentrix.com Added Anchor Links |
logging_strategy [2019/08/08 10:43] (current) lisa.illgen_concentrix.com [Call containment] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| ==== Call containment ==== | ==== Call containment ==== | ||
| ** // Don't put inappropriate emphasis on call containment // ** | ** // Don't put inappropriate emphasis on call containment // ** | ||
| - | \\ Call containment refers to the percentage of calls that began and ended in the IVR -- no transfer to an agent ([[references#BLO1|Bloom et al., 2005]]). Other terms for this metric include calls serviced in the IVR, self-service resolution, IVR utilization, IVR take-rate, and call retention. (Note that abandoned calls also satisfy this definition, so be sure you've defined them each clearly for your system.) | + | \\ Call containment refers to the percentage of calls that began and ended in the IVR -- no transfer to an agent ([[references#bloom2005|Bloom et al., 2005]]). Other terms for this metric include calls serviced in the IVR, self-service resolution, IVR utilization, IVR take-rate, and call retention. (Note that abandoned calls also satisfy this definition, so be sure you've defined them each clearly for your system.) |
| - | This is a common and widely-tracked metric, but it is deeply flawed. In particular, it ignores an important purpose of most IVRs -- to route callers to the correct skill group -- and also disregards the potential benefits of partial automation ([[references#SUH1|Suhm, 2008]]; also see [[Partial Automation vs. Full Automation)]]. As [[references#LEP2|Leppik]] (2006, p. 1) stated: | + | This is a common and widely-tracked metric, but it is deeply flawed. In particular, it ignores an important purpose of most IVRs -- to route callers to the correct skill group -- and also disregards the potential benefits of partial automation ([[references#suhm2008|Suhm, 2008]]; also see [[Partial Automation vs. Full Automation)]]. As [[references#leppik2006|Leppik]] (2006, p. 1) stated: |
| "There’s a couple of unstated assumptions built into this metric which make it a poor way to measure IVR performance. The first assumption is that the system’s only function is to automate customer calls. In truth, the IVR has a second, just as important (and maybe more important) function: to identify which customers’ calls must go to an agent, and efficiently connect those customers to people who can help them. This latter group of calls is going to include the sales calls, billing errors, and already-upset customers who have been trying to resolve their problem for weeks. You can never automate those calls, and failing to identify them and get them off the IVR and into an agent’s hands is as much of a system failure as sending a potential self-service call to a human." | "There’s a couple of unstated assumptions built into this metric which make it a poor way to measure IVR performance. The first assumption is that the system’s only function is to automate customer calls. In truth, the IVR has a second, just as important (and maybe more important) function: to identify which customers’ calls must go to an agent, and efficiently connect those customers to people who can help them. This latter group of calls is going to include the sales calls, billing errors, and already-upset customers who have been trying to resolve their problem for weeks. You can never automate those calls, and failing to identify them and get them off the IVR and into an agent’s hands is as much of a system failure as sending a potential self-service call to a human." | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| What you should be seeing is that "containment" is a highly charged word, often times the wrong goal, and sometimes subject to forces completely outside a designer's control. | What you should be seeing is that "containment" is a highly charged word, often times the wrong goal, and sometimes subject to forces completely outside a designer's control. | ||
| - | As another example, [[references#SUH1|Suhm]] (2008, p. 20) warned: | + | As another example, [[references#suhm2008|Suhm]] (2008, p. 20) warned: |
| "While often interpreted as the success rate for serving callers in an automated fashion, IVR take-rate is a poor measure of the effectiveness of an IVR, because callers hanging up in the IVR may not have received any useful information. In several large call centers we have seen that the majority of callers hanging up have actually received no useful information and therefore have not been served. For example, based on standard IVR reports, one call center believed that its IVR served more than 30% of the callers in the automated system. A detailed analysis based on end-to-end calls revealed that only 2% of all callers were actually served. Almost 20% hung up without receiving any useful information, and some 8% hung up while on hold for an agent." | "While often interpreted as the success rate for serving callers in an automated fashion, IVR take-rate is a poor measure of the effectiveness of an IVR, because callers hanging up in the IVR may not have received any useful information. In several large call centers we have seen that the majority of callers hanging up have actually received no useful information and therefore have not been served. For example, based on standard IVR reports, one call center believed that its IVR served more than 30% of the callers in the automated system. A detailed analysis based on end-to-end calls revealed that only 2% of all callers were actually served. Almost 20% hung up without receiving any useful information, and some 8% hung up while on hold for an agent." | ||