Many of you already know this archetypical cocktail party conversation. Your answer to “So, what do you do for a living?” earns a resounding, “Oh, I hate those things. They never work!” Ever wonder what people really think about automated phone-based self-service? Can we change that cocktail party response?

Automation is not the enemy

In an ideal world, the customer service line would be picked up on the second ring by a knowledgeable, friendly agent who spoke intelligibly and resolved every issue on the first and only phone call. But it’s no secret that most companies taking millions and millions of calls a year simply can’t afford to staff a contact center to achieve this service level. 

Yet do customers truly hate phone-based automated systems? Evidence suggests that consumers have become rather comfortable with automated customer service. A 2007 survey revealed that consumers appreciated automated systems for their 24/7 availability, ease of use for basic questions, and speed to resolution.

Oh, sure, callers will tend to prefer an agent if one is available right away, especially when they have complex issues that automated systems can’t easily solve. Nonetheless, if automated systems were viewed as a helpful, efficient part of the service process (instead of an obstacle for callers to overcome) then they would encourage more callers to use the system. In other words, a better caller experience translates into more money saved. 

The key is to use automation as a guide, not a gatekeeper.

Take, for example, a system that quizzes the caller for information before transferring the call to an agent who then asks the same questions. Talk about discouraging callers from using automation! These systems, in throwing away a caller’s progress, encourage callers to go straight to an agent the next time they call. Surprisingly, many deployed systems still don’t use screen pop or some other sort of computer telephony integration (CTI) to transfer partial automation results to an agent. Besides improving key performance indicators, such as average handle time (AHT), CTI validates that the caller’s time spent with automation was worthwhile and not merely a waiting room distraction before an agent was free.

Don’t fence in the goats

Mind you, some customers will never want to deal with automation. No matter what you do, these so-called “goats” will immediately request an agent, press ‘zero,’ or otherwise try to escape what they perceive as your attempt to shove them aside. Any attempt to drive them into the automated system will create a negative customer experience.

The majority of callers requesting an agent, however, don’t do it at the very first utterance. They do it later in the call. According to the Nuance Communications Deployment Databank, only about 6 percent of callers in a typical speech-based self-service system ask for an agent on the first dialogue. Optimists believe that’s evidence that callers are trying to use the system; pessimists may argue that they don’t ask for an agent until they’re informed they can do so. No wonder some call centers are reluctant to offer an agent option explicitly. 

In one study, 41 percent of people who were offered an agent option on the first dialogue accepted it immediately, whereas only 5 percent found the agent option when it wasn’t offered at all. Surprised? You shouldn’t be, since people prefer an agent to automation when an agent is available. The same study showed that it’s possible to diminish this effect by adding a one- or two-second pause after presenting the main menu before offering the agent option. This leads to the next concern—is your system unnecessarily encouraging the sheep to opt-out along with the goats?

Guide the sheep

The ongoing challenge is getting the people who need an agent to an agent and the people who will benefit from automation into the interactive voice response (IVR) system. Information from the Nuance Deployment Databank suggests that nearly 25 percent of automated calls end with a caller asking for an agent. So unless the system is specifically designed to block access to agents, callers will find a way. Speech user interface designers these days are encouraged more and more to leave an “agent request” grammar active on each and every dialogue so that the option is always available. Unfortunately, that still potentially translates to a bad experience for callers who spent time using the system, requested an agent midway through their transactions, and then got stuck in agent queues. Based on this possibility, many believe the best solution would be to respond to any agent request as follows: Thanks. We estimate the waiting time to be X minutes. If you wish, you can try finishing your transaction with the automated system. Either way, you will be transferred as soon as an agent is free.

To date, very few systems have pursued this path. Perhaps it was never considered as an option. Perhaps the transparency of long wait times was too worrisome. Nevertheless, it’s a great solution to allow even the goats to try out automation. The perfect answer is to guide callers to a more satisfying customer experience without blocking their path to an agent.

Jeff Foley is senior manager of solutions marketing at Nuance Communications.

Please note that the "Sounding Board" articles appearing on speechtechmag.com represent the viewpoints of their respective authors and not necessarily those of Speech Technology magazine or its editors. If you would like to submit a "Sounding Board" for consideration, please email lklie@infotoday.com.