I am enthusiastic about using quality call centres and I value the service. I give the respondent respect. A niece who worked in one told me some firms give staff a daily discretionary spend to make small problems go away and I believe it's worth it, and it's worth being respectful to the person trying to help you, if they have this ability then it reflects their autonomy, your value as a customer and how nice you are.
She said dealing with the live shark lost in the mail was a highspot (a lot of strange delivery issues in the modern shop from home world)
I’m not saying we don’t need them. Obviously they provide a valuable service and I wish the best for our agents and customers.
But the problem is about as boring as they come. There’s nothing exciting about making a callcenter operate well, even though it’s often done wrong. Probably why we can (apparently) eat the market.
I'm not an entrepreneur, or want to be one but I think There’s nothing exciting about making a callcenter operate well, even though it’s often done wrong is a bit of a call-to-action signal. Somebody should feel passionate bout this, it has high value (social) outcomes.
I would think that giving staff some agency to intercede, plus improved scripting support and process-flow improvements could be huge here. The stories I hear about helpdesk who can only add file notes and not actually fix things like gas-meter address/ID mismatches (and the consequent debt collector problems for people who genuinely are NOT the user of the phantom gas meter) is just huge. There's a process-improvement opportunity here.
"computer says no" is about the worst possible outcome. Measuring helpdesk effectiveness on time to close call feels like the problem (in part)
She said dealing with the live shark lost in the mail was a highspot (a lot of strange delivery issues in the modern shop from home world)