3
The hesitation to adopt change
Designed poorly with poorly functioning technology People view IVR’s as obstacles to achieving their tasks. When asked why, they cited poor menu design and inaccurate recognition.
Function with IVR
40 30 20 10 0
Businesses that adopt new technologies like voice biometrics, visual IVR, and natural language menu redesigns will find themselves in a finger-pointing game when the return on investment in terms of customer satisfaction and lower operating costs these new technologies offered is not immediately realized. This is precisely what occurs when faced with an inability to differentiate usability design issues, technological failures, and networking interoperability problems. The true challenge of building a comprehensive contact center assurance program is getting reliable, objective metrics of the customer experience, external of the organization’s technology, combined with the data and intelligence of the network and the applications riding on top of it. More importantly, the ability to segregate user and agent behavior from application performance, use, and capabilities in an objective, repeatable, and scientific fashion is the only way to establish a “control case” to map the technology changes, user interface changes, and the experience perceptions that all ultimately impact customer satisfaction.
Respondent
Irrelevant questions Repeat info Choice is dead-end Too many menus Prompts are too long
Native experience
Customers were asked to rank the reason for a negative contact center experience.
0 10 20 30 40 50 50 70 80 90 100
_Data analytics and classifying issues in real time is how businesses will build their contact center assurance programs to ensure the IVRs of the future continue to protect customer satisfaction numbers.
Repeating responses to IVR Repeating info to the agent Waiting on hold
77% Repeating to IVR
55% Repeating to Agent
45% Waiting on Hold
White Paper
Powered by FlippingBook