Increase Caller Satisfaction with IVR Scripts that Work

A recent article with TMCnet, Business Phone Systems Important for Enhancing Customer Experience, notes that “choosing the right business phone system is as important as having a pleasing and friendly voice while interacting with a customer”. One of the most important components of a good voice recognition system is an effective voice recognition script. Callers can easily inform agents of their needs, but it isn’t so easy with an automated IVR system. Either callers wait around while the system rolls through an endless parade of menu options, or else they’re stuck repeating phrases that the speech recognition software does not recognize.

Dealing with a voice recognition system that doesn’t consider caller needs can dramatically decrease customer satisfaction. That is why the script for a voice recognition system is so crucial to the success of the overall IVR system. Optimizing the system functionality to consider the needs of callers can simulate the experience of talking to an agent and give the call an increased feel of spontaneity.

The TMC article addresses the problems associated with poor phone systems:

Often, we hear people complaining about poor customer service and it’s usually due to long hold, being rerouted to the wrong official, or poor sound quality. These glitches hamper the image of the company and the customer may not call again.

Thus, having a system that considers caller needs is crucial. Imagine how much faster and more pleasant it is for customers to call and ask a speech recognition system for store hours and have the necessary information in seconds. Rather than sitting there waiting for “Option 1… Option 2… Option 3…” and getting tied up in an endless list of menu items asking callers what they want, callers can go straight to the source of the issue, just as though talking to a live agent.

To function optimally, the IVR system has to know what callers want, and it takes extensive research of call history and IVR call monitoring to find out the kind of reasons people call. There need to be effective prompts and a logical call progression. Also, it’s important to keep in mind that there are many options available for the design of voice recognition systems. As the TMC article states, “Functionalities and options available in each system are different and depending upon their needs, a company should decide in favor of a system that benefits them most.”

At the end of the day, an IVR system can’t replace a live agent for complex calls. A human agent is needed to resolve in-depth issues and mediate conflicts. But with a well-designed IVR script, agents are freed from simple, repetitive calls. Problems with call routing disappear with automatic IVR call-directing, and custom-designed IVR scripts can even interact with customers on hold to troubleshoot and try to resolve the problem independently, as well as to collect information for agents. The result? TMC puts it best:

In all, customer loyalty, profitable ROI and an improved business image are the results of having a good phone system in place.

Well-designed IVR scripting is one of the best means of enhancing caller experience and company image with a good voice recognition system.

How Mobile Self-Service has Upped IVR Revenue

Recently, a company in India implemented a retail IVR system for passersby to call and order items they see in ads. The phone number appears in the ad, and users can identify the particular item they want and pay via credit card. CEO Deven Limayae explains:

The logic is to use cell phones as an interaction medium with screen, where the user's cell phone number acts as the customer's identity, and the retailer can actually come across the potential buyers or customers. Also, the generated customer data helps the retailer to understand customer's behavior and psychology.

Tailoring voice recognition systems to be used on mobile phones is particularly attractive for consumers, travelers, or anyone on the go. IVR applications in mobile systems tap into the spontaneity of consumer behavior, as opposed to the traditional IVR systems that are generally targeted towards landline calls.

Whatever its use, nowadays IVR is largely about self-service. The ability to call from anywhere, at any time, is part of the advantage of a voice recognition system. For companies, one of the biggest benefits of self-service IVR implementation is financial gain. If callers can check flight times, make appointments, or purchase products on their own, callers will not have to queue at all and agent time will be significantly freed up. Steve Morrell, author of a report on self-service IVR comments on the benefits of self-service:

We believe that this is only the beginning of what telephone self-service can deliver. Of course, not all calls are suitable for self-service-- respondents estimate that an average of only 31 percent of inbound calls would suit it- and over-use of this channel can frustrate customers and severely damage a brand. However, for simple and repetitive tasks, such as account balances, meter readings and ticket bookings, self-service works for both customer and business, as there’s never a queue to wait in. This should also mean that if a customer needs to speak to a real person, then it’s more likely that there’ll be someone available to help them.

In fact, self-service is cited as one of the reasons for the incredible growth in the voice recognition industry:

Growth in the IVR market is being driven by strong demand for self-service applications ...

Recent estimates have placed worldwide IVR revenue at $1.867 billion at the end of 2007, and predictions place the continued growth at $2.4 billion by 2010.

Still, self-service has plenty of room to improve, with only 31 percent of inbound calls being entirely self-service. If IVR systems are built to be more efficient, handling calls in a complete and independent manner, we should expect continued growth in the industry.

Voice Recognition Projects Bring More Than Just ROI

In these belt-tightening times, any new voice recognition project must pay its way in the short term with a satisfactory near-term return on investment. It should also improve the customer experience, since customers are often alienated by ineffective customer service centers. Since IVR projects can be introduced incrementally to complement human agents, it is usually not difficult to show that, in the short term, service is improved at a lower overall cost. On cost savings alone, the ROI is often acceptable.

Even a basic IVR project can sometimes have an ROI to brag about. Just think about the system recently launched by Victrio to fight credit card fraud. A report on the new system reads:

Victrio introduces a new credit risk management services that identifies fraudsters by their voice during credit card authorisation phone calls. The service works by comparing the callers' voice against a database of known criminals. Authorisation is denied if a match between a caller's voice and a fraudster's voice is found. The service is aimed at online merchants as well as banks and other credit card issuers.

Compare that with how present systems handle the same problem. Try calling your bank branch by telephone. The agent will quite rightly ask you a series of questions to verify that you are who you say you are. Unfortunately, in most cases all the answers could easily have been provided by someone who had stolen your identity from fairly public records. So the agent and you are tied up for a little while in a meaningless exercise. Systems based on PINs and passwords are fine but are still not unbreakable. They may also frustrate customers who forget their passwords or even the answers to the security questions.

On the other hand, voice data contains so much information that it can provide a very strong and clearly unbreakable identification system. At the same time, it speeds up the authorization process for much higher customer satisfaction at a lower system cost. The customer is very happy and the agent is only involved with operations that require a human agent.

Let us assume that the authentication/authorization process with a live agent takes an average of 20 seconds, whereas IVR authentication takes approximately 5 seconds. The agent time that is saved can be channelled to assist in other tasks, meaning that wait time would be shortened. Thus, clients would wait less and have shorter calls – a good recipe for increased customer satisfaction. That having been said, this is a very simplistic way of doing ROI. This evaluation only means that we have shortened the call authorization time to ¼ of the initial length, but the question is, have the operational costs been cut accordingly?

In order to really properly perform ROI analysis for your company, you will have to evaluate the overall costs of the IVR project and quantify the benefits in dollar savings. Doing so will show how the organization can cut costs and still improve its customer service. In addition, ROI analysis can evaluate how the company can reap the benefits of fraud detection, which translates into greater financial savings.

Overall, ROI involves detailed planning in order to calculate the estimated savings in operational costs and to forecast whether or not a project is worthwhile. ROI analysis allows the organization to give a green light for a project, with concrete steps to ensure a win-win situation all around.

What do IVR Systems Have to Do with the Election?

A polling company has recently instated automated IVR calling to predict the outcome of the election. The concerns raised by the recent changes showcase some of the prevalent suspicions regarding IVR technology. Read an article on the move to IVR polling here.

The article cites George Bishop, a professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati, who highlights common concerns regarding IVR:

What if you don't understand the question? There's no opportunity for clarification. There's also no one there to probe you to answer the question if the person isn't sure.

Bishop’s statement reflects a skepticism regarding the usability of IVR systems. He betrays the same preference for human agents that call centers often see in their callers. The same issues with respect to usability and system intelligence often return in discussion regarding voice recognition software systems. Still, the issue is not whether or not IVR is the best method for election polling. The issue surrounds how to build a voice recognition system that fits the bill. For example, there needs to be proper testing to ensure the IVR interface is tailored to the needs of its users. A good IVR system accounts for potential deviations from the script and is tailored to the expectations of callers. This can only be accomplished with usability testing. In addition to usability testing, system monitoring is often needed. Election polling is only implemented for a matter of days; but organizations that implement ongoing IVR systems require constant post-deployment monitoring to ensure that users are continually provided the best and most efficient service. The context of how the IVR system is used must be taken into consideration, with the expectations and mental model of users being considered. Of course companies want to maximize the ROI of an IVR project, and initial ROI analysis ensures that a voice recognition software project will yield the expected outcome.

So how to respond to the concerns raised by Bishop? Again, it’s a matter of having a customized IVR system that has been properly designed, tested, piloted, and tuned. Whether the IVR uses speech recognition software or responds to touch-tone dialing, the system needs to be tailored to the needs of the respondent to ensure optimal functioning. Proper usability research and testing reduces any concern over understanding the question.

Achieve Call Center Success with IVR Self-Service

A recent IVR article in CRM Daily highlights the rising incidence of self-service in contact centers. With so many channels of communication—from phone, to email, to text messaging, to chat—the methods of customer service are increasing. Still, call centers today make up the essence of customer service, and so quality IVR systems are critical. Not only are they important to the client, but they are important to businesses, too. The article cites results from a recent Benchmarking report estimating that it is nearly five times less expensive to use IVR self-service than agent-assisted calls.

Says Grant Sainsbury, practice director of Customer Interactive Solutions, Dimension Data Americas:

"Ten years ago, enterprises were focused on improving service and moving away
from face-to-face interactions toward a phone experience. Today, the reality is
that the choice of channel varies and is dependent on the type of transaction.
High-value customers may be more than happy to use automated self-service
channels to pay a bill or view their balance -- they don't need a live agent for
every interaction."

Thus, moving away from live agents towards an IVR system doesn’t mean dissatisfied customers. With effective voice recognition systems, businesses can cut costs while keeping clients happy. Now, the growing influence of IVR technologies in the call centre industry means it is no longer just large-size businesses that benefit. Being able to cut costs and maintain customer satisfaction means it is time for small and medium-size businesses to get into better IVR—or risk being one-upped by the competition.

Good vs. Bad IVR

Which is better – a poor human call agent or poor IVR?

At least a human agent always tries to work with you

Low-quality IVR systems can be frustrating but that can also be true in dealing with a human agent. Sometimes human agents do not perform as well as they might. That may be due to poor training, lack of motivation or merely that you have hit them on the wrong day. Let us analyze some of those reasons to determine which is more likely to satisfy a caller.

The following table compares the caller experience between a poor agent and poor IVR for different aspects of the call:

Aspects of the call	Poor agent	Poor IVR
unusual request	with difficulty	creates frustration if no clear choice is available
unusual accent	frustration due to many repetitions	frustration due to many repetitions; recognition might be impossible
delay in making contact	frustration	not a problem
speedy reaction	usually OK	can be slow with repetitive checking of responses
data capture	error prone	limited to simple numeric data only

Thinking about these challenging situations, I think most of us would prefer to struggle with a poor agent than try to make the IVR system do our bidding.

Which is best - good IVR or a good human call agent?

High-quality IVR matches the responsiveness of a good human agent

IVR cannot replace human agents entirely. Some customer support questions may be ill defined and complex. Nor will any irate caller be happy to be fobbed off with a robot, however pleasant. In such cases the IVR agent will rapidly hand the caller on to a human agent.

Even a relatively good call agent may not give complete satisfaction to a caller. In some cases the caller may be at fault. Perhaps the call agent is under a time pressure or is slightly distracted by other problems they may have. Let us compare how a good IVR system may match up against a good call agent.

The following table compares the caller experience between a good IVR and a good agent for different aspects of the call:

Aspects of the call	Good IVR	Good agent
unusual request	Good by handling or by transferring to a human agent	good
unusual accent	good	good
delay in making contact	not a problem	can be frustrating
speedy reaction	excellent	good
data capture	excellent	may be error prone

The IVR system is tireless, not subject to bad mood or memory loss, is repeatable, and has instant access to an incredible databank of information. Even the best call agent will have a problem matching up to that. In some cases, a caller may even prefer an IVR agent over a human agent for personal and sensitive subjects, as in the case of returning cheques, or getting results of some medical exams.

In summary, for technical well-defined transactions, the IVR agent will often be the best choice. Part of the quality inherent in the overall IVR solution is to have the right options available (human as well as IVR agents) and utilize them in the best complementary way according to their strength.

The order of callers’ preferences

High-quality IVR is at the top and low-quality IVR is at the bottom.

Since callers clearly prefer good call agents to poor call agents, we have thus established a clear order of preference here. That is:

Good IVR or good call agent* > poor call agent > poor IVR

* The right mix of good IVR and good call agents, considering each one’s strengths in context of the particular service requested, can guarantee best caller experience and highest caller satisfaction.

Confirming IVR performance

IVR always includes ongoing monitoring of performance

The other merit of a natural language IVR system is that performance data are continually being measured. Part of the ongoing performance improvement process within an IVR system comes from the continual monitoring of the interactions between the IVR agent and the caller. Based on this data, the IVR system can be improved so that possible weaknesses are corrected.

Conclusion

This analysis shows why caller satisfaction can be greater with a good IVR system. Since the costs of running such a system are much better than using an equivalent wholly human agent system, the decision to implement an IVR system is usually not a difficult one to take.

IVR Can Give More Secure Calls

IVR systems are often suggested for call centers to minimize costs. It seems to be assumed that such a system will inevitably deliver a poorer caller experience than talking to a human agent. In this age where identity theft is much more prevalent, this overlooks a major advantage that an IVR system can offer.

The standard questions that a human agent may ask, like home telephone number or postal code, are no barrier for the expert identity thief. For such an identity thief, a bit of “dumpster diving” can sometimes provide a rich harvest of personal information - information that could be used to fool any human agent. Unfortunately not everyone follows the detailed advice that is available to avoid such deception.

A report released by ContactBabel and VoiceVault on U.S. Contact Centers shows what it costs currently to protect against such identity theft. They estimate that in the USA, it will cost $11.7 Billion and more than 11,000 Years of Contact Center Agents’ time to check Callers’ Identities in 2007. Thankfully there is another way as the report suggests.

The report highlights that biometric technology will be a key to successful identity verification. Voice verification systems, the only biometric technology that can be used over the phone, are now delivering levels of accuracy and security that have proven robust enough for use by banks and insurers. Voice verification can be combined with the answer to a memorable question in cases where a two-factor authentication process is required.The report shows that implementing a voice verification system in a contact center receiving 10 million inbound calls per year with existing identity verification procedures taking on average 20 seconds could save $6.5 million each year. For procedures such as Internet password resetting, the higher level of security achieved with voice verification enables businesses to offer real-time password resets or reminders reducing up to 70 percent of helpdesk calls.

Caller Authentication systems using voice verification are available from a number of companies including Nuance and VoiceVault. The higher security that is possible with an IVR gives yet one more reason for early adoption of this cost-effective technology.