The support doctor is in!
Today we shine the Spotlight on a conversation that shows how a second set of eyes can help improve processes, even on routine conversations. In our example, the agent adequately solves the customer's problem, but peer review identifies an inefficiency that would have otherwise been missed.
Analysis of the Customer Support Interaction:
The agent was doing their best in the moment to help the customer with their question. However, they didn’t have all the information they needed to answer the question (the customer’s role, what access they have, etc.). They had to ask the customer for information, increasing customer effort and slowing down the conversation.
While they are focused on the customer, a separate agent who is peer reviewing this interaction in the moment identifies the inefficiency of having to ask the customer so many clarifications.
This reviewer highlights the issue, and marks it down internally, including a simple solution. Namely, to automatically make User Account data (like the customer’s access level) available to an agent when they answer a customer.
It is often hard to critically evaluate your own conversations, especially in real-time as they are happening. Having a well-functioning peer review or customer service quality assurance process can help find these opportunities for process improvement.
Customer support quality and efficiency lives and dies by the processes set up for the team. Evaluate your processes through peer review and quality assurance. Continually having fresh eyes look at other agents’ interactions helps you build the right customer-centric processes to get the outcomes you need.
We feature other companies's customer support interactions in this blog, as well. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you're interested in giving your team's service a moment in the Spotlight.
Until next week, may your customers be friendly and may your CSAT surveys be positive. Adieu!