最近の検索
最近の検索はありません
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/133dd/133ddaa813488765f6ce6cd2c979f0765c4b77c4" alt="Dan Glovier's Avatar"
Dan Glovier
参加日2023年6月15日
·
前回のアクティビティ2024年8月15日
フォロー中
0
フォロワー
0
合計アクティビティ
11
投票
3
受信登録
4
アクティビティの概要
バッジ
記事
投稿
コミュニティへのコメント
記事へのコメント
アクティビティの概要
さんの最近のアクティビティ Dan Glovier
Dan Glovierさんがコメントを作成しました:
Tracking side conversation activity and participation is key - otherwise, the agents are not “getting credit” for their efforts, leaving my senior/helpful agents at a data disadvantage, and not uncovering either areas that need more training (this category of case creates more side conversations) or agents that could use more training (the weight of side conversations per case).
This lack or reporting/data is a non-starter.
コメントを表示 · 編集日時:2024年8月15日 · Dan Glovier
0
フォロワー
1
投票
0
コメント
Dan Glovierさんがコメントを作成しました:
Is there a way to categorize the survey responses? It's great to understand if a client was satisfied, but also understanding what drove that (dis)satisfaction would allow us to understand what is working particularly well or what we need to address?
We call every client who submits a negative survey to determine what happened, express that we hear them, etc. I would love to be able to add a field to that completed survey that would then ascribe that dissatisfaction to a product shortcoming, a need for further training of the team, etc.
Thanks!
コメントを表示 · 投稿日時:2024年1月10日 · Dan Glovier
0
フォロワー
0
投票
0
コメント
Dan Glovierさんがコメントを作成しました:
We are currently surveying/collecting client reaction - which is very important. The reasons that clients choose for a negative survey - at times - do not align to the root cause (through no fault of the client). Assigning this root cause to the case/survey, for further data mining later, is important.
In our org, any negative survey is reviewed by the manager and the rep who received the negative feedback. They discuss what went well, and what we can do to help bridge any gaps (training, etc.). I think this is probably pretty standard.
However, in a previous product, we were then able to record a Manager's Reason for the negative survey, which would speak to internal mechanisms (training, product, timing of PD responses, an issue with process, etc.).These response could range from "PD response too slow" or "Proposed PD fix not acceptable" or "Training" or "Client upset with billing"... as you can see, many of these "true" reasons fall outside of the narrow vision of "support". But allowing us to ascribe a second, manager-discovered reason, we can better advance our entire organization rather than focus on an individual rep (which is important, but only part of building a highly effective team).
We can then run a report which would show our biggest drivers of those negative Surveys ... which very often did not align with the client-provided reason. This really, really helped us discover gaps that needed addressing in our previous product - and I honestly miss it very much. In ZD, we don't have that very important data point.
コメントを表示 · 投稿日時:2023年6月29日 · Dan Glovier
0
フォロワー
0
投票
0
コメント
Dan Glovierさんがコメントを作成しました:
Here's the workflow we would like to achieve.... a negative survey is submitted. We review the case and more than likely speak with the client to ensure their experience is rectified/good. We want that manager to be able to categorize the gap they discovered. This oftentimes does not align with the client-provided reason - if they provided one.
This will allow us to identify the root cause of the dissatisfaction more accurately as well as track improvement in that area.
Is that doable? If so, how? For this exercise, "add a tag" is not allowed.
コメントを表示 · 投稿日時:2023年6月15日 · Dan Glovier
0
フォロワー
0
投票
0
コメント